Originally posted by Klawunless it’s big military! Reagan even campaigned and tried to push for turrets in space! It was called project Star Wars, although it looked more like space odyssey. This is the kind of lunacy you get from republicans.
The Left believing in small Government is the biggest lie I have ever heard.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!Its origins are mixed. But yeah primarily it is a left-wing ideal. True anarchy states no gods, no masters; capitalist feudalism implies masters, which implies slavery, which is not a way to freedom, lol. We must move past wage-slavery to achieve liberty, and find a way to live truly free.
original anarchy isa left wing idea. Some more modern ideas offer a more libertarian form of Anarchy based around classical liberal ideas on small state, and irresponsible self determination.
I know this is an idealistic take, which is why I am a pessimist, politically. I'd take shitty democracy over "anarcho-capitalism" any day, although I'll still criticise democracy.
Originally posted by Scribble
I'd suggest trying to understand why other ideologies exist, it'll help a lot to understand people, and the world. "Bad guys" and "good guys" is as childish as it gets, lol. I was the same way, when I was 11, but I then I grew up. I was also anarcho-capitalist when I was like 17, too... then I grew up.(btw man I actually enjoy talking to you so don't take this harshness as animosity. feel free to call me a commie or whatever, as long as the conversation goes on. I prefer talking harshly to someone I respect than talking nice to some idiot I don't respect)
Lmao I agree that it's a childish conception. It's actually a cognitive distortion called black and white thinking.
I think most people are good, otherwise I'd never endorse anarchism, which relies on the inherent goodness in others (non violence).
You couldn't offend me, you come off as a good faith actor.
Originally posted by KlawRead Marx. His end goal is an absolute lack of government (he calls it communism, I call it communal anarchism).
The Left believing in small Government is the biggest lie I have ever heard.
This is why I find anyone who is anti-Marx silly. They clearly haven't read his work. I was anti-Marx, once, too... until I actually read Marx.
Originally posted by ScribbleYeah, I think we are in agreement here.
Its origins are mixed. But yeah primarily it is a left-wing ideal. True anarchy states no gods, no masters; capitalist feudalism implies masters, which implies slavery, which is not a way to freedom, lol. We must move past wage-slavery to achieve liberty, and find a way to live truly free.I know this is an idealistic take, which is why I am a pessimist, politically. I'd take shitty democracy over "anarcho-capitalism" any day, although I'll still criticise democracy.
Originally posted by Raptor22
Your Thunderdomesque society filled with cripples and mentally challenged peeps roaming around with shotguns and attack dogs fending for themselves sounds amazing. U have my full support.
You're referring to the status quo.
Look at all the social spending on the inept and retarded. The welfare state has a dysgenic effect, the free market has a eugenic effect.
Originally posted by Scribble
Its origins are mixed. But yeah primarily it is a left-wing ideal. True anarchy states no gods, no masters; capitalist feudalism implies masters, which implies slavery, which is not a way to freedom, lol. We must move past wage-slavery to achieve liberty, and find a way to live truly free.I know this is an idealistic take, which is why I am a pessimist, politically. I'd take shitty democracy over "anarcho-capitalism" any day, although I'll still criticise democracy.
Any complaint people have towards ancap is actually at the status quo.
Originally posted by Scribbleabsolutely, I remember doing my Sociology A level (1985) and the old bartering communist scenario of fair and equitable trade. A lovely idea.
Read Marx. His end goal is an absolute lack of government (he calls it communism, I call it communal anarchism).This is why I find anyone who is anti-Marx silly. They clearly haven't read his work. I was anti-Marx, once, too... until I actually read Marx.
Originally posted by Scribble
Read Marx. His end goal is an absolute lack of government (he calls it communism, I call it communal anarchism).This is why I find anyone who is anti-Marx silly. They clearly haven't read his work. I was anti-Marx, once, too... until I actually read Marx.
He actually wants a proletariat state wtf
Marxism is the particular and extreme case of socialism named communism. Marx did not invent the notion of socialism. The ideas of socialism were known long before Marx and indisputably influenced his worldview. Instead, Marx created the theory of “scientific communism.” Communism is characterized by the complete socialization of property and the total collectivization of consciousness. The orthodox Marxism has never materialized.
Marxism-Leninism, also known as Bolshevism, is a revision of Marxism regarding the scope and driving forces of the communist revolution. If, as according to Marx, the revolution should be brought on simultaneously in developed industrialized countries by the mass proletarian movement, then, for Lenin, the Bolshevik revolution might take place in a single agrarian country under the leadership of the vanguard of revolutionaries. Nevertheless, the goal of Marxism-Leninism was communism, implying total collectivization of everything and everyone. A Bolshevik coup succeeded in the Russian Empire, and the communist regime existed from 1917 to 1991.
Trotskyism is, in essence, genuine Marxism-Leninism, which tries politically to preserve its theoretical purity. Trotsky was a founder of the theory of “permanent revolution,” which posits that a proletarian revolution in one country should spread to neighboring nations until communist revolutionary transformations embrace the whole world. He criticized Stalin’s policy from the left, arguing that building communism in one separate country was a deviation from the original intent, that the expropriation of peasant property should have been completed immediately, and that the proletariat had been deceived and continued to be exploited but this time by the Soviet nomenclature. In general, Trotsky accused Stalin of betraying the ideals of the proletarian revolution.
