10 Pillars of Communism

Man, the fact that there are still fools defending Communism attests to the fact that some people never learn.

It is significant that today is the anniversary of the first printing of the Manifesto, 1848, and here are some quibbling over abstruse points when recent history shows us that Communism is counter to human nature and is responsible for more deaths than any philosophy or even any disease.

A pity that so many schools and 'elites' still think it marks them as highminded.

A pity that so many fail to understand the nature of communism, and instead conflate it with inappropriate references to Soviet state capitalism.


Now I've deleted the balance of your argument, because it was HERE that your argument FAILED

Notice how you've sought to set re-direct the discussion to the ethereal 'nature of communISM'?

PC understands that you do not accept the history which conclusively establishes the unexceptional failure of communism; and this without regard to the facet which the repsecitve experiment represents... She also understands that your inability to accept this, stems from your feelings that 'the reason that Communism has always failed is that the people executing the experiment were corrupt.'

She likewise understands that what corrupted them was that they fell victim to human nature and in this case, became CommunISTS.

CommunISM in every one of its' various facets, rests upon unsound principle. It suggests that there is a means by which the collective is vested with rights which supercede those of the individual... When in reality, it is ONLY the individual which possesses ANY RIGHT... thus the collective can only enjoy the benefits of the Rights of the sum of individuals WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES ON WHICH THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS REST. Socialism rejects those rights, it rejects the divine authority in which those inalienable rights rests and it seeks to transfer the responsibility from the individual to the COLLECTIVE... Which is to say Socialism chronically speaks to the rights of "The People"; represented by "the State" who tends to assuring FAIRNESS, which is chronically confused with EQUALITY... which the State is empowered to distribute... to assure FAIRNESS/Equality.

Thus, by virtue of the simple fact, that it is quite impossible to impart a higher means onto those of lessor means, Socialism becomes in PRACTICE, the function of 'the People/the State' to restrict ad otherwise limit and to punish those who CAN... so as to insure that those who CANNOT are stationed fairly and at equity with those who otherwise WOULD. Socialism all about classes and it's all about 'fair distribution' to the SocialIST... Socialism all untenable idiocy which, despite you vehenment protestations to the contrary, flies in the face of immutable human nature.

And you're endless references which name drop this or that obscure and wholly irrelvant academic who scratch their various inane observations and/or opinions in advocacy of that idiocy is irrelevant to that history which conclusively establishes that where Socialism is practiced: IT FAILS... will not change that fact; and that you 'feel' that the sweetness and light possessed by the endless thoeries of CommunISM are not reflected in the INDISPUTABLE RESULTS REALIZED BY THE COMMUNIST... is well beside the point and not at issue in any discussion where the HISTORY of COMMUNISM is at hand.
 
Last edited:
Whatever---take your pure socialism or communism and shove it. It's easy to hide in defense of things that don't exist while critizicing others that do.

On the contrary, when it comes to contentions between socialism and capitalism, I always find it necessary to criticize capitalism on the grounds that belief in free markets is utopian and that a capitalist economy does not efficiently allocate goods and resources. Socialism corrects this problem by minimizing agency costs and imperfect information.

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother...

First, Capitalism is the natural order of economics... Capitalism is merely the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... it's potential for perfection is directly correlated to the level of perfection inherent in those which engage in a given exchange.

Socialism adds a third party into that equation; seeking to regulate the means of the individuals to make such an exchange... This third party will determine what CAN be exchanged by the subjective inference of the Socialist of what is needed and necessary and setting arbitrary values beyond the natural values established through the supply and demand of the respective elements.

By NOTHING MORE than the addition of a third party into the equation, the Socialist EXPONENTIALLY increases the potential that those involved in the exchange will be found well short of perfection; particularly given that the new guy is an IMBECILE.

Thus Socialism makes it a CERTAINTY that the allocation of goods and resources thru that conjured in left-think, will exist EXPONENTIALLY FARTHER from perfection; and what's more is that such will sustain an outward track until the inherent imperfections of left-thing reach critical mass, inevitably resulting in total FAILURE.

Humanity is already up against it, but when it fails to recognize sound moral principle, opting instead for weak rationalizations designed to excuse it's own shortcomings... as is the case in every facet of left-think; it sets in stone the certain failure of whatever endeaver rests upon that stinkin-thinkin'...
 
