Where are people on the political spectrum?

[Doer]

Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

They imply a system of govt that cannot exist. And they cannot define it. It's a fantasy from Ivory Tower thinkers with no skin in the game. An organized hierarchy with have their lunch and will do so at the first opportunity.

 

[GOD HERE]

then you are a trotskyite.

socialism robs the individual of liberty for the good of the state, and was never intended to be anything more than a stepping stone to stateless utopian communism.

by embracing socialism you necessarily endorse the elimination of personal liberty an individual sovereignty which is fundamental to the concept of democracy.

"democratic socialism" is simply slow-motion proletarian revolution with the final aim of a marxist utopian society. this has the advantage of being reversible all the way up to the establishment of the one party state, and the reduction of radicalized proletarian vanguard zealots hurling their bodies at the barricades, but in the end all forms of socialism rob from one group to satisfy the desires of another.

until you discover that YOU are also being robbed, being a socialist is always the popular choice, since socialists are so generous (with other people's shit) that everybody can see how much they really care.

socialists are invariably the penniless radical rabble screaming for somebody to give them free shit, or the hyper-wealthy plutocrats stalking the halls of power (like Diane Feinstein). meanwhile the masses in the middle who KNOW what hard work is, and recognize the need to actually get up and do shit remain staunchly anti-socialist. socialism offers them nothing but a booted heel from above, and grasping fingers from below rifling through their pockets.

let me guess which one you are.

You are wrong about literally everything in this post. You need to revisit basic political theory. I know what veil my political views fall under, and there's a huge difference between the eastern interpretation of socialism and the west's interpretation. My views don't fall under one category, (which is why I used the word "loosely"), but I know for a fact they sure as hell are nowhere near Trotsky's. Marxism and Democratic Socialism are not at all related, which would be blatantly obvious to you if you understood what Marxism is. To say you are being robbed under a socialist system is absurd. Do your own research with an open mind from unbiased sources. The way you describe socialism is exactly the same way right wing radio describes it, and it's purposely misleading.

 

[GOD HERE]

where did mccarthyism come in? he was a fearmongering autocratic despot. his "politics" were irrelevant. if he needed to be a black bloc anarchist to gain his position he would put on his ski mask and burn down his mother's house.

and yes, "anarcho capitalism" is an oxymoron.

and so is anarcho-libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-ANYTHINGIST.

anarchy is the destruction of all order and social structure, it has no gradations of severity.

you simply cannot have "just a little" anarchy, any more than you can have "just a little" theocracy or "just a little" marxist revolution.

you can have a political theory with personal sovereignty, and liberty but once you throw even a drop of "Anarchy" in the mix you get The Road Warrior.

anarchy is the opposition to ALL political theories by embracing the belief that there are no political options, merely every man for himself, in a hardscrabble existence which leads to either reversion to the stone age, or the rise of warlords, and eventually a new royalty.

pretending otherwise is sophistry.

You're using a purist's view of each ideology. The fact is there are different interpretations and subsections of every ideology out there.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are wrong about literally everything in this post. You need to revisit basic political theory. I know what veil my political views fall under, and there's a huge difference between the eastern interpretation of socialism and the west's interpretation. My views don't fall under one category, (which is why I used the word "loosely"), but I know for a fact they sure as hell are nowhere near Trotsky's. Marxism and Democratic Socialism are not at all related, which would be blatantly obvious to you if you understood what Marxism is. To say you are being robbed under a socialist system is absurd. Do your own research with an open mind from unbiased sources. The way you describe socialism is exactly the same way right wing radio describes it, and it's purposely misleading.

So, Das Kapital, and the Communist manifesto are all wrong about how socialism works and the nature of the communist utopia?
Fascinating.
I must call Karl Marx and inform him of his ignorance of Marxism immediately.
Trotsky was a True Believer in Communist Theory, and held that "Democratic Socialists" were traitors to the proletariat. if the respondent to whom i replied feels that Noam Chomsky is right on point, then he is adhering to the Communist Utopian Theory advocated by Leonid Trotsky until the day he got stabbed through the ear with an Ice Pick.
Socialism is predicated on the belief that the wealth of other must be taken from them by The State, and it must then be redistributed in a manner The State (and coincidentally the Apparatchiks) feel most equitable. The only political theory besides Socialism that follows this method of economic regulation is Kleptocracy. Thats why Cuba is doing so well, and North Korea is a Worker's Paradise.

You're using a purist's view of each ideology. The fact is there are different interpretations and subsections of every ideology out there.

