• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for a Leftist (and Post-Leftist) learning thread

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
So, first, I'd like to define Leftism: any ideology that advocates an end to capitalism in favor of a more egalitarian political economy such as socialism or communism.

Post-Leftism is an ideology that can only be attributed to insurrectionary anarchism.

Communism is an ideology and advocates a classless, stateless society with the idea "from each according to their ability, to each according I their needs".

So, by definition, there is no such thing as a communist state.

Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. The state is not necessarily abolished.

Anarchism is an ideology that advocates a complete destruction of all hierarchies. This means that the only economic system it is compatible with is communism.

Now lets start hearing some questions. I will answer everything I know the answer to. If I do not know the answer I'll direct you to a place where you may find an answer.

And finally, lets keep it civil.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So, first, I'd like to define Leftism: any ideology that advocates an end to capitalism in favor of a more egalitarian political economy such as socialism or communism.
Absolute bullshat definition.
Capitalism and socialism are not at all exclusive of each other, or even at odds with one another. The two co-exist in most countries of the world including the USA and most all communist countries.
Anarchism is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Libertarians want to abolish most of the functions of government. That is anarchy.
Most countries where capitalism thrives are democratic socialistic states.
 
Last edited:

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Absolute bullshat definition.
Capitalism and socialism are not at all exclusive of each other, or even at odds with one another. The two co-exist in most countries of the world including the USA and most all communist countries.
Anarchism is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Libertarians want to abolish most of the functions of government. That is anarchy.

Please, keep it civil.

Capitalism may include socialist measures. This does not mean that a capitalism and socialism are working together. It means that reforms have been made to appease oppressed groups.

Anarchism doesn't just advocate the abolishment of government, but rather an abolishment of hierarchies. You can see this based off of the direct meaning of the word, quite literally "no ruler, rules". American libertarianism is nothing like anarchism, as it favors capitalism, which is inherently hierarchical.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Capitalism and socialism are not at all exclusive of each other, or even at odds with one another. The two co-exist in most countries of the world including the USA and most all communist countries.

Usually in the form of Crony Capitalism, which is inherently doomed to failure.

Anarchism is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Libertarians want to abolish most of the functions of government. That is anarchy.

Libertarianism is like but not Anarchy. Libertarianism advocates less government. Anarchism factors no government. Both advocate reduction of government size, but to different levels.

Most countries where capitalism thrives are democratic socialistic states.

I assume you will be talking about Europe?
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Please, keep it civil.

Capitalism may include socialist measures. This does not mean that a capitalism and socialism are working together. It means that reforms have been made to appease oppressed groups.

Anarchism doesn't just advocate the abolishment of government, but rather an abolishment of hierarchies. You can see this based off of the direct meaning of the word, quite literally "no ruler, rules". American libertarianism is nothing like anarchism, as it favors capitalism, which is inherently hierarchical.
The problem here is you wish to discuss textbook idiological definitions and I am talking about pragmatic reality.
Most countries where capitalism thrives are social democracys. The USA, France, Germany, Italy,all the Scandinavian countries,The UK, Japan, South Korea etc...
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
The problem here is you wish to discuss textbook idiological definitions and I am talking about pragmatic reality.
Most countries where capitalism thrives are democratic socialistic states. The USA, France, Germany, Italy,all the Scandinavian countries,The UK, Japan, South Korea etc...

None of these places are socialistic states. There is not a single socialistic state in existence, and there is yet to be one.

It can be argued that those places are not democratic either, based on the fact that whoever has more money into their campaign is more likely to win, and who gets more money is determined by the bourgeoisie and the capitalists. Then, it is the job of the state and the politicians that are in it to advocate for the bourgeoisie and the capitalists.

I wouldn't call that "the rule of the people".

You say "The problem here is you wish to discuss textbook idiological definitions and I am talking about pragmatic reality."

What you are failing to understand is that just because someone calls it socialism doesn't mean it's socialism, even if it's called that by the people who are there.

That's like me calling a rock a rise and you just agreeing with me because I decided to call it a rose. But it's still a rock.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Libertarianism is like but not Anarchy. Libertarianism advocates less government. Anarchism factors no government. Both advocate reduction of government size, but to different levels.

