"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[untermensche]

My system, Anarchism?

When it existed in Spain it was more efficient and productive than the capitalist system in Spain.

When humans are free and not living under dictatorships every day they are happier and more productive.

My system is superior in every way imaginable.

Except to those who want to be petty dictators over others, which is perhaps a natural human inclination like wanting to rape others.

The one that lasted a whopping 3 years? Communism was very inefficient but lasted 50 years. When they were running did they include official statistcis such as unemployment, GDP, GDP growth, productivity per GDP, poverty measures? Or was efficiency defined as Orwell saying it might be better?

I think for a short period efficiency would increase and the drop over time.

The reason the Anarchists didn't last is because they eliminated dictators and were more efficient than the capitalists.

They were attacked by all the supporters of dictatorship who don't like being reminded that dictatorships are not needed in any form.

You side with dictators over freedom. You have no moral position, just a position that is convenient for dictators.

 

[LordKiran]

No.

Once again you have no point. You have no training in science so you don't understand the absolute weakness of anecdotes.

Please don't try again. You have nothing to offer except a lack of understanding and reason.

What is this, a transcript-wagging contest??

Anecdotes aren't relevant is this case, I was pointing out that you were contradicting yourself.

It's like talking to a wall who belittles your intelligence every chance it gets.

 

[iolo]

Everyone welcomes murderous colonialists who come to impose their will, while mouthing lying blather: just look at history! Jesus wept!

So even though they are under an immoral and evil dictator they would prefer that over democracy?

When do colonialists ever bring democracy? You are thinking of Father Christmas.

 

[iolo]

My system, Anarchism?

When it existed in Spain it was more efficient and productive than the capitalist system in Spain.

When humans are free and not living under dictatorships every day they are happier and more productive.

My system is superior in every way imaginable.

Except to those who want to be petty dictators over others, which is perhaps a natural human inclination like wanting to rape others.

The one that lasted a whopping 3 years? Communism was very inefficient but lasted 50 years. When they were running did they include official statistcis such as unemployment, GDP, GDP growth, productivity per GDP, poverty measures? Or was efficiency defined as Orwell saying it might be better?

I think for a short period efficiency would increase and the drop over time.

Just as one kind of capitalism calls itself Christian, another kind called itself 'Communism', as you know. No socialist or communist government has lasted a year, because the capitalist armies murder everyone concerned, as you know. The only problem with anarchism is how to establish it without the Party, and the problem with the Party is how to get rid of the bloody thing when it has done its job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The one that lasted a whopping 3 years? Communism was very inefficient but lasted 50 years. When they were running did they include official statistcis such as unemployment, GDP, GDP growth, productivity per GDP, poverty measures? Or was efficiency defined as Orwell saying it might be better?

I think for a short period efficiency would increase and the drop over time.

The reason the Anarchists didn't last is because they eliminated dictators and were more efficient than the capitalists.

They were attacked by all the supporters of dictatorship who don't like being reminded that dictatorships are not needed in any form.

You side with dictators over freedom. You have no moral position, just a position that is convenient for dictators.

No. They were "more efficient" because they didn't do all the aspects of society.

 

[untermensche]

The reason the Anarchists didn't last is because they eliminated dictators and were more efficient than the capitalists.

They were attacked by all the supporters of dictatorship who don't like being reminded that dictatorships are not needed in any form.

You side with dictators over freedom. You have no moral position, just a position that is convenient for dictators.

No. They were "more efficient" because they didn't do all the aspects of society.

What they failed to do was develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from all the supporters of dictatorship that attacked them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. They were "more efficient" because they didn't do all the aspects of society.

What they failed to do was develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from all the supporters of dictatorship that attacked them.

The problem was that they held a position not supported widely enough and the position they and you have is one that will cause a fight. So that group needs to be ready enough to fight, or build a big enough support not to fight. Their biggest enemy was another workers paradise group.

 

[untermensche]

What they failed to do was develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from all the supporters of dictatorship that attacked them.

The problem was that they held a position not supported widely enough and the position they and you have is one that will cause a fight. So that group needs to be ready enough to fight, or build a big enough support not to fight. Their biggest enemy was another workers paradise group.

They were outnumbered by strong supporters of dictatorship.

It is as simple as that.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem was that they held a position not supported widely enough and the position they and you have is one that will cause a fight. So that group needs to be ready enough to fight, or build a big enough support not to fight. Their biggest enemy was another workers paradise group.

They were outnumbered by strong supporters of dictatorship.

It is as simple as that.

They were outnumbered, but no. The communists were supporters of a workers paradise, not a dictatorship. And any time you take away property from people you are going to have a fight on your hands.

 

[untermensche]

They were outnumbered by strong supporters of dictatorship.

It is as simple as that.

They were outnumbered, but no. The communists were supporters of a workers paradise, not a dictatorship. And any time you take away property from people you are going to have a fight on your hands.

Soviet Communism was a totalitarian dictatorship. This was Stalin.

What are you talking about?

 

[coloradoatheist]

They were outnumbered, but no. The communists were supporters of a workers paradise, not a dictatorship. And any time you take away property from people you are going to have a fight on your hands.

Soviet Communism was a totalitarian dictatorship. This was Stalin.

What are you talking about?

The irony was they were stepping in to remove one dictatorship Franco, for the belief in workers paradise. It leads even more more to the argument how to prevent internal disagreement within the anarchist party

 

[untermensche]

Soviet Communism was a totalitarian dictatorship. This was Stalin.

What are you talking about?

The irony was they were stepping in to remove one dictatorship Franco, for the belief in workers paradise. It leads even more more to the argument how to prevent internal disagreement within the anarchist party

What? I don't understand this.

The Spanish Communists were infiltrated by Russians.

They attacked killed and seriously weakened the Anarchists.

And then the fascists wiped up what was left with the help of the British and the US and the Nazi's and Italian fascists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. They were "more efficient" because they didn't do all the aspects of society.

What they failed to do was develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from all the supporters of dictatorship that attacked them.

You don't need to carry the biggest stick, but you need a reasonable one to keep from looking like easy pickings.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The irony was they were stepping in to remove one dictatorship Franco, for the belief in workers paradise. It leads even more more to the argument how to prevent internal disagreement within the anarchist party

What? I don't understand this.

The Spanish Communists were infiltrated by Russians.

They attacked killed and seriously weakened the Anarchists.

And then the fascists wiped up what was left with the help of the British and the US and the Nazi's and Italian fascists.

Stalin was fighting Franco's rise to power which also the anarchists were too, but those two groups ended up fighting each other. Stalin was fighting the rise of the dictators of Europe. It's good that Stalin believed his dictatorship was different.

 

[coloradoatheist]

As Ilo had an issue, how does an anarchist group prevent a Stalin? Both anarchism and communism started with the great ideal of workers don't need bosses and workers can run the world. Everybody just sings Kumbaya and everyone is happy. But that didn't happen in Russia and if Spain had won, a similar structure would have been created there over time.

 

[untermensche]

What? I don't understand this.

The Spanish Communists were infiltrated by Russians.

They attacked killed and seriously weakened the Anarchists.

And then the fascists wiped up what was left with the help of the British and the US and the Nazi's and Italian fascists.

Stalin was fighting Franco's rise to power which also the anarchists were too, but those two groups ended up fighting each other. Stalin was fighting the rise of the dictators of Europe. It's good that Stalin believed his dictatorship was different.

What?

The supporters of dictatorship fought it out. US, British, French and Russian supporters of dictatorship defeated the Germans, Italians and Japanese.

With all those supporters of dictatorship the Anarchists who were the only people to not support dictatorships and proved dictatorships are not necessary didn't stand a chance.

So to say they were crushed is meaningless.

We are left with the immorality of dictatorship.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Stalin was fighting Franco's rise to power which also the anarchists were too, but those two groups ended up fighting each other. Stalin was fighting the rise of the dictators of Europe. It's good that Stalin believed his dictatorship was different.

What?

The supporters of dictatorship fought it out. US, British, French and Russian supporters of dictatorship defeated the Germans, Italians and Japanese.

With all those supporters of dictatorship the Anarchists who were the only people to not support dictatorships and proved dictatorships are not necessary didn't stand a chance.

So to say they were crushed is meaningless.

We are left with the immorality of dictatorship.

But Franco and Stalin weren't on the same side fighting the anarchists. Stalin was fighting Franco but the anarchists didn't agree with the other worker rights group the communists. If it was dictatorship against none then there would have been no WWII

 

[untermensche]

What?

The supporters of dictatorship fought it out. US, British, French and Russian supporters of dictatorship defeated the Germans, Italians and Japanese.

With all those supporters of dictatorship the Anarchists who were the only people to not support dictatorships and proved dictatorships are not necessary didn't stand a chance.

So to say they were crushed is meaningless.

We are left with the immorality of dictatorship.

But Franco and Stalin weren't on the same side fighting the anarchists. Stalin was fighting Franco but the anarchists didn't agree with the other worker rights group the communists. If it was dictatorship against none then there would have been no WWII

Yes the Anarchists were being attacked by several distinct supporters of dictatorship.

Nothing prevented these supporters of dictatorship from fighting each other too.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But Franco and Stalin weren't on the same side fighting the anarchists. Stalin was fighting Franco but the anarchists didn't agree with the other worker rights group the communists. If it was dictatorship against none then there would have been no WWII

Yes the Anarchists were being attacked by several distinct supporters of dictatorship.

Nothing prevented these supporters of dictatorship from fighting each other too.

Except the motto of the Communists were the same, "Workers unite, bosses suck" and this two groups fought heavily within each other. All one can say,s "A great miracle must happen and it will"

 

[untermensche]

Yes the Anarchists were being attacked by several distinct supporters of dictatorship.

Nothing prevented these supporters of dictatorship from fighting each other too.

Except the motto of the Communists were the same, "Workers unite, bosses suck" and this two groups fought heavily within each other. All one can say,s "A great miracle must happen and it will"

Bosses suck?

Stalin was a huge boss.

They didn't say it because they didn't believe it.