Luigi Mangione

[Eltitoguay]

I understand that disentangling from what is, can have unintended consequences to those dependent on what is and should be considered. My very elderly mother is on social security. I understand that crony capitalists need reining in.

Do you understand crony capitalists are not the same as free market advocates?

I understand most billionaires got to be billionaires by unjust means.

Do you understand that adopting crony capitalist unjust means and hoping to ignore it will NOT put you on some kind of higher moral ground?

Anyhow, you never answered my question or pointed me to where you did if I may
have missed it.

But again!!??
...I am increasingly leaning towards the amphetamine theory...

(...)
"It none of my business to dictate a master plan, nor should it be."
Ha, that's the best part... It sounds like: "I have no fucking idea how to achieve that world of "totally free individuals in a free capitalism to infinity and beyond"; but I don't care either, because what I do know is that I want to destroy the Welfare State."
So, in the end it is only about the same thing:
Ultra-neoliberalism trying to privatize and make a business out of the last public services that can remain in the hands of the State (which in democracy and the more democracy, is more and more of the society aka people).
Continue stealing from contributing workers to give to the rich, and in the process get rid of the poor who do not contribute and have very little capacity to consume capitalist goods (although the ultra-neoliberal Reagan administration previously exploited that very little economic capacity by offering them crack at "irresistible" prices), with the excuse that they also "enjoy" public rights.

That, plus the probable social crime that means letting even more people die who cannot pay for their cancer treatment, their transplant, etc., because they cannot pay the millionaire rates of the companies of your "friends", the "free and unlimited capitalists."

Your "Totally Free Capitalism VS Crony Capitalism" is nothing more than the old Marxist-Leninist differentiation of "Ultra-free Capitalism VS Capitalism tending towards corporatism/monopolies/imperialism"... And it is the first, your sacrosanct ultra-free capitalism, which is behind and is self-interestedly directed towards the second, which is nothing more than a way of being able to develop and grow, of the first
(in Marxist language: "Crony-corporatist-monopolist-imperialist Capitalism" is only a superstructure of Ultra-Free Capitalism.")

Infraestructura y superestructura - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

es.wikipedia.org

...Hey, Captain: You wouldn't exchange a kilo of that meta for me for some private Class Consciousness classes, would you?
Joking, only...

 

[Captain Red Eye]

I don't fit neatly in one of the boxes below, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist nor am I an
Anarcho-Communist.

I am a peaceful self-owning individual. If you don't know what a Voluntaryist Panarchist is, that's okay. I forgive you.

Are you an Anarcho-Communist? What are your thoughts on the anarchist descriptions below?

 

[Eltitoguay]

My dear intelligent friend, I post these ideas mostly to promote thought/contemplation, however I have seen [been in] such communities; small mind you and composed of mostly indigenous people. There, value was found or obvious within each member. Someone unable or unwilling to carry out physical tasks may be in demand for coming up with solutions for problems or interpreting what nature is saying or for entertaining [the children], etc. In this way everyone had the same value, even up to the chief or doctor at the clinic.

In times gone, this would have held the economic system. Despite this, there would still be need for enforced strictures such as exist in many communities, like equal access to produce or services.

I realize that to apply this to our current societal structure would be almost impossible as would Red Eye's concepts. I can see his points and can almost see how an evolution to something similar could take place but not without those bothersome strictures creating/retaining a somewhat even playing field of access. [and] As I've mentioned, lobbying and bribery of government would need restrictive enforcement along with the usual murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.

Capitalist socialism?

Thanks for the smart thing (my grandmother also called me that when I asked her if I was handsome, haha). I'll stick with the friend thing.

Of course, my friend: trying to govern our current world society by the way the last communities of the Paleolithic lived, forgetting about the Neolithic, Industrial, Technological Revolutions... that we have made/gone through, and how they have changed us...
It's like trying a proletarian Marxist revolution, where there are only hunters/gatherers and artisans...

I don't exactly understand your "capitalist socialism"; (State Capitalism?) ...But I'm very afraid of the long and silent hand of the Ch.P.C....

Look, one thing I do know that we need, whether you opt for a capitalist, Marxist socialist, or mixed economic model: More and more democracy.
And not allow the little Democracy we have to degenerate into Demagogy, and from there, into Autocracy.

...As for the elimination of the State, because we have surpassed-transcended it, I don't even dream of its possibility: I have enough with the fascists' return not shoving up our asses all the effort it has cost us to reach a "simple" social-democracy within capitalism...

