Originally posted by dadudemon
There is no tangible government in pure communism...it is actually a really good idea...but it would never work with a human. We are not like ants. Pure Communism IS the most synergistic and efficient way to live, as a human. Pure Communism is for a higher species...but not humans. We are simply not capable of seeing beyond our own two feet most of the time.I myself have a pure communistic marriage...my wife and I are always working for each other and our children...day in and day out, without thought of return.
What is wrong with pure communism? Seriously, I always thought it was something for the future when humans mature more.
That's not quite true though, now is it?
You work for your children and wife, because you love them. You get their happiness in return. You do it for your own selfish ideas, but call them altruistic, which is not quite honest. You could do that in a capitalist society too, what you spend your money on is your business (family apparently in your case), you could share it with everyone in your community, but the general idea that you choose what to do with your money is a good one and should be that way. If something like Communism arises out of Philosophical ideals people accept (basically the economy is capitalistic in theory, but people share everything) that's alright (again, what you spend your money on is only your business), but a system that makes people share their hard earned money is unfair.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And you'd probably find the recent content of exported freedom (tm) / democracy to have the same value, ultimately, if you were to disagree with that particular brand of democracy and freedom.
Take France, for example....*offers iniamalist something from paper wrapping*
Freedom fries...?
I don't know if I get the joke you are trying to make, but people seem to presume a lot about how I feel...
If you are talking about exporting freedom and democracy to totalitarian nations as an abstract entity, sign me up. Seeing as you put "recent" in there, I'll also assume that you mean America's two most recent ventures into the Middle East. To which all I really have to say is that Iraq was the wrong country, and that the administration's running of the war and the rebuilding effort has been aweful. I am very much not against military action in the middle east, and push come to shove, Iraq, if it doesn't just completely collapse, will be a better place to live (clearly a big if, but whatever).
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is no tangible government in pure communism...
yes, I get the feeling you are replacing the term "anarcho-communism" (which is admittedly the name given to the spanish anarchists) with "pure communism".
Now, I spent a few years as an anarchist, and if you press me, I'll still admit to holding what I feel are true anarchist beliefs (which are labeled "anarcho-capitalism"😉.
So, the argument to this point would be the same as my argument against "ararcho-communism"; namely that the system in itself proposes a very strict social contract which all members of the society (not volountarily joined) must follow. The lack of a defense mechanism against abusers would be a pragmatic complaint, but honestly, I don't feel it is necessary. Even if it were possible, the idea that from birth a person owes their production to society, or even to anyone other than themselves, is immoral and equivalent to massive theft and borderline slavery.
The existance of a strict social order, imho, is worse than a lax government. It is simply changing the nature of the "thing" which one is expected to belong to.
Originally posted by dadudemon
it is actually a really good idea...but it would never work with a human. We are not like ants. Pure Communism IS the most synergistic and efficient way to live, as a human. Pure Communism is for a higher species...but not humans. We are simply not capable of seeing beyond our own two feet most of the time.
What struck me about this is your use of the word ants. almost specifically because it is a very similar term to what I would use.
I do not see ants as a higher species, nor do I see their automated and subserviant life to be more synergistic and efficent.
From the language used here, I can only assume that you are truly in favor of widespread slavery coordinated by an abstract social contract.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I myself have a pure communistic marriage...my wife and I are always working for each other and our children...day in and day out, without thought of return.
???
So you and your children equally share your wages, you children have as much control over the means of production in the family as you and your wife?
I get what you are saying, but because you have a co-operative marrige doesn't mean you are a communist. My friends and I share most things and are very generous with eachother, however, that does not create communism. maybe collectivism, but it is not the collective good that drives our behaviour, but the self satisfaction that is recieved from pro-social behaviour.
And lets be honest. Even if one would consider what you have to be "communist", the fact that you and your wife can make it work is not really evidence for it at a national, or any organizational, level.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What is wrong with pure communism? Seriously, I always thought it was something for the future when humans mature more.
well, you can expect me to actively fight that future until my dying breath. I'll take "immaturity" if you want to use it as a synonym for freedom.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not quite true though, now is it?You work for your children and wife, because you love them. You get their happiness in return. You do it for your own selfish ideas, but call them altruistic, which is not quite honest. You could do that in a capitalist society too, what you spend your money on is your business (family apparently in your case), you could share it with everyone in your community, but the general idea that you choose what to do with your money is a good one and should be that way. If something like Communism arises out of Philosophical ideals people accept (basically the economy is capitalistic in theory, but people share everything) that's alright (again, what you spend your money on is only your business), but a system that makes people share their hard earned money is unfair.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know if I get the joke you are trying to make, but people seem to presume a lot about how I feel...If you are talking about exporting freedom and democracy to totalitarian nations as an abstract entity, sign me up. Seeing as you put "recent" in there, I'll also assume that you mean America's two most recent ventures into the Middle East. To which all I really have to say is that Iraq was the wrong country, and that the administration's running of the war and the rebuilding effort has been aweful. I am very much not against military action in the middle east, and push come to shove, Iraq, if it doesn't just completely collapse, will be a better place to live (clearly a big if, but whatever).
yes, I get the feeling you are replacing the term "anarcho-communism" (which is admittedly the name given to the spanish anarchists) with "pure communism".
Now, I spent a few years as an anarchist, and if you press me, I'll still admit to holding what [b]I
feel are true anarchist beliefs (which are labeled "anarcho-capitalism"😉.So, the argument to this point would be the same as my argument against "ararcho-communism"; namely that the system in itself proposes a very strict social contract which all members of the society (not volountarily joined) must follow. The lack of a defense mechanism against abusers would be a pragmatic complaint, but honestly, I don't feel it is necessary. Even if it were possible, the idea that from birth a person owes their production to society, or even to anyone other than themselves, is immoral and equivalent to massive theft and borderline slavery.
The existance of a strict social order, imho, is worse than a lax government. It is simply changing the nature of the "thing" which one is expected to belong to.
What struck me about this is your use of the word ants. almost specifically because it is a very similar term to what I would use.
I do not see ants as a higher species, nor do I see their automated and subserviant life to be more synergistic and efficent.
From the language used here, I can only assume that you are truly in favor of widespread slavery coordinated by an abstract social contract.
???
So you and your children equally share your wages, you children have as much control over the means of production in the family as you and your wife?
I get what you are saying, but because you have a co-operative marrige doesn't mean you are a communist. My friends and I share most things and are very generous with eachother, however, that does not create communism. maybe collectivism, but it is not the collective good that drives our behaviour, but the self satisfaction that is recieved from pro-social behaviour.
And lets be honest. Even if one would consider what you have to be "communist", the fact that you and your wife can make it work is not really evidence for it at a national, or any organizational, level.
well, you can expect me to actively fight that future until my dying breath. I'll take "immaturity" if you want to use it as a synonym for freedom. [/B]
It appears that both of you may not fully understand what pure communism is. (I am not saying that you don't understand it at all.)
1. People are NOT forced to share things...They all work for each other willingly. You could compare it as a different kind of love. (A type of love that is currently not used....)
2. There is No government in pure communism. Everyone works without any outside motivation...it all comes from within and it is supposed to work perfectly...to reach a pure communistic state, it is literally like reaching a state of nirvana.
3. Of course you think that sharing what you have worked for is unfair...because you are too selfish to every live in a pure communistic society. (Not that being that selfish is a bad thing...I agree that we all should get what we earned and not have to give it up...because I am below living pure communism with others.)
4. Of course pure communism is very much like an ant society...everyone has a job to contribute to the survival of the colony/civilization...etc
Inimilist, you are confusing communism with pure communism...
Bardock42...of course the way my marriage is isn't "for reals" pure communism...and when you get married and have children...come back to me about it not being selfless.
Why do people often think that doing something out of love is somehow magically taken out of selfish reasons.
Also, dadudemon, once more you don't understand my point. I didn't say that giving up your hard earned money for the community is a bad thing...I said being forced to is a bad thing. In fact, I named the "pure communism" that you described in your post specifically in my earlier post. I suggest you read what I post, so we can have a fruitful discourse in the future.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do people often think that doing something out of love is somehow magically taken out of selfish reasons.Also, dadudemon, once more you don't understand my point. I didn't say that giving up your hard earned money for the community is a bad thing...I said being forced to is a bad thing. In fact, I named the "pure communism" that you described in your post specifically in my earlier post. I suggest you read what I post, so we can have a fruitful discourse in the future.
Why do some people think that love is magic and having a family is easy and selfish?
Once again, you missed the entire point....pure communism is stateless. Money has no place in pure communism.
I suggest you read up on pure communism and not interpret things things like my family example out of context.
My point was...a good family is comparable to the idea of pure communism...Do I pay my wife to do my laundry...does she pay me to do our bills, do we pay each other to take care of the children? Of course, no..to all of those, we do it without expectation of anything in return from the other. That was my point. Even then, my family example does not due the concept of pure communism justice...there are conflicts in families all the time on responsibility.
