REEE: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer

[TECSHARE]

Since m0gliE can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior.

I am sure you would prefer the whole internet be sanitized from ideas you dislike like they do on Facebook and Twitter, but most of us don't..

Also I find it extra hilarious that he deletes all my comments while leaving his replies with my quotes up as if that makes my replies go away some how xD

I guess he finally realized he has no argument in reply so he has to try to keep me from being able to even argue against him, that's how weak his arguments are, but this is standard behavior from the left now days. Free speech, as long as you agree with me.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry

Please do come back

But I believe it would be a no true scotman if I'd say that communism works because the failure weren't true communism. Which is not my point, just saying that the given examples aren't counterexamples but rather indication that communism leads to dictatorship.

Didn't you....literally...just get done doing that? I guess it is just a convenient coincidence those are the same instances eh?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Your entire op was just saying past Communism was not true Communism... I say it is a fallacy, you deny you said it, then turn right around and say but no it will work this time. Your logic is circular.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Your entire op was just saying past Communism was not true Communism... I say it is a fallacy, you deny you said it, then turn right around and say but no it will work this time. Your logic is circular.

Oh ok so you actually didn't understand my OP at all ^^

I'll try to make it shorter and easier:
-Past "communist countries" were not communist but dictatorship
-They failed to implemant communism and were transformed into dictatorship in the process

No true scotman would be saying "those states aren't proof of communism failure because that was not the right kind of communism"
I'm saying "they tried to implement communism but failed and were transformed into dictatorship on the way"

It's not that they implemented something which is not real communism, it's that when trying to implement it they failed completely and utterly because communism isn't compatible with representative governments. That's my point. Hope it was a bit clearer.

It is always the same thing with Communists... its not that they are wrong, its just that I don't understand it and simply need to hear it repeated enough times to be suitably indoctrinated via operant conditioning. YOU ARE LITERALLY STATING THE SAME ARGUMENT  only in a SLIGHTLY different way. I think after a few hundred million lives lost we should just give up on the ol' Communism, what do you say?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Technocracy with heavy favor towards automation ~= socialism.

Start with government to prove a mostly automated front-end and then expand from there. Automation may be more expensive in the short term, but overall, it's a valuable investment.

The only hitch is the government "automation" probably should be open source so the people can vote on the "changes" in the code of law.

Once we automate government in this way, we can automate industry similar. This way, as an individual, if you want change in a product, you just fork the automation framework to create your own version.

Oh yeah, because an elite group of unaccountable academics would always have the people's best interests at heart right? Oh PLEASE DO tell me about how great technocracy is. I have been round and round with this sham of an ideology as well.

Start with government? I thought that you didn't like big state controlled centralized entities! That could never go wrong could it? Your vision is a totalitarian nightmare. In fact the Nazis were obsessed with order and record keeping. Some of the earliest IBM systems were even used to catalog people in camps. It would be EVEN better with everything automated right? I can't wait to have my virtual lawyer protect my virtual rights!

It is always the same thing with Communists... its not that they are wrong, its just that I don't understand it and simply need to hear it repeated enough times to be suitably indoctrinated via operant conditioning. YOU ARE LITERALLY STATING THE SAME ARGUMENT  only in a SLIGHTLY different way. I think after a few hundred million lives lost we should just give up on the ol' Communism, what do you say?

So for you "Implementing A" and "Trying to implement A but fail and implement B" is the same?
My point is saying that failure is linked to representative government, not the ideological concept.

It's exactly the same as saying that flying is impossible because you weren't able to fly just by moving your arms. It's not that flying is impossible, it's that you need a different kind of technology and a different approach.

Considering you are the one floating the premise that "it is not real Communism", you are the one that needs to demonstrate that your ideology has any SUCCESSES to EVEN JUSTIFY trying it again. I think after hundreds of millions of lives lost over the past hundred years or so "trying Communism" it is safe to say you better have some good fucking evidence before we try this dumpster fire of an ideology again at all.

Your premise in the op is literally just a "no true Scotsman fallacy" combined with some circular logic as a pathetic misdirection tactic. You aren't arguing facts you are attempting to condition me to your ideology via brute force and repetition. My point is I am saying THE IDEOLOGICAL CONCEPT IS THE PROBLEM.

