The Nazi's socialist?

[ShieldWife]

So, for argument's sake, let's say we give this to DirtbagLeft: National Socialist Germany wasn't really socialist, nor was the USSR, Mao's China, North Korea, Castro's Cuba, etc. None of them fully meet his definition and so lets just say that they're no true socialists.

But, we must still acknowledge that every one of them had socialism as an ideal and in fact pursued that ideal, making certain concessions and moderating their socialism along the way. Why is it that socialists always fail to create socialism when they rise to power? Why do their attempts so often result in economic ruin and uniformly result in oppressive authoritarian regimes?

I would contend that even when we leave out the economic flaws of socialism, which forces every nation attempting it to modify and/or moderate, that socialism/communism/Marxism is an ideology which at its very core is authoritarian, oppressive, and violent. While we are called reactionaries, meaning in this case people who which to turn back the Enlightenment, it is socialism which utterly rejects those most cherished Enlightenment ideals of human rights, free speech, freedom of religion, free expression, individuality, and the like. Socialism consistently creates an us vs them worldview which by its nature fosters conflict and hatred, most intentionally hatred by class but this very frequently spills out into ethnic, religious, or cultural based persecution as well. For socialists, the ends justify the means, for for their utopian end all means are allowed.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

So, for argument's sake, let's say we give this to DirtbagLeft: National Socialist Germany wasn't really socialist, nor was the USSR, Mao's China, North Korea, Castro's Cuba, etc. None of them fully meet his definition and so lets just say that they're no true socialists.

But, we must still acknowledge that every one of them had socialism as an ideal and in fact pursued that ideal, making certain concessions and moderating their socialism along the way. Why is it that socialists always fail to create socialism when they rise to power? Why do their attempts so often result in economic ruin and uniformly result in oppressive authoritarian regimes?

I would contend that even when we leave out the economic flaws of socialism, which forces every nation attempting it to modify and/or moderate, that socialism/communism/Marxism is an ideology which at its very core is authoritarian, oppressive, and violent. While we are called reactionaries, meaning in this case people who which to turn back the Enlightenment, it is socialism which utterly rejects those most cherished Enlightenment ideals of human rights, free speech, freedom of religion, free expression, individuality, and the like. Socialism consistently creates an us vs them worldview which by its nature fosters conflict and hatred, most intentionally hatred by class but this very frequently spills out into ethnic, religious, or cultural based persecution as well. For socialists, the ends justify the means, for for their utopian end all means are allowed.

So I am going to grant North Korea as I have done and will continue to do as an act of good faith. It technically meets my minimum requirement and as I have said before there is legitimate discussion as to if it qualifies among socialists. At this point though it would be petty on my part not to accept it as being socialist. NK isn't democratic but that wasn't in my original proposition.

And yes I fully acknowledge that those governments were governments established by socialists. Particularly Right (authoritarian) socialists as opposed to Left (libertarian) socialists. Specifically they were Right Communists. And it should come as no surprise that authoritarian socialism is... well authoritarian. Further it should come as no surprise that authoritarian regimes such as the aforementioned Marxist regimes were oppressive hellholes. The fault however lay in the inherent nature of authoritarianism and not with socialism.

“Left-Wing” Childishness

www.marxists.org

Lenin and those regimes that follow the ML tradition are no fan of left socialism.

Left socialists and Right socialists do not get along exactly because left socialists value the libertarian traditions of the enlightenment. For the best example to a near left socialist country I point you to Bolivia pre-coup. Before the fascists over threw the government in a military coup Bolivia was well on its way to becoming a left socialist nation.

And yes you are correct among those who are class reductionist there is certainly a fostering of an us vs them mentality. Left socialists such as myself are not class reductionists.

The problem with what you are doing is that you are painting socialism with a single brush and color. This leads to a gross misrepresentation by erasing the distinction in fundamental values between left and right socialists. To draw a parallel it would be like me pointing to the NIFB and saying "See all Christians want to murder queers". Mainline Christians and Fundamentalists are both Christians but they have fundamentally different approaches and a few key exceptions fundamentally different doctrines. Such that while NIFB want to murder queers mainline churches host and support gay marriages. Pretty much the only thing left and right socialists agree on is that the workers should own the means of production. From there the difference starts with central planning (right) and decentralized planning (left) and the gap only grows from there. Nuance vs black and white.

