Socialism

[HB1965]

You are confused and conflicted. That is all...

You might try Mises.org to cure you of your either of libertarian delusion or your socialist delusion; they cannot coexist.

You're the one that's confused. They can exist and do coexist. It's called left-libertarianism. Try Noam Chomsky to further educate yourself. Murray Bookchin is another.

 

[off2bed]

Chomsky?

 

[HB1965]

Chomsky?

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. At least that is what he claims. I'm simply suggesting it for Frisco the self avowed libertarian who seems to have missed that part of his education.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You're the one that's confused. They can exist and do coexist. It's called left-libertarianism. Try Noam Chomsky to further educate yourself. Murray Bookchin is another.

That's just another example of the Left co-opting a name.

Chomsky and Zinn are communists.

Chomsky is also fond of anarcho-syndicalism, a stronger more benevolent Fascist-Communist mix.

(Noam Chomsky, from my notes)

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement. Syndicalisme is a French word, ultimately derived from the Greek, meaning "trade unionism"*– hence, the "syndicalism" qualification. Syndicalism is an alternative co-operative economic system. Anarcho-syndicalists view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as "wage slavery," and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Not all seek to abolish money per se. Ralph Chaplin states that "the ultimate aim of the General Strike as regards wages is to give to each producer the full product of his labor. The demand for better wages becomes revolutionary only when it is coupled with the demand that the exploitation of labor must cease."

Additionally, Anarcho-syndicalists regard the State as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the State as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it. Given that Anarcho-Syndicalists regard the State as a hostile, profoundly anti-worker body, it naturally follows that they should reject all forms of participation in it. In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism-Leninism being a prime example), Anarcho-Syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of Workers' State, or State which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the rich and powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea not only that power corrupts, but also that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Some forms of anarcho-syndicalism are egoist in nature. The famous Italian insurrectionary anarchist essay written by an anonymous writer "At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, its Defenders and its False Critics" there reads "The workers who, during a wildcat strike, carried a banner saying, ‘We are not asking for anything’ understood that the defeat is in the claim itself (‘the claim against the enemy is eternal’). There is no alternative but to take everything. As Stirner said: ‘No matter how much you give them, they will always ask for more, because what they want is no less than the end of every concession’." Egoist anarcho-syndicalism was prominent in Glasgow during the 1930s and early 1940s.

Although Anarcho-syndicalism originated close to the beginning of the twentieth century, it remains a popular and active school of anarchism today and has many supporters as well as many currently active organizations. Anarcho-syndicalist trade unionists, being socialist anarchists, differ on anarchist economic arrangements from a collectivist anarchism type economic system to an anarcho-communist economic system. Historically most anarcho-syndicalists have identified as anarcho-communists (such as Lucy Parsons) or anarcho-collectivists (such as Buenaventura Durruti).
...
The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action, and workers' self-management. Workers’ solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers, no matter what their gender or ethnic group, are in a similar situation in regard to their bosses (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, in a capitalist system, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action*– that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position*– will allow workers to liberate themselves. Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations*– the organizations that struggle against the wage system, and which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society*– should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.
Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He dedicated himself to the organisation of Jewish immigrant workers in London's East End and led the 1912 garment workers strike. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labour in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.

In his article Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, Rocker points out that the anarcho-syndicalist union has a dual purpose, "1. To enforce the demands of the producers for the safeguarding and raising of their standard of living; 2. To acquaint the workers with the technical management of production and economic life in general and prepare them to take the socio-economic organism into their own hands and shape it according to socialist principles." In short, laying the foundations of the new society "within the shell of the old." Up to the First World War and the Russian Revolution, anarcho-syndicalist unions and organizations were the dominant actors in the revolutionary left.

Noam Chomsky was influenced by Rocker, writing the introduction to a modern edition of "Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice,". A member of the International Workers of the World (IWW), Chomsky is a self-described Anarcho-Syndaclist, a position which he sees as the appropriate application of classical liberalist political theory to contemporary industrial society: "Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will."

 

[off2bed]

See how the left plays the name game?

Everybody has a label except them.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Chomsky?

She hasn't read much of what I have posited in this thread, one of the main contentions being that socialists play loose and fast with definitions, the ol' Thesaurus and their proclivity to adopt the terminology of the day as a mask. The reason people began referring to themselves as Libertarians was because of the false adoption of the term Liberal by the Socialists of the Chair when "Socialist" fell out of favor, and of course, as obliquely pointed out by the well-informed HB, they then went on to adapt and corrupt the term Libertarian. Hell, to follow up and throw Perg into the mix, some of them even adopted the term Anarchist.

You can call me Al, progressive, Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Libertarian, Fascist, Nazi, moderate, independent..., whatever you want, and I'll show you a definition that proves I'm not, even if my economics and motivations are clearly "pragmatic Centrist..."



__________________
Barry Says: You have that one nailed A_J!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

See how the left plays the name game?

Everybody has a label except them.

I forgot to add the newest, "no label crowd," to my little list, although it was not meant to be inclusive, just illustrative...

 

[vrosej10]

Can I pick "Somewhat Confused Left Wing Nutter" as a personal descriptor or do these need to be ascribed by someone else?

 

[Liar]

See how the left plays the name game?

Everybody has a label except them.

What's your label?

