Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
23rd March 2006, 00:48
The names of these two people may or may not have been altered*
Jordan represents my friend (who I consider a liberal/democratic socialist mix), and Nick is I (an Anarcho-Communist. I am seeking comments/flaws in my argument or his that I may have missed. Thanks. Or just comments in general.
Gangsta* is another friend of mine who jumped into the conversation late. I don't know for sure his political affiliation.
Nick says:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html
Jordan says:
oh nick
Jordan says:
you and your non-voting
Nick says:
You and your voting.
Jordan says:
so?
Nick says:
You're legitimizing a system based on unfair social and economic hierarchies by voting.
Jordan says:
no really
Jordan says:
bo
Jordan says:
not
Nick says:
bo not?
Jordan says:
i mean not really
Nick says:
Technically you are.
Nick says:
If you participate in something, you are giving it legitimacy.
Jordan says:
its not as black and white as thaqt
Nick says:
There are arguments to participate in something illegitmate, in some circumstances, because you are being threatened by force to do so.
Jordan says:
its not, if you do this then you must support this
Nick says:
You may not support it, but you are giving it a claim to legitimacy - regardless of whether it's your intent.
Jordan says:
people can vote for a certain political party and not support all of their issues
Jordan says:
not really
Nick says:
You're still partially responsible for what actions they do when in power.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
not really
Nick says:
If someone votes for me in an election, I can say "so and so voted for me", so I have a legitimate claim to do what I want.
Nick says:
And people take numbers more seriously.
Nick says:
Which is why the upper class government encourages people to vote .
Nick says:
They don't care about democracy - they care about securing their power and spreading the idea that it is legitimate.
Jordan says:
majority rules nick
Jordan says:
if a leader wants to go to war
Jordan says:
you don't have to support it even if you voted for the leader
Nick says:
You don't have to.
Nick says:
But you voted for that leader so you are partially responsible for what they are doing.
Jordan says:
you are not even giving him/her your approval of the war by voting for him
Jordan says:
or her
Nick says:
You gave them your the ability to do things you disagree with before you knew they would do them.
Jordan says:
how?
Jordan says:
its not that black and white
Jordan says:
are you saying if you by something from, lets say Nike
Jordan says:
that you are supporting child labour?
Jordan says:
or maybe you just like the way you look in those clothes
Nick says:
Indirectly, yes.
Jordan says:
well, you do a lot of stuff indirectly
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
but that doesn't stop people from doing it
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
so, the same applies to voting
Nick says:
But people usually do immoral stuff indirectly for reasons that benefit themselves.
Nick says:
It does - people will still do it.
Nick says:
But not voting is still preferable.
Jordan says:
but do you really think that you can protest something a government does if you don't participate in voting?
Nick says:
Why not.
Nick says:
I have never seen any proof that the government does anything.
Jordan says:
if you do not participate in the process you should not say anything against the government
Jordan says:
come on nick
Jordan says:
the government does a lot
Nick says:
Movements such as the civil rights and gay rights movements pressured the government.
Jordan says:
medicare
Nick says:
They just felt threatened by grassroots movements and decided to act to protect themselves.
Jordan says:
welfare
Jordan says:
childcare (almost)
Nick says:
Medicare and welfare are taxed-based programs that could be easily managed by workers councils or colelctives.
Nick says:
The government does things under the threat of its people while attempt to maintain the wealth of the upper class - which influences it through lobbies and donations.
Nick says:
Why do you think we have a conservative government now? People aren't just stupid, and conservatism isn't just another "legitimate" political philoophy. It's a corrupt sham designed to perpetuate class conflict.
Jordan says:
we barely have a conservative government
Nick says:
Not participating in something does not take away your right to criticize it - especially when that organization has influence over your life.
Jordan says:
yes it does
Nick says:
That's irrelevant. In a society where people are free from capitalist oppression, no one would vote conservative (aside from practical jokers).
Jordan says:
if you don't want to make an effort to at least attempt to make a change in the government, what gives you the right to critize it?
Nick says:
The government is a force that bullies people and takes advantage of them on a whim. People don't even have the choice to remove themselves from the government.
Jordan says:
i'm not saying you can't
Jordan says:
the people can overthrow the government democratically
Nick says:
There are other ways to eliminate the government and cause change to happen. Again, most things the government does are influenced by people.
Nick says:
There is little proof that the government can be overthrown democratically.
Jordan says:
if there is enough of a want of change, a vote of no confidence can be called
Jordan says:
even if the governing party has a majority
Nick says:
The Labour Party in Britain is a prime example of that. They have shifted their priorities quickly enough.
Jordan says:
the only reason the Labour Party got re-elected is britian stuck with the evil they knew
Nick says:
No socialist party has even attempted to achieve a better society for the working class without pressure from strong working class individuals.
Nick says:
Voting for the lesser evil is just a way to make yourself feel "you did what you could" instead of pushing for real change.
Jordan says:
who says the people wanted a change
Nick says:
Upper class individuals protect their power well. They close loopholes at every opportunity. Voting doesn't have to be eliminated because people are under the illusion that it does something.
Jordan says:
other than the war, maybe the british like what the labour party is doing.
Nick says:
It's irrelevant what the people like when they are influenced by upper class tyranny.
Nick says:
Whenever capitalism exists, what the people want is strongly influenced by what their oppressors want. People do not have freedom of though within a capitalist society because of propoganda.
Jordan says:
how do you define freedom
Nick says:
The ability to act and decide in a society with liberal attitudes towards social issues. A society where people are equal, and, consequently, seek to inform rather than manipulate. Freedom from manipulation is essential in a society that is to work.
Jordan says:
who says we dont have that now
Nick says:
It's unarguable now. As long as people with more power exist, they will seek to defend that power by making it seem legitimate.
Jordan says:
any form of government has a least one person with more power than the average person
Nick says:
Exactly
Jordan says:
even anarchy
Nick says:
Anarchy doesn't have government.
Jordan says:
people still can have more power
Jordan says:
if not money, or influence,
Jordan says:
Force
Nick says:
Some people may have a slightly higher amount of power, but society is organized in a way that it is irrelevant.
Jordan says:
Violence. Since anarchism has often been associated with violence and destruction, some people have seen it as being too violent.
Jordan says:
Frederick Engels criticised anarchists for not being violent enough:
Jordan says:
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
Nick says:
The upper class encourages people not to be violent. They can be convinced otherwise.
Nick says:
That's a whole other issue altogether.
Nick says:
Anarchism and Communism have had an ideological war since Marx.
Jordan says:
with no government or laws, who is to say that the stong will overpower the weak
Jordan says:
it happen in nature all the time
Jordan says:
that should be
Nick says:
Society is restructured so working as a group is valued over individual effort.
Jordan says:
the strong will not overpower the weak
Nick says:
Animals in nature are not advanced.
Jordan says:
we are all animals
Nick says:
Anarchism is an advanced society that recognizes that cooperation is more efficient.
Jordan says:
we might think we are more intelligent or advanced but we are not
Nick says:
All animals act different, and animals evolve.
Jordan says:
animals kill for food
Jordan says:
it seems humans kill for fun
Jordan says:
or pleasure
Jordan says:
which is more advanced?
Nick says:
Some animals kill for fun, but it is usually for food as well.
Nick says:
Capitalist society encourages violence and power relationships that lead to such behaviors.
Jordan says:
but you just said the upper class does not encourage violence
Nick says:
With higher intellect comes more power for evil. We are still more advanced.
Nick says:
They don't encourage violence against them.
Nick says:
They use it all the time.
Jordan says:
how
Nick says:
Taxation, laws.
Jordan says:
taxation to provide services for all the citizens
Jordan says:
without taxation many people would be worse off then they are now
Nick says:
If you disobey a rule, you go to jail. It may not be direct violence in that case but it can be considered a form.
Nick says:
Taxation is fine, but people have little influence over taxation and how it works.
Jordan says:
laws are in place to keep the peace
Jordan says:
and to protect the citizens
Jordan says:
and yes, if you do break a law you should be punished
Nick says:
The government is not responsible and uncorruptable, so it can not be trusted with moeny
Jordan says:
laws are put in place by the majority
Nick says:
The majority has no right to make decisions for the rest of the world.
Jordan says:
people can also not be trusted with thier own money
Nick says:
Laws are authoritarian and right-wing.
Jordan says:
no nick, the aren;t
Nick says:
People cannot be trusted with their money because corporations and capitalism manipulate them - not because they are naturally stupid.
Jordan says:
laws don't have a place on the political spectrum
Nick says:
Yes they do.
Nick says:
It's called authoritarianism.
Nick says:
Which is Stalnist and Right-wing
Jordan says:
no, people just don't know how to handle money
Nick says:
Money isn't even neccessary - it is paper.
Nick says:
Designed to perpetuate class inequality.
Jordan says:
if you think that it is human nature to be peaceful and help people and cooperate then you are wrong
Nick says:
People are capable of labor and the labor per person division ratio when combined with sharing and public organizations provides almost all citizens in a future society with more than enough,
Nick says:
Human nature doesn't exist aside from the influences biology has on it.
Nick says:
Human nature evolves all the time - aside from eating, et cetera.
