Recent posts by StopStopp on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

It’s a form of government. If you don’t getthat governments don’t have to apply to states, but can apply to any human unit, then maybe you should try reevaluating your ‘knowledge’.

Mind you, you’ve already told me that communism cannot apply to nation-states since communism is a stateless society. So I’m already taking your ‘knowledge’ with a lot more than a pinch of salt.

Holy shit, you are so dense. It is not a government system. It is a socio-economic system. That is not “a government system” or a “management system”. It is a social relations system. Is that spelled out enough for you?

It really doesn’t. The circuitry inside our heads determines how our brains work. How our brains work determines how we think. This really shouldn’t be a hard point to grasp.

Yes it does, and the things that are called human nature which are incompatible I am arguing are not human nature but part of the superstructure which has changed multiple times. Is that so hard to get?

There’s nothing for me to say to you, because you just seem to love to ignore and replace with things that don’t exist. Read a book, you might learn something.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

A communist factory has no property owned by any member, no wage paid to any member. Nobody in charge deciding what must be done to any department. A completely flat authority structure.

Every single decision is decided upon by a unanimous agreement of all members. Each member may have a speciality, but has no authority to go with that speciality. It’s not a cooperative, but the firther extreme of an actual communist operation. There is individuality of a sort, but it has no relevance. Everyone takes home the same portion of the earnings after costs are accounted for. Everyone invests the same amount in. Everyone does whatever job needs doing whenever they see it needs doing. The factory runs as a single unit, a single community.

You just decide to make something up and call it communism. Communism is not a management method for a factory. Why do I even have to say that? I’ll just repeat so maybe you won’t ignore it: communism is not a management method. If you can’t get that then you shouldn’t be saying other people have batshit claims.

Actually it hasn’t. Psychology is determined by neurology. Our neurology is very very slow to change, and changes inch along generation by generation. I think you’re confusing societal pressures and conformity with actual psychological changes in the species. In reality, our base psychology has changed very little as a species throughout all of recorded history. There are some epigenetic changes I will grant you, but like the more generalised cultural changes, those aren’t indicative of a change in the baseline of how we think as a species – they’re just single-generatuional changes linked to environmental difficulties.

There is change of the baseline neurology there, but it is glacial, restricted by the pace of evolution, which is in turn restricted by the length of the human lifespan and age at which people tend to procreate.

Cool you just love ignoring everything and putting up something tangential that doesn’t affect anything. Your “baseline neurology” isn’t so baseline if our social relations change the way we act in such drastic measures. That’s the point I was making, your capitalist human nature isn’t human nature because only in capitalist social relations we act in that way. That’s why I say the only human nature is sex and not dying, everything else has not proven resilient at all.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

lol you’re right that’s not a sentence, but I chose 1898 because that’s a generation after the civil war, long enough for reconstruction. I could go back a bit earlier, maybe a decade or so. Not an exact date.

1) No it’s not.

2) I’ve already explained how the parties effectively switched after the Civil War.

The link you put was 2000, I was talking about the same time period as the rest of my post. Post civil war to 1970s. You did not say Civil war, considering the formation of the Republican party increased the tensions to the breaking point.

Congratulations, you can use google. Unfortunately, it’s clear that you’re trying to argue that this means current day Republicans were the party that opposed slavery, and that’s not true, as I’ve explained. The Republican party then, is the Democratic party now.

I never said such a thing, and it isn’t true. I am saying the Democrats have never had anything worth saving, so don’t vote for them. The topic literally says lesser evilism is historical revisionism. If I said the Republicans were the lesser evil then I would be arguing for the same thing I said was stupid with this whole post.

Federal government. There’s a distinct difference between the two parties as to what the extent of state’s power vs the federal government’s power, and how much each should be in charge of. It’s been that way for a long time.

What? They were both in the Keynesian consensus when that was dominating. Now they are in the Neoliberal consensus. They aren’t different, barring rhetoric.

All (most) of either party screw unions because bribery is legal and politicians’s elections are funded by those who can shill out money. Namely, the wealthy corporations who can throw their weight around, and those same wealthy corporations do not like worker’s unions.

It’s not something unique to Democrats, and Republicans are worse about it on average, anyways. When it comes to policy, except for the major talking points, Democrats and Republicans behave the same way.

So, who cares? I never said the Republicans were pro union.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

So fiesty, I can play.

What you said in the first post don’t match up with the second post. I don’t know how formatting is going to work on mobile but here goes nothing.

You said communist state and then proceeded to say as long as the communist state doesn’t get too involved in the people’s lives. That implies one of 2 things:

1. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

2. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

You later talk about a so called communist run factory which makes no sense. The only way to make sense out of what you were saying is to assume co-op. so now it’s clear you were just throwing random words together thank you for the clarification.

