Navarro
Well-known member
That would be the First Law.Which is impossible, given the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
That would be the First Law.Which is impossible, given the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
My physics and cosmology is rudimentary, as you can see. Thank you for the correction.That would be the First Law.
Well, the stereotypical bargain with the Devil involves giving up everything by making an agreement with somebody evil who promises you something good but is ultimately just using you. That describes socialism pretty well in practice.So...pacts with the devil are an option then?
What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.What are you going to do when they refuse to give up their faith? Confiscating their children so you can brainwash them in Glorious Atheism? Throwing them forcibly into mental institutions for "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia"? Or will you "re-educate" them? Maybe you'll concentrate them in camps?
If you expect me to defend anything the Soviets did from the instant they started their revolution onward you are barking up the wrong tree. Russia is was and always has been fucked. The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.We know what socialists have done in the past:
Your ideology can't even calculate basic resource distribution, since you have no market.
See above.No market, no prices,
and your central planners are stuck groping in the dark while the economy collapses around them.
Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.It has never solved any problems except perhaps "how to justify tyranny, mass killing and robbery".
so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.You want to murder and rob everybody who has more money than you do, because you feel slighted that they do. That's a fucking caveman attitude, and you add on top to it an overbearing intellectual pride that imagines yourself as the Grand Coordinator controlling every aspect of our lives because you just know better than us, you grand intellect that imagines an ancient Greek famous for advancing a hypothesis he couldn't prove was the start of "the Left", that there is some providential force in history that guides you to your inevitable victory.
As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned. As previously stated the "seizure" of property is pro-forma. As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing. With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.What will you do when the factory bosses refuse to hand over their life's work and investment to "the people"? When the suburbanites refuse to let their houses be subdivided into apartments for "the workers"? When the farmers who own their own tractors and barns and acres of land refuse to give up their "private property" to the "collective" (meaning the State, meaning the Politburo). We know what that is - we've seen it in Russia, in China, in Cambodia.
I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything. As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme. The entire purpose of the market syndicalist agenda is to decentralize the leavers of power and thus limit the damage a self-deluded great man and his delusional followers might do. And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.And yes, you'll find "counter-revolutionaries" once you're in charge, plenty of them. Or if the Great Leader isn't you, you'll find yourself designated as one of them after running foul of him.
You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society? Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full. I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull. You have a narrative you must hold onto. I get it. You have no interest in trying to analyze and critique what is being said. I get it. You love holding onto your strawmen so you can burn them down. I get that as well.Yes, you'll kill a few million people in "self defence" against "reactionaries, kulaks and saboteurs". Then you'll kill a few million more, and then another few million, for as long as your system lasts. Then when it collapses your ideological descendants will say "DirtbagLeftopia wasn't real socialism!".
An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.". In short to hold a qualified opinion one must know both sides and be able to present both sides.As I've said before, your definition of socialism is a fantasy. The commonplace definition of socialism is that in which it manifests in the real world. Your personal definition is irrelevant, because it can't exist as an actuality in the world.
Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people. If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill? Granting for a single moment that any of what you said is true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.Your "socialism" is a fantasyland designed to lure in idealistic dupes. When we talk about socialism, we talk about socialism as it manifests in the real world. Famines. Genocides. Totalitarian surveillance states. Gulags. Death camps. An economy so centrally mismanaged that the 3% of farms allowed to run by non-socialist principles bring in 25% of the nation's food.
At this point it is getting old repeating myself. So this time do pay attention. If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me. We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them. This is why we know that those countries and hundreds of others some still around some long gone were not Republics. This is how we know that these countries are not democratic.In Russia small farmers who happened to own brick houses and animals had their "private property" - i.e. the means of their livelihood - expropriated to useless collective farms and were viciously massacred by the millions - in "self-defence" against "dangerous reactionaries", no less.
Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.They were socialists. They said they were building socialism. "Libertarian socialism", to be precise. These are Lenin's literal own words here:
Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.Note especially the references to "the people as a whole", "the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday", "the people", "the whole of the population", "the mass of population", "the majority itself", "the workers", etc.
wrong! I watched the whole thing. All tedious four hours of it. The fact that you think price and wage controls (a planned economy) is somehow a unique feature of socialism and does not exist within Capitalism or other systems shows your level of ignorance. Again planned economies (which I oppose) can be a feature of any system just as any system can lack it as a feature.). You are in desperate need of an introduction to politic science course. There are many online for free. Perhaps you should look into them.You should have watched it far longer. You would have learned about the Nazi price controls, wage controls, attempts at collectivisation of agriculture, State take-over of industries, etc. But that isn't "socialism" to you. Because "socialism" is your eschatonic fantasyland where the oceans are lemonade and the sky rains free food and no-one ever has to work unless they want to. Your con is pretty old, you know?
Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote! The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote! And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism. And yes. Christianity was responsible for the evil's of anti-christian USSR. Do you know anything about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church or it's role in reinforcing the rule of brutal Tzars and Tzarinas? Are you aware of how Rasputin contributed to the unrest in Russia? Are you aware of Konstantin Pobedonotsev and the brutality which he advocated for against the peasants? Nothing can justify the actions of the USSR. Nothing. It was autocratic, despotic, authoritarian and disgusting. The abuses of the Russian Orthodox Church were returned to it. Does this mean it was right? Absolutely not. It wasn't. Was Christianity responsible for the anti-Christianity of the USSR. Learn your fucking history. You bet your ass it was.Ah, so obsessed with your supposed intellectual supremacy. So much of a big brain you think that Aristarchus was anything more than a footnote in history, and that Christianity was responsible for the evils of the anti-Christian USSR.
Instead of repeating everything I have already said allow me to just sum up the above with this. Your speaking out your ass again.How many millions - or billions - have to die in pursuit of Never-Neverland before you lot give up? And no, you don't learn. Your socialist utopias always fail in the same way - in dictatorship, in starvation, in mass deaths. It always begins with promises of freedom and prosperity, and always ends with a Great Leader ordering mass executions, living in a gilded mansion while the starving poor suffer and die.
Check your numbers buster. I have.There are an infinitely higher number of prosperous, peaceful democratic states than there are of socialist states meeting those criteria.
And there were and are capitalist gulags. It's a good thing I oppose gulags. I am going to tell you what the most pathetic part is. The most pathetic part is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are as bad as someone who rails against the bible and yet has never red a page and thinks that they are somehow qualified to give an opinion because they have heard third hand what others have to say. At least if I am going to criticize something I go to the source before I start doing so.And the same things keep happening. Great Leaders keep rising up. The people keep starving. State-controlled industries stagnate, then collapse. There are gulags. There are secret police. Lots of people die. And then when the sorry mess is over, and what was previously touted as the new Great Socialist Experiment is indefensible, socialists like you say it wasn't real socialism.
Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes. Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible. It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system. And again. Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.You never learn. When socialism fails, it's never Real Socialism, because Real Socialism cannot exist in the real world - the world populated by fallible, corrupt humans, where resources are finite and where the central planners will never have access to the information they need to steer the economy.
I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.Well, the stereotypical bargain with the Devil involves giving up everything by making an agreement with somebody evil who promises you something good but is ultimately just using you. That describes socialism pretty well in practice.
Socialism also appeals to some of the worst aspects of human nature - envy and pride.
How is the Devil the good guy in the Bible? He’s barely even in it. The only personality that the Devil shows in the Bible is when he destroys the life of an innocent man, Job. Are you imagining the Devil as some kind of rebellious anti-hero? That’s not the Bible, maybe you’re thinking of Paradise Lost or Demon: the Fallen.I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.
Sure. Something to consider are the three schools of Bolsheviki thought namely that of Lenin and Trotsky and then the school of Stalin. Trotsky though extremely bloody minded in his approach advocated for an immediate bottom up approach in a Federated form of socialism. Stalin on the other hand both bloody minded and paranoid advocated for a isolationist form of socialism from the top down. Lenin was somewhere between the two and while less bloody minded and less insane than both Trotsky and Stalin (that is not to say he was not bloody minded or insane only less so). For Trotsky's view see "The revolution Betrayed" and The Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern.@DirtbagLeft, if possible I'd like to see your actual quotes as well as the dates those men said that their countries were not socialist. First to quell the perception that people say they're making socialism, and then that it wasn't true socialism afterwards when it didn't work, and to help people see that it's not some out-of-context editing simply because it flies in the face of "common knowledge," which can sometimes be wrong.
