Using basic terms incorrectly...

[richard_daily]

I'm not pretending anarchism is right wing.

I think anarchism is no wing, but by being anti government is highly conducive to free market capitalism and social liberalism. The exact opposite of socialism and social justice.

You most certainly are pretending anarchism is right wing.

You claimed it right here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=87768866&postcount=226

Capitalism is "right wing" according to you. and anarchist is "highly conducive to free market capitalism" according to this post.

Only in your pretzel logic would you not be claiming anarchism is right wing. You know you can't back up your own position, so you're waffling on it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And wrong again.

Really? Then what does antiFa want? What are they after if not social justice and socialism?

You most certainly are pretending anarchism is right wing.

You claimed it right here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=87768866&postcount=226

Capitalism is "right wing" according to you. and anarchist is "highly conducive to free market capitalism" according to this post.

Yep and pointing out that it has certain aspects that align with other political philosophies is not the same as pretending or claiming that anarchism is the same as those other philosophies/theories.

Nice try pretzel logic!!

 

[Que]

He wants to pretend that socialism is really just hippies sharing love and goodness once they execute those evil people that have earned, saved, and leveraged their capital. Socialism taking hold is impossible without the jumpstart of confiscation. No dead-broke society can magically prosper by redistributing assets they don't have.

Socialists never admit that it is entirely dependant on plundering the productive at the threat or imposition of violence for the benefit of the unproductive. No productive person favors the idea. No productive person voluntarily sticks around when such a scheme is inacted. If forced to stay, no productive person remains as productive after such a scheme is inacted.

That root of the problem is not understanding human motivation and humans reaction to changing economic circumstances and incentives. They view any economic engine as static. Whatever that economy is producing would remain exactly the same with their takeover. Which is silly on its face.

The highly infringed upon version capitalism that exists in the United States is still unrivaled in the entire history of the world in creating wealth. The vast majority of the world be thrilled to wake up tomorrow amongst our poor.

Yet, the economic illiterati think Marx had some great ideas.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Socialists never admit that it is entirely dependant on plundering the productive at the threat or imposition of violence for the benefit of the unproductive. No productive person favors the idea. No productive person voluntarily sticks around when such a scheme is inacted. If forced to stay, no productive person remains as productive after such a scheme is inacted.

LOL and thus the whole "left wing anarchism" is a load of shit.

Can't be socialist or left wing without a government there to force it.

Can't be an anarchist if you support any sort of government.

Oh my what are the trendy hipster socialist supposed to do now that they can't LARP as anarchist?

LMFAO!!

 

[cowslinger64]

LOL and thus the whole "left wing anarchism" is a load of shit.

Can't be socialist or left wing without a government there to force it.

Can't be an anarchist if you support any sort of government.

Oh my what are the trendy hipster socialist supposed to do now that they can't LARP as anarchist?

LMFAO!!

You, vette and query on the same page. Winning!!!!!

 

[Que]

You, vette and query on the same page. Winning!!!!!

I realize that you think rhetorical argument is a team sport and that you "win" anytime anyone disagrees with someone who is not on your "team," but I feel you should have a team meeting about Dick Daily's assertion that the Union of Soviet SOCIALST Republics were not socialists.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

I realize that you think rhetorical argument is a team sport and that you "win" anytime anyone disagrees with someone who is not on your "team," but I feel you should have a team meeting about Dick Daily's assertion that the Union of Soviet SOCIALST Republics were not socialists.

Hey, Q-bert, didja get your panties back from the dry cleaners yet? Mums the word about your embarrassing stains.

 

[Greypowerful]

Gawd! What a waste of words this thread has become...

It's truly laughable that either "team" of extremist views bitches about terminology with a straight face.

Next, you people will give me some idiotic polemic on the differences twixt Mitch & Nancy... when, in point of fact they're essentially the same person.

 

[cowslinger64]

I realize that you think rhetorical argument is a team sport and that you "win" anytime anyone disagrees with someone who is not on your "team," but I feel you should have a team meeting about Dick Daily's assertion that the Union of Soviet SOCIALST Republics were not socialists.

I check in on this thread from time to time... and all I see is BB taking numerous blows to the head from multiple fronts. Now, even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then, and even though unlikely, it is possible he was right at least once on this thread.

This has nothing to do with "team".. I don't agree with his views on concealed carry, for instance.

I'm in the middle politically.. not sure what "team" that is.

 

[Que]

Hey, Q-bert, didja get your panties back from the dry cleaners yet? Mums the word about your embarrassing stains.

Leaving aside the embarrassingly adolescent mindset behind a person who would feel that such an insult would actually wound, why would you feel the need to cower behind a sock-puppet to sling it?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Leaving aside the embarrassingly adolescent mindset behind a person who would feel that such an insult would actually wound, why would you feel the need to cower behind a sock-puppet to sling it?

