Discussing the Discourse - Question Format Recommended

[Dodes]

Though all communists are bond together in the belief that lower classes will somehow establish victory over the upper classes and further democratize the entirety of the practice of politics.

I believe civilized communism is rather about building a classless society rather than helping lower class destroy the upper class.
You can say that it is impossible to reach this goal peacefully, but then again violence never worked either.

Yes civilized communism is about reaching a classless society, though to do so the upper class must be destroyed/abolished/erradicated/whatever, what that actually means however and how to do so is what makes communists different. As a left communism I think that the revolution must only become violent in self defense, unlike right communists who believe the only way for a revolution to succeed is to initiate violence.

So what about anarchy? We are talking here not about "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority" but rather "an absence of state government with the absolute freedom of the individual".

Absolute freedom and defiance of any authority are not compatible with being a functional part of a group (family, society).
It's just not feasible for our species.

You're taking what "absolute freedom" means way too literally.

Both ideologies are utopias and fail the reality check.

Both ideologies' utopian elements compirse of about 1% of the given ideologies. As I have said before, I don't believe utopia to be feasible within 1000 years.

Communism believes that you can democratize egalitarianism. That has not proven to be the case.

When egalitarianism is taken literally rather than a principle to build institutions around, I agree.

 

[Mage246]

People always recognize, for better or worse, that there are those who are their intellectual or social superiors.

 

[Dodes]

People always recognize, for better or worse, that there are those who are their intellectual or social superiors.

Communism and anarchism collaberate with this idea. Reprensative democracy is built around this idea.

 

[Weaver]

If it can't ever pass the reality check, it's a utopia. That's all I'm saying.
Actual representative democracies we have are very different from what they were meant to be on paper. But at least they work.

 

[Dodes]

If it can't ever pass the reality check, it's a utopia. That's all I'm saying.

What is the reality check and why does neither communism nor anarchism pass it.

Actual representative democracies we have are very different from what they were meant to be on paper.

Please cite examples and elaborate.

But at least they work.

The same thing was said of feudalism before any democracy became "mainstream".

 

[Mage246]

Thank you for completely failing to address how communism addresses the problem of people selecting those who are their intellectual and social superiors to rule over them without any effective oversight or controls.

 

[Dodes]

That you for completely failing to address how communism addresses the problem of people selecting those who are their intellectual and social superiors to rule over them without any effective oversight or controls.

Thank you for not asking the question "How does communism address the problem of people selecting who are their intellectual and social superiors to rule over them without any effective oversight or controls?"

Now do you want to debate? Or do you want to play word games? Because from my perspective it seems like you're deliberately not asking directly so that you can then say this to reaffirm some belief like "the commies are all evil" or "the commies don't know what they are talking about". There is all this talk of how the communists became the oppressors because they restricted anticommunist thought (and they did, no confusing that), but then anticommunists will buy into assumptions about communism that is deliberately created by the current oppressors to restrict communist thought and few people give a single critique about it.

SIDENOTE: There are also many other factors/actions that communists took to become the oppressors, such as genocide, mock trials, and reeducation concentration camps. I'm denying none of these.

 

[Mage246]

More like: "the communists are lazy and stupid, and those who aren't will always be outnumbered by those who are".

 

[Dodes]

More like: "the communists are lazy and stupid, and those who aren't will always be outnumbered by those who are".

So it's clear you're just here to mock then and affirm my own assumption about the current restrictions on anticommunist thought?

It's barely an effort to propose valid critique, but you're refusing to do so and serving no purpose in this thread.

It should be clear to you why many people here on taleworlds don't think you a valid debater.

 

[Mage246]

Like I give a ****, since you hear what you expect to hear. I'm super sorry for not answering questions in the way you want them to be answered. Communists follow the same pattern as the general populace when it comes to selecting their leaders (which makes sense since they claim to represent the general populace.

 

[Mad Vader]

I feel you live a sheltered life and don't know humans very well. Your belief that humans can be radically changed by reeducation/brainwashing and enlightenment (if that's your view at all) seems too optimistic.
A cursory overview of all recorded history can inform you that humans have not changed at all in some very basic and important ways. I can't see them changing in the future.
Capitalism's great success is harnessing greed and lust for power in a way that mostly benefits the society.

Furthermore, your class warrior view on society prevents you from understanding the opposing side, most clearly shown in naive, simplistic commentary on the upper classes.
That's a general problem with activists, they don't know their enemies well and are unable to see a problem from both sides. You need to know your enemy, and to do that you need to empathize, something you are unwilling or unable to do.

Personally, I like communism for its ideals and values, but dislike it for the delusional assertions, so I'm not an anti-communist, just a bit sad that it could not ever work.

 

[Dodes]

Like I give a ****, since you hear what you expect to hear. I'm super sorry for not answering questions in the way you want them to be answered. Communists follow the same pattern as the general populace when it comes to selecting their leaders (which makes sense since they claim to represent the general populace.

