Anarchy [Archive] - HPotD Forums

JDP

27-Aug-2019, 05:41 AM

I must laugh. Anarchy isn't the lack of organization, but the lack of hierarchy. Horizontal governance. Need I say that again? Horizontal governance. Equality. Direct real popular democracy. Why would there be no food without landlords banks and money? Makes no sense. Next.

- - - Updated - - -

*deep sigh* Okay. Again, wtf does "common sense" mean? Centuries only? Why not millennia? I should hope not, as this has little to do with rocket science. Right, which is a true statement regardless of what political/government structure is in place, so I fail to see how it is relevant. Do you know what it means to enforce these laws you're defending so much? Sometimes the murder of innocent children. You're okay with that? You're just fine with police killing kids in their beds? Or the military in foreign countries? Again, it's about freedom, so yeah, that's fine, man. ...Again, there would be less incentive for criminal behavior if all feel respected and cared for. Love will win over hate. Are you seriously trying to talk reality and bringing up a Mad Max film? ...Should I actually take any of what you say seriously? It is trying to predict the future, right? And you're thinking of that future as being bad and scary, yes? Paranoia, without enough evidence (which you haven't cited any of yet, btw). Propaganda, because movies are largely capitalist in nature. Of course they're not going to paint anarchy in a positive light. Just look at the ridiculous Purge films. Propaganda. ...Right, so why do we have these useless laws? To oppress the poor and minorities? (yes) LOL, the police. 1997? That's a hell of a long time ago, isn't it? So why do the police continue to be more and more militarized? Hm, if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired. Conflict will always happen with people, sure, of course, but so what? Hardly much of an argument. You can't just use vague terms like 'common sense' and 'basic human nature' to justify an oppressive and violent system, my dude. Weak af. I forget but, is The Matrix somewhat anarchist? I know it's a trans analogy, but there's more to it than that, right? Just pondering.

LOL! There's just no way that anyone will be able to take many of your "answers" seriously. Millennia? Good luck finding records from that far back. But even then, we still can deduce what it was like in such remote times. Skeletal remains from prehistoric times often show the signs of human-on-human violence. So, yes, in fact even back then people were still much involved in such activities as bashing each other's skulls for whatever reason they thought warranted them. "The Law of the Jungle", remember? Yes, an analogy with a Mad Max film showing what happens when "the shit hits the fan" and there's no form of organized government left upholding laws to prevent mayhem makes much more common sense and based on things that would actually happen than such incredibly outlandish remarks as "if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired." You seem to be living in an alternative universe here. As if that money they were stealing just "grows on trees" and is rightfully of anyone who wants to take it! Also, if you think that pathological criminals like Phillips and Matasareanu are miraculously going to lay down their weapons and say "Oh, but we are now living in an anarchy, let us become good, peaceful, useful, productive citizens, let us stop stealing by force what is not actually ours, let us stop shooting whoever stands in our way, even any passerby; yes, let us just do that!" get ready for a very rude awakening, because it just ain't going to happen. In fact, it's only going to get worse, as such criminals would know very well that now there is actually no real organized resistance to their activities. That means that if they liked your skateboard (perhaps by using it as an example instead of money you will finally start understanding it better), they would just take it from you, and if you try to stop them, then get ready to become a piece of human Swiss Cheese! Yes, what you see in those films that you think are "propaganda" is a much better approximation of what would happen in an anarchy, with no laws being enforced anywhere, the criminal elements allowed to run amok, and only the citizenry itself left to try to defend itself from them. We can easily predict this from reality. Just look at any protest, riot or disaster where the law is temporarily absent for some reason or another. It doesn't take long to devolve into random violence and crime. If you have ever been caught in the middle of an ensuing riot, you should know this pretty well. There's always the smartasses who start breaking windows and looting everything in sight (I once saw a guy running away with half of a friggin' cow carcass on his back, and two guys carrying a fridge, all while trying to evade the cops who had just arrived to try to put some order back in place. The shit was hilarious and disturbing at the same time), and from then on it only gets worse and worse. So, when you see movies like Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead portraying such ensuing mayhem when an organized form of law is no longer around, rest assured that the filmmakers are not indulging in 100% fiction here, much of it is actually based on how reality is. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (look up the expression, as you don't seem to be familiar with it) to figure any of this out. You claim that you are not seeking a Utopia, but some of your answers suggest that you seem to already be living in one.

ProfessorChaos

27-Aug-2019, 06:01 AM

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7 a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

EvilNed

27-Aug-2019, 07:42 AM

blind2d

27-Aug-2019, 01:49 PM

LOL! There's just no way that anyone will be able to take many of your "answers" seriously. Millennia? Good luck finding records from that far back. But even then, we still can deduce what it was like in such remote times. Skeletal remains from prehistoric times often show the signs of human-on-human violence. So, yes, in fact even back then people were still much involved in such activities as bashing each other's skulls for whatever reason they thought warranted them. "The Law of the Jungle", remember? Yes, an analogy with a Mad Max film showing what happens when "the shit hits the fan" and there's no form of organized government left upholding laws to prevent mayhem makes much more common sense and based on things that would actually happen than such incredibly outlandish remarks as "if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired." You seem to be living in an alternative universe here. As if that money they were stealing just "grows on trees" and is rightfully of anyone who wants to take it! Also, if you think that pathological criminals like Phillips and Matasareanu are miraculously going to lay down their weapons and say "Oh, but we are now living in an anarchy, let us become good, peaceful, useful, productive citizens, let us stop stealing by force what is not actually ours, let us stop shooting whoever stands in our way, even any passerby; yes, let us just do that!" get ready for a very rude awakening, because it just ain't going to happen. In fact, it's only going to get worse, as such criminals would know very well that now there is actually no real organized resistance to their activities. That means that if they liked your skateboard (perhaps by using it as an example instead of money you will finally start understanding it better), they would just take it from you, and if you try to stop them, then get ready to become a piece of human Swiss Cheese! Yes, what you see in those films that you think are "propaganda" is a much better approximation of what would happen in an anarchy, with no laws being enforced anywhere, the criminal elements allowed to run amok, and only the citizenry itself left to try to defend itself from them. We can easily predict this from reality. Just look at any protest, riot or disaster where the law is temporarily absent for some reason or another. It doesn't take long to devolve into random violence and crime. If you have ever been caught in the middle of an ensuing riot, you should know this pretty well. There's always the smartasses who start breaking windows and looting everything in sight (I once saw a guy running away with half of a friggin' cow carcass on his back, and two guys carrying a fridge, all while trying to evade the cops who had just arrived to try to put some order back in place. The shit was hilarious and disturbing at the same time), and from then on it only gets worse and worse. So, when you see movies like Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead portraying such ensuing mayhem when an organized form of law is no longer around, rest assured that the filmmakers are not indulging in 100% fiction here, much of it is actually based on how reality is. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (look up the expression, as you don't seem to be familiar with it) to figure any of this out. You claim that you are not seeking a Utopia, but some of your answers suggest that you seem to already be living in one.

And why not? Mmkay, so humans are naturally violent... They still also form societies and communities. So I don't see how any of that is relevant. Well obviously without capitalism, there wouldn't be a need for money. Have you even read Marx/Kropotkin/Goldman, etc? Again, that's a movie, so it's not realistic. I'm NOT saying that all people are going to magically become good and peaceful. What I AM saying is that society will be improved in this way. Not perfect or flawless, but improved. Again though I would ask what their motivation would be if they are secure and receiving the help they need. Why would you inflict violence upon someone else if your mental health is being adequately treated and you don't have to worry about much in your life? Just sheer boredom or curiosity? Fair enough, but again that's not relevant. ...If they want a material possession of mine and we agree that it would be better served to them rather than me then I will gladly part with it. If not, then perhaps we can work together to make a new one that they can have, or also sharing is a thing. Hmm, hmm, a protest without the law present? I don't know what world you're living in, but I have never witnessed this. Also, news flash, the supposed "criminal elements" are also *gasp!* the citizenry! Most crimes on the books are harmful more to capitalism and the system than they are others. And there you have it: the cops. The law. So what are you even talking about? Can you even make a case for nonviolent crime? How is that a thing? Also, anarchy is order. Cops are violent oppressors, thugs in uniforms. Why "worse and worse"? Riots never last forever, even if you didn't have violent oppressors intervening. Ah yes, the dead rising from the grave and eating the living. Very realistic. (Of course I'm familiar, I'm just being a bitch) But no utopia, no, just a better tomorrow. Is that really too much to dream for? Must I slog on through this life without any hope? Is that what you would have me do?

- - - Updated - - -

Without hierarchy there is no organisation. And if you believe so, please provide an example of how an anarchic society can feed a population of millions (or even billions) of people.

If nobody is in charge, then who allocates resources to the all the different processes that food production requires? Who makes sure the food is distributed to where it is needed?

Of course, without organisation it just wouldn't happen. Under anarchy there is no widespread food distribution network, and there would be much less food overall. All food would be local, if even that. Most would probably be better off foraging their own food - leaving little time to cultural and scientific pursuits.

Well that's just incorrect. Again, horizontal government. Everyone would be "in charge". Anarchy is order, remember? Let's see, community gardens, greenhouses and hydroponics, fruit trees in common areas, and of course everything that would already be in production continuing, so... yeah? Maybe a little of the infrastructure might have to change, but beyond that, no. No need to "forage". How silly. Again, humans in the BC had time for science and the arts, so... *shrugs* You're just wrong, and I hope you're okay with that.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7 a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

...Aren't all forms of government "people governing themselves"?

JDP

27-Aug-2019, 07:42 PM

And why not? Mmkay, so humans are naturally violent... They still also form societies and communities. So I don't see how any of that is relevant. Well obviously without capitalism, there wouldn't be a need for money. Have you even read Marx/Kropotkin/Goldman, etc? Again, that's a movie, so it's not realistic. I'm NOT saying that all people are going to magically become good and peaceful. What I AM saying is that society will be improved in this way. Not perfect or flawless, but improved. Again though I would ask what their motivation would be if they are secure and receiving the help they need. Why would you inflict violence upon someone else if your mental health is being adequately treated and you don't have to worry about much in your life? Just sheer boredom or curiosity? Fair enough, but again that's not relevant. ...If they want a material possession of mine and we agree that it would be better served to them rather than me then I will gladly part with it. If not, then perhaps we can work together to make a new one that they can have, or also sharing is a thing. Hmm, hmm, a protest without the law present? I don't know what world you're living in, but I have never witnessed this. Also, news flash, the supposed "criminal elements" are also *gasp!* the citizenry! Most crimes on the books are harmful more to capitalism and the system than they are others. And there you have it: the cops. The law. So what are you even talking about? Can you even make a case for nonviolent crime? How is that a thing? Also, anarchy is order. Cops are violent oppressors, thugs in uniforms. Why "worse and worse"? Riots never last forever, even if you didn't have violent oppressors intervening. Ah yes, the dead rising from the grave and eating the living. Very realistic. (Of course I'm familiar, I'm just being a bitch) But no utopia, no, just a better tomorrow. Is that really too much to dream for? Must I slog on through this life without any hope? Is that what you would have me do?

Yes, but those communities will always have crime and violence among them. Again, just plain old human nature. "It goes with the job", as the saying goes. In order to try to minimize them, people invented "laws". Religion itself is a form of this, BTW. Nobody knows if there really is some "supreme being" somewhere watching everything you do, but if you convince most people within a given society that this is a "fact", then you can also start to put some type of "fear" into them that if they misbehave and don't follow the guidelines of this "God" they will pay the consequences in the end, not by the hand of a human judge, but of a "supernatural" one. "Laws" in one form or another have been with mankind since way back. Once you remove them from the equation, you get... you guess it, "anarchy". I think you already know very well where such a "society" will eventually lead to. We have told you several times already what will very obviously happen in the end. It sure as heck is not going "improve" with the deterrent of "law" not being there to deal with the more criminally and violently minded elements that always accompany human societies.

If you think that such violent criminals are going to sit down and "dialogue" with you to see if maybe you will be so kind as to make for them for free that skateboard of yours that they'd like to have for themselves, instead of just going ahead and taking it from you by force, and if you resist they will mow you down in a hail of bullets without any second thoughts about it.... well, you know the rest. Keep thinking. It's like if these bank robbers showed up at the bank with their arsenal and said: "Excuse me, my good man, can we please try to convince you to voluntarily give us all the money that's in your vaults? Yes? If so, please, put it in these neat bags which we happen to have brought with us. Thank you so much, kind sir!"

Those people you mentioned were communists. And we can all see how "well" their ideas have worked! Do you seriously think that the majority of Chinese and North Koreans love living in communist regimes?

Yes, the criminals are part of the citizenry, but they are the problem elements that the rest of the citizenry will have to directly get involved in dealing with, since there is no organized government and judicial system to do it for them. Get ready to "get your hands dirty", because they sure as heck are not going to go away or stop doing what they do voluntarily. Yes, kind of a la "Mad Max", as much as you think such things cannot happen except in the movies. A world without any laws or restrictions is a criminal's wet dream come true. ANYTHING GOES! Exactly what they love. So, an anarchy is a perfect "breeding" environment for them. Expect them to multiply. You are going to have your hands full trying to deal with them.

The cops cannot be in all places at all times to try to keep order. Riots usually start where they are not present or not in enough numbers to try to keep the more unruly members of the crowd from going berserk and end up turning the whole thing into a mob. If you ever get caught in such a situation, if you value your life, your first instinct will be "let's get the fuck out of here before it gets uglier!" It all looks "cool" when you are watching it on TV from miles away, but being in the thick of it is a whole different thing. Specially when assorted "objects" (including pointy or round masses of lead) start "flying around" haphazardly.

As I told you before, overlook the obvious fictional elements of such movies, whether they be flesh-eating zombies or screaming mohawk-sporting punks on post-apocalyptic vehicles. Those are there for shock effect and entertainment value. The unruliness, chaos and danger in the absence of any laws they are making inferences about is quite real, though. This is not "fiction". It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

"Absolute freedom" is a chimera. There is no way to achieve such a thing in the real world. Sooner or later the "absolute freedoms" of some will conflict with those of others. It all goes back to what I told you before: HUMAN NATURE. It won't allow for such a thing to happen. We don't live in a perfect or ideal world. All individuals do not feel, think or behave in exactly the same manner. What seems "OK" to individual "A" might not necessarily be so for individual "B", and so on. Sooner or later you will have plenty of "dissenters" from your view of things who will not want to conform with them. Conflict will be inevitable. For example, to you murder might not be OK under any circumstance, but to others it will be part of their "absolute freedom". How are you going to keep them in check so that they do not go around doing what they think is "OK"? If you put laws into place in order to stop them from doing it, then you no longer have an "anarchy" but something else, since there now will be some restrictions regarding what can be accepted as "freedoms". Back to square one.

...Aren't all forms of government "people governing themselves"?

Not "directly". They have to rely on a group of people devoted to that task (in the case of a democracy, a group of people elected by the votes of the citizenry themselves. One of the several reasons why this form of government has gained such an appeal and success.) Most people are busy living their lives, which is already enough of a task in itself for them to have to become directly involved in governance. So, pretty much the same reason why not everyone in a society can be doctors, or bakers, or fishermen, or firefighters, or miners, or construction workers, etc. Advanced & prosperous societies require groups of people who specialize in and devote their time to many different fields of activity, not everyone can be "governors", otherwise you would have a pretty dysfunctional society.

blind2d

27-Aug-2019, 10:06 PM

Yes, but those communities will always have crime and violence among them. Again, just plain old human nature. "It goes with the job", as the saying goes. In order to try to minimize them, people invented "laws". Religion itself is a form of this, BTW. Nobody knows if there really is some "supreme being" somewhere watching everything you do, but if you convince most people within a given society that this is a "fact", then you can also start to put some type of "fear" into them that if they misbehave and don't follow the guidelines of this "God" they will pay the consequences in the end, not by the hand of a human judge, but of a "supernatural" one. "Laws" in one form or another have been with mankind since way back. Once you remove them from the equation, you get... you guess it, "anarchy". I think you already know very well where such a "society" will eventually lead to. We have told you several times already what will very obviously happen in the end. It sure as heck is not going "improve" with the deterrent of "law" not being there to deal with the more criminally and violently minded elements that always accompany human societies.

If you think that such violent criminals are going to sit down and "dialogue" with you to see if maybe you will be so kind as to make for them for free that skateboard of yours that they'd like to have for themselves, instead of just going ahead and taking it from you by force, and if you resist they will mow you down in a hail of bullets without any second thoughts about it.... well, you know the rest. Keep thinking. It's like if these bank robbers showed up at the bank with their arsenal and said: "Excuse me, my good man, can we please try to convince you to voluntarily give us all the money that's in your vaults? Yes? If so, please, put it in these neat bags which we happen to have brought with us. Thank you so much, kind sir!"

Those people you mentioned were communists. And we can all see how "well" their ideas have worked! Do you seriously think that the majority of Chinese and North Koreans love living in communist regimes?

Yes, the criminals are part of the citizenry, but they are the problem elements that the rest of the citizenry will have to directly get involved in dealing with, since there is no organized government and judicial system to do it for them. Get ready to "get your hands dirty", because they sure as heck are not going to go away or stop doing what they do voluntarily. Yes, kind of a la "Mad Max", as much as you think such things cannot happen except in the movies. A world without any laws or restrictions is a criminal's wet dream come true. ANYTHING GOES! Exactly what they love. So, an anarchy is a perfect "breeding" environment for them. Expect them to multiply. You are going to have your hands full trying to deal with them.

The cops cannot be in all places at all times to try to keep order. Riots usually start where they are not present or not in enough numbers to try to keep the more unruly members of the crowd from going berserk and end up turning the whole thing into a mob. If you ever get caught in such a situation, if you value your life, your first instinct will be "let's get the fuck out of here before it gets uglier!" It all looks "cool" when you are watching it on TV from miles away, but being in the thick of it is a whole different thing. Specially when assorted "objects" (including pointy or round masses of lead) start "flying around" haphazardly.

As I told you before, overlook the obvious fictional elements of such movies, whether they be flesh-eating zombies or screaming mohawk-sporting punks on post-apocalyptic vehicles. Those are there for shock effect and entertainment value. The unruliness, chaos and danger in the absence of any laws they are making inferences about is quite real, though. This is not "fiction". It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

"Absolute freedom" is a chimera. There is no way to achieve such a thing in the real world. Sooner or later the "absolute freedoms" of some will conflict with those of others. It all goes back to what I told you before: HUMAN NATURE. It won't allow for such a thing to happen. We don't live in a perfect or ideal world. All individuals do not feel, think or behave in exactly the same manner. What seems "OK" to individual "A" might not necessarily be so for individual "B", and so on. Sooner or later you will have plenty of "dissenters" from your view of things who will not want to conform with them. Conflict will be inevitable. For example, to you murder might not be OK under any circumstance, but to others it will be part of their "absolute freedom". How are you going to keep them in check so that they do not go around doing what they think is "OK"? If you put laws into place in order to stop them from doing it, then you no longer have an "anarchy" but something else, since there now will be some restrictions regarding what can be accepted as "freedoms". Back to square one.

Not "directly". They have to rely on a group of people devoted to that task (in the case of a democracy, a group of people elected by the votes of the citizenry themselves. One of the several reasons why this form of government has gained such an appeal and success.) Most people are busy living their lives, which is already enough of a task in itself for them to have to become directly involved in governance. So, pretty much the same reason why not everyone in a society can be doctors, or bakers, or fishermen, or firefighters, or miners, or construction workers, etc. Advanced & prosperous societies require groups of people who specialize in and devote their time to many different fields of activity, not everyone can be "governors", otherwise you would have a pretty dysfunctional society.

*sigh* Again I will say to you that the violent folks are the minority. They will not destroy our species or civilization completely without laws or cops, or even religion. Why would they? Seems like you're just scared. Or at the very least, pessimistic.

China is not communist. They behave as much like America as Japan does, it would seem. Do you think Russia is still communist as well? It is to laugh, your apparent ignorance. Dictatorships for instance are not the communist ideal. Vietnam is one of the closest things to a true communist country that we have today, as far as I know. Notice you didn't mention it. Hm.

No one does things "for us", exactly. Anarchy means helping each other. Cooperation and compassion. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to grasp, y'know, communities actually functioning well. ...You clearly don't get it. If there are no laws, then there would by definition be no criminals. Acts of horror and violence committed by individuals or groups? Sure, yes. But please learn what words mean. Again you are merely catastrophizing without any evidence. Pathetic.

The cops shouldn't exist. You think everyone who isn't a cop is just looking around, waiting for the chance to riot as soon as no police are in sight? LOL, no, it'll be to fuck up any fascists I see. If people can deal with war, they can deal with a street fight.

Alright, and these movies do not exist in a vacuum, either. But yeah, moving on.

Mhm, but how about "more" freedom? "Maximum" freedom? Complete freedom is impossible within society, as we are all bound by relationships, etc. I'm aware of this. All I'm saying is abolish prisons and institutionalized murder/oppression. You sure do like to repeat yourself... Isn't it wonderful how diverse our species is? Not everyone is going to want to be in every community, yeah, which is fine. I've already said conflict will happen. Conflict always happens. That's life. Again, the community will have a council or something that will make decisions, etc. For the umpteenth time, anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no hierarchy. Learn words please.

Hmm, why not directly? Wouldn't that more accurately reflect the will of the people? Did you mean "Democratic Republic"? It has gained "success" because of the West being colonialist assholes. Basically forcing foreign nations to adopt this model or die. Like, you're aware of that, right? Capitalism forces us into excessive labor and distraction, so of course it's difficult to get involved in government, and when a large portion of the population doesn't believe they're being heard, of course they're not going to trust the government. But yeah, some people are better at some things than others. So? Hmm... As I wish to abolish money, what does "prosperous" mean in this context? Everyone could at the very least have an equal vote, which we don't see happening now.

JDP

28-Aug-2019, 04:28 AM

*sigh* Again I will say to you that the violent folks are the minority. They will not destroy our species or civilization completely without laws or cops, or even religion. Why would they? Seems like you're just scared. Or at the very least, pessimistic.

No, but they sure won't make anything better by being allowed to do as they please.

China is not communist. They behave as much like America as Japan does, it would seem. Do you think Russia is still communist as well? It is to laugh, your apparent ignorance. Dictatorships for instance are not the communist ideal. Vietnam is one of the closest things to a true communist country that we have today, as far as I know. Notice you didn't mention it. Hm.

China is controlled by that country's communist party. Russia has become a rogue state, controlled by ex-KGBs like Putin. Vietnam is governed by a more moderate and progressive brand of communism. I notice that you didn't mention Cuba or Venezuela. Hm. As much as I hate to agree with a clown like Donald Fart, **ahem** I mean "Trump", he is quite correct when he says that Venezuela has gone from being the richest country in South America to the poorest and most chaotic one in the area. Thank that "achievement" to closet-communist dictator nutjobs like Chavez and his successor, Maduro. Rest assured that most Venezuelans would love to get rid of these bastards who have ruined that nation. The problem is that they won't fucking give up and continue to try to shove their dysfunctional Cuban backed-up "revolution" down the population's throat, whether they like or want it or not. As long as they have the support of the majority of the military (who are in their payroll), there won't be any peaceful solution for that nation.

No one does things "for us", exactly. Anarchy means helping each other. Cooperation and compassion. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to grasp, y'know, communities actually functioning well. ...You clearly don't get it. If there are no laws, then there would by definition be no criminals. Acts of horror and violence committed by individuals or groups? Sure, yes. But please learn what words mean. Again you are merely catastrophizing without any evidence. Pathetic.

The one who clearly doesn't get it is you. Anarchy won't solve anything. If anything it will just make it worse. Society's fundamental problems, like crime and violence, precede any form of organized government. Laws did not create criminals. The forms of government that eventually developed as civilizations progressed put sets of laws into place precisely to make things more orderly and secure for the inhabitants and to try to minimize crime and violence. Anarchy would be like going back to those pre-laws & governments of any kind period. Unless you are rough & ready to take your own personal "laws" into your own hands, anarchy is about the last thing that should be in your mind to support. If somebody does you wrong, there won't be anyone around to help you out, except you and maybe your family and friends. Sometimes you might be able to get away with serving "justice" to those who did you wrong, but the day will come when you will confront a foe who is stronger and better organized than you are. What are you gonna do then? Most likely just shut up and take it. If that's your cup of tea, you are more than welcome to it, and my share of it too, as I want nothing to do with such an insane unpredictable system.

