[ SECRET POST #3014 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3014 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



20. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 130 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[visp]

In its most simplistic form, neither jives well with human nature. To quote Frank Zappa, "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." And anarchy doesn't work because people will always trade it for someone who makes the trains run on time. Together, it's just a pile of 'didn't think this through.'

[(Anonymous)]

Have you read Kropotkin?

[blitzwing]

Those are just clever little sophistic comments that don't really mean anything.

"anarchy doesn't work because people will always trade it for someone who makes the trains run on time."

The trains don't run on time in a lot of places. The governments haven't been overthrown yet over it. Although it goes without saying, your "always" has no evidence to back it up, and is just an assumption.

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

And what does THAT mean? Modern capitalism and materialism isn't that old. Not old enough to so safely assume that it's a basic, undeniable part of human nature. People have lived in all kinds of arrangements where their resources were controlled by someone else, throughout history.

How about the people making $37 a month working in garment factories in Bangladesh? How much stuff do you think they get to own? You're assuming the majority of people get to "own more stuff" under capitalism. They don't. For them, they very well might get to "own more stuff" under communism.

[visp]

Re: the trains comment - sure, the people might not overthrow a government for failing to pull off basic infrastructure, but when someone else manages to pull it off and decides to get dictatorial, people tend not to be too bothered about resisting. Alternatively, the viking-sorts take advantage and fuck everything up because the anarchist never got around to effectively stopping them. At the end of the day, organization usually wins and anarchy generally doesn't organize well.

Regarding the Bangladeshi example, I'd say they're still better off than the peasant class under, say, Stalin's rule or Mao's great leap forward. I'm not saying that things like minimum wage and work safety standards aren't important (they are) but that's not the same thing as communism.

[blitzwing]

At the end of the day, organization usually wins and anarchy generally doesn't organize well.

Problem is there is no actual evidence of this in history regarding anarch-communists. It's a complete unknown--there hasn't been any anarcho-communist society in place, especially not in modern times.


Regarding the Bangladeshi example, I'd say they're still better off than the peasant class under, say, Stalin's rule or Mao's great leap forward.

What a thrilling confirmation of the benefits of capitalism. Talk about damning with faint praise. "You're not dead or in the gulag, so...woo! go Capitalism!" Even so, you've brought something interesting up: things were bad enough for peasants under the capitalist system in China that they supported Mao and communism.

My point, after all, isn't "Communism is better for the bottom class"--my point is "capitalism is often so bad for the bottom class that they embrace communism."

In other words, people who don't get to own any stuff, will give up their mythological ability to "own stuff" for what they see as a chance at equality or improvement. And capitalism, so far, is great at creating a lot of people who don't get to own stuff. That kind of nullifies your flippant "people will never embrace communism because they like to own stuff" statement.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, so we say "communism" means "Stalinism/Maoism" so we can tar all communists with that brush. Got it.

[diet_poison]

In all honesty, how else is communism supposed to work? Give a single person or small group of people THAT kind of power over things and it's going to get ugly. The idea of the working class ruling a place as a single entity is wildly impractical, since it ignores the need for administration in any organization larger than about half a dozen people.

[cushlamochree]

This is kind of the problem with talking about leftism a lot of the time: it's really hard because there's this huge background of historical thought (like I said in my other post, 150 years of people arguing with each other). But it's not really something that's actually around in popular culture, especially these days and especially in America (for lots of reasons); the only accounts of these things that are around in the culture and the discourse are unfortunately these really weird, surface-level things. So it's frustrating to talk about, and then because it's politics people are super invested in it, and as a result you get things like the conversations going on in this thread.

All of that, I guess, is a roundabout way of saying that there are answers to those questions. A bunch of them. Like, you can probably have state centralization without it intrinsically being the totalitarian dystopia of Maoism and Stalinism. The idea of state control of the economy doesn't have to be tied to that particular way of organizing things politically. But you can also have a system where you have a democratic government that nationalizes key industries, which isn't all that crazy. You can even do crazy things like syndicalism where industries are controlled by the workers on a local level and organized in a hierarchical, federalized way from the bottom up, where the organization and administration is broadly distributed instead of concentrated with a small group of people. Obviously, there's difficulties with any of those systems, but I don't think there's any prima facie reason why any of them should be impossible. And then, on the other hand, a lot of leftists would argue that free market capitalism is open to equally fundamental criticisms.

It's all a lot of nonsense in the end, probably. But there's a bunch of different ways of answering those questions, is my point.

[diet_poison]

See, I like this comment.

You're thoughtful. :)

It doesn't seem to me like you're taking a particular stance here, which is fine, but I'm going to follow through with my comment that you replied to - having an idea of a place where authority doesn't really exist and major industries and government are organized from the ground up is understandable, but I don't think it would ever actually work because you can't even make that kind of change without someone fighting for it, which requires structure and leadership. Even if you managed to find a person who was willing to totally dissolve their authority after winning the fight and not appoint someone else to take their place, then you have a power vacuum, which is very unstable and will eventually be filled by something. People look for leaders when things get rough, and things will inevitably get rough; also, there will always be opportunists willing to prey on the masses, so to speak. Someone will fill that void.

[diet_poison]

Modern materialism may be new because of industrialization, but greed is an ancient and deeply ingrained human trait.

How much stuff do you think they get to own? You're assuming the majority of people get to "own more stuff" under capitalism.

When did Visp mention capitalism? The world does not exist as a perfect dichotomy between perfect capitalism and perfect communism with no room for any other philosophy.

[blitzwing]

but greed is an ancient and deeply ingrained human trait.

Bullshit. Like Visp, you're just spouting off cliches without evidence to back it up.

When did Visp mention capitalism?

And where did I mention the word industrialization? Wow, it's almost like we can introduce interrelated concepts and terms in the conversation all by ourselves.

[diet_poison]

Like Visp, you're just spouting off cliches without evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry, I would have assumed "humans are greedy by nature" is a commonly accepted observation of the human condition. In order to not be greedy people we have to actively work at it, and even then the vast majority of people are still greedy to some degree. We don't like to part from our possessions or money. If you need evidence, just look at capitalism. It's entirely driven by greed. If people were satisfied to just have what they need, they wouldn't keep extorting the working class for more and more money just to inflate their already-gigantic bank account.

And where did I mention the word industrialization?

You didn't. I mentioned it and never claimed that you did. But in your against Visp's critique of anarcho-communism, you compared it to capitalism as a major defense, as though capitalism were the only alternative. My point is that it's not, and Visp wasn't necessarily thinking of it as the only alternative when they criticized anarcho-capitalism.

[blitzwing]

Once again, you spout banalities about things without providing any real evidence. You don't seem to understand that there are actual studies done on this sort of thing, and that "greedy" behavior and attitude towards greed varies greatly just by culture alone.

You live in a capitalist society. You don't even seem to realize that that society has been indoctrinated with all sorts of propaganda and weird morals about greed and materialism from an early age. You didn't', for a second, consider that the attitudes on greed you're talking about could be a result of environmental factors instead of something innate.


You're mixing up cause and effect: you automatically think that because our society is greedy and pro-greedy that greed is some powerful innate trait of humans. You don't consider that maybe people have just been sold a bunch of creepy social Darwinist crap about greed and dog-eat-dog mentality to make it seem overwhelmingly natural.

It seems to have worked. You don't even look for evidence, in biology, psychology, or cultural studies, you just buy that greed is an innate, natural, driving force, to such an extent that you think everyone else believes that too.

There are studies suggesting that no, greed is not the innate, natural unavoidable driving force you suggest it is. Here's an article that goes over some studies: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/24/grotesque-inequality-greed-human-nature-capitalism

But in your against Visp's critique of anarcho-communism, you compared it to capitalism as a major defense, as though capitalism were the only alternative. My point is that it's not, and Visp wasn't necessarily thinking of it as the only alternative when they criticized anarcho-capitalism.

Maybe you need to step back and assess the situation next time before you go wading in to fight battles against straw. There was no "major defense" because I don't defend anarcho-communism as a viable system. Visp didn't "criticize" anarcho-anything--she spewed a bunch of worthless, meaningless cliches, and *that* is what I was challenging.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not seeing you ponying up any evidence for your bullshit either.

[blitzwing]

Scroll up nonny, scroll up! ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Are you a Herpy sockpuppet? He's the only other person here compelled to be this fucking patronizing and hostile.

[blitzwing]

I'm not patronizing. My vast accomplishments and many wonderful traits are probably just triggering your inferiority complex.

[(Anonymous)]

You are patronizing, rude, hostile and sanctimonious. I take back what I said about Herpy. He's a douchebag, but I'll take his self-righteous and smarmy attitude over your bullshit any fucking day.

[blitzwing]

I'm sorry you don't like me anon. I like you ♥

[(Anonymous)]

oh, come on. Your commenting makes even visp look good.

[(Anonymous)]

You are really patronizing.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

love how THIS is your usual response to people calling you out on being an arse but just a few minutes later it's all "but i'm trying to learn~" from you.

[(Anonymous)]

Are they a troll? Because sometimes that's what it really feels like.

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno man, I don't think herpy's anywhere near as hostile as this person.

Eh...

[(Anonymous)]

Even Mussolini didn't really make the trains run on time.

Power is stable not because it keeps its promises, but because it can use force and intimidation to maintain power.