Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 128

"It's not a slur, it says 'figs', he's a comedian and he's not homophobic!!!1"

o no, he said fags!, ban him!

On June 12 2019 02:47 Baalim wrote: You call the free market neoliberalism, refer to me as neoliberal, fascist etc, so fuck you, I will call you whatever I want and I will align you with communists until you stop doing the same with me, I've told you this before.

First of all, this has nothing to do with what you call me, you're changing the subject. This has to do with your inability or unwillingness to understand who I side with/what I support. Your first post in this thread about the Crowder thing was an attack directed towards me, implying that I and others on the anti-capitalist left are allied with liberals to censor people on social media platforms. At that point you were not using a label, so it's very clear that this goes beyond calling me names that you think I don't like to try to purposefully upset me.


I'm not calling "the free market" neoliberalism and I've explained this to you before. What I've said is that neoliberal capitalism demonstrates the limits of how privatized the economy can be without a rapid and full-on collapse of capitalism through massive social upheavals and ecological collapse. I've also never called you a fascist. I have made specific arguments or posted quotes by top scholars that looks at the rhetoric you use and the economic ideology you were taught and how some of it can serve fascism. I understand that it's upsetting to hear, but saying you have been radicalized by someone who openly holds fascist views is a fact, so don't try to frame it as if it was dishonest name-calling. It's not.

I am not being dishonest and simply trying to upset you, whereas you are. You have openly said that you will call me names that you think I don't like merely as some form of retaliation. It shows just how emotionally stunted you are as an individual.

On June 12 2019 02:56 Baalim wrote: o no, he said fags!, ban him!

If it didn't matter at all you wouldn't have bothered to specify that the t-shirt had a fig on it to try to set the narrative in your (tribe's) favor:

On June 06 2019 04:17 Baalim wrote: Youtube just demonetized Steven Crowder's entire channel because he sells t-shirts that say "socialism is for f*gs" and the * is a little picutre of a fig.

So now that I have exposed how you have done so, of course the best play you have is to just play dumb and pretend like I am calling for social media censorship, when I'm simply showing further evidence that he was clearly breaking YouTube's TOS.

Or maybe you are not playing dumb, maybe you are just legitimately dumb. Maybe you don't understand that YouTube is effectively Steven Crowder's boss, it sets the rules. Maybe you don't understand that if someone's performance as an employee isn't satisfactory to them, they can be demoted or fired. Maybe you are in fact dumb enough to think that a rational reaction to such actions would be to attack someone like me who has nothing to do with the corporation and who in fact wants it to stop existing. Because logic -- who needs it? Why bother questioning the people who make the rules and the circumstances under which they make the rules (and enforce them) when you can just not do that and attack people you don't like instead.

If I say "YouTube is just enforcing their TOS" (which they are not even doing), I am held responsible for them doing it.
If I say "YouTube shouldn't be in a position to suppress, control or amplify certain people's speech at all, people should instead take the matters into their own hands for the benefit of their communities" then I am a communist authoritarian.

Seems like you've rigged the game for me.

sorry baal but claiming that nazis are socialists is fundamentally ignorant. (if you're gonna claim that them themselves describing themselves as socialists means they are socialists, welcome to various democratic republics. )

The capitalist right wing of various countries supported Hitler during his rise to power because he was considered the antithesis of communism.

Further, opposition to hierarchies - not opposition to markets - is the driving force of leftists. Fascism has belief in hierarchies as its very foundation.

It does not mean that you as a right winger of whatever sort is associated with hitler because he was also a right winger of some sort, when using a left-right dichotomy you end up with some very large umbrellas encompassing a whole ton of various ideologies. But you can simply look at which societal and political factions combated hitler and which ones did he himself combat and get a pretty good idea of which groups were more similar and more different. And I'm not saying he was a free market capitalist either, he wasn't.

On June 12 2019 02:47 Baalim wrote: We are actually almost on the same page about this. What I mean is regardless of the system our flaws have corrupted them, for example Monarchy was bad broadly because we aren't good at controlling power and we abuse it, and you are arguing that is a structural problem, if we know we suck at power, then dont build a system with an omnipotent ruler and I agree. But this is exacly why the soviets among other collectivist attempts have failed, for some reason you are concieved this structure is the best and I disagree I think its too exploitable and it will be far worse than capitalism, but I understand the urge, why FFA when we can COOP... but we can't, not yet, I believe we are making strides towards it, hell even scandinavian and japanese societies are pretty close, but most of the world isn't and we have to first make sure to live in a true post-scarcity society, I know you believe the zeitgeist guy and think we currently do, but I think aren't remotely close.

You have screwed up the formatting of the previous part of this quoted post and there seems to be a big part of your response missing so I'm leaving it out and addressing this part only until you fix it.

I have no idea why you think that I think socialist USSR is the best alternative when I've only ever argued for mass decentralization -- the total opposite of the USSR. It's truly baffling. The surgeon-biologist-pharmacologist-sociologist-philosopher-systems theorist who opened my eyes more than anyone else and who radicalized me predicted the fall of the USSR in the early 1970s and theorized a system of "auto-gestion" (self-management) that has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist movement or the current post-scarcity literature that you are aware of. He was one of the few radicals of the left in France in those days who was deeply disillusioned with Communism and who was very vocal about it. Edgar Morin mentioned in his journal that he was probably too optimistic about his ability to reach the people who were still seduced by traditional Marxism. He was just too ahead of his time. But it didn't matter, he never modified his message, even if he was marginalized.

So, from the very beginning I have not been favorable towards communism. Then I learned about the Spanish War and how the communists used the anarchists to consolidate power and then slaughtered them all. Then I learned that Murray Bookchin was theorizing along the same lines and also opposed Marxism and predicted the ecological collapse around the same time. That's 50 years ago. Now these ideas are currently applied in Rojava where there is no state, no dominance hierarchies, no capitalism, and they are thriving. Why do you not pay attention to this? Scandinavian countries and Japan are terrible examples of the potential for liberation of human beings as they are both capitalist. I think it's weird that someone can view themselves as an anarchist and pay no attention to working stateless societies of the past or the present to learn from them.

You don't seem to understand that I've arrived at my political beliefs independently of Peter Joseph. Even the post-scarcity stuff and the collaborative commons is stuff I learned from Kate Raworth and others before I heard him talk about them. Scarcity is more of an ideological issue than an actual material issue right now. For instance, we produce 1.5x the food that we need to feed everyone on the planet, yet many people starve to death or are undernourished. There's also enough houses in the US to shelter everyone, yet there is an homelessness epidemic. Saying "we need to live in post-scarcity before we abandon capitalism" in the face of such figures makes no sense at all when it's clear that capitalism itself imposes artificial scarcity based on archaic notions of "deserve" and the lie that "everyone can make it" within a structurally unjust, planned-obsolescence fueled rampant consumerist society which exists to serve the 1%'s narcissism and greed. If your idea of post-scarcity is everyone being able to own a 4.8 billion dollars Yacht, then yes, we are not there and we're not going to get there either. No disagreement here. Except that's not what post-scarcity deals with.

You have the whole history of humanity and "human nature" backwards. If you go down the rabbit hole of the origin of the myth of barter and the invisible hand, you might be able to find out for yourself. David Graeber's book "Debt" is the best place to start. Adam Curtis' documentaries are also good, but I have shared them with you before but you couldn't get yourself to watch them and learn from them (which is sad because the guy isn't even left-wing, so he's a good entry-point for someone like you).

