What's new
By:

Welcome to our newest JazzFanz member!!!

heyhey said:
I see the Mormons as being much closer to the mutualism of Anarchists like Proudhon than they ever were to the collectivism of communists like Marx.

Edit: I think you would like Proudhon, if you haven't read him. I view his work as a continuation of the Lockean/Jeffersonian political philosophy. He is often misunderstood imo but that's because he makes it easy to be misunderstood. He said for instance "What is property? Property is robbery." but he also said "Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists."
Click to expand...
Could it be said that property cannot be revolutionary since it is older than the state itself.
 
addictionary said:
Wow that's a lot of knowledge in a few words babe. Thank you for your valuable input. Is there some source you could lead me to to check out these well known Western benefactors of Marx and Engels? As far as I know, Engels was a rich family man and supported Marx's writings throughout their efforts.

Well said about Marx being obtuse. That he was. Where is the real taste in life when you are materialistic to the bone and have nothing left romantic, right?

But limiting Marx's writings' existence to just another British scheme sounds a bit hyperbolic to me. I'm sure all the communist revolutions have historical binds and touchings between unforeseen people and constitutions such as the example of Armand Hammer you have given, but revolutions are about what they idealize and serve for the sake of, not about who fed them. You must be familiar with such experiences as you are a reader, in those times, the revolutionists must have sought any possible aid for their cause. My country got aid from the Soviet Russia but turned its face towards Western capitalist civilization. And it was always meant to follow that road. Although I'm really curious what would happen if the other choice happened.

I find European feudalism more of a renewed slavery system than a communism. There were hierarchy in all parts of the system and nothing towards egalitarianism was practiced really. You as a peasant was meant to serve on the soil for the "divine" goodness of your powdered-*** lord. A more communal system compared to Marxism's ideals would be the primate-communal age, where you at least had no boundaries to take what you want. No state, government, constitution, armed force to take you down. Just you and your power to take what you want. Pure anarchy.

~

Your post really got me into researching more of the phases of American revolution, especially after 1877, where we can see more of the early stage pains of the new federal government. I'd like to look at the history of Mormons and their given examples to the resistance to the federal government more of course since the place I write in. And because people don't talk about those these days and instead tell Mormons believe in this Mormons believe in that. I have found this text while I was looking for some of the thoughts of Marx and Engels about American Revolution, you might like to look at it if you have not already: https://archive.org/stream/marxengelsonrevo00neum#page/n3/mode/2up

I wish Marx had more insight to American and Asian societal systems and dynamics. He was kind of a dude that only went with what the hell was going on with the proletarian Euros and bourgeoisie. But then again, you only have one lifetime right?
Click to expand...

having only one lifetime, and trying to comprehend thousands of other people, forces us to invoke some simple schema that grossly ignore a lot of facts. Art is the intuitive abstraction of it all into a beautiful or compelling picture.

I have read the lit of a little band of socialist ideologues I think holding the fascination of some few Russian and Chinese government officials looking for a new path for their nations, and maybe supporting them with some cash. Lyndon LaRouche is an old man now, and his younger wife does some of the globe trotting. She was recently interviewed by TASS in Denmark.

The LaRouchies suffer from some of the intellectual stunting that occurs with the effort to adhere to a "Party Line", but I give them some credit because they are not anti-human Malthusian ideologues hell-bent on reducing the world's human population to near zero. They are not environmental nutjobs with a world view that we humans must apologize for industry, technology, or appropriation of earthly resources for the welfare of mankind.

I find the LaRouchies antidotal to simple right-wing Chicken Littles who hopelessly flail at the rich and famous dudes who ride the political waves as far as they can make a buck for doing so.

Some of my insights come from actual Marxist friends some years ago who miserably pouted about how the ideals of a stateless society had somehow been appropriated by Statist perps who exploit the masses even more shamelessly than the Bourgeoise ever did.

My Mormon roots include the theological meanderings of whoever wrote the Book of Mormon which refers quite a lot to the economics of virtue, obviously influenced somewhat by early American/Puritan beliefs. In the Book of Mormon, folks who focus on working hard, being compassionate to the poor and misfortunate among them, achieved general prosperity for so long as the vices of pride, conspicuous consumption, and personal aggrandizement were muted.

Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, however, were "leaders" who in Nietzchean fashion could take wide turns around the specifics of their beliefs to accomplish some imminent practical real need. Both started businesses when it suited the times, both invoked communal efforts including great personal sacrifices when it seemed needful.

The LaRouchies of today remind me of the Mormons in some respects, particularly in their reverence for their Leader. I've always been a scalawag maverick too free for the roundup, heading for the mountain thickets whenever I smell the hooting and hollorring outriders beating the brush for strays.

The LaRouchies can be depended upon to listen a little if I start talking about cold fusion or huge desalination projects that dwarf the Hoover Dam in supplying water for the Southwest.
 
Last edited:
I should probably adjourn my remarks to the LTE rather than drive this thread so far away from saying "hello" to the newbs.

I looked through the link, ad. I've gone through some similar lit from that period.

The thing that is great about America is that we did not have to conform to intellectual or ideological constraints, however manipulated we might have been by newspapermen, business interests, and such. The ordinary American was always his own man. With boots in the mud, and property he could call his own, life just doesn't look like a class war.
 
heyhey said:
I really need to start getting my caffeine from tea. I drink way too much Pepsi.
Click to expand...

