Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word

[editec]

Its amusing to watch some of you poli-sci know-nothings attempting to respond to the rigorous political science musings of Anapostate.

Fortunely for most of you, you know so little about what he is talking about that you are unphased when he systematically dismantles your feeble objections to his points.

That said I still want to know..

What is the migration path from the system we have NOW, to this anarcho-libertarian system you advocate, Ana?

Seriously, given the current state of private property laws, how does this transition happen without blood on every street in America?

I do NOT see a non-violent path leading to a more equitable system and I suspect we BOTH KNOW that the violent path to such a more equitable society doesn't exist....

.. rr maybe I am too mired in my own retrothinking and just cannot envision that path?

Please illuminate the way for me, if you can.

 

[Agnapostate]

Because Im an American in a capitalistic society and I have freedom, to disregard a commie if I want to.

America is not a "free market" economy in any sense of the word, and essentially survives as a federally planned economy, which is why the most heavily subsidized industries are the most internationally competitive.

Its amusing to watch some of you poli-sci know-nothings attempting to respond to the rigorous political science musings of Anapostate.

Fortunely for most of you, you know so little about what he is talking about that you are unphased when he systematically dismantles your feeble objections to his points.

That said I still want to know..

What is the migration path from the system we have NOW, to this anarcho-libertarian system you advocate, Ana?

Seriously, given the current state of private property laws, how does this transition happen without blood on every street in America?

I do NOT see a non-violent path leading to a more equitable system and I suspect we BOTH KNOW that the violent path to such a more equitable society doesn't exist....

.. rr maybe I am too mired in my own retrothinking and just cannot envision that path?

Please illuminate the way for me, if you can.

I'll agree that such a course of action does not seem to be a conceivable option in any relatively industrialized and stable capitalist society, especially one such as the United States, whose citizens are deeply hostile to what they perceive as socialism. (Even if their conceptions of socialism are entirely inaccurate, as in the case of the Soviet Union.)

Hence, the first course of action needs to be the promotion of acceptance of anarcho-socialism. The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 did not erupt spontaneously; it was built on several decades of anarchist organizing and direct action. From that point, any number of courses of action may be conceivable. In poorer and more turbulent countries, violent insurrection and revolution may be a conceivable option. (Pinochet's Chile would have been a perfect candidate for such a revolution.)

In a more stable and industrialized society, gradual transition may be a more conceivable option after the acceptance of libertarian and anarchist forms of socialism has become more widespread, and can be spurned on by forms of direct action such as workers' strikes and protests. It's conceivable that some variety of expropriation and nationalization may occur prior to the decentralization of federal authority and dismantling of hierarchical authority, and the implementation of a variety of libertarian municipalism, (of the variety promoted by Murray Bookchin), at the local level.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The notion that McCain bad mouthed Hussein is absurd on its face and a myth snatched from the leftist ether... McCain did everything but offer to BLOW Hussein... McCain's official ad chronically espoused view of Hussein is that he is a great 'honorable' guy who is well qualified to run the country.



Socialism is only accepted by those who are not capable of understanding that socialism stifles the creation of wealth and absent the creation of wealth... the PROMISES OF SOCIALISM ARE AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY!

Thus socialism is doomed due to its inherent catastrophic flaws; and as a result those would-be deomocratic cultures which are so foolish as to embrace socialism are likewise... DOOMED; with their catastrophic flaw being that a sufficient majority of their population are IMBECILES who have willfully, albeit erroneously, voted to enslave themselves.

One word for these comments .. RIDICULOUS

John McCain was the best the republicans had to offer and he beat all the other hapless right-wing wannabe's to prove it. Now the ever-shrinking right wants to blame McCain for their monumental failures.

You think because McCain wasn't dumb enough to call Obama "Hussein" means he didn't attack him .. yet there is a plethora of evidence using McCain's own words that demonstrate you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

In fact, poll after poll has shown that most Americans thought McCain attacked OBama unfairly and that perception hurt him during the election.

AND, there is no question that McCain became increasingly desperate towars the end of the campaign.

Your comment on this question is unfounded and silly .. and EASILY disproven.

On socialism .. need I point out the successful SOCIALIST concepts we've adapted and will not get rid of right here in this country?

Are you aware that you're spouting this nonsense in the midst of the collapse of capitialist concepts .. and where the only way to save many capitialist institutions is to adapt a socialist approach?

