Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Yes, that is why I submit that the term "liberal" as applied to these leftist, elitist statists is a misnomer and usurpation of the term as a means of deception, as per Orwellian doublespeak.

So you're calling out the usurpation of a word by furthering the usurpation of the definition of a group of ideologies?

How am I doing that?

You first.

I've already asked you to explain how you came to that conclusion and how I am doing that.

Since revealing a propensity for intellectual dishonesty I don't really expect you to answer.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[6]
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism,[7] communism, and anarchism.

wikipedia

Socialism, Communism, Anarchism are really all degrees of the same thing, and these are what is considered Leftist.

All are representations of worker ownership of the means of production. This can only happen with little or no State.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[6]
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism,[7] communism, and anarchism.

wikipedia

Socialism, Communism, Anarchism are really all degrees of the same thing, and these are what is considered Leftist.

All are representations of worker ownership of the means of production. This can only happen with little or no State.

Wrong, "worker ownership" means State ownership.

You really should do some actual study into these things instead of redefining terms to mean whatever you want them to mean.


By the way, you are still dishonestly avoiding this:

You said:

So you're calling out the usurpation of a word by furthering the usurpation of the definition of a group of ideologies?

I asked, "How am I doing that?", which you are dishonestly avoiding.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


I'm certainly not the one who redefined them. You wish to cling to your angry fantasy and you apparently need some demons to rage at. By the way, I have answered your question. I'm not surprised that you don't realize it. Perhaps though, you can explain for us liars or fools how State ownership and worker ownership are the same thing.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

I'm certainly not the one who redefined them. You wish to cling to your angry fantasy and you apparently need some demons to rage at. By the way, I have answered your question. I'm not surprised that you don't realize it. Perhaps though, you can explain for us liars or fools how State ownership and worker ownership are the same thing.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Worker ownership of production equals the State when the Workers become the State, as under idealized Marxism. Every attempt at it has failed and resulted in totalitarian "communism" where a Big Lie is required to cover the fact that the State is not actually of the people. I suspect this means it's fundamentally at odds with the human condition and thus not viable even in the most idealized fashion.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

I'm certainly not the one who redefined them.

Sure you have.

Go get a real education.

reply to post by jsipprell


The workers became the state? When in history has this ever happened? Stalin and his regime were workers? Marx's theory involved a transition period in which the state would temporarily control capital and then in turn give that power to labor... it never got there. Marx had a lot of good things to say but his transition theory was horribly wrong. Once the state had that power, it could never give that up. Leftists at the time, disagreed with his transition period, Leftists now disagree with that transition period. The state can never be trusted, even when it starts off on the right foot it can't remain good, it is always vulnerable to corruption and authority is addictive.

reply to post by Kali74


Thank You. I haven't read any other posts past yours. I have wanted to start a thread along these lines for a while. I just suck at making originating posts.

Anyway...

I consider myself a far left thinker but I am huge supporter of the second amendment. Not just the second however, all of the amendments. I am a strict constitutionalist even though socially my leanings are of the extreme left. I hate being identified as a democrat, although I used to vote straight party line. Democrats and Republicans are difficult to discern anymore as they all vote on legislation that goes against my leftist ideals.

There are many democrats that are for gun-control but I believe that there are a bunch of republicans as well.

I don't like being grouped in to the democratic party line. Because I hold different beliefs on different issues. I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and think that marriage between two of the same sex is none of anyone's business. I subscribe to most of the opinions of the party, but not all.

I know many liberals who are not in favor of gun control. Keep in mind, however, that the MSM manufactures the "support" for gun control to justify the government's actions. There is very little support among ordinary citizens for their proposals, though you'd never know it by the lies and fake polls we see on the news.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jsipprell

 

The workers became the state? When in history has this ever happened? Stalin and his regime were workers? Marx's theory involved a transition period in which the state would temporarily control capital and then in turn give that power to labor... it never got there. Marx had a lot of good things to say but his transition theory was horribly wrong. Once the state had that power, it could never give that up. Leftists at the time, disagreed with his transition period, Leftists now disagree with that transition period. The state can never be trusted, even when it starts off on the right foot it can't remain good, it is always vulnerable to corruption and authority is addictive.

I did state that the attempts failed, so no, it has never actually happened (for long) at a significant scale. It can be argued however, that for a short period of time after the October Revolution before the Bolsheviks clamped down and initiated all-out civil war there was a period of free and open Leninist Statism.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I know many liberals who are not in favor of gun control. Keep in mind, however, that the MSM manufactures the "support" for gun control to justify the government's actions. There is very little support among ordinary citizens for their proposals, though you'd never know it by the lies and fake polls we see on the news.

