ah. In that case, we can all acknowledge that communism and capitalism have both lead to significant wars and violent non-war actions on the populace.

The Korean war, The invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, sino/soviet border conflict, Chinese invasion of Vietnam…

…but let’s not pretend that war is the end-all be-all of government criminality. We can look at democide, or just atrocious neglect that had occurred quite a few times in communism, add well as abuse of the populace.

…now, I’m not claiming capitalism is good. But Communism isn’t some panacea that prevents tensions and violence.

No, are you just scrapping for a fight?

yeah, that’s why I sidestepped that one. It’s an easy pathway into “no, you!”

Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn’t exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.

Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I’m not a fan.

Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.

There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that’s a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn’t there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren’t acknowledged.

The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).

The proper grounds for change isn’t government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.

Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It’s only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.

That doesn’t mean we can’t find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you’ve given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it’s only natural to do so.

I’m sure you’re definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you’d discount. …but not all.

in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there’d be enough to disprove “communism is incompatible with war”.

Rather, you could say “in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn’t a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war.”

Always the victim. Get back to your struggle sessions, and hope the target isn’t you.

not even “better”.

remove adults and bring all the kids to the authoritarian level. Check.

history disagrees.

what a kludge justice is.

My Stockholm buddy never pays attention to me anymore…

this is how I eat something live and fermented, and I’m all “…meh.”

…then next day i see it and experience the closest non-sexual feeling to lust that I’ve ever had, and have to put more in my mouth.

wait, you’re not? :-/

Honesty at it’s best. Enjoy.

Yep.

Welcome to the internet.

That’s a fairly decent and nuanced take.

And of actual wizards, thank you very much. And none of this is accidental - effeminate punk nerds are good company, and people who look like wizards… …help prevent assassinations.

You’ve been savagely attacked by an internet monster.

What was that old adage: “i may not hold the opinion you do, but I will defend your right to hold that opinion.”

I suppose my view on it is similar:

If you believe that a psychological stance should be punished physically, it might behoove you to realize that you are only permitted to hold that opinion by the good graces of those who, rightly, stand ready to destroy you if you try to enforce that view physically.