81
82

Alert! Nazi shitheads holding pro police demos in Olympia! (self.Cascadia)

Alerta_Cascadia が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -11ポイント-10ポイント  (57子コメント)

Despite my personal distaste for nazis, and all socialists really, should we not simply tie the nazis to the jackboot of a heavy handed police state that they obviously support?

National Socialism, much like all other varieties of socialism are rotting anachronisms, what's important in this, is that we present ourselves as the rational ones. Don't respond with anger, and don't show fear, treat them with the contempt they deserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSKfjldiB2Q

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 27ポイント28ポイント  (46子コメント)

K, clearing up a misconception. Just because the german party used 'socialist' in the name does NOT mean they actually had anything to do with socialism.

[–]DTLAgirl 22ポイント23ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's hilarious how people don't get this concept at all. It's actually not hilarious. It's pathetic.

[–]jdog1977 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

So wait, North Korea isn't democratic as their name states??

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

And Diogenes plucked a chicken, and brought it before the Plato's Academy and said: "Behold, I have brought you a man!"

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

That argument could be used equally for either of our arguments. Try going to r/socialism and ask how they feel about fascism some time.

[–]Cascadianarchist 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

indeed, socialism is basically the polar opposite of fascism (well, libertarian socialism is anyways, statist socialism agrees with fascism on state power, but totally opposite economic models)

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I guess I missed the storied history of libertarian socialist states in my history class that give disproportionate time to state socialism.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

There hasn't been a libertarian socialist society because the instant a socialist state looks probable, Capitalist states (almost always the US) attempt to destroy them, usually by staging a military coup. See the examples of Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and lest we forget, Vietnam. The reason the majority of socialist/communist states that have existed have been highly centralized is that they've had to be to avoid being destroyed. Look at how often the US tried to topple and/or assassinate Castro.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Using castro and cuba as the metric, they should be everywhere.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The American empire has a long reach. Who knows how many revolutions the CIA has stopped.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm going to suggest they've bungled more than they've been successful at, even if the initial result was as desired, second and third order consequences were probably disasters.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, yes it could. This is why definitions are important, however both drakes and hens are collectively thought of by the common man as ducks. While each plays a different role during breeding, the fundamental thing is, both have wings, fly, and quack. To draw distinction between them is useful to the ornithologist, and all those who take the study of ducks seriously.

Socialism vs National Socialism, I completely agree there are differences between them, and I'm sure to serious adherents the gulf between them is wide. However, to the rest of us, who have rejected both as an unwelcome usurpation of personal liberty insist that both, to borrow from my own metaphor, are ducks.

Even without plumage, both are immediately recognizable for what they are.

[–]warriorsbro -4ポイント-3ポイント  (33子コメント)

Socialism transformed to totalitarian fascism. We'd all like to believe socialism is capable of some Star-Trek style society, but I'm not sure if any government can avoid the aforementioned transition when given total responsibility of sustaining the well-being of a population. We've seen it go sour too many times, and we've seen plenty of general corruption in governments with limited power; imagine if their power were near absolute, the damage they'd do...

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 3ポイント4ポイント  (23子コメント)

Socialism isn't a governmental sysetm, it's an economic one. Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Hell, anarchism is a socialist (or very closely related) system, and it advocates for minimal or even no government.

[–]Cascadianarchist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anarchism in fact developed from socialism. We used to call ourselves merely "libertarian socialists" to distinguish ourselves from mainstream socialists who wanted economic equality through big government, when we want it through more local infrastructure and other means.

[–]comrade_nateWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah. There's various kinds of anarchism, but generally the closest you get to capitalism with anarchists is mutualism- even mutualists have a disdain for capitalists who claim to be anarchists. And believe me, us anarchists absolutely hate nazis, and any nazis that claim to be punks. Nazi punks fuck off!

Edit:And an interesting thing to note is that most anarchists are in favor of a society where money isn't used anymore, where there are no economic classes, and where workers own their means of production, and the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" where the "need" is what's necessary not simply to survive, but to live a happy life. Combine that with, obviously, the goal of immediately having a stateless society, and basically, most anarchists are communists. Including me.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's a problem... someone has to decide what each person's need is, and I'm sure they'll collect a fee for this, and start yet another Pareto Distribution.

