it is burn after reading.
Why shouldn’t anyone be able to freely sell their body for sex? Why shouldn’t a child work if he so wished to?
I saw this a few hours ago and since had an existential crisis of sorts.
This is what libertarians believe guys.
Why shouldn’t children be able to sell their bodies for sex?
Why shouldn’t sex sell their children for bodies?
Why shouldn’t bodies sell their children for sex?
If the political struggle of the working class assumes revolutionary form and if the workers set up their revolutionary dictatorship in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, they commit the terrible crime of violating principles, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar everyday needs and to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transient form, instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the state.
Karl Marx ridiculing anarchists, (Neue Zeit Vol.XXXII, 1, 1913-14, p.40)
Because apparently any form of organized resistance to bourgeoisie rule constitutes a state.
Marx isn’t saying that, he is saying that anarchists deny the use of the state (even though it constitutes something completely different from the contemporary state) as tool to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie and carry out the final abolition of the state. Organized resistance is organized force. The state — after captured by the proletariat — would be but an apparatus to execute the revolutionary force of the proletariat.
If you are against the state because it is organized force, how are you not against all forms of resistance? Revolution is the most authoritarian thing possible.
Don’t agree with revolution being the most authoritarian thing possible … but the response is important. I disagree entirely with the anarchist’s essentialist analysis of what the state is and how it must function. I doubt we’d differ in criticism over the bourgeois state, but the distinction between the bourgeois state and the workers state is important to maintain.
When white environmentalists say “we destroyed the planet” I think, “no, we didn’t, you did.
Kim Crosby, an Arawak, West African, Indian and Dutch queer survivor. (via cutestaznboiondablock)
fucking THIS. who holds the most resources in the world? whites. who uses alla the resources and damn near kills the planet? whites. fuck this ”we’re all in this together” bullshit
This fucking this!! All of it!! I am always amused by white supremacist hypocrisy who would boost about their ‘technological superiority’ but would NEVER own up to the fact that THEY are the ones who have fucked up the planet, they are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer and skyrocketing temperatures. The current decaying of our environment is the perfect illustration of the poisonous essence of white supremacy. The system of production and consumption that currently dominates the world is a direct result of the supremacy of whiteness on not only non-whites (which fuels the engine of capitalism, from Asian sweatshops, to mines in Africa) but also on nature. This is a legacy from the Enlightenment: (White ) Man dominates nature.
It is also for this reason that I do not fawn over the ‘spectacular success’ of Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and to some extend, South African economies. I do not believe in that system of ‘development’, where growth and wealth accumulation are ends and the well-being of the majority and future generations is rarely taken into account. It is a dangerous and destructive remain of white supremacy and I sincerely hope that most African nations NEVER take that path despite the fact that it is celebrated around the world as the only way out of poverty and inequality.
Wearing the falsehoods of leaderless organisation as a badge of honour. You know people had ideas, the argued to do them and then they made them happen right? There are still roles within the organisation that need filling, there are still people who are more active and more experienced with more charisma to structure the direction of the movement right? The more adamantly the rhetoric of a movement without a leader is repeated, the less comprehension exists for the way in which leadership manifests itself, and therefore the less control over how that leadership functions. Simply willing it away doesn’t make it disappear.
Leaders usually impose a majoritarian viewpoint, relying not upon consensus but coalitions and mobilizing faceless masses. When these cleavages exist it becomes easier to marginalize minority opinions and leave people without a voice in the actual decisionmaking process.
I’m sorta down with soviets but once the leadership principle is imposed (by way of a single commissar or council), the people are removed from the political process that much more. Pre-revolutionary privileges (especially in the military & civil service) coagulate at the top, reinforcing counter-revolution within the first few years after revolution.
-“made them happen” I have trouble imagining that a transgendered POC, for instance, will have her voice heard when the assumption of power relies on self-determination and natural (popularly biased) charisma. I think the idea of leadership and top-down organization impedes creativity and will always foster a sort of conservative reticence in the face of popular direct action. Traditional hierarchies will remain the standard to align with or resist, rather than obliterated altogether.
Leaderlessness is not a permanent state of things, day to day. it should be called what it is, which is ad-hoc temporary leadership. A collectively conscious rotation of influence in social circles is what powers egalitarian dynamics. So I do think that Willing It has a deep effect on power relations.
