Follow

logic. is bad because people starved but also people SHOULD starve if they can't find a job.

@pinkprius See, you sociopathic communists don't get it:
Communism is bad because it violates our natural right to choose, which inevitably results in mass death.

A free society means people are indeed free to starve, but never HAVE to starve. They will have as much food and other wealth as they are productive members of the community.

You stole the term "socialism", but there's nobody more antisocial than your kind. Pre-Marxism socialists respected the social accountability of a free market.

@kazvorpal "They will have as much food and other wealth as they are productive members of the community."

What about
children,
old people,
people who can't work,
people who don't want to work,
people who do any kind of community work or care work,
people who need high cost medication/care,
...

Thanks 4 the insults though, you are lucky I take mercy and reply to your childish comment.

@pinkprius
> What about children

Parents. Not only that, but people who actually care (unlike you communists), who will consensually provide for children.

> old people,

First, they were once young people, therefore responsible for providing for their old age. Second, again, people who actually care and therefore help voluntarily.

> people who can't work,

99% of adults not working COULD work. Again, people care enough to provide for the rest.

@pinkprius

> muted

And THAT is how you stay communist...because otherwise the cognitive dissonance would tear you apart.

@pinkprius

> people who don't want to work,

Again, this is why you "socialists" aren't actually socialists. Socialism originally involved expecting people to be socially responsible. In a free market, that's enforced by the fact that resources are traded for contributing to society.

"Doesn't want to work" means "not contributing to society". Anyone who is that lazy can find a way to provide for himself. he has no right to enslave other for his needs.

@kazvorpal @pinkprius Pre-Marxism socialists...you mean the Jacobins. Maybe we do need more Jacobin spirit to sweep away the ancien régime and finally realize liberté, egalité, fraternité.

Bring on the revolution!

@bob @pinkprius

No, I mean guys like Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker, who opposed capitalism (by which they meant state monopoly of capital, the very thing Communists advocate), which they saw as warring against society. They therefore supported free markets.

Even Bakunin was against the evil of Communism, anticipating Stalinism in his prediction of how it would always, inevitably turn out.

@kazvorpal @pinkprius Bakunin was against communism mainly because of the example of the French revolution. He wasn't so much anticipating Stalinism as looking back at the previous cases where power had been wielded "in the name of the people".

@bob @pinkprius Bakunin explicitly described the powerful, crypto-capitalist state of Stalinism, and explained how and why that would be the inevitable outcome.

When you gather power together, it not only corrupts, it attracts the most corruptible and sociopathic of society.

He didn't know about the calculation problem, how central planning can NEVER manage resources effectively, will ALWAYS cause austerity, famine, and death.

But he knew rulers are always evil when the state is powerful.

@kazvorpal @pinkprius Central planning seems to work very effectively for Amazon. The main criticism of central planning isn't that it doesn't work but that it only works in the interests of a ruling minority.

@bob @pinkprius
You illustrate the problem with communists:

You don't differentiate between consent and coercion. Amazon is an entity that operates consensually. It is not a source of central planning, and not a monopoly.

Central planning imposes economic decisions by force. Amazon competes with many other companies consensually. It is part of the Spontaneous Order that is always superior to central planning in economic outcomes, for all of society.

@kazvorpal @pinkprius

[Amazon]

> Amazon is an entity that operates consensually. It is not a source of central planning, and not a monopoly.

Er, ok.

At this point I think we've left the footpath of reality and are heading off into the long grass.

@bob @pinkprius

Your retort is evasive to the point of being meaningless. If you wish to deny that Amazon operates consensually, explain what you mean, otherwise you just appear dishonest, which I'll admit is a behavior communists find acceptable, since "the end justifies the means" to them.

You can argue that the State violates our consent by imposing corporatism on us coercively. But you're going to be hard-pressed to argue that Amazon per se is coercive.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
chaos.social

chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community