Silencing Government Abuse

[Guest]

The current system isn't Capitalism in the classical sense either.

Chomsky seems to believe that a truly free market would result in a corporatocracy. And if he doesn't support a free market, then I don't see how he can validly consider himself an Anarcho-Socialist.

What you're refering to is State-Capitalism, and kthx's comment is just incoherent babble.

When people refer to Obama's Socialism, they're refering to State-Socialism.

Statism is a method to achieving a goal. The goal would be, for example, Socialism. Anarchism is a method as well.

What people are actually finding issue with, whether you're for or against State-Socialism or State-Capitalism, is the State. But, people are so ignorant of the terms, like kthx so wonderfully displayed, that they scream out, "Screw Socialism!" or "Screw Capitalism!" never knowing that what they're complaining about is State control/ State ownership.

It doesn't matter if you're on the left or on the right, the problem is the State. The problem is the gun in the room.

If you're Socialist, even in the classical sense, I say, "Hey... whatever floats your boat." You want to establish a community based on socialist ideals, be my guest. I prefer Capitalism. The question then becomes whether you're an Anarchist or a Statist. And if you're willing to put a gun to my head to enforce Socialist ideals, even in the classical sense, then you've just accepted Statism.

I say let the free market decide, and that's why I'm an Anarchist. Who knows? In the end we might end up with Mutualism. But, before we can even begin exploring that, people need to see Statism for the failed system that it is. People need to start seeing the gun in the room, and stop trying to wield it.

Let me say right off the bat, that obviously me and you agree on many levels, Tigron. We do have one major disagreement, but other than that one, our disagreements get down to a much finer level than most people on this forum (I think).

Anyway, the idea is to have the general working public running the show.. Not some abstract and detached entity we call Government. If you want to call general working public controlling, and getting together in order to vote democratically on making decision in terms of production and resources, then sure. However, even in an anarcho-capitalist society I am sure this type of assembly would occur. Chomsky states, that if laissez-faire capitalism actually exists under true liberty, then he would technically be in support of that. The problem is that under the supposed "free-market," corporations tend to get way too big and limit democracy for the rest of us. They end up calling the shots, controlling resources and production, etc. That is why it's important for workers as a collective to own and run those companies and the general public to not be so lazy and irresponsible (aka form community assemblies to make important decisions). If we can't do that, we won't ever be truly free.

trancetunes, it sounds good in theory, but socialism is not a means of organizing human activity on a large scale. if you want a socialist society, one would have to first destroy the state - and those individuals of the socialist persuasion would be free to voluntarily join up and live as they please. the only problem is, who would be the guy to volunteer to be plundered?

chomsky is a dick and i've sent him emails regarding the way he uses "Capitalism" and "state capitalism" as if they were the same thing, and i always get wishy-washy replies along the lines of "yes this is why you should vote and generate ACTION". wtf bro

I won't necessarily disagree with you when you say it's not meant for a large scale. In a sense, you might be right. I am for a world that has communities that control their resources and production, but can also work together with surrounding communities as well. There can still be open relations, and trade. The part where I agree with you in regard to socialism not being for large scale, is when you consider the "state" factor. The idea is in fact to have a stateless society! That means smaller communities working together and controlling production and resources democratically. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't potential for trade and open relations. It just wouldn't operate in such an imperialistic and hostile sense, as it does today. As far as destroying the state, there are several ideologies about how this would occur. I'm sure some socialists believe radical armed revolution could work, and is necessary. Others say that if we can grow the socialist movements, that we can start changing government first, and then eventually it would become a fully socialist society in which all decisions come down back on level with real working people. There is no doubt that there needs to be vast changes for all this to happen. I mean, describing this on a forum is incredibly difficult, but obvioulsy a lot has to happen. Changes in media, corporations, obviously government/politics, and definitely education of the general public. As I said with Tigron, if we want real freedom, we can't count on some fuckin politician to make changes and allow us to be free. The general public needs to want to take control. The citizens need to take responsibility and be able to make decisions that affect production, resources, and anything else! Then we will really be free, and not under the control of mega-rich corporations that created the disparity in wealth and freedom that we see today.


