You're viewing a single thread.
Less than a decade after this "meme" a communist society was formed and it ended up with pretty much the same hierarchy. Just with different costumes for the people at the top.
I hate when people talk about system like capitalism and communism is so simplistic terms.
I mean this is about as vague and reasonable as "a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief"
Tribes, miltaries, religions, businesses, governments, political parties, courtrooms, sports teams.... basically every kind of grouping of people is in a hierarchy. We don't have hive minds, so we aren't always going to agree on everything. When there's disagreement, someone needs to make a decision. The person who decides is going to be higher in the hierarchy than the people who have to go along with that decision. It's necessary for things to function.
Socialism is similar to a religion. "We just need to all believe the same thing and everything will just work out." And also similar to religions, the belief that their group is more special and different from others mean they will tend to deny the hierarchy they're in. The leader becomes sort of like the Pope, the infallible one that is of pure belief, so not above us in a hierarchy but the vessel by which we will achieve our perfect society.
But in the end it's all the same hierarchical shit. Best we can do is have a system where we can vote out the people at the top of the hierarchy when they get too corrupted by the power.
“a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief”
No, not every hierarchy is tyrannical. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to vote out those above us in the hierarchy.
I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.
I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.
Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.
I graciously accept your concession that socialism isn't all that good.
Still talking to someone else?
I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn't "all that good", after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?
Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your "fire bad" take?
You're just talking about talking now, and aren't making an effort to make any kind of point. Common tactic for people that have lost a debate but don't want to admit it.
What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven't said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.
And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!
I'm guessing you're not too stupid to know that the so-called communist society was anything but.
There are no power hierarchies in communism.
But maybe you think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic?
Either stupid or knowingly misleading.
So far, every communist country in history has turned out to be dominated by power hierarchies, with dictators and juntas at the top.
Which means they aren't communist countries.
Again, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic.
Read some fucking Marx. Hell, just read the word 'communism.' As in communal. As in no hierarchies because the community decides everything.
Right, because there's no such thing as a communist country. It's a flawed idea that doesn't work in reality.
Kind of like how every time machine ends up being fake.
And yet there are communist communities, sometimes large ones, all over the world which function just fine. Because they don't have hierarchies. And your claim was that communist societies have the same hierarchies. They do not.
Communes only really function within a capitalist society. You can have nice little communal farm for a short amount of time, but that's only because the challenges like a legal system, national defense, etc, are handled by a hierarchical government. If you're in a good country, the people can vote and have a degree of influence on those in power in the hierarchy to ensure they don't get too corrupt.
Even communes ultimately fail because hierarchies form within the commune, and the people at the bottom get tired of doing all the work and leave. That's even when they aren't deciding the laws and don't have to worry about national defense. When communists are deciding the laws and have control over national defense, then oh yeah... there's gonna be a hierarchy.
That's utter nonsense. Communes predate capitalism by thousands of years. The first known settled town was a commune. There are no detectable hierarchies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük#Economy
Currency wouldn't even exist for a good 5000 years after Çatalhöyük.
As far as "ultimately" failing, it lasted at least 900 years, which much is longer than most countries around today have been in existence.
Nice try though.
So... towns existed thousands of years ago... not sure what that proves about anything.
This is what you said:
Even communes ultimately fail because hierarchies form within the commune, and the people at the bottom get tired of doing all the work and leave. That’s even when they aren’t deciding the laws and don’t have to worry about national defense. When communists are deciding the laws and have control over national defense, then oh yeah… there’s gonna be a hierarchy.
Çatalhöyük was a commune. There were no hierarchies, no division of labor between class or gender. It lasted 900 years. It predated capitalism by millennia.
I'm not sure why you don't understand why that proves you wrong.