Is this board ironic or just shitposting?

Is this board ironic or just shitposting?

surely you people are just memeing and don't actually believe this gommie shit

Other urls found in this thread:

catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000401710
discovery.org/a/24041
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

We're all unironic Posadist Hoxhaist Clintonists with American characteristics.

I do, what's the problem?

You got us
We don't actually believe in ending exploitation, as fought for by nearly two centuries by workers, theorists and revolutionaries.

...

Once you get past the endless bourgeois propaganda you've likely been exposed to since childhood, socialism (what most people call communism, not to be confused with social democracy) is an extremely reasonable political philosophy.

The Marxist critique of capital is still the best explanation of how the economic basis of our current form of society works, and provides the clearest and most sensical explanations for why everything is going to shit at the moment.

You've probably been fed so much shit that you've got a very skewed view of what socialism and communism are, probably something along the lines of "everyone gets paid the same, everyone has to be equal, the state owns everything, you're not allowed to own anything." This is not the case.

We're posadists here m8
Nuclear fire soon, Hillary 2016

Get fucked mate. This board has been unironically commie since the start.

Bitch pls

Any sufficiently advanced shitposting is indistinguishable from discourse

I think you have a skewed view, friendo.

extremism on both sides of the spectrum become more similar as they reach maximum levels of faschism/communism. total control. bourgeois can revolt just as proletariat, and even petite bourgeois can revolt. there is no final evolution of economy where the state magically fades away along with the entire history of economics. you believe in your communism with the faith of a monk. "secular religion." there's no final revolution and there never will be. you ask for war yet believe itll be the war to end all war. this is the definition of dogmatism. Marxism is simply an amalgamation of atheism and materialism compounded into an economic theory. it's a soulless ideology, nothing more. when you see that you will begin to see through the lies of what has infatuated you with this ideal.

catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000401710

...

Except most people got exposed to endless communist propaganda during birth you propagandist.
Have you ever looked at those USA universities your movement hijacked? Well, you probably participated on them.

Thank you for correcting the record

those poor babies

HAHAHA, burger please.

kek, nice rebuttal.

What part of overthrowing a system of morality designed by societies formed by capitalism is ironic?

I want my hypersexual paradise, and capitalism will never grant me that because I'm not rich enough.

Excuse me, where are the arguments? I don't see a single one.

if you read the communist manifesto you might understand the ideas i just refuted. or the book i linked even. you're all proving to be mindless drones absorbed by what your kewl torture chamber told you about the glories of communism. no rebuttals.

that's a neat filter.

And what ideas from the communist manifesto did you refute exactly?

Well for starters you talk of atheism and materialism like they're bad things.
Literally, not an argument.

You won't be well connected enough to get your paradise from the gommie inner circle either.

That the state will fade away when "communism" is realized through the revolution of the proletariat. do i have to keep spoonfeeding?

That is not the case at all. Most people, and burgers especially, have no understanding of Marxism whatsoever, or even any sympathy for Socialist political objectives such as overthrowing the institution of private property or production for profit. Most educated Americans tend to lean on the progressive liberal/social democrat side of thing - ie either change the system so brown people and women can be CEOs and slaveowners too or hand out welfare to prolong the life of capitalism and let proles buy stuff from capitalists. Socialists do not favour these approaches, and these approaches are not leftist in the slightest bit.

The fact that you believe this shit at all to begin with is living proof that your head is full of bourgeois propaganda.

...

THIS
This… Is what I am fighting for.

atheism is an extension of materialism. and your communist ideology is based entirely on material. its a one dimensional theory on human behavior and how it relates to economics.

FEELS
>
REALS

t. Doesnt understand what historical materialism is

nice meme.

...