The cops shouldn't exist. You think everyone who isn't a cop is just looking around, waiting for the chance to riot as soon as no police are in sight? LOL, no, it'll be to fuck up any fascists I see. If people can deal with war, they can deal with a street fight.

You must be a young person. Sure, when I was a young fellow I also thought cops were a nuisance. Shit, all we wanted to do is have fun, even if sometimes it meant doing something that was technically "illegal" (like graffitiing, for example), and the cops sometimes were the party-poopers. "Well, fuck them!" But as you grow up and gain more experience and responsibilities in life, you will see that that police force is there for practical and logical reasons. They are as necessary as everything else that helps keep a society functioning. No one is saying that they are perfect and that there aren't bad cops around who themselves misbehave, but imagining a functional society without a department of the government upholding and enforcing the law is simply absurd. It's just not gonna happen. Experience will teach you how much people like to "misbehave" when there is no authority around to uphold the law.

Alright, and these movies do not exist in a vacuum, either. But yeah, moving on.

So, according to you, all movies that show the same basic pattern -namely: absence of law = eventual strife & conflict- must be part of a gigantic "capitalist conspiracy". Strange idea, considering that such observations predate capitalism and movie-making by a very long time.

Mhm, but how about "more" freedom? "Maximum" freedom? Complete freedom is impossible within society, as we are all bound by relationships, etc. I'm aware of this.

OK, but then that means that anarchy is simply not possible either. Anarchy seeks that "complete freedom" of the individual. As soon as you start placing some limitations on it, it is not "anarchy" anymore.

All I'm saying is abolish prisons and institutionalized murder/oppression. You sure do like to repeat yourself...

I have to repeat myself because you simply won't concede the points.

Isn't it wonderful how diverse our species is? Not everyone is going to want to be in every community, yeah, which is fine. I've already said conflict will happen. Conflict always happens. That's life. Again, the community will have a council or something that will make decisions, etc. For the umpteenth time, anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no hierarchy. Learn words please.

It seems it is you who is not learning the meaning of some words. "Anarchy" is defined as:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anarchy

And more on its etymology and several adaptations of the word:

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=anarchy

Hmm, why not directly? Wouldn't that more accurately reflect the will of the people? Did you mean "Democratic Republic"? It has gained "success" because of the West being colonialist assholes. Basically forcing foreign nations to adopt this model or die. Like, you're aware of that, right?

Strange idea, considering that plenty of nations have voluntarily adopted it without anyone twisting their arms. Returning back to the example of Venezuela: go ahead and ask the average starving Venezuelan if they would like to go back to the democracy they enjoyed prior to Chavez & Maduro taking over with their bogus and totally unrequested Cuban-backed-up communist "revolution" (or "robolution", i.e. robberlution, as Venezuelans jokingly refer to that farce) that has transformed that country into "a wasteland of terror", to paraphrase Dr. Menard from Zombie.

Capitalism forces us into excessive labor and distraction, so of course it's difficult to get involved in government, and when a large portion of the population doesn't believe they're being heard, of course they're not going to trust the government. But yeah, some people are better at some things than others. So? Hmm... As I wish to abolish money, what does "prosperous" mean in this context? Everyone could at the very least have an equal vote, which we don't see happening now.

Your line of argumentation seems to simply be: point an accusing finger and say "Capitalism!" Rinse & repeat. Once again, it has nothing to do with this particular system but simply with how life is. Most people are busy with their lives, whether they live in a "capitalist" system, or a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or what have you. Most people cannot and do not want to get involved directly in government. And thank goodness they don't! Can you imagine what would happen to society if everyone would want government positions and do nothing else? Who do you think would till the fields, raise livestock, mine minerals, smelt metals, construct buildings, practice medicine, bake goods, etc.??? Civilization would come to a halt. It is indispensable that society is composed of people devoted to many different skills.

Money is a very convenient and useful invention. It has been with us since antiquity and has been used by all manner of political systems through the centuries. It certainly has withstood the test of time! But perhaps you would prefer going back to a clumsy "barter" system??? At this point, I am not getting surprised by several of your strange answers anymore.

EvilNed

28-Aug-2019, 05:26 AM

Well that's just incorrect. Again, horizontal government. Everyone would be "in charge". Anarchy is order, remember? Let's see, community gardens, greenhouses and hydroponics, fruit trees in common areas, and of course everything that would already be in production continuing, so... yeah? Maybe a little of the infrastructure might have to change, but beyond that, no. No need to "forage". How silly. Again, humans in the BC had time for science and the arts, so... *shrugs* You're just wrong, and I hope you're okay with that.

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work.
First off, any form of organization requires a hierarchy. One cannot exist on a large scale without the other. In an organization, one hand needs to know what the other is doing in order for you to work towards the same goal. Let's take an assembly plant: One worker puts the cars on the tires, and another puts the windows in. Both need to be done in order for the car to be finished; but someone else entirely needs to make sure both (and more) are done. In this scenario somebody needs to be in charge. Without that person both persons might end up putting the tires on, or the glass on, - or start working on another car before this is finished.
If you do not understand this concept, then you simply do not understand how organization works.

Second, your understanding of economy and infrastructure is much to vague or thin.
In our society, there are a number of things that need to be maintained and checked in order for food to reach your store.
Somebody needs to produce trucks, refine the oil, maintain the roads. That's the logistics part of it. Due to accidents, wear and tear and region specific causes the demands will vary and somebody will need to oversee and make sure each layer of this process is maintained.
Somebody else entirely needs to supply the agricultural sector with tractors, farming equipment etc, and every country or region will have specific needs depending on what it grows and what the climate is - somebody needs to oversee this too in order for production to continue.

That's just two very vital aspects of it, and there are more. Without organization where some people decide what others do (i.e. a hierarchy) this is not possible to maintain.

So please, provide a very description of the type of organization that could maintain a food production on a massive scale. Not just a "Well, we'll just keep doing what we've been doing, whats the problem?" type of answer - because the way we're doing it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization.

blind2d

28-Aug-2019, 02:55 PM

@JDP: Why not? Ever hear of Al Capone? Or the Black Panthers? 2) Venezuela isn't communist. Which is why I didn't mention it. But yeah, you can call something communist, but if it isn't communist in practice (the workers owning the means of production, the abolition of capital and the state, etc) then it's meaningless. 3) You haven't yet demonstrated with evidence how anarchy would be universally detrimental to our species. Try to minimize, yes, but they fail, don't they? So why not cast them out? Power corrupts, remember. I believe that education and care are more important than "laws". Negative reinforcement is not the best way to teach or govern, IMO. Also it wouldn't be like turning back the clock on anything, since we have modern knowledge and technology on our side. I see. You would rather have the devil you know than the one you don't. All I'm hearing from you is fear and negativity. That's not how we made any medical or scientific progress. 4) Interesting take, but I will dismiss it offhand, as is my right. 5) It depends what the limitations are. Can humans fly? Not without the assistance of machines. Working together produces greater works than solo labor. Also, anarchy means horizontal government. For the umpteenth time. 6) Nor will you, creating our current semi-impasse. 7) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy Your second link was decent. Read Kropotkin, for sure. 8) I may be confused with the intentional suppression of communism by the West over the past century or so, or... maybe "twisting their arms" looks different to you than to me. Again, Venezuela has never been truly communist. Bad Mouse Productions did a good video on it, I think. 9) If the boot fits, J. Capitalists are awfully good at normalizing the horrendous. They do control most media, after all. "Or what have you"? Seriously? But yeah, that's true. I'm not denying that. What a leap! Why would people getting more involved in government make the jump to them not wishing to do anything else? Again you're catastrophizing without evidence, being a complete pessimist. LOL, have you never seen ANY Star Trek? Money is not needed, and more of a hindrance than a help. Why barter if everyone has all they need?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work.
First off, any form of organization requires a hierarchy. One cannot exist on a large scale without the other. In an organization, one hand needs to know what the other is doing in order for you to work towards the same goal. Let's take an assembly plant: One worker puts the cars on the tires, and another puts the windows in. Both need to be done in order for the car to be finished; but someone else entirely needs to make sure both (and more) are done. In this scenario somebody needs to be in charge. Without that person both persons might end up putting the tires on, or the glass on, - or start working on another car before this is finished.
If you do not understand this concept, then you simply do not understand how organization works.

Second, your understanding of economy and infrastructure is much to vague or thin.
In our society, there are a number of things that need to be maintained and checked in order for food to reach your store.
Somebody needs to produce trucks, refine the oil, maintain the roads. That's the logistics part of it. Due to accidents, wear and tear and region specific causes the demands will vary and somebody will need to oversee and make sure each layer of this process is maintained.
Somebody else entirely needs to supply the agricultural sector with tractors, farming equipment etc, and every country or region will have specific needs depending on what it grows and what the climate is - somebody needs to oversee this too in order for production to continue.

That's just two very vital aspects of it, and there are more. Without organization where some people decide what others do (i.e. a hierarchy) this is not possible to maintain.

So please, provide a very description of the type of organization that could maintain a food production on a massive scale. Not just a "Well, we'll just keep doing what we've been doing, whats the problem?" type of answer - because the way we're doing it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization.

LOL, what? No, the machines do that in the factories. The workers maintain and program the machines. Why is a hierarchy needed? Why would one person be in charge, if the group is working toward the same end? Yes, communication is important, but how is that related to a ruler? You seem to think humans are stupid, and don't know what job needs to be done when without someone exploiting their labor.

Probably, but how's yours? Yes, which are all things that can be changed/improved. Use solar power. Again, this can be taken care of by the community, using horizontal democracy. Workers should own the means of production. ALL can oversee. It needs not be a boss or dictator. Again, why can't we ALL decide what we ALL do? You've just said it won't work, not how or why. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

EvilNed

28-Aug-2019, 05:15 PM

blind2d

28-Aug-2019, 05:25 PM

Please provide a specific description of how the economy would work without any form of hierarchy. Until you do, I’ll just assume you don’t know how an economy works. Please prove me wrong! Answer my questions above!

Again, Star Trek. Or read the book "Fully Automated Space Communism". Or read Marx, Kropotkin, Goldman, etc. We don't need money to exist. Were you born thanks to money? No. No one was. I did take an economics course in college, but they never ventured outside of capitalism, so yeah, if YOU know how it would work, please tell me. You just seem like an unimaginative centrist bootlicker to me, and that's pretty damn pathetic.

EvilNed

28-Aug-2019, 06:04 PM

Don’t shift the goal post. I’m not talking about money.

Please explain how an economic system or organisation can work without a hierarchy? In detail. Provide specifics. How is the wheat grown, and exported all across the world? Take me through it. Indulge me.

Oh, and try to avoid using “Star trek” as a source.

ProfessorChaos

28-Aug-2019, 07:34 PM

Wait, I thought Star Trek examples are okay, just not Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead?

blind2d

28-Aug-2019, 11:30 PM

Wait, I thought Star Trek examples are okay, just not Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead?

Read the thread again Prof, I'm okay with Dawn of the Dead. Also I assume we're all cool with Fury Road's feminist messaging? Are you here to contribute Prof, or just stir the pot?

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t shift the goal post. I’m not talking about money.

Please explain how an economic system or organisation can work without a hierarchy? In detail. Provide specifics. How is the wheat grown, and exported all across the world? Take me through it. Indulge me.

Oh, and try to avoid using “Star trek” as a source.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/bwgg91/how_does_an_anarchist_system_go_about_allocating/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics There. Any other questions?

EvilNed

29-Aug-2019, 05:15 AM

Yes! Lots!

Now please take me through it. The entire process. Explain it to me, as if I were a Child. How would food Production and distribution work? Take me through it!

JDP

29-Aug-2019, 07:31 AM

@JDP: Why not? Ever hear of Al Capone? Or the Black Panthers?

Yes, as if gangsters like Al Capone really made society any safer! Ever heard of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? That's what these ruthless criminals do, even with an entire judicial system in place working against them. Now imagine the Al Capones of the world in your lawless anarchic Utopia. They are going to have a field day!

2) Venezuela isn't communist. Which is why I didn't mention it.

I guess that next you are going to tell us that Chavez and Maduro are hardcore "capitalist fascist pigs!" There is a very obvious reason why the rest of the communist world (particularly Cuba, which is directly involved in Venezuelan affairs) supports these two clowns and their bogus "revolution" which Venezuela never needed to begin with. Do you know who happens to be the hero and mentor of Chavez and Maduro? Let me give you a "hint":

https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/Chavez-Fidel-Castro-Cuba-EFE_CYMIMA20150306_0001_16.jpg

https://www.plenglish.com/images/2019/agosto/13/1-lam-maduro-fc.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/libertadusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/th-1.jpg?resize=570%2C320&ssl=1

Ask Venezuelans why there are so many Cubans all over that country, working with the government. 30+ years ago there hardly were any Cubans there, and the few that you could find were in fact Cubans who had escaped from Cuba and settled in non-communist countries. They wanted nothing to do with Castro and communism. The ones there now are all communists sent by the Cuban government. Make no mistakes about it. Chavez & Maduro are stooges of the Castro communist regime. Venezuela is a communist dictatorship. Of course they are not going to openly advertise it to the rest of the world. "Officially" they want to keep the "socialist" farce. But everyone knows they rig the elections so that it is always them who win and can continue to push their bullshit "revolution" that has sunk that country into rampant chaos and poverty, when the majority of the population does not want it, and never even ask for it in the first place.

But yeah, you can call something communist, but if it isn't communist in practice (the workers owning the means of production, the abolition of capital and the state, etc) then it's meaningless.

If we go by that, then there probably has never been a "communist" country. We know that communism, much like anarchy, is unattainable. It is an ideal. So, people call "communist" a nation which approaches such ideals.

3) You haven't yet demonstrated with evidence how anarchy would be universally detrimental to our species.

You have been given plenty of examples that even with official rules and laws into place, which are a deterrent for things like crime, governments still have not been able to get rid of the problem, though they do reduce it. It does not take a rocket scientist (yes, again!) to see that without any deterrents into place, things CAN ONLY GET WORSE. It's common sense. Things roll downhill, not uphill (unless you are behind them pushing them up on purpose.) I find it very hard to believe that you really cannot understand this. It would be like if I told you that the reason why seat belts are installed in cars is to try to minimize fatal accidents, and then you told me: "But if you remove the seat belts, how do you know that it won't actually get better and less people will die in car crashes???" Really, it does not make any sense at all that anyone would even try to question and contradict such obvious things. If I am entertaining the thought of committing a crime, and I see that there is official punishment for what I intend to do, I will likely think about it more carefully before actually doing it. I probably will even forget about it if the risk of getting caught and punished is high. Now imagine that I know for a fact that there is nothing "official" around that says that what I am about to do is punishable. The most likely outcome in this case is that I will do it. What the hell do I have to lose! If I commit the crime that I am entertaining to carry out there won't be any organized effort to try to punish me for what I did. I will most likely get away with it (unless someone takes the "law" into his own hands and starts trying to punish me for what I did, but this will not be as dangerous for me as a whole judicial system in place working to make me pay for what I did.) Do you start getting the picture? This "no laws" thingy is a clear and open invitation to a SHITLOAD of trouble! Again, Sherlock Holmes not needed to easily deduce this.

Try to minimize, yes, but they fail, don't they?

But they do reduce it, which is way better than no reduction at all.

All I'm hearing from you is fear and negativity.

Because I happen to be realistic and pragmatic and know very well that a load of people are not going to be on their best behavior if there are no rules/laws whatsoever around. Have you ever been screwed up by "friends" or even family members? People that you did not consider would do something rotten like that, until they actually did it? If you have, then you know what people can be capable of, even with their friends and family.

5) It depends what the limitations are. Can humans fly? Not without the assistance of machines. Working together produces greater works than solo labor. Also, anarchy means horizontal government. For the umpteenth time.

I was talking about no limits to your "freedom". That includes both positive and negative aspects. I can say, for example, that it is part of my "freedom" to just pick up a baseball bat and cave your skull in. "Why?", you may ask. "No reason. I just like doing things like that!", to quote Luther from The Warriors (BTW, another great movie that portrays what happens when the law is not around or not being sufficiently present to cope with the rising tide of crime, and violent gangs start running amok for control of "territory". Watch it. And yes, we know that there's exaggerated fictional elements thrown in for entertainment value, but that is not the point.) You might here protest: "What the fuck??? What about my freedom to live long and die of old age!?! Your freedoms are infringing on mine!" And you would be right. That's why there can be no "unlimited/absolute freedoms", there have to be some restrictions and limitations, otherwise you get... you guessed it, an anarchy!

7) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy Your second link was decent.

The first one is from the Oxford Dictionary, and it says pretty much the same as the Merriam-Webster one. The second one is a very good compilation of etymological information.

8) I may be confused with the intentional suppression of communism by the West over the past century or so, or... maybe "twisting their arms" looks different to you than to me.

You say it as if communists were little angels who have not intervened in the affairs of other nations. And I fail to see how is this very relevant for things that were already happening even before this whole "capitalism vs communism" thingy was going on. Nations experimenting with modern concepts of democracy go back to the 18th century.

Again, Venezuela has never been truly communist. Bad Mouse Productions did a good video on it, I think.

Venezuela is run by stooges of the Castro regime in Cuba. Of course they are not going to openly advertise this, but anyone can see that Chavez and Maduro are closet-communists waving a "socialist" flag. What the heck, Maduro barely even makes an effort to try to hide it, he has no problem waving the PCV (Venezuela's Communist Party) flag:

https://venezuelanalysis.com/files/images/%5Bsite-date-yyyy%5D/%5Bsite-date-mm%5D/maduro-acepta-candidatura-presidencial-de-partido-comunista-de-venezuela.jpg

9) If the boot fits, J. Capitalists are awfully good at normalizing the horrendous. They do control most media, after all.

I think I will trust the "capitalist" media over the communist one any day of the week. Russia during its "Soviet" era was basically a lie factory. They even fucking lied about what really happened to Laika, the first living being to be put into orbit!

Why would people getting more involved in government make the jump to them not wishing to do anything else? Again you're catastrophizing without evidence, being a complete pessimist. LOL, have you never seen ANY Star Trek?

Do you seriously think that if anyone was given an opportunity to sit behind a desk in a nice cool office to make governmental decisions that he/she would voluntarily give up said "job" to go till fields under the hot sun, or brave the waves to go fish, or go miles underground to dig up minerals, or sweep the streets, or pick up the garbage, etc.? Society needs many kinds of people to carry out many kinds of necessary tasks to keep the said society functioning well. The more complicated and difficult to carry out that task is, the better rewarded you are for your skills and services to said society. Thus why a mechanical engineer earns more than a fry-cook. But both jobs are important and necessary nonetheless. That's the best way that has been devised so far for societies to function and progress. If you started rewarding the fry-cook as much as the mechanical engineer, the mechanical engineer is simply going to end up quitting and becoming another fry-cook. Why does he have to bust his ass with a more complicated task when he can earn as much by doing a much easier one? Won't take very long before you will have a society composed mostly of fry-cooks. That's just one of a myriad of examples why all this "anarchy" thingy simply will never work. It is a Utopia. People are NOT and do NOT think or behave like that. Again, BASIC HUMAN NATURE, always working against such ideals. Anarchy seems nice on paper, but it does not translate well into reality. Theory and practice are two different things, as any scientist, engineer and inventor knows.

Money is not needed, and more of a hindrance than a help.

You keep demonizing money as if it was some sort of evil entity. It's just a more convenient and practical way for humans to do business. That's why it replaced the earlier barter systems.

Why barter if everyone has all they need?

And who exactly is it that you think will produce all of what everyone wants and needs for free? You think those who work and produce will gladly accept the task of working for everyone else for nothing in return? Or perhaps you think that all those things that people need and want grow on trees and all you have to do is pick them up? You keep saying that you are not seeking Utopias, but your propositions pretty much look like just that. That's not how the real world works. Nobody wants to work for free. So, good luck finding volunteers who will "fuel" your anarchy for nothing in return.

blind2d

29-Aug-2019, 05:37 PM

1) I've heard of it, yeah. Wasn't it mostly cops? What's wrong with that? I'm imagining it... What would be their incentive for doing the crimes?
2) Now I'm no tankie, and Castro did some bad stuff, but overall he could've been worse. Hell, he could've been a US President. Just as an example. But yeah, he's hardly Mussolini. Also, yeah, there hasn't yet been a truly communist nation, since y'know, communism's ultimate goal is to abolish nations, among other things. But as an ideal worth fighting for? Freedom, equality, love? Yeah, I believe in these things, so sue me.
3) Unsure how instituting violence diminishes violence. I guess your line of reasoning is "well since we're already oppressed by the State, we can't also be oppressed by other entities!" which is absurd. There's only a hill to roll things on if a hierarchy exists. Hmm, no, this is more like if I was proposing a more efficient safety device than seat belts, and you were all like "But seat belts have been around for ages! It's the best system!" Now why wouldn't the desire not to harm others be a sufficient deterrent from violent behavior? Compassion, in other words? Your thinking seems completely immature and self-centered. So, a pound of flesh then? Forty lashes doesn't bring back the dead, or repair a family, or return stolen goods. Etc, etc. Humans will always cause trouble. Irrelevant.
4) Again, no reduction at all? Where is your evidence for this? Friends and family, under a system that rewards conquest and violence. Hm. Yes, completely in a vacuum, them. Just human nature, nothing more. Hm.
5) When humans have other things to do, then they will do them. Why harm others, when you could simulate it through virtual reality games? Why do it when it won't result in any personal gain, or improve your personal position/situation? Especially if you have the knowledge that the other person would feel it the same as you would? Bad parenting? Haven't seen The Warriors yet, but I will some day. Is it mostly men/youngsters? The most rowdy elements of a given society? Also... I already said that life doesn't work as 100% limit-free. Anarchy isn't about limitless freedom, but maximum freedom. Self-determination coupled with compassion, cooperation, solidarity and mutual aid.
6) You seem to have skipped this one.
7) Yes.
8) You're ignoring the fact that the West is much more aggressive about it, but yeah, again, I'm not a tankie. Did you even watch the video? Also... You know that socialism is a stepping-stone toward communism, right?
9) Every nation has propaganda. It's not exclusive to allegedly communist ones.
10) Oof, now I feel like you're trolling. "More complicated and difficult"? So being a CEO is more complicated and difficult by x1,000 than being a miner or farmer? In what universe? Being a fry cook is tough. I don't want to do it. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If everyone gets paid the same, then people will be more likely to pursue their passions, have more fulfilling careers, happiness would increase, etc. So anarchy in practice will look a bit different than on paper, what's your point? It would still be an improvement.
11) People kill, steal, harm, destroy, and lie, all for money. How is it not evil when it can be easily tied to every single vice? Would people have owned slaves if there was no money in doing so?
12) ...Everyone, because they need it. What do you mean, nothing in return? You keep enough of your production for your own sustainability. The excess is given away freely to those who need it more. How is this difficult to grasp? Also, yes, we can plant fruit trees and harvest from them as we wish, since no one person or family would claim ownership to them. It may be telling that mere progress appears to you as utopian. Are you in fact a conservative? There is no such thing as working for free. Many things can inspire labor, not just money or the acquisition of wealth. You really don't seem to get it, and that's kinda sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes! Lots!

Now please take me through it. The entire process. Explain it to me, as if I were a Child. How would food Production and distribution work? Take me through it!

Well, since you seem incapable of exploring links. Y'know what, no. If you're really this inept at reading things online, what are you even doing on a forum? I gave you links. We're going to be able to 3D-print food soon. So, if everyone has a 3D-printer and fuel for it (solar power), then we can all just make our own food how much and whatever we want. Right? Plus, communal gardens/fruit trees. Hell, livestock and grain harvesting could also be a group effort. What's so difficult about any of this to you? Actual communism, my friend. Now what are your further queries?

EvilNed

29-Aug-2019, 07:37 PM

blind2d

29-Aug-2019, 10:27 PM

Yes.

If you believe it’s possible, then you must have a realistic grasp of how it’s Done. I can’t think of any, as hierarchy is required in any form of organisation Beyond 3 or 4 people.

So please. Indulge me. Explain how a vast food production system could work, from planting to growing to distribution. Convince me. Because if you cannot, then anarchy is doomed - as it requires the complete cooperation of everybody.

Indulge me. Explain. Convince me.

