What is to you the worst/most terrifying ideology?

[Choronzon]

Nietzsche wannabes, lovely.

Summer isn't over yet.

Likes Nietzsche? Clearly ITG troll who wont last the summer.

Man, NSG liberals are hilarious. Anyone who isn't a touchy feely humanist is just dismissed.

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

Nietzsche wannabes, lovely.

Summer isn't over yet.

Dem Summerfriends

[Mavorpen]

That one stealing the money of my hard work, giving my and my family all opportunities away, giving no security to it's citizens and giving all working people's money to the people who don't work.

Capitalism?

[The Most Serene Republic of Alex Morgan]

Anarchism

[Chelovia]

I dunno, Juche? Nazism perhaps.

[Ammar]

Anything with "radical" in its name.

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

That one stealing the money of my hard work, giving my and my family all opportunities away, giving no security to it's citizens and giving all working people's money to the people who don't work.

Capitalism?

Depends, both extreme left and right. Hence conservatism and socialism.

[Saluterre]

Capitalism?

Depends, both extreme left and right. Hence conservatism and socialism.

There is nothing extreme about the workers democratically controlling the means of production. If there are calls for violent revolution, then it's extreme.

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

Depends, both extreme left and right. Hence conservatism and socialism.

There is nothing extreme about the workers democratically controlling the means of production. If there are calls for violent revolution, then it's extreme.

I would be careful with what you say there, such economy hasn't been seen in a modern society, at least, a functional one. Unless if there is a private part in the economy. Hence my support for a mixed market economy.

[Meryuma]

Humanity is not self-sustaining and if your ideology is based around thinking it is than it's at best absurd.



Ah, the great chef Death Metal, cooking up a hearty bowl of anachronism stew.

Also, I'm not a primitivist, it's just better than extreme transhumanism because it's possible and sustainable.

Non Sequitur?

No... primitivism is not sustainable nor possible on any scale but the sort where it's easily overlooked as a group that fell in the cracks, There's a reason our society grew as it industrialized.

As for extreme transhumanism being impossible or unsustainable.... explanation please?

The techno-utopian dream requires massive, unprecedented consumption of resources and we're already running out pretty fast. Primitivism, while not the best ideology, does not face this problem.

Because none of those states actually followed Marx's ideology.

It'd be like calling Christianity the "most terrifying ideology" because of the Branch-Davidians or the KKK.

Christianity has many sects and groups which do not follow those ideologies. How come no commie county has ever followed Marx's ideology, assuming that Cuba/PRNK/USSR is not the ultimate result of it?

Because communism can't be implemented through an authoritarian state.

The one that harms people it disagrees with.

The problem here is that all ideologies inevitably end up hurting people it disagrees with.

Liberals will always tax conservatives, and conservatives will always ban liberals from having abortions.
Even Right-libertarians such as myself who oppose initiation of force will support putting Neo-nazi mass murderer's in jail or executing them because we think the fact that they were killing Jews or Multiculturalist's isn't a good enough excuse and that retaliatory force is OK.

Right-libertarian support for the use of force goes way beyond that.

Stalinism and left-wing liberalism. The first I find abhorrent for historical reasons, and the last for endorsing actions and ideas both degenerate and detrimental to the nation under the guise of "liberty" and "civil rights", as well as often being grossly hypocritical.

"Degeneracy" is an arbitrary concept.

Slave Morality, also known as all Morality.

Morality calls some things "good" and some things "evil," and then says "Don't do the evil things!"

What weaklings. It is not that picking morality is an act of weakness, but that morality is just a manifest way to pretend that purpose is imbued in action before one has decided what one wants. In adopting morality, one wills oneself into weakness.

For any goal, there are "good" things that help achieve that goal, and then there are "bad" things for that goal. But I suppose the fettered, the slave-moralists, can keep their delusions. But it will be funny when they complain that I am locking more literal chains upon them; they will claim to deserve better. The corpse of their will oozes out and tries to smother me in their lack of self-actualization. What a waste of potential.

Y'know, I'm an egoist anarchist but I don't act all ITG about it.

Also you're misusing the whole master morality/slave morality thing.

Democracy. Because its responsible for fascism, communism, and everything else genocidal.

Communism isn't genocidal and fascism is anti-democratic.

There is nothing extreme about the workers democratically controlling the means of production. If there are calls for violent revolution, then it's extreme.

I would be careful with what you say there, such economy hasn't been seen in a modern society, at least, a functional one. Unless if there is a private part in the economy. Hence my support for a mixed market economy.

There's no such thing as a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism.

[Saluterre]

There is nothing extreme about the workers democratically controlling the means of production. If there are calls for violent revolution, then it's extreme.

I would be careful with what you say there, such economy hasn't been seen in a modern society, at least, a functional one. Unless if there is a private part in the economy. Hence my support for a mixed market economy.

It has existed in many cases on a microeconomic level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

I would be careful with what you say there, such economy hasn't been seen in a modern society, at least, a functional one. Unless if there is a private part in the economy. Hence my support for a mixed market economy.

It has existed in many cases on a microeconomic level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

But not on a national scale

There is nothing extreme about the workers democratically controlling the means of production. If there are calls for violent revolution, then it's extreme.

