deadken posted:
Impper posted:
no, i don't know "who"


its the jews impper. the jews

that's a ban

getfiscal posted:

babyfinland posted:
modern political ideologies are all the same state and nation worship and their differences are minute and only different enough to allow for war and conflict that makes Good Business for You Know Who

not liberal socialism

Liberal socialism is a contradiction in terms, like socialist fascism or progressive reaction.

getfiscal posted:

Cycloneboy posted:
Liberal socialism is a contradiction in terms, like socialist fascism or progressive reaction.

Sorry, but the rights-based legal system of liberalism and its approach to economics is incompatible with socialism.

getfiscal posted:
Explain how in detail.

Liberalism is founded on bourgeois rights, those that the bourgeoisie developed to protect themselves from the state. These things - freedom of the press, for example - serve to protect the powerful while not allowing the common citizen to truly involve himself in the political process. Freedom of speech benefits the already powerful over the already weak when it is them, most of all, who must be silenced. And so forth: "and it harm none, do as thou wilt" is going to benefit those with the most power to do - the already powerful. Such inherent bias is antithetical to socialism.

Economically, there is a reason it's called neo-liberalism. I hope that it's rather obvious how that isn't compatible with socialism.

babyfinland posted:
socialism is based on the same mythology as liberalism, that primordial man lived in a primitive communist utopia and then War Happens and private property is established. so the idea that theyre distinctly opposed is false. one should rather say that they are dichotomous within the narrow framework of slave-based society

are you saying that there was never any such thing as what engels and marx called primitive communism

babyfinland posted:
Rights are necessarily negative, by definition.

No they aren't.

babyfinland posted:
Give me an example of a non-negative right

Right to health care.

noavbazzer posted:

babyfinland posted:
noavbazzer posted:

babyfinland posted:
socialism is based on the same mythology as liberalism, that primordial man lived in a primitive communist utopia and then War Happens and private property is established. so the idea that theyre distinctly opposed is false. one should rather say that they are dichotomous within the narrow framework of slave-based society

are you saying that there was never any such thing as what engels and marx called primitive communism



yes

is there evidence to the contrary or something? i never thought their claims about primitive hunter gatherer societies were all that wild

Yeah there's no evidence to demonstrate primitive communism ever existing (ie a society that is purely communistic) and there's tons of evidence to the contrary. Read Debt by David Graeber

babyfinland posted:
No one shall impeded your access to health care services. Next.

lol. i'm glad you've got ron paul's definition of rights.

Our thinking about communism has been dominated by a myth. Once upon a time, humans held all things in common-in the Garden of Eden, during the Golden Age of Saturn, in Paleolithic huntergatherer bands. Then came the Fall, as a result of which we are now cursed with divisions of power and private property. The dream was that someday, with the advance of technology and general prosperity, with social revolution or the guidance of the Party, we would finally be in a position to put things back, to restore common ownership and common management of collective resources. Throughout the last two centuries, Communists and anti-Communists argued over how plausible this picture was and whether it would be a blessing or a nightmare. But they all agreed on the basic framework: communism was about collective property, "primitive communism" did once exist in the distant past, and someday it might return .

We might call this " mythic communism "-or even , " epic communism"-a story we like to tell ourselves. Since the days of the French Revolution, it has inspired millions; but it has also done enormous damage to humanity. It's high time, I think, to brush the entire argument aside. In fact, "communism" is not some magical utopia, and neither does it have anything to do with ownership of the means of production. It is something that exists right now-that exists, to some degree, in any human society, although there has never been one in which everything has been organized in that way, and it would be difficult to imagine how there could be. All of us act like communists a good deal of the time. None of us acts like a communist consistently. " Communist society"-in the sense of a society organized exclusively on that single principle--could never exist. But all social systems, even economic systems like capitalism, have always been built on top of a bedrock of actually-existing communism. Starting, as I say, from the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" allows us to look past the question of individual or private ownership (which is often little more than formal legality anyway) and at much more immediate and practical questions of who has access to what sorts of things and under what conditions.9 Whenever it is the operative principle, even if it's just two people who are interacting, we can say we are in the presence of a sort of communism. Almost everyone follows this principle if they are collaborating on some common project. 10 If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, " Hand me the wrench, " his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, "And what do I get for it?"---even if they are working for ExxonMobil, Burger King, or Goldman Sachs. The reason is simple efficiency (ironically enough, considering the conventional wisdom that "communism j ust doesn't work") : if you really care about getting something done, the most efficient way to go about it is obviously to allocate tasks by ability and give people whatever they need to do them. 1 1 One might even say that it's one of the scandals of capitalism that most capitalist firms, internally, operate communistically. True, they don't tend to operate very democratically. Most often they are organized around military-style top-down chains of command. But there is often an interesting tension here, because top-down chains of command are not particularly efficient: they tend to promote stupidity among those on top, resentful foot-dragging among those on the bottom . The greater the need to improvise, the more democratic the cooperation tends to become. Inventors have always understood this, start-up capitalists frequently figure it out, and computer engineers have recently rediscovered the principle: not only with things like freeware, which everyone talks about, but even in the organization of their businesses. Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 198os, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages.

I will call this "baseline communism" : the understanding that, unless people consider themselves enemies, if the need is considered great enough, or the cost considered reasonable enough, the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will be assumed to apply. Of course, different communities apply very different standards. In large, impersonal urban communities, such a standard may go no further than asking for a light or directions. This might not seem like much, but it founds the possibility of larger social relations. In smaller, less impersonal communities-especially those not divided into social classes-the same logic will likely extend much further: for example, it is often effectively impossible to refuse a request not j ust for tobacco, but for food-sometimes even from a stranger; certainly from anyone considered to belong to the community. Exactly one page after describing his difficulties in asking for directions, Evans-Pritchard notes that these same Nuer find it almost impossible, when dealing with someone they have accepted as a member of their camp, to refuse a request for almost any item of common consumption, so that a man or woman known to have anything extra in the way of grain, tobacco, tools, or agricultural implements can be expected to see their stockpiles disappear almost immediately.14 However, this baseline of openhanded sharing and generosity never extends to everything. Often, in fact, things freely shared are treated as trivial and unimportant for that very reason. Among the Nuer, true wealth takes the form of cattle. No one would freely share their cattle; in fact, young Nuer men learn that they are expected to defend their cattle with their lives; for this reason, cattle are neither bought nor sold.

babyfinland posted:
How would you define it then smart guy

A right is a claim that someone has to something, and that the contravention of this claim is perceived as an injustice. This claim is socially constructed, so there is no prior definition of any given right, it is formed in a terrain of struggle.

babyfinland posted:
and what is a "claim to something" then?

God has given you the power of imagination... let it run free.

babyfinland posted:
it is a form of ownership over property

are you an anarcho-capitalist again or something

getfiscal posted:

babyfinland posted:
How would you define it then smart guy

A right is a claim that someone has to something, and that the contravention of this claim is perceived as an injustice. This claim is socially constructed, so there is no prior definition of any given right, it is formed in a terrain of struggle.

You can't just "struggle" your way to society accepting whatever "rights" you want. You have to actually convince them. If you fail, then the rights are never established; they are merely proposed rights that never became "socially constructed".

babyfinland posted:
i'm not the one advocating liberalism and rights-based politics am I?

babyfinland posted:
Ok, so a right is a demand from the political authority to not impede just access or participation in some social institution. This is both negative and a form of property. If you want to continue your example of health care as a positive right I'd like to see your explanation.

don't troll

babyfinland posted:
No because that's incoherent and contrary to the fundamental origin of rights, which is slave ownership. This doesn't actually contradict socialism though.