Kraannei wrote:SOME of what Trotsky said (world revolution, etc) is stuff that I agree with.
I don't mean to nitpick, but is world revolution necessarily a Trotskyist idea? I thought it was something all Marxists agreed on.
Advertisement
by Kumuri » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Kraannei wrote:SOME of what Trotsky said (world revolution, etc) is stuff that I agree with.
by Arglorand » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:15 pm
by The Republic of Gardium » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:37 pm
by Threlizdun » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:17 pm
I am aware you are not a Leninist; I was simply advising against adopting sympathies for Trotskyist currents. World revolution is an ideal found in many socialist ideologies, so there is no reason to look to Trotsky for such "contributions" as he was far from the first to offer such a viewpoint.Kraannei wrote:Threlizdun wrote:And most use the word incorrectly. The proper term to refer to a stateless society is simply "stateless society", not "anarchy".
Alone it doesn't, though within the context of the conversation it was meant to refer to collectivist anarchism, which advocates abolition of private property and the market but maintains currency as labor notes that are exchanged for resources.
Trotskyism is not compatable with libertarian interpretations of Marxism and most certainly isn't compatable with anarchism. Trotsky slaughtered political opponents en masse. He crushed the independent communes, strikers, and Russian and Ukrainian anarchists. The man was a monster. Leninism is an authoritarian ideology that cannot be reconciled with libertarian traditions.
No, all socialist societies were socialist; state capitalist societies were state capitalist. All human societies were socialist throughout the vast majority of our existence. There has never been a point in human history that socialism hasn't existed. Small communes always have existed and large scale societies such as Anarchist Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory functioned relatively well prior to losing in the Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War respectively. It isn't hard to find modern communes, and there are even larger corporate entities such as the Mondragon Corporation that operate on a basis of worker ownership. Real life examples of socialism put into practice exist all around you. More often than not they don't even realize they are operating on a socialist model.
I am NOT a Leninist. I am NOT a Trotskyist either. I AM a libertarian Marxist. SOME of what Trotsky said (world revolution, etc) is stuff that I agree with.
"Classical liberal" is term you are most likely looking for.The Republic of Gardium wrote:I put conservative and libertarian. Economically, hard right. Socially, I call myself a libertarian. I believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, place that wherever you want it.
by Lemanrussland » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:03 pm
by The Republic of Gardium » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:19 am
"Classical liberal" is term you are most likely looking for.[/quote]The Republic of Gardium wrote:I put conservative and libertarian. Economically, hard right. Socially, I call myself a libertarian. I believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, place that wherever you want it.
by Atlanticatia » Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:40 am
Lemanrussland wrote:I'm a liberal, in the sense that I think liberty is a good thing and that maximizing liberty for everyone should be the moral goal of public policy.
In my opinion, in order to have liberty, people need to have two basic things -- freedom from coercion, and agency (the ability or opportunity to do things). In order to ensure people have agency and freedom from coercion, some freedoms need to be curtailed.
Actions which coerce or harm others, both directly and indirectly, have to be restricted or regulated. Your freedom to swing your fist (or to pollute the air) ends where my nose begins. In order to have agency, people need economic opportunity and social mobility. Social mobility and economic opportunity are guaranteed through social policy (first and foremost, through the provision of primary education and healthcare). Taxation is needed to finance the services required to provide protection from harm (from external aggressors through defense, and internal ones through the justice system), and to guarantee social mobility.
A secondary task of government should be to provide a framework for free economic transactions and to ensure a competitive, orderly, and efficient allocation of resources. Provision of infrastructure and other public goods, property rights, legal liability, freedom of contract, contract enforcement, a stable financial/monetary system, and competition law (to name a few things) are needed for this purpose. Sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for a modern state. Even countries often considered to be very market oriented like Hong Kong follow this principle. (there it was called positive non-interventionism, where the state provides a framework for economic decision making rather than directing it or making the decisions itself).
Lastly, there needs to be a means to control the institutions needed to fulfill this mission. I favor a representative, liberal democracy, in which the people exercise control over their government, while individual rights are protected through constitutional safeguards, the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances.
by Great Kleomentia » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:03 am
by Aurulie » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:14 am
by The Scientific States » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:19 am
Aurulie wrote:Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty, Anti-Affirmative Action, Anti-Drug, Anti-Illegal immigrant, Pro Separation of Church and State, Pro-Science and Environment and Anti-Gay Far Right Conservative. Republicans may be horrible but they're better than Democrats.
by Aurulie » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:24 am
The Scientific States wrote:Aurulie wrote:Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty, Anti-Affirmative Action, Anti-Drug, Anti-Illegal immigrant, Pro Separation of Church and State, Pro-Science and Environment and Anti-Gay Far Right Conservative. Republicans may be horrible but they're better than Democrats.
You claim to be pro science, but given your beliefs that seems to not be the case.
by -Arabiyah- » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:25 am
by The Rebel Alliances » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:32 am
The Starlight wrote:Rebel Force: Noun - A strange power associated with street-level characters who are the weakest, yet most powerful of all.
by Aurulie » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:38 am
The Rebel Alliances wrote:I am a Southern Nationalist in ideology. On standard politics, I am quite centrist. Economically I am pretty far right, socially more to the left. Internationally, I am keep to ourselves. I desire my state and Region to secede from the US. A view quite different than most. But I think it is slowly growing. I am firm about the separation being gradual and peaceful. And to use established institutions to advocate it. Been southern nationalist for three years now. And I am quite the moderate in the organization. Like any other we have a lunatic fringe, who advocate any means necessary. No one really pays them any attention. Then another minority who simply want a wait it out approach. On economics, I believe in the free market. Perhaps too much so, when I needed and was qualified to take government assistance, I did not. Instead seeking aid from family and my church. To get by until I landed myself a job, and then payed my debts back. I am fairly liberal in social issues. Anti death penalty, pro LGBT, Pro marriage equality ext.
by The Rebel Alliances » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:44 am
Aurulie wrote:The Rebel Alliances wrote:I am a Southern Nationalist in ideology. On standard politics, I am quite centrist. Economically I am pretty far right, socially more to the left. Internationally, I am keep to ourselves. I desire my state and Region to secede from the US. A view quite different than most. But I think it is slowly growing. I am firm about the separation being gradual and peaceful. And to use established institutions to advocate it. Been southern nationalist for three years now. And I am quite the moderate in the organization. Like any other we have a lunatic fringe, who advocate any means necessary. No one really pays them any attention. Then another minority who simply want a wait it out approach. On economics, I believe in the free market. Perhaps too much so, when I needed and was qualified to take government assistance, I did not. Instead seeking aid from family and my church. To get by until I landed myself a job, and then payed my debts back. I am fairly liberal in social issues. Anti death penalty, pro LGBT, Pro marriage equality ext.
I'm from the South and I'm here to tell you succession from the Union will be the death of us economically.
The Starlight wrote:Rebel Force: Noun - A strange power associated with street-level characters who are the weakest, yet most powerful of all.
by Great Kleomentia » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:45 am
by Othelos » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:45 am
The Rebel Alliances wrote:Aurulie wrote:I'm from the South and I'm here to tell you succession from the Union will be the death of us economically.
I respectfully disagree. Although this is a common mindset. Take just Louisiana for example, overall a poor state in comparison to the rest of the US. Louisiana sits on the Gulf Coast, and controls the Mississippi River. Now, as is, all trade moves into that river, and money and trades of goods and services enter into Louisiana, and is taken by DC and spread out across the expanse of the nation. Now, if independent, any and all goods, profits and services moving in, stays in Louisiana. To benefit Louisiana. The port of New Orleans is one of the busiest on the North American Continent, also, Louisiana has a population of less than 5 million, a highly sustainable and manageable population, where you would not need the worlds largest economy to support.
Regardless, while their are risks in seeking separation, there are rewards as well if done the right way.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Drachovia, Emotional Support Crocodile, The Xenopolis Confederation, Yasuragi
Advertisement