Last edited:
To me, it does not matter if we are in either Anarcho-Communism,or Anarcho-Corporatism.....

I just need to know how I can survive and raise a family peacefully (my Continuance), a healthy set of liberties(my "Freedom"), plus posses influence over issues that affect me and a straight forward process to select/deselect my local, state and national leaders(My Power). If you can provide that, I will listen to you.

If you are pushing an idea because it sounds wonderful in theory but not practical in any sense to....well we have some issues now don't we!!

I
 
Tell me, during your residence in which Communist country did you do your reading?

I don't support the existence of nation-states, and thus don't support the existence of a "communist country." There is no communist nation-state in existence. All forms of communism that have existed have been coordinated at a decentralized level.

You're simply not listening to me. You're determined to conflate the Soviet Union with socialism and communism because it serves as a valuable political tool, no matter how much evidence there might be to the contrary. My anarchism leads me to the most fierce opposition to the statism of the Soviet Union, yet you still choose to connect me with "Communist countries."

Now I've deleted the balance of your argument, because it was HERE that your argument FAILED

Notice how you've sought to set re-direct the discussion to the ethereal 'nature of communISM'?

PC understands that you do not accept the history which conclusively establishes the unexceptional failure of communism; and this without regard to the facet which the repsecitve experiment represents... She also understands that your inability to accept this, stems from your feelings that 'the reason that Communism has always failed is that the people executing the experiment were corrupt.'

That's quite an idiotic series of remarks to make. Firstly, I suspect that I am far more familiar with the "history" than either you or PC, considering that you said nothing of Kropotkin, Nestor Makhno, or the Kronstadt Rebellion. Secondly, I never claimed that communism has always failed, because I am quite aware that communism has been successfully implemented in some places, such as in the rural communes of Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Moreover, other widespread forms of socialism (specifically collectivism), were implemented throughout the urban collectives.

She likewise understands that what corrupted them was that they fell victim to human nature and in this case, became CommunISTS.

I don't disagree that a misunderstanding of human nature doomed the Bolsheviks and ultimately, the entire Soviet Union. Marx and Engels had a poor understanding of the evolutionary process, and as a consequences of Marx's inaccurate historical materialism, they were unable to comprehend the consequences of evolutionary law on human life. For instance, Engels inaccurately believed in a Lamarckian theory of evolution rather than a Darwinian one, inasmuch as he believed that acquired traits would be received by an organism's offspring. It is likely that these misunderstandings spawned the vile Lysenkoism of the Soviet Union. So that is not an inaccurate claim to make.

Your claim that the Soviet Union was communist in nature, on the other hand, is wholly inaccurate.

CommunISM in every one of its' various facets, rests upon unsound principle. It suggests that there is a means by which the collective is vested with rights which supercede those of the individual... When in reality, it is ONLY the individual which possesses ANY RIGHT... thus the collective can only enjoy the benefits of the Rights of the sum of individuals WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES ON WHICH THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS REST. Socialism rejects those rights, it rejects the divine authority in which those inalienable rights rests and it seeks to transfer the responsibility from the individual to the COLLECTIVE... Which is to say Socialism chronically speaks to the rights of "The People"; represented by "the State" who tends to assuring FAIRNESS, which is chronically confused with EQUALITY... which the State is empowered to distribute... to assure FAIRNESS/Equality.

The Heritage Foundation has not indoctrinated you nearly well enough. Your little rant here might apply perfectly to Soviet state capitalism, but it has no bearings on legitimate socialism, least of all on my anarcho-communism. All forms of anarchism are based on voluntary association and direct democratic governance. Since libertarian forms of socialism are organized in a non-hierarchical manner, individuals are free to come and go from collectives or communes at any time they please, along with their possessions. Indeed, socialism has been practiced this way in the anarchist regions of Spain, in the Free Territory of Ukraine, and to some extent, in the portions of Chiapas controlled by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Hence, since I am adamantly opposed to the existence of the state, your rant here is utterly irrelevant.

Thus, by virtue of the simple fact, that it is quite impossible to impart a higher means onto those of lessor means, Socialism becomes in PRACTICE, the function of 'the People/the State' to restrict ad otherwise limit and to punish those who CAN... so as to insure that those who CANNOT are stationed fairly and at equity with those who otherwise WOULD. Socialism all about classes and it's all about 'fair distribution' to the SocialIST... Socialism all untenable idiocy which, despite you vehenment protestations to the contrary, flies in the face of immutable human nature.

