Laid Off

[Marxist]

Yes I have, you just didn't want to look deeper into it, but none the less, I'll help you out.

The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територія vilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территория svobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertarian communes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]

The territory was occupied by WhiteRussian forces under Anton Denikin and a temporary government of Southern Russiaformed, but, by 1920, Denikin's forces had been driven out of the area by the Red Army in cooperation with Makhno's forces, whose units were conducting guerrilla warfare behind Denikin's lines.

As the Free Territory was organized along anarchist lines, references to "control" and "government" are highly contentious. For example, the Makhnovists, often cited as a form of government (with Nestor Makhno being their leader), played a purely military role, with Makhno himself being little more than a military strategist and advisor.[4]
7 million people... With constant attacks against them, think about that.
Keep in mind I also follow anarchist syndicalism to help achieve anarchist communism.
Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.
From November 1918 to June 1919, the Makhnovists established an anarchist society run by peasants and workers in Ukraine. The territory under their control stretched approximately between Berdyansk, Donetsk, Alexandrovsk (later known as Zaporizhia), and Yekaterinoslav, (Sicheslav, later Dnipropetrovsk). According to Makhno, "The agricultural majority of these villages was composed of peasants, one would understand at the same time both peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of its members. Everyone, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... The work program was established in meetings in which everyone participated. Then they knew exactly what they had to do". (Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine, 1936).

According to the leaders of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (RIAU), society was reorganized according to anarchist values, which lead Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education followed the principles of Francesc Ferrer, and the economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crops and cattle to manufactured products, according to the theories of Peter Kropotkin.

The Makhnovists said they supported "free worker-peasant soviets"[6] and opposed the central government. Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[6] The Makhniovists called various congresses of soviets, in which all political parties and groups - including Bolsheviks - were permitted to participate, to the extent that members of these parties were elected delegates from worker, peasant or militia councils. By contrast, the Bolshevik territory, after June 1918, no non-Bolsheviks were permitted to participate in any national soviets and most local ones,[7] the decisions of which were also all subject to Bolshevik party tutelage and veto.

A declaration stated that Makhnovist revolutionaries were forbidden to participate in the Cheka, and all party-run militias and party police forces (including Cheka-like secret police organizations) were to be outlawed in Makhnovist territory.[8][9] Historian Heather-Noël Schwartz comments that "Makhno would not countenance organizations that sought to impose political authority, and he accordingly dissolved the Bolshevik revolutionary committees".[10][11] The Bolsheviks, however, accused him of having two secret police forces operating under him.[12]

The Bolsheviks began their formal efforts to disempower Makhno on 4 June 1919 with Trotsky's Order No. 1824, which forbade electing a congress and attempted to discredit Makhno by stating: "The Makhno brigade has constantly retreated before the White Guards, owing to the incapacity, criminal tendencies, and the treachery of its leaders."[5]
Makhnovists The Russian Revolution
Lots more..

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

 

[Marxist]

The idea that manufacturing in China has lifted millions out of poverty is laughable. The workers aren't paid enough to lift themselves out of poverty. The Chinese oligarchs are making massive amounts of money but not the workers.

And yet through a combination of higher level manufacturing and the green revolution in agriculture China has seen millions lifted out of abject poverty.

Millions ain't much in a nation of 1.4 billion. How many remain in abject poverty?

The poverty rate declined from about 85% to about 33% so we are talking about hundreds of millions of people.

How are you defining poverty? Again, I'd like to know. What standard of living are you using? In comparison to? Also. Let's remember capitalism does help at first, I'll give you that. Actually, I see things like this: Primitive communism-Feudalism-capitalism-socialism-communism

 

[Marxist]

Oh yeah, I can just up and leave my family to establish a stateless society. It's clearly that easy.

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

"Theoretically" do you mean he gave it to capitalists, or strong worker unions?

 

[Osomir]

I do want to look deeper into it which is why I have been requesting data from you. I saw the wiki pages you don't need to copy and paste them, they don't provide data on the conditions of the society. Once again I ask you why you feel like these examples are successes that should be emulated (specifically) and why they should convince someone like me that anarcho-communism is the way to go.

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

 

[Osomir]

This actually rather exemplifies a major flaw within anarcho-communist thought in practice. The simple fact is that people have competing priorities and desires within a society, and anarcho-communism demands that those living under it put the society and the principles of anarcho-communism above that. Yet even you, an ardent supporter of anarcho-communism, aren't even willing to do this.

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

"Theoretically" do you mean he gave it to capitalists, or strong worker unions?

Pretty much the entire economy outside of the oil sector was placed directly into the hands of the people through peoples congresses. People were limited to how much wealth they could accumulate individually and to how much property they could own. Excess was redistributed among the general population (everyone was given a house for example). non-communal businesses were banned (private business), and it failed completely.

 

[Marxist]

People have competing priorities in capitalism as well.

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

Anarchy communism demands none of the sort, it demands nothing, I'm not willing to do it? Telling me to go start a stateless society in America is fucking hilarious, and more of a personal stab.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

"Theoretically" do you mean he gave it to capitalists, or strong worker unions?

