Inmates Introductions II [Archive]

Jazzratt

8th April 2011, 11:47

If you've been restricted and have the overwhelming urge to tell us about yourself this would be the perfect oppurtunity. Here are some guideline questions, you don't really need to answer them to make a proper introduction or anything, however.

Name: What do you like to go by, aside from your username?

Age: How seriously should we take you when you say "All you commies are just damn kids".

Location: Probably best to be broad here, you don't want a load of AK-47 waving, balaclava-clad thugs at your door do you now?

Hobbies: Everyone has them.

Something Weird: Just some random fact about you.

Religion: Which is your opiate of choice or do you abstain from that whole sordid scene.

Economic View: Pretty easy. Most of you will probably give "liberal" or "free-marketeer". Unless you're a primmie in which case "bartering with pretty beads" would probably be most accurate.

Social Views: How much coercion do you like in your day to day running of things, are you libertarian or authoritarian? Autocracy or anarchy?

Political Influences: Who do you consider a big influence on your politics?

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Do we not shag enough trees? Too many? Or are we too restrictive? Too liberal? What's your beef.The old thread is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/inmate-39-s-t60521/index.html)if you have a particularly pressing need to read through it.

RATM-Eubie

11th April 2011, 20:14

Name: What do you like to go by, aside from your username?
Eubie
Age: How seriously should we take you when you say "All you commies are just damn kids".
Never said that… But I am 18 almost 19…
Location: Probably best to be broad here, you don't want a load of AK-47 waving, balaclava-clad thugs at your door do you now?
Midwest…
Hobbies: Everyone has them.
Politics, sports, music, and life….
Something Weird: Just some random fact about you.
I can make myself fart… And I am a political science major at college.
Religion: Which is your opiate of choice or do you abstain from that whole sordid scene.
Lutheran.
Economic View: Pretty easy. Most of you will probably give "liberal" or "free-marketeer". Unless you're a primmie in which case "bartering with pretty beads" would probably be most accurate.
Nope not a liberal… I am a socialist… (Got “restricted” for personal apathy).
Social Views: How much coercion do you like in your day to day running of things, are you libertarian or authoritarian? Autocracy or anarchy?
Democracy…
Political Influences: Who do you consider a big influence on your politics?
Martin Luther King Jr.
Karl Marx
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
Noam Chomsky
Eugene V. Debs
Emma Goldman
Howard Zinn
Leon Trotsky
Joe Hill
Malcolm X
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
George Orwell
Jesus Christ
Mahatma Gandhi
Vladimir Lenin
Camilo Cienfuegos
Ralph Nader
Bernie Sanders
Zack De La Rocha
Subcomandante Marcos
Lucy Parsons
Dalai Lama
Ho Chi Minh
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Rosa Parks
Maro Savio
Huey P Newton
Jon Stewart
Oscar Romero
Bob Marley
Michael Moore
Cesar Chavez
Evo Morales
James P. Cannon
Denis Kucinich
Thomas Paine
Tony Benn
Mumia Abu Jamal
Mao Zedong
Rosa Luxemburg
Grigory Zinoviev
Serj Tankian
David Rovics
Leonard Peltier
Saul Alinsky
Harry Haywood
Angela Davis
Aung San Suu Kyi
Woody Guthrie
Michael Joseph Savage
John Dewey
Georgy Pyatakov
Norman Finkelstein
John Sinclair
Albert Camus
Alexander Dubček
Hal Draper
Raya Dunayevskaya
Karl Kilbom
Mary McCarthy
Herbert Marcuse
Paul Mattick
Imre Nagy
Andrés Nin
Antonie Pannekoek
Bertrand Russell
Victor Serge
Norman Thomas
Adolph Joffe
Christian Rakovsky
Alexander Kerensky
Upton Sinclair
Christian Rakovsky
Desmond Tutu

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Do we not shag enough trees? Too many? Or are we too restrictive? Too liberal? What's your beef.
Really don’t have “beef” per say. Just disagree with authoritarianism… Don’t agree with Stalinism.

RGacky3

14th April 2011, 10:56

Did you just list every leftist you know?

Bud Struggle

16th April 2011, 01:05

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Do we not shag enough trees?

Shagbark hickory:

http://www.uptake.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shag-bark-hickory.jpg

#FF0000

16th April 2011, 01:32

Political Influences: Who do you consider a big influence on your politics?
Martin Luther King Jr.
Karl Marx
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
Noam Chomsky
Eugene V. Debs
Emma Goldman
Howard Zinn
Leon Trotsky
Joe Hill
Malcolm X
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
George Orwell
Jesus Christ
Mahatma Gandhi
Vladimir Lenin
Camilo Cienfuegos
Ralph Nader
Bernie Sanders
Zack De La Rocha
Subcomandante Marcos
Lucy Parsons
Dalai Lama
Ho Chi Minh
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Rosa Parks
Maro Savio
Huey P Newton
Jon Stewart
Oscar Romero
Bob Marley
Michael Moore
Cesar Chavez
Evo Morales
James P. Cannon
Denis Kucinich
Thomas Paine
Tony Benn
Mumia Abu Jamal
Mao Zedong
Rosa Luxemburg
Grigory Zinoviev
Serj Tankian
David Rovics
Leonard Peltier
Saul Alinsky
Harry Haywood
Angela Davis
Aung San Suu Kyi
Woody Guthrie
Michael Joseph Savage
John Dewey
Georgy Pyatakov
Norman Finkelstein
John Sinclair
Albert Camus
Alexander Dubček
Hal Draper
Raya Dunayevskaya
Karl Kilbom
Mary McCarthy
Herbert Marcuse
Paul Mattick
Imre Nagy
Andrés Nin
Antonie Pannekoek
Bertrand Russell
Victor Serge
Norman Thomas
Adolph Joffe
Christian Rakovsky
Alexander Kerensky
Upton Sinclair
Christian Rakovsky
Desmond Tutu

Seeing some of these names together on a list is positively mind-blowing.

Are you familiar with any of these guys' work, or did you really just list every leftist you know?

Kerensky and Lenin?
Paul Mattick and Rosa Luxemburg with Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader?

FDR!?

hatzel

16th April 2011, 01:36

Kerensky and Lenin?
Paul Mattick and Rosa Luxemburg with Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader?

It's important not to pick sides. Then everybody will think you're a'ight! :thumbup:

But yeah seriously that list is bullhonk...

Revolution starts with U

16th April 2011, 01:43

#FF0000

16th April 2011, 02:03

He could be inspired by each to different degrees. Shit, I still have some admiration for the words of Jefferson.
Leftists should be in the business of taking the good from wherever it comes, not idolizing certain people because they had more good than bad.

I guess so but how much of an influence can Mattick have on a person when you think voting Green is a good idea?

RATM-Eubie

19th April 2011, 06:14

Gots a problem with me listing my influences throughout my life people.

Sadena Meti

19th April 2011, 16:39

Name: Sadena Meti, Reverend Stoic, Robert Johnson

Age: 33

Location: Wisconsin, USA

Hobbies: Computer, BBC Radio, Driving

Something Weird: I am currently attempting to have (safe) sex with 100 different women in 1 year from being released from prison. I'm currently up to 16 in 6 weeks. The joys of Craigslist.

Religion: Militant Atheist. I believe in spreading the "bad news" (pun on evangelists spreading the "good news").

Economic View: Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Revolutionary Anarchist, Scientific Socialist, Utopian Communist, Utilitarian Populist
Social Views: Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

Political Influences: Now this is a hard one. Marx really opened my eyes. Hélder Pessoa Câmara changed me, but that was in my pre-revolutionary days. So did Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, again during my pre-revolutionary days when I was just a Socialist.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: My beef is that this place is an elitist oligarchy that takes arbitrary illogical irrational actions.

RGacky3

20th April 2011, 11:05

Something Weird: I am currently attempting to have (safe) sex with 100 different women in 1 year from being released from prison. I'm currently up to 16 in 6 weeks. The joys of Craigslist.

