Be Careful With The $13 Per Week Relief

[Kathianne]

You may be paying later:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1


INSIDE WASHINGTON: Taxpayers to get rude surprise
INSIDE WASHINGTON: Millions of couples, retirees may have to repay some of Obama tax credit

Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday April 30, 2009, 6:55 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

The government is going to want some of that money back.

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

"They need to get the Goodyear blimp out there on this," said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year, IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said. The average refund was nearly $2,700 this year.

But taxpayers who calculate their withholding so they get only small refunds could face an unwelcome tax bill next April, said Jackie Perlman, an analyst with the Tax Institute at H&R Block.

"They are going to get a surprise," she said....

[Jeff]

Dang was just about to post this Kat, hmmm seems some have been saying this all along go figure, another one of Obama's surprises

[Kathianne]

Jeff, unless there is a seismic wave in 2010, be ready for a tsunami regarding socialist wave. I'm buoyed by the exclamations from the left about tea parties. We'll see if there is a follow up to them.

[Jeff]

Jeff, unless there is a seismic wave in 2010, be ready for a tsunami regarding socialist wave. I'm buoyed by the exclamations from the left about tea parties. We'll see if there is a follow up to them.

Kat I have faith in my fellow Americans, we may have to deal with this for a while longer but the American people aren't that stupid, the tea parties will grow and most that haven't seen what's going on by now will see, (notice I said most) 2010 will be a very bad year for the Dems

[Kathianne]

Kat I have faith in my fellow Americans, we may have to deal with this for a while longer but the American people aren't that stupid, the tea parties will grow and most that haven't seen what's going on by now will see, (notice I said most) 2010 will be a very bad year for the Dems

From your fingers to god's ears....

[Jeff]

From your fingers to god's ears....

People just can't be that foolish Kat, he is going to give 13 bucks a week cause it is better to have it all year than a one shot deal he said, he just forgot to tell us it was just a loan, I truly feel for his supporters they are truly not firing on all 8

[Agnapostate]

Another day, another inaccurate use of the term "socialist"...

[Kathianne]

Another day, another inaccurate use of the term "socialist"...

Only in your world.

[Agnapostate]

Only in your world.

Actually, only in the world of political economy...and Webster's Dictionary. It's apparently not enough to continuously note that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Any legitimate form of public ownership, as conceptualized by a socialist, necessitates some form of collective managerial authority, in accordance with the participatory nature of socialism. Hence, until the public ownership and collective management of the means of production is legitimately instituted, we'll not have socialism.

I understand the popularity of referring to welfare state expansion and the like as "socialism" amongst rightists; however, this remains nothing more than ironic, considering that the welfare state plays an integral role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus also maintaining economic stability and upholding capitalism.

[red states rule]

What this translates into is, we're giving you a tax credit but none of you really qualify for it because we've badly jacked up the tax tables so you just get to borrow $400 over the year but you have to pay it back entirely on April 15, 2010.

Obama is a charlatan who easily deceived those who supported him; now we all get to pay for that mistake. Thanks again, libs.

[Kathianne]

Actually, only in the world of political economy...and Webster's Dictionary. It's apparently not enough to continuously note that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Any legitimate form of public ownership, as conceptualized by a socialist, necessitates some form of collective managerial authority, in accordance with the participatory nature of socialism. Hence, until the public ownership and collective management of the means of production is legitimately instituted, we'll not have socialism.

I understand the popularity of referring to welfare state expansion and the like as "socialism" amongst rightists; however, this remains nothing more than ironic, considering that the welfare state plays an integral role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus also maintaining economic stability and upholding capitalism.

The word and meaning evolve. Just as the terms liberal, conservative, capitalism, etc.

[red states rule]

Lincoln freed the slaves - Obama has enslaved our grand kids, and great grandkids

[mundame]

I don't understand this.

I got a letter that I will get $250 extra in Social Security; but what is this $400 deal? Are they supposed to mail a check for that, or does it come included in the tax refund, or what?

[mundame]

Hence, until the public ownership and collective management of the means of production is legitimately instituted, we'll not have socialism.



So, Agnapostate, you would consider the government takeover of banks and the auto industry socialism, then?

[red states rule]

I don't understand this.

I got a letter that I will get $250 extra in Social Security; but what is this $400 deal? Are they supposed to mail a check for that, or does it come included in the tax refund, or what?

"For many, the new tax tables will simply mean smaller-than-expected tax refunds next year, IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said. The average refund was nearly $2,700 this year.

