What did he mean by this?
>>65456369
He's only in it for the money.
>>65456369
socialism produces bad music, bad art, social stagnation, and really unhappy people
He was commenting on how states like the soviet union repressed the arts and made their people unhappy.
make america great again
>>65456369
He means that the sole purpose of making art is so people can buy it.
>>65456369
He means that top 40 music is the best ever created because it's what generates the most income to help fuel our economy.
>>65456390
But the Soviet Union was state capitalist claiming to be communist
>>65456369
he's kind of right if you think about it
shit like socialist realism and commieblocks in russia make me cringe everytime
>>65457423
You are confusing socialism and communism
>>65456369
You need certain tools to create music (instruments, recording technology, free time, records and record players to listen to music and get influence from)
All things we have thanks to capitalism.
>>65457461
Again that's communism. You can have a socialist capitalism. What is it with people and not knowing the basics of the thing they argue against?
>>65457478
There is no such as socialist capitalism
capitalism can not exist without competition
socialism crushes competition
>>65457478
Zappa's not talking about socialism lite like they have in Scandinavian countries
He's talking about socialist shitholes like the USSR and Venezuela
>>65457518
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist countries
they are capitalist countries with socialist programs that are soon to fail
>>65457518
But they weren't socialist. They didn't stand for workers rights, did t promote equality and did horrible things to the poor. If that is what Zappa actually meant and he did say that then I've lost quite a lot of respect for him
>>65457478
He didn't say socialist capitalism, he said socialism.
Socialism and Capitalism are still separate things, even if you cram them together in your tiny homogeneous Scandinavian country.
>>65457441
THIS
We just haven't tried the TRUE form of communism yet
True
>>65457561
Because communism is too easily corrupted. It's an ideal and is extremely difficult to produce given the human nature of greed
I mean, he's indirectly critiquing teleological music at a time where composers like dmitri shostakovic were being artistically repressed in russia and american serialist music was being used ideologically as a weapon against nationalistic/romantic teleogical music. But in reality, this is commie-bait and this thread will fucking suck because everyone's responses will be super super stupid.
>>65457588
H U M A N N A T U R E
>>65457613
you hold human beings in too high regard young one.
>>65457561
oh im sure it will still involve the genocide of a people
>>65457575
discharge were not commies
>>65457641
why are antifa such cocky douches?
How came /mu/ can have a normal conversation about stuff that's not music related.
But when it's music. It's all memes n shit.
>>65457461
>every single invention in the history of mankind is thanks to capitalism
>>65457461
>free time thanks to capitalism
top kek
>>65456369
It means he won't vote for Sanders if he were alive.
>>65457745
Capitalism actually hinders innovation because people are more likely to stick with what is known to generate profit than they are to take risks.
>I don't know what socialism means
>>65457777
>socialism controls all artistic integrity and never allow you to do what you believe is best for you.
I'm not even a socialist but holy shit are you retarded.
>>65457777
>>65457712
because music is inherently carefree and fun
memes are carefree and fun
correlation?
who /leftist/ here
He means that he was paying attention to what happens to socialist countries in practice.
Socialism is like forced marriage without possibility for divorce. There is no way out when the man starts abusing the woman (i.e Soviet purges) or can not provide for the woman (i.e North Korean famine).
>the 14 year olds on /mu/ try to discuss politics
wew
>>65458088
Good troll man xD
>>65458099
>troll
90% of you retards have no idea what socialism is
>>65458105
I'm sure you know what socialism is and that's why you're saying this.
As a Dane, a socialist and a resident in the happiest country on earth, I think it is fair to assume that he was wrong
;)
>>65458159
Mandatory conscription sounds awful tho.
>>65456369
his music sucks anyway
>>65458159
ur most famous musician is lar ulrich.
>>65458124
you're like that retarded kid in the playground who uses a word he doesn't understand and then goes "I know what it means, why don't YOU tell me!?" when you're called out on it
>>65458159
Denmark isn't even a socialist country lmao
>>65458193
I'm sure 7 years was played by your local radio station less that 5 songs ago.
>>65458159
>happiest country on Earth
>highest proportion of residents on antidepressants
you're happy because you're medicated to be, lefty scum
>>65458193
Hahaha, nah I think it is fair to say that Lukas Graham and MO has surpassed him by now.
>>65458211
Nah, but it's up there.