If you don't believe it'll work, then no convincing on my part will probably sway you, as I'm not an expert. But you're still making all these baseless assertions. WHY should an hierarchy be required for larger groups? Again, if a decision is to be made, then democratic voting will occur. If it's a matter of information, that can be easily shared. If it's ability, then those most suiting or most invested will be relegated to the task. This is really not complicated. Again, I've mentioned technological advancements, which you seem to be completely ignoring, as well as community gardens and trees. Why would anarchy be "doomed" if one person cannot be swayed by another? Isn't that true for anyone, about anything? Does not capitalism and any other system require the participation of all or most of a given population to function? Watch some Non Compete videos, then get back to me, or something, IDK. You seem to be very new to all of this, no offense.

EvilNed

30-Aug-2019, 06:10 AM

Are you suggesting that a democratic vote should be held at every level of organizational decision making? Do you understand how much effort and time this would take? Food can spoil within days if not delivered from one proper storage area to the next. The reason there's a hierarchy is because it's efficient, and time is precious. But if we relegate everything to a democratic vote, then time will be spilled making decisions. So please, take me through it. Explain how tomatoes grown in the Netherlands can be exported and distributed in, let's say, England or the US? Explain to me who would work at every level of this production chain, including logistics?

Everything we know about human psychology, from both experience and studies, points toward that any form of organization such as you describe it, is impossible. It is simply naive to believe that people would able to efficiently cooperate, and work towards the same goal in instances like these. But I am giving you the benefit of a doubt... Explain to me, pleaase how it could work. Take me through it. :)

The reason everyone in an anarchy would need to "get along" is that if they don't (which they wouldn't) then people could easily begin to form their own societies of hierarcies - as happened in historiy when we transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones - and there would be nothing to do about it. They are, after all, free to do what they want - right?

Also, I'm ignoring the technological advances because at this stage they're purely hypothetical. We're very far away from being able to synthesize food at an affordable, widespread level - so we can't take that into effect. IF we were EVER to live in a society where food can be widespread synthesized, then of course we wouldn't food production as it exists today - but we don't, so I we can't take that into the equation.

JDP

30-Aug-2019, 09:40 AM

1) I've heard of it, yeah. Wasn't it mostly cops? What's wrong with that? I'm imagining it... What would be their incentive for doing the crimes?

No, it was gangsters masquerading as cops. Once they had their intended victims lined up against the wall, as if it was a legit police raid, they mowed them down in cold blood with machine guns. Al Capone wasn't a nice guy by any means. You crossed this dude, you were dead. Plain and simple. Gangsters obey no other "law" but that of The Jungle.

2) Now I'm no tankie, and Castro did some bad stuff, but overall he could've been worse. Hell, he could've been a US President.

LOL! Comparing a mass murdering thug like Castro with any US President (even Donald Fart, err, "Trump", by far the worst and most ridiculous US president ever), only reinforces how out of touch with reality you are. I'll take living under the government of any US President over Castro's communist regime any day of the week.

Just as an example. But yeah, he's hardly Mussolini.

How much you want to bet that 1920s-30s Italians lived much better under Mussolini (who was a ruthless dictator responsible for thousands of deaths, no question about this) than 2000s Venezuelans do under Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro), who are also responsible for thousands of deaths but on top of that have totally fucked the whole infrastructure of the nation? (want to hear an amusing "joke": current Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar for its population, it has to import sugar! A nation well-known for its long tradition of sugar cane plantations! That's how fucked up the whole country has become. They barely can even produce oil anymore, and this is the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world! Yes, that's how incompetent these communist clowns you seem to admire so much are. On top of that, they are a bunch of thieves too (they have millions -stolen from Venezuela's coffers- stashed in foreign bank accounts.) They have turned the richest nation in South America into an impoverished hell-hole, where droves of people die of hunger and disease every day. "Long live the ROBBERlution!")

Also, yeah, there hasn't yet been a truly communist nation, since y'know, communism's ultimate goal is to abolish nations, among other things. But as an ideal worth fighting for? Freedom, equality, love? Yeah, I believe in these things, so sue me.

Again, Utopian dreams.

3) Unsure how instituting violence diminishes violence.

Because just like Romero's zombies, many people do not "respond to such emotions" (as Dr. Rausch would put it) like "compassion", "love", "fairness", "respect", etc. You know, the things that you keep quite incorrectly assuming will somehow magically stop people from committing crimes. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to put laws into place to keep such people in check and make sure they know that they cannot go around doing such things to others without being punished for it. "You break the dishes, you pay for them!"

I guess your line of reasoning is "well since we're already oppressed by the State, we can't also be oppressed by other entities!" which is absurd.

Oppressed by the state? Methinks that you really have no idea of what actual oppression is. You should really spend some time in Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela to get a good nice taste of what actual oppression is. Get a taste of what being shot, or tortured, or imprisoned for life for your dissenting views, a la Cuba & North Korea, or dying of starvation and disease a la current Venezuela disaster (take a look at Venezuelan morgues and "hospitals" under the current bogus "revolution", with even decomposing corpses piling up: they would make even Dr. Menard from Zombie cringe in utter disgust!) In a week or less you would be begging to come back to a democracy. You have no idea how lucky you actually are for having been born and lived in a democracy all your life until it is taken away from you. Be thankful and don't take it for granted that you have plenty of rights and freedoms protected by a working constitution. BTW, have you noticed that the trend has always been people from communist countries struggling to get the fuck out of them and go to your much maligned "Capitalist Fascist Pigs!" run countries and NOT the other way around? I wonder why you think that is. I can't wait to hear what new and hilarious outlandish "explanation" you will try to come up with next. "It is those bastard Capitalist Fascist Pigs brainwashing people from the idyllic paradises of Communism and Anarchy, I tell you! They are not really escaping oppression, and persecution, and famine, and scarcity, and inefficiency, and incompetence at all levels of government, I tell you!"

There's only a hill to roll things on if a hierarchy exists. Hmm, no, this is more like if I was proposing a more efficient safety device than seat belts, and you were all like "But seat belts have been around for ages! It's the best system!"

No, what you are proposing is not the equivalent of some "improvement" over seat belts but the removal of seat belts altogether. That won't make anything better. More people will die from car crashes with no such equipment in place. Similarly, without laws you are only making matters worse, not better. More people will be disposed to commit crimes.

Now why wouldn't the desire not to harm others be a sufficient deterrent from violent behavior? Compassion, in other words? Your thinking seems completely immature and self-centered.

LOL! You are calling what I am telling you "immature" when it is you who proposes such absurdly naive "solutions" as pampering criminals with "love and compassion"? Seriously, what universe are you currently living in? Do you seriously think that bombarding such wackos with "love and compassion" is going to stop them from doing what they enjoy? Look, this whole "love and compassion" thingy only works for reasonable, peaceful people, but they don't really need such "reinforcement" since they already respect other people's lives and rights, so it is like preaching to the choir. Just don't expect it to work for everyone, though. Plenty of people will simply laugh or not pay attention to such pacifist philosophy. Religion has in fact been preaching "love and compassion", and "turn the other cheek", and what have you for a very long time, and it has not stopped such violent or criminally minded people one bit. In fact, ironically, more people have died because of religion than for any other reason, despite all the "preaching".

So, a pound of flesh then? Forty lashes doesn't bring back the dead, or repair a family, or return stolen goods. Etc, etc. Humans will always cause trouble. Irrelevant.

Do you realize how absurd this "argument" is? So, just because we can't bring back the dead we should allow the murderer to get away with it? How fine & dandy... for the criminal, that is! Since the crime is irreversible, then he should be allowed to go scot-free! This reminds me of a great scene in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (based on Romero's TV show, and written by Romero and McDowell):

Andy Smith: My sister and my best friend died because of this. **referring to the ancient Egyptian scroll that Bellingham used to command the mummy to kill the two mentioned people**
Bellingham: Killing me won't bring them back.
Andy Smith: If I let you live, that will bring them back?

That's the answer to this silly "argument" right there, and in an entertaining fictional package to boot! Not making the criminal pay for his crime just because the crime itself is irreversible is hardly much of any "argument", as not punishing him won't reverse his crime either. Doing nothing about it is therefore dumb and self-defeating, and only advantageous for the criminal, plain and simple. As another character (the Gypsy King, Tadzu Lempke, from Stephen King's Thinner) says in another horror movie: "Justice ain't about bringing back the dead, white man. Justice is about justice!" What you are advocating is in fact A PARADISE FOR CRIMINALS, where they would know for sure that as long as their crimes are irreversible they will get away with it. You know, for a person who seems to enjoy horror and action movies so much, you sure don't seem to learn anything from them. Beyond the purely fictional elements (which you seem to not be able to get past beyond, as can be seen from your weird dismissals that just because a movie features zombies or outrageous punks on weird vehicles everything else shown in them must be pure fiction as well), many of them in fact have interesting moral lessons and social commentaries written between the lines.

4) Again, no reduction at all? Where is your evidence for this? Friends and family, under a system that rewards conquest and violence. Hm. Yes, completely in a vacuum, them. Just human nature, nothing more. Hm.

Again, simple seat belt analogy: remove the seat belt and it is quite obvious that you will have more fatal accidents than with them in place. Same with laws. Remove them from the equation and it is pretty sure that you will get more crime, simply because people, specially those with criminal inclinations, will no longer have an organized deterrent working against them. It becomes easier to commit crimes. Again, not "rocket science". It shouldn't be this difficult to grasp, really.

5) When humans have other things to do, then they will do them. Why harm others, when you could simulate it through virtual reality games? Why do it when it won't result in any personal gain, or improve your personal position/situation? Especially if you have the knowledge that the other person would feel it the same as you would? Bad parenting?

You fail to comprehend the criminal mind. Plus anarchy will never achieve other goals, like free things for everyone, it is another of its Utopias. Nothing in life is "free". This reminds me of what happened in an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, when one of his guests seriously proposed to give a "fixed" salary of something like $2000 or $3000 a month for each and every citizen, independent of how much money they already make in their current jobs or if they are unemployed... Even a radical liberal like Maher laughed his ass off at such a proposition. All he had to do to show how faulty such a proposition is was to point out that such a plan would in fact motivate most people NOT to work but basically become leeches of the state. And he's 100% correct. Why bust your ass, specially by working a lower paying job, when you are guaranteed a good sum of money by doing nothing??? The ideas that you keep entertaining are on similar outlandish, unrealistic veins. As if money and goods just grew on trees!

Also... I already said that life doesn't work as 100% limit-free. Anarchy isn't about limitless freedom, but maximum freedom. Self-determination coupled with compassion, cooperation, solidarity and mutual aid.

You keep modifying the definition of "anarchy" as it suits you. One of anarchy's goals is "absolute freedom", a Utopian dream.

8) You're ignoring the fact that the West is much more aggressive about it, but yeah, again, I'm not a tankie.

More aggressive? Do you know why the Korean War started? That's right, communist troops invading the South. Do you know that every single ground battle between US troops and the VC and North Vietnamese troops in Vietnam happened in the South (the West-backed-up side), not the North (the communist supported side)? Yep, it was always the communists on the offensive and the US and South Vietnamese troops on the defensive. Did you know that the US could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union without any fear of atomic counter-attack up until 1950, since the Soviets could not develop their first atomic bomb until 1949, years behind the Americans? (in 1950 there were 304 atomic bombs in the world, 299 of them were in the US) But they never did it. So I ask you: who is the real aggressor? You seem to swallow communist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Also... You know that socialism is a stepping-stone toward communism, right?

That depends on how you define "socialism", as it has more than one meaning:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Even the Nazis started as "National Socialists", and they evolved into something else pretty different than Marxism/Communism.

9) Every nation has propaganda. It's not exclusive to allegedly communist ones.

Communist nations are built on lies.

10) Oof, now I feel like you're trolling. "More complicated and difficult"? So being a CEO is more complicated and difficult by x1,000 than being a miner or farmer? In what universe? Being a fry cook is tough. I don't want to do it.

In what universe? In this one, Einstein! Do you think that being a CEO is such an easy job that anyone can do it? You have to understand and have loads of experience in management to be able to be a good CEO. Why do you think that an average fry cook earns about $20,000 while an average CEO some $150,000? Anyone can become a miner, or a farmer, or a fry cook. All that is required is a bit of experience in those subjects and a bit of patience to repeat the same basic tasks over and over again. Being a CEO, at least a good & efficient one, is not something that just about anyone can do. That's why companies pay big bucks for their services, whereas they pay miners and cooks much less. Miners and cooks are way easier to find than good CEOs. Again, not saying that those other lower paying jobs are not important, just not as complicated and difficult. And don't confuse words like "tough" or "difficult" or "complicated" with "tedious". Being a fry cook is hardly "difficult" or "complicated". Just be careful not to burn the food in the hot oil/fat. A bit of practice and you get it. It is rather TEDIOUS because you have to work many hours doing basically the same thing over and over. But hardly "tough" or "complicated". Being a CEO or a mechanical engineer (my actual example) is a more complicated and difficult task, requiring much more experience and training to become good at those tasks. Thus why they earn way more than miners or cooks. Since as it is pretty clear by now that you have quite a bit of difficulty grasping such things, I will give you a closer example: it is more difficult to be a chef than to be a fry cook. Thus why chefs earn quite more than fry cooks. Capisce? That's how society works, remains functional, stimulates competition and betterment, it provides an incentive for many people to strive for different, more complex and better paying jobs, while others are content with simpler but lower paying ones (which are necessary as well, nothing wrong with lower skill labor.) Good luck coming up with a better system than this. My money says you will not succeed, specially not with such bizarre propositions as you seem to think somehow will "work".

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If everyone gets paid the same, then people will be more likely to pursue their passions, have more fulfilling careers, happiness would increase, etc.

The contradictions are all yours. You are the one who strangely expects that rewarding two very different jobs requiring very different levels of skill and preparation somehow will result in people just being motivated to take on the harder jobs. It just ain't gonna happen. Why make more effort for the exact same "reward"??? What you will end up with is a society mostly composed of people who take on the easier and least demanding jobs, as long as they have everything given to them and have no reason to try to improve their lives. You know, like that hare-brained "give everyone $2000-$3000 a month!" plan that Bill Maher laughed at on his show. No incentive whatsoever for people to actually work.

So anarchy in practice will look a bit different than on paper, what's your point? It would still be an improvement.

The point is that it will NOT translate well into reality, and it most definitely will not be any sort of "improvement".

11) People kill, steal, harm, destroy, and lie, all for money. How is it not evil when it can be easily tied to every single vice? Would people have owned slaves if there was no money in doing so?

People have been doing all that long before money existed. Slavery itself is also prehistoric. It existed long before money did. You keep trying to use "money" as some sort of scapegoat for all of society's problems. You simply don't understand the complexities of HUMAN NATURE. That has become very obvious throughout all these "discussions". No wonder you keep entertaining such unrealistic ideas like "anarchy", no matter how much it is explained to you that they simply will not work in the real world, but only in the idealized world of "on paper". Paper-humans are these magical two-dimensional creatures who all think alike, all cooperate, all behave, all agree, all respect others, all work, all do their best, etc. Real-humans are a very different thing. Some steal, some don't, some kill, some don't, some hate, some love, some misbehave, some behave, some lie, some tell the truth, some leech-off of others, some work & produce, some are unmotivated, some are highly motivated, etc.

12) ...Everyone, because they need it. What do you mean, nothing in return? You keep enough of your production for your own sustainability. The excess is given away freely to those who need it more.

Again, good luck trying to convince any sane, logical, rational person of such a hare-brained scheme. The answer that you will invariably get from almost everyone you propose it to will be: "OK, practice what you preach, smartass: go ahead and till the fields all day and keep only what's necessary for you to survive and then give away for free the product of your hard labor to others who have not and do not want to lift a finger to do that job!" You can almost hear it in the background: "Earth to blind2d! Earth to blind2d!"

How is this difficult to grasp? Also, yes, we can plant fruit trees and harvest from them as we wish, since no one person or family would claim ownership to them.

Have you ever heard of crops failing? Natural disasters? Droughts? Diseases? Or just plain old PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO WORK FOR FREE??? (who do you seriously think is going to plant all those trees, water them, fertilize them, keep them healthy, and harvest them only to share much of their labor with others who haven't lifted a finger to deserve so, all for free?) How are these inconvenient facts so difficult to grasp?

It may be telling that mere progress appears to you as utopian. Are you in fact a conservative? There is no such thing as working for free. Many things can inspire labor, not just money or the acquisition of wealth. You really don't seem to get it, and that's kinda sad.

What is really kind of sad is someone who evidently is quite out of touch with reality and seeking obvious Utopias about "no laws" and people all magically thinking, feeling and behaving the same way, and fully agreeing with one another all the time, and working for nothing, and a world without accidents, catastrophes, crime, etc. claiming that others "really don't seem to get it". You have much to learn about life and reality yet.

blind2d

30-Aug-2019, 12:02 PM

ProfessorChaos

30-Aug-2019, 12:06 PM

@ JDP:

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/GQnsaAWZ8ty00/giphy.gif

Sweet baby Jesus that last entire last post was nearly flawless. Thanks for being so thorough and eloquent, I don't have the time and patience to compose a masterpiece like that but holy shit it's great seeing someone put all that together. Keep fighting the good fight brother.

EDIT:

So you believe if people wanted to willingly give up their freedom for a life full of more strife, they would do so? Again, why?

isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what you're endorsing in regards to communism or whatever sort of system you think we should be living under?

EvilNed

30-Aug-2019, 01:13 PM

Fair enough. Now let me ask this... WHY would tomatoes from the Netherlands need to be exported across the globe?

Lots of reasons.

Specialization in crops production leads to higher yields - which can sustain a higher amount of people. Having a greenhouse in every lawn out there cannot compete with having vast amount of farmland dedicated to a single crop. Specialization also allows people to focus on other tasks - such as for instance science or medicine - rather than taking care of their own food production. If everyone has to care for themselves then food will become something everyone has to attend to. All other vocations will suffer.

Furthermore, geography determines what crops can be grown where. You can't grow corn in the Ukraine - believe me, they tried (and failed).

When security and freedom are pitted against each other, people as a group will always choose security. They will seek shelter and comfort in groups, and within groups social hierarchies can (and will always) form. Anarchy simply cannot exist alongside freedom - because the ability to choose a better life will eliminate anarchy.
We didn't end up like this by accident - we chose this life over that of hunter-gatherers.

blind2d

30-Aug-2019, 01:37 PM

No, it was gangsters masquerading as cops. Once they had their intended victims lined up against the wall, as if it was a legit police raid, they mowed them down in cold blood with machine guns. Al Capone wasn't a nice guy by any means. You crossed this dude, you were dead. Plain and simple. Gangsters obey no other "law" but that of The Jungle.

LOL! Comparing a mass murdering thug like Castro with any US President (even Donald Fart, err, "Trump", by far the worst and most ridiculous US president ever), only reinforces how out of touch with reality you are. I'll take living under the government of any US President over Castro's communist regime any day of the week.

How much you want to bet that 1920s-30s Italians lived much better under Mussolini (who was a ruthless dictator responsible for thousands of deaths, no question about this) than 2000s Venezuelans do under Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro), who are also responsible for thousands of deaths but on top of that have totally fucked the whole infrastructure of the nation? (want to hear an amusing "joke": current Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar for its population, it has to import sugar! A nation well-known for its long tradition of sugar cane plantations! That's how fucked up the whole country has become. They barely can even produce oil anymore, and this is the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world! Yes, that's how incompetent these communist clowns you seem to admire so much are. On top of that, they are a bunch of thieves too (they have millions -stolen from Venezuela's coffers- stashed in foreign bank accounts.) They have turned the richest nation in South America into an impoverished hell-hole, where droves of people die of hunger and disease every day. "Long live the ROBBERlution!")

Again, Utopian dreams.

Because just like Romero's zombies, many people do not "respond to such emotions" (as Dr. Rausch would put it) like "compassion", "love", "fairness", "respect", etc. You know, the things that you keep quite incorrectly assuming will somehow magically stop people from committing crimes. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to put laws into place to keep such people in check and make sure they know that they cannot go around doing such things to others without being punished for it. "You break the dishes, you pay for them!"

Oppressed by the state? Methinks that you really have no idea of what actual oppression is. You should really spend some time in Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela to get a good nice taste of what actual oppression is. Get a taste of what being shot, or tortured, or imprisoned for life for your dissenting views, a la Cuba & North Korea, or dying of starvation and disease a la current Venezuela disaster (take a look at Venezuelan morgues and "hospitals" under the current bogus "revolution", with even decomposing corpses piling up: they would make even Dr. Menard from Zombie cringe in utter disgust!) In a week or less you would be begging to come back to a democracy. You have no idea how lucky you actually are for having been born and lived in a democracy all your life until it is taken away from you. Be thankful and don't take it for granted that you have plenty of rights and freedoms protected by a working constitution. BTW, have you noticed that the trend has always been people from communist countries struggling to get the fuck out of them and go to your much maligned "Capitalist Fascist Pigs!" run countries and NOT the other way around? I wonder why you think that is. I can't wait to hear what new and hilarious outlandish "explanation" you will try to come up with next. "It is those bastard Capitalist Fascist Pigs brainwashing people from the idyllic paradises of Communism and Anarchy, I tell you! They are not really escaping oppression, and persecution, and famine, and scarcity, and inefficiency, and incompetence at all levels of government, I tell you!"

No, what you are proposing is not the equivalent of some "improvement" over seat belts but the removal of seat belts altogether. That won't make anything better. More people will die from car crashes with no such equipment in place. Similarly, without laws you are only making matters worse, not better. More people will be disposed to commit crimes.

LOL! You are calling what I am telling you "immature" when it is you who proposes such absurdly naive "solutions" as pampering criminals with "love and compassion"? Seriously, what universe are you currently living in? Do you seriously think that bombarding such wackos with "love and compassion" is going to stop them from doing what they enjoy? Look, this whole "love and compassion" thingy only works for reasonable, peaceful people, but they don't really need such "reinforcement" since they already respect other people's lives and rights, so it is like preaching to the choir. Just don't expect it to work for everyone, though. Plenty of people will simply laugh or not pay attention to such pacifist philosophy. Religion has in fact been preaching "love and compassion", and "turn the other cheek", and what have you for a very long time, and it has not stopped such violent or criminally minded people one bit. In fact, ironically, more people have died because of religion than for any other reason, despite all the "preaching".

Do you realize how absurd this "argument" is? So, just because we can't bring back the dead we should allow the murderer to get away with it? How fine & dandy... for the criminal, that is! Since the crime is irreversible, then he should be allowed to go scot-free! This reminds me of a great scene in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (based on Romero's TV show, and written by Romero and McDowell):

Andy Smith: My sister and my best friend died because of this. **referring to the ancient Egyptian scroll that Bellingham used to command the mummy to kill the two mentioned people**
Bellingham: Killing me won't bring them back.
Andy Smith: If I let you live, that will bring them back?

That's the answer to this silly "argument" right there, and in an entertaining fictional package to boot! Not making the criminal pay for his crime just because the crime itself is irreversible is hardly much of any "argument", as not punishing him won't reverse his crime either. Doing nothing about it is therefore dumb and self-defeating, and only advantageous for the criminal, plain and simple. As another character (the Gypsy King, Tadzu Lempke, from Stephen King's Thinner) says in another horror movie: "Justice ain't about bringing back the dead, white man. Justice is about justice!" What you are advocating is in fact A PARADISE FOR CRIMINALS, where they would know for sure that as long as their crimes are irreversible they will get away with it. You know, for a person who seems to enjoy horror and action movies so much, you sure don't seem to learn anything from them. Beyond the purely fictional elements (which you seem to not be able to get past beyond, as can be seen from your weird dismissals that just because a movie features zombies or outrageous punks on weird vehicles everything else shown in them must be pure fiction as well), many of them in fact have interesting moral lessons and social commentaries written between the lines.

Again, simple seat belt analogy: remove the seat belt and it is quite obvious that you will have more fatal accidents than with them in place. Same with laws. Remove them from the equation and it is pretty sure that you will get more crime, simply because people, specially those with criminal inclinations, will no longer have an organized deterrent working against them. It becomes easier to commit crimes. Again, not "rocket science". It shouldn't be this difficult to grasp, really.

