Trolling as a system, where has it worked?

[Kamikaze Gangbang]

It's failed miserably everywhere it has been tried.

Why would anybody believe in it?

Serious responses only.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Kamikaze [email protected] 27 2005, 04:35 PM
It's failed miserably everywhere it has been tried.

Why would anybody believe in it?

Serious responses only.
It has never been tried, so therefore, it hasn't failed at all.

There has never been a classless, stateless, moneyless society at all, anywhere, at any time on this planet.


Owned.

[Reds]

first off there has never been a communist government ever created. define falure we learned alot from things like the paris commune and soviet union honestly we gained more than we lost.

[Kamikaze Gangbang]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Aug 27 2005, 08:39 PM--> (Ownthink @ Aug 27 2005, 08:39 PM)
Kamikaze [email protected] 27 2005, 04:35 PM
It's failed miserably everywhere it has been tried.

Why would anybody believe in it?

Serious responses only.
It has never been tried, so therefore, it hasn't failed at all.

There has never been a classless, stateless, moneyless society at all, anywhere, at any time on this planet.


Owned. [/b]
there never will be.

[Reds]

and why is that?

[Kamikaze Gangbang]

human nature.

man thrives on competition. Man thrives on confllict.

your utopian vision erases all passion from life.

great works of art, in all forms, are borne of conflict.

In school I studied East Germany extensively. What a hellhole that was. The people had nothing to get up in the morning for. They were braindead.

Welcome to communism.

[afnan]

Can ‘Human Nature’ Change? -- Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff (http://reddiarypk.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_reddiarypk_archive.html)

The most flawed argument against socialism/communism.

[Kamikaze Gangbang]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:57 PM
Can ‘Human Nature’ Change? -- Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff (http://reddiarypk.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_reddiarypk_archive.html)

The most flawed argument against socialism/communism.
it's the most obvious one against it.

if you want communism, go live on a fucking commune somewhere. they do exist you know

of course, that means you'd have to give up your internet, video games, cheetos and all that other stuff that you have due to the great SATAN, capitalism.


:D

[General Peters]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:39 PM


There has never been a classless, stateless, moneyless society at all, anywhere, at any time on this planet.


Go to Neptune then. Maybe you can establish it there.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by General Peters+Aug 27 2005, 05:41 PM--> (General Peters @ Aug 27 2005, 05:41 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 08:39 PM


There has never been a classless, stateless, moneyless society at all, anywhere, at any time on this planet.


Go to Neptune then. Maybe you can establish it there. [/b]
Took a break from sucking Kamikaze's dick so you could come post again? I'm sure that pisses him off. Get back to it.

[Publius]

Can ‘Human Nature’ Change? -- Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff (http://reddiarypk.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_reddiarypk_archive.html)

The most flawed argument against socialism/communism.

I agree with most of what the article has to say, but it's incomplete.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Meet Publius, a guy who actually knows how to debate, and actually knows what the fuck he's talking about.

[Publius]

Meet Publius, a guy who actually knows how to debate, and actually knows what the fuck he's talking about.

I too have noticed that the vast majority of the recent cappie arrivals are stupid as fuck.

I can play out these newcomers' debates in my mind before they happen, and I'm usually right.

For example, I knew 'human nature' would be the answer to the question posed, and I know he would avoid the question because he has no idea what 'human nature' even means.

As to why it's incomplete, it fails to take into account WHY things changed, and the effect it had.

Merely noting the change does no real good and provides no real insight.

I maintain that the change to private property was necessary (As do you, I would assume) and beneficial (As you obviously do not).

TO say that most of the supposed 'human nature' can change is absolutely correct, to say it can change in accordance with your political views is wishful thinking at best.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

TO say that most of the supposed 'human nature' can change is absolutely correct, to say it can change in accordance with your political views is wishful thinking at best.

A double edged sword, since that applies as much to any other sociopolitical school of thought as much as it does to communism or capitalism ;)

The devil is in the details and is the source of much debate that I cannot see being resolved in the forseeable future.

[JazzRemington]

as I always say with the uman nature argument, which is that I feel sorry for it. What with it being blammed for everything and all.

But non-Marxist communism has been attempted and succeeded, atleast before being put violently down by a State. Read up on the Spanish Revolution, speficically the anarchists and teh CNT/FAI.

[LamarLatrell]

I think the fact that when people come here trolling and everybody argues with them, that sort of proves the theory that man loves to argue and fight. That sort of supports the human nature argument.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:33 PM
I think the fact that when people come here trolling and everybody argues with them, that sort of proves the theory that man loves to argue and fight. That sort of supports the human nature argument.

A few idiots on the internet does not represent the entire human race, nor is it a representative sample. Nor does it take into acount culture.

No, it simply means that the anonymity of the internet allows fools to act like cretins without getting punched in the face.

[Freedom Works]

Human nature is to learn (and a great way is to argue). The current anti-capitalist culture trys to suppress this, as knowledge of economics show that anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by NoXion+Aug 28 2005, 03:57 PM--> (NoXion @ Aug 28 2005, 03:57 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:33 PM
I think the fact that when people come here trolling and everybody argues with them, that sort of proves the theory that man loves to argue and fight. That sort of supports the human nature argument.

A few idiots on the internet does not represent the entire human race, nor is it a representative sample. Nor does it take into acount culture.

No, it simply means that the anonymity of the internet allows fools to act like cretins without getting punched in the face. [/b]
No, it doesn't represent the entire human race. The only thing that represents the entire human race it the entire human race. What we have on this board is indicative of communists in general, right?

[Publius]

Human nature is to learn (and a great way is to argue). The current anti-capitalist culture trys to suppress this, as knowledge of economics show that anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.

That's extraordinarily debatable.

Only Austrain economists say such a thing.

More mainstream (But still great) capitalist economists know the state plays a valuable role.

Friedman, Sowell etc.

Bhagwati, for example, is rather supportive of the state, but he's probably the greatest practicing economist, at least in regards to globalization.

[Freedom Works]

Only Austrain economists say such a thing.
Because it is the truth.


More mainstream (But still great) capitalist economists know the state plays a valuable role.
No, they think the state plays a 'valuble role'. It really just sucks the wealth from people and "services" them with shoddy products.


Bhagwati, for example, is rather supportive of the state, but he's probably the greatest practicing economist, at least in regards to globalization.
Bhagwati is an unprincipled neoclassic.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 28 2005, 07:21 PM






Because it is the truth.

More than debatable.

Remember the Enron diaster?

Imagine if that wasn't a financial diaster, but say a health diaster.

What in the free-market is there to prevent this type of fraud from happening in another industry such as health care?

The market rules break down when the people running the companies ignore them, as they often do.

I really hate to sound like a statist here, I'm not, but total anarcho capitalism is a naive pipe-dream.



No, they think the state plays a 'valuble role'. It really just sucks the wealth from people and "services" them with shoddy products.

National defense, the court system, roads etc. are 'shoddy products'?

You're selectively choosing and ignoring evidence based on your predisposed bias; the height of intellectual dishonesty.

The government has done MANY wonderful things.

Your failure to note this does not change the fact.


Bhagwati is an unprincipled neoclassic.

Neo-classical? Perhaps.

Unprincipled? Not at all.

He's just a consequentialist.

There are things I disagree with him on, but he is an absolutely brilliant economist.

[Publius]

Even Ludwig von Mises wasn't an anarcho-capitalist.

Hayek became somewhat of a statist towards the end of his years as well.

What should that tell you?

[Free Palestine]

I already answered this question in another thread. See here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39644&st=0&#entry1291927259)