Oh I agree with you. The initial post was a response to someone who’d been talking about occupy adamantly as being a “leaderless movement.” I think potentially there should me a broader vocabulary accessible (although perhaps there is and I’m not aware of it) to delineate between, say, the leadership shown such as charismatic politicians you vote into positions of control and authority, versus leadership demonstrated by every day people when they argue for a strike, for example.
So my comment regarding “willing it away” means that what you develop is an unconstructed understanding wherein all leadership=bad and must be externalised from activity, without understanding the other forms in which leadership occurs. In failing to recognise these it then becomes impossible to comprehend and therefore structure the influence that such forms of leadership can have.
I wouldn’t necessarily have said “fundamentally opposed.” I mean it can’t be denied that Marxism developed within the context of the enlightenment having happened, it can’t be decontextualised from liberalism because it is both a development of, and a response to, the enlightenment project.
Now issues I have with liberalism, outside of the obvious economics question … Liberalism places an emphasis on the development of the individual. Change isn’t of substance when it only happens to individuals, looking purely at the rights an individual should have means people often ignore the way those individuals interact and how that society as a whole behaves. So, for example, it’s all very well and good to talk about how someone should have freedom of speech but then you block out the potential to have the very important discussion about hate speech.
The ideas liberalism reinforces are taken as writ or common sense without necessarily a complete basis within discussions. People talk about freedom of speech as if its an necessary truth but don’t get into the depth of thinking about what that actually means. If you criticise the way freedom of speech functions you become someone who “hates freedom” yet the very question of what is freedom doesn’t get considered.
The values that liberalism espouses are reactionary and suppress change while supporting the status quo, while ignoring exactly what happened to allow liberalism to exist. When it preaches pacifism and using the system of representative democracy to bring about change (which is gerrymandered and lobbied to fuck by big business), what it forgets and suppresses is that real, substantial change to advance people of a disempowered class has only ever happened through force or the imminent threat thereof. Liberalisms ideals could not have come to fruition, they could not have taken intellectual dominance and structured social organisation, if not for the violent revolutions that they motivated and were in return further constructed through.
Hence moralisms and liberal ideals such as pacifism; bourgeois civility; the right to national self-determination etc construct hegemonic values that are accepted without criticism, favour the status quo, support existent hierarchies of power and remove the tools for change from the hands of those who most need them.
At any point please a) provide a reason for why Obama is a socialist and b) how the NDAA is a socialist document.
Please, I am begging you, because this asinine pedantry is the driest way to waste a Saturday and if you don’t start trying to prove anything but instead continue to spew out tonnes of irrelevant and inaccurate platitudes I’m going to stop bothering to respond.
[… Passive aggressive yawn …] You have clearly and obviously claimed that you think I do not know what the hell I’m talking about and that I am, quote, “delusional”. Let’s see how “delusional” I am.
You’re de-contextualising the way in which I called you delusional but whatever, consistency hasn’t been your strong point
No, but when you answered the OP, I provided my stance on the subject with a peaceful and non-aggressive opinion. I basically “called you on your shit” in a mature manner, but it seems like you cannot make a coherent retort or proceed in a rational debate without being offensive and disrespectful.
No, I will not suffer people constantly and adamantly stating that things are socialist when they are not. Then trying to back it up by misrepresenting the usage and meaning of socialism. Hell I didn’t even start off by calling you right wing, it was your own ego that decided I had, and my original response wasn’t even aggressive.
You deliberately shouted out in a microphone that I was “ignorant” and that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Well, you don’t.
If one has to insult and use aggression to debate, then that most likely means that one is trying to distract the opponent with a cheap and vulgar tactic.
I don’t have to, but I’m not required to hide umbrage at your asinine and ill-founded self-superiority complex.
[… More passive aggressive pedantry …]
I’m not anywhere near reactionary…. Capitalism doesn’t = Right-wing. Don’t try to categorize me if you don’t know where I fall. Please and thank you!
