finally i found another conservative/pan-nationalist/meritocratic/conversationalist/traditionalist i can talk to

[quote=christsimpson;17700701]yeah idk why you don't love me. I don't even try to troll you anymore.



what evidence? it is authoritarian and Capitalist. how is this even up for debate?

so whatever philosophy you are not in favour of is a "pipe dream"? I can see now that I won't be answering your posts in the future. thanks for the heads up.

I take it that this also means that you mean Bolsheviks dictators when you speak of Communism, as opposed to actual Communism? kthnxbai.[/quote]
"I can't defend my argument with any evidence because I don't know what I'm talking about". That is what I'm getting from you right now. Explain why it is authoritarian.


Anarcho-socialism is a pipe dream because it ignores human nature. Humans have diffrent strengths and weaknesses, skills, abilities and traits. Some must lead, some must follow. To deny this is to deny reality. That is what anarchism is; a denial of reality.


Give me examples of "real communism" that has worked on a large scale to which a entire nation can apply itself to. Really.


You leftists are so afraid of different opinions.



[quote=Room13;17700711]finally i found another conservative/pan-nationalist/meritocratic/conversationalist/traditionalist i can talk to[/quote]
I'm here for you, pal.

[QUOTE=Mr. Ron;17700714]Give me examples of "real communism" that has worked on a large scale to which a entire nation can apply itself to. Really.[/QUOTE]
It hasn't been tried in a large scale yet, because we are not ready for that yet. You can't just jump from one historical stage to another automatically. You need to prepare society and prepare your community to bring about this change faster. You need to dissolve the current power/force whether its the brutal oppression of a corporation or a government. There are social boundaries that keep us apart such as race, class, and sex which cause one group of people to be higher than another group. First, you have to break down those barriers. "Real communism" was active and very successfully in Spain during the Civil War, yet was neglected by Stalinist forces and taken out with extreme brutality by Fascist forces. Yet, we still see many elements and examples of anarcho-communism (which is true communism since it seeks to reach Marx's goal) around the world whether it be the worker run factories/warehouses in Argentina and Bolivia or the autonomous community of the EZLN in Mexico.

[quote=flesh;17700720]It hasn't been tried in a large scale yet, because we are not ready for that yet. You can't just jump from one historical stage to another automatically. You need to prepare society and prepare your community to bring about this change faster. You need to dissolve the current power/force whether its the brutal oppression of a corporation or a government. There are social boundaries that keep us apart such as race, class, and sex which cause one group of people to be higher than another group. First, you have to break down those barriers. "Real communism" was active and very successfully in Spain during the Civil War, yet was neglected by Stalinist forces and taken out with extreme brutality by Fascist forces. Yet, we still see many elements and examples of anarcho-communism (which is true communism since it seeks to reach Marx's goal) around the world whether it be the worker run factories/warehouses in Argentina and Bolivia or the autonomous community of the EZLN in Mexico.[/quote]
Well is there a certain line in the sand where everyone will want to shout "Ok, lets totally abandon tried and true method of governance and tradition for a totally new system!"???

What leftism gets wrong is bringing change about "faster". We all see what happened when the French Revolution brought about change "faster". Countless people died, systems of government that worked were thrown out and replaced the next day by chaos. Change needs to occur slowly in most cases. Not that I think communism should be worked for in any respect, anyways.


Oh please, various elements of the Spanish military basically controlled Spain during that period of time. There were collectives, but the military had the real power. Which was good, mainly because Spain needed a relatively central power to mediate its affairs. Plus Germany had a lot of influence as well.


What you fail to realize is that social boundaries [U]need to exist.[/U] If you want a healthy, productive society, the ones that succeed need to be praised and held up as examples. If you want to pay ditch diggers and brain surgeons the same wage, your society will not even get off the ground. There needs to be people to do unskilled labor, and there needs to be lawyers, doctors, and business owners. Every great civilization has done this, and this is why they were so strong and pumped out so many great things. it is because they realized that no one is truly equal, not everyone can be a Beethoven or a Mark Twain.