Can you offer evidence to support the claim that polls demonstrating significant support for some form of increased fire arm regulation are fake?

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I know many liberals who are not in favor of gun control. Keep in mind, however, that the MSM manufactures the "support" for gun control to justify the government's actions. There is very little support among ordinary citizens for their proposals, though you'd never know it by the lies and fake polls we see on the news.

Can you offer evidence to support the claim that polls demonstrating significant support for some form of increased fire arm regulation are fake?

Fresh out of troll chow, sorry.

reply to post by Kali74


" Do you disagree with the essay I provided an excerpt of, written by an Anarchist on the topic of gun control? His stance is that there shouldn't be ANY gun control. "

Yes , I disagree . Some Control over the Misuse of Firearms must be implimented by Goverment in order to Protect the Public from Individuals or Groups who might Threaten the Status Quo of Law and Order . No Rationalization can be made to dispute that by Any Sane Person ..........

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I know many liberals who are not in favor of gun control. Keep in mind, however, that the MSM manufactures the "support" for gun control to justify the government's actions. There is very little support among ordinary citizens for their proposals, though you'd never know it by the lies and fake polls we see on the news.

Can you offer evidence to support the claim that polls demonstrating significant support for some form of increased fire arm regulation are fake?

Fresh out of troll chow, sorry.

I wasn't trolling. Perhaps you have legitimate evidence. How am I to know?

reply to post by GrantedBail


You sound just like me. Nice to meet you.
I too get really frustrated when lumped in, not that I have a problem with Liberals, I'm just not center and in my opinion most of the current crop of Democrats can be tossed right out the window along with most of the current crop of Republicans. Your name is great lol.

reply to post by jsipprell

Every attempt at it has failed and resulted in totalitarian "communism"

Of course they failed when they became totalitarian, and when they became totalitarian they ceased to be communist.

So really it's totalitarianism that fails. These ideologies seem to be susceptible to that nefarious takeover, but it doesn't mean it's impossible and therefore should never be pursued.

reply to post by jsipprell


I appreciate your thoughts in this thread, even if we disagree somewhat.
The fact that Lenin tried to mix State and Communism immediately nullified Communism in my opinion. Communism cannot exist within the State. It simply becomes State Capitalism at that point and while it can be prosperous initially it ultimately leads down a very bad road, as you said, and I maintain we have have never seen pure Communism based on my first sentence.

reply to post by ecoparity

At least Satanists freely admit being driven by selfishness, that puts them slightly ahead in the clown parade if nothing else.

What is it you feel I should be admitting?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jsipprell

 

The workers became the state? When in history has this ever happened? Stalin and his regime were workers? Marx's theory involved a transition period in which the state would temporarily control capital and then in turn give that power to labor... it never got there. Marx had a lot of good things to say but his transition theory was horribly wrong. Once the state had that power, it could never give that up. Leftists at the time, disagreed with his transition period, Leftists now disagree with that transition period. The state can never be trusted, even when it starts off on the right foot it can't remain good, it is always vulnerable to corruption and authority is addictive.

Also … If I may split hairs here for a minute.

I think you are mixing up Marx and Engels/Lenin. Classical Marxism didn't really address specific details of transition to pure stateless communism. Engels refined this by adding "withering of the state" and Lenin furthered it with the concept of "professional revolutionaries" who would somehow (magically?) automatically abrogate power when no longer necessary.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Every attempt at it has failed and resulted in totalitarian "communism"

Of course they failed when they became totalitarian, and when they became totalitarian they ceased to be communist.

So really it's totalitarianism that fails. These ideologies seem to be susceptible to that nefarious takeover, but it doesn't mean it's impossible and therefore should never be pursued.

I believe the very concept is at odds with the human condition, for a number of reasons:

• Power is a corruptive influence for all of us. Some can resist better than others but none are not tempted. The more power and the longer it lasts the more corruptive it is. Governance systems require some form of power structure, even if minimal (I don't buy Lenin's "withering of the state" -- it's utopian nonsense). That means the potential for corruption is always there and will rear its head if not carefully checked. The nature of this corruption also leads those with power to instinctively want more.
  
  
• We are all capable of significant selfishness and the likelihood that we will occasionally, even if very rarely, give in to it is very high. Given a large enough population that means there will always be those who want more, stricken by greed, striving even at the expense of their fellow man. This inevitably leads to classism (although it can be kept in check).
  
  
• Absolutism is very seductive. The more we give in to absolutism the more likely we are to see tolerance as a vice and demand absolute conformity beyond the bounds of necessity. That promotes disharmony and dissatisfaction which breeds classism.
  

Thus, I believe Marx's concept of stateless communism should be discarded as unachievable utopian ideology.