NationStates Jolt Archive

And by doing so, you have created a class for yourself, a class that is simply better than someone else.

How would that work in a classless society? If we're all equal, we're all of the same class - no one should have more than anyone else, lest they be of a higher class, regardless of how they achieved it. It doesn't work, does it?Absolutely not.
You are using two different definitions of classes here.
You have classes of people in communism. The difference is that there is no master class and no slave class.

:mp5: war :sniper: chaos :gundge:
freedom :D

Hardly. Equal rights means equal opportunity. I think even you can agree everyone should start at the same point.

Actually, I don't. Everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, but not necessarily from the same point. If my parents worked their asses off to give me and my siblings a better life, should I not be allowed to enjoy that life? Who are you to say the work my parents have done should go to someone else? Why should they work that hard for someone else's children that they neither love nor care for, that did not come from their loins and their pain, sweat and tears?

No. We do not all start at the same starting point. However, we should all be given the same chance to succeed. That is to say, the opportunity for a basic education, the opportunity get funding for higher education and basic assurances of health.

You see, I'm a Canadian. Canada takes these values too far and the US doesn't take it far enough. There are happy mediums if people are willing to be smart enough to think of them.

EDIT: minor changes

Absolutely not.
You are using two different definitions of classes here.
You have classes of people in communism. The difference is that there is no master class and no slave class.

Uhh.. if there are limited # of resources, and a more successful person is able to capture more of these resources in order to become increasingly successful, then others will want to work for him rather than on their own. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are born to follow, the same way there are those born to lead.

You could end up having people wanting to work for you because under you, their lives would be better than if they tried to live it on their own.

What happens then? You'd have a class of people working for someone else - perhaps to mutual benefit, but that doesn't matter in a communist society, does it? That's still "slave class".

Actually, I don't. Everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, but necessarily from the same point. If my parents worked their asses off to give me and my siblings a better life, should I not be allowed to enjoy that life? Who are you to say the work my parents have done should go to someone else? Why should they work that hard for someone else's children that they neither love nor care for, that did not come from their loins and their pain, sweat and tears?

Then you contradict yourself. If you believed in expecting people to be completely responcible for their actions, I could respect that, even though you took it to authoritarian conclusions. If you believe in "might makes right", then anything that gives someone an advantage they did nothing to earn is inconsistant. At least try to devise a morality that doesn't just give you an excuse to screw everyone else over.

And yet people like you come onto message boards and judge and condemn others for their beliefs while being unable to properly adhere to your own, all the while benefiting from the very thing you decry. Fuck off with your own judgemental crap about values you can't even uphold yourself.

You don't know your arse from your elbow. Anarchists don't have "beliefs", we have aims. Hypocrisy is a natural human condition, reality rarely meets what's inside our minds.

Well, so long as you admit it, the rest of us are free to completely ignore anything you have to say, because it holds little to no real value. Anything you say you'd simply turn around and do something different, because you lack the will to be better than that. Why should anyone listen to you?

Because, according to you, leftists admitting their hypocrisy is what they have to do. Yet, I do exactly that, and you hold it against me. As I said, hypocrisy is the natural human condition.

And how precisely are you going to "build a better world" when you do nothing about it today? Change starts with you. I don't judge what you believe, I judge the fact that you can't even live up to it.

Of course not. I'm an anarchist, I believe in living in a world without hierarchies. It's not a choice in a world of hierarchies, dumbfuck, anymore than you could live in a world without water just because you wanted to.

You lead by example. If you cannot provide that example, you have no right telling someone else how they should live based on a belief you yourself refuse to adhere to.

Dahlink, I lead by more example than you could imagine.

That's a very self-sacrificing statement. Yet not two paragraphs previously, you claim you are a hypocrite unwilling to make the sacrifices to your own personal happiness that would be required in order for you to build a better world for people other than yourself.

Your idea of sacrifice is meaningless, it's only consumerists who put value in consumer items.