The truth is, no one would want to live in an anarchistic/communistic world because there would be no incentive to do much. There would be too much government control. "Do whatever you want" is not a sign of a stable civilization. Anarchism isnt meant to fix any real problems, it is an emotional response.

[QUOTE=Room13;17700711]finally i found another conservative/pan-nationalist/meritocratic/conversationalist/traditionalist i can talk to[/QUOTE]

hahaha roooflz

Call me elitist if you will, but I think you're all a little far off in attempting to discuss politics in a 'punk community'. It leads to a specific type of closed-minded arguing, and often contains statements that lack any coherence or intelligence. I'm not attacking anyone specifically, or anyone in this conversation at all for that matter, but people in 'punk communities', in my experience, grab an idea that sounds pretty good to them and defend it to their death. People don't converse, they simply wait for their turn to speak.

That being said, and not having actually read the posts in this thread relating to what anyone is talking about, I just had a 2 hour long debate about communism myself, and it just doesn't work. It has the potential to work on a small scale, say a small grouping of people working in somewhat of a city state under the guise of some communist leadership. But on the scale of the Russia or any of the other failed attempts, it is simply implausible. Human nature opposes communism's hope in humanity.

[QUOTE=flesh;17700720]It hasn't been tried in a large scale yet, because we are not ready for that yet. You can't just jump from one historical stage to another automatically. You need to prepare society and prepare your community to bring about this change faster. You need to dissolve the current power/force whether its the brutal oppression of a corporation or a government. There are social boundaries that keep us apart such as race, class, and sex which cause one group of people to be higher than another group. First, you have to break down those barriers. "Real communism" was active and very successfully in Spain during the Civil War, yet was neglected by Stalinist forces and taken out with extreme brutality by Fascist forces. Yet, we still see many elements and examples of anarcho-communism (which is true communism since it seeks to reach Marx's goal) around the world whether it be the worker run factories/warehouses in Argentina and Bolivia or the autonomous community of the EZLN in Mexico.[/QUOTE]

It has been tried on a large scale. Surely the USSR had the intent of a communist system; but the system itself is far too easy to take advantage of and will crumble in the context of any large scale application. There will be people who place their own wants and needs ahead of the mass. Altruism and a social contract of this magnitude is simply idealistic and will never actually exist. Marx and Engels were rich white kids who had the opportunity to write about a utopia; it was pure idealism. "Wouldn't it be great if everyone could just get alone and work together?" : yes, but they won't and they won't.

The USSR was/still is way too corrupt for communism to ever work properly.

EDIT: better dead than red tbh.

[QUOTE=Room13;17700711]finally i found another conservative/pan-nationalist/meritocratic/conversationalist/traditionalist i can talk to[/QUOTE]

Haha

[QUOTE=RetiredAt21;17700780]The [B]human populous as a whole[/B] was/still is way too corrupt for communism to ever work properly.

EDIT: better dead than red tbh.[/QUOTE]

corrected.

I know that but I was talking specifically of the USSR, obv.

Word. It's just that people have this false idealization that communism could work in the right context. But there is no right context. People will always exhibit laziness. People will always try to cheat the system for their own good. People will always demonstrate basic human nature that has existed since humans have existed. People will always be people, and communism is the hope that people will act as they've never acted before in the whole of existence. Why would that happen?

I agree, it's very naive to think that communism could work anywhere.

[QUOTE=christsimpson;17700701]yeah idk why you don't love me. I don't even try to troll you anymore.[/QUOTE]

i don't like you because you are a festering pile of bullshit ignorance and half-assed philosophy without a shred of real thought to back up your stupidity.

I wouldn't call Marx and Engels "rich white kids" considering the immense study and analyzing they did through out their work. Whether you agree with their ideal goals or not, one must recognize the fact that they were highly intelligent individuals and made immense contributions to sociology and politics.

