Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "The London Anarchist Group Squatting Mansions to Fight Homelessness" video.

  1. Rights for your own property is right for the people.
    24
  2. IF you don't use your computer while you sleep. I will come and take it to my place.
    5
  3. +pedro 2560 Implying that Antifa members have ever read a single book.
    4
  4. +NachT Aktiv So it's morally right to steal from someone? I'm sorry but there is no excuse for being parasite. Those people are dying because of their own decisions. Aka decided to use drugs and alcohol in excess. Most of them have low IQ and are even violent. Only rare are good individuals who simply suffer from depression. They are not homeless because of those rich people, therefore you have no right to steal or harm them.
    4
  5. +Jarkov "First of all, I'm not even an anarchist" Well you sure got buttmad over someone criticizing anarchists. So it was reasonable assumption. Heck even in your new response you're acting like angry little kid who just learned some curse words. "but at least I bother knowing the basics and how an anarchistic society would be organized," By definition there won't be organization in anarchism. Also anachists themselves have no clue what they are talking about. As my experience tells me when I have dealt with them. How should I put this... They like to say what sort of things they promise as results of their ideals, but they never manage to explain specifics which how to actually achieve them. Sure they tell some vague statements, but never in detail. Once you actually push them to the details... Their whole ideology will crumble. Seen it thousand of times. Because then they realize that it's never achievable. "Also, regarding the difference between private and personal property, don't you think thay maybe it is best to do your homework first instead of acting like a spoiled brat in the comments section and then asking to be spoonfed?" Talk about growing up... When you do nothing but throw insult and don't even bother to explain how you define those things. You see in my experience lot of self-proclaimed anarchists and socialists, have their own definitions of words which don't really match dictionaries at all. The fact that you refuse to explain the difference by yourself, gives me hint that you don't even understand what you're talking about. You fear telling the difference, because you might get refuted on spot. You might end up embarrassing yourself. And you will embarrass yourself, as I have done this thousands of times already. You're not as smart as you think you are, in fact you're just a bit below the average.
    2
  6. ^nothing to do with horseshoe theory. Those who actually have read about nazies and communists knows that they were allied at start of the ww2 and that nazies were socialists. They are both in same side of the spectrum.
    1
  7. +The Neon Pogo Dancer Bolshevism did also send socialists and communists to concentration camps (Gulags for you). It's very common to eliminate your political opposition even if they shared some similarities with you. That doesn't mean that they weren't socialists. They were socialist party which wanted to achieve dictatorship of their party. " Also, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany was a non-aggression pact, not an alliance." It was non-aggression pact based on how they will share lands, and they both attacked Poland in manner which ensured that Polish people couldn't defend themselves against two front attacks. The pact was secret for a reason. Because it was the very pact which allowed WW2 to start in the first place.
    1
  8. +Brigadier General strike They believed they were socialists, their platform was socialists and their policies which they implemented were socialists. "After all we all know that the DPRK is democratic a republic and of the people." It actually was DPRK until it was turned into dictatorship. Socialism is so weak system that it's easy to turn it into dictatorship. In fact... It's pretty much the end result of socialism. Has happened literally every time it has been implemented when given enough time.
    1
  9. +ethan lei Anarchy is merely temporally state for new sort of system to arrive. It's not something that would last forever. Because it ignores human nature. Which is that we by our biological functions create hierarchical societies, and we don't do much for other people unless we gain something in return. There are some ancom societies even in USA and if you go look at them and you will see that they are terrible places to be.. No one takes care of their public property so place looks worse than slums. "personal property, or possessions, is stuff you can actually use, like a house, your toothbrush, etc. " House is always concerned as private property not as personal. You see people sell/rent houses. So you would define personal property as something that is only for you? But what if you hoard all the toothbrushes in the world? Or usable stuff? "and if you really have refuted this thousands of times you would know this. " Again, the problem is that you people don't even agree with among yourself what is private property and personal property. "i'd really like to hear you tell me there's no difference between a factory and a toothbrush in terms of how it affects society" Someone has to make toothbrush and factory. Toothbrush can be used as service to some people. For example brush other people's teeth. But best of all.. there would be no toothbrushes under anarchy. No one would bother to go through and create those. Especially for other people. Humans like all animals try to save as much energy they can. One out of many reasons why there has always been shortages in socialist and communistic states.