You also talk about psychology. the social relations we’ve had over the years have changed the way we act in ways that would make us seem like different species. I don’t know ideal you’re speaking of but clearly it’s some stupid idealist trash every liberal talks about. Yeah I’m pissed because nothing you say makes any sense at all. Maybe if you actually made some sense I wouldn’t have to ask you what you mean.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Equality vs. Competency.

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

wow ur all dumb

“diversity” is a pr move meant to attract customers

stupid losers fall for it and think that a corporation cares about them lol

Ha, I love it. You are so out there that you often state truths people aren’t willing to accept (although at the same time you are also wrong about things, but nobody is perfect).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

Oh this is far more pressing than the other posts.

For 99% of humanity there was no such thing as money, no state, no slaves, no lords or serfs, no capitalists, no classes. Are you telling me all of human history was against human nature? Furthermore, for 99% of humanity crises came from scarcity and now it comes from abundance. We live in the only society where people starve because there are too many beans on the shelves. Is that the truth of human nature?

No, “human nature” has changed many times. Money and commodities did not dominate for most of ‘civilization’, labor was direct during those times. To a slave society tribes were against human nature. To a feudal society slave societies were against human nature. To a capitalist society feudalism was against human nature. The only ‘human nature’ is sex and not dying, and even then that is not universal. You have universalized your condition to all of history. The people of the past did not live as we do today, and the people of the future will not live as we did. Ask how somebody ‘makes a living’ (wage labor) in the past and it doesn’t make sense.

Communist state? I don’t know what that is, communism is stateless by definition. Are you confusing terms? Are you instead meaning governance or government? I would like to know exactly what you mean, because it changes my answer.

I assume you mean a co-op, which isn’t a “communist-run factory”. Co-ops are not communism. Chunks of workers owning chunks of the means of production is not communism. You do not understand what communism is (to a certain extent none of us do, predicting is hard especially if it is about the future). The workers as a whole would have to own the means of production as a whole, not chunks owning chunks.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Mystic, a system of governance is separate to a system of commerce. Communism has relations to systems of commerce, yes. All systems of government do, including those such as anachy where there is a complete lack of government. However, all systems of government also have relations with everything else in the country aside from commerce.

Systems of government are about governing, not trading. Trading just comes under their purview as with everything else.

Also, Stopstopp, I’m not sure what definition of communism you’re using. Marxism perhaps? Fundamentally a communistic state is about democracy, about everyone having an equal voice, and there being no leaders other than the pack consensus or ‘hive-mind consensus’. ‘Communist’ USSR wasn’t communist by any stretch of the imagination.

It’s also not anarchy; almost the polar opposite of anarchy really, as instead of “everyone for themselves” it’s a state where the community takes no action that isn’t approved by every member of that community. Needless to say no true communistic society of more than a handful of individual members has ever been successfully implemented in human history.

Communism works on the small-scale, but it breaks down rapidly as the number of participants increases.

They are very much tied together, you cannot have a feudal state in a capitalist world. I am going to ask you what you mean by commerce, because it appears to mean “trading” ie markets. If that is what you mean then I cannot make sense of your statement, because it doesn’t make sense.

I would use what Marxists use, yes. I would say most communists agree anarchists have the same goal, they just have a terrible way of getting there. Can you point to a time when the USSR ever claimed to have achieved communism? I certainly can’t, because it isn’t true. No socialist state would ever claim to have achieved communism. The easiest way to prove it wouldn’t be possible is to point out that it would have to be global. Nobody would ever claim any socialist state has reached communism, that would just be silly.

Communism has to be global, there is no small scale communism. Do you mean primitive-communism? That’s a different thing.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:
Originally posted by StopStopp:

Wow first reply and the 6th word is wrong. By definition there is no market in communism. Furthermore, you have implied there would first be an odd distribution that would have to be redistributed. There would be no redistribution because the original distribution would not be like today’s. Try again!

a market is where things are traded. if trade is regulated by government in such a way that all things are forcibly redirected to another source, that is still a form of market because goods are passing from one owner to another.

A market is where commodities are exchanged, yes. I don’t see how the definition of a market changes things. But there aren’t any commodities in communism, no exchange, no money, no indirect labor. You need to have two separate circuits to have exchange. There would not be such a thing in both the lower and higher stages of communism. It’s easier to explain in the higher stage of communism. You want some food? Go to the “store”, walk in and take it then leave. That’s it.

