I honestly believed.

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
He managed to negotiate a cease fire and got Egypt involved which gives Israel an out. They always get a little crazy around the eye during election season. This was poised on the edge of all out war. Israel was gearing for an invasion. Obama stopped this. i wonder how Mittens Mckittens would have handled it? Now that Egypt is involved it makes them partially responsible for Gaza's welfare. This is good for the Palestinians. Obama stopped a war that was killing Palestinians and you're claiming he turned his back on them. Interesting perspective.
Romney would certainly have been a disaster, you'll never catch me praising him. I'm not about to go easy on Obama though, we gave him a lot of faith, he deserves to be under tons of pressure. He has continued sending money to Israel, 8 million dollars a day, while they have a budget surplus and our economy is still in trouble and they used that money killing Palestinians. A small fraction of that could have fed Palestine instead and I believe he did it because of political pressure.
 

deprave

New Member
Libertarian socialism is not state socialism. If everyone cannot be equal, then there will always be kings. The more a society is stratified, the fewer peers one has. What I am arguing is that indeed mankind can get it's shit together, end the rat race and usher in a great paradigm shift from a consciousness of competition to one of cooperation. You apparently have not so much hope. There are only so many ultimate outcomes in the great ascent of man. We have the power now, as a species, to foster a better reality. We do this slowly by simply shifting the direction of progress. Like the buds in a scrog or a vine in a trellis, design can affect growth. An argument directly counter to this, is that reality is subjective. I find it amazing that particle theory is mounting evidence that reality is not subjective but that perception and consciousness have a direct effect upon reality. Taken slightly out of that context, but not so far away as to lose sense of it, we really need only change our minds to change our world. We can all be equal my friend, we have only the monumental task of realizing that fact. I also find it funny, that the arguments for subjective reality and for the abandonment of collectivism are both to be found in the works of Ayn Rand.
It's because Ayn Rand is an objectivist because of moral objectivism, this is how she is defined as an objectivst and in many ways this is the primary difference between left and right philosophies. (ethics) moral objectivity sees the world as it is and that we must adapt while a subjectivist believe that we must adapt the world to us. Right be more "down to earth", rational while the left has the opposite traits characterized in philosophy and ethics as subjective, logical, etc...its amazing when you look at it really. Right Brain vs Left Brain, Masculine vs Feminine, and on and on. I can't help but be an objectivist because of this. As for "Libertarian Socialist" this is a term actually coined by Noam Chomsky I believe, like I have said I see it as a viable business model for sure, but a political philosophy? I have to disagree. Of course there have been left wing libertarians and anarchist and I do respect Noam as linguist but this term it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, sure it fits nicely on a pie chart and yes it makes sense as "Small government where property is shared" if you put it that way but this is not a political philosophy its more like a business model in a free society. (I would argue a 'semi'-free society)
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
It's because Ayn Rand is an objectivist because of moral objectivism, this is how she is defined as an objectivst and in many ways this is the primary difference between left and right philosophies. (ethics) moral objectivity sees the world as it is and that we must adapt while a subjectivist believe that we must adapt the world to us. Right be more "down to earth", rational while the left has the opposite traits characterized in philosophy and ethics as subjective, logical, etc...its amazing when you look at it really. Right Brain vs Left Brain, Masculine vs Feminine, and on and on. I can't help but be an objectivist because of this. As for "Libertarian Socialist" this is a term actually coined by Noam Chomsky I believe, like I have said I see it as a viable business model for sure, but a political philosophy? I have to disagree. Of course there have been left wing libertarians and anarchist and I do respect Noam as linguist but this term it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, sure it fits nicely on a pie chart and yes it makes sense as "Small government where property is shared" if you put it that way but this is not a political philosophy its more like a business model in a free society.
Noam is for it, didn't coin it. The idea has it's roots prior to New Deal liberalism in the US and in Europe even earlier. Lib Socialists are absolutely not aligned with state socialists in any way.

The reason it doesn't seem to fit as a political philosophy is because there is no use for politics in true anarchy.
 

deprave

New Member
Noam is for it, didn't coin it. The idea has it's roots prior to New Deal liberalism in the US and in Europe even earlier. Lib Socialists are absolutely not aligned with state socialists in any way. The reason it doesn't seem to fit as a political philosophy is because there is no use for politics in true anarchy.
It social anarchism and Noam is one of the few to call himself "libertarian socialist"...how the hell did you support Obama so fervently really as an anti-state person I don't see how you could go there?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
It social anarchism and Noam is one of the few to call himself "libertarian socialist"...how the hell did you support Obama so fervently really as an anti-state person I don't see how you could go there?
I still have nightmares about Romney rule. The GOP is nearing demise. It was worth it.
 

deprave

New Member
I still have nightmares about Romney rule. The GOP is nearing demise. It was worth it.
thats exactly what they do, can't blame you as I even felt it myself but know that their plan is to split us down the middle, to make us hate one side so much that we vote for the other and even believe that one side is just right. Joke is on us, the result is the same, authoritarian powers that be doing the exact same thing with the same results, there is really no difference.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
If you think the terms are mutually exclusive, you, like most of the people who describe them selves as either, don't know what either term means.

