Youtube comments of BlackFlagsNRoses (@blackflagsnroses6013).
-
2300
-
1600
-
1600
-
1500
-
1300
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
982
-
925
-
900
-
900
-
895
-
891
-
880
-
817
-
787
-
786
-
700
-
686
-
686
-
652
-
646
-
643
-
618
-
605
-
600
-
599
-
595
-
584
-
576
-
556
-
540
-
537
-
529
-
527
-
524
-
523
-
521
-
517
-
515
-
508
-
501
-
499
-
479
-
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes:
“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.
Civil Rights and racial issues they can accept. But come after the Capitalist establishment and ruling class you’ll be an enemy of the State. Dr. King may have been more a Democratic Socialist than a Social Democrat. Either way he knew the truth and fought for the classes and masses, not just his downtrodden people. He was a true patriot and American.
478
-
461
-
458
-
454
-
448
-
444
-
443
-
429
-
427
-
425
-
411
-
406
-
403
-
399
-
394
-
392
-
388
-
387
-
386
-
384
-
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes:
“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.
Nothing has changed. We let it happen.
379
-
376
-
374
-
372
-
369
-
I leave these quotes every MLK Day to remember what he truly stood for.
“ I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic
in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.” – Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
“Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.
“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.
369
-
356
-
349
-
347
-
345
-
343
-
343
-
342
-
340
-
336
-
336
-
331
-
331
-
321
-
319
-
319
-
316
-
316
-
314
-
312
-
309
-
309
-
307
-
305
-
305
-
303
-
300
-
299
-
295
-
290
-
289
-
289
-
288
-
287
-
287
-
286
-
285
-
I respectfully completely disagree with this video and here is why:
The total screen time count is irrelevant, because the overwhelming majority of Dany and Jon's shared screen time was with other characters present, discussing politics, the war, and bending the knee. Their first meeting was like a 15 minute scene.
Most of Jon and Ygritte's shared screen time only featured the two of them, building a relationship progressively and believably.
Counting the minutes Jon and Ygritte shared before fucking is irrelevant. Jon and Ygritte could have had sex in Season 2 and there would have been no issue, if it was just sex. Sex and love are not the same thing. Sexual attraction can be immediate, love happens progressively. The second half of Season 3 continued to develop their relationship after they had sex, showing us that they were still in the process of falling in love.
Dany and Jon are already "in love", after only 4 episodes. Jon and Ygritte had been together for 9 episodes before they had sex, and had lived together as Wildlings for weeks, if not months. Jon and Dany have known each other for a week or ten days tops (I go into this in detail later).
Dany and Jon have only had 3 scenes alone together prior to Episode 6. None of those scenes established any sort of personal or emotional bond. Their scene in Episode 3 was all about business, so to speak. Mining the glass, bending the knee, etc... No personal connection at all.
Their scene in Episode 4 showed that they were sexually attracted to each other, but that's it. The conversation was strictly about the war. Their scene in Episode 5 was also all about the war. Yes, Dany saw him pet Drogon, but once again, no bond between her and Jon was directly established.
The writers didn't even make any effort to give them a scene where they could discuss what they have in common, going from nothing to being monarchs, being outcasts, struggling to find their place in the world, Jon not knowing his mother VS Dany not knowing anyone in her family beyond Viserys, etc... We didn't see them really get to know each other. There's nothing for them to "love" about the other.
All they know about each other is what the other looks like and certain aspects of what sort of ruler they are. That's nothing.
Beyond that, if you think about things logically, they can't have known each other for more than a week or so, as I said earlier. Jon receives permission to mine the glass in Episode 3, yet in Episode 4, he specifically says he hasn't begun yet. This tells us very little time has passed, probably only 2 or 3 days maximum. Dany then leaves to ambush Jaime immediately after they exit the cave.
She returns in Episode 5, right before Jon receives word from Winterfell and decides to leave for Eastwatch. He presumably leaves a couple days later, once Tyrion and Davos return from KL.
Basically they barely know each other. You can't compare that with Jon and Ygritte traveling and living together for weeks.
The proof of how forced it is is that they have to have Davos and Tyrion telling us that Jon and Dany have feelings for each other, as opposed to the show actually building that relationship.
It is the epitome of a forced relationship.
285
-
282
-
282
-
281
-
280
-
279
-
276
-
275
-
272
-
271
-
271
-
270
-
270
-
266
-
266
-
260
-
259
-
257
-
255
-
254
-
253
-
251
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
245
-
244
-
243
-
243
-
240
-
238
-
238
-
236
-
236
-
236
-
235
-
234
-
234
-
230
-
229
-
229
-
225
-
224
-
221
-
220
-
219
-
218
-
218
-
217
-
216
-
215
-
214
-
213
-
213
-
212
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
207
-
207
-
207
-
203
-
202
-
202
-
201
-
200
-
200
-
198
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes:
“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.
Nothing has changed. We let it happen.
193
-
192
-
191
-
187
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
185
-
185
-
184
-
183
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
179
-
179
-
178
-
177
-
176
-
176
-
175
-
175
-
174
-
173
-
170
-
168
-
168
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
161
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
158
-
157
-
157
-
155
-
155
-
154
-
153
-
152
-
151
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
147
-
146
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
141
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
133
-
133
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
129
-
129
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
The thing about the USA is that it is so blinded by Capitalism they actually believe it’s a system that can create freedom when the results are the complete opposite. Somehow people are lead to believe self-interests competing is beneficial to the greater society... and that individuals being able to accumulate exorbitant capital at the expense and exploitation of workers to be an ideal system for freedom. A system that creates disparities, socioeconomic classes, and a ruling elite of wealthy capitalists, and corporate donors. At it’s foundation the GOP had the support of the socialist organizations in the country. While Lincoln believed that the laborer can one day become a well off owner and employer, which is possible but completely not good enough for Social equality and freedom, he also believed capital should not be valued more than labor.
I’m obviously against Capitalism as a systemic institution of oppression and coercion. But regardless America failed it’s working class immensely. The employers and corporations are valued over the worker, the opposite of what even Lincoln believed. Unionization was gutted, wages remained stagnant, and workers are made to live a life of living by paycheck. Living to work, working to live. And American government and parties are reluctant to even alleviate the burdens of the working class by declaring Social Democratic reform too radical and fantastical. Even though other developed nations enjoy such measures. America truly is a most avaricious country, and Capitalism has taken it’s people their Republic (natural Constitutional rights) and Democracy (public influence on the polity or government).
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
@davesmith3892 "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
"And, inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
"...the working men are the basis of all governments, for the plain reason that they are the most numerous..."
- Abraham Lincoln
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
1ronin sorry but the left, the actual far left, have a history of not being cowards and pussies toward the rise of hateful ideology and extremism. Why would we be lenient towards a group that has an ideology on hating us and stripping us of our liberties? Even Marx supported arming the proletarians so that they could defend themselves from the bourgeois exploitative class.
Anarchists have a history of insurrectionist groups. Liberal revolutions were lead by insurgents. Freedom isn’t free, it’s fought for and taken.
With all that said I’m an anarchist, but not a member of the disorganized group that is Antifa. Cause frankly I don’t see the need to be aggressive yet, the Fascists haven’t really grown in actual power, just numbers (which is alarming). Right now they’re just having their cute little protests and grandstanding, let them it’s their freedom. Once they have actual political sway and start influencing authoritarian legislation, or get a foothold of real political power, that’s when you need to get violent. But this equating of far left and far right motives is ignorant. One group is made of anarchists, socialists, and Social Democrats and aggressively confronting hateful white nationalist and neo-fascist groups. The other is trying to build their hateful ideologies, and gain attention and support to their regressive crap. And the authoritarians would happily hurt anyone they don’t see as “us.” Antifa ain’t out hunting conservatives and Republicans though they do think they’re accountable. They’re confronting racists, white nationalists, and neo-Fascists.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Under Capitalism no. It is the dominance and rule of capital in society. The more capital you have the more you are free. It distorts markets, and perpetuates vast inequality, and it is a departure from ideals of freedom and liberty as developed in classical liberalism.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847), p. 412.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Atreus21 the most far left position is anarchism, really hard to be more for freedom than Anarchy. Which isn’t what you think it is, it’s libertarian or anti-state socialism. Socialism grew out of Social Science, which is the goal of reforming into a rational industrial society, and the industrial administration replacing the state and government. Like capitalism, socialism has had authoritarian models like the Soviet Union and Maoist China. But capitalism has also had Fascist economies or the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile. Please expand your knowledge of Socialism. American history is rich with the worker’s struggle for Socialism. Eugene Debs, the IWW, 8 hour workday, Individualist Anarchism, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker etc…
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
Firstly, George Orwell was definitely a democratic socialist. He stated this consistently throughout his life – from the mid-1920s to his death in 1950. It is true that he wrote a compelling account warning of the dangers of a totalitarian state. But, Orwell always maintained that just because you severely criticised Soviet-style Communism didn’t make you any less a socialist. In fact, socialism as Orwell understood it, stood for all the values – democracy, liberty, equality – that Soviet Communism rejected. Orwell believed that only a truly democratic Socialist regime would support liberty.
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
Homage to Catalonia
Orwell detested Soviet-style Communism – a belief strengthened when he ended up fighting Soviet-backed Communists during the Spanish civil war – Orwell went to Spain to fight against Fascism and for the Republican movement. As a member of the ILP, he joined a fraternal Spanish party – POUM – a small Marxist / Anarchist / Socialist grouping who had strong utopian Socialist ideals. Orwell loved their utopian Socialism.
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
But, Stalin wanted to crush all left-wing parties who were not the Communist party; this led to a civil war amongst the Republican movement in Spain. Orwell got caught up in this and it made him really disgusted with Stalin and the Communist party.
“the Communists stood not upon the extreme Left, but upon the extreme right. In reality this should come as no surprise, because the tactics of the Communist parties elsewhere.”
George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
This experience of fighting alongside socialist idealists and against Stalinist backed Communist party, only strengthened his belief in democratic socialism.
10
-
10
-
@edwuncleriii1922 no actually MLK was Democratic Socialist. And Malcolm X was a black nationalist turned socialist.
Shortly before his death Malcolm said plainly that his struggle was not “a racial conflict of black against white, or... a purely American problem. Rather, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter”.
“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing... but I don’t think it will be based upon the colour of the skin, as Black Muslim leader Elijah Muhammad had taught it.”
Anyone who uses Malcolm X as authority for narrow black nationalist politics is being disloyal.
In his last year Malcolm became willing to work with the (liberal-led) mass civil rights movement.
He called for a struggle of both black and white people, not black people alone. “When the day comes when the whites who are really fed-up — I don’t mean these jive whites who pose as liberals... — learn how to establish the proper type of communication with those uptown [in Harlem] who are fed-up, and they get some co-ordinated action going, you’ll get some changes... And it will take both.”
He dumped the Black Muslims’ vague talk of a “black state”: “No. I believe in a society in which people can live like human beings on the basis of equality.” Immediately after quitting the Black Muslims, he summed up his philosophy as “black nationalism” — but by January 1965 he had rejected that: “I haven’t been using the expression for several months.”
He dropped the Black Muslims’ line of promoting black capitalism, in a way which Breitman shows must have been deliberate and considered — though he never openly argued against it, and never came out clearly with an alternative.
He denounced capitalism: “You can’t have capitalism without racism... You can’t operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic; you have to have someone else’s blood to suck to be a capitalist...” He told Breitman’s comrade Harry Ring that he “felt it necessary for his people to consider socialist solutions to their problem. But as the leader of the movement, he said, it was necessary to present this concept in a way that would be understandable to his people and would not isolate him from them”.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@derek9783 In Luke 12:33, Jesus commands his disciples to sell what they have and give alms, and in Luke 14:33 says that no one can be his disciple who has not forsaken all his possessions. Historians generally confirm the view that a form of communism was taught by Jesus and practised by the apostles.
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
While I don’t think Christianity and Communism or general Socialism can truly be comparisons as one is materialist and secular, the other spiritual and religious (faithful), they may share some communal or communitarian values. Look up figures like Dorathy Day or Leo Tolstoy among others. Regardless the New Testament shows that the earliest Christian sects, direct disciples of Jesus and their followers organized proto-communistic societies based in common ownership. Usury and interest were long seen as sinful by many religions, including Jesus and his followers. Christianity and other faiths have a long history of opposing such capitalist institutions, and many other material interests. That said you can’t say socialism/communism are 100% supplementary but they can be complementary and often people may find socialist values in their religious doctrine. However they wouldn’t be as secular and materialist as the political doctrines of socialism and communism originate from.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Ironically Goldwater was the last genuine conservative intellectual and warned of what the Republican Party is today.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@George Christian no one said that. I said actually live up to your ideals as a liberal nation. A piece of paper is worth as much as people protect those ideals. You claiming BLM as divisive and a violent wave is as much State and corporate propaganda as the ideal that all conservatives want an ethno State. It’s the narrative they sell people to divide.
The Constitution in itself was a counterrevolution of the country’s elites. They feared the kind of democratic liberal republic the people envisioned from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. The pamphlet that revolutionized the colonialists. They got rid of the Articles of Confederation to douse the fervor of radical liberalism and democracy. The Federalist Constitution was so that the elites could feel in better control. The anti-federalists were more radically liberal and Jefferson lead the conflict against the Federalist’s. In exchange for the creation of the stronger Federal government Jefferson and anti-federalists appealed for a Bill of Rights that may protect citizens from government overreach. But their fears were realized as seen by James Madison’s dissent into the anti-federalist or Jeffersonian democratic-Republican camp. The vision of liberal democracy and republicanism that inspired revolutionaries from Thomas Paine was quelled by Federalist elite’s need for order to protect their status as new ruling elite. This is why Thomas Paine was criticized by the Founding Fathers as a radical and extremist, and died in obscurity in the very new nation he inspired to form itself. Thomas Paine and Jefferson both believed a Constitution is only as valued as the living generations, and no generation should be ruled by the dead. They held ideas to reform and redraft constitutions every several years so that living generations may have a true social contract. Jefferson ironically despite his contradictions was the Founder with the most faith in common people. This is the liberal society counterrevolutionaries tried to contain, as they feared the loss of their privileges.
“When it can be said by any country in the world, my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them, my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars, the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive, the rational world is my friend because I am the friend of happiness. When these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and government. Independence is my happiness, the world is my country and my religion is to do good.” (Rights of Man, Thomas Paine)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@recniabsal Stalinism is a thing and if you think his authoritarian regime and State control is compatible with Socialism and what Lenin tried to accomplish you are mistaken. True the Soviet Union was meant to be a democratic Soviet represented union of workers, but Lenin was first and foremost a revolutionary, Vanguardism was all his doing. Now command economy, specifically one controlled by the State is antithetical to Socialism and Communism. The advent of Russians catching up to the modernized world led them to this mass mobilization of workers working for a planned economy. Yet ownership was not theirs, it was the State's, they did not choose their labor, they were made to work in whatever the State commanded etc... These are facets of what is referred to as Stalinism, that which Orwell hated to the core. The Soviet Union became subject to tyrannical regimes, closer to Fascism in it's government. In Social Marxism, abolishing the State is a goal, but under Stalin the State became the power to subjugate citizens, much like Fascism.
I disregard Stalin's authoritarianism as keeping with Socialist values and ideas, and I have my own disagreements with Lenin's revolutionary politics, but Stalin did not in fact carry on Lenin's vision of his Soviet Union and Communism.
8
-
@jbennett8030 You know before Socialists have any ideas for political government, they must first figure out it's economic organization. As in having social ownership, and go on from there as per the worker's decisions. Socialism is first and foremost an alternative to Capitalism, an economic organization, not a form of government. Ultimately it's goal is to end government and the State for self reliant worker's collective and be essentially a society of workers without obligations but to their labor and to society at large. There are some that would say with Socialism innovation and creativity are abandoned, but that actually does not seem true. Freedom of labor sounds encouraging and liberating. Truthfully all economies will move left, as Capitalism becomes less sustainable and desirable as technology automates jobs and such. Not all Socialists are Utopian, and true enough it's implausible. It's just an idea to keep striving for, as religious folk have their visions of paradise, so do Socialists. But the idea is liberating and scary. The less reliance of institutions and governments, the more self reliant and active will people have to be. Therefore many differing ideas for socialism, some radical some more practical. But let's be open minded and not necessarily bite the bait that Socialist ideas are evil and against freedom. One only has to take a look at the works of those influential to the ideology and realize, they wanted us to be free.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@johnmaltby134 "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949
"Why Socialism?" is an article written by Albert Einstein in May 1949 that appeared in the first issue of the socialist journal Monthly Review.
Einstein was in fact further left than David who seems more of a Social Democrat.
Twisting facts my ass. And well done bringing out identity politics where no one in this entire section did. In fact the further left the more concern for class conscience than any identity group. Quit playing yourself. PLEASE fact check all you want!
7
-
7
-
I had my problems with the season overall but I get what the ending tried to do, and I enjoyed it some. Even if it felt too lonely and empty.
I liked that in the end it was “A Time For Wolves” and the Stark kids are alright. They won, they reign, they survived.
Sansa as Queen in the North was the logical and satisfying end to her story arc. From being used and abused, Sansa wanted power for security, so that herself, her family, and her people will never be vulnerable pawns in the game again. She absorbed the cunning and scheming of her tormentors, but remains a Tully-Stark with no self interest and ambition other than security and to lead pragmatically.
Arya ever the free spirit. Instead of finding empowerment in violence, finds it in exploration and discovery. She looks towards new horizons as she leaves behind her blood soaked childhood. She goes knowing her family will be okay.
Bran is the receiver of memories (like in the Giver). He knows all, is a magical computer. No one corrupt and ambitious can hurt the realm with him as king. Truly the 6 kingdoms have a sage-King in practicality to lead them in a new age. The thing about Bran’s ascension is it calls back to Dwarves, Bastards, and Broken things. Tyrion has a soft spot for such creatures. Bran the Broken is the promise that things may be a little different now as the downtrodden, the least likely, the outcasts inherit the world or authority to make a better future by whatever margin. The Starks, including Jon, Tyrion, Brienne, Ser Davos, and even Bronn I suppose are all Dwarves, Bastards, and Broken things that through great obstacles persevered and come out victorious.
Jon is a true selfless hero. His two lives were nothing but sacrificing and he proves to be the best out of all of them. Now he lives in exile where he can find some peace in freedom. Unfortunately his heritage wasn’t of much consequence, and it should have at least allowed him some agency. Jon wouldn’t be King, but he could have briefly used that inheritance to abolish the office officially and exile himself in penance. The messianic character, was just a guy, who did heroic things, has no real reward, and can find solace in freedom and relative peace for the rest of his days. The true North is in him, and he has proven to be more Stark than any other could claim. The White Wolf is legend
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
History lesson: Police or “law enforcement” was created a a gestapo for Capital. Community protection was done by the community itself, community watch. As industrialization and the Gilded Age came the ruling Robber Baron capitalists pushed the State to create a “law and order” outfit to keep the peace in urban areas. But what they actually wanted was an authoritarian boot on labor and the poor to protect their capitalist interests. You see as these tycoons and fat cats called industrialists got wealthier and went out of their way to but politics labor was for the first time organizing in the US. Labor Unions and socialist political groups, would arise to defy the Robber Barons control of their lives as well as fight for labor rights. Whenever labor organized and protested or strikes the capitalists would call in the Police to do their duty and break up the organization. And they did it aggressively as you can expect from any State authority. Remember the Haymarket disaster, that was why Police was formed. To maintain the underclasses in line protect and serve capital. Hence the police’s history of harassing the lower classes like workers, poor, homeless, and very much people of color.
It is time we have a serious discussion about this authoritarian branch of the State. It is another tool of control and violated our civil rights and liberties very much. As you can see militarization of police exacerbated their potential as an authoritarian’s force. Easily implement a police state if the government wanted.
The leftist position is abolish the police. Return to building community networks, relations, and watch groups. Who do you think is better suited to protect your community? The community, or the State and government? Facets of what police do can be done by watch protection groups, which are community members and volunteering to serve the community. Detective work can be done by professionals dealing in serious homicide crimes. The reactionaries will oppose this under guise of law and order, but reactionaries will always show their true colors as authoritarians. Not to mention that police force existing undermines the very constitutional right to bear arms and community militia protecting their communities. The State just took that power from civilians for their own control and capitalist interests. Radical or not, humans deserve better than a force that can at the drop of a dime be an oppressive tool against you and your community.
Police force aren’t peacekeepers, that nonsense is not true. They aren’t a Jedi order. They were founded as an authoritarian tool, and they always will be.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@whyamimrpink78 good to know civilians lives taken without justification is becoming the norm. No you have to fall back to things that haven’t to do with the fact that civilians were killed for no reason. You idiots have lost the plot. Revolution and violence are necessary for change and fighting against a oppressive State. These were once important foundations for the Republic, and remain enshrined in founding documents.
When we arm ourselves against fascists they won’t have any excuses for why we do so then. It’s time we arm our communities, have our own militias, and unify the working class. They’ll change their tune but even the Constitution is on our side. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Return of the militant working class, syndicalism, and liberation movements. Do not stand idly as we remain oppressed. We won’t start violence so that the corporate media will spread misinformation and villainize our struggles, but we damn sure can defend ourselves. Just remember it was riots and violence that got the government to concede to Dr. King’s alternative. They feared revolution, they capitulated to legislation reform and civil disobedience. The Civil Rights movement, nor black and indigenous liberation isn’t done yet. There’s a reason after Dr. King the Black Panthers were the face of Civil Rights. Militancy, insurrection, and right to bear arms were the popular action for liberation. Suffrage wasn’t enough, the working people need their own autonomy, and popular assemblies, less this fascist regime continue to oppress the people.
“We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism.” - Fred Hampton
7
-
7
-
7
-
Erik Merrill The American economy was built on slavery and a nationalist philosophy opposed to free trade. Hamiltonian economics is the bedrock of the American economic growth. The tenets of protectionism, government subsidies towards infrastructure, and incentivizing advancements in tech and science. Henry Clay proudly distinguished it as the American System, in opposition to British free trade doctrine of Adam Smith. These same economic policies were found to be involved in the economic growth of South Korea and Japan. The American School of Economics was the economic policy of nationalists from the Federalists, to the Whigs, to the early Republicans. Free trade prosperity is a myth, and governments always protected economic interests.
Since the time of Thomas Hodgskin, when capitalism, at the time defined as a construed political system built on privileges for the owners of capital; capitalism has been criticized as an exploitative socioeconomic system. Exploitation of labor by capital. Liberals like David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill supported the labor theory of value, and industrial democracy of worker’s cooperatives in a free society, over the classism of industrial capitalism. What is capitalism if not the rule, or dominance, of capital. Hence why industrial capitalism was pushed back in the time of farmers and artisans who owned their labor, and tried to halt the expansion of wage slavery.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
What was the ideal American value when it came to the poor, immigrants, and people? To judge people individually, and forego the collective notions of the Old World. The American spirit is rotting itself from within.
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
djangogeek It‘s not Communist because supposedly though their goal is to reach a Communist society they aren’t there yet.
China is Marxist-Leninist and Maoist. Doctrinally they believe in order to achieve the association of producers, they must first protect the revolution by centralized Statist means. Therefore the Leninist government.
So much like the USSR Communist China functions as a State Capitalist enterprise. The State is the premier capitalist, but there are private enterprises as well. China, if they are still about Communism, believes it’s in a transitional stage of Socialism where the Party Bureaucracy rules and represents the working class. That’s debatable of course.
So Communist China started as another Marxist-Leninist Revolution. This means they have State Capitalism, as Lenin called it, as a state of affairs but they also incorporated what they call social market enterprise, a mixture of State and private owned enterprise, though of course the Party is the ultimate authority.
China is not Communist because well they haven’t achieved the free association of producers in a stateless, classless, moneyless society. China is State Capitalist and does anti-socialist things like participate in global capitalism, exploit labor, and of course their market practices have hollowed out the American middle class and strengthened theirs. Growing a middle class is not adhering to socialist class struggle and classless society.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Big Hatter I didn’t make your case for anything. Capitalism is an oligarchic system that functions as a market economy.
In right-"libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalist ideology, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a] condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual's only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-"libertarians" themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. Yet this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether capitalists are actually interested in freedom at all.
The Capitalists class supported the undemocratic Fascists in Europe, and American government supports dictators so long as they are opened to markets. As they did with Pinochet. The Anarchists and Socialists in Spain fought in alliance with the liberal Republicans against Fascist Franco. The Capitalists supported Franco, they supported Nazis who’s economic policy coined the word “privatization” to describe it, and they supported Mussolini. Capitalism is for the bourgeois ruling class and while they were classical liberals they held the idea of liberal Republics in mind as a society that would be ruled by the Capitalist owning class free from the old aristocratic rule of nobility. It was one step towards freedom but the struggle continues.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@IronskullGM Social Democracy isn't Socialist. I myself am a Social Democrat. Though I feel a kindred spirit with Socialists. However Socialist leaning ideas and policy are implemented in a Capitalist framework within a Social Democracy. This mixed economy is however not true Socialism.
I'm afraid there is no successful Socialist country for no country has actually had social ownership of the means of production, abolished private property, or forego the State. There are several instances where workers tried. The most infamous attempts at Communism or Socialism have lead to tyrannical regimes not at all compatible with the Socialist ideology, which is not disassociated with a democratic polity necessarily, depending on the school of thought. Democratic decision making is a key concept however.
Some of Spain had a syndicalist period however it was not long lived as Franco's Fascism made it impossible for them to act freely and soon Marxists or Socialists were eliminated as political opponents in his rise and dominance.
Today there are citizen's assemblies in Argentina that aren't any political power but have an almost Anarchist platform and really just collectively bargain with government and business owners.
I'm afraid we haven't seen a true Socialist society in action. The liberal West has antagonized the ideology true enough on the basis of tyrannical regimes and fear mongering. Is this the result of Capitalists influence, or ignorance of the entirety of Socialist ideology? For certain I tell you Capitalism hasn't an unblemished record either. We saw how bad it can be in the Gilded Age, how exploitative it can be, how unfree and harmful it can be to workers, how the wealth and prosperity is not even unequal but far form decent or acceptable . How it can endanger democracy as it becomes Oligarchical, a Princeton study affirms the US as such, how neoliberalism hurts the domestic economy etc... The truth is Socialism wouldn't exist as an alternative order if Capitalism were an unmitigated success.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
real progressive how about Market Socialism. Where workers own the firms and the worker’s associations commercialize within a market system. See capitalism isn’t trading, its private property owners accumulating capital off the backs of a working underclass of wage earners. Liberal capitalism involves a market economy, yet Fascist corporate capitalism involved corporate orders of private capitalists. Quit talking like you know anything.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
G. H It differs. The Social Democrats and progressives seem content with a government large enough to maintain social safety nets, competition of small businesses, and providing more equal opportunity measures. They’re pretty good on civic rights unless they let SJWs come in with authoritarian measures.
The conservatives are content with having a government large enough to arm a military for special interests and perpetual conflict, and interfering in the personal lives and civic rights of minorities, as well as nationalistic tendencies, so much for individualism. Mean while little interference upon private power of corporations and concentrated wealth and influence to do as they please.
See the problem that both share is Capitalism that leads to Corporatism. Corruption and Oligarchy. Social Liberalism is the result of the disparities and social ills the Capitalist economy makes. Conservatism clings to little interference upon the Capitalist economy thinking it is the best for freedom, but want people or society to behave in their own “moral” principles which ultimately seems phony.
If I’d pick one that would actually provide opportunities for individuals to live well enough in a Capitalist economy it would be the progressives and Social Democrats as the Nordic model provides more social mobility and fairer competition. Conservatives are only concerned for concentrated wealth, power, prestige, and social traditions. Capitalism only works with the State, interference, keeping property rights, maintaining monopolies in check etc... You want freedom look beyond a system of classes and concentration of wealth.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Cameron Moore to be fair it was seen as the more elitist approach. Remember the Federalists were seen as the elites, speculators, financiers, bankers, Northern industrialists, capitalists etc... only this upper class could afford to worry about nationalist infrastructure and financial capital, or national economy. And yes they saw themselves as an elite, a higher class, better men, and more educated (partly true). Rural farmers and urban workers had their reasons to not agree with them, at least not on everything. But it is what built the national wealth along with slavery unfortunately.
The changes have been neoliberal not necessarily “libertarian.” And nothing has been disguised as “communism.” Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. People haven’t been supporting Marxist-Leninism much less actual Communism. Marxist-Leninism is an authoritarian path to Communism, but not the only Marxist or socialist branch.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@fuckamericanidiot Fascism isn’t physical assault, political violence is a tool used cross spectrum. Fascism is a political doctrine of extremist nationalism and the goal of a Totalitarian Corporate State. Antifa in America tends to be rebellious youth using aggression to deal with groups they deem racist. While I as an anarchist do not believe them to be genuine political anarchists, and are merely more post-left lifestyle anarchists and punks, meaning they use anarchist aesthetics to rebel against authority, they aren’t contradictory. They aren’t part of a political party, they’re not trying to get power in government, and they seem to be remnant of the Occupy Wall Street, with new generation. I highly doubt these kids that spew anti-government rhetoric want political power. Democrats and Republicans are already more authoritarian than Antifa by being actual political organizations and power grabbers.
As for the liberal takeover of sociological conflict theory, which right wingers refer to as “cultural Marxism” while true it is an incomplete social critique focused much on social racial relations, it is an academic school. Find your own schools to oppose that particular academia and may I suggest right wingers stop using Nazi tropes of conspiracy against it, but actual intellectual arguments. Conservative intellectualism is practically dead in mainstream thought. And tapping into Nazi “Cultural Bolshevism” isn’t a serious critique of Conflict Theory. From what I’ve seen post-modernism has increased among conservatives, as evidenced by the behavior of Trump’s administration and his base. A complete distrust to all claimed facts, systems, and institutions. But the neoliberals brought the post-modern conservative reaction on themselves.
The West wasn’t built in white supremacy. While it is arguable due to the historical record it wasn’t the only driving force, however it was an important one and encompassed all European empires. White supremacy was imbedded within Western States as a tool of suppression and population control. It was a Statist propaganda and rule to enforce colonial, imperial, and slaver institutions. Rooted in the West’s history, and ripe for historical scrutiny. But the core bedrock of “western civilization” is it’s basis in progress towards greeter freedoms and individualism. Since it’s roots in Mediterranean Greek culture and so on. As well as “western civilization” being but one part of a larger “global civilization” in which cultural diffusion and conquests among global civilizations have formed the modern world.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Andres Rojas they force capitalism on sovereign nations to maintain hegemony and markets. The West forces capitalist markets on underdeveloped countries where labor is bought for cents an hour. Please STFU you don’t know what you’re talking about. Plutocracy did a hell of job convincing useful idiots that it is freedom. Real freedom isn’t capitalism or state socialism, it’s libertarian socialism (Anarchism) or liberal socialism if you insist on a minimal state. It is Market Socialism and decentralized planning. The rule of wealth, labor exploitation, and social stratification is exactly the kind of crap system that hinders freedom and liberty. Keep cheering for American imperialism while you can, but feel free to to wear a uniform, arm yourself, and go get that oil yourself if you value intervention. The future is anti-Statist. Go ask survivors of Pinochet’s Chile, or Iranians who lost their democratically elected leader for an American/UK puppet dictator, what they thought about western capitalist markets being forced on them as inequality and poverty grew for the wealth of a few. Who defends Venezuela? No one fuck the State, my support is with the people. Maduro is a half assed leader, in a country relying on one nationalized commodity and over 70% privatized industry. But their sovereignty doesn’t involve having foreign powers intervening in their politics.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
“Corporations embraced the full range of union-busting possibilities in Taft-Hartley, risking only token fines from the NLRB. They drastically increased management resources devoted to workplace surveillance and control, a necessity because of discontent from stagnant wages and mounting workloads [Fat and Mean]. Wages as a percentage of value added have declined drastically since the 1970s; all increases in labor productivity have been channeled into profit and investment, rather than wages. A new Cold War military buildup further transferred public resources to industry.
A series of events like the fall of Saigon, the nonaligned movement, and the New International Economic Order were taken as signs that the transnational corporate empire was losing control. Reagan’s escalating intervention in Central America was a partial response to this perception. But more importantly the Uruguay Round of GATT snatched total victory from the jaws of defeat; it ended all barriers to TNCs buying up entire economies, locked the west into monopoly control of modern technology, and created a world government on behalf of global corporations.
In the meantime the U.S. was, in the words of Richard K. Moore, importing techniques of social control from the imperial periphery to the core area. With the help of the Drug War and the National Security State, the apparatus of repression continued to grow. The Drug War has turned the Fourth Amendment into toilet paper; civil forfeiture, with the aid of jailhouse snitches, gives police the power to steal property without ever filing charges — a lucrative source of funds for helicopters and kevlar vests. SWAT teams have led to the militarization of local police forces, and cross-training with the military has led many urban police departments to view the local population as an occupied enemy [Weber, Warrior Cops].
Reagan’s crony Giuffrida resurfaced as head of FEMA, where he worked with Oliver North to fine-tune GARDEN PLOT. North, as the NSC liaison with FEMA from 1982-84, developed a plan “to suspend the constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad.” [Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the ‘Secret’ Government“]. GARDEN PLOT, interestingly, was implemented during the Rodney King Riots and in recent anti-globalization protests. Delta Force provided intelligence and advice in those places and at Waco [Rosenberg, The Empire Strikes Back; Cockburn, The Jackboot State].
Another innovation is to turn everyone we deal with into a police agent. Banks routinely report “suspicious” movements of cash; under “know your customer” programs, retailers report purchases of items which can conceivably be used in combination to manufacture drugs; libraries come under pressure to report on readers of “subversive” material; DARE programs turn kids into police informers.
Computer technology has increased the potential for surveillance to Orwellian levels. Pentium III processors were revealed to embed identity codes in every document written on them. Police forces are experimenting with combinations of public cameras, digital face-recognition technology, and databases of digital photos. Image Data LLC, a company in the process of buying digital drivers licence photos from all fifty states, was exposed as a front for the Secret Service.” — Kevin A Carson; The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@whyamimrpink78 President Eisenhower is too far left to you people. He said anyone against New Deal programs should not be in American politics, and he was Republican. New Deal Democrats were once the mainstream liberal left politician. Bernie is just that, a progressive reformer, FDR also did an ambitious mobilization of workers in the WW2 era. Today progressives aren't different instead of fighting wars, they want to fight Climate Change. None of this shit is new.
"Also, he is a radical because he has no desire to listen to the other side."
Projecting much? Tell me how many times Mitch McConnell, or Republicans did politics with the Democrats and work with them. Not to mention Republicans are the only faction in the world to flat out deny Climate Change. An organization that opposes facts and engaging in politics, that's what Norm Ornstein, the conservative political analyst Chomsky was citing, said of the modern Republican party. A "radical insurgency" he classified them. Let's mention also about all thes voter suppression and undermining of the democratic process this last general election done by Republicans. The politically uneducated are fools like you who think Social Welfare and Social Democracies are Socialist lol!
Many intellectuals and brilliant minds were Socialist, true Socialists. They didn't advocate anything like you do because it was spoon fed to you and sold propaganda. They actually studied, analyzed, thought for themselves, and came to their own conclusions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Barry Goldwater, probably the last prominent genuine conservative, agreed.
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This is erroneous and misinformed. Marxism as it stands is a politics theory and social critique of capitalist society based in a material dialectic theory of history. Socialists, not just Marx, were a profound influence and innovators of what today is called sociology. Social science as it was known then was the scientific method given to social relations, institutions, and systems. The critique of political economy under capitalism was hence called socialism. These social scientists influenced the social sciences (sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology etc…)
What you refer to as race Marxism doesn’t exist, as what you are referring to is a theory of Sociology inspired by Marxist dialectic called Conflict Theory. In which society is analyzed as a relation of perpetual conflict among groups and their interests. This was inspired by Marx’s observance of class conflict in every era of human development. However post-colonialism the Conflict Theorists recognized class aren’t the only groups in conflict. They saw that in the post-colonial world, and it’s social construct of race, racial groups were in conflict with each other. They focus on this niche of social relations and study it to better understand one of the aspects of modern society ie racial relations.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Conservative ideologue Barry Goldwater said on the religious and evangelist right
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
--Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Swae Ocean Libertarian (Anarchist) Socialist is exactly what I am. Socialism is a socioeconomic system not a form of government idiot. The Anarcho-Syndicalists of Catalonia developed such a Socialist economy. A completely decentralized organization of Unions. Your dumbass is indoctrinated by a system you were born into without questions.
Funny that figures like Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, Dr. King, etc... were Socialists. Cause these were educated figures who thought for themselves. If only you knew. The Libertarian Left of Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists are the legacy of Classical Liberals. Those who fought to dismantle structures of concentrated power, wealth, and prestige. The Founders of the USA might have been Socialists and Anarchists had they lived to see post-Industrial Capitalism and mega-Corporations. Indeed they left behind a government begrudgingly, as they viewed it as a necessary evil. If only they knew social organization was possible without government or hierarchies. If only they had lived to see the works of the Libertarians of the far left wing. Anyone who isn’t interested in decentralizing and dismantling of all forms of concentrated power has failed the ideals of Liberalism, of which Libertarianism (Anarchism, Socialism, Communism) followed. Not the Chicago School laissez faire “Libertarians” of the right. Capitalism is exploitation of workers and oppression. Ask third world workers. It is a system of masters and servants. Fuck that shit. The Paris Commune, Catalonia, Ukraine and others proved free societies are possible. Keep licking your bourgeois master’s boots. Knowledge is power, which you don’t have. Now go and keep supporting the status quo of Capitalists and Government maintaining wealth and power and undermining your “Republic.” Kneeling idiot.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It’s time we all moved on towards post-Capitalist Socialism. And no Socialism isn’t the government getting involved. It’s the working class taking over the factors of production, withering away the class system, and moving on from wage labor. So many rich Socialist models to implement. From markets to worker planned economies. It’s time we live up to the ideals of Classical Liberalism and liberty, equality, and solidarity.
"It is not needed, nor fitting here (message to Congress in re the civil war) that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” —Lincoln
“It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.” — Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln, like any good Classical Liberal knew wage labor was just as bad as slavery, sans the racial discrimination and cruelty. He believed wage labor was only better than chattel slavery because the condition wasn’t permanent. Yet the post-industrial world and multinational Corporative era shows that wage labor is perpetually undermining freedom.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@adosjustice3242 I said nothing of class programs. I’m a socialist, a libertarian socialist. The only way for black comrades to get self autonomy is the defeat of the State and class hierarchy. Instead of promoting government and Statism organize against the State, form direct action, take control of our communities and decentralize power towards the communities. So long as we keep strengthening the State, the same State that taxes and oppresses minorities, we feed the beast that enslaves us. We form our class solidarity against racism perpetuated by the State. The world belongs to humanity, and labor won’t be free until there are no classes, but the free association of producers.
“We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism.” — Fred Hampton, Chairman of the Chicago Black Panthers
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@UltraEgoMc Republicans take money from gun manufacturers and sustain the military-industrial complex with perpetual war in the middle east. Even now they sell arms to Arabia where they're committing genocide against Yemenites. They also are opposed to Universal Healthcare and continue to claim privatized health is preferable when the body counts keep rising over those who couldn't afford to be treated. And the Dems disregard human life? Reps care more about potential life than the actual living apparently.
And the Democrats you're so against are center right moderates, they're not even left wing. They're neoliberals and take money from corporate donors same as Republicans.
Republicans are the social conservatives, it's why you see the alt right and David Duke swing right towards them.
Historically it's the conservatives that were for slavery, segregation, and bigotry. In the past it was Democrats until FDR fought for the workers and the party became gradually more liberal and progressive. Republicans would become the party of white America, Christian fundamentalism, evangelists, pro big business, and neoconservatism. The conservative party and that's why you do see today the bigots and racists support it. It's not that all conservatives are bigots or racists either, but those that are recognize it as the conservative traditional party. It's the political realignment, conservatives went from Democrats to Republicans, and liberals/progressives went from Republican to Democrats.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
ES 2020 you’re right. Actual real conservative intellectuals like Norman Orstein are no where to be seen. Conservative political scientist Orstein has said: "the Republican Party today is a 'radical insurgency that doesn’t care about fact, doesn’t care about argument, doesn’t want to participate in politics, and is simply off the spectrum.'"
And even though in his time maintaining segregation was a conservative issue so he opposed Civil Rights legislation under legitimate State Rights concerns, and by our standards was a Ayn Randian character, Barry Goldwater was a prominent American conservative ideologue. He had this to say:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry Goldwater (5 time Republican senator from Arizona; candidate for president in 1964) quoted in a Washington Post interview, 1994.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jaysonfalsonusa2892 Dude you're just a dumbass and proved yourself to be an idiot. You moron Hitler hated Marxists and Socialists. DO you think North Korea is a People's Republic cause they named it that? Nazis persecuted socialists and communists. Socialism is left wing, State control, Totalitarianism, and Fascism are right wing. You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about cause like all other idiots you think what Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, and Castro all did is socialism or even communism. By definition they are not. Those left wing ideas are about social ownership of the means of production, democratic decision making, assemblies, workers collectives, abolishing private property and the State. None of those totalitarian states and command economies are real socialism, it's why they are rejected by those circles and intellectuals. The education you received must be so right wing biased you think Bernie Sanders, a politician who is considered moderate center-left by European standards is a communist. He's more a social democrat and guess what shit for brains? They still have free market. People like you think Clinton was far left lol! Venezuela still had capitalism moron. The only things "socialized," but really nationalized were the oil industry which they relied to heavily on. They still had capitalists and private industry. They're failure was allowing Chavez to undermine their constitution eliminating the democratic polity, relying too much on their oil for the economy, and the nations that put sanctions on them for nationalizing their oil making it hurt America's and others interests. The same happened with Iran's oil when they elected their president and since America couldn't have that they created a coup to replace the elected leader for an American sympathetic puppet, after which the Iranians rebelled and placed a theocratic government ever since. Nationalization and socialization aren't the same. Nationalization means putting something under public control and administered by the government, by basically co opting monopolies. Socialization is something more left wing than that. The idea is founded on putting the workers directly in charge of the companies they own. Imagine if Wal-Mart was owned and run by its employees. That's socialization. Socialization combines employee ownership, wealth and production seizure, workplace democracy, company wide workers councils, and public ownership all in one without necessarily putting it under the control of President Trump like NASA and the EPA. Get information from actual reliable sources and not right wing biased commentators and sources.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Dooya Punk So I got to reading your comments and just like the conservative “intelligentsia” you have no clue what Socialism is, not just you but most others on this thread if not all. If you allow me to explain:
Socialism is the ideology of socioeconomics, and all political beliefs in the pursuit of the ideology, for a post-Capitalist classless social organization. Where the factors of production are by any form owned socially by the workers.
Forms of social ownership include:
Public ownership in which the government subsidizes an industry or institution meant for the benefit or free enjoyment of the public. Such as nationalization of certain goods and services where the public partakes.
Worker’s collectives/ worker’s coops, in which the worker’s are directly in control of and democratically run industries in associative relations.
Common/ collective ownership which is a staple of Communism. In which the community own the factors of production and productivity in common, with all sharing the produce and goods and services.
Socialism is broad with many branches or schools of thought. From Statist to Anarchist, Authoritarian to Libertarian. The belief that Socialism is State ownership stems form Marxist-Leninism which became the most prominent Socialist revolutionary political movement. However as I said, Marxist-Leninism is but one strain of Socialism, and even Marxism. Not all Socialists are Marxists, much less Marxist-Leninists. Since this particular branch lead to State Capitalism it is rejected and criticized by all other branches of Socialism as a failure. Even as the revolution was occurring Socialists were highly critical of Lenin and his politics, such as Emma Goldman who was a Libertarian Marxist and Council Communist. A more democratic and decentralized school of Marxism. Lenin himself got rid of the many Socialists who weren’t Leninists and rejected them as “infantiles of the left.”
If you’d like a further discussion and any questions about Socialism and what it is, or it’s rich historical development please ask. You may be surprised. Like did you know that there are Socialists that aren’t anti-markets, we’re just anti-capitalists. Market-based economies aren’t synonymous with Capitalism, which is a mode of production. Just like Socialism isn’t a synonym for State control or planned/command economies. I mean Anarchism arose as a branch of Socialism. It is utterly anti-authoritarian and anti-Statist. Socialism is even informed by Classical Liberalism. Such as Jean Jacques-Rousseau or John Stuart Mill who advocated worker’s coops and rejected capitalist employer-employee relations.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Machine Algorithm Alpha When arguing that modern-day fascists should be met with physical force, the response is often something along the lines of ‘who gets to decide who’s a fascist?’, pulling out a line from Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’:
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”.
The implication being that anti-fascists just call anyone they don’t like ‘fascists’ and, by extension, that the people being called ‘fascists’ are actually ‘patriots’ who believe in ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ who don’t deserve physical opposition.
Conveniently, these people don’t mention the next sentence which reads: “The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another” and that “Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.” The point, part of a section titled ‘Meaningless Words’, is that political buzzwords are used to conceal real meanings.
One example Orwell gives: “Marshal Pétain was a true patriot”. Marshal Pétain was a Nazi collaborator who led German-occupied France during World War Two. Orwell’s point is therefore as much that fascists like to conceal themselves behind words like ‘patriot’ as it is that the word ‘fascist’ is sometimes misused.
Interestingly, while these types like to pull out the ‘fascism has no meaning’ quote, they rarely mention the following one from chapter five of Homage to Catalonia:
When I joined the militia I had promised myself to kill one Fascist — after all, if each of us killed one they would soon be extinct
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
F D no it doesn’t. Socialism is at it’s core the replacement of wage labor with labor associations. Hence creating a classless society. This is what all socialists like Marx advocated for. The blend of public owned and private owned enterprises is just a blend of State regulations and control of publicly owned assets, and private enterprise. Central planning is not exclusive to socialism, as market socialists can attest to. Corporate capitalism very much functions as centrally planned oligarchy.
What those countries have isn’t socialism it’s called liberal corporatism. Economically it’s recognized as a moderate form of Fascist Corporatism. Based in Keynesianism it goes by many names depending on the country. Nordic social democracy, German ordoliberalism, French Dirigisme etc... others just call it the social market system. Keynes identified as a liberal capitalist, for that is what he supported. Keynesian based liberal corporatism is still liberal capitalism.
Even Fascists like Mussolini recognized this: “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (1926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”
4
-
Sheepy2055 There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. — Adolf Hitler
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the Right, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." — Benito Mussolini
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ecléctico Iconoclasta I was talking about Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia, not the modern independence movement.
Socialism has always at the core been about worker’s ownership of the means of production. Then the Marxist strain introduced more Statist approach.
The Anarchists (Libertarians) have always been the Stateless strain of Socialism.
Proudhon indeed called himself Socialist, and created the Market Socialism of Mutualism. When saying he was against Communism he was against Statism as it was coming to be known. And I suppose he would disagree with the common ownership of production itself as well.
Social Anarchists would develop collectivist, Communist, and Syndicalist movements.
Marxists would develop Democratic Socialism, Marxist-Leninism and various other Statist Socialisms.
I already said I’m agreeable to Anarcho-Communism which does have it’s differences from Marxist Communism. Such as abolition of the State instead of transitional period. But Anarchism would be free associations of many autonomous communities be they Communist, Mutualist, Collectivist, Individualist etc... All without a transitionary State period, which was what Anarchists had against Marxism as seen when they broke off from the Worker’s International.
There is also Libertarian Marxism such as direct worker’s councils, developed by a more anti-Statist strain of Marxists.
Socialism existed before Marx and Engels, and it continues to exist in many schools of Statist or Libertarian forms.
Those democratic socialists parties you describe aren’t Socialists. Socialism is not compatible with Capitalism. Nearly all Socialists agree that private property, as in private ownership of the means of production, must be abolished. But all Socialists have respect for personal possessions/property. The few Socialists that would allow some private ownership of the means of production would only do so as long as the private owners recompense the community in some way. Just to be clear private property and personal property are two distinct things for Socialists. It’s private ownership of the means we are all pretty much against.
Social Democrats aren’t Socialists, they do not wish to go beyond Capitalism. True Democratic-Socialists such as some in the DSA, maintain their Marxist roots and wish to end Capitalism for Socialism. They express that Capitalism is not compatible with Democracy. They would use the Democratic process to take the government and through reforms transition towards Socialism, and yes eventually Communism is the end goal for Marxists. If you’re not post-Capitalist you aren’t Socialist. You can be for Markets or not, but if you do not want to be rid of Capitalism (wage labor, private ownership, commodity production) you aren’t Socialist. Just State Capitalist.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Pat Orsban If your resentment is directed downward against the “underclass” and recipients of welfare-for-the-poor, it’s most definitely misdirected.
First, let’s look at the little picture, and consider the net effects of state policy on the actual recipients of welfare. Consider how state policies on behalf of land owners and real estate investors, like the enforcement of absentee title to vacant and unimproved land, drives up rents and closes off access to cheap living space. Consider how licensing schemes and “anti-jitney” laws, zoning laws against operating businesses out of one’s home or out of pushcarts, and regulations that impose needless capital outlays and entry barriers or overhead costs, close off opportunities for self-employment. And consider how zoning restrictions on mixed-use development and other government promotions of sprawl and the car culture increase the basic cost of subsistence. You think the money spent on welfare for the poor equals that drain on the resources of the underclass?
Next, look at the big picture. Consider the total rents extracted from society as a whole by the dominant economic classes: The inflation of land rent and mortgages by the above-mentioned absentee titles to unimproved land; the usurious interest rates resulting from legal tender laws and restraints on competition in the supply of credit; the enormous markups over actual production cost that result from copyrights, patents and trademarks; the oligopoly markup (once estimated by the Nader Group at around 20% of retail price in industries dominated by a handful of firms) in industries cartelized by government regulations and entry barriers …
Now consider, out of this vast ocean of rents extracted by state-connected parasites, the miniscule fraction that trickles back to the most destitute of the destitute, in the form of welfare and food stamps, in just barely large enough quantities to prevent homelessness and starvation from reaching high enough levels to destabilize the political system and threaten the ruling classes’ ability to extract rents from all of us. The state-allied landlords, capitalists and rentiers rob us all with a front-end loader, and then the state — THEIR state — uses a teaspoon to relieve those hardest hit.
Every time in history the state has provided a dole to the poorest of the poor — the distribution of free grain and oil to the proletariat of Rome, the Poor Laws in England, AFDC and TANF since the 1960s — it has occurred against a background of large-scale robbery of the poor by the rich. The Roman proletariat received a dole to prevent bloody revolt after the common lands of the Republic had been engrossed by the nobility and turned into slave-farms. The Poor Laws of England were passed after the landed classes enclosed much of the Open Fields for sheep pasture. The urban American blacks who received AFDC in the 1960s were southern sharecroppers, or their children, who had been tractored off their land (or land that should have been theirs, if they had received the land that was rightfully theirs after Emancipation) after WWII.
The state — which is largely controlled by and mainly serves the interest of the propertied classes — only steps in to provide welfare to the poor when it’s necessary to prevent social destabilization. When it does so, it usually provides the bare minimum necessary. And in the process, it uses the power conferred by distributing the public assistance to enforce a maximum in social discipline on the recipients (as anyone who’s dealt with the humiliation of a human services office, or a visit from a case-worker, can testify).
So don’t resent the folks who get welfare and food stamps. Your real enemies — the ones the state really serves — are above, not below.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
MarshallJukov Lenin coined State Capitalism to describe the Soviet economy. And it’s as bad as private liberal capitalism. You just replace private owners with the State. Instead of emancipation of the workers, you replace the boss. Look at China with their shitty wages and worker’s committing suicide in sweatshops. If State Capitalism were so great why was Glasnost and Perestroika allowed to happen? I though the Marxist-Leninists got rid of capitalist influences? Nope just made it State controlled. I mean under Marxist-Leninists the nation was still involved in the global economy and traded with capitalist nations. Stalin made an alliance with the Nazis even. Here’s what Marx himself had to say:
“You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries—such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland—where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.”
At the time of the Anti-Socialist Laws beginning to be drafted but not yet published in 1878, Marx spoke of the possibilities of legislative reforms by an elected government composed of working-class legislative members, but also of the willingness to use force should force be used against the working class:
“If in England, for instance, or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, though they could only do insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development. However, the "peaceful" movement might be transformed into a "forcible" one by resistance on the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if (as in the American Civil War and French Revolution) they are put down by force, it is as rebels against "lawful" force.”
And he called the Democratic Socialist Paris Commune “The form achieved” as in the prime example of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Well look at that Marx supported Democratic Socialism in liberal democracies and republics.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@destinal_in_reality a republic is just a form of rule that is anti-monarchist, a single ruler. Democracy went from having negative connotations of mob rule to meaning generally representative democracy. In America Republicanism has always been synonymous with representative democracy, and mostly is what people refer to when they simply say democracy these days. The “minority” framers of the Constitution like James Madison referred to was property owners. They feared the redistribution of wealth. In many ways the Federalists, which would be the forerunner of Whigs, Lincoln Republicans, and Modern Democrats; were a counterrevolutionary group that sought to contain the fervor of democracy, and institute a Republic with lesser democracy and greater checks on the political power of the people. The anti-Federalists like Jefferson were the left wing of their time and opposed to the right wing centralists of the Federalists. Jefferson was a radical liberal ideologue and had a greater faith in the common man to govern themselves. Second only to Thomas Paine, the figure synonymous with liberal Republicanism in his age. It was his description of a radical liberal democratic republic that sparked the flames of revolution. Paine was a dissident of what became of the American Republic, and was shunned by the other founders for being too “radical”. No question because Paine had a socioeconomic analysis to freedom and called for egalitarian land distribution, social welfare programs, and a UBI. Modern Republicans have become apologia for the corporate hegemony, and only share social conservatism with their Democratic predecessors. They’ve fully embraced ideals of unfettered capitalism. An oligarchy of business elites. Both parties have embraced aspects of the Federalists, ensuring a full Hamiltonian America.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@slibertas1996 are they? Jefferson wasn’t social conservative. The Dem-Reps were agrarian populist, more democratic, and secular liberal. Not all but the leadership like Jefferson were scions of an Age of Reason. Embracing Enlightenment principles. Jefferson got into trouble often for being mischaracterized as atheist. He was very secular. The modern Republicans trace their politics back to antebellum and Civil War era conservatism still agrarian, but based in rather reactionary politics of racial and aristocratic power. The southern aristocracy were fully reactionary, writing regrets of Enlightenment principles, calling Jefferson a liberal radical, and hating ideals of the American Revolution, or at least selectively choosing which they wanted. This lead to the KKK era, the reaction against Reconstruction, against Civil Rights, and the embrace of the religious right and illiberal politics. Today the Maga takeover continue that rather conservative streak. Another thing to note is the Republicans took over the pro-business politics which was once the northern liberal Republican Party of Lincoln’s agenda. Southern Republicans embraced industrial capitalism and big business, and northern states embraced social liberalism and business regulation. This sort of means Republicans of today embraces the business elite
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@b.t.1632 this is capitalism. This whole cancel culture thing is a capitalist protest, in which people refuse to consume something they find archaic or against their values. It’s always been like this but with the advent of social media it only seems most prevalent. The right wing has also engaged in such capitalist-consumer protests such as protesting against the NBA with the whole anthem issue; or supporting Goya because the owner expressed his support of Trump. This issue is nuanced but it has yet to involve government censorship, as it’s just consumers and companies dealing with public relations issues. Let’s be real, as time goes social values change. Nowadays people are less prone to accept insensitive tendencies, whereas in the past gay people had to hide their identity because the majority of people would reject them. Companies cater to the demographics and social values of the day, this is just capitalism. In a more inclusive and globalist economy companies are in a place where they want to give off the veneer of agreeing with the larger consensus. I too am a fan of John Stuart Mill, and since he was a classical liberal he had something to say about the conservative ideological persuasion: “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives...
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."
John Stuart Mill ( British philosopher, economist, and liberal member of Parliament for Westminster from 1865 to 68 )
Classical liberalism is something sorely missing from modern American conservatism. In fact the only culture we should be fostering is a liberal culture and free society. Civic libertarianism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Abbadon380 compare a Statist country like all capitalist countries to the Anarcho-Syndicalists of Catalonia who had abolished the government and lived in the most libertarian society in modern history.
Socialism has many schools. From authoritarian Marxist-Leninist, which is what you really hate, to Anarchism and Democratic Socialism.
Socialism has roots in liberalism, such as advocated by the ideas of figures like Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, David Ricardo etc... The biggest lie they sell you fools is that there haven’t been decentralized Socialism, or that Capitalism is synonymous with Market Economy. Market socialists prove that not all socialism is against a market economy. All socialists are anti-capitalism, not anti-markets. According to free market socialists capitalism is a distortion of free market economy, as the majority of society is regulated to an underclass of laborers being exploited by the capitalist proprietor class. What happened to fair trade and the laborer being in control of their produce?
Thinking all Socialism is Statist Marxist-Leninism ignores it’s history as the emancipation of the working class, and is hypocritical. What if people dismissed liberal capitalism because of corporate capitalism of Fascist States, or capitalist dictators like Pinochet? Quit bending over for the rule of capital, spewing outdated Cold War scare propaganda.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
whyamimrpink78 Norman Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank, is the political commentator and analyst in question.
You are showing your political illiteracy for miles. First there is nothing moderate about modern Republicans. The Democrats of today used to be called moderate Republicans, even Obama confessed that is what he is. They’re neoliberals, as in the economic agenda of conservatives like Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher. A liberal economics ideology influenced by Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics.
The Democratic establishment is center-right Third Way neoliberalism, the Republicans are more social conservative, and even more right wing laissez faire (and Corporatist like Democrats).
One clear example of Republicans being political hacks with no intent of participating in political discourse and ideological consistency is their behavior towards Obamacare.
The Affordable Care Act was originally a program founded by the right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, which is Mitt Romney’s. It was his policy of enforcing private insurance. Yet when the self proclaimed “moderate Republican” Obama implemented the same rebranded ACA/Obamacare, which coincides with his center-right ideology, the Republicans turned on that conservative policy and smeared it as “Socialism” and “Communist.” Explain that political hackery.
The so called “progressives” and “far left extremists” in the US are fairly left of center. They are Social Liberals/Social Democrats. While Social Liberalism took root in the rest of the developed world, soon after the New Deal in America it was subsequently abandoned for Corporatism and neoliberalism. These Social Liberals are very much the moderate in the rest of the developed world, where even conservative factions would be hard pressed to reject to an extent such programs as single payer healthcare, subsidized college, progressive tax reforms etc...
The moderate positions of Americans are overwhelmingly for such “progressive” policies as it’s right at the center of what majority of Americans support. The fact that you honestly believe Social Liberalism is far left is showing of your ignorance, and uneducated political hackery.
As an actual “far lefty” I laugh at your uneducated drivel, and recommend you read more or take political science courses in any form. You have exposed yourself as ignorant of politics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Xpistos510 socialism is the end of political government, for industrial administration, and autonomy of people. The reason I don’t support welfare capitalism, or social democracy is simple, it is state corporatism in it’s sincerest sense. Mussolini said it himself: “"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (1926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."
Now sure modern liberalism is better than unfettered capitalism, but it is only a band aid based on the state and the scraps of the capitalists, and not on the people, the working class, the social revolution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
NeanderthalRetardo wah. Tell me when Capitalists want to abolish the state and hierarchies and then I’ll take Capitalism seriously as a system of freedom.
You like Ludwig Von Mises must be happy the Fascists ended anarchist revolutions. I swear when Capitalist supporting fools act like they believe in greater freedom and autonomy than Anarchists just makes me laugh. Comeback when you find capitalism without government. Orwell is rolling in his grave the way they have successfully demonized socialism as he said authoritarians will change language to rule.
“The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
“I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy ‘proving’ that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the ‘mystique’ of ‘Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before. Partly, perhaps, this was due to the good luck of being among Spaniards, who, with their innate decency and their ever-present Anarchist tinge, would make even the opening stages of Socialism tolerable if they had the chance.” — George Orwell
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@therussiantrollnetwork7464 that’s Jewish religion. There are also ethnic Jews. Judaism is a culture, religion, and ethnicity. Race itself is a bullshit social construct. There are literally three races White, Black, Asian. And the basis of them are pseudoscience from the imperial ages. Anyway the point is moot. Nazi ideology was based in eugenics and racism. Hitler claimed the Jews were the most mixed ethnicity, therefore devoid of culture, roots, and nationality. Hence we say it was anti-semitism or racism. Honestly the whole concept of race should be contextualized and thrown to the trash bin. It’s not a good categorization of the human species. Ethnography is an actual scientific classification of species. Regardless people need to stop acting like Goldberg had anything intelligent to say, or gave any good analysis. Within context the Nazis were racist, cause they believed in racist pseudoscience and based their political ideology on the very concept of race (roots). Therefore in context the Nazis believed Jews had no race, and were a threat to pure bloodlines and eugenics.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sheepy2055 In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a] condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual's only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether "anarcho"-capitalists or right “libertarians” are actually interested in freedom.
And Anarchist societies aren’t mob rules. There is no archaic beliefs in race, sex, ethnicities etc... No minorities to discriminate against. It’s a society of workers solidarity. A free society of free individuals.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@theaeronautical9203 Here’s my take. None of the historical figures of America lived up to the promise of a liberal democratic republic. The patriots that took arms were inspired by the radical liberal society envisaged in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. After the Revolutionary War there was a counter-revolution of Federalists. They sought to consolidate power from the “rabble” and wished to replace the original confederacy with a federal centralized system. This allowed the merchant, and banking elite to consolidate economic social status and privileges. The Southern elite, the slave owners were against the Northern capitalist elites being in control of the Fed government so they opposed. Now Jefferson was a controversial figure. He had a radical liberal streak in the mind, but due to his social status and financial interests he remained a status quo bearer of southern elitism. The ideals of Jeffersonian democracy however are influential to any libertarian and liberal. Among the founders was Thomas Paine, synonymous with radical liberalism and republicanism in his age as Marx is with communism post WW2. After being the most important figure of the revolution, in radicalizing the colonists, he was ostracized by the other founders for being “too radical.” The truth is his support of actual liberal democratic republics threatened the status quo and elite status of most of the founders. He died in relative obscurity after calling for the first social welfare programs in the country (including early SS, and a UBI); and in Agrarian Justice penned the justice and need for a fair land distribution and that so long as there was poverty and social classes true liberty evades society. His work was the root of later Henry George’s economics and LVT.
“When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, there may that country boast its Constitution and its Government” - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
That’s what a liberal republic needs to strive for. The ideals that never came to fruition in America or elsewhere because of Statists and ruling elite classes. Or in the immortal words of Langston Hughes: “Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Eric Jorgensen no it was the result of the new ruling class asserting their liberty. After ending the rule of Aristocrats and noble blood, the bourgeois became the ruling class. Were they interested in Liberalism and Republicanism, yes! Did they also have liberal economics and their wealth and property in mind also, yes! And so Capitalism became the economic model by which the bourgeois capitalists became the new social elite.
If I were a classical liberal back then I’d be a capitalist too. But this mode of production and economy soon after would become another system of classification, disparities, and inequalities. Hence the social critics and socialists put this system under critical lens and developed alternatives.
Take the French Revolution. A liberal revolution in which a Republic was eventually formed and capitalism took root. Yet somewhere in that long road towards freedom the worker’s took control of Paris and developed a different society for the worker’s whereby they are not under the boots of capitalist masters. This was the Paris Commune. Inhabited by Anarchists and Marxists (all Socialists) they started the organization of a new society based on worker’s ownership of the means of production and Democratized industry, workers councils, self-management, delegates subject to recall etc... for once the common man in control of their lives and destinies. Of course Paris was soon taken back by the monarchy but the impact was not insignificant. And so the struggle for liberty, equality, and solidarity continues.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Machine Algorithm Alpha .... Homage to Catalonia was Orwell’s account of the anarchist communist society of Catalonia. It was the point where he was full on libertarian socialist. He wrote Animal Farm and 1984 after his experiences in Spain.
Orwell detested Soviet-style Communism – a belief strengthened when he ended up fighting Soviet-backed Communists during the Spanish civil war – Orwell went to Spain to fight against Fascism and for the Republican movement. As a member of the ILP, he joined a fraternal Spanish party – POUM – a small Marxist / Anarchist / Socialist grouping who had strong utopian Socialist ideals. Orwell loved their utopian Socialism.
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nickjohnson1424 do you have anything what left-right dichotomy means? You sound confused. Historically left wing is political, social, and economic positions of braking apart traditional hierarchies for more egalitarianism and less authority. Right wing meaning support of traditional hierarchies and authority. Since the French National Assembly this is what left/right dichotomy is. Since the radical liberals and revolutionaries sat on the left wing of the assembly, and on the right wing sat the monarchists, nobility, and clergy.
The USA is very center-right to further right. It’s support of neoliberal world order, which started with the Reagan-Thatcher governments implementation of neoliberal Chicago school economic policy. Left-right has nothing to do with social issues, other than support of lesser hierarchies or more on social traditions. For example, countries you would call Communist left have very conservative social positions. If you are socially progressive or conservative you’re left wing if you’re a civic libertarian or liberal; but if you have progressive or conservative social views and wish to impose them by authority on society you are socially right wing. The basis of being left or right is in the breaking down of hierarchic orders. There’s a reason the most extreme left position is anarchism aka libertarian socialism, it’s the most anti-hierarchy and anti-authoritarian position there can be. In todays political landscape capitalism is a right wing position for it’s support of the hierarchy of property owners and laboring underclasses. There are leftist positions that support free markets and are anti-capitalist. Capitalism isn’t synonymous with markets, and conveniently enough market socialism is seldom discussed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Katakuri Shārotto Capitalism was always Statist. It began when the State coerced peasants off their lands for private ownership. Those peasants moved into to urban industrial areas to be wage slaves. Capitalism has always been Statist. There’s a reason the first person to call himself Anarchist was a libertarian socialist and anti-capitalist.
"Capital" [...] in the political field is analogous to "government". [...] The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. [...] What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.” — Mutualist Pierre J Proudhon
Or how about what Benjamin Tucker, Free Market Anarchist said
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
Whether supportive of communism or free market socialism, anarchists are anti-capitalists, because they are anti-hierarchy.
3
-
Daniel Paul cause I’m an anti-statist libertarian socialist.... I lean anarcho-syndicalist but know that in a libertarian society communities would be free to develop their own anarchist social systems.
You on the other hand seem to be confused about “anarcho capitalism” which is a right wing ideology developed in the 20th century. And Mutualism which was developed by Proudhon, the first figure to call himself anarchist. Mutualism was his system of free market socialism. It was the root of free market anarchism and anarchist collectivism, communism and syndicalism. In case you don’t know socialists aren’t against markets, but against capitalism, which constitutes wage labor and private ownership of commons and the means of production. Now a communist looks forward to society without even markets, where distribution is made by needs and free to the commune for all. However this is because they believe communism would be superior system for a free society rather than distribution by market. Every socialist from Proudhon to Marx made a distinction that capitalism is the private ownership and wage labor, not markets. Most anarchists, myself included, are for society without markets, even socialist markets, but because we believe communism is better overall. We don’t conflate market economy with capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production. Markets can exist under socialism, as they have under feudal and slave societies. Markets are not synonymous with capitalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Raymond Flores Adam Smith? Several Classical Liberals were anti-capitalist. Since Thomas Hodgskin’s “Labor Defended From the Claims of Capital” and David Ricardo expanding the labor theory of value. This is what Individualist Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker has to say about Smith:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@blazetooth1 Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality of income so long as it comes with plenty of social mobility: it is simply the price paid for a dynamic economy. But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.
The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.
Mr Kerry's predecessor as the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore, was the son of a senator. Mr Gore, too, was educated at a posh private school, St Albans, and then at Harvard. And Mr Kerry's main challenger from the left of his party? Howard Brush Dean was the product of the same blue-blooded world of private schools and unchanging middle names as Mr Bush (one of Mr Bush's grandmothers was even a bridesmaid to one of Mr Dean's). Mr Dean grew up in the Hamptons and on New York's Park Avenue.
The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@FootballFanFlyingSaucer Lincoln’s party came from Hamiltonian American School of Economics. Meaning they were anti-free trade and for nationalist economics. This is not a stance I agree with, but Lincoln held illiberal economic views on foreign trade. He did however hold classical liberal views on labor and capital. The International Workingmen Association and Marxists therein supported Lincoln, and Marx even wrote him a letter congratulating him on a second term and victory for the end of slavery. Lincoln held proper views on labor’s place in the republic that modern Republicans would find “socialist.”
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion" (December 1, 1847).
"And I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world.” Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Hartford, Connecticut" (March 5, 1860)
"...the working men are the basis of all governments, for the plain reason that they are the most numerous..." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, "Speech to Germans at Cincinnati, Ohio" (February 12, 1861)
Had Lincoln live the Republican Party may have been a John Stuart Mill-esque liberal-socialist party. After his death the wealthy financiers and capitalists took over the party and the Republican Party was the party of the robber barons.
3
-
1776 left wing and right wing has nothing to do with social issues. That’s a distortion of the political spectrum. Since it’s origins in the French National Assembly during the Revolution leftism denotes political stances for limited authorities and greater egalitarianism. And Right wing denotes support of greater authorities and hierarchies. Hence why the leftists were radical liberals and Democrats, and the rightists were monarchists, aristocracy, and the clergy.
In the USA the American conservative is someone that believes in maintaining the Constitution, committed to liberal society and a democratic Republic. Whether you are socially progressive or conservative you aren’t left wing unless you believe in limited government and deconstructing concentrations of power. Both American parties are right wing, for explicit support of greater government in peoples lives, and support of corporate power consolidation or oligarchy. But modern Democrats are closer to the conservation of Status Quo and institutions ideals. The American conservative is a sociopolitical liberal, and a patriot that defends the values, ideals, and words of the American Constitution and traditional institutions that serve that purpose.
Today in the USA the establishment Democrats are the equivalent of what used to be called moderate Republicans/conservatives, or Rockefeller Republicans. The American conservative is liberal not authoritarian. Today’s Republicans are authoritative religious fundamentalists and corporate oligarchs. They are regressive authoritarian not conservative liberal. Don’t take it from me take it from genuine conservatives.
From conservative political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann’s “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance”:
“The framers designed a constitutional system in which the government would play a vigorous role in securing the liberty and well-being of a large and diverse population. They built a political system around a number of key elements, including debate and deliberation, divided powers competing with one another, regular order in the legislative process, and avenues to limit and punish corruption. America in recent years has struggled to adhere to each of these principles, leading to a crisis of governability and legitimacy. The roots of this problem are twofold. The first is a serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as polarized and vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a separation-of-powers governing system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. The second is the asymmetric character of the polarization. The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HarryS77 It’s not garbage at all. As a libertarian socialist I concur that welfare is only a necessity due to the corporate-monopolist economy we have. Social safety nets are a band aid, but long term we should be looking for alternatives that doesn’t tax the workers. Out of principle us libertarian socialists don’t agree with coerced taxation. The same way you may get good out of Welfare, the same way the State uses taxes for things you don’t want like adventurism, foreign conflicts, and corporate tax cuts. A proper UBI would be based on ground rent and land value taxation. Social programs is giving scraps to the workers that are robbed through taxation and the monopolists and land owners. Since after WW2 the majority of developed countries have been social democratic and what is the socialist analysis of those systems? That it empowers capital, does nothing to end the monopolies that surrounds us, and have stability at the expense of underdeveloped nations and their labor force. I really hope people start realizing that leftism is the goal of limiting government, and concentrated powers and hierarchies, if not outright abolishing them. The problem with trying to solve problems with public ownership, nationalization, and social programs is, apart from heavy taxation, it depends on the faith of good government. I can’t believe that is any good system where it depends on your type of politicians to remain in power. Whenever opposition gets the power they’ll chip away at those reforms or tweak them. A system based on the belief of good government, as if their ever were such a thing, is doomed to failure. There’s a reason the goal of socialism proper is replacing government institutions with social organization and worker owned industry.
That said Yang’s UBI isn’t based on geoism, and wouldn’t be as effective. In fact it sucks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scratchpenny the problem is Americans not understanding. Anarchism is socialist because only a socialist socioeconomics pushes for a classless society without hierarchy. Be that communism or market socialism. Also in America unfortunately left wing is synonymous with more government, which isn’t historically accurate, and right wing with limited government which is also not completely accurate. Since the French Revolution the Left Wing means political stance of less authority, and Right Wing with more authority.
In America this stems from believing leftism has manifested in institutional government reforms, and conservatism means preserving a more liberal democratic republic, and therefore a limited government system. Which is partly true, but neglects the fact that American conservatism also traditionally holds social attitudes that conserve hierarchies based in ethnicity, sex, gender, and social class. And while much leftist positions have been achieved through government reform, it’s done from the bottom-up to push government to a more liberal stance.
I agree that the American left’s reliance on government reform is problematic which is why we advocate the left to return to its roots of free association, anti-statism, and limited authority. Many don’t realize the government or State is the source of our problems including the corporate hegemony. Therefore we push for libertarian communism and free market socialism.
The cool thing about American right wingers is they preserve a spirit of liberalism, independence, and limited authority so classical liberals make good allies to leftist libertarian socialists. But the only thing that holds the American right from alliance is social tyrannical views of hierarchy such as patriarchy, homogeneity, religious fundamentalism etc... Which is why libertarians urge right wing classical liberals or minarchists to help us push for a cultural change and promote civic libertarianism instead of the social tyranny of traditional social conservatism. The problem isn’t people holding socially conservative views, only that they try to legislate and control their morality upon society. There’s also a problem in American conservatism that they believe capitalism constitutes a free market economy. It doesn’t. Liberal economics is one thing, capitalism is another. Under the capitalist system we have a corporate hegemony and monopolist economy that the leaders of conservatism and therefore many conservatives do not criticize or find problematic. They actually have the nerve to call our current system a free market economy. When it’s propped up the State and monopolies. This is why we need to push our right wing allies to accepting that capitalism isn’t about free markets, as a property owning class needs the State. So we remind them of our history and expose the modern capitalist system by teaching them about free market anti-capitalism (market socialism) and it’s American past. Individualist anarchism and mutualism exposes the grift and shows them that free markets too are of the socialist Left. So we promote the ideas of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Pierre J Proudhon.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@williamcrosby3863 your excuse is that communications were slow? What are you saying that they abolished slavery in 76’ and it took to 1863 to deliver the messages? Lol It’s simple economics. The minority elite of the land owning slaver south wanted to keep their antiquated economic and social system no matter what. Hence why it lasted so long. The slave owning class were influential in government and held the wealth of the south. It took a civil war and force to put those pseudo aristocratic bitches in their place. Yes America is great in spite of itself. By that I mean that the American Republic are founded on beautiful principles and values that have been an ongoing struggle to fulfill. And that Americans have had to drag other Americans onto progress and freedom. The American Revolution is far from done.
“The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general—not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white.”
“…there is no difference…between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”
Lysander Spooner
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alex Smith You have a clear broad brush to view liberals, in fact you sound like you think SJWs are the liberal left. Careful there are some who think college kids high on liberalism are a threat to American society, like they’re a bigger issue than healthcare, wars, war on drugs, income inequality etc... I wouldn’t want you to go full on anti-SJW and forget the real issues. I’m sure conservatives thought the same of the hippies and psychedelics of the 60’s. And you know you have your faith, but this is a secular nation. Pro-life sentiment is completely based on religious beliefs and trying to force others to adhere to those beliefs is theocratic. Therefore government should not interfere on such personal matters merely cause it conflicts with some folks religion. Your faith is your own, not the nations. As for weed, it’s about time it became a prominent legal industry that boosts economies. Tobacco capitalists lobbied hard to get rid of marijuana as a rival industry to their tobacco and cigarette markets. Ever since the government made a non harmful drug a “moral” issue as excuses to keep it illegal. Truth is it would be a sprawling industry that would give cigarettes competition and take market shares, and they can’t have that. As for gender identities, social constructs are generated from millennia of conventional beliefs and some feel the need to challenge them. Well as someone who supports individualism what do I care what someone sees themselves as, they can believe they are who or whatever they want to be, as long as they do not seek the harm or taking of rights of others. SJWs have growing to do, but they aren’t the leaders or even main group of the left.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Derek Hitt you don’t understand Fascism, no one here does apparently. Fascism isn’t just authoritarianism, there are many forms of authoritarianism, fascism being one of them. Actual Fascism is a political doctrine calling for a Corporate State. That doesn’t mean control by business corporations either. Corporatism is when there is an institutional infrastructure of collective bargaining in all aspects of social, economic, and political life. It’s a Nationalist Syndicalism where business owners and workers collectively bargain and form “corporations” to express their interests. Fascism is basically interests groups collectively bargaining at a national level with government oversight. It’s also nationalist and supports the nation-state as the ultimate organism that expresses collective will of the nation.
Trump isn’t a Fascist, he’s a neoliberal authoritarian with right wing populist rhetoric. He’s a kakistocrat and a kleptocrat. He’s part of the ruling class, the property owners and wealthy capitalists. He’s part of the horrendous NYC elites for goodness sake. The wealthy elites agree with Trump’s standard Republican legislation of tax cuts, deregulation, and supply side economics. He’s one of them, the only thing they don’t like is his personality cult and how he causes social unrest which hurts their bottom line. If he behaved they’d like him more, but he causes economic instability so they’re going to push him out.
As a free market anarchist, Trump is not an ally to liberty, he’s a problem and an ally to power concentration and the neoliberal world order. He’s just too stupid to be respected by his peers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ecléctico Iconoclasta Socialism is the transition towards Communism. I think you’re having a difficulty distinguishing Libertarian/Anarchist Socialism from Statist Marxist Socialism. Communism isn’t defined by State ownership. That’s Marxist-Leninism. The Paris Commune was far more Libertarian than Marxist-Leninist States and Marx applauded the efforts of the Parisian’s taking controls of the means of production. You’re defining Communism as solely Marxist-Leninist Statism. Socialism existed before Marx and it will exist after. The left wing Anarchist strands support worker’s collectives, councils, democratized workplaces and federal decentralized organization. Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchist Socialism. No Anarchist supports Capitalism or the State. The strands of Socialism/Communism are Libertarian and Statist. There are Communists who oppose the State. Cold War propaganda may have people believing all Socialism is State ownership of industry, but that is a half ass definition that undermines the history of Socialism. Worker’s, social, community ownership all essentially mean the same thing. It’s Marxist-Leninists who believe in the party dictatorship on behalf of a ruling working class. But that is debatable as being true social ownership. Bakunin was an Anarchist that opposed Marxism. He advocated Socialism of the Libertarian variety. This century’s definition of Socialism is essentially government subsidies, welfare, and nationalization. This does not address Socialism’s focus on class struggle, opposition to private property, wage labor, classless society, and social ownership such as in worker coops, and post-Capitalism. At some point State Capitalism became synonymous with Socialism, which even Lenin would disagree with. This assault on language and terminology was something George Orwell warned about. Socialism and Communism has been stripped of true clear meaning as people have described anything they oppose as Socialist or Communist. Ultimately Socialism is a post-Capitalist socioeconomic system in which the means of production are socially owned by workers as opposed to private ownership. And Communism is a Stateless, moneyless, and classless socioeconomic organization or society, in which property and the means are commonly or collectively owned by the workers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Objective Viewer will you hear yourself? “Empire” like that has ever been a progressive form of State.
Actually Libertarian Anarchist communes have existed and they succeeded in forming socialist societies free of government and institutions of hierarchies and coercion. Such as the Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, Rojava, Free Territory Ukraine etc...
These societies functioned in decentralized free associations in federal organization. They abolished the State, and any coercive agents. They implemented Socialist economies (worker’s ownership of the means of production) and lived in solidarity and general happiness. The only reason they aren’t around is cause Capitalist interests and the old governments won the wars ultimately where they had been established.
Take Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia for example. The author George Orwell immortalized them in his “Homage to Catalonia.” It was the most liberated society he ever witnessed, he was enamored with the Anarchists, he fought along side them against Fascist Franco, and was a staunch Democratic Socialist ever since.
You see Libertarianism (Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism) are the next step in Classical Liberal values of liberty and equality.
All innovations and advancements aren’t driven by individual greed or profit. They are driven by passion for one’s work and knack for doing what they love. By allowing resources to the benefit of the worker and communities. Capitalism is a grotesque system where due to commodity production and profit motivation while there is enough produce to end world hunger or shelter the homeless it is not so. Individual actors would not do anything were it not incentivized by individual profit.
“Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.” - Albert Einstein
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
michael lovullo I mean none of that has happened though. The side of the aisle you’re talking about is collegiate social liberals, literally middle class scholars. Leftists are working class promoters of socialism, and at the most radical anarchism, the abolishment of the State for free and voluntary associations. Also the liberation of the underdeveloped world from corporate imperialism. Literally why so many global south nations are socialist. Take it from George Orwell
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Daniel Austrian economics is economic retardation. The neoliberal age inspired by those shmucks is hated by everyone except the rich. The wealth inequality is ever widening and as you can see around the globe people are looking to change that world order. Austrian and Chicago School were the elites wet dream. They have you believing a system of inequality, coercion, and hierarchy has anything to do with freedom. No wonder the Capitalists historically allied with Fascists, you morons who defend the wealthy make it too easy. There is enough resource in the world to end world hunger and shelter the homeless, yet under an economy motivated by self interest and profit you see more disparities, poverty, and social ills.
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society." - Albert Einstein
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@uncomfortabletruth3831 as a matter of fact not all socialist schools rationalize anti-market sentiments. In fact the most radical free market advocates I know were libertarian socialists. If you’re interested in the US there was an Individualist Anarchist school which advocated stateless free markets, and to form a more rational and scientific economy based on economic and social science studies. Benjamin Tucker is the big name of this movement among others. He said: “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
And the first philosopher to identify as an Anarchist said this of Socialism: “Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.” - Proudhon
Imagine Socialism if you will as a technocracy, an industrial republic instead of government, where worker’s self-management and economic associations form social relations, and the State have been abolished. If you’re curious of what such a society may look like I recommend George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia” if you can get a copy of it. It’s his account of experience in Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Anarchist-Syndicalism was the predominant movement of Socialism at the time rivaling Marxism. I’d also recommend a glance on the Wikipedia page on Syndicalist or Revolutionary Catalonia. Mahknoschivna might also be of interest. Or if you’re looking for more modern examples the EZLN (Zapatistas) in Mexico or Rojava in Syria are modern examples of libertarian/anarchist social revolutions going on now.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gettuffstudios and? Nothing you said has come to pass. I see people eager for a roof over their head and ready to work for a living. They are here because America is a land of opportunity. Not so much now but that is the fault of our government and these monopolist tyrants. In order for an actual free market to be we have to fight against these monopolies, and government corruption. I understand the plight of these immigrants and they are desperate for relief, huddled masses yearning to be free. It is for us to fix our situation so that immigrants like these will truly be in a free world. You see the liberal future is one of loose and open borders, which will have no strains on our economy once we get the monopolies and corruption out. The only reason immigration seems scary (apart from xenophobia and certainly racism on the part of some) is because our shit economy is fucked. But this isn’t because of the poor and powerless, it is because of the rich and powerful, the politicians, the Trumps, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushs etc… and the corporate conglomerates. I desire nothing more than these people let in and welcome them to our republic. Unfortunately it is a republic in crisis thanks to illiberal parties, and corrupt elite. These thieves can fuck right off they’ve stolen more from me than any immigrants ever have. I have more in common with immigrants than I do assholes. They are welcomed, the elites have to be put in their place or they can get out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sarahnerd1950 leftists look at “western civilization” and see a talking point of ethno-nationalists and racial supremacists. Because the far right it as meaning “European” or “white” civilization. Protecting “western civilization” were the exact words of Nazis to justify their anti-semifinal and racialist fascism. Forgive the world for being skeptical of it’s use considering it’s usage.
It ironic that “leftism” is about “destroying western civilization.” Western civilization is a collection of mixed ideals, and cultures from Mediterranean, to Egyptian, to Near Eastern, to African, and indigenous Americas etc... And to that point Marxism (which I’m not by the way), socialism, anarchism all grew out of Western Philosophy. Marx was a student of Hegel, inspired by enlightenment thinkers and philosophies expanding the cult of rationalism and scientific reasoning. Classical radical liberals were secular, anti-clerical, and pushed reason and materialism over religious spiritual tyranny of the mind. Marxist’s historical materialism was only an expansion of such thought. Thomas Paine the father of liberal Republicanism was an ardent anti-cleric and pursued liberty and equality all he went. The motive and pattern of “western civilization” is striving for greater freedom and egalitarian societies. No wonder liberals were inspired by the indigenous tribes they came to encounter, their system of no rigid hierarchy and near governmentless societies living harmoniously without tyranny. The history of western civilization since the Greeks was a focus on the individual on the basis of society. Anarchy follows, mankind shall not be freed until, as egoist Max Stirner put it, we are free of “spooks” such as statism, nationalism, private property, borders, nation-states and every other imaginary social constructs made to limit the ego/the individual to conform to social expectations and beliefs.
As egoist anarchist Max Stirner and libertarian socialist Proudhon put it:
“Political liberty,” what are we to understand by that? Perhaps the individual’s independence of the State and its laws? No; on the contrary, the individual’s subjection in the State and to the State’s laws... Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery.” — Max Stirner
"Capital" [...] in the political field is analogous to "government". [...] The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. [...] What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.” — Pierre J Proudhon
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Silverdeathgamer290 Before we can say whether an anarchist future is possible, we should start by saying what exactly anarchism is. Emma Goldman, the great American anarchist, defined it in 1910 as “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law.” Anarchists believe that all forms of government—be it a liberal democracy or a socialist state—are based on violence and coercion. To sum it up: government equals tyranny.
Many of you might agree with that basic idea that state power is necessarily coercive, yet wonder if there really is an alternative. Perhaps we must suffer some degree of tyranny at the hands of government in order to guarantee certain public goods, like education, health care, and infrastructure. And don’t we need the state to ensure law and order? Who would protect us, if we didn’t have police and a judicial system?
In light of the many stories in the news these days about police racism and brutality, and the lack of accountability for such abuses of power, some of you are probably scoffing at the thought that police are there to protect and serve. And given the astounding number of people incarcerated in US prisons, many of which are run by private companies for profit, it’s a little difficult to take seriously the idea that the criminal justice system is working for the good of (all) the people.
But we should be careful not to damn all government over the particular failures of one. There may be deep injustices in the US criminal justice system, but perhaps those are best tackled by reform, not by abolishing state power completely.
Let’s set aside criminal justice for a moment and think about civil justice. Without the coercive power of the state, how do we enforce agreements and protect people’s legitimate interests? For example, let’s say you and I make an agreement with one another, and I pay you to do a particular job, like painting my house. Let’s say I pay you the full amount, but you rip me off by not completing the job. Under an anarchist social order, how can I protect my interests when there can be no legal sanctions or deterrents? What kind of recourse would I have, if there are no laws and no state authority to enforce them? What's to stop everyone from cheating one another?
Under any social order, be it liberal democracy or anarchy, cheating customers just seems like a bad business model. You would never get repeat business and surely word would spread about your shady practices, and you’d have difficulty building your livelihood in this way. Yet, despite this, people do cheat one another all the time. Obviously, then, our current system does not prevent that from happening, so the mere existence of the state is not itself a deterrent for cheaters. Moreover, you’d have to have a very dim (and, I’d say, unrealistic) view of humanity if you think an honest, hard-working person would suddenly become a scoundrel and a thief because the state is not controlling everything anymore.
Moreover, an anarchist might argue, if people had more autonomy—if they were able to decide for themselves what kind of lives they wanted to lead, what kind of work they wanted to do, and how to spend their time—maybe then there would actually be less cheating.
Is anarchy the only way to give everyone greater autonomy in their lives? The anarchist thinks so—the mere existence of the state and its arbitrary coercive power undermines personal autonomy because we never explicitly consented to live under its authority. Sure, some of us get to vote for representatives at different levels of government from federal to state and local, but once elected, these so-called “representatives” make their own decisions that may or may not be what their constituents want or need. And so often the choice we are given is between Tweedledum or Tweedledee, with one just about as bad as the other. It’s hard to see how that is that anything but arbitrary.
While I find this line of thought persuasive, again, I think it’s important to distinguish between how things happen to go in the US, and how things must go in any liberal democracy. The two certainly come apart, which begs the question: what’s the best way to tackle these problems—reform the state or abolish it? For example, if the US had a multi-party system elected by proportional representation, like they do Denmark (which is often touted as the best example of a functioning liberal democracy), would this give us the kind of personal autonomy the anarchist wants? Or, do even the Danes need to be freed from the tyranny of the state?
In the end, it all comes down to one issue. Do we give up some of our autonomy because we get some things that only the state can provide? The anarchist might say we suffer from a lack of imagination, that we can achieve many great things working together without any hierarchical coercive structures in place.
The Church and Aristocrats also spoke ill of Liberalism. Decried it as radical nonsense that wasn’t plausible. Each progress towards liberation has been treated by the establishment as fantastical and impossible. That won’t stop humanity from seeking more liberty, equality, and solidarity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
And in the 20th century God, Most High, said "let there be Music". And the music became incarnate, and these four mighty individuals were giving mastery over each realm of the craft respectively.
The 'Golden God' was given power over the fires of the stars, light, and given the voice of the gods, whose wails could enamor and seduce even the Devils. His wails shall be heard till the end times, till that godly essence returns to it's source. And the 'Golden Lion' of Albion was given grace and a mane of golden locks.
'The Wizard' was given wisdom in the magical arts and powers over thunder and lightning. He used his white magic to power his string instruments to perform the most beautiful and godly of melodies. Together with 'the Lion', 'the Mage Sage' would create poetry to soothe the people's souls, convey the emotions that protrude over man, and part the wisdom of the gods.
And 'the Beast' with the power of strength, whom the ancients called 'Bonzo', would have control over the earth, creating quakes that shake the very foundations of Earth. It is said that he could at will destroy entire cities for his stomps shook the very ground. And his power, precision, and speed are unequaled to this day. With his groove, 'the earth Shatterer', managed the adoration of the peoples.
The base of this godly group, who like foundations held this group together was a being of great wealth, wisdom, creativeness, and solitariness. The aristocrat would lead a quiet life, preferring to remain in his abode, working on his ingenious inventions and compositions. Recognized as the most intelligent man in the world in the art of music, 'the genius' was an instrumental Renaissance man with mastery over all manner of instruments. In the like of such individuals as Da Vinci, Nostradamus, and Cayce. Endowed with wisdom, psychical, and prophetic gifts, he shared his wisdoms with man.
These musical gods, who chose to convey the godly message through the Rock genre, were sent by the Heavenly Father, to be a beacon to mankind, a reminder of the beauty, power, and creative capabilities of God's children when one with the Holy Spirit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Susan Bones there is a huge misconception that socialism is anti/markets. No it’s anti-capitalism. Historically socialism developed from classical radical liberalism.
Adam Smith advocated for free markets. His successor David Ricardo expanded on the labor theory of value. John Stuart Mill advocated worker cooperatives as the only way for a free society to organize industry. And was against standard wage labor. Thomas Hodgskin would also write works like “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital.” Classical liberals were precursory to socialist economics.
You should look up the Free Market Anarchists also called Individualist Anarchists. An American strain of Proudhon Mutualism, they are fellow libertarian socialists and perhaps the most radical school of market socialism. Evidently you can be socialist and support free markets. In fact to socialists free markets, truly free markets not capitalism, inevitably lead to a socialist socioeconomics.
