And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....

acptulsa said:
It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.
Click to expand...

Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.

acptulsa said:
Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Boy, if you don't regard the mutualists as "true" anarchists, I'd hate to hear your feelings on "anarcho-capitalists." I guess Lysander Spooner wasn't an anarchist, either.
 
Last edited:
acptulsa said:
It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. They'd have both gotten around to all of it, in the end.
Click to expand...
There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.
 
Antischism said:
A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean leftists are correct to call a mutualist an anarchist.

Swordsmyth said:
There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Last edited:
acptulsa said:
And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil at all. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
I never said leftists couldn't be right about anything and I always acknowledge it when they are, and I didn't start this as a "right is better than left" conversation, I stated that if we don't stop them the left could and would drag us into 1984, then somebody chimed in to tell me that the left is no worse than the right and since I disagree I then discussed that concept.

Like I said above: In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.
 
Antischism said:
Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.
Click to expand...
And now the inner Marxist comes out in view for all to see.
 
I am commenting on the Civil War discussion. I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge. It's easy to say "the Civil War was about slavery" because that is a binary issue. You are, legally, either a slave or not a slave. That is very easy to teach to a grade schooler. It's much harder to teach the other issues, even to college students and adults. How many adults even know the meaning of the word "tariff," let alone its application?

The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North. The South generally exported, while the North generally imported. The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South. The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.

The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer. It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present. Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."

The two regions were economically different. You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe. The South had more raw materials. The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay. They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton. The tariff was an ongoing issue. First in 1828. The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861. It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote.

The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods. The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff. The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.

England and Europe favored the South because they did not favor the tariff. England also played it's own shrewd angle, fitting for a country that thought it superior to many and practicing colonialism. Lincoln knew he could not sell the war internationally on the tariff/economics, so he played the slavery card. England (rightly) opposed slavery, so the US government played that angle. Most Americans probably did not really care about slavery, at least to the point of killing one another over it. Lincoln was a shrewd and insincere racist, but he was also practical by manipulating the slavery angle. The South was definitely not some innocent bystander either. Their insistence on slavery was the epitome of greed and pathetic human behavior. They lost all righteousness with their greed.

I know what I just wrote is simplistic and on some grade school level, but it's really tiresome to hear people completely vilifying the south today. The only thing they know to say is "because slavery." War and conflict almost always have an economic component. Most wars have enough blame to go around. It's not like North was totally good, and the South was totally bad. People view history through the these lenses without making a critical analysis effort.
 
Why is this even a debate?? You're arguing about which master is better? Jesus Christ we have a long way to go.
 
Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.
 
Antischism said:
Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.
Click to expand...

"Thinking back on it." More lulz. You just saw that on one of your liberal media outlets broadcast today.

I barely heard of you til yesterday, but you really are a card, chief!
 
acptulsa said:
Wasn't Robert E Lee possessed of the moral turpitude to oppose slavery in the South in the 1850s and 1860s?

That was not a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
Click to expand...

This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the "guiding hand" of the white man. Or guiding whip. Whatever.
 
Last edited:
Antischism said:
It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.
Click to expand...

And if you were magically transported to Africa in the 1860s, you wouldn't need guidance?

.
Antischism said:
This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the guiding hand of the white man.
Click to expand...

The man isn't here to defend himself from words being put in his mouth, so I'll do it. I don't infer that at all. It is entirely reasonable to assume he meant that they had been deliberately kept so ignorant that it was cruel to let them loose with no education at all. And that is a valid and kindhearted concern.
 
phill4paul said:
...almost like it was planned. Move the narrative away from Southern and historic heritage and link it to neo-Nazi's and now there will be no stopping it.
Nashville, Lexington, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Gainseville.




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-kentucky.html
Click to expand...

Not just down - up. These fools have entirely lost their minds.


Vigilante protesters start DIGGING UP body of Confederate general Nathan Forrest from his grave

2ACE44CD00000578-0-Threats_Isaac_Richmond_center_said_that_the_group_would_return_w-a-21_1437744260476.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump Signs Exec Order Restoring Improperly Removed Statues And Public Monuments
Replies
1
Views
19
asurfaholic
asurfaholic
PAF
Trump Places DC Police Under FEDERAL CONTROL, Deploys National Guard
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
Satanic Temple's "Christmas" display does not last three days in Concord NH
Replies
10
Views
4K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Trump blocked Biden-era plan to remove Snake River dams, and he may have prevented an eco-disaster
Replies
0
Views
10
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
The Threats of AI Come from the State
Replies
7
Views
59
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Back
Top