Idk what to put here. . capitalism described by capitalists) capitalism described by socialists) socialism described by socialists) socialism described by capit
x
Click to expand

Idk what to put here

capitalism
described by capitalists)
capitalism
described by socialists)
socialism
described by socialists)
socialism
described by capitalists)
klil' iii (ill
libertarianism
described by libertarians)
libertarianism
described by everyone else)
anarchy
fascism
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1015
Views: 33091
Favorited: 95
Submitted: 01/08/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to boobsareamazing Subscribe to politics submit to reddit

Comments(169):

[ 169 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#30 - bigredthunder (01/09/2013) [-]
Capitalism
#18 - wyldek (01/08/2013) [-]
I think this post is mixing some things up. Capitalism and Socialism are primarily economic philosophies. Libertarianism, Fascism, and Anarchy are more complete philosophies, both social and economic.

For instance, most libertarians are capitalists.
-4
#59 to #18 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #59 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
American libertarians would argue that liberty entails both civil AND economic liberty. European libertarianism is not necessarily the only "genuine" variety.
0
#108 to #100 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 to #108 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
First of all, I'm sure that as a self-described libertarian you know the dangers of state control of production, but I don't see how democratic/collective control of anything is possible without some sort of de facto government. Especially on a large scale. Could you explain that to me?

Secondly, I disagree that employer-employee relationships are inherently exploitative. Most people are not able to create stable and financially-successful businesses themselves. The benefit of selling one's labor to an employer as opposed to directly to the consumer is that in the former case you have job security and don't have to invent ways to compete in the market yourself. The employer has already come up with a (probably) successful business plan and a system of organization to increase productivity beyond what you or he could accomplish individually. (Plus many employers offer health insurance coverage and similar additional benefits.)
So there's mutual benefit. The profits may not be equally distributed, but I don't see that as a problem.
Of course, if the costs of having a boss outweigh the benefits in your opinion, you're not required to work for that employer or any employer at all, in which case you'd have to try to compete on the market on your lonesome, or maybe gather some friends to help you run your own business and divide up the profits as equals. Signing an employment contract is a voluntary act that indicates you prefer that option over the alternatives.
0
#157 to #150 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #162 to #157 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
A totalitarian government that you can opt out of (by quitting your job) is not much of a totalitarian government. Employees are not slaves, and employers are not all-powerful dictators. They have to pay wages and provide certain benefits and treat their employees humanely in order to have employees at all, in order to ensure maximum productivity, and in order to have a good reputation.

Here's what I meant when I said a government was necessary: there needs to be some organization of manageable size (as opposed to the entire population) that is in charge of regulating the use of public capital, ensuring that it is equally accessible to all and is well-maintained, and penalizing people who try to take public property for themselves or otherwise violate the established rules of the society. That's basically a government. Direct democracy can't work on a large scale because most people have neither the time nor the expertise to run it effectively. There'd also be tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of a minority, if voter turnout is low - and if voting is required, how could that be enforced? Indeed, how could anything be enforced without a governing body, except by angry mobs or vigilantes?
0
#174 to #162 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#159 to #157 - wyldek (01/09/2013) [-]
I have always thought that socialism is far more economically constrictive than capitalism. No matter what, the ability to choose what to own of your own volition is more "free" than just accepting what some higher authority deems to give you.

And yes, while your employer/job/capitalism may limit your buying power, it doesn't limit your buying CHOICE, and choice is what liberty is all about.
0
#161 to #159 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #163 to #161 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
"money that you have is only a fraction of what you should have, while all the rest is robbed from you"

I have a major problem with this sort of reasoning. You aren't entitled to have things. Being poorer than others does not mean that you have been robbed, or that others are wealthy at your expense.