This is similarly inaccurate. You continue to inaccurately mention the state, despite the fact that libertarian socialism is based on the minimization or outright elimination of the state, the former being the state of affairs being sought by libertarian Marxists and council communists, and the latter being that sought by anarchists.

Your claims that socialism is contrary to human nature are similarly inaccurate, as there can be legitimate sociobiological justifications for egalitarian forms of organization, even socialism, evolving from the basis of cooperation (instead of focusing exclusively on competition) and biologically natural forms of kin altruism, which can expand into community settings. (Consider the Israeli kibbutzim, for instance.)

Hence, you are incorrect in stating that all forms of socialism are contrary to human nature. This is primarily because possess the inaccurate belief that socialism is based on some sense of unnatural altruism or charity, while maintaining that capitalism is more "natural" because it relies on economic self-interest. You likely also regard competition as the chief manifestation of "human nature." This belief ignores the ways in which cooperation, rather than competition, can serve in the self-interest of beings involved.

Consider the Prisoner's Dilemma, a notable example of game theory. Suppose, for instance, that you had been falsely accused of a crime, along with another person. You are told that if you simply confess that the other person committed the crime, you will be released and he will be sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, he has been offered the exact same deal against you, and if you both accuse the other, you will both be spending fifteen years in prison. If neither one of you accuses the other, there will be no case against either one of you, and you will only be detained for a few months, and then released. This is an illustrative case regarding the merits of cooperation as opposed to competition.

The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin wrote a book entitled Mutual Aid regarding the nature of cooperation rather than competition in natural circumstances, based on his observations during his time in Siberia. The full text is available here.

Moreover, the validity of Kropotkin's work on this topic was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.

Stephen Jay Gould. Kropotkin Was No Crackpot, 1997

Gould did fault Kropotkin with not realizing that cooperation was primarily intended to benefit individual organisms, which was a common mistake at the time, but again, this misconception was not one isolated to Kropotkin.

As a whole, his work is valid.

And you're endless references which name drop this or that obscure and wholly irrelvant academic who scratch their various inane observations and/or opinions in advocacy of that idiocy is irrelevant to that history which conclusively establishes that where Socialism is practiced: IT FAILS... will not change that fact; and that you 'feel' that the sweetness and light possessed by the endless thoeries of CommunISM are not reflected in the INDISPUTABLE RESULTS REALIZED BY THE COMMUNIST... is well beside the point and not at issue in any discussion where the HISTORY of COMMUNISM is at hand.

I can't believe that you're so ridiculously idiotic as to refer to Kropotkin as an "academic." The man was a revolutionary, and the first individual to escape from the infamous Peter and Paul fortress in St. Petersburg. Regardless, your idiotic little tantrum here says nothing whatsoever as to the nature of socialism, and is wholly unsupported by reasoning or arguments of any variety, merely your obnoxious drivel.

First, Capitalism is the natural order of economics... Capitalism is merely the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... it's potential for perfection is directly correlated to the level of perfection inherent in those which engage in a given exchange.

This is an absurdly utopian understanding of capitalism, and has little relation to its actual merits. Your first failure is your inability to properly understand the reality of asymmetric information, which naturally leads to your inability to understand the nature of imperfect contracting, writhe with adverse selection and moral hazard problems as it is. Since you cannot understand imperfect contracting, you are therefore in no position to understand the nature of capitalism. But contrary to your utopian fantasies, asymmetric information has significant costs on the capitalist economy.

For instance, we might examine Hofler and Murphy's Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages, which incorporates the stochastic frontier regression technique to reach its conclusions regarding mass underpayment of workers.

As noted by the abstract:

This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

Seeking remedies to such issues is not possible unless capitalism is properly analyzed. Since capitalism will necessarily suffer from imperfect information and thus imperfect contracting, socialism merely corrects this error, and has additional merits in its minimization of principal-agent problems.

Socialism adds a third party into that equation; seeking to regulate the means of the individuals to make such an exchange... This third party will determine what CAN be exchanged by the subjective inference of the Socialist of what is needed and necessary and setting arbitrary values beyond the natural values established through the supply and demand of the respective elements.

By NOTHING MORE than the addition of a third party into the equation, the Socialist EXPONENTIALLY increases the potential that those involved in the exchange will be found well short of perfection; particularly given that the new guy is an IMBECILE.

Thus Socialism makes it a CERTAINTY that the allocation of goods and resources thru that conjured in left-think, will exist EXPONENTIALLY FARTHER from perfection; and what's more is that such will sustain an outward track until the inherent imperfections of left-thing reach critical mass, inevitably resulting in total FAILURE.

You're simply completely unfamiliar with socialism. I've already stated numerous times that anarcho-socialism relies on horizontal federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives and communes governed through direct democracy as applied through community assemblies and workers' councils. There is no "third party" as you conceptualize it involved in the exchange of personal possessions, for instance, and inasmuch as the means of production are collectivized and publicly owned, economic structure will necessarily be governed by direct democracy, which can hardly be called idiotic...except by a person with some disdain for democracy.

Socialism necessarily produces efficiency gains if properly applied inasmuch as an integral component of socialism is autogestion. (Workers' self-management.) This autogestion has the tendency of minimizing principal-agent problems. For instance, if we were to consider the available data on worker-owned enterprises, we might look to the work of researchers Logue and Yates in Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Moreover, Logue and Yates conducted similar analyses of firms with ESOP's in Ohio, and discovered that there were numerous improvements in communication when employee ownership was implemented.

350a025e.png


The fundamental principle involved there is that efficiency gains are produced when employee ownership is combined with meaningful participation in decision making, as would be the basis of a socialist economy, and a wider anarchist society.

Hence, we have seen that capitalism has the tendency to create inefficiencies because of its information asymmetries and more general principal-agent problems. Socialism has the benefit of correcting those issues, and thereby generating efficiency gains.

Humanity is already up against it, but when it fails to recognize sound moral principle, opting instead for weak rationalizations designed to excuse it's own shortcomings... as is the case in every facet of left-think; it sets in stone the certain failure of whatever endeaver rests upon that stinkin-thinkin'...

You've done absolutely nothing to refute any of my arguments. You've merely regurgitated the more inane components of your typical tantrums in an unusually obnoxious manner. Your reference to sound moral principle is similarly absurd, since capitalism is dependent on numerous ethically wrong acts and practices, such as the creation of negative social opportunity costs or externalities in order to generate price reduction.
 
As far as I can tell nobody on this board, not even Agna, is a supporter or defender of classical communism.

So who are these people you see defending commism exactly, Political Chic?

Quibble and cluck: Anybody who splits hairs, who redefines, who argues over definitions, says things like, "that's not exactly communism." That is a defense. If you don't have the courage or intelligence to call communism what it is, indefensible, than you are defending it.
To believe in any aspect of communism as a form of government, shows an abject lack of understanding of human nature. Review William Bradford of Plymouth, and the Stakanovite Revolution.

That's an opinion, Political Chic. I think it always makes sense to define terms when discussing such a complicated topic as communism.

Communist principles are defensible. The princiiples are idealistic. As idelas they have offered something beneficial to the world.

Talk to Diuretic. He's got an understanding of communism that is less negative than yours.
 
Quibble and cluck: Anybody who splits hairs, who redefines, who argues over definitions, says things like, "that's not exactly communism." That is a defense. If you don't have the courage or intelligence to call communism what it is, indefensible, than you are defending it.

To believe in any aspect of communism as a form of government, shows an abject lack of understanding of human nature. Review William Bradford of Plymouth, and the Stakanovite Revolution.

I do not believe that any of us was defending communism as an actual form of government. Indeed, that would would prove foolish and, quite honestly, unwise. Anyone who believes that communism could actually work has not passed his or her world history class in high school.
None the less, as I've stated before, I don't believe that there are many of us who could stand up and shout out that the core beliefs of communism are evil. In fact, if it was possible for us to live in a communist society and to maintain said society without corruption, we would be living in a utopia.
Now, I ask you... am I defending communism?
Here's my answer: yes... and no. If you asked me if I defended communism as a form of government, I would say no. If you were to ask me if I defended the spirit of communism, I would say, quite loudly in fact, yes.
 
No, I advocate communism as a form of economic organization, and anarchism as a form of social organization. In the words of Kropotkin, "We are communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history—economic freedom and political freedom."
 
A long, long time ago---the state owned several businesses, serf's were expected to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and even some private companies recieved subsidies from wealthy landowners and and advisors to the King.