But taxpayers who calculate their withholding so they get only small refunds could face an unwelcome tax bill next April, said Jackie Perlman, an analyst with the Tax Institute at H&R Block."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1

It is smaller refunds - NOT higher taxes

It is called bait and switch

[Jeff]

Lincoln freed the slaves - Obama has enslaved our grand kids, and great grandkids

He isn't done yet

[red states rule]

He isn't done yet

The CBO says Obama will DOUBLE the national debt. The legacy of Obama will be a national debt near $20 TRILLION

Yet Dems are smiling and giddy over the power trip their party is on

[mundame]

Okay, I get it --- working people get that small amount in the paycheck not withheld, whereas people drawing Social Security get the $250 all at once.

Thanks.

[red states rule]

Okay, I get it --- working people get that small amount in the paycheck not withheld, whereas people drawing Social Security get the $250 all at once.

Thanks.

Or we get $13/wk (for a little while) while a mouse in Pelosi's district gets $30 million

Dems have their priorites all set

[PostmodernProphet]

It is called bait and switch

true enough....this wasn't actually a new tax credit, it was simply an acceleration of next year's tax refund.....

[mundame]

true enough....this wasn't actually a new tax credit, it was simply an acceleration of next year's tax refund.....


My husband was saying he had read something about that may apply to the Social Security $250 check, too, PMP. That is, that if we file taxes and get a refund, we may get that check deducted. Very complicated and I didn't understand it ------- but this discussion is making it more clear.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I don't know about this Indian Giver business, if that's what's going on.

[Agnapostate]

The word and meaning evolve. Just as the terms liberal, conservative, capitalism, etc.

The word "evolves" in order to adopt specific contextual applications; it does not, however, become something entirely opposite of its original definition.

[PostmodernProphet]

The word "evolves" in order to adopt specific contextual applications; it does not, however, become something entirely opposite of its original definition.

actually, it happens frequently....for example "evangelical" is now applied equally to fundamentalists, when originally the word was used to distinguish one FROM fundamentalists......and evangelicals are called "mainline"......

[Agnapostate]

So, Agnapostate, you would consider the government takeover of banks and the auto industry socialism, then?

No. "Government" ownership in no way constitutes a sufficient establishment of collective management, and thus does not qualify as socialism.


actually, it happens frequently....for example "evangelical" is now applied equally to fundamentalists, when originally the word was used to distinguish one FROM fundamentalists......and evangelicals are called "mainline"......

I fail to see what relevance this has to an established political doctrine...the principles of which are distorted so that others may have convenient talking points.

[Insein]

Arguing semantics does not make the point any more correct. Socialism as it is known in today's society is related to communism thanks to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is associated with government run industry thanks again to USSR. That is where the correlation comes from. Arguing that the dictionary definition is different from public perception is a futile endeavour.

[Agnapostate]

Arguing semantics does not make the point any more correct. Socialism as it is known in today's society is related to communism thanks to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is associated with government run industry thanks again to USSR. That is where the correlation comes from. Arguing that the dictionary definition is different from public perception is a futile endeavour.

Similarly, there is widespread public perception that capitalism is constituted by "free markets," and that economic crises are therefore caused by free markets. This is obviously fallacious (go to mises.org if you want to see loud and obnoxious squealing in protest of this misconception), considering that free markets enjoy no record of existence in industrialized society. You're also likely among those who enjoys shouting about "big government socialism" and the destruction of free enterprise. So you'd thus maintain a similar objection to a widespread misconception. Ultimately, I don't subscribe to inaccurate misconceptions that deviate from legitimate political theory, and when it comes to your own favored philosophy, neither do you. You simply wish to deny others that same benefit.

[Insein]

Similarly, there is widespread public perception that capitalism is constituted by "free markets," and that economic crises are therefore caused by free markets. This is obviously fallacious (go to mises.org if you want to see loud and obnoxious squealing in protest of this misconception), considering that free markets enjoy no record of existence in industrialized society. You're also likely among those who enjoys shouting about "big government socialism" and the destruction of free enterprise. So you'd thus maintain a similar objection to a widespread misconception. Ultimately, I don't subscribe to inaccurate misconceptions that deviate from legitimate political theory, and when it comes to your own favored philosophy, neither do you. You simply wish to deny others that same benefit.

Capitalism has never been in its raw form because it would end in a monopoly anyway you work it. There is always going to be a hybrid form of economic structure in any system. What I advocate is as little government intervention as possible to allow the market to work without overburdening it with regulations that only benefit a few pockets disguised as benefiting society as a whole.