Thank God for self-esteem problems many girls nowerdays have :P (just messing).

psgchisolm

22nd April 2011, 02:48

Thank God for self-esteem problems many girls nowerdays have :P (just messing).be careful TC might report you :P

RGacky3

22nd April 2011, 08:48

Just to be clear the infraction was over turned when I explained the post :P

Sadena Meti

22nd April 2011, 14:24

Thank God for self-esteem problems many girls nowerdays have :P (just messing).

I think it is a new wave of sexual liberation. NSA No Strings Attached Sex. Polybiamourism. We're back in the 60's and 70's, and you wouldn't label those flower children as having self-esteem problems, would you?

Le LibÃ©rer

22nd April 2011, 14:40

Thank God for self-esteem problems many girls nowerdays have :P (just messing).

Feeling the need to shag a 100 women in a year isnt? :tt2:

Sadena Meti

22nd April 2011, 14:44

Feeling the need to shag a 100 women in a year isnt? :tt2:
After being locked up for a year and half, you've got a lot of making up to do.

RGacky3

26th April 2011, 11:56

I think it is a new wave of sexual liberation. NSA No Strings Attached Sex. Polybiamourism. We're back in the 60's and 70's, and you wouldn't label those flower children as having self-esteem problems, would you?

No, I'm just messing, just playing off the stereo type that all permiscous women have low self-esteem, a lot of them do, but a lot of them just like sex.

Feeling the need to shag a 100 women in a year isnt? :tt2:

Could be, but I think he just wants to have lots of sex because being in prison is a drag.

psgchisolm

26th April 2011, 15:28

Name: What do you like to go by, aside from your username? Chisolm

Age: 17

Location: South Carolina

Hobbies: Camo, trolling

Something Weird: 11x Infantry, do shit about it.

Religion:Christian Nationalist.

Economic View: Socialist.

Social Views: No dictators. More closer to anarchism.

Political Influences: Engels, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Matrosov.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: To many sectarian pseudo-leftists who call everyone they don't agree with Stalinist or Trotskyist. I don't know how calling someone a "trot" is effective in anything else other than having another person at your doorstep with a bat.

Also how would I get unrestricted since I'm pro imperialist military even through I have criticized the military and been anti-imperialist in some cases? Besides would there be no military in a communist country under DOTP?

Edit: I'm also gonna troll the fuck out of OI like comrademan so I'll prob be in longer anyway. :P

Le LibÃ©rer

27th April 2011, 05:02

Edit: I'm also gonna troll the fuck out of OI like comrademan so I'll prob be in longer anyway. :P

We will see how long you make it at all.

psgchisolm

27th April 2011, 05:11

We will see how long you make it at all.Given my tendency of getting banned hmmm. 3-5 months? That's around the avg time it takes me to get banned from something. I'm surprised I wasn't banned within the first month tbh.

Johnny Kerosene

27th April 2011, 05:19

delete

727Goon

27th April 2011, 05:35

Name: What do you like to go by, aside from your username?
Anthony

Age: How seriously should we take you when you say "All you commies are just damn kids".
18

Location: Probably best to be broad here, you don't want a load of AK-47 waving, balaclava-clad thugs at your door do you now?
Florida

Hobbies: Everyone has them.
Skateboarding and I'm getting into producing beats

Something Weird: I was a straight A student in middle school, now I'm a teenage father unemployed/underemployed dropout. Like Hawthorne said families are always rising and falling in America. Another weird thing is that when I was 15 I gave myself a tattoo over my heart of my girlfriends name with a safety pin and india ink, prison style and broke up with her a week later. I got it covered with a real tattoo of my daughters name though and I don't think I got AIDs from it.

Religion: Which is your opiate of choice or do you abstain from that whole sordid scene.
Raised Catholic, dont really care. Non-practicing Catholic.
Economic View: Anarcho-communism/participatory economics/apathy
Social Views: How much coercion do you like in your day to day running of things, are you libertarian or authoritarian? Autocracy or anarchy?
Anarchy/apathy

Political Influences: Who do you consider a big influence on your politics?
Malcolm X
Huey P Newton
Noam Chomsky
Subcomandante Marcos
Fanon
Marx I guess
Lil B the Based God Oh My God He Swag So Hard Swag to the Maximum

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Yall dont do shit.

RGacky3

27th April 2011, 08:25

Non-practicing Catholic.

Never got that term, if your a non-practicing catholic, your not a catholic, your either just a person that believes in god or an atheist.

El Chuncho

27th April 2011, 10:22

I'm old for these boards. :lol:

Also, who the hell is Lil B? :confused:

Thug Lessons

28th April 2011, 02:05

Thank you Based God

NoOneIsIllegal

28th April 2011, 02:23

Never got that term, if your a non-practicing catholic, your not a catholic, your either just a person that believes in god or an atheist.
I agree, but I've encountered some people who say along the lines of "If you're born catholic, you stay catholic" even if you don't believe. That's a stupid belief.

LOLseph Stalin

28th April 2011, 02:35

Never got that term, if your a non-practicing catholic, your not a catholic, your either just a person that believes in god or an atheist.

you can be a non-practicing Jew though.

Le LibÃ©rer

28th April 2011, 02:42

I agree, but I've encountered some people who say along the lines of "If you're born catholic, you stay catholic" even if you don't believe. That's a stupid belief.

Its true, unless the Catholic Church excommunicates you. Its Canon Law, which is brought down from Gd through the popes who are god on Earth. Jeaaz

PhoenixAsh

28th April 2011, 02:53

I'm old for these boards. :lol:

Also, who the hell is Lil B? :confused:

Lil B is a rapper....and he is currently receiving death threats...not for his bad music...but because he is going to release and album which is entiteld: I am Gay...in which this very much hetrosexual rapper is expressing his support for the LBTG (did I get that acronym correctly??) community.

Ele'ill

28th April 2011, 02:59

Disregard this post- I'm drunk.

Cheers

Le LibÃ©rer

28th April 2011, 03:18

the LBTG (did I get that acronym correctly??) community.

I use LGBT community, but its up to the user. I've seen people place their preference as the first letter.

Le LibÃ©rer

28th April 2011, 03:19

Disregard this post- I'm drunk.

Cheers

Please dont channel Bud or ComradeMan. :lol:

727Goon

28th April 2011, 03:47

I'm old for these boards. :lol:

Also, who the hell is Lil B? :confused:

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/095/153/original/tumblr_lflbqb623w1qbgvsro1_400.jpg?1295979269

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/115/449/original/I-DONT-BELIEVE-IN-BASED-GOD-I-BELIEVE-IN-BASED-SCIENCE.jpg?1303255697

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/097/480/original/thank%20you%20based%20god.jpg?1297049755

Ohhhh Based God.

Thug Lessons

28th April 2011, 03:58

C7-R_qbC6Z4

727Goon

28th April 2011, 04:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aaIc37v1rQ

RGacky3

28th April 2011, 08:45

Its true, unless the Catholic Church excommunicates you. Its Canon Law, which is brought down from Gd through the popes who are god on Earth. Jeaaz

Then Catholocism is'nt a religion is it?

RGacky3

28th April 2011, 08:46

but because he is going to release and album which is entiteld: I am Gay...in which this very much hetrosexual rapper is expressing his support for the LBTG (did I get that acronym correctly??) community.

I thought that was awesome.

ComradeMan

28th April 2011, 09:22

Its true, unless the Catholic Church excommunicates you. Its Canon Law, which is brought down from Gd through the popes who are god on Earth. Jeaaz

The Pope is the representative of St Peter and holds the papal office and the keys of the gates of heaven and is also guardian of the [spiritual] bridges of Rome as such. He is not considered to be God on Earth by any Catholic.

Never got that term, if your a non-practicing catholic, your not a catholic, your either just a person that believes in god or an atheist.

No Gacky, once you have been baptised you bear the indelible mark of Christ- the only way for you to stop being Catholic in the eyes of the established church is to become apostate and/or be excommunicated. A non-practising Catholic is simply a Catholic who does not go to church- he or she does not stop being a Catholic in the eyes of the church however.

RGacky3

28th April 2011, 11:09

A non-practising Catholic is simply a Catholic who does not go to church- he or she does not stop being a Catholic in the eyes of the church however.

I don't know, I think thats cheating.