So which is it? How are you going to build this better world? Talking about it on message boards isn't going to do a damn thing, except, ease your own conscience. If that's enough for you, then, heh, so be it I suppose. That's not good enough for me. Anything I believe, I make a consumer choice to uphold it.

Exactly, you make the really difficult consumerist choice to be a consumer, because that's exactly what the consumer system wants you to be. It's as easy as being a Catholic in the Vatican. As for what I do, as well as feed browsers with my ideas while debating with people like you, I do more than enough, thank you very much - union activism, human rights activism, etc. I don't do a consumer or capitalist job, in fact I've never had a full-time consumerist or capitalist job. I put my money and my career where my mouth is.

Vas.

How would that work in a classless society? If we're all equal, we're all of the same class - no one should have more than anyone else, lest they be of a higher class, regardless of how they achieved it. It doesn't work, does it?

a classless society doesn't require identical material outcomes - why would it? it only requires truly equal opportunity, an economic baseline below which people are not allowed to fall, and equal access to power, prestige, and resources.

Then you contradict yourself. If you believed in expecting people to be completely responcible for their actions, I could respect that, even though you took it to authoritarian conclusions. If you believe in "might makes right", then anything that gives someone an advantage they did nothing to earn is inconsistant. At least try to devise a morality that doesn't just give you an excuse to screw everyone else over.

You are again thinking in extremes. You can be strong and be a survivor and succeed without having to utterly destroy all the weaklings that come into your path. Although you're free to do so if anyone is so foolishly inclined.

Everyone is completely responsible for their own actions - within the confines of the fact they are already provided the very basics with which they can survive and possibly succeed. Most people will fail, because they lack the ability to succeed, but in a free market, nothing is stopping them from trying.

I have no quams about ensuring everyone is given the same chance to begin - but that does not mean they start at the same level. Nor does it mean that once they've squandered that chance, that society owes them anything more.

Uhh.. if there are limited # of resources, and a more successful person is able to capture more of these resources in order to become increasingly successful, then others will want to work for him rather than on their own. Believe it or not, there are people out there who are born to follow, the same way there are those born to lead.

You could end up having people wanting to work for you because under you, their lives would be better than if they tried to live it on their own.

What happens then? You'd have a class of people working for someone else - perhaps to mutual benefit, but that doesn't matter in a communist society, does it? That's still "slave class".
You can have one man giving orders and another doing the manual work, if the former is best at giving orders and the later is best at manual work. This is not in conflict with communism if that is what you mean.
What is in conflict with communism is if the man giving order own everything and the man doing the manual work own nothing. They should both own a part of the work and therefore receive a reward based on their work, not their property.

You don't know your arse from your elbow. Anarchists don't have "beliefs", we have aims. Hypocrisy is a natural human condition, reality rarely meets what's inside our minds.

I admit, I don't truly know what anarchists are, or what they do. I assume painting A's with circles around them and roving in packs of lawless vandalism. Which sounds like fun, when you're 15. Fortunately, I've grown past that stage.

Because, according to you, leftists admitting their hypocrisy is what they have to do. Yet, I do exactly that, and you hold it against me. As I said, hypocrisy is the natural human condition.

No, leftist admitting their hypocrisy is what they rarely do. And precisely because you are a hypocrite, your words hold no value. I don't hold it against you, I simply don't think you have anything to say worth listening to.

Of course not. I'm an anarchist, I believe in living in a world without hierarchies. It's not a choice in a world of hierarchies, dumbfuck, anymore than you could live in a world without water just because you wanted to.

Then vive la revolution for you, my friend. Enjoy tearing down whatever system you think it is that's oppressing you. Don't mind if I just go on with my life completely ignoring extremist nut jobs like yourself.

Dahlink, I lead by more example than you could imagine.

Oh, I imagine a lot of graffitti has your name all over it. I hope you're good with colours. I hate monotone graffitti.

Your idea of sacrifice is meaningless, it's only consumerists who put value in consumer items.