Oh yeah they are not your needs or ideas, they are the ones of the larger communities you just carry their voice lol, lol egomaniac madman

As usual you are misunderstanding me. Nietzsche coined a term, "moraline" in French, which refers to the absolute conviction that one is morally right. It's a degraded form of morality that infects people, if you will. I believe that members of communities have a right to defend themselves, but also that communities act as regulatory mechanisms for individuals who can fall prey to moraline within them, and of course I include myself among them. A community creates a retroactive (feedback) loop that corrects for it: if an individual deviates too far from what is good for the collective, he is 'set straight' or has to leave the community because he becomes a threat to it. It's a general principle from cybernetics, the idea of self-regulation within a system, where negative feedback corrects for deviation and maintains the stability of the system.

That is why I advocate for direct, face-to-face democracy in a network of communes, because it weakens moraline/fanaticism and brings the best out of people for all sorts of reasons, like because of Dunbar's number, just to name one. It's also why I think the idea of Thatcher and other libertarians/neoliberals that "there is only the individual" is fundamentally wrong. An element (at this level, the individual) within a system is always informed (generated) by and regulated by the higher-order systems that encompasses them. If there's no society, then there's no culture; if there's no culture, then there is no human being, there's simply an animal with basic needs that's limited in all sorts of ways because they are not going to be endowed with language. They will never be able to gain access to the information that has accumulated and been organized by their species throughout time and which would make their lives radically different.

Jordan Peterson thinks this regulatory mechanism exists in some abstract collective unconscious where there are archetypes and it's also all in the Bible and basically natural selection informs this because hierarchies are biologically fixed. That's what he has to rely on as an individualist/anti-collectivist -- seems like a lot of bullshit to me. Where does it exist for you exactly as another individualist/anti-collectivist? Can you give a basic rundown of how your optimal society safeguards itself from deviance and self-destruction?

The paradox of tolerance is certainly not my idea, it's Karl Popper's, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century (and another vocal anti-Marxist, so you're aware). Popper's political project sought to reconcile people who were all over the political spectrum. He was himself a classical liberal. Strange to think that this is the one thing that you simply cannot get over and consider to be a central doctrine of radical leftist ideology. (It's also funny to think that the person I'm quoting in my forum signature was a famous conservative -- indeed I am as generic a leftist as they come!).

On June 12 2019 03:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: sorry baal but claiming that nazis are socialists is fundamentally ignorant. (if you're gonna claim that them themselves describing themselves as socialists means they are socialists, welcome to various democratic republics. ) The capitalist right wing of various countries supported Hitler during his rise to power because he was considered the antithesis of communism. Further, opposition to hierarchies - not opposition to markets - is the driving force of leftists. Fascism has belief in hierarchies as its very foundation. It does not mean that you as a right winger of whatever sort is associated with hitler because he was also a right winger of some sort, when using a left-right dichotomy you end up with some very large umbrellas encompassing a whole ton of various ideologies. But you can simply look at which societal and political factions combated hitler and which ones did he himself combat and get a pretty good idea of which groups were more similar and more different. And I'm not saying he was a free market capitalist either, he wasn't.

Of course I'm aware of the DPRK I'm not saying they are socialist just because it was in their name, but because their actual economic system was inherently socialistic.

Unlike the soviets, the Nazis didn't saw the state controlling the means of production as a mid-step, but the ultimate goal, a totalitarian state in control of the economy with emphasis on the collective well being over the individual, their implementation was also economically less punishing since their massacre didn't especifically sabotaged their economy like the soviets they also realized it wasn't good idea to seize non-war-essential production in the middle of the war.

I mean if you don't want to call a government controlled collectivist economical system as a form of socialist that is fine I guess, but to me its not distinctive enough to earn a different name but Loco was implying that capitalism and "fascist economy" are closely tied and that is retarded, there is nothing remotely alike between the free market and fascism besides the existence of hierarchies and only fanatic fools conflate those two.


