I feel like they used to reach this in schools when I went...Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, and the belief it would alleviate slavery but it make it many times more worse and more profittable.

Have Republicans in Texas revised the history books so much that millineals don't know this basic relevant historical fact?

We are in much worse trouble than I thought. We need to give Texas back to Mexico so they can dumb down their school text books.

There's also the additional factor of Indian cotton lowering the prices of cotton on the world markets as the British expanded their colonial empire. The Southern planters' reaction to this was to increase production, which created a demand for both more slaves and more land.
So with the westward expansion of the United States we might've well seen more slave-dependent states appear.

when are we meeting up to destroy whitey?

this one goes out to my good friend devil kin

I thought he was trying to bro fist me but those are his legs

i have a hard time understanding ancom and their principles. Has a communist system ever existed on the large scale that doesn't have enormous state influence? how do people decide who deserves more than another? how do you enforce equality in an anarchist system that doesn't have government coercion? what if one person decides to expand and have more private property than others? how do you prevent natural human greed? how do you create incentive?
and having an objective value of “socially necessary” labor makes no sense to me either

This post was edited by majorblood on Sep 25 2016 11:13pm

Hunter gatherer societies were moneyless, classless and stateless. The whole point of anarchism is to not operate on a large scale, so that the provision of goods and services will be decided amongst individuals and their communities. I think you are looking at 'large scale' in the wrong way, instead of seeing it as many small communities coexisting to paint a larger picture you describe it as if it's a single entity.



People would decide amongst themselves in their communities. You could have representative boards, 3rd party arbitration or syndicalism, the latter of which means that trade unions represent workers in these scenarios.



People can't own private property in an anarcho communist society.



Capitalism coerces people to give in to their greed. A communist may argue that the abolition of private property and money prevent greed a lot more than any current policies.



and THIS is why it would never work

There's simply too many individual cartoons to repost in the thread, so you can have the link, about the farce that is the "non-partisan" Commission for Presidential Debates.

http://www.startribune.com/the-secret-history-of-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/394140131/

and in an anarchist communist system how do you stop this without force from government?
what?

This post was edited by majorblood on Sep 26 2016 12:27pm

It would be done with force if necessary, but not by a government

I'll rephrase it; capitalism encourages greed. A move away from capitalism may inherently reduce greed.