If we lived in communism, and had total freedom, what would you do? how would your life different?
I Think I'd alternate between camping, climbing mountains, and traveling the world, I'd want to get a sailboat and spend a year visiting every island in the Mediterranean. I'd become so absolutely busy, learning new things, seeing new places, that even I'd even sleep with purpose. Then when I'd want to unwind from travel, I'd come home to my small abode somewhere, and spend a few weeks of the year marathoning anime and playing the new videogames.
>communism
>total freedom
is this nigga srs?
>>27165083
>communism
>total freedom
>never have to work and you get to just dick around
What do you think communism is?
>>27165124
i think he means ideal communism
>>27165144
you mean if literal robots took over every single industry so no one had to work anymore?
>>27165083
>If we lived in communism, and had total freedom
fucking kek. You cant make this shit up
you liberal college kids never fail to amuse me
>communism
>freedom
>>27165165
I think he means the actual communism Marx and that other guy idealized
it was in THAT one book
>>27165083
In communism everyone MUST work.
>>27165203
what does that have to do with total freedom? the factories still need to keep going. you thinking of anarchy or something?
lol op with such an idealistic view of the world, so cute
i remember being 17 and listening to pink floyd stoned thinking the same thing
teenagers are hilarious
>>27165144
That's still not communism
"ideal communism" would be everyone works and does there job and all have about the same creature comforts and food supplies.
Which is why it doesn't really work. No doctor or engineer is going to take it well there lives are overall on par with the baker whose skills and work are no where near as demanding as saving lives or raising buildings correctly.
I think you mean post scarcity automated society
>>27165228
It has nothing to do with freedom, OP probably thinks Communism=Communes which is false
And i think Anarchy!=Communism
Communism is just pure equality without any state or currency, at least the idealistic communism.
>>27165083
So did you just learn that word or something
I feel baited but I got to say at least this seems better than the endless femanon/chad bait of late.
high tier oc bait anon
you'd be breaking your back farming potatoes 8 months out of the year
does communism just mean nobody has to work for a living to you?
>>27165288
when has humanity ever been about pure equality? even when we were in caves there was the one guy who fucked the women while the lesser alphas went out to hunt and the betas foraged for berries
you may as well fantasize about growing wings
>>27165132
>>27165181
>>27165194
>>27165205
>>27165291
Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership of means of production.
Not saying it can be achieved but get your definitions right.
>>27165338
Whats the point of talking about some abstract concept that is completely impossible
>a stateless society
its almost inherently fucking contradictory
>>27165334
>even when we were in caves there was the one guy who fucked the women while the lesser alphas went out to hunt and the betas foraged for berries
You realize the "lesser alphas" and "beats" would gang up and kill that one guy if they didn't like what was going on. That actually encouraged equality in tribal societies.
>>27165338
And where in any of that opens the door for "total freedom"? Your world would still demand you serve a function, and that function would still have hours and time demanded to it.
You must be very underage if you think a moneyless society wouldn't mean it does not come with a cost.
For example you wouldn't have a small abode because it's everybody's place now (common ownership)
again you have a really retarded view on this.
>>27165393
not likely.
>societal order breaks down
>one person claims to be in charge after the killing
>no, what about me?
>killing resumes
>tribe falls apart and is out of the running for passing down their genes
>good little tribes who follow the pecking order continue to pass down their good boy genes
>no one in this thread has read Marx
>no one in this thread has read Kropotkin
>no one in this thread knows what Fully Automated Luxury Communism is
The working class is doomed.
>>27165334
Never. Idealistic Communism is "idealistic" for a reason. They tried to do it but you can see what was the outcome in Russia and other post commie countries.
I actually dreamed about having wings a few weeks back then it was kinda cool.
I wouldn't do anything. What's the point in a career if you can't excel? What would be the point of living if you can't transcend your past?
>>27165338
>Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership of means of production.
Translation: You have a job you report to and the community will not put up with NEET shit like living off others for your own pleasure.
You aint getting that sailboat unless you are ready to be a fisherman while you are on it, visiting those islands means you will be expected to gather the resources on them for the common good. You would only be able to learn new things on your off time just like now. You have no small abode, you have to find free space because surprise Sherlock, you can't own a home, so enjoy finding a free place to rest. Yeah and that marathoning anime and playing games? again free time from not doing the work you are expected of and that's assuming they even exist. and new shit would work like a red box service where you have to hope you can borrow a copy ahead of time but be ready to share because again: you don't own shit.
I really hope you are just a retard or underage.
>>27165385
>Whats the point of talking about some abstract concept that is completely impossible
It kinda fun. Why are you talking about it?
>its almost inherently fucking contradictory
Yeah. But I bet you could eventually get a type of minarchist government to maintain it.
>>27165432
>And where in any of that opens the door for "total freedom"?
Because you are not limited to your position in the market/money or your position in society for what you can do.
> Your world would still demand you serve a function, and that function would still have hours and time demanded to it.
>>You must be very underage if you think a moneyless society wouldn't mean it does not come with a cost.