    1
  10. +Ethan Lei "ancom societies in the US function poorly because they lack resources. " No they don't... They get welfare support from the states and can go to shop and buy any resource that they would need to make decent place. You know... Like Amish people... Expect Amish people actually don't use welfare. What you just said is excuses. Truth for their "lack" of resources is based purely on the fact that they are too lazy to get them. " i just defined private and personal property as all other anarchist theory has" Really? Is a computer personal or private property? Since once can produce items through computers... So it must be taken as means of production. Same with printers etc.... Someone even can create factory for private usage as well. But again... As pointed out communists aren't really brightest folks which is why they make so poor job on defining things. ", it’s not whatever is “yours” you get to keep its whatever you create with your labor and can use is yours. " Ahaa... So only things I create for myself are mine? But what If I don't know how to build computer? Can you even comprehend how complex task it's to create something like computer? Or even a boat? First you need to mine minerals, that might not even be close to your region. Which means you need to travel in worst case of scenario to another side of the planet to get to those minerals. But before that you need mining equipment etc... All that aside, then you need to refine, smelt it and start to do some metal crafting. Even creating chip sets is complex task and programming them. How do you expect any sane person being able to master all these things? Making things worse... You can't farm while you do all of this... Which means you will die to starvation... Afteral no one will farm for you. Why should they spend extra hours in the field just so you could be in otherside of the planet building a computer which you won't share since according to you... IT would be personal property. " you didn’t create the billions of toothbrushes you stockpiled" But I can. " you also cannot use billions of toothbrushes, so it’s not yours. " So it's defined what I can use and what not? But I can use billions of toothbrushes. Save them for future or could make super uber toothbrush to wash my house with them, or streets. "you did not build your multi million dollar mansion, nor do you use it, so it. " What if I did? And does it matter if I had? Since I could pay someone to build it form me. Why is it wrong for me to pay someone for help? " it is collective property. " Collective didn't build it. It was build by the X amounts of people, who then sold it to me. " private property is stuff you own but do not use yourself or have built yourself, such as a mountain, or a factory." Now this is more accurate definition. However, what if I actually build means of production myself? Engineers could do that, but average people can't. Since they lack understanding and intelligence to do so. What if I build robot, which build another robot, and together they did build my house? "yes there would be toothbrushes under anarchy. when people want toothbrushes, what will they do? they will associate themselves with other people who want toothbrushes, form a democratic association of toothbrush-making," Doesn't work that way. There are hundreds of modern things that people would want. But why would someone join in your effort to create toothbrushes? What makes you think they even have skill and knowledge do so? And how will you feed yourself while you're making toothbrush? And your tooth-brush making wouldn't be long term plan but you would create small factor for short term usage. The problem with you people is... That you don't actually provide solutions. You simply claim that results, but you are incapable to actually going in details how it would work out. You don't even look at the problems that would come with your ideology. "practical slaves working for dirt wages just to survive. " That's funny because in western world people earn a lot. Not to mention that they aren't slaves on any level. Is a man a slave if he lives alone in deserted Island and he has to find food in order to not to starve? No he is not. What if there are two men? Is the one looking for food responsible to feed the other one who in this case wouldn't be contributing at all? Of course not. Welcome to capitalism, people help those who help them. It's system based on reality instead of wishful thinking.
    1
  11. +ethan lei Part1 1. Money is made-up, but so what? It doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial to the society. In fact money is the very reason civilization began in the first place. " farming tools, dynamos, rivers, solar panels. in today's society it takes a large amount of capital to acquire these, and thus it is arbitrary to examine present-day ancom societies and extrapolate on a global ancom society." First of all, it takes lot of ACTUAL resources to produce dynamos, farming tools and solar panels. Resources that no one in your society would bother to acquire. Do you know why it takes large amount of capita to acquire those? Because money is used as tool for trade, and it represents the resources that your civilization has access to. This is why simply printing more money will not solve problems but cause more. Because it will create artificial environment for money's true value. Hence you will end up suffering from inflation. And if you would remove money and just take what you want, you would end up with shortage. Since it's price that affects how much we can consume certain limited resources. Price is simply put... Hard limit on how much you can buy something. Supply and demand, basics of economics 101. Something that communists and socialists a generally aren't aware of. 2. By your very definition computer can be considered as means of production and private property. Since one can sell the programs made out of it. Programs are not fictional. They are hard data on someone's computer. Magnetic data to be precise. Just because something is created via computer, it doesn't make it any less real. Not comparable to fiat at all. "if you are referring to programs, those are capable of being instantaneously copied and reproduced, so they have no value. " Just because something can be copied and reproduced doesn't mean that they don't have value. For example you totally ignore the intellectual effort made to create it and how much resources one needs to sustain to live in order to even create such programs. Not to mention that you have limited hard drive space and how much it costs RESOURCES to use electricity and to send data packets. You do realize that computers don't work with magic? 3."if you create a factory, sure, you own the factory as an object. but that assumes you created all base parts of a factory and assembled it yourself. " Why does it matter did I create something alone or not? If some collective group that created factory X wants to trade their factory to me. Then why should I be forced to share it with other people who had nothing to do with that transaction? "even still, if you had created the factory, what would you do with it?" It's up to me. But what are you going to do about it? Send police in anarchist state? xD "factories create more complex objects from more simplistic objects, and where do you get these simplistic objects from? other people. " What If I get those simplistic objects myself? Also so what if other people would be involved? They get paid for being involved. I don't see how you are relevant to this process. Hence collective is meaningless, everyone actually involved is already gaining something. No need to give those who haven't done anything for it. 4. "is whatever you can justify owning based on your necessities and the necessities of those around you." So you will end up having society where only food is allowed to be personal property? Since humans literally don't need anything else than food in order to survive. Congrats... You just created system that puts us back to stone age.