Socialism, right or wrong, has earned its new definition by being associated with the USSR. The USSR was the biggest government run economy in human existence. By calling themselves socialists and communists, they have redefined the words. Socialism and communism for better or worse are forever associated with the USSR and its history of a Government-run economy.

[Agnapostate]

Capitalism has never been in its raw form because it would end in a monopoly anyway you work it. There is always going to be a hybrid form of economic structure in any system. What I advocate is as little government intervention as possible to allow the market to work without overburdening it with regulations that only benefit a few pockets disguised as benefiting society as a whole.

Mixed-market capitalism is not a "hybrid" economic structure. I understand that it's popular to inaccurately misdefine it as "capitalism with socialist programs," but this is a misconception.


Socialism, right or wrong, has earned its new definition by being associated with the USSR. The USSR was the biggest government run economy in human existence. By calling themselves socialists and communists, they have redefined the words. Socialism and communism for better or worse are forever associated with the USSR and its history of a Government-run economy.

I don't care how many times a word is abused and misappropriated; the USSR cannot accurately merit the label of "socialism" (and no one claims that they implemented "communism"), just as the modern Libertarian Party cannot be accurately described as libertarian, due to their support for the authoritarian economic organization involved in the establishment of capitalism. Just as individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker was correct when he asserted that "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea," he remains similarly correct today.

I've argued that anarchists, for instance, recognized the imminent failure of authoritarian varieties of Marxism long before the establishment of the Soviet Union or the Bolshevik party, as evidenced by anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's observations that "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself" and "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." (Bakunin was Marx's chief foe in the First International, later to be expelled along with the anarchist contingent, marking the beginning of the divide between Marxist and anarchist socialism).

Marx himself cannot be entirely blamed for the state capitalist legacy of the USSR, of course, but it's worth noting that anarchists predicted that authoritarian elements would be able to base themselves upon Marxist principles and tenets. For instance, Bakunin wrote this in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:


Idealists of all kinds – metaphysicians, positivists, those who support the rule of science over life, doctrinaire revolutionists – all defend the idea of state and state power with equal eloquence, because they see in it, as a consequence of their own systems, the only salvation for society...This fiction of a pseudo-representative government serves to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite elected by hordes of people who are rounded up and do not know for whom or for what they vote. Upon this artificial and abstract expression of what they falsely imagine to be the will of the people and of which the real living people have not the least idea, they construct both the theory of statism as well as the theory of so-called revolutionary dictatorship.

The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.

Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class."

Moreover, as I've noted repeatedly, numerous legitimate socialists, anarchists especially, condemned the Soviet Union as anti-socialist from the very beginning. I've quoted one of Kropotkin's letters to Lenin numerous times now:


Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party', that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization...If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the concept of 'equality' in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

So anarchists and other libertarian socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg and council communists like Anton Pannekoek), accurately predicted the authoritarian tinges of Marxism, the indisputably authoritarian elements of Leninism, the ultimate degeneration of any "workers' state," and the eventual corruption of the term socialism, and their reward is that they were ignored and are now smeared with the very disingenuous labels that they attempted to destroy? :lame2:

[Insein]

Indeed. It is a shame that the ideals of socialism have been perverted. That is how it goes though. Socialism is the tool Totalitarians use to mold the society in the guise that its "in their best interest." Socialism is a good idea in theory. In practice it is manipulated by power hungry individuals.

[crin63]

actually, it happens frequently....for example "evangelical" is now applied equally to fundamentalists, when originally the word was used to distinguish one FROM fundamentalists......and evangelicals are called "mainline"......

Actually it was neo-evangelical that was coined in 1947 at Fuller Seminary by Harold J Ockenga to distinguish between fundamentalists and compromisers.

Any fundamentalist I know would be greatly offended at being called an evangelical. Actual fundamentalists don't compromise.

[mundame]

I don't care how many times a word is abused and misappropriated; the USSR cannot accurately merit the label of "socialism" (and no one claims that they implemented "communism")


What this means is, just give us another try and this time we'll do it right!! http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif


Sorry, communism has been tried in many, many countries around the world and everywhere it resulted in abject poverty and gross oppression.

So that's the end of that.

[Agnapostate]

Indeed. It is a shame that the ideals of socialism have been perverted. That is how it goes though. Socialism is the tool Totalitarians use to mold the society in the guise that its "in their best interest." Socialism is a good idea in theory. In practice it is manipulated by power hungry individuals.