You fail to comprehend the criminal mind. Plus anarchy will never achieve other goals, like free things for everyone, it is another of its Utopias. Nothing in life is "free". This reminds me of what happened in an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, when one of his guests seriously proposed to give a "fixed" salary of something like $2000 or $3000 a month for each and every citizen, independent of how much money they already make in their current jobs or if they are unemployed... Even a radical liberal like Maher laughed his ass off at such a proposition. All he had to do to show how faulty such a proposition is was to point out that such a plan would in fact motivate most people NOT to work but basically become leeches of the state. And he's 100% correct. Why bust your ass, specially by working a lower paying job, when you are guaranteed a good sum of money by doing nothing??? The ideas that you keep entertaining are on similar outlandish, unrealistic veins. As if money and goods just grew on trees!

You keep modifying the definition of "anarchy" as it suits you. One of anarchy's goals is "absolute freedom", a Utopian dream.

More aggressive? Do you know why the Korean War started? That's right, communist troops invading the South. Do you know that every single ground battle between US troops and the VC and North Vietnamese troops in Vietnam happened in the South (the West-backed-up side), not the North (the communist supported side)? Yep, it was always the communists on the offensive and the US and South Vietnamese troops on the defensive. Did you know that the US could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union without any fear of atomic counter-attack up until 1950, since the Soviets could not develop their first atomic bomb until 1949, years behind the Americans? (in 1950 there were 304 atomic bombs in the world, 299 of them were in the US) But they never did it. So I ask you: who is the real aggressor? You seem to swallow communist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

That depends on how you define "socialism", as it has more than one meaning:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Even the Nazis started as "National Socialists", and they evolved into something else pretty different than Marxism/Communism.

Communist nations are built on lies.

In what universe? In this one, Einstein! Do you think that being a CEO is such an easy job that anyone can do it? You have to understand and have loads of experience in management to be able to be a good CEO. Why do you think that an average fry cook earns about $20,000 while an average CEO some $150,000? Anyone can become a miner, or a farmer, or a fry cook. All that is required is a bit of experience in those subjects and a bit of patience to repeat the same basic tasks over and over again. Being a CEO, at least a good & efficient one, is not something that just about anyone can do. That's why companies pay big bucks for their services, whereas they pay miners and cooks much less. Miners and cooks are way easier to find than good CEOs. Again, not saying that those other lower paying jobs are not important, just not as complicated and difficult. And don't confuse words like "tough" or "difficult" or "complicated" with "tedious". Being a fry cook is hardly "difficult" or "complicated". Just be careful not to burn the food in the hot oil/fat. A bit of practice and you get it. It is rather TEDIOUS because you have to work many hours doing basically the same thing over and over. But hardly "tough" or "complicated". Being a CEO or a mechanical engineer (my actual example) is a more complicated and difficult task, requiring much more experience and training to become good at those tasks. Thus why they earn way more than miners or cooks. Since as it is pretty clear by now that you have quite a bit of difficulty grasping such things, I will give you a closer example: it is more difficult to be a chef than to be a fry cook. Thus why chefs earn quite more than fry cooks. Capisce? That's how society works, remains functional, stimulates competition and betterment, it provides an incentive for many people to strive for different, more complex and better paying jobs, while others are content with simpler but lower paying ones (which are necessary as well, nothing wrong with lower skill labor.) Good luck coming up with a better system than this. My money says you will not succeed, specially not with such bizarre propositions as you seem to think somehow will "work".

The contradictions are all yours. You are the one who strangely expects that rewarding two very different jobs requiring very different levels of skill and preparation somehow will result in people just being motivated to take on the harder jobs. It just ain't gonna happen. Why make more effort for the exact same "reward"??? What you will end up with is a society mostly composed of people who take on the easier and least demanding jobs, as long as they have everything given to them and have no reason to try to improve their lives. You know, like that hare-brained "give everyone $2000-$3000 a month!" plan that Bill Maher laughed at on his show. No incentive whatsoever for people to actually work.

The point is that it will NOT translate well into reality, and it most definitely will not be any sort of "improvement".

People have been doing all that long before money existed. Slavery itself is also prehistoric. It existed long before money did. You keep trying to use "money" as some sort of scapegoat for all of society's problems. You simply don't understand the complexities of HUMAN NATURE. That has become very obvious throughout all these "discussions". No wonder you keep entertaining such unrealistic ideas like "anarchy", no matter how much it is explained to you that they simply will not work in the real world, but only in the idealized world of "on paper". Paper-humans are these magical two-dimensional creatures who all think alike, all cooperate, all behave, all agree, all respect others, all work, all do their best, etc. Real-humans are a very different thing. Some steal, some don't, some kill, some don't, some hate, some love, some misbehave, some behave, some lie, some tell the truth, some leech-off of others, some work & produce, some are unmotivated, some are highly motivated, etc.

Again, good luck trying to convince any sane, logical, rational person of such a hare-brained scheme. The answer that you will invariably get from almost everyone you propose it to will be: "OK, practice what you preach, smartass: go ahead and till the fields all day and keep only what's necessary for you to survive and then give away for free the product of your hard labor to others who have not and do not want to lift a finger to do that job!" You can almost hear it in the background: "Earth to blind2d! Earth to blind2d!"

Have you ever heard of crops failing? Natural disasters? Droughts? Diseases? Or just plain old PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO WORK FOR FREE??? (who do you seriously think is going to plant all those trees, water them, fertilize them, keep them healthy, and harvest them only to share much of their labor with others who haven't lifted a finger to deserve so, all for free?) How are these inconvenient facts so difficult to grasp?

What is really kind of sad is someone who evidently is quite out of touch with reality and seeking obvious Utopias about "no laws" and people all magically thinking, feeling and behaving the same way, and fully agreeing with one another all the time, and working for nothing, and a world without accidents, catastrophes, crime, etc. claiming that others "really don't seem to get it". You have much to learn about life and reality yet.

1) Are capitalists any different? Maybe they don't pull the trigger personally, but they certainly have no qualms about sending troops to die and kill thousands of innocents for profit.
2) Okay, so you'd rather be a minority in the US? Hell, at least Cuba has decent health care! And mass murderer? Have you MET any US president? Forgetting about literally everything the US military/CIA/FBI has ever done, are we? On the subject of Venezuela (Your favorite country?) I don't see how that's entirely Castro's fault, any more than the wars in the Middle East today are thanks mainly to Nixon or JFK. Again, communism is ultimately about abolishing money, so... *shrugs*. Alright, so if I shouldn't have hope for the future, should I just slit my wrists now and have done with it?
3) If I broke the dishes accidentally, is that really fair? Let me ask you this. If you saw a bunch of kids playing on a playground, would your first instinct be to murder them? "Many" people is not "most". Weak argument. The USA has the largest prison population per capita in the world by far. We have a law on the books for literally everything. Hell, they're trying to build a fucking wall on the border with Mexico. How is that not oppression? Mm, what about China? England, with its constant surveillance? France, where women can't wear hijabs in public? Canada, where you're fucked if you're indigenous. The list goes on and on. Capitalism IS oppression. "Work for us, do as we say, or die in the gutter". What rights and freedoms? To vote in an election that won't change anything? To work as a wage slave? To be randomly shot in public by some unhinged white guy with an assault rifle? Um, yeah, or they stay. That happens a lot too. No one's being stopped from just leaving Vietnam. Unless you're already a rich asshole, the "American Dream" is a lie. Also again, I'm not a tankie. I do not support dictators. Neither should you.
What would their motivations be to commit crimes? Also, it's more like if I took all cars off the road. No cars, no car collisions. But this is just table tennis at this point. Criminals are just people that do things the law doesn't like, for the most part. Most people in jail are there for nonviolent crimes. How can you not know this? If they have mental health issues, we can address them. If it's something else, we can try to help with that to. Why are you just so quick to give up on others? I don't know if you've read the Bible, but there's a lot of fucking violence in it. So, yeah, you're just being pessimistic. Again. So, is your "justice" predicated merely on revenge? Spiteful, egotistic, toxic thinking. If one is hurt, one should find a way to heal. Not lash out and inflict more hurt upon others. Protect yourself, yes, but don't become that which you despise. Again you're ignoring the environmental conditions that create violent behavior, chalking it up to just "bad individuals". It's not that simple. This is why we must change the system itself. But cool movie quotes.
4) Maybe it's easier for me to kill people in a nation with more guns than people (the US). Does that mean I'm going to become a serial murderer? Hell no. Ridiculous.
5) Okay then, what is "the criminal mind"? *vomits a tiny amount* Bill Maher, seriously? He's no better than Fox News, IMO. Hosting Milo, etc. No platform for nazis. Money is a lie. Abolish it. Fruit (food, needed for life) grows on trees.
6) (Or is it 7?) Not my fault anarchy is more nuanced than you're aware of it being. Like that's my whole point here. Trying to explain it. It's why entire books are often written on the subject. What are humans without dreams? Miserable wretches plodding through a hellscape, partially of our own making. Yes, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
8) Who is the aggressor? Um, probably the country that flew across an entire ocean to fight wars. Probably the country that got rich off of slave labor and genocide. Probably the country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons. The country that took over Hawaii. You think that the US fought/fights communism just because they care so much about foreigners that we're often openly racist towards? What world are you living in?
9) Again, the "American Dream" is a lie. To quote George Carlin, "...you've got to be asleep to believe it."
10) Yes, so difficult to talk to people and sit behind a desk in an office building all day. Literally anyone can do this. Like, I have social anxiety, but if such a position would allow me to live comfortably, I'd probably still do it. If the job needed to be done, that is. Which, a CEO... Does not. If the workers own the means of production. As they ought. Also, no, not anyone can farm. Some people have physical disabilities preventing them from doing so. Or don't own land/enough capital to acquire land to start a farm. Or live in an area where the soil is right for what they want to grow. Etc, etc. With modern technology, you could literally be an executive from home, completely. And it's because capitalism values capitalists/capital, not actual labor/workers. Are companies like gods to you? Sending commands and blessings or wrath down from on high? Physical effort/labor isn't "difficult" to you? Ever try standing for 8-10 hours straight in front of hot stoves, shouting and bustling people, and electronic beeps? Six days out of the week? And what does a CEO create? A fry cook makes food, needed for life. A CEO is comparatively as useful as a baby in NASA. Alright, we get it, you're a bootlicker. Don't shove your fetishes down my throat without my consent. What I'm literally proposing is a better system, and you're shooting it down because... It's different? Unrealistic? Capitalism was unrealistic 1,000 years ago. The internet itself couldn't even have been imagined a century ago. Don't tell me what isn't possible, just because you're afraid to try new things. I guess you'd be fine with slavery were we living in the 1700's, yeah? Geez. "Dur, we need oppressive leaders b'cause they gots experience and fancy suits." Get out of here. Oof, especially putting words in my mouth like that. Marx, again. "Each according to [their] ability to each according to [their] need." Some jobs simply won't be necessary anymore. Banking, for example. Get rid of that whole mess. You seem to be confused as to what "more effort" means. Parenting for example is one of the toughest jobs there is, yet people keep doing it for free... Why? Hell, even when Van Gogh wasn't selling anything, he kept painting. People have passions and interests, regardless of any kind of reward or reimbursement and will work for themselves and others, no matter what. Historically. Fuck a Bill Maher, dude. He's a capitalist. And a wealthy cishet white male. So, yeah, why would I care? Just you saying it won't be an improvement doesn't make it so.
11) Your point? I understand all of this. Yet we are still social creatures. We all (or the vast majority of us) wish to live in communities. So does not communism then make the most sense? I've already explained that the diversity of our species is glorious, I thought.
12) That wouldn't be "practicing what I preach". That would be me doing everything for everyone else: an idea I have not once proposed. Do you really not understand what working together for the good of all means? It means um... Working together for the good of all. Again, parents. They work hard. What do they get in return? Certainly not money or social status (except maybe to a very small degree). And yes, I've heard of all those things. We have them now. Yet people still maintain their own vegetable gardens/farms for sustenance, even when the harvest is bad, even when they can't sell their produce. Also, last I checked, trees can grow all by themselves without human intervention (though the initial planting does help, as well as pruning and other very minor and infrequent maintenance). I don't see how they're inconvenient, as yes I've taken them into account. Where did I ever say I expected everyone to "think, feel, and behave the same way"? Do I have to use that one Marx quote again? We see the beauty of the world in how each of us are unique. We can unite the world by recognizing that we are all alike. No magic needed, just knowledge and understanding. Open minds and hearts. All things we're all capable of naturally. Also, magic is just science that we don't yet understand. To quote Adventure Time. Again, no one ever works for nothing. Even if it's just self-satisfaction, that's still something valuable. And disagreements always arise. But they can be more easily resolved through patience and compassion. Where did I say no accidents? No catastrophes? Again, can something be considered a crime if there are no laws? If you think Bill Maher is worth listening to... IDK. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on "Life and reality" yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

@ JDP:

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/GQnsaAWZ8ty00/giphy.gif

Sweet baby Jesus that last entire last post was nearly flawless. Thanks for being so thorough and eloquent, I don't have the time and patience to compose a masterpiece like that but holy shit it's great seeing someone put all that together. Keep fighting the good fight brother.

EDIT:

isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what you're endorsing in regards to communism or whatever sort of system you think we should be living under?

You applaud a capitalist. SMH. Prof, if you're not going to pay attention, what are you even doing here? How would it be opposite? Do you even have any political knowledge or class consciousness?

- - - Updated - - -

Lots of reasons.

Specialization in crops production leads to higher yields - which can sustain a higher amount of people. Having a greenhouse in every lawn out there cannot compete with having vast amount of farmland dedicated to a single crop. Specialization also allows people to focus on other tasks - such as for instance science or medicine - rather than taking care of their own food production. If everyone has to care for themselves then food will become something everyone has to attend to. All other vocations will suffer.

Furthermore, geography determines what crops can be grown where. You can't grow corn in the Ukraine - believe me, they tried (and failed).

When security and freedom are pitted against each other, people as a group will always choose security. They will seek shelter and comfort in groups, and within groups social hierarchies can (and will always) form. Anarchy simply cannot exist alongside freedom - because the ability to choose a better life will eliminate anarchy.
We didn't end up like this by accident - we chose this life over that of hunter-gatherers.

This is true, which is why we could have communal farms. Also, technology. Not all vocations that exist today are justified. Communism is security. Why should these hierarchies form? What causes them? LOL, what? Anarchy isn't the same thing as hunter-gatherers. Not even sure what you're trying to say at the end there. Anarchy IS freedom. "The ability to choose a better life"? Life is what you make it. Capitalism doesn't exactly give us many choices, now does it? Unless you mean which brand of toothpaste you want to buy, I guess. But is that really a choice?

EvilNed

30-Aug-2019, 01:55 PM

This is true, which is why we could have communal farms. Also, technology. Not all vocations that exist today are justified. Communism is security. Why should these hierarchies form? What causes them? LOL, what? Anarchy isn't the same thing as hunter-gatherers. Not even sure what you're trying to say at the end there. Anarchy IS freedom. "The ability to choose a better life"? Life is what you make it. Capitalism doesn't exactly give us many choices, now does it? Unless you mean which brand of toothpaste you want to buy, I guess. But is that really a choice?

Communal farms has been tried and didn't work. During the Soviet Union they revoked the private ownership to land in order to reform them into communal farms. The problem is that the people who were good at farming did not want to go along with this, and resisted, since the tradeoff to them is worthless. They were forced to work the exact same farms are before, but reap much less reward. Since the food was distributed evenly rather than sold to the market that meant that for the same amount of work they suddenly recieved no reward. The first thing that happened was that people refused - and kept their farms. So Stalin shot them. The second thing that happened was that Stalin had a bunch of farmland, but no farmers - so he had to force people to work them. The third thing that happened was that people who had no aptitude for working in agriculture (because all the ones who did, were dead) - and had no personal incentive to work hard - simply produced food at a much lower yield. Here endeth the communal farming project experiment... It doesn't work, because humans don't work like that.

What do you mean "why do hierarchies form"? Hierarchies form because they are an undeniably effective way of organizing anything. With competent people making informed decisions you can handle increasingly larger organizations which otherwise would not be possible. Without an hierarchy you could not organize anything beyond perhaps a group of five people - and even that is doubtful for a long period of time. There's a reason why there's a very strict hierarchy in the military - it's the most effective way - bar none - of handling a large group of people. Without it you couldn't have wide scale food production, which in turn would negate the ability to conduct research within medicine, science and infrastructure - etc. etc. etc...

blind2d

30-Aug-2019, 02:19 PM

Communal farms has been tried and didn't work. During the Soviet Union they revoked the private ownership to land in order to reform them into communal farms. The problem is that the people who were good at farming did not want to go along with this, and resisted, since the tradeoff to them is worthless. They were forced to work the exact same farms are before, but reap much less reward. Since the food was distributed evenly rather than sold to the market that meant that for the same amount of work they suddenly recieved no reward. The first thing that happened was that people refused - and kept their farms. So Stalin shot them. The second thing that happened was that Stalin had a bunch of farmland, but no farmers - so he had to force people to work them. The third thing that happened was that people who had no aptitude for working in agriculture (because all the ones who did, were dead) - and had no personal incentive to work hard - simply produced food at a much lower yield. Here endeth the communal farming project experiment... It doesn't work, because humans don't work like that.

What do you mean "why do hierarchies form"? Hierarchies form because they are an undeniably effective way of organizing anything. With competent people making informed decisions you can handle increasingly larger organizations which otherwise would not be possible. Without an hierarchy you could not organize anything beyond perhaps a group of five people - and even that is doubtful for a long period of time. There's a reason why there's a very strict hierarchy in the military - it's the most effective way - bar none - of handling a large group of people. Without it you couldn't have wide scale food production, which in turn would negate the ability to conduct research within medicine, science and infrastructure - etc. etc. etc...

So I guess science is this: Try a thing once. If it doesn't work, give up, Never try it again. Right? I'm no Stalinist, but if humans want to work against their own best interests... I can't force them, no one can, to behave differently. If a healthy and happy community isn't enough of an incentive, then I don't know what is. Seems that these farmers were greedy, stupid and stubborn. Doesn't mean they deserved death though, although death is coming for all of us.

I mean, "why do hierarchies form?". Horizontal democracy could be equally effective if put into practice. All decisions can be informed if knowledge is equally shared and accessible. Why wouldn't that be possible? You seem to have no knowledge of actual anarchist groups. They are usually way larger than just five people. ...I feel like it's because the military is a fascist construct. Ah the slippery slope fallacy. Wonderful.

EvilNed

30-Aug-2019, 03:06 PM

So I guess science is this: Try a thing once. If it doesn't work, give up, Never try it again. Right? I'm no Stalinist, but if humans want to work against their own best interests... I can't force them, no one can, to behave differently. If a healthy and happy community isn't enough of an incentive, then I don't know what is. Seems that these farmers were greedy, stupid and stubborn. Doesn't mean they deserved death though, although death is coming for all of us.

I mean, "why do hierarchies form?". Horizontal democracy could be equally effective if put into practice. All decisions can be informed if knowledge is equally shared and accessible. Why wouldn't that be possible? You seem to have no knowledge of actual anarchist groups. They are usually way larger than just five people. ...I feel like it's because the military is a fascist construct. Ah the slippery slope fallacy. Wonderful.

Pretty much yes, if something doesn't work - try to learn from that mistake. And no, working together for a common good isn't a good enough incentive for most people, because almost nobody - including me - believes in that pipe dream. Why toil for a cause that only gives me suffering?

Whether you think militaries are fascist or not is beside the point. Stop shifting the goal post. The point was to show how effective an hierarchy is. You cannot manage a society without it. Even hunter-gatherer tribes had alpha leaders. All organizations need a leader in order to function effectively.

blind2d

30-Aug-2019, 07:34 PM

Pretty much yes, if something doesn't work - try to learn from that mistake. And no, working together for a common good isn't a good enough incentive for most people, because almost nobody - including me - believes in that pipe dream. Why toil for a cause that only gives me suffering?

Whether you think militaries are fascist or not is beside the point. Stop shifting the goal post. The point was to show how effective an hierarchy is. You cannot manage a society without it. Even hunter-gatherer tribes had alpha leaders. All organizations need a leader in order to function effectively.

Learn from the mistake, yes. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. How many times did Edison try the lightbulb before it worked? Johnny Giger had to try the Impossible Darkslide over 260 times before he landed a clean one. My point is don't give up. Yours seems to be... Don't try? Don't dream? I'm not clear. If you have a better dream, by all means share it. I'm fascinated with how you think things could be improved. Why would your toil ONLY produce suffering? Is your toil masochistic torture of some kind? Is it your job to cut ribbons of flesh off your own arms or something?

True. But, "effective"? At what? Dominating and slaughtering a population? Essentially being a bully to smaller/poorer nations/groups? Oh my, how admirable (said sarcastically). Y'all keep saying it can't be done. Show me the science behind it. Historically yeah, revolutionary groups are often squashed by imperialist forces, but maybe this is because (in part) they had... visible leaders? Napoleon no longer has an army. Anarchists are still around, almost two hundred years later. What is "effective" to you, may not be the same to me or someone else.

EvilNed

30-Aug-2019, 09:10 PM

Learn from the mistake, yes. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. How many times did Edison try the lightbulb before it worked? Johnny Giger had to try the Impossible Darkslide over 260 times before he landed a clean one. My point is don't give up. Yours seems to be... Don't try? Don't dream? I'm not clear. If you have a better dream, by all means share it. I'm fascinated with how you think things could be improved. Why would your toil ONLY produce suffering? Is your toil masochistic torture of some kind? Is it your job to cut ribbons of flesh off your own arms or something?

Please provide an example of what lessons you can learn from this and how to correct them. Be specific. Because these are very complex and advanced subjects that need to be solved before the entire rest of this so called anarchic experiment can be applied. Everything we know today, including lessons learned from history, indicates that this is not possible. So please. Be specific.

Effective at anything. Don't shift the goal post and we're talking about organization. If there was a more efficient way of managing a military than by a hierarchy you bet your ass they would apply it worldwide. This is not a difficult concept.

blind2d

30-Aug-2019, 10:19 PM

Please provide an example of what lessons you can learn from this and how to correct them. Be specific. Because these are very complex and advanced subjects that need to be solved before the entire rest of this so called anarchic experiment can be applied. Everything we know today, including lessons learned from history, indicates that this is not possible. So please. Be specific.

Effective at anything. Don't shift the goal post and we're talking about organization. If there was a more efficient way of managing a military than by a hierarchy you bet your ass they would apply it worldwide. This is not a difficult concept.

One lesson: Don't kill people. How about that? It never ends well for anyone, but authoritarians never seem to learn. Really? "Everything"? And I thought you liked specifics. :/ WHAT is not possible? Again you're ignoring my questions, which I'm getting a bit tired of. It's okay not to know, but don't act then like you know more than me when you clearly don't. How about you be a little helpful? Hm? Instead of just criticizing me, you could be, IDK, making suggestions? Attempting some sort of compromise? Like a functioning adult? I've already linked you several "specific" things. Not my fault if you can't read. Should I... Teach you how to read? My only problem with that is I only have so much time.

*narrows eyes* No, not anything. Oppression. Domination. Conquest and control of the masses. The few wielding violence over the masses. I'm against it, clearly. Oh, we're talking about organization. Horizontal then. Boom. Also a military is not the same as society. It's not a difficult concept, no (anarchy), yet you seem to need it explained to you over and over again. It's like I'm talking to a wall here. Again, if you can't be bothered to read my links, why are you still replying and pretending that you care? Also answer my previous questions that were asked in good faith that I assume you just accidentally missed. Please. If you wish. I'm not your boss. I don't believe in bosses.

EvilNed

31-Aug-2019, 07:53 AM

You're just rambling incoherently at this point.

Please be specific and provide a specific description of how you would learn from the soviet example of communal farms. If your only giveaway is to "not kill everyone", then you've learned nothing and your farms will fail. People will not work on communal farms when they can work on their own farms. And when any form of society will reforms an existing farm into a communal one; The owners will just say... "No". And then you're in a pickle. So please: Be specific or accept that you don't know.

Anarchy is a very simple concept. It is also very naive, and not grounded in reality. I'm using the military as a example to show how effective hierarchy is. If there was a more effective way, they'd do it. It's simply way more effective, and the only way to manage a group larger of 5 people or so.

But again, you're just rambling incoherently now. You haven't convinced anyone, and I suggest if that is your end goal you better get a better grasp of the practical applications of the theories of which you preach.

- - - Updated - - -

I was just reminded of something. We do actually have a fairly recent ingredient of anarchy in modern society, which points to how futile it is. Modern electrical scooter-companies, like Voi, Lyme etc, are out there for everyone to use. The basic idea is for everybody to use them responsibly. Many do, but some don't. And the ones that don't ruin it for everyone else. So here we have a microcosm of the anarchic society - use with responsibility, or else it won't work. And people don't.

