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

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156254]does technology disappear once you become an anarchist?[/QUOTE] Maintaining it as it is now will be difficult, considering the facilities required to produce it and the experts required to develop it. For each component to work it has to be compatible with all other components, CPU, HDD, Motherboard, monitor, and peripherals. Not to mention operating system. Think about the number of people needing to work together and agree with each other, with the consensus building system you advocate.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156567]that's stupid, alright call it a necessary evil so what? i think violence is wrong but i think it's reasonable to use against oppression because violence is all oppressors understand[/QUOTE]Ok, and I'll call you a self-serving hypocrite masking it as selflessness.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43156577]You stop the people from being subjugated by subjugating them. You keep saying you're stopping people from oppressing others, but you're still oppressing people.[/QUOTE] so fighting against the nazis in ww2 was oppressing them? fighting to free the slaves in the civil war was oppression? like whatever man you're way too literal. do you equate murder with killing someone in self defense? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43156583]Ok, and I'll call you a self-serving hypocrite masking it as selflessness.[/QUOTE] lol by your standards everyone on earth is probably a hypocrite [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43156578]Maintaining it as it is now will be difficult, considering the facilities required to produce it and the experts required to develop it. For each component to work it has to be compatible with all other components, CPU, HDD, Motherboard, monitor, and peripherals. Not to mention operating system. Think about the number of people needing to work together and agree with each other, with the consensus building system you advocate.[/QUOTE] it's not like i think we should just switch to anarchism over night, gotta work towards it, maybe make sure we can distribute teaching information enough or something to ensure people have the right expertise, and if we as a society wanted to move towards it surely we'd be willing to work together and agree with each other

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156590]so fighting against the nazis in ww2 was oppressing them? fighting to free the slaves in the civil war was oppression? like whatever man you're way too literal. do you equate murder with killing someone in self defense? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] lol by your standards everyone on earth is probably a hypocrite[/QUOTE] Using the tools of your "enemy" to serve your own needs, and complaining about them? You dehumanize your enemies and call them out as understanding nothing but violence. But from their perspective, are you any different? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156590]so fighting against the nazis in ww2 was oppressing them? fighting to free the slaves in the civil war was oppression? like whatever man you're way too literal. do you equate murder with killing someone in self defense? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] lol by your standards everyone on earth is probably a hypocrite [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] it's not like i think we should just switch to anarchism over night, gotta work towards it, maybe make sure we can distribute teaching information enough or something to ensure people have the right expertise, and if we as a society wanted to move towards it surely we'd be willing to work together and agree with each other[/QUOTE] Information isn't the only issue, facilities are. The larger the scale of the facilities the more efficiently they run to an extent. Anarchy is not scalable enough to sustain these facilities, and as such they will fall into disuse and degrade in usability.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43156607]Using the tools of your "enemy" to serve your own needs, and complaining about them? You dehumanize your enemies and call them out as understanding nothing but violence. But from their perspective, are you any different? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Information isn't the only issue, facilities are. The larger the scale of the facilities the more efficiently they run to an extent. Anarchy is not scalable enough to sustain these facilities, and as such they will fall into disuse and degrade in usability.[/QUOTE] look at my examples dude, do i really give a shit about the perspective of nazis or slavers? and i don't know if you're right when you say anarchy is not scalable enough [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] that, 'from their perspective are you any different?' is such a stupid argument you could say that for literally everything

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156590]so fighting against the nazis in ww2 was oppressing them? fighting to free the slaves in the civil war was oppression? like whatever man you're way too literal. do you equate murder with killing someone in self defense?[/QUOTE]Yes, it ultimately is. Whether the goals are good or bad, you're still oppressing. We tell ourselves its not because we like to make it easier for the means to justify the end, but that doesn't change what it is at its core. Murder and a death resulting from self-defense are both the killing of another person. That's why, normally, even a person claiming self-defense is still supposed to go on trial for the killing. Its an acknowledgement that "You still killed someone." but it becomes a question of whether it was justified or not, if the end makes the means acceptable. There are plenty of people, many on this forum, who feel killing someone in self-defense is never ok, and those who feel it is always ok, even going beyond just the protection of another life. But hardly anyone will deny that someone was still killed.

