>Communism doesn't work
>Actual communism hasn't ever been tried
Shut up. Functioning communism would be awesome. How could we MAKE it work?
Invent star trek style replicators.
>>1161224
Why don't you try living in a commune?
It's been tried and would surely work depending on your objetives
>>1161224
Achieving post scarcity without having Skynet kill us or dissolving into grey goo
Kill all who disagree, business as usual.
What kind of woman wants to be equal to every other idiot and man child?
Why live if you're not living to raise your power and status above others?
>>1161224
It can't work. Human nature never changes.
>>1161259
>Human nature constantly changes
FTFY
>>1161224
What exactly is "actual communism"?
>>1161267
How did nordics become the master race if human nature never changes?
>>1161263
What, no it doesn't. Educate yourself on world history and how the people lived and what were they thinking back then. People nowadays are exactly the same, it's the same software.
tl;dr nobody would work 16 hours a day 7 days a week to provide for some random comrades.
>>1161267
Yer mum's collectivized arse
>>1161263
Culture and nature aren't the same thing
>>1161271
Masters of what?
>>1161272
>human nature
>not even considering the palaeolithic.
>>1161259
>MUH HUMAN NATURE
>>1161259
No such thing. This is a philosophy board, don't embarrass yourself.
>>1161263
>FTFY
>>/r/fullcommunism
Hey comrade, you have any oppressed masses turn you down for a date recently? I know how you cucks love validating fatties
>>1161276
Masters of the Universe
>>1161290
I'm not a communist, suggesting that human nature never changes is retarded though.
>>1161224
>Functioning communism would be awesome. How could we MAKE it work?
you can't it goes against human nature
>>1161297
You're the only one to bring up "culture."
Human nature doesn't exist, you're not even trying to prove your point.
>>1161297
You're actually defending tabula rasa m8.
>>1161299
Read some works from ancient Rome and tell me how much human nature changed in 2000 years.
Pro-tip: it didn't.
It'd also be great if humans weren't violent cunts, but we've been trying to make that work for thousands of years with no luck.
>>1161308
2000 years is nothing, have a look at the neolithic and palaeolithic.
>>1161231
Communes have sub-conscious hierarchies and thus are not actual communism as defined by Marx as stateless socialism. You can't be stateless if there's an inherent hierarchy. The reality is that people look for leaders and flock to them and thus a stateless entity cannot exist. Even the "anarcho"-syndicalist state of the CNT-FAI had leaders, a hierarchy and a state. True communism has never been tried solely because it's impossible.
>>1161314
>2000 years is nothing, have a look at the neolithic and palaeolithic.
Sure, give me some books by neolithic and paleolithic authors to read.
>>1161317
"Haha! You rused yourself"
You did though, how does any species change over long periods of time if not through a genetic influence, claiming that human nature is unchangeable is ignorant, do you deny that genetics has an influence on behaviour?
>>1161325
Are you saying that there has been no evolutionary pressures which arose due to the transition between a hunter gatherer to farmer lifestyle?
>>1161317
Lack of human nature is apparent. People within the same culture, neighbors even, don't act alike to one another.
If human nature existed, then there would never be a concept of communism or any other ideology really. To what degree does our nature define us? Because this fucking "nature" doesn't seem to be preventing anyone from living in communes, monasteries, or any other form of lifestyle.
>>1161224
stop treating /his/ as lefty version of /pol/ you commie fag
>>1161319
Marx's stateless society is like paradise without the houris.
>>1161341
>Wants to discuss an ideology
>lefty /pol/
we have a book about it: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread
>>1161329
>Over a period of millions of years? Yes. Because people decided to adapt different norms? That's not nature. That's culture
I'm not waiting millions of years for communism.
I'll cut through the autism and get to the crunch:
Culture changes with technology and time. So if you want to make communism invent a universal portable factory.
Why? Because it eliminates the capitalist class bloodlessly. There is no capitalist class because the existence of capital propped up by labour is now inefficient. In fact under this scheme communism would be preferable, because without central direction one could continuously create factories that they could use to build an army from scratch
So under this hypothesis Communism is not only feasible, it is the only stable political equilibrium. The only unstable equilibrium would be pure libertarianism, which would only be useful on the frontier of human expansion
>>1161355
Good luck getting any of these morons to agree. But yes, being post-scarcity could allow us to be communist.
>>1161319
>Marx as stateless socialism
impossible then as outside sources would take it over and enforce hierarchy
>>1161340
All you've done is proven that human nature and culture exist side by side, where nature allows for a band of lifestyles with different consequences, with the only other limitation being the physical world. Instead of defending Marxism, that bloody-handed cult of death, how about advance technology?
No need to keep whinging that human nature doesn't exist. And you get your beloved communism
>>1161355
I'm not a communist, just a stem bio fag who got triggered by you saying that human nature is unchangeable.
>>1161365
I said that in the post. You should try reading the whole thing instead of memeing after the first sentence. Communism is literally impossible, but the pro-commie idiots are going to shill for it anyways.
>>1161367
>b-b-but going from hunting to farming changes the human nature, you guys
You're an idiot
>>1161367
You seem to misunderstand then. I didn't say human nature is a single point across infinite space. I said it's unchanging. That's a vast amount of space, but it doesn't cover communism in our present material culture
>>1161224
Mises wrote a several hundred page book specifically on why it wouldn't work, and there's the fact scarcity is prohibits long term communism.
>>1161373
I'm not sure what you include as 'human nature' and changing selection pressures.
