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.
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
Nationalisation does not necessarily = left wing. Workers control = left wing. Corporate statism is actually fascist. Fascism is an ideology of the right due to its focus on the idea of the nation or the volks and its alliances with conservatives against socialists and workers.
A bit of both tbh. People fought for better wages and conditions and the ruling classes will grant enough to keep the prospect of revolution at bay.
One the one hand you have minimal government, and on the other you have loads of government. Of course this leaves out the completely reasonable solution of having no government.
Because they want to impose their standards on everyone, and are willing to use violence to do it they are a totalitarian group. So are the liberals, the conservatives etc etc. Underlying all of those people's philosophy is the idea that you must legislate for everyone with no exceptions in a given arbitarily defined area. They all demand obedience to their rule.
Now, they may give you some leeway in your life, or they may tell you what plants you can grow in your garden. Either way, you do what they say or they get violent.
Of course, there is no real language to describe these distinction, maybe statist vs voluntaryist is the closest we can come to it. So successful have those people who believe in "nations" and "states" been in controlling thought and language that when I make the perfectly reasonable point that countries are arbitary fictions I am derided as mad.
They aren't the same, they have different goals and beneficiaries and I would never say that they had the same aim in mind.
BUT -
Their methods are identical and are the real problem.
klintock, hint: Try this
Make that lazy, arrogant communication. You see Blagsta, I can go online and look for other people's definitions of things all day. in fact, have a link backing up my point about statists hijacking left/right and other definitions.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer104.html
Then again, as we are dealing with the internet I could probably get a link to support any view at all.
It's only someone elses opinion, just like any other definiton. Of course, I am wasting my time telling you this, you're one of the "anarchist's" who can't shake their belief in authority.......
And I also won't point out what waste of time it is trying to put individual's into groups, which is always the first thing you do when confronted by anything. Person says "I think men and women should be forced to smoke in public" Blagsta then looks up in his little book of definitions what political label should be attached to the statement so he can then reject the statement as part of some mythical whole ideology, rather than tackle it head on.
So, you don't have any facts to show how the method of the left wing is exactly the same as the method of the right wing then? i.e. violent domination of others to achieve an end?
The Barcelona commune of 1939 didn't use violence - but was also ideologically socialist.
Historical use of violence by the 'left' doesn't equate to violence as instrinsic to leftist ideology. It's also worth noting most violence perpetrated by the left has largely been carried out by people who adhere to true socialism in little else than name.
Proper leftist socialism has barely manifested itself in the course of history - so it's unfair to group the left and right as one and the same.
The people there decided to behave along those lines on a mutual and voluntary basis. This means the method they used was that of the free market.
Proper leftist socialism is identical in method to ideas that free market types want. What marks both as being different from "normal" politics is the attempted absence of coercion. It's the method that's key.
The fact that it was voluntary is the key bit. If they had voluntarily decided to become a feudal soceity it wouldn't have changed the voluntary principle. Mutual voluntary sharing (or not) of goods and services is what freedom is all about. Providing you can say no, you have freedom, if you can't refuse then you don't.
No. I am talking about the actual free market. Not one of those feudalisitic top down systems. The free market is actually the best form of doing anything because it allows for continual voting, day in, day out. People vote with their wallets all the time.
Because if you authorise violence in any form, you cannot control the ones you have authorised. Remove violent coercion and you have free people deciding what to do with their own lives. The big problem with politics is that the language always changes to mean whatever it needs to to preserve the status quo. If you focus on what's factually happening - i.e. one man taking control of another without his consent you don't need to wade through politicial definitions or look for beneficiaries etc.
There really are only two types of people - those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave others alone. Both Labour and the Conservatives want to take violent control of you and see nothing wrong in doing so. They only differ in what they want to do once they have made you their bitch.
Utter utter utter utter bollocks and shite.
Still no facts being presented. No real surprise there, because you can't address the question of factual differences in methodology without admitting I am right.
Here's the key difference. In both ideologies, they envisage a removal of the state, and then they fill in the blanks with their proferred utopia. On the one hand a workers co - op and on the other a huge marketplace. Limited visions, true.
Things is, you'd probably have both and many more besides, because without the coercive state no one really knows what would roll up.
Never said it was, Blagsta old bean. I said that methodology is identical. Once you let people decide for themselves without threats, who knows what would happen? No one.
It's voluntaryism vs statism that's the real political decision that you have to make.
You opt for statism through your need for authority, I have no such need and opt for voluntaryism.
So private ownership vs communal ownership is the same methodology is it? Errr...
Overthrow of the state is the only methodology is it? Errr...
Except it isn't of course.
Errr...no I don't. You haven't actually read anything I've posted in the time you've been here have you? btw its you that requires authority, to enforce private property rights.
You can't have communal ownership unless it's backed by force. If you abandon force, you abandon communal ownership. The only way you can have communal ownership is by taking from individuals to give to a mythical whole. People naturally leave each other alone, you have to use force to hold things as a "group". Of course holding things as a "group" is always going to be just one or two individuals making decisions about what the "group" owns, and so it can't happen.
How do you overthrow what isn't there? You can either drop violence, in which case an overthrow of the state obviously can't happen, or you accept violence, in which case you are going to change the people who run the "state" or "kingdom" or whatever and nothing else and become the "state".
You don't need to overthrow the state you can just ignore it. Ungovernability isn't achieved by forming groups, you do it by having none at all.
Show me the facts that you base this on.
Not at all. I don't know if you'd noticed, but everywhere people meet, they make up rules for themselves between themselves in order to get by. They do this voluntarily and out of self interest. I'm not sure where you live, but I haven't noticed eternal physical pitched battles between people, they just get on with it. You are confusing law (and therefore authority) with order.
So, are you in favour of using violence against people or aren't you?
you need to look at ths.
Well it's his way or the highway!
no one else keeps repeating that.
blag asks questions of people in reply to their posts ...before he has even answered anything ...often.
in all honesty ...i believe blag is very insecure ...in his belief system.
most people ...answer the questions ...debate ...blag sort of tests the water b7y answering a question with a qeustion ...sort of testing the water.
most others ...including me ...answer from mind and heart ...
blag has to test everthing and everyone with questions before he'll answer ...insecurity?
:yes:
Hit the nail on the head there.
I think he's just afraid to post some of his own opinions just in case they go against the general accepted persona of blagsta.
I have posted lots and lots about these things, linked to many many sites. However you don't appear to read them. I have linked to articles on ideology, hegemony, economics, class analysis, theories of value etc. I have linked to faq's about socialism and anarchism. I have posted long posts about these things. They usually get ignored. Is it any wonder I give up after a while?
For fucks sake. I often answer questions with other questions in an attempt to make people think and question the basis of their assumptions, the basis of their questions. I don't know why I bother.
You want me to go through and quote where I have posted my opinions?
blag ...you obvioudsly have cominications problems.
why?
well i believe ...that you have have read so much stuff ...that leans your way ...and drws you into more and more and more of leaning that way ... that you have lost aall perspaective and geuine anankysis.
you have no give and take ...limiting your understanding of humainty as a whole.
you are a dreamer ...nowt wrong with that till it makes you an absolutist.
for you ...there is only one answer ...cos you believe ...you know ...
undewr the asumption YOU ...will get them to think.
you think most posters here don't think ...as deeply as you?
you BELIEVE ..... your way of thinking is the only one?
cos thats how you come across.