Fascism vs. Marxism (a side by side comparison)

[revolutionisnow]

You sure? It's pretty rank. Them evil godless commies hate religion and morality! The Communists are absolutely crazy about divorcing all the time and pornography!

I guess you haven't turned on your tv lately.

 

[Vessol]

I guess you haven't turned on your tv lately.

For good reason, but that's beside the point. So, what have I missed on TV? The godless communistic decline of America? Evil secular atheist homosexual transsexuals destroying our children? Evil woman whom want to have rights besides the rights to stay at home and cook for who husband, what bitches.

This whole movement is rank with fundamentalist christians whom want nothing more then to stifle the civil rights of those whom they find morally objectionable.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I have no problem at all with Christians or any other religious group, as long as they don't force their religious beliefs on others.

The point is that the OP is very forgiving with his description of Facism, almost giving it a positive spin. And why not? Fascist reigns in the past have always drawn the religious right to them the most. Look at any of Hitler's speeches and they are absolutely dripping with religious references, as with Franco and Mussolini. Hell, it's even present in fictional fascism, Norsefire from V for Vendetta anyone?

 

[Conza88]

But at least I don't avoid every question.

And I'm much too much of an anarchist to let you dictate my summer reading list.

You mean non-archist / Austro-Libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalism / Principled and Logically consistent Libertarian / Anti-monopolist / Voluntaryist reading list.

Damn it, Conza, when will you awaken to the truth that most here sympathize with the anarcho-capitalist position, yet both those who self-identify with it and those who don't just don't see how it can be pulled off immediately?

Excuse me dbag, I do realise that. Haven't you noticed since the number of people ATTACKING ANARCHO-CAPITALISM has completely dwindled at RPF recently, so have my responses... I HAVEN'T NEEDED TO DEFEND IT.

Now, lets take a look - who the fck brought this up? Aye? A "devils advocate" brings up Human Action and it was mentioned. Well I want to know if he's actually read the book. He said he wasn't satisfied by it... well I want to know why.

See I am open to persuasion remember. And again, as outlined previously - intellectual honesty.

Who is the one who interjected with their crap? IT WAS YOU. You had nothing to add, bar attacking me / my actions. You presented no argument. Then I get onto the intellectually honesty angle, and again - you make it clear = you have none.

What books have you read on anarcho-capitalism? WHAT BOOKS? WHAT SOURCES? NAME ONE! HOW ABOUT PRIVATE DEFENSE?! That's a good start, no?

Blackwater had to change its name because it was trying to lose its own reputation. The Marine Corps never has. Now, either the oath Marines swear to means something to them, or there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole idea of privatized defense. I personally think its both, and the fundamental problem with privatized defense is that the government will use them to do things that the government doesn't want to be directly identified with--a little plausible deniability. But, in the end, it raises a red flag, and that's a practical problem that must be addressed before anyone can take seriously the idea of getting rid of our government problem from the root up. Because, in the end, any rich bastard can become an oligarch if there's no Marine Corps to stop him. All he has to do is hire an army.

EPIC FAIL.

Blackwater is a federal corporation. It's a federal subsidiary.

No State, no imperialism. No blackwater contract to destroy private property and break the non aggression axiom.

The Myth of National Defense absolutely pwns your mindless drivel. Wake up and smell the roses Mr. I love ignorance enough to not even want to read a book that is written by one of Ron Paul's heroes.

And that's the 'solution' anarcho-capitalist-voluntaryism provides to the need for defense. Pity that the 'defensive-only weapon' doesn't exist, isn't it?

Nope. See your failure above. Pity you've never read anything on the subject Actupulsa, such a shame you prefer ignorance and your pre school level objections you ARROGANTLY think haven't been addressed or refuted.

Pity, without a MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF VIOLENCE OVER A GIVEN TERRITORY, defense spending would actually go towards defense... and not the initiation of violence... Hmmm!

In the end, we want to go the same place, but you're focused on the black and white core issues and I'm focused on the road. Think you don't need me, Conza? Then how are you going to get from here to there? By cussing people?

Roads should be privatized. Just as they first were in the US.

I don't need you pointing a gun at my head, or hiring a thug or gang of thieves to do the same. That's what I don't need.

Don't hold a gun to my head, and I won't cuss at you.

In the end, it's all useless without diligence. All of it.

Wrong. Don't blame the victim. Your collective guilt is pathetic.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Too general to be helpful IMO.

