Tea baggers love feudalism.

Dr Kynes said:
marxism is a basic order
communism rests as a subtype within marxism
socialism is also a subtype within marxism.
bolshevism started off as a communist revolution, but became a socialist revolution thanks to stalin and his compatriots who felt socialism was more agreeable to THEIR AIMS than communism, and thus they drove out lenin and trotsky.

one can be a marxist and a socialist
one can be a marxist and a communist
but one cannot be a communist and a socialist the two are mutually exclusive, despite both being under the umbrella of marx.

nor can one be a marxist and a capitalist, since marxism is anathema to capitalism.
anarchy likewise is anathema to marxism of all sorts, as well as capitalism.

anarchy is chaos, and under the rule of chaos, no society or economic action can exist, much less progress beyond simple survival and defense against the chaos and the raiders, bandits, petty warlords and madmen who thrive under those conditions.

oddly, and not at all paradoxically, one can be a communist or a socialist in a capitalist society, since capitalism is neutral on your personal choices, and your ideology has no effect on the market provided you do not attempt to force others to obey your beliefs.

curiously, marxism is also in direct opposition to all forms of religion, save faith in marxism, which is the ONLY feature it shares with anarchy, since anarchy is directly opposed to EVERY form of social interaction, save violence.
Click to expand...

Quit pushing Marx's ideas Kynes. They didn't work.
 
abandonconflict said:
Even when you tell the truth, you do it in a way that makes it seem like my correct conclusion was actually yours so that it looks like I wasn't arguing this all along.
Click to expand...

your flawed assumption is that you know what anarchy is, and that you are an anarchist, or that simply being anti-capitalist is all that is required to gain the label "anarchist"

anarchy is opposition to social order. not the current social order, though that is usually the primary focus, but ALL social order, and in fact ALL social interaction save those involving violence.

anarchism is based on violence, in every way, at all times, as a means of preserving the chaos and disharmony which allows the petty warlords and bandits to engage in their special brand of "Commerce"
while communism is entirely harmless, rejecting violence in all forms since it is a utopian dream and thus violence can be removed by the power of imagination.
socialism is predicated on controlled and managed violence to ensure compliance with the social order.
and capitalism is based on contracts, with violence solely reserved as a means of protecting the contract and the parties thereto.

you also presume you understand capitalism, yet you do not.

you do not even understand the value theory of capitalism marx created to explain why paying a brickmaker to voluntarily supply bricks under a contract, makes your finished house HIS property.

the very essence of capitalism is "What's Mine Is Mine" and the corollary "What's Yours Is Yours"

without this simple understanding you will never progress beyond jingoism.

Edit: and you provide a first class example of why you do not understand these principles

abandonconflict said:
Quit pushing Marx's ideas Kynes. They didn't work.
Click to expand...


this is nothing but a childish "I know you are, but what am I" reply with no purpose save to be petulant.
 
GOD HERE said:
You're making blanket statements that have no connection to reality because you're butthurt. Everyone on the left subscribes to a nonsensical theory designed to discredit those on the right. Okay. Have you listened to right wing radio lately?
Click to expand...

Hypocritical. You accuse me of making blanket statements, and you do the same the very next sentence. Can we move on, or do you want to continue to make yourself look dumb :)
abandonconflict said:
Yes actually, that is what makes one right wing, their socioeconomic views. :wall:

Then you admit you're right wing but insist that has nothing to do with social views.:wall:

Lastly, I consider all of the terms which describe socioeconomic conditions favored by tea-billies to be pejorative but that has nothing to do with why I would point out that it is used pejoratively and therefore it didn't make sense for you to mention it in the first place. You said it was twisted in it's meaning, but the difference is that it was twisted into a pejorative. Therefore twisted by the people using it as a pejorative. You're the one rhetorically defending semantically incorrect arguments such that the words are twisted. Every statement you directed toward me in your most recent argument shows you don't really grasp the language of the debate. :wall:
Click to expand...

So.. either you are contradicting yourself or you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Let me break it down for you (economic/government difference overview):

The right wing wants big government typically in foreign policy, military, and religious related areas of government. They typically would be more than willing to support stimulus for big business (supply side economics), but oppose food stamps, medicare, etc.

A libertarian supports no stimulus (rich or poor), minimal military and foreign intervention, and the belief that government should have no role in religion. A libertarian can be right or left depending on their social or economic views, but they are up (or down, if you want to put a statist up) in the political spectrum because they do not support an increased size and scope of government. A statist can be left or right just as well depending on the same circumstances. They oppose libertarians in the belief of increasing the size and scope of government.

This is an incredibly high level POV, you can break down by issue if you want to (I know you won't, you'll just argue, because you can't understand. You probably only understand "With us or against us" nonsense).

Finally, how you interpret how I said the word liberal is totally on you. I'm sorry, but in a text debate you sometimes have to use a name label in order to identify who you are talking about.
 
sync0s said:
Hypocritical. You accuse me of making blanket statements, and you do the same the very next sentence. Can we move on, or do you want to continue to make yourself look dumb :)


So.. either you are contradicting yourself or you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Let me break it down for you (economic/government difference overview):

The right wing wants big government typically in foreign policy, military, and religious related areas of government. They typically would be more than willing to support stimulus for big business (supply side economics), but oppose food stamps, medicare, etc.

