He says "We take antifa seriously" but calls them anarchist extremism.
Antifa isn't anarchist. In fact, that's the type of thing antifa would like to be painted as. It's the big bad fascist government against us rebel anarchists.
shows the guy's not too keen on antifa if he calls them anarchist. They may be lawless and behave like anarchists, but they are communists which is about the furthest thing from it.
They don't want no laws, they want their own jacked up USSR style society and they're burning down the current one to get it.
Calling them anarchists does not sound like someone who understands antifa.
They will say anything. He knows exactly who and what antifa is. But just like everyone else in Washington, he can’t do anything about it but lie. They will never address the issue without force. Never. None of these issues, the voting, the corruption of Biden and Ukraine and China, none of it will ever be addressed by DOJ. Never.
They have reached Chernobyl levels of corruption in DC. The lies have been piling up for decades, and now, it’s all of it. They all had private email accounts. All of them. That’s why Clinton walked. They all knew about dominion since Bush. All of them. And that’s just one piece of the pie.
And they all know that allowing even one string to be pulled is enough to bring down the house of cards. The entire government and court system has been illegitimate since at least Bush, because of the fraud. Thats why the SC is ignoring this. It’s not that they don’t believe there was fraud, I’m sure a few of them do. But they will never address it without being forced, because acknowledging it officially also nullifies their positions. They are not legitimate once fraud is proved.
The military is the only way, because nothing in Washington is not corrupted. Nothing.
I knew it was bad, I figured inside trading was how they all got rich. It’s so much worse. They are actively destroying the US in exchange for direct bribes.
Can you imagine being so fucking greedy that you can’t get rich enough from legal insider trading? It doesn’t even seem possible.
Just saying… “true” communism is anarchist. “True” communism doesn’t have a government. Now that said, 100% of communism that is even capable of being practiced in reality is NOT anarchist.
There is always going to be a disconnect because anarcho-communist is an oxymoron. "True communism" is a contradiction as communism is a rigid, organized, inflexible, and unnatural economic system. The term "communist" implies enforcement by some institution, and that institution is a government if it is called that or not. That is why when people sometimes say it has never been tried it would be be more accurate to say it can never be done as it is an internal contradiction.
"True" communism would work if 100% of society voluntarily shared all of the means of production. Except this can't really work in reality because the entire purpose of social ownership of the means of production is to share in the surplus value created during exchanges (e.g. profits), which means that every exchange ever no matter how small ("Hey I'll trade you my toaster for that dope sweater) would need to be heavily monitored and bartered/compensated in some way in order to stop the concentration of wealth that would inevitably be realized through the exchange of less-liquid-than-money assets. A large part of the problem is the "Economic Calculation Problem".
And you would need to do this voluntarily, accurately, and have 100% of society comply. And then you run into the problem of foreign societies that don't follow this, which means you would need either autarkey or complete global compliance. Again 100% voluntary, accurate, and 100% compliance.
That's not even to say whether "true" communism even sounds good on paper. I personally think "true" communism sounds horrific on paper.
I would say you are just describing one way in which it is a contradiction. Even trying to do it 100% voluntarily can not work without referring to some authority to make sure any exchanges as you described maintained that balance. That authority would defacto be a government.
The economic system that arises in absence of any government is just people doing whatever they want. At that point it might as well be referring to a group of animals as people.
A particular wolf in a pack might choose to eat or share a rabbit it caught depending on how it feels at the time and how its own mind works. It is hardly an economic system, but any system more complicated than what would arise naturally requires rules. Those rules require definition and enforcement for people with different minds to be able to even willingly follow them. Different economic systems require more rules or less, and systems that requires more rules to practice, requires more governance. Communism requires a lot of rules as it is trying to as you said "share in the surplus value created during exchanges" as a consequence it can not exist without government even for willing participants. That is part of why it fails more as it grows bigger. A small commune might have few rules mutually agreed to in a direct democratic government implemented through a meeting each Tuesday, but the larger the group, the more government will be needed.
He says "We take antifa seriously" but calls them anarchist extremism.
