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

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43163334]because it doesn't lead to a sustainable society. people will realize quickly that if we just steal from each other then nothing can get done because no one will want to collaborate on anything.[/QUOTE] Why should I give a fuck about maintaining a sustainable society? I'm just trying to live another day.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43163345]Why should I give a fuck about maintaining a sustainable society? I'm just trying to live another day.[/QUOTE] have you been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] have you ever cooperated with another human being in your life?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43163345]Why should I give a fuck about maintaining a sustainable society? I'm just trying to live another day.[/QUOTE] lol you're just being ridiculous and grasping at straws. if you cared about continuing to live another day you'd realize that cooperating with people greatly increases your chance of achieving that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43163361]have you been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] have you ever cooperated with another human being in your life?[/QUOTE] I have cooperated with other people when there was a reason to do so. Such as being rewarded to work in a project. But if I'm not being rewarded to work on it, why should I contribute? Also nice ad hominem. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163393]lol you're just being ridiculous and grasping at straws. if you cared about continuing to live another day you'd realize that cooperating with people greatly increases your chance of achieving that.[/QUOTE] Not everyone thinks that or cares for that. How can you tie people together without tying them together?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43163361]have you been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] have you ever cooperated with another human being in your life?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163393]lol you're just being ridiculous and grasping at straws. if you cared about continuing to live another day you'd realize that cooperating with people greatly increases your chance of achieving that.[/QUOTE] Because when the chips are down, people get desperate, and law or a sense of higher justice is nowhere to be found, people immediately start working together for the good of the many, right? Did both of you just miss what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina? Or every single third-world country that undergoes political shift? There's nothing stopping people from working together but the more desperate they are the more readily they turn on one another. People will readily fuck each other over if it's a matter of survival. Try venturing beyond the comfortable borders of the US and spend some time in Africa or the Middle East and you can see it for yourself.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43163410]Not everyone thinks that or cares for that. How can you tie people together without tying them together?[/QUOTE] sorry but i'm finished with you. you said you're trying to live another day, i explained that cooperation greatly helps that goal, and then say you "oh well not everyone cares about that!!" come back when you've found a place to put those goalposts.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43163291]cooperation and collaboration instead of greed and competition.[/QUOTE] But how are you going to enforce that without a state, or something equivalent to a state? Being an anarchist basically means you embrace human nature and believe that it is not naturally bad or whatever. It doesn't mean forcing people into your idea of a good society.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163530]sorry but i'm finished with you. you said you're trying to live another day, i explained that cooperation greatly helps that goal, and then say you "oh well not everyone cares about that!!" come back when you've found a place to put those goalposts.[/QUOTE] Lolwut? It's not goalpost-moving if your society explicitly assumes that everyone is going to be a 100% logical robot with perfect understanding of their best chances for long-term success, especially if you can't come up with an answer for how you deal with people who aren't perfect.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163530]sorry but i'm finished with you. you said you're trying to live another day, i explained that cooperation greatly helps that goal[/QUOTE] not always [QUOTE=yawmwen;43162947]idk we cut you open and extract the food from your stomach [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] from the capitalist food fairy[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=catbarf;43163634]Lolwut? It's not goalpost-moving if your society explicitly assumes that everyone is going to be a 100% logical robot with perfect understanding of their best chances for long-term success, especially if you can't come up with an answer for how you deal with people who aren't perfect.[/QUOTE] i answered his question and he deflected it and set up new conditions. and what you are doing is strawmanning, since no one assumed anything of that sort. no shit people aren't perfect. but it's a meaningless and vague question, you deal with imperfect people on a case-by-case basis. there is no one-all answer for "how do you deal with imperfect people!?" well how do we deal with imperfect people in a capitalist society? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;43163675]not always[/QUOTE] lol someone doesn't know what a joke is.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163742]and what you are doing is strawmanning, since no one assumed anything of that sort.[/QUOTE] Oh awesome! So let me ask the same question [B]again[/B] and maybe you can answer it this time. How does an anarcho-communist society deal with people taking far in excess of what they contribute? (In a capitalist society, the situation can't arise in the first place because people are limited in what they can take by their salary, a reflection of their contribution, wow I just explained a concept and didn't have to go 'I dunno they'll work something out')