We've been over this a ga-jillion times before, Q-bert, I'm not a hiding behind a sock puppet. Can't you use your keen sense of discerning author's voice to detect that?

Anyway, on to more pressing matters. Your panties back from the cleaners yet?

 

[Libsam]

I don't think she is an alt, but I do think she has learned everything she knows from someone crusty sock alt she found in the dumpster.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

I don't think she is an alt, but I do think she has learned everything she knows from someone crusty sock alt she found in the dumpster.

Tits or GTFO.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You, vette and query on the same page. Winning!!!!!

That socialism is government ownership over the means and markets?

Yea....most people are on that page.


That anarchism is not anti-right wing pro socialism, but anti-government...all government?

Yea.... most people are on that page too.

 

[Hypoxia]

Tits or GTFO.

Were you on S.E.?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Were you on S.E.?

S.E.? Sorry, I'm not sure what that is.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Actually it's my personal summary, stated seperately, after and punctuated with a question mark.

http://mitternachtsspitzen.designblog.de/images/kunde/2017/Liebe%20tr%C3%A4gt%20ein%20weiches%20Fell/Hundle.gif

Oh it’s a personal summary is it?

Sorry I didn’t get that you summed up two rather long articles which explain why anarchism is traditionally seen as an extreme left-wing ideology, its early thinkers, history and examples with this “summary”….

Anti-authoritarian communism, collectivism and participatory economics??

And there was me thinking you didn't bother reading either of them and took the words, above, out of the complete sentence so you could start giving us more of your bullshit opinions…..and nothing which will support them.

I still think you should've left "interpretations" in though.

Who is just reporting it, not actually coming up with it or pushing it.

Not at all, I believe wiki that there are idiots out there that believe this shit, hell I'm talking to one.

So you’re now saying that Britannia, wiki and the 292 other references and the Anarchist Library, are not reliable sources and we should listen to your opinion, right?

What delusions?

Well if you’ve answered “no they’re not reliable sources” to the above question you’ve provided a perfect example. If you’ve answered “yes” then I’ve no fucking idea what you’re on about, or what your issue is.

The only delusional ones so far are the ones who think left wing anarchism is anything other than a philosophical concept doomed to fail as bad as all the communes who have gone out in flames trying.

It is a “philosophical concept” an extreme left-wing concept. No one has said it is desirable or successful, just what it is. But, Britannica gave working examples of anarchism in action. Furthermore, the basic idea for anarchism is to restore things to the “natural state” such as was prevalent in all tribal societies from the dawn of time.

Can you even name one aspect or stated goal of leftism that will happen without some form of government authority there to enforce it?

Revolutions and rebellions are anti-government you dumb cunt, or have you also got a unique definition of “revolution” too?

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That socialism is government ownership over the means and markets?

Egads.....you've finally got it; or nearly got it, it's not just government!

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you’re now saying that Britannia, wiki and the 292 other references and the Anarchist Library, are not reliable sources and we should listen to your opinion, right?

No I'm saying you should use your brain and think about what's being said to form your own instead of just regurgitating citation points as if that takes any sort of talent.

I still think you should've left "interpretations" in though.

Of course you would, anything to obfuscate what the left wing, socialist "anarchist" is really talking about doing....just being a socialist. They aren't anti government, they are anti-right wing.

They want government, they want it to come in and ensure social and economic equity. Not anarchy.

But, Britannica gave working examples of anarchism in action.

Not socialist or left wing anarchism, because there is no such thing beyond the dumbass idea that it's not socialism if you claim anarchy.

Furthermore, the basic idea for anarchism is to restore things to the “natural state” such as was prevalent in all tribal societies from the dawn of time.

And there is very little to nothing left wing or socialist about that time. It was the ultimate in "fuck you I got mine" savagery and survival of the most ruthless. The nanny state worshiping socialists worst fucking nightmare LOL

Leftism and socialism require government regulation and enforcement.....that's why left wing or socialist "anarchism" is a joke and not really a thing. Unless you're a moron.

Revolutions and rebellions are anti-government you dumb cunt, or have you also got a unique definition of “revolution” too?

Woof!

Not anarchistic ones if they want it replaced with another kind of government.

You dumb cunt.

Egads.....you've finally got it; or nearly got it, it's not just government!

Woof!

Egads I've never said it was just government, any government or government at large and denied your repeated attempts at ascribing me that bullshit position just as I am now.

You should really learn to read.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

No I'm saying you should use your brain and think about what's being said to form your own instead of just regurgitating citation points as if that takes any sort of talent.

Why would I want to do that and end up as fatally and demonstrably wrong as you are?

I read the facts, verify those facts and then think about it and make my opinions from those facts.

Whereas you are attempting to bludgeon your opinions in to those facts to justify your world view (socialism bad-Capitalism good) and failing miserably.