A libertarian supports no stimulus (rich or poor), minimal military and foreign intervention, and the belief that government should have no role in religion. A libertarian can be right or left depending on their social or economic views, but they are up (or down, if you want to put a statist up) in the political spectrum because they do not support an increased size and scope of government. A statist can be left or right just as well depending on the same circumstances. They oppose libertarians in the belief of increasing the size and scope of government.

This is an incredibly high level POV, you can break down by issue if you want to (I know you won't, you'll just argue, because you can't understand. You probably only understand "With us or against us" nonsense).

Finally, how you interpret how I said the word liberal is totally on you. I'm sorry, but in a text debate you sometimes have to use a name label in order to identify who you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Political_chart.jpg


I'm in the green. If right wing nuts continue claiming the word libertarian, it too will become a pejorative such that right wing statists can use it as one, just as they do with the word liberal.
 
abandonconflict said:
No, hierarchy is based on violence and competition.
Click to expand...

and you again prove your ignorance.

heirarchy is ORDER established by any of a variety of means, only one of which is violence, but anarchy DEPENDS on violence to continue the chaos and confusion which is the hallmark of anarchy.

your fake re-definition of anarchy and coincidentally of heirarchy merely display your ignorance and the depth of your Newspeak.

you may not understand orwell, but you sure took his cautionary tales to heart. just not in the manner intended.

use a google-box and learn you sum dictionary.
 
and again, your inability to refute my statement results in a lame image macro.

youre a pathetic sham of a lefty. you cant even argue your cause with a lowly right-wingnut.

you really are clownshoes.
 
abandonconflict said:
You have no respect for words. Continually redefining words is not arguing. You're not arguing, you're trolling. You're incapable of logic.
Click to expand...

You are the one who seems incapable of understanding the definition of words...

Even you admitted that you have not bothered to read the subject matter you keep trying to say you are an expert on...

You dont even understand what feudalism is and yet you try to argue points on it.
 
abandonconflict said:
You have no respect for words. Continually redefining words is not arguing. You're not arguing, you're trolling. You're incapable of logic.
Click to expand...

my definitions are not the ones in eternal flux, shapeless and formless as a bowl of pudding to be molded into any shape the speaker desires, thats YOUR problem.

but then you now indulge in the final word in re-definition of terms, transferring your failings onto me.,

youre just hilarious.

Anarchy: a state of lawless chaos, from the greek, literally No Rule

Liberty: a state of freedom from restraints

Chaos: see anarchy

Heirarchy: order, usually a social order, imposed by law, voluntary association, religious precepts, or force.

Socialism: a system within marxism whereby all property is owned by the state and administered by appointed functionaries or elected officials

Communism: a system within marxism defined by communal sharing, and NO OWNERSHIP of property.

my definitions havent changed, but yours cannot stay still even for a single thread, sometimes changing within a single post.
 
NLXSK1 said:
You are the one who seems incapable of understanding the definition of words...

Even you admitted that you have not bothered to read the subject matter you keep trying to say you are an expert on...

You dont even understand what feudalism is and yet you try to argue points on it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have been quite busy pointing out the fallacies of anarchocapitalism which are mostly results of the twisted language and distorted word meanings of several economists and pseudo philosophers.

Also quite contrarily to what you are suggesting, I not only have taken the time to read up on subject matter on everything I criticize, but that I am more familiar with it than anyone on this website with whom I have debated regarding anything that I have criticized or professed. I therefore have admitted to no such ignorance that you claim I have. My rhetorical questions do not indicate lack of notion.

So what say you handily support your claim that I know nothing of voluntaryism and it's resemblance to feudalism.
 
abandonconflict said:
Actually, I have been quite busy pointing out the fallacies of anarchocapitalism which are mostly results of the twisted language and distorted word meanings of several economists and pseudo philosophers.

Also quite contrarily to what you are suggesting, I not only have taken the time to read up on subject matter on everything I criticize, but that I am more familiar with it than anyone on this website with whom I have debated regarding anything that I have criticized or professed. I therefore have admitted to no such ignorance that you claim I have. My rhetorical questions do not indicate lack of notion.

So what say you handily support your claim that I know nothing of voluntaryism and it's resemblance to feudalism.
Click to expand...

pointing out fallacies in a fallacy to which only YOU subscribe.

a classic strawman argument.

tilt at those villainous windmills Don Quixote, surely they cannot stand before your might!
 
Dr Kynes said:
check any dictionary in print and MY definitions are correct, yours are FANTASY.

all the crying and image macros on the planet will not change your FICTION into reality.
Click to expand...

I created a thread where you could call me a Marxist. You have insisted on doing it here. Then you altar-quote and yet you are not arguing the theme of the thread or the OP. This is akin to if I refuted your claims that I'm kind of Marxist but not really by saying you're racist. Actually it doesn't fucking matter what you think about Marx, that isn't what the thread is about dumb ass.
 
abandonconflict said:
You have no respect for words. Continually redefining words is not arguing. You're not arguing, you're trolling. You're incapable of logic.
Click to expand...

No one does feudalism anymore, dip shit. The only country who comes close is North Korea. Yet you made a thread calling "tea baggers" feudalists. All you are is a commie hypocrite gay bashing loser.
 
abandonconflict said:
So how do you feel about raising minimum wage?
Click to expand...

It's retarded. Minimum wage is stupid. All it does is raise the poverty floor. Its only use is for getting more money for government. Inflation rises but total government debt stays the same. The only ones who profit from minimum wage is the rich who use government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top