Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless. I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".
blah-blah-blah. Here is the essence of your problem. What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME? I'm not but if a community votes to spend the community's money a certain way that is counter to your views then that is democracy. You could leave the community if you felt so strongly against its decision and no one is suggesting any limit to the freedom you have with your personal money. In cryptocurrency, an update may include lower fees and less block reward. If a bunch of people don't like it, they are free to operate a fork. If no one likes it except the person who came up with, then it is not adopted and the developer is left operating a 1-person network. That is a democratic 51 percent community decision. Bitcoin is not Democratic. It is meritocratic. The one who does the most work has the most control. In this case the one who has the most capital does the most work. Individuals don't really get to vote on shit. Sure they can sell, but that is not the same as having a vote, it is a reaction not pro-action. |
|
|
|
More Marxist mental gymnastics...
Your intent is irrelevant. The results are relevant. There has NEVER been a successful scaled up version of Socialism/Communism/Marxism, and anything you call "success" was only a temporary effect left from residual Capital created under the rubric of Capitalism. Everything you are saying is PURE FANTASY. You are free to your own opinions, but your are not free to redefine words and reality so it fits in your delusional box. |
|
|
|
Saw the following definition of Socialism and would like to share it here, since it makes sense:
These days, the word socialism gets tossed around so much, it's almost lost all meaning. Originally, though, it was the bedrock of Marxism and meant that workers and their community should control the market for what they make.
Because the Soviet state eventually strayed far from Marx's idea of socialism towards Lenin's totalitarian communism, socialism is now often used to mean everything from "fascism" to "progressivism." But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. In the U.S. today, though, it's often used as shorthand for "the services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes." Depending on who's talking, that idea is either a goal or a target. (source: vocabulary . com/dictionary/socialism) [bold mine]
The problem is that it ALWAYS leads down that route. There is no way to operate a system of collective wealth on a large scale WITHOUT taking private property by force. Once the productive people have had enough, and they run out of people to rob, the system must then eat the wealth of the average citizens (ie the worker class) to operate. It looks like "Capitalism" is nearing stalling speed, and since freedom is very important to us all, and what the discussion is really about, we should carefully contemplate and consider the above quoted pure definition of what socialism about, to fine tune the meanings of the words we use in the discussion.
None of this is by accident. Capitalism is not stalling, the current economic model is stalling, by design. If you do some more careful research you will find Marxism itself was funded and supported by the banking elite on Wallstreet as a system of controlled opposition to Capitalism. It is right in your face. Look at the symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle. They are ancient symbols. The hammer represents building and creation and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism is the hammer, Communism is the sickle. Capitalism issues credit and induces production, then the system is compromised usually by inflation or other financial shenanigans, credit is contracted, everyone is stuck paying debts they can't afford, they sell their real property at fire sale prices, and the bankers buy it up for pennies on the dollar just before they introduce Communism. Communism then comes in and picks the bones under a friendly pink warm fuzzy mask to ease the sheep into the slaughter under a pretext of helping them. The economy is destroyed, a new system is created. Then Capitalism is reintroduced again. Repeat. Don't submit to harvesting. |
|
|
|
I think both are flawed systems and both ruin society and peoples lives in different ways. I am a purport-er of alternative ways to run society there was an interesting project called the venus project if anyone wants to check it out.
But socialism vs capitalism is really a pointless argument they're both crap!
This is a false equivalency. Capitalism has quite demonstrably improved the quality of life of humanity and reduced poverty, something Socialism could never take credit for. Socialism only takes credit for riding gains created under Capitalism because it is parasitic by nature. At least Capitalism has an element of voluntarism and promotes abundance. This isn't even debatable, it is a fact. Is Capitalism perfect? Absolutely not. Life is not perfect. Does it work more than it doesn't work? Absolutely. Would Socialism fix those problems or do a better job? Absolutely not. |
|
|
|
Yet those "demographics" that used to be hard core Democrat are fleeing to the Republican side in masses. You have some nerve talking about gerrymandering when virtually every type of voter fraud is evident from the Democratic party, especially in areas they control. Please do question this I would love to give you MUCH more detail on the subject.
They are already appealing to the majority of the population, the establishment, the media, and the left in general just have too much at stake to admit it publicly. Hillary was a sure thing too, remember?
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with voter fraud. It helps one political party to win more districts than it would in a more representative layout and on the current congressional map it overwhelmingly favors Republicans. Pennsylvania map is a good example: a ~ 50/50 state but Republicans won 12 of 18 House seats in the last election. That map has been redrawn and will likely cause Republicans to lose 2 or 3 seats this fall. North Carolina is nearly 50/50 as well and Republicans won 10 of 13 House seats. That map is still in effect for midterms but has been ruled unconstitutional so may cause Republicans to lose another 2 or 3 seats in 2020. Hillary is not running in the midterms as far as I know. You might want to stay on topic - this board has a bona fide nazi for a moderator  Yes, I am well aware of what gerrymandering is, thank you, the point being while somewhat detestable behavior, it at least still in a legal grey area. Furthermore you can bet your ass Democrats do it where they can manage as well. Then on the other hand you have systemic voter fraud within the DNC, also documented disenfranchisement of their own party's true vote to try to push their establishment candidate, and they lost. All this is very much on topic, you just dislike the implications. You cry about a zit on the ass of the Republican party when the Democrats have a brain tumor big enough to push its eye out of the socket. This Kabuki theater of crybullying is failing, and unfortunately that is all that is left for them. |
|
|
|
Coins4commies, I have to say you are like a walking Communist cliche. It would be hilarious if the results of this moronic ideology didn't seem so helpful on the surface and result in such hell on Earth any time an attempt is made to implement it.
I've tried to explain to you what my ideas look like when implemented but you just revert back to the tired USSR strawman. Its not like I'm just making a cop out that socilaism has never been done. It has, just not in the examples capitalists want you think about. I mentioned worker cooperatives and Marcora law in the first post but here are some more resources to introduce you to socialism in action. Capitalism a love story segment on Coops (3 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ&list=PLaJhh0k4dkH35GDiLjh7rmM9CKmtJQB8TMondragon during the economic crisis (5 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8Italian law that led to 30% worker owned GDP in the Bologna leader https://www.wikipreneurship.eu/index.php/Marcora_Law10% failure rate of co-ops
5% of capital and jobs lost through failures
The effects of the Marcora Law were as follows:
-It helped workers save their jobs by taking the entrepreneurial risks themselves.
-It incentivised employees to contribute capital, because the amount of outside financing was directly related to the workers' own shareholdings. This was important because it created cooperatives which were adequately capitalised, and many cooperatives are undercapitalised. The average employee shareholding in cooperatives supported by CFI was €5,500, and in cases is as high as €15,000, which meant the cooperatives were strong, had a good relationship with their banks and could grow faster.
-Thirdly, the link between the external capitalisation and unemployment benefit meant that there was a powerful incentive to make sure the enterprise worked; it also meant that workers were unlikely to start a co operative which was likely to fail.
The biggest problem for socialism is that people have been incorrectly trained to think it means authoritarian rule and never bothered to research. The problem is not that I don't understand your ideas. The problem is your ideas... are just ideas. They have NOTHING to do with the reality of the proposals you are making or the ACTUAL RESULTS of implementing Socialism. You THINK it is good, but in reality all it does is make the things you claim to want to fix MUCH WORSE. History has shown this process over and over again, this is not a straw man, this is historical record. So Socialism kind of worked on a tiny scale in some place none of us has ever heard about... very impressive, that doesn't change the scorched Earth and hundreds of millions of bodies left behind every time people try to scale it up. BTW your example isn't even Socialism, that is 100% Capitalism with a little central control thrown in. You accuse me of not having done any research, but I assure you I have done more research on Communism/Marxism/Socialism than you have ever done on any subject in your life. Frankly I don't think you can even define Socialism based on your "example" here. The fact of the matter is Socialism requires taking the products of one's labor by FORCE in order to hand it out to another. The ONLY way to do that on ANY kind of scale is a tyrannical government. There is no "nice" way to rob people, even if you do good things with the money later. |
|
|
|
No, the republicans didn't want Merrick Garland on the court, so they just held out and waited. They didn't go around calling all the women he went to high school with to find one willing to perpetrate a political hitjob. Only democrats are that desperate for power. Republicans could "hold out" on Garland because they had the majority. Similarly, they were desperate to push Kavanaugh through quickly because they fear losing the majority and being "garlanded" by Democrats. You know how they got the majority? Oh that's right people voted them in to represent them. When it is Republicans it is always "treason" and when it is Democrats they are just "exercising their rights". |
|
|
|
Voter turnout will decide the outcome. Democrats are typically absent at midterms - think of your typical lazy millennial yapping about democracy but "too busy" to exercise said democracy once every two years vs a retiree with nothing better to do. This is something that most of the polls are very bad at predicting, even ones of "likely voters". Democrats could be +20 and still lose it if e.g. the weather is too cold on November 6, or they could be under water and still come out ahead like e.g. in Alabama last year. The Democrat party will not quit until they are discredited for 2 generations. When you keep doubling down and losing, eventually the payment comes due, and the Democrats have built up quite a debt.
Not really. Demographic trends increasingly favor Democrats. Republicans can hold on for a while due to gerrymandering and due to the structure of the Senate and the Electoral College but it's just a matter of time until they start losing big or have to change their policies to appeal to more than ~40% of the population. Yet those "demographics" that used to be hard core Democrat are fleeing to the Republican side in masses. You have some nerve talking about gerrymandering when virtually every type of voter fraud is evident from the Democratic party, especially in areas they control. Please do question this I would love to give you MUCH more detail on the subject. They are already appealing to the majority of the population, the establishment, the media, and the left in general just have too much at stake to admit it publicly. Hillary was a sure thing too, remember? |
|
|
|
yet even more asinine rambling
He did have a full investigation, 7 of them. You know what helps if you want to prosecute a crime, or even identify a perpetrator? A single piece of evidence helps for starters. Too bad none was presented what so ever, just words. |
|
|
|
|
Coins4commies, I have to say you are like a walking Communist cliche. It would be hilarious if the results of this moronic ideology didn't seem so helpful on the surface and result in such hell on Earth any time an attempt is made to implement it.
|
|
|
|
I don't think you really understand bitcoin. Oh is that so? How long have you been around? What kind of coin development work have you participated in? PLEASE try me and let me spank you in public like the child you are. If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work. Well clearly you have all the solutions and we should just do what you say right? I am certain there are absolutely no dynamics in the PoW system that you don't understand now are there? Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.
If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.
I have been arguing logically, you just don't like the fact that I totally dismantled your premise, therefore your only option in the lack of any argument is to claim I am trolling and ignoring logic. |
|
|
|
Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless. I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".
It is also pretty clear in the Curious George literature that the man in the yellow hat is nice to Curious George. Tell me please what this has to do with real monkeys? P.S. Nice job showing everyone you have no clue what "no true Scotsman fallacy" is. Maybe look it up instead of just pretending like you usually do, k? Also comparing Communism to a surgeon.... bwAHAHAHA! More like a bookie with a sledge hammer to the knees than a surgeon. So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work". What does the work? Oh right the capital. In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.
From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.
In reality, the same could be said about socialism.
I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it? What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking. |
|
|
|
The USSR and the popularization of Marxism was created as a construct of the banker elite in order to create controlled opposition to Capitalism. This is well documented. As a result Marxism/Communism can not exist without Capitalism.
It is right in your faces, look at the symbol for Communism, the hammer and sickle. The hammer represents the building and creating, and the sickle represents the destruction and the harvest. These are ancient symbols. The hammer is Capitalism and the sickle is Communism.
Marxism/Socialism/Communism exists simply to give a pretty utopian coat over the shearing of the sheep so they don't struggle too much as they are lead to slaughter to make room for the next herd. |
|
|
|
the question is, are there really tech companies that are currently trying to make a super AI? if the answer is no, then it seems to me that we are just scaring ourselves off of nothing. For we know, we will end up controlling AI and use it on our everyday lives, not the other way around.
You might as well ask yourself if the military is still developing new weapons... OF COURSE THEY ARE ... and they never stop. This is the nature of humanity, and commerce in particular. |
|
|
|
|
If there is anyone here that knows how to program AI (and there is a significant chance of this), and you agree public awareness and regulation is critical... I would suggest creating a "simpler" version of some AI system that will operate autonomously in such a way as to bring attention to itself. Without the topic being jammed in people's faces now days, it will go ignored in the din of the media insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the current issues with religions, of all types, revolve around the fact that they insist on being a religion, a race, and a state all at once. I don't have any issue with religion, it is just as capable as being used for good or evil as any organization of comparable size. The bouncing between these ideas of simultaneously being a state, a race, and a religion allows for too much exploitation, corruption, and lack of accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't need more regulations, we need to enforce the ones already on the books. Start with stripping their safe harbor provision under the DMCA which protects them as a public commons. They have demonstrated very clearly they are curating content, making them publishers. Furthermore these companies fit well within the definition of illegal monopolies. In this way they will be forced to once again become a public commons and remove only illegal content, or content which is in violation of the clearly defined TOS. The other option is to become a publisher and face massive liabilities.
|
|
|
|
The same Communist rambling we have all heard 100 times.
It is never true Communism is it? I guess because your ideal of true Communism "never existed" then we can ignore the repeated failures that inevitably resulted in hell on Earth and the direct deaths of hundreds of millions of people. What is important is we keep trying! |
|
|
|
on the other hand some women or rather girls happens to invite this assault on themselves by dressing to expose their bodies.
This is some more of that rape culture evidence you were looking for One opinion does not equal a culture. Also I am willing to bet that guy doesn't even live in the US. Look up the definition of "empirical data" and try again. Since reading isn't your thing, try this... The Truth About False Accusations in The US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMYJ7UCHSuo |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