Hey I got a question for you Mr. workers rights. Did you know the USSR was bankrupted right around the Bolshevik revolution, and Wallstreet bankers not only helped plan it, they funded it, and helped Marxism and Communism take power from the Tsar? That's right. Your precious ideology was the invention of Wallstreet and European bankers!

It is a system of controlled opposition. Red vs Blue. Us vs Them. Republican vs Democrat. Only on a global scale. It is right in your face. The symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle, are ancient. The hammer represents building and creating, and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism comes in and builds society up. The people get too much power and influence or society becomes otherwise imbalanced, such as via the financial debasing, then Communism is brought in to strip the nation of resources systematically until there is nothing left. Then the process is started all over again. We don't have to submit to harvesting.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I'm doing this step by step because you're so biased that you don't seem to actually read me. My point is not saying that communism works but that previous communist countries failed because of the representative government system. So that it's worth thinking about a communist direct democracy. Thinking about it, not saying it's the solution. There is a "can" in the title you know?

Oh am I? I suppose that makes you unbiased in comparison? I am absolutely reading and comprehending every word you type. I had an adult level vocabulary in grade school, don't worry I understand big words.

Your point is not Communism works, just that it "COULD work", so lets try it again right? Again, just more of your "no true Scotsman" circular logic, just rearranged to sound like it is something else.

Considering you are the one floating the premise that "it is not real Communism", you are the one that needs to demonstrate that your ideology has any SUCCESSES to EVEN JUSTIFY trying it again.

Why so? I never said communism works that's absolutely not my point... Please re-read me because I never wrote that and will never because I don't believe so. That's not the point of this OP.

Very convenient that you need not provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of the successes of the ideology you think we should give another go, because your argument is it never really existed. Your entire ideology hinges on you justifying it with itself. Communism never existed, therefore there was no real Communism, therefore lets try it again it could work right? C-I-R-C-U-L-A-R

I think after hundreds of millions of lives lost over the past hundred years or so "trying Communism" it is safe to say you better have some good fucking evidence before we try this dumpster fire of an ideology again at all.

Agreed. That's more the point of this OP which is to say that those deaths are linked to the dictatorship, which is a consequence of how communism was implemented.

Riiight... a direct result of it.... nearly every time.... it was ever tried.... You think perhaps there is a correlation with the ideology itself and horrible dumpster fires of failure? Nah it wasn't TRUE Communism, so its ok.

Your premise in the op is literally just a "no true Scotsman fallacy" combined with some circular logic as a pathetic misdirection tactic. You aren't arguing facts you are attempting to condition me to your ideology via brute force and repetition.

I'm taking your link as a reference:

1"During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group."
Didn't do this

You literally did this. All the names of the horrible leaders of failed Communist states resulting in mass death "don't count as group x" because they are "group y", and "group x" hasn't been tried before.

2"Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group."
Didn't do this

Again this was literally your original post in the thread. You defined "Dictatorships" as being the "bad" then used that to then juxtapose Communism as not that, and the remaining "good". This is right out of the Hegelian dialectic. This is not logic, this is mind conditioning via fallacy and operant conditioning.

It's not a No True Scotsman because I'm not saying at all that communism works or is good or whatever.

My point is I am saying THE IDEOLOGICAL CONCEPT IS THE PROBLEM.

Then as you love to say, if you bring a new argument please provide evidences to back it up.

Considering you started off the topic, and support the premise, the burden of proof is on you, not me to provide evidence of any examples of successful implementations of Communism. I have no burden to prove it wrong, even though I can do that all day. See above.

Hey I got a question for you Mr. workers rights. Did you know the USSR was bankrupted right around the Bolshevik revolution, and Wallstreet bankers not only helped plan it, they funded it, and helped Marxism and Communism take power from the Tsar? That's right. Your precious ideology was the invention of Wallstreet and European bankers!

Don't see the link with the argument... And until you bring any proof of that you just sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me ^^

Why should I reference a question? This is a well documented fact. I will grace you with references later, first I want to hear you deny it a few more times before I prove you wrong to show you are too lazy to even check for yourself in the past or even now. The fact is I probably know your precious ideology better than you do.

