File: angrypepe.jpg (178 KB, 760x987) Image search: [Google]

178 KB, 760x987

no

File: image.jpg (11 KB, 240x180) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 240x180

If everyone worked as hard as Lenin than it could work...but you can never quantify laziness

Da!

>>595306730
Yeah, that, in theory communism is fantastic, but humans are greedy and lazy so it will never work

yep

>>595306532
Yes!

im loving it

Sent from my ipad

>>595306532
no

File: 31286.jpg (63 KB, 500x418) Image search: [Google]

63 KB, 500x418

>>595306532

>>595306532
>be one of 10
>share outcome of communal labor
>bust my ass and double my freaking work output
>see a corresponding 10% increase in my personal profit
>notworthit.jpg
>decide to slack off altogether
>manage to stop working entirely
>see only a 10% decrease in my standard of living
>lifeisgut.jpg

>>595306532
no

>>595306532
Not really. I don't dislike it but I don't have the best grasp on exactly how it works or the different variations of it. I do know that it's more of an economic system rather than a governmental system. But from what I understand of it the system is unfeasible at best for humanity. We're just too greedy and more interested in our own self-interest. It was an interesting idea though.

File: 10521370_513880038748758_9107770437171019599_n.jpg (75 KB, 888x833) Image search: [Google]

75 KB, 888x833

Good in theory, bad in practice

I feel like its a good concept, but would never work in practice on a large scale as long as there are stalins and maos around.

i kill a communist for fun...but for a green card i gonna carve him up real nice...

>>595308532
I don't think that's true.
Without scarcity, greed serves no purpose.
And if greed was part of human nature, it wouldn't be roughly 50/50 on charitable people and greedy people.

>>595310026
3edgy5me

It's not even good in theory

>>595310338
So we need to adopt democracy rather than representative democracy.

>>595310557
I'd rather not. The reason we have a representative democracy instead of a true democracy is because it turns into a total clusterfuck when there are too many people and people in general are fucking retards.

>>595308901
Who protects the people from the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Say what you want about National Socialism, but at least they killed others, if you were the right ethnicity you didn't have to worry about the state parceling off your private property or sending you to some prison wasteland to work.

In a communist state you can be a faithful ideological commie of the national ethnicity and you still weren't safe. Or you could get punished for climbing up the political/military ladder a bit too fast.

I understand why people like the idea of Communism. I don't get why anyone thinks that it would work. And I really don't get why faggots use Socialist, PRC, or Juche iconography then get all pissy about fascism. And when you criticism Socialism/Communism the only defense being "real communism never happened." Then don't use the icons of one of the most oppressive murderous governments in recent history.

File: image.jpg (84 KB, 607x600) Image search: [Google]

84 KB, 607x600

Sure do OP

>>595310831
I think people are retards because they have no incentive to not be retards. Someone does the thinking for them so they wont have to. All they need to do is pick who they think is the most handsome and charismatic.

>>595306532
In theory yes, I like Marxism. Marx was a very smart man. For any who haven't read his manifesto, he begins with a rant against capitalism that reads like a prophecy in which he basically predicts every major trend that's happened so far and some which may or may not yet come to pass.

The funny thing is, while he is probably right about capitalism, he was wrong about communism. Sociology was lacking certain key understandings about the human condition that, left unaccounted for (and assuming it's even possible to account for them if they were known), lead to its inviability as a system.

One argument that's been made about state level communism is that Marxism has never really been tried. I agree with this.

The other argument that's been made is that the fact that Marxism as a philosophical construct was unable to reign in the power of state leaders is proof Marxism is inviable. I also agree with this.

More than anything, I like communism in spirit. I like that someone else identified problems witht hte current system and attempted to take a step forward. It was the wrong step, but that's fine. He who doesn't fail also will never succeed.

And that's a huge problem with the developed world today. Entrenched authority has a direct economic imperative in capitalism towards conservative extremism as a means of sustaining itself even when its own sustanence is dangerous to the nation at large. THus we have a culture in which capitalism isn't viewed as a tool, but as an ideology. The trouble with any ideology is that when circumstances change, it's very hard to convince people who think that ideology embodies some inherent ethical quality to move on to the next step.

I'm not an anti capitalist, but I do acknowledge that it is an antiquated system that requires robust domestic industry to be healthy and that's just not what the world has anymore. Industry is spread out globally, not consolodated locally. Lke feudalism, capitalism has run its course.

>>595310406
>And if greed was part of human nature, it wouldn't be roughly 50/50 on charitable people and greedy people.

oh my fucking gosh.

>>595310846
>in a communist state
That's not possible.
Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless.

File: 1422217875737.jpg (36 KB, 500x500) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 500x500

sure, but anarchist are good people

File: Soviet_bear.jpg (90 KB, 550x550) Image search: [Google]

90 KB, 550x550

Why not.

captcha: commn --> COMMuNism

>>595311310
Anarchy can never last though.

>>595311627
Why not?

File: 1420659260893.jpg (23 KB, 524x408) Image search: [Google]

23 KB, 524x408

>>595311627

>>595306532

in theory yes, in practice no.
humans are disgustingly lazy and even more greedy, no one would give a fuck about f.e. product quality because there is no competition

>>595311167
>only defense being "real communism never happened."

"'Communist state' is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state. None of these states achieved communism, and the term is used no matter to what degree that state or the movement associated with it actually follows communism, if at all."

>>595311768
It's in the rules.

Serious answer, not him, but humans are social animals. There will always be some sort of hierarchy, and unless you just have 5 guys in the woods. Some sort of government is naturally going to form.

>>595312079
And here we're discussing communism/marxism, not Marxism-Leninism.

>>595311768
It run against the grain. Emergent order is the nature of the universe, and all that has emerged in it. Chemistry arranges itself spontaneously. Chemistry gives rise to biology which too is a "next gen" emergent order. Biology gives rise to intelligence, a still further "next gen" expression of emergent order.

It's in our nature to organize and administrate. It's necessary to do so, just from a simple organization point of view. Nothing good about society can exist without organization and most of the best things about society are so damn complicated it's a fucking miracle we ever achieved the level of discipline required to sustain it in the first place.

Yes, it has draw backs, but that's true of any system. Anarchy would maximize for the freedom of the individual, for sure. Ask Charles Manson what he would do with such freedom.

It would be ideal if people all took up the burden of personal responsibility but that's not humanity. Some people cannot, some people WILL NOT behave in a way that is valuable to themselves and others.

Anarchy is a self defeating idea, a way of approaching the problems of the world that is not sustainable due to the nature of the Universe and the matter which came to be within it.

>>595311768
What >>595312282 said.
Even if everyone consented to it there'll always be at least a few people who want power and will get it.

>>595312286
>Post Soviet iconography, people talk about how shitty the Marxist-Leninist states are
>Fags try to talk about theoretical societies that have never really happened and can never really happen on an real scale or any real period of time.
Again, why I hate commie fags.
You want to talk about fantasy utopias, fine, but don't wear a Soviet uniform, post Soviet shit and get pissy when people bad mouth it.

>>595312841
>>595312571
>>595312282
You all make good points, and the insufficiencies of anarchy within this culture are vast.
However, I believe that if we build a society that primarily focuses on education and automating the repetitive jobs, it'll free up mankind to pursue the higher goals in life, such as virtue and hedonism.
You need not control an educated population, but the road is long.

I didn't believe any of this before I found Jacque Fresco, who ironically enough is a communist, but doesn't realize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIdk-fgCeQ

Anarchist Communism is pretty cool tier. Bolshevism can fuck off. If your route to a Stateless society involves the use of the State, you're fucked from the get go.

>>595313397
A pretty idea but I'm just afraid we'll turn into either fat star trekkers who travel the stars in search of something new or pre-fall Eldar.

>>595313331
I'm sad that IDs were removed, because I never spoke of the Sovjet.
What happened in the Sovjet was fucked up and should never have happened.
Marx said that communism would rise in the most advanced capitalistic countries, yet it happened in Russia at the end of WW1, in a country torn apart by poverty.

Thou shalt not suffer a communist to live.

>>595314011
1950s propaganda pls go

>>595313613
Well, why do you think sweets are sold? Because companiese found out that sugar and fat release endorphines since we're evolutionarily wired to like calories. In an educated society, I suspect healthy lifestyles will be more common than they are today.

>>595313397
The problem with that idea is that it's already come to pass. We have observable, incontrovertible proof that what happens when jobs are automated is that people cannot find necessary entry level jobs and thus society falls into a state of decay. Crime naturally follows poverty.