I have no doubt that you may be completely unaware about any of this .. but you being unaware hardly matters.

 

[chloe]

What agenda do I have that he does not have? Why should I not have an agenda of promoting libertarian socialism, just as he has an agenda of promoting capitalism?

And why have you ignored my observation that a socialist economy does not necessitate an abandonment of differentiations of wages according to differentiations of skill levels?

you have a slanderous agenda against Publiousinfinitu.....and a "big brother" agenda against me

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What a moron. You clearly don't have any historical conception of the Spanish Revolution or the effects that it produced. The Spanish anarchists were allied with the Popular Front and were one of the chief foes of fascism during the Spanish Civil War. They were sabotaged by the Leninists and authoritarian socialists that constituted most of the Popular Front. You know nothing whatsoever of anarchism or libertarian socialism, and are clearly unaware of the high collectivization rates in Aragon and Catalonia.

Learn some history, idiot.

Golly... IF this screed in ANY WAY, ON ANY LEVEL contested one word of my position it MIGHT register as a valid point. Sadly... it does not.

There is NO SUCH THING as "libertarian-socialism"... it is a MYTH; it CANNOT EXIST IN NATURE; no more than HOT-COLD, HARD-SOFT or BLACK-WHITE...

Well only temporally... Socialism is little more than the transition to communism. Socialism discourages the production of wealth; wealth is required to sustain the promise of socialism; failure is thus inevitable; as failure closes in the state exponentially gathers more power towards a more centralized scope, until it is required to seize control of the means of production; strip the system of all traces of individual profit in order to maximize production... and PRESTO... Communism.

This is precisely how the US went from a free market capitalist society of the 19th century, to the progressive economy (read: fascist) of the 20th century and is now spiraling into Socialism... even as we speak the government is demanding greater and greater control to 'manage' the market... the same trend will simply continue, as the state's failure to control the market escalates, it will blame the market for the failure (as you're doing) and thus take more and more power to execute greater control, until it is said that to save the nation, it must determine who does what, when and for how much... AKA: COMMUNISM.

Again sis, this isn't a complex issue; it's simply beyond your intellectual means.

No, idiot, your problem is that the only understanding you've ever gained of socialism is what you've read about Marx on the Heritage Foundation website.

What I know of socialism is the trail of disaster that it has brought every culture in which it has been lent credence... Socialism has resulted in the MURDER of 150 MILLION people... The enslavement many times that and has cost the planet trillions in lost production.

You know nothing of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin or any other legitimate socialist.

Again... Socialism is an invalid notion... thus there can be no legitimacy where such exists.

Your "transitional phase" theory is a tenet of Marxism,

It's not a theory sis... a function of human nature as well as a historical fact; it is wholly inevitable where a majority of a given culture loses sufficient masculinity to concede to the foolish whimsy that is socialism. Socialism is little more than the 'have your cake and eat it too...' fantasy of the addle mind; the wish of the morally vacant and the ne’er-do-wells which chronically reside on the bottom rung of every culture.

(that has always failed), which is why so many legitimate socialists call for the violent overthrow of the state and capitalism rather than a transition through a "workers' state" and an establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat," elements of Marxism that you incorrectly assume are true of all forms of socialism due to your ignorance of political economy.

ROFL... Socialists need a violent revolution because there is no means to accomplish their goals otherwise. Socialism is intellectually unsound, logically invalid and as such cannot compete in the arena of ideas... let alone the realm of reality. Violent revolution simply seeks to silence the opposition, thus providing the means for the socialists to operate absent viable cultural competition.

Your little "analysis" ignores the fact that so many are in favor of the permanent establishment of market socialism, mutualism, or collectivism.

Hey... a desperate appeal to popularity; the cornerstone of socialism; which stands in example, as evidence that socialism is logically invalid.

Again... Let the record reflect, 'Libertarian Socialism' is an oxymoron in the extreme... libertarianism is the very antithesis of socialism... this idiot has been so daftly indoctrinated that she is simply unable to recognize one concept from the next; even where the concepts are diametric opposition. This is of course a function of being 'taught' by idiots; thus it serves reason; this without regard to just how freakin' sad it may be.

On the contrary, the conventional understanding that libertarianism is associated with capitalism is false

Libertarianism is rooted in LIBERTY... from the Latin root liber... (look it up...) Libertarianism stands upon NOTHING EXCEPT FREEDOM! Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... It is the purest essence of Libertarianism, which in effect translates to 'you do your thing, I'll do mine, because when we do it, we get along fine...' Libertarianism cannot exists ABSENT CAPITALISM, PERIOD. There cannot be one, without the other, they are synonymous concepts. Such as Imbecile and YOU.