[–]comrade_nateWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But why does the commune need to have some petty state to tell everyone what their needs are? Everyone can contribute whatever, whenever, as there'd be no unemployment, but seeing that if nobody does anything everybody would starve, those people would come together and figure out a schedule for their work, then get those resources in, enough to feed everyone well. And no, I don't interpret 4 dirty glasses of water and a few pieces of bread a day suffficient whatsoever, just stating that before another critique comes this way. There wouldn't be a fee, seeing as how there wouldn't be money in the first place. Average people, not some greedy politicians, would convene together and discuss general allocation of resources and, even then, there still aren't going to be cops. It's anarchy after all. Nonetheless, you could pretty much take whatever you want, so long as you don't take all the food, otherwise you'll be judged by your neighbors. Again, the justice system would be much different, more merciful and devoid of cops, but there will still have to be some restorative justice for the thief.

[–]warriorsbro -4ポイント-3ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yet its implemented and managed by government, so the line between economic/governmental is all but imaginary. That's the point really: The marriage of government and economy.

Anarchism is much more closely in-line with capitalism, in fact I'd argue its only relation to socialism is being its direct opposite.

[–]Cascadianarchist 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Except anarchism came from socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Origins

Most early anarchist efforts were expressly anticapitalist

If anarchists were capitalists, why would we be graffitiing banks and trying to disrupt capitalist exploitation of natural resources by means of property damage and civil disobedience? Sounds distinctly uncapitalistic to me.

[–]autowikibot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Section 3. Origins of article Anarchism:

The earliest anarchist themes can be found in the 6th century BC, among the works of Taoist philosopher Laozi, and in later centuries by Zhuangzi and Bao Jingyan. Zhuangzi's philosophy has been described by various sources as anarchist. Zhuangzi wrote, "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a Nation." Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics, their contemporary Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, also introduced similar topics. Jesus is sometimes considered the first anarchist in the Christian anarchist tradition. Georges Lechartier wrote that "The true founder of anarchy was Jesus Christ and ... the first anarchist society was that of the apostles." In early Islamic history, some manifestations of anarchic thought are found during the Islamic civil war over the Caliphate, where the Kharijites insisted that the imamate is a right for each individual within the Islamic society. Later, some Muslim scholars, such as Amer al-Basri and Abu Hanifa, led movements of boycotting the rulers, paving the way to the waqf (endowments) tradition, which served as an alternative to and asylum from the centralized authorities of the emirs. But such interpretations reverberates subversive religious conceptions like the aforementioned seemingly anarchistic Taoist teachings and that of other anti-authoritarian religious traditions creating a complex relationship regarding the question as to whether or not anarchism and religion are compatible. This is exemplified when the glorification of the state is viewed as a form of sinful idolatry.

Interesting: Anarchism in Asia | Left anarchism | Criticisms of anarchism | Anarchism in Africa

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]warriorsbro 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

To say anarchism "came from socialism" is a tremendous stretch. In their formative stages disagreements on key issues caused them to go in vastly different directions. Opposing a ruling class is hardly enough similarity to put the two in the same camp.

Why graffiti banks? Because common anarchists equate it to "fucking shit up and disturbing the system" and don't think any further than that.

Socialism will always mean bigger gov and a bigger system.

[–]Cascadianarchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sure, tell the political science major and self-proclaimed anarchist that his own understanding of anarchism is incorrect.

I assure you, most anarchists are socialists (just anti-government socialists) and to say otherwise is pretty silly.

[–]warriorsbro -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you have to tout your credentials on the internet you've lost already.

Anti-government socialism is a contradiction in terms.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.

Capitalism could operate under that definition, whereas socialism could not.

[–]Cascadianarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except socialism could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

And capitalism is intrinsically hierarchical due to the natural creation of different classes and levels of property ownership.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

You should probably re-read what you posted, unless you misspelled Stoicism as socialism.

[–]Longarm_alchemistWashington 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

What I think he meant was that socialism and anarchism have a long history in the west, and most of the anarchist thinkers associated with the modern anarchist movements were heavily involved with the socialist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, Bakunin springs to mind, along with Oscar Wilde, while yes his link does seem to have that flaw in it all one needs to do is look to the Socialist and Anarchist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries and you will see that anarchists, which I personally identify as, and socialists have very similar thoughts, even though some of us have disagreements on the end goal.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I find ironic is that people who identify with the 19th and 20th century developments, argue against * anarchism as revisionist, yet they are themselves practicing a revision of ideas that would have been unfamiliar to those that originated the source work 2400-1800 years earlier.

