Warren Dew wrote:A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society..Morticia. wrote:What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!

Warren Dew wrote:A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society..Morticia. wrote:What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?
egbert wrote:Warren Dew wrote:A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society..Morticia. wrote:What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?![]()
So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!
It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it. That's why Communism, and it's larval stages of Marxism and socialism, never, ever work..Morticia. wrote:egbert wrote:Warren Dew wrote:A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society..Morticia. wrote:What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?![]()
So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!
:shrug:
some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism
Like I've already pointed out, discussing this with you in such a black and white left and right way is a waste of time. I am not "far-left", I do not speak for the "far left", I don't even know what that means to you because right/left BS means something different to everyone. Meaningless labels. As for myself, individually, within a capitalist system I support unions.JimC wrote:But quite seriously, forgetting about the verbals, what do you actually think about unions? We've heard the whole hatred/dismissal thing from Seth and (to a lesser extent) CES, what coherent position does the far left have on the value of unions in modern democracies?sandinista wrote:Yes Jimmy...keep telling yourself that. If you say it enough times I'm sure you'll believe it. fanaticsJimC wrote:
Apart from noticing that I have a coherent and quite pragmatic political position...
I don't think that's true Seth. Throughout human evolution we've mostly existed in very egalitarian societies, and I remember from an anthropology lecture there were many early civilisations that were quite anti-authoritarian - with powers to force monarchs to step down if they became despotic and powers to veto decisions - large collections of iron age societies trading and working together across continents with all decisions being made at a local level - the Iroquois Confederacy for one.Seth wrote:No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it.
again with the "human nature"...Seth wrote:It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it. That's why Communism, and it's larval stages of Marxism and socialism, never, ever work..Morticia. wrote:egbert wrote:Warren Dew wrote:A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society..Morticia. wrote:What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?![]()
So, if EVERYONE is a serf, WHO are they in serfdom to? DUH!
:shrug:
some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism
Once the OPM runs out, authoritarianism inevitably emerges.
Your utopian view of the world is ignorant of history and psychology.
Another absolutist statement, and one with no real meaning. Even at its worst, it still works, in that capitalist societies don't immediately implode. It might not work perfectly, it might be more or less oppressive to working people at different times or places, and it may run into resource issues in the future, but right now it still works...sandinista wrote:
...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.
Funny that you keep belittling that line every single time someone brings it up. There's a clear truth in it, but that's too bad for your preferred ideology. If I woke up tomorrow and learned that my government had just been "liberated" in a communist coup, the first thing I'd do is load my gun.sandinista wrote:again with the "human nature"...time to get a new line, that one's not working.
Because it's wrong. Not so funny.Ian wrote:Funny that you keep belittling that line every single time someone brings it up.
and apparently you agree.Ian wrote:Human nature might indeed change
No, there's not (truth in it). Some may pretend there is to bolster their ideology and you may swing both ways to bolster your ideology. Not sure what your point is.Ian wrote:There's a clear truth in it, but that's too bad for your preferred ideology
meaning?Ian wrote: If I woke up tomorrow and learned that my government had just been "liberated" in a communist coup, the first thing I'd do is load my gun.
What "such government"? History has shown what? Sorry Ian, but that whole post makes very little sense.Ian wrote:No such government can possibly work on present-day society without resorting to horribly repressive measures of control - as history has shown time and time and time and time again.
Another broken record. I suppose you think there are no absolutist statements?JimC wrote:Another absolutist statementsandinista wrote:
...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.
Like every one of your posts talking about absolutist definitions like left right and center?JimC wrote:and one with no real meaning.
depends how you define "works". Any society "works" if you define "work" to suit your position.JimC wrote:Even at its worst, it still works
Sorry, no sale. The Iroquois Confederacy was a highly authoritarian regime that brutally suppressed weaker tribes and tribes that refused to align with the Confederacy.Psychoserenity wrote:I don't think that's true Seth. Throughout human evolution we've mostly existed in very egalitarian societies, and I remember from an anthropology lecture there were many early civilisations that were quite anti-authoritarian - with powers to force monarchs to step down if they became despotic and powers to veto decisions - large collections of iron age societies trading and working together across continents with all decisions being made at a local level - the Iroquois Confederacy for one.Seth wrote:No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history. Nor will such a thing ever come to pass, because human nature forbids it.
In fact, real authoritarianism as we think of it today, can only have existed in the modern world, because it requires fast transport and communication.
Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote. Any election imposing Marxist redistributionism and elimination of private property and subjugation of the individual to the will of the collective would be invalid on its face as an exercise in majoritiarian tyranny, and should forcibly resisted by those determined to protect individual liberty and rights..Morticia. wrote:What if marxists won in a fair election? What then?
Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests