Left or Right Cappies?

[bed_of_nails]

I have a question for you Cappies who post here...

Are you more Left-Wing or Right-Wing? I see a few of you seem to be on the more liberal side of the fence, but I was wondering how many of you side where.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

According to the political compass I'm a moderate liberal in terms of economics and a Centrist when it comes to social issues. I've always considered myself to be a moderate conservative. It depends on the issue I guess...

To loosely quote Charles de Gaulle.. "I am niether left, nor right, and definitely not centre... I am above."

[kidicarus20]

The question answers itself, all capitalists are on the hard right and are ultra-conservative. Some may have apparent "liberal" views on things like abortion or the death penalty, but these fall within the frame work of indoctrination and the "allowed" political ideology set fourth by Republicans. In the "state religion," "left" means for abortion and "right" means against it, this is seriously American "politics" (I put politics in quotes just as how american "news" should be in quotes). Fascism, Capitalism, etc. are all right-wing ideologies if you go by political scientists' viewpoints on the subject.

I don't think rightists should be allowed to control the political scale anymore than they already do.

[DarthBob]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:43 AM
The question answers itself, all capitalists are on the hard right and are ultra-conservative. Some may have apparent "liberal" views on things like abortion or the death penalty, but these fall within the frame work of indoctrination and the "allowed" political ideology set fourth by Republicans. In the "state religion," "left" means for abortion and "right" means against it, this is seriously American "politics" (I put politics in quotes just as how american "news" should be in quotes). Fascism, Capitalism, etc. are all right-wing ideologies if you go by political scientists' viewpoints on the subject.

I don't think rightists should be allowed to control the political scale anymore than they already do.
Tell me, is an Anarcho-Capitalist in the style of say, Ayn Rand really the same as a neo-con in the style of George Bush? Sure I may disagree with both of them, but they represent two different styles of capitalism. The Anarcho-Capitalist view allows the market to work on its own with no governmental interference, whereas, the neo-conservative view includes large amounts of corporate welfare. Both of these obviously still exploit workers, but are still completely different philosophies.

[Guest1]

Not fundamentally, no. The same class is still in charge, the same mechanisms are still used to keep it in charge.

All that has changed is instead of george bush pretending you can vote for or against him and choose the guy controlling the armies, ayn rand decides to take that illusion away and put control of the armies firmly in the hands of the highest bidder. Got a problem with the war? Buy the military and stop it. Got a problem with your health? Buy yourself some oxygen. Everything is up for grabs everyone!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's arguable that in practice, capitalism relies on the coercive and violent power of the state to sustain it, so that so-called "anarcho"-capitalism (what the fuck?) is simply a practical absurdity, assuring the rise of either socailism or barbarism.

[DarthBob]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2005, 04:12 AM
Not fundamentally, no. The same class is still in charge, the same mechanisms are still used to keep it in charge.
But they are still different in the way that say Stalinism and Anarcho-Socialism are different. While fundamentally, they may claim the same ideals, they have highly different ideas of how those ideals are implemented.


It's arguable that in practice, capitalism relies on the coercive and violent power of the state to sustain it, so that so-called "anarcho"-capitalism (what the fuck?) is simply a practical absurdity, assuring the rise of either socailism or barbarism.

Yes, Anarcho-Capitalism is a real philosophy (ironically more people I know say what the fuck when i talk about Anarcho-Socialism than when I talk about Anarcho-Capitalism). And yes I think it is a practical absurdity the same as I think of all forms of Anarchy, they assume that humans in the end are nicer people then we really are.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:36 AM
(ironically more people I know say what the fuck when i talk about Anarcho-Socialism than when I talk about Anarcho-Capitalism). And yes I think it is a practical absurdity the same as I think of all forms of Anarchy, they assume that humans in the end are nicer people then we really are.
That's cause you live in mindfuck-america, where everything wrestling is treated and discussed more deeply than politics, particularly radical politics.

"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't just practically impossible, it is theoretically as well. Simply because all Anarchism is anti-capitalist.

As for assuming people are nicer than we really are, if you don't trust people, why would you give them power and authority over everyone else? Your argument is an argument not to trust humanity with power over others. In otherwords, an argument for anarchism.

[DarthBob]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2005, 05:03 AM
[1]That's cause you live in mindfuck-america, where everything wrestling is treated and discussed more deeply than politics, particularly radical politics.

[2]"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't just practically impossible, it is theoretically as well. Simply because all Anarchism is anti-capitalist.