Originally posted by Robtard
Absolute Communism = The Smurfs
Uhhh.....yeah, I think that fits the definition of Pure Communism.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Take a look around KMC. Would anyone REALLY want 3/4 of people here voting?The answer simply must be no.
Though you are right that includes to me people like Shakya, debbie, Whirly, Lord Urizen and you....and, well, you guys are allowed to vote whether it is 16 or 18...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do some people think that love is magic and having a family is easy and selfish?Once again, you missed the entire point....pure communism is stateless. Money has no place in pure communism.
I suggest you read up on pure communism and not interpret things things like my family example out of context.
My point was...a good family is comparable to the idea of pure communism...Do I pay my wife to do my laundry...does she pay me to do our bills, do we pay each other to take care of the children? Of course, no..to all of those, we do it without expectation of anything in return from the other. That was my point. Even then, my family example does not due the concept of pure communism justice...there are conflicts in families all the time on responsibility.
I would argue with you, but it's pointless. So just one-two points so that the thinking population of KMC gets why you talk out of your ass once more.
A system without ownership is not free, it forces you to not have ownership.
You can get paid in more way than just with money.
You should let us decide whether we like what pure communism or any other form of communism, we might know better than you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I would argue with you, but it's pointless. So just one-two points so that the thinking population of KMC gets why you talk out of your ass once more.A system without ownership is not free, it forces you to not have ownership.
You can get paid in more way than just with money.
You should let us decide whether we like what pure communism or any other form of communism, we might know better than you.
boy oh boy...you got me there. 🙄 Thanks for helping the KMC population out...you really are selfless...maybe there is hope that you will understand pure communism.
YOU used money as an example...I was just nit picking like you do with everything around you.
Also, you are still too selfish to really understand pure communism. You are missing something that allows you to get from point "a" to point "b". You use things such as "paid" and "forces you" which do not equate in a system of pure communism. Just stop being so arrogant and actually try to learn something...you might get along with people a little better too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. People are NOT forced to share things...They all work for each other willingly. You could compare it as a different kind of love. (A type of love that is currently not used....)
ya, got that
Whatever steps would be necessary to make people willing to give up their freedom in such a way to make this "pure communism" possible would be immoral.
Originally posted by dadudemon
2. There is No government in pure communism. Everyone works without any outside motivation...it all comes from within and it is supposed to work perfectly...to reach a pure communistic state, it is literally like reaching a state of nirvana.
It must come from within, but what comes from within is being controlled in a way that takes away the choice of the individual.
I also wrote a couple of paragraphs about anarchy and communism... Where I deliberately said that a lax state is better than communism without a government.
nirvana? lol theo-anarcho-communism
Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Of course you think that sharing what you have worked for is unfair...because you are too selfish to every live in a pure communistic society. (Not that being that selfish is a bad thing...I agree that we all should get what we earned and not have to give it up...because I am below living pure communism with others.)
Given how you have phrased "pure communism" in religious terms, I'll take that as the jab intended, though I would agree with the exact wording of the phrase.
oh, the bracket cleared that up, this is loathing against humanity, because we are so imperfect and flawed. So much so that we must be stripped of our freedoms, since they are what make us err.
Originally posted by dadudemon
4. Of course pure communism is very much like an ant society...everyone has a job to contribute to the survival of the colony/civilization...etc
What was the last skyscraper, song, poem, film, lecture, discovery... etc. that an ant made?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Inimilist, you are confusing communism with pure communism...
I said earlier that I couldn't speak to "pure communism", and my comparison was to anarcho-communism...
can you hit me with like the main differences between "Pure communism" and "anarcho-communism"?
Originally posted by inimalist
ya, got thatWhatever steps would be necessary to make people willing to give up their freedom in such a way to make this "pure communism" possible would be immoral.
People wouldn't have to give up their freedom. Everyone would be freer than humanity has ever been in all of history. In order for pure communism to work, however, enmity would have to be nonexistent. (Because there would not be any government.)
Originally posted by inimalist
It must come from within, but what comes from within is being controlled in a way that takes away the choice of the individual.
That falls under the same concept of an all powerful/all righteous god wanting to cause evil...it just doesn't mix. Let me explain a little more....
Some people think that "God" isn't all powerful because he wouldn't come down from heaven and rape a baby...or something atrocious like that...they think that it means that God isn't truly all powerful because he is damned in the things he can do...being perfectly righteous, etc. This is a false idea because "God" still does anything "He" wants...not anything people suppose "He" should be able to do.
