I can see how frustrated you are now that you're getting cucked by the 1% and fighting useless wars in the Middle East.
A wise man once said you need to take the power back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APmUWC8S1_M
I hope you fly the red flag high
>>27347662
My family moved here to get away from socialism. And it doesn't work, human nature, power corrupts, limited resources, etc., etc.
>>27348566
*wrong pic
fuck off original comment bot
>>27347662
How would giving the State more power be taking the power back?
What >>27348574 said.
Socialism is the state dictating that the masses must be equal, and trampling the rights of the individual.
Anarchism is an angry mob dictating that the masses must be equal, and trampling the rights of the individual.
So the only "cucks" here are the leftist shills who think that living your entire life in service to the "common good" is actually desirable.
>>27348568
Your family didn't move to "get away from socialism" they moved away as economic migrants. It's contentious whether countries like Cuba and the USSR can even be called socialist, and with that Cuba was still the first country to eliminate mother-to-child transmition of HIV. If human nature is the argument against socialism, and human nature is bad, what good can come of accepting human nature? Surely allowing for more abuses, power and waste of resources isn't the way to go. Socialism is defined by socialists as the means to produce being owned and controlled by the producers, which is something very different from the authoritarian state-capitalism of the USSR and other Marxist-Leninist states. In fact, movement towards this kind of economic freedom in the 20th century has led to conflict between the authoritarian states and the socialists. That was what happened in Hungary in 1956.
>>27347662
>tfw love RATM
Oh well at least they have some killer riffs
>>27348622
Autocracy is the system that provides the individual with the most rights.
>>27348643
Depends on the powers of the Autocrat.
>>27348706
But there's never going to be a more individualistic society than an autocratic one.
>>27348727
Yes, there is.
Well, potentially.
>>27348737
What would that society look like?
>>27348643
There's no historical example of that, however.
It is technically the case that a supreme autocrat who chose to not interfere in any aspect of people's lives aside from direct crimes (murder/rape/theft/fraud/etc) would be the most benevolent, individuality-respecting ruler. But the chances of such a person coming to such power and choosing not to exercise it are nil.
Technically, democracy is a rather poor system of government. Seeing as it dictates that the 51% have the right to decide how the 49% live, which is grotesquely inhumane.
So our best chance at preserving real freedom and individualism (Which is not a bad thing) is to keep both leftists and rightists out of power. The leftists want to forcibly take away your wealth, the rightists want to force their morals upon you, and both groups often want to destroy your freedom of speech.
>>27348771
If more than one person has individual freedom it can't really be called individual freedom though, that was my point.
>>27348744
The State of Nature.
Also, do not conflate Society with the State. They are different.
lmao yeah what can go wrong
>>27348791
What? This doesn't make any sense.
>>27348802
Tribal peoples were very collectivist though. One tribe had a custom where if somebody was eating alone he had to call out three times to see if anybody was there to join him before he started.
>>27348627
>Your family didn't move to "get away from socialism" they moved away as economic migrants.
Yeah. I guess my great-grandfather was thrown in prison for being an "economic dissident".
>>27348627
>Socialism is defined by socialists as the means to produce being owned and controlled by the producers, which is something very different from the authoritarian state-capitalism of the USSR and other Marxist-Leninist states.
"They weren't really socialist, honest!"
Authoritarian state capitalism is inevitable when you try to implement socialism through the central government. The only way it could work is if you had a very strong democratic system in place already and the transition happened through elections and there was some way to prevent the abuses of power that come with socialist states. And even then, it probably wouldn't be enough, because you run into issues like the calculation problem.
>>27348825
When we talk about "the individual", it's a way of describing the essence of "one person". If you say for example that there are individual rights that apply to everybody they're really collective rights because they're specifically held by more than one person.
>>27348835
A tribal government is not the State of Nature. A tribal society has no power to enforce it's desires.
>>27348855
>Yeah. I guess my great-grandfather was thrown in prison for being an "economic dissident".
There's a 99.999% chance that he was a property owner. That's how most Cuban-Americans got to the US. They were supporters of the Batista government.