...

the reason why Not Socialism has proved so much more powerful than marxism is whenever the two have met in conflict is that Not Socialism is more modern and has a superior technique. Marxism is a child of eighteenth-century "enlightenment." it is a religion of the mind rather han of the emotions. although anti-philosophical, indeed anti-critical, its main instrument is the reason, but operating within extremely narrow limits and on an irrational foundation. the marxist is accessible to logical argument as long as it does not affect his premises. his mythical world reamins sacrosanct - but within that world a narrow reason and a limited realism prevail. the Not Socialist rejects the sovereignty of the mind, even within the mythological limits, and enthrones brutish instinct. the marxist - always within the same limits - is for an urban and rational outlook, the Not Socialist is for "blood and soil." despite his ultimate amorality, which shows itself in truculence and untruthfulness, the communist has a stern, though narrow, puritanical ethic. he is ruthless, but not by nature brutish. the terror is for him a means to an end. the Not Socialist, on the other hand, has a strong tendency toward brutishness - he is often a terrorist without reference to the end he wishes to attain.

So instead of the material (ie, what can be touched, observed, and interacted with) what should philosophy be based upon, according to you?

Feels?

...

That's not how I remember it.

the human mind in combination with the material reasoning you love so dear.

jej.

FEELS > REALS.

Word salad coming through.

...

And how do you base a philosophy upon the human mind as something distinct from observable reality?

...

if you bigots read to the end im not promoting fascism either.

Your claim was that a the followers of a fascist tendency were stronger than the followers of a Marxist tendency. Whatever you promote here is irrelevant; you're too retarded to even realize what you're saying ever.

the state, according to lenin, is the instrument with which the ruling class has established and perpetuates its domination. it is an "organ of oppression of one class by another" - that and nothing more. the very existence of the state "proves" that "class antagonism are irrenconcilable." if "class antagonisms" are eliminated by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the "destruction of the bourgeoisie," then the state simply "whithers away."


according to marxian teaching man is by nature good. "capitalism" alone is evil. the "capitalist" may be a nice, kindly person (though he is never represented as such in marxist propaganda - in russian films and caricatures he is always made to appear vicious and bestial). but he is an oppressor and exploiter simply because he IS the cpaitalist. he is wicked by a kind of predestination. the inexorable dialectic condemns him to inevitable, essential wickedness. he exercises a kind of satanic dominion and the instrument of that dominion is the state.

what marx and lenin call the state is relaly not state as such, but dictatorship.

the state is the condition of all organized society. peace between classes, whether the peace is one of balance, or whether it stabilizes the ascendancy of one class, is certainly a function of the state, but only one of many functions. when the struggle between classes has become revolutionary, the victor will not, at first, re-establish the state that was menaced or overthrown, but a dictatorship. that dictatorship may either perpetuate the victory of one side by transforming the open war into a silent and secret war, or it may be a transition from war to peace, in which case it will "wither away." but a dictatorship always usurps the function of the state, not because it is coercive ( the state, too, is coercive), but because it is EXCLUSIVELY coercive, seeing that the purpose of the dictatorship is coercion and nothing else. the contrary of what lenin wrote is true - the state "proves" that "class antagonisms" can be reconciled, not that they are "irreconcilable." when they are "irreconcilable," the state is usurped by the dictatorship. when the state fails in the presence of faction, the dictatorship takes its place. the state has repressive power, but is not a "special repressive force" as every dictatorship is. engels and lenin remove all doubt that what they mean by state is really dictatorship, when engels defines the state as a "special repressive force" and lenin calls this definition "splendid and extremely profound."

Okay so I'm trying to get through the accent but this is what I understood on the beginning is that the Frankfurt school thing is just a conspiracy theory(Thanks for this buzzword, government).
As you can guess, that's not an argument.
People also thought that Stalin's defeat meant Communist defeat and labelled people thinking otherwise as conspiracy theorists. That was wrong as you can clearly fucking tell.
I should try to rewatch it again(I spent some 8 minutes on this because his accent is ticker than a inflation fetishit art) but at this point I'm just going to quit to the actual point.

