Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoMoreCommunism wrote (edited )

Its missing some context.

I [don't like to be defined as a] liberal by the way, but I do like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.

−8

[deleted] wrote (edited )

9

NoMoreCommunism wrote

Don't you like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation?

−5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

this warmed my heart

5

NoMoreCommunism wrote

It's hard to understand you guys, lol.

−4

tnstaec wrote

The entire structure of liberal democracy is slightly less soul-crushing than a autocracy. But it's still a far cry from true freedom. The state is still the state.

5

Defasher wrote

That's because you're as savvy as a bucket of week old gravy.

3

NoMoreCommunism wrote (edited )

Alright, thanks for your replies.

But are you serious, how can you not at least like having freedom of speech, press and religion?

−2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

To add to what emma is saying, these 'freedoms' you speak of are freedoms endowed by a state. State mediated 'freedoms' are not of interest to us, for a range of reasons, one of them being that the state is a fundamentally oppressive force.

7

NoMoreCommunism wrote

But without an enforcer of rights and freedoms how is it guaranteed?

−1

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Our rights are not guaranteed by the state. We are just told they are guaranteed. In practice it is nothing like that. I assume you are aware of this, and so it's really hard to keep pretending you are engaging here in good faith at all.

5

NoMoreCommunism wrote

I understand, and the current situation in America is not sustainable. But how in your mind will this be guaranteed?

−1

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

They wouldn't. Remember the part about us not liking rights?

3

NoMoreCommunism wrote

At all?

0

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Alright, at this stage I'm going to say - go have a read of theanarchistlibrary.org - it's not my job to educate you.

Here's an adequate place to start: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

NoMoreCommunism wrote (edited )

But you're exercising your right to Free speech at this very moment...

Also I'm by no means a fan of the current American governance model it used to be much better.

−2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

tnstaec wrote

it used to be much better

Things were so much better before blacks and women could vote amirite?

4

Defasher wrote (edited )

You mean when they let you own slaves and beat women to a bloody pulp?

"Free speech" isn't "speech".

2

SpiritOfTito wrote

Lol like the free speech afforded Malcolm X when he was murdered by the FBI? Or how about the democracy of pretty much all western countries which had their socialist and communist parties destroyed by subversion?

Particularly Italy where the communist party would've won in elections after world war 2 were it not for the USAs intervention? Or Chile's democratically elected Allendes government who was murdered by the usas?

4

sudo wrote

Communists like all those things, too, except for free markets.

For free speech and free press, we have nothing against this, but we hold freedom from harm in a much higher regard. So, if your speech would bring about harm to someone else (like, for example, calling them a racial slur, or inciting others to hurt them, when they have done nothing wrong), then you should not be allowed to say those things. Otherwise, say whatever you want.

We are against free markets for many of the same reasons we are against capitalism. For one, free markets do not guarantee that what is produced is needed or desired, or what that is needed or desired is produced. Secondly, free markets naturally evolve into monopolies. A planned economy is much better, because it guarantees that the people's needs are met, and that production proceeds efficiently.

Everything else you mentioned we have no problem with, and many of them we strongly encourage.

4

Understand wrote

How does a planned economy exist without a State?

1

sudo wrote

The state is not the same as the government. The state is defined as the organs of government that are used to ensure the domination of one class over another (things like the police, courts, prisons, etc). Weird definition, I know. Under communism, those things would not exist, because there would be no more classes (everyone would be the same class, so distinctions no longer exist). A planned economy doesn't reinforce class domination, so it could (and I imagine would) still exist.

0