>"They weren't really socialist, honest!"
It doesn't fit the definition so it's not the thing.
>Authoritarian state capitalism is inevitable when you try to implement socialism through the central government
that's why I'm arguing against that.
>>27348878
People aren't naturally alone, that's ridiculous. For starters you need two people to make one in the first place.
>>27348791
No, not really. Unless you take it to the absolute extremes.
Individual freedom shouldn't mean that you have the right to kill others, for instance, because that means that you'd be infringing upon another person's individual freedom, by taking their life against their will.
Individual freedom means that you should have the right to do whatever you want to your own body, whatever you want to a consenting person's body, and the right to do essentially anything that does not cause direct unwanted harm to another individual. All victimless crimes should also be abolished under those terms (All drugs should be legal, prostitution, etc.)
Taxes should also ideally be minimal, or gradually phased out of society. Seeing as the inherent principle behind tax is that "money should be forcibly taken from one individual, against their will, to fund the collective".
Socialism/left-wing anarchism are in direct conflict with all of these ideas, because they hold as a core principle that "the rights of the individual should be decreased so we can grant more rights to the collective". Essentially, the end goal of a left-wing society is the abolition of "the individual", and the creation of a world where only the rights of mass groups matter.
>>27348918
>"the rights of the individual should be decreased so we can grant more rights to the collective"
But you just said that in relation to the limits of individual freedom. If the freedom of the individual is limited by the freedom of others, that's collective freedom. It's the reason property should be abolished.
>>27347662
Cringe.
Realistically speaking the other 99% is useless. You are just employees that can be easily replaced by robots amd automated devices! If anything the top rich people are making easy for people like you to live. Too easy. You don't have a real job, you are not helping to advance the world! If someday the Earth gets raided by Aliens and UFOs you know who they are gonna speak to? To the guy that does whatever in some random store? No!. They will talk to intelligent people, representants of the country.
If you want to change, if you really want to change you got to put your braincells to work. And you have to be ambitious. The world isn't goimg to take you by the hand. That's the truth. Now you can choose between being a spoiled whining brat or you can change.
>>27348869
No, I think you're misunderstanding.
An individual right is that which concerns many individuals as independent people. For instance, I as an independent person have the right to own property that I have acquired legally, such as a house or a car. That property cannot be taken away from me, lawfully, without my consent.
Collective rights are often coated in individualist terms, but always require the involvement of force or coercion of unwilling individuals. For instance, in the UK there is "the right to free healthcare". What that doesn't tell you is that the supposedly "free" healthcare must be funded by the state forcibly extracting money from some individuals and allocating it to other individuals who did not work for it. The same goes for any form of social security. It all involves rights being granted to "the collective" by way of money/property being taken from individuals.
>>27348908
Which is irrelevant to a State or not. The State of Nature does not preclude a society, just a government.
Of course it's mostly utopian in outlook. We as a species will probably never advance to the point where the State of Nature is tenable. But it's something we should strive for in every instance.
>>27348987
But it's impossible to be independent in a society. We all rely on the work of other people to survive. Property effects the freedom of other people a lot because it makes people do more work than needs to be done, so they have less free time. It also takes away their freedom in relation to the action of working itself. If legally a proprietor can take away the product of my physical labour because of his hegemony over what I need to do that labour, that's authoritarian in theory and practice. There's no reason to support capitalism as a system, a real individualist just wants to be a billionaire or tsar himself.
>>27349044
A business has no power. That is solely the realm of the State.
>>27348935
You're partially correct. But I'd argue that individual freedom should ONLY be limited in regards to stopping some individuals from limiting the freedom of others. If you allow theft/rape/murder, you create a system whereby one individual, or many individuals, can force other individuals to live in a way they do not wish to live (or can force them not to live at all). That can't be allowed, realistically, in a free society.
But personal property is a cornerstone of a free society. Property rights are about lawful, peaceful exchange between consenting individuals. If I own a house, then presumably I paid for it by my own money, which I acquired by my own work and sweat. If you abolish property rights, then that property has to be forcibly, and perhaps violently, taken from individuals who acquired their property lawfully. The property then has to be collectively owned by all society, if it is not owned by an individual, and this opens the gate to mob rule - the majority of "society" can dictate how property/resources are used against the will of the minority.