Nick says:
People are capable of cooperating because it is in the best interest of all groups to do so.
Jordan says:
not always
Nick says:
No, but in terms of the structure of a society it is more effecient.
Jordan says:
who says the people would want to form a society?
Nick says:
People do what is in their best interests.
Jordan says:
yes and usually that is to benifit themselves and not caring what the other people want
Jordan says:
peoples best intrests are not always the best inerests in the total society
Nick says:
No
Jordan says:
yes
Nick says:
But if you structure society so that they are, the problem is solved.
Nick says:
Which is what anarchism and communism do.
Jordan says:
and communism is working great!
Jordan says:
communism has yet to work
Nick says:
Communism is regularly used to justify authoritarian forms of goverment.
Nick says:
Of the places that actually tried to implement communism, most of them were Marxist - which is not anarchist.
Nick says:
And the anarchist attempt in Spain failed because of outside influence.
Nick says:
None of the anarchists movements have a history of failure caused by the philosophy itself.
Jordan says:
how many anarchists movements are there?
Nick says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_pres...ist_communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities)
Jordan says:
ha
Jordan says:
Rhode Island
Nick says:
Keep in mind that I might not agree with any of those examples of anarchism - I haven't read all of them.
Jordan says:
keep in mind all of them have failed
Jordan says:
shall we continue this little chat tomorrow?
Nick says:
Maybe
Nick says:
However
Jordan says:
i'm afriad i have to leave you
Nick says:
Past failure does not justify present failure.
Jordan says:
ture
Jordan says:
true
Jordan says:
rather
Nick says:
You have to find a similiar reason for each failure and then argue why that is a flaw that makes it impossible to work.
Jordan says:
lets end it on something i think we both agree on
Jordan says:
no form of government system or anarchy does not work the way it is intended
Jordan says:
and smarties are good
Nick says:
Can I post this conversation on a forum, btw?
Nick says:
I will agree with the latter
Jordan says:
i don't care what you do with it nick
Nick says:
There is no certainty with the first,
Jordan says:
go ahead
Jordan says:
post away
Jordan says:
Nick says:
I can get the great wisdom from some extremists.
Jordan says:
extremists are closed minded though
Jordan says:
they only see their side of the issue
Jordan says:
even though there is always two sides
Nick says:
Not always
Jordan says:
everything is not black and white
Nick says:
Sometimes they see both sides
Jordan says:
rarelyy
Nick says:
and the other side makes them more confident through its idiocy *conservatism)
Nick says:
Ok
Nick says:
Let's call them radicals then
Jordan says:
see nick
Jordan says:
you called conservatism idiotic
Jordan says:
isn't that being a wee bit closed minded>
Jordan says:
?
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
Ok
Jordan says:
why
Nick says:
Wait
Jordan says:
people have their beliefs
Nick says:
Authoritarian conservatism is idiotic.
Jordan says:
whether you agree with them or not
Jordan says:
to you it is
Jordan says:
maybe not for everyone
Nick says:
Libertarian conservatism has some good points.
Jordan says:
say Mr. fletcher>?
Nick says:
He is nice, but conservatism is still stupid.
Nick says:
You do realize you are contradicting yourself, I hope?>
Jordan says:
every political philosphy has a follower because someone is going to benifit from it
Nick says:
Liberalism states that all beliefs have legitimacy.
Jordan says:
the do
Jordan says:
they do
Nick says:
But you are saying radicals are not legitimate because they differ with liberalism on when to condemn certain beliefs.
Jordan says:
i never said they were non-legitimate
Jordan says:
i'm just saying the left leaning extremist are just like the right leaning radicals when it comes to their political beliefs
Nick says:
Right-wing radicals advocate censorship.
Jordan says:
blinded by the fact that they think their right to realize that there is more then their opinion
Nick says:
I have never advocated that. I am just very heated in how I argue with people.
Jordan says:
i never said you did
Jordan says:
i should have said most
Nick says:
There are quite a few differences between right and left with radicalism.
Nick says:
They are similiar in that they are radical - that's about it.
Jordan says:
and they think their right all the time
Jordan says:
that is why the centre is the best place to be
Nick says:
Well the left-wing is usually right, to be honest.
Jordan says:
so you can see both sides of the issues
Nick says:
You can be on the left and see both sides.
Jordan says:
and make a decision on how it will benifit the majority of the society
Nick says:
The center is just a failure to take a position.
Nick says:
Benefiting everyone is more important than helping the majority.
Jordan says:
you can never benefit everyone
Jordan says:
some one will always be left out or behind
Nick says:
You can benefit as many people as possible, and society should always be changing to attempt to make that group include one more person.
Jordan says:
but the politicians try to do the best they can
Jordan says:
and the society is changing
Nick says:
I'll believe that when I see it.
Nick says:
Society is changing because people are acting.
Jordan says:
we have progressed furthur in the past years
Jordan says:
society is controled by the people
Jordan says:
the people decide what is best for the society
Nick says:
That's an illusion
Jordan says:
and we elect officials to make decision on our part
Jordan says:
why is it an illusion?
Nick says:
The capitalists decide, and the people decide what they capitalists want.
Nick says:
Elected officials act under the influence of capitalism.
Jordan says:
nick, we are all capitalists
Jordan says:
if you live in this country
Nick says:
That's because of the society we live in - not because capitalism is a good system.
Jordan says:
you partake in capitialism
Nick says:
I never said I didn't.
Jordan says:
so, you said capitialist decide what is best for the society, and since every one in the country is invlolved in capitalism, that means that the people decide what is best for society
Nick says:
To an extent.
Jordan says:
and elect officials on to work in Ottawa on their behalf
Jordan says:
and thats why you should vote
Nick says:
But you know I was referring to the upper class elite. You are just twisting my words for the sake of argument.
Jordan says:
the upper class make a very small percentage of our society in canada
Nick says:
You can base your conclusion on a statement that is taken out of context.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
3% or something like that
Nick says:
And then influence the way the lower class votes.
Jordan says:
how
Jordan says:
do you have an example?
Nick says:
Why do you think people vote conservative? Again, it is not just another philosophy like you think it is.
Nick says:
They donate money to right-wing political parties.
Jordan says:
people are not voting for the philosophy
Jordan says:
they are voting for the party
Nick says:
They give money to businesses that spread messages that are right-wing.
Jordan says:
which has the platform that they agree with
Nick says:
The party stands for the philosophy. Regular people would not vote conservative unless they were manipulated into doing so.
Jordan says:
plus, in the past election, people voted conservative to punish the liberals
Jordan says:
how are they manipulated?
Jordan says:
maybe the majority of the society agrees with them
Nick says:
Again, using wealth to encourage things like religion, conservatism, and voting for the conservative party.
Jordan says:
maybe the people believe that that is what is best for the country
Nick says:
If the majority of society agrees with conservatism, they are being manipulated to agree with it because conservatism is not good for the majority of people.
Jordan says:
and they came to that decision on their own free will
Nick says:
People obviously believe that because they are being manipulated to believe that.
Jordan says:
hoiw
Jordan says:
how
Nick says:
They came to that decision, in the end, out of their own free will, but their choice was manipulated.
Nick says:
The upper class controls the majority of the world's wealth. You underestimate that power and how it can spread and influence the voting population.
Jordan says:
explain the influence it has on normal people
Nick says:
Rich businessman gives money to the church.
Nick says:
The church tells people "abortion is evil"
Nick says:
People vote conservative
Jordan says:
the citizens can watch the news, read the mail, listen to the speeches, read the platforms, and come to a decision that they will think will best benifit themselves and the country
Nick says:
Rich people tell a newpaper to write something against socialism - it does it.
Jordan says:
abortion is legal
Jordan says:
the rich have no power over independent media
Nick says:
The news is biased according to who is influencing/paying the station.
Jordan says:
cpac is an independent station
Nick says:
Citizens are influenced by those with more capital and power.
Jordan says:
another right-winged media bull story?
Nick says:
Cpac is run by the cable company, which is a business, and most people don't watch cpac for their news because business owners encourage people to watch other stations.
Jordan says:
cable companies
Jordan says:
cbc is owned by the government
Nick says:
The cable companies still have a unified agenda.
Nick says:
The government is authoritarian.
Jordan says:
plus, these station broadcast the news
Nick says:
Cbc has showed more right-wing things since the conservatives got in power.
Jordan says:
the news is not biased
Nick says:
DUDE
Jordan says:
like what
Jordan says:
the only reason that CBC is talking about the war in afganistan is because the war has became importatn
Nick says:
The news is incredibly biased. What is left out or put in says a lot. Whether a station uses the word "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" makes huge difference.
Nick says:
People didn't care about afganistan before.
Nick says:
We were still their.
Jordan says:
they moved the troops into a more dangerous area
Nick says:
Now the conservatives in and now the people who hate the Iraq war support this one?
Jordan says:
and the people want our position reevaluated
Nick says:
are in*
Jordan says:
how do they support iraq
Nick says:
They support the afgan war.
Jordan says:
the conservative government doesn;t even support iraq
Nick says:
Which is similiar.
Jordan says:
the liberals brought us to afganistan
Nick says:
The conservative government supported the Iraq war because it was a capitalist war. They are only against it because they fear the wrath of the people.
