Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but when it comes to the allegations of fascism, I seriously think what are these people on? And we've been here before. With George Bush (dunce). And with John McCain (old white man). There comes a time when if you keep crying wolf people stop listening. Because despite his considerable inadequacies, if you can't tell the difference between Donald Trump and a fascist, you're a fuckin idiot.
    38
  2. There's one advert I can't stand. It has a number of people, some in the fashion industry, some in catering, writing, travel. All selling the product (software). And all describing the reason why they do what they do because 'they like to help others'. Almost like they spend more effort overselling their virtue than the actual product. So the guy is an editor of a fashion magazine, because he's selfless. The woman is a travel writer because she's always thinking of others. Give me a break!
    21
  3. Celebrated Marxist economist and hero of the new left. Goes without saying he was a total fuckin disaster. Not up to the job. Decades of useless economic theorising and all he could come up with is ''Let's ask the people if they wanna pay their debts!"
    7
  4. I remember how, because of these few cartoons, Denmark's years of nazi occupation was picked over in the media. There had been Danish nazi collaborators during the war, we were told. And these cartoons somehow proved that there was still a stubborn strain of fascism running thro Danish society. The credit for the cartoon 'controversy' was down to three reactionary imams, who Denmark had offered asylum. In Dec 2005 - two months after the cartoons were published, the three went to an Arab league meeting in Egypt. They carried with them a 43 page dossier which included the cartoons along with 3 other unconnected images supposedly of Mohammed (one of a man wearing a plastic pig mask and one of a praying man being sodomised by a dog). The imams claimed this was proof of the hateful anti-muslim atmosphere within Denmark. The country that had offered them asylum. There were riots in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Lahore, and Libya, where some 139 people died. Western embassies and businesses were attacked and boycotted. In France and other European countries newspapers published the cartoons as a gesture of solidarity. But in the UK, the media refused to do so. Out of 'respect' for Islam. This was very strange. Because in the UK the media has no such problems with ridiculing and disrespecting Christianity, their own 'mainstream' religion. Channel 4 even ran a debate with a live audience. And the question was asked, should channel 4 show the cartoons? The audience voted yes. But channel 4 refused to do so. Altho the media talked of 'showing respect', we all knew the real reason why they had refused to show a handful of cartoons of a 7th century prophet. Fear. Since then we have had a new word introduced into the English language: Islamophobia. But the media has a problem. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. So were the media who were lecturing us about this irrational fear of Islam being Islamophobic themselves when they refused to show the cartoons? After all, either they had a rational fear of the repercussions of doing so. Or their fear was misplaced. In which case they themselves were being 'Islamophobic'.  Then in 2010 we had the American pastor, Terry Jones, who threatened to burn a copy of the quran. And the humiliating spectacle of western leaders practically grovelling on their knees for him not to go thro with it. We even had supposedly liberal commentators questioning why the local authorities couldn't just arrest him. For what? Is Islam really that dangerous an ideology? Is the bar really set that low? If so, don't we have a right to be concerned? If we are to accept Islam into the west, then it no longer becomes just the concern of foreign cultures. It becomes part of our culture. And just like any other belief or ideology we live amongst, it becomes our right to ridicule, criticise, dislike, and hate it. But not just our right. Our duty too. Because whether we like it or not, Islam is part of our future now.
    7
  5. I watched Caleb Cain's video. And while it is undoubtedly true that people are radicalised online, he didn't sound too convincing to me. He claims he was 'funnelled' towards the far right by right wing youtubers. But he was pretty desperate to make it clear that he, for example, never held any racist views. Almost as if he wanted the kudos of claiming to have been far right and to have turned away, without the stigma of actually having been far right. His very polished performance sounds contrived. And his argument (that right wing views funnel you to the far right) is not only not true, but I would say an attempt to demonise anyone who holds right wing views. But, if what he claims is true, then it's clear he has simply gone from one political extreme to the other - And the opposite of extremism is never the extreme opposite.
    6
  6. Anarchism isn't so much a political ideology as a nihilistic abdication of all responsibility. It's where people go when they have no answers, only criticism. Although many anarchists (especially on the far left) are actually far from anarchistic. And are, in fact closet authoritarians. The whole 'anarchy' bit is simply a way of hiding their true ideology. Either way, society has progressed to a point where interdependence makes their half-assed theories unworkable. Most recognise this. And that's the real aim. As avoidance of responsibility means that you can never be wrong and never be blamed for anything.
    5
  7. Marx was an extremely arrogant man (as you would have to be to want to remake society to suit your vision of a utopia). He was also very stupid. The most basic freedom a man can have is the right to profit from his own labour. Marxism removes that right. The individual is subservient to the state, rather than the state serving the individual. And as all things are justifiable for the good of the state, all injustices against the individual by the state are justifiable. Which why every communist state has always been (and will always be) an authoritarian shithole. Marx correctly recognised the danger of allowing too much power to get into the hands of the wealthy 'boss class' (no big accomplishment, as better men than him had recognised this long before him). But his answer to that age old problem was focus power into the hands of an even smaller elite: The political class. Those who run the state. Now, under Marxism, as well as running government, making the laws you must live by, setting economic and foreign policy etc, the political class employ you, sets your wages, tells you where to live, tells you what you can read, what entertainment you can watch, and what news you get to hear. What could go wrong, right? Obviously, Marx couldn't just come out and say that. It's basically authoritarianism, and he had to sell his idea, after all. So he simply rebranded the Marxist State as 'The People'. Job done! And this little trick has allowed Marxists to claim they are the will of the people, even as they work to undermine democracy around the world, as they always have done. But if they don't recognise the will of the people in a democratic system, then at what point do we think they'll recognise it once they're in power? That's why it's better to watch what Marxists do, rather than listening to what they say they'll do.
    4
  8. Don't bother watching it. It's basically as you would expect. The key moments were '...I encourage everyone to read the communist manifesto. See! It promises nice things!'
    4
  9. Charlie Milroy If the EU fails completely, then it will be because it doesn't have the support of those who it supposedly represents. Remember that when the UK joined a common market, there was no talk of a single currency, an EU army, open boarders, or the EU dictating policy to member states. I'm all for globalisation. But I still support Brexit, as the EU doesn't much represent globalisation. It has spent ten years trying to come up with a trade deal with the US (the UK's biggest single trading partner). How is that globalisation? You mean 'Europisation' if you mean anything. As the EU is a closed market. Not a global market. The EU is simply heading in a direction that the majority in the UK disagree with. Ever Closer Union. And as has already been pointed out here, arrogantly ignored those concerns. It offered nothing. Even going so far as to snub the UK's democratically elected prime minister when he was desperate to do a deal. Well, there are consequences to behaving like that. If the concerns of 60 odd million people are going to be treated with that much contempt, what do you expect?   If the EU is so ridged and inflexible, then it offers only two choices. Remain or leave. And the UK voted to leave. So I would say, it better get its act together fast before it falls apart completely. Because in a democracy, its the electorate that ultimately decides which direction it wants to go. Not the political elites. 
    3
  10. Taxation is a way to provide for the things society wants and needs. We have progressed beyond the ability to live in caves totally cut off from everyone else. Humans are social animals. It's really not that big a sacrifice.
    3
  11. Simon Meekers It appears to me that Varoufakis is just desperate to unload the blame onto someone else. As I already pointed out, if the ECB had stuck to its own rules, Greece would never have been allowed to join the euro in the first place. But apart from shifting blame, his argument doesn't make sense. If his criticism is that, during extreme circumstances, the ECB broke its own rules, then logically according to him they should have stuck with those rules and forced Greece out of the euro.  But hold on, who was Greek finance minster at the time Greece was offered the deal? Wasn't it Varoufakis? Clearly both the ECB and Varoufakis believed that, above all, the best case scenario was for Greece to remain within the euro. If that was not the case, and the ECB was wrong. Then Varoufakis was also wrong. If Varoufakis believed that it was preferable that the ECB should have stuck to its own rules and forced Greece out of the euro, then he and his party should have either rejected the deal. Or announced that Greece was pulling out of the single currency.   Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject the ECB deal was down to the Greek government. And Varoufakis was finance minster. Is he now saying he made the wrong decision? The worth of any minister of finance is how to deal best with the economic situation he or she is presented with. You don't win points by saying you don't like the problem and that you would prefer to start from somewhere else.