>>27349086
It's not necessarily about power, it's about benefits. Self-interest is about doing what you want and what you think are the best conditions for you.
>>27349094
Money doesn't represent labour though, lots of people want a market economy where value derives from labour and this is accepted as a socialist view.
i've come to the conclusion that the socialist revolution needs a new development in the mode of production prior to any political revolution. we don't have a new mode emerging and rapidly expanding within capitalism the way capitalism began to expand during the 17th and 18th centuries, which of course in turn prompted the bourgeois political revolutions. we're wise enough to be able to understand the most general principles of the future form, but the reason why we fail to transform capitalism is because is can't transform the mode of production through sheer will, but only in historical developments when it becomes feasible
that doesn't mean i'm not against nationalization of, say, healthcare or energy in this world, today. anything that betters the conditions of the working class or empowers it is good with me.
>>27349044
>But it's impossible to be independent in a society. We all rely on the work of other people to survive.
And that's the kind of collectivist thinking that I am absolutely set against. What that implies is that nobody's work is their own, and nobody's property is their own, and that everything we do or produce must belong to a larger group than simply ourselves.
I should have the right to become a billionaire, provided I work for it. If I come into extreme wealth by way of many years of work, or by great fortune in business, then none should have the right to take that away from me, provided I did so within the framework of the law (Without use of theft, fraud, violence, etc).
What leftists say is that "no one should have the right to be a billionaire", because they believe that there is a line where one person becomes "too wealthy". But, again, if you deem that there is a point where someone is "too rich", you would need a system whereby you could stop people from becoming "too rich". That either means you need an all-powerful state which can forcibly remove wealth from the hands of the richest people, or you need an angry and violent anarchist mob which can forcibly remove wealth from the hands of the richest people. Both involve individuals, who have acted entirely within the law, being forced to give up their wealth against their will.
>>27349169
What's the law and the assumption it will be followed but a reliance on others?
How does one measure the worth of an idea, and whose idea was it but the idea of some other person that the money somebody has made represents in value the labour they did in order to receie it?
>>27349086
that's the most ridiculous bullshit i've ever heard. the practical definition of power is the capacity to make people do what you want them to do. which is exactly what businesses do. people for the most part loathe work
Socialism has not worked once in the ~170 countries it has been tried.
>>27349169
>provided I work for it.
bro, billionaires don't become billionaires by working. they become billionaires by having a shit ton of other people work for them.
that's what exploitation is. pay people for the time they work, they make more valuable shit for you in that time you pay them so you can sell it to other people to get more money than you spent on the time you paid people to work.
the reason why everyone doesn't opt out of this shit deal is because they can't. welcome to real life
>>27349280
But slavery doesn't exist, in real terms, on any mass scale in the west. You have every right to not work for someone if you feel you are being exploited.
Sure, if you made that decision you'd probably be a bit fucked, because if you think that even the local supermarket is "exploiting" you in a bog standard cashier job, you'd be completely out of work. But again, that'd be entirely by your own volition.
We exist in a (mostly) voluntary society. No one has you by the chains and is forcing you to work.
>socialism before: camaraderie, activity, loyalty, class struggle, universal goals based on the (marxist) nature of man (a creative being that should work out of freedom not money slavery)
>current socialism: oppression olympics and identity politics, no real universal value behind any action, just sticking it to the power structures which they (wrongly) identify
Went to something akin a leftist meeting, shit devolved into an argument whether women NGOs need more support or less than the elderly, no fucking mention of some real goals or raising awareness of exploitation.
So yeah, I keep my mouth shut and I'd rather be called a right winger than a socialist now, and considering my views these new nu-males and dykes would consider me that because I care more about economic oppression on the individual and global scale rather than the right of a sick fuck to be called a woman everywhere he wants.
>>27348918
>he wants to get rid of taxes
ha
fuck this cunt
