You think Opposing Ideologies is bad

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Catch a whiff of the Ron Paul forums:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php


Grassroots Projects (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71) (5 Viewing)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif Project Help Wanted (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=209)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif Project Help Offers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=210)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif Bad Media Reporting on Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif Liberty Straw Poll (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif Kick The Traitors Out (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=280)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/statusicon/subforum_old.gif The Revolution's Future (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=83)







"Kick The Traitors Out." :laugh:

[Jazzratt]

Is this thread going to drift toward a point at any time or should I close it?

[Bud Struggle]

This is a quote from their site:

How can ANYONE who comes to these forums regularly even CONSIDER voting for one of the big two? I'm reading with horror as people try to justify their actions in voting for either McCain or Obama and I'm simultaneously throwing up in my mouth a little. Boy, you really showed them. Way to conform and completely nullify what we are trying to do here. Fuck everyone who voted for either of them and then have the audacity to come here and talk about it.

This can almost be a quote from THIS site. :lol:

[Dean]

This is a quote from their site:

How can ANYONE who comes to these forums regularly even CONSIDER voting for one of the big two? I'm reading with horror as people try to justify their actions in voting for either McCain or Obama and I'm simultaneously throwing up in my mouth a little. Boy, you really showed them. Way to conform and completely nullify what we are trying to do here. Fuck everyone who voted for either of them and then have the audacity to come here and talk about it.

This can almost be a quote from THIS site. :lol:

Why should we care about the civilians we bomb? They aren't making us any money, they are pretty much a nuisance. So that settles that, unless someone can demonstrate how my self-interest is tied up in the well being of others.

This could almost be a quote from TomK :lol:

[Drace]

I just registered for the first time...as a Libertarian! Can you identify with this?:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."Lolz. Commies?

[redguard2009]

No. The main difference between Libertarian and Communism is, simply, Libertarianism is all about "everyone for themselves" while communism is about "everyone for everyone". They view competition and all of its aspects as the natural human condition, essentially pitting every man against every other man in some jovial "survival of the fittest" society. No central authority of any kind to prevent "peaceful" exploitation, complete autonomy for individuals or groups of individuals to carry out any "peaceful" act, including the expropriation and exploitation of materials and resources. In a Libertarian society, Microsoft would probably own 95% of the world.

[freakazoid]

Lolz. Commies?

I believe that for the most part "libertarians" are pretty close to anarchists, although not as close to communists/socialists, and are a possible base to recruit from.

[Sendo]

Libertarians are anarchist teens who got co opted by the far economic right when they were young.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I believe that for the most part "libertarians" are pretty close to anarchists, although not as close to communists/socialists, and are a possible base to recruit from.
Some of them fit that description - specifically, those libertarians who aren't really in favour of libertarian goals as much as they are opposed to the status quo and to a vague notion of "authority."

However, many other libertarians - perhaps even the majority - are ultra-reactionary fucks who believe in a society based on ruthless competition, the "survival of the fittest," and the crushing exploitation of the working class.

In other words, some libertarians are misguided rebels without a cause; but most of them are just plain evil sociopaths. The fact that these sociopaths have invented a bullshit ideology capable of justifying inhumane exploitation and appearing "radical" and "freedom-loving" at the same time presents a great danger to socialists everywhere. Libertarianism is a monstrous ideological enemy that must be fought continuously.

[jake williams]

The most fundamental division in politics is among, basically, social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. They're literally the most opposite you could come up with when it comes to politics. The first are radically pro-social and the latter are radically anti-social. It's not a similarity for people who actually understand the ideas involved and their implications - it's a direct opposition.

[GPDP]

The most fundamental division in politics is among, basically, social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. They're literally the most opposite you could come up with when it comes to politics. The first are radically pro-social and the latter are radically anti-social. It's not a similarity for people who actually understand the ideas involved and their implications - it's a direct opposition.

Really, now? Even fascists are closer?

[jake williams]

Really, now? Even fascists are closer?
Well I think that part of my spectrum extends the idea that only one's own individual self matters, to the idea that only one's own "family" or "race" or "nation" matters. So that way I guess one could argue that it is closer to the social side of the spectrum, actually, even if its practice is repugnant.

[freakazoid]

They're literally the most opposite you could come up with when it comes to politics.

I think a totalitarian state would be literally the opposite.


The first are radically pro-social and the latter are radically anti-social.

That is why I had said that to communists/socialists they are not close. If you where to take out the part about economics then we would be very similar.

[Drace]

It seems as if we want the same things, but they believe they can reach it under capitalism...

[jake williams]

I think a totalitarian state would be literally the opposite.
The level of authoritarianism in a society is important, but not near as important as lot of people stress. A main point that gets ignored generally by folks who get really worked up about it (ie. less sophisticated anarchists) is that you can have all sorts of authority and power in a society - and especially by now, it's mostly in the hands of people who are just exercising their "economic freedom". For me it's a lot more about outcomes than the formal power of the state. Although the more absolute mechanisms of power, like what rights are afforded a state entity, do affect outcomes, it's kind of a means vs. ends thing.


