dictatorships are also called "peoples democracy" that doesn't mean they're being democratic

Marx didn't call for the violent revolution that was the Bolsheviks.

Yes, people lie, I understand that. But we can't assume peoples intent before they show their actual intent. We can only go off of what they say.

what would you do

if you tried to take something from someone, and they tried to stop you?

Marx spoke of overthrowing the bourgoise, and taking the means of production

You're effectively taking something, that someone else owns, and says its yours now (theft)
They'll try to stop you

What would the Anarcho-communists do if they tried to redistribute wealth and I tried to stop them?

they would hurt you

it would get violent

So they're the same as communists.

thats why they're called "anarcho-COMMUNISTS"

You were the one who said the difference between them was calls for violence.

no i didn't

What's the difference then?

in marxist communism, you have a transitional state, where the money is distributed to the rest, everything is controlled until the state can stop and flush over to state-free and you then have communism (and the bourgoise is eliminated)

in anarcho communism, you do it without the transitional state, you just hop over instantly

either way will be violent

regardless of intent,

There will be people who will rather die than give up their wealth, so they'll use force to protect it

There will be violence

Right so anarcho-communism is the end goal of communism. Marx's communist state is a transition to "more freedom" as he put it. Which would lead to the eventual abolishment of the state.

the end goal of communism, is communism

The best approach to it is disputed as either Anarcho communism, or marx-communism

the end goal is abolishment of the state

No Communism is a step on the goal of freeing the people.

you don't free people by chaining them with different chains

You are confusing the practicalities of what happens vs the philosophy. Yes in practice it is a horrible thing, I agree with that. I'm saying that in principle communism was thought up as a stepping stone to free everyone from the state.

thats the ideal of it yes

the issue with it is that you can't say no to it either

instead of being unable to say no to the state
You become unable to say no to the community

Right, but again my point is that Anarcho-Communism is just communism with a different name.

Anarcho-Communism is that you side with that route TO communism

an Anarcho Communist basically says "I want communism, and i want it Instantly"

and a Marxist Communist says "I want communism, and i want it slowly transitioned"

Right.

in the end they're both advocating for communism

Yes.

that is how i see it atleast,

Like a flowchart

You want communism, Do you want it right now?

Yes? -> you are an Anarcho Communist
No? -> you are a Marxist Communist

like that

I guess I see what you're saying, but it seems like a distinction with out a difference to me.

Ultimately they're both trying to accomplish the same thing.

yes

the destinction is the plan on how to get there

Anarcho-Communists are even more stupid communists.

Got it.

😛

imo anything Anarcho - <anything> is grade A stupid

AnCaps are pretty fun to fuck with though.

Ancaps are both delusional, AND lying to themselves

Ancap paradise, is Mexico

They're not exactly lining up to migrate there

small state,

And smart/strong companies (cartels) run their own turf, and due to that, people are able to do what they want

and they're able to fuck over anyone who gets in their way who isn't as strong/stronger than them

besides

both extremes are wiped out by the other

Ancaps are too individual, and a strong union could easily destroy them because they'd never work together
AnComs are too communistic, and have no leadership, so they'll be unorganised for a few well-placed actions

Im assured that CNT-FAI created the closest thing to anarcho communism during the spanish civil war and everything was good up until they got militarily defeated

@Dennafen "Marx didn't call for the violent revolution"

-------

"Rise up workers of the world; You have nothing to lose but your chains"

“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

--Marx.

-------

Totally. Peaceful. Transition.

don't forget Marx was also a supporter of ethnic cleansing and extermination of all jews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24hoySZqgI

https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/karl-marx.png

so the biggest self-hating jew since judas?

yup, pretty much

really bugs me when the alt-right try to attach a zionist conspiracy to marx and the creation of communism. if you want to argue the presence of jews in many communist revolutionary groups that's fair game, but marx was absolutely a self-hating jew

...unless of course he was totally aware that people would just conviniently ignore all his ethnic cleansing and antisemitism. those damn jews and their crystal ball 4d chess conspiracies

finding that image made me look up this b/c of the fake quote meme issue -- at least now i know the "JQ" was a meme started by a jew. "who needs enemies?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

those damn jews are behind everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqkjazaezpw compelled speech != being able to buy something from someone

This was a false equivalence imo.

The baker was willing to sell a cake, just not a custom made one by himself.

Yeah, that's how it is with these things. The decision was actually very carefully measured and highly justified given the merits of the case.

But the public runs with it at the most extreme.

*Citizens United* is very much an example of this.

I'm not going to comment too much on the specifics, but most of the arguments people put in public do not line up with the opinions in the case.

Yeah. Tim tried to compare conservatives fighting against the baker being compelled to produce speech to Huckabee being kicked out of a restaurant and I don't think it works.

I mean the civil rigths act banned that right

You cant deny a service. Though to be honest I think everyone should have the right to

The case conservatives make is that they shouldn't be forced to participate in a ceremony, rather than a service. I think most would agree that you cant turn someone away strictly on the premise they are gay.

*participate in a ceremony that violates a personal religion

I mean you saw the cake the bakery was asked to make?

i hav not

I'm actually curious, do you have a link?

I thoguj I remember seeing one. It looked like someones ass

One big difference between *cakeshop* and Sarah Sanders is that *cakeshop* was manufactured outrage. The plaintiffs made calls and went around to *get* refused specifically so they could sue.

Dont know for sure if that was the case, cause it was supposedly taken from the cpuples fb

Because the lawsuit was backed by wealthy motivated legal organizations.

Exactly

The store itself and the plaintiffs were semi-random. But there was going to be a lawsuit. One way or another.

They drove past dozens of non christian bakeries

Cake is not a human right.

I dare you to find someone who isn't legally a child that disagrees.

Fat people?

I find your answer inconvenient, and therefore disregard it.

I dont like cake

I appreciate it when offered, but I dont like cake

@RyeNorth that's fair

The cake is a lie

Pie is better anyway

Pie should be a human right

I like savoury pie

🇺🇸 Apple Pie 🇺🇸 is better than <:commie:463087263153258506> Cake <:commie:463087263153258506>

I would like to offer a third option

Ice cream should be a human right

Ice cream is a human right, as long as it's vanilla. Flavored ice cream is a choice against god.

Question: Is Fascism a form of Socialism?

Depends on the definition you are using for those terms

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html

Fascism looks like nothing more than war for the sake of war

Yeah that's why I asked. What's your definition.

Fascism has nothing to do with war per say.

Anymore that any other political system.