Again, though, there is not some authoritative definition of the left-right spectrum which is largely contradictory and obsolete when trying to apply it to contemporary political ideologies. Because the left-right construction initially referred to the political structures within the French parliament, progressives, radicals, and republicans compared to conservatives, reactionaries, and monarchists. This framework is not something that applies at all adequately if used rigidly, therefore the left-right spectrum in contemporary usage is largely based on colloquialism and a reductive attitude towards political ideologies. So your appeals that you cannot be categorised or would not fall within a specific region makes an argument for this greater narrative form of the left-right spectrum that frankly doesn’t exist. It doesn’t work.
The fact that you are only willing to comprehend a US application of the left-right terminology (“I am not republican ergo I cannot be right wing”) makes it entirely relevant to state that the US is not the centre of the universe. Your attitude of American Exceptionalism means you fundamentally don’t comprehend the function of the left-right spectrum in its original or subsequent usages and therefore makes it very boring having to explain all of this to you. The subjective application of the left-right spectrum is also relevant in making a statement of “I can’t be right-wing because I’m not a Republican” because most people outside of the US live in systems where the spectrum in general has a much greater shift in the direction of what is colloquially called “the left” and therefore any of the mainstream political ideologies of US politics, including the majority of libertarian thought and its functional application, would be considered comparatively right wing.
So why, dear god why, is your childish demand to not be called right wing at all my concern when a) you are, b) it doesn’t really matter and c) I didn’t call you right wing in the first instance, it wasn’t until you started protesting that you weren’t that I decided it would be fun to point out?
I didn’t realize you were an anarcho-socialist
I’m not, I never said I was. Do you fundamentally lack reading comprehension because this is about the fifth time you’ve responded to something I’ve said without actually engaging it, just picking up on a couple of words and responding to them completely out of context.
and frankly I didn’t really care OwO. If that has anything to do with the debate, then I will refer to it, but I was simply referring to “good ol’” Democratic Socialism.
No, you were talking about socialism. In entirety. That’s why you said socialism. If you’d meant democratic socialism you should have said democratic socialism, but that is not what you said because you said socialism.
Please don’t switch my words around; I never implied that. 🙂
You did when you presented one interpretation, which was flawed and inadequate in and of itself, as the overarching definition for the term socialism.
Because I didn’t realize you were an anarcho-socialist. I figured you were just the common Democratic Socialist. I’m sorry for not reading your mind. 😀
But … I’m not. How is it so difficult for you to actually read what I write? I’m not even remotely asking you to be telepathic.
Didn’t you just scold me for being vague? You forgot that Socialism is against private property. Just reminding you! 😀
… Do you understand “private property” and “collective ownership” and how those two concepts are mutually exclusive? If you’re going to act like a bitter pedant at least be right.
[… Lazy copy paste job …]
I’m sorry for not before listing all the types of socialism in excruciating detail. I was afraid of making the post too long for my followers… but now I don’t really give a damn.
Oh and, this is from a source that favors socialism, so I hope you don’t have any complaints this time. 😀
I honestly am yet to see how any of this is proving that Obama is arguing for nationalisation of the industries within the US, nor how the curtailment of civil liberties is a policy associated with socialist politics.
[… Blah blah blah …]
I believe in a guided democracy with limitations. Those limitations are known to be one that protects the rights of all the people, not just the majority. I think that those limitations are slowly dissapating with bills, like the NDAA (which Obama passed), and leading us to a form of majority rule. In today’s society, ever since the 60s, we have been progressively becoming more and more leaning towards socialism with media control, etc etc. If you look around, many channels are liberal biased, and there’s only one conservative biased channel. Now, I don’t particularly agree with everything FOX news say, in fact I think that many of the policies they claim are far-fetched and narrow-minded, so don’t go saying I’m a Right-wing again. 😀
I originally said your usage of socialism is influenced by right-wing punditry, which is the sort of stuff you’re regurgitating at the moment with this usage which homogenises “liberal” and “socialist” and infers that having “liberal” media (in the colloquial usage by right-wing pundits as an ad hominem against left wing media sources, without a grounding in the meaning of the term liberal) is a part of a slide to a socialist state.
