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

[url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca23[/url] "To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. "If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk. "If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government." [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43140667]Have you also stopped using a history book for exploring nuanced ideologies in practice?[/QUOTE] idk have you? [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] idk what you are even saying. that i need more or less history education?

I give up yawmwen. You are so unbelievably beyond help. If you love anarchy and hate capitalism so much, move to Somalia. They sure are living the dream there.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43140708]I give up yawmwen. You are so unbelievably beyond help. If you love anarchy and hate capitalism so much, move to Somalia. They sure are living the dream there.[/QUOTE] finally the somalia argument. when all else fails and you can't justify your tyranny-boner anymore, talk about somalia.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140676][url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca23[/url] "To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. "If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk. "If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government."[/QUOTE] How can you use "going for a walk" as an argument? That's strangely hilarious.

As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists "aren't opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish hierarchical structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources" are based on "good social anarchist principles of organisation!" ["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43140708]I give up yawmwen. You are so unbelievably beyond help. If you love anarchy and hate capitalism so much, move to Somalia. They sure are living the dream there.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current (if it's standing at all) government of Somalia hardly socialist? I thought it was more like laissez-faire everything with no elements of socialism at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140764]As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists "aren't opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish hierarchical structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources" are based on "good social anarchist principles of organisation!" ["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46][/QUOTE] so what if a group of people dont wanna have that structure and yet have important resources your anarchists want what happens to them

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43140812]so what if a group of people dont wanna have that structure and yet have important resources your anarchists want what happens to them[/QUOTE] idk

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140835]idk[/QUOTE] lolwutdude - 1 yawmen - -99999

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140764]As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists "aren't opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish hierarchical structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources" are based on "good social anarchist principles of organisation!" ["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46][/QUOTE] A hierarchy allows for people to organize others more effectively. It is seriously difficult to believe that a society of the level of advancement as ours technologically would be able to come about without leadership. Hierarchy is merely leaders leading other, usually less effective, leaders into leading people who are able to work more efficiently due to being in a position that they are more able to relate. The current system is flawed due to other factors than the hierarchy. If the system were perfect, we'd be in a utopia, if there were ever a perfect system, we'd be there. If a person is able to create the facade that they are a good leader, but are just in it to get in the position of power through manipulating people's perception. They are in a position that is not suited for them, but due to the positions higher appearance it seems to be a greater goal. An individual is not always the best judge of themselves, as if they were we would have people self admitting to psych wards and have no need for counselors and such. If the common person was the best manager of themselves, those that manage them would never have came into existence.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43140844]lolwutdude - 1 yawmen - -99999[/QUOTE] didn't your math teach never tell you to use double negatives like that? a proper expression is lolwutdude - 1 yawmen - (-99999) or yawmen + 99999

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140314]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] And the fact that this is a problem for anarchism and an argument for central authority just sailed right over your head, didn't it?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43140982]And the fact that this is a problem for anarchism and an argument for central authority just sailed right over your head, didn't it?[/QUOTE] that anarchism will devolve into central authority?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140957]didn't your math teach never tell you to use double negatives like that? a proper expression is lolwutdude - 1 yawmen - (-99999) or yawmen + 99999[/QUOTE] It is called a dash, it is obvious when you give up on an argument when you simply resort to trolling and non-responses. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43140990]that anarchism will devolve into central authority?[/QUOTE] If someone is better at leading people towards the goal of expending their supplies, is it really devolving if it ends up beneficial?

i caught it, i just don't think "well the system will inevitably be as shit as it is now" is really a great argument.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43140957]didn't your math teach never tell you to use double negatives like that? a proper expression is lolwutdude - 1 [B]yawmen [/B]- (-99999) or [B]yawmen [/B]+ 99999[/QUOTE] how do you forget your own username put down that pipe, i know you're using it to cope from the stressing of losing an intellectual debate against me, but its killing your braincells sorry

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43141011]how do you forget your own username put down that pipe, i know you're using it to cope from the stressing of losing an intellectual debate against me, but its killing your braincells sorry[/QUOTE] what does this have to do with me? i was just correcting your poor math skills.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43140912]A hierarchy allows for people to organize others more effectively. It is seriously difficult to believe that a society of the level of advancement as ours technologically would be able to come about without leadership.[/QUOTE] When I lived in Georgia (the country) there was this big idea to, having thrown off the shackles of Soviet oppression, build a [I]real[/I] Marxist society where people would finally be treated properly and without the rule of Moscow. So the first thing they did was collectivize some businesses with much fanfare about the proletariat seizing the means of production (fo' real this time). And boy, did it tank. Turns out the average laborer isn't the most savvy of manager, decision-making by committee is an enormous expenditure of time, and specialization of labor is actually beneficial in running anything more complicated than subsistence farming. But don't take my word for it. Obviously that wasn't [I]true[/I] Marxism so it doesn't count, and I can't wait to be lectured at length on the subject by someone who has never lived in a socialist (let alone communist [I]let alone Marxist[/I]) society.

Communism is a good idea but it is basically impossible to put on a state/country level

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141020]what does this have to do with me? i was just correcting your poor math skills.[/QUOTE] who are you to tell me that my math skill is wrong what authority do you have over me stop being a tyrant you oppressive jerk

[QUOTE=catbarf;43141024]When I lived in Georgia (the country) there was this big idea to, having thrown off the shackles of Soviet oppression, build a [I]real[/I] Marxist society where people would finally be treated properly and without the rule of Moscow. So the first thing they did was collectivize some businesses with much fanfare about the proletariat seizing the means of production (fo' real this time). And boy, did it tank. Turns out the average laborer isn't the most savvy of manager, decision-making by committee is an enormous expenditure of time, and specialization of labor is actually beneficial in running anything more complicated than subsistence farming. But don't take my word for it. Obviously that wasn't [I]true[/I] Marxism so it doesn't count, and I can't wait to be lectured at length on the subject by someone who has never lived in a socialist (let alone communist [I]let alone Marxist[/I]) society.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308"]please tell me more about how great the bourgeoisie is at managing the economy[/URL]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141047][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308"]please tell me more about how great the bourgeoisie is at managing the economy[/URL][/QUOTE] Better than the average person I'd say.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141047][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308"]please tell me more about how great the bourgeoisie is at managing the economy[/URL][/QUOTE] Learning from our mistakes and applying new regulations so that it never happens again seems good.

[QUOTE=striker453;43141089]Learning from our mistakes and applying new regulations so that it never happens again seems good.[/QUOTE] how many mistakes do we have to make before we realize that top-down economics doesn't work?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141047][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308"]please tell me more about how great the bourgeoisie is at managing the economy[/URL][/QUOTE] Them failing disproves the other failing how?

[QUOTE=deadoon;43141067]Better than the average person I'd say.[/QUOTE] I have more trust in federal systems that have the inherent right to intervene in the economy, not an completely privately controlled one.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43141094]how many mistakes do we have to make before we realize that top-down economics doesn't work?[/QUOTE] So are you saying if we suddenly go into your view of the world everything will go smoothly there will be no mistakes made ever? There will never be problems in the system?

I've been trying to understand this argument that yawmwen has been putting up but none of this [I]still makes any sense.[/I]

[QUOTE=striker453;43141114]So are you saying if we suddenly go into your view of the world everything will go smoothly there will be no mistakes made ever? There will never be problems in the system?[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=striker453;43141114]So are you saying if we suddenly go into your view of the world everything will go smoothly there will be no mistakes made ever? There will never be problems in the system?[/QUOTE] I may not agree with everything yawnmen is saying 100 percent, but I don't think he's that optimistic about things at all.