It is a system of controlled opposition. Red vs Blue. Us vs Them. Republican vs Democrat. Only on a global scale. It is right in your face. The symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle, are ancient. The hammer represents building and creating, and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism comes in and builds society up. The people get too much power and influence or society becomes otherwise imbalanced, such as via the financial debasing, then Communism is brought in to strip the nation of resources systematically until there is nothing left. Then the process is started all over again. We don't have to submit to harvesting.

I disagree strongly with the last part, first I don't see how what you describe is historically accurate because it just never happened anywhere. Second because the "opposition cycle" you talk about is much more linked to inequalities cycles for me. But that's a whole different argument you're discussing here ^^

Oh, you disagree and you don't see do you? Well then. That is all the proof I need!

Look it is not my job to teach you all of history. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there. Now if you don't want to take the time to actually check for yourself, at least stop pretending like you have.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Oh am I? I suppose that makes you unbiased in comparison?

No of course I'm probably as biased concerning liberal economy... Just trying to point out you should keep and open mind and stop putting words inside my mouth :/

Ok, then what is the point of even saying that then if not to cast yourself in a superior light by comparison? If we are both bias then what does it matter? Oh right your bias is the more correct bias. My mind is plenty open. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Maybe you learn how burden of proof works huh, how about it?

Your point is not Communism works, just that it "COULD work", so lets try it again right?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. My point is communist countries failure is more linked to representative government than to communism so let's think about it again ><

Really, it is getting pathetic that you still don't understand what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, or circular logic. You are just rephrasing "it wasn't real communism, so lets try it again!". Your argument is anything that distracts from this fact, that you have no facts. You don't even have logic. You have only the ILLUSION of logic.

-snip-

I've cut it all because you more or less say the same things on the rest of your post "you should provide evidence that communism works before wanting to go again"

But that's not at all my point, I'm not saying let's do communism, I'm saying "hey previous failures are linked to representative government which had a complete and total power which leads to dictatorship. What happens if we put direct democracy instead?"

See?

No, you have conveniently removed it because you have no argument to stand on. You can't even submit a logical premise let alone defend it. Your mental gymnastics, constantly shifting definitions, and logical fallacies do not count.

Yes, I know what you are saying because you do nothing but repeat yourself rather than respond to my criticisms of your lack of logic. Your ideology INHERENTLY LEADS TO TOTALITARIANISM. You can say "oh but my point is not that its this look over here!" all day... Your ideology STILL INHERENTLY LEADS TO TOTALITARIANISM.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  

Hes right... people do ask for Socialism when the economy is bad. That doesn't mean it will make anything better... in fact it is like pouring water on a grease fire.

I think he is saying that USSR socialism didn't work because it was authoritarian so maybe we should try libertarian socialism.    I think we all agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea so maybe you should move past that being 100% of your argument against socialism/communism.

I posted this compass because you are only thinking in terms of left vs right.  A one dimensional argument in a two dimensional world.  All of your arguments have been against the top left corner of the compass.  The problem is, as a socialist, I have never met anyone who's ideology is up there.  They exist in history yes, and your arguments are sound against the USSR, but we are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum; in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass where authority comes from individuals via democracy and not from the government.  

Don't speak for me. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. END OF STATEMENT.

Yeah lets just gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism resulting every time Socialism and Communism are implemented. Socialists are like a 18 year old with a credit card. They run around buying all kinds of crap they can't pay for, but in their minds it is ok, because they got a credit card to pay for things right?
Things will just "work out". That is not how it works, the chain in your brain is missing a link. Your picture doesn't present any argument against this reality. Very pretty colors though.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

We definitely need to stop capitalism before it gets to a point of "grease fire".  

The statement in all caps literally denies the existence of the political compass.  You are saying that the left only exists at the very top left corner of the compass.  Literally everyone here is between somewhere near the middle and the very bottom.    This is why all of your arguments against modern leftist ideology are strawmen.  Yes we should gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism when discussing democratic socialism because it isn't relevant.   Instead of arguing with the 20th century, maybe you should argue with the people who are here and living in the 21st century.  

Oh how cute and refractory. Are you even capable of coming up with your own analogies or do you require some one else state one first before you can use it?

OOOH NO! HOW COULD I DENY THE POLITICAL COMPASS! THE POLITICAL COMPASS IS OUR GOD AND IS LAW!

So what if I do deny your dumb fucking compass. It is a theory and a visual aid, not a law or evidence of anything other than the fact you like pretty pictures and think they give you authority. All of your arguments come from an appeal to authority, either that or you have to redefine words until you can avoid addressing direct criticism, or literally claim I say things I never said.

What I am saying is what I am saying. You don't get to speak for me. How about I start speaking for you since you insist on constantly speaking for me?

You are saying "oh we live in the 21st century, it can't happen again!"
You are saying "oh we can just print all the money we need!"
You are saying "oh that wasn't real Socialism, this time it will be different!"
You are saying "printing money doesn't cause inflation!"
You are saying "you deny the political compass therefore all your arguments are strawmen!"
You are saying "I get to say what your argument is then demand you refute that!"

What you are saying is you want to sell poorly informed people that they can some how magically be entitled to free shit and keep all their rights while you systematically eat out the substance of the host nation enriching those at the top while lying to the poorly educated masses.

You are saying when your ideology inevitably fails yet again as it always has, you will then strip regular people of everything they own as the former "Capitalist" or job creating class is destroyed, and the only remaining resources left to steal are from the average people themselves.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Ok I'm putting TECHSHARE on ignore. He doesn't read people so there is no point trying to discuss with him. Or he reads people and isn't able to make the difference between cause and consequence but that would be sad. Do feel free to feed the troll if you wish though.

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people

Oh no, don't put me on ignore! I don't need you to reply to me to counter your senseless arguments. All ignoring me is going to do is make it harder for you to support your position (not that you are managing to do that to begin with).

I am reading everything, and you must attribute some kind of non-specific logical error to me because you have no good reply to my arguments. You don't understand that your intent has very little to do with the end result. Quite convenient you can just write anyone who doesn't agree with you off as a troll isn't it? Maybe in the future you can have me sent off to the gulags so you never have to hear any opinions you don't like ever again.

A pure democracy means individuals have no rights. Minority groups will always be outvoted, and therefore never represented. That is why the US is a Constitutional Republic. The Republic protects the rights of individuals via rule of law. Also it is actually pretty easy to corrupt the masses, it is called propaganda or brainwashing. These are some of the least informed and least educated individuals, they are the easiest to lie to.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Of course you agree with the OP. He removes any dissenting opinions, then justifies eliminating arguments he has no reply to by calling those that challenge his ideas trolls. So much for Communism not being totalitarian right? Communists seem to have a fetish about censoring ideas that call their precious lord and savior Communism into question.

Quoting you for the people who might read this thread later.

All of what you said is in previous answers because I answered each and every claim you made one by one. If there is a single argument missing please notify me I'll edit this post.

I'm deleting your comments because I consider that your aggressive behaviour without any logic (you're not being logic, you talk as if everyone should know the strange hypotethises you have in your mind...) is just trolling. You're being circular and ignoring that the point of this OP is NOT that communism is the answer, but that socialism should be studied deeply to see if the combination of socialism and direct democracy could produce an interesting result. I'm not even saying it WILL I'm saying I don't see how it can't be better than what we have currently.

If you want to discuss how stupid communists are create your own thread. And deleting your aggressive comments while keeping all the arguments in previous quotes is NOT censoring in any way...

Tell me, what is the point of quoting if you are just going to delete the comment anyway? it seems to me your inability to respond to my arguments is leaving you feeling ineffectual so deleting my comments gives you a feeling of control and authority like most Communists crave in spite of their continual denials.

It is rather convenient you just get to unilaterally declare all of my arguments invalid, and also simultaneously state you have appropriately refuted each position even when I have repeatedly pointed out your failures in logic and critical thought. Usually people with valid arguments don't need to resort to those kind of tactics.

Just because my ideas upset you does not mean it is trolling. All it means is you are making a public confession that you are too weak to form an argument, and even considering an opposing opinion upsets you. Also this makes a convenient out for you so you don't ever have to engage any criticism of any argument you make because you can simply label your opposition a troll and wash your hands of it. Again, people with good ideas don't need to do this.

You don't see how it can't be better? Well it is a good thing the world doesn't rely on your shortsightedness isn't it? Clearly since you can't see, there must not exist any ideas in refutation of your conclusions! You created a thread to argue why Communism will work, and I am telling you why it will not only NOT WORK, it will result in horrible societal collapse. However you can't see how it can't be better, so I guess that is that eh? You have fun convincing yourself you aren't censoring, everyone else taking note of how you operate.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

+1

The privileged (probably white, middle-class kids) arguing about socialism.  They have no fucking idea what socialism or communism is.

If you lived under both socialist/communist and capitalist systems you would understand the fundamental flaws and benefits of each system.

They should interview people who lived in socialist and communist regimes.  

Instead, they think they "got it", and their interpretation of socialism will work (no matter the evidence to contrary) if they would only get a chance to implement it "properly".  LOL.

These guys are a joke.  Comedians really.

I described your delusion a bit upper man ^^

I know that socialism is what allowed me to be where I am.

I wouldn't have the money to pay for my college without socialism. My dad's first company went bankrupt and by the time he made a more successfull attempt I already had my diploma. Do you suggest that it wasn't thanks to socialism?

There are good and bad sides to both systems and I'd say socialism outweigth capitalism on the good side, although it is again not the main point of this post but all the liberal economist of the forum are trying to argue that so I have to answer this off topic subject...

And I am yet to be presented any argument against socialism + direct democracy... mrcash02 is arguing this point right now but I haven't seen anything from you.

You are confusing social programs with socialism.

You are wrong on capitalism.  Capitalism is cruel, harsh but has more opportunities for people who want to work hard.

Socialism or communism will provide you with free education, free medical services, and will provide you with jobs after you graduate that will get you through the first week of the month, the rest will be up to you to figure out.  Socialism will offer you subsistence living, most of the time you will be literally starving.

In capitalism, even with a job on the production line, you can survive the whole month with two weeks pay.  You can save money even with a job at the McDonalds.

The hardest thing in capitalism is to control yourself and not to buy all the shit you don't really need.  That was the hardest part.  I could have retired sooner if I did not take expensive vacations, bought expensively jewelry or cars early in my career.  

Other than that, the hardest job I had was washing aluminum extruder dies in acid (with rubber gloves that had holes), but it paid very well.
Almost died there.   Do I think workers struggle in capitalism?  I think most do because they spend too much, are not educated and are destined for a life on the production lines.  Do I think their lives are better than the upper management in the socialist or communist countries, you bet yah.
 

Yeah but why should we take the word of some one who has lived through and escaped Communism when we can listen to our glorious academic leaders return the means of production to the people?

[1714140863]

1714140863

[1714140863]

1714140863

[1714140863]

1714140863

[1714140863]

1714140863

[mOgliE]

Hey that's actually a good idea! I'll post the link to this thread

If I just wanted to censore you I would have deleted your comments AND edited my answers. I just don't see how you're making a cosntructive debate so I kicked you out of my self moderated thread cause talking without trying to make a logical debate I call that trolling. And I think the length of your post proves that I really wanted to discuss with you it's just that (In my opinion) you made it impossible or at least not interesting and cosntructive.

But a separated thread is a very good solution and I'm always happy to debate if you want to 

I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive!

[mOgliE]

I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive!

Ironically, but not at all surprising, the only trolls here are the one's consistently calling others trolls, and flagging (or deleting) messages with which they disagree.  If you actually cared to debate you wouldn't have started a self moderated thread, you would welcome divergent points of view.

I do and you can see it in the original thread. Other people have VERY different points of view like mrcash02
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5073229.msg48281103#msg48281103

I just don't want the trolls that's all. The discussion with TECSHARE was nowhere near constructive nad was just polluting the thread. Just read our questions and answers it's litterally

m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!

I call that non constructive.

But the whole "Progressive" and "Liberal" lot of you aren't interested in debate.  You are only interested in proselytizing your religion, spreading your lies, and fertilizing your propaganda. 

