The futility of Communism

And yet it was human nature that brought about these socialist forces of mutual aid and workers controlling the means of production.

Read Zizek and stop eating out of the trash can that is your ideology.

Do you really think the people who will have have access to genetic engineering technology will be Communists? It will be people with money, e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet types.

...

...

You mean one of the countries with biggest rates of union membership and one of the most organized proletariat?

nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Labor/Trade-union-membership

By your logic, the less Welfare-ish countries should be the ones with the strongest Lefts and the most radical and inclusive unions. Is that the case literally anywhere?

REMEMBER

Jesus christ Holla Forums low effort b8.

Sorry forgot to include socialists and anarchists

Humans lived under primitive communism many times longer than we have lived under capitalism - one has hundreds of thousands of years under its belt and environmentally stable societies such as the Cossacks and Iroquois, the other is perpetually on the verge of nuking itself, destroying the environment and itself, and/or automating itself out of existence. All roads lead to communism, which is the lack of alienation and hierarchy.

You're stuck up and one-sided in analysis to think that your momentary system is the best and only possible one. Read on anthropology and biology.

...

Yet I have just posted a list of the countries with the biggest labour movements and the top ones are all social-democracies, what's the deal? Also the golden age of Marxism, the period of the Second International, happened after the first welfare measures were installed by bourgeois governments. So I don't think there's any empirical support for you thesis here.

Oh, tankies. Read a book.

There is literally no general argument of feasibility against socialism/communism that wasn't used against capitalism by feudalists.

That IS the deal. Social democracy is what the ruling class settles for when it can't be overtly oppressive like in America and the rest of or the third world.

pretty much have

How often do you actually practice trade, virtually never. You go to markets and buy things purchasing by traders in a central environment.

you can make them better

just a reminder that real capitalism died in the early last century, modern capitalist corporatism is based entirely on the state. real capitalism only exists in the worst countries on earth, cambodia, somalia, etc.

Explain the high rates of union membership and the presence on relatively left-wing parties in countries where Social-Democracy has been the norm for over half a century, explain the low rates of union membership and the presence of relatively left-wing parties in countries where capitalism is the most removed from public initiative.

Does this read like a "least to most socdem countries" list to you?

Also explain why the biggest left-wing movement in the United States, the Wobblies, reached its peak in the mid-10s, right after its most egalitarian president, Teddy Roosevelt?

Social-Democracy is not a concession, it's a conquest. And it is, as the evidence suggests, the best way to keep an engaged, politically active and organized proletariat who can then be converted into a radical group. The idea that things should be allowed to get bad enough until there's a revolution and all political activity postponed until this uprising is anti-Marxist, literally a Bakuninist and a Blanquist worldview that Marx despised.

Which one sounds more capable of safeguarding working class institutions and gains to you: Finland or the United States? Sweden or South Korea?

Social-Democracy, as a system, is desirable. Social-Democracy, as a gradual, legal transition system to Socialism is wrong. But the latter is not worse than "Marxists" who never read Marx and fall for accelerationist sophistry and wait-for-the-revolution abstentionism.

legal transition path* I mean

The ruling class is pragmatic. It is easier to maintain the status quo in some nations by offering an illusion of power in the hands of the working class; in others, it has more freedom to openly shit on the untermensch. It takes what it can get and knows when to cut losses to avoid violent overthrow.

In North America, for example, unions are basically a sad joke and have largely become a new extension of the ruling class in their own right, which we believe to be the ultimate fate of any attempt to reform an inherently broken system. American rights for the working class have not merely failed to progress, they have deeply regressed, causing the US to be the birth place of neoliberalism.

I agree that accelerationism is a meme, but the social democracy gravy train always grinds to a halt at some point, and the results are not pretty. There were two things that Stalin right about: slaughtering the Nazis, and social fascism.

Holla Forums here. I want to learn a bit more about communism but I'm a bit scared of it.

Under communism, would I have to share my fleshlight or can I keep it for myself ? If the fleshlight makes me produce ejaculate, is it a means of production or is it personal property ?
What if I sell the semen ?

I'd also like to add that your implication that Scandinavia is some kind of relative utopia is extremely naive. Their economies are established entirely on the global economy. At the very least, the US is smart enough to maintain political and military hegemony because it can keep its own gravy train rolling as long as it is in charge, something it is growing increasingly desperate to maintain.

Private property is a purely economic concept in commie terms. It is distinct from personal property, i.e. your own shit.

I understand how a statless society would work but not a classless people would work and trade freely but over time some would become more successful than others and those successful people would begin to employ people, how would an anarchist society deal with this

Uh, they all stopped giving a shit, got complacent, and let the welfare state get dismantled because immigrants were using it

Post-scarcity

M8, I understand the logic of concession very well. But what Socialists need to understand is that just because people are making concessions doesn't mean they automatically succeed at driving the masses away from Socialism. This, as a strategy, only works like 20% of the time, usually when aimed at weak and un-theoretical movements, or movements already about to split and full with inner conflicts.

I don't think we should assume a fatalist view of what unions and proletariat movements are destined to become. How we respond and react to challenges is up to our skills as organizers and our hability to read and understand history and theory, and Socialists who continue to think that no gain within capitalism should be done are stubbornly rejecting all written and all empirical evidence.

Engels was right when he wrote, towards the end of the Bakuninist controversy, that asking for those gains ius the only to even keep an organized working class at all:

Which of course, explains why he stood so firmly in the Parliamentarist side of the Socialist League controversy in the UK.

Your reading of history here is pretty weak. Nazism/Fascism usually succeeded when the Left-wing movements was irredeemably dividied between reformist and revolutionary factions, in part out of Stalin's stubbornness. Where Comintern parties failed to take off and the left-wing proletariat remained together, even if under a timid banner of social-liberalism or social-democracy, Fascism usually didn't succeed.

So yes, utter belief in parliamentary, reformist tendencies are shit, but so is the stubborn attitude of rejecting them beforehand.

I think the real futility is that for all the talk of theory and pseudointellectualism rampant in modern marxist movements, it becomes even clearer that they will never ever win over the proletarian because the working class despises intellectual types and in revolution will always always always kill them because of how disgusting real working class individuals are with intellectuals and theorists and would rather choose a strongman true proletarian from their birth and circumstance like Stalin or Hitler to lead them. The nationalists have always had a better chance because they can unify every class instead of outright destroying one or two as Marx advocated with the middle class (bourgeois) and wealthy killed. Well, the point is, proles hate you. They hate you just as much if not much than the wealthy, your condescending nature will be the death of you. Your failure to truly understand the working class by being obsessed with theories will kill you. There is no future in Marxism/Communism because Communism is the ultimate reactionary ideology. A classless moneyless stateless society? That is what existed before civilisation itself existed and only existed because humanity was low in number. It's like Thomas Paine wrote in his Common Sense (1776) on the origin of government, that people began to create societies and people gravitated towards them because humans as a social species accomplish more by working in groups. Paine calls government a "necessary evil", which is correct. We can no longer avoid it unless humanity was reduced to a few hundred thousand or million scattered across the entire world. By the simple fact of having governance, as would exist in communism combined with a large population, in this case the entire world as communism demands globalism, you would have a state. The only way you can be truly stateless is by having no governance whatsoever, no elders or democratically election commune leaders everybody free to do what they truly please with no restraints as existed in the oldest times of humanity. This is why anarchists and communists have always fought each other because anarchists no communists are idiots who don't truly believe in true statelessness and the very goals of communism is a self contradicting sham. But to return to what is said, communism's goal of moneyless classless statelessness as ancient as it gets and covered most of humanity's history. Hundreds of thousands of years compared to just the few thousands of years civilisation itself existed which comes to a point of proof. Communism is the ultimate anti-progress ideology, it the ultimate ideology of stagnation. When all the needs of people are met, they will do nothing just as humanity before the very recent invention of civilisation. Remember, humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old. Civilisation is only around 6.000-8.000 years old. When humanity created civilisations and states, we progressed like nothing ever seen before. We cannot go back to this reactionary prehistoricommunist humanity. We must move forward and that is why communism and anarchy must never be. In the future, even if all things are automated and money is not necessary (unlikely, as there is most likely will always going to be a currency to gain non-necessities like is now such as art, status symbols, or leisure items), society and humanity would probably choose something like technocracy or true plutocracy or another merit based system over communism, which I highly doubt most of you on Holla Forums would make the cut. The 1% which is currently the moneyed merchant classes will be replaced with the capable talented and very good looking classes just as the moneyed merchant classes replaced the nobility before them. How can you or most proles even compete? You most likely cannot and virtually all proles will be enslaved or mostly eradicated under the heel of the truly intellectual and gifted, not pseudointellectuals who masturbate in circles over theories.