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Thanks for the smart thing (my grandmother also called me that when I asked her if I was handsome, haha). I'll stick with the friend thing.

Of course, my friend: trying to govern our current world society by the way the last communities of the Paleolithic lived, forgetting about the Neolithic, Industrial, Technological Revolutions... that we have made/gone through, and how they have changed us...
It's like trying a proletarian Marxist revolution, where there are only hunters/gatherers and artisans...

I don't exactly understand your "capitalist socialism"; (State Capitalism?) ...But I'm very afraid of the long and silent hand of the Ch.P.C....

Look, one thing I do know that we need, whether you opt for a capitalist, Marxist socialist, or mixed economic model: More and more democracy.
And not allow the little Democracy we have to degenerate into Demagogy, and from there, into Autocracy.

As for the elimination of the State, because we have surpassed-transcended it, I don't even dream of its possibility: I have enough with the fascists' return not shoving up our asses all the effort it has cost us to reach a "simple" social-democracy within capitalism...

I hate to interrupt, but when you say you want a democracy, you answered my question. You are okay with using force to get your way.

A democracy necessarily imposes it's will on some people, even if they are disinterested but otherwise peaceful and no threat to anybody. I'm sorry you think violence is the means to use to get to justice. I really am.

You aren't an Anarchist either, I'm sure your grandmother is a nice lady though.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

 

[Hiddenjems]

Just so you know, I'm in favor of homeless people homesteading so-called government open land.

This.
If government is of the people for the people by the people, government land is just land waiting to be claimed by a person of the people.

 

[Hiddenjems]

I hate to interrupt, but when you say you want a democracy, you answered my question. You are okay with using force to get your way.

A democracy necessarily imposes it's will on some people, even if they are disinterested but otherwise peaceful and no threat to anybody. I'm sorry you think violence is the means to use to get to justice. I really am.

You aren't an Anarchist either, I'm sure your grandmother is a nice lady though.

Democracy = tyranny of the majority.

The founders knew this, hence the constitution.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Democracy = tyranny of the majority.

The founders knew this, hence the constitution.

Yes. He went thru a ton of mental gymnastics to try to say "democracy" and social justice are linked.

Democracy can just as easily bring tyranny as it can anything else.

 

[Eltitoguay]

I hate to interrupt, but when you say you want a democracy, you answered my question. You are okay with using force to get your way.
A democracy necessarily imposes it's will on some people, even if they are disinterested but otherwise peaceful and no threat to anybody. I'm sorry you think violence is the means to use to get to justice. I really am.
You aren't an Anarchist either...

...But when I defended the Social State from the beginning, and told you not to use the same criticisms/insults "about communists" with Cannavore as with me, because he was (in my opinion, which may be wrong) much closer to true libertarian anarchism than I (and of course, than you)... wasn't it clear to you??!!

I am a Criminal Communist who killed the Chinese guy in your photos, bombarding them with dangerous and toxic democracy...

But yes: I and my ideology can enter a headquarters of true anarchists, without bloodshed, and talk about Bakunin, Marx, The First International, The Paris Comune, our war together against Mussolini, Hitler and Franco...or about Horizontal Direct Democracy...
Come on, I, being from the Democratically Revolutionary and Pragmatically Utopian Humanist Marxist Socialist Party...I am more anarchist than you (no hard feelings)...and even Proudhon knows that...



...If you go, better leave your ideology at home or on mute... They don't argue with Capitalism; they fight it.
Believe me, there is no superpower, neither capitalist nor Marxist, that can withstand the wrath of the grandchildren of the Durruti Column... Here, not even Franco, Hitler and Stalin together, who surely were light years ahead of your, according to yourself, "Pan/pseudo-anarcho-capitalist superpowers", could barely handle them...

But now seriously talkin', Captain:
I think our socio-political-economic debate is deviating too much from the original spirit of the thread.

Postcript note, by

"...Certainly, horizontalism and anarchism coincide in their advocacy of federal, directly democratic, action-oriented, autonomous organization..."

 

[Captain Red Eye]

...But when I defended the Social State from the beginning, and told you not to use the same criticisms/insults "about communists" with Cannavore as with me, because he was (in my opinion, which may be wrong) much closer to true libertarian anarchism than I (and of course, than you)... wasn't it clear to you??!!

