Odiseizam wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031122173115/http://www.namyth.com/index.php?pg=faq
nice and easy theoretical read, but what they need to know is that they cant in by revolution, thats just wasted time for any steady change, especially in the current geopolitical and geoeconomical circumstances,
You're missing the entire *point* of revolution, which is to displace bourgeois class *rule* -- now indistinguishable from global medievalism -- turning the world's population into serfs once again.
The point of revolution isn't mere 'change', but actual *upheaval*, that allows the workers of the world to control their own labor efforts, and also the *products* of their labor, instead of having to hand it all off to be controlled and sold by private *capital* ownership, as things are now.
Odiseizam wrote:
however they can maximize their goals if they think as left-centrist i.e. green party alike, attracting Youth need more than ideology i.e. it needs motto and think enviromentalism could be proper magnet, although as the same is now misused by the left it can be tricky to be overtake from them such good propaganda tool , yet if we know that their co2 hype could be easily demystified by methane-math there is chance this could be potentially achieved , even more after the next democratic fiasco after the next economic crisis ...
Yes, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that fact argues for the implementation of *cell culturing*, for meat, so that animals no longer have to be raised for meat, cutting back on their methane emissions, and returning much farmland to nature.
The Greens aren't even pro-working-class, though, and are often militarist, as much as the existing capitalist government is.
Odiseizam wrote:
... but this to be done there should be in place massive media agitprop, and for that from help could be movie and music industry ... now there would be also need of financiers for all that, but if those popular events are managed in commercial way think many companies would seek to take the opportunity ... yet all that to be reinsured from sabotage risks, libertarian party should offer Open Society approach and act through own e-forums, just imagine the might of PoFo used in shaping on e-political practical programme in front of everyone and by anyone i.e. one open e-forum for party members and one parallel for guests, like that things will move fast and any potential intrusion will be noticed in time ...
This is all just *marketing* -- the political principle of libertarianism is still basically for *property rights* over the rights of people to the necessities of modern life, including food and housing, etc.
Odiseizam wrote:
good typo, neither they can get IN nor WIN through revolution, although their founding fathers dive deep in such reasoning, at least they can dream about it!
You're forgetting that proletarian revolution has a very real *history* -- it's far more than just lazy daydreaming. Start with the Bolshevik Revolution, for example.
Odiseizam wrote:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants” [1]
Odiseizam wrote:
@Red_Army hm You are talking about economic libertarianism, then try Libertarian Socialism [1] something way more acceptable for me in any future economic collapse or global cataclysm i.e. till there is strong liberal capitalism any eventual lib.soc. is doomed by certain risks of corruption, unless there is introduced tribalism on the horizon, and for what I am mostly fond of decentralization which is truly possible in libertarian circumstances, yet it must be with centrist orientation so it could last longer i.e. to be applied the rational paradigm "People should be free to do what they want if it doesn’t hurt others" [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Government_decentralization
So which *is* it -- ?
You're arguing for *contradictory* things -- decentralization, yet centrist / government-type centralization.
Tribalism is synonymous with *decentralization*, yet most of the things that people need in common are *common*, like food, housing, transportation, health care, education, etc., so there's no good reason to advance a *balkanized*, piecemeal approach to such, with *de*-centralization, as you're doing.
All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without bothering to describe what you might *mean* with these terms you're using.
- By Rich
- By JohnRawls
- By Dr House