Log in

View Full Version : My Views



Anti-Red
10th July 2006, 06:39
Since I am new to communist forum or whatever you reds call it. I would like to discuss my views and such. I am not a communist and anti-communist, and right-wing, but not what all right-wingers believe, I call myself a right-wing populist with libertarian leanings. I have ten things I'm for and against.

WHAT I'M FOR: 1) Labor unionism, 2) Low taxes, 3) Capital punishment, 4) Gay rights, 5) Social Security privitization, 6) Cheaper healthcare, 7) Moderate environmentalism, 8) Making government smaller, 9) More personal freedom, 10) Youth rights

WHAT I'M AGAINST: 1) The War, 2) "Free" trade, 3) Illegal immigration, 4) Gun control, 5) Censorship, 6) War on Drugs, 7) Us always bailing out Israel or some other country, 8) No Child Left Behind, 9) Patriot Acts, 10) Communism

theraven
10th July 2006, 08:31
I ageee with 1-9 of your agreement, but waht do you mean by youth rights?

I agree with 3 5 8 and 10 on your against list but what is wrong with free trade?

R_P_A_S
10th July 2006, 08:39
Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 10 2006, 03:40 AM
Since I am new to communist forum or whatever you reds call it. I would like to discuss my views and such. I am not a communist and anti-communist, and right-wing, but not what all right-wingers believe, I call myself a right-wing populist with libertarian leanings. I have ten things I'm for and against.

WHAT I'M FOR: 1) Labor unionism, 2) Low taxes, 3) Capital punishment, 4) Gay rights, 5) Social Security privitization, 6) Cheaper healthcare, 7) Moderate environmentalism, 8) Making government smaller, 9) More personal freedom, 10) Youth rights

WHAT I'M AGAINST: 1) The War, 2) "Free" trade, 3) Illegal immigration, 4) Gun control, 5) Censorship, 6) War on Drugs, 7) Us always bailing out Israel or some other country, 8) No Child Left Behind, 9) Patriot Acts, 10) Communism
no child left behind is a piece of shit. you are right on that one!

spanishinquisition
10th July 2006, 08:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:32 AM
I ageee with 1-9 of your agreement, but waht do you mean by youth rights?

I agree with 3 5 8 and 10 on your against list but what is wrong with free trade?
ya, whats wrong with free trade?

Everything else is good though :)

Delta
10th July 2006, 09:37
Why do you say you're against communism? The other things you're against are single issues, so this one sticks out. And what do you mean by moderate environmentalism? Do you mean that the environment should be protected from destruction if it doesn't take away too much profit from the ruling class?

red team
10th July 2006, 09:49
There's many definitions of "Communism" not all of them workable or desirable.

What we have is structural failure which any system can suffer from.

As long as manual labour needs to be paid with debts, inequality of wealth, corruption, unemployment, waste, intentional waste and scarcity, pollution and other problems will occur.

Now whether or not we have reached the stage in technical development in which Technocracy (http://www.technocracy.ca) can be implemented that doesn't rely on paying people with debt notes to perform labour is debatable, but that our present economic system relies on exchanges of fictitious pieces of confidence tokens to motivate people to perform work is a fact.

Janus
10th July 2006, 09:56
And what do you mean by moderate environmentalism?
I think he means sustainable development as opposed to primitivism?

bombeverything
10th July 2006, 11:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:57 AM
I think he means sustainable development as opposed to primitivism?

Or perhaps "sustainable development" without eliminating capitalism?

Si Pinto
10th July 2006, 13:47
1) Labor unionism

Why? Why not just pay people what they deserve anyway?

If your really pro-unionist, I presume you have an interest in workers rights?

Well I can't think of a better workers right than getting paid properly can you?


2) Low taxes

Ahh! The old bourgeois opium, lower taxes.

Only really beneficial to those with enough wages to make it worth their while.

What does a person earning 50p a week making your sportswear care for lower taxes?

Perhaps you'll explain how your going to pay for your 'moderate' enviromentalism and your cheaper health care.


3) Capital punishment,[/b]

Is criminal detection always absolutely accurate?

No.

So how can you advocate an 'absolute' punishment?


4) Gay rights

Can't argue with that.


) Social Security privitization

Why? Surely it is the elected governments responsibility to ensure all of it's citzens has the basic means of survival?

Why put it in the hands of private firms who have to make a profit?

Your advocating making an 'enterprise' out of basic human requirements.


6) Cheaper healthcare,

Why should you have to 'pay to live'? Why not provide free healthcare? Again I'll make the point that it is surely a governments duty to ensure the health and welfare of all of it's citizens? Not just those who can afford it.


7) Moderate environmentalism

I can see there has already been debate as to what you actually mean by this so perhaps you would explain.


8) Making government smaller

For what purpose? A government should be the exact size it needs to be, to be able to fulfill all of it's roles.