I don't defend ML's. I don't like ML's. I think Marxists are dangerous deranged psychopaths who want to seize power not to bring about change but to murder the people who bullied them in high school. If you want to know the general opinion of left wing socialists look at the above clip or watch the first hour of . Leftists hate ML's, tankies and Right socialists with a burning passion. Reactionaries. I don't hate reactionaries. They are willfully ignorant, wrong, often dangerous and objects of pity. But I do not hate them and neither do most leftists. ML's on the other hand pretend to care about socialism. They are at least in theory supposed to be my allies. History and their current actions continue to show them false allies at best.

 

[Morphic Tide]

...What universe do you live in that you can describe Stalin as "right wing"? That you can attribute authoritarianism as predominantly "Right Wing" and Libertarianism as "Left Wing"?

I suppose that if you're willfully ignoring the last fucking century in your categorization, it makes some shred of sense, because before 1920 it was a decently generalizable trend that the Left pressed for less government. However, that is spectacularly far from the case today, and even in 1920 it was breaking down considerably and practically by definition inverted in the US.

Political discourse has long settled into two-axis politics. It's not "Left Socialism" and "Right Socialism", by anyone outside your lunatic echo chambers, it's LibLeft vs. AuthLeft. Specifically because underlying principals are massively overlapping, as are end goals, with the divergence being more about implementation of policy rather than a great schism of philosophy.

Also, "Decentralzied Planning" is an oxymoron. Look at history and point to a serious power anywhere that has been driven by "decentralized" planning. You won't find it, because we literally define powers by the matter of overall hierarchies, because anything else is by definition not a cohesive polity, not a single power.

You wish to devolve to pure culture groups, and say that this will somehow end corrupt hierarchies, when the history is that every time people self-organize by self-determined characteristics on any level above a small town, shit gets extremely bloody, corrupt, and hierarchical in very short order. Your proposed "system" is both not actually a system because it is explicitly defined by lack of formal rule, and is a perfect breeding ground for the absolute worst demagoguery imaginable.

You have admitted such flaws, and your solution is absolute and comprehensive cultural genocide. Total obliteration of contrary viewpoints, naming religion as a category of such to be completely erased, so that the world is a "libertarian" monoculture... That has vast precedence for extensively purging those who disagree...

 

[Navarro]

Also, lol, Bolivia was becoming "libertarian socialism". Because a leader who ignores the country's Constitutional term limits (on the specious reasoning that they qualify as a violation of his "human rights", presumably his "right" to remain in power indefinitely) then carries out election fraud, then after being ousted for such blatant rejection of the rule of law calls on his supporters to besiege the country's cities until they submit to him totally wasn't aiming for autocracy.

 

[Bear Ribs]

If we do not have agreement then please tell me what this quote means

From "Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" by Lenin

What is Lenin saying

It means that, when the revolution was only a few months old and fighting was still going on, Lenin felt he hadn't attained True Communism yet. It's not like I haven't told you that in some variation half a dozen times already. I've also pointed out why using a quote about transition from someone who wrote those while the actual civil was still going on, and who felt that the country would always be in transition until full communism appeared is pointless for deciding if the country was socialist over and over again.

 

[Senor Hortler]

It means that, when the revolution was only a few months old and fighting was still going on, Lenin felt he hadn't attained True Communism yet. It's not like I haven't told you that in some variation half a dozen times already. I've also pointed out why using a quote about transition from someone who wrote those while the actual civil was still going on, and who felt that the country would always be in transition until full communism appeared is pointless for deciding if the country was socialist over and over again.

You understand that he's just going to do this right?

He's going to keep asking until you agree to use his terminology, because that's what champagne socialists do when they hatch from Academia.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You understand that he's just going to do this right?
SNIP

He's going to keep asking until you agree to use his terminology, because that's what champagne socialists do when they hatch from Academia.

Yes, I know. Debate like this is generally not useful for convincing a true believer, it's like arguing with a rock. However if we only debated people who could be convinced, there'd be very little debate on the internet. The point is to convince other, interested but undecided people who read but possibly don't argue. Showing how hollow these arguments are can potentially turn other people away from socialism.

