The Marxist Society of TSR Watch

CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#321
Report 8 years ago
#321
(Original post by SunOfABeach)
Lol, Chomsky claims that you have two illegitimate powers. State power and private power - the corporations. They are both illegitimate but one more than the other. The state is somewhat accountable to the public (because people vote) whereas the corporations aren't (?...).

Both points are disputable ofc. First of all, voters do not know what the hell they are voting for. And I don't exempt myself. I voted for the Lib Dems but I didn't know **** about their policies. I was interested in their social policies but I knew nothing about foreign or economic policies of the party. So I kind of screwed the general public because of my ignorance. Caplan has a book about this - The Myth of the Rational Voter. The cost of individuals educating themselves about public policy far outweights the benefits therefore the public (me) remains ignorant of public policy for a good reason.

That doesn't mean that democracy in general is inefficient. But the kind of democracy which Chomsky (and other Anarchists) currently root(s) for, namely representative democracy, does NOT work.

The second point ofc is ridicilous. I do not know why corporations aren't accountable to the public. There's such a thing as marketplace democracy and Chomsky admits that (even Moore does). The problem is that once corporations get into trouble, marketplace democracy goes out of the window and Obama comes in. But check Sweden. What happened to SAAB? Swedes and, I guess, the rest of the world, decided that SAAB was not producing cars they wanted to buy. And the company went bankrupt. Why is that not a good example of the accountability or the democracy of the marketplace when the government does not interfere?
I find his state and corporations suck but state sucks less argument very odd, because I agree with him in saying both are bad, but I prefer corporations for a few reasons.

Firstly most states are NOT democratic/accountable, does Chomsky think corporations are more oppressive then the North Korean state? Your argument covers democratic states well, but you're being too generous in starting there, democratic states are a minority now and throughout history.

Secondly I agree with you that corporations are accountable. It takes mass effort which is difficult, but it IS possible to defeat a corporation by not working for them and not going there. In the UK we could bring down tescos ourselves and use butchers, grocers etc again. Its difficult, but its less so then getting rid of a dictatorship state.

Finally, without the state there would be less corporate clout anyways, because the government gets lobbied by big business to suit its interests, because taxes/regulations hinder a small business more than a large corporation and so on. So Chomskys evaluation of the private sphere isn't valid because he isn't looking at it, hes looking at STATE capitalism.

But er, whats any of this to do with anarchists supporting income tax, by the way? As interesting as this is! :p:
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#322
Report 8 years ago
#322
(Original post by Stalin)
I like Stalin, but I be hatin' on government. It also adds to the lulz, but to the average Joe an anarchist, leninist, marxist, maoist, fascist, stalinist, communist and a socialist are very much the same thing.

I'd adopt the Soviet Union flag but the TSR version of it looks hideous.
No such thing as the average Joe of any of those. The aforementioned predominantly consists of over-emotional middle-class adolescent students.

Get a time machine I say, and send em back to the Eastern Bloc. See if they are still into it after that.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#323
Report 8 years ago
#323
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
I think Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes
I despise the war on terror
I'd stop all support for Israel
I'd legalise brothels
I'd legalise all drugs including heroin
I'd abolish the monarchy
I'd stop this civil partnerships crap and call it marriage
I'd have a fully elected second chamber
I want to end state corporatism, and help small business
I'd take anybody earning under £20k out of income tax

You have a strange definition of right wing! I just don't think private profit is evilz, gimmie a break. :p:
I'm iffy about trying them for war crimes. One half of me agrees with them because despite of their plan to remove Saddam(who was never a threat) the war has at least brought democracy to Iraq, but the other half(and half is an understatement) of me disagrees with them because of the sheer death toll of the affair. Had they really wanted Saddam out they would've finished him off when his army had been decisively defeated during Desert Storm.