Or as Individualist Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker put it:
“ The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
2
-
Neilson Truong yeah you realize that government intervention in economics on behalf of the property owners is what socialists call “capitalism” right? The system we’ve been raging against since the mid-19th century. It’s in the name Capital-ism, the ideology of the property owners. It is the Statist system anarchists and other socialists would like to abolish for either communism (stateless and classless society where the city/township is the only matter of politics and the workers own industry) or market socialism (socialist organization with market distribution system). We don’t like capitalism because it’s statist and sustains itself via an underclass of labor to exploit and concentrations of monopolist private powers. Hence why libertarian socialists aka anarchists are strictly anti-statist, anti-government. Under truly free markets socialism reigns. As Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker said :
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
whyamimrpink78 No dipshit, you are a capitalist if you own capital, the factors of production, property. What are you dense? Learn some actual history and reality. The Capitalist system while functioning within a market economy, is not synonymous with market economy, nor the only mode of production a market oriented economy can have. It is also a distortion of free market and liberal principles in being a system of a ruling capitalist socioeconomic elite, devoid of the labor theory of value supported by liberal economists. The value of capital over labor is not adhering to liberal ideals. Socialists and liberals, like John Stuart Mill, are the ones who hold the labor theory of value.
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” — Abraham Lincoln State of the Union Address 1861
“And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Fragments of a Tariff Discussion"
2
-
whyamimrpink78 So the term capitalist existed first as a pejorative by liberals to mock the merchants who are favored by states and form an elite business class, the very system Adam Smith criticized.
Capitalism is the system of private proprietors accumulating wealth and capital (land, machines, tools, factories, buildings, money etc...) for profit, using commodity production produced by a working class exploited out of the value of their labor. And they also become big business elites as they receive State favors. Moron no one who labors their entire life becomes exceedingly wealthy, they exploit the labor of others to do so. How are dolts like you still believing Capitalism is anything like what Classical liberals supported? The very term Capitalism implies the dominance of capital, of capitalists, of the owner class, in society.
economic privilege is a real and pervasive social problem, but that the problem is not a problem of private property, competition, or profits per se. It is not a problem of the market form but of markets deformed – deformed by the long shadow of historical injustices and the ongoing, continuous exercise of legal privilege on behalf of capital.
2
-
Pedro Tavarez Lol Capitalism is good at creating and concentrating wealth into the hands of a privileged minority alright, hence why back when Americans were self-employed, family farmhands, artisans etc... they pushed back against industrial capitalism, where they sell their labor to proprietors, get paid a wage not at all the value of their labor, and work under conditions of the wealthy.
Dumbass in a socialist market dominated by worker’s self management and cooperatives, worker’s associations the actual markets liberals dreamed of will come true. Just end the capitalist system sustained by the State, and remove the government from giving capitalists privileges and favors.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system that pushes for classless society and worker’s ownership moron. I don’t think you’d know more than Socialist figures like John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Oscar Wilde, Proudhon, Albert Einstein, Dr. King, George Orwell, David Henry Thoreau etc....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Majin Troll In a right-libertarian or “anarcho”-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, “the libertarian defines the concept of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. . .[as a] condition in which a person’s ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand.”
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another’s property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual’s only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether “anarcho”-capitalists are actually interested in freedom.
Looking at Rothbard’s definition of “liberty” quoted above, we can see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental, independent concept. Instead, freedom is a derivative of something more fundamental, namely the “legitimate rights” of an individual, which are identified as property rights. In other words, given that “anarcho”-capitalists and right libertarians in general consider the right to property as “absolute,” it follows that freedom and property become one and the same. This suggests an alternative name for the right Libertarian, namely “Propertarian.” And, needless to say, if we do not accept the right-libertarians’ view of what constitutes “legitimate” “rights,” then their claim to be defenders of liberty is weak.
Another important implication of this “liberty as property” concept is that it produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as noted, is no longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property — which has the important consequence that you can “sell” your liberty and still be considered free by the ideology. This concept of liberty (namely “liberty as property”) is usually termed “self-ownership.” But, to state the obvious, I do not “own” myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity — I am myself. However, the concept of “self-ownership” is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression — for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can “sell” (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the “free market”). In effect, “self-ownership” becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects — ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As L. Susan Brown notes, “at the moment an individual ‘sells’ labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another’s will.” [The Politics of Individualism]
Ironically, the rights of property (which are said to flow from an individual’s self-ownership of themselves) becomes the means, under capitalism, by which self-ownership of non-property owners is denied. The foundational right (self-ownership) becomes denied by the derivative right (ownership of things). Under capitalism, a lack of property can be just as oppressive as a lack of legal rights because of the relationships of domination and subjection this situation creates.
You lack understanding of the history of Socialism as a broad ideology. From Libertarian Anarchist forms to Statist and Marxist forms. From Socialist Markets of Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker informed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo of the Enlightenment, to the mutual aid economies of Kropotkin, and Bakunin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christiangonzalez6945 your argument is based on nothing of substance. Though I agree no one knows what fascism is. Antifa is literally the polar opposite, it’s anarchists, far leftists. Antifa is critical of state, hierarchy, and capitalism. Again it’s based in anarchist direct action.
Fascism is a political doctrine that advocates a Corporate State, basically a nationalist syndicalism where every special interest of business and labor sectors collectively bargain under government oversight.
Antifa is opposed to corporate hegemony, Democrats, Republicans, Statists etc.... It has adherents in Europe, Latin America, North America, Oceania, Africa etc....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gcnstudio ummm socialism isn’t against that even. Socialism is wanting to replace wage labor with labor associations. Economic democracy. And while some are communists, there are market socialists that support free markets. America has a history of it. Look up Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner. All socialists for free markets. And all anti-capitalists. Even socialists outdo capitalists in support of free markets. Before Marx, socialism grew out of radical liberalism and were the original libertarians. A communist coined the term libertarian in fact, Joseph Dejacque. And Proudhon, a libertarian socialist, described socialism as such: “Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Socialism has no need of Marxist Statism. Libertarian socialists were before Marx, opposed Marx, and continue to be after Marx. I myself advocate free market socialism and anti-capitalism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well the cause for political factions is class distinctions, so unless equilibrium is reached in socioeconomics expect class interests to play a role. Than you have the ideological rift. Liberal vs Conservative. Proper conservatism is about hindering radical progress to maintain order and stability. Proper liberalism seeks to advance and progress. Jefferson said that the ideological division will always be those who distrust the common people to look after themselves and choose aristocracy/oligarchy. And those who have faith in the common people to know what’s in their best interest, if not always making the wisest of decisions. Jefferson identified with the latter, a democratic anti-Federalist. Washington wanted to avoid factionalism, but politics in itself is the administration of a polity. Perhaps the best way to avoid factionalism is a more decentralized model of bottom-up republicanism. Subsidiarity as it were. People making decisions from the local > county > state > national. This was the vision of Ward Republics Jefferson held. Though the Federalists were nationalists not concerned about political administration, but in national state’s crafting (creating a nation-state). However there has to be a way to equilibrate class antagonisms, or undo it, if there is ever to be no factional interests. The Founding Fathers did not have the advancements of science, technology , sociology, and economics we have today. What we need is a political and economic reformation and restructuring. Otherwise revolution it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Scott Ferguson as free as you think you are in a capitalist economy you aren’t. Capitalism depends on the owners of capital being the ruling interest of the State. They get legislative favors that prevents full fledged competition but enables the usuries of profit, rent, and interest.
The classical liberals that advocated free markets did not support capitalism. Adam Smith thought of landowners and rentiers parasites getting income off of no industry. David Ricardo further developed labor theory from Adam Smith. John Stuart Mill rejected the capitalist relationship and asserted the socialist worker co-op as the industrial model best suited for a free society. Thomas Hodgskin also was critical of capitalism as it was developing in his time. He defended labor and was one of the early liberals to develop class analysis. “Labor Defended From the Claims of Capital” was his work focused on capitalists taking from labor. There is a direct line form classical liberalism to socialism. And from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism. In the early 19th century the term “capitalist” was a negative term used by liberals to attack those merchants and commercial men that succeeded off of favors and privileges from State rule. The term “capitalism” was later created by socialists to call the economic system of labor exploitation they opposed. It wasn’t until the split from classical liberalism to neoliberalism in the 20th century that capitalist economists started to call the capitalist system as old free market enterprise. Those economists that followed classical liberal economists developed many various socialist economics and especially market socialism. As Free Market Socialist, Benjamin Tucker put it:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Expendable4 H00 capitalism is based off certain property rights and owners of capital accumulating more capital and wealth through the exploitation of labor and an underclass of labor, selling labor for WAGES. It is based off profit motive.
Socialism has had liberal and libertarian/anarchist forms since the 19th century. The socialist Owenites were the first advocates of worker coops. The Paris Commune was a liberal democratic socialist short lived revolution. Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia was the largest anarchist revolution. Maybe don’t speak if you don’t know.
Here’s what Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker had to say about the classical liberal roots of socialism:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
2
-
2
-
@expendable4h002 completely misinterpreting. If you want to know how it works look up the revolutions and material. Start with classical liberalism and move on to Proudhon, Mikhail, Kropotkin, Tucker, Spooner, Warren, Luxembourg, Goldman etc...
There is no individual choice in starving and haven't capital so you sell labor to survive. The underclasses are just propagandized and subjugated by the ruling elite and their apparatus of control, the State. Successfully demonize socialism, anarchism, and make them see what you want them to.
capitalism isn’t synonymous with markets. Markets existed long before a socioeconomic system of proprietors relying on wage work for the accumulation of wealth and capital. Capitalism is very much a system of the primacy of capital, the rule of wealth, plutocracy.
Classical liberals were even critical of capitalism, the word capitalist was a pejorative for those merchants and owners of capital whom received privileges and favors from State authority, so that they maintain monopolistic practices.
Early liberals advocates for industrial democracy and what today is called Market Socialism. David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Thomas Hodgskin etc... several were self proclaimed socialists, as socialism was understood as those who hold the labor theory of value, and against the primacy of capital over labor, or a ruling business elite. Hodgskin’s “Labour defended against the claims of Capital” is one of the earliest works of class struggle and socialist principle. Such sentiments continued in liberal circles unto Abraham Lincoln and the modern socialist movements.
As Lincoln said: "And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Or...
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Conductor Esplin I’m not just any socialist. I’m a Libertarian Socialist we are Anarchists. If you think libertarian socialism is an oxymoron I recommend you look up the history first. Lots of pro capitalists think they invented the term. Socialism comes in many flavors as does capitalism. We have anarchists, Marxists, liberal socialism (real Democratic Socialism), Market Socialists and Marxist-Leninists (authoritarianism). As capitalism has liberal capitalism, State Capitalists, Corporative Fascism, authoritarians like Pinochet etc...
Shame you dismiss all Socialism as government control or Statism. It’s annoying as imagine if we measured all capitalism by Fascist Corporatism (as seen in Fascist States of Italy, Germany, Spain) or dictatorships like Pinochet’s. Lot of people are practically indoctrinated to think all Socialism is Marxist-Leninist, not true. Socialism gave birth to the first anti-Statist and anti-authoritarian political ideology, anarchism.
In any case rest easy, Bernie Sanders isn’t an actual socialist. He wants Welfarism and isn’t going to get rid of capitalism anytime soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@libertybell5796 you think Founding Fathers was just the usual suspects? That’s an epithet they give to every important figure of the revolution and transition towards the American Republic. Including Crispus Attucks who didn’t do much but was seen as the first casualty of the struggle towards independence. It’s well known that at first the Americans wanted fair representation, and voice in parliament. They didn’t resort to independence until it was seen as the only measure to get their ideal social order. Even then the public wasn’t exactly up in arms. That is until the man synonymous with radical liberalism and republicanism, Thomas Paine, penned Common Sense and radicalized the colonialists towards a vision of a radical liberal democratic republic. Of course the Federalists ruined his vision and Paine spent the rest of his life criticizing what became of the Republic, and the loss of the revolution. Paine’s was shunned by the more famous “founding fathers” for being “too radical” and died in obscurity. They couldn’t handle his proposals of fair land distribution, of the first social welfare programs (SS and UBI), and anti-slavery. Thomas Paine unlike the rest wasn’t part of the ruling elite that were concerned for property and financial interests.
“When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.” — Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dr.gheese3727 authoritarians playing at anarchism classic! Anarchy is Order! And Anarchy is anti-statist socialism. I’ve always supported an AnCap society in any one of the States just to prove itself not anarchist. There is no stateless society when property and land are accumulated to capitalists. Anarchy is voluntary socialism based on Max Stirner egoism (a radical individualism). Our guns are to prevent tyrants in private, social, and economic life. The first man to call for Anarchy (libertarian socialism) said:
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
“Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property.”
“"Capital" in the political field is analogous to "government". The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.”
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. We are socialists under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theaeronautical9203 I beg to differ. Trump’s tax cuts were standard corporate hegemonic, and those of lower classes weren’t permanent, wouldn’t even last a decade last time I checked. The Republicans and Democrats are not interested in a fair taxation. Democrats, I might get flack for this, and progressives believe alleviation comes through tax redistribution and strengthening the social welfare programs. Even as a libertarian socialist I have no problems with welfare today, as many people struggle under this system, though ultimately welfarism isn’t the solution I would advocate. It’s a band aid on the state capitalist system. The best taxes would be Georgist kind. Not only is LVT, and other such taxes on public utilities, economically sound they go along way in limiting the State, and distributing to the citizens. Even a neoliberal economist like Milton Friedman saw the economic genius of an LVT tax. As a socialist I don’t like the notion of involuntary taxes, but a taxation for the privatization of public resources is not only ethical, it is just. So long as we have a State, such taxes wouldn’t be crippling. I hate when workers get taxed their wages, incomes, salaries etc....
Capitalism is a statist system entrenched in the privileged and elite status of property owners. True radical free markets are of a socialist bend. Libertarian socialists support either market socialism, or libertarian communism, both coexisting in a libertarian society. In America there was a strain of libertarian market socialists, known as individualist anarchists, and free market anarchists. Since the 19th century they exposed capitalism for the tyranny it is, and advocated a libertarian enterprise system of market socialism. Free market socialism allows us a better critique of political economy, and to see what really goes on in the “free market” of capitalism. Welfare is minuscule compared to to robbery done by monopolies, and capitalists.
If your resentment is directed downward against the “underclass” and recipients of welfare-for-the-poor, it’s most definitely misdirected.
First, let’s look at the little picture, and consider the net effects of state policy on the actual recipients of welfare. Consider how state policies on behalf of land owners and real estate investors, like the enforcement of absentee title to vacant and unimproved land, drives up rents and closes off access to cheap living space. Consider how licensing schemes and “anti-jitney” laws, zoning laws against operating businesses out of one’s home or out of pushcarts, and regulations that impose needless capital outlays and entry barriers or overhead costs, close off opportunities for self-employment. And consider how zoning restrictions on mixed-use development and other government promotions of sprawl and the car culture increase the basic cost of subsistence. You think the money spent on welfare for the poor equals that drain on the resources of the underclass?
Next, look at the big picture. Consider the total rents extracted from society as a whole by the dominant economic classes: The inflation of land rent and mortgages by the above-mentioned absentee titles to unimproved land; the usurious interest rates resulting from legal tender laws and restraints on competition in the supply of credit; the enormous markups over actual production cost that result from copyrights, patents and trademarks; the oligopoly markup (once estimated by the Nader Group at around 20% of retail price in industries dominated by a handful of firms) in industries cartelized by government regulations and entry barriers …
Now consider, out of this vast ocean of rents extracted by state-connected parasites, the miniscule fraction that trickles back to the most destitute of the destitute, in the form of welfare and food stamps, in just barely large enough quantities to prevent homelessness and starvation from reaching high enough levels to destabilize the political system and threaten the ruling classes’ ability to extract rents from all of us. The state-allied landlords, capitalists and rentiers rob us all with a front-end loader, and then the state — THEIR state — uses a teaspoon to relieve those hardest hit.
Every time in history the state has provided a dole to the poorest of the poor — the distribution of free grain and oil to the proletariat of Rome, the Poor Laws in England, AFDC and TANF since the 1960s — it has occurred against a background of large-scale robbery of the poor by the rich. The Roman proletariat received a dole to prevent bloody revolt after the common lands of the Republic had been engrossed by the nobility and turned into slave-farms. The Poor Laws of England were passed after the landed classes enclosed much of the Open Fields for sheep pasture. The urban American blacks who received AFDC in the 1960s were southern sharecroppers, or their children, who had been tractored off their land (or land that should have been theirs, if they had received the land that was rightfully theirs after Emancipation) after WWII.
As Frances Fox Piven and Andrew Cloward argued in “Regulating the Poor,” the state — which is largely controlled by and mainly serves the interest of the propertied classes — only steps in to provide welfare to the poor when it’s necessary to prevent social destabilization. When it does so, it usually provides the bare minimum necessary. And in the process, it uses the power conferred by distributing the public assistance to enforce a maximum in social discipline on the recipients (as anyone who’s dealt with the humiliation of a human services office, or a visit from a case-worker, can testify).
So don’t resent the folks who get welfare and food stamps. Your real enemies — the ones the state really serves — are above, not below. Trump’s tax cuts and deregulations that only affect corporations were as much a give away to the corporate hegemony and capitalist class as was the abysmal “COVID relief package” concocted by Republicans and passed by Democrats. No surprise as both parties support the corporate hegemony, and are neoliberal capitalist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Decent try David but completely wrong.
Social Democracy is akin to FDR’s Modern Liberalism, though a bit different. It is maintaining a capitalist framework while having a social welfare system. The history of Social Democracy is Evolutionary Marxism and Democratic Socialism. But Social Democratic parties became increasing moderate and pragmatic so as to basically abandon Socialist revolution (whether armed or democratic) in favor of a Capitalism inspired by social justice.
Socialism is the broad ideology of socioeconomics and politics opposed to the capitalist system. This includes Communism. It is sociopolitically about the emancipation of labor from the rule of capital. Socialism essentially deals with property relations and ownership, it’s relationship to social inequities, and the means to an egalitarian society rid of classism. In essence the revolution of society for a classless system, and property norms not inherently exploitative of labor. Socialism has Libertarian, Liberal, and Statist (Authoritarian) tendencies. Such as Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, and Marxist-Leninism (State Socialism) respectively. Socialists also support a variety of economic models, that’ll lead to the ultimate goal of a classless egalitarian society. Such as State Socialists supporting a Centralized Command/Planning Economy. Libertarian Socialists supporting decentralized planning, like trade and industrial federation or confederation. Or Market Socialists in support of market economies (markets and capitalism are different things) where socialist structures form an egalitarian system distinct of capitalist private ownership, class hierarchy, and profit motivation. The most radical form being Free Market Anarchism.
Communism (a form of Socialism) is a stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the community own the means of production and distribute goods and services primarily by need and are collected in commune stores for distribution. Distribution can be through a labor note/voucher wage system (Marxist Communism; Anarcho-Collectivism) where Labor notes are wages received in accordance to productivity. If I have a labor note worth 900 shoes produced I could use it to obtain anything worth upto that value, be it food or appliances. A labor based trade medium. Or it can be like in Anarcho-Communism where goods and services and produce are freely given to the community without need of any medium of exchange. “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fortnite Elite USA That’s not Marxism. Marxism is a critical ideology of the Capitalist system. It focuses on Class Struggle, or Conflict. It advocates the working class becoming the ruling class by taking the State. And then ideally they transition into a Stateless, classless socioeconomic situation.
While Marx did stress Social Justice, that is not unique to Marxism. It can be found in many ideologies and religions.
These capitalists do not want Communism. They’ll lose all their privilege and wealth if the working class were to revolt.
The right has this misunderstanding. Ideals like feminism, multiculturalism, social sciences aren’t inherent of Marxism. Social Liberalism shares these schools of thoughts, as it promotes the old classical liberal ideals of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Also Marxism isn’t political correctness. Marx would have the working class armed and ready to throw down to break their chains. His Social Justice focused on the emancipation of the worker’s across racial and class lines.
Not to mention the media aren’t left wing. They’re center-right. If they were Social Liberals Bernie Sanders would be their number 1 politician. They don’t advocate for universal healthcare coverage, or tax reforms. They aren’t biased to the left, they’re biased towards the establishment. They are just a little to the left of conservatives. They’re center-right neoliberals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
George Orwell was a fascinating figure and brilliant writer. He was an idealist, who is best known for his work in warning of the dangers of totalitarianism (whatever its political form) This can be seen in the two classics 1984, and Animal Farm. Orwell was also a committed socialist who sought to promote a more egalitarian and fairer society.
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
Firstly, George Orwell was definitely a democratic socialist. He stated this consistently throughout his life – from the mid-1920s to his death in 1950. It is true that he wrote a compelling account warning of the dangers of a totalitarian state. But, Orwell always maintained that just because you severely criticised Soviet-style Communism didn’t make you any less a socialist. In fact, socialism as Orwell understood it, stood for all the values – democracy, liberty, equality – that Soviet Communism rejected. Orwell believed that only a truly democratic Socialist regime would support liberty.
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
Homage to Catalonia
Orwell detested Soviet-style Communism – a belief strengthened when he ended up fighting Soviet-backed Communists during the Spanish civil war – Orwell went to Spain to fight against Fascism and for the Republican movement. As a member of the ILP, he joined a fraternal Spanish party – POUM – a small Marxist / Anarchist / Socialist grouping who had strong utopian Socialist ideals. Orwell loved their utopian Socialism.
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
But, Stalin wanted to crush all left-wing parties who were not the Communist party; this led to a civil war amongst the Republican movement in Spain. Orwell got caught up in this and it made him really disgusted with Stalin and the Communist party.
“the Communists stood not upon the extreme Left, but upon the extreme right. In reality this should come as no surprise, because the tactics of the Communist parties elsewhere.”
George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
This experience of fighting alongside socialist idealists and against Stalinist backed Communist party, only strengthened his belief in democratic socialism.
Down and out in Paris and London
Orwell had a privileged upbringing – he studied at Eton College, along with many future members of the British establishment. After school, he got a job in the Burmese civil service. But he came to reject his class privileges and also grew to detest the British Empire. In Down and out in Paris and London and Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell wanted to experience the difficult life that working class people experienced. These experiences in Paris, London and Wigan made Orwell very sympathetic to the cause of the working class, and Orwell believed it was socialism that was the fairest way to help create a more equal society.
“For perhaps ten years past I have had some grasp of the real nature of capitalist society. I have seen British imperialism at work in Burma, and I have seen something of the effects of poverty and unemployment in Britain…. One has got to be actively a Socialist, not merely sympathetic to Socialism, or one plays into the hands of our always active enemies.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
Animal Farm
Animal Farm is an allegory on revolutions which fail their ideals. It is clearly an indictment of the Russian Revolution. Orwell made no secret of the fact that he detested what Stalin was doing in Russia. Orwell was scathing of left-wing intellectuals (like George Bernard Shaw) who thought Soviet Russia was a Socialist paradise. Orwell lamented that Communists in Britain were too liable to excuse Stalin’s crimes and paint a picture of Russia which was not reality.
To Orwell, Soviet Russia was a failing of democratic Socialist ideals. Stalin had merely replaced one dictatorship (old Tsars) with another more murderous dictatorship.
Independent Labour Party
George Orwell was a member of the Independent Labour Party (ILP). The ILP was one of the founding forces of the British Socialist and Labour movement. Their roots were strongly influenced by Christian Socialism and the Fabian movement. Key figures in the party included John Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and James Maxton.
To give a flavour of the ILP 1928, the ILP developed a “Socialism in Our Time” platform, embodied in the programme:
The Living Wage, incompletely applied.
A substantial increase of the Unemployment Allowance
The nationalisation of banking, incompletely applied
The bulk purchase of raw materials
The bulk purchase of foodstuffs
The nationalisation of power
The nationalisation of transport
The nationalisation of land
Conclusion
Unfortunately, many in America equate Socialism with Soviet Communism. They are unaware that Socialist ideals have nothing to do with Stalin’s policies. Orwell saw Stalin and Hitler as pursuing essentially the same aim of creating a totalitarian state. Orwell wrote against totalitarianism and passionately for a democratic and fair Socialist society in Britain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BiggusDiggusable well the political allegory of the poem has been long discussed. Paradise Lost can be read as a political allegory, character and events can be aligned with aspects of the political context of the poem's creation. Milton infuses his political thinking using Heaven as metaphor of the greatest Kingdom. Hell represents a republic, God the powerful monarch, and Satan is the protagonist of his ideas. In Book I Satan says, " Me though just right, and the fixed laws of Heav'n / Did first create your leader, next, free choice,[...] Established in a safe unenvied throne / Yielded with full consent,". In the quote Satan argues that in Heaven God rules without the consent of his subjects, shoving the hard work and sacrifice off the others, and explains that he being chosen as leader would be quite the opposite. Through the speeches of Satan in Hell, Milton illustrates the way he believed true leaders should act, and how they should be selected. Likewise, Satan's attempts to rouse the fallen angels are reminiscent of Milton's desire to rally support for the Cromwellian government. For example, as the poem expresses in Book I, "Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n" and adds, "Here we may reign secure, and my choice / To reign is worth ambition, Though in Hell; / Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n." . Satan delivers his heroic speech challenging God, and tells the other rebels that they can change the world, there is nothing that is fixed, Hell can be the Heaven, and vice versa. Satan is trying to encourage them to continue challenging God. As Mary Ann Radzinowicz puts it in The Politics of Paradise Lost "Milton […] deposits in Satan's 'democratic, antipatriarchal, irreligious views' his own pre-Restoration republicanism.".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Edward Moran “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
Firstly, George Orwell was definitely a democratic socialist. He stated this consistently throughout his life – from the mid-1920s to his death in 1950. It is true that he wrote a compelling account warning of the dangers of a totalitarian state. But, Orwell always maintained that just because you severely criticised Soviet-style Communism didn’t make you any less a socialist. In fact, socialism as Orwell understood it, stood for all the values – democracy, liberty, equality – that Soviet Communism rejected. Orwell believed that only a truly democratic Socialist regime would support liberty.
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
Homage to Catalonia
Orwell detested Soviet-style Communism – a belief strengthened when he ended up fighting Soviet-backed Communists during the Spanish civil war – Orwell went to Spain to fight against Fascism and for the Republican movement. As a member of the ILP, he joined a fraternal Spanish party – POUM – a small Marxist / Anarchist / Socialist grouping who had strong utopian Socialist ideals. Orwell loved their utopian Socialism.
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
But, Stalin wanted to crush all left-wing parties who were not the Communist party; this led to a civil war amongst the Republican movement in Spain. Orwell got caught up in this and it made him really disgusted with Stalin and the Communist party.
“the Communists stood not upon the extreme Left, but upon the extreme right. In reality this should come as no surprise, because the tactics of the Communist parties elsewhere.”
George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
This experience of fighting alongside socialist idealists and against Stalinist backed Communist party, only strengthened his belief in democratic socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@libertybell5796 it’s called the political realignment. As the Democratic Party became more labor based in the New Deal era, their politics shifted towards the working class interests. Come the mid 20th century the civil rights movement became an issue of support for the Democratic Party. Early one the parties were still mixed social and economic interests post WW2. But with the rise of the civil rights movement and activism came the reactionary neo-confederate movement among the Southern States with Jim Crow laws. The KKK became a prominent hate group and started using confederacy symbols. As it became official that the Democratic Party was now a party for civil rights, and labor unions, the Southern Republicans took the opportunity to transforms the Republican Party into the party of anti-civil rights, confederate symbols, and opposition towards the Democratic platform. No matter whether they were Republican or Democrat, politicians in the South were pro segregation. Now the Republican Party was of Lincoln’s Northern urbanism, but of the rural South and descendants of Confederates. Neo-Confederacy groups like the Daughters of the Confederacy took to spreading propaganda across institutions in the South that supports “Lost Cause” myth, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, and trying to build a Confederates states sense of nationalism. While that happened the southern Republican politicians now used what is called “Southern Strategy” in garnering support among the coalition of southern neo-confederate enthusiasts. Infamously the Republican political strategist Lee Atwater was caught on tape discussing the Southern Strategy in using dog whistles and confederate nostalgia for getting support of southern whites enthralled by the heroic mythological spin on the Confederates as freedom fighting rebels.
Funnily enough I’m a libertarian socialist. The only good thing Lincoln did was end slavery, but was the harbinger of American capitalism and wage slavery. And the Confederates were social and cultural tyrants that followed the bidding of a landed slave owing aristocracy to divide to poor whites from solidarity with poor non-whites. The only records found in the Civil War era that wasn’t so full of Confederate racist shit, and Union federal centralizing shit, were the anarchists of the day who called both sides out on their bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Daniel Paul I mean social democracy in the actual Marxist Democratic Socialist sense. What Marx and Engels argues as the “political action” necessary to make the revolution happen. The use of a labor socialist party to take the bourgeois state and implement socialism. Today social democracy is not seen as socialist, because those parties descended into welfare states. It’s so bad social democracy is a word no longer accepted by even Marxists.
So there is one aspect of the Commune that was uniquely Marxist, namely the participation of socialists in the elections to the municipal council and the subsequent municipal government. As noted, since the 1840s Marx and Engels had urged workers to support (and, where necessary, fight for) the creation of a bourgeois republic and to use “political action” (namely, standing in elections) within it.
Unsurprisingly, then, for Marx the Communal Council would “serve as a lever for uprooting the economic foundations upon which rests the existence of classes.” This repeats the vision expounded in the Communist Manifesto which argued that "the first step in the revolution by the working class" is the "raising the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." The proletariat "will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class."
It is only in this sense that it is correct to state that “the insurgents had no prior experiences of a successful anti-capitalist movement to draw upon. They were truly pioneering and cut a new path for others.” Sadly, that “new path” was social democracy and the domination of Marxism within the international socialist movement. As Engels put it in 1884, the Commune was “the grave of the old, specifically French socialism, while being the cradle of the international communism, which is new for France.”
In this "new path", the Commune was relegated to an inspiration because there had been a democratically elected “workers’ government” and used as a warning of what would happen if a rising happened before the party was ready to secure power nationally. By 1895, Engels was praising the legal successes of social democracy in elections and mentioned the Commune only as an example of “only one means by which the steady rise of the socialist fighting forces in Germany could be temporarily halted, and even thrown back for some time: a clash with the military, a blood-letting like that of 1871 in Paris.” Now it was a case of the “successful utilisation of universal suffrage” which had now (quoting Marx's word) been “transformed by them from a means of deception . . . into an instrument of emancipation.” While insurrection was not totally dismissed, it was clear that Engels final article was a vindication of social democracy's peaceful tactics, tactics that provoked the "revisionism" debates after his death (i.e., the attempt by its right-wing to bring the party's rhetoric into line with its actual practice).
Thankfully, Engels comments proved premature. With the obvious descent of social democracy into opportunism, bureaucracy and reformism radical workers looked again to the federalist traditions in the First International which were kept alive by the anarchist movement and turned to syndicalism and industrial unionism. Only with the Russian Revolution (with the help of Fascism) did Marxism (in its Leninist form) became the predominant tendency in the revolutionary left. The path of federalism from below, as was predicted and developed by anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, lost ground before social democracy (in part, due to errors by anarchists themselves).
Be that as it may, for anarchists, the commune does present issues. After all, a key argument of anarchism is abstaining from “political action” as being irrelevant to creating socialism and opening up the possibility of reformism within the labour movement. Yet, here, surely is an example of “political action” which did produce a revolution (even one so limited in its initial acts as the Commune). Libertarian members of the International, such as Varlin, did successfully stand for election. Does this mean, as Marx and Engels argued, that the general anarchist position of standing in and abstaining from elections is wrong? If the Internationalists had abstained from participating in the elections would the Paris Commune have been different?
Clearly, the circumstances of the Commune’s elections are atypical and were conducted in a revolutionary situation (unlike the social-democratic strategy). However, given the limited nature of the reforms the Commune implemented and the lack of dynamism of the Commune’s Council, Kropotkin concluded that any such “revolutionary government” should be avoided. While supporting the initial revolution, anarchists should have encouraged the creation of popular self-organisation in the community and workplace rather than seeking to focus the struggle onto electing a few leaders to act on behalf of the working class. The problem was its representative nature, that “the people was not governing itself.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Elizabeth Becker Slavery has been a dark truth of humanity's history. This country was founded by racists that committed themselves to conquer Native lands and for good measure treat them like shit for it. I know Irish came as slaves. You know why? Protestants of Anglo-Saxon roots have always saw themselves as the real white-Americans, and superior to all others. Not everyone in recent ages of course but it's how it started. The British Empire, or European powers, left a legacy of "White Man's Burden" dogma that the world is still feeling the ripple effect from it.
I have nothing against Brits, or American whites, or any race. Just I acknowledge they left a legacy of negativity as much as positivity. I fucking hate labels. I see a human being before any stratification.
And to all responders don't assume my ideals or intelligence. People here measure my intelligence from less than 200 characters, how insightful.
Racism is present in every race, every nation. Slavery is not unique to America or colonial times. But we must address the issues that are still present from this history. I am hopeful another age of cultural, artistic, and idealistic enlightenment is to come and a paradigm shift will be imbedded in the minds of future generations where people see human beings before anything else such as race, creed, nationality etc... We must face our past and learn from it, but hurtful sentiments are getting in the way of dealing with the issue. Face the ugly truth and move on. The Confederacy is only part of American history because it is a people who wanted to leave the country and form a state of racism and slavery. There's nothing to be proud of or inherit. Just the knowledge to be better than the people of the past. This includes people in the Union that turned a blind eye to the suffering of a people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jack Jaunt The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billystanton1522 really? Cause that sounds like you projecting your ideas on a dead man. And considering what he wrote I doubt he would have been fine with capitalism continuing considering the ongoing consolidation of corporations, the degradation of environment, the military adventurism, and the corruption of “democratic” governments. In fact this passage alone from Orwell made clear what to him is the socialist vision he would support.
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
As you can see Orwell could not abide a social democracy full of social class hierarchies.
2
-
@Evirthewarrior “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
Firstly, George Orwell was definitely a democratic socialist. He stated this consistently throughout his life – from the mid-1920s to his death in 1950. It is true that he wrote a compelling account warning of the dangers of a totalitarian state. But, Orwell always maintained that just because you severely criticised Soviet-style Communism didn’t make you any less a socialist. In fact, socialism as Orwell understood it, stood for all the values – democracy, liberty, equality – that Soviet Communism rejected. Orwell believed that only a truly democratic Socialist regime would support liberty.
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A. Q. Where that’s the Statist Marxist-Leninist branch of Socialist Revolutionaries. Stalinism was a totalitarian state and no where in those states were the workers ever in charge. There wasn’t common ownership, just State control and ownership. That’s a method the Libertarian left condemns as a departure from ideals of freedom and liberty that Socialists and it’s founders also desired.
George Orwell who wrote the cautionary tales of Totalitarianism and State power hated the Soviet Union. He wrote Animal Farm and 1984, yeah that guy guess what? He was a true Democratic-Socialist and fought for Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. He also wrote Homage to Catalonia where he expresses his love and admiration for the Anarchist and Socialists of Catalonia where he spent much time during it’s period.
I think you’re failing to realize Socialism isn’t a form of government, it’s a socio-economic organization. Just democratization of the work place, and industry being collectively owned not in the hands of private capitalists. In America that could mean industries and businesses collectively owned by the workers that work in them, and that’s it. No need to mess with the government or Republic. Just the economy having different ownership from private ownership to worker’s co-ops or ownership.
And while the Nordic model has workers protection, strong unionization, social welfare etc... they are implementing reforms that allows Capitalism to use wealth to aid society and salve social ills. It is not Socialist, it is Social Democracy, no Socialist society has privatized industry.
And true many of the Nordic policies tax the people but they have established a different view in which they believe people’s taxation should be implemented to the benefit of society. Even that I find preferable to what the US does. Takes citizens taxes to cut taxes for the wealthiest, to fund unnecessary wars, and to give corporations welfare or bailouts instead of helping the working and middle classes. Nope what you see in America is forsaking the workers in favor of the corporate class. If I’m being taxed I’d rather it go to society rather than the wealthy and wars I don’t agree to. It’s a matter of beliefs. But hey we wouldn’t need to have such programs if it weren’t for the Capitalist system where the motivation is profit and creating large inequalities of wealth and prosperity. Whereas a socialist economy would be motivated by need and the community. You work the few hours today’s technology allows, go home and have recreational and personal time to study, relax, participate in activities whatever it is to the individual that makes a more fulfilling life than being a laborer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
m. rude Did you literally just claim that Capitalism, the system of exploitation of labor by Capital is about meritocracy and working for what you have?! Do you think millionaires and billionaires work for a living or exploit worker’s and extract the surplus? No individual could work their entire life and earn that much wealth based on their own labor, it’s impossible.
You should actually look into history. When industrial capitalism was taking foot in America during the Civil War period, the self employers, artisans, and agriculturalists were up in arms and did not want it. It was hot debate topic during the time, and the South would argue that the Northern industrialists are no better than their own chattel slavery, as wage slavery was equivalent to their slavery of the black race. The newly formed Republican Party under Lincoln were advocates of the ideals of Classical Liberal Economics and were essentially much a party for labor. However Lincoln mistook the position of rebutting the Southern argument by assuring them that wage labor is not like their slavery, and is superior for the wage laborer can become a capitalist and self-employer. Ironically industrial Capitalism would worsen and make wage slaves of generations exploited by Capital. Lincoln emancipated the slaves, but allowed for the system that would make slaves of many Americans. Americans did not foresee the problems that capitalism would lead to, and the concentration of wealth, privilege, and subsequent eras of robber barons and multi-national corporations.
In this time the first Libertarian Socialist movement arose in America lead by Individualist Anarchists like Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner. Their freed markets are the pinnacle of classical economics, and they’re anti-capitalist. Adam Smith and David Ricardo saw the value of labor. Capitalism favors capital and wealth accumulation over labor.
As Lincoln said “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” SOTU Address 1861
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bravecaucasian no actually. Leftism is anarchism and libertarian socialism... doesn’t get anymore anti-government than that. In fact the first person to call himself anarchist was the socialist Proudhon who said about government: “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
Real Leftists find natural alliance with true classical liberals that actually want limited government. That’s what American conservatism should be about. But since the Federalists there’s been a faction of conservative efforts to undermine and subdue the liberal revolutionary principles of the Republic. Today’s conservative movement is about cultural tyranny, religious fanaticism, State bootlicking looking at law enforcement like they’re the Jedi, and worst of all not republicanism but nationalism. Barry Goldwater tries to warn us: "The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Julian Price back in action ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in
36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink?
38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?
39 When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’
40 And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
redd Greene Blue utopias? Education is so garbage in America. Guess Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia was a fantasy. Or maybe Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia would know more as it’s a persoanal eye witness account.
Worker’s cooperatives and labor federations have been proposed since capitalism’s infancy and figures like David Ricardo called for the labor theory of value. Free Market Anarchists fought against industrial capitalism spreading in the States threatening the self employed with wage slavery.
“Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.”
– John Stuart Mill
2
-
2
-
redd Greene Blue yes they fell to Fascists. And no you don’t choose that. The capitalists are the property owners, you could be one, but the vast majority of underclasses don’t have that capital, so rather they come together under their own cooperatives to avoid being exploited.
"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." — Lincoln
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1776 Or take it from “Mr. Conservatism” himself, Barry Goldwater:
On the Religious Right
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
--Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
On Gay Rights
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
"Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
On True Conservatism
"What I was talking about[Gay rights, Abortion]was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@schumanhuman he’s gate keeping. In my reading of both classical liberal and libertarian socialist literature I have seen clear the connection between them. The Physiocrats and Classicists were revolutionary in their geo-liberalism. The fact that most people conflate liberal economics with capitalism do not see the forest for the trees. There’s a reason libertarian market socialists were radical free marketeers. The Classicists gave us labor value theory, common land, and even theories of labor exploitation by capital. Where do they think Marx, a student of classical economics got it from? Then I mention radical liberal John Stuart Mill’s promotion of socialist production, and he thinks me a bourgeois capitalist for it. Despite liberals having questionable social stances, their revolutionary ideals are a boon to free society. Capitalism has never been about free markets, they kicked peasants out the commons for a labor force to sell their labor for wages. Capitalists used the State to their advantage.
It’s sad many don’t see how classical liberalism gave way to libertarian socialism. They think socialism is about collective over individual. That’s Fascism. Anarchism is the most radical expression of free individualism and social freedom. We support socialism because it’ll liberate all individuals, not just the property owners. Anarcho-Communists were influenced by the Egoism of Max Stirner. The liberal concept of laissez faire is like our own ideal of the spontaneous order. This is what happens when anarchists are more influenced by Marx than actual libertarians. Anarchists that feel closer to social democrats, which is just liberal corporatism, other than liberal limited government and the free association of society, are confused. Unfortunately they conflate liberalism with capitalism. Even though capitalism has never been about genuine free markets, and not a single capitalist or neoliberal protests the State monopolies of land, money, tariff, and patents. I admit I mistook their comments as support of centralized government programs with the use of “universal programs” but that’s on me. Still calling me liberal cause I rather have a system based on classical liberalism than the State corporo-monopolist system of modern capitalism so long as we have to live under a State is just ignorant. No one expects to abolish the State any time soon. Rather a limited government and liberal State so long as we have one. Libertarianism and the abolishment of the State is a long term goal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PatriotUSA1776USA yeah it tells me the modern Republicans are the legacy of the southern political tradition (once the Democrats). Considering the Republicans of Lincoln descended from the Federalists and favored anti-liberal American school economics, government infrastructure and strengthening American manufacturing through tariffs, were Federal over State, and were the political coalition of urban States, Yankees, and the capitalists and bankers I’d say history tells us the modern Democrats are the political coalition of urban States, government intervention, and national government. Where as the modern Republicans…. well they wave around Confederate paraphernalia so that should hint you as to who are the legacy of those that opposed the Union and Lincoln.
The Party of Slavery: well that’s the legacy of the southern political coalitions, the change of name didn’t mean change of politics. They had to be brought kicking and screaming towards progress from slavery and segregation.
Infanticide: well the liberal urban states are more in support of the choice of abortion.
Violence: well the Northern states did force the South into a Union they didn’t want. I’d say that was wrong, authority and coercion shouldn’t be the answer in free societies. Shame the Confederates didn’t extend that principle to black Americans. But the Civil War proved that there is no federation, but an empire of Federal government ruling over States. Indeed the South were correct on a Confederate structure, wrong in everything else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Soul Prestigio lol. Then why did the internet and computers come from decades of government-military R&D public financed research. Only after all the risks and developments in college campuses were individuals able to privatize the tech. And the public has the privilege of purchasing PC’s from these billion dollar worth companies. Shame the computer scientists that developed the innovations in tech never saw the rewards of the Jobs and Gates of the world. Same thing happening within campuses in the medical field today.
Profit doesn’t motivate innovation, just motivates profit. Innovation is driven by proper allocation of resources towards people with talents and abilities in their fields. People having the freedom to follow their skills and passions, and having proper resources that’s how you innovate. Given that innovations have occurred in every period in history. Competition for profits motivates efficiency and cheaper methods, not leaps in the sciences.
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh I see you believe in the horse shoe theory. Gotcha. I don't believe that BS. Generally the further left the less government. Left of Liberalism is Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism. Anarcho-Capitalism is rejected by any real anarchist as it is full capitalism promoting hierarchical structures, hence not anarchism, opposed to leadership. It's just a market economy feudal state, which Anarchists also oppose any state.
The idea of liberalism and social democracy requires the social contract. It is not opposed to government, so long as the people agree to it's organization, limitations, and powers. For example we believe in a representative democracy the government should have the people's interests at heart. Hence why such social programs are not seen as some oppressive institution, so long as it is the will of the people. And in other areas we don't want big government such as military, privacy invasion, drug wars etc... Essentially the good government can do for it's governed by consent. Furthermore the more left you stand the less dependence on a government body for a society in favor of collective interests, most notably the workers where they distribute the goods and needs in workers collectives, or syndicates etc... There's a reason the most left position is Anarchism and the most right Totalitarianism. The general spectrum of political ideologies relies on government bodies and state influence upon the governed. There is the general spectrum where left = less government and right = more government. Then there is the more regional or national spectrums where left = progressive and right = conservative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Derek Hitt exposing that private property and profit is the problem. Free market anarchists have been exposing capitalism for the statist system it is since the 19th century. The biggest misconception is that socialism is anti-free markets. No. Socialism in particular libertarian socialism, is about anarchist communism and free market socialism. Free market anarchists were straight out of the classical tradition and they were fare greater radical free marketeers than the capitalists. It’s why they were anti-capitalists and against the State monopolies of land, money, tariff, and patents that prop up the ruling capitalist class. Pierre J Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Voltarine DeCleyre, William B Greene etc... All anti-capitalists, libertarian socialists, and radical free enterprise enthusiasts that exposed capitalism as statist. Free markets belong on the Left, it’s part of socialist tradition despite what the modern capitalist state has you believing. Even classical liberal economists were anti-capitalists like Thomas Hodgskin and John Stuart Mill, or David Ricardo. Free markets are socialist. Another libertarian socialist market strain is rising and soon the right capitalists can no longer claim they believe in free markets as we agains expose them for the Statists they are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
jim bob silly bob. Fascism is the most extreme right wing populism. It is based on the supremacy of the nation-state. Nationalism is everything and Fascists believe the State is the will of the nation. Yes it’s elitism, hierarchic, and Statist, but from the far right perspective populist and anti-liberal capitalism.
Fascists seek the Corporative State, the closest you get to a human hive mind. It seeks to harmonize all social and industrial interests under a Corporate system of collective bargaining among interests.
Fascism is against liberalism, socialism, and democracy. They don’t like liberal capitalism in that the capitalist has more loyalty to class and self interest than the nation, so under Fascism the capitalist is made to serve the national State agenda. Fascism is full blown collectivism. Fascists are actually against the bourgeois culture and believe financing is a Jewish conspiracy to control nations. And Nazism is national racism based in racial ideology. It’s more focused on ethnics and eugenics than Italian Fascism. Again right wing populism is based in nationalism, chauvinism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration. It says the problem is foreigners and for the nation to get better it must exclude them. That any welfare is only for nationals. And that instead of class struggle, classes must collaborate with each other. So they crack down on labor unions.
As opposed to socialism which actually seeks the liberation of all individuals by achieving a world without states and global worker solidarity. As well as the free association of producers. Biggest Orwellian lie is that Socialism is Statist and collectivist. Tell that to the anarchists. George Orwell himself admires anarchism and was a Democratic Socialist. It’s why we hate each other. Fascism is literally antithetical fo everything socialist. The most extreme polar opposites. Socialists want an anarchist world. Fascists want a social darwinian nation-state world and national supremacy. Socialists want a world of free individuals, free associations. Fascists want State control and collectivism for the supremacy of the State.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JesseFin88 Crossout Gamer they never claimed to be Democratic Socialist. They were Federal Soviets. Marxists Leninists aren’t Democratic Socialists, they’re Stats Socialists. What they achieve is called State Capitalism and State Socialism.
