Word

Im pretty sure the minecraft thing was just a joke

🤔

@DrYuriMom I've been thinking about this for a while. I keep hearing from some communists that while they support communism, they aren't in favor of the things that Stalin, Mao or other communist dictators had done in the past. They don't seem to consider that something about the communist system allows people like Stalin or Mao to bubble up to the top and achieve uncontested power.

🤔 🤔

So, if THEY implement it, it would work.

Ok, so what if I don't want it. What are they going to do about it?

"and it always ends bad"
the experiments didnt, and some of the regions that went stateless did better than they would have with a state. It's not a cut and dry issue @samoja

@SolidHalon It really is a narcissistic claim. They feel that they are more pure of heart than any of the successful revolutionaries. Even if they are, who's to say that those stalin-types won't just kill them while they sleep in a power grab?

According to Wikipedia: "Eventually almost all of the Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917, or in Lenin's Soviet government, were executed."

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

"Out of six members of the original Politburo during the 1917 October Revolution who lived until the Great Purge, Stalin himself was the only one who remained in the Soviet Union, alive."

Oh yea they did it was terrible. I have an original copy of the tsars journal

His final journal in fact w commentary

True communism IS anarchy. Anarchy requires it's own sort of compliance. Dictators enforce compliance.

That is how dictators always take power in communism.

@Beemann The only ones that didn't that i know of were attatched to some larger civilization that kept them alive, even those eventually failed but not nearly as spectacularly as those who tried to go completely solo, again when let off the leash people tend to fall into two categories, lazybones good for nothings who don't work even if they starve and jerkasses who destroy and ruin things just because they can (not to mention rape and kill) the few good people who want to create functioning society can't shoulder all that burden.

wait, if people wont work even if they'll starve what does government do?
If there are people who will destroy shit *no matter what* how does any society function?

this doesnt seem like a well thought out position

This debate with Dawkins is a perfect example of how personal biases guide mainstream scientific perception..
Anything that contradicts these biases will just not be looked into and hence a narrative is maintained
https://youtu.be/hYzU-DoEV6k

That reminds me of some thesis being 'reviewed' by other physicists, and each one basically started with "I think it's bullshit, because I don't think so. I read a tiny bit and won't give it any further thought." which is strictly against the scientific method, and most of the further complaints were things they had skipped over in their hurry to try and disprove it, rather than let their bias be challenged. You know it's gonna be a bad time when 'scientists' start their review with personal attacks and trying to convince the person is bad, not that their thesis is wrong.

@Beemann Not government per se but organized society, it's all based on perception, our societies have certain routines and things that hold them in place, it is expected you will go out and get a job at some point, and most people are also smart enough to know that if they go out and commit crimes there is a high chance they will be caught and punished, whereas if there is no higher authority to regulate things people will just do whatever they want not thinling about consequences, you can see this clearly when natural disaster strikes, like in the aftermath of Katrina, people were going around looting and stealing even when they did not need to until National guard was deployed to restore order.

Define organized society
Also there's a huge difference between philosophical anarchic positions and total social collapse (well except for maybe ancom, in practice)

@Beemann When i say o0rganized society i mean any form of hierarchical structure that human lives in, our modern society just minimizes the ability of those on top to abuse their power. Not having hierarchical structure is completely unrealistic, from the moment children come into contact with other children a hierarchy forms usually basedf on who is the strongest and biggest, hierarchycal structure is part of human society and can not be removed, only thing you can remove is protection from abuse we took painstaking centuries to implement.

Only anarcho communism is necessarily anti hierarchical. Ancaps wouldn't argue against hierarchy, since ownership will eventually denote some tiered system, even if it doesn't move much further beyond factory owner and employees.
Also I absolutely disagree that we've minimized abuse of power. If anything it becomes easier year by year to do so

Only because of the deterioration of the aforementioned protections

Were we to actually minimize abuse of power, we wouldn't have bloated governments and corporations propped up by them. We wouldn't have these blatant coverups

Deterioration can only be argued in the 'States. In other western nations, such protections never existed. Even then, the US was not set up to prevent abuse, but to violently correct it

You never heard of Magna Carta? Rights of man? Democracty? Those are all an effort to curtail aspiring dictators, it is not perfect, they are just obstacles, they can be overcome given that the aspiring dictator is commited enough and the populace is indifferent enough, but it still kept us safe for a very long time.

Democracy is not reduction of hierarchal abuse, it is simply restructuring who has power. The magna carta was the result of a power struggle lol. It was powerful people securing their position with the threat of violence, and was immediately walked back at the nearest opportune moment. The rights of man is a book and not a structure, and the notion of rights must necessarily be upheld by the people via their own defense (as is the US system mentioned prior)

There's a reason why many philosophers argue against democracy, and why limits are always placed on the power of the majority my dude

Democracy is dillution of power, it seeks to reduce the ammount of power one person holds, less power in the hands of one person the harder it is to abuse. Magna Carta reduced the power of the king, sure enough it empowered nobles instead but even that was bettrer then absolute power of one man, it was just the firest step, and it stuck eventually. As for the rest of your post it is pretty much a tautology, of course ther will always be people seeking to get power for themselves, that is what i am saying, modern society worked very hard toi place obstacles in front of such people so they would not have a clear run for the throne.

@Redneo I would agree that ethnicity is important, but I think a challenge is seperating race from ethnicity. We make the mistake of saying white ethnicity, black ethnicity, etc. tieing it closesly with race or color

There should be more emphasis on freedom to choose an ethnicity without being called a traitor

I've been reading a book recently that analyzes community, and finds that free black individuals in the U.S. over time have split into 3 groups

One group focussing on intelectualism and joining the "white" ethnicity", another group that foccussed on build their own community mainly through church, and third the black musslims, that put a focus on extreme sense of black nationalism.

The first two seem to overlap quite a bit. Just because someone forms a distinct community doesn't mean they can interact seamlessly with a greater whole.

Imagine this. ",another group that focuses on building thier own community through video games,". You can our anime, football, or anything else you want on there. The term otaku really means to obsess over one or a hand full of things to the exclusion of being "mainstream". I'd say church could be seen as one such obsession if it defines someone. And I'd argue that doesn't mean you don't participate on larger society.

@DrYuriMom I think the point was more the one group intergrated into existing structure, whole the other set up a separate but compatible structure. If you think about stereotypical black churches vs stereotypical white churches. One group made their own church, the other group joined the existing church, if that makes sense

But white people make their own churches, too. Latter Day Saints, for example. They're more diverse now, but before the 1970's they were pretty much pure white.

Seventh Day Adventists are another good example of a church that developed in the US and started out chalk white.

These churches also tend to be insular with traditions and rituals that set them firmly apart, arguably more than black Southern Baptist churches.