No, that's simply a mendacious misrepresentation. Your inaccurate references to state capitalism notwithstanding, every implementation of libertarian socialism has been subject to external sabotage and destruction rather than internal collapse, which marks its greatest obvious divergence from capitalism, which cannot escape the entrapments of the perpetual business cycle.


What this means is, just give us another try and this time we'll do it right!! http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif

Sorry, communism has been tried in many, many countries around the world and everywhere it resulted in abject poverty and gross oppression.

So that's the end of that.

I don't believe even the state capitalists that you inaccurately refer to as "socialists" would claim to be communists. On another note...have you been reading the thread? I quite clearly specified that libertarian socialists opposed the variety of "socialism" that you consider legitimate from the very beginning of its establishment. This is one sick, retarded irony. :lame2:

[mundame]

I don't believe even the state capitalists that you inaccurately refer to as "socialists" would claim to be communists.

Well, they regularly DID call themselves that......Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea today, Communist Cuba ----

There it is. And it doesn't work. Maybe it will make a return, but I VERY much doubt it ever will. Too disgraced generally.



I quite clearly specified that libertarian socialists opposed the variety of "socialism" that you consider legitimate from the very beginning of its establishment.


I don't consider socialism legitimate.

[Agnapostate]

Well, they regularly DID call themselves that......Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea today, Communist Cuba ----

"The People's Republic of China," "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," and the "Republic of Cuba" call themselves "communist," in your view? Their respective ideologies of Maoism (market state capitalism today), Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, Juche, and Marxism-Leninism retain the "transitionary" phase of a "socialist state," and may thus describe themselves as "socialist," but would never claim to have established "communism." (Which would necessitate a stateless, classless society.)


There it is. And it doesn't work. Maybe it will make a return, but I VERY much doubt it ever will. Too disgraced generally.

Attempts to implement state socialism are quite disgraced (having always degenerated into state capitalism), just as anarchists and other libertarian socialists predicted. But it's quite absurd to compare libertarian socialists to Leninists or those of a similarly authoritarian outlook when they were the first people to criticize such ideology and the first people to be persecuted and killed after the establishment of those authoritarian regimes. Not heard of the mutiny against Nestor Makhno and the Black Army? The brutal suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion? The brutality committed against such persons by the state capitalist regime makes your application of the socialist label to them sickeningly ironic. Regardless, individualist anarchist and market socialist Benjamin Tucker remains correct in his declaration that "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea."


I don't consider socialism legitimate.

The only thing illegitimate here is your exceedingly painful distortion and abuse of vocabulary. I do understand that reference to the USSR and state capitalism is an integral component of the rightist anti-socialist arsenal. I do. But that does nothing to change its inaccuracy.

[mundame]

I do understand that reference to the USSR and state capitalism is an integral component of the rightist anti-socialist arsenal. I do. But that does nothing to change its inaccuracy.


That's how it worked, so that how it would always work. Namely, not at all. Nobody needs all those words you say; fine distinctions aren't what it's all about.

What it's about is, socialism/communism failed bigtime and it's time to give all that up now.

[Agnapostate]

That's how it worked, so that how it would always work. Namely, not at all. Nobody needs all those words you say; fine distinctions aren't what it's all about.

What it's about is, socialism/communism failed bigtime and it's time to give all that up now.

So your abuse of vocab is based on deliberate anti-intellectualism and an interest in oversimplification? That doesn't surprise me. It's a primitive semantics dispute; nothing more. If I were to refer to "anarchism" instead of "libertarian socialism," you'd have little functional difference between the two as I interpret them, but you'd not have your primitive abuse of terminology to apply...unless you were to maintain that anarchism centered around "chaos" or "disorder," which wouldn't surprise me, considering your inaccurate misconceptions about socialism.

[mundame]

So your abuse of vocab is based on deliberate anti-intellectualism and an interest in oversimplification? That doesn't surprise me. It's a primitive semantics dispute; nothing more.

If you want discussants sympathetic to very arcane distinctions among wholly theoretical political systems, I think you may be on the wrong forum. I can use big words, if you like, but I have met few people on American forums interested in ever-thinner-slices of socialism. PoFo, Political Forum, is an international forum with a lot of foreigners, some of whom are communists and whatever, even anarchists.




If I were to refer to "anarchism" instead of "libertarian socialism," you'd have little functional difference between the two as I interpret them, but you'd not have your primitive abuse of terminology to apply...unless you were to maintain that anarchism centered around "chaos" or "disorder," which wouldn't surprise me, considering your inaccurate misconceptions about socialism.