>>65458197
You're like a pedophile on a playground that opens by trying to teach vocabulary.
>>65458228
>he exposed my ignorance? better call him a pedophile
>>65458233
What ignorance did you expose?
>>65458240
Just explain what socialism is, and prove him wrong. Simple as that
>>65456369
Yup.
>>65458261
Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the state, and wealth is distributed equally to a classless population.
>>65457441
the US is state capitalist claiming to be capitalist today
>>65458219
I hate the argument about the antidepressants. I think the good countries generate a lot of good conditions for self-reflexion which inevitably causes some people to fall into the chasm of feeling their lives are pointless(the classic). At least that's what I experience in Denmark and hear from people living in Swisses.
But yeah, i guess you could say that dying due to suicide in a good country or due to poverty in a shitty liberalist country is the same. I don't know shit.
>>65458304
What a surprise, he thinks state socialism is socialism
>>65458345
*and hear from Swisses
>>65458304
No.
It's worker ownership of the means of production, and the abolition of capitalism, which is characterized by private property, wage labor, and commodity production.
>>65458159
denmark has one of if not the most free market economies in the world
not to mention you spend zero dollars on your military because the US covers that for you, so all that money can go to welfare payments for immigrants
>>65458377
we do spend money on military, lol.
>>65458349
whether it's controlled by the government or a collective they effectively function as the same thing
this is the part where you say "not my special snowflake form of socialism that hasn't been tried yet!"
>>65458389
nowhere near as much as you'd have to, the same goes for other scandinavian countries
also the US medical industry which is the most advanced in the world has allowed your healthcare to be relatively cheap and effective
>>65458394
>whether it's controlled by the government or a collective they effectively function as the same thing
No.
>>65458394
It's not something that's controlled by any person or group. There isn't some organization that "makes" socialism happen, and it's likely that the reason you believe that is that you think socialism is some notion of redistributing wealth by force in a market economy.
>>65458416
then who owns the means of production?
>>65457575
>Victor Jara
Holy Molly, never thought I would ever see him posted here.
>>65458349
Stateless socialism is the ideal communism wants, and never gets. "I first read that as "he thinks socialism is socialism" and the actual difference is as negligible as to not be there. Are you some kind of anarchist that also thinks people should adhere to a philosophical-economic system? How do you suppose that will work out?
>>65458357
I'm purposefully not googling any definitions so as not to be accused of supplementing my knowledge, but I though the worker/state thing was the minor difference between socialism and "true" communism.
You can work at a business you own in capitalist countries, but I've never heard of workers themselves running a business. There would have to be hierarchical organization based on merit for any sense to be made of that, which I think is opposed to the goals of socialism and communism. If you've ever worked, which I reasonably doubt, you'll notice that plenty of workers are really dumb. In a fair world, dumb people would be able to run things as well as smart people, but there is inequality in the world, and the economic system reflecting that is not necessarily a bad thing.
>>65458402
we are about to spend 5B$ on aircraft.
And what's up with you playing the "we did this for you"-card. As if.
>>65458438
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership
>>65458438
The workers who work with those means of production
Socialists then again prove they are the most insufferable politic beings, just after anarcho-capitalists
>>65458447
> I've never heard of workers themselves running a business
What? There are lots of cooperatives that exist inside capitalist economies. They can do it perfectly fine without a private/absentee owner that appropriates value from the business without labor.
>you'll notice that plenty of workers are really dumb. In a fair world, dumb people would be able to run things as well as smart people
Socialism does not preclude specialized labor and thus some people whose labor in specific is determining what is to be done at a workplace. A socialist workplace is worker-owned and democratically controlled; this means that each worker has an equal say in what is to be done at the business. This also means that they can organize themselves in such a way that those who are more suited/specialized in management can do so -- a voluntary hierarchy.
>>65458466
>>65458468
what magical la-la land do you live in where you think this is remotely achievable or feasible?
>>65458447
>and the actual difference is as negligible as to not be there.
You literally have zero idea what you're talking about or being intentionally dense.
>You can work at a business you own in capitalist countries, but I've never heard of workers themselves running a business
You've never heard of a co-op?
>If you've ever worked, which I reasonably doubt, you'll notice that plenty of workers are really dumb
Of course, people who understand the terminology the use must never have worked.
>>65458509
I never said anything about socialism working, I'm telling you that you have no idea what socialism is.
