Ask a republican anything. [Archive]

Ocean Seal

27th May 2011, 18:40

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?
We don't believe that just because something is moral by tradition that makes it intrinsically good. A lot of it is linked to sexism (even the parts which many tout as the "good" of traditional morality) and because we don't seek going back to the past.
For example, what is traditional morality. Women staying at home and taking care of children? Why should they be any less entitled than men to seek an education and perform labor outside of the house?

Is it traditional morality for someone to look up to their boss and not complain about working conditions in the hope's of becoming the boss and oppressing workers?

Is it traditional morality for someone to be loyal to their country? If so, why? What does my country give me other than my oppression? Why should I value people living in my country as superior to those outside of it? Why should I pledge loyalty to something that I do not agree with, even if it does terrible things. Should I support imperialism to be loyal to my country. Should I support the massacre of 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians? Or 800,000 Palestinians?

Is traditional morality supporting the law? Even if in 1950's the law was used to create the super-oppression of racial minorities preventing them from so much as sitting next to whites in a restaurant.

Traditional morality is not in itself a good thing, therefore we disregard it when making decisions.

As for capitalism. Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor. Under socialism the people own the means of production. If right wingers are so concerned with those who work the hardest being rewarded for their labor they should be socialists where you earn according to how hard you work not how hard others work for you. You might complain about welfare, but the real thieves are those who own the means of production. The bosses who own the factories and businesses pay workers a wage in order for them to produce. Lets suppose that a worker makes $50 of product per hour and gets paid $10 per hour. Where did those $40 at the end of the hour. Into the bosses pocket. What did the boss do to earn that money? Nothing. Is that just the way things are? Then why don't we change that. The boss is no longer necessary, the means of production have been all but centralized. If we don't need the boss he is merely in power by fiat or some kind of subjective emotional reason. But why keep the boss at the expense of everyone else. It's not like they can't make it without the means of production. Its simply judicially authorized theft. Why is that the best system.

Also based on your introduction post it seems similar to a wave of trolls we've been getting this summer so there.

danyboy27

27th May 2011, 18:46

you are too easy to troll red brother.

Sam_b

27th May 2011, 19:15

Yawn.

Kamos

27th May 2011, 19:18

As it happens, I also believe in a strong national defence:

http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/Penguin_Army_Wallpaper_uxj6m.jpg

Manic Impressive

27th May 2011, 19:22

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPtaz4MotbdhTljz_c1YTN5d9qbPNwz iDxJdK1Z4E-VkSFcH8uzw&t=1

Ocean Seal

27th May 2011, 19:24

you are too easy to troll red brother.
I knew it was one but I decided to respond anyway to see if he could come up with any arguments that the libertarian, white-nationalist, and black-nationalist didn't already come up with. I recognized it by his posting style and the traditional "ask a ... anything". For whoever's time I've wasted please accept this image of Lady Rainicorn as an apology
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100901144945/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/9/9f/Rainicorn.jpg

bezdomni

27th May 2011, 19:27

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

The traditions of the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the minds of the living...

republican2

27th May 2011, 19:34

We don't believe that just because something is moral by tradition that makes it intrinsically good. A lot of it is linked to sexism (even the parts which many tout as the "good" of traditional morality) and because we don't seek going back to the past.
For example, what is traditional morality. Women staying at home and taking care of children? Why should they be any less entitled than men to seek an education and perform labor outside of the house?

Is it traditional morality for someone to look up to their boss and not complain about working conditions in the hope's of becoming the boss and oppressing workers?

Is it traditional morality for someone to be loyal to their country? If so, why? What does my country give me other than my oppression? Why should I value people living in my country as superior to those outside of it? Why should I pledge loyalty to something that I do not agree with, even if it does terrible things. Should I support imperialism to be loyal to my country. Should I support the massacre of 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians? Or 800,000 Palestinians?

Is traditional morality supporting the law? Even if in 1950's the law was used to create the super-oppression of racial minorities preventing them from so much as sitting next to whites in a restaurant.

Traditional morality is not in itself a good thing, therefore we disregard it when making decisions.

As for capitalism. Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor. Under socialism the people own the means of production. If right wingers are so concerned with those who work the hardest being rewarded for their labor they should be socialists where you earn according to how hard you work not how hard others work for you. You might complain about welfare, but the real thieves are those who own the means of production. The bosses who own the factories and businesses pay workers a wage in order for them to produce. Lets suppose that a worker makes $50 of product per hour and gets paid $10 per hour. Where did those $40 at the end of the hour. Into the bosses pocket. What did the boss do to earn that money? Nothing. Is that just the way things are? Then why don't we change that. The boss is no longer necessary, the means of production have been all but centralized. If we don't need the boss he is merely in power by fiat or some kind of subjective emotional reason. But why keep the boss at the expense of everyone else. It's not like they can't make it without the means of production. Its simply judicially authorized theft. Why is that the best system.

Also based on your introduction post it seems similar to a wave of trolls we've been getting this summer so there.

You misconstrue the definition of morality and apply your own generalizations to whatever you think may or may not be moral. Simply rejecting morality's etymology because throughout history and cultures it was accepted that women should spend their time raising children instead of abandoning their household is not a convincing argument to abandon traditional morality. Isn't it ironic that Marx said capitalism was responsible for the destruction of families because working in cities took women out of the house? So I guess Marx is pretty much on the right in terms of the household :) You can use morality to act as a compass to decide whether you want to support your country or think it's evil, but it doesn't make your views correct. On the topic of abortion, ever since Roe vs Wade, total pregnancies have gone up exponentially, and with that rise so --obviously-- have abortions. Without traditional morality people could completely reject the value of an unborn child and see nothing wrong with this. It's a pathology which spreads over to other aspects of life and government such as profligate spending and more.

On capitalism, you call bosses thieves, yet there is no robbery occurring. Working for an owner of a business is completely voluntary — meaning all wages are contractual and guaranteed; any specific unfortunate anecdote of actual robbery is and should not create an equivalence with capitalism and private ownership. You discounting corporate finance to a mere $50 boss, worker $10 is foolish. Honestly, there are so many variables, factors, additional company expenditures, and the logical need to pay some workers higher than others. (CEOs earn free market wages.) There must be incentives and allowance to produce and expand — stifling private ownership only allows for an ossified economy. Not to mention, you are free to collectively own your means of production in a capitalist society; if you want to co-own a business you are free to do so.

edit: Each underdeveloped nation cannot achieve parity with places like Western Europe and America overnight. They too must undertake the ardous process of industrialization and learning advanced trades. Simply look at India and China for two momentous displays of global capitalism at work. You expect utopias overnight by revolution.

RedSunRising

27th May 2011, 19:39

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

Where did you get that idea first off, and second off what do you define as traditional morality?

Thirdly it looks to me that it is capitalism which has been undermining the family in the USA and sexual morality in a way that no socialist country has done near to do doing. Now some on this forum will see that as a bad thing, some as a good thing and some as a mixed blessing...But when I hear or read of capitalists going on about defending high culture or traditional morality I have to laugh!

Revolution starts with U

27th May 2011, 19:39

5 people work on making a widget. 1 gets 3/5 the money from the sale, another gets 1.5/5, and the other three get .5/5
There's a robbery occurring somewhere in there.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 19:39

- I do not believe in equality by fiat

Most of us here would agree that car manufacturers have never been the best entities for delivering equality.

Which given the OP's failure to reply is rather ironic that this is another drive by trolling.

republican2

27th May 2011, 19:51

Where did you get that idea first off, and second off what do you define as traditional morality?

Thirdly it looks to me that it is capitalism which has been undermining the family in the USA and sexual morality in a way that no socialist country has done near to do doing. Now some on this forum will see that as a bad thing, some as a good thing and some as a mixed blessing...But when I hear or read of capitalists going on about defending high culture or traditional morality I have to laugh!

Capitalism has coexisted alongside of strong family values up until the sexual revolution here in the 1960s. You know, the counterculture of Ho Chi Minh crusaders who came to dominate the ethos of America in weeks. Capitalism has nothing to do with family per se, and although mindless consumerism can put a strain on this it in itself has nothing to do with family. (You could also be mindless consumers in the USSR if you had the rubels; you could consume endlessly as well under mercantilism or other forms of economic systems which involve even a modicum of trade.)

Leftists on the other hand have been the driving force for eroding structure and family. If you look at the gay rights movement in the 1960s all of the spokespersons were in fact on the left. One of their core mantras was the destruction of the family. But the message is promulgated by more than just gay rights activists: many on the left simply hate the West so much that they constantly strive for chaos and disorder in every area of life so that a new government can eventually take hold from the ashes. Wasn't that Saul Alinski's central focus in Rules for Radicals?

Moreover, simply look at the nonsustaining birthrates in former communist and socialist republics for evidence of an empirical breakdown in family and marriage.

RGacky3

27th May 2011, 19:55

On capitalism, you call bosses thieves, yet there is no robbery occurring. Working for an owner of a business is completely voluntary — meaning all wages are contractual and guaranteed; any specific unfortunate anecdote of actual robbery is and should not create an equivalence with capitalism and private ownership. You discounting corporate finance to a mere $50 boss, worker $10 is foolish. Honestly, there are so many variables, factors, additional company expenditures, and the logical need to pay some workers higher than others. (CEOs earn free market wages.) There must be incentives and allowance to produce and expand — stifling private ownership only allows for an ossified economy. Not to mention, you are free to collectively own your means of production in a capitalist society; if you want to co-own a business you are free to do so.

Property rights a form of theft.

YOu can have a farm owner, who has never seen the farm, it was handed down by his father and so on. Whereas workers could have worked their their whole life, planted seads, watered and reaped, yet they have NO right to the produce of their labor, only the farm owner has, they have no choice in the matter, (other than maybe working for someone else in the same wage slave conditions), he controls 100% of the produce, that THEY create, giving them just whatever they can get to survive (which is very little considering the high unemployment).

THAT is real theft.

edit: Each underdeveloped nation cannot achieve parity with places like Western Europe and America overnight. They too must undertake the ardous process of industrialization and learning advanced trades. Simply look at India and China for two momentous displays of global capitalism at work. You expect utopias overnight by revolution.