You mean like, food, clothing and shelter? Riiiight... Those things belong to a hierarchy, don't they, so you don't abide by them.

Exactly, you make the really difficult consumerist choice to be a consumer, because that's exactly what the consumer system wants you to be. It's as easy as being a Catholic in the Vatican. As for what I do, as well as feed browsers with my ideas while debating with people like you, I do more than enough, thank you very much - union activism, human rights activism, etc. I don't do a consumer or capitalist job, in fact I've never had a full-time consumerist or capitalist job. I put my money and my career where my mouth is.

While purchasing goods from sweat shops?

Actually no, you've missed the point of our original discussion (or at least, the one you were replying to). The discussion was based on the ideal that all property was theft. The argument was about whether or not land is something that any one individual could own. Not the methods by which they own it, or how the evolution of owning land has evolved from the Divine Right to monetary ownership. That has nothing to do with it.

It's simply the question; does anyone have the right to own anything?

Yes, that which they use. The question, actually, is does anyone have the right to own something they don't need and charge a person who needs it for its use, which is what "property is theft" means. I read the conversation, I'm very well versed on Proudhon. If you look at how the concept of Divine Right was overthrown, it was, in most cases, revolutionary in which common ownership was reinstituted for short periods. From the French to the Russian revolutions, the overthrowing of the monarchies led to short term communism that was destroyed by its enemies, among whom I include the Bolsheviks.

I think your claim that the "vast majority" of people do not accept property ownership is a bit of a hyperbole. If you have some numbers to back that up, I may believe you. However, I tend to think the exact opposite - in that people do believe in property ownership because they don't know any better. That's the way it has always been - someone has always owned that land, be it by divine right of kings or through "purchase" from the state.

The fact of the matter is that ownership of land is ingrained in our society and culture. In order to change this, you'd have to undo thousands of years of upbringing and thought. And you'd have to come up with a method to supply unlimited resources to make up for the natural instinct of human greed.
Until that happens, common shared wealth does not work.

The principle of legitimate ownership might be ingrained in yours, but not in mine, buddy. I'm Irish, I come from a history of illegitimate land ownership, followed by distribution based on need and usage. Not quite communism, but close initially. Any country with a history of colonialism, which includes most of the Americas, you'll find the indigenous people have a similar view. The concept of ownership came from the invader, not from the society. Land ownership in the modern sense didn't exist in the Americas, Africa or Asia until very recently. Tribal systems were not the same as feudal systems, while many were hierarchical, the tribal leader tended to hold the land for the tribe, in effect, it belonged to the tribe. This was as much the case in Celtic societies as in American Indian.

The majority of people are of this point of view, one where property rights were imposed from outside and are very obviously theft.

Vas.

Err, well fine. Then I'm evil. Come get me.

God, you are so extremist and naive. Just because I believe the strong should survive does not mean I believe that the weak should be killed off. Don't just sit there in your hypocritical little world and shout slogans of good and evil at me.

What does strong mean? Is Arnold Schwartzenegger "stronger" than Stephen Hawking? Who's better for human evolution - the weedy nerd in your school who's now a doctor or a computer scientist, or the sporty jock who's now an alcoholic divorcee who spends all his time wishing he was 16? If you actually knew anything about evolutionary theory, you'd know that co-operation and not competition is the rule that has led humanity to become top of the food chain. Evolution is not about the survival of the strong individual (nonsensical out-dated Social Darwinism), it's about the survival of the strongest species. We ARE the strongest species, in fact, we're too strong, we're wiping most of the rest out at a ridiculous pace.

Vas.

What does strong mean? Is Arnold Schwartzenegger "stronger" than Stephen Hawking? Who's better for human evolution - the weedy nerd in your school who's now a doctor or a computer scientist, or the sporty jock who's now an alcoholic divorcee who spends all his time wishing he was 16? If you actually knew anything about evolutionary theory, you'd know that co-operation and not competition is the rule that has led humanity to become top of the food chain. Evolution is not about the survival of the strong individual (nonsensical out-dated Social Darwinism), it's about the survival of the strongest species. We ARE the strongest species, in fact, we're too strong, we're wiping most of the rest out at a ridiculous pace.


