Political Roll Call

On January 29 2010 15:29 L wrote:
Other.

Rational absolutist.

On January 29 2010 15:32 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:


What's that?

On January 29 2010 15:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:


I can't speak for L, but I'm guessing he means enlightened despotism. One ruler, who is a perfect being, that makes decisions for everyone else. I could be way wrong though. That's just my guess.

On January 29 2010 15:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
I thought I'd covered all the bases, but whoever voted other, what are you?

On January 29 2010 15:27 Rothbardian wrote:
Hmmmmm....libertarians are very diverse. From Market-Anarchists to Classical Liberals. I guess I'll throw in on libertarian since anarchist varies wildly also, and most anarchists do not consider Voluntaryists or Anarcho-Capitalists as anarchists.

On January 29 2010 16:02 thopol wrote:

It was me.

My political philosophy is centered around the principle of this being a miserable thread.

On January 29 2010 17:26 EmeraldSparks wrote:
goodness gracious we are drowning in libertarians

On January 29 2010 17:34 Rothbardian wrote:


Freedom and Liberty is not divisive :p

On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote:
Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up.

On January 29 2010 18:00 RoyW wrote:


Yeah, especially when enforced by a strongly armed police force because your society is devoid of any social responsibility

On January 29 2010 16:43 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
This is actually a great thread . Hopefully it stays civil.

[B] Can anyone explain the difference between Communist, Socialist and Anarchism? I honestly think that most people who vote either one of these, have pretty much the same thing in mind; a anarcho-syndicalist system, a left-wing communism. A "Man could not reach his fullest potential unless he had full industrial, civil and political democracy" - system. I can hardly imagine anyone who vouches for communism, vouching for the right-wing communism of the party-vanguard bolsheviks of the Soviet Union?

On January 29 2010 18:25 Froleson wrote:
Let´s struggle to keep the post civil, keep from flaming but constructive criticism is welcome?

In praxis I´m a social democrat, but in heart I identify with the socialist tradition.

----> so I went for the socialist.

But anywho, I think there´s mixup of concepts here. Can anyone explain the difference between Communist, Socialist and Anarchism? I honestly think that most people who vote either one of these, have pretty much the same thing in mind; a anarcho-syndicalist system, a left-wing communism. A "Man could not reach his fullest potential unless he had full industrial, civil and political democracy" - system. I can hardly imagine anyone who vouches for communism, vouching for the right-wing communism of the party-vanguard bolsheviks of the Soviet Union?

On January 29 2010 19:28 Yurebis wrote:
Yeah, I hate the state so much that I riot about the streets. I'm an angry anarchist, watch out.

On January 29 2010 19:59 Yurebis wrote:
It's wrong. I'm not rioting and neither is any anarcho-capitalist I know.
Rioting is not a prerequisite for anarchism of any type, that's just a mainstream characterization to shy people away from the idea. Akin to... atheists are evil people or whatever.
Why would an anarchist riot anyway, it just calls for more state power to be used against him.

On January 29 2010 20:04 Loanshark wrote:
I doubt if anyone who voted Communist or anarchist or fascist is actually serious.

On January 29 2010 20:14 kOre wrote:
Which one is the one where I don't give a crap about anything? It's a serious question.

On January 29 2010 20:15 Yurebis wrote:
Stop paying taxes and the plan-people are out of a job. Not that extreme of a revolution, is it?

The means are separate from the ends however. There may be anarcho-capitalists out there who think we should kill every statist, I dont know. Much like there may be a socialist who wants to kill all capitalists, whatever. It's not the means that are characterized by what system they would like to live in. There may be one or another more popular idea, but it's the ends that matter as far as these labels go.

On January 29 2010 18:00 RoyW wrote:


Yeah, especially when enforced by a strongly armed police force because your society is devoid of any social responsibility

On January 29 2010 16:10 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Objectivist -- so libertarian is the closest this poll offers

On January 29 2010 15:25 nttea wrote:
Socialist, but i vary day to day between communist and social democrat
edit: that was not in response to above question, i voted socialist.

On January 29 2010 21:40 Foucault wrote:


^

What's wrong with Sweden.

I'm a libertarian

On January 29 2010 20:36 Hasudk wrote:
You would literally have to make everyone in the entire world stop paying taxes at the exact same time to avoid that, and then you would probably STILL have to deal with the military. And lets face it, you are not gonna get everyone in the entire world to stop paying taxes.
Unless you use some kind of in which case the whole thing is irrelevant.

