California's Assembly Votes To Allow Communists To Hold State Jobs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=nulls;52219767]Disregarding all nonsense and pettieness aside, it's pretty clear you've never read a page of Marx/Engles/Lenin/fucking literally any communist philosopher[/QUOTE] have you?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52219857]have you?[/QUOTE] Yes? I wouldn't be arguing in favor of it if I hadn't.

[QUOTE=nulls;52219874]Yes? I wouldn't be arguing in favor of it if I hadn't.[/QUOTE] like which ones though

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52219879]like which ones though[/QUOTE] Mostly Marx and Lenin. I'm reading through State & Revolution at the moment. Communist literature isn't super easy to find if you want in physical format though unfortunately.

[QUOTE=nulls;52219910]Mostly Marx and Lenin. I'm reading through State & Revolution at the moment. Communist literature isn't super easy to find if you want in physical format though unfortunately.[/QUOTE] I would suggest a different Karl, Karl Popper for reading

[QUOTE=nulls;52219767]Okay, lets discuss Harlow's post.[/QUOTE] You miss my point. Everything i said basically comes down to "as soon as you try to apply any part of marx's ideas, this is going to happen", not "this is literally what marx wanted and you're an idiot" I don't care what his works said, because as soon as you enact them, this is what happens. Communism is about the rejection of the state and the uplifting of the individual, but every axiom REQUIRES a centralized authority to enact, and will [I]always[/I] result in the destruction of the individual. Your entire argument comes down to "It says this, and therefore that's exactly what's going to happen". And again, there's a track record that 100% in support of my argument, and 100% against yours. What more evidence could you [I]possibly[/I] need? And maybe after over a century of "failed" marxism, enacted by true believers, maybe that means that marx's ideas [I]can't work.[/I] And what you're saying in "Real communism hasn't happened yet because all the people are authoritarian tyrants" is really "All those other times marxism was tried, none of them knew what they were doing. Lennin, Mao, Che, Pot, Rykov and all those people under them. None of them understand marxism to the degree that I do, because they did it wrong. And because i understand these ideas better than all the other people that tried it, if it was [I]me[/I] at the helm, that utopia would happen." Also the "human nature is 100% mallable" thing is absolute horseshit. There's not a scrap of evidence to support it. If humans didn't have an intrinsic nature, 200,000 year old stories like the flood narratives or things like the Mesopotamian creation myth would hold no relevance, because the core nature of human beings would fundamentally shift over time. But no, they're still here. There is a constant human nature, and to deny that is to deny that there may be certain features or patterns of behavior that will produce a creature more likely to survive and pass on those patterns. You just want it to be true because it [I]needs[/I] to be true for these ideas to work. Which, by the way, is another reason it doesn't. And if human nature needs to be substantially fluid for Marx's ideas to work, and it's not, that's only further proof that marx's ideas about human nature are completely fucking wrong. [QUOTE=nulls;52218449]tl;dr: communism can't work because human nature, unironically using gulag archiplego and the black book of communism as sources, communism will personally come and take your individuality pack it up folks, I'm a capitalist now. homeless people just need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and the soviet union was clearly a communist state.[/QUOTE] >unironically using the book that single handedly destroyed the soviet union to prove communism doesnt work >it's not a reasonable source because it's biased against communism ok Also i don't think you get to say you're not a capitolist if you're using an android device to post on the internet, or have ever used a car. Because these are all things that are axiomatically capitalist and western individualist in their nature. It's a performitive contradiction. Also the Stolypin cars bit is from chapter 3 of volume one of the gulag archipelago. Written by someone who served his tenner in the gulags. And i'll take him as a greater authority on communism than an american posting on their internet from their smartphone [QUOTE]we totally haven't heard and [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1561928&p=52161528#post52161528"]debunked this[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=nulls;52161528] [I][B]My belief is[/B][/I] that "human nature" is basically molded and directly affected by your socioeconomic standing and system. [/QUOTE] Uh huh. [QUOTE=nulls;52161528]The people who do try to take over obviously must be shut down, but we can't get carried away and purge anyone who disagrees with communism. [I][B] The idea is[/B][/I] to phase it in over time and get people used to it, not to execute opposers.[/QUOTE] This is basically the center of my argument. Boy howdy is the "idea" ever to not do horrible things and enact a utopia. But that's not what happens, is it, sunshine? [QUOTE]"Human nature" is changeable mindset that is directly influenced by your socioeconomic standing under a capitalist society. Also, before you try using the "MArx didnT account for HUMAN NATURE!!" argument in a serious setting ever again, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature"]here[/URL] [URL="http://sfr-21.org/human-nature.html"]you[/URL] go.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Marx and Engels were concerned with the question of human nature for several reasons. For one thing, they were convinced that human nature had been distorted by capitalism and could be freed to achieve its true potential only through socialism and communism.[/QUOTE] >I believe that human nature is mallable and conditionable >Marx had a concrete vision of human nature, here's proof of him believing in a particular human nature Also, once again, i'm not saying marx didn't have a model for this, or that his policies were to enact horrible dystopian hellpits. I'm saying his outwardly benign philosophy and models are [I]wrong.[/I] Which is [I]why[/I] the fucking horror show happens. Do you even know you're misrepresenting what i say? How many more times to i have to literally and specifically outline what i'm saying to you before you understand my argument? God i could pick apart your argument for ages, this is great [QUOTE]Venezuela does not claim to be socialist, nor are they[/QUOTE] Reallly, because every time i call it quasi-communist, every commy within a hundred miles comes out of the woodwork to tell me it's a socialist state. Isn't that funny.