I think it's assuming automated everything/post-scarcity.
>again you have a really retarded view on this.
I'm not a communist.I'm a Socialist
>>27165508
OP didn't mention a career either. You mean you'd just sit around motionless until you die of starvation because you wouldn't have to work to keep from dying? don't you have any dreams or desires?
>>27165609
>not distinguishing between private property and personal property
Unless your house was an apartment complex that you were renting out to other people, it probably wouldn't be collectivized.
And what's this bullshit about socialism/communism increasing work? One of the main fucking ideas is to INCREASE leisure time by getting as many people working as possible and have them working on productive, meaningful projects rather than the useless bureaucratic bullshit , thereby cutting down each individual's hours significantly.
>>27165491
Everyone who has the privilege of being able to find, access, and read those books is everyone that the true working class will revolt against in the case of a revolution.
>>27165624
You're a very stupid Socialist then and your existence will only hurt the movement not help it.
>>27165709
>You're a very stupid Socialist
mean ;(
>your existence will only hurt the movement not help it.
How so?
>>27165624
>You're not limited to what the market/money or the position in you society can do
In contrast to what communism offers? Products geared towards the progress of the community? Do we just throw away the idea of personal interests/choice because the community disagrees on it?
>I'm a socialist
Good for you chum.
>>27165701
Yeah, I've talked to some Auto-workers in Georgetown, and they assured me they did not want to murder people who owned library cards.
>>27165701
When socialists say "working class", we mean "anyone who doesn't own the means of production". So, almost everyone.
Also, those books can be read for free online. Most people in America have access to the internet.
4chan: never disappointing in the autism department.
>>27165687
>private property and personal property
>Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership of means of production.
>classless
>stateless
>based on common ownership
Your property is what the culture tells you it is anon.
>And what's this bullshit about socialism/communism increasing work?
in history that is always what happen, whether it's something about the human condition or the greed of the "overseers" that extra workers just leads to more work not less.
>>27165776
what happens to the new owners of production? I mean its incredibly inefficient to have 300 million people leading a single industry, never minding there's hundreds of thousands of different industries to manage
>>27165810
I'll admit OP's autism is almost fresh and originalalmost
>>27165827
>Your property is what the culture tells you it is anon.
The most autistic thing I have read today.
You squeaked in right before 12:00am, too, gj, anon.
>>27165687
>One of the main fucking ideas is to INCREASE leisure time by... [cutting out] useless bureaucratic bullshit
And why would communism does this? Firms are incentivized in a free market system to minimize waste to increase profits. There's no fat to trim so at best you would see the same amount of labor as we currently have.
>>27165829
You also have the flaw that of those 300 million many simply can not or will not handle the work load given and are just dead weight, what do you do with them?
>>27165850
>Implying op is the one being autistic.
That's rich.
Unlike the working class. :^)
>>27165205
Why?
There's no need for most people to work a job. The idea that everyone needs a "job" to "contribute to society" is bullshit.
>>27165861
anon's post was 12:30
wherever you are in the world it's a half past the hour.
You are not coming off all that great in this thread OP.
>>27165829
There wouldn't be an industry-wide vote on every single decision, obviously. Production would be de-centralized and probably broken down into a federal system.
>>27165867
Capitalism intrinsically produces things it doesn't need in order to sustain itself. That's one of the defining features of a profit-based economy.
>>27165910
Because if you don't work, you don't contribute to the means of production, so you don't get to reap the ends of production, thus excluding you from co-ownership of property. Now go, off to gulag with you.
>>27165889
Hi OP
how's the damage control going?
>>27165929
>Thinks I am op
>What even is UTC?
>12 years old
>>27165953
OP here. This is my first post.
mods confirm.
>>27165910
So many people don't understand how the concept works. This isn't like western capitalism/socialism that has room for the weak, stupid and NEET. short of being to old you have to work for the society to work.
>>27165775
>>27165776
the people who bust their ass to make sure you can flush your poop down the toilet and turn on the lights every night don't have time to read le Marx because they have to work to live and have their entire lives. Literally every statist is a privileged college, sorry, high school student who wants to tell poor people what's best for them without having a clue about their actual thoughts or mentality. go share some dank communist memes on tumblr.
Every one thinks I am OP.
>>27165939
USSR was the master of producing useless junk, just to keep factories running. At least the junk produced under capitalism is only produced because people actually want it
>>27165867
Here's an excellent article by Richard Wolff where he explains exactly why capitalism is horribly inefficient and incompetent.
>>27165963
>UTC
>Coordinated Universal Time
guess what? anons post was still a half hour after that and it's after 4am by that clock.
>>27166000
>Muh privileges
I am poor as fuck and can read books rather than turn on the next season of honey booboo you faggot. Now that is a reddit post.
>>27166026
forgot muh link:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/16/capitalism-efficient-we-can-do-better
>>27165773
>Do we just throw away the idea of personal interests/choice because the community disagrees on it?
That's how a market economy works. But instead of voting on your personal interests/choice you are limited to what you can buy which boils down to your position in the market place. So if you are born rich you get everything, if you are born poor you might get shit.
