For what little time I've held any interest in politics, I've been mostly right-wing. I do favour the conservative party, and I am fond of Donald Trump. (Forgive my monstrous crimes.) I do still hold some liberal views though.
Leftists in the media these days do indeed leave a sour taste In my mouth. Every time I go on Facebook there's always someone droning on about handling other people's feelings with care, and going out of your way not to offend people. I personally do not give a flying fuck about offending people, neither should anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend people though, which is probably the best thing you can do, in my opinion since you are not actively trying to be hostile. I also do not like the fussing over certain words and slurs; at the end of the day, words are words. Get over it, stop complaining. Words are only as powerful as you let them be.
For what little time I've held any interest in politics, I've been mostly right-wing. I do favour the conservative party, and I am fond of D… moreonald Trump. (Forgive my monstrous crimes.) I do still hold some liberal views though.
Leftists in the media these days do indeed leave a sour taste In my mouth. Every time I go on Facebook there's always someone droning on about handling other people's feelings with care, and going out of your way not to offend people. I personally do not give a flying fuck about offending people, neither should anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend people though, which is probably the best thing you can do, in my opinion since you are not actively trying to be hostile. I also do not like the fussing over certain words and slurs; at the end of the day, words are words. Get over it, stop complaining. Words are only as powerful as you let them be.
Every time I go on Facebook there's always someone droning on about handling other people's feelings with care, and going out of your way not to offend people. I personally do not give a flying fuck about offending people, neither should anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend people though, which is probably the best thing you can do, in my opinion since you are not actively trying to be hostile. I also do not like the fussing over certain words and slurs; at the end of the day, words are words. Get over it, stop complaining. Words are only as powerful as you let them be.
While I mightn't agree with your politics and support for Donald Trump, that entire statement is the complete truth, in my opinion anyway, and is the best response to all this "politically correct" bullshit that's finding it's way into every direction I look in. So thanks for speaking some sense.
For what little time I've held any interest in politics, I've been mostly right-wing. I do favour the conservative party, and I am fond of D… moreonald Trump. (Forgive my monstrous crimes.) I do still hold some liberal views though.
Leftists in the media these days do indeed leave a sour taste In my mouth. Every time I go on Facebook there's always someone droning on about handling other people's feelings with care, and going out of your way not to offend people. I personally do not give a flying fuck about offending people, neither should anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend people though, which is probably the best thing you can do, in my opinion since you are not actively trying to be hostile. I also do not like the fussing over certain words and slurs; at the end of the day, words are words. Get over it, stop complaining. Words are only as powerful as you let them be.
I think all our political terms (even the most basic one's) have become so muddled now. In my experience, conservatives get shit for being racist bigots non-stop (regardless of what they say and do), and liberals get shit for being naïve, anti-intellectuals (again, regardless of what they say and do)
Just imagine what it's like telling folks you're an Anarchist! It's a 200 year old political/intellectual tradition and yet people today think it's nothing more than breaking windows and listening to punk rock (including some Anarchists!). That's why I stick with Left-Libertarian.
I am a supporter of capitalism, but corporatism (I don't like calling it crony capitalism, because that's not really free-market capitalism) which conspires with the private sector, which leads on to things like bailouts of banks and such, is toxic and a problem. But that is something that led to my scepticism of the state.
The problem with Capitalism (a system in which the means of production are controlled by private investors) is that it's ultimately incompatible with free markets. Capitalism can only thrive when there's a state to enforce their property rights (many of which are dubious), create artificial capital barriers that funnel most of us into wage labor, and give businesses huge subsidies; such as letting them ship for pennies on the dollar and creating artificial monopolies through patents. In a truly free market, bloated, centralized corporations would likely be seized by the workers or out-competed by cottage industry.
The amount of new idea's and political opinions I'm starting to see more and more (when I never used to) is remarkable and fascinating.
Same. Political philosophy is really fascinating. It's pretty stunning how much I, and the world, has changed over the last couple years
Though it's funny, how the reason I first identified as a conservative (to piss off people and feed my inner contrarian) is sort of spinning on its head now, as there is an actual right-wing insurgence, certainly in Europe at the moment. We've already seen it with the rise of AfD in Germany, the success of Marine Le Pen in France, the success and rise of Brexit and Ukip in Britain... it certainly is interesting times we find ourselves in.
Scary times, more like.. The rise of vulgar nationalists (and patriotism in general) seems antithetical to liberty, at least to me. I personally doubt that meaningful freedom will ever come from a change of management. It can only happen when we subvert, ignore and ultimately do away with the present order.
It is all a joke, all of it. Does not matter if you live in China or Russia or the United States. It all boils down to elites vs plebs. Russia had a red revolution and what did it get them? A different set of jerks doing the same crap to them. China's economic growth is amazing, when not looking at the fact when compared historically it is average up against the industrial boom in the US and others during the early 20th.
