Fox Fire
-
Posts
3092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fox Fire
-
-
Again, replying here, since it's more on this topic:
Organization does not require hierarchy.
You really don't understand what I was trying to say?On such mass scales I think it does.
It's not that I think communism doesn't work, it just doesn't work on the scale you want it to. A small village, or even a town the size of the one I live it might be able to make a communist society work with the sacrifice of modern living standards, but that's about as good as I see communism ever getting. The reason societies exist in the first place is for the sake of survival. Humans cannot survive on individuality. We are physically weak, highly intellectual, social creatures that rely on cooperation to survive. Leadership is entirely natural in social creatures, because it's the best method of survival.
Even in this game, we're part of an "anarchist" alliance, but it's really not an anarchy and couldn't operate the way it does without some kind of leadership to make a final judgement. Even if our leadership is soft and lenient, it can and does demand order when needed, and it is indeed needed sometimes. Without leadership then what does a group do in the case of a disagreement? Especially if the disagreement has more than 2 sides? You could organize some kind of group process for making decisions such as democracy, but what then if the minority group simply decides not to participate?
You complain that people are basically forced to follow the system, but the same would be just as true under your idea by default, unless you can explain how it is that people in such a communist society would able to choose to not follow the system, and not have the system fall apart?
Despite your thinking that society doesn't need leadership, history completely contradicts that thought. Humanity didn't get to where it is now without leaders, and I can't think of any notable achievements made by humans without leadership. In fact it seems to be leaders that can and have inspired people to accomplish amazing feats.
I was really into anarchist communism as a teenager so I completely understand your ideals and why you insist that they can work, but the more I observe the bigger picture of society both past and present, in all it's various forms, the more I realize that hierarchy is an absolutely unavoidable part of human nature. People are always going to follow charismatic people, especially ones with great ideas. In fact I think many polytheistic gods were likely inspired by real human leaders, likely intelligent people who found great solutions to serious problems and later became revered as divine. Communism never includes the factor of the raw nature of life. Life itself, in all of its various forms doesn't operate on a moral standing that all life should be treated the same. It operates on quite the opposite; survival of the fittest. The actual purpose of life seems to be continuation, rather than preservation.
-
I for one am more in favor of abolishing marriage entirely and only carrying over some of it's legal aspects to people with children.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, I know what communism is and it's pretty much the exact opposite of all your beliefs.
-
that is not racist
fact is Vietnamese people are stronger then americans. due to genetics and diet. american like fast food
is this study racist? - http://www.techyville.com/2013/06/news/study-finds-that-blacks-are-genetically-stronger-than-whites/
Vietnam should also be for Vietnamese people and Vietnamese people alone.
So you're a communist who hates fascists, but you're actually just a closet fascist.^
Do you see where you're not making sense yet?
-
im a conservative communist and fascists are support of racism and capitalism i am against
can you read?
I can read just fine. The problem here, that you are clearly having a hard time trying to grasp, is that what you're saying is not only inconsistent, but hasn't made any sense. I would tell you to keep trying, but I don't think you're ever going to get it.....
-
yes and homosexuals should be punish with death penality for destroying soceity
Because fascists are subhuman pigs? Or because you're a conservative communist?
i am a communist is the style of stalin
You don't even know what you are.
-
"Government should have no say in marriage"
I guess they should remove tax breaks from marriages then, and only apply it to people who are raising children.
Yes, they should.
-
3
-
-
lol. Well this is interesting....
-
personal property: things that belong to you that you use in your everyday life. food, water, toothbrush, bicycle, whatever.
private property: things that produce. factories, stores, heavy machinery, farmland, etc.
No no no no no. Public ownership of the means of production does NOT mean state ownership of the means of production. Just because nothing is privately owned doesn't mean that some idiot halfway around the world gets to tell you what you have to make in your factory today. That's absurd - we are not capitalists. But we are also not against voluntary organization. Our enemy is hierarchy.
I think this comment is more appropriate here:
the term state can be taken literally to mean a "state", point of stasis, or stoppage of time. the constitution is a direct reflection of the character of its writers at the time at which it was written. by force, people who had no control over this have been drafted to defend the people in charge, who also send them to war. but why is force necessary in the first place? why should people have to recognize an artificial hierarchy and be bossed around for their entire lives? if someone has to FORCE me to do what is necessary to feed myself, that is a !@#$ serious problem. none of this shit actually makes sense at all if you think about it. why should we have hierarchy when we can just not? do you really have that little faith in humanity? there will probably always be bad people, and nobody is going to give a shit if we just lock them up. there is no need for a central state, but rather just for human ingenuity and cooperation. take the money out of politics, and by extension, the rest of society.
The point of the hierarchy is organization. Sure, we don't have to have the system for humans to live (with the modern population, we actually do), but we do if we want any kind of modern life style. Do you think that things like industrialization would have even been possible without mass, national organization? At some point, somewhere, somebody has to be leading and directing the groups efforts. Why do you think the military is designed around hierarchy? Because it's the most efficient way to survive.
Sure, putting someone in charge is almost guaranteed to lead to corruption, but if everyone were simply allowed to do whatever they want without complex organizational structure in their society, things like the device you're staring at right now could not be possible. How many people do you think it has taken to produce that device? And what about the production of the materials needed to make that device? And you think this could all be done without structure and leadership? How are workers supposed to know what to do if they've never done it before? They need someone with experience, or at least someone who thinks they have an answer. So how do the workers progress in their task if they don't follow the leadership of this person they need?
The problem with your argument here is that hierarchy is literally a natural order, as social creatures. It starts from the time you're born and have parents.
-
the term state can be taken literally to mean a "state", point of stasis, or stoppage of time. the constitution is a direct reflection of the character of its writers at the time at which it was written. by force, people who had no control over this have been drafted to defend the people in charge, who also send them to war. but why is force necessary in the first place? why should people have to recognize an artificial hierarchy and be bossed around for their entire lives? if someone has to FORCE me to do what is necessary to feed myself, that is a !@#$ serious problem. none of this shit actually makes sense at all if you think about it. why should we have hierarchy when we can just not? do you really have that little faith in humanity? there will probably always be bad people, and nobody is going to give a shit if we just lock them up. there is no need for a central state, but rather just for human ingenuity and cooperation. take the money out of politics, and by extension, the rest of society.
The point of the hierarchy is organization. Sure, we don't have to have the system for humans to live (with the modern population, we actually do), but we do if we want any kind of modern life style. Do you think that things like industrialization would have even been possible without mass, national organization? At some point, somewhere, somebody has to be leading and directing the groups efforts. Why do you think the military is designed around hierarchy? Because it's the most efficient way to survive.
Sure, putting someone in charge is almost guaranteed to lead to corruption, but if everyone were simply allowed to do whatever they want without complex organizational structure in their society, things like the device you're staring at right now could not be possible. How many people do you think it has taken to produce that device? And what about the production of the materials needed to make that device? And you think this could all be done without structure and leadership? How are workers supposed to know what to do if they've never done it before? They need someone with experience, or at least someone who thinks they have an answer. So how do the workers progress in their task if they don't follow the leadership of this person they need?
The problem with your argument here is that hierarchy is literally a natural order, as social creatures. It starts from the time you're born and have parents.
-
You can't even form proper sentences. How many more illiterate retards can we get in this debate section?
-
4
-
-
The point of marriage in my view (disregarding money and power) is to implement a mother figure and a father figure into a child's life. With multiple people creating multiple conflicts of interest I would find many relationships to be ruined.
Citation needed.
I would make a very similar argument against homosexuality. That the social stigma of having 2 parents of the same sex can be highly damaging to the social relations of any child. Should we ban homosexual marriage then?
-
In politics, centrism or the centre is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right.
I wouldn't describe fascism as being centrist, but I also wouldn't say the definition you provided excludes fascism, exactly.
Overall, fascism cannot simply be left or right. It certainly cannot be accurately described as an extreme on either side. If we take for example the Nazis and compare them to your definition, they fit it. Sure, they treated Jews and such unequally but Jews were never a part of their society, nor were they intended to be part of their society. You have to consider what they consider before trying to appropriately define them on a left/right scale.
-
I've heard some extremely similar arguments from other Muslims. IDK about prophecy, as I don't believe in your prophet or your God. I do know that many arguments, using the prophet as a reference, have been made both in favor and against ISIS. Both sides seem pretty convincing in the case of legitimacy when only using the Islamic religion as it's reference. The problem I often find with prophecies is that they tend to be vague and can be attributed to countless different aspects of things happening in just about any given time. Being raised Christian, I know that many strong arguments have been made by Christians for centuries, at least since Roman times, about the impending end of the world. It never happens.
I'm highly inclined to believe there is no legitimate authority over Islam and this post, as well as the ISIS apocalyptic ideology, are all just people making speculations about statements made during a time which nobody here comprehends. Unreliable at it's very best.
-
1
-
-
Community:
Yesterday a report was filed for the OP and the reason for that report was because the OP expressed Terrorism Ideals/Beliefs or held some type of terrorism propaganda/speech. When I signed on I saw the report and was the second moderator to make a decision - after a quick read through and some google search - I decided that, in fact, the OP was expressing what seemed to be Terrorism ideals. I issued a warn point and closed/hid the thread here to remove it from the community.
As many of you should know, anything terrorism related is strictly prohibited in this community.
Later on last night - I got a message from the OP - through that conversation I was pointed at as wrong in my judgement. I was doubtful of his opinion, but I decided to actually take the time to research every part of the OP. Words that I know and words of his faith that I do not know. I even went on to learn about the actual Seal of Mohammad, the teachings and beliefs expressed within the OP, and honestly to decipher everything there.
I was wrong.
The OP has nothing to do with the propaganda/speech of jihadists or ISIS (or any terrorism group) and the image above is the Seal of Mohammad. There is a difference from the ISIS Black Flag and the seal expressed above..and it is all about the text/background colors.
I want to advise the community that when you come across something that you think is wrong/bad/rule break to actually work to prove your report. Too many times we jump on the train of disbelief and we abuse our power of information - and in turn gather the incorrect information from difficult sources.
In this case I was wrong - I do apologize to Ibrahim - his warn point was removed, this thread is now back open.
Thank You.
We all know Ibrahim is an ISIS supporter. That's not even a debate. But we also know that he takes very special care to not cross the line which he consistently straddles so that he can always say he isn't supporting ISIS, regardless of the fact that literally every single post he has ever made on these forums, are promoting views upheld by ISIS. Of course he isn't breaking the rules, Mr. Four. He knows the rules well and brings his posting just to that line without crossing it. He can ALWAYS fall back on the claim that he promoting Salafism (the ideology of ISIS) and that it's OK, because it's not exclusive to ISIS. Meanwhile, he won't even answer the simple question of whether or not he believes they are the true authority over Islam. It's a very simple question that he's been asked more times than I can count, and always ignored. Meanwhile, he's very fond of responding to literally everything else, especially any criticism related to the group in question.
Of course there is also the fact that he donates, which from everything I've seen, seems to give people a very lenient pass where at very, very best, they will be suspended from the forums, regardless of anything they post. Bans in game, are not even considered, as tat would remove some of Sheepys income.
To sum it all up, you didn't need to post this. What you've done here is something that's already happened numerous times and we all expect by now that it will continue. Though it seems like the problem in this case is that he staff is once again, not following it's own policies.
-
3
-
-
i am authortarian communist who against liberalism and fascism
is that hard to understand???
You're a communist who is a homophobe, follows a sky daddy, thinks women are subhuman and is quite obviously opposed to any kind of progressivism or leftists anything.
STFU. You aren't a communist. You're a typical American redneck with a grammar and inconsistency to match. Yes, it's extremely difficult to understand anything you say, since everything you say doesn't make any sense....
-
3
-
-
Uh... that sounds horrible.
It's great.
Polygamy is an exploration experience, in my opinion. People who practice polygamy, only do it to get sexual pleasure out of it. It's one of those things that are for fun, not to be taken to something as serious as marriage. If someone really does love another person, they wouldn't want to be with anyone else, but them. Having other people that you supposedly "love" goes to show you obviously don't fully love either of them. And when you think about it, if one of the spouses died, the others could just get together, showing that love isn't really expressed in the relationship because they replaced that person quickly.
I can tell you from personal experience, that's not true at all. If I want to have sex with someone, I have sex with them. I don't date people if all I want is sexual satisfaction. You seem to think that it's only possible to love one person at a time, and that loving multiple people at the same time, makes all your love invalid. That's just silly. I love my entire family and I'm not being forced to choose just one person. It's easily possible to be intimately attracted to multiple people. I still am, but that doesn't nullify my affection for who I'm with now.
-
3
-
-
We've banned prostitution.
How?
Says the communist.
I wouldn't call prostitution love.
-
Although polygamy is a practice that has been romanticized on recent television programs, I do not believe that the popular fascination with it should extend to legalization. I think that polygamy is a misogynist practice that lends itself to the abuse of small children and women. Polygamist leaders are notorious for cases of abuse.
But hey, that's my perspective.
I won't disagree with that, but I think a comparison to the amount of men with one wive, who are equally abusive, would make this irrelevant.
-
2
-
-
I have no problem with polygamy. I mean it's not particularly attractive to see one man hoard numerous wives, but I've been in a 3 way relationship before. In this case however, it went 3 ways, rather than one person dating 2 people.
-
2
-
-
It's all the same either way, really.
-
i am authortatian communist against fascist. read what i put
My Wat card beats your inconsistent grammar.
-
feminists are liberal fascists to say woman are better then men and should be in control and instead woman should stay in kitchen. the nuclear family is correct way of civilization and has been done for 1000s of years. with woman in the kitchen and men as warriors. men in Vietnam are warriors and leaders and woman stay at home look after children far more effective modal
Women were fighting wars before kitchens were even a thing. But yeah, I can see how just because we did something 1,000 years ago, that it should still apply to modern society. Perhaps we should also sacrifice a person to the Sun god every evening as well or put the church in charge of political affairs. We of course, also have to start executing homosexuals because fascists are subhuman pigs.......
-
1
-
-
i roleplay as communist authoritarian like soviet union. i am against fascist parties are they link with capitalism to destroy the union.
I counter your argument with
should fascists be ilegal
in General Debate
Posted · Edited by Fox Fire
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10574-communism-vs-capitalism/?p=193339