Philosophy is arguably the playground of human thought, it's dynamic, practicing change, appropriation, and revision at a pace that makes natural selection look glacial. However, it's that same dynamism that makes the orthodox cries of apostasy so hollow, when at the same time, the orthodoxy is in fact a relatively recent revision of ideas that remain centuries old.

There are a whole constellation of thinkers through the 1800s and 1900s who engaged every aspect of anarchism, Bastiat, Stirner, Godwin, Rousseau, whose opinions are so varied arguing for a single point of "this is anarchism" does little but invite challenge. After time and study, I'm not sure I could absolutely embrace any strict interpretation of any of these ideologies. In a way, I might argue for all, and at the same time argue for none.

That said, Diogenes of Sinope is arguably one of the most profound thinkers of antiquity, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle spent so much time philosophizing in ways that made them important, this effort has obviously been profoundly successful as it's hard to find a high school student who has never heard the name, much less not read one of their works. The same cannot be said for Diogenes, who is as near a classical example of Nietzschian Superman that has ever existed. One author describing him as the "nihilist of Hellenism". If you ever get a chance, I highly recommend reading the few scant stories and quotes that remain.

We would all do well to disabuse ourselves of the notion that strict adherence to the dogma of some kind of orthodoxy, whether it be ideological or religious and rather than worrying whether we are walking the talk, actually evaluating ideas based on merit. In the end, wearing a shoe that doesn't fit just makes you walk funny, for cynics, every day is casual friday.

[–]Cascadianarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Explain to me how anarchism is more capitalist than it is socialist, because I very intentionally meant socialism, not stoicism.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm going to draw deeply into the annals of history and argue that socialism didn't exist as a thing until at least 1800, however, based on the paragraph posted by autowikibot, there was no origin past about 1100AD mentioned.

[–]krackpotkinCascadia EarthFirst! 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

At its most fundamental level anarchism is the opposition to hierarchical social relations. Capitalism always produces hierarchy. The two are completely incompatible.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would argue that pretty much everything produces hierarchy wherever there are enough resources to support it. It's mirrored by the cellular processes in complex organisms, and the gravity that creates solar systems.

This is not an argument for hierarchy, but merely a statement of fact, that unless conscious effort is expended to avoid creating hierarchy, it will happen.

[–]krackpotkinCascadia EarthFirst! 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree completely. Thankfully as sentient and intelligent beings humans are capable of producing systems of social relations that can combat hierarchy. Anarchism isn't a static ideology but rather a continuous process of social revolution that seeks to root out hierarchy, domination, and oppression and combat them through education.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it has to be an individual revolution. Empowering the individual to say no, precludes the use of coercion to create hierarchy.

[–]warriorsbro 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree. At its most fundamental level anarchism is about statelessness and a lack of central authority. Capitalism is the only system that could exist without such things.

[–]vaguelyhuman -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

That's why I support socialism with no central government.

[–]warriorsbro 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

A complete fantasy of impracticality.

[–]Longarm_alchemistWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

I would beg to differ on that front, as we have good proof that a socialistic society without a central government can work, from the Native Americans all the way to Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, and as for your "Socialism transformed into Totalitarian Fascism" argument I can actually point out a lot of flaws in that argument, while yes Hitler used the word "Socialism" in his National Socialist ideology it was to usurp the actual socialist and communist movements in Germany during the Weimar Republic, and if you look at the policies he put in place when he was in charge you can see that what he practiced was not socialism, which by definition is "the workers own the means of production", but rather a system where the wealthy, Ethnic German population controlled all the factories and land, that by definition is not a Socialist society, if anything it is a Capitalist society.

[–]warriorsbro 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

You're describing undeveloped societies, which (given society as we know it now) are not relevant.

Yes, that's the transformation I'm describing. Socialism by default has inherent vulnerabilities that make it especially susceptible to such transformations. The extreme dependence on the state is its weakness.