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

It doesn't advocate nationalizing resources.

The common perception that these two terms are mutually exclusive is the result of careful cultivation of fear and deception on a large scale. Business only wants government to have power insofar as they can control policy and government gives the perception that they control business. The people at the helm in this set up want you to believe that the only other option is government that is totally in control of your life. Power to the People, requires well informed masses. Basically, I don't buy into the government vs business dichotomy. I'm an anarchist.
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] and sometimes left libertarianism)[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

first two sentences and already they HAVE nationalized the means of production. in your own cited reference material.

liberty good. liberty let people reach for their dreams, even if not same dream as others.

socialism bad. socialism keep everybody in chains to Queen Termite government. you no allowed to have dream unless Queen Termite say is ok.

[/img]http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/47/4647-004-0D6605EC.jpg[/img]

these two things NOT compatible. you cannot be a free and independent individual and still remain a member of the collective termite mound in service to the Queen Termite. Thats what government becomes under leftism, progressivism, communism, socialism and "liberal socialist democracy". a seething bloated monstrosity which requires and army of servants to keep it alive, and the entire society revolves around feeding the massive bloated creature in the middle, and expanding outwards so the critter can get fatter.

you will find no liberty in marxism, only more chains, with a different maker's mark.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
first two sentences and already they HAVE nationalized the means of production. in your own cited reference material.
Just plain incorrect. Since this is your basic premise, your conclusion is not even worth quoting. The cold war ended decades ago homey.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The government built and owns the interstates and those enhanced our freedom.

I love counterexamples.
the government built and owns the interstate program for the SOLE PURPOSE of facilitating troop transportation through the nation.

highways are NOT for the people, highways are, and always have been an aid to control, and the fast transportation of military forces to maintain order for the purposes of government.

you may enjoy the interstate system but now that air transport is the fastest and easiest method to deliver military forces to the target region, you may have noticed a considerable reduction in the construction and maintenance of motorways in the US.

thats why shallow thinkers believe roads are built for their enjoyment and for commerce, which are in fact SIDE EFFECTS of the highway's primary purpose.

also inb4 you deliberately try to conflate rural and residential access roads, and local market roads with the interstate program, highways, and in fact EVERY major transportation building program (including railways) since time began.

rome built roads to transport legions, not to help sheepherders bring their flocks in for shearing, and shit hasnt changed one whit since then.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
the government built and owns the interstate program for the SOLE PURPOSE of facilitating troop transportation through the nation.

highways are NOT for the people, highways are, and always have been an aid to control, and the fast transportation of military forces to maintain order for the purposes of government.

you may enjoy the interstate system but now that air transport is the fastest and easiest method to deliver military forces to the target region, you may have noticed a considerable reduction in the construction and maintenance of motorways in the US.

thats why shallow thinkers believe roads are built for their enjoyment and for commerce, which are in fact SIDE EFFECTS of the highway's primary purpose.

also inb4 you deliberately try to conflate rural and residential access roads, and local market roads with the interstate program, highways, and in fact EVERY major transportation building program (including railways) since time began.

rome built roads to transport legions, not to help sheepherders bring their flocks in for shearing, and shit hasnt changed one whit since then.
So the "Eisenhower Interstate System" is not for the benefit of the people...cool story bro...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Libertarian socialism is not state socialism. If everyone cannot be equal, then there will always be kings. The more a society is stratified, the fewer peers one has. What I am arguing is that indeed mankind can get it's shit together, end the rat race and usher in a great paradigm shift from a consciousness of competition to one of cooperation. You apparently have not so much hope. There are only so many ultimate outcomes in the great ascent of man. We have the power now, as a species, to foster a better reality. We do this slowly by simply shifting the direction of progress. Like the buds in a scrog or a vine in a trellis, design can affect growth.

An argument directly counter to this, is that reality is objective. I find it amazing that particle theory is mounting evidence that reality is not objective but that perception and consciousness have a direct effect upon reality. Taken slightly out of that context, but not so far away as to lose sense of it, we really need only change our minds to change our world. We can all be equal my friend, we have only the monumental task of realizing that fact.