Nick says:
Yes, but they are supporting this new militarily based venture.
Jordan says:
they aren't
Jordan says:
the parties are calling for an open discussion in the house of commons
Jordan says:
to reevaluate our position in the war
Jordan says:
and to discuss wheter we should be there or not
Jordan says:
that is what the news is reporting
Nick says:
Yeah
Jordan says:
and that is what is happening
Nick says:
But the news also reported a *majority* support for the new troop measures.
Jordan says:
maybe there is a majority support from the members
Nick says:
I am talking about Canadian citizens
Jordan says:
maybe the majority of canadians also support them
Jordan says:
i haven't polled anyone so i cannot tell
Nick says:
Why do the people hated the Iraq war for the Afgan war.
Nick says:
Because the upper class wants them to be.
Jordan says:
pardon
Jordan says:
did you mean why do people hate the war in iraq and not the one in afganistan?
Nick says:
Yeah
Jordan says:
oh
Nick says:
People flip flop all the time according to the will of the government.
Jordan says:
because there was proof that afgainistans taliban government was harbouring osoma bin laden after the world trade centre attack
Nick says:
The conservatives wouldn't be in Afganistan if it did not serve a benefit to the upper class. Because if they wanted to help people, they would be giving money to Africa.
Jordan says:
and the canadian citizens believed that we should go to afgainistan in an effort to catch osoma
Nick says:
No one cares about the Taliban. It's just a target for some other agenda. There are more important things to be done.
Jordan says:
becasue he killed thousands of innocent people
Nick says:
Canadians believe we should go to Afganistan because the government currently likes the idea.
Jordan says:
people didn't support iraq because there was not enough evidence to support an invasion on the weapons of mass destruction lie
Jordan says:
no respectful government would ever like the idea of war
Jordan says:
or respectful human for that matter
Nick says:
Iraq still had a dictator
Nick says:
Who was killing innocent people
Nick says:
More than Osama I assume.
Jordan says:
and so do many other countries
Nick says:
Exactly
Jordan says:
i know that
Jordan says:
i never said they didn't
Nick says:
Osama threatens capitalism and America, and, for that reason, he is being targeted (along with the opportunity for resources and imperialism)
Jordan says:
as selfish as it may sound, the nation goes to war based on the intest of the nation and how big a threat another country is to another nation
Jordan says:
osama directly attacked america
Jordan says:
saddam didn;t
Nick says:
Exactly
Nick says:
So even wars that risk the lives of working class individuals and increase the taxes of working class people are being fought in the interests of capitalism.
Jordan says:
and, since osama killed many innocent canadians, americans, and many other nationalities, then we go after him
Jordan says:
not saddam
Jordan says:
who just hurts his own people
Nick says:
Osama killed people as a response to Western Imperialism.
Jordan says:
says whom>
Nick says:
Not the people directly (but western countries) are responsbile for 911
Nick says:
Religion spreads because of imperialism and class structure.
Nick says:
A violent religious attack is the result of imperialist and capitalist philosophy.
Jordan says:
according to?
Nick says:
Basic knowledge.
Jordan says:
osama could have attacked the us for many reasons
Nick says:
Religion is a method of oppression; therefore, it is used in areas where class structure exists.
Jordan says:
religion is usually an method of inner peace and knowledge
Nick says:
That's bs.
Jordan says:
people follow religion because they want hope and faith
Nick says:
Osama was just a Muslim version of Bush (a capitalist looking for a target)
Jordan says:
osama was a muslim extremist
Jordan says:
and extremist like your anarchy friend on the message board
Nick says:
People follow a religion because they are too weak and foolish to change the world. They want to wait out for a nonexistant heaven that is presented to those who conform to capitalist teachings.
Jordan says:
and if you do post this on their don;t edit that out
Nick says:
lol
Jordan says:
yes, some people probably do follow religion for that reason
Jordan says:
but there are many other reasons as well
Nick says:
That all connect back to capitalism and the status quo.
Jordan says:
you can't just generalize a group of people like that
Nick says:
Yes you can
Jordan says:
no you can;t
Nick says:
Countries with lower gaps in wages have lower amounts of religious people.
Jordan says:
thats judging everyone who follows religion as weak and don't have a will of their own
Nick says:
It's a quite clear correlation that is easily argued back to the status quo.
Jordan says:
not really clear
Nick says:
Most people (including myself) are weak and subject themselves to the will of an unjust authority (whether real or imaginary)
Nick says:
With research, it becomes clear. Propoganda on behalf of capitalists has caused it to be hazy.
Jordan says:
the real authority is the will of the majority
Jordan says:
which rhymes
Nick says:
The majority only creates positive change when it sees through the propoganda of the upper class.
Jordan says:
which is the minority
Nick says:
In terms of size.
Jordan says:
how can you say that a larger group of people are influenced by a smaller group of people
Nick says:
But in terms of power, they have the edge when it comes to using the democratic system of government (they created) as a means for change.
Jordan says:
are you saying the majority is weak and cannot think for themselves?
Nick says:
Grassroots methods work much better.
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
I am saying the majority is a generation that comes from a long line of people being oppressed.
Jordan says:
well, then they can come to their own decisions
Jordan says:
based on the evidence that they gather
Nick says:
Do you think the world just went "bang" one day from a monarchy do some perfect world where people think for themselves?
Nick says:
The upper class lost their monarchy (because of illegal rebellion) and sought to come up with a new way to manipulate a majority of people while being a majority.,
Jordan says:
yes
Nick says:
And they found a solution in capitalism.
Jordan says:
just a sec
Jordan says:
asif wishes to be added
Nick says:
Ok
Gangsta has been added to the conversation.
Jordan says:
welcome to the arguing
Gangsta says:
about what?
Jordan says:
politics
Jordan says:
and how nick is wrong
Gangsta says:
so canadian or americam?
Jordan says:
more about the political spectrum
Jordan says:
and how nick is wrong
Nick says:
(I'm right as usual, of course)
Gangsta says:
and how capitalism is wrong yet communism will never work either?
Jordan says:
of course i'm kidding nick
Nick says:
Jordan says:
he's arguing on the side of anarchism
Jordan says:
and nick
Nick says:
Jordan is arguing for liberalism
Gangsta says:
according to Patrick
Jordan says:
i don't agree with capitialism
Gangsta says:
the chinese will switch over from communism to anarchism
Gangsta says:
it could be like the new thing in the political world
Nick says:
That would be amazing if they did, but I would be surprised.
Jordan says:
and fail, like the communism did
Jordan says:
neither would i
Gangsta says:
well communism is obviously not working for them
Nick says:
They aren't communist.
Gangsta says:
yeah they are
Nick says:
They have a command economy that is capitalist in nature.
Nick says:
It's actually quite offensive to call them that.
Gangsta says:
i did not say they were perfect commy's
Nick says:
It's like me calling myself a Muslim when I don't even worship or believe in God.
Nick says:
I do eat - like other Muslims do - but that doesn't make me one.
Gangsta says:
it is called the communist people's republic of China
Gangsta says:
i swear they are commy's
Nick says:
Action defines you - not your name.
Jordan says:
true
Jordan says:
but still, communism doesn't actually
Jordan says:
work
Gangsta says:
yeah but they are labeled as one of the only countries in the world that still follow communism
Jordan says:
in theory it doesn
Jordan says:
does
Gangsta says:
in a perfect world communism would work
Nick says:
Neither of you have ever presented me a strong case that communism can't work in practice.
Gangsta says:
yet we do not live in a perfect world
Jordan says:
exactly
Gangsta says:
has it ever worked nick?
Nick says:
Upper class individuals want people to think China is communist so people associate communism with negative ideas.
Jordan says:
same for anarchism
Nick says:
That doesn't mean it can't work.
Nick says:
That's an entirely illogical thing to say.
Jordan says:
human nature is the downfall of communism
Gangsta says:
okay so you are saying that China is not officially communist?
Nick says:
That's a cliche that has no weight in a debate.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
how so nick
Jordan says:
how does it not have weight>?
Nick says:
You can't just say a statement point blank and pretend it'
Nick says:
it's a fact.
Gangsta says:
answer me this is china communist?
Nick says:
You have to justify it.
Nick says:
No!
Jordan says:
okay
Gangsta says:
what
Jordan says:
communism wants an equal spread of the wealth, correct?
Nick says:
Not in my opinion, at least, and we are arguing about whether or not what I believe is wrong.
Gangsta says:
world have you been living on for the last ten years?
Nick says:
Communism wants wealth to be nonexistant and spread resources evenly.
Nick says:
The real world, Asif.
Gangsta says:
apparently not
Nick says:
Alright then
Gangsta says:
if you think china is not communist
Nick says:
Dude
Gangsta says:
man i have talked to people who have lived in china
Nick says:
That's because they call China communist.
Jordan says:
actually, since china has became more capitalist, the country is running smoother
Nick says:
China does not conform to the meaning of what communism is.
Nick says:
That's because China has never been communist in the first place.
Gangsta says:
i never said they were the perfect commy's
Nick says:
They aren't commies at all.
Jordan says:
more people are not living in poverty
Gangsta says:
yes they are
Jordan says:
they are in some ways
Jordan says:
not all
Gangsta says:
hong kong is not communist
Nick says:
And I am a Christian Muslim who works at Walmart in some ways.
Jordan says:
good for you!
Jordan says:
but nick
Gangsta says:
okay then what country is communist?
Nick says:
I wouldn't consider any countries currently communist.
Nick says:
One could argue that Cuba is an authoritarian form of communism (which I disagree with).
Gangsta says:
are you dismissing the theories and beliefs of Chairman Mao?
Nick says:
But it is still technically not communism because it fails to follow communist ideology.
Nick says:
Mao is a hack.
Gangsta says:
he led the communist revolution in China
Nick says:
Modern communists don't take him seriously.
Jordan says:
like you?
Gangsta says:
who are these modern commy's you talk of
Gangsta says:
are they commy's or anarchists?
Nick says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy
Nick says:
Anarchists
Nick says:
All anarchists are socialist
Nick says:
But not all communists or socialists are anarchist.
Gangsta says:
so who in your opinion is a communist country
Jordan says:
past of present
Jordan says:
or
Gangsta says:
and if you say N. Korea,
Gangsta says:
Nick says:
Spain may have been communist for a short period *but that is arguable)
Jordan says:
ha. kim jong il.. .tsk
Jordan says:
which period nick?
Gangsta says:
so tell me how many times has communism been implemented and yet it failed
Nick says:
That is irrelevant.
Gangsta says:
i think it is relevant
Nick says:
You have to make an argument that connects each failure to a common thing to make it have any weight.
Nick says:
Otherwise people can just say "thing X has not worked yet so it is impossible"
Jordan says:
but the fact of the matter is, every communist or anarchist country has failed
Gangsta says:
it demonstrates human tendencies
Nick says:
Then nothing would be discovered very often.
Gangsta says:
tell me a country where communism has not been tried?
Nick says:
Women have not achieved full equality yet, so it will never happen. Blacks are not fully equal yet, so it is impossible. White people have always ruled, so they always will.
Nick says:
By your logic, all my above statements are true.
Nick says:
It depends on what your definition of tried is Asif.
Nick says:
I would say Canada, for one answer.
Gangsta says:
exactly
Gangsta says:
ha
Jordan says:
the communist repblic of canada
Jordan says:
sounds interesting
Gangsta says:
every country has desperately tried to implement communism yet either the people have rejected it or it has died down itself
Gangsta says:
you could say the same thing about capitalism then
Gangsta says:
true capitalism does not take advantage of the poor
Gangsta says:
it is supposed to make everyone rich
Gangsta says:
yet that will never happen
Jordan says:
be right back
Nick says:
That's not 100% set in stone etiher, but there are strong arguments that you are correct.
Gangsta says:
hahahaha
Gangsta says:
did you just say that i was correct
Gangsta says:
wow that is something new
Jordan says:
it is
Gangsta says:
so according to that theory capitalism has never successfully been implemented either
Nick says:
True
Jordan says:
true
Nick says:
But that implies that the theory of capitalism itself is good.
Gangsta says:
is it>
Nick says:
Which involves some people having nothing and other people have a lot.
Nick says:
In accordance with how capable they are (and capability is genetic for the most part)
Gangsta says:
so will communism ever work?
Nick says:
So there are legitimate arguments against the philosophy itself.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
it might
Nick says:
Communism, however, is a classless, stateless society, which most people (free from manipulate) have nothing against.
Gangsta says:
if capitalism can't work, then what makes you think that us humans are capable of communism
Nick says:
Capitalism has inheirent flaws that result from the accumulation of capital.
Nick says:
Communism is designed around preventing its own failure.
Nick says:
Anarchist communism*
Gangsta says:
no capitalism has flaws because the theory is made for the apparent perfect world that does not exist
Nick says:
Capitalism is not made for a perfect world.
Gangsta says:
and yet it can't work
Gangsta says:
okay think about it
Nick says:
It is made for an unjust world. It was created to be a pratical rather than ideal society.
Gangsta says:
the idea that everyone will be rich
Nick says:
Communism was designed as an ideal.
Nick says:
That is not capitalism
Gangsta says:
i think that it is
Jordan says:
communism was also designed for a perfect world that does not exist
Nick says:
The idea behind capitalism is that people have more than other people, but the people with less have the opportunity to get more.
Gangsta says:
it is for everyone to gain capital wealth\
Nick says:
The idea that communism cannot work is something capitalists perpetuate because they fear it.
Gangsta says:
and to gain capital wealth
Nick says:
Yes
Nick says:
And when one person gains more wealth, they use it to stop others from getting wealth (because them getting wealth causes their capital to be worth less)
Nick says:
Therefore, the whole idea of equal opportunity capitalism is a farce.
Gangsta says:
so do u think it is ever possible to convince the billionaires of this world to give up their money and start off a poor man
Gangsta says:
there is no possible way
Nick says:
Communism doesn't involve people being poor.
Gangsta says:
unless with force
Nick says:
Revolution is part of communist society.
Gangsta says:
it is a binary opposite
Gangsta says:
if one is poor then other is rich
Nick says:
You know binaries are unjust and simplified.
Gangsta says:
well this one is quite just
Gangsta says:
are u going a little deconstructive on me
Nick says:
Why should one person have more than other simply because he was born into wealth or got lucky?
Nick says:
Why can't people just have what they need and then share extra things?
Gangsta says:
okay but what about the person who works harder than the slum across the street
Nick says:
Do you know how much money would be saved in a capitalist society? Instead of everyone buying a million copies of a book, people would use libraries more.
Gangsta says:
does he not deserve more
Nick says:
The slum is on the street because of circumstances beyond his control.
Jordan says:
because, nick, it is human nature to want more than someone else
Gangsta says:
no by slum i mean a rich guy who does not work
Nick says:
That's something that has been perpetuated into our mind by capitalist society.
Nick says:
Otherwise, I, a leftist, would be taking Science for the money rather than English because I enjoy it.
Gangsta says:
this is perpetuated in the animal world quite nicely
Nick says:
Social Darwinism is not applicable hear.
Nick says:
Charles Darwin did not intend his theories to be used to justify capitalism, and social darwinism was an ideology adopted by Nazi Germany.
Gangsta says:
a monkey who works and shows good leadership skills will gain more success and privileges than the lazy monkey who does nothing
Nick says:
So you don't want to argue in that direction.
Nick says:
Why is the monkey lazy in the first place?
Gangsta says:
i don't plan to
Nick says:
Perhaps he was unliekly an born with bad genes?
Nick says:
Or his environment he grew up in was poor.
Nick says:
It was one or a combination of the two, and he can hardly be blamed for that.
Gangsta says:
in my opinion, Darwin's theories were nothing but observations that he himself probably did not make
Jordan says:
i'd love to stay and argue but i'm afraid i have to go
Nick says:
If we are condemning people based on genetics or where they come from, we should be murdering people in masses.
Jordan says:
talk to you both later
Gangsta says:
his slave probably did all his work for him
Nick says:
The left-wing is about perpetuating equality.
Gangsta says:
cya Jorda
Gangsta says:
jordan
Jordan has left the conversation.
Gangsta says:
okay let me get this straight
Gangsta says:
are u defending Darwin>
Nick says:
We don't want to argue Darwinism again.
Gangsta says:
oh i think we do
Nick says:
I am defending Darwin in saying that he wasn't a Nazi, yes.
Gangsta says:
well if he had been alive during that time
Gangsta says:
he would have turned Nazi
Nick says:
lol
Nick says:
I doubt it
Gangsta says:
well it is true
Nick says:
He was pretty much a moderate guy.
Gangsta says:
what
Nick says:
He wasn't left or right-wing, in my opinion.
Gangsta says:
the guy was openly anti feminist, racist and majorly capitalist
Gangsta says:
he so was
Nick says:
He wasn't an extreme capitalist
Nick says:
I still haven't seen his racism.
Nick says:
sexist
Gangsta says:
what rememeber what Mrs. Maclean said
Nick says:
Probably, but so were alot of people at the time
Gangsta says:
well that does not justify it
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
But being a sexist in his time was not as extreme.
Gangsta says:
still not a good thing
Nick says:
If he grew up in our day, he might just be a guy who says some snide remarks about women.
Nick says:
No
Gangsta says:
not all people were sexist at that time
Nick says:
No
Gangsta says:
you cannot blame his time for his bad actions or ideas
Nick says:
They influenced him.
Nick says:
His time wasn't as advanced as ours.
Nick says:
He might have been quite liberal for his time, for all I know
Gangsta says:
that still does not justify his racist and anti feminist thoughts
Gangsta says:
why do u think Mrs. Maclean did not like hime?
Gangsta says:
the guy hated females
Gangsta says:
not to mention the only reason why he had those theories was because he wanted to make large sums of money through starting a whole controversy and challenging the theory of creation
Nick says:
How about this
Gangsta says:
k
Nick says:
I will talk to Mrs. McLean tommorow
Nick says:
And we can find out some of this.
Nick says:
Anyway, I gtg
Nick says:
ttyl
Gangsta says:
yeah ttyl
Jordan represents my friend (who I consider a liberal/democratic socialist mix), and Nick is I (an Anarcho-Communist. I am seeking comments/flaws in my argument or his that I may have missed. Thanks. Or just comments in general.
Gangsta* is another friend of mine who jumped into the conversation late. I don't know for sure his political affiliation.
Nick says:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html
Jordan says:
oh nick
Jordan says:
you and your non-voting
Nick says:
You and your voting.
Jordan says:
so?
Nick says:
You're legitimizing a system based on unfair social and economic hierarchies by voting.
Jordan says:
no really
Jordan says:
bo
Jordan says:
not
Nick says:
bo not?
Jordan says:
i mean not really
Nick says:
Technically you are.
Nick says:
If you participate in something, you are giving it legitimacy.
Jordan says:
its not as black and white as thaqt
Nick says:
There are arguments to participate in something illegitmate, in some circumstances, because you are being threatened by force to do so.
Jordan says:
its not, if you do this then you must support this
Nick says:
You may not support it, but you are giving it a claim to legitimacy - regardless of whether it's your intent.
Jordan says:
people can vote for a certain political party and not support all of their issues
Jordan says:
not really
Nick says:
You're still partially responsible for what actions they do when in power.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
not really
Nick says:
If someone votes for me in an election, I can say "so and so voted for me", so I have a legitimate claim to do what I want.
Nick says:
And people take numbers more seriously.
Nick says:
Which is why the upper class government encourages people to vote .
Nick says:
They don't care about democracy - they care about securing their power and spreading the idea that it is legitimate.
Jordan says:
majority rules nick
Jordan says:
if a leader wants to go to war
Jordan says:
you don't have to support it even if you voted for the leader
Nick says:
You don't have to.
Nick says:
But you voted for that leader so you are partially responsible for what they are doing.
Jordan says:
you are not even giving him/her your approval of the war by voting for him
Jordan says:
or her
Nick says:
You gave them your the ability to do things you disagree with before you knew they would do them.
Jordan says:
how?
Jordan says:
its not that black and white
Jordan says:
are you saying if you by something from, lets say Nike
Jordan says:
that you are supporting child labour?
Jordan says:
or maybe you just like the way you look in those clothes
Nick says:
Indirectly, yes.
Jordan says:
well, you do a lot of stuff indirectly
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
but that doesn't stop people from doing it
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
so, the same applies to voting
Nick says:
But people usually do immoral stuff indirectly for reasons that benefit themselves.
Nick says:
It does - people will still do it.
Nick says:
But not voting is still preferable.
Jordan says:
but do you really think that you can protest something a government does if you don't participate in voting?
Nick says:
Why not.
Nick says:
I have never seen any proof that the government does anything.
Jordan says:
if you do not participate in the process you should not say anything against the government
Jordan says:
come on nick
Jordan says:
the government does a lot
Nick says:
Movements such as the civil rights and gay rights movements pressured the government.
Jordan says:
medicare
Nick says:
They just felt threatened by grassroots movements and decided to act to protect themselves.
Jordan says:
welfare
Jordan says:
childcare (almost)
Nick says:
Medicare and welfare are taxed-based programs that could be easily managed by workers councils or colelctives.
Nick says:
The government does things under the threat of its people while attempt to maintain the wealth of the upper class - which influences it through lobbies and donations.
Nick says:
Why do you think we have a conservative government now? People aren't just stupid, and conservatism isn't just another "legitimate" political philoophy. It's a corrupt sham designed to perpetuate class conflict.
Jordan says:
we barely have a conservative government
Nick says:
Not participating in something does not take away your right to criticize it - especially when that organization has influence over your life.
Jordan says:
yes it does
Nick says:
That's irrelevant. In a society where people are free from capitalist oppression, no one would vote conservative (aside from practical jokers).
Jordan says:
if you don't want to make an effort to at least attempt to make a change in the government, what gives you the right to critize it?
Nick says:
The government is a force that bullies people and takes advantage of them on a whim. People don't even have the choice to remove themselves from the government.
Jordan says:
i'm not saying you can't
Jordan says:
the people can overthrow the government democratically
Nick says:
There are other ways to eliminate the government and cause change to happen. Again, most things the government does are influenced by people.
Nick says:
There is little proof that the government can be overthrown democratically.
Jordan says:
if there is enough of a want of change, a vote of no confidence can be called
Jordan says:
even if the governing party has a majority
Nick says:
The Labour Party in Britain is a prime example of that. They have shifted their priorities quickly enough.
Jordan says:
the only reason the Labour Party got re-elected is britian stuck with the evil they knew
Nick says:
No socialist party has even attempted to achieve a better society for the working class without pressure from strong working class individuals.
Nick says:
Voting for the lesser evil is just a way to make yourself feel "you did what you could" instead of pushing for real change.
Jordan says:
who says the people wanted a change
Nick says:
Upper class individuals protect their power well. They close loopholes at every opportunity. Voting doesn't have to be eliminated because people are under the illusion that it does something.
Jordan says:
other than the war, maybe the british like what the labour party is doing.
Nick says:
It's irrelevant what the people like when they are influenced by upper class tyranny.
Nick says:
Whenever capitalism exists, what the people want is strongly influenced by what their oppressors want. People do not have freedom of though within a capitalist society because of propoganda.
Jordan says:
how do you define freedom
Nick says:
The ability to act and decide in a society with liberal attitudes towards social issues. A society where people are equal, and, consequently, seek to inform rather than manipulate. Freedom from manipulation is essential in a society that is to work.
Jordan says:
who says we dont have that now
Nick says:
It's unarguable now. As long as people with more power exist, they will seek to defend that power by making it seem legitimate.
Jordan says:
any form of government has a least one person with more power than the average person
Nick says:
Exactly
Jordan says:
even anarchy
Nick says:
Anarchy doesn't have government.
Jordan says:
people still can have more power
Jordan says:
if not money, or influence,
Jordan says:
Force
Nick says:
Some people may have a slightly higher amount of power, but society is organized in a way that it is irrelevant.
Jordan says:
Violence. Since anarchism has often been associated with violence and destruction, some people have seen it as being too violent.
Jordan says:
Frederick Engels criticised anarchists for not being violent enough:
Jordan says:
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
Nick says:
The upper class encourages people not to be violent. They can be convinced otherwise.
Nick says:
That's a whole other issue altogether.
Nick says:
Anarchism and Communism have had an ideological war since Marx.
Jordan says:
with no government or laws, who is to say that the stong will overpower the weak
Jordan says:
it happen in nature all the time
Jordan says:
that should be
Nick says:
Society is restructured so working as a group is valued over individual effort.
Jordan says:
the strong will not overpower the weak
Nick says:
Animals in nature are not advanced.
Jordan says:
we are all animals
Nick says:
Anarchism is an advanced society that recognizes that cooperation is more efficient.
Jordan says:
we might think we are more intelligent or advanced but we are not
Nick says:
All animals act different, and animals evolve.
Jordan says:
animals kill for food
Jordan says:
it seems humans kill for fun
Jordan says:
or pleasure
Jordan says:
which is more advanced?
Nick says:
Some animals kill for fun, but it is usually for food as well.
Nick says:
Capitalist society encourages violence and power relationships that lead to such behaviors.
Jordan says:
but you just said the upper class does not encourage violence
Nick says:
With higher intellect comes more power for evil. We are still more advanced.
Nick says:
They don't encourage violence against them.
Nick says:
They use it all the time.
Jordan says:
how
Nick says:
Taxation, laws.
Jordan says:
taxation to provide services for all the citizens
Jordan says:
without taxation many people would be worse off then they are now
Nick says:
If you disobey a rule, you go to jail. It may not be direct violence in that case but it can be considered a form.
Nick says:
Taxation is fine, but people have little influence over taxation and how it works.
Jordan says:
laws are in place to keep the peace
Jordan says:
and to protect the citizens
Jordan says:
and yes, if you do break a law you should be punished
Nick says:
The government is not responsible and uncorruptable, so it can not be trusted with moeny
Jordan says:
laws are put in place by the majority
Nick says:
The majority has no right to make decisions for the rest of the world.
Jordan says:
people can also not be trusted with thier own money
Nick says:
Laws are authoritarian and right-wing.
Jordan says:
no nick, the aren;t
Nick says:
People cannot be trusted with their money because corporations and capitalism manipulate them - not because they are naturally stupid.
Jordan says:
laws don't have a place on the political spectrum
Nick says:
Yes they do.
Nick says:
It's called authoritarianism.
Nick says:
Which is Stalnist and Right-wing
Jordan says:
no, people just don't know how to handle money
Nick says:
Money isn't even neccessary - it is paper.
Nick says:
Designed to perpetuate class inequality.
Jordan says:
if you think that it is human nature to be peaceful and help people and cooperate then you are wrong
Nick says:
People are capable of labor and the labor per person division ratio when combined with sharing and public organizations provides almost all citizens in a future society with more than enough,
Nick says:
Human nature doesn't exist aside from the influences biology has on it.
Nick says:
Human nature evolves all the time - aside from eating, et cetera.
Nick says:
People are capable of cooperating because it is in the best interest of all groups to do so.
Jordan says:
not always
Nick says:
No, but in terms of the structure of a society it is more effecient.
Jordan says:
who says the people would want to form a society?
Nick says:
People do what is in their best interests.
Jordan says:
yes and usually that is to benifit themselves and not caring what the other people want
Jordan says:
peoples best intrests are not always the best inerests in the total society
Nick says:
No
Jordan says:
yes
Nick says:
But if you structure society so that they are, the problem is solved.
Nick says:
Which is what anarchism and communism do.
Jordan says:
and communism is working great!
Jordan says:
communism has yet to work
Nick says:
Communism is regularly used to justify authoritarian forms of goverment.
Nick says:
Of the places that actually tried to implement communism, most of them were Marxist - which is not anarchist.
Nick says:
And the anarchist attempt in Spain failed because of outside influence.
Nick says:
None of the anarchists movements have a history of failure caused by the philosophy itself.
Jordan says:
how many anarchists movements are there?
Nick says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_pres...ist_communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities)
Jordan says:
ha
Jordan says:
Rhode Island
Nick says:
Keep in mind that I might not agree with any of those examples of anarchism - I haven't read all of them.
Jordan says:
keep in mind all of them have failed
Jordan says:
shall we continue this little chat tomorrow?
Nick says:
Maybe
Nick says:
However
Jordan says:
i'm afriad i have to leave you
Nick says:
Past failure does not justify present failure.
Jordan says:
ture
Jordan says:
true
Jordan says:
rather
Nick says:
You have to find a similiar reason for each failure and then argue why that is a flaw that makes it impossible to work.
Jordan says:
lets end it on something i think we both agree on
Jordan says:
no form of government system or anarchy does not work the way it is intended
Jordan says:
and smarties are good
Nick says:
Can I post this conversation on a forum, btw?
Nick says:
I will agree with the latter
Jordan says:
i don't care what you do with it nick
Nick says:
There is no certainty with the first,
Jordan says:
go ahead
Jordan says:
post away
Jordan says:
Nick says:
I can get the great wisdom from some extremists.
Jordan says:
extremists are closed minded though
Jordan says:
they only see their side of the issue
Jordan says:
even though there is always two sides
Nick says:
Not always
Jordan says:
everything is not black and white
Nick says:
Sometimes they see both sides
Jordan says:
rarelyy
Nick says:
and the other side makes them more confident through its idiocy *conservatism)
Nick says:
Ok
Nick says:
Let's call them radicals then
Jordan says:
see nick
Jordan says:
you called conservatism idiotic
Jordan says:
isn't that being a wee bit closed minded>
Jordan says:
?
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
Ok
Jordan says:
why
Nick says:
Wait
Jordan says:
people have their beliefs
Nick says:
Authoritarian conservatism is idiotic.
Jordan says:
whether you agree with them or not
Jordan says:
to you it is
Jordan says:
maybe not for everyone
Nick says:
Libertarian conservatism has some good points.
Jordan says:
say Mr. fletcher>?
Nick says:
He is nice, but conservatism is still stupid.
Nick says:
You do realize you are contradicting yourself, I hope?>
Jordan says:
every political philosphy has a follower because someone is going to benifit from it
Nick says:
Liberalism states that all beliefs have legitimacy.
Jordan says:
the do
Jordan says:
they do
Nick says:
But you are saying radicals are not legitimate because they differ with liberalism on when to condemn certain beliefs.
Jordan says:
i never said they were non-legitimate
Jordan says:
i'm just saying the left leaning extremist are just like the right leaning radicals when it comes to their political beliefs
Nick says:
Right-wing radicals advocate censorship.
Jordan says:
blinded by the fact that they think their right to realize that there is more then their opinion
Nick says:
I have never advocated that. I am just very heated in how I argue with people.
Jordan says:
i never said you did
Jordan says:
i should have said most
Nick says:
There are quite a few differences between right and left with radicalism.
Nick says:
They are similiar in that they are radical - that's about it.
Jordan says:
and they think their right all the time
Jordan says:
that is why the centre is the best place to be
Nick says:
Well the left-wing is usually right, to be honest.
Jordan says:
so you can see both sides of the issues
Nick says:
You can be on the left and see both sides.
Jordan says:
and make a decision on how it will benifit the majority of the society
Nick says:
The center is just a failure to take a position.
Nick says:
Benefiting everyone is more important than helping the majority.
Jordan says:
you can never benefit everyone
Jordan says:
some one will always be left out or behind
Nick says:
You can benefit as many people as possible, and society should always be changing to attempt to make that group include one more person.
Jordan says:
but the politicians try to do the best they can
Jordan says:
and the society is changing
Nick says:
I'll believe that when I see it.
Nick says:
Society is changing because people are acting.
Jordan says:
we have progressed furthur in the past years
Jordan says:
society is controled by the people
Jordan says:
the people decide what is best for the society
Nick says:
That's an illusion
Jordan says:
and we elect officials to make decision on our part
Jordan says:
why is it an illusion?
Nick says:
The capitalists decide, and the people decide what they capitalists want.
Nick says:
Elected officials act under the influence of capitalism.
Jordan says:
nick, we are all capitalists
Jordan says:
if you live in this country
Nick says:
That's because of the society we live in - not because capitalism is a good system.
Jordan says:
you partake in capitialism
Nick says:
I never said I didn't.
Jordan says:
so, you said capitialist decide what is best for the society, and since every one in the country is invlolved in capitalism, that means that the people decide what is best for society
Nick says:
To an extent.
Jordan says:
and elect officials on to work in Ottawa on their behalf
Jordan says:
and thats why you should vote
Nick says:
But you know I was referring to the upper class elite. You are just twisting my words for the sake of argument.
Jordan says:
the upper class make a very small percentage of our society in canada
Nick says:
You can base your conclusion on a statement that is taken out of context.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
3% or something like that
Nick says:
And then influence the way the lower class votes.
Jordan says:
how
Jordan says:
do you have an example?
Nick says:
Why do you think people vote conservative? Again, it is not just another philosophy like you think it is.
Nick says:
They donate money to right-wing political parties.
Jordan says:
people are not voting for the philosophy
Jordan says:
they are voting for the party
Nick says:
They give money to businesses that spread messages that are right-wing.
Jordan says:
which has the platform that they agree with
Nick says:
The party stands for the philosophy. Regular people would not vote conservative unless they were manipulated into doing so.
Jordan says:
plus, in the past election, people voted conservative to punish the liberals
Jordan says:
how are they manipulated?
Jordan says:
maybe the majority of the society agrees with them
Nick says:
Again, using wealth to encourage things like religion, conservatism, and voting for the conservative party.
Jordan says:
maybe the people believe that that is what is best for the country
Nick says:
If the majority of society agrees with conservatism, they are being manipulated to agree with it because conservatism is not good for the majority of people.
Jordan says:
and they came to that decision on their own free will
Nick says:
People obviously believe that because they are being manipulated to believe that.
Jordan says:
hoiw
Jordan says:
how
Nick says:
They came to that decision, in the end, out of their own free will, but their choice was manipulated.
Nick says:
The upper class controls the majority of the world's wealth. You underestimate that power and how it can spread and influence the voting population.
Jordan says:
explain the influence it has on normal people
Nick says:
Rich businessman gives money to the church.
Nick says:
The church tells people "abortion is evil"
Nick says:
People vote conservative
Jordan says:
the citizens can watch the news, read the mail, listen to the speeches, read the platforms, and come to a decision that they will think will best benifit themselves and the country
Nick says:
Rich people tell a newpaper to write something against socialism - it does it.
Jordan says:
abortion is legal
Jordan says:
the rich have no power over independent media
Nick says:
The news is biased according to who is influencing/paying the station.
Jordan says:
cpac is an independent station
Nick says:
Citizens are influenced by those with more capital and power.
Jordan says:
another right-winged media bull story?
Nick says:
Cpac is run by the cable company, which is a business, and most people don't watch cpac for their news because business owners encourage people to watch other stations.
Jordan says:
cable companies
Jordan says:
cbc is owned by the government
Nick says:
The cable companies still have a unified agenda.
Nick says:
The government is authoritarian.
Jordan says:
plus, these station broadcast the news
Nick says:
Cbc has showed more right-wing things since the conservatives got in power.
Jordan says:
the news is not biased
Nick says:
DUDE
Jordan says:
like what
Jordan says:
the only reason that CBC is talking about the war in afganistan is because the war has became importatn
Nick says:
The news is incredibly biased. What is left out or put in says a lot. Whether a station uses the word "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" makes huge difference.
Nick says:
People didn't care about afganistan before.
Nick says:
We were still their.
Jordan says:
they moved the troops into a more dangerous area
Nick says:
Now the conservatives in and now the people who hate the Iraq war support this one?
Jordan says:
and the people want our position reevaluated
Nick says:
are in*
Jordan says:
how do they support iraq
Nick says:
They support the afgan war.
Jordan says:
the conservative government doesn;t even support iraq
Nick says:
Which is similiar.
Jordan says:
the liberals brought us to afganistan
Nick says:
The conservative government supported the Iraq war because it was a capitalist war. They are only against it because they fear the wrath of the people.
Nick says:
Yes, but they are supporting this new militarily based venture.
Jordan says:
they aren't
Jordan says:
the parties are calling for an open discussion in the house of commons
Jordan says:
to reevaluate our position in the war
Jordan says:
and to discuss wheter we should be there or not
Jordan says:
that is what the news is reporting
Nick says:
Yeah
Jordan says:
and that is what is happening
Nick says:
But the news also reported a *majority* support for the new troop measures.
Jordan says:
maybe there is a majority support from the members
Nick says:
I am talking about Canadian citizens
Jordan says:
maybe the majority of canadians also support them
Jordan says:
i haven't polled anyone so i cannot tell
Nick says:
Why do the people hated the Iraq war for the Afgan war.
Nick says:
Because the upper class wants them to be.
Jordan says:
pardon
Jordan says:
did you mean why do people hate the war in iraq and not the one in afganistan?
Nick says:
Yeah
Jordan says:
oh
Nick says:
People flip flop all the time according to the will of the government.
Jordan says:
because there was proof that afgainistans taliban government was harbouring osoma bin laden after the world trade centre attack
Nick says:
The conservatives wouldn't be in Afganistan if it did not serve a benefit to the upper class. Because if they wanted to help people, they would be giving money to Africa.
Jordan says:
and the canadian citizens believed that we should go to afgainistan in an effort to catch osoma
Nick says:
No one cares about the Taliban. It's just a target for some other agenda. There are more important things to be done.
Jordan says:
becasue he killed thousands of innocent people
Nick says:
Canadians believe we should go to Afganistan because the government currently likes the idea.
Jordan says:
people didn't support iraq because there was not enough evidence to support an invasion on the weapons of mass destruction lie
Jordan says:
no respectful government would ever like the idea of war
Jordan says:
or respectful human for that matter
Nick says:
Iraq still had a dictator
Nick says:
Who was killing innocent people
Nick says:
More than Osama I assume.
Jordan says:
and so do many other countries
Nick says:
Exactly
Jordan says:
i know that
Jordan says:
i never said they didn't
Nick says:
Osama threatens capitalism and America, and, for that reason, he is being targeted (along with the opportunity for resources and imperialism)
Jordan says:
as selfish as it may sound, the nation goes to war based on the intest of the nation and how big a threat another country is to another nation
Jordan says:
osama directly attacked america
Jordan says:
saddam didn;t
Nick says:
Exactly
Nick says:
So even wars that risk the lives of working class individuals and increase the taxes of working class people are being fought in the interests of capitalism.
Jordan says:
and, since osama killed many innocent canadians, americans, and many other nationalities, then we go after him
Jordan says:
not saddam
Jordan says:
who just hurts his own people
Nick says:
Osama killed people as a response to Western Imperialism.
Jordan says:
says whom>
Nick says:
Not the people directly (but western countries) are responsbile for 911
Nick says:
Religion spreads because of imperialism and class structure.
Nick says:
A violent religious attack is the result of imperialist and capitalist philosophy.
Jordan says:
according to?
Nick says:
Basic knowledge.
Jordan says:
osama could have attacked the us for many reasons
Nick says:
Religion is a method of oppression; therefore, it is used in areas where class structure exists.
Jordan says:
religion is usually an method of inner peace and knowledge
Nick says:
That's bs.
Jordan says:
people follow religion because they want hope and faith
Nick says:
Osama was just a Muslim version of Bush (a capitalist looking for a target)
Jordan says:
osama was a muslim extremist
Jordan says:
and extremist like your anarchy friend on the message board
Nick says:
People follow a religion because they are too weak and foolish to change the world. They want to wait out for a nonexistant heaven that is presented to those who conform to capitalist teachings.
Jordan says:
and if you do post this on their don;t edit that out
Nick says:
lol
Jordan says:
yes, some people probably do follow religion for that reason
Jordan says:
but there are many other reasons as well
Nick says:
That all connect back to capitalism and the status quo.
Jordan says:
you can't just generalize a group of people like that
Nick says:
Yes you can
Jordan says:
no you can;t
Nick says:
Countries with lower gaps in wages have lower amounts of religious people.
Jordan says:
thats judging everyone who follows religion as weak and don't have a will of their own
Nick says:
It's a quite clear correlation that is easily argued back to the status quo.
Jordan says:
not really clear
Nick says:
Most people (including myself) are weak and subject themselves to the will of an unjust authority (whether real or imaginary)
Nick says:
With research, it becomes clear. Propoganda on behalf of capitalists has caused it to be hazy.
Jordan says:
the real authority is the will of the majority
Jordan says:
which rhymes
Nick says:
The majority only creates positive change when it sees through the propoganda of the upper class.
Jordan says:
which is the minority
Nick says:
In terms of size.
Jordan says:
how can you say that a larger group of people are influenced by a smaller group of people
Nick says:
But in terms of power, they have the edge when it comes to using the democratic system of government (they created) as a means for change.
Jordan says:
are you saying the majority is weak and cannot think for themselves?
Nick says:
Grassroots methods work much better.
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
I am saying the majority is a generation that comes from a long line of people being oppressed.
Jordan says:
well, then they can come to their own decisions
Jordan says:
based on the evidence that they gather
Nick says:
Do you think the world just went "bang" one day from a monarchy do some perfect world where people think for themselves?
Nick says:
The upper class lost their monarchy (because of illegal rebellion) and sought to come up with a new way to manipulate a majority of people while being a majority.,
Jordan says:
yes
Nick says:
And they found a solution in capitalism.
Jordan says:
just a sec
Jordan says:
asif wishes to be added
Nick says:
Ok
Gangsta has been added to the conversation.
Jordan says:
welcome to the arguing
Gangsta says:
about what?
Jordan says:
politics
Jordan says:
and how nick is wrong
Gangsta says:
so canadian or americam?
Jordan says:
more about the political spectrum
Jordan says:
and how nick is wrong
Nick says:
(I'm right as usual, of course)
Gangsta says:
and how capitalism is wrong yet communism will never work either?
Jordan says:
of course i'm kidding nick
Nick says:
Jordan says:
he's arguing on the side of anarchism
Jordan says:
and nick
Nick says:
Jordan is arguing for liberalism
Gangsta says:
according to Patrick
Jordan says:
i don't agree with capitialism
Gangsta says:
the chinese will switch over from communism to anarchism
Gangsta says:
it could be like the new thing in the political world
Nick says:
That would be amazing if they did, but I would be surprised.
Jordan says:
and fail, like the communism did
Jordan says:
neither would i
Gangsta says:
well communism is obviously not working for them
Nick says:
They aren't communist.
Gangsta says:
yeah they are
Nick says:
They have a command economy that is capitalist in nature.
Nick says:
It's actually quite offensive to call them that.
Gangsta says:
i did not say they were perfect commy's
Nick says:
It's like me calling myself a Muslim when I don't even worship or believe in God.
Nick says:
I do eat - like other Muslims do - but that doesn't make me one.
Gangsta says:
it is called the communist people's republic of China
Gangsta says:
i swear they are commy's
Nick says:
Action defines you - not your name.
Jordan says:
true
Jordan says:
but still, communism doesn't actually
Jordan says:
work
Gangsta says:
yeah but they are labeled as one of the only countries in the world that still follow communism
Jordan says:
in theory it doesn
Jordan says:
does
Gangsta says:
in a perfect world communism would work
Nick says:
Neither of you have ever presented me a strong case that communism can't work in practice.
Gangsta says:
yet we do not live in a perfect world
Jordan says:
exactly
Gangsta says:
has it ever worked nick?
Nick says:
Upper class individuals want people to think China is communist so people associate communism with negative ideas.
Jordan says:
same for anarchism
Nick says:
That doesn't mean it can't work.
Nick says:
That's an entirely illogical thing to say.
Jordan says:
human nature is the downfall of communism
Gangsta says:
okay so you are saying that China is not officially communist?
Nick says:
That's a cliche that has no weight in a debate.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
how so nick
Jordan says:
how does it not have weight>?
Nick says:
You can't just say a statement point blank and pretend it'
Nick says:
it's a fact.
Gangsta says:
answer me this is china communist?
Nick says:
You have to justify it.
Nick says:
No!
Jordan says:
okay
Gangsta says:
what
Jordan says:
communism wants an equal spread of the wealth, correct?
Nick says:
Not in my opinion, at least, and we are arguing about whether or not what I believe is wrong.
Gangsta says:
world have you been living on for the last ten years?
Nick says:
Communism wants wealth to be nonexistant and spread resources evenly.
Nick says:
The real world, Asif.
Gangsta says:
apparently not
Nick says:
Alright then
Gangsta says:
if you think china is not communist
Nick says:
Dude
Gangsta says:
man i have talked to people who have lived in china
Nick says:
That's because they call China communist.
Jordan says:
actually, since china has became more capitalist, the country is running smoother
Nick says:
China does not conform to the meaning of what communism is.
Nick says:
That's because China has never been communist in the first place.
Gangsta says:
i never said they were the perfect commy's
Nick says:
They aren't commies at all.
Jordan says:
more people are not living in poverty
Gangsta says:
yes they are
Jordan says:
they are in some ways
Jordan says:
not all
Gangsta says:
hong kong is not communist
Nick says:
And I am a Christian Muslim who works at Walmart in some ways.
Jordan says:
good for you!
Jordan says:
but nick
Gangsta says:
okay then what country is communist?
Nick says:
I wouldn't consider any countries currently communist.
Nick says:
One could argue that Cuba is an authoritarian form of communism (which I disagree with).
Gangsta says:
are you dismissing the theories and beliefs of Chairman Mao?
Nick says:
But it is still technically not communism because it fails to follow communist ideology.
Nick says:
Mao is a hack.
Gangsta says:
he led the communist revolution in China
Nick says:
Modern communists don't take him seriously.
Jordan says:
like you?
Gangsta says:
who are these modern commy's you talk of
Gangsta says:
are they commy's or anarchists?
Nick says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy
Nick says:
Anarchists
Nick says:
All anarchists are socialist
Nick says:
But not all communists or socialists are anarchist.
Gangsta says:
so who in your opinion is a communist country
Jordan says:
past of present
Jordan says:
or
Gangsta says:
and if you say N. Korea,
Gangsta says:
Nick says:
Spain may have been communist for a short period *but that is arguable)
Jordan says:
ha. kim jong il.. .tsk
Jordan says:
which period nick?
Gangsta says:
so tell me how many times has communism been implemented and yet it failed
Nick says:
That is irrelevant.
Gangsta says:
i think it is relevant
Nick says:
You have to make an argument that connects each failure to a common thing to make it have any weight.
Nick says:
Otherwise people can just say "thing X has not worked yet so it is impossible"
Jordan says:
but the fact of the matter is, every communist or anarchist country has failed
Gangsta says:
it demonstrates human tendencies
Nick says:
Then nothing would be discovered very often.
Gangsta says:
tell me a country where communism has not been tried?
Nick says:
Women have not achieved full equality yet, so it will never happen. Blacks are not fully equal yet, so it is impossible. White people have always ruled, so they always will.
Nick says:
By your logic, all my above statements are true.
Nick says:
It depends on what your definition of tried is Asif.
Nick says:
I would say Canada, for one answer.
Gangsta says:
exactly
Gangsta says:
ha
Jordan says:
the communist repblic of canada
Jordan says:
sounds interesting
Gangsta says:
every country has desperately tried to implement communism yet either the people have rejected it or it has died down itself
Gangsta says:
you could say the same thing about capitalism then
Gangsta says:
true capitalism does not take advantage of the poor
Gangsta says:
it is supposed to make everyone rich
Gangsta says:
yet that will never happen
Jordan says:
be right back
Nick says:
That's not 100% set in stone etiher, but there are strong arguments that you are correct.
Gangsta says:
hahahaha
Gangsta says:
did you just say that i was correct
Gangsta says:
wow that is something new
Jordan says:
it is
Gangsta says:
so according to that theory capitalism has never successfully been implemented either
Nick says:
True
Jordan says:
true
Nick says:
But that implies that the theory of capitalism itself is good.
Gangsta says:
is it>
Nick says:
Which involves some people having nothing and other people have a lot.
Nick says:
In accordance with how capable they are (and capability is genetic for the most part)
Gangsta says:
so will communism ever work?
Nick says:
So there are legitimate arguments against the philosophy itself.
Nick says:
Yes
Jordan says:
it might
Nick says:
Communism, however, is a classless, stateless society, which most people (free from manipulate) have nothing against.
Gangsta says:
if capitalism can't work, then what makes you think that us humans are capable of communism
Nick says:
Capitalism has inheirent flaws that result from the accumulation of capital.
Nick says:
Communism is designed around preventing its own failure.
Nick says:
Anarchist communism*
Gangsta says:
no capitalism has flaws because the theory is made for the apparent perfect world that does not exist
Nick says:
Capitalism is not made for a perfect world.
Gangsta says:
and yet it can't work
Gangsta says:
okay think about it
Nick says:
It is made for an unjust world. It was created to be a pratical rather than ideal society.
Gangsta says:
the idea that everyone will be rich
Nick says:
Communism was designed as an ideal.
Nick says:
That is not capitalism
Gangsta says:
i think that it is
Jordan says:
communism was also designed for a perfect world that does not exist
Nick says:
The idea behind capitalism is that people have more than other people, but the people with less have the opportunity to get more.
Gangsta says:
it is for everyone to gain capital wealth\
Nick says:
The idea that communism cannot work is something capitalists perpetuate because they fear it.
Gangsta says:
and to gain capital wealth
Nick says:
Yes
Nick says:
And when one person gains more wealth, they use it to stop others from getting wealth (because them getting wealth causes their capital to be worth less)
Nick says:
Therefore, the whole idea of equal opportunity capitalism is a farce.
Gangsta says:
so do u think it is ever possible to convince the billionaires of this world to give up their money and start off a poor man
Gangsta says:
there is no possible way
Nick says:
Communism doesn't involve people being poor.
Gangsta says:
unless with force
Nick says:
Revolution is part of communist society.
Gangsta says:
it is a binary opposite
Gangsta says:
if one is poor then other is rich
Nick says:
You know binaries are unjust and simplified.
Gangsta says:
well this one is quite just
Gangsta says:
are u going a little deconstructive on me
Nick says:
Why should one person have more than other simply because he was born into wealth or got lucky?
Nick says:
Why can't people just have what they need and then share extra things?
Gangsta says:
okay but what about the person who works harder than the slum across the street
Nick says:
Do you know how much money would be saved in a capitalist society? Instead of everyone buying a million copies of a book, people would use libraries more.
Gangsta says:
does he not deserve more
Nick says:
The slum is on the street because of circumstances beyond his control.
Jordan says:
because, nick, it is human nature to want more than someone else
Gangsta says:
no by slum i mean a rich guy who does not work
Nick says:
That's something that has been perpetuated into our mind by capitalist society.
Nick says:
Otherwise, I, a leftist, would be taking Science for the money rather than English because I enjoy it.
Gangsta says:
this is perpetuated in the animal world quite nicely
Nick says:
Social Darwinism is not applicable hear.
Nick says:
Charles Darwin did not intend his theories to be used to justify capitalism, and social darwinism was an ideology adopted by Nazi Germany.
Gangsta says:
a monkey who works and shows good leadership skills will gain more success and privileges than the lazy monkey who does nothing
Nick says:
So you don't want to argue in that direction.
Nick says:
Why is the monkey lazy in the first place?
Gangsta says:
i don't plan to
Nick says:
Perhaps he was unliekly an born with bad genes?
Nick says:
Or his environment he grew up in was poor.
Nick says:
It was one or a combination of the two, and he can hardly be blamed for that.
Gangsta says:
in my opinion, Darwin's theories were nothing but observations that he himself probably did not make
Jordan says:
i'd love to stay and argue but i'm afraid i have to go
Nick says:
If we are condemning people based on genetics or where they come from, we should be murdering people in masses.
Jordan says:
talk to you both later
Gangsta says:
his slave probably did all his work for him
Nick says:
The left-wing is about perpetuating equality.
Gangsta says:
cya Jorda
Gangsta says:
jordan
Jordan has left the conversation.
Gangsta says:
okay let me get this straight
Gangsta says:
are u defending Darwin>
Nick says:
We don't want to argue Darwinism again.
Gangsta says:
oh i think we do
Nick says:
I am defending Darwin in saying that he wasn't a Nazi, yes.
Gangsta says:
well if he had been alive during that time
Gangsta says:
he would have turned Nazi
Nick says:
lol
Nick says:
I doubt it
Gangsta says:
well it is true
Nick says:
He was pretty much a moderate guy.
Gangsta says:
what
Nick says:
He wasn't left or right-wing, in my opinion.
Gangsta says:
the guy was openly anti feminist, racist and majorly capitalist
Gangsta says:
he so was
Nick says:
He wasn't an extreme capitalist
Nick says:
I still haven't seen his racism.
Nick says:
sexist
Gangsta says:
what rememeber what Mrs. Maclean said
Nick says:
Probably, but so were alot of people at the time
Gangsta says:
well that does not justify it
Nick says:
No
Nick says:
But being a sexist in his time was not as extreme.
Gangsta says:
still not a good thing
Nick says:
If he grew up in our day, he might just be a guy who says some snide remarks about women.
Nick says:
No
Gangsta says:
not all people were sexist at that time
Nick says:
No
Gangsta says:
you cannot blame his time for his bad actions or ideas
Nick says:
They influenced him.
Nick says:
His time wasn't as advanced as ours.
Nick says:
He might have been quite liberal for his time, for all I know
Gangsta says:
that still does not justify his racist and anti feminist thoughts
Gangsta says:
why do u think Mrs. Maclean did not like hime?
Gangsta says:
the guy hated females
Gangsta says:
not to mention the only reason why he had those theories was because he wanted to make large sums of money through starting a whole controversy and challenging the theory of creation
Nick says:
How about this
Gangsta says:
k
Nick says:
I will talk to Mrs. McLean tommorow
Nick says:
And we can find out some of this.
Nick says:
Anyway, I gtg
Nick says:
ttyl
Gangsta says:
yeah ttyl