The US got wealth post WW2 due to becoming an empire, i.e. DISPOSSESING the rest of the world, (plus huge government spending and progressive policies from FDR up to Reagen).

Europe got that way partially from the martial plan, (some countries also maintained imperialism), and huge socialist reforms poast WW2.

The undeveloped world got that way by being forced into the washington consensus.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 20:06

Leftists on the other hand have been the driving force for eroding structure and family.

Bullshit. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, were all married men, some of which had children. This is a confused viewpoint because the church has been the most ardent cheerleader of the archetypical family. Leftists do not oppose families, what we do oppose however is the nuclear family ideal for the sake of the nuclear family ideal because we have no stake in preserving the W.A.S.P. values that are so precious to conservatives.

If you look at the gay rights movement in the 1960s all of the spokespersons were in fact on the left.
You reckon that could be because the right are predominately homophobic asshats? Who'dve thunk it?

One of their core mantras was the destruction of the family.
I doubt it. Its more likely their 'core mantra' was equal rights which you were in turn interpreting as ''they want to take your shit away'' because it would be an affront to your privilege as a middle class, heterosexual, (probably) white male.

Moreover, simply look at the nonsustaining birthrates in former communist and socialist republics for evidence of an empirical breakdown in family and marriage..
The causes of declining birthrates in those countries are due to socio-economic factors, not ideological. In Russia, birthrates have dropped SINCE the implementation of the new oligarchy, not during the USSR.

mikelepore

27th May 2011, 20:06

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

How many years does traditional mean? How about the command by King Edward I that anyone who lends money to the poor and then charges them interest shall be hanged by a rope around the neck? Is the year 1275 traditional enough?

republican2

27th May 2011, 20:07

YOu can have a farm owner, who has never seen the farm, it was handed down by his father and so on. Whereas workers could have worked their their whole life, planted seads, watered and reaped, yet they have NO right to the produce of their labor, only the farm owner has, they have no choice in the matter, (other than maybe working for someone else in the same wage slave conditions), he controls 100% of the produce, that THEY create, giving them just whatever they can get to survive (which is very little considering the high unemployment).

Unfair maybe. Theft, no. Unless you live in a country which does not have property rights.

The US got wealth post WW2 due to becoming an empire, i.e. DISPOSSESING the rest of the world, (plus huge government spending and progressive policies from FDR up to Reagen).

The US got its wealth from our sheer productivity and and absolute monopoly on the entire world's industry after World War II. It is an objective fact that government spending cannot grow and economy; and while I sympathize with many aspects of the New Deal, it was not responsible for a thing besides making certain people's lives easier to deal with in hard times.

Europe got that way partially from the martial plan, (some countries also maintained imperialism), and huge socialist reforms poast WW2.

Europe was already far into its industrial development well before the second world war. Nearly every third world country besides certain colonized areas had never even began to evolve past their agrarian economies.

The undeveloped world got that way by being forced into the washington consensus.

I've spoken with, read articles by, seen testimonies from, and know by pure fact that if given the offer and opportunity, third worlders will generally never deny multinationals entry into their country. Yes you get the occasional socialist takeovers who nationalize the businesses, but look at how that ends.

republican2

27th May 2011, 20:11

Bullshit. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, were all married men, some of which had children. This is a confused viewpoint because the church has been the most ardent cheerleader of the archetypical family. Leftists do not oppose families, what we do oppose however is the nuclear family ideal for the sake of the nuclear family ideal because we have no stake in preserving the W.A.S.P. values that are so precious to conservatives.

In an above post I acknowledged that Marx was not against traditional roles for a woman. So would you say feminists are on the right of the political spectrum then? The leftist counterculture in the 1960s was the driving force for the devaluation and antipathy towards family life, not Marx or Lenin themselves.

L.A.P.

27th May 2011, 20:16

Whoever responds to this thread seriously is an idiot (that goes to you, Rgacky3). I'm as fuck right now and this thread is hilarious. I never know a Conservative knew how to work a computer.

Bardo

27th May 2011, 20:17

Leftists on the other hand have been the driving force for eroding structure and family. If you look at the gay rights movement in the 1960s all of the spokespersons were in fact on the left. One of their core mantras was the destruction of the family.

I thought "freedom" and "liberty" was a major part of the Republican platform? Surely you don't believe that gays don't deserve liberty, that would make you a hypocrite. Gay rights activists don't care to destroy your family, they want the right start one of their own, why can't you respect that?

L.A.P.

27th May 2011, 20:18

Oh and by the way,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

RedSunRising

27th May 2011, 20:19

Capitalism has nothing to do with family per se, and although mindless consumerism can put a strain on this it in itself has nothing to do with family.