Revolution starts with U

29th April 2011, 07:24

Well, according to that definition I AM a catholic, and I DO believe the Pope is God on Earth ;) :lol:

RGacky3

29th April 2011, 08:34

Please dont channel Bud or ComradeMan. :lol:

You did'nt brake up did you?

Comrade J

1st May 2011, 12:58

Given my tendency of getting banned hmmm. 3-5 months? That's around the avg time it takes me to get banned from something. I'm surprised I wasn't banned within the first month tbh.

Hahahahahaha. So glad you got restricted so I don't have to read your reactionary shit anymore.

ZombieRothbard

4th May 2011, 05:17

Name: Ben

Age: 20

Location: United States

Hobbies: Philosophy, Economics, Music, Poker

Religion: Atheist

Economic View: Austrian School Libertarian

Social Views: "Anarchist", although I know that the left would call me a micro-statist.

Political Influences: Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Socialist calculation problem.

Revolution starts with U

4th May 2011, 05:30

Micro statist lol... never heard of that actuallly :D
It's funny cuz it's true.

RGacky3

4th May 2011, 10:03

Economic View: Austrian School Libertarian

Social Views: "Anarchist", although I know that the left would call me a micro-statist.

Political Influences: Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Socialist calculation problem.

*Cracks knuckles*

Kiev Communard

4th May 2011, 12:13

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Socialist calculation problem.

Well, actually "socialist" calculation problem applies only to state socialist model of post-revolutionary economy, and you might be surprised that communist-anarchists such as Kropotkin voiced similar criticism of bureaucratic "socialist" views on economic planning years before the Austrian School, and, unlike the latter, do not believe that "free-market" capitalism was somehow "better"; they criticised both statism (bureaucratic collectivism ) and capitalism. I think the following resources would be useful to you.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html - Anarchist FAQ (especially sections A, C, F, G and H)

http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html - Studies in Mutualist Political Economy by Kevin Carson (I am not mutualist, but in this case the mutualist critique of right-"libertarianism" could be better presented to you than the libertarian communist one).

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/09/vulgar-libertarianism-neoliberalism.html - Yet more critique of right-"libertarianism" by Carson.

Anyway, welcome!

Grape

21st May 2011, 05:44

Name: Paul

Age: 18

Location: Upstate New York

Hobbies: Running, debating, chess, video games, reading, the usual stuff

Something Weird: I go to sites on the internet like RevLeft

Religion: De Facto Atheist

Economic View: Austrian School

Social Views: Anarchist. Favor social progressivism, but I am skeptical of the direction it has taken. I think mainstream liberalism has moved away from rationalism and toward an ideology similar to mainstream conservatism but with different irrational biases.

Political Influences: Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Robert Nozick, Chomsky on foreign policy, Walter Block

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: The superiority of Austrian economics and the failure of coercion as a measure of social organization.

RGacky3

21st May 2011, 09:29

The superiority of Austrian economics and the failure of coercion as a measure of social organization.

Market-libertarians love wierd and contradicting semantics.

But anyway, cracks knuckles again, I'll take the side of the economists that win nobel piece prizes.

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 10:41

Name: Distruzio

Age: Old enough to remember the failure of Vanguardism

Location: Georgia. Southern United States.

Hobbies: Restoring vintage Vw's

Something Weird: I'm a mulatto southern nationalist?

Religion: Greek Orthodoxy

Economic View: Anarcho-Capitalism

Social Views: Anarcho-Monarchism; right-libertarian, dandyism, self-determinism, individualism

Political Influences: Karl Marx. Really. Other than him, Hans Herman Hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Richard Henry Lee, and a few more.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics:

1: Leftists tend to point to the wrong classes in your class struggle theories. It isn't capitalists verses workers. It's expropriators verses victims or, rather, the political class verses the tax bearing class.

2: Leftists tend to advocate a "full employment" approach to solve unemployment without considering that this will, in fact, enslave every worker to their employers. Without an unemployed labor pool to compete for, employers will never have to worry about the way they treat their workers.

3: Leftists tend to advocate for a "new socialist man." A utopian ideal person that never works for self-interest and always considers the collective before the individual. The only way to maintain this approach is to advocate vanguardism. Stalinism, everyone knows, resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions.

4: Leftists tend to be a bit too hostile when it comes to religion when, in all reality, they cling to their ideology with the same fervor that a religious "fanatic" would. The same way the tea party clings to their warfare state.

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 10:44

Market-libertarians love wierd and contradicting semantics.

But anyway, cracks knuckles again, I'll take the side of the economists that win nobel piece prizes.

Freidrich Hayek ring a bell? Austrian to the core.

Per Wiki:

On 9 October 1974, it was announced that Hayek would be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, along with Swedish socialist economist Gunnar Myrdal. The reasons for the two of them winning the prize are described in the Nobel committee's press release. He was surprised at being given the award and believed that he was given it with Myrdal in order to balance the award with someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. During the Nobel ceremony in December 1974, Hayek met the Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Hayek later sent him a Russian translation of The Road to Serfdom. Although he spoke at his award speech of apprehension about the danger the authority of the prize would lend to an economist, the prize brought much greater public awareness of Hayek and has been described by his biographer as "the great rejuvenating event in his life".

hatzel

3rd July 2011, 11:03

Anarcho-Monarchism

I've always hated this little combination of words because it's entirely nonsensical and also massively trollish and shit...that's what I think of that...

In addition:

3: Leftist anarchists tend to advocate for a "new socialist man." A utopian ideal person that never works for self-interest and always considers the collective before the individual.
Oh, is that so? Because I don't remember anybody advocating the radical 'remoulding' of the individual in such a fashion, except for (as you yourself identified) in countries like the Soviet Union, which, of course, weren't 'leftist anarchist' at all...

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 14:12

I've always hated this little combination of words because it's entirely nonsensical and also massively trollish and shit...that's what I think of that...

Cool story, bro. :)

Oh, is that so? Because I don't remember anybody advocating the radical 'remoulding' of the individual in such a fashion, except for (as you yourself identified) in countries like the Soviet Union, which, of course, weren't 'leftist anarchist' at all...

Quite correct. This was a typo mistake on my part. I meant to write only "leftist." When composing that particular critique, I was thinking about a very specific leftist anarchist who posited that ideal. I in no way intentionally projected his interpretation onto the lot of leftists or anarchists. I was merely writing "stream of conscience." I'll correct that now. Thanks!

#FF0000

3rd July 2011, 15:49

3: Leftists tend to advocate for a "new socialist man." A utopian ideal person that never works for self-interest and always considers the collective before the individual. The only way to maintain this approach is to advocate vanguardism. Stalinism, everyone knows, resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions.

No.

PhoenixAsh

3rd July 2011, 16:33

Cool story, bro. :)

Quite correct. This was a typo mistake on my part. I meant to write only "leftist." When composing that particular critique, I was thinking about a very specific leftist anarchist who posited that ideal. I in no way intentionally projected his interpretation onto the lot of leftists or anarchists. I was merely writing "stream of conscience." I'll correct that now. Thanks!

Weeeelll...that would be equally ridiculous as advocating a system which is specifically designed to emphasize and draw out the worst ambitions and character traits in humans...o...wait...thats you. :rolleyes:

Kotze

3rd July 2011, 16:48

Social Views: Anarcho-MonarchismFriedensreich Hundertwasser got there before you (for the lulz, I believe).
Leftists tend to advocate a "full employment" approach to solve unemployment without considering that this will, in fact, enslave every worker to their employers. Without an unemployed labor pool to compete for, employers will never have to worry about the way they treat their workers.What empirical evidence do you have for this? If what you say here is true, one should find a correlation of bad living conditions for workers (low pay for long and arduous working hours) with low unemployment. Reasoning that workers making more humble demands goes together with hiring more workers may have some plausibility when we look at a small particular company where we can assume all else stays equal basically, but how could this apply to the bigger picture?

In sectors where demand for people with particular skills increases, employers start competing for people who are already employed and the threat of becoming unemployed gets smaller, this should strengthen the bargaining position of these workers.

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 23:24

No.

I agree!

