What's Communism?

[guerilla]

Are you talking about ethics or rationale? To deem an action as rational a goal must be established. There are an infinite number of goals for which violence would be a rational, perhaps not ethical, course of action.

Google "argumentation ethics" and then understand it (it's not simple).

Not at all. You said the only rational anarchy is one without violence, but how can an impossibility be rational?

First, it is not impossible that you and I can have a relationship without violence. In fact, I would guess you have hundreds of relationships that are non-violent in your life.

Second, as soon as someone uses violence against another, that is a form of rule or control. It's no longer a consensual or voluntary relationship.

Any sense of anarchy, which doesn't abhor and prohibit the concept of control by force, isn't anarchy at all.

Little to none. However, there is always a potential for violence factored into my decision making. This is true for anyone. If there were no potential for violence against me I can assure you my daily activities would be very different. Both you and I are at the mercy of those who are capable of violent action against us whether that action is taken or not.

What you perceive to be a thread (your delusions and obsessions) are different than what is happening in reality.

If you're not in a state of constant violence, then it is very hard to make the case that violence is omnipresent.

In other words, just because you're afraid someone is going to beat you, doesn't mean the world is perpetually violent. It just means you're afraid someone is going to beat you. Step outside your narrow perception of reality, and acknowledge that perception and reality are in fact, two very different things.

I have no doubt you think that violence is all around you. Most people in the west who have never seen violence believe this because that is what the propaganda promotes. Fearful people are easy to control. Monsters under every bed.

 

[guerilla]

Discussing whether or not communism is utopianism would be diverting into another topic, one which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Marx's communism is anarchy.

Utopianism is not compatible with anarchism, hence why it is relevant. If Communism is Utopian, and I don't think I have to do much work to establish that, then it's clearly not Anarchism.

And who are the rulers under Marx's communism and where does he advocate for them?

Statements like this mean you don't understand anything about Marx or Communism.

Read the Communist Manifesto. That might start to educate you a little about Marx's class theory.

"Rational" is an adjective that has no bearing on the definition of anarchy.

I am using rational in the Misesian/Praxeological context, and it does indeed have a bearing on the definition of any term.

This is another diversionary topic, but Ron Paul (who you claim is an anarchist) used to support the death penalty and wants the US military enforcing the border with Mexico.

Ron Paul is sympathetic to anarchism. It's his end goal. He sees a way there through political awareness and education through the political process. I don't agree with him, because engaging in politics taints your soul, as you indicated, he takes bizarre positions which conflict with his underlying morality.

That he isn't consistent with his ethics, or that he is compromised by politics should be no surprise to anyone. This is why I advocate for avoiding politics altogether, as ultimately, it renders every libertarian a hypocrite.

There have been serial killers who were anarchists. Redefining "anarchist" to exclude serial killers would be the fallacy of narrowing the definition.

How were they anarchists? Someone called them an anarchist?

If I call you a shithead, does that mean your head is in fact made out of shit?

Christian Presidents mass murder innocent people. Muslims commit suicide bombing runs (a sin). Jews embrace socialism in Israel. I even heard there was once a Buddhist who kicked a dog.

What people label themselves and others is completely irrelevant to the definition of the term used.

Definitions, in order to useful in argumentation must be delineated concepts. The onus is on you is to show how anarchism includes serial killing, rather than to assert that anarchism includes any or all behaviors. So by going down this road, you've managed to box yourself in. Define anarchy for us Moxie. Make sure it is consistent with serial killing, and people who reject violence, because (according to you) both parties are anarchists.

Now who is engaging in logical fallacy?

The mistake you're making is violating Aristotle's law of identity. Indeed, even challenging a clear definition in such a way, means you're either trolling or don't understand basic logic like the law of identity at all. This should bother you a lot more than my claim than Communism is Utopian. It could mean that your entire way of thinking is logically in-congruent.