>>27165867
>There's no fat to trim so at best you would see the same amount of labor as we currently have.
I would argue most of the service economy is bullshit jobs that could be trimmed.
>>27166000
>communism
>statist
Pick one.
>>27166006
>USSR
>communist
Pick one.
On one hand OP and those like that in this thread are so retarded it makes you fear for out future
On the other hand it's a really nice break from the beta and girl stupid funposting that happens all the time here
>>27166065
My super special utopia isn't stupid as fuck and impossible, it just hasn't been done RIGHT yet!
>>27166000
>reading books is an example of white privilege, poor people spend every waking hour working
just kill yourself, All you've done is make it absolutely clear which of us has no experience working.
>>27166091
It has been done right several times.
The fucking USSR just isn't one of those examples. They got really, really close before Lenin (understandably) introduced state capitalist reforms, but after that it all went to shit.
>>27165776
>When socialists say "working class", we mean "anyone who doesn't own the means of production". So, almost everyone.
In 2005 50% of US households held some form of an equity security, so it would be a massive stretch to say that "hardly anyone" owns the means of productions.
SOURCE: https://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_05_equity_owners.pdf <-- page 44
>>27165939
>Capitalism intrinsically produces things it doesn't need
That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Are you listening to yourself? If a product wasn't needed, no one would buy it and no one would make a profit. The fact that you can make a profit off of a product is proof that it's needed.
>>27166091
>Utopia
Dude,it's seriously like you guys just lack any ability to download pdf.
Are you all really that ingrained into capitalistic propaganda and statism that you refuse to even acknowledged the fact that people could maybe, possibly, run their own lifes?
Socialism is any system in which the workers control the means of production in a society.
Any system.
Communism is that but a stateless, classless, money-less one.
>>27166117
recommended reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction
>>27165939
>Capitalism intrinsically produces things it doesn't need in order to sustain itself.
you do understand you are using one of those things right now?
You also understand that even in a communist society people will want shit they don't need.
Hell nothing in OPs post is needed, his very last words are wanting to play and watch things that are not needed.
>>27166117
You fucking know what owning the means of production is actually referring to, you're just being a pedantic fuckhead.
>profit = need
Now, THAT's the most fucking asinine thing I've ever heard. People being willing to buy something does not mean that they needed it or that it was even truly beneficial for them to buy it.
>>27166117
>We need our five thousandth iphone 5 damnit!
Plus, doesn't advertisement infer that people do not, actually, want these things but must be incited into wanting them?
Hmmm?
>>27166097
Where did I say that, commie baby? It's a fact, most people can't, for a number of reasons, spend time pouring over the history & philosophy of communism/socialism/whatever. The ones who do have the privilege to do so will inevitably rule over those people, and nothing will change because the true working class won't have the same knowledge or even have a say in their own rulers. At least democracy gives some influence to the average person, for however useless it is on the large scale.
oh and i said nothing about white people, you fucking racist scum.
>G-GO KILL URSELF FUCKING BOURGIE IDIOT! WAAAAAH
>>27166166
>you do understand you are using one of those things right now?
Both computers and the internet originated in government programs, so, no, capitalism did not produce them.
I have no interest in defending the OP's imagination, but leisure time is an absolute fundamental psychological NEED for humans, so having fun isn't useless or wasteful.
>>27166026
>>27166045
>The Guardian
>mfw
To give a serious response though: his argument seems to be that offshoring is inefficient because people lose work. The employment rate has nothing to do with efficiency though. If you can produce the same product using fewer resources you are being more efficient. So, if moving a factory saves you money (when considering all factors and not just wages) you are being more efficient.
I'd be able to study while I'm on neetbux. That's about it. Same as right now except I'd be able to study at 25%. I probably get more learning done without uni right now either way.
>>27166216
>I said nothing about white people
you might as well have, you're being just as stupid about the privilege of being class conscious as some absurd luxury exclusive to the privileged. It reminded me of SJWs, so I said it.
>>27166216
>At least democracy gives some influence to the average person
It really is amazing how good and easy a life you can live in that form of society if you actually keep your mind on what you need rather than what you want.
Really the reason capitalism and democracy suffer so bad is that feel good drag we humans put on ourselves
>>27166235
Maximizing corporate profits is not the most efficient thing for society or even the greater industry in general.
That's what's wrong with free-market capitalists. They can't think outside of the context of what's in the best interest for corporate shareholders.
>>27166147
>guys just lack any ability to download pdf
I can't read that stupid shit for more than five minutes famalam, fuck you want me to download it for?
>Are you all really that ingrained into capitalistic propaganda and statism that you refuse to even acknowledged the fact that people could maybe, possibly, run their own lifes?
LMAO you mean have people smart enough to understand, implement, and become leaders of a communist country rule them. S M H
>>27166229
I was referring to 4chan the site wouldn't exist in a culture that needed to weight the value of it. Moot's stupid sacrifice of money is what bore this place to what it is today.