    2
  12. Simon Meekers The problem for Varoufakis then, was that the deal he wanted was not on offer. But then there were more and just two interested parties wanting to come to a deal. Germany too had a self interest in getting the right deal for its own economic reasons. And as it was the German taxpayer who would be taking the risk in either situation, it was the elected German government who had the ultimate deciding vote. And again, membership of the euro zone brings with it responsibilities as well as benefits. And one of those responsibilities is to keep state spending under control. Basically, beggars cannot be choosers. Germany has as much right to act in its own self interest as Greece. And it was Greek self interest that was responsible for the crisis in the first place.
    2
  13. Simon Meekers German 'private' banks? And you think they are expendable because they are not state controlled? What about those who have their life savings in those private banks? Or their pensions?   Who do you think would have had to have bailed them out? The Greeks?! You sound like private business is somehow of no benefit to an economy. And therefore expendable or less deserving. ''The fact that there is a independent organization determines that both the creditors and debtors can't choose, the organization chooses without favoring one or the other merely for them being one or the other'' This is a meaningless statement. As any hit to the German economy would be detrimental to the economy of the EU as a whole in a way that would not be the case with Greece. And once again, it was German taxpayer money that was at stake. The German's had every right to use what influence they had to their advantage.
    2
  14. Simon Meekers And again, It is German money we are talking about here. Do you think it's Danish taxpayers who will foot the bill? Or the Estonians? What I am saying, is that you cannot have a single currency without a single economic policy. That is the fault at the heart of the euro. And while national governments are responsible for their own tax and spending, they will, quite rightly, look out for their own taxpayers. A central bank can work in a sovereign country, because its interests are tied to the interests of a single national government. That is not the case with the ECB. It is not dealing with a single government entity. But with multiple governments who are all answerable to their taxpayers in a way that the ECB is not. I also believe I'm right in saying that one of the cast iron guarantees the Germans insisted upon during the setting up of the single currency, was that they would not end up paying for the irresponsible state spending of other euro members. Which, as it turned out, they ended up doing in the end anyway.   So again. In my opinion the German government was correct in using its weight to get the best deal for Germany. If Varoufakis did not like the deal on offer, he should've rejected it and pulled Greece out of the euro. You cannot ignore the rules when it suits you (as Greece did), and then expect other euro members not to do the same.   
    2
  15. Why do you assume you have to be a member of the alt right to disagree with yet another washed up fraudulent Marxist failure?
    2
  16. GlitchyShadow The UK's membership should be decided on whether it is beneficial to the UK. Not on whether it is beneficial to other European countries. If other European nations have a problem with a future EU army or Turkey's membership, then they should step up and say so. Rather than always let the UK end up being the bad guy.     
    2
  17. Who said anything about opting out of globalisation? You don't need to be in the EU to trade with the rest of the world.
    2
  18. The reasoning is simple. Each constituency elects a representative to sit in parliament. There is no second place.  
    2
  19. Jakob Schulze I'm not particularly making an argument for either system. Like I said, there are benefits and drawbacks to both. But the system the UK has is not referred to as 'Proportional Representation' (as far as I am aware). And I never said it was. The benefit of the UK system is that it doesn't rely on governments being forced into coalitions as much. Which you could argue is better for the electorate, as they know if they elect a particular party, that party is able to carry out its manifesto without having to horse trade with smaller parties. Also, you could argue that the EU system would give much smaller parties a disproportionate amount of influence in any coalition government. If the population as a whole only voted in a government with 51% of the vote, then is it right that a much smaller party with, say 8% or less gets to sit in coalition and decide make or brake deals in parliament simply because a coalition deal tips the scales into a majority? Besides which, 51% isn't that bad. After all, the UK is pulling out of the EU on a vote of 52% is it not?  
    2
  20. Jakob Schulze That will always be the case no matter what system you adopt. As all government is about compromise. About dealing with reality, rather than how you would like things to be. If you spend more money here, you have less to spend there. If you want higher spending everywhere, you have to raise tax's. Different people want different things. And most often than not those different things are incompatible. That's life.
    2
  21. Your little link there didn't say anything that we don't already know. No party can ever represent the majority on all issues. As an individual can support a particular party on one issue, while disagreeing with it on another. All individuals weigh up the pros and cons before voting for any party.   It reads, ''Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence'' All this is saying is that big business has more influence on government than the average voter. But then so what? Large businesses represent many more people than just the single voter. And as for 'mass-based interest groups', they rarely represent more than single issue politics. You can campaign for more government spending in one sector, but its the government that has responsibility for the bigger picture. ''Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.'' Don't quite know what the 'if still contested franchise' means. Unless it refers to illegal immigrants within the US. But the proof is all there. Regular elections. freedom of speech and association. As well other human rights and privileges.  Then Eric Zuess chips in: "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now." But then Eric Zuess would say that, wouldn't he?