>>65458509
This planet. It's certainly achievable and feasible considering primitive communism existed long before capitalism. And it will probably be humanity's only hope of preserving itself since capitalism is so horrible at dealing with externalities.
>>65458525
That's a really vague and childish answer, mate
>>65458543
Did you mean to quote yourself here? >>65458509
>>65458543
In what sense is it vague? I think it's achievable because I have no reason to think it isn't. There is no physical obstacle to it.
If you wanted a less vague question, you would have needed to give a more specific criticism than "lol it wont work".
>>65458558
That's not me, and while his question was written in a silly way your answer isn't much better.
>>65458563
If you wanted a less vague answer*
>>65458481
nah
>>65458521
well the socialism most people talk about and what zappa was most certainly talking about wasn't social anarchism but the 'practical' socialism for lack of a better word which is the only kind that's been implemented
>>65458525
the societies with that primitive communism were probably a bunch of farmers living in mud huts, it's ridiculous to think it could be applied to modern complex society, we've moved on
>>65458569
Sure it's you, and what answer do you expect from a shitty question like that?
Why should anyone write you an essay about the criticisms you can't even make?
>>65458584
>society "progresses"
lmao
>>65458584
>the 'practical' socialism
your own distinction
>which is the only kind that's been implemented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
>>65458502
Do you think all capitalist enterprises have absentee owners? One of my parents work at the business they own every day. It isn't appropriation of value to take the money the business you created or bought brings in. You take the risk in starting or buying the business, and anyone is supposed to be able to start a business that provides a service. The amount of regulations and hurdles to starting a business, meant to target the successful, ironically reduce the power of the poor to uplift themselves.
People aren't "voluntarily hierarchical". Some people are ambitious and there is no place for ambition in socialism.
>>65458521
You're not addressing what I'm saying fully, just what gratifies you.
>>65458462
I'm not american so there's no 'we'
and $5 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what the US spends every year, they basically ARE the UN and NATO security forces, without them you'd probably have a state-required picture of Putin hanging on your wall
>>65458614
that, or the problems that were created in the middle-east weren't created in the first place.
>>65458584
>well the socialism most people talk about and what zappa was most certainly talking about wasn't social anarchism but the 'practical' socialism for lack of a better word which is the only kind that's been implemented
If you mean the USSR which was state capitalist after the Bolsheviks defeated the actual proletarian revolution, then, no, this is not the only type of "socialism" that's been implemented. Research anarchism in Spain and Catalonia.
>the societies with that primitive communism were probably a bunch of farmers living in mud huts, it's ridiculous to think it could be applied to modern complex society, we've moved on
It's ridiculous to think it couldn't be applied to modern complex society. We have better technology in every way so problems of logistics/coordination wouldn't exist, and due to highly advanced automation we can fulfill the requirements for life with much less labor.
>>65458462
and the 'we' doesn't really depend on your nationality.
Lets talk about Zappa music.
Is he the musical equivalent of "I UNDERSTOOD THAT REFERENCE"?
>lmao stravinsky quote
>Lmao tchaikovsky quote
>>65458640
fuck that was for>>65458614
>>65458626
Most of the shit in the ME can be traced back to the Brits not the US
Anyway it's an irrelevant point, the fact is your country would have to drastically reduce its social programs if it was to create and sustain a military strong enough to independently protect yourselves
>>65458611
You're not really saying much at all. You've said several times that there is literally no difference between state and communal ownership. I'm not even sure how to respond to this nonsense. Read a book, maybe.
Your other arguments revolve around me not having a job.
I'm not engaging your "socialism doesn't work!!!" argument because I never said it worked, I said you don't know what it is, and you've continued to demonstrate that you don't.
>>65458481
>Socialists then again prove they are the most insufferable politic beings, just after anarcho-capitalists
>anarcho-capitalists
you mean like frank zappa? kek
>>65458611
>Do you think all capitalist enterprises have absentee owners? One of my parents work at the business they own every day.
I use absentee some times interchangeably with 'private' because for some it's a hurdle to understand private=/=personal. But, yes, capitalist business involves private ownership. You can still be present at the business and working, but the value you appropriate is not from your own labor but taken from the workers that work for you.
> It isn't appropriation of value to take the money the business you created or bought brings in
It literally is. Someone else does some labor, and you appropriate the value, and only give back a portion in the form of a wage. You can try to justify it by saying the capitalist took a risk, but it is still appropriation.