Your idealism is noble but your math doesn't add up, and that's not my opinion. It's observable fact. Education does not fall out of the sky. It is a damned expensive process and requires an employed populace to pay for it in taxes.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's no real evidence that capitalism can be sustained long term without locally consolidated industrial infrastructure. Yet capitalism provides no pressure to maintain such an infrastructure, and in fact incentivizes globalization so heavily that it's all but guaranteed. It, like anarchy, is a self defeating system. Kudos to it for lasting this long.

>>595313397
I don't think most people even want to be educated. It's something I've found as I've gotten older. And something most academics never realize because they only surround themselves with like minded thinkers.

I feel the vast majority of any society doesn't need to be controlled, they are content with it. As long as they have "bread and games."

As far as creating a machine race of slaves to do all the menial labor, I don't know how that'll work. It would totally revolutionize the economy, and at that point we might all be interconnected in some sort of earth wide thought sharing collective, at that point communism in the broadest sense might be possible.

>>595313836
I was responding to an obviously Soviet picture and the OP uses Soviet icon.

Maybe check what people are responding to before you fag out?

>>595314066
1950s understanding of economics and sociology please go.

>>595314261
>>595314202
You are thinking within the economy as it is today. When a machine is built in the agricultural sector, it's meant to make the farmers job easer, not take away his livelihood.
And I definitely think people strive to be educated. From birth we're trying to take everything in, but since there's little incentive to continue on this path, as you desperately need a good specialized career to keep up.

It's difficult to imagine how people would live in a different society, so what's important to think about is what kind of incentive we want to give people.

>>595314862
Problem is it'd need to be on a global scale. Otherwise it'd fuck up the economies of developing nations.

And any way. What you are talking about is so far in the future and so hypothetical it doesn't matter.
Yes in such a situation economics how we know them will be completely changed. And as a result so will the class structure and society as a whole.

Sure it could mean we are all equal. Hurray. It could equally mean the people running this Global government could just shape society into something far more rigid, as now most jobs have become obsolete, there would be no way to acquire money and thus influence. Seriously who the fuck knows at that point.

>>595314862
WHat it is meant to do and what it does are two different things. Can't help but notice that as agricultural machines became more capable, we went from a society where %95+ of the people were farmers to some degree to less than %1 of the total populace involved directly in agriculture.

In fact, technology did remove the profitability from all but %1 of the farmers.

Some people do strive for education but anon was right in that there are many who are only too happy with the status quo. And frankly there's nothing wrong with that. Expecting everybody to become doctors of some specialized field is no different from communism in terms of the end game.

I don't like your approach to any of this because you're trying to start with the answer first. That's just not how anything works. You have to weigh the evidence, THEN form a conclusion. The facts don't add up here.

scum sucking communists

>>595315252
Yes, it seems so distant because absolutely no progress is being made.
An almost fully automated society is not that farfetched. There's just little incentive within this society to get there. There's no profit.
If we had started working towards it 40 years ago, we'd be there today.
So let's get started, eh?

>>595315252
History taken into account it would mean the have nots would be left to die and a very small percentage of the wealthiest would sit on top of the new system they'd made for themselves.

One need only look at what happened to the horses who were outmoded by automobiles to see what awaits humanity in an age of automation.

itt: people who confuse being ruled by dictatorships with decisions about economic policy

File: 1404756946180.jpg (2 MB, 1920x1280) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1920x1280

>>595313836
yeah it happened in the Soviet Unions....and China, and North Korea, and eastern europe, and former commie counties through out South AMerica, and Africa, and Cuba.

ohh look at that! Communism CAN'T work without Millions being slaughtered to clear the way for their ideology..

>>595315478
>Jobs routinely being crossed off the list because automation is reaching a fevered pitch

>Little incentive to get there.

Only one of these statements is true. And it's not the second one. Capitalism has a HUGE driving engine behind it to become as fully automated as is feasible. And it does work to those ends, to the terrible detriment of the masses.

Ultimately this is self defeating as a broke populace cannot purchase the goods and services these automated processes output. But here in again we see evidence that this is how capitalism works. Short term gains at the expens eof long term stability is fast becoming the rule, not the exception. THe golden parachute mentality is already in effect.