    2
  22. Clearly impossible for him. As he still calls himself a Marxist.
    2
  23. In a capitalist system you are free to work for who you please. Or work for yourself. You are free to invest the profits of your labour how you please. And others are free to join you. The results speak for themselves. Those who are lucky enough to live in the capitalist west enjoy higher living standards and greater freedoms, rights, and privileges then ever before in human history. https://youtu.be/th25DDFZh_U
    2
  24. Jason smith And how much support do you think communists would have had in the past if they had told the truth of what they intend?
    2
  25. Arm yourself with a anti-nazi banner and you get to act like one
    1
  26. It would seem that while Ralph Fertig refers to himself as a pacifist and human rights activist, he is an advocate for the PKK. A Kurdish communist terror group. Is this another example of a leftist academic playing with fire I wonder?
    1
  27. That's clearly an important factor that we mustn't overlook when considering the topic, yes.  
    1
  28. Celebrated Marxist economist and hero of the new left. Goes without saying he was a total fuckin disaster. Not up to the job. Decades of useless economic theorising and all he could come up with is ''Let's ask the people if they wanna pay their debts!"
    1
  29. Greece's problem is that it wants the benefits of being in the euro without the responsibility. You can't have a single currency without central currency controls. If Varoufakis wanted out of the euro, he should've made the case. Talking of EU 'reform' is simply kicking the problem into the long grass. Because everyone's been talking of reform for decades.
    1
  30. I would argue that the single currency could, and can never, be 'independent'. Independent of what? Politics? In a single nation using its own currency, the politics is clear. The currency must be managed on what is beneficial for that country. In a union of (however many countries now make up the EU-its late and I can't be bothered to check), that cannot be the case. As there are multiple governments of multiple nations. All serving the good of their electorate. The whole argument about an independent bank is nonsensical.  
    1
  31. But again, what you say is impossible. The very fact that Germany is Europe's economic powerhouse means that it automatically takes precedence over small economies such as Greece. What is good for Germany is good for Europe. And that's important if you want Germany to continue paying the bills and bailing out the Greeks. Besides, if the ECB were truly independent, the Greeks would never have been allowed to join the euro in the first place.   
    1
  32. Trump is the only anti-globalist billionaire globalist I know.
    1
  33. Let's be honest. People have been talking about reforming the EU for decades. And yet all it does it centralise ever more power. And so what if Turkey joins the EU and they create an army? Turkey was already getting funds from Brussels in preparation of joining. And it's about time Europe got serious about its own security. Besides, if the UK isn't in the EU, what does any of that matter to the UK?
    1
  34. GlitchyShadow I can think of a number of people I would instantly dislike from both the far right and the far left. And Yanis Varoufakis is one of them. Corbyn is another.
    1
  35. What does that make the other half?
    1
  36. Well, if half the audience isn't alt right, then (as we are concentrating on the percentage of alt right audience membership) that must mean that the other half is.  
    1
  37. Erratic socialist? Can you also be an erratic fascist? And write about the failures of nazism?
    1
  38. +Aanthanur DC He's sure as hell erratic if nothing else.
    1
  39. alexander reusens From what I understand, nazi economics was built around massive state spending. So you are right. It was untenable. Lesson there for all good socialists.
    1
  40. He likely does what most Christians do. He picks and chooses the parts of his holy book he likes best. Nothing wrong with that. Christianity would still be in the dark ages if that were not so. And that's what Maajid Nawaz wants. He wants a western style Islam. Where people can insult and criticize it just as we do Christianity, without being murdered for it. And he is hated by the far right because of it. Hated by the extremist Muslims because of it. And totally ignored by the left because of it.
    1
  41. Jakob Schulze Idk the figures. But I would assume this is down to UKIP coming second or third in a larger number of constituencies. I mean, 13% is all very well, but it counts for nothing if you never come first. As for the Brussels parliament, it simply works on a different system where you can select a first, second, or third candidate. There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems. One tends to give a less proportional but more definite result. While the other gives the opposite.       Generally the UK system means the government is less reliant on a coalition agreement with other parties. Which can be good or bad depending on who you voted for.  