I do however agree with you that the goal is the most important thing, and having good goals is praiseworthy thing. But I can't agree to the claim that the means do not matter in a discussion like this – of course the means matter, ask Rosa Luxemburg if its fun to fail at social transformation, I think the answer would be "no".

On January 29 2010 22:41 Amber[LighT] wrote:
I'm guessing 41 people don't know what a Libertarian actually is lol

On January 29 2010 22:42 Undisputed- wrote:
25% Libertarian is very hard to believe lol (thus far anyway). Either people don't know what a libertarian is or there are a lot of silent libertarians around here.

On January 29 2010 22:42 Undisputed- wrote:
25% Libertarian is very hard to believe lol (thus far anyway). Either people don't know what a libertarian is or there are a lot of silent libertarians around here.

On January 29 2010 23:04 Klive5ive wrote:

I think people mis-read liberal

On January 29 2010 23:09 Zato-1 wrote:

I think libertarians are vastly over-represented on the internet and in TL.net in particular. I'm not surprised by those numbers, actually.

On January 29 2010 22:44 Undisputed- wrote:


Hey hey, 40 ok.

On January 29 2010 17:18 RoyW wrote:
...

All of the best countries (read:scandanavian) in the world are social democracies.

The American Political climate is currently far right versus centre right. To hear Americans refer to Obama as left wing is hillarious. Sad America

On January 29 2010 23:09 Zato-1 wrote:

I think libertarians are vastly over-represented on the internet and in TL.net in particular. I'm not surprised by those numbers, actually.

On January 30 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote:
lol, 'green' isn't even part of the options, but 'anarchism' - which locks into 'libertarianism' as neatly as is possible without the two actually merging - is

lmao so many socialists, anarchists, and libertarians. too bad none of them ever turn out at the polls

On January 30 2010 00:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Idealistically, Anarcho-Communism. Realistically, Socialist.

On January 30 2010 00:33 Aim Here wrote:


Well green should certainly have been an option, but anarchism and libertarianism are polar opposites on the (crucial) subject of private property, although they tend to agree on a number of social issues. (Libertarians do tend to hijack the language of the left-anarchists sometimes, which confuses many- 'libertarian' was originally coined as a euphemism for anarchist - because calling yourself an anarchist would get you put in jail at the time - and some very anti-statist libertarians call themselves 'anarcho-capitalist', to the annoyance of left-anarchists).

As there are, to my knowledge, no relevant anarchist parties anywhere in the world, I would just have bunched all those guys up with libertarians despite their internal devisions and philosophies.

On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote:


No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production').

The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct.

They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar.

Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy.

On January 30 2010 02:09 Piretes wrote:
Other. I'm a left-leaning liberal, in the European sense of the word.

Personal freedom should be superior to the state, but the state should not endorse the so-called 'economic freedom' that neoliberals advocate. Economic freedom is probably one of the most misused terms in recent political debate. Currently it is used to support big-buisness corporate capitalism, which strangles alot of smaller-scale enterprise. 'Economic freedom' should not result in corporate monopolism.

On January 29 2010 19:48 Hasudk wrote:

Did I say that? Please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that anarchists like communists believe that the only way to take power away from the current states is by violent means. I used the word riot because I didn't think anarchists liked the word revolution, but if you like that word better then by all means lets call it a revolution. =)
Communists would of course try to reduce the amount of violence by organizing people and building a mass-movement. But to believe that any state would sit idly by while you take control is utter fantasy and I don't think that any anarchist theoreticians would claim that that is a possibility.
Violence is an unavoidable part of any kind of social transformation, call it riot or revolution, the difference is semantics.

On January 29 2010 20:36 Hasudk wrote:


Okay then, I think this would go under the utopian plans for social transformation.

What do you think the state would do if you stopped paying taxes? The police would arrest you. And I know that you will say that they can't arrest everyone, so if everyone just stopped paying taxes then everything would be dandy.
So lets imagine that every citizen in a metropolis stops paying taxes at the same time - the government calls it civil unrest and sends in the military, now you either fight or get arrested/shot. The same thing happens if its on a national scale, except the army deployed might not be domestic but foreign.

You would literally have to make everyone in the entire world stop paying taxes at the exact same time to avoid that, and then you would probably STILL have to deal with the military. And lets face it, you are not gonna get everyone in the entire world to stop paying taxes.
Unless you use some kind of in which case the whole thing is irrelevant.

I do however agree with you that the goal is the most important thing, and having good goals is praiseworthy thing. But I can't agree to the claim that the means do not matter in a discussion like this – of course the means matter, ask Rosa Luxemburg if its fun to fail at social transformation, I think the answer would be "no".