>>1161224
>How could we MAKE it work?
by rejecting the moronic leninist notion of a vanguard party and of some kind of elite leading group that must guide and educate the proletariat
the state having control over the means of production does not equate to the proletariat being in control of the means of production. the only way to achieve true workers liberation is to apply democracy in its most direct form at its most base level, by organizing factories and workplaces into syndicates run via direct democracy (with a little representation here and there to streamline things, but democratic representation). similarly streets must be run by those who live on them.
in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety. such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.
national government would take the form of irregular conventions of representatives of the syndicates, convened only to decide in matters of the greatest national importance. one a delegate has sat at one convention they will be forbidden from sitting on the convention again, in order to prevent the corruption inherent in any representative democracy.
worth noting is that the free market, or at least some kinds of free marked and competition in the market place, would be accepted. However private property on a large scale will not be allowed. for example, if you want to open a piano store and sell pianos, and you put up the capital for it, it will be acceptable, so long as you pay your employees fairly and give them asay in their work conditions, however opening a chain of piano stores that you run from an office rather than actually working in the stores is no.
>>1161271
To be a master you should actually rule something, Nordics are such cucks they don't even control their own countries.
>>1161361
pseudo-post scarcity. I prefer the term post-productivity
>>1161378
Well have you read any books? Human Nature did not change between hunting and farming, merely economic circumstances. People still tried to horde personal goods and food, even though in the days of agriculture land was shared in common, and food and goods from hunts were also hoarded by individuals to the best of their ability. Now, who could guess that when food and goods were produced to feed every individual in an area, and than some, people hoarded goods?
>>1161379
>in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety. such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.
Let me tell you how this will work out - civil war.
>>1161379
>in order for any of this to work the entire proletariat must, obviously, be armed. idiotic bourgeois ideas such as the police and military must be done away with and society transformed from one where individuals are taught to depend on authority for safety, to one where they depend on themselves and each other for safety.
What could go wrong?
And the kicker
>such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available
Yeah, that CNT lasted real long.
>>1161385
source?
global revolution
machines to get everything done but intellectual work, so you dont have to work unless you dont want to
the other option is violence, bloodshed and eradication of the enemies of the working class, globally
>>1161388
Not him, but you should read any social history on the days of mass agriculture. Peasants hoarded the shit out of crops and often purposely misrepresented their harvests to keep more..
>>1161392
It's nonsense, source of gtfo :^)
>>1161379
This is the least shitty form of tech-ignorant communism but it's still half-formed
If you want direct democracy I am hoping that is applied to the national level. And if that is the case you should definitely allow for temporary task forces of experts to deal with national crises
That makes this rather less bad.
Still sounds unstable
Even Marxist analysis is horseshit, the real ruling class right now are the bankers and they don't own any means of production.
>>1161379
>such a country will be impossible to conquer thanks to the massive amount of soldiers and partisans it has available.
Except, you know, by an actual army with superior organization and tanks and planes and artilery.
>>1161388
Well take for example, any unearthed burial mounds from any time. Almost every society that we've unearthed tombs from, we observe that personal goods associated with the burial mound will contain things that the person owned, their own personal property.
>>1161396
Village Life in Late Tsarist Russia is a start. It was the last surviving agrarian state. Osceola is a good one about sharecroppers. Vilimani covers agrarian Tanganyikans in the 18th and 19th century. I don't have anything older for you.
>>1161403
what's your source for this?
>>1161386
>Let me tell you how this will work out - civil war.
well, that is generally what tends to happen when left wing forces take control of a country, the trick is to win
>>1161387
>What could go wrong?
you tell me
>Yeah, that CNT lasted real long.
teh CNT was chronically short of weapons and ammunition for its entire existence, also the CNT never proceeded past the embryonic revolutionary stage, once the whole of a state has been ruled by the true will of the people for a period of even as low as 5 years, it will become unconquerable
>>1161405
this isn't a source, just an anecdote.
I don't even get why syndicalist want to abolish free market capitalism in all honesty. Supposing that such a society existed, could they not form their own personal communes and other areas where goods are shared in common willingly, should they present the capital? I won't try to appeal to marxist since those guys refuse to accept anything other than their own brand of autism.
>>1161400
I'm sorry anon, and I hate saying communists are ever right, but what bankers have is called financial capital and communists interpreted that realistically enough even back in Lenin's day
All the subsequent analysis was bullshit, though
>>1161410
> once the whole of a state has been ruled by the true will of the people for a period of even as low as 5 years, it will become unconquerable
Asspull of the week right here
>>1161410
>give everyone guns and tell them to sort their shit out
>no cops or military
>no judicial system
Shouldn't take rocket appliances to figure this one out.
>>1161411
>this isn't a source
Those are fucking books. Two of them are primary sources. Don't fucking "not a source" me, you pedantic little Marxist shit.
>>1161411
The denial of all anecdote is also terrible argumentation
>>1161418
How is that related to the transistion from hunter gatherer to farmers at all?
>The significant lifestyle changes from a small, nomadic, hunter-gatherer society to a large, sedentary, agrarian society resulted in major health changes among the population. After analyzing trends in bone growth, enamel development, lesions, and mortality, archaeologists determined that there was a major decline in health following the adoption and intensification of agriculture.[10] Compared to the hunter-gatherers before them, skeletons of farmers at Dickson Mounds indicate a significant increase in enamel defects, iron-deficiency anemia, bone lesions, and degenerative spinal conditions.
>he decline in health of Dickson Mounds’ population over time can be attributed to the increased reliance on agriculture, which led to a less varied and less nutritious diet, more strenuous physical labor in the fields, and more crowded permanent settlements that facilitated the spread of infectious diseases.[9] Some also say the decline in health is due to the expansion of long-distance trade with larger economic systems, such as Cahokia, which resulted in exploitative relations in which residents of Dickson Mounds were giving away needed food for items of symbolic value.
>>1161410
The society you're pushing forward on a governmental level is still subject to the problems of any government. Say this democratic society is set up, it only works if we assume there is a common good of the "Proletariat". However, we know this is not the case even during the 1800's when most jobs were either agriculture, or straight up manufacturing. Different groups have different wants, and there are a lot of groups. In this democracy scenario, one or many groups would get shafted during the most margin of majorities and cause division in the society.
>>1161420
You're claims about the transition from hunter gatherer lifestyles to early agriculture have no basis.
>>1161398
>If you want direct democracy I am hoping that is applied to the national level
thats literally the whole problem with direct democracy, you cannot expect direct democracy to come up with adequate solutions at teh national level, put simply because nations are too big and it is too hard for people to properly understand all the issues they would be voting on. direct democracy functions much better on a local level.
> temporary task forces of experts to deal with national crises
stop right there you Stalinist shitlord, but being serious, this is literally exactly the reason that socialist countries keep turning into dictatorships
>>1161402
>Except, you know, by an actual army with superior organization and tanks and planes and artilery.
Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Vietnam, partisans on the eastern front, arguably korea, most of the african bush wars, etc, etc
obviously partisans dont always win, but your an idiot to think they'll always lose. and while other countries are spending millions building smart bombs, syndicates can spend that money on homes and schools
>>1161424
Homeboy asked about agrarianism and communal land. I don't have a dog in the hunter-gatherer fight, just that the idea of agrarian societies not being selfish is wrong. You could probably look into hunter-gatherer Native Americans. They did have the concept of personal property contrary to popular belief. Fact of the matter is, humans today aren't really that much different than 1000 or 2000 or 5000 years ago. I don't know what you're trying to argue with the hunter-gatherer bullshit, but the past wasn't the communist utopia leftists try to make it. It was either brutish survival (ask the Australian aborigines who have individuals that were hunter-gatherers as little as a decade ago) or hoarding your shit from other peasants.
>>1161436
I'm not a communist, and never suggested that I was, property rights and such are irrelevant to this.
>>1161439
It was related to human nature, read the chain of posts.
>>1161440
They're the entire discussion, since we are talking about the change between hunter gatherer societies and farming societies on a social level, particularly (From what I can see) the sharing of goods on personal and group level.
>>1161446
But I just showed that human nature hasn't actually changed on a basic level.
>>1161433
My hypothesis is the exact reason why they do is because a small number of ideologues become angry that everyone else doesn't act the way they want so they impose order from above
This eventually ends up with the leaders turning on each other, unable to fathom each other's subconscious rejection of communist dogma in their personal actions
>>1161416
okay 'unconqerable' is kinda inviting reality to prove me wrong, but you see how i am proposing an alternative to an established military
>>1161418
a judicial system might work within the context of direct democracy, is the cops and military that must be done away with. you think people cannot live without them because if people realized otherwise the ruling elite would pretty quickly have a severe problem on their hands, namely that the population would no longer depend on them for their idea of safety.
>>1161427
this can be solved by not trying to come up with solutions for everything on a national level. agricultural syndicates will deal with agricultural issues on a local basis, industrial syndicates will come up with solutions for industrial issues, conflicts between syndicates can be resolved with the mediation of other syndicates.
as i said, national conventions are rare and national decisions are only taken when absolutley necessary, so the kind of majority decisions that shaft certian sections of society are avoided as much as possible.
>>1161447
Just because you prefer it as a two sided argument doesn't meant that there aren't other positions.
And 'property rights' however you define them are just a social construct, rather than an aspect of human nature,
>>1161450
>you think people cannot live without them because if people realized otherwise the ruling elite would pretty quickly have a severe problem on their hands, namely that the population would no longer depend on them for their idea of safety
Allow me to explain: If you are the only thing standing between you, your family, your shit and the hordes of people that want your shit, you aren't going to stop them. The gun is the great equalizer, but also the great dictator and you just gave one to everyone. You talk about abolishing personal property, and to each their own, but the second you get a collective of people who decide they want something from another collective of people/individual there's nothing to stop them. Your little fantasy state will either devolve into civil war or a lawless hellhole within minutes.
>>1161448
I doubt we're talking about that same thing.
>>1161449
>My hypothesis is the exact reason why they do is because a small number of ideologues become angry that everyone else doesn't act the way they want so they impose order from above
which is exactly what a system of direct democracy based on local syndicates avoids. There are now powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.
they can become as angry as they want with how people act, but because the system is based on direct democracy they cannot counteract or fight against the popular will.
though i would temper that with the idea that syndicates are all local, so we're not talking about some grand national 'popular will' as if everyone thinks the same, but just people in given areas having direct control of their lives
>>1161450
Then would these Syndicates not compete with each other for the goods being used in this society? We can assume you wouldn't suppose that somehow there would be unlimited goods in an area, and since multiple industries make use of the same goods, they would compete with each other, most likely at each others detriment.
>>1161459
You guys said that human nature has changed. It hasn't on any fundamental level. The nature of humanity as a society has changed, but human nature has not. I gave examples as to this being the case. If that does not clear up my point, I don't know what you people are looking for. I was just giving historical background that human nature is human nature.
we kill everyone over the age of 5, we burn the buildings, books, everything man created
>>1161471
The time frame you're thinking of might have had minimal change in human nature, but to deny the potential, let alone the slow yet continuous change seems to indicate a misunderstanding of evolution.
>>1161471
I don't think he's serious in all honesty. He mentioned he's a stemfag, so he probably just read a few wiki articles and based his entire historical view on that.
>>1161458
>hordes of people that want your shit
clealry there is a large mob of bandits and thieves for every normal family, oh wait, there isnt, only small portion of the population commit crime regularly and the police aren't great at stopping them to begin with. furthermore in a society where we dont ahve to maintain scarcity of work and low wages because of a capitlaist system of exploitation, everyone can be provided with a job and fair pay, removing economic motivations for crime to begin with.
>You talk about abolishing personal property
abolishing private property, there is an important difference between the two
>but the second you get a collective of people who decide they want something from another collective of people/individual there's nothing to stop them
except the fact that everyone has guns, so any kind of theft or coercion is going to run into serious armed opposition. further to that, if one syndicate attacks another it stands to reason all other local syndicates will intervene on the side of the attacked syndicate, protecting it and preventing this banditry.
