Communism

[CTALNH]

When a guy has a metaphorical gun at your face all the time you will learn to respect him sooner or later.

And especially fear him.

Again, your fetish for power and death and your hatred of anything that isn't totalitarianism makes you a crap leftist.

Goddammit Mao

Your quote that:"Real power comes out of the barrel of a gun"

Has forever marked me.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Marx isn't the be-all and end-all.



There's also the fact that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in actuality refers to the proletarians achieving collective class dominance rather than "hurr durr democide", and the fact that Marx and Engels heartily endorsed the Paris Commune.



Yes, because one cannot be a communist and disagree with Marx. Obviously.

It's not as if Kropotkin and Bakunin were actual people or anything.



Because capitalists are being given the option to form their own capitalist communes if they want and if all members within said commune consent to being there?



You are an absolutely crap leftist.

Crap leftist that supports a crap nation that lasted more than a decade!

Someone who supports a totalitarian state-capitalist hellhole that spent its first 35 years killing off a significant proportion of its citizenry and the last 35 years completely failing to meed the basic needs of the survivors and their descendants.

I mean, come on. It was only considered a superpower because of its vast reserves of cannon-fodder and its ability to build large amounts of nuclear missiles. In almost every other way it was a backwards, regressive and reactionary entity that contributed nothing of any lasting use to humanity except Tetris.

Not to mention that it ran the largest biological weapons program in the entirety of human history. Which is bad and stupid.

There's a reason it fell apart from the inside; because it was crap and its inhabitants didn't like it.

[CTALNH]

Crap leftist that supports a crap nation that lasted more than a decade!

Someone who supports a totalitarian state-capitalist hellhole that spent its first 35 years killing off a significant proportion of its citizenry and the last 35 years completely failing to meed the basic needs of the survivors and their descendants.

I mean, come on. It was only considered a superpower because of its vast reserves of cannon-fodder and its ability to build large amounts of nuclear missiles. In almost every other way it was a backwards, regressive and reactionary entity that contributed nothing of any lasting use to humanity except Tetris.

Not to mention that it ran the largest biological weapons program in the entirety of human history. Which is bad and stupid.

There's a reason it fell apart from the inside; because it was crap and its inhabitants didn't like it.

We must have been doing something right because even if we are the luckiest son of a bitches in history we can't have been doing every thing wrong because we woudn't have lasted more than a decade.

[Sociobiology]

so how is that different than those of us living in a state telling you people who don't wan't one to leave?

Because capitalists are being given the option to form their own capitalist communes if they want and if all members within said commune consent to being there?

which is exactly the same as now, the only difference is whether it is opt in or opt out. the current system is opt out because it is both easier and guarantees children protection as citizens. which many of those self formed states would do, so the generation born in them would see it as EXACTLY the same.

[Conscentia]

When a guy has a metaphorical gun at your face all the time you will learn to respect him sooner or later.
And especially fear him.

Again, your fetish for power and death and your hatred of anything that isn't totalitarianism makes you a crap leftist.

He's not a leftist.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Again, your fetish for power and death and your hatred of anything that isn't totalitarianism makes you a crap leftist.

He's not a leftist.

I know that. He doesn't.

[Conscentia]

Crap leftist that supports a crap nation that lasted more than a decade!

The British Empire out-lasted the USSR.
What relevance is longevity?

[CTALNH]

Again, your fetish for power and death and your hatred of anything that isn't totalitarianism makes you a crap leftist.

He's not a leftist.

You may not agree with me neither will I ever agree with you but yes I am left wing.

[Conscentia]

He's not a leftist.

You may not agree with me neither will I ever agree with you but yes I am left wing.

Do you know what left wing means?

[CTALNH]

Crap leftist that supports a crap nation that lasted more than a decade!

The British Empire out-lasted the USSR.
What relevance is longevity?

Internal faction talk please read Mahnko and Bakunin which Of the Free Socialist Territories seems to like then come back and we shall resume the conversation.

[CTALNH]

You may not agree with me neither will I ever agree with you but yes I am left wing.

Do you know what left wing means?

The good of the many.While fucking the rich.

[Conscentia]

Do you know what left wing means?

The good of the many.While fucking the rich.

Incorrect.

Here's the correct answer, courtesy of Wikipedia:

In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.[3]

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[6]

Or more simply:
Left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality, that usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.

The term right wing refers to the opposite. (Supporting social inequality, viewing it as natural, necessary, preferable, etc.)