JDP

31-Aug-2019, 08:13 AM

1) Are capitalists any different? Maybe they don't pull the trigger personally, but they certainly have no qualms about sending troops to die and kill thousands of innocents for profit.

War is part of human nature. Unfortunate, but true nonetheless. Again, such things go way back and predate "capitalism", "communism" and any political system.

2) Okay, so you'd rather be a minority in the US? Hell, at least Cuba has decent health care! And mass murderer? Have you MET any US president? Forgetting about literally everything the US military/CIA/FBI has ever done, are we? On the subject of Venezuela (Your favorite country?) I don't see how that's entirely Castro's fault, any more than the wars in the Middle East today are thanks mainly to Nixon or JFK. Again, communism is ultimately about abolishing money, so... *shrugs*. Alright, so if I shouldn't have hope for the future, should I just slit my wrists now and have done with it?

The difference is that democracies fight for a better ideal that actually works and protects many freedoms and rights of the individual. Trying to seriously compare ANY US President with the likes of actual tyrants like Castro or Kim Jong-un is silly.

3) If I broke the dishes accidentally, is that really fair? Let me ask you this. If you saw a bunch of kids playing on a playground, would your first instinct be to murder them? "Many" people is not "most". Weak argument. The USA has the largest prison population per capita in the world by far. We have a law on the books for literally everything. Hell, they're trying to build a fucking wall on the border with Mexico. How is that not oppression? Mm, what about China? England, with its constant surveillance? France, where women can't wear hijabs in public? Canada, where you're fucked if you're indigenous. The list goes on and on. Capitalism IS oppression. "Work for us, do as we say, or die in the gutter". What rights and freedoms? To vote in an election that won't change anything? To work as a wage slave? To be randomly shot in public by some unhinged white guy with an assault rifle? Um, yeah, or they stay. That happens a lot too. No one's being stopped from just leaving Vietnam. Unless you're already a rich asshole, the "American Dream" is a lie. Also again, I'm not a tankie. I do not support dictators. Neither should you.
What would their motivations be to commit crimes? Also, it's more like if I took all cars off the road. No cars, no car collisions. But this is just table tennis at this point. Criminals are just people that do things the law doesn't like, for the most part. Most people in jail are there for nonviolent crimes. How can you not know this? If they have mental health issues, we can address them. If it's something else, we can try to help with that to. Why are you just so quick to give up on others? I don't know if you've read the Bible, but there's a lot of fucking violence in it. So, yeah, you're just being pessimistic. Again. So, is your "justice" predicated merely on revenge? Spiteful, egotistic, toxic thinking. If one is hurt, one should find a way to heal. Not lash out and inflict more hurt upon others. Protect yourself, yes, but don't become that which you despise. Again you're ignoring the environmental conditions that create violent behavior, chalking it up to just "bad individuals". It's not that simple. This is why we must change the system itself. But cool movie quotes.

The judicial system deals with people with mental problems differently, and also with things like involuntary manslaughter, and so on. Not all legal cases are the same, obviously. So, no, your arguments are not valid. I am not being "pessimistic", just REALISTIC. A society without any laws in place will sooner or later devolve into chaos. Again, not rocket science. Just human nature at work.

4) Maybe it's easier for me to kill people in a nation with more guns than people (the US). Does that mean I'm going to become a serial murderer? Hell no. Ridiculous.

I don't know what you are trying to prove here, as I don't disagree with this, but it does not have much to do with what we were talking about regarding laws and crime. You can kill a person by using a hammer, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or even your bare hands. It is not the "tool" with which a crime is committed that we were talking about.

5) Okay then, what is "the criminal mind"? *vomits a tiny amount* Bill Maher, seriously? He's no better than Fox News, IMO. Hosting Milo, etc. No platform for nazis. Money is a lie. Abolish it. Fruit (food, needed for life) grows on trees.

Sure, fruits grow on trees but not everyone wants to eat them, or at least not exclusively, so you will need way more than trees to fuel your Utopia. And the trees also need to be planted, fertilized, watered and cared for (guess who also likes to eat fruits? Yes, many animals. Unless you want the fruits to end up in their stomachs before you can collect them and give them away for free in your Utopia, you will need to keep them pesky animals at bay. Unless, of course, your Utopia also hilariously means that animals will also have the exact same rights to share in all this projected bounty!) You are going to have your hands full trying to deal with this subject alone, LOL! Let's see how many will volunteer to carry out all the necessary tasks so that trees can give plenty of fruit enough to feed millions of people. And just wait until you let them know the big "revelation" that they will be required to do all this work for... cheese and crackers! (if you can get the cheese and crackers producers to also agree with this Utopian scheme, that is!) I am afraid the world is much more complicated than your Utopian plans can deal with.

6) (Or is it 7?) Not my fault anarchy is more nuanced than you're aware of it being. Like that's my whole point here. Trying to explain it. It's why entire books are often written on the subject. What are humans without dreams? Miserable wretches plodding through a hellscape, partially of our own making. Yes, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

You do know that Lennon there was actually admitting that he was dealing with DREAMS, do you? We can dream all day long, but that's not going to solve anything. Wishful thinking does not solve problems. We need to be REALISTIC AND PRAGMATIC in order to do that.

8) Who is the aggressor? Um, probably the country that flew across an entire ocean to fight wars. Probably the country that got rich off of slave labor and genocide. Probably the country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons. The country that took over Hawaii. You think that the US fought/fights communism just because they care so much about foreigners that we're often openly racist towards? What world are you living in?

You should hold an election or poll to see whether Hawaiians want to secede from the US. Somehow I suspect that the majority of them most certainly won't want to. Do you seriously think that the Chinese or Filipinos would have been better off under the Japanese Empire if the US had not intervened in Asia during WW2? Nanjing and Manila Massacres, anyone? Ask the South Koreans if they would prefer to live under a communist dictator like Kim Jong-un than in a democracy? I think that the majority of them are thankful that the US intervened there as well during the Cold War. The United States is not a "saint", it sure is also motivated by its own interests, but it sure as heck is also way better than communist and totalitarian regimes. It has definitely treated other countries it has militarily intervened in way better and more fairly. Japan, its very former foe in the area, is itself a democracy today due to the US, and it even agreed to allow their emperor to remain in place as a symbol of the state. Do you think the Japanese of today would like to go back to being a totalitarian regime like in WW2? Somehow I don't think so!

9) Again, the "American Dream" is a lie. To quote George Carlin, "...you've got to be asleep to believe it."

That opinion doesn't seem to stop many people from still wanting to migrate to the US.

Also, there are many other democracies around. Going back to the subject that seems to give you a chill down the spine, the current "socialist" Venezuela disaster: over 3 million Venezuelans have already fled, escaping from the bogus "revolution" that has plunged that nation into chaos, famine and disease. Do you know where they are going? They certainly aren't flocking to Cuba or North Korea, that's for sure! They are fleeing to Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the US, the EU... What a "coincidence", all of them democracies! So, the same trend I told you about before. It is always people from the communist world fleeing towards the democratic world, not the other way around. That should tell you something.

10) Yes, so difficult to talk to people and sit behind a desk in an office building all day. Literally anyone can do this. Like, I have social anxiety, but if such a position would allow me to live comfortably, I'd probably still do it. If the job needed to be done, that is. Which, a CEO... Does not. If the workers own the means of production. As they ought. Also, no, not anyone can farm. Some people have physical disabilities preventing them from doing so. Or don't own land/enough capital to acquire land to start a farm. Or live in an area where the soil is right for what they want to grow. Etc, etc. With modern technology, you could literally be an executive from home, completely. And it's because capitalism values capitalists/capital, not actual labor/workers. Are companies like gods to you? Sending commands and blessings or wrath down from on high? Physical effort/labor isn't "difficult" to you? Ever try standing for 8-10 hours straight in front of hot stoves, shouting and bustling people, and electronic beeps? Six days out of the week? And what does a CEO create? A fry cook makes food, needed for life. A CEO is comparatively as useful as a baby in NASA. Alright, we get it, you're a bootlicker. Don't shove your fetishes down my throat without my consent. What I'm literally proposing is a better system, and you're shooting it down because... It's different? Unrealistic? Capitalism was unrealistic 1,000 years ago. The internet itself couldn't even have been imagined a century ago. Don't tell me what isn't possible, just because you're afraid to try new things. I guess you'd be fine with slavery were we living in the 1700's, yeah? Geez. "Dur, we need oppressive leaders b'cause they gots experience and fancy suits." Get out of here. Oof, especially putting words in my mouth like that. Marx, again. "Each according to [their] ability to each according to [their] need." Some jobs simply won't be necessary anymore. Banking, for example. Get rid of that whole mess. You seem to be confused as to what "more effort" means. Parenting for example is one of the toughest jobs there is, yet people keep doing it for free... Why? Hell, even when Van Gogh wasn't selling anything, he kept painting. People have passions and interests, regardless of any kind of reward or reimbursement and will work for themselves and others, no matter what. Historically. Fuck a Bill Maher, dude. He's a capitalist. And a wealthy cishet white male. So, yeah, why would I care? Just you saying it won't be an improvement doesn't make it so.

How many youngsters have you seen taking a summer job as a CEO? That's right, NONE! Now, how many youngsters have you seen taking summer jobs at McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Burger King, KFC, Popeyes, Taco Bell, etc. as cashiers, janitors, fry cooks, etc.? That's right, LOADS of them! I rest my case. Seriously, take a REALITY PILL, you desperately need it.

Regarding parents: THAT IS THEIR DUTY! Of course they don't expect to get be paid for it, duh! You are supposed to care and provide for your children. No one is supposed to pay you for it as if it was an actual "job". It's something you voluntarily do out of your own will.

11) Your point? I understand all of this. Yet we are still social creatures. We all (or the vast majority of us) wish to live in communities. So does not communism then make the most sense? I've already explained that the diversity of our species is glorious, I thought.

No, precisely because not everyone in those communities is the same, thinks the same, wants the same, feels the same, has the same tastes, aptitudes, skills, motivation, etc. That diversity actually works against such ideas as communism and anarchy. Human nature at work!

12) That wouldn't be "practicing what I preach". That would be me doing everything for everyone else: an idea I have not once proposed.

That would be you setting an example for others. But we all know that you most likely won't do it. It is easier to preach something than to actually do it. That's why they would dare you to go ahead and do it. "Less bark and more bite!"

Do you really not understand what working together for the good of all means? It means um... Working together for the good of all.

Do you really not understand that you are not going to get everyone coordinated and in perfect agreement and harmony simply because in your Utopian scheme of things people who have more arduous tasks to carry out than others are just getting the same reward as everyone else, and these people simply will end up telling you to "stuff it" and that you go ahead and bust your ass doing the harder things?

Again, parents. They work hard. What do they get in return? Certainly not money or social status (except maybe to a very small degree).

Extremely faulty analogy. See above.

Yet people still maintain their own vegetable gardens/farms for sustenance, even when the harvest is bad, even when they can't sell their produce. Also, last I checked, trees can grow all by themselves without human intervention (though the initial planting does help, as well as pruning and other very minor and infrequent maintenance). I don't see how they're inconvenient, as yes I've taken them into account.

You are comparing a small personal hobby with huge agricultural endeavors designed to mass produce. Not the same level. Plus you said it yourself: the people who do home-gardening do it because it is convenient FOR THEM, they don't do all the work for the benefit of everyone. When they have surplus, THEY SELL IT. That means that they are collecting a REWARD for their efforts and work. This in your system is a "no-no", they should just "give it away" to others who haven't lifted a finger to contribute to grow those vegetables. Your system is doomed to fail. People DO NOT LIKE TO WORK FOR FREE. And no, you won't be able to provide them with "everything they need or want" so that they won't need money at all. What if these farmers like to eat caviar and lobster covered in 24K gold leaf, all accompanied by chilled vintage Dom Perignon champagne, every single day of their lives? Are you going to provide them with all those things? Do you think that people who produce such luxury items are going to also just share them with everyone for the exact same reward that you plan on giving everyone, like these farmers who produce, say, lettuce and tomatoes? Start getting the picture now? People and societies are very complex, they are not carbon copies of each other. Different ideas, tastes, wants, needs, etc. Your system is a Utopia that would only work if everyone thought and felt the same, they were all conformists, all would be content with having the exact same things no matter what their work actually is, and so forth. You will NEVER be able to pull this Utopian plan in the real world. Pretty soon the people who produce caviar, lobster, gold leaf and champagne will tell you to go produce those things yourself, they are better off picking up chicken eggs, catching sardines, painting aluminum foil of a yellow color & squeezing oranges for their juice, and still collect the exact same rewards as everyone else for much less effort than producing more expensive things. There is a good reason why money-based systems have worked well for some 3000 years. Your Utopian ideas won't replace money. Ever. It's just too good and practical an invention. You apply your aptitudes & skills and work hard and produce things other people want or need, you sell them and collect the monetary rewards of your efforts, which allows you to live the kind of life that you enjoy and want, which might very well be very different than the kind other people want or will conform themselves with. Everyone is free to choose how they want to live according to what they are capable of earning with their skills, ingenuity and work.

But they can be more easily resolved through patience and compassion.

That won't work with everyone. What are you going to do with people who do not respect the rights and lives of others? Bombarding them with "patience and compassion" is only going to make them laugh even more than getting rid of all laws. They will continue to do what they feel like doing, no matter whose rights, lives and freedoms they infringe on.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp on "Life and reality" yourself.

Methinks that much better than you do.

blind2d

31-Aug-2019, 05:28 PM

1) War part of human nature? I suppose you just think any behavior done by humans is just fine and dandy then, since it's "human nature". Slavery? Rape? That's all just fine because "human nature". I find your lack of convictions disturbing.
2) Maybe if the USA actually WAS a democracy, then you'd have a point. But you don't, since it's not, is it? You think your vote counts just as much as Exxon-Mobil's? You personally are able to give thousands of influence dollars to politicians in order to further your own personal goals? Hm. News to me. How'd you get into that position, since I certainly am not?
3) You're just repeating yourself. That does not an argument make. If you're really convinced that nothing can be improved or changed for the better, why are you even bothering to do anything at all?
4) Well you don't seem to grasp that it is (your favorite phrase) "human nature" to NOT murder frequently and indiscriminately. So that's my real point here. Also that the USA is a violent bully with really shit practices, but I'm sure we all agree on that.
5) We're literally feeding the world right now. It's not difficult. It's not an impossible task. Just requires some effort, communication, and organization. Like anything in a society. If people value cheese and crackers, then they will work to create them. This is "human nature".
6) Again, does progress occur without dreams? Imagination? Original thought? Hell no. So yes, praxis is important, no one is claiming otherwise. But ideals are also valid. As are ideas. Not sure why you seem to be so ardently against innovation and progress.
8 (Because we're skipping 7?) Lot of Uncle Sam dick-sucking going on here. Hm. So the propaganda's gotten to you then. I already knew that, but this just confirms it. Do you really think that the Japan of today is penultimate? That it cannot possibly be improved in any way? Also, no. The US military treats people terrible. Because it's a military, and that's what militaries do, but yeah, we're like trying to control the globe through force and violence. I can't condone that. From anyone. Just because you get a boner from the red white and blue doesn't make you right. We got concentration camps going on NOW, in case you forgot.
9) ...Exactly. That's how state-sponsored propaganda works, dummy. It tells lies that motivate people to further the interests of the empire. Do you even now how difficult it is to move outside of the US? Like, how delusional are you? And again, Venezuela isn't socialist.
10) ...Wait, what? Are you saying that capitalism rewards only those who are already wealthy (because, of course, duh)? Or...? What are you trying to say here? That capitalist society leeches off the labor of the working class to feed the pampered ruling elite? Again, already knew that. And people live in communities of their own will as well, yes? So, isn't it our duty to care for our neighbors, NOT to put them in cages because they're different?
11) LOL! What? No. Read Marx. Stop being a child. Community means living in close proximity and having that relationship, while able to at least in some small way provide for your neighbors as they do for you. Have you even taken a class in sociology?
12) Are you any better than me? Aren't we all just barking here? Again, read Marx. See above. Why is your argument "things work this way NOW! Why would they work differently in the FUTURE???" ? You realize things change over time, right? Do I have to bring up technological advancements again? I'd rather have my dream fail than continue living this dystopian reality. Wouldn't you? Again, it's communism, not "blind2d does everything for everyone else"-ism. The bourgeois are not gods. Exactly, people are unique, meaning that direct popular democracy, without hierarchies, is the most fair system. Right? Why would everyone be conformists if "each according to their ability, to each according to their need"? Isn't that the opposite thing? I mean if you call slavery, genocide, exploitation, poverty, and colonialism "working well". For who, man? The rich? The privileged minority? I'm trying to help EVERYONE here. WTF are you trying to do? Fuck money. It's a tool of oppression. Nothing "good" or "practical" about it. People who do not respect others should live alone. IDK. We'll work it out through compassion and communication, since everyone is different and all are worthy of respect and consideration. Cross that bridge when we get to it. If you think "life and reality" is the same as "being stuck in your ways", then yeah, I guess you win that fight.

- - - Updated - - -

You're just rambling incoherently at this point.

Please be specific and provide a specific description of how you would learn from the soviet example of communal farms. If your only giveaway is to "not kill everyone", then you've learned nothing and your farms will fail. People will not work on communal farms when they can work on their own farms. And when any form of society will reforms an existing farm into a communal one; The owners will just say... "No". And then you're in a pickle. So please: Be specific or accept that you don't know.

Anarchy is a very simple concept. It is also very naive, and not grounded in reality. I'm using the military as a example to show how effective hierarchy is. If there was a more effective way, they'd do it. It's simply way more effective, and the only way to manage a group larger of 5 people or so.

But again, you're just rambling incoherently now. You haven't convinced anyone, and I suggest if that is your end goal you better get a better grasp of the practical applications of the theories of which you preach.

- - - Updated - - -

I was just reminded of something. We do actually have a fairly recent ingredient of anarchy in modern society, which points to how futile it is. Modern electrical scooter-companies, like Voi, Lyme etc, are out there for everyone to use. The basic idea is for everybody to use them responsibly. Many do, but some don't. And the ones that don't ruin it for everyone else. So here we have a microcosm of the anarchic society - use with responsibility, or else it won't work. And people don't.

Nope.
Fuck the soviets.
Our farms will be largely automated, for starters.
Why not?
Privatization must be abolished, clearly.

Then why am I the only one who seems to understand it? Reality sucks. Let's make it better. Yeah. Militaries are bad though. Fuck 'em. "Effective" again. At doing what? Oppression and violence? Why should we condone these things? Not the kind of "management" that I'm about, lemme tell ya.

And yet I'm the only one here providing actual links and sources for my arguments. Hmm... (Okay to be fair, JDP did a little bit of that, but I don't think you have at all, Ned, so where do you get off?)

Your example makes no sense, since it includes companies that are privately owned, meaning not anarchist. At all. Epic fail, as the internet once said.

EvilNed

31-Aug-2019, 07:47 PM

Nope.
Fuck the soviets.
Our farms will be largely automated, for starters.
Why not?
Privatization must be abolished, clearly.

Then why am I the only one who seems to understand it? Reality sucks. Let's make it better. Yeah. Militaries are bad though. Fuck 'em. "Effective" again. At doing what? Oppression and violence? Why should we condone these things? Not the kind of "management" that I'm about, lemme tell ya.

And yet I'm the only one here providing actual links and sources for my arguments. Hmm... (Okay to be fair, JDP did a little bit of that, but I don't think you have at all, Ned, so where do you get off?)

Your example makes no sense, since it includes companies that are privately owned, meaning not anarchist. At all. Epic fail, as the internet once said.

To be quite honest, it's apparent that you don't have any practical plan for how this theory can be implemented. You do not explain the practical applications of your ideas at all and you don't seem to have any grasp of human psychology. Likewise, you seem easily distracted by emotions as you keep rambling about apparent injusticies you feel the military has committed in a discussion about their efficency. You constantly bring up things that are not relevant, yet do not seem to care to answer the questions that are posed and need to be resolved.

As much is evident in your dismissal of my example. You do not seem to understand that there must be a transition from privately owned farms to communal ones - and that such a transition will never occur with the consent of the previous owners.

It is simply impossible to keep a discussion with you on this matter because you refuse to stay on subject - most likely because you do not have an answer to my questions.

blind2d

01-Sep-2019, 09:32 PM

Well yeah, I'm not a dictator. That's something that can be discussed in committee, when the time comes, etc. "At all"? Then you haven't been paying attention/again, reading my links. *narrows eyes* Do you believe the military's actions are moral? Please explain, if so. What do I speak of that is not relevant? I've answered all your questions. Either directly or indirectly. It's up to you if you choose to ignore my answers.

What example? Of course there should be a transition: it has already begun, thanks to technological advancements. Change minds, change the world.

Again, I've answered your questions. Get new ones, or admit you don't have any better ideas than mine. If you did, I'm sure you would've made them known by now.

EvilNed

02-Sep-2019, 09:32 AM

blind2d

02-Sep-2019, 01:11 PM

There are a lot of questions you haven't answered or brushed past. I was hoping we could elevate this discussion to one of economics and practical applications, but alas that does not seem possible from your end. But that's Ok, because this scenario is so unrealistic it'll never come to transpire anyway.

I guess you're allergic to links, but here's one anyway, sorry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy Also, if you could be specific as to what I've "brushed past", that would be great, and I would endeavor then to answer your questions. Sorry again. You know what else was unrealistic in the past? This very conversation. Have some faith, man. Have some hope. It'll get better, but it'll take work.

EvilNed

02-Sep-2019, 08:48 PM

I guess you're allergic to links, but here's one anyway, sorry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy Also, if you could be specific as to what I've "brushed past", that would be great, and I would endeavor then to answer your questions. Sorry again. You know what else was unrealistic in the past? This very conversation. Have some faith, man. Have some hope. It'll get better, but it'll take work.

I did not ask for links, I asked for explanations of practical applications. I did not ask for a general theory, as provided by your links, but I specifically asked for how you would practically apply the theories you believe in. These are two different things. One is theory, the other is not.

You failed to provide a specific explanation of how a hierarchy-less food economy could work. You did answer that it could be a flat hierarchy, but you did not answer any specifics - which is what I asked for.

You failed to explain what lessons you'd learn and change from the Soviet attempt at communal farms. You just said "you wouldn't shoot people" - as if that was the only thing you took away from the historical attempt at communal farming, and not the inability of attempted-communists to institute the idea in the first place.

These are the only real things that I am concerned about. But you have so far not provided an explanation, apart from general wikipedia links.

blind2d

03-Sep-2019, 03:14 AM

I did not ask for links, I asked for explanations of practical applications. I did not ask for a general theory, as provided by your links, but I specifically asked for how you would practically apply the theories you believe in. These are two different things. One is theory, the other is not.

You failed to provide a specific explanation of how a hierarchy-less food economy could work. You did answer that it could be a flat hierarchy, but you did not answer any specifics - which is what I asked for.

You failed to explain what lessons you'd learn and change from the Soviet attempt at communal farms. You just said "you wouldn't shoot people" - as if that was the only thing you took away from the historical attempt at communal farming, and not the inability of attempted-communists to institute the idea in the first place.

These are the only real things that I am concerned about. But you have so far not provided an explanation, apart from general wikipedia links.

I'm not a dictator, again. This isn't just up to me. I'm not a deity. "Food Not Bombs", how about that? You've heard of them, yes?

Are you also allergic to the term "anarchy"? Because... That's what a "flat hierarchy" is. Horizontal government, like I've been saying. And since I cannot give detailed specifics, my ideas are worse than yours? (which, let's be honest, what ideas have you actually proposed yet?)

It shows that totalitarianism doesn't work. Which I already knew. And which goes completely against anarchism.

Which is more than you've ever done. May I rest my case now?

EvilNed

03-Sep-2019, 07:19 AM

blind2d

03-Sep-2019, 03:29 PM

Again. You dodged my questions. I'd be happy to discuss the practical applications to these theoretical ideas, but it seems you have to brush up on it before we can continue. Until then I, and everyone else, will dismiss it.

I don't have to present a case. I think we have it fine now. Capitalism has created a middle class, welfare systems and promoted science, medicine and culture in a way that no other system ever has. I think capitalism has to be regulated, and a social-liberalism is, according to me, the best compromise, but nonetheless: "It works better than all other forms of government that we've tried" - as Churchill said. And that includes communism, and anarchism...

Again I answered them to the best of my ability. It seems you'll have to actually be willing to hear another side than your own before we can continue.

You do, and you haven't yet. You're speaking from a place of privilege and ignorance and it really shows. Capitalism created slavery, child labor, and obfuscates science when it doesn't promote capitalist endeavors. What is "culture" to you? White people with too much money and power? Regulations work well, right? Oh boy, minimum wage! ...Which is still way too low to be considered an actual minimum, but yes! Churchill was again a genocidal maniac. Maybe don't listen to him. Also a known capitalist, so no surprise there. You're really going to have to start trying harder than that. "So what if Henry Ford didn't care about the rights or safety of his workers? He made cars!" That's how you sound. Completely foolish. How can you really think that an unjust and unbalanced hierarchy is the best possible system? How can you really justify only the wealthy and privileged minorities as the ones with power and control? Are we not all human? Equally fallible? Then does it make sense for only a small few of us to lead? Medicine? I'm sorry but no. Capitalists will charge whatever they want for medicine if they can get away with it. They're not doing it for the good of anyone but themselves, which is the folly of all capitalist thinking. Socialists created the middle class. Socialists fought for the welfare we have today. If you're this ignorant, AND unwilling to learn... Then I don't know what to say. I can't change your mind. YOU have to change your mind. Grow some empathy, why don't ya?

EvilNed

03-Sep-2019, 07:35 PM

blind2d

04-Sep-2019, 01:08 AM

I understand. However I do think you should form a better understanding of the ideology of which you preach before you support it. Anarchism is simply not feasible, as has been laid out here in this thread.

Slavery and child labour pre-dated capitalism by thousands of years.
Capitalism, or liberalism, doesn't inherently obfuscate anything - people are free to express the opinions they want.
Also the so-called "character assassination"-falacy doesn't bite. Churchill may have had some faults, but it would be very foolish to dismiss one of the most experienced and accomplished statesmen of the 20th century just because you don't like him.
Middle class and welfare sprung into creation in capitalist and liberal countries. Take note; Socioliberal countries are also capitalist. Socialism did not create them in a vacuum - capitalism and liberalism laid the ground work.

If you think that I sound foolish, then that's probably just your frustration of not comprehending what we're talking about manifesting itself. I'm sorry for you, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to know anything about what you're preaching - as is evidenced by your many faulty assumptions of history.

Forgive me, but I don't think "It'll never work!" is a very convincing argument.

Yet capitalism still used them, rather than abolishing them outright immediately.
Mm, no, remember when the big oil companies paid scientists to hide their findings about climate change and stuff decades ago?
Well alright, fair enough. I guess Hitler was good too, since he was great at public speaking.
From socialists! NOT capitalists! Only in that capitalists gave something for the socialists to fight.

*squints* No, it's you stanning evil exploiters. THAT's what's foolish here. *narrows eyes further* We're not talking history, but the future here. I'll ask again. What's YOUR vision for the future? If you can't be any more specific than me, then what are you even talking about?

EvilNed

04-Sep-2019, 05:34 AM

blind2d

04-Sep-2019, 02:18 PM

I'd love to pick this up at one point, but I need you to learn how to stick to your own line. It's impossible for us to get anywhere if you avoid questions, don't know history (but claim to do) and worst of all; change your mind and constantly shifting the goal post. In one post your arguing that capitalism is bad because it created slavery. Then when you realize you're wrong about that you simply change your mind to that capitalism is bad because it didn't it abolish it outright - (when in fact capitalism/liberalism is the ONLY ideology that ever has abolished slavery).

Please learn your history and try to figure out what your arguments are, as well as learning more about the ideology you which to argue for. :)

You don't seem to know any anarchist history. I recommend Mark Bray. You're clearly avoiding my questions. Turnabout is fair play. I've never changed my mind once. Not my fault if my own ideology is nuanced and complex. Seriously, without specific examples, what points are you even making here? I can address things, but you need to tell me what they actually are. Capitalism created WAGE slavery. There, added a word so it's more true and sensible. Capitalism didn't abolish slavery. You ponce. Public outcry, activism, and the desire for human rights and liberty did. If the people hadn't wanted it abolished, the capitalist masters would have kept it.

Please learn literally anything about anarchy (Again, Kropotkin, Goldman, Luxemburg, Bray, Bookchin, Bakunin, etc), then get back to me. Or just cruise leftube for a few hours. Non Compete, Thought Slime, Philosophy Tube, Christopher Szabo, Sarah Z, etc.

EvilNed

04-Sep-2019, 04:50 PM

blind2d

04-Sep-2019, 09:44 PM

Sorry, but I came here to argue with you. I thought that was the point of this thread? But so far it's difficult because you change your mind, wording, and train of thought with every other post - as well as not being very informed about the ideology you preach.

The point of this thread was to discuss anarchy. Which I've continued to do. Haven't changed anything about that. Also, not my fault if you suck at arguing. I'm complex. If you can't handle that, that's not on me. I'm still more informed about it than you are about your beloved capitalism, it would seem. What do YOU hope to see for the future? What's YOUR vision? You keep failing at explaining this, just as JDP (RIP, btw) had. Ready to accept defeat, or are you going to lash out again with more excuses?

JDP

05-Sep-2019, 12:01 AM

The point of this thread was to discuss anarchy. Which I've continued to do. Haven't changed anything about that. Also, not my fault if you suck at arguing. I'm complex. If you can't handle that, that's not on me. I'm still more informed about it than you are about your beloved capitalism, it would seem. What do YOU hope to see for the future? What's YOUR vision? You keep failing at explaining this, just as JDP (RIP, btw) had. Ready to accept defeat, or are you going to lash out again with more excuses?

No, you haven't, you keep changing your tune and modifying what "anarchy" supposedly means as it suits you, instead of following accepted definitions of it. That's one of the reasons I stopped responding to your posts. So, no "RIP", it's just that we are starting to plainly see that we are wasting our time here. Kind of talking to a brick-wall. We answer with facts, common sense and logic, and you answer with... dreams, wishful thinking, mistaken statements (Ex: "capitalism invented slavery", Huh? Slavery predates capitalism by a very long time, as I informed you many posts back, but apparently you did not remember it and repeated the same mistaken claim just recently, so now the new tune is "capitalism invented wage slavery"; but people were being paid wages for their work long before "capitalism" as well; for example, ancient and medieval carpenters and other craftsmen living under monarchic or feudal systems earned wages for their work and services, nothing remotely "modern" about this; again, you fail to understand that PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO WORK FOR FREE and they want to earn the means by which they can buy the things they like or need, which can easily vary from person to person, thus one of the reasons why you will never get rid of such a convenient, versatile and practical invention as money; it works better than bartering, that's why we started to gradually abandon bartering for money as a means of exchange some 3000 years ago), links written by other people that often do not address the issues being discussed (like how eliminating laws altogether supposedly will "get rid" of crime??? Absolutely ridiculous idea. Even cavemen committed what we understand as "crimes" whenever they took someone else's mate, children, food, belongings, etc., by force, even though there technically were no "laws" around that said such things were "illegal"... that's in fact why "laws" were invented and put into place, to keep such abusive people who do not respect the lives and rights of others in check and punish them for their actions, yet you hilariously think that people will stop doing such things by eliminating the very thing designed to reduce them! If you take the laws out, people will revert to those "cavemen" times: survival of the strongest, kill or be killed, every man/woman for himself/herself! The Law of the Jungle. Again, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out...), and when they do it is about theories and speculation of how an anarchy might work, but which when attempted to be put into practice they won't really work well or at all.

EvilNed

05-Sep-2019, 09:05 AM

blind2d

05-Sep-2019, 07:18 PM

No, you haven't, you keep changing your tune and modifying what "anarchy" supposedly means as it suits you, instead of following accepted definitions of it. That's one of the reasons I stopped responding to your posts. So, no "RIP", it's just that we are starting to plainly see that we are wasting our time here. Kind of talking to a brick-wall. We answer with facts, common sense and logic, and you answer with... dreams, wishful thinking, mistaken statements (Ex: "capitalism invented slavery", Huh? Slavery predates capitalism by a very long time, as I informed you many posts back, but apparently you did not remember it and repeated the same mistaken claim just recently, so now the new tune is "capitalism invented wage slavery"; but people were being paid wages for their work long before "capitalism" as well; for example, ancient and medieval carpenters and other craftsmen living under monarchic or feudal systems earned wages for their work and services, nothing remotely "modern" about this; again, you fail to understand that PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO WORK FOR FREE and they want to earn the means by which they can buy the things they like or need, which can easily vary from person to person, thus one of the reasons why you will never get rid of such a convenient, versatile and practical invention as money; it works better than bartering, that's why we started to gradually abandon bartering for money as a means of exchange some 3000 years ago), links written by other people that often do not address the issues being discussed (like how eliminating laws altogether supposedly will "get rid" of crime??? Absolutely ridiculous idea. Even cavemen committed what we understand as "crimes" whenever they took someone else's mate, children, food, belongings, etc., by force, even though there technically were no "laws" around that said such things were "illegal"... that's in fact why "laws" were invented and put into place, to keep such abusive people who do not respect the lives and rights of others in check and punish them for their actions, yet you hilariously think that people will stop doing such things by eliminating the very thing designed to reduce them! If you take the laws out, people will revert to those "cavemen" times: survival of the strongest, kill or be killed, every man/woman for himself/herself! The Law of the Jungle. Again, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out...), and when they do it is about theories and speculation of how an anarchy might work, but which when attempted to be put into practice they won't really work well or at all.

As it suits ME? Am I seriously the only anarchist you've ever met in your life? I haven't conjured up anything out of thin air here. Hence my long list of sources. If you hadn't noticed, dictionary definitions do not do most concepts justice, especially things like political ideologies, which are often if not always very nuanced and complex. Wikipedia does much better on it, but still of course doesn't tell the whole story. So you got frustrated with me because I'm not a one-dimensional stereotype? Or what? My thoughts exactly (except I'm the only one here who's NOT a brick wall). Again, wtf is "common sense"? You've yet to define your take on that phrase. Here are some facts: Capitalists are actively destroying the environment of this planet. The oceans, the rain forests, the polar ice caps, etc. Are you saying it's wrong to have any hopes? Any dreams for a better future? Then again, why are any of us still alive? Still doing things? And YOU fail to understand that money is a negative construct that must be abolished if we are to have any kind of future. Why are you still talking if you haven't yet read Marx or Kropotkin? It'd be like me weighing in on a discussion of quantum physics. Meet me at my level, so you don't look like an absolute ignoramus. Do I need to link you to gift economy too? Fucking bootlicker. Yes, eliminating the police and impractical laws (most of the ones on the books currently) would drastically reduce crime, especially in conjunction with equality for all. Which is the goal. A bad goal, would you say? Do you believe that not everyone deserves consideration or care? Laws were invented to restrain the masses and keep us from overthrowing the tyrants in power, and still are to this day. You fool. Has Trump been punished yet, for his many many counts of fraud, and other heinous acts? No. The laws don't work if you have enough money and influence. It's fucking rigged. How can you not see that? Again, you've watched The Purge one too many times, methinks. If everyone behaved as a violent hermit, our species would quickly die out. And hell, would that be so bad? Look what we've done to our own planet. Now I'm not trying to kill anyone here, but you gotta admit... We kinda suck. And capitalism (greed, self-centeredness, exploitation of the weaker, etc) is the greatest offender. Where are your links? Why am I the only one posting links? Am I the only one here who actually reads? Maybe if you didn't repeat meaningless phrases so much, I'd take you more seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry, but to debate requires both parts to contribute and spar along and around a continuous idea. Unfortunately your method of debating revolves too much around emotional distraction, shifting the goal post, avoiding answering questions and changing your arguments. Basically, what JDP said.

Apology accepted. We're not debating, we're discussing. Ah, more excuses it is. RIP Ned.

EvilNed

05-Sep-2019, 09:31 PM

blind2d

06-Sep-2019, 12:58 AM

Discussion, debating - whichever you prefer. If you wish to get a point across and have a constructive discussion/debate on something I really think you should think it through next time. Chances are you'll actually get people interested, even if they do disagree with you and you can have a meaningful exchange of ideas. Just a tip. :)

Fair enough. And maybe you should think it through before you tout a system designed to subjugate the majority of the planet's population through violent oppression. Just a tip. :) Oh, and if you ever feel like reading... https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

EvilNed

06-Sep-2019, 05:08 AM

Fair enough. And maybe you should think it through before you tout a system designed to subjugate the majority of the planet's population through violent oppression. Just a tip. :) Oh, and if you ever feel like reading... https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

I'm sorry, but I've read and experienced enough about political ideas and history to have formed my own definite opinion regarding what kind of world I want to live in. I'll take the unfair wage gaps of capitalism any day over the unavoidable tyranny and political and social instability over anarchism or communism.

blind2d

06-Sep-2019, 01:39 PM

I'm sorry, but I've read and experienced enough about political ideas and history to have formed my own definite opinion regarding what kind of world I want to live in. I'll take the unfair wage gaps of capitalism any day over the unavoidable tyranny and political and social instability over anarchism or communism.

Ah! I see where our misunderstanding stems from now! 1) You don't believe wages to be tyranny. 2) You keep forgetting about the toll taxed on the planet/environment when discussing capitalism. 3) You think I'm advocating for anarchy OR communism, but not both together (which is in fact the case)! Am I wrong? (Also, PS, racism and sexism are directly tied to capitalism)

EvilNed

06-Sep-2019, 02:00 PM

blind2d

06-Sep-2019, 09:18 PM

1) Correct. 2) No, I don't, I'm very much pro-enviromentalist. 3) No, I'm pretty sure you're advocating for both even if your grasp of either seems limited to purely abstract theoretical application rather than practical one.

To suggest that racism and sexism are tied to capitalism is just another example of poor understanding of idealogical history on your part. They are inherently human, unfortunately.

1) Alright, I'll bite... Why not? 2) Oh? Sorry I didn't catch that. Hm, then how can you justify also being pro-capitalism? 3) LOL! Okay, fair enough, but since your ideas seem to be... Wait, what are they again?

What? Um, no? Again, white people from Europe developed BS pseudo-science to justify enslaving Asian and African peoples, and the genocide of indigenous folk. This was to support their colonialist efforts, all of which are tied directly to their capitalistic tendencies. I mean, if you think "human" means "rich white culture"... That says something, wouldn't you say? Going back to indigenous peoples of the Americas, they were decidedly less sexist/racist in almost all cases. Also they were not capitalist, funnily enough. Interesting, eh? Maybe you should, like, read stuff, IDK.

EvilNed

07-Sep-2019, 07:16 AM

blind2d

07-Sep-2019, 01:42 PM

1) There's no reason it would be. 2) Because the alternative is worse.

Incorrect, white people did not develop racism, and it exists in every culture. Including native americans. Even our earliest writings about native americans are from the vikings and the armed conflict between the two groups. There's racism in India, Japan, China, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Brazil. And in each country it existed long before white people came. Just ask the Tlaxcans.

1) Oh, you've never heard of taxes... Or money, which without the system forces you to basically die. Or become imprisoned in a cage. You can't seriously be this foolish. 2) How can you say that? Oh no, people NOT in cages, being murdered in the streets, or oppressed by an abusive and parasitic minority elite class! How horrid!! (???)

"Humans didn't invent the wheel. Rocks were already round by nature before primates even arrived on the planet!" - That's you. The point isn't that capitalism "invented" anything (again I guess I misspoke, Capitalism invented new uses for racism and sexism. NOT these concepts in general, no. That would be silly. But does capitalism use the worst of us for its own gain? Abso-fucking-lutely). Which is the real point. It's evil. Prove me wrong. How could freedom, equality, compassion... How could these things possibly be worse than tyranny? I just don't comprehend your reasoning one iota, I'm afraid. My apologies.

EvilNed

07-Sep-2019, 11:06 PM

1) Oh, you've never heard of taxes... Or money, which without the system forces you to basically die. Or become imprisoned in a cage. You can't seriously be this foolish. 2) How can you say that? Oh no, people NOT in cages, being murdered in the streets, or oppressed by an abusive and parasitic minority elite class! How horrid!! (???)

"Humans didn't invent the wheel. Rocks were already round by nature before primates even arrived on the planet!" - That's you. The point isn't that capitalism "invented" anything (again I guess I misspoke, Capitalism invented new uses for racism and sexism. NOT these concepts in general, no. That would be silly. But does capitalism use the worst of us for its own gain? Abso-fucking-lutely). Which is the real point. It's evil. Prove me wrong. How could freedom, equality, compassion... How could these things possibly be worse than tyranny? I just don't comprehend your reasoning one iota, I'm afraid. My apologies.

1) Of course I've heard of taxes and money. I gladly pay taxes and I gladly accept money for my work. 2) I say that because there is no alternative which doesn't impose a stricter tyranny on it's people. Communism, for instance, is more tyrannical and oppressive. As is feudalism, socialism and fascism. So thus I prefer liberalism. For all it's faults it is the least harmful.

As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It is completely incomprehensible.

blind2d

08-Sep-2019, 12:34 AM

1) Of course I've heard of taxes and money. I gladly pay taxes and I gladly accept money for my work. 2) I say that because there is no alternative which doesn't impose a stricter tyranny on it's people. Communism, for instance, is more tyrannical and oppressive. As is feudalism, socialism and fascism. So thus I prefer liberalism. For all it's faults it is the least harmful.

As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It is completely incomprehensible.

1) Why? 2) You didn't mention anything here about anarchy, which is of course liberation and the actual topic of this thread. Curious. Seems you've forgotten the very title. Communism... in an authoritarian dictatorship, yeah. NOT what I'm advocating for, now is it? So, no. Your way of doing things promotes the continuation of detrimental facets of society. We would still have prisons, money, melting ice caps, racism, sexism, all other forms of bigotry (oh, but maybe not as much as our parents!), unjust hierarchies, and again the majority of the population with little to no wealth. Is that really the best we can do? Is that really the world you want to live in?

I'll speak slower. Capitalism is evil, and I dare you to try and prove me wrong about that. How do you not understand that capitalism is oppressive to you directly and literally everyone who is not in the top 0.1% of elite rich assholes? Are you simply ignorant of this fact?

EvilNed

08-Sep-2019, 07:34 AM

1) Why? 2) You didn't mention anything here about anarchy, which is of course liberation and the actual topic of this thread. Curious. Seems you've forgotten the very title. Communism... in an authoritarian dictatorship, yeah. NOT what I'm advocating for, now is it? So, no. Your way of doing things promotes the continuation of detrimental facets of society. We would still have prisons, money, melting ice caps, racism, sexism, all other forms of bigotry (oh, but maybe not as much as our parents!), unjust hierarchies, and again the majority of the population with little to no wealth. Is that really the best we can do? Is that really the world you want to live in?

I'll speak slower. Capitalism is evil, and I dare you to try and prove me wrong about that. How do you not understand that capitalism is oppressive to you directly and literally everyone who is not in the top 0.1% of elite rich assholes? Are you simply ignorant of this fact?

1) So that we may have a functioning economy, welfare and common infrastructure. 2) Yes, I believe it is the best we can do as all alternatives are worse and more oppressive, including anarchism.

I do not believe in the concept of "evil". It is a very simple concept which cannot be used to explain anything in this world. I do not have a black and white wordview.

blind2d

08-Sep-2019, 02:44 PM

1) So that we may have a functioning economy, welfare and common infrastructure. 2) Yes, I believe it is the best we can do as all alternatives are worse and more oppressive, including anarchism.

I do not believe in the concept of "evil". It is a very simple concept which cannot be used to explain anything in this world. I do not have a black and white wordview.

1) Which would be much easier without money or abusive hierarchies, no? 2) You keep saying this... But never provide any scientific evidence to support this claim. Making it very spurious, to say the least. Do you have any real-world examples to bolster this notion?

...And yet your username is "EvilNed". Do you believe in the concept of "detrimental"? I also do not have a black and white worldview, but I do have a moral conscience. Do you? I hope that question isn't too rude, but... You're honestly making me question it, Ned. So, must I change my wording yet again? Can you prove to me using evidence that capitalism is not detrimental to this planet and the majority of the human population? I'm really getting tired of having to repeat these questions. "Durr, my way is better! Different things are scary!" is not a convincing argument, just FYI.

PS, if you don't believe in "evil", do you also not believe in "good"? If so... What is your personal motivation to do literally anything? I'm not trying to sound religious here, just... Trying to figure you out, I guess. Sorry about that.

EvilNed

08-Sep-2019, 06:01 PM

1) Which would be much easier without money or abusive hierarchies, no? 2) You keep saying this... But never provide any scientific evidence to support this claim. Making it very spurious, to say the least. Do you have any real-world examples to bolster this notion?

...And yet your username is "EvilNed". Do you believe in the concept of "detrimental"? I also do not have a black and white worldview, but I do have a moral conscience. Do you? I hope that question isn't too rude, but... You're honestly making me question it, Ned. So, must I change my wording yet again? Can you prove to me using evidence that capitalism is not detrimental to this planet and the majority of the human population? I'm really getting tired of having to repeat these questions. "Durr, my way is better! Different things are scary!" is not a convincing argument, just FYI.

PS, if you don't believe in "evil", do you also not believe in "good"? If so... What is your personal motivation to do literally anything? I'm not trying to sound religious here, just... Trying to figure you out, I guess. Sorry about that.

1) No, on the contrary. 2) Yes. Every attempt at establishing an anarchy or communism in history has led to an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship.

I do not believe that anything is inherently good or evil.
One cannot prove or disprove any one thing when it comes to ideologies. All I can say is that history has proved that liberalism has done more for humans than any other ideology.

blind2d

09-Sep-2019, 02:12 AM

1) No, on the contrary. 2) Yes. Every attempt at establishing an anarchy or communism in history has led to an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship.

I do not believe that anything is inherently good or evil.
One cannot prove or disprove any one thing when it comes to ideologies. All I can say is that history has proved that liberalism has done more for humans than any other ideology.

1) Evidence? 2) Hm. I can't recall a time where anarchists willingly established anything authoritarian (which is the polar opposite of anarchy) or totalitarian (also an opposite). Please, refresh my memory, if you can.

*narrows eyes* Nor do I. But I think certain actions are evil. Such as enslaving others and/or exploiting their labor.
Fair enough. And all I can say is that you're quite wrong about that and seem to again be speaking from a place of privilege. Did liberalism keep the indigenous peoples from being driven to near extinction? Is liberalism currently turning the tide in the fight against climate change? Again it wasn't liberals who took the first steps in freeing the slaves or helped to give women more rights. It was radical leftist activists and that trend is continuing into the modern day. I mean, do you think Obama is/was a liberal? The man who failed to close Guantanamo, who did more drone strikes than acceptable limits would suggest, who deported more people than W? He didn't hardly even do any reform on prison policy! Yet you think liberals/liberalism is "the best"? Why? Because it's YOUR ideology? Because it's good for you personally, and people like you? Fuck that elitist crap. None are free until ALL are free.

JDP

09-Sep-2019, 06:33 AM

As it suits ME? Am I seriously the only anarchist you've ever met in your life? I haven't conjured up anything out of thin air here. Hence my long list of sources. If you hadn't noticed, dictionary definitions do not do most concepts justice, especially things like political ideologies, which are often if not always very nuanced and complex. Wikipedia does much better on it, but still of course doesn't tell the whole story. So you got frustrated with me because I'm not a one-dimensional stereotype? Or what? My thoughts exactly (except I'm the only one here who's NOT a brick wall). Again, wtf is "common sense"? You've yet to define your take on that phrase. Here are some facts: Capitalists are actively destroying the environment of this planet. The oceans, the rain forests, the polar ice caps, etc. Are you saying it's wrong to have any hopes? Any dreams for a better future? Then again, why are any of us still alive? Still doing things? And YOU fail to understand that money is a negative construct that must be abolished if we are to have any kind of future. Why are you still talking if you haven't yet read Marx or Kropotkin? It'd be like me weighing in on a discussion of quantum physics. Meet me at my level, so you don't look like an absolute ignoramus. Do I need to link you to gift economy too? Fucking bootlicker. Yes, eliminating the police and impractical laws (most of the ones on the books currently) would drastically reduce crime, especially in conjunction with equality for all. Which is the goal. A bad goal, would you say? Do you believe that not everyone deserves consideration or care? Laws were invented to restrain the masses and keep us from overthrowing the tyrants in power, and still are to this day. You fool. Has Trump been punished yet, for his many many counts of fraud, and other heinous acts? No. The laws don't work if you have enough money and influence. It's fucking rigged. How can you not see that? Again, you've watched The Purge one too many times, methinks. If everyone behaved as a violent hermit, our species would quickly die out. And hell, would that be so bad? Look what we've done to our own planet. Now I'm not trying to kill anyone here, but you gotta admit... We kinda suck. And capitalism (greed, self-centeredness, exploitation of the weaker, etc) is the greatest offender. Where are your links? Why am I the only one posting links? Am I the only one here who actually reads? Maybe if you didn't repeat meaningless phrases so much, I'd take you more seriously.