I would be careful with what you say there, such economy hasn't been seen in a modern society, at least, a functional one. Unless if there is a private part in the economy. Hence my support for a mixed market economy.

There's no such thing as a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism.[/quote]

But a mix between public and private is possible.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Christianity has many sects and groups which do not follow those ideologies. How come no commie county has ever followed Marx's ideology, assuming that Cuba/PRNK/USSR is not the ultimate result of it?

Because communism can't be implemented through an authoritarian state.

[/quote]

I'd say it can, but those at the top would have to relinquish all of their power, which is a very unlikely scenario.

[Saluterre]

It has existed in many cases on a microeconomic level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

But not on a national scale

No, but given the success of worker cooperatives as an effective way of generating wealth, there's no reason for it not to work on a national scale.

There's no such thing as a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism.

But a mix between public and private is possible.

Government is irrelevant to socialism. Keynesian economic principles can be applied in a capitalist or socialist system.

[Los Malvinas Son Peruano]

Still, I would rather life in a capitalist country with Keynesian influences. Capitalism has proved to work properly and it works in my country good enough.

[The Emerald Legion]

Non Sequitur?

No... primitivism is not sustainable nor possible on any scale but the sort where it's easily overlooked as a group that fell in the cracks, There's a reason our society grew as it industrialized.

As for extreme transhumanism being impossible or unsustainable.... explanation please?

The techno-utopian dream requires massive, unprecedented consumption of resources and we're already running out pretty fast. Primitivism, while not the best ideology, does not face this problem.

Actually it does. Even more so than transhumanism. Simply because the human race at it's current levels cannot sustain itself at primitivist technological levels. If the whole world went amish, lots of people would starve. And any ideaology that requires mass murder isn't a good one as far as I'm concerned.

[Ordo Drakul]

Socialism-totally backwards, anti-human, anti-life, and it's adherents swear every attempt at it wasn't the real thing, though always with identical results...

Go read Marx. Then you cancome back and alk about socialism

Go understand Marx, and you'll have no need to waste your time on it.

[Meryuma]

The techno-utopian dream requires massive, unprecedented consumption of resources and we're already running out pretty fast. Primitivism, while not the best ideology, does not face this problem.

Actually it does. Even more so than transhumanism. Simply because the human race at it's current levels cannot sustain itself at primitivist technological levels. If the whole world went amish, lots of people would starve. And any ideaology that requires mass murder isn't a good one as far as I'm concerned.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Generally, people who are anti-civ (both primitivist and otherwise) want to minimize catastrophe but view a collapse as inevitable and involuntary. Most primitivists don't want a bunch of people to die off, and those who do are acknowledged as fucked up by everyone else.

[Distruzio]

Go read Marx. Then you cancome back and alk about socialism

Go understand Marx, and you'll have no need to waste your time on it.

To be fair, Marxists didn't understand Marx until his theories were elaborated on later. The guy was a genius, there is no doubt, but he bounced around so much and failed to maintain consistent definitions or consistent words for definitions that it made his writing a bit difficult to follow. You kind of need a preconceived notion of what to look for in order for his original writing to make sense. So for someone who, as you say, fails to understand Marx to actually understand Marx, perhaps Marx himself isn't the best choice of Marxist authors to suggest?

[Zaras]

Man, NSG liberals are hilarious. Anyone who isn't a touchy feely humanist is just dismissed.

Beats defending and excusing intolerance, or flaunting closed-mindedness.

I mean, really, I don't see the appeal in being the opposite of a touchy feely humanist. Never have, never will.

The fact that you think "touchy feely humanist" is an insult doesn't reflect well on ya, Chor.

[Loli Pangaea]

Religious extremism, any far right wing economic ideology, and the concept of a dictatorship or oligarchy. I have a feeling most people would say about the same thing though.

[The Emerald Legion]

Actually it does. Even more so than transhumanism. Simply because the human race at it's current levels cannot sustain itself at primitivist technological levels. If the whole world went amish, lots of people would starve. And any ideaology that requires mass murder isn't a good one as far as I'm concerned.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Generally, people who are anti-civ (both primitivist and otherwise) want to minimize catastrophe but view a collapse as inevitable and involuntary. Most primitivists don't want a bunch of people to die off, and those who do are acknowledged as fucked up by everyone else.

Actually. Living with a Primitivist means I already know. I was leaving them out simply because I felt it was a cheap shot. Considering the vast majority I've seen are outright paranoid.

[Choronzon]

Man, NSG liberals are hilarious. Anyone who isn't a touchy feely humanist is just dismissed.

Beats defending and excusing intolerance, or flaunting closed-mindedness.

I wasn't aware anyone was defending or excusing intolerance, or flaunting close mindedness. Just attacking humanism.

But why let that stop you from judging and accusing. Not only do I not care even in the slightest how I'm viewed by strangers on the internet, but it will also foster tolerance and understanding.

[Choronzon]

in b4 ITG

[Zaras]

Not only do I not care even in the slightest how I'm viewed by strangers on the internet, but it will also foster tolerance and understanding.

Not sure how attacking people as "touchy-feely humanists" fosters that. *Fry squint*