|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point.
|
On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point.
I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale.
|
On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale.
Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed.
|
On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed.
Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable.
someday ...
|
On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ...
You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first.
And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it.
The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism".
|
History doesn't exist Whitedog, voyons... Marx, Marx, why are you right once again...
|
On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism".
No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it.
|
On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it.
And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god.
|
On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god.
People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive.
|
On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive.
And there are plenty of people that advocate for a change in public property everyday. That doesn't mean the society is ready to accept a change in private property. In France even today there are people sitting in park and forests to fight against firms and the state in regard to some projects (a bridge, a "central park" and ab aeroport most notably). That doesn't mean much from a macro perspective.
Social ownership is not complicated either. Private property is : you need tons of institutions to make it work.
|
On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive.
Well a functioning democracy needs an educated and informed public. Otherwise it quickly turns into some sort of oligarchy. People just vote however their leaders tell them they should with little or no comprehension of the actual situation. Democracy itself isn't hard (although the procedures and crap for legislation aren't exactly playing tic-tac-toe) but having a democracy worth keeping is.
A democracy of idiots fulfills all the worst imaginings of our forefathers.
|
On April 26 2015 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive. And there are plenty of people that advocate for a change in public property everyday. That doesn't mean the society is ready to accept a change in private property. In France even today there are people sitting in park and forests to fight against firms and the state in regard to some projects (a bridge, a "central park" and ab aeroport most notably). That doesn't mean much from a macro perspective. Social ownership is not complicated either. Private property is : you need tons of institutions to make it work.
You don't need that many institutions for private property. Cultures have had it since the dawn of time. Excluding the Native Americans of North America, pretty much every culture had private ownership of land.
|
On April 26 2015 05:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive. And there are plenty of people that advocate for a change in public property everyday. That doesn't mean the society is ready to accept a change in private property. In France even today there are people sitting in park and forests to fight against firms and the state in regard to some projects (a bridge, a "central park" and ab aeroport most notably). That doesn't mean much from a macro perspective. Social ownership is not complicated either. Private property is : you need tons of institutions to make it work. You don't need that many institutions for private property. Cultures have had it since the dawn of time. Excluding the Native Americans of North America, pretty much every culture had private ownership of land.
All societies had to create complexe hierarchy and institutions to justify and assure private ownership. Don't know what you're talking about.
|
On April 26 2015 05:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive. And there are plenty of people that advocate for a change in public property everyday. That doesn't mean the society is ready to accept a change in private property. In France even today there are people sitting in park and forests to fight against firms and the state in regard to some projects (a bridge, a "central park" and ab aeroport most notably). That doesn't mean much from a macro perspective. Social ownership is not complicated either. Private property is : you need tons of institutions to make it work. You don't need that many institutions for private property. Cultures have had it since the dawn of time. Excluding the Native Americans of North America, pretty much every culture had private ownership of land.
Some Natives had private ownership. It was best paralleled by 'fee simple' ownership. Owning land meaning something different to natives certainly mattered though.
|
On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism".
So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism.
Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo!
|
On April 26 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive. Well a functioning democracy needs an educated and informed public. Otherwise it quickly turns into some sort of oligarchy. People just vote however their leaders tell them they should with little or no comprehension of the actual situation. Democracy itself isn't hard (although the procedures and crap for legislation aren't exactly playing tic-tac-toe) but having a democracy worth keeping is. A democracy of idiots fulfills all the worst imaginings of our forefathers.
He's saying democracy at all was impossible. I'm saying we're not biologically different than medieval people. They were plenty smart enough to come up with the idea.
I agree it'd be a garbage democracy. In fact, lack of education is a big reason I think we currently have a garbage democracy.