I was more thinking of the hours that people have to work which disallows wives to spend time with their husbands and visa versa as well as spending time with the kids. I also never understood how allowing gay people to be open about sexuality undermines the family. Also the extreme levels of sexualization which is brought about by marketing, the looking after number one attitude, etc. The USSR under Lenin and Stalin and the PRC during the Mao era didnt have problems reproducing themselves though they suffered massive of loss of life from wars forced upon their peoples. The change from state capitalism to market capitalism in eastern and central europe has made things a lot worse. Capitalism tends to pander to the lowest common dominator as opposed to trying to raise people up to the fullest of their human dignity, which is why the cultural level of the western world is in free fall. Outside of a Communist revolution the cultural treasures of the past will be lost forever now that capital has passed from formal to real domination (where the products of culture and society as whole are directly dominated by the logic of the market).

narcoticnarcosis

27th May 2011, 20:19

[QUOTE] Isn't it ironic that Marx said capitalism was responsible for the destruction of families because working in cities took women out of the house? So I guess Marx is pretty much on the right in terms of the household :)

he was somewhat correct - women are better suited to taking care of young children than men.

i'm not saying women can't, or shouldn't work; that's just wrong. but it's also wrong to say that women and men are only different on a superficial level.

On the topic of abortion, ever since Roe vs Wade, total pregnancies have gone up exponentially, and with that rise so --obviously-- have abortions.

i don't suppose that could have anything to do with the explosion population levels occurring in the post-war period?

Without traditional morality people could completely reject the value of an unborn child and see nothing wrong with this. It's a pathology which spreads over to other aspects of life and government such as profligate spending and more.

so it's okay to force a woman to bring children into the world, yet not provide them with the means to take care of their families?

not that i necessarily support abortion as a form of birth control, but the underlying hypocrisy of such a system should be immediately apparent regardless.

On capitalism, you call bosses thieves, yet there is no robbery occurring. Working for an owner of a business is completely voluntary

i think you have a different idea of what "voluntary" means. the only other choice is death, which is hardly a choice at all. it's not even really that voluntary in choosing who you work for either, especially in the current state of the economy. you take what you get, or you suck and die.

also, on the topic of theft, Apple has a Net Income Per Employee of almost $284,000 per employee.

even the highest paid employees are barely pulling in more than half of the revenue they produce for the corporation.

(i tried posting links, but apparently i need more posts... >_<)

if you believe that man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, then you see the problem with this. if he is not entitled to the fruits of his labor, then your argument still fails, because then the entire reason for laboring in the first place becomes a moot point.

.
Honestly, there are so many variables, factors, additional company expenditures, and the logical need to pay some workers higher than others.

there is nothing logical about paying the most useless members of an organization the most.

stifling private ownership only allows for an ossified economy.

which is exactly what your economic policies do. by top-loading the money, the lower classes have less capital with which to pursue business interests. only those with money have the means to make money.

Not to mention, you are free to collectively own your means of production in a capitalist society; if you want to co-own a business you are free to do so

the average person doesn't have the means to rent office space, run servers, and hire employees, and take care of a family, and no one should be forced to work out of their home. the home is meant to be a place of refuge, not one of stress.

republican2

27th May 2011, 20:20

I thought "freedom" and "liberty" was a major part of the Republican platform? Surely you don't believe that gays don't deserve liberty, that would make you a hypocrite. Gay rights activists don't care to destroy your family, they want the right start one of their own, why can't you respect that?

Straw man.

Many in the gay community did call for the destruction of marriage and family in the 1960s. Find various essays written by gay spokespersons and intellectuals of the time. Care to guess where slogans such as "Down with Patriarchy" come from? It hasn't been until recently which the gay community has taken a 180 and now support family — albeit for themselves.

RedSunRising

27th May 2011, 20:21

Also the sheer immorality of business today has sweet fuck all to do with traditional morality so when pro-capitalists talk about it its pretty obvious that they are either utterly naive, just like the sound of those words or are trying to persuade themselves of something or other.

mikelepore

27th May 2011, 20:22

I do not believe in equality by fiat

Probate law is INEQUALITY by fiat. For example, the law wouldn't prosecute me because my great-great-great-great-grandparent was a horse thief; however, the law would reward the lazy bum that I am because my great-great-great-great-grandparent was an "ambitious entrepeneur."

It may be the case that John D. Rockefeller V, son of John D. Rockefeller IV, son of John D. Rockefeller III, son of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., son of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller, is a very deserving individual, but, even if that is true, that fact is not the source of his wealth, under the rules of this economic system.

RGacky3

27th May 2011, 20:32

Unfair maybe. Theft, no. Unless you live in a country which does not have property rights.

Its legalized theft.

The US got its wealth from our sheer productivity and and absolute monopoly on the entire world's industry after World War II. It is an objective fact that government spending cannot grow and economy; and while I sympathize with many aspects of the New Deal, it was not responsible for a thing besides making certain people's lives easier to deal with in hard times.

Its an objective fact that it did, making peoples lives easier restored the economy by stiulating the consumer economy, making production profitable, also unions by pulling the money down from the top into the working class and thus into the economy. Productivity in the US is huge now but because we have reaganite economics it does'nt enter the economy, it just stays at the top.

Europe was already far into its industrial development well before the second world war. Nearly every third world country besides certain colonized areas had never even began to evolve past their agrarian economies.

Before WW2 europes economy grow proportionate to its colonization.

