Topic: REEE: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer - page 2. (Read 425 times)

Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.

You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.

Thanks. I've found the theory interesting although it is, of course, only theory.

The idea would be that socialism/communism leads to dictatorship because it means the people (hence the inhabitants of a country) must take control of a large part of the production power of the said country. By that they in fact take control of a very large portion of the country itself. And in previous socialist/communist countries "the people" is something that just wasn't able to take a direct control, they elected a government which was supposed to represent them and this government had the effective control.
Which means you had to give a nearly complete power to a few dozens of people, that's how communism led automatically to dictatorship.

Now what if we have a direct democracy?
That means laws and constitution are both proposed and voted by the people regularly, best current example would be Switzerland where people vote nearly every week on various subject because they are actually a semi-direct democracy. If socialism/communism was implemented in such country, it would means control of the economic production is NOT in the hands of few people so it wouldn't lead to dictatorship. A company owned by the state would be directly hold by its worker, without having a komissar managing it. It would be most likely working like thoses companies bought back by their workers (I don't know how it's called, it's maybe a French thing but here when a company goes bankrupt, the workers can buy it back for 1€ and split the shares between themselves to continue the production. It's called a "coopérative").

For the rest your question "how wouldthat work" is a bit too large for me so don't hesitate to ask precisions ^^

I'd say there are 2 major points that could make it complicated or unethical:

1/ Like any democratic system, this would be a clear rule of the majority over the minority. Constitution can be here to protect citizens but it can always be changed. The notion of majority can also be changed and we can say a laws must have 60 or 70% support to pass but fundamentally it's still the rule of majority over minority. I have yet to be given an example of a system which is not, so this system isn't worth than the others on this subject but it's still not perfect.

2/ There is a HUGE need of mentality change and education to be done. In Switzerland for example there are hundreds of classes dedicated to direct democracy, explaining how it works but also the duties of the citizens and helping the children grow interest in politics. In Norway children are actually applying direct democracy in lots of school where the children are in charge of everything, from class content to school meals organization. There is a big apathy in most Western countries because people know they're getting fucked by politicians and they're powerless. This means there must be a changed of mentality from being governed by someone to having your destiny in your own hands.

Then you are an idiot.

I have nothing more to say. You're a complete moron and this statement just proves it xD

Oh my god I just hope everyone is able to understand how limited and illogical what you're asking for is... It's awesome thanks!!!

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

I do find this assertion interesting.

Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.


How would that work?

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

Yeah... Exceptional... Extraordinary at least that's for sure:


Said all I had to say. You asked a burden of proof and I give you my reasoning in my OP... Is what you're waiting for is emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs.  I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?

Yes that's the rest of the OP... The why I believe direct democracy makes establishing socialism without falling into dictatorship possible... You really don't read people and just write "logical fallacies" and "illogical" everywhere do you?

You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.

Noooooooooooo I'm saying how previous communism failures were directly linked to representative democracy and how direct democracy would get rid of the problems and how socialism could be implemented in a direct democracy without leading to a dictatorship...

That's LITTERALY said in my OP:


Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.

I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.

No I haven't...

God if anyone needs a better example of what I mean by polluting with non constructive circular debate I can't do, that's litteraly the

I was talking about. It's happening right now!!!

What you mean to say is you don't want the ones who can effectively refute your arguments. "Polluting" your pure thread with my politically incorrect ideas am I? Sounds familiar.

You know what that process you just detailed is called? In debate it is known as "burden of proof". This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data. This is the base law by which all forms of debate and science operate off of.

If you find the exchange non-constructive I suggest you get a better argument than "I'm not talking about this", because by the rules of any kind of logical examination you fail to support your premise based on this fact alone. You are literally refusing to address direct criticism of it and using the subjective nature of the topic to pretend the criticisms have no logic.

I do and you can see it in the original thread. Other people have VERY different points of view like mrcash02
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48281103

I just don't want the trolls that's all. The discussion with TECSHARE was nowhere near constructive nad was just polluting the thread. Just read our questions and answers it's litterally

m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!

I call that non constructive.
I don't think of myself as liberal or progressive so I don't take it as an insult.

Hey that's actually a good idea! I'll post the link to this thread

If I just wanted to censore you I would have deleted your comments AND edited my answers. I just don't see how you're making a cosntructive debate so I kicked you out of my self moderated thread cause talking without trying to make a logical debate I call that trolling. And I think the length of your post proves that I really wanted to discuss with you it's just that (In my opinion) you made it impossible or at least not interesting and cosntructive.

But a separated thread is a very good solution and I'm always happy to debate if you want to 

I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive!

Since m0gliE can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior.

I am sure you would prefer the whole internet be sanitized from ideas you dislike like they do on Facebook and Twitter, but most of us don't..

Also I find it extra hilarious that he deletes all my comments while leaving his replies with my quotes up as if that makes my replies go away some how xD

I guess he finally realized he has no argument in reply so he has to try to keep me from being able to even argue against him, that's how weak his arguments are, but this is standard behavior from the left now days. Free speech, as long as you agree with me.



Didn't you....literally...just get done doing that? I guess it is just a convenient coincidence those are the same instances eh?