[quote=@mdk] And vice versa, and anon, and so forth or whatever. To me that sounds like a good reason to be leery of political models with revolution at their core. Humans don't have a great track record with revolutions or freedom fighters for that matter. America too. Shit I bet we spent more than 100x the equivalent funds of the Sons of Liberty to help those brave and noble Al Qaedas fight off the Soviets). If I'm gonna back a revolution, odds are, it's not gonna be the one proposed by hundreds of troglodytes who spend most of their days debating whether or not selling a unicorn frappuchino should count as a hate crime. And I bet the plastic thing it came in is made from recycled Kony 2012 friendship bracelets. [/quote] Yet the entire world - or the majority of it - is built on the back of revolution. Like it or not, one man's violent radical that's a threat to the system status-quo is the liberator to the other. Whether this does mean smashing Star Bucks for concocting a drink fit only for insta-gram or to lash out a system considered unresponsive to the needs of the whole. [quote=@mdk] Is that, like.... better, though? "Someone else probably would've also killed a shitload of people out of incompetence" isn't exactly a roaring endorsement. [/quote] No, but it goes over the contextual details which may be worth noting. As noted by [@Keyguyperson] situations like that per the Great Leap Forward are complicated by notions ultimately outside of the philosophy but rather are fault of the structure. Which per revolution's sake just often means the revolutionary party gets to adopt the administrative structure of that country. In China's case, communists adopting almost quasi-feudal structure and trusting it to work. [quote=@mdk] I'm just.... sorry, I'm hitting on this like every other sentence this time around but..... the goal of communism in the past has been to, like.... feed people, and have them be not dead. [/quote] Read Mutual Aid or something god damn. [quote=@mdk] I need to learn more about the different sects? Sects, right? Whatever. I think we're overstating the role of the government. Innovation isn't.... well, isn't USUALLY a product of the state. I don't know enough about like Roman aqueducts and that sort of thing. Wild horses don't need to be led to water, or, like, some other folksy metaphor for "fuck it we're prolly fine." [/quote] This assumes all possible models of communism are state reliant. There is a handy discussion I threw myself in elsewhere where one part is actively questioning the whole, "Is state-owned capital all that better compared to private-owned capital?" Capital in this case being something like the farm fields or the factory. But to risk being declared as a MARKET COMMUNIST REVISIONIST I'm going to simply invoke Proudhon and move along. [quote=@mdk] Dammit I told you once, it's called a Krautteste. Don't make me tell you a third time. I am the krautteste baron. Don't question it. [/quote] [img]http://img.booru.org/lefty//images/6/0b32778abc187050acf1b6eb9cd86b6b0e500773.jpg[/img] [quote=@mdk] Soooooooooooooo peg leg? We can drop this thread if you like. I don't think we're arguing prosthetic development on equal, uh.... footing god damn it kill me. [/quote] I mean hell, if we're going to go the route of publically owned 3D printers and open for free the ability to learn yourself some CAD whenever you want and however far you want to go, if that's what you want to print out then sure. But if out of all the things that are now in their own way your property and you don't want to build Venom Snake's bionic arm v3.0 then be my guest. [quote=@mdk] I still don't fully understand this meme. [/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet [i]It's almost like revolution isn't needed to kill all your enemies anyways.[/i] [quote=@mdk] Just the white landowners though lol. Okay, so maybe I should dial down the founders-worship a touch. BUT -- the people who got a say, back in the day, were the ones who had a financial stake in things. That worked great, right? Pay no attention to the slavery or civil war or repression or clubbings. Yeah. Okay. Yeah definitely dial back the founder-worship. Oh, posh. That's an act of petty vandalism, fit for the cover of Enquirer at the worst. The start of the American Revolution is more accurately (probably) attributed to the already-ongoing wars of the French and British within the context of global colonialism. If it weren't for all that, honestly our shenanigans never really rose to a level which should've warranted a war. Except maybe that Declaration... I guess that would probably merit a royal bitchslap. I'm rambling. The Tea Party would never pass for terrorism. Unless you consider pouches of Earl Gray as citizens...... wait are you British? [/quote] Boston's Sons of Liberty totally weren't vandalizing crown property not just on sea but on land, killing and assault magistrates, and doing all sorts of things to vent their anger and cause financial or personal ruin across the board. And Loyalist militias totally were not doing the same. It's like nothing happened. But the definition of terrorism - or what constitutes as terrorism today - has been broadly expanded to include large scale destruction of property, so much so in some cases simply opening a hole in a stockyard fence to release some cows may be considered terrorism in a court of law. For dumping tons and tons of tea into the Boston harbor the Boston Sons of Liberty would have dealt such a financial attack on the East India company they could be charged for terrorism on the notion they carried out large-scale property damage. This too along with all the many charges of assault Sam Adams and his men lead and a shit ton of smuggling charges.