Your automated nightmare world is coming to be.

>>595315401
That is almost my point.
We think in terms of creating jobs instead of removing them. I don't want a million doctors or millions of scientists. I want those who find medicine interesting to do research in the field.
The techonological advancement comprises of a few thousand people. And almost every major scientific discovery happened by chance.
We don't need everyone to work, we surpassed this need a long time ago.

File: 10941022_10155174574600515_8037834171388559986_n.png (551 KB, 608x581) Image search: [Google]

551 KB, 608x581

>>595306532

>>595315930
Yes, capitalism does get there, but it gets there slowly. It is cheaper to hire a few guys to oversee the production instead of developing complete automation. "Someone else" will do that at some point.
Plus the products that are being produced are in large part completely superfluous and only produced because a need was created.
We're incredibly inefficient.

>>595316069
And you will not have it. Watson is being employed nationwide as an automated doctor's assistant with the impetus on perfecting it to the point that fewer and fewer humans are necessary. Eventually they will be replaced, whether this is good for the patient or not.

Diversity of ideas is especially important for the medical industry. MORE people ar eneeded, not less, if end patient care is to be the true motivating factor here.

No one becomes a doctor who doesn't want to. No one becomes a farmer who doesn't want to. You are not trapped in a world of people doing things in specialized fields that they don't want to do. You are proposing a solution to a problem you don't have.

Until you find a way to give purchasing power to your magical section of the populace who doesn't work, yes they do in fact need to work.

>>595316245
Ayn Rand was incredibly biased because she grew up as a jew in jew hating Russia.

>>595316245
>posting about cultural system in an economic discussion with a witty picture and no follow up

>>595316307
I don't know what you consider, fast, but so much shit is automated now. We'd need probably three or four times the population to get stuff done now with 19th century technology.

File: che.jpg (48 KB, 720x540) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 720x540

>>595316434
>>595316548

Samefag?

File: Capture.png (27 KB, 345x139) Image search: [Google]

27 KB, 345x139

>>595316654
Nope.

yep

>>595316408
You need to stop thinking in capitalistic terms. Purchasing power is NOT necesary, as we can easily produce anything the population would need in excess.

>>595316654

he didn't hate blacks he hated African blacks

>>595316245
Extremist nonsense. I don't doubt some collectivists think this way. But Rand painted this in terms of a false dichotomy. COllectivism is not inherently the loss of ALL Individuality. Yes, some is sacrificed, but don't look now, this is just as true in capitalism as it is in communism. And if you really want to tie your dick in a knot, don't realize that corporations ARE collectivism incarnate. Capitalism is NOT anti collectivist, it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE without it.

You really need to educate yourself with sources that aren't dogmatic.

>>595316307

>Slowly

I was born in 1981. In 1981 entry level factory positions were a dime a dozen. They were so common and plentiful that lower middle clas speople had a great deal of purchasing power for an individual and enough collective bargaining power to keep the balance between the needs of the corporation and the needs of the individual in check.

Today, the US industrial infrastructure is a waste land. In less than half of one generation this process has outmoded something like %75 of the work force into subpar service sector work that doesn't pay the bills or maintain a first world standard of living.

Slow? Son...good god you are blind.

>>595316633
And a lot is not. I worked stocking shelves at Target last year and the only thing automated about the process was scanning the boxes as they came in to see which was backstock.

>>595316882

So would a collectivist be okay with a group of individuals fucking off and founding their own capitalist society?

>>595316981
Did you even read his post?

File: 20150129_171214(0).jpg (956 KB, 2448x3264) Image search: [Google]

956 KB, 2448x3264

not really no, though i have this awsome watch straight from soviet union with face of Juri Gagarin.

>>595316981
Yes. As long as you don't use force against other people. But I reckon there'd be little incentive to go back to capitalism.

File: 1418419483214.jpg (1 MB, 3156x2100) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3156x2100

>>595313836
Communism ONLY rises in poor shitty countries, and it keeps them as poor shitty countries. Look at Russia before and after communism...
China is a Rich shitty country but they have developed a weird hybrid communist economic model.

Communism CAN'T work without harrowing levels of human right violations.Capitalism on the other hand, flourishes just fine without having to murder people and control EVERY facet of their lives.