Judging from thy posts, and thy support for the Soviet Union, you are certainly right wing. Perhaps not in economic terms, but certainly in social & political terms.
For example, you don't treat people equally. Instead, you are highly prejudiced against those who differ from you in their political opinions. On several occasions you have called for them to be killed. For their mere opinions, you treat them as inferiors.
Another example would be support for Stalin's totalitarian rule, in which there was clear inequality, as the party had effectively become the new aristocracy, and a cult of personality had evolved around Stalin.

[CTALNH]

The good of the many.While fucking the rich.

Incorrect.

Here's the correct answer, courtesy of Wikipedia:

In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.[3]

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[6]

Or more simply:
Left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality, that usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.

The term right wing refers to the opposite. (Supporting social inequality, viewing it as natural, necessary, preferable, etc.)

Judging from thy posts, and thy support for the Soviet Union, you are certainly right wing. Perhaps not in economic terms, but certainly in social & political terms.
For example, you don't treat people equally. Instead, you are highly prejudiced against those who differ from you in their political opinions. On several occasions you have called for them to be killed. For their mere opinions, you treat them as inferiors.
Another example would be support for Stalin's totalitarian rule, in which there was clear inequality, as the party had effectively become the new aristocracy, and a cult of personality had evolved around Stalin.

Yes fuck socialized health care,food and shelter to everyone and free education up to the academic level because you know the west says they are totalitarian hellhole.

Socially I am liberal.Except drugs,cannabis,cigarettes and punishment > rehabilitation.
Economically I am left. (State socialism us it was meant to be)
Your problem is because I am a political hardliner?

I never said lets torture people just put them down us humanly us possible if they go against us.Bullet between the eyes.

I would perfectly be fine if I did not have to kill anyone.

[Pragia]

Shame FST or someone here didn't pick up the last argument... That other guy really did post pretty well...

[Wind in the Willows]

Deleted.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I am against communism for many reasons

Dis gon b gud.

Firstly, because I have always been a moderate objectivist.

Aaaand there goes your credibility.

I agree that some regulations need to be put on buisnesses and we need taxes for some things but selfishness is a virtue and is what drives the economy and even the world.

Please, tell me more about how trying to benefit yourself at the expense of others is a good idea.

without capitalism what would be my motivation to work if I know Ill still get benifits?

Machines work. You do what you want to do.

are we all not entitled to the sweat of our own brow?

Yes. Marx agreed.

communism is in direct violation of our rights to property which is one of the most fundamental freedoms.

No. It does not violate your right to personal property, like socks and a TV. It violates your "right" to own the means of production privately, a right that you do not have.

It is also in direct violation of human nature which is to be selfish.

[citation needed]

being selfish is not bad it is good.

I'm going to guess that you're a) white and b) male. So am I, I just recognise the fact that I'm a beneficiary of white male privilege.

the store owner doesnt sell to you out of the goodness of his heart he offers you a fair price so you keep coming back.

That is not a good thing.

human nature is commerce, without it we cease to be who we are.

News just in: charity workers aren't really human. Great argument.

and the lack of personal choice is also a problem in a capitalist society you can choose your job and choose what you buy with the money you earned, in communism none of that happens.

There is far more freedom to choose your job in a communist society devoid of economic imperatives. You don't "earn" money, you get access to goods along with everyone else.

I was raised in a former USSR country and my parents were of the mid upper class

When you say "upper middle class", do you mean "business owner"?

and had all their wealth taken away

Unless they've directly got that from exploiting working people, that is wrong.

which is utterly unfair and is basically theft

Oh God, the irony of someone who supports capitalism and objectivism going on about unfairness and theft.

they also took our house and our neighbours's houses and built an appartment block where a bunch of houses used to be again taking personal property

Taking personal property is wrong. This is obvious. Luckily, you didn't live in a communist society, so none of this demonstrates how communism is bad.

[Riserland]

I am against communism for many reasons

Dis gon b gud.

Firstly, because I have always been a moderate objectivist.

Aaaand there goes your credibility.

I agree that some regulations need to be put on buisnesses and we need taxes for some things but selfishness is a virtue and is what drives the economy and even the world.

Please, tell me more about how trying to benefit yourself at the expense of others is a good idea.

without capitalism what would be my motivation to work if I know Ill still get benifits?

Machines work. You do what you want to do.

are we all not entitled to the sweat of our own brow?

Yes. Marx agreed.

communism is in direct violation of our rights to property which is one of the most fundamental freedoms.

No. It does not violate your right to personal property, like socks and a TV. It violates your "right"to own the means of production privately, a right that you do not have.