So..... Just to be clear- even though your ideal society exists (apparently) in Spain none of you have any plans of moving? Just saying cause if my idea of utopia existed i would move by tonight.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43156637]Yes, it ultimately is. Whether the goals are good or bad, you're still oppressing. We tell ourselves its not because we like to make it easier for the means to justify the end, but that doesn't change what it is at its core. Murder and a death resulting from self-defense are both the killing of another person. That's why, normally, even a person claiming self-defense is still supposed to go on trial for the killing. Its an acknowledgement that "You still killed someone." but it becomes a question of whether it was justified or not, if the end makes the means acceptable. There are plenty of people, many on this forum, who feel killing someone in self-defense is never ok, and those who feel it is always ok, even going beyond just the protection of another life. But hardly anyone will deny that someone was still killed.[/QUOTE] what a ridiculously semantic approach to take

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156623]look at my examples dude, do i really give a shit about the perspective of nazis or slavers? and i don't know if you're right when you say anarchy is not scalable enough[/QUOTE] Consensus building. That is the failure and the key point of the anarchism you ask for. In a hierarchal system say 1 leads 10 and those 10 lead 10 each. That is 100 people with only 2 people above them, with 10 with only 1 above. that is pretty low ranking right? 111 people with only a max of 10 others to work with each, simple. Your system makes it so that the "leader" positions are just as high as the others, making it 111 people who have to agree on a single action, rather than 10 convincing 1 guy. Think about the stability of a pyramid vs a plank of wood.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;43156649]So..... Just to be clear- even though your ideal society exists (apparently) in Spain none of you have any plans of moving? Just saying cause if my idea of utopia existed i would move by tonight.[/QUOTE] i don't think it does. and i can't afford a plane ticket either. and i can't speak spanish! [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43156659]Consensus building. That is the failure and the key point of the anarchism you ask for. In a hierarchal system say 1 leads 10 and those 10 lead 10 each. That is 100 people with only 2 people above them, with 10 with only 1 above. that is pretty low ranking right? 111 people with only a max of 10 others to work with each, simple. Your system makes it so that the "leader" positions are just as high as the others, making it 111 people who have to agree on a single action, rather than 10 convincing 1 guy. Think about the stability of a pyramid vs a plank of wood.[/QUOTE] well i guess i value equality above stability or efficiency. i'm still not sure you're right though

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156590]lol by your standards everyone on earth is probably a hypocrite[/QUOTE]Yeah, we're all hypocritical in someway, I doubt there has ever been anyone who was not a hypocrite to some degree. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156654]what a ridiculously semantic approach to take[/QUOTE]And your approach is blind and denialist.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156663]i don't think it does. and i can't afford a plane ticket either. and i can't speak spanish! [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] well i guess i value equality above stability or efficiency. i'm still not sure you're right though[/QUOTE] Let's look at the number of companies that go into a computer nowadays, it isn't just one. Note that is only an organization of 111 people, now what if they have to deal with another 111 or 4 groups of 111 due to the number of components that go into a computer, you now have 555 people arguing over the best route to go. How long will it take for them to iron out the details of working together? Now in a hierarchy, you have a max of 55 that is if you have no managers at all at the facility, which is unlikely. So likely you'd have around 10 due to avoiding too many people there. Wow, they might get a decision in withing the week, amazing isn't it?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43156670]Yeah, we're all hypocritical in someway, I doubt there has ever been anyone who was not a hypocrite to some degree. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] And your approach is blind and denialist.[/QUOTE] blind and denialist. lol. i just don't see the point in your stupid semantic arguments that can be used against anything [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43156694]Let's look at the number of companies that go into a computer nowadays, it isn't just one. Note that is only an organization of 111 people, now what if they have to deal with another 111 or 4 groups of 111 due to the number of components that go into a computer, you now have 555 people arguing over the best route to go. How long will it take for them to iron out the details of working together? Now in a hierarchy, you have a max of 55 that is if you have no managers at all at the facility, which is unlikely. So likely you'd have around 10 due to avoiding too many people there. Wow, they might get a decision in withing the week, amazing isn't it?[/QUOTE] i don't think it would take that long to decide that the people that know how to do certain things do those things