I am a Criminal Communist who killed the Chinese guy in your photos, bombarding them with dangerous and toxic democracy...

But yes: I and my ideology can enter a headquarters of true anarchists, without bloodshed, and talk about Bakunin, Marx, The First International, The Paris Comune, our war together against Mussolini, Hitler and Franco...or about Horizontal Direct Democracy...
Come on, I, being from the Democratically Revolutionary and Pragmatically Utopian Humanist Marxist Socialist Party...I am more anarchist than you (no hard feelings)...and even Proudhon knows that...



...If you go, better leave your ideology at home or on mute... They don't argue with Capitalism; they fight it.
Believe me, there is no superpower, neither capitalist nor Marxist, that can withstand the wrath of the grandchildren of the Durruti Column... Here, not even Franco, Hitler and Stalin together, who surely were light years ahead of your, according to yourself, "Pan/pseudo-anarcho-capitalist superpowers", could barely handle them...

But now seriously talkin', Captain:
I think our socio-political-economic debate is deviating too much from the original spirit of the thread.

A democracy is not anarchy though, since a democracy is a ruler of many and anarchy means, "no rulers".


The original etymology of the word anarchy.
An - "without" Archon - "ruler". That meaning far predates your 1800s commie friends like Karl Marx,

You are Not an Anarchist if you use a democracy to rule over a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person(s).

The purpose of this thread seemed to be celebrating Luigi killing a man. I don't usually celebrate murder, even while recognizing that crony capitalism is bad.

You also failed to differentiate my view from a crony capitalists view and don't really know what an actual free market is. You made a claim that honoring a free market which relies on consent would lead to a crony capitalist market which relies on removal of consent. Those are two opposing concepts.
Also just because I know what went on in Grafton, doesn't mean I agreed with all of it, which you kind of assigned to me without asking what my position actually is. I'm sure you have a nice Grandmother though.

Try to be more peaceful.

 

[Cannavore]

 

[shiva82]

A democracy is not anarchy though, since a democracy is a ruler of many and anarchy means, "no rulers".


The original etymology of the word anarchy.
An - "without" Archon - "ruler". That meaning far predates your 1800s commie friends like Karl Marx,

You are Not an Anarchist if you use a democracy to rule over a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person(s).

The purpose of this thread seemed to be celebrating Luigi killing a man. I don't usually celebrate murder, even while recognizing that crony capitalism is bad.

You also failed to differentiate my view from a crony capitalists view and don't really know what an actual free market is. You made a claim that honoring a free market which relies on consent would lead to a crony capitalist market which relies on removal of consent. Those are two opposing concepts.
Also just because I know what went on in Grafton, doesn't mean I agreed with all of it, which you kind of assigned to me without asking what my position actually is. I'm sure you have a nice Grandmother though.

Try to be more peaceful.

i commend your perseverance . you have the patience of a saint in the face of insincerity, extremists and fantasists

salud

 

[Captain Red Eye]

i commend your perseverance . you have the patience of a saint in the face of insincerity, extremists and fantasists

salud

Thank you.

 

[Eltitoguay]

A democracy is not anarchy though, since a democracy is a ruler of many and anarchy means, "no rulers".

The original etymology of the word anarchy.
An - "without" Archon - "ruler". That meaning far predates your 1800s commie friends like Karl Marx,

You are Not an Anarchist if you use a democracy to rule over a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person(s).

The purpose of this thread seemed to be celebrating Luigi killing a man. I don't usually celebrate murder, even while recognizing that crony capitalism is bad.

You also failed to differentiate my view from a crony capitalists view and don't really know what an actual free market is. You made a claim that honoring a free market which relies on consent would lead to a crony capitalist market which relies on removal of consent. Those are two opposing concepts.
Also just because I know what went on in Grafton, doesn't mean I agreed with all of it, which you kind of assigned to me without asking what my position actually is. I'm sure you have a nice Grandmother though.

Try to be more peaceful.

The founder and main theorist of your "anarcho-capitalism", clearly recognized that he/you were not/are not anarchists, nor libertarians (in fact, quite the opposite!), and that appropriating these terms was nothing more than a tactic to appropriate terms from the left (the real and wort enemy, je), and thus create confusion among people :

(NOTE : In addition to being the founder and main theorist your ideas, he was a racist white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes (being born jewish), homophobic and misogynist, defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

That, like dying of hunger or disease for freedom, is the freedom and sacrosanct individual rights that your aspiring Neofeudal Lords want to give us...

