Communism and socialism are both based in a dogmatic worldview, and presume that equality is good

Communism and socialism are both based in a dogmatic worldview, and presume that equality is good.

Can anyone provide a factual argument (not based in dogmatic moralizing) as to how a communist system is actually superior in its ability to create new technologies, or provide a better long-term eugenic impact upon society?

No troll, just curious.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm.
youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It isn't about "equality" for the sake of it. It isn't about equality either.

Read a book.

Yes it is, communism bases its entire argument in that people having an equal right to production is somehow inherently good.

And you didn't answer my question.

[citation needed]

...

Yes…but what does that have to do about equality? To each according to their need isn't equality at all. Not in the buzz word context you're using it in.

You have to prove Capitalism produces technology efficiently first. It doesn't.

As for examples of how a state run economy without Capitalism, or just a void of Capital can work, look at the Soviets (for as shit as they were, really), industrializing enough to match Western capabilities to the point of beating them at the game and sending both the first man and first satellite into space.

The idea technological production is inherently Capitalistic is retarded, not even a capitalist would agree

Socialism has nothing to do with equality. Workers controlling the means of production is not a matter of equality, but a matter of shifting motivation for production away from the shitty profit motive that benefits only a few and wastes many resources, to a motivation for production that benefits more and wastes less.
It's a matter of would you like inferior quality resource management and bootlicking, or would you like to have luxury and autonomy?

The communist manifesto.


How does it feel like being triggered your entire life?


It's about equality, I just stated so, and you just agreed.
No one can ever actually point out why that is good, other than some bullshit faggotry about it being innately good, which isn't an argument, it's just you stating that it's good because it makes you feel good.

Yes it is, that is exactly what it is, everyone should be given the amount they need to be equal to everyone else, it's about equality.

The entire existence of the human species, everything you use.

No they didn't the Russian economy was quickly modernizing up until the first world war, after the first world war all modernizing essentially stopped, and only started when American companies were subsidized to build factories.

And the Soviet economy was a massive failure, a testament as to how stupid and illogical your beliefs are.

Your best example is failure, and that proves that the opposite of your beliefs are true.

Ah yes, from Marx's famous passge

No I didn't agree it was about the buzz word definition of equality you're using. Stop using subjective words.


does a good enough job.


Why are you suggesting I was a Tankie, I was using an example as to why technological progression isn't inherently capitalistic.

Learn reading comprehension.

It has everything to do with equality.

Yeah, that's a load of bullshit, it's not better than the profit motive and your feelings won't change that.

Then why doesn't socialism lead to luxury but poverty?

Shut up

Why are you people replying to obvious bait?

That one should "take from his ability to produce and give according to need" is inherently an egalitarian sentiment, and implies that all people should have the exact same amount of everything.


I simply stated what you believe, or please state what it is that you believe yourself, and provide arguments as to why it's logical, without using dogmatic moralism as a basis.

no.

No you didn't. Why would I be disagreeing with what I believe if that was true.

Never said that, I just want you people to provide an argument that is not based in dogmatic moralism.


Because it exposes how fucking stupid your beliefs are.

It isn't. Equality of opportunity will be a direct consequence of socialized production, but that's about it.

We could tell you what motivations the communist movement have or link you to some literature so you can find out, but you insist on us saying it's about equality, which it isn't.

'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' is based on the fact that production for use as opposed to exchange post-capital will have this direct consequence.

Capitalism is barely 300 years old, class society barely 5000 years. The greater period of recorded human history was classless and commodified production developed somewhere between its creation and the feudo-mercantilist shift. Unless you were alluding to human labor of course which is, indeed, the source of all value and human progress.

The Russian economy, literally dubbed state capitalism and then 'planned economy' by its own rulers (the Marxist-Leninists in power) is not an example of production for use instead of exchange. Read a book. I realize you don't like reading and are probably here to unload the unbearable alienation you experience in day to day life, but try to have a gander at this, thanks: marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm.

Checkers, is that you?

See

to understand how capitalism stymies technological advancement.

Or how stupid you are.

We aren't interested in moralizing. Socialism is in the self interest of the vast majority of people on the planet. Morality has nothing to do with it.

It's 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', and it directly implies that one's needs are based entirely on one's material needs, while their labor output should be proportional to their abilities.