    1
  12. +ethan lei Part 2 5. "people have different roles in life. some will be engineers, some will be farmers." Which is precisely why communism doesn't work. Because it would demand people to be some sort of super beings who know everything and can do everything. Since you're only allowed to own things you create yourself, it leads to following problems. 1. Everyone would be forced to farm their own food. Since no one is going to farm food for them without gaining something in return. 2. No one wants to do work which they don't like without gaining something in return. You will easily find freeloaders, artists and people willing to do sports for fun. But good luck trying to find cleaners, miners, farmers (rare amount of people actually want to farm), mailmen, truck drivers, those who deal with radioactive stuff etc... 3. Why work on anything since I can just take? You will notice that you will run out of goods pretty fast and end up seeing what happens in venezuela right at this moment. Aka shortage on even on the most basics necessities. "the excess he does not eat becomes communal property by the reasoning above. " So why would he bother to make more than he needs for himself? You have any idea how hard and time consuming farming is? "the engineer, if he wants more bread than he currently has, will make a tractor for the farmer to use. i" This comment alone proves how ignorant you are over process. First of all... Creating a tractor alone demands several different processes to be done. Which is mining mineral, refining then, smelting, smiting. The amount of work you need to do for one tractor is more than one person can actually do in reasonable amount of time. In fact there were some examples of these where people wanted to be purely self-reliant and like you... They underestimated how complex it's actually to produce everything by yourself even if you had the knowledge. It's extremely time consuming. " in return, the farmer provides him with more bread. this is called mutual aid." Not it's not. It's called as trade. This is capitalism in nutshell. Two individuals making willingly transaction among themselves. Google up definition of trade. What you just mentioned IS LITERALLY TRADING. And the amount of breads that the farmer needs to provide is ridicilous amount in order to keep everyone who were involved to create that tractor happy. And funniest part in here is... You didn't get rid of capitalism. You literally went back to the stone age, when people didn't use money as tool of trade, but instead traded goods among themselves. Which itself will create ridicilous amount of problems. For example, what if the farmer doesn't want anything from the engineer? What can engineer provide to farmer in that case? This is the core problem of socialists and communists... They don't understand basics of economics or economic history either. You guys are totally oblivious about these things, as proven just moment ago. 6. "mutual aid creates an incentive towards fair distribution of labor, capitalism does not." Objectively false. There is a reason why communist communities don't produce anyting but capitalists does. Because actual incentive is always in self-interest. " the "democratic association of toothbrush making" delegates sections of labor towards different people and these people work together through the fair extension of mutual aid to create a billion toothbrushes" You have any idea how time consuming it's to even start to work to make toothbrushesh? Especially when you are going to democratically vote for every freaking step you're going to take.. Let's put it this way... You're not going to be able to produce anything else beside that toothbrush, no free time at all. "the surplus is thus usable by those who can use it, and they will, because they either want it, or need it." What if there is only one computer as surplus, But 1 000 000 people want/need it? Enjoy that shortage... " also, remember that this is entirely voluntary. no one is forced to work days on end just to survive. " Yeah... In this magical world where resources are infinite and there are enough farmers, land to farm and resources to provide tools to make farming easier... What happens when there is limited amount of food? How will they then survive? who get's to eat? Will you confiscate farmer's food and democratically vote who get's them like they did in Ukraine under soviets? "this is perfectly okay, because in this society of post-scarcity not everyone needs to work." Post-scarcity is impossible. We always have limited amount of resources, were not living in magical wonder land. 7. Actually no... They aren't suppressed by people with some megalomaniacal attitude. Your solutions are suppressed because they are bad solutions. Scientists in those fields of studies mostly disagree with you. We have historical examples of those policies that you advocate failing... You aren't providing solution, you are providing more trouble. "do you think the laborers in third world countries think capitalism is fair? " Yes? That is why they are running away from socialist countries. " Capitalism drives efficiency and innovation but for the wrong reasons" Reasons and intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the results. Most horrific acts in mankind's history have been all committed with good intentions in mind. "exploiting workers isn't a greedy trait, it is a fact of capitalism" There are no exploitation of the workers in capitalism. Tell me... Are you exploiting the shop owner when you buy item there? No? Why not? Why is it different for labor force? The product they sell is their work effort. And for that business owner will choose the one who sells his work effort for best price and talent. With your reasoning programmers wouldn't make 3-10 thousands of euros a month. Because they are "exploited". If your reasoning would be correct, then they would be working for bread. Also in modern capitalist world... Every country has welfare, including USA. Meaning... No one is going to die hunger for not working.
    1
  13. +ethan lei Part 1 Reddit user scared out of long comments? Well first of all were talking about complex ideas and explaining them in details so that one might understand takes fairly a lot of text to be done. "as most of it is just strawmans and "lel socialism=lazy and no one wants to work! lel checkmate libtard!" " This is actually strawman. First of all... I never said that socialism= lazy. I simply stated that humans are by their very nature lazy and don't see any reason to spend more energy than they have to. This applies to all species on this planet. We wouldn't even exists if we did more work than we needed to survive. Second... I never would call communist as a liberal. Even though they are seen as similar today (because in USA communists did hide under labels such as progressives and liberals), they are almost polar opposite of each others if one understood their ideologies. "as i'm sure you know, work is a necessity of life. it is needed to produce all the goods in the world. this, you and i can agree upon, i'm sure. " Not really, one can live without working, but that would mean that they act as parasites to those who don't produce goods needed for parasites to live. But on general idea I agree. "however, you seem to believe that the only motivation for working lies in gaining what you create." Strawman, I never said this. Sure there are work of passions (like art for example), but you need to take into account that most work that we need to do in order to have functional societies, aren't the type of work that is generally work of passion. For example working in a coal mind. I really can't see many people being willing to do such work for fun. Or cleaning toilets. You might find couple nut heads to do that, but couple is not enough when the demand for such work is higher than people of passion would provide. And here comes the various problems. When people work whenever they please and like a lot of communists promise that work hours would be 3-4 hours. You would realize that it would drastically cut production all over the globe if people worked that little amount of time. Hence creating shortages. "capitalism provides this. wealth is a fantasy, a goal to reach. you search for it, and you can acquire it through labor. this is however, just a fantasy. " Objectively false. In case you didn't know, most wealth build by family, will be lost in 3 generations. In fact it's 90% of chance that the family's wealth is gone by then. With this I mean RICH families. This is actually empirical fact and has been recorded. Also you ignore the fact that lot of people have become extremely rich from poor to middle-class. It all depends on person. Their intelligence, talent, and drive. Simply put modern western world is based on meritocracy. This is why we produce the best stuff, we do most of the scientific advances and we hold most influence globally. "by capitalism's system of private property, only the few can become wealthy. this is proven, time after time after time." Because only few actually posses caliber to become rich. However there is literally nothing stopping you from becoming rich if you actually have talent for it. " surely you can understand that a system where only a few can reap the rewards sown is unfair. " On what basis only few reap the rewards? Everyone included in will reap the reward according to their value to the production. " even if they worked harder than the average person, they still depend on others for their success." Which is why they pay to those who were part of their success. However you didn't play any role on google's success for example (if you actually worked there then just switch google to any other company you haven't worked in). So you're not entitled to have anything from google. The thing which you advocate is that you should be entitled to steal from others whom you had not contributed at all. "without those beneath them, they would not be able to stand so high." But anyone else in their shoes would've failed and no one would've got anything. In fact... do some mental thinking for yourself. Try seriously think about creating a business. Think about doing the business plan, and all the other steps you need to take in order to create one. Then come back and tell me how easy it's and how managers don't have large contribution to the success of the business. You would be surprised to realize how complex it actually is. Far more complex than simply coming up with a good idea. "why does one man get to control the lives and labor of hundreds, or thousands, or even millions?" They don't control them.