The obvious fact that Stephen Hawking has survived, prospered and supplied more value than The Governator is an obvious answer to your question. Strong to me is simply the will to succeed - however that may be achieved. Through sheer force of power, or through happy equality co-operation. Usually, the former trumps the latter, but I do not discount the latter as possibility of strength.

If we as a species decide that to survive, we all become undeniable equals, then what reason is there to achieve? People succeed and achieve for personal gains - be that monetary, personal satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, or whatever other goals are out there. If you take away their sense of accomplishment, then they will stop trying and stagnant. Communism would work to ensure people still achieve for the greater good of humanity if they actually could stop worrying about their own survival. However, because of (again) limited resources, people are always worried about not having enough and thus their first goal will always be to ensure their own survival before the survival of the collective.

I never said communism wouldn't work under proper ideal circumstances. It's just those circumstances do not exist and forcing them to exist has proven to not work.

The usual emotive crap
Spare us your tired, your refuted, your emotive arguments which yearn to just die peacefully.

If you actually knew anything about evolutionary theory, you'd know that co-operation and not competition is the rule that has led humanity to become top of the food chain.
Actually, it's both cooperation and competition.

Evolution is not about the survival of the strong individual (nonsensical out-dated Social Darwinism), it's about the survival of the strongest species.
The fittest members of the species. Of course, the fittest in other terms don't always survive.

We ARE the strongest species, in fact, we're too strong, we're wiping most of the rest out at a ridiculous pace.
Did you know that 98-99% of all species ever on Earth are extinct? And 99.someodd% of that humans had nothing to do with?

Just wondering if you knew.

You can have one man giving orders and another doing the manual work, if the former is best at giving orders and the later is best at manual work. This is not in conflict with communism if that is what you mean.
What is in conflict with communism is if the man giving order own everything and the man doing the manual work own nothing. They should both own a part of the work and therefore receive a reward based on their work, not their property.

Which in effect is capitalistic. The person who "owns" everything owns it because they invested capital into it and therefore they're the ones risking their money and time on an enterprise that could fail. The worker, owns the wages and salaries they are paid in return for the service they render to the owner.

What's the problem?

Did you know that 98-99% of all species ever on Earth are extinct? And 99.someodd% of that humans had nothing to do with?

But the animals going extinct now are largely our fault. Would the dodo or thylesine have gone extinct without being killed by us?

I admit, I don't truly know what anarchists are, or what they do. I assume painting A's with circles around them and roving in packs of lawless vandalism. Which sounds like fun, when you're 15. Fortunately, I've grown past that stage.

Well do some fucking research. Anarchism is at the root of the social forums movement, is at the heart of the gay rights movement, fighting racism and injustice around the world.

No, leftist admitting their hypocrisy is what they rarely do. And precisely because you are a hypocrite, your words hold no value. I don't hold it against you, I simply don't think you have anything to say worth listening to.

Well, that's your prerogative, but then you throw out the entire history of philosophy and ideas, because rarely does anyone match up to their words.

Then vive la revolution for you, my friend. Enjoy tearing down whatever system you think it is that's oppressing you. Don't mind if I just go on with my life completely ignoring extremist nut jobs like yourself.

Look who's calling who an extremist, you're the bloody Social Darwinist.

Oh, I imagine a lot of graffitti has your name all over it. I hope you're good with colours. I hate monotone graffitti.

Sectarian bigot. I'm a 29-year-old professional human rights journalist/editor and union activist.

You mean like, food, clothing and shelter? Riiiight... Those things belong to a hierarchy, don't they, so you don't abide by them.

Necessities are not "consumer" items in a consumerist sense. Consumerism is all about branding, all about wanting what you don't need, not food, but McDonalds, not clothing, but Nike, not shelter, but the latest neo-modernist flat in the city and a place in the country. Every system aims to provide necessities, communism prioritises it, capitalism prioritises making money from it. Consumerism provides the right housing at the right price for the capitalist and accepts homelessness as a "necessary" consequence.