Yes. All that separates anarchism from libertarianism is a matter of degree. There are no real countries that can claim a pure anarchistic or a pure libertarian states.
The obvious reasons are that neither could work as a successful country.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Yes. All that separates anarchism from libertarianism is a matter of degree. There are no real countries that can claim a pure anarchistic or a pure libertarian states.
The obvious reasons are that neither could work as a successful country.

Anarchism advocates the destruction of all borders. You cannot have socialism, communism, or anarchism in one country.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes. All that separates anarchism from libertarianism is a matter of degree. There are no real countries that can claim a pure anarchistic or a pure libertarian states.
The obvious reasons are that neither could work as a successful country.

1) would you mind quoting my name next time since it didn't come up as a notification. :)

2)Anarchism would likely form small power blocs throughout the country with near tribal leaders and warlords. Libertarianism would maintain law, order, infrastructure and national security. Therefore giving people the essentials and allowing themselves to lead their own lives without interference in what they can and cannot do. It is true that there is no such thing as a pure Libertarian state, however some have tendencies and there is no such thing as and anarchist country, since it would have collapsed.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Anarchism would likely form small power blocs throughout the country with near tribal leaders and warlords. Libertarianism would maintain law, order, infrastructure and national security. Therefore giving people the essentials and allowing themselves to lead their own lives without interference in what they can and cannot do. It is true that there is no such thing as a pure Libertarian state, however some have tendencies and there is no such thing as and anarchist country, since it would have collapsed.

There is such a thing as anarchist law and anarchist order. It is just operated without a state.

However, of course there are no anarchist countries. Like I said above, you cannot have anarchism, communism, or socialism in one country.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
None of these places are socialistic states. There is not a single socialistic state in existence, and there is yet to be one.

I could just as easily argue that no countries in the world are pure capitalistic or democratic states.
The most successful countries in the world are a blend of democratic socialistic and capitalistic systems. The balance is slightly different from country to country but all three co-exist in all successful countries.

I would define the success of a country by the happiness of the people and their standards of living.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is such a thing as anarchist law and anarchist order. It is just operated without a state.

However, of course there are no anarchist countries. Like I said above, you cannot have anarchism, communism, or socialism in one country.

But that Anarchist law is not conducted by a centralised government, due to it being concentrated around little locales it is hardly a "country" in the definition of one.
Anarchist law is possible as you stated, its like just having local government and not state or federal. It depends on where you are and it varies but locale.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
I could just as easily argue that no countries in the world are pure capitalistic

Lets hear it.

Capitalism uses socialist measures to maintain it's survival.

or democratic states.

There are no democratic states.

The most successful countries in the world are a blend of democratic socialistic and capitalistic systems. The balance is slightly different from country to country but all three co-exist in all successful countries.

Again, they are capitalist with socialist measures in place to keep the proletariat from revolting.

I would define the success of a country by the happiness of the people and their standards of living.

I agree with this definition, but can we change "country" to "system"?
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
1) would you mind quoting my name next time since it didn't come up as a notification. :)

2)Anarchism would likely form small power blocs throughout the country with near tribal leaders and warlords. Libertarianism would maintain law, order, infrastructure and national security. Therefore giving people the essentials and allowing themselves to lead their own lives without interference in what they can and cannot do. It is true that there is no such thing as a pure Libertarian state, however some have tendencies and there is no such thing as and anarchist country, since it would have collapsed.
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
But that Anarchist law is not conducted by a centralised government, due to it being concentrated around little locales it is hardly a "country" in the definition of one.
Anarchist law is possible as you stated, its like just having local government and not state or federal. It depends on where you are and it varies but locale.

You're still operating under the idea that anarchism can exist while there are still non-anarchist countries.

However, what is the problem with having decentralized law? Meaning, law that is not enforced by a state? (As all governments and states are centralized).
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I could just as easily argue that no countries in the world are pure capitalistic or democratic states.
The most successful countries in the world are a blend of democratic socialistic and capitalistic systems. The balance is slightly different from country to country but all three co-exist in all successful countries.

Just as their is no pure socialist state, there is no pure, laissez faire free market capitalist state. The most successful countries vary by ideology and variants on the factors taken in to decide (As I will outline below). Therefore there are some such as the UAE (Authoritarian capitalists), strong economy but not very free or high standard of living for most people. However in the UK (Democratic Capitalist) for example the economy is on a downturn but we are free and a high standard of living is expected. In China the economy is strong but there is very little freedom and a low standard of living. The main way to designate a successful country is to look at the economy, freedom and standard of living.

