Sorry. Forgot to put my name on the post above to avoid confusion. Can't seem to register at infoshop.org or anti-state.com either, and am starting to get paranoid. Tom

brauneyz clearly doesn't know what 'socialism' means. (and the fact that he's now navigating to a dictionary only helps to prove it.)

you DO realise the price of fuel in the U.S is artificially low? imagine having to live in the real world. saying that, my island has no threat of invasion so i guess i'm a minority too.

tom, what happens when you try to register?

Brauneyz seems to be under the impression that modern liberal capitalism with wealth distribution is socialism (It isn't, that's McCartheyite propaganda).

Tom, I figured it out and made a suggestion in the 'Devilyn' thread. On the reg, page it requests that one use the prefix supplied (#,$,<, etc.) followed by the confirmation code. You actually have to use the @ first, then the code. Forget the squiggly prefix they provide.

As for the rest of you guys looking to start a definition war...

I said when I introduced myself this was an annoying possibility. Zazaban has already provided a definition quite contrary to my quoted online dictionary version of anarchist. If you'd like to provide a starting point for 'socialism' or 'capitalism', fine, but do not assume you understand where I'm coming from or play fast with words.

Well since you provided a definition of socialism that would have been rejected by anyone who had actually bothered to read some socialist literature I think it's safe to assume you're regurgitating propaganda.

Socilalism is worker control of the means of production, always has been, always will be.

Nice try, Denizen, but I never supplied a definition for socialism.

What I said was that Zaza and I have both supplied linkable definitions for anarchism.

Now, what specifically is your problem with my use of socialism in this thread? Because I called MM one (or because I called him a moron?) Do you not agree that he proposes (roughly) a healthcare system that is commonly referred to as socialistic? In Sicko, he examines the systems of many European countries (& Canada). While they are all different to some degree, each is more socialistic than the US. Perhaps you prefer the term 'national' healthcare? Whatever. Your beef is not with me. Take it up with the media.

Same goes for his new movie Capitalism.

WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT SOCIALISM ACTUALLY IS!



Yes. but Zazaban's definition could be confirmed by reading through the philosophies and ideas put forward by many of the people who self-identified as anarchists. Yours could only be proved by asking clueless idiots in the street. Frankly I'd tend to go with what the anarchists say is anarchism.



It is called socialistic but socialised healthcare has little to do with the political philosophy of socialism. My problem is that your conflating socialised healthcare with socialism, they are two distinct things, the former does not imply the latter nor does the latter imply the former.



I don't need to take it up with the media because I don't live in a country that leaves it's citizens to die if they aren't rich enough, and funnily enough no one in my country (Or no one I've heard or seen of yet) confuses this with socialism.

Let me try and explain my own position on healthcare so you can get a better feel of were I'm coming from, let's start with a quote by Noam Chomsky -



National healthcare may be predicated on theft but allowing the working classes to be exposed to the monstrosity of cartelised american style healthcare is facepalm worthy. Personally given the choice between corporate monopoly and state monopoly I'll take the state monopoly, healthcare for all comes above economic considerations to my mind. Now I'll gladly support a truly libertarian or anarchist solution to the problem, but if they're sticking a gun to my back and asking me 'corporation or state?' I'll take the state.



Being (Or claiming to be, moore seems very confused when it comes to economic and political issues) 'anti'-capitalist is not the same as being socialist.

I provided a definition from dictionary.com, while Zaza provided one from Wiki. The only clueless idiot I see here is you, who clearly needs to argue for argument's sake.

Outta here. Sorry Cousin Tom. Not as bright, funny, or charming over here.

Yes but you were claiming your definition as some kind of truth.



We don't NEED to reconcile the two. Get this into your head moron, anarchism is well defined, it always has been, you walking in here with your blatant ignorance providing definitions from online dictionary websites and trying to claim it as having even an ounce of truth is fucking enraging.

You can't just walk in with your bullshit and start with all this definition crap, these words have meaning and I'm sick of people trying to play with those meanings to suit their own prejudices.



Thank atheismo!

...is a meaningless word. as tli said, 'socialism is worker control of the means of production, always has been, always will be'. those conditions either exist, or they don't. 'socialistic' implies that those conditions can partly exist. but what does that mean? partly in terms of quantity, or quality? the former is possible in the abstract, i suppose: some workplaces could be socialist, with others not; but that analysis fails to consider the economy as a whole, which would be qualitatively not socialist. which brings us to the latter: a qualitatively 'socialistic' workplace, which is impossible, just as it's impossible to be a little bit pregnant.

and to dovetail with tli's post, the notion of the state as being off limits to anarchists is silly. first, it's not an either-or situation: all revolutionaries are also reformists, because reforms allow us to place revolutionary focus where reforms aren't possible. second, states are predicated on lofty ideals, which they almost never live up to. many of those ideals overlap with anarchist ones, only the auspices differ. it is perfectly sensible to press the state to live up to its own flowery rhetoric. anarchists know that there's a limit to how far the state can be pushed before it is revealed as the instrument of class oppression that it is. that alone is reason enough to push it to the limit!

as to definitions, i'm always reminded of this. dictionaries are perhaps the worst place to get definitions for political, economic, or philosophic terms (probably religious as well, though not being religious i've never found myself infuriated by a dictionary in that regard).

Edit: Sorry. Responded to the wrong post...

Cousin Brauneyz, are you really leaving? At least I hope that you've checked out The Shaggs, mentioned in a couple of threads. Then, at least your time here will have been well-spent. Hope to catch you over at Skeptics, where I lurk now and then.

I guess it is better for having a sensors for motions a and cameras at the security checkpoints for measuring a natural signals coming from a body's heart rate and temperature. It would be easy to maintain the security system.


_________________
Security Systems

Seriously, a spam bot selling security cameras fucks up a sentence about security cameras.