Topic: it's the bash CK thread!
started by: CatKnight
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 18 2002,03:20
each of you gets one chance to bring up one issue in any political/scienctific/religious topic to settle any grudges you have. no personal flames.
Posted by Marauder on Jul. 18 2002,04:41
Ambitious thread, CK. Luck and all...
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 18 2002,05:17
Soooo, how do I bash CK and not flame him?
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 18 2002,05:44
Well, it all depends on whether or not he likes what you say. If he does, then it's bashing him. If not, then it's flaming him.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 18 2002,06:23
when i said you get one chance that meant one post. so you three just forfeited your chances, and I will ignore further posts from you in this thread. i wanted to get straight to the discussion without the extraneous crap to get in the way. it's sort of a game, you see.flame: ck sucks!
bash: ck's model of economic theory sucks!
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 18 2002,06:26
Waste of time, but I will ask you this CK why is it ok to have religion mixed with politics and government? I want a good reason, not just I am right you are wrong. And tradition is not a good answer as tradition is not a good reason by default. Give me logic.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 18 2002,06:33
good question. because whether you like it or not, religion is part of society. religion->morality->laws. I know you like to have the attitude "well how do you know which religion is right". I can't just outright tell you "judaism is right!", but I can show you examples throughout history that show that christianity (the religion not the church), has always stood for individual freedom and morality.our government derives its powers from god, it is one nation under god. if you take god out of the picture, then government would be the highest moral authority, and if you don't know why that is wrong then there is no point in discussing this matter further.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 18 2002,06:51
"when i said you get one chance that meant one post."And when I said "CK," I meant fuckface.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 18 2002,06:52
I understand where you’re coming from CK, and I do think it is logical, but in our form of government aren’t people supposed to be the government? And why is it wrong for people to be the moral authority? Thus people=governemnt=moral Authority Ideally.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 18 2002,06:53
K, I'm game.CK, your a moron for assuming that Repulican/Conservatives are always right, no matter what they say. I have always believed that niether side is completely right, nor completely wrong. I'm willing to accept that there are some Republican ideas that are the right way to go, and that there are some Democrat ideas that are the right way to go. But you just assume that all Democrat ideas are wrong, just because of few of them are complete hippy bull shit (see, there's me admitting that they aren't completely right). It's not only illogical, it's unethical. We are required by our government to question all authority, no matter where it comes from. Just admitt it, there are some Republican ideas that are complete bullshit, and there are a few Democrat ideas that actually make more sense.
Wow, that was nice. Good luck with the rest of your thread CK.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 18 2002,06:57
Demonk that seems like a bit of preemptive flame don’t you think?
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 18 2002,07:10
| Quote |
| We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... |
There you go, CK... the biggest problem I have is your view of government. A government's power is not derived from God, but from the consent of the people it governs.
Government's power is derived from God = monarchy / theocracy (Divine Right of Kings, Iranian gov't, etc.)
Government's power is derived from the people = democracy
Let's not argue about the word "Creator" - that word was deliberately chosen because it pleases both religious folks (Creator = God) and agnostic / secular people (Creator = Nature). Thomas Jefferson owns j00.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 18 2002,07:12
You see CK I understand that the VAST VAST majority of morals come and are reinforced by religion and that is fine, that is life, people have religion. And I also acknowledge that those morals have help to shape our country and on a personal level my own ethics. But when you say the government derives it's power from god you come to a problem, what if there is no god? Then you have no power rightfully unless power comes from the governed I.E. elections, popular support. To say power is derived from a power that cannot be proven one way or another is asinine and ilogical. I could say the potato king gives the government the power to govern, you can’t prove that incorrect, as you can not prove the potato king is real or false, it’s illogical. But you can say a government rules because people let it, either though popular support or coercion/power.In the potato king we trust. One nation under the potato king.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 18 2002,15:04
okA woman is pregnant. there is no chance in hell that she and the baby will servive if she gives birth. The only way to save her is to abort the child.
You find abortion moraly wrong but you cant just let the woman die.
your answer?
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jul. 19 2002,03:53
ooo, nice one
Posted by chmod on Jul. 19 2002,05:01
I'm fairly certain that CK previously stated numerous times that he is not opposed to abortion when the delivery of the child endangers the life of the mother.