I would define the success of a country by the happiness of the people and their standards of living.

I would define it by the state of the economy, the freedom of people and standards of living. As I said above.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.

Capitalism is not a theoretical ideology.

Also, feudalism was not a theoretical ideology yet it worked.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're still operating under the idea that anarchism can exist while there are still non-anarchist countries.

However, what is the problem with having decentralized law? Meaning, law that is not enforced by a state? (As all governments and states are centralized).

Global anarchism will never happen unless there is a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions. An Anarchist state will likely be "intruded" into the country by the UN or someone and re-establishing national law and order.
Nothing wrong with decentralised law, its just that I wouldn't consider a state a country if the only law was local law.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Just as their is no pure socialist state, there is no pure, laissez faire free market capitalist state. The most successful countries vary by ideology and variants on the factors taken in to decide (As I will outline below). Therefore there are some such as the UAE (Authoritarian capitalists), strong economy but not very free or high standard of living for most people. However in the UK (Democratic Capitalist) for example the economy is on a downturn but we are free and a high standard of living is expected. In China the economy is strong but there is very little freedom and a low standard of living. The main way to designate a successful country is to look at the economy, freedom and standard of living.



I would define it by the state of the economy, the freedom of people and standards of living. As I said above.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not the first form of communism, how can it be considered the pure form of capitalism?
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I agree with this definition, but can we change "country" to "system"?
The Soviet block has dissolved so I think country fits all modern definitions of "governments".
Again I am talking pragmatic reality and you wish to discuss theoretical "systems" of government. They do not exist.
There is capitalism in the most communist countries and there is socialism the most democratic countries.
You insist in speaking about absolutes that simply do not exist.
Again, all successful countries ... governments if you must, are some blend of democracy socialism and capitalism.
What is wrong with that?
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Global anarchism will never happen unless there is a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions. An Anarchist state will likely be "intruded" into the country by the UN or someone and re-establishing national law and order.

Two things, but they're rather minor.

First, you can't have an anarchist state (anarchism is antithetical to the idea of a state).

Second, that's why anarchists call for global insurrection.

Nothing wrong with decentralised law, its just that I wouldn't consider a state a country if the only law was local law.

To reiterate, anarchism is opposed to states, but other wise, yes, nothing is wrong with decentralized law.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A country run by tribal leaders would be a tribal state. A country run by warlords would be a marshal state. Pure anarchy simply could not exist . It is a theoretical ideology just like libertarianism, capitalism and communism. Theoretical ideology does not exist in reality. Every successful country is some blend.

Correct, however any pure ideology cannot exist.
There is neither a pure socialist state, since there are many variations, such as Syndicalism or state socialism. There has never been a pure socialist state, neither has a semi socialist state (such as Venezuela) succeeded as well as a semi capitalist state such as the US. In Venezuela all basic goods disappeared after the "Socialist dream" was implemented by Chavez. There has never been a socialist state based on syndicalism.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Capitalism is not a theoretical ideology.

Also, feudalism was not a theoretical ideology yet it worked.
Worked ??
By what measure? the Success of a handful of lords and kings?
Again success of a country's government should be measured by the happiness and standards of living of all it's people.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Two things, but they're rather minor.

First, you can't have an anarchist state (anarchism is antithetical to the idea of a state).

Second, that's why anarchists call for global insurrection.

1) You know what I mean :roll:, An area that was formally run by a government that had descended into anarchy.

2) But most people don't want anarchy, so it wont happen anytime soon. Sorry.
 

EchoShock

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
The Soviet block has dissolved so I think country fits all modern definitions of "governments".

The reason I don't wanna use countries is because anarchism, communism, etc... Is antithetical to countries. System is an all around more accurate term.

Buck Ewer;1062201474Again I am talking pragmatic reality and you wish to discuss theoretical "systems" of government. They do not exist. There is capitalism in the most communist countries and there is socialism the most democratic countries.[/QUOTE said:
There is no country that is even remotely communist.

Buck Ewer;1062201474You insist in speaking about absolutes that simply do not exist.[/QUOTE said:
Prove to me that there is not an absolute capitalism.

Buck Ewer;1062201474Again said:
The problem is that socialist measures without total socialism cannot be considered as relatin to socialism.
 
Top Bottom