After WW2, the europe we see now, is due to social-democracy.

I've spoken with, read articles by, seen testimonies from, and know by pure fact that if given the offer and opportunity, third worlders will generally never deny multinationals entry into their country. Yes you get the occasional socialist takeovers who nationalize the businesses, but look at how that ends.

No they don't, because they are pressured into it, many times forced into it.

As for socialization, yeah what happens? Bolivia? Venezuela? which are doing pretty damn good.

Or Chile? Or Iran? Where the US comes in murders the democratic socialist government and puts in a disaster.

As for privatization, we see how that turns out, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Iceland, singapore and so on, how are things there?

Whoever responds to this thread seriously is an idiot (that goes to you, Rgacky3). I'm as fuck right now and this thread is hilarious. I never know a Conservative knew how to work a computer.

Well .... it IS the OI.

republican2

27th May 2011, 21:10

Its legalized theft.

It's technically not. At all. You just think it's not fair that people can hire someone to work on their property voluntarily and not be entitled to free land.

Its an objective fact that it did, making peoples lives easier restored the economy by stiulating the consumer economy, making production profitable, also unions by pulling the money down from the top into the working class and thus into the economy. Productivity in the US is huge now but because we have reaganite economics it does'nt enter the economy, it just stays at the top.

This is called the broken window fallacy. Our consumer spending was high because we were making extremely high wages because of our total monopoly on the world's industry, not because of social security or a few thousand jobs given to pave local roads. Also what do you mean by "reaganite economics"? Reagan simply lowered taxes—meaning people who earn money are entitled to keep more of it. Much of the money is actually being held by banks untouched, which is a separate issue entirely.

Before WW2 europes economy grow proportionate to its colonization.

After WW2, the europe we see now, is due to social-democracy.

Colonization often cost more money than it brought in, and would often run deficits (see America) and was not an indicator of wealth to a high degree (general inactivity of Germany et al. in the 20th century yet still many extremely wealthy countries).

No they don't, because they are pressured into it, many times forced into it.

Usually they oppose it on ideological grounds. Many dictators of the third world know that higher wages for their people will give them more influence and representation in government and thus do not want that; yet people are easily controlled by money and grudgingly invite the corporations in while crying about it.

As for socialization, yeah what happens? Bolivia? Venezuela? which are doing pretty damn good.

No. With the vast supply of oil Venezuela should easily be on par with Canada, yet their quality of life is very low and have a repressive government.

Or Chile? Or Iran? Where the US comes in murders the democratic socialist government and puts in a disaster.

Complete non sequitur.

As for privatization, we see how that turns out, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Iceland, singapore and so on, how are things there?

Different countries progress differently. Argentina, Chile and Mexico all still have higher GDP per capita than Venezuela and Bolivia though!

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 21:17

Straw man.

Many in the gay community did call for the destruction of marriage and family in the 1960s. Find various essays written by gay spokespersons and intellectuals of the time. Care to guess where slogans such as "Down with Patriarchy" come from? It hasn't been until recently which the gay community has taken a 180 and now support family — albeit for themselves.

''Down with Patriarchy" =/= "Down with Marriage and family"

I really don't even see any tenuous connection where you were able to make that leap of understanding.

By "Down with Patriarchy" they mean down with male privilege. 'Patriarchy' and 'Marriage' are not mutually inclusive concepts.

I think Marx said it best when in the communist manifesto he wrote something along the lines of:

''The claptrap of the bourgeoisie complaining about communists wanting to destroy the sanctity of the family unit is all the more hypocritical when you consider that they are destroying the family on a daily basis''. By which he is referring to the opportunities provided by capitalism for families to fail, such as the blood spilt on the battlefield or the adversity of poverty.

republican2

27th May 2011, 21:24

''Down with Patriarchy" =/= "Down with Marriage and family"

I really don't even see any tenuous connection where you were able to make that leap of understanding.

By "Down with Patriarchy" they mean down with male privilege. 'Patriarchy' and 'Marriage' are not mutually inclusive concepts.

Down with Patriarchy clearly symbolizes a restructuring of traditional family. But you are acting as if this was the sole term and slogan/mantra used by activists back then. Many hated family life in general; most essays and sociologists/other social science intellectuals were constantly calling for an end to marriage as a concept in general.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 21:28

Down with Patriarchy clearly symbolizes a restructuring of traditional family.
It symbolises a desire to end male privilege.

But you are acting as if this was the sole term and slogan/mantra used by activists back then. Many hated family life in general; most essays and sociologists/other social science intellectuals were constantly calling for an end to marriage as a concept in general.

The fact remains, just because something works for one group does not mean it should be the rule for everyone else. No one on the left or the gay rights community wants to remove the rights of people to pursue the 'traditional family' model. That right remaining in place does not require the removal or curtail of analogous rights for people of other sexual orientations.

RedSunRising

27th May 2011, 21:32

Down with Patriarchy clearly symbolizes a restructuring of traditional family

But not its destruction per se. Anyway capitalism seems brilliant at creating single parent families, doesnt it? While all Im asking is for women to have equal rights within the family, which actually strengthens it.

