6 ms·

So Medieval. The Crown accuses you of corruption/sedition/treachery, prosecutes you then confiscates your property as a fine. A bit like Henry 7th in England du

So Medieval. The Crown accuses you of corruption/sedition/treachery, prosecutes you then confiscates your property as a fine. A bit like Henry 7th in England during his reign. Also a bit like Putin against any oligarchs who dared to oppose him. But then I suppose its a standard pattern of behaviour to give their actions the sheen of lawfulness.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Or like civil forfeiture, the only difference is how rich the victims are.
- mthoms 5y ago
  That's quite a stretch. In civil forfeiture the victim isn't disappeared/re-educated.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The victim has little influence in the first place, there's no need to make sure they can't cause further trouble.
koonsolo 5y ago
I would say it's plain communism: nothing is yours, the state owns everything (including your life). But I guess the difference between crown and communism is best explained in Animal Farm.
- permo-w 5y ago
  It’s just authoritarianism
  - nickpp 5y ago
    They always come together.
    - BuckRogers 5y ago
      That's because people don't understand the words that they use. Even people that label their countries communist. 'Communist' and 'nation' are mutually exclusive terms. There's no such thing as a communist nation, it's not possible. Communism as originally defined by Marx is lack of a state. You can start another 100 countries and call them communist but they're really only Leninist (or derivative ideological strains). Guys starting with Lenin took the rather popular idea of statelessness, which is required to completely eliminate the master-slave / lord-serf / employer-employee relationship of capitalist employment, and used that popular economic ideology to create a vanguard state to work towards communism. It was always an attempt, either sincere or not, as a jumpstart towards communism. I'm not a communist, nor am I a sympathizer. I'm a wholehearted statist in favor of democracy. I do think there are lessons to be learned from Marx's examination of the capitalist economic model, and believe we could have a better hybrid system with workers' cooperatives to compete with capitalist enterprise. I'm just telling the truth on this one, there cannot be a communist nation. It's a complete contradiction. Lenin completely understood the USSR couldn't possibly be both a state and communist, but admitted this, and called it communist anyway. And all of this is why if you read about 1800s communists, they're all referred to as anarchists. Still are, if you're talking to someone that understands communism. Authoritarianism comes in every flavor of Kool-Aid.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    Authoritarianism is possible with most types of government, but is necessary for communism. Most communists are well aware of the fact that an economic system with strict objectives requires a very powerful mechanism in order to accomplish this, and most of those understand that this mechanism is an authoritarian state, but there are obviously the delusional few that refer to the state by any other name (syndicates, guilds). China, however, is not communist. China is fascist. > Fascism: authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy
- meh99 5y ago
  I don’t really see the inequality of representation and taxation in capitalism as any less authoritarian. If everything I do is being validated for value by management and bosses, and my buying power is managed by bankers who have inflationary powers to dilute my earnings, we’ve just made managed economy ephemeral. We’ve socially normalized grift and protection rackets. Some estimates suggest up to 30% of inmates are innocent. And when plenty are in there for marijuana, that’s a bit more petty than a billionaire disrupting an entire society. Rather than real prisons we let people die on the streets from preventable disease so we can say we didn’t force anyone into anything as if letting them rot is glass half full. It’s a shame the “I am educated and worldly” community hasn’t put much though into the depth to which relativity applies to human existence. If we’re going to intentionally avoid lifting people up at the cost of putting agency into propping up the already rich, well, the poor can never experience the alternative to form meta opinions. This bantering in traditional political memes is patronizing and ignorant af given our scientific understanding of reality.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    If you don’t see a difference, but millions of others do, it might be worth steel manning the opposite of your conclusions. It’s a useful rhetorical exercise at least.
    - meh99 5y ago
      Millions see sky wizards, should I? I get the difference. It doesn’t absolve our culture of ignoring it’s deficiencies. But look what happens at a university in 2008 when students simply sit on the ground. Is there a difference? Or have we just accepted our fate? I don’t think I’m the one that needs to take tour advice.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        There might be a difference between belief in sky wizards and belief in taxation in capitalism being as authoritarian…

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Or like civil forfeiture, the only difference is how rich the victims are.

mthoms 5y ago
That's quite a stretch. In civil forfeiture the victim isn't disappeared/re-educated.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The victim has little influence in the first place, there's no need to make sure they can't cause further trouble.

koonsolo 5y ago

I would say it's plain communism: nothing is yours, the state owns everything (including your life). But I guess the difference between crown and communism is best explained in Animal Farm.

permo-w 5y ago
It’s just authoritarianism
- nickpp 5y ago
  They always come together.
  - BuckRogers 5y ago
    That's because people don't understand the words that they use. Even people that label their countries communist. 'Communist' and 'nation' are mutually exclusive terms. There's no such thing as a communist nation, it's not possible. Communism as originally defined by Marx is lack of a state. You can start another 100 countries and call them communist but they're really only Leninist (or derivative ideological strains). Guys starting with Lenin took the rather popular idea of statelessness, which is required to completely eliminate the master-slave / lord-serf / employer-employee relationship of capitalist employment, and used that popular economic ideology to create a vanguard state to work towards communism. It was always an attempt, either sincere or not, as a jumpstart towards communism. I'm not a communist, nor am I a sympathizer. I'm a wholehearted statist in favor of democracy. I do think there are lessons to be learned from Marx's examination of the capitalist economic model, and believe we could have a better hybrid system with workers' cooperatives to compete with capitalist enterprise. I'm just telling the truth on this one, there cannot be a communist nation. It's a complete contradiction. Lenin completely understood the USSR couldn't possibly be both a state and communist, but admitted this, and called it communist anyway. And all of this is why if you read about 1800s communists, they're all referred to as anarchists. Still are, if you're talking to someone that understands communism. Authoritarianism comes in every flavor of Kool-Aid.
- ralusek 5y ago
  Authoritarianism is possible with most types of government, but is necessary for communism. Most communists are well aware of the fact that an economic system with strict objectives requires a very powerful mechanism in order to accomplish this, and most of those understand that this mechanism is an authoritarian state, but there are obviously the delusional few that refer to the state by any other name (syndicates, guilds). China, however, is not communist. China is fascist. > Fascism: authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy
meh99 5y ago
I don’t really see the inequality of representation and taxation in capitalism as any less authoritarian. If everything I do is being validated for value by management and bosses, and my buying power is managed by bankers who have inflationary powers to dilute my earnings, we’ve just made managed economy ephemeral. We’ve socially normalized grift and protection rackets. Some estimates suggest up to 30% of inmates are innocent. And when plenty are in there for marijuana, that’s a bit more petty than a billionaire disrupting an entire society. Rather than real prisons we let people die on the streets from preventable disease so we can say we didn’t force anyone into anything as if letting them rot is glass half full. It’s a shame the “I am educated and worldly” community hasn’t put much though into the depth to which relativity applies to human existence. If we’re going to intentionally avoid lifting people up at the cost of putting agency into propping up the already rich, well, the poor can never experience the alternative to form meta opinions. This bantering in traditional political memes is patronizing and ignorant af given our scientific understanding of reality.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  If you don’t see a difference, but millions of others do, it might be worth steel manning the opposite of your conclusions. It’s a useful rhetorical exercise at least.
  - meh99 5y ago
    Millions see sky wizards, should I? I get the difference. It doesn’t absolve our culture of ignoring it’s deficiencies. But look what happens at a university in 2008 when students simply sit on the ground. Is there a difference? Or have we just accepted our fate? I don’t think I’m the one that needs to take tour advice.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      There might be a difference between belief in sky wizards and belief in taxation in capitalism being as authoritarian…