Your leaders and ideologues are the same kind of human trash as "the Grafton gang"..., but in addition your leaders and ideologues are rich people from the cradle, who are very clear that they are social criminals, and that social crime can be "the ultimate business" of an ultra-liberal capitalism, when there is no power (whether individual, collective, or State) that can oppose them.)
........................................................................

“One gratifying aspect of having some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ have captured a crucial term from our enemies : ‘Libertarians’ has long been a polite word to refer to left-wing anarchists, that is, those anarchists opposed to private property, both communists and syndicalists.
But now we have taken control of that term.”

( Murray Newton Rothbard: "The Betrayal of the American Right")

........................................................................

“The leading anarchists, particularly in Europe, have always been left-wing, and today anarchists are all exclusively left-wing. Add to that the tradition of revolutionary violence generated in Europe, and it should come as no surprise that anarchism has a bad reputation.”

Anarchism was politically very powerful in Spain, and during the Spanish War anarchists created communes and collectivist organizations that exercised coercive authority. One of their first measures was to abolish the use of money, and anyone who disobeyed would be punished.

(…) All present-day anarchists are irrational collectivists, and are therefore at opposite poles to ours.
We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not based on a serious etymology and are historically mistaken.”

( Murray Newton Rothbard : "Are libertarians anarchists?")

 

[Eltitoguay]

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF DOUBLETHINK AND NEWSPEAK :

"Freedom and self-ownership + principle of non-aggression"

=

Racisme white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes , homophobic and misogynist, defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

 

[Hiddenjems]

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF DOUBLETHINK AND NEWSPEAK :

"Freedom and self-ownership + principle of non-aggression"

=

Racisme white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes , homophobic and misogynist, defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

So black libertarians don’t exist? Or are they just wrong for doing it as your superior intellect suggests?

 

[Eltitoguay]

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF DOUBLETHINK AND NEWSPEAK :
"Freedom and self-ownership + principle of non-aggression"
=
Racisme white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes , homophobic and misogynist, defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

And now, I'm going to give you my own lesson and your own medicine, of "Social Darwinism":

As in this world there are degenerate criminal scum with a lot of power and money, like your "anarcho-communist" ideologue, individuals without power or money, like Cannavore and I (and others), we have decided to overlook our differences (and to come to an agreement, we use pacts and "Democracy"), and join forces, to fight against individuals like your ideologue.

It's pure Darwinism...: homo sapiens is stronger and more competitive in society, than individually... Do we fear the guilt that you, for not making the effort to live in society, are weaker?

And when we can get rid of that kind of degenerate criminals, we will see if capitalism or communism, and if State Social Democracy, State Socialism, or Anarchism.


Ps: Of course there will be your blacks and Hispanics.... Nonsense has no race: your ideologue was Jewish and a Nazi sympathizer at the same time...

That's the only aspect that worries you, about that degenerate social criminal and his ideology? :

"(...) defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

 

[Captain Red Eye]

The founder and main theorist of your "anarcho-capitalism", clearly recognized that he/you were not/are not anarchists, nor libertarians (in fact, quite the opposite!), and that appropriating these terms was nothing more than a tactic to appropriate terms from the left (the real and wort enemy, je), and thus create confusion among people :

(NOTE : In addition to being the founder and main theorist your ideas, he was a racist white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes, homophobic and misogynist and defender of "voluntary slavery":

That, like dying of hunger or disease for freedom, is the freedom and sacrosanct individual rights that your aspiring Neofeudal Lords want to give us...

Your leaders and ideologues are the same kind of human trash as "the Grafton gang"..., but in addition your leaders and ideologues are rich people from the cradle, who are very clear that they are social criminals, and that social crime can be "the ultimate business" of an ultra-liberal capitalism, when there is no power (whether individual, collective, or State) that can oppose them.)
........................................................................

“One gratifying aspect of having some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ have captured a crucial term from our enemies : ‘Libertarians’ has long been a polite word to refer to left-wing anarchists, that is, those anarchists opposed to private property, both communists and syndicalists.
But now we have taken control of that term.”

( Murray Newton Rothbard: "The Betrayal of the American Right")

........................................................................

“The leading anarchists, particularly in Europe, have always been left-wing, and today anarchists are all exclusively left-wing. Add to that the tradition of revolutionary violence generated in Europe, and it should come as no surprise that anarchism has a bad reputation.”