RedSunRising

27th May 2011, 21:35

Many in the gay community did call for the destruction of marriage and family in the 1960s. Find various essays written by gay spokespersons and intellectuals of the time. Care to guess where slogans such as "Down with Patriarchy" come from? It hasn't been until recently which the gay community has taken a 180 and now support family — albeit for themselves.

Some people for whatever reason are gay, I dont see how acknowledging that fact undermines hetreosexuality unless you are nervous about your own hetrosexuality. Plus internationally the left was right of middle class western liberals on gay rights in the 1960s and 70s, even in the 80s one of the largest Communist groups in the USA saw homosexuality as bourgeois decadence.

Property Is Robbery

27th May 2011, 21:38

I'm as fuck right now and this thread is hilarious.
Stoner :lol:

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 21:45

I'd invite the OP to watch Jeremy Kyle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZyJ27MtbQ) to witness first hand the sterling job that capitalist UK has done at defending the 'traditional family'.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 21:59

Is it just me or was the OP Stan Smith from American Dad?

iScCWS0jQfQ

☭The Revolution☭

27th May 2011, 22:18

I hate reactionary fuckheads like this guy.

#FF0000

27th May 2011, 22:26

I hate reactionary fuckheads like this guy.

What a useful post.

In an above post I acknowledged that Marx was not against traditional roles for a woman. So would you say feminists are on the right of the political spectrum then? The leftist counterculture in the 1960s was the driving force for the devaluation and antipathy towards family life, not Marx or Lenin themselves.

Source for this? Because no.

#FF0000

27th May 2011, 22:29

he was somewhat correct - women are better suited to taking care of young children than men.

i'm not saying women can't, or shouldn't work; that's just wrong. but it's also wrong to say that women and men are only different on a superficial level.

[citation needed]

#FF0000

27th May 2011, 22:30

How old is the "Traditional Family" by the way? What exactly is it and where has it existed?

tachosomoza

27th May 2011, 22:36

Whoever responds to this thread seriously is an idiot (that goes to you, Rgacky3). I'm as fuck right now and this thread is hilarious. I never know a Conservative knew how to work a computer.

Well, how do you think they run all the quality racist, reactionary forums such as VNN, Stormfront, Chimpout, etc.? :lol:

#FF0000

27th May 2011, 22:36

This guy isn't an overt troll yet. Just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 23:28

This guy isn't an overt troll yet. Just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes he is.

The source of the infestation has been discovered.

http://4chon.net/new/res/352180.html

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 23:33

Yes he is.

The source of the infestation has been discovered.

http://4chon.net/new/res/352180.html

This is in one of the users' signatures:

>Anarchist and Communist Technocrat forum (ACT)

Now I may be ignorant here, but I thought the whole idea of anarchism and communism is that there are no leaders, with the collective people being the leaders in communism. Why then is he a technocrat? Wouldn't that mean that there would be a ruling class? I thought communists hated ruling classes…

Because technocracy and the ruling class arent mutually inclusive you idiot.

Quite the contrary, the ruling class oppose technocracy because they want to maintain innefficient production means that maintain scarcity and value of produce. Technocracy is the 'rule of the skilled' ie. the working class, not the rule of 'the intellectually elite' whoever the fuck they are.

Try going into a library, they have things called 'books'.

gorillafuck

27th May 2011, 23:45

Because technocracy and the ruling class arent mutually inclusive you idiot.

Quite the contrary, the ruling class oppose technocracy because they want to maintain innefficient production means that maintain scarcity and value of produce. Technocracy is the 'rule of the skilled' ie. the working class, not the rule of 'the intellectually elite' whoever the fuck they are.

Try going into a library, they have things called 'books'.to be fair you're calling someone an idiot but nobody in the world has heard of technocracy.

Pirate Utopian

27th May 2011, 23:47

For whoever's time I've wasted please accept this image of Lady Rainicorn as an apology
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100901144945/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/9/9f/Rainicorn.jpg

Fuck yeah, I love Adventure Time.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 23:59

to be fair you're calling someone an idiot but nobody in the world has heard of technocracy.

with the exception of those that have.

Ok maybe i was being harsh but seriously, he should look into it before making jackass comments.

Anyone who makes and spreads unfounded assumptions about someones belief systems without researching is an idiot.

Leftsolidarity

28th May 2011, 00:05

to be fair you're calling someone an idiot but nobody in the world has heard of technocracy.

Except for a lot of people........

#FF0000

28th May 2011, 00:15

L.A.P.

28th May 2011, 00:29

Yes he is.

The source of the infestation has been discovered.

http://4chon.net/new/res/352180.html

I love how arrogant the 4chan users are, "hahahaha we sure showed those commie idiots who's boss by making troll accounts" being part of 4chan by virtue makes you a moron.

EDIT: I love the "they're fascists because they banned us on a forum wah wah wah my feelings are hurt" it's a forum for leftist, not an actual society or state so fucking deal with it.

They're also really bad at trolling. They're more of pissed off libertarians "trying to make a point" than actual 4chan users trying to be funny.