Regarding the capitalist taking a risk, ultimately all the capital he/she is using comes from workers anyway.
>People aren't "voluntarily hierarchical"
Yes they are. This is so ridiculous. Human history demonstrates that for as long as we have known, humans have organized themselves hierarchically. The point is that there ought not to be illegitimate hierarchies, i.e. ones people do not consent to and that cannot be revoked.
>>65458630
what's to stop someone in this socialist paradise from just claiming property as their own?
>>65458653
well, i guess it wouldn't be an irrelevant point if the military forces that we speak of were the ones that were the source of the military ressources we are in need of at the moment.
But yeah, I guess you're right. But even if we'd had to drastically cut, I'd still rather live in Denmark.
>>65458680
Anyone that stands for anarcho-capitalism should be thrown to jail
>>65458697
wow, i really dislike that i can't edit comments right now. I really can't type.
>>65458701
Or a school
>>65458695
Do you mean personal possessions? It should be clear: socialism/communism are not against all property or the notion of people having possessions. People taking or trying to take your personal effects would be as tolerated as it is in a capitalist society. It's theft.
Socialism/communism is not some vague notion of no personal property.
>>65458710
this.
>>65458701
it's as ridiculous as anarcho-socialism
>>65458726
it is if you don't know the meaning of either of those words
>>65458726
nah, it's infinitely worse
>>65458719
meant more like someone claims a block of farm land as their own and pays people to voluntarily work it and produce food from it, which they then sell for the owner's profit
>>65458660
I said the difference is negligible, and the "you don't have a job" comment was a passing joke. Get over it. All you do is say I don't know what I'm talking about and try to insult my intelligence.
Communal ownership is COMMUNISM, is it not?
>>65458686
Working for a wage is a voluntary agreement, and if the owner doesn't set fair terms, the worker is free to go somewhere else. The worker is selling their labor to the owner of the business just like the business is selling products or services produced by the labor. It's an advantageous position for the employer, but there's nothing wrong with a person taking advantage if they are able to do so. Anyone can employ someone else. You can employ a kid to mow your lawn for 10 dollars. No one would say that's exploitative.
Hierarchies are historically formed via force and power. Many more people than would fit at the top of hierarchies would "volunteer" to have a higher position. Positions must be earned, taken, etc.
>>65458749
Selling stuff / profit doesn't exist in a communist society (what I imagine you mean by "socialist utopia").
>>65458732
it is if you know the meaning of both of those words
>>65458735
nah, they're the same
>>65458793
let me guess, you think it's an oxymoron
>>65458763
>[selling labor for wage is voluntary]
Not in any meaningful way as it's an unequal negotiation between a class of people who must work or starve and who have no productive property, and a class of people who can choose the worker who is willing to work for the lowest possible. As such, the boss-worker relationship is an illegitimate hierarchy. It ultimately isn't different in form (only in extent) from finding a guy dying of thirst in a desert and making him sign a contract to work for you for life in exchange for some water.
>>65458763
I'm not insulting your intelligence. Maybe you're a smart person, I don't know. I do know that you seem to be too lazy to learn about what you're against.
Try to read a book about it. That's not an insult. Like, pick up the Communist Manifesto or something. It takes an afternoon to read.
>>65458780
the owner trades the produce for goods and distributes them among his 'employees' while retaining the biggest share, everything is done voluntarily
>>65458726
Do you mean communism?
>>65458841
The owner and the workers already have free access to those goods that they need.
>>65458763
>Communal ownership is COMMUNISM, is it not?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
>>65458841
you're thinking of a communism with the framework of capitalism
>>65458814
The fact that people are able to become owners in a capitalist system is the part you're missing. You can work for a month, spend your money on supplies, and open up a hot dog stand (in a less regulated system anyway. You'd have to get permits and health dept certifications in the modern US.), and if you are smart about it, it will be successful.
The fact that you equate it to the hypothetical scenario you talked about is another example of how far people in general have come from actual self-reliance, due in large part to government control of what people do. I wish I could really say "you don't need to buy things. You can build a shelter and you can hunt and you can grow food" but it's actually illegal to do because the government controls the land.
Capitalism becomes worse when it is restricted (at least in these disempowering ways. I'm not necessarily against all regulation.)
If it's illegitimate it's only because it's less exploitative than the naturalistic "give me all your shit or I'll kill you" ethic of barbarians sacking a town. Capitalism turns that impulse to gain for oneself into something that provides goods and services to the public.
>>65458834
You seem oddly too lazy to correct me but not too lazy to tell me I'm wrong repeatedly.
>>65458894
We were discussing socialism, and I believe his definition of socialism is communism, not that there's much difference anyway.
>>65456390
>>65457423
>>65457433
>>65457444
>>65457461
>>65457518
>>65458070
>>65458304
>>65458357
>>65458394
>>65458447
>>65458584
Before critiquing something, especially when getting into an argument about it on the internet, please make sure you know what it is that you are arguing against
The majority of these are describing communism not socialism. Communism involves socialism but they do not always go together so don't equate them.
Socialism is a lot more broad, basically a general philosophy and communism is a way in which to use it. There are many ways to use socialism other than communism.
You are on the internet, the biggest store of knowledge and information ever to exist on this planet yet you refuse to look up the definition of either of those words. Please do a favour for yourself and read something
>>65458966
>You seem oddly too lazy to correct me but not too lazy to tell me I'm wrong repeatedly.
Do you want me to give you the definitions of state and common ownership? I seriously don't understand in what way you need me to correct you? It's like you're not even on the same planet.
Have you read ANY relevant literature?
>>65459036
No, you're misguided.
>Socialism is a lot more broad, basically a general philosophy and communism is a way in which to use it.
This is just wrong. It doesn't even begin to make sense. I'd guess you think something like socialism = wealth redistribution or governments.
>>65458966
>health dept certifications in the modern US
what a terrible thing to ensure the hot dog salesman isn't likely to kill his customers.
>>65459036
most of the times that socialism has been tried it's been shit and the people have been unhappy
it doesn't matter what a pure socialist fantasyland is supposed to look like, zappa was presumably talking about the countries in which it's been tried and failed and his quote is pretty accurate
>>65459068
Socialism is a set of principles not necessarily enforced by the government. Workers rights, equal rights, even distribution of the means of production
>>65459036
I made a point to not look anything up cause someone here was agitating me for a definition claiming I don't know what I'm talking about.
>>65459075
All of this stuff is a give and take of safety and freedom.
Food poisoning generally only makes people sick anyway. If a hot dog stand gets a reputation for making people sick, it will likely fail.
>>65459116
* most of the time communism has been tried it has been corrupted
Socialism has only been really attempted around northern europe. South american countries attempted communism, inevitably ruined by a corrupt leader.
>>65459148
>Food poisoning generally only makes people sick anyway.
Right, and imagine how much worse it would be if food wasn't regulated.
>>65459116
the elements that make said "socialist" governments unhappy places are decidedly anti-socialist. this is why people like you (and zappa) look like morons. you make these retarded generalizations about socialism not working because of non-socialist principles.
zappa was an (american) libertarian who thought america was a fascist theocracy, who gives a fuck what he has to say
>>65459148
Well it doesn't matter what they say or think. For your benefit and the benefit of whatever country your in, read up so you can decide what is best for you and you're people when voting. There's nothing worse than people who just take whatever they are told through tv and films because they can't be bothered to look elsewhere.
>>65459174
>Socialism has only been really attempted around northern europe.
>>65459148
>I made a point to not look anything up cause someone here was agitating me for a definition claiming I don't know what I'm talking about.
So, rather than attempting to verify that you have a fucking clue what you're talking about, you decided you should just argue in favour of something you don't know anything about? Wouldn't you rather be able to admit you were wrong and learn something new rather than force your uninformed opinion on people for the sake of your fractured ego? Damn dude.
>>65459174
lol what
>>65459198
The diseases would still be the same, so they would still usually only make people sick. The people who are prone to dying from food poisoning are the very young and the very old.
>>65459174
Perhaps communism is so susceptible to corruption because it's unrealistic to expect people to embrace communism without authoritarians forcing it on them. People really don't like communism.
>>65459212
I'm probably not voting (for president anyway), and I don't own a TV anymore. I'm still not convinced I "don't know what I'm talking about".
>>65459232
People continue to fail to prove me wrong, so I have no reason to think I am. If I really don't know what I'm talking about, people would easily tell me what is wrong with what I'm saying.
>>65459288
People did tell you how you were wrong, but you hand waved it by saying the differences between state and common ownership are "negligible."
>>65459312
Because I was talking about socialism, which is state ownership, and the dude came back with communism, which is common ownership.
>>65459288
>Perhaps communism is so susceptible to corruption because it's unrealistic to expect people to embrace communism without authoritarians forcing it on them.
That's the polar opposite of communism. You're having a hard time getting this through your head. A communist community with an authoritarian government is NOT a communist community by definition.
>>65459346
Communism is a form of socialism you twat.
>>65459346
So why do self-identifying socialists say it's worker ownership, and why is there a whole socialist movement about establishing worker ownership? Are they just playing pretend and are high school social studies textbooks the real authority?
>>65459288
>The diseases would still be the same, so they would still usually only make people sick. The people who are prone to dying from food poisoning are the very young and the very old.
lol. it's a good thing only the very young and very old die from cancer and other diseases too
>>65459288
>The diseases would still be the same
>the only form of dangerous food contamination is disease
>long term, non-immediate health problems caused by contaminated food will be avoidable because we'll know specifically which hot dog stands caused them.
my sides.
>>65459353
That's what I'm saying. It fails before it starts because people with liberty don't want to be communists. I'm saying it CORRUPTS, so I'm saying the corruption is not the intention. I'm proposing that the intention of communism is unrealistic.
>>65459374
So I was supposed to include all forms of socialism in my off the cuff definition? It ultimately doesn't do anything but divert from the actual argument on the merit of communism to push this.
>>65459379
Language changes. I don't know what self-identifying socialists do. I'm not involved with socialism.
>>65459399
Right. I'm not a total deregulation maniac. It was just an example. I don't think it's productive to pretend to be more hardcore than I am about this, but remember there's a measure of freedom given up for every action that increases safety and you have to decide for yourself how much of each is right.
>>65459403
>Long-term, non-immediate health problems caused by contaminated food
What are you even talking about?
>>65459487
> I don't know what socialists do
Darn
>I'm proposing that the intention of communism is unrealistic.
But you just said you don't know what they do. Also in case you didn't know, communists are socialists.
>>65459487
>What are you even talking about?
Are you retarded? What do you think the toxins in contaminated food does to you long term?
>>65459487
>That's what I'm saying. It fails before it starts because people with liberty don't want to be communists.
lol
>I'm saying it CORRUPTS, so I'm saying the corruption is not the intention. I'm proposing that the intention of communism is unrealistic.
But again, this scenario is NOT communism. You're right, a capitalist state with a hostility/misunderstanding of communism will not change overnight. Have you even read any Marx?
>>65459506
You're playing word games. I don't know what contemporary, self-identifying socialists do because I don't really care. I know what communists did in the past and come to a conclusion that communism is prone to corruption because free people eschew it. Address the argument if you think it's wrong. You're using your logical sharpness in a deceptive way.
>>65459543
Contaminated with what? If food was contaminated with foodborne illnesses, people would get sick. If there was shit on the food, someone would probably get E.Coli. Contamination is bad because it causes people to get sick. You don't just eat disease/virus-carrying food food for years at a time.
>>65459576
>lol
Bazinga!
Haven't read Marx. I know the important ideas. If you need to read Marx to not be hostile or misunderstanding of communism/socialism that also doesn't bode well for any place ever becoming communist without authority making them read Marx.
Voluntary communism doesn't happen.
>>65459615
You actually don't know the important ideas. You don't seem to have even a basic understanding. It's a shame that you'll refuse to educate yourself at all, you'll probably start with the same nonsense in another thread. No one is asking for you to become a communist, but the fact that you refuse to even read to try to understand any source material shows an incredible intellectual laziness on your part. Congratulations on being another proud, uninformed retard on the internet.
>>65459656
The level of not addressing the argument is getting really silly.
>>65459615
>Contaminated with what? If food was contaminated with foodborne illnesses, people would get sick. If there was shit on the food, someone would probably get E.Coli. Contamination is bad because it causes people to get sick. You don't just eat disease/virus-carrying food food for years at a time.
You do if say, there's no regulation and people eat food far past expiration dates when they're crawling with dangerous bacteria... or when cancer causing ingredients are allowed in food because they make good preservatives or what have you.
>>65459677
>Why won't you engage my blatantly false premises?