So Britannica, wiki and its 292 references and the anarchists library are reliable sources and they are all telling you that anarchism is an extreme left ideology, but, you’re still going to ignore it and insist that it’s not? What is that if it’s not delusional? Read the Sam Harris quote in my sig….it applies.

Of course you would, anything to obfuscate what the left wing, socialist "anarchist" is really talking about doing....just being a socialist. They aren't anti government, they are anti-right wing.

They want government, they want it to come in and ensure social and economic equity. Not anarchy.

They absolutely are not and if you would read what is written, and understood it, you would understand why not. Your opinion, yet again!

Not anarchistic ones if they want it replaced with another kind of government.
You dumb cunt.

You can’t even follow your line of argument from one post to the next can you?

You asked me this…..

Can you even name one aspect or stated goal of leftism that will happen without some form of government authority there to enforce it?

To which I replied…..

Revolutions and rebellions are anti-government you dumb cunt, or have you also got a unique definition of “revolution” too?

It is immaterial what comes after the revolution you asked “name one aspect or stated goal of leftism that will happen without some form of government authority there to enforce it? “

So unless you’re now “thinking about” government having a revolution against itself; it’s difficult to discern what you’re actually “thinking about,” if at all!

Egads I've never said it was just government and denied your repeated attempts at ascribing me that bullshit position just as I am now.

You should really learn to read.

I know I’m asking too much, but, I’m referring to your claims pages ago in which you were telling us ownership was immaterial and it was government control through regulation which was the determining factor!

Woof!

 

[Hypoxia]

S.E.? Sorry, I'm not sure what that is.

Then your answer is, no. You used a phrase commonly seen on the now-defunct great site SensibleErection.Com [/me weeps]. Sort of like LIT without the trolls, flamers, and stories. Hmmm, maybe I should poll here, see if other S.E. alumni abound.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Then your answer is, no. You used a phrase commonly seen on the now-defunct great site SensibleErection.Com [/me weeps]. Sort of like LIT without the trolls, flamers, and stories. Hmmm, maybe I should poll here, see if other S.E. alumni abound.

Since I'm a troll and flamer, I suppose it makes sense a priori that I wouldn't be a member there.

 

[Hypoxia]

Since I'm a troll and flamer, I suppose it makes sense a priori that I wouldn't be a member there.

Oh, trolls and flamers popped up there but paid a price. Members were allowed every so often to start a new thread, usually linked to a site of sexual, social, or scientific interest (much politics too). Member comments followed.

SE used a plus-minus rating system (this was before LIKEs) for posts (thread starters) and comments. If your post received many plus votes ('up-mods') you got to post more often; if down-modded, you wait a few days for your next chance. Up-modded comments earned you brownie points ('karma'); down-mods cut your karma. Enough -3 WTF mods could hurt.

Posts and comments could be down-modded out of existence. Nasty trolls and flames thus tended to automatically disappear. Members were expected to be fairly civil to each other, maybe because the founder was a Kiwi. Trolls and flamers had to tread carefully to remain visible. Like I said, a price.
_____

ObTopic: Humans are social beasts. Fit in with your society or be expelled, to die alone. Society decides membership and sets rules of behavior. Those rules include control of production and trade, have since ancient times. Thus any organized society is socialistic. It's the default mode of human survival.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Whereas you are attempting to bludgeon your opinions in to those facts to justify your world view (socialism bad-Capitalism good) and failing miserably.

That's not my world view, that's your ascription, much like your claim that I'm bludgeoning my opinions into facts...whatever the fuck that means.

I don't think either system is inherently good or bad and both can be abused and have said as much numerous times. Not that it matters to you or Daily....you'll just keep pushing that narrative no matter what!

So Britannica, wiki and its 292 references and the anarchists library are reliable sources and they are all telling you that anarchism is an extreme left ideology, but, you’re still going to ignore it and insist that it’s not?

They are not saying anarchism is an extreme left ideology, they say that it's often considered as such and that some leftist or left wing views have co-opted some anarchistic principals. In theory anyhow.

Neither wiki nor britannica make a definitive claim and both clearly back up the commonly held definition in that anti-government authority is the central principal to anarchism. Making left wing anarchism all but a mental masturbatory experience and not a real thing.

I say they (all the morons and posers these source are verifying exist) are full of shit, generic socialist because they don't want no government. They want a left wing socialist government.

Which is in direct contradiction with the definition of anarchism.

They absolutely are not and if you would read what is written, and understood it, you would understand why not. Your opinion, yet again!

Who is they and what are they absolutely not?

Point out exactly where I'm wrong.

I know I’m asking too much, but, I’m referring to your claims pages ago in which you were telling us ownership was immaterial and it was government control through regulation which was the determining factor!

Woof!

I NEVER made the claim that ownership was immaterial, I made the claim that government control (regulation) is effective ownership.

Not the same thing.

 

[richard_daily]

They are not saying anarchism is an extreme left ideology,

Yes. They are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism