Apparently the basic function of states wasn't clear to some, and you asked for it so there you go.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there too. — Mikie

Yep. That's how the state operates.

1. Someone who doesn't pay tax once, and then (understandably) is coerced by the state to start paying taxes, might avoid a prison sentence. Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison.

2. Being thrown in prison happens, literally, under threat of violence, and that generally involves armed policemen. The gun is literal.

Violence and subsequent imprisonment underlies the entire justice system. Perhaps that is somehow justifiable, but there's no point in trying to sugarcoat it.

You think we're not funding our national defense? — Christoffer

Sweden doesn't have a credible military at all. That goes for all European nations, with the possible exception of Poland.

So yes, Sweden is certainly piggybacking off the US military budget. Yet you confess a certain disdain for the United States, while simultaneously seeing no issue with being dependent on it for your security, and even profiting from it? Quite hypocritical.

You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about. — Christoffer

It's not very complicated. States use tax money to fund immoral practices. So taxation enables states' immoral practices.

And all states conduct immoral practices, including Sweden, which is what I've just explained to you.

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". — Christoffer

No one is actually forcing you. — Christoffer

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. If being physically thrown into prison isn't a method of forcing, a method of violent coercion, then I don't know what is.

I'm not sure how more obvious I can make it to you.

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? — Christoffer

It's a pretty good analogy, actually.

See if you can wrap your head around it.

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. — Christoffer

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest.

Ok, do so with Sweden. — Christoffer

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense.

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"?

And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. — Christoffer

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd.


Anyway,


When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. — Christoffer

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it.


Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral.

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? — Christoffer

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say.

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, ... — Christoffer

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and I would argue therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft.

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard? — Christoffer

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok.

I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. — Christoffer

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it.

You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. — Christoffer

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up?

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system. — Christoffer

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can.

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. — Christoffer

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries?

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompetent and demonstrably responsible for destroying innocent citizens' lives?

Or are these all "failed states" too?

Now we're getting to the meaty bits.

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint"... — Christoffer

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). :up:

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, — Christoffer

You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. — Christoffer

These are non-arguments.

If you don't like capitalism, why don't you just leave? You've lived your whole life reaping the benefits of a capitalist society, etc. etc.

If you don't like America's gun laws, why not just leave? Etc.

Not worth responding to.


The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. A rather archaic image of what the relation between citizens and states should look like.

It's a bit ironic to think how much this view of the state resembles the idea of the worst kinds of capitalism, with 'trickle-down' and all, only this time it also holds a monopoly on violence.


Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no.

Describe a society without taxes, ... — Christoffer

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?

If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative.

In the US you could (conditionally) get 5 years behind bars, ... — jorndoe

That's assuming you would start paying taxes after the sentence.

If you don't pay taxes, you'll spend your life behind bars.

By the way, Somalia has no taxes, but I wouldn't recommend going there. (Hint?) — jorndoe

I suppose the next time someone brings up gun violence in the US I will recommend them to immigrate somewhere with stricter gun laws. :snicker:

In almost 60 years of paying various taxes, I never saw a gun. — Vera Mont

There are literal guns stashed in the police office down the road, and they will literally be used if you don't want to go to jail after not to paying your taxes.

Let me emphasize that taxation is completely dependent upon very real and literal threats of violence.

yes

I addressed that comment. You seem to believe the Russians may have wanted Kiev, I stated that taking Kiev was never feasible given the size of the invasion force.

I skipped over the bit about Kremlin propaganda, because obviously I'm not going to try and decipher the 'true' meanings behind Kremlin propaganda.

If there are more points hidden in there, you'll have to state them more clearly.

To be clear, I'm not going to read through several articles to try and figure out what point you're trying to make.

↪Tzeentch, that wasn't quite the point. Maybe then switch to the term "commune" (or "collective" or something) instead of "state"? — jorndoe

There would be no such thing in any offical capacity, or it would just be the state under a different name, and thus totalitarianism under a different name.

What communism proposes as its end stage is quite idyllic. No one possesses anything. The "commune" doesn't possess anything. The leaders don't possess anything, no secret state that we now call a commune that continues to levy taxes, etc.

People living together in harmony, producing what they can and taking what they need.

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves. — NOS4A2

Well said.

I'll try to sprinkle some more in my opinion's and in my view's in there, but if you find the logic to sound authoritative then draw your conclusions I suppose.

... while seemingly ignoring other parts of the story. — jorndoe

Just state plainly what you would like me to address.

Without the crucial step of the almighty state abolishing itself, communism is literally just totalitarianism, and sadly previous attempts at reaching the stateless utopia have stranded in exactly that situation.

Had it not been for the obvious flaw in this plan, I would have been a communist myself.

No state, imagine that!

There is no state in the end stage of communism. No state to own things, no state to levy taxes. No state, period.

Pretty much everything discussed in this thread is speculative.

If there's something specific I haven't adressed please state it plainly, because your posts aren't always easy to decipher.

Must be tough hearing a spade being called a spade all the time, huh?

Against taxes (along the lines of NOS4A2)?
That would rule out communism and whatever socialist aspects of society. — jorndoe

Yes and no.

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. I am against taking things from other people at gunpoint, whether it's done by a common thug or a state.

I'm not against voluntarily contributing to one's community.

Communism proposes the absence of a state and self-governance. That doesn't imply taxes.

Obviously an almighty state will never abolish itself, so the communist utopia is pretty much a pipedream, but that's a different discussion.

This doesn't explain continued offensive operations against Bakhmut. If the goal is to sit back and consolidate gains, why keep attacking? — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are myriad possibilities for why they continue to pressure the Ukrainian lines.

Securing local tactical advantages, degrading the Ukrainian fighting capability, pressuring the Ukrainian forces to keep them off balance and unable to recuperate, etc.

Since they've been at it for several months, my impression is that whatever it is, they probably believe it's working in their favor.

This is inconsistent with continued Russian offensive operations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think it is definitely consistent.

That they do not intend to take large amounts of territory does not mean there aren't many other purposes those offensive operations might have, some of which I already listed.

But Russia isn't sitting back and waiting for Ukraine to attack entrenched positions, ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's probably because the Ukrainian forces lack any offensive capabilities, and if the Russians had any intention of further degrading the Ukrainian fighting capability they would have to bring the fight to them.

Given the shortage of armored vehicles and of well-motivated, well-trained troops on both sides, I would consider regiment-scale operations (3,000-5,000 soldiers) to constitute major efforts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's besides the point.

In my view, we haven't seen any large-scale offensives intent on taking large amounts of territory since the initial invasion.

No one is questioning that there is intense fighting going on around Bakhmut. The question is what purpose that fighting serves, and the capture of territory to me seems an unlikely explanation.

If their goal is to hold all of Kherson Oblast, ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some point needs to be made as to its strategic relevance weighed against the cost of holding it. We can make guesses towards the former, but for the latter we simply lack all relevant information.

However we can use the Russian actions to make an educated guess and my view is that the Russians leaving Kherson voluntarily points towards it neither being particularly stragetically relevant, nor the Russians being willing to pay a high cost for holding it.

Russia withdrew from the Kyiv and Sunny axes. It left Kharkiv retreating past Kupiansk because of a general rout in which it turned over warehouses full of munitions and hundreds of vehicles. It withdrew from Kherson City and the general environs, .... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure.

I don't see how that would be incompatible with the theory I've put forward.

I am not sure how Russia failing to take meaningful amounts of territory for almost 12 months, despite carrying out large scale offensive operations, while also losing control of meaningful amounts of territory, is not evidence that they can't take more territory. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The theory is pretty straightforward.

1. Russia invades, threatening Kyiv to force negotiations, while occupying the most strategically relevant areas in the south (land bridge to Crimea).

2. Negotiations fail, so Russia switches gear for prolonged war. The Russian army was overstretched and pulled back its lines to something more stable. This was mistakenly perceived (or deceptively marketed?) as a "Ukrainian offensive", which it clearly wasn't.

3. With the prospect of prolonged war and having to take parts of Ukraine by force, Russia's primary concern becomes the prevention of an insurgency. This means it will seek to pacify areas it occupies before conquering more territory - the 'bite-sized chunks' approach. This could take months, or even years.

4. Meanwhile local tactical battles are fought, with the primary goal of degrading the Ukrainian fighting capabilities.

Some other points:
- Neither Ukraine nor Russia has carried out large-scale offensives since the start of the invasion.
- It's debatable whether the territory lost by Russia was meaningful. Some argument has to be put forward as to why these areas would be strategically relevant. The fact that the Russians gave up most of that territory without a fight implies the opposite. Movement patterns of the Russian forces across the areas of northern Ukraine also do not imply the intent to hold for prolonged periods of time. You can still view these patterns on sites like https://liveuamap.com.

That's the positive side of individualism, but the negatives like social fragmentation, inequality, egoism and selfishness, lack of social responsibility, loss of meaning and connection. — Christoffer

What I'm trying to get across is that those negatives aren't necessarily the result of individualism.

Individualism first and foremost states that the individual has inherent value, and from a moral perspective cannot simply be bulldozed by states or collectives. In my opinion, that idea is the very cornerstone of humanism. Wherever the value of the individual is not acknowledged we find, pretty much categorically, inhumanity. Human rights and constitutions are based on the idea that individuals have rights. I could go on.

This is why I find it deeply disturbing that people on this forum have taken such an adversarial stance towards individualism, apparently attributing to it all the negative traits of our society.

Individuals left to their own devices will generally seek voluntary, mutual beneficial relations with others. They will pursue happiness, but that happiness often includes the happiness of others. They will prefer coexistence over conflict, etc.

Note also that individualism understands every individual to have inherent value, so self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - egotism - has nothing to do with individualism.

It's not individualism that is a sham. It's our western society pretending it works for the benefit of the individual that is the sham.

In fact, there's nothing individualist about our society. In the west it is not uncommon for half one's income to be taken directly in the form of tax. Meanwhile governments infringe pretty much at will upon individuals' constitutional and human rights whenever it suits them.

These are signs of a deeply collectivist society. We simply do a good job at hiding that fact, because governments have no interest in furthering ideas that would seek to limit the powers of government. Likewise, people who seek power over others have no interest in futhering ideas that seeks to take that power away.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem.

ChatGTP seems very good at pencil pushing, and considering that's what 99% of the scientific field seems to consist of these days, I see a match made in heaven.

Also, whenever I hear of programs like ChatGTP, I like to imagine the future relation between humans and AI will look something like this:

As I stated, occupying and holding Kiev against a defending force would be an extremely costly operation in terms of both manpower and time. To me it seems completely infeasible and I think it is unlikely that was their goal.

My view is that by threatening Kiev they hoped to bring the West / Ukraine to negotiate about Ukraine's position. Given the geopolitical situation between the US and China, it's not surprising they thought the West would be open to this as opposed to prolonged war.

Negotations did take place in the early stages of the war, and purportedly a peace plan was close to being signed when the US blocked the negotiations.

If negotations failed, the operations in the north would double as a diversion for operations in the south, which is where the Russians' primary territorial goals would lie in case a diplomatic solution was impossible.

It has zero track record on a large scale. A label is not a system. — Vera Mont

This sounds like the "not real communism" argument.

Communism, as stated earlier, is a clearly defined way of governing states.

As such, there are clear examples of it. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.


I'm assuming you have an idealized version of communism in mind, that (hopefully) doesn't include all the atrocity.

What you need is to put a new term on that idealized, non-horrific version of communism and call it something else, because there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations.

Put an incorruptible AI administrator in charge instead of self-proclaimed leaders who seek power, glory and wealth.
It isn't the system that corrupts the organizers; it's the organizers who corrupt the system - every system. — Vera Mont

I agree with the last part wholeheartedly - we (humanity) are for the most part trying to limit the damage done by the corrupt organizers.

Whether AI is the solution is a question I'll leave for another thread.

The Kyiv Axis utilized 70,000 soldiers and 7,000 vehicles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That figure is nowhere to be found in, for example, the ISW day-by-day campaign assessments.

Those instead speak of 31 BTGs (which would roughly amount to between 19,000 and 25,000 troops) being committed along the operational direction of Kiev.

Do note that I'm less interested in their assessments, and more interested in the information they are sharing.

If one axis out of six has one third of your entire invasion force, it's unlikely to be a diversion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Given the relatively small size of the Russian invasion force (outnumbered from the start), it's unlikely occupying and holding Kiev was ever their goal.

If Hersh's figure of ~60,000 Ukrainian defenders was accurate it would have taken the entire Russian invading force and likely a months-long battle to take the city.

And was Kharkiv just a longer diversion? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Kharkiv showed much the same pattern as Kiev, with few casualties over a two-month period, not indicative of intense fighting. The order of battle here too implies no sufficient numerical advantage for the Russian side, thus unlikely a committed assault to occupy and hold.

By this logic, Russia began shelling residential blocks in the suburbs and pounding Kiev proper with missiles "just to make their diversion more realistic." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yea, sounds like a textbook military diversion if you ask me.

A bit odd that you seem to be implying there's something off about the logic there. That's exactly how it would work.

So lets look at the basic facts around the Battle of Kiev as we know them.

The Battle of Kiev lasted a little over a month, with few known casualty figures, only that around 15 March, almost a month into the fighting, the Ukrainian side listed 162 soldiers killed.

What we know of the order of battle is that between 15,000 and 30,000 Russian troops participated in the battle.

Of the Ukrainian side we know some ~18,000 irregular forces participated, and a conspiciously "undisclosed" amount of Ukrainian regular forces.

Anyone with an iota of military understanding sees what picture this sketches.


- 162 killed after a month of combat implies low intensity fighting, entirely uncharacteristic of a classic blitz for the capital.
- 15,000 - 30,000 seems like a very low number to occupy and hold a city the size of Kiev - a city with 2.8 million inhabitants.
- With a classic blitz one would expect the attacker to aim for a 5:1 or at least 3:1 force ratio in order to ensure offensive success. The Russians weren't anywhere close to that.


In fact, they may have been outnumbered:

In one of his interviews, Seymour Hersh quotes a source saying Kiev was defended by some ~60,000 Ukrainian troops (unclear whether that included irregulars or not).

That would certainly explain why the Ukrainian order of battle remains undisclosed, wouldn't it?

Hence, the diversion theory.


So , I don't see where you get the idea that "it's pretty clear" that the Russians wanted to take Kiev, when the available data certainly doesn't point to it.

Too much beating around the bush here. Communism is a well-defined system of governance, and one with an absolutely disastrous track record at that.

I understand that some people may sympathize with its ideals. I myself do too to some extent. Who wouldn't want a fair, idyllic, self-governed society that is the envisioned endgoal of communism?

Nirvana, however, is not for this world. And that has been made painfully clear throughout history.

"Not real communism", yada yada. We've heard it all before. Somehow the total centralization of power never seems to end in the state's abolishment, but instead, predictably, with totalitarianism.

If we want to discuss certain elements of communism, and how in a different setting they may benefit human societies, that's all fine and good. But right now we seem to be stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance between the pretty ideal and the ugly reality.

Lets answer the question: "is communism a feasible method of organizing states and large communities?" once and for all with a definitive 'no' (I mean, how many more corpses would it take to convince you?), so that we may move on to new, hopefully more constructive ideas, that may or may not contain aspects of communism.

Let's definitively decouple our ideas of a better, fairer society from what is tried and tested communism, and forever close the lid on that abomination, so humanity doesn't have to repeat its blackest chapters.

I've put my arguments forward for all to criticize, and I'll happily defend them.

I gave you the opportunity to do just that, and you refused, hence my comment.

You've developed a habit of blowing hot air in this thread, and this seems to fit right into that trend.

Odd. Individualism seems to have been turned into a caricature, to be kicked by radicals who seek to justify their disagreement with people's individual choices.

I think you're confusing the collective with the state. — unenlightened

Communism as a means to organize states or similar large communities is the topic of this thread, so I'm not sure why you believe this is the result of confusion.

As per usual the individualist denies their responsibility for others and ignores their dependence on others. — unenlightened

This has nothing to do with individualism, which is a theory pertaining to the relation between states and individuals, bringing us things like individual rights, etc.

Individualism, if anything, points towards the state's responsibility for its citizens. It doesn't deny the responsibility of citizens.

Pictures and milbloggers don't sway me. That type of "evidence" is entirely compromised in today's day and age.

I stick with data that remains more or less undisputed, like troop numbers participating in certain battles, losses which were incurred, etc.

In my view, the Russians didn't seek to take large amounts of territory after the initial invasion.

They are instead seeking to pacify the occupied territories to avoid an insurgency from materializing. I believe that's the main goal of Russia's strategy in Ukraine, and I believe it is consistent with the theories I have shared in this thread thus far.

The actions on the ground after the initial invasion have largely been aimed at gaining local tactical advantages and degrading the Ukrainian military, which I think they have been successful at. (Even if the casualty ratios would favor Ukraine, Russia can simply afford to lose a lot more than Ukraine can).

A future invasion of Lithuania to connect to Kaliningrad is also not unthinkable. — Tzeentch

However, the idea that Russia is in a position to start a second war, one in which they essentially declare war on Finland, Turkey, Romania, Poland, France, the UK, and the US at once, while attacking through Belarus, thus making them protect a large area with no real military force of its own, is absolutely preposterous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Note the use of the word future.

_______________________________________________________________


How come you never replied to:

↪frank
What are in your eyes some clear indications of China's power in the Ukraine conflict? And in a similar vein, what are in your view some clear indications of Russia's "future submission" to China?

Any specific events in which the Chinese influenced the war in Ukraine to their benefit? Or events in which Russia was made to serve Chinese interests as an indicator of China's influence over Russia? — Tzeentch

I think you're confusing individualism and atomization - the latter signifying the disintegration of social bonds, individuals thus becoming atomized, isolated, 'groupless', etc. - a situation most individuals find highly disagreeable.

Atomization is made possible because the state takes over roles which were previously fulfilled by social networks, and exacerbated by things like digitalization and mass media.

As per usual, the state (the collective) is the problem, and not the cure.

To make a long story short, we disagree on some key points.

Most importantly, I believe the situation for Ukraine is a lot more dire than western media are letting on.

Second, I believe the Russian approach of occupying parts of Ukraine in 'bite-sized chunks' is a deliberate strategy.

Feasible as what?

As a form of government to nation states?

We've ample examples where that didn't work - in fact, it created about as close to hell on Earth as we could ever be. And it wasn't a fluke either. It managed to produce that on multiple occasions.

If I had to make an educated guess as to why communism applied to nation states seems to end up that way, it's because of the amount of centralized power the state acquires upon abolishing private property. Since everything still has to be controlled, you end up with the same flawed individuals running the institutions, but this time with near-godlike power.

The problem is those flawed individuals running the show. It's the same folks everywhere. And the difference between hell and limbo seems to be how much power we give them.