It no longer matters, there are people in China just as disappointed with their government as people in The UK and France and The US and Russia. Eventually there will be another revolution somewhere and guess what....the same shit will be argued about.
We will still have assholes like Trump who pretend to stand for something, but is just interested in promoting his name.
It is all a joke, all of it. Does not matter if you live in China or Russia or the United States. It all boils down to elites vs plebs. … moreRussia had a red revolution and what did it get them? A different set of jerks doing the same crap to them. China's economic growth is amazing, when not looking at the fact when compared historically it is average up against the industrial boom in the US and others during the early 20th.
It no longer matters, there are people in China just as disappointed with their government as people in The UK and France and The US and Russia. Eventually there will be another revolution somewhere and guess what....the same shit will be argued about.
We will still have assholes like Trump who pretend to stand for something, but is just interested in promoting his name.
Why not? I'd argue that horizontal organization of economic and political power (be it through local assemblies, workers' councils, etc) is the most logical way to reduce the corruption and alienation of the present order. Capitalists and rentiers are leeches, bureaucrats are worse and there's precedent for groups of people getting by all right in their absence.
No system is perfect and Anarchism has some rather serious conjectural problems, but the havoc and poverty caused by the state is very real, pervasive and horrific.
I think all our political terms (even the most basic one's) have become so muddled now. In my experience, conservatives get shit for being r… moreacist bigots non-stop (regardless of what they say and do), and liberals get shit for being naïve, anti-intellectuals (again, regardless of what they say and do)
Just imagine what it's like telling folks you're an Anarchist! It's a 200 year old political/intellectual tradition and yet people today think it's nothing more than breaking windows and listening to punk rock (including some Anarchists!). That's why I stick with Left-Libertarian.
I am a supporter of capitalism, but corporatism (I don't like calling it crony capitalism, because that's not really free-market capitalism) which conspires with the private sector, which leads on to things like bailouts of banks and such, is toxic and a problem. But that is something that led to my scepticism of the state.
The problem with Capita… [view original content]
Every system has its flaws, and capitalism, in particular, is certainly flawed (especially in a non-limited state) but it's been such a historically powerful driving force in creating modern, western civilization, and that's no small feat.
I fiercely disagree. The people who created Western Civilization(TM) aren't the capitalists or politicians. The world we know came to be from the soul-crushing toil of previous generations, starting with those peasants who were originally driven off their land and given no choice but to sell their labor to Capitalists for a fraction of its value. The lionized 'Captains of Industry' we study in history class were facilitators at best and cruel parasites at worst. True, Capitalism should be given credit for its ability to create huge material wealth (even Marx acknowledged that), but I'd argue that the profit drive has run amok. You only need to look at our society of (manufactured) mass-consumption, constant crises and environmental destruction to see that. Point is, labor and innovation were the driving force behind the rise of western civilization. The means by which the labor and invention were organized is strictly of secondary importance, if that.
I just meant interesting in terms of how the pendulum is swinging, and I get what you're saying, though I think this current disdain for nationalism and patriotism is, in part, driving its rise, because people feel obligated to defend it.
No offense, but hopefully this compulsion dies off sooner rather than later. "Patriotism" as we know it is a miserable little abstraction.
By the way, out of curiosity, who do you favour for the role of president now (and who are you voting for, if you are)? And how did you feel about Bernie's endorsement of Hillary?
Ideally, I don't want any president, but I supported Bernie for pragmatic reasons (I'm disabled and consistent health care would make my life much less complicated). His endorsement of Hillary isn't surprising (Social Democrats are know for such things), but is disappointing. Watching the revolution die at the convention last night was pretty depressing. The Democratic Party has a long history of pretending to care about peoples' movements while using the party machinery to ruthlessly crush and co-opt them. I don't see this shaking out differently.
Every system has its flaws, and capitalism, in particular, is certainly flawed (especially in a non-limited state) but it's been such a hist… moreorically powerful driving force in creating modern, western civilization, and that's no small feat.
I fiercely disagree. The people who created Western Civilization(TM) aren't the capitalists or politicians. The world we know came to be from the soul-crushing toil of previous generations, starting with those peasants who were originally driven off their land and given no choice but to sell their labor to Capitalists for a fraction of its value. The lionized 'Captains of Industry' we study in history class were facilitators at best and cruel parasites at worst. True, Capitalism should be given credit for its ability to create huge material wealth (even Marx acknowledged that), but I'd argue that the profit drive has run amok. You only need to look at our society of (manufactured) mass-consumpt… [view original content]
Why do you think poverty is made by the State and not by the minority owning enterprises and all this stuff?
I'm not saying leaders of the main enterprises are 100% responsible for the poverty of the world, but in my mind they've got a lot more of responsability than the State. Watch the 1800's and what you got with free economy. The health of workers was shitty, to say the less. While on the contrary, the State brought laws (with some hardwork of the people with strikes though) which helped to have some decency in work, getting a minimum with salary, and so on..
