FA+
Shop
527
Views
Views
8
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1280
File Size 82.4 kB
Report this content
More from soccerskyman
More political-fueled digital art, woo!
Category Artwork (Digital) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1280px
File Size 82.4 kB
"Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
"Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
Yeah, it works.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
"Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
Yeah, it works.
It's political art for Anarcho-Communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
Yes, very nice. Two historic examples of failed systems. My question was aimed at any successful modern systems that actually sustained. The problem with both systems is that they are unsustainable. Communism aways perverts to a system that crushes free will and personal expansion.
I know folks who lived under communism, and they universally say the systems were flawed and designed to bring people under boot of the party collective.
There is no modern anarchistic example with even the slightest bit of success.
I know folks who lived under communism, and they universally say the systems were flawed and designed to bring people under boot of the party collective.
There is no modern anarchistic example with even the slightest bit of success.
They failed because they were brought down by other governments seeing them as a threat to their power, not from being unsustainable. Did you even read the links I sent you? Also, not all communism is state communism, which is the type you are referring to. Anarchist communism skips the socialism stage, preventing anyone from gaining too much power. Furthermore, places like Cuba, despite using state communism, are doing amazingly well in terms of health care, literacy, and life expectancy for being a developing country. Saying that there has been no anarchist example with the slightest bit of success is completely ignoring the two societies I just linked to you. You're sweeping two entire schools of thought into your condensed, ignorant views.
So far, you've yet to give any sort of backed information, completely failed to understand any information I provided, and now, you've resorted to nothing but a simple ad hominem as your entire argument. You're not doing a very good job of arguing your point. Congratulations! This is literally the least productive discussion I've ever had with anyone online, ever. How about you go research and understand your side of the argument before you actually step into the ring? Maybe you'll get lucky and fill that dense skull of yours with some actual solid information before you go around strutting your supposed superiority.
Unlike children, many adults dont have to strut any pretend superiority. We get or information from having lived and hopefully, gained wisdom. While as a young person, who has been dressing himself for at least a decade now, you have convinced yourself that the facts support your myopic views of what works, meanwhile millions died from the governmental system you so idolise. You have no real grasp of what it means to provide for yourself, and what the roles of a legitimate governing body encompass.
One communist espoused the followers of devout political thought as useful idiots. To see what one looks like I suggest you look in a mirror.
Children of first world countries tend to have rosy views of communism, I know people who escaped Cuba, Soviet Russia, the Koreas, China and places you dont know about yet. Not a one of them nor their families had anything good to say about communism and they all suffered. Its is not hard, when one is well fed and clothed, kept warm at the expense of their parents and safe from any real dangers to love communism. History has judged their leaders, hopefully as you grow older, you will see what you now choose to ignore. But by all means carry your banners, just dont whine to me when people who have lived through your little fantasy throw rocks and garbage at you!
One communist espoused the followers of devout political thought as useful idiots. To see what one looks like I suggest you look in a mirror.
Children of first world countries tend to have rosy views of communism, I know people who escaped Cuba, Soviet Russia, the Koreas, China and places you dont know about yet. Not a one of them nor their families had anything good to say about communism and they all suffered. Its is not hard, when one is well fed and clothed, kept warm at the expense of their parents and safe from any real dangers to love communism. History has judged their leaders, hopefully as you grow older, you will see what you now choose to ignore. But by all means carry your banners, just dont whine to me when people who have lived through your little fantasy throw rocks and garbage at you!
Jesus fuck your dense. For the last goddamn time, I'm not talking about state communism. Get that through your fucking thick skull. North Korea, Soviet Russia, Cuba, and China all use a communist STATE. Pure communism and anarcho-communism lack a state entirely, therefor, there is no dictatorship. Communism IS NOT a governmental system, its an economic system. Let me say this one more time for you, because you missed it the last two times: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT STATE COMMUNISM. Finally, anecdotal evidence is not applicable to political arguments, as they have no factual backing that you can prove and present.
Heh, funny. Okay. You seem more passionate about this than the average commie wonk I have met. SO, if you please, send me a note and define your argument. No wiki crap please, the public has access to these and we all know how smart the public is now. What I would like you to define is, how does this diverge from the communisim we have seen before a
All political systems eventually corrupt, as we have seen in our own Representative Republic.
What are the securities that insure that one's rights are not trampled by a system usurped by ultra eletists?
How are defense and social programs funded? Is this system based on collectivism? Elucidate, and I will share my thoughts. Such political debate is as old as civilisation.
All political systems eventually corrupt, as we have seen in our own Representative Republic.
What are the securities that insure that one's rights are not trampled by a system usurped by ultra eletists?
How are defense and social programs funded? Is this system based on collectivism? Elucidate, and I will share my thoughts. Such political debate is as old as civilisation.
The more utopian claim is that capitalism can be sustained. Clearly it can't be sustained, you think on an Earth with increasing population you can have people with mansions and three houses without seriously misusing resources?