Now if the society in the United States are very liberal based and leaning towards socialism (now note that the majority is not leaning towards socialism because it’s right, but because of the media), and if those limitations are dissapated, then we would become a socialist nation gradually. That’s why I claimed the NDAA and Obama to be favoring the socialist “progression”. Not because the NDAA is a socialist bill, but because it opens a door for socialists. Obama opens a door for socialists, so I have this personal conviction that he’s a socialist. Of course my personal conviction can be arguable, but I prefer to hold on to such a conviction if that’s alright with you. ^_^
Again though, at what point is the NDAA or Obama socialist because this is what you’re still unable to actually prove. And for all the tried and tested ridiculous nonsense about this drift of the US into socialism you’re still fundamentally unable to demonstrate what socialism is and how the US is headed in that direction. Stop with the boring platitudes, back your shit up, or stop wasting my time. That is literally all I’m asking for.
Yes, and fascism has nothing to do with the aspect of socialism I was pin-pointing, because I was talking about Democratic Socialism, not Anarcho-Socialism. I would please ask you to keep up. ^_^
It had everything to do with proving obsolete the definition of socialism that you used by demonstrating the contradictions of its application which become too broad because of its unsophisticated use of “state”. You were not talking about democratic socialism, because you did not specify democratic socialism, and even then the definition would still have been lacking. ”Keep up” indeed.
And those civil rights are the limitations to an unrestricted democracy. ^_^
Yes, but when you break the limitations to an unrestricted democracy, then you’re gonna have a real bad time economic-wise, now that the majority seem to dislike capitalism because of all the propoganda. You know, some people just can’t watch a propaganda video or read propaganda without being influenced.
Soooooo … NDAA is socialist because curtailing civil liberties may have an effect on the economy?
Is that really what it’s come down to? You can’t use the dictionary definitions to back up your argument, so you ignore parts of them and then pretend they say what you want them to, and then you just spew some shit about propaganda as if you’ve suddenly started making sense?
You may also want to do some investigation into what propaganda is before you take it as writ that it only functions in one direction and assume that your opinions and views are not built through propaganda. The only difference is that the propaganda you consume exists within a hegemonic social position and therefore is treated as the everyday rather than externalised as propaganda. However it’s only since the second world war that the use of the term propaganda was taken to mean only those externalised and “negative” forms of persuasion. Ironically the decision to do that was an act of propaganda.
[… More passive aggressive incessant whining. Please just read what I say and respond to it, instead of making up both sides of the discussion in your head …]
I’m just going to leave it there. But I would just like to quote you here:
“when you break the limitations to an unrestricted democracy”
and draw your attention to
“when you break the limitations to an unrestricted democracy”
then ask what limitations there are on unrestricted democracies which can be broken?
I think all bodily parts are disgusting and awesome in equal measures.
Probably because not every person can afford to get their goods trimmed down by a plastic surgeon with hedge clippers and because no one needs to.
If you think vaginas are ugly and gross, you probably can’t handle one. Leave them for the big boys and girls.
Surely a perfect clit is one that functions to give good orgasms, not one that fits an aesthetic of being some synthetically determined “ideal” shape? What is this bullshit. Who gets to decide whether or not a clit is perfect other than the person with the clit!
Hundreds of demonstrators will confront the English Defence League today as the far-right group holds its first ever European summit in a bid to set up a Continent-wide alliance of anti-Islamic organisations.
Danish activists claimed that as many as 4,000 anti-fascist activists would make their way to the town of Aarhus, where the meeting is due to take place today afternoon, from the UK, Denmark and Germany.
“Depends on how you define the right, really.”
I’m afraid you’ll find that the US is not the centre of the universe and such a definition of what it is to be right-wing is tragically linear.
Right-wing: The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system
Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
I’m not a Republican…. I’m a Libertarian. “A person who advocates civil liberty.”
Yes. But compared to me you are reactionary, so if we’re playing the dubious public masturbation game you’re embarking down then you are right-wing. Which is without taking into consideration the fact that I was using right-wing initially as a catchall colloquialism and largely consider on academic terms that the left-right spectrum is obsolete.
I’m sorry, was I talking about Anarcho-socialists? No…
Right. But if you’re defining socialism, and anarcho-socialists would find your definition wanting, or even contradicting, you would have to question whether or not what you’re defining is socialism or the reverse, that anarcho-socialists have no idea what socialism is.
Yes, very brief. I was giving you a very brief explanation.
To wit, I am a socialist. I don’t know why you bothered.
Would you like me to type up each word from Karl Marx’s book? The definition was taken from an official dictionary site. It’s not like I jacked it from Wikipedia or a Capitalist website. “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism” So all dictionaries have biased opinion, according to you? So are you’re arguing that the dictionary definition is wrong, simply because it serves against you?