Democratic Socialism is politically liberal or Republican, and socioeconomically Socialist. Several socialists agree to Market Socialism, but all are anti-capitalist. The market economy is not synonymous with the system of capitalism, private owners accumulating wealth and capital.
Socialism is either Statist, Democratic, or libertarian. It can be authoritarian, liberal, or anarchist. Like capitalism, liberal democracies have liberal capitalism, Fascist States has Corporate Capitalism, and dictators like Pinochet in Chile protected private interests and capitalism
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think it’s time the political Left return to their roots of decentralization and federation. Just cause State’s have more autonomy doesn’t mean regression, in fact liberal states would be far better off as they’re the hub of central commerce, industry, and culture. The consolidation of federal powers is what has lead us to this period of gridlock, doing nothing for climate crisis, and overreaching unitary state where national government and politics is this large behemoth that decides all our rights and liberties. State’s rights historically being an excuse for State’s tyranny doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in decentralization. Historically the forces of Federal enlargement has been capitalist-industrialist agenda to consolidate markets and foster the proletariat class of wage workers. The Left needs to look to it’s libertarian roots and not fear political decentralization but embrace it. Yes there will be reactionaries trying to take control of the constituent States, but we see this now in the Federal government. Don’t fear opposition, challenge them, and make all States of the Union more progressive with every generation. Of course the more liberal and progressive states would challenge the regressive and reactionary policies from any conservative states, and the citizens of each state will also fight for progress under any circumstances. We can’t allow authority to be vested in one locale, one large government, one imperial power. The American empire starts at home, making the national everything and the locale nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Monique Lestine The NRA’s main mission is to fight any possible restriction on guns, the solution to every instance of gun violence is to arm more people, anyone who says anything else is part of a global conspiracy to disarm everyone, nothing else matters very much and, oh, by the way, they need your money.
The NRA, once “the premier firearms education organization in the world” is not performing its traditional educational role of elevating the discussion and advancing the interests of all gun owners. Despite solid social science and opinion research on everything from how guns should be sold, owned, stored and carried to how and when convicted felons should have their rights restored, the NRA has but one answer to every debate on gun ownership — more of it, with no restrictions.
And then there are their answers to every incident of gun violence: Send thoughts and prayers, plus this wouldn’t have happened if the victims had been properly armed — but let’s not let those who question unlimited gun ownership politicize a tragedy. Furthermore, the NRA has abandoned its traditional role of representing all kinds of gun owners on all sorts of issues involving gun ownership. Where the organization was once bipartisan, bringing together a large coalition of Republicans and Democrats to protect and advance the interests of all gun owners, their advocacy today is almost entirely limited to helping Republicans. In the 2018 election, 99 percent of NRA support went to GOP candidates, making the NRA a de facto wing of the Republican Party.
In a stark contrast to its current bloodthirsty propagandizing, the NRA was once a firm proponent of gun control, and was a key component of the passage of 1934’s National Firearms Act, which imposed restrictions on machine guns. That began to change in the 1960s; the NRA continued to support gun control, but its members — who had begun buying guns more for protection than for hunting — started to protest. The shift crystallized in 1977 with the ascent of Harlon Carter, a former immigration agent who’d killed a Mexican teenager in his youth and went on to shape what still fraudulently insists on referring to itself as “the oldest civil rights organization in the country” in his racist image.
Now the NRA’s insistence that it fights for the civil rights of legal gun owners rings hollow. Lest we forget, Philando Castile — a legal gun owner — was still killed by cops, inches from his partner and child. He’d informed them that he was carrying, and it proved to be a death sentence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NewNormalWorldOrder it’s not a double standard considering Conservatism has been replaced by Regressivism and reactionary extremists. The Republicans are not upholding the principles of Classical Conservatism, nationalism and religious fundamentalism isn’t Conservatism. Classical Conservatism stems from Burkean political philosophy and American Traditionalism in particular stems from Federalism (Hamilton-Adams). Real Conservatives are lamenting their alliance with social conservatives, as they have replaced genuine Traditionalism for their regressive zealotry. Barry Goldwater aka Mr. Conservative warned the country of what would happen if these extremist regressives were to take control of the Republican Party.
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
"Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
"What I was talking about[Gay rights, Abortion]was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Leo D That was such a sad and half assed argument. Who equates a child’s lemon stand to private property in the Capitalist understanding. They aren’t employing anyone nor are they in actual possession of land.
Anarchists define “private property” (or just “property,” for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. “Possession,” on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.
To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which “cannot be used to exploit another — those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.” We are opposed to the kind of property “which can be used only to exploit people — land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital.” [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).
The key is that “possession” is rooted in the concept of “use rights” or “usufruct” while “private property” is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one’s own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of “property” while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of “possession.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do these morons realize George Orwell was a left wing Democratic Socialist and fought alongside the anarchists of Catalonia? Orwell was against authoritarianism, State Socialism, and tyranny; but wasn’t an anti-socialist.
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
Nice try Prager U. Appropriation of more leftist literature for the capitalist right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eric Duprey First off I’m not saying Anarchists would coerce Capitalist communities to end it. We just don’t accept and never have accepted Capitalism as Anarchist. Anarchy is without rulers, the dismantling of all unjustified hierarchies or vertical relations. It’s not just no State or government. It’s self-autonomy and horizontal structures.
If you’re for a free market that’s possible in any anarchist society that wants free exchange. But Capitalism isn’t synonymous with a Market Economy. It’s one form of a market economy. One that relies of wage labor (an underclass), private ownership, and commodity production for profit. These factors have made Anarchists anti-Capitalist, not anti-markets. It’s not like we would fight you for being Capitalist, we just won’t accept any Capitalist community as being Anarchist. Having a boss in the workplace is not compatible with the “no masters” principle of Anarchism, either is class distinctions. Again had worker’s the chance they’d be their own boss in the workplace, and want all the rewards they deserve for their labor not just a minimal wage and the rest accumulated by the boss.
And yes Anarchy is about self-organization, autonomy, and free associations. So long as relations are horizontal, decentralized, and not coercive. As an Anarcho-Syndicalist we organize in Syndicates in decentralized networks and federal for larger areas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
EarthToday sounds like Jesus and early christian were anarchist communists. In fact early christian sects were. Only idiots that bought the propaganda believe communism means state redistribution. Communism means a stateless, classless society where people pool their labor together for free distribution by need. Religion used to reject the usury of charging interest and profit. Pretty sure Jesus’ ideal society isn’t one based in greed, profit, and materialism. But of community, brotherhood, and pious living. Devotion to God and humanity.
Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."
Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
Revisionist history indeed. I wonder why no one talks of Christian socialism and its history anymore. The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian socialist. And many Christians have been anarchist communists. Libertarian socialism or Anarchism is the anti-statist branch of socialism. The only anti-stats position. Because socialism is about a world with states or classes, but of free autonomous communes or societies. It’s amazing how the propaganda has made people believe socialism is synonymous with state control. That’s a Marxist tradition. Their goal is for the proletariat to take control of the state to defeat capitalist forces. But even their goal is achieving communism, the abolishment of state. The difference is anarchist think that counter revolutionary for a revolution that seeks to dismantle statism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
X-Files A
According to your beloved Judeo- Christian ethics and moral tradition:
Old Testament:
“You shall not oppress or exploit your neighbor... love your neighbor as yourself” Leviticus 19:13, 18
“[God] enacts justice for orphans and widows, and he loves immigrants, giving them food and clothing. That means you must also love immigrants because you were immigrants... “ Deuteronomy 10:17-19
“Don’t take advantage of poor or needy workers, whether they are fellow Israelites or immigrants who live in your land or your cities.” Deuteronomy 24:14
“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless, maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalms 82:3-4
New Testament:
“All who believed were together and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and divided them among all men, as every man had need.” Acts 2:44-45
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” Acts 4:32
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you posses and give to the poor.” Matthew 19:21
“When you give a feast, invite the poor, maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.” Luke 14:13-14
“Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts 4:35
Oh well look at that it seems God and Jesus are not opposed to socialist communities. If you’re to take your scriptures literally I mean...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chief Purrfect Personally I think you’re being too narrow minded about the potentiality of this story development. A character you like isn’t getting the ending you prefer, add to that the fact that it’s being badly executed.
GRRM is a conscientious objector and anti-war protestor. Or is supposed to be so I don’t know why he endorses Biden. Anyway according to himself he actively hates war, and Daenerys is a character that seeks it due to a complex of entitlement that Mhysa knows best. And her dragons have been described as the equivalent of WMDs. She actively seeks war, so that she can bring about peace, sounds like my country’s government. If this is an anti-war story it makes complete sense that Daenerys the Conqueror turns out an antagonist to the Westerosi. The rich complexity here is that she is the hero of her story. Arguably the aristocracy of Westeros are not better than her, they are elites looking out for self-interests. Daenerys would be a Machiavellian looking out for the greater good, she’d probably kill hundreds to save thousands. Daenerys is a utilitarian through and through, reminiscent of Marxist-Leninists almost. With such interesting potential I fail to see how you think this story would lead no where or not provide a decent enough message. Daenerys certainly is admirable, but we all harbor mistakes and our experiences shape us into something decent or terrible. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Daenerys might just not be lady Justice incarnated or a paragon of feminine goddess figure. Targaryens themselves resemble privilege, entitlement, and delusions of grandeur or superiority complexes of supremacy. Don’t miss the forest for the trees. But not the show, that’s proving to be a disappointment to any good Daenerys fan, it surely sucks seeing her character development butchered. The show hasn’t earned this development.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
RealYRM because he’s socially liberal.... literally the only issue liberal capitalists like Bezos differ with Republicans. Economically both parties are capitalist and pro-corporate America. The Republicans with their tax cuts (how much has Bezos and Amazon paid in taxes under Republicans?), supply side trickle down, MIC (foreign wars, regime change coups, privatize foreign markets), and corporate welfare.
The Democrats with their neoliberal free trade, bailouts (corporate welfare), and Wall Street support. Democrats also support minimal social programs or welfare that are inheritance from the New Deal, but maintain them as they are and do not add more. The only difference between capitalists like Bezos and Koch are their social attitudes. They don’t stop making vast wealth just cause the party they lean more towards is not in power. They get benefits form both. Fairly certain no monopolist is complaining about the economy under Trump, you see how well they’re doing in stocks and profit during the pandemic. But they hate Trump’s social problems, the social unrest that can cause hurts business, and his blundering idiocracy is exposing their game. They already fear the rising populist sentiments arising, and that soon they’ll once again have to make concessions to provide social stability and calm the unrest. Usually this is done by a period of social democratic reforms as was done during the New Deal to save capitalism.
2
-
No actually you can’t. Capitalism wasn’t defined as a free market economy. Socialists coined the term “capitalism” to call the system of capital monopolies, and land owner monopolies, industrial feudalism. Hence why many of the original libertarian socialists were free market radicals. They saw that free markets leads to socialism, as influenced by the classical liberals.
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.” — Free Market Anarchist, Benjamin Tucker
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Quorry Raphael they are anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti- liberal capitalism. Extreme nationalist and advocacy of political Corporatism.
Trump like all Republicans are conservative liberals, they believed in a liberal Republic. That is they believe in limited government, though mostly for economic reasons.
The Republicans and Trump may not be paragons of democratic institution, but neither are the Democrats. They both use suppression, gerrymandering, and do nothing to change the electoral and voting system to ensure more democratic participation. Such as ranked choice voting, and population based like in parliament systems. Both parties participate in the winner take all representative democracy. Not as democratic as things should be but they aren’t anti-democracy in total.
Trump has nationalist rhetoric but it’s not extreme nationalism. It’s no different from the usual American Exceptionalism crap both Reps and Dems have spewed in the past.
And most important Trump is not out here advocating Corporatism. What the US does have is Corporatocracy, the rule of business corporations. However it’s not Corporatism. Corporatism is the belief that society should be divided in interest groups, syndicates, guilds, corporate bodies or fascii. Each field of profession and economic sector have their interest organized “corporations” be it medical, education, business and industry, capital and labor well they collectively bargain their interests regulated by government for the national interest. This seeks to maintain national State unity, stability, and order. This socioeconomic order is not what neoliberal Trump is about. Fascists would be against neoliberalism and globalization.
Fascism is the collective over the individual. Extreme nationalism and socioeconomic Corporatism. Trump and Republicans are all about liberal capitalism and corporate neoliberalism.
Trump has some mild characteristics that Fascist leaders share, but that’s not incriminating. Fascism is an actual political philosophy not a word to be thrown around willy nilly. The danger with Trump and Democrats is neoliberalism. Fascism is the far right answer to unfettered Capitalism; just as Socialism and Anarchism (libertarian socialism) is the far left answer.
2
-
2
-
@gettuffstudios common resource as in no one owns it. What are you 7? Common resource like air or water. Classical liberalism keeps to the Lockean Proviso: “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.”
The classical liberal tradition is clear that land is a common and the right to privatization comes with just compensation due to society for it’s private ownership. This is the liberal ground rent. Ever played Monopoly? Or heard of Georgism, or Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice? Thomas Jefferson’s notes on the issue? Classical liberalism holds the LVT as the only just and efficient tax, the value of land, and all others unnecessary and inefficient. Look up the Wikipedia on Georgism.
Youtube isn’t allowing links but here’s some educational articles from the Cato Institute about the immigration matter: The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System
By David J. Bier
Immigration and Naturalization in the Western Tradition
By Alex Nowrasteh
2
-
@gettuffstudios forgive me for saying, since I believe you come from a genuine place, but that view comes from xenophobic nationalist illiberal indoctrination. The home is your possession, it is your home, and everything in it your property. The land itself isn’t. This doesn’t mean I own your house, but the land is common property.
“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." — Abraham Lincoln
And again just compensation is due to society for anyone that seeks to privatize land itself. Again as Henry George said:
“The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air — it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.”
“The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Professor Eggplant All you described are staples of State Socialism and Marxist-Leninism. You should learn more about the history of socialism, which began in liberal circles. Thomas Hogdskin, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo etc... provided socialist development. It also ha it’s start in ideas of industrial technocracy.
Apart from authoritarian State Socialism like Marxist-Leninism there is:
Liberal Socialism such as true Democratic Socialism, evolutionary Marxism. Which is socialism supported by liberal sociopolitical institutions. Democratic system and government. George Orwell is a famous Democratic Socialist.
Then there is Libertarian Socialism aka Anarchism. Yes despite the propaganda against socialism, the ideology gave rise to Anarchism, which is the anti-authority and anti-Statist strain of socialism. This includes Individualist Free Market Anarchists like Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner; Mutualism founded by Proudhon and Social Anarchists like Anarcho-Communists and Syndicalists like Bakunin, and Kropotkin.
Then there is the school of Marxism which could be liberal and libertarian depending on the interpreters; such as Luxemburg Council Communism or authoritative and Statist such as Leninism. To left wing socialists the Leninists were a right wing deviation who took to authoritarianism. During the conflict the Leninist Bolsheviks has a crackdown on left wing socialists like the Anarchists, Democratic Socialists, and Mensheviks. Lenin called them “infants of the left.” There’s been criticism of them since the Russian Revolution, and beforehand against Marx’s more authoritarian ideals. In caused a split in the IWW against the libertarians and the Marxists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jacob Elledge so much to tell you.
Well first off Macron is a neoliberal aka a conservative economic policy influenced by Milton Friedman and done by prominent conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher from the US and UK respectively.
The whole problem is this neoliberal globalization of corporate/capitalist greed outsourcing jobs and exploiting third world countries. This is why the Far Left, actual socialists and anarchist, have been fighting globalization since the 90s and beyond even. It’s the right that hijacks the left’s fight and makes it about xenophobia and bull like “cultural Marxism” looking like idiots.
The Far Left is not New Deal Democrat’s, or Social Democrats, or Social Liberals like the Nordic countries. What they do is provide Social Welfare, protection laws of the laborers, and high unionization. They all still live within a Capitalist framework. So they’re not socialists, socialism is the end of capitalism and common ownership of the means of production. Reforms and regulations like in the Nordic model, or FDR, or American progressives aren’t real socialists. They’re trying to put band aids on the social ills and fuck ups of the Capitalist system otherwise it’ll collapse on itself. So remember if it’s not the end of capitalism it isn’t socialism. Modern liberalism means concern for social welfare, equality of opportunity, and fighting any systemic roadblocks against marginalized groups and minorities. That’s not socialism, which would just give workers ownership of their industries. Educate yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jacques Lewis A socialist state (the working people in power) will certainly give high priority to health, education, art, science, and the social wellbeing of all its members. That is why it exists, that is the purpose of its economy. But “welfare” in a capitalist state, to improve the efficiency of that state as a profit-maker, is not socialism but a form of state capitalism. It can be an improvement on capitalism with no welfare, just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism.
When socialism comes to America, it won’t be “one size fits all”—although it will have universalist aspects and aspirations. Rather than imposed from above, it will be bottom up, in line with America’s best traditions—able to draw, like the New Deal, on a rich tapestry of experimentation in state and local “laboratories of democracy.” It will be democratic, decentralized and participatory. It will be rooted in racial, gender and sexual justice, recalling Langston Hughes’ “and that never has been yet—and yet must be.” It will dismantle an already-existing American gulag—today’s racialized regime of mass incarceration, encompassing the largest prison population in the world—rather than imposing one. It will be about living safely, wisely and well within a flourishing commons, in solidarity with our nonhuman comrades, rather than overshooting ecological boundaries in the pursuit of financial accumulation.
This will be actual socialism, rather than social democracy or liberalism, because it will have socialized the means of production—although in plural forms that do not all center on the state. Instead of concentrated wealth, it will have broad dispersal of ownership. Instead of frictionless global markets, the rooted, participatory, recirculatory local economy. Instead of extractive multinational corporations, the worker, community and municipally owned firm. Instead of asset-stripping privatization, myriad forms of democratic public enterprise. Instead of private credit creation by commercial banks and rentier finance, the massive potential power of public banks and sovereign government finance—harkening back to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rudolf Rocker wrote some about the reactionary religious zealot movements that arose against conspiracies of these liberal secret societies. Illuminati being the most popular. But these liberal secret societies were organizations formed to create a liberal world order. Meaning an order based in Enlightenment ideals and values. Individual liberties, republicanism, anti-clericalism, and a philosophical and intellectual paradigm based on liberal reason and rationalism. These societies and conspiracies offended the zealot reactionary religious fundamentalists.
Freemasonry is another fascinating subject. A secret society clouded in Abrahamic symbolism, liberal theocracy, and Enlightenment liberalism. Unlike other secret societies of the Enlightenment, the Freemasons were accepting of Judeo-Christian based faiths blended with rationalism (liberal religions). Unlike the Illuminati which was more anti-clerical.
A reactionary religious movement of anti-Masonic sentiment grew in the US, fearful of the conspiracy that the Illuminati were responsible for the French Revolution (as you can see the reactionaries were against the very ideals that the American Republic was founded in). George Washington tried to quell those fears. Ironically Washington was a member of the Freemasons, a secret society which expanded nations to push for a New World Order based in Enlightenment values. Religious conservatives feared the conspiracy of a secret society with an agenda for a New World Order, doing away with traditional orders. Anti-Semitism was also prevalent in these conspiracies.
Ironically the Freemasons were such a secret society and were integral as to why liberal republican revolutions like the American Revolution even happened. Several Founding Fathers were Freemasons. While the French Revolution was violent, it was also based in a liberal and republican movement based in Enlightenment values.
Arguably today a liberal capitalist oligarchy is consolidating an international hegemony. No conspiracies needed. Capitalism, imperialism, and statism functions exactly as such, consolidating power. Just beware of conspiracies, they are the right wing’s bread and butter. Not that leftists don’t get involved in conspiracy theories. Especially Anarchists who hold a healthy skepticism of power hierarchies and institutions. But Anarchists deal more in reason, and science; the deconstruction and analytical critique of the nature of statism and hierarchies is no conspiracy. Today of course capitalism, not feudalism and monarchism, is the old reactionary order, and socialists fight to expand and complete the revolution towards complete freedom.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Plainglasswindows supporting a socialist economy or socioeconomics. Meaning you want to end the capital tyranny on labor. That is to say end wage labor and private ownership of the commons and means of production. Socializing the economy isn’t solely State ownership, that’s the authoritarian State Socialist route in which supposedly the government represents the working class. The original socialists were libertarians, meaning direct worker’s associations, coops, and self-management. The means of production in the direct hands of the workers, aka industrial democracy.
To be a socialist means you want the end of usury, the State monopolies of rent, interest, and profit. These usuries are only possible due to the State capitalist system. As much as capitalists like to claim they support free markets they don’t, they support markets dominated by Capital interests, and government protection and privileges for the property class. Capitalism needs the majority of people to be property less and so sell their labor. This is what I mean, to be a leftist you must be against a Statist system of capital rule.
Neoliberalism was an excuse for capitalism. Classical liberal economics is in fact the precursor to socialism. From Adam Smith, to David Ricardo, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill etc... the labor theory of value was developed. These classical liberals also supported worker coops as proper of free societies over capitalist firms. As Free Market Socialist Benjamin Tucker put it:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
That said you could do this two ways, a socialist market system, or communism where there are no markets and the commune distributed goods as needed freely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
marianmgm spoken like the kind of ignorant shmuck who thinks Socialism is the government doing things.
Socialism is social/collective ownership of the factors of production. This can manifest itself as public ownership (State controlled), direct worker’s control (worker’s cooperatives), or common ownership (common owned production and distribution).
Marxist-Leninism was but one strain of State controlled Socialism. And it became the dominant strain for political revolutions but it is not the only school of Socialism, or Marxism for that matter.
The Paris Commune was a bold experimental revolution that unfortunately had many factors against it as the Monarchy was still around. But it is the most significant moment of the revolution as it was for the worker’s and for once no elite group or class would raise themselves higher than the rest of society.
Revolutionary Catalonia was the next big Socialist revolution. As Anarchists created a social order of highly decentralized, Stateless, federation of worker owned syndicates. George Orwell wrote of his experiences there and with conviction wrote of Catalonia as the most liberated society there has been. After the Fascists with the aid of Soviets did away with the Revolutionary Anarchists, Orwell would be a staunch opposer to authoritarianism and supporter of Democratic Socialism.
These Anarchist and bottom-top organized Socialist societies being short lived have nothing to do with the system itself. Parties involved had reason to quickly put down the revolts that did away with class society and strived for the freedom of all not just a privileged few. Still today historians and economists marvel at what the Anarcho-Syndicalists accomplished. It worked, people thrived, and it was a completely decentralized hierarchy-less social organization. If anything Anarchists proved social organization is possible in voluntary free associations and horizontal structures.
Your understanding of Socialism is indoctrinated propaganda. You wouldn’t know that Capitalism is not synonymous to market economy, that Socialism also allows for markets that forego the Capitalist mode of production. Adam Smith, David Ricardo influenced many a Socialist who came to the correct conclusion that bourgeois Capitalism is not the free economy Classical Liberals had in mind. Indeed such Liberals as Rousseau and John Stuart Mill advocated a Socialist market economy in which the worker’s were in charge and labor was rewarded what it’s owed, and advocated worker’s cooperatives over Capitalist businesses hierarchy.
“No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred, by the accident of birth both from the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggled, the poor are not wrong in believing. Is it a necessary evil? They are told so by, those who do not feel it---by those who have gained the prizes in the lottery of life. But it was also said that slavery, that despotism, that all the privileges of oligarchy, were necessary.”
—John Stuart Mill
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PancakeVsWaffle The Mesopotamian's beliefs were strikingly similar to later traditional Jewish beliefs. Creation of Man to tend to the gods works, the Great Flood, mating between gods and humanity. It's much the same stories and beliefs, the only difference is that in traditional Judaism the focus was on the Most High God and the lesser gods were named messengers and angels. In fact in reading the Bible one can see that the Hebrews acknowledged many gods and believed in a pantheon headed by one God of Gods, who was the true God to worship. This is most supported by the constant use of Elohim, the plurality of the word god, and the treatment of angels as mighty ones, or Elohim. Also God himself called mankind gods, as their first state was godly children, as when God said when speaking of Man, "Man has become like 'us' (the gods/angels) and knows knowledge of good and evil. Also the fallen angel said " God knows if you eat of this fruit you will be like the gods, knowing good and evil".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mr. Mountain Another one indoctrinated to conflate markets with Capitalism. It’s not like there are Socialists that advocate markets. No cause “Socializum is when the gov’ment duz thangz. The more it duz the more Socializter it iz!” Lol
Again Libertarian Socialism aka Anarchism completely shatters that belief. Even other more State based Socialism aren’t so authoritarian and Statist as Marxist-Leninism. They can be democratic and decentralized. Or the most libertarians being the Anarchists.
Market anarchists believe in Market exchange, not in economic privilege. They believe in free markets, not in capitalism. What makes them anarchists is their belief in a fully free and consensual society – a society in which order is achieved not through legal force or political government, but through free agreements and voluntary cooperation on a basis of equality. What makes them market anarchists is their recognition of free market exchange as a vital medium for peacefully anarchic social order. But the markets they envision are not like the privilege-riddled “markets” we see around us today. Markets laboring under government and capitalism are pervaded by persistent poverty, ecological destruction, radical inequalities of wealth, and concentrated power in the hands of corporations, bosses, and landlords. The consensus view is that exploitation – whether of human beings or of nature – is simply the natural result of markets left unleashed. The consensus view holds that private property, competitive pressure, and the profit motive must – whether for good or for ill – inevitably lead to capitalistic wage labor, to the concentration of wealth and social power in the hands of a select class, or to business practices based on growth at all costs and the devil take the hindmost.
Market anarchists dissent. They argue that economic privilege is a real and pervasive social problem, but that the problem is not a problem of private property, competition, or profits per se. It is not a problem of the market form but of markets deformed – deformed by the long shadow of historical injustices and the ongoing, continuous exercise of legal privilege on behalf of capital. The market anarchist tradition is radically pro-market and anti-capitalist – reflecting its consistent concern with the deeply political character of corporate power, the dependence of economic elites on the tolerance or active support of the state, the permeable barriers between political and economic elites, and the cultural embeddedness of hierarchies established and maintained by state-perpetrated and state-sanctioned violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dara Marc Sasmaz Bernie’s federal government ran programs like Medicare-For-All or Green New Deal calls for a centralization of power and bureaucracy. That’s not decentralization. Not only that but it’s a weak approach as opposing parties can undermine and cut those programs so they aren’t permanent fixtures.
The American Progressive movement of the early 20th century was born from scholars that wanted social reforms they learned from their German studies abroad, inspired by the Bismarckian Welfare State that was specifically meant to stifle labor movements and socialist parties. These middle-upper class students took it upon themselves to create this new bureaucratic class devoted to social reform as they saw in Germany. Their heart was in a decent place, but they were just expanding the State.
Modern progressives come from different but similar interests. They want social reform, a band aid on capitalism, expansion of the Welfare State, maintaining a society divided by classes, maintaining capitalism, and increasing dependence on government parties and programs controlled by politicians instead of Direct Action and self-autonomous workers association.
There’s a reason Benito Mussolini said “You want to know what Fascism is like? It is like your New Deal.” Social Democracy is a branch of liberal corporatism (corporatism meaning the structuring of society by social and industrial/economic interests). It advocates class collaboration not struggle. It advocates labor and business/capital interests collectively bargaining under government mediation. This is the concept of Fascist Corporatism, however more moderate and liberal, whereas Fascism is political Corporatism to the extremes as well as extremely nationalist.
Socialists want to achieve the classless society based on mutual aid and individual autonomy. As Orwell said “Socialism is either classless, or it is nothing at all.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is my favorite video essay yet! Up there with Bolo Bolo! Particularly the dive into non-polity alternatives for social structuring and fluid in flux social dynamics. That’s what truly makes Anarchy, genuine statelessness. No permanent forms, just constant constructs and deconstructs, overlaps, splitting, fusions, dissolutions and restructuring etc… Be creative in thinking a new world is possible.
“The most complete man (person) is the one who, doing the most things, depending the least on others, enters into a greater number of relationships. A kind of composite liberty, superior to simple liberty.” — Proudhon (1851 note)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There have been radical democrats who defined or described a state more the republic the more it was democratic. Yes the constitutional aspect protects individual and civil liberties and rights that the democracy cannot interfere not infringe upon, but the governing administration was to be, to some of the founding insurrectionist revolutionaries, democratic. Paine of course was a stalwart of democracy in republicanism. And Thomas Jefferson, who many conservatives believe is their philosophical forerunner (not really he was liberal) believed in decentralized direct democracy.
Jefferson presented the idea in a letter to Samuel Kercheval in July, 1816. "The true foundation of republican government," Jefferson wrote, "is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management".
In that letter Jefferson outlined the need for "ward republics," small units of local government, within Virginia's existing counties, which he thought were too large for direct participation of all the voters. He proposed to divide the counties into "wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person … will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican constitution".
Doesn’t get any more democratic than that political theory which radical democratic socialists like Murray Bookchin would agree with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liran c There are only 2 Targs left after they fucked up royally, the head of the House isn't the true heir, and half of them are mad.
Lannisters are full of shitty human beings and their ambitions result in crimes against humanity.
The Boltons are inhumane and primitive.
Greyjoys raid, pillage and rape. Good maritime people, but suck at everything else.
Arryns are lead by a sickly boy and puppet to Baelish.
Tyrells lost the Game and are no more.
Martells destroyed themselves and were, other than Oberyn, unbearable.
Show or books the young Starks, including Jon, are the heart of the story and at the center. They are the most respectable and truly noble, at least more than others. This story is about the Starks losses and return to power. They are at the front of the War for the Dawn, and have supernatural abilities greater than any others, Bran specifically. Like they said, like direwolfs they're fierce in combat, modest in life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kalebaldwin5398 Biden is old enough in politics to be all kinds of conservative. The guy just goes for what’s politically beneficial career wise. He worked with segregationists to prevent busing (Dixiecrats). He supported “law and order” tough on crime bills in the Clinton era. And he is entrenched in the Democratic establishment post-Obama. As Obama said his own politics would once have been called moderate conservative/Republican. What I’m getting at is Biden is a moderate conservative. Incrementalist. Many people confuse conservatism with regressivism. Conservatives do not oppose change, the political scientific definition is a stance of incrementalist change to preserve traditional institutions and maintain a sense of continuity in social order. Whereas regressives want no change unless it’s a return to an old antiquated system or way of life.
Biden isn’t socially liberal. Another term American politics distorts. To be socially liberal means to advocate individual rights and liberties. To promote a liberal culture of limited government involvement in social life. Social progressivism is the pursuit of transcending social norms, mores, and attitudes. And social conservatism is conserving traditional social norms, mores, and attitudes. Biden is socially progressive on some things, but conservative in others. People tend to be okay with certain things but not with others. I myself am socially progressive and libertarian and am fine with polygamy, prostitution (so long as it’s a proper occupation and not extorted and exploitative), free love, sexual orientations, no marriage etc.... A social liberal and progressive would support gay rights, but not government infringing on rights or liberties. So if an establishment owner wished to refuse service to lgbtq+ potential clientele a social liberal would not advocate government making that owner serve against his wishes. Same in impeding government from telling people who they’re allowed to marry, or what constitutes marriage. A social progressive would disagree with the owner’s position on non normative sexual orientations, but as a social liberal defend individual liberties of both the owner and the lgbtq+ community. Hence a social liberal advocates limited or no government social interference. Something a libertarian socialist like me can support. The thing about us libertarians is we support free association. We are opposed to either social progressives or conservatives social engineering society via laws and regulations. In the American experience such legislation has done as much to hurt the progress of minority communities as was intended to help them. Minority like all communities are better off associating freely for their own interests, having leaders of their own, and running their own towns or cities on their own. The same coercion of progressive laws are easily used for more conservative motives. A more liberal/libertarian society would respect greater freedoms and natural social interactions. At least this is what us anarchists call freedom of association.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luis Alejandro fool the 2nd amendment was not for law abiding citizens, it’s for the arming of civilians to be insurrectionary and break the laws should liberty be threatened or invasions occur. Part of arming civilians was to be prepared for foreign invasion, they just dealt with a Revolutionary War. Others were putting down slave revolts, which no longer exists, and to put down Indigenous attacks. Like it or not it came in handy when ethnically cleansing Natives for Manifest Destiny.
Today we have State police that is a armed law protecting branch of governments. So today militias are to be well trained insurrectionary civilian forces prepared for battle. It is the single purpose left for arming civilians, to be outlaws. Should the government prove breaking with Social Contract these civilians would be traitors and will go against the tyrannical government that they would declare them terrorists, traitors, and criminals. And you fight back with well trained and organized militia, not here’s a gun now you’re ready to fight against the most professional and powerful military the world has ever seen. Arming and training minority civilians and citizens is a must for true adherents of the 2nd amendment, for they are always the first in danger when it comes to tyranny. Therefore insurrectionary militias train them, several groups around the country do this. You know gun nuts from 2nd amendment advocates when you see their reactions to arming and training minority citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.“ - Thomas Jefferson
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” - John Adams
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.” - Benjamin Franklin
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.“ - Thomas Paine
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.“ - James Madison
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.“ - Thomas Jefferson
“What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.” - Thomas Paine
“Let us with Caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” - George Washington
“The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” - Thomas Jefferson
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John-gi6yh but do you know what libertarian socialism is? Do you know the history of classical American libertarianism and figures like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker? Or do you just have the States boot down your throat? As Benjamin Tucker said: “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” — namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 I just feel like it's ignoring the historical context of the term and it's usage. Libertarians were Marxists, Socialists, and Anarchists that continued the far left tradition and wed anarchism with socialism.
While Liberalism is the principle of dismantling centralized State power, the Anarchists and Socialists sought in the same tradition decentralization of economic and Capitalist power upon the individual, a step further in a post-Capitalist world.
Left libertarianism stems from the classical liberal tradition, further liberating the individual from coercive institutions that threaten their liberty.
Anarcho-Socialism = libertarianism, it;s the same thing. Liberalism DOES NOT equal Anarchism or even Socilaism. Libertarianism is the Black and Red united, and is distinct from classical Liberalism.
But if it's the doctrine of free will we're talking about I see your point that Libertarianism is the larger umbrella under which all such ideologies fall.
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.
Traditionally, libertarianism was a term for a form of left-wing politics; such left-libertarian ideologies seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty] Classical libertarian ideologies include, but are not limited to, anarcho-communism (and anarcho-syndicalism), mutualism, egoism, and anti-paternalist, and the New Left schools of thought such as economic egalitarianism. In the United States, modern right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, co-opted the term in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights, such as in land, infrastructure, and natural resources. [Wikipedia]
You are right in that respect I suppose. I've always made a distinction based on the term's origins but if the boot fits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CeramicShot libertarian socialism is anarchism. Meaning anti-statist. Seeing as socialism originated in radical leftist circles as libertarian before State Socialism it is viewed as the purest expression of socialism. Libertarian socialism requires no government, no political action or parties, no political representatives. Indeed there is no government involvement in social and economic affairs, for society would be a decentralized free association of producers. In terms of economics libertarian socialism is anarcho-communism and Mutualism (a market socialism also known as free market anarchism, or free market anti-capitalism).
The Scientific Socialist school of Marx had the same end goals in mind, but made the assertion that the working class would first have to capture the State and government to the proletariats interest and defend the socialist revolution from internal and external capitalist counterrevolutionary forces. Then once proper the State would “wither away.” Marxist orthodoxy first lead to Democratic Socialism, in which parliamentary and democratic parties vied for the working class votes, and govern on their interests. Eventually Lenin would doctrinate a more consolidated State philosophy of bureaucratic centralization and Vanguard Party leadership. The resultant political doctrine of the Bolsheviks, today called Marxist-Leninist is more authoritarian and centralized a method to socialist revolution, leading to all the Marxist-Leninist authoritarian regimes.
The core of socialism, which even Marx agreed, is to put labor in ownership of their own products. That is to say opposition to capitalism (private ownership, wage labor) in favor of labor associations (individual/family business, self-management, industrial democracy). Unfortunately concepts of preferred government systems such as statism, democracy, and political methods overly prioritized everything but the core of socialism, the socialization of the means of production. The French school of socialism, libertarian socialism came before German historical materialist scientific socialism school of Marx, and this quote from Mutualist and libertarian socialist Proudhon explains the quintessential essence of socialism.
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Proudhon also warned that a society with private property would lead to statist relations between people, arguing:
“The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people [...] will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'”
1
-
@ALL_CAPS__ no it’s not necessarily. Mind you the term libertarian originated in the 19th century by anti-statist socialists. The anarchist-communist Joesph DeJacque is credited with popularizing the term. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production and labor association. But libertarian socialists do not put the collective over individuals. Fascism is a collectivist doctrine of putting the collective over the individual. The Fasces being a symbol of power and strength in unity over the feeble individual.
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical. Groups are made up of individuals, and if people think only of what’s best for the group, the group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human interaction within groups which give them life. “Groups” cannot think, only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian “collectivists” to a most particular kind of “individualism,” namely the “cult of the personality” and leader worship. This is to be expected, since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough individuality to make decisions — a problem that is “solved” by the leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this phenomenon.
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose “collectivism” and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much stress on groups structured in a libertarian manner — only a libertarian organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom. So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
“Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative and social action in the life and progress of human societies ... Everything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to individual initiative ... The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity — and the State or government which claims to represent it — if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society ... The question is not really changing the relationship between society and the individual ... It is a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the oppression of everyone else ... [Anarchy]
These considerations do not mean that “individualism” finds favour with anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, “‘rugged individualism’... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the ruling classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse ‘individualism’ is the straitjacket of individuality . . It has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. ‘Rugged individualism’ has meant all the ‘individualism’ for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking ‘supermen.’” [Red Emma Speaks]
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships by their very nature, they help shape individuals. In other words, groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to the abstract nature of their “individualism,” capitalist individualists fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian manner rather than in an authoritarian one — they are both “groups”. Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, “individualists” ironically end up supporting some of the most “collectivist” institutions in existence — capitalist companies — and, moreover, always find a need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These contradictions stem from capitalist individualism’s dependence on individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. abstract individualism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NewNormalWorldOrder not everything on a screen is bull. You see there’s a conspiracy that the powers that be control everything, nots just not true, it’s impossible. They certainly try, but a State can only control the masses so much, there’s too much individual diversity and people. Giving them that much power, which they don’t have, is a ridiculous fallacy. They don’t control the weather, nor minds, nor nature etc… The apparatus of controls is meant to keep order and authority, but they know they can’t control everything as a hive mind. The conspiracists who give them that much power only deny themselves, and make excuses to not do anything if the situation were that dire. The reason the State is in constant defensive mode is because it knows control is a loose thread ready to unravel by any measure. If they controlled everything we would have a decent economy, knowing that it’s necessary for stability. Control is a measure made by a desperate elite to maintain their privileges, and they are in constant fear of losing it, because they can never assume complete control, only maintain the illusion of it and compromise.
That said, your instincts aren’t wrong. Be wary of mainstream media, and social media platforms
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 I count myself among the defenders of private gun ownership, because I am an anarchist and I see utility in having a population that can challenge the state monopoly on violence if needed. Despite this, I am highly critical of right wing gun culture and it’s simple manichean narratives that cast those who support private ownership as the defenders of liberty and those who oppose private ownership as mad tyrants. Guns are tools. They’re not magic wands, and they don’t inherently signify anything about one’s feelings towards liberty.
The idea that mass private ownership of fire arms could potentially be a bulwark against tyranny is valid, but not without some caveats. It’s easy enough to understand the simple logic of “if the people are well armed then they can fight off tyrants.” I often think of anarchist resistance to Franco in the Spanish Civil War and how a well armed peasantry and proletariat might have been a deciding factor in the struggle. Spanish peasants and workers often didn’t have access to private firearms. They had to break into state armories to aquire weapons, and these weapons were often old, out dated, and poorly maintained. What if they had been as well armed as the North American population is today albeit with weapons of the time? Perhaps they wouldn’t have had to rely as much on weapons from Stalin, and maybe his goons wouldn’t have been in a position to stab them in the back as a result. We’ll never know.
The flip side that people need to consider is that private fire arms can also be used to establish tyranny. What if a majority of gun owners support a mad man hell bent on personal dictatorship? What if the majority of gun owners in Spain were supporters of Franco? What if the rich are the only people who can afford decent weapons? Sadly this was the case. The rich fascists were indeed the most likely group to be well armed in Spain, because they were on average the most wealthy and well connected. This is the dark side of private fire arms that not many of us want to broach.
Now, to be clear, I am not making an argument against private ownership. I am in favor. However, we all need to understand the duality of an armed population if we are going to be an armed population. Education is the first bulwark against tyranny. If people understand how to spot a tyrant they will be less likely to follow one. Social equality is the second. If everyone is taken care of, we won’t have a desperate mass willing to sacrifice their freedom for bread. A culture of non domination is the third. If people are socialized to have an anti authoritarian bias they will find authority repugnant. Horizontal institutions are the fourth. If we have federalism, direct democracy and free association then there won’t be a central node of power which can be used to subordinate the masses. The abolition of the state is a must if we truly want to avoid tyranny. Guns, however, are dead last. Guns are for when everything else has failed.
Unfortunately, “the people” are not always the good guys. The people could be progressive working class libertarian socialists, or they could be reactionaries, racists, and totalitarians. Unfortunately, I think we’re trending towards the latter rather than the former these days. A big factor is a simple formula people run through their minds. The formula goes like this;
Pro gun = anti tyranny, anti gun = pro tyranny, therefore the most pro gun voice is the most anti tyranny voice.
From this point of view anyone can be conned into following an authoritarian, while paradoxically believing they are on the side of liberty.
This logic is baked into the American consciousness. The narrative goes that “we’re a revolutionary country and we used our private rifle stockpiles to fight off the tyrannical monarchy.” So, anyone who wants to overthrow the government is just doing 1776 all over again, right? But if guns can be used to knock down authoritarian regimes, can they not also be used to set them up? What if that pro gun leader you’re following has you fooled? What if the obnoxious anti gun liberal is in other ways, more libertarian even if not on that one issue? After all, Mao famously said; power comes at the barrel of a gun. This was not an anti gun quote either, as some have bizarrely claimed. Mao was a guerrilla warlord who established a totalitarian state, and he did it by convincing legions of peasants to follow him by promising land and liberty. Of course after they used their guns to defeat the enemy, they then used their guns to establish a monopoly on violence.
White supremacists have a similar formula for taking power;
Step one- talk about using the gun to protect freedom.
Step two- trick people into using the gun to establish a dictatorship.
The famous white supremacist novel “The Turner Diaries” depicts a “revolution” which is kicked off by a liberal seizure of guns. In the book, the white supremacists use terrorism in order to goad the liberal state into confiscating assault rifles. The white supremacist revolutionaries then lead a revolution. What does their revolution look like? Well, they hang every black person, jew, and liberal from a street post. Not very much on the side of liberty were they? But they sure did love their guns! In this book they used the foolishness of white American gun culture to initiate their totalitarian race war. Today this book forms the basic blue print for the strategy of every right wing mass shooter in America.
The thing is, one’s position on gun ownership is not really a good litmus test for detecting be tyrants. A tyrant might very well at least initially be very supportive of private firearm ownership before they have consolidated power. Especially if they are attempting to subvert a democracy. This is because they can use their followers as a private army. Meanwhile, perhaps the democrat railing about the evil of guns might be a better friend of liberty, even if they are extremely misguided on this one subject.
Consider a boiler plate liberal president. They ban assault rifles, but nominally support unions, gay marriage, the legalization of Marijuana, separation of church and state, easy emigration/immigration, and abortion. Now consider a theocratic president that was a proponent of private fire arms and told his followers to destroy democracy with their fire arms. After doing so, this hypothetical leader then bans abortion, bans emigration and immigration (trapping you there), institutes the death penalty for the sale of Marijuana, and jails union organizers, outlaws homo sexuality of any kind, establishes Christianity as the official state religion. Which scenario gives the individual greater autonomy? It should be obvious.
To be clear, I do not support the prohibition of assault rifles, or private ownership. I do not support the democratic party either. I am merely debunking the idea that anyone who supports the prohibition must be a tyrant, and that anyone who is against is on the side of liberty. This is a simple narrative that has led many astray. Authoritarianism is a spectrum. A person can be an authoritarian in one way, and a libertarian in another. This is the case for most people. For instance, people will often support the legalization of weed, while simultaneously believing we should shoot every heroin dealer in the head without a trial. Or they might be highly critical of state violence committed by ICE, but totally fine with police using violence against tenants on a regular basis. Humans are complex and paradoxical, we are not always the rational animals we believe ourselves to be.
Next time your leader asks you to break out your rifle. Ask them, why? Look deeper than this one issue. Part of being a gun owner is respecting and acknowledging the potential misuse of weapons. Part of being a libertarian of any kind is thinking critically about how any institution can be used to affect individual autonomy in both positive and negative ways. We don’t want to inadvertently get sucked into doing the bidding of a statist, especially not when we’re doing it at the end of a gun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik Merrill maybe brush up on American history...
The American System was an economic plan that played an important role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. Rooted in the "American School" ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the plan "consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other 'internal improvements' to develop profitable markets for agriculture". Congressman Henry Clay was the plan's foremost proponent and the first to refer to it as the "American System".
Henry Clay's "American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry. This "System" consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture. Funds for these subsidies would be obtained from tariffs and sales of public lands. Clay argued that a vigorously maintained system of sectional economic interdependence would eliminate the chance of renewed subservience to the free-trade, laissez-faire "British System."
— United States Senate website
1
-
whyamimrpink78 congratulations your point of argument is posting a link to someone who equates Socialism with Marxism-Leninism and Statism. Clearly there can’t be other schools. Nope the strawmans and played out right wing talking points are great arguments. But meanwhile American history says about free trade economic policy?
