And why are you ridiculing the guy who's just minding his own business instead?
And why are you ridiculing the guy who's just minding his own business instead?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Well, I'm an awkward, nerdy college kid who lives with his parents
It's cool that he minds his own business. His professed lifestyle is libertarian in essence, despite his implicit rejection of the ideology.
The end is nigh
I don't reject the ideology, I think it's not worth going on about. However, I do reject the often implicit assumption that everyone in the world would have to comply with this ideology.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Well, I'm an awkward, nerdy college kid who lives with his parents
It's cool that he minds his own business. His professed lifestyle is libertarian in essence, despite his implicit rejection of the ideology.
The world will contain democrats, socialists, communists, nazis, libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, etc, however the implicit practice of many of the followers of these ideology is simply to eliminate the rest either by force, persuasion, "education", the non-believers. It's the implicit religious adherence to dogma and doctrine that make whatever belief they happen to follow meaningless.
The thing is that anarchists and libertarians are never going to be in a position organized enough to take on more aggressive groups and followers. My analysis and history tells me the victories(Paris commune) would be short-lived and/or tragic. To me communism/anarchism/libertarians are the same and equally naive but I view it currently as akin to Christianity circa 100 bc. Marxism(using Marxism instead of communism because I want to reflect the ideological nature and not the practical implementation) is a secular "religious" movement against imperialism(European) motivated by the same sense of injustice and res-sentiment as the Christians had against the Roman Empire. Consequently most of the places that adopted Marxist policies and regimes were colonies and former colonies emancipated by the decline of European empires.
Marx is simply the most visible "prophet" of this "religion", much as Jesus became the most visible "prophet" of Christianity, but in my estimation the underlying motivations for these movements is the same and these are fundamental human desires. A number of charlatans and con-men have used this motivation to sway their followers one way or another to further their own causes but that motivation is not going away, however I would say how it is communicated has been modernized.
You live in the US which is a bubble, and you don't really understand how the world is or what forces in the world are in motion. You don't really understand that in the US, Marx is taboo, and elsewhere Marx more or less required reading. America is a bubble, made by it's own fears, resulting in McCarthy and the various red purges which occurred, the cold war, religious fundamentalism and ignorance. Americans don't even understand May 1, international workers day commemorates a American event, which is celebrated by most other countries. The wool's been pulled over America's eyes for over 100 years. It's a wounded lion hiding in a cave, lashing out blindly. America is a great country founded on great ideals, but it's people(not it's Government) no longer have a good grasp of the ideals. Ultimately this affects the quality of it's Government and administration as many of these are elected officials.
I view the rot in America as something that goes to the very core of it's existence, it's people, and unless the American citizens gain a fuller understanding of the greater world, how the world is, I don't see any system or non-system established in the US as being worth a damn.
I don't particularly care about the government or ideology, but it's important that the people gain a adequate understanding of the world and the world around them, after that, I'll figure out a way to let them decide, a system by which everyone's voice can join the song. Thankfully, I don't have to do the heavy lifting, most of that mechanism has already been built.
If I had to characterize my ideological position, I would be a Geolibertarianism, with taxes applied to things like intellectual property as well as physical property and in a sense all private property. So property value tax. I don't believe in income tax as a fair tax in that sense but there would be reasons for its existence.
However, I'm a pragmatist, and I do not believe the rich and property owners would allow the only tax to be a property value tax nor would it be easy to make a assessment on the value of property, and in that sense a highly progress income tax becomes the only other way to fund the system in a non regressive fashion. Also there may be other issues with having a single tax and it may be necessary to have other taxes such as a sales tax to prevent catastrophic(and really only catastrophic) failure in the event of economic adjustments.
Okay, cool. Geo-libertarianism or something akin to that is an alternative to anarchism that I still readily consider. It may surprise you, me being an ideologue and all, but when I first began considering anarchism several years ago, my first objection to it was the problem of owning fixed plots of space. Owning transportable objects makes sense because they generally do not impede the free movement of others. Land however, is relatively permanent and can be used to "block" people in or out of areas if the strictures of private property are followed to a T. For instance, if plots of land are situated in a 3x3 arrangement, and if I own the outer plots, then I could block the person in the center plot from leaving. that scenario is extreme, but a more realistic one would be the imposition of tolls and fees for moving across property. Further, if I do own a plot of space how far vertically does it extend into the sky, and how far into the ground? That problem is more easily solved by defining the extent when transferring the property in the first place. Another issue becomes apparent only for space-faring civilizations when it is recognized that fixed plots on the Earth move through different areas of space as the planet revolves. Some anarchists have thought about this issue and proposed/initiated the "Seasteading" movement or "dynamic geography" http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CJ...eIQNAodCiUb0w#. Living on the sea in a mobile unit would alleviate the costs of movement somewhat. "Airsteading" and "spacesteading" are also possibilities. Although steading is far from feasible now, it may become increasingly beneficial as the population increases. In general, I believe future migrations of people into new, unpopulated environments will lead to more libertarian systems, while ancient Terra maintains a quasi-religious/quasi-necessary attachment to geographical state monopolies.
