Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
The analogy works perfectly. I think you are trying to dodge it.
If people died frequently you would see an accident every time you go out, it's exceptionnal, it only feels big because of the knowledge of the entire system. Now please, stop dodging the question and answer me. It's important to understand communism.
Why are people still taking their car despite knowing the risk of marginal accident?
If people died frequently you would see an accident every time you go out, it's exceptionnal, it only feels big because of the knowledge of the entire system. Now please, stop dodging the question and answer me. It's important to understand communism.
Why are people still taking their car despite knowing the risk of marginal accident?
The goal of a great system, is not that everyone who participate follows perfectly, the goal of a great system is that enough people follow it for the system not to implode and regulate itself despite the marginal problems.
So.. As you do not seem to want to answer the question, I will answer it for you: The answer is TRUST in systemism. Not the trust in others, but the trust in the system. That trust is systematical, it doesn't come from interconnected bond, it comes from the inconscious or conscious knowledge that the system is strong enough to take into account the marginalized incident.
On the road, you don't have to get a cop every streets to follow the rules, and even without a cop and without the justice system, we would STILL find a way to uphold the circulation system. The reason for this is the knowledge and trust that a good system, even unchecked, creates good behaviors.
And underneeth that affirmation, we have the point of our disagreement. From my point of view, you seems to have a essentialized vision of humanity : "people are like this, people are like that", reenforcing the idea that somehow, we are only facing capitalism because of somekind of "bad nature".
We believe (and frankly know) that humans have no nature outside of the evolutionnary instinct and a few genetics necessecities:
- The need for cooperation
- The need for sociability
- The need for survivability
- The need to understand quickly others (creating our empathy)
We have no "good" or "bad" nature. We are a social specie that needs cooperation and social bonds to strive. And trust me, I know what I'm talking about here when I say that the absence of social bond will enventually destroys one human.
Based on this underestanding we know that systems will forge behaviors. If you trust going out on the road, it's because you have enough reason to think that you will survive the system of circulation no matter if the police is here or not. It's is a systematic trust based on collective cooperation.
Communism or anarchism are the same thing. No one is denying the fact that bad apples can happen within thezse system, but to compare a collective cooperation like both of these system with and under capitalism and saying that they "will not work".. is like comparing your current circulation system with a system where 95% of the population acted like in a GTA game.
No matter how many "bad apple" we will get in a stateless and classless society, we know that the negative cursor of such systeml will always go beyond the positive cursor of the current one. As such, to us, not trying to aim for such a system is completely irrationnal and suicidal.
So.. As you do not seem to want to answer the question, I will answer it for you: The answer is TRUST in systemism. Not the trust in others, but the trust in the system. That trust is systematical, it doesn't come from interconnected bond, it comes from the inconscious or conscious knowledge that the system is strong enough to take into account the marginalized incident.
On the road, you don't have to get a cop every streets to follow the rules, and even without a cop and without the justice system, we would STILL find a way to uphold the circulation system. The reason for this is the knowledge and trust that a good system, even unchecked, creates good behaviors.
And underneeth that affirmation, we have the point of our disagreement. From my point of view, you seems to have a essentialized vision of humanity : "people are like this, people are like that", reenforcing the idea that somehow, we are only facing capitalism because of somekind of "bad nature".
We believe (and frankly know) that humans have no nature outside of the evolutionnary instinct and a few genetics necessecities:
- The need for cooperation
- The need for sociability
- The need for survivability
- The need to understand quickly others (creating our empathy)
We have no "good" or "bad" nature. We are a social specie that needs cooperation and social bonds to strive. And trust me, I know what I'm talking about here when I say that the absence of social bond will enventually destroys one human.
Based on this underestanding we know that systems will forge behaviors. If you trust going out on the road, it's because you have enough reason to think that you will survive the system of circulation no matter if the police is here or not. It's is a systematic trust based on collective cooperation.
Communism or anarchism are the same thing. No one is denying the fact that bad apples can happen within thezse system, but to compare a collective cooperation like both of these system with and under capitalism and saying that they "will not work".. is like comparing your current circulation system with a system where 95% of the population acted like in a GTA game.
No matter how many "bad apple" we will get in a stateless and classless society, we know that the negative cursor of such systeml will always go beyond the positive cursor of the current one. As such, to us, not trying to aim for such a system is completely irrationnal and suicidal.
And really, this is not far off. People tend to completely overlook just how fucked up capitalism is. It's not "a little bit fucked up", not "really fucked up", it's a kind of fucked upry that is completely bonkers.
We have to face the fact that - because of the structure of the system - people who have nothing and can't even pay their own rent and food, who work 45 to 50 hours a week, are defending this system based on the complete dellusional belief that they could be Elon Musk if they tried hard ernough. (and I have seen people in this very thread defend this specific kind of belief).
To us materialist, this is like believing you have flight power because you are floating in a 0 gravity plane that is about to crash down and saying that a parachute wouldn't work.
We have to face the fact that - because of the structure of the system - people who have nothing and can't even pay their own rent and food, who work 45 to 50 hours a week, are defending this system based on the complete dellusional belief that they could be Elon Musk if they tried hard ernough. (and I have seen people in this very thread defend this specific kind of belief).
To us materialist, this is like believing you have flight power because you are floating in a 0 gravity plane that is about to crash down and saying that a parachute wouldn't work.
The same way, dominations systems (outside of capitalism but capitalism is similar) are structured in a way for people under domination to defend their own dominations:
- Black people will try to invizibilize racism
- Non valid people will try to invizibilize their class
- Women will defend patriarchy
etc.
- Black people will try to invizibilize racism
- Non valid people will try to invizibilize their class
- Women will defend patriarchy
etc.