You don't know what common sense is? Dictionaries are your friends, not your enemy, so use them:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/common_sense

Donald Trump is a clown and an a-hole, but he sure ain't no Stalin, that's for sure. I prefer having to deal with a smaller shit-head than with a Titanic one any day of the week!

Marx et al. were a bunch of dreamers, their ideas have never worked and will never work in the real world. Workers/laborers are good at what they do, but managing things and doing business is NOT their "thing". Every time that such ideas as communal farms or the government and its supporters taking over the private sector have been put into practice they have led to a worsening of the situation, not betterment. Case in point, the recent communist/socialist "experiments" in Venezuela. Yes, that country that we can tell sends chills down your spine every time I bring it up, only to try to deny and ignore it because it clearly shows that such ideas never work in the real world. Back when it was a democracy, Venezuela used to produce plenty of sugar, for example, more than enough for its own domestic market and surplus to export to other countries back when the sugar cane plantations were in private hands. After the bogus "revolution" of Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro) now Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar and other goods to satisfy its own domestic market and has to import them:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/venezuela-food

That's what your much admired communist ideals always eventually lead to. It failed in Russia, it failed in Venezuela, and it will continue to fail everywhere. Heck, Venezuela was in way better shape even when it was in the hands of military dictators like General Perez Jimenez (and yes, he was an oppressive a-hole too, like all dictators, but he and his entourage sure knew how to run the country way better than any of these communist muppets who have plunged Venezuela into total chaos. Venezuela had one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world in the 1950s.)

You keep talking about "capitalism" as being the enemy of environmentalism, but you fail to see the atrocities that the communists did in that regard. Example:

https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-the-soviet-union-created-central-asias-worst-environmental-disaster/

The Soviet Union turned that place into a wasteland. So no, "capitalists" are not the only offenders even by a stretch.

EvilNed

09-Sep-2019, 08:44 AM

1) Evidence? 2) Hm. I can't recall a time where anarchists willingly established anything authoritarian (which is the polar opposite of anarchy) or totalitarian (also an opposite). Please, refresh my memory, if you can.

*narrows eyes* Nor do I. But I think certain actions are evil. Such as enslaving others and/or exploiting their labor.
Fair enough. And all I can say is that you're quite wrong about that and seem to again be speaking from a place of privilege. Did liberalism keep the indigenous peoples from being driven to near extinction? Is liberalism currently turning the tide in the fight against climate change? Again it wasn't liberals who took the first steps in freeing the slaves or helped to give women more rights. It was radical leftist activists and that trend is continuing into the modern day. I mean, do you think Obama is/was a liberal? The man who failed to close Guantanamo, who did more drone strikes than acceptable limits would suggest, who deported more people than W? He didn't hardly even do any reform on prison policy! Yet you think liberals/liberalism is "the best"? Why? Because it's YOUR ideology? Because it's good for you personally, and people like you? Fuck that elitist crap. None are free until ALL are free.

1) Cash is nothing but the pooling of resources, something which becomes cumbersome in a society lacking in it. Likewise, hierarchy allows for specialization - which makes decisions not only more expedient and efficient, but also well informed. I do not want a person who has specialized agriculture to have a say in what we should do with our welfare.

2) In an attempt to establish a communist economic model, every single society has failed to do so. A communist economic model relies on the same principles as anarchism - the communal owning of all assets. It has been proven to be impossible.

To suggest that liberals were not the ones who fought for the rights of slaves shows that you do not know anything about ideological history at all. It was in fact, liberals who did just that. Again, I cannot discuss this further with you because you simply do not know what you are talking about and your definition of a liberal seems to be "Obama". If you want to begin reading up on it I suggest you start with the Diggers of the English revolution, then reading on the ideas behind the American and later French revolutions. Liberalism does not begin and end with the modern american democratic party - as you seem to think. Your scope is very narrow and very black and white.

blind2d

09-Sep-2019, 03:51 PM

You don't know what common sense is? Dictionaries are your friends, not your enemy, so use them:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/common_sense

Donald Trump is a clown and an a-hole, but he sure ain't no Stalin, that's for sure. I prefer having to deal with a smaller shit-head than with a Titanic one any day of the week!

Marx et al. were a bunch of dreamers, their ideas have never worked and will never work in the real world. Workers/laborers are good at what they do, but managing things and doing business is NOT their "thing". Every time that such ideas as communal farms or the government and its supporters taking over the private sector have been put into practice they have led to a worsening of the situation, not betterment. Case in point, the recent communist/socialist "experiments" in Venezuela. Yes, that country that we can tell sends chills down your spine every time I bring it up, only to try to deny and ignore it because it clearly shows that such ideas never work in the real world. Back when it was a democracy, Venezuela used to produce plenty of sugar, for example, more than enough for its own domestic market and surplus to export to other countries back when the sugar cane plantations were in private hands. After the bogus "revolution" of Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro) now Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar and other goods to satisfy its own domestic market and has to import them:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/venezuela-food

That's what your much admired communist ideals always eventually lead to. It failed in Russia, it failed in Venezuela, and it will continue to fail everywhere. Heck, Venezuela was in way better shape even when it was in the hands of military dictators like General Perez Jimenez (and yes, he was an oppressive a-hole too, like all dictators, but he and his entourage sure knew how to run the country way better than any of these communist muppets who have plunged Venezuela into total chaos. Venezuela had one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world in the 1950s.)

You keep talking about "capitalism" as being the enemy of environmentalism, but you fail to see the atrocities that the communists did in that regard. Example:

https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-the-soviet-union-created-central-asias-worst-environmental-disaster/

The Soviet Union turned that place into a wasteland. So no, "capitalists" are not the only offenders even by a stretch.

Right, so it's subjective. Basically meaningless. Thanks for clarifying your vagueness.

If Trump had military training, he'd be on Stalin's level, maybe. But again, that's authoritarianism: the opposite of anarchy. How is Stalin at all relevant to this conversation?

Tesla was a dreamer. But his stuff worked. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Do you think progress just materializes out of nowhere? People have to dream of a better future, then act to effect change. There are currently businesses in Greece and Spain that are worker-owned cooperatives, and they're doing just fine. What is the "private sector"? Privatization is a tool of capitalism. Like landlords, it's complete oppressive bullshit. Again, Venezuela isn't communist/socialist currently, so, irrelevant. Please do your research. Also you're conveniently ignoring all the Western meddling there. I do appreciate your links, however. Thank you. Yet after some reading of this first site... I'm disgusted. A capitalist blog from London? That talks about "profits of recycling"?? Are you kidding me? Hardly a reputable source, I'm afraid.

Again, communism's goal is to abolish the state. If it ain't doing that, it ain't communist, now is it? I don't care about "running a country". That's a meaningless phrase, as countries are mere concepts. Run machines. Care for people. This isn't complicated. Abolish money.

Alright, I'll bite on your second link, despite my skepticism... Ah. You've erred. This was done by capitalists, for capitalist motivations. Because it's the fucking Soviet Union. Do I need to tell you again that I'm not a tankie? Soviets used money, were a state, were authoritarian... Not exactly fighting capitalism. And again, this is about anarchy, and the Soviet Union is about as far from anarchy as you can get.

- - - Updated - - -

1) Cash is nothing but the pooling of resources, something which becomes cumbersome in a society lacking in it. Likewise, hierarchy allows for specialization - which makes decisions not only more expedient and efficient, but also well informed. I do not want a person who has specialized agriculture to have a say in what we should do with our welfare.

2) In an attempt to establish a communist economic model, every single society has failed to do so. A communist economic model relies on the same principles as anarchism - the communal owning of all assets. It has been proven to be impossible.

To suggest that liberals were not the ones who fought for the rights of slaves shows that you do not know anything about ideological history at all. It was in fact, liberals who did just that. Again, I cannot discuss this further with you because you simply do not know what you are talking about and your definition of a liberal seems to be "Obama". If you want to begin reading up on it I suggest you start with the Diggers of the English revolution, then reading on the ideas behind the American and later French revolutions. Liberalism does not begin and end with the modern american democratic party - as you seem to think. Your scope is very narrow and very black and white.

1) *raises eyebrow* Why would resources need to be pooled? Why couldn't specialization exist without hierarchy? What does that have to do with information sharing? Is the internet an hierarchy? (Hint: No) And why not? Wouldn't they have a unique perspective worthy of consideration?

2) Gross, fuck the economy. Right, because no one "owns" anything. It's all common! The earth is not a dead thing you can claim.

Do you know what the Overton Window is? Well then I'll ask you, (and sorry for not doing this earlier) what is YOUR definition of a liberal? Then enlighten me. At least JDP provided links, spurious though they were (I take it back. That second one seemed good. Credit where it's due).

EvilNed

09-Sep-2019, 09:00 PM

1) *raises eyebrow* Why would resources need to be pooled? Why couldn't specialization exist without hierarchy? What does that have to do with information sharing? Is the internet an hierarchy? (Hint: No) And why not? Wouldn't they have a unique perspective worthy of consideration?

2) Gross, fuck the economy. Right, because no one "owns" anything. It's all common! The earth is not a dead thing you can claim.

Do you know what the Overton Window is? Well then I'll ask you, (and sorry for not doing this earlier) what is YOUR definition of a liberal? Then enlighten me. At least JDP provided links, spurious though they were (I take it back. That second one seemed good. Credit where it's due).

1) Welfare is the pooling of resources in order to redistribute for the greater good. I want welfare. And as for specialization, we've gone through that already so just backtrack a few pages and you'll have your answer.

2) I own plenty of things.

A link to wikipedias page of liberalism, which is as good a place as any to start reading up on the ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

JDP

10-Sep-2019, 08:00 AM

Right, so it's subjective. Basically meaningless. Thanks for clarifying your vagueness.

Did you even read the definition? "Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters" is pretty clear, nothing "vague" about it. And common sense says that the Utopian dreams of anarchy are just that: dreams. In the real practical world such things just won't work. Real people are just too complex and multifaceted for the simplistic and naive propositions of anarchy to work.

If Trump had military training, he'd be on Stalin's level, maybe. But again, that's authoritarianism: the opposite of anarchy. How is Stalin at all relevant to this conversation?

He was a communist dictator, responsible for the deaths, torture, persecution, imprisonment and oppression of millions. So, yes, he is very much relevant to the conversation, since you were comparing US Presidents to such tyrants. Even Trump is an amateur in a-holeness compared to that guy.

Tesla was a dreamer. But his stuff worked. So I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Do you think progress just materializes out of nowhere? People have to dream of a better future, then act to effect change. There are currently businesses in Greece and Spain that are worker-owned cooperatives, and they're doing just fine. What is the "private sector"? Privatization is a tool of capitalism. Like landlords, it's complete oppressive bullshit. Again, Venezuela isn't communist/socialist currently, so, irrelevant. Please do your research. Also you're conveniently ignoring all the Western meddling there. I do appreciate your links, however. Thank you. Yet after some reading of this first site... I'm disgusted. A capitalist blog from London? That talks about "profits of recycling"?? Are you kidding me? Hardly a reputable source, I'm afraid.

Tesla is a good example of what I have been telling you about but that you never quite manage to understand: he was a good inventor but a piss-poor businessman. That's why he died poor and begging for other people's financing of his ideas. Had he had a talent for business, he would have become a millionaire with his own ideas and would not have needed to depend on anyone else's financing to develop more of his ideas. You should learn the lesson: some people are very good workers, but when it comes to things like management, organization and doing business they know absolutely nothing. That's one of the fundamental reasons why communism and anarchy will never work. Once again, look at Russia and Venezuela (yes, that country is in the hands of communist looney-tunes who are puppets of Cuba's regime; again, do your homework), where successful privately owned farms, plantations, factories and businesses have been forcefully taken over and given either to the workers or the state, resulting in eventual failure. Unqualified people trying to do what the qualified ones do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that such a scheme will not have a good outcome.

Spain and Greece are democratic countries, definitely not communists.

Nothing wrong with the Adam Smith Institute. It's a legitimate and serious source, run by knowledgeable, qualified people:

https://www.adamsmith.org/about-the-asi

Notice also how their article on Venezuela's disastrous situation is full of links showing many of the sources they pulled the information from. Which is way more than anything you have provided.

Again, communism's goal is to abolish the state. If it ain't doing that, it ain't communist, now is it? I don't care about "running a country". That's a meaningless phrase, as countries are mere concepts. Run machines. Care for people. This isn't complicated. Abolish money.

Fantasies, dreams, cigar-ashes... We are talking about reality and pragmatism here. The fact that even by your own admission no one has been able to really achieve a strictly by-the-book definition of "communism" should already have told you how unfeasible the whole thing is.

Alright, I'll bite on your second link, despite my skepticism... Ah. You've erred. This was done by capitalists, for capitalist motivations. Because it's the fucking Soviet Union. Do I need to tell you again that I'm not a tankie? Soviets used money, were a state, were authoritarian... Not exactly fighting capitalism. And again, this is about anarchy, and the Soviet Union is about as far from anarchy as you can get.

Trying to equate the Soviet Union with "capitalists" is just one more proof of how desperate you have become whenever you are shown to be plainly wrong. That environmental disaster was caused by the very birthplace of communism itself, the sworn enemy of those "capitalists" you keep railing against.

At least JDP provided links, spurious though they were (I take it back. That second one seemed good. Credit where it's due).

None of them were "spurious", and certainly more reliable than any you have given so far. Keep trying.

blind2d

10-Sep-2019, 05:07 PM

Did you even read the definition? "Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters" is pretty clear, nothing "vague" about it. And common sense says that the Utopian dreams of anarchy are just that: dreams. In the real practical world such things just won't work. Real people are just too complex and multifaceted for the simplistic and naive propositions of anarchy to work.

He was a communist dictator, responsible for the deaths, torture, persecution, imprisonment and oppression of millions. So, yes, he is very much relevant to the conversation, since you were comparing US Presidents to such tyrants. Even Trump is an amateur in a-holeness compared to that guy.

Tesla is a good example of what I have been telling you about but that you never quite manage to understand: he was a good inventor but a piss-poor businessman. That's why he died poor and begging for other people's financing of his ideas. Had he had a talent for business, he would have become a millionaire with his own ideas and would not have needed to depend on anyone else's financing to develop more of his ideas. You should learn the lesson: some people are very good workers, but when it comes to things like management, organization and doing business they know absolutely nothing. That's one of the fundamental reasons why communism and anarchy will never work. Once again, look at Russia and Venezuela (yes, that country is in the hands of communist looney-tunes who are puppets of Cuba's regime; again, do your homework), where successful privately owned farms, plantations, factories and businesses have been forcefully taken over and given either to the workers or the state, resulting in eventual failure. Unqualified people trying to do what the qualified ones do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that such a scheme will not have a good outcome.

Spain and Greece are democratic countries, definitely not communists.

Nothing wrong with the Adam Smith Institute. It's a legitimate and serious source, run by knowledgeable, qualified people:

https://www.adamsmith.org/about-the-asi

Notice also how their article on Venezuela's disastrous situation is full of links showing many of the sources they pulled the information from. Which is way more than anything you have provided.

Fantasies, dreams, cigar-ashes... We are talking about reality and pragmatism here. The fact that even by your own admission no one has been able to really achieve a strictly by-the-book definition of "communism" should already have told you how unfeasible the whole thing is.

Trying to equate the Soviet Union with "capitalists" is just one more proof of how desperate you have become whenever you are shown to be plainly wrong. That environmental disaster was caused by the very birthplace of communism itself, the sworn enemy of those "capitalists" you keep railing against.

None of them were "spurious", and certainly more reliable than any you have given so far. Keep trying.

Again, "good sense" is subjective. How is it not? Your opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact that it's a better system than capitalism.

Okay? He still wasn't an anarchist in any sense, however, so again, irrelevant.

Right, and you know what a "good businessman" is? A thief, with no morals. Why would you consider that to be a good thing? Again, Venezuela isn't communist. Do YOUR homework. You don't even know the definition of communism.

...Yes? You can have a communist collective within a state. ...Do only countries count as places to you?

"Free market neoliberal" Yeah, no.

Again, most media is neoliberal (pro-capitalist).

We wouldn't have the internet right now if not for dreams, so fuck your neigh-saying. Reality is in constant flux. "No one's ever put a person on Mars! It's unfeasible!" - that's you.

Ahem! They used money, i. e. Capital! Hence, capitalists! God! *squints* No? Communism wasn't born in the 1950s-60s, dude. What are you even talking about?

I've already shown how that blog site you linked to sucks. More reliable than Marx, or Kropotkin? WTF? I suppose you trust Prager U then? I try to give you a compliment, and this is the thanks I get. Lesson learned.

- - - Updated - - -

1) Welfare is the pooling of resources in order to redistribute for the greater good. I want welfare. And as for specialization, we've gone through that already so just backtrack a few pages and you'll have your answer.

2) I own plenty of things.

A link to wikipedias page of liberalism, which is as good a place as any to start reading up on the ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

1) ...Just distribute. Why the "re"? As for specialization, did you know that different people have different interests and skills semi-innately? Fascinating, no?

2) As do I. But none of them extract labor from others. If I enter a building or put my name on it, does it become "mine"? How much land and resources do you own, Ned? I personally have none. Because to force control is power, and power corrupts.

Thanks. Ah, so you support capitalism. fuck that.

EvilNed

10-Sep-2019, 08:01 PM

1) ...Just distribute. Why the "re"? As for specialization, did you know that different people have different interests and skills semi-innately? Fascinating, no?

2) As do I. But none of them extract labor from others. If I enter a building or put my name on it, does it become "mine"? How much land and resources do you own, Ned? I personally have none. Because to force control is power, and power corrupts.

Thanks. Ah, so you support capitalism. fuck that.

1) I want to redistribute the wealth as that is what welfare is all about. If we just had a flat hierarchy with just "distribution" then everybody would get the same goods, rather than to each according to their need. I want a system where we pool our resources together by paying taxes so that people who are experts at specific fields can look at the specific needs of different groups of people and then redistribute it. That is welfare. It's what I want.
Even if you eliminate all forms of economic factors you will still have different needs for different people. Some will have lost their arms in trafic accidents, some will be allergic to tomatoes, some will live in a geographic region where you can't grow corn - to just "distribute" all the wealth equally is inefficient and stupid.

2) So you agree we can own things, good.

And yes, of course I support capitalism, or liberalism.

blind2d

10-Sep-2019, 08:24 PM

1) I want to redistribute the wealth as that is what welfare is all about. If we just had a flat hierarchy with just "distribution" then everybody would get the same goods, rather than to each according to their need. I want a system where we pool our resources together by paying taxes so that people who are experts at specific fields can look at the specific needs of different groups of people and then redistribute it. That is welfare. It's what I want.
Even if you eliminate all forms of economic factors you will still have different needs for different people. Some will have lost their arms in trafic accidents, some will be allergic to tomatoes, some will live in a geographic region where you can't grow corn - to just "distribute" all the wealth equally is inefficient and stupid.

2) So you agree we can own things, good.

And yes, of course I support capitalism, or liberalism.

1) Why "re" though? *scratches head* I thought we covered this. A hierarchy can't be "flat". The word you're searching for is "anarchy". Don't be afraid of it. Also, good point, which is why I circumvent that issue by being an anarcho-communist. You lost me at "taxes". There's no need for currency in a gift economy. Again, just distribute. Why isn't that possible?
Yes. That's why it's not just "wealth" we're distributing, but also food and resources, etc.

2) Do you agree that power corrupts?

Because you're a millionaire, or a happy slave? Which one is it, Ned? You can't use the excuse of ignorance anymore.

EvilNed

10-Sep-2019, 08:43 PM

1) Why "re" though? *scratches head* I thought we covered this. A hierarchy can't be "flat". The word you're searching for is "anarchy". Don't be afraid of it. Also, good point, which is why I circumvent that issue by being an anarcho-communist. You lost me at "taxes". There's no need for currency in a gift economy. Again, just distribute. Why isn't that possible?
Yes. That's why it's not just "wealth" we're distributing, but also food and resources, etc.

2) Do you agree that power corrupts?

Because you're a millionaire, or a happy slave? Which one is it, Ned? You can't use the excuse of ignorance anymore.

1) Read the post again, it’s all covered.

2) Yes. Which is why I support checks and balances.

Neither actually. Because it is better than all the alternatives, as we've explored.

JDP

11-Sep-2019, 06:14 AM

Again, "good sense" is subjective. How is it not? Your opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact that it's a better system than capitalism.

Again, common sense says that "NO!". Notice that no one has been able to make those other systems you idolize work. Notice also that it's always people from the communist "block" escaping to the democratic world, not the other way around. People have a healthy natural tendency to seek more freedoms, more rights, more security, environments where they will have more opportunities for better living conditions, not oppression and other people arbitrarily dictating what you have to believe, and do, and conform with. Common sense. Simple empirical facts.

Okay? He still wasn't an anarchist in any sense, however, so again, irrelevant.

**PSSST** **Whispers**: it was you who started comparing US Presidents with dictators and saying they are just as bad, remember?

Right, and you know what a "good businessman" is? A thief, with no morals. Why would you consider that to be a good thing? Again, Venezuela isn't communist. Do YOUR homework. You don't even know the definition of communism.

Appropriating farms, plantations, refineries, factories, businesses and giving them to the workers or the state (who then claim to be running them in the name of the people) is a peculiar characteristic of communism. So, yes, Venezuela is in the hands of communists. That's exactly what they have been up to for more than a decade. Next you are going to tell us that Chavez & Maduro have been waving the communist flag and idolizing Castro just for "fun". They are really just "evil capitalist fascist pigs!" trying to fool the world, LOL! Really, none of your bizarre "answers" and excuses surprise me anymore.

...Yes? You can have a communist collective within a state. ...Do only countries count as places to you?

They are still operating within a non-communist infrastructure. Cooperatives are not any new development either, BTW. In the Middle Ages there were the "guilds" of craftsmen, which worked for their mutual benefit. But they still lived within feudal and monarchical infrastructures.

We wouldn't have the internet right now if not for dreams, so fuck your neigh-saying. Reality is in constant flux. "No one's ever put a person on Mars! It's unfeasible!" - that's you.

There is a big difference: those things have been proven to work. Communism & anarchy haven't. Not for lack of trying, mind you.

Ahem! They used money, i. e. Capital! Hence, capitalists! God! *squints* No? Communism wasn't born in the 1950s-60s, dude. What are you even talking about?

Nobody said that, I said that the cause of that environmental disaster was the Soviet Union, the birthplace of communism. And yes, officially it was a communist state. Of course, they still had to rely on money, because of what I have been telling you: communism doesn't work. That doesn't mean they didn't try to apply communist ideas into practice. It's just that... THEY DON'T WORK! That's why the Soviet Union eventually collapsed.

I've already shown how that blog site you linked to sucks. More reliable than Marx, or Kropotkin? WTF? I suppose you trust Prager U then? I try to give you a compliment, and this is the thanks I get. Lesson learned.

Calling normal, reasonable, well-written & researched links "spurious"... some "compliment"!

blind2d

11-Sep-2019, 01:35 PM

1) Read the post again, it’s all covered.

2) Yes. Which is why I support checks and balances.

Neither actually. Because it is better than all the alternatives, as we've explored.

1) I feel like it's not. "Money" is a false concept. It is a symbol for an idea. We need to get rid of it.

2) Alright, what do you mean by "checks and balances"?

*narrows eyes* So... happy slave?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, common sense says that "NO!". Notice that no one has been able to make those other systems you idolize work. Notice also that it's always people from the communist "block" escaping to the democratic world, not the other way around. People have a healthy natural tendency to seek more freedoms, more rights, more security, environments where they will have more opportunities for better living conditions, not oppression and other people arbitrarily dictating what you have to believe, and do, and conform with. Common sense. Simple empirical facts.

**PSSST** **Whispers**: it was you who started comparing US Presidents with dictators and saying they are just as bad, remember?

