abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh look kkkynes is trying to redefine words.
Obama's Power Grab to Gain Control of Private Property
- Thread starter FreedomWorks
- Start date
Oh look kkkynes is trying to redefine words.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he also thought lefties were the ones holding up wind energy in california. too bad the only groups opposed to it were also talking about the hoax of global warming and selling fridges.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, I agree. Only stimulus can keep capitalism from destroying itself.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
ORLY?
Benito WAS A SOCIALIST! he was in fact editor of the largest socialist newspaper in italy, Avanti, and one of the leading thinkers of the italian socialist party which later unified with the italian communist party under the banner of Marxism based on the leadership of Comrade Lenin.
he, like Orwell Russel and Trotsky, was disenchanted with Bolshevism, and developed his OWN plan to implement the platform of the Communist International:
Proletarian dictatorship does not involve any sharing out of the means of production and exchange. On the contrary, the greatest possible centralisation of the productive forces and the subordination of all production to a single plan is the aim.
The first steps towards the socialisation of the whole economy include: the socialisation of the apparatus of those big banks at present controlling production; the seizure of all the economic institutions of the capitalist state by bringing them under the control of proletarian state power; the nationalisation of all industries organised in syndicates and trusts and of those branches of industry in which the concentration and centralisation of capital makes nationalisation technically possible; and the nationalisation of agricultural estates and their transformation into publicly managed agricultural units.
...
In the sphere of distribution, as in that of production, qualified technicians and specialists are to be used once their political resistance has been broken and they prove themselves prepared to work with the new system of production instead of capital.
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/1st-congress/platform.htm
fascism was The Socialist State without any farting around with claims of non-violence or implementation of governing borads of people who never ran anything larger than a local communist party meeting.
Benito USED the industrialists to do what they do best, Make Money, of which The State got the lion's share, and production was dictated by The State.
the industrialists were employed as overseers and as long as the trains ran on time, and the factories met their quotas, the capitalists got to keep their heads, and a few coins while The State trundled on into glory.
the lefties in academia are extremely uncomfortable with Benito's Communist/Marxist connections and thus downplay them.
if Wikipedia is your source you can find to everyone's surprise that Stalin and Mao were also "right wingers"
really you are a fucking joke.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yep, all of academia has it wrong, you have it right.
and to think, you could have been that academic who shined the light on all of this, if only those multiculturalists hadn't persecuted you out of academia.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It took you half an hour to type all that crap. This will take me maybe 45 seconds.
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12319
[h=1]From Public to Private: Privatization in 1920's Fascist Italy[/h]Abstract:Italy’s first Fascist government applied a large-scale privatization policy between 1922 and 1925. The government privatized the state monopoly of match sale, eliminated the State monopoly on life insurances, sold most of the State-owned telephone networks and services to private firms, reprivatized the largest metal machinery producer, and awarded concessions to private firms to build and operate motorways. While ideological considerations may have had a certain influence, privatization was used mainly as a political tool to build confidence among industrialists and to increase support for the government and the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Privatization also contributed to balancing the budget, which was the core objective of Fascist economic policy in its first phase.
GOD HERE
Well-Known Member
Ahhh half truths. It's 11:30 where I live and I'm about to go to bed, but I'll leave you with this.
Benito was kicked out of the socialist party for being a fascist.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
woooooooooooooops.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That's how Political Scientists generally view the ideologies now; the linear perspective is anachronistic.
Social libertarians reside in the 3rd quadrant with Gandhi/Chomsky/Me.
Kynes leans toward Friedman, but not that far along the Neo-Lib axis, which is why if he made an effort to understand the mechanics of the modern monetary system, he'd probably wind up in the 3rd quadrant, too.
However, I've given up hope this will ever happen.
The whistle has been improved to attract specific types of "moron".
GOD HERE
Well-Known Member
There's a few problems with that model that some people would take issue with. First off, anarchism is not compatible with right wing ideologies. That bottom right quadrant doesn't really apply since capitalism and the right wing are built on hierarchy. Second, if Friedman's ideas were actually put into practice, the repercussions would put him somewhere to the north east of Hitler.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Extremely well put, sir.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
FULL TRUTHS actually.
Benito was in fact removed from his post as editor of Avanti, for the impurity of his ideas, however his ideas were LESS impure than many who remain icons of the left.
it's all about the Vanguards:
Marx's Intellectual Vanguard was in his opinion, the only choice for radicalizing the proles, since in his view (being a silver spoon dilettante) the proles had niether the education, intellectual capacity nor the wisdom to properly radicalize themselves, thus they needed bold "Intellectuals" like himself to urge them forward that they might hurl their bodies at the barricades. then after the "Intellectuals" established the Socialist State eventually the proles would evolve enough to embrace Utopian Communism and the lamentable necessity of the Authoritarian State would end and The State would dissolve of it's own volition resulting in Utopian Communism. eventually...
Lenin's Industrial Worker's Vanguard assumed that the Industrial Workers of the Proletariat were the real force in society, and thus were the only ones who could legitimately lead the Glorious Revolution, and liberate themselves, without any need for Eggheads and their high flown talk and long range utopian dreams, but eventually the "revolution" would evolve into Utopian Communism after a lamentably necessary period of The Authoritarian Socialist State. eventually...
Mao's Agrarian Vanguard asserted that without the farmers and peasants the Urban Proles would starve and thus the Agrarian Rural Proletariat were the real power in society. he bypassed Marx's assumptions about the need for feudal/agrarian societies to mature into a Bourgeois State before a Socialist Revolution could occur, and thus moved straight into the lamentable necessity of The Authoritarian Socialist State without waiting for a Bourgeois stage, but the stated goal was always the same, eventually we will have stateless classless Utopian Communism. eventually...
Stalin's Bureaucratic Vanguard established dominance through managing the functions of the lamentably necessary Socialist State's various factions, intellectual, workers and peasants through the Bolshevik Soviet System which became synonymous with Marxism in the Third Communist International, mainly because Stalin picked the members of the Communist International Congress, and was busily assassinating his opposition. he did however maintain the fiction of the evolution of The Socialist State (lamentable, but necessary, of course) into the Communist Utopia. eventually...
Trotsky proposed the idea of Perpetual Revolution, which did not need Vanguards, Bureaucrats or Marx's carefully constructed fictional universe, but rather would be a constant evolution through trial and error, experimentation, and high minded adherence to the ideals of Utopian Communism, with no particular need for The Authoritarian Socialist State per se, but rather the proletariat as a whole would strive to create the Utopia through real action, and constant advancement without any waiting around for the magical evolution Marx Promised. Trotsky promised More Communism Now, less waiting around for the "Vanguards" to do the work.
Mussolini took it to the next level with his Industrialist Vanguard which used the very mechanisms of capitalist oppression to do the heavy lifting, using the motivations that had proven to work through history (self interest and Profit) to move the (necessary, but not at all lamentable) Socialist State forward, without any high minded promises, complex theories, or bold pronouncements of future Communism. Fascism was the Real Politic of Marxism, cutting out all the theories, grand schemes, high minded idealism, and long term scheming, and instead, focused on getting the peasants and proles where they needed to be, At Work For The State. how to do it though? capitalism and democracy were running the show in italy, so of course, you run for office. once ensconced in your seat of power, you can roll up your sleeves (or more accurately, order others to roll up their sleeves) and get down to the business of running the Socialist State by the most efficient means possible. the bureaucrats had proved INEFFECTIVE and incompetant to run the various nationalized industries of italy, so he "privatized" them by appointing industrialists with proven track records in management to get the uppity proles back to work (and of course they would get a taste of the profits, as long as production was on target, and they toed the party line...) and began stomping the shit out of the various and sundry Trotskyites, Communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, "Anarchists" and other lefty groups who seemed intent on having their version of Marx's scheme running the show.
this proved so successful, he started a trend, triggering the creation of Fascist parties in spain, germany, england, america etc, which of course pissed off every single faction of Marxists, who for once stoped fighting each other and started pushing back against Fascism, which while VERY authoritarian, and not immediately destructive of capitalism, or the Bourgeois, was still Socialist in nature, and still paid lip service to Utopian Communism, which would of course come... Eventually...
if you ask a Trotskyite, maoists stalinists leninists, fascists, anarchists and all other "_________ists" were NOT true Marxists.
if you ask a Bolshevik they will say that THEY are true Marxists, and trotskyites as well as all the rest were poseurs and counterrevolutionaries.
if you ask a Maoist, you will ge the same response. Maoism is the REAL DEAL and everybody else is the enemy
the only thing every faction could agree on was that Capitalism was the enemy, and so was the Bourgeois, Democracy (when used outside Marxism), Religion, etc etc etc, but the worst of them all was Fascism, cuz they are Apostates.
TLDR Version: Mussolini was a Marxist before he became an apostate to the theology and developed his Third Way, and made both Communists AND Capitalists BUTTHURT, But he remained a Leftist until he was hung by piano wire.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
your hazy nebulous and impenetrably vague definition of "Anarchism" doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
anarchy is incompatible with ALL social systems, thus your use of "anarchy" as an empty vessel into which you can pour all "Good Things" fails.
Heirarchy is ORDER, without order, there can be no society, thus your assumption that "anarchy" is opposed to "heirarchy" is specious.
until you define your version of "anarchy" it remains a useless macguffin.
Heirarchy opposes Liberty, as Capitalism opposes Communism.
too much Liberty can result in Anarchy, just as too much Heirarchy leads to Despotism, but just like Despotism, Anarchy is not a "Good Thing" it is by it's very nature a "Bad Thing"
too much Capitalism leads to Tyranny, just as too much Collectivism leads to yes, you guessed it, Tyranny
society needs balance to function, and too much in any direction will always lead to disaster.
hierarchy limits the destructive nature which all humans possess, preventing the descent into anarchy (see somalia)
hierarchy allows social interaction in ways more useful than bashing each other over the head with clubs for scraps of meat or a fistful of berries
collectivism allows co-operation, and creation of works which no one man or even one generation could pursue alone (see the Pyramids, the great wall of china, or in fact, all of modern society)
collectivism provides the "Many Hands" which "Make Light Work", and advances society through mutual self-interest, since alone we are all nothing but sabertooth chow.
liberty provides the freedom to express new ideas and reach for goals which might be unattainable if the social structure is too restrictive. (see india's Caste system and the social stagnation it created)
liberty creates an environment where the individual is not crushed into the mould society wishes, allowing personal expression and self-advancement
capitalism motivates by simple enticements that anyone can understand, rather than empty promises of future paradise, but only after a lifetime of drudgery (see Profit, and wealth)
capitalism provides the self-interest and motivation for labour, which is the only carrot in the toolbox full of sticks.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;xhjpFBGbtvY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhjpFBGbtvY[/video]
Your shit is tired, Mr. Doctor Kynes PHD. Go back to bed.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;fbBlnFtb8W4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbBlnFtb8W4[/video]
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
One of the best albums ever.
I love the last track on it. Last will and testament. Listen to it every day.
Similar threads