Posted by BlackFlag on Jul. 19 2002,09:53
I dissagree with CK's pro Israeli statements. (im too lazy to quote.)you can't just displace an entire people to create a country for a people that didn't have one, and then expect there to be no side-effects.
Not that i like the palastinians, mind you, but the Isralies are by no means innocent, and neither are we.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 19 2002,19:28
| Quote |
| And why is it wrong for people to be the moral authority? |
nothing
| Quote |
| But you just assume that all Democrat ideas are wrong |
not true it just seems that way to you from what little you know of me.
| Quote |
| There you go, CK... the biggest problem I have is your view of government. A government's power is not derived from God, but from the consent of the people it governs. Government's power is derived from God = monarchy / theocracy (Divine Right of Kings, Iranian gov't, etc.) Government's power is derived from the people = democracy |
shit I made a big big mistake. I meant our freedoms derive from god, not the government's power. I didn't realize what a slip-up that was until I tried to reply to your post.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 19 2002,20:44
Did CK just admit he was wrong about something?
Someone go check hell. First Amazon.com, and now this. I think they changed something in the Matrix again.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 19 2002,21:12
*cat walks by twice*How did you come to the conclusion that freedoms are derived from God?
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 20 2002,15:53
"Is it true that George Washington said that the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion?"No. The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):
Article 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty collections such as Charles I. Bevans' "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949", vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in Tripoli on November 4th, 1796. The English text of the treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. It was recently discovered that the US copy of the Arabic version of the treaty not only lacks the quotation, it lacks Article XI altogether. Instead it seems to contain the text of a letter to the Pasha of Tripoli from the Dey of Algiers.
The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow, Consul General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an opponent of Christianity. It is possible that Barlow made up Article XI, but since there is no Arabic version of that article to be found, it's hard to say. It seems unlikely, however.
In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained the quotation. The 1815 Treaty With Algiers contains a similar article, but does not state that the US government is not founded on religion, only that it is not incompatible with any religion.
Ignoring the question of the wording of the Arabic version of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, we can conclude that the wording of the English article XI fairly represents the opinion of the time, as it was passed and approved by both the US Senate and the President.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 22 2002,08:25
| Quote (CatKnight @ 19 July 2002,11:28) |
| shit I made a big big mistake. I meant our freedoms derive from god, not the government's power. I didn't realize what a slip-up that was until I tried to reply to your post. |
that's better
substitute "Creator" for God, and you've got something just about everybody can agree on.
for religious folk, Creator = your God of choice.
for atheists and agnostics, Creator = Nature.
either way, the outcome is the same - freedom is the natural state of human beings. If you believe that a certain freedom should be restricted, the burden of proof is on you to show just cause.
that's the very heart of liberalism, by the way. as CK would point out, American "conservative" philosophy is actually the conservative branch of liberalism - they are "classical" or "traditional" liberals.
two main problems I have with classical liberalism:
1. By calling themselves "conservatives", classical liberals have unwittingly lended their authority and power to real conservatives, the ones who hate everything about liberalism and democracy - authoritarian Nazi types, the Aryan Nation, and Christian extremists. Modern liberalism has the left to deal with, but imho the radical right is far more dangerous than the left. Leftists like to shoot their mouths off a lot but they're usually pacifists (WTO protests excepted). The radical right has no problem with executing people they don't like - Jews, Muslims, niggers, abortion doctors, you name it.
2. This is 2002, not 1776. Some facets of traditional liberalism are timeless, but others don't make sense any more, or have been dramatically improved.
For example. Adam Smith's economic philosophy was an astounding breakthrough when he wrote it. But we've had over 200 years to study and improve on it, and some of those improvements have worked astonishingly well. Keynes, for example, observed that while the market will achieve equilibrium on its own, the equilibrium it reaches isn't necessarily good for anyone. It can stabilize at 25% unemployment and low productivity and sit there for decades, or until the unemployed take up arms and overthrow the government.
However, nothing stops us from tweaking the market's equilibrium to something that works better for all of us and dramatically improve the market's productivity in the process. It's not like the Invisible Hand is going to get pissed off at us or anything, and a well-tuned market will run circles around laissez-faire capitalism... so why should we stick with laissez-faire?
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 22 2002,13:42
i doubt that i will settle my grudge against you, CK, since you have such ignorant and flawed opinions on a lot of things(black unemployment, the conflict in the middle east) and that annoying predilection to bash liberals whereever possible.p.s. it won't surprise me in the least if you don't answer this, so <^> o.o <^>
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,14:17
Mr Dys, having a grudge is a very dangerous thing.I have several of them, I know.