Socialism more accurately refers to collective ownership of the means of production. The introduction of the state into the gameplay used by your dictionary definition is inherently about biasing understanding a) of the potential for society without states and b) what that nature of the state is or could be. It represents an understanding of socialism within liberal democracy and in doing so erases more radical forms of socialism from understanding.
I am hardly the first person to mention the inherent bias within the way dictionaries function. They are not encyclopaedic. They do not match up for thorough definitions, for example within a dictionary of politics you’d have a very different definition. Between dictionaries you can have conflicting definitions. I don’t really see why I should give a shit that you’re harping on about one definition that you’ve found, failed to justify outside of an argumentum ad verecundiam and then decided it’s just me being sulky for not playing your ball game. Try harder. Being lazy doesn’t make you smart.
“government is an aspect of the state” Still, the government has to do with the state. i don’t believe in democracy, so that argument is invalid to me. in a democracy, the majority rule over runs the rights and freedoms of the minority rule. that isn’t fair to everyone, now is it? the united states isn’t a democracy, like everyone thinks it is. it’s a republic with guided democracy.
It’s a representative democracy. The fuck are you boring me with this for, you think I don’t understand how the US electoral system functions? You’re not being edgy and cool, you’re just failing to present a coherent argument. Are you saying you don’t believe in democracy but you do believe in the US system of “guided democracy”? Or are you against it all entirely?
fascism is a completely irrelevant topic to use as an example. i was merely pinpointing on one aspect of socialism.
Right, and fascism was relevant in so much as it highlighted the complete inadequacy of the “aspect of socialism” you were pin-pointing by contradicting your claim.
Let’s bring up another established definition of socialism, because you clearly don’t like the last one.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Now this is from thefreedictionary.com.
If “government controlling” doesn’t signal to you that the NDAA isn’t a form of government controlling, then how are you a socialist without even knowing the basic and brief meaning of socialism?
The NDAA provides for the funding of the US military and also includes provisions which severely limit civil rights. The definition you used states “government that often plans and controls the economy.” The operative part of the definition which is treated as intrinsic to socialism “the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government” whereas the section you raised was a peripheral aspect, that is to say the definition used “that often” rather than “must always.” To speed things up, in the future, please proof read what you’re writing to avoid similar mistakes.
Note I said that I personally consider him a socialist.
Many let-wingers usually refer to me as delusional or radical in the premise that I don’t fully agree on whatever they are advocating.
Actually, I refer to you as delusional upon the basis that you ever presumed I’d call you radical, or that I’d given any indication towards doing such. However, I admit that I was wrong. It appears that I was mistaking simple narcissism for deeper delusions. Mea culpa.
I don’t want you to ignore me, I actually don’t care. Fight with me. I don’t care which route you take. Just know that if you continue to badger me like this, I will continue to retort back. I never said you used “ad hominems”… I don’t even know how the hell you pulled that idea out of your ass. But I might now, simply for the mere fact that you mentioned it.
That whole bit where you suggested that I’d called or would call you a radical so that I could ignore your argument, which came completely out of the blue? That’s not my style. I like to splice in the insults to coincide with breaking down your argument, I don’t consider the two to be mutually exclusive.
I simply posted up my fairly peaceful opinion. The rules were, no flame wars, and no insults. You used sarcasm.
The request was that the response to the OP avoided insults, strawmen and so on. My response to the OP complied with that. It did not say “if someone else comes along and builds a strawman, please don’t call them on their shit.”
I presented you with my point of view. You said I was right-winged, without even knowing my definite stance on political issues (only that I agree on Capitalism), and you basically suggested that I was ignorant— which is an insult.
Or fact. I’m going with fact on this one.
So I reply as one would to an insult. Then you continue to insult me and then you call me delusional. That last remark was the very thing I was trying to avoid when I made that “radical” comment. Just know that I am fond of thinking that all socialists and many liberals are delusional. I would also like to add (so you don’t use that right-winged accusation on me again) that I find conservatives embarrassing and ignorant.
I won’t answer whatever retort you come up with until tomorrow. Some people have more important things to do, like sleeping for example, than to argue non-stop with someone who has no other bases of argument than to claim the other person is ignorant in everything.
