What is to you the worst/most terrifying ideology?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

What can I say? I need to read something and laugh. Getting people to explain why they hate communism and socialism usually suffices.

Have you ever lived (or met someone who lived) under a communist state?
Sure, Marxism looks good on paper, but are you, with the Pastafarian flag, going to say that something existed which did not?

"communist state" is antithetical. The states of the East were Communist states. Communism=/=communism. Small-c communism is anarchistic in nature, big-C "Communism" decidedly the opposite of communism.

[The New World Oceania]

Have you ever lived (or met someone who lived) under a communist state?
Sure, Marxism looks good on paper, but are you, with the Pastafarian flag, going to say that something existed which did not?

"communist state" is antithetical. The states of the East were Communist states. Communism=/=communism. Small-c communism is anarchistic in nature, big-C "Communism" decidedly the opposite of communism.

You're argument is that I spelled it wrong.

[Frisivisia]

"communist state" is antithetical. The states of the East were Communist states. Communism=/=communism. Small-c communism is anarchistic in nature, big-C "Communism" decidedly the opposite of communism.

You're argument is that I spelled it wrong.

His argument is that there are two communisms. There is little c communism, the true communism of Marx, which is anarchistic, and Communism, the false communism of Stalin and Mao, which is authoritarians and decidedly bad.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

"communist state" is antithetical. The states of the East were Communist states. Communism=/=communism. Small-c communism is anarchistic in nature, big-C "Communism" decidedly the opposite of communism.

You're argument is that I spelled it wrong.

Yes, and it's a valid argument, because the two are fundamentally different. The Communist states of the Eastern Bloc et al. were deeply, deeply unpleasant places. However, due to the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common, they weren't communist.

[Divair]

You're argument is that I spelled it wrong.

His argument is that there are two communisms. There is little c communism, the true communism of Marx, which is anarchistic, and Communism, the false communism of Stalin and Mao, which is authoritarians and decidedly bad.

Stalinism and Maoism respectively.

Neither advocates the lack of a state, a currency, and classes.

[Free Ulster]

Nazism or Anarchism

[Blakk Metal]

I kinda doubt from the context that you know what that means.

He's probably thinking that it means chaos, and if that's the case then he's right. Anarchy = chaos

Libertarian socialism does not lead to chaos. People do not need bosses or leaders.

Communism depends on no such thing.

No indeed, consider this simple matter that hinders the application of the principles in any real society:

A revolution is needed to communism? YES. A revolution needs leaders, right?

No.

[The New World Oceania]

You're argument is that I spelled it wrong.

Yes, and it's a valid argument, because the two are fundamentally different. The Communist states of the Eastern Bloc et al. were deeply, deeply unpleasant places. However, due to the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common, they weren't communist.

Then you're right, of course. I was previously unaware of the difference between capitalized (no pun intended) and lowercase communism. Perhaps you are mistaken by that fact that "Communism" is used to denote an entity such as "the Communist Party." Or are leftist views strong enough to kill grammar?

My point stands still, however, that one can not achieve communism, or Marxism as it is legitimately known as, because of "the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common."

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yes, and it's a valid argument, because the two are fundamentally different. The Communist states of the Eastern Bloc et al. were deeply, deeply unpleasant places. However, due to the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common, they weren't communist.

Then you're right, of course. I was previously unaware of the difference between capitalized (no pun intended) and lowercase communism.

Fair enough.

Perhaps you are mistaken by that fact that "Communism" is used to denote an entity such as "the Communist Party." Or are leftist views strong enough to kill grammar?

Yes, they are. It gets a bit tricky with proper nouns, but most Parties tend to be Communist, rather than communist, anyway.

My point stands still, however, that one can not achieve communism, or Marxism as it is legitimately known as, because of "the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common."

I'd say that it would be difficult to achieve, but certainly not impossible. communist societies have existed in the past, just not for that long.

[Frisivisia]

Yes, and it's a valid argument, because the two are fundamentally different. The Communist states of the Eastern Bloc et al. were deeply, deeply unpleasant places. However, due to the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common, they weren't communist.

