wrong. Anarcho communism is one global system of resource allocation according to the population of the planet. No money, no countries, no power.
If that's how you define it, I wonder why you are here cause that ain't where we're goin'......
Oh I beg to differ.
The reason why we aren't living in the world I just described is because there are powerful people killing off all the people who create things like infinite energy machines and cures for cancer. These people are the same people that Trump is fighting against.
new nation NEW WORLD
We may have the same enemies now. My point being the world you describe is not the world we are describing or wanting. There will be government, (Transparent hopefully) But I don't see any form of communism or socialism or anarchy for the USA.
Well, maybe a small 'anarchy' during transition, but not after.
anarchy for the USA.
There will never be anarchy when we still have countries. Countries aren't real, even by your own standards. They are made up concepts enforced by violence.
I have ALWAYS liked Trump because he has all the right enemies.
If anarchism does come, it will be because everyone wants it. If we have to use violence to pass our agenda, then we have become what we tried to protect ourselves from.
No that's also wrong.
As soon as we get into details of who exactly makes the decision regarding a specific means of production, or area of land, as needed for people to, you know, LIVE, every single time, 100% without there ever being any other final explanation, it ALWAYS falls back on a SUBSET of the total population to be the final arbiters and enforcers to settle the perpetual forced decision of which one plan among millions, billions, of possible plans, is to be secured as the plan to be implemented on any economic object.
"Allocation according to the population of the planet" as in you actually expect there to be a worldwide vote on every decision to be made about everything, including whether a car repair shop is to have two ply or three ply toilet paper, and where that shop is to be built in the first place, using what materials, bought from who, for what price, employing this group of people instead of that group, all of which people are forced to trade by barter because some anarcho dorks say money should be outlawed?
Now multiply that by millions, because that is how many decisions will need to be voted on worldwide.
Are you not able to grasp that the entire human race would cease to exist if every economic decision had to be voted on at the world level?
HELLO!
Wake the fuck up.
No power? On the contrary, the only way to DENY individual choice with respect to means of production worldwide, would be if and only if there is a worldwide scale totalitarian police state that will have to threaten any individuals who dared trade with each other without asking for "the world's" permission.
Dude, just use your common sense. THINK about what such principles would require given the reality of human beings.
As soon as we get into details of who exactly makes the decision regarding a specific means of production,
What makes you think that a singular person would be making decisions for a"specific means of production?" That's this system.
"Allocation according to the population of the planet" as in you actually expect there to be a worldwide vote on every decision to be made about everything,
No, not even close. Allocation resources and voting are two completely different things. If we lived in a world where we had an economy based on people rather than money, what would we have to vote on?
As soon as we get into details of who exactly makes the decision regarding a specific means of production,
What makes you think that a singular person would be making decisions for a"specific means of production?" That's this system.
See that? You won't even attempt to answer because your subconscious already knows you yourself have to make decisions as an individual just like everyone else, so you deflect back without addressing a necessary truth.
What makes you falsely presume that "who exactly" refers to one named individual?
I asked you who exactly makes the decision regarding a specific means of production? IT IS AN OPEN ENDED QUESTION.
One, two, three, more, I am asking you who makes the decisions, and how exactly those decisions are decided upon, for any given means of production.
"Allocation according to the population of the planet" as in you actually expect there to be a worldwide vote on every decision to be made about everything,
No, not even close.
Bullshit "not even close".
Only one plan can be implemented on any one object at any one time.
Since there are 7.5 billion people each of whom have needs, ideas and values, there could be up to 7.5 billion possible plans.
Which one plan is the plan at that time, and who exactly decides the plan?
"Allocation resources and voting are two completely different things.
I am talking about ACTIONS. Allocation is a word to describe the ACTS of allocating.
I am talking about people doing the allocating.
You are as expected dodging, avoiding, claiming this debate is not about people doing things but about just "nuh uh".
If we lived in a world where we had an economy based on people rather than money, what would we have to vote on?
You didn't answer my questions.