Talk to you tomorrow. Good night.
That’s a real cool story, bro. If you’re going to respond to something I’ve posted; don’t use hyperbole or rhetoric to support your misrepresentations and inaccuracies. I will call you on your shit, I will not be apologetic and when you’re trying to proselytise as to why people should agree with you the fallback of “it’s my personal opinion” really isn’t going to wash. Try again, try properly, or admit that you’re wrong and stop wasting both of our time. Q.E.D. Obama is not socialist, the NDAA is not a socialist document.
We cannot do good without power but we cannot gain power, nor keep it, without doing evil.
Machiavelli’s The Prince, part 1: (via voguefidelity)
Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937) was an Italian writer, politician, political philosopher, and linguist. He was a founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy and was imprisoned by Benito Mussolini’s Fascist regime. Gramsci was one of the most important Marxist thinkers in the 20th century, and his writings are heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership; he is notable as a highly original thinker within modern European thought. He is renowned for his concept of cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the state in a capitalist society.
Never seen a live version before. Suh-weet.
Oh yes, you should look at the U.S. government and policies. Things like the NDAA, and our current president.
If you think either of those two things represent socialism it’s only because your perception of what socialism is, is based on misrepresentation through right-wing punditry to use socialism as a slur. It isn’t grounded in an understanding of socialist ideologies.
it’s funny, because i’m not right-winged. i’m a libertarian.
Depends on how you define the right, really.
also, socialism literally means (in the dictionary): a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Anarcho-socialists would have a problem with that definition. Dictionaries are written and published by a particular group within society whose interests are to promote their own ideology as the factual, the common sense. In addition to this, dictionaries to not claim to have a comprehensive explanation of terminology but only very brief descriptions.
The state = the government.
No. The government is an aspect of the state, it is not a synonym. The state is much broader than just that. In addition to this do not confuse representative democracy as the only form of governance. For example a revolutionary socialist would argue with you over the nature of the state which must exist, controlling the means of production, for the state itself to be considered socialist. For example under fascism the state controls the means of production, but because it maintains hierarchic, non-democratic institutions it cannot be considered socialist simply by merit of that one detail.
The government can now, if they control production and rights, they can detain people. what does the NDAA do? Detain people for fear of them being a terrorist. what did obama sign with a happy smile and upbeat attitude? the NDAA and other bills disregarding our freedom and rights.
Right but that’s not convincing me that it has anything to do with promoting socialism.
Also, Obama tends to lean on policies that are government owned. he tends to lean on policies that are a little TOO left-winged for me. so i consider him a socialist. of course he doesn’t say he is one, for that would degrade his reputation.
Yes, but he’s not talking about nationalising the banks, the oil industry, the motor industry, silicone valley etc. So really it is irrelevant to where he falls on the spectrum compared to you, and it is irrelevant as to what you consider him, because that doesn’t make him a socialist. At very best you could argue he’s a social democrat but even then you wouldn’t have much basis for the claim.
call me a radical if you want. i don’t care. i’ve heard it many times before. people prefer to hear what they want than to listen to the facts.
Okay. But I didn’t (and wouldn’t) call you a radical so I don’t know why you’re acting like I did as some sort of “hey man, I’m just telling the truth and you’re using ad hominems so you can ignore me” retort. When that’s expressly not happening. Upon that basis I’d be more likely to call you delusional than radical.
Please indulge me as I deploy the basic premises of libertarian philosophie to create a thought experiment which culminates in a conclusion fully consistent with said premises.
- Sample a group of libertarian individuals, preferably economically well-off.
- Sample a group of Marxist/anarchist individuals.
- Find uncharted island.
- Group of Marxists/anarchists “originally appropriate” said island, voluntarily. Meaning, no “coercion” was used in obtaining said land, and no one was forcibly expropriated.
Now, after this land has been appropriated and is split up in factions between Marxists and anarchists, some areas are communally owned, others are cooperatively owned, etc., no land is left over for appropriation. Since there was no forcible redistribution of land, so far this should be consistent with libertarian principles—everyone has “voluntarily” signed contracts to appropriate and split up the land and resources such that everyone is in agreement over who has access to what.