[QUOTE=nulls;52219767] Also, for the last fucking time, there is no such thing as a communist state. Communism is by definition a stateless society. Not an authoritarian government. Not a state-controlled economy. Not fucking gulags. [/QUOTE] This is the single-handedly dumbest part of communism theory and why anyone that really reads into it and unironically believes it is an idiot. Because large amounts of people will just suddenly come together all with good intentions once laws, government, and stability is thrown out the window. It will never work in practice, and it's even dumber in theory. And you know, you sure do talk lowly of the most "successful" communist country despite having their founder as your profile picture.

Want to know why the "b-but it wasn't real communism" argument is fucking stupid? because the natural progression of communism in practice always ends in the same atrocities and a dictator. Each according to his ability, each according to his needs, alright lets break that fundamental idea down then, who gets to decide the abilities and the needs? OK well say a perfect angel is elected to make these decisions, and you know what? he would either become corrupt or be stabbed in the back by someone with ill intent and you would be right back where every single "communist" country ended up.

[QUOTE=benzinxrm;52216303]~100million people have been killed by communist regimes. How many millions more have to die before people figure out communism is bad.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/communism-141210183258-conversion-gate01/95/communismsdf-14-638.jpg?cb=1418236446[/IMG]

[QUOTE=KillRay;52220497][IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/communism-141210183258-conversion-gate01/95/communismsdf-14-638.jpg?cb=1418236446[/IMG][/QUOTE] Yeah no don't include the Famine in here and call it "death by capitalism." It was caused by fucking imperialism, racism and stealing food from the land.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52220522]Yeah no don't include the Famine in here and call it "death by capitalism." It was caused by fucking imperialism, racism and stealing food from the land.[/QUOTE] where were u when capitalism created a plague that killed 100 million native americans? ? ?

[QUOTE=KillRay;52220497][IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/communism-141210183258-conversion-gate01/95/communismsdf-14-638.jpg?cb=1418236446[/IMG][/QUOTE] native american genocide: 100 million this is like the wrongest shit ever there weren't even 100 million people in the americas if you're going to do a side-by-side comparison, why don't you do something that takes real effort like comparing deaths from the spanish civil war or pinochet? instead you've gotten a list of figures (half of which are invented or inflated), and create the most spurious ties between capitalism and the deaths it causes asbestos exposure? the rwandan genocide? the fault of capitalism? what the fuck? how?

[QUOTE=KillRay;52220497][IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/communism-141210183258-conversion-gate01/95/communismsdf-14-638.jpg?cb=1418236446[/IMG][/QUOTE] Wow, where do we even start with how incorrect this is, How about for starters lets begin with the 20th century since that's when communism came to a head and when 'modern capitalism" was in full swing so you can leave out the Native American genocides, slave trade and famines in British India (they are all loosely tied to begin with anyway). The world wars? yeah no again, Asbestos Exposure? Are you saying communists wouldn't use asbestos when the effects were unknown? That table has to be a joke and if you un-ironically believe it to be a list of "capitalist atrocities" then you really need to re-think your ideology.

