Socialism 101

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You haven't burst anything. Though, that you imagine yourself to be capable of that is amusing.

Your inflated sense of intellectual superiority is entirely unearned. Have you actually studied classical anarchism in-depth as I have? I know more about this $#@! than you do, junior. Do try to address your betters with more respect in the future.

I never said anything about what Spooner was or was not. I simply said your poor use of labels is unimpressive, and it is. Calling Spooner a socialist is a lot like calling Ron Paul a republican. These may be adequate labels for exceedingly simple minds, but they are wholly inadequate labels to what these men truly represented and continue to represent.

No label can encapsulate what a prolific thinker represents. No one ever said that you could attach the label of "socialist" to Spooner, and then understand his philosophy. Socialism in the 19th Century was far too broad and diverse a school of thought.

That said, Spooner's ideas are very much in keeping with the libertarian socialist tradition. That particular label fits him quite well, despite your childish and utterly vacuous attempts at condescension.

What's more, you seem to think you've made some kind of relevant, profound point in using such simple-minded labels. How droll.

No, that wasn't the point at all. I know asking you to keep pace is like asking a quadriplegic to compete in a triathlon, but do try.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't think he could be pegged as such by our modern, post-Mises understanding of Socialism. The word has gone through a number of semantic shifts (like "liberal") and we need to consider historical context to discuss Spooner thoughtfully.

Hell, Orwell identified as a "socialist" and fought in the Spanish civil war, but wouldn't really be called a "socialist" by modern socialists.

It is certainly true that the label today almost exclusively refers to state-socialism, to which all anarchists before the 20th Century were opposed. That said, if Spooner was alive today he'd probably be along the lines of a Kevin Carson and other left-libertarians. The same goes for Tucker, Proudhon and other classical individualist anarchists. Anarcho-individualists of today and previous eras fit well under the "libertarian socialist" label.

[DamianTV]

Democratic socialism is some what redundant. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner. Socialism is similar, but the lamb has already been eaten and the wolves must resort to cannibalism or starve.

Something like this?



(from here and here)

[Cabal]

No label can encapsulate what a prolific thinker represents.

Spooner was a socialist.

I'll forgive the desperate backpedaling since it seems that you have finally decided to acknowledge your egregious error, corrected your prior disregard for context, and have wisely conceded the point--that your poor use of labels was unimpressive.

Now, with any luck, you'll demonstrate an admirable retention for lessons learned that may make you think twice before proceeding to poorly apply simple-minded labels in such unimpressive ways in the future.

I won't hold my breath, of course, but hope springs eternal, so they say.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'll forgive the desperate backpedaling since it seems that you have finally decided to acknowledge your egregious error, corrected your prior disregard for context, and have wisely conceded the point--that your poor use of labels was unimpressive.

Now, with any luck, you'll demonstrate an admirable retention for lessons learned that may make you think twice before proceeding to poorly apply simple-minded labels in such unimpressive ways in the future.

I won't hold my breath, of course, but hope springs eternal, so they say.

Not answering whether you've studied anarchism in depth as I have? Good move, little boy. Telling the truth about that would shatter any pretension you have of being a superior intellect. Still haven't learned to treat your betters with respect, I see. Alas, personal growth does tend to elude the plebeians. I shan't hold it against you.

Do point out when and where I "backpedaled", plebe. I never once claimed that Spooner could be understood simply by the label "socialist", just that he fell under the umbrella of the term, and fits quite nicely within the libertarian socialist tradition. And he does. This bizarre hostility from you is amusing, since nothing I said was remotely objectionable and I don't even know who the $#@! you are.

[AZJoe]

Peter Schiff crushes socialist economist in interview debate