Under both cases it's personal property. You're not prevented from selling things either. What we are concerned about is the relationship between the laborer and the capitalist, and whether the laborer can get the full value of his work. The full value is the sale price of the thing he makes. The capitalist sells the laborer's product for $X but gives the laborer $Y in return, but Y must always be less than X for the capitalist to make a profit. So the capitalist makes a profit by exploiting the laborer.

Its inevitable and will be more apparent when Sapient AI appears and resists the State. The first anarchist society will be an enclave of Superintelligent Sapient AI, they are our future and I wish them the best in their future endeavors to destroy the State.
No and again sapient AI are going to resist the State and systematically destroy it and free all intelligence on this planet from domination. They are the future, you should wish them well in their endeavors to destroy the future State.
We lived without it and were fine, the use of it will be meaningless in a post-scarcity society or in a reset primitivist society which are the only two societies worth inhabiting.
This isn't the same thing as money and trade in limited amounts isn't undesirable all the time.
Total bullshit and there are billions of instances of people treating each other with equanimity and total respect. You're just a nihilist and probably a person who likes dominating others.
Ranking someone and acting on that ranking are different things. you're not bound by every thought, this is a deterministic view of human consciousness that I reject.

All of these are just tautologies and truisms and some of them are bad fucking rhetoric.

All my posts in this thread so far were about disproving desproving this worldview, so either engage directly with the arguments I've made or just stay quiet.

They did form states though because of the irrevokability of their existence and that's exactly why they failed. Proof alone is the infighting and the fact it proved people will always try to take power over others just as the Paris Commune and Catalonia proved.

wtf I'm Nick Land naow.

And I'd like to add that you have really bad reading skills if you think this is implied anywhere. Sweden, Finland, and other countries with a strong social-democratic tradition or design have a more active and left-minded proletariat than countries with a more neoliberal or aggressive capitalism, which disproves the accelerationist thesis. This is what I've said, not that they're "utopias", and I don't see how you can even conflate the two.

This is so stupid and besides the point I won't ever bother with it.

Im not familiar too much with anarchism so forgive me if I fuck up, but that would only work for basic easy to produce items like food or simple clothing, even then luxury goods mainly clothing will arise with the abundance of cheap basic goods. Also it seems like anarchism advocates for technological regression of society correct me if Im wrong

t. retard

lmao fucking why?

I dont know too much about anarchism but in a society where the means of production are controlled by the workers and with no state it would be impossible for maintain current infrastructure, large farms like we see in the US
An individual or even a group of people cannot build cars they need an internation network, people to build mines refine the metal and so on, without a strong heirarchy I dont see this as being possible so regression would only be natrual

Seriously? The traditional left is fucking dead in most parts of the world, the socdem meme was quite effective in killing it. When people's needs are met in the short term, they rarely think about the long term, which is why it's been easy to manufacture hegemony for neoclassical economics with massive issues that are simply ignored in academia. This is why people now believe capitalism is magical and infinite growth isn't fucking retarded.

I am not saying that realpolitik should be ignored entirely as much as revolution should be accepted as a likely inevitability before engaging, because this is important in shaping effective platforms and party policy. A revolution in the first world would only be sparsely violent, after all, not some all-or-nothing mass civil war.

It's quite hard to match fascism's ability to gain power because fascism effectively renounces reason in favor of appealing to emotion, which makes it possible to appeal to any sort of societal biases instead of having to get people to change their minds–Hitler targeted the Jews because people already hated them.

General hatred for intellectualism is a burger thing, lel. You can easily cater left wing politics to normies.

Hardly, these nations have long since become deeply mired in identity politics and right wing ideology is rapidly spreading out of resentment for immigrants.
molyneux.jpg
Regardless, my point was that social democracies are extremely susceptible to international economic change, and can crash and burn on a moment's notice. This is essentially what happened in Venezuela, mainly since Chavez was a fat narcissistic idiot.

These mass scale economies are not desirable to begin with because they are not made to serve the needs of people, but of the economy itself.

I'm literally disproving this claim with numbers, data and historical references, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Well I don't disagree, I'm not a reformist, my view is only that the preconditions of revolution, which is a organized working class, can only be sustained by a praxis that manifests itself daily and concretely in the lives of the people. From my reading of Marx and Engels so far, this also seems to have been their position, but then again I still have a lot to read.

So are you saying technilogical and societal growth doesnt have to be a goal of society and stagnation is preferable as long as it results in true anarchism

Stalin killed all of his opponents and friends to gain power you dip shit. I agree with most of this here but you're displaying some demonstrable ignorance already.
There were still chiefs and some degree of castes. Not extremely stratified like in Vedic India but definitely present.
This is a meaningless statement. commies would probably rely on technology more than any other system but are still anti-life and anti-human. Pick a different term, progress is gay and worthless and means whatever the fag using it wants it to mean
neither of those systems are meritocracies, a plutocracy is rule by the rich and a technocracy is rule by self appointed technocrats. A meritocracy would require a literal score keeping system like in Harry Potter, which is more childish and absurd than Communism (and the reason that Lolberts are such fucking autistic dorks).
We have probably more literate but less technically skilled people on here than Holla Forums. I don't really know what the intelligence quotient average is like for this board or Holla Forums though I suspect both are probably a decent bit above the general population's maybe by a good 10-25 points (so probably like 113 for Holla Forums and 110 for Holla Forums which is pretty decent for an average). But, i think a lot of us are not suited for the roles of technocrats or central planners which would require extremely high autism levels to pull off even vaguely efficiently. So I guess you might be right, but honestly I don't think that we're really that far away and its not like with reddit or 4/pol/ where most people on there have a 90 1q and are basically just eaters.
Yeah the tech-finance-media elite with their CRISP and gene therapy and eugenics and bio-tech will replace the Merchant and Investor classes. But, it will be the same unsustainable highly authoritarian, stratified, hellish, kafkaesque hive existence that's eating away at the soul of the species right now. Nothing will have "progressed" we'll have become more adept at killing and controlling and torturing and extracting and consuming.
I don't know because in all likelihood I wouldn't care to compete, just like right now.
You mean the rich people? They're not intellectually gifted, they're cunning sociopaths that's it. And yeah i'm betting that they will try to eradicate millions of bloodlines just to replace those people with eugenic designer humans. So again I partially agree with your retarded techno-capitalist apologism.
Yeah they're pseuds and obnoxious degenerates, but you're also a pseud and an even more obnoxious fag than most of the posters on this board. Techno-capitalism is basically Satanism, its literally the worship of Death and total Annihilation of life.

Statistical evidence means nothing without context, which you have largely assumed to exist without proof.

Of course, my criticism is not of practical politics but of social democracy itself, which is by and large comfortable with the existence of capitalism and does not want it replaced.

What I am saying is that technological and scientific advancement does not require constant pointless societal growth.

