Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, it was a description of anarcho-communism, it just was a very broad and not particularly useful one.
Also, the heck is a 'Socialist ideal of Capitalism'? I'm pretty sure Socialism is anti-Capitalist, the ideal of Capitalism would be it not existing.
Fixed.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 11th 2019 at 2:46:59 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerWorkers owning the means of production falls under the purview of capitalism??
And their definition of anarchism isn't that far off from what's on this very website, at least in regard to the abolishing of hierarchies.
As probably the only person in this thread to live anarcho-communist for a portion of my life I’ll throw in my own two cent.
It maxes out at a community of around a hundred people.
The basic principles of an anrcho-communist society is that while private possessions (so your TV and clothes) exist private property (so land and such) doesn’t, the anarchy part means that there is a lack of hierarchy, so all power flows down from a general meeting of the commune as a whole. You may have officers and committees but they are always subservient to the general meeting of the commune.
Which means you need a way for the commune to regularly meet and discuss issues, which means you need a commune of a size that you can put everyone in a room together multiple times a week to talk about everything.
We could manage it, with a community of about 80 people, anything larger than that and you get serious logistical problems. On top of that we were still part of a larger non-anarcho society, we still had a local doctor outside of our society, we still had normal law enforcement to call upon, we still had the national grid providing us with power, we still got our internet and phones from a telecom provider, we still bought our food from shops, ect...
Oh and as Corbyn came up in relation to Sanders I’ll throw in my own two cent as a Corbyn supporters. Sanders hasn’t got shit on him, Corbyn has never sought to create a cult of personality (though there has been issues) he has issues with rewarding loyalty over comeptanct but not to the point of allowing Tankies like Gabbard around. Corbyn has similar issues with isolationism to Sanders and it’s always been my big complaint about him (isolationism is inherently anti-socialist.
Corbyn’s ego also isn’t as bad as Sanders’ ego, Corbyn for all his issues with the Labour Party has always been a member, he’s always tried to be part of the system and fight to improve it, the US has a much broader political tent system and much more room for disagreement, yet Sanders refuses to register as a democrat because it would upset his ego.
Edited by Silasw on Jan 12th 2019 at 8:55:05 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranPlus Corbyn never relied on non-Labour members to make up his voting block, the election for Labour leader is one that only Labour members vote in, Corbyn got a majority of Labour members, Sanders did best with independents that lean democrat.
Not that any of this has stopped non-Labour left-wing parties from trying to claim credit for Corbyn, I’ve seen socialist party (can’t remember which one, we have several) posters calling for people to join them so as to support Corbyn, Corbyn is not and has never has been one of them, he’s always been a Labour member and he was elected by labour members who like him refused to hand our party over to Blair.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMost of that post last page is completely unrelated to economics, it's just generic "people should be treated better" talk. People being treated poorly is not a feature in any economic system. People being treated better should be a side-effect of any ideal economic system. This, however:
people should get paid the full value of their work and get a say in what their work is for.
Is still capitalism. An idealistic form of capitalism with worker's rights and fair pay, but still capitalism.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Jan 12th 2019 at 2:57:34 AM
So since it got lost amid all the debate of the last few pages, I just wanted to say that those podcast quotes from Schumer give me more hope. Not just in his accurate assessment of the Cheeto but in what he says about McConnell and the other Republicans. Particularly the bit about holding fast until they cave. He would obviously know better than any of us what McConnell's support is like, so that in itself is heartening, but Schumer has also been, mm, less than adamant in standing up against the Republicans than Pelosi has. So seeing him say something like that is quite hopeful. Particularly in light of accusations that one or both of them is trying to compromise with Republicans.
@Ingonyama: I've been in favour of the democrats giving Trump some funding for the fence, in exchange for unkillable protections for dreamers and such, but after that Schumer interview, I can see why the party is wary of trying that yet again.
Life is unfair...Worth noting that the original spending bill already included the standard billion or so dollars for border security such as the fence. The Democratic Party was already willing to give him fence money.
But nope, Trump turned it down because he wants five billion for that wall.
Disgusted, but not surprised
,![]()
And as Schumer noted, there were previous deals offered that included various compromises, including protection for the Dreamers, and he turned that down too after Miller slipped his snake tongue in his ear. So yeah, even setting aside whether giving 45 anything for border funding might be seen by him and his base as a win, if all the deals the Dems keep offering him get turned down, there's no point in trying to negotiate and every reason to hold out.
> there's no point in trying to negotiate and every reason to hold out.
This probably what Trump wants,he wants to exhaust the patience of the Democrats,wear them down in a pointless tug of war and then smear them for being stubborn,it's one of those occasions where you can't afford to let up,persistence is the key here.
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverI'm kinda surprised nobody brought this up yet: F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia
The FBI is way, way behind on this one. Journalists have been talking about this since a couple years ago.
Neither man remains to tell the story of how Trump arrived in Moscow on July 4, 1987 ; was housed in Lenin’s suite; and began talking business deals with the Politboro. But evidence of the trip’s influence remains. In 1987, Trump began discussing his desire to partner with Russia to use nuclear weapons on third countries, among them Pakistan and France. He also openly revealed the anti-American and xenophobic streak that remains part of his politics to this day, taking out full page ads condemning US policies and calling America a “failure” in a speech that October. Though he ultimately stated he would not run for president in the 1988 election, the content of that speech was like a dry run for his vitriolic 2016 campaign rallies.
...
On October 31, 2016, reporter David Corn released a blockbluster report in Mother Jones stating that Trump had been cultivated by Russia since at least 2011, according to a spy later revealed to be Christopher Steele, author of the infamous Steele dossier which broke down the plot in greater detail. Dismissed initially as implausible, numerous details of the dossier have proven true over 2017, including, most recently, the meeting that Donald Trump Jr held in June 2016.
Many have noted that while Trump’s political positions have vacillated over 30 years, he has never wavered in his deference and dedication to Russia. In 2014, Trump began praising Russia profusely on US television, and was praised in return by Kremlin officials and press. In a February 2014 interview, Trump noted the US should go easy on Russia because “[The US is] going to win something important later on, and they won’t be opposed to what we’re doing.”
I highly recommend reading the full article for context. How the hell this wasn’t a serious story during the election is possibly journalistic malpractice. Those goddamn emails though, right?
On the subject if Bernie Sanders, I was in the same boat, seeing an Americans Hate Tingle vibe here. It seems that the proof of his skeletons in the closet are irrefutable. In many other places he's treated as a Sacred Cow. I'd say he'd be better off in a supporting role in the cabinet than as President from what I hear.
ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.Nope, there's no reason to believe that Trump's capable of the necessary amount of strategic thought to employ this strategy.
He just wants the Democrats to surrender and cannot acknowledge that it's failing.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Those (re)definitions of anarchism and communism are unfortunately just begging for a No True Scotsman. Especially since I've personally witnessed far leftists using it to just handwave the atrocities of Maoist China. Sometimes, while also simultaneously extolling the benefits of such regimes and treating them as necessary evils.
Edited by AlleyOop on Jan 11th 2019 at 2:36:25 PM