Ownership of private property is not oppression, it's just ownership. Owning a factory or a plot of land is no different from owning a house or a car or a laptop.
As long as there aren't monopolies on the means of production, exchange is still voluntary and therefore ethical.
0
#169 to #163 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
0
#178 to #169 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
0
#176 to #169 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31 to #18 - srskate ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
I think it was just "comprehensive."
It wanted more of a joke than just Capitalism and Socialism, so it moved on to other subjects.
User avatar #37 - sausydangles (01/09/2013) [-]
I like libertarianism in both cases. Unless the other guy sneezes or something
#38 to #37 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
trigger pull mate. I don't think anyone could sneeze so hard they'd pull a trigger.

that and maintaining proper discipline.
User avatar #40 to #38 - sausydangles (01/09/2013) [-]
Well if they were being safe with their firearms they would at least keep their fingers off the triggers until they were ready to fire. So it could be a moot point but you never know
#44 - puccypirateisback **User deleted account** (01/09/2013) [-]
Communism is best system.
#58 to #44 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
That's a member of the US Navy...
User avatar #2 - jizzonmypants (01/08/2013) [-]
I'll go with Libertarianism
User avatar #92 - Onemanretardpack (01/09/2013) [-]
Almost every single system of government that isn't meant to be a corrupt system SHOULD work. The problem that ***** literally every system of government and economics is people. People are goddamn greedy and will **** people over to get the top, and continue to **** people over once they get there to make a buck
+1
#105 to #92 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #106 to #105 - Onemanretardpack (01/09/2013) [-]
Actually, I give 30 percent of my check now to charity, and I feel damn good about myself. And I'd still do it if I made millions
#119 to #106 - necrolich (01/09/2013) [-]
Money and power are two very different things.
#127 to #119 - popeflatus (01/09/2013) [-]
not really....
0
#110 to #106 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 to #110 - Onemanretardpack (01/09/2013) [-]
I'm 18 and still live with my parents, I keep about 100 dollars from my check after bills, taxes, and charity for things that I may need. I'm not much for flashy stuff, I don't have nice clothes, and until I have a family that I'll need the money for, I'll give at least some of my check to charity.
0
#117 to #115 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #120 to #117 - Onemanretardpack (01/09/2013) [-]
I should cut you off there, charity is a huge tax write-off, so my taxes are pretty minimal.
User avatar #109 to #106 - kingnarnode (01/09/2013) [-]
what the **** , how do you live
#41 - mkchillin (01/09/2013) [-]
The way I see it, all people should inherently know that to get ANYTHING in life, they have to earn it, which is why I can't stand the idea of welfare, entitlements, etc. You reap what you sow, and if you put a lot into something, you'll get a lot out.
0
#53 to #41 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #41 - illegalartist (01/09/2013) [-]
i believe in equal opportunity
User avatar #45 to #41 - gammajk ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
I agree, except some people simply never got an opportunity to get a decent education required to actually accomplish anything. That's why I think the welfare system should be revamped to give assistance to people in the form of education and jobs, not trivial money handouts.
User avatar #47 to #45 - mkchillin (01/09/2013) [-]
I was gonna say food stamps but that is fine too. I just don't understand the point of literally giving money to people.
#33 - GOmagikarp (01/09/2013) [-]
soooooo libertarianism?
0
#56 to #33 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 to #56 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
I don't see anything wrong with getting rich by selling goods or services people want, or with paying people in exchange for their labor. It's not as if these things are involuntary or infringe upon anyone's rights.
0
#104 to #97 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #122 to #104 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
The "authoritarian" part of capitalism you're arguing about is de facto authoritarianism, and can be easily remedied by labor unions or lawsuits or other public movements. After all, in a true free-market society, nobody is forced to work for or purchase from any business they don't like. (For example, if you don't like the way Wal-Mart runs its business, there is nothing that would force you to shop or work there.)

Socialism, on the other hand, is the result of stringent social and economic planning by a strong central government. It requires de jur authoritarianism in order to be successful. That type of authoritarianism is much harder to shake off.
0
#126 to #122 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #130 to #126 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
The problem with a purely democratic socialism like you described (and anarchy, for that matter) is that it creates a vacuum for any power-hungry authoritarian regime to take charge.

I believe it was Stalin who said something like "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." In your perfectly democratic socialism, who is going to count the votes? Who is going to tell the people which policies to follow? Whoever that person or group is will quickly accumulate political power and inevitably dominate the system.

That's the problem with governmentless systems. They sound nice, but human nature makes them impossible.
0
#133 to #130 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #145 to #133 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
You've given yourself an impossible task. You say that nobody is going to tell anyone else what policies to follow. But then who is going to create the system in the first place?

If you can create a utopian, governmentless socialist system without any form of leadership or oligarchy, and without infringing on the people's right to refuse to participate in the system, give me a call. I want a cut of the Nobel Prize.
0
#148 to #145 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #153 to #148 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
Stop right there. Don't you start going on about how "the Man is holding you down." That's a cheap ******** way to end a debate. It has no basis in fact, and it does nothing to prove the validity of your ideas.

I have a low tolerance for ******** . So don't try pulling that "elites controlling the world" **** on me. If you want me to listen to your ideas about libertarian socialism, do it properly.

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."--Alan Moore
0
#160 to #153 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #166 to #160 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
But again, nobody is forcing you to participate. If you don't want to purchase something from one of those "ruling classes", you don't have to. That's the entire reason why businesses need commercials in the first place. All they're trying to do is convince you to buy from them. If they were truly in control of the people, they wouldn't need to do that--they would just force you.

It's important not to underestimate the power that regular people have in a free market. We are the ones who give value to things. We are the ones who determine which businesses succeed and which ones fail. Of course businesses are going to try to convince us one way or the other--they want their business to succeed. And in some cases they do a really good job of it--like Apple. But at the end of the day, no matter how effective the advertisements are, purchasing a product is a conscious decision that has to be made by the consumer. And in a free market, there is nothing preventing them from saying "no".
0
#173 to #166 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #181 to #173 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
You do know where wealth comes from, right? Businesses don't create wealth out of thin air, and they certainly don't beat it out of their employees. Wealth comes from the exchange of goods and services which are created by businesses and sold on the market. Businesses need labor to create those products, and the laborers are then compensated for their labor with wages.

How much a laborer is paid depends on the supply and demand for laborers in that field. That's why burger flippers (high supply but low demand) get paid less than chemical engineers (low supply but high demand). A burger flipper might not like how little he/she is paid, but as long as their are hundreds of other people who would readily take their place at a moment's notice, there's no reason for their wage to change.

This isn't "oppression" or "manipulation". That's just a bunch of emotionally-charged ad hominem drivel. It's just the most fair way to compensate people for their labor.

If you don't like it, then don't get a job. But many people realize that even a bad job is better than no job.
User avatar #27 - runtubbyrun (01/09/2013) [-]
i dunno about you

but I'm feeling the whole capitalism thing right about now
User avatar #46 to #27 - garymuthafuknoak (01/09/2013) [-]
... just now?
User avatar #52 - imvexx (01/09/2013) [-]
Fascism looks pretty good, i'm getting real sick of all the **** caused by Reds.
#80 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
this is the first non-bias political post i have ever ever ever seen on these sites
#73 - vonspyder (01/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Libertarianism still seems the best option as described by anyone.
User avatar #82 to #73 - hammerfell (01/09/2013) [-]
Did you not read the same post that I did? Facism is the way to go, man. It's honest about its faults, and only one group gets ****** , while everyone else is happy.
User avatar #112 to #82 - MrHare (01/09/2013) [-]
Glad to see you're volunteering to be that group getting ****** !
User avatar #129 to #112 - Rolyat (01/09/2013) [-]
Mate, we all know the jews will get ******
Good thing too
+1
#61 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #164 to #61 - xadakk (01/09/2013) [-]
Ohhh its funny cause a C-130 isn't a bomber (normally, MOABs dont count)
User avatar #72 to #61 - alphawolffifteen (01/09/2013) [-]
Support Anarchy is the dumbest thing ever, and is a school of thought only valid in the insane, high school dropouts, and middle schoolers. Wars, although some may not, can be justified. At least we aren't bombing ourselves.
User avatar #128 to #72 - friendlysaboteur (01/09/2013) [-]
You should look up the Spanish Revolution. When fascists in northern Spain revolted and started taking power, the anarchist unions CNT and the FAI organized the workers and peasantry of all of Catalonia and started a revolution. These people were very organized and as prominent as the Socialist and Communist parties, the only difference is they fought for the people, and didn't fight just to hold power like the Spanish Republic and Popular Front who later betrayed them.
User avatar #91 to #72 - Ruspanic ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
I think you'd be surprised how intelligent some anarchists really are. Not the sort of anarchists who vandalize property and claim to be "non-conformists", but the sort of anarchists who literally believe the Social Contract is unethical and unnecessary. They're idealistic, perhaps, but not unintelligent.
+1
#75 to #72 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #78 to #75 - alphawolffifteen (01/09/2013) [-]
Anarchy is impossible due to the nature of human beings. Yes, there is corruption even in organization, but in anarchy there is no government to stop a massive gang. Without the government, Al Capone would not have been shut down. Militia's and other groups who organize, and group up will always dominate. It's like trusting everyone else, which we cannot do because humans are selfish pricks.
0
#79 to #78 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #83 to #79 - alphawolffifteen (01/09/2013) [-]
You're suggesting a lack of organization, yet implying there would be an organization to stop other organizations. Al Capone was really difficult to stop. I doubt some rag tag, shady, and vague public group could have stopped him.
0
#86 to #83 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88 to #86 - alphawolffifteen (01/09/2013) [-]
No, it's just the fact that everything you've said is still incredibly vague and loose-stringed. With a touch of common sense one could see how it is impossible.
0
#95 to #88 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#35 - TARDIS (01/09/2013) [-]
I'm having a hard time disagreeing with the capitalism described by socialists one.