 

[guerilla]

I don't think you're actually going to stop and consider what you're saying, because if you were into self-examination and introspection, you wouldn't make these posts in the first place.

But still, that's your answer. More time thinking, less time trying to Google your way into arguments.

 

[hellblazer]

I don't think you're actually going to stop and consider what you're saying, because if you were into self-examination and introspection, you wouldn't make these posts in the first place.

But still, that's your answer. More time thinking, less time trying to Google your way into arguments.

If you want to assert that the basic theory I outlined isn't communism, go for it.

If you want to assert that Obama isn't a communist, go for it.

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up. You look like a pompous idiot with these pathetic ad hominems. You're starting to sound like a fucking libertarian version of Riddar.

 

[REIMktg]

Violence is irrational unless you would like to try and substantiate it.

All men are not rational. In fact most men do not act throughout their lives in a rational way - they act against their own long term self interest a lot - sometimes without knowing it and other times in pursuit of some temporary goal.

Nonsense. We don't live in a dog eat dog world. Look around here at all the neckbeard losers who wouldn't last 2 minutes in serious combat with another human being.

If it were not for the threat of the state enforcing law with violence the world would be much more "dog eat dog". Those neckbeards became that way because they live in an organized society where for the most part they are relying on the state for protection against violence.

I'm not saying we can have a world without violence, I am saying that the initiation of violence cannot be defended ethically.

How about the "reaction" of violence? or the peace through strength argument which is girded with the threat of violence.

How much violence do you undergo daily? I am guessing, zero. Guess it isn't so prevalent, is it?

Because most of us live in a society with the state maintaining order through the threat of violence. If the state were not protecting you, it would be a different situation. The Voluntaryists state that the non-rational violent perpetrators will be dealt with, but once again that involves people subjecting themselves to the violent protection of another - a situation that makes them very vulnerable - much as it is under state control. Either way, violence is a daily fact within Mankind. You cannot say it isn't and then point to people living within an organized state backed by violence.

 

[guerilla]

If you want to assert that the basic theory I outlined isn't communism, go for it.

I didn't reply to you at all. You're an idiot, and there are only so many hours in the day to talk to idiots.

You can wait your turn, or go on my ignore list. LMK.

If you want to assert that Obama isn't a communist, go for it.

I don't particularly care about Obama. He is irrelevant like your posts are irrelevant. You guys are just grains of sand on the beach of mass ignorance and self-defeating behavior.

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.

You've got no power, no social clout, no reputation, esteem or respect, to demand or tell anyone to do anything. You're one of the biggest running jokes this forum has seen, it's laughable to think that anyone here would take any direction from you.

You look like a pompous idiot with these pathetic ad hominems.

You don't understand what an ad hominem is. Like Moxie, you should spend less time worrying about logical fallacies, and more time testing your own arguments with logic.

You're starting to sound like a fucking libertarian version of Riddar.

None are so deaf are those who will not hear.

 

[guerilla]

All men are not rational.

Misesian/Praxeologic framework. You're using the word in a lay (and arbitrary) sense.

If it were not for the threat of the state enforcing law with violence the world would be much more "dog eat dog".

Assertion without proof.

How about the "reaction" of violence? or the peace through strength argument which is girded with the threat of violence.

War is peace, slavery is freedom. 1984. Read it.

The Voluntaryists state that the non-rational violent perpetrators will be dealt with, but once again that involves people subjecting themselves to the violent protection of another - a situation that makes them very vulnerable - much as it is under state control. Either way, violence is a daily fact within Mankind. You cannot say it isn't and then point to people living within an organized state backed by violence.

David Friedman (and anyone who understands free markets for that matter) covered this in Machinery of Freedom. Read it.

No offense, but I don't have time for arguments about political philosophy with people who assert opinions as facts, and have done very little, if any actual research into the topic. It's unfair to me, because my arguments are regarded as autistic and pompous, and frankly, it is a huge waste of time for me to explain concepts which someone engaging in these debates should at a minimum, already understand.