    1
  14. +ethan lei part 2 "the motivation for labor may be wealth, but it is a contradiction that everybody should hope for wealth but only some should get it, and spend their lives toiling in a factory for a dream. " This lives under assumption that everyone cares to be rich. which seems to be you projecting your own desires on others. Most people in reality don't have desire to be rich. They just want to earn enough to go to bar once a week and to feed their family. You're trying to paint darker picture than reality is. As I already said.... In western world, even the low skilled workers own enough to have life standard higher than kings had centuries ago. They can travel around the world, enjoy luxurious life. What you're talking about is politics of envy. That someone hates the fact that someone else has more than they do. But as I said.. Most people are perfectly satisfied in their toiling in a factory. And there is nothing wrong with that. "having proved the motivation within capitalism false" No it's not. This is your strawman. Motivation to work under capitalism is not to become rich. It's generally motivation for those who create business. But it's not motivation for those who rather find someone whom they can work under. For them motivation is stable life. "we move to the motivation within anarcho-communism to work. the motivation to work is the rewards of the collective. " And here is the problem. No one feels motivated to clean toilets without gaining anything in return. How are you going to solve this? You're living under assumption that every job that we currently have in civilization, would be covered by someone who is passionate over it. But that is not the case as I already pointed out. In fact you still haven't addressed the fact why farmer should work to make food for everyone else? We already saw how this would end, when the Europeans did move to America. They actually had this system that you advocate, as results... They starved out until decided to stop using policy that you advocate. They starved because there were not enough people working. "because accessing this work of the collective requires providing for the collective, work thus has incentive. " Humans are not hivemind specie. What you describe is ant colony. Not humans. This is the major point people make against communism. The fact that you guys ignore the biological reality. "keep in mind, work for the collective doesn't mean working on a computer to get a computer, it means any work which benefits the collective on a proportional scale to recieve a computer. to sum it up, work for the collective, and the collective works for you. that is the incentive. it gets no simpler than that." So I'm not allowed to make computer unless I make computers for everyone in the society? yeah good luck seeing me or anyone else who is sane to bother to go through all that trouble. Not to mention what if it's not possible for everyone to get computer? Then no one has one? Nice way to set back technological development. Especially if most people would vote that computers are pointless, therefore I would have no means to produce one. "you are looking at this from the wrong view. from a capitalist perspective, it makes no sense. however, when viewing it from an objective viewpoint, and when you see the big idea, it begins to become comprehensible. so, keep an open mind. rigidity causes imperfections to grow without control. " I'm viewing it from objective viewpoint. Viewpoint that includes reality in it. My understanding over biology, human behavior and history that we had so far. Reality dictates that you're wrong. You have been brainwashed to believe this crap. "you say money is the creator of civilization, but that is not true. humans are the creators of civilization. society itself is a collectivist creation. money, when it began, was just a tool for trading. ALREADY existing trading. " From historical perspective you're wrong. It was literally impossible to have civilization before invention of money. That is why every ancient civilization that had existed had money. And those who didn't have money, lived in very small tribes and were technologically and culturally underdeveloped. Before money people could only provide services by trading goods they had made. For example if I wanted to have chicken I would need to trade another product for that chicken. Can you come up any flaws in such method? Probably can't so I tell what the flaw is. Let's say that I produce watermelons, and I want a chicken. I cannot get chicken by trading water melon if the chicken farmer doesn't wish to have watermelon. Therefore I would need to find someone to trade my watermelon in order to get something that chicken farmer likes. This is time consuming activity and in some cases might not work at all. Which meant no time for art or creating complex mechanism. Therefore invention of currency aka money allowed to civilization to arrive. Without money, there would be no artists, no actors, no singers, no complex machines etc... Because different people value different products. Hence they need common currency in order ease the trade. Without currency it would've been impossible for complex societies to arrive.
    1
  15. +ethan lei part 3 So by now I have seen astonishing amount of historical illiteracy from you. You have been ignoring reality thus far. " it is the bane of civilization. " Literally the thing which allowed civilization to be created in the first place. " NEARLY A BILLION PEOPLE ARE STARVING IN THE WORLD? ARE YOU THAT CLOSE MINDED?" Objectively speaking false. And those who are, don't live under free market capitalism. In fact the opposite. They live in country where they aren't given the legal chance to rise up. "still, you say that anarcho-communism will consume all the resources the world has to offer, yet you say there will be no work done." strawman. I said that it will suffer from shortages based on the fact that it doesn't produce as much as capitalism. And if it magically did actually work, then it would consume whole planet like a group of locusts. " when there are shortages in anarcho-communism, what happens? people starve, but the collective overcomes it." This is not an answer. You're simply throwing claim that collective will overcome it without stating how. Meaning your response is meaningless. "he world collectively gives some food to those who starve, because of mutual aid. " Mutual aid? You mean trade? Oh yeah you didn't read the part where I pointed out that what you call as mutual aid is also known as a trade. You know... Capitalist concept... Also in order for me to give you mutual aid. You would actually need to produce something to me that I want. SO... Were back at being trading and negotiating price for our products. Back on capitalism. "where do you think your food comes from? where do you think your computer comes from? where do you think your clothes come from? do you think first world countries made them? if capitalism is so great, why do we depend on the forced labor of workers in third world countries?" actually we don't depend on them. Also situation in third world countries have been improving drastically. That is objective fact as well. Which is all thanks to trading. If you look at the prices that local markets provide for local products... They aren't really that high. Which means we could survive even without trading with third world countries. If we stopped trading with them.... Well they would be actually the ones to suffer from it. No jobs, and no products from the West. "f you really want to say i'm wrong, and that this whole anarcho-communist crap is stupid, read it." Oh I have read. Lenin and marx. And also done around hundreds of debates on the subject. The authors you provided are simply propaganda artists who actually weren't historians, biologists, economists or psychologists. Just bunch of idiots who didn't understand complex mechanism around them.
