You're essentially responding to a strawman argument. SincThe government is a social apparatus, organized by the people, to manage their large-scale socioeconomic projects and civil affairs.e when did I ever argue for a government that "presumes to manage society", dictating "its form" of society upon us by force? Never.
I'm just responding to what you typed: "The government is a social apparatus, organized by the people, to manage their large-scale socioeconomic projects and civil affairs."
I disagree with your characterization of the purpose of government. Seems pretty central to the argument to me.
I was 100% clear that we the people decide what society we're going to have, not politicians or capitalist plutocrats. You prefer for capitalists and their markets to decide what type of society we're going to have. How about? You prefer private for-profit dictatorships, companies that don't give a shit about the public good but only their "bottom line" (i.e. profits), to rule the roost. I SAY NO!
I prefer freedom.
Due to the advancing, evolutionary, innovative nature of science and technology, we will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless, centrally planned, system of mass production, soon.
Forced? By whom? "We the people"?
This will be the only way to avoid techno-feudalism, and mass civil unrest due to gross, out-of-control inequality and scarcity. Democratic socialism is the beginning stage or level of communism, which ends with the individual consumer having complete control over production, without a government entity or anyone else. Technology will one day allow the individual person, to produce everything that they consume. That future can only come through socialism, not capitalism.
Will let me correct myself, by giving proper credit to capitalism. Without capitalism, we wouldn't be living in the modern age and there would be no socialism or high-tech communism. So as a communist I will give credit where it's due. Marx also acknowledged the virtues of capitalism in his work, Capital. Capitalism was necessary, and good, being better and more innovative than chattel slavery and feudalism. However, capitalism, eventually becomes imperialistic, cronyistic, and obsolete, as a result of advanced technology.
Socialism, which includes communism, is the natural, inevitable successor of capitalism. It tips its hat to capitalism and says "Thank You Sir", and inherits its productive estate and enterprise, along with the government that it once controlled, through its cronyism.
What failure are you referring to? Be precise and clear.
"Precise and clear"? Stow the pedantic posturing or we're done.
You claimed I want people to "be at the mercy of greedy capitalists", among other things. You're either a mind reader, or you have some other reason to make that statement. I was inviting you to support your claim with quotes. Did you find any? Or did you fail?
When did I ever say that? The "only way anyone" really? I never said that. That's another false charge.
You claimed "You don't know what communism actually is, only what you were told by your capitalist masters and a government run by capitalists during the Cold War."
That's pretty empty, as an argument goes. How did you decide that I don't know what communism is??
I'll dump it with your bullshit "100 million" innocent little lambs. death-toll figure.
Looks like you're confusing me with one of your other discussions here.
I already expressed my position, with plenty of propositions and claims. Just choose the points you want to "debunk", go ahead.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm simply mirroring the attitude of my capitalist opponents, who constantly resort to emotional, death-toll arguments and false assumptions about both communism and capitalis.
I do likewise. You wanna be a prick, I can be one right back. But I like to shoot for more worthwhile exchanges.
My biggest beef with communism, or socialism, is the reliance on majority rule. I'm just not a fan. In general, majority rule is a terrible way to make decisions in society, and should be limited to circumstances where it's truly necessary. Otherwise, people should be free to sort things out for themselves.
From what I've seen, communists, socialists, etc .., especially as expressed by guise of modern "Democratic Socialists", want far more majority rule than I'm comfortable with. Notably, they want our economic decisions to be "democratic", but most write ups also suggest that all, or most, social decisions should be decided democratically.
I don't agree. Forcing everyone to conform to the will of the majority should only be employed, or tolerated, when it's vital for us all to be on the same page. Most of the time, it isn't. Most of the time, freedom is better.