While purchasing goods from sweat shops?

I've never knowingly purchased anything produced in a sweat shop. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

Vas.

Which in effect is capitalistic. The person who "owns" everything owns it because they invested capital into it and therefore they're the ones risking their money and time on an enterprise that could fail. The worker, owns the wages and salaries they are paid in return for the service they render to the owner.

What's the problem?

Because that's not normally how it works. Most property is "owned" already, or the person who invested capital into it had the capital already. This gives an automatic advantage to those privileged at birth. Even if they're at a remove, providing capital to someone else to start a business, they're basic leeches, the same as someone who rents out an inherited house or owns land and rents it to a farmer. Totally unproductive and useless human beings. Property is theft and property is impossible (if you don't know what I mean, read some Proudhon).

Your defending the priviledge of a useless piece of human trash like Paris Hilton, basically. That doesn't fit all that well with your Social Darwinism, now, does it?

Vas.

You mean like, food, clothing and shelter? Riiiight... Those things belong to a hierarchy, don't they, so you don't abide by them.

and that is called equivocation. when we talk about opposition to hierarchy, we are talking about social hierarchies - people being ranked in a hierarchy of power and authority.

The obvious fact that Stephen Hawking has survived, prospered and supplied more value than The Governator is an obvious answer to your question. Strong to me is simply the will to succeed - however that may be achieved.

Through total dependence on others in the case of Mr Hawking. He's physically unable to care for himself, he's not "strong", he's, by any physical measure, completely weak. However, he, as a human, is far more valuable and productive than people who are physically strong. However, you're being hypocritical here, objecting to welfare systems while acknowledging that someone who needs more help is a valuable person. In pre-welfare Britain, for example, Stephen Hawking would probably not have survived long enough to produce any work at all.

Through sheer force of power, or through happy equality co-operation. Usually, the former trumps the latter, but I do not discount the latter as possibility of strength.

Firstly, in day to day living, co-operation trumps power almost always. Ask the police, the main group today with the right to use force and they'll tell you, without co-operation 99% of the time, they wouldn't be able to do their jobs. In fact, what usually triumphs in modern capitalist societies is neither force nor co-operation, but exploitation through guile or the system. Politicians are a classic example of the former, promising to be one thing, until they're elected and they prove to be the latter, and CEOs are the latter, greedy, exploitative and overpaid with control of their own paycheques.

If we as a species decide that to survive, we all become undeniable equals, then what reason is there to achieve? People succeed and achieve for personal gains - be that monetary, personal satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, or whatever other goals are out there. If you take away their sense of accomplishment, then they will stop trying and stagnant. Communism would work to ensure people still achieve for the greater good of humanity if they actually could stop worrying about their own survival. However, because of (again) limited resources, people are always worried about not having enough and thus their first goal will always be to ensure their own survival before the survival of the collective.

Necessities are not limited, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet produced, shelter could be provided for everyone, as could clothes. In a post-consumerist society, there would be reduced demand for the things that people don't need. Most people in the West eat more than is healthy, have more clothes than they ever wear and many live in more space than they need or even use on a regular basis. There would be no threat to our survival in a communist society, no more than there is in a modern welfare system and more of a safety net.

I never said communism wouldn't work under proper ideal circumstances. It's just those circumstances do not exist and forcing them to exist has proven to not work.

Of course they do. If you actually knew anything about real communist organisation, you'd see clearly that, not only do the circumstances exist, but, in fact, they'd be easily better if communism was introduced now - less working hours, more production targetted to need, less restrictions on ownership of easily produced and distributed items (such as copyrighted material). Go read "Conquest of Bread" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html) and come back to me.

Vas.

and that is called equivocation. when we talk about opposition to hierarchy, we are talking about social hierarchies - people being ranked in a hierarchy of power and authority.

