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

You are playing ping pong with yourself. I am holding you to the same standard that anyone else who wants to convince people of a point are held to. Just because you rationalize your responsibility to explain your position away doesn't mean I am irrational for repeating myself in this instance. You want the discussion to move forward? State a clear premise and support it with empirical data. ANY empirical data, like the rest of the educated world.

So if not you, who is the profligate, irresponsible and degenerate post-deleter of your thread's content, of which you are the moderator?

All I did was note that there certainly was empirical data. Given the poor levels of education today I certainly do understand that people might not be aware of it. Speaking of which, TECSHARE keeps mentioning "Postmodernist relativist mindmush"
and several other concepts. Anyone who doesn't understand these concepts will remain a useful idiot only...

Just think, one could learn things, then gravitate from useful idiot to true evil, lol...



I had one in mind, but perhaps it is better to peruse the list? I do not know what exactly you have in mind as "never been tried."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities

Never heard of it, would be interesting if you've any name.
Never deleted anything but TECSHARE posts after his number 15 useless post saying the same thing again and again. I don't want an endless discussion that's all. Isn't it obvious enough in this thread that our exchanges aren't constructive?

TECHSHARE: "You don't have empirical data to back your premise"
Me: "Yeah the thing doesn't has never been implemented it's theoretical discussion"
TECHSHARE: "It's not science or logic if there is no empirical data"
Me: "Most scientific work start without empirical data, that just means I have no proof it's a good thing but I never said I had such proof"
TECHSHARE: "So you have an unclear premise without empirical data it means you're doing religions not science"
Me: "Man you often start thinking without empirical data, data comes after to VALIDATE your theory not always before to build it..."
TECHSHARE: "You don't have empirical data to back your premise"

See how useful it is as a discussion?

Edit: which makes this thread not really interesting by the way... Except for your short question and my answer it's just ping pong between TECSHARE and me...

I think there have been several attempts at direct democracy communism in villages and towns in America, and they failed miserably. There are likely quite a few others I am not aware of.

The way to fix the problem of someone being largely on the opposite side is to fix your views so they are correct. The way to start toward fixing views is to stop being a sniveling little post-deleting-coward in discussion. Obviously you'll have to discuss in this thread, the one in which you cannot delete posts you do not like, if you want to continue this.

Yeah you got all the data you want to discuss communism in a representative government, a revolutionnary movement or a pure and simple dictatorship after a coup and how it all switches to dictatorship rather quickly.

But you have nothing even similar to communism in a direct democracy as far as I know.

By the way you haven't answered to my explanation after your question on how would such system work. Always curious to have the criticism of someone so largely on the opposite side of pretty much everything ^^

Since there's well over a century of "experimentation" with communist theory, any fool that wanted to argue for communism should have ample empirical data to argue with.

Yeah pretty much.

I've seen him refuse empirical data in pretty every subject other were able to provide it (climate change, firearm debate...) simply because he doesn't like it...


Don't know what to say anymore. Please just to go to a scientific school...

I got an engineer degree and I can tell you IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY
That's all.

How do you think quantum physics was discovered and theorized? That people magically found empirical data about something that was never even thought about? Of course not. They saw a problem and proposed different logical explanation without any kind of proof or data. And AFTERWARDS they test it with experiment and prove it with empirical data...

If what you want to say is that my idea isn't proved you're not only stupid, you basically don't know how to read xD

More Postmodernist relativist mindmush. Instead of admitting empirical data is critical to any science you make up some assbackward argument about how theory is just as important because it comes first, even thought it remains to be a theory until proven with empirical data. Because in your mind "empirical data is not required for logic or science", and this some how makes empirical data less critical to science does it?

Without empirical data you can not quantify anything. Without being able to quantify anything you don't have science, you have theory, philosophy, and beliefs. You seem to want to wrap your beliefs in a layer of science to give it the appearance of credibility. This little dance you are doing to avoid stating a premise and backing it with empirical data is pretty good evidence of this.

He doesn't really want empirical data.  He just wants an endless cycle back to where you are now.  If you give him empirical data, he will say that it is invalid because it doesn't come from a system done to scale and if you don't give him empirical data at all (because this system has never been done at a large scale), then your entire argument is invalid anyway. 

Ah well I tried to explain you...

But if you're limited enough to think science and logic can't be done without empirical data... Most scientific questions are debated and imagined at first without empirical data, with just unproved hypothesis (assumptions) and logical reasonning. Please go to any science university to see how classes are done!

