ebola?
Bluelight Crew
LosB said:
Chomsky isn't liberal.
The ISIS Megathread
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
Chomsky isn't liberal.
Here is a question for you. Do you know the definition of what a Liberal is? Don't strain your eyes too much glancing over the daily fail to look it up now
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Here is a question for you. Do you know the definition of what a Liberal is? Don't strain your eyes too much glancing over the daily fail to look it up now
Basically someone obsessed with the idea of white privilege, feminism, LGBT pride, avoiding microagressions, political correctness overload, a seemingly overt disdain for their own country of America-void of patriotic sentiments.
wow
however i do believe PA specifically asked that you not strain your eyes on the daily fail for your answer.
Okay you gave your usual special ed answer. Funny that all Liberals hate America when America was founded as a Liberal Democracy 8) . Ever hear of Adam Smith by any chance? Now what political classification would he fall under?
You may have to look through the archives of the daily fail to find that one
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
A liberal democracy with slaves...sure. Remember it was the Republicans that freed them?
Also Adam Smith was an advocate of the free market and the invisible hand allocating capital. Our economic policy was shaped by his theory and we've fared far better than countries who Marx influenced.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Except that Adam Smith also detailed how free markets fail, and his views of what is wealth and worth would be something you'd likely call Marxist.
a statement like this is a staple for capitalist sycophants such as yourself, but it actually has no real meaning. sure it would be nice to say socialism failed, but that would suggest that it was actually attempted. it hasn't been (yet).
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
the conditions for socialism to be attempted were apparent in neither case.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Your either willfully ignorant of the whole subject or just ignorant take your pick on that one. Obviously to even the dimmest individual neither where Socialist and the Nazi's where Fascists which i believe is on the far right of the political spectrum.
Also Smith was a Liberal and so was Locke. Though by your definition they would be Socialists i guess. The republicans who helped free the slaves where also big proponents of Liberalism especially the radical republicans who unlike the moderates wanted to really give the southern slave owners a taste of their own medicine. Obviously you get your definition of Liberalism from the daily fail because it's not the definition of Liberalism in any text book i or anyone else has read.
it is very convenient when reality matches ones understanding of it.
sadly that's true. as history has shown, you can not force such a natural process into forming prematurely.
let's split a vodka bottle after the revolution, comrade. okay?
There have been non Marxist Communist societies such as the primitive forms of Communism or Anarchism that existed here not long after the place was colonized by the British and where made up of Irish slaves who escaped the royal navy and the plantations. Then you have revolutionary Catalonia as well as the EZLN controlled part of Mexico today. Though i would classify the EZLN as more of a national liberation movement with Communist ideals more then anything else.
Marxism is just economic evolution and just like Feudalism ran it's course and Capitalism emerged out of it Capitalism will also run it's course and Socialism will develop out of it. Capitalism has long outlived it's usefulness as a economic system but Feudalism also outlived it's usefulness long before it died. Socialism is inevitable but like everything else the right set of material circumstances have to exist for that to happen. While we now live in a advanced Capitalist society the will for real change has not yet fully come around yet. More then likely things will get alot worse before they get better.
Marxism is just economic evolution and just like Feudalism ran it's course and Capitalism emerged out of it Capitalism will also run it's course and Socialism will develop out of it. Capitalism has long outlived it's usefulness as a economic system but Feudalism also outlived it's usefulness long before it died. Socialism is inevitable but like everything else the right set of material circumstances have to exist for that to happen. While we now live in a advanced Capitalist society the will for real change has not yet fully come around yet. More then likely things will get alot worse before they get better.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Somalia had no effective government for 2 decades from 1991, that's one example of anarchy.
All these examples seem to be relatively small in scale and only existed for a brief portion of time. None really show a great elevation of vast amounts of people to a higher standard of living through this economic system. Rather we see in America, the free-market system bringing a country full of immigrants with little beyond the shirts on their backs to building great cities like NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles and creating unprecedented wealth. The wealth gap may be large but that doesn't really matter. If I'm on $50,000 yearly salary and cost of living remains the same, if the guy down the street goes from earning the same salary as me to earning $500,000,000 a year we could say the wealth gap is increasing, but my living is still comfortable, my needs are taken care of, it doesn't effect me at all.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.-Maggy Thatcher
Last edited:
While Anarchism in it's bare sense means simply without government no Anarchist would cal such a society Anarchist because Anarchist Communism goes upon the same motto as advanced Communism which is "to each according to their needs and to each according to their abilities". Somalia is more of a example of what a right wing Libertarian "paradise" would look like.