Speaking of, @DirtbagLeft, were you ever going to answer my rundown of the Nazi party's plank showing that their foundational ideals actually match your own to a scary degree? It seems like you're insisting we only debate your points, each time I present something, such as Stalin's quote or Hitler's platform, you go about ignoring it.

 

[Navarro]

You wish to devolve to pure culture groups, and say that this will somehow end corrupt hierarchies, when the history is that every time people self-organize by self-determined characteristics on any level above a small town, shit gets extremely bloody, corrupt, and hierarchical in very short order. Your proposed "system" is both not actually a system because it is explicitly defined by lack of formal rule, and is a perfect breeding ground for the absolute worst demagoguery imaginable.

So it seems Dirtbag is calling for ethnostates? If the horseshoe fits ...

You have admitted such flaws, and your solution is absolute and comprehensive cultural genocide. Total obliteration of contrary viewpoints, naming religion as a category of such to be completely erased, so that the world is a "libertarian" monoculture...

Seems he's not just calling for ethnostates, but for the eradication of "reactionary cultures" and wholesale imperialistic conquest of areas not controlled by his socialist faction. Sounds somewhat like the program of a party I can't name, starts with "N", it's on the tip of my tongue ...

That has vast precedence for extensively purging those who disagree...

But you see, they won't be purges, just like they weren't in the USSR. They'll be acts of "self-defense" against "counter-revolutionary plots" that just seem to keep cropping up somehow. And then "counter-revolutionary plots" will start appearing within the Socialist Party itself ... oddly unbeknownst to the "plotters".

Nigh anti-socialist given that a hatred for religion is common to most socialists. Probably the least socialist thing on the list.

Just to quibble here, Nazi end goals absolutely did entail the eradication of Christianity - it was just viewed as something for after the war was won.

 

[Navarro]

...What universe do you live in that you can describe Stalin as "right wing"? That you can attribute authoritarianism as predominantly "Right Wing" and Libertarianism as "Left Wing"?

I suppose that if you're willfully ignoring the last fucking century in your categorization, it makes some shred of sense, because before 1920 it was a decently generalizable trend that the Left pressed for less government. However, that is spectacularly far from the case today, and even in 1920 it was breaking down considerably and practically by definition inverted in the US.

I know people who've stated that Stalin and Mao were RIGHT-WING INFILTRATORS scheming to ruin socialism's good name by committing atrocities.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

It means that, when the revolution was only a few months old and fighting was still going on, Lenin felt he hadn't attained True Communism yet. It's not like I haven't told you that in some variation half a dozen times already. I've also pointed out why using a quote about transition from someone who wrote those while the actual civil was still going on, and who felt that the country would always be in transition until full communism appeared is pointless for deciding if the country was socialist over and over again.

Which is why I am now trying to pin you down on the second question I asked. "What features of Socialism were missing for Lenin to not consider the USSR socialist?". What I am looking to do is create a concrete understanding of what Lenin thought socialism was either directly prior to or immediately after the Revolution. This way there isn't some floating goalpost. I am going to ask this same question in the case of every single quote I provide and see if we cannot discover a theme of features that Bolsheviks thought were missing from the USSR. What you are trying to do on the other hand is to prevent the establishment of a concrete in favor of a vague and nebulous understanding which allows for a moving of the goalpost. This way even if Lenin later directly contradicts or rejects his earlier statement (he didn't) we see that what he has done to move the goalpost to fit a political agenda and not that he actually achieved socialism.

Allow me to explain it this way. Until "the big switch" the Republican Party was the liberal wing of american politics and the Democratic Party was the reactionary wing. What makes a liberal a liberal never changes, what makes a reactionary a reactionary never changes. Those are concrete terms, so even if the platforms of the parties invert what makes a liberal a liberal will never change, what makes a reactionary a reactionary will never change. Mr. Conservative within today political landscape would actually be considered a moderately progressive liberal with isolationist tendencies. He would be left of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who is a liberal conservative. What makes this ironic is that in his day he earned the moniker because he was considered the quintessential conservative. The point here being that by having anchored definitions we are able to have meaningful discussions with objective references.