    1
  16. +Ethan Lei Since you made comment in between my 3. I'll make short response. 1. Mutual aid is called as TRADING. I explained this before and you ignored it. What you call as mutual aid is simply called as trade transaction. This point is extremely vital for you to understand. Because you are basically trying to reinvent capitalism due your lack of understanding these issues. a) it's even more inefficient if you don't address my points. B) Poe's law. C) Context please? D) Doesn't change the point I had made. e) " you ignored nearly every single validation" I had not ignored them. I pointed out that they don't work, and sometimes I pointed out that you didn't give any reasonable argument why something would work, that you literally just said "well collective will overcome". Like cheap get a ways like that. IT'S YOU WHO IS IGNORING. "you haven't addressed any of my main points-" I did address them. I refuted them to the ground. If I somehow missed them... Then how about making clear what is your main points instead of wasting space with pointless jargon that has 0 insight to the conversation. ". i'm actually done this time, " Thank you for proving my case. Communists are incapable to conduct intellectual debate. You just ran away because you can't handle the truth.
    1
  17. +ethan lei " i have seen the astonishing ignorance you have shown towards the poor. I'm one of the poor. However your middle-class ass would never understand what it's like to be poor. "no, not objectively false. 730 million people are starving right now. yes, they are suppressed, because they need to be for them to capitalism and the western world to function. what do you think happens to your system when they stop being repressed and forced to work in factories? it crumbles. " First of all... Those who starve are not the ones who are working. Second this has nothing to do with capitalism, but people living in areas which cannot sustain their population number.
    1
  18. +Ethan Lei "oh my god, i just told you what the motivation is. you actually quoted the exact sentence where i told you what the motivation is" Yes, you said motivation is for the collective good. But I already addressed this by explaining that people don't work for others unless they get something in return. NO ONE LIKES EXTRA WORK. What you said is how ant hive colony works, not how humans work. Were not hiveminded creatures. Were creatures which prioritise themselves and their families before others. Simply put.. WERE NOT ALTRUIST.
    1
  19. +Ethan LEi Come and clean my house for collective good. Common.. Please come here and prove your point that you would do something for me without getting anything in return. "hat do you think people start businesses for? for the fun of it? " In matter of fact.. YES. Lot of people actually find it fun and stressful same time. They get the adrenaline kicks out of the challenges it provides. ". why work in a capitalist society if not to make money? do you listen to yourself?" I already explained. Most people just want stable lives, not to be rich. Money gives stable lives, but they don't desire to have excess amounts of it. You're delusional if you think that someone is working in restaurant because they wish to become millionaires by being chef.
    1
  20. +ethan lei "no it doesn't. private property rights as we know them were INVENTED in the industrial revolution, by the rich, to continue feudalist oppression." Actually no, private property as concept has always existed. This was far before industrial revolution and you should've known this when it comes to the time when american was founded. Where some indians had no concept of ownership. They couldn't undertand what it meant to own something. "the Inca functioned as a pretty advanced civilization, without money" Inca's did have slaves and they did trade in gold. However if you compare inca civilization to the japanese, chinenese, indian, european... You would be a fool to claim that Inca's were on same line of civilization. "were wiped out by the spanish," Actually they were wiped out by disease. By pure accident. Edit: In fact even incas did believe in private property.
    1
  21. +ethan lei "you are too optimistic. opening countries to free trade is opening them to exploitation, as we have seen with, for example, apple's involvement with child labor colbalt mining." Oh well... I guess hong kong... Singapore... South Korea... Japan are doing so badly with their free market... You know all countries which started of poor and now are doing better. " mutual aid is different than trade, and you know if you actually had read the authors you claim to have read. go ahead and read it if you want to, i dont feel like explaining it when you'll just ignore my explanation. " Either you're misunderstanding what is mutual aid or what is trade. But so far it looks like you don't understand what trade is, since what you SAID BEFORE IS WHAT ONE CONSIDERED AS TRADE. Both trading product among themselves to get what they want. that is trade not aid. " lenin is arbitrary. marx critiqued capitalism yes, but we know dogmatic marxism doesn't work. thats the only historically disproved form of communism, by the way. " Your form of communism isn't anyway more practical.
    1
  22. +ethan lei One can be propaganda artists regargless are they "individualists" "you didn't say anything about shortages in capitalism. " Because there really isn't. It's thanks to the prices that is determined by supply and demand that ensures that there won't be shortages. " do YOU think we live in a world of infinite resources? " No? Which is why monetary system with capitalism is the best thing there is to live in reality with finite resources. "a collective control of the world's resources is far more ecological than private ownership." World's seas are under collective control and they are treated worse than private forests or lakes. Far from being ecological. " bookchin? founder of social ECOLOGY? a field of federational theory about a society which ACKNOWLEDGES biology and is based upon analyzing the complex mechanisms by which society functions?" Yes, his education was in the worker's school near union square, where studied marxism. His both parents were marxists so he was born into their propaganda and brainwashing. so far as I have donen my research, I cannot find him having a college degree in any of the subjects I mentioned.