[3]As for assuming people are nicer than we really are, if you don't trust people, why would you give them power and authority over everyone else? Your argument is an argument not to trust humanity with power over others. In otherwords, an argument for anarchism.
[1]Eh? I talk to more than just Americans. Canadians, Belgians, Brits, etc. While a number of them did now what it what it was, many did not and I had to explain both ideas to them.

[2]No that is your point of view. Anarchy can just mean "absence of government" and indeed that is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. Therefore it can exist is both a capitalist and a socialist state.

[3]Then tell me why would I be less vulnerable to exploitation in an anarchic society? Government's purpose is to protect against exploitation, and, while a direct democracy would be the preferable way to do this, a representative system where the representative at least has partial accountability is the only feasible alternative at the moment.

[Guest1]

You see, your definitions are all messed up.

Do you study quantum mechanics with a dictionary? No? Then a dictionary is not a serious source for intelligent people.

Anarchy is an-archy, the abolition or absence of hierarchy. A boss, who owns everything you produce and doesn't give you the rights to the fruits of your own labour, is hierarchal. So that's not a structure compatible with Anarchism.

It is not you who gets to define anarchism, it is anarchists who get to define anarchism, and all of them are socialists, and consider anarchism to be socialist in all of its forms.

As to being vulnerable, Anarchism is direct democracy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What we have now may as well be called anarcho-capitalism.
The government was put in place according to the needs of the capitalist class. Had they been in the liberty to do what they wanted to do (anarcho-capitalism) they would have done what they did, hence the result. The "restrictions" that the governments places against corporations (1) fools the public into believing that the government is in their hands and (2) thus maintains the capitalists in charge by preventing rebellion. It works for them by apparently working against them.

Furthermore, the American political spectrum is part of this evil bourgeois agenda (=D) to coerce the people into believing that they have control over their government and they're not all in the hands of a handful of old white dudes who share a corrupt economic agenda.

[red_orchestra]

I come from a Marxist Socialist political background. In my opinion Anarchy is truely against any form of Government control--- so forget tying to merge Anarchy with any type of political system...that has a Government attached to it. <_<

[DarthBob]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2005, 06:19 AM
It is not you who gets to define anarchism, it is anarchists who get to define anarchism, and all of them are socialists, and consider anarchism to be socialist in all of its forms.


I am not attempting to define anarchy. The people who call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists believe themselves to be anarchists and thus according to what you say can define anarchy too. Both may claim to be the "true anarchists," but how do you determine who is? I my opinion you don&#39;t. I see it as as a social system (or lack thereof) not as an economic system. So either of the two economic systems maybe applied to it.


What we have now may as well be called anarcho-capitalism.

Impossible, a government cannot exist in an Anarchy. In addition none of the corporate welfare where the government gives favours to certain companies happens either. Lastly, there wouldn&#39;t be a debate about gay marriage at all because state-sanctioned marriage wouldn&#39;t exist in an anarchy.


I come from a Marxist Socialist political background. In my opinion Anarchy is truely against any form of Government control--- so forget tying to merge Anarchy with any type of political system...that has a Government attached to it.

Um, no duh an = without archy = government or ruler. Capitalism and Socialism are not political systems but economic systems. Marxist Socialism would be a political system, but socialism can be considered separately of its political connotations.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:01 PM
The people who call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists call themselves anarchists and thus according to what you say can define anarchy too. Both may claim to be the "true anarchists," but how do you determine who is? I my opinion you don&#39;t. I see economic system.
So if I claim that I&#39;m a cappie I can also decide what capitalism is?

Weird

[DarthBob]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Apr 15 2005, 10:22 PM--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ Apr 15 2005, 10:22 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 10:01 PM
The people who call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists call themselves anarchists and thus according to what you say can define anarchy too. Both may claim to be the "true anarchists," but how do you determine who is? I my opinion you don&#39;t. I see economic system.
So if I claim that I&#39;m a cappie I can also decide what capitalism is?

Weird [/b]
Erm no. First off part of my post got cut off somehow. Anarchy is the absence of government that all anarchists agree on. I&#39;m talking about Che y Marijuana&#39;s attempt to define Anarchy as only being Anarcho-Socialism, which I believe is a very narrow minded view akin to someone saying Roman Catholicism is the only form of Christianity.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:01 PM
Impossible, a government cannot exist in an Anarchy. In addition none of the corporate welfare where the government gives favours to certain companies happens either. Lastly, there wouldn&#39;t be a debate about gay marriage at all because state-sanctioned marriage wouldn&#39;t exist in an anarchy.
You&#39;re not thinking.
Nor are you comprehending what you&#39;re reading.

