28 ms·

> In comparison to what? Eachother? Yes, that is the point I tried to make with all those paragraphs. > These are economic systems and are seperate from polit

> In comparison to what? Eachother? Yes, that is the point I tried to make with all those paragraphs. > These are economic systems and are seperate from political systems. I directly addressed this in the penultimate full paragraph. > and let's not pretend china isn't capitalist It depends on how you define "capitalist." Some industries in China are state-controlled--is that capitalist? Is "capitalist" 0% state control, or < 100% state control? How does China's capitalism compare with capitalism in the rest of the world? > It still is not correct I realize that you're not the first person I replied to, nor the last, but I wish you would say why you think I'm wrong, because otherwise what's the point of saying so?

ddnb 9y ago
> I realize that you're not the first person I replied to, nor the last, but I wish you would say why you think I'm wrong, because otherwise what's the point of saying so? The quote I used to have an example of what I think was not correct. The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example: > toward either anarchy or communism Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, these two 'groupings' are one and the same in the end. > which is part of human nature Is there such a thing as a fixed human nature? Our strength is that we adapt. >It depends on how you define "capitalist." Some industries in China are state-controlled--is that capitalist? Is "capitalist" 0% state control, or < 100% state control? There is no state in communism so that would not be a good measure. Then you seem to imply that communism is full on state control while the opposite is true and communism (and anarchism) stands for a stateless and classless society. A country that is full authoritarian is just that, authoritarian, regardless of what mix of state-ownership of the economy is involved. Your whole post is more of an argument against authoritarianism than anything else in my opinion.
- explainplease 9y ago
  > The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example This is what communists always say: "Communism is just misunderstood and has been poorly implemented. We'll get it right this time." 100 million people in the 20th century say otherwise--well, they would, if they were alive to do so, but they were killed by communism. I'll try to be concise: 1. Communism and anarchy are not the same thing, because in communism, sharing is not optional. 2. Communism is not stateless, because the laws are enforced to enact communism, and whatever entity enforces the laws is the state. I guess you're thinking that communism is "the people" rather than "the state," but that is a false distinction, because whichever of the people dissent are forced to comply by the other people, i.e. the state. This is like saying that there is no "state" in the United States, because it is "of, by, and for the People." However, this is a false distinction, because the state is not the People, rather it is authorized by the People, and its powers are delegated to it by the People. It remains a distinct entity. 3. Therefore, anywhere there is a government, there is a state. The only stateless society would be total anarchy, like nomads roaming the plains thousands of years ago. Even then, they had tribes, which were essentially mini-states. So to claim that communism is stateless is essentially playing semantic games. 4. You said, "Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, these two 'groupings' are one and the same in the end." This is interesting, because most of (if not all of) the "anarchists" we see today are actually thinly veiled communists. They advocate anarchy to destroy the existing society, hoping to then create a new communist state afterward. But you seem to think that communists and anarchists are the same because you think that both are advocating for a stateless society (which is not the case). So we agree on your conclusion, but apparently for different reasons. 5. Communism is not classless. Whoever is in charge is in a class above the rest. > Your whole post is more of an argument against authoritarianism than anything else in my opinion. Yes, it is--and communism is authoritarian.

ddnb 9y ago

> I realize that you're not the first person I replied to, nor the last, but I wish you would say why you think I'm wrong, because otherwise what's the point of saying so? The quote I used to have an example of what I think was not correct. The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example: > toward either anarchy or communism Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, these two 'groupings' are one and the same in the end. > which is part of human nature Is there such a thing as a fixed human nature? Our strength is that we adapt. >It depends on how you define "capitalist." Some industries in China are state-controlled--is that capitalist? Is "capitalist" 0% state control, or < 100% state control? There is no state in communism so that would not be a good measure. Then you seem to imply that communism is full on state control while the opposite is true and communism (and anarchism) stands for a stateless and classless society. A country that is full authoritarian is just that, authoritarian, regardless of what mix of state-ownership of the economy is involved. Your whole post is more of an argument against authoritarianism than anything else in my opinion.

explainplease 9y ago
> The problem is your reasoning is based on these 'wisdoms' that aren't actually real facts or which are simply misunderstood, for example This is what communists always say: "Communism is just misunderstood and has been poorly implemented. We'll get it right this time." 100 million people in the 20th century say otherwise--well, they would, if they were alive to do so, but they were killed by communism. I'll try to be concise: 1. Communism and anarchy are not the same thing, because in communism, sharing is not optional. 2. Communism is not stateless, because the laws are enforced to enact communism, and whatever entity enforces the laws is the state. I guess you're thinking that communism is "the people" rather than "the state," but that is a false distinction, because whichever of the people dissent are forced to comply by the other people, i.e. the state. This is like saying that there is no "state" in the United States, because it is "of, by, and for the People." However, this is a false distinction, because the state is not the People, rather it is authorized by the People, and its powers are delegated to it by the People. It remains a distinct entity. 3. Therefore, anywhere there is a government, there is a state. The only stateless society would be total anarchy, like nomads roaming the plains thousands of years ago. Even then, they had tribes, which were essentially mini-states. So to claim that communism is stateless is essentially playing semantic games. 4. You said, "Communists and anarchists have the same end goal, these two 'groupings' are one and the same in the end." This is interesting, because most of (if not all of) the "anarchists" we see today are actually thinly veiled communists. They advocate anarchy to destroy the existing society, hoping to then create a new communist state afterward. But you seem to think that communists and anarchists are the same because you think that both are advocating for a stateless society (which is not the case). So we agree on your conclusion, but apparently for different reasons. 5. Communism is not classless. Whoever is in charge is in a class above the rest. > Your whole post is more of an argument against authoritarianism than anything else in my opinion. Yes, it is--and communism is authoritarian.