I'm sure I didn't say everything I could say, or paint the whole picture. There is no doubt a lot of holes in what I have responded with, but even if I did paint the whole picture, there is no way anyone knows every single thing that needs to happen. As progress comes, you learn more and see what needs to be done, and what needs to be worked out. One thing is for sure--the ridiculously unjust capitalist world that we have today does not work, and it's not anywhere close to freedom or real democracy.

[Tigron-X]

Yes, we get through much of the political fog.

But, when I read that last part to Jerome, where you once again attack corporations and capitalism, it causes me to question how well you understood my previous post. So, let me try to clarify...

From Merriam-Webster...

Capitalism:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

This does not match what one currently sees in place.

The State has ownership over capital goods. To put it shortly, every corporation is established under the State and answers to the State. So, to claim that the disparity in wealth is caused by corporations and capitalism is inaccurate and a misuse of terms.

The disparity in wealth is caused by the State, and the State alone.

Until this is understood, we can't move on to discussing the differences between Capitalism and Socialism.

[the_paul]

I am not communist, but I am socialist

I always wondered why you're such a moron and why I've disliked you, and now I know. Years of wondering put to rest, now I can sleep

[Guest]

I always wondered why you're such a moron and why I've disliked you, and now I know. Years of wondering put to rest, now I can sleep

...Or it's because about 1.5-2 years ago I flipped out on you as you were blatantly racist on my chat. I asked you to leave as you cried and begged to stay on, and then refused to leave. Deny it all you want, but I am sure you remember whining about it and saying, "But I know this person and that person, I don't want to get off of it." Oh yea, it was specifically Bartman that you were saying you knew. Coming back yet? Yea, that's why we stopped talking.

As for you calling me a moron... Well, I just don't feel the need to prove my intelligence to someone that thinks the Earth is less than 20,000 years old.

[kthx]

Says the dipshit who thinks that socialism works even though naturally some people are just fucking retarded and lazy, (Generally the blacks).

Maybe thats why you like it, tired of seeing harder working coworkers receiving a bigger piece of the pie. I don't see you "moving on up" the job ladder anytime soon TranceTunes. Go move to Cuba.

[Tigron-X]

just fucking retarded and lazy,.

Kinda like you. Who can't even pick up a book and learn what socialism is. It's even mentioned in this thread.

The more you talk the more I realize how much of a tool you really are. It's beginning to seem like all you do is echo Fox News.

[kthx]

Says the self proclaimed libertarian who socialists agree with on a regular basis. Flawed viewed are often hard to cope with, but just like when I told everyone Obama was going to be a terrible president when from before he was elected and now the general consensus of the forums is that I am right even though they refuse to talk about it anymore so will you eventually come to understand I am correct. Hindsight is 20/20, so take a look back at my last 3000+ posts and decide whether your last 200 or so comments really compare to my very long and consistent political viewpoint and accuracy in politics.

[gran guerrero]

I wanted ron paul

[kthx]

And I already went through this with some other retard on the forums, you can't define an ideal. Socialism has changed over the course of the years, you can't post a link to merriams and think you are being clever here, honestly not even I believe you are this much of a dolt. Educate yourself please.

[Tigron-X]

Says the self proclaimed libertarian who socialists agree with on a regular basis. Flawed viewed are often hard to cope with, but just like when I told everyone Obama was going to be a terrible president when from before he was elected and now the general consensus of the forums is that I am right even though they refuse to talk about it anymore so will you eventually come to understand I am correct. Hindsight is 20/20, so take a look back at my last 3000+ posts and decide whether your last 200 or so comments really compare to my very long and consistent political viewpoint and accuracy in politics.

lol... the odds in that call were in your favor because it doesn't matter who gets elected these days. They're all corrupt.

And, no... I don't need to go look at your 3000 posts to see how inaccurate you are. All I have to go is two posts up to see that you don't know the definition of terms. Hell, I can even go to the first post you made in this thread. The fact that I bring up this ignorance in terms and that triggers you to clump me in with the Libertarian party and throw political rhetoric at me like a damn parrot tells me just how out of touch and unaware you really are.

Let me spell this out one more time for you since I know your reading comprehension is terrible: You and I can't even have a disagreement in political views because we don't share the same definition of terms. I use a dictionary, and you use Fox News.

Because, there is a difference between the Libertarian party and Libertarianism. It's clear to me that you're incapable of distinguishing these differences. That's why you sound like a parrot to me.

Currently, the Libertarian party is in favor of minarchism! I am in favor of anarchism! Big fucking difference!

And, if you're in favor of individual liberty, e.g. right to free speech; right to contract (not that rights truly exist), then you favor libertarianism as well, just maybe not the views of the Libertarian party.

The reason Trance and I agree is because we recognize that what's being passed off as "Socialism" is actually State ownership of means of production and distribution of goods when "Socialism" is supposed to refer to public ownership.

The State is not the public.

Wiktionary summarizes "Socialism" nicely:

"Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital[...]"

In other words, and as far as I understand, Trance favors anarcho-socialism (unless he continues quoting Chomsky :P).

I prefer capitalism.

Kthx, until you learn the vocabulary, you're not going to be able to express your political views coherently.

[Tigron-X]

And I already went through this with some other retard on the forums, you can't define an ideal. Socialism has changed over the course of the years, you can't post a link to merriams and think you are being clever here, honestly not even I believe you are this much of a dolt. Educate yourself please.

Really? Then what the fuck is "philosophy?"

[kthx]

Do you not understand that political ideals change definitions over the course of decades, Do you really not understand that certain movements use certain words to describe themselves until that particular word has a social stigma to it?

Communist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Lenonist.

The basic principles behind words might stay the same but the tone of how it is conceived and conveyed changes and morphs. It's pretty obvious you aren't on my level now. You should go back to not posting again.

[Tigron-X]

No asshole. They don't change definitions. You try to clump them all into one term instead of distingushing the various ideals. Hence, all the different terms: Marxism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Socialism, Mutualism, etc.

They exist so that you can express yourself clearly!

[kthx]

So please explain the difference between the idea of Communism as it is defined and Socialism as it is today with our current President.

Everyone should be equal, government controls the mass media(fcc), taxing the rich and supposedly giving to the poor in order to make everything equal. affirmative action, social security, public health care, cap n trade, protecting worker unions, please go down the list of this presidents reign of terror and some other previous social programs and tell me that they don't all in essence equal the bottom line of Communism. Even Wikipedia agrees with me that sociopolitical ideology changes.

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

[the_paul]

...Or it's because about 1.5-2 years ago I flipped out on you as you were blatantly racist on my chat. I asked you to leave as you cried and begged to stay on, and then refused to leave. Deny it all you want, but I am sure you remember whining about it and saying, "But I know this person and that person, I don't want to get off of it." Oh yea, it was specifically Bartman that you were saying you knew. Coming back yet? Yea, that's why we stopped talking.

As for you calling me a moron... Well, I just don't feel the need to prove my intelligence to someone that thinks the Earth is less than 20,000 years old.

Actually it was because I said affirmative action was bullshit. Being a useless paki I'm not surprised you'd love affirmative action because it enables worthless fucks like you just based on skin color. Thats really what went down, if thats being blatantly racist then I'll go get a nice white hood to complete it all. At the end of the day, you're still a retarded useless paki regardless of how you want to spin the story.

PS. I don't believe the earth is less than 20,000 years old. Try again with something, retard.

PPS. thanks for reminding me about Bartman, should drop him a ?message. Thats the most useful thing you've ever done since you started this game, way to bloom late.