On January 30 2010 00:33 Aim Here wrote:


Well green should certainly have been an option, but anarchism and libertarianism are polar opposites on the (crucial) subject of private property, although they tend to agree on a number of social issues. (Libertarians do tend to hijack the language of the left-anarchists sometimes, which confuses many- 'libertarian' was originally coined as a euphemism for anarchist - because calling yourself an anarchist would get you put in jail at the time - and some very anti-statist libertarians call themselves 'anarcho-capitalist', to the annoyance of left-anarchists).



And who are the anarchists actually supposed to vote FOR, exactly? No matter who you vote for, the government always wins!

(Actually I DO turn up at the polls each polling day, and make a point of spoiling my ballot paper, which is no less meaningful than putting my cross in the box against the one I like the most, IMO)

On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote:


No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production').

The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct.

They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar.

Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy.

Libertarians range from Classical-Liberal Minarchists, to Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarcho-Capitalists are the likes of these fellows and are as much Anarchists (Stateless) as any other of the utopian egalitarian anarchists (which we find utopian because of the nature of man).

On January 30 2010 05:07 Aim Here wrote:


Just because anarcho-capitalists are against the state does not mean that they are anarchists.

Anarchism is a term for a political theory, or a set of political theories, which are opposed to ALL forms of hierarchical control, whether through the state,a feudal landowner, a slave-owner or a boss. "Anarcho-capitalists" only object to some of them, and don't object to the likes of wage labour, rentier capitalism or even police forces (as long as they're *privatised* police forces - why anyone would think that market forces would make hired thugs less terrifying than they are now bamboozles me), all of which are anathema to almost every left-anarchist on the planet. It's quite easy to find statements by anarchists pointing out that "anarcho-capitalism" would lead to some extreme forms of tyranny and exploitation if ever if was put into practice. On any matter remotely touching economics, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Given the huge disparity between the ideal societies proposed by anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, surely it would be a good plan, for linguistic reasons if nothing else, to keep the words we use for these completely different political philosophies separate?

On January 30 2010 05:16 CharlieMurphy wrote:
even though im probably more of a liberal on my views, I'm totally apathetic. I don't vote and I don't think anything I can do (or anyone for that matter) can change things in any way to my favor.

On January 30 2010 05:59 nttea wrote:

your vote do make a difference, but more importantly your words make a difference. Everytime i see a post like yours i die a little inside.

On January 30 2010 06:37 neVern wrote:
If you're not an independent (Constitutional Party, no it's not a combo of Republicans/Democrats) you do not understand US politics or the history of the United States. Honestly, the US had the strongest economy prior to 1913 (Federal Reserve Act) when only 5% of income was taxed, nowdays I believe the average family is taxed 33% of their income. Among other things, it's stupid to vote Republican/Democrat...really who's the last President who has helped the United States? Neither of the two parties give a damn about you, they only care about themselves. Study the founding fathers of America (Back when America was by far the most powerful country in the world) and you will understand politics a lot better. Income/Wage/Federal aid taxes are all illegal (Unconstitutional) for the government to even charge in the first place.

Study the Constitution people!!

On January 30 2010 06:46 CharlieMurphy wrote:


no, it is an illusion of choice. Everytime I see a view like yours I die a little inside.

On January 30 2010 01:44 Mystlord wrote:
I'm betting that the trend in Social Democrat is caused by the fact that it was basically European Day time, and that trend will soon reverse itself.

Also, why are there so many Libertarians?

On January 30 2010 05:38 KnightOfNi wrote:
What the hell is corporatist?

On January 30 2010 00:22 Etherone wrote:
im a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist or something im between lol
basically I'd adhere to a form of voluntary socialism with anarchy chips sprinkled in the mix

Yurebis please explain to me what capitalist entails in anarcho-capitalist


edit: also this thread needs to CLEARLY STATE whether any of those poll categories are the american ones, or the ones the rest of the world uses.

Libertarian in the american sense IS NOT nearly the same as in the European (rest of the world) sense

On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote:


No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production').

The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct.

They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar.

Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy.

On January 30 2010 10:13 RivalryRedux wrote:
Here's an interesting article I found which talks about how libertarians think and possibly explains why there may be so many libertarians on the net

http://ivo.co.za/2007/08/09/libertarian-iq/

TLDR Version: Libertarians tend to think more like programmers

I find the article to be true in my case as I'm a libertarian and I love to simulate the effects of a given policy in any system, which is why I chose Econ as my major and CS as my minor.