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156726]blind and denialist. lol. i just don't see the point in your stupid semantic arguments that can be used against anything[/QUOTE] You claim you are willing to use the tools that are used against you and claim the path of justice, but don't all that are the winners claim that? The winner of a war writes the history and the results, your society will have at it's core has no capacity to do anything but develop slowly outward and defend your borders in the process. If another group takes a militant policy against you, you have little fallback. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156726]blind and denialist. lol. i just don't see the point in your stupid semantic arguments that can be used against anything [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] i don't think it would take that long to decide that the people that know how to do certain things do those things[/QUOTE] Governments work on a majority rule, consensus is much more wide scope, everyone or nearly everyone has to agree for a consensus, our government needs a max of 60% to pass something, and look how difficult that is to achieve.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43156748]You claim you are willing to use the tools that are used against you and claim the path of justice, but don't all that are the winners claim that? The winner of a war writes the history and the results, your society will have at it's core has no capacity to do anything but develop slowly outward and defend your borders in the process. If another group takes a militant policy against you, you have little fallback. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Governments work on a majority rule, consensus is much more wide scope, everyone or nearly everyone has to agree for a consensus, our government needs a max of 60% to pass something, and look how difficult that is to achieve.[/QUOTE] i don't necessarily think anarchist society can only come about by way of revolution. and the problem with your government is that it's capitalistic, i believe capitalism makes people greedy and self serving and our (because we have the same problem here) society as it is fosters the idea of every man for himself to try and make as much money as possible because that determines your status. i'd hope that within a anarchist society there wouldn't be as much discord

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156772]i don't necessarily think anarchist society can only come about by way of revolution. and the problem with your government is that it's capitalistic, i believe capitalism makes people greedy and self serving and our (because we have the same problem here) society as it is fosters the idea of every man for himself to try and make as much money as possible because that determines your status. i'd hope that within a anarchist society there wouldn't be as much discord[/QUOTE] Who said anything about revolution, the philosophy of pure defense is not very sustainable, a counter attack capacity is always good. And also, is arguing about trade effectiveness in a barter system any different than arguing over the costs of something or bidding? People will want as many resources as possible for their group.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43156787]Who said anything about revolution, the philosophy of pure defense is not very sustainable, a counter attack capacity is always good. And also, is arguing about trade effectiveness in a barter system any different than arguing over the costs of something or bidding? People will want as many resources as possible for their group.[/QUOTE] i thought you were implying that i think we should use force to bring about anarchist society. and no i don't agree with that at all. self defense is justifiable, 'counter attacks' or 'premptive strikes' are not. and i don't agree that people will want as many resources as possible

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156804]i thought you were implying that i think we should use force to bring about anarchist society. and no i don't agree with that at all. self defense is justifiable, 'counter attacks' or 'premptive strikes' are not. and i don't agree that people will want as many resources as possible[/QUOTE] So removing the threat of something that has proven itself a threat is bad. I guess you should leave all those poisonous snakes and spiders alone. If people didn't want as many resources as possible we would have never started farming, a surplus is key to progression.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43156820]So removing the threat of something that has proven itself a threat is bad. I guess you should leave all those poisonous snakes and spiders alone. If people didn't want as many resources as possible we would have never started farming, a surplus is key to progression.[/QUOTE] so what we should just go kill poisonous snakes because they COULD attack us? gee man weren't you guys trying to paint me as the oppressive murder guy? and yeah i phrased that wrong, people will want as much as they can to live comfortably, and i believe there is enough on earth for everyone to live comfortably