If the defining principle of anarchy is freedom from oligarchic authority, then anarchy cannot exist with capitalism either, can it?

If capitalism is rule by the owners of capital, and the said owners of capital rule with no confines by the opposition (capitalists and capitalists alone wield power over society, including their government), then what we have is an economic anarchy of capitalism.

Anarchy means freedom from authority, which is the same thing as freedom. What we have today is freedom of capital. Capitalists enjoy the freedom to own capital and by doing so holding power over society. This is a freedom that involves oppression and will not exist in socialism.

I also think I should point out that I&#39;m not an anarchist.

[bed_of_nails]

Why&#39;d you guys ruin my post? :(

I just was wanting to know how the Cappies here saw themselves, everything else that has been written in this thread is the same old song and dance that can be seen in hundreds of other threads around here.

Please, take into concideration the intent of the thread before going off on tangents about such things. I realize that most of the Cappies on this board seem to be from America, where "Right Wing" is Republican, and "Left Wing" is Democratic. Communists are seen as so far left wing, that they have fallen off of the platform. I was hoping to get some answers in American/Capitalist terminology.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:34 PM
Erm no. First off part of my post got cut off somehow. Anarchy is the absence of government that all anarchists agree on. I&#39;m talking about Che y Marijuana&#39;s attempt to define Anarchy as only being Anarcho-Socialism, which I believe is a very narrow minded view akin to someone saying Roman Catholicism is the only form of Christianity.
Oops. My mistake. I was pointing that out because I found it weird.

However, there&#39;s something wrong here. Anarcho-capitalists claim to be anarchists, but because they tend to understand anarchy as "no government", which is actually "no state". The problem with this is that they claim that in a employer-employee relationship the employer/owner/boss/bourgeois&#39;s authority is justified and they consider it to be legitimate and consensual. The same thing about private property: they consider it "legitimate", although SOME of them DO recognize that many times it was created through coercion, which they oppose. And they consider that in a "anarcho-socialist" society they are opressed by the "masses", because of all their love for "economical freedom", which in many cases, means that they end up having authority and support a questionable relationship between the worker and his boss, claiming that it&#39;s "anarchy".

[t_wolves_fan]

I&#39;m a centrist. I&#39;m not sure my beliefs can be categorized very well on the spectrum because on some things (social issues) I am libertarian-leaning while on others (economic issues) I am left-leaning.

A friend told me the other day that I&#39;m a Reagan Democrat.

So there you go.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you&#39;re economically and socially liberal, then you&#39;re not a Reagan Democrat, you&#39;re just a democrat.

[Matthew The Great]

Unless he was a democrat who thought Reagan would be better for America than Jimmy Carter.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:51 PM
If you&#39;re economically and socially liberal, then you&#39;re not a Reagan Democrat, you&#39;re just a democrat.
I used to be a Democrat, but I got tired of hearing how every problem on earth was the fault of the white man, and how any disagreement with that belief made one a racist, sexist, pig.

[Jersey Devil]

It seems to me that far to many people vote on the basis of superficial "moral issues" instead of relevant ones. Congress is currently discussing the nuclear option, the bankruptcy bill, the estate tax, etc... yet the Republicans campaign focused on irrelevant "moral issues". Why people consider it important boggles the mind. I would bet that the same people that consider those issues "important" are the same pack that believes 24 hour coverage of the Michael Jackson trial is "news".

The most troubling thing about this is that many times these very same people vote against their own interest in favor of say "gay marriage" rhetoric. For instance let&#39;s take the aforementioned bankruptcy bill issue. The bankruptcy bill was created and backed by credit card companies in order to force Chapter 13 (repayment plan) instead of Chapter 7 (liquidation of assets) for people that make above their state&#39;s median income. It also still has loopholes that have gone unfixed by legislators that let affluent individuals that are up for bankruptcy have their money secured in certain trust funds.