>>27165083
fuck off back to rebbit commie and take your failed ideology with you
>>27166216
you can trust me when I say socialism is better for you and I will run things for you quite well, better than the other guys. now get back into your factory, you might not get a paycheque anymore but at least you'll get your gruel
>>27166172
>You fucking know what owning the means of production is actually referring to
Apparently I don't. I was under the impression that it means you own a productive asset. Care to enlighten me?
>>27166180
>>27166172
As far as the profit != need argument you are essentially trying to argue that people don't *need* iPhones or whatever dumb gadget they buy, and in a sense you may be right. However, you are just making a value judgment about other people's purchases and this is why I am opposed to communism. Basically, who died and made you king? If someone wants to buy a new phone and they've got the cash what gives you the right to say no?
To address the advertising point:
The purpose of advertising is to communicate to consumers the existence/benefits of a product or service. It does not "trick" people into buying things. Just think: have you ever been "tricked" to buy Doritos after watching the Superbowl? I doubt it.
>>27166301
Why the fuck couldn't people make a silly website in a socialist society?
They'd have a shit ton of free time and they wouldn't have to worry about capital accumulation.
>>27166000
>Literally every statist is a privileged college, sorry, high school student who wants to tell poor people what's best for them without having a clue about their actual thoughts or mentality.
Literally all of them?!
>>27166324
>have you ever been "tricked" to buy Doritos after watching the Superbowl? I doubt it.
I think you are giving some people here, at least, OP to much credit.
Hierarchy inevitably exists, there's no way of destroying class, of destroying any form of the state, of destroying any form of private ownership.
Communism seeks to work against nature, and every time nature has punished the communists. You must abide by the natural law.
>>27166324
Yes, people who have a tiny percentage of shares in a corporation are technically "owners". No, that does not mean they legitimately own or manage it in any real sense.
Also, all socialists want to do is put production in the hands of the workers. If the workers and the communities they serve collectively decide that they want to produce iPhones for everybody, then that's perfectly fine. We just don't think that sort of production decision should exclusively be in the hands of a few elites.
>>27166322
Didn't see that one coming :^)
Are you incapable of an actual rebuttal or just lazy?
Wouldn't even mind being a wagecuck, because the jobs would actually be meaningful. No need to stand around at a cash register or flip burgers. I'd be out in the fields plowing the wheat in a comfy tractor, giving bread to the masses.
>>27166383
whats stopping you from working on a farm right now?
>>27166332
I don't think you understand the tens of thousands moot had to put into this place. He spent a long part in horrid debt (and likely still is) keeping his baby alive. In a society like communism it likely wouldn't exist for the time, money and resource it would cost to keep around.
That culture/society has shown in the past it's not all that great fueling materials and labor at leisure such as this.
>>27165460
Tribal societies were incredibly violent for exactly the reasons you said. That only proves your original point wrong because normal guys didn't and still don't just let "alphas" dominate everything.
>good little tribes who follow the pecking order continue to pass down their good boy genes
Yeah, agricultural societies did eventually win. It just took two hundred thousand years.
>>27166383
>No need to stand around at a cash register or flip burgers.
in all likelihood you'd be tending the bread lines which is essentially the same thing, except instead of being paid in free capital at the end of the day, you now stand in the bread line yourself so you can get some food
>>27166324
The resources came from the commons which we all share and inhabit and this is where I have a problem with people wasting resources by rebranding and reselling the same tired shit.
So, desu, who died and made you king?
With a decentralized means of production we could focus on finding the best solution to the problem of communication rather than having thousands of solutions to choose from whilst waiting resources from the commons.
>>27166367
>Appeal to nature
>>27166398
Being alienated from the product of my labor, doing someone else work, toiling all day to make someone else money while being compensated with pennies.
If I had enough money to buy a farm, and a big enough farm that it could be competitive with the other farms, I would do it in a heartbeat.
>>27166383
This.
No more greedy Jew management trying to maximize profits off you, just getting the job done and going home with your fair share.
>>27166399
>communism
>money
Please, anon. Moot had to pay for servers, domain names, etc. Those sorts of costs literally wouldn't exist in communism because those sorts of costs rely on the concept of private property.
>>27166398
It's already dominated by state-subsidized farmers. With modern technology you only need one farmer to care for acres of land. In reality, anon wouldn't be a farmer, he'd probably work in a factory or a mine.
>>27166415
on the nose and as such why it doesn't work. because what if you wanted to be a farmer but they just wouldn't let you. What then? Do you rebel? Stop working? You're just a broken cog now, you can be strip and removed to starve and die while another will take your spot.
You lose all autonomy in that society.
>>27166440
you don't need to buy a farm to work on it anymore than you need to buy a bakery to make bread at it. not like you're going to be put in charge of hundreds of workers under communism anyways, with your only qualifications being "posts on the internet"
>>27166437
>not understanding proper usage of logical fallacy accusations
>>27166445
moot wouldn't have had access to those kinds of things, and even if he were able to, the amount of time, resources and energy he put into it wouldn't have been feasible under communism
>>27166451
not every farm grows corn. a lot of crops still need to be hands on
>>27166451
>he'd probably work in a factory or a mine.