Libertarians get stranded on the island because their cruise ship sank. When they try to “appropriate” the land, they find that they cannot because it already has been, voluntarily. They have the choice of either a) joining a cooperative, a syndicate, a commune, etc. or b) starving to death by sitting in the corner/doing nothing. They find that they cannot sell their labor since there are no labor markets. Some realize their ethos is ridiculous because they would be better off starting from scratch in a Marxist/anarchist society than in a capitalist society. The rest try to start a property-rights based revolution, violating the “non-aggression principle” and the principle of original appropriation/homestead principle.
wut wut wut
Once we’ve had the revolution we really need to nail down some sort of non-aggression principle to nail down those in favour of property rights so that we can make sure we always get to represent them as transgressors. We may have to demonise the people that made the revolution possible in the process, but whatever that’ll just be the past so it needs no basis in reality.
Hahaha! Proletarianisation, the creation of the collective society, a process caused through the class struggle created by capitalist oppression. Capitalism creates its own worst enemy.
Oh yes, you should look at the U.S. government and policies. Things like the NDAA, and our current president.
If you think either of those two things represent socialism it’s only because your perception of what socialism is, is based on misrepresentation through right-wing punditry to use socialism as a slur. It isn’t grounded in an understanding of socialist ideologies.
It’s already happening in a non-aggressive manner. You are killing us inside, in our very core. You are our professors in the university and college. You are our middle school and high school teachers. You are our psychologists. You are our political scientists. You are political leaders. It’s a very slow progress, but it’s effective. You get inside our minds and hearts. We are slowly turning as a society. We are slowly becoming a collectivist society— at least this all pertains to the United States of America.
Apparently we’re much more effective than I thought.
I would like a better understanding of your approach towards economics. I consider myself a capitalist. However, I am interested to hear how you all present your points and answer a few questions. I do not want to make some long hateful flame fest and the minute I start seeing this or even get hints of it, I’ll delete this post.
Now, if you are interested, without using strawmen, personal attacks, ideological insults, or anything else aside from reasonable, simple explanations, could you please address the following:
1) What is wrong with private property? How is private property theft? 2) What makes free-market capitalism hierarchical? Exploitative? 3) How can wealth be redistributed in a non-coercive manner? How can redistribution occur without negating the non-aggression principle? 4) Why should an individual’s primary concern be for others instead of himself? 5) How do you eliminate class and capitalism in a manner consistent with the non-aggression principle? 6) How are issues such as racism, gender inequality, religious discrimination, ableism, etc. linked to capitalism? How are these issues addressed under other systems?
I really appreciate anyone who takes the time to answer this. As I said, full blown capitalist and quasi-Objectivist here, but I am legitimately curious. Please maintain civility.
1. Private property should be recognised as distinct from personal property. Personal property is something you’re in possession of and have a personal use for. Private property is something owned by one person which is worked by (an) other(s) for the profit of the owner.
Say I own some land and contained underneath it is coal. I make the investment to get some people to make a mine, dig up the coal and process it. At no point is my labour used in the creation of a product to sell: I do not dig the coal, I do not refine it. Because the land is mine, the coal is mine and therefore I take the proceeds from the sale of the coal and pay the workers a wage. Yet it is the labour of others and not myself that has created the wealth, only through happenstance that I own the land do I take profit from the process of production.
In this sense it is theft though: legal means are in place to defend my claim to the land (judicial and police system) however through my claim the resources are mine to control. The coal is denied to common use based on those who labour for it and those who require it, instead it exists for my personal profit. I can hoard the resource so that I can maximise my personal profit, I can plunder the resource so that it can be of no use for future generations. The argument I take is that this is illegitimate and maintained only through force and coercion (if people do not work for me, they starve. That in itself is a form of force) whilst there is no justification as to why I can claim that land as mine (so I inherited it or bought it, but from whom and how did they acquire it? The world wasn’t made with title deeds. For land to become private rather than the commons requires an individual to claim it, in doing so they prevent its use by others, often through force such as wars.)
2. I think I answered in 1 as to why it’s considered exploitative but for clarity: the labour of the masses functions so that the few can profit from the surplus that labour creates. In this way it is also hierarchic, the owners of private property are a select, elite few who also hold (as a class rather than necessarily as individuals) the political power, they can control, for example, the expectation of minimum wage, holiday time, hours worked in a week, number of breaks in a day etc. Their position is maintained through, say, the police or private security, historically thugs and fascists are brought in to scab or break up pickets and so on. The owners of private property don’t have to work, their lives aren’t as stressful but they do reap the benefits of the labour others put in, tenfold compared to the wage the workers receive.
