First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Communism/Anarchy
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 5/13/08
Im surprised I havent seen a thread on this yet, and im not really interested on your incorrect and totally retarded veiws, but i know many people have some kind of opinion on this subject.

Time for extended discussion.

Ready...
Set-
GO!
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/13/08

Nayru wrote:
im not really interested on your incorrect and totally retarded veiws, but i know many people have some kind of opinion on this subject.



O enlightened one, please show us poor, brainless mortals the proper opinion to have regarding to these subjects, so that we may be one small step closer to comprehending your infinite knowledge.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
Communism is an economic system, not an ideology.
Anarchy has worked (Paris, Spain, Soviet, etc.). But it is hard to say whether or not it would work for a longer period of time, since someone always annexes anarchist communities before they live that long.
The question of whether or not they work, is pointless. It does work. The question is: how efficient are they?
Since communism, a purely economic system, is always coupled with some form of administration/politics, as it must be, it is hard to say.
Since anarchist communities has never been left alone, it is impossible to say.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/14/08 , edited 5/14/08
I'm somewhat against communism on the basis of its failures in practice (though that doesn't necessarily condemn commnusim itself) and over-emphasis on the group, but I think much of the criticisms leveled against it could be turned back around on capitalism as well. The prisoner's dilemma and the problem of harder working not yielding more payoff, for example, are both also present to different and interesting extents in capitalist countries.

As for anarchy, I guess it depends on how it's defined and what constitutes success or failure. Total liberty for everyone would be successful, given that is the natural state of the human being anyway, even when he is under a strong government. However, three problems immediately come to mind:

1.) Progress - People need to work together to get ahead, i.e. to develop new technology, medicine, etc.
2.) Human rights - Although it is the case that human rights are decided by the state (not natural, as some like to believe), a lack of rules would inevitably lead to more violence. I won't say that's bad in and of itself, but it leads to the issue of...
3.) Longevity - Anarchy is not sustainable. Whether it be another country interfering or the natural tendency of humans to gravitate towards order (violence would lead to the formation of groups for protection and subsequent hierarchies), anarchy eventually grows into some sort of structure.

One of my problems with anarchists is their failure to recognize that we all do have freedom under our governments to do anything we possibly can. That group-mandated consequences exist to discourage certain behavior is irrelevant, especially since these can still be found in anarchy. Besides, order is not all bad; while it can certainly be used to control people, the trade-off in accepting consequences to breaking laws is self-protection and social living.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
Regulus: anarchists are seldom against structure. The communalist believe in peopel directly elected as leaders, in workplaces and administration. These can be retracted, and are responsible for following people's will. They are simply planners. And we don't have the absolute freedom you speak off. One usually elect parties, not people. These are subject to programs and a party structure. Decisions are usually made over the heads of the people, perhaps with lobbyists as the only ones really informed and knowing. Also, there is a tendency that people can't vote even in major decisions, even if they obviously would like to. Then there's undemocratic tendencies in the voting systems. How many laws do the people pass? NOne. How many state budget do the people control? None. Et cetera.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
so far, history has shown time and again that communism and anarchy do not work.

the only successful anarchist state in history was the city of paris in 1848-1849, but it was crushed within a year so no one knows how long it could have lasted.

and we all know what happened to the communist countries right?
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 5/14/08 , edited 5/14/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Nayru wrote:
im not really interested on your incorrect and totally retarded veiws, but i know many people have some kind of opinion on this subject.



O enlightened one, please show us poor, brainless mortals the proper opinion to have regarding to these subjects, so that we may be one small step closer to comprehending your infinite knowledge.


If I had all the answers I wouldnt be on Crunchyroll at this moment :)

I just want to spark discussion.
2203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
Where there is communism, there are lazy people.

I don't mean all people, but in a society where everyone is economically "equal," no one honestly has a reason to try to succeed because they won't climb any higher.
Posted 5/14/08
an equal or fair world i believe would be completely boring, there must be winners and there must be losers in a world worth living thus i conclude that being of equal status with the people around me would be a completely depressing. Communism is an ideal, fair, boring idea
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/14/08 , edited 5/14/08

jestorebo wrote:

Regulus: anarchists are seldom against structure.


