Libertarian vs Authoritarian Today’s Real Politic!

November 4, 2009

Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is the REAL POLITIC today ,here is a picture if it helps

Left vs Right ,socialist and capitalist ,liberal and conservative are meaningless words and distractions today.Can you tell the difference between Labour or Tory ,Democrat or Republican or even the US and China these days?


You can be a Rightwing authoritarian , Big Business or you can be a Leftwing authoritarian , Big Government .Today in the UK ,US and China ,Russia etc we have state socialists who are exactly the same as state capitalists ,which means we are getting very close to TOTAL AUTHORITARIANISM! (see diagram ) The New World Order is just around the corner right NOW!

ALL Political parties are Authoritarian and governments ,be it socialist or capitalist are doomed to failure, but that is all part of the plan. Why ? Simple , power corrupts and absolute power attracks the absolutely corrupt. Think about it for yourself. How big a suitcase of money will it take for YOU to give up your principles? So endless government promises are met with endless government failure and excuses and its never the governments fault and the solution is always more government.

Also how can governments reduce crime? Passing a Law just creates a new criminal class ,thus increasing crime!!! The more you increase law ,the more you accelerate chaos ,its the second law of thermodynamics ,ignore it at your peril!!!  Crime figures are nothing more than a gauge to see how compliant the masses are., and how successfully the programming is taking hold.

If you want to reduce crime SIMPLE!!!! Repeal laws!

If we repeal the cannabis law today imagine the reduction in crime figures tomorrow!!! Millions of people who yesterday where “Criminals” today are honest taxpaying citizens! Crime figures will plummet!!

We must try and break this chain of endless “social engineers” ,it only leads to failure. You cannot fit a logirythm on a biorythm ,it will ultimately kill the biorythm, or, if you will,within each system lies its own demise. Human beings are a finite piece of infinite possibility. There is no single person capable of imagining all of humanity’s possibilities, nevermind control them!!
Government and social engineering is a futile task that leads to the “system” turning and feeding on the very people it was designed to protect!


“All government, of course, is against liberty. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.”

Just like in Authoritarianism ,in Libertarianism ,you can be a Rightwing Libertarian or a Leftwing Libertarian.


“The proletariat needs the state—this is repeated by all the opportunists, social-chauvinists and Kautskyists, who assure us that this is what Marx taught. They ‘forget’ however, to add that, in the first place, the proletariat, according to Marx, needs only a state which is withering away, i.e. a state which is so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot but wither away;
“The state is a special organisation of force; it is the organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, the exploiting class only, i.e. the bourgeoisie.”

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919


The state is nothing more than an invisible hand, a sort of trade and standards body.

So you can be a Leftwing Libertarian(Libertarian Socialist) or a Rightwing Libertarian(Free Market Libertarian ,Objectivist) . In my opinion ,Marx was just trying to fix where capitalism had gone wrong. That is why the Communist manifesto is just a pamphlet. All the economics can be found in “Capital” or Das Capital if you will. Adam Smith was trying to create a meritocracy in a time of feudalism and Kings appointed by god ,a truely amazing visionary .Marx just saw where it had gone wrong and tried to suggest adjustments. Both men ultimately believed in a libertarian society without governments!!

SO IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOVERNMENTLESS SOCIETY ,you have got some pretty big questions to ask yourself, about what YOUR political beliefs actually are! Because they are NOT Capitalist OR Socialist OR Libertarian! Maybe your authoritarian government  and thier presstitute MainStream Media have been feeding YOU Bullshit! QUESTION EVERYTHING ,Truth can handle awkward questions, LIES need Laws and threats to be maintained.



State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism.
The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late nineteenth century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!” [5]
It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin’s critique within the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxism, or to Jan Waclav Machajski’s argument in The Intellectual Worker (1905) that socialism was a movement of the intelligentsia as a class, leading to a new type of society he called state capitalism


Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)


