If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes indeed, quite strange.
It'd appear that anyone with any sense of social justice is seen as a 'socialist' in America. Frankly, I'm surprised I was not described as a 'tree-hugging hippy pinko commie'. That's certainly a term internet neocons use on anyone to the left of the Democrats.
And of course on the other side of the spectrum, people who are seen here as hard right nutters/nasties are described by some across the pond as 'center', or 'right of center' at the most.
It's not though, is it?
It's the Thatcherite/Reaganite right, which does encompass most of the US right now. Only the far-right fascist Christian lunatics would possibly not come under the term.
The Neocons are atypical in that they are mostly ex new Deal democrats.
Look here
Its a decent summary.
So while there might be different factions of right wing ideology in America, it is perfectly right to bring up the neocons in this case: they are virtually the only ones accusing anyone who does not agree with them, be political opponents, peace protesters or mothers of US soldiers killed in Iraq questioning the motives of the war of being pinko commies, traitors, self-haters, terrorist lovers, etc etc etc.
Much the way you use the term "liberal" then.
:yes:
Would you care to define the Anarchist manifesto then ?
If you look at political extreams you will often see alliances emerging, the classic example is with fascism and communism noteably hitler/stalin.
Bullshit. You accuse someone like Pat Buchanan of being a neocon and hed be really pissed off.
I think you will find that most neocons at the top (and there arent many left) are intellectuals who dont get involved with the mud slinging that usuall goes on with people like Rush Limbaugh.
They already have people like Ann Coulter and the entire workforce at Fox News to do that for them.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ specifically this section http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html "Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?" - the answer, in short, is no. Libertarian capitalism and anarchism are diametrically opposed. Lib-caps are in favour of freedom only for the rich and powerful (negative freedoms), anarchists want freedom for everyone (positive and negative freedoms)...to put it simply.
...and...what has this to do with anarchism?
Well a traditional view is that Capitalism and Anarchism are at different ends of the political extreme, but you do find there are lots of areas where both have agreement.
I feel your view of a libertarian capitalism is slightly shaded by your own views, I'd argue that it is as much about small business as large corportations.
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Anarchism is a political philosophy with roots in socialism.
According to what tradition?
Like...?
Errr...my views are informed by an understanding of anarchist history and political philosophy. What are yours informed by? Did you read that link I posted?
What is?
Admittedly my grasp on the nature of anarchism is limited but isn't it essentially opposed to any governing body or "state" in any shape or form. Which would make Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism a contradiction in terms?
Unless this means that a capatalist or communist state had been arrived at via anarchism?
Communism ultimately isn't state politics. Ultimately, communism is about communities running their own affairs in the interests of the members of that community. In simple terms, the main difference between anarchists and communists is in method - should there be a dictatorship of the proletariat and an eventual "withering away of the state" (classic communism) or will that just lead to a new elite and oppression so we should just do away with the state in one go (anarchism). Obviously this is simplified, but you get the drift.
Capitalism is in no way anarchism as anarchists are opposed to all coercion and expolitation, capital and private property included.
It is amazing they both exist. But the fact of the matter is, they seem to do so. Wether or not they really follow any of the beleifs of the two that make up their name.
Doesn't have to be. Something along Spooners lines would be contain far more freedom for far more people than anything involving a state.
Errr...no. How do you get that from what I wrote?
Eh?
This makes no sense.
not quite, most anarchists aren't big fans of socialism.
really? because i was about to say the same about you guys. I mean the republicans around here certainly are far right, but I've seen some of the things you're conservatives say, pretty nasty stuff.
I read that link. Seems to have missed what anarcho-capitalism is all about. Certainly seems totally ignorant of voluntaryism too.
From the article. Weird, doesn't sound like the ones I know. There is an acceptance that as things stand there is more freedom to be gained from using those things in the system than sitting on your hands whinging about fairness while dressing like Swampy and co. Someone has confused methods with objectives.
Whoever wrote the article doesn't understand what ownership is either.
Not true. Anarchism is socialism.
Anarchism is socialism, are you kidding? (And I don't mean that in a rude way I am actually asking).
In Anarchism there is no central government, and in green anarchism we revert back to hunting and gathering. In socialism we have government that is in control of most (all) of the businesses in an attempt to look out for everyone's welfare.
No government control vs. large amounts of government control...
No I'm not kidding. As I said earlier, the main argument between communists and anarchists is the stages needed to reach a communist society. Dictatorship of the proletariat, central commitees and the eventual "withering away of the state" etc vs doing away with the state in one fell swoop.
Correctumundo.
I wouldn't call primmo's anarchists.
As I said (at least twice) its about method and stages.
Do I need to repeat myself?
No need to repeat yourself. I understand the idea of going through communes and all that junk, but that does not make socialism and Anarchism the same thing.
And they aren't primmo's, the group I am reffering to are green Anarchists, and they do consider themselves Anarchists.