This of course sets aside the sea of irrelevant minutia you need to introduce to spin this endless sophistry.

This is correctly regarded as false in most non-American countries and was historically regarded as false in the United States until the term "libertarianism" was corrupted. Libertarianism and capitalism cannot coexist because libertarianism stresses the maximization of liberty and capitalism necessitates hierarchy in the workplace and hierarchy outside of the workplace through extreme wage inequities.

Again a feeble ad populum farce... 'most people feel... this or that' Who cares? If most people felt that smashing one's testicles with a hammer brought enlightenment, it would NOT change the fact that the enlightenment which such brought was limited to the certain knowledge that it is highly inadvisable to smash one's testicles with a hammer...

I don't see any grounds for that claim whatsoever, considering that it commits the fallacy of assuming that a socialist economy necessarily abandons wage differentiations according to skill differentiations, and that a communist economy necessarily abandons remuneration differentiations according to labor input differentiations. Both are false.

LOL... the list of things you don't see is endless. You can't even get your head around the simple, immutable fact that Libertarianism is WHOLLY ANTITHETICAL TO SOCIALISM.

Here's the difference... Libertarians are found on cattle ranches, sail boats and those places where they're free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives... where they can be left alone to live and let live. Socialists are more typically found in inner cities, busying themselves with interfering in the lives of as many people as possible and when they DO decide to 'get away from it all', they end up in far away places such as "Jones Town" ...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh... OK, don't like Stalin, who murdered 25 million people? How about Mao, who murdered 75 million? Or the Il family of North Korea, with a tally still be rung up which is estimated to be in the tens of millions and climbing... Castro... Che Guevara? How about Pol Pot?

The simple fact is that NONE of these communists will suffice as suitable examples of non-perverted communists... because to submit THESE ACTUAL COMMUNISTS as examples OF COMMUNISM undermines the Left-think myth that Communism is something besides Cultural DEATH!

 

[Lycurgus]

And the Obama camp, along with major media outlets ran a unfair and attacking race against McCain. Anyone denying that is silly.

Major media outlets not only crossed lines they shouldn't, this time they went entirely too far. Along with other program options.

Both sides are guilty of smut and smack, only the Obama side had more outside help. And of course McCain got desperate, most do when behind like that. Nothing new here.

As for socialism and capitalism. A healthy blend would be nice, in my humble opinion. However, I have yet to see anyone in Washington come close to offering any proposals which remotely resemble that.

It is not rocket science to understand that pure socialism is not going to be the solution, nor is pure capitalism. both have their merits and their draw backs. The question is, is this nation capable of taking the assets of both and getting them to work in harmony for the betterment of all.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What agenda do I have that he does not have? Why should I not have an agenda of promoting libertarian socialism, just as he has an agenda of promoting capitalism?

And why have you ignored my observation that a socialist economy does not necessitate an abandonment of differentiations of wages according to differentiations of skill levels?

ROFL... here's the thing sis... I and the market determine my wage and neither you nor the organized, non-governmental society of anarchist morons have a right to dictate what should be the value of the product of my labor...

That socialism provides for 'differentiations' does not bestow validity upon the concept... the fact remains that you've no right to establish my wages unless and until I freely consent to such a decision; and wherein I am free to make that decision without fear of reprisal by your 'organized society.'

 

[Old Rocks]

And the Obama camp, along with major media outlets ran a unfair and attacking race against McCain. Anyone denying that is silly.

Major media outlets not only crossed lines they shouldn't, this time they went entirely too far. Along with other program options.

Both sides are guilty of smut and smack, only the Obama side had more outside help. And of course McCain got desperate, most do when behind like that. Nothing new here.

As for socialism and capitalism. A healthy blend would be nice, in my humble opinion. However, I have yet to see anyone in Washington come close to offering any proposals which remotely resemble that.

It is not rocket science to understand that pure socialism is not going to be the solution, nor is pure capitalism. both have their merits and their draw backs. The question is, is this nation capable of taking the assets of both and getting them to work in harmony for the betterment of all.