Do we have a new chess master on our hands?

How about the fact that the profit motive is the worst driver of innovation

See: youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

...

No, it's about taking from people after their ability to produce and providing after need, that is socialism. Not about equality of opportunity.

Please do your best to provide arguments here in the thread, or are you not able?

No it isn't, it's a moral statement and implies that people who have should have their property taken from them, the other alternative that you described is anarcho-capitalism in which people are free to trade as they please.
Note that I'm not an anarchist of any kind.

False, the marketplace is capitalism, it being described by Smith does not mean that he invented it, he was merely the first to describe it. He didn't invent it in the same way Nicola Tesla didn't invent electricity.

Actually, class society has existed for as long has we know, it's innate to humans in the same way it's innate to all animals.
Some are alpha some are omega.

Citation needed.

Wewie.


Then why do you not have any arguments?


Then why is that all you do?

That is innately a moralistic statement, and you can not provide an arguments that are not based in dogmatic moralism.


No it doesn't, it implies that people should have that which they don't need taken from them, for it to be given to someone who does need it, and if you produce more you should have more taken from you.


A high Autism Level population is in every way more efficient and superior to a low Autism Level position.
That is a factual statement not in need of morals to back it up.

All you people have said is that equality is somehow the end consequence of your politics, you have yet to explain why equality is a good thing.

And I doubt any of you ever shall.

Why should people need to exlain the Golden Rule to you again, didn't you go to kindergarten?

"Muh feels" isn't an argument you fuckwit.

Could you explain how inequality is a good thing?

Just so we can get some context as to what kind of (in)equality you're interested in, and what, to you, constitutes a compelling argument.

It's neither good nor bad, it's simply a consequence of nature.

Explain how equality is good.

equal economic class, not some abstract meme known as "equality"
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Yes, your feelings aside, please explain why "equal economic class" is in anyway a good thing?

.*

I consider it a safer choice in case of things going wrong and me becoming dirt poor.

So you have no argument except your lack of self confidence?

What moral right do you have to other peoples property, and how should anyone who's not a failure benefit fro communism?

would* from*

...

I wouldn't call taking random events and things I cannot affect in my calculations "a lack of self confidence"
Nice dogmatic moralizing :^)
You assume private(not personal) property exists on its own.
Everyone benefits from the hypothetical communist system due to lack of economic classes preventing the efficient distribution of resources in such post-scarcity based system

Starting thread with "ur dum lol xD" on a board that gets shitposts 24/7 is not a smart thing if you wish to have reasonable discussion.

Wrong.

Kek, even you know how retarded that sounds.

No, I was asking you.

No, it's a consequence of human society, it's a way of controlling resources.

No, they don't, you said so yourself, only losers benefit, people who produce lose because they have to subsidize losers.
You essentially just admitted that communism is a dysgenic system that will destroy humanity.

Meaning in your fantasy, communism can not work in a system that does not have infinite amounts of everything, and tell me, are our resources infinite?
No they're not you fucking retard.


All that I did was point out that there exists no logical argument for communism, it's all just based on your feelings.

nuh-uh, you're wrong!
:^)

And what logical argument do you have for fascism or libertarianism or whatever your politics are?

Lad, this is a thread about communism, and you just proved that you have no arguments in favor of it.

I cannot have influence over my life, but not over everything. Being a worker is better than a serf, but being a worker who fully receives the product of his labour is better than a worker who does not.
Why exactly this method and not some other?
Of course not, then we are settling for socialism.
Where did you pull that shit out?


He isn't even a communist.

Well then this thread has no relevance to me since I'm not a communist.

Yes you do, you write this you decide things, if you're intelligent and have drive you can make your life great, if you lack intelligence and drive you should not be allowed to reproduce and you should starve to death.

That is a moralistic statement and lacks any logical backing, your feelings matter as much as used toilet paper.

Because it's the most efficient system.

There is no reason to have a socialist system, your feelings of incompetence and impending doom are not arguments.

It's simply a consequence, if you punish hard work, and allow useless people to reproduce at the same rate as useful people entirety of society will inevitably collapse.

He's posting in a thread about communism.


Why did you come here then, are you retarded?

Because you can't seem to decide whether you're arguing against socialism or communism, and no, they're not the same thing.