    1
  42. Jakob Schulze I suspected you already knew what you were talking about, but I thought I better take your comment at face value in any case. No offence meant. The problem I have with PR is that it rarely gives a clear result. And a government needs strong leadership. Not bitter coalition infighting. Whereas the system we have now is clear and simple. Essentially, you are voting for a candidate to represent your constituency. If enough people think he or she doesn't do a good job. They can vote him out. What could be more democratic?
    1
  43. What makes you think politics isn't already representative? Is it just because the person you vote for doesn't get the job?  
    1
  44.  @FaradaySpeaks  The best recruitment tool for the extreme right is the existence of the extreme left. The same is true the other way around. And as you move further towards the extremes, the moderates on the opposite side appear further away.
    1
  45. Meowphistopheles Just to be clear, these were insults levelled at Bush and McCain (who I very much respect) by their detractors. They are not my views. I dislike Trump immensely. But he's not a fascist. It is infantile, ignorant, and dangerous to say he is. Because if you condemn all your opponents as inhumanly evil, then you legitimise political violence against them. And if one side does that, then all sides will follow.
    1
  46. And of course, it also means that if someone comes along who is a real fascist, who will take notice when you call them out?
    1
  47. As it was removed as spam, and as restore comment does fuck all as usual, here is Slados1's comment. Nothing "fascist" about blocking individuals coming in from foreign countries deemed as highly unstable, as harboring terrorists and therefore classed as security threats by two separate administrations. Nothing "fascist" about criticizing a lying media outlet, Obama did the same thing... was he a "fascist" too perhaps or would that only apply to the elderly white US president? Please list the media outlets "banned from attending press meetings".The Prime minister of Israel obviously begs to differ when it comes to Trump's alleged "antisemitic campaign" and/or similar attitudes... two months ago Netanyahu, to the contrary, thanked Trump personally for his "deep commitment to Israel’s future" and he also characterized him as "great friend to the Jewish people" in a previous meeting. Appears that Obama was the one playing favors with Islam (you know, the ideology adhered to by those that top all of the statistics on antisemitic attitudes and regularly preach the annihilation of the one and only Jewish state and Jews as a people). Netanyahu has continually expressed elation in dealing with Trump as opposed to the poor relation he had with Obama. Not to mention that Trump's son in law is Jewish and incidentally also serving as White House Advisor. Another Jew put into office by Trump himself... that's some alt-right anti-semite right there, just horrible... Oh, yeah... his daughter also converted to Judaism. That must have upset your imaginary antisemitic President to no end--- I mean, he's literally Hitler... right? Not enough Jews? OK, here's some more: Stephen Miller; Trump's senior advisor for policy Boris Epshteyn; senior advisor on Trump's "antisemitic and racist" 2016 presidential campaign David Friedman; US ambassador to Israel Jason Greenblatt; United States Special Representative for International Negotiations  Steven Mnuchin; United States Secretary of the Treasury Name all the "racist" talking points from his campaign. Are you referring to the focus on people entering the US ILLEGALLY near solely from the neighboring corrupt and unstable nation called Mexico? You know... the ILLEGAL immigrants? They weren't the focus by virtue of skin color, you know, although I BET you love to obsess about race and skin color yourself... it's their clear and undisputed violation of US immigration law that kinda does it... by millions in numbers to boot. Bummer, right? Yeah, really... what could possibly be "fascist" here?
    1
  48. Deluded fantasist. ''...I encourage everyone to read the communist manifesto!'' What? How much support do you think they would've got if they had told the truth of what they intended?
    1
  49. Why are we expected to believe Marxist are any less likely to exploit the masses than anyone else? After all, if history proves anything, they are far more likely to do this than the capitalist system they wish to replace.
    1
  50. Kikasitsu Not sure how a 24 minute youtube video by someone who calls themselves 'Libertarian Socialist Rants' is supposed to disprove historical fact in regard to the disastrous failures of communism. I might also point out that if you were South Korean, you would most certainly think the Korean war was a 'Good War'. As it saved you from the horrors of the North Korean economic model. And that economic model (Juche) is pretty close to, if not exactly alike, the communist model. Hence regular famine and the most authoritarian of authoritarian regimes. But as you're not Korean, I'm guessing empathising with Koreans is beyond you. But then your little list of wars says nothing about capitalism. It wasn't designed to. Rather than keeping on topic (which would be hard for you to do, knowing the history of Marxism), you instead focus on the foreign policy of one country, the US. Simply repeating the meaningless Marxist mantra of ''the WORKER’s Ownership over the means of Production'' won't magic away the vast imperfections of Marx's ideology. It's lies anyhow. Under communism, the worker doesn't 'own the means of production'. He doesn't own anything. All Marx does is redefine the word 'ownership'. How can you not have noticed? Presently, if you wish to 'make preserves' as a day job, you're quite free to do so. You'll have to find customers. Make good preserves people want to buy. And not expect society to pay you simply because you like making substandard preserves. In other words, if you think that Marxism is an economic system that would allow you to piss about 'expressing' yourself all day at the expense of others, you're a fuckin idiot. Yes, you are a cog in a machine. And that machine runs the things you take for granted. The basic things you don't even think about, like the sewage system you use, or the power grid. It keeps the streets clean and empties your garbage. Good luck finding someone who see's that as a hobby. There is no economic model that would allow you to only do things you want to do. Not capitalism. And not Marxism. Doing things you don't want to do is all part of the human condition. But as my link showed, innovation can make those things easier and quicker. And if you want innovation, then you need the capitalist system.
    1
  51. I refer to you as being a cog in the machine in the fact that you will be REPLACED by someone that is even more desperate than you. You are simply assuming the worst of capitalism, and the best of Marxist theory (but not practice). Despite the fact that reality has proved otherwise. History tells you that Marx didn’t work (of course it didn’t...) BECAUSE OF OUTSIDE FORCES AROUND IT This is the massive flaw in Marxism. In order for it to supposedly work, everyone must sign up to it. But this is simply a lie to blame others for the failure of Marxism. One that often leads to show trials of those accused of being 'enemies of the people', saboteurs, enemy agents, etc. Stalin had his show trials, and the Chavez regime in Venezuela does pretty much the same. The horrors of the Soviet Union were inbuilt defects of the system they used. As was the horror of Mao's China. Making excuses for those regimes is basically the same as denying the horrors of nazi Germany. And if selling your ideology means having to deny the unnecessary deaths of millions of people, your ideology is worthless. And again, Churchill's policy towards India is nothing to do with capitalism. And no, I don't find it odd that we moved from fighting the evils of nazism to fighting the evils of communism. Kim Il-song was promoted to leader of North Korea by the Soviet Union. Who, of course, supported and encouraged his invasion of the south. When I saw that Top 10 list, I looked DEEPER into this list, and quickly realized that the Rabbit Hole was far deeper than I expected it’d be This sentence alerts me to the fact that you are very likely a conspiracist. This would explain your erratic arguments, failure to keep on topic, and denial of historical fact. In which case, you should perhaps check out this link... https://youtu.be/pk3StrCq9XI
    1
  52. And what has any of that got to do with capitalism? You're talking cold war politics. Just as during world war 2, western democracies considered Stalin the lessor of two evils when set against Hitler, in the fight against the spread of communism the free west were far from picky about the allies they made. But again, that is not a criticism of capitalism. But you can be thankful that the west ultimately won, and the soviet empire collapsed.
    1
  53. So only a capitalist economic system needs resources? What powers Marxist economics? Bullshit? SOCIALISM is “The Worker’s Ownership over the means of Production.” No it isn't. They don't own anything. FASCISM is the reactionary means of Capitalism when it’s under threat. And yet is was the capitalist west that went to war with nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union.
    1
  54. I'll assume that's ''...you the worker has a say in how things should work or be handled'' But that's not the same as the worker owning the means of production, is it? And that was your claim. That's Marx's claim. But its a lie. The worker doesn't own anything! So what if Hitler despised Marx? Is that supposed to be some kind of vindication of Marx? And I don't see how a supposed plot against FDR in 1934 is a criticism of capitalism.
    1
  55. Adam Smasher Who's using violence to coerce you into conforming? You're free to do whatever you want. Just not to leach off society and expect everyone to owe you a standard of living. You sure you're not just desperate to feel oppressed in some way?