Many people have been lambasting Israel over its usage of white phosphorous in Gaza but these clowns overlook the fact that the US used exactly the same weapons in Baghdad and Fallujah, oh double standards, I hate it.
0
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#324
Report 8 years ago
#324
(Original post by Time Tourist)
No such thing as the average Joe of any of those. The aforementioned predominantly consists of over-emotional middle-class adolescent students.

Get a time machine I say, and send em back to the Eastern Bloc. See if they are still into it after that.
He didn't say there was an average Joe of these things though, he was explaining how each of them appear similar to the average Joe.

Anyway, I'm not sure I want to join this society but some interesting conversation to be sure.
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#325
Report 8 years ago
#325
(Original post by Stricof)
Pah...Anarcho Capitalist/Right Libertarian then. Still right wing :hand:

If not. What kinda libertarian?
I'm not an ararchist because I'm not a dogmatic libertarian, I don't just adhere to the ideology for the sake of doing so, but instead I only support it because I happen to think it leads to the best outcomes for humanity.

Read this wiki page about what I am, because its only three paragraphs.

So in other words I am prepared to go against strict libertarian philosophy.

- I want to give benefits to disabled people. :eek:
- I want the state to pay the private health insurance bill for working class people. :eek2:
- I don't think people have the right to bear nuclear arms. :eek3:

And so on ... so yeah I suppose you'd still call me a Minarchist and "right-wing", but I just want you to know I wouldn't really call MYSELF right-wing, and I don't appreciate the label.
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#326
Report 8 years ago
#326
(Original post by iwilson03)
He didn't say there was an average Joe of these things though, he was explaining how each of them appear similar to the average Joe.

Anyway, I'm not sure I want to join this society but some interesting conversation to be sure.

you're right, my bad....

I still stand by my principle assertion though
0
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#327
Report 8 years ago
#327
(Original post by Time Tourist)
you're right, my bad....

I still stand by my principle assertion though
Hmm I disagree, I'm not sure you can stereotype like that. Certainly a lot of 'rebel' middle class teenagers label themselves socialists etc., but many genuinely believe in the system. Just as you must genuinely believe in what, a conservative (small c) society?
0
reply
pumpkin gets a snakebite
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#328
Report 8 years ago
#328
(Original post by Time Tourist)
you're right, my bad....

I still stand by my principle assertion though
I'm not entirely sure the 'average Joe' sees fascists and anarchists as essentially the same, but still, I broadly agree with yr point.

(Original post by Abiraleft)
What do people think about the use of mass strikes in political protest?
Agree with it. Think there should be less rules against trade unions, and more mass strikes.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#329
Report 8 years ago
#329
(Original post by Time Tourist)
No such thing as the average Joe of any of those. The aforementioned predominantly consists of over-emotional middle-class adolescent students.

Get a time machine I say, and send em back to the Eastern Bloc. See if they are still into it after that.
You misunderstood me. The average Joe, thanks to Glenn Beck now thinks that a fascist and an anarchist are the same thing. What's even funnier is that the average Joe in the US thinks that Obama is a socialist.

That's hardly communism though, that's authoritarianism in it's purest form.
0
reply
username202682
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#330
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#330
(Original post by iwilson03)
Anyway, I'm not sure I want to join this society
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#331
Report 8 years ago
#331
(Original post by Stricof)
Aha, well I'm not sure I'm a big fan of Marx? And in truth I haven't read enough to fully understand what being a 'Marxist' even means? (At least I admit ignorance!)
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#332
Report 8 years ago
#332
(Original post by Stalin)
I'm iffy about trying them for war crimes. One half of me agrees with them because despite of their plan to remove Saddam(who was never a threat) the war has at least brought democracy to Iraq, but the other half(and half is an understatement) of me disagrees with them because of the sheer death toll of the affair. Had they really wanted Saddam out they would've finished him off when his army had been decisively defeated during Desert Storm.

