A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

You know, refering to "your system" is like the guy saying "Oh yea, my slong is bigger" then describing how it is perfect and magnificent, without flaw.

I could quote the post I made where I described my system exactly, if you want.

Back to the topic, Nationalism never existed officially in the Soviet Union. The secular religion of Marxist-Leninism existed. Last time I checked, ML didn't do so well here. Oh sure, they got Lucille Ball...

Well technically yes, but opposition towards the cause and the government wasn't exactly encouraged whereas blind support for it was deemed a good thing.

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

I could quote the post I made where I described my system exactly, if you want.

Well technically yes, but opposition towards the cause and the government wasn't exactly encouraged whereas blind support for it was deemed a good thing.

What the hell, have at it cowboy.

 

[greenpeace]

Society should be decentralized (to the point where a community is completely self-goverened). The decentralized government must be made of all people able to communicate in the community. These people make decisions by the democratic process in which the highest majorty agrees with the decision. The two types of decisions it is allowed to make will be:
1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a persons ability to do something other than inhibit someone elses ability to do something (the primary way is offering of incentives and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicitng emotional, physical, mental damage. The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation were it is physically impossible for one to not harm another than the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their (un-incentived) consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness).
2. Whether to include a new member to a community or not.

 

[Grey Fox]

Corporations are the last non-democratic institutions the democratic world has. A corporation is governed from the top down. The lowest level employee basically has no say and the top level employer (owner of corporation, president or board of directors) usually have total autocracy.

We got rid of the monarchies, we got rid of the dictatorships. Why do we still have autocracy in our society at such a crucial level? Some corporations can even rival nations in influence.

A communistic corporation is instead democratic, with shared revenue between all of the employers since everyone owns the company together.

 

[BasketCase]

Corporations are entirely democratic: the employee does not work for a corporation unless he wants to. Especially in a nation where most of the jobs (around two out of three) are in SMALL companies. The old myth about corporations controlling all employment everywhere is exactly that. A myth.

Freedom must work both ways. You don't want to be forced to work for a corporation, do you? Well, they can't be forced to hire you. Nor should they.

A communistic corporation is instead democratic, with shared revenue between all of the employers

I assume that was a typo? Heheheh.

 

[BasketCase]

Anyways, it doesn't matter what the reason is that he hasn't been stopped, the fact remains its impossible to have a true hegemony without essentially wiping out humanity. It also remains that its impossible to "delete" a political ideology.

.....wait a second.....

How do I know you actually have a weed-smoking relative??? You could be lying your ass off for all I know. I've never met him. From my viewpoint, he doesn't exist. Prove me wrong. If he comes out of his closet and smokes a joint in public, he's gonna go to prison, and I will not hear about it in the news.

There. Deleted.

So yes, the US government could commit genocide against us (or mass arrest) although that may easily easily backfire due to a rather free press. But even if it didn't backfire it doesn't matter, anything you do against it, even wipe all human memory of it, is temporary in its effect.

The Egyptian Pharaohs. The Greek Republic. The Roman Senate. The Byzantine Empire. The Khmer Rouge. Jimmy Carter. The Symbionese Liberation Army. David Koresh. Timothy McVeigh.

These are all REAL examples of political ideologies that are gone forever. Most of them are only remembered with the following:

"Na na NAAAA na"
"Na na NAAAA na"
"Hey HEEEEYYYY"
"Gooooood BYE!!!"

If you hide in a closet and smoke pot, you are not a rebel and you are not a political activist. You are hiding. Rebels are people who get guns and storm the palace and hang the dictator from the ceiling of his own throne room. Your "relative" is not; evidently he finds the Bush regime acceptable.

 

[greenpeace]

LET ME MAKE THIS STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW: NONE OF MY RELATIVES OR CLOSE FRIENDS SMOKE WEED OR INTAKE ANY OTHER NARCOTICS. I just want to make that clear.

.....wait a second.....

How do I know you actually have a weed-smoking relative??? You could be lying your ass off for all I know. I've never met him. From my viewpoint, he doesn't exist. Prove me wrong. If he comes out of his closet and smokes a joint in public, he's gonna go to prison, and I will not hear about it in the news.

Wait I don't have a weed a smoking relative when did I ever say that? Anyways, it doesn't matter that if someone smoked weed in front of a police station they would most likely be caught and thrown in prision, the fact remains that the US does not have a complete and total hegemony.

There. Deleted.

The Egyptian Pharaohs. The Greek Republic. The Roman Senate. The Byzantine Empire. The Khmer Rouge. Jimmy Carter. The Symbionese Liberation Army. David Koresh. Timothy McVeigh.

These are all REAL examples of political ideologies that are gone forever. Most of them are only remembered with the following:

"Na na NAAAA na"
"Na na NAAAA na"
"Hey HEEEEYYYY"
"Gooooood BYE!!!"

None, of those political ideologies are gone by the fact that even you know about them (even if you didn't there isn't any reason they could be "rediscovered").

If you hide in a closet and smoke pot, you are not a rebel and you are not a political activist. You are hiding. Rebels are people who get guns and storm the palace and hang the dictator from the ceiling of his own throne room. Your "relative" is not; evidently he finds the Bush regime acceptable.

It doesn't matter that your not a rebel, either way you're doing something the US does not want you to do, and therefore it means the US does not have a complete and total hegemony AND AGAIN NONE OF MY RELATIVES OR CLOSE FRIENDS SMOKE WEED OR TAKE IN ANY OTHER NARCOTICS.

 

[BasketCase]

LET ME MAKE THIS STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW: NONE OF MY RELATIVES OR CLOSE FRIENDS SMOKE WEED OR INTAKE ANY OTHER NARCOTICS. I just want to make that clear.

