NationStates Jolt Archive

Go Marxism, because the bourgeoisie are abuse their power and constantly opress the working classes.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

I'm a classical liberalist.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

ok, why isnt capitalist up there?

Yeah I'm really a capitalist, but I picked classical liberalist because it's the other one I could be.

I'm somewhat of a mix, not totally grounded in either Neo-Classical, Classic, or Keynsian. If I had to choose, it would probably be Neo-Classical.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

ok, why isnt capitalist up there?

Old school Adam Smith capitalism - Classical Liberalism

Crazy corporate control of everything, today's capitalism - Neo Classical Liberalism

Would someone explain to me what the difference between "classical liberalist" and "neo classical liberalist" is? I was under the impression that "neo" liberalism was simply a re-emergence of the ideas of classical liberalism...sort of coming into vogue again, but for all practical purposes they are the same.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

ok, why isnt capitalist up there?

Old school Adam Smith capitalism - Classical Liberalism

Crazy corporate control of everything, today's capitalism - Neo Classical Liberalism
uh, wow. you just lost me there buddy.

I'm an anarcho-communist. I don't fit in any of the options. I suppose I could say that I'm a libertarian Marxist since there isn't really much of a difference.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

There are too many Marxists around.

Perhaps, but there are too many capitalists around.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

There are too many Marxists around.

they just need to accept its bullshit and move on

they just need to accept its bullshit and move on

They're on the right track, but need to get over authoritarianism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well, back in the day (1776), Adam Smith wrote his famous book The wealth of the nations. In it he defined Classical Liberalism "Laissez-Faire" and the hands-off approach to economics. Early europe embraced it and for a time, there was competition, which Smith envisioned. Then there was a move away from that capitalism to something different, where business were not competitive and controlled entire markets -- not what Smith envisioned. Supporters of that would be considered Neo Classical Liberalists because they built their ideas off of the original Liberalist Adam Smith. But they didn't see eye to eye with him considering how the market should work (ineffecient or not). Also keep in mind that liberalism means freedom. A liberal economy therefore is an economy free from the government.

Go Marxism!

maybe someone could tell me what my thinking would be classified as. i think there should be more small business'es(sp?) than major corporations because its bad for compitition, and technology advances if you have one company that controls an entire market (i.e. microsoft) but, i dont think that the government should privatise everything

I think you need a libertarian communist option.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

maybe someone could tell me what my thinking would be classified as. i think there should be more small business'es(sp?) than major corporations because its bad for compitition, and technology advances if you have one company that controls an entire market (i.e. microsoft) but, i dont think that the government should privatise everything

Keynesian, part capitalist, but still believes in strong government control of the economy.
Or classical liberalist, If you believe that the market is inherently stable and drifts in favor of small business.

Deleated due to stupidity.

:oops:

maybe someone could tell me what my thinking would be classified as. i think there should be more small business'es(sp?) than major corporations because its bad for compitition, and technology advances if you have one company that controls an entire market (i.e. microsoft) but, i dont think that the government should privatise everything

Keynesian, part capitalist, but still believes in strong government control of the economy.
Or classical liberalist, If you believe that the market is inherently stable and drifts in favor of small business. i remember reading the jungle like a month ago. that really had an impact on me.

I suppose I could say that I'm a libertarian Marxist since there isn't really much of a difference.


Bold above is mine.

It's been my understanding that the anarchists and the Marxists have always opposed each other fiercely. I've been (slowly) reading "What is Property?" by Proudhon. I've read a lot of things I don't agree with, and I've read a lot of things where I think he makes interesting points. I'm itching to get to his critisism of communism and collectivism in general. I skimed the first paragraph of that section and even in that very small bit he had nothing nice to say. :P

Anyway, it has also been my understanding that Proudhon and Marx were opposed to each other in the fact that Proudhon was an anarchist and Marx was an authoritarian. I'm willing to give Proudhon a read, even if he does oppose private property, because of his critisism of the state and of collectivism, etc. Marx on the otherhand I flat out reject because of his support of collectivism as enforced by the authoritarian state.