The only real difference is property rights and what constitutes aggression...

Don't be so butthurt as to disconsider anarcho-capitalist as an oppressive ideology just cuz it acknowledges people can and should have the exclusive control over their homesteaded property...

On January 30 2010 20:56 Aim Here wrote:


Well in today's world, a difference in views on property rights is a massive and crucial one.



But 'their homesteaded property' here means that someone is in possession of some property and then uses it him- or herself (and there's no government about). That's not anarcho-capitalism, that's anarcho-individualism, which still fits happily inside the socialist camp. It's when someone claims ownership more property than they are physically able to use themselves, and then uses their control over that property to extract wage labour from others , then that becomes capitalism. It's not that someone happens to 'own' some stuff that Anarchists object to, it's when they use that stuff to exploit others.

In fact, the first modern anarchist work, 'What is Property?' by Proudhon differentiates between 'property' (stuff that is owned whose use necessarily affects or exploits other people, like a factory or a large plantation) and 'possessions' (things you can use without exploiting someone else, like this hypothetical homestead of yours), before going on to show that 'Property' is theft.

On January 29 2010 15:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:


I can't speak for L, but I'm guessing he means enlightened despotism. One ruler, who is a perfect being, that makes decisions for everyone else. I could be way wrong though. That's just my guess.

On January 30 2010 09:28 Yurebis wrote:


The only real difference is property rights and what constitutes aggression... think about it.
anacho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists see the claim to private property as aggression too. You can't own shit. You can only use shit. There may be personal items you can have, idk, don't know them philosophies too well, but beyond a certain point, you can't own anything, and all claims to the control of property have to do with their use, and not who owns them.

Property:
Use <------------------> ownership
Anarcho-:
socialism <----------> capitalism
with some degrees inbetween.

Imo, owning things, even land, isn't a problem at all if you got a good claim for it. It can't be so extreme in that you can own a piece of land in perpetuity (there has to be some arbitrary criteria for abandonment) and it can't be so easy to claim that which you didn't use (homesteading or some similar concept could be seen as legit)
Don't be so butthurt as to disconsider anarcho-capitalist as an oppressive ideology just cuz it acknowledges people can and should have the exclusive control over their homesteaded property...

On January 31 2010 05:36 L wrote:

The idea is that its aggression because a right of ownership is nothing more than the right of use combined with the coercive right to prevent others from using. The reason why Anarcho socialism can't logically uphold a connection to private property while espousing no 'common power' is because without the common power to hold them in awe, there would be no rights beyond the subjective interpretations of those involved in a dispute.

You see, I don't think there's any "rights" in the first place. People just indeed have different value judgements for everything and that includes morals.

land mine, me take tax from you, you peasant, me boss". The claim will have to be arbitrary someway, but I find the homesteading principles to be the best that I've found so far.

On January 31 2010 12:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Denial of moral truth merely means your arguments have no validity in this debate . Without morality there is no successful argument outside the restrictions of pure logic, and that includes politics.

Anyway the fallacy is astonshingly simple: because morality is too complex to reduce to a complete system, there is no morality. By that logic every proposition must be reduced to one of two categories: it is either completely knowable, or it doesn't exist.



Homesteading cannot substitute permanent, inheritable property in its ability to negate the tragedy of mortality. Like it or not, permanence is necessary to the human psyche, in contrast to the tendencies of nature.

And it's not because there isn't a complete system of ethics that morals can't be asserted, it's because of hume's is-ought dichotomy which I think you know about.

On January 31 2010 17:08 ShaperofDreams wrote:
All I can really say is that a lot of the highest rated "living conditions" countries/cities have very social governments, high taxes and lots of benefits of being in that society. But of course every situation is different and calls for different things.

I couldn't recommend a type of government that would suit every place in the world.

In America the speed at which money is flowing to a select few is very scary.

On January 31 2010 15:46 Yurebis wrote:
And how do you expect to infer that I should be this or I should be that without committing a logical mistake?
You can't, that's proof that objective morals cannot exist. Morals only exist for subjective ends.
Only with a given end is a moral statement logical.

If the cop were only protecting property rights I'd see him as legit. But the very act of taxation determines that someone's being stolen just to pay his wage. So essentially, the cop is stealing from people to protect the people. What his ends are, I don't care, I see it as illegit and no amount of positivist pandering is going to change that...