You wouldn't expect an engineer to spend time discussing mechanical design with someone who doesn't understand math or physics, I am not sure why people expect me to field every post, regardless of merit, on a subject I have spent, and continue to spend a lot of time on, and for which for them, may be nothing more than a lark, or cheap afternoon entertainment.

 

[JakeStratham]

I am not sure why people expect me to field every post, regardless of merit, on a subject I have spent, and continue to spend a lot of time on, and for which for them, may be nothing more than a lark, or cheap afternoon entertainment.

I suspect it's because you have repeatedly shown the patience of Job on this forum. Give and ye shall be expected to give again.

 

[hellblazer]

irrelevant
ignorance
self-defeating behavior
power
social clout
reputation
esteem
respect
jokes
laughable
deaf

I don't particularly care about Obama...

This is really the funny part of all this. With all of your enormous respect and immeasurable clout, high esteem and pristine reputation carefully cultivated over the decades, with the lofty knowledge shared to you by the gods, and the great grains of enlightenment you deign to share with the peons, how is it you can't see what's coming? How is it that what I predicted in my signature will happen and you didn't even have a clue?

 

[guerilla]

With all of your enormous respect and immeasurable clout, high esteem and pristine reputation

I'm just like everyone else here. A nobody.

how is it you can't see what's coming?

I can see exactly what is coming.

Your inability to stop shouting long enough to take in new information, or to challenge your deeply held beliefs prevents you from doing anything in any of these conversations except to play the clown.

I honestly feel badly for you, but then I feel badly that so many people are like that. Nothing I can do about it. I can't change anyone, and I can't influence people who are immune to being influenced except in the direction that they are already heading.

How is it that what I predicted in my signature will happen and you're gonna end up looking like the average idiot on here?

I assure you, that when what is coming comes, I will be one of the lucky ones. You'll be the one wearing a yoke (and it will be one of your own making), not me.

 

[guerilla]

I suspect it's because you have repeatedly shown the patience of Job on this forum. Give and ye shall be expected to give again.

I am truly an idiot.

 

[hellblazer]

I can see exactly what is coming...

Then put your cards on the table, oh mighty one. If I am such a nobody, such a peasant, such an idiot, uninformed and incapable of stopping my shouting mouth, such a Glenn Beck fanatic, such a useful idiot, then what I have predicted this November must truly be false.

With all of your great wisdom and intelligence, surely you can give the peons of Wickedfire a specific prediction of what is to come, since I am clearly so wrong, ignorant, and pitiable. You said you can see exactly what is coming. You said that I am the most ignorant person in the world. You said that you weep for my sad, sorry state of mind.

Then surely you can share with the assorted peasantry and detritus specifically what is coming, to prove how superior your paradigm is to mine, to guide them away from my sad, illogical shouting. Show the world how ignorant and trollish I am and reveal the glorious fruits of your great intellect to us!

 

[guerilla]

Then put your cards on the table, oh mighty one.

It's a waste of time. There is nothing I can tell you that will change anything for you unless you are ready to start looking outside your own narrow perceptions.

And when you're ready to do that, you'll start to see all kinds of things differently. Until you're willing to check your premises, you'll continue to wind yourself up in a circle of nonsense, ad infinitum.

I love HL Mencken, he had this great line I think of every time I see you post.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

I am sure you will get what you so desperately want.

Although, I prefer this one myself. It speaks to the more primal side of me.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

 

[REIMktg]

David Friedman (and anyone who understands free markets for that matter) covered this in Machinery of Freedom. Read it.

OK. I am reading it.
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

I have to say though I find his arguments rely upon a presumption of human behavior and motivations. For example his argument on why the sale of the limited resource of the public airwaves would be used to maximize profit rather than for individual gain. This I find hard to believe when in fact those businessmen referenced could simply use it to push their products and brands, philosophy, or whatever else in order to achieve a goal. Remember there are a lot of super rich that spend money on pushing what they want without regard to some perceived utility.