As to communism not being achieved. All communism is socialism but not all socialism is communism, just like all trees are plants but not all plants are trees. For the sake of this discussion the bar is not set at communism which is a much higher bar, the bar is set at socialism which is a much lower bar. We do not need to demonstrate or not demonstrate that the USSR was communist. We need to demonstrate that it was or was not socialist.

So to return to the question so that we can establish an objective definition. Why did Lenin not believe that Soviet Russia was not socialist? What features of socialism were missing?

You understand that he's just going to do this right?
He's going to keep asking until you agree to use his terminology, because that's what champagne socialists do when they hatch from Academia.

No I am going to keep asking until he agrees to use Lenin's terminology. Lenin obviously did not think soviet russia was socialist. Okay what features did Lenin think were missing. If those features later showed up in the Soviet Union then I am wrong. If they did not show up then I am correct. When I granted North Korea was a socialist country I think I demonstrated my willingness to make reasonable concessions.

I know people who've stated that Stalin and Mao were RIGHT-WING INFILTRATORS scheming to ruin socialism's good name by committing atrocities.

While that would be great to believe, and it is true that if someone were going to be a right wing infiltrator and attempt to ruin the brand of socialism they would do exactly what Stalin and Mao did, that is a rather historically inept view for someone to take. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, were all three right wing. This is an established fact. However they were right wing Marxists meaning they were right wing socialists. They belong to the authoritarian socialist school rather than the libertarian socialist school.

Yes, I know. Debate like this is generally not useful for convincing a true believer, it's like arguing with a rock. However if we only debated people who could be convinced, there'd be very little debate on the internet. The point is to convince other, interested but undecided people who read but possibly don't argue. Showing how hollow these arguments are can potentially turn other people away from socialism.

Yes the point is to convince the undecideds. I have already stated what would change my mind. I won't be convinced by a moving target but if we can nail down what Lenin thought was missing to make the USSR socialist then we can move the discussion forward. By refusing to nail down what Lenin thought was missing you demonstrate both your bad faith and the weakness in your position.

Speaking of, @DirtbagLeft, were you ever going to answer my rundown of the Nazi party's plank showing that their foundational ideals actually match your own to a scary degree? It seems like you're insisting we only debate your points, each time I present something, such as Stalin's quote or Hitler's platform, you go about ignoring it.

We will address Stalin's quote as soon as we nail down what was missing for the USSR to be socialist. Because nailing that down is the crux of the issue. Did the USSR under from Lenin to Stalin meet the conditions missing for the USSR to be considered socialist, or did Stalin just declare "We are socialist".

As to returning to the question surrounding the Nazi's and if they were socialist or not I will be glad to resume that discussion as soon as we conclude this discussion. The fact that you have pivoted so hard repeatedly while not answering two very simple questions does not give me faith in your ability to hold two different conversations at the same time without pivoting and running down a hundred Rabbit holes. When we discuss Hitler's platform however we will do as is being done here and take it one point at a time for the same reason.
So returning to the subject at hand. What features did Lenin think were missing from the USSR to make it socialist?

 

[Bear Ribs]

Which is why I am now trying to pin you down on the second question I asked. "What features of Socialism were missing for Lenin to not consider the USSR socialist?"

Now this is really bizarre. You literally responded with the same question to a quotation of mine answering that question. Left Wing Childishness was written in 1918. There was still revolutionary fighting going on so settling that would be kinda important. But the real hilariousness is the ignorance you're portraying here.

Left Wing Childishness was written in 1918. The USSR did not exist until 1922. So what did Lenin think was missing from the USSR?

The Entire USSR.

It didn't exist yet, and wouldn't for another four years. Which is why your fixation on what Lenin thought about the USSR years before it existed is so nonsensical. Maybe kinda important to the idea that they were in transition, when they were still fighting a revolution and the country didn't exist at all yet, eh?

 

[DirtbagLeft]

...What universe do you live in that you can describe Stalin as "right wing"? That you can attribute authoritarianism as predominantly "Right Wing" and Libertarianism as "Left Wing"?

The universe where I actually understand what left and right mean. The same universe in which Lenin and Stalin identified themselves as right wing.