There are economic systems that make your decisions have bigger impact than the others depending on your economic situation. You can't deny that the decisions of worker under capitalism have bigger impact than those of serf under feudalism and similarly the decisions of the worker under socialism would have bigger impact than under capitalism.
Self-interest is moralistic? Okay friendo
Define efficient and then prove it
Nice empty answer.
?

I'm not sure about communism, It was never tried (yet). In socialism, you are not motivated by profit, or blocked by muh """intelectual property""", so scientist is much more free in making whatever he wants, where only drawback is that technologies are not so focused for people.
I don't remember much from my highschool biology classes, but I remember that even average parents can have exceptionally intelligent child, and if you combine it with high-quality food, free access to education and the fact, that people are much more creative in less consumerist society, the number of people able to do mental work is growing quickly.

wtf? from when capitalism==socialism?

...

Socialism is providing after contribution you gigantic faggot.

The capitalist system is bad therefore communism is good.

I'm not arguing against, I merely asked for an argument nor reliant on your feels, and no one has delivered.

Or they've just lied.


Yes, responsibilities, you think that if you fuck up you should have the right to take other peoples money.

No, your argument is void of logic, you can not show how your system is in any way more efficient than raw brutal capitalism.

Look up a textbook fuckwit.

No, it's not an empty answer.


Bullshit, its implementation has been tried and it failed, because communism is not based of nature, it's based of the mad ravings of some witless kike.

You're wrong about that, people are always motivated by profit, in socialism you simply punish people for being too good.


Bullshit, people make what they do because its useful, if it has a use you'll make money.
The profit motive is superior because it directs talent in a way that is efficient and helps society.

Your system is in no way better than the profit motive.

So you're a fucking retard who understands nothing of biology or high school mathematics?
It's extremely unlikely, and the more intelligent people are the more likely it is that their children will be more intelligent, therefore benefiting high Autism Level people is good, and low Autism Level people is bad.

Learn math fuckwit.


No it isn't, people who produce more are taxed more to provide for the people who produce less.

Are you retarded?


No, the communist system is bad therefore capitalism is good.
Eat dick faggot.

You just proved you know nothing about socialism and the policies it advocates. What you just described is welfare capitalism/social democracy which do not, never have, and never will have anything to do with socialism. Read a book.

What the fuck are you on about? What does taxation have to do with anything we're talking about? Are you some US faggot who defines socialism as big guv with big taxes so you could comfortably argue with a strawman?
You still didn't tell me what does "efficient" mean, how do you measure it and why should I give a shit about your little faggy utilitarianism especially it's also a moral stance.
You're just asserting that I'm feeling "incompetence and impending doom" despite not having any proof.


So you really define socialism as "muh big taxes"
kek

fixed

Never said that.It's funny how you guys get triggered when someone points the flaws in your logic.

can you please provide some example, or argument not reliant on your feels?
how? Again, please provide argument not based on muh feels
muh feels argument
not necesarily. There are shitload things in phisics or even in other fields in which i do not have education provide very little chance for profit for a few next decades. This is why you have bilions invested into stuff like selfie sticks instead of things like space travel
muh feels argument
Well, I have a friend studing psichology, and she told me that the biggest problem, especially with diseases like autism is that you can be never sure your child will be OK even if you and your partner are healthly.
Capitalism is exactly the system in which lower-IQ person with rich parents have much easier life than some high-IQ person with poor parents.

So OP was BTFO because he used his arguments based on feels rather just logic?

...

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy rightly states the following:

"The Marxian tradition in political and economic thought urges the desirability of eliminating some of the inequalities associated with the institutions of a capitalist market economy. Interpreting Karl Marx as an egalitarian normative theorist is a tricky undertaking, however, in view of the fact that he tends to eschew explicit normative theorizing on moral principles and to regard assertions of moral principles as so much ideological dust thrust in the eyes of the workers by defenders of capitalism. Marx does, of course, have an elaborate empirical theory of the evolution of moral principles corresponding to changes in the economic mode of production."

Or, put in Marx's own cruder words in a 1877 letter to Friedrich Sorge:

" [There exists] a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise doctors who want to give socialism a “higher ideal” orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity. […] [They have] the “noblest” intentions, I assume, but I do not give a damn for “intentions.” "