RE: Misguided Myopia or Peak Hypocrisy? Campus Antifascist Network
Mhh you know I got a different opinion on this and that is why I love to discuss the topic.
I mean you are correct. The far right and the far left are not that different at all, but I want to embrace this and not use it as evidence against the movements :3.
At their core they are promoting a radical change of government, something we libertarians want as well. I don't see why would want to protect our fundraised-vote-once-every-4th-year-system.
Socialism has always been been more about criticizing the establishment and promoting sharing over egoism. Marx was one of the view who got rather concrete in promoting solutions and that is why he is the most known, but I read many more and most of them are much more on the pacifist side of life.
I think something you are rightfully upset about is the stupid violence. It does not make sense to burn cars in the street or refugee homes, it just leads to hate and chaos.
The violent arms of the left and the right are actually not that strong, but they receive a lot of attentions for their actions, even through people like you and me writing about them. It reminds a lot of a Rammstein song when people commit crimes just to get attention.
Good to get a constructive response, thanks! The interplay of ideas has a refining and moderating effect and that's why I like when people see things differently. I too am for a radical change...towards voluntarism. I am aware that Marx is only one of many who advocates more social responsibility, but he does so via a non-voluntary and violent means. Some Marxist scholars even acknowledge that if the Marxist utopia was achieved, it would merely be returning to the beginning of the cycle that lead us to where we are today. So while his goal may be admirable, his methods are inhumane and border on insane for their inability to maintain the goal but being worthwhile nonetheless.
Socialism is a great idea but sooner or later ideology always meets asphalt. As is often said, sooner or later socialism runs out of other people's money to feed the ever increasing demands by those who can just vote for more and the ever-increasing number of people who want free handouts for doing nothing (regardless of whether they are drawn from abroad or grow organically domestically). If you remove the voter component, then the wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the apparatchiks and power brokers. In both version the government must become increasingly repressive to sustain itself (as all forms of government to date apparently).
If we could actually raise people to believe in the non-aggression principle coupled with altruistic voluntarism as a social and political order, the goals of peaceful coexistence without violence would be possible. Any forced subjugation of the individual that disadvantages them in any way is doomed to fail because while humans will tolerate such oppression for a while, ultimately they will rise up and cast off the chains that bind them or leave to where the oppression is less. Socialism, communism, hell, even democracy depends on the involuntary subjugation of the individual.
People will always say, "But you can leave!" But where to? Another nation state dominated by some other political system that relies on the subjugation of the individual? That is why there are so many "Aussteiger" that disappear to countries that are so poor their governments barely function, where there's no healthcare, barely any roads, limited food supplies etc. and are happier there than in the west. I think some portions of mankind are genuinely experiencing the next evolutionary step in consciousness but the governmental structures aren't keeping up. Anyway, this is all probably another post in its own right, so I will leave it there. Cheers!
same ;)
Like I mentioned before I want everybody determine for themselves how much and with whom they want social contracts. I don't think many people would not want to give their share for a working Autobahn or Public Transport system. F the DB, but I like that you can get drunk in Germany and still travel anywhere without bad conscience ;)
You should not be forced to give your money for Wars and subventions of big corporations. And t be clear I don't think you should be forced into any social contract, I just think that many people would voluntarily sign them at least for basic stuff like water and electricity.
You also should not be forced to move to another country if you don't want to be part of a local community. That is why I advocate localism so that you have enough communities to choose. Being a Hermit should be possible through buying your own land and making your own rules.
I wrote a really short post that elaborates a little on my anti-antifa concerns. The Video is also really funny :).
Sounds like we are very much on the same page in this regards. You sound more like an advocate of voluntarism than socialism. Most people would contribute to those things that they consider important for quality of life, the challenge is getting people to recognize the indirect benefits they derive investment in things not directly related to them. Education could be taken as an example, where people without children would be well served to contribute to education funds because it could improve the overall conditions of society (if done right). Will check out your post, thanks for the comment!
Volunteristic socialists believe that everybody would want a form of socialism if there is no overwhelming ruleset/law. Volunteristic capitalists believe we all want no social rules when their is no law. It is very easy to combine the two, but people on the left side of the movement get triggered by the word "Capitalist" and the right/americans by the word "Socialist".
The definitions of socialist and capitalist differ from camp to camp and frankly I don't get how socialism, a movement aimed at providing a fair chance for everyone despite their class, is the new evil, and capitalism, where the word Capital is even referring to an dictatorship of the people who managed to claim the assets of the world, is the salvation.
Not so long ago I came to the conclusion that I needed to drop the term anarcho-capitalist and don the term voluntaryist.
This came about after a very long discussion with an anarcho-communist... where I realized that there was no difference at all in what we believed politically, just personally... and that he and I could have been great neighbors even though I favored personal ownership of property and he favored communal ownership.
Both of us agreed on the NAP... and so our labels were simply tripping us both up. As I saw recently here somewhere (Larkin Rose maybe...) it is often better to define oneself by what one believes in than by what one does not believe in... lest one don the title anti-Santaist.
Und Rammstein finde ich ja total geil.