When someone's able to cross that is-ought gap let me know.

edit: to make a clear example, both the cop and the clueless guy seem to be assuming life as a common end. Nowhere do they make that explicit, so they're not even aware they're committing a mistake. Or perhaps they're not really committing any mistake and they're just speaking of oughts non-objectively, I don't know. It wasn't clear to me. There were a lot of "is" but not that many "oughts"

On January 31 2010 19:33 ShroomyD wrote:

How about an objective set of ethics? ^^

And how do you expect to infer that I should be this or I should be that without committing a logical mistake?
You can't, that's proof that objective morals cannot exist. Morals only exist for subjective ends.
Only with a given end is a moral statement logical.

In America the speed at which money is flowing to a select few is very scary.

On January 31 2010 20:14 Yurebis wrote:

How about an interpersonal set of ethics and not something to make-believe we're universally the same?

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.

On February 02 2010 01:43 fox[tail] wrote:
All i wanted to say is that fascism should not be put together with the far-right. The word fascist is used to describe a lot of things that have nothing to do with it. Just because some of these right-wing movements since WW2 have described themselves as neo-nazis does not mean that they are all fascists, do these people have an economic plan... no. These people only follow the Darwinist theories that fascism promoted. You shouldn't generalize ideologies, thats all i'm saying.
If you took that political roll call test in that other thread, look at where Hitler is on that graph, just slightly to the right of that left-right scale.
Just because I play Starcraft, does not mean I play every rts, or that i play any other for that matter

On February 02 2010 01:45 Mystlord wrote:

There's only one kind of fascism that we talk about. And that's the one on the wikipedia page.

I'm curious how they got Hitler's results on that test hahaha...

On February 02 2010 01:44 Incognito wrote:
Russian communism promotes equality, yes? I don't think you can say left = equality and right = hierarchy. That is just our current conception now because that is how present politics evolved. There is little practical difference between a system of forced equality and a system of forced inequality. Its still forced.

Also, are you from the right? Apparently there's no question that totalitarian is right...

I'm not arguing that fascism is right. I'm saying that far left and far right are not that dissimilar.

On February 02 2010 01:50 Mystlord wrote:

Depends, Leninism or Stalinism?

Left does = equality and right does = hierarchy.

There's no "forced equality" about communism. There is a "forced inequality" from fascism.

Yes, there is no question that totalitarian is right. I'm apparently super left by the way.

Far left is different from far right. Communism is very different from fascism.

On February 02 2010 01:50 Mystlord wrote:

Depends, Leninism or Stalinism?

Left does = equality and right does = hierarchy.

There's no "forced equality" about communism. There is a "forced inequality" from fascism.

Yes, there is no question that totalitarian is right. I'm apparently super left by the way.

Far left is different from far right. Communism is very different from fascism.

On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy.

On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:

Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system.

Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there.

On February 02 2010 01:58 fox[tail] wrote:
Is this poll going to be changed? Fascism belongs with the centrists, or it needs its own place in that list

EDIT: Or the Corporatists

On February 02 2010 02:01 Incognito wrote:


There's already a new one. Look under Political Roll Call Test

On January 29 2010 17:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
something inbetween socialist, social democrat and anarchist

meaning that I want small disparity between rich and poor, a state that takes care of all basic needs, and the freedom to express myself and do whatever the hell I please as long as nobody else suffers from it.

On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:


What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard.

On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:

Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently.

Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well.

Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true.

And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work.

On February 02 2010 03:40 cgrinker wrote:
All you people who went on the internet to check that you were an anarchist: Lolz

On January 30 2010 07:38 Zato-1 wrote:

Yeah, until you realize that Obama is not a being born of a superior race / social class / political class. He's a guy, like 300 million others. Sure, when there's that many people and power is concentrated in government, most of them have only a little political power (their vote, and those of whoever else they manage to convince). If you want more political power, there's no one stopping you from dedicating yourself to politics, however.

On February 01 2010 08:00 fox[tail] wrote:


DUDE WTF. Serbia has nothing to do with that propaganda bullshit you just said, Croatia during that time was fascist, Serbia was ultra-nationalist, Serbia has always been anti-fascist, don't mention something you know nothing about. Jean-Marie Le Pen is the far right in France now.
In actually ideology the differences between communism and fascism are very small. Programs enacted by the Nazi party and Fascisti in Italy were, guaranteed employment for all citizens, confiscation of WWI profits, shared profits of labor; expanded old age pensions, communalization of department stores, out lawing of child labor, universal health care and anti smoking programs, to name a few. None of these programs can be called right wing or anti communist. Hitler himself said " We have endeavored to depart from the external, the superficial, endeavored to forget social origin, class, profession, fortune, education, capital, and everything that separates men, in order to reach that which bind them together." To a communist the struggle is international and as Marx put it "working men have no country" to fascists they said that the dreams of communism can be made INSIDE a country, and did not need to be an international struggle. That was the principle difference, as all communist regimes have embraced corporatism in some aspect in their history. Hitler and Mussolini both wanted to create Volksgemeinschaft or "peoples (workers) communities." Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, with fascism not being as controlling to private business as communism was but still very totalitarian. Keep in mind the Nazi part was called the National SOCIALIST party, if that is any indication of their true leanings.