Communism isn't just an economical system. it also provides strict guidelines for political behaviors, feeding your children, what you can and can't say and believe. It's similar to islam in those broader aspects.
I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect, but it's the best we have so far (when properly regulated.)

Pic totally related

>>595317272
You really need to read up on your communism.

File: 375759_642437765793674_138455715_n.jpg (19 KB, 346x216) Image search: [Google]

19 KB, 346x216

>>595317114

So basically you're cool with the fact that I will never, ever, accept a collectivist, socialist, or similar state?

Capitalism is the natural order of economics. Collectivism is the imposition of man's will upon that natural order. I reject the will of man, and I live according to my own values. Frequently, my values mirror that of society.

However, I will never pay the majority of my income into any system for the "greater good" and I will avoid all taxes, all fees, and all economic restrictions I can.

To stop me, you literally must kill or imprison me.

Would you?

>>595306532
Not at all. I prefer capitalism. If I work hard I want some money. The salary for brain surgeon in my country is like the same as some super shitty job in USA, and the tax is like 30% higher aswell. I want some payment for working hard. I would prefer to live in the USA.

>>595317272

/thread

Empirical data is just so hard to communists to understand. It's like their narrative is all they know and love.

>>595316806
Yes it is. You ar ethinking only in the most selfish terms. Without purchasing power there's no back end regulation. WITH purchasing power the US alone uses some disgusting percentage of the total world wide resources available. Something like %25 of EVERYTHING on the planet.

We cannot empower a nation like ours to use MORE. And that's precisely what happens without metered regulation. Money perfectly handles that problem without creating the social problems of artificial regulation. The second you elect to have an authority tell people how much they may use, you immediately create a power differential that resorts either in fascism or revolution.

No one has ever gotten over that hurdle. I'm not saying it CAN'T be surmounted, but you'r enot employing anything remotely like novel thought here.

>>595316981
You've asked a question so vague that there is no meaningful answer. Collectivism means many different things in many different circumstances. COmmunism and capitalism have little in common yet both employ collectivism to varying degrees. You want an answer? Ask the specific collectivist what he thinks.

Neither capitalism nor state communism was particularly willing to allow outsiders to leave the fold. This is a human nature issue, but then so too is the business of economics. If you think of economics as a system, you don't understand economics.

>>595317586
No I would not, because no one would tax you, steal your money or anything of that sort in a society without money.
I also think your line of thinking is greatly influenced by the egocentric system you live in.

>>595310406
oddly enough, the people who oppose communism give more to charity than the people in favor

>>595317783
Remove the class system and you'll remove the incentive to pretend you're of a higher class with fast cars and fancy clothes.
Every single creature on the planet only takes what it needs, except for humans, and I think humans can indeed become as civilized as they were 5000 years ago.

File: 1129087018806.gif (86 KB, 250x188) Image search: [Google]

86 KB, 250x188

>>595316654
i'm glad someone finally said it!

You know what's dumb as fuck? Saying something that has never and could never work in practice is good in theory.
In theory, I could feed the world by shitting bread loaves, but it ain't gonna happen.

>>595317973
Oh? What's the difference between then and now?

>>595317918
I don't know if that's true or not, but communism isn't about being charitable. It's about improving your community for the collective (including yourself).

>>595317586
The irony here is that in every single case where data exists for free economies (I mean really free economies, not economies regulated by a State that uses the word "free" in press releases) the end result is much closer to "communism" than capitalism and is highly collectivized.

Exchange systems are an important part of these economies, and prices exist and fluctuate, but business is conducted on credit instead of currency, and usually a great deal of capital is shared or held in common (especially land).

In fact in almost all free market societies (which, due to the proliferation of the nation-State, have been primarily agricultural) what we see is individual careers and large scale common agriculture with business conducted on credit. Usually, once per year at harvest, there's a "reckoning" where accounts are mass-settled among a community and any non-balanced books at the end of the year are paid up by adjusting the otherwise-equal distribution of shares of the common crop.

But I mean, do what you want. Durutti didn't collectivize individually-operated farms, even up to the very end there was a patchwork of them among the mass collective farms in anarchist spain. Godspeed, do your thing.

>>595318050
You know what's dumb as fuck? Not thinking and then pretending the other side is stupid.

>>595318109
Hunter/gatherer society was primarily communistic.