(will reply to Loco tomorrow, its late)

Let's not change the subject to Nazi economics please. The subject was Molyneux's economics. So, you conceded that economics have an influence on social welfare. Good. Now, do you believe that a person who doesn't believe that humans are one species, and that humans do not all deserve the same basic welfare and opportunities would somehow not have this view reflected in their economics? Or do you think that Molyneux's anarchocapitalism undermines what he believes is socially just to him but he hasn't figured it out? It has to be one or the other. Either he hasn't worked out that his economics don't serve his fascistic orientation optimally, or you haven't figured out that they do. How do we find out who is correct?

EDIT: lol why am I arguing here, pointless waste of time :D

Saying the Nazi model was inherently socialistic is just completely wrong. Hitler outlawed unions and cozied up to business owners saying that they would manage companies better than workers due their racial superiority. Obviously actual communists and socialists had a huge problem with this so their were massive street battles where thousands of people died. Actual communist/socialist party leaders were executed or sent to concentration camps.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert

Plenty of other sources on this if you want to cry VOX=FAKE NEWS!!

On June 12 2019 06:37 Baalim wrote: Loco was implying that capitalism and "fascist economy" are closely tied and that is retarded, there is nothing remotely alike between the free market and fascism besides the existence of hierarchies and only fanatic fools conflate those two.

"The only thing they have in common is the existence of hierarchies".

That's quite the sleight of hand. There are hierarchies in Scandinavian countries, so it doesn't sound too bad when you put it this way because people will make this association and think they are also fairly egalitarian. This is exactly the kind of manipulation that Molyneux excels at in order to sell his discredited economic ideology.

How about framing it in an accurate way: what laissez-faire capitalists and fascists have in common is that they are both founded on a social Darwinistic framework of human relationships. That doesn't sound so good, does it?

So when Noam Chomsky says that "anarcho-capitalism is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history", he is being a "fanatical fool" in your words. Instead of taking this know-nothing fanatical guy's claim seriously, we should take your word that Rothbard got it right instead, the same guy who thought people should be able to sell their children to the highest bidder, who claimed that Apartheid was not racist, and who supported the leader of the KKK's political program in 1992.

On June 12 2019 14:47 NMcNasty wrote: Plenty of other sources on this if you want to cry VOX=FAKE NEWS!!

I mean you have to be a special kind of dude to even open a link of vox media, quite another to post it on the web and actually attract more attention to them so... (didn't even read your post just saw your link and last sentence - not arguing with whatever statement you made, except your last sentence)

They have been proven to be one of the trashiest pieces of shit media out there. I'd rather advertise Alex Jones tbh

On June 12 2019 16:55 Loco wrote: How about framing it in an accurate way: what laissez-faire capitalists and fascists have in common is that they are both founded on a social Darwinistic framework of human relationships.

I don't understand though, why is fascism in that group? It's literally an authoritarian regime. Seems like a complete oxymoron to me, so I'm missing something. If its just about the hierarchies, I'd say it makes sense to assume that laissez-faire economics would have the social hierarchies build organically, while fascists simply force theirs on people

I don't understand what you mean by "its literally an authoritarian regime". It's an authoritarian regime once it has succeeded in coalescing enough power to rule a country. Before it is that, it is a political ideology, and just like other political ideologies, it has fundamental axioms (beliefs that are held as self-evident or universal). Some of those beliefs fascists share with the laissez-faire ultraliberalists of the kind that Baal promotes the ideas of, and they are founded on the discredited ideas of social Darwinism. For example, you have to slash the welfare state, because you have to let the weak perish. It is "unnatural" to have a social safety net and the wealthy who is naturally superior should not be "parasited" by "the weak" or "the inferior". Other examples are their shared fondness of racism and eugenics.

Here's something else that is strikingly interesting; a quote from one of the most famous anarcho-capitalists still "working" today:

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."


Interesting, isn't it? I wonder if Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted on this forum if Baal would attack him with the same vehemence that he attacks me with for arguing that fascism can't be tolerated in a libertarian society.