I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.
 
franklin said:
I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.
Click to expand...

Welcome back frank.
 
franklin said:
I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.
Click to expand...

diabetes

I'm pretty sure only Utahns say dia-beat-us
 
I saw a Wilford brimley meme that said "she asked me to give her the d, so I gave her diabeetus"
 
addictionary said:
Could it be said that property cannot be revolutionary since it is older than the state itself.
Click to expand...


How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, because of my liver issues my doctor asked me to start drinking tea about three years ago. I freaking love it. The only problem is that I only drink Snapple Peach Tea, and it has just as much sugar as Mtn. Dew and pretty much no other benefits.

It is g'damn delicious though!
 
heyhey said:
How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state
Click to expand...

You know..."git off'n ma propertee, affore I blow yer head kleen off". Go anywhere not under the rule of a "state" and stake a claim, boom you are a property owner as long as you can defend it, yet you are not, in and of yourself, a state.
 
heyhey said:
How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state
Click to expand...

That explains it better. The property that I believe predates state is a land owned by an group of homosapiens against another group of neanderthals; figuratively speaking. I believe it is enough to take it as an example of property regardless of a state and its constitution's existence, but if we define property something determined and justed by a certain state and its laws, then state predates property.

Then again, how important could it be to do that? What is state? What is constitution? Laws? Historically, aren't they created to protect the property and power of the ruler against growing masses of people? How would there be a state if there are as nothing to protect and put boundaries on? That's how I would like to think of it.
 
E.J. Wells said:
Interestingly, because of my liver issues my doctor asked me to start drinking tea about three years ago. I freaking love it. The only problem is that I only drink Snapple Peach Tea, and it has just as much sugar as Mtn. Dew and pretty much no other benefits.

It is g'damn delicious though!
Click to expand...

Snapple is good stuff. If you want something with a little more flavor but no sugar then try a good chai. I like Gevalia's and take it without sugar. Currently drinking a cup of Tazo and it's kinda ****ty. That expensive mall Teavana is pretty good stuff too but you have to double the amount recommended to get a good cup and throw in a bag of lipton's green if you want any caffeine out of it. Buy it at Target too instead of the mall. Jade Citrus Mind is tasty.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You know..."git off'n ma propertee, affore I blow yer head kleen off". Go anywhere not under the rule of a "state" and stake a claim, boom you are a property owner as long as you can defend it, yet you are not, in and of yourself, a state.
Click to expand...

Anarchy does not necessarily mean 'no state' or 'no rules'. archy as in monarchy defines who rules. A- or an- means no or not. So anarchy just means no rulers. It is the proclamation of an ideal just like democracy is. People speak about living in a democracy all the time even though we obviously are not technically living in a democratic country. People apply a level of literalism to Anarchy that they do not apply to any other political philosophy even though they have never read any of the anarchists. The ideal does not mean we throw pragmatic considerations out the window.

If you believe that we should strive to reduce the authority of the state to the absolute minimum we reasonably can, increase the authority of the self over the self to an absolute maximum, and that we should also strive to empower the all individuals rather than just the corporation or capitalist in the private sphere than you are an anarchist.

There are many flavors of anarchy and many different ideas about how to get there but the statement above, I think, pretty much sums up the general idea.

addictionary said:
That explains it better. The property that I believe predates state is a land owned by an group of homosapiens against another group of neanderthals; figuratively speaking. I believe it is enough to take it as an example of property regardless of a state and its constitution's existence, but if we define property something determined and justed by a certain state and its laws, then state predates property.

Then again, how important could it be to do that? What is state? What is constitution? Laws? Historically, aren't they created to protect the property and power of the ruler against growing masses of people? How would there be a state if there are as nothing to protect and put boundaries on? That's how I would like to think of it.
Click to expand...

Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?
 
Last edited:
heyhey said:
Anarchy does not necessarily mean 'no state' or 'no rules'. archy as in monarchy defines who rules. A- or an- means no or not. So anarchy just means no rulers. It is the proclamation of an ideal just like democracy is. People speak about living in a democracy all the time even though we obviously are not technically living in a democratic country. People apply a level of literalism to Anarchy that they do not apply to any other political philosophy even though they have never read any of the anarchists. The ideal does not mean we throw pragmatic considerations out the window.

If you believe that we should strive to reduce the authority of the state to the absolute minimum we reasonably can, increase the authority of the self over the self to an absolute maximum, and that we should also strive to empower the all individuals rather than just the corporation or capitalist in the private sphere than you are an anarchist.

There are many flavors of anarchy and many different ideas about how to get there but the statement above, I think, pretty much sums up the general idea.



Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that property and the earliest forms of property ownership do indeed predate any form of "state". I really don't care one way or the other tbh.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I was just pointing out that property and the earliest forms of property ownership do indeed predate any form of "state". I really don't care one way or the other tbh.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is possession. Property means that you have some 'legitimate' claim to ownership. We can still forcibly take things from people. If I came to your home and took your car it would become my possession but it would not be my property.
 
heyhey said:
What you are talking about is possession. Property means that you have some 'legitimate' claim to ownership. We can still forcibly take things from people. If I came to your home and took your car it would become my possession but it would not be my property.
Click to expand...

All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
 
LogGrad98 said:
All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
Click to expand...


He didn't say it wouldn't be "property," he said it wouldn't be "my property."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top