Because you're not even wrong you fucking retard.
>>65459615
>I know what communists did in the past and come to a conclusion that communism is prone to corruption because free people eschew it.
If you mean the USSR which was state capitalist after the Bolsheviks defeated the actual proletarian revolution, then, no, this is not communism.
>but muh no true scotsman
No. They simply are not communist, and not communist "attempts". The existence of red flags and the word 'communist' is as relevant as North Korea calling itself a Democratic People's Republic.
>>65459723
or the nazis calling themselves socialists
>>65459694
As far as expiration dates go, most people can smell spoilage. Food is good for a while after the exp date, but I understand why it's there. There's not much conclusion on which foods cause cancer. There's new ones every year that supposedly do.
>>65459713
Yet you'll back and forth with me over semantics for a half-hour.
>>65459723
What I'm saying is as simple as this:
People will not give up their private property, class mobility, freedom to work in jobs they choose, etc. willingly.
Arguing over what is a "true" communist or socialist state doesn't negate this claim. From what I can tell, it's why non-authoritarian communism (real or fake) doesn't, and won't happen.
I never mentioned the USSR.
>>65459826
It's not semantics friends, it's that you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously man, just read the Communist Manifesto. Then you can confidently critique communism with some basic understanding of it.
Like, if you knew anything about Marx, you might know more about this theory of how the transition from capitalism to communism might work. Instead, you look at places like the USSR are decide that the authoritarian government only exists because people wouldn't give up their "liberty" (in this case, I guess from the Czar...?). You didn't mention the USSR, but you sure as fuck didn't mention the Spanish Revolution.
>>65459826
Protip: you know that meat at supermarkets that's marked up because it's been marinated? They use that shit to hide the smell. Likewise, ground beef is often a mixture of expired and new beef. There are plenty of ways to mask the expiration of food.
Also, holy fuck are you stupid? There's plenty of scientific consensus on what ingredients cause cancer. Stop getting your knowledge from pop science articles on clickbait websites.
Jesus christ, you're ignorant on pretty much every topic ITT.
>>65459956
I don't want to read the communist manifesto. I'm really not interested enough.
Why would an authoritarian government result from every attempt at communism if not for a flaw in communism? What's your take?
I never even hinted at anything to do with the USSR. Plenty of places around the world tried it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
>>65460021
Stop getting your knowledge from "alternative media" sites talking about how "they're poisoning your food".
You're probably right that there is scientific consensus, especially on obvious things, although it does seem like the media enjoys coming out with new foods that "may be linked to cancer". It's not something I personally worry about. I'm probably going to die of cancer eventually if something else doesn't happen first anyway.
>>65460061
Pretty much every state on that list is marxist-leninist, which is exactly the brand of "communism" people object to. Fuck, even the list states that "self-identification is the only criterion used by the list... all countries that claimed to be socialist are included, even if their claims are disputed"
>Why would an authoritarian government result from every attempt at communism if not for a flaw in communism? What's your take?
We're not talking about communism or the ideas of Marx. My take is that your premise is false and you won't educate yourself despite numerous attempts to get you to.
>>65460153
>Pretty much every state on that list is marxist-leninist
>We're not talking about communism or the ideas of Marx
Ok ok I'm done.
>>65460121
I'm not talking about the "alternative media," you seem to mistake me as being someone who believes that microwaves and GMOs are evil. I don't think that way. I'm talking about scientific consensus. Yes, we know that many things can cause serious health problems... which is why they end up being banned by the FDA.
You, on the other hand, see bad "science" on clickbait websites, decide therefore that all science must be bunk and thing that little to no regulation is needed. You might be okay with dying at 36 of cancer, but don't force that shit on me because you're ignorant.
>>65458159
Enjoy getting cucked by muslims
>>65460227
That was meant as a joke. I'm sorry it wasn't clear and you took it so seriously. I assumed your clickbait quip was a joke as well and just countered with that, but apparently you're actually assuming that about me in earnest.
I tried to steer the conversation away from food regulations and back to the main topic that communism is not going to be successful, but no communist wants to actually talk about that which is why I'm leaving the thread.
>>65460220
Dude, do you even know what marxist-leninist is? Yes, Marx is in the name. Socialism is in the name of the NAZIs. I really wish you'd spend even 5 seconds learning about the terms you use before you act like a condescending ass about it.
