9 votes

Cyenk Uygur Takes A Swing At Capitalism, Unwittingly Attacks Socialism

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cenk has Bill Maher syndrome

That's where someone that lacks intelligence and reason, tries to make up for it with smugness and ego.

collectiviising isn't necessarily a bad thing when its voluntary

and there is no force behind it. Voluntary collectivism isn't seen very much cause collectivising generally fails in large scale and people move on to other things. At least as far as I have seen.

I see a lot of people complain about unions. Unions aren't necessarily bad, as long as they are voluntary and do no lobby for the use of monopolised force aka the gooberment. There is nothing wrong with people voluntarily cooperating to negotiate terms of employment etc... I recommend people google Stefan Molynuex views on this. Some interesting points he gives.

Cyenk doesn't understand that people can still collectivise in a anarchist or libertarian society. Instead of trying to bring people to collectivise through attraction, they wan to do it through monolopolized force, aka the gooberment. I suppose that is the only way they can pull it off. And for this he will always fail the non aggression and non intervention principals. It is a shame too, because Cyenk is usually decent on foreign policy and some civil liberty issues. And some of his rants are epically funny.

He should still be more respected then most other statists imo. At least he is a little more reasonable. And see, we got him to go more local recently. His whole states rights campaign proves this. These are the people we have to continue to work on.

Hitler was a collectivist, a

Hitler was a collectivist, a person who believes that it is right to force people to do things they normally wouldn't do and if they don't do it it's okay to kill them.

Most of the people in the world think this way including many on this site.

I agree to an extent, but not so much about the okay to kill"

The far right thinks it is O.K. to cage individuals because they do not meet their moral code, and when this occurs they want to see people in orange jump suits and chains housed behind bars. Thinking about it though you may be right, if you would allow another human that had not caused harm to anyone else be chained and treated like an animal, perhaps they would not care if your life was taken, interesting thought...

The "moral majority" are the ones that allowed our judicial system to stray away from the Constitution and judge based on moral code. They are the ones that have been (and good for them) pro life, yet they stand for the death penalty, judging others to the extent they would take a life, which is bizarre to me.

Interesting topic of discussion though.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Try to fight back when they

Try to fight back when they come to arrest you and see what happens.

Trevor Lyman's picture

In another spot on the web

In another spot on the web where I submitted this people are saying that Hitler wasn't a socialist. My understanding was that he was beginning with more socialist tendencies and then evolved into fascism. Does anyone know more about this?

tasmlab's picture

National Socialist Party

"National Socialist Party" is what Nazi means. Dude's a socialist.

The third position economics twists a little different than a communist type socialist where the state controls the means of production but doesn't own it.

The term 'socialist' is dicey because people use it to suggest something very precise but it used without very much precision.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football