Marx said the State was a stuff melting proletariat and capitalism, so proletarians won't know what to fight anymore. Though he mentionned the laws are a tool to protect the proletariat, and it's the State which technically produces laws.
Why not? I'd argue that horizontal organization of economic and political power (be it through local assemblies, workers' councils, etc) is… more the most logical way to reduce the corruption and alienation of the present order. Capitalists and rentiers are leeches, bureaucrats are worse and there's precedent for groups of people getting by all right in their absence.
No system is perfect and Anarchism has some rather serious conjectural problems, but the havoc and poverty caused by the state is very real, pervasive and horrific.
Why do you think poverty is made by the State and not by the minority owning enterprises and all this stuff
The state empowers and protects the Capitalists. You can't have Capitalism without constant state intervention. Capitalism originally developed due to land confiscation by the state. In the 17-1800's the manor system was replaced with private property and as a result peasants were driven off their land. The commons were also shut off to them. With no means of independent income, all the peasants were forced to sell their labor to Capitalists and work in the factories. Marx touched on this in Capital.
Today, the state continues to collude with business and hurt people in more ways that I can possibly explain in under a few thousand words. If you want, I can link to a great article that goes Much further depth about it.
Watch the 1800's and what you got with free economy.
There was never a free economy, but I get it. No regulations really.
While on the contrary, the State brought laws (with some hardwork of the people with strikes though) which helped to have some decency in work, getting a minimum with salary, and so on..
Yes, though this was mostly done to placate workers and undermine revolutionary movements, when violence alone wasn't enough to do it. Otto Von Bismarck's welfare state, for example. Far from being anti-big business, labor laws effectively saved big business from the workers, while killing smaller competitors in the process. That's exactly what happened with the New Deal. It was great for huge companies and we came out of the Great Depression with an economy dominated by cartels. This is not. to say all labor reform is bad, but it's important to realize that they aren't pure, benevolent acts on the part of the government.
Marx said the State was a stuff melting proletariat and capitalism, so proletarians won't know what to fight anymore. Though he mentionned the laws are a tool to protect the proletariat, and it's the State which technically produces laws.
could you you rephrase the first sentence, I'm not sure I get it.
Why do you think poverty is made by the State and not by the minority owning enterprises and all this stuff?
I'm not saying leaders of th… moree main enterprises are 100% responsible for the poverty of the world, but in my mind they've got a lot more of responsability than the State. Watch the 1800's and what you got with free economy. The health of workers was shitty, to say the less. While on the contrary, the State brought laws (with some hardwork of the people with strikes though) which helped to have some decency in work, getting a minimum with salary, and so on..
Marx said the State was a stuff melting proletariat and capitalism, so proletarians won't know what to fight anymore. Though he mentionned the laws are a tool to protect the proletariat, and it's the State which technically produces laws.
When I see labor laws, they are made by the State (even if again, a consequence of strikes and all). Those who wanted to lower it (and they just did recently) were the head of the big companies. When I see lobbys, they are made by enterprises, and it avoids the government to do laws that are needed.
could you you rephrase the first sentence, I'm not sure I get it.
In his "history" of class struggle, he mentions the creation of the State. In his mind, the State was created by the capitalists, so the proletariat, who knew before who to fight in the others class struggle (aristocracy vs serfs, aristocracy vs bourgeois, and so on), will now be confused.
Why do you think poverty is made by the State and not by the minority owning enterprises and all this stuff
The state empowers and p… morerotects the Capitalists. You can't have Capitalism without constant state intervention. Capitalism originally developed due to land confiscation by the state. In the 17-1800's the manor system was replaced with private property and as a result peasants were driven off their land. The commons were also shut off to them. With no means of independent income, all the peasants were forced to sell their labor to Capitalists and work in the factories. Marx touched on this in Capital.
Today, the state continues to collude with business and hurt people in more ways that I can possibly explain in under a few thousand words. If you want, I can link to a great article that goes Much further depth about it.
EDIT: The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
Watch the 1800's and what you got with free eco… [view original content]
I believe that Capitalism is the best economical system made by man till this point, seeing the spectacular failure of any others I'm sure of it.
Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts ect is my gig. Any restrictions placed on them for what ever dumb reason people come with will be met with fierce resistance.
I'm not a big fan of democracy but it's not like got anything better. Fan of strong state but not one that interferes with the freedom values I believe in.
Generally I'm opposed to any form of social benefits for people who are able but do not work because it's easier being a leech, if that's the case they should die out of starvation.
People should be equal before the law but not equal at all cost. There are better people there are worse people. All there is the matter of capabilities and societies should promote those talented individuals over the dumb idea that everyone is equal.
Patriotism is not a bad thing and should be cherished as long as it doesn't turn into dumb nationalism. People should be proud of their country and values and not demonized and called fascists .
I believe that Capitalism is the best economical system made by man till this point, seeing the spectacular failure of any others I'm sure o… moref it.
Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts ect is my gig. Any restrictions placed on them for what ever dumb reason people come with will be met with fierce resistance.
I'm not a big fan of democracy but it's not like got anything better. Fan of strong state but not one that interferes with the freedom values I believe in.
Generally I'm opposed to any form of social benefits for people who are able but do not work because it's easier being a leech, if that's the case they should die out of starvation.
People should be equal before the law but not equal at all cost. There are better people there are worse people. All there is the matter of capabilities and societies should promote those talented individuals over the dumb idea that everyone is equal.
Patriotism is not a bad thing and should be cheri… [view original content]
Eh, not really, unless you're an Egoist Anarchist or something.
Anarchists want to abolish unjustified hierarchies. Most of us are fine with communities making their own rules as long as community members agree by consensus and living there is voluntary.
Oh, I know this test, passed it twice in a span of about 7 months. The first time I was in the left-leaning libertarian section, but the second time I landed up in a right-leaning libertarian section. Funny enough, my results were on opposite sides of each other.
I think at heart everyone is a libertarian. But natural human instincts, selfishness and greed often forces people do things that end of forcing people to do what they should of been always doing to begin with. Which is very anti libertarian.
We can look back for example:
Slavery obviously today is a horrible thing, but for a long time we accepted it as a necessary evil, and eventually ended up at war with slavery as one of the catalyst, if not the main catalyst of that war, and it had to be "Forced" out of the picture by the state, as not all local governments wanted to abolish it.
Concept of the Draft. This one bugs me today, as no free state should be allowed to force people to fight/die for their country. Definitely when war is often an extension of politics, and for the USA often fought in the interest of foreign nations more so than our own anymore. To be honest, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam drafts were all to fight political wars, and to be honest none of them had anything to do with the survival of the nation or it's people. The American Civil War started it, and at the time it was an insanely unfair rigged system... well still is today, have enough money, get a bit of paper work saying you're too important to be in the army and walla, and of course the poor suffer from that unfair system. The US Army today openly preaches against the Draft, as Draftees make horrible soldiers. It is also a stain on the concept of a Free Nation.
The right to Vote. This is oddly something most Americans take completely for granted. For a long time in the USA voting rights existed only toward wealthy land owners. The common man had no rights at deciding elected officials at a Federal level. It eventually changed. It was once left to states to decide how it was done, and some didn't' give any rights to anyone when it came to electing representatives unless they owned land or were wealthy. Voting rights have been a huge issue, and seems to be even today in the USA. When left alone individual states make their own rules, and often intentionally leave people out of the process to keep a majority control by political factions that are most popular of the ruling elite of said state. USA this dominated, and seems to still be a problem, like in say Illinois, it's abused by the democratic majority still, and I can testify it still happens, and can promise other states in the USA still practice it, and by both political parties. For a long time women didn't have a right to vote unless the individual state allowed it, this had to be forced upon the majority. Allowing minorities to vote, again had to be forced upon as not all states would allow it. People are still afraid that since now the US Government is no longer monitoring how states like Virginia, Alabama and Georgia. I think all states when it comes to voting should be monitored and follow under strict central government control on how the voting process works. So you don't have states distributing districts to hold political majority. Even how they place voting poll locations can have a huge impact on voter turn out, and if one political party controls a city they can make it very hard for people of the opposition to vote by placing poll locations in places it is hard for them to reach in that one day time slot provided discouraging but the most stubborn voters.
Marriage. You may not think it's an issue outside of the whole Gay Rights movement, but for a long time in the USA if a Caucasian married anyone who wasn't a Caucasian it was illegal in a lot of states, and this lasted deep into the 20th Century. The Nazis borrowed their marriage laws and used states like Georgia and Alabama as examples on how to make their race laws, including those on Marriage. ie a "Legal" sounds semi "Fair" institute of racism. Number of States in the USA had it down to a science already and the Nazis borrowed them. Again these things eventually had to be forced upon states, as again some states refused to do what was right.
If I was more bored, I would dig up a lot more but.
All of the above are very anti Libertarian acts conducted throughout US History, but often were very necessary as well. Main reason why Libertarianism is a Pipe Dream in my opinion. One that can only exist in an ideal world, but the world has never been nor likely ever will be ideal, when it comes to basic human morality and politics itself. I mean politics hasn't changed in hundreds of years but yet people today seem to think politicians today are worse than ever. But that's only because people have horribly short term memory when it comes to politics. lol
I believe that Capitalism is the best economical system made by man till this point, seeing the spectacular failure of any others I'm sure o… moref it.
Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts ect is my gig. Any restrictions placed on them for what ever dumb reason people come with will be met with fierce resistance.
I'm not a big fan of democracy but it's not like got anything better. Fan of strong state but not one that interferes with the freedom values I believe in.
Generally I'm opposed to any form of social benefits for people who are able but do not work because it's easier being a leech, if that's the case they should die out of starvation.
