The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Rojava Free State]

Rojava is a current example of an anarchist society as is Oaxaca and Barbacha. Anarchists don't believe in having zero government. They are against a United nation state and class based society and want a more equal and Democratic small scale society, akin to the villages that existed back at the beginning of the agricultural revolution

I don't know if anarchism can work in a world packed full of nation states but in a world without many or any states, it might be viable. After all, most of human history was full of anarchist societies from early tribes to villages and towns. Anarchism really ended with the birth of the first civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt

I contend that its still very viable and pops up at points such as the free territory and rojava.... Is it idealistic and unlikely to occur in our modern world? Sure as hell but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it

We need to limit the scope of big government in people's lives. It's gotten to a point that we're losing control of our own federal system

[Grand Proudhonia]

I contend that its still very viable and pops up at points such as the free territory and rojava.... Is it idealistic and unlikely to occur in our modern world? Sure as hell but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it

We need to limit the scope of big government in people's lives. It's gotten to a point that we're losing control of our own federal system

Yep, corporatism is a lie.... The political elite are the problem... *insert more soundbites here*

But yes, the american republic and other republics for that matter are no longer even "republics"

[ArenaC]

as a centrist who waddles on either side of the spectrum i do not approve of communism

[Grand Proudhonia]

Alright guys, hear me out... Concentration camps but only for centrists

/joke, dont ban pls

[Nakena]

Failure to prevent foreign conquerors from taking over is absolutely a failure of the system. The side difference is irrelevant regarding Ukraine, as the conquest in no way required the entire power of the red army.

Conquest is not a failure of a political ideal.... Its just not, If that was the case than almost every ideology on earth that seeks something different from the status quo is failed in one way or another

I find the Free Terretory to be an rather fascinating polity.

[Sachsen-Osterreich]

Communism Delenda est

[South Odreria 2]

of course this got 500 replies.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

of course this got 500 replies.

Anything related to communism will spark massive controversy, even decades after the Cold War ended and McCarthy died.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

of course this got 500 replies.

Anything related to communism will spark massive controversy, even decades after the Cold War ended and McCarthy died.

That is partially because there are actual reasons to oppose communism, or at the very least, be very skeptical of it.

[Ifreann]

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

Its completely relevant because something ceases to be voluntary only if it is 'under duress'. And the very concept of 'duress' requires a certain threatened injury on your person.

No it doesn't.

---

Got me how? You're just pointing out something true that was never in dispute.


I manage.

...what?

You sound blackpilled af tbqh.

Nope.

Marxism adds an huge chunk on whatever other reasons and factors there may be in the room.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are rambling nonsensically.

---

What's voluntary about it when the alternative is death?

Lots of people work when they don't need to. Lots of people work for no monetary reward.

1. You value your life more than your labor. Therefore, you exchange your labor in return for your life.

You value your life more than your wallet, therefore you hand over your wallet to a thief. A voluntary exchange?

Also, the alternative is to grow your own food, not necessarily to die.

I'll just buy seeds and land with the money I don't have from not working.

2. Because they already have enough money from the jobs, from which they earn money, that they have worked in order to survive. If they didn't have enough money in order to survive, then volunteering would be their lowest priority, and feeding themselves would be their highest.

So like I said, people work when they don't need to.

---

I've still yet to see a valid reason for how a failed ideology pushed by the bitter and envious will save the world.

It’s all built upon a hateful psychological concept, which, no wonder is the reason why most communist leaders have been brutal dictators who didn’t care about anyone at all.

Communism is basically this:
My neighbor has a better car than I do
I do not like my neighbor has a better car than me
Instead of me making poor choices, it’s the system that’s against me

That's not communism. Communism is a stateless, classlesss, moneyless society, in which the workers own the means of production, which operates according to the principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

---

"B-b-but it's not fair!"

https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-17.htm

Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25.

[Nakena]

*snip*

No I make perfect sense.

[Ifreann]

*snip*

No I make perfect sense and you sound blackpilled af. Thats the impression I am getting.

I don't know why you think this. I assume you're just shitposting.

[Purgatio]

Its completely relevant because something ceases to be voluntary only if it is 'under duress'. And the very concept of 'duress' requires a certain threatened injury on your person.

No it doesn't.

"I'll take away your house unless you agree to sign this contract". Duress.

"I'm offering you this house if you are willing to pay this amount of money". Not duress.

In both cases, refusing to sign the contract carries the consequence that you don't have the house in question. But in the former, you are being actively deprived of a house that is yours through a threatened injury to property, hence it is duress. In the latter, the house is what is itself on offer to you, its not duress for the person to set terms for when he will part with his consideration, so yes these two scenarios are morally-distinct no matter how many times you say 'no it doesn't as a substitute for an actual argument.

[Grand Proudhonia]

No I make perfect sense and you sound blackpilled af. Thats the impression I am getting.

I don't know why you think this. I assume you're just shitposting.

I mean, anyone who uses Third Posititionist as a title is likely doing so

[Nakena]

No I make perfect sense and you sound blackpilled af. Thats the impression I am getting.

I don't know why you think this. I assume you're just shitposting.

I am merely confronting you with the fact that your whole argument was based on "oh look, Jeff Bezos is really, really rich and that is so unfair!" which isnt even for marxist or bolshevist standards a good argument to begin with.

[Plebciclastan]

Its completely relevant because something ceases to be voluntary only if it is 'under duress'. And the very concept of 'duress' requires a certain threatened injury on your person.

No it doesn't.

---

You sound blackpilled af tbqh.

Nope.

Marxism adds an huge chunk on whatever other reasons and factors there may be in the room.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are rambling nonsensically.