Just to add the slight condition (before someone else decides to make it as a criticism), this is enforced authority and not necessarily authority of knowledge or skill. Anarchism is about free association, so the authority of a doctor's knowledge and skill is still respected because the individual is free to accept or reject their advice.

Vas.

Did you know that 98-99% of all species ever on Earth are extinct? And 99.someodd% of that humans had nothing to do with?
But the animals going extinct now are largely our fault. Would the dodo or thylesine have gone extinct without being killed by us?
Yes, humans do play some part. Granted. But there are a lot of species that are going extinct now that for the most part probably nothing to do with.

and that is called equivocation. when we talk about opposition to hierarchy, we are talking about social hierarchies - people being ranked in a hierarchy of power and authority.
No, anarchism is opposed to all heirarchies. Letila said so. No equivocation.

In order to keep America great we need to:

1. Support Traditional Marriage
2. Close the Borders now!
3. Deport all illegal immigrants now
4. Eliminate bilingual education in all states
5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants
6. Make tax cuts permanent
7. End Affirmative Action
8. Tort Reform
9. Avoid any type of Socialism/Communism at all costs!

Yes, humans do play some part. Granted. But there are a lot of species that are going extinct now that for the most part probably nothing to do with.

I'd say we are having more of an impact than you'd like to admit. Look at all the rainforest being destroyed.

No, anarchism is opposed to all heirarchies. Letila said so. No equivocation.

No, I said social hierarchies. Cases where one person or group has power over another.

Yes, humans do play some part. Granted. But there are a lot of species that are going extinct now that for the most part probably nothing to do with.
I'd say we are having more of an impact than you'd like to admit. Look at all the rainforest being destroyed.
....by farmers.


No, anarchism is opposed to all heirarchies. Letila said so. No equivocation.
No, I said social hierarchies.
No, you said anarchism is opposed to heirarchies. Unqualified statements are logically the equivalent of the universal. Therefore, all heirarchies.

Well do some fucking research. Anarchism is at the root of the social forums movement, is at the heart of the gay rights movement, fighting racism and injustice around the world.

Oh yes, all this world rife with the injustices caused by evil capitalist. Keep up the good fight. Thankfully, democracy doesn't vote in anarchy.

Look who's calling who an extremist, you're the bloody Social Darwinist.

That's not extreme compared to some of the views I've seen here.

Sectarian bigot. I'm a 29-year-old professional human rights journalist/editor and union activist.

/golf clap
And I'm a 27 year old technical professional. Pleased to meet you.

Necessities are not "consumer" items in a consumerist sense. Consumerism is all about branding, all about wanting what you don't need, not food, but McDonalds, not clothing, but Nike, not shelter, but the latest neo-modernist flat in the city and a place in the country. Every system aims to provide necessities, communism prioritises it, capitalism prioritises making money from it. Consumerism provides the right housing at the right price for the capitalist and accepts homelessness as a "necessary" consequence.

Communism prioritises it based on what it believes as most important, discarding any individualism and personal choice from the matter. I prefer to be given the choice, thank you very much.

I've never knowingly purchased anything produced in a sweat shop. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

For all the research you supposedly do, one would imagine you could simply look at a label to see where a product was made...

Oh yes, all this world rife with the injustices caused by evil capitalist. Keep up the good fight. Thankfully, democracy doesn't vote in anarchy.

Congratulations for showing even more ignorance. Now go do some research.

That's not extreme compared to some of the views I've seen here.

I think most people would find your crypto-fascism particularly extreme.

Communism prioritises it based on what it believes as most important, discarding any individualism and personal choice from the matter. I prefer to be given the choice, thank you very much.

Idiot. "Communism" can't prioritise anything, it's an economic system, not a decision making machine. The people within a communist system make the decisions on a truly democratic basis, meaning the choice and freedom of all individuals is maximised.

Basically, you've now displayed your complete ignorance of the topics at hand and, until you actually go and do some research, there's not much point continuing to talk to you, is there?

Vas.