Henry C. Carey, a leading American economist and adviser to Abraham Lincoln, in his book Harmony of Interests, displays two additional points of this American School economic philosophy that distinguishes it from the systems of Adam Smith or Karl Marx:
Government support for the development of science and public education through a public 'common' school system and investments in creative research through grants and subsidies.
Rejection of class struggle, in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between: owners and workers, farmer and manufacturers, the wealthy class and the working class.
In a passage from his book, The Harmony of Interests, Carey wrote concerning the difference between the American System and British System of economics:
Two systems are before the world; ... One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.
And I’m not even a nationalist economy guy, I’m a libertarian socialist. Just pointing out that free trade creating prosperity is a myth, and all countries that built economic wealth has their governments protect national economic interests. Since Hamilton your free trade BS was shot down. Keep exploiting labor, that’ll be beneficial to a “free” society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
whyamimrpink78 more uneducated drivel. The establishment media isn’t liberal asshole, they’re just pro corporate establishment. Republicans only serve corporations, how the fuck is that moderate?! Even Eisenhower who supported New Deal, and living wage would be considered a far left liberal to today’s right wing hacks like yourself.
When progressives say they want more Nordic model you right wingers scream it’s Socialism. When they say they want Socialism ala Nordic countries you say they’re capitalists with social safety nets, no shit! Which one is with you people. And by developed nation I refer to all industrialized nations which have these Social Liberal standards.
Progressives who are Democrats aren’t the establishment, which fight those progressive policies like H4A, Free college, and GND. That’s cause they’re right wing Third Way neoliberals idiot, how the fuck are neoliberals left wing when that’s what Reagan and Thatcher were. You really are an idiot,
Romneycare/Obamacare isn’t moderate fool. The moderate would be Canada’s public financing of private institutions. Individual Mandate ala Heritage Foundation would be a compromise between center-right and right positions, how is that leftist? Put down the biased conservative articles where Sanders is a commie and read about actual politics idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to chuckle at, is the idea that her going North is somehow an amazingly noble act that would make Jon bend the knee. It's the bare minimum.
Jorah is her top adviser next to Tyrion. Jon is an important ally. The mission they're on is a plan Tyrion came up with. Dany going North to save her friends and allies and to salvage a plan that her Hand came up with (and that is by extension, a mission that she is responsible for), is not some extraordinary act of selflessness.
It's good yes, but it's not like the fight against the WW doesn't concern her. It fucking concerns everyone. It's not like she's helping Jon out with something that has no bearing on her plans. His mission is core to her plans at this point.
She should be putting herself at risk not for Jon specifically, but for the entire fucking Kingdom. The Kingdom she claims to be the Protector of. If she is the Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, then it is her duty to protect those Seven Kingdoms. She doesn't get brownie points for finally realizing that doing your duty is more important than acting like an entitled brat, a realization that Stannis came to in Season 4.
Once again, doing your duty as ruler is the bare minimum.
Finally, it is absurd in my opinion to say that they have "by far the best and most believable" romance of the show, when they didn't have a single personal scene together before Episode 6. They have only ever discussed politics and the war. Sexual attraction + political discussions doesn't equal love.
It is rushed and forced because it didn't happen organically, and they are now supposed to be completely in love despite barely knowing each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 You need to study liberal history a little more. "Laissez faire" was a battle cry of the radical liberals in France. Liberalism is a philosophy born out of the enlightenment. How is laissez faire right wing when it literally is no government or State intervention? Capitalism is right wing as it's predicated on hierarchic business and socioeconomic structures. Liberalism is the precursor to Libertarianism, that is to say Anarchism which is Socialist. Liberalism was simply the ideal that people were free to commerce in markets without the heavy hand of government getting in the way of people's work and commerce. And in those days the majority of people were farmers, artisans, and merchants... people worked for themselves mostly and owned their labor, though there was still some employment. It was classical liberals who developed the labor theory of value, which socialists believe in. It was when capitalism spread in the mid 19th century that socialism in it's notable ideological form grew out of liberal circles, as seen in the French Revolution, in response to the bourgeoisie ruling class and owners of capital implementing a rigid socioeconomic system of haves and have nots. Thus the liberal roots of Socialism.
The problem with the left or moderate left today is they look towards government to restrain capitalism. In my opinion that's the influence of Statist forms of Marxism. However the problem isn't just capitalism, it's the State and government as well. Even with nice social democratic reforms the exploitative capitalist system is maintained, and society is till stratified in classes. The actual Leftist solution is Socialism and Libertarianism. Post-capitalism. Instead of trying to enlarge government to put band aids on capitalism, revolutionize into a Socialist system. There's room for much social experimentation. We need to look towards Free Market Socialism, and Decentralized Planning. That is leftism.
1
-
@The Polish Latino from Philly Where the hell did you learn politics? Left wing means less hierarchies and more egalitarianism and liberty. Right wing means more hierarchies and inequalities and authority. The most far left extreme is Anarchism/Libertarianism, the most far right extreme is Fascism/Totalitarianism.
Laissez faire as an economic doctrine is government staying out of business that is literally a left position, usually a liberal one which isn't as far left as libertarianism, but it's a left position nonetheless.
You're conflating capitalism, a right wing socioeconomic system, with all of liberal economics which is ridiculous as Socialism was born out of liberalism. Just look at David Ricardo’s development of the labor theory of value, or Thomas Hodgskin’s “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” Maybe this Benjamin Tucker quote can explain better:
"The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrGreensweightHist no it wasn’t. The Constitution was supported and created by nationalist-federalists who wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation to have better economic control and protect the affluent. The whole point was to respond peasant rebellions, which were actually uniting slaves, indenture servants, and poor whites to a common cause against landowners.
The Father of the Constitution said: “In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...” — James Madison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even as a liberal MAGA and Trumpism isn’t conservatism. Social conservatives are extremist illiberal social tyrants. Real American Conservatism, as much as I disagree with the ideology, is fervently Constitutionalist. American traditionalism is the preservation of traditional American institutions and Republican and liberal values. Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Barry Goldwater, Buckley Jr etc…. Conservatism is dead and was replaced by nationalists and religious fundamentalists.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
Barry Goldwater
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doctor Lemon lol just what I expect from an ignorant kneeler. Hey by the way did you know the most liberated civilization was the Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia where they abolished State and worker’s took over industry in worker’s syndicates and decentralized associations? Of course not. As George Orwell said :
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maxwell Seltzer tell that to the worker’s exploited in “third world countries”. Even in your own country you’ll find homeless, and working poor. Capitalism is not responsible for advancement in the sciences and technology. Even the autocracy that was the USSR were advancing technology so much the US bulked up their publicly funded military-collegiate-government research and development to keep up. Hence the birth of internet, computers, satellite phones, cell phones etc... Today that complex goes on with medicine. Einstein, a fellow socialist, explained why capital is not what drives advancement, but brilliant minds given the resources and space to do what they love. Hence the socialist belief in individualism, that the greater the equality of material resources and free time, the greater individualism flourishes. Community socioeconomically, Individualist all other times. “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” as Oscar Wilde called it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinmiller947 The human rights of transgender people, and specifically of vulnerable transgender youth, are being systematically denied and dismantled all over the United States. To advance this violent oppression, the states and politicians in question use more than merely legislation and executive orders. Political actors who fear the freeing and transformative power of gender nonconformity employ pervasive propaganda which misleads the public about transgender and gender nonconforming individuals.
If you’re not especially familiar with the range of experiences transgender and non-binary people go through, now might be a great time to familiarize yourself with their struggles; gender hierarchies in society are a form of coercive social control, and people who hold political and social power will be trying to deceive you about the lives and goals of trans people. If you wish to protect vulnerable people from abuses of state power, you should arm yourself with the information needed to combat insidious, state-funded, transphobic propaganda. People you love and trust may be taken in by this fearmongering, convinced to clamor for government to “protect” transgender youths from proven, effective medical treatments which drastically improve their medical outlook and life quality.
False assertions will be made, claiming that gender-affirming treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are being inappropriately prescribed at the behest of overzealous parents or rogue doctors. You’ll be told, without evidence, how young children are being “disfigured” in “sex change operations.” Self-interested politicians may even convince your friends or family that their own child has been forced or manipulated into adopting “ridiculous” pronouns or expressing a preferred name other than their given name.
These powerful manipulators want to obfuscate the truth: You can’t change someone’s experience of gender through force or manipulation — they’ve been trying for a long time — and viewing your child’s identity, pronouns, and expression as “ridiculous” will significantly increase their risk of death by suicide. As it has been established in study after study, receiving gender-affirming care such as HRT improves the quality of life of trans people. We know the effects of puberty blockers are completely reversible, and going through changes in puberty that match assigned gender rather than experienced gender can be an extended traumatic experience which stays with many trans people for a lifetime. Worse yet, if any entity is forcing transgender youth to undergo procedures they don’t really want, it is those states which require surgery as a condition of changing one’s state-mandated gender identifier.
A recent and egregious example comes from the state of Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton are currently threatening the use of overwhelming state force to steal transgender youths away from their supportive families and deny them scientifically proven and safe medical treatments. The opinion from the Attorney General’s office declares that puberty blockers and HRT cause “mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning,” yet cites no scientific or medical basis on which to make this judgment. Without evidence, the opinion seems to assume treating gender dysphoria “can” cause such harm, and thus should always constitute “abuse” — a patently absurd reading, considering this law is not interpreted to categorically label spanking, circumcision, or refusal of lifesaving medical procedures as “abuse.”
If this opinion is enforced, it will have the effect of creating new law by interpretive fiat — law which specifically targets transgender youth for removal from their families, and placement in a foster system likely to kill them. This attempted mass-kidnapping is not informed by evidence, nor law, nor compassion. In truth, the reason this directive exists can only be this: both men were facing primary elections within the week. Politicians, their appointees, and their talking heads will continue to manipulate the public with unfounded fears about gender-affirming medicine as long as the strategy works. In order to prevent such manipulative abuses of power, it’s crucial to equip yourself and your loved ones with facts to counter the lies propagated by power-hungry tyrants. You may well save a life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IronskullGM One delegates powers to the States. The other protects rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property which are not to be taking without due process of law. Meaning were the country to be lead by Socialists they would legally be able to declare private property as an affront to the people’s right to property. You see to Socialists private property is not the same as personal property. We’re not taking away personal belongings, we’re democratizing the means of production such as land, buildings, machines, etc... And frankly it doesn’t have to be done by declaration of law declaring private property against natural law, as the Earth’s resources are either unowned or commonly owned by the people that live, and giving privilege to individuals to own it is done by authority and force. Collectivized sectors could just arise and spread under guidance of Socialist organizations. Which is why our first goal is education of the masses towards a democratized economy.
Indeed as a LibSoc I support local and decentralized organization over the Marxist Statist approach. I’m no Marxist. FYI the Social Democrats were once synonymous with Democratic Socialism, a Marxist Democratic and parliamentary method of transitioning to a post-Capitalist system. But it’s clear they long abandoned their Marxist roots as they stopped being post-Capitalists content with reforms and regulations. Remaining Social Liberals not looking to reach a Socialist economy. This is the case of Social Democracy today.
“All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” - Benjamin Franklin
1
-
1
-
IronskullGM Lol so says the Capitalist “double speak” person equating all Socialism to Marxist-Leninist State Capitalism. Please don’t pull that crap George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, a real comrade.
Anyway again you may not have to close down business and give them to the workers. Just start a collectivized sector that’ll expand. Every year businesses close their doors allowing for new ones to replace them. Hence start a worker’s coop sector that can expand. Socialist organization should concern itself with education and changing the system from the local upward. This is what I always recommend them. As for large corporations why not use the German law that has worker’s voice in the board of directors depending on the numbers employed. Mondragon in Spain is the largest worker’s coop in the world, successful, and as big as any corporate business. You need to understand there are two strands of Socialism. The Statist kind which includes Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism, or Democratic Socialism closer to the other strand but still committed to government. Then there is the Libertarian strand. Could care less about government and look towards decentralized free associations of worker’s collectives ran democratically. In other words the Anarchist (anti-Statist, anti-Capitalist) branch.
Bitch all you want doesn’t change the fact that the most liberated societies have been these Libertarian (Anarchist) Socialist societies that rid themselves of hierarchical structures like State and classes for free associations of workers. I recommend “Homage to Catalonia” by Orwell so that you may grasp what kind of society we’re talking about. No Capitalist system can ever hope to achieve that kind of liberation. Capitalism needs the State to protect private property, to maintain the underclasses, to sustain the Capitalist ruling class, and like it or not to prevent market monopolies. Tyranny whether from the State or Capitalists is against freedom of the individual. The Classical Liberals fought against concentrations of wealth, power, and prestige. It’s no different today if you believe in liberation. This country has a history of Socialism. In Lincoln’s day the GOP had the support of Socialist groups. Their motto was “Those who work the mills, should own the mills!” Put down the Cold War propaganda and educate yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
IronskullGM sigh...
Mind explaining to me why Individualist Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker are Socialists, and why some support the Anarcho-Communism social organization? It’s because they see it as the perfect combination of individualist and collectivist interests. All anarchy is free societies of free individuals. In a Socialist economy the individual is encouraged to follow their own innate abilities and talents to their leisure. The individual isn’t made to sell their labor, work for hours for a boss, or be an employee. Social Anarchism and Individual Anarchism historically find common interests and grounds for Libertarian societies. Again if you don’t understand the history please STFU. Every Anarchist is for Socialism or Anarchist Markets, not one for Capitalism. Like Henry George we understand means of production are for society not a privileged Capitalist class. Hence why some Socialists would allow private property for recompense to the society, exactly what Georgians push for.
Socialism is variant in schools of thought, from Libertarianism to Statist. It’s a post-Capitalist socioeconomic system that advocates a classless society in which the means of production are socially owned.
These ideas stem from the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and David Ricardo influences Socialist thought. Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated worker’s coops. As for your little Kropotkin rant... he was an Anarchist not Marxist. He didn’t push for a State control method, he advocates abolishment of all hierarchies.
The Marxist Revolutionaries certainly spilled blood. No different than Classical Liberals or many others in history. Hell you also conveniently leave out Capitalism’s murder history. From imperialism, colonization, slavery, forcing markets upon colonized peoples, the liberal revolutions etc...
Funny how Capitalists supported Fascists and the Socialists supported the Liberal Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Or that Fascist Germany and Italy persecuted Socialists and Marxists and supported the Capitalist classes. Again educate yourself. Capitalism is Social Darwinian sociopathic avarice. Cute you claimed Socialism as Social Darwinist. Is that why the Social Darwinian Nazis preferred Capitalism? Survival of the Fittest. "Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of civilization." — Peter Kropotkin
You are really clueless.
1
-
IronskullGM sigh... Anarchist society isn’t about tribalisms. People have a Socialist worldview, or one that advocates communalism and a larger decentralized federal network for collaborative efforts and needs of the community. Why the fuck would the scientist syndicate want world domination, if they adhere to no hierarchies and already are free to do their work. Capitalism is about greed, Socialism is for the individuals talents and abilities to flourish for their and the communities good. Yes Anarchism looks toward global community free of nation-states. It is worker’s solidarity. Never would deny that. But not all are revolutionaries of immediate action. Take Noam Chomsky the old man is an Anarchist that participated in protests but never hurt a fly through violent demonstration. It depends on school of thought.
The Fascist ideal of Socialism had nothing to do with class conflict and social ownership, or even worker’s movements. Hitler made clear his despise of Marxist and Socialist movements. According to Fascists Socialism should be an ideology of class collaboration and the people working towards the State’s interests. There are many quotes in Mein Kampf alone to understand this. The world “privatization” was literally coined to describe the Nazis economic policy. In which they privatized banks and industries. Again know the history or STFU! Corporatism is the most common form of Capitalism. Capitalists and the State are allied. Capitalism would collapse without the State.
And no moron I don’t advocate murder of the rich. Just fucking educate the masses. The Catalonians didn’t got their Stateless society through war they spent decades studying Anarchist thought and before and during the Civil War took their ideology towards applicable methods. Anarcho-Syndicalism. Yet Franco the Fascist aided by Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin won the war and defeated the Anarchist, Socialists, and Liberals.
You’re just having a hard time letting go preconceived notions of Socialism. All your life you probably never heard of Socialism before Marx, of Anarchist societies, of Libertarian Socialism. You must think all Socialism is Marxist-Leninist and therefore have a very Statist negative view of it. Too bad democratization of the economy and libertarian strands flew over your head.
Now you can’t accept Libertarian Socialists created classless, and liberated societies the likes that Capitalism never achieved. Their economy thrived, they had a sense of freedom and community not seen in liberal democracies. “No gods, no masters.” This is all recorded in George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia.”
You moron the Capitalist class leach off the worker’s productivity. They inherit wealth and accumulate it while worker’s settle for wages. What a dumb fuck. Every worker has value unlike the rich CEOs that don’t actually do the work. If you work it you should own it it’s that simple.
1
-
IronskullGM I’ll just bombard your ass with these facts and then I’m out. You’re too narrow minded to believe anything but Capitalist propaganda.
In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a] condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual's only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether laissez faire capitalists are actually interested in freedom.
Looking at Rothbard's definition of "liberty" quoted above, we can see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental, independent concept. Instead, freedom is a derivative of something more fundamental, namely the "legitimate rights" of an individual, which are identified as property rights. In other words, given that "anarcho"-capitalists and right libertarians in general consider the right to property as "absolute," it follows that freedom and property become one and the same.
Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is that it produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as we noted, is no longer considered absolute but a derivative of property -- which has the important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty and still be considered free by the ideology. This concept of liberty (namely "liberty as property") is usually termed "self-ownership." But, to state the obvious, I do not "own" myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity -- I am myself. However, the concept of "self-ownership" is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression -- for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can "sell" (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the "free market"). In effect, "self-ownership" becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects -- ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As L. Susan Brown notes, "at the moment an individual 'sells' labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another's will." [The Politics of Individualism]
1
-
IronskullGM and so Capitalism will never be freedom. It relies on government intervention to even be sustainable, but ultimately it is an antiquated Social Darwinian system. Anarchists are socialists or for Anarchist Markets, not one is Capitalist. Tyranny whether by government or private owner class is opposed to liberty. And so Anarchists organize society in decentralized federations of free associations. Socialist economies of worker’s ownership, worker’s councils, cooperatives, democratized workplace, self-management, recall etc... Free societies of free individuals in worker’s solidarity. Societies like Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia were more liberated than any Capitalist one could ever hope to be. We’re anti-Authority, anti-Statist, and anti-Capitalist. But in the meantime we’ll do anything to alleviate the working class from their owner class exploiters. The more Social Democratic the less concentrated wealth. Ultimately Capitalists support the State. As they did with Franco, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini etc... Free Market Capitalism is a fantasy. No system of such concentration of prestige, wealth, and power is sustainable without a government to regulate it. Without a State to protect the Capitalist ruling class. Workers don’t look for employers to work for a salary because they are free to, otherwise they’ll starve and be homeless. They do it cause they have to.
1
-
IronskullGM Capitalism is presented as a “natural” system, formed a bit like mountains or land masses by forces beyond human control, that it is an economic system ultimately resulting from human nature. However it was not established by “natural forces” but by intense and massive violence across the globe. First in the “advanced” countries, enclosures drove self-sufficient peasants from communal land into the cities to work in factories. Any resistance was crushed. People who resisted the imposition of wage labour were subjected to vagabond laws and imprisonment, torture, deportation or execution. In England under the reign of Henry VIII alone 72,000 people were executed for vagabondage.
Later capitalism was spread by invasion and conquest by Western imperialist powers around the globe. Whole civilisations were brutally destroyed with communities driven from their land into waged work. The only countries that avoided conquest were those—like Japan—which adopted capitalism on their own in order to compete with the other imperial powers. Everywhere capitalism developed, peasants and early workers resisted, but were eventually overcome by mass terror and violence.
Capitalism did not arise by a set of natural laws which stem from human nature: it was spread by the organised violence of the elite. The concept of private property of land and means of production might seem now like the natural state of things, however we should remember it is a man-made concept enforced by conquest. Similarly, the existence of a class of people with nothing to sell but their labour power is not something which has always been the case—common land shared by all was seized by force, and the dispossessed forced to work for a wage under the threat of starvation or even execution. As capital expanded, it created a global working class consisting of the majority of the world’s population whom it exploits but also depends on.
1
-
IronskullGM internet and computers come from decades of government-military R&D public financed research. Only after all the risks and developments in college campuses were individuals able to privatize the tech. And the public has the privilege of purchasing PC’s from these billion dollar worth companies. Shame the computer scientists that developed the innovations in tech never saw the rewards of the Jobs and Gates of the world. Same thing happening within campuses in the medical field today.
Profit doesn’t motivate innovation, just motivates profit. Innovation is driven by proper allocation of resources towards people with talents and abilities in their fields. People having the freedom to follow their skills and passions, and having proper resources that’s how you innovate. Given that innovations have occurred in every period in history. Competition for profits motivates efficiency and cheaper methods, not leaps in the sciences.
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Doe this comment was ignorance. Neoliberalism refers to the economic ideology of neo classical liberal economics (Capitalism). Trade deals without borders, free flow of Capital, and global economy. That’s neoliberalism. It was influenced by the Chicago School of Economics and implemented by the conservative administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The neoliberal age we live in was the end of Keynesianism that started in the FDR administration and focuses on government fiscal policy and demand side economics.
Barack Obama is not left wing of anything. The Democratic establishment abandoned Modern Liberal Keynesianism for neoliberalism and Corporative influence. They are now Third Way moderate right wingers. Socially they are liberal, but it is undermined by their economic blunders and servitude to corporate donors. Essentially they pay social liberal lip service to gain votes, but ultimately do nothing for the working class and general public.
Progressives being Social Democrats are akin to Modern Liberalism of the FDR era. They would implement a Welfare State and stay within the framework of a Capitalist economy. As well implement Keynesian economic policy.
The center-right neoliberal coalition aren’t the Modern Liberals that believe Liberalism is preserved in the modern era by ensuring equality of opportunity, civil rights and liberties, and socioeconomic mobility to ensure individual achievement.
Those that call themselves liberal today in America aren’t those, they call themselves such for being moderately socially liberal yet do not implement the policy necessary to affirm that they are socially liberal. They are center-right, similar to the conservative groups in Europe. The establishment is neoliberal, and center right. Whereas historically those who have been progressive are called so because they go against the status quo. This was Roosevelt, FDR who began to re-contextualize what is Liberalism in the modern post-industrial Capitalist age, and today’s Social Democrats who believe in social safety nets and decentralization of wealth and such reforms and regulations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.” - Pierre J Proudhon
“The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” - John Stuart Mill
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dr.gheese3727 anarchists are libertarian socialists not Marxists. In fact they developed before Karl Marx came on the scene, and the anarchists have always hated Marxist State Socialism. In fact the Anarchist Bakunin warned them what would happen with a centralized state: In the first extract, “Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State,” Bakunin, without specifically naming Marx, nevertheless lays the groundwork for attacking what he saw as Marx’s “statism”.
“The theory of statism as well as that of so-called ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ is based on the idea that a ‘privileged elite,’ consisting of those scientists and ‘doctrinaire revolutionists’ who believe that ‘theory is prior to social experience,’ should impose their preconceived scheme of social organization on the people. The dictatorial power of this learned minority is concealed by the fiction of a pseudo-representative government which presumes to express the will of the people.”
He also eerily but not surprisingly predicted: “The leaders of the Communist Party, namely Mr. Marx and his followers, will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand. They will centralize all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific production, and then divide the masses into two armies — industrial and agricultural — under the direct command of state engineers, who will constitute a new privileged scientific and political class.” 1873.
“The Dictatorship of the Proletariat... In reality it would be for the proletariat a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of a drum; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing: and for the mercenary minded, attracted by the State Bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.” 1869.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Typical conservative “society is too weak and fragile; end of Western civilization” bull crap.
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4th Dimension I am enlightened by Marx’s criticism of the capitalist system, but do not agree with the solutions. Wage labor itself does not promote freedom, and it’s a dull world of soul sucking jobs where the worker is a cog in a machine not able to enjoy fruits of labor other than a paycheck to consume and purchase goods and services. But to say that capitalism or free markets isn’t beneficial is disingenuous. Entrepreneurship and profits inspires new age technologies, methods, and innovations. The problem is Socialism seen as a boogie man. Truth is socialism does well under democratic regulation to creating levels of equal opportunities amongst a society. Social safety nets to aid the lower classes, regulation of public utilities, limiting poverty, social welfare, infrastructure, public schools, collegiate education, etc.. all stand to benefit and improve our society through socialist methods. But I still think capitalism has a place for innovation and individual entrepreneurship. Hence I lean social democrat. Weed out what is beneficial for the society and for the individual, as of yet I don’t see how hardcore pure socialism is more beneficial than no capitalism. I want socialism to prevent the exploitative nature of capitalism to workers, but I wouldn’t go as far left as to eliminate private properties, or free markets, what is true socialism untethered by free enterprise. One thing for sure, saying socialism is bad is bullshit nonsense, as much as saying pure laissez-faire is the perfect economy without problems and truly creates freedom, it doesn’t.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Loginov no I’m not either a State Socialist or a Marxist-Leninist. I’m a Libertarian Socialist, though agreeable to liberal socialism. I advocate Market Socialism, and libertarian communism to whatever community agrees to it. State Socialism is a right wing authoritarian deviation of original liberal socialist ideals originating in the French Revolution.
Don’t mistake the market economy with capitalism. Markets are one thing, capitalism is a socioeconomic system based on particular property rights and privileges, wage work, and exploitation of labor. As Benjamin Tucker said:
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dynamite2925 In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).
“The army...is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4, 1783
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787
“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to unknown recipient, February 25, 1803
“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809
“Our Union is not held together by standing armies, or by any ties, other than the positive interests and powerful attractions of its parts toward each other.”
James Monroe, Message to Congress, May 4, 1822
“I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury, in all matters of fact triable by the law of the land, and not by the laws of nations.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jibo Da Grey what a bunch of nonsense. If you conflate capitalism with market economy then you already have no idea, and are indoctrinated to believe capitalism is synonymous with freedom and free markets.
Yet classical liberals like David Ricardo, Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill supported Socialist Worker Coops. Not a single liberal economist claimed to believe in Capitalism, the private ownership of factors of production, accumulation of wealth and capital, and wage labor, all for profit self-interest. Classical Liberals believed in the labor theory of value. Capitalism was a result of affluent industrialist bourgeoisie extending State privileges and favors to being the plutocratic elite class.
Before the mid-20th century, when American libertarians entangled themselves in conservative coalitions against the New Deal and Soviet Communism, “free market” thinkers largely saw themselves as liberals or radicals, not as conservatives. Libertarian writers, from Smith to Bastiat to Spencer, had little interest in tailoring their politics to conservative or “pro-business” measurements. They frequently identified capitalists, and their protectionist policies, as among the most dangerous enemies of free exchange and property rights. The most radical among them were the mutualists and individualist Anarchists, among them Benjamin Tucker, Dyer Lum, Victor Yarros, and Voltairine de Cleyre. Tucker, the individualist editor of Liberty, wrote in 1888 that his Anarchism called for “Absolute Free Trade... laissez faire the universal rule;” but all the while he described this doctrine of complete laissez faire and free competition a form of “Anarchistic socialism.” For Tucker, of course, “socialism” could not mean government ownership of the means of production (that was “State Socialism,” which Tucker opposed root and branch); what he meant, rather, was workers’ control over the conditions of their labor – opposition to actually existing economic inequalities, capitalist labor relations, and the exploitative practices of big businesses supported by state privilege. For Tucker, the surest way to dismantle capitalist privilege was to knock through the political privileges which shield it, and to expose it, unprotected, to the full range of competing enterprises – including mutualistic enterprise of, for, and by freed workers – that genuinely freed exchange would allow. Another term for Anarchism is Libertarian Socialism. Libertarianism has historically been socialist, the American right wing pro-Capitalists are neither libertarian nor anarchists. They simply took the term cause Liberal was taken.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phatmhat9174 was that a dumbass remark you made? Why yes it is. You see the right wing tried so hard to uphold traditional hierarchies, no matter how much they yelp about freedom. You see when the BLM movement began, and people took to the street they were protesting, whether peacefully or violently, against the State. The police or law enforcement are an arm of the State and government, we’re sick of citizens being executed without trial (though most of us are against capital punishment). We see the statistics and black men are non-proportionately killed by police. We know, through Sociological studies, that this has many causes such as: systemic poverty, over policing of minority communities, and cultural racism among institutions of law enforcement. Hence we protest State violence perpetrated by police. Much like American revolutionaries took to beating Red Coats and imperial officials that abused legal authority.
As for what the regressives, I won’t even insult true conservatives, and far right wingers are doing it is basing identity politics based on antiquated notions that race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation/gender has anything to do with anti-social behavior or criminal activity. That crap is racism 101, in which you generalize and place the issue on a person’s demography and classifications rather than on individual cases.
Now answer for yourself why do you feel called out when I mentioned extremists
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@djatlasmusik yeah but working conservatives need to stop swallowing capitalist State propaganda on socialism. Not every socialist movement is about State Socialism. The socialist movements in America have been about a socialist republic, and expanding democracy to the workplace. Inspired by what the Anarchist Syndicalists in Europe were doing. Many socialists still held traditional conservative values, and found it compatible with socialism. Christian Socialists, rural workers, industrial workers etc... all found solidarity in taking on the capitalist class. Left-Right wasn’t about social views, but about egalitarianism and a more liberal or libertarian society. Modern conservatism has become the authoritarianism Barry Goldwater warned us the Republican Party was heading towards. We need to find true conservatives to ally with, folk with family values, believe in the community and activism of the Church, believe in classical liberalism, a liberal society, limited authority, and republicanism. The conservatives of the 20th century understood socialism, particularly democratic socialism was about liberation and egalitarianism, like even Orwell was a democratic socialist. Conservatives need to remember the words of American socialist leader Eugene V Debs: “The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lu Fo I’m pretty sure I as an Anarchist understand freedom and liberty a little more than you, possibly. A nation that allows centralization of Federal government, continues to support two corrupt political parties, let’s corporations take over legislation, and continue to smear everything outside the capitalist status quo is an uneducated mass. Now I cannot say everyone in America is irrational, but it’s institutions and social structures makes it a nation lacking liberty and critical thought
You’re forgetting a crucial role of civilians in the ideal of Republicanism is CIVIL DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY! The civilians must remain vigilant of government and the State. And instead of taking DIRECT ACTION and civil disobedience the American populace (as in most liberal democracies) rely on electoral politics and legislation. These shams of representative governments are tools of the neoliberal world order, the ruling wealthy elites.
But there lies rule 1 of Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism... education of the masses. It also made me sick to watch the elite Democratic news network smear these working class people for protesting. I think they are acting stupidly to appease Republican leadership, Fox News started this trend of downplaying the virus. I can accurately point that those that have not realized the establishment is playing them are uneducated folk. That however doesn’t mean their situation isn’t understood.
Get off your erudite hill. The fact that you think people that elect their representatives are completely free of their government’s actions shows lack of genuine criticism. That’s like saying the American people were not responsible for government upholding slavery as an institution for 400 years, or that the public couldn’t do much about government segregating citizens. I thought we were in a Social Contract and that government comes from consent of the governed.
I admit my rhetoric is harsh, perhaps too much and you accurately point out I can’t generalize a population. But my point stands that liberty is a responsibility, and these actions are not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lee A In a right-libertarian or “anarcho”-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, “the libertarian defines the concept of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. . .[as a] condition in which a person’s ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand.”
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another’s property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual’s only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether “anarcho”-capitalists are actually interested in freedom.
Given that workers are paid to obey, you really have to wonder which planet Murray Rothbard is on when he argues that a person’s “labour service is alienable, but his will is not” and that he “cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body.” [The Ethics of Liberty] He contrasts private property and self-ownership by arguing that “all physical property owned by a person is alienable . . . I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable . . . his will and control over his own person are inalienable.”
But “labour services” are unlike the private possessions Rothbard lists as being alienable. A person’s “labour services” and “will” cannot be divided — if you sell your labour services, you also have to give control of your body and mind to another person! If a worker does not obey the commands of her employer, she is fired. That Rothbard denies this indicates a total lack of common-sense. Perhaps Rothbard will argue that as the worker can quit at any time she does not alienate their will (this seems to be his case against slave contracts). But this ignores the fact that between the signing and breaking of the contract and during work hours (and perhaps outside work hours, if the boss has mandatory drug testing or will fire workers who attend union meetings or those who have an “unnatural” sexuality and so on) the worker does alienate his will and body. In the words of Rudolf Rocker, “under the realities of the capitalist economic form . . . there can be no talk of a ‘right over one’s own person,’ for that ends when one is compelled to submit to the economic dictation of another if he does not want to starve.” [Anarcho-Syndicalism]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Awoken and Broken Matt Hardy well the Conservative party definitely isn’t classical liberals. They’re more “Christian fundamentalist” and corporatists. Libertarian right are classical liberals.
Modern liberals are Social Liberals, with focus on equality of opportunity. Libertarian left are far left socialists and anarchists.
On the general spectrum it goes
Anarchism - Communism/Socialism - Liberalism - moderation - Conservatism - Fascism - Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
It’s a complicated matter and there are many overlapping and in-betweens but the standard political left-right spectrum is a model to simplify a complex reality.
Classical Liberalism is liberalism, today a more conservative view on what is liberty, but it falls under the Liberal category nonetheless. The libertarian right are exactly this, concerned for limited government, civic rights and liberties, as well as advocating a liberal economy, or free market and enterprise (Capitalism).
Modern Liberalism is social liberalism, concerned on equality of opportunity, reform, and addressing systemic hindrances upon marginalized and minority groups. As well as concern for general social welfare.
It’s all complicated and nuanced, but the way I make sense of the political spectrum is the further left the less State coercion upon the individual, the further right the more State coercion upon the individual. As well as more progressive stances (left) vs more conservative stances (right) of social and economic organization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nihilism has a very left wing history. The idea that there is no universal abstract or objective morality and ethics. It’s all social constructs. Since there isn’t such things, we make the world we want to, there are no limitations other than material conditions. Nihilism drive the Russian Narodnik movement, a socialist rebellion. Max Stirner’s Egoist philosophy influential to libertarian socialists. Alexander Herzen’s philosophy of radical populist socialism. There is no guarantees, no natural evolution that leads to a just an equitable society, you make the world you want in real time, and act on it today. Progress comes from action, actions people take towards progress in their day, and maybe it isn’t a forgone conclusion. Nihilists don’t believe socialism is inevitable, you have to make it a reality. What if human experience and progress results from real decisions made; not by some cosmic morality that there is no evidence of. The nihilist reality is the natural conclusion of philosophical rationalist and materialist movement, which are the philosophical underpinnings of left wing thought. From liberalism, to socialism, to anarchism etc…
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tumslover27 Bernie is not a Socialist. All Socialism shares the core principle of common/social/worker’s ownership of the means of production. Bernie is not for collectivizing the means of production. He’s for reforms, regulations, and redistribution. He’s not looking for a post Capitalist system. He wants more social mobility, a strong middle class, and more opportunity. He hasn’t even mentioned incentivizing a worker’s coops sector of industry. He’s a Social Liberal/Social Democrat plain and simple. Socialism IS the abolition of class struggle and private property. Private property is not the same as personal property, as in your vehicle, tv, home, or as you say coat. Private property the Socialist refers to is private ownership of the means of production, what we call private property. You got the right concept, but are missing some important points.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joansparky4439 I see we also agree on social democratic policy not being enough to solve the problem. It’s a band aid that doesn’t attack the root problem. And highly dependent on trusting which government is in charge and the good of government. We have to be more realistic than that. I am a libertarian socialist, and I am supportive of both libertarian communism, and market socialism. Us libertarian socialists subscribe to the most radical form of market socialism, mutualism, or free market socialism, free market anti-capitalism. We have to stress what constitutes real free markets, which socialism does, not capitalism. Capitalism is just the distortion of liberal enterprise and economics that places the agenda of a ruling capitalist class that functions the same as the old merchant class Adam Smith opposed. Not many still realize that what Adam Smith was opposed to wasn’t government intervention in itself, but the capture of the government by mercantile monopoly interests. The mercantilist equivalent of modern capitalism and Corporatocracy. We have to bring free markets where they belong on the Left, and show it’s revolutionary and radicalism potential. And by so doing expose capitalism for the statist authoritarian sham it is. One way to start is develop a school of actual libertine economics that shows the socialistic tendencies of classical liberals. They didn’t support capitalism, they advocated free markets. From Adam Smith’s staunch opposition to monopolists, and his detest for parasitical landlords and speculators, to David Ricardo’s socialistic classical theories, John Stuart Mill’s support of workers cooperatives over capitalist production, Thomas Hodgskin’s defense of the labor classes to obtain their own productivity and exposing the capitalists exploitation etc... Since many listen, specifically on the right, when you give a veneer of patriotism to the argument, we should use that. Such as the first credited American Anarchist (libertarian socialist) that developed the framework for a free market socialist system previous to, and contemporaneous with the French free market anarchist Pierre J Proudhon. A return of the American Individualist/Free Market Anarchist school could also capture people’s minds towards a market socialist bent.
For the Left, we should stress our history of market socialism that is rooted in classical liberalism and developed into market socialism. In the words of one such market socialist, Benjamin Tucker:
The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rory Saurus Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.
Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture – in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.
Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule, of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance.
But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their personality more or less completely. Not one of these men ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? How will it benefit?
It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.
Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road, and encumbering them. Indeed, so completely has man’s personality been absorbed by his possessions that the English law has always treated offences against a man’s property with far more severity than offences against his person, and property is still the test of complete citizenship. The industry necessary for the making money is also very demoralising. In a community like ours, where property confers immense distinction, social position, honour, respect, titles, and other pleasant things of the kind, man, being naturally ambitious, makes it his aim to accumulate this property, and goes on wearily and tediously accumulating it long after he has got far more than he wants, or can use, or enjoy, or perhaps even know of. Man will kill himself by overwork in order to secure property, and really, considering the enormous advantages that property brings, one is hardly surprised. One’s regret is that society should be constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and fascinating, and delightful in him – in which, in fact, he misses the true pleasure and joy of living. He is also, under existing conditions, very insecure. An enormously wealthy merchant may be – often is – at every moment of his life at the mercy of things that are not under his control. If the wind blows an extra point or so, or the weather suddenly changes, or some trivial thing happens, his ship may go down, his speculations may go wrong, and he finds himself a poor man, with his social position quite gone. Now, nothing should be able to harm a man except himself. Nothing should be able to rob a man at all. What a man really has, is what is in him. What is outside of him should be a matter of no importance.
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
— Oscar Wilde (excerpts taken from “The Soul Of Man Under Socialism”)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even as a leftist MAGA and Trumpism isn’t conservatism. Social conservatives are extremist illiberal social tyrants. Real American Conservatism, as much as I disagree with the ideology, is fervently Constitutionalist. American traditionalism is the preservation of traditional American institutions and Republican and liberal values. Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Barry Goldwater, Buckley Jr etc…. Conservatism is dead and was replaced by nationalists and religious fundamentalists.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
Barry Goldwater
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FakeBunny12 well we libertarian socialists play the long game. First comes the revolution of the mind, then the social. Anarchism still lives so long as people are subjected to hierarchies and labor is exploited. Direct Action to create agro-industrial federation and free associations of autonomous industries and worker’s collectives or syndicates. Going outside the State and undermine those institutions to keep capital ruling. Socialists are the true free marketeers and voluntary communism can free the people/workers. To create libertarian societies we have to help people awaken, promote free thought, and reintroduce anarchist philosophies like anarcho-syndicalism, collectivism, communism, mutualism, free market anarchism. Again people must be inspired to take Direct Action and look towards libertarian solutions. The ideas aren’t new, they just haven’t had as much support so as to make the State bow to the will of a free people. Destroy the narrative that capitalism is freedom, and remind folks that socialism was the direct successor of classical liberalism. History has been distorted to promote capitalism instead of the next stage of liberation, the end of classes.
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.” — Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To add to my first response critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.
Critical Theory also refers specifically to a school of thought practiced by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." Although a product of modernism, and although many of the progenitors of Critical Theory were skeptical of postmodernism, Critical Theory is one of the major components of both modern and postmodern thought, and is widely applied in the humanities and social sciences today.
This is the tradition of the social sciences, the early socialists were the first social scientists, social critics, and social reformers. Socialism is economic and industrial critique, sociology is study of society and it’s critiques of social power structures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spacedragon1453 Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, “the absence of a master, of a sovereign.” [P-J Proudhon, What is Property] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control — be that control by the state or a capitalist — as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
“While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti- State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.” [The Politics of Individualism]
Anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.
Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free society “any interaction among human beings that is more than personal — meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another — in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers’ councils in industry, popular assembly in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society.” Society would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as they can.
1
-
1
-
@DemonDante1000 I address you and @ToxicAudri kindly to my following responses here and lower on the comment chain, I will give a lengthy response.
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of “an- archism,” have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are “free socialism,” “free communism,” “libertarian socialism,” and “libertarian communism.” For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:
“After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government.” [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti]
1
-
@ToxicAudri I address you and @matthew Higgs kindly to my following responses here and lower on the comment chain, I will give a lengthy response.
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of “an- archism,” have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are “free socialism,” “free communism,” “libertarian socialism,” and “libertarian communism.” For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:
“After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government.” [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti]
1
-
@DemonDante1000 First understand that Anarchists are all about organization. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty cannot exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett pointed out:
“To get the full meaning out of life we must cooperate, and to cooperate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
“If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must cooperate with someone else, and cooperation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.
“If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government.”
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that “far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders.” Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. While anarchists “aren’t opposed to structure” and simply “want to abolish hierarchical structure” they are “almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all.” This is not the case, for “organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill sharing, and the spread of information and resources” are based on “good social anarchist principles of organisation!” [“Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism”, Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader]
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at first, but it is understandable. “For those with experience only of authoritarian organisation,” argue two British anarchists, “it appears that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in organisation at all. That is not so.” In other words, because we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society — one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls “organic,” that is, based on cooperative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class stratification involving the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom).
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate going “back to the Stone Age.” We merely note that since the hierarchical- authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to suppose that it is somehow “fated” to be permanent. We do not think that human beings are genetically “programmed” for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behavior, as there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or learned, and as such, can be unlearned. We are not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change the way they do things, including the way they organise society.
1
-
@ToxicAudri There is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because presently most of its wealth — which is produced by the majority — and power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion through its control of the state, it is able to suppress the majority and ignore its suffering — a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:
“Any one who tells you that Anarchists don’t believe in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or unconscious . . . But there is organisation and organisation. Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill . . . , not a single member of the organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over.”
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result that it is, indeed, “sick all over.”
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement is important because, in Berkman’s words, “only when each is a free and independent unit, cooperating with others from his own choice because of mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful.” Anarchists stress that free agreement has to be complemented by direct democracy (or, as it is usually called by anarchists to avoid confusion with democracy government, self-management) within the association itself otherwise “freedom” become little more than picking masters.
Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power back into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected by the decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:
“Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory . . . should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them.” [The General Idea of the Revolution]
It also implies a need for federalism to coordinate joint interests. For anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management. With the abolition of the State, society “can, and must, organise itself in a different fashion, but not from top to bottom . . . The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal. Then alone will be realised the true and life giving order of freedom and the common good, that order which, far from denying, on the contrary affirms and brings into harmony the interests of individuals and of society.” [Mikhail Bakunin] Because a “truly popular organisation begins . . . from below” and so “federalism becomes a political institution of Socialism, the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life.” Thus libertarian socialism
“is federalistic in character.” [Bakunin]
Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct association(or self- management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls “the creative role of dissent.” Federalism is necessary to ensure that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down by a few rulers.
1
-
@DemonDante1000 to reiterate socialism means society reigns free from external influences and authority. Anarchism is the most radical expression of that. The State is all that apparatus and institutions used to take away the decision making power away from society, away from people. Society creates economic wealth, produces, industrializes, and make the world function, not government. People don’t need a law to not do violence, laws don’t prohibit violence. People don’t kill, rape, and murder in droves just because there’s words on a paper saying don’t do it. People form mutual associations, and cooperate to form society. All the things that government “does” can be done by the people themselves. Make roads, schools, collect garbage etc… In fact people and workers do those things, we don’t need government to direct them, just our own mutual association for defense, insurance, and federations. We scale upwards based on our needs, Anarchist federalism replacing the state and supplanting the government. Remove government and you have society, and the organization of people out of necessity for cooperation and association. To learn about the most prominent anarchic social revolutions going on now please research Rojava (aka AANES) in North Eastern Syria; and the EZLN and neo-Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”
Mikhail Bakunin
1
-
@ToxicAudri to reiterate socialism means society reigns free from external influences and authority. Anarchism is the most radical expression of that. The State is all that apparatus and institutions used to take away the decision making power away from society, away from people. Society creates economic wealth, produces, industrializes, and make the world function, not government. People don’t need a law to not do violence, laws don’t prohibit violence. People don’t kill, rape, and murder in droves just because there’s words on a paper saying don’t do it. People form mutual associations, and cooperate to form society. All the things that government “does” can be done by the people themselves. Make roads, schools, collect garbage etc… In fact people and workers do those things, we don’t need government to direct them, just our own mutual association for defense, insurance, and federations. We scale upwards based on our needs, Anarchist federalism replacing the state and supplanting the government. Remove government and you have society, and the organization of people out of necessity for cooperation and association. To learn about the most prominent anarchic social revolutions going on now please research Rojava (aka AANES) in North Eastern Syria; and the EZLN and neo-Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”
Mikhail Bakunin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Social conservatism is the lowest form of conservatism. Just driven by reaction and regression, keeping social behaviors just because. Absolutely nothing to do with classical conservative political philosophy (Burkeanism) and the pragmatic conservative approach of American figures like John Adams. Not even the small government liberal conservatisms of Barry Goldwater, or the traditionalist philosophy of William F Buckley Jr. What do social conservatives got? Pat Buchanan, Stalwell, Limbaugh, Shapiro, Crowder, Peterson, Alex Jones etc…. Time for a new right wing coalition to save Conservatives from the illiberal authoritarian nationalism and theocratic tendencies of social l regressives. It’s up to you conservatives, if you want to be a viable political bloc, you best deal with the trash. Fun fact: by American standards, tradition is liberalism and republicanism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@auntypha5958 the republic died when it became empire. A republic is supposed to be an anti-monarchic sovereignty of the populace. Rome was an empire of oligarchs long before Ceasar, and it was the concentration of wealth and power the patrician agendas, undermining the plebeians that lead to imperial pursuits and the end of Republican structures. But modern republicanism is highly democratic and liberal. You should know this comrade, or have you yet to read Proudhon: “Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
1
-
@venum17 I would think they are different government forms because when republics take the form of empire they become empires. Specifically modern republicanism isn’t classical, they are based in liberal democratic virtues and ideals. Rome being the original Republic was the form that proved empire and republics do not mix, and are antithetical to each other. The Roman Republic started as inclusive of Roman citizenship, creating contracts and treaties for citizenship and commerce. And once the patrician class in the senate sought to expand imperial conquests and pursuits, the Roman republic gave way to imperialism and it’s ultimate conclusion, an emperor. Modern republicanism was formed as the antithesis to monarchism, and so had ideological struggles against imperial colonialism. As seen by the French Republic’s attempt at a constitutional end to colonialism, and Bonaparte’s imperial maintenance of colonies.