Anarcho-communism also implies the complete collectivization of property and consciousness. However, the doctrine does not accept the Marxist idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the appointment of the working class as the sole agent of the revolution, and two stages on the path to a communist society. The anarcho-communists hoped to build a stateless communist society as soon as they gained power during the revolutionary war. Anarcho-communism was briefly institutionalized on the free territory of southeastern Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, during the revolution and the civil war in the Russian Empire.
Reformism or Social Democracy (Europe), also known as Democratic Socialism in the USA, is a significant revision to Marxism, which practically does not leave even the foundation of genuine Marxist principles. Reformism has been a mainstream form of socialist ideology and practice since the end of the nineteenth century. Redistribution of wealth and partial socialization of consciousness are the main paths being utilized by the doctrine. Socialism is supposed to be gradually built within a capitalistic society by methodically changing the socioeconomic laws of the land using parliamentary procedures. Great importance is also attached to the mental transformation of members of the society through the indoctrination of the population in educational institutions and the propaganda of the socialistic ideals in the mass media, social networks, and materials of pop culture.
Revolutionary Syndicalism (in Italy, France), Anarcho-syndicalism (in Spain), and Guild Socialism (in Great Britain) are non-Marxian currents of socialism, meaning that they did not adhere to the tenets of scientific communism. The main path to socialism is the expropriation of private property from its rightful owners, with its subsequent collectivization and transfer to the management of the labor collective. It was assumed that the fruits of labor would be exchanged in the market between various producers as well as between the villages and the cities. Anarcho-syndicalists managed to gain political power in Aragon, Andalusia, and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39).
Fascism (Italy) is a non-Marxian, antimaterialist, antipositivist current of socialism. Italian fascism envisioned a new type of society that would supersede both communism and classical liberalism; it was conceived as neither on the right nor the left. However, the practical implementation of fascism was the complete socialization of the consciousness, the partial collectivization of the means of production, and unprecedented wealth redistribution. The means of production de jure remained in possession of the owners, but de facto they could not freely dispose of them. Fascism was imposed on Italian society from 1922 to 1945.
National Socialism (Germany) is a non-Marxian flavor of socialism, based on the racial and pseudo-scientific theory of the superiority of Aryans. National Socialism pursued complete collectivization of the consciousness, partial socialization of the means of production, and aggressive wealth redistribution as a method of achieving a socialist paradise for das Volk. As in any other totalitarian society, the state was the ultimate owner of the means of production, despite a de jure allowance of private ownership. Contrary to fascism, National Socialism did not believe in the antagonism between labor and capital and insisted on the unity of the nation in the face of socioeconomic and military challenges. National Socialism materialized in Germany and lasted from 1933 to 1945.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsI appreciate that. I respect your ideology, I just think it is short-sighted, as you probably think the same about me. Ultimately both of our goals are liberty, we just see different ways of getting there.
Lmao I agree that it's a childish conception. It's actually a cognitive distortion called black and white thinking.I think most people are good, otherwise I'd never endorse anarchism, which relies on the inherent goodness in others (non violence).
You couldn't offend me, you come off as a good faith actor.
Perhaps I would be a market anarchist, but Capitalism in its current form is a global nightmare. We cannot be free just by shedding government; we must shed State, and I see global corporations as a form of State as much as governments (see: lobbying, the influence of global banks, etc.). I don't oppose markets, as per se. I oppose the form of social control that wage-slavery imposes. The human cannot be free whilst such a concept exists.
I do not think of humans as good or bad; I am a Marxist in that sense, as Marx did not see Capitalists as evil, he saw them much as slaves as the proles: socially-driven figures ensnared in a system of absolute-control hierarchy. Capitalism was born directly from Feudalism, which was born from Monarchism, etc., and all are a form of State. To be free, we must shed servitude. Not one human can be indentured if we are to achieve something akin to Liberty.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsI know all this (and much more) as I have read Marx. Bakunin, who I linked to and referenced earlier, actually directly broke from the First International due to his defiance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and he is who I personally identify with, moreso. But overall Marx, and Lenin, both saw a future without government. Lenin, however, made brutal allowances. He paved the path to Stalin.
For anyone still confused
Stalinism, and post-Maoism, are ultimately forms of Capitalism, strangely. They play the global market game. They are totalitarian systems that attempt to fuse socialism and capitalism. Modern China is a Capitalist system with social authoritarian tendencies for the poor.
I beg you, expand your definitions of 'left' and 'right'. At least use the four-square alignment chart. It is so much more useful than this bizarre notion of Left = State — Right = No State. That idea simply cannot maintain the complexity of bizarre political nuance.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!Trade Unionists play ball with Capitalism, whereas I cannot ethically support a system that is poisoning the planet and alienating all of humanity. I can only be an anarchist philosophically, I've realised this over time. Under Capitalism trade unions can become akin to mafias. That being said, I am deeply sympathetic to the right-now-right-here goals of trade unionists, and I think they can do a lot of good for the oppressed working class.
Become an authentic trade unionist like me Scribble very few of us are left. We believe in throwing rocks at the state.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsYes, temporarily (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), which is why Bakunin split from his influence over the Left. I identify with Bakunin, I cannot support a dictatorship under any circumstances, hence I am a communal anarchist, not a communist.
He actually wants a proletariat state wtf