People should be equal before the law but not equal at all cost. There are better people there are worse people. All there is the matter of capabilities and societies should promote those talented individuals over the dumb idea that everyone is equal.
Patriotism is not a bad thing and should be cheri… [view original content]
Eh, not really, unless you're an Egoist Anarchist or something.
Anarchists want to abolish unjustified hierarchies. Most of us are fine … morewith communities making their own rules as long as community members agree by consensus and living there is voluntary.
That's not the system fault, bloated burecracy and banksters are at fault. They made a system that works only on debt and from time to time it has to collapse. Pure Capitalism with only minimal state influence worked really well.
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
What's your example where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
That's not the system fault, bloated burecracy and banksters are at fault. They made a system that works only on debt and from time to time it has to collapse. Pure Capitalism with only minimal state influence worked really well.
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
What's your example where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
What's your … moreexample where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
I've the feeling we've got kinda the same reflection but we don't end with the same consequences. Simply put: if you let the big monopolies free, they will attract more money, smash the competition and will get some politcal and economical powers, increasing their wealth. We can see it everywhere, some enterprises represent the wealth of some minor countries and with the state they already have means of pressure on political matters. Without it, how far would they go?
If I understood your point, you're anti state. But without a state, you can't protect the people or environment against the entreprises. Without any state left, what would stop these enterprises to make an aristocracy? In a place with no counterpart presented as the State, what would stop the wealthy against the weak? In my opinion a stronger state would be required instead of a non existant one. So I don't get why you advocate for not having a state.
Sorry for the lack of grammar and for the errors I did, I kinda have some problems to write properly in english these days.
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
Ah, th… moree "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
What's your example where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
You're correct.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
Yet compared to all other systems it's more durable, yes crisis occurs but a lot of them is a result of the faliure of banking systems. Like we will soon see in Italy since they have a massive hole there...
The crisis also occur as some sort of speculative bubble burst (housing, goods ect)
Capitalism despite all bad creed is the system that favors change and acutally brought more equality than any other. All that matter in this system is skill. All that matter in this system is skill. If you are talented and have an idea for a business you have a high chance of success no matter if you're high or low born.
A reason why America did so well since it wasn't burdened by the social relationships of the past.
But I agree with that year we will see various crises more often since everything good a speed boost.
Still like the democracy is the worst goverment system, except all others the same rule apply to Capitalism, people can bitch and moan about it but we haven't come up with anything better that works so well.
What's your example where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
I meant it as early capitalism, before the shit load of regulations and close ties to banks which as I mentioned above are often the source of the problems. The basic idea was good but the more it grew the worse it got, still the progress it gave after the feudal system collapse was remarkable.
So in conclusion the capitalism is an idea is good. It's just those whole add ons cause problems. Of course Monopolies are problems too but as history proven sooner or later they would fall as it is nature of Capitalism. The survival of the fittest
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
What's your … moreexample where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
I've the feeling we've got kinda the same reflection but we don't end with the same consequences. Simply put: if you let the big monopolies free, they will attract more money, smash the competition and will get some politcal and economical powers, increasing their wealth. We can see it everywhere, some enterprises represent the wealth of some minor countries and with the state they already have means of pressure on political matters. Without it, how far would they go?
If I understood your point, you're anti state. But without a state, you can't protect the people or environment against the entreprises. Without any state left, what would stop these enterprises to make an aristocracy? In a place with no counterpart presented as the State, what would stop the wealthy against the weak? In my opinion a stronger state would be required instead of a non existant one. So I don't get why you advocate for not having a state.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
You are both right here. In some cases (like Russia or US) the goverment can be used as shield for the monopolies and wipe out the competition but in others (Germany, France, Holland) they can ensure that such things won't happen. It all depends on what kind of state we're talking about.
Yet I'm with Euron here on the fact that State is a counter weight to the pure Capitalism. As in it nature is to accumutale wealth without a certain degree of control the monopolies can easily can as much power as a state. Not forever as I mentioned in my other post but for a while they can become a dominant powers in regions able to even have their own private armies.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every… more time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
I've the feeling we've got kinda the same reflection but we don't end with the same consequences. Simply put: if you let the big monopolies free, they will attract more money, smash the competition and will get some politcal and economi… [view original content]
Comments
For what little time I've held any interest in politics, I've been mostly right-wing. I do favour the conservative party, and I am fond of Donald Trump. (Forgive my monstrous crimes.) I do still hold some liberal views though.
Leftists in the media these days do indeed leave a sour taste In my mouth. Every time I go on Facebook there's always someone droning on about handling other people's feelings with care, and going out of your way not to offend people. I personally do not give a flying fuck about offending people, neither should anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend people though, which is probably the best thing you can do, in my opinion since you are not actively trying to be hostile. I also do not like the fussing over certain words and slurs; at the end of the day, words are words. Get over it, stop complaining. Words are only as powerful as you let them be.
Why didn't you tell me you were a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe?
