Capitalism is depressing

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.RushKing

So money is not useless because the vouchers would be money

Would you rather live in a communist country?

Would you rather live in a communist country?

dissonantblack

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Move to North Korea then. I can't think of any socialist/communist-esque regimes left besides the good old DPRK....they've all either collapsed or reformed to capitalism.

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?Abbeten

RushKing doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about. Don't bother.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

POKE777GM

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of things being socialized like my roads, libraries, medicine and tertiary education. I just dislike middle classed college kids who pick up the Communist Manifesto or the works of Lenin and become communist because they think it is nothing but sunshine, lollipops, rainbows or "peace, land, bread!"

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

RushKing

And give me any large-scale communist revolution that wasn't led by a party that established itself among the people as dictators of the proletariat. Marx and Engels also stated that a dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary before the progression into a communistic state.

Don't give me the hypothetical or what-ifs.

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime

And give me any large-scale communist revolution that wasn't led by a party that established itself among the people as dictators of the proletariat.

Don't give me the hypothetical or what-ifs.

And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.Vesica_Prime

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

Aka mobs.

Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.RushKing

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Vesica_Prime

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Vesica_Prime

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others?

You're so naive.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Rhazakna

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

You know what a Soviet is right and the history of the Soviets?

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.RushKing

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others?

You're so naive.

Aka mob rule.

As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Rhazakna

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

Vesica_Prime

You know what a Soviet is right and the history of the Soviets?

Yeah, I do. Probably more than you if you're using that to criticize any school of anarchism.Rhazakna

I'm not criticizing anarchy through that, I'm criticising his thought patterns of using workers' councils in the belief that it will lead to anarcho-communism whilst they aided Lenin in 1917.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Vesica_Prime

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Yeah, I do. Probably more than you if you're using that to criticize any school of anarchism.Vesica_Prime

I'm not criticizing anarchy through that, I'm criticising his thought patterns of using workers' councils in the belief that it will lead to anarcho-communism whilst they aided Lenin in 1917.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Rhazakna

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

Vesica_Prime

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

Vesica_Prime

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Rhazakna

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Vesica_Prime

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Rhazakna

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

Poor choice of words, I meant a society or body. Too used to associating politics with states.

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

Storm_Marine

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

We lost true capitalism a long time ago now we have corperate bailouts and money printing. The fed is now buying toxic debt effectively moveing it to us instead of the banks yea. The fed killed the free market and capitalism.

You end up taking orders from your parents and from whoever you work for no matter what economic system you live under lmao. GamerForca

Unless it's fascism. You can report that their parents are rebels and they'd be whisked away in a heartbeat.

Capitalism isn't depressing. You'll take orders from anyone in any economic system as well as the government. That's how it's been since the dawn of time.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

famicommander

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.