Political rants

Yeah, don't think I'm satisfied now just because the corporatist feather of the left wing finally read the room and decided to placate on some social policy either. We all know he wouldn't have even touched any of that if the social climate was the 2016. The hildabeast wasn't any different. Selling all her private prison stocks before running and bragging about how she was so much more liberal than any of her other candidates. Then wonders why the black community didn't vote for her as much as was projected. The left DOES have a lot to answer for these past... Screw it, since the Bush Era, since I can't remember what all happened before then.

@chocopyro @twobananasshyofapumpkinpie Contrary to popular belief. You don't need big brother to function as command style economy. You can have a government command style economy. But you can also have a worker command style economy. With the abolition of capitalism. There is no free market to determine the supply and demand of things. No efficient way for buyers and sellers to determine price of an asset. A worker command style economy can be just as inefficient as a government command style economy. With the abolition of wage labor. People are not paid for their labor. If people are not paid. Then money is essentially abolished. Riddle me this. Let says I want to buy a car in an anarcho-communist society. Well, I technically can’t buy a car because money doesn't exist in an anarchist communist society. How then would I trade in a fast efficient manner for a car? Would I barter for a car? How many eggs and gallons of milk would I need to barter for a car? Imagine carrying wheelbarrows full of supplies to trade for a car. The barter system is slow and inefficient. Maybe it's not the barter system? Maybe I must work for the worker communist car company for X amount of time to get the car? Only because the worker owned car company deemed it to be so. Meanwhile in capitalist system. With regular money. The car is priced at the current fair market value. The car transaction is mostly fast and efficient. A wire transfer, cash, heck even card. It doesn't matter if it's government command style economy or worker command style economy. All types of communist run style economies are slow and inefficient.

Now let's walk through a hypothetical. Let's go to an alternative universe. To fairy tale lala land. To an anarcho-communist world. Tomorrow most people wake up and they want be an anarcho communist. Anarcho communists get voted into power. Laws get codified. The constitution gets changed. Anarcho communism is now the law of the land! Now a group of tenants for a large apartment complex get together. Most of the tenants want the apartment complex to be communally owned. Because you know. That would be the democratic thing to do. The owner of the apartment complex says to the tenants. "Go fuck yourselves. This is my property." What happens in a hypothetical society where most want Anarcho-communism. But some of the business owners and private property owners don't want it. There are a few paths that could be taken: Path A: Take the property forcefully. That's what Fidel, Mao and other communist leaders did. But you can't do that because you would be no different than the authoritarian communist regimes that employ force. Path B: You argue with the private property owners, but ultimately nothing gets done. Again, you can't employ force. Otherwise, it is a violent communist revolution. It is not a voluntary distribution of wealth. Kinda defeats the purpose of most wanting Anarcho communis if the business/property owners don't freely give up their property. Path C: Go deeper into fairy tale lala land. Out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow all the business/property owners magically want to give up their property. Yeah, sure ok. What’s the conclusion? Anarcho-communism is a theoretical political delusion. The only way people give up private property is through force. There's a very good reason why Fidel Castro took property by force. Fidel Castro wasn't stupid. Most people are not going to give up their business/property willingly. Fidel Castro knew this. It is basic human nature. People do not like when others take what they feel what belongs to them. People do not like when they feel that they’ve been robbed of their property. People do not like when they feel they got the short end of the stick. To think otherwise is naive.

Firstly I'd like to apologize for saying you didn't have an understanding of your opposing view points. It's slightly flawed, and I'll address that in my next info dump post where I answer the questions you posed, but it's clear you have some idea of leftist politics and economic practices. Sorry in advance for the delayed reply.

Last thing I’ll say for today. Let’s continue the hypothetic anarcho communist world with another example. Somehow someway an anarcho communist society comes into existence. Remember that the state no longer exists. Communal property is widely adopted. Communal property is property owned by the community or group of people rather an individual. As a simple example. Think of the apartment complex example where the land and the building is owned communally by the tenants. Here’s the hypothetical scenario. Some communal property (A) disagrees with another communal property (B) over the communal land border. Communal property (A) argues that a certain section of communal property (B) belongs in communal property (A). In an anarcho communist world. There is no state. Therefore, there is no judicial system to solve the land feud. Who then if not the state is supposed to adjudicate the land feud? Some neutral third party? Some communist council? But hold on! This third party would by decree resolve the land feud. This third party would act as a government body. But you can’t have any type of government bodies in anarcho-communism. Otherwise, it is not really an anarchy. What if the people of communal property (A) simply state. “We don’t recognize the authority on any government body or pseudo government body to resolve the land feud.” The people of communal property (A) state that “they will take the land by force if they have to.” Then what? If there is no state actor with authority. How would land disputes between different land communes be resolved? You might say. People would never fight over communal property. That’s not how human nature works. Since the dawn of civilization. Humans have gone to war for land. Here is an actual real-world example of how communal land works in practice. After the bloody Mexican Revolutionary war. About 40 to 50 percent of Mexico became communal land. This communal land in Mexico are called Ejidos. People can work the Ejido land. Build houses on Ejido land. You get the idea. Guess what sometimes happens in these Ejidos? Sometimes one Ejido gets into land disputes with another Ejido land. Sometimes Ejido land gets into land disputes with private property. Heck, sometimes members within the same Ejido get into dispute amongst themselves. Arguing that X and Y person doesn’t belong in the Ejido. How are the land disputes solved if all else land feuds? People go to court. The big boogey man government sometimes solves the issue. Here’s the point. In any civilized society. You need some basic form of government to solve basic legal disagreements. People are not always going to magically solve their problems amongst themselves. Specially if people think that they’re owed property.

Donuts are better than cookies HANDS DOWN

@corrupteduserellie Indeed. Especially Kakyoin and Abbacchio. (JoJokes aside, yes donuts are better than cookies by far)

I guess to start I should be clear that when I say leftist I'm referring to everyone left of the Democrats, who to leftists are centrists. "Contrary to popular belief. You don't need big brother to function as command style economy..." I'm assuming a bit here, sorry, that what you mean by command style economy is something similar to what happened in Venezuela where the government owned resources but the people never gained from those resources. Ultimately, Anarchists agree with this point. The solution they've come up with is changing the structure of power from a hierarchy (a lateral power structure) to horizontal power structures. while I won't go into detail here (because time is limited and I'm hoping you'll look into this more on your own) the idea is that no single person or group has more power than anyone else, with rare exceptions when needed the group chooses who, when, and for how long. "...With the abolition of capitalism. There is no free market to determine the supply and demand of things. No efficient way for buyers and sellers to determine price of an asset. A worker command style economy can be just as inefficient as a government command style economy..." That is the very point of abolishing capitalism and I'll explain further when answering your question about the car. Very true, the USSR proved that. Wise allocation of resources is important for any government's economic plan. What I didn't see from you was that capitalism fails at this. Cheap or overpriced crap made to break in short amount of time so that you have to buy a replacement, not made compatible with previous or future products that end up in landfills when the next product comes out or the current one breaks and is too expensive to fix but not as expensive to replace. Nothing in capitalism is made for efficiency but instead for profit, and it's profitable to be wasteful. "...With the abolition of wage labor. People are not paid for their labor. If people are not paid. Then money is essentially abolished..." That would be correct but not all leftists want a complete removal of money. I do though. "...Riddle me this. Let says I want to buy a car in an anarcho-communist society. Well, I technically can’t buy a car because money doesn't exist in an anarchist communist society. How then would I trade in a fast efficient manner for a car?..." Correct, it is impossible to use money that doesn't exist. Anarcho-Communist society doesn't function like a capitalist one, the goal isn't to work to sustain living until all the money is owned by a few oligarchs and the function of a job isn't to make money but to provide a service the community needs/wants. It would actually be faster and more efficient to use public transportation, such as buses, trollies or high-speed rail. There is debate among the left on how to handle luxury items but my favorite solution is to just treat them like any other item. So in that instance, you'd get a car by going to the car manufacturing guild/union and picking up a car to drive home with. More likely though there might be a wait list. More coming...

"...Now let's walk through a hypothetical. Let's go to an alternative universe. To fairy tale lala land. To an anarcho-communist world. Tomorrow most people wake up and they want be an anarcho communist. Anarcho communists get voted into power..." What a lovely lala land to imagine lol. Unfortunately Anarcho-Communism isn't something we can just wake up and put into action straight off the heels of capitalism. It's something we'd have to slowly transition to in order to ensure everyone's needs were met, nothing was being overlooked and for transparency with the public. A general socialism would need to come first. "...Anarcho communists get voted into power. Laws get codified. The constitution gets changed. Anarcho communism is now the law of the land!..." Very few leftists talk about changing the constitution. There are ways of keeping the constitution intact and still having Anarcho-Communism. I suspect given the general love of the constitution that when voting how to proceed, the people would vote it be kept as is. Keep in mind that you said in this lala land that Anarcho-Communism is the law of the land, it'll be important soon. "...Now a group of tenants for a large apartment complex get together. Most of the tenants want the apartment complex to be communally owned. Because you know. That would be the democratic thing to do. The owner of the apartment complex says to the tenants. "Go fuck yourselves. This is my property." What happens in a hypothetical society where most want Anarcho-communism. But some of the business owners and private property owners don't want it. There are a few paths that could be taken: Path A: Take the property forcefully. That's what Fidel, Mao and other communist leaders did. But you can't do that because you would be no different than the authoritarian communist regimes that employ force..." Collective ownership of private property is the law of the land in your lala land, of course path A is viable, did you think police or public watches wouldn't exist or would somehow be less moral under Anarcho-Communism? What would happen to the guy? Nothing, you didn't mention him getting violent and if he lived in that building he formally owned no one would take that from him (unless he formally owned multiple buildings and lived in them all. In that instance he'd probably get a summons to a court to ask him to pick one within a decent time frame). Though this means he cannot evict people and it also means he is not obligated to repair. "...What’s the conclusion? Anarcho-communism is a theoretical political delusion. The only way people give up private property is through force..." You know this happens under capitalism right? Civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain are things that can happen to you right now. It's not exclusive to socialism or communism is my point. Your last post was about local government. Anarchists generally have an issue with lateral power structures more than governments in general but some are anti-government. individual neighborhoods would make up local unions, that would vote on and send representatives to form a council of neighborhood unions. This concept spread to the entire country forming a horizontal pseudo government with democratically elected representatives. One of these bodies would decide how a court or court like system would function or exist.