Then you're right, of course. I was previously unaware of the difference between capitalized (no pun intended) and lowercase communism. Perhaps you are mistaken by that fact that "Communism" is used to denote an entity such as "the Communist Party." Or are leftist views strong enough to kill grammar?

My point stands still, however, that one can not achieve communism, or Marxism as it is legitimately known as, because of "the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common."

I agree, communism is unreachable, because utopia is unreachable. That's why I'm a Social Democrat.

[The New World Oceania]

My point stands still, however, that one can not achieve communism, or Marxism as it is legitimately known as, because of "the presence of a state, money, classes and the means of production not being held in common."

I'd say that it would be difficult to achieve, but certainly not impossible. communist societies have existed in the past, just not for that long.

So of course the real problem isn't communism or Communism at all- it's sustaining it.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I'd say that it would be difficult to achieve, but certainly not impossible. communist societies have existed in the past, just not for that long.

So of course the real problem isn't communism or Communism at all- it's sustaining it.

Richtig. That's why I'm a minarcho-socialist.

[Mavorpen]

I agree, communism is unreachable, because utopia is unreachable. That's why I'm a Social Democrat.

It's not a utopia.

[Zaras]

I agree, communism is unreachable, because utopia is unreachable. That's why I'm a Social Democrat.

It's not a utopia.

Of course it's not. It's better than that!

[Free South Califas]

Actually Kronstadt was crushed by (oh yes) Leon Trotsky, something which I find ironic seeing as Trotsky later took up the reigns of the Left Communist movement, and hence me being opposed to Trotskyism.

I know that. Trotsky doesn't really have a lot of credibility despite being very good at predicting how the USSR would suck.

The anarchist journal Golos Truda was perhaps more prophetic.

Do you mind explaining your opposition to democracy?

He's probably a dictator fanboy.

He's an unapologetic socio. He had a thread recently about how it's stupid to do anything for anyone else, and friends only slow you down.

[Zaras]

I know that. Trotsky doesn't really have a lot of credibility despite being very good at predicting how the USSR would suck.

The anarchist journal Golos Truda was perhaps more prophetic.

Unfortunately, it's not more famous than Trotsky.

He's probably a dictator fanboy.

He's an unapologetic socio. He had a thread recently about how it's stupid to do anything for anyone else, and friends only slow you down.

Ah. Ayn Rand fanboy, then.

[Manisdog]

Democracy

Do you mind explaining your opposition to democracy?

The people get drunk with power and it becomes a mob rule

[Free South Califas]

I literally have no idea whether or not he actually spent that amount of time with his nose in a book. Whatever else you wanna say about Rand, she sure knew how to turn out pages.

[Immoren]

Do you mind explaining your opposition to democracy?

The people get drunk with power and it becomes a mob rule

[Zaras]

I literally have no idea whether or not he actually spent that amount of time with his nose in a book. Whatever else you wanna say about Rand, she sure knew how to turn out pages.

So do NaNoWriMo participants, except with 100% less flaming sociopathy.

[Znatsnaz]

I just believe in three laws about that:

All good forms of power become viced, without exceptions.
That will happen sometimes with all, untimely.
But the people have the power to stop that, always.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Do you mind explaining your opposition to democracy?

The people get drunk with power and it becomes a mob rule

Please provide two examples of this in the real world.

Two, just two. It's not much to ask.

So do NaNoWriMo participants, except with 100% less flaming sociopathy.

Evidently you don't know NaNoWriMists.

[Meryuma]

[Tab=]k[/Tab]

...

What?

Ah yes forgot to mention, people have mindset of 'I want therefore I must have' so it is only natural that people will feel restricted if they are equal

I am an egoist and an egalitarian. A stratified, power-oriented society is not free or individualistic.

[Zaras]

Evidently you don't know NaNoWriMists.

Well, I've considered entering, but I have National Dissertation Writing Year this year and the next one...

[Renegade Island]

I agree, communism is unreachable, because utopia is unreachable. That's why I'm a Social Democrat.

communism =/= utopia


A "Utopia" is a state of societal perfection. There is no such thing as perfection.

A classless moneyless society is not a state of perfection, it's just the next phase in societal evolution.