Oh dear. Europe is not socialist, it's just more socialistic than the US. If it were socialist, it wouldn't be capitalist. It's somewhere in between.

Vas.

It doesn't have a "Free Market" its semi regulated to create economic interdependency. Spain is socialist. My economics teacher would be prould of me.

There is no democracy anywhere, communist states usually turn to dictatorship within a decade or two (mostly because of the USA), capatilist states are ruled my the dolar and no-one else. You can not have true democracy when to run in a political election you must have money of your own or have to be funded by big business.

It doesn't have a "Free Market" its semi regulated to create economic interdependency. Spain is socialist. My economics teacher would be prould of me.

i can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so here we go anyway. the psoe is socialist mainly in name. they did the whole 'new labour' thing before labour did.

Communism has not already failed because it has not already been implemented.
Capitalism has been implemented and failed in the 19th century. All the social advances we have today make it less heavy but we are far from something sustainable.

hate to break it to you but the soviet union AKA russia were comunist from 1917 to 1989 but the regime failed because of human nature so it was implemented and it did fall

also north korea are comunist but there are signs of failure there to
:p :gundge: :upyours:

There is no democracy anywhere, communist states usually turn to dictatorship within a decade or two (mostly because of the USA), capatilist states are ruled my the dolar and no-one else. You can not have true democracy when to run in a political election you must have money of your own or have to be funded by big business.

Hello, this is a thread begun by an anarchist. Most of the people here are anti-state - do the words "preaching to the converted mean anything to you"? Oh, and communist states do not turn into dictatorships except when the dictators invade (Spain and the Ukraine). So-called "communist" dictatorships were never communist.

Vas.

hate to break it to you but the soviet union AKA russia were comunist from 1917 to 1989 but the regime failed because of human nature so it was implemented and it did fall

also north korea are comunist but there are signs of failure there to
:p :gundge: :upyours:

where did they ever call their economies communist? i think you will find that none of them ever declared themselves to be practicing communism, merely 'marxist-leninist socialism'.

and is north korea even claiming to be marxist-leninist anymore, or did they just change over to juche completely now?

Every system aims to provide necessities, communism prioritises it, capitalism prioritises making money from it.

Communism prioritises it based on what it believes as most important

Idiot. "Communism" can't prioritise anything, it's an economic system, not a decision making machine. The people within a communist system make the decisions on a truly democratic basis, meaning the choice and freedom of all individuals is maximised.

Basically, you've now displayed your complete ignorance of the topics at hand and, until you actually go and do some research, there's not much point continuing to talk to you, is there?

Vas.

So you're arguing with YOURSELF? Good stuff.

So basically, you are an "idiot" who has "complete ignorance of the topics at hand" and there is "not much point continuing to talk to you", is there?

Go read "Conquest of Bread" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html) and come back to me.

Vas.

Not bad for a book written in...1906

I would like to take the time to point out that the countries in the Western world are not the only ones with unions.
I would also like to point out that to boycott the clothing that is non-union and made in sweatshops is not always the best solution to the sweatshop problem.

Because that's not normally how it works. Most property is "owned" already, or the person who invested capital into it had the capital already. This gives an automatic advantage to those privileged at birth.
So what?

People who aren't born with Downs Sydrome are privileged and have an advantage over those who are. Want to go down that road, emotive plea moron?

Even if they're at a remove, providing capital to someone else to start a business, they're basic leeches, the same as someone who rents out an inherited house or owns land and rents it to a farmer.
Nothing wrong with that.

Totally unproductive and useless human beings.
Ah, the hatred and jealousy.

Property is theft and property is impossible (if you don't know what I mean, read some Proudhon).
If property is theft, and property is impossible, that makes theft impossible, rendering property is theft meaningless.

DUMBSHIT.

Your defending the priviledge of a useless piece of human trash like Paris Hilton, basically. That doesn't fit all that well with your Social Darwinism, now, does it?
I think that's a wonderful strawman, don't you?

