[Video] G. Edward Griffin: How Socialism, Communism, Fascism are All the Same

[Sanguine]

This is what I was curious about. You listed in another thread what government was to do. It included healthcare, housing, food (IIRC) and a few other things. You mentioned in even another thread that the "real" definition of anarchy was public control of the means of production in a stateless society. Specifically the factories and things of that nature. I am curious how your anarcho-socialist society would provide for everyone without resorting to the usual provoking-thoughts-of-government schemes. That is, a monopoly control over the issuance of currency, the taxation of the people, and the empire to enforce both. (at home and abroad) Please give me as vivid a picture of anarcho-socialism as you are capable of. I am particularly curious as to how you would provide for the people. What means or methods would be taken to ensure everyone had access to affordable healthcare under your ideal society? What means or methods would be taken so that everyone had a house? And finally, what means or methods would be used to feed everyone?

Anarcho-socialism is for the most part a very broad term, but usually the term refers to a sort of communalism. Basically, the people of a community may pool their resources together and work for the community. Coupling this with the open-source networking technology of the modern world results in a community supporting itself, and strengthened by the sharing of ideas. Alternativly, there may be the syndicalist types of organization, which focuses specifically on industries, and then there's the technocratic, which is division of resources by a central computer or system of that sort. Spooner's market-socialist anarchism promoted self-employment and was more individualistic in outlook. Basically, it's the promotion of the workers rather than the owners. If I may suggest reading material for the technocratic society, this is a society I fully support:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/quin...model-for-social-organisation/295406430567949


I usually do and in fact have read most of what you posted in response to others. Generally speaking there is usually one sentence that irks me and I resign to shaking my head. It's not just you though, if that is any consolation.


Spooner has written some delightful things. I'm sure it would shock your senses to know I quote John Adams as well. And Madison, and Jefferson, and Orwell. Not that they were all socialists, simply that I don't agree with everything they stood for. Frankly I'm not as read in Spooner's works as I wish to be. I ordered a few of his works from abebooks and they never sent them. Disappointing.


And it might surprise you that I quote Hayek frequently (just not here, mostly in socialist discussions). I use the man to keep us honest.

Hell, I've even begrudgingly quoted Reagan when the opportunity arises. You have to recognize who the target audience is and what they will respond to. Before Spooner my signature was Ryan Harvey, who I would imagine shares your views. Musicians are almost always communist-lite.

Bloop.

 

[acptulsa]

His desire to enforce the gold standard again also indicates...

...that while I'm studying up my fifty shades of gray socialism, you need to be studying up on your Ron Paul before said future debate. Assuming I find you worth my time and trouble.

But don't count on it. You don't seem interested in debating, you seem interested in hanging labels on things. You go around saying that a beard is a beard, but a beard is composed of hairs between three and four inches long, and a beard of hairs less than an inch long is this other, unrelated thing called a fark, and a beard with hairs between one and two inches long is a snuzzle, and a beard with hairs between two and three inches is a muggle, and a Duck Dynasty beard is some other thing entirely, and when someone says but they still all have fundamental properties in common--i.e. they are all comprised of facial hair, you get testy.

And, of course, you hang the things you like with pretty sounding labels, and the things you don't like with ugly sounding labels, and as soon as you see which way the winds of favor are blowing concerning, say, Obama, you switch him from a pretty label to an ugly label and wash your hands of him. And even when you can get someone to play at hanging labels with you, you get upset because they hang labels based on true facts (like Ron Paul favors competing currencies) and you hang labels based on the lies msnbc passes off as facts (like Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which he does not do).

And best of all, you call this proto-propagandist self-training debate, and making interesting conversaton, and winning. It might get you a job on NBC some day, if you ever get any good at it. But I have news. Around here, No Body Cares.

Now, I'm ready for you to get into the Christmas Spirit by popping up and denying that all beards are made of facial hair because you saw a Santa at the mall whose beard was made of dacron or nylon or something, and get upset when I point out that a false beard is (by name and by definition) not a beard. Oh, joy.

And it looks like I owe the Banana Republican some rep again, soon as I spread some around (among the non-socialists).

And it might surprise you that I quote Hayek frequently (just not here, mostly in socialist discussions). I use the man to keep us honest.

He couldn't do it even if he were alive and willing to actually work at it. Achieving the impossible is a mighty tall order for a dead man.

 

[Sanguine]

...that while I'm studying up my fifty shades of gray socialism, you need to be studying up on your Ron Paul before said future debate. Assuming I find you worth my time and trouble.

But don't count on it. You don't seem interested in debating, you seem interested in hanging labels on things. You go around saying that a beard is a beard, but a beard is composed of hairs between three and four inches long, and a beard of hairs less than an inch long is this other, unrelated thing called a fark, and a beard with hairs between one and two inches long is a snuzzle, and a beard with hairs between two and three inches is a muggle, and a Duck Dynasty beard is some other thing entirely, and when someone says but they still all have fundamental properties in common--i.e. they are all comprised of facial hair, you get testy.

And, of course, you hang the things you like with pretty sounding labels, and the things you don't like with ugly sounding labels, and as soon as you see which way the winds of favor are blowing concerning, say, Obama, you switch him from a pretty label to an ugly label and wash your hands of him. And even when you can get someone to play at hanging labels with you, you get upset because they hang labels based on true facts (like Ron Paul favors competing currencies) and you hang labels based on the lies msnbc passes off as facts (like Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which he does not do).

And best of all, you call this proto-propagandist self-training debate, and making interesting conversaton, and winning. It might get you a job on NBC some day, if you ever get any good at it. But I have news. Around here, No Body Cares.

Now, I'm ready for you to get into the Christmas Spirit by popping up and denying that all beards are made of facial hair because you saw a Santa at the mall whose beard was made of dacron or nylon or something, and get upset when I point out that a false beard is (by name and by definition) not a beard. Oh, joy.

And it looks like I owe the Banana Republican some rep again, soon as I spread some around (among the non-socialists).



He couldn't do it even if he were alive and willing to actually work at it. Achieving the impossible is a mighty tall order for a dead man.

Lol if I went on NBC, I would be fired after completely shitting on them. Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, he just said that there was an era with the one the US previously had. Obama doesn't get the label of socialist because he isn't a socialist. Stalin was a socialist (a pretty ugly type of one), but so was Lysander Spooner. I'm labelling things because you simply mischaracterize broad terms and make generalizations of the various positions within them, and further conflate them with another ideology. To say it simply, it's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between Tolstoy and Hitler.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Sanguine, Ron Paul advocates for the market to decide what they wish to use as currency. He proposes that people be free to trade in whatever they choose. Whether that be Bitcoin, Federal Reserve Notes, gold, or tulip bulbs. He suspects, and is probably correct in thinking as much, that if given the choice, whether to be paid in depreciating paper or having the option of being paid in gold, i.e. the taxes on gold and the legal tender laws repealed, that people would choose money over IOUs. As far as enforcing a gold standard, government should be out of the business of money completely.

He doesn't have a desire to force people to transact using gold. End the Fed explains his position nicely. The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin explains the origins of the Fed. And What Has Government Done to Our Money by Murray Rothbard concisely analyzes the effects of government meddling with regards to currency. The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul has a section dedicated to his economic views as well. I strongly would encourage you to read the entirety of that book. Andrew Napolitano's, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong is another great that sufficiently explains our monetary policy and the problems within. It documents the absurdity of legal tender laws and explains proficiently the inherent immorality within our funny money monetary system.

 

[acptulsa]

To say it simply, it's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between Tolstoy and Hitler.

Let's see. One lived in a monarchy and wrote novels back before anyone was trying socialism, and the other hung out with Stalin (for a while) and called the system he set up socialism by name (but was admittedly a known liar).

Did I get that much right? Did I earn the right to be one tenth as arrogant as you?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Anarcho-socialism is for the most part a very broad term, but usually the term refers to a sort of communalism. Basically, the people of a community may pool their resources together and work for the community.

"May"? Or they are forced? Like I mentioned in another thread, in the society most here advocate for, you'd be free to do that if you wished. I'm just curious that if in the society you advocate for, if I'd be able to live as I wish? (that is, be left alone)

Coupling this with the open-source networking technology of the modern world results in a community supporting itself, and strengthened by the sharing of ideas. Alternativly, there may be the syndicalist types of organization, which focuses specifically on industries, and then there's the technocratic, which is division of resources by a central computer or system of that sort. Spooner's market-socialist anarchism promoted self-employment and was more individualistic in outlook. Basically, it's the promotion of the workers rather than the owners. If I may suggest reading material for the technocratic society, this is a society I fully support:

I'll read what you linked as I get the chance. Briefly skimming the material, I would clearly not be one to subscribe to the model. It screams totalitarian. Perhaps not at first, and that is a real "perhaps", but eventually the information the computer system has, which will be accessible to various people will be exploited. I'd rather regress from the so called greatness of the 21st century. Maybe I'm just a simpler man. This idea that having every aspect of your being linked to a computer as positive I'd thoroughly reject. One manufactured event away from unimaginable tyranny. Technology can be used for good, yes, but it will also be used to keep you in your stall. Computerized handheld machines, dictating jobs to those it analyzed as proficient is so incredibly anti-human I don't know where to begin. Of course this even ignores the point of, what if I don't want to do the job the computer picked me to do? Shall I be forced because a majority said so? Is that legitimate? I'm sure that if I read the entirety of what you linked, I'd find a multitude of things I strongly reject or abject to. Big Brother 2.0 is what it sounds like to me.

 

[Sanguine]

"May"? Or they are forced? Like I mentioned in another thread, in the society most here advocate for, you'd be free to do that if you wished. I'm just curious that if in the society you advocate for, if I'd be able to live as I wish? (that is, be left alone)


I'll read what you linked as I get the chance. Briefly skimming the material, I would clearly not be one to subscribe to the model. It screams totalitarian. Perhaps not at first, and that is a real "perhaps", but eventually the information the computer system has, which will be accessible to various people will be exploited. I'd rather regress from the so called greatness of the 21st century. Maybe I'm just a simpler man. This idea that having every aspect of your being linked to a computer as positive I'd thoroughly reject. One manufactured event away from unimaginable tyranny. Technology can be used for good, yes, but it will also be used to keep you in your stall. Computerized handheld machines, dictating jobs to those it analyzed as proficient is so incredibly anti-human I don't know where to begin. Of course this even ignores the point of, what if I don't want to do the job the computer picked me to do? Shall I be forced because a majority said so? Is that legitimate? I'm sure that if I read the entirety of what you linked, I'd find a multitude of things I strongly reject or abject to. Big Brother 2.0 is what it sounds like to me.

I don't see too many socialists around these parts. I do not advocate that as I am very opposed to the dominance of one person over another. Anarcho-capitalist society is very prone to setting up regional monopolies in the absence of the state, much like how drug cartels and criminal gangs do.

I don't see how that's totalitarian at all. People just request what they want and do stuff with it. The only reason it may be denied or limited is due to scarcity. Perhaps you read it wrong, as the handhelds don't dictate jobs, they are means for the citizens to vote, raise issues, govern themselves, and find jobs for when they are bored. There's nothing about tracking and recording people, save their material requests.