How did you become a socialist? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14978230
@ckaihatsu, I am not paranoid lol. You can't manipulate me but you're trying to lol. And no you aren't a Stalinist, something you are correct about.

Stalinism is a type of socialism. The left opposition were traitors to socialism. A socialist doesn't have to be a pure INTERNATIONALIST. Some fascists are socialists because they are progressive and not reactionary, and that they use socialism to achieve their "national glories." And fascism DOES have socialist roots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Futurism

That is just one example.

Full technological innovation is also good for capitalism because it allows company owners to produce more wealth for themselves.

Rape can be caused by stronger sexual desires which can have no capitalist motives.
#14978346
One Degree wrote:
I was hardly the first to believe in community socialism. I don’t actually believe in socialism however. I just have nothing against communities trying it if they want.
You are arguing socialism will provide basic necessities in a world where that is not an issue. We have been willing to provide basic necessities, but people prevent it. Not rich capitalists, but ruthless individuals and gangs who don’t believe in your humanistic view.



There's no such thing as 'community socialism' just as there's no such thing as Stalinistic socialism-in-one-country, the reason for both being that many people of the world, in various areas, would inevitably be left-back in backward market-based social relations.

It's unfortunate that what resulted from the Bokshevik-Revolution-countered-by-Western-imperialism, was *Stalinism*, but that tragedy shouldn't be taken as any sort of *model* for future socialism -- a common fallacy adopted by many.


One Degree wrote:
I view ‘community’ as being a group of people who place the general welfare above their own. How they accomplish this socially, economically, and politically is irrelevant. If the people control the community then they control everything in it including the means of production no matter who has their name on the title. Worker ownership of the physical means of production is not necessary.



Okay, so you're for workers-collective *local* control of social production -- in *this* meaning of 'community' I'm in agreement here.

Perhaps our differences, though, would be about how to *generalize* and *centralize* those geographic locations of localist workers control. Basically you're an anarchist, and I'd welcome any description from you about how these various communities / workplaces would handle material interchanges with one-another.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The Marxist dictatorship-of-the-proletariat is meant to indicate a workers *hegemony*, particularly in open class warfare against (existing) *bourgeois* hegemony.



One Degree wrote:
A division that is not clear cut today. Many workers do not feel oppressed.



It doesn't matter if this-or-that person *feels* oppressed, the political point is that they / we *are* oppressed, namely by being economically *exploited* and socially *alienated* by the conditions of work under capitalism.


One Degree wrote:
The unsafe factories are gone. They may want a raise, but they don’t want to own the company.



Sure, workers shouldn't be expected to be businesspeople, especially while capitalism is still around -- this is another solid counterargument to the 'workers ownership' propaganda that often pops up.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *tricky*, though, because at the same time the proletariat has to have *centralized coordination* for the workers state, which requires some degree of authoritarianism, for the purpose of nimbly responding to bourgeois offensives, etc. -- events of class struggle in realtime, basically, no matter the scale or scope.



One Degree wrote:
No, they don’t. I have repeatedly argued voluntary cooperation can accomplish anything centralized control can. No one has proven differently.



Hmmmm, sorry, yeah, here it is -- I'd definitely prefer a revolutionary-workers vanguard / party / state for the phase of socialism, to topple capitalist class rule and organize internally. If it *could* be done strictly at the ground-level in a decentralized way I'd have no problem with it, but I really don't think that that kind of organization would be effective / nimble-enough to be formidible.


One Degree wrote:
I have no disagreement that all ideologies try to destroy other ideologies. This is why global ideologies don’t work, because they are not globally wanted. People are different. It is the stupidity and hubris of forcing our ideology on others that creates nonstop conflict.



I agree that no one can *force* an ideology on others, and even it could it would be counterproductive because the *point* of any ideology is that the person has *chosen* it, hopefully from much learning and self-reflection -- politics definitely doesn't benefit from cultivating any top-down, clone-like groupthink mentality among participants.

That said, though, what *can* be forced is the socio-political-material *paradigm* of one kind or another, based on a certain ideology and its principles. In other words many people don't think of themselves as being 'political' at all, and would probably like to just see a better world take shape -- instead of 'being political' they'd probably be okay with just continuing on with their work and their lives, not giving much thought to *what* the political economy *should* be, just as long as it's *better* and not-fucked-up. For *this* kind of people I'd prefer to see them *politically educated*, and more on-board with socialism, but if not, they'd be mostly indifferent to a *competent* political economy paradigm that would be handled by *others* who are actual active proponents.


One Degree wrote:
Your socialism seems to remove itself from humanism and treat people as cogs in the economic machine.



No, this is a Stalinistic-type stereotype that you have no grounds for making. Yes, it's a *systematic* approach, being a *framework*, but it does *not* advance any finished, 'blueprint'-type plans since the specifics would necessarily be up to the people / participants themselves of a socialism-type society, if it decides to use this model of mine.


One Degree wrote:
I see no real difference between ‘labor credits’ and ‘Cash’. Sorry.



Okay, glad to explain -- 'cash' implies 'exchange values', while the 'labor credits' is *not* cash, nor is it a *commodity*, nor does it facilitate commodity-production.

The relevant parts from the introduction are here:



In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Socialists like myself aren't calling for a *world* *culture* of egalitarianism, but rather a *political economy* of egalitarianism, in structure. If people want to be very individualistic and just work for their own personal accumulation of labor credits (in my model), that would be absolutely fine. If people wanted to just be consumers and partake from what others were willing to do freely, that would be absolutely fine as well.



One Degree wrote:
Yes, this further verifies what I said above. I don’t really have a problem with treating humans as objects when devising a ‘best plan’ for humans, but I can’t accept it for economic reasons. The economic is simply not that important to creating the best human environment imo. It should never be given primary importance.



Well, I happen to be *critical* of those, like yourself, who conceive of a 'no-materials, people-only' kind of socialism, like one big worldwide hippie commune of nothing but flowers and grass.

Stripping the revolutionary socialist political-economy of any component of *mass industrial production* means something almost akin to what the Khmer Rouge practiced, which is not to be repeated, and is a historically reality that's *detrimental* to the purpose of real socialist aims.

I think many socialists don't realize that the modern capitalist economics of currency / cash usage is *fairly sophisticated* and empowering (for those who have it), mainly because it's *flexible* and universal. We shouldn't be arguing to *retreat* into a paradigm of balkanized localist political-patronage social ties for our material needs, because such is simply too geographically limiting and isolating. Here's a portrayal of that, in graphic form:


Rotation system of work roles

Spoiler: show
Image



---





One Degree wrote:
Exactly and the only way for this to happen is each community accepting it on their own in their own time. You can not hurry it. It will just result in suppressed anger that will eventually rise up and destroy your plans.



"My" plans -- ??

*I* don't have any political plans, aside from seeing the worldwide implementation of socialism, and then communism.

You're imputing a Stalin-type *stereotype* onto me personally, which is inappropriate, and the stereotype realized would be bad politics, anyway, as we've seen from history. The social world in its development is *way past* the point of needing to depend on any 'strongman'-type *ruler*, and my politics *explicitly* reject such, as seen in my 'labor credits' framework. I resent your lackadaisical mischaracterization of my politics.

What *can* be potentially 'hurried' is the *implementation* of working-class hegemony, to topple capitalist class rule.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, now this is just *unkind* -- you're making out Marx to be some sort of master marionette manipulator, with everyone below only capable of acting according to how their strings are being pulled. That's just *caricature*.



One Degree wrote:
Not my purpose, humans just have a tendency to jump on one man’s ideas and grant them a ‘God status’. It blinds them to their hubris because it becomes a religion. Marx was a brilliant man. There is no reason for the entire world to agree to one man’s view, whether Marx, or variations of Marx, or Locke, or Plato etc.



Yes, there *is* a reason: Because the view happens to be *correct* -- that is, reflected by the world's actual functioning.

No, it's *not* a religion, or at-least *shouldn't* be. Proletarian revolution should include mass (workers) *involvement*, which is the prerequisite, anyway, for an actual proletarian revolution, by definition.


One Degree wrote:
Global ideology is not logical or natural unless it evolves naturally in all the different communities.



I will, and do, give credit to the anarchistic ground-level / localist focus, on this matter.


One Degree wrote:
Any centralization is unnatural because it dictates the outcome.



No, rather, centralization should be as bottom-up as possible, and should be on a per-item basis, I would argue. Here's an illustration of the same:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *mistaken* -- nowhere do I claim that 'communes' should be the material basis for socialism. (In my model I do have the component of a geographically-specific 'locality', but that's mostly for *consumption*-type social activity.)

My point that location-bound 'communities' are not sufficient a social force to truly overhaul social relations, stands.



One Degree wrote:
I disagree and we are seeing that force showing itself right now in rebellion against liberal globalism. Dedication to local community has destroyed every previous empire attempt. Humans are communal, but only up to a certain number in the community. They will always rebel to get back to that arbitrary number.



I'm *in agreement* with any kind of rebellion against the existing capitalist status quo -- the trickier part is *what should replace it*, and such needs to be as *conscious* as possible, on the part of all participants, and should not be treated as an *afterthought*, as it often is.

Proletarian revolution, I'll remind, is *not* 'empire', as you seem to be implying. It is about the overthrow of existing class relations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
As with SSDR, I'll say that you're not-understanding 'base' and 'superstructure' accurately -- sure, communities and civilization exist, to varying degrees and extents, but these are still 'superstructure' to society's *productive* *base*.

Without feasibly organized *social production*, as with feudal- or capitalist-oriented exploitation of labor power, or, with socialism's egalitarianism, material production just doesn't get done and people will be too distracted by lower-level *biological* matters, like having to eat, than to enjoy healthy *communities*, as you'd like to see -- no civilization there, either, in such desperate material conditions.



One Degree wrote:
People living together came first then they created the structure. It is the communal that is the essence. Many different types of political/economic systems have produced material goods. Even if I accept ‘labor’ as the basis of humanity, that does not mean socialism is the only way to organize that labor.



Yes, it is, and the reason is because society has developed *industry*. We shouldn't all have to do subsistence / small-scale farming, redundantly across the landscape, by eschewing modern industrial methods. Egalitarian industry is the feasible, realistic 'base' that's possible through socialist social relations.

Here's Wilde again:



The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


One Degree wrote:
Class division does not exist without communities.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, it does -- people could be impoverished and living badly, individually alienated and mostly disconnected from each other, but still toiling for the capitalist employer.



One Degree wrote:
Please explain how you can have an employer without a community of employees. They must live close enough together to work at the same place.



No, that's not necessarily the case at all -- consider contemporary urban realities where workers either drive or take public transportation from all over the city, to get to the workplace. Unless they collectively, self-consciously *organize* on the basis of their common, exploited status, they would not otherwise have cause to be physically near each other outside of the workplace.


---


One Degree wrote:
You are reversing priorities to justify authoritarianism. You are not advocating Socialism when you say authoritarianism is necessary. That is a basic contradiction.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're mistaken here, too -- the *priority* is international-workers-solidarity and worldwide collective control of social production, which is socialism. Such workers control *could* use authoritarian means to achieve political objectives, or it may not. I happen to think that such dotp authoritarianism *will* be necessary, given the lengths that the counterposed bourgeoisie has gone to, to repress and destroy such forms of rank-and-file organization.



One Degree wrote:
And I am 100% sure they will continue to impede one another like they have throughout all history until we accept the fact we need to leave others alone. We need to quit trying to make the world better as a whole and just work at making our one little area better. This doesn’t mean we can’t offer a helping hand, but we can’t attach ideological strings to that helping hand.



Well, sorry, but this particular political attitude is *insufficient* for proletarian revolution -- you're sounding much more *liberal* here, and tolerant of the capitalist class status quo with your 'go-slow' politics.

Worse, you're basically conflating *imperialist*-type interventions / invasions, with a potential *revolutionary-minded* overhaul of worldwide social relations, to socialism, which is certainly a misguided comparison.


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I am not paranoid lol. You can't manipulate me but you're trying to lol. And no you aren't a Stalinist, something you are correct about.



Look, this is a public forum and we're both using *text*. If you can't handle *political discussions* this way, then maybe it's just too much for you. Take a break, relax, return if you like.


SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a type of socialism.



Nope.


SSDR wrote:
The left opposition were traitors to socialism.



Nope -- the opposite. You're just being a contrarian now.


SSDR wrote:
A socialist doesn't have to be a pure INTERNATIONALIST.



Yes, socialism has to be internationalist because its mode of production, workers collectively self-organized social production to meet human *need*, is inherently *incompatible* with capitalism's private-property-based mode of production, for circumscribed *private* benefit.

There's no point in 'leaving people behind' to remain mired in existing class relations while only certain areas advance on into socialism -- that's *favoritism*, or elitism, which *isn't* socialism.


SSDR wrote:
Some fascists are socialists because they are progressive and not reactionary, and that they use socialism to achieve their "national glories." And fascism DOES have socialist roots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Futurism




Marinetti expresses an artistic philosophy



If fascist movements happened to *incorporate* parts of this *artistic* philosophy, then that's incidental, and inherently has nothing to do with explicitly *political* movements, like those for *socialism*.


SSDR wrote:
That is just one example.

Full technological innovation is also good for capitalism because it allows company owners to produce more wealth for themselves.



Yes, I agree *empirically*, that capitalist social relations unleashed greater potentials for *material production* than the preceding modes-of-production, like that of feudalism / slavery.


SSDR wrote:
Rape can be caused by stronger sexual desires which can have no capitalist motives.



Okay, if crimes-of-passion are the *worst* that could conceivably realistically happen within socialism, that would be *acceptable*, considering the voluminous *upside* to its realization, for humane ends.
#14978354
Okay, so you're for workers-collective *local* control of social production -- in *this* meaning of 'community' I'm in agreement here.

Perhaps our differences, though, would be about how to *generalize* and *centralize* those geographic locations of localist workers control. Basically you're an anarchist, and I'd welcome any description from you about how these various communities / workplaces would handle material interchanges with one-another.


@ckaihatsu
I didn’t feel like replying to everything today, so just selected the above.

I don’t think anything can work as well as trade which is always what humans have done. Centralized control (which I reject) could possibly work out a world distribution system, but I have serious doubts it would be as efficient as trade.
Communities voluntarily giving their produce to others has the problem of mistrust. How does each verify the honesty of all the others as to their need?
So yes, I think money and trade are essential.
#14978362
One Degree wrote:
@ckaihatsu
I didn’t feel like replying to everything today, so just selected the above.

I don’t think anything can work as well as trade which is always what humans have done. Centralized control (which I reject) could possibly work out a world distribution system, but I have serious doubts it would be as efficient as trade.
Communities voluntarily giving their produce to others has the problem of mistrust. How does each verify the honesty of all the others as to their need?
So yes, I think money and trade are essential.


It's interesting that you mention trust. Have you ever heard of the naturalist explanation for the emergence/creation of religion? There's a lot of interesting research that supports this, but the core point is that religion was created to establish a baseline level of trust between population groups that are not co-located.

Basically, humans are only capable of knowing about 150 people at any given time. There will be different levels of trust associated with these 150 people. Many early human tribes/settlements/communities were always roughly 150 people in size. Now, let's say you have a neighboring community some miles away. How can you trust them? Well, one way is to create a religion with a set of rules/morals to follow. Thus, if I walk 20 miles to the next settlement, and meet random people for trade. If I know they are the same religion as me, I at least know that they are supposed to follow a certain set of rules. Thus, I can have at least a little bit of trust in them.

The research has also shown that the further apart the population groups are, the more punitive of a God is created in the religion. The closer the communities are, the less punitive they are. They tend to be more trickster, mischivous, prankster gods.

Very interesting...

Anything, this is probably for another thread.
#14978363
One Degree wrote:
@ckaihatsu
I didn’t feel like replying to everything today, so just selected the above.

I don’t think anything can work as well as trade which is always what humans have done.



Well, consider the nuclear *family*, under capitalism -- parents raise incoming generations of children without expecting recompense. This is a different form of 'distribution' from capitalism-proper, and yet it works for the most part, resembling *charity* to a large degree.

Concerning human *history*, the overwhelming bulk of the human species' existence was in the form of hunting-gathering ('primitive communism'), or *foraging* directly from the land, which is *yet another* form of 'distribution', and didn't require exchanges.


One Degree wrote:
Centralized control (which I reject) could possibly work out a world distribution system, but I have serious doubts it would be as efficient as trade.



You haven't addressed the problematic (in your preferred geographically-*redundant*, decentralized approach to the production of whatever) of duplication-of-effort, meaning that more *work* would be required from everyone, for the same basics of life and living, compared to labor using *industrial machinery*, for the massive *leveraging* of human labor inputs, for the same humane ends.


One Degree wrote:
Communities voluntarily giving their produce to others has the problem of mistrust. How does each verify the honesty of all the others as to their need?



See -- by fixing the locus of social production to one localist productive entity per locality / 'community', you now have the problem of *power*. Those in a materially-productive community (one containing some means of mass industrial production) may realistically have to *share* their material production *beyond* their own location, due to the *ease* of massively-leveraged (over-)production / surplus production, and/or the lack of such productive facilities further outward, in nearby areas -- perhaps just for one or another specific, but socially necessary item(s) for all adjacent areas combined.

Sure, you could say, 'Let's barter', but then my previous point stands that even moneyless barter still uses *implicit* exchange values, and communities could easily play-the-markets and hold out on ready deals for the sake of getting a *better* deal from somewhere else for what they're offering in trade.

This, in short, is a *power* relation because not all communes / communities are going to have *identical* internal possessions of means of mass industrial production. Your favored approach -- the classical anarchist patchwork-of-communes -- only recreates existing capitalist-type power relations on a balkanized landscape of micro-nations, essentially.

Socialism overcomes this problem of physical geography by insisting that social production is done to satisfy *human needs*, and does *not* reward liberated-labor with commensurate, commodifying rewards (except for my system of labor credits, which still does not create commodity-production). So those who need / want to *consume*, can consume freely, based on a free-access and direct-distribution communistic *gift-economy*, without getting tangled-up in *geography* or *exchanges* in any way (except for objective limits on resources needed to span supply-chain linkages / end-user deliveries, possibly across continents, but preferably not).

You're being *moralistic* by implicitly politically-commodifying according to a yardstick of 'honesty', or 'deservingness'. The great thing about socialism is that as long as enough crucial 'stuff' is mass-produced (using labor-leveraging mass industrial production techniques), it would 'flood' everyone who has unmet needs, however urgent or nominal, thus no 'qualifying' judgments needed, as by a separatist, schismatic standing state-like bureaucratic elite.

If I say I 'need' to go visit the moon, and adequate available-and-willing liberated-workers will put forth their efforts to this end, then it can potentially happen, and, of-course, anything lesser or greater, with the same approach.


One Degree wrote:
So yes, I think money and trade are essential.



No, they aren't. I'll invite you to take a closer look at my labor-credits model, so that you may understand how the labor credits confer the *flexibility* of currency / money, while *not-commodifying* socialistic / communistic social production in the least.
#14978382
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, consider the nuclear *family*, under capitalism -- parents raise incoming generations of children without expecting recompense. This is a different form of 'distribution' from capitalism-proper, and yet it works for the most part, resembling *charity* to a large degree.

Concerning human *history*, the overwhelming bulk of the human species' existence was in the form of hunting-gathering ('primitive communism'), or *foraging* directly from the land, which is *yet another* form of 'distribution', and didn't require exchanges.





You haven't addressed the problematic (in your preferred geographically-*redundant*, decentralized approach to the production of whatever) of duplication-of-effort, meaning that more *work* would be required from everyone, for the same basics of life and living, compared to labor using *industrial machinery*, for the massive *leveraging* of human labor inputs, for the same humane ends.





See -- by fixing the locus of social production to one localist productive entity per locality / 'community', you now have the problem of *power*. Those in a materially-productive community (one containing some means of mass industrial production) may realistically have to *share* their material production *beyond* their own location, due to the *ease* of massively-leveraged (over-)production / surplus production, and/or the lack of such productive facilities further outward, in nearby areas -- perhaps just for one or another specific, but socially necessary item(s) for all adjacent areas combined.

Sure, you could say, 'Let's barter', but then my previous point stands that even moneyless barter still uses *implicit* exchange values, and communities could easily play-the-markets and hold out on ready deals for the sake of getting a *better* deal from somewhere else for what they're offering in trade.

This, in short, is a *power* relation because not all communes / communities are going to have *identical* internal possessions of means of mass industrial production. Your favored approach -- the classical anarchist patchwork-of-communes -- only recreates existing capitalist-type power relations on a balkanized landscape of micro-nations, essentially.

Socialism overcomes this problem of physical geography by insisting that social production is done to satisfy *human needs*, and does *not* reward liberated-labor with commensurate, commodifying rewards (except for my system of labor credits, which still does not create commodity-production). So those who need / want to *consume*, can consume freely, based on a free-access and direct-distribution communistic *gift-economy*, without getting tangled-up in *geography* or *exchanges* in any way (except for objective limits on resources needed to span supply-chain linkages / end-user deliveries, possibly across continents, but preferably not).

You're being *moralistic* by implicitly politically-commodifying according to a yardstick of 'honesty', or 'deservingness'. The great thing about socialism is that as long as enough crucial 'stuff' is mass-produced (using labor-leveraging mass industrial production techniques), it would 'flood' everyone who has unmet needs, however urgent or nominal, thus no 'qualifying' judgments needed, as by a separatist, schismatic standing state-like bureaucratic elite.

If I say I 'need' to go visit the moon, and adequate available-and-willing liberated-workers will put forth their efforts to this end, then it can potentially happen, and, of-course, anything lesser or greater, with the same approach.





No, they aren't. I'll invite you to take a closer look at my labor-credits model, so that you may understand how the labor credits confer the *flexibility* of currency / money, while *not-commodifying* socialistic / communistic social production in the least.


I am not concerned with meeting the needs of the world. I believe this inevitably results in authoritarianism which I reject. We are equal and I expect other communities to be just as capable as mine. If you can not provide your own food, water, and housing then you are a failed community. Trade is for luxuries and variety. I do not see them as important enough to justify authoritarianism. Why do all this world planning and control for stuff you can do without simply so you can do away with money? It makes no sense to me. I realize it does to you, so we won’t agree. I prefer socialism and see no need for a planned system that must slow or even end societal evolution. Automous communities allow experimentation.
#14978389
Rancid wrote:It's interesting that you mention trust. Have you ever heard of the naturalist explanation for the emergence/creation of religion? There's a lot of interesting research that supports this, but the core point is that religion was created to establish a baseline level of trust between population groups that are not co-located.

Basically, humans are only capable of knowing about 150 people at any given time. There will be different levels of trust associated with these 150 people. Many early human tribes/settlements/communities were always roughly 150 people in size. Now, let's say you have a neighboring community some miles away. How can you trust them? Well, one way is to create a religion with a set of rules/morals to follow. Thus, if I walk 20 miles to the next settlement, and meet random people for trade. If I know they are the same religion as me, I at least know that they are supposed to follow a certain set of rules. Thus, I can have at least a little bit of trust in them.

The research has also shown that the further apart the population groups are, the more punitive of a God is created in the religion. The closer the communities are, the less punitive they are. They tend to be more trickster, mischivous, prankster gods.

Very interesting...

Anything, this is probably for another thread.


I thought I had read quite a bit about ‘group size’, but I don’t recall reading about the religious aspect. That is very interesting and makes a lot of sense to me. It also goes along with the idea that all ideology is basically religion. They serve the same purpose for maintaining a larger society.
#14978391
One Degree wrote:I thought I had read quite a bit about ‘group size’, but I don’t recall reading about the religious aspect. That is very interesting and makes a lot of sense to me. It also goes along with the idea that all ideology is basically religion. They serve the same purpose for maintaining a larger society.


Yea, this particular pod cast I listened to basically went on to say that in the longer term, it's believed we will replace religion with "religion". This new "religion" will be things that aren't traditionally considered religion. The example I always like to joke about is CrossFit. That is certainly a religion to it's practitioners. :lol:
#14978440
@ckaihatsu, You have no proof that using "lol" is inappropriate. You sound really religious and conservative for saying that "lol" is not *text.* I am calm, and there is nothing "to handle" you're the one that can't handle it because you're twisting words and being manipulative lol. And who told you that I'm not relaxed?

Stalinism is a type of socialism.

You're being contrarian.

Private property and currency has nothing to do with being international. The average Swede doesn't have the same standards as someone from Bangladesh.

Leaving some parts of the world non socialist doesn't make progressed socialist countries non socialist.

Fascism has futurist roots, which is socialist leaning. Not only that, but fascist policies were used to keep the capitalist mode of production, which is conservative, but some of those fascist policies had socialist leanings. Remember, fascism has socialist roots.

But with no socialist state it's going to take gangs to end rape in your model.
#14978546
One Degree wrote:
I am not concerned with meeting the needs of the world.



With this kind of attitude you're being like SSDR in that you're taking localism to the point of *exclusivity*. Politically it's the equivalent of a gentrified, gated community of today, leaving the rest of the world to a non-elitism that then just needs addressing, anyway.

Socialist politics has the potential *to* address the whole world since we're all human beings with certain basic needs in common, regardless.


One Degree wrote:
I believe this inevitably results in authoritarianism which I reject.



Well, again, it's means-and-ends -- if the ends are sufficiently important, we should consider more-effective *means*, for whatever the prevailing socio-political conditions happen to be.


One Degree wrote:
We are equal and I expect other communities to be just as capable as mine. If you can not provide your own food, water, and housing then you are a failed community.



I happen to like this ethos myself, personally, but the more-*political* dynamic is what I mentioned before: a *redundancy* of labor on-the-whole (as for farming), due to the eschewing of mass industrial techniques that leverage human labor much more efficiently than if every micro-nation had to be separatist and self-contained in capacity.


One Degree wrote:
Trade is for luxuries and variety. I do not see them as important enough to justify authoritarianism. Why do all this world planning and control for stuff you can do without simply so you can do away with money? It makes no sense to me. I realize it does to you, so we won’t agree. I prefer socialism and see no need for a planned system that must slow or even end societal evolution. Automous communities allow experimentation.



This sounds like a very *privileged* politics that you're espousing, OD -- I *wish* we had the luxury of such a blasé, take-it-or-leave-it kind of attitude, but the world doesn't actually *conform* to the way that you're *implying* that it is. Here's a reality check:



Starvation statistics

Main articles: Malnutrition and Hunger

According to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization there were 925 million under- or malnourished people in the world in 2010.[16] This was a decrease from an estimate of roughly 1 billion malnourished people in 2009.[17] In 2007, 923 million people were reported as being undernourished, an increase of 80 million since 1990-92.[18] It has also been recorded that the world already produces enough food to support the world's population.[citation needed]

As the definitions of starving and malnourished people are different, the number of starving people is different from that of malnourished. Generally, far fewer people are starving, than are malnourished.

The proportion of malnourished and of starving people in the world has been more or less continually decreasing for at least several centuries.[19] This is due to an increasing supply of food and to overall gains in economic efficiency. In 40 years, the proportion of malnourished people in the developing world has been more than halved. The proportion of starving people has decreased even faster.

Year 1970 1980 1990 2004 2007 2009
Proportion of undernourished people in the less-developed world[17][20][21] 37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 % 16 %



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvatio ... statistics



---


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, You have no proof that using "lol" is inappropriate. You sound really religious and conservative for saying that "lol" is not *text.*



I haven't said *either* of these things, and you can't find this content on any of my posts.

It's no wonder I and others suspect you of being a fascist, with wanton bullshit like this.


SSDR wrote:
I am calm, and there is nothing "to handle" you're the one that can't handle it because you're twisting words and being manipulative lol. And who told you that I'm not relaxed?



Whatever.


SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a type of socialism.



Nope, it isn't.


SSDR wrote:
You're being contrarian.



But in opposing your various fluctuating political expressions I give *reasons* for my conclusions, based on what *you've* said -- I'm not merely *opinionating*, as you do. Go back and review.


SSDR wrote:
Private property and currency has nothing to do with being international.



Private property and capitalist currency *is* international -- you're not being clear with whatever point you may be trying to make.


SSDR wrote:
The average Swede doesn't have the same standards as someone from Bangladesh.



You're again trying to make these existing differences in international standards of living sound *genetic*, or *national*, when they happen to be due to how capitalism developed in Western countries, versus Third-World-type countries. Any person born in Sweden, or in Bangladesh, was never given a subsidy so that they could tour the world at a young age, to personally 'pick' which country they'd rather live in for the rest of their lives.


SSDR wrote:
Leaving some parts of the world non socialist doesn't make progressed socialist countries non socialist.



Yes, it does because socialism, by definition, is *worldwide*, is done by the *international* proletariat, and was never intended to be country-by-country-only.


SSDR wrote:
Fascism has futurist roots, which is socialist leaning.



Incorrect -- fascism hews to the *nationalist* political entity, and supports the capitalist economic system while socialism is the *antithesis* of these.


SSDR wrote:
Not only that, but fascist policies were used to keep the capitalist mode of production, which is conservative, but some of those fascist policies had socialist leanings.


SSDR wrote:
Remember, fascism has socialist roots.



No, it doesn't, and you still haven't introduced any evidence that supports this bullshit of yours.


SSDR wrote:
But with no socialist state it's going to take gangs to end rape in your model.



Hmmmm, I disagree -- crimes-of-passion, by definition, would be mostly spontaneous and unpreventable, but would also be statistically *tiny* compared to the overall population size.

'Gangs' implies a type of authority that is tolerated (for whatever reason) by the larger population, politically -- I wouldn't call for this kind of approach myself, just for the sake of trying to prevent a few impromptu crimes-of-passion, if that's the conceivable *worst* that could happen in a post-capitalist society.
#14978549
@ckaihatsu , we only need to worry about efficiency when there are too many of us. I don’t see it as all that great because it is enabling a problem instead of correcting it. Instead of finding ways to feed more people, we need to reduce the number of people. You don’t need efficiency as a primary goal if you are in balance. Each community needs to be in balance. Depending upon 5 countries to provide more efficiency in food production for the world is a fool’s game doomed to failure.
Every day we increase the population and reduce available farm land. No amount of planning and efficiency is going to correct this long term.
It is a mistake to look for global solutions because it is based upon the mistaken belief finite resources can be increased by shipping them around the world. All it does in the end is guarantee there are no self sufficient pockets for survival. Everyone goes down together under equal distribution of resources.
#14978559
One Degree wrote:
@ckaihatsu , we only need to worry about efficiency when there are too many of us. I don’t see it as all that great because it is enabling a problem instead of correcting it. Instead of finding ways to feed more people, we need to reduce the number of people.



'Too many' of us -- ? And who, exactly, decides *that*?

You're obviously a Malthusian, which really isn't Marxist or socialist.



Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply is linear. It derives from the political and economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus believed there were two types of "checks" that in all times and places kept population growth in line with the growth of the food supply: "preventive checks", such as moral restraints (abstinence, delayed marriage until finances become balanced), and restricting marriage against persons suffering poverty or perceived as defective, and "positive checks", which lead to premature death such as disease, starvation and war, resulting in what is called a Malthusian catastrophe. The catastrophe would return population to a lower, more "sustainable", level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.[3]

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of population control programs to ensure resources for current and future populations.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism



---


One Degree wrote:
You don’t need efficiency as a primary goal if you are in balance. Each community needs to be in balance. Depending upon 5 countries to provide more efficiency in food production for the world is a fool’s game doomed to failure.
Every day we increase the population and reduce available farm land. No amount of planning and efficiency is going to correct this long term.
It is a mistake to look for global solutions because it is based upon the mistaken belief finite resources can be increased by shipping them around the world. All it does in the end is guarantee there are no self sufficient pockets for survival. Everyone goes down together under equal distribution of resources.



Well, I won't be completely dismissive on this point since I think that some kind of *permaculture* would probably be best-practice, ultimately, though in the *short-term*, for the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase, there *should* be the most-efficient, industrial / technological means used so as to *eliminate* the starvation / malnourishment problems, and other suffering ones, with an *abundance* of needed things provided to everyone until more-custom and sustainable practices can be more-thoughtfully introduced after the class divide has been decisively ended.

Your politics and outlook suffers from the problem of only seeing things *biologically*, at best, and in mostly avoiding the *socio-political* dimension to our existence-in-common. I'd rather see no-starvation than starvation among our numbers, so that takes *priority* for any societal restructuring, as towards socialism and communism.
#14978562
'Too many' of us -- ? And who, exactly, decides *that*?

You're obviously a Malthusian, which really isn't Marxist or socialist.

I am not any of those things. I don’t believe in group affiliation other than the community. I am just a guy with thoughts and opinions with a total disregard of how they fit any established ideology.






---





Well, I won't be completely dismissive on this point since I think that some kind of *permaculture* would probably be best-practice, ultimately, though in the *short-term*, for the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase, there *should* be the most-efficient, industrial / technological means used so as to *eliminate* the starvation / malnourishment problems, and other suffering ones, with an *abundance* of needed things provided to everyone until more-custom and sustainable practices can be more-thoughtfully introduced after the class divide has been decisively ended.

There is no need to end the ‘social’ class divide. Everyone in the community committed to sustainable practices does that automatically.

Your politics and outlook suffers from the problem of only seeing things *biologically*, at best, and in mostly avoiding the *socio-political* dimension to our existence-in-common. I'd rather see no-starvation than starvation among our numbers, so that takes *priority* for any societal restructuring, as towards socialism and communism.

Certainly, as I see no need for a ‘socio-political dimension ‘ above the community. Each community can feed so many people. Nothing else is needed if you limit your size to your resources. Redistribution of food simply disguises the problem. If you import your food, there is no need to limit your population. You are fooled into believing their is an inexhaustible supply ‘somewhere’. There isn’t.
#14978579
ckaihatsu wrote:
Your politics, OD, are, unfortunately, based on *geography* ('community'), and, as such, aren't *substantive*.

A class analysis looks to how any given person procures the means for their life and living, and, on the whole, looks to how society in general disposes of its material surplus, as Stardust already mentioned:

Stardust wrote:
What defines a particular social class, is its position in relation with the means of mass production and the distribution of wealth. Therefore, in each individual case, we need to look into both factors of this equation.


EDIT:

One Degree wrote:
The only other way is authoritarianism (centralization and globalization). It will fail and it is the cause of the problems you mention.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're being too *inflexible* regarding means-and-ends, or 'strategies' and 'tactics', for a given political principle or goal.


Thank you for elaborating on my statement.

One Degree seems to have a ‘dream’ for humanity, but unfortunately he doesn’t seem to wake up anytime soon! He suggests that the so called ‘communities’ with no actual / real interests to endeavor to reform their own communities, without caring / paying attention to what is happening to the other communities. He therefore, ignores seeing that there is a superstructure out there; the capitalist policies which govern the societies, and not only that; through their doing so, they also connect all societies in the international / global level. However, although this global connection is made for the interests of Capitalism and the big corporations; it also compels the working class to be connected at this vast, international level. It is therefore, the priority task of the workers throughout the world to understand their position, to put aside their trivial differences- cultures, religions, race, etc. and to get united and organised in order to realise their own common interests and goals – which are to overthrow the political and economic power of Capitalism, and to establish the workers’ state; aiming for the complete elimination of the state through the creation of the desirable conditions to that end.

Weather we ignore the actual connection and commonality of the interests between the workers at the international level; it will continue to exist for as long as Capitalism exists at the global level, and with it the antonym to the workers’ interests– The more we hide ourselves from this reality, the more prolonged the life of Capitalism will be. And, our dreams for a better world (should we have any); will remain just that: Dreams…
#14978585
Stardust wrote:EDIT:





Thank you for elaborating on my statement.

One Degree seems to have a ‘dream’ for humanity, but unfortunately he doesn’t seem to wake up anytime soon! He suggests that the so called ‘communities’ with no actual / real interests to endeavor to reform their own communities, without caring / paying attention to what is happening to the other communities. He therefore, ignores seeing that there is a superstructure out there; the capitalist policies which govern the societies, and not only that; through their doing so, they also connect all societies in the international / global level. However, although this global connection is made for the interests of Capitalism and the big corporations; it also compels the working class to be connected at this vast, international level. It is therefore, the priority task of the workers throughout the world to understand their position, to put aside their trivial differences- cultures, religions, race, etc. and to get united and organised in order to realise their own common interests and goals – which are to overthrow the political and economic power of Capitalism, and to establish the workers’ state; aiming for the complete elimination of the state through the creation of the desirable conditions to that end.

Weather we ignore the actual connection and commonality of the interests between the workers at the international level; it will continue to exist for as long as Capitalism exists at the global level, and with it the antonym to the workers’ interests– The more we hide ourselves from this reality, the more prolonged the life of Capitalism will be. And, our dreams for a better world (should we have any); will remain just that: Dreams…


Well, you guys keep reading the directions about how all the legos should ideally fit together and I will continue arguing we should just use one page at a time and construct the separate parts. My plan is based upon the reality that the world is simply a reflection of the communities that make it up. Your plan is based upon an unsubstantiated theory that people want to live an egalitarian existence that is in contradiction to how people have always behaved. There have been numerous experiments of people living in ‘communes’. Most people don’t accept it.
#14978587
One Degree wrote:
I am not any of those things.



You claimed that there are 'too many' people:


One Degree wrote:
Instead of finding ways to feed more people, we need to reduce the number of people.



viewtopic.php?p=14978549#p14978549



The term for this is *Malthusian*, as I described using the Wikipedia entry for it.

Now you're trying to *wriggle out* from this claim of yours, perhaps because you realize that it has *fascist* implications.

You're also not-addressing the political-logistical implications of what you said, namely how would the *decision-making* be done for this, to 'reduce the number of people' -- ? I'll suggest you start with yourself and lead by example.


---


One Degree wrote:
I don’t believe in group affiliation other than the community. I am just a guy with thoughts and opinions with a total disregard of how they fit any established ideology.



'Just a guy' who proposes genocide for your idea of 'excess population'.


One Degree wrote:
There is no need to end the ‘social’ class divide. Everyone in the community committed to sustainable practices does that automatically.



*Of course* there's a reason to end the class divide -- because 1 billion people on the earth are either starving or malnourished, while humanity has the technological *capacity* to solve this problem, but it's not doing so. Such a feat *requires* a redistribution of resources, which implies an end to the bourgeois ruling social class, and an end to the class system worldwide.


Image


---


One Degree wrote:
Certainly, as I see no need for a ‘socio-political dimension ‘ above the community.



Well you're just blathering-on about what 'you think' -- your own *opinions*, by your own admission, and you're not even *attempting* to use politics or address the outstanding humane problems in the world today.


One Degree wrote:
Each community can feed so many people. Nothing else is needed if you limit your size to your resources. Redistribution of food simply disguises the problem. If you import your food, there is no need to limit your population. You are fooled into believing their is an inexhaustible supply ‘somewhere’. There isn’t.



There's *plenty*, from wherever, to make sure that all people at least get the basics of life and living. That should not be ignored or thought to be 'too much' for humanity to do, especially with modern *industrial* techniques, as for farming.
#14978592
You claimed that there are 'too many' people:







The term for this is *Malthusian*, as I described using the Wikipedia entry for it.

Now you're trying to *wriggle out* from this claim of yours, perhaps because you realize that it has *fascist* implications.

No, I don’t believe in placing group labels on people for the very reason you just demonstrated. You wanted to label me then associate that with another label so you could dehumanize me and then justify disregarding me as worthy. So much for you actually believing in wanting to help all people. Same old shit, it comes down to actually just wanting domination for your tribe.
You're also not-addressing the political-logistical implications of what you said, namely how would the *decision-making* be done for this, to 'reduce the number of people' -- ? I'll suggest you start with yourself and lead by example.

How caring of you. People in many countries have already accepted it and their efforts are being undermined by immigration. Like everything else, the solution is in allowing each community to suffer the consequences of their own actions. Globalism and immigration prevents them from doing that.

---





'Just a guy' who proposes genocide for your idea of 'excess population'.


More labeling to dehumanize. Show me where I advocated genocide or admit you lied.


*Of course* there's a reason to end the class divide -- because 1 billion people on the earth are either starving or malnourished, while humanity has the technological *capacity* to solve this problem, but it's not doing so. Such a feat *requires* a redistribution of resources, which implies an end to the bourgeois ruling social class, and an end to the class system worldwide.

The starving are not in countries dominated by the bourgeois. They are in countries that don’t share your views.




---




Well you're just blathering-on about what 'you think' -- your own *opinions*, by your own admission, and you're not even *attempting* to use politics or address the outstanding humane problems in the world today.



Politics are opinions. I am addressing the problem by stating what I think is the best way to solve them. Obviously, the current methods haven’t worked.

There's *plenty*, from wherever, to make sure that all people at least get the basics of life and living. That should not be ignored or thought to be 'too much' for humanity to do, especially with modern *industrial* techniques, as for farming.

Again, people must see a relationship to their own actions by suffering consequences. We have attempted for decades to feed them. There is no shortage of a willingness, but what we are doing isn’t working. Babbling about uniting the workers isn’t going to feed anyone. The starving don’t care about your idealism.
#14978595
One Degree wrote:
No, I don’t believe in placing group labels on people for the very reason you just demonstrated. You wanted to label me then associate that with another label so you could dehumanize me and then justify disregarding me as worthy. So much for you actually believing in wanting to help all people. Same old shit, it comes down to actually just wanting domination for your tribe.



My "tribe" -- ?? The tribe of humanity's best interests, as for not-dying from preventable starvation and malnutrition -- ?

How dare you. I'm not the one who suggested *genocide*, so don't bitch about 'labels' -- I'm just going by what you *said*.


One Degree wrote:
How caring of you. People in many countries have already accepted it and their efforts are being undermined by immigration.



Feeding the hungry to prevent their preventable deaths is *not* a zero-sum game, as you're implying. There's enough food to go around. It's a problem of *social distribution*. Bringing more people into one-or-another country is only a shift in *geography*, and nothing else.


One Degree wrote:
Like everything else, the solution is in allowing each community to suffer the consequences of their own actions. Globalism and immigration prevents them from doing that.



You *really* think that if each community became isolationist then each would be the perfect example of morality as a result, and so victims of each community could then rightly be *blamed* for whatever social ills happened to them.

Disgusting.


One Degree wrote:
More labeling to dehumanize. Show me where I advocated genocide or admit you lied.



I already did. It's here:


One Degree wrote:
Instead of finding ways to feed more people, we need to reduce the number of people.



viewtopic.php?p=14978549#p14978549



This is how to correctly treat fascists like yourself -- if you're misanthropic to the point of recommending *genocide*, then you *should* lead by example and start with yourself.


One Degree wrote:
The starving are not in countries dominated by the bourgeois. They are in countries that don’t share your views.



Whatever -- more aggressive-passive bullshit from you. The whole *world* is dominated by the bourgeoisie.


One Degree wrote:
Politics are opinions.



No, it's not -- politics is *problem-solving*, on mass scales. You can take your *genocide* idea to your grave.


One Degree wrote:
I am addressing the problem by stating what I think is the best way to solve them. Obviously, the current methods haven’t worked.



Your opinion / idea on how to solve humanity's starvation problem is *worse* than the problem.


One Degree wrote:
Again, people must see a relationship to their own actions by suffering consequences.



This is *fascism*, since you're blaming the victims for what is a *societal* problem -- how to distribute ample food supplies to those who *need* them, the ones who are dying by starvation.


One Degree wrote:
We have attempted for decades to feed them. There is no shortage of a willingness, but what we are doing isn’t working. Babbling about uniting the workers isn’t going to feed anyone. The starving don’t care about your idealism.



They don't *have* to care -- they're the *victims*, and all they're going to care about, appropriately, is *getting food*.

Since those currently in power right now obviously don't care, the best approach is for workers to collectively stop their own exploitation and oppression by *taking control* of society's production. Such revolutionary workers would then have far more of an interest in stopping human hunger (etc.), than the current bourgeois ruling class does with their class elitism.
#14978597
ckaihatsu wrote:My "tribe" -- ?? The tribe of humanity's best interests, as for not-dying from preventable starvation and malnutrition -- ?

How dare you. I'm not the one who suggested *genocide*, so don't bitch about 'labels' -- I'm just going by what you *said*.





Feeding the hungry to prevent their preventable deaths is *not* a zero-sum game, as you're implying. There's enough food to go around. It's a problem of *social distribution*. Bringing more people into one-or-another country is only a shift in *geography*, and nothing else.





You *really* think that if each community became isolationist then each would be the perfect example of morality as a result, and so victims of each community could then rightly be *blamed* for whatever social ills happened to them.

Disgusting.





I already did. It's here:







This is how to correctly treat fascists like yourself -- if you're misanthropic to the point of recommending *genocide*, then you *should* lead by example and start with yourself.





Whatever -- more aggressive-passive bullshit from you. The whole *world* is dominated by the bourgeoisie.





No, it's not -- politics is *problem-solving*, on mass scales. You can take your *genocide* idea to your grave.





Your opinion / idea on how to solve humanity's starvation problem is *worse* than the problem.





This is *fascism*, since you're blaming the victims for what is a *societal* problem -- how to distribute ample food supplies to those who *need* them, the ones who are dying by starvation.





They don't *have* to care -- they're the *victims*, and all they're going to care about, appropriately, is *getting food*.

Since those currently in power right now obviously don't care, the best approach is for workers to collectively stop their own exploitation and oppression by *taking control* of society's production. Such revolutionary workers would then have far more of an interest in stopping human hunger (etc.), than the current bourgeois ruling class does with their class elitism.


You obviously ran out of arguments so you started labeling me and insulting me. I returned the favor instead of ignoring you when you resorted to it. People having fewer babies by choice is not genocide no matter how distorted you try to define it.
Uniting the workers of the world before you solve a problem sounds like you are much more concerned with an ideology than actually helping people. Why not start making each community better by whatever means suits them so we have stronger and more communities to help the others? This is an exponential solution that can be started right now in one community. Designate massive free loans to one community to revitalize it and make it as self sufficient as possible in necessities. Then move on to the next with the help of the first etc. Quit waiting for the world to accept your ideology and start building communities.
#14978615
@ckaihatsu, You said that I need to *text* and what you meant by that was that I "can't text" because I was using "lol." I am not a fascist. If you think I am a fascist, then you don't know what fascism is. I am also not a Stalinist. I am individualistic and I seek freedom and privacy for each person. Stalin was collective, and was a little more strict. He was also family oriented. Stalin was also a Zionist. Fascists are far more strict and aggressive than me. I mean I am also not an anarchist, or a Western Marxist that accepts reactionary movements such as Islamic extremism.

https://www.facebook.com/Enver-Hoxha-79 ... SEARCH_BOX

If you are on Facebook (which I am not because Facebook promotes cultural capitalism and is competitive) then go to the link I provided. That is a page dedicated to Enver Hoxha. You should talk to some of the people on there. Use online translators via copy and paste. Most of those people are Albanians in Albania, and have socialist leanings. Even though most of them are not socialists or true Marxists, they have more Stalinist leanings than me. I bet you wouldn't last more than one day on there.

Stalinism is a type of socialism. I am no Stalinist, but the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page have more Stalinist leanings.

Private property, capitalist currency, and internationalism are not linked with each other. Private property existed in capitalism, and in feudalism. Capitalist currency has nothing to do with taking pride in one's nation or wanting to be really internationalistic like you. And internationalism has nothing to do with loving or hating money. None of these things are connected, thus meaning they are not comparable.

"These existing differences in international standards..." my response to that paragraph is that you should really get involved with the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page. Thousands of Albanians who have pro socialist leanings are on there. Do you honestly think that they have the same standards as an introverted, quiet, and freedom seeking Swede? Nobody has to be on facebook. Those Albanians are like that because that is how they are, the system is not making them be like that because if it was, and they realized that it's not correct, then they wouldn't be on there, feeling that it is oppression if they are. Some of those Albanians whom are ugly get hundreds of likes. While some good looking German or Czech woman gets at the most 10 likes. Because different people have different standards. As an introvert myself, I don't think that introversion and extroversion are 100 percent linked to capitalism or internationalist stuff that you keep mentioning.

If a Swede lived in Bangladesh, they would get depressed because they would not be allowed to drink, masturbate, openly be an atheist and deal with all of those reactionary Muslims, and would not have any privacy because Swedes are private, individualistic people who work hard while most Bangladeshis are extroverted, family oriented people who LOVE drama!

"Yes, it does because socialism, by definition, is *worldwide*, is done by the *international* proletariat, and was never intended to be country-by-country-only." Oh yeah? Prove it.

"Incorrect -- fascism hews to the *nationalist* political entity, and supports the capitalist economic system while socialism is the *antithesis* of these." You do realize that nationalization of economics and society is a type of socialism? And some fascists went against the capitalist mode of production, labeling it as "obsolete" and crime promoting.

"No, it doesn't, and you still haven't introduced any evidence that supports this bullshit of yours."

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns ... scism.html "Mussolini declared, “Three-fourths of [the] Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_N ... ssociation

Wikipedia claims that the Italian Nationalist Association is left wing, supports left wing nationalism, wants to keep equal unity for all Italic people (remember, Sicilians were viewed differently than Northern Italians in the 19th century, Italian unity was a quasi socialist and a left wing movement), and supports some elements of corporatism (corporatism is inbetween capitalism and socialism and has syndicalist roots).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism

So rape and bullying would be considered "tiny" in your model? And gangs must be destroyed. No human should belong or not belong in a "group."

My biggest problems with fascism is that fascism is very collective socially, meaning that there is no personal freedom. Fascism is anti feminist, so women were looked down on. And that fascism is not egalitarian, in fascism, there are people above and below you, in which I do not like.

But seriously, check out some Stalinist leaning pages on facebook... you wouldn't last a very long time on those pages I think.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 14

Hong Kong is a part of China. It was never two […]

Treasury Sanctions Individuals for Undermining Ho[…]

In the case you're referring to, it might just be[…]

Election 2020

@Beren , I would say that the way the polls are n[…]