But anyways to the actual point.
Not necessary, Frankfurt school is supposed to be launched seemingly unconnected attacks into Capitalism. Connecting them with Marxism would be contradictory.
I realize that Communism is Socialist but Socialism isn't necessarily communist so the rest of this post is kinda moot.
Bourgeois propaganda? If this is the only propaganda bourgeois has then some fringe faggots while the populace is mostly getting liberal ideas, which force the bourgeois to accept shitskins into their factories despise having worse qualifications, then they've been fucked in the ass hard.


I know you might not be the same person as above but for fuck sakes Critical Theory(What you're preaching right now, if you didn't notice) came form fucking Frankfurt. Connect the fucking dots.

Wrong. Literally the only conflict where Marxist and Nazi powers came into conflict, the Marxists won.

First, Marx was a philosophy major known primarily for criticism. Of Hegel, of his contemporaries, and, most of all, of capitalism.

Second, your point doesn't even make sense. You can't seem to decide if Marxism is too rational and unfeeling or if it's too emotional and irrational.

So… your problem is that Marxists think too much. And Nazis are better because they're dimwitted reactionaries? What?

...

like all the utopian and chiliastic elements of the marxist myth, the "withering away" of the satte is presented as though it were an objective fact. it is to the marxist an actual process by which the capitalist order is transformed into the communist order. lenin wrote that there is "no shadow of an attempot on marx's part to conjure up a utopia," for "he treats the subject of communism as a naturalist would treat the development of, say, a new biological species if he knew that such and such was its origin and such and such the direction in which it changed." but whereas darwin expounded a working - and by now rather badly shaken - hypothesis with modesty, with a vast array of detailed evidence and illustration, and with respect for contrary opinion, marx and lenin propound their doctrines with dogmatic arrogance, without the slightest attempt to produce any evidence, and with hatred and derision for all who dare to disagree. if biology were what marx and lenin thought it was, it would not be a science at all - any more than marxism is.
lenin's complete incapacity for philosophical and scientific thought is revealed again and again throughout his writings, especially in that naively vulgar fabrication, his MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM.
it is doubtful whether history is a science. in any case it is not an exact science. no exact science is possible without the constant repetition of phenomena and without the possibility of multifarious experimentation. the "naturalist" - as the natural scientist used to be called - has at his disposal an immense wealth of verifiable data; he must be equipped to verify them and he must be able to add to them. he can investigate the problems of heredity and the development if not of "new biological species," at least of variations and "sports" and of new combinations of characteristics through successive generations of infusoria, frogs, mice, and guineapigs. but even so, biological hypotheses have none of the certainty lenin imagined them to have. lenin's conception of science is that of the half-educated - he regards as certain everything that he can label "scientific." indeed, he constantly uses the words "scientific," "objective," and "certain" as though they were synonymous. the skepticism of the scientific mind and the uncertainty of all human knowledge are entirely foreign to this bigoted sectarian.

This is the case because the capitalist class is defined as that class which holds ownership over private property. With private property understood as a social relationship that gives the capitalist the right to exploit the surplus value produced by the labour of others using right of ownership as justification, then it is impossible to be a capitalist without also being an exploiter.

This is not a moral argument, it is a factual statement. The capitalist class is defined by their ability to exploit. They may be perfectly nice and friendly people, but what sets them aside from ordinary proles who sell their labour to survive is that they are able to exploit others. If they were not exploiters, they would not be capitalists.

Are you unaware of how fucking marginal socialism is as a political tendency? Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union the only leftist tendencies with any sort of political influence have been not actually socialist socdems.

This is entirely unsubstantiated. Liberal progressive narratives are not incompatible with capitalism - the fact that so many CEOs and establishment politicians (including HRC) herself are spouting this shit is evidence of how it is not only incapable of subverting the structures that uphold capitalism but is actually a force that upholds the present system by floating the possibility of reform end equality under it.

Do you understand what I mean by bourgeois propaganda? It's okay, to admit ignorance, everyone here already knows you're retarded.

That's not what I asked. You said materialism is bad. I asked how you can base a philosophy on both the observable universe (ie, materialism) and the human mind as something distinct from the observable universe. I'm still waiting to hear back.