My friend continually takes illegal drugs (poor fellow) which is illegal.

Moving on.

Edit: Strike "brother" and "relative" from my previous posts and replace those with "friend". Strike "marijuana" and replace it with "drugs". I committed a few minor linguistic transpositions there. But none of them affected the basic meaning of my words.

 

[Grey Fox]

Corporations are entirely democratic: the employee does not work for a corporation unless he wants to. Especially in a nation where most of the jobs (around two out of three) are in SMALL companies. The old myth about corporations controlling all employment everywhere is exactly that. A myth.

That might be true for the jobs that are in high demand but in low supply. But most jobs are not like that. The unemployment rate makes sure of it.

 

[BasketCase]

the fact remains that the US does not have a complete and total hegemony.

And that's yet another dishonest debate tactic used by radicals: holding the opposition to an impossible standard.

A hegemony does not have to be either complete or total.

 

[BasketCase]

That might be true for the jobs that are in high demand but in low supply.

It's true for all jobs. Tell me something: how do you propose to force employers to offer more highly-demanded jobs?

In a democracy you CAN'T.

I was about to say something along the lines of "you're going to have to accept this unpleasant truth", but actually that's not true. This truth exists whether you accept it or not.

 

[greenpeace]

Moving on.

Edit: Strike "brother" and "relative" from my previous posts and replace those with "friend". Strike "marijuana" and replace it with "drugs". I committed a few minor linguistic transpositions there. But none of them affected the basic meaning of my words.

You said my brother and then my relatives, which is insulting.
Anyway:

And that's yet another dishonest debate tactic used by radicals: holding the opposition to an impossible standard.

A hegemony does not have to be either complete or total.

Its only impossibly high because you made an impossibly high standard that the system is absolutely impossible because of the actions of the US which is simply not true. You have to have a complete and total hegemony for the "US can outlaw it" arguement.

 

[BasketCase]

No, Greenpeace. YOU imposed the impossible standard. The U.S. does not have to be a complete and total hegemony in order to be a hegemony. This is typical of radical wingnuts.


Side note: radicals also use the reverse of this tactic: whenever somebody calls a Communist on the carpet for the failures of, say, the USSR, the response is like clockwork:

"That wasn't a true Communist state!"

George Orwell warned us to avoid people like this. He warned us against the fallacy "four legs good, two legs bad". The radical cannot see any fault in his own system and cannot see any good in any other system.


I, on the other hand, am a True Moderate. Because I stay stuff like the following:

Every political system has problems. Including capitalism.

 

[Jerrymander]

Corporations are the last non-democratic institutions the democratic world has.

Do you consider America part of the Democractic world? Because it's not a democracy, last time I checked.

Democracy is absolutely horrible, taken in its truest form. Of course, I'll get rebutted and proven wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

Ah--something I should clarify then.

When I use the word "democracy" in here, it means basically "elections". The exact form those elections take isn't really important to me; what I demand unconditionally is that the people have the right to decide for themselves what kind of government they want. Except for dictatorships. Those are not permitted. Ever.

 

[Jerrymander]

Ah--something I should clarify then.

When I use the word "democracy" in here, it means basically "elections". The exact form those elections take isn't really important to me; what I demand unconditionally is that the people have the right to decide for themselves what kind of government they want. Except for dictatorships. Those are not permitted. Ever.

I didn't mean you, I meant Grey Fox. But I do get what you mean

 

[greenpeace]

No, Greenpeace. YOU imposed the impossible standard. The U.S. does not have to be a complete and total hegemony in order to be a hegemony. This is typical of radical wingnuts.

I didn't say it would have to have complete and total hegemony to be a hegemony I said it would have to be a complete and total hegemony in order for my system to be impossible.

Side note: radicals also use the reverse of this tactic: whenever somebody calls a Communist on the carpet for the failures of, say, the USSR, the response is like clockwork:

"That wasn't a true Communist state!"

The argument that the USSR failed therefore my system would fail is so incredibly flawed I'm amazed you actually would lower yourself to making it. The USSR and my system are so radically different in practically every single way its absolutely useless to make a comparison.

George Orwell warned us to avoid people like this. He warned us against the fallacy "four legs good, two legs bad". The radical cannot see any fault in his own system and cannot see any good in any other system.

I, on the other hand, am a True Moderate. Because I stay stuff like the following:

Every political system has problems. Including capitalism.

Quote me where I said my system is absolutely perfect.

Seriously you put essays in my mouth.

 

[Grey Fox]

I didn't mean you, I meant Grey Fox. But I do get what you mean

I basically mean the same thing. And yeah, USA is a modern democracy, but maybe on the low end of the spectra when it comes to how democratic it is.

 

[BasketCase]

I didn't say it would have to have complete and total hegemony to be a hegemony I said it would have to be a complete and total hegemony in order for my system to be impossible.

No. Your system is impossible on its own. That there is no free space left on Earth for you to found your new system in, however, is an additional speed bump. Your system requires specific definitions of harm and a specific method of administrating justice; no country anywhere will allow you to supercede their laws with yours. Unless maybe you move to Antarctica or something--which you're not going to do.

The argument that the USSR failed therefore my system would fail is so incredibly

You just committed another debate foul: the Straw Man.

I never said that. I said this: "When opponents ACCUSE the USSR of failing, Communists reply that the USSR was not a true Communist state".

When did I ever say "the USSR failed, therefore Greenpeacocracy will fail"? Either quote me saying that....or you are a liar.

Quote me where I said my system is absolutely perfect.

Wasn't talking about you. Was talking about radicals in general. You're a partial exception to the rule.

Seriously you put essays in my mouth.

Can't fit any in there--your foot is in the way.

 

[hossam]

this has got to be the longest debate on ive seen on cfc.