On a side note: the soviets betrayed their revolutionary communist/anarchist comrades starting with krondstadt(sp?) and nailing the coffin with the expulsion of Trotsky. Soviets called themselves communist but were nothing, but state capitalist. Marx and Stalin have barely anything in common concerning their ideas. Stalin cared nothing for ideology, but more for militarization. Marx despised that.

Socialism ftw.

I think it'd be pretty sweet to go to the Red Square and check out Lenin's body.

[QUOTE=flesh;17700915]I wouldn't call Marx and Engels "rich white kids" considering the immense study and analyzing they did through out their work. Whether you agree with their ideal goals or not, one must recognize the fact that they were highly intelligent individuals and made immense contributions to sociology and politics.

On a side note: the soviets betrayed their revolutionary communist/anarchist comrades starting with krondstadt(sp?) and nailing the coffin with the expulsion of Trotsky. Soviets called themselves communist but were nothing, but state capitalist.[/QUOTE]

Sure they were intelligent. It was an intellectual utopia, but a lot of times the intelligent people overlook the mass. Communism might work in a selected group of people exactly like Marx and Engels, but honestly, just get real. Communism is the equivalent of some underground iffy emo band that released a demo. You can tell me how cool it is via messageboard in theory that these guys combined so many cool things and ideas, but in reality it's lame and impractical .


and as a comment to your edit: The USSR was proof that people thought communism was a good idea, and they wanted to practice it. But it got ****ed up. And it will consistently get ****ed up and Marx would probably not agree with any practiced form of communism because it can't be practiced in the way that Marx wished it be! Ever!

One question I think is overlooked is why should we have large nations instead of smaller more confined communes as the basis of governance?

[QUOTE=whiteminority;17700939]One question I think is overlooked is why should we have large nations instead of smaller more confined communes as the basis of governance?[/QUOTE]

Because, realistically, this wouldn't occur. And if small communes were to pop up, they would simply be overrun militarily by the larger nations. Unless all of the world were to dissipate into small communes at the exact same moment, that's unrealistic to wish for just as much.

The end goal of communism is not a large nation. It is no nation. But first a large nation must take the stance of communism and imperialistically dominate the rest of the world. Once everyone is communist it can break up into smaller communes. That's unrealistic as well.

Some Middle East countries have tribes and stuff that are sort of autonomous.

I'm speaking in terms of hypothetical idealogies not realistic outcomes.

[quote=whiteminority;17700939]One question I think is overlooked is why should we have large nations instead of smaller more confined communes as the basis of governance?[/quote]
because there are large areas of races and ethnicities that have a common identity with each other. It is best to have them together in a self-determined nation. I hope I don't have to point you towards the absolute mess that the Italian and German city-states were before unification....

[QUOTE=whiteminority;17700948]I'm speaking in terms of hypothetical idealogies not realistic outcomes.[/QUOTE]

this

[quote=whiteminority;17700923]Socialism ftw.[/quote]
You keep saying this, I'm curious on what grounds you support it? Realistically, not in some high-flung, dream land way.

[QUOTE=cbmartinez;17700548]libertarianism has its merits, but also an equal or greater amount of shortcomings or paradoxes where it simply will not work. ron paul is a ****ing idiot though[/QUOTE]
back up your arguments you stupid ****

then you wont have these problems where you embarrass yourself and have to ignore everyone who proves you wrong

[QUOTE=iamrockzorz;17700678]The libertarian party is retarded. Libertarianism is alright though. Ron paul is stupid. But he still went to my high school[/QUOTE]

heils

although ron paul kinda turns me on with the ridiculous **** he says

I don't really like socialism or liberalism too much. Why do people deserve to be helped? I like the idea of free market capitalism tied to the absence of a structured government. Libertarian socialism is the applicable practice of anarchy. People deserve about as much as they can rightfully attain within the boundaries of a non-oppressive social contract.

Can people outline, specifically, what makes Ron Paul crazy?

He's religious and republican.


You have to wonder where the american party system allowed the masses to become so stupid. And how did a party take John Stuart Mill and turn it into the "libertarian party".

Pathetic.