 

[acptulsa]

*Mindless insult*

*Mindless insult*

*Mindless insult of reading list*

*10,247,628th repetition of the phrase EPIC FAIL.*

Wrong. Don't blame the victim. Your collective guilt is pathetic.

Who blamed the victim? That makes every bit as much sense as you denying Erick Prince's property rights. I said diligence is necessary. In what way does that let the victims (in this case the U.S. citizen) off the hook?!

 

[acptulsa]

No State, no imperialism. No blackwater contract to destroy private property and break the non aggression axiom.

If you can provide a straight answer to a simple question, answer this: Does the state really, really have a monopoly on coercion? As in, is the state really, really the only entity that ever uses it?

Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.royalgorgebridge.com/History.aspx

Well?

It looks like we have a chicken and egg problem. You say government was the necessity that spawned coercion. I say coercion was the necessity that spawned government. Who's right? Well, as with most chicken and egg problems, we'll never know for certain. But I doubt that the end of government will be the end of coercion. And as soon as you try to enforce your non-coercion axiom, you're assuming authority.

Zoom down the slippery slope!! And no Bill of Rights left to slow your descent, what a pity...

Seems to me the plan might not be ready for prime time.

And don't duck the question with a library card catalog and every curse word in the language. You believe it, articulate it.

 

[paulim]

//Post for Conza//

I'll start with some assumptions Mises' and relate to your post. First lets talk about the difference between higher humans and primitives:

Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired
defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term
and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Although the
statutes and biology consider them to be men, they lack the essential feature
of humanity. The newborn child too is not an acting being. (HumanAction,p.14)

If a newborn is not human, when does he start to be one? That means he is merely an animal until his first "human action". That means anyway, that somehow there occurs something new in human life that all the universe does not possess. Mises calls it ego or will and if it indeed is different from animals it must be indetermined from the things that animals use for their "decision making".

Mises states that human action is always a choice between at least two options:

But acting man chooses, determines, and tries to reach an end. Of two things both of
which he cannot have together he selects one and gives up the other. Action
therefore always involves both taking and renunciation.(HumanAction,p.12)

This description shows me that there are only very few events in human life that could be called "human actions". Only those behaviours would be actions that were preceded by a moment of doubt. The result of this moment however must be a command of the ego, who made a choice. But Mises acknowledges that the will (ego) has a meeting with something else, the "stimuli":

Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions
of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the
universe that determines his life.(HumanAction,p.11)

The action is the conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life? What is then indetermined, and different from animals?

Now lets get to your post. You said that traditionalism is contrary to individual well-being:

The large part of the problem is the State. No state, no IMF, no retarded govt policies, no coercion, no inflation, yada yada.

In terms of some African cultures and tribes, the problem lies with traditionalism, based on primitivism. i.e this is how they did it, so we will mindlessly do it this way as well.

And I asumed that you quoted Mises:

It was the ideas of the classical economists that removed the checks imposed byage-old laws, customs, and prejudices upon technological improvement
and freed the genius of reformers and innovators from the straitjackets
of the guilds, government tutelage, and social pressure of various kinds. (HumanAction,p.8)

I think however that the removal of such barriers is itself a governmental coercion, because guilds were formed naturally between humans. Therefore "human actions" might aim on protecting such institutions themselves.

And finally its no secret that axioms can't be proven true:

In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man’s unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological.(HumanAction,p.15)

I have my doubts that it is the unique aim of all animals and plants to attain happiness, and because of I'm not convinced that man and animal are different in their perception of the enironmental state, that possibly generates aims, I doubt that this axiom is true.

However the book is valuable. I'm too much an eclectic to buy the whole thing.

 

[Conza88]

Who blamed the victim? That makes every bit as much sense as you denying Erick Prince's property rights. I said diligence is necessary. In what way does that let the victims (in this case the U.S. citizen) off the hook?!

All minarchists do. "We didn't stay vigilant / diligent." What you fail to realise is that the market accomplishes this, on its own accord. And who is this "we"?

"We the people" are not the government. There is no positive obligation for the working productive class, to spend their time and labor protecting against the parasitic class.

The parasitic class shouldn't exist. Game, set, match.

 

[Conza88]

If you can provide a straight answer to a simple question, answer this:

If you can provide a straight answer to a simple question, answer this:

What books have you read on anarcho-capitalism? What sources, what articles, what? Any?​

Does the state really, really have a monopoly on coercion? As in, is the state really, really the only entity that ever uses it?

