Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **collectiveindividualist** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:13 pm

Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
collectiveindividualist wrote:
Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
collectiveindividualist wrote:as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

ahem.... though i could have perhaps worded it better (".. the poster directly above" ??), i think you've just exposed yourself as extremely self-obsessed and self-centered.

you keep losing debate after debate and all you've got is ad hominem, and now, paranoid delusion.

for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the troll PIM has never threatened anyone with violence. he does seem to think everything is about him, but that's another story entirely.

(p.s. does this mean PIM is admitting "he's a troll who is here to disrupt this board" ???)

Of course I am a troll, I would have thought that was obvious to the amateur Columbo's and Miss Marples in here. I not sure if I disrupt the board, as I only post in the criticisms of anarchism section, however I do like the idea of disrupting anarchists, those rebels who want to destroy the system don't like a little bit of disruptive dissent do they?

doesnt change the fact that you've not won a single debate.

by the way, where is your retraction of calling me a liar?

by **TCP** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:50 am

Collective Individualist = CI = Confidential Informant.

It's his way of telling us he's a nark.

So watch what you say around him, everybody. It's taken ages to get an anarchist past the CIA background checks and working on Air Force One. We don't want our sleeper to be found out before they are able to put poison in the President's drink.

by **Post_Morpheus_I** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:46 am

collectiveindividualist wrote:
Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
collectiveindividualist wrote:as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

ahem.... though i could have perhaps worded it better (".. the poster directly above" ??), i think you've just exposed yourself as extremely self-obsessed and self-centered.

you keep losing debate after debate and all you've got is ad hominem, and now, paranoid delusion.

for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the troll PIM has never threatened anyone with violence. he does seem to think everything is about him, but that's another story entirely.

(p.s. does this mean PIM is admitting "he's a troll who is here to disrupt this board" ???)

Of course I am a troll, I would have thought that was obvious to the amateur Columbo's and Miss Marples in here. I not sure if I disrupt the board, as I only post in the criticisms of anarchism section, however I do like the idea of disrupting anarchists, those rebels who want to destroy the system don't like a little bit of disruptive dissent do they?

by **tsihcrana laicos** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:50 pm

Any authoritian government system is bad, regardless of economics.
Thats why DEMOCRATIC socialism, and capitalism are the only ones that thrive and survive.

And why is that, class? Because they are not authoritarian.

by **Barak144** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:41 pm

Any authoritian government system is bad, regardless of economics.
Thats why DEMOCRATIC socialism, and capitalism are the only ones that thrive and survive. Communism fails, it claims to be the will of the people, but ends up being another oppressor.

by **collectiveindividualist** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:21 pm

Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
collectiveindividualist wrote:as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

ahem.... though i could have perhaps worded it better (".. the poster directly above" ??), i think you've just exposed yourself as extremely self-obsessed and self-centered.

you keep losing debate after debate and all you've got is ad hominem, and now, paranoid delusion.

for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the troll PIM has never threatened anyone with violence. he does seem to think everything is about him, but that's another story entirely.

(p.s. does this mean PIM is admitting "he's a troll who is here to disrupt this board" ???)

by **huntergatherer** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:38 pm

Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
collectiveindividualist wrote:as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

No, he meant Y. Duh.

by **Post_Morpheus_I** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:27 pm

collectiveindividualist wrote:as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

by **|Y|** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:38 pm

http://www.ruralaction.org/readjan2002.html <- about what happened when the USSR collapsed and Cuba actually had to start becoming self-sufficient

edit: btw, one cannot consider the decentralized growing communities "the state."

It's the people. That's why Cuba can be anarchist a lot easier than some states. Get rid of the authoritarian, looming, status quo, you have anarchism.

by **Nexonic** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:31 pm

Suggestion noted and ignored

by **|Y|** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:31 pm

Actually, that's the first time I knew definitively that you are the stalker Guest. Welcome to flag under an actual nick!

Feel free to read my post, however, as I have been to Cuba and have Cuba friends, and even at one point was "all for the Cuban state" but I learned my ways. Basically, if it's about Cuba, I do know what I'm talking about.

by **collectiveindividualist** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:23 pm

as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

by **|Y|** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:02 pm

collectiveindividualist, all states are authoritarian, if the US empire did not sanction Cuba, I assure you that it would merely be a tourist despot like it was before, with better living conditions for those in Cuba. There would be no communist utopia.

If anything the sanctions are being used to exploit the Cuban people by the Cuban state, because Castro's nice speeches tend to place the blame for Cuban depotism on the US. It may be true, but it's wrong to use that to make the people more sympathetic to the state.

Dissent was, and still is in large part, quelled in Cuba. Certainly it is one of the most depotistic places in the southern hemisphere of the Americas which disallows free expression of ideas. Even to this day.

Cuba did not have to be aligned with the USSR, and when the USSR fell, it was made quite clear that Cuba could survive without it. If fact, if it weren't for the falling of the USSR, Cuba never would've become the largely decentralized nation (from a resource perspective) that it currently is. Before the fall of the USSR, Cuba was a cane producing country, after, it diversified its products, began growing its own food, actually started going in a more sustainable, less dependent, direction.

If the US and Cuba were partners Cuba would merely be a baby US. It would resemble Canada in many ways, only with Cuba's superior decentralized welfare system in place. Really, it would.

by **collectiveindividualist** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:44 pm

Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
Anonymous wrote: a comparison between cuba and comparible states is therefore in order. say, perhaps, a comparison between cuba and other latin american states.

and when you make that comparison, you find cubans on top in terms of the basic standards of living - whether you talk about pre- or post- soviet cuba.

Thanks guest, another example of an anarchist defending a socialist state. Thats all the answer I expected. So, Cuba has more state control than other latin American countries, yet you say it has a better standard of living. What does that tell you about the state?

there is one, and only one, reason why cuba is an authoritarian state - it is under a constant and unrelenting attack by a huge empire.

the historical record is pretty clear - castro did not want to align himself with the soviet union precisely because of its authoritarian nature. he wanted to be non-aligned but the USA made that impossible.

cuba does not have more "state control" than other latin american countries. the other countries enforce capitalism, cuba enforces communism. both are authoritarian states - it's just that the people fare better under one than the other.

if you would like cubans to be free, destroy america and its partners.

by **|Y|** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:35 pm

Cuba is actually capitalist with a nice welfare state run by the people, in other words, it functions capitalistically, but the people have a bigger say in how general hygenic functions of their society work. Food, clothing, education, basically the civil services.

Cuba is a bad example of the state because it shows a "friendly" capitalism. Indeed, Cuba, though it has a relative police state (which was significantly more barbaric during the USSR years, it is far nicer these days, you can actually be gay, although discretion is still needed), would be a GOOD example of capitalism.

Capitalism hurts the people when it doesn't seperate how society functions from how economy functions.

Anarchist Discussion Forums

Is it the state?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Is it the state?

The Clue Is In The Name