How funny the utopian tells a pragmatist his system is unsustainable.
How funny the utopian tells a pragmatist his system is unsustainable.
Honestly, and this is the last comment I will make on this, I believe there is no ONE system of government that can sustain. The truth is during the great depression, some very socialist programs actually turned out to be exceptionally beneficial. My parents were both children then, and remember how folks reacted to FDR's revolutionary ideas, which was what we needed, when it was most needed. FDR was our single most socialist President.
I think a legitimate governing body must be open to advice from all reasonable political camps if it is to survive and thrive. Certainly rampant consumerism is not sustainable.
I am not a utopianist, as utopia are unobtainable and unrealistic. I question the wisdom of giving too much credence to anyone who is too young to have any practical experience in politics or otherwise. Youth is a wonderful time to learn as much as one can and hold the trust in untested political beliefs off until they have fended for themselves for a decade or two.
I am 46, and have met plenty of folks my age (and older) with no clue on how political systems function, let alone the concepts of anarchy.
I distrust theories put forth by anyone with a single system they suppose will make everything function. Or answer all questions of equality, personal liberties or private property.
I cannot have a reasonably intelligent conversation when folks cannot adequately explain their positions and must refer to online articles they link to, to advance their position.
I think a legitimate governing body must be open to advice from all reasonable political camps if it is to survive and thrive. Certainly rampant consumerism is not sustainable.
I am not a utopianist, as utopia are unobtainable and unrealistic. I question the wisdom of giving too much credence to anyone who is too young to have any practical experience in politics or otherwise. Youth is a wonderful time to learn as much as one can and hold the trust in untested political beliefs off until they have fended for themselves for a decade or two.
I am 46, and have met plenty of folks my age (and older) with no clue on how political systems function, let alone the concepts of anarchy.
I distrust theories put forth by anyone with a single system they suppose will make everything function. Or answer all questions of equality, personal liberties or private property.
I cannot have a reasonably intelligent conversation when folks cannot adequately explain their positions and must refer to online articles they link to, to advance their position.
No, you are not. the originator of this post did. he was unable to articulate his position in his words. He just threw links to me.
I suggest you read your history as regards FDR. He was the epitome of the wealthy American Socialists of his era.
You are young, you have time to learn a lot and make educated arguments. Now please don't involve me in this under-age political dick-swinging contest any more.
I suggest you read your history as regards FDR. He was the epitome of the wealthy American Socialists of his era.
You are young, you have time to learn a lot and make educated arguments. Now please don't involve me in this under-age political dick-swinging contest any more.
There are numerous anarchist traditions, but none of them are explicitly violent. A handful of anarcho individualists were charged with inciting a bombing, but not convicted. However the media took off with the concept of the "bomb throwing anarchist" and it has remained the dominant preconception most people have towards anarchy. However once you explain that anarchy is not chaos, but merely a lack of rulers, most people leave it at that. Convincing them to stop worshiping the state however is still quite hard. I can't count the number of times I've heard someone ask "But what about the roads?"
There's anarchy for capitalists too. Personally I prefer this, and the neat thing is it doesn't preclude anarcho communism. Nothing is preventing a group of like minded communists from pooling their resources, and acquiring their own means of production to operate communally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Law Without Government part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo
Law Without Government part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
Law Without Government part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y
There's anarchy for capitalists too. Personally I prefer this, and the neat thing is it doesn't preclude anarcho communism. Nothing is preventing a group of like minded communists from pooling their resources, and acquiring their own means of production to operate communally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Law Without Government part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo
Law Without Government part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
Law Without Government part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y
Communism is a government that never is quite able to get to its pure state, instead 100% of the time it turns to a total socialist dictatorship and has always failed, and Anarchy is no government, and that right in itself fails. The only thing that these have in common is that they fail.
Lmao all these people who can't comprehend anarcho-communist despite being a concept understood by most of the last centuries intellectuals and being a very popular and successful political-economic organization during the Spanish Civil War.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron (private property is enforced by a mechanism that is or similar to the state) unlike anarcho-communism (which is the orthodox definition of communism, stateless government where the workers own the means of production).
Everyone is so confused...
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron (private property is enforced by a mechanism that is or similar to the state) unlike anarcho-communism (which is the orthodox definition of communism, stateless government where the workers own the means of production).
Everyone is so confused...
Fragman1919A4
FDR is not a socialist, he was a liberal democrat, don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about or play that "you are young" crap.
I suggest you read your history and maybe study a bit more political science because what you said is factually incorrect.
Also way to block me, phhht some people never grow up.
FDR is not a socialist, he was a liberal democrat, don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about or play that "you are young" crap.
I suggest you read your history and maybe study a bit more political science because what you said is factually incorrect.
Also way to block me, phhht some people never grow up.
Comments