I think we can all agree no such program was put in placeThe more direct influence of the working masses on state structure and administration—i.e., a higher form of democracy—is also effected under the Soviet type of state, first, by the electoral procedure and the possibility of holding elections more frequently, and also by conditions for re-election and for the recall of deputies which are simpler and more comprehensible to the urban and rural workers than is the case under the best forms of bourgeois democracy;
For the view current of the structure of the Soviet Republic at the time of its writing see Trotskism.In Russia today the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat are to carry through to the end, to complete, the expropriation of the landowners and bourgeoisie that has already begun, and the transfer of all factories, railways, banks, the merchant fleet and other means of production and exchange to ownership by the Soviet Republic;
again I think we can all agree that the Soviets failed to live up to this.secondly, by making the economic, industrial unit (factory) and not a territorial division the primary electoral unit and the nucleus of the state structure under Soviet power. This closer contact between the state apparatus and the masses of advanced proletarians that capitalism has united, in addition to effecting a higher level of democracy, also makes it possible to effect profound socialist reforms.
From "Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" by Lenin. Unambiguously Lenin is saying that Socialist Soviet Republic refers to the intent to achieve but not the actual achievement of socialism, ie the ownership of the means of production by the workers.No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order.
No no, nothing to consider, no changing the subject to programs. Show me the quotes and when they were said by the leaders of major socialist countries in which they stated their nations were not socialist.Sure. Something to consider are the three schools of Bolsheviki thought namely that of Lenin and Trotsky and then the school of Stalin. Trotsky though extremely bloody minded in his approach advocated for an immediate bottom up approach in a Federated form of socialism. Stalin on the other hand both bloody minded and paranoid advocated for a isolationist form of socialism from the top down. Lenin was somewhere between the two and while less bloody minded and less insane than both Trotsky and Stalin (that is not to say he was not bloody minded or insane only less so). For Trotsky's view see "The revolution Betrayed" and The Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern.
I refer those interested to Draft Programme RCP Draft Programme of the R.C.P.(B.) Which outlines the 1919 end goals of the USSR.
I think we can all agree no such program was put in place
For the view current of the structure of the Soviet Republic at the time of its writing see Trotskism.
again I think we can all agree that the Soviets failed to live up to this.
What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.
Russia is was and always has been fucked.
The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.
I'm sorry you were saying?Market socialism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Socialism is not synonymous with planned economy. Socialism may exist with a planned or unplanned economy. Though I tend towards the belief that planned economies are always a disaster. Just like not all planned economies are socialist economies. If you conflate terms which have distinct meaning you will continue to make yourself look stupid (ie willfully ignorant).Planned economy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.
so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.
As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned.
As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing.
With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.
I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything.
As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme.
And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.
You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society?
Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full.
I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull.
An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.".
Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people.
If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me.
We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them.
Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course.
This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.
Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.
Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote!
The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote!
And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism.
Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. he peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.
Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history.
Read Novus Organum.
Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.
Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes.
Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible.
It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system.
Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.
I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.
What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.
If you expect me to defend anything the Soviets did from the instant they started their revolution onward you are barking up the wrong tree. Russia is was and always has been fucked. The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.
I'm sorry you were saying?Market socialism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
See above.
Socialism is not synonymous with planned economy. Socialism may exist with a planned or unplanned economy. Though I tend towards the belief that planned economies are always a disaster. Just like not all planned economies are socialist economies. If you conflate terms which have distinct meaning you will continue to make yourself look stupid (ie willfully ignorant).Planned economy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.
so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.
As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned. As previously stated the "seizure" of property is pro-forma. As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing. With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.
I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything. As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme. The entire purpose of the market syndicalist agenda is to decentralize the leavers of power and thus limit the damage a self-deluded great man and his delusional followers might do. And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.
You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society? Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full. I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull. You have a narrative you must hold onto. I get it. You have no interest in trying to analyze and critique what is being said. I get it. You love holding onto your strawmen so you can burn them down. I get that as well.