It’s harder to explain in socialism (the lower stage of communism). It is still necessary to use administrative tools that would to the lay person appear to be money (therefore markets appear to exist). While it may even have pictures of dead revolutionaries on it, it is in fact not money. Money is a commodity who has the use-value of holding value. But it cannot fulfill that role in socialism. You cannot accumulate it, it is not an universal equivalent. There are no commodities nor commodity production. Try to imagine a company who has many different parts. Does this company issue payments and sell things to the other sections of itself? No, money merely becomes an administration tool that is helpful in the planning distribution within all of the parts. It is like that but for everything.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

Oh my, I have to apologize everybody here has given horribly incorrect information. It will take me a while to write up responses to every little thing.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

Wow first reply and the 6th word is wrong. By definition there is no market in communism. Furthermore, you have implied there would first be an odd distribution that would have to be redistributed. There would be no redistribution because the original distribution would not be like today’s. Try again!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is Anarchy?

There is a lot of disagreement on the word anarchy as shown by another thread. So I want to ask you what do you think it is?

To provide a little context I’ll give you a more famous word for anarchy: communism.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

Every single congress composition from around 1898 to 1970s. The south is Democrat, often unanimously so. The Republicans were founded in 1854 btw, absorbing the Whigs on the issue of anti-Slavery. The Whigs were formed from a merger of two parties which include the National Republicans. Just to emphasize though, the literal reason the Republicans came into existence was to have a stance on slavery: specifically being anti-slavery.

Neither party is anti “big government” (whatever that means). If the state feels threatened it will use it’s power without any such worries. Perhaps you have mixed up people that vote for a party with the actual party. There is a very real difference in bourgeois democracy. Unions vote for Democrats, Democrats screw them all the time because they know they will never leave the abusive relationship. To go to another example why do you think Obama deferred deportation? There were many cries to leave the party because of how they broke the promise on immigration reform for decades.

Even the Tea-Party isn’t anti “big government”. They’re at best proto-fascist, they want more racism and small businesses. Same with the libertarians, although they want weed legal too. The only anti state parties are the communist parties.

Perhaps you have mixed up anti government with anti democracy? I’ll reply to the rest after I take my tests.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't catch Toxoplasmosis! ( Thanks, Obamacare! )

You don’t have Obamacare because Obamacare isn’t a health insurance plan nor health care.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

The “necessary evil” has been used by all politicians. It is the justification for public taxes; “we do not enjoy taking your hard-earned money but we need it for our military and fire stations and public schools and so on.” Necessary evil has been used to justify entire wars. “We do not enjoy making war but it is better that we take _________ out now before they can become stronger and exert more of a threat to our existence.” Necessary evil has been used to justify propaganda and smear campaigns. It has been used to justify genocide and acts of terrorism.

(I hope you are not trying to say that the Democratic Party has some kind of special talent for using this technique, StopStopp. I trust you’re just using an available example. If you’d like to have a conversation about the Democratic Party, that’s fine… but try to make that clear to those of us that might want to participate.)

I’m not talking about that, but instead the “choose me because I screw you less” idea.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

Originally posted by Kasic:

StopStopp, just basic fact checking shows you’re not making valid claims. Looking at only part of the data, whether purposefully to trick others or out of ignorance in how it was originally presented to you, doesn’t reflect well on you.

On the Civil Rights Act of 1964

About how the parties essentially flipped positions

Jim Crow was a product of Southern states, and as the first link I provided explained, what party one was in had little to do with their view on racial equality, whereas their heritage had almost everything to do with it.

Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton: two prominent war mongers are the main examples.

Hillary Clinton aside, Bernie Sanders is “accused” as a pacifist and is on the books as having voted against recent wars. Where are you getting that he’s a war monger from? Or are you saying he’s trying to incite a war against the 1% or something?

You can’t be serious. There were no Republicans in the South until they became the hardline anti-black party and the democrats became the soft anti-black party. You’re telling me they were the hard-line anti black party if you take out the part of the nation that only accepts hardline anti-black politics? This has to be a cruel joke. Jim Crow was a product of the South, and their party of choice: the Democratic party. You can’t separate them, this isn’t a vacuum.

Sanders supports Israel, continued presence in Afghanistan, and supported the imperial bombing of Yugoslavia as just three examples.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

Valid criticisms, it’s been many years since I’ve done this format it does need some adjustment.

The lesser evil principle is much used to support the Democrats in today’s context: often rewriting their entire history to make them the lesser evil and hiding their crimes of today. Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton: two prominent war mongers are the main examples. When Clinton ultimately gets elected, time will prove that the Democrats are so much better at killing brown people and bringing us so much closer to extinction.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Business like government

Originally posted by NeilSenna:

You’ve really nailed the ‘disgrunted reader of ideologically biased regional newspaper who sends in letters once a week’ thing.

Funny post but the shear lack of understanding of what bias and ideology is shows a lot on your end too.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Lesser Evilism is revisionist history

Often in the US one of the prime reasons to support the Democratic Party is what I will call Lesser Evilism. Basically it goes as such: “We must support the Democrats to keep out the Republicans, the Democrats are the lesser evil.” Does this stand up to scrutiny?

Throughout the history of the United States there has been a hard anti-black party and a “soft” anti-black party. The hardline party has been the Democrats until very recently, and the soft party since its founding was the Republican party.

The US revolution was very much about slavery, the colonies depended on them. Britain moving to abolish slavery, which threatened the colonies (especially the south). To celebrate the US independence is to celebrate slavery, the US did not destroy pre-capitalist social relations for over a century and it wouldn’t be controversial to make the case that even after the Civil War those relations still existed although to a much lesser extent.

After the constitution was founded (there is way too much to be said about that disgusting piece, another thread for that), the predecessor of the Democratic party was founded: the Democratic-Republican party. Let’s not pretend they were any angels (e.g Thomas Jefferson was a horrible person, but another time). They faded relatively quickly and the Democrats were founded in their modern form with Andrew Jackson as their first president. He is of course famous for heinous crimes against humanity such as the Trail of Tears but his administration also worked hard to keep slavery in place. In the Civil War they were the ones to secede to keep in place slavery.

They were the ones who destroyed all the civil rights put in place by reconstruction by the Republicans and reversing gains such as Louisiana’s Civil Rights Act. Jim Crow was entirely Democrat. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted by Republicans in higher percentages than Democrats! The Democrats ushered in the Neoliberal era which has destroyed the livelihood of Black Americans. The Democrats got the Free Trade Agreements which of course have made things worse off for brown people worldwide. The Democrats even today prove themselves at being far better at killing people than the Republicans could ever hope to have achieved.

The lesser evilism ideology is nothing more than something to protect the duopoly of American power and allow the continuous destruction of this world and its people (with emphasis on the killing of oppressed people). It’s disgusting, needing a lot of revisionist history and thinking that will lead to the extinction of this race. Instead of challenging the oppressors it merely funnels everybody back into its system.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can a Perfectly Just State Exist?

I’m interested, what do you think Anarchy is? I find that most people don’t even have a definition or anything consistent. If they are pressured to answer perhaps the movie “The Purge” is brought up.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / When did you last brush your teeth?

2 minutes ago

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What conspiracy's do you believe?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I believe that the Iraq War was anticipated as an easy, expedient way to improve Bush’s popularity, gain access to resources in the Middle East for western oil companies, and make Cheney’s friends wealthy. I believe this was a conspiracy to invade a sovereign country for no legitimate or legal reason.

I believe that a system exists that has been, through a series of less-impactful decisions, effectively funneling young men straight from youth all the way to prison, and that there are enough profits and economic activity surrounding this mechanism that there now exists a conspiracy to protect it.

I believe that a majority of all organized religions have priorities not to improve mankind and humanity but to propagate themselves and create an impression of “higher power” in their subjects that the State (and its agents) can use to produce a compliant, obedient population.

I believe that all people are fundamentally good and desire good things for themselves and the people around them, and that a conspiracy exists to intentionally make us feel bad about ourselves and each other, and the feelings of fear and animosity that result are used to fuel economic opportunity.

Wouldn’t all of these examples just be following class interests more than secret plots?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Cycle of Poverty

There is an implication that there is something worth discussing, and I intend on burying the conversation. There is no point to discuss because it doesn’t matter.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Cycle of Poverty

You immediately go the assumption that voting will solve the problem, widely in the face of all of history. Voting never got any concessions, only militant action got concessions.

You can point to so many examples. In the US context the New Deal and Civil Rights movement are two easy examples. The very first workers movement goes back to the Chartists in Britain who very much scared the elite. Hell in my city the minimum wage was risen (later to be struck down by a new State law) in an attempt to prevent it from going even higher by people demanding it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Interesting, in just one page I’ve heard most every usual wrong thing people say.

No, people do not accumulate private property in communism. You don’t just get to own the world because property can’t be seized (what?). In the transition all private property will be collectivized by force (if necessary). It doesn’t “allow” private property to be commonly owned, it just is. I assume there is an error between private and personal property. Nobody is going to steal your toothbrush or whatever.

No there is no money in communism. Communism is moneyless and commodityless. Labor is direct, not indirect.

No, communism is not compatible with capitalism. There is no private property in communism, there is in capitalism. That cannot be ironed out, it is irreconcilable.

Communism does not happen within one nation, it has to be everywhere. No socialist state has ever claimed to have achieved communism, you will never find it because it never happened.

Ugh this isn’t going well and I didn’t even hit everything wrong on the first page.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What Are You Reading?

Capital: Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx

I’ll honestly be reading this for the rest of my life :)

The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development by Lewis Mumford

I haven’t gotten very far into it, but I feel it is important for me to read this for my own synthesis on culture.