Moving the goal posts fallacy.

SO convenient that you drop, "OVER A GIVEN TERRITORY" . And yes it does.

Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.royalgorgebridge.com/History.aspx

Well?

And here's some light reading for you:

What the State Is​

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in "capital") into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources ("production") and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only "natural" course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by "mixing his labor" with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man's nature, therefore, is the path of "property rights" and the "free market" of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the "jungle" methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

It looks like we have a chicken and egg problem. You say government was the necessity that spawned coercion. I say coercion was the necessity that spawned government. Who's right? Well, as with most chicken and egg problems, we'll never know for certain. But I doubt that the end of government will be the end of coercion. And as soon as you try to enforce your non-coercion axiom, you're assuming authority.

No we don't. And you've just erected a strawman.

If you ACTUALLY understood my position, you know - read something for once... then you'd realise how retarded your "rebuttals" are.

Zoom down the slippery slope!! And no Bill of Rights left to slow your descent, what a pity...

Seems to me the plan might not be ready for prime time.

And don't duck the question with a library card catalog and every curse word in the language. You believe it, articulate it.

What books have you read on anarcho-capitalism? What articles? What sources? What videos? What anything...

Don't duck the question with mindless red herrings... because that is what you're whole responses have been so far.

MASSIVE red herring fallacies.

 

[Conza88]

//Post for Conza//

I'll start with some assumptions Mises' and relate to your post. First lets talk about the difference between higher humans and primitives:

You've mis-characterized what I was referring to and totally missed the point.

This doesn't surprise me.

Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor by Murray N. Rothbard

So essentially, the rest of your response is rather meaningless to this, but whatever.

If a newborn is not human, when does he start to be one? That means he is merely an animal until his first "human action". That means anyway, that somehow there occurs something new in human life that all the universe does not possess. Mises calls it ego or will and if it indeed is different from animals it must be indetermined from the things that animals use for their "decision making".

No it doesn't mean he is an animal. Do you even know what constitutes "human action" ? Aye? If you did, you would understand completely what Mises is saying.

I have the answer, but do you? It's very simple. Since you're a rookie, I'd recommend Rothbard's Man, Economy and State. The first chapter should do. Rothbard is clearer than Mises.

Mises states that human action is always a choice between at least two options:

This description shows me that there are only very few events in human life that could be called "human actions". Only those behaviours would be actions that were preceded by a moment of doubt. The result of this moment however must be a command of the ego, who made a choice. But Mises acknowledges that the will (ego) has a meeting with something else, the "stimuli":

Wrong. Free will is inalienable. Again, you should a profound ignorance of what actually constitutes "human action".

It is purposeful behavior. We always choose an end, and use means to achieve it. Human action.

And you're actually an example of it. If you deny it, you're in a performative contradiction. See: argumentation ethics by Hans Hoppe.

The action is the conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life? What is then indetermined, and different from animals?

Now lets get to your post. You said that traditionalism is contrary to individual well-being:

You've again, completely missed my whole point and it's sent you off into this retarded tangent that has no real bearing on this thread at all. Amusing.

How about you read the Rothbard article above, and then you'll realise the point I was actually making, aye.

And I asumed that you quoted Mises:

Yes and you assumed wrong.

And finally its no secret that axioms can't be proven true:

Wrong. It is apriori. It is a pity you've skimmed a few pgs of one book, and then suddenly, you think you've got all the answers. Axioms are self evident. You're actually confirming it, by trying to deny it.

I have my doubts that it is the unique aim of all animals and plants to attain happiness, and because of I'm not convinced that man and animal are different in their perception of the enironmental state, that possibly generates aims, I doubt that this axiom is true.

You don't understand the axiom you are attempting to deny. Pity.

However the book is valuable. I'm too much an eclectic to buy the whole thing.

Nah, you're too much of a fool. You've read up to page 15 and think you know the book. So arrogant.

 

[Optatron]

And who is this "we"?

Good question.

I'm glad I'm not one of you, and there aren't that many in this world.

The state may fail, idiots may be in abundance, but dreaming (while denying) your utopian fantasy.

 

[Optatron]

Communism, to be fair, has never really existed as it implies people living mutually on a "commune."

oh, they have, it's just that the minute you find out about it somebody has to ruin it for all of us.

 

[Optatron]

But at least I don't avoid every question.

And I'm much too much of an anarchist to let you dictate my summer reading list.

He's just asking you to read up on a subject so you can qualify yourself for a reasonable discussion.