An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.". In short to hold a qualified opinion one must know both sides and be able to present both sides.
Here I present you with a challenge. Let us reverse roles. You defend socialism and I will attack socialism. Additionally I will take on the added burden of presenting a positive case for capitalism and the preservation of private property. This is a task which I am capable of doing. Are you?
Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people. If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill? Granting for a single moment that any of what you said is true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
At this point it is getting old repeating myself. So this time do pay attention. If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me. We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them. This is why we know that those countries and hundreds of others some still around some long gone were not Republics. This is how we know that these countries are not democratic.
Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.
Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.
wrong! I watched the whole thing. All tedious four hours of it. The fact that you think price and wage controls (a planned economy) is somehow a unique feature of socialism and does not exist within Capitalism or other systems shows your level of ignorance. Again planned economies (which I oppose) can be a feature of any system just as any system can lack it as a feature.). You are in desperate need of an introduction to politic science course. There are many online for free. Perhaps you should look into them.
Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote! The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote! And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism. And yes. Christianity was responsible for the evil's of anti-christian USSR. Do you know anything about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church or it's role in reinforcing the rule of brutal Tzars and Tzarinas? Are you aware of how Rasputin contributed to the unrest in Russia? Are you aware of Konstantin Pobedonotsev and the brutality which he advocated for against the peasants? Nothing can justify the actions of the USSR. Nothing. It was autocratic, despotic, authoritarian and disgusting. The abuses of the Russian Orthodox Church were returned to it. Does this mean it was right? Absolutely not. It wasn't. Was Christianity responsible for the anti-Christianity of the USSR. Learn your fucking history. You bet your ass it was.
Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. The peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.
Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history. You want an entertaining read? Read Novus Organum. Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.
Instead of repeating everything I have already said allow me to just sum up the above with this. Your speaking out your ass again.
Check your numbers buster. I have.
And there were and are capitalist gulags. It's a good thing I oppose gulags. I am going to tell you what the most pathetic part is. The most pathetic part is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are as bad as someone who rails against the bible and yet has never red a page and thinks that they are somehow qualified to give an opinion because they have heard third hand what others have to say. At least if I am going to criticize something I go to the source before I start doing so.
Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes. Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible. It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system. And again. Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.
Now lets me put forward two simple questions which I suspect you are incapable of answering.
1) Even disagreeing with it are you capable of putting forward the arguments for the other side?
and the more important of the two.
2) Is Central planning an inherent feature of socialism?
I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.
The Cold War was relatively recent; also they sometimes throw their weight around in the Balkans. Russia's fine, and really we should make efforts in Europe to reach more to Russia and help them grow further.Why people still scared of Russia? They're not even that bad now, nor are they still Communist
They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.Russia is no threat to us at all, especially when you consider some nations that actually do influence our politics.
They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.
Putin isn’t on board with the neo-liberal plan, so the DC establishment doesn’t like him. They also needed to villainize Trump by pretending he was a traitor, so making Putin a boogeyman while tying him to Trump kills two birds with one stone.
Russia is no threat to us at all, especially when you consider some nations that actually do influence our politics.
They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.
How is the Devil the good guy in the Bible? He’s barely even in it. The only personality that the Devil shows in the Bible is when he destroys the life of an innocent man, Job. Are you imagining the Devil as some kind of rebellious anti-hero? That’s not the Bible, maybe you’re thinking of Paradise Lost or Demon: the Fallen.
What an absolutely beautiful story isn't it?Job1:6-12 said:And there was a day and when came the bene ha Elohim to present themselves before Yahweh, came indeed Has'satan among them and spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "From where do you come?"
So replying Has'satan spoke to Yahweh "From going to and fro on land going up and down on it."
Spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "Consider you upon my servant Job, (there is) certainly none like him on land, a man blameless and upright, one who fears Elohim and shuns the bad.
Responding Has'satan to Yahweh spoke "Out of favor fears Job Elohim. Have not you fenced around him and around his dwelling and around all that he has, in a circuit the labor of his hands. You blessed and his cattle increased on the land. But send now your hand and touch all that he has, and no to your face be accursed."
And spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "See all which he has in your hand, only toward him not be sent a hand. So went forward Has'satan from the face of Yahweh.