Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[Seth]

Fascism is the corporate state. Corporatism is a thing of the right.

No it's not, you just want it to be defined that way because it's convenient to your hatred and jealousy of people who are actually successful and prosperous in life.

[Seth]

You can't defeat fascism by building a wall around your farmstead and shooting at anyone who gets too close for comfort. What stands between the citizen and fascism is community, not individualism.

No, what stands between the individual and fascism is rational self-interest. When expressed by a community that respects individualism combined with rational self-interest you get freedom, liberty, peace and voluntary cooperative effort to achieve a functioning community.

But that is not socialism in any respect because socialism is collectivism that disrespects both the individual and rational self-interest in favor of collective interest and forcible compliance with that collective interest to obtain what cannot be obtained voluntarily.

[JimC]

The graph is very wooly. It seems to exist just to try to fit (often unsuccessfully) as many political terms as possible into a 2 dimensional classification scheme.

What is required, of course, is an n-dimensional topological approach...

[Seth]

They're hiding their faces, so they must be leftist scumbags.

Actually, the KKK is the child of Democrats, so yes, they are leftist scumbags.

Only a clown with a completely distorted view of the history of the US would imply that the Democratic party of the United States always and everywhere equaled "leftist." Pathetic

Only a clown with a completely distorted view of reality would think that I said anything of the kind.

That being said, Democrats have been leftist scumbags since Marxism was invented, which means just after the Civil War.

Magical political osmosis instantly transformed highly conservative Southern Democrats into leftist scumbags when Marx started publishing in Europe? You live in a fantasy world.

Southern Democrats were never "highly conservative" in any way other than conserving their own privilege by enslaving others.

[Seth]

duplicate

[Seth]

Anarchism as a political ideology was developed after a schism within Marxism/socialism. It's absolutely a left ideology. Anarcho-capitalism is American right-libertarianism.

No it's not, it's anarcho-capitalism.

In any event, this is angels and pin-heads. Politics can be neatly divided into two, and only two classes: Individualism and collectivism.

That's it.

Either you believe in the individual as the basis of political relations in a society or you believe in the collective as the basis of political relations in a society.

There are no other choices.

[Brian Peacock]

You can't defeat fascism by building a wall around your farmstead and shooting at anyone who gets too close for comfort. What stands between the citizen and fascism is community, not individualism.

No, what stands between the individual and fascism is rational self-interest. When expressed by a community that respects individualism combined with rational self-interest you get freedom, liberty, peace and voluntary cooperative effort to achieve a functioning community.

But that is not socialism in any respect because socialism is collectivism that disrespects both the individual and rational self-interest in favor of collective interest and forcible compliance with that collective interest to obtain what cannot be obtained voluntarily.

So, you agree that you cant defeat fascism individually. No need for the "No" there then.

[Seth]

Libertarianism is based on 16th century French and 17th century British thinkers, and predates the existence of the US. See La Boetie, Locke, etc. Libertarians are not anarchists, as libertarians acknowledge a legitimate role for elected government. You, as usual, have no idea what you're talking about.

For someone here to claim "not to know" what Libertarianism is and is not would mean that person suffers from a mental defect so egregious as to require medication and hospitalization because the distinction has been explained in detail by me hundreds if not a thousand times in the past. Since I know he does not suffer from such a mental defect I can only conclude that his arguments are deliberately obtuse, recondite and frankly constitute nothing more than what he so often accuses me of: trolling.

[Seth]

You can't defeat fascism by building a wall around your farmstead and shooting at anyone who gets too close for comfort. What stands between the citizen and fascism is community, not individualism.

No, what stands between the individual and fascism is rational self-interest. When expressed by a community that respects individualism combined with rational self-interest you get freedom, liberty, peace and voluntary cooperative effort to achieve a functioning community.

But that is not socialism in any respect because socialism is collectivism that disrespects both the individual and rational self-interest in favor of collective interest and forcible compliance with that collective interest to obtain what cannot be obtained voluntarily.

So, you agree that you cant defeat fascism individually. No need for the "No" there then.

That depends on the nature of the fascist involved. Sometimes a single bullet fired by a single person can dispose of fascism quite effectively.