Pretty much the entire economy outside of the oil sector was placed directly into the hands of the people through peoples congresses. People were limited to how much wealth they could accumulate individually and to how much property they could own. Excess was redistributed among the general population (everyone was given a house for example). non-communal businesses were banned (private business), and it failed completely.

A state existed, "people's congresses" redistribution based on what the state wants.. Yes, sometimes ideas like these fail, so do capitalist states. It's a opinionated opposition we have towards each other.

 

[Marxist]

They should be emulated due to the inherit flaws of capitalism and the destruction it brings, the fact that capitalists focus on short term profit, the contradictions, the systemic poverty... And workers need to own production, but that's my opinion. The living conditions were certainly good, the only ones saying bad things were the Bolsheviks.. Makhnovists
I can't find any documented starvation or problems that were major, and I'm trying to.

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

 

[Osomir]

The problem here is that isn't a very compelling argument in favor of the societies that you are trumpeting. Especially since they were so very short lived. You haven't demonstrated that these societies were in any way better than what say we have in the US or western Europe. Why on earth would I want to transition into such a society?

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

 

[Osomir]

Right, and we have a state that regulates the extremes of those competing priorities and ensures a monopoly on force. Your system doesn't.

There are several communes in the United states that strive for communal living and independence and they get to piggy back off of US government production. It is a pretty nice set-up for them. Have you even donated towards such communes?

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

"Theoretically" do you mean he gave it to capitalists, or strong worker unions?

Pretty much the entire economy outside of the oil sector was placed directly into the hands of the people through peoples congresses. People were limited to how much wealth they could accumulate individually and to how much property they could own. Excess was redistributed among the general population (everyone was given a house for example). non-communal businesses were banned (private business), and it failed completely.

A state existed, "people's congresses" redistribution based on what the state wants.. Yes, sometimes ideas like these fail, so do capitalist states. It's a opinionated opposition we have towards each other.

It didn't just fail, it failed completely. and hard. and was highly abusive towards the population in the process. As i said, I have done work within Africa, I have seen these communal efforts and African socialist concepts played out again and again, and they never work well. Even under a virtually unlimited supporting budget and security guarantees like in Libya and even under the rule of a highly educated and benevolent leader like in Tanzania. It just doesn't work. Can you point to something that is working that exemplifies your support for communal production?

 

[Marxist]

It is a compelling argument. They were short lived due to violence against them, and the reading I've given you recently literally addresses almost everything you've been asking me about. They were better for the working people, and remember, this was In the early 1900s. Why not?

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

There is a lot to go through, all of it will help you form a understanding, the problem is, the Bolsheviks silenced and violently slaughtered the anarchists in Ukraine, and it's difficult to expect datasets.. I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well, And yes, a first world imperialist country typically has benefits.

 

[Osomir]

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

There is a lot to go through, all of it will help you form a understanding, the problem is, the Bolsheviks silenced and violently slaughtered the anarchists in Ukraine, and it's difficult to expect datasets.. I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well, And yes, a first world imperialist country typically has benefits.

So do you have anything that you can specifically quote from this source that supports your argument? Once again simply saying "read all of it" (which I will) doesn't do anything to support your stance. Once again I might as well just tell you to go out and actually get a degree in economic theory. that really isn't how debate works. Can you quote anything specific to support your claims or not? If you'd like we could take this to the structured debate sub-forum and have a more formal discussion through the use of cited material. That way there isn't as much risk associated with putting together longer arguments (they won't be able to be ignored).

 

[Osomir]

How are you defining "better for the working people"? What data are you basing that claim on? life expectancy? standard of living? Purchasing power? class mobility? Service provision and availability? Economic output and productivity? Security and stability? I haven't seen anything along any of those lines except a note that their stability and security mechanisms failed to allow the survival of the community. I haven't seen any argument from you that they were better off outside a general statement that they were "free from capitalism". That doesn't tell me anything useful.

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well,

So i guess I can re-phrase, what specific evidence outside of ideological pontification do you have that it works "quite well"? Because I have a lot of data sets that show that it doesn't tend to work well at all.

 

[Marxist]

The system does have people who regulate it, they're called the majority who unite behind the common good, or the trade unions... Etc, etc..

We saw that theoretically in Libya under Gaddafi. where the government wasn't concerned with much of the political economy outside of the oil sector and so gave the rest of it "to the people" and even provided security gauntness against the formations of subversive entities. Even with overarching protection from security underproduction and massive financial infusions from a more open oil sector the economy completely failed. The only reason why it didn't collapse almost immediately is because it was able to be artificially propped up by oil revenues.

"Theoretically" do you mean he gave it to capitalists, or strong worker unions?

Pretty much the entire economy outside of the oil sector was placed directly into the hands of the people through peoples congresses. People were limited to how much wealth they could accumulate individually and to how much property they could own. Excess was redistributed among the general population (everyone was given a house for example). non-communal businesses were banned (private business), and it failed completely.