Appropriating farms, plantations, refineries, factories, businesses and giving them to the workers or the state (who then claim to be running them in the name of the people) is a peculiar characteristic of communism. So, yes, Venezuela is in the hands of communists. That's exactly what they have been up to for more than a decade. Next you are going to tell us that Chavez & Maduro have been waving the communist flag and idolizing Castro just for "fun". They are really just "evil capitalist fascist pigs!" trying to fool the world, LOL! Really, none of your bizarre "answers" and excuses surprise me anymore.

They are still operating within a non-communist infrastructure. Cooperatives are not any new development either, BTW. In the Middle Ages there were the "guilds" of craftsmen, which worked for their mutual benefit. But they still lived within feudal and monarchical infrastructures.

There is a big difference: those things have been proven to work. Communism & anarchy haven't. Not for lack of trying, mind you.

Nobody said that, I said that the cause of that environmental disaster was the Soviet Union, the birthplace of communism. And yes, officially it was a communist state. Of course, they still had to rely on money, because of what I have been telling you: communism doesn't work. That doesn't mean they didn't try to apply communist ideas into practice. It's just that... THEY DON'T WORK! That's why the Soviet Union eventually collapsed.

Calling normal, reasonable, well-written & researched links "spurious"... some "compliment"!

1) I'd rather have a system that's good but inefficient than a system that "works" by treating people and the planet like shit. Is there anything more liberating than anarchy? Authoritarianism, you keep bringing up. WHY? Do you need me to remind you again of the title of this thread?

2) Yeah, which is true. But it's not the most important point when discussing anarchism, which is again the point of this thread.

3) *narrows eyes* So, is slavery a natural facet of a democracy then? Again, these are authoritarian regimes, who do not seek to abolish the state, so they are not true communists, and certainly nowhere near being anarchists, which is again the topic at hand.

4) Yes, meaning that at the very least in microcosm, such systems can work (such as unions, which are shrinking recently, which should cause us all concern).

5) Oh? Putting a man on Mars has been done, has it? What about Anarcho-communism? Like, your entire argument seems to be "that'll never work! Because, um... It, um... It hasn't yet!!", which is dumb. As that's not how progress is made. You DO want progress, don't you?

6) ...I don't think that it was the birthplace of communism, but even if I'm wrong about that... So? Do you also believe the birthplace of some religion or other to be the most holy spot on the planet? And the Nazis were socialist, because it was in the name, right? *rolls eyes* Read Marx, you absolute fool. Or something, christ, it's like you're not even trying to make the world a better place.

7) *tilts head* My apologies for not blindly trusting a London-based neoliberal free market think tank. The compliment was the other bit, that you seem to have ignored. Because apparently you can only focus on the negative.

EvilNed

11-Sep-2019, 02:33 PM

1) I feel like it's not. "Money" is a false concept. It is a symbol for an idea. We need to get rid of it.

2) Alright, what do you mean by "checks and balances"?

*narrows eyes* So... happy slave?

1) Ok, whatever floats your boat.

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

No.

blind2d

11-Sep-2019, 03:22 PM

1) Ok, whatever floats your boat.

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

No.

1) This isn't just about me, but for the good of the planet, and the species, and the individual.

2) No, that says "separation of powers", not "checks and balances". I can read, Ned.

Then who are you?

Also here's a good primer on Marxism for those of you too busy to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o

EvilNed

11-Sep-2019, 04:06 PM

1) This isn't just about me, but for the good of the planet, and the species, and the individual.

2) No, that says "separation of powers", not "checks and balances". I can read, Ned.

Then who are you?

Also here's a good primer on Marxism for those of you too busy to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o

1) I agree, and we have different opinions on what is best.

2) Only the title, apparently.

blind2d

11-Sep-2019, 10:08 PM

1) I agree, and we have different opinions on what is best.

2) Only the title, apparently.

1) So which of us is right?

2) Which seems to be more than you've done. Okay so, it has to do with a state... Which I would like to abolish. Since that's what anarcho-communism is all about.

I'll ask again, who are you? What do you stand for? Imagining for the moment that "the status quo" isn't an option.

EvilNed

12-Sep-2019, 05:27 AM

1) So which of us is right?

2) Which seems to be more than you've done. Okay so, it has to do with a state... Which I would like to abolish. Since that's what anarcho-communism is all about.

I'll ask again, who are you? What do you stand for? Imagining for the moment that "the status quo" isn't an option.

1) There is no right or wrong. In a democracy anyone can believe what they want.

Socio-liberal democracy.

blind2d

12-Sep-2019, 04:50 PM

1) There is no right or wrong. In a democracy anyone can believe what they want.

Socio-liberal democracy.

1) ...Um... I don't think that's what a democracy is. Like, facts are a thing... Like it's a fact that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth/resources.

2) Did I win this one?

No link? Like, I'm all for REAL democracy. You'd know that if you'd been paying attention. You'd also know that true democracy and liberty are not possible from a liberal mindset. Capitalism must be destroyed if we are to have any kind of freedom. Do you want freedom, Ned?

EvilNed

12-Sep-2019, 07:53 PM

1) ...Um... I don't think that's what a democracy is. Like, facts are a thing... Like it's a fact that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth/resources.

2) Did I win this one?

No link? Like, I'm all for REAL democracy. You'd know that if you'd been paying attention. You'd also know that true democracy and liberty are not possible from a liberal mindset. Capitalism must be destroyed if we are to have any kind of freedom. Do you want freedom, Ned?

1) I did not say that this is what a democracy is, I just said that in a democracy you can believe what you want. Your facts are irrelevant to the question at hand.

2) Your point was nonsensical so I saw no need to reply. But if your goal was to get me to stop replying - then yes you won.

I want freedom restricted by laws.

blind2d

13-Sep-2019, 12:31 PM

1) I did not say that this is what a democracy is, I just said that in a democracy you can believe what you want. Your facts are irrelevant to the question at hand.

2) Your point was nonsensical so I saw no need to reply. But if your goal was to get me to stop replying - then yes you won.

I want freedom restricted by laws.

1) Maybe that's your problem. That you don't see this as a constant and overarching issue... which is what it is. But a democracy is so much more than "you can believe what you want". But yeah, I'm not going to criticize anyone's silly religion or anything.

2) *narrows eyes* Which part did you not understand? Was it the part where I said that I'm an anarcho-communist, which means I seek to ultimately abolish all states and nations?

Do you see how paradoxical that sounds? Now I'm not saying "no laws!", but perhaps laws agreed upon by every single citizen in the community? Mm? Sound good? If laws are only made by one group for a larger community consisting of various different groups... Well, you see now how that's not going to work well for most people outside of said privileged group, right? (In most places, this ruling group is largely made up of wealthy cishet men...Historically not the best people, always, when it comes to getting along with people different from themselves) Have you heard of "approval voting"? I think there's another name for it, or a very similar concept, but I can't think of it atm.

EvilNed

13-Sep-2019, 02:59 PM

1) Maybe that's your problem. That you don't see this as a constant and overarching issue... which is what it is. But a democracy is so much more than "you can believe what you want". But yeah, I'm not going to criticize anyone's silly religion or anything.

2) *narrows eyes* Which part did you not understand? Was it the part where I said that I'm an anarcho-communist, which means I seek to ultimately abolish all states and nations?

Do you see how paradoxical that sounds? Now I'm not saying "no laws!", but perhaps laws agreed upon by every single citizen in the community? Mm? Sound good? If laws are only made by one group for a larger community consisting of various different groups... Well, you see now how that's not going to work well for most people outside of said privileged group, right? (In most places, this ruling group is largely made up of wealthy cishet men...Historically not the best people, always, when it comes to getting along with people different from themselves) Have you heard of "approval voting"? I think there's another name for it, or a very similar concept, but I can't think of it atm.

1) I don't understand what your point is here.

2) I don't understand what your point is. You keep going off topic.

Only because something is paradoxal does not mean it's bad.

blind2d

13-Sep-2019, 07:11 PM

1) I don't understand what your point is here.

2) I don't understand what your point is. You keep going off topic.

Only because something is paradoxal does not mean it's bad.

1) Maybe we've reached a point where we can no longer effectively communicate. :(

2) See above. And I don't.

...That's a good point. But maybe you could answer one of my questions?

EvilNed

13-Sep-2019, 07:44 PM

1) Maybe we've reached a point where we can no longer effectively communicate. :(

2) See above. And I don't.

...That's a good point. But maybe you could answer one of my questions?

Too be perfectly honest I simply don't get the impression you know enough about anarchism to be able to communicate very much about it. But I've said that already. So that leaves us with very little to communicate about, because I have a lot of questions which you cannot answer. And I need them answered in order to feel that this conversation will interest me. Right now it doesn't.

But I've said all of this already.

blind2d

13-Sep-2019, 10:18 PM

Too be perfectly honest I simply don't get the impression you know enough about anarchism to be able to communicate very much about it. But I've said that already. So that leaves us with very little to communicate about, because I have a lot of questions which you cannot answer. And I need them answered in order to feel that this conversation will interest me. Right now it doesn't.

But I've said all of this already.

You say this, yet you've demonstrated that you know even less than me (and don't get me started on JDP). So, why haven't you read the bread book yet, exactly? It's easy enough to find on the anarchist library site. Insult me all you like, but at least attempt to answer my questions. I wasn't just taught about it by some random person/acquaintance on the internet myself, Ned. I searched and learned on my own too. So, maybe try that, huh? Clearly you haven't.

EvilNed

14-Sep-2019, 07:14 AM

You say this, yet you've demonstrated that you know even less than me (and don't get me started on JDP). So, why haven't you read the bread book yet, exactly? It's easy enough to find on the anarchist library site. Insult me all you like, but at least attempt to answer my questions. I wasn't just taught about it by some random person/acquaintance on the internet myself, Ned. I searched and learned on my own too. So, maybe try that, huh? Clearly you haven't.

I'm not trying to insult you. And I'm not trying to diss your opinions. But it is clear that you don't understand how to put them into practice. Just because you read something does not make you an expert - you have to understand it as well. I've given you a second chance but you keep going off target, getting distracted by emotional outbursts and generally answering with very wide and general answers that do not satisfy me.

blind2d

14-Sep-2019, 12:38 PM

I'm not trying to insult you. And I'm not trying to diss your opinions. But it is clear that you don't understand how to put them into practice. Just because you read something does not make you an expert - you have to understand it as well. I've given you a second chance but you keep going off target, getting distracted by emotional outbursts and generally answering with very wide and general answers that do not satisfy me.

I've already said I'm not an expert on this. And it's my opinion that unsatisfying answers (me) are better than no answers whatsoever (you). So if your query is "how do we put anarchy into practice?", then I can actually answer you beyond just "abolish the state!". Have you for instance heard of 'Food Not Bombs'? Squatting? Labor Unions? 'Unicorn Riot'? The Zapatistas?
Again, (and again, it seems) anarchy is horizontal government, utilizing true democracy and equality. Approval voting systems, and consideration for every person in the community. "But what about defense"? Well we could form a neighborhood watch sort of system, with a rotating roster. In fact, a rotating roster of most jobs could be effective, unless someone shows particular proclivities for a certain discipline, which they would then remain at their preferred profession. Homeless people would be given empty houses. Disabled people would have their unique needs met, and everyone would be respected despite their differences, as no one would feel threatened by anyone else, because we'd actually teach our children useful things. We would of course not use any kind of fossil fuels, as well, and could cut back on wasteful meat consumption by eating more insects for protein. There's lots of things we can do, and I've already mentioned some earlier. Diversity of tactics is important as well, as the current voting system in my country does not give a voice to the people, but we can still vote anyway for candidates who maybe won't take away women's rights, etc. Maybe if your questions were more specific I'd be able to answer them better.

EvilNed

14-Sep-2019, 02:40 PM

blind2d

14-Sep-2019, 05:18 PM

My questions have been very specific from the start and I applaud your plethora of ideas. But I have given up any hope of getting a satisfactory answer from you long ago, so unless you wish to indulge me now - harking back to the worldwide food distribution question for instance - then I am simply not interested in going on.

An idea can be good or bad. And horizontal organization is a very bad idea, as it will never work.
Nor will abolishing property - history has proven that.
Nor will communal farms - which history likewise has proven.
Nor will the abolishment of courts - history has proven many times that mob rule will ensue.
So what I am interested in is discussing anarchy with somebody who has studied the history of various revolutionary movements, realized the faults of each (as I have) and then developed their own ideas to learn from past mistakes. I have tried getting answers from you, but if your only response is "I'm no expert" then I don't see any point in discussing the details of this.

I don't see how your question about world food distribution is really relevant, as we have that currently.

WHY won't it work?
*squints* WHERE has history "proven" that? And did you mean "Private" or "Personal" property?
Wrong, if you've ever seen a communal garden. We don't necessarily need massive farms, but if we do, we have machines and technology to utilize that makes taking care of them much easier.
*tilts head* There will be a town counsel. Why have a court as well? (Also, mob rule is okay)
Well you yourself haven't been very specific with your own ideas. So...? And I have tried answering you. And that has never been my "only" response. Are you trolling me here? You don't see any point in discussing the future of our species with someone, just because they haven't studied it in university for years and years? Come on man, I'm equally as human as you. Isn't that the whole point?

EvilNed

14-Sep-2019, 06:49 PM

I don't see how your question about world food distribution is really relevant, as we have that currently.

WHY won't it work?
*squints* WHERE has history "proven" that? And did you mean "Private" or "Personal" property?
Wrong, if you've ever seen a communal garden. We don't necessarily need massive farms, but if we do, we have machines and technology to utilize that makes taking care of them much easier.
*tilts head* There will be a town counsel. Why have a court as well? (Also, mob rule is okay)
Well you yourself haven't been very specific with your own ideas. So...? And I have tried answering you. And that has never been my "only" response. Are you trolling me here? You don't see any point in discussing the future of our species with someone, just because they haven't studied it in university for years and years? Come on man, I'm equally as human as you. Isn't that the whole point?

We have that right now because it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization as well as commerce with currency. Both of which you wish to abolish, yet you have no idea with what to replace it with.

I've already explained to you why a non-hierarchical organization won't work and I'm not doing it again. As for the rest of the talking points, I'm simply not going to repeat myself. You haven't been able to explain yourself so far, and you won't this time either. This discussion does not interest me any longer.

And also,

No - mob rule is not okay. I point you in the direction of every single violent revolution on record. Mobs can be easily manipulated - and always are. It is simply naive to think that "this time it'll turn out OK".

blind2d

14-Sep-2019, 08:31 PM

We have that right now because it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization as well as commerce with currency. Both of which you wish to abolish, yet you have no idea with what to replace it with.

I've already explained to you why a non-hierarchical organization won't work and I'm not doing it again. As for the rest of the talking points, I'm simply not going to repeat myself. You haven't been able to explain yourself so far, and you won't this time either. This discussion does not interest me any longer.

And also,

No - mob rule is not okay. I point you in the direction of every single violent revolution on record. Mobs can be easily manipulated - and always are. It is simply naive to think that "this time it'll turn out OK".

*scoffs* No idea?? I just told you! Hell, the internet, AI, technology is crucial, mate.

Pfft. You've failed then. You haven't answered my questions, so why should I answer yours? (Also I used the wrong spelling of 'council', whoops). I answered you on farms. I answered you on courts. You have failed to provide any examples of anarchy "not working historically", without also capitalist/statist intervention coming into the picture. Is that the point? That in order to abolish the state, we'd first have to... abolish the state? No shit. Just because a system uses hierarchy and currency, does not mean these things are a necessity. I use a computer. I could live and survive, even now in our tech-focused landscape, without one. You haven't debunked a gift economy. You haven't debunked anything. You just thrust your fists against the posts. I just did explain myself. It's not my fault if English isn't your first language. If it doesn't interest you, why bother posting your last reply at all?
OH! You meant "VIOLENT" mob rule. No, no, we can't have that, certainly. I was talking about peaceful mob rule, aka democracy. Manipulated by whom? Without a hierarchy, there would be no one to manipulate a mob, right? If every single member of the community was the mob. Which would be anarchy. Right? How many times do I have to explain this simple concept to y'all for you to understand? Have you read the bread book yet? Just the first couple pages would probably help you immensely.

EvilNed

14-Sep-2019, 08:59 PM

JDP

15-Sep-2019, 12:36 AM

*scoffs* No idea?? I just told you! Hell, the internet, AI, technology is crucial, mate.

Pfft. You've failed then. You haven't answered my questions, so why should I answer yours? (Also I used the wrong spelling of 'council', whoops). I answered you on farms. I answered you on courts. You have failed to provide any examples of anarchy "not working historically", without also capitalist/statist intervention coming into the picture. Is that the point? That in order to abolish the state, we'd first have to... abolish the state? No shit. Just because a system uses hierarchy and currency, does not mean these things are a necessity. I use a computer. I could live and survive, even now in our tech-focused landscape, without one. You haven't debunked a gift economy. You haven't debunked anything. You just thrust your fists against the posts. I just did explain myself. It's not my fault if English isn't your first language. If it doesn't interest you, why bother posting your last reply at all?
OH! You meant "VIOLENT" mob rule. No, no, we can't have that, certainly. I was talking about peaceful mob rule, aka democracy. Manipulated by whom? Without a hierarchy, there would be no one to manipulate a mob, right? If every single member of the community was the mob. Which would be anarchy. Right? How many times do I have to explain this simple concept to y'all for you to understand? Have you read the bread book yet? Just the first couple pages would probably help you immensely.

You have been shown a bunch of times that your ideas will always end up failing because of the complexities of human nature and psychology. Not all people think or feel alike, not all people agree, not all people behave and respect the rights of others, and so forth. An example was given to you regarding some forms of public transportation, which sooner or later always get damaged by vandals or people who just don't care about public property or that of others, and who end up fucking it up for the rest. I will add here my own example: when I went to high-school we did not have actual mirrors in the bathrooms, we had polished metal sheets in their place. We had to try to comb our hair by looking at a shitty poor reflection of ourselves. Do you know why? Because the school administration got sick and tired of having to replace actual mirrors every few days or so due to the fact that vandals sooner or later would always smash them. And for no reason at all, they "just like doing things like that!", a la Luther from the movie The Warriors. So just because of people like that we all got the "short end of the stick" and had to conform with having to use polished metal plates (which cannot be as easily damaged as glass mirrors; but even then some would still get so banged up by the vandal elements of the school that they too would need replacement, but they did not cost as much to the school as actual mirrors) instead of real mirrors every time we had to stare at our own reflection. Because of people like that who do not give a flying fuck about the rights of others, and as long as they are having fun and getting away with it they will go ahead and do whatever they want, no matter who ends up paying for it. These small-scale examples serve a purpose to teach you a valuable lesson about the human mind and its very complex, multifaceted and unpredictable nature. It is what makes all those ideas of communism and anarchism to eventually and invariably fail: it's human nature, with all its positive and negative sides. It's not "capitalism", or "fascism", or some vast "conspiracy", or what have you. It is the very nature of humans that make such ideas simply a Utopia. No matter what you do, you will always have people who think they are better than others, who think they deserve more than others, who will try to fuck it up for everyone else, who will not cooperate, who will not agree, who will not do their part, who will want more for themselves, who will trample on others, and so forth. Can't take human nature out of the equation, ever. It will always be there working against such Utopian ideals.

blind2d

15-Sep-2019, 04:22 PM

You have been shown a bunch of times that your ideas will always end up failing because of the complexities of human nature and psychology. Not all people think or feel alike, not all people agree, not all people behave and respect the rights of others, and so forth. An example was given to you regarding some forms of public transportation, which sooner or later always get damaged by vandals or people who just don't care about public property or that of others, and who end up fucking it up for the rest. I will add here my own example: when I went to high-school we did not have actual mirrors in the bathrooms, we had polished metal sheets in their place. We had to try to comb our hair by looking at a shitty poor reflection of ourselves. Do you know why? Because the school administration got sick and tired of having to replace actual mirrors every few days or so due to the fact that vandals sooner or later would always smash them. And for no reason at all, they "just like doing things like that!", a la Luther from the movie The Warriors. So just because of people like that we all got the "short end of the stick" and had to conform with having to use polished metal plates (which cannot be as easily damaged as glass mirrors; but even then some would still get so banged up by the vandal elements of the school that they too would need replacement, but they did not cost as much to the school as actual mirrors) instead of real mirrors every time we had to stare at our own reflection. Because of people like that who do not give a flying fuck about the rights of others, and as long as they are having fun and getting away with it they will go ahead and do whatever they want, no matter who ends up paying for it. These small-scale examples serve a purpose to teach you a valuable lesson about the human mind and its very complex, multifaceted and unpredictable nature. It is what makes all those ideas of communism and anarchism to eventually and invariably fail: it's human nature, with all its positive and negative sides. It's not "capitalism", or "fascism", or some vast "conspiracy", or what have you. It is the very nature of humans that make such ideas simply a Utopia. No matter what you do, you will always have people who think they are better than others, who think they deserve more than others, who will try to fuck it up for everyone else, who will not cooperate, who will not agree, who will not do their part, who will want more for themselves, who will trample on others, and so forth. Can't take human nature out of the equation, ever. It will always be there working against such Utopian ideals.

Human nature is to form community groups. You've never cited specific sources or case studies proving me wrong. Of course not everyone thinks or feels alike. That's how society is built. Different people bring different traits and skills to help form a larger tapestry of life by working together. That's literally what a society is. Conflict and issues will always arise, yes, but why should that debunk any of my proposals? You know who fucks up public transportation the most? Capitalists. Just think about California in the early 1900s, or any major US city. Oh really? So you sat down with the vandals and talked with them, and that was their reasoning? It could be any number of things. Pretty much everything has a cause. Why don't you feel the need to dig deeper? Also, no. That's a capitalist lie, used to divide us. "Don't think about class disparity and how it unites everyone but us!", our rulers say. "Instead think of THEM, people who aren't like you, who are screwing things up!" Don't fall for it. We vastly outnumber them. We always will. Your anecdote about mirrors is actually a great example of why liberalism's ideals don't work. The administrators tried replacing a malfunctioning piece of equipment with another like it, but the same result happened. To cure an illness you must fight the disease, not just the symptoms. The whole system is screwy, so if we don't address that, then we're doomed to a negative cycle. "The rights of others"? It wasn't your personal mirror at home, it was the school's mirror. They didn't respect the school's rights... to... have unbroken mirrors? Is that a right that a non-sentient building has? Again, if we don't know their motives then we can't address the issue. Maybe if the students had been caught in the act, were told on to their parents, but even then that might not help because perhaps they'd been beaten at home, and felt that violence was an acceptable form of self-expression. We just don't know. What does this teach me about the human mind? That puberty is a volatile time for most? I already knew that. Or that it's not good to beat your kids? (Again we don't know for sure) Already knew that too. I've never brought up a conspiracy. I don't believe in such things. Human nature is also loving, compassionate, imaginative, caring, introspective, curious, etc. What's your point? All I'm still hearing from you is "it'll never work! Because, um... Humans are fallible!" True. Everyone is. Every life form. So? Does that mean we give up? Does that mean we should just bow down to our masters, take it up the ass every day, and act like there's no other options? If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry, but "the internet, AI, technology" etc are not a very elaborate answer to a very complex issue. They are not magic wands. And no, you haven't explained how the farms would work except with the same "magic wand"-type of explanations. You haven't endeavoured to overcome any of the proven obstacles of all the thing I've listed, except perhaps with what can only be described in my view as very naive beliefs of how human nature and economy works. I get the impression that you're radical in your belief to the point where any rational argument that pinpoints a flaw in any one of your arguments is ignored or met with an emotional outburst that shifts the focus from what we're discussing to capitalism at large. But as long as you cannot calmly explain how your proposed society would work then I will never believe in it, and I take no interest in listening to you. You are simply not read up enough on this issue.

And you're right, why am I still sticking around here? Good point! I'm out.

I agree the issue is complex. But your initial question was not. Listen buddy. I'm not an expert on farms now. How am I supposed to know about how they'll be in the future? Not my department. Well then I'd say you've done a piss-poor job of educating me on these things thus far. Hmm, well I am a bit radical at times, sure, but you can't deny that capitalism has tendrils in like pretty much every facet of Western life. Can you prove me wrong on this? And you're not read up on anything, apparently, so what's your point?

Farewell.

PS: (And this is to both of you/anyone out there) Please watch this excellent video on 28 Days Later in full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55qijQ4UqCA