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 23:30

Weeeelll...that would be equally ridiculous as advocating a system which is specifically designed to emphasize and draw out the worst ambitions and character traits in humans...o...wait...thats you. :rolleyes:

Well, there is likely some truth in your critique (whatever critique that actually is) but I would hasten to add that while collectivism subjugates the subjective negative traits present in a person in an objective fashion, individualism elevates the subjective positive traits in a subjective fashion. Socialists tend to argue for the repression of some at the expense of others while capitalists tend to argue for the repression none at the expense of none.

Leftists simply conceive of wealth production as evenly rotating. It isn't. Wealth production is dynamic and purely subjective.

Exchange tends to be mutually beneficial in a capitalist economic system. Exchange tends to be universally deleterious except for the privileged few in a leftist more collectivist economic system.

Distruzio

3rd July 2011, 23:42

Friedensreich Hundertwasser got there before you (for the lulz, I believe).

Why should you think that I am not doing it for the lulz with a more serious concept to sustain it? :)

What empirical evidence do you have for this?

The American economy during the "war planning" of both world wars? Full employment was achieved by sending as many able bodied men off to war as possible. All those draftees were stuck in their positions with no ability to shift around into more efficient and satisfying manners of production... and they died. They were slaves to the State.

If what you say here is true, one should find a correlation of bad living conditions for workers (low pay for long and arduous working hours) with low unemployment.

Warfare is adequate for this request, I think.

Reasoning that workers making more humble demands goes together with hiring more workers may have some plausibility when we look at a small particular company where we can assume all else stays equal basically, but how could this apply to the bigger picture?

As I said in my original intro, I take no issue with local self-determinism. Which implies I take no issue with "humble demands" of workers when they voluntarily associate with one another. I draw the line when such "unionism" is enforced via legislative or revolutionary fiat. I sympathize greatly with much of leftist thought (well, the thoughts that I've come across - which is kinda why I'm here, to learn more!). I simply disagree on some particulars. :D

In sectors where demand for people with particular skills increases, employers start competing for people who are already employed and the threat of becoming unemployed gets smaller, this should strengthen the bargaining position of these workers.

Absolutely correct. In such an event, the wages offered would increase. But the issue relating to full employment would be that the employers would no longer need to compete for skilled labor. And even if they wanted to, full employment would have been achieved. Wages would be bid down instead of up as there would no longer be a practical need to incentivize workers to abandon one employer in favor of another.

PhoenixAsh

4th July 2011, 00:22

Distruzio

4th July 2011, 01:54

First and foremost, thanks for your response!

well that is not true. Capitalism is about competition at the expense of others. Its the only way the system can work since it requires the substraction of wealth from others to add to your own in order to acquire as much as possible. Transactions are therefore not mutually beneficial but only beneficial to those who have managed to acquire ownership of the means of production.

What you describe is not Capitalism but, at least the American version, Corporatism. A form of State Capitalism or Kemalism. Fascism if you like but even this is not quite correct as even Fascists tend to misunderstand exactly what they mean to say.

As is clear from economic development since capitalism became the predominant the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Not to mention the increasing devide in the social and economic status which is widening more and more.

Well, this isn't quite true. Although the wealthy get wealthy faster than the poor, the poor get wealthier too. Especially in the more capitalist leaning Western countries. The poor remain poor when compared to the wealthy, but they become wealthier as time progresses.

An illustration of this can be seen in the automobile. The first automobiles were handcrafted and so exorbitantly expensive that they were purchased only by the wealthiest of wealthy. Now, everyone in the west has the option of purchase one or more automobiles. Even the poor. Yes, there are still poor who cannot afford an automobile, but the number of poor in the west is fast dwindling. Poverty, is not an issue the west deals with. Even poverty in the east and in africa is gradually being obliterated as the more liberalized capitalist leaning nations find themselves benefiting from wealth accumulation.

But all of this brings to my mind a simple misunderstanding that you, and other leftists seem to have regarding wealth accumulation and capitalism. Wealth is brought into existence or increased in 3 ways: by perceiving certain nature-given things as scarce and actively bringing them into one's possession before anyone else has done so (homesteading); by producing goods with the help of one's labor and previously appropriated resources; or by acquiring a good though voluntary, contractual transfer from a previous appropriator or producer. Acts of original appropriation turn something which no one had previously perceived as scarce into an income providing asset' acts of production are by their very nature aimed at the transformation of a less valuable asset into a more valuable one; and every contractual exchange concerns the exchange and redirection of specific assets from the hands of those who value their possession less to those who value them more.

That is wealth accumulation and Capitalism. If the wealth is accumulated via expropriation, it is not capitalism.

In that sturcture exploitation and repression are rewarded and altruism is not. The capitalist economic model therefore purely relies on the egotistic and selfish aspects of human nature at the expense of others in order to ensure once own survival.

I find this quite interesting. Because, in light of my explanation above, it should be noted that each of those activities previously mentioned fulfills the requirements you seem to emphasize, that is to say, of enhancing the welfare of at least one individual without diminishing that of another. Hence, even in the absence of the possibility of interpersonal comparisons of personal utility, every one of those activities can be said to increase social welfare. Thus satisfying your desire for altruism.

If a man uses his labor to appropriate some other nature-given things, this action demonstrates that he values such things. Therefore, we must assume that he has gained utility in appropriating them. At the same time, his action does not make anyone else worse off, for, in appropriating previously unowned resources nothing is taken away from others. Others could have appropriated these resources, too, if they had valued them in the same manner as the man here concerned. Yet, they demonstrably did not do so. Indeed, their failure to appropriate them suggests that they did not value the resources. Thus, they cannot be said to have lost any utility as a result of another's appropriation. With a clearly defined value of property rights, it becomes clear that the producer/consumer is rendered better off while everyone else is left in control of the same goods that they valued as before. So we can see that no one is rendered worse off. Moreover, since any subsequent exchange of goods necessarily suggests a particular good or product holds more utility for one persona than to another, and the exchange is purely voluntary, then it cannot be said that the exchange was of an expropriating manner.

Such relationships obviously benefits the social welfare in addition to the individual welfare as the collection of individuals benefits from such relationships.

Socialism on the other hand provides a means to make a living and eliminates the need to struggle against others for survival to open up the means to become wholely human with both positive aspects and negative aspects being able to contribute to personal development equally.

Why is such equality desirable? Why should I, who am 5'4, seek to better my standard of living by insisting that I be granted clothing that is made for a man 6'0 tall? Would I not be rendered better able to survive with clothing than without? If equality be the desired effect, why should I want an equal measure of material from which to craft my clothing as the man who stands 6'0? Why is this preferable to the capitalist system in which I utilize my labor to earn the money necessary to purchase the appropriate amount of material that will better ensure my survival? :confused:

Wealth is not defined as purely material products but as the whole of what makes human life worth living including knowledge, science and arts and the environment etc. A notion which is completely alien to capitalists...since they define that as being privileges of those who can afford them.

Very interesting! So wealth can be said to be anything anyone considers it to be? If this be true, then I agree 100%!

Since you are an anarcho capitalist and anarcho capitalists still uphold property and the rights of the few to monopolise the production factors they are a complete impossibility. There can be NO anarchism with property rights upheld for the few against the many. Such a society would last a few hours or days at the most and quickly disintegrate into fascism.

Hmm... Would you mind elaborating?

Revolution starts with U

4th July 2011, 04:14

Well, there is likely some truth in your critique (whatever critique that actually is) but I would hasten to add that while collectivism subjugates the subjective negative traits present in a person in an objective fashion, individualism elevates the subjective positive traits in a subjective fashion. Socialists tend to argue for the repression of some at the expense of others while capitalists tend to argue for the repression none at the expense of none.
You do know there are individualist socialists and anti-capitalists, correct?
Either way, when people get together to make a society, there will be subjective values imposed upon the population objectively. That will not be escaped, in any system, ever. It could be as simple as "murder is bad." Or as complex as "autocracy is bad."

Leftists simply conceive of wealth production as evenly rotating. It isn't. Wealth production is dynamic and purely subjective.
While I get what you're trying to say, nothing is "purely subjective."