I suppose that if you're willfully ignoring the last fucking century in your categorization, it makes some shred of sense, because before 1920 it was a decently generalizable trend that the Left pressed for less government. However, that is spectacularly far from the case today, and even in 1920 it was breaking down considerably and practically by definition inverted in the US.

And this is the general problem with the way certain Americans understand politics. The right and left wing and the features of what make them right and left are fixed. The democratic party used to be the right wing party, it is now the left wing party. The republicans used to be the left wing party, they are now the right wing party. The problem being that reactionaries wouldn't understand the difference between a principle and a policy if it smacked them in the face.

All authoritarians are right wing but not all right wingers are authoritarians.

Within the United State there doesn't actually exist a left wing party to speak of. In every other country in the entire world (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, China, South Africa, Israel, etc etc.) The democratic party is a center right party. I suspect but cannot prove that after the DNC convention this year it will become a center left party.

Political discourse has long settled into two-axis politics. It's not "Left Socialism" and "Right Socialism", by anyone outside your lunatic echo chambers, it's LibLeft vs. AuthLeft. Specifically because underlying principals are massively overlapping, as are end goals, with the divergence being more about implementation of policy rather than a great schism of philosophy.

what a myopic and frankly retarded view. No one else in the entire world defines things this way outside of American reactionaries. "Left" Enlightenment values. "Right" means Counter-Enlightenment/Anti-Enlightenment values (See: Movement Counter-Enlightenment). To say LibLeft vs AuthLeft is... well besides being insane it's a category error. No one outside of your lunatic echo chambers talks about left and right the way you do. It would make no sense what so ever historically, it would make no sense internationally. You need fixed points to be able to discuss both current wider geopolitical trends and historical trends. What you are saying makes complete hash of the big switch especially in light of the fact that prior to the big switch the Democratic party was the right wing conservative party and the Republicans were the left wing liberal party. The big switch is used in reference to the fact that the two parties inverted their political alignment.

Authoritarianism is and was always considered right wing. Authoritarianism cannot therefore ever be left wing. Actually put forward that argument with reference to the long held historical understanding of Left = enlightenment and you will see how insane you sound.

As I stated above reactionaries wouldn't know a principle if it slapped them in the face. For example is decentralization a policy or is it a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is Pro-Choice a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is States Rights a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is the right to bare arms a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is freedom of speech a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the principle?
Is limited free speech a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is libertarian a set of policies or a set of principles? If it is a set of policies what are the underlying principles?

Also, "Decentralzied Planning" is an oxymoron. Look at history and point to a serious power anywhere that has been driven by "decentralized" planning. You won't find it, because we literally define powers by the matter of overall hierarchies, because anything else is by definition not a cohesive polity, not a single power.

Why Decentralized Economic Planning Is So Important | Sascha Klocke Where exactly did you study economics? Or did you by chance get your doctorate out of a crackerjack box. What you have done is to demonstrate Dunning-Kruger at its finest. As to not finding it there are lots of examples. As a single modern example the US economy is by and large an example of decentralized planning. Outside of limited circumstances and sectors the US economy is planned in a decentralized fashion with each firm/actor establishing their own goals, objectives, and plans. These individual plans work together to drive the entire economic engine. And before you accuse the mises institute of being a biased source I strongly recommend that you actually look into their background and history.

noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] , ox·y·mor·ons. Rhetoric.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

Yes and if you understood what the word oxymoron meant why are you stating the obvious? Or do you posses a child's understanding of how terms work? Centralized planning means that the plans are generated in a designated central location to drive the economic engine. Within the context of a wider economy it means that multiple independent actors develop plans independently to drive the economy. An individual actor such as a firm may also be centrally or decentrally planned. For example the plan may come either from the board or the CEO. Or the board or CEO may direct each department to submit their own plans. This second example depending on how it's carried out may be a mixed planning system.

In other words. Learn some economics you brain dead fucktard.

