Even communism was created with the individual as "centre of his/her destiny", although not as the subjugated and subsumed individual of capitalism, but an individual free to fulfil their full creative potential 1st: Yes, we agree we are talking about the ideal rather than historical examples.
I agree with you. Does the anarchist believe that anarchy is an inevitable evolution of history, though, the way Marxism tends toward the Hegelian historical evolution? In my mind, Engels and Marx, when they linked themselves to Hegelian philosophy, created this whole new aspect of societal consciousness. Anarchy seems like less of an inevitable evolution, and more of an awakening.... TBT
Yes, it's odd how similar concepts end up on opposite ends. Anarchy and Communism, though, are opposite ends for good reason: anarchy is a reversion (I'm not using this in a negative sense) to the individual as center of his/her destiny, while communism is the ultimate expression of social revolution, where the community becomes the individual, with one interlocking purpose. Neither concept strikes me as a warm wholesome place to raise children, thou
Lee: I love your individual-by-individual breakdown (can we assume your Gore moment was a slightly exaggerated, frustated, amused, sarcastic one?) Your linear breakdown is definitely more detailed than mine, and I knew perspective would play a role in the category labels. And yes, anarchy is the ultimate expression of reactionary ideology. Well said. Cacto and KingBee : You're both right, of course. The actual model I
Sorry for not commenting earlier. Foruming distracts other work I need to complete. So here's some lunch-break comments: 1)Blind: "center" is pretty much a mythical place, but someone with a range of opinions might balance out here, I guess. 2)D.B. I'm not sure why you classify Kerry as the 2.5% left fringe. I assume you are referring to a voting record, rather than a policy platform, but again I'm not clear. 3)I would di
I'm re-posting an excellent comment (from a different chain) by D.B. below: --] TaBooTenente : "We may have a slightly different perspective on this, but we're probably fairly close. I'd be willing to look at another model. But where would you classify the "fringe left"? Where would you place the following: T. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, MM, GWBush, McCain, and A. Coultier? Why? Maybe
When it comes to stating our political beliefs these days, we play loosely and aggressively with our declarations. We're the Phil Helmuths and Scotty Nyugens rather than the Howard Lederers and the Johnie Chans of ideologies. This last round, we Democrats have stolen a favorite tactic of the ghost of Republican Past: the label tactic. Painting GW
Dr. Miller: I've bookmarked your link and I promise I will explore. Whoman: Yours, too. TBT
Wow. Was anybody counting? Liberal sighting @ joeuser.com! Very exciting. I'll tell you, Steven. I've only joined up to this site recently and haven't had a chance to read your posts, but I like this one.... My main issue is that we liberals need to look at the issues differently, or at least find a new voice. Once we finish consoling ourselves, we have to get out there again and get the message through. Somehow it didn't sink i
Again, I'm finding more good takes here than I like to admit. Dr. Miller: I was with you through most of what you said, though I lost you with the traitor comment. Do you really think so? Why? T.B.: I could not agree with you more, especially on the bit about Mr. Kennedy's participation in No Kid and then, like some (not all) liberals, he absolved himself of its creation. Certainly there are a lot of issues out there to debate, but
You're both right, I think. If you take what these guys said literally during the debates, and make their statements a platform for what you think the country needs, you're going to have a fairly vague perspective. Neither spent more than 50% of their limelight doing anything but posturing or dancing. Bush looked exactly like the Dems labeled him: an unswerving thug. Kerry looked exactly like the Reps labeled him: a wiffle-waffling, arrogan
Maybe I am being unclear: As far as ideologies go, MM is not a fringe-leftist. His politics are not ultra-left. They ARE liberal, certainly, and they are not moderate. But there is a large gap between MM politics, and revolutionary politics. If you are refering to his beliefs regarding the need for a change in CAPITALISM, then he definitely falls left of center, and left of most Democrats. And my take on David Dukes, Pat Buchanons
Jenny CD, Unbelievable. Who are these people? On what plane can they believe they are right, inserting themselves into someone else's life in such a way? Was nobody else around? Damn, what a helpless feeling just knowing people are capable of treating other people like this. And then pathetic me, wanting to say, "I hope you're okay." Yeah, right. TBT
Nadeon: I agree. TB: I think I'm with you on about 2/3 of your post. D.D. was an inaccurate example. Will using Pat Buchanon, or Oral Roberts sit more comfortably with you? Nevertheless, David Duke may not be recognized by the Republican Party, but he represents a human being who has taken rightist ideology further into the continuum (useful word). Whether liberals want to accept it or not, Stalin is just one leftist down the line, and HIt
Draginol, I feel like I could have written most of your response. I agree with you completely...or nearly. --I chewed on my heart everytime the press went out of its way to cover Sean Penn. Great actor. Terrible strategist. --Fahreinheit 9/11: I really like MM, you know why? Because he
I like it...I like it... Oh, I almost forgot to ask: what do we believe in? And what animal becomes our logo? TBT
I agree that a candidate has to make choices, to make the best use of campaigning time. My problem is the attitude. A Democratic candidate who decides he/she cannot make up votes in the south or the sparce populations of the mountain/ plain states is not just losing votes in those locations. The whole nation sees the attitude, at the media mirrors and amplifies the attitude. Soon, you've not only alienated those sections, those states, but
I'm agreeing with Deference and Little_Whip on this one. It seems silly to post something in the forum and not expect people to discuss. It's a forum, right? It seems worse than silly to post something on the forum and only allow a certain handful of people to discuss it. Nevertheless, no-one should feel bad about posting an article without wanting to make it a focus for discussion. An article can be a forum post, a forum post can be an ar
Everybody: thank you for your responses. I have been thinking about the "arrogance" issue for awhile. I assume, because bi-partisan politics tends to establish this polar arrangement of beliefs, that both parties have always accused the other side of arrogance. Nevertheless, as Little_Whip mentioned somewhere in this chain, for whatever reason, our (liberal) arrogance surfaced much more strongly than usual, and in a much more offensi
I've read your articles regularly as you post them. I think in general, it's fair to say I disagree, on a political level, with your opinions almost unilaterally. Nevertheless, Draginol is completely correct, concerning his recent article, "My problem with the American Left". 1)There's no two ways about it: Democrats are embarrassed that GWB was
Wow! I am absolutely amazed by this discussion...no joke! The first thing that amazes me is that most of you appear to know each other, and second of all, though my inventory could be completely off, your opinions wildly differ from each other. Finally, I didn't realize people use the blacklist function...that's kind of scary isn't it? I mean, someone mentioned that continually abusive posters deserve the blacklist--I agree
Thank you very much. It's a strange world, internet reporting and blogging. Everywhere you look someone's posting something, and it's hard to know what to believe. I'd like to post somethings on a personal/public website, but I wasn't sure what I could use as sources for information. Current Events reporting seems especially tricky. I can't be in Washington when Powell resigns, but I can read the NY Times. Is that enough of a so
Just re-posting, to see if anyone has any ideas.
I call this a failure on my part: an inability to scrounge up the authoritative rule book for blogging, or internet reporting, or journalism in general, or.... Okay, here are the questions: 1)Public Domain: Is there an official rule book? 2)If I want to post an article on my own website, and my source is a news article (presumably copyrighted), how do I document the source, and where? 3)On my website, may I link to an article on an
Are you trying to sell conservatism? I found this link on your site: http://www.gnaa.us/ Give me a break.
JoeUser Forums