Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet

[Silvanus]

With regards to wanting to abolish the police, I defer to all the people here who have explicitly said they would do so. That was possibly the single funniest argument victory I ever had here, when lildevils was like "nobody wants to actually abolish the police", and all these dummies volunteered themselves as examples, and I never had to say another word.

"Abolishing" the current incarnation without any replacement, and "abolishing" the current incarnation to replace it with something else, are very different propositions, both of which involve abolishing the police.

On a sidenote, your semi-frequent proclamations of victory are some of the funniest posts here, in a self-awareness-deficit kind of way.

Honestly, I think I am the only person here who understand what my opponents stand for. You all can't even figure out what your "allies" stand for. You, Silvanus, personally, are decidedly closer to me philosophically than you are to the communists here, if you would think for a second about what people actually stand for.

Why should I take your word for that, when every time you offer a description of your opponents' positions, they're always wildly off-target?

 

[tstorm823]

Pure arrogance and wilful misunderstanding. You don't have the slightest wish to actually engage with or understand what I stand for, so I'm not going to take your word for it.

The reason you think I don't understand you is because you defend arguments from other people that you don't actually agree with, but you've identified them as an ally and me as an adversary, because you see yourself as left and me as right. It more complicated than that.

What you don't see is the arguments we don't have. I don't pick many fights with you. I read the things you say and go "alright, reasonable enough" the vast majority of the time. Typically I pick my fights with the unreasonable people, who do not have the same opinions as you, and then you respond to me.

 

[Silvanus]

The reason you think I don't understand you is because you defend arguments from other people that you don't actually agree with, but you've identified them as an ally and me as an adversary, because you see yourself as left and me as right. It more complicated than that.

No, actually, that's not it at all. The simple fact is that you come out with stuff I find objectionable much more often.

Seanchaidh and a few others might be communists, and I'm not. But that's not really relevant to a lot of what they post; the posts don't require one to be a communist in order to sympathise/agree. You often make it about communism in order to dismiss the post, regardless of whether it's related to that or not.

What you don't see is the arguments we don't have. I don't pick many fights with you. I read the things you say and go "alright, reasonable enough" the vast majority of the time. Typically I pick my fights with the unreasonable people, who do not have the same opinions as you, and then you respond to me.

Typically, the fights you pick put you (to my mind) in the wrong.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Seanchaidh]

With regards to wanting to abolish the police, I defer to all the people here who have explicitly said they would do so.

 

[tstorm823]

You often make it about communism in order to dismiss the post, regardless of whether it's related to that or not.

They are always related. There is no such thing as "communist some of the time". It's a holistic view that guides every opinion of those who consider themselves communist.

Typically, the fights you pick put you (to my mind) in the wrong.

What fight did I pick in this thread that put me in the wrong?

 

[Hades]

Modern ones seem most interested in setting things up so they can do as little as possible for as big a pay out as possible.........

Maybe but that's probably a reaction to the powers that be setting things up so those people have to do the most as possible for as little pay as possible.

 

[Hades]

I think this general distaste for capitalism and the conventional workforce has a lot to do of the capitalists not holding up to their end of the bargain. If capitalism is the best bet to prosperity then those advocating drastically lowering the standards of living for the lower classes or refusing to raise them when they easily could are not holding up to their end of the bargain. If capitalism or the American dream gives everyone at least a chance at prosperity then those implementing this drastic wealth inequality are not holding up their end of the bargain. And if all the misery the lower class are facing, and the apathy of the upper class towards this misery is a feature instead of a bug then that doesn't make a good case for the current system.

The distaste for capitalism and the conventional workforce emerges when corporations say that employees just have to poop in bottles because there isn't enough money for toilet breaks but then sending their boss into space for a vanity trip because they had so much spare money laying around. Or Republican scumbags trying to ensure Texan workers can't drink water during the summer heat anymore because it might cost their employer a few pennies. Or that global warming just shouldn't be fixed at all because avoiding environmental collapse might marginally inconvenience the shareholders.

All this reckless disregard for the lower classes is ultimately at capitalism's expense. People are getting more communist curious precisely because arch capitalists are trying really hard to prove that capitalism can't be trusted and that its going to conspire to ruin you if it can get a few bucks from it. And it wasn't always like that. This is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

[Silvanus]

They are always related. There is no such thing as "communist some of the time". It's a holistic view that guides every opinion of those who consider themselves communist.