File: forcerama.jpg (41 KB, 432x668) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 432x668

>>595317795

A society without money? They how the fuck do I acquire goods? There's a reason people stopped bartering 6000 years ago...

The ideal collectivist system would basically allocate resources according to the "ideal" fashion, right? Well, aside from the subjective nature of what one man's "ideal" happens to be, and assuming we can come to a consensus, how is that any different from capitalism?

In capitalism every person gives what they are able to give in order to acquire what they wish to acquire. True, sometimes people are unable to give enough to acquire what they wish to acquire, but the only solution to that requires forcing another to give involuntarily.

How do you bypass this problem?

>>595306532
Better than shitty capitalistic society.

>>595317586
>"I will never pay the majority of my income etc etc"

>Pays the majorty of his income anyway in the form of consumer grade goods necessary for life

Half a dozen of one, anon. You pay the system one way or the other, regardless of what -ism you're dealing with.

And it's cute that you're swinging your e-peen this hard, but in fact you most likely wuld do as you were told. You prove this every time you purchase goods from a store at pain of imprisonment or death instead of stealing.

You are not an island. 100 million years of homosapien evolution did not come to an end in you. Volumes and volumes have been written on how easy it is to motivate society with imprisonment or death threats. Capitalism is in bed with socialism and communism on this matter, we just throw a few levels of "polite" beaurocracy inbetween you and the guys with the guns who enforce the law.

But make no mistake, ultimately, you are to obey the law unde rpain of death. Resist with enough force and you will be shot in the US for your failure to comply.

Your attempt to classify this as a trait of "those other scary guys" just doesn't work.

File: miracles_of_socialism.jpg (112 KB, 844x653) Image search: [Google]

112 KB, 844x653

>>595318183

The difference is force. Cooperation and collectivism are not the same thing. One is voluntary, the other is forced.

>>595318219
...you do know that we'd primarily moved beyond hunter-gatherers 5000 years ago right?

>>595316928
So much of the record keeping is though.

Do you know how hard it would be to build a robot with the agility and AI to do your job? We don't even have full AI jet fighters yet, and that probably has way more priority than replacing your gay ass.
It's hardly a fault of capitalism that you still have your shitty job.

Find something else to blame for why your life sucks.

>>595306532
yes! better than fight for your fucking boss or give your life for your company

File: 1209960598507.jpg (219 KB, 1520x1064) Image search: [Google]

219 KB, 1520x1064

>>595317650
i know, right?!

>>595318259
He's a retard who either has no idea of basic sociology, economics. Or is talking about a technological scenario so far beyond our understanding that literally any outcome is about as possible as his no money utopia.

File: bundy_ranch.jpg (73 KB, 490x315) Image search: [Google]

73 KB, 490x315

>>595318314

Actually, I'm rich, so the majority of my income is saved or spent on assets which increase my "wealth."

Homo Sapiens is not 100 million years old. Depending on how you define it homo sapiens is either ~400,000 or ~75,000 years old. Evolution itself is probably around 3.5 billion years, at least on this planet.

>>595317973
No, this is simply willful delusion. People don't want Ferrari's because Bill Gates or whatever pair of glamorous titties they've been jerking off to on the tv has one. They want one because they're fun.

They don't want the finest cuts of steak because Taylor Swift eats them. THey want them because they taste good. Cult of personality is a thing, for sure. But human appetites neither begin nor end with any class system.

>>595318259
The solution is for our cities to be completely intergrated and abolish private property beyond items that hold personal value. Which in time would also be phased out I suspect.
And for a soceity to reach a consensus, you'd need equal incentive, which means no class system.
Plato said that the ideal city is that which mourns as one and celebrates as one.

>>595318515
Back the fag train up and point out where I was bitching about my job.

>>595318290
Go to one of the few commie countries that's survived the Cold War.

>>595306532
Nope. Saw the East German border when I was 10. Commies needing fences to keep people inside their country says a lot about the system.

>>595306532
I don't like nazis because nazism came from communism

>>595318784
educated guess based on the commie shit

File: democracy_witches.jpg (178 KB, 814x692) Image search: [Google]

178 KB, 814x692

>>595318762

How the fuck would that accomplish the goals you claim it would accomplish? You're talking gibberish. You need cause and effect, you need to prove the cause will result in the effect, and you need to accomplish it without coercion.