My question to you, then, is: How does a self-proclaimed anarchist...


I'm an anarcho-communist...


...justify also calling himself a "Libertarian Marxist" when clearly the ideals of libertarianism and the more extreme anarchism, in the opposition of the state, conflict with Marxist authoritarianism?

Monetarist

I think you need a libertarian communist option.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

They said I had too many poll options, and this isn't about politics, it's strictly economy.

Fascism is NOT an economic theory, it is a political ideology.

I suppose I could say that I'm a libertarian Marxist since there isn't really much of a difference.


Bold above is mine.

It's been my understanding that the anarchists and the Marxists have always opposed each other fiercely. I've been (slowly) reading "What is Property?" by Proudhon. I've read a lot of things I don't agree with, and I've read a lot of things where I think he makes interesting points. I'm itching to get to his critisism of communism and collectivism in general. I skimed the first paragraph of that section and even in that very small bit he had nothing nice to say. :P

Anyway, it has also been my understanding that Proudhon and Marx were opposed to each other in the fact that Proudhon was an anarchist and Marx was an authoritarian. I'm willing to give Proudhon a read, even if he does oppose private property, because of his critisism of the state and of collectivism, etc. Marx on the otherhand I flat out reject because of his support of collectivism as enforced by the authoritarian state.

My question to you, then, is: How does a self-proclaimed anarchist...


I'm an anarcho-communist...


...justify also calling himself a "Libertarian Marxist" when clearly the ideals of libertarianism and the more extreme anarchism, in the opposition of the state, conflict with Marxist authoritarianism?

Another person to read would be Bakunin, who fiercely hated Marxism and was kicked out with his supporters from the Internationale.


I assume you know, but in case you don't. Proudon is fine with possessions (ie artifacts that are privately held), but property to him is something that allows a person to live without working (something he saw as unnatural and inhuman) like Factories, Churches, Land etc.

Fascism is NOT an economic theory, it is a political ideology.

Fascism is a state run by corporations, where the share holders elect the CEO of the corporations, its a valid economic theory just as any other.

It's been my understanding that the anarchists and the Marxists have always opposed each other fiercely.

While that's true, libertarian Marxism is pretty much Marxism that has come to the conclusion that the state can't be used, so it is pretty much anarchistic.

justify also calling himself a "Libertarian Marxist" when clearly the ideals of libertarianism and the more extreme anarchism, in the opposition of the state, conflict with Marxist authoritarianism?

Not all Marxism is authoritarian. I'm an anarchist, but the similarities between libertarian forms of Marxism and anarchism are strong.

They said I had too many poll options, and this isn't about politics, it's strictly economy.

Then I don't really fit into any of them.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Fascism is NOT an economic theory, it is a political ideology.

Also, it's economic theory is close to Keyensianism or Marxism .

Good, my people out number dumbass Marxists.

Fascism is NOT an economic theory, it is a political ideology.

Also, it's economic theory is close to Keyensianism or Marxism .

Fascism sounds like a bad idea then.

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

Good, my people out number dumbass Marxists.

Because capitalism is so nice. :roll:

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Good, my people out number dumbass Marxists.

Because capitalism is so nice. :roll:

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

the ignorance! it fuels me!

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear.

justify also calling himself a "Libertarian Marxist" when clearly the ideals of libertarianism and the more extreme anarchism, in the opposition of the state, conflict with Marxist authoritarianism?

Not all Marxism is authoritarian. I'm an anarchist, but the similarities between libertarian forms of Marxism and anarchism are strong.


All Marxism (but not all Communism) is authoritarian. It calls for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," it is hard to imagine a non authoritarian dictatorship.

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:

It's been my understanding that the anarchists and the Marxists have always opposed each other fiercely.

While that's true, libertarian Marxism is pretty much Marxism that has come to the conclusion that the state can't be used, so it is pretty much anarchistic.