Originally posted by inimalist
I also wrote a couple of paragraphs about anarchy and communism... Where I deliberately said that a lax state is better than communism without a government.nirvana? lol theo-anarcho-communism
Nirvana was the best thing I could think of...it would require super human enlightenment for something as absurd as pure communism to work. Nirvana seemed to fit the bill. Look up the Buddhist definition of Nirvana...it fits into both your mockery of pure communism and my definition of a requirement of individuals who comprise a "pure communism" society...all in one. HOORAY! 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
Given how you have phrased "pure communism" in religious terms, I'll take that as the jab intended, though I would agree with the exact wording of the phrase.
I tried not to make it an insult...I fall into the category of one being FAAAR from being able to live pure communism...pure communism looks good on paper for a form of humanity that simply doesn't exist to make it happen.
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, the bracket cleared that up, this is loathing against humanity, because we are so imperfect and flawed. So much so that we must be stripped of our freedoms, since they are what make us err.
Wrong....people would still have their freedoms and under such a community, more scientific endeavor could be made than ever before...no BS bureaucracy to get into the way of discovery....the science community would simply do science just for the sake of its purest form....to discover and enlighten....of course, their discoveries would be for everyone....and human characteristics such as jealously would get int the way...and greed...etc....it would be VERY difficult, as you can see, for this type of society to exist because of human characteristics.
Originally posted by inimalist
What was the last skyscraper, song, poem, film, lecture, discovery... etc. that an ant made?
And with our vast brain power, how many thousands of years did it take for humans to develop enough social structure to do so? Ants make their equivalent of sky scrapers. They have extraordinarily complex communication systems relative to their brain function...ants are always discovering new things all the time...just not intellectually like you are referring to.
I was referring to the organizational structure of each ant. Every ant, though no solely important to the survival of the colony, is important to the survival of the colony. I know that may not make sense on the surface, but it does. Do you honestly think that if ail enmity left man kind that science, art, etc would be damned? tis true that there would be an "over-mind" that everyone would have...I general thought process that everyone follows for the betterment of the community...but that already happens now with humanity...just not in such a perfectly synergistic form. I believe that there is a balance between your restrictive version of pure communism and where humanity is now. I believe that humanity will continue to progress, socially, until we are a lot closer to a pure communistic society compared to what we are now. However, I don't think that humanity could ever be a pure communistic society...we are too individual and emotional to do so. To not be those things would be to remove our humanity to begin with. In the same line of thought...whose to say that we will never reach the point of pure communistic societies? I can never say we will never make it there because it is possible. It may not be exactly like pure communism but it will be similar...like the Mormons idea of the Law of Consecration, or something.
You think pure communism is evil because you cannot think past your own morals, which are very subjective. I understand that, it is okay to have an opinion about something. Other than the false and close minded idea that a pure communistic society would have a damned dull boring lifestyle, do you have any reasons why a pure communistic society is evil?
Originally posted by inimalist
I said earlier that I couldn't speak to "pure communism", and my comparison was to anarcho-communism...can you hit me with like the main differences between "Pure communism" and "anarcho-communism"?
anarcho-communism still has a concept of property...even though it professes to not have one...also, though it professes to be stateless, it isn't because organizations of overseeing or management of production control can still exist...also, though it professes equality and everyman works for himself...inequality is still possible. I am not an authority on it, by any means...and I don't know as much as I would like, however, anarcho-communism is similar to pure communism in the fact that it is supposed to be stateless with shared community.
Anyways, despite a large portion of 16 year olds being morons, I believe that we, as a society, think it is good to let the people vote in who governs them, then you should also be fair about it. Like Ush said, it is just about selecting the line where people are allowed to decide their own business. And 16 years are certainly influenced strongly by the decisions made and have the mental capacities to understand them (if they will ever have them). In fact, I might go even further and propose 14 as a suitable age, but at 16 I believe one is without a doubt capable...to make that decision.
Now, as libertarian myself, I can see how that would basically destroy every chance of liberal mindsets to get voted in (as 16 year olds generally think being ****ed in the ass by communism is a good thing (hehe, see how the other debate was on topic?)), but I believe if we truly accept democratic principles we shouldn't be too hypocritical about it. The arguments against 16 year olds voting could mostly be applied to 18 year olds and even 30 year olds ... where would we draw the line? And I would say, as free as possible, as that is the foundation of the Democratic ideals we pretend to have.
That being said, I think an evaluation and rejection of Democracy might be in order.