I find the discussion on Police and Courts ridiculous. Its one Govt for another and I like the fact that the current Police do not have a self interest. Though this does leave them open to bribes the majority are not whereas the private protection agencies would only be accountable to their self interest and to ensuring violations were not exposed which could be accomplished through payoffs etc.

The matrix of private protection agencies, private arbitrators, etc is beyond reason. This is no better than what we have now. You cannot see how it is exposed to corruption?

His chapter on "problems" points out many of the issues I have brought up and leaves us with a system that is far from workable.

At least he mentions water rights, pollution etc - but his solutions are ridiculous. They are simply an exchange from our current system to a privatized corrupt system.

I have found nothing thus far in this book that delivers anything beyond the previous LukeP resources provided. In the end if this is all there is then it is clear why it is not a widely accepted alternative to our current system.

The good parts can all be achieved within our current framework without throwing it all out and starting fresh.

You wouldn't expect an engineer to spend time discussing mechanical design with someone who doesn't understand math or physics, I am not sure why people expect me to field every post, regardless of merit, on a subject I have spent, and continue to spend a lot of time on, and for which for them, may be nothing more than a lark, or cheap afternoon entertainment.

Funny enough, Friedman is somewhat saying the same thing with regard to his book -

One reason for writing a book like this is to avoid having to explain the same set of ideas a hundred times to a hundred
different people

and I can respect that - and I appreciate the book reference because it helps me understand where you and others are coming from. Unfortunately I have yet to find any new arguments which leaves us in eternal disagreement over this. Hopefully in the future I will come upon a resource that is more compelling and truly presents a palatable system that could possibly appeal and work for everyone.

 

[guerilla]

I have to say though I find his arguments rely upon a presumption of human behavior and motivations.

It's called incentives, and all of the fields of social science presume and utilize the concept.

I find the discussion on Police and Courts ridiculous.

David Friedman is easy to find online and he likes to talk about this stuff. I've been in discussions with him several times. If you like or dislike the book, if you agree or disagree, it's best to direct it to him.

Or maybe IceToEskimos will argue with you, he likes the book quite a bit.

 

[guerilla]

Hopefully in the future I will come upon a resource that is more compelling and truly presents a palatable system that could possibly appeal and work for everyone.

There is no such thing as a system which works for everyone, since everyone has different values.

What environment allows different values to flourish peacefully, is one based upon individual liberty and property rights.

Anarchism is not a Utopia. It's a social consciousness about the irrationality and counter-productivity (and perhaps injustice) of a system based on violence.

 

[hellblazer]

I can see exactly what is coming...

There is nothing I can tell you...

It's not for me. It's for your own credibility in the eyes of everyone here. If you're going to unceasingly declare how ignorant/uninformed I am and how much more enlightened your perspective is, the least you can do is produce a specific prediction derived from that paradigm.

You say you can see exactly what is coming. Then write it in the record books of WF for the world to see. I've made a very specific prediction based upon the anti-communist perspective that you incessantly deride as "ignorant". So man up, philosopher king. Tell everyone what is coming. Let the people see who is the fool and who is the sage.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I am truly an idiot.

Best post you've made in a long time. Sigged.

 

[berry1]

Refer to Communist people

 

[guerilla]

It's for your own credibility in the eyes of everyone here.

I care not one whit about appearing credible here. I could care less what people who don't know me think about me. There are 7 billion more people outside this forum whose opinion I also do not care about.

If you think I post because I am motivated by ego, then you haven't been paying very close attention.

Tell everyone what is coming.

I have many times. That you haven't picked up on it says a lot more about you than I possibly could. Your shouting and ranting approach prevents you from looking at anything with a curious and questioning perspective.

You never challenge your beliefs, so why would you let me challenge them?

Elect Romney. Then in 4 years, elect someone else. Then in 4 years elect someone else. Repeat for 60 years then die.