That is why I had said that to communists/socialists they are not close. If you where to take out the part about economics then we would be very similar.
But economics is key to the basic ideology, and is indicative of fundamental elements of the underlying ideological framework.

[jake williams]

It seems as if we want the same things, but they believe they can reach it under capitalism...
There's a big difference between people who are sincerely committed to capitalist ideology and actively believe it, and people who use it as a tool knowing it's not true. You have elements of both in a lot of people, but they're two different things.

[GPDP]

There's a big difference between people who are sincerely committed to capitalist ideology and actively believe it, and people who use it as a tool knowing it's not true.

The tools here being the ideologues themselves. Their only real worth in regard to the actual capitalists lies in their usefulness as propaganda machines. The dogma of the free market is conveniently crafted by think tanks like the Cato Institute, and is used as a weapon against the rest of us, to justify the current order, even if the libertarian economists and thinkers themselves wish for something else.

Real capitalists do not believe in libertarian gospel, of course. They balk at the idea of true laissez-faire. Why have the government get off their backs, when they can get it to buy them back massages at our expense?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's really only three main right-libertarian thinktanks: the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Lew Rockwell's websites (LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, etc). If they really want to believe some mystical free market will solve all the world problems, let them. They'll remain irrelevant for that nonsense.

The Heritage Foundation is funny. If I can find it, I'll pull up a weird graph they drew that had poverty declining under Reagan, when every other source I've seen showed the opposite.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That is why I had said that to communists/socialists they are not close. If you where to take out the part about economics then we would be very similar.
"If you were to take out the part about economics"??

That's like saying "if you were to take out the part about class struggle, revolution, and equality, we would really be very similar to liberals."

If you just "take out" inconvenient parts, any ideology can be made to look similar to any other.

[freakazoid]

If you just "take out" inconvenient parts, any ideology can be made to look similar to any other.

Same thing could be said of anarchists and socialists...

[Jazzratt]

Same thing could be said of anarchists and socialists...

Anarchists want a stateless, classless society. Socialist/Communists want a stateless classless society. What is removed when saying they are similar is mostly tactics.

Libertarians on the other hand want an unregulated free market. If that idea doesn't terrify you as much as a police state you haven't considered the implications of it for very long.

[freakazoid]

It is like the saying, all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists. So Marxist-Leninist are similar to us? It is more than just tactics.

[RGacky3]

So Marxist-Leninist are similar to us? It is more than just tactics.

Marxist Leninist are Socialists, only difference is they believe in the State and central power is the way to achieve Communism. Kind of like fighting fire with fire.

[IcarusAngel]

It is like the saying, all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists. So Marxist-Leninist are similar to us? It is more than just tactics.

How is that even relevant to what has been said? The saying goes that every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist. Adolph Fischer then added the movement is divided into two factions: the "communist anarchists" and the "Proudhon anarchists" who are "middle-class anarchists."

Libertarians are in neither camp, and are close to neither of them. In fact, their their furthest thing from an anarchist, as these anarchists saw landed property as a government.

What Jazzratt was alluding to is the fact that anarchists and socialists want a completely differnet society than those of capitalists, one that completely rejects the landlord economic system, the idea of capitalistic "individualism" (what freedom is there in a corporation), the idea of "social darwinism" or massive inequality rather than equality and cooperation, and democracy.

Even in regards to human nature, socialists and capitalists (American "Libertarians") are different - Libertarians believing usually that people are inherently greedy, which is a good thing, and thus those who are able to more easily manipulate the market have a "natural right to lead."

They're closer to fascism than they ever will be to anarchism and socialism, democracy and freedom.

[IcarusAngel]

Marxist Leninist are Socialists, only difference is they believe in the State and central power is the way to achieve Communism. Kind of like fighting fire with fire.

This is actually a good point, though. They are socialists.

In fact, some MARXISTS believed in a society that is very similar to the true, original, European anarchists.

For example, the brilliant theorist Anton Pannekoek was a Marxist but he believed in a type of "council communism" that is very similar to anarchism. He hated statism, actually. But, he also didn't like anarchism regarding it as some kind of state of nature problem, probably. He did not like anarchism and yet advocated a peaceful, cooperative, non-hierarchical society.

So those type of Marxists are the closest cousins of the anarchists without actually being anarchists. Marx himself said something like that the final stage of communism is anarchism.

[Jazzratt]

It is like the saying, all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists. So Marxist-Leninist are similar to us? It is more than just tactics.

Well yes, M-Ls are similar to us. I certainly share more with them then I ever will with "Libertarians" of the american school. Both us and the M-Ls aim to destroy the state but M-Ls suffer from a delusion that the state will simply wither away once it has been used by the proletariat to crush their class enemies.