Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Anarchy is stupid because it is by definition unenforcable.

That is the common conception. Most forms of anarchy actually believe in authority of some sort.

Communism is stupid because it is a rigid, inflexible system that can't respond to the needs of the people.

I thought you got spanked by Spiffor in another thread. Communism is as rigid as the people want it to be, as long as it stays democratic.

Capitalism is brilliant because it is a self-organizing system that is fundamentally meritocratic

The USSR was much more meritocratic than America is today.
'Self-organizing' is a non-sense. Every system organizes itself.

[General Ludd]

Hey Kucinich, who do you talk to for a name change? I've been thinking of making a change myself, lately.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
You weren't here for Kidicious' "profit = unfair tax" threads, were you?

No, I wasn't. If you earlier said that anarchism negates any form of authority, I don't see how it can include any taxation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That is the common conception. Most forms of anarchy actually believe in authority of some sort.

Then it isn't anarchy. It's just some sort of extreme libertarianism (is that redundant?).

I thought you got spanked by Spiffor in another thread. Communism is as rigid as the people want it to be, as long as it stays democratic.

I didn't get "spanked" by him, we barely had time for a discussion among people like Che and Ned. Spiffor doesn't believe in communism anyways, he's basically a socialist.

The USSR was much more meritocratic than America is today.

Not really, no - it was whether you were a big-shot Party member.

'Self-organizing' is a non-sense. Every system organizes itself.

Self-organizing means that it takes simple rules to form complex structures. A self-organizing system is inherently elegent, which I like.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


No, I wasn't. If you earlier said that anarchism negates any form of authority, I don't see how it can include any taxation.

No, I was just poking fun at Kidicious. He had TWO threads that went to 500 posts where he tried to convince us that profit = unfair tax and that rent was exploitive

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld
Hey Kucinich, who do you talk to for a name change? I've been thinking of making a change myself, lately.

PM Ming.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich


No, I was just poking fun at Kidicious. He had TWO threads that went to 500 posts where he tried to convince us that profit = unfair tax and that rent was exploitive

Two threads that you will never forget. That pleases me.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Then it isn't anarchy. It's just some sort of extreme libertarianism (is that redundant?).

Well, not many thinkers have defended pure anarchy, or, more precisely, a state of nature kind of society.

When we refer to 'anarchism' today, no one with some education thinks of a system with absolutely NO authority.

I didn't get "spanked" by him, we barely had time for a discussion among people like Che and Ned. Spiffor doesn't believe in communism anyways, he's basically a socialist.

He believes that means of production should be collectively owned, which makes him a communist. Spiffor is not a social-democrat.

On the spanking issue, he definitely proved that flexibility can be part of a serious communist system. There are plenty of free markets in the world enforced by dictators. Trust me, those are not really flexible.

Not really, no - it was whether you were a big-shot Party member.

And here, it is whether daddy is rich. In truth, the Soviet educational system was amongs the most efficient and accessible in the world. Bright kids and talented athletes were put apart from their youngest age to form the communist elite, without regard to their origin.

BTW, did you know that literacy rates in Cuba are higher than in the US? Accessible education, which the US doesn't have, is perhapts the #1 condition for a system to be meritocratic.

Self-organizing means that it takes simple rules to form complex structures. A self-organizing system is inherently elegent, which I like.

No. Capitalism requires very strict regulations from governments to function acceptably. These decisions are made at the highest legislative level, and certainly not by virtue of unhindered free market.

[Kuciwalker]

And here, it is whether daddy is rich.

Not really, no. Look at someone like Bill Gates. America is a country where geniuses can make obscene amounts of money

No. Capitalism requires very strict regulations from governments to function acceptably. These decisions are made at the highest legislative level, and certainly not by virtue of unhindered free market.

It all depends on what you deem "acceptable".

[Kidlicious]

Fake Boris,

Are you an anarchist?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Not really, no. Look at someone like Bill Gates. America is a country where geniuses can make obscene amounts of money

You are wrong. Statistics consistently tell us that rich kids become wealthy parents, while poor kids have the higher chance of staying poor.

Obviously, someone can always rise above the rest, whatever the system. These opportunities, however, aren't any more frequent in the US than they were in the USSR- especially given that the Soviet system looked at sheer talent, while the American one is more likely to require that a person has entrepreneurial skills to put his talent at work.

It all depends on what you deem "acceptable".

Of course. America being, in my opinion, barely acceptable, when you look at frauds, monopolistic behavior, insane political donations, etc.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Fake Boris,

Are you an anarchist?

I am friendly to the cause for the moment: from what I know, I believe that anarcho-socialism is an attractive system, and I intend to look into it further.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I am friendly to the cause for the moment: from what I know, I believe that anarcho-socialism is an attractive system, and I intend to look into it further.

Me too.

[Bosh]

I don't think there are any Leninists here at Poly

There's che. I don't know what label he slaps on himself but he's definately plenty fond of Lenin.

I'm not as absolute about freedom, as anarchists seem to be

That's not necessarily the difference. For another example, communists seem to care much more about income distribution (surplus value and all that), while anarchists seem to care much more about distribution of power. Communists don't seem to care as much about the workers having real power (Leninist talk of labor armies and suchlike) as long as the capitalists are getting smacked down.

The other main difference is that for communists, power is channelled through a central state, while for anarchists power is taken directly and on a more local level through cooperatives, local unions and what have you.

They need someone to kick them in the ass sometimes.

I'm with you here, that's why I'm anarchist-lite (or minarcho-socialist, or however you want to phrase it). But that doesn't make me communistic since I think that something that's halfway to communism (ie Social Democracy) is quite a bit different than something that's halfway to anarchism (ie what's been called Worker Capitalism, where a lot of things are owned/controlled by workers/people themselves but things still operate in a basically capitalist framework).

The anarchist standpoint seems to be that they will contribute equally just because they are free.

Well I'd take a long time to reach that point, if its ever possible. No reason not to try to get at least somewhat close though. But the important things is trying to squish hierarchical power structures or all sorts.

-Anarchism: Chaos and disorder on the streets followed by complete societal collapse

Then have some nice friendly Minarchism

Anarchy is stupid because it is by definition unenforcable.

So?

It's just some sort of extreme libertarianism (is that redundant?).

No, becaus anarchism generally means socialism (libertarianism used to mean socialism too until the capitalists hijacked that word, of course now they're trying to hijack anarchism too so things get a bit confused at times).

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are wrong. Statistics consistently tell us that rich kids become wealthy parents, while poor kids have the higher chance of staying poor.[/q]

DUH. Obviously, MOST people will stay wherever they started, regardless of the system.

Obviously, someone can always rise above the rest, whatever the system. These opportunities, however, aren't any more frequent in the US than they were in the USSR- especially given that the Soviet system looked at sheer talent, while the American one is more likely to require that a person has entrepreneurial skills to put his talent at work.

Those "entrepreneurial skills" ARE talent.

Of course. America being, in my opinion, barely acceptable, when you look at frauds, monopolistic behavior, insane political donations, etc.

It isn't capitalism if laws against fraud and theft aren't enforced