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156854]so what we should just go kill poisonous snakes because they COULD attack us? gee man weren't you guys trying to paint me as the oppressive murder guy? and yeah i phrased that wrong, people will want as much as they can to live comfortably, and i believe there is enough on earth for everyone to live comfortably[/QUOTE] Note I had said proven. They already attacked you. If you think a counterattack is immoral, you are basically telling your opponents to rely purely on hit and run tactics. You will not last.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43156877]Note I had said proven. They already attacked you. If you think a counterattack is immoral, you are basically telling your opponents to rely purely on hit and run tactics. You will not last.[/QUOTE] i'm not gonna fucking discuss war tactics with you dude lmao

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156881]i'm not gonna fucking discuss war tactics with you dude lmao[/QUOTE] Any society that exists will face the threat one day, failure to prepare for it is foolish, failure to accept it is blindness.

This thread is hilarious. So much wasted time.

If you guys believe in this idea of a commune, go join one, they are all over the place. Find your own peace before you worry about turning the world upside down.

A communist village? You mean a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz]Kibbutz?[/url] Because those have been tried extensively in Israel, since the 1920's in fact and actually worked pretty great- until the country actually made the switch from 3rd world-esque communism to 1st world capitalism, and the Kibbutz just couldn't compete. Most of them have been privatised by now, and the ones who didn't are finding it very hard to stay afloat. TL;DR- Small communist communities work- as long as there's fuck all to compete with them.

There are Kibbutz type places all over the place. I'm just suggesting they give it a try. I agree that those kind of places need to find a manufacturing niche in order to stay afloat, instead of just being based around subsistence agriculture. With a bit of determination I would imagine they could get some serious small scale manufacturing going on, especially considering the number of people with degrees out of work. Small scale home renewable energy products is probably a good niche.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;43157518]There are Kibbutz type places all over the place. I'm just suggesting they give it a try. I agree that those kind of places need to find a manufacturing niche in order to stay afloat, instead of just being based around subsistence agriculture. With a bit of determination I would imagine they could get some serious small scale manufacturing going on, especially considering the number of people with degrees out of work. Small scale home renewable energy products is probably a good niche.[/QUOTE] But these guys are trying to market their village as a sort of "proof of concept", when in fact the only way they could survive are either their country goes to shit or has enough of a capitalist infrastructure to support them. The Kibbutz has shown this, and the privatisation of many Kibbutzim clearly demonstrates this.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;43157538]But these guys are trying to market their village as a sort of "proof of concept", when in fact the only way they could survive are either their country goes to shit or has enough of a capitalist infrastructure to support them. The Kibbutz has shown this, and the privatisation of many Kibbutzim clearly demonstrate this.[/QUOTE] If they can actually put back something useful into the economy, it could sort of work. Capitalism is just a method of allocating resources, so I doubt trading outside of their commune is turning their back on their principles.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43137334]I would be an anarchist, but having read history and economics the best I am hoping for is a society in which nations cease to exist along with standing armies while everyone gets their basic needs provided for.[/QUOTE] Any recommended reading? I'd like to know more about what has persuaded you to adopt your particular positions as you seem to put more thought into it than many on this forum.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156124]i don't know what more you want me to say? if an army from somewhere else is coming to kill you, then yes, form a militia or whatever to fight them off, if people from within revolt then fight them[/quote] [quote]there's nothing wrong with political dissent from within so long as it isn't going to lead to subjugation[/quote] Aren't these inherently contradictory? An internal revolt is conducted by some people due to injustices (real or perceived). How do you manage these people who demand a different way of organizing society, and how do you deal with the fact that by using force to crush an internal revolt goes against the core of your philosophy/ maybe people in the community go 'well, such & such is trying darn hard to learn his medicines so he can medicine up the rest of us if we get sick, i guess we'll hook him up with some more food even if he isn't going to be able to work as much, then once he's done his learning maybe he can work in the farm a little bit more so someone else can learn something different' i don't know, something like that? the idea of letting someone starve seems pretty bad to me so i just don't imagine that would happen[/QUOTE]