The voice of reason. To be promptly ignored by those of either extreme. This is what either extreme hates more than each other. Virtually all modern democracies are mixed socialistic and capitalistic economies. What would be the smart course would be to emulate what works in similiar cultures to ours, and avoid what has been shown to be unworkable. But, for either extreme, this is a far too reasonable course, for it states that pragmatism is more important than ideology.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why the question? I think he's made a valid point, especially since the Soviet Union was a state capitalist nation rather than a socialist one.

ROFLMNAO... Oh Sure... Yes, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was actually a 'State Capitalist'... because 'everyone knows' that those Communists didn't know as much about Communism as these western useful idiots...

 

[chloe]

America is not a "free market" economy in any sense of the word, and essentially survives as a federally planned economy, which is why the most heavily subsidized industries are the most internationally competitive.



I'll agree that such a course of action does not seem to be a conceivable option in any relatively industrialized and stable capitalist society, especially one such as the United States, whose citizens are deeply hostile to what they perceive as socialism. (Even if their conceptions of socialism are entirely inaccurate, as in the case of the Soviet Union.)

Hence, the first course of action needs to be the promotion of acceptance of anarcho-socialism. The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 did not erupt spontaneously; it was built on several decades of anarchist organizing and direct action. From that point, any number of courses of action may be conceivable. In poorer and more turbulent countries, violent insurrection and revolution may be a conceivable option. (Pinochet's Chile would have been a perfect candidate for such a revolution.)

In a more stable and industrialized society, gradual transition may be a more conceivable option after the acceptance of libertarian and anarchist forms of socialism has become more widespread, and can be spurned on by forms of direct action such as workers' strikes and protests. It's conceivable that some variety of expropriation and nationalization may occur prior to the decentralization of federal authority and dismantling of hierarchical authority, and the implementation of a variety of libertarian municipalism, (of the variety promoted by Murray Bookchin), at the local level.

If you love it so much go marry china or cuba

 

[mightypeon]

I think that many people have a problem with the following misconception:
Free market and Democracy are independent of each other.
Each state will have an economical and a poltical agenda, the economical agenda would be something like: Free market, Social market, Socialism, Communism, Green economy
The political agenda would have things like: Democracy, Republic, Therocracy, Autocracy, Monarchy etc.

There can be Free market democracies, Free Market Theocracys and Free Market Autocracys, just like there can be Socialist Democracys, Socialist Republics, Socialist Autocracys etc. While a lot of states label them selfs as either Socialist and/or Democratic, few are either in practice.

You may now ask why there are very few historical examples of a Socialist democracy.
It is simple, everytime a socialist autocracy/theocracy (Hard core cummunist had a lot in come with hard core religious freaks when it came to dogmatism, rejection of progress and genocides) switched into a socialist democracy the USSR intervened and transformed it back into an autocracy. Everytime a free market democracy switched into a socialist democracy the USA intervended, usually switching it into a free market autocracy.
At least the Politburo of the USSR regarded a democratic Socialist country as a significant ideological threat. I am quite sure that the USA may have thought the same.


@ Agnapostate:
I doubt that we will ever see Anarchism as a state system. My reasoning is the following:
While a non hierarchical organisation may have significant advatadges for the individual, it is also limited by what it can achieve. I doubt that a syndicate will build a space shipt for example. The most dominantly hierarchical entitiys are usually the militaries. This propably has evolutionary reasons, non hierarchical militarys got defeated by hierarchical ones. I believe that an anarchist society would be conquered and dominated by more hierachically organized neighbours. Another issue would be weapons of mass destruction. Lets assume that France turns into an Anarchosyndicalistic State (nice oxymoron I know), who is going to control the nukes? You could assume that Frances non Anarchical neighbours (and I would venture to say the Anarchical ones too) would be very concerned about that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

America is not a "free market" economy in any sense of the word, and essentially survives as a federally planned economy, which is why the most heavily subsidized industries are the most internationally competitive.

Hey that's a great point! And this, a result of greater and greater or should we say a progressive increase in government power towards the goal to 'control' what would otherwise BE a 'free market.'

Hmmm...

Now, I wonder... what ideology lead the US into this progressive government control of the US economy, through an endless litany of regulation, taxes and other forms of economic control and direct manipulation of the market, which has lead to the marketbeing something vastly less than FREE?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The voice of reason. To be promptly ignored by those of either extreme. This is what either extreme hates more than each other. Virtually all modern democracies are mixed socialistic and capitalistic economies. What would be the smart course would be to emulate what works in similiar cultures to ours, and avoid what has been shown to be unworkable. But, for either extreme, this is a far too reasonable course, for it states that pragmatism is more important than ideology.

