Anarchy

[JDP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.