On April 26 2015 05:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:51 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:39 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:29 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". No, it wasn't. The ancient Athenians were a democracy. The Iroquois were a democracy. Democracy is a pretty simple idea, it doesn't take some hyper-advanced society to come up with it. And there were plenty of societies with different property rights. Irrelevant : to XVth century french or English, democracy was an impossible dream. The King was the representant of god on earth, and going against him was like going against god. People went against the king all the time. There were almost constant rebellions and peasant uprisings in medieval Europe. Education has nothing to do with it. Democracy is not a complicated idea that requires an educated populace to understand. Voting is pretty intuitive. And there are plenty of people that advocate for a change in public property everyday. That doesn't mean the society is ready to accept a change in private property. In France even today there are people sitting in park and forests to fight against firms and the state in regard to some projects (a bridge, a "central park" and ab aeroport most notably). That doesn't mean much from a macro perspective. Social ownership is not complicated either. Private property is : you need tons of institutions to make it work. You don't need that many institutions for private property. Cultures have had it since the dawn of time. Excluding the Native Americans of North America, pretty much every culture had private ownership of land. All societies had to create complexe hierarchy and institutions to justify and assure private ownership. Don't know what you're talking about.
You don't need any institutions to come up with the idea "This is mine, that is yours." Assuring it's maintained is an issue of efficiency, which you've already said you don't care about.
|
On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo!
The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol.
You don't need any institutions to come up with the idea "This is mine, that is yours." Assuring it's maintained is an issue of efficiency, which you've already said you don't care about.
The problem is to make other respect your "this is mine, that is yours". And yes you need plenty of institutions for that, not a question of efficiency. That's a stupid idea, efficiency is defined in respect to the goal that you set, it does not come from god or nature.
He's saying democracy at all was impossible. I'm saying we're not biologically different than medieval people. They were plenty smart enough to come up with the idea.
Exactly like social ownership. Idea =/= reality.
|
On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. Show nested quote +You don't need any institutions to come up with the idea "This is mine, that is yours." Assuring it's maintained is an issue of efficiency, which you've already said you don't care about. The problem is to make other respect your "this is mine, that is yours". And yes you need plenty of institutions for that, not a question of efficiency. That's a stupid idea, efficiency is defined in respect to the goal that you set, it does not come from god or nature. Show nested quote +He's saying democracy at all was impossible. I'm saying we're not biologically different than medieval people. They were plenty smart enough to come up with the idea. Exactly like social ownership. Idea =/= reality.
Physical strength isn't an institution, and that's all it took at first. Hell, animals understand property.
As for the practical issues of communism, they're inherent human qualities. In fact, if they didn't exist, the whole discussion would be moot. You don't need any government if everyone behaves.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
So basically, Communism doesn't work in the real world, and in some ideal world where it could work, it would be pointless.
|
On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol.
That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there.
|
On April 26 2015 06:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. You don't need any institutions to come up with the idea "This is mine, that is yours." Assuring it's maintained is an issue of efficiency, which you've already said you don't care about. The problem is to make other respect your "this is mine, that is yours". And yes you need plenty of institutions for that, not a question of efficiency. That's a stupid idea, efficiency is defined in respect to the goal that you set, it does not come from god or nature. He's saying democracy at all was impossible. I'm saying we're not biologically different than medieval people. They were plenty smart enough to come up with the idea. Exactly like social ownership. Idea =/= reality. Physical strength isn't an institution, and that's all it took at first. Hell, animals understand property. As for the practical issues of communism, they're inherent human qualities. In fact, if they didn't exist, the whole discussion would be moot. You don't need any government if everyone behaves. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison So basically, Communism doesn't work in the real world, and in some ideal world where it could work, it would be pointless.
You really think physical strength was enough to assure private property ? Animal have complicated institutions too btw, the difference is we are not finished when we come to life.
I love your quotes. they're meaningless tho. I never intended to discuss the possibility of communism with you, but just saying all this is also true for free market.
On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 03:47 WhiteDog wrote:
You can argue that collectively owned firms are less efficient in some regards, if you will, I'll not discuss it. But that was not the point. I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there.
You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
