it's that time again

your sociopolitical position(s), as briefly as you can.

me: individual libertarian, social conservative, economic communist.

Position?

My political position: logic

My socio-economic position: lucky and privileged to be middle class in a 1st world country but otherwise a black sheep

fascist. kill em all.

Social libertarian, economically moderate.

what does moderate even mean

>>6
It means I'm not beholden to ideology and make my choices based on rationality and pragmatism.  I wouldn't care if we were socialist or anarchist as long as the system works.

>>6
It means you are a hard left communist but decide to make absolutely no claims, stand firm on zero issues, and generally be a flip flopping faggot with no spine.


>>7
implying life and government is a "system"
implying socialism or anarchism has ever worked or will ever work, the entire concept of thought is based on utopian fantasies and reality being entirely different.

>>8
That was a pathetic response, I just hope that post was a bad joke.

>>7
and what does "the system works" mean?

by what do you qualify a "working" system?

>>8
you're an idiot and you sound like a prick

Anyone who even seriously considers any marxist ideology for 0.1 seconds is instantly a grade A retard.

Stalin, Lenin, Guevara, Pot, Il-Sung, Castro, Chavez and Mao just used it to control useful idiots, intelligent anarchist and socialist writers were con artists selling ampty platitudes to idiots.

The civil rights movement, egalitarian democracy, unions and everything good that marxists attribute to their actions were actually the result of staunch traditionalist conservatism, nationalism and classical liberalism. Marxist leftists were actually detrimental to these movements because they were an embaressment, they wanted to abuse these movements so they could gain political power.

These are just the facts, deal with it already.

>>8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

>>10
A working system in this case means a relatively sustainable and just society.

>>1
Pacifist anarchist

>>1- >>14

Does this mean there are only 4 people here?

>>14
So what you're saying is that you don't particpate in politics then, right?

>>16
Pretty much. I try to live an anarchist lifestyle...
But I definitely participate in political discussions!
The whole pacifist thing is more about non-violence than non-participation, really.

>>17
So you are just a worthless coward who plays the "shove my head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens" ?

>>18
hmmm... no.
I've just decided that if you fuckers want so badly to fuck your world up , I should just let you do so. Don't let me get in your way!
Meanwhile me and mine will try to live our lives in integrity and harmony, waiting for the day that you fuck it all up so bad that there is no return. (almost there...)
Not so much "bring it all down man", just "wait for it all to crash".
The rebirth and renewal will be beautiful.
My descendants will be among the survivors, since we are not fucking up our bodies with pharmaceuticals, GMOs, microwaves, and etc.
 We'll just go on riding our bikes growing our food, and living co-operatively while you all try to figure how to live without Facebook and cellphones and minivans.

>>19
what the fuck are you even talking about. You sound 14

>>19
Won't be any rebirth and renewal you fucking retard. Non-whites will hunt whites down and exterminate us as they did/do in every other country where they hold power over whites.

>>19
Natural selection hasn't favored luddites in the past. Why do you think it will favor them now?

Because of resource depletion? That doesn't invalidate the benefits of technology, those who figure out how to do more with less will survive while those who only make do with less (you and your hippy communes) will die along with those who only knew what to do with excess (the corporate drones you've only seen in movies like fight club).

>>21
Solution: intermarry

>>22
Nope. The resources will deplete to the point that if you don't know how to do it for yourself, you'll be fucked (except maybe for the few super-rich)
I'm talking really fucked, man, cause the planet is also going to shit, by the way. A lot of us will probably die too, along with most humans... but I believe there will be survivors. And I plan on me and my kids being among them.
>more with less
Hello: that's what I do every day! I have waaaay more practice than most.

>>23
You're just doing what medieval peasants have been doing for centuries, and that's probably what you'll end up as.

Meanwhile I will be pushing renewable energy sources to their limits, using genetic modification, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, chemomechanics, continued development of existing technologies such as microwaves and libertarian principles to create a technologically advanced, sophisticated, flexible, highly developed and highly innovative economy.

>>24

You had it all right till you mentioned libertarianism.  Even the father of that movement won't stand by it anymore.

>renewable energy sources
>genetic modification
>libertarian principles
ಠ_ಠ

One of these things is definitely not like the other. The renewable energy industry needs government help to survive. As for genetic research, it's debatable whether the industry needs it but they sure do get a lot of government handouts.

