Quote from Ricter:
Imho, the so-called circle mentioned by the OP is formed only on the political axis, where the economic extreme of communism and the economic extreme of laissez faire capitalism (hereafter privatism) are established through authoritarianism. This political extreme, facism, is the link. The other political extreme, anarchy, cannot force, ie. cannot "join" either economic extreme, that is make communism and privatism resemble each other. All four implied politicoeconomic systems are plausible: anarcho (read democratic) socialism, democratic privatism, authoritarian (read fascistic) socialism, and authoritarian privatism.
It does not seem to make sense that the other axis, the political axis, can be viewed as bent 'round to form a circle from the perspective of either pure communism, or pure privatism, as neither of those indicates what form of power will be exercised to bend that axis.
No, I didn`say they are the same, i.e. laissez-faire capitalists do not want a violent revolution, i.e. there are differences between communists/laissez-faire capitalists. Fascists on the other hand want a more/less perpetual centrally planned authoritarian/totalitarian collectivist society, communists only want it(closer to sosialists/facists) until they can achieve a class-/stateless society(closer to laissez-faire).Quote from Ricter:
Imho, the so-called circle mentioned by the OP is formed only on the political axis, where the economic extreme of communism and the economic extreme of laissez faire capitalism (hereafter privatism) are established through authoritarianism. This political extreme, facism, is the link. The other political extreme, anarchy, cannot force, ie. cannot "join" either economic extreme, that is make communism and privatism resemble each other. All four implied politicoeconomic systems are plausible: anarcho (read democratic) socialism, democratic privatism, authoritarian (read fascistic) socialism, and authoritarian privatism.
It does not seem to make sense that the other axis, the political axis, can be viewed as bent 'round to form a circle from the perspective of either pure communism, or pure privatism, as neither of those indicates what form of power will be exercised to bend that axis.
Quote from omegapoint:
The commonality I asked for between teabaggers and the May Day celebrants of course had economics as at least an ingredient.
To see a parallel between the sources of their similar grievences you'd have to make the observation with a wider lens than the one you're looking through.
Quote from loik:
No, I didn`say they are the same, i.e. laissez-faire capitalists do not want a violent revolution...
Quote from loik:
...
How can you state that laissez-faire is authoritarian, is it authoritarian to be anti-authoritarian, anti-coercion etc?..
Laissez-faire capitalists don`t rule the world, the fascists/socialists etc do.Quote from Ricter:
Why would they? It's capital at the top now, and the wealthiest capitalists, those that feel the least restraint, are presently acting pretty much as they wish. If they were to back violent action it would be of the "put down" variety, which history and even current events give many examples.
But if we buried all human desire for achievement in a mass of collectivism, it's quite plausible to imagine a violent revolution by their type to cast off that excessive social control.
What, why should some people intervene, in what way?Quote from Ricter:
It means essentially, in terms of the market, "leave it be". If evolving conditions, perhaps social, economic, or environmental, indicated some intervention would be in order, and that intervention was blocked by power, then you have your authoritarianism.