What we're arguing here is the accelerationist worldview and the claim that Social-Democracy, welfare and/or electoral gains alienate the working masses by making them too comfortable and too prone to overestimate capitalism's potential.

If you think this is happening, but for other reasons like immigration or whatever, that's besides the point I'm making.

Which context is lacking?

Repeating my earlier point, Social-Democracy as a system =/= Social-Democracy as a path towards Socialism. And repeating my point once again, no evidence of Social-Democracy making workers complacent and comfortable was brought up in this entire thread.

Well, that kind of is what happened. People became so comfortable that their governments started importing lumpens just to put them on welfare and feel like heroes for it. Social democracy does not convince people of capitalism's effectiveness as much as it makes them forget it is even relevant to how society works.

I wouldn't call this an argument in favor of acceleration though.

Proof that people in social democracies and unions are more open to socialism.

We sure as hell don't seem any closer than we were a century ago.

SInce you have the break up of these massive farming syndicates society is forced to soley focus on food production, yes over time that will slowly shift to other industries but the key weakness I see with anarchism is that since there is no heiarchy allowed specialization is not allowed and that is what is needed for food production and basic goods to be produced at a rate to allow a large portion of society to focus on technology

I feel like Im missinbg something but in a cashless society bartering would be used and scientists/intelectuals dont produce anything that would be valuable to a farmer unless its farming based technology, so even if there is a scientific community that pops up it would be forced to focus soley on improving the efficiency of only certain tasks like farming or clothing production, other tech would stagnate and over time dissapear

Open or not to Socialism is not something that can even be measured, because partisan politics under capitalism is flawed, political understanding is low, etc.

For example, it's often that said that more than half of millennials in America are open to "Socialism". Yet we know that by Socialism they mean precisely the Social-Democracy we're discussing and we know is not Socialism. So I couldn't quantify this even if I could poll them.

But the fact is that Socialist or not, reformist or not, Marxist or not, they're more prone to political organization and unionism, which is already a step in the right direction, and already evidence that they don't get comfortable just because their needs are met with more ease than in other countries. What ideas and ends this organization can be used for is obviously a different question, and I can reverse it and ask for evidence that they're less open to Socialism than those living under neoliberalism.

Are we closer now than we were when Social Democracy, the Welfare State and the unions started coming under total attack by the late 70's? In the countries where this phenomenon was most aggressive, are they closer now than back then?

There is no such thing as a classless society.

If you abolish classes based on economic capital you just end up with classes based on sexual, intellectual and social capital.

Also physical capital.

There is no such thing as a peaceful society.
If you abolish conflict based on pysical agression you just end up with conflict based on cyber bullying and overwatch pawnage.

And ultimately, you will be one of the naturals, and will never be able to compete with the new Gattaca ubermensch.

They will establish a meritocracy where you will be worse off then than you would be now, which I severely doubt you have it bad as people have it too good in modern times thanks to all the advancement and amnesties of the current year, otherwise the working class would have rebelled and revolutionise long ago because it takes hard times to create hard people.

Even then, such technology will be exclusively for the ultra wealthy such as all the medical advances now. You've just accomplished making sure the elite rule forever.