Oh, I see ----- you are an anarchist, but you were shy of saying so (quite naturally, given the anarchist predilection for chaos and disorder!!) so you called it something else that has no meaning here.

Okay. I'm going to make a suggestion: you are an intelligent person and fun to talk to, but it's important to speak the same language as the people you are talking to. If you mean anarchist, don't say libertarian socialist!

DOES anarchism "center around chaos or disorder"? I had not thought that was more than an end to means, no state control whatsoever (or control by fathers, which I have long assumed is the underlying personal problem anarchism symbolizes).

It hardly matters. Because anarchism USES chaos and disorder --- the infamous "propaganda of the deed" that put modern Islamists to shame back circa 1880 to 1912 with all the murders of presidents, kings, empresses, prime ministers, and the new misbehavior in the streets whenever the world tries to do some collective state business --- the world supposes that's all it's about, and since anarchism is inherently illogical and the communists ate their lunch early on because anarchists would not organize but communists would, it's even MORE outdated and hopeless than communism, if anything.

We'll probably have new systems entirely if the world goes up; I'm not expecting a return to old, discredited ideas. A female oligarchy, perhaps -- that would work for me.

[Agnapostate]

If you want discussants sympathetic to very arcane distinctions among wholly theoretical political systems, I think you may be on the wrong forum. I can use big words, if you like, but I have met few people on American forums interested in ever-thinner-slices of socialism. PoFo, Political Forum, is an international forum with a lot of foreigners, some of whom are communists and whatever, even anarchists.

I'm permanently banned from Political Forum, and at any rate, I don't need to limit conversation to "foreigners." There's also nothing especially "arcane" in regards to discussion of socialism; it's merely calibrated to deliver maximum economic efficiency due to its reliance on autogestion (workers' self-management). If anything, "free markets" (frequently promoted by utopian rightists), merit the label "wholly theoretical" more than anything else, since they enjoy no history of existence, whereas socialism does.


Oh, I see ----- you are an anarchist, but you were shy of saying so (quite naturally, given the anarchist predilection for chaos and disorder!!) so you called it something else that has no meaning here.

Shy? Not quite. My avatar and signature are rather explicitly anarchist in nature. If I'd wanted to be shy, I'd have made a rather different selection.


Okay. I'm going to make a suggestion: you are an intelligent person and fun to talk to, but it's important to speak the same language as the people you are talking to. If you mean anarchist, don't say libertarian socialist!

All anarchists are libertarian socialists; there are varieties of libertarian socialists that are not anarchists (such as left communists and council communists), but anarchism is by far chief amongst libertarian socialist philosophies. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "libertarian" was first coined and used by anarcho-socialists. I'd recommend having a look at Section A.1.3 (http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secA1.html#seca13) of An Anarchist FAQ, Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?


DOES anarchism "center around chaos or disorder"? I had not thought that was more than an end to means, no state control whatsoever (or control by fathers, which I have long assumed is the underlying personal problem anarchism symbolizes).

Obviously not. Anarchism centers around social organization through horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through direct democracy in both the political and economic realms. Anarchism has traditionally stood opposed to the "unholy trinity" of church, state, and capitalism, but has now been adapted to primarily focus on the state and capitalism, given the decreasing hierarchical role of religious establishments in Western society. Anarchist opposition to the state and capitalism is generated by the authoritarian social relations that those institutions promote, although I typically focus on the superior efficiency of socialism to capitalism, and have recently developed an interest in firm theory with which to emphasize this, which is why I frequently mention autogestion.


It hardly matters. Because anarchism USES chaos and disorder --- the infamous "propaganda of the deed" that put modern Islamists to shame back circa 1880 to 1912 with all the murders of presidents, kings, empresses, prime ministers, and the new misbehavior in the streets whenever the world tries to do some collective state business --- the world supposes that's all it's about, and since anarchism is inherently illogical and the communists ate their lunch early on because anarchists would not organize but communists would, it's even MORE outdated and hopeless than communism, if anything.

This comment has no relation whatsoever to anarchist social organization. If you wanted to criticize propaganda of the deed, your focus would merely be on Johann Most and Czolgosz, not on Bakunin and Kropotkin.


We'll probably have new systems entirely if the world goes up; I'm not expecting a return to old, discredited ideas. A female oligarchy, perhaps -- that would work for me.

Isn't marriage enough?

[Psychoblues]

It's about a case of Busch for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2

[mundame]

I'm permanently banned from Political Forum,

Slightly worrying, somehow.