Bollocks, quite frankly.

If you were to put forward a specific argument which I didn't think cut any mustard, it would be a complete waste of time and attention to reply, "Ah, well, you're a capitalist, and I don't agree with that, so everything else that might be related is worthless".

You're not a capitalist "some of the time". But I'm guessing that doesn't mean you're happy to abandon it the rest of the time, eh?

 

[Hades]

They are always related. There is no such thing as "communist some of the time". It's a holistic view that guides every opinion of those who consider themselves communist.

Why not? You have fanatic ''small government!'' advocates who want to give the government full control of people's bedrooms. And you can have ardent realists who might agree that some viewpoints of liberalism or even Marxism have a lot of a lot of merits.

Systems and peoples are too complex to be one thing all the time.

 

[MrCalavera]

Why not? You have fanatic ''small government!'' advocates who want to give the government full control of people's bedrooms. And you can have ardent realists who might agree that some viewpoints of liberalism or even Marxism have a lot of a lot of merits.

Systems and peoples are too complex to be one thing all the time.

It's funny, because you can easily take that argument and apply it as a "No True ScotsmanCommunist" Fallacy.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Communists are correct about everything all the time. Even when they disagree with other communists. Especially when they disagree with other communists.

 

[tstorm823]

Bollocks, quite frankly.

If you were to put forward a specific argument which I didn't think cut any mustard, it would be a complete waste of time and attention to reply, "Ah, well, you're a capitalist, and I don't agree with that, so everything else that might be related is worthless".

You're not a capitalist "some of the time". But I'm guessing that doesn't mean you're happy to abandon it the rest of the time, eh?

Capitalism and communism are not actually counterparts. Capitalism is an economic system. Communism is a social, political, and economic ideology. It is a combined vision of all aspects of society advocating for a utopia of absolute equality.

Why not? You have fanatic ''small government!'' advocates who want to give the government full control of people's bedrooms. And you can have ardent realists who might agree that some viewpoints of liberalism or even Marxism have a lot of a lot of merits.

Systems and peoples are too complex to be one thing all the time.

Real systems and real people are too complex to be all one thing. The imagination of a utopian idealist is not subject to the the rules of reality though. Of course there are reasonable points put forth by members of any ideology, and ideas mix rather fluidly, but an proponent of a "classless, stateless society" is not going to compromise on that. It is an absolute and all-encompassing demand.

There are many political arguments that come down to the question of how much government should involve itself in something, and how much control should be left to individuals, and it is common for people to put political groups on a sliding scale of how much involvement they advocate for, with small government conservatives one way, and libertarians a step beyond them, and then progressives the other way with socialists a step beyond them. And in some ways that can be a useful exercise, but some ideologies don't fit on that scale. Communism isn't the next step on the line graph, it does not fit on it at all, it's not maximum government involvement. Communism is "there is no government", but also simultaneously "no responsibility should be left to individuals". In the ideal world of a communist, the societal paradigm which we try to balance limited government against meeting people's needs is entirely erased. That is an argument within the worldview of liberalism, so it needn't even be considered.

 

[tstorm823]

Communists are correct about everything all the time. Even when they disagree with other communists. Especially when they disagree with other communists.

Some day people are going to realize you mock all of them as much as you mock me.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Communists are correct about everything all the time. Even when they disagree with other communists. Especially when they disagree with other communists.

Something something I'm gonna dialectic this materialism upside your head.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If capitalism or the American dream gives everyone at least a chance at prosperity then those implementing this drastic wealth inequality are not holding up their end of the bargain.

It doesn't help that this is supported by a bunch of self-styled social Darwinists who opine that being poor should be hellish, as anything less would encourage laziness and parasitism. "Work or die", in short.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Capitalism and communism are not actually counterparts. Capitalism is an economic system. Communism is a social, political, and economic ideology. It is a combined vision of all aspects of society advocating for a utopia of absolute equality.

Capitalism is an economic system and a theft of a social and political one.

 

[Trunkage]

Modern ones seem most interested in setting things up so they can do as little as possible for as big a pay out as possible.........

A big payout.... straight after they've abolished money.

Yep. That lines up

 

[tstorm823]

Capitalism is an economic system and a theft of a social and political one.

Please extrapolate further. Please explain to people that you think all their beliefs about how society and the government ought to be are just delusions, because society and the government are owned by the specter of capitalism.