...

no serious "naturalist" would predict the future development of any "biological species." but it is precisely of the future that marx and lenin wrote. their writings have little significance except as prophecy. they claim to study revolution, and produce what they imagine to be a scientific theory which is not a theory at all, but a myth. they only had one major revolution (the french) and a small number of minor revolutions as the object of their supposedly scientific inquiries (lenin's teaching was mature even before the russian revolution of 1905). so that their claim to scientific certainty, which would have been fantastic even if they had a hundred revolutions at their disposal, is merely a piece of naive dogmatism, which only shows that this supposed science is but the instrument of their sectarian religiosity.
lenin declares that the theory of marx is the "objective truth," all other theories leading to "confusion and falsehood."
for thousands of years life went on, whole civlizations rose and fell, great teachers and philosophers, aristotle, plato, pascal, kant, hegel, lived and died and illuminated the world with their truths, but not until karl marx arrived was THE truth made known. "at best, pre-marxist sociology and historiography gave an accumulation of new facts collected at random, and a description of separate ideas of the historical process"; until marx came, "the alternation between periouds of revolution and reaction, peace and ware, stagnation and rapid progress and decline" were wholly mysterious - the facts may have been known, but only since marx expounded his doctrine do we possess "a clue which enables us to discover the reign of law in this seeming labyrinth of chaos."

Is this the new Quentin?

there are many scientific holes in the theory of evolution, although it is not debunked, there are scientific holes that you may find on it from many different scientists. just because it is the best theory we have doesnt mean its 100% correct, like anyone in science knows.

discovery.org/a/24041

Wrong. Marxism generally views human behavior as being shaped by their material conditions, the modes of production and the society that arises from the former.

Capitalism isn't "evil". It's a socio-economic system that produces undesirable results.

Capitalists are oppressors and exploiters by the simple nature of their relation to the productive process. They own property, they use that property to extract surplus value from the workers and use state oppression to maintain this relationship. Whether they're personally lovely people in irrelevant.

Not necessarily.

you got more than that, comrade?

marxism is eschatology without god. it demands the unquestioning faith in the coming of the kingdom of heaven on earth and imposes a dogmatic atheism. the marxist is not even allowed to be an agnostic. lenin wrote that "from the standpoint of life" (what is life's standpoint?) "practice ought to be the first and fundamental criterion of knowledge … this criterion is sufficiently definite to wage a bitter struggle with all varieties of idealism and agnosticism."
agnosticism is forbidden because it presupposes an unknowable. but for marx, engels, and lenin and their followers nothing is unknowable, there are no mysteries, and doubt is a form of vacillation, cowardice, or treachery. all is clear, all is certain, all is inevitable - marxism, and marxism alone, is THE truth about all there ever was, is, or ever will be.
lenin is incapable of any deeper skepticism and, therefore, of serious speculative thought. whatever he professes to know - philosophy, science, religion, history, ethics, sociology, politics, economics and what not - he knows it with absolute certainty. marx and engels have the same mental arrogance (though marx was not quite so superficial). even in their prophecies they are cocksure - whatever they say will happen, will "inevitably happen," will happen as an "objective fact," and everybody who thinks it will not is a rogue, a fool, or a traitor.
in august 1917, during the russian revolution itself, lenin for the first time, showed traces of a certain diffidence. he insisted that more than ever that there must be a transition from capitalism to communism. "the first fact," he wrote, "that has been established with complete exactness by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole … is that historically there must undoubtedly be a special stage or epoch of transition from capitalism to communism."
only the transition might take some time. a little of the cocksureness has gone. the state may take its time about "withering away," and lenin is compelled to admit "the protracted nature of this process" and its dependence upon the rapidity of the development of the higher phase of communism; leaving quite open the lenghts of time or the concrete forms of "withering away," since material for the solution of such questions is not available - an unwonted display of modesty on lenin's part, for he was not, as a rule, discouraged from making the most confident assertions merely through the lack of "material." but where is the "material" upon which he and other marxists founded their conviction that the state will "wither away"? we shall search marxist literature in vain for this "material."
nevertheless the ultimate conviction remains absolutely unshaken, material or no material. while admitting that the state may take some time to wither, lenin still maintains that the withering is "inevitable."

