I am an anarchist - ask me anything.

#476
#476
n_huffhines said:
Dude, you made it about me. I thought I was doing a pretty good job of leaving an cap out of it, and letting him defend his position.
Click to expand...

You can't stand for something to not be about you can you? Did you even read my response to your "you can't dismiss me" post? Or should I say, did you read it and understand it?
 
#477
#477
And for the record, you two are pseudo-anarchists. You have bastardized the meaning of a word to fit a worldview that is unrealistic while not comprehending the actual meaning of the word. When your see the pseudo-atheists on here spending untold amounts of time arguing against an ideology that they don't (or supposedly shouldn't) believe in you would see exactly what you sound like. A synonym for anarchy is chaos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#478
#478
82 reminds me of me when I first started drinking a lot and spent a lot of time being mean to hippies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#479
#479
82_VOL_83 said:
And for the record, you two are pseudo-anarchists. You have bastardized the meaning of a word to fit a worldview that is unrealistic while not comprehending the actual meaning of the word. When your see the pseudo-atheists on here spending untold amounts of time arguing against an ideology that they don't (or supposedly shouldn't) believe in you would see exactly what you sound like. A synonym for anarchy is chaos.
Click to expand...

You're babbling.

In 4 sentences you went from a pointless semantic argument (I don't care if I'm technically a pseudo-anarchist), to changing the topic to something completely irrelevant and incomparable, and then gave us a meaningless lesson from the thesaurus.

Thanks :good!:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#482
#482
iVol4Life said:
I am both anti-oppression and socialist, just by nature of what left anarchism entails. I'm admittedly not very familiar with anarcho-capitalism or other right anarchists.
Click to expand...

Just curious... how does one be anarchist and socialist at the same time? Socialism is predicated on government control and authority. Socialism doesn't occur in a vacuum; it must be managed by a political system.
 
#483
#483
n_huffhines said:
You're babbling.

In 4 sentences you went from a pointless semantic argument (I don't care if I'm technically a pseudo-anarchist), to changing the topic to something completely irrelevant and incomparable, and then gave us a meaningless lesson from the thesaurus.

Thanks :good!:
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read all of the sentences at one time. That might help.

And while you are busy, go back and actually read what you responded to above. It has not the first thing to do with you. You insisted on making it about you so I did. If you go back further in the thread, I actually gave you credit for at least being thoughtful and giving thought to what you posted about you ideas. If you want, I can just add you to the 8188 crowd and write you off. I also have told you in the past I liked your "ideals" even though they aren't possible. Take all of this into account the next time.

That is all.
 
#484
#484
Gannon Goodson said:
Just curious... how does one be anarchist and socialist at the same time? Socialism is predicated on government control and authority. Socialism doesn't occur in a vacuum; it must be managed by a political system.
Click to expand...

GG you are way late to the party. I've already pissed in the punch bowl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#485
#485
Gannon Goodson said:
Just curious... how does one be anarchist and socialist at the same time? Socialism is predicated on government control and authority. Socialism doesn't occur in a vacuum; it must be managed by a political system.
Click to expand...


Actually, that was the subject of a lot of debate between Lenin and Marxists. Marx thought socialism could evolve, on its own. No government needed. It was Lenin and others who wanted to force the issue, I.e, a politburo, etc.

Many political theorists resent what the Soviets did because their actions in self protection so undermined the ideal that if may not be possible to see if the evolved version might ever work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#487
#487
lawgator1 said:
Actually, that was the subject of a lot of debate between Lenin and Marxists. Marx thought socialism could evolve, on its own. No government needed. It was Lenin and others who wanted to force the issue, I.e, a politburo, etc.

Many political theorists resent what the Soviets did because their actions in self protection so undermined the ideal that if may not be possible to see if the evolved version might ever work.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing people like me understand Marxism and Leninism are based upon a faulty premise.

Are you a Marxist? I'm guessing you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#488
#488
Gannon Goodson said:
No doubt. I've been busy lately, so I didn't bother reading through 30+ pages. For all I know, iVol4Life has already conceded defeat.
Click to expand...

Well his thread title invited questions, when asked hardball questions he side stepped. He promised to go back and answer them but never did. I guess they didn't cover those questions in poli-sci class.
 
#489
#489
Gannon Goodson said:
It's a good thing people like me understand Marxism and Leninism are based upon a faulty premise.

Are you a Marxist? I'm guessing you are.
Click to expand...


The (over) simplicity of your question demonstrates that you, in fact, do not understand Marxism. I have no doubt that you think you do.

But you clearly don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#490
#490
lawgator1 said:
The (over) simplicity of your question demonstrates that you, in fact, do not understand Marxism. I have no doubt that you think you do.

But you clearly don't.
Click to expand...

As someone who spent a good majority of his undergraduate years studying Karl Marx and the horrors his social and economic theories unleashed on unsuspecting and naïve populations, I can assure you I'm well versed in left-wing ideology.

Now would you like to answer the question? You don't have to say you're a thoroughbred. But I think it's obvious you sympathize with Marxist ideology.
 
#494
#494
Gannon Goodson said:
As someone who spent a good majority of his undergraduate years studying Karl Marx and the horrors his social and economic theories unleashed on unsuspecting and naïve populations, I can assure you I'm well versed in left-wing ideology.

Now would you like to answer the question? You don't have to say you're a thoroughbred. But I think it's obvious you sympathize with Marxist ideology.
Click to expand...



Being a "Marxist" doesn't mean what you think it means. And no, I'm not. But not because I don't see value in reducing economic inequality, but because we've transitioned economically and politically so far away from the world Marx envisioned as evolving into socialism that it won't happen.

And it doesn't need to because the primary ills they thought about really aren't around anymore. It's obsolete, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#495
#495
lawgator1 said:
Being a "Marxist" doesn't mean what you think it means. And no, I'm not. But not because I don't see value in reducing economic inequality, but because we've transitioned economically and politically so far away from the world Marx envisioned as evolving into socialism that it won't happen.

And it doesn't need to because the primary ills they thought about really aren't around anymore. It's obsolete, IMO.
Click to expand...

Okay, but what do you think I think it means? I'm not quite following you here. You seem to know what I'm thinking, which is quite spectacular.
 
#496
#496
n_huffhines said:
I know almost nothing about the theory of socialist anarchy. Under an cap there would be little socialist communities, but that's not what he's talking about
Click to expand...

That is because there is no viable theory of socialist anarchy.
 
#500
#500
volinbham said:
Fundamentally, inflation is change (reduction) buying power for a given unit of any currency.

Inflation can be impacted by changes in the money supply but such changes are not the only factor impacting inflation.

In other words, the loss in buying power of a 1982 dollar is not simply due to expansion of the money supply.
Click to expand...

I agree inflation is more complicated. I do find it difficult to reconcile the fact that technological improvements over the years have made enormous productivity gains, significantly reducing the cost to make goods, yet inflation continues to rise.

I should clarify that I don't believe expansion of the money supply is the cause of inflation. In fact, I believe the opposite. The way our financial system is set up, the money supply doesn't expand without demand (I have to make an exception for QE programs because I don't fully understand them). But I do believe monetary policy has a huge impact on that demand by suppressing interest rates and absurdly low capital requirements on banks.

I do have to disagree on your last sentence though. The continuous long term decline of the purchasing power of the dollar can only be attributed to the policies that cause an expansion of the money supply. In 1964 a gallon of gas was $0.30. The melted value of a 1964 quarter is $3 due to the silver content, which would still buy a gallon of gas in today's terms. Maybe silver was in greater supply or had less demand in 1964, but you can compare just about any asset class and get similar results.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top