Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Introductions thread
IamMe Wrote:Not strictly a new member, but its the first time I posted here in over a year at least. Some of you may remember me from Itsallpolitics.com, which appears to be a ghost town.

Anyway, about me: I'm Irish, I'm an anarchist (anarcho-communist, more precisely) and I run a left-wing blog, which is linked to in my sig, I believe.

Hello again IamMe. Glad to have you back. I am sure your unique input will be quite interesting, and perhaps refreshing.

Fortunately, we are not a 'ghost town' here at Jane. It's been a good while since being over there, so I will need you to refresh my memory about you. It must be my old age clouding my brain. Wink1

I can understand the anarchy part, and disdain for government. But how does it really jive with Marxism, except in very small numbers? The larger the crowd, the more impractical the system becomes.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
John L Wrote:
IamMe Wrote:Not strictly a new member, but its the first time I posted here in over a year at least. Some of you may remember me from Itsallpolitics.com, which appears to be a ghost town.

Anyway, about me: I'm Irish, I'm an anarchist (anarcho-communist, more precisely) and I run a left-wing blog, which is linked to in my sig, I believe.

Hello again IamMe. Glad to have you back. I am sure your unique input will be quite interesting, and perhaps refreshing.

Fortunately, we are not a 'ghost town' here at Jane. It's been a good while since being over there, so I will need you to refresh my memory about you. It must be my old age clouding my brain. Wink1

I can understand the anarchy part, and disdain for government. But how does it really jive with Marxism, except in very small numbers? The larger the crowd, the more impractical the system becomes.

Hi John,

I think I remember having heated arguments with you over religion. At the time I was one of those obnoxious newly-converted militant atheists.

There's no real blueprint for what an anarchist-communist society would look like, apart from a kind of vague outline. Basically we envision that people would form whatever kinds of voluntary associations they wish, with decisions taken democratically at a workplace and community level, with wider co-operation where necessary. But we don't really think its useful to try and come up with a more detailed picture than that, as our imaginations are necessarily constrained by the confines of the present system.
It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees - Emiliano Zapata

Red Writers, my blog.
Reply
IamMe Wrote:Hi John,

I think I remember having heated arguments with you over religion. At the time I was one of those obnoxious newly-converted militant atheists.

One thing you won't see me do here is argue about religion all that much. I'm not a strict adherent to biblical dogma, as a few here are. My only thinking on the matter of atheism is that if someone really is, and not agnostic, there is almost always a bad experience with organized religion somewhere in that person's past. And as an Irishman, I would assume Roman Catholicism to be your reason. As an Irish American, of Scotch-Irish descent, I was never a Roman Catholic, but am fully aware of the strange little quirks within the church.

Generally, the bible is a book of history, laws, and ethics. And while it is historically accurate, in general, it is less accurate in specific. As an example, today there is much ado about the accuracy of the Exodus from Egypt. It makes no sense to me, but the accepted date is probably a little more than one hundred years off IMO. Instead of being at the time of Ramses II, I believe it to have been right after the reign of Akhenaten, and the concept of monotheism.

You and Ron will have a good time here on this. He is an unwavering fundamentalist.

Quote:There's no real blueprint for what an anarchist-communist society would look like, apart from a kind of vague outline. Basically we envision that people would form whatever kinds of voluntary associations they wish, with decisions taken democratically at a workplace and community level, with wider co-operation where necessary. But we don't really think its useful to try and come up with a more detailed picture than that, as our imaginations are necessarily constrained by the confines of the present system.

As a consummate individualist, and believer in spontaneous order, anarchism has a certain appeal. But I am a little bit more structured than that. And as I said in my last post, Marxism can really only be successful if it is kept to the smallest entity, people wise. Once it starts gaining in numbers, it breaks down, simply because it does not factor in the 'self-interest' of the many individuals, and tends to stifle individual incentive.

I'm also not a believer in democracy, because that is nothing more than mob rule, and the US was never intended to be one, even if our dismal education system attempt to teach that to the millions of skulls full of mush. As Benjamin Franklin once stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." One of my favorite quotes. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
I think that Anarchy as a political system is misnamed. It should be Contractism. Individuals must work with each other in an anarchy using basic contract law or else it is just chaos. A true anarchy would be a barter system with the toughest character taking what he wants. For an anarchy-like system to work, contracts must be agreed-upon, which would also mean a contract with a police organization of some type to enforce the contracts, and a military contract to deal with international contracts.
Reply
It would be too bad if a hostile country bought out your military's contract.
Reply
Well to start off I have been reading this off and on since my join date.

I think had another account a week or more before my join date and posted a bit and forgot password but may be mixing that up with a different forum.
Birthday September 14
Reply
Psychout, I am glad that you are starting to post. Fresh viewpoints are always stimulating.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
Hi all the existing members forum, I have joined for some interesting discussion here and sharing lots of queries here. I hope good discussion here.
Reply
(05-17-2013, 02:51 AM)smith46 Wrote: Hi all the existing members forum, I have joined for some interesting discussion here and sharing lots of queries here. I hope good discussion here.

Welcome to the forum. Where are you from, and what are you interests?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
(07-26-2010, 05:53 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: It would be too bad if a hostile country bought out your military's contract.

Can't happen, because the contact is also for the good of the contractees, or else the agreement is useless. A better contract may overtake the old - but it would truly need to be better.

Of course there is no guarantee to avoid mob rule. That is the brilliance from our founders with our limited republic.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)