Here is the 2000-2002 median income statistics for individual states (most recent I could find):

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/statemhi.html

Alabama 36,771
North Dakota 36,717
Tennessee 36,329
Oklahoma 35,500
New Mexico 35,251
Montana 33,900
Louisiana 33,312
Mississippi 32,447
Arkansas 32,423
West Virginia 30,072
---------------------------------
All of the states metioned above went for Bush in &#39;04, yet it seems that the people are indeed voting against their own interests as the Republicans has heavily backed this piece of legislation and President Bush has already said he would sign it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 19 2005, 12:35 PM
It seems to me that more people vote on the basis of superficial "moral issues" instead of relevant ones. Congress is currently discussing the nuclear option, the bankruptcy bill, the estate tax, etc... yet the Republicans campaign focused on irrelevant "moral issues". Why people consider it important boggles the mind. I would bet that the same people that consider those issues "important" are the same pack that believes 24 hour coverage of the Michael Jackson trial is "news".
Charles Krauthammer brilliantly exploded the myth you still live under, as evidenced by your last post:

http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american...ntial_election/ (http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2004_presidential_election/)

Charles Krauthammer, "&#39;Moral Values&#39; Myth," 11/12/04

In Krauthammer&#39;s opinion, the "liberal elite" has gone off the deep end in reaction to Kerry&#39;s defeat:

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of the New York Times -- Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to "isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism" in their unfailing drive to "summon our nasty devils."

He then asks

With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical voter rest?

Krauthammer&#39;s answer is the question in the election day exit poll that asks "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?"

"Moral values" ranked first, with a 22 percent share. However, if the possible answers are grouped into foreign policy issues (Iraq, terrorism), economic issues (education, taxes, health care, economy and jobs), and moral values, the issue that the "liberal elite" latched onto came in dead last.

Krauthammer then identifies the liberals&#39; fallback position: the gay marriage referendums. He refutes this refuse:

George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

He concludes with this:

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals and infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and they cannot have it cut off by mere facts. Once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

[Jersey Devil]

A blog by some pseudo-intellectual that uses terms like "blue-state media" and "liberal elite"? At least use something by the conservative intelligentsia. They most certainly do not resort to the rhetoric and bashing used by the neanderthals from both sides.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A
You know t_wolves_fan, I&#39;ve never blamed "white men" for the fundamental problems of class society, and nobody has ever accused me of being a racist, sexist, pig . . . did you ever consider the posibility that, in reality, you just happen to be a racist, sexist, pig?
I mean, you might cloak it less explosive language - but at heart, you might share something in common with the absurd charictures of "Bigoted Christian Redneck[s]"?

B
UG. Enough =of this liberal media crap - just because the media isn&#39;t goose-stepping along with the current reactionary ultra-right currents in America does not make them liberal by any reasonable standard. It simply makes them less-conservative. Ooooh - scary. That said, even if I were wrong I still don&#39;t understand the link between the "liberal"-capitalist media and the left . . .

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 20 2005, 05:47 AM
did you ever consider the posibility that, in reality, you just happen to be a racist, sexist, pig?
I mean, you might cloak it less explosive language - but at heart, you might share something in common with the absurd charictures of "Bigoted Christian Redneck[s]"?


No, I&#39;ve never considered myself a racist, sexist pig because I know for a fact that I am not.

I work with mostly African Americans. If I were racist, I&#39;d be pretty miserable. I have many minority friends.

Both groups (friends and colleagues) I treat exactly the same. I could care less what color you are or where your family came from, or what God you do or do not worship. As long as you are fun, honest, and hate the University of Michigan, then you have my respect. I like all my coworkers - almost all are very capable. When they screw up my belief is never that they did so because they&#39;re black or because they&#39;re female, I figure they either screw up because they&#39;re individually stupid (and some are) or because they made a mistake, as I tend to do.

I take interest in other cultures. I&#39;m a big fan of learning about them. But I do not consider culture, race, or gender relevant when a person behaves poorly. I do not consider anyone&#39;s race to be an excuse when they are caught selling drugs or when they have 3 illegitimate children they cannot afford to raise. White, black, Hindu, Jewish, male, female, such behavior to me is stupid and is not to be excused.

Frankly I find the hard-core left to be the definition of racism and sexism. Right-wing racism is based simply on stupidity and fear - people like that are easy to dismiss as morons. The left&#39;s racism is much more sinister in my book. This belief that your side has that minorities cannot possibly succeed, and therefore must rely on you to "save them" (white man&#39;s burden, anyone?) through paternalistic government programs is frankly disgusting. This belief that negative pathologies should be excused away based on a person&#39;s skin color is disgusting because it does nothing to help them. It&#39;s like saying, "Don&#39;t worry, you&#39;re black, you don&#39;t know any better." Talk about insulting someone&#39;s intelligence solely because of their skin color&#33;

The worst part is the indescribably racist attitude that any minority, especially an African American, who dares escape the plantation of leftist thought is to be labeled or branded an "Uncle Tom", "House Negro", or a "traitor to one&#39;s race". Do you not consider it racist to have this expectation that all members of one race must think a certain way or there is something wrong with them? Talk about stereotyping and making generalizations&#33; That&#39;s the very fucking definition of both of those terms&#33; How can we label a black conservative an "uncle tom"? We know nothing about that person other than his skin color. Maybe his parents were very conservative. Maybe they succeeded without government help and taught him to do the same, and his family was successful. How can you not expect him to lean Repubilcan? Why do you demand that he vote a certain way and think a certain way simply because of his skin color?