>>595318749
I think that's true to some degree. Fast cars are fun to ride, but owning one is what gives you bitches and status.
Theme parks are fun, but I don't own them.

File: 1244947112257.jpg (832 KB, 3200x2000) Image search: [Google]

832 KB, 3200x2000

>>595317795
a Society where there is no money, private property is outlawed, everyone "is equal" and works for an all powerful authority that controls their lively hood, and where people are not able to even badmouth the system isn't a socioeconomic system.

It's is blatant Slavery.....

Capitalism stems from a basic bardaring system, so at least you have a fighting chance

>>595318425
Okay well now you're just playing semantic games.

I agree with the point you're making, but to my way of thinking "collectivism" implies a specific kind of organization—a COLLECTIVE, which is a free association of people which makes decisions on the basis of consensus and where all members have participatory parity.

The use of collectives (again, here using the term in the original anarchist sense of "collectivism") is pretty widespread among documented cases of free economies; substantial numbers of people form units which share capital goods freely (especially land, though some contemporary examples do exist with productive machinery or other nonconsumed goods like ideas, code, etc) with no centralized decisionmaking bureaucracy and no recourse to force for implement systems of regulations.

When people "freely cooperate", as you explain it, this is how they do it. They don't behave as capitalist actors, trying to price their marginal contribution to everyone else's success at the highest value, they work toward a common goal in a way where each contributes to the best of his ability and each takes according to his necessity.

>>595318946
You're right, I'm rambling. This thread has fried my brain by now.
If you want to, watch this man who is a lot smarter than I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIdk-fgCeQ

>>595318932
Except it wasn't well educated because I was not posting for or against communism in this thread with the exception of >>595310254 and then you jump in talking about how I suddenly hate my job and acting like I'm some wangsty teenager.

>>595318748
Irrelevant argument that is used as a distraction from the point.

>>595318762
Plato knew dick about dick. Why don't you just quote the bible if this is your standard? You will never abolish private property because it's part of the human condition to desire it, almost need it psychologically. What you ar esuggesting is a prohibition and we know how well prohibitionary laws that address very common human desires work.

When you figure out how to make people not want intoxicants and free music, THEN you can come back to me and make this silly argument. Unless you can fix thos eMUCH smaller human nature issues, you don't have a chance in hell at any proposal that involves surrendering property without a fight.

>>595306532
Define communism.

Stalinists, Lenninists and Maonist need to be shot on sight, they are the same shit tier of neo-nazis and dont understeand the shit they are talking about

Marxism is preaty cool but what Bakunin said about it is true: the way it is set up will always end with a dictator shi

Anarcho-komunism: bro tier but next to impasible to implement right now, people are two focused on the moniez

>>595318749
But every nigger on the dole buys gold grills and a pair of new shoes, to show off.

There's a definite a intensive to be shown to be in a high class. Its how fashion works. Most people buy clothes because of what it says about them, not really because its anymore or less comfortable. If you could find two shirts for the same price that were more or less the same but one was simply known to be extremely expensive, you'd probably choose that one. So that people would think you are rich.

I don't think getting rid of money would magically solve this. It would simply create something else, that would evolve into currency. So that people could acquire goods or something, to show their status. Even if we somehow got rid of a tangible class-system, one would pop up in some form.

File: op09000.jpg (215 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [Google]

215 KB, 800x1200

Internet is dead!

>>595319600
How does a few people exploiting the system relate to what I said?

>Intensive

The word is incentive. Please know the word you are using before you use it.

And again, I acknowledged in my post that cult of personality is a thing. I said it is neither the first nor last word in human appetites. People of all classes want more than they havem not because the guy above them has it, but because it is natural for human beings to desire things that appeal to them. Utilitarian value, even if it's just to frivolous ends, is a powerful motivator.

Or did you just come to 4chan because someone you idolize uses it? You know what you said is dumb. Stop playing.

File: stalin-sad.jpg (42 KB, 460x450) Image search: [Google]

42 KB, 460x450

Fuck communism.

>>595318787
I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather

And there is now more shitposting than discussion as more kids who don't know what they're talking about run in acting like a single picture or some random bullshit is a meaningful contribution.

>>595320695
Oh yeah, thread's jumping the shark in 5 posts or less now. We've reached the end of valuable discourse.