Of course empirical data is, most of the time, essential to go forward and declare you managed to prove something.

But to limit yourself to discuss only with empirical data...

Well at least you're sure to never be wrong  

Oh and just a small precision:

Yeah and it was collected By Darwin and Lamark AFTER they imagined their theory, took them about 10 years of field research. That's what allowed them to go from "an imagined theory" to a damned solid theory accepted by most.

I really couldn't give a shit less how much of "an asshole" you choose to be. However pretending like you are making an argument by using logical fallacies and avoiding actual legitimate debate at all costs is pretty illustrative of your uninformed and childish nature.
When you can make a legitimate and intellectually honest argument, I assure you I am much more amicable. Until that time I have no reasons to afford you any courtesies of personal comfort because you seek obfuscation, not truth.




I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though.



Plenty of things that have never been done are supported with empirical data before they are achieved. In fact practically EVERY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT was studied, and data collected regarding the concept BEFORE it was ever created in reality. You are not just talking about philosophy and subjective ideas, you are talking about changing objective government policy. As a result you don't get to simply use the subjective nature of the premise YOU PUSH as an excuse for not supporting HOW it would be implemented and WHY it would work, using empirical data to support your premise.


PRESENT A PREMISE ABOUT COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT IT WITH EMPIRICAL DATA.

Until you do this you have no argument and this is all just an extremely complicated dance you do to do ANYTHING BUT present a clear premise, because then you would have to defend it, and you are not confident you can.

Ok ok you got a point I'm acting like an asshole here, but I'm quite enjoying it after suffering from your lack of logic and your aggressive attitude. 

How can I explain this to you...

Let's take something important and largely proved today: evolution theory.

How do you think Lamark and Darwin worked on the evolution theory without any knowledge of DNA?

Well they took the work of Carl Linnaeus who devided biological species by specified physical caracteristics but who put them as fixed and definitive because divine, and combine it with Pierre Louis Maupertuis idea that spontaneous degeneration could happen during reproduction and came with the idea that maybe those spontaneous degenerations could be the reason why there are different species. That's the birth of evolution theory.

But notice that when thinking about the first version of evolution theory, Darwin and Lamark have no empirical data proving their premise. Why? Because they combine two different phenomenon into one theory that has never been studied before.

That's exactly what's happening in the thread I created, I'm talking about combining direct democracy (which we know is possible and efficient in involving people into politics such as Switzerland proved) and socialism/communism (which we know has always failed because all previous implementations needed to give all power to one government hence transformed the country in a dictatorship).

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

But that's not possible! It doesn't exist and has never been done!!!

Following your reasonning, you need to back up all theory with empirical data to be allowed to discuss it. It means you can't discuss about things that have never been experimented, this is not scientific reasonning this is mind limitation.

Ask me how I see this system working (that's what Spendulus asked and I answered), ask me why it won't lead to a dictatorship, ask me how it will be managed in an international environment... But don't ask me empirical data, you can't have empirical data on something that doesn't exist.

That's where I think you are very limited in your reasoning and are not logical.

Cheers

Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character?

Oh no I'm pretty content with my current attitude 

I believe there is everything needed in this thread already. If somebody else doesn't understand where is your mistake... No where is the abyssal gap between reality and your understanding, I'll explain it. But right now there is everything needed in the previous posts.

You never worked in science or made any kind of science studies did you?

So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"

Can't ignore that, man, sorry really that's not charitable of me  

But god  

What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.

I am glad you find the foundational concepts of logic to be so hilarious.

Oh don't worry I'm not offended I just find that too funny to not appreciate it xD

Oh please please stop you gonna kill me 

I am sorry that you are so emotionally weak that my words alone offend you so much you can not muster a reply. I am sure this is just not some refractory excuse to cover for the fact that you have no reply, no, it is because of what I DID.

Yeah, what a loon, asking for you to substantiate your ideology which has resulted in millions of lives lost, with some form of material fact. I should know better right? This is Postmodern loony tune land where logic is whatever you say it is at any given moment and everything is subjective and equally unprovable.

Again, you are making a premise. You hold the burden to prove that premise with empirical data. Real simple, day one stuff in pretty much any science, debate, or logic class.

The guy asks for empirical data of how efficient socialist direct democracy is and he talks about logic     

I'm not even remotely sorry. If you hadn't been such an arrogant aggressive person previously I would have explained how what you're saying is not only a nonsense but also a proof of your inability to think.

But considering your previous behaviour you'll have to wait for someone nicer than me to explain it to you xD

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?