    1
  56. There has always been leaders and governments for as long as humans have walked the earth. There are leaders in the rest of the animal kingdom too. We just happen to live within a golden age where we can decide who gets to lead us. Obviously, that doesn't mean we can literally all pick our own leader. Neither does it mean we can pick a leader from everyone available (although in theory, given enough support this would be possible). And while democracy doesn't necessarily give us the best leaders for the job, it does allow us to replace the people at the top without the need for a civil war. To say 'in the 20th century alone, governments are responsible for 200 million murders' is a puerile statement. It's as true as saying ''in the 20th century alone, humans are responsible for 200 million murders'. And therefore, all of us are equally as guilty for the deaths of 200 million people as anyone else. It also doesn't take into account the reasons why people go to war in the first place. It simply ignores everything and reduces the subject to an infantile level. Are you saying there are never any good reasons to use force? Are you saying that there is no point in using force? Or are you saying that as everyone and everything is all as bad as everyone and everything else, the fight for something better is pointless? That is nihilistic thinking. Which gets us nowhere. It doesn't improve things, and really only benefits those who are the most cynical and ruthless. But like I said. Nihilism plays a big part in the anarchists' bullcrap ideology. That's if you can even call it an ideology.
    1
  57. 'The Truth' I don't have to explain how continuing slavery is right just because it went on for 100,000 years. Because I'm not advocating for slavery.
    1
  58. Basically, a rush to the bottom where anything goes. No standards. No recourse to the law (its non-coercive, so unenforceable). Instead of a democratically representative state, you have multiple self-interested agencies with no democratic oversight at all. An unworkable and unnecessary ideology. Badly thought out.
    1
  59. Contracts mean nothing if only one side agrees. And how would they be enforced? And by who? What kind of contract would their be between a thief and your multiple private security agencies? And I don't know where you get the idea that democracy tends to totalitarianism. The reality is quite the opposite. Those lucky enough to live in the west enjoy more rights, freedoms, and privileges than at any time in human history.
    1
  60. You make the exact same mistake that communists make. Only the other way around. If communists are to have everyone believe that the boss class (big industry) has too much power, then why concentrate that power into the hands of those who run the state and who already have enough power as it is? (in other words, they want to concentrate all power in the hands of an even smaller minority). You're ideology runs in the opposite direction. The boss class (big industry) would not only have the power to set prices, hire and fire people, but apparently to make the laws and enforce them as well. Where is your democratic oversight? Where is the balance of power? You seem to be very confused on the whole 'non-coercion' thing when it comes to applying the law (or as you call it 'contracts'. Who oversees these contracts? What legal responsibilities to they hold? And how are they enforced (if they are non-coercive)? Reduce it to a guy on the street. Who mugs an old lady. 1) Has he committed a crime? 2) By what authority is it decided that the guy has committed a crime? 3) Who has the authority to act against him? 4) Where does that authority come from? 5) Who made the law that decided mugging old ladies is a crime? 6) Who enforces the law and how?
    1
  61. 1) Who decides what a crime is? 2) The law needs to be specific. Who wrote it and by what authority? What if one private agency says one thing is a crime and another says it isn't? 3) If it has been proven that he committed the crime, everyone has the authority to act against him? But who decides whether he is guilty or not guilty? He hasn't yet been judged by anyone. What if he refuses to be judged? 4) Again, who decides? A judge? A magistrate? Who? How did he get the job and who pays him? 5) What agencies? What authority do they have and who gave that authority to them? How do they enforce their authority? Who pays them and how are they held accountable? What is a 'natural right'? 6) Isn't threatening to kill someone coercive? What if the mugger doesn't recognise the authority of Defense Agency X or Defense Agency Y? Who says he has to? What if he decides to use all the money he stole to set up Defence Agency Z? And then he 'authorises' the arrest of those in Defense Agency X and Defense Agency Y? using lethal force. Or supposing the mugger accepts the authority (clearly by threat of force) to submit himself to a 'court' (one of many self appointed courts that simply issue fatwahs against whoever depending on who pays them). And it's not a corrupt court that simply passes judgement on whoever is willing to pay the most (not the old lady, she was mugged). Then what? What happens to the mugger? Is he imprisoned? Who by? Who pays for his imprisonment? The old lady?
    1
  62.  @kev3d  Is it called gramatica or something? I feel I should know this, as I've clicked off it enough times already
    1
  63. Grammarly. It's Grammarly I'm thinking of. And btw I'm not replying on this short comment thread for myself. But because I want to help other people such as yourselves realise your true potential in life - It makes me happy to know I have made a difference (especially if one or more of you are in some way disabled).
    1