Well, for starters, I began to read a great deal into people like Howard Zinn, (A People's History of the United States), George Orwell (Homage to Catalonia), mikhail bakunin(The Capitalist System), Peter Kropotkin, the Paris Commune, Proudhon, Emma Goldman etc. It was then I began to realize that socialism, even communism could realistically be anti-statist. From since i could remember i was philosophically all about true freedom and thus anti-authoritarian, opposed to authoritarianism in all forms, private and public. The only thing that changed is a realized that private tyrannies are as equally as powerful and authoritarian as public entities, if not more. Then you have to imagine if there were only private tyrannies how would those in society address their grievances? There would be no way for them to since economic power is essentially absolute power over an individual. Now somewhere around the mid to late 1800s there was a massive split between the Marxists and the left-wing Anarchists. Marxists believe that you need to take over the state and capture the political power of the state for the working class and then somehow it would evolve later down on the road into a classless, stateless society. Bakunin, who was a great opponent of this argued essentially that centralizing power only leads to a dictatorship. "They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up." Bakunin's socialism was known as "collectivist anarchism, in which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations. There would be "equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor." The fundamental difference between the two is that their means to achieve a free egalitarian society is essentially that the Anarchists believe in direct action, through a social revolution is the only way to create such a society and not a "transitory stage" like that of the Authoritarian-minded Marxists. In short, the so-called "governing bodies" would essentially be either federations of workers, syndicates, councils, or communes, depending on which faction of Anarchism it is and what people in a specific geographic location voluntarily agree on. Keep in mind this is a society without what we call a government by today's standards, its probably more of a decision-making based economic democracy that decides on day-to-day affairs in the workplace, so it would be logical for there to be variations in different locations. Now, getting down to the nitty gritty, there are fundamental philosophical questions that one must ask about democracy, and not democracy in a very simplistic sense of the term. Does one believe that the majority of people when presented with logical evidence and without propaganda and deception, that they would make decisions best for society? Does one believe that co-operation is much more productive and efficient than competition when envisioning a better society? P.S. Sorry that i didn't reply in time to meet your standards, just a lot of things to address...fuck can't i do anything right?....and shit...can we please have this thread from reverting into 4chan......
Return to the city-state? And Guilds? (remember, if you cut and paste from an outside source, use quotes. Except I always do it because of my spelling... http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm )
Much respect for realizing libertarianism is a very flawed system. Privatize everything is not the solution...as Ron Paul wants to do.
Libertarian basically just means minimum government in order to preserve negative rights. What he said is basically libertarian, or anarchist, in that in an ancap society, there is no one stopping anyone from forming their own volunteer collectives. If workers want to come together to own an industry, so be it. Ron Paul is the only step leading to less government, so I don't see why Vendetta wouldn't support him.
The interview was a joke. Asking the same question(s) over and over in ANY type of interview is completely inappropriate.
I understand that some of his ideas are moving in the right direction, but the other ideas (pro-life, gold standard, opposition to the separation of church and state?wtf) he has far outweigh the good that he could possibly attain by being elected. Just on the basis that I don't believe that any true anarchist society can be achieved from the top down which is similar to the capitalist revolution in the 1600s-1700s from feudalism to capitalism. I don't have much support for true change coming from inside the political system dominated by corporate forces and entities. Feudal Origins of Capitalism - P2P Foundation "They subjected the individual. They deprived him of all his liberties, they expected him to forget all his unions based on free agreement and free initiative. Their aim was to level the whole of society to a common submission to the master. They destroyed all ties between men, declaring that the State and the Church alone, must henceforth create union between their subjects; that the Church and the State alone have the task of watching over the industrial, commercial, judicial, artistic, emotional interests, for which men of the twelfth century were accustomed to unite directly. " Do you really believe that he can achieve all of the policy changes that he proposes and pass them through congress? let's be realistic here, the past 2 years have been pure deadlock and even moderate right leaning compromises have been taking months to pass, if that. Also, you have to realize that people change once they get elected president, they begin to realize who pulls the strings and that there are lobbying forces at work, and corporate forces that would pull at him from all directions. If i were to assume that the Obama from 2007 would be the same guy when elected, then I would be oblivious to historical facts, it's just not realistic. Power ultimately changes people whether you like it or not.
RACIST RACIST RACIST [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U]NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism - YouTube[/ame]
Upon further investigation, I would have to say that a Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich ticket is the only thing that would likely force me to support him, that would be literally insanely genius but highly improbable, but who knows. Could you imagine? Bipartisanship actually working .....just some wishful thinking. I think that this truly would be a ticket that could legitimately beat Obama.
thread title of the year. I came here just to admire the trollage and clusterfuckage. Carry on, folks.
I will only support this only because i know Ron Paul is about to kick the bucket, if ya know what i mean..
Touchè...why'd ya have to go and give it away? lol..... Kucinich 2013...maybe 14? TAKING ALL BETS NOW!... Piggy-back on a candidate polling well currently and then in turn become president by default later on down the road. I had to do it....sorry...lol. Reddit got the better of me this time.
Did you listen to the fucking debate? I know name calling is against the rules but you are a FUCKING IDIOT. The host of the debate asked a hypothetical question about someone who is young, ~30, has a good job, lives comfortably, and was healthy, who DECIDED NOT TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE. If YOUR dumb ass was young, wealthy, and healthy I wouldn't be paying your bills either, fucktard. When this first happened I couldn't believe that people were blowing it up to what it became, mostly I was astonished at just how many people could be fucking idiots and watch the clip of the debate, read the news headline, and completely miss the fact that POOR PEOPLE were never discussed for the duration of the question. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Merry Christmas, GC. Name-Calling/Disrespect is not allowed here. - KSR
Go back to page 7 and look at my post that I quoted. I will have to ask you AGAIN for a 3rd time to actually read it. I'm assuming you have read it and can't refute it, but I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you ANOTHER chance to read my post and provide PROPER evidence. Telling me to read newsletters that were not written by Dr. Paul from 22 years ago I not proper proof. You need to provide some sort of audio or video showing Paul saying something clearly racist. If his deep hatred for minorities is so obvious, it should be very easy to provide that evidence to me. So go back to page 7, read the post I quoted in that post, and then come provide me evidence based on what I wrote there. If you failed to do that, then I am done playing games with you. You obviously would know that you are wrong but just won't admit it. You made the claim he's a racist...You have the burden of proof, let's see some of it. There should be plenty of proper audio/video evidence of Paul making racist statements from his mouth.
dude.. MLK could rise from the grave and give RP a handjob in Macy's window on christmas eve.. and hank will still think he's a racist. don't waste your breath (or typing) whatever.. i look at the source of the newsletters.. and then i feel good about saying they are full of shit and trying to smear Paul.. lol "the new republic" They may as well get info from Alex Jones...
It's worth the effort cause I know if anyone new comes in to read this thread, they will definitely know he is not a racist since the ones calling him a racist obviously cannot provide proof and just keep avoiding it. So I am just writing posts that clearly expose Hank and make it undeniable that he has absolutely zero proof Ron is a racist.