2B or Knot 2B a marxist, that be the question.

Hmmmm, we have all kinds of arguments about "marxism" and what it actually entails. Leftists in the US claim the Tea Partiers are fascists and the Tea Partiers say the OWS and Democrats are commies. Where do we break down the chaos of differing definitions per se?

Myself, I always speak classically, not using the neo linguistics (MiniTru verbiage) of modern propagandists in the media or the political arena. Hence, I will give you the classical definitions and descriptions so that we can talk productively. I hate to be called a fascist because I believe that corporations are not the problem, but a tool.

Classically speaking, there is only two lineages of power. One is to the individual and one is to the state. The state can be defined in many differing parameters, they can be a monarchy, a republic, a dictatorship, etc, etc, etc. The governing body is the one side, the individual or the citizen is the other. Leftism of any type accentuates the power of the state. According to the left, individuals cannot be trusted, therefore the state must step in and make things more fair. Yes, yes, you will argue this point.......but your points will always use that people are evil and have to be controlled. Regulation is necessary or those evil individuals will take control for their evil purposes. On the right, you have the true anarchists, not the fake ones (anarcho capitalists would be a true descriptor).

So let us get down to brass tacks shall we? The left, be it communists, fascists, socialists, etc think that individuals cannot be trusted. The right, individuals, anarchists, libertarians, some conservatives, etc think that the state cannot be trusted. What to do, what to do, what to do...............Well, one thing you have to ask yourself, which is easier to defeat? An individual or a state? Wow, that is obvious isn't it? How about those evil corporations of the supposed right? They are the devil incarnate! They force you to buy from them............oh wait, they do not. The only time that corporations cannot be defeated, is when they are incorporated into the state itself. Hmmmm, where does that system fall into? Fascism of course. Well, unless they use the state to seize the business when they fail, force the taxpayer to fund the company, steal the ownership rights and then give that to the union employees. Still trying to figure that system of economics out, falls into totalitarianism somewhere.

Then we have the entire nationalism thingy. On the left, you have those that scream about the evils of nationalism and xenophobia, yet on the other hand they scream about lost jobs and outsourcing of those jobs. Can they get their priorities straight? Which one is it, they hate nationalism or do they hate internationalism?

Left vs Right, is not your typical walk in the park discussion. What say you?

Its difficult.. but if I was to lean any-which-way it'd definitely be more towards the left. I believe in socialist reform of our current system, in essence, more communal based capitalism if that makes any sense to you?

reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK


Well said, but I must disagree with in part on your thoughts over the relationship between state and buisness. I argue it is not the state that owns buisness, but the other way around. I dont think most people are evil, companies are not people, and the practice of capitalism has several ideas that would seem immoral to an individual. I agree we need buisness, but it needs to stay out of politics and politics out of buisness.

reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK



I've abandoned any hope of labels assisting with the discourse on this subject.

If something or someone seeks to deprive me of life, liberty or property, that's enough for me to get my hackles up. I don't really care what you call it.

But good luck with that.

Six thousand years of recorded history teaches we've never gotten the whole human governance thing right. No reason to expect it will finally happen anytime soon.

I lean towards giving the individual as much power and freedom as possible. Unless an individual negatively affects another individual, there is no crime imo. The state should only intervene when individuals are incapable of solving their own problems with each other.

The OP's nailed it perfectly. When you get to the basics, it's really about state vs. individual. Not left vs. right, or Republican vs. Democrat. Ignore the 'far left' and the 'far right' movements (I wouldn't call them movements anyway) as neither can be the way forward. They never engage or conflict, but instead shout over each other, even when the 'far left' preaches dialectical materialism.

Marxism itself could be a very good thing, but only when you take Leninists out of the equation. Capitalism itself could be a very good thing, if there are measures that prevent it degrading into fascism.

reply to post by loam


Hey Loam, great response. I do not know how to deal with this crap is one of the smartest and eloquent statements ever made. When you can stand there, devoid of rationalizations is the point where you ask, WHAT NEXT?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Rule of Law, hmmm, that has been tried. According to leftists, rule of law is inherently racist. I agree with your supposition, but how do we deal with those that do not agree?

reply to post by XeroOne


Nahhhh, nothing is perfect, ever.

I only sprung this on ATS because I am a right wing nut that wants justifications, per se. LOL.

Actually, I want people to think about the boxes, the labels, the quantities that we are defined as. THEN, ask yourselves, how do we change it? How do we make them irrelevant. That is the most important question or plan. Make the government or the controls they place upon us irrelevant.

reply to post by TechUnique


So YOU trust people that go to work for government, instead of those that go to work for corporations. Good for you! You have made a choice, you have decided there are two different kinds of people, those angels that go to work for government and those devils that go to work for corporations.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by XeroOne

 

Nahhhh, nothing is perfect, ever.

I only sprung this on ATS because I am a right wing nut that wants justifications, per se. LOL.

Actually, I want people to think about the boxes, the labels, the quantities that we are defined as. THEN, ask yourselves, how do we change it? How do we make them irrelevant. That is the most important question or plan. Make the government or the controls they place upon us irrelevant.

In order to make the opposition irrelevant, you must first become relevant. The 'far left' and the 'far right' choose not to be.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by loam

 

Hey Loam, great response. I do not know how to deal with this crap is one of the smartest and eloquent statements ever made. When you can stand there, devoid of rationalizations is the point where you ask, WHAT NEXT?

Its pretty much pick your dictator.

Authoritarian Statism/Totalitarian extreme = rule of law,enforcement of law, and law making are dominated by a large non-public entity. The government is more free to "govern" under totalitarianism. Fascism/corporatism is just a insane form of totalitarian statism that seeks TOTAL management and governance of all activity.

PROBLEM:What if the state/king/oligarchal regime becomes more and more authoritarian and abuses thier right of power over an entire population? Damage is great.
Tyrants/power addicts/psychopath power brokers love this social arrangement of goverance because it enables them to be better tyrants...safer,easier,more efficient, and for longer. Why let the dumb slave-herd go unrefined and resourced untapped? Tyrants always use the public for thier own gain. Old news. Why stop the gravy train for.....freedom?

Then the other end of the extreme. Anarchism.

Anarchism is pure unrestricted freedom. Its an theoretical absolute just like fascism. In this system the dictator is the individual or the public instead of a state or monarch. The individual/public is the dictator to the individual/public no other parties. The public/individual have domination of rule of law,enforcement of law, and creation of law. No one can dominate another individual other than ones self.

PROBLEM: What if the individual becomes a dictator and abuses his right of power over herself/himself/themselves? Damage is small. Also, tyrants hate anarchism because it makes thier power monopoly almost impossible. So yeah that is why we have been trained/conditioned to hate anarchism for no rational reason.

Follow the herd.

A Tea Party gal filled in for Glenn Beck today, and she revealed that she is a reformed liberal since 9-11. I found that utterly fascinating. What says the Left of that?