No i have apsolutly no idea who that Milosevic guy is, and i found your comments inappropriate, i dont want to argue but you just cant say something and have absolutely no proof whatsoever

On February 02 2010 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Tell everybody what extrem right did in Kosovo, in your country, hmm? :-)

Jean Marie Le Pen is a fascist, and is an nostalgic of Pétain. He is sued every six month for saying that German were not that bad after all and that gas chamber didn't exist.

You development on why Communism and Fascism are similar at the end are wrong. Read the Manifesto. And then read Mein Kampf. Compare. There is just no similarity whatsoever, they are absoluetely contrary ideologies.



Now on topic.

What makes left wing is a determinism which doesn't exist in right wing philosophy. For a right winger, hierarchy is good and natural and someone who deserve it will climb the ladder. For a left winger, someone who is in the shit didn't have luck in his life and need to be protected from exploitation. That's very summarized but that's the best synthetic definition I have found.

Deleuze, French philosopher was saying that the difference between right and left wingers is a question of perception, and that it was like the way you would read a postal envelop:

The right winger reads My Name, My Family, My Street, My District, My Country, My continent, and finally The World.

Left winger is opposite. He start with the Universal to come to the particular.

Voluntary socialism or communism leads into anarcho-communism.
Voluntary individualism leads into anarcho-capitalism.

On February 02 2010 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Tell everybody what extrem right did in Kosovo, in your country, hmm? :-)

Jean Marie Le Pen is a fascist, and is an nostalgic of Pétain. He is sued every six month for saying that German were not that bad after all and that gas chamber didn't exist.

You development on why Communism and Fascism are similar at the end are wrong. Read the Manifesto. And then read Mein Kampf. Compare. There is just no similarity whatsoever, they are absoluetely contrary ideologies.



Now on topic.

What makes left wing is a determinism which doesn't exist in right wing philosophy. For a right winger, hierarchy is good and natural and someone who deserve it will climb the ladder. For a left winger, someone who is in the shit didn't have luck in his life and need to be protected from exploitation. That's very summarized but that's the best synthetic definition I have found.

Deleuze, French philosopher was saying that the difference between right and left wingers is a question of perception, and that it was like the way you would read a postal envelop:

The right winger reads My Name, My Family, My Street, My District, My Country, My continent, and finally The World.

Left winger is opposite. He start with the Universal to come to the particular.

On February 02 2010 04:35 CharlieMurphy wrote:

That's what I was talking about. People only have the 2 choices selected by the electoral college, I never like either of them. No matter who becomes president, or mayor, or governor, or whatever, there is always things that I disagree with from either candidate. And also, it takes too much effort to figure out what exactly their views and policies are in the first place. Basically It doesn't matter to me who I vote for because I'm in no position to be effected by anything anyways.
So it's just a waste of my time to go down and vote.

On February 02 2010 04:24 Yurebis wrote:

All you people who use the word anarchist on the internet without checking wikipedia: lolz

On February 02 2010 05:18 Yurebis wrote:

Couldn't a similarity be that both look at a state to establish (impose) their ideologies? I think that's what fox[tail] is getting at.
You mentioned the collective/individualistic inclinations (collective property v. private property), but what about the voluntary/involuntary implications?

Voluntary socialism or communism leads into anarcho-communism.
Voluntary individualism leads into anarcho-capitalism.

But since both fascism and socialism/communism use the state to manage property, it is really a social order where the ultimate owner and controller is... dun dun, the state.
The difference is one of focus of the government? I think in both situations, the state is looking to plan the whole economy, be it with the help of intellectuals or with corporatists, in the end, it's the same deal. A priviledged class who plans what to do with virtually everything they wish to regulate.
Made any sense?

