Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

Yes. They are.

You need to learn how to read.

"Anarchism is usually considered an extreme left-wing ideology."

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

Those red words I highlighted?

You need to not ignore them, they change the meaning of the sentence when you don't.


Ignoring them doesn't make that perspective an absolute law nor does it invalidate any views that are different.




In the delusional dip shit universe where you can have leftism without a government, sure you could in theory have left wing anarchism. But you could have right wing anarchism in the same delusional dip shit universe too! No need for government the markets and Jesus will take care of it all!!! LMFAO

In reality leftism, socialism and social justice don't happen without government authority any more than right wing religious fundi traditionalism. Both things anarchism is directly opposed to. So I argue that the mental masturbators out there dreaming up stateless socialism to hide their socialism under a label of anarchism are just posers and the people backing them are fucking morons.

You can keep citing the fact that there are people out there who are dumb enough to think you can do left wing government without government. I'm sure they are there and they really really really think voluntary socialism and communism would work if we all just held hands and sung kumbyah!! Sure I agree that they exist, loads and loads of bullshitters out there.

Doesn't really make much for an argument that anarchism is left wing though.

 

[richard_daily]

You need to learn how to read.

"Anarchism is usually considered an extreme left-wing ideology."

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

Those red words I highlighted?

You need to not ignore them, they change the meaning of the sentence when you don't.


Ignoring them doesn't make that perspective an absolute law nor does it invalidate any views that are different.




In the delusional dip shit universe where you can have leftism without a government, sure you could in theory have left wing anarchism. But you could have right wing anarchism in the same delusional dip shit universe too! No need for government the markets and Jesus will take care of it all!!! LMFAO

In reality leftism, socialism and social justice don't happen without government authority any more than right wing religious fundi traditionalism. Both things anarchism is directly opposed to. So I argue that the mental masturbators out there dreaming up stateless socialism to hide their socialism under a label of anarchism are just posers and the people backing them are fucking morons.

You can keep citing the fact that there are people out there who are dumb enough to think you can do left wing government without government. I'm sure they are there and they really really really think voluntary socialism and communism would work if we all just held hands and sung kumbyah!! Sure I agree that they exist, loads and loads of bullshitters out there.

Doesn't really make much for an argument that anarchism is left wing though.

I see you don't understand the meaning of the words "usually considered".

 

[BotanyBoy]

I see you don't understand the meaning of the words "usually considered".

Oh do tell us all what that means.

Tell us all how it means that anarchism is without a doubt and absolutely 100% of the time an ideology that supports left wing government!


Definition of anarchism

1 :a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

 

[richard_daily]

Oh do tell us all what that means.

Tell us all how it means that anarchism is without a doubt and absolutely 100% of the time an ideology that supports left wing government!


Definition of anarchism

1 :a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

usually
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia.
u·su·al (yo͞o′zho͞o-əl)
adj.
1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed: the usual summer heat.
2. Regularly or customarily used: ended the speech with the usual expressions of thanks.
3. In conformity with regular practice or procedure: Come at the usual time.

con•sid•ered /kənˈsɪdɚd/ adj.
judged:[after an adverb]Her work is well considered in most academic circles.

 

[BotanyBoy]

usually
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia.
u·su·al (yo͞o′zho͞o-əl)
adj.
1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed: the usual summer heat.
2. Regularly or customarily used: ended the speech with the usual expressions of thanks.
3. In conformity with regular practice or procedure: Come at the usual time.

con•sid•ered /kənˈsɪdɚd/ adj.
judged:[after an adverb]Her work is well considered in most academic circles.

Oh good I'm glad we agree then.

 

[richard_daily]

Oh good I'm glad we agree then.

You finally wised up... good to know.

I'm glad you've learned to finally use basic terms correctly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You finally wised up... good to know.

I'm glad you've learned to finally use basic terms correctly.

I didn't misuse them in the first place.

 

[richard_daily]

I didn't misuse them in the first place.

You did. Many times.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You did. Many times.

Really?

I'm betting you can't point out one time I used the words "usually" "considered" either together or separately incorrectly much less many times. Hell I would like a single example of any misuses.

All you do is ascribe me some position along the lines of "You just think all government is evil socialism!!" as if that lie repeated enough will discredit me and make your silly left wing bullshit somehow less silly.


But feel free to generate a quote/link.

 

[richard_daily]

Really?

I'm betting you can't point out one time I used the words "usually" "considered" either together or separately incorrectly much less many times. Hell I would like a single example of any misuses.

All you do is ascribe me some position along the lines of "You just think all government is evil socialism!!" as if that lie repeated enough will discredit me and make your silly left wing bullshit somehow less silly.


But feel free to generate a quote/link.

Again, you misread, misunderstood, and failed to comprehend.

You've misused "socialist", "left wing", anarchist", "right wing", "regulation", "ownership" and several other terms in this thread alone.

 

[oggbashan]

I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for BotanyBoy.

I expect to learn something new from the General Board posters almost every day, even from posters with extreme political views.

Throughout this whole thread BotanyBoy has learned absolutely nothing despite good information from those who might agree or disagree with his political stance.

He is an extreme example of someone who has made up their mind and nothing will change it even when his statements have been challenged and refuted multiple times.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Again, you misread, misunderstood, and failed to comprehend.

Not at all. You just keep saying that because it takes the sting out of the beating you've received for being both illiterate and stupid.

You've misused "socialist", "left wing", anarchist", "right wing", "regulation", "ownership" and several other terms in this thread alone.

Not once, and continuing to push that lie won't make it true

I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for BotanyBoy.

I expect to learn something new from the General Board posters almost every day, even from posters with extreme political views.

Throughout this whole thread BotanyBoy has learned absolutely nothing despite good information from those who might agree or disagree with his political stance.

He is an extreme example of someone who has made up their mind and nothing will change it even when his statements have been challenged and refuted multiple times.

Ogg continues his ascription off in fantasy world.

Probably with Daily where the Soviet Union and Red China are right wing capitalist.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Ogg continues his ascription off in fantasy world.

Probably with Daily where the Soviet Union and Red China are right wing capitalist.

No. That's entirely your own invention. Ever heard of Russian Oligarchs? They are capitalists that have made money from Russia.

And Chinese? The entreprenurial middle class are now becoming tourists everywhere and their capitalists are investing in Australia, the US, and many other countries.

Capitalism can work in those countries but because their governments are more controlling than the US's you think their governments are purely socialist. Even the old Soviet Union recognised that small scale private farming was more efficient than the state farms. The black market in the old USSR was a very effective form of capitalism.

But you still stick to your fantasies and ignore reality. You are a very sad person.

 

[Libsam]

So, Ogg, are you saying that in Russia and China socialism is for the plebs? That socialism tamps down upward mobility for the lower-class and ensures the elites will stay elite?

 

[oggbashan]

So, Ogg, are you saying that in Russia and China socialism is for the plebs? That socialism tamps down upward mobility for the lower-class and ensures the elites will stay elite?

That's what most governments do whatever political system they say they are. Russia and China are no different.

 

[Libsam]

That's what most governments do whatever political system they say they are. Russia and China are no different.

No way, the USA's lower-class is way better off than the lower-class in Russia and China. And upward mobility in the USA is still alive, no thanks to government regulations that have increased the bar of entry.

 

[richard_daily]

No way, the USA's lower-class is way better off than the lower-class in Russia and China. And upward mobility in the USA is still alive, no thanks to government regulations that have increased the bar of entry.

Too bad that the US has lower social mobility than some notable Socialist countries...

Guess that throws your premise out the window, huh?

http://www.epi.org/files/2012/snapshot-mobility.png.608

 

[oggbashan]

No way, the USA's lower-class is way better off than the lower-class in Russia and China. And upward mobility in the USA is still alive, no thanks to government regulations that have increased the bar of entry.

Look at your elected representatives. How many of them started off as average wage earners?

 

[Libsam]

I have a lot of comments about your graph, Richard.

But the first thing that jumps to mind when I see Chile there, Pinochet. He killed a BUNCH of commies.

 

[richard_daily]

I have a lot of comments about your graph, Richard.

But the first thing that jumps to mind when I see Chile there, Pinochet. He killed a BUNCH of commies.

Are you trying to claim that's a good thing?

You realize that the higher the score, the lower the social mobility, right?

So legit socialist nations, are doing a LOT better than the US on social mobility. You believe that socialism is "regulations". Therefore "regulations" aren't preventing social mobility.

 

[Libsam]

I was surprised Chile even made it on the chart. However, I just looked up what the OECD is, and there are only 20 countries in the organization.

Now, upward mobility is not really the same thing as generational earnings.
This is a complicated subject that would need more than one graph that was the first return on your google search.

Here's a nice little article for you to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/

according to a new paper by Rasmus Landersø at the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit in Copenhagen and James J. Heckman at the University of Chicago. Low-income Danish kids are not much more likely to earn a middle-class wage than their American counterparts. What’s more, the children of non-college graduates in Denmark are about as unlikely to attend college as their American counterparts.

If that’s true, how does Denmark rank number-one among all rich countries in social mobility? It’s all about what happens after wages: The country’s high taxes on the rich and income transfers to the poor “compress” economic inequality within each generation: When the rungs on the economic ladder are closer together, it’s easier to move a little bit up (or down) over the course of a generation.

 

[richard_daily]

I was surprised Chile even made it on the chart. However, I just looked up what the OECD is, and there are only 20 countries in the organization.

Now, upward mobility is not really the same thing as generational earnings.
This is a complicated subject that would need more than one graph that was the first return on your google search.

Here's a nice little article for you to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/

Here's the key part of your quote, that you failed to grasp:

When the rungs on the economic ladder are closer together, it’s easier to move a little bit up (or down) over the course of a generation.

That IS the way to prevent income disparity. When the "rungs" are further apart, social mobility is more difficult.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

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.

Oh really ascription is it? Just a few pages back you said…

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

And then go on to say….

No government = anarchy, an elitist, capitalist paradise. Total fuckin' thug life.

And you’ve been saying the same thing for page after page; so you’ll have to forgive me if I think that you believe that Anarchism isn’t an extreme left ideology and is a Capitalist ideology. You’ve also been flat out denying anything you’ve been shown that says the contrary and even continue as such in this very post.

It’s only in the last few pages that you’ve started to admit that it’s even an extreme left view at all.

You’ve also been deliberately not addressing the point that both anarchism and a lot of brands of Socialism call for revolution to overthrow the state as the state is seen as a mechanism through which the Capitalists maintain the status quo and suppress/exploit the proletariat for the benefit of the capitalists.

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!

Here I’d agree with you to a degree; the tradition left anarchistic view, while appealing, is naïve and realistically unworkable in a modern society. Your “capitalist paradise” is insane and would end up with something that resembles something between modern day Russia and Somalia. In short, both are utopian and unfeasible; my opinion, not fact.

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.

FFS, what more do you need? All 3 of the sources give you the complete history, with the writer’s and their philosophies. And guess what…..none of them describe anything like your “capitalist paradise” The closest is a brief mention of Anarcho-capitalists in the wiki article.

But then states…..

Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of self-ownership in a free market.[251][252] Anarcho-capitalism developed from radical anti-state libertarianism and individualist anarchism,[253][254][255][256][257][258][259][excessive citations] drawing from Austrian School economics, study of law and economics, and public choice theory.[260] There is a strong current within anarchism which believes that anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement, due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism as incompatible with capitalist forms

It’s a matter of record and yet here’s you attempting to bludgeon your opinions in to these facts. How much plainer do you need it?

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.

Back to bullshitting to keep your delusions intact.

Who is they and what are they absolutely not?
Point out exactly where I'm wrong.

Anarchists do not want government.

All of the sources are telling you, you’re wrong and none of them support anything like you’re saying. And despite being ask you haven’t supplied anything that supports your opinion at all.

I NEVER made the claim that ownership was immaterial, I made the claim that government control (regulation) is effective ownership.
Not the same thing.

If your bizarre claim that “government control (regulation) is effective ownership” is true what difference does it make who has ownership?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Capitalism can work in those countries but because their governments are more controlling than the US's you think their governments are purely socialist..

No, I don't.

I never said they were purely socialist, that's your ascription.

Along with the "So you think all government is socialist!!" bullshit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You’ve also been deliberately not addressing the point that both anarchism and a lot of brands of Socialism call for revolution to overthrow the state as the state is seen as a mechanism through which the Capitalists maintain the status quo and suppress/exploit the proletariat for the benefit of the capitalists.

Yes I have and I discredited it as being anarchistic.

Here is why.

Because all, EVERY brand of socialism wants to replace the government with their own preferred government, allegedly to ensure the "equitable" or "fair" distribution of goods and services.

They don't want to get rid of all government.

Which puts them at direct odds with the definition of anarchism.

Here I’d agree with you to a degree; the tradition left anarchistic view, while appealing, is naïve and realistically unworkable in a modern society. Your “capitalist paradise” is insane and would end up with something that resembles something between modern day Russia and Somalia. In short, both are utopian and unfeasible; my opinion, not fact.

My "capitalist paradise" ? LOL

I never said it would do better than Somalia....all that bullshit is your ascription.

I just said that it was congruent with the capitalist economic philosophy to not have any government control over the means or markets.

I think socialism/communism/leftism is absurd and unfeasible.

I think capitalism/liberalism are unpleasant thus the support for the left.

FFS, what more do you need? All 3 of the sources give you the complete history, with the writer’s and their philosophies.

I know, and I think those writer's and their philosophies are bullshit.

I posted an argument based upon the definitions of these terms.

You and daily said "NU UHHH!!!" and just keep posting citation that a bunch of people think you can have left wing anarchism without ever actually arguing that you can.

Anarchists do not want government.

All of the sources are telling you, you’re wrong and none of them support anything like you’re saying. And despite being ask you haven’t supplied anything that supports your opinion at all.

I know they don't...that's why they can't be leftist.

Really? They sources say anarchist government?


Because what I'm saying is that anarchist do not want government, you and Daily keep saying they want left wing government, socialism, communism.

If your bizarre claim that “government control (regulation) is effective ownership” is true what difference does it make who has ownership?

Woof!

How is it bizzare?

You yourself said if the government came and seized control of your property that they now effectively own it and the title you get to hold is nothing more than a joke on you.

Why does it matter?

Because when the individual has ownership it's capitalism, when the government has ownership it's socialism.