    1
  23. +Ethan Lei "you have been brainwashed to believe THIS crap. " Have I? Since last time I checked I had changed my views on these issues couple times. I'm far from being brainwashed since I introduce myself to these ideas almost constantly. Through reading and debating. " you haven't addressed the problems in your system" Which are what? First of all you don't even understand the system. Second, even with some of the possible problems you might say. It's still better than the alternative that you advocate. " trade is individualistic, mutual aid is collectivistic. how hard is that? how hard is it to say, i might be wrong? to change your mind? i used to be a diehard libertarian rightist, i would've bled for capitalism. it just takes an open mind. " How is it collectivists when two individuals trade with among themselves? Farmer gives the bread to the engineer and engineer gives the tractor. There are only two people trading in the very scenario that you mentioned. Hence it's not colelctivists. " or does your understanding of money come from "extra credits"? i have a feeling you actually don't understand what you're talking about. " It comes from actually reading history books, and being good student in school. I'm sorry but vast of my understanding comes far beyond "extra credits". You know I read history daily, and conduct debates daily. My pretty confided that my understanding on these issues is far more vast than you have.
    1
  24. +ethan lei "yes you do depend on third world countries. stop being this naive." Objectively speaking no I don't depend. " admit that if third world countries stopped providing for you, the western world would crumble." Objectively false. Since most trade that actually happens with third world countries, happens between china and them. Not between west and them. I live in Europe. Finland to be exact... We barely trade with third world countries at all. " that is inevitable, and you would know this if. you. really. read. marx." Just because marx says something, it doesn't mean it's true.
    1
  25. +ethan lei "stop rambling about chickens and watermelons." It was concrete example of how money was needed to be created in order for people to actually provide more complex services. " money isn't even my main concern." It doesn't need to be. But it doesn't change the fact that money is needed in order to have more complex society. "PRIVATE PROPERTY. do i need to spell it out to you? PRIVATE PROPERTY. thats the issue and you haven't said a word about it" Yes private property, which you had defined before something that is not necessity. Which would mean literally everything expect food. But you don't understand that people like to own things. They don't like to spend days and hours doing hard work to create something for others. Sure doing charity every now and then is nice, but being altruists 24/7.... Is not human nature. So why would I create a boat if I cannot own it? Why would I build a house if I cannot own it? etc... Even if we did it collectively... Why would anyone of us bother to sustain it? Aka clean, take care of it etc..? We have already seen this how people treat public property. They are treated like shit. Because if you don't own it... you neglect it.
    1
  26. +ethan lei " your right. just because marx says something, it doesn't mean it's true. but when he provides a comprehensive argument against capitalism not easily refuted, it's an issue. " He provided strawman arguments against system he did not understand. And I have refuted them all. " what? what kind of country do you think you live in? finland is a heavily regulated country in regards to economics. what are you talking about? " Nope, look up to the economic freedom index. Finland is one of the most free countries in the world. And in human freedom index were in top 6. Also, I were pointing out that Finland is not reliant on third world countries, regulations aren't related to that claim. " it doesn't matter if you dont trade with third world countries. your goods, even if they are manufactured elsewhere, like germany, are made of resources that come from third world countries. " It does when you claim that we rely on them. Also you need to provide concrete evidence that the most wanted resources we trade are related to third world countries. Not to mentioning that we would lose a lot by not trading with them. Oh also you forgot the fact that china trades more with third world countries.
    1
  27. +ethan lei " finland in fact has hardly any natural resources, correct if i'm wrong here. " Enough to sustain population of 5 million people. " i'm not talking about history. i don't care if you have the royal line of britain memorized, and neither does the world. i'm talking about the ideologies at hand. what makes you think i don't know what capitalism is? its an extremely simple system. a flawed one, but simple. " But history is very important, and royal line of britain has nothing to do with this. Because history has already shown the results of the policies you advocate. The ideologies you advocate don't work and we have historical examples of it. As I had mentioned before one of them. " what makes you think i don't know what capitalism is?" Because you have so far shown 0 understanding over it., " two individuals trading among themselves is trading. two individuals working together for their collective good is mutual aid, and it comes from democracy. its just democracy. not like our current "democracy". come on, man. " How is the farmer working together for collective good when he makes bread to get tractor? How is engineer working for collective good if he makes tractor only to get that one extra bread (doesn't really sound fair deal to me... Sounds like exploitation ;) ) " two individuals trading among themselves is trading. two individuals working together for their collective good is mutual aid, and it comes from democracy. its just democracy. not like our current "democracy". come on, man. " So every transaction needs to be voted? HAH good luck running any complex system based on direct voting.
    1
  28. +ethan lei " the very scenario i mentioned is anecdotal. its just to demonstrate a concept. man, seriously, come on. " Then come up with better demostrative concept. Since so far you demostrated what trade is, not mutual aid.
    1
  29. +ethan lei "you just brag about your historical knowledge " I don't brag about it. If you think so it simply shows your own lack of self-esteem. It shows that your ego is fragile, if you focus on me mentioning my historical knowledge. I didn't need to say it to make my point superior. My argument was already superior by the fact that I stated examples historically related things.
    1
  30. +ethan lei As I said before, the collective ownership has been tried before. It ended up in starvation. The first american colonialists had this problem. They had collective farms, but almost no one worked there. Instead they all ate what the couple people made. Land was taken care of poorly and they ended up having starvation. That was until they changed the rules so that people actually owned parts of the farming land. This is known as tragedy of the commons.