Back then, no one quibbled over the benefits of Capitalism or Communism because those terms did not exist.

Today, the far left and far right bicker over which idea is better--State ownership versus Privatization. Is capitalism a natural occurance? I think some would claim that any type of exchange is Capitalism and all you need to do is looking for an exchange of equal benefit in nature. What of communism? Could we say that it is natural? Well, if you revert to a form of collectivism, then you could claim it is by noticing the types of collectivism expressed in many types of life forms in the formations of mounds, herds, etc.

Strangely enough, both concepts exist(in some form) in nature. Maybe there is something in the "Natural sense" of their true definitions. In either case, one should not become "blinded" by the concept of "being natural" as a form of justification to empowerr and maintain it.

Death is natural. Sickness is natural. War is natural. Hunger is natural. Should we also give praise to the Horsemen while they pillage our treasures?
 
Last edited:
What is the traditional family unit but a form of communism?

And in a family unit such a system is a reasonable and good thing.

I just don't communism works in a modern industrial state.

Just like I don't think (and for very much the same reason--human nature) I don't think Libertarianism works well in a modern industrial state.

We have a mixed capitalist economy because that seems to work about as well as anything we have yet devised.

And as long as mankind has nation states I expect something like a mixed capitalist system will continue to rule the roost.
 
Last edited:
Today, the far left and far right bicker over which idea is better--State ownership versus Privatization.

That's not universally the case. There are some who oppose both private and state ownership on the grounds that both manifest themselves through centralized, authoritarian structures. This school instead advocates the creation of participatory economic structures on a decentralized, non-hierarchical level. Have a look at Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert's work on the matter.
 
Today, the far left and far right bicker over which idea is better--State ownership versus Privatization.

That's not universally the case. There are some who oppose both private and state ownership on the grounds that both manifest themselves through centralized, authoritarian structures. This school instead advocates the creation of participatory economic structures on a decentralized, non-hierarchical level. Have a look at Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert's work on the matter.

I'll check it out.

By the way, keep Pub.Infini. riled up!!! He is becoming more unglued with each of your comments. You two should actually think about creating a dualing blog called Agna versus Pub.I. I recommend my friends to all the post that I see you two argue in. Mixed up the topics and it should gain popularity quickly!!
 
OK... I was accussed of "not responding" to this post. While it's true the post did not garner a response, this is a function of it not being read, which kind of rules out the whole 'response' thing... Below however, IS just such a response...

Now I've deleted the balance of your argument, because it was HERE that your argument FAILED

Notice how you've sought to set re-direct the discussion to the ethereal 'nature of communISM'?

PC understands that you do not accept the history which conclusively establishes the unexceptional failure of communism; and this without regard to the facet which the repsecitve experiment represents... She also understands that your inability to accept this, stems from your feelings that 'the reason that Communism has always failed is that the people executing the experiment were corrupt.'

Agwhat'shername said:
That's quite an idiotic series of remarks to make. Firstly, I suspect that I am far more familiar with the "history" than either you or PC, considering that you said nothing of Kropotkin, Nestor Makhno, or the Kronstadt Rebellion. Secondly, I never claimed that communism has always failed, because I am quite aware that communism has been successfully implemented in some places, such as in the rural communes of Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Moreover, other widespread forms of socialism (specifically collectivism), were implemented throughout the urban collectives.

I've stated many times that collectivism works perfectly well and is perfectly suitable for small collectives... Families, businesses, clubs... are first class examples of where such is commonly found and represents the natural order.

But this issue is NOT collectivism per se... the issue is LEFTISM... Collectivism run amuck; collectivism beyond the interpersonal relationship of small groups... Socialism begins to fail the INSTANT that this form of governance falls beyond the scope of one on one personal relationship. PERIOD. Your trying to use a "Commune" as an example of the success of such is absurd on it's face...



I don't disagree that a misunderstanding of human nature doomed the Bolsheviks and ultimately, the entire Soviet Union.

That's mighty white of ya... But a misunderstanding of human nature dooms any endeavor which crosses that fatal threashold.

Marx and Engels had a poor understanding of the evolutionary process, and as a consequences of Marx's inaccurate historical materialism, they were unable to comprehend the consequences of evolutionary law on human life. For instance, Engels inaccurately believed in a Lamarckian theory of evolution rather than a Darwinian one, inasmuch as he believed that acquired traits would be received by an organism's offspring. It is likely that these misunderstandings spawned the vile Lysenkoism of the Soviet Union. So that is not an inaccurate claim to make.