On February 02 2010 06:07 fox[tail] wrote:


I'm sorry but fighting terrorism is not a crime, thats what Milosevic did (he was a left-winger by the way) READ:
http://www.kosovo.net/albterrorism.html and...
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/62399a.html

Hitler did not come up with fascism, and for the millionth time don't talk about something you know nothing about.
Oh wow look at what the extreme right in your country did to: Algeria (France killed a million and a half of Algerians from 1954-1962 During France's occupation of Algeria, large numbers of Algerians were forced into "tent cities" and concentration camps. It has been estimated that from 1830 to 1900, between 15 and 25% of the Algerian population died in such camps.), Indochina and practically all of your colonies in Africa. Lets all go araound calling all French people Fascist's, ESPECIALLY Charles de Gaulle because he was a right-winger (who cares if he claimed to transcend the left/right rift and leaned more to the left), and we allllll know what right-wingers are... thats right FASCISTS

As for fascist and communist simmularites:

fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.

On February 02 2010 06:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:

lol.

Communism and socialism have nothing in common. In Marxist theory, Socialism is a step towards communism. And Stalinism is a degenerated for of Socialism. Anyway.

That's funny, all people who commit war crimes / genocides / etc are "fighting terrorism". Milosevic ended up his life at the international tribunal. Guess why.

My country has been a colonial power, and has commited an incrdible amount of crimes, includiong in Algeria. But I don't see what's the point? You know who is the last one to say that we should have stayed in Algeria, that it should still be our? Le Pen. He was a soldier during the war, and it has been proven that he was torturing prisonners. And the faction of the army which was asking to continue this war were fascists, the OAS. And they tried to kill De Gaulle, who was absolutely not a ultra nationalist or any kind of far right (he was a Bonapartist right side, as is Sarkozy).

On February 02 2010 06:03 L wrote:
Why exactly does voluntary acceptance infer the lack of government?

I might voluntarily want to be a capitalist, but I also want someone to be able to enforce the bargains that I make, and I want that entity to be the state.

The focus on the state in your post rises from your creation of a false dichotomy.

Communism and socialism have nothing in common.

On February 02 2010 06:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:

No. You are very wrong, abouut everything you say for a very good reason, Communism is a society without state. And witout private property. :-)

I don't want to be mean, but people are using words they don't have any idea about. Is like "Oh yeah, Communism, so like USSR, so I can make a big theory that..." So before talking about Communism, why not starting by reading Marx? Manifesto is short and give you a good idea of what it is about.

Communism is the other word for Democracy, in a Platonician term. It is the generic word for an emancipated society, liberated from the hold of merchant relationship. It has never been achieved, and certainly not by what people abusively call "Communist" countries like China, USSR, Cuba, etc... which were all Socialist countries (with a strong state). You know whaat USSR means? Union of Sovietic Socialist Republics. It's not USCR.

By the way, Communism apart, if I had to chose a ruler, I would prefer the State than big companies as it is the case in the US. Socialism is a pretty bad system imo (not because of the Republican bullshit that OMG IT IS ALL A BIG PLOT, but because bureaucracy is damn inefficient), but it's 300 times better than letting the whole society being ruled by the greed and private interest of faceless multinational monsters.

On February 02 2010 06:09 cgrinker wrote:



I don't use Wikipedia because I'm a Anarchist and it's too much centralized power.

You've been trolled!

On February 02 2010 04:24 Yurebis wrote:
I don't think communism by itself implies statelessness, that would be anarcho-communism as I said b4, but I won't argue semantics and instead I'll agree with that, the ends of communism may be an anarchical society after all and that's great.
Edit: By that's great, I mean, it stops there. At the ends. Because every means that use state force fail in my book, by my subjective principles... I don't use historical interpretations as premises for anything.
You lost me where you said that a society can be ruled by greed. Tell me, how can you discern between a greedy person and a non-greedy person? And how can you discern someone that has self-interest for one who does not?

Because you see, I don't see any difference. Greed and egoism to me are inherent characteristics of rational beings, for they cannot be, feel, or think what others do. He can only be himself. Even the most altruistic person is only acting on his own perception of what is the world he is trying to help. He can only estimate what others want, only guess what they need. I think a better criteria that would separate the "greedy" for the "non-greedy" the popular way, is someone who's short-sighted versus long-sighted. I think the more "altruistic" people realize that in the long run, collaboration trumps defection (prisoner's dilemma, etc.) and so they work for that future, while the more "greedy" ones might just see short term goals and forget that people are able to retaliate, hold grudges, ostracize him back.

A second point is that, how can someone you deem to be "non-greedy" possibly be justified in enforcing that which is good for the common good through statist violence? If that which is good for the common good was really good for everyone, then how come everyone isn't already up-in-arms against the bourgeois, or the state already? It would be anarcho-communism as is. Well, forget it, it's too much praxeology aka libertarian bullshit for one post...