    1
  31. +Ethan Lei What if I don't know how to create house or boat? "if you use it. thats personal property. " But we don't really need house or boat, so according to you I wouldn't be allowed to own them.
    1
  32. +ethan lei "most free because you have ensured worker's rights." Actually no. For example we don't have minimum wage laws. There are countries with no worker's rights but workers are doing just fine. You see this is the problem that marx and his ilk never realized. The first time industrialization happened, and first time we started to introduce free market capitalism. They simply saw how things were before the growth had happened. But it takes time and work to create wealth. If they sawed what we see now, they would share different opinion. When the industrialization and privatisation happened. The condition for workers started to increase steadily and same applied to the poor. For this same reason, a singapore which started as small fishing village. Became one of the most richest asian countries there are. "you do rely on them. EXACTLY YOU WOULD LOSE A LOT BY NOT TRADING WITH THEM? how do you not see what you are saying? that's clear cut doublethink, if you'll let me use orwellian jargon. " It would mean increase in prices for cloths and certain electronic products. But nothing which we couldn't handle. We wouldn't become like venezuela for example. OR north korea. Or any other country that you love. What do you think will happen to those third world countries if we stop trading with them? They will be back in stone age.
    1
  33. +ethan lei " your ability to sustain 5 million comes from other countries. you can't believe that finland is self sustainable, right? its tiny. almost all your food is imported." Because food produced in other countries like in germany is far more cheaper than ours. we don't get our food from third world countries, they are too far away and will simply spoil. However the local food we have, the price difference isn't really that high. If we stopped trading food products we would simply cultivate more land, since that is something that we have and a lot. "the farmer provides bread to the cooperative to feed the engineer, the engineer spends his time assembling the tractor because he doesn't want to farm all day, the janitor cleans and gets the farmer's bread because he cleans for the farmer and the engineer, and so on." You just explained how transaction works in capitalism. Remeber... in this context you said... If engineer wants extra bread, then he has to produce a product for the farmer which in return farmer gives engineer a extra bread. If this is not the case? Then why would engineer to bother going through all that extra effort? Oh yeah collective good? Already forgot the Tragedy of the commons. Again... He is too lazy to bother to do all that extra. Also who would be working as janitor? Again... If there is no need to work... Why would I work as janitor? Or as a farmer? Since I get anything I want without doing anything. " thats not exploitation? how is that exploitation?" the amount of effort to make one bread is far less than to make one tractor. "hat sounds like exploitation to me is starving a billion people" Again not even billion. Also citation needed. Second they are not even working. "division of supply is directly voted. individual trade is not, because that would be hierarchy, which is to abolished in anarchy. thats the entire point of this. " So what if certain big majority group decides that other group doesn't deserve to get product x? "individual trade is not, because that would be hierarchy," Lol what? Trading is hierarchical? you just took a crazy pill.
    1
  34. +ethan lei "this is getting a little out of hand and disorganized" Which happened purely because you lacked self-discipline. All you needed to do is to write 1-3 reply including all the things you wanted to say. Instead of making multiple small comments. "i hate totalitarianism, what do you mean?" Ironically that is the end result of the system you propose and I can explain why after you go in EXACT details how to run your society. And there are other people who are capable to see it as well. This is why every communist revolution that had ever happened. Ended up into totalitarian dictatorships. Because there were people smart enough to see how the power structures that you support, can be abused to the point that they will become new kings.
    1
  35. +Maximilian That's funny since it was commies like you who made it legal to spread aids in california. Also if you get headache over reading, then you have bigger problems with your life than me having debate with Ethan. ". First of all you have no clue about anarchism, socialism or anything else. " most likely more than you as proven by this debate I had. I follow the dictionary definition. You follow the one that someone brainwashed into your little ignorant head. " John Kanes, Marx and many more have explained this concept in detail go read it! " I have read marx and I were actually refering to marx in here if I remember correctly. In fact it's most hilarious that people like you worship marx without realizing that his form of communism would literally every time lead into totalitarian dictatorship. As shown by every state that claimed to be socialist or communist. "There has been a very big anarchist movemrnt in many countrys including the US. Remember Spanish Civil War?" Spanish Civil war is already ancient history. In US? Couple noodle armed college kids larping to be revolutionary working class. Kids who come from higher middle-class families and some from rich ones as well. In fact... It's the actual working class that you guys try to beat in the street and call as facists. Orwell explained your type of left wingers perfectly. You do not truly care for the poor. You look them with disdain and wish to rule over them. Ironically... If revolution would ever happen, after it... It's you people who will get the bullet. As shown by history multiple times. "Anarchism worked and governt a county (before they lost to franco)" Literally never worked. Is your definition of working country as something that managed to stay up for one year? Oh boy... You do realize that for most political policies it might take couple years to see the actual effects of them? You really have small standard, for successful country.
    1
  36. You mean you want to see more propaganda?
    1
  37. But north-Korea killing and persecuting millions is not left wing?
    1
  38. Homeless people in chicago... Place controlled by progressive democrats. Homeless people in london, place controlled by progressive left wingers as well. Isn't it funny how all the places which are controlled by left wing ends up having these sort of issues?
    1
  39.  @daisychainmilk  I'm aware of that
    1
  40. So vice is advocating terrorist groups. What a surprise.
    1
  41.  @malis9045  Parasite by definition is someone who takes without giving anything in return. Also yes.. It's objective fact that 99% of homeless are homeless by their own fault. It's near impossible to homeless in modern western world unless you're clinically insane or depressed.
