I am not a fan of Communism. I've studied it and know of historical examples going back as far as Pythagoras. The Pythagoras one actually seemed to work while he was alive to "lead" it. It seemed to crumble quickly after his death.
There are many things I don't like about Communism after thinking about it, doing mental experiments, and studying history. Though at it's root it is NOT the typical things that people argue about Communism that are the biggest blemish with the ideology in my mind.
I thought I'd write about this while I seem to have somewhat of a mental picture of it and before it fades. I also fully expect some of my communist leaning friends here on steemit (isn't steemit great!) will have plenty to say and will disagree. That's fine. It might even illustrate my point. ;)
As far as I have seen those that advocate Communism are aware that there are those that will not agree and will not integrate with them. Largely the solution to that seems to be to eliminate them. Sometimes it is simply cast them out, banish them, etc. Other times it is as extreme as killing them. In some cases casting them out when there is nowhere for them to go is the same as killing them. Historically this would seem to be what they DO when they do get a chance to implement it. The exception I am aware of being the previously mentioned Pythagorean community. Yet, as always seems to happen the argument will be that "these were not true communists". Okay, I've come to expect that statement, followed by READ THIS BOOK and sharing a reference to a book I have to buy, and in some cases a PDF. The PDF cases I've often tried to read and it's just made me dislike it even more.
Really I don't need to lean on those examples or historical examples. I've discussed with many advocates of Communism how there are a lot of different people and the problem with ANY ideology that is based upon a concept of how people will and should behave is based upon the mental perceptions of one or a few people that conceived of and discussed the ideology. Yet people think many different ways, and behave many different ways. What motivates one, does not motivate others. Some have a good moral compass, others do not. Some people are greedy, others are not. Some people are creative, others are not. Some people have strange fetishes, others do not. Some people like pain for example, most people do not. So when some "philosopher" comes up with a brilliant plan to fix the world it is generally based around how they perceive the world. It can often be a box that they are trying to shove the problem into when in reality many things fall outside of that box. This is not true of just Communism. It is actually true of all of our ideologies as far as I am able to tell. So this is NOT my problem with Communism.
My problem is with how Communist advocates I speak for believe this should be handled. It essentially boils down to an almost Eugenics type of situation. If they don't fit into this box, eliminate them. We will build up with the people that agree with us, and can follow our plan. I am not religious, so when I say "this is evil" it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with simply knowing that killing someone for thinking different things than you do is wrong.
Yet when you speak to Communists about the violence of say the "Black Bloc" in Antifa they generally will defend the actions. They believe violence and a purging of sorts must occur in order to institute Communism. They realize it likely cannot be achieved peacefully.
Historically others have thought this as well. It hasn't turned out too well. It has resulted in the largest killing of their own people in history. Stalin and Mao both outnumber the deaths of the holocaust by many magnitudes more. Yet it is people talking about the "Nazis" and the holocaust as the bad thing. Yes, that was bad, yet it pales compared to the purges that resulted from people trying to implement what they called Communism, but modern day Communist advocates say was not communism. That illustrates the point... people don't think the same, they don't perceive things the same.
Purging based upon one person, or even several people's perception is nothing more than eugenics, murder, etc. It is wrong.
One of my favorite voluntaryist and Anarcho-Capitalist sayings is "Good ideas do not require force" and I believe this to be a true statement.
Now there are numerous other things I don't like about communism, but the biggest thing is the realization it cannot be born without force, and it likely cannot persist without force. People will be born that do not think the same, perceive the same, etc. Shall the purges continue?
Why not just build robots and kill everyone but those who program the robots to conform with their perfect view of how society should function?
Communism on paper sounds like a Utopian dream place, but it simply doesn't work in reality. Great post. (upvoted)
Does it? I think it sounds like hell, even on paper :)
Well when you are reading a history book, yes of course... But when you look at it from a perspective of everyone being equal etc... There is a certain charm to it. But then you think about it more logically and historically and it simply does not work and there is no real charm.
Everyone being equal sounds horrible. You seem to forget that we need excellent minds to progress our societies. These people need incentive to do that. In order to create a successfull business, you need to take risk and do a lot of free work up front. That's why business owners make more money - because they are paid afterwards for the time and effort they put in up front.
When you want everyone to be equal you must drag all the clever and ingenious people down to a moderate level. And you must spend a whole lot of energy, money and effort to drag the more stupid people up to the moderate level. The result is a mediocre society with no innovation that sucks and everyone is miserable and not free. For great achievements to happen, and most happiness for the most people we need FREEDOM.
Hence the reason why I said to look at it logically and historically.... I agree with everything you just wrote. I'm all for capitalism!
Allright! High fived and followed! :)
Hahahaha thanks!! :) Followed back. This is why I love Steemit, awesome conversations.
This is why I can't take any capitalist seriously.
You people genuinely believe because everyone is treated equal and has a voice that inventors can't excel or people can't lead.
The bosses will be executed in the future; don't be one of them.
Best comment ever hahahaha
Why every utopia is a dystopia in disguise:
For a utopia to exist, it must always uphold an ideal for everyone.
To uphold such an ideal, there must be a way of enforcing it.
To do this, a totalitarian state must be established (why? Because a utopia dictates a way of life that is supposedly best for everyone; no deviance can be allowed).
There will be those that oppose this so-called ideal. In order to realize said utopia, the opposition must be suppressed.
Suppression of the opposition is oppressing the opposition.
A state where people are oppressed cannot be a utopia.
Further, in a utopian state, all ideas must be allowed to flourish. If such a flourishment is allowed, it will inevitably lead to change (in ideals). A supposedly utopian state in which its ideals are constantly subject to change is absolutely absurd.
That's the fucking, depressing reality. A lot of good ideas just don't work in real life.
Like a reliable anti-virus.
Word!
So I'm seeing some confusion here about the differences between Collectivism and Communism, and to me understanding this distinction is key to understanding why history has turned out the way it has.
There are many different versions of collectivism. Both Fascism and Communism, for example, would be types of Collectivism. In Collectivism, the group is given higher priority than the individual. We see traces of this in all societies. The question is -- is the balance point between individualism and collectivism achieved by force or by voluntary cooperation?
Both Communism and Fascism propose to better society by forcing individuals to sacrifice for the good of the community. The difference is what societal strata is given the reins (perhaps reigns is the right spelling here.) In communism, the business/educated/elite slice of society is considered rotten and corrupted, and they are therefore forcibly removed and replaced with those who supposedly are the value creators for society, which are the workers. That's why Mao and Pol Pot purged the educated and the elite.
In contrast, Fascism, which is every bit as collectivist and repressive towards the individual, believes that the educated and the successful deserve to be at the helm, so they co-opt all slices of society, from business to education, under government control, but also for the good of the people.
Communism and Fascism thus both represent totalitarianism, in that they propose total control of society for the good of society, but they propose to do this through group action rather than through individual control of society, which would be called either a dictatorship or a monarchy, or religious control of society, which would be a theocracy.
Because Communism and Fascism propose to have different classes of society in complete control of society, they are natural and intractable enemies of each other. That's why the USSR and Germany fought so ferociously, and why the Germans turned on the Jews, because they saw Communism as a Jewish invention that would destroy their society (and they were angry that Jewish shopkeepers had to keep raising their prices during the Weimar hyperinflation -- the society didn't understand how money works, which is why they couldn't see the link between printing money and declining value of the money, and their government was telling them that "speculators" and people raising prices were the ones to blame rather than those printing money.)
Truth be told -- the US is today a mostly fascist country. Government and elites have control over almost everything. But the workers are not in charge, which is why it is not communist.
Nice explanation. I would maybe add/discuss some details:
The communist believed their system was not authoritarian because "the working class rules" according to their leaders. They use the word democracy as well but with a different meaning.
Also fascism often gets associated with hierarchies that is why to some communists "everything to the right of Marx is fascism", that is also why we rather see Anarcho-Communists instead of Anarcho-Fascists, even tho I believe i found those as well on Steemit :D
Agree. And probably the part of communism that relies on that magical societal "unobtainium" is the idea that representatives of the working class given the reins of power won't themselves become elites. The "Some animals are more equal than others" thing. Just doesn't fit human nature, which is why it doesn't work. It's a great idea as long as you didn't try to get it to work with humans. Would work great for bees or the Borg, though.
It's funny -- you read the constitutions of these repressive totalitarian collectivist systems and they sound wonderful -- very much like our own. It's not like their constitutions say "we will scare the crap out of you with secret police and make your lives a living hell if you dare to resist our power." They make it sound like utopia. All of the bad stuff happens with respect to how they interpret the words, which is why the words don't actually mean a thing -- only the interpretation counts. Scary, actually.
Actually it isn't. That is a simplification (though understandable)
It really is a hybrid of a lot of things from the past. It does definitely have a lot of Fascist elements though. The sad thing is a lot of Anti-Fascists themselves are essentially Fascists these days. It's like two sheep arguing in a pasture about which one is really a sheep.
I thought I'd add... I really liked the comment. Had to up vote it even though my voting power is shot due to how much voting I've been doing.
Hah! Yeah -- read your post about adjusting to the hard fork. I'm new so still figuring out how it all works.
I think many people are confused these days. We have people shutting down free speech in the name of protecting free speech, arguing that government control is the only way that society can be free, and people thinking that separate but equal is the only way to achieve racial blindness.
Yikes.
Always enjoy the interactions!
To sum it up: Communism is a mental illness. Great article. Followed! Ok..I'll try to elaborate my statement. First; Communism never works. Socialism to a certain degree CAN however work in a homogenic society (like Norway used to be) where everyone has good work ethics, trust each other, and there is a high degree of trust in government. Plus the government has a low degree of corruption. The problem with communism, as you describe, is that it goes against the human spirit, and also that it is based on totally false premisses. For example; the worth of labour. For a communist the amount of time that goes into work is what defines its value. So if I dig a hole in the ground in my backyard, and it takes 20 years, that is worth as much as the businessman who cleverly builds up a business. They dont understand the risk a businessman must take. They dont understand that they are being paid LATER for work they have been doing for free for many years while building up their businesss. The other false premise is human nature. Communists have a negative view of humans. They believe humans are greedy and evil and must be "contained" and harnessed by a strong government. They are often angry, miserable people who have achieved nothing. Now they want everyone else to be in that same boat. At the same time they often want big things for themselves..so they call them selves anarco-communist or another oxymoron. And this cognitive dissonnance we can see over and over again. They are "against facsism" but at the same time they protest against people who have different opinions. They can "hit nazies" (who doesnt exist) but others cant hit them.
If those different opinions constitute fascism, why should they not protest??
Can you give me an example of one of those opinions? The antifa are protesting free speech seminars for god sake :D
White people are more worth then black.
I don't know about those "free speech seminars" but I know that in many cases people claim "free speech" when all they want to do is be able to say "I am happy that those were killed! Kill more!" without getting booed for it.
Here in my part Germany we have just that now with a leak from internal AfD (right political party) chat.
Can you qoute anyone saying that white people are more worth than blacks? I watch a lot of stuff..and I've never heard anything like that ever. Even Jared Taylor from American Reinassance has very valid points. Never heard him say anything remotely racist. Try again. Argument this time.
I don't know that Jared or that AR.
You asked me to tell you a fascist idea, that I have done. So I don't know what I should try now.
And yes, normally people don't say that openly because they know they get handed the stick then from the more moral persons in the society.
But you can see that thinking in many different things. Sometimes it's even official.
For example, Germans are officially told to not go to Afghanistan is possible at all because of possible terror attacks.
At the same time refugees from Afghanistan are sent back because "there are save regions".
Both things cannot be true at the same time. You cannot even say that it is more dangerous for Germans in A. because they are targets - for the religious terrorists an Afghan that is not adhering to their rules is worse then a foreigner.
"Funnily" enough, a few weeks after the first Afghans were sent back, one of the first batch was killed by a terrorist attack in a "save" region. But it is ok, he was not the target, he was only passing by.
The problem with political correctness is that it's not allowed to discuss facts. It's all about feelings. No one claims that your refugees are less worth than germans. But we point at rational arguments why your society will have big problems as a consequence of cultural differences, differences in IQ, differences in religious/moral beliefs etc. Now I suppose your "racist" alarm went off the second you read the word "IQ difference". You don't believe in that. And even if you did, you would never accept that it's a problem. AND you can't accept that I'm not a racist for pointing that out - even if I will tell you right now that the definition of racism is "believing that one race is more WORTH than another". So it must be YOU who measure worth in IQ levels or culture or religion - not me. And at the same time, I suppose "race" doesn't even exist? So how can anyone be racist at all? What I'm trying to point out here is all the cognitive dissonance on the political correct spectrum. You refuse to touch reality, therefore we can't have a rational discussion. By the way , I've been in discussions with ALOT of your so called "racists" and "white supremacists" Funny enough, I've never heard them say that anyone are less worth as humans. However , they believe whites ALSO, like any other race, has a right to PRESERVE their OWN culture. We embrace the fact that blacks are "strong and proud blacks"..try changing the word black with white. "We are strong and proud whites" RACIST!!!! Man..you can let go of Hitler. We don't blame YOU personally for what Hitler did. No one should blame white americans for what slave owners in a brutal day and age did. Why aren't we praising the fact that hundres of thousands of white americans fought and died to end slavery? While the Arabs who enslaved a hell of a lot more people throughout the last milliennia than whites, got a free pass. Why is that? Because they have NEVER apologized. White people apologized and tried desperately to make the world a better place, while at the same time everyone pointing the finger at them. When you admit your wrong doings, it's easy for others to attack you and blame you.
Recently studying Political Science as my major in Masters, and i hate communism
Libertarianism or classical liberalism actually works. It is simple, your right to act freely ends when it infringes upon another's rights. We need just enough government to enforce our individual rights and keep tyrannical forces at bay.
Here is one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson that explains the graduation of individual liberty:
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421
Taking the opposite meaning and adding your own editorial. Then calling a great thinker a hypocrite! Awesomesauce.
"They believe violence and a purging of sorts must occur in order to institute Communism." and yet it never occurs to them that someone might one day see THEM as needing of purging. It's a disgusting ideology that cultivates the most base and evil insticts of men.
The sad thing is that the initial thing that attracts to them is the concept of "fairness" and "equality". These are not bad desires, but what is FAIR and what is EQUAL are defined within the mind of individuals and everyone believes different things. So once they get around to FORCING compliance things get evil and ugly fast.
what's mine is mine and what's your is mine
So true! And so ironic. And it never dawns on them...why do they NEED to force people? Just start your own society and those who want to join can. Then they find out it doesn't work unless you put a gun to people's heads and use them as slaves. The ultimate problem is their whole system is completely contrary to human nature. It has never worked and it never will.
Someone commented that Communism is a mental illness. That ca't be true.
We know ipso facto that Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Communism must be something else, LOL
STEEM On !!
Dave
Well classical Liberalism is not a mental illness. That isn't what current day "liberals" are advocating for though. They are often advocating for communism, and don't even know it. Or they claim to be fighting fascism while using all the tactics and acting like a fascist.
Communes work. Some communes work very well... so communism should work?
Well, it might, if people were free to leave.
But with our current govern-cement policy to take up every space on earth, there is no place to leave to.
A commune usually works because of a very good leader. And when that leader dies or leaves, the commune collapses.
It is so difficult to talk about communism, because its rules are based on "the state". Where we have an overarching, controlling, govern-cement. Whatever be its name. Democracy, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist... And a state's main purpose is to impose control on its subjects.
So, in the future, there may be a group of people who get together to pool their resources. From each as his abilities and to each according to his needs. And it may work, as long as people are free to leave.
@kidsysco talked about this in the comment section here some.
Communes were what I was thinking about. They have always been relatively small and they do tend to be like you describe.
The problem with central planning and quotas is you have to have people in the central planning that pretty much know and understand every little nuance of their economy and environment. The more people and complexity you add into that the more of a genius you require at the central planning offices. In fact, you might consider that the population and complexity of a functional commune as being directly proportional to the knowledge and skill of those in the central planning office. As populations and complexity scale they eventually exceed the ability for central planning and things begin to go very wrong.
So I've seen communism work on a small scale, and on the larger scales there always seemed to be some LEADER (aka central planner) that when they were out of the picture the commune ceased to exist fairly rapidly.
So I don't know of any lasting cases and that might be why.
It is also why I believe communism has a scaling problem.
Communes where everyone is on board with the rules is a voluntary system. They are anarcho-syndicalists and that may work for some people with similar goals, backgrounds, and a shared ethos. But, it's beyond a scaling issue. That's not what everyone wants from life. And therefore different systems have to be allowed to flourish.
Building communist governments is an oxymoron. Anarchy can, however, take many forms with different rule sets, as long as the members are free to come and go based on freedom of association and honoring of agreements/contracts.
Yeah I've debated with Anarcho-Communists before telling them people could voluntarily build an ancom society inside of Anarcho-Capitalism but the reverse is NOT true. So Ancap could contain Ancom as long as it is voluntary, but Ancom cannot contain Ancap.
Exactly. But, most of my Progressive friends aren't even that sophisticated in their thinking. They are far too gone down the road of needing to control outcomes because of their personal fear of things not working they way they think in fair.
They simply cannot face the idea that what they want isn't what everyone else wants, or worse, should want.
I've noticed something. You are rarely going to witness someone change their mind WHILE you are having the discussion. That is very rare. However, you are planting seeds that they can think about over time. They are doing the same in you. It is very possible you DID convince them. It just takes time for that seed to sprout and grow.
So that is how I look at it. That makes me think it is worth the effort even if I don't see an immediate reaction.
I've seen someone who disagreed with me like you described that I debated with and nothing seemed to come of it. A year later I see him debating with some other people and he is where I was with him. So I did influence him, even though I didn't witness the transformation, I simply saw it later.
I can tell you that I've had that happen on dozens of occasions. Moreover, those watching the debate are usually swayed on the matter at hand more than the person you are arguing with.
And I never bring it up or say, "I told you so." I just note it, incorporate their new position with glee and move on.
The people I was referring to in my last comment I've been arguing these ideas for nearly two decades now and all that happens is either a 'I don't want to talk about this stuff' after they say stupid shit in my home or wait to pick the fight later with a new, more refined version of the old argument, which I skewer just as easily as before.
We're talking committed, Derrida/Foucault reading dyed-in-the-wool marxists here. They're not coming round until after the system crashes, if ever.
Beautiful.
Thank you for saying so.
My pleasure. What a beautiful world it would have been.
I think I agree that is does not scale well but can work really well in certain circumstances.
I also agree with everyone here, that people should be allowed to leave if it doesn't suit them.
This is why I posted the definition of Communism by Wikipedia. It does not say that subjects must stay or die. Some societies have CERTAINLY implemented that rule, punishable by death and I think it is terrible.
However, I think it is important to note, that to force it on people as such is not a defining part of communism, even though we see that a lot!
The problem today is that there often is no place to leave to. The world is covered and owned. Furthermore those advocating for communism ultimately want the entire planet that way. For the outside agencies still interact and do the same "evils" they are fighting.
ever read Marx where it started? It actually is. Wikipedia was likely written by someone who wanted you to think that. Yet in reality the movement advocates a lot of force.
a certain percentage of people are going to be either do-gooders or rent-seekers; in local communities, other people learn how these parasites operate, and stay away from them.
in large societies, the do-gooders and rent-seekers can organize and cover for each other (Comey -> Clinton); there isnt an informal social network that can pass the word on who is a scumbag and who isn't
This is why I always considered Anarcho-Communism to be an oxymoron.
In a anarchist world, people would be 100% free to form communist societies. AND free to leave them (which they would en masse, after a couple of months) :D
It amazes me how many people are OK with communism, but because of the negative connotation of the word communism, they call it socialism or the more palatable version "Democratic Socialism". In order for this philosophy to stick, people must be convinced of a massive problem (wealth inequality) and then become slowly indoctrinated (poisoned) with the tenants of socialism (Universities) until one day it clicks in their young utopian mind and they say "Ah Ha! I have the solution!" And a new Commie zealot is born. @ironshield
Communism and Socialism are different things.
And Socialism can have different sorts, one of them Democratic Socialism.
And wealth inequality is a big problem too. The higher the inequality, the more unstable the society gets. Seen that again and again.
Also it is a simple mathematical problem that inequality, without counter, gets worse and worse. Pure randomness does it.
If you don't want people to become commies, then solve that problem.
Forgive my lack of understanding, what is the practical difference between Communism and Socialism? @ironshield
Practical - Now that is hard ^^
You see Socialism is a wild field and very unclearly defined, also changing through the times.
The Definition I "experienced" when I was a child is: S. is the step before communism.
The most commonly held basis is that S. is the socio-economic form after capitalism with social ownership (and democratic rule) of - and here comes the communist part - the means of production. That is Marx/Engels definition.
But as I said there are a wide range of definitions - hundreds - and as some include communism, others include anarchy.
You may be surprised by that, but don't forget that Marx/Engels also defined communism as "without ruler and classes" (while Socialism still has those, in "real existing socialism" countries even placed a lot of worth that you are from the worker class) - which is not far from anarchy ;)
tl;dr
The main difference is that Socialism still has a ruling class, Communism not.
They sell it by making it sound so good. That's how they trap people into accepting it.
Ask those who escaped how great it is.
I read quite a bit of Ayn Rand growing up. I still do occasionally. That likely biased me to some degree, but I do try to recognize when I might be biased and read and research when someone points me in a good direction. The problem is that so far the things people have asked me to read in support of communism have been rife with logical fallacies. It felt like walking through a land mine field of generalizations, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and appeal to emotion. The evidence was lacking and it was all about manipulation. It was not about presenting me with ideas and making my own mind up, instead it was largely about HATE and talking about the bad evils, and woes, and thus trying to fire up emotions. Very little substance with a lot of manipulation and I notice that stuff, so when I notice it I get very annoyed.
Thank goodness you can think straight. People are so easily brainwashed. People seem to fall for things that sound good. They so willingly receive the "free stuff" - and they think that is the way to go. Then they are trapped in dependency and helplessness. They won't be able to fight back. The thing is the ideology is very enticing. The big problem is the leaders are usually diabolical. I know I only can say things in a very general way. But I have read stories of people's experiences living under communism. Thanks for getting people to think.
They should vote for "Vermin Supreme" then he'll give them free ponies. :)
I've actually started calling them what they are. I believe Leaders are someone we can choose to lead and choose not to. If you are a good cook and we are going to cook, I'll let you lead. If we are going into war and you are a good tactician or strategist then perhaps you should lead. The general should not lead when we are cooking.
The problem is actually with RULERS. Those who can make up the rules and FORCE the rest of us to follow them. We are not voluntarily following them.
So I've started making a distinction between leaders and rulers as I think there actually is one.
Do you know people who live this way?
If this is their choice and they are happy, no problem, good for them.
It's all the people who have no choice.
Not only do 'good ideas not need force' they also don't need everyone's approval. This is the fundamental problem with all forms of collectivism. They are predicated on the belief that there is an optimal solution to all problems.
But, there aren't. What works for you may not necessarily work for me. It is this need to control other people's responses to their desired outcomes that informs all of their arguments.
And because they can't see a solution to a problem that must mean one doesn't exist. It is a philosophy built on hubris and intolerance.
Worse, you can lead them, tangentially, to proper conclusions... talk about how neural networks are more fault-tolerant than command-and-control systems with single nodes of failure... but, that isn't good enough for them.
They'll always say, but, "humans are different." Like we're freaking aliens or something. Again, it gets back to control. If they can't control it then it's too scary for them to advocate.
The best metaphor for the voluntarist/anarchic system of problem solving is to....
Let a thousand flowers bloom!
and then step back and accept, humbly, that there are problems in this world we can't all solve. In fact, just by considering the problem we contribute to its solution in the long run as it passes from one person to the next.
Humility, not hubris, will create the world the communists want to live in. That's our job.
The philosopher step out in a big way.... pulsating piece, I am beginning to love the Anarcho-Capitalist train. I grew up in a country that America invaded and declared Democracy as we were under communist rule. I was not born then but folks say its the most progress that the country has made and the country continue to stand today because of its fruits. Our northern neighbors are still communist, they have arguably the best health care and educational system in the world but the folks there are financially worse off than Haiti. They speak well of their country but always say they want a better financial future for their children that's why they never go back. I personally would rebel against the idea of people throwing anything down my throat, that's why i am loving Anarcho-Capitalist.
I do like the ideology myself. Yet I know things would need to change on a large scale in terms of education, propaganda, critical thinking, etc for it to work. Yet this is also true of any ideology that I am aware of.
I'm glad you are here.
Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.
John F. Kennedy
Uh.... I am hard pressed to find a country where democracy has come to power without war or corruption. Sometimes it was because, but never without, right?
Fair point, I can't think of an example where it has done so. How about my favorite quote instead:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill
A very one-sided view. Capitalism also shares the miseries extremely unequal.
The second part is also not true - at least not in those countries that said they were socialistic.
A lot of things were shared equally there - like a good, free healthcare.
But the Big Bosses always has a it more Equality from everything good and nothing from the bad.
Ha! I remembered! I know there was one!
Bhutan!
In 2008 the king forced the country to adopt a constitution that limited his powers. Its basically a copy of GB. which is seen as a democracy even while being a constitutional monarchy.
That country is really interesting politically-philosophically.
Yes, a country being democratic does not mean they don't abuse human rights. Guantanamo is still open, right?
100+ million dead in one century.
I'm sure they'll get it right this century, they just had the wrong people last century.
Love the sarcasm. :)
I thought it might be a good idea to look at WIkipedia's definition of Communism...
In political and social sciences, communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
Yep, like I said I am very familiar with it. I'm also familiar with history, and I've debated with a lot of Communists who have often had this book or that which they wanted me to read. Sometimes they'd thankfully link a PDF so I actually could read it when it was still relevant to the discussion.
The definition of Communism seems to be a moving target depending upon who you are talking to, or who wrote it.
That was at the heart of my post. People think differently. I do know of small examples where it did work. I don't know of any LASTING examples though. They lasted for awhile, but were relatively small numbers like you said.
I do have ideas why it likely doesn't scale well even when everyone voluntarily agrees to it, but that'd be for another post. That I think is simply due to the complexity of the system increasing exponentially as it becomes larger and thus central planning, and determining quotas, etc no longer is able to realistically predict needs due to the complexity. Think of it as though as it scales entropy tends to have a bit more impact on the system.
Speculation on my part.
Most ideologies exist only on the pages of their "manifestos".
They don't translate from print to real life because there always seem to be those who appropriate an ideology in order to justify their rule. And once they've taken power, the ideology is whatever they decide it is.
Christianity is an ideology too, and you can find people justifying all sorts of things while pointing to a passage somewhere that, according to them, gives them very specific instructions.
Not to single out Christianity, they're all guilty of it.
Shit, the more I read here and the longer I spend commenting, the more I realize...I'm a Fucking Anarchist.
I spelled that right didn't I?
"anarchist" and not "antichrist"
Heheh.... welcome to the club. It is an epiphany when one realizes what Anarchy and Anarchism truly means as opposed to what Road Warrior, the Media, and those Antifa Black Bloc thugs would have us believe it is. :)
It's been a long road.
But I had a shift in viewpoint when I realized my kids are going to have to live in the world we leave them.
Luckily, they're both pretty much immune to the hypnotism of a waving flag.
People don't think the same, they don't perceive things the same. That says all !
This may happen too and must not be acceptable.
Have you ever seen Defiance?
A group of Jews were on the run from Nazis. They ran into the forest together and created a make-shift society to live in the woods, so far away from the fighting that they might actually survive. This group all decides to turn to communism together in order to survive. Everything they have ever owned is put into one central pot and they maintain through the winter and a few more years after being bombed in the forest by Nazis.
The premise is that unless they all worked together as such, the entire group would have died off.
It is loosely based on a true story.
In this case, Communism seemed to work really, really well. To your point, everyone was in and no one wanted to do something different. Furthermore, the concept of how to behave was really well understood among the group. Lastly, it was a rather small group that only reached the size of about 1500 people.
The Pythagorean Community worked well too until he died. It also was not a large group. I do think it can work in small communities if they are VOLUNTARY (aka not requiring force) but I don't see evidence that is scales very well.
Also I've watched all of Defiance... there was a lot of Free Market in that too, which is not really communist. :)
People complain about religion, but we forget that Stalin, Mao, were some of the biggest murderes in human history. Communism doesn't work large scale. But people want something for nothing and there will always be freeloaders.
Agreed. Communism might be able to exist in village, but there always needs to be a centralization of power when the scale gets bigger.
I think saying "communism doesn't scale well" is a good way of putting it. I've been to and known of small communities where it worked. Yet it was easy to keep track of the needs of the small community. It simply could not scale much beyond that.
I like dragon robots.
So imagine there are four people in a true anarchist society. One fisherman, one smith, a scholar and baker. They are good friends so they want to share their products, the scholar offers help when there are problems that need to be researched. They share a cart when driving to the market and equally split their profits.
Now I am not a communist, but the above would be anarcho communism that works without force and is able to coexist with anarcho capitalism.
You capitalists also never address the hierarchy of the work place, how are you going to solve that? Or is that a none-issue to you?
See my exchanges with @kidsysco in the comments. We addressed Scale.
As to...
I didn't talk about capitalism at all in my article. It was not necessary as I wasn't focusing on the MARKET, property, or the means of production anywhere in my post.
Imagine that. :) Like I said in my post I was writing about something that was not the things people usually attack. :)
In fact the only time I mentioned anarcho-capitalism was as credit for the saying "good ideas do not require force".
So my post still stands and the issues I wrote about in it actually have nothing to do with property, or the market. :)
Another post though what you are talking about may be relevant.
See what @kidsysco and I talked about though and I think it will address some of your example.
Well, I agree with the problem of scale. Luckily I don't have to defend those an-coms :P
On the topic of force or violence I am on your side. If someone commits a crime he deserves punishment and that can administered with force. You are OK with that, right? However purging the non-believers is something socialism/communism should reject as an idea, sadly it often does not.
Oh and just so the NSA and Verfassungsschutz makes me a free backup of all my internet traffic: I would support a serious coup d'etat though :)
I don't agree if it was a victimless crime. I am okay with it if there was an actual victim. And if the victim is calling it a crime because the person said they called them a name or something petty like that then I am not okay with that.
Though I tend to be an advocate for people having property that belongs to them, and if I make something it can be mine. If I find out how to make something nice people like, and I save up enough to build a place that can make more of them and I voluntarily find people that agree to work for me for whatever they and I agreed to and I can make more, that does not suddenly make that belonging to the public and those people. The people can choose not to work for me. Someone else can offer them a better deal. If they voluntarily chose to work with me and agreed to the contract then that is between them and me, and is of no concern to anyone else.
I do consider COERCION as force an involuntary so if the person was coerced into working for someone that is a different story.
However, CRIME is not always a crime in my opinion. The States call a lot of things crimes that are nothing of the sort as far as I am concerned.
Of course I meant real crime like theft and murder , not breaking one of billion useless laws we have. Btw who is to determine what is crime and what is not?
To me a place where I can only get money through getting someone to employ me and if I don't have money I starve to death is something I consider "coercion". There are many jobs/talents where you can work as your own boss or start a company but there will be a lot of people who rely on the job market and sometimes feel immense pressure by it.
Oh and I found out there are people who call themselves "libertarian socialists", they say a lot of stuff that is similar to my ideas.
Yeah there are a lot of DENOMINATIONS of Libertarianism and Anarchism. :)
I talked about using 'Vogelfreiheit' instead of prison in the article I linked you.
nope, you just define socialism as state communism. Look at the very definition of the word "social". It just acknowledges that we live in a society.
If you want me to get rid of the word I have to disappoint you, we Germans just associate completely different things with it and I don't want to be lumped up with capitalist nut-jobs like you :P
I wrote an article about my ideas of punishment.
https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/why-do-we-need-prison-2-alternatives
I was actually just curious if you people accept workplace hierarchy in your construct. So if you get payed for "being raped" as you like to put it, it is OK?
Hierarchie is a system of Authorities.
You said every transmission of decision making power is "not possible". And your argument was pretty much shouting "rape!" at me. So I am not sorry if you struggle a little to keep up with my thought process.
To stay in the realm of your logic, you said (correct me if I got that wrong): Letting other people make decisions for you is like letting other people have non consensual sex with you. As I told you, I do not agree with this strange metaphor. But according to your logic it is OK to if you take money for transfering power.
Thanks for not looking the article I linked you. You would drop the "vengeance seeker", but it helps to protect the narrative if you ignore what people say that are not from your camp and get hung up on your defintion of the words they used, doesn't it? I am used to this behavior when talking to people who are on the establishment side, but I think you are the first Anarcho that I see "debating" that way.
Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Got you good buddy, don't mess with me when it comes to clean definitions.
Your next try is adorable as well. Read exactly what you posted... vengeance can imply retribution. You try to somehow twist my words by adding meaning to them. Classic.
I advice you to avoid using big words. It is obvious that you are trying to mask your intellectual incapabilities behind them.
Actually you are the first anarcho I am aware of who debates me that way. Not sure if those guys from my Climate Change Hoax Post were anarchos. I usually agree with anarchos on most problems and even on some solution.
For some reason you tried to bring camp- thinking and a vs-mentality into the debate with me. Not sure why you are so triggered.
OK, you read it, sry for the accusation.
good post. following u & upvoted it. looking forward to ur next post. hope u will upvote my top 3 posts https://steemit.com/@ika497
When you said "Good ideas do not require force", it intrigued me. I decided to analyze that quote and look at it from a deeper perspective. Would you say that everything that does not require force a good idea? On the contrary, sometimes good ideas do require force because the powers in control may not want the good idea to manifest. Think about how many good ideas have been forced out of existence because of a small percentage of more powerful people that undermined it's growth through politics. I challenge you to rethink your stance on this quote. Good ideas just might be the ideas that need the most force at the end of the day, and the path of least resistance could just be the easier route and not the one with more benefits.
That becomes a dangerous slippery slope. I contend if it is a good idea it does not require force. I didn't say that meant it would take effect instantaneously because it is a good idea.
However, as soon as you resort to force it is YOU with your perceptions of the world deciding it was a good idea and thus you decide you must apply force to make it happen. What if you were wrong due to your limited knowledge and it was NOT a good idea? Yet you chose to force it into existence.
The problem is even madmen to think their ideas are good ones.
Thus the saying "good ideas do not require force" is more that if they are truly good you likely will not have trouble convincing people to go along with them, and even if it takes time they likely could come to be.
As soon as we resort to FORCE we are deeming us as RIGHT and thus the one who should be able to make the RULES. So begins every dictatorship.
If we take force out of the equation we remove that possibility. Because, whether a lot of people like to admit it or not (not meaning you) each of us is very limited in our knowledge, and we are wrong about a lot of things.
Thus, using force could be a very bad thing backing a WRONG idea simply because we thought it was RIGHT.
I completely agree with you about people having a limited knowledge on topics that we find ourselves backing. And based off of the different moral compasses that guide us, right and wrong could be on the opposite of the spectrum of your counterparts.
While I am not a person who promotes the use of violence to get a point across, I would have to say force does not have to be violent. Just persistence or an aggressive stance could be the force factor.
To believe that people will follow a plan because it is a good idea would be assuming that all people will make the logical decision, which has been proven in numerous fields(economics for one) to not be the case. People will often make choices that are illogical. Thus, people are logically illogical decision makers and this is why I believe that some type of force may have to be implemented for change. Like you said it will not be done instantly but something has to be the catalyst to switch the energy of change or progression from potential energy to kinetic energy. While the black and white of who is wrong and right will not be figured out until time tells, staying in a unpleasant situation because you are trying balance the scales can do just as much harm if not more than one who forces an agenda.
I appreciate your perspective and enjoyed reading your comment.
Likewise. :)
Is democracy a good idea? Is freedom of speech a good idea? Is decentralized banking a good idea? Are basic human rights a good idea? Is promotion by a merit based system a good idea rather than a nepotist system?
If you think about the history of countries all over the world and the steps that were taken to remove royalty and other forms governments that had dynasties of family lines you see the trend of force. While there will always be good ideas that most people can agree on being good ideas, there will always be resistance that wants to hold the common good back for a larger gain for a smaller group of people.
Rights and changes have to be fought for. As long as you think that all you have to do is show people how good an idea is and wait and eventually everyone will see that it is the way to go, then all you will be doing is waiting. A catalyst must be created to push people forward. You can blame cognitive dissonance or whatever, but the fact of the matter is no good idea will be put into play without force because it will always disrupt something else that is going on in another lifestyle.
Do me a favor and give me some examples of good ideas that did not require force to implement.
For the record math has been forced on people, one example would be Peter the Great forcing the nobles to learn math, science, and other specific subjects to keep their positions.
And ok, we can specify each topic down to the exact meaning I am talking about, but it would then only allow for specific holes to be picked at in the idea. How can one debate if basic human rights are a good idea? Like I said everything is somehow going to impact another's lifestyle and it will be viewed as change, change is not normally an easy thing for people to come to terms with. You say that Zomia has lives in anarchy, but I am positive that everyone there did not just think hey, this is a good idea, we should all do this. I'm sure people pushed agendas and aggressively pursued the goal of making anarchy their system. One ruler will take over another ruler but the following is usually a more popular ruler that the people can relate to more than the previous.
I thought I used pretty simple examples, but it seems that they were to broad for you to give thorough answers.
The above got me into so much thinking that it evolved into a separate post.
I'm following everyone who's a real anarchist, free market embracer, anarco capialist etc. Let's find each other and make a good community for great conversations :)
While I am certainly those things I also welcome discussion with people who disagree with me as long as they keep things civil. That is truly when I learn a lot of new ideas. Simply talking with those we agree with tends to be mostly an echo chamber, or preaching to the choir. New ideas still happen there, but not nearly as fast. The difficult part is finding people who disagree with you but can still be civil. That's not actually too difficult here on steemit.
Sure! But they won't upvote you ( <---ancap) :)
Also ultimately I don't care in those cases if they up vote. The discussion could have value to me if it was civil. It shapes future debates for me. It gives me things to think about and ponder. Yes, I think for myself. I don't treat their ideas I disagree with as koolaid I have to drink because I bothered to listen to them. My mind is quite good at thinking for itself, sometimes too much so... "where did that thought come from?!?" I also try to get better at critical thinking by occasionally drilling myself on flashcards, reading up on critical thinking to get better etc. So I am increasingly getting better at identifying appeals to authority, tradition, popularity, etc. As well as red herrings, ad hominems, and other diversionary tactics. I'm far from perfect at them and never will be, but I get better with practice. :)
Those type of people give me someone to practice upon. :)
Great. I agree 100%. But I also want to follow and enjoy posts like this. :) Just post them in "communism" or "antifa" and we can have a hell of a lot fun!
Sometimes they do. If I am civil back... there are other people here that we can get along with. You are right they may not up vote my Anarchism related article, but then again they might. More than likely they won't up vote my article but they might up vote our discussion if it was good. They may come back and up vote the article as well. I try to never say never or dwell on absolutes, because I tend to get kicked in the face by something that didn't fit within the absolute. :)
Mini-states and small systems of rulers is not anarchism, friend :)
as for me, person who grew up in USSR, Communism is a just a miracle which has been never installed/created in any country of our Earth.
For current world the Communism is a just one more utopic idea, and we shouldn't spent our time for thinking about.
It was possible to create a country based on communistic ideas in the mid of 20 century, but not now and I don't believe it might be done in the future
So, don't worry about :)
In the U.S. we have quite a few people pushing for Communism now. I don't think people repeating history will truly go away as long as we are only taught parts of history that paint the narrative the education system wants us to believe.
then maybe we should learn/teach the history better? ;)
They (those who rule) don't want us to know history better. It'd be really hard for us to hate each other and thus be controlled and manipulated. Yet, I do agree we DO need to do that... will THEY allow it to happen is the big question.
It' not only happens with a history.
Generally speaking, they (those who rule) prefer to have a deal with people without any brain > fool always would buy any trash and absorb any lie
This is very true. It is also very sad. Very angering. Evil.
BTW, I cannot recall any current country which is not applied that sort of politic to their residents.
Do you know any?
Also I'm glad you are here. Your unique perspective will be enlightening I am sure.
I'm happy to be here.
Thank you
Ideological vs Practical Communism. Ideological is Cultural Marxism (I'm posting about it tomorrow) and is an overt attempt to take over the world by destroying everything in its path.
Practical Communism... is based on shared values and resources. It works fairly well for VERY small homogenous groups such as tribes who have no economy of scale to speak of (barter, etc.). When applied to larger more diverse groups, the results are disastrous.
Well said. I agree 100%.
Thanks! I'm so unbelievably pissed right now! I wrote my ass off so I can put out a good chapter to my story. Then I went upvoting people I try to support... I actually upvoted more posts than I got votes!!! I always resteem 4-5 good ones... guess what I got FUCK YOU VERY MUCH! I think I'm just going to let my voting power build up for 4-5 days! Fuck it!!!!! And thanks for listening to my rant... I didn't mean to bend your ear (eyes?) But you had the misfortune of being the only one here lol!
Heh... Really the only advice I can recommend is not to focus on that. I realize you are possibly planning a move and potentially basing a lot of your life around surviving using this platform and that makes it more forefront.
Yet it also can harm your enjoyment, and could impact those who might vote for you. Not me.
Have you considered making some other accounts and using them to write different things? Pseudonyms...
I don't think you should take it as a FUCK YOU... this platform is being swarmed and has a waiting list. That is spreading things out. I miss SO much in my feed I can't keep up with. Honestly the only reason you get fairly regular up votes form me is I purposefully go look at your account... I have missed a ton of your posts to only notice them a couple of days later.
I wasn't talking about you... Every time I go to put money on my card I silently thank you! I owe you... you don't owe me anything. I also enjoy reading most of your posts. The gaming ones don't make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah I think of you and chuckle as I write those. I know you follow my stuff and I know those are not your cup of tea, so I never expect any engagement on those from you. :)
Yeah, I knew you were not talking about me. I was just explaining how it is getting really easy to MISS things now.. There is just so much.
I would miss a ton of your stuff if I didn't every once in awhile go and intentionally look at your profile. Simply due to the massive amount flowing past.
@ura-soul is a software designer wanting to help improve the platform and asked for suggestions. I said make it easier to track friends.
This Anarchist Approves this message ^^^
Communism doesn't even exist except as an ideology. Only on paper... I grew up in a communist country and, no, people were not equal, nor did they want to be. (The girl next door had such beautiful dolls and I envied her for that. Nor did ever offer to give me at least one of them...)
I don't know, maybe in some distant future when human spirit evolves (quite a lot) maybe, just maybe it would be possible to have some sort of communist society.
And another thing while reading your post my mind kept translating communist into liberal...weird thing!
In the U.S. right now a lot of the so-called "liberals" actually are espousing communism. Sadly most of them have no clue that is what they are advocating.
Funny thing is people advocating for communism will argue that your communism was not truly communism, but theirs is. That is always the excuse.
Venezuela was the poster child for the socialists saying "see it works" until it didn't. Then it joined the ranks of "not truly socialist".
That is A) because the holocaust was more visible. It was made visible intentionally (by the victors) while the other 2 were not (because there were no Victors)
Als B) the difference is, that while hundreds of thousands death by Stalin or Mao were intentionally, the millions mostly died of errors.
I already told about the farmers killed their livestock to meet the meat quota and, of course, had nothing left to meet it the second year.
You don't need to be a communist to see that "this" was not communism, if the center point of communism - the ownership of the means of production by the working - was not met.
It was simulated quite good sometimes, though.
Simulations are limited by the minds of those that design the simulation. I make lots of simulations, but I can only put into them the things I mentally am aware of and can perceive. The variance in humans adds a lot of chaos that is not properly represented in simulations. This also makes central planning and quotas difficult to be accurate as well. Yet that is a completely different issue. :)
And because the simulation was always flawed, there never was communism, because communism only is realized when the plans work.
QED ;)
Which can be said of ANY ideology. That is also a person saying MY PERCEPTION of X is the real X and anything not X is well you know... not X.
Kind of a bullshit excuse and argument in my opinion. Also a common one. :)
Like I said every person thinks differently so X is a moving target.
Sir you r right
I Agree with you
Good Analysis
i think we need a capitalists world with socialist controls. what i mean by that is we should be able to make as much money as we want. but if we fail and can't pay the bills then we have social security that can pick us up and get us going again.
Also without the socialist side we wouldn't have the NHS, the police or the fire service. We wouldn't have all the things that government pay for to make the country work
Sure you would. There have been services like that in history without requiring the government to back them. This is also something that could be crowd sourced.
My problem with socialism is that it is involuntary. People decide a program should exist and suddenly they justify taking money from everyone to fund that program without giving people a choice. People often forget the Government doesn't produce products... so to pay things they either have to go into debt, which means we are in debt, or they have to steal from people to pay for it.
i really hope that labour doesn't get into power before brexit happens. we won't leave otherwise. the communism of the EU will take over these lands.
Yeah. I live in the U.S. but I am pretty upset about how they are doing everything they can to try to nullify what people voted for in the UK. I think Brexit was a smart vote in my opinion. Especially as I dug more and more into the EU and how its power structure works.
In the U.S. we have people trying to do the same, but it is mostly trying to find ways to get rid of Trump while they mostly ignore anything else of importance.
yer i don't understand that, trump was elected fairly granted he is a little ruff around the edges. But i think that's what america needs. Someone to kick arse and take name ( god, where have i just quoted that from)
Great post after reading Gulag Archipelago I realized how terribly nasty communism was to fervent believers in communism. Those who fell "outside the box" were only the first round of people to be extinguished and there were many rounds. Anarchist merit barely a paragraph in the book because they were killed right after the revolution succeeded (with their help)
Communism Mean Shits of Community.
You can easily out this on today's neolibs. If you are not in the market, you are out of society.
Or take the religious: If you do not work, you should not eat!
Tell me what happens if you don't eat? ;)
Yep. I didn't say anything else was BETTER anywhere in my post. Other than "Good ideas don't require force".
So pointing out those doesn't take the view off of Communism. It can be a distraction for some though.
You just described Google.
That's how they trick workers into slaving away for 12 hr days without extra pay. Free food, some games, a slide.
Google.
Disagree.
I knew you would. ;) (you were one of the friends I referred to in the post)
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.
Take a deep breath... what is it you are trying to communicate to me?
You do realize every single major soical or political change (slavery, breaking free from overlord, civil rights, etc) came about through violent means, right? From freeing slaves to breaking free from colonial powers, to switching from feudalism to capitalism, to getting African-American rights in the USA...must I go on?
Sorry you don't want to go face the truth and fight the good fight, but you need to piss off with that pacifist talk, that is, unless you're secretly a corporate-fascist state-lover, which I don't believe you are.
That's because factually speaking, they aren't the same thing.
The Soviets and the like fit up into the mold of fascism perfectly, short of what they told the public.
That means they were fascists.
Unless you're illiterate or ignorant to political philosophy you would understand this regardless of your personal ideology.
The thing about absolutes is they are very RARELY true. It only takes a single example for the entire thing to fall apart. Thus, your use of the word EVERY kind of made that a self defeating statement.
You gave a FEW examples to support your claim. Yet there are so many to choose from that fit that statement that had absolutely nothing to do with violence.
They are happening all of the time. You see violent interactions are heavily frowned upon by law and most people unless it is the governments doing it and then for some reason we give it a free pass.
A lot of social change happens when there is no violence. It happens all around us. I've witnessed huge amounts of it.
Yet by your closing statement you kind of showed the rigidity of your thinking. Already got that you either agree with me or you are ignorant type of statement down. That doesn't work too well here. False dichotomies are pretty easy to spot once you've gotten used to looking for them. It isn't an either/or choice.
Do I have to write a book for you? You gave no examples against my claim, all you did is whine that it's not right because "muh absolutes," in other words a cop-out "I have no argument."
What a class-cuck type of answer that is.
Do you think the feudal kings frowned upon and made it illegal to refuse his tax and rule?
Do you think the slave-owners frowned upon and made it illegal to free the slaves?
And yet you criticize me for providing examples when you provide none.
Great job.
Sorry but facts are facts and if I call brutally raping a woman or a child consensual sex I'm just wrong.
That's you.
You're just wrong if you think the Soviet Union was communist past it's name. It doesn't fit in the mold so it's not communist, just as raping a child to death isn't consensual.
Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
Nope just use your brain and think for yourself. Since I guess EVERY SINGLE social change has been due to violence.
Hmmm... social media was violence, acceptance to homosexuality by many people was because they were forced by violence, etc. - Yes I am being sarcastic.
Like I said if you choose to say EVERY you frame your argument as an absolute. All it takes is ONE case to make the statement false. Giving examples of social changes that didn't have anything to do with violence is actually REALLY easy to do. I didn't do it because, I figured you could use your own brain and look around you and think about all the changes that likely have even happened in your life. MOST of those were not at the point of a gun, spear, etc.
Your examples were a few big changes, but they were a FEW examples that yes had big repercussions. Yet many of those it has been debated by some (not me) that they were on the path to being accomplished without violence. Violence can make it fast, yet those that use violence tend to bring their own I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG type mentality with them and they continue to back that with violence even after their change.
There are a lot more choices than just you being right, and me being wrong. That is actually only 1. I could also be right and you could be wrong. That is 2. We could both be wrong. That is 3. We could both be right about some things. That is 4.
So get off your high horse, it doesn't impress me. Talk civil, and avoid belittling people and indicating they are a cuck or ignorant and you might get some respect and interest. Yet, if that is what you need to resort to then you're not going to get anywhere with me, or others. If you want to change my mind that isn't how to do it. Now if you don't really care about changing minds and it is more about trumpeting your own horn and making yourself feel good then continue as you are.
Thanks for today's inspiration. :)
https://steemit.com/criticalthinking/@dwinblood/argument-debate-discussion-and-some-things-that-don-t-work
Couldn't resist could you?