All as you subvert dissenting points of view.  Not very liberal or progressive of you, in my opinion. 

I don't think of myself as liberal or progressive so I don't take it as an insult.

[TECSHARE]

I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive!

Ironically, but not at all surprising, the only trolls here are the one's consistently calling others trolls, and flagging (or deleting) messages with which they disagree.  If you actually cared to debate you wouldn't have started a self moderated thread, you would welcome divergent points of view.

I do and you can see it in the original thread. Other people have VERY different points of view like mrcash02
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5073229.msg48281103#msg48281103

I just don't want the trolls that's all. The discussion with TECSHARE was nowhere near constructive nad was just polluting the thread. Just read our questions and answers it's litterally

m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!

I call that non constructive.

But the whole "Progressive" and "Liberal" lot of you aren't interested in debate.  You are only interested in proselytizing your religion, spreading your lies, and fertilizing your propaganda. 

All as you subvert dissenting points of view.  Not very liberal or progressive of you, in my opinion. 

I don't think of myself as liberal or progressive so I don't take it as an insult.

What you mean to say is you don't want the ones who can effectively refute your arguments. "Polluting" your pure thread with my politically incorrect ideas am I? Sounds familiar.

You know what that process you just detailed is called? In debate it is known as "burden of proof". This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data. This is the base law by which all forms of debate and science operate off of.

If you find the exchange non-constructive I suggest you get a better argument than "I'm not talking about this", because by the rules of any kind of logical examination you fail to support your premise based on this fact alone. You are literally refusing to address direct criticism of it and using the subjective nature of the topic to pretend the criticisms have no logic.

[mOgliE]

This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data.

No I haven't...

God if anyone needs a better example of what I mean by polluting with non constructive circular debate I can't do, that's litteraly the

m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!

I was talking about. It's happening right now!!!

[TECSHARE]

This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data.

No I haven't...

God if anyone needs a better example of what I mean by polluting with non constructive circular debate I can't do, that's litteraly the

m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!

I was talking about. It's happening right now!!!

I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.

[mOgliE]

I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.

Noooooooooooo I'm saying how previous communism failures were directly linked to representative democracy and how direct democracy would get rid of the problems and how socialism could be implemented in a direct democracy without leading to a dictatorship...

That's LITTERALY said in my OP:

So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.

[TECSHARE]

I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.

Noooooooooooo I'm saying how previous communism failures were directly linked to representative democracy and how direct democracy would get rid of the problems and how socialism could be implemented in a direct democracy without leading to a dictatorship...

That's LITTERALY said in my OP:

So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.

You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.

[mOgliE]

You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.

Yes that's the rest of the OP... The why I believe direct democracy makes establishing socialism without falling into dictatorship possible... You really don't read people and just write "logical fallacies" and "illogical" everywhere do you?

[TECSHARE]

You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.

Yes that's the rest of the OP... The why I believe direct democracy makes establishing socialism without falling into dictatorship possible... You really don't read people and just write "logical fallacies" and "illogical" everywhere do you?

You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs.  I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?

[mOgliE]

You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs.  I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?

Yeah... Exceptional... Extraordinary at least that's for sure:

I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?

Just posting this because it seems you have hard time understanding why I say you're a troll that doesn't even read others:

Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.

But more than any of that, I was lucky. And I really wish you were able to see how lucky you were in your success. How you were not rewarded on your merit but on your luck. And how horrible and unfair it is that millions of people, who were born with the same or even better abilities than yours, were not so lucky.

Said all I had to say. You asked a burden of proof and I give you my reasoning in my OP... Is what you're waiting for is emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

[TECSHARE]

You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs.  I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?

Yeah... Exceptional... Extraordinary at least that's for sure:

I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?

Just posting this because it seems you have hard time understanding why I say you're a troll that doesn't even read others:

Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.

But more than any of that, I was lucky. And I really wish you were able to see how lucky you were in your success. How you were not rewarded on your merit but on your luck. And how horrible and unfair it is that millions of people, who were born with the same or even better abilities than yours, were not so lucky.

Said all I had to say. You asked a burden of proof and I give you my reasoning in my OP... Is what you're waiting for is emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

[mOgliE]

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

[Spendulus]

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

I do find this assertion interesting.

Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.


How would that work?

[TECSHARE]

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

[mOgliE]

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

Then you are an idiot.

I have nothing more to say. You're a complete moron and this statement just proves it xD

Oh my god I just hope everyone is able to understand how limited and illogical what you're asking for is... It's awesome thanks!!!

[mOgliE]

I do find this assertion interesting.

Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.


How would that work?

Thanks. I've found the theory interesting although it is, of course, only theory.

The idea would be that socialism/communism leads to dictatorship because it means the people (hence the inhabitants of a country) must take control of a large part of the production power of the said country. By that they in fact take control of a very large portion of the country itself. And in previous socialist/communist countries "the people" is something that just wasn't able to take a direct control, they elected a government which was supposed to represent them and this government had the effective control.
Which means you had to give a nearly complete power to a few dozens of people, that's how communism led automatically to dictatorship.

Now what if we have a direct democracy?
That means laws and constitution are both proposed and voted by the people regularly, best current example would be Switzerland where people vote nearly every week on various subject because they are actually a semi-direct democracy. If socialism/communism was implemented in such country, it would means control of the economic production is NOT in the hands of few people so it wouldn't lead to dictatorship. A company owned by the state would be directly hold by its worker, without having a komissar managing it. It would be most likely working like thoses companies bought back by their workers (I don't know how it's called, it's maybe a French thing but here when a company goes bankrupt, the workers can buy it back for 1€ and split the shares between themselves to continue the production. It's called a "coopérative").

For the rest your question "how wouldthat work" is a bit too large for me so don't hesitate to ask precisions ^^

I'd say there are 2 major points that could make it complicated or unethical:

1/ Like any democratic system, this would be a clear rule of the majority over the minority. Constitution can be here to protect citizens but it can always be changed. The notion of majority can also be changed and we can say a laws must have 60 or 70% support to pass but fundamentally it's still the rule of majority over minority. I have yet to be given an example of a system which is not, so this system isn't worth than the others on this subject but it's still not perfect.

2/ There is a HUGE need of mentality change and education to be done. In Switzerland for example there are hundreds of classes dedicated to direct democracy, explaining how it works but also the duties of the citizens and helping the children grow interest in politics. In Norway children are actually applying direct democracy in lots of school where the children are in charge of everything, from class content to school meals organization. There is a big apathy in most Western countries because people know they're getting fucked by politicians and they're powerless. This means there must be a changed of mentality from being governed by someone to having your destiny in your own hands.

[TECSHARE]

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

Then you are an idiot.

I have nothing more to say. You're a complete moron and this statement just proves it xD

Oh my god I just hope everyone is able to understand how limited and illogical what you're asking for is... It's awesome thanks!!!

Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.

You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.

[mOgliE]

Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.

You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.

The guy asks for empirical data of how efficient socialist direct democracy is and he talks about logic     

I'm not even remotely sorry. If you hadn't been such an arrogant aggressive person previously I would have explained how what you're saying is not only a nonsense but also a proof of your inability to think.

But considering your previous behaviour you'll have to wait for someone nicer than me to explain it to you xD

[TECSHARE]

Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.

You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.

The guy asks for empirical data of how efficient socialist direct democracy is and he talks about logic     

I'm not even remotely sorry. If you hadn't been such an arrogant aggressive person previously I would have explained how what you're saying is not only a nonsense but also a proof of your inability to think.

But considering your previous behaviour you'll have to wait for someone nicer than me to explain it to you xD

I am sorry that you are so emotionally weak that my words alone offend you so much you can not muster a reply. I am sure this is just not some refractory excuse to cover for the fact that you have no reply, no, it is because of what I DID.

Yeah, what a loon, asking for you to substantiate your ideology which has resulted in millions of lives lost, with some form of material fact. I should know better right? This is Postmodern loony tune land where logic is whatever you say it is at any given moment and everything is subjective and equally unprovable.

Again, you are making a premise. You hold the burden to prove that premise with empirical data. Real simple, day one stuff in pretty much any science, debate, or logic class.