Many people have been lambasting Israel over its usage of white phosphorous in Gaza but these clowns overlook the fact that the US used exactly the same weapons in Baghdad and Fallujah, oh double standards, I hate it.
Americas and our stance to the middle east has been absolutely awful for a long time now. We were the ones encouraging the radical islamists to fight the soviet union, and we supplied them with weapons, we helped train them!

We've also been meddling in their domestic affairs for so long now, look at what happened when Iran had a democratic government that nationalised oil, we go and overthrow them. Its just like Hamas in the gaza region - we support democracy, we go to war over democracy and kill 800,000 people, but it has to be the RIGHT democracy? You can't elect the 'wrong' people, which goes to show that its not democracy we want, its having a pro-western leader by any means necessary.

Thats also shown by the fact that a pro-western dictatorship is fine by us, e.g. Saudi Arabia. Therefore I don't believe for a second that democracy or best interests drove us to war - and clearly it wasn't because of WMD's either, therefore they mislead us about the reasons for going in, and they're war criminals.
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#333
Report 8 years ago
#333
(Original post by SunOfABeach)
Well I'm pretty sure Stalin hated the government too. The Czarist government ofc. Which he helped destroy. See? THAT is hatin' on government.
Aye, but he became the thing that he fought(which you can argue, some claim that he sat on the sidelines) to destroy.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#334
Report 8 years ago
#334
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
America and our stance to the middle east has been absolutely awful for a long time now. We were the ones encouraging the radical islamists to fight the soviet union, and we supplied them with weapons, we helped train them!

We've also been meddling in their domestic affairs for so long now, look at what happened when Iran had a democratic government that nationalised oil, we go and overthrow them. Its just like Hamas in the gaza region - we support democracy, we go to war over democracy and kill 800,000 people, but it has to be the RIGHT democracy? You can't elect the 'wrong' people, which goes to show that its not democracy we want, its having a pro-western leader by any means necessary.

Thats also shown by the fact that a pro-western dictatorship is fine by us, e.g. Saudi Arabia. Therefore I don't believe for a second that democracy or best interests drove us to war - and clearly it wasn't because of WMD's either, therefore they mislead us about the reasons for going in, and they're war criminals.
The lobbies played their part, notably the NRA. However I'd say the biggest push came from Israel. Iraq, as you well know could never become a threat to the US or to Europe for that matter, but to one of its neighbours who destroyed its nuclear programme....

The question I'm still asking myself is if democracy is worth the complete decimation of a country and so much blood.
0
reply
SunOfABeach
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#335
Report 8 years ago
#335
(Original post by CandyFlipper)
I find his state and corporations suck but state sucks less argument very odd, because I agree with him in saying both are bad, but I prefer corporations for a few reasons.

Firstly most states are NOT democratic/accountable, does Chomsky think corporations are more oppressive then the North Korean state? Your argument covers democratic states well, but you're being too generous in starting there, democratic states are a minority now and throughout history.

Secondly I agree with you that corporations are accountable. It takes mass effort which is difficult, but it IS possible to defeat a corporation by not working for them and not going there. In the UK we could bring down tescos ourselves and use butchers, grocers etc again. Its difficult, but its less so then getting rid of a dictatorship state.

Finally, without the state there would be less corporate clout anyways, because the government gets lobbied by big business to suit its interests, because taxes/regulations hinder a small business more than a large corporation and so on. So Chomskys evaluation of the private sphere isn't valid because he isn't looking at it, hes looking at STATE capitalism.

But er, whats any of this to do with anarchists supporting income tax, by the way? As interesting as this is! :p:
I think I have already answered this. Anarchists do not, for a variety of reasons, consider, for instance, the income of a CEO to be legitimate. The whole system of private power must, for the time being, be controlled. This is where the government comes in. Because people control the government, Anarchists want to give more power to the people through the government (Chomsky specifically said that he wanted to strengthen the power of the federal government). The people will ask for more education, more healthcare, more etc. Well how are they going to finance these things? income tax.