As I said in my original intro, I take no issue with local self-determinism. Which implies I take no issue with "humble demands" of workers when they voluntarily associate with one another. I draw the line when such "unionism" is enforced via legislative or revolutionary fiat. I sympathize greatly with much of leftist thought (well, the thoughts that I've come across - which is kinda why I'm here, to learn more!). I simply disagree on some particulars. :D
I take no issue with private property, except when enforced through legislative or judicial fiat ;)

Absolutely correct. In such an event, the wages offered would increase. But the issue relating to full employment would be that the employers would no longer need to compete for skilled labor. And even if they wanted to, full employment would have been achieved. Wages would be bid down instead of up as there would no longer be a practical need to incentivize workers to abandon one employer in favor of another.
It seems you're saying one of two things:
1) In full employment, there would no longer be competition for labor
2) If the available supply of workers goes up, while demand for it remains constant prices will go up

What you describe is not Capitalism but, at least the American version, Corporatism. A form of State Capitalism or Kemalism. Fascism if you like but even this is not quite correct as even Fascists tend to misunderstand exactly what they mean to say.
You keep telling yourself that :cool:

Well, this isn't quite true. Although the wealthy get wealthy faster than the poor, the poor get wealthier too. Especially in the more capitalist leaning Western countries. The poor remain poor when compared to the wealthy, but they become wealthier as time progresses.
Yet you guys tend to turn this correlation into causation. These unwealthy people fought and struggled for a higher standard of living. It wasn't just provided to them with open arms.

An illustration of this can be seen in the automobile. The first automobiles were handcrafted and so exorbitantly expensive that they were purchased only by the wealthiest of wealthy. Now, everyone in the west has the option of purchase one or more automobiles. Even the poor. Yes, there are still poor who cannot afford an automobile, but the number of poor in the west is fast dwindling.
Worker's movments, threat of revolutinary action, laws and regulations mildly protecting labor rights, and Henry Ford's "my worker's should be able to afford what they make" attitude (all NAZI support and anti-semtiism aside), seem to be some things you are leaving out of this equation.

Poverty, is not an issue the west deals with. Even poverty in the east and in africa is gradually being obliterated as the more liberalized capitalist leaning nations find themselves benefiting from wealth accumulation.
Again, you are leaving a lot of things out of this equation and saying "capitalism did it."

But all of this brings to my mind a simple misunderstanding that you, and other leftists seem to have regarding wealth accumulation and capitalism. Wealth is brought into existence or increased in 3 ways: by perceiving certain nature-given things as scarce and actively bringing them into one's possession before anyone else has done so (homesteading); by producing goods with the help of one's labor and previously appropriated resources; or by acquiring a good though voluntary, contractual transfer from a previous appropriator or producer
You forgot forcefully taking it (it does provide wealth for some) and extracting the most surplus value from labor as possible. These aren't wealth grabs you support, I'm sure :rolleyes: But they do tend to make wealth (for some at least).

That is wealth accumulation and Capitalism. If the wealth is accumulated via expropriation, it is not capitalism.
Your definition of capitalism is naive, convenient, and ahistorical... but w/e helps you sleep at night.

Distruzio

4th July 2011, 09:59

You do know there are individualist socialists and anti-capitalists, correct?

Yes. I can usually find common ground with both.

Either way, when people get together to make a society, there will be subjective values imposed upon the population objectively. That will not be escaped, in any system, ever. It could be as simple as "murder is bad." Or as complex as "autocracy is bad."

AnCap theorists presently agree with you. 100%

I take no issue with private property, except when enforced through legislative or judicial fiat ;)

Then we agree!

It seems you're saying one of two things:
1) In full employment, there would no longer be competition for labor
2) If the available supply of workers goes up, while demand for it remains constant prices will go up

I am saying the first. The second cannot happen unless there are legislative forces pushing the prices, the wages, up. Like Unionism.

You keep telling yourself that :cool:

Look, if the leftist want us to stop parading the failure of the Soviet Union as proof of the failure of collectivism b/c neither Lenin, Stalin, nor any of the so-called "socialist" States are purely socialist, communist, or syndicalist, then you will have to accept that the United State has never been a capitalist nation. It has certainly been more capitalist than most nations. To the same degree that the Soviet Union was more socialist than most nations. When speaking in theoretical terms, everyone of we ideologues (that'd be you leftists as well as we anarchists and even the statists) speaks in absolutes. Nations do not exist as absolute anything. There has never been a purely socialist commonwealth just as there has never been a capitalist commonwealth.

America is a variation of fascist. It has been since Lincoln won the War for Southern Independence. A merger of corporation and state.

Yet you guys tend to turn this correlation into causation. These unwealthy people fought and struggled for a higher standard of living. It wasn't just provided to them with open arms.

No one disagrees with your observation in the slightest. Except the hip-fire Republican perhaps.

Worker's movments, threat of revolutinary action, laws and regulations mildly protecting labor rights, and Henry Ford's "my worker's should be able to afford what they make" attitude (all NAZI support and anti-semtiism aside), seem to be some things you are leaving out of this equation.

Am I? I don't think so. In fact, I would posit that what I suggested includes the very factors you mention.

You forgot forcefully taking it (it does provide wealth for some) and extracting the most surplus value from labor as possible. These aren't wealth grabs you support, I'm sure :rolleyes: But they do tend to make wealth (for some at least).

That is not wealth creation. That is wealth expropriation.

Your definition of capitalism is naive, convenient, and ahistorical... but w/e helps you sleep at night.

Says the one supporting a system that fails in every nation that has adopted it? I'm not trying to be combative. Simply articulating a point. If America be capitalist. Then the Soviets were obviously socialist. If America be capitalist. Then the Italians were obviously syndicalist before the second world war. If America be capitalist. Then the Nazis were obviously socialists as well.

Every definition of collectivism I've read about on this forum and in other sources has most decidedly said the opposite. Stalin was not communist, Mussolini was not syndicalist, and Hitler was not socialist. This being accepted as fact, it must follow that the distinctions in social, political, and economic approach to collectivism are substantial enough to warrant such distinctions. Then our approach to capitalism must also be accepted. America is not a capitalist state. It is a corporatist state. Naivete is here, absent. Consistency however, is not.

Revolution starts with U

4th July 2011, 12:08

AnCap theorists presently agree with you. 100%

I don't think many would be so bold as to say it outright.

Then we agree!
I was really being facetious with that comment :lol: but, then you would be willing to recognize absentee property holders to lose any and all claims to their former property?
You would stop a court from enforcing ownership's "ownership" of a factory over the value producing members of said company (the workers).

I am saying the first. The second cannot happen unless there are legislative forces pushing the prices, the wages, up. Like Unionism.
On the first; I just have to disagree.
On the second, I'm glad you see that.

Look, if the leftist want us to stop parading the failure of the Soviet Union as proof of the failure of collectivism b/c neither Lenin, Stalin, nor any of the so-called "socialist" States are purely socialist, communist, or syndicalist, then you will have to accept that the United State has never been a capitalist nation. It has certainly been more capitalist than most nations. To the same degree that the Soviet Union was more socialist than most nations. When speaking in theoretical terms, everyone of we ideologues (that'd be you leftists as well as we anarchists and even the statists) speaks in absolutes. Nations do not exist as absolute anything. There has never been a purely socialist commonwealth just as there has never been a capitalist commonwealth.
I have my disagreements about these definitions, but that is not important. The point is that the degree to which capitalist nations lined up with theoretical capitalism, compared to socialist/socialism, is far greater.

America is a variation of fascist. It has been since Lincoln won the War for Southern Independence. A merger of corporation and state.
I would agree with that. But I don't think it started with Lincoln, by a long shot.

No one disagrees with your observation in the slightest. Except the hip-fire Republican perhaps.

Am I? I don't think so. In fact, I would posit that what I suggested includes the very factors you mention.
You are one of the few ancaps I have known to recognize revolutionary class struggle as an inherent feature of the capitalist system. It makes one wonder if you recognize the dynamic nature of the have-power's and the have-not's. And if you don't, why not?

That is not wealth creation. That is wealth expropriation.
Potato, Patato....
You do realize you just agreed that claiming the surplus exchange value of a commodity socially produced is theft, right?

Says the one supporting a system that fails in every nation that has adopted it?
No. Whom has adopted it?

