3 ms·

I am not going to debate anything further with someone who conflates a wide range of different political movements under the same umbrella, "because they're all

I am not going to debate anything further with someone who conflates a wide range of different political movements under the same umbrella, "because they're all collectivist". That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Good day.

stcredzero 8y ago
That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence through your silence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. I'm fine with non-violent collectivists. I'm on record that the collective experience on small scales seems vital to the artistic life of humanity. You are the one deflecting by bringing in Stalin. (Wow, the best you can do is to deflect by bringing up a national leader who implemented your politics and murdered millions of people?) Here is the crux of my position: So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. Authoritarian violence is authoritarian violence. Violating human rights is violating human rights. You simply have no answer for that.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I said I wouldn't debate, but I do want to clear up a grave misunderstanding. >"your politics" There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. There's a pretty big difference, and calling an AnCom (or even just a run-of-the-mill socialist) a stalinist is a grave insult. Unless you make up for that in a very big fashion, we're completely done here.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. Excellent! Then here is how that goes. You form a rosy view of communism, because it really is awesome for communities smaller than ~450. Then you go on to overthrow a national government. Your philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and does not fit reality, so the new government gets more and more authoritarian as time goes on. (Witness what Lenin thought and wrote as time went on.) From Wikipedia: Anarcho-communism (also known as anarchist communism, free communism, libertarian communism and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property) in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sounds just like the early stage idealistic version of 20th century communism. Given that you are willing to stand silently by and abet violent criminal actors while wearing a mask, while calling yourself a "pacifist," I don't have a lot of confidence that what you stand for isn't on the same trajectory as the most extreme examples. In the meantime you still don't have an answer to the crux of the matter, and the above is still just (a weak and self-damning) deflection from the idea that violence is violence. Crapping on human rights is crapping on human rights -- and by your actions, this is how you believe the "righteous" conduct themselves: Exercising force against those you disagree with.

stcredzero 8y ago

That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence through your silence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. I'm fine with non-violent collectivists. I'm on record that the collective experience on small scales seems vital to the artistic life of humanity. You are the one deflecting by bringing in Stalin. (Wow, the best you can do is to deflect by bringing up a national leader who implemented your politics and murdered millions of people?) Here is the crux of my position: So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. Authoritarian violence is authoritarian violence. Violating human rights is violating human rights. You simply have no answer for that.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
I said I wouldn't debate, but I do want to clear up a grave misunderstanding. >"your politics" There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. There's a pretty big difference, and calling an AnCom (or even just a run-of-the-mill socialist) a stalinist is a grave insult. Unless you make up for that in a very big fashion, we're completely done here.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. Excellent! Then here is how that goes. You form a rosy view of communism, because it really is awesome for communities smaller than ~450. Then you go on to overthrow a national government. Your philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and does not fit reality, so the new government gets more and more authoritarian as time goes on. (Witness what Lenin thought and wrote as time went on.) From Wikipedia: Anarcho-communism (also known as anarchist communism, free communism, libertarian communism and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property) in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sounds just like the early stage idealistic version of 20th century communism. Given that you are willing to stand silently by and abet violent criminal actors while wearing a mask, while calling yourself a "pacifist," I don't have a lot of confidence that what you stand for isn't on the same trajectory as the most extreme examples. In the meantime you still don't have an answer to the crux of the matter, and the above is still just (a weak and self-damning) deflection from the idea that violence is violence. Crapping on human rights is crapping on human rights -- and by your actions, this is how you believe the "righteous" conduct themselves: Exercising force against those you disagree with.