The break with Lenin’s internationalism led to the theory of “Socialism in one country.” This in its turn has led now to the open break with Marxism on the question of the state.
A significant speech was delivered by Gregori Aleksandrov at the Lenin memorial meeting in Moscow. Aleksandrov is the chief of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist (Stalinist) Party. Present at his speech were the elite of the bureaucracy and all the members of the Political Bureau.
In this speech he openly proclaimed a revision of the fundamental doctrines of Marxism-Leninism on the state.
“Theories developed by Marx in the middle of the nineteenth century could not be accepted unchanged by Lenin. Lenin developed the idea that Marxists could not regard the theory of Marx as inviolable, and that that theory must constantly absorb the new experience of history and exert a transforming influence on the development of society. He accurately foresaw that the forces of reaction abroad would attempt to destroy the Socialist Soviet Union.
“The establishment of a powerful and flourishing Socialist land had been possible only, the speaker explained, because the theory of building a Socialist society in a single country was put into effect. There were two aspects of this policy. There were internal obstacles to be swept away and dangers from abroad to be met. Today there was no force within the Soviet Union capable of preventing the further development of Socialism and its gradual transition to Communism. Vigilance against attack from without had necessitated the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the State, based on the assumption of international Socialism and the adoption of the Stalin theory of building a strong State with a powerful army and its own military science capable of winning in war and achieving the military and diplomatic consolidation of victory.” (The Times, February 1st, 1946).

Stalinism cannot show a single line in Lenin which would justify the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the state. Just the contrary. Lenin’s little masterpiece State and Revolution categorically refutes this revisionism. The argument that a strong state is necessary because of the danger of intervention from without, is palpably false. If socialism really had been achieved in the Soviet Union, there could be no question of intervention on the part of the capitalist world. On the contrary, the capitalists would be powerless economically, militarily and politically in the face of a socialist society. This would be because socialism would achieve such an enormous development of the productive forces that America’s vast productive facilities would seem puny by comparison.
Such a system, far from requiring an enormously strengthened state, as Lenin taught in the above mentioned work, would need no state at all. The necessity of the state does not arise from the danger of military intervention—but from the inequalities within society, and to regulate the antagonisms that arise from these inequalities. Lenin called the state a capitalist survival. Far from seeing the need for a constant strengthening of the state and of the army, Marx and Lenin expounded the idea of the “armed people” replacing the standing army, pouring scorn on the opportunists and the Mensheviks who argued the need for a military caste and a civil bureaucracy standing above the people. …aleksandrov.htm


National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit alargely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above

Think people Stalin and Hitler where the 2 political extremes according to the powers that be, I cannot see the differnce between them.


Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation… the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of “libertarian socialism” to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many “Libertarians” think anarchists are just attempting to associate the “anti-libertarian” ideas of “socialism” (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those “socialist” ideas more “acceptable” — in other words, trying to steal the “libertarian” label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850s. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term “libertarian communism” dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use of the term “Libertarian” by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get around anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word “anarchy” in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire — The Libertarian — in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside USA, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised “The Libertarian League” in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based “Libertarian” Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970s, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression “libertarian communism” was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have “stolen” the word.

  This “Free Market” US version of Libertarianism should more correctly be called Ayn Rand Objectivism with Austrian Free Market economics glued on. It is an obviously self defeating philosophy. WHY? Well anyone who understands the capitalist free market economic system knows it is better called the Boom and Bust economy. After a couple of Free market Boom and Bust cycles the majority of the resourses would end up in the hands of a minority again. The majority is under the thumb again ,Libertarian or not!!! That is why this is a self defeating philisophy!

HERE IS FREE MARKET ANARCHISM EXPLAINED (OBJECTIVISM) IMHO it cannot work because it buys and sells resourses ,thus making modern robber barons and it STEALS the working mans labour. When YOU work for someone else and they own the resourses YOU WILL BE EXPLOITED (like a disneyland employee). In this description of Objectivist ,free market anarchism, DISNEYLAND and MORMON COMMUNITIES are given as working examples of Objectivism…… I WOULD NEVER CALL DISNEYLAND AN EXAMPLE TO ASPIRE TOO…..WOULD YOU?

Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual’s right to own resourses(including the state) ,in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. The worker would own his own labour not the state or the community .
 Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership — what is commonly called “socialism” — is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact,state “socialism” is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is “not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest.” [quoted by Colin Ward, “Introduction”, Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]


Anarchism has historically gained more support and influence in Spain than anywhere else, especially before Francisco Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
There were several variants of anarchism in Spain: the peasant anarchism in the countryside of Andalusia; urban anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia, particularly its capital Barcelona; and what is sometimes called “pure” anarchism in other cities such as Zaragoza. However, these were complementary trajectories, and shared a great deal of ideological similarities.
Early on, the success of the anarchist movement was sporadic. Anarchists would organize a strike and ranks would swell. Usually, repression by police reduced the numbers again, but at the same time further radicalized many members.
In the 20th century, this violence began to fade, and the movement gained speed with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism and the creation of the huge libertarian trade union, the CNT. General strikes became common, and large portions of the Spanish working class adopted anarchist ideas. The FAI was created as a purely anarchist association, with the intention of keeping the CNT focused on the principles of anarchism.
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler’s life.
Their legacy remains important to this day, particularly to anarchists who look at their achievements as a historical precedent of anarchism’s validity.

