Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140105]idk i want emperor scorpious to elaborate on that claim he made that rape is every antisocial activity.[/QUOTE] When the hell did I say that? I asked specifically about rape only

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43140130]When the hell did I say that? I asked specifically about rape only[/QUOTE] "this commodification is the reason why institutionalized anti-social behavior will be a thing. Edited: the majority of which is perpetrated by the elite in the first place. and i was making a broader statement.

Capitalism is just an economic system. It's an amoral system, so capitalism can exist with or without exploitation, prostitution, war, crime, etc. Trying to shoehorn all social ills and maladies onto a resource allocation system is just a cop out for trying to look at the real cause of problems.

would you care to explain why rape is mostly committed by people who are poor? [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43140145]Capitalism is just an economic system. It's an amoral system, so capitalism can exist with or without exploitation, prostitution, war, crime, etc. Trying to shoehorn all social ills and maladies onto a resource allocation system is just a cop out for trying to look at the real cause of problems.[/QUOTE] the real problem is the imposition of authority and power on other people. capitalism justifies authority and hierarchy, it creates a system out of authority and hierarchy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140137]"this commodification is the reason why institutionalized anti-social behavior will be a thing. Edited: the majority of which is perpetrated by the elite in the first place. and i was making a broader statement.[/QUOTE] I was asking about a specific thing. Don't make a "broad statement" on my specific topic then criticize me for it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140146]would you care to explain why rape is mostly committed by people who are poor?[/QUOTE] Here's a crazy thought, and, hear me out on this one. Regardless of socio-economic platform a society has adopted, maybe, just maybe there are assholes in each society whom commit atrocities, like rape and murder. Perhaps people are to blame for their actions against their fellowman and not the bargaining/law system they adhere to. Crazy, right.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140146]would you care to explain why rape is mostly committed by people who are poor? [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] the real problem is the imposition of authority and power on other people. capitalism justifies authority and hierarchy, it creates a system out of authority and hierarchy.[/QUOTE] Capitalism can exist without authority and hierarchy. It just so happens that such a system entered the world where both authority and hierarchy already exists.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43140181]I was asking about a specific thing. Don't make a "broad statement" on my specific topic then criticize me for it.[/QUOTE] ok then the rich still perpetuate the majority of antisocial behavior.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140201]the rich still perpetuate the majority of antisocial behavior.[/QUOTE] Weren't you just asking why the act of rape is disproportionately committed by the poor?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43140194]Capitalism can exist without authority and hierarchy. It just so happens that such a system entered the world where both authority and hierarchy already exists.[/QUOTE] how so? [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;43140212]Weren't you just asking why the act of rape is disproportionately committed by the poor?[/QUOTE] "rape = every antisocial behavior"

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43137557]i don't understand the "people are too selfish and greedy for communism to work" argument. if that's the case then surely capitalism is colossal failure? it's a greedy person's wet dream. you are given exclusive private ownership over almost anything you want, limited only by laws and how much capital you can accumulate and bargain with. and we have to trust these people to create well-paid and well-regulated jobs instead of just hoarding it all to themselves like the selfish greedy humans they apparently are? sounds like a pipe dream tbh.[/QUOTE] The main difference between the two is that in capitalism greed is generally rewarded by action whereas in hyper socialits scenarios it's rewarded by inaction. Obviously the distinction isn't too great because there's places where it doesn't matter how much you act but you won't get more or less. But essentially the thing with having a certain guaranteed level of support no matter what and an impossibility to gain more than that level, means that after a while a large number of people will essentially see any reason to try, work or do as much as possible. Because the super lazy person will have the exact life situation as the person who isn't. In a such a way greed is rewarded differently in both situations.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43140194]Capitalism can exist without authority and hierarchy. It just so happens that such a system entered the world where both authority and hierarchy already exists.[/QUOTE] how would private property be enforced without a state

[QUOTE=Kentz;43140270]how would private property be enforced without a state[/QUOTE] By your own force.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140283]By your own force.[/QUOTE] i.e. the imposition of power on another person

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140289]i.e. the imposition of power on another person[/QUOTE] Defending things you have is unacceptable it seems. So basically according to you nobody can own anything?

