Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wrong again. Anarcho-syndicalist (only one form of leftist anarchism) say that if more than one person is working at a facility they form a union together.
If you work alone, you are not part of a union.
Other things like guns, etc. are all open to usage if produce. There is no state blocking the goods, but production is agreed upon between workers.
I find all of this amusing in the end. Ideas in any form that become a collective no matter the purpose or reason sooner or later become corrupt and destructive. The individual has a choice to be collective and destructive to himself and others or be free and prosper alone or with other free and prospering people.
If the collective removes the "individual choice" in order to support the collective it will become corrupt and destructive.
What I love about the human mind is we as a people are easy to control.
But some are not, and will not be controlled and will die rather then be a slave to any system.
Willing socialist and communists even on their own ranks will sooner or later destroy themselves, and anyone not willing to a socialist and or communist will die keeping their individual freedom to choose.
They're upset with us because we haven't figured out under what circumstances it's ok to initiate violence against a peaceful person.
I'm learning though. Watch this:
1. Men with AR-15s storming your home for selling fresh milk to your neighbor is wrong.
2. Men with AR-15s in government costumes storming your home for selling fresh milk to your neighbor is right.
There will be a test at the end of the week. See your local State-mandated indoctrination center (aka public schools) for further instruction.
And no cheating on the test!*
*Unless you're in your government costume
"To begin your cult deprogramming, you must first accept that different standards apply to us. Do not be tempted by those who tell you otherwise, for they are merely shills for the Koch Brothers."
I find all of this amusing in the end. Ideas in any form that become a collective no matter the purpose or reason sooner or later become corrupt and destructive. The individual has a choice to be collective and destructive to himself and others or be free and prosper alone or with other free and prospering people.
If the collective removes the "individual choice" in order to support the collective it will become corrupt and destructive.
What I love about the human mind is we as a people are easy to control.
But some are not, and will not be controlled and will die rather then be a slave to any system.
Willing socialist and communists even on their own ranks will sooner or later destroy themselves, and anyone not willing to a socialist and or communist will die keeping their individual freedom to choose.
I find all of this amusing in the end. Ideas in any form that become a collective no matter the purpose or reason sooner or later become corrupt and destructive. The individual has a choice to be collective and destructive to himself and others or be free and prosper alone or with other free and prospering people.
If the collective removes the "individual choice" in order to support the collective it will become corrupt and destructive.
What I love about the human mind is we as a people are easy to control.
But some are not, and will not be controlled and will die rather then be a slave to any system.
Willing socialist and communists even on their own ranks will sooner or later destroy themselves, and anyone not willing to a socialist and or communist will die keeping their individual freedom to choose.
There are universal laws put into place that give everyone freedom.
Marx looked to the Paris communes as a worker run society were the people are free. It is not statism, its understanding you have no control over items that are not in your usage, and the MoP are public.
There's an old adage &/or slogan: America has only one political party, the Property Party; Democrat & Republican are its two main factions. Attempts have been made, sometimes plausible & sometimes not, to substantiate.
What I also find interesting/ironic here (both in the current thread & the above) is the 'Father of Anarchism', Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, is best-known for his assertion that 'Property is Theft!' & that contained in his first major work, What is Property?.
Mr. Chomsky gets it, Mr. Molyneux does not.
Another interesting/ironic point illustrated here in the current thread is the fact that the "Anarchists" here in this thread agree about getting rid of government &/or state, yet this thread mimics what would happen if actually implemented.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 05-18-2018 at 06:25 AM..
Is it the valuing consistency part that we've been brainwashed into, or the part about leaving people alone if they haven't harmed anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
They're upset with us because we haven't figured out under what circumstances it's ok to initiate violence against a peaceful person.
I'm learning though. Watch this:
1. Men with AR-15s storming your home for selling fresh milk to your neighbor is wrong.
2. Men with AR-15s in government costumes storming your home for selling fresh milk to your neighbor is right.
There will be a test at the end of the week. See your local State-mandated indoctrination center (aka public schools) for further instruction.
And no cheating on the test!*
*Unless you're in your government costume
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
"To begin your cult deprogramming, you must first accept that different standards apply to us. Do not be tempted by those who tell you otherwise, for they are merely shills for the Koch Brothers."
This from Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance:
Quote:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. ...
Which faith-based religion, cult, philosophy, or political ideaology does not describe themselves as consistent?
Personally, I think Mr. Emerson was referring to Plato's Allegory of the Cave when he said "He may as well concern himself with his (own) shadow on the wall" here.
Get out of the cave. The Stone Age is over, & 'we don't have rocks in our head' (from Talking Heads lyric).
Speaking of 'rocks in the head' while gazing at himself as he self-blogs to his minions ...
Quote:
Amplifying eugenics, biological determinism and white supremacy
Riding the coattails of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Molyneux’s move to the far-right is but an opportunistic homage to the more reactionary creeds and alliances of his hero, Murray Rothbard. This has helped drive traffic to his site and to gain followers, donations and influence by rehashing the race realist underbelly of an influential libertarian, just as the alt-right began to gain internet prominence. Like so many before him, Molyneux intellectualizes his bigotry and insularity by appealing to the false authority of scientific racists and eugenicists. He has endeavored to spread this to his followers by interviewing a veritable ‘who’s who’ of the disgraced and discredited race science community, many of whom are directly associated with, apologists for, or funded by, the Pioneer Fund. In all of these videos, Molyneux offers no criticism of the views of the interviewee, which amounts to a tacit endorsement of their bogus race realism.
Using the lingo of the brain-washed: riding the coattails of a 'Statist' tends to remove the 'Anti-Statist' credentials, No?
& as for Mr. Molyneux's (trademark pending) 'defooing' which you guys clearly want to avoid, why does he need to define 'abuse' as not aligning with his cult-like dogma? Honestly, seems a tad on the sketchy side to state the painfully obvious.
There's an old adage &/or slogan: America has only one political party, the Property Party; Democrat & Republican are its two main factions. Attempts have been made, sometimes plausible & sometimes not, to substantiate.
What I also find interesting/ironic here (both in the current thread & the above) is the 'Father of Anarchism', Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, is best-known for his assertion that 'Property is Theft!' & that contained in his first major work, What is Property?.
Mr. Chomsky gets it, Mr. Molyneux does not.
Another interesting/ironic point illustrated here in the current thread is the fact that the "Anarchists" here in this thread agree about getting rid of government &/or state, yet this thread mimics what would happen if actually implemented.
It’s interesting to see how the Austrian school of economics has taken over anarchism (for some).
There are universal laws put into place that give everyone freedom.
Marx looked to the Paris communes as a worker run society were the people are free. It is not statism, its understanding you have no control over items that are not in your usage, and the MoP are public.
Then you have true freedom of input.
Karl Marx, from day 1, had conflicts from within with those with nearly identical goals/objectives:
Quote:
THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2
For some, the intensity of the conflict has been puzzling, given that the two authors seem to be struggling for identical goals. Convinced that capitalism is predicated on the exploitation of workers by capitalists, they were equally dedicated to fighting for a socialist society where economic classes would be abolished and all individuals would have the opportunity to develop all of their creative capacities. Hence, both envisioned socialism as eliminating the division of labor, especially between mental and manual work, and between men and women. In other words, the work process was to be transformed so that all workers would take an active role in the organization, design and implementation of it. Moreover, both argued that the oppressed must liberate themselves – one should not expect any benevolent impulses from members of the ruling, capitalist class; and to insure success, the revolution must assume an international scope. Finally, they agreed that the State was an instrument of class oppression, not some neutral organ that equitably represented everyone’s interests, and in the final analysis must be abolished. The 1871 Paris Commune offered, in their opinion, a model to be emulated. ...
Great link. Kind of proves my point about anarchism as the basis for Marxism and the freedom of opportunity it offers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 'defooing' which you guys clearly want to avoid, why does he need to define 'abuse' as not aligning with his cult-like dogma? Honestly, seems a tad on the sketchy side to state the painfully obvious.