In fact I dream of becoming Mrs. Donald Trump.
...
I can't say it any better than Cantinflas. (I'd recommend you'd read the description for context.)
Part 1
Part 2
I know that nothing happened but i needed a fitting thread to use this.
While I mightn't agree with your politics and support for Donald Trump, that entire statement is the complete truth, in my opinion anyway, and is the best response to all this "politically correct" bullshit that's finding it's way into every direction I look in. So thanks for speaking some sense.
Just imagine what it's like telling folks you're an Anarchist! It's a 200 year old political/intellectual tradition and yet people today think it's nothing more than breaking windows and listening to punk rock (including some Anarchists!). That's why I stick with Left-Libertarian.
The problem with Capitalism (a system in which the means of production are controlled by private investors) is that it's ultimately incompatible with free markets. Capitalism can only thrive when there's a state to enforce their property rights (many of which are dubious), create artificial capital barriers that funnel most of us into wage labor, and give businesses huge subsidies; such as letting them ship for pennies on the dollar and creating artificial monopolies through patents. In a truly free market, bloated, centralized corporations would likely be seized by the workers or out-competed by cottage industry.
Same. Political philosophy is really fascinating. It's pretty stunning how much I, and the world, has changed over the last couple years
Scary times, more like.. The rise of vulgar nationalists (and patriotism in general) seems antithetical to liberty, at least to me. I personally doubt that meaningful freedom will ever come from a change of management. It can only happen when we subvert, ignore and ultimately do away with the present order.
It is all a joke, all of it. Does not matter if you live in China or Russia or the United States. It all boils down to elites vs plebs. Russia had a red revolution and what did it get them? A different set of jerks doing the same crap to them. China's economic growth is amazing, when not looking at the fact when compared historically it is average up against the industrial boom in the US and others during the early 20th.
It no longer matters, there are people in China just as disappointed with their government as people in The UK and France and The US and Russia. Eventually there will be another revolution somewhere and guess what....the same shit will be argued about.
STOP YELLING IN THE MUSEUM
Maybe it's time to abandon the state and let the people manage their own affairs, political and economic.
So then you wish for anarchy, that does not work either.
Why not? I'd argue that horizontal organization of economic and political power (be it through local assemblies, workers' councils, etc) is the most logical way to reduce the corruption and alienation of the present order. Capitalists and rentiers are leeches, bureaucrats are worse and there's precedent for groups of people getting by all right in their absence.
No system is perfect and Anarchism has some rather serious conjectural problems, but the havoc and poverty caused by the state is very real, pervasive and horrific.
...
I fiercely disagree. The people who created Western Civilization(TM) aren't the capitalists or politicians. The world we know came to be from the soul-crushing toil of previous generations, starting with those peasants who were originally driven off their land and given no choice but to sell their labor to Capitalists for a fraction of its value. The lionized 'Captains of Industry' we study in history class were facilitators at best and cruel parasites at worst. True, Capitalism should be given credit for its ability to create huge material wealth (even Marx acknowledged that), but I'd argue that the profit drive has run amok. You only need to look at our society of (manufactured) mass-consumption, constant crises and environmental destruction to see that. Point is, labor and innovation were the driving force behind the rise of western civilization. The means by which the labor and invention were organized is strictly of secondary importance, if that.
No offense, but hopefully this compulsion dies off sooner rather than later. "Patriotism" as we know it is a miserable little abstraction.
Ideally, I don't want any president, but I supported Bernie for pragmatic reasons (I'm disabled and consistent health care would make my life much less complicated). His endorsement of Hillary isn't surprising (Social Democrats are know for such things), but is disappointing. Watching the revolution die at the convention last night was pretty depressing. The Democratic Party has a long history of pretending to care about peoples' movements while using the party machinery to ruthlessly crush and co-opt them. I don't see this shaking out differently.
...
Why do you think poverty is made by the State and not by the minority owning enterprises and all this stuff?
I'm not saying leaders of the main enterprises are 100% responsible for the poverty of the world, but in my mind they've got a lot more of responsability than the State. Watch the 1800's and what you got with free economy. The health of workers was shitty, to say the less. While on the contrary, the State brought laws (with some hardwork of the people with strikes though) which helped to have some decency in work, getting a minimum with salary, and so on..
Marx said the State was a stuff melting proletariat and capitalism, so proletarians won't know what to fight anymore. Though he mentionned the laws are a tool to protect the proletariat, and it's the State which technically produces laws.
The state empowers and protects the Capitalists. You can't have Capitalism without constant state intervention. Capitalism originally developed due to land confiscation by the state. In the 17-1800's the manor system was replaced with private property and as a result peasants were driven off their land. The commons were also shut off to them. With no means of independent income, all the peasants were forced to sell their labor to Capitalists and work in the factories. Marx touched on this in Capital.
Today, the state continues to collude with business and hurt people in more ways that I can possibly explain in under a few thousand words. If you want, I can link to a great article that goes Much further depth about it.
