Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Aspie Communists Unite

Page 9 of 15 [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

07 Mar 2013, 8:30 pm

Most people think it is impossible to be a Communist and a Christian.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Mar 2013, 8:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:

It is a bit out of date, isn't it. Just like Communism is. An obsolete piece of 19th century thinking.

ruveyn


Capitalism is older, so you kindof shot yourself in the foot there, huh?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

08 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm

I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Mar 2013, 2:14 pm

thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

It is a bit out of date, isn't it. Just like Communism is. An obsolete piece of 19th century thinking.

ruveyn


Capitalism is older, so you kindof shot yourself in the foot there, huh?


Sometimes old is good. Capitalism works (sort of). Communism fails (each and every time).

Besides Capitalism has evolved into a kind of non-Marxist welfare state with regulation and redistribution to keep the lid from blowing off. Communism has not evolved. It is a dead end.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

08 Mar 2013, 4:30 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

08 Mar 2013, 4:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

It is a bit out of date, isn't it. Just like Communism is. An obsolete piece of 19th century thinking.

ruveyn


Capitalism is older, so you kindof shot yourself in the foot there, huh?


Sometimes old is good. Capitalism works (sort of). Communism fails (each and every time).

Besides Capitalism has evolved into a kind of non-Marxist welfare state with regulation and redistribution to keep the lid from blowing off. Communism has not evolved. It is a dead end.

ruveyn


if we're going to extend your logic that an ideology is worse because its older, then the obvious conclusion is that capitalism has overstayed its use.

capitalism works, okay. Thats not the issue. Its who is works for is the question. Its obviously not for them

|
V

[img][800:612]http://www.redflagmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Child-Labor-1.jpg[/img]


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Mar 2013, 4:40 pm

[quote="thomas81"

if we're going to extend your logic that an ideology is worse because its older, then the obvious conclusion is that capitalism has overstayed its use.[/quote]

No. It has evolved and it is the leading economic form in the world of industrialized and technology based nations. Even "Red" China has moved toward being capitalistic in the modern sense. The only country in the world that still practices Good Old Communism is North Korea which is a basket case.

An economy based on mostly free markets is the only kind of economy that can prosper in an age of technology and industry. The main change has been regulation and a degree of redistribution to prevent the inequalities inherent in capitalism from self destructing the state. Actually the first step in the direction was taken by Bismark back in the 19th century. He introduced free schools for everyone and social security. It was not some Marxist, but a Prussian Imperialist who realized that the best thing for his country was happy un-revolutionary workers.

ruveyn



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

08 Mar 2013, 4:44 pm

RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

08 Mar 2013, 4:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?


under anarcho capitalism the rich get rich and fatter, the meek are left to starve.

Theres no difference to the end game compared to fascism.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

08 Mar 2013, 5:09 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?


under anarcho capitalism the rich get rich and fatter, the meek are left to starve.

Theres no difference to the end game compared to fascism.


That doesn't answer the question. If there are voluntary associations then they would exist at the same time so "the meek" would be left to starve under anarcho communism too.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Mar 2013, 5:25 pm

Jacoby wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?


Anarcho-capitalism needs the threat of force to protect the "property rights" of the minority elite who inevitably obtain more and more power at the expense of everyone else. Anarcho-capitalism could only work in a world where human beings do not require basic things like food and shelter to exist. No system can exist free of struggle because there will always be different groups all wanting access to various limited resources. When groups are effectively shut out through lack of access you can expect conflict to begin. The "principle of non-aggression" becomes poppycock when survival is on the line.

Anarcho-communism will never work because too many people are too selfish to care about the common good without being forced to. Anarcho-capitalism is more realistic but the claim that it would be peaceful and prosperous instead of a grim brutish Mad Max world with crushing poverty, high crime, and violence, is delusional.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

08 Mar 2013, 5:31 pm

the anarcho capitalist solution to crime would be not to enforce any laws. How could you anyway, without a state or legal system?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

08 Mar 2013, 6:00 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?


Anarcho-capitalism needs the threat of force to protect the "property rights" of the minority elite who inevitably obtain more and more power at the expense of everyone else. Anarcho-capitalism could only work in a world where human beings do not require basic things like food and shelter to exist. No system can exist free of struggle because there will always be different groups all wanting access to various limited resources. When groups are effectively shut out through lack of access you can expect conflict to begin. The "principle of non-aggression" becomes poppycock when survival is on the line.

Anarcho-communism will never work because too many people are too selfish to care about the common good without being forced to. Anarcho-capitalism is more realistic but the claim that it would be peaceful and prosperous instead of a grim brutish Mad Max world with crushing poverty, high crime, and violence, is delusional.


I don't consider defending ones self or their property to be a "threat of force", I'm not sure what you imply by the phrasing. Wouldn't a communist collective(essentially a tribe) have to defend what is theirs as well?

I actually agree that neither are particularly realistic or desirable for the world today. Society has evolved beyond communal/tribal living, the fact we don't still live in caves now completely debunks that way of life. It can exist but only for subsistence reasons, a family unit I guess could be describe as one too. A anarcho-capitalist society could exist but the desirably of one would vary widely.

WKUK did a funny sketch on anarchism

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs[/youtube]



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

08 Mar 2013, 6:42 pm

Jacoby wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I find the far lefts fascination with 'direct democracy' to be pretty funny, how is being ruled by the mob any better than being ruled by a king, dictator, president, legislature, etc? How about you rule your own life and leave me out of it.

You are free to rule your own life in anarcho-communism, free association and participatory democracy =/= mob rule. You are stereotyping anarchism as chaos.


What is the difference between this and anarcho-capitalism then? Is merely who one chooses to associate with? Do they accept the principle of non-aggression?

Capitalists don't believe in non-agression. Private property is ultimately a result of violence. Capitalism requires compulsory monopolies of violence to exist, this is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

08 Mar 2013, 6:51 pm

marshall wrote:
Anarcho-communism will never work because too many people are too selfish to care about the common good without being forced to. Anarcho-capitalism is more realistic but the claim that it would be peaceful and prosperous instead of a grim brutish Mad Max world with crushing poverty, high crime, and violence, is delusional.

Anarcho-capitalism, more realistic? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Capitalism and statism are inseparable. The two go hand in hand.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWZGyRW5rw[/youtube]



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

08 Mar 2013, 7:04 pm

Jacoby wrote:
WKUK did a funny sketch on anarchism

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs[/youtube]


Anarchist Law