Zizek is a Marxist. He was simply stating the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory aloud, because, to anyone actually familiar with Marxism and communist history, the whole thing is self-evidently absurd. He uses this as an example of how native European right-wingers may be (ironically) a bigger threat to European values than Muslim Fundamentalism.

>while the populace is mostly getting liberal ideas
You just admitted that most people buy into bourgeois ideology

I gave you more than that. You just aren't responding.

evil is a philosophical concept, and it is indeed evil to the very minds who invented communism.

Gonna need a citation on that one bucko

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle
and Environs.
Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore
rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of
Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's
rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's
gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice
from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet,
though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not
yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone
nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by
arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the
aquaface.
The fall
(bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntro
varrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait
oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian
minstrelsy. The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the
pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of
humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of
his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock
out in the park where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green
since devlinsfirst loved livvy.
What clashes here of wills gen wonts, oystrygods gaggin fishygods!
Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu!
Quaouauh! Where the Baddelaries partisans are still out to mathmaster
Malachus Micgranes and the Verdons catapelting the camibalistics out
of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head. Assiegates and boomeringstroms.
Sod's brood, be me fear! Sanglorians, save! Arms apeal with larms,
appalling. Killykillkilly: a toll, a toll. What chance cuddleys, what
cashels aired and ventilated! What bidimetoloves sinduced by what
tegotetabsolvers! What true feeling for their's hayair with what strawng
voice of false jiccup! O here here how hoth sprowled met the duskt the
father of fornicationists but, (O my shining stars and body!) how hath
fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement! But
was iz? Iseut? Ere were sewers? The oaks of ald now they lie in peat yet
elms leap where askes lay. Phall if you but will, rise you must: and none
so soon either shall the pharce for the nunce come to a setdown secular
phoenish.
Bygmester Finnegan, of the Stuttering Hand, freemen's maurer,
lived in the broadest way immarginable in his rushlit toofarback for
messuages before joshuan judges had given us numbers or Helviticus
committed deuteronomy (one yeastyday he sternely struxk his tete in a
tub for to watsch the future of his fates but ere he swiftly stook it out
again, by the might of moses, the very water was eviparated and all the
guenneses had met their exodus so that ought to show you what a
pentschanjeuchy chap he was!) and during mighty odd years this man of
hod, cement and edifices in Toper's Thorp piled buildung supra
buildung pon the banks for the livers by the Soangso. He addle liddle
phifie Annie ugged the little craythur. Wither hayre in honds tuck up
your part inher. Oftwhile balbulous, mithre ahead, with goodly trowel in
grasp and ivoroiled overalls which he habitacularly fondseed, like
Haroun Childeric Eggeberth he would caligulate by multiplicables the
alltitude and malltitude until he seesaw by neatlight of the liquor
wheretwin 'twas born, his roundhead staple of other days to rise in
undress maisonry upstanded (joygrantit!), a waalworth of a skyerscape
of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from next to nothing and
celescalating the himals and all, hierarchitectitiptitoploftical, with a
burning bush abob off its baubletop and with larrons o'toolers clittering
up and tombles a'buckets clottering down.
Of the first was he to bare arms and a name: Wassaily Booslaeugh
of Riesengeborg. His crest of huroldry, in vert with ancillars, troublant,
argent, a hegoak, poursuivant, horrid, horned. His scutschum fessed,
with archers strung, helio, of the second. Hootch is for husbandman
handling his hoe. Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister
Finnagain! Comeday morm and, O, you're vine! Sendday's eve and, ah,
you're vinegar! Hahahaha, Mister Funn, you're going to be fined again!

What then agentlike brought about that tragoady thundersday this
municipal sin business? Our cubehouse still rocks as earwitness to the
thunder of his arafatas but we hear also through successive ages that
shebby choruysh of unkalified muzzlenimiissilehims that would
blackguardise the whitestone ever hurtleturtled out of heaven. Stay us
wherefore in our search for tighteousness, O Sustainer, what time we
rise and when we take up to toothmick and before we lump down
upown our leatherbed and in the night and at the fading of the stars! For
a nod to the nabir is better than wink to the wabsanti. Otherways
wesways like that provost scoffing bedoueen the jebel and the jpysian
sea. Cropherb the crunchbracken shall decide. Then we'll know if the
feast is a flyday. She has a gift of seek on site and she allcasually ansars
helpers, the dreamydeary. Heed! Heed! It may half been a missfired
brick, as some say, or it mought have been due to a collupsus of his
back promises, as others looked at it. (There extand by now one
thousand and one stories, all told, of the same). But so sore did abe ite
ivvy's holired abbles, (what with the wallhall's horrors of rollsrights,
carhacks, stonengens, kisstvanes, tramtrees, fargobawlers, autokinotons,
hippohobbilies, streetfleets, tournintaxes, megaphoggs, circuses and
wardsmoats and basilikerks and aeropagods and the hoyse and the
jollybrool and the peeler in the coat and the mecklenburk bitch bite at
his ear and the merlinburrow burrocks and his fore old porecourts, the
bore the more, and his blightblack workingstacks at twelvepins a dozen
and the noobibusses sleighding along Safetyfirst Street and the
derryjellybies snooping around Tell-No-Tailors' Corner and the fumes
and the hopes and the strupithump of his ville's indigenous
romekeepers, homesweepers, domecreepers, thurum and thurum in
fancymud murumd and all the uproor from all the aufroofs, a roof for
may and a reef for hugh butt under his bridge suits tony) wan warning
Phill filt tippling full. His howd feeled heavy, his hoddit did shake.
(There was a wall of course in erection) Dimb! He stottered from the
latter. Damb! he was dud. Dumb! Mastabatoom, mastabadtomm, when
a mon merries his lute is all long. For whole the world to see.
Shize? I should shee! Macool, Macool, orra whyi deed ye diie? of a
trying thirstay mournin? Sobs they sighdid at Fillagain's chrissormiss
wake, all the hoolivans of the nation, prostrated in their consternation
and their duodisimally profusive plethora of ululation. There was
plumbs and grumes and cheriffs and citherers and raiders and cinemen
too. And the all gianed in with the shoutmost shoviality. Agog and
magog and the round of them agrog. To the continuation of that
celebration until Hanandhunigan's extermination! Some in kinkin
corass, more, kankan keening. Belling him up and filling him down.
He's stiff but he's steady is Priam Olim! 'Twas he was the dacent
gaylabouring youth. Sharpen his pillowscone, tap up his bier!
E'erawhere in this whorl would ye hear sich a din again? With their
deepbrow fundigs and the dusty fidelios. They laid him brawdawn
alanglast bed. With a bockalips of finisky fore his feet. And a
barrowload of guenesis hoer his head. Tee the tootal of the fluid hang
the twoddle of the fuddled, O!
Hurrah, there is but young gleve for the owl globe wheels in view
which is tautaulogically the same thing. Well, Him a being so on the
flounder of his bulk like an overgrown babeling, let wee peep, see, at
Hom, well, see peegee ought he ought, platterplate. Hum! From
Shopalist to Bailywick or from ashtun to baronoath or from
Buythebanks to Roundthehead or from the foot of the bill to ireglint's
eye he calmly extensolies. And all the way (a horn!) from fiord to fjell
his baywinds' oboboes shall wail him rockbound (hoahoahoah!) in
swimswamswum and all the livvylong night, the delldale dalppling
night, the night of bluerybells, her flittaflute in tricky trochees (O
carina! O carina!) wake him. With her issavan essavans and her
patterjackmartins about all them inns and ouses. Tilling a teel of a tum,
telling a toll of a teary turty Taubling. Grace before Glutton. For what
we are, gifs a gross if we are, about to believe. So pool the begg and
pass the kish for crawsake. Omen. So sigh us. Grampupus is fallen
down but grinny sprids the boord. Whase on the joint of a desh?
Finfoefom the Fush. Whase be his baken head? A loaf of Singpantry's
Kennedy bread. And whase hitched to the hop in his tayle? A glass of
Danu U'Dunnell's foamous olde Dobbelin ayle.