It is also in direct violation of human nature which is to be selfish.

[citation needed]

being selfish is not bad it is good.

I'm going to guess that you're a) white and b) male. So am I, I just recognise the fact that I'm a beneficiary of white male privilege.

the store owner doesnt sell to you out of the goodness of his heart he offers you a fair price so you keep coming back.

That is not a good thing.

human nature is commerce, without it we cease to be who we are.

News just in: charity workers aren't really human. Great argument.

and the lack of personal choice is also a problem in a capitalist society you can choose your job and choose what you buy with the money you earned, in communism none of that happens.

There is far more freedom to choose your job in a communist society devoid of economic imperatives. You don't "earn" money, you get access to goods along with everyone else.

I was raised in a former USSR country and my parents were of the mid upper class

When you say "upper middle class", do you mean "business owner"?

and had all their wealth taken away

Unless they've directly got that from exploiting working people, that is wrong.

which is utterly unfair and is basically theft

Oh God, the irony of someone who supports capitalism and objectivism going on about unfairness and theft.

they also took our house and our neighbours's houses and built an appartment block where a bunch of houses used to be again taking personal property

Taking personal property is wrong. This is obvious. Luckily, you didn't live in a communist society, so none of this demonstrates how communism is bad.

I bit condescending but still, I could not agree more!

What say you Kaesar?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I bit condescending

I respect his right to hold an opinion, not his opinion itself.

[Pragia]

Also bullshit. Please source this.

see the Genghis Khan effect, A male can most benefit his genes by securing a large group of females. Females can most benefit there genes by securing a large pool pf resources.

Source that our competitive "nature" is more influential than our desire, as pack animals, to co-operate.

see the culture of honor and Dunbar's number
once you exceed about ~150 people humans dont have any particular instinct too cooperate.

Source that competition fuels progress,

see the book guns, germs, and steel, competition is one of the ways of forcing technological growth. Also see evolution.

and source that competition and innovation can't happen in communism.

see Dunbar's number you need enforced common law t maintain the large populations necessary for specialization and advanced technology.

Yes, because I'm not a Social Darwinist who views disabled people as somehow inferior, or economic "productivity" as the most important facet of an individual.

yeah I agree, I don't know where he is coming from on that one

You don't do menial labour unless you actually want to. You "work" at what you enjoy doing.

so no menial labor gets done.
how many people do you think you will find who will volunteer to maintain sewers of shovel feces for no reward.

Just gonna throw that back up, just in case you decide you want to argue it.

[Bojikami]

Yes. Yes I am in favor of communism. Not batshit nuts Stalinism, but communism.

[Northern Molovsky]

i wanna know more about your vision of communism. I from a western perspective love it because it allows me to buy the things that i want a low low price. and communism states have a lower standard of living

Well firstly your post is pretty small and riddled with spelling and grammatical errors but hey, maybe English is not your fist language, maybe its just late where you live and a little bit inconvenient to type out a full response to my original post- I totally understand.

I am a westerner myself; born and raised in the United States but we differ because I absolutely hate it. Capitalism, since it's very beginnings in the mid to late 1700's has always required that one person rake in the profit while another slaves away with almost nothing to show for it..."BUT WAIT!" you say thinking about how comfy your life is here in the good 'ol U.S of A in the year 2013 "I'm not miserable, my stranded of living is pretty high!". To this I reply: Yes, while we are able to discuss this on our expensive computers there are people out there living off .12 cents a day and working 14 hour shifts. The ironic part is that they are in all likelihood the ones who made the computer or mobile device from which you made that post. It's not like they did anything to deserve such a miserable life style- they are merely born in the wrong place at the wrong time. We Marxists refer to these people as "proletariat" they are the working class of the world and people like me support them overthrowing the capitalists who have pretty much enslaved them. "Does that mean I'm at fault?" you say after briefly considering my last statements about the poor overthrowing their rich slave owners and to that I say "absolutely not" you are just like them: born into a set of conditions and have no hope of changing them (that is unless you want to give away everything you own or win the lottery).