After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 200 “recovered” factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay.[6] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, which is about these events.

Free Software Movement
The Free Software movement is an example of anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL which is the most widely used Free Software license in the world and most all Open Source licenses is such that there is a collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind social anarchists’ perspective on private property and economic organization.

Switzerland and Iceland are both Direct Democracys,a form of anarchy.They have both managed to achieve high living standards and low crime and corruption. Iceland has told the bankers to get lost and is likely to setup an investigative journalistic whistleblowers haven with Wikileaks.

But do not expect to read this or about the Argentine economic model on the MainStreamMedia ,or the wonders that Open Sourse Software and the Internet have brought to humanity. Our government either ignore them ,throws shit at them and tries to shut them down. According to government the internet is full of terrorists ,criminals and peadophiles …this is a better description of the government!!! I have not come across any of this online , but our governments have been accused and found guilty on ALL THESE COUNTS!!! and in more than just 1 country. 

“Whether the mask is labeled Fascism, Democracy, or Dictatorship or the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus-the bureaucracy, the police, the military…. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”– The French worker philosopher Simone Weil,1945

Law is stagnation , Conformity is death by boredom and ignorance ,Obedience is for slaves and Specialisation is for insects!


It is our natural and best state , from the chaos ,patterns form that we can live by.THINK we do NOT percieve the universe we only percieve its CHAOS (or its changes) For example listen to a monotone noise , after a while you do NOT hear it , it has NOT gone away it is just NOT varying so we do not precieve it! It is the same with smell and with sight! We do not percieve reality ,only the changes around us.


It is humanity’s diversity that will save us , NOT our conformity.

Conformity makes us weak and stupid and is most likely to lead to our destruction.



More Good Reasons For Scottish Independance

November 1, 2009

Unionism has given Scotland

1 a loss of business investment ,as bank rates are set according to the souths’ needs so encouraging business to move south.

2. Increased unemployment due to unfavourable business environment and the migration of businesses to the south

3 caused a population exodus,note there where less people in Scotland in 2006 than in 1961 and note the amount of ex-pat posters

5,116,900 (2006 est)

5,094,800 (2005 est)

5,078,400 (2004 est)

5,057,400 (2003 est)

5,054,800 (2002 est)

5,062,011 (2001 est)

5,083,000 (1991 est)

5,180,200 (1981 est)

5,234,000 (1971 est)

5,201,000 (1961 est)

Would the LAST Scot to leave the Union please switch the lights out….

1961 – 43,983,300

1971 – 45,870,100

1981 – 46,623,500

1991 – 48,067,300

2001 – 49,138,831 [4]

2005 – 50,431,700 [5]

2006 – 50,762,900

4 caused a Scottish “Brain drain”,note the amount of well educated ex-pat posters paying thier taxes to foreign countries

5 caused english people to look at Scots as “subsidy junkies” where the FACTS seem to point the other way

6 caused the Scots to blame the english for OUR problems ,instead of giving us the tools to deal with the problems ourselves.

7 a 25%-30%(at least) LOSS of living standards ,or a 30% Union Jack Tax.

Using the UK’s own assumptions for tax revenue and spending, but including Scotland’s share of North Sea Oil receipts, this answer revealed that between 1978-79 and 1994-95 Scotland had a cumulative surplus of £27.6 billion, or £34 billion in today’s prices. At the same time the UK had a deficit of more than £330bn.

All very OBVIOUS EFFECTS of the unwanted ,forced marrige of “the union” . It was not wanted then ,its not wanted now.

I could go on…..

If you want UNIONISM ,then be HONEST and admit that is the PRICE we must pay for it, I think its a complete rip off!

So what exactly is the benefit of the union?

Defence ? – well Scotland is stuck in 2 wars right now ,thanks to the union. So NO it makes us LESS SAFE and wastes billions in pounds and caused untold slaughter and misery and creates MORE TERRORISM not LESS you idiots.

Standard of Living ? – NO ,as I said we are 25% to 30% ,at least, WORSE OFF thanks to the union. So what’s that about higher/tartan taxes?!?! Welcome to a 30% Union Jack Tax straight off the top.

