Tea baggers love feudalism.

[abandonconflict]

On the right sat those who favored the monarchy. On the left were those who did not favor the monarchy.

Slow traffic stay in the right lane please.

 

[sync0s]

You have your shit ass backwards. Communism is a classless society. Capitalism is a society BASED on class structure and authority. Socialism is relatively equal society, where workers own the product of their labor, so that the capitalist class (authority) can't steal it. This creates a far more equal society than capitalism. I'd go hit the books again if I were you. Btw, the Soviet union was not a Socialist or a communist society. It was authoritarian and a dictatorship, where workers did not own the product of their labor, etc, because a bunch of assholes used Marx's fatal flaw of the dictatorship of the proletariat as an excuse to exercise complete control over their citizens. This authority was kept in place by a strong propaganda/misinformation system and national identity. That is a form of right wing socialism. The difference between right and left in a society is that the right considers authority absolutely necessary for society to function and the left does not. If there were no authority (government) in capitalism to protect the capitalist class, what would give their actions any legitimacy? What would give money value? Who would enforce property rights? Who would keep their workers in line when they get rowdy or demand a more equitable share of the wealth that they created?

True "Socialism" as defended requires no government, but a willing community. Therefore, libertarians and true socialists are not enemies. Regardless, there will always be a class of some kind. There will always be a possession of value that may/may not be distributable.

What he experienced in Russia has convinced him that Russia is not Socialist nor heading for Socialism, but giving birth to a new régime, new classes and new forms of exploitation in place of the old. He writes (page 85):–
“. . . it is no longer a question of a Socialist régime with the defects and errors of infancy, nor of a regime of a specifically Russian nature, but of a new social system with new classes . . . There are in the U.S.S.R. privileged and exploited classes, dominant classes and subject classes. Between them the standard of living is sharply separated.
The classes of travel on the railways correspond exactly to the social classes; similarly with ships, restaurants, theatres, shops, and with houses; for one group palaces in pleasant neighbourhoods, for the others wooden barracks alongside tool stores and oily machines. .It is always the same people who live in the palaces and the same people who live in the barracks.
There is no longer private property, there is only one property – State property. But the State no more represents the whole community than under preceding régimes.”

 

[sync0s]

Defending wage slavery is the act of fealty, being a proletarian opposed to unions for example. Being a wage slave is not necessarily. I agree with the assessment of options with which you concluded. Not all serfs swore fealty, but the ones who didn't were surely witches.

There are real slaves that would probably be offended to the phrase "wage slavery." How desperately some people in the history of this world have wished for a wage and a right to choose to accept that wage or not.

Ask yourself: how much more do union bosses get paid over the ones they represent? How much more do those politicians that the union bosses support get paid over the workers they are supposed to be "fighting for?"

 

[abandonconflict]

How desperately some people in the history of this world have wished for a wage and a right to choose to accept that wage or not.

Now THAT sounds like freedom!

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[GOD HERE]

You don't think authority is necessary to run the economy?

A free market absolutely. It can't function without it. Other systems no. That's not to say that there is not authority where absolutely necessary. But all the unnecessary sources of authority in capitalism would be removed, the government would be fundamentally different and all inclusive. Here's an idea, instead of asking me the same question over and over, how about you just go google your little heart out and get caught up on political systems other than capitalism?

How many times do you want to hear me repeat myself with different words?

 

[GOD HERE]

True "Socialism" as defended requires no government, but a willing community. Therefore, libertarians and true socialists are not enemies. Regardless, there will always be a class of some kind. There will always be a possession of value that may/may not be distributable.

Sure, but far less pronounced than in Capitalism. That's the whole point. It's a more stable, equitable, and therefore truly free society. How far do you want the gap in the standard of living to get? How much shittier are you okay with it getting?

 

[nontheist]

And yet we have the highest amount if immigrants in the world almost triple more than second place. Sounds like it's horrible here. HAIL ANARCHISM! Dude you're so bent I can't tell if you're coming or going.

 

[sync0s]

Talking points and catchy buzzwords like "slaves" are a wonderful thing to fall back on when you are unable to refute the argument.

 

[ChesusRice]

There are real slaves that would probably be offended to the phrase "wage slavery." How desperately some people in the history of this world have wished for a wage and a right to choose to accept that wage or not.

Ask yourself: how much more do union bosses get paid over the ones they represent? How much more do those politicians that the union bosses support get paid over the workers they are supposed to be "fighting for?"

