You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Bill of Rights (including The 2nd Amendment) was written to 'Protect The People' from their own government, not from each other. Which explains WHY 'career politicians' WANT your gun.
democracy and capitalism are incompatible, so first we must remove capitalism. How would you propose we do that without violence?
Who said democracy and capitalism are incompatible? No way. Same problems could be dealt with by real capitalism and real democracy. At the moment we have something that calls itself something but isn't.
Communism, socialism isn't the answer either... Without turning people into some kind of "born slave"
anarchy might be a solution, but it could just as well not be.
I think a change in the world order is upcoming, and violence isn't going to be the leading cause (for once)
Unless you say "its just another form of violence."
Who said they were incompatible? The person who lead the formation of the country which allowed women to vote before the us
ATM democracy is actually more of a game of the control over the flow of information. Money, influence, upbringing, all plays a role on the so called viability of someone to lead others.
BTW the lenin quote sounds more of a beratement of democracy compared to capitalism
thats what democracy turns to under capitalism, thats not "real democracy". He is attacking democracy under capitalism, so thus it is an attack on capitalism not democracy.
capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, which is control by an outside force through the monopoly of violence of the state. You could say that this is "free and democratic", if the state itself were so.
capitalism cannot exist in conjunction with a suitable communist alternative. This means that the gov under capitalism must destroy every socialist country to rise up (as shown throughout recent history over and over again). This means that the only option is to vote "for" private ownership of the means of production, which means the majority of society is not democratic, thus meaning society is nowhere near "true democracy" and is democratic on only a small subset of social issues, and no real economic ones.
If we look at chile as an example, chile elected a socialist as a leader to bring them to freedom. The capitalists in their country payed truckers not to move food and many other resources, so the people starved. It eventually lead to a west-backed military coup to remove the socialists from any form of power.
I don't really think any of its going to be a solution for as long as borders are involved.
socialism doesnt need boarders, capitalism functions better with them
Well there's the thing, whether the so called leaders want it or not they are going to have to form some kind of unity. The earth has gotten too small to contain everyone's so called jurisdiction. The other day I heard someone in america calling something a chinese company does illegal (against us law) but I was like, how is that the us's business?
But we're going to keep on seeing this border friction for a while until we sort something out.
Cause what happens on the otherside of the world might not have influenced us a few years ago, but it sure does influence us now.
https://readingfromtheleft.com/Books/Classics/LeninImperialism.pdf
https://espressostalinist.com/u-s-imperialism-page/
"how is that the us's business"
imperialism.
Do you just keep these pics hanging around?
no i just have a good enough informational memory to remember where they are
if you look you can see its from the 2nd link
BTW in markdown quotes use
> quotei know how to do that, but why bother in comments when we are the only people that will ever see it and you know exactly what i mean
So you're saying greed won over cooperation?
Or was it that a hierarchical power structure won over a decentralized power structure?
And there's another slight problem, there exists some people that don't want to think for themselves, heck they wouldn't even want a democracy.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
there are many examples of it throughout history, dont even try with the "human nature" arguments.
What im saying is that for a society to choose its future it must not be democratic only on social issues, but have democracy in full control of the economy as well (as opposed to private ownership, which follows the trends of markets and not the will of the people).
lol that's the "one book" I've read XD
I'm not saying your wrong. But I doubt it sounds idealistic, (whatever the word is to designate it isn't very practical/not likely to happen)
you followed a semi-positive statement with a but and then added another semi-positive statement.
I think im missing the meaning here
I meant that I doubt that we'd ever get to a point where we will have a socialist/communist/anarchist society.
This is what you call communism... Isn't it?
yes, the basis of communism tends to be democracy
we have been at that point before, in fact if we dont turn into that form of economy we will be destroyed
"Communism, socialism isn't the answer either... Without turning people into some kind of "born slave"
anarchy might be a solution, but it could just as well not be."
socialism (and communism by extension) are based on worker control of the means of production, anarchist communists are the most common form of anarchist lmao