I'm not trying to be combative. Simply articulating a point. If America be capitalist. Then the Soviets were obviously socialist
But the problem is; the americans have private property, market exchange, and generalized commodity production. I will agree that many countries can become more or less socialist at different times. But none of them have had democratic control of the workplace, voluntary access to production, nor a gift economy.
There's a difference, and it's substantial.

Every definition of collectivism I've read about on this forum and in other sources has most decidedly said the opposite. Stalin was not communist, Mussolini was not syndicalist, and Hitler was not socialist. This being accepted as fact, it must follow that the distinctions in social, political, and economic approach to collectivism are substantial enough to warrant such distinctions.
True.

Then our approach to capitalism must also be accepted.
No. For clarification, see above.

America is a capitalist-corporatist state.

Fixed.

Distruzio

5th July 2011, 01:57

you would be willing to recognize absentee property holders to lose any and all claims to their former property?
You would stop a court from enforcing ownership's "ownership" of a factory over the value producing members of said company (the workers).

Well, in order to make a determination, I'd have to know what you mean by "absentee property holder" and "former property." Since I'm an anarchist, I oppose the justice system in its entirety. I favor arbitration and voluntary association. Courts, as we currently conceive them, are anti-libertarian. I couldn't support them.

Moreover, I would not limit "value production" to the workers. I recognize the role the capitalist has to play in an economy as viable and valuable to the production process in the exact same, if not differing in particularities, way. It's the political class that I find repulsive and worthy of opposition. This class often times includes corporate pigs and working-class leaches. I see the class distinction with expropriation by the State.

I have my disagreements about these definitions, but that is not important. The point is that the degree to which capitalist nations lined up with theoretical capitalism, compared to socialist/socialism, is far greater.

:lol:

I would agree with that. But I don't think it started with Lincoln, by a long shot.

Hmm... very interesting. I view Hamilton as a mercantilist of the highest order. One could easily connect the dots between mercantilism and fascism with him. I would have to agree with you!

You are one of the few ancaps I have known to recognize revolutionary class struggle as an inherent feature of the capitalist system. It makes one wonder if you recognize the dynamic nature of the have-power's and the have-not's. And if you don't, why not?

Really? This is quite concerning since it was a classical liberal that originated the theory of class struggle. Marx's words from the Communist Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

Sounds an awful lot like the words of Adolphe Blanqui, protoge of Jacque-Baptiste Say in 1837:

In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.

Blanqui went on to explain that:

So, in one country, it is through taxes that the fruit of the laborer's toil is wrested from him, under pretense of the good of the state; in another, it is by privileges, declaring labor a royal concession, and making one pay dearly for the right to devote himself to it. The same abuse is reproduced under more indirect, but no less oppressive, forms, when, by means of custom-duties, the state shares with the privileged industries the benefits of the taxes imposed on all those who are not privileged.

This is precisely our concept of class struggle. Even then, Blanqui wasn't the first to delve into this concept, he was the first to articulate such a concept in classical liberal thought in a history of economic theory. He drew upon a rich evolution of classical liberal concepts regarding the intervention of the State into the economy and the social distortions that creates. Marx even acknowledges his debt to the classical liberal theorists in a letter to one of his acolytes in America:

no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.

I find it rather upsetting that you may have encountered AnCaps and other classical liberal scholars who would deny that Marx, whatever our critiques of him, was a thoroughgoing genius and deserves credit where it is due. He "capitalized" (so to speak) on a theory that is part of our ideological heritage and homesteaded it, making his own variation of it based upon his own social milieu. I cannot fault the man for succumbing to his own capitalist desires. :lol: Especially since a fundamental linchpin of AnCap theory is the abolition of copyright nonsense. Marx was catering to a market that our forebears failed to cater to.

But to address your question, I do. The exploiting class is the politically connected class. The exploited class is everyone else.

Potato, Patato....
You do realize you just agreed that claiming the surplus exchange value of a commodity socially produced is theft, right?

Under threat of coercion? Yes, it is theft.

No. Whom has adopted it?

This was a joke, of sorts. I was making a statement that if you are content to call all capitalism evil b/c of the form of capitalism present in the western world that you (correctly) perceive as exploitative, the I can do the same of collectivism.

But the problem is; the americans have private property, market exchange, and generalized commodity production. I will agree that many countries can become more or less socialist at different times. But none of them have had democratic control of the workplace, voluntary access to production, nor a gift economy.
There's a difference, and it's substantial.

Americans enjoy all of that in an interventionist economic milieu. There is a difference, I agree. And it is substantial. The capitalist system that exists in America and elsewhere is just as corrupted as the collectivist system in the communist and socialist countries.

Fixed.

I can live with that.

Revolution starts with U

6th July 2011, 03:50

Well, in order to make a determination, I'd have to know what you mean by "absentee property holder" and "former property." Since I'm an anarchist, I oppose the justice system in its entirety. I favor arbitration and voluntary association. Courts, as we currently conceive them, are anti-libertarian. I couldn't support them.
Arbitration IS the justice system.

Moreover, I would not limit "value production" to the workers. I recognize the role the capitalist has to play in an economy as viable and valuable to the production process in the exact same, if not differing in particularities, way
I value entrepreneurs, and laborers. But one can only value the role the capitalist plays within the capitalist system. His/her role is one of autocratic control of the production process.

It's the political class that I find repulsive and worthy of opposition. This class often times includes corporate pigs and working-class leaches. I see the class distinction with expropriation by the State.
Tho some are, most recipients of small-time government funds are not.
But I think attacking the political actors as a whole is attempting to put a band-aid on an open wound. It does nothing to address the fundamental issues on why the state is "necessary" in the first place.

:lol:
I'll take that as agreement ;)

Hmm... very interesting. I view Hamilton as a mercantilist of the highest order. One could easily connect the dots between mercantilism and fascism with him. I would have to agree with you!
It's a little more complex than that, but ya. I think it starts when you have people powerful enough to create and fund a state to protect their interests at the expense of others.

Really? This is quite concerning since it was a classical liberal that originated the theory of class struggle. Marx's words from the Communist Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

Sounds an awful lot like the words of Adolphe Blanqui, protoge of Jacque-Baptiste Say in 1837:

In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.

Blanqui went on to explain that:

So, in one country, it is through taxes that the fruit of the laborer's toil is wrested from him, under pretense of the good of the state; in another, it is by privileges, declaring labor a royal concession, and making one pay dearly for the right to devote himself to it. The same abuse is reproduced under more indirect, but no less oppressive, forms, when, by means of custom-duties, the state shares with the privileged industries the benefits of the taxes imposed on all those who are not privileged.

This is precisely our concept of class struggle. Even then, Blanqui wasn't the first to delve into this concept, he was the first to articulate such a concept in classical liberal thought in a history of economic theory. He drew upon a rich evolution of classical liberal concepts regarding the intervention of the State into the economy and the social distortions that creates. Marx even acknowledges his debt to the classical liberal theorists in a letter to one of his acolytes in America:

no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.
Yes, but ancaps are not classical liberals, per se. Consider Hoppe, and yourself. I am sure many of the CL's you draw your inspiration from would not appreciate your support of monarchy (and would wonder why you would think putting your trust in a benevolent dictator is a wise decision).

I find it rather upsetting that you may have encountered AnCaps and other classical liberal scholars who would deny that Marx, whatever our critiques of him, was a thoroughgoing genius and deserves credit where it is due.
Really? That surprises you? What surprises me is that you give him any credit at all. :lol:

But to address your question, I do. The exploiting class is the politically connected class. The exploited class is everyone else.
So basically, everyone is an exploiter? lol... like I said, band-aid on a gushing wound.

Under threat of coercion? Yes, it is theft
That's good to know. I am sure we disagree on what constitutes coercion (explicit and tacit) tho. But I must say, you do take a lot more progressive stances on these issue than most ancaps I have encountered.

This was a joke, of sorts. I was making a statement that if you are content to call all capitalism evil b/c of the form of capitalism present in the western world that you (correctly) perceive as exploitative, the I can do the same of collectivism.
You can, as soon as you show me one nation that has adopted socialist principles :lol:

Distruzio

10th July 2011, 15:45

I value entrepreneurs, and laborers. But one can only value the role the capitalist plays within the capitalist system. His/her role is one of autocratic control of the production process.