[QUOTE=KillRay;52220497][IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/communism-141210183258-conversion-gate01/95/communismsdf-14-638.jpg?cb=1418236446[/IMG][/QUOTE] let's pretend 100% of this is dead accurate. None of this has anything to do with the philisophical principals of capitolism. Like hunger, what the fuck does that mean? Is capitolism responsible for people starving to death in somolia? Or occupational deaths in quatar or china? America has 4,000-5,000 workplace deaths a [I]year[/I], but this claims that happens daily. The high end of reasonable estimations of all deaths by the direct actions of capitalist states is about 60 million, and that's including stuff like the world wars, which have fuck all to do with the philosophical underpinnings of the west. Unless you count stopping evil ideologically possessed tyrants from taking over the world, in which case by your own logic stopping evil is bad because boy howdy a lot of people die. The higher estimates from the end of the soviet era in the late '70's estimates the number of deaths as direct result of state action [I]on that state's own people[/I] is around 168 million. Not including the revolution before the state assumed power, just internal suppression, starvation due to state incompetence/malevolence and the like. That's not even close to being comparable you disingenuous hack. Also 100 million naitives in the 1500's? Most estimates peg it at 5-30 million total population, with 90% death rate from [I]accidental[/I] disease carrying from the europeans, bringing all these foreign patheogens to the unprepared naitives. Which puts the number at 4.5 million to 27.5 million. And that's assuming that the absolute monarchies of the 1500's counts as capitalist states, and that (the smallbox blankets aside, which i'd be willing to count), the immunized europeans unknowingly carrying diseases counts as capitalist state action. What the fuck.

[quote]I don't care what his works said[/quote] And this is why you won't get very far in an argument about Marxism/communism. [quote] Your entire argument comes down to "It says this, and therefore that's exactly what's going to happen". [/quote] Wrong. It's more like "this is what communist theory is. X country had a revolution but failed to implement or adhere to literally any communist theory. X country is not communist". Now, I'm sure you're pretty smart so I'll just dumb it down to that. I won't sink to shitposting 'maymay arrows' and butchering your entire argument. [quote] And again, there's a track record that 100% in support of my argument, and 100% against yours. What more evidence could you [I]possibly[/I] need? And maybe after over a century of "failed" marxism, enacted by true believers, maybe that means that marx's ideas [I]can't work.[/I] And what you're saying in "Real communism hasn't happened yet because all the people are authoritarian tyrants" is really "All those other times marxism was tried, none of them knew what they were doing. Lennin, Mao, Che, Pot, Rykov and all those people under them. None of them understand marxism to the degree that I do, because they did it wrong. And because i understand these ideas better than all the other people that tried it, if it was [I]me[/I] at the helm, that utopia would happen."[/quote] I'm sure Lenin/Mao/Che/etc. all understood Marxism perfectly well. This does not mean they actually implemented Marxist theory. Ironically they more or less butchered it when enacting policy for their post revolution society. Regardless though, communism wouldn't have worked then or right now because we haven't reached socialism to allow us to ease into communism. Communism/socialism isn't something that you can just literally jump into right away. It would take decades to shift people into it. [quote] Also the "human nature is 100% mallable" thing is absolute horseshit. There's not a scrap of evidence to support it. If humans didn't have an intrinsic nature, 200,000 year old stories like the flood narratives or things like the Mesopotamian creation myth would hold no relevance, because the core nature of human beings would fundamentally shift over time. But no, they're still here. There is a constant human nature, and to deny that is to deny that there may be certain features or patterns of behavior that will produce a creature more likely to survive and pass on those patterns. You just want it to be true because it [I]needs[/I] to be true for these ideas to work. Which, by the way, is another reason it doesn't. And if human nature needs to be substantially fluid for Marx's ideas to work, and it's not, that's only further proof that marx's ideas about human nature are completely fucking wrong. [/quote] Ironically here you're arguing in favor of an economic model that changed human behavior and how we interact with others after hundreds of thousands of years of not existing. Sorry, but you are 100% absolutely wrong on the "human nature is absolutely static. It can't be changed", there's a reason most Westerners think with an individualist mindset, while many people who lived under the Soviet Union more often than not think with a collective mindset (of course there are exceptions to both sides). To say human nature in unchanging is rejection of individualism and how humans evolve over time to adapt to the societies we live in and interact with others. [quote] >unironically using the book that single handedly destroyed the soviet union to prove communism doesnt work >it's not a reasonable source because it's biased against communism [/quote] >>le maymay arrows on the le facepunch xDD [quote] Also i don't think you get to say you're not a capitolist if you're using an android device to post on the internet, or have ever used a car. Because these are all things that are axiomatically capitalist and western individualist in their nature. It's a performitive contradiction. Also the Stolypin cars bit is from chapter 3 of volume one of the gulag archipelago. Written by someone who served his tenner in the gulags. And i'll take him as a greater authority on communism than an american posting on their internet from their smartphone[/quote] Ah yes, my mistake. I forgot people who advocate for different type of economic model should live in the boonies writing on stone tablets. Clearly it makes no sense for them to try to survive within and utilize the available technology under their current society. This is completely logical and totally not the most retarded thing you've posted so far. Christ you're fucking dense. [quote] This is basically the center of my argument. Boy howdy is the "idea" ever to not do horrible things and enact a utopia. But that's not what happens, is it, sunshine?[/quote] And this comes to the center of my argument when you're trying to say "marxism results is dytopia etc" when no country you're referring to actually followed how Marx said a socialist and then communist society should be achieved, and in fact went literally the opposite way. [quote] God i could pick apart your argument for ages, this is great[/quote] Really? Because so far all you've done is extended the "not real communism argument is dumb" argument across 2 posts the size of a small book while trying to use the most generic anti-communist arguments that are refuted everytime we have this thread. [quote] Reallly, because every time i call it quasi-communist, every commy within a hundred miles comes out of the woodwork to tell me it's a socialist state. Isn't that funny.[/QUOTE] You're probably talking to socdems. Not surprising that you can't tell the difference between liberals and communists though.

[QUOTE=nulls;52223840]And this comes to the center of my argument when you're trying to say "marxism results is dytopia etc" when no country you're referring to actually followed how Marx said a socialist and then communist society should be achieved, and in fact went literally the opposite way.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm[/url] [quote]Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.[/quote] most, if not all communist countries (and quite a few others) did these

I don't get why certain people (not naming any names here) think Capitalism is something that hasn't caused problems directly in the world. It's fucking cancerous when you look at what companies like Nestle do in Africa, let alone what places like China, India, Russia and many parts of the undeveloped world do. Let's also not forget that America is shitting all over climate change because of it too. Communism is terrible and doesn't work but holy fuck Capitalism is pretty shit too. Communism is dead. Capitalism is alive and well and causing far more problems daily and if it fucks with climate change enough, will kill more people than it ever did. edit: I should probably say, unregulated capitalism is pretty shit. It CAN actually work unlike communism, but many parts of the world have it working pretty shit, like say the US.

[QUOTE=nulls;52223840]And this is why you won't get very far in an argument about Marxism/communism.[/QUOTE] Ok, you are acting like a fucking child, and this right here sums up exactly why. I didn't literally mean "the works of marx has literally no bearing on marxism and the two are entirely removed from one another, so what marx wrote has absolutely no relevance to what i'm saying." because that would allow you to say "And this is why you won't get very far in an argument about Marxism/communism.". Anyone with an ounce of honesty in their body would read that turn of phrase to mean what i intended to express, which was "It doesn't matter what marx says would happen if you enact his ideas, because the evidence to the contrary is proof that that's wrong." Grow the fuck up and learn how to debate properly and in good faith.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52223874]I don't get why certain people (not naming any names here) think Capitalism is something that hasn't caused problems directly in the world. It's fucking cancerous when you look at what companies like Nestle do in Africa, let alone what places like China, India, Russia and many parts of the undeveloped world do. Let's also not forget that America is shitting all over climate change because of it too. Communism is terrible and doesn't work but holy fuck Capitalism is pretty shit too. Communism is dead. Capitalism is alive and well and causing far more problems daily and if it fucks with climate change enough, will kill more people than it ever did. edit: I should probably say, unregulated capitalism is pretty shit. It CAN actually work unlike communism, but many parts of the world have it working pretty shit, like say the US.[/QUOTE] I think by this point Post-scarcity economy with some Green based economy (maybe Ecosocialism or Ecocaptialism?) for do is better way to save world.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52226390]Ok, you are acting like a fucking child, and this right here sums up exactly why. I didn't literally mean "the works of marx has literally no bearing on marxism and the two are entirely removed from one another, so what marx wrote has absolutely no relevance to what i'm saying." because that would allow you to say "And this is why you won't get very far in an argument about Marxism/communism.". Anyone with an ounce of honesty in their body would read that turn of phrase to mean what i intended to express, which was "It doesn't matter what marx says would happen if you enact his ideas, because the evidence to the contrary is proof that that's wrong." Grow the fuck up and learn how to debate properly and in good faith.[/QUOTE] I'm ready when you are. This time will you come in knowing anything about your opponent's side? Or are you just going to say "attempts at communism failed every time, give up" while defending the repetitive failures of capitalism, and somehow manage to span that across 17 paragraphs?

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52220327]This is the single-handedly dumbest part of communism theory and why anyone that really reads into it and unironically believes it is an idiot. Because large amounts of people will just suddenly come together all with good intentions once laws, government, and stability is thrown out the window. It will never work in practice, and it's even dumber in theory.[/QUOTE] You don't work in practice and you're dumb in theory. What could the ideological bedrock of your reasoning be that you think yourself apt to dismiss the entirety of anarchist theory? I can understand saying communism has never worked, but I'd like to object the notion that statelessness is care bear theory. Care bear theory is attempting to alleviate the issues of society while maintaining a political nomenklatura.

[QUOTE=nulls;52226411]I'm ready when you are. This time will you come in knowing anything about your opponent's side? Or are you just going to say "attempts at communism failed every time, give up" while defending the repetitive failures of capitalism, and somehow manage to span that across 17 paragraphs?[/QUOTE] I've read Marx's important books, i've read solzhenitsyn's work, i've read the neo-marxist stuff put forward by french "intellectuals" like Derrida and Foucault and god knows what else. I know exactly what i'm talking about. Tell you what. Go read the first volume of the Gulag. The entire book is one 500,000 word masterpiece explaining in great and never ending detail, how the original tennants of marx's thought translated into policy which let directly to the quasi-genocidal tenancies of the soviets. If you wont' listen to me, maybe you'll listen to someone who had to suffer through your utopia. Also, if every single time communism happened is a tyranical perversion by some corrupt element. Maybe you need to explain why communist ideas are so easily twisted into a dystopian hellpit. if it's such a brilliant philosiphy, surely it should be immune to perverting in a way directly antithetical to every facet of the original intent?

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52226421]You don't work in practice and you're dumb in theory. What could the ideological bedrock of your reasoning be that you think yourself apt to dismiss the entirety of anarchist theory? I can understand saying communism has never worked, but I'd like to object the notion that statelessness is care bear theory. Care bear theory is attempting to alleviate the issues of society while maintaining a political nomenklatura.[/QUOTE] Anarchy is even dumber than communism. Anarchy has always lead to some form of government because government is a practical way to lead, protect, and look after a society. And even if it doesn't lead to government (which it always will), someone with an actual organised state will come and take you over for your resources. Don't take my word for it though, take Denmark's: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania[/url] So tell me more about the warlord run, cartel run, drug infested """free society"""" you want to live in.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52228486] Don't take my word for it though, take Denmark's: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania[/url] So tell me more about the warlord run, cartel run, drug infested """free society"""" you want to live in.[/QUOTE] Funnily enough, after reading about the community, you'll see they sabatoged and kicked out the biker gangs that monopolized the drug market. The community also rejects hard drugs (heroin, meth, etc.), but allows the free cannabis trade. EDIT: But that's just from the wikipedia page you linked. There's probably more accurate info out there.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52228486]Anarchy is even dumber than communism. Anarchy has always lead to some form of government because government is a practical way to lead, protect, and look after a society. And even if it doesn't lead to government (which it always will), someone with an actual organised state will come and take you over for your resources. Don't take my word for it though, take Denmark's: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania[/url] So tell me more about the warlord run, cartel run, drug infested """free society"""" you want to live in.[/QUOTE] Anarchy already works. I have seen it for myself. It's not that impressive either, and it can fail. There's ways to go about refuting it other than cherrypicking an example of one anarchist community you believe has failed. Especially considering there are so many to pick from.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52228572]Anarchy already works. I have seen it for myself. It's not that impressive either, and it can fail. There's ways to go about refuting it other than cherrypicking an example of one anarchist community you believe has failed. Especially considering there are so many to pick from.[/QUOTE] Anything can work on a small scale, especially when you already have a preexisting government entity watching over your people so they don't get invaded by the next country over. Once any non-governed society reaches a higher population, upwards of a few hundred, you need to grow up and get a big boy government. You know, like cities, counties, states, provinces, countries, something EVERY society ended up forming independently of each other thousands of years ago in some form or another.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52220327]This is the single-handedly dumbest part of communism theory and why anyone that really reads into it and unironically believes it is an idiot. Because large amounts of people will just suddenly come together all with good intentions once laws, government, and stability is thrown out the window. It will never work in practice, and it's even dumber in theory. And you know, you sure do talk lowly of the most "successful" communist country despite having their founder as your profile picture.[/QUOTE] Actually I'd put money on something like a 'stateless society' becoming a thing as our technology continues to advance and things like AI become a reality. You're here extrapolating the RIGHT NOW to be everything and that's ignorant as fuck. A few hundred years ago if I were to do what you're doing now, I'd say there would be no such thing as a largely peaceful world. Just because the world is the way it is now in no way at all means it will continue to be like this. Big changes are coming.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52220327]This is the single-handedly dumbest part of communism theory and why anyone that really reads into it and unironically believes it is an idiot. Because large amounts of people will just suddenly come together all with good intentions once laws, government, and stability is thrown out the window. It will never work in practice, and it's even dumber in theory. And you know, you sure do talk lowly of the most "successful" communist country despite having their founder as your profile picture.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it, but that is what the theory proposes. I don't think you can just "get rid of" class divisions, I think they're a natural part of any community with resource imbalances. Talking about "communist states" is meaningless [I]when you're talking about communist theory[/I]. By definition, they [I]can't[/I] exist. A communist state is a stateless state, which is an oxymoron. You're assuming that people who state that argument are [I]agreeing[/I] with it, but I'm not. I don't think that a true stateless communist society is possible. I'm just saying that the term itself is oxymoronic, because communism is [I]by definition[/I] stateless. Most modern historians refer to "communist party" states when talking about the Soviet Union or the PRC. They're states run by communist parties. It's a distinction worth making - nobody's using this as a "gotcha," it's just meant to clarify the definition of communism. There has never been a "communist state" because a communist state is impossible. There have been plenty of communist party states, and some that still exist today, and they are communist (in that they follow communist theory), but they aren't communist [I]states[/I]. Again, I don't think communism is possible and I think it was naive to think that class distinctions could just be wiped away. This is what [I]they believed[/I], though. There has never been communism - there has been socialism, there has been communist party rule, but there has never been communism. I'd argue that there's never, in all of history, been a "true free market" either. I hear "but in a real free market that wouldn't happen" more than I even hear "but in real communism that wouldn't happen." Both are theoretical and neither have ever been reality.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52228848]Actually I'd put money on something like a 'stateless society' becoming a thing as our technology continues to advance and things like AI become a reality. You're here extrapolating the RIGHT NOW to be everything and that's ignorant as fuck. A few hundred years ago if I were to do what you're doing now, I'd say there would be no such thing as a largely peaceful world. Just because the world is the way it is now in no way at all means it will continue to be like this. Big changes are coming.[/QUOTE] what are you basing your predictions off? the future is inherently unpredictable, to assume that technology advances and AI becomes a reality in that way you describe is incredibly naive and dumb if anything, the rate of technological and scientific innovation is declining

[QUOTE=Komodoh;52228486] Don't take my word for it though, take Denmark's: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania[/url] So tell me more about the warlord run, cartel run, drug infested """free society"""" you want to live in.[/QUOTE] Have you even been to Christiania? Go to Copenhagen and see it for yourself. There's plenty more to it than Pusher Street.