With safe conditions and lax workloads. Have you ever worked in a modern, unionized mining job? It's a great job.
>>27165491
>there are people who UNIRONICALLY think that there are homeless people because there aren't cheap enough houses to put them in
>>27166458
The point remains, I want to do my own work, and get paid in the product of my labor, not do someone else's work, only a masochist would be happy doing someone else's work.
>>27166476
Corn, soy, cotton, and tobacco are all largely subsidized.
Things like leafy greens and fruit are mostly harvested by mexican migrants, and it's exhausting back-breaking labor, far from the comfy life anon desires.
>>27166462
>Actually, projecting this hard.
>>27166445
but the servers are parts and energy that can be used for better things. Your right the "cost" is gone but the "why" is going to kill it from ever existing.
>>27166451
You have no idea how much free range and organic has taken off. Huge amounts of Oregon farm land has been bought by civilians wanting to start the simple life and have 'succeed' (they are farmers but not wealthy) due to the growing trend of the states wanting "real" crops and meat.
>>27166372
>No, that does not mean they legitimately own or manage it in any real sense.
Sure it does. They have a direct influence on the BoD in proportion to their interest in the company (at least with most charters). If Bob the Welder wants to be on the Board he can throw his hat in the ring and lobby for votes. The problem, of course, is that Bob probably isn't qualified so he won't get any votes.
>We just don't think that sort of production decision should exclusively be in the hands of a few elites.
Again, production decisions are not in the hands of "a few elites." The market dictates what will be made. Are you familiar with the phrase "vote with your dollar?" Basically, if society decides they want something badly enough some enterprising person/organization will fill that need.
>>27166475
Why?
The servers are collectively run and free of charge because it's fucking communism. Domain names are intellectual property, and therefore wouldn't exist.
Of course, this all assumes that computers as we currently think of them will exist under communism. There's no way to know if that'll be the case, so any answer is pure speculation.
>>27166484
>Have you ever worked in a modern, unionized mining job
Emphasis on modern, things wouldn't go so well when the current commie government gets to decide what's best for the workers instead of the workers themselves. A lot of coal miners still get cancer and whatnot as well.
>>27166487
>Wants to get paid in the product of his labor
>Lets porky subsidize his labor value.
And for the last time, eh, state ownership is not collective ownership over the means of production by the working class.
>>27166456
>What then? Do you rebel? Stop working? You're just a broken cog now, you can be strip and removed to starve and die while another will take your spot.
fucking exactly
commietards don't get it, the system doesn't allow for people to be anything other than cogs in the machine. It took years for people to be able to get even the most basic shit, and your profession was predestined for you when you were in school. There was no pulling a shitty job while going to college to better yourself, you were stuck doing the same shit on end for years with little to no compensation outside of raw necessities. Even then, people were still starving.
>>27166485
Affordable housing for the homeless programs have put a huge dent on the homeless population in recent years. Only the worst cases cannot be helped but with the burden taken off of shelters we can more than accommodate them.
>>27166512
>The servers are collectively run and free of charge
nothing is truly free.
it's a lot of energy and time wasted on what boils down as a webpage for hobbies and people to post stupid shit
>Of course, this all assumes that computers as we currently think of them will exist under communism
likely they would not and I doubt they would be in peoples homes.
>>27166485
Sure, there are homeless people because of mental illness.
But there are also homeless families and children because of poverty caused by capitalism. Normally the government provides them temporary housing which wouldn't happen in completely free markets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/nyregion/ordinary-families-cloaked-in-a-veil-of-homelessness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>27166512
considering the amount of bullshit you had to go through just to buy a fucking car, i doubt they'd allow server space to be 'wasted' on a polynesian coconut forum
>>27166580
who would even own a computer? or want to sit in front of one after a 12 hour work day?
>>27166507
organic farming pales in productivity to large-scale farming, making use of GMO crops and modern plows, combines, etc.
In a communist society, this is what would work. Small-scale organic farming works now because there's a niche market for it, emphasis on MARKET.
>>27166594
>who would even own a computer?
no one, the internet would be 'collectivist'
AKA run by the government and full of state sponsored propaganda, like China today
>>27165083
>communism, and had total freedom,
doesn't work like that buddy boy
>>27166556
That's assuming the government even has the room for temporary housing
That's where any society falls apart, to many people resource few? people suffer
Not enough people to maintain the labor needed to make/gather resource? people suffer
It's why there is no magic society that fixes everything and really we are just picking the one we think might work for the life we want rather than any true grand scope of things.
>>27165338
this is why we can't let underage on this website
>>27166235
Which is why axioms of capitalist efficiency are not the axioms by which we should measure ourselves or the societies in which we live. Maximising productivity at the expense of people is absurd, its overproduction for its own sake, in a society where nobody has a job.
You're creating a system in which a working minority is taxed to death to subsidise a majority of degraded, dissipated and demoralised NEETs, so that the latter can make purchases and keep things going.
The way in which we sacrifice people to this fetishised god of efficiency is as nonsensical and sick to me as it was to Adam Smith.
>>27166367
>Hierarchy inevitably exists
>Communism seeks to work against nature
I hope the nature spirits don't take issue with what I do, really. How about I sacrifice a child to Baal Hammon?
>>27165083
you already have total freedom, OP. you just need to pay people money to impose on theirs a little, such as the person who spends their time frying a burger or flying a plane. if you just stole their time without compensation, that would be communism but chances are you'd be on the receiving end of that "freedom"
>>27166640
>really we are just picking the one we think might work for the life we want rather than any true grand scope of things.
I sympathize with that. But there is nothing wrong with also striving for a better world.
Having a ideal society in mind gives people a direction to move towards. It's also better than just letting rich bastards and "the market" control most aspects of your life.
>>27166755
if you want to make a better world you'd be getting into the sciences and not politics of all things. goddamn
>>27166650
>Actually taking the time to look up the definition of a word means you're underage
>an r9k thread makes me grow a great dislike for faceless anons being very stupid and likely underage and make me wish there nonexistence
>it's not a normie/gurl thread
Im not sure how I feel about this
>>27166827
>he still feels things
lol
>>27166778
this
we have enough arm chair activists and the like on the internet.
>>27166682
>Maximising productivity at the expense of people is absurd, its overproduction for its own sake
But capitalism doesn't maximize production, it maximizes PROFIT. These are two different things.
>You're creating a system in which a working minority is taxed to death to subsidise a majority of degraded, dissipated and demoralised NEET
I'm confused now. Are you talking about welfare? Welfare has nothing to do with capitalism. I'm not in favor of it personally but that's not really the subject of the thread.
The underlying theme of your post (if I'm understanding you correctly) is that we should make choices that benefit people rather than profit. To that I say (again), the function of a business is to make a return for its owners while operating within the bounds of the law. If you want to be charitable, that's great but make a separate charity for it, rather than trying to shoehorn it into business.
>>27166778
>>27166850
It doesn't need to be science (or whatever) vs politics; you can do both.
>>27166894
But odds are you're doing neither
>>27166791
>be 13
>see a big word like "communism"
>have no idea what it means
>copy and paste the definition from wikipedia because that must be correct
>>27166934
I vote and live in a swing state.
>>27166755
there will always be rich bastards and the market
They will take different shapes and names but you will never be rid of them. No society will remove them no amount of action or change will erase them.
You know that saying "you either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain"?
That's what it is talking about
>>27166978
wow, get your nobel peace prize yet?
>>27166778
>if you want to make a better world you'd be getting into the sciences
So said the futurists and the technicians of the early USSR. The former got to see the World Wars, the biggest exhibitions of modern technology ever produced, the latter ruled their little bureaucratic fiefdoms like Roman patricians, doling out cars, offices, etc. to their favourites.
They were confident that they knew best because they were the experts - its extremely easy to drape this mindset in socialist trappings, as you probably know from China.
Living standards rose, true, but in an authoritarian and repressive context. Their descendants are today the oligarchs of the post-Soviet countries, who still, I think, believe in the essential correctness of the technocratic approach.
A lot of so-called communists shared your opinions with regards to the sciences, those were the ones who failed.
>>27166755
'Better' depends on class interest. For the proletariat, a communist world is a better one, for the bourgeoisie, it means being assimilated into a classless society, and losing their privileges relative to their inferiors. So its a worse world.
In any case, communism is not an ideal society. Ideals are the purview of idealists.
Communism is a material progression, which, though it allow everyone to live how they please and direct their efforts towards whatever end, will most likely create new contradictions, different from those we currently deal with under capitalism.
>>27166944
>someone actually typed this unironically
>>27167033
the world has improved since ww2 though. so they weren't wrong
>>27166944
>Has no counterargument
>"Your a teen"
What is your special snowflake definition of communism then? And pls don't link me to a neonazi/libertarian blog.
>>27167009
lol not yet.
If I lived under communism I would take a few sick days off of work, and then be shot.
>>27167050
Sure, but it might have improved better under different systems of governance. It's impossible to know for sure because we don't have a control Earth to compare against.
>>27166860
>But capitalism doesn't maximize production, it maximizes PROFIT. These are two different things.
I'll admit that I should have said efficiency when I said productivity, but efficiency is the means to profit's end, and in the pursuit of profit, capitalists will fire people, close businesses, outsource, in order to maximise efficiency at the lowest cost.
>I'm confused now. Are you talking about welfare? Welfare has nothing to do with capitalism.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. Keynes was not a socialist, he was a liberal, he had every intention of preserving capitalism.
Welfare is how you turn unemployment to your advantage in a consumer economy. The unemployed still need to eat, they need to consume goods to survive if nothing else, but without jobs in an old school economy, they turn either to crime or they starve.
In a late capitalist economy, you can levy tax on the working population, tax every purchase made in the country, and in so doing, you can subsidise the unemployed and let them buy things, thus taxing them, and so on.
This requires a higher level of taxation on both business and the working class, but since the latter benefits from subsidies, the trouble, if any, comes from business. They don't like to be taxed, even if its saving their lives, they can't perceive why their grandfathers allowed welfare to be created in the first place.
>>27167050
It could just have easily gone up in nuclear fire.
They were half-right. They fetishised technology for its own sake, rather than considering the application. Its a tool, and politics is the means by which we decide how to use the tool.
We'll only exasperate the machines if we ask them what we should do, they'll be expecting the same of us.
>>27167174
>capitalists will fire people, close businesses, outsource, in order to maximise efficiency at the lowest cost.
There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, in the long run, it benefits everyone since more efficient production leads to lower costs which leads to a lower cot of living to everyone.
>On the contrary...
Kaynes didn't really have much to do with the modern welfare state, he advocated make-work type programs among other things sure (which is its own brand of stupid but I digress), but not really modern welfare.
Anyway, welfare is not needed for capitalism to function (which is what I think you're trying to get at). If you removed it people would be forced to be productive or starve.
OP, read The Wealth of Nations and The Communist Manifesto, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and have an idealised picture of a perfect society where you get a bunch of free shit without having to work for it.
>>27165165
OP is retarded. but to respond to your question, wouldn't that be great? srs, just imagine. that would be awesome.
>>27167334
>it benefits everyone since more efficient production leads to lower costs which leads to a lower cot of living to everyone.
Except the kids who lost their entire early education and future lives putting together sneakers that a machine could have done since the 1970's. Literally hundreds of millions of lives ruined.
The problem was that it was "cheaper" for western companies to prey on weak third world governments and take advantage of desperate people so they didn't have to pay a little bit more to fully automate. Payment is so low that hundreds of millions of people earning a $1 a day can't afford much more than food.
Documentary trailer below is about fashion industry, but really it applies to every single product produced in the third world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss
>>27167578
then why would they look after you? You serve no purpose
>>27167334
>it benefits everyone since more efficient production leads to lower costs which leads to a lower cot of living to everyone.
And if you are one of the hundreds of thousand of unemployed? 'Be productive or starve' is nonsensical when it is unprofitable for any new businesses to open up, and nobody has the capital to start one who isn't working already.
>Kaynes didn't really have much to do with the modern welfare state,
He got the ball rolling, surely enough.
>welfare is not needed for capitalism to function
Yes, it is. You don't see this because you are projecting the logic of capitalism, an abstract system, into natural law. If welfare goes, capitalism will continue to function, for a while, but what happened before welfare will simply happen again.
When capitalism is allowed to function normally, it creates the forces which seek to destroy it. This is why welfare exists.
If you say 'be productive or starve' to people, in a situation where there is no opportunities to produce, in a situation where what they produce is appropriated by their employer, where job security is minimal since changes in the market can be more easily adapted to, you are not creating a society that can last, you are creating a communist's wet dream.
>>27165083
I kept reading expecting the punchline that never came.
>>27167621
>muh sweatshops (sorry, not trying to be flippant but that's the post in a nutshell)
What you need to ask yourself is: what were those kids doing BEFORE the factory came to town? In all likelihood they were being even less productive and therefore making even less money, leading to a lower quality of life. From where you and I sit the job no doubt looks like shit but the fact of the matter is those people freely chose to take the job because it betters their life. Just like how people have to develop themselves over time (working at McDonalds at 16 or whatever then getting a "real" job down the line) so too do less developed countries. Low skill labor like in the garment industry is a natural stage of progression for a country's development and is a desirable thing. It is not "exploitative."
>>27167668
>And if you are one of the hundreds of thousand of unemployed?
In the short run they will be harmed. I agree. But, if you made all of your decisions based on short run considerations we would all be sitting in caves harvesting berries.
>'Be productive or starve' is nonsensical when it is unprofitable for any new businesses to open up
And why would it be unprofitable for a new business to start? Human desire is essentially infinite so I would argue there is always room in the market for something new. It's just a matter of bringing that something to market, which may be difficult but then everything in life worth doing is tough.
>If you say 'be productive or starve' to people, in a situation where there is no opportunities to produce... you are creating a communist's wet dream.
People are on welfare because it is their best alternative (i.e. they would make less if they tried to work). Basically, they are the types to go with the flow, path of least resistance. No one's really concerned about them overthrowing society or what have you.
Anyway, I've really enjoyed this conversation with you all. It's fun to talk seriously on 4chan once in a while. It's past midnight now though and I must sleep.
>>27167820
>what were those kids doing BEFORE the factory came to town?
Living full, happy lives.
Well, a lot of them probably wouldn't exist because those areas would still be living within their own means of subsistence, but the people that were there would be doing as well as they ever had.
Once you get to where people have to work at the factory just to make ends meet, that's where it gets exploitative. That's when the "choice" to not work there becomes the freedom to starve. Well, and the rationalization that lets the people collecting the profits from home office sleep at night.
>>27167960
>Living full, happy lives.