You wish to devolve to pure culture groups, and say that this will somehow end corrupt hierarchies, when the history is that every time people self-organize by self-determined characteristics on any level above a small town, shit gets extremely bloody, corrupt, and hierarchical in very short order. Your proposed "system" is both not actually a system because it is explicitly defined by lack of formal rule, and is a perfect breeding ground for the absolute worst demagoguery imaginable.

wow. So many problems with everything you said.
*Pure culture groups
Ya. No. I don't actually give a fuck about culture per se.
* Pure culture groups will end corrupt hierarchies
Ya. No. While culture can be important in the contribution to reducing corrupt hierarchies, but systems are much more important for reducing corrupt hierarchies. Note I said reducing not eliminating them. While the ideal goal is to eliminate corrupt hierarchies practically speaking it cannot be done. The actual goal then is to 1) reduce the number of corrupt hierarchies, 2) reduce the harm which any given corrupt hierarchy can do.
*Self-organization by self determination and size.
You've clearly been speaking to AnCaps. Not going to quibble over what you mean by formal rule but I am going to do the very stupid thing and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are acting in this instance in good faith. Anarchism is not about the elimination of hierarchies or even about the elimination of governments. It does seek to eliminate the state as it is modernly defined. Government's would in fact exist within society as I propose it and would indeed be a requirement. Given that I have not really spoken much at all about what an anarchist government looks like you have some pretty concrete accusations about what I think it looks like.

You have admitted such flaws, and your solution is absolute and comprehensive cultural genocide. Total obliteration of contrary viewpoints, naming religion as a category of such to be completely erased, so that the world is a "libertarian" monoculture... That has vast precedence for extensively purging those who disagree...

If by cultural genocide you mean the abolition of that culture... well then ya. If however you mean the death of the people who embody the culture then no. I don't actually think you understand what a culture is. As to viewpionts which is different than culture yes I want to see contrary viewpoints obliterated. Let me clarify. I am not saying I want viewpoints which differ from my own obliterated. I want contrary view points obliterated. viewpoints that are directly contrary to liberty (freedom) and equality of opportunity. Authoritarianism has no place in the world I want.

 

[ShieldWife]

Abolishing culture? That's horrible, one of the worst things that I can imagine. In some ways, abolishing culture is worse than murder. Culture is special, sacred almost in a way, and when cultures die it is a tragic loss for humanity.

 

[Navarro]

How are you going to abolish cultures if not through authoritarianism? The delusion levels are off the charts.

 

[Zachowon]

The universe where I actually understand what left and right mean. The same universe in which Lenin and Stalin identified themselves as right wing.

And this is the general problem with the way certain Americans understand politics. The right and left wing and the features of what make them right and left are fixed. The democratic party used to be the right wing party, it is now the left wing party. The republicans used to be the left wing party, they are now the right wing party. The problem being that reactionaries wouldn't understand the difference between a principle and a policy if it smacked them in the face.

All authoritarians are right wing but not all right wingers are authoritarians.

Within the United State there doesn't actually exist a left wing party to speak of. In every other country in the entire world (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, China, South Africa, Israel, etc etc.) The democratic party is a center right party. I suspect but cannot prove that after the DNC convention this year it will become a center left party.


what a myopic and frankly retarded view. No one else in the entire world defines things this way outside of American reactionaries. "Left" Enlightenment values. "Right" means Counter-Enlightenment/Anti-Enlightenment values (See: Movement Counter-Enlightenment). To say LibLeft vs AuthLeft is... well besides being insane it's a category error. No one outside of your lunatic echo chambers talks about left and right the way you do. It would make no sense what so ever historically, it would make no sense internationally. You need fixed points to be able to discuss both current wider geopolitical trends and historical trends. What you are saying makes complete hash of the big switch especially in light of the fact that prior to the big switch the Democratic party was the right wing conservative party and the Republicans were the left wing liberal party. The big switch is used in reference to the fact that the two parties inverted their political alignment.

Authoritarianism is and was always considered right wing. Authoritarianism cannot therefore ever be left wing. Actually put forward that argument with reference to the long held historical understanding of Left = enlightenment and you will see how insane you sound.

As I stated above reactionaries wouldn't know a principle if it slapped them in the face. For example is decentralization a policy or is it a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is Pro-Choice a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is States Rights a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is the right to bare arms a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is freedom of speech a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the principle?
Is limited free speech a policy or a principle? If it is a policy what is the underlying principle?
Is libertarian a set of policies or a set of principles? If it is a set of policies what are the underlying principles?