As for your final statement; I already addressed the issues with "communist states" and unless you did not read my first post at all I'll just assume that you are saying that "What about life AFTER communism is achieved?" To that I say since we live in an age of growing inequality whilst technology continues to advance at a rapid rate it is only safe to assume that when humanity is ready to ascend from the depths of capitalism we will also be able to deal with scarcity once and for all (we could today if we wanted to for Christ sake!) In addition to this its not like you'll just become some mindless drone who works, sleeps, eats and dies- matter of fact you'll probably have more free time to pursuit your goals and be an overall happier person "BUT HOW?!?!" you exclaim again baffled to hear a statement that is the exact opposite of everything you've been told about communism. The answer is simple: communes and direct democracy. With the population disbursing from our dirty over-crowded cities into smaller self sufficient communities there will be less time and resources wasted trying to produce capital that only the capitalist can use to either continue to pay you for more production of capital or to buy corrupt politician who ensure the production of capital continues forever (I realize that is pretty vague and only alludes to some old Marxist economic theory that none of us have the time to read but I assure you if you were to read into this a little you might find some things very shocking). That's all for now- feel free to address these points while I see what some other folks have to say.

We're not living in mid 19th century england. Thats one of the inherent benefits of capitalism, it ensures that that the ensuing generation of people enjoy a higher standard of life.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

see the Genghis Khan effect, A male can most benefit his genes by securing a large group of females. Females can most benefit there genes by securing a large pool pf resources.

In which case why did monogamy come about? I don't see why the Genghis Khan Effect, which seems to be about him producing lots of descendants, is relevant to power.

see the culture of honor

Why don't you provide a source instead of sending me on a wild goose chase across the Internet to find the relevant bits?

and Dunbar's number
once you exceed about ~150 people humans dont have any particular instinct too cooperate.

Which is why communism is about communes, funnily enough. People living together in smallish groups.

see the book guns, germs, and steel, competition is one of the ways of forcing technological growth. Also see evolution.

Yeah, in retrospect that wasn't a good point.

see Dunbar's number you need enforced common law t maintain the large populations necessary for specialization and advanced technology.

Not really. Dunbar realised that the maximum number of people generally found in academic subspecialisations is about 150-200. I can't think of any scientific or technological project where you're going to need more than that number of people in the close-contact situations Dunbar stipulates that laws would be needed to govern.

so no menial labor gets done.

It does. By machines.

how many people do you think you will find who will volunteer to maintain sewers of shovel feces for no reward.

No-one. Which is why it should be mechanised.

[Sociobiology]

see the Genghis Khan effect, A male can most benefit his genes by securing a large group of females. Females can most benefit there genes by securing a large pool pf resources.

In which case why did monogamy come about?

because most men cannot defend/provide for a harem and the offspring, also humans are not monogamous, we are serial monogamous.

I don't see why the Genghis Khan Effect, which seems to be about him producing lots of descendants, is relevant to power.

then you don't understand anything about human behavior.
there are other effects to like the more resources you secure the more advantage you can pass on to your offspring, and the higher quality mate you can attract.

see the culture of honor

Why don't you provide a source instead of sending me on a wild goose chase across the Internet to find the relevant bits?

and Dunbar's number
once you exceed about ~150 people humans don't have any particular instinct too cooperate.

Which is why communism is about communes, funnily enough. People living together in smallish groups.
which means giving up most of technology, small groups can't train heart surgeons or build MRI machines, they are even less able to develop these technologies.
You can't dabble in heart surgery.

see the book guns, germs, and steel, competition is one of the ways of forcing technological growth. Also see evolution.

Yeah, in retrospect that wasn't a good point.

see Dunbar's number you need enforced common law t maintain the large populations necessary for specialization and advanced technology.

Not really. Dunbar realised that the maximum number of people generally found in academic subspecialisations is about 150-200.

that was what inspired his studies, which showed no social group exceeds that number. because thats the number of people our brain can handle, above it we HAVE to resort to stereotyping.

I can't think of any scientific or technological project where you're going to need more than that number of people in the close-contact situations Dunbar stipulates that laws would be needed to govern.

then you have no Idea how science works, how technology is produced, or what specialization is.
to build one MRI machine takes hundreds of thousands of people.
even building a car is way beyond the capabilities of a group of 200 people.
You CANT have a village of made of 200 doctors.

so no menial labor gets done.

It does. By machines.

produced by what? you only have two hundred people.
machines don't form out of the aether.

how many people do you think you will find who will volunteer to maintain sewers of shovel feces for no reward.

No-one. Which is why it should be mechanised.

again you have no way to produce these machines, and you can't mechanize every unpleasant job, we don't have the tech, even right now.

[Lemanrussland]

The whole "left-right" political spectrum is quite silly and antiquated, really. I wouldn't get too hung up on defining what "left wing" or "right wing" means, or which ideologies are left or right wing.

[Distruzio]

As a form of anarchism, yes. As a form of social and economic organization, no.

I'll side with another anarchist before I will a statist.