To be clear I don't think any of these work, at lest not by themselves.
#93 - flange (01/09/2013) [-]
I like the Socialism one, and the Fascism one! lets but them both together and call it something like National Socialism! nothing could go wrong.
-4
#103 to #93 - adxminisgay **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#49 - biggrand (01/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
anarcho-capitalism, a capitalistic economy without the ********
#121 to #49 - necrolich (01/09/2013) [-]
Libertarians believe in a conservative economy with liberal social values. This man is not a libertarian, hes a full on anarchist.
0
#54 to #49 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #54 - biggrand (01/09/2013) [-]
anarchy is freedom, if it is anything else it's because human nature made it that way. We believe we need government and physical law, but what I ask is what about not having that should make me act any more or less decent in life that I already do? I believe in anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, but I fear we are not ready for it because most of us could not handle freedom or someone not telling us what to do.
0
#60 to #57 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#64 to #60 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
You make no sense, sir. From what I understood of that horribly written argument, I glean that you want a socialist libertarian anarchist society.

Capitalism in itself is not bad, and neither is communism. The issue it that real world agendas (i.e. everyone wants more, but only few can succeed) prevent either from working well, and so we get horribly unbalanced populaces and fascism.

Socialism doesn't abolish this at all, rather it eliminates the large wealth gap by preventing large businesses from taking everything (specifically, by putting those in government control - better hope your government's not corrupt).
0
#67 to #64 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#168 to #67 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Yet socialism is most definitely a government system. It's certainly never used any way else.

You're rather idealistic. Tell us what the various political and economic systems are supposed to be isn't the same as actually making them. Communism, capitalism, socialism etc. all work IN THEORY ONLY - they each have severe weaknesses when put into practice, mostly because people inherently take advantage of whatever they can.
0
#171 to #168 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#179 to #171 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Socialism isn't supposed to be a government system, but that's what it ends up as. You can argue what it's defined as all you want, doesn't change how the real world works (which you clearly don't understand).

Your rejection of clear facts basically invalidate your entire argument. In capitalism, richer owners take advantage of the poor workers, in socialism the government takes advantage of the people (to an extent, depends on where you are), in communism one person always ends up as a dictator - and it's no longer communism. I needn't say that dictatorships or monarchies end in corruption.

Anarchism can't be flawed, because it's the LACK of government. That doesn't make it right at all. Sure, governments have issues, but you seem to be ignoring the vast evidence AGAINST anarchism - like, for instance, the Middle Ages, which were basically anarchism (there was a government, but it did absolutely nothing). Not too good. Or for instance, right after the government in Egypt fell, there was chaos - and there still is some. Morsi is doing a very good job managing it IMHO - and he's using GOVERNMENT.

Sure, you can name instances of socialism that worked. Now do that with anarchism. Betcha can't - there wouldn't have been records of it anyways.
0
#180 to #179 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#183 to #180 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
***** ... get your facts straight. Nice taking me out of context, for all intents and purposes the Middle Ages were anarchism due to the government's complete and utter lack of control.

After Mubarak fell, **** YES there was anarchism! In all fairness, it was soon replaced by a military oligarchy of sorts, but that's what anarchism gets you.