You can look at ck and say, "well, he'll prolly do xxxx".
Or you can hate him in advance.
One of those will cost you.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 22 2002,14:32
thought i'd waste my one post.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 22 2002,16:07
| Quote (forumwhore @ 22 July 2002,09:17) |
| You can look at ck and say, "well, he'll prolly do xxxx". |
he always has been an annoying fuckwad and i doubt he'll ever stop being that way
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 22 2002,21:42
| Quote |
| 1. By calling themselves "conservatives", classical liberals have unwittingly lended their authority and power to real conservatives, the ones who hate everything about liberalism and democracy - authoritarian Nazi types, the Aryan Nation, and Christian extremists. Modern liberalism has the left to deal with, but imho the radical right is far more dangerous than the left. Leftists like to shoot their mouths off a lot but they're usually pacifists (WTO protests excepted). The radical right has no problem with executing people they don't like - Jews, Muslims, niggers, abortion doctors, you name it. |
fuck no DSL you are way off. i don't remember a lot about the history of the political parties but since the 1920's liberals have always been about big government and regulation. as for name-calling conservatives as nazi's and willing to execute anyone at will, you are again 100% backwards. the nazi's were the national socialists and were left-wing. and IMHO the radical left are far more dangerous because they recieve attention (and often praise) from the media.
Posted by KitKat on Jul. 22 2002,22:53
CK, do you masturbate?
Posted by demonk on Jul. 22 2002,22:56
KitKat, that is the absolute best response to CK! My respect for you just shot through the roof!
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 23 2002,12:33
I didn't call conservatives Nazis. I said that Nazis and Aryan Nation types feed off your power and authority. They think you guys are on their side and that they have a lot of support. Anyway it was a weak point.btw the Nazis may have called themselves "socialists" but they were anything but. Hitler undoubtedly chose that term on the basis that the people would favor it... remember that most of the horrible shit the Nazis did was totally hidden from the Germans.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 23 2002,14:52
thats totally false DSL. the nazi's WERE socialists first of all.| Quote (Washington Times @ 6/95) |
| During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits. First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, pary membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order". The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people. When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizes who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters. Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics". Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers". Yes, indeed(Hillary), I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. Thomas Colton Ruthford |
furthermore, the german people knew full well what hitler and his SS gang were doing. They even PARTICIPATED in the atrocities. Hitler couldn't have rounded up/slaughtered the jews unless a majority of the people thought it was a GOOD IDEA.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 23 2002,16:49
| Quote |
| Hitler couldn't have rounded up/slaughtered the jews unless a majority of the people thought it was a GOOD IDEA. |
more like the people did not care or were to afrade to do anything about it.
basicly, it was a good idea right up till paragraph 4. it goes down hill rapidly from there.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 23 2002,17:41
Historians all agree that if Hitler had been killed in the early 1930's, he would have been remembered as one of the world's greatest leaders. He was able to take a country that was finacially bankrupt and decending into widespread poverty and anarchy, and turn it into one of the best producting, stable countries at the time. Of course, we all know what his TRUE goals where, they just didn't come out until a few years later.Reading that quote I couldn't help be see some similarities between what happened in Germany and what is happening now. Especially the Anti-Terrorist bill that gave the military and other government enforcment agencies lots of power and little to answer for. Remind you of a recent bill that past (think PATRIOT act)? Of course, thank to the media in this country (ha! they are good for something CK!
, if people started getting shot in the street for not registering their guns, you know that it would be over every newspaper, TV set, radio, and Internet news site on the planet. It wouldn't be tollerated by the people, and it would be stoped, very quickly.
Posted by Crafty Butcher on Jul. 23 2002,18:11
| Quote (CatKnight @ 23 July 2002,14:52) |
| [quote=Washington Times,6/95]First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". |
bollocks: 'Nazi' - 1930, from Ger. Nazi, from Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist, from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei "National Socialist German Workers' Party," led by Hitler from 1920. Before 1930, party members had been called in Eng. National Socialists, which dates from 1923.
| Quote |
| Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. |
yeeeess. but only in order to get them out of the hands of 'The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred' (who were anyone hitler and goebbels decided i.e. trade unions, jews, foreigners) and under his control. which is helpful when you're planning a military push for 'lebenraum'
| Quote |
| The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". |
yeah right. the gun lobby is all that stands between america and national socialism. Hitler needed to control guns as the extreme of political debate at the time was the Putzch (the method by which hitler began his rise to power). this involves a large quantity of armed men turning up at your seat of power and saying resign or we kill you. this was not so unlikely at the start of hitler's reign. you cannot use the army to massacre lots of disgruntled citizens as they march on the Reichstag. that's called civil war. so you take their guns. yes? you see now?
| Quote |
| Yes, indeed(Hillary), I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. |
except of course when they sent ppl to forced labour camps for being err...socialist.
you cannot quote a piece of journalism and claim it as fact. just cos you happen to agree with the views expressed doesn't make them accurate. this guy is trying to shoehorn an argument about republicans doing what they always do, which is to try and keep as much money for themselves as possible into some very dodgy and irrelevant history. hitler has nothing to do with federal spending budgets. it's just a good way of accusing democrats of being the /real/ nazis. which is just more mud-slinging.
anyway aside from all that - yes CK, all republicans are right all the time.
Posted by KitKat on Jul. 23 2002,18:26
| Quote |
KitKat, that is the absolute best response to CK! My respect for you just shot through the roof! |
:D:D<suspense>
<thrill>
Will my question be answered...? Ooohoo... Let's see, let's see... Can't wait...
</thrill>
</suspense>
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 23 2002,19:00
Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come across people calling themselves libertarians but arguing from a right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective. For most Europeans this is weird, as in Europe the term "libertarian" is almost always used in conjunction with "socialist" or "communist." In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in appropriating this term for itself. Even stranger, however, is that a few of these right-wingers have started calling themselves "anarchists" in what must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language: 'Anarcho-capitalist'!!
Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to allow their foolishness to go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism. That's what this section of the anarchist FAQ is for, to show why the claims of these "anarchist" capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist and any "anarchism" that claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist tradition. So this section of the FAQ does not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer, an English pro-capitalist, minimal statist, at the turn the 19th century and, as such, it is hardly new.
The "anarcho"-capitalist argument hinges on using the dictionary definition of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy" - they try to define anarchism as being "opposition to government," and nothing else. However, dictionaries are hardly politically sophisticated and their definitions rarely reflect the wide range of ideas associated with political theories and their history. Thus the dictionary "definition" is anarchism will tend to ignore its consistent views on property, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And, of course, many dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see "anarcho"-capitalists use that particular definition!
And for this strategy to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and ideas from all branches of anarchism must be ignored. From individualists like Spooner and Tucker to communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta, anarchists have always been anti-capitalist (see section G for more on the anti-capitalist nature of individualist anarchism). Therefore "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense that rain is not dry.
Of course, we cannot stop the "anarcho"-capitalists using the words "anarcho", "anarchism" and "anarchy" to describe their ideas. The democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state calling itself the People's Republic of China.. Nor could the social democrats stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves "National Socialists". Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the fascists using the expression "National Syndicalism". This does not mean that any of these movements actual name reflected their content -- China is a dictatorship, not a democracy, the Nazi's were not socialists (capitalists made fortunes in Nazi Germany because it crushed the labour movement), and the Italian fascist state had nothing in common with anarcho-syndicalists ideas of decentralised, "from the bottom up" unions and the abolition of the state and capitalism.
Therefore, just because someone uses a label it does not mean that they support the ideas associated with that label. And this is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology).
All we can do is indicate why "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of the anarchist tradition and so has falsely appropriated the name. This section of the FAQ aims to do just that -- present the case why "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. We do this, in part, by indicating where they differ from genuine anarchists (on such essential issues as private property, equality, exploitation and opposition to hierarchy) In addition, we take the opportunity to present a general critique of right-libertarian claims from an anarchist perspective. In this way we show up why anarchists reject that theory as being opposed to liberty and anarchist ideals.
We are covering this topic in an anarchist FAQ for only one reason -- the high number of "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalists on the net (likely a class-based phenomenon, based on ownership of computers!
As we have extensively documented in earlier sections, anarchist theory has always been anti-capitalist. There is no relationship between anarchism and capitalism, in any form. Therefore, there is a need for this section in order to indicate exactly why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist. We have, in earlier sections (see section B in particular), indicated why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism is itself nonsense and will not repeat ourselves here. So this section of the FAQ does not, as we noted above, represent some kind of "debate" within anarchism. It reflects the attempt by anarchists to reclaim the history and meaning of anarchism from those who are attempting to steal its name (just as right-wingers in America have attempted to appropriate the name "libertarian" for their pro-capitalist views, and by so doing ignore over 100 years of anti-capitalist usage). However, this section also serves two other purposes. Firstly, critiquing right-libertarian and "anarcho"-capitalist theories allows us to explain anarchist ones at the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly, and more importantly, the "ideas" and "ideals" that underlie "anarcho"-capitalism are usually identical (or, at the very least, similar) to those of neo-liberalism (as Bob Black points outs, a "wing of the Reaganist Right has obviously appropriated, with suspect selectivity, such libertarian themes as deregulation and voluntarism. Ideologues indignant that Reagan has travestied their principles. Tough shit! I notice that it's their principles, not mine, that he found suitable to travesty" [The Libertarian As Conservative]). And as neo-liberalism is being used as the ideological basis of the current attack on the working class, critiquing "anarcho" capitalism and right-libertarianism also allows use to build theoretical weapons to use to resist this attack and aid the class struggle.
A few more points before beginning. When debating with "libertarian" or "anarchist" capitalists it's necessary to remember that while they claim "real capitalism" does not exist (because all existing forms of capitalism are statist), they will claim that all the good things we have -- advanced medical technology, consumer choice of products, etc. -- are nevertheless due to "capitalism." Yet if you point out any problems in modern life, these will be blamed on "statism." Since there has never been and never will be a capitalist system without some sort of state, it's hard to argue against this "logic." Many actually use the example of the Internet as proof of the power of "capitalism," ignoring the fact that the state paid for its development before turning it over to companies to make a profit from it. Similar points can be made about numerous other products of "capitalism" and the world we live in. To artificially separate one aspect of a complex evolution fails to understand the nature and history of the capitalist system.
In addition to this ability to be selective about the history and results of capitalism, their theory has a great "escape clause." If wealthy employers abuse their power or the rights of the working class (as they have always done), then they have (according to "libertarian" ideology) ceased to be capitalists! This is based upon the misperception that an economic system that relies on force cannot be capitalistic. This is very handy as it can absolve the ideology from blame for any (excessive) oppression which results from its practice. Thus individuals are always to blame, not the system that generated the opportunities for abuse they freely used.
Anarchism has always been aware of the existence of "free market" capitalism, particularly its extreme (minimal statist) wing, and has always rejected it. For example, Proudhon noted that "the disciples of Malthus and of Say, who oppose with all their might any intervention of the State in matters commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail themselves of this seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves more revolutionary than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher has been deceived thereby." However, this apparent "libertarian" attitude of supporters of capitalism is false as pure free market capitalism cannot solve the social question, which arises because of capitalism itself. Thus "this inaction of Power in economic matters [celebrated by the "free market" right] was the foundation of government. What need should we have of a political organisation, if Power once permitted us to enjoy economic order?" [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 226] Instead of capitalism, Proudhon advocated the "constitution of Value," the "organisation of credit," the elimination of interest, the "establishment of workingmen's associations" and "the use of a just price." [Ibid., p. 233]
Thus anarchists have evaluated "free market" capitalism and rejected it as non-anarchist over 150 years ago. Attempts by "anarcho"-capitalism to say that their system is "anarchist" flies in the face of this long history of anarchist analysis.
More generally, we must stress that most (if not all) anarchists do not want to live in a society just like this one but without state coercion and (the initiation of) force. Anarchists do not confuse "freedom" with the "right" to govern and exploit others nor with being able to change masters. It is not enough to say we can start our own (co-operative) business in such a society. We want the abolition of the capitalist system of authoritarian relationships, not just a change of bosses or the possibility of little islands of liberty within a sea of capitalism (islands which are always in danger of being flooded and our activity destroyed). Thus, in this section of the FAQ, we analysis many "anarcho"-capitalist claims on their own terms (for example, the importance of equality in the market or why capitalism cannot be reformed away by exchanges on the capitalist market) but that does not mean we desire a society nearly identical to the current one. Far from it, we want to transform this society into one more suited for developing and enriching individuality and freedom. But before we can achieve that we must critically evaluate the current society and point out its basic limitations.
Finally, we dedicate this section of the FAQ to those who have seen the real face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and women (anarchist or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps or on the streets by the hired assassins of capitalism
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,05:39
fascism is a form of socialism, except instead of getting the people to rally behind you against the rich, you get the people and the rich to rally behind you for your country. corporations were still controlled by their owners but most other things were socialized. the rest is just semantics.| Quote |
| Historians all agree that if Hitler had been killed in the early 1930's, he would have been remembered as one of the world's greatest leaders. He was able to take a country that was finacially bankrupt and decending into widespread poverty and anarchy, and turn it into one of the best producting, stable countries at the time. Of course, we all know what his TRUE goals where, they just didn't come out until a few years later. |
hitler's socialism isn't want brought germany out of the depression, and neither was FDR's socialism. the most important contribution to economic recovery in that era was rearmament.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 24 2002,06:00
Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Main Entry: Sta·lin·ism
Pronunciation: 'stä-l&-"ni-z&m, 'sta-
Function: noun
Date: 1927
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies
FASCISM
Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy and other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the political and social changes brought about by World War I and the spread of socialism and communism. Its name was derived from the fasces, an ancient Roman symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and an ax.
Italian fascism was founded in Milan on Mar. 23, 1919, by Benito MUSSOLINI, a former revolutionary socialist leader. His followers, mostly war veterans, were organized along paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms. The early Fascist program was a mixture of left-and right-wing ideas that emphasized intense NATIONALISM, productivism, antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader. Mussolini's oratorical skills, the postwar economic crisis, a widespread lack of confidence in the traditional political system, and a growing fear of socialism, all helped the Fascist party to grow to 300,000 registered members by 1921. In that year it elected 35 members to parliament. Mussolini became prime minister in October 1922 following the "march on Rome" and 3 years of bloody violence. In 1926 he seized total power as dictator and ruled Italy until July 1943, when he was deposed. A puppet Fascist regime with Mussolini at its head nominally controlled northern Italy under the Germans until Mussolini's execution by partisans in 1945 (see ITALY, HISTORY OF). A neo-Fascist party, the Italian Social Movement, was founded after World War II, but its influence was small.
The Philosophy of Fascism
Fascist ideology, largely the work of the neoidealist philosopher Giovanni GENTILE, emphasized the subordination of the individual to a "totalitarian" state that was to control all aspects of national life. Violence as a creative force was an important aspect of the Fascist philosophy. A special feature of Italian fascism was the attempt to eliminate the class struggle from history through nationalism and the corporate state. Mussolini organized the economy and all "producers"--from peasants and factory workers to intellectuals and industrialists--into 22 corporations as a means of improving productivity and avoiding industrial disputes. Contrary to the regime's propaganda claims, the totalitarian state functioned poorly. Mussolini had to compromise with big business, the monarchy, and the Roman Catholic church. The Italian economy experienced no appreciable growth. The corporate state was never fully implemented, and the expansionist, militaristic nature of fascism contributed to imperialist adventures in Ethiopia and the Balkans and ultimately to World War II.
Closely related to Italian fascism was German National Socialism, or NAZISM, under Adolf HITLER. It won wide support among the unemployed, the impoverished middle class, and industrialists who feared socialism and communism. In Spain the Falange Espanola (Spanish Phalanx), inspired by Mussolini's doctrines, was founded in 1933 by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera (1903-36). During the SPANISH CIVIL WAR, the Falange was reorganized as the Falange Espanola Tradicionalista by Gen. Francisco FRANCO, who made it the official party of his regime. Of less importance were the Fascist movements in France and the British Union of Fascists under Sir Oswald MOSLEY. Fascist movements sprang up in many other European countries during the 1930s, including Romania (see IRON GUARD), Belgium, Austria, and the Netherlands. Fascist groups rose to power in many of the countries under German occupation during World War II. In France the VICHY GOVERNMENT of Marshal Philippe Petain was strongly influenced by the ACTION FRANCAISE, a movement that shared many ideas with fascism. The collaborationist Quisling government in occupied Norway also espoused a fascistlike ideology. The defeat of Italy and Germany in the war, however, spelled the end of fascism as an effective, internationally appealing mass movement.
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
_Benito Mussolini
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 24 2002,06:04
The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism's ideology included a racial theory which denigrated "non-Aryans," extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 24 2002,16:44
| Quote (CatKnight @ 23 July 2002,09:52) |
| furthermore, the german people knew full well what hitler and his SS gang were doing. |
| Quote |
| from < here > How did Hitler control Germany? Most Germans seem to have accepted Hitler's ideas, but for those who did not life could be unpleasant: All other political parties were banned. the leaders of the Communist and Socialist parties were arrested and put in Concentration Camps. the first of these were opened in 1933. the Reichstag ceased to have any importance. Only Nazis could become civil servants, government officials or teachers. A People's Court was set up to try cases of treason, but this could include almost anything. It worked in secret and there was no means to appeal, except to Hitler himself. the Nazi Party took control of every area of life in Germany. A secret police force was set up, the "Geheime Staats Polizei" (Gestapo). This was used to spy on people at all times. Germans learned to keep their mouths shut. Any sign of complaint could lead to arrest and "re-education" or to complete disappearance. In every block of flats there was a warden who checked on people's comings and goings. the Nazis controlled all books and newspapers, films and radio programmes. Any writers, painters or composers that the Nazis did not approve of were banned. these included: Mendelssohn, a German composer who was Jewish; Van Gogh, a Dutch painter who was an impressionist; and H G Wells, a British novelist who wrote a book called "the Shape of Things to Come" in which he predicted that a Second World War would lead to the destruction of the world. Hitler realised that if he could control what people read, looked at and listened to he could control people's ideas. Most of the changes were introduced gradually; the worst effects only came into force during the Second World War. It was not until 1939 that Jews began to be really badly treated. At the same time most people found themselves becoming better off - wages rose, transport improved and there was more security and very little crime. Overall Germany seemed to be recovering. In 1936 the Olympic Games were held in Berlin and the Rhineland was reoccupied. |
they did, but if they were to complain about it, they would disappear from their beds never to be seen again.
that's how hitler kept germany in line.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,21:34
ic0n0 from now on would you please post your sources instead of copying the entire article.the main difference between nazi facism and soviet socialism is that in germany, the corporations still owned their buisnesses, they were just run by the state through extreme political control. property rights and individual liberty was considered unnesscessary and even evil, the good of the state was paramount. here is a good excerpt:
| Quote (THE OMINOUS PARALLELS @ Leonard Peikoff) |
| "The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man. Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth. "Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community. Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property. If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO. |
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,21:35
oh wait, that's exactly what I said before:| Quote |
| fascism is a form of socialism, except instead of getting the people to rally behind you against the rich, you get the people and the rich to rally behind you for your country. corporations were still controlled by their owners but most other things were socialized. the rest is just semantics. |
and then ic0n0 tried to argue semantics...
Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,21:55
Fascism and socialism are two different systems of government. Every person who has gone through some form of high school government class knows this. Yes, it may seem like splitting hairs, but those are still differences that need to be remembed. Anything thing to remember is that the two look in different directions. Fascists point to the past and say how wonderful everything USED to be and that we need that back. Socialists point to the future and say we can do much better than we are doing right now. They never really draw on the past. Of course, these are in the most pure forms of those governments. Just like the US is not a true democracy or a true republic, Nazi Germany was not pure socialist or fascist. They were a mixture.Think of it this way. On the very very very far left you have socialism. On the very very very far right you have fascism. In the middle you have, right next to each other, democracy and republic. I don't really know/care which one is on which side because they are very close to each other in the spectrum. So, you can be very much on the right side but barrow a few things from the left and thus end up inching towards the center (ok, so it's not exactly like that, but you get the idea). It's not a dichotimy, it's a continum.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,22:50
ah, you have just showed off your ignorance. facism is not is NOT IS NOT on the right! The further right you go, the more individual liberty you get. the furthest to the right would be libertarian, and then anarchy. fascism is the EXACT OPPOSITE. facism is the extreme on the left's end of the political spectrum.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 24 2002,23:13
CK, you've showed -your- ignorance, fuckwad. You basically said "facism=communism, only not." You should be fucked in the ear. I cannot believe anyone even listens to you.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 25 2002,00:03
Sorry CK, but I'm going to listen to all my government professors and text books before I listen to you on this. I just trust their thinking process a little better. And anarchy isn't even on the spectrum I discribed. It is a lack of the entire spectrum. Need to think a little better on this CK.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 25 2002,00:31
ironic, how you call me closed-minded, yet you post that. just give me a fucking chance for one. certainly you shouldn't believe everything/anything I say at face value, but what makes you think your teachers and textbooks are unbiased? they are probably far more biased then I am, believe it or not. I can tell you stories about my history/polisci teachers in high school if you like.| Quote |
| You basically said "facism=communism, only not." |
well I didn't actually say that, but that is pretty close. they are not equal but they are very related to each other, facism being a government type that is associated with a communist economic system. thanks for your continued idiocy, you've provided me with much enjoyment yet again.
| Quote |
| And anarchy isn't even on the spectrum I discribed. It is a lack of the entire spectrum. |
why don't YOU think about this one a little better, demonk? how is anarchy a "lack of spectrum"? that doesn't even make sense, the spectrum is a list of government types ranging from highly controlled to no control. anarchy means no government, facism means total government. it's quite simple.
just think about it this way, you agree that conservatives are hardcore against the democrats, right? and you agree that the democrats are almost exclusively in favor of government programs and regulations, correct? facism is a system where the government controls literally everything. democrats are obviously not in favor of facism, but they go in that direction. conservatives are just the opposite, conservatives are for less government, and are whole-heartedly against facism in every sense. democrats are just against facism because saying "we're for facism!" is not exactly the best way to get elected. in fact, that is why democrats sometimes call conservatives "facists", they just use it as an insult. if you know the truth, then you can see how rediculous that is.
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 25 2002,00:38
So, basically, you agreed with me, and then called me an idiot for stating something you agreed with. GREAT JOB, your logic is perfect once again. Also, you arrogant jizz swiller, wasn't I supposed to get one post?
Posted by demonk on Jul. 25 2002,00:51
CK, I did have an open mind. I read your posts, and I disagreed with your logic and reasoning. Also, if you looked at my discription, the spectrum is not total government on one and and no government on the other. If it was, I would have said that. Think of it as a capital U with the hight indicated how much personal freedom each citizen has taken away. On the left side, at the vary top, you have socialism (state more important than everyone, all production done by government, doesn't think past is any good). On the right side, at the vary top, you have fascism(industry still private owned, but controled by small group of people, thinks past is the most important). In the middle you have Democracy (Everyone votes on every decision of the government) and Republic (only representatives are allowed to vote on government decisions).
The convservative are on the right, the liberals on the left. Stray too far from the middle, and you start taking people's rights away (no matter which direction you go). It's easy for you to see how more left-wing legislation could remove peoples' rights to chose to do things. But you are having a hard time seeing how going to the right will also do this. Example, you remove environment protection laws, and industries are free to polute as much as they want. Soon, the water is undrinkable. People have had the right to clean drinking water removed from them. Now, if you legislate too many laws or make them unreasonable, you remove the right of the companies to produce goods, which the people want. See, both directions lead to bad things.
As far as anarchy is concerned, think of it as the floor AND the ceiling. You have absolute choice to do anything (floor=no rights taken away). But someone also has the choice to take all of your rights away (ceiling=no rights at all). The U hovers between the two. Hope I didn't blow your mind with all this complex thinking CK.
btw, you are the most biased human being I have ever had a converstation with, hands down. My profs were as unbaised as was possible and showed both sides to everything. You just goto a shitty school with shitty profs.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 25 2002,00:57
| Quote |
| On the very very very far left you have socialism. On the very very very far right you have fascism. In the middle you have, right next to each other, democracy and republic. |
gee it sure sounded to me like you were talking about government systems and not political ideology, with all those big words like socialism, democracy, republic, and facism! when i was describing the right of the government spectrum, i sohuldn't have said libertarian, i should have said libertarian-style government or something.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 25 2002,01:08
CK: are you trying to be a biased moron or were you just born that way?
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 25 2002,02:08
Fucking geocites.
Socialists and Facists and both Authoritarians but Facists are right and Socialists are left. And that is determined by economic freedom, people who are more free on economics and are Authoritarians are FACISTS, people who are more free on social issues but less free on Economic issues and are Authoritarins are SOCIALTS and COMMUNISTS.
< This might help you out >
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 25 2002,04:11
i guess you could call the christian-right authoritarian conservatives, but even in the extreme that is not facism, that is fundamentalism.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 25 2002,04:55
The "far" left and the "far" right in our country still aren't anywhere near as bad as pure fascism or socialism.