Political Roll Call - Page 8

On January 29 2010 19:02 Yurebis wrote:

I don't see anything civil about this poll at all... if you look at the choices for what they mean, its like this:

Anarchist - No classes.
Socialist - There's plan-people, and common-people.
Communist - There's plan-people, and common-people who own no property.
Libertarian (minarchist) - There's plan-people who swear an oath not to plan, and common-people
Social Democratic (Center Left) - There's kind plan-people, and common-people
Centrist or Moderate - There's plan-people who do some good and some bad, and common-people
Conservative (Center Right) - There's plan-people who plan how not to plan, and common-people
Fascist, Far Right - There's plan-people, with business-men friends, and common-people
Corporatist, Third Position - There's business-men who are planner-people, and common-people
Apathetic or Apolitical - There's people but I don't give a shit what they are.
Other - There's some weird people.

Apart from anarchist, apathetic and other, I don't see how any other label is civil. They're all insulting. Suggesting that there should be classes of people for the sake of... the common good, natural law, a strong nation, whatever it is. I don't buy it, and I find it disgusting, completely unnecessary. It's a subtle type of slavery, but it's still so ingrained in our heads that few even notice it. Naturally, in a statist world, people think it's the ultimate solution for anything, akin to god perhaps? And here we are polling which god we find best.

Saying that there should be a planning-class is the same as saying that you know whats best for me and I have to do what you want. I have to abide by your judgment that not only will I benefit from such plan-people, but that if I don't pay my dues to them, I'll be rightfully abducted and thrown into some pit for some years. Even if I did nothing to nobody, even if there were no victims to my "crime"; all I did was stop paying a service which I don't use nor recognize as legitimate, and I'm arrested, potentially even killed if I resisted. So in the end, you, statists, are advocating the use of statist force against me, only because I don't want part in your system, or overpriced, monopolized services. Is that civil? In my eyes it's not. I'm bond to a contract I've never signed; to an organization I cannot secede from.

I don't think that many people noticed back when slaves where bounced around that they deserved better either so... it's a sad reality, I just hope one day it's seen for what it is, like full blown slavery now is. We're enslaved to the plan-people, and in democracy, to our neighbors, in constantly deciding who the next plan-people will be. This ain't civil. This is madness.

Froleson, anarchy is the absence of hierarchy, meaning, no man is above any other. Whatever is built past that point, has to be done voluntarily. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism that recognizes property rights, popularly with libertarian-like principles.

On February 01 2010 01:28 fox[tail] wrote:
How the hell can you put fascism and the far right together! It's sad how many people throw that word around, the far right and fascism have as much in common as the far left has with it. I mean national SOCIALISM says it all...

On February 01 2010 01:28 fox[tail] wrote:
How the hell can you put fascism and the far right together! It's sad how many people throw that word around, the far right and fascism have as much in common as the far left has with it. I mean national SOCIALISM says it all...

On February 01 2010 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:

No.

On February 01 2010 05:25 QibingZero wrote:

Please consult a dictionary or encyclopedia before posting next time...

It is amazing how many people throw that word around.

On February 01 2010 06:50 fox[tail] wrote:


Wow, just wow. Thanks for explaining everything

EDIT:



Fascism is normally described as "extreme right", but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things <----- Wikipedia

I just said that it does not belong with the far right, thats all. It needs to be seperate... thats all i meant by my post, sorry if anyone misunderstood

On February 01 2010 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:

We understood perfectly and you are wrong.

Far right in France are nostalgics of Pétain, far right in Spain are the nostalgic of Franco, far right in Chile are the nostalgic of Pinochet, far right in Argentina are the nostalgic of Videla, far right in Germany is very close to neo nazi circles, etc etc etc. And in Serbia, far right has commited a Genocide, and could very well be called neo fascist.

And Fascism has nothing to do with left wing. Period. Hitker first target after the Jews were all kind of Marxists. I don't remember that moderate right wingers went to Auschwitz. Communist and radical socialist did. National Socialism has nothing to do with any kind of Socialism, if we call Socialism movements of all kind which come more or less from Marx and Engels theories.

Fascism and Far Right is like Far Left and Marxism.



btw: aren't you the guy that got banned a few weeks ago called Milosevicsomething?

On January 31 2010 22:13 MoltkeWarding wrote:


A thing being logically sound is no proof of its existence. Similarly, because a thing cannot be proven, does not mean it does not exist. Your wife says she loves you. Can't be proven, has to be either believed or disbelieved. This belief is irrational, yet fundamentally rests on some kind of external knowledge and eventually self-knowledge.

Therein lies the irony. You say that you disbelieve moral standards, yet everything you write suggests that you have one. You say that people are essentially subjective thinkers, yet everything you write suggests some attempt to pursue objectivity.
It's the same kind of self-stifling humdrum philosophy as that of those objectivists who deny free will by choosing to believe certain doctrines. Subjectivists only invert the mistake: they elevate free will to supremacy by declining to believe anything. It is thus that objective and subjective absolutists have a mutually vampiric relationship. Without each other, neither would exist. The there is no greater proof of the objectivists' point than the subjectivist, and there is no greater proof of the subjectivists' point than the objectivist.

On February 01 2010 10:12 Hypnosis wrote:
Where is the option for rapist (off the scale)?

Most people under the age of 20 shouldn't claim to be a [c]ertain political stance because they do not know enough about the world yet to make an educated decision. You can probably guess what you are going to be though..

On February 01 2010 01:28 fox[tail] wrote:
How the hell can you put fascism and the far right together! It's sad how many people throw that word around, the far right and fascism have as much in common as the far left has with it. I mean national SOCIALISM says it all...

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.

On February 02 2010 01:08 Mystlord wrote:

No.

Left wing political ideology is based on equality. There's nothing equal about fascism.
Right wing political ideology is based on hierarchy. Everying about fascism is about hierarchy.

By the way, did you even go to wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

First sentence:


I got lazy and didn't feel like removing the numbers.

On February 02 2010 01:12 Incognito wrote:


Keep Reading.

Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.

Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".

Roger Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right.

Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right. However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.

Fascists promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[128] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[129] Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".[27] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[130]

On February 02 2010 01:29 Incognito wrote:
Sorry, you can't really ignore everyone else because you think they're stupid.

No, fascism is not necessarily right. Russian communism can be considered left, as like you said, it promotes equality, which is left (even if it isn't really complete equality). Fascism does actually promote welfare too. And I wouldn't really consider that right. Both fascism and Russian communism are totalitarian. Besides the fact that corporations exist in fascism, I don't think there's too much of a difference between fascism and Russian communism, which I would argue is simply equal to red fascism.

Think of the spectrum not really as left right, but as a circle. When you get to the extreme totalitarian left and right, things start to blur and actually look quite similar.

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism" by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.[12]

National syndicalists imagined that the liberal democratic political system would be destroyed in a massive general strike, at which point the nation’s economy would be transformed into a corporatist model based on class collaboration, contrasted with Marxist class struggle. (see the Nazi model of Volksgemeinschaft). But national syndicalists also publicly declared their opposition to bourgeoisie-class rule and instead supported a strong "proletarian nation" which would rid itself of class-based society and convert it to a national society. National syndicalists typically opposed communism, capitalism, liberalism, and any other internationalist movement which was deemed to be threatening the strength and/or unity of the nation.