---

1. You value your life more than your labor. Therefore, you exchange your labor in return for your life.

You value your life more than your wallet, therefore you hand over your wallet to a thief. A voluntary exchange?

Also, the alternative is to grow your own food, not necessarily to die.

I'll just buy seeds and land with the money I don't have from not working.

2. Because they already have enough money from the jobs, from which they earn money, that they have worked in order to survive. If they didn't have enough money in order to survive, then volunteering would be their lowest priority, and feeding themselves would be their highest.

So like I said, people work when they don't need to.

---

It’s all built upon a hateful psychological concept, which, no wonder is the reason why most communist leaders have been brutal dictators who didn’t care about anyone at all.

Communism is basically this:
My neighbor has a better car than I do
I do not like my neighbor has a better car than me
Instead of me making poor choices, it’s the system that’s against me

That's not communism. Communism is a stateless, classlesss, moneyless society, in which the workers own the means of production, which operates according to the principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

---

https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-17.htm

Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25.

How would you determine a person's ability? Are you just going to measure how much they produce and then divide it up? What if my ability is significantly more than my what I am willingly producing, to the gulag?

Also, are we only going to be supplied with what we need? Needs are very minimal to keep a human alive.

Who gets to determine the needs and ability of individuals, the worth of produced items? Is it the government? If it is the government will that not take massive bureaucracies?

There are just a ton of non-trivial issues that communism would need to address. I have read some on communism ideals, and I have never seen most of the these questions answered in what I would consider a realistic way.

[Ifreann]

No it doesn't.

"I'll take away your house unless you agree to sign this contract". Duress.

"I'm offering you this house if you are willing to pay this amount of money". Not duress.

In both cases, refusing to sign the contract carries the consequence that you don't have the house in question. But in the former, you are being actively deprived of a house that is yours through a threatened injury to property, hence it is duress. In the latter, the house is what is itself on offer to you, its not duress for the person to set terms for when he will part with his consideration, so yes these two scenarios are morally-distinct no matter how many times you say 'no it doesn't as a substitute for an actual argument.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Duress.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Not duress.

---

I don't know why you think this. I assume you're just shitposting.

I am merely confronting you with the fact that your whole argument was based on "oh look, Jeff Bezos is really, really rich and that is so unfair!"

That is a thing I believe is true, but it isn't really the basis of my argument.

[Purgatio]

"I'll take away your house unless you agree to sign this contract". Duress.

"I'm offering you this house if you are willing to pay this amount of money". Not duress.

In both cases, refusing to sign the contract carries the consequence that you don't have the house in question. But in the former, you are being actively deprived of a house that is yours through a threatened injury to property, hence it is duress. In the latter, the house is what is itself on offer to you, its not duress for the person to set terms for when he will part with his consideration, so yes these two scenarios are morally-distinct no matter how many times you say 'no it doesn't as a substitute for an actual argument.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Duress.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Not duress.

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Because we did have a sizeable discussion on the role of a military within an anarchist society, this is Mahknos basic proposition

"Thus, given the requirements of military strategy and the strategy of the counter-revolution, the armed forces of the revolution will inevitably have to amalgamate into a common revolutionary army with a common command and a common operational plan.

That army will be founded on the following basic principles:

the class nature of the army

voluntary military service (all coercion is excluded in the matter of the defence of the revolution);

revolutionary self-discipline (voluntary military service and revolutionary self-discipline are mutually complementary in every way, and serve to make the revolutionary army psychologically stronger than any state army);

total subordination of the revolutionary army to the worker and peasant masses as represented by the general worker and peasant bodies throughout the land, which will be created by the masses at the moment of revolution and given the task of overseeing the country’s economic and social life.

In other words, the organ for the defence of the revolution, which is charged with combating the counter-revolution both on the open military fronts as well as on the covert fronts of the civil war (plots by the bourgeoisie, the preparation of rebellions, etc.), will be under the complete control of the highest workers' and peasants' productive organizations - it will be answerable to them and under their political direction."

[Nova Cyberia]

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Duress.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Not duress.

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

It's almost as if Marxist """""morality""""" is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Ifreann]

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Duress.

"You'll die if you don't do this. Are you going to do it?" Not duress.

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

---

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

It's almost as if Marxist """""morality""""" is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not talking about morality here at all. I'm asking if people selling their labour are really making a voluntary exchange when they need to do that to survive.

Wild that I can explicitly state that I'm not talking about whether it is morally equivalent to harm person and to allow them to come to harm and you two both fail to understand that.

[Nova Cyberia]

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

---

It's almost as if Marxist """""morality""""" is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not talking about morality here at all. I'm asking if people selling their labour are really making a voluntary exchange when they need to do that to survive.

Wild that I can explicitly state that I'm not talking about whether it is morally equivalent to harm person and to allow them to come to harm and you two both fail to understand that.

What's your opinion of communism?

[Nakena]

I am merely confronting you with the fact that your whole argument was based on "oh look, Jeff Bezos is really, really rich and that is so unfair!"

That is a thing I believe is true, but it isn't really the basis of my argument.

If you could have a little cut of his richness, would you take it. Even knowing that it has been done through other people work? Could you resist such temptation?

[Ifreann]

---

I'm not talking about morality here at all. I'm asking if people selling their labour are really making a voluntary exchange when they need to do that to survive.

Wild that I can explicitly state that I'm not talking about whether it is morally equivalent to harm person and to allow them to come to harm and you two both fail to understand that.

What's your opinion of communism?

I think Communism's a pretty cool guy. Eh talks to dolphins and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Ifreann]

That is a thing I believe is true, but it isn't really the basis of my argument.

If you could have a little cut of his richness, would you take it. Even knowing that it has been done through other people work? Could you resist such temptation?

I don't know, it'd depend on a lot of things. What does this have to do with anything?