[–]Longarm_alchemistWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

which is exactly why Libertarian Socialism, of which Anarchism is but a single branch is the best way forward for Socialism. I also find your assertion that Catalonia was a "undeveloped society" to be an argument that quite frankly does not hold much water, as Catalonia was as civilized and advanced as most Western European powers at the time and for a war-time group they did pretty well, and fought hard against the fascists led by Franco. I recommend you read "Homage to Catalonia" by one George Orwell when you get the chance, it might enlighten you to the ideas of Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and other ideas from the left.

[–]warriorsbro -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

There is no going back to the times of Catalonia and there is no way Libertarian Socialism is a realistic option in modern times.

[–]Longarm_alchemistWashington -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would argue that with the Internet and other modern advances that the Libertarian Socialist ideology is not only viable in the modern world but the best option for the world, we have a quickfire democracy in the modern age, humans naturually gather into small groups that are willing to share with one another and communication between far flung groups are nearly instantanius, not to mention the fact that we have automation now adays which allows for a lot of work for little time, all us humans have to do is assure that we can feed ourselves and our community, seems easy enough, especially if we all work together for the benefit of the whole.

[–]vaguelyhuman 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

If you think "national socialism" is socialism, I have a Democratic People's Republic in northern Korea to sell you. Deals on a Holy Roman Empire coming soon.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

They all exist within the constellation of totalitarianism.

[–]vaguelyhuman 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

So anarcho-communism is totalitarian?

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

You asked about national socialism, and the DPRK... decidedly totalitarian. Fall asleep during a speech by great leader and someone turns an anti-aircraft gun on you.

While I hate to answer a question with a question, who enforces the communism part of your anarcho? What if I like my stuff, and want to keep it? What if everyone else likes their stuff and also want to keep it? Maybe two people like each others stuff more than their stuff so they decide to trade it, what does the communism do then?

[–]vaguelyhuman 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

You asked about national socialism, and the DPRK... decidedly totalitarian. Fall asleep during a speech by great leader and someone turns an anti-aircraft gun on you.

I didn't ask about either of those things, I pointed out that they're both dishonestly named. The DPRK isn't democratic and national socialism isn't socialist.

who enforces the communism part of your anarcho?

Literally no one, it's one form of organization for the communities that want it.

What if I like my stuff, and want to keep it?

You can keep your stuff. Property isn't about stuff, it's about land and workplaces.

Maybe two people like each others stuff more than their stuff so they decide to trade it, what does the communism do then?

It shifts towards mutualism, which is also a perfectly nice anarchist economic system.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I didn't ask about either of those things, I pointed out that they're both dishonestly named. The DPRK isn't democratic and national socialism isn't socialist.

Ah, ok, I didn't catch your joke. Sorry.

Literally no one, it's one form of organization for the communities that want it.

Cool, enjoy, keep me out of it.

You can keep your stuff. Property isn't about stuff, it's about land and workplaces.

So my workplace isn't mine? Even though I own all the stuff in it, and without me it would be useless? Mind you, I own my own business. How about the land I own that I traded stuff I liked less than land for? I realize I can neither take my land nor my possessions with me when I die, I hope that one day I will have a suitable heir to pass them on to, but that's another discussion.

It shifts towards mutualism, which is also a perfectly nice anarchist economic system.

At a point isn't mutualism simply capitalism writ small?

[–]vaguelyhuman 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

So my workplace isn't mine? Even though I own all the stuff in it, and without me it would be useless? Mind you, I own my own business.

Are you giving commands and enforcing strictures of behavior against others who contribute just as much or more to the company?

How about the land I own that I traded stuff I liked less than land for?

Is it for personal use, or are you practicing landlordism over others?

At a point isn't mutualism simply capitalism writ small?

No, because a capitalist business or property is organized differently than a mutualist business or property.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sole proprietorship... In all my time as a salary man, there was always a single rule, never ask someone to do something you're not willing to do yourself. When it comes to everything else, as long as work is done, and no one gets hurt, zero fucks given.

I can't really practice landlordism, when I'm sitting on it with all my stuff.

How?

[–]vaguelyhuman 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

A sole proprietorship is totally compatible with mutualism (i.e. market socialist anarchism). You should read Benjamin Tucker or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, you might find yourself agreeing more than you'd expect.

The major difference between capitalism and mutualism is that in mutualism, all businesses are horizontal, i.e. no one ever asks someone to do something they're not willing to do themself.