You have, once again, proven yourself wrong. "Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves 'socialist' in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were" - i.e., nearly every attempt at communism or socialism ever.

One example does not an argument make. Multiple ones do. China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba were all either once or are now officially communist - and at that time, they were/are no more than dolled up dictatorships. I'll give more if you want. Nope, no socialism - except that's what they called it.

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that every example of "anarchism" you've given is just communism, on a small scale where it actually worked (briefly). **** , the work COMMUNE is in two of them.
0
#184 to #183 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#185 to #184 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're 			*******		 wrong.   
   
Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single 			*******		 lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.   
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?   
   
I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.   
   
Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT 			*******		 ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.   
   
<< summary of your argument
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're ******* wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single ******* lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT ******* ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument
0
#186 to #185 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#187 to #186 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
0
#188 to #187 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#189 to #188 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
0
#191 to #189 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
0
#190 to #189 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#192 to #190 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
0
#193 to #192 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #87 to #60 - ooants (01/09/2013) [-]
The "employee-to-employer" relationship that you attempt to describe is entirely voluntary on behalf of the employed, and therefore, by definition, cannot be authoritarian. Anti-government capitalism is the only system where true freedom can exist, since at that point all coercive governmental acts are eliminated, and corporations are by nature incapable of replicating those acts in a free market environment due to the voluntary fabric of such a society.
-1
#94 to #87 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #102 to #94 - ooants (01/09/2013) [-]
You make all this assumptions on the basis that all people have the work ethic of drug addled high school dropout. The system in, contrary to popular belief, is not stacked against the "glorious working class"; it's stacked against everyone. Equally. No one is born the head of a corporation, it required work to get there, and if not work, then shrewd cunning, and they deserve their money. No one ever said that you are stuck at the level you were born in; if you don't like being a member of the "oppressed proletariat", then the answer is simple; don't be one! The idealism of socialism is unrealistic; it's a dog-eat-dog world whether you like it or not, and humanity won't cooperate just because it would be better that way (because really, it would). When I say that capitalism is voluntary I am saying that when a man is born, he has the potential to do anything he sets his mind to; the possibilities are, quite literally, limitless. There is no such such thing as a free lunch. Never has been, never will be, but at the same time, there is no evil collective corporate conspiracy to consciously direct your every action into their service.
-1
#111 to #102 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #74 to #60 - taxation ONLINE (01/09/2013) [-]
OY MATE
I am NOT robbery!
All this speak of me being a government scam is wearing thin.
I never shoulda taken this username.
#81 to #49 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
dude if everything is private theres no voting!!! 0_o whats to stop the people who own the military from doing what they want???
User avatar #55 - guiguito (01/09/2013) [-]
socialism is the perfect system
the humans are the problem
User avatar #99 to #55 - allamericandude (01/09/2013) [-]
If humans can't make an economic system work, then the system doesn't work.

After all, humans are the only species any of this **** applies to.

But democratic socialisms have been made to work, like in Scandinavia. But most of those still have strong capitalist markets to fuel their social programs.
#71 to #55 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
If humans were perfect then anarchy would be the best direction.
0
#124 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
#132 to #124 - anon (01/09/2013) [-]
I'm not sure i follow you
+1
#137 to #132 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #147 to #124 - friendlysaboteur (01/09/2013) [-]
Human nature is quite the opposite, I don't know how people can judge human nature based on what happens in this ****** up society. Humans before civilization were collective and caring of their communities. Now there is no such thing as a community when people living in complexes and flats don't even know their neighbors. Action movies and violence are supported so much on TV and always make the highest ranked movies, but when someone takes a gun and kills 30 people in a mall or school people blame human nature instead of the society and culture that bore him because they are too ******* apathetic and insane themselves to realize how ****** up and unnatural of a life we are all living.
0
#152 to #147 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #156 to #152 - friendlysaboteur (01/09/2013) [-]
Awesome, I'll have to look into that book. I've mostly ever read some of John Zerzan's and Edward Abbey's work and a few things on the Spanish Revolution, but I have definitely heard of Kropotkin. Also I didn't think you were agreeing with that notion, I just went on a rant, maybe someone else will stumble upon it and understand what you mean though.
[ 169 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)