Definitely check out seasteading if you haven't already. I think that might be what you are getting at when you tell me about needing a plan and such for libertarianism and not just voicing ideology.
Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 05-03-2012 at 08:34 PM.
The end is nigh
I would say this is very isolationist, and I would lose many freedoms by choosing to remove myself from a vast majority of the humanity. People join organizations to be able to do things outside of their individual abilities, and in that act give up certain freedoms. I think most plans for anarchist communities are well intention-ed but flawed as they all require significant initial capital, often become communities of elite which in turn need to acquire cheap labor for basic necessities and maintenance(often in very oppressive conditions and without full rights). Fundamentally I think if humans left earth, a somewhat anarchist society will start on those worlds, then the highly funded oligarchy will make a venture onto those worlds and form exploitative systems absent legal intervention in which people are oppressed. This is more or less what happened in America, a mix of anarchists, debtor, religious fanatics and aristocrats settled on to it's lands and each implemented their own form of governance, some better then others. It's no coincidence the slave trade was a major source of labor in the New World, absent moral and ethical oversight, people with the will and the ruthlessness were able to perpetuate oppression they could not in their home environment. It's also no surprise the indigenous populations were exterminated.
I do believe that these exploration of unsettled territory provide a vital experimental ground for development of new societal techniques. A example would be the many countries which has made the attempt to adapt American constitutional democracy after their revolutions. Even the Chinese model with it's single party rule and communist ideology is an adaptation of American constitutional democracy. This is imo due to the legacy of Sun Yat Sen(who was American educated in Honolulu, Hawaii) who was a founding forefather of both Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Fun fact, he was married to one of the Soong Sisters and Chiang Kai Shek is married to another. Soong Ching Ling became vice chairman of the People's Republic of China while Soong, her sister Soong May Ling is of course the former First lady of the Republic of China.
Anyways, it's my belief that capitalism and libertarian-ism are weaker organizing forces(but perhaps more consistant) than nationalism and religion, however the most powerful unifying force is still understanding, knowledge, pragmatism and kindness. It's my believe that any society founded on the latter(understanding, knowledge, pragmatism and kindness), while giving room for the former will be freeier, more prosperous and probably a more enjoyable experience.
Well, I voted "Other" since I like them both about equally.
The simple fact is truly that you can never have any kind of system of government or economy due to the fact that as soon as you put humans into the picture, it will always break down.
Humans are capable of feeling "oppressed" yet can never seem to agree on what the oppression is or what is fair to avoid feelings of oppression. This is why it will never work. This site even contributes to categorizing how there are more than 16 types of people with differing views and behaviors. What each of these 16 types might deem oppressive, others would disagree and see nothing wrong with, and vice-versa.
If you have models or methods that strictly reward the output of effort and product, you will have people that feel those not contributing to production are oppressed as they deserve the same things the producers are receiving (i.e. this is usually where capitalism breaks down).
If you have models that better distribute all rewards and product, you will have people that feel those producing more are oppressed as they should receive more for their efforts by contrast, as well as there wasted rewards being distributed to lesser productivity.
So no matter what you do, and even if you could create the utopian world where pure Capitalism, pure Socialism, pure Communism, etc. etc. could exist, you'd still have them denigrate to the human condition, which is to find oppression regardless of scenario.
You'll never see any of these happen though as they all, at differing degrees, require everyone to play. As resources and raw materials aren't equally distributed globally, you truly have to make the big puzzle work together in some way else things fall apart. Welcome to 1000's of years of at least partial imperialism thrown into the mix to chase those goals for purity. But once a system dabbles in Imperialism, the original ideal fades to obscurity due to human-kind's second characteristic: greed.
Didn't vote at all for "other" can be, say, capitalism you stated after few sentences broke down. This is not some "Absurd is being picky again or something", but how can you like or dislike something without knowing how it functions to begin with unless you want to cut it with "their uniforms are aesthetic" or some shit like that.