Also “imperator” was a public service within the Republic, before it became king in the empire.
In general a republic is a form of government in which the country and its governance is considered a public cause, as opposed to a monarchy where it is considered the private concern of the monarch (except in constitutional monarchies). If you follow this interpretation it doesn’t matter if the emperor is elected or not, an empire can not become a republic unless it profoundly changes it’s goverment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TouringWolf42 that’s the thing, no liberal republic has lived up to their liberal ideals. It’s why Thomas Paine was hurt to see what became of the American Revolution. People have always allowed the State to divide people into color palettes. And what I defend is Cardi B’s right to make whatever content and music she wants. To produce what she likes. To participate in the market of the music industry freely. When conservatives pretend to be classical liberals, their culture war issues prove otherwise. Just like social progressives today, conservatives have always sought to coerce their morality and views on others, instead of supporting civic liberalism. This culture conflict issue is propagated by government and both political organizations for support, when instead the country should be united in individual rights and liberties, and not trying to legislate and coerce one moral point of view on everyone else. Indeed the Conservative ideology is rooted in reactionary backlash against liberal revolution and the values of liberal society. Liberalism was a development of the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, and Age of Reason. When looking into classical liberalism you’ll find the support of advancing society along with science and rationality. I’m working on exposing the roots of libertarian socialism in classical liberalism, and the real expression of liberal doctrine and idealism. Conservatism in America started as Tory royalists against the American Revolution, followed by reactionary elites that aimed to diminish the fervor of democratic liberalism, by centralization of government, and rule by elites, and desire to quell the “rabble” and propertyless majority. Anti-liberalism has plagued the United State since before the Revolution, and well after. And we shall find no liberty until even the right wing of this Republic is committed to classical liberalism and republicanism. It’s telling that politically speaking figures from the Revolutionary era were more radically liberal than even the left wing of mainstream American politics today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sheepy2055 In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a] condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
Given that workers are paid to obey, you really have to wonder which planet Murray Rothbard is on when he argues that a person's "labour service is alienable, but his will is not" and that “he cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body." He contrasts private property and self-ownership by arguing that "all physical property owned by a person is alienable . . . I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable . . . [his] will and control over his own person are inalienable."
Ironically, the rights of property (which are said to flow from an individual's self-ownership of themselves) becomes the means, under capitalism, by which self-ownership of non-property owners is denied. The foundational right (self-ownership) becomes denied by the derivative right (ownership of things). Under capitalism, a lack of property can be just as oppressive as a lack of legal rights because of the relationships of domination and subjection this situation creates.
So Rothbard's argument (as well as being contradictory) misses the point (and the reality of capitalism). Yes, if we define freedom as "the absence of coercion" then the idea that wage labour does not restrict liberty is unavoidable, but such a definition is useless. This is because it hides structures of power and relations of domination and subordination. As Carole Pateman argues, "the contract in which the worker allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. . . To sell command over the use of oneself for a specified period . . . is to be an unfree labourer."
In other words, contracts about property in the person inevitably create subordination. "Anarcho"-capitalism defines this source of unfreedom away, but it still exists and has a major impact on people's liberty. Therefore freedom is better described as "self-government" or "self-management" -- to be able to govern ones own actions (if alone) or to participate in the determination of join activity (if part of a group). Freedom, to put it another way, is not an abstract legal concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all their powers, capacities, and talents which nature has endowed them. A key aspect of this is to govern one own actions when within associations (self-management). If we look at freedom this way, we see that coercion is condemned but so is hierarchy (and so is capitalism for during working hours, people are not free to make their own plans and have a say in what affects them. They are order takers, not free individuals).
1
-
LwrC 1984? Orwell was a true post-Capitalist Democratic Socialist you dumbass.
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
“Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
George Orwell, ‘Homage to Catalonia’
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Billy Pardew capitalism isn’t synonymous with markets. Markets existed long before a socioeconomic system of proprietors relying on wage work for the accumulation of wealth and capital. Capitalism is very much a system of the primacy of capital, the rule of wealth, plutocracy.
Classical liberals were even critical of capitalism, the word capitalist was a pejorative for those merchants and owners of capital whom received privileges and favors from State authority, so that they maintain monopolistic practices.
Early liberals advocates for industrial democracy and what today is called Market Socialism. David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Thomas Hodgskin etc... several were self proclaimed socialists, as socialism was understood as those who hold the labor theory of value, and against the primacy of capital over labor, or a ruling business elite. Hodgskin’s “Labour defended against the claims of Capital” is one of the earliest works of class struggle and socialist principle. Such sentiments continued in liberal circles unto Abraham Lincoln and the modern socialist movements. Yes there are actual leftist socialist strains opposed to Leninism and authoritarian state socialism. Socialism started in liberal thought and circles.
There’s a strain of free market anarchists and market socialists who are anti-capitalist and would see the end of all forms of usury. Interest, rent, profit all forms of income not earned by labor, other than inheritance. Some want labor notes, or time notes as in Josiah Warren’s Time Store where the currency were notes of amount labor used for production. Mutualists would have Mutual Banks where people would get loans at low interest rates in whatever currency and have capital for competition in the markets. The government already has a monopoly on finance and currency. We should be able to use whatever currency is accepted. Don’t conflate capitalism with a free market system, they are not the same. Taking the ideals of classical liberals you’ll naturally come to an anti-capitalist market socialist ideology and model.
Capitalism is simply making money cause you own a property, extract the surplus, and worker’s who create the value and wealth are left to a wage. As Lincoln said: "And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
1
-
1
-
@jleif7736 the cope is real with you huh? Majority of people don’t like social conservatism because it’s social control and government interference in private lives. This Republic wasn’t founded on traditionalism it was founded on Enlightenment principles and liberal values. You know the ideology that is all about individual rights and liberties, not pushing one group’s morality on everyone else. The person who did lose their ability to give birth says she’s fine with it, doesn’t care. A decision was made for her health, to save herself it has consequences but life is messy, she learned to deal with it. Had she not she may have killed herself anyway.
By the way this modern serge of Christian Nationalists aren’t conservatives, they are reactionary regressives. Apparently so are you. Real conservatives detested the religious right. Barry Goldwater warned the country of the fascism that would be in store for the country if the religious right were allowed to takeover the Republican Party, and here we are. You aren’t conservative, you are reactionaries with ideals that don’t belong in the American political landscape. The United States isn’t Traditionalist Catholic (which are leading the religious right) it’s Protestant Reformist and liberal theology. You people have Pool, Peterson, Shapiro, Crowder etc…. That’s a joke, social conservatism and the religious right have destroyed the Conservative movement. I mean that’s a far cry from real serious philosophers and thinkers like William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Real American traditionalists were John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, you people aren’t. Your ideals and fanaticism are the same reactionary extremism that has been in conflict with the American Revolution and liberal Enlightenment since the founding of the Republic
1
-
@Pat Orsban what are you an idiot? My point comes from an actual free market place. Libertarian socialism has a strain of free markets. Socialism means worker ownership. Like I said Republicans believe as much about free markets as Alexander Hamilton did. This country has never had liberal economics. It was either American School which was nationalist economics, and the South had slavery which was a plantation system without any liberal sense.
Study our own history. The only people I know that actually advocate free markets are libertarian socialists. One of the most influential was Benjamin Tucker and this is what he said: “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
1
-
1
-
@Pat Orsban According to a GAO report, about a quarter of the largest American corporations paid no corporate income tax in 2005. It hasn’t really changed since.
But that’s really just the way the system is set up. If you think about it, the corporate income tax really isn’t all that progressive. Just about all the tax loopholes and other tricks for avoiding taxation tend to favor the big boys at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps the single best way to avoid taxes is for transnationals to shuffle income to subsidiaries in the lowest-taxed jurisdictions, so transnationals already have a leg up on the smaller companies that operate primarily in the United States. And if you look at the largest tax deductions and tax credits, they go overwhelmingly to companies that are capital-intensive (the writeoff for depreciation), high tech (the R&D tax credit), or heavily involved in mergers and acquisitions (the deduction for interest on corporate debt).
What’s more, the largest corporations are least likely to suffer for whatever corporate income taxes they do pay, because they tend to be in oligopoly industries that practice tacit pricing collusion through the “price leader” system. This doesn’t require any conspiracies or secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. When three, four or five large firms control more than half the market in a given industry, they tend to follow the pricing practices of the dominant firm. So prices in an oligopoly market are “stickier.” The practical effect is that the big firms in an oligopoly industry are able to use administered pricing based on a markup from their costs — including the corporate income tax — and pass them on to the customers. That’s essentially the same thing a regulated public utility does.
So the largest corporations are more likely to be able to just pass their taxes on to the consumer as a markup, and set themselves an after-tax profit over and above those expenses. Smaller corporations in the competitive sector, on the other hand, are price-takers rather than price-makers. This means that the corporate income tax on the large companies is mostly paid by the customer as part of the markup, whereas the smaller firms take more of a hit on their profits.
In other words, the “progressive” agenda of closing corporate income tax loopholes and raising rates on the big boys will have the unintended consequence of raising prices on the consumer without affecting corporate profits.
So what’s the solution? Instead of taxing their profits higher, we should be eliminating all the interventions by which the state makes their profits so large in the first place.
That means abolishing copyrights and patents, state-enforced monopolies which are the single biggest source of profit in the transnational corporate economy. The biggest source of profit is royalties on information and entertainment whose marginal cost of production is zero. If it wasn’t for “intellectual property,” Microsoft Office would cost about as much as my Open Office CD (I got it for ten bucks). What’s more, trademarks and patents are the main legal support for what Naomi Klein calls the “Nike model,” by which all actual manufacturing is outsourced to independent job shops in the Third World and the corporate headquarters simply retains control of production through its control of IP, finance and marketing. Patents and trademarks are the reason for the brand-name markup of hundreds or thousands of percent between the actual cost of making those sneakers in the Chinese sweatshop, and the $200 or so the Western consumer pays at Target.
It also means abolishing government subsidies and regulatory cartels of all kinds. Regulatory cartels, in particular, have played a huge role in the formation of stable oligopoly markets and the 25% or so markup the Nader Group found in industries with the smallest number of firms.
So once again, this illustrates the same general principle that we keep coming back to: Instead of regulating and taxing the effects of government-enforced monopoly, we instead need to just get rid of the monopoly.
1
-
@Pat Orsban you’re arguing against a radical libertarian free market anarchist. Too bad the conservative “liberal” takes Cold War propaganda created by the government’s agencies, FBI and CIA. COINTELPRO rings a bell? Project MOCKINGBIRD? The FBI’s manipulation of media and attack on civil rights and liberties against dissenters of the State? The murder of civil rights leaders? The persecution of anarchists, socialists, and Marxists? I myself don’t like Marxists, but they still persecuted people for their political ideals. I thought you were a liberal, then stop drinking the State Kool Aid and actually learn about libertarian socialism. Even George Orwell was a democratic socialist with libertarian influences.
If conservatives were “liberals” they would have a history of being on the wrong authoritarian side. Slavery, forced segregation, religious zealots, attacks on Enlightenment ideals like rationalism, secularism, the scientific revolution. Today’s conservatism is one the religious right (social tyrants), corporate oligarchs, and police boot lickers. That’s real “liberal”. Don’t take it from me, let’s see what Barry Goldwater had to say:
On the Religious Right
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
--Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
On Gay Rights
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
"Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
On True Conservatism
"What I was talking about[Gay rights, Abortion]was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Bill and Hillary Clinton
"On Hillary Clinton, who was an ardent Goldwater supporter in 1964: 'If he'd let his wife run business, I think he'd be better off. ... I just like the way she acts. I've never met her, but I sent her a bag of chili, and she invited me to come to the White House some night and said she'd cook chili for me. Someday, maybe.' "
--"Barry Goldwater's Turn", Washington Post
1
-
@Pat Orsban The modern conservative coalition is one of religious fanatics with no respect for secularism, and rights “libertarians” that aren’t critical of the monopolies or State interference in the economy. No they’re all for Corporatocracy. As you can see from Barry Goldwater’s comments the modern Democrats are the true traditionalist conservatives. They come from a line fo traditional conservatism following the Federalists—Whigs—Lincoln Republicans—Modern Democrats. Modern Democrats are traditionalists that support traditional political institutions, neoliberalism, and even liberal values by degrees. Literally the party of urban liberal industrialists, like Lincoln’s party was. Last I checked the Democrats were the Federalists.
Only morons believe social conservatism is the only kind of conservatism. You also have economic conservatives, cultural conservatives, and traditionalist conservatives which the Democrats of today are. They’re incrementalists and status quo, which is why I hate the Democratic Party
I agree that American conservatism should be liberal and constitutionalist, too bad modern conservatives don’t believe so. They’re religious tyrants trying to make everyone else live by their morals, they don’t actually support free markets, they don’t believe in liberal society, they want the Church to have more influence, they don’t support the Constitution (probably never read it), and they practically follow their politicians words like gospel. If they were actually liberals the Republican Party wouldn’t allow so many monopolies to exist. They support patent monopolies so don’t ever talk about conservatives being liberals again. I know real classical liberals, we get along. They are Georgists, actual classical economics, and actually want to limit government. None of them are Republicans
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sudev Sen no scientific basis for what we refer to as “race.” Racial beliefs are social constructs based in State propaganda, pseudo-science, and tribalist bigotry. The Irish weren’t considered as white until they were. Hispanics were considered Caucasian on documents until they made the Hispanic-Latino category. Anthropology, ethnography, biology, eugenics, and genetics do not support “race” classifications. The concept of race was a social darwinian (not proper Darwinism) justification for capitalism (competition/survival of the fittest), imperialism, colonization, white supremacy, and racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Paul oh I see. Your problem is being a Marxist or a Leninist. Last time I checked social democracy was an utter failure and deteriorated to capitalist reformism. And Leninism degrades to State Capitalism.
As G.D.H. Cole puts it, the French Internationalists, including Varlin, were “strongly hostile to centralisation. They were federalists, intent on building up working-class organisations on a local basis and them federating the local federations. The free France they looked forward was to be a country made up of locally autonomous communes, freely federated for common purposes which required action over larger areas . . . In this sense they were Anarchists.” Varlin “had at bottom a great deal more in common with Proudhon than with Marx” and had a “Syndicalist outlook.”
“Varlin and the French Bakuninists,” George Woodcock notes, “had also [like the syndicalists] recognised before the Paris Commune the role of the trade unions in social struggle, and the general strike.” To quote Varlin himself, unions have “the enormous advantage of making people accustomed to group life and thus preparing them for a more extended social organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with one another and to understand one another, but also to organise themselves, to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective.” Moreover, as well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression in the here and now, the unions also “form the natural elements of the social edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed into producers associations; it is they who can make the social ingredients and the organisation of production work.”
The Anarchist critique of the Commune was that it retained a government, inefficient, and unable to administer a social revolution of a mass of people. Marx praised the Commune and thought that in it all his ideals come to fruition. Except the Commune was exceptionally anarchist, federalist, and based in Proudhon’s mutualism. The working associations and clubs side stepped the city government and organized themselves in spite of the “revolutionary government.”
You need to read more.
1
-
Daniel Paul Ultimately, this is the key ideological flaw in Marxism. While claiming to base itself on mass participation, direct democracy and so forth (“socialism from below”) it advocates a form of social organisation, centralisation, which is designed to exclude it. Despite themselves, they end up advocating party rule (“socialism from above”) and ensure the defeat of the revolution from within if not from without.
“the form at last discovered…”?
For Marx, the Commune was “the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour.” He praised such aspects of the experiment as the Communal Council being made up of delegates who would could be recalled “bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents,” that it was a “working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time” and that “the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia.” Marx is paraphrased: “What made the Parisian democratic structure so different?” Its representatives which “were 'at all times revocable' so delegates could not stray from the mandate of their electors.” The creation of a militia is also praised.
Yet this was not entirely true. While the Communards had applied these forms it is false to say that they had come entirely out of the blue. In fact, the Paris Commune applied ideas which anarchists had been discussing for some time. Proudhon, for example, raised the idea of binding mandates and assemblies of elected representatives being executive and legislative during the 1848 revolution:
“It is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees, to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power . . . Besides universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the binding mandate. Politicians balk at it! Which means that in their eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy.”
The vision of a free society being a federation of communes was discussed by Proudhon in his 1863 book “The Principle of Federation” (which drew on ideas he had expressed previously – and even earlier, from the Great French Revolution). Bakunin repeated the same vision of a federal system of communes based on mandated and revocable delegates in the 1860s:
“the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant.”
What of abolishing the army and replacing it with a militia. For Gluckstein, the idea of a militia “owed nothing to . . . Proudhon's anarchist rejection of the state . . . The federation wanted to replace the permanent army with a workers' militia . . . That completely subverted the idea of the state as something imposing its will upon society from above.” This is not entirely true, as Proudhon did raise the notion that “police, judiciary, administration, everywhere committed to the hands of the workers.” However, as a reformist Proudhon did not address the issue of defence of a revolution. This was something which Bakunin raised in a striking prediction of what happened in 1871: “Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence.”
So the awkward fact is that anarchists had been advocating these forms since Proudhon in the 1840s and they were developed by Bakunin in the 1860s. It is true, however, that nothing similar can be found in Marx until after the Commune which suggests, as Anarchist K.J. Kenafick states, “that the programme [the Commune] set out is . . . the system of Federalism, which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and which had first been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form' was therefore not 'at last' discovered; it had been discovered years ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather than as the result of theory, as being the form most suitable to express working class aspirations.”
So, clearly, the major influence in terms of “political vision” of the Commune was anarchism. The “rough sketch of national organisation which the Commune had no time to develop” which Marx praises but does not quote was written by a follower of Proudhon. It expounded a clearly federalist and “bottom-up” organisational structure. Based on this libertarian revolt, it is unsurprising that Marx's defence of it took on a libertarian twist. As noted by Bakunin, who argued that its “general effect was so striking that the Marxists themselves, who saw their ideas upset by the uprising, found themselves compelled to take their hats off to it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and purpose where their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . This was a truly farcical change of costume, but they were bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken and left behind in the wave of feeling which the rising produced throughout the world.”
1
-
Daniel Paul see this is your misconception. Markets aren’t inherently Statist. Literally free markets require no state something capitalists know nothing about. There is a direct line from classical liberalism to socialism. Classical liberals were developing the labor theory of value that socialists believe in. From Adam Smith, to David Ricardo, to Thomas Hodgskin, to John Stuart Mill etc.... the lie of capitalism, classical liberals believed in labor theory, and were against capitalism. Hodgskin wrote “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” Mill supported worker cooperatives over capitalist firms. All markets are is commercial exchange, transactions. Don’t need the state for markets, for Trade. And I’m a Syndicalist. I think markers are ultimately better left ended.
The central fallacy of the argument that support for markets equals support for capitalism is that many self-proclaimed socialists are not opposed to the market. Indeed, some of the earliest socialists were market socialists (people like Thomas Hodgskin and William Thompson, although the former ended up rejecting socialism and the latter became a communal-socialist). Proudhon, as noted, was a well known supporter of market exchange. German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer expounded a similar vision to Proudhon and called himself a “liberal socialist” as he favoured a free market but recognised that capitalism was a system of exploitation. [“Introduction”, The State, p. vii] Today, market socialists like David Schweickart (see his Against Capitalism and After Capitalism) and David Miller (see his Market, State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism) are expounding a similar vision to Proudhon’s, namely of a market economy based on co-operatives (albeit one which retains a state). Unfortunately, they rarely, if ever, acknowledge their debt to Proudhon (needless to say, their Leninist opponents do as, from their perspective, it damns the market socialists as not being real socialists).
It could, possibly, be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not, in fact, understand what socialism “really meant.” For this to be the case, other, more obviously socialist, writers and thinkers would dismiss them as not being socialists. This, however, is not the case. Thus we find Karl Marx, for example, writing of “the socialism of Proudhon.” [Capital, vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels talked about Proudhon being “the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman” and of “the Proudhon school of Socialism.” [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 254 and p. 255] Bakunin talked about Proudhon’s “socialism, based on individual and collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations.” He considered his own ideas as “Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences” [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 100 and p. 198] For Kropotkin, while Godwin was “first theoriser of Socialism without government — that is to say, of Anarchism” Proudhon was the second as he, “without knowing Godwin’s work, laid anew the foundations of Anarchism.” He lamented that “many modern Socialists” supported “centralisation and the cult of authority” and so “have not yet reached the level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon.” [Evolution and Environment, pp. 26–7] These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon’s position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical of whether it would work and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon “the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism.” [Instead of a Book, p. 381] Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves socialists and stated numerous times that they were.
Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover that other socialists considered them socialists. Rudolf Rocker stated that “it is not difficult to discover certain fundamental principles which are common to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and recognise in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty. They all regard the free competition of individual and social forces as something inherent in human nature ... They answered the socialists of other schools who saw in free competition one of the destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies in the fact we have too little rather than too much competition, since the power of monopoly has made competition impossible.” [Pioneers of American Freedom, p. 160] Malatesta, likewise, saw many schools of socialism, including “anarchist or authoritarian, mutualist or individualist.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 95]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billystanton1522 Orwell wasn’t a Marxist, his influence was anarchists. You could only speculate but Orwell saw in socialism, specifically the original anti-authoritarian socialism before the Bolsheviks became dominant, as the cure and foundations for the most libertarian society in the world.
Fun Fact: Libertarianism comes from socialism. The early anti-authoritarian and anti-statists were anarchist-communists and free market anti-capitalist socialists. For example as the Free Market Socialist Benjamin Tucker said: “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.”
Anarchists are socialists, the most libertarian tendencies are socialist, and this was Orwell’s influence. You’re conflating capitalism with market economy, which is historical error. There are many market socialists. What socialists like Orwell called capitalism is the monopolist system of capitalists and landowners, preventing a free economy. Since only through the socialization of the land and means of production does the State become unnecessary. Or again as Tucker said:
“From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men (Warren, Proudhon, Marx) made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
Whether you think classless society is utopian or not doesn’t matter, Orwell witnessed it in Catalonia, and wished to see such a social revolution spread and liberate. The old Anarchist notion of no authoritarian hierarchies, but free association and voluntary cooperation. In case you don’t know libertarian socialism comes from classical liberalism. Capitalism comes from feudalism and mercantilism. Classical liberals were the predecessors of socialists, or as John Stuart Mill said: “The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni "Capital" [...] in the political field is analogous to "government". [...] The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. [...] What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.”
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Pierre J Proudhon (first to call anti-statist socialism anarchism).
Tell me when you find Americans speaking like that and I’ll believe you there are leftist figures. Though to be honest this is a far leftist quote. I don’t even see prominent Marxists in the USA that would use political action to achieve socialist goals. An actual labor party.
1
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni Lol what kind of distorted history are you on about? Sounds like Statist propaganda. When ever someone conflates capitalism with markets I know they have a whitewashed knowledge of history.
What gave birth to Capitalism were State coerced policies like the Enclosure Acts in Britain. I mean capitalism as a system that thrives on a population of poverty to exploit must be a system of liberty huh? Nope. Classical liberals weren’t capitalist enthusiasts they advocated free markets and free enterprise. The fact that Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill, early Herbert Spencer etc… were the direct predecessors to radical liberal socialists means that there is a divergence of history. One where liberal economics leads to socialist theory and the other where the bourgeois property owning class took advantage of liberal economics and industrializations growth along with State consolidation to remove the aristocrats so that the capitalists become the new ruling elite. I recommend classical liberal works like Thomas Hodgskin’s “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” or subsequent liberal treatises like the works of Charles Comte and Dunoyer. Class struggle theory began among radical liberal circles.
Free-market economics was not always capitalist economics. It is important to note here that mid-nineteenth century defenders of laissez faire — for example, Richard Cobden and John Bright in England, Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer in France — did not believe that they were engaged in a defense of capitalism.
An analysis of historical record reveals a picture of which the careful student of history is already aware: the word “capitalism” was only very rarely used prior to the twentieth century; earlier in appearance were phrases like “capitalistic system,” which were employed to describe not the principled free market system championed by modern libertarians, but a system in which property-owners were systematically advantaged by special legal treatment. The term for the individual holder of capital, “capitalist,” also long predates the -ism form.
As classical political economy came, in the industrial era’s youth, to be associated (correctly or not) with a bourgeois apology for monopoly and the exploitative treatment of workers, many radicals searched for justice in a balancing of liberty and equality. The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was one such radical, a unique thinker whose work can help us better understand the historical intermingling of socialist, anarchist, and liberal currents. The kinship connecting classical liberalism and early anarchism remains underappreciated, in part because the tag liberal is often applied as an epithet by contemporary radicals, including anarchists. David Goodway, who specializes in anarchist history, observes the “truth in the remark that Proudhon was a liberal in proletarian clothing,” sharing with classical liberals (radical ones in particular) “the ideal of a society based on contractual relationships between free and equal individuals.” In this vision at least, Proudhon was almost certainly influenced by Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer, students of economist Jean-Baptiste Say and publishers of the radical liberal journal Le Censeur (later *Le Censeur Européen*). Their liberalism is remarkable in its similarity to modern movement libertarianism. Historian Annelien de Dijn observes that the radical laissez-faire liberalism of Comte and Dunoyer was “developed as an alternative to both the Jacobins’ republicanism and the royalists’ aristocratic liberalism.” The general “admiration for the classical republics,” so central a feature of eighteenth century liberal thought, left Comte and Dunoyer cold; they were concerned not with the architectural design of the ideal polity, but rather with limiting the power and role of the state itself, allowing the productive, industrial spirit its freedom. Comte and Dunoyer pioneered class theory (the supposedly exclusive domain of socialists and communists) and, in foreseeing “a complete withering away of the state,” skirted the edges of explicit anarchism or libertarian socialism.
1
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni so Democrats want to be seen as down with black liberation and protests. So what? All politicians want to look good for their base. Trump pretends he’s down with evangelists.
And the Black Panthers were also Maoist Marxists. So what? Colonized peoples have a history of being socialists because they understand capitalism is a hierarchy inherently tied to racial inequality. Black slaves came to the New World as capital.
“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.”
– Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.”
–Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…”
–Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
MLK was a Democratic Socialist. Conveniently a part of his legacy left out. Malcolm X was a socialist. Nelson Mandela was a socialist. George Orwell was a socialist. Albert Einstein was a socialist. Mohandas Gandhi was a socialist and a philosophical anarchist etc.... Gandhi and MLK were inspired by the civil resistance/disobedience of the philosophical anarchist David Henry Thoreau.
The reason colonized and oppressed people are socialists is because it is anti-imperialist and seeks to form a classless society free of hierarchies.
“Socialism is either classless or it is nothing at all.”— George Orwell
And BLM being Marxist and socialists is a bad thing?!! Lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vile Crocodile Certain villages did not do so. Those that did still do not exhibit hierarchies. If the men were found better at hunting, and women as child bearers were better off at home, that did not mean the men were above women, or that women had a lesser influence upon the community. Men did not rule over women. Again most primitive societies had great respect of maternal figures, perhaps seeing strength in the birthing of children. The point is in the communities there was no ruler, folk settled disputes, or taken to the elders or matriarch to help, and goods or resources shared among the community.
The earliest civilization to arise with definable social hierarchies instituted within the society were Sumerian, when the agricultural revolution gave birth to a priestly class who maintained the surplus and soon lugal kings.
As humanity developed, it’s inclinations are towards freedom. Classless Stateless autonomy under Libertarian Socialism principles is the most far left ideology for a reason. The Libertarians and Anarchists that followed Classical Liberalism look towards a free world of voluntary free associations based on mutual aid and Socialist values. Not all Socialism is Statist or Marxist-Leninist. Socialism gave rise to anti-authoritarianism, also called Libertarianism (not the US Capitalist kind) and also known as Anarchism. Which despite what people believe doesn’t mean chaotic disorder and no rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Titan Decentralized and democratized workplaces or industry. The Syndicates deal with each other in Federalist systems. Each Syndicate or Union is worked in a Federalist way, or democratically where any elected officials or managers are subject to direct recall. That’s some of the economic and industrial aspects. It’s worker controlled and owned.
Anarchists believe in the core concept of dismantling all unjustified hierarchical structures, or institutions in society. No one should have a coercive agent telling them what to do, unless it is justified, which often you’ll find unsatisfactory justifications.
There are several historical communes of such societies, the first being the Paris Commune, the most significant being Anarcho-Syndicalist or Revolutionary Catalonia. You can give these a quick search on YouTube or internet in general.
Libertarian Socialism is in other words Anarchist Socialism. Socialism is a socioeconomic system of organization, not a form of government. The doctrines or beliefs of Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists are based on the continuing doctrines of liberty and equality of Liberalism. Just as Liberals dismantled structures of power, wealth, and prestige so does the Libertarian Left/Far Left who are basically an offshoot of or continuing branch of those ideals of Liberalism.
Socialism, Communism, and Marxism isn’t all the Cold War propaganda tells you. Marxist-Leninists are another branch inspired by Marxism but went a complete political Totalitarian route. And they achieved neither Socialism nor Communism for their troubles. Just State Capitalism, and an Authoritarian regime ran by a few leaders of the political party instead of giving workers direct ownership of the means of production or democratizing. They failed the workers and the core beliefs of Socialism of Far Leftism ultimately.
1
-
Titan They supposedly established the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which is the Marxist agenda of workers taking control of the State apparatus, essentially the government. When the workers are in control of government they ease the transition to a Socialist economy and finally Communism.
This means workers will control the means of production, get rid of private property (not personal property), and establish a post-Capitalist economy. The goal is eventually the State will wither away and the Communist society free of class, State, and money would be in place. Hence Socialism is a transition to Communism.
The Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries never got rid of State and money and definitely never established Communism.
They were following doctrines of Socialism, where the workers take a Revolutionary path, but there is also a less violent more democratic way of being elected into power through a democratic government as well. Regardless Lenin himself called what they achieved State Capitalism. That is the State functions as Capitalists employing people, owning the means of production, receiving profits, and distribute or allocating as they wish. This was not at all Socialism, which Lenin called State Capitalism. Stalin would declare State Capitalism as Communism or Socialism achieved which was inherent bullshit.
The workers had employers so that wasn’t Socialist. The workers never controlled the means of production or their own labor in these countries, though they may argue they did through the one-Party system. Regardless it was Totalitarian form of government which was a shit departure from the freedom Socialists always wanted for workers.
1
-
1
-
Titan The hell are you talking about? Socialism is a socioeconomic system, not a form of government. It focuses are getting rid of classes and giving laborers control of their labor.
Catalonia was Anarcho-Syndicalist and the workers owned their means of production. They didn’t have to revolt as this was occurring just before the Spanish Civil War. They formed it over the years and created a society of freedom, no government, a Socialist economy, radical Unionism, and no private property or Capitalism. Everything was decentralized, and democratized, and production was distributed by need not for profit. They thrived until Franco the Fascist dictator won the Civil War.
This was a society so free that George Orwell fell in love with it. In “Homage to Catalonia” Orwell expresses his admiration for the freest society he ever witnessed. He despised the Soviet Union and Fascism as seen in his famous works “Animal Farm” and “1984” He fought for the Anarchists and was a true Democratic Socialist the rest of his life.
It’s not delusion, people are just fed propaganda that a system where wealth is concentrated to an elite few, the very things Liberals fought against, is some kind of freedom. It’s your ignorance that makes you think there is no other possibility for human social organization. It’s been done before, and people will always move towards freedom not the other way around.
1
-
1
-
Titan Again you spewed nonsense. I already explained why State Capitalism isn’t anything Socialist. Socialism is a socioeconomic system not a form of government. Usually it’s Anarchists who have achieved that kind of system. They have no government and voluntarily work in a decentralized and collaborative system of industry. Look up the Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, Rojeva etc... These were free and thriving societies until defeated by Fascists or Monarchists. Again George Orwell paid respects to the Anarchists and Syndicalists of Catalonia, the freest society he ever had the pleasure to witness. We’re talking 1984 Orwell. The praises critic of the Soviet Union and Authoritarianism. Well Orwell was a Democratic Socialist.
The intellectuals of Anarchism, Communism, and Socialism made clear in their works that their systems are about liberty and equality. Not the crap Marxist-Leninist pulled off that Lenin himself coined State Capitalism. The Libertarian Left condemns these “Communist States” (an oxymoron) as the garbage they are. You still have this outdated Cold War idea that Communism and Socialism means tyranny. Well no, notice when Capitalism takes a wrong turn you here no such criticisms. Such as the Fascists of Europe, or dictatorships like Pinochet’s in Chile. There’s a reason Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists are places in the Far Left of the political spectrum, they are the systems of least or practically no State coercion upon the individual. It is the most Libertarian wing on the spectrum. I’ll just recommend you educate yourself on the matters instead of just believing what you were told and not challenging preconceived notions. That’s how I became an Anarchist. Not saying you will change your mind but you have nothing to lose informing yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was pretty mind blowing to me when I figured out what the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly referred to. The Good is represented by Blondie, as not really someone exemplary, he has ambition like all others. He however has a moral code and restraint, he’s not cruel or a sadist. The Bad initially represented by Angel Eyes, is just a ruthless criminal with no morals. The Ugly was represented by Tuco, an outlaw who lives by the gun. Ugly is his physical feature is a joke, but is his murderous life that is ugly. In the end Ugly is shown as the death surrounding these men. With a shit of Angel Eye’s corpse. Tuco turns out to be bad, because society has abandoned him, and he makes of life what he can. Angel Eyes is the true ugly and rotten soul, because he is cruel and murderous for pleasure, whereas Tuco is a survivor, and an outlaw of circumstance in the lawless West.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waltergrace565 the problem with Republicans is they aren’t even conservatives, they’re reactionary extremists. People like De Santis aren’t actually ideologues, they’re careerists that will take advantage of uneducated constituents by fear mongering and blaming everyone for their poverty except the business elites. DeSantis isn’t a conservative, he’s not even an ideological reactionary, he just wants power. If here were from a blue state he’d be pretending to be a liberal. Actual Traditionalism is Burke, Adams, Hamilton, Goldwater. Social conservatism is a disease that has put classical conservatism on the fringes. They’re authoritarian and theocrats that want to destroy liberal society and force everyone to live in accordance with their specific morals. Then you have the economic libertarians who only care for profits. This is why the Republican Party is majority grifters with no real conservatives policy or rhetoric. It’s all just contradictory contrarian talking points and fabrications to maintain power for greed’s sake. American traditionalists need to expel all social conservatives, extremists, and unethical politicians and reform the conservative movement.
“The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
— Quotes from Mr. Conservative; Barry Goldwater
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
m. rude lol spoken like an ignorant Capitalist boot licker. Afraid that the history you’ve been indoctrinated is bullshit. Keep believing freedom is working for the profits of others you fuck boy. Educate yourself cause no one is going to do it for you.
Market anarchists believe in Market exchange, not in economic privilege. they believe in free markets, not in capitalism. What makes them anarchists is their belief in a fully free and consensual society – a society in which order is achieved not through legal force or political government, but through free agreements and voluntary cooperation on a basis of equality. What makes them market anarchists is their recognition of free market exchange as a vital medium for peacefully anarchic social order. But the markets they envision are not like the privilege-riddled “markets” we see around us today. Markets laboring under government and capitalism are pervaded by persistent poverty, ecological destruction, radical inequalities of wealth, and concentrated power in the hands of corporations, bosses, and landlords. The consensus view is that exploitation – whether of human beings or of nature – is simply the natural result of markets left unleashed. The consensus view holds that private property, competitive pressure, and the profit motive must – whether for good or for ill – inevitably lead to capitalistic wage labor, to the concentration of wealth and social power in the hands of a select class, or to business practices based on growth at all costs and the devil take the hindmost.
Market anarchists dissent. They argue that economic privilege is a real and pervasive social problem, but that the problem is not a problem of private property, competition, or profits per se. It is not a problem of the market form but of markets deformed – deformed by the long shadow of historical injustices and the ongoing, continuous exercise of legal privilege on behalf of capital. The market anarchist tradition is radically pro-market and anticapitalist – reflecting its consistent concern with the deeply political character of corporate power, the dependence of economic elites on the tolerance or active support of the state, the permeable barriers between political and economic elites, and the cultural embeddedness of hierarchies established and maintained by state-perpetrated and state-sanctioned violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derek9783 again as an Anarchist you are completely devoid of historical knowledge. If socialism is authoritarian fundamentally and not capitalism then why is Anarchism, the most radical anti-authority ideology historically socialist and anti-capitalist. Why was anti-government politics and libertarianism founded amongst socialists? The father of Anarchism was the socialist Pierre J Proudhon, and the term “libertarian” is credited to the anti-authoritarian communist Joseph Dejacque. If what you claim is true then why does history say different? Why did George Orwell advocate socialism and opposed capitalism, even as his very name became synonymous with opposition to totalitarianism and any authoritarian regime is called Orwellian. A figure remembered for staunch anti-authoritarian ideals was a socialist who said: “ And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer – that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That in itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party.
…I believe the I.L.P. is the only party which, as a party, is likely to take the right line either against Imperialist war or against Fascism when this appears in its British form. And meanwhile the I.L.P. is not backed by any monied interest, and is systematically libelled from several quarters. Obviously it needs all the help it can get, including any help I can give it myself.
Finally, I was with the I.L.P. contingent in Spain. I never pretended, then or since, to agree in every detail with the policy the P.O.U.M. put forward and the I.L.P. supported, but the general course of events has borne it out. The things I saw in Spain brought home to me the fatal danger of mere negative ‘anti-Fascism’. Once I had grasped the essentials of the situation in Spain I realised that the I.L.P. was the only British party I felt like joining – and also the only party I could join with at least the certainty that I would never be led up the garden path in the name of Capitalist democracy.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eli Ubaldo Affirming trans identities means affirming all identities. A cisgender individual can be confident in their gender once they can know that they had every freedom to be otherwise. Having options that aren’t for you takes nothing away from the one that is. And any new guidelines against misgendering would not only protect trans children, it would protect cis boys from stereotypical PE teachers, misgendering them in a misogynistic way for not running fast enough.
The final authority on an LGBTQIA child’s identity is the child themself. However much censorship and restrictions in autonomy may advertise themselves as about “protecting the children,” they are clearly about protecting adults from their own anxieties. However much differential there may be in judgment capacity, a child is their own person with their own rights that cannot be overridden for the sake of an adult’s aesthetic preferences.
Parents, such as myself, have rights as persons but, with respect to our children, we have duties instead. Abridging our parental autonomy for a yet more distant authority would also be bad – laws and provisions preventing parents, children, and physicians from pursuing hormone blockers or medical transition for minors for instance. But this isn’t a matter of parental rights, it’s a matter of parental autonomy being instrumental to children’s rights. Taking children from parents they wish to remain with violates their preferences and in this case, it would also violate their preference in favor of medical transition. One of our duties is to protect the rights of our children and the first step in protecting rights is to not violate them yourself.
The regime being put forward by anti-LGBTQIA forces is not even one of respecting parental autonomy. It’s just one of conservative governments and conservative parents having special privileges to force their will upon LGBTQIA children. Abusive parents and governments can be partners in crime, such as when law enforcement brings runaway children back to their abusive homes. People who wish to bully queers out of public view or out of existence should not be humored, they shouldn’t even be given an inch. Society has a ways to go before all beings are equally free and these traditionalists cannot be allowed to rob that of us, much less create a darker future of oppression and spiraling authoritarianism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YoureRightIThink as someone who’s been to Latin American schools they’re taught that there are 5 continents. A convenient is a large land mass. They’re taught Eurasia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica and the Americas. I understand this is also the recognized geography in parts of Europe. USA for some reason teaches 7 continents but this is political. Geographers are pushing for a more accurate picture. The reason United States call themselves American is because the US as a country has more of a designation as a Federation rather than one country. Technically the original vision was each State were it’s own nation-state and they form a larger Federation, but as history developed they came to identify as one country and one nation. Acknowledging their place in the Americas the Republic of Republics was simply called the United States of America, and so the designation of American for short. But the reality is everyone of the continent are Americans, and other nations also have “of America” in their names. Such as Mexico. Politics sort of just screwed with the original concept of an American Federation of a nation of nations, and a Federation of states rather than one state or national identity. The early founding fathers did not refer to themselves as American, but as Virginian, New Yorker, Carolinian etc…
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@regislafrance3667 the fact that anarchism was birthed as the anti-statist wing of socialism. The historical record. Whatever you want to call it. In the 19th century anarchism was born from socialism. Pierre J Proudhon a free market anarchist/ market socialist was the first to call himself and ideal Anarchist. And the fellow French Anarcho-Communist Joseph Dejacque is credited with popularizing the term “libertarian” and had the first anarchist newspaper in America with “Le Libertaire” Anarchism is anti-capitalist since it’s inception. Right wing capitalist enthusiasts calling themselves libertarians, and anarchists (Anarcho-capitalism) is a 20th century phenomena of the 1950s. Even their founder, Murray Rothbard has said so. “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Rothbard
And what the hell are you on about. Anarchists are radical egoists. They want market socialism or communism because they want individuals to flourish without hierarchies like capitalism. They want the maximum output of egos to express their abilities, talents, and skills without being held back by hierarchies. Read the poem “Soul of Man Under Socialism” by Oscar Wilde. Even if one supports free markets, that is not incompatible with socialism, as we have a radical strain of free market anarchism. Who put capitalists to shame because they don’t believe in any state or hierarchy, just libertarian markets, which would be socialist, free from the hierarchy of capitalism (property owners).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nicholas Olesen the difference is one is anarchist the other is Marxist. Marxism is responsible for most Statist Socialism, meaning using the government to implement and sustain a revolution. Can be democratic or Leninist. Anarchists seek the abolishment of State and all hierarchic social relations for a free society of free associations and federation. The State is seen as anathema to the socialist social revolution of popular assembly.
Also welfare state while a band aid isn’t a solution to capitalism. In fact the first modern welfare state was Bismarck’s successful attempt to stop socialist uprising. Welfare is a temporary balm to temper anger towards capitalism, and then roll back when the capitalist ruling class feel it safe enough. This is why social democratic parties, which used to be Marxist in origin, were deemed a failure. All they did was compromise for social welfare while keeping the exploitative system. There is no socialism without the end of private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. The only solution is free worker’s associations, and socialized means of production. Not government assistance. Or as Proudhon put it:
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Anarchists believe this can only be done by popular assembly and direct worker’s association. Marxists believe in a socialist labor government to achieve and protect socialism.
1
-
1
-
Connor Mack that would come to a surprise to the founders of socialism.
In “What is Government” the first figure to call libertarian socialism “anarchy” Proudhon said:
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
Socialists are the only political theorists that ever called for the abolishment of States. Not capitalists. It is because they sought a world of voluntary association, of self-governance not of government. The belief that all socialism agrees with Leninist Bolshevism is but propaganda for capitalists to prevent industrial democracy. Considering Socialists came from radical liberal and revolutionary factions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MarshallJukov Factions like the Mensheviks, the Democratic Socialists, there were other parties. The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Socialist Revolutionary Party etc... Lenin and the Bolsheviks lost their election and so they decided the Bolsheviks should just grab the government .
The replacement of working class power by party power flows logically both from the nature of the state and from the vanguardism at the heart of Leninism. The state, by its very nature, empowers those at its centre and so automatically replaces popular power with power in the hands of a few party leaders. And if the party is the decisive factor in a “successful” revolution than anything that weakens its hold on power cannot but harm the revolution. Including working class democracy. As Trotsky put it in 1936, the “revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is . . . an objective necessity” and the “revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution”
Which shows the limitations of Marxism and its confusions about the state. For the Marxist Gluckstein, the Paris Commune “inextricably linked change from below and the state” and “Parisian direct democracy made the masses part of the state, and the state part of the masses.” He suggests that Marx synthesised Proudhonism and Blanquism, that Marx’s contribution was to “synthesise their insights”
If “Proudhonism” stressed action from below then Blanquism stresses action from above, by the state, for they recognised the need for “socialist organisation to overcome their capitalist opponents” Thus the Commune shows that “discipline under a centralised command was absolutely vital to mould a fighting force out of the workers of Paris. This was not an optional extra.” It is cryptically noted that “in time the Commune's open, direct democracy would have selected more effective leaders form their midst, but it did not survive long enough for this to occur.” Does this not imply that, when push comes to shove, the “revolutionary party” will simply appoint “more effective leaders” from above? This is precisely what the Bolshevik did do.
In 1905, Lenin mocked the Mensheviks for only wanting “pressure from below” which was “pressure by the citizens on the revolutionary government.” Instead, he argued for “pressure . . . from above as well as from below,” where “pressure from above” was “pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens.” He noted that Engels “appreciated the importance of action from above” and that he saw the need for “the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental power.” Lenin summarised his position (which he considered as being in line with orthodox Marxism): “Limitation, in principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism.”