No, they were doing something else to support themselves and their families and probably making less in doing it. The factor was a net benefit to them.
Okay, now I'm seriously going to sleep. Goodnight all.
>>27168012
They would have been making less money but they were living better lives. The factory is a net benefit to the people who own it, not the people who actually work at it. Which of course is exactly what the factory owners think they're supposed to be doing; you get things for the lowest price you can and if the other guy gets fucked that's his problem. That's capitalism. Turn off your empathy and rest easy.
>>27165083
>camping
>climbing mountains
>traveling
>absolutely busy
>learning new things
>seeing new places
>sleep with purpose
That's certainly an interesting way to describe being a refugee fleeing a totalitarian regime.
>>27165083
and you would be executed by the state for being a willful non-contributor. That's how communism works, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It's a shit system, neets who love it as an ideal wouldn't actually get to enjoy it
>>27167955
>In the short run they will be harmed. I agree.
That's not short term. Britain implemented some of the policies you allude to in the 70s-80, there are still chronically unemployed people since then. You think that unemployment is something that will just 'go away' given time, its not - its a normal feature of capitalism's normal functioning.
>And why would it be unprofitable for a new business to start? Human desire is essentially infinite so I would argue there is always room in the market for something new
Human desire may be infinite, but you're incredibly ignorant if you think the means to make those purchases are.
Considering that you are talking about scrapping benefits, there will be altogether less money in the pockets of the largest purchasers, the working class, so demand will go down.
As for unprofitable business: when businesses multiply, competition becomes more intense, and prices fall as businesses compete. This will force some out of the market and their workers into unemployment, and will lead to ever larger conglomerations of businesses, as it did in reality.
Competing against conglomerations as a smaller entity is not feasible. The talk of 'something new' reeks of feel-good sentimentality and moralism.
>People are on welfare because it is their best alternative (i.e. they would make less if they tried to work). Basically, they are the types to go with the flow, path of least resistance. No one's really concerned about them overthrowing society or what have you.
They may be on welfare because work seems to them a raw deal, but the economy also needs their spending on consumer goods.
You're delusional if you think that some innate quality of people on welfare will make them less militant if you take away their means of subsistence, but that's middle class naivete for you.
>>27167955
>And why would it be unprofitable for a new business to start?
Because there is a 90% failure rate every 3 years for new businesses. You Literally have a better chance going to a casino and betting on Roulette table. If the 46 Million people on food stamps face starvation and only 10% can even feed themselves from starting a business, shit will go down.
>they are the types to go with the flow, path of least resistance.
When the path of least resistance is to kill some rich people and their bootlicking cronies, I wonder what will happen...
>No one's really concerned about them overthrowing society or what have you.
Good, then they won't see what is coming.
>>27165338
In every communist society in human history, you know what happened if you didn't work?
You got dragged out into the street and shot.
It cannot work in a way that benefits you as a NEET. You would be in a field or factory 60 hours a week and still have a lower standard of life than you do now.
>>27165687
Can you seriously read some fucking history before ever posting on this topic again?
How much leisure time was there in the USSR? China in the 1960s? Cambodia?
Fucking freshmen. I hate them.
>>27168419
nailed it. In pure ideal end-state communism, there is no ruling party and everybody shares everything, but society can still only function if production outweighs consumption. People have a lot of empathy for people with health problems, failed enterprises or simple bad luck, but society has very little tolerance for willful non-contributing leeches. A mildly socialist society works best for NEET faggots because they can hide in the minority without affecting others too badly.
>>27165687
I don't even. I hope this is master tier trolling because everything you said is wrong and history is full of counterexamples.
>>27168452
>How much leisure time was there in the USSR? China in the 1960s?
Plenty.
People didn't work as much as you think they did under socialism, in the USSR at least.
The 'working 46hrs a day' shit was applicable in the 40s-50s, but in the 60s life in the USSR looked pretty good, lots of people thought it was working. In other Warsaw Pact countries, like CZ were doing even better, though perhaps the Habsburgs deserve more praise for that than the Soviets.
As for China, the 60s were especially tumultuous because Joe Bananas had been allowed to run the country into the ground for autarkic purposes.
If you still believe that Kampuchea was communist, then you are a high-school student, and any talk of freshmen from you is manifest fucking deceit.
Eat shit.
>>27168528
gonna need a cite on that one my revisionist friend
>>27168574
>ura revisionsist!
I've found that the people who think this term is pejorative don't study history.
Also I'm not your friend, nor is anyone else.
What do you want citations for?
>Soviet leisure time
Porket, J. L., Work, Employment and Unemployment in the Soviet Union, pp. 169
'the average length of an adult working week fell [...] to 40.7 hours in 1969'
>Chinese unrest in the 1960s
Great Famine was 59-61, Cultural Revolution began in 66. Make of conludigns.
DPRK was a racist, agrarian despotism. The fact that all food was appropriated by the KR doesn't make them communist any more than it made Taiping, and calling yourself a communist doesn't make you one, just like calling himself Jesus' little brother didn't make Hong Xiuquan so.