That means you're living and working in an already broken down economy yourself and you're the cause of its decline. Correct me if I'm wrong.The simple fact is truly that you can never have any kind of system of government or economy due to the fact that as soon as you put humans into the picture, it will always break down.
Actually this site promotes conformism, that is, some fashionable trends of thought that ought to be followed mindlessly out of fear of rejection and alienation from group. Period. I'm on my period as well.Humans are capable of feeling "oppressed" yet can never seem to agree on what the oppression is or what is fair to avoid feelings of oppression. This is why it will never work. This site even contributes to categorizing how there are more than 16 types of people with differing views and behaviors. What each of these 16 types might deem oppressive, others would disagree and see nothing wrong with, and vice-versa.
Those people in SU, under Stalin were called looters.If you have models or methods that strictly reward the output of effort and product, you will have people that feel those not contributing to production are oppressed as they deserve the same things the producers are receiving (i.e. this is usually where capitalism breaks down).
Pure democracy, pure libertarnism, pure something - what does this even mean?So no matter what you do, and even if you could create the utopian world where pure Capitalism, pure Socialism, pure Communism, etc. etc. could exist, you'd still have them denigrate to the human condition, which is to find oppression regardless of scenario.
Besides, all utopias share a certain function - a critical function. Utopia's critical function may be directed at different objects. A Utopian may rebel not only against social and political precepts or the dominant morals but also against laws of nature and against death itself. This rebellion is expressed poetically in many religious doctrines and folk Utopias.
The difference between libertarian capitalism and the other ideologies is that it doesn't presume to impose a lifestyle or organization model on people. It recognizes that people have different values, different lifestyles, different methods of organizing, etc. Nazis and communists need to control others lifestyles to make their ideologies "work". In libertarianism, you can experiment with whatever model you like, as long as you don't impose it on others. I don't see how it can be justified that libertarianism is imposing, when it is explicitly about non-imposition. It works because it allows experimentation. You can try out a worker's syndicate if you want to, maybe it will be functional in some circumstances, maybe it won't.
The end is nigh
What's the difference between libertarian communism and other ideologies, then?
Depends on how you define libertarianism I guess. I've made my definition pretty clear. "libertarian communism" might mean the experimentation with communist organization within a libertarian society. Meaning that the people using this form of organization chose do to so, and do not seek to force others to do so. It would therefore be an option, which might or might not compete successfully with other forms of organization.
The end is nigh
Hence the word "equally" - one can say they like or dislike things "equally", which can be interpreted as expertise or ignorance. When it comes to things that are known in theory, but not known in practice, you are left to roll your own. Optimists prefer to use key words such as "like" and "experience", versus pessimists that might coin words such as "dislike" and "ignorance", etc. etc.
Ultimately, it's complete neutrality given the lack of practical knowledge or real-world observation. It only leaves "purists" to debate the theory and how it might play out.
Myself and everyone else.That means you're living and working in an already broken down economy yourself and you're the cause of its decline. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I've never been interested in what anything/anyone might be promoting or what is considered fashionable.Actually this site promotes conformism, that is, some fashionable trends of thought that ought to be followed mindlessly out of fear of rejection and alienation from group. Period. I'm on my period as well.
And I'm much too big a pompous, arrogant ass to have any kind of fear of rejection or alienation. I often consider both to be forms of "success" more often than not.
I agree... and this is what I see being the gist of much of the debate: utopian idealism rebelling against flawed/false methods.A Utopian may rebel not only against social and political precepts or the dominant morals but also against laws of nature and against death itself. This rebellion is expressed poetically in many religious doctrines and folk Utopias.
Nazism, most definitely.
source: Being German, owning an actual copy of Mein Kampf, unwavering love of Richard Wagner's music.
I see.
Didn't hear about that distinction before - I think I'm going to refer to it when the time comes. Thanks a lot.
Well, man invariably looks for an ideal as the perfect image of the object at which his activity is aimed. In this respect, ideals differ not only from era to era but also within individual eras, reflecting the interests of different social classes and groups.I agree... and this is what I see being the gist of much of the debate: utopian idealism rebelling against flawed/false methods.
I'm curious, are you an idealist. My political affiliation or something like that doesn't have much to do with this debate(?), but let's say I happen to know a thing or two, and that's why I'm asking.
I don't really hate ideologies. I just find anything fanatic to be stupid. But which of the factions in during WWII I disliked the most?
Commies make good enemies, you will never run out of things to kill and Nazi's make loyal allies.