Hmmm... how does one recognize these "capitalists?"

I'll take that as agreement ;)

It was!

Yes, but ancaps are not classical liberals, per se. Consider Hoppe, and yourself. I am sure many of the CL's you draw your inspiration from would not appreciate your support of monarchy (and would wonder why you would think putting your trust in a benevolent dictator is a wise decision).

Ah, well Hoppe and I do not support monarchy. We support monarchy instead of democracy, but we do not support monarchy. And I agree that the CL's, were they to see us today, would find great distress that so much of their theory and work has been refined, dismissed, or otherwise altered and improved upon.

So basically, everyone is an exploiter? lol... like I said, band-aid on a gushing wound.

Well, no. Not entirely. It is quite a bit more complicated than that, I agree. I agree with Spooner that there is nothing wrong with attempting to use the vote (a force of violence in itself) to protect yourself from those who would use it against you. No, exploiters are those who favor one group of the politically connected at the expense of others.

That's good to know. I am sure we disagree on what constitutes coercion (explicit and tacit) tho. But I must say, you do take a lot more progressive stances on these issue than most ancaps I have encountered.

Shhhh! Most of us do our best not to respond hip fire crazy. It's tough. But we tend to be just as passionate and stubborn as you leftists. :cool:

You can, as soon as you show me one nation that has adopted socialist principles :lol:

Indeed! Obama? :lol: When I first heard that in 2007 at the GOP State Convention (don't hate, I used to be more parliamentarian than I am now and wanted to see how far I could get into the GOP) I laughed good and hard. Just like when they said Mccain was a true conservative! Ahaha!

Revolution starts with U

10th July 2011, 16:19

Hmmm... how does one recognize these "capitalists?"

Tho there are many who live solely off their capacity as a capitalist, and tho the lines of modern capitalism have been heavily blurred from what it was in the industrial revolution era, i still think it is easy to identify ownership. Once again, many times ownership lives solely off its' expropriation. But you can also recognize in one individual his role as both capitalist and "laborer."
If I am not mistaken that is the idea behind commodity fetishism; where even the capitalist gets subsumed by the market to the point where he exploits himself.

Ah, well Hoppe and I do not support monarchy. We support monarchy instead of democracy, but we do not support monarchy. And I agree that the CL's, were they to see us today, would find great distress that so much of their theory and work has been refined, dismissed, or otherwise altered and improved upon.
It just sounds to me like "anarcho-stalinism" or "anarcho-dictatorship." I get Hoppe's theory, I just don't buy it. I think the same time preference that Hoppe claims makes monarchy better is, in fact, what makes it worse. The Prince and the Congress both have the same interests in maintaining their position. But the prince has a far greater interest in keeping it going long-term, and a far greater means to do so. At least in a democracy you can "vote the bastard out." Far more people have a greater say in how the state effects them.
The same argument can be, and indeed basically was used in defense of private ownerhsip of slaves; the slave owner has a greater interest in maintaining the long-term well-being of his laborers than even the capitalist.

Shhhh! Most of us do our best not to respond hip fire crazy. It's tough. But we tend to be just as passionate and stubborn as you leftists. :cool::lol:

Indeed! Obama? :lol: When I first heard that in 2007 at the GOP State Convention (don't hate, I used to be more parliamentarian than I am now and wanted to see how far I could get into the GOP) I laughed good and hard. Just like when they said Mccain was a true conservative! Ahaha!
Yes, but was not Grover Cleveland a "true conservative?"

Distruzio

11th July 2011, 03:17

Tho there are many who live solely off their capacity as a capitalist, and tho the lines of modern capitalism have been heavily blurred from what it was in the industrial revolution era, i still think it is easy to identify ownership. Once again, many times ownership lives solely off its' expropriation. But you can also recognize in one individual his role as both capitalist and "laborer."
If I am not mistaken that is the idea behind commodity fetishism; where even the capitalist gets subsumed by the market to the point where he exploits himself.

Hmm... in AnCap theory, it becomes quite perplexing when we advocate a semi-syndicalist method of returning expropriated property to the rightful owners. That is to say that we favor a homesteading approach to publicly held property. The difference being that we acknowledge the institution of private property and syndicalists don't, necessarily.

It just sounds to me like "anarcho-stalinism" or "anarcho-dictatorship." I get Hoppe's theory, I just don't buy it.

Well, that is certainly a pertinent observation, however anarcho-stalinism requires a democratic vanguard of sorts. Anarcho-dictatorship is unknown to me. It reminds me of an autocratic form of government in which the dictator wields unrivaled unitary authority. I suppose the anarchist bit would suggest that he wields no institutionalized authority within his territory. This would not jive with anarcho-monarchism as it suggests a lack of responsibility on the part of the dictator to his people. AnDic (snicker snicker) seems to me off hand to be a sort of political authority wielded by a single individual unrestrained by economic, cultural, and political considerations. That is not AnMon theory in the slightest, although I can see the parallels - assuming that I have correctly inferred the meaning of "anarcho-dictatorship."

Perhaps you can enlighten me further?

I think the same time preference that Hoppe claims makes monarchy better is, in fact, what makes it worse. The Prince and the Congress both have the same interests in maintaining their position. But the prince has a far greater interest in keeping it going long-term, and a far greater means to do so. At least in a democracy you can "vote the bastard out." Far more people have a greater say in how the state effects them.

Ah, but that is where you fail to see his point. Sure, the bastards can be voted out. But that in no way deals with the institution of monopoly on coercion and taxation, does it? It merely transfers that authority onto a new asshat that will be reviled in due time for being the criminal that he is. At least a prince must consider his kingdom as his own, and would therefore find a greater incentive to restrain himself from expropriation. A democratic ruler would not. After all, he is merely a power renter. Not a power owner.

The same argument can be, and indeed basically was used in defense of private ownerhsip of slaves; the slave owner has a greater interest in maintaining the long-term well-being of his laborers than even the capitalist.

Quite true! Which suggests that, while slavery itself is inherently repulsive an evil, private slavery is preferable to public slavery.

T-Paine

11th July 2011, 08:05

Hola, I joined a few months ago and was restricted to OI for my liberal/moderate/reformist views. I would definitely say I am a lot more of a socialist now than then (I've been a sympathizer for a while though) and follow the more libertarian branch of socialism where power is decentralized and divided and economic forces are co-operatively owned. I still hold personal anti-monopolist sentiments, so I think that co-operatives should be able to compete against each other though. I think competition is healthy and can produce efficiency and a sort of check and balance system while still maintaining the idea of worker's control. Even still, I've changed several opinions that I disagree with a lot of my former posts on this form.

Hobbies: Computer programming, web design, reading

Something Weird: I have a dislike for food and eating in general. I really wish I didn't have to eat.

Religion: Atheist

Economic View: Libertarian Socialist Market Co-operatives?

Social Views: Libertarian do what you want as long as you are not infringing on someone else's liberty.

Political Influences: Thomas Paine is obviously one person I enjoy to read, but I'd like to say I generally avoid following people themselves.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: The people who follow dictators thinking that they were true socialists. The lengths some people go against something (like supporting North Korea because they are anti-USA and anti-capitalist.)

LevDavidovichBronstein

11th July 2011, 08:11

Name: Will

Age: 16

Location: Somewhere in the UK

Hobbies: Gaming, watching movies, handball, snooker

Something Weird: I have never broken a bone or had a nosebleed

Religion: ATHEIST

Economic View: Communist

Social Views: Communist

Political Influences: Trotsky

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Very unwelcoming to new people, patronising.

T-Paine

11th July 2011, 08:13

Revolution starts with U

11th July 2011, 10:47

Hmm... in AnCap theory, it becomes quite perplexing when we advocate a semi-syndicalist method of returning expropriated property to the rightful owners. That is to say that we favor a homesteading approach to publicly held property. The difference being that we acknowledge the institution of private property and syndicalists don't, necessarily.
I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this :lol:

Perhaps you can enlighten me further?
I was just being cheeky. It would be equivocation to call a monarchy a dictatorship, as they are distinctly different. My point was that it seems to me the heart of statism is monopoly power, and there are no more monopolistic power structures than those given to the monarch and the dictator.