Anarchism was politically very powerful in Spain, and during the Civil War anarchists created communes and collectivist organizations that exercised coercive authority. One of their first measures was to abolish the use of money, and anyone who disobeyed would be punished with death.

(…) All present-day anarchists are irrational collectivists, and are therefore at opposite poles to ours.
We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not based on a serious etymology and are historically mistaken.”

( Murray Newton Rothbard : "Are libertarians anarchists?")

Yes, Rothbard said Libertarians are not Anarchists. What was your point?

Maybe I'll play your game? Did you know dogs sometimes chase cars? Many dogs will chase cats too!
Murray Rothbard once had a black cat and was mean to it, I think he hates black cats.

How was my non-sequitur? Did it match your non-sequitur? Murray Rothbard was a smart guy, but he's not my leader or mentor. I sometimes use Anarcho-Capitalist or libertarian arguments to malign the government when I agree with the particular thing they're saying. That's not how I self-describe though.


Okay, now time to address your other stuff

Most of the people you are maligning in Grafton, were not Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists either.
The great majority of them were small government types.
"Big L" , Libertarians, voters, as opposed to "small l" libertarians, non voters.

Some, by my count were "Libertarianish", but pretty close to conservative Republican types. Some, but not many, were "left libertarians". One, at least was a Democrat (I know weird, but he was) A few were Anarchists. A few were Voluntaryists. Not trying to be mean, but the source you got your Grafton info on, is pretty laughable, many factual errors, generalizations / flawed innuendo etc.

Anarcho Communists are not Anarchists, since they believe in rulers.

Anarchists by the original definition, are not "left wing" or "right wing", politically. They are simply people that believe in no ruler. Not no rules necessarily, no ruler. An - "without" "Archon" - Ruler. That is the original etymology. It predates your Spanish friends by centuries.

Anarchy is a word that had the original meaning stolen. It doesn't pertain to "democracy", it doesn't mean "chaos". Those are intentional changes of the original meaning by people looking to malign or steal the original meaning.

Anyway, Anarcho-Commies CAN'T be Anarchists, if they believe in "forcible democracy".
Forcible democracy isn't a single ruler necessarily, but democracy is a kind of ruler.

A plural of majoritarians, (forcible democracy) is still a form of a ruler, since a majority oppressing a dissenting minority or a dissenting individual has the same effect as if it were a King, A duopoly, or a Menage A Trois of Rulers, etc.

To employ an analogy, Solo Rape versus gang rape, both instances apply a top down use of force, which "creates a ruler" over another person.

A democracy which extends domain over other people can't by definition be, "without a ruler(s)", unless or until any vote is unanimous and all people agreed to the outcome of the vote prior to it occurring.

Except I don't have a "leader" and certainly don't have a master like you apparently do
I am a Voluntaryist Panarchist.

You could ask me what that means, just like I asked you several times what your Political / Philosophical identity was. Or you could probably find some half truths on the internet, you seem good at that.

Concerning your persuasion, if I made a mistake, I'm sorry, but you never responded with any simple or concise answer. Since you mentioned "democracy" several times, I think you believe in using the political process as a cudgel to initiate offensive force against other people.

I'm open to questions about what my beliefs are and open to hearing what specifically you self describe as. Not a mile long page with some shit about bears or how a bunch of commies using democracy claim to be Anarchists. I may not respond to that, since it's obvious trolling and not even the good kind of trolling.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

So black libertarians don’t exist? Or are they just wrong for doing it as your superior intellect suggests?

Shhh, don't tell Joe Biden. "They ain't black. if they don't vote for me".

 

[Captain Red Eye]

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF DOUBLETHINK AND NEWSPEAK :

"Freedom and self-ownership + principle of non-aggression"

=

Racisme white supremacist, defender of the KKK, sympathizer of Nazism and denier of its crimes , homophobic and misogynist, defender of child labor, defender of free market for the purchase and sale of newborns, children and minors, defenser of the legality of blackmail by force, and defender of "voluntary slavery, or under legitime blackmai"...

Sometimes dogs will shit on lawns! Sometimes dogs bite people!
You're a racist!!

Nice argument you got going with yourself there.

Also, while I don't like racists, a person could be a racist and behave neutral, which would be in line with that persons, freedom, self-ownership and also fall within "non-aggression".

If you'd like to argue that point, maybe we could, but first you'll have to show me some more bear pictures? Got any Polar Bear pictures or do you hate white bears?