Last edited by Aquagraph; 05-07-2013 at 11:39 PM. Reason: Added an Ilmari Juutilainen-related fact and an anecdote. Also made a statement more succinct and pressed enter.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Hmm, I always thought you were some kind of commie, Aqua. I mean Pirate parties often branch off Communist parties and in some cases Communist parties are the Pirate Party.
Create a party called Damn Fine Smelling Socks and run against Aqua's Pirates in upcoming elections, William. It's common knowledge pirates have stinky socks or none at all.
This thread is giving me a Ti aneurysm.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Welcome to Socionics. Anyway, I thought you wanted to be politician, Kim. I mean I read so in some thread.
Last edited by Absurd; 05-07-2013 at 10:37 PM.
Why did you rez this?
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
Because Aqua wanted to brag about how brave the finnish people were when they fought against the Red Army.
Btw, Häyhä killed many more people as far as I know.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
"Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order." - Wikipedia
"Nazism is the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements elsewhere. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism." - Wikipedia
I dislike many (most) major aspects of Nazism.
Communism is a more vague concept than Nazism (which is pretty much tied to one particular group/area/era), but I don't think there's anything about it that I could say I hate or even strongly dislike. Some of its ideas actually seem pretty cool to me. Not that I'm an enthusiast, either, but it's an interesting philosophy.
Yeah, I think I made that shamelessly obvious.
It was also a more inventive way to bump this thread.
Well, a local war historian says it was 542.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Nah, I would just rather be a politician than a cat or a prostitute.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
It's not quite clear to me if you point out the good things ****** has done because you sincerely believe they need to be pointed out for balance or if you are just siding with the underdog for the sake of siding with the underdog (which you like to do as you stated earlier).Yeah, I think I made that shamelessly obvious.
It was also a more inventive way to bump this thread.
Well, a local war historian says it was 542.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
What wikipedia says is that Communism never existed and I doubt it will. Pretty idealistic.
Just like Socionics. You've got BnD trying to gaslight Jews, and euthanasia talk, so no wonder it is so widespread amongst Ni/Se population on this forum."Nazism is the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements elsewhere. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism." - Wikipedia
That motive doesn't exclude the motive to brag. But true, it is an underlying motive. I agree with Agarina's post. Fascism is something I object in the core, although it doesn't need nazis to act like a fascist. States that have labeled themselves as communists have a high tendency to be fascists.. but that applies to all states more or less.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
There's no such thing as a "communist state."
Soviet Union wasn't communist, it had clearly defined borders and in Stalin time military ranks were reintroduced again.
Last edited by Absurd; 05-09-2013 at 03:13 PM.
"Technically, 'communist state' is a contradictio in terminis as a communist society as defined by both Marxists and anarcho-communists is in principle stateless. From this perspective, the term Marxist-Leninist state is more appropriate." - Wikipedia
I couldn't have said it better.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Stalin was a Marxist as well...
Anyhow, good luck establishing Communism in near future, Uncle Aqua. Many more countries to introduce Communism in nowadays than in the past. Force, no force, the end is high.
Taking into account that nazi/commie symbolic/regalia is still banned constitutionally in some democratic countries in Europe due to an obvious fact and may pay off in some time in jail, it is something to look forward to. Hey, most revolutionaries did time, so it may boost your reputation.
Not to mention most parties suspected extremist due to the ideology they offer are infiltrated by undercover agents. German NPD for instance was and more "smarter" members that planned something left Police their addresses.
Last edited by Absurd; 05-09-2013 at 03:45 PM.
I hate for sure nazism more
Weighing your decission on killed people is ridicoulous
The idea behind nazism is so much more sick and inhuman
Watch out for Ni/Se nazists hiding in bush on this forum.
Thanks for advice
The idea behind communism is more naïve and we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
And all the cult stuff and believing in a superior race and believing the world will be better when all jews are death is not naiv? Serious?
Communism.
Communists?
It wasn't anymore naïve as believing that the Sun revolves around Terra in 16th century. However, most of the time neo-nazism is a bunch of jingo idiots bashing immigrants. There still is room to create a monoculture but I'd wish this would be an experiment in a society without a lot of people labeled as "undesirables". I'd love to see a seasteading nation trying such just as I'd love to seasteading nation trying communism and libertarianism.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
why can't i choose democracy?
This isn't Monopoly. You can't have them all.
Last edited by Absurd; 05-25-2013 at 09:17 AM.
This is a little nonsense because in the end the Nazis and Commies were acting the same way but anyway Communism killed more people, in and out of, Europe. (and still kills).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