Ah, but that is where you fail to see his point. Sure, the bastards can be voted out. But that in no way deals with the institution of monopoly on coercion and taxation, does it? It merely transfers that authority onto a new asshat that will be reviled in due time for being the criminal that he is. At least a prince must consider his kingdom as his own, and would therefore find a greater incentive to restrain himself from expropriation. A democratic ruler would not. After all, he is merely a power renter. Not a power owner.
But the princes were not so invested. Are there not countless cases of princes exacting far more brutality on the citizenry than functioning democracies?
I agree that statism is bad, in both democracy and monarchy. But I don't see nearly anything modern advanced democracies do as being worse than literal rape and pillage.
The facts just don't line up witht eh theory. Relying on a dictator with a low time preference is the same thing as relying on a benevolent dictator. And if there's anything history has taught me; when it comes to heirarchy and the power structure... expect the worst.

Quite true! Which suggests that, while slavery itself is inherently repulsive an evil, private slavery is preferable to public slavery.
Meh, what's the difference.

Moderate

12th July 2011, 20:30

Name: Harry

Age: 21

Location: The country you hate most, aka the USA.

Hobbies: Irrelevant.

Something Weird: I was once the CEO of a minor corporation.

Religion: Christianity

Economic View: Capitalist/Center-right.

Social Views: Fairly libertarian.

Political Influences: I think for myself.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: You divide everything up into hard and fast classes and groups. The way I see it a person's social status or class is not as easy to define as you think it is, from a sociological standpoint.

Hivemind

12th July 2011, 20:47

NGNM85

11th August 2011, 00:33

Name: NGNM85

Age: 27

Location: Boston

Hobbies: Reading, sketching, movies, video-games.

Religion: I am an Atheist, therefore, I have no religion.

Economic/Social View: I’m an Anarchist.

Political Influences: Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, etc., etc.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: There is a complex epidemic of maladies afflicting the Radical Left. However, I would say that the most corrosive pathologies are; rigid conformity, religious dogmatism, and irrationality, in some cases, to the point of total derangement.

DinodudeEpic

12th August 2011, 00:42

Name: None, just call me Dinodude, DinodudeEpic, or Dinodudethegreat

Age: 100 (Just kidding, just don't want to reveal my age.)

Location: Michigan....the Mitten State.

Hobbies: Video games, politics, science, philosophy

Something Weird: I love guns, video games, and especially video games with guns.

Religion: Muslim (Although, I have a very liberal interpretation of the religion.)

Economic View: Mutualist welfare ordoliberalism

Social Views: Hardcore libertarian, liberty is a BIG must.

Political Influences: Proudhon, the 2nd French Revolution, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kerensky, Marx, and Orwell

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: Too restrictive, too little regard for liberty, the USA being considered the mother of all evil, and more concern for taking down superpowers over the welfare of the people. (To the point of accepting dictators, little Bonapartes, and other such scum.)

unpopularfreedomfront

13th August 2011, 19:32

Name: I don't believe in names I see them as an invention of the Capitalist dogs to subdue the proletariat and encumber us with the dogma of self and confuse us by creating artifical barriers between the brothers and sisters of the unarmed and armed masses and as a device to stifle revolution. Nah, only messing, you can call me Number 8.

Where I'm from: The EU Protectorate of Ireland.

Age: Late 30's. I don't look it though thanks to Nivea for Men and I don't act it thanks to being so fucking chilled, that or a mental disease.

Occupation or whatever: Soon to be mature student, studying Politics, Religions & Global Diversity. Have a small online business (before you say I'm a capitalist, I am as much a capitalist as the owners of this site who use Google advertising as a source of income, so shut the fuck up, lol) Also run a site related to pets and petowners, that one's free btw. During the Lisbon 2 referendum I setup a Vote No, anti-Lisbon Treaty site and was also active on the ground.

Education: Did Politics & International Relations at a UK uni, couldn't afford it, left. Did Law at an Irish uni, hated it, left. Have a 3rd level award in Criminology from a UK uni.

Gender and sexual orientation: Male and hetero.

Social views: Progressive. Pro-choice, support human rights, workers rights and animals rights. Have been involved in social movements (abortion, divorce) here in Ireland in the past. Abortion is still illegal (lost that one) and divorce was only legalised in 1996 (won that one but only by about 0.5%) Would like to be veggie but don't have the self discipline.

Political views: Left. Socialist. More pragmatic than dogmatic I guess. Still learning.

Hobbies: Interweb, Politics, Travel, TV, Cooking (more a duty than a hobby)

Religious views: Agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).

Something weird about me: Like what? I've herterochromia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterochromia_iridum) (eyes). I'm an atheist but don't by default subscribe to Naturalsim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29) I prefer rain more than sun, fog is my personal favourite. Love anchovies and capers on pizza, even on meat pizzas! Yeah, I'm pretty radical :lol:

Biggest criticism of the revolutionary left: Too many taking themselves too seriously, that and the 1001 different tendencies.

Islamosocialist

30th August 2011, 04:39

Hi, my introduction thread is still in Introductions. It's new... I don't know why I ended up in Restricted already? Odd. I am a socialist?

Oh well.

Nice to meet the left-wingers here. :)

alegab

5th September 2011, 03:00

Name: Alejandro
Age: 18
Location:Buenos Aires
Hobbies: Collecting Coca-Cola stuff, reading about history and politics, i love trivia
Religion: Agnostic and Catholic
Economic View: State-leaning mixed economy, significant workers' control and state supervision
Social Views: Anti-authoritarian, democracy, socially liberal/progressive (w/ some christian background)
-for more specific topics: pro gay marriage and other LGBT rights, anti death penalty, I support legalizing some drugs' consumption (I oppose drug dealing), universal and quality health care, welfare'ist, pro-life (except the mother's life is in danger), green politics, workers' rights
Political Influences: Who do you consider a big influence on your politics?
Myself, Ed Bernstein, [I have a weird fascination with Allende (though I know all about how shitty was Chile then, maybe it's 'cause he's a distant relative of my mother's)]
Education: i'm in senior year
Gender and sexual orientation: Male and bi
Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics: They should think about what we can do NOW, not in a hypothetical communist society. Don't support huge son-of-a-*****es just because they proclaim themselves as communists/socialists/generic leftists. I'm quite anti-authoritarian

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 09:24

You divide everything up into hard and fast classes and groups. The way I see it a person's social status or class is not as easy to define as you think it is, from a sociological standpoint.

Class is subjective, you devide people into classes to understand power structures and the such in society.

JFB.anon

17th October 2011, 03:51

Name: Josh
Age: 15.
Location: America, FL

Hobbies: Learning, reading, avid gaming, writing theoretical constitutions (yes, really)

Something Weird: I used to be a libertarian faggot. Eugh. I'm a black nationalist who's goal in life is to get all minorities (and poor whites) to achieve economic independence and create an anarcho-socialist society through prefigurative politics. I'm also a'lot more authoritarian/military loving then I'd like to admit.

Religion: Apathetic Atheist. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't give me the right to be a bigot.

Economic View: Market Socialist, I believe that workers should own the means of production within a capitalist economy. However, I'm a libertarian socialist, I'm perfectly fine with Anarcho-communism, uncentrally planned economies, etc. and believe they should peacefully coexist.

Social Views: Meh-ism. Just don't kill anybody... I also believe we should jail racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists, and all those who promote a stratified class system. Oh, and I'm an Anarchist.

Political Influences: FDR, Chris Hedges, Nestor Makhno, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Benito Mussolini (DON'T JUDGE MAH:crying:), Vladmir Putin*, Che Guevara, Genghis Khan, Juan Peron, Leon Trotsky, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte ("Mastering luck" is my motto after I saw the documentary), Themistocles... If you're bothered by the presence of dictators and millitarists, so am I.
*I was influenced by his propaganda image of a benevolent renaissance man/dictator who saved Russia from itself; I found out that, in reality, he's a corporatocratic, murderous corrupt, neocon shill who decided to rape the country a little less then Yeltsin. Also, Chechnya.

Biggest criticism of contemporary radical leftist politics?: Constant pretensions to planned economies. It just never works! I also think we radical leftists should take up Libertarian Socialism and end ideological sectarianism.