Here are some other interesting quotes by these fellas who show a strange kind of fondness for totalitarianism.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." -- von Mises

"At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism." --Hayek

"While economic freedom facilitates political freedom, political freedom, once established, has a tendency to destroy economic freedom." --Friedman

When these folks talk about freedom, what they really talk about is the type of freedom of the ancient Greek to own slaves. "Freedom" to them cannot mean more than the freedom to change masters. If you push them on it, they'll say that there is nothing wrong with slave-owning when the slave "voluntarily consents to it". By consent they mean that if the slave wasn't benefiting from the "contract" (the benefit being not starving to death) then they wouldn't be doing it. The fact that they are in such a precarious situation, in itself, serves as a good enough moral justification for them to take advantage of it while simultaneously feeling good about themselves. It works essentially exactly like this but at a macro level (the violence is structural):



With that said, their ideology is not neo-fascist, but rather neo-feudalist.

On June 12 2019 03:29 Loco wrote: First of all, this has nothing to do with what you call me, you're changing the subject. This has to do with your inability or unwillingness to understand who I side with/what I support. Your first post in this thread about the Crowder thing was an attack directed towards me, implying that I and others on the anti-capitalist left are allied with liberals to censor people on social media platforms. At that point you were not using a label, so it's very clear that this goes beyond calling me names that you think I don't like to try to purposefully upset me.

Leftist are against freedom of speech, you are against freedom of speech, so are liberals, many radical feminists who are also anti-capitalist bitch 24/7 about banning conservatives, what the fuck are you even arguing here, that you don't support Facebook banning but people banning? well congratulations it doesn't fucking matter.

I'm not calling "the free market" neoliberalism and I've explained this to you before. What I've said is that neoliberal capitalism demonstrates the limits of how privatized the economy can be without a rapid and full-on collapse of capitalism through massive social upheavals and ecological collapse. I've also never called you a fascist. I have made specific arguments or posted quotes by top scholars that looks at the rhetoric you use and the economic ideology you were taught and how some of it can serve fascism. I understand that it's upsetting to hear, but saying you have been radicalized by someone who openly holds fascist views is a fact, so don't try to frame it as if it was dishonest name-calling. It's not.

No you have refered many times to my economical views as neoliberal and my bad, you didn't call me a fascist, just a fascist enabler who was indoctrinated by a radical fascist, lol.

I am not being dishonest and simply trying to upset you, whereas you are. You have openly said that you will call me names that you think I don't like merely as some form of retaliation. It shows just how emotionally stunted you are as an individual.

I refuse to stop calling your ideology communism if you keep calling mine neoliberal, so I'm emotionally stunted? Isn't that what your moronic SJW friends gaslighting? oh you gaslighted me you fascist scum!

On June 12 2019 03:41 Loco wrote: If it didn't matter at all you wouldn't have bothered to specify that the t-shirt had a fig on it to try to set the narrative in your (tribe's) favor:

I simply described the shirt, do you think there is a difference to me if someone writes f*gs or fags? You confuse me with your (tribe) who wants to control language like children.

On June 06 2019 04:17 Baalim wrote: So now that I have exposed how you have done so, of course the best play you have is to just play dumb and pretend like I am calling for social media censorship, when I'm simply showing further evidence that he was clearly breaking YouTube's TOS.

You agree with supressing his speech, you just don't like Google

On June 12 2019 07:26 Loco wrote: Let's not change the subject to Nazi economics please. The subject was Molyneux's economics. So, you conceded that economics have an influence on social welfare. Good. Now, do you believe that a person who doesn't believe that humans are one species, and that humans do not all deserve the same basic welfare and opportunities would somehow not have this view reflected in their economics? Or do you think that Molyneux's anarchocapitalism undermines what he believes is socially just to him but he hasn't figured it out? It has to be one or the other. Either he hasn't worked out that his economics don't serve his fascistic orientation optimally, or you haven't figured out that they do. How do we find out who is correct?