ROFLMNAO...

This is hilarious... Literally ALL economies which have been inculcated with socialism are economies which have been doomed to failure in that the stength of those economies are being sapped by the aforementioned socialist policy; policy which limits the creation of wealth even as it promises exponentially more to those who produce less and less of the essential wealth necessary to maintain those promises.

There is no such thing as 'extreme principle' jackass... thus your attempt to paint those who stand upon valid principle as extreme merely identifies you as an imbecile. Valid principle is merely the tenets of the immutable natural order and there is not a single valid principle anywhere to be found within the tenets of socialism. Meaning there is absoltuely NOTHING extreme abotu those who contest left-think, without regard to the particular 'ism' it happens to be hiding behind at any given moment.

 

[Old Rocks]

ROFLMNAO...

This is hilarious... Literally ALL economies which have been inculcated with socialism are economies which have been doomed to failure in that the stength of those economies are being sapped by the aforementioned socialist policy; policy which limits the creation of wealth even as it promises exponentially more to those who produce less and less of the essential wealth necessary to maintain those promises.

There is no such thing as 'extreme principle' jackass... thus your attempt to paint those who stand upon valid principle as extreme merely identifies you as an imbecile. Valid principle is merely the tenets of the immutable natural order and there is not a single valid principle anywhere to be found within the tenets of socialism. Meaning there is absoltuely NOTHING extreme abotu those who contest left-think, without regard to the particular 'ism' it happens to be hiding behind at any given moment.

Very good. Now that you have shown your full talents in debating, how do you do wallowing with hogs?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Very good. Now that you have shown your full talents in debating, how do you do wallowing with hogs?

OUTSTANDING!

No one runs from the debate like a "progressive"...

I particularly loved how you managed to feign cogency while avoiding it entirely!

Bravo

 

[bigdaddygtr]

If you love it so much go marry china or cuba

In case you didn't notice, our capitalistic society is not only married to China, be we're the one who takes it while they give it.

But you're right, Capitalism is the only way to go - just ask all those people who are unemployed or homeless due to this crash

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The notion that McCain bad mouthed Hussein is absurd on its face and a myth snatched from the leftist ether... McCain did everything but offer to BLOW Hussein... McCain's official ad chronically espoused view of Hussein is that he is a great 'honorable' guy who is well qualified to run the country.



Socialism is only accepted by those who are not capable of understanding that socialism stifles the creation of wealth and absent the creation of wealth... the PROMISES OF SOCIALISM ARE AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY!

Thus socialism is doomed due to its inherent catastrophic flaws; and as a result those would-be democratic cultures which are so foolish as to embrace socialism are likewise... DOOMED; with their catastrophic flaw being that a sufficient majority of their population are IMBECILES who have willfully, albeit erroneously, voted to enslave themselves.

One word for these comments .. RIDICULOUS

John McCain was the best the republicans had to offer and he beat all the other hapless right-wing wannabe's to prove it. Now the ever-shrinking right wants to blame McCain for their monumental failures.

So the ideological right is summed by the GOP? That's an interesting theory... One of these days you'll need to provide some discernable basis for it.

You think because McCain wasn't dumb enough to call Obama "Hussein" means he didn't attack him .. yet there is a plethora of evidence using McCain's own words that demonstrate you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Yet you aren't able to find anything within the plethora suitable to use as evidence... Huh... that seems counter intuitive.

In fact, poll after poll has shown that most Americans thought McCain attacked OBama unfairly and that perception hurt him during the election.

[/quote]

ROFL... Well sure... I mean popular opinion is always a certain indicator of reality. FYI: Ad populum reasoning is fallacious, logically invalid reasoning; thus it is not acceptable as sound, viable reasoning; meaning you're an idiot who's tryin' to push fallacious prattle as sound reasoning.

AND, there is no question that McCain became increasingly desperate towars the end of the campaign.

Perhaps... but there is no evidence that he verbally attack the Marxist Muslim populist...

Your comment on this question is unfounded and silly .. and EASILY disproven.

Yet you opted to advance fallacious prattle instead of disproving it. Huh... what CAN WE MAKE OF THAT?

On socialism .. need I point out the successful SOCIALIST concepts we've adapted and will not get rid of right here in this country?

