Crash the tea parties!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

BS...freest markets on the planet...

The only ones who are free to do what they want are the warlords, and the dictatorships in power....

That's funny, because according to the UN Somalia is operating with a free market. No government intervention whatsoever, due to near constant civil strife.

And you claim there is no "centralized government to muck everything up and ruin everybody's day"?..... You have got to be kidding... Islamic governments are going after, and exterminating black non-africans, or even Christians, and in other parts warlords are subjugating the people, killing them, and even not allowing any sort of aid to reach the people, yet you claim "people's days are not being ruined"?...

Well, my words were directedt to that free-market paradise Somalia, and it was a bit sarcastic.

Hitler was not a Socialist?...Mussolini was not a Socialist either? Talk about obfuscation....

No, they weren't. Both were fascism, a pseudo mix of left/right politics that was dedicated to bolstering the power of the state and maintaining the class system. Hitler may have used the term socialism as a means of enticing people, but, after all, he did purge the socialists from the SA early in his ascendancy. Also, if I remember correctly, Nazi Germany believed in the concept of private property.

Mussolini is also regarded as starting out sympathetic to socialism, but ultimately turned against it. Italian Fascism, also known as corporatism, put the state in the hands of industry. Not very socialistic, is it?

Funny you should mention Franco. It really shows how little you actually know of these ideologies: Franco drew on the Falange, a national syndicalist concept that was very closed aligned to the model of Italian Fascism. The Falange had a strong distaste for communism, as well as supreme veneration of the state. Sounds a little right-wing to me...

If the Communists, and anarchists in Spain weren't trying to "spread the revolution", and if they didn't start conflicts around Spain, Franco wouldn't have done the things he did...

Oh yeah, actions completely forgivable since he had such wonderfullll reasons. Tell me, how is that any different than, say, Stalin purging non-communists? Why is it OK when the Right commits atrocities to maintain their system?

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336


Damn Ye' !!

I can't believe my 3 epic posts didn't carry over to this page...

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Haha, sorry.

Those are some pretty epic posts though... but they'll be blown off. If it doesn't fit into preconceived notions that people have then it's instantly false, no two ways about it. The Republicans whine and moan all day about the liberals rewriting history to suit a 'socialist agenda', yet their spin doctors have gone about convincing the drones that everyone from Hitler to Mussolini to friggin Genghis Khan is a socialist. It's like the John Birch Society on steroids around here these days.

I just find it funny and somewhat sad that people can be so anti-state yet pro-Church and pro-capitalist hierarchy. They can't see past their own cages.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Which is why it's my belief that "Anarchist" are immature, childish believers in a system that they cannot even correctly pinpoint. They don't know where they stand because they don't know what they are. The only real Anarchist is the man who believes in no government what so ever, including ALL Social programs, taxation, gun restrictions, life style restrictions but also .. they cannot possibly believe in organization of ideas.

Starred you for that!

Looking at this anarchist call to action we can easliy see what their real beliefs are. Their own words bertay them.

If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future.

Source

That is what they are afraid of.

reply to post by burntheships


Actually, it is you who really doesn't understand anarchism. True, anarchism is a rejection of the need for a state, but it isn't exclusive on the right side of the spectrum, mainly because left-right are not meant to describe government systems at all; they are designed to differentiate between left-wing economics (collective based economics) and right-wing economics (individual based economics). Meanwhile, government is based on a scale for libertarian (free) and authoritarian (oppressive). Thus, the spectrum isn't a linear line but should be interpreted as such:



Libertarian would be on the more anarchist side, while authoritarian is the the more oppressive nanny-state type thing. Therefore, anarchism can exist on both sides of the structure. Right-wing anarchists, called anarcho-capitalists, believe in 100% individual-based unregulated free markets, while left-wing anarchists, such as anarcho-communists or the original socialists, believe in a voluntary collective.

You quoted Rockpuck as saying

they cannot possibly believe in organization of ideas.

which is quite true. However, a leftist anarchist would consider the strict hierarchy that is produced by free market capitalism as another organization no different than the state.

I understand anarchy in all of its "definitions", I just reject it as viable.