Leftsolidarity

28th May 2011, 00:36

Nah just because we know he's from the same place as some trolls doesn't mean he, too, is a troll.

As long as he's not a dick there's no reason he (or anyone else) can't hang around and discuss.

He (they) just need to keep in mind that a forum invasion doesn't really foster a healthy atmosphere for debate/discussion.

Agreed, as long as they stick to opposing ideologies and are chill they shouldn't be removed. It just gives them more to whine about if we do anyways.

gorillafuck

28th May 2011, 01:44

Except for a lot of people........No.

Revolution starts with U

28th May 2011, 01:58

I had heard about it, even before I came here.

Ele'ill

28th May 2011, 02:13

I find it odd that a republican would come into the space of their opposing ideologies- lounge on the sofa and, with an inappropriately smug grin, announce 'If any of you have questions, just ask me'.

You can't list your beliefs in relation to current events or historical events in a 500 page thread and neither can we- let's start by shooting the shit. What's bothering you these days as a republican- pick a topic- one. We'll start there. Ask what's bothering us. etc..

Realistic expectations of the conversation please.

thesadmafioso

28th May 2011, 02:22

Ele'ill

28th May 2011, 02:29

I think we should start the conversation surrounding a very popular topic of discussion, before anything else is discussed at all- Why this forum, revleft, only allows leftist discussion on the main board. I would like to talk about this because I don't believe those opposing this have any ground to stand on.

Tim Finnegan

28th May 2011, 02:53

to be fair you're calling someone an idiot but nobody in the world has heard of technocracy.
Sure they have.

http://cdn.7static.com/static/img/sleeveart/00/005/606/0000560667_350.jpg

Otherwise, yeah, not really.

republican2

28th May 2011, 03:11

Who's your horse in the GOP primaries and who do you think will get your party's nod?

I have my money on Pawlenty personally, though Romney and his superior fundraising abilities may be enough for him to survive the primaries.

Oh, and thoughts on a Palin candidacy?

This is the worst time in the GOP's history since probably the 60s. Unfortunately Romney is going to be the established 'chosen one', but Rick Perry said he would think about running, and he would make a strong candidate.

No chance on Palin.

republican2

28th May 2011, 03:14

thesadmafioso

28th May 2011, 03:23

This is the worst time in the GOP's history since probably the 60s. Unfortunately Romney is going to be the established 'chosen one', but Rick Perry said he would think about running, and he would make a strong candidate.

No chance on Palin.

Rick Perry has a questionable record in regards to national government though, even for a Republican. He is on the record as being strongly against going to Washington as a national politician, and I believe he has even made some vaguely pro Texan succession remarks.

Plus, it is quite late into the election season and he is without any real campaign infrastructure. I don't know if he would be able to establish a firm source of income for the campaign and build its foundation into a competitive state at this point in the game. There certainly is room in the race for a strong southern Republican governor though, that is without doubt.

As for Palin, I meant that more as a question of what she would do to the primaries. Obviously she stands very little chance of winning the GOP nomination, but it would certainly destroy the chances of a multitude of otherwise serious candidates by altering the narrative of the race dramatically.

bezdomni

28th May 2011, 03:25

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/files/dominion-img/hedgehog.JPG

republican2

28th May 2011, 03:35

Rick Perry has a questionable record in regards to national government though, even for a Republican. He is on the record as being strongly against going to Washington as a national politician, and I believe he has even made some vaguely pro Texan succession remarks.

Plus, it is quite late into the election season and he is without any real campaign infrastructure. I don't know if he would be able to establish a firm source of income for the campaign and build its foundation into a competitive state at this point in the game. There certainly is room in the race for a strong southern Republican governor though, that is without doubt.

As for Palin, I meant that more as a question of what she would do to the primaries. Obviously she stands very little chance of winning the GOP nomination, but it would certainly destroy the chances of a multitude of otherwise serious candidates by altering the narrative of the race dramatically.

The succession remarks seemed to me to simply be grandstanding to his constituents; it doesn't appear to me that it had any substance. We've also got to remember but Obama was relatively still small time this same time before the elections in 08.

Pawlenty might have a shot at winning the republican primaries though. He's also boring and uninspiring. Romney just comes across as sleazy, although I don't disagree with that much of his politics.

There's virtually no way Obama can lose 2012.

bezdomni

28th May 2011, 03:37

Romney just comes across as sleazy, although I don't disagree with that much of his politics.

How telling.

Ele'ill

28th May 2011, 04:07

Well seeing as how I haven't seen any republicans posting on this subforum I thought it would be slightly unique.

Really? How long have you looked?

What's bothering me? Mainly cultural Marxism.

What about it? Here on the forum?

What's bothering you?

The most recent has been the lack of solidarity due to tactics.

MagÃ³n

28th May 2011, 04:32

What's with the "Ask a *insert whatever* anything", threads lately? They're sort of becoming the "*Insert whatever*, and how do we fight it", threads.

Revolution starts with U

28th May 2011, 04:42

What is "cultural marxism?"

