why have some theory's stayes as theory's

this is a simple question
why have some thoery's stayed theory's
communism is a great example
an enticing theory but horrible when tried to put in to practise

practice makes perfect.

thats good
why would doing the same thing bring different results

enviro wrote:

this is a simple question
why have some thoery's stayed theory's
communism is a great example
an enticing theory but horrible when tried to put in to practise

False. It was put to practice and worked several times being crushed solely by extrinsic factors. Horrible? If workers owning the means of production directly and democraticaly is something horrible to you, then, yes, it was horrible. Also "good" in accordance to my standards.

look at lenin
he started a "communist" place, but eventually it was took by dictatorship. like maybe in 10 years ro something like that

once again i said the thoery was good but where on earth has true communism existed

enviro wrote:

look at lenin
he started a "communist" place, but eventually it was took by dictatorship. like maybe in 10 years ro something like that

Leninism, in practice, is not communist. And, it did start as a dictatorship. So no, there was no communism in Lenin's example.

enviro wrote:

once again i said the thoery was good but where on earth has true communism existed

You're adressing Leninism, not communism. Leninism, according to Lenin and as demonstrated false by practice, was a way to achieve communism, not communism.

Communism existed in the Spanish anarchist communes during the civil war, the Paris Commune and the Free Territory of Ukraine all of which were destroyed by extrinsic factors.

^^^ Not to mention that the Russian revolution (the one that has the most historical significance, starting in February) was quite progressive until the centralized government took control over the soviets, which were, until then, run democratically by those closest involved. After the state's infiltration into the soviets, it no longer influenced by the public in any meaningful way.

well then why did they let themselves be taken over?

enviro wrote:

well then why did they let themselves be taken over?

I don't know if someone like you, who would put a tree's life above his or any human being's will understand this example, but I'll try:

Imagine you have 5 friends. You and all of them have families. You have set your community somewhere in a territory owned colectivelly by all the members in all the families. They've agreed on how to manage that territory and each family has acceeded to work on a certain good or activity that is necesary to all the other families, complementing each other economically - roles are changed in accordance to the results of plans put to practice, climatological conditions, as cognositive knowledge advances, etc. Let's say that in total you're 30 people. Everything runs smoothly for you.

Then, one day some guys from afar decide they need that territory for any reason they wish and that they could use the workforce provided by all of you. So they decide to send 5 battle tanks, some infantry and a couple of airplanes.

They set siege to the entire territory where you all inhabit and order you to surrender all that property to X state and or X private offering you that you'll work for them and be paid something in exchange so you can buy the goods you produce from the new owner. Obviously, you all refuse. And so begins the bloodshed.

They declare that all that territory belongs to X whom tehy represent in the forms of guns, bombers and tanks and that they'll force you to turn in the territory.

First they start shelling around the houses, they start with some gun fire. Some members of the families get scared, others entirely infuriated and grab some rifles and go out running with them. They shoot a couple infantrymen but are killed in the process. The infantry advances towards the houses. One house is well locked up and the people inside grab rifles and shoot the incoming infantry - a bomb blows up that house. Scared some people from the other houses run and try to flee, some of them succeed and others die attempting. 15 people remain. The infantry approaches quickly and takes one house and takes the one who occupy it as prisoners. That process is repeated again. And then the remaining people are left there, sieged, with water and food supplies cut, unable to go out. Eventually they surrender to hunger and thirst.

Do you understand why they "let themselves be taken over"?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

enviro wrote:

well then why did they let themselves be taken over?

I don't know if someone like you, who would put a tree's life above his or any human being's will understand this example, but I'll try:

Imagine you have 5 friends. You and all of them have families. You have set your community somewhere in a territory owned colectivelly by all the members in all the families. They've agreed on how to manage that territory and each family has acceeded to work on a certain good or activity that is necesary to all the other families, complementing each other economically - roles are changed in accordance to the results of plans put to practice, climatological conditions, as cognositive knowledge advances, etc. Let's say that in total you're 30 people. Everything runs smoothly for you.

Then, one day some guys from afar decide they need that territory for any reason they wish and that they could use the workforce provided by all of you. So they decide to send 5 battle tanks, some infantry and a couple of airplanes.

They set siege to the entire territory where you all inhabit and order you to surrender all that property to X state and or X private offering you that you'll work for them and be paid something in exchange so you can buy the goods you produce from the new owner. Obviously, you all refuse. And so begins the bloodshed.

They declare that all that territory belongs to X whom tehy represent in the forms of guns, bombers and tanks and that they'll force you to turn in the territory.

First they start shelling around the houses, they start with some gun fire. Some members of the families get scared, others entirely infuriated and grab some rifles and go out running with them. They shoot a couple infantrymen but are killed in the process. The infantry advances towards the houses. One house is well locked up and the people inside grab rifles and shoot the incoming infantry - a bomb blows up that house. Scared some people from the other houses run and try to flee, some of them succeed and others die attempting. 15 people remain. The infantry approaches quickly and takes one house and takes the one who occupy it as prisoners. That process is repeated again. And then the remaining people are left there, sieged, with water and food supplies cut, unable to go out. Eventually they surrender to hunger and thirst.

Do you understand why they "let themselves be taken over"?

I AM FUCKING SICK OF YOU SAYING I VALUE A TREES LIFE MORE THAN YOURS OR MINE. I AMY HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND I CHANGED THAT VIEW. WHERE ON THIS THREAD DOES ANYTHING GIVE ME AWAY AS HATING HUMANS? HMMMMMMMM
there is no point in dragging that it

they got taken over, another failure of communism. is thier a miliraty. cuz if thier isnt, its again a bad system

enviro wrote:

I AM FUCKING SICK OF YOU SAYING I VALUE A TREES LIFE MORE THAN YOURS OR MINE. I AMY HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND I CHANGED THAT VIEW. WHERE ON THIS THREAD DOES ANYTHING GIVE ME AWAY AS HATING HUMANS? HMMMMMMMM
there is no point in dragging that it

Sorry bu that's what you always imply.

enviro wrote:

they got taken over, another failure of communism. is thier a miliraty. cuz if thier isnt, its again a bad system

You asked me why they "let themselves be taken over" I expained you that they didn't let themselves be taken over - they were crushed, overpowered.

If there are 200 guys with rifles and pistols and 100 infantrymen come, supported by tanks, artillery and aircraft who's got the upper hand?

Also, your assertion that this is another failure of communism is wrong mainly for two things: 1) I've demonstrated the economic and organizational success of communism and you were unable to refute it, and 2) never was it implied there is no military in communism.

If the whole world was communist there should be no need for military. If just part of te world was, then there would be need. However whether there is military or not is not an established thing - it is determined by the people and the circumstances. What is a fact though, is that military activity is a diversion from economy and a total economic waste that under certain circumstances may be necesary but that will always imply massive economic drain.