>>1161463
here is where we would see the free market at play, and before any of you asshats say im just reintroducing capitalism, look up the difference between a free market and capitalism. when a resource is scarce, and its scarcity cannot be alleviated by other syndicates helping those who produce it to relieve production, then the resource would have to be distributed on a free market basis to the syndicates who need it, but tempered with the advice of other syndicates to ensure one industry does not use all of the scarce resource, and subject to a national convention decision if serious problems with its distribution arise.
the whole point of this is to avoid central planning which is both horrendously inefficient and creates opportunities for individuals to horde power.
>>1161460
>There are now powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.
meant to say:
There are no powerful individual offices for said ideologues to hold and use to implement their solutions from above.
>>1161503
While I agree with many of your points, I ask why couldn't a free market society just form and syndicalist set up shop within it using their own capital and voluntarily living in their communal society, instead of forcing the running interest of society at large to be syndicalist?
>>1161483
>The time frame you're thinking of might have had minimal change in human nature
We're talking a time frame of at LEAST 4000 years and human nature remained static at a fundamental level across the globe. That's somewhere in the ballpark of 80 generations. You see microevolution in other species well before that. Even then, the reality of the situation is that human nature isn't solely human nature but nature itself. When things are lean, humans are extremely selfish except to their offspring and other immediate family. When things are fat, humans skim their personal wants off the top and share only the spoils. The same goes for any animal. What you're asking of humanity is a change of not just human nature but of nature itself. Good luck.
>>1161488
>further to that, if one syndicate attacks another it stands to reason all other local syndicates will intervene on the side of the attacked syndicate, protecting it and preventing this banditry
Name one time when one state was attacked and every other state intervened on their behalf.
>>1161508
>4000 years
>microevolution
>>1161519
As a bio fag, you should know that it's the generational count that matters and not solely the number of years. Generally speaking, you get microevolution on species level at 50 generations or so. We're at roughly 80 generations since our first continuous civilizations. We haven't seen any macroevolution of humanity over the last 4000 years.
>>1161506
there is nothing preventing the formation of syndicates within a free market system, indeed many businesses are actually, to some extent, run by their employees. however, this simply means that some businesses aren't so bad, the system that profits off the back of cheap labour and opresses billions around the world remains. People are still preposterously rich simply because they moved some shares around while others work 12 hour days in sweatshops for subsistence wages. the political system is still deeply flawed and results in idiots and puppets of the elite being put into power.
i dont think a syndicalist society will be perfect, there will still be problems, however i do think it will result in a better overall life for the majority of people than the current one provides.
>>1161508
>Name one time when one state was attacked and every other state intervened on their behalf.
>state
where talking about syndicates here, a democratically organized workplace functioning within a wider federation of such organizations is not the same as the geopolitical game played by the elite to divvy up the world among themselves and any comparison of the two is idiocy.
>>1161525
>a democratically organized workplace functioning within a wider federation of such organizations is not the same as the geopolitical game played by the elite to divvy up the world among themselves and any comparison of the two is idiocy
Handwaving away reality isn't going to save your failed state.
>>1161522
mircoevolution and macroevoltion are almost/if not exclusively creationist terms, good night anon, I'm done for now.
>>1161533
If you say so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
To quote le bald philosophy man: "Not an argument"
>>1161538
>Microevolution over time leads to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales
>>1161528
youre not serious right?
syndicates run by direct democracy and states run by an elite are quite simply not comparable
they are completely different things
its like me saying 'bees build hives' and you saying 'do grizzly bears build hives? no, therefore bees never do it either'
also
>failed state
i think you'll find that what im proposing is in fact the lack of a state, do some reading
>>1161543
And how is that any different than what I said? You're going for the top memer prize, lad.
>>1161548
You realize that there used to be these things called guilds. These guilds were indistinguishable from what you call syndicates. These guilds would go to war with each other. But yeah, I'm sure your proposed state (it has a hierarchy and even a national government by your own admission), will be successful. It certainly won't dissolve into chaos overnight.
>>1161543
Never been observed. Not science.
>>1161550
>micro-evolution doesn't result in and cause changes in human nature.
>>1161565
>micro-evolution doesn't result in and cause changes in human nature.
Well, apparently it hasn't.
>>1161560
>These guilds were indistinguishable from what you call syndicates
guilds :They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, trade union, a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials.
syndicate: A syndicate is a self-organizing group of individuals, companies, corporations or entities formed to transact some specific business, to pursue or promote a shared interest.
i can see why you have become confused, allow to correct your error. guilds bear some similarity to syndicates, in fact many could be described as syndicates, however what i am proposing is syndicates that are run on a direct democratic basis and not within the confines of a state system ruled by an elite. furthermore rather than simply 'controlling trades' the syndicates form the basis for a truly democratically run society. i hope you can now see your error, there is no need to feel embarrassed, anyone could have made it.
>>1161576
Not him but you're just pulling shit out of your ass the whole thread.
>>1161525
However, unfettered capitalism has shown itself to only increase living standards over time. While the conditions of third worlders is horrid, by comparison the society around them is no better. Meanwhile, while not fully consolling on a world wide scale, the economist Thomas So well noted 53% of Americans at one point join the top 10% of American society. He also noted people in the bottom 20% of American society almost always grow more rich. On the other hand, the top 20% almost always lose income.
>>1161581
thank you for you're insightful contribution
>>1161588
It's not any less insightful than the monumental pile of horseshit you produce with your posts.
>a democratic army would work within 5 years!
Everything about this statement is an asspull. The notion that it should work to start with, the arbitrary 5 year period, everything.