Well I'd love to see someone do it... ad I'd say that would be quite a hat trick, given that there is no potential for success within the scope of 'socialism'.

Are you aware that you're spouting this nonsense in the midst of the collapse of capitialist concepts ..

I'm aware the you and the other imbeciles are erroneously projecting that myth...

and where the only way to save many capitialist institutions is to adapt a socialist approach?

ROFLMNAO... Really? So you feel that implementing policy which is doomed, by its own catastrophic structural flaws, will 'save' something? If you weren't an imbecile you'd know how foolish that is.


If you're referring to the financial markets, which succumbed to the influence of the left to provide loans against actuarial realities, that was not a failure of capitalism sis... that was a predictable failure resulting in leftists interfering in the markets. If you're referring to the US Automakers... they're failing due o having succumbed to leftist policy which forced them to accept untenable collective bargaining contracts. They're now paying for that... and if they do not shut that facet off, they'll drop dead. But that was a fate which was complete the instant they inked those contracts.

No slight on capitalism there... Capitalism is the natural order... it never fails as it cannot fail.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In case you didn't notice, our capitalistic society is not only married to China, be we're the one who takes it while they give it.

But you're right, Capitalism is the only way to go - just ask all those people who are unemployed or homeless due to this crash

ROFLMNAO... SO you're solution is to widen the poverty by implementing policy which stifles the creationof wealth?

BRILLIANT!

LOL... There is very little wrong with the US that wouldn't be solved by having an intelligence test required before we let people vote.

 

[Agnapostate]

you have a slanderous agenda against Publiousinfinitu.....and a "big brother" agenda against me

How so?

Golly... IF this screed in ANY WAY, ON ANY LEVEL contested one word of my position it MIGHT register as a valid point. Sadly... it does not.

There is NO SUCH THING as "libertarian-socialism"... it is a MYTH; it CANNOT EXIST IN NATURE; no more than HOT-COLD, HARD-SOFT or BLACK-WHITE...

Your idiocy is utterly pathetic. On the contrary, there is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism." Liberty cannot be maximized by capitalism, which necessitates hierarchical organizations and establishments.

What I know of socialism is the trail of disaster that it has brought every culture in which it has been lent credence... Socialism has resulted in the MURDER of 150 MILLION people... The enslavement many times that and has cost the planet trillions in lost production.

That is false. The societies you refer to are state capitalist ones, not socialist ones. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Because control of the means of production was consolidated in the hands of elites such as party and Politburo officials, as well as the Central Committee, in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was a state capitalist nation rather than a socialist one. The state ruling class in the Soviet Union formed the equivalent of the corporate ruling class in the United States. Both are brutally anti-democratic systems of governance.

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

Learn a thing or two before you run your mouth, kid.

Again... Socialism is an invalid notion... thus there can be no legitimacy where such exists.

That is false. More than that, you are delusional when you blather on about the "free markets" promoted in a capitalist economy. Rapidly growing market economies have originally been characterized by protectionism in the case of infant industries, a painfully obvious fact to everyone except you.

It's not a theory sis... a function of human nature as well as a historical fact; it is wholly inevitable where a majority of a given culture loses sufficient masculinity to concede to the foolish whimsy that is socialism. Socialism is little more than the 'have your cake and eat it too...' fantasy of the addle mind; the wish of the morally vacant and the ne’er-do-wells which chronically reside on the bottom rung of every culture.

I sense some reversion to your inaccurate belief that socialism necessitates the abandonment of wage differentiations according to skill differences in this above statement. This is false, and as a socialist economy can retain a market while also preserving the collective ownership of the means of production, it is an oversimplification of socialist economics.

The assertion also ignores the blatantly obvious fact that socialist economies have promoted the general welfare to a commendable degree in the past, particularly in the libertarian socialist collectives of the Spanish Revolution.

ROFL... Socialists need a violent revolution because there is no means to accomplish their goals otherwise. Socialism is intellectually unsound, logically invalid and as such cannot compete in the arena of ideas... let alone the realm of reality. Violent revolution simply seeks to silence the opposition, thus providing the means for the socialists to operate absent viable cultural competition.

Perhaps the strongest indication of socialism's intellectual soundness is the necessity for capitalist demagogues to obfuscate its nature, as you have done here. You have done nothing whatsoever to rebut socialistic tenets, as you inaccurately believe that a command economy is a fundamental tenet of socialism, as characterized by your annoyingly persistent belief that the Soviet Union is an example of a socialist country.

Hey... a desperate appeal to popularity; the cornerstone of socialism; which stands in example, as evidence that socialism is logically invalid.

Nothing of the sort. The purpose of referencing that fact was to rebut your inaccurate assertion that all forms of socialism were necessarily equivalent to communism. I was illustrating that this was obviously untrue in the cases of market socialism, mutualism, and collectivism.

Libertarianism is rooted in LIBERTY... from the Latin root liber... (look it up...) Libertarianism stands upon NOTHING EXCEPT FREEDOM! Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... It is the purest essence of Libertarianism, which in effect translates to 'you do your thing, I'll do mine, because when we do it, we get along fine...' Libertarianism cannot exists ABSENT CAPITALISM, PERIOD. There cannot be one, without the other, they are synonymous concepts. Such as Imbecile and YOU.

This of course sets aside the sea of irrelevant minutia you need to introduce to spin this endless sophistry.

Perhaps it is you who should look these things up...libertarianism was a term initially devised to circumvent anti-anarchist "villainous laws" promoted to suppress anarchist (libertarian socialist) organizations like the International Workingmens' Association in France. The conception of libertarianism that you possess is due to the classical liberals' usurpation of the term. This process occurred from the 1930's onward, due to the establishment of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics.

But socialists held the term far earlier than these classical liberals did. You would do well to note the fact that French anarcho-communist Sébastien Faure began publishing his newspaper, The Libertarian, in 1895, almost 40 years prior to the classical liberal trend.

Again a feeble ad populum farce... 'most people feel... this or that' Who cares? If most people felt that smashing one's testicles with a hammer brought enlightenment, it would NOT change the fact that the enlightenment which such brought was limited to the certain knowledge that it is highly inadvisable to smash one's testicles with a hammer...

Except that this above nonsense is utter idiocy with no semblance of plausibility. Your intent on ignoring the will of consensus of a population is unjustly anti-democratic.

LOL... the list of things you don't see is endless. You can't even get your head around the simple, immutable fact that Libertarianism is WHOLLY ANTITHETICAL TO SOCIALISM.

Here's the difference... Libertarians are found on cattle ranches, sail boats and those places where they're free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives... where they can be left alone to live and let live. Socialists are more typically found in inner cities, busying themselves with interfering in the lives of as many people as possible and when they DO decide to 'get away from it all', they end up in far away places such as "Jones Town" ...

Those are not legitimate varieties of libertarians, just as "anarcho"-capitalists are not legitimate anarchists. Because of their support for capitalism and the imposition of hierarchy that it necessitates, their activism is opposed to the maximization of liberty, as hierarchy necessarily stands opposed to the maximization of liberty.

That is what the aforementioned analogy was intended to illustrate: "Suppose a man were to directly tackle and assault you and rip your valuables out of your pockets. We would honestly call this robbery. But suppose that instead of this direct assault, a man were to point a gun at you and demand that you hand over your valuables. We would honestly call this robbery also. The first case was one of direct brutality, but in the second case, you technically "consented" to hand over your valuables. You had no viable alternative, because your alternative was to be shot, at which point you would be injured or dead. The first example is analagous to state tyranny: brutal and effective. The second example is analagous to capitalist tyranny: You technically "consent" to subordinate yourself to an employer and work for a wage, but as with the analogy, you have no viable alternative."

Oh... OK, don't like Stalin, who murdered 25 million people? How about Mao, who murdered 75 million? Or the Il family of North Korea, with a tally still be rung up which is estimated to be in the tens of millions and climbing... Castro... Che Guevara? How about Pol Pot?

The simple fact is that NONE of these communists will suffice as suitable examples of non-perverted communists... because to submit THESE ACTUAL COMMUNISTS as examples OF COMMUNISM undermines the Left-think myth that Communism is something besides Cultural DEATH!

Stalin, Mao, and Castro are not communists. Stalin and Mao are also not socialists, but state capitalists. Castro is an authoritarian socialist not far from being a state capitalist himself. All the "communist" leaders that you cite are state capitalists in that they are the rulers of the respective societies that they govern, not the public, and not through democracy.

It is for this purpose that all legitimate socialists and communists condemn the anti-democratic brutality of the Soviet Union and all states that imitate it, as Kropotkin did in his letter to Lenin.

Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold. Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? ... If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages. I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realise that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods ... What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?