As I said: it depends on how we're defining anarchy. I only confronted one version of it.


And we don't have the absolute freedom you speak off. One usually elect parties, not people.


Based on the subsequent text, I think you misunderstood me. The freedom of which I spoke is, for example, the ability to go out and commit a crime even if there are consequences. My point was that the existence of consequences is often taken to be a restriction of actual freedom and thus a criticism of order, when the truth is that they exist regardless of order. Obviously I can't waltz into the White House and become President at my own whim, but I am similarly unable to hold my breath underwater for an hour. I'm not talking about the kind of absolute freedom that only "God" would have.



5450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
104 / F
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
Well.. both of those could possibly work...imo.. but only if people would stop being so power hungry and stupid....but since that will probably never happen, i'll say no... too bad, i like the idea of anarchy.

Yeah this isn't really a long post, sorry, just thought to throw my two cents in.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/15/08
mempha: there are still communist countries. Again, one can hardly say, since communism (which is an ECONOMIC system) has not been tried so many ways as, say capitalism in different systems. The agrar-oriented communist systems seem to work better though. I would say that china, rather than soviet, was the country. Also, anarchy has been tried in russia (especially ukraine) and spain. That someone always crushed them doesn't mean that it as a system doesn't work. I mean, if I got killed would it mean that I didn't function properly? It is bizarre logic. I'll grant you it doesn't give anarchy that may chances, although it hasn't been tried in over 70 years now, but it does not determine its functionality.
nick: there would still be winners and losers. You are more forced to take up a specific profession in a communist country, than in a technologically advanced capitalist country, which will among the people determine your status. Doctors, for instance, are as far as I know always given high status. Also, socially there would be winners and losers. Friends, spouses, children, or some or none of those.
regulus: but what freedom the government gives you might determine your choices in life. It may block your way to positions, education, health care (that may determine your life), et cetera. State budget and regulations control a lot, if you think about it. And your choices may be determined by money and position. Even something like driving a car may determine your freedom to do actions.
465 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 5/16/08
communism is so flawed and contradictory

it calls for a truly 'equal' society, when there will always be a group of elite communist leaders who OBVIOUSLY don't lead a life like the normal citizen

1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/16/08

jestorebo wrote:

regulus: but what freedom the government gives you might determine your choices in life. It may block your way to positions, education, health care (that may determine your life), et cetera. State budget and regulations control a lot, if you think about it. And your choices may be determined by money and position. Even something like driving a car may determine your freedom to do actions.


*sigh* Let's go over this again, shall we?

First, I claimed that some anarchists think government actually controls our freedom, and that rejection of this government leads to more freedom.

Second, I claimed that this is mistaken thinking because: 1.) we have the freedom to do anything that is possible (this is key; as I said, I can neither become President at my whim nor hold my breath underwater for an hour) for us; the existence of consequences does not truly eliminate freedom; and 2.) anarchy does not remedy the situation, since unrestricted freedom for all is a return to nature, where one may still imprison another if he can pull it off, thus restricting freedom in the way they think of it.

Bringing up "positions, education, health care" and "driving a car" just takes us outside of the realm I was confronting, since they are not entirely dependent upon the individual's action. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the freedom to act, not the possibility of achieving anything.

Also, I am by no means opposed to the idea of determinism, but I often hold that we have free will for the sake of practical life.
Posted 6/16/08

MEMPHADON wrote:

so far, history has shown time and again that communism and anarchy do not work.

the only successful anarchist state in history was the city of paris in 1848-1849, but it was crushed within a year so no one knows how long it could have lasted.

and we all know what happened to the communist countries right?


Yep!

Half of my relatives from Poland was under both Socialist/Nazism and Communism. From what I heard from grandma, before she died, that a few of them got murder under Communism rule. My great Polish Aunt (also a Holocaust survivor) was a doctor and scientist, she under a lot of pressure through half of her life so she wont get killed by the communist government. That is why my relative later joined Solidarnosc (Free-economics, human-rights and non-communist trade union in Poland in 1980's)

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.