But, that defeating fascism might require voluntary cooperative action based in rational self-interest doesn't mean that collectivism or socialism is required.

[Seth]

It shows left-to-right economic views horizontally and authoritarian-to-libertarian views top to bottom. Forty Two and Seth seem to think that just appearing on the lefthand side of the chart is enough to mark you as inclined towards authoritarianism.

This is true, and it's true simply because ALL forms of collectivism are inherently, by their nature and very ideological foundations, authoritarian in nature. This is because by being "collectivist," meaning that the interests of the collective supersede the interests of the individual, the use of authoritarian methods of gaining compliance to collectivist demands are inevitable and indeed are part of the ideology.

"From each according to his ability" is a command both to the individual to provide to the best of his/her ability and a mandate for the collective to compel such production by ensuring not only that the individual produces, but produces what the collective considers to be "according to his ability."

It's inherently coercive and therefore inherently authoritarian.

Everything ever leftist here has ever said in support of socialism or collectivism proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

[Seth]

Totalitarianism is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. So, I agree that there are right wing and left wing totalitarian governments.

If we conclude that "totalitarian" is functionally synonymous with "authoritarian" so as to preclude niggling on that point I agree with you but make this distinction: There can be non-totalitarian, non-authoritarian politically-right societies but there CANNOT by definition be non-totalitarian, non authoritarian leftist societies, because the entire concept of collectivism, which is the core belief of all leftist ideologies that requires that members of the collective serve the collective even if doing so is not in their individual interests, and which authorizes the collective, in a totalitarian and authoritarian manner, to enforce the interests of the collective upon the individual.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Southern Democrats were never "highly conservative" in any way other than conserving their own privilege by enslaving others.

Bullshit. Southern Democrats were well known as strong conservatives from before the American Civil War right up until people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond renounced the Democratic party when its policies began changing to a more progressive agenda. You may think that you can re-write history, but you're fooling nobody but yourself.

[Seth]

Southern Democrats were never "highly conservative" in any way other than conserving their own privilege by enslaving others.

Bullshit. Southern Democrats were well known as strong conservatives from before the American Civil War right up until people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond renounced the Democratic party when its policies began changing to a more progressive agenda. You may think that you can re-write history, but you're fooling nobody but yourself.

Nope. Democrats have never been "conservative" in any way other than conserving their own power and privilege by enslaving others to their service. That they were "conservative" in wanting to "conserve" their political and economic capital by enslaving blacks isn't "conservativism" at all, it's nothing more than the same sort of self-protectionism that Stalin and every other leftist swine on the planet have engaged in to protect the power and privilege of the leftist elite throughout history.

One cannot be a "conservative" or on the political right if one believes in either collectivism or enslaving others to your service as Democrats always have, even if in a very deceitful and devious manner such as by instituting "social welfare" programs that enslave poor (mostly black) people to generational poverty and subservience to Democrat rule.

[Brian Peacock]

You can't defeat fascism by building a wall around your farmstead and shooting at anyone who gets too close for comfort. What stands between the citizen and fascism is community, not individualism.

No, what stands between the individual and fascism is rational self-interest. When expressed by a community that respects individualism combined with rational self-interest you get freedom, liberty, peace and voluntary cooperative effort to achieve a functioning community.

But that is not socialism in any respect because socialism is collectivism that disrespects both the individual and rational self-interest in favor of collective interest and forcible compliance with that collective interest to obtain what cannot be obtained voluntarily.

So, you agree that you cant defeat fascism individually. No need for the "No" there then.

That depends on the nature of the fascist involved. Sometimes a single bullet fired by a single person can dispose of fascism quite effectively.

But, that defeating fascism might require voluntary cooperative action based in rational self-interest doesn't mean that collectivism or socialism is required.

I think only you were suggestion otherwise.

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that I don't actually read everything you write...

You're smarter than this, Hermit. At least I thought you were. Yes, it feels good to pretend one is a beacon of impartiality in a sea of partisanship, but I'm sorry to break it to you but you are not. If you can show me where I admit to purposely calling someone wrong without reading their post then I will humbly recant. But you won't, of course, as it doesn't exist. Lift your game, or I'm going put you in the 42 bin to be mercilessly thrashed every time you open your dishonest and illogical mouth.