A state existed, "people's congresses" redistribution based on what the state wants.. Yes, sometimes ideas like these fail, so do capitalist states. It's a opinionated opposition we have towards each other.

It didn't just fail, it failed completely. and hard. and was highly abusive towards the population in the process. As i said, I have done work within Africa, I have seen these communal efforts and African socialist concepts played out again and again, and they never work well. Even under a virtually unlimited supporting budget and security guarantees like in Libya and even under the rule of a highly educated and benevolent leader like in Tanzania. It just doesn't work. Can you point to something that is working that exemplifies your support for communal production?

It wasn't actually control by the workers, it was the state deciding this shit it seems to me...

 

[Marxist]

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

There is a lot to go through, all of it will help you form a understanding, the problem is, the Bolsheviks silenced and violently slaughtered the anarchists in Ukraine, and it's difficult to expect datasets.. I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well, And yes, a first world imperialist country typically has benefits.

So do you have anything that you can specifically quote from this source that supports your argument? Once again simply saying "read all of it" (which I will) doesn't do anything to support your stance. Once again I might as well just tell you to go out and actually get a degree in economic theory. that really isn't how debate works. Can you quote anything specific to support your claims or not? If you'd like we could take this to the structured debate sub-forum and have a more formal discussion through the use of cited material. That way there isn't as much risk associated with putting together longer arguments (they won't be able to be ignored).

I've put forth many arguments, which one do you want me to address?

 

[Marxist]

We are better off because the method of distribution would be different, production would be based on what is needed for humanity, not bases on profit, the working people would be able to work together and get compensated for what their labor is actually worth, the life expectancy would certainly be better, as would the standard of living for all people, the concept of purchasing power wouldn't really have meaning, nor would class mobility... No, they had a large army... But fell due to being overwhelmed, there you go, thank what you want, we obviously have different opinions, and I respect the dialogue we've had, and apologize if I threw out insults, this forum does things to people... But none the less, it seems this will be a never ending exchange.

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well,

So i guess I can re-phrase, what specific evidence outside of ideological pontification do you have that it works "quite well"? Because I have a lot of data sets that show that it doesn't tend to work well at all.

Free Ukraine, the Paris commune, worker coops, revolutionary Catalonia.. Again, it's hard when they're the only examples of actual Socialism without a ruling state entity.

 

[Osomir]

Once again this is all simply ideological rhetoric without any empirical supporting evidence. Can you point to how these things lead to specific instances of improvement in the examples that you gave or from any other examples? So far I haven't seen any supporting data from you.

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well,

So i guess I can re-phrase, what specific evidence outside of ideological pontification do you have that it works "quite well"? Because I have a lot of data sets that show that it doesn't tend to work well at all.

Free Ukraine, the Paris commune, worker coops, revolutionary Catalonia.. Again, it's hard when they're the only examples of actual Socialism without a ruling state entity.

Simply listing them doesn't in any way support your hypothesis that they work quite well. Can you support that claim?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

For the "common good".....

The rally cry of thieves and tyrants

In his world the "common good" means we're all dumbed down and picking rice on the communal farm...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well,

So i guess I can re-phrase, what specific evidence outside of ideological pontification do you have that it works "quite well"? Because I have a lot of data sets that show that it doesn't tend to work well at all.

Free Ukraine, the Paris commune, worker coops, revolutionary Catalonia.. Again, it's hard when they're the only examples of actual Socialism without a ruling state entity.

Simply listing them doesn't in any way support your hypothesis that they work quite well. Can you support that claim?

Of course not.. what he espouses has a 100% failure rate. How many have died under communism? 100,000,000+?

 

[Osomir]

For the "common good".....

The rally cry of thieves and tyrants

In his world the "common good" means we're all dumbed down and picking rice on the communal farm...

And even communal farms tend to be relatively unproductive.

 

[Marxist]

Yes, I posted a collection of texts from libcom describing the free Ukraine, but let's remember how far we have come with technology. Again, opinionated differences.

I have been looking through them, they don't contain data sets. but i will keep reading through it. Have you read it? What should I be looking for? Can you reference anything from the specific text that would answer my question directly? the difference between us here is that I actually have evidence that capitalism can work quite well and lead to stable governance systems and provide benefits for people living within the state and a comfortable standard of living. You live in such a society yourself.

I have evidence that anarchism/socialism can work quite well,

So i guess I can re-phrase, what specific evidence outside of ideological pontification do you have that it works "quite well"? Because I have a lot of data sets that show that it doesn't tend to work well at all.

Free Ukraine, the Paris commune, worker coops, revolutionary Catalonia.. Again, it's hard when they're the only examples of actual Socialism without a ruling state entity.

Simply listing them doesn't in any way support your hypothesis that they work quite well. Can you support that claim?

They are the only examples of socialism without a state, and pardon me for not linking everything right now, on mobile and it's a pain in the ass, so my responses may be slow. The documentation is also not very much for the events considering they were violently crushed and were slandered by the likes of the Bolsheviks.
History of the Paris Commune