    1
  42.  @jfangx  Historically speaking.. It's not decentralized nor is it simply a movement. But anyway, nothing but vile thugs from upper-middle class families larping revolutionaries. Ironic isn't it? They go and try to attack ACTUAL working class, while they come from wealthy backround. Then they pretend to be part of the working class. Antifa is nothing but a huge joke, that is why they always get ass beaten.
    1
  43. Sidney Miler "I'm not going to get mad at you because you seem to be 14 -17" That's like 90% of the people who are part of antifa. Also you're already mad like hell. IT's well established fact that antifa member have short temper. "Also I made a correction to the decentralized comment, it is still decentralized as there as no one official site or location acting as a hub but it is a political philosophy none the less." That is a lie and we both know it. " was lower middle class before becoming homeless." Oh snap... Lower middle-class oh the woe... "I can't own drinking champagne every day... Can only do it every second day. I'm so poooooooor". "I have met, lived with and talked to I depth mind you to a lot of people who have become homeless. I saw a lot of stress caused by inequality, wage exploitation like not being paid overtime," Literally none of that is related to homeless. Also lot of vague statements with loaded words.. For example.. Stress caused by inequality. You probably can't even pinpoint examples of it. "having kids and no one to watch them," Maybe you shouldn't get kids if you can't take care of them? ever thought of that? "spousal abuse physical and mental " Illegal in every country expect socialists, communists and most of the third world countries. "Other than myself and 2 other people in the 8 months I was homeless I didn't see much mental illness." You're not psychiatrists. You're an idiot if you think that knowing someone 8 months will tell you that they have mental illness. It's well documented fact that most of them are not right in their head. Also anecdotal evidence... "Look, it's really easy to make generalizations when one lacks personal experience and just going off what people say and what they see, so I'll offer you this. " Difference is... I don't go and attack people in that sort of case. Like you and your idiotic friends does. " I will introduce you to some of the hardest working, most compassionate and generous people I've ever me who, get this just happen to be homeless. " Being homeless is not synonymous with being asshole. I never said that one can't be good person while being homeless. I simply stated that it's virtually impossible to be homeless in western countries where government already provides welfare support high enough to pay your rent. Only reason you can actually be homeless, while being vulnerable... IS by not to seek help from organizations or from government. "From a financial stand point what happens if one month you need tires and another you need repairs for your car?" I don't even own a car. IF you have a car while having thought times... You're doing something wrong. "What if that happens in the same month? What about if you break your arm? " In most cases of breaking arms, it has been done by something that could've easily be avoided. Beside.. Were in west.There are tons of options to this. "For someone living paycheck to paycheck this isn't something easy to remedy with more money" Awwww from paycheck to paycheck? So poor... I actually had been unemployed for some years in the past. You're actually lucky to even have a paycheck. " Fast cash places are legal loan sharks and are sadly a necessary evil " No they are not, and you're retarded if you ever took one. "t blows my mind how people blame the homeless for being homeless." Statistics and actually once were homeless. I'm pretty sure I know more about this than some raging lunatic who beats up trash cans in the streets. "Housing, rent, car, phone, utility and food costs are insane. " Housing can be cheap, you don't need car, cheap phones exists. Food costs are cheap if you actually cook your food. You know... Don't go to fancy restaurants and drink some Starbucks coffee everyday. "Look, with age comes experience, with experience come perspective but age and wisdom aren't mutually exclusive which is why I offer you first hand experience so you can broaden your perspective." Not telling exact age, but around 30. I have actually lived in the worst neighborhoods of my country. Lived in poverty most of my life... Suuuuuuure, I just lack experience. As I said... You're nothing but champagne socialists pretending to be victim and revolutionary fighter. In truth you're nothing but spoiled middle-class kid with no actual brain or brawl to be even a decent fighter.
    1
  44.  @jfangx  " I have that level of understanding form growing up in an middle class environment." That is literally what champagne socialist is. Some middle-class who never actually experienced poverty. "I've only said how I've chosen to live, if you wanna talk politics then you will find I'm more of a communist than a socialist." IT just makes you worse and a hypocrite as well. Only honest communists are the ones who live in communes. " We are all human and are capable of complex thought so why do we need a governing body dictating what we can and cant do? " That's because you suck in biology. Human beings are social animals that naturally create hierarchies. You can see that within group of friends. Some you like the most and listen the most. So people are bound to form some sort of groups and enforce those group's rules on others.
    1
  45.  @jfangx  I'm actually libertarian and anarchist by my heart. What I told there tells nothing about how I operate. It tells how humanity that aren't broken somehow operates. How most people on this planet operates. And you got me totally wrong. Just because you accept your friends as who they are. It doesn't mean that you don't have friends who you like to spend more time with and who you trust more. "If you want to learn something about communism check out the communist manifesto" I have read it and it's disgusting text filled with genocidal fantasies made by a man who beat up his wife and lived as parasite his whole life.
    1
  46.  @jfangx  It's part of communist history, I agree on that. But it's as disgusting as what nazi Germany did. Actually even more disgusting when looking at the kill count and ill treatments in total. Have you ever though of facism in same manner? Like "that was not true facism, or that we could do it better?" In my knowledge both facism and communism fails in paper and in reality. I don't know where your hanging out thing comes from. "No state or federal government, no landlords, no private property, no borders, food water shelter and housing for everyone." All ideas which are extremely naive and doesn't work in reality. It's dangerous fantasy with terrifying consequences. Anarchy is in reality just temporally phase before new government is made. While in communism there is usually some form of central command center. Like union or government. It's extremely prone to corruption and to become authoritarian system. "everyone could live how they please" Nope, by definition they would kill anyone who doesn't wish to live their life style. While under capitalist system communists are allowed to create their communes and live there together, under communist system capitalists wouldn't be allowed to live.
    1