>>26

Libertarians actually believe that removing government from the economy can only make it better.  Meanwhile in Washington the 'conservatives' refuse to stop subsidizing corn.

I'm an anarchist. Abolish money, abolish the state and move on. Human co-operation is the future. It's unclear what the laws of an anarchist society WILL be, what is clear that we are capable of sorting everything out and letting everyone have their voice heard.

I don't ascribe myself to any labels (Marxist, Leninist, etc) because in the future everyone will have moved on. In a way I'm a post-Marxist anarchist. That is, the society of the future won't give a fuck about these stupid fucking dreamers of what will by then considered a dark age.

>>28

So basically what you're saying is you support tyranny.  It's always great to see that there isn't a shortage of fools even in this modern age.

>>29
no, idiot

>>30
>>30
Well you do, what to you think happens in stateless societies?  People are just nice to each other and no one fights because we'ff all such good people?  The realitu is that a power vacuum would propel forth to power the greatest military force.  Whoever is the strongest would rule.

>>31
Which is why the type of this society is subject to the achievement of certain technological and philosophical achievements. That is, a society that is literate and literary and not swayed by rhetoric or political posturing and gesturing. Most people laugh at the mere sight of boobs, I don't think the type of environment of freedom I'd like to see happening now would be beneficial. That is, anarchy now wouldn't last. But anarchy sometime in the future, may last.

And even if all our efforts thus far have been futile, we can at least go down in our legacy that WE TRIED. And that's all people will remember, if anything at all.

>>24
Okay, you do that.
Like I said, I'll just enjoy my life while you fuck everything up, and then once you're done with that, I'll just survive and carry on.

european medieval peasant
classist much?
Also, what a very small frame of reference.
By the way, Europe is an extremely small part of human history.

oops, sorry, I was  not >>2

From an entirely objective point of view, I'm an anarchist: There is no reason for me to be subject to any other person from time of birth, and to be subject to the laws of any land without agreeing to be subject to them. I never said I wanted a squiggle I can make with an inky stick to mean I agree you can take my things.
From a more practical point of view, I am a socialist. There is absolutely no way I can see anarchy doing utilitarian good, whereas socialism provides a safer environment for development and advancement.
Finally, I am a free market capitalist, as I don't believe humanity are capable of living without being able to gain personal advantages over others. However, I would insist that the government provide every citizen with a basic amount of food, sufficient water, and board in exchange for a certain amount of work(BUT living in state housing is only allowed in exchange for an increased amount of labour). My belief is pretty much that we should move on from pure capitalism and work to increase our level of technology and knowledge as rapidly as we can, that we should spread the human race as far as possible (making the new elements autonomous and widely spread) and that our total goal should be the creation of self replicating artificially intelligent beings, capable of working with us, or after we're gone.

>>35
The Dispossessed.
Shows pretty nicely how anarchy can do utilitarian good, imo.

>>25
>>26
Well, maybe not specifically "libertarian principles" but something like it.

1: Technology is driven mainly by 1000s of little technical developments, the big breakthroughs are important but are often dependent on many other technologies to turn them from theory into practice and then to find economical applications for the breakthrough.
2: Even after inventing something continuous development is needed to maximize it's effectiveness and to get it to work in many different applications and under different economic conditions.
3: A pro-active approach is needed, not a top-down approach, you need industries that are continually looking for ways to improve efficiency and continually looking for possible uses for their products, central planning results in sectors of the economy that could benefit from each other being isolated by bureaucracy.

With this in mind it should be obvious why economic freedom is a major factor in making the most out of technology. Most renewable energy would survive without state subsidies, hydroelectric power for instance is a big one, also many minor applications for windmills and solar power in regions where market and environmental conditions favor them, most farms still use windmills for irrigation purposes.
>>28
>>32
Human co-operation is the future.
So if you snap your fingers and say "we're all anarchists now" it will create a utopia? You have to see the problems with statements such as these, you're leaving quite a lot unanswered, you may need to brush up on your argument.

What would a day in the life of Joe Anarchist 100 years from now be like? Before you answer remember that no one (no one logical anyway) is interested in what anarchism is not, we all know anarchism is "no state", "no capitalism" and "no mean people", the only thing that is relevant is the practical side of things.