EDIT: The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
There was never a free economy, but I get it. No regulations really.
Yes, though this was mostly done to placate workers and undermine revolutionary movements, when violence alone wasn't enough to do it. Otto Von Bismarck's welfare state, for example. Far from being anti-big business, labor laws effectively saved big business from the workers, while killing smaller competitors in the process. That's exactly what happened with the New Deal. It was great for huge companies and we came out of the Great Depression with an economy dominated by cartels. This is not. to say all labor reform is bad, but it's important to realize that they aren't pure, benevolent acts on the part of the government.
could you you rephrase the first sentence, I'm not sure I get it.
I think it depends on which country you are from.
When I see labor laws, they are made by the State (even if again, a consequence of strikes and all). Those who wanted to lower it (and they just did recently) were the head of the big companies. When I see lobbys, they are made by enterprises, and it avoids the government to do laws that are needed.
In his "history" of class struggle, he mentions the creation of the State. In his mind, the State was created by the capitalists, so the proletariat, who knew before who to fight in the others class struggle (aristocracy vs serfs, aristocracy vs bourgeois, and so on), will now be confused.
I believe that Capitalism is the best economical system made by man till this point, seeing the spectacular failure of any others I'm sure of it.
Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts ect is my gig. Any restrictions placed on them for what ever dumb reason people come with will be met with fierce resistance.
I'm not a big fan of democracy but it's not like got anything better. Fan of strong state but not one that interferes with the freedom values I believe in.
Generally I'm opposed to any form of social benefits for people who are able but do not work because it's easier being a leech, if that's the case they should die out of starvation.
People should be equal before the law but not equal at all cost. There are better people there are worse people. All there is the matter of capabilities and societies should promote those talented individuals over the dumb idea that everyone is equal.
Patriotism is not a bad thing and should be cherished as long as it doesn't turn into dumb nationalism. People should be proud of their country and values and not demonized and called fascists .
Pretty sure that's just anarchism.
For what it's worth, I'm somewhat of a Leftist.
That's a theory of communism? Treat everyone well instead of making them live on streets.
Some series like Tomb Raider demonize communism.
Edit: I actually did read communism instead of capitalism.
Eh, not really, unless you're an Egoist Anarchist or something.
Anarchists want to abolish unjustified hierarchies. Most of us are fine with communities making their own rules as long as community members agree by consensus and living there is voluntary.
Dunno. Probably libertarian-ish. More of a centrist, but I'm certainly somewhat more right-leaning.
Here you go this test might help you get an idea what kind of political views you have!
Test
Fascist propaganda is much more entertaining.
Oh, I know this test, passed it twice in a span of about 7 months. The first time I was in the left-leaning libertarian section, but the second time I landed up in a right-leaning libertarian section. Funny enough, my results were on opposite sides of each other.
I think at heart everyone is a libertarian. But natural human instincts, selfishness and greed often forces people do things that end of forcing people to do what they should of been always doing to begin with. Which is very anti libertarian.
We can look back for example:
Slavery obviously today is a horrible thing, but for a long time we accepted it as a necessary evil, and eventually ended up at war with slavery as one of the catalyst, if not the main catalyst of that war, and it had to be "Forced" out of the picture by the state, as not all local governments wanted to abolish it.
Concept of the Draft. This one bugs me today, as no free state should be allowed to force people to fight/die for their country. Definitely when war is often an extension of politics, and for the USA often fought in the interest of foreign nations more so than our own anymore. To be honest, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam drafts were all to fight political wars, and to be honest none of them had anything to do with the survival of the nation or it's people. The American Civil War started it, and at the time it was an insanely unfair rigged system... well still is today, have enough money, get a bit of paper work saying you're too important to be in the army and walla, and of course the poor suffer from that unfair system. The US Army today openly preaches against the Draft, as Draftees make horrible soldiers. It is also a stain on the concept of a Free Nation.
The right to Vote. This is oddly something most Americans take completely for granted. For a long time in the USA voting rights existed only toward wealthy land owners. The common man had no rights at deciding elected officials at a Federal level. It eventually changed. It was once left to states to decide how it was done, and some didn't' give any rights to anyone when it came to electing representatives unless they owned land or were wealthy. Voting rights have been a huge issue, and seems to be even today in the USA. When left alone individual states make their own rules, and often intentionally leave people out of the process to keep a majority control by political factions that are most popular of the ruling elite of said state. USA this dominated, and seems to still be a problem, like in say Illinois, it's abused by the democratic majority still, and I can testify it still happens, and can promise other states in the USA still practice it, and by both political parties. For a long time women didn't have a right to vote unless the individual state allowed it, this had to be forced upon the majority. Allowing minorities to vote, again had to be forced upon as not all states would allow it. People are still afraid that since now the US Government is no longer monitoring how states like Virginia, Alabama and Georgia. I think all states when it comes to voting should be monitored and follow under strict central government control on how the voting process works. So you don't have states distributing districts to hold political majority. Even how they place voting poll locations can have a huge impact on voter turn out, and if one political party controls a city they can make it very hard for people of the opposition to vote by placing poll locations in places it is hard for them to reach in that one day time slot provided discouraging but the most stubborn voters.
Marriage. You may not think it's an issue outside of the whole Gay Rights movement, but for a long time in the USA if a Caucasian married anyone who wasn't a Caucasian it was illegal in a lot of states, and this lasted deep into the 20th Century. The Nazis borrowed their marriage laws and used states like Georgia and Alabama as examples on how to make their race laws, including those on Marriage. ie a "Legal" sounds semi "Fair" institute of racism. Number of States in the USA had it down to a science already and the Nazis borrowed them. Again these things eventually had to be forced upon states, as again some states refused to do what was right.
If I was more bored, I would dig up a lot more but.
All of the above are very anti Libertarian acts conducted throughout US History, but often were very necessary as well. Main reason why Libertarianism is a Pipe Dream in my opinion. One that can only exist in an ideal world, but the world has never been nor likely ever will be ideal, when it comes to basic human morality and politics itself. I mean politics hasn't changed in hundreds of years but yet people today seem to think politicians today are worse than ever. But that's only because people have horribly short term memory when it comes to politics. lol
Capitalism is broken (at least economically) and will fall apart at some point.
Oh, good to know. I guess I don't know too much about politics.
That's not the system fault, bloated burecracy and banksters are at fault. They made a system that works only on debt and from time to time it has to collapse. Pure Capitalism with only minimal state influence worked really well.
What we see is it collapses more and more than before. The cycle of crisis/growth continues to change faster, as time passes.
What's your example where capitalism with minimal state influence worked well? Imo I tend to think the contrary for some reasons.
Ah, the "internal contradictions of Capitalism", as Marx called them. I hope you're right, but state intervention has saved Capitalism every time. In the 1870's Bismarck saved Capitalism with Social Democracy. In the 1910's, America stopped the I.W.W with the Sedition Act and Pinkertons, then placated the Socialist/CPUSA/AFL-CIO Juggernaut by passing the New Deal in the 30's. More recently, the state has exported the most unpleasant aspects of Capitalism to the third-world. With the state on its side, Capitalism has proven very resilient indeed.
You're correct.
Nothing is better for big business than government intervention. You gotta have a state to break up the new monopolies, or they might threaten the old ones!
GET ON MY LEVEL.
at least you're not a commie...
What @DillonDex said
I've the feeling we've got kinda the same reflection but we don't end with the same consequences. Simply put: if you let the big monopolies free, they will attract more money, smash the competition and will get some politcal and economical powers, increasing their wealth. We can see it everywhere, some enterprises represent the wealth of some minor countries and with the state they already have means of pressure on political matters. Without it, how far would they go?
If I understood your point, you're anti state. But without a state, you can't protect the people or environment against the entreprises. Without any state left, what would stop these enterprises to make an aristocracy? In a place with no counterpart presented as the State, what would stop the wealthy against the weak? In my opinion a stronger state would be required instead of a non existant one. So I don't get why you advocate for not having a state.
Sorry for the lack of grammar and for the errors I did, I kinda have some problems to write properly in english these days.
Yet compared to all other systems it's more durable, yes crisis occurs but a lot of them is a result of the faliure of banking systems. Like we will soon see in Italy since they have a massive hole there...
The crisis also occur as some sort of speculative bubble burst (housing, goods ect)
Capitalism despite all bad creed is the system that favors change and acutally brought more equality than any other. All that matter in this system is skill. All that matter in this system is skill. If you are talented and have an idea for a business you have a high chance of success no matter if you're high or low born.
A reason why America did so well since it wasn't burdened by the social relationships of the past.
But I agree with that year we will see various crises more often since everything good a speed boost.
Still like the democracy is the worst goverment system, except all others the same rule apply to Capitalism, people can bitch and moan about it but we haven't come up with anything better that works so well.
I meant it as early capitalism, before the shit load of regulations and close ties to banks which as I mentioned above are often the source of the problems. The basic idea was good but the more it grew the worse it got, still the progress it gave after the feudal system collapse was remarkable.
So in conclusion the capitalism is an idea is good. It's just those whole add ons cause problems. Of course Monopolies are problems too but as history proven sooner or later they would fall as it is nature of Capitalism. The survival of the fittest
You are both right here. In some cases (like Russia or US) the goverment can be used as shield for the monopolies and wipe out the competition but in others (Germany, France, Holland) they can ensure that such things won't happen. It all depends on what kind of state we're talking about.
Yet I'm with Euron here on the fact that State is a counter weight to the pure Capitalism. As in it nature is to accumutale wealth without a certain degree of control the monopolies can easily can as much power as a state. Not forever as I mentioned in my other post but for a while they can become a dominant powers in regions able to even have their own private armies.