Given that Lenin had rejected the idea of “only from below” as an anarchist principle (which it is), we need to bear in mind that Leninist calls for “democracy from below” are always placed in the context of a Leninist government. Lenin always stressed that the Bolsheviks would “take over full state power,” that they “can and must take state power into their own hands.” Leninist “democracy from below” always means representative government, not popular power or self-management. So in 1918 it was the concrete situation of a "revolutionary" government exercising power "from above" onto the very class it claimed to represent. As Lenin summarised to his political police, the Cheka, in 1920: “Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves.”
Which is precisely why anarchists reject socialism “from above” in favour of one created “from below.” In the state, it is always the leaders at the top who have power, not the masses. Few revolutionary anarchists deny the need for self-discipline and the need to co-ordinate revolutionary struggle and defence. From Bakunin on, it was considered a truism that there was a need to federate revolutionary forces to defeat reaction. What we recognise is that giving power to a few leaders is a fatal mistake, that they will implement what they consider as “socialism” and override the creative actions from below so necessary to the success of a revolution and the building of socialism.
As history shows, “from below” and “from above” cannot be combined. The latter will always undermine the former simply because that was what it was designed to do!
1
-
MarshallJukov
Ultimately, one is left with the feeling that for all their talk of mass participation the M-L sympathies rest with the Blanquists and their vision of a centralised revolution conducted by professional revolutionaries who knew what they wanted (“Solid organisation and clear leadership were distinguishing features of Blanquism” This can be seen from M-L less than critical account of Blanqui’s politics. Given the obvious similarities of Leninism to Blanquism this is not unsurprising as any systematic critique of the latter would be applicable to the former.
For example, M-L Gluckstein quotes Blanqui's opinion that socialist consciousness has to injected into the working class by “an elite minority” of the bourgeoisie and that the revolution's “soldiers are workers though the leaders are not.” The parallels with Lenin’s arguments in “What is to be Done?” are obvious. Then there is Blanqui’s belief, quoted by Gluckstein, “that workers would need to be educated into communism over a period of time because 'the working class, accustomed to the yoke by long years or oppression and misery [is led] by their masters like blind beasts'” Or, as Lenin argued in 1920, “the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation.”
Gluckstein does present some criticism of Blanquism, namely that it was conspiratorial and so could not play the role Blanqui hoped for it. Thus the Blanquists “came closest to having a revolutionary party” but were “not linked organically to the wider movement through daily participation”, “debating and battling for leadership” and so did not have “an instant mass following.” Which meant their hopes for seizing power were impossible to put into practice as they lacked mass support – or even awareness that they even existed or that their insurrections were taking place.
While he lambasts Proudhon for ideas he (mostly) did not actually hold, Gluckstein simply presents the ideas of Blanqui. It is significant that his criticism of Blanqui is so mooted (much the same could be said of Marx). He states that the Proudhonists and Blanquists have “no direct modern descendants” but “archetypes of tendencies in our movement” but, obviously, this is not the case. The “left-Proudhonists” (i.e., collectivists) have descendants in the anarchist movement while the Blanquists, bar their secrecy, are the Trotskyists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
censored girl I agree people calling Trump fascist have no idea what Fascism is. But Trump does have authoritarian tendencies, don’t have to be a Fascist to be authoritarian. Trump is a kakistocrat and a kleptocrat. The Republican Party isn’t a Conservative party, it is an authoritarian cult of religious fundamentalists, conspiracists, far right bigots, and corporate oligarchs. It’s a regressive anti-American organization with no sense of patriotism. An American conservative isn’t an authoritarian, but preserves traditional institutions, and liberal society. Actual genuine conservatives say this themselves.
From Conservative Political Scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann in “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance”:
“The framers designed a constitutional system in which the government would play a vigorous role in securing the liberty and well-being of a large and diverse population. They built a political system around a number of key elements, including debate and deliberation, divided powers competing with one another, regular order in the legislative process, and avenues to limit and punish corruption. America in recent years has struggled to adhere to each of these principles, leading to a crisis of governability and legitimacy. The roots of this problem are twofold. The first is a serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as polarized and vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a separation-of-powers governing system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. The second is the asymmetric character of the polarization. The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shydawg hanbowski There are many problems with your assessment. Permit me to correct your misconceptions.
Nazis weren’t Socialists at all. Hitler called the party National Socialist, but he always made clear his hatred of the Bolsheviks, Communism, and Socialism. He always said to him Socialism means the collective society working towards the goals and ambitions of the State. Fascists are Corporative. In fact Hitler would later say he wished he had called the party National Revolutionary instead.
The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zilchnilton Nah Jesus said the only commandment left was "Love one another as I have loved you" and so the social justice and equality inherited from Jewish religion reformed in Jesus' teachings. As I already said the further left the more atheistic, and while I don't think of Jesus a God, he was an influential figure who's social and somewhat economic messages are compatible with left-wing ideology. As does Christian Socialists who hate the greed of Capitalism and refer to Scripture to explain why they are Socialists.
Actually Anarchism and Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production, not the State ownership of Stalinism and Maoism. There are many Communist and Socialist schools of thought not all involve Stalin's totalitarian State. George Orwell who wrote the books on Big Brother, 1984, was a Democratic-Socialist, a real one not what Bernie names himself.
It may be tempting to dismiss Marx’s analysis given that his communist vision failed in practice. However, the politics that developed in the Soviet Union were not part of Marx’s vision of a social structure. Besides, Marx thought true communism would develop only under certain conditions. “Marx predicted that for a communist revolution to survive, it would need to involve the countries with the most developed industries, and become at least as broadly international as the capitalist system it would replace." Neither of these conditions were met in the case of the Soviet Union, which was always highly economically isolated. Doubtful Marx would approve of such totalitarian states that give power and ownership to the State and not the workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
French Flag The French Commune was defeated by the forces of Napoleon III. The monarchy took back Paris.
As for Rojava being a shit hole? Let’s see surrounded by Muslim extremists fighting all around, and the Anarchists holding their own community down best they can. Well it’s not their fault their neighbors don’t get along. Doesn’t it tell you something that they’re willing to fight for their free society? The region is polyethnic yet they all live for democratic principles and freedom.
Oh and you’re not understanding Anarchism. We don’t want governments. Societies are at a municipal level. Free Associations of communities, with Socialist economies, worker’s councils, self-management, Democracy. Delegation, immediate recall of representatives, and for the larger organization decentralized federation of course. Those who founded the United States also understood larger communities are best broken into federal decentralization. Liberty, equality, solidarity. Like Liberals before the far left continues the dismantling of concentrations of wealth, power, and prestige. “No gods, no masters!” Liberals saw government as a necessary evil to always stay vigilant of, Libertarians go further to organizing autonomous societies without hierarchies. Like is standard of international communism, we believe a world of worker’s solidarity is possible.
1
-
1
-
Nobody From Nowhere yeah no. Anarchism isn’t local tribalism. Anarchists believe in principles of solidarity, autonomy, free associations, democracy etc... Moving past archaic structures like nations, states, races etc... Humanity is one. I know it sounds far fetched, crazy Utopianism. But ultimately humanity is going to realize we’re a species. Like Marxist international communism, worker’s can find solidarity. Principles and values allowed Catalonia to work together and associate freely. Even in Rojava, Syria as they fight against religious extremists they have a society that looks towards gender equality, ethnic diversity, and freedom. It’s not perfect, it’s an ongoing struggle but it’s an ideology. We don’t look to create municipal decentralized societies to end up in tribalist beliefs like we’re in our primitive age. As Proudhon said “Anarchy is Order!” If anything these fucking authoritarian governments are destroying our world and creating chaos, acting like national tribalist for resources and power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxkronader5225 Mao and Stalin were right wing you idiot. They administrated a centralized government. It’s always capitalists that want to throw all socialism under the umbrella of Marxist-Leninism and State Socialism. Nice try though. George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist and said this of the Soviets he referred to as “Communists.”
“the Communists stood not upon the extreme Left, but upon the extreme right. In reality this should come as no surprise, because the tactics of the Communist parties elsewhere.”
George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
This experience of fighting alongside socialist idealists and against Stalinist backed Communist party, only strengthened his belief in democratic socialism.
Or how about a real advocate of Liberty, the Individualist Free Market Anarchist Benjamin Tucker:
“Probably no agitation has ever attained the magnitude, either in the number of its recruits or the area of its influence, which has been attained by Modern Socialism, and at the same time been so little understood and so misunderstood, not only by the hostile and the indifferent, but by the friendly, and even by the great mass of its adherents themselves. This unfortunate and highly dangerous state of things is due partly to the fact that the human relationships which this movement—if anything so chaotic can be called a movement—aims to transform, involve no special class or classes, but literally all mankind; partly to the fact that these relationships are infinitely more varied and complex in their nature than those with which any special reform has ever been called upon to deal; and partly to the fact that the great moulding forces of society, the channels of information and enlightenment, are well-nigh exclusively under the control of those whose immediate pecuniary interests are antagonistic to the bottom claim of Socialism that labor should be put in possession of its own.
Almost the only persons who may be said to comprehend even approximately the significance, principles, and purposes of Socialism are the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the Socialistic forces, and perhaps a few of the money kings themselves. It is a subject of which it has lately become quite the fashion for preacher, professor, and penny-a-liner to treat, and, for the most part, woeful work they have made with it, exciting the derision and pity of those competent to judge. That those prominent in the intermediate Socialistic divisions do not fully understand what they are about is evident from the positions they occupy. If they did; if they were consistent, logical thinkers; if they were what the French call consequent men,—their reasoning faculties would long since have driven them to one extreme or the other.
For it is a curious fact that the two extremes of the vast army now under consideration, though united, as has been hinted above, by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either is to their common enemy, the existing society. They are based on two principles the history of whose conflict is almost equivalent to the history of the world since man came into it; and all intermediate parties, including that of the upholders of the existing society, are based upon a compromise between them. It is clear, then, that any intelligent, deep-rooted opposition to the prevailing order of things must come from one or the other of these extremes, for anything from any other source, far from being revolutionary in character, could be only in the nature of such superficial modification as would be utterly unable to concentrate upon itself the degree of attention and interest now bestowed upon Modern Socialism.
The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism. There are, in fact, two currents steadily flowing from the center of the Socialistic forces which are concentrating them on the left and on the right; and, if Socialism is to prevail, it is among the possibilities that, after this movement of separation has been completed and the existing order have been crushed out between the two camps, the ultimate and bitterer conflict will be still to come. In that case all the eight-hour men, all the trades-unionists, all the Knights of Labor, all the land nationalizationists, all the greenbackers, and, in short, all the members of the thousand and one different battalions belonging to the great army of Labor, will have deserted their old posts, and, these being arrayed on the one side and the other, the great battle will begin. What a final victory for the State Socialists will mean, and what a final victory for the Anarchists will mean, it is the purpose of this paper to briefly state.
To do this intelligently, however, I must first describe the ground common to both, the features that make Socialists of each of them.
The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.”
1
-
@maxkronader5225 put down the propaganda. Stalin and Mao were communists, meaning they had a goal of a stateless society of decentralist free associative communes and distribution based on need. However they were MARXIST-LENINISTS. Meaning they believed to achieve communism the proletariats, or industrial working class, had to be lead by a Vanguard Party to take control of the State and centralize government and nationalize all sectors. This State Socialism is what anarchists have opposed since it’s inception well before the Bolsheviks.
As Mikhail Bakunin put it: “We revolutionary anarchists are the enemies of all forms of State and State organisations ... we think that all State rule, all governments being by their very nature placed outside the mass of the people, must necessarily seek to subject it to customs and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare ourselves to be foes ... of all State organisations as such, and believe that the people can only be happy and free, when, organised from below by means of its own autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life.”
“The leaders of the Communist Party, namely Mr. Marx and his followers, will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand. They will centralize all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific production, and then divide the masses into two armies — industrial and agricultural — under the direct command of state engineers, who will constitute a new privileged scientific and political class.” 1873.
“The Dictatorship of the Proletariat... In reality it would be for the proletariat a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of a drum; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing: and for the mercenary minded, attracted by the State Bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.” 1869.
“The programe of the International is very happily explicit: the emancipation of the workers can only be gained by the workers themselves. Is it not astonishing that Marx has believed it possible to graft on this never-the-less so precise declaration, which he publically drafted himself, his scientific socialism? That is to say, the organization of the government of the new society by socialistic scientists and professors - the worst of all, despotic governments! 1872.
“No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom.” 1872.
“We who are Materialists and Determinists, just as much as Marx himself, we also recognize the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. We recognize, indeed, the necessity, the inevitable character of all events, but we do not bow before them indifferently and above all we are careful about praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrant opposition to the supreme end of history... the triumph of humanity... by the absolute free and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity as completely as possible between all human beings living on earth.
... The Marxists do not reject our program absolutely. They only reproach us with wanting to hasten, to outstrip, the slow march of history and to ignore the scientific law of successive evolutions. Having had the thoroughly German nerve to proclaim in their works consecrated to the philisophical analysis of the past that the bloody defeat of the insurgent peasants of Germany and the triumph of the despotic states in the sixteenth century constituted a great revolutionary progress, they today have the nerve to satisfy themselves with establishing a new despotism to the so-called profit of the urban workers and to the detriment of the toilers of the countryside...
... Mr. Engels, driver on by the same logic, in a letter addressed to one of our friends, Carlo Cafiera, was able to say, without the least irony, but on the contrary, very seriously, that Bismark as well as King Victor Emmanuel II had rendered immense services to the revolution, both of them having created political centralization in their respective countries. I urge the French allies and sympathizers of Mr. Marx to carefully examine how this Marxist concept is being applied in the International.” 1872.
“To support his programme of the conquest of political power, Marx has a very special theory which is, moreover, only a logical consequence of his whole system. The poitical condition of each country, says he, is always the faithful expression of its economic situation; to change the former it is only necessary to transform the latter. According to Marx, all the secret of historic evolution is there. He takes no account of other elements of history, such as the quite obvious reaction of political., juridicial and religious institutions on the economic situation. He says: 'Poverty produces political slavery, the State.' But he does not allow this expression to be turned around to say, 'Political slavery, the State, reproduces in its turn, and maintains poverty as a condition of its own existence, so that, in order to destroy poverty, it is necessary to destroy the State!'” 1872.
“Either one destroys the State or one must accept the vilest and most fearful lie of our century: the red bureaucracy.”
“Freedom without socialism is privilege and justice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.”
Us anarchists, both communists and free market socialists, are anti-statists, anti-hierarchy, and therefore anti-capitalists. We’re libertarian socialists. The roots of socialism are planted in classical liberalism. As support for limited government developed into support for no government.
Anarchists oppose capitalism as a system of privilege, exploitation, accumulation without limit, theft, abuse, and wage slavery, all supported by the coercive authority of the state. Students of the principles of classical political economy — the ideas of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill, et al. — the libertarian market socialists contended that the full realization of those principles and ideas meant an economic paradigm very different from capitalism, which they viewed as the successor of feudalism and mercantilism as a political, rather than economic creature. “Laissez-faire,” they said, had been improperly and spuriously leveraged for the defense of a system of injustices that in fact had nothing to do with legitimate free markets. Capitalists, the idle rich, were only able to profit from the labors of the industrious because they were protected by unfair advantages, embodied in law, that allowed them to escape the natural outcomes and pressures of genuine, full-fledged competition.
“Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.”
– John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sp3nd Coin the hell are you talking about? All they accomplished was State Capitalism. Don’t tell me you bought the Stalinist kool aid that that garbage can pass for Communism.
Communism is Stateless, moneyless, and classless. Soviet Russia was clearly a nation-State, they had money, wage labor, and State Capitalism, and they had a political class governing the workers. Three strikes you’re out.
Whereas the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Catalonia abolished the State in their autonomous territories, did not use money, and were in organized decentralized free associations of worker’s syndicates. Where the worker’s were in direct control of production and distribution.
Libertarian Socialists actually were closer to Communism, as it’s why Anarcho-Communism became the biggest strain of Anarchism. I fail to see how State Socialists and Marxist-Leninist’s State Capitalism is anywhere near Communism. Even China today exploits the laborers and participate in the Capitalist mode of production. Leninists never managed post-Capitalism, let alone Communism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HarryS77 boy you don’t even know our own history. Ever heard of Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren? Saying only communists are libertarian socialists is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard, especially when the Mutualist Proudhon was the first to call himself Anarchist.
Do you not understand classical economics were the precursors to socialists? Georgism was the pinnacle of classical liberalism. Even the anarchist Leo Tolstoy was supportive of Henry George’s LVT. Classical liberalism was our predecessor, where limited government becomes no government and anti-statism. As an anarchist shouldn’t you be supporting limitations of government, and concentrations of powers like capital? You sound like these social democrats that try to reform things instead of attacking what sustains capitalism, government, the State. I mean we don’t even have a liberal system, the monopolies (that formed under government protections) are basically what Adam Smith was attacking. Actual liberals are anti-monopolists. If you still don’t understand the relation between classical liberalism and libertarian socialism where here’s what a liberal said: “Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.” — John Stuart Mill
Classical liberals were fine with socialism so long as it wasn’t about State interference in the economy
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Matias Martinez might I also offer this article as complementary to your reading Marx’s “critique” of Henry George’s LVT. https://merionwest.com/2019/06/02/through-letters-the-gap-between-henry-george-and-karl-marx/
And here is a link to Marx’s letter https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm
It's been a while since I've read it - but from what I remember, Marx's basic critique boils down to two things:
He says George's ideas aren't socialism. He is correct.
Building on point 1, he criticizes George for not eliminating capital/wage labor. He is also correct that George doesn't do these things.
From what I recall, he never actually refutes the benefits of George's remedy or its ability to reduce poverty and increase labor bargaining power. His entire gripe is with its inability to eliminate wage labor and private property... so his criticism, in my eyes, is very weak and primarily a reaction to contemporary misinterpretations of George and his ideas as socialist. I actually agree with Marx that wage labor is fundamentally exploitative and that value is generally generated by labor - but I don't think his solution to these is practical, at least not in the foreseeable future, and it comes with risks which likely are not worth the rewards.Kropotkin’s communist theories are far superior and he comes to them through an actual scientific and evolutionary basis. Whereas Georgism is actually a brilliant solution to the problem of rentierism.
I would point out, as others have done, that this is not a serious critique and is just Marx's ramblings in a letter. Having actually read both Marx and George, I honestly don't see how their analyses are incompatible for the most part. As far as I'm aware, George's theory of liberal economics doesn't depend on any specific theory of value. Marx's critique is in general more wide reaching than George's but does not touch on a lot of the things George picks up on with respect to land.
His criticism for George was as childish as were his criticisms on libertarian socialists like Proudhon or Bakunin. And keeping it real Marxism has been tried before, Henry George’s LVT hasn’t. As a libertarian socialist I do support a more liberal system so long as we have a State because it would limit the government, and an actual liberal economics system would break monopolies through a more competitive market system whereas the State props up these mega corporations and monopolies, that only exist because of government interference and privileges. With an actual limited government system socialism could be more easily implemented because it has nothing to do with government. A free economy would really help the rise of workers cooperatives, Mutualist banks for laborers, and the socialization of industry and production. Or as Proudhon put it: “Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic” Georgism followed by mutualism would just be the start to an anarchist social revolution
1
-
1
-
@mbburry4759 like I said it’s not a property tax. It’s a tax on the rent of land, valued by it’s market price. I recommend you look into it. And LVT is the only efficient tax that doesn’t cause economic problems.
“Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by natural monopolies, pollution and the control of commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g. intellectual property). Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of land monopoly involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair and equitable. The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes such as on income, trade, or purchases that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue to the people by means of a basic income or citizen's dividend.
The concept of gaining public revenues mainly from land and natural resource privileges was widely popularized by Henry George through his first book, Progress and Poverty (1879). The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to several early thinkers such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and Thomas Paine. Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have observed that a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency, unlike other taxes. A land value tax also has progressive tax effects. Advocates of land value taxes argue that they would reduce economic inequality, increase economic efficiency, remove incentives to underutilize urban land and reduce property speculation.”
Georgism is even more profound in it’s potential effects than many may know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They’re even less liberal and democratic than Thomas Jefferson….
"The true foundation of republican government," Jefferson wrote, "is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management".
In that letter Jefferson outlined the need for "ward republics," small units of local government, within Virginia's existing counties, which he thought were too large for direct participation of all the voters. He proposed to divide the counties into "wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person … will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican constitution".
His proposal was that such wards consist of no more people than can all know one another and personally perform the functions of government for one another; direct democracy at the district level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Loginov A common objection given by capitalists to Anarchist theories is that Anarchism is utopian because people will always form hierarchies, as much as we’d like them not to do so. In short, hierarchies are part of human nature.
There are two major problems with this assumption. First, if hierarchies were natural, then they would have been adopted by all societies. And yet we know this is not true, as there have been many societies which actively eschewed hierarchical decision-making (see for instance examples in People without Government: An Anthology of Anarchy, by Harold Barclay).
Second, if hierarchies were part of human nature, then everyone should desire them. And yet few people desire to obey others (who likes to have to work, pay taxes, and so on?). We obey for many reasons, but not out of a desire for the hierarchy itself. No other human instinct works in this way. We seek to have sex because we want to have sex, not because we’re forced to. We eat because we’re hungry. People follow some religion or spirituality, and don’t wish ardently that they were skeptics. In short, if hierarchies are natural, then why don’t we actually like them?
I said that we obey others for many reasons. This obviously needs to be explained before the argument takes its full force. There are three main reasons why we obey:
1. Because we have no other viable options (this is not true in some cases, but certainly true in others).
2. Because we can’t imagine things being any other way. This is especially true of hierarchies which have existed for more than a generation. This would apply to people who didn’t have access to education, despite the fact that we are now more educated, we are not taught about the different kinds of societies that existed before ours (as in the book I already referenced), or the alternatives which exist today (see for instance the examples from Anarchy in Action, by Colin Ward).
Our education system is geared towards turning children into good citizens and good workers, not into informed decision-makers or people with any knowledge of society beyond the tyrannical concepts of our capital-democracies. Decision-making is, of course, to be left to the “experts” and “authorities,” leaving the people as a whole with token choices between pre-approved options. And because we are taught that “it’s always been that way,” we can’t imagine it being any other way.
3. We hope to, one day, be the ones who give the orders, either as an individual or as part of a faction. This is the goal of most hierarchical games conditions, including those of capitalism and democracy, and those that don’t have that goal still give an inbuilt sense of superiority (in Christianity, for instance, one cannot become God, but one can feel superior to others by worshipping God the right way and having the correct beliefs).
In fact, it’s interesting to note how little even true believers in this or that faction support the hierarchy that makes their factions possible, in democracy for example. The staunch Democrat or Republican does not believe in democracy, at least most of the time; he or she praises the democratic process only when their chosen faction wins. They want to impose their values on everyone else, not obey the results of the process as such.
The best argument against the “hierarchies are natural” position is the massive amount of indoctrination, threats and cajoling necessary to make people obey, starting from a young age all through one’s life. And yet, the moment their control weakens, widespread public resistance springs up almost by magic. In his famous work The True Believer, Eric Hoffer pointed out that dictatorships need not fear opposition as long as they maintain their iron grip, but that any relaxing of that grip is inevitably followed by public rebellion. If hierarchies were natural, this is the exact opposite of what we would expect.
If hierarchies are not natural, then what is natural? As Kropotkin famously argued, mutual aid permeates the animal kingdom, including humans, and is probably a more important evolutionary factor than warfare between species or competition within a species. The faculties which led the human species to unlock the secrets of nature were social adaptations, not tools of war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Soul Prestigio In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a] condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual's only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether laissez faire capitalists are actually interested in freedom.
Looking at Rothbard's definition of "liberty" quoted above, we can see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental, independent concept. Instead, freedom is a derivative of something more fundamental, namely the "legitimate rights" of an individual, which are identified as property rights. In other words, given that "anarcho"-capitalists and right libertarians in general consider the right to property as "absolute," it follows that freedom and property become one and the same.
Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is that it produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as we noted, is no longer considered absolute but a derivative of property -- which has the important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty and still be considered free by the ideology. This concept of liberty (namely "liberty as property") is usually termed "self-ownership." But, to state the obvious, I do not "own" myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity -- I am myself. However, the concept of "self-ownership" is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression -- for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can "sell" (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the "free market"). In effect, "self-ownership" becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects -- ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As L. Susan Brown notes, "at the moment an individual 'sells' labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another's will." [The Politics of Individualism]
1
-
Soul Prestigio and so Capitalism will never be freedom. It relies on government intervention to even be sustainable, but ultimately it is an antiquated Social Darwinian system. Anarchists are socialists or for Anarchist Markets, not one is Capitalist. Tyranny whether by government or private owner class is opposed to liberty. And so Anarchists organize society in decentralized federations of free associations. Socialist economies of worker’s ownership, worker’s councils, cooperatives, democratized workplace, self-management, recall etc... Free societies of free individuals in worker’s solidarity. Societies like Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia were more liberated than any Capitalist one could ever hope to be. We’re anti-Authority, anti-Statist, and anti-Capitalist. But in the meantime we’ll do anything to alleviate the working class from their owner class exploiters. The more Social Democratic the less concentrated wealth. Ultimately Capitalists support the State. As they did with Franco, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini etc... Free Market Capitalism is a fantasy. No system of such concentration of prestige, wealth, and power is sustainable without a government to regulate it. Without a State to protect the Capitalist ruling class. Workers don’t look for employers to work for a salary because they are free to, otherwise they’ll starve and be homeless. They do it cause they have to.
1
-
Soul Prestigio please don’t call yourself “Libertarian” Actual Libertarianism is what Anarchist Socialists called themselves and their anti-Capitalist and anti-State ideology. What you are is a laissez faire Capitalist. A Miltonist, a Chicago Boy etc... no need to use another’s term.
Capitalism brings people out of poverty? Sure the privileged Capitalist owners. Let’s not forget why minorities are least likely to be in the socioeconomic elite historically.
Capitalism is presented as a “natural” system, formed a bit like mountains or land masses by forces beyond human control, that it is an economic system ultimately resulting from human nature. However it was not established by “natural forces” but by intense and massive violence across the globe. First in the “advanced” countries, enclosures drove self-sufficient peasants from communal land into the cities to work in factories. Any resistance was crushed. People who resisted the imposition of wage labour were subjected to vagabond laws and imprisonment, torture, deportation or execution. In England under the reign of Henry VIII alone 72,000 people were executed for vagabondage.
Later capitalism was spread by invasion and conquest by Western imperialist powers around the globe. Whole civilisations were brutally destroyed with communities driven from their land into waged work. The only countries that avoided conquest were those—like Japan—which adopted capitalism on their own in order to compete with the other imperial powers. Everywhere capitalism developed, peasants and early workers resisted, but were eventually overcome by mass terror and violence.
Capitalism did not arise by a set of natural laws which stem from human nature: it was spread by the organised violence of the elite. The concept of private property of land and means of production might seem now like the natural state of things, however we should remember it is a man-made concept enforced by conquest. Similarly, the existence of a class of people with nothing to sell but their labour power is not something which has always been the case—common land shared by all was seized by force, and the dispossessed forced to work for a wage under the threat of starvation or even execution. As capital expanded, it created a global working class consisting of the majority of the world’s population whom it exploits but also depends on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thomas Jefferson I hear what you’re saying. I don’t like the Federalists. They weren’t actually for Federalism which at the time wasn’t a clear concept. Confederalism and Federalism to some were synonymous, Jefferson was an actual Federalist, the Nationalists weren’t. Their Constitution, the one we inexplicably still have now, was one to centralize power to the whims of the elitist “Federalists”, it was a counterrevolutionary coup. Hamilton justified the Constitution as giving government pretty much unlimited powers despite the rhetoric of power distribution.
As per the US Constitution I agree with Paine and Jefferson. No generation should be governed by the dead.
My point was that in accordance to the Federal Constitution, government use of authority is constitutional to all it deems national interest. We are living in Hamilton’s republic, governed by and for elites, wealthy aristocracy, and high industrial production serving the speculators, financiers, and plutocrats.
As for the not being a Federal issue you’re right. Then therefore Tucker’s premise is nonexistent as to the unconstitutionality of the issue. If it’s not a Federal issue the purview of the situation lies with the State as to whether or not it is breaking Constitutionality to which this Governor answers he was following health guidelines and deemed it necessary. The Synagogue can take it up to court after the pandemic.
Reading the letters and personal documents of the Founders gives the larger picture. Jefferson was a strict constructionist (until he wasn’t). But he wouldn’t mind if the living generations have differing views for the times.
Today the Federal is more unitary, and government influences perhaps more than it ever has... but that’s a consequence of blind worship to an outdated Constitution created by elitist Nationalists. Real Federalism is Confederalism, the smallest unit closest to the people should have the most influence.
General Welfare is also a concern of the States. So long as one State doesn’t interfere with another I’m good. If they wish to allow people to gather well then perhaps let them, it’s their problem? However not everyone in the same State will even agree. Regardless I’m not arguing the ‘General Welfare’ clause itself implies unlimited powers, but the entirety of the Constitution itself is useless paper, it’s been bypassed throughout the ages, like the Bible used to justify whatever. Hamilton created the National Bank justifying it with the Constitution. Others saw it a violation of it. Some saw the New Deal as unconstitutional, the New Deal coalition saw it as keeping to those ideals of Liberalism, Life and Liberty. Some see addressing climate change a national interest to be addressed by government in accordance with the right to Life. Some see ‘General Welfare’ as justifying public projects and universal healthcare coverage.
My favorite Founder Thomas Paine was essentially a proto- liberal Democratic Socialist. He even designed the nation’s first welfare state. He was the most radical and far more liberal than the Federalists, even more than Jefferson a close second. Paine envisioned a far more radical liberal democratic republic than the Constitution provided.
All in all it is all debatable. I don’t agree with the actions of these folks, nor the Governor’s. But realistically the answer is not complex, these days public gatherings don’t have to be personal. It wreaks more of caprice. They shouldn’t be punished or praised, they should be left to their own devices so far as they don’t effect others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rustinusti yeah but Lincoln was defending the encroachment of capitalism. He believed there was nothing wrong with the capitalist system, but that it was the system of modernity. Free labor meant being able to work your way up to being a capitalist. And sure, it was an easier pill to swallow back in a pre-capitalist society like American was back when. The majority of people were self-employed artisans and farmers. And the people feared wage slavery. Lincoln and the Republicans were the harbingers of capitalism to the States, and while they ended chattel slavery, they brought upon wage slavery.
“It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class–neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families–wives, sons, and daughters–work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.” Lincoln’s SOTU Address 1863
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincesmith2499 “Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.”
“The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.”
– John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy
1
-
@vincesmith2499 I am. I just know that the amount of money leisure classes make are do not to free market competition, but to monopolies backed by government. Monopolies of money, land, tariff, and IP (patents/copyright). Free banking is one of the cases I advocate for most. Only by free competition on credit could workers establish mutual banking credit networks where they can lend at low interest, establishing worker’s associations and independent enterprisers. But in order to do this the State must be limited in it’s artificial prop up of monopolies landlords and capitalists make use of. Land (LVT, Georgism, rent the land value as Single Tax); Money (free banking competition and credit market); Tariffs (eliminate all taxes on sales, import, export, income, and property leaving only the efficient LVT (Physiocrats)); Patents (eliminate all intellectual property and copyright artificial monopolies protected by government to open free competition and greater innovation and enterprise).
1
-
@miguelbruno-vd8yz “The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” — John Stuart Mill, classical liberal
With free competition in banking the workers/producers could form mutual credit banking based on their own enterprise. Free banking should be taken back by the people to establish systems of free credit. They contend that banks have a monopoly on credit, just as capitalists have a monopoly on the means of production and landlords have a land monopoly. Banks create money by lending out deposits that do not belong to them and then charging interest on the difference. Mutualists argue that by establishing a democratically run mutual savings bank or credit union, it would be possible to issue free credit so that money could be created for the participants' benefit rather than the bankers' benefit. Individualist anarchists noted for their detailed views on mutualist banking include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Batchelder Greene and Lysander Spooner.
1
-
@vincesmith2499 do you not know what rent-seeking is? This is the problem with neoclassical economics. The money monopoly allows for the restriction of credit and the development of debt-based models that destroy stores of value and make individuals slaves to the desires of governments and banks through modern forms of debt peonage. This has been apparent in the works of classical liberals since the 18th and 19th centuries. As Dowd notes, over the 20th century “the US dollar has lost almost 85 per cent of its purchasing power even by official government statistics; for its part, sterling has lost 98 per cent of its value over the last century”. The restriction of credit coupled with the inflationary tendencies of modern fiat currencies mean the poorest are effectively forced into wage labour, as they rely on pitiable increases in nominal wages and are unable to gain any real credit for self-employment or collective worker-owned enterprises. What happens is a redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest. Left-libertarian Austrian economist Roderick Long shows that “inflationary monetary policies on the part of central banks also tend to benefit those businesses that receive the inflated money first in the form of loans and investments, when they are still facing the old, lower prices”. The pre-inflation money allows investors and banks to capitalise on new production and investment while the poorer elements of a society receive minimal benefits as the inflationary course makes its run, with prices rising and wages following later.
This also leads to massive levels of debt found currently throughout the globe, as credit instruments are used to make up for stagnant wages that can’t afford increasing land prices and subsequently rent prices, as well as an increase in the price of consumer goods that are a significant chunk of working people’s wages. The process of rent extraction via high interest rates follows from this, as “the money monopoly also includes entry barriers against cooperative banks and prohibitions against private issuance of banknotes, by which access to finance capital is restricted and interest rates are kept artificially high”. Mutualist Kevin Carson notes further that the elimination of controlled interest rates would lead to “significant numbers (of workers) retiring in their forties or fifties, cutting back to part-time, or starting businesses; with jobs competing for workers, the effect on bargaining power would be revolutionary”. The current banking system leads to the necessitation of wage labour through restricted credit dissemination and debt-based forms of finance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was content with the top 3. Peart is freaking great but to technical, taking nothing away from him though. Moon was insane and the first hard rock drummer, his personality was also more charismatic. Bonham is always the greatest, you know the case, his speed, stamina, lightning right foot, timing, and POWER! Also his feel for the groove, he's unrivaled. To each his own, it's all opinion. I recommend you watch Communication Breakdown/Dazed and Confused 69 Paris @ 11:22 & see what I'm saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulieprinceton4550 we need to be clearer than that. George Orwell is famous for warning of authoritarian socialists, fascists, and totalitarianism of any kind. But he was a Democratic Socialist, and was highly inspired and supportive of libertarian communism. What he was against was the Stalinist Statist Socialists. Proper libertarian communism is an anarchist political stance of anti-statism and classless society by forming free associations of producers, and federations of communes (French for city/town). We should be critical of Statist Socialism, but libertarian socialism is something to support for a free society of free associations. It is why George Orwell supported leftist socialism, and opposed authoritarian socialism. “Progressives” aren’t socialists, but corporatists. We do not have either full capitalism, nor a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism. We only have liberal corporatism. Please look up liberal corporatism to understand further the actual economic agenda we are dealing with. I assure you among socialists there are libertarian communists, and free market socialists. The original American progressives learned from Bismarck’s Germany, where he sought to undermine and defeat the labor unions and socialist movements by creating the first welfare capitalist state. American Progressivism originated from this corporatist managerial approach to socioeconomics. Still it’s not hard to see why people prefer social democracy and progressivism to this neoliberal order of corporate hegemony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Libertarian Capitalist Anarcho-Syndicalism is a radical Unionism and decentralized industrial or workplace organization. Each Union, collectively own their industry and means of production and voluntarily deal with each other in Federalist network or system.
Mutualists believe in ownership based on occupancy and use. They think that as long as you use something or live somewhere, you own it; but as soon as you leave, it ceases to be yours. Because of this, Mutualists are anti-capitalist, because they think it’s exploitative, and a violation of worker’s rights, for a boss to profit off of somebody else’s labour. The workers, in their view, should own their place of work, and also believe tenants should own their homes, instead of landlords. However, unlike many other forms of socialism and anarchism, they don’t necessarily believe in a communal society. In their view, a marketplace in which workers own their respective businesses would be much more competitive and efficient than hierarchical businesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jose Mendoza I think “left-authoritarianism” is a contradiction. I understand what people mean by that, people who say they believe in leftists ideals but try to coerce it. But the thing is left-right spectrum is about government types, and no left wing ideologue supports authoritarian methods or leadership. The furthest left would be Anarchism and the furthest right would be Fascism or Totalitarianism. Socialism is a socioeconomic organization, not a government. Therefore one can want a Socialist economy with authoritarian government, which is Marxist-Leninism. Leninism unfortunately became the popular revolutionary Socialism and it has lead to all these tyrannical Socialist States under right wing forms of government. Capitalism has also been under right wing governments. Such as Fascists who made use of the hyper form of Capitalism, Corporatism. Or such as Capitalism in Chile under dictator Pinochet. The left wing Socialist schools, those Lenin called “infants of the left” include Democratic Socialism (aka evolutionary Marxism, or Liberal Socialism informed by liberal political ideals such as democracy, republicanism, grassroots participatory democracy), Council Communism or Libertarian Marxism, and Libertarian Socialism (aka Anarchism) etc...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wyatt casper well one of Proudhon’s critics was an Anarcho-Communist Joseph DeJacque. He coined the term Libertarian while Proudhon coined Anarchism in its modern meaning. They were both libertarian socialists and anarchists with differing ideals on what constitutes an autonomous and egalitarian society. The communist thought communes and collective ownership were the way to go, Proudhon thought Mutualist markets. And true enough anarchist communism was a crude ideal and philosophical social science during this time, and it was Proudhon who would give greater influence and development to the fully realized schools that would become Anarcho Collectivism and Communism. They are all Anarchism and Libertarianism. This is where DeJacque disagreed with Proudhon though:
In his polemic with Proudhon on women's emancipation, Déjacque urged Proudhon to push on 'as far as the abolition of the contract, the abolition not only of the sword and of capital, but of property and authority in all their forms,' and refuted the commercial and wages logic of the demand for a 'fair reward' for 'labour' (labour power). Déjacque asked: 'Am I thus... right to want, as with the system of contracts, to measure out to each — according to their accidental capacity to produce — what they are entitled to?' The answer given by Déjacque to this question is unambiguous: 'it is not the product of his or her labour that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature.' [...] For Déjacque, on the other hand, the communal state of affairs — the phalanstery 'without any hierarchy, without any authority' except that of the 'statistics book' — corresponded to 'natural exchange,' i.e. to the 'unlimited freedom of all production and consumption; the abolition of any sign of agricultural, individual, artistic or scientific property; the destruction of any individual holding of the products of work; the demonarchisation and the demonetarisation of manual and intellectual capital as well as capital in instruments, commerce and buildings."
And while Collectivism surely isn’t Communism as it argues for the use of wages in labor notes, certain Anarcho-Collectivists say it’s a viable path towards Communism. And while different they are closely linked as it was Anarcho-Collectivists (itself influenced by Proudhon and Mutualism) who gave way towards and influenced Anarcho-Communism.
1
-
wyatt casper you seem to be too narrow in your anarchist ideals. I did not say Proudhon was a Free Market Anarchist, but a libertarian market socialist. Mutualism would sustain a market economy where labor would trade and exchange products and goods of reciprocal or equal value. And it is Mutualism that influenced Free Market Anarchists and Bukunin and Kropotkin and their respective schools. The difference between Mutualism and Free Market Anarchism is Mutualists emphasize worker associative organization and cooperative federations. The Market Anarchists don’t care whether someone joins an association or is independently self employed.
While I did use wiki the passages I posted are real and available anywhere viable. I just chose the most convenient. The Anarcho-Communist ideals were in development in contemporary with Proudhon, as well as Marxism. Mutualism ultimately would help give form to proper Social Anarchist intellectual schools. And Godwin is recognized as a philosophical anarchist. Anarchism was an ideology that took several intellectual social sciences, philosophies, and figures to develop into Anarchism. Hence the several strains of Social and Individualist, Decentralized planning and Free Market all Libertarian Socialist. Proudhon developed the first proper school of Anarchism. But just as well ideals for the communist strain were in the air in contemporary with Proudhon. Even Marx, while not a Marxist, was a contemporary developing his ideals for a Communist society, which ultimately is defined as a stateless egalitarian society with common ownership of the means of production, even among the Marxists. Meaning the ideal of a Communist society was always stateless and therefore influential to the anti-Statist branch of socialism.
Saying the philosophers that lead to Anarcho-Communism weren’t real anarchists is ignorant. You don’t get to discredit an entire school by dismissing it’s influence to the movement. Anarcho-Communism ultimately became the biggest strain of Anarchism. I don’t see the dogma in voluntary associations of communes collectively owning the means of production. It’s voluntary.
I’m an Anarchist without hyphens so ultimately a libertarian world would see vast social experimentation of all the strains of Anarchism. Anarcho-Communists neighboring Collectivists, neighboring Mutualists, neighboring Free Market Anarchists etc... every autonomous society free to choose their way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prince JellyFish that’s an excellent point. If you were visiting outside of that community you’d kind of wouldn’t have that argument as you would where you live. Seeing as I support decentralized forms of government the most important would be local. I would say in the end the free association is best. Most regressive attitudes would be found in southern states. I’d say if I an Hispanic were refused service for being Hispanic, I would let the community know this establishment refuses service to me out of a bigoted sense. Anyone that doesn’t want that kind of attitude in the community would boycott and refuse to associate with that establishment and person. In the end lack of income and clients would push them out of the community or they may apologize to the the public and community and people might start doing business again. In a more bigoted area where the larger community has those bigoted beliefs well what is to be done? If I had a business I’d refuse service to anyone I know is bigoted, even though that is easy to hide unlike ethnicity. Ultimately I believe people would live in places they feel comfortable with themselves. No lgbt or colored person would live in a predominantly racist community. And look for more enlightened communities to associate. And this would be my stance on it. Associate with communities that have the same values, and refuse association with those that don’t.
The reason for this is in the long run the social progressive stance wins. As generations come people are more tolerable and progressive, not caring about old social norms. In a free society there will be bigots and regressive attitudes in some places, but we would want the same liberties and freedom of association with who we want. I believe this better than State coercion, for it’s that same State that has in the past tolerated and accepted racism, sexism, bigotry etc... with actual legislation and discrimination in public institutions. Instead of serving liberal values and protecting the rights and liberties of people. Our government’s role is one of serving and protecting those rights and liberties not social engineering to it’s benefits.
An interesting tidbit. While the fervor for equality was understood, during Civil Rights all public schools and services should have been integrated without fault, as they’re government institutions. They didn’t have to coerce association where it wasn’t warranted. As Killer Mike said it actually hurt the black community. Black businesses were lost that were successful as the black community did business with itself. But forcing to associate where people weren’t ready and didn’t want to only exacerbated the tensions and issues. Of course the black community should have always been free to do business with whom they please, but forcibly integrating with people that hated them hurt the community and set them back. Black economy would have thrived more had black businesses remained within the community, and eventually as subsequent generations come and cultural barriers broke through music and entertainment media, generations of youth would freely associate with each other in schools and break those bigot barriers freely. I genuinely believe in the long run social progressivism is inevitable and along the way we do not need coercion but breaking the barriers slowly through free association and valuing each other’s freedoms. The State likes to make us believe one is the enemy or is trying to force our way of living. This would be less an issue if everyone knew they shared a sense of freedom.
Your argument may be may stronger with another thing I support. The LTV tax where anyone that deems to privatize public utilities or commons will be taxed and that be served to the community. The community may decide what to do with that compensation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yuh1592 I’m a libertarian socialist. And literally FDR and the New Deal was liberal corporatism. A liberal and watered down corporatist economic system that is not as complete as fascist corporatism based in nationalist syndicalism. Liberal corporatism has been the prominent economic doctrine since post-WW2 thanks to Cold War fear mongering and social democratic groups in the conflict of not wanting full State Socialism and addressing the mess of unfettered liberal capitalism. Forms of liberal corporatism include the Nordic social democracy model, German ordoliberalism, French Dirigisme, and what’s called social market economy.
But clearly you haven’t read much on the matter. If you want to understand actual Fascism, read actual Fascist philosophers and literature. Fascists supported the capitalist mode of production, but were anti-liberal capitalism. They wanted the Corporative State, a nationalist Syndicalist organism of labor and business interests.
“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (1936) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.” - Mussolini on Keynesian economics, the basis of the New Deal and liberal corporatism.
Liberals think the State serves capitalists. Fascists believe in the capitalists serving the State, as said by the English Fascist Oswald Mosley. One of the points of Fascists was liberal capitalists being too individualist, and under Fascism all classes serve the national interest and State. Fascism is after all nationalist collectivism. But indeed the closest the USA came to fascism economically was the New Deal, as it was a corporatist model, the same economic model advocated by fascism. Fascist’s greatest threat was socialism but they also persecuted liberalism. Fascists were as anti-liberal as they were anti-socialist.
1
-
1
-
@yuh1592 I don’t disagree with George Jackson. Anarchists have been critical of the State and welfare capitalism. It’s Marxist movements that turned to concessions and social democracy. Until abandoning all Marxist roots.
And no I don’t believe in Vanguard Party and centralized State. Ultimately they just end up participating in global capitalism. Not to mention the striking prediction anarchists made on what Marxist statism can lead to
“The leaders of the Communist Party, namely Mr. Marx and his followers, will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand. They will centralize all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific production, and then divide the masses into two armies — industrial and agricultural — under the direct command of state engineers, who will constitute a new privileged scientific and political class.” 1873.
“The Dictatorship of the Proletariat... In reality it would be for the proletariat a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of a drum; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing: and for the mercenary minded, attracted by the State Bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.” 1869.
“The programe of the International is very happily explicit: the emancipation of the workers can only be gained by the workers themselves. Is it not astonishing that Marx has believed it possible to graft on this never-the-less so precise declaration, which he publically drafted himself, his scientific socialism? That is to say, the organization of the government of the new society by socialistic scientists and professors - the worst of all, despotic governments! 1872.
If you’re Marxist-Leninist in a developed nation then you clearly haven’t actually learned what Marx himself said.
“Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.” - Marx in Hague
The modern Marxist movement should at this point be less Lenin and Mao, and more Luxemburg and Pannekoek.