 

[off2bed]

It's simple, really. They just know Communism isn't a bad thing, so anyone who's undeniably bad that we call a Communist can't really be a Communist; we're just being mean by calling him that. That's LeftLogic. Pure emotion.

I still go by the cancer analogy. Communism is a cancer on society. All the little sub-types the left loves to hide behind are merely different forms. Carcinoma, Sarcoma, Lymphoma, Blastoma, they're all cancer. The left seems to think a few metastasizing cells is good for a person and that the growth can be contained. And they ignore the hockey stick of the federal budget that looks like a 400 pound tumor on a 100 pound body.

 

[off2bed]

What's your label?

"Expires November, 2012."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Can I pick "Somewhat Confused Left Wing Nutter" as a personal descriptor or do these need to be ascribed by someone else?

We'll label you dazed and confused, busted flat in Baton Rouge, waiting on a train...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's simple, really. They just know Communism isn't a bad thing, so anyone who's undeniably bad that we call a Communist can't really be a Communist; we're just being mean by calling him that. That's LeftLogic. Pure emotion.

I still go by the cancer analogy. Communism is a cancer on society. All the little sub-types the left loves to hide behind are merely different forms. Carcinoma, Sarcoma, Lymphoma, Blastoma, they're all cancer. The left seems to think a few metastasizing cells is good for a person and that the growth can be contained. And they ignore the hockey stick of the federal budget that looks like a 400 pound tumor on a 100 pound body.

... feeling just as faded as my jeans...



Freedom's just another word for nothin' Left to loot...

 

[vrosej10]

We'll label you dazed and confused, busted flat in Baton Rouge, waiting on a train...

Careful choice of words. i haven't been flat buster since I was eight.

 

[Liar]

"Expires November, 2012."

You do?

 

[HB1965]

She hasn't read much of what I have posited in this thread, one of the main contentions being that socialists play loose and fast with definitions, the ol' Thesaurus and their proclivity to adopt the terminology of the day as a mask. The reason people began referring to themselves as Libertarians was because of the false adoption of the term Liberal by the Socialists of the Chair when "Socialist" fell out of favor, and of course, as obliquely pointed out by the well-informed HB, they then went on to adapt and corrupt the term Libertarian. Hell, to follow up and throw Perg into the mix, some of them even adopted the term Anarchist.

You can call me Al, progressive, Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Libertarian, Fascist, Nazi, moderate, independent..., whatever you want, and I'll show you a definition that proves I'm not, even if my economics and motivations are clearly "pragmatic Centrist..."



__________________
Barry Says: You have that one nailed A_J!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

I've read everything that you posted in this thread, AJ. I know that you claim to be a libertarian yet any time you post in any of these threads I see the posts of a conservative. I've come to the conclusion that you understand libertarianism your way. Good luck with that.

 

[off2bed]

Freedom's just another word for nothin' Left to loot...

*LOL*

Freedom isn't fair.

 

[off2bed]

You do?

Either Obama or America does.

 

[off2bed]

I've read everything that you posted in this thread, AJ. I know that you claim to be a libertarian yet any time you post in any of these threads I see the posts of a conservative. I've come to the conclusion that you understand libertarianism your way. Good luck with that.

Whose definitions are you using?

 

[Liar]

Either Obama or America does.

You must have misunderstood my question. You are neither Obama nor America. At least not all of it.

 

[off2bed]

What's your label?

I am an 80% Libertarian. I believe in about 80% of what they stand for.

What percent of Communism do most Litsters accept?

 

[HB1965]

Whose definitions are you using?

AJ can do what he wants. He can call himself what he wants. That's basically what he said in the post that I quoted even though he wasn't talking directly about himself. He's welcome to do that.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I've read everything that you posted in this thread, AJ. I know that you claim to be a libertarian yet any time you post in any of these threads I see the posts of a conservative. I've come to the conclusion that you understand libertarianism your way. Good luck with that.

I am in the footsteps of Rothbard more so than Hayek, even though both are considered "Libertarian."

It might be more correct though to say I am an adherent of von Humboldt who went before describing the logical outcomes to just a "little" positive interferences of the part of government.

I assume, of course you've read them in the same manner you assumed I have not read Chomsky.

 

[Liar]

I am an 80% Libertarian. I believe in about 80% of what they stand for.

What a coincidence, so am I.

Probably not quite the same 80%.

And I'm often ready to compromise on some of my principles because I realize that many of them are nice ideals, but shit has got to work.

What percent of Communism do most Litsters accept?

What percentage of Communism do they ever encounter?

 

[HB1965]

I am in the footsteps of Rothbard more so than Hayek, even though both are considered "Libertarian."

It might be more correct though to say I am an adherent of von Humboldt who went before describing the logical outcomes to just a "little" positive interferences of the part of government.

I assume, of course you've read them in the same manner you assumed I have not read Chomsky.

You actually assume correctly although I know that you believed that I have not.

Rothbard called himself an anarcho-capitialist. I always found that an interesting thought. I disagree with the concept of a gold standard so I wasn't very impressed with what he had to say.

Hayek's stuff was trying to be the economic version of de Tocqueville. The Road to Serfdom was more conservative.

I actually found von Humboldt more to my tastes:

I am more and more convinced that our happiness or our unhappiness depends far more on the way we meet the events of life than on the nature of those events themselves.