Shy? Not quite. My avatar and signature are rather explicitly anarchist in nature. If I'd wanted to be shy, I'd have made a rather different selection.

No. You are concealing the anarchism. Your avatar is a Soviet hammer and sickle crossed by a "No" symbol and your sig line is technical and mysterious. If you want to say you are an anarchist, just say it, simply.




All anarchists are libertarian socialists; there are varieties of libertarian socialists that are not anarchists (such as left communists and council communists), but anarchism is by far chief amongst libertarian socialist philosophies. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "libertarian" was first coined and used by anarcho-socialists. I'd recommend having a look at Section A.1.3 (http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secA1.html#seca13) of An Anarchist FAQ, Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?


I already looked at that a few years ago, decided it was pernicious nonsense and that it was too bad people were loosing it on the world again, and that's that.



Obviously not. Anarchism centers around social organization through horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed through direct democracy in both the political and economic realms. Anarchism has traditionally stood opposed to the "unholy trinity" of church, state, and capitalism, but has now been adapted to primarily focus on the state and capitalism, given the decreasing hierarchical role of religious establishments in Western society. Anarchist opposition to the state and capitalism is generated by the authoritarian social relations that those institutions promote, although I typically focus on the superior efficiency of socialism to capitalism, and have recently developed an interest in firm theory with which to emphasize this, which is why I frequently mention autogestion.

I think you should keep writing like this. If you do, the state and capitalism is safe enough.

[Agnapostate]

Slightly worrying, somehow.

It's not; I can assure you.


No. You are concealing the anarchism. Your avatar is a Soviet hammer and sickle crossed by a "No" symbol and your sig line is technical and mysterious. If you want to say you are an anarchist, just say it, simply.

A "No symbol"? My avatar is a communist hammer and sickle (there's no exclusivity to the Soviet Union, especially in light of their misappropriation of that ideology), superimposed upon an anarchist symbol, thus denoting anarchist communism. See?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Anarchy-symbol.svg/45px-Anarchy-symbol.svg.png + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg/50px-Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg.png = http://www.stencilpunks.org/thumbs/anarcho_communist.gif

My "technical and mysterious sig line is a clear endorsement of anarchist communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism) by the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin).


I already looked at that a few years ago, decided it was pernicious nonsense and that it was too bad people were loosing it on the world again, and that's that.

A thoroughly unsound response, but not anything out of the ordinary for an advocate of capitalism. ;)


I think you should keep writing like this. If you do, the state and capitalism is safe enough.

The state and capitalism will eventually crumble of their own accord, especially with their greatest advocates either ignorant or deliberately obfuscatory as to their mutually beneficial relation.

[mundame]

A "No symbol"? My avatar is a communist hammer and sickle (there's no exclusivity to the Soviet Union, especially in light of their misappropriation of that ideology), superimposed upon an anarchist symbol, thus denoting anarchist communism. See?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Anarchy-symbol.svg/45px-Anarchy-symbol.svg.png + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg/50px-Symbol-hammer-and-sickle.svg.png = http://www.stencilpunks.org/thumbs/anarcho_communist.gif

My "technical and mysterious sig line is a clear endorsement of anarchist communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism) by the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin).

Very clever, but somehow none of this reassures me that this is something I would want....;)



A thoroughly unsound response, but not anything out of the ordinary for an advocate of capitalism.

Thank god for that; I would hate to be out of the ordinary.



The state and capitalism will eventually crumble of their own accord, especially with their greatest advocates either ignorant or deliberately obfuscatory as to their mutually beneficial relation.

Nothing lasts; but communism and anarchism are disgraced by their comprehensive failures in the 20th century, so I am confident that whatever comes next, it at least won't be those systems.

Dictatorship, probably; that's the usual system in troubled times.

[Agnapostate]

Very clever, but somehow none of this reassures me that this is something I would want....;)

Considering that you've not used arguments, I don't see that there's much that can. ;)


Thank god for that; I would hate to be out of the ordinary.

Then head over to mises.org and pick up a few more talking points. :salute:


Nothing lasts; but communism and anarchism are disgraced by their comprehensive failures in the 20th century, so I am confident that whatever comes next, it at least won't be those systems.

Both incorrect claims. State socialism was disgraced by its comprehensive degeneration into state capitalism; however, it never constituted "communism" or even "socialism." Anarchism has never suffered any comprehensive internal failure; it collapsed because of external violence and sabotage.


Dictatorship, probably; that's the usual system in troubled times.

Yes, I'd imagine so.