Those Who Lived Under Communism Understand

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

Georgian president unveils monument to Reagan
Source: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20111124p2g00m0in070000c.html

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) -- Georgia's pro-Western president has unveiled a monument to Ronald Reagan in the capital of the ex-Soviet state praising the 40th U.S. president for "destroying the Soviet Empire."

Mikhail Saakashvili, whose government has for years had tense relations with Russia, also lambasted Moscow's attempts to "restore" the Soviet Union by creating an economic bloc with other ex-Soviet nations.

He said Wednesday that the bronze statue that depicts Reagan sitting on a bench "deserves a place in the heart of Tbilisi, the heart of Georgia."

Several statues of Reagan have gone up this year, the centennial of Reagan's birth, including several in former communist bloc countries.

In 2008, Georgia lost a war with Russia over two separatist provinces sinking Russia's ties with the U.S. to Cold War lows

CatholicCrusader · Nov 25, 2011

>>>>

This is something the vermin in OWS can never understand, waving their moronic "Marx Was Right" signs around.

David · Nov 26, 2011

Nobody has lived under communism (not on a national level). Anarchism is just stupid and people who think labels = reality are only a few brain cells above anarchists.

myp · Nov 26, 2011

David said:
Anarchism is just stupid

Calling a peaceful ideology that has many intelligent and respectful followers stupid is stupid. I am not an anarchist, but respect where it is due.

dabdab · Nov 26, 2011

myp said:
Calling a peaceful ideology that has many intelligent and respectful followers stupid is stupid. I am not an anarchist, but respect where it is due.

calling it stupid that I don't find meaningful .calling it peaceful ? how ?. having many intelligent and respectful followers is true to every Ideology or movement with no exception . also the opposite is true , every movement has it's own fanatics .

David · Nov 26, 2011

myp said:
Calling a peaceful ideology that has many intelligent and respectful followers stupid is stupid. I am not an anarchist, but respect where it is due.

Hitler was intelligent too. Sorry for the Godwin but that's probably the best way to show the flaw in your logic.

myp · Nov 26, 2011

David said:
Hitler was intelligent too. Sorry for the Godwin but that's probably the best way to show the flaw in your logic.

Absolutely not. What (I assume) you did with anarchism when you said it is stupid is take the outlier (whatever preconceived notion of an anarchist you might have in your head- I am guessing someone who blows things up for fun) and applied it to the group. If you took the worst outlier of any ideology, then every ideology would be "stupid". In my saying that there are intelligent and respectable anarchists, I am saying that all anarchists are not the extremists outliers you think they are- if they were then that would be the representative group and they would no longer be outliers. You make the same logical flaw when you try to show the "flaw" in my logic by using Hitler- fascism or national socialism is not "stupid" because Hitler was either or both.

In this I of course made an assumption on why you called it stupid. If I was wrong about that assumption let me know, but please tell me your reasoning for why anarchism is "stupid".

David · Nov 26, 2011

myp said:
Absolutely not. What (I assume) you did with anarchism when you said it is stupid is take the outlier (whatever preconceived notion of an anarchist you might have in your head- I am guessing someone who blows things up for fun) and applied it to the group. If you took the worst outlier of any ideology, then every ideology would be "stupid". In my saying that there are intelligent and respectable anarchists, I am saying that all anarchists are not the extremists outliers you think they are- if they were then that would be the representative group and they would no longer be outliers. You make the same logical flaw when you try to show the "flaw" in my logic by using Hitler- fascism or national socialism is not "stupid" because Hitler was either or both.

In this I of course made an assumption on why you called it stupid. If I was wrong about that assumption let me know, but please tell me your reasoning for why anarchism is "stupid".

I was actually thinking of Marxists and I have history to back up my claim. Same goes for Austrians, Marxist-Leninists, hippies and every other utopian anarchist society that has ever existed. The all fall apart as the 1st person to get ambitious starts hording everything an triggers a power struggle. In the small scale it collapses and in the large scale you end up with the most ruthless winning out and becoming a dictator.

myp · Nov 26, 2011

David said:
I was actually thinking of Marxists and I have history to back up my claim. Same goes for Austrians, Marxist-Leninists, hippies and every other utopian anarchist society that has ever existed. The all fall apart as the 1st person to get ambitious starts hording everything an triggers a power struggle. In the small scale it collapses and in the large scale you end up with the most ruthless winning out and becoming a dictator.

Most followers of ideologies claim that their's is the best. Which is why there are followers. There are plenty of anarchists that accept that there is market failure. Same goes for Austrians. Hippies is not an ideology.

You have essentially made your conclusion that anarchism is "stupid" based on a misunderstanding of the actual idea. You also neglect the varying viewpoints- some support anarchism solely due to moral implications. Some of the greatest political philosophers were and are anarchists. Stop the stereotyping, you are only making YOURSELF look stupid. (disclaimer: nothing personal meant there and I don't think you are stupid)

David · Nov 26, 2011

myp said:
Most followers of ideologies claim that their's is the best. Which is why there are followers. There are plenty of anarchists that accept that there is market failure. Same goes for Austrians. Hippies is not an ideology.

You have essentially made your conclusion that anarchism is "stupid" based on a misunderstanding of the actual idea. You also neglect the varying viewpoints- some support anarchism solely due to moral implications. Some of the greatest political philosophers were and are anarchists. Stop the stereotyping, you are only making YOURSELF look stupid. (disclaimer: nothing personal meant there and I don't think you are stupid)

I've to meet or learn of a smart anarchists (and Thomas Paine was a fool because I know ha's 1 of the people you're thinking of).

myp · Nov 26, 2011

David said:
I've to meet or learn of a smart anarchists (and Thomas Paine was a fool because I know ha's 1 of the people you're thinking of).

He actually wasn't. But you still use a fallacy here- just because you haven't met a smart one doesn't mean there isn't a smart one. There are plenty- starting with some of the intellectual anarcho-capitalists in the Austrian school to people like Chomsky on the other side to the actual philosophers. Can't think of the names off the top of my head but there are most certainly some very intelligent and prominent people out there and in the past that hold anarchist views. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean they aren't intelligent or respectable and it certainly does not mean they are "stupid".

CatholicCrusader · Nov 27, 2011

myp said:
Calling a peaceful ideology that has many intelligent and respectful followers stupid is stupid. I am not an anarchist, but respect where it is due.

Excuse me? You do realise what anarchism is, don't you?

I am loathe to agree with David but he is right: Its stupid. And since it involves a world with no authority and no law enforcement, violence and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" is at its very core. To call it peaceful is a non-sequitur.

David · Nov 27, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Excuse me? You do realise what anarchism is, don't you?

I am loathe to agree with David but he is right: Its stupid. And since it involves a world with no authority and no law enforcement, violence and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" is at its very core. To call it peaceful is a non-sequitur.

It's only peaceful if the impossible utopia anarchists dream of comes to pass. Reality gets in the way every time it's tried.

myp · Nov 27, 2011

You can't claim it will be violent as you have no proof- and don't bring up Somalia, that does not show causality, but mere correlation. All you two are going off of is your previous bias, part of which probably comes from a public education and public speech that for obvious reasons will not discuss anarchy.

I am not an anarchist, but I am willing to listen- I think anyone who makes a respectful and logical argument deserves that courtesy- I know it is something you two don't understand because a lot of the times you both cross over into being neither.

Those Who Lived Under Communism Understand

Similar threads