3. In the sense of transitioning from capitalism to communism, a “non-coercive manner” is unlikely for redistribution. If everybody who owns land relinquishes it to the collective, then fine. If they defend it, especially with violence, then coercion will be used. I am not fussed about maintaining a non-aggression principle, when aggression has been used to achieve and maintain the status quo as being beneficial for the select few.
4. Because if everyone takes that attitude it’s completely non-functional and becomes the “war of all against all.” It is, simply put, a better way to create a well functioning society through being considerate of others. Living within a society that functions better, has fairer distribution of resources etc is fundamentally in the interests of the majority of people. Unless you’re grand-bourgeois and own a massive factory or big chain, the chances are that you as an individual would be better off under a socialist system where people look out for each other, rather than trying to look out only for yourself as an individual but not progressing far up the lander in the grand scheme.
5. You don’t. The non-aggression principle is an idea that inherently favours maintaining the status quo of exploitation and removing any capacity for meaningful change by denying the ability to make it happen. It is produced by the most extreme proponents of the “purest” form of that exploitative system. It makes no sense to be bound by a contradictory, hypocritical ideal.
6. Not to say that they’re inherent purely to, nor that they developed solely out of, capitalism. However systems of othering functions within capitalism to divide the working class and prevent it from organising. Racism is a contradiction supported and maintained (whether through conscious recognition or not) through capitalism because it benefits the super rich to have white people fighting to keep down black people, rather than white and black people fighting to bring down the super rich, for example. Dehumanisation of people from external nationalities is also important for legitimising wars over resources and so on as well. Either they don’t use the resources properly and thus don’t deserve them (manifest destiny) or the people are “barbarians” and need to be “civilised.” External cultures must be brought into heel so that they function within the capitalist system so that their labour and resources may also be exploited.
Gender inequality, along with discrimination based on sexuality, plays into this idea for the nuclear family. People’s sexual and reproductive purpose under capitalism is that they must breed the next generation of workers, through constructing divided labour in which the woman looks after the child that frees up the man to work more hours of the day. The man is viewed as dominant because he primarily is seen as the contributor to the powers of production and the wealthy class is primarily dominated by men in positions of power. This has a knock on effect for the way in which magazines, TV, adverts, etc are constructed. The people with control represent a specific group, therefore they reproduce media that prioritises and values the identity they connect with.
Religious discrimination is a tricky one to cover quickly but broadly I see religious institutions as not being separated from these organisational power structures. Religious institutions become a method of ideological control to construct society in a fashion beneficial to capitalism, and subaltern cultures with religious connection that do not conform to this are oppressed as a result.
Ableism relates to the way in which capitalism is homogenising so that it can produce and continue producing for the minimum effort with maximum profit. People with impairments require a divergence from this homogenous mass that capitalism aims to create – they do not function as a part of the machine, as it were, and therefore their needs are considered to be a burden and extraneous rather than something that can be catered for and resolved, because there isn’t a great profit factor in resolving those issues.
How is it catered for within other forms of society? It’s not something that magically just changes but without the profit factor, without the need to exploit and without the need for infinite accumulation then society doesn’t need to organise itself in a fashion that creates othering and oppression. The greed and selfishness that maintains such power dynamics are, in the grand scheme, a hindrance to building a society which functions positively. While somebody under capitalism my see themselves as benefiting from oppression and therefore propagate it, their incentive to do so outside of the capitalist system is greatly reduced. Domination over media and cultural sources that propagate and instil such systems is no longer by the elite minority, because everybody has equal control in the means of production, and therefore it becomes easier to create counter-culture which is able to change and develop peoples stances so that such forms of discrimination can be broken down.
Now obviously that last part is hypothetical and a bit vague, but it’s 2 am and probably the best you’re going to get from me at the moment. I’m not saying oppression just disappears, but the incentive to maintain it is no longer present, the power structures to reinforce it can be removed, and through struggle, if done properly, people can have detrimental prejudices challenged and broken down.