But the use of the state to bring Communism is the cornerstone of Marxism. If one doesn't believe in doing this, than one is not a Marxist and one should probably choose a different label in order to avoid confusion.

In a different thread which asked what one would do "If you Controled a Military That matched Te USA's" ( http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144974 ) an interesting response is found:


I would crush capitalism and government

( http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144974#3156670 )

Perhaps the use of the word "Marxist" to describe one's willingness to use coersive, violent, and authoritarian (one need not be a government to be authoritarian) force in furtherance of ones goals is accurate then. :D

Another question: how does an anarchist, when anarchist are supposed to oppose coersion, justify such a response?

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:
Marx would agree with you.

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:
Marx would agree with you.

damn i own :D

But the use of the state to bring Communism is the cornerstone of Marxism. If one doesn't believe in doing this, than one is not a Marxist and one should probably choose a different label in order to avoid confusion.

I know, but apparently there are Marxists who reject government.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:

once again, its not a poltical ideal, its an economic ideal, that would happen to solve many of our political problems :lol:

But the use of the state to bring Communism is the cornerstone of Marxism. If one doesn't believe in doing this, than one is not a Marxist and one should probably choose a different label in order to avoid confusion.

I know, but apparently there are Marxists who reject government.


Howso? Surely it is imconpatible with its doctorine of revolution and its aftermath? Redistribution etc.

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:

once again, its not a poltical ideal, its an economic ideal, that would happen to solve many of our political problems :lol:
marxism/whateverism=destroyed ecomomy=mass starvation, oh yes just what marx dreamed of, unless he was a sick bastard :roll:

All Marxists are is a bunch of people who couldn't make a living so now they wish they were paid off by an easy going government.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

Marx said that. And oh the truth rings clear. no it doesnt. at one time (the turn of the century) marxisim would have been considered anything other than complete and utter insanity, because of the horrible working conditions. but now, its out lived its usefullness as a credible political ideal :roll:

once again, its not a poltical ideal, its an economic ideal, that would happen to solve many of our political problems :lol:
marxism/whateverism=destroyed ecomomy=mass starvation, oh yes just what marx dreamed of, unless he was a sick bastard :roll:


Marxist-Leninists revolution was derailed with the rise of Stalin, so it is wrong to blame the crime of Stalin on Lenin and Marx

If you're concept of a destroyed economy is where the worker, not the shareholder owns everything, and income is equally distributed among everyone, then sure it's a destroyed economy.

destroyed consumerism=destroyed (capitalist) economy=equality in income=Marxism

If you're concept of a destroyed economy is where the worker, not the shareholder owns everything, and income is equally distributed among everyone, then sure it's a destroyed economy.

destroyed consumerism=destroyed (capitalist) economy=equality in income=Marxism

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

ok, why isnt capitalist up there?

Old school Adam Smith capitalism - Classical Liberalism

Crazy corporate control of everything, today's capitalism - Neo Classical Liberalism
uh, wow. you just lost me there buddy.

Leave it to a capitalist not to know anything about capitalism.

oh wonderful, another communist/whateverist to choke the forums with mindless ranting about the proletariate(sp?) :?

Nope, I just want to know what people think.

ok, why isnt capitalist up there?

Old school Adam Smith capitalism - Classical Liberalism

Crazy corporate control of everything, today's capitalism - Neo Classical Liberalism
uh, wow. you just lost me there buddy.

Leave it to a capitalist not to know anything about capitalism.

hahaha, shutup. dont insult my intelligence and i wont insult yours

What the? I haven't heard of half those choices. I'm pro-capitalism, however I believe that the government should intervene (but to as minimal an extent as possible) to protect the workers and their rights from being exploited. IMO here in America our government hasnt done its jobs in protecting them *cough*Enron*cough*

What the? I haven't heard of half those choices. I'm pro-capitalism, however I believe that the government should intervene (but to as minimal an extent as possible) to protect the workers and their rights from being exploited. IMO here in America our government hasnt done its jobs in protecting them *cough*Enron*cough*

Keynesian