Politics in Exile?
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Politics in Exile? |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 6 2004 16:25
Profile
Homepage
TM's a self-described communist, but his philosophy is too idiosyncratic to pigeonhole. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Wednesday, October 6 2004 21:41
Profile
Yes, he is. But bear in mind being both communist and anarchist is a contradiction in terms. Not that that would bother TM. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3418
|
written Wednesday, October 6 2004 23:47
Profile
quote:Heh well under the ideal communism there is no government and everyone works not for the good of themselves but the good of the community that they are part of. So communism is like wishful thinking that anarchy would not only work but that people would selflessly devote themsleves to their community. Posts: 16 | Registered: Tuesday, September 2 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 10:15
Profile
I think it has been articulated before that you are an idiot. Please check your political ideologies before you open your mouth again. Anarchism and communism are diametrically opposite to each other as political belief systems, in terms of how it has been interpreted on the modern political stage. [ Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:18: Message edited by: Morgan ] Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 10:16
Profile
In philosophical terms the end points are supposed to be the same between communism and anarchism. In historical reality they are completely different. I remember an illustrative story I heard about the russian revolution; the communists were on the right side of a train station shooting at the czarists on the left side of the station shooting at the communists, the anarchists were in the middle shooting at both sides. This was also true during the Spanish civil war. The communists often fought the anarchists rather than attack the falangists. Anarchism often gets the short end of the stick. Leftists have a tendency to attack themselves if they are not careful. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 15:14
Profile
Homepage
There are several types of anarchism and communism, each different. Anarcho-socialism falls under both communism and anarchy, anarcho-capitalism under anarchy only, Stalinism-Leninism falls under communism only, and democratic socialism can fall under both if you define them very loosely, or neither if your definition is more strict. Ideally, the end aim of communism is a state of anarchy: government, when just, exists for the very purpose of preparing humanity for a socialist utopia and, when no longer needed, will wither away, leaving a peaceful state of anarchy. Note there is a difference between anarchy and caustocracy which is not often made -- specifically, because the situation which arises from the sudden death of government -- or even the survivable instability of government -- is called 'anarchy' where it is really more of a caustocracy: rule by fire. Whoever can take power will, and will face no opposition, because the people WANT a government. In a truly anarchist system, no government is needed or wanted, thereby making the sort of warlord-state scenario found during major succession crises impossible. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 15:22
Profile
Homepage
I am substantially disappointed with Morgan here. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 15:30
Profile
Anarchism, Communism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Capitalism -- the majority of state systems start from basic assumptions about how human nature works. These assumptions are from political thinkers from the 19th century and have very little relation to how people really think. There was no study of sociology, brain science, psychology, or even comparative world religious systems at the time. Someone sat down and pondered on the question for a bit then wrote something which we are to accept on an almost dogmatic level. Then a group of people adopted that persons ideas as a kind of group think. It amazes me to no end that people fail to question this. The educated citizen today in many ways knows more than the people who created these philosophies. It might be nice to start from scratch in forming a new government and pragmatically look at what is in the best interests of the majority of citizens-- based on universal common decisions directly decided by elected representatives of the people being governed and voted into being by a binding universal forced vote. A directly formed democratic commonality. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 18:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:TM, you're well aware that "Communism" has become a synonym for statist socialism, from party Stalinism to Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat." -------------------- I've got a pyg in a poke. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 21:01
Profile
Homepage
How can I not be aware of what people associate it as? Don't make it right. I'm not sure whether I should be more irritated by his clear rhetorical symptoms of ideological obediance towards cold-war "socialism is the bad guy" compassionate-conservative think tanks or by the speed he dismissed me at which also shows a fair degree of ignorance. It's a tough choice. All I know is that paradoxes win again today. [ Thursday, October 07, 2004 21:02: Message edited by: Corrigere ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 21:41
Profile
Oh, calm down TM. I wasn't being remotely serious having a jibe at you. But, yeah. Mistake acknowledged. Blame lack of sleep and too much alcohol. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 22:45
Profile
Too much alcohol? I can identify with that, at this very moment. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3418
|
written Thursday, October 7 2004 22:57
Profile
quote:Socialism is a bad idea unless everyone within your government likes the idea of working for the interest of the whole rather than the individual. The great part of capitalism is people have the choice since you can work for the sake of your own gain or you can take all your gain and distribute it all to those who you think deserve it or any range inbetween the invidual and the whole. There's also the fact that by forcing people to help others you take away the good feeling that it gives because now you're not helping people from your own good will but because you're required to which alleviates most if not all the good feel from helping people. And even if you had the perfect civilization in which socialism would work capitalism would work just the same since the individuals would use their money to further the collective rather than themselves. Socialism isn't evil it's just plain stupid. [Edit] Of course an unrestricted capitalism that generates a few large monopolies isn't much better. [ Thursday, October 07, 2004 23:02: Message edited by: Theodis ] Posts: 16 | Registered: Tuesday, September 2 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 00:26
Profile
Homepage
You don't have much choice if you're physically or mentally incapable of holding down a job. quote:Nice theory, but 50 years of economic and psychological research undermines it. In fact, most people feel less resentment about losing money if they don't have any choice about doing so. The small proportion of people who actually enjoy giving to society of their own free will are likely to still do so in a socialist system, volunteering their time instead if they don't have any money to give away. (In more moderate forms of socialism, they'll simply give away even more money than they have to.) -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2