Tea baggers love feudalism.

[deprave]

What socialist country runs communes. I am intrigued .

Definition of commune:

com·mune
/ˈkämyo͞on/
Noun
A group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities.
Verb
Share one's intimate thoughts or feelings with (someone or something), esp. when the exchange is on a spiritual level.

Political Theory of Commune introduced by Marx:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(socialism)
The commune is a model of government that is generally advocated by communists, revolutionary socialists, and anarchists.

The Civil War in France (1871), source :
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm

Karl Marx, in his important pamphlet The Civil War in France (1871), written during the Commune, advocated the Commune's achievements, and described it as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, 'the form at last discovered' for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Thus in Marxist theory, the commune is a form of political organization adopted during the first (or lower) phase of communism, socialism. Communes are proposed as the proletarian counterpart to bourgeois political forms such as parliaments. In his pamphlet, Marx explains the purpose and function of the commune during the period that he termed the dictatorship of the proletariat:


"The Commune, was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time...Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."- Karl Marx (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

In addition to local governance, the communes were to play a central role in the national government

 

[deprave]

Not going to lie, I stopped reading this as soon as I saw the first mention of "marxist". But that's a respectable line of work, good for you. I half expected to hear "salesmen" of some sort.

Then you missed the most important part, Communism/Socialism can exist in free market capitalism (not to be confused with state capitalism), free market capitalism cannot exist in communism/socialism.

 

[ChesusRice]

So deprave. What socialist goverment runs communes?

 

[GOD HERE]

You accuse me of committing a logical fallacy and immediately commit one yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Read what I said, and understand that not every argument is made screaming in your face with a mouth full of accusations. I attempted to build common ground between different ideologies, somehow that flew way over your head.

Can you repost your original post?

 

[abandonconflict]

Win their souls by forever making them subservient to a government model that will never give you a choice to be apart of the system or not.

Clown shoes.

The thing you ignore, not unknowingly, is that gov't exists as a result of capital power. It is not a gov't model I am pushing. You are the one who's soul has been bought by anti-state rhetoric pushed by neofeudal interests. In other words it isn't anti-state at all. It seeks to replace our state with a privatized one. Voluntaryism is anarchocapitalism is feudalism. Apparently some republicans are even Marxist. You're the statists.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Definition of commune:

com·mune
/ˈkämyo͞on/
Noun
A group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities.
Verb
Share one's intimate thoughts or feelings with (someone or something), esp. when the exchange is on a spiritual level.

Political Theory of Commune introduced by Marx:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_%28socialism%29
The commune is a model of government that is generally advocated by communists, revolutionary socialists, and anarchists.

The Civil War in France (1871), source :
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm

Karl Marx, in his important pamphlet The Civil War in France (1871), written during the Commune, advocated the Commune's achievements, and described it as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, 'the form at last discovered' for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Thus in Marxist theory, the commune is a form of political organization adopted during the first (or lower) phase of communism, socialism. Communes are proposed as the proletarian counterpart to bourgeois political forms such as parliaments. In his pamphlet, Marx explains the purpose and function of the commune during the period that he termed the dictatorship of the proletariat:


"The Commune, was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time...Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."- Karl Marx (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

In addition to local governance, the communes were to play a central role in the national government

"communes" which are formed under a socialist system, with the assets and resources owned by an incorporated governing body are usually referred to as Collectives these days, while Communes are the open, zero property non-heirachical associations found among free love hippie dippy utopian true communists.

it's an important distinction, since communist theory has progressed beyond marx's early pamphlets and ruminations.

 

[Rob Roy]

Then you missed the most important part, Communism/Socialism can exist in free market capitalism (not to be confused with state capitalism), free market capitalism cannot exist in communism/socialism.

This is an important distinction that many people want to pretend doesn't exist. Excellent point.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Clown shoes.

The thing you ignore, not unknowingly, is that gov't exists as a result of capital power. It is not a gov't model I am pushing. You are the one who's soul has been bought by anti-state rhetoric pushed by neofeudal interests. In other words it isn't anti-state at all. It seeks to replace our state with a privatized one. Voluntaryism is anarchocapitalism is feudalism. Apparently some republicans are even Marxist. You're the statists.

more silly word games.

the Republic as a form has long been a part of marx's theories, it is the basis of the soviets, or worker's executive committees, but your implication is that being a republican (proponent of representative republics) is synonymous with being a member of the Republican Party, but by your logic, supporting democracy would be synonymous with being a member of the Democratic Party.

still as facetious and fallacious as ever.

Protip: marx was a proponent of democratic elections to select the members of the executive committees which would tend to the operation of factories, collective farms and other "Means Of Production" operations (which did NOT include seeds under that heading) which is the very definition of the Representative Republican form.

 

[Rob Roy]

Clown shoes.

The thing you ignore, not unknowingly, is that gov't exists as a result of capital power. It is not a gov't model I am pushing. You are the one who's soul has been bought by anti-state rhetoric pushed by neofeudal interests. In other words it isn't anti-state at all. It seeks to replace our state with a privatized one. Voluntaryism is anarchocapitalism is feudalism. Apparently some republicans are even Marxist. You're the statists.

To be fair, you seem to be oversimplifying. Voluntaryism by definition (my definition anyhow) is based on the principle of voluntary interactions, which has at the core no set outcome, just a principle of actions, beliefs and behaviors. To say that voluntaryism = feudalism is to deny any of the other possible outcomes that a voluntary society might "permit" to exist. To say or imjply that it MUST lead to feudalism is, I believe, inaccurate.

 

[Dr Kynes]

To be fair, you seem to be oversimplifying. Voluntaryism by definition (my definition anyhow) is based on the principle of voluntary interactions, which has at the core no set outcome, just a principle of actions, beliefs and behaviors. To say that voluntaryism = feudalism is to deny any of the other possible outcomes that a voluntary society might "permit" to exist. To say or imjply that it MUST lead to feudalism is, I believe, inaccurate.