You are unaware of this, just as you are unaware of the tenets of political economy as a whole.

ROFL... here's the thing sis... I and the market determine my wage and neither you nor the organized, non-governmental society of anarchist morons have a right to dictate what should be the value of the product of my labor...

That socialism provides for 'differentiations' does not bestow validity upon the concept... the fact remains that you've no right to establish my wages unless and until I freely consent to such a decision; and wherein I am free to make that decision without fear of reprisal by your 'organized society.'

You are an utter fool. Libertarian socialist collectives are based on voluntary association. By all means, leave, stay, join, depart, determine whatever sort of wage you want. Various forms of socialism retain a market system and merely collectivize the means of production, a mechanism that you are clearly unaware of due to your ignorance of political economy.

Wages are not currently determined by democratic consensus in a capitalist economy. Workers do not have the right to determine their salaries or working conditions; they are ruled over by capitalist masters, and whether this manifests itself as a minor irritation or utter tyranny, it is an unjust imposition of hierarchy.

ROFLMNAO... Oh Sure... Yes, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was actually a 'State Capitalist'... because 'everyone knows' that those Communists didn't know as much about Communism as these western useful idiots...

This has already been explained to you. I wonder if you would accept the Soviet Union's self-description so uncritically when it came to the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic. The Soviet leaders profited by claiming to be socialist in an attempt to convince their citizenry

If you love it so much go marry china or cuba

The words of an individual unfamiliar with socialistic tenets, especially evidenced by your ignorance of political economy.

@ Agnapostate:
I doubt that we will ever see Anarchism as a state system. My reasoning is the following:
While a non hierarchical organisation may have significant advatadges for the individual, it is also limited by what it can achieve. I doubt that a syndicate will build a space shipt for example. The most dominantly hierarchical entitiys are usually the militaries. This propably has evolutionary reasons, non hierarchical militarys got defeated by hierarchical ones. I believe that an anarchist society would be conquered and dominated by more hierachically organized neighbours. Another issue would be weapons of mass destruction. Lets assume that France turns into an Anarchosyndicalistic State (nice oxymoron I know), who is going to control the nukes? You could assume that Frances non Anarchical neighbours (and I would venture to say the Anarchical ones too) would be very concerned about that.

Well, firstly, it is necessary to clarify that any form of non-hierarchical or anarchist society would not involve a state. That being said, there is no reason that an anarchist society could not raise an army or a militia organized with anarchist principles. Anarchist militias scored impressive victories during the Spanish Civil War, the most famous among them being the Durruti Column. Anarchist armies have also been organized on even larger scales. Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine defended the anarchist Free Territory of Ukraine for a time, bolstering their numbers from defections from the Soviet Red Army, and scoring impressive victories against the White Army in Ukraine under the command of Lieutenant General Anton Ivanovich Denikin.

Hence, it is possible to organize anarchist armies through direct democratic principles. All soldiers would meet in assemblies to determine army policies, and officers would be elected by these assemblies as a whole. They could not determine army policy independently of the assemblies, but could only administer it. They would be instantly recallable in the case of abuse of their position. Such an army could also be a militarily viable one, as evidenced by the Spanish militias and the aforementioned Makhnovists.

Hey that's a great point! And this, a result of greater and greater or should we say a progressive increase in government power towards the goal to 'control' what would otherwise BE a 'free market.'

Hmmm...

Now, I wonder... what ideology lead the US into this progressive government control of the US economy, through an endless litany of regulation, taxes and other forms of economic control and direct manipulation of the market, which has lead to the marketbeing something vastly less than FREE?

You are utterly unfamiliar with socialism, and have a bullheaded and ignorant idea of all forms of socialism and communism being equivalent to each other, and of that in turn being represented by the Soviet Union.

These ideas are both false. As for the former, various forms of socialism retain differentiations in wages according to differentiations in skill level, as I have explained to you, which is not a communist tenet. Your primitive definition of "socialism" includes only communism and does not address the realities of market socialism, mutualism, and collectivism.

As for the latter, I have already explained why socialism is not equivalent to state capitalism, and why socialism was not practiced in the Soviet Union, but existed in such places as the anarchist collectives that existed during the Spanish Civil War, in the Free Territory of Ukraine, in the Paris Commune, in the Italian factory workers' uprising, in the EZLN uprising, etc.

You know nothing of this, and know nothing even of the fundamental tenets of political economy.