ROFL... Man talk about overthinking a simple problem. You're to be complimented on the time you've clearly spent studying this issue... but it amounts, in terms of it's value to this discussion to one who knows everything that there is to know about toilet paper...

"Super... Now can ya spare a square and leave me alone? I just want to wipe my ass..."

Your claim that the Soviet Union was communist in nature, on the other hand, is wholly inaccurate.

No... It's perfectly accurate.... and your desperate attempt to heap loads of irrelevant minutia into the equation in hopes of clearing the name of a throughly failed ideology by changing the subject isn't going to change that.

The Soviet Union is what RESULTS WHEN COMMUNIST THEORY IS SET TO PRACTICE... Don't like the Soviet model? Try the Chinese... worked out the same... Don't like that one? Break out the North Korean model... worked out the same. Vietnamese... Cuban and so on... Abject poverty, injustice born of systemic corruption and mayhem... each 'Socialist Experiment' CRIPPLED by it being designed operate COUNTER to the natural order present in Human Nature. And yes... this is WHOLLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OPINIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO SAY OTHERWISE.




The Heritage Foundation has not indoctrinated you nearly well enough. Your little rant here might apply perfectly to Soviet state capitalism, but it has no bearings on legitimate socialism, least of all on my anarcho-communism. All forms of anarchism are based on voluntary association and direct democratic governance.

Yeah No shit... and that's why it's the antithesis of Communism and why you embarass yourself everytime you declare yourself an 'anarcho-communist'.

FINALLY she's made it clear what she is doing here... and that's my fill of it. It is a disengenuous attempt to merge communal collectives, volunteer networks of intimate interpersonal relationships cooperating with one another towards a given and well understood end and Socialism as a large scale System of Governance.

All forms of collectivism are voluntary... and where such is the case, it works great. As I've repeatedly mentioned, families and or small family run businesses are wonderful examples of such...

Where it STOPS working is where the interpersonal relationship is disconected and the SYSTEM becomes such that the SYSTEM IS WHAT COUNTS... NOT THE VOLUNTEERS WHO ENJOY AN INTIMATE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WHERE EACH UNDERSTANDS THE INDIVIDUAL MEANS OF THE OTHERS AND EXCHANGES THEIR MEANS FOR THE OTHERS MEANS... EACH SUBSIDIZING THE OTHERS NEEDS. When THE SYSTEM, demands that those present 'volunteer' the system has failed.

We're NOT TALKING about 'the system of collectivism' We're talking about 'THE SYSTEM' which IMPARTS COLLECTIVISM... and Ag, YOU are either a FOOL OR A LIAR to try and promote communal collectivism in discussions which pertain to Socialism as a SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE. COOPERATION BY VOLUNTEERS... IS NOT SOCIALISM AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE and you damn well know it; to even TRY and correlate the two WHOLLY DISTINCT CONCEPTS IS ABSURD.

Your 'study' of and the inference you've drawn of 'Socialism' resultant FROM THAT STUDY, dismembers the ethereal whimsy of theory from the stark reality of those theories set to practice; and that is delusion which spikes well into the "Creepy Scale"

You're a moron of the first order Ag... and it's just no more complicated than THAT!
 
Last edited:
Today, the far left and far right bicker over which idea is better--State ownership versus Privatization.

That's not universally the case. There are some who oppose both private and state ownership on the grounds that both manifest themselves through centralized, authoritarian structures. This school instead advocates the creation of participatory economic structures on a decentralized, non-hierarchical level. Have a look at Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert's work on the matter.

I'll check it out.

By the way, keep Pub.Infini. riled up!!! He is becoming more unglued with each of your comments. You two should actually think about creating a dualing blog called Agna versus Pub.I. I recommend my friends to all the post that I see you two argue in. Mixed up the topics and it should gain popularity quickly!!


ROFL... Hysterical...

If you can find a single exchange between this idiot and myself where you can provide a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument wherein it can be said that she carried the day through that exchange... I'll happily provide $50 contribution in your name to this site... ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ACCEPTING THIS CHALLENGE YOU PayPal the Admin of this site, a $50 donation... Should you provide the above noted argument... I'll Paypal you the $50.

Now, put up or concede by default, through your failure to do so.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top