That&#39;s fucking racist.

[truthaddict11]

I now consider myself a right of center libertarian

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:33 PM
I now consider myself a right of center libertarian
That&#39;s because you&#39;re a fucking idiot&#33;

[1936]

Think about it. In a system that you have to do anything to limb above anyone you can by any means neccsery surley predjudice will be ripe.

[bed_of_nails]

I see you dont discriminate against the majority of minorities/genders t_wolves_fan... But do you discriminate against plaid people and androgenous beings?

[Jersey Devil]

TWF, you has still failed to answer my question regarding Republicans using moral issues to sway southern blue-collar voters while on economic issues favoring those policies that are against their interests. I am sorry, but some biased article by some pseudo-intellectual that claims there is a "vast left-wing conspiracy" is not a valid argument. It&#39;s not just the bankruptcy bill either, look at the estate tax. It effects less then 1% of the population yet the Republicans are determined to revoke it. Does this favor southern bull-collar workers that will eventually have to pay this via cut social programs? I do not believe so.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:17 AM
I see you dont discriminate against the majority of minorities/genders t_wolves_fan... But do you discriminate against plaid people and androgenous beings?
Um, I haven&#39;t met any of those folks, so definitely not.

[t_wolves_fan]

TWF, you has still failed to answer my question regarding Republicans using moral issues to sway southern blue-collar voters while on economic issues favoring those policies that are against their interests. I am sorry, but some biased article by some pseudo-intellectual that claims there is a "vast left-wing conspiracy" is not a valid argument.

Actually it&#39;s my fault for not posting the actual article in favor of a snippet, but that&#39;s all I could find during a fast search.

Krauthammer refuted the notion that Bush won because of "moral" issues by simply looking at the numbers. Based on the exit polls, had we added up the "economic" issues like taxes, education, spending, etc. and the "security" issues - basically the war on terror and Iraq, then "moral issues" was a distant third. Besides, think about it, isn&#39;t "moral issues" the easiest answer to give? I mean maybe someone considers it "moral" to bring democract to Iraq and to cut taxes. All three issues would be "important" to them but "moral issues" covers it all so that&#39;s what they pick.

Second, Krauthammer showed that Bush actually did better in states vis-a-vis 2000 that did not have anti-gay marriage initiatives on their ballots than he did in states that did have those initiatives. For instance he improved his results more in Massachusetts than he did Ohio, yet it was Ohio that had an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.

Basically, the notion that 2004 was won by people voting on "moral issues" is flawed, yet because of the un-analyzed results of that one exit poll, we had liberal columnists bemoaning the idea that biblethumpers won the election for Bush.

"It&#39;s not just the bankruptcy bill either, look at the estate tax. It effects less then 1% of the population yet the Republicans are determined to revoke it. Does this favor southern bull-collar workers that will eventually have to pay this via cut social programs? I do not believe so."

Interesting you bring up the estate tax. Right now I am reading Fast Food Nation, which hardly supports conservatives, corporations, or Republicans. Even the author of that book noted that estate taxes were hurting Colorado farmers who were NOT incredibly wealthy.

Does repealing the death tax help poor southerners? No, probably not. While I support the elimination of the tax, I do not support Bush&#39;s tax cuts nor his economic policies that obviously favor the rich and corporations over the poor. I&#39;m also not a southerner, so I can&#39;t speak for them. However, if I were a southerner I think I could understand the unwillingness to vote Democrat even with the litany of programs they would like to offer me to help my bottom line because think of it, would you vote for a party that mocks your beliefs while at the same time offering handouts? Everyone tends to be suspicious of people like that.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2005, 05:03 AM
not to trust humanity with power over others.
Yet you want all communistic power to go into the hands of people.............

Wow, youre a genius.

Oh sorry, not genius, hypocrite. ;)

[Frederick_Engles]

The workers will have power over themselves, I beleive he said power "over others".
Now who&#39;s the hypocrite? :rolleyes: