Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Not at all.
It depends to humanity to attribute a different form of value to money.
I only say the actual form of money sucks.

Is it too difficult for your to imagine another way to use money and distribution of money ?
I dislike this standard.
During hundred of thousand of year money didn't exist in human societies.
And don't think that before money, there was a barter economy, because anthropologists proved it was bullshit created by Smith and Ricardo.

The barter economy is a mistake spread by economists.

According to anthropologists, still today economists are WRONG, utterly utterly wrong and spread wrong knowledges (that after all this time can become to be considered as lies) to their students.

Fail, there's more than a 1 or a 2 .....

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But they weren't.

Correct, and don't think for a minute I wasn't pissed off, still am.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

George Orwell used precisely that metaphor to describe life under the Soviets-- its called "Animal Farm".

Have you read it?

Sure I've read it.
It's a brilliant story.
Orwell is depicted as a Socio-Anarchist (as Chomsky).

He hated all forms of dominations. He surely would be horrified by the actual American politics as he was horrified by the English Imperialism.

Did you read Abraham Léon : "Conception matérialiste de la question juive" ? (in English: The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation)
He died in Auschwitz in 1944 and explained how Capitalism has contributed to create Nazism and all forms of Fascisms.

He brilliantly showed how Capitalism maintains hatred between people. The election of Trump is one of the best examples.

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Correct, and don't think for a minute I wasn't pissed off, still am.

That's what happens when the Capitalist model is runned by a plutocracy.

And just open your eyes, the plutocracy is still in commands.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's what happens when the Capitalist model is runned by a plutocracy.

And just open your eyes, the plutocracy is still in commands.

1 or 2 ...... still waiting

And, Don't think for a minute that Commie Governments were not corrupt,
I can and will admit it ...... you cannot and won't.


So, 1 or 2 still waiting to expose your total contradiction
1 or 2
repeat
1 or 2

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

1 or 2 ...... still waiting

And, Don't think for a minute that Commie Governments were not corrupt,
I can and will admit it ...... you cannot and won't.


So, 1 or 2 still waiting to expose your total contradiction
1 or 2
repeat
1 or 2

I try to be pragmatic.


In an absolute fair society... no more money.
Money is crap. Pure crap. (You told me that you are Catholic, according to Catholics, money is the hidden form of the devil).

But as long as there will be unfair imbeciles unable to think without money... equal money.
As Catholic you must understand that. You don't need to hope something in return (money is a debt recognition) when you contribute to give a service to someone.

Did you understand this time ?

There is absolutely no contradiction.

In fact... as Catholic, YOU live in total contradiction with your belief.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Did you understand this time ?

Pick, only one choice as a direct answer, it's so simple to press on your keyboard only a 1 or a 2

That's all it takes nothing more or less , 1 or 2

I've managed little kids and got an answer out of them easier than getting this so simple task out of you You're failing dismally like communism has

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Pick, only one choice as a direct answer, it's so simple to press on your keyboard only a 1 or a 2

That's all it takes nothing more or less , 1 or 2

I fairly replied to your question but you don't admit my answers and your own contradictions.

I do not accept the rules of your game. As a man promoting freedom, I hope that you must respect that.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I fairly replied to your question but you don't admit my answers and your own contradictions.

I do not accept the rules of your game. As a man promoting freedom, I hope that you must respect that.

No, you actually haven't

E's asking you a very straightforward question. And its a question that real world Communists _have_ had to answer.

Stalin and Mao had to rationalize why they _didn't_ eliminate money (they wanted to)

Pol Pot actually did -- he blew up the central bank. And he produced what's statistically the worst genocide in the communist world, but hey, who's counting.

So E isn't playing a "game"-- he's asking you a straightforward question, one which has been a major policy issue in 20th century communism.

Why can't you answer?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were able to answer it.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I fairly replied to your question but you don't admit my answers and your own contradictions.

I do not accept the rules of your game. As a man promoting freedom, I hope that you must respect that.

Only because whatever you answer, that will make about half your comments here a total contradiction,

You cannot possibly have the thought we need to live without money as it's evil and on the other hand want it spread more evenly

I'll consider that my own personal victory that I admit my own contradictions and you simply cannot

I didn't make a rule, I just pressed you for an answer you don't want to give

Carry on

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, you actually haven't

E's asking you a very straightforward question. And its a question that real world Communists _have_ had to answer.

Stalin and Mao had to rationalize why they _didn't_ eliminate money (they wanted to)

Pol Pot actually did -- he blew up the central bank. And he produced what's statistically the worst genocide in the communist world, but hey, who's counting.

So E isn't playing a "game"-- he's asking you a straightforward question, one which has been a major policy issue in 20th century communism.

Why can't you answer?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were able to answer it.

Is answer #1871 not clear enough for you ?

I had several debates with French Marxists blaming Anarchists that they were far too tolerant about money.

That's all the tensions between Marx and Proudhon or Bakunin.

If during a trade between several parties, one of the party absolutely wants a debt recognition, as long as the other parties agree with this, I don't see any problems. But that musn't be imposed by force.

That's why I recommand to all the members who want to participate to this topic to read concepts and inform themselves first instead to repeat Capitalist propaganda.

That's why still today USSR and China are considered by definition as Capitalist states that never reached Communism.

Anarchism has a huge latitude and is extremely tolerant.
Anarchism doesn't respect little assholes coming from nowhere and telling: "You must do this, because we've decided that you have to do this."

Is it more clear for you ?

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Only because whatever you answer, that will make about half your comments here a total contradiction,

You cannot possibly have the thought we need to live without money as it's evil and on the other hand want it spread more evenly

I'm glad for you if you think that you have won.
But in my opinion, the way that you want that I answer to you is typical of someone who can't abstract himself of a state runned by a monetarian economy.

So let me help you to abstract to this dirty society.
Just think that you live on a desert island with your brothers.
(Hoping that you have good relashionships with them. or your best friends if you don't like your brothers.)
You don't get any money.

Can you live with your brothers without creating a form of money (lets think a certain amount of peebles fairly distributed between yourselves at the beginning of the experience) or not ?

Now think that's the considerations of my answers.

Do you understand better ?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'm glad for you if you think that you have won.
But in my opinion, the way that you want that I answer to you is typical of someone who can't abstract himself of a state runned by a monetarian economy.

Asking for an answer in a debate is all I asked for, I cannot see the connection between money and answering a question Maybe I'm just stupid and cannot make a link between $1000 and pressing a 1 or 2 on a keyboard.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So let me help you to abstract to this dirty society.
Just think that you live on a desert island with your brothers.
(Hoping that you have good relashionships with them. or your best friends if you don't like your brothers.)
You don't get any money.

Can you live with your brothers without creating a form of money (lets think a certain amount of peebles fairly distributed between yourselves at the beginning of the experience) or not ?

There's a huge difference between being on a desert island with my brothers and living in a big community that needs, food, fuel, clothing, medicine etc ...

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Do you understand better ?

Yeah I do actually, you're the same as any politician from any side of politics who won't answer too hard a question when they know they are under fire, that's what I understand