… actually there’s probably forms of Distributism, that might. Just depends on whether we’re talking classic Communism with a one party centrally planned command economy (which is how a lot of people interpret the term still).
Communism is just too broad an idea to agree to blindly, it could be referring to anything from a small scale communal farming co-op to a one party Authoritarian system.
Cool. Provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous- communistic society that doesn’t have some form or capitalism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric.
Oh, and while you’re at it, professor-
Provide documentation on how changing America into this communistic system will work from the ground up.
Because I don’t woke with myth and pretending. I don’t do fanciful what-if scenarios. I live in the real world.
Cool. Provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous- communistic society that doesn’t have some form or capitalism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric.
Could you provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous capitalist society that doesn’t have some form of socialism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric?
You’re asking for a ‘clean’ delineation that doesn’t exist in the real world, not just for the system you oppose, but also for the one you accept as ‘normal’ and functional.
Could you provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous capitalist society that doesn’t have some form of socialism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric?
No. Bust I’m not claiming such a thing exists either.
… actually there’s probably forms of Distributism, that might. Just depends on whether we’re talking classic Communism with a one party centrally planned command economy (which is how a lot of people interpret the term still).
Communism is just too broad an idea to agree to blindly, it could be referring to anything from a small scale communal farming co-op to a one party Authoritarian system.
You’ll have to be more specific.
I don’t see where that claims anything about the purity of any given system. In fact, all it does is ask for “What definition of communism are you using?”
I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
Not my argument, but I just wanna pop in and say I think a more perfect system -would- be a blending of capitalism and socialism. Something where you have to work to enjoy a certain “level” of lifestyle, but not to survive.
Right. We ALL could make up a perfect system to live under. And we can make that system as realistic as we can so that others can join the dream with little concern or unanswered questions-
But unfortunately, we still have to live in the real world when the dram is over.
If you want to REALLY reduce the definition of communism down to its most concentrated form, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, then not only is communism a successful system, it is the only reason our species exists today.
Humanist Democratic Socialism does. Communitarianism might also.
… actually there’s probably forms of Distributism, that might. Just depends on whether we’re talking classic Communism with a one party centrally planned command economy (which is how a lot of people interpret the term still).
Communism is just too broad an idea to agree to blindly, it could be referring to anything from a small scale communal farming co-op to a one party Authoritarian system.
You’ll have to be more specific.
Cool. Provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous- communistic society that doesn’t have some form or capitalism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric.
Oh, and while you’re at it, professor-
Provide documentation on how changing America into this communistic system will work from the ground up.
Because I don’t woke with myth and pretending. I don’t do fanciful what-if scenarios. I live in the real world.
Could you provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous capitalist society that doesn’t have some form of socialism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric?
You’re asking for a ‘clean’ delineation that doesn’t exist in the real world, not just for the system you oppose, but also for the one you accept as ‘normal’ and functional.
No. Bust I’m not claiming such a thing exists either.
You made that comment in response to:
I don’t see where that claims anything about the purity of any given system. In fact, all it does is ask for “What definition of communism are you using?”
I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
I absolutely did not get that meaning from your comment at the top of this thread, which was:
Not my argument, but I just wanna pop in and say I think a more perfect system -would- be a blending of capitalism and socialism. Something where you have to work to enjoy a certain “level” of lifestyle, but not to survive.
Right. We ALL could make up a perfect system to live under. And we can make that system as realistic as we can so that others can join the dream with little concern or unanswered questions-
But unfortunately, we still have to live in the real world when the dram is over.
No one’s arguing with you on that. You’re saying communism and socialism are bad when your problem as described by -you- is with Authoritarianism.
You say that Communism and Socialism are Authoritarianism, which shows me that you don’t understand what those terms mean.
You accuse others of living in a dream… Some of the most celebrated people in history are the dreamers. Maybe check your own cup for the Kool-Aid.
lol…
Really? That’s it? How disappointing…
That’s all I am willing to waste my time on. I know this dance all too well. And it’s not one of find worth the effort.
You’re not even arguing with facts, lol.
You know what dance? Backing up a position with more than feelings?
You really just don’t know how to handle other people disagreeing with you without being an enormous cunt, huh?
ROFL! The irony.
I simply disagreed and then issued a counter argument, and now I’m accused of not knowing how to handle someone disagreeing with me?
This is why people don’t take you seriously. Grow up and learn how adult disagree. Then learn how not let this hurt you personally.
If you want to REALLY reduce the definition of communism down to its most concentrated form, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, then not only is communism a successful system, it is the only reason our species exists today.