it's kinda funny how marxist has to give a thought-out and long-winded response to get any "credibility" from y'all while all you guys do is drop bad analogies and call it a day
"at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone
idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can"
what is there to debunk, it's just a thought. there's no real argument, no source, nothing.
it's kinda funny how marxist [b]has[/b] to give a thought-out and long-winded response to get any "credibility" from y'all while all you guys do is drop bad analogies and call it a day
"at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone
idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can"
what is there to debunk, it's just a thought. there's no real argument, no source, nothing.
KEVCHEValright man, all im going to say is that authoritarian leadership has never and will never work long term because there are too many shitters like me who will not play along. you cant tame the freedom of some people. its like trying to domesticate a bunch of lions. some of them dont care they just want to be a lion and do lion things; freedom.
all too easily, just a few bad cogs in the machine and the whole process slows to where its no longer worth while. it kindof makes me think of a bottleneck effect
at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone
idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can
two things
1. communist societies are not inherently authoritarian any more than capitalist societies are. state centralized leadership is not intrinsic to communism and never has been, and even communist societies featuring centralized states are not authoritarian by definition. any argument to the contrary depends on: a) leaning on historical examples like the USSR and China to argue that communist countries becoming authoritarian is inevitable, which ignores many other cases (as well as continual US intervention to prevent countries from becoming communist), or b) the assumption that coercion by the state is inherently more "violent" than coercion by private entities
2.) on that last point, I think it's a huge error to argue that "but human nature!" is a devastating argument against communism but not equally applicable to laissez-faire capitalism. allow me to present a few thought experiments to demonstrate:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/02/some-puzzles-for-libertarians-2
pay special note to #4, "the infinitely rich man"
[quote=KEVCHEV]alright man, all im going to say is that authoritarian leadership has never and will never work long term because there are too many shitters like me who will not play along. you cant tame the freedom of some people. its like trying to domesticate a bunch of lions. some of them dont care they just want to be a lion and do lion things; freedom.
all too easily, just a few bad cogs in the machine and the whole process slows to where its no longer worth while. it kindof makes me think of a bottleneck effect
at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone
idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can
[/quote]
two things
1. communist societies are not inherently authoritarian any more than capitalist societies are. state centralized leadership is not intrinsic to communism and never has been, and even communist societies featuring centralized states are not authoritarian by definition. any argument to the contrary depends on: a) leaning on historical examples like the USSR and China to argue that communist countries becoming authoritarian is inevitable, which ignores many other cases (as well as continual US intervention to prevent countries from becoming communist), or b) the assumption that coercion by the state is inherently more "violent" than coercion by private entities
2.) on that last point, I think it's a huge error to argue that "but human nature!" is a devastating argument against communism but not equally applicable to laissez-faire capitalism. allow me to present a few thought experiments to demonstrate:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/02/some-puzzles-for-libertarians-2
pay special note to #4, "the infinitely rich man"
[img]https://i.imgur.com/UBzUk3o.png[/img]
calling reinforcements from /pol
https://i.imgur.com/v5jlR4A.jpg
calling reinforcements from /pol
[img]https://i.imgur.com/v5jlR4A.jpg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/Sy2QQW3.jpg[/img]
I have to admit I don't understand what you're getting at Kev, I also fail to see how "freedom" has any role to play. I suppose the question I should ask is freedom for whom?
I have to admit I don't understand what you're getting at Kev, I also fail to see how "freedom" has any role to play. I suppose the question I should ask is freedom for [i]whom[/i]?
no step on snek \ ( ͡° ͜/// ͡°) /
no step on snek \ ( ͡° ͜/// ͡°) /
u guys remember that time hilary coughed up an alien baby embryo
https://i.imgur.com/eb9weIL.jpg
u guys remember that time hilary coughed up an alien baby embryo
[img]https://i.imgur.com/eb9weIL.jpg[/img]
[quote=KEVCHEV][/quote]
stop