Anarcho-communism makes complete sense though, just because you don't understand why it exists doesn't make it invalid. Capitalism has also led to mass murder and wars. This too is a fact. What of it? And no one here is doing that. Someone here is stating clearly that there is only one form of socialism and that just isn't true.
LOL okay....we're done here. That's unintentionally one of the funniest things you've ever said before. I can't imagine meeting anyone who could say that with a straight face.
Again, I know these ideas are far too complex for you to grasp and everything has to be either/or for you, I get that, but your opinions on it doesn't make it invalid. Which was my argument (since you cut off part of the sentence to be dishonest...) there were entire political parties with the term in their name who practiced it. For you it may seem contradictory, but have you studied it? Have you consulted its philosophers through literature?
Ah yes, anarcho-communism is "complex", that's it. Basically if you find the absolute dumbest individuals that buy into Communism or Anarchism (two groups where every single person who buys into either of them are inherently unintelligent) and put them all in a room, the dumbest 10% of that group MIGHT be dumb enough to sign on for anarcho-communism. You've fully crossed over into flat-earther territory now so the conversation is over.
Before things go even more off the rails, in addition to anarcho communism, I'm also not interested in talking about ancient alien theory, flat earth theory, young earth theory, or any of the tenets of Aum Shinrikyo. Honestly, I want to believe we are better than that.
You've seemed to missed the point entirely, which isn't all too surprising. You've taken my posts as some kind of endorsement for the ideology, I've done no such thing, and if I were to endorse or reject an ideology I'd do more than "IT BAD! IT VERY BAD!" Your point was that there is only one form of socialism, my point is that isn't true, that political ideas are far more complex than to put them all in one box and be done with it. You don't seem to get this, since you said "I'm a libertarian and libertarianism and an inherently authoritarian ideology like socialism (such as can actually exist) are incompatible." this, of course, is wrong. There's authoritarian socialism than of course, it'd have its opposite, libertarian socialism. You just think the terms contradict because you truly have no idea what you're talking about. Again. I've never said Anarcho-communism is the way to go...just that it is a valid ideology with years and years of philosophy behind it and even societal examples. In truth, as Killer Mike would say, no system has created a utopia yet...although Mixed Economies (mixing socialist and capitalism policies) have come pretty close. I mean it's easy just to go "COMMUNISM BAD" but I mean there's china...is China completely communist? No, things aren't so simple. Nevermind, I was a bit defensive and for some reason thought you were referring to me for attacking Bobby...which is odd because I never mentioned social democracy. I was just trying to make the point that there is more than one form of socialism, which he's always disagreed with... I realize arguing whether social democracy is socialism or not is a bit pointless, it's a mixed economy in the end. Reading through the thread I realize you probably weren't talking about me...
In any Socialist system, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned and controlled by the state and this includes all property being owned by the state. That's just what socialism is. You can have many different ways to achieve that, but every socialist system has that in common. Now given that literally every socialist system ever tried has resulted in mass murder and widespread starvation, socialists today have decided to disguise what they are pushing as something that is compatible with democracy or with capitalism but that's just some Trojan horse nonsense. Every time socialism is tried, it will end the same way....no matter what "form" we're talking about because of human nature and how economics works in the real world. When it comes to "anarcho-communism" there is literally nothing valid about that philosophy, again you might as well be talking about ancient alien theory, flat earth theory, young earth theory, or the tenets of Aum Shinrikyo. Let's just not go there.
' This just isn't true. "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] where social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms." So yes, if you think socialism is ONLY when the state owns everything, then I guess your point is right. Extreme socialism has never worked out...so hasn't extreme capitalism...so I think your point there is just a really bad point to make. To bring this back around to 'Socialists' in America. AOC and Bernie have never once talked about the state owning private property or corporations. They have talked about socialized healthcare, sure, and AOC has talked about housing programs...which we already have...sure...but they are not Stalinists...and since I know your next argument is "WELL this is just how it starts..." as you've done before, that's another lame argument because anyone can make that claim for anything. Kind of funny to hear you say that since the very first person to use the term "Libertarian" was an anarcho-communist, look up 'Joseph Dejacque', and look at some of his quotes if you will, you'll probably find that you, as a libertarian, might agree with his philosophy...but hey, you do you. For something to be valid doesn't mean that I agree with it. Just that it is an ideology that exists and has existed for centuries now. You may think it is silly and stupid, but really, that's just your opinion in the end, and if you ever find yourself debating or discussing why it fails as an ideology you're probably going to have to do better than equating it to ancient aliens and flat earth.
SMH you re-defining words to make them mean things they don't actually mean isn't helpful to the conversation. Neo-Marxists and postmodernists have really destroyed the liberal arts so sure, you can cite them to defend the type of propaganda people like that fed you, but it doesn't really help your case.....and to be clear, that's exactly what you did when you quoted a neo-Marxist professor who said "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them"....I mean, of course that's their propaganda. That was the whole point of what I was saying. Anyway, given that you didn't actually disprove anything I said, I'll just end it here. I do hope that your fascination with socialism ends one of these days because honestly socialists are no better than Nazis and should be treated the same.
Lol, yep, as expected. Definitions are now propaganda. Who is this neo-Marxist professor I quoted Bobby? Can you name him? Sure I did, but I'm not surprised it went right over your head. You seem incapable of learning things because you're far too stubborn to just admit when you're wrong about something. I think it's a lame tactic to just label your opponents instead of actually explain why they are bad, but since you are confused about what socialism actually is...and surprisingly what libertarianism is, I guess that's why you always rely on "IT BAD! IT VERY BAD!" arguments.
Lol, you realize to study something and write about it doesn't mean you endorse that thing, right? If I write books on Nazism that doesn't then make me a Nazi. If I write books on the religion of Ancient Egypt that doesn't then make me a believer in Anubis. You can't even tell me why the guy is a 'neo-Marxist' other than the fact that he studied the philosophy of it and wrote books about it. I've seen 0 evidence that says he's one. If your proof is literally that he once said this "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them" Then...There are many varieties of Christianity and there is no single definition encapsulating all of Christianity. I'm now a strict theist propagandist. Are you done? I hope so. I'm done. It's clear you just see things in black/white and don't understand how nuanced political ideologies are...I'll stop though because we need our daily AOC freakout thread back. I hear she's going to tax everyone 70% or something and even assign everyone jobs...
AOC seems genuinely working in the best interest of our nation as she sees fit. Trump will go down as the most corrupt president in American history. ....sure though....AOC is “so much worse”.
Anyone can use that same excuse, that they are "genuinely working in the best interest of our nation as they see it" doesn't mean that they aren't awful.
She is 29. That, I believe, makes her the youngest woman to ever serve. That doesn’t happen on accident. You just learned who she was recently and are somehow so disgusted by her and defending trump in the same breath.
And everyone can’t make this argument....Trump, Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham, McConnell to name a few, are clearly not working in the best interest of our nation.