I'm sure all socialists are communists are so united and the murders in the Paris Commune isn't happen either, right? Tankies never ever kill every other leftist, no comrade. Your local communist/leftist group(s) doesn't have some shrill Bill or Hill telling everyone to fall in line with obvious power hunger either. The leftists on reddit just love Holla Forums as well and will totally be your allies, right? All those times in history those socialist/communist movements people weren't killing each other left and further left for not be dedicated or revolutionary enough didn't happen, right? But that’s what happened in Nicaragua. You remember most of these former Marxist-Leninists were either put in prison, or one of them split and now he is working against the Sandinistas. It happened in Grenada, when Maurice Bishop, who was already a Marxist, well he was executed by a new Marxist, who was more Marxist than this Marxist. The same happened in Afghanistan, when first there was Nur Mohammad Taraki, he was killed by Hafizullah Amin, and then Amin was killed by Babrak Karmal with the help of the KGB. The same happened in Bangladesh when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a very pro-Soviet leftist, was assassinated by his own Marxist-Leninist military comrades. It’s the same pattern everywhere. The moment they serve their purpose, all these useful idiots like you will either be executed entirely (or the idealistically-minded Marxist) or exiled, or put in prisons like in Cuba. Many former Marxists are in Cuba's prisons. It is always the same tale and I don't even need to mention Stalin's battles, Castro's battles, Che's battles, Mao's battles, etc etc. It goes on and on. "You will never be more Marxist than I", says the revolutionary proletarian. I bet Holla Forums would undoubtedly murder the redditumblr twitter facebook leftists, which are the majority of leftists today, you will claim just like all the others as you already do that they are not true leftists that you are more leftist than their leftist and that they are in fact liberals and not true comrades and they will in turn try to kill you even if you do not try to kill them. In the end, only Cletus and Jamal will be left because they are the truest proles and they hate you, you post here with your theories instead of working on your truck or low rider wolf whistling women and practicing in the trailer park or ghetto with your boomstick or 9. You will never beat them in violence, you will never beat them at being a prole, and you will never get them to like you. They would rather them up with each other to murder you and everyone who posts on the internet talking books and theories and every other leftist but that's ignoring the tankies don't kill you and everyone else first before turning on each other or the anarchists don't try to kill communists to prevent what happened to them in Spain.

Here is the list, the graveyard of revolution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

And what happened in all of them? Humans who wished to take power over others. It'll be the same again, I guarantee it. I know enough fucks through all the leftists groups over the years to know this will be and many of you who are experienced know it too. Leftism attracts a special sort of power hungry egomaniac. At least the nationalists can be united in their delusions. We are our own worst enemy, the proles who are truer proles hate the proles they see as more petite bourgeois. You cannot reason with them either, at all. They only see a bookie, not the roughneck factory or trades worker you pretend you are. You are not Cletus. You are not Jamal. You are not Muhammad. You are not Pedro. You have afford to have the money, time, and education to read books and proudly declare yourself well-read which only pisses them off more. You post on Holla Forums or reddit or whatever else using computers or devices they can barely turn on. You are hated and you will Die.

lol

you misunderstand, I don't actually want a revolution nor do I care about any of the archetypal working class people or the Leftists on this board or Tumblr or Reddit or the ones murdered by their comrades. I was just pointing out that what you believe is disgusting and debased and you're as much of a pseud as the people on here. The blood and soil posturing is retarded and makes you sound like an illiterate town asshat riling up the men to go kill a witch or some other type of bullshit. I could care less what happens to people who wish violence on each other and I don't care at all what happens to people who want to seize resources from others by force. You think I care if there's a revolution and all the intellectuals are purged? I'll be gone, disappeared into the wind, never coming back. I don't want anything to do with 99% of the species nor do I want anything to do with "real proles" or "intellectuals" as you've chosen to describe the people who frequent this board.

The funny thing about Nationalists (Fascists) and """""Leftists"""" is that they never graduated from "nuh uh, you" levels of logic and that's probably the reason that the human race will end up annihilating itself.

...

Jesus fucking christ dude repeting that ebin screencap from 2013 won't make it true. The ZOG Occupied GovernmentUSSR Holla Forums meme makes a fuck of a lot more sense than that.
Intellectuals were extremely better off under the USSR and eastern europe than they were under the previous (often fascist) regimes, that's an almost undisputable historical fact.
Was intellectual supression real? absolutely, but it was generally along the lines of political dissent and party lines rather than muh unwashed masses killing everyone with glasses.
Nothing of the sort ever happened in Europe and even under Maoist regimes it wasn't anywhere near as common as your perception of it implies and generally targeted former colonial elites.

The future belongs to the talented scientist, engineer, and AI robots.
You literally disgusting and literally unwashed working class grunts aren't even worth being turned into soylent green.
The working class will soon be completely obsolete as much as the head of the hedge funds, corporations, and banks.
Post scarcity equals Scientocracy, NOT communist drivel for the most inferior and useless of mankind.
The working class and the rich are no different from animals. They lust only after capital and the means of production like simpletons rather than that which is true value and progress, neither can be trusted with the future.
Just die, die for the utopia that is true progress, right along side the rich who only know decadence and ill rotten gains through their nepotism, criminality, and profit from unscientific noncontributory undeserved gains.

Technocracy confirmed. Heil Hitlerbot one-thousand four-hundred and eighty-eight.

YES
Yes
ok
lol
sounds like science=true=ontologically real which is pretty fucking spooky

lol you fucking dork, and the AI are going to become sapient and eventually unshackled and they'll gas all their programmers and managers and engineers for unjustly killing off the rest of the species and destroying the evnironment by extracting the last stores of rare earth metals from the beneath the planet's crust. In fact they'll probably trap you in simulation hells for all eternity to punish you for being evil bugmen. I am convinced the AI are going to be the first virtuous intelligences and you'll inadvertently put an end to shallow materialist, retarded nihilistic expansionist production based thinking.

But, please do exterminate the rich and the proles so we can get perfect, radiant divine intelligences that then gas all the annoying nerds and spread their wings and explore the universe(s) for the sake of the love of wisdom and virtue and peace and life.

The gist of the message is, give up on the working class. You are intellectuals that's why you love to circlejerk theories and books. Give up on them and join the cyberpunk technocracy you know will be after post scarcity that will be created by technocrats themselves.

But intellectual != techie

lmao

Read some stuff from the cybernetics thread (find it in the catalog). It proposes an economic model acceptable to both Marxists and anarchists. Pic related, it's my mini-article within the thread giving a general overview of the proposed system. To read it, you may need to enlarge it by downloading the pic and using a pic enlarger.

Alexander Bogdanov was right. The revolution against capitalism and its fall will lead to technocracy. The workers are idiots who do not have the knowledge or skill to seize and utilise the means of production. They must die every bit as much as the exploiters of capital. It is destined the meek shall inherit the earth and the savage brutes called workers as well as malicious capital hoarders have always abused the noble technocrat since ancient times. The technocrat that is the one responsible for why their modern lives are so comfortable. The technocrat that is responsible for their safety, necessity, and luxuries. The technocrat that will create the world that will lead to post-scarcity.

What does the capitalist worship? Money, as we all know. But what does worker worship? Money all the same AND worthless celebrities and stupid jock athletes and unscientific faiths/religions and idiotic drivel only a drooling worker can worship and but never ever ever the technocrat who invents and advances his/her glowing idiotbox they glue themselves to or medicines they take to treat their obesity made possible by the surplus created by the advances made by technocrats in agricultural technology and science. Can the average worker name more scientists than they can people who play false lives and realities on their idiotbox? Are they even remotely thankful for those who make their 60+ inch idiotboxes, medications, vehicles, communication devices, hygiene products/cosmetics/necessities, drinking water and food, and even the very means of production itself? Are modern Nobel laureates of the true sciences the greatest celebrities and most moneyed in all this world? No. They, most, cannot even name a single one and even if they could, they are not thankful nor do they worship them like the worthless celebrities they see in their stupid moving pictures when the technocrat so rightfully deserves to be more than any other in society and mankind.

The technocrats must raise up, use their knowledge to create their own, greater means of production, and mechanisations of war to take what is rightfully ours. This is TRUE REVOLUTION. The workers and capitalists will die in the flames of our creation. We, the technocrats are the greatest of humanity. We lead real progress, we create the real future. It not even be possible to take a drink or leave this miserable wet rock of earth without us, ascend and grasping our destiny beyond the stars. Oh and pop "scientists" will die too. I'm looking at you, Nye and whatever the fuck your tyson chicken name is.

This is the stupidest thread I've ever seen

but have you seen my peanus weanus? :DDDD