I thought it might be useful to post this, readers can make up their own minds about who's guilty of using them.

Straw man

Rhetorical use
The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

Present only a portion of your opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.
Present your opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.
Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you've refuted every argument for that position.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
For example, one might argue "Charles Darwin believed in Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, which has now been discredited. Therefore, Darwinian evolution by natural selection did not occur." This is a fallacy because the Lamarckian ideas were only a small part of the overall theory; the fact that he was wrong about them does not affect the theory as a whole.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also a type of media manipulation.

Often, the straw-man setup is a weaker argument because it makes an unjustifiably wide or strong claim. For example:

Fred: "Poverty is one factor that causes crime".
Alice: "You're wrong to claim that all poor people are criminals. My friend Jack is poor, but he is not a criminal!".

Copied from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Evolution is not about the survival of the strong individual (nonsensical out-dated Social Darwinism), it's about the survival of the strongest species.
actually, you have that totally wrong. evolution occurs through selection of the fittest individual; countless studies have demonstrated that it is individual reproductive success, and not population success, that drives this process. altruism (behaviors that negatively impact the "giver" to benefit the "receiver") is weeded out of natural populations, and species-level selection has been thoroughly debunked by both mathematical models and empirical research.

More accurately it is the differential reproduction of replicators. The replicators are not individuals or species but the genes. This distinction is usually irrelevant but is important in understanding for example the behaviour of ants or parenting. After all, individuals do not replicate. There will be no you in the next generation, but there will (hopefully) be some of your genes inside other "survival machines".

actually, you have that totally wrong. evolution occurs through selection of the fittest individual; countless studies have demonstrated that it is individual reproductive success, and not population success, that drives this process. altruism (behaviors that negatively impact the "giver" to benefit the "receiver") is weeded out of natural populations, and species-level selection has been thoroughly debunked by both mathematical models and empirical research.I think it's highly dubious whether our political systems have any effect on human biological evolution at all. Evolution is a very slow process. Biologically, human beings have not changed significantly in thousands and thousands of years. Thus, it seems questionable that any political system adopted by any particular culture could really be said to influence it - not without the use of eugenics, at any rate.

I think it's highly dubious whether our political systems have any effect on human biological evolution at all. Evolution is a very slow process. Biologically, human beings have not changed significantly in thousands and thousands of years. Thus, it seems questionable that any political system adopted by any particular culture could really be said to influence it - not without the use of eugenics, at any rate.
indeed.

ACTUALLY...

That comes down to a question of macro-vs-micro. You see, humans are taller today than they were 200 years ago, and thanks to the simple advent of the TV, the telephone, and the Internet, humans on average are wiser today than they were 200 years ago.

That comes down to a question of macro-vs-micro. You see, humans are taller today than they were 200 years ago, and thanks to the simple advent of the TV, the telephone, and the Internet, humans on average are wiser today than they were 200 years ago.

Take away the TV, telephone and internet, and switch back to the levels medicine and nutrition were at 200 years ago and see for how many generations these 'advances' last

I dont think humans are any wiser now... we just know more stuff.

I thought it might be useful to post this, readers can make up their own minds about who's guilty of using them.
..which would be you.

You're stuck in the socialistic mindset that says "capitalism = social darwinism", which is the biggest load of shit this side of "property is theft" and "capitalists exploit the workers by making a profit".

actually, you have that totally wrong. evolution occurs through selection of the fittest individual; countless studies have demonstrated that it is individual reproductive success, and not population success, that drives this process. altruism (behaviors that negatively impact the "giver" to benefit the "receiver") is weeded out of natural populations, and species-level selection has been thoroughly debunked by both mathematical models and empirical research.

Compete shite. The introduction of welfare systems in all western countries and the subsequent general improvements in the well-being of the vast majority of people within them. All social growth is based on co-operation and some form of altruism. Evolution is a species wide system, it's a contradition in terms to say it's individual as all species development needs at least two individuals, one of each gender (and, to prevent deterioration through in-breeding, more than two is useful).

Vas.