Agna:

[Oddball]

Yeah...Right

And if they're so much obviously better than market-based systems, why haven't they sprung back up organically??

I mean really....If it's such an obviously hot deal, you'd swear that throngs of people would be going that route.

Lemmie guess....It's a conspiracy.

 

[JBeukema]

Partially. Violent destruction by European-style fascists, Western-style republican capitalists, and Eastern-style Leninists and Stalinists.

So your system is too weak to sustain and defend itself?

I believe I asked earlier where your armies come from.. wait, armies are authoritarian and require top->down control...


No wonder you couldn't last

Guerrilla tactics could work, but apparently they weren't that smart

 

[Agnapostate]

BTW...I'm the first to admit perfection and Utopia aren't options, while you go around excessively bloviating about how they are....

No, you're not. As long as you maintain a belief in "free market" capitalism, you maintain a fantasy about utopia.

If only the right bunch of authoritarian thugs were in charge of it.

Don't be a fool. Those of a libertarian socialist stripe have always condemned authoritarianism when it emerged, whether it was in the early Marxist circles or in the rise of the Bolsheviks.

I'm a fan of Orwell's observations on how semantics are fudged by collectivist authoritarian punks like you, in order to con people into immolating themselves into mere chattel of the state.

This is exactly what Orwell would refer to as an example of absurd double-speak. Your reference to anarchism, the most libertarian philosophy in existence, as "authoritarian," is an indication of either deep-seated ignorance of political economy or severe blunt force trauma to the head. But hell, I'll play your game. Here's my Political Compass score:

I believe that would be a perfect libertarian score of -10.0. Is yours lower somehow?

Chomsky has made many of the same observations...That doesn't automatically mean that I buy into his glaringly contradictory political views.

Contrary to your asinine comments, there's nothing oxymoronic or "glaringly contradictory" about libertarian socialism. The term "libertarian" was first used by European anarchists, in fact, and was thus claimed by socialists long before its misappropriation.

 

[roomy]

Agnes, nobody ever reads your rambling, stolen essays.Maybe if I took the time to read some of your sources I might infact agree with some of it but the trouble is, YOU.You are a fucking arsehole.I imagine talking to you in real life and having to tell you to shut the fuck up before I have to render you unconscious.You annoy the fuck out of me.I know you can't help it because of your immaturity and lack of social skills but please , shut the fuck up.

 

[Agnapostate]

So your system is too weak to sustain and defend itself?

Nope. The anarchists constituted the most powerful and numerous faction on the Republican side; they simply weren't prepared for mutiny and treachery from their "allies," and were unwilling to forcibly exert power over them to a greater degree because of their libertarian principles. It was then the failures of the Republican side as a whole that caused the eventual military defeat (and along the way, anarchist military organizations such as the Durruti Column were integrated into the wider Republican army, thus destroying their libertarian organizational methods).

 

[Agnapostate]

Yeah...Right

And if they're so much obviously better than market-based systems, why haven't they sprung back up organically??

I didn't actually assert superiority to market-based systems, though I do believe markets are flawed by inherent deficiencies. However, the market is not a capitalist-specific element; it's merely a device used for the allocation of resources that can also exist in a socialist economy.

I mean really....If it's such an obviously hot deal, you'd swear that throngs of people would be going that route.

Nope. There's simply widespread ignorance of that form of political organization entails, and far greater ignorance of its implementation in the Spanish Revolution. A thorough analysis will lead one to conclude that libertarian socialism is fundamentally sound; however, a combination of factors prevent its adoption even as a widespread ideology in this country, one of them being the shrill whining of hacks like you that "socialism" is equivalent to Soviet state capitalism.

Agnes, nobody ever reads your rambling, stolen essays.Maybe if I took the time to read some of your sources I might infact agree with some of it but the trouble is, YOU.You are a fucking arsehole.I imagine talking to you in real life and having to tell you to shut the fuck up before I have to render you unconscious.You annoy the fuck out of me.I know you can't help it because of your immaturity and lack of social skills but please , shut the fuck up.

Shut your goddamn, mouth, rheumatoid. No one invited your dumb clownish ass to the party and there's no pinata here for you to attack. So go gulp down a few tubes of dianabol and get the fuck off this series of tubes, bitch.

 

[JBeukema]

Evidently, they weren't so strong

they simply weren't prepared for mutiny and treachery from their "allies,"

Then they were stupid to trust them

and were unwilling to forcibly exert power over them to a greater degree because of their libertarian principles.

so... too weak of heart and mind

It was then the failures of the Republican side as a whole that caused the eventual military defeat (and along the way, anarchist military organizations such as the Durruti Column were integrated into the wider Republican army, thus destroying their libertarian organizational methods).

They were swallowed up? Your propaganda couldn't sway the rest of the forces? They didn't have the balls to stand alone, stake a claim, and defend a sovereign piece of territory?

\

 

[Oddball]

BTW...I'm the first to admit perfection and Utopia aren't options, while you go around excessively bloviating about how they are....

No, you're not. As long as you maintain a belief in "free market" capitalism, you maintain a fantasy about utopia.

If only the right bunch of authoritarian thugs were in charge of it.

Don't be a fool. Those of a libertarian socialist stripe have always condemned authoritarianism when it emerged, whether it was in the early Marxist circles or in the rise of the Bolsheviks.

I'm a fan of Orwell's observations on how semantics are fudged by collectivist authoritarian punks like you, in order to con people into immolating themselves into mere chattel of the state.

