kraychik Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Here's the ironic part of the race-baiter-in-chiefs video. He talks about the Stafford Act in his race-baiting speech. As senator, he voted AGAINST the Stafford Act. The act he so suddenly champions in that 2007 speech. Obama. Race-baiter and glittering jewel of hypocrisy. Moreover, he lied about rhe Stafford Act not being waived. It was waived to send smergency funds to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina from the federal government. Obama lies all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 It's on matters of fact--that libertarianism has been a leftist notion far longer than a right-wing one--which has become the single matter you refuse to discuss. That's telling. Again, all you're revealing is that you don't even know what the left-right paradigm entails. Considering the left is defined by a desire from greater governmental management of the economy through taxation/regulation/licensing, libertarianism (which is just a fancy new term for classical liberalism) is by definition a right wing ideology. You're unfamiliar with high-school level political discussion, yet here you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Again, all you're revealing is that you don't even know what the left-right paradigm entails. Considering the left is defined by a desire from greater governmental management of the economy through taxation/regulation/licensing, libertarianism (which is just a fancy new term for classical liberalism) is by definition a right wing ideology. You're unfamiliar with high-school level political discussion, yet here you are. The problem really lies more in the whole attempt to define the political spectrum in terms of "right" and "left", when it is really much more complex than that. For example, most people consider Stalinist communism to be a far left ideology, and Nazism to be a far right one. Now, one may disagree, but that's the mainstream view. And yet, they are very similar in a great many ways. What they have in common is the absolute authority of the state and a strong sense of nationalism, and these common points far outweigh the differences in economic philosophy that they have. Similarly, people call groups like the Taliban "far-right extremists", while also applying the exact same label to Objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy). And yet, these two ideologies could not be more different if someone purposefully tried to sit down and create a list of diametric opposites. I think there are really at least two axes one must consider to have a hope of properly classifying various ideologies consistently: Economic: Collectivism <-> Individualism Social: Liberal <-> Authoritarian Using such a system, one can classify Nazism and Communism and see both their similarities and their differences. One can see the differences between Libertarianism and mainstream conservatism. These differences are not just a matter of degree, as the right-left spectrum implies. The simple right-left spectrum just does not do justice to the complexities of the political arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 The problem really lies more in the whole attempt to define the political spectrum in terms of "right" and "left", when it is really much more complex than that. ... Economic: Collectivism <-> Individualism Social: Liberal <-> Authoritarian Using such a system, one can classify Nazism and Communism and see both their similarities and their differences. One can see the differences between Libertarianism and mainstream conservatism. These differences are not just a matter of degree, as the right-left spectrum implies. The simple right-left spectrum just does not do justice to the complexities of the political arena. You're leaving out the idea of jingoism/xenophobia/openness ... or whatever you want to call it, which I would say is also a defining point. Marxism promotes the idea that capitalists use that to divide the people, right ? And... yes, you're right that it's a complex matter to put on a linear scale. I read (somewhere) where Marx's ideas make the most sense in a post-industrial revolution context. His take on history makes less sense if you try to transpose it to pre-industrial and post-industrial eras. As the role of heavy industry declines, and our society looks more like the middle ages we may want to examine feudal society structure more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 You're unfamiliar with high-school level political discussion, yet here you are. Google left-wing libertarianism. Read and learn. The more you do, the more you'll realize how stupid you sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 It's sad to see that still in this day and age victim-mentality is still a very central part of black men's identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Watch and listen how he plays the despicable political game of telling his audience that the American federal government reacted with less vigour towards Hurricane Katrina than other recent disasters like 9/11 because many of New Orleans' residents are black. This is the "critical race theory" coming out. Nevermind the fact that it's untrue, and as a Senator he probably knew he was misleading his audience. The fake accent is also pathetic. I guess he learned to speak with that (fake) accent in the Indonesian madrassah? Or perhaps he picked it up on the streets of Chicago?He is a despicable person as well as an incompetent President. Hopefully, keeping fingers crossed, he finishes his tenure at 11:59 a.m. on January 20, 2013. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 He is a despicable person as well as an incompetent President. All you Republicans have for an October surprise is that Obama is black? Way to go! Looks like a guarantee of four more years to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 All you Republicans have for an October surprise is that Obama is black? Way to go! Looks like a guarantee of four more years to me. Nope, not that he's black. That he's a race-baiter, and Katrina truther. And it's beyond me why you would want another 4 years of trillion dollar deficits and weak job growth, all because you like the guy, and he shares your politics. That's pretty selfish to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 He is a despicable person as well as an incompetent President. Hopefully, keeping fingers crossed, he finishes his tenure at 11:59 a.m. on January 20, 2013. He's the first affirmative-action president. Nothing is ever his fault, and if anything goes well, he gets the credit. How many past presidents would have loved for that to be the scenario they operated under! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) He's the first affirmative-action president. Nothing is ever his fault, and if anything goes well, he gets the credit. How many past presidents would have loved for that to be the scenario they operated under! Under that definition I believe Reagan would be the first affirmative action president with George, 911 was Clinton fault, Bush being the second. Oh right they were Republicans so they were allowed to say those things and you are just fine as a conservative to repeat all those arguments. Edited October 7, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 You're leaving out the idea of jingoism/xenophobia/openness ... or whatever you want to call it, which I would say is also a defining point. Marxism promotes the idea that capitalists use that to divide the people, right ? Yes, I could see how the "openness" of a society could be another scale, though I would have included it under the "social" part of my two axes I think. And... yes, you're right that it's a complex matter to put on a linear scale. I read (somewhere) where Marx's ideas make the most sense in a post-industrial revolution context. His take on history makes less sense if you try to transpose it to pre-industrial and post-industrial eras. Marx's take on history makes no sense in any context, as one can see by the complete nonsensical outcomes of history's attempts to implement Marxism. However, Marx certainly referred to aristocracy and feudal society as part of his analysis of history, so if one were to (for some reason) take him seriously, then his take applies just as much to pre-industrial society as to the industrial period. As to the "post-industrial" society, of course his take makes no sense, since he had no great or true insights, he had no ability to develop any framework to correctly predict how society might exist in the future and what issues may be important in such a society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Yes, I could see how the "openness" of a society could be another scale, though I would have included it under the "social" part of my two axes I think. Marx's take on history makes no sense in any context, as one can see by the complete nonsensical outcomes of history's attempts to implement Marxism. However, Marx certainly referred to aristocracy and feudal society as part of his analysis of history, so if one were to (for some reason) take him seriously, then his take applies just as much to pre-industrial society as to the industrial period. As to the "post-industrial" society, of course his take makes no sense, since he had no great or true insights, he had no ability to develop any framework to correctly predict how society might exist in the future and what issues may be important in such a society. I would just point out here Marxs (whose politics and policies I don't agree with) theories were meant to be applied to post industrial, societies (UK, Germany, and etc) however they have only ever been applied to pre industrial societies who used those policies to trasnioto post industrial, societies (Russia, China, Cuba). It is a very odd quark in the arguments about Marxs socialism and fun, to think about and discuss. Edited October 7, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I would just point out here Marxs (whose politics and policies I don't agree with) theories were meant to be applied to post industrial, societies (UK, Germany, and etc) however they have only ever been applied to pre industrial societies who used those policies to trasnioto post industrial, societies (Russia, China, Cuba). It is a very odd quark in the arguments about Marxs socialism and fun, to think about and discuss. Maybe because no one in their right mind, other than in primitive countries, wants any part of their property being confiscated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe because no one in their right mind, other than in primitive countries, wants any part of their property being confiscated? Probably I was just pointing what was true though. Marx's theories were indented on controlling the means of production only after the infrastructure already existed, they were never intended to be used in a society to create the means of production and run from there. It is fun to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Marxism promotes the idea that capitalists use that to divide the people, right ?Marxism actually believes that capitalism brings people together, leading to the inevitable Revolution. Edited October 7, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Probably I was just pointing what was true though. Marx's theories were indented on controlling the means of production only after the infrastructure already existed, they were never intended to be used in a society to create the means of production and run from there. The means of production never "already exist". New means of production must constantly be developed and built. Old resources deplete and must be replaced with new ones. Old methods are found unsafe or suboptimal and must be improved. Old factories are decommissioned and new ones must be built. Populations grow and production capacity must increase with them. But I am glad that you realize that Marxism is unsuited for actually creating a society that can build the means of production. Instead, it can only take over a society that was built by a more vibrant and prosperous philosophy. Like a parasite, it can come in and take over a successful host, and then destroy it, or, at best, merely cripple it. What one must realize is that the true "means of production" are not factories and power plants, but individuals who have the drive and motivation and intelligence to envision such things and to organize their fellow men and women to translate vision into reality. And Marxism stifles and eradicates such individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Probably I was just pointing what was true though. Marx's theories were indented on controlling the means of production only after the infrastructure already existed, they were never intended to be used in a society to create the means of production and run from there. It is fun to think about. Just to be clear here, Marx's theories were never prescriptive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Just to be clear here, Marx's theories were never prescriptive. No they weren't about how to build a society they were about where to go from where his scoitey was at the time. I don't believe they were never meant to be applied to the places they were applied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 No they weren't about how to build a society they were about where to go from where his scoitey was at the time. I don't believe they were never meant to be applied to the places they were applied to. They weren't about where to go either. He was writing history. Talking about where Europe had been and where it was heading. They were descriptive, not prescriptive. They weren't guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Just to be clear here, Marx's theories were never prescriptive. Unite - you have nothing to lose but your chains -... Sounds like a directive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Just to be clear here, Marx's theories were never prescriptive. Unite - you have nothing to lose but your chains -... Sounds like a directive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That means that people who have worked their entire lives to create a business will have it stripped from them and given to people who have done nothing but sit on welfare for the span of their lives to this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That means that people who have worked their entire lives to create a business will have it stripped from them and given to people who have done nothing but sit on welfare for the span of their lives to this point. This is just hysterical fear mongering. Speak facts please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Unite - you have nothing to lose but your chains -... Sounds like a directive. He was writing the manifesto of a political party. Outside of that immediate end, his theories themselves were not prescriptive. He gave no details about how society would run after the Revolution. The Revolution itself was not a prescription either, as he believed it was simply the direction that capitalism was taking and would be inevitable. i could be more detailed in why I'm saying this--and maybe I should--but I frankly don't want to spend the time writing that much at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.