>>1161587
>On the other hand, the top 20% almost always lose income
in the past 15 years this is certainly untrue, the median wage in America has stagnated since teh 70% but the income of the top 1% has increased twenty fold
furthermore i idea that simply because you spend some time of your life on top of the pile doesn't justify a capitalist system of exploitation. at the end of the day its personal preference, but i would much rather have a guarantee of decent standards of living at all times than a chance at temporary excessive wealth which i must compete with others for.
>>1161602
i was just providing an arbitrary estimate of how long it would take a society to provision everyone within it with arms and allowing for the fact that in the immediate aftermath of a revolution / civil war not everyone will be willing to defend their homeland. also you missed out the 'even as low' bit which clearly indicates a level of uncertainty.
do you have any real criticisms of what ive said other than silly nitpicking and 'hurr, its an asspull!'
>>1161608
I think you're misunderstanding the satistic. Those BORN into the top 20% will almost surely lose their average income over time.
>>1161619
>criticismd
Make sure you produce something even worth criticizing first. There's 0 substance in your posts.
>>1161626
oh, yeah i thought you meant that just the wages of the rich fell.
thats interesting but my argument remains, i fundmentally see providing everyone with a basic and decent standard of living as more important that an oppertunity to have excessive, even unjustified, wealth. i understand that the system im proposing may lack in opportunists for some, but no system is perfect.
>>1161630
>i wont criticize it if its not good enough
>i wont criticize stuff thats bad
>>1161644
Not just bad, it's fucking nothing.
>>1161654
then why are you posting?
>>1161635
But capitalism has already done that for you, without any revolution needed. Take for example any western country. Real poverty has been ELEMINATED in those societies, even the poorest of the poor are more likely to die of obesity than starvation. With that people can than excell ans grow even more rich instead of being locked.
Destroy the family, destroy the state, destroy religion
no thanks
>>1161668
Just not well enough, friendo. Not the same guy you were replying too, by the way. Real poverty has been eliminated in most western nations, but there is still more that could and should be done for each person.
>>1161224
>How could we MAKE it work?
By making people work. But slavery is wrong.
>>1161267
Democratic ownership of the means of production, a classless, moneyless, and stateless society, and the guaranteed rights of all people
>>1161224
Remove all powerful capitalist enforcing countries, and have atleast 1 state that is able to sustain it's entire population without being reliant on trade.
Good luck.
>>1161754
That does not go to show what capitalism has done, but what capitalism can do. The process takes time sure, but all historical evidence points towards the fact capitalism only improves the areas it is in for extended time.
>>1161754
Poverty hasn't been eliminated, it's been moved geographically.
>>1161784
>this meme again
>>1161259
Actually the nature of a species changes a lot, its called evolution
>>1161784
People in China and India are becoming less poor, at the expense of people in parts of the US. And I feel for those people in Appalachia and the Rust Belt who got objectively fucked over by their government's trade policies.
That said, there is overall less poverty in the world than there was thirty years ago, directly by virtue of those people in Appalachia and the Rust Belt taking it in the asshole for thirty years straight.
>>1161800
The whole world is gaining more resources thanks to technology, but they aren't getting devided more equally now. Millions of people still starve to death, and that's for no other reason than we'd rather throw food out than give it to people who can't pay.
>>1161800
But that is not how this has worked. Those people in the rust belt still have higher material wealth and higher standards of living than a person 30 years ago. More over statistics don't support your thesis. Only 7 mil manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US while 32 mil service sector jobs that pay as well or better have been created in that time.
>>1161232
this pretty much, it needs to be technocratic, its completely dependent on technology. With automation of the work force making human labor obsolete the end of capitalism may be inevitable.
although trans-humanism is a good way to avoid the whole sky net/matrix thing, machines can't rise up with we merge with them, that would be like your left kidney trying to overthrow your body.
>>1161227
a replicator is basically a 3d printer that can also form matter from energy.
>>1161822
Post-scarcity is a meme.
>>1161814
>and that's for no other reason than we'd rather throw food out than give it to people who can't pay
No, it's because we can't get food from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Even so, millions of people starving to death is an objective improvement from the tens-to-hundreds of millions number which we had in the latter half of the 20th century.
>>1161820
>Those people in the rust belt still have higher material wealth and higher standards of living than a person 30 years ago.
That's only partially true; some places this is true, in other places it's like time has stood still for decades. Appalachia in particular has egregious poverty that really ought to be rectified in the US, by subsidy or investment.
>Only 7 mil manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US while 32 mil service sector jobs that pay as well or better have been created in that time.
Many fewer service jobs showed back up in the places than manufacturing jobs were lost. The Rust Belt was hurt because that region experienced a net loss of employment. The coasts were the big winners, there.
>>1161822
>technocracy
>post-scarcity
>transhumanism
How many retarded neckbeard memes can you cram into one post?
>>1161829
Your whole life is a meme.
>>1161820
The only city I can think of that completely rebounded thanks to tech / service sector is Pittsburgh. Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Youngstown, Buffalo those are still fucked.
>>1161847
Science =/= scientism
>>1161850
When Detroit finally hits rock bottom, it's gonna become a ridiculously booming cultural center. Artists can't pay rent, so they move to where-ever rent is cheap. Then come the hipsters and the yuppies and with them, dollar dollar bills y'all.
>>1161856
>hipsters and the yuppies
Why put these two into the same bag?
>>1161224
Testing communism is rather simple.
You just test their assumptions about human behavior that they use to derive their theory. If those are false, then its rather dubious that the conclusions drawn from those assumptions are correct.
>>1161833
We could get food to them if we wanted.
>>1161853
you really don't know anything do you?
>>1161870
You're a fucking retard, go back to deviantart or something with your fedoracore 2012 memes.
>>1161874
I'm still smarter and better than you
take a gun to your head and but a bullet in your brain
I think we should all calm down.
>>1161912
>I'm still smarter and better than you
No, you aren't. Not to mention you're significantly younger and uglier.
>>1161224
Communism is what makes mmorpgs boring.
No matter what you chose or do in life anyone else will be just as good at max level. Shit.
>>1161282
But he's right. As long as we don't acknowledge we're bound to certain instincts amd behaviors wel'll always be a shit-tier species.
>>1161224
Hutterites get pretty close to functioning communism so let's start from there
>small group size (less then 300)
>rigid social structures
>group shaming
>isolationism
>the minimum amount of education to function in their society
>>1161769
Sounds completely and fully inefficient. How on Earth would Humanity reach the stars with such an anarchist society? Nothing is more important than space exploration.
I pray for the arrival of the day when the duties of the "working" class are done solely by synthetics. We can finally be freed from the insanity of the left.
>>1161977
I should also add this would make the precious "proletariat" redundant.
>>1161963
That's why we need a massive superstate that can fund the colonisation of planets.
If the assumption of communism is ultimately a society without class, state, and mutual profit of labor, then communism is almost logically impossible. To assume that the need for mutual profit would not itself form a pseudo-state based on demand is how communists ignore the flaws of an ideal society.
Communists seek to tear down the traditional institutions such as the Church, the capitalist class, and finally the state. However you can never topple the state if it is the last institution which exists. There must always be one, especially in an ideology which promotes order as much as communism does. And since it is the final result of a state which led the communists to destroy the last institutions, all that happens is that the state is only more powerful than it could have ever been before and even if it was possible to live in the absolute society of communism the final obstacle would be impassible due to its influence in the communist movement itself.
>>1161619
Do you acknowledge that people change their beliefs over time? While many don't, plenty do. Not to mention your direct democracy would put the local "syndicate idiots" into power at some points, which would have negative effects. Not to mention hierarchies naturally develope in EVERY human society. There will always be people calling the shots.
If you want to keep jerking off to "everyone has a gun so there's always peace utopia state" go ahead, but you're naive and I'm done reading your bullshit.
>>1161224
>How could we MAKE it work?
You can't make the impossible work you stupid fucking nigger
>>1162035
This. Although I would refrain from using the n-word, /his/ is a racially inclusive forum.
>>1162045
Anyone who gets offended by the word nigger should leave 4chan and go to nigger/r/history
>>1161224
The human being is corrupt. Communist doesn't tolerate corruption. So there will be killings. A lot of killings.
>>1161977
So what happens when labour is fully automated and the entire working class cannot work for the wages they need to survive?
>>1161224
you cant make anything to work. people have to be mutually agreeing to it for it to work properly. forcing will eventually lead to the downfall
Because post-scarcity is impossible in a scarce universe
>>1161231
Name a socialist commune that lasted more than 10-20 years.
On the other hand, there are religious communes in the us which later 100 years.
Marx himself had no idea how it worked. He and Engels said only that each individual would be provisioned 'according to his needs'.
What a load of bullshit.
>>1161379
That wasn't just lenin who thought that. Marx genuinely believed that the proles needed to be led by intellectuals and that the revolution had to be thrust upon them.
Communism doesn't work because of how involved people are in capitalism, or whatever their native system of government is. You can't just change the foundations of government and expect things to proceed smoothly, or successfully. There is a balance of collective human nature which maintains any form of society, government or not. Changes should be made, one step at a time, is what I'm trying to say I guess
Are there any Marxist economists at the moment? I get the feeling that communism might be an unavoidable pipe dream only possible in apost-scarcity world. Is Marxism mostly supported by idealistic students who aren't studying economics?
>>1162465
Wool over eyes argumentation?
>>1162483
Humanity has always lacked self awareness. It's gotten to a point where it's not all uncommon for people to sell themselves to survive.
>complain about money
Yet when people do that, what are they trying to do to come up with an alternative solution? I mean *really*, what are people who complain about money actually trying to *do* about it other than complain?
It's easy to fit into the flow of the collective norm, let your body think rather than your brain. But it's only easier that way if we allow ourselves to be conditioned for it. It's a matter of collective choices which develop into lifestyle.
The solution is to be open minded and expand our awareness of the nature of reality.
>reality
A buzzword perhaps, but the most vital thing to have a understand of in any case. IgNOREance is cancer. But who wants to admit that they're ignorant? People get so involved with shit before they realize it. Next thing we know, we're helping perpetuate the problem.
The easy part is figuring out what's going on and why. The hard part is being honest about it.
>>1162331
State distribution of fully immersed VR, duh
>>1162491
Pretty much. It's our own grown wool
>>1162554
This is how you win ever single cap critique in CX debate, wool over eyes OP
>>1161224
fascism is the answer, communism and capitalism are circle jerk
Isn't there a small communist province in India??
>>1162583
It's just something so naturally able to be taken away from that which involves humans. That felt weird to type - but my point is that it's about object nature >of subjectivity
>>1162602
Fascism is just social democracy with a Linkin Park soundtrack.
>>1162466
There's a handful, but then again there's also only a handful of Austrian schoolers.
Marxists on the whole tend to shit on economics as a field. And rightly so since it's a pseudo-science of the highest degree.
>>1161231
Did it once. Don't recommend it. Even on a small scale communism is fucking miserable.
Imagine all the problems in a marriage dynamic/household, then add another fifteen fucking people to it. At its very best it's on par with just living normally & at worst it's fucking abysmal.
>>1161769
>moneyless
I understand why people are communists, they dont understand what money is or how it works
>>1161800
>economic advancement only advantage one side
One doesnt have to suffer economically cause some1 else wins. Capitalism has made world poverty go all time low, poverty only exist in some parts of Africa, its only a matter of time...
If the world was one big soviet nation we would all starve to death, thats fo sho
>Sorcery doesn't work
>Actual sorcery hasn't ever been tried
Shut up. Functioning sorcery would be awesome. How could we MAKE it work?
>>1161224
It works on a small scale. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, are all proof of that. They all basically started as worker-owned coops, as many startups continue to do so to this day.
But, once you reach a certain size, specialization becomes increasingly necessary. You can't have your warehouse workers, for instance, having a say in software design decisions.
The concept was given birth to in an age when Factories were self-sufficient when coupled with the towns that surrounded and supported them, and much the same could be said of farms. Under these circumstances, every factory and every farm could become a comune, and thus the concept seemed viable. Those days are long gone - every farm is specialized, and every factory is interdependent on other factories - and then there's the internet, commercing across the globe in intellectual property.
Further, no fragmented group of communes can complete with a unified nation, which is among the reasons, among nations claiming the idea as their milestone, they nearly always become the exact opposite of a series of communes owned and operated by the worker, and instead become the exact opposite of what Marx advocated - extremely centralized totalitarian governments. Said governments, always claiming this is the first step towards real communism, while never taking that next step, as it would mean relinquishing all their control.
Even the sci-fi utopian civilizations of unlimited resources referred to in this thread aren't communist. They are merely representative democracies with unlimited resources.
While some of the underlying precepts are valuable, true communism can't function in a world with anything but, and other, more efficient, forms of governments and economies will always arise, and conquer. Or, as in the Paris Commune, feel threatened and bulldoze the pale effort.
>>1163107
SCIENCE!
Granted, then it's not sorcery anymore. Damn.
>>1161224
Is this /leftypol/ now?
>>1163136
>Christian Communism
>the Essenes
>the Amish
>Puritans of Plymouth
>primitive communism
communism lasted for 100s of thousands of years and is asserted as the natural politcal form of humans
OAS (Original affluent society)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
Britain and once most of Europe lived under the "Commons", which ended after the Kings took over Common lands and privatized
Ancient Harappan Civilization was egalitarian and communistic, that was 5000 years ago
you are a collection of a communistic collective of communal cells. these cells do not operate for profit or personal gain - no, that would be cancer, if they do so.
normal cells operate for the greater good and share everything.
you are a communist system in denial.
what is biocommunism
just because you are not aware that 99.999% of your body runs automagically without your awareness, does not mean that cells are not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborites
Economically supported by Tábor's control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communal society. Taborites announced the Millennium of Christ and declared there would be no more servants and masters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborites
Economically supported by Tábor's control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communal society. Taborites announced the Millennium of Christ and declared there would be no more servants and masters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Utah
United Order, a voluntary form of communalism was settled primarily by destitute refugees from failed settlements on the Muddy River in Nevada. The extreme poverty of these settlers likely contributed significantly to their devotion to the principles of the United Order.
Orderville grew into a thriving, self-sufficient community. The success and relative wealth of the community attracted more settlers and Orderville grew to about 700 people.
/thread
>>1161294
Starring Dolph Lundgren!
Communism can only work in a small tribal community with under 1000 people
>>1161227
This times a million. Only when scarcity is eliminated can a global egalitarian system emerge
>>1161246
Attitudes like this won't help either op. Some people will always want more than others. For the astute and observant, its power. For the more impulsive its money/stuff.
>>1163228
the fuck?
have you even studied biology?
you only exist thanks to a bunch of individual cells cooperating under communism.
cells communalize to create organs. organs organize and unionize to create organisms.
stop ignoring the millions of communist cells collectivizing to operate you
>>1163262
Take your ironic b8 back to plebbit
>>1161224
Kill everyone who doesn't want to be communist, and then kill anyone who doesn't want to be what *you* think is a communist, then kill anyone who you suspect of reneging, throw your guns away at the end (but keep a few just in case) and voila, communism works.
That's how it usually goes, anyway.
>>1161769
>guaranteed rights of all people
If there's no state, no money, no class (and therefore presumably no authority), what exactly guarantees the rights of people?
>>1161224
Only good commie is one that's dead
t. person from a formerly communist country
>>1161829
And you're a shitposter. So here we are again.
First of all communism doesn't work because people will always want more.
Second of all, communism is shit because it punishes those who want to work hard and get a better life.
>>1161224
Remove what's wrong.
IE humans.
>>1163371
>People will always want more
This is an extremely capitalist concept that people have started to take as natural. No, people will not always want more, people are told to want more because that's what makes capitalist economies work.
Capitalism has literally reached a point where for so many people meaning comes from their material goods, this is the exact opposite of the natural state of affairs.
>>1163371
This is exactly the argument I hear from normies, simplistic claims with no basis.
1. Communism's primary goal is to grant everything to everyone, there isn't more you could possibly want.
2. It doesn't punish anyone. Either everyone works at one point in time in a communist society, or the future possibility of absolutely no work because of highly efficient technology.
>>1163262
There is a governing body of cells involved, that sometimes decides to do crack and ingest cancer causing substances, so the metaphor does rather fall apart at one level or another.
>>1163217
Admirable, but most of what you are describing are either small isolated groups, or communities living by the sheer grace of host nations.
Just as soon as the host nation or larger united bordering group decides they want what the communes have, or see them as a threat, or even too much of a burden, they are done.
That's the problem in the long run - nation's compete for resources. A well to do nation may tolerate a series of commune in their presence, but no group of communes can compete against the power of a more efficient united force, regardless of how much more benign they may be.
Sadly, there's no justice on the Earth, save that which we make for ourselves.
>>1163568
>Communism's primary goal is to grant everything to everyone
Except this is completely unattainable without perfect post scarcity, which is also unattainable
>>1163609
To say it is unattainable is just factually inaccurate with today's technology.
>>1163549
There's always some group that wants more, even if you manage to coddle the majority of the populous, you still have to compensate for that faction, or it will compensate on its own, destroying your system either top to bottom, or bottom to top.
"Why not have both" girl might be of help here, though that's yet to be seen.
>>1163621
It's logically impossible. There is no limit to human desire, but there is a limit of resources.
>>1163609
>>1163621
Technologically attainable, yes - economically attainable, no. That economy that is so dependant on shortages, real or imagined, is what makes the infrastructure to sustain the populous possible. That centralization of power is a requisite to civilizations of this scale in competition with one another, which is among the reasons why, even in nations claiming to seek communist utopia, you only see increasingly centralized and increasingly authoritarian power. If the natural gravity of economics isn't at play, then the iron fist authority must step in to take its place, putting you even further from communism than the raw capitalist model.
>>1163631
It's like people forget that monasteries exist.
>>1163666
People forget not everyone wants to be a monk.
>ironic trips
>>1163666
>everyone on Earth is a monk
>>1163664
A communist society is not meant to compete with other societies. Economic competition is something inherent to capitalism, communism rejects the notion of a capitalist economy.
>>1163568
>there isn't more you could possibly want
I want to live alone in a massive castle with its own hydroelectric dam, spaceport and a rollercoaster theme park. Can communism provide me with this?
>>1163691
You'll never attain that with capitalism either.
>>1163720
I know. Capitalism doesn't require post-scarcity to function, but communism does.
>>1163678
No, we easily have the tech to provide basic necessities for everyone. The main reason that doesn't happen is largely political and economic, and well, the fact that a huge swath of the population wants more than basic necessities - but and that swath's economics is what makes the excess possible to begin with.
That's the catch-22. They greed and artificial shortages people complain about are what makes the tech and infrastructure to supply the world possible. Without that, something even more insidious must take its place, and inevitable, there'll be a whole lotta blood somewhere in between.
>>1163716
>some people are born without legs, so walking isn't a part of human nature
>>1163742
I don't get what you're trying to say.
>>1163690
Yes, but you're ignoring the existence (and even if they didn't exist, inevitable rise) of these alternative factions and methodologies that will bulldoze your communist society.
Hippies are happy as hell living naked in the forest - until some corporation decides they want lumber.
Without taking that into account, your commune only exists so long as the more competition oriented host nation is willing to both allow it and can protect it. Thus it is not sustainable, in and of itself.
>>1163716
Monks, by definition, are defying human nature, that's what the ascetic life is all about - abandonment of the material world.
>>1163751
Post-scarcity isn't necessary for communism to work.
>>1163093
Yeah, that's not entirely true. Trade is capable of being positive-sum, but zero-sum if one party is not looking for an equitable trade. And unfortunately, inequitable trade with the US is the official policy of no fewer than the following:
>Germany
>Japan
>China
>South Korea
>>1161263
The nature of the world will always be power, the fabrication of communism being no different. Communism is sought after by the weak, who feel empowered by it, because it would tear down everyone who is currently more powerful than they are - which is mostly everyone.
Communism isn't even noble.
>>1163784
You was arguing that people in communism will not want more than they have. To satisfy that condition you need post-scarcity.
>>1163800
Inequitable trade is enforced by law for every corporation that is publically traded. You are legally bound to be as profitable as possible on behalf of your shareholders, pleasantries and morality be damned.
>>1163811
You need more that post-scarcity - you need mass brain surgery. Some people will always want more than they need, even if that means creating a scarcity.
controlled population
>>1163829
Well, "true communism" doesn't require that everyone be absolutely equal and everyone be absolutely equally supplied. Only that those doing the labor directly decide what is to be done with the production... Which could mean anything, really.
>>1163823
But is not enforced by law for governments. Yet, it is the official policy for these countries to have a targeted trade surplus with the US.
Also, corporate profitability and fiduciary duty even for the largest corporations simply do not make up a significant swathe of this imbalance, where currency manipulations and the repression of real household income do make up the bulk of this inequity.
>>1163716
but all it takes is one bad apple to ruin it for everyone.
Question for maxtards, does "socially necessary labor time" mean the technical minimum or average?
>>1163549
Bullshit. We are all genetically different, and testosterone is a thing. Unless you remove that hormone from humanity, there will always be people with aggressive desires. Oh, and wipe out ALL of our history, by the way - psychologically, the achievements of our past put pressure on the present, which in turn develops aggressive attitudes.
>And then the retard said that a large scale post-scarcity society was possible
>>1163849
>Only that those doing the labor directly decide what is to be done with the production
Who thought this was a good idea again? Labor work and management are massively different. Just try getting laborers to also manage, most of the time they are terrible because labor work is EXHAUSTING and consumes time.
>>1163909
>Autumn
What's with Ameritubbies naming themselves after seasons, animals and food?
>>1163916
Larry Page's, Sergey Brin's, Bill Gate's, Jerry Yang's, David Filo's, and some other crazy guys who thought it was a good idea and never amounted to other thing.
>>1163988
Computer nerds who absolutely would not have made it as far as they did if they were still the laborers of their companies.
>>1163922
Hippies.
You'll also see a lot of kids named things like Hunter.
MUH NATURE
>>1164026
>Hunter
Yeah that's also pretty retarded, naming your kids after professions. Having a first name like Tanner or Mason is just WTF tier.
>>1161868
Then we must only kill all those whose behaviour doesnt match the human behaviour model the theory is based and we achieve utopia!
>>1163744
>we have the technology
No, we don't.
A. Define "basic needs", because anything above shitty slop and a loin cloth is greed.
B. There is no way we can provide the infrastructure to do it without massive ecological devastation.
Communism opposes the values of the French Revolution.
>wanting a classless society
That's like wanting to play a fighting game with only one character, and everyone has to play that one character. Fucking boring.
>>1164167
>The misery and brutality of the entrenched class sytem is 'exciting'.
>Life is a game, bro.
Liberal as fuck.
>>1164174
>misery and brutality
>posted from my iphone in a cushy suburban home
>>1164174
>misery and brutality
Of which maybe the bottom 30%, if that, experience. For the rest, it's either extremely exciting, or at least satisfying or beneficial enough to be tolerated.