Amazingly you've yet to propose a single question of critique. Truly astonishing.

I feel you live a sheltered life and don't know humans very well. Your belief that humans can be radically changed by reeducation/brainwashing and enlightenment (if that's your view at all) seems too optimistic.

I believe this is implying that I believe that every human on planet could become a communist when presented facts, I do not believe this.

A cursory overview of all recorded history can inform you that humans have not changed at all in some very basic and important ways. I can't see them changing in the future.

I would appreciate if you presented the "very basic and important ways". So that I could address them. Greed and lust seem a bit too broad to be properly analyzed.

Capitalism's great success is harnessing greed and lust for power in a way that mostly benefits the society.

Capitalism's greatest success is ironically a success that was not intended. Capitalism was instituted first as a replacement for wealth control by feudal nobles. Capitalism had little psychological reasoning behind its institution as a means of wealth generation.

Furthermore, your class warrior view on society prevents you from understanding the opposing side, most clearly shown in naive, simplistic commentary on the upper classes.

Please enlighten me on my naivety. My simplistic commentary so far has been "Black and White" because I believe it to be inefficient if you paint the source of our current society's problems with a soft brush.

That's a general problem with activists, they don't know their enemies well and are unable to see a problem from both sides.

I'd love to know my enemies more personally. Also I would like you to give what you believe to be the problems that the upper class faces. I personally believe they indeed face problems, but when compared with the underclasses, it's hard to be sympathetic I'll admit.

You need to know your enemy, and to do that you need to empathize, something you are unwilling or unable to do.

You'll find that I am very empathetic, so much so I am criticized by other communists and anarchists for being so. To say I'm unwilling or unable I believe would be false. While I view the upper class as an enemy, as should any member of the proletariat when they understand class warfare, I do not believe that we should be out in the streets hanging the upperclass on lampposts by their necks.

Personally, I like communism for its ideals and values, but dislike it for the delusional assertions, so I'm not an anti-communist, just a bit sad that it could not ever work.

Pinko 

 

[Mage246]

Amazing that you've yet to hear the criticism that I'm pointing out, even though it is at a child's level.

 

[Dodes]

Amazing that you've yet to hear the criticism that I'm pointing out, even though it is at a child's level.

Amazing that you're now relying on petty insults.

As I've implied, I'll gladly address the criticism if you approach as a reasonable debater.

 

[Mad Vader]

Sorry, but I mostly can't be assed to enter into prolonged debates that consist of pulling out opposing academic sources and typically end up with arguing about definitions of words. It's been proven pointless again and again.

However, I do like light debates, so here's an easy ball your way: what do you think the upper classes want? (itsatrap.jpg)

 

[Mage246]

The criticism is already blatantly there, you just refuse to see it. Refer to the last sentence of the last post of more than a few sentences that you quoted.

 

[Dodes]

Sorry, but I mostly can't be assed to enter into prolonged debates that consist of pulling out opposing academic sources and typically end up with arguing about definitions of words. It's been proven pointless again and again.

However, I do like light debates, so here's an easy ball your way: what do you think the upper classes want? (itsatrap.jpg)

The upper class want to remain in power, currently they do so by controlling wealth.

The criticism is already blatantly there, you just refuse to see it. Refer to the last sentence of the last post of more than a few sentences that you quoted.

Yes, the criticism is blatantly there, that's obvious to everyone here.

But what incentive do I have to even talk to someone who's acting as you do?

It's not your criticism that is faulty, it's your attitude.

And for Layman's terms: If you act like an ass, don't be surprised to be treated like an ass.

 

[Mage246]

Let me get this straight:

For several posts now you have claimed that there is no criticism in what I have said, and now you admit that there is a criticism, but you refuse to answer it due to my response to your repeated claims that there is no criticism? This is a farce, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for perpetuating it.

 

[Dodes]

Let me get this straight:

For several posts now you have claimed that there is no criticism in what I have said, and now you admit that there is a criticism, but you refuse to answer it due to my response to your repeated claims that there is no criticism? This is a farce, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for perpetuating it.

The first two posts I did not realize you wanted me to go in-depth as you made simple statements that got simple replies.

You're grabbing at straws of reasons to justify that I'm an idiot who can't comprehend on the level of THE MIGHTY AND ALL POWERFUL MAGE.

And now you're shaming me and you've yet to address the actual problem here.

Now I know you don't even realize it, but you're being as bad as godfrey used to be.

 

[Mad Vader]

Sorry, but I mostly can't be assed to enter into prolonged debates that consist of pulling out opposing academic sources and typically end up with arguing about definitions of words. It's been proven pointless again and again.

However, I do like light debates, so here's an easy ball your way: what do you think the upper classes want? (itsatrap.jpg)

The upper class want to remain in power, currently they do so by controlling wealth.

The upper class is not a monolithic collective and anyone can theoretically get there.
What are their individual concerns? What do these people really want except to hold on to their gains (as everyone else does too)?