Advocating a 'smaller' government is fine, as long as it is capable of doing it's job 100%.

Are you simply thinking about saving your money?


9) More personal freedom

I'd like to know what you think 'personal freedoms' are?

Personally, I think not starving to death, basic education, free healthcare, clean environment and not being shat on by people trying to make as much money as they can from your labours are basic personal freedoms, don't you?


10) Youth rights

Why not just 'everyones rights'?

I'll talk about 'what your against' some other time.

Dean
13th July 2006, 06:22
Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 10 2006, 03:40 AM
Since I am new to communist forum or whatever you reds...
Libertarianism and capitalism are inherantly opposed to each other, because as you will hear the nature of capitalism is to make classes which limit the freedoms of other classes.

Labor unionism is one of the few economic activities which can allow the worker or otherwise dispossed class to stand up to authority. Of course, supporting it implies supporting its economic activity however, which is strange for a so - called "libertarian."

I can't really arge about taxes except in regard to the nature of a given society, though currenty taxes need to be comparably levelled, though overhauled.

Capital punishment is an awful sin to any kind of humanism. To claim that a man must die is one thing, perhaps based on economic conditions and his ability to kill others lest he be killed, but to say that life in prison is not enough is to go beyond security and enter into destructiveness and necrophilia.

Gay rights are certainly logical.

Social security should be left the way it is, or strenghtened, not prifvatized and then systematically destroyed.

Free healthcare is better.

Moderate environmentalism seems to imply that some things should be regulated (nuclear waste or poisonous emissions?) but that going so far as to say "a crime against the environment today is a crime against the environment of our children" is to go too far. I have to agree with the latter, but I concede that this is a hazy issue at times.

Smaller government is something I support, but probably not in the same sense.

9&10 seem to make sense.

---
I assume that by "free" trade you mean a government with capitalism? I can't agree with either a truly uncontrolled, unequal economy or capitalism with regulation.

Illegalization of immigration is a claim on property in order to support certain selfish ends. I support the right to go to and from the borders of countries.

Gun control has positive and negative effects, though I think that without the presence of another crime, individual gun ownership is not bad.

I agree that a war on drugs that includes authority is bad, but I think that steps should be made to encourage a drugless lifestlye.

Israel is largely under our (U.S.) control, so I think our country should systematically withdraw support in oder to encourage their activites to be more humanistic while still maintaining order in the region, because thye have created a culture of religious hatred that cannot be ignored.

NCLB is bad, Patriot acts eat away or freedoms, but communism is an honorable end which should be supported; it is the very nature of a free society to be communist.


I think you will find that capitalism is not a great supporter of freedom. Adam smith said that we ought to be wary of businessmen, and recent capitalist supporters have often changed course upon realizing that capitalism creates a governing class that controls many aspects of social life.

Anti-Red
13th July 2006, 21:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:23 AM
Adam smith said that we ought to be wary of businessmen, and recent capitalist supporters have often changed course upon realizing that capitalism creates a governing class that controls many aspects of social life.
I like Adam Smith and believe he represents the true capitalism. I don't think the same about our current system.

Zingu
13th July 2006, 23:43
Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 13 2006, 06:19 PM

I like Adam Smith and believe he represents the true capitalism. I don't think the same about our current system.
"True" Capitalism, what is that does that mean? Theres probably 20 "true" capitalisms out there.


You're using a ideological definition of "capitalism", bear in mind when talking to Marxists, we use a material definition of capitalism, how it concretely works (the exploitation of wage labor for the production of capital).

Thats why we Marxists see things dialectically (please, don't start this dead horse again), you're stuck in this metaphysical idea of an idealized system, unable to understand that systems, such as capitalism evolves into new forms depending on material relations.

Ideology is moot. <_<

Goatse
14th July 2006, 00:11
Why do you claim to be for gay rights, yet use the word "fag" offensively?

Dr. Rosenpenis
14th July 2006, 01:27
Originally posted by bombeverything+Jul 10 2006, 03:12 AM--> (bombeverything @ Jul 10 2006, 03:12 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 06:57 AM
I think he means sustainable development as opposed to primitivism?

Or perhaps "sustainable development" without eliminating capitalism? [/b]
Why are you anarchists so dumb?
Capitalism requires a compromise of the environment no greater than any other industrialized society.
If the society you envision puts the environment ahead of human development, you might wanna know that it&#39;s revleft policy to restrict primitivists.

bombeverything
7th August 2006, 06:59
What are you talking about? I was just posing the question, not stating it. And I am certainly not a primitivist. I am a class struggle anarchist but terms such as &#39;environmentalism&#39; are quite vague and that was simply my interpretation of what he/she meant.

I never suggested "putting the environment before human development". Humans do not exist outside of the environment. I am not claiming that the problem is industrial production itself, but that the values of capitalist production harm both workers [i]and the environment.

P.S: Sorry do dig this up just saw it now.