Stoke up the fire! Saddams coming home!

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, I was restricted for being a little too confrontational with the anarchists. Guess I should have been a good little Leninist and kept my big mouth shut.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr@Aug 2 2004, 05:40 PM
Well, I was restricted for being a little too confrontational with the anarchists. Guess I should have been a good little Leninist and kept my big mouth shut.

If I recall correctly, you were restricted for being a misogynist and then kept that way because you spent a lot of time here trolling for attention once you became convinced that you wouldn't be unrestricted if you stopped acting like a brat.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Im not a misogynist, just misunderstood.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Seems more people on the abortion thread took a more reasonable approach to what I was saying this time rather then labeling me a misogynist and going along on their misanderous way.

[Xvall]

You are confused; Al Capone was a gangster a member of the mafia. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of goods, with prices, production, and the distribution of goods determined by competition in a free market i.e. through voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

And communism is supposed to be a socio-economic system wherein everyone makes decisions together and lives in an egalitarian system. Of course Al. Capone didn't really believe in any form of 'true' capitalism, but nor did people like Pol Pot actually believe in any form of 'true' communism. Like Al Capone, he was just using whatever economic system was in place to gain power through murder and intimidation.

As far as I know Al Capone had no degree in economics nor did he advocate any particular economic system.

No, didn't didn't have a degree in economics, but he did claim to support the 'american system'.

"This American system of ours, call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you will, gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."
-Al Capone

The people I cited did claim to represent Communism and believed in and espoused its benefits.

Likewise, Capone claimed to have a strong belief in capitalism. Hitler claimed to represent Germans. It doesn't mean that we should furthermore assume that people of german ethnicity of having some evil plot for world-domination.

You are quick to deride them as heretics, because they do not believe as you do. But as you pointed out yourself no person here can agree on the basic practices and tenants of communism. There for no matter who I debate and discredit you can simply say they did not represent true comminism.

Likewise, you can simply claim that people like Capone don't represent capitalism. It would only be fair. Think of it this way; Hitler also claimed to represent Christianity. People would be outraged if I started just bringing up 'bad christians' as a debate against christianity, instead of actually arguing about the core of christian theology. All we are saying is that you're more likely not to get yelled at by members of the board if you just stuck with criticizing works like the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Das Capital', as opposed to bringing up people like Pol Pot, who no communist on the board has ever liked.

The fact that there is disagreement on the basic structure of a communist society is because your ideology is fundamentally flawed.

There is disagreement on the basic structure of capitalist societies. Democrats differe greatly from Republicans. 'Anarcho-Capitalists' have entirely different beliefs than corporatists or modern-day entrepreneurs. Wouldn't that mean that capitalistic ideology is fundamentally flawed as well?

It is not about offering any practical solutions to problems; rather it is a critique of the present system.

That may be the case. Of course, with no power whatsoever in the nations that we live in (For most of us, anyways), we aren't allowed to implement practical solutions to our problems, and the only thing we can do, until we have some say in something, is criticize the present system. (And criticism proves to be, in most cases, benificial to society.)

Witch is why you don’t see a forum here dedicated to economics, but plenty of threads devoted to the evils of modern society.

There are not fourms titled 'economics', but rest assured there is pleanty of talk relating to economics in the other sections of the board.

Unfortunately the Manifesto says a lot of things, what concerns me is what happens when those ideas are implemented, and history has not been kind. So I will continue to believe that communism is authoritarian because logic and the evidence of one failed trial after another demonstrate this.

That's your opinion, you are entitled to it.

You will continue to believe that there are “libertarian” communists despite the evidence to the contrary, but you goal should be to persuade me otherwise.

There are libertarian communists. There are many of them, I don't know how to presuade you of this, other than pointing out the many libertarian communists on the board. In case you haven't noticed, most of the members here don't advocate a 1-party state.

And I challenge you to do so, by laying out your vision of a non-authoritarian communist society.

It will take me a while to lay out everything for you, but until then, just think of certain tribes of old, or the Native Americans. I'll get back to you with something a lot more intricate and detailed sometime soon.