Ridiculous, you are assuming Molyneux ultimate goal and all around him is optimally designed to hurt whatever minority you think he hates... do you know who else used this argument but for hitler? JBP said that his actions were aimed to create the maximum amount of mayhem possible, which is retarded, so you are not only using this silly argument from your arch-nemesis that fails to even somebody as heinous as Hitler, you are trying to use it against Molyneux lol.

Stalin was a mass-murderer and he wanted a communist economic system, so obviously his economic system must be optimally designed to kill the most people possible, see how stupid that argument is?

It's another wonderful sleight of hand to refer to someone who advocates resisting against genocidal intolerance as being against freedom of speech. It is the equivalent of saying "you are against creative freedom" to someone who wants to prevent people from building a shitty nuclear power plant in their area. Technically of course, it is true, I am against their particular kind of creative freedom, because their creative freedom is going to endanger my life, or the life of people I care about and there's no reason why I should value their creative freedom over my continued existence shielded from their dangerous stupidity.

It's pretty telling that you keep generalizing about leftism and so-called freedom of speech. There are a number of leftists who do not believe in the paradox of tolerance, and there's many who are pacifists, and there are a number of non-leftists who do believe in the paradox and who do believe in violence including preemptive violence. Even anarcho-capitalists. The kind of restrictions on freedom that your patron saints of capitalism want for people far exceeds mine, sometimes including freedom of speech (see the Hoppe quote above).

On June 12 2019 16:55 Loco wrote: How about framing it in an accurate way: what laissez-faire capitalists and fascists have in common is that they are both founded on a social Darwinistic framework of human relationships. That doesn't sound so good, does it?

Free trade is fascist lol... its good to keep you arguing because once in a while you show how retarded your beliefs are at its core, thanks for that gold nugget.

So when Noam Chomsky says that "anarcho-capitalism is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history", he is being a "fanatical fool" in your words. Instead of taking this know-nothing fanatical guy's claim seriously, we should take your word that Rothbard got it right instead, the same guy who thought people should be able to sell their children to the highest bidder, who claimed that Apartheid was not racist, and who supported the leader of the KKK's political program in 1992.[/QUOTE]

You love Chomsky except when he slaps your censorious ideology down don't you? why are you so obsessed about the people behind ideas.... "but Plato diddled little boys... so yeah if you like his work you are a pedophile", stop doing that its pathetic.

On June 13 2019 03:47 Baalim wrote: You love Chomsky except when he slaps your censorious ideology down don't you? why are you so obsessed about the people behind ideas.... "but Plato diddled little boys... so yeah if you like his work you are a pedophile", stop doing that its pathetic.

I could stop doing it but then I'd have to keep making arguments that you never address, just like in this post, which gets boring after a while. I have to at least entertain myself sometimes. It was all in good fun to show everyone who is not an anti-intellectual how absurd your attack on me was when it is associated with the implication that Chomsky is a fanatical fool as well.

But hey, I'm sure no one has noticed that you haven't addressed a single argument I've made here and you thought that the "you're a retard" line was good enough.

It's also highly hypocritical that you bring up "litmus tests" for when you will decide what to not ignore, but when I bring up a basic sniff test to show the absurdity of a claim you made by quoting Chomsky, that's somehow not fair play.

On June 13 2019 03:39 Loco wrote: It's another wonderful sleight of hand to refer to someone who advocates resisting against genocidal intolerance as being against freedom of speech. It is the equivalent of saying "you are against creative freedom" to someone who wants to prevent people from building a shitty nuclear power plant in their area. Technically of course, it is true, I am against their particular kind of creative freedom, because their creative freedom is going to endanger my life, or the life of people I care about and there's no reason why I should value their creative freedom over my continued existence shielded from their dangerous stupidity.

For the 100th time, conservatives think that abortion kills babies so should we also ban that subject from discussion and punch women marching for in favor?

Everybody thinks they are saving lives and that they are virtuous, you dumbass, thats the point of freedom of speech.