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163742]i answered his question and he deflected it and set up new conditions. and what you are doing is strawmanning, since no one assumed anything of that sort. no shit people aren't perfect. but it's a meaningless and vague question, you deal with imperfect people on a case-by-case basis. there is no one-all answer for "how do you deal with imperfect people!?" well how do we deal with imperfect people in a capitalist society?[/QUOTE] capitalism has at least has a failsafe of tangible incentives outside of goodwill [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163742]lol someone doesn't know what a joke is.[/QUOTE] so whats the real answer?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43163759]Oh awesome! So let me ask the same question [B]again[/B] and maybe you can answer it this time. How does an anarcho-communist society deal with people taking far in excess of what they contribute? (In a capitalist society, the situation can't arise in the first place because people are limited in what they can take by their salary, a reflection of their contribution, wow I just explained a concept and didn't have to go 'I dunno they'll work something out')[/QUOTE] is there something wrong with that answer? ultimately it IS up to the commune to mediate and come to a decision, and that's going to vary from commune to commune. if someone's taking so much to the point where it's depriving other people of what's necessary to live, then yeah, they'll probably tell that person "hey you're giving yourself an advantage over the rest of us and that's not fair because everyone deserves to eat" i disagree with salary being a reflection of contribution. do you think a CEO contributes hundreds of times more than his 40 laborers who go out and actually build stuff?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163931]is there something wrong with that answer? ultimately it IS up to the commune to mediate and come to a decision, and that's going to vary from commune to commune. if someone's taking so much to the point where it's depriving other people of what's necessary to live, then yeah, they'll probably tell that person "hey you're giving yourself an advantage over the rest of us and that's not fair because everyone deserves to eat" i disagree with salary being a reflection of contribution. do you think a CEO contributes hundreds of times more than his 40 laborers who go out and actually build stuff?[/QUOTE] no, that's an example of capitalism being abused much like how communism can be very easily abused

[QUOTE=Juniez;43163774]capitalism has at least has a failsafe of tangible incentives outside of goodwill[/quote] what incentives? [quote]so whats the real answer?[/QUOTE] to which question? his dumb hypothetical where he somehow ate an entire community's worth of food with no one noticing? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;43163942]no, that's an example of capitalism being abused much like how communism can be very easily abused[/QUOTE] if it's so easily and commonly abused then maybe we should get rid of it.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163242]because we live in a society that promotes greediness? accumulation of capital elevates your status, your ability to influence the society, as well as your ability to gain resources. i think such an unequal system is wrong.[/QUOTE] If humans are not remotely greedy at their core, then where did the idea of wealth and the basis of capitalism arise from? Monarchs and other leaders already had power and control. What reason would they need for a system that allows others to attain power and control by providing the things people want (note: not need) in an efficient manner?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163959]what incentives?[/QUOTE] the very powerful motivator of not starving out in the street [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163959]to which question? his dumb hypothetical where he somehow ate an entire community's worth of food with no one noticing?[/QUOTE] so what if people notice - are they gonna tell him to stop? that's oppression, man! [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163959]if it's so easily and commonly abused then maybe we should get rid of it.[/QUOTE] yes, and we should put in a system that's even less regulated. great idea

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163931]i disagree with salary being a reflection of contribution. do you think a CEO contributes hundreds of times more than his 40 laborers who go out and actually build stuff?[/QUOTE] Yes, because without the CEO there would be no laborers producing anything. They wouldn't know what to produce or what to do with their product. That one CEO is responsible for all their jobs. If one laborer severely fucks up, he gets fired; but if the CEO severely fucks up, all 40 of the laborers are fucked because now they have no job. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] To say management is just sitting in a chair telling people to do is a very gross and inaccurate representation of their job. They are just as valuable to a company as the laborers who produce the product. And are also a lot harder to find.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163931]is there something wrong with that answer?[/QUOTE] If someone told me they had a great new idea for a society that would fix all of our problems, and I asked them how they would solve a basic, fundamental societal challenge that people have dealt with for thousands of years, and his response was in effect 'dunno lol', am I really expected to take his idea seriously? Like even just hypothetically, can you give me a hypothetical solution? What possible solutions are there? You and yawmwen keep weaseling out of this trivially basic question because your proposed society has no good answer. Either you tolerate people being selfish even when it means the deaths of others, or you have to impose your will in exactly the manner that keeps getting labeled 'oppression'. I am not asking a difficult question but your utter failure to answer it is pretty telling.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163931]i disagree with salary being a reflection of contribution. do you think a CEO contributes hundreds of times more than his 40 laborers who go out and actually build stuff?[/QUOTE] Yes, in most jobs salary is a reflection of responsibility and skill, not the difficulty of physical labor. A CEO has at least 100 times the responsibility of a basic laborer. Also, essentially everyone can become a laborer with very little training while being a successful CEO takes both a lot of skill and natural talent.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43164211]If someone told me they had a great new idea for a society that would fix all of our problems, and I asked them how they would solve a basic, fundamental societal challenge that people have dealt with for thousands of years, and his response was in effect 'dunno lol', am I really expected to take his idea seriously? Like even just hypothetically, can you give me a hypothetical solution? What possible solutions are there? You and yawmwen keep weaseling out of this trivially basic question because your proposed society has no good answer. Either you tolerate people being selfish even when it means the deaths of others, or you have to impose your will in exactly the manner that keeps getting labeled 'oppression'. I am not asking a difficult question but your utter failure to answer it is pretty telling.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine if someone was taking so much that it was depriving others of life or sustenance it would be considered appropriate to use actions normally deemed oppressive against them as long as they were not out of proportion in order to persuade them to stop doing so or leave the community. So like a kind of measured self defence... Fighting oppression with proportionate oppression.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43165003]I'd imagine if someone was taking so much that it was depriving others of life or sustenance it would be considered appropriate to use actions normally deemed oppressive against them as long as they were not out of proportion in order to persuade them to stop doing so or leave the community.[/QUOTE] Does this not imply the use of force can be justified?