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140301]Defending things you have is unacceptable it seems. So basically according to you nobody can own anything?[/QUOTE] what's stopping me from going and claiming your land as my own with my shiny new army? [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] the person with the most force gets the most land

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140216]how so?[/QUOTE] In the real world, capitalism requires the existence of a state to enforce laws and contracts regarding land, legal contracts, and generally creating an environment in which it is possible to trade and accumulate capital without having somebody bash your head in, go against the contract you signed, or invade you. However, assuming a utopian situation in which everybody is free to do as they want and no states, laws, etc exists, capitalism could still operate. If everybody in a community agreed that private individuals could use some land for their own use and conduct trade among others and hire labourers (and everybody wanted such a system and did it with no external force or pressures), then effectively you would still have capitalism. Capitalism is an economy system. Hierarchy/authority is not necessary to the functioning of capitalism, but in practice since hunter-gathering groups swelled in population and began to adopt political leaders with the power to direct other people to do things they don't want to do, such a system whereby force can be used to get what you want has survived intact for a long time. When capitalism eventually appeared, it didn't get rid of authority and hierarchical systems. However, it didn't make these systems any worse than they already were. When some societies chose to conduct experiments in communist systems, while they did radically change the economic system, they failed to get rid of authority and hierarchy in the process. I don't think getting rid of capitalism will neccessarily rid us of authority and hierarchy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140314]what's stopping me from going and claiming your land as my own with my shiny new army?[/QUOTE] Nothing except for what is there. If what is there has their own army your new one has something to stop it. Basically the flaw of every anarchist civilization, whoever is able to organize a group of people better than they could organize themselves first can take over, until people get fed up with their rule and someone else has better leadership skills to stage a coup or do it through force with less effective leadership.

[QUOTE=Kentz;43140270]how would private property be enforced without a state[/QUOTE] Assuming a situation as fantastical as an anarchist or communist society working, the idea is that everybody would come to a common agreement on what sort of society they want. It could look capitalist in practice, but since it would be everybody doing it of their own accord (and if they didn't like it, the whole thing would promptly vanish), then it wouldn't exactly be needing authority. The point I was trying to make is that capitalism is a way of allocating resources to people, and isn't necessarily a system in which people force each other to do things.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140343]Nothing except for what is there. If what is there has their own army your new one has something to stop it. Basically the flaw of every anarchist civilization, whoever is able to organize a group of people better than they could organize themselves first can take over, until people get fed up with their rule and someone else has better leadership skills to stage a coup or do it through force with less effective leadership.[/QUOTE] the number one problem with anarchism is that it will devolve back into capitalism and statism? so it's just a waste of time?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140370]the number one problem with anarchism is that it will devolve back into capitalism and statism? so it's just a waste of time?[/QUOTE] So long as people are individual, there will be those better suited for certain roles. If that role is organizing people and they can act in that role, it will turn towards expansion and away from the lack of a organizing structure. Devolve inherently means less advanced, if a society is able to produce more due to better organization is it really less advanced?

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140401]So long as people are individual, there will be those better suited for certain roles. If that role is organizing people and they can act in that role, it will turn towards expansion and away from the lack of a organizing structure. Devolve inherently means less advanced, if a society is able to produce more due to better organization is it really less advanced?[/QUOTE] anarchism is a call for higher organization because society cannot be organized among hierarchy and authoritarian lines any more.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140426]anarchism is a call for higher organization because society cannot be organized among hierarchy and authoritarian lines any more.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but I have been staring at this comment on and off for 5 minutes, and what you said made absolutely no sense due to the contradictions.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140512]I'm sorry, but I have been staring at this comment on and off for 5 minutes, and what you said made absolutely no sense due to the contradictions.[/QUOTE] what is the contradiction?

He thinks that organization can only be hierarchical or vertically inclined.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140544]what is the contradiction?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43140426]anarchism is a call for higher organization[/QUOTE] [quote]an·ar·chy noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\ 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> [/quote] [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy]Merriam-Webster[/url] Are you going to tell me this definition is wrong?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43140606][url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy]Merriam-Webster[/url] Are you going to tell me this definition is wrong?[/QUOTE] yea

And before you try to use definition 1c against me [quote]uto·pia noun \yu̇-ˈtō-pē-ə\ 1 : an imaginary and indefinitely remote place 2 often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions 3 : an impractical scheme for social improvement [/quote] [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia?show=0&t=1386722271]Merriam-Webster[/url]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43140634]And before you try to use definition 1c against me [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia?show=0&t=1386722271]Merriam-Webster[/url][/QUOTE] stop using a dictionary, it's worthless for defining nuanced ideologies.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140643]stop using a dictionary, it's worthless for defining nuanced ideologies.[/QUOTE] Have you also stopped using a history book for exploring nuanced ideologies in practice?