“If [the proletariat] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.” — Rosa Luxemburg
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@c.j.giordano2129 The Soviet Union was Marxist not anarchist. Libertarian socialism existed before Marx’s State Socialism, and continues to exist. Anarchism is anti-statist socialism. Again read a book. Look up Josiah Warren the first American anarchist, Pierre J Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin. All socialists, all anarchists. Put down the State propaganda and actually study history. You like to claim you are against State authoritarianism, well then what better expression than anarchism. The first person to call himself Anarchist was Proudhon, the most radical political theorist of his time. He formulated the first genuine anti-government philosophy, and was an intellectual rival to Karl Marx. Here is how Proudhon described his ideals:
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. We are socialists under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Socialism doesn’t need government, that’s the Marxist school. Though even Marx’s goal was the abolition of State and government for a stateless communists social order. Anarchism is the anti-authoritarian school of socialism and it developed before Marx and the German school came on the scene.
1
-
@c.j.giordano2129 I’m just saying you have a state propaganda view of socialism. The first critics of Marxist socialism were the libertarian socialists, they predicted what would happen should they implement their ideals and lo and behold the USSR proved the libertarians right. You sound ridiculous and ahistorical given that anarchism is a socialist movement, so conflating socialism with authoritarianism is the result of poor American government education. Never mind the fact that socialists died fighting against the robber barons, struggled to implement the 8 hour workday people enjoy today, and died fighting for labor rights against state and police. It’s an insult to the many libertarian socialists that died fighting Fascism, and even the Soviet Union. I bring up anarchism because it’s inconvenient proof to your painting all socialists as authoritarian and statist. The fact that Orwell was a socialist and is synonymous with anti-authoritarian should tell you that the picture that socialism is authoritarian is bullshit propaganda that the ruling class indoctrinates you with. Otherwise you’ll start looking into libertarian socialism, and American figures like Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner, or start thinking about industrial republicanism.
The people of China, North Korea, Cuba aren’t feeling socialism, they are fleeing authoritarian states and governments. I know for a fact the third world views neoliberalism and the USA an evil empire that seeks to exploit their labor and resources. Nelson Mandela On the U.S. war with Iraq:
"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings."
You may not even understand that the underdeveloped world would rather have an authoritarian Marxist state than be a colony for Western imperialism and mercantilist capitalism. It’s not different then American colonists overthrowing British imperial forces and forming a stronger centralized government (US Constitution) to uphold their winnings, and appeasing the land and slave owning elites to maintain the union.
Mandela on Castro and the Cuban revolution:
"From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of
inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orquestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution. ... Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro."
1
-
@c.j.giordano2129 There are two economic schools of Anarchism; Mutualism and Communism. The primary aspects of mutualism are free association, free banking, reciprocity in the form of mutual aid, workplace democracy, workers' self-management, gradualism and dual power. Mutualism is often described by its proponents as advocating an anti-capitalist free market. Mutualists argue that most of the economic problems associated with capitalism each amount to a violation of the cost principle, or as Josiah Warren interchangeably said, the cost the limit of price.
Mutualism holds that producers should exchange their goods at cost-value using systems of contract. While Proudhon's early definitions of cost-value were based on fixed assumptions about the value of labor-hours, he later redefined cost-value to include other factors such as the intensity of labor, the nature of the work involved and so on. He also expanded his notions of contract into expanded notions of federation. Proudhon argued:
“I have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry, negotiating on equal terms with his comrades, who have since become his workmen. It is plain, in fact, that this original equality was bound to disappear through the advantageous position of the master and the dependent position of the wage-workers. In vain does the law assure the right of each to enterprise. ... When an establishment has had leisure to develop itself, enlarge its foundations, ballast itself with capital, and assure itself a body of patrons, what can a workman do against a power so superior?”
1
-
1
-
@c.j.giordano2129 Mutualists argue that association is only necessary where there is an organic combination of forces. An operation that requires specialization and many different workers performing their individual tasks to complete a unified product, i.e. a factory. In this situation, workers are inherently dependent on each other as without association they are related as subordinate and superior, master and wage-slave. An operation that can be performed by an individual without the help of specialized workers does not require association. Proudhon argued that peasants do not require societal form and only feigned association for the purposes of solidarity in abolishing rents, buying clubs and so on. He recognized that their work is inherently sovereign and free. In commenting on the degree of association that is preferable, Proudhon wrote:
“In cases in which production requires great division of labour, it is necessary to form an association among the workers ... because without that they would remain isolated as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage workers, which is repugnant in a free and democratic society. But where the product can be obtained by the action of an individual or a family, ... there is no opportunity for association.”
For Proudhon, mutualism involved creating industrial democracy. Under mutualism, workers would no longer sell their labour to a capitalist but rather work for themselves in co-operatives. Proudhon urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism". This would result in "capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed".
1
-
@c.j.giordano2129 Mutualists support mutual credit and argue that free banking should be taken back by the people to establish systems of free credit. They contend that banks have a monopoly on credit, just as capitalists have a monopoly on the means of production and landlords have a monopoly on land. Banks are essentially creating money by lending out deposits that do not actually belong to them, then charging interest on the difference. Mutualists argue that by establishing a democratically run mutual savings bank or credit union, it would be possible to issue free credit so that money could be created for the benefit of the participants rather than for the benefit of the bankers. Individualist anarchists noted for their detailed views on mutualist banking include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Batchelder Greene and Lysander Spooner.
Needless to say anarchists are more free market radicals than any capitalist can claim considering many of us want the abolishment of the State and letting the free market reign. Because libertarian socialists aren’t opposed to market economy, but we are opposed to capitalism.
In What Is Mutualism?, Clarence Lee Swartz wrote:
“It is, therefore, one of the purposes of Mutualists, not only to awaken in the people the appreciation of and desire for freedom, but also to arouse in them a determination to abolish the legal restrictions now placed upon non-invasive human activities and to institute, through purely voluntary associations, such measures as will liberate all of us from the exactions of privilege and the power of concentrated capital.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reasonerenlightened2456 looks like you aren’t so enlightened. You know classical liberals were the precursors to socialism and libertarianism? From Adam Smith’s crusade against landlords and rents, to David Ricardo laying foundations for class analysis and expanding on Smith’s labor theory, to John Stuart Mills support of socialism over capitalism, and Thomas Hodgskin’s work advocating for labor to maintain it’s wealth and capital.
“The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” - John Stuart Mill
1
-
@reasonerenlightened2456 While mutualism was popularized by the writings of anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and is mainly associated as an anarchist school of thought and with libertarian socialism, its origins as a type of socialism goes back to the 18th-century labor movement in Britain first, then France and finally to the working-class Chartist movement. Mutualists are opposed to individuals receiving income through loans, investments and rent under capitalist social relations. Although personally opposed to this type of income, Proudhon expressed that he had never intended "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." As long as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and property in the product of labor, differentiating between capitalist private property (productive property) and personal property (private property). Mutualists argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called possession), a type of private property with strong abandonment criteria. This contrasts with capitalist non-proviso labor theory of property, where an owner maintains a property title more or less until one decides to give or sell it.
1
-
1
-
Well he wasn’t wrong, though I disagree with the way he gave his thoughts. Both parties are corrupt, but one is illiberal and reactionary. That said we need an actual left leaning party. Democrats are not an opposition party, they’re center right neoliberal enablers. They play games with Republicans rather than actually pose real solutions. The parties have a deal of keeping each other in power. When it comes to it, history shows capitalists break fascist out of fear of labor organization and liberation. Obama had a supermajority and did not make abortion a Constitutional right, did the right wing think tank solution for healthcare, bailed out Wall Street, and once again money went up instead of distributing. If you don’t know that Democrats are the real traditionalist conservatives, you won’t see the Republicans for the far right extremists they are. And fail to see that this country hasn’t had an actual Left since the government murdered all the leftist leaders and movements in the 60s, 70s, 80s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesse Grove I’m a socialist and support government out of economics. The original socialism was libertarian out of radical liberal circles. Socialism isn’t government interference just take it from the first libertarian socialist to call it anarchism in the 19th century:
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
And:
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”— Pierre J Proudhon
The State has no role to play in genuine libertarian socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Reed I’m not seeing that. Violence is a political tool. Unfortunately it’s unorganized and rioting for the sake of letting off steam. But were it organized riots like the Sons of Liberty and no civilians being harmed I wouldn’t really care about big corporations or fear of political parties. But they’re destroying small businesses which does nothing for the cause and is just giving opposition what they want.
The rise in hate crimes and extremism has been of right wing groups. Groups like Boogaloo infiltrate these protests and instigate violence. That’s part of their agenda to start a “race war.” There is a history of right wing agitation to frame leftists.
BLM is an organization, many black liberation organizations are Marxist and socialist like the Black Panthers. But as of now they have a platform of political reform on criminal justice. They aren’t out there arming the people like the Panthers did.
Antifa is predominantly anarchist so they aren’t trying to grab powers, it’s just an anti-authoritarian direct action ideal. They aren’t a paramilitary branch of a party, it’s individuals going out to protest aggressively.
All this propaganda corporate media dishes out daily to divide working class Americans I don’t buy it. There is violence going on out there but it does not justify the State’s actions. Word of advice never let the State dictate what is and isn’t justified, they are the biggest mass murderers and source of violence. Their’s is the only justified violence, and citizens out causing raucous isn’t part of their monopoly on violence.
There are colored communities with grievances against the State and politicians. No one knows the crushing weight of the State like minorities. They aren’t the problem, the State and their propaganda wings like corporate media are.
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson letter to William Stephen Smith in response to Whiskey Rebellion
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
M. Fink Well capitalism isn’t synonymous with markets. Markets existed long before a socioeconomic system of proprietors relying on wage work for the accumulation of wealth and capital. Capitalism is very much a system of the primacy of capital, the rule of wealth, plutocracy. And capitalism can work within a market economy as in liberal capitalism, but it is not inherent to free markets. Such as Corporate Capitalism of Fascist States, or State Capitalism.
Classical liberals were even critical of capitalism, the word capitalist was a pejorative for those merchants and owners of capital whom received privileges and favors from State authority, so that they maintain monopolistic practices.
Early liberal advocated for industrial democracy and what today is called Market Socialism. David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Thomas Hodgskin etc... several were self proclaimed socialists, as socialism was understood as those who hold the labor theory of value, and against the exploitation of labor by capital, or a ruling business elite. Hodgskin’s “Labour defended against the claims of Capital” is one of the earliest works of class struggle and socialist principle. Such sentiments continued in liberal circles unto Abraham Lincoln and the modern socialist movements. Yes there are actual leftist socialist strains opposed to Leninism and authoritarian state socialism. Socialism started in liberal thought and circles.
Taking the ideals of classical liberals you’ll naturally come to an anti-capitalist market socialist ideology and model.
Capitalism is simply making money cause you own a property, extract the surplus, and worker’s who create the value and wealth are left to a wage. As Lincoln said: "And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Auditory Productions What socialists meant by “personal possessions” was distinctly different than what is meant by supporters of capitalism as “private property”. Basically, the “libertarian” right exploit, for their own ends, the confusion generated by the use of the word “property” by the likes of libertarian socialists like Benjamin Tucker to describe a situation of “possession.” Proudhon recognised this danger. He argued that “it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name ‘property’ for the former [individual possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name ‘property’ for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym.” [What is Property?]
A similar position was held by Anarchist/libertarian socialist John Beverley Robinson. He argued that there “are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land, to use it or to hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession, by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and occupies, but has no claim upon it at all if he ceases to use it.” Moreover, “[a]ll that is necessary to do away with Rent is to away with absolute property in land.” [Patterns of Anarchy] Joseph Labadie, likewise, stated that “the two great sub-divisions of Socialists” (anarchists and State Socialists) both “agree that the resources of nature — land, mines, and so forth — should not be held as private property and subject to being held by the individual for speculative purposes, that use of these things shall be the only valid title, and that each person has an equal right to the use of all these things. They all agree that the present social system is one composed of a class of slaves and a class of masters, and that justice is impossible under such conditions.” [What is Socialism?]
1
-
imaginepeace63 how about you use your head independently and refrain from soaking in propaganda talking points.
Firstly, private property is not the distinctive aspect of capitalism -- exploitation of wage labour is.
On the first issue, it is important to note that there are many different kinds of private property. If quoting Karl Marx is not too out of place:
"Political economy confuses, on principle, two very different kinds of private property, one of which rests on the labour of the producer himself, and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter is not only the direct antithesis of the former, but grows on the former's tomb and nowhere else.
"In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished . . .
"It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems has its practical manifestation here in the struggle between them." [Capital, vol. 1]
So, under capitalism, "property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labour of others, or its product, and the impossibility, on the part of the worker, of appropriating his own product." In other words, property is not viewed as being identical with capitalism. "The historical conditions of [Capital's] existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free worker available on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power." Thus wage-labour, for Marx, is the necessary pre-condition for capitalism, not "private property" as such as "the means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker."
For Engels, "before capitalistic production" industry was "based upon the private property of the labourers in their means of production", i.e., "the agriculture of the small peasant" and "the handicrafts organised in guilds." Capitalism, he argued, was based on capitalists owning "social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men" and so they "appropriated . . . the product of the labour of others." Both, it should be noted, had also made this same distinction in the Communist Manifesto, stating that "the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property." Artisan and peasant property is "a form that preceded the bourgeois form" which there "is no need to abolish" as "the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it." This means that communism "deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation."
In pre-capitalist social environments, when property is directly owned by the producer, capitalist defences of private property can be used against it. Even John Locke's arguments in favour of private property could be used against capitalism. As Murray Bookchin makes clear regarding pre-capitalist society:
"Unknown in the 1640s, the non-bourgeois aspects of Locke's theories were very much in the air a century and a half later . . . [In an artisan/peasant society] a Lockean argument could be used as effectively against the merchants . . . to whom the farmers were indebted, as it could against the King [or the State]. Nor did the small proprietors of America ever quite lose sight of the view that attempts to seize their farmsteads and possessions for unpaid debts were a violation of their 'natural rights,' and from the 1770s until as late as the 1930s they took up arms to keep merchants and bankers from dispossessing them from land they or their ancestors had wrestled from 'nature' by virtue of their own labour. The notion that property was sacred was thus highly elastic: it could be used as effectively by pre-capitalist strata to hold on to their property as it could by capitalists strata to expand their holdings."
To summarise, from an anarchist (and Marxist) perspective capitalism is not defined by "property" as such. Rather, it is defined by private property, property which is turned into a means of exploiting the labour of those who use it. For most anarchists, this is done by means of wage labour and abolished by means of workers' associations and self- management. To use Proudhon's terminology, there is a fundamental difference between property and possession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AT THE CORE I think it funny you try to explain Socialism to a Socialist.
The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Goldwater was the last prominent actual conservative. Soon the religious right took over the party and now it is a sham political organization that functions as a cult for conspiracists, religious fundamentalists, and corporate greed and corruption.
A conservative American would be someone that is constitutionalist, and believe in a liberal society and democratic Republic. Modern Republicans aren’t conservatives but authoritarians. Democrats are the actual conservatives.
As Chomsky said “The spectrum is broad, but in an odd sense, the spectrum is basically center to extreme right -- extreme right, way off the spectrum. The Republican Party about 20 years ago basically abandoned any pretense of being a normal political party."
"What happened is that, during the whole neoliberal period, both parties shifted to the right, but the Republicans went way off the spectrum. They became so dedicated to the interests of the extreme wealthy and powerful that they couldn’t get votes. So they had to turn to other constituencies which are there, but were never politically mobilized: the Christian evangelicals, the nativists who are afraid that 'they’re taking our country away from us.'"
Chomsky himself was referencing the work, and words, of conservative political scientist Norman Orstein.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mister E Here’s the thing. The Libertarians ideologies are near direct descendant of Liberalism. It seeks to dismantle all forms of concentrated power, wealth, prestige, coercion. It’s literally the next step or evolution of Liberal ideology and it’s doctrines of liberty and equality. It goes even further by seeking to end all forms of coercion, or hierarchical institutions such as government.
In Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia the worker’s took ownership of the means of production in radical Unions. They abolished any State apparatus (Government) and organized in decentralized federal free associations. The economy was Socialist, where they produced and distributed towards the communities needs. There were no classes, the workers owned the means of production, the industries. There were no employers.
And what about innovation? Usually you’ll find Anarchists being atheists or agnostics. In a society where commodity production is done with, allowing fewer work hours a day as technology advances, the people will have more freedom to pursue their talents, abilities, and knowledge. They’ll have more time to participate in politics concerning the community, seeking knowledge, pursuing their passions. Indeed this was Albert Einstein’s ideal world for human progression and scientific advancement. If people have to spend most their lives working, as they do under Capitalism, those are many individuals not free to pursue the arts and sciences.
Even in this Capitalist system it is not the CEOs and employers that bring innovation. It is R&D groups, start ups who are pursuing their goals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seán O'Nilbud lol Einstein was Socialist, so were George Orwell, Thomas Hodgskin, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Edward Bellamy (wrote the American pledge of allegiance), Dr. MLK, Nelson Mandela, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner etc.... guess we are all just dumb as hell.
What’s cute is a right winger believing they know more about freedom than an anarchist. You live your life under governments and bosses, have fun kneeling and licking boots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Karl Marx I think there was a possibility that Lincoln’s party could have went a liberal socialist route with the influence of socialists and workers not wanting to be wage slaves. But unfortunately it went the capitalist route as part of Lincoln base was Northern capitalists and financiers. I know all about Lincoln’s respect for labor but it wasn’t a socialist belief. Lincoln believed that laborers would become capitalists and they would employ workers as a cycle. He essentially believed that wage labor would be only a temporary issue for the majority and that it wouldn’t be a permanent condition. Obviously he was wrong. I think in an alternative history Lincoln’s party would have been a liberal socialist one with the influence of labor organization and socialists, something similar to what John Stuart Mills advocated. A blend of worker’s associations with capitalist owners, and eventually maybe full worker associations. But it would have been a struggle between socialists and capitalists within the party. With Lincoln assassinated the party turned fully to the Northern elites, and Republican capitalism that lead to the Gilded Age and the abandonment of Reconstruction.
Classical liberalism was actually more socialist than given credit. It wasn’t until neoliberalism that liberal economics went full capitalist. Classical economists were actually influential to socialism. Adam Smith hated land owners, David Ricardo was an early advocate of socialistic thought, John Stuart Mill favored worker’s cooperatives and rejected capitalist firms, Thomas Hodgskin wrote class analysis like “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” etc.... It’s why libertarian socialists and market socialists were highly inspired by classical liberals. Classical liberalism was about free markets and enterprise, not necessarily in support of capitalist production. That came later in the form of neoliberalism which was full on capitalist based economics. I mean here we have a quote from classical liberal Mills:
“Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.”
– John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy
Now think what could have been had the Republican Party of Lincoln fully embraced this liberal socialist blend that would be a step towards full socialism. Even capitalists would be persuaded to do business with labor associations should labor bargaining power increase. I think Lincoln could have be persuaded of at the very least this “liberal socialism.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) For those that worship the Founders even Jefferson argued people shouldn’t be governed by the dead and each generation should have their own constitutional agreements free from the contracts of the past.
2) Lysander Spooner already gutted the usefulness of the Constitution century ago after he used it to argue for the emancipation of black slaves on Constitutional grounds. Knowing people held the document as sacred he turned it against the slave owners.
Quotes from Spooner:
“The Constitution says: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.”
“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NewNormalWorldOrder no… Neoconservatism refers to the foreign policy of military adventurism, and the doctrine of “American exceptionalism”. The Neocons, just like the establishment Democrats, follow the economic doctrine and policy of neoliberalism which is pro-capitalist and global “free” trade economics. Neoliberalism was an economic policy that originated with the policies of right wing Ronald Reagan, and in the UK Margaret Thatcher. Many of Democrats also support Neocon legislation. Democrats are a right wing political establishment, comparable to the liberal parties of Canada or Europe.
The left-right dichotomy is usually one that denotes progress and egalitarianism vs traditionalism and hierarchies. It originates in the National Assembly of the French Revolution where the conservative clergy, nobles, and pro-monarchists sat on the right wing of the Assembly. The republicans, liberals, and revolutionaries sat on the left wing. Peep the profile pic, while I agree that it is a simple model that doesn’t capture political complexity the history of it isn’t hard to grasp. Leftism today is referring to ideals of anarchist, socialist, or communist revolution looking towards the abolishment of the State. And rightism is in reference to ideals of sociocultural conservatism, and the defense of the system of private property and capitalist hegemony. But overall I agree that left-right is too simple a model to have much accuracy. Still it is the common jargon, and still is use in political science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eric Duprey In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . . as a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner prohibits it. This means that an individual's only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to whether "anarcho"-capitalists are actually interested in freedom.
Looking at Rothbard's definition of "liberty" quoted above, we can see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental, independent concept. Instead, freedom is a derivative of something more fundamental, namely the "legitimate rights" of an individual, which are identified as property rights. In other words, given that "anarcho"-capitalists and right libertarians in general consider the right to property as "absolute," it follows that freedom and property become one and the same. This suggests an alternative name for the right Libertarian, namely "Propertarian." And, needless to say, if we do not accept the right-libertarians' view of what constitutes "legitimate" "rights," then their claim to be defenders of liberty is weak.
Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is that it produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as we noted, is no longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property -- which has the important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty and still be considered free by the ideology. This concept of liberty (namely "liberty as property") is usually termed "self-ownership." But, to state the obvious, I do not "own" myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity -- I am myself. However, the concept of "self-ownership" is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression -- for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can "sell" (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the "free market"). In effect, "self-ownership" becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects -- ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As L. Susan Brown notes, "at the moment an individual 'sells' labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another's will."
Ironically, the rights of property (which are said to flow from an individual's self-ownership of themselves) becomes the means, under capitalism, by which self-ownership of non-property owners is denied. The foundational right (self-ownership) becomes denied by the derivative right (ownership of things). Under capitalism, a lack of property can be just as oppressive as a lack of legal rights because of the relationships of domination and subjection this situation creates.
So Rothbard's argument (as well as being contradictory) misses the point (and the reality of capitalism). Yes, if we define freedom as "the absence of coercion" then the idea that wage labour does not restrict liberty is unavoidable, but such a definition is useless. This is because it hides structures of power and relations of domination and subordination. As Carole Pateman argues, "the contract in which the worker allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. . . To sell command over the use of oneself for a specified period . . . is to be an unfree labourer."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nelcomarproductions as a free market libertarian enthusiast the money given to lower classes out of welfare is nothing compared to the money stolen by capitalists and corporations through their legalized monopolies
Now consider, out of this vast ocean of rents extracted by state-connected parasites, the miniscule fraction that trickles back to the most destitute of the destitute, in the form of welfare and food stamps, in just barely large enough quantities to prevent homelessness and starvation from reaching high enough levels to destabilize the political system and threaten the ruling classes’ ability to extract rents from all of us. The state-allied landlords, capitalists and rentiers rob us all with a front-end loader, and then the state — THEIR state — uses a teaspoon to relieve those hardest hit.
Every time in history the state has provided a dole to the poorest of the poor — the distribution of free grain and oil to the proletariat of Rome, the Poor Laws in England, AFDC and TANF since the 1960s — it has occurred against a background of large-scale robbery of the poor by the rich. The Roman proletariat received a dole to prevent bloody revolt after the common lands of the Republic had been engrossed by the nobility and turned into slave-farms. The Poor Laws of England were passed after the landed classes enclosed much of the Open Fields for sheep pasture. The urban American blacks who received AFDC in the 1960s were southern sharecroppers, or their children, who had been tractored off their land (or land that should have been theirs, if they had received the land that was rightfully theirs after Emancipation) after WWII.
As Frances Fox Piven and Andrew Cloward argued in “Regulating the Poor,” the state — which is largely controlled by and mainly serves the interest of the propertied classes — only steps in to provide welfare to the poor when it’s necessary to prevent social destabilization. When it does so, it usually provides the bare minimum necessary. And in the process, it uses the power conferred by distributing the public assistance to enforce a maximum in social discipline on the recipients (as anyone who’s dealt with the humiliation of a human services office, or a visit from a case-worker, can testify).
So don’t resent the folks who get welfare and food stamps. Your real enemies — the ones the state really serves — are above, not below.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Typical conservative weak fragile society shit. That’s why we need authority and enforced order blah blah blah
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823
1
-
1
-
1
-
B-Rye no, actual right wing conservatives do.
“The framers designed a constitutional system in which the government would play a vigorous role in securing the liberty and well-being of a large and diverse population. They built a political system around a number of key elements, including debate and deliberation, divided powers competing with one another, regular order in the legislative process, and avenues to limit and punish corruption. America in recent years has struggled to adhere to each of these principles, leading to a crisis of governability and legitimacy. The roots of this problem are twofold. The first is a serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as polarized and vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a separation-of-powers governing system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. The second is the asymmetric character of the polarization. The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.”— Excerpt from “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance” from conservative political scientists Thomas Edward Mann and Norman Jay Orstein.
If you have never read about or heard Barry Goldwater, you are missing out. He was a Republican Senator in Arizona and the Republican Presidential nominee in 1964. Nicknamed "Mr. Conservative", he represents what the Republican Party should have been before selling out to the Religious Right - a party dedicated to small constitutional government, equal opportunity for all, free markets and individual liberty. He has become a libertarian hero for his dedication to these principles even as the Republican Party moved closer to the Evangelicals and abandoned its core mission to keep our citizens as free from the constraints of government as possible. Here are some quotes I think you will enjoy.
On the Religious Right
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
--Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
On Gay Rights
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
"Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
On True Conservatism
"What I was talking about[Gay rights, Abortion]was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
As a far leftist, an actual anarchist (libertarian socialist) I can tell you I don’t care if people have social conservative values. I of course am socially progressive. But what any libertarian wants is for a libertarian culture where people not try to dominate others and tell them what to do. Which is why I get along with actual traditional conservatives. They have conservative social-cultural values but believe in actual American constitutional federalism, subsidiarity, anti-war, county power, live and let live (no social engineering and legislation). Us anarchists get along with actual patriotic conservatives with liberal values (meaning not trying to control individuals via legislation). We build community networks together. The problem isn’t social conservatives, but Statism and a religious fundamentalism. Trying to hold others to regressive views. By that same note trying to social engineer for progressive values via legislation is also the problem. By my standard American conservatives are center-left traditionalist conservatives. Left meaning liberal conservatism, a belief in liberal democratic republicanism. Not this horrendous circus manifested in the Republican Party. Liberal conservatives aren’t authoritarians and theocrats. To be an American conservative you defend liberalism, in the classical sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realscummy I stand behind Socialist liberal democracies or republics , not authoritarian states. No power will tell me how to behave and what I can do. State Socialism scared away the working class worldwide cause especially developed nations won’t give up their liberties to an elitist government in the name of socialism. They’d rather keep their liberties and fight for egalitarian socioeconomic revolution at the same time. Even Marx has said so:
“You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries—such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland—where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.”
“If in England, for instance, or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, though they could only do insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development. However, the "peaceful" movement might be transformed into a "forcible" one by resistance on the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if (as in the American Civil War and French Revolution) they are put down by force, it is as rebels against "lawful" force.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nataliekhanyola5669 look up free market socialism. Georgism. Classical polo economists like John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hodgskin, David Ricardo etc… recognized the socialist potential of free markets. Because socialism requires as a goal the end of government for industrial administration and management without a state. Government is actually oppositional to socialist society. And whether the socialist economy is planning or market oriented it requires immanent social coordination not an external force or authority commanding society. It is society organized for itself. Free markets can help by destroying the concentration of wealth and monopolies and privileged passive income that are sustained by government policies. Monopolies of land, money, IP (patents), and tariff all coalesce to privilege capital from intensive competition and reduces labor power. Imagine mutual banking where labor funds itself, imagine an LVT becoming a Single efficient tax replacing all other harmful taxes like income and sales tax. A tax on land value could fund the entirety of public infrastructure and investment, the rest be distributed as a citizens dividend or UBI. This is where Georgism can be used to tackle land monopoly. Patents are artificial government sanctioned monopolies that prevent distribution of information, innovation, and competition. The result of such a freer market would be intensive demand from capital with not enough labor, leading to increase in labor power, where labor would more and more demand it’s full product as wage. This sort of market economics was a school of socialism since the 19th century rooted in radicalized classical political economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Man a genuinely free market is a Mutualist and socialist one where government monopoly on currency, tariff, patents, and land are abolished. Capital made competitive, as labor is today, would mean two capitalists looking for a laborer, instead of two laborers looking a capitalist. By this I mean the natural wage being it’s full product. Mutualism is a libertarian socialist market economic theory. Based on libertarian economics from liberal economics. Essentially following free markets to its natural conclusion is a socialist economy rather than Statist capitalistic. Full fledge competition would erase the State protected usuries of profit, rent, and interest.
Without Statism and government intervening on behalf of capitalists, propertarians would not be able to collect tribute via profit. Socialism isn’t about equality of abilities or skills, but of basic opportunity and necessities. Be it communism or market socialism. Were free markets genuine such labor exploitation and expropriation would not be rampant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jacob Elledge how uneducated are you exactly? The entire Far Left is made if anarchic socialists. We go by many schools of thought Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Mutualists, Libertarian Socialists etc... Anarchism isn’t lawless disorder. It’s human organization without government, and the dismantling of all hierarchical structures and institutions that are unjustified in existing.
The problem is you have a narrow minded thought of what socialism is, aka Cold War propaganda. At least learn about the ideals before you criticize. Socialism is a socio-economic organization, not a form of government. What you saw in in Russia was State socialism and a dictatorship. Not common ownership but State ownership which kind of negates the socialism.
I think willing people making workers co-ops is the route to go. Start a collectively owned sector of industry in the US, and gradually grow from there. The whole point of liberalism was decentralized State power and liberty of the individual. I look at Capitalism and see centralized wealth and power among an elite socio-economic class undermining Democratic institutions and making an Oligarchy and mockery of the Constitution, politicians devoid of facts or reason. Even Thomas Jefferson feared another aristocracy in the US and turned suspicious eyes towards industrialists accumulating great Capital.
There is nothing remotely un-American I believe in democratizing the workplace, and decentralizing the concentrated wealth and power of the wealthy elites. It’s continuing the legacy of liberalism as far as I’m concerned. Being far left I still feel a kindred spirit with the Fathers who saw government as a necessary evil. Little would they know that the Libertarian Left would exist and that in a post-Capitalist society ideas for human organization without government would exist. They also didn’t know of the threat of multi-national corporations and how powerful Capitalists could get. I’m sure they’d be horrified at the State of the American Republic today.
Also I can share one instance such a society existed. If you can look into Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia you’ll find a governmentless society of workers prospering and being free. They had issues of course but it was the 2nd largest attempt at such a Socialist and Anarchist society since the Paris Commune in the 1800s. They were prosperous, happy, free.... and then Franco and the Fascists took over.
Libertarian left is full of many schools of thoughts, and Socialism isn’t a clear collection of ideas either other than social ownership of the means of production. But I can tell this, from what I’ve read of the influential figures that founded the Socialist and anarchist ideologies they wanted people to be free. Just look at Gorge Orwell, who hated the Soviet Union and who’s stories would be synonymous with threat of authoritarian States, big brother, 1984, and Animal Farm. He was a true Democratic-Socialist who fought for Catalonia’s anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War. Nothing is simple and not complicated, but I assure you I don’t want to take away freedoms in my ideals, but expand them.
Sorry but Socialism isn’t what you think. The point is people collective own an industry and decide how much they’re paid. I can go into the nuances of the “every will get paid the same myth and how that’s wrong but you can educate yourself. Because a Socialist society isn’t driven by profit but by needs and community. As Marx predicted the wealth inequality will reach extreme highs and automation will replace workers, and then as Capitalism falls then the Socialist economy will be sought out not before. Good day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hendrix Price Their form of government was Totalitarian, a right wing mode of governance indeed. They got rid of private property and private capitalism only to establish State Capitalism. That is the State, supposedly controlled by ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ or in Leninism the Vanguard Party, takes on the capitalists role in employing, paying wages, allocating resources, accumulating wealth etc... As you can see this State Capitalism as Lenin named it was supposed to be some transitional phase from “Socialism” to “Communism.” Truth is it wasn’t even the transitional Socialism. The workers did not control production or the means to them. Everything was State controlled and planned. This lead many libertarian left socialists to criticize the Soviet Union as an abomination of the desired freedoms of Socialism. Stalinism would be the worst, and Stalin would declare State Capitalism is Socialism.
Indeed Socialism is meant to be democratization of the workplace and a post-Capitalist economy. George Orwell who fought for Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, would hate the Totalitarianism of Stalinism and the Fascists forces that won the Spanish Civil War. He spent his life criticizing those powers and a staunch Democratic Socialist.
I think these Socialist movements ultimately moved towards the more right wing forms of government with it’s Authoritarian tendencies. Supposedly the workers controlled the State, but it was a Party that would basically take leadership over them. You can make similarities between Fascism and the Soviet Union, but I would say they are different as Fascism involves more facets than just Totalitarianism. State Capitalism would involve the same type of government and an emphasis on a planned economy, and the supposed State control by the workers, not at all a democratic control of affairs however. Left wing Socialists and Anarchists are more of the democratic persuasion of worker’s control, and do declare systems like in the Soviet Union to not being truly Socialism or Communism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ant Man lol The American founding fathers had a fundamental mistrust of all government. They understood no government is to be trusted. They begrudgingly left a strong federal government as they saw no alternative. Had they seen what Capitalism would lead to with corporations and private power they would have fought against that. Classical Liberalism fought against concentrated wealth, power, and privilege. Had they lived to see the Libertarian movement of Anarchist Socialists they probably would have been Anarchists. Imagine their ecstasy at the possibility of NO GOVERNMENT! Anarchism is based on communities or locales operating in free associations. They would work through larger territories in federal organization. Early Anarchists literally called themselves Federalists. Autonomous territories freely cooperating with each other if they want. Don’t give that “homogenous” crap. Anarchists like all Socialists are class conscious. They look for worker’s solidarity not caring about race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc... The worker’s are united in solidarity.
“I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”
George Orwell
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikeparker7631 what a shitty take on leftism. The left is anarchist anti-statism advocating either forms of anarcho-communism or free market anarchism (mutualism). Here’s one quote form a libertarian socialist/anarchist to define what leftists believe in.
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.” — Pierre J Proudhon
Leftists advocate a world without borders, without externalities trying to govern individuals, for the ego to flourish. A world without hierarchies. Classical liberalism was the predecessor to libertarian socialism.
“When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, there may that country boast its Constitution and its Government. Independence is my happiness, the world is my country and my religion is to do good.
— Thomas Paine
It was only a development of time until classical liberalism became libertarianism. From limited government to no government. Including economically.
“The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,—namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American,—a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price—or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price—these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms,—interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.” — Free Marker Anarchist Benjamin Tucker
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random channel lol tell that to Revolutionary Catalonia, Free Territory Ukraine, the Paris Commune. Socialism has a broad variety of schools. From Libertarian Anarchist, to Marxist-Statist. What you mean is there isn’t a Marxist-Leninist movement that hasn’t lead to authoritarianism. George Orwell understood authoritarianism and assessed it throughout his literary career. He fought with Socialists in the Spanish Civil War. Why would the writer of 1984 and Animal Farm, fierce criticisms of Totalitarian States like Fascism and Stalinism say things like this if all Socialism is authoritarian:
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”
George Orwell, “Why I write”
“And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a socialist regime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer — that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a socialist party.”
– George Orwell, “Why I Joined the Independent Labour Party”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair FDR’s New Deal was liberal corporatist. Mussolini recognized it as fascist lite economically. Mussolini compared the New Deal to Fascism. Socialists also recognized the similarities between New Deal programs and Fascist economics. Labor and business interests mediated by government. Fascism is New Deal on steroids.
“You want to know what Fascism is like, it is your New Deal”
“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”
- Benito Mussolini
That said liberal corporatism isn’t Fascist Corporatism. Liberal corporatism like social democracy still holds a liberal framework. Fascism is anti-liberal and nationalist. It was ridiculous of Stalin to not see the appeal of Fascist Corporatism which is a nationalist Syndicalism where all economic sectors collectively bargain under government oversight. The Fascist model was based upon the notion that big centralized government works well, and it brings the nation and classes together to be a well functioning organism, the State. New Deal Programs were actually inspired by some Fascist infrastructure. People forget that Fascism wasn’t a dirty word until WW2 broke out. Mussolini was seen as a hero, like Caesar, that would take the reigns of power for the people, from the gridlock of liberal democratic politicians, and be a dictator in the image of Ancient Rome. There were literally calls from the media in America to give FDR emergency dictatorial powers to address the Depression and crises. There’s a reason socialists were against FDR’s New Deal, it was a rival to socialist revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Awoken and Broken Matt Hardy You actually do. I’m going by historical precedent. Anarchists used Libertarian more when they were being censored. Anarchism was also known as Libertarian Socialism. No capitalist advocates called themselves libertarian or anarchists until the propaganda of American Capitalists. They claim they are rooted in Individualist Anarchists, yet Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Spooner all called themselves Socialists, and staunchly anti-Capitalist.
My grievance with the political compass is that it claims left-right is based on economics. Untrue, as historically it is based on government types. Hence Anarchism/Libertarianism is the most left wing stance, and Totalitarianism/Fascism the most right wing. One can be a liberal and socialist, as seen in the Paris Commune Democratic Socialist government. Or one can be a Libertarian Socialist an Anarchist as seen Revolutionary Catalonia.
The root liberty is in both Libertarianism and Liberalism. One is for the dissolution of all coercive institutions and government bodies for autonomous free associative and decentralized stateless social organization. The other is about limited government, republic models, parliamentary politics, civil liberties and rights protected by government, social contract etc...
I don’t know what you go by, but I’m going by historical precedence and many literature on Anarchism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paramone Gaming funny cause Thomas Paine who was considered the most radical of American Founding Father’s was the first to propose social welfare, citizen’s dividend (UBI), and early proponent of egalitarian radical democracy.
Liberalism can be capitalist and bourgeoisie. But there is also a socialist and labor strain on which Market Socialism derives from. Early liberals like Thomas Hodgskin who wrote “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” were anti-capitalists, in which the propertied elite were turning liberal economics in favor of capital. Hence the primacy of capital instead of labor. Such an egregious turn of events lead to the rise of Mutualists in America like Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner etc... and the Individualist Free Market Anarchists. Essentially their analysis was given the ideals of liberalism that the natural conclusion is Market Socialism.
In the past the economy was mostly agrarian and artisanal, where economic actors or worker’s owned their tools and produce themselves to market, that was classical liberalism. Post-industrialism lead to the primacy of capital aka capitalism, and the bourgeois elites, the proprietors of machines, new tech, and wealth turned liberal economics the capital route. The backlash towards industrial capitalism was real, the first French Republic post-revolution failed because of bourgeoisie capitalism, the US had a major conflict known as the Civil War, and the issues were racial and economic. Particularly farmers and artisans feared the expansion of capitalism and was very much a hot topic for debate. Lincoln and Republicans had some labor support, despite it being in many ways a bourgeois party since Lincoln expressed wage labor should only be a temporary issue not a perpetual system. And the Southern slavers feared industrialization.
Remember “capitalist” was first a pejorative, then anti-capitalists or socialists created the term “capitalism” to designate that system which they were against that relied on wage labor, and capital, wealth accumulation of an upper class.
Liberalism essentially is a political and economic doctrine of liberty, limited government, and natural rights. Other facets like individualism, social contract, and democracy as well. This is all not incompatible with Socialism, seeing as socialism was a left wing ideology born from liberal and revolutionary circles. Hence why liberals like Thomas Hodgskin, James Mill, John Stuart Mill Rosseau etc... were in their time self proclaimed socialists or anti-capitalists, or ideologues that were precursors to socialist doctrine and ideology.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Umi sharqi Fair point. I forgot that tidbit. Yet it wasn’t as easy choices as you make them out to be. They wouldn’t choose the Wall, they are noble lords, they chose to ally with Lannister’s for disagreeing with their liege lords and fearing foreign invaders. And a bit of gold and extra titles probably. These are people who don’t know the real threat, the Walkers, and believe the biggest threat are three dragons and a Conqueror. Tarly remained loyal to the Targaryens in Robert’s Rebellion, and handed Robert his only defeat in the war. He was prisoner to Robert but out of respect for his martial prowess, and to gain a bit of loyalty Robert gave Tarly his lands and titles back. Perhaps Tarly felt he learned from experience and chose to go against his sworn leaders. His liege lords sided with Daenerys, but his Queen was Cersei, Roberts wife. Ultimately he chose his monarch over his liege. He was neither wrong nor right I think, but ultimately it’s Daenerys being a Conqueror that drove their fate. Agree with it or not Dany is behaving like Aegon the Conqueror. Some would say he brought peace and united 6 kingdoms, others would call him a Conqueror that conquered because he could with dragons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
donHooligan no man Fascism is an actual political doctrine of far right nationalism and nationalist syndicalism, or corporatism.
Corporatism means society organized in interest sectors (corporations) to work together through the State for the collective good. So the collective bargaining of capital and worker interests mediated by the government.
Corporatocracy is when power resides in big capital, business corporations make the rules which is more what neoliberal capitalism has lead to. Fascists were anti-liberal capitalism they would actually hate Biden or Trump. In fact keeping tabs on actual Fascists I found they hate Trump as another neoliberal capitalist. Trump is just another corporate oligarch not an actual Fascist.
Hitler himself admired FDR’s approach, saying, “I have sympathy with President Roosevelt because he marches straight toward his objective over Congress, over lobbies, over stubborn bureaucracies. Hitler likewise congratulated Roosevelt for "his heroic effort in the interest of the American People." He added:
“ The President's successful struggle against economic distress is being followed by the entire German People with interest and admiration. The Reich Chancellor is in accord with the President that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole Nation. This moral demand, which the President is addressing to every single citizen, is also the quintessence of German philosophy of the State, expressed in its motto "The public weal before private gain."
But Hitler's admiration for Roosevelt gave way to contempt upon the opening of hostilities. With the German declaration of war against the United States, Hitler would deprecate Roosevelt, not as a tool of the Bolsheviks, but as "the candidate of a Capitalist Party."
Roosevelt’s administration was liberal corporatist though not far right fascist. Liberal corporatism keeps the liberal aspects of capitalism, individual sovereignty. The Fascists want the individual (and capital) to serve the State
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dat Boi The Individualists opposed capitalism as a system of privilege, exploitation, accumulation without limit, theft, abuse, and wage slavery, all supported by the coercive authority of the state. Students of the principles of classical political economy — the ideas of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill, et al. — the Individualists contended that the full realization of those principles and ideas meant an economic paradigm very different from capitalism, which they viewed as the successor of feudalism and mercantilism as a political, rather than economic creature. “Laissez-faire,” they said, had been improperly and spuriously leveraged for the defense of a system of injustices that in fact had nothing to do with legitimate free markets. Capitalists, the idle rich, were only able to profit from the labors of the industrious because they were protected by unfair advantages, embodied in law, that allowed them to escape the natural outcomes and pressures of genuine, full-fledged competition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgyboi4487 as a classical liberal (Georgist) neither him nor Rubin are liberals of any sort. They’re grifters that only appeal to far right audiences. A classical liberal is a Geoist, believed in limited government, supports welfare, and attacks monopolist capitalism. Liberals are for opened borders, against IP, and civic liberal/libertarian. Idiots like Pool want government to control social behavior, and interfere with personal lives. When in the face of a genuine liberal Pool would seethe at proper liberal stances. No classical liberal votes or supports republicans, we’re also anti-clerical and while for religious tolerance we ourselves are atheist and agnostic. Or at least liberal theologians like the founding fathers were Unitarians, Universalists, and Deists. Even a traditionalist like John Adams rejected Jesus divinity. Jefferson was near a Christian atheist (following Christian morality, rejecting deity) and Paine… well rest in power to our radical forefather.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arrogant Ambassador Old Testament:
“You shall not oppress or exploit your neighbor... love your neighbor as yourself” Leviticus 19:13, 18
“[God] enacts justice for orphans and widows, and he loves immigrants, giving them food and clothing. That means you must also love immigrants because you were immigrants... “ Deuteronomy 10:17-19
“Don’t take advantage of poor or needy workers, whether they are fellow Israelites or immigrants who live in your land or your cities.” Deuteronomy 24:14
“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless, maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalms 82:3-4
New Testament:
“All who believed were together and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and divided them among all men, as every man had need.” Acts 2:44-45
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” Acts 4:32
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you posses and give to the poor.” Matthew 19:21
“When you give a feast, invite the poor, maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.” Luke 14:13-14
“Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts 4:35
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter West you’re talking to a libertarian socialist. I know what I’m talking about. And yes Market Socialism is a strain, the most radical being Free Market Anarchism like Benjamin Tucker and Proudhon’s Mutualism.
Socialism isn’t just public ownership, that has variations. From communes, to syndicalism, State ownership, industrial federation/confederation, worker coops, collectives etc.... It’s a stride towards classless society.
I don’t know if I mentioned here but I did say capitalism is a 19th century invention well after classical liberalism. Market system and capitalism aren’t synonymous. Classical liberals like David Ricardo, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill were precursors to Socialism.
Capitalism is a distinct socioeconomic system sustained by wage labor and underclasses ruled by capital. Social Democracy is not against capitalism, it just reforms it.
Corporatism maintains the capitalist mode of production, the word privatization was literally made for the Nazis economy, but uses it for National interests through collective bargaining yes. Capitalism was never liberal, it was never free markets it was always about State privileges to capital, the ruling class. According to socialists like Proudhon capitalism is monopolistic and impedes free competition in free enterprise. Actual free markets have Democratic industrialization, competitive currencies, and competition so rampant the value of labor is the only value, and profit, rent, and interest are eradicated. Also property norms of Occupancy and Use. But this is the Market Socialist camp.
Corporatism is still capitalism, it’s just not “liberal” capitalism where capitalists have no care but for individual profit. And like I said before Fascist Corporatism isn’t just about labor and business interests, it turns the whole of society into a Corporate State. Where corporations, syndicates, guilds, fascii, interest groups or whatever you want to call them are regulated by the government.
And Social Democracy is a very moderate form of that kind of model in it’s mediation of labor and business interests, but remains liberal and concerned for social and economic justice, not nationalism.
1
-
1