Why Decentralized Economic Planning Is So Important | Sascha Klocke Where exactly did you study economics? Or did you by chance get your doctorate out of a crackerjack box. What you have done is to demonstrate Dunning-Kruger at its finest. As to not finding it there are lots of examples. As a single modern example the US economy is by and large an example of decentralized planning. Outside of limited circumstances and sectors the US economy is planned in a decentralized fashion with each firm/actor establishing their own goals, objectives, and plans. These individual plans work together to drive the entire economic engine. And before you accuse the mises institute of being a biased source I strongly recommend that you actually look into their background and history.


Yes and if you understood what the word oxymoron meant why are you stating the obvious? Or do you posses a child's understanding of how terms work? Centralized planning means that the plans are generated in a designated central location to drive the economic engine. Within the context of a wider economy it means that multiple independent actors develop plans independently to drive the economy. An individual actor such as a firm may also be centrally or decentrally planned. For example the plan may come either from the board or the CEO. Or the board or CEO may direct each department to submit their own plans. This second example depending on how it's carried out may be a mixed planning system.

In other words. Learn some economics you brain dead fucktard.

wow. So many problems with everything you said.
*Pure culture groups
Ya. No. I don't actually give a fuck about culture per se.
* Pure culture groups will end corrupt hierarchies
Ya. No. While culture can be important in the contribution to reducing corrupt hierarchies, but systems are much more important for reducing corrupt hierarchies. Note I said reducing not eliminating them. While the ideal goal is to eliminate corrupt hierarchies practically speaking it cannot be done. The actual goal then is to 1) reduce the number of corrupt hierarchies, 2) reduce the harm which any given corrupt hierarchy can do.
*Self-organization by self determination and size.
You've clearly been speaking to AnCaps. Not going to quibble over what you mean by formal rule but I am going to do the very stupid thing and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are acting in this instance in good faith. Anarchism is not about the elimination of hierarchies or even about the elimination of governments. It does seek to eliminate the state as it is modernly defined. Government's would in fact exist within society as I propose it and would indeed be a requirement. Given that I have not really spoken much at all about what an anarchist government looks like you have some pretty concrete accusations about what I think it looks like.

If by cultural genocide you mean the abolition of that culture... well then ya. If however you mean the death of the people who embody the culture then no. I don't actually think you understand what a culture is. As to viewpionts which is different than culture yes I want to see contrary viewpoints obliterated. Let me clarify. I am not saying I want viewpoints which differ from my own obliterated. I want contrary view points obliterated. viewpoints that are directly contrary to liberty (freedom) and equality of opportunity. Authoritarianism has no place in the world I want.

How will you achieve all of this?

 

[ShieldWife]

Historically, abolishing culture involves a lot of violence and oppression.

 

[Zachowon]

Historically, abolishing culture involves a lot of violence and oppression.

I mean...look at Nazi Germany

 

[Navarro]

Historically, abolishing culture involves a lot of violence and oppression.

But trust him, it won't this time. Certainly not.

This time it'll be real socialism!

 

[ShieldWife]

I mean...look at Nazi Germany

A better example, I think, would be Mao's Cultural Revolution, which destroyed huge amounts of culture and was horrendously oppressive.

But trust him, it won't this time. Certainly not.

This time it'll be real socialism!

Even if it could be done without any violence or force, destroying culture is still terrible. Mass media and entertainment destroys culture in a lot of ways and I see that as a major threat of such things.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Historically, abolishing culture involves a lot of violence and oppression.

This is actually a mistaken beliefs. Cultures vanish for a number of reasons violence is only one such reason. You also have cultures that merge leaving behind something new. this was often the case when trading outposts were established. You also had cultures that adopted much of other cultures thus they erased their own culture and replaced it with a new culture. The Romans are a prime example of this. The Latin culture which pre-dates Rome was abandoned first in favor of the Etruscan's and then Etruscan culture was merged with Greek culture which gave us the Roman Culture. Memetic's is a highly complicated subject especially as it relates to sociology. When thinking about either cultural reform or eradication most people jump to violence as the "easy" obvious answer. Yet it often times causes more problems than it solves and always ends up being much messier both in terms of human cost and in terms of negative influence upon ones own culture.