LIAR!!! voluntary associations always result in vassalage and serfdom!

no Hippie Commune can exist without an Oath of fealty to the local Dukedom or a Corporate Master!!

in fact all forms of governance result in vassalage, except for anarchy, which always results in a utopia every time it is tried, until the CIA comes in and oppresses the workers....

even in the middle of the Dark Ages, the CIA was running about ensuring that no village could operate without some overlord taking his cut, even in the farthest reaches of the wilderness!

the CIA even forced the egalitarian native american tribal groups into vassalage, somehow....

 

[deprave]

even in the middle of the Dark Ages, the CIA was running about ensuring that no village could operate without some overlord taking his cut, even in the farthest reaches of the wilderness!

the CIA even forced the egalitarian native american tribal groups into vassalage, somehow....

I know your being sarcastic but this bit is true if you change a few words up in some cases, I.E change CIA to the church or civil war, for example it lasted 300 years in iceland(anarcho-captilism), longer than the US, until the church got involved and colluded with gothars to effectively tax everyone.

 

[sync0s]

Clown shoes.

The thing you ignore, not unknowingly, is that gov't exists as a result of capital power. It is not a gov't model I am pushing. You are the one who's soul has been bought by anti-state rhetoric pushed by neofeudal interests. In other words it isn't anti-state at all. It seeks to replace our state with a privatized one. Voluntaryism is anarchocapitalism is feudalism. Apparently some republicans are even Marxist. You're the statists.

You're just word bending in nonsensical arguments. I'm not going to play semantics with you.

 

[sync0s]

Can you repost your original post?

You have a mouse, and there are links on this page that allow you to view past posts. Make use of these tools, be resourceful.

 

[abandonconflict]

It is the "free-market" movement in the US that is guilty of twisting words more than anybody. You have to get semantics straight, these guys have been twisting language for decades.

Need I start quoting Rothbard again?

 

[abandonconflict]

To be fair, you seem to be oversimplifying. Voluntaryism by definition (my definition anyhow) is based on the principle of voluntary interactions, which has at the core no set outcome, just a principle of actions, beliefs and behaviors. To say that voluntaryism = feudalism is to deny any of the other possible outcomes that a voluntary society might "permit" to exist. To say or imjply that it MUST lead to feudalism is, I believe, inaccurate.

It's history. Rome gave way to it.

 

[GOD HERE]

You have a mouse, and there are links on this page that allow you to view past posts. Make use of these tools, be resourceful.

I try to waste as little time arguing with right wingers as possible since it's pointless. These back and forths are for entertainment on my lunch breaks.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I know your being sarcastic but this bit is true if you change a few words up in some cases, I.E change CIA to the church or civil war, for example it lasted 300 years in iceland(anarcho-captilism), longer than the US, until the church got involved and colluded with gothars to effectively tax everyone.

yes. free associations and "primitive communist" groups with a weak central government are vulnerable to being conquered or enslaved by a stronger more organized power.

thats why "anarchy' always fails, since not everybody is nice.

the "anarchy" of the gauls caused rome so much trouble that the romans conquered them just to stop their assclownery and raids on roman trade. the attacks by bandits on the silk road neccesitated stronger military forces to keep the trade open, which in turn resulted in taxation.

junipero serra claimed to be serving his faith and his god when he "converted" the native american tribes under his papal decreed dominion, but in fact he enslaved them and forced them to work in gold mines and on plantations. ultimately he discovered that the native americans made much poorer slaves than africans, but he still got rich (and canonized) for his efforts.

it's the nature of life. the strong dominate the weak, or the weak develop a new plan.

thats why aphids produce honeydew, to entice ants to protect them. it's capitalism at it's most basic level. the aphids harvest much more sugar from the plant's sap than they need, to pay the ants for protection from predatory insects. not even aphids are foolish enough to trust in the kindness of ladybugs when the dinner bell rings.

modern lefty "Anarcho-______ists" swallowed the bait and believe that their utopia will appear if only they demolish the structures that protect them from the predatory elements of society. it didnt work in russia, uin cuba, in north korea, in china, in revolutionary france, or anywhere else.

even if the state is a bastard and preys on you, if you dont make a REAL planto replace the current regime with something better (but strong enough to stand) you are begging to get taken over by the next bastards, and they usually prove to be worse than the last guys.

 

[sync0s]

It is the "free-market" movement in the US that is guilty of twisting words more than anybody. You have to get semantics straight, these guys have been twisting language for decades.

Need I start quoting Rothbard again?

Right, because it's free market economics that needs to make up bogus multipliers in order to prove their math.

I try to waste as little time arguing with right wingers as possible since it's pointless. These back and forths are for entertainment on my lunch breaks.

Amazingly, I have now become a "right winger"... more ad hominem attacks from the very person who chastised me for using logical fallacy.

BTW, it's more of a waste of time to sit and wait for me to re-post something and you respond to it, than you to simply go back one page and read it yourself. Nice try though.

 

[abandonconflict]

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, our side, had captured a crucial word from the enemy Libertari*ans had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over." ~Murray Rothbard.

Or how about the time he called egalitarianism a revolt against nature?

Or how about Ayn Rand calling altruism evil?

 

[Mindmelted]

Right, because it's free market economics that needs to make up bogus multipliers in order to prove their math.



Amazingly, I have now become a "right winger"... more ad hominem attacks from the very person who chastised me for using logical fallacy.

BTW, it's more of a waste of time to sit and wait for me to re-post something and you respond to it, than you to simply go back one page and read it yourself. Nice try though.

Now everyone knows GOD is lazy.......