If you have to redefine every word to mean something exactly opposite the accepted meaning you are indulging in Sophistry.

An (No) archy (Rule) still means exatcly what it meant 200 years ago. CHAOS.

Anarchy prevents any co-operation, destroys markets and reduces every social group to warring tribes or clans each scrambling to grab whatever they can hold. just like the warlords in Somalia.

You are indulging in Newspeak to conceal the actual agenda to which you cleave, and that agenda is found in the Communist Manifesto and Quotations From The Chairman.

 

[Doer]

You're using a purist's view of each ideology. The fact is there are different interpretations and subsections of every ideology out there.

That is why they are all merely Ideology. Nattering of envy. You can't even say what a purists view is. And it is because of what you say these theories are. Variable.

But one thing, Capitalism, is not a theory or even an -ism. You theorists want it so much to be one. A label to make fun of. Your stalking horse. Just another -ism. Same as Marxism, or other Idealisms, right? WRONG!

Capital is real. And in the hands of anyone but the dumbest or too incompetent, capital will grow itself. Thus it is always so.

All your mad views have been tried and defeated. They are each, a made up departure from reality. Trade is reality. The building of capital happens naturally. Your standing in the social group is the first example of natural Capital. If you just show up, take part, honor the hierarchy; your Capital grows. If you fuck up, you lose your shirt. You don't need money to have capital.

Really, money is the way we keep track of Capital. It represents the natural concept of the natural hierarchy of gaining or losing in the eyes of the group. Competition and Capital. That is it. It is no theory. Very Real. It can't be disrupted for very long.

All these theories amount to thief from the producers in various forms. And so are constantly defeated by the natural order of mankind.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm a libertarian in the traditional use of the word, not the american perversion of it. I believe in the freedom of the individual from the oppression of others including the government, but I believe in an economic system where the wealth is owned by those who create it (the worker) and in public ownership/planning of the economy. I just think that almost every aspect of capitalism is a negative one.

I see difficulty.
First, I see disagreement aboout who creates the wealth. Who mediates that dispute?

Also, who defines wealth? The advent of coinage 1700 years ago was a great leap forward in economics, and requires a center to operate a mint and guarantee the worth of the coin.

Most importantly however, how to set up a stable, self-recentering system for society and economy that is protected against the basic human drive to amass power and build empires, including but not limited to foreign adventurers? A society must be as militarily capable as its neighbors in order to have a shot at survival.

Just some thoughts. cn

 

[cannabineer]

I am pro marijuana, pro guns, pro gay rights, pro less government, pro science, pro church. I could just sum it up in one way, I am pro rational thinker.

Then why pro-church? (Which church?) Every church I have encountered places obedience ahead of reason. They get a bit shirty with dissenters. cn

 

[Rob Roy]

I oppose coercive and non-consensual interactions. So I may not be on the "Political spectrum" , as most politics embrace violence or the threat of it.

 

[abandonconflict]

LOL. Mafia is the same as anarchy. What a clown.

 

[Rob Roy]

http://my2commoncents.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/the-top-ten-reasons-why-the-mafia-is-better-than-the-state-by-emily-sandblade/

 

[Dr Kynes]

http://my2commoncents.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/the-top-ten-reasons-why-the-mafia-is-better-than-the-state-by-emily-sandblade/

The Top Ten Reasons why the Mafia is better than the state.
Reason Number 10: The Mafia has a sense of honor. If they say that they will do something, they stick to it. Nobody in the government has a clue what a sense of honor is. If they say that they will do something, you can count on it only if you’re getting screwed.


Reason Number 9: The Mafia code of conduct is simple and clear, and unfettered by legal doublespeak and millions of regulations.


Reason Number 8: When competing Mafia families go to war, they don’t kill hundreds of thousands of civilians as “collateral damage.” War is the health of the state, but for the Mafia, it’s bad for business.


Reason Number 7: Instead of conducting the war on drugs and the American people, the Mafia is perfectly happy to peacefully provide high-quality products to those who desire them.


Reason Number 6: When you buy protection from the Mafia, you get protection. The Mafia has a good track record for limiting violent crime in the areas that they protect. When you buy protection from the state, you can dial 911 and die.


Reason Number 5: The Mafia’s protection is much less expensive than the state’s. The Mafia wants ten or fifteen percent of your profits, while the various levels of government will try to snatch at least 40 to 50 percent of your profits.