On February 02 2010 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. It's not about "I think that Communism is". Communism is an invention of Marx. Go read Marx. If you haven't, don't tell someone who has read it all what Communism is or is not. Communism is society without class and without state. Period. And it ahs nothing to do with anarchy.

Now, greed and self interest are not "inherent to a rationnal being." They are inherent to what human is at his lowest state.

That's precisely why Sartres said (excuse me if it's offensive, i'm not responsible here) Tout anti communiste est un chien: Every anti communist is a dog. Because if we are only ruled by egoism, self interest and greed, we don't worth much more than animals.

What you say is what French revolutionary called Corruption. Corruption was not an illegal transaction, but precisely the society rules by greed, ruled by self interest. And in this way, Capitalism is the summum of Corruption.

There is much more to life than making money, and thinking about you and what you owe and how you could owe more. I know that it is the dominant ideology, and I am truely sorry for everybody who has suh a nihilistic approach of life.

On February 02 2010 08:32 Yurebis wrote:

But an anarchy is exactly that, the absence of a state... so there must be something in common with marxism's ends? Which are as you say a "society without class and without state". That's one out of two, the second part being the "communist" in "anarcho-comunist".

And damn, I heard of Sartre before but did not know he was a communist until you mentioned him... that blows lol. Any sympathy I had for him is gone...

I'm not going to pick on your collectivism too much. Just one point. You can't know what the 'common good' is. You know why? Because you are only yourself. You as a member of a collective, still can only evaluate what you want, and only approximate what others want. The planner as well. He's only the planner, and the planner can only approximate what he thinks the common good needs and wants. These approximations get exponentially (non-mathematically speaking) immeasurable as the common good grows.

This is one aspect where the free market completely beats even the purest and best leaders of socialism or communism. In the free market, these systems of decisions are incredibly disperse, and every "greedy" person's evaluations are valves and meters for the system. That is the price control system, and no single leader or artificial hierarchy of leaders can beat the free association of people, regardless whether you think private property is right or not. Though it is certainly the case that if you think it is wrong, then the whole utilitarian argument shouldn't appeal you at all and I defend you there. If you think that's wrong, that's k. I have my own set of "wrong" things to complain about.

However, do not ever, ever come to me saying that your system is the most efficient (edit: not saying you did, I'm asking beforehand because I'm that presumptuous), or the one that elevates the standards of living the most, because that would be a lie sir, a pure lie. It cannot come to be, at any medium to large scale of production, because no single person can plan that which the market does dispersedly. Only an immeasurable number of "greedy" producers, attempting to provide for "greedy" consumers acting voluntarily, buying from the efficient and ostracizing the inefficient can incentivize everyone to do their very best. That level of efficiency I argue, cannot be brought about by a system without unhampered price controls, be it due to the absence of private property or the abuse of a state. Oh my god that was a load of libertarian bullshit right here.

Edit: That is why, between a voluntary communist society, and a voluntary capitalist society, I would choose the latter, for pure utilitarian reasons... when it's right past the non-aggression principle.

On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:


left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between.

On February 02 2010 19:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Almost all serious French philosophers of the XXth century were Marxists: Althusser, Sartres, Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Badiou, Rancière, Canguilhem, etc etc etc... I wouldn't take very seriously a liberal philosopher, and I would laugh a lot at any kind of right winger philosopher.

Anarchy implies chaos and abscence of order. That's not the case of Communism. For god sake, stop discussing this and if you are interested, read Manifesto. here it is.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

You obviously can know what the common good is. Read any serious philosopher. And obviously common good is not what most people or everybody think is good.

Now you talk a lot about "efficiency". That's what Deleuze call the Capitalist axiomatic. And I completely agree with you. The only problem is that you are already reasonning in Capitalist ideology. That's exactly why Marx was dismissing Economy for being a Bourgeois Science, and was replacing it by Economic Economy, where the real question is not "How", but "Who".

Let's take US. It's very efficient. It has a very strong economy (ok, not since the crisis, but in general). It "works" amazing. In Capitalist ideology, it is an incredible success. Well, you see, from my point of view, there is almost nothing good about this country. If I had to make my own axe of Evil, I would put US first. The American dream is empty nihilism, and the life it proposes doesn't have any value.

You know, in a way I am admirative. If I thought my goal in life was to consume as much as possible, to earn as much money as I can, and I thought that rationnality is to be concerned only by your self interest, I would shoot myself. I am very serious.