I also find it funny, that the arguments for objective reality and for the abandonment of collectivism are both to be found in the works of Ayn Rand.
you seem to be forgetting the most important key in marxism and collectivism in general.

corporations ARE collectives. many people sharing the risk and rewards of their investment in an enterprise, based on VOLUNTARY participation in the enterprise, which can be terminated at the will of the participant.

marxist theory of course extracts the "voluntary" from the collectivisation process, which makes it serfdom, or slavery for those not chosen to be members of the governing body.

thats why i love communists, they are fun, easygoing people with a willingness to share, and no hidden sinister agendas, but marxists (including the anarcho-_________ists) are always a smile and a promise which hides the secret violent plot to make you into a slave.
marxism promises a worker's paradise, but delivers a lifetime shackled to an oar while the politburo beat a drum to keep you rowing in time, and their commissars ply their whips to ensure theres no slacking.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
you seem to be forgetting the most important key in marxism and collectivism in general.

corporations ARE collectives. many people sharing the risk and rewards of their investment in an enterprise, based on VOLUNTARY participation in the enterprise, which can be terminated at the will of the participant.

marxist theory of course extracts the "voluntary" from the collectivisation process, which makes it serfdom, or slavery for those not chosen to be members of the governing body.

thats why i love communists, they are fun, easygoing people with a willingness to share, and no hidden sinister agendas, but marxists (including the anarcho-_________ists) are always a smile and a promise which hides the secret violent plot to make you into a slave.
marxism promises a worker's paradise, but delivers a lifetime shackled to an oar while the politburo beat a drum to keep you rowing in time, and their commissars ply their whips to ensure theres no slacking.
Did I mention Marx?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
So the "Eisenhower Interstate System" is not for the benefit of the people...cool story bro...
yes. the interstate highway system was built to facilitate military aims, not social ones. just as the long haul rail tracks were built to facilitate military aims, not social ones.

just as the network of airbases around the world are built to facilitate military aims, not social ones.

wishing something were so does not make it so.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
so those first two sentences did not nationalize the "means of production"? you need to read that shit again.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You must think Socialism is synonymous with Nationalism. That's State Socialism aka Marxism. The distinction is made, but since you read only the first two sentences and closed it because you have been programmed by cold war era anti-left propaganda to have a knee-jerk reaction, you came back with retardism. If you bother to read even the posts in this thread, you would be informed enough to comment, but as always, you put your talent to waste, which is a shame really, as I find your writing rather readable.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Did I mention Marx?
no, you dance around marx, flirt with marx and use "clever' re-imaginings of marxist propaganda posters and slogans as your avatar, but you never actually say his name. that would defeat all the effort you put into creating marxist subtext, and preparing marxist socialist fantasy worlds without ever actually pulling back the curtain so your suckers can see the old german fart with the beard who is the actual architect behind your "ideas"

its marxism burlesque, and im not that interested in what you seductively promise,, yet hide behind your ostrich feather fan.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
no, you dance around marx, flirt with marx and use "clever' re-imaginings of marxist propaganda posters and slogans as your avatar, but you never actually say his name. that would defeat all the effort you put into creating marxist subtext, and preparing marxist socialist fantasy worlds without ever actually pulling back the curtain so your suckers can see the old german fart with the beard who is the actual architect behind your "ideas"

its marxism burlesque, and im not that interested in what you seductively promise,, yet hide behind your ostrich feather fan.
I could replace Marx with Reagan in this and send it back you know.

Honestly, Libertarian Socialism is a distinct ism, apart from your worst nightmare, I promise.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You must think Socialism is synonymous with Nationalism. That's State Socialism aka Marxism. The distinction is made, but since you read only the first two sentences and closed it because you have been programmed by cold war era anti-left propaganda to have a knee-jerk reaction, you came back with retardism. If you bother to read even the posts in this thread, you would be informed enough to comment, but as always, you put your talent to waste, which is a shame really, as I find your writing rather readable.
so then who praytell manages the "means of production"? of course, a "democratically elected" bureaucracy of commissars, politburo members and apparatchiks.

or do you pretend it would be a "worker's collective" where the "employees" run the industry/business/farm as a commune? newsflash, you dont need a "revolucion de campesinos" to achieve that. theres already plenty of collectives, communes and other voluntary self governing industries who do it that way. nobody had to have their shit TAKEN from them to allow Blue Diamond Growers to form their collective, but you presume that capitalists should take the risks, build their business and then you swoop in and claim it for "the workers" and demand it become a "commons".

sounds like lazy thinking and theft to me, not a political theory.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I could replace Marx with Reagan in this and send it back you know.

Honestly, Libertarian Socialism is a distinct ism, apart from your worst nightmare, I promise.
i dont hide my political beliefs under a blanket and pretend im not a free market capitalist, and a supporter of our constitutional republic.

i openly confess,

I LOVE OUR CONSTITUTION!!
 
Top