Reason Number 4: Unlike the state, the Mafia wants your business to succeed. They know that ruining your business means that you can’t pay for protection. The Mafia imposes almost no regulatory overhead, nor do they require that you waste your time filling out zillions of self-incriminating tax forms.


Reason Number 3: The Mafia won’t keep you from having a gun to protect yourself and your property. The state prefers that you be disarmed. The Mafia will gladly sell you the means to protect yourself and they won’t bother with a Brady check, either.


Reason Number 2: The state wants to regulate what you do in your bedroom. The Mafia not only does not want to regulate what you do in your bedroom, they will gladly sell you whatever you need to enhance your enjoyment.


And the number one reason why the Mafia should replace the state:

Members of the Mafia have a great sense of style, dress far better than government bureaucrats, and are much easier on the eyes.

that crazy broad makes some good points.

 

[Doer]

Mafia and anarchy and clowns. Look for yourself. That's what I said. There is no anarchy allowed. Have you ever noticed that? That's what we call a power vacuum. You see it in nature all the time and we are nature's best. Give me one single example of anarchy as a form of social contract. You can't. Sit back down.

A warlord hierarchy is not anarchy and Mafia is warlord, capise? A King or a Pope is a Warlord. Don't you see? There are only a few alternatives, certain -isms, like communism that can work. But, trade and capital are real even for those guys. And even the most under educated can admit China is a special case. It's not an example of anything but finally they have peace among themselves.

North Korea is a fiefdom run by dynastic warlords.

So, you guys simply have no idea. An example of anarchy that was not immediately snuffed by hierarchy? I DARE you, punks. Especially you, Aztlan.

 

[abandonconflict]

Mafia is hierarchy, the opposite of anarchy.

 

[fb360]

To say you are being robbed under a socialist system is absurd. Do your own research with an open mind from unbiased sources. The way you describe socialism is exactly the same way right wing radio describes it, and it's purposely misleading.

Eh wrong.

Firstly, robbing and socialism are synonymous. Socialism is "taking" from an abundant source and redistributing that wealth to sources which are scarce; the very definition of "rob" or "steal".

Secondly, it is inherent that socialism WILL NOT WORK in the long term. Humans ARE NOT the only species on this planet, and humans are NOT self-dependent. We, as a species, depend upon other species of animals and their correlating ecosystems to survive. Socialism completely ignores this fact by eliminating social-darwinism and causing an unnatural sustained population. One which will have the effect of unnaturally competing with other species and their correlating ecosystems, consequently leading to the demise of humans, or at least the society that led them to that fate.

I would like anyone to argue that long-term socialism between large populations of humans will not inevitably destroy them, or the world they live in.

 

[Fungus Gnat]

Secondly, it is inherent that socialism WILL NOT WORK in the long term. Humans ARE NOT the only species on this planet, and humans are NOT self-dependent. We, as a species, depend upon other species of animals and their correlating ecosystems to survive. Socialism completely ignores this fact by eliminating social-darwinism and causing an unnatural sustained population. One which will have the effect of unnaturally competing with other species and their correlating ecosystems, consequently leading to the demise of humans, or at least the society that led them to that fate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

 

[fb360]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

That's irrelevant as no one is saying that what is natural is the only desirable way... I'm merely stating that if you play "god" by keeping everyone alive through socialism, you are inevitably going to consume even yourself

You obviously don't understand the human population, the lifespan of a human, the life requirements of a human, hell you don't even understand your own species...

Let me lay this out for you, humans need food, water and shelter to survive. Moreover, humans need fatty foods to survive. Do you know how we get fatty foods in the conventional manner? Do you understand how uncontrolled exponential reproduction of a species with a 80 year lifespan works? Rhetorical, obviously not.

Essentially you are arguing that our exponential population growth is not a problem...

e; The same people who don't understand simple algebra or even orders of magnitude.
Naturally, through socialist society, humans reproduce exponentially, which is NOT desirable. How about them apples

http://www.subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm
Most humans do not seem to be aware of the implications of this accelerating human population growth --- namely,

• more wars -- over resources such as food, water, fuel, minerals --- in addition to the current religious and territorial wars
• wiping out other forms of animal life --- not only species that man does not directly need for survival (tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos, crocodiles, etc. --- bye, bye --- good thing we have pictures and movies of them on the internet), but also food-fuel-lubricant species such as fish, shellfish, whales, etc.
• wiping out plants --- forests and brushland that we need for oxygen as well as for fuel and paper and chemicals and pharmaceuticals
• more disease -- not only because of sewage disposal issues, but also closer proximity and more contact
• atmospheric pollution --- air and temperature
• water pollution
• and many more things degenerating or disappearing, things that man needs and/or values.