ComradeGrant

28th May 2011, 04:42

We're being trolled by ignorant idiots who think we call for an end for individuality and a brutal dictatorship. Seriously who cares about this? I'm going to continue trying to avoid these morons and silently hope that this thread quietly goes away.

thesadmafioso

28th May 2011, 05:06

The succession remarks seemed to me to simply be grandstanding to his constituents; it doesn't appear to me that it had any substance. We've also got to remember but Obama was relatively still small time this same time before the elections in 08.

Pawlenty might have a shot at winning the republican primaries though. He's also boring and uninspiring. Romney just comes across as sleazy, although I don't disagree with that much of his politics.

There's virtually no way Obama can lose 2012.

You are likely right with the grandstanding bit, but that doesn't mean that it still won't come back to haunt him in some of the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Obama was relatively unknown at this point, but he still had a loyal base of supporters within the more liberal wing of the democratic party and he was putting a great deal of effort into the establishment of his campaigns framework. He was essentially in a powerful position from which to mount an insurgent campaign against the front runner, Hillary. I don't know if Perry can be said to be in a comparable state of readiness. Though the GOP and its candidate nomination process does vary considerably from that of the Democratic party, so it is somewhat difficult to make an exact comparison between the two at this point in time.

As for Pawlenty, I think that is his strongest trait in this race. The fact that he is without any substantial political baggage makes him a safe compromise choice, the sort of candidate who may very well emerge as the anti Romney in the race, presuming someone like Palin does not enter and throw the entire contest into complete disarray.

But yeah, the President is essentially assured another 4 years with this current field. Unless the economy were to fall into absolute disrepair, there really isn't much for the GOP to make political headway with in the areas where they need to. The tea party branch of the party isn't exactly helping to broaden their generic appeal either.

Catmatic Leftist

28th May 2011, 05:07

The only reason the 4chan morons are coming back is because we're making it fun for them...

RGacky3

28th May 2011, 10:54

It's technically not. At all. You just think it's not fair that people can hire someone to work on their property voluntarily and not be entitled to free land.

Its not "their property" other than the fact that they have a deed, that type of property is legalized theft.

This is called the broken window fallacy. Our consumer spending was high because we were making extremely high wages because of our total monopoly on the world's industry, not because of social security or a few thousand jobs given to pave local roads. Also what do you mean by "reaganite economics"? Reagan simply lowered taxes—meaning people who earn money are entitled to keep more of it. Much of the money is actually being held by banks untouched, which is a separate issue entirely.

The UK controlled 1/4th of the worlds population and land at one point, yet there was terrible poverty in the UK, so there is no connection there, you have to FORCE the money down, it won't just trickle down.

Consumer spending was high because people had jobs, they spent money, and thus created more jobs, social security kept seniors out of poverty which meant they spend money, and created more jobs, and Unions which pulled money from the top and down, and lowerd working time, making space for more jobs, and thus more spending and more jobs, and so on and so forth, having a monopoly on the world economy does'nt mean anything unless the money goes down.

Reagen deregulated the markets, he lowered taxes (but ended up raising them, specifically on the poor to make them more "flat"), and he beat down the unions and privatized a lot of state institutions, and after that every economic crisis has gotten worse because every president post then has followed suit (due to the corporate power that was gotten during that time period).

You need to learn some economics buddy.

Colonization often cost more money than it brought in, and would often run deficits (see America) and was not an indicator of wealth to a high degree (general inactivity of Germany et al. in the 20th century yet still many extremely wealthy countries).

Government money does'nt matter, thats the peoples money, what matters is corporate profits (the real rules of the US).

Germany got that wealth through very very strong social democratic practices, for example board rooms with companies over 50 employees must have half the members be from labor.

Usually they oppose it on ideological grounds. Many dictators of the third world know that higher wages for their people will give them more influence and representation in government and thus do not want that; yet people are easily controlled by money and grudgingly invite the corporations in while crying about it.

Most of the third world is'nt run by dictators first off, most of those countries are forced into high interest loans, and then blackmailed into opening their markets, many of those leaders amass a lot of personal wealth from opening the markets as well, as well as securing financial support for their regeims, hey its full free market capitalism buddy, your favorate.

Thats what happens when Capitalism takes over democracy.

No. With the vast supply of oil Venezuela should easily be on par with Canada, yet their quality of life is very low and have a repressive government.

Because of decades of imperialistic control and neo-liberal policies, after they abanded free market capitalism poverty dropped tremendously, and living standerds went up tremendously, also their government is no more "repressive" than the US (who tried to over throw Chavez and put into military junta btw).

Complete non sequitur.

Not really, just emprical evidence on how market ecnomies (i.e. corporate control) are forced on countries, to the detriment of democracy.

Different countries progress differently. Argentina, Chile and Mexico all still have higher GDP per capita than Venezuela and Bolivia though!

Argentina and Chile saw their economies COLLAPSE and get destroyed after implimenting free market capitalism, so did Iceland, Venezeula and Bolivia have seen their economies grow and living standards go way up.

GTD per capita does'nt mean shit though, what matters is living standards, and poverty levels. if you have a country that has more wealth than another but the top .1% control almost all of it, it does'nt really help the people does it, the other country where people live better is the one with the system that works.