This is exactly what Orwell would refer to as an example of absurd double-speak. Your reference to anarchism, the most libertarian philosophy in existence, as "authoritarian," is an indication of either deep-seated ignorance of political economy or severe blunt force trauma to the head. But hell, I'll play your game. Here's my Political Compass score:

I believe that would be a perfect libertarian score of -10.0. Is yours lower somehow?

Chomsky has made many of the same observations...That doesn't automatically mean that I buy into his glaringly contradictory political views.

Contrary to your asinine comments, there's nothing oxymoronic or "glaringly contradictory" about libertarian socialism. The term "libertarian" was first used by European anarchists, in fact, and was thus claimed by socialists long before its misappropriation.

Here we go with that stupid fucking political compass, again.

What makes that matrix, with a plethora of questions of dubious premise, of any merit??

BTW, I have a lot more extensive education and training in linguistics and semantics than you, plebe....You'll go nowhere trying to parse weasel words and nebulous concepts with me.

 

[JBeukema]

What makes that matrix, with a plethora of questions of dubious premise, of any merit??.

because it says what he wants?

 

[JBeukema]

[youtube]7CqYA9fO3Qk[/youtube]

 

[roomy]

Agnes, nobody ever reads your rambling, stolen essays.Maybe if I took the time to read some of your sources I might infact agree with some of it but the trouble is, YOU.You are a fucking arsehole.I imagine talking to you in real life and having to tell you to shut the fuck up before I have to render you unconscious.You annoy the fuck out of me.I know you can't help it because of your immaturity and lack of social skills but please , shut the fuck up.

Shut your goddamn, mouth, rheumatoid. No one invited your dumb clownish ass to the party and there's no pinata here for you to attack. So go gulp down a few tubes of dianabol and get the fuck off this series of tubes, bitch.

Childish and thick as fuck, just two of the reasons you bore me.

 

[Agnapostate]

Evidently, they weren't so strong

Against the combined might of fascists, capitalists, and Stalinists? No, I'd say not...

Then they were stupid to trust them

Yep. That critical divergence from anarchist principles and alliance with the state is considered by many to have been a cause of their ultimate destruction.

so... too weak of heart and mind

Another point of dispute among modern anarchists, actually. Some feel that the anarchists would have become the very evil they were opposing by utilizing coercion, whereas others feel that it would have been a necessary condition of ultimately maintaining anarchism.

They were swallowed up? Your propaganda couldn't sway the rest of the forces? They didn't have the balls to stand alone, stake a claim, and defend a sovereign piece of territory?

Nope. But tonight, why don't you go into the local watering hole and challenge the first five guys you see to a bar brawl? When you win, feel free to come back and tell us how they should have organized themselves.

Here we go with that stupid fucking political compass, again.

What makes that matrix, with a plethora of questions of dubious premise, of any merit??

I'd say its two-dimensional status allows us to conduct more thorough political analysis than you ever could with your troglodytic conceptions of "socialism." For example, consider the comment made in their Analysis:

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period.

That reality seems miles above your head.

BTW, I have a lot more extensive education and training in linguistics and semantics than you, plebe....You'll go nowhere trying to parse weasel words and nebulous concepts with me.

No, you don't. If you did, you'd be able to conceal your idiotic regurgitations of standard rightist fare more skillfully. The fact that you cannot reveals you to be merely another rightist hack who dimwittedly repeats talking points like a retarded parrot.

 

[Oddball]

What makes that matrix, with a plethora of questions of dubious premise, of any merit??.

because it says what he wants?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JBeukema again.

 

[Agnapostate]

Childish and thick as fuck, just two of the reasons you bore me.

Get the fuck out, you stupid moron. Your tenure on this board illustrated a long time ago that you lack the capacity for legitimate political comment. Now get lost, you stupid bitch.

 

[JBeukema]

Did he ever address the issue of stealing from those who labor what is rightfully theres by their own labor to reward those who choose not to work?- or the issue of him saying that ''

the super-majority could simply expel who they would or massacre who they would, for that matter.

 

[Agnapostate]

Did he ever address the issue of stealing from those who labor what is rightfully theres by their own labor to reward those who choose not to work?

Yep. The collective ownership of the means of production will minimize the subordination of labor under capital, thus preventing the financial class from stealing the surplus labor of the working class any further.

 

[roomy]

Childish and thick as fuck, just two of the reasons you bore me.

Get the fuck out, you stupid moron. Your tenure on this board illustrated a long time ago that you lack the capacity for legitimate political comment. Now get lost, you stupid bitch.

Why do you tell lies?

 

[JBeukema]

Did he ever address the issue of stealing from those who labor what is rightfully theres by their own labor to reward those who choose not to work?

Yep. The collective ownership of the means of production will minimize the subordination of labor under capital, thus preventing the financial class from stealing the surplus labor of the working class any further.

You're dodging the issue. You said that those who choose to not work get free stuff anyway. That means that they are benefiting from the labor of others- and stealing from the working class what is theirs by their own labor

This, you insist, is to protect them from a capitalist system, where their employer, by profiting from their labor, is alleged to be taking advantage of them and stealing from the working class what is theirs by their own labor

 

[Oddball]

Childish and thick as fuck, just two of the reasons you bore me.

Get the fuck out, you stupid moron. Your tenure on this board illustrated a long time ago that you lack the capacity for legitimate political comment. Now get lost, you stupid bitch.

Why do you tell lies?

Lying is a foundational trait of rotters and tyrants.

 

[Agnapostate]

Why do you tell lies?

rheumatoid, don't make us do this again...remember the thread that I started just for you and your dinky brain, asking you to prove a single lie that I'd told? Remember...you not being able to post anything there?