Damn it, Conza, when will you awaken to the truth that most here sympathize with the anarcho-capitalist position, yet both those who self-identify with it and those who don't just don't see how it can be pulled off immediately?

You expect a Chomskyite to awaken to the truth?
If he knew what reality was, he'd not be sitting at his desk yelling FAIL every other post.

In the end, we want to go the same place, but you're focused on the black and white core issues and I'm focused on the road. Think you don't need me, Conza? Then how are you going to get from here to there? By cussing people?

In the end, it's all useless without diligence. All of it.

I've been telling him this all along.
Conza, please stay idealist, we need people like you who blind themselves from realism (or else how do we know how far we can push our hypotheticals?). Purism always got things done, unlike violence and the State, failing all the other times.

 

[Conza88]

Good question.

I'm glad I'm not one of you, and there aren't that many in this world.

The state may fail, idiots may be in abundance, but dreaming (while denying) your utopian fantasy.

There is nothing Utopian about the market.

Try again fool.

 

[Optatron]

There is nothing Utopian about the market.

Try again fool.

yes there is.

thinking that every person will play by the rules and the market can sustain itself from corruption, abuse, violence and fraud.

to think that every person is capable of making the market work for him and participate in a division of labor that benefits every other....beyond naive.

 

[Conza88]

He's just asking you to read up on a subject so you can qualify yourself for a reasonable discussion.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~Herbert Spencer

You expect a Chomskyite to awaken to the truth?
If he knew what reality was, he'd not be sitting at his desk yelling FAIL every other post.

Fail.

I do know what reality is.

I've been telling him this all along.
Conza, please stay idealist, we need people like you who blind themselves from realism (or else how do we know how far we can push our hypotheticals?). Purism always got things done, unlike violence and the State, failing all the other times.

Fail.

"Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself—should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.”

If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.

To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal."

- Egalitarianism a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard​

By the way... your trolling is obvious.

 

[Conza88]

yes there is.

thinking that every person will play by the rules and the market can sustain itself from corruption, abuse, violence and fraud.

STRAWMAN.

Stop erecting them you dickhead... It's either deliberate and you're a troll, or you are delusional beyond belief. Which is it?

4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.

My opinion / stance has never changed... you're trolling is epic fail.

There will still be criminals.. its just that the victims will actually get justice.. and the punishments will actually be appropriate and inhibit repeat offenders.

to think that every person is capable of making the market work for him and participate in a division of labor that benefits every other....beyond naive.

Do you know what the market is? Doesn't seem like it. Aaaaaahhahaah OH, you think you do? Define it then.

 

[Optatron]

STRAWMAN.

Stop erecting them you dickhead... It's either deliberate and you're a troll, or you are delusional beyond belief. Which is it?

Ok then, so the market isn't full proof, and is prone to failure to meet certain demands and abuse. GOOD.

My opinion / stance has never changed... you're trolling is epic fail.

Quote the same passage a million times doesn't make it so, you can't even rephrase it yourself. I can read it off my heart, doesn't mean I agree.

There will still be criminals.. its just that the victims will actually get justice.. and the punishments will actually be appropriate and inhibit repeat offenders.

just wait and see!

Do you know what the market is? Doesn't seem like it. Aaaaaahhahaah OH, you think you do? Define it then.

you're kidding me right?

 

[Optatron]

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~Herbert Spencer

Fail.

I do know what reality is.

saying you know what reality is doesn't make it so.

You're about as credible as Theocrat saying he knows what evolution is.

Funny thing about you, when I ask you for a short answer, you avoid it or post long articles.
When I ask you for details, sometimes phrased in my misunderstanding, all you do is yell FAIL, LIAR, STRAWMAN without bothering to correct yourself (almost as if you're unable to).

 

[Conza88]

Ok then, so the market isn't full proof, and is prone to failure to meet certain demands and abuse. GOOD.

Again, WRONG. Define what a market is.

Quote the same passage a million times doesn't make it so, you can't even rephrase it yourself. I can read it off my heart, doesn't mean I agree.

I can rephrase it. But why should I waste my time on you? You're not worth it dbag. Denying it a million times doesn't make it not true. Keep trying.

just wait and see!

Is the market more efficient than government? Will you care about protecting your property more, than a strangers?

I win, you lose. See if you can follow the implicit logic I am alluding to there. Go on..

you're kidding me right?

Fail. You didn't define, the market.

Come on, time to put up or shut up. Weasel.