>>37
Joe Anarchist woke up one morning and kissed his life partner lightly. He walked out into the kitchen and kindled a little fire in the stove and put on some water to boil.
Little Stevie Anarchist was busy painting on the kid art wall in the living room. "Hi Stevie," said Joe,"what's up, buddy?" "I'm going to the lake today with my friends," Stevie replied.
"That's great son, but don't forget you said you would do a shift in the apple orchard," said Joe A.
"I know, Dad," Stevie said, "I'll bring some apples back before I go swimming."
Jenny Anarchist, Joe's life partner, came in from the yard with some peaches. "Good morning guys!" she said,"is there any cheese left?"
"I think there's a little," Joe A said," I'll have to see if the neighbors are going to make any more."
"Well, if you do, let them know I have their sweater ready," Jenny said. "I'm off for my shift at the birthing center: see you later, guys!"
Joe A didn't feel like doing any shifts at any of the co-ops today, so he set off to the lake after walking Stevie to the apple orchard.
He stopped on the way by the bakery for a cinnamon roll.
Since everyone in the community volunteered at various jobs, everything was free, so he didn't need to worry about paying for his roll, or his rent, or anything, really. If he needed shoes, Fred made him some. If he was sick, one of the doctors came by. And if anyone needed music, well, his guitar was the one they wanted to hear: to cheer them up, to provide entertainment for the kids...
"Gee," Joe thought to himself, "I'm so glad I don't live in the old days, when it was every man for himself. It's nice to have the support of friends and neighbors!"
Joe left the town, smiling at the skateboarding kids in the old factory, and headed to the lake, where he would soon meet Stevie, who only had a couple hours in his shift since he was only 8. Stevie would be proud of the work he had done and ready to play with his buddies and his dad.
Joe was glad that Stevie could do his own thing most of the time, freeing him from the position of being prison guard to his son and allowing him to enjoy fathering.
At the lake, Joe saw Dan, one of the folks in town who didn't so much appreciate guitar playing at 2 am. They had worked out a sort of compromise; playing all night was only Fridays or Saturdays; but Joe and Dan still didn't get along very well. They had had a fistfight this last week, and now they were both pretty wary around each other.
"Hey Dan," Joe said as he entered the water.
Dan grunted in reply.
Joe was used to working out problems with neighbors, though, since he had never looked to an authority to solve his problems for him. From the time he was a little kid, he had been encouraged to work things out and come to a compromise. He felt mostly embarrassed about the fight with Dan. Physical violence was definitely not accepted in their town, and many neighbors had spoken to both him and Dan about their self control.
Joe decided to give it another go with Dan.
"Hey Dan," he said," I hear our kids are coming down to swim soon. How about we make them a raft?"
"Sure," Dan said.
Well, they weren't best friends, but it was something. Joe felt relieved. He had heard about feuds between people that used to take place in the bad old days, when folks didn't hold co-operation as a value, and he had worried that one might be developing here. But reminding Dan that they were mostly on the same side anyway seemed to help restore balance.
And there we leave Joe Anarchist, making a raft for his kid in the lake with his not-so friendly, and yet co-operative neighbor.

tl;dr:
Joe the Anarchist has a lovely day, free of money and authority.

>>37
The life of 'Joe Anarchist' would be any life that he would want to live. He would be an autonomous individual who is able to decide how he would want to live and set out his goals and achieve them. No bosses, resumes, bank cards, credit cards, regulations, etc .. etc required. The point is freedom.

There are no "expectations" of an anarchist society, it exists as long as everyone in it wants it to exist. And it exists how a co-operatively managed democracy wants it to exist.  Everyone is equal and has equal say. Everyone is free to come and leave.

All this seems rudimentary and standard, until you realize that the capitalist oligarchy we live in provides none of this; all you get is command and brutality, sneaking by with your little pleasures and projects with what little time, privacy and money you may have. Unless of course you're one of the few to be successful in the big casino that is capitalism.

Well, I don't think it's that simple.  Humans and in fact most mammals are basicly lazy and therefore unless there are some way to make people put something into the society, everyone will try to take without giving in return.  So while Joe might get his roll, the society wouldn't last very long -- everybody would pick the apples out of the orchard, but not nearly so many would be willing to tend it.  People would eat the roll, but not raise the wheat, mill the grain or bake the rolls.  eventually either you develop a market or a government or both.  Otherwise it will fall apart due to the nature of people wanting to take rather than give.