Btw, I should say (you mentioned favouring small businesses as something not right-wing) that left-wingers are not for small businesses. They like monopolies. Not private monopolies ofc - nationalised monopolies. They consider small businesses to be anti-productive. If you read Trotsky, Bukharin, Lenin, etc you will find that they are very hostile to shop keepers. Marx as well. So your ideal society(?I guess?), small business owners competing with each other, is not at all sympathetic to left-wingers. They believe that socialised monopolies is the future. Competition & petit-bourgeois businesses (butchers, local grocery stores, indepedent farmers, etc) are a thing of the past. They consider individual production to always lead to monopolies. And by nationalising those monopolies, the poor & the working class benefit from it.
0
reply
Time Tourist
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#336
Report 8 years ago
#336
(Original post by iwilson03)
Hmm I disagree, I'm not sure you can stereotype like that. Certainly a lot of 'rebel' middle class teenagers label themselves socialists etc., but many genuinely believe in the system. Just as you must genuinely believe in what, a conservative (small c) society?

I don't doubt that they do. I was just making a point about the typical demographic of people who hold those kind of beliefs.

More specifically it appears that you have two kinds of people in these groups, who are quite polar opposites in many ways. The gentle ones who believe that the world would be a much better place if people could only be 'nicer' to each other.... the vicars daughter types... and then you have the other kind who are full of hatred and anger, the real nihilists and misanthropes full of hatred for the society in which they live, who want to tear it down and rebuild it.
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#337
Report 8 years ago
#337
(Original post by Stalin)
The question I'm still asking myself is if democracy is worth the complete decimation of a country and so much blood.
Of course it isn't, a democracy isn't always stable - Somalia has a democracy for a brief period of about 10 years but it quickly fell into an islamic/communist dictatorship for a couple of decades, and later into anarchy. The situation is very unstable in Iraq, there are still tens of thousands of coalition troops there but when they go it'll be chaos between the Shias and Sunnis, and the kurds will probably start getting trampled on again.

To slaughter people and to implement democracy defeats the point since its meant to be to the benefit of the people, and remember that the war was not about democracy at all, the governments of the USA and UK don't care about it as much as they let on. I mean look at the EU, its absolutely crazy for us to preach democracy because we don't even have it ourselves.
reply
username202682
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#338
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#338
(Original post by iwilson03)
Aha, well I'm not sure I'm a big fan of Marx? And in truth I haven't read enough to fully understand what being a 'Marxist' even means? (At least I admit ignorance!)
Marxism 2010 will be good education young padawan :holmes:
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#339
Report 8 years ago
#339
(Original post by Time Tourist)
I don't doubt that they do. I was just making a point about the typical demographic of people who hold those kind of beliefs.

More specifically it appears that you have two kinds of people in these groups, who are quite polar opposites in many ways. The gentle ones who believe that the world would be a much better place if people could only be 'nicer' to each other.... the vicars daughter types... and then you have the other kind who are full of hatred and anger, the real nihilists and misanthropes full of hatred for the society in which they live, who want to tear it down and rebuild it.
I don't think that I fit either of these stereotypes (then again I am possibly delusional, it is a problem). I think that many of the socialists that I know do not fit these groups either. Really I think that it is a gross oversimplification.

It is like me saying that there are two groups of Tory (although both groups must be feeling a little bit betrayed by Cameron):

The reactionary traditionalist kind, who are swallowed up by excessive pride and display a narrowing of eyes at anything that could change the old order and damage their rose tinted view of God's own country.

And the 'selfish' kind who only wish to get rich, and aren't too bothered about who they stand on in the process.
0
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#340
Report 8 years ago
#340
(Original post by Stricof)
Marxism 2010 will be good education young padawan :holmes:
Yes it will! I'm looking forward to it, are you going?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1206)
79.6%
Leave (309)
20.4%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed