First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.
democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money
This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.
Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.
Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).
It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.
I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.
Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend.
That does not make it a 'democracy', and the fact that you refer to politicians as your 'masters' suggests that you don't believe that it's a democracy yourself.
It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy)
The Roman Republic was neither capitalist nor a democracy, unless you are going to mutilate these terms beyond human recognition.
The fact that you assume I am talking about a public politician when I say "master" is so cute
It's irrelevant to the point. If you claim that you have 'masters', whoever they be, you are admitting that you do not live in a democracy, as you do not.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast. There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that. Pretend I typed the same sort of thing about capitalism also.
This is about as far as I will go to address pilpul. Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead. But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast.
It isn't. 'Votes' are cast everywhere, North Korea included. The word is a buzzword to try to disguise oligarchies as somehow conferring power on the people.
There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that.
The Roman Republic was not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that you do not know how it functioned, and why it was finally overthrown, if you pretend otherwise.
Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead
How can I have a 'counterargument' to a bare assertion that the Roman Republic was democratic and capitalistic, when it was offered without argument?
But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
What was the intended meaning?
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
I think Machiavelli said the same thing that you did in the Discourses, that republics are expansionistic. The example of the British Empire (which qualifies as a republic the way he and many ancient writers use the term), the Third Republic and the US confirmed this further.
I'm phoneposting and it's inconvenient to copy/paste the little parts I'm replying to, but I'll go in order at least, kind of.
I agree that the word communism is a boogeyman buzzword. It's lazy to say it has no meaning at all imo tho. Each such word has its core buzzword meaning even stripped down to its bone. For instance in another comment I said that democracy implies "votes are cast". These words get raped, but rape is le real and the taint is forever a part of the lexicon. If "votes are cast" were all you knew whatsoever about democracy you could still understand and blend into a huge % of the overall discussion about it.
I like to take my best stab at what a person means when they misuse a word, rather than argue the word itself. I draw a hard line at tranny stuff and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but generally I don't want to argue definitions, I want to defend or attack some established or proposed idea. If you had the purity of mind (which I doubt I have personally) you could give me a corrected list of appropriate words and we could just start over with the same argument dressed in all the smoothest trappings.
I think using comparison to old ways of life to try and gatekeep the definition of modern day communism is some form of fallacy, but I can't name it so I won't be cocksure about it. For the sake of giving you an actual counterargument I will say my core rationale in saying so is that it does not scale effectively. I don't have any high and might logical support to whip out for that though. It just seems apparent looking at where/when/why/how that rationale has flourished and w/w/w/h it has failed and caused untold starvation death, for instance.
The same could be said for liberal capitalism (more raped buzzwords) and I'm not exactly trying to offer those concepts as the "solution"or "answer" to the ebil boogeyman of communism. I wanted to bitch because you, or someone, said real democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money, I am simply defending my bitching and I've not lost sight on that.
I reject how you view "the populace" there is no depoliticalization of the populace, the populace itself fills the spaces in between with its own natural order, which is inherently political. You can have politics engaged in through a lens of religion, of resource management, of merit, or of poop... but you will have it, one way or another.
I agree with your sentiment, that you don't prefer any system, but I don't trust you worth a damn there lol. I have my preferences too but my cope is that these things are determined first and foremost by nature on an astounding scale and that my preferences for x or y grand scale idea mean jack diddly. I believe we would both eat dirt if we got just a little bit of dark wish fulfillment.
Thanks for reading my needlessly long comment and turning it into a justifiably long reply. My vocabulary is failing me a bit here but I really appreciate that.
Can someone give me an eli5 rundown of what's happening in Venezuela? I haven't followed up on the situation at all ever since their economy crashed because of socialism and people became unable to buy basic necessities because their money became as valuable as toilet paper.
You can’t vote out Communism.
Categorically confused, eh?
First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.
This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.
Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.
Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).
It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.
I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.
That does not make it a 'democracy', and the fact that you refer to politicians as your 'masters' suggests that you don't believe that it's a democracy yourself.
The Roman Republic was neither capitalist nor a democracy, unless you are going to mutilate these terms beyond human recognition.
The fact that you assume I am talking about a public politician when I say "master" is so cute I don't even have the spirit to be mean to you about it
It's irrelevant to the point. If you claim that you have 'masters', whoever they be, you are admitting that you do not live in a democracy, as you do not.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast. There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that. Pretend I typed the same sort of thing about capitalism also.
This is about as far as I will go to address pilpul. Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead. But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
It isn't. 'Votes' are cast everywhere, North Korea included. The word is a buzzword to try to disguise oligarchies as somehow conferring power on the people.
The Roman Republic was not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that you do not know how it functioned, and why it was finally overthrown, if you pretend otherwise.
How can I have a 'counterargument' to a bare assertion that the Roman Republic was democratic and capitalistic, when it was offered without argument?
What was the intended meaning?
I think Machiavelli said the same thing that you did in the Discourses, that republics are expansionistic. The example of the British Empire (which qualifies as a republic the way he and many ancient writers use the term), the Third Republic and the US confirmed this further.
I'm phoneposting and it's inconvenient to copy/paste the little parts I'm replying to, but I'll go in order at least, kind of.
I agree that the word communism is a boogeyman buzzword. It's lazy to say it has no meaning at all imo tho. Each such word has its core buzzword meaning even stripped down to its bone. For instance in another comment I said that democracy implies "votes are cast". These words get raped, but rape is le real and the taint is forever a part of the lexicon. If "votes are cast" were all you knew whatsoever about democracy you could still understand and blend into a huge % of the overall discussion about it.
I like to take my best stab at what a person means when they misuse a word, rather than argue the word itself. I draw a hard line at tranny stuff and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but generally I don't want to argue definitions, I want to defend or attack some established or proposed idea. If you had the purity of mind (which I doubt I have personally) you could give me a corrected list of appropriate words and we could just start over with the same argument dressed in all the smoothest trappings.
I think using comparison to old ways of life to try and gatekeep the definition of modern day communism is some form of fallacy, but I can't name it so I won't be cocksure about it. For the sake of giving you an actual counterargument I will say my core rationale in saying so is that it does not scale effectively. I don't have any high and might logical support to whip out for that though. It just seems apparent looking at where/when/why/how that rationale has flourished and w/w/w/h it has failed and caused untold starvation death, for instance.
The same could be said for liberal capitalism (more raped buzzwords) and I'm not exactly trying to offer those concepts as the "solution"or "answer" to the ebil boogeyman of communism. I wanted to bitch because you, or someone, said real democracy cannot exist in a society dominated by money, I am simply defending my bitching and I've not lost sight on that.
I reject how you view "the populace" there is no depoliticalization of the populace, the populace itself fills the spaces in between with its own natural order, which is inherently political. You can have politics engaged in through a lens of religion, of resource management, of merit, or of poop... but you will have it, one way or another.
I agree with your sentiment, that you don't prefer any system, but I don't trust you worth a damn there lol. I have my preferences too but my cope is that these things are determined first and foremost by nature on an astounding scale and that my preferences for x or y grand scale idea mean jack diddly. I believe we would both eat dirt if we got just a little bit of dark wish fulfillment.
Thanks for reading my needlessly long comment and turning it into a justifiably long reply. My vocabulary is failing me a bit here but I really appreciate that.
Happy new year btw :3
Nobody ever tried.
Can someone give me an eli5 rundown of what's happening in Venezuela? I haven't followed up on the situation at all ever since their economy crashed because of socialism and people became unable to buy basic necessities because their money became as valuable as toilet paper.
Maduro is a retard, Guaido is CIA plant
This is the best response about this that I've received.
How do marx boots taste tankie bootlicker vermin? Please move to your genocidal communist shithole already tankie bootlicker scum.
Compromise: capitalists and communists are both scumbags.
This will make everyone happy, right?