Anyone going shopping this week?

Assuming the state is actually liberal (what one might call libertarian these days), there's absolutely no reason that should necessarily happen. The commune as an organization can buy the land it needs and then establish whatever system it likes. To the extent that "capitalist" laws get in the way, it's to the protection of the individual's rights. To the extent they're going further, you know well I think those laws should be repealed. As for existing within an external environment, even the Spanish Revolutionaries kept money around to trade with the outside world, and that didn't seem to cause them problems internally.

I think you're vastly overestimating the likelihood of what you'd call success. Kibbutzim are neither dominating Israel, nor showing signs of even starting to trend in that direction despite a culture that historically embraces communalism, nor being mercilessly crushed. What is happening though is that they fail to keep up with increases in standards of living that the rest of the country enjoys. They're backward, and barely avoiding becoming more so (largely due to privatization in reforms). Worry about the possibility of success before worrying about how the rest of the world will react.

A state of affairs no less fantastical than that proposed by anarcho-communists.

Since the definition of "rights" are entirely what is at stake here that's obviously a very large problem, don't you think?

My reference was to the doctrinal system (the media and so forth), not to the existence of money. The idea that some island of society can exist with a separate consciousness and not be totally perverted by the onslaught of corporate-controlled propaganda that we live with is a complete folly.

Since I'm not pushing for the establishment of communes and instead indicating specifically why they would fail, that would be a strange thing for me to worry about. My statement was in relation to how capitalists react when they smell even a hint of something that might challenge their dominance, in this form or any other. Class war is real, and they're determined to win.

Yes. The capitalists at the top of the chain would employ the tools of government, and the fire power inherent in it, to fight back against those who want to remove the hierarchical system. Oppressors will always fight hard to continue oppressing.

Better education, and more defined critical thinking skills would push people away from the current system of apathy. Apathy at the bottom keeps people rich up top. When politicians in the U.S. talk about education, they're not talking about critical thinking skills, it's more about keeping workers in the plants.

You're pushing that murder bit awfully hard, considering that people are dying because they can't afford their insulin, while also downplaying your initial statement of "we may be letting people die." I'm not even talking about murder, but you're hot and heavy on the idea. Non-violent revolution would be the preferred method, and I push it harder than anything else because it is still the ideal situation. That said, the Civil War happened because half of the country didn't want to lose its economic power by having its enslaved workforce freed, and most of those who were in favor of the fighting were wealthy landowners, who convinced the poor fool who had little that the north was trying to end his way of life. All revolutions have bloodshed, unfortunately, because the wealthy elite will not go without a fight, even if the purpose of the fight is to save lives by changing the system to something more egalitarian. This is what you defend. You talk about revolution as if it's a murder fest, because you can't imagine the rich, or the government, moving aside and acceding to what is right rather than what is profitable. Shouldn't that tell you something about this system we're in?

This was pulled directly from your ass, because you haven't thought any of this through, and clearly you don't think I have. All you can think of is forced labor because people are forced into labor now just so they can eat, as if things like the Ludlow Massacre never happened right here in the United States. Like most people, you automatically assume the worst about a system you don't know, because the one you do know hasn't killed you yet.

Firstly, Anarcho-communism advocates an automated labor system, where machines do the repetitive and dangerous tasks such as mining, keeping human lives at risk to a bare minimum. There is no State forced labor education or death camps option, because we're not in the USSR, because the USSR was a State capitalist system in everything but name. The hierarchical system, combined with the forced labor at low wages in order to feed the people at the top was pushed from the outset by Lenin, when the Bolshevik revolution happened. The people were promised a system of government where labor unions would have the greatest say, where the worker could speak without condemnation. That changed quickly because he had already established his own designs to take power. The sad thing about that is the people didn't even realize it until power had been in his control, and some never did realize it.

No, respect for human rights doesn't play into it, since DeBeers is a corporation, and they're the ones forcing the labor. You're absolving the abuser. Their goals aren't human rights. Human rights? Nestle has destroyed ecosystems so you can have Nestle bottled water. Capitalism does not care about human life at the bottom, and it cares about personal property (which communism supports the right of personal property) only insofar as to how you will be paying for it, and when you'll be buying more of it.

I disagree, but then this isn't something that can be demonstrated until Capitalism collapses, or Anarcho-Communism is successful. We might have to wait a while. Or not. Who knows?

You're pretty sure of a lot of things that aren't correct here. You've already shown that you're willing to fall back on the old USSR tropes as if those represent anarcho-communism, because you hear the word communism and it makes you react negatively because you have been conditioned to believe the worst about it. That's why after 9/11, we were told to keep buying stuff so the terrorists wouldn't win. Remember that message? Capitalism is all about opportunism, taking whatever it needs to appropriate in order to increase its profitability.

You don't even know how law works in Anarcho-Communism, because here you're actually stuck on the anarchy aspect of it. You've been told that anarchy is a rule free, chaotic world of murderers and rapists, where no one is punished, and everyone just takes whatever they want, and it isn't. Anarchy is about having an equal voice without a hierarchical system. It is a lateral system, where an individual has as much power as any other. That is why education and critical thinking are essential tools of an anarcho-communist system, because people will have to learn how to work together to make things work.

Any actual evidence of this happening?

Everyone, even the dirty capitalists prefer automation. But not all jobs even highly hazardous ones can be automated.

I have pretty much decided on the TCL 6 series 65" for $999.99. I can buy a sound bar to improve the sound but all the sites are saying that set has the best picture quality for the money and the few sets with better picture quality are all in the $2500-$3000 range.

That sounds like a nice TV. It's amazing how far technology has come just in a handful of years. My parents first HDTV was a 42" Toshiba that cost $1000 at the time. It was 720p, and we were floored by how incredible the picture quality was. I have a 42" 1080p LED TV made by Sanyo that cost $200, and the image quality is beautiful (as far as I'm concerned). It also weighs something like 15 lbs.

Hell, I still remember working for a rent to own company, and lugging a 70" projection screen up 2 flights of steps and killing myself in the process, and handing people the receipt knowing it would be back at our store in a few months because the damned thing was the same price as an economy class car.

LOL!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

In what system would you NOT be subject to the "property relations," "laws of the state," and "doctrinal system?" If that's a failing, it's hardly unique to capitalism.

I'm not aware of any commune ever being crushed, but I admit that may be because few people are attracted to that having been raised in a capitalist system.

Freedom and democracy can be opposing ideals; a lynch mob is democratic, after all. No system will be able to maximize both freedom and democracy, because at a certain point one can become antithetical to the other. But I maintain that capitalism--and the liberal democracies in which capitalism flourishes and which capitalism sustains--provide the best balance of both.

Most TV have several boards in them. The power board, main board, T-conn, and the wifi board. Cheaper manufacturers and sets will combine some of the boards into one. Vizio is one that will do that.

My previous tv set was a Sanyo and it soldiered on for many years. It is a rather low key Japanese brand but their quality is good and their prices are usually extremely competitive. I doubt they innovate much the way the larger firms do but they do sell a pretty good product at a reasonable price.

Yeah, at this point it's just a middle of the road brand, but if your budget is small, you can get a pretty nice TV. I love mine, the colors are vibrant, the image is sharp, there's no ghosting or lag of any kind, and I can watch Star Trek in 1080p, so it works for me!

Back in the 1990s, we had the whole megillah: Fisher home stereo with CD player, and 25" TV (which was standard for the time). Fisher was owned by Sanyo, but was a solid quality brand for small budgets. Now, I believe, Sanyo is owned by Panasonic, and I figure Panasonic is still a good quality manufacturer most of the time.

Like you say, though, they're a good quality brand, and you really can't beat them for value. I figure if I get 7-10 good years out of my TV, it will have been well worth it.

Meet Alec Raeshawn Smith. He's certainly not the only one.

Sad but the article lacks details about the family situation to verify that they really could not afford insulin.

My middle sister has used insulin for her Type I diabetes for the last 42 years and I did my senior research paper on diabetes and diabetes research so I have some familiarity with insulin and its costs.

So, why do you think that he ran out of insulin?

Without knowing details all I could do is speculate. Perhaps he or his family blew the money on lottery tickets.

Not likely but I have heard of people (normally older ones) not buying vital medicine and playing the lottery with the money.

People are so greedy.

This, my dear friends, should be a most obvious troll post. Take this post into account when you remember his Samuel troll account at TBBS.