 

[jessimae]

Mondran corporation is an example of successful large-scale long-term worker ownership and control of the means of production (i.e. socialism). When workers own and control the means of production, such as occurs in worker cooperatives, they more likely to consider externalities and worker wellbeing as a part of the business model as opposed to maximizing profits at all costs. The argument FOR changing business models so that power and decision making is coming from the workers, bottom up, is more ethical and responsible use of resources.

STATE-socialism asserts that the state is an extension of the people and treats state ownership as "worker ownership", involves central planning, redistribution, etc. I cannot stress this enough: Anarchists reject this framework! We advocate for a stateless society and direct worker ownership and control of the means of production (e.g. democratization of decision making in the workplace), very much like worker cooperatives that are in business today but in the context of a stateless society. We also advocate dismantling other forms of illegitimate authority and hierarchy such as patriarchy. We advocate social institutions that are managed horizontally and voluntarily to the greatest degree possible and when not at a minimum from the bottom up. Democracy would be an important tool in actualizing and running these institutions. Just to be clear on the basics of what most anarchists are advocating, since some here seem to be operating under misguided ideas of what the philosophy stands for.

As for all the arguments that generally amount to "social constructs can't change!".... They can. And they do. Some constructs are more rigid while others are more fluid but regardless our construction of society changes over time. Sometimes in dramatic and unexpected ways. Sexuality and gender roles are two examples of historically very rigid contructs that have undergone dramatic changes in a relatively short amount of time. There's no reason we cannot create institutions that operate horizontally or at least from the bottom up. Abuse of power is best prevented by not allowing it to concentrate at the top of hierarchies. It would be in the interest of humanity to dramatically decentralize power so that society functions according to the will of the people as opposed to the will of elites, moving towards managing our affairs and institutions in a non-hierarchal fashion allow that.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Mondran corporation is an example of successful large-scale long-term worker ownership and control of the means of production (i.e. socialism). When workers own and control the means of production, such as occurs in worker cooperatives, they more likely to consider externalities and worker wellbeing as a part of the business model as opposed to maximizing profits at all costs. The argument FOR changing business models so that power and decision making is coming from the workers, bottom up, is more ethical and responsible use of resources.

STATE-socialism asserts that the state is an extension of the people and treats state ownership as "worker ownership", involves central planning, redistribution, etc. Anarchists reject this framework and advocate for a stateless society and direct worker ownership and control of the means of production, very much like worker cooperatives that are in business today but in the context of a stateless society. We also advocate dismantling other forms of illegitimate authority and hierarchy such as patriarchy. We advocate social institutions that are managed horizontally and voluntarily to the greatest degree possible and when not at a minimum from the bottom up. Democracy would be an important tool in actualizing and running these institutions. Just to be clear on the basics of what most anarchists are advocating, since some here seem to be operating under misguided ideas of what the philosophy stands for.

As for all the arguments that generally amount to "social constructs can't change!".... They can. And they do. Some constructs are more rigid while others are more fluid but regardless our construction of society changes over time. Sometimes in dramatic and unexpected ways. Sexuality and gender roles are two examples of historically very rigid contructs that have undergone dramatic changes in a relatively short amount of time. There's no reason we cannot create institutions that operate horizontally or at least from the bottom up. Abuse of power is best prevented by not allowing it to concentrate at the top of hierarchies. It would be in the interest of humanity to dramatically decentralize power so that society functions according to the will of the people as opposed to the will of elites, moving towards managing our affairs and institutions in a non-hierarchal fashion allow that.

So you're in favour of Non-Hierarchical systems because they are so much more "fair".

then i suppose you only visit Non-Hierarchical doctors:



Non-Hierarchical lawyers:


(a "legal team" with not a single law license between them)

and Non-Hierarchical dentists:

 

[jessimae]

I normally don't post "memes" but this is just too relevant... Not to mention LOL for any other nerds into sociological stuffs

View attachment 2504500

 

[jessimae]

A doctor is an example of legitimate authority in the form of specialized knowledge. It is a voluntary association and I am free to ignore their advice or seek the opinion of another practitioner.

If you think that concentrated power is not problematic I would advise you to read some Foucault, Mills, Domhoff, Habermas, Gramsci... Gramsci seems especially relevant these days considering the course we are taking with regards to hegemonic domination.