Thats up to the membership and what they decide
Union bosses dont run unions

Their members do

 

[sync0s]

Sure, but far less pronounced than in Capitalism. That's the whole point. It's a more stable, equitable, and therefore truly free society. How far do you want the gap in the standard of living to get? How much shittier are you okay with it getting?

Are you lost? I feel like you might be..

Under a libertarian government, you and your socialist friends can live in your commune. Completely free to control your own economy however you choose to do so. Libertarians really wouldn't care as long as you don't force it on others. That's were socialists and communists tend to fall out of line and is the reason the two ideologies can't coexist.

 

[sync0s]

Thats up to the membership and what they decide
Union bosses dont run unions

Their members do

That is exactly the same as working for a company and being a customer. Employees, customers, and union members alike always make their choice.

 

[TroncoChe]

Thats up to the membership and what they decide
Union bosses dont run unions

Their members do

Wrong, some don't even vote on the union president. It's run just like a communist, with a inner and outter circle.
At least I know the uaw is

 

[NLXSK1]

The OP is full of crap...

 

[abandonconflict]

Talking points and catchy buzzwords like "slaves" are a wonderful thing to fall back on when you are unable to refute the argument.

Your argument is crap. You start by trying to describe wage slavery as freedom. Then you assail unions based on the pay of union delegates. We have unions to thank for weekends. Don't ever forget that. Before unions, there were such times as the Ludlow Massacre. Just because they aren't so essential now doesn't mean we should scrap em. That's like getting rid of a fire dept just because there hasn't been a fire all year and saying they were incompetent firemen.

The only reason we're having this conversation is because African miners work for so cheap that we can afford computers. You're suggesting they should be grateful for the 35 cents a day they earn. Instead they should unionize themselves but if that happens, the CIA will come in to "liberate the market".

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

A free market absolutely. It can't function without it. Other systems no. That's not to say that there is not authority where absolutely necessary. But all the unnecessary sources of authority in capitalism would be removed, the government would be fundamentally different and all inclusive. Here's an idea, instead of asking me the same question over and over, how about you just go google your little heart out and get caught up on political systems other than capitalism?

How many times do you want to hear me repeat myself with different words?

Soo free market needs government and socialism doesn't? When has any free country ever had a socialistic economy? The answer is never. If you look at history, the countries with the most freedom and smallest government develop a free market economy. The countries with the most government and less freedom develop a planned economy. If it is state socialism that you advocate for, which many libertarian socialist do, then it is unattainable with small government. If it is volunteeristic socialism that you guys want, than many believe that is Utopian As Syncos pointed out, everyone would have to cooperate with one another without coercion to have a socialistic economy in an anarchist society. I simply don't believe it is possible to have faith that everyone will resist the idea of ownership of the means of production and the planets resources. People will always want to produce things and invest in their own production. It is not viable to assume that everyone will restrict themselves to sharing all capital (Marx definition of capital). I think you and AC believe in volunteer socialism (not sure because nobody will clarify), I just think that history shows that isn't a viable option.

Syncos also made a good point, that libertarian socialist and anarchist/libertarians/volunteerist (or neoliberals call us what you will) are not enemies. If we both want small government or no government, and maximum freedom, we really have no beef. The difference is the belief of how the economy would function without authority. If you go back to as far as Adam Smith, the idea of the invisible hand shows a capitalisitic free market economy functioning naturally without government intervention. This is what I believe would generally occur without coercion. You guys believe that we could have a functioning socialistic economy without government, which I wouldn't be against as long as you aren't using force to bring about your economic goal. I just don't believe it to be realistic. What scares me is the idea of direct democracy (which chomsky has mentioned) to run the economy, or the idea of state socialism, as both these ideas have failed miserably.

Am I on track to your beliefs?

 

[nontheist]

From an anarchist lol.

 

[sync0s]

Your argument is crap. You start by trying to describe wage slavery as freedom. Then you assail unions based on the pay of union delegates. We have unions to thank for weekends. Don't ever forget that. Before unions, there were such times as the Ludlow Massacre. Just because they aren't so essential now doesn't mean we should scrap em. That's like getting rid of a fire dept just because there hasn't been a fire all year and saying they were incompetent firemen.

The only reason we're having this conversation is because African miners work for so cheap that we can afford computers. You're suggesting they should be grateful for the 35 cents a day they earn. Instead they should unionize themselves but if that happens, the CIA will come in to "liberate the market".

What is not free about getting offered money in exchange for your labor and having a choice to accept or not? Do you pay attention to the things that you say? How do you define freedom?