It's the mentality of "it does not affect me" that has the world in the shit situation we are in. Granted Marx did say the middle and upper classes are incapable of developing class consciousness altogether so that explains the mentality of people like you.
Leave it to you to quote that butcher Thatcher. Her economic policies certainly did wonders for the UK didn't they?
You still dodged the question on Smith and Locke being Liberals but i guess that's far too complicated for you to grasp.
zzz101
Bluelighter
^ That's because they don't want to offend the dear Turks god forbid. The Peshmerga are not the ones doing most of the fighting against ISIS the YPG is and since the YPG is affiliated with the PKK who are designated as a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group the west does not want to be seen getting too close with them. Sure the US say they are only aiding the Peshmerga with weapons and air strikes but the US knows full well that it's actually the PKK they are helping the most. The Peshmerga where never realty meant for this kind of fighting but the PKK are battle hardened fighters who have been waging guerrilla warfare against the Turkish state and to a lesser extent Iraq since the late 70's. Hence the quagmire as the PKK are more then happy to kill ISIS militants and have been doing a damn good job of it and they are willing to deal with the west as they want a fully autonomous Kurdish region. But the Turkish state does not want that by any means.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
“To each according to their needs and to each according to their abilities”. Let’s start with this tenet of Communist philosophy. What are the needs of a human being? Food, shelter, and medication (if necessary).While Anarchism in it's bare sense means simply without government no Anarchist would cal such a society Anarchist because Anarchist Communism goes upon the same motto as advanced Communism which is "to each according to their needs and to each according to their abilities". Somalia is more of a example of what a right wing Libertarian "paradise" would look like.
It's the mentality of "it does not affect me" that has the world in the shit situation we are in. Granted Marx did say the middle and upper classes are incapable of developing class consciousness altogether so that explains the mentality of people like you.
Leave it to you to quote that butcher Thatcher. Her economic policies certainly did wonders for the UK didn't they?
You still dodged the question on Smith and Locke being Liberals but i guess that's far too complicated for you to grasp.
In the United States those needs are ensured:
Don’t have enough money for food? There is a food stamps or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
Don’t have money for shelter? There is Section 8 housing (Housing Choice Voucher Program), public housing, and privately-owned subsidized housing.
Don’t have money for medication? There is Medicaid, and a sliding-scale of insurance premiums based on your income as part of the Affordable Care act.
Most Libertarians don't advocate for a state completely devoid of government, they simply realize that many institutions are less not as efficient as they can be and would benefit from privatization. For instance as was mentioned previously when discussing education many of the school districts with the highest spending per pupil get some of the lowest test scores. Most of the money being spent is actually going toward's a slew of high-paying middle-management positions within the school district, rather than what would directly benefit a child's education. I think the majority of Libertarians recognise that some functions of the government are very necessary particularly building roads, police and fire departments, many other's, but in general it's an attempt at making it run more efficiently rather than at a deficit.
Say what you will about Thatcher but under her leadership GDP rose by nearly 30%. That's hardly toxic economic policy now is it. Manufacturing jobs were lost, just as they were across Europe and America, yet as a whole it was more than offset by service jobs being gained. The UK remains among the most desirable place to live in the entire world, and continues to be an epicenter of international banking and finance.
Adam Smith is liberal? Now you're just parsing words. He's definitely not in the modern connotation of the word. However his economic policy is considered "Classical Liberalism", if you want to base it solely off that then we should consider the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and National Socialist German Worker's Party socialist by virtue of having the word in their titles. Here's a description of "Classical Liberalism":
"Classical liberalismis apolitical philosophyandideologybelonging toliberalismin which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to theIndustrial Revolutionandurbanizationin the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1]It advocatescivil libertieswith alimited governmentunder therule of law, private property rights, and belief inlaissez-faireeconomic liberalism.[2][3][4]Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas ofAdam Smith,John Locke,Jean-Baptiste Say,Thomas Malthus, andDavid Ricardo. Its greatest expression as a political (as well as economic) philosophy in the 19th century was in the works ofJohn Stuart Mill. It drew on a psychological understanding of individualliberty,natural law,utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise ofindividual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocatedSocial Darwinism.Libertarianismis a modern form of neo-classical liberalism”