Ableton Forum

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:
"The goal of anarchists is communism."

Not necessarily IMO the libertarian political spectrum chart is a great example of a better understanding of the differences in thought:


Communism to a degree has an authoritarian side, so resides in it's best form somewhere far left and middle low. Stalin etc. was middle left top, Hitler middle right top. Anarchists would be far left bottom, libertarians far right bottom.
What is scary to everyone is how close all dictatorial systems are in this chart to the systems we have in place now.

The goal though, the long term goal. It's the same for most Marxists and most anarchists. Yes they have different ideas about how to get there. The goal of Marxism ultimately is no government.

"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression.”

Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 17-18

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/ ... #anarchism

The goal of marxism is tyranny of the masses, the collective rule. It has been proven over and over that the collective are painfully dangerous and open to manipulation. The fact of the matter is Marxism wants a utopia through everyone working towards a common goal and no thought for the self, an idea completely at odds with thousands of years of human evolution. You believe in a civil religion made up by an intellectualist bookish middle class prophet, and the more you realise there is no logical argument to what you are stating the more you will use obfuscation and quotes from your prophet to prove a point. How do you expect to win an argument without any kind of axiomatic logic path?

I will ask the question again.
Do you believe that the initiation or threat of force is immoral?

if you answer no then everyone here can see you for the tyrant you are. If you answer yes then we can quite easily lead you down a logic path that shows you that the state and therefore Marxism is immoral.

I'm guessing you wont use a yes or no answer and will rather obfuscate and quote passages from books (none of us have the time nor inclination to read because they are intellectual diarrhea), until you're blue in the face.

I wake from my slumber to +1 ^ this and then quietly fuck off into the night.

Funk N. Furter wrote: Sectarian violence is a result of capitalism. It is of little relevance to why the fascists rounded up the communists.

Er, no. You don't get to blame "teh EEEEEVVUL capitalisms lol!!!1" for every unfortunate counterexample that disproves your ridiculous arguments.

How stupid would I look if I tried placing the blame for every little ill currently pervading the world on the pungent aroma of Stilton cheese? No less so than you currently do, my misguided friend.

And what about the murderous rivalry that existed between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? Were they ideological polar opposites? Alternatively, were they brainwashed by "OMG OMG OMG CapITaliSMS" into going for each other's throats?

The fact is that fascism is extreme conservatism, far right, like libertarian is far right. Communism is far left.

A fact? Hardly. Take a gander at the official platform of the National Socialist German Worker's Party and tell me how many of the 25 planks could legitimately be described as right wing/conservative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... _the_NSDAP

Why have you got suburban thug's sig?

Because he agreed to loan it out to me for 10 bucks an hour.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Bean Machine wrote:Hypothetical question:

47.9% of the "masses" decide they don't want socialism and elect to form their own anarcho-capitalist society, separate from the emerging socialist one next door. Do the socialists allow them to coexist peacefully and not attempt to appropriate the property belonging to those in this an-cap society for themselves?

Yet another fantasy. I can't really envisage a scenario like that. It's not impossible, but why would it be 'next door'. More likely to be on the same turf, opposition and support.

Well, if pedantry is the name of your game, let me provide a slightly more specific example:

Suppose that a nation decided to go socialist (in the so-called "anarchist" sense of the term which you believe to be the correct definition)... One isolated town within said nation however, decides it wants no part in the upcoming workers' paradise, and decides to remain a separate entity that then adopts the anarchocapitalist model of social organization.

Would the individuals living in this town be allowed to hold on to their property, whether it be things like toothbrushes, cars, stereo equipment, houses, land, factories, industrial machinery, farm equipment etc?

Or would the socialist masses surrounding the town be justified in seizing whatever they decided was necessary to further their own socialist utopia?

Dismissing this scenario as "fantasy" is not an acceptable answer, btw. Just thought I'd let you know.

SuburbanThug wrote:As far as anarcho-capitalism is concerned, I think maybe some of you do not understand the word anarchy.

Let's see...

an = without
archy = a governing body

Semantics is hard.

Bean Machine wrote:

SuburbanThug wrote:As far as anarcho-capitalism is concerned, I think maybe some of you do not understand the word anarchy.

Let's see...

an = without
archy = a governing body

Semantics is hard.

+1 ,
It is difficult to understand for some people though, especially when the media like to portray anyone destroying and rioting as an anarchist. They aren't anarchists they are hooligans or to give them their correct term, "wankers"

Funk N. Furter wrote:Not even right wing conservatives have any time for nonsense like that.

Demonstrably false:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... al+fascism

Emissary wrote:

Bean Machine wrote:

SuburbanThug wrote:As far as anarcho-capitalism is concerned, I think maybe some of you do not understand the word anarchy.

Let's see...

an = without
archy = a governing body

Semantics is hard.

+1 ,
It is difficult to understand for some people though, especially when the media like to portray anyone destroying and rioting as an anarchist. They aren't anarchists they are hooligans or to give them their correct term, "wankers"

Or "suburban thugs", perhaps?

Machinesworking wrote:@H20nly there's a difference between nationalism and racism.
Nationalism (or provincialism) used here to describe any regional or cultural prejudice.

there's a difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly too, but after all the wriggling and writhing they end up the same.

nationalism is just racism before the fighting starts.

H20nly wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:@H20nly there's a difference between nationalism and racism.
Nationalism (or provincialism) used here to describe any regional or cultural prejudice.

there's a difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly too, but after all the wriggling and writhing they end up the same.

nationalism is just racism before the fighting starts.

racism was a french (now dead) pseudoscience, nationalism was a 800 and 900 european political ideology, now dead (apart in the USA, France and some UK parties). In the rest of the world nationalism is dead, too.

H20nly wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:@H20nly there's a difference between nationalism and racism.
Nationalism (or provincialism) used here to describe any regional or cultural prejudice.

there's a difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly too, but after all the wriggling and writhing they end up the same.

nationalism is just racism before the fighting starts.

That both are dangerous feelings to have I can agree with that to a degree, but you've demonstrated nationalist sentiment without coming across as extreme about it, this isn't something you cannot do with racist sentiment. So I would argue very simply that they are very different.

Wow. Really went troll fest circle jerk in here fast didn't it? How was the biscuit guys?

myrnova wrote: racism was a (now dead) pseudoscience, nationalism was a 800 and 900 political ideology, now dead (apart in the USA, France and some UK parties). In the rest of the world nationalism is dead, too.

Lies! if nationalism was dead the rest of the world would have far better politics, and be in a far better place. You can try to dispute that all you want, but you're dead wrong. Otherwise explain your own countries fascist wines you lying lier.

Emissary wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Emissary wrote:
You accept the use of force by the state is moral. Your a dick, please stop debating this tyrant.

"There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state.[3] The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political phenomena.[4] The act of defining the term can be seen as part of an ideological conflict, because different definitions lead to different theories of state function, and as a result validate different political strategies.[5]

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,[6][7][8][9][10] which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.[11][12] General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.[13]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a state is "a an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. b such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America".[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29

A left winger quoting walls of text from a website, using no internal logic and avoiding the point? well....thats really shocked me.

Avoiding the point? It was highlighted in red for Christ sake! The most commonly held definition OF A STATE describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

Machinesworking wrote:

myrnova wrote: racism was a (now dead) pseudoscience, nationalism was a 800 and 900 political ideology, now dead (apart in the USA, France and some UK parties). In the rest of the world nationalism is dead, too.

Lies! if nationalism was dead the rest of the world would have far better politics, and be in a far better place. You can try to dispute that all you want, but you're dead wrong. Otherwise explain your own countries fascist wines you lying lier.

?!