Trade ?- NO, as has been demonstrated business rates are set for the south of england even if it means unemployment in the north.It causes UNEMPLOYMENT and a DECREASE in trade!!

EVERY Business Analyst I work with,and I work with a lot, thinks Scotland would be financially BETTER OFF INDEPENDENT .

Despite what unionist troll AM2 and friends say,and i have always found his economic arguements either niave,blinkered or just plain decietful,but he is entitled to his view,btw this was the man who proudly endorsed the strength of the the British economy , which then promptly collapsed under the economic pressures I pointed out.

Also the Adam Smith Institute and his beloved Whitehall both disagree with him ,from both the left and the right.

View from the LEFT

“LABOUR ministers were warned in a secret Whitehall dossier 30 years ago of the powerful case for Scotland becoming independent with booming oil revenues, but the information was kept confidential by Harold Wilson’s government to keep nationalism at bay.

The dossier, most of which was written by a leading government economist in 1974 and 1975, sets out how Scotland would have had one of the strongest currencies in Europe, attracting international capital into its banks in the same way as Switzerland.

It argued Scotland could quickly become one of Europe’s strongest economies with “embarrassingly” large tax surpluses.”

View from the RIGHT

“Adam Smith Institute, Friday, April 27, 2007

The Scottish economy could enjoy record growth if Scotland became independent, leaving the average Scot many thousands of pounds better off each year. This is the finding of a research Briefing Paper published today by the Adam Smith Institute, the free market economic think tank.”

and finally do you think that Holland , Finland , Austria , Denmark, Luxemburg,Poland etc. would give up thier soverignty to Germany or Russia for economic reasons!?!? What about the Czech Republic ,Slovakia ,Slovenia , Croatia ,Bosnia , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania ,etc . etc etc. have they all realised what a big stupid mistake they have made by becoming independent soverign countries,none of them pump oil btw. I think the best a unionist could do for a come back was talk about Bavaria in the 19th Century,which IN REALITY was a FORCED UNION AS WELL!!!(I do not think he wanted to mention the Unification of Germany and Austria in 1938 …I think that says alot about the mind set of unionists, HELLO guys its the 21st Century.

The Unionist arguement is pure hipocracy.

Surely if it is of great benefit to give up our soverignty to London ,to be the 5th biggest economy , then it would be even better to give our soverignty to Brussels and be the BIGGEST economy ,which the eurozone now is! I do NOT know many unionists foaming at the mouth to give up “British” soverignty to Brussels and the EU for its obvious economic benefits?!?!?!

AND more unionist arguement hipocracy…..

The UK LOST 34.8 BILLION POUNDS in 2006 , surely by unionist logic, the UK is a non viable independant state.Especially now with the credit crunch and Englands economic eggs ,all in one very unstable financial basket. So the UK must be disbanded and made to join the EU…….. or else its just some embarassing little umimportant economic basket case stuck on the fringes of Europe!

The unionist postion smacks of hipocrasy and empirialism ,being “give your soverignty to England but England will never give its soverignty to Europe” This is just mini empirialism .Its been tried and its B*ll*cks.

….Or is it some nostalgic romantic feelings for the days of old and the union jack???…. Well cry me a river, build me a bridge and GET OVER IT!!

A last comment. I am in NO way anti-English. I believe the “British” government has exploited the working people of England as well. The Scottish vs English antagonism just benefits the British unionists and is just stirred up for these very reasons. Divide and Rule is as old as empire.

Is there a problem between the English and Irish today? A hundred years ago in 1909 they where at each others throats! The situation in Scotland and England today is nowhere near this bad, and IN REALITY , very little will actually change after Indepandance. Business will continue as it does today between Scotland and many European countries ,new and old. Travel between Scotland and England would be exactly the same. The ONLY difference would be that the Scottish have control over Scottish resourses and policies, the very same would be true of England.

In fact England would face the very same problems Scotland would, as the UK the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England would NOT exist anymore.

If Scotland has to renegotiate EU entry then so would England. If Scotland has questions of economic viability so would England.

Can an English person please explain what the English economy would run on? Its NOT manufacturing , its not resourses like oil ,its not innovational technologies or agrocultural. Scotland excels in all of these and has a population of just over 5 million. Englands population is 55 million and runs on the financial services sector and selling Scottish oil for American dollars. Neither of these will last long either.

Out of the 3 “countries”, Independant Scotland , Independant England and United Kingdoms .My money is on an Independant Scotland surviving best in the future



For even more good reasons for Scottish Independance please read this blog…