You assail entrepreneur's for inventing things that make our life easier, creating jobs for poor African miners, and making a profit themselves off of it.

You fail to realize the enemy is government, not an economic system or a simple corporate entity. You should have noticed while invoking the Ludlow Massacre that the Colorado National Guard is government. You should have also realized that people stand up for themselves without paying big union bosses who intern fund political figures for kickbacks.

Your point about the fire department makes no sense at all.. neither does the mentioning of the CIA.. where in the world did that come from?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Actually, I wasn't the one arguing that the dystopia popular among TeaBillies didn't resemble feudalism because serfs swore fealty to their lords. So I agree, it does resemble feudalism.

you must get very dizzy spinning around like that.

the "teabaggers" do not aspire to feudalism, nor do they espouse the ideals fo feudalism, you argued that they did in you entire misbegooten abortion of a thread, and now you insist that they do NOT love feudalism?

you dont even understand the nature of feudalism, since you conflate it with the plutocracy system of patronage and clientship found in the post-roman medieval italian city-states, and seem to be under the impression that cotracts are in some mysterious way related to oaths of vassalage and fealty.

so heres a primer.

Feudalism: the monarch, emperor or czar owns the land and everything on it. he distributes lordship over that land and everything on it to a network of dukes, lords, knights and the landed gentry provided they swear to serve him,, pay his homage/tribute, collect his taxes, administer his justice, and when called, provide levies to fight in his wars. the monarch can, and will dispossess any duke lord knight or any other vassal if that vassal fails to fulfil his oath, or if he falls out of favour at court. the peasantry are bound to the land and are the property of the monarch, and are administered as if they were owned personally by their immediate overlord, and HIS overlords, but generally the oppression came from the immediate overlord, who in turn was in service directly to HIS overlord, who in turn served at the pleasure of His overlord and so on, from the country squire and his small holdings, all the way up to the monarch. it was a command structure with peasants as property at the bottom, and the king at the top.

living outside this vassalage system in their day to day lives, but still subject to the whims of the monarch and to a lesser degree the rest of the aristocracy were the burghers, craftsmen, townsfolk and other urban dwellers who were not bound to the land, but were still the property of the king, and to some extent the lords who ran the area in which they lived and worked. these were the skilled craftsmen and their apprentices, shopkeepers, traders and other individuals who would eventually establish the guild system and erode the power of the aristocracy through Capitalism, and particularly the moneylending which proved vital for the wars and crusades of the later middle ages.

City-states: in post-roman medieval italy, and through the Renaissance, and to some extent into the Age Of Enlightenment, the City-State system operated in an entirely different manner, with only superficial resemblance to feudalism, in that they had kings and princes, and their lords and other aristocrats, but real power rested in the hands oif the merchant houses and the tradesmen who ran them. despite having no "nobility" their wealth and capital made them ultimately more powerful that the kings and princes they nominally served. a fine example is Venice, and Valencia, where individuals who would have been barely better than peasants in medieval germany or france attained the power to install popes and depose kings solely through their vast wealth and capital.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You have your shit ass backwards. Communism is a classless society. Capitalism is a society BASED on class structure and authority. Socialism is relatively equal society, where workers own the product of their labor, so that the capitalist class (authority) can't steal it. This creates a far more equal society than capitalism. I'd go hit the books again if I were you. Btw, the Soviet union was not a Socialist or a communist society. It was authoritarian and a dictatorship, where workers did not own the product of their labor, etc, because a bunch of assholes used Marx's fatal flaw of the dictatorship of the proletariat as an excuse to exercise complete control over their citizens. This authority was kept in place by a strong propaganda/misinformation system and national identity. That is a form of right wing socialism. The difference between right and left in a society is that the right considers authority absolutely necessary for society to function and the left does not. If there were no authority (government) in capitalism to protect the capitalist class, what would give their actions any legitimacy? What would give money value? Who would enforce property rights? Who would keep their workers in line when they get rowdy or demand a more equitable share of the wealth that they created?

and you obviously have still not read the Communist Manifesto.

communism is classless, true, and thats the only part you got right.

Socialsim is intended to be an imperfect, unfair, TEMPORARY authoritarian system which allows the de-radicalization of the proles, the disarmament of the revolutionary vanguard and the re-education of the masses into the virtues and nature of Communist thought so that the Socialist society can eventually evolve into classless Utopian Communism of the Worker's Paradise.


youre so poorly educated on the very system you claim to support i have to wonder what you really believe.

i suspect you simply believe what youre told by whoever has the Talking Stick at your drum circle.