It might be collectively decided to be in response a situation where someone is subjecting a community to violent or systematic oppression as far as I understand. Some say that violence against capitalists and the ruling class is fine under the current system because of the perceived oppression that they perpetrate on the rest of us. I'm not sure about that really myself. If eradicating them eliminates oppression of millions it could be seen as acceptable by some. I'm not sure I'd agree myself on it, though.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43165003]I'd imagine if someone was taking so much that it was depriving others of life or sustenance it would be considered appropriate to use actions normally deemed oppressive against them as long as they were not out of proportion in order to persuade them to stop doing so or leave the community. So like a kind of measured self defence... Fighting oppression with proportionate oppression.[/QUOTE] That makes perfect sense and is how any rational society would operate. But then remember that that means you are using force to enforce the will of the community over an individual, which is what is being termed 'oppression' here. In essence, you have created a law governing the use of resources by the community, because there is now a rule defining a maximum amount that people can take proportional to their giving back to the community. And that's what the pro-anarchy folks on here are adamant that their society does away with. But ultimately unless absolutely anything goes, then force will be used to control behavior damaging to the society, and that's a law whether it's put to paper or not. Edit: I'm not saying that's inherently bad, just that it isn't categorically different from other political systems. Honestly I think some variants of communism could work in the right circumstances. But I don't buy the 'it's totally different because we have no laws and nobody is oppressed' mantra.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43165058]It might be collectively decided to be in response a situation where someone is subjecting a community to violent oppression as far as I understand.[/QUOTE] So force is justified in such a situation?

Potentially. Would depend on the situation, the nature of the oppression perpetrated, the community deciding and their opinions, etc.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43165124]Potentially. Would depend on the situation, the nature of the oppression perpetrated, the community deciding and their opinions, etc.[/QUOTE] Well for a society based around the idea of having no oppression or forcing people to do things, does it not seem strange that there is a situation in which such things are justified in order to maintain the integrity of that society?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43162109]there's nothing to explain there. it's faulty generalization and begging the question. you say humans are greedy and base your argument on it. i say humans are not greedy.[/QUOTE] I genuinely do not see how you can even make this claim. It's ridiculous. Across the world in thousands upon thousands of civilizations we have seen humanity's greed and lust for power. Any sort of behavioral study reinforces this. Hell, just look at the pillaging that happens after a natural disaster. People kill each other without hesitation over basic resources out of desperation, and this is true even in developed sections of the world. At this point you are just making up garbage up that contradicts everything you'd learn about humans, or even animals in general, in a basic psychology course. Then you are basing your entire argument off of these same things. What a goddam joke. [QUOTE=catbarf;43165059]That makes perfect sense and is how any rational society would operate. But then remember that that means you are using force to enforce the will of the community over an individual, which is what is being termed 'oppression' here. In essence, you have created a law governing the use of resources by the community, because there is now a rule defining a maximum amount that people can take proportional to their giving back to the community. And that's what the pro-anarchy folks on here are adamant that their society does away with. But ultimately unless absolutely anything goes, then force will be used to control behavior damaging to the society, and that's a law whether it's put to paper or not. Edit: I'm not saying that's inherently bad, just that it isn't categorically different from other political systems. Honestly I think some variants of communism could work in the right circumstances. But I don't buy the 'it's totally different because we have no laws and nobody is oppressed' mantra.[/QUOTE] The interesting extension of this is what do you do against a military force. I don't see how an anarchist community is going to desire to sustain a standing military to deal with threats. If the proposed systems did, they are going to be a clusterfuck of community rule. How are you going to compete with some other military?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43153515]but it's not a legal structure. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you can have a system without it being hierarchical. you can have governance without government.[/QUOTE] The rule of custom is a legal system. It's a a fairly dynamic system but still a legal system. And it's a legal system that exists in some countries, a lot of fields in standard legal system and international law. Hell business law is mostly strongly governed by it and most codices include stipulation that business law is also governed by common principles. Do you know why this generally applies only to international and business law though? Because a common person can't be expected to be an expert in possible all various things he may be party to. As such he has to be more protected. Which is why common practice features far more rarely in civil codes. That doesn't change common practice into something that's not a legal system. It's a different legal system, but a legal system nonetheless. Because that's all a legal system is - it's a system of rules. And that's what laws are - normative rules. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43163959]what incentives? if it's so easily and commonly abused then maybe we should get rid of it.[/QUOTE] You basically have only few ways of getting rid of a capitalistic system a) you collapse the technological and production base in such a way that everyone is forced to fend for themselves b) you enforce strict maximum levels of things anyone can get. The first would result in a pretty horrible situation, the second would result in a massively controlled system. Now what you can also do is to remove the rules that govern the current system, but the moment you do that, you hand vastly more power to the wealthy. Why else do you think many ultra rich are for less regulation in the first place.

we've gone full circle at least twice. i think I saw catburf, sobotnik ask the same questions about 3 times now. they get an answer but it's not the one they want to hear so we go back round