Antifa isn't anarchist. In fact, that's the type of thing antifa would like to be painted as. It's the big bad fascist government against us rebel anarchists.
shows the guy's not too keen on antifa if he calls them anarchist. They may be lawless and behave like anarchists, but they are communists which is about the furthest thing from it.
They don't want no laws, they want their own jacked up USSR style society and they're burning down the current one to get it.
Calling them anarchists does not sound like someone who understands antifa.
He should have taken that opening to ask if he considers antifa a domestic terrorist group.
They will say anything. He knows exactly who and what antifa is. But just like everyone else in Washington, he can’t do anything about it but lie. They will never address the issue without force. Never. None of these issues, the voting, the corruption of Biden and Ukraine and China, none of it will ever be addressed by DOJ. Never.
They have reached Chernobyl levels of corruption in DC. The lies have been piling up for decades, and now, it’s all of it. They all had private email accounts. All of them. That’s why Clinton walked. They all knew about dominion since Bush. All of them. And that’s just one piece of the pie.
And they all know that allowing even one string to be pulled is enough to bring down the house of cards. The entire government and court system has been illegitimate since at least Bush, because of the fraud. Thats why the SC is ignoring this. It’s not that they don’t believe there was fraud, I’m sure a few of them do. But they will never address it without being forced, because acknowledging it officially also nullifies their positions. They are not legitimate once fraud is proved.
The military is the only way, because nothing in Washington is not corrupted. Nothing.
I knew it was bad, I figured inside trading was how they all got rich. It’s so much worse. They are actively destroying the US in exchange for direct bribes.
Can you imagine being so fucking greedy that you can’t get rich enough from legal insider trading? It doesn’t even seem possible.
Just saying… “true” communism is anarchist. “True” communism doesn’t have a government. Now that said, 100% of communism that is even capable of being practiced in reality is NOT anarchist.
There is always going to be a disconnect because anarcho-communist is an oxymoron. "True communism" is a contradiction as communism is a rigid, organized, inflexible, and unnatural economic system. The term "communist" implies enforcement by some institution, and that institution is a government if it is called that or not. That is why when people sometimes say it has never been tried it would be be more accurate to say it can never be done as it is an internal contradiction.
It's not an internal contradiction.
"True" communism would work if 100% of society voluntarily shared all of the means of production. Except this can't really work in reality because the entire purpose of social ownership of the means of production is to share in the surplus value created during exchanges (e.g. profits), which means that every exchange ever no matter how small ("Hey I'll trade you my toaster for that dope sweater) would need to be heavily monitored and bartered/compensated in some way in order to stop the concentration of wealth that would inevitably be realized through the exchange of less-liquid-than-money assets. A large part of the problem is the "Economic Calculation Problem".
And you would need to do this voluntarily, accurately, and have 100% of society comply. And then you run into the problem of foreign societies that don't follow this, which means you would need either autarkey or complete global compliance. Again 100% voluntary, accurate, and 100% compliance.
That's not even to say whether "true" communism even sounds good on paper. I personally think "true" communism sounds horrific on paper.
I would say you are just describing one way in which it is a contradiction. Even trying to do it 100% voluntarily can not work without referring to some authority to make sure any exchanges as you described maintained that balance. That authority would defacto be a government.
The economic system that arises in absence of any government is just people doing whatever they want. At that point it might as well be referring to a group of animals as people.
A particular wolf in a pack might choose to eat or share a rabbit it caught depending on how it feels at the time and how its own mind works. It is hardly an economic system, but any system more complicated than what would arise naturally requires rules. Those rules require definition and enforcement for people with different minds to be able to even willingly follow them. Different economic systems require more rules or less, and systems that requires more rules to practice, requires more governance. Communism requires a lot of rules as it is trying to as you said "share in the surplus value created during exchanges" as a consequence it can not exist without government even for willing participants. That is part of why it fails more as it grows bigger. A small commune might have few rules mutually agreed to in a direct democratic government implemented through a meeting each Tuesday, but the larger the group, the more government will be needed.
Communo-Anarchism is supposed to be the purest form of communism.