In Marxist theory Capitalism is one of many stages of human societal development, Marx for example praised the American anexation of northern Mexico because Mexicans still had a tribal and feudal mindset while American settlers demonstrated enterprenourship and would make better use of the resources, he was prejudiced against Slavs for the same reason.

As a materialist, Marx made no moral judgment of Capitalism.

this "withering away" is inherent in the marxian conception of the state as a "special repressive force." when the withering is complete, there will "no longer be any real political power." only then does it become "possible to speak of freedom." freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savageries, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to the elementary rules of social life - they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination" and "without the special apparatus which is called the state" … "we see around us millions of times how readily people get accustomed to observing the necessary rules of life in common if there is no exploitation, if there is nothing that causes indignation, that calls forth protest and revolt and has to be suppressed." here we have the marxian identification of capitalism with evil.
marxian ethics are as spurious as marxian science. the good, like the true, is what promotes revolution. the "proletariat" is the only "thoroughly revolutionary" class. the revolution is sacred and the revolutionary is alone virtuous. there are no absolute and no transcendental ethical standards. there is only one morality that matters, the one that "represents the future," that alone "contains the maximum of durable elements" - the "proletarian morality." all morality hitherto was "class morality" - "all former moral theories are the product in the last analysis of the economic stage which society had reached at that particular epoch."
the "proletarian revolution" is therefore the triumph of good over evil. but more than this: the revolution is also the conquest over the forces of nature - "the laws of his [man's] own social activity which have hitherto confronted him as external, dominating laws of nature, will then be applied by man with complete understanding, and hence will be dominated by man." with COMPLETE understanding! in other words, the revolution will establish not only the reign of absolute justice, but also of absolute knowledge and wisdom.
it also establishes the reign of material and spiritual freedom and well-being, for it "guarantees" an "existence" that is not only "sufficient," but grows "richer from day to day" as well as "the complete unrestricted development and exercise of physical and mental faculties. it is humanity's leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom." the kingdom of heaven has been established on earth.

""and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn ware any more….the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
and the cow and bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

Sure:

Marx complemented capitalism several times. It was merely a stage of development that needed to be overcome, since capitalism had not done away with class antagonisms.

even so, capitalism is the "other" to communism. it is the very antithesis of it. what else would describe "evil" in relation to communism?

Do you realize that some jackoff saying "Marxism is totally idealistic and moralistic!" isn't proof that such is the case?

I know it might be difficult for you to grasp, but Marxism as a philosophy does not concern itself in the slightest with morality, which is a spook. There's no "ought" statements anywhere - it is simply a description of how the rules of nature lead to so and so outcomes, and how, given the tendencies observed in history, the proles will tend to come into conflict with the bourgies until neither class exists.

Class society is the "evil" to communism. Capitalism is generally regarded as superior in most ways to the societies that came before it, namely feudalism and slave society.

And where is this proof that nature acts in that regard?

can capitalism exist without class?

In our own written history we've seen tribalism evolve into slave society, slave society into feudalism and feudalism into capitalism.

...

No. Capitalism is defined by it's class relations. There is no classless capitalism. You are either employer or employee. You either own property and capital and gain from it, or you have to sell your labor. If this relation does not exist, the system ceases to be capitalism.

Classless society is the future, communism being a popular imagining of what such a society might look like.

Marx wrote a whole book on that, as it happens. It's called Das Kapital, and it describes the relations of capitalist society. If you would like to address any of the specific points made in that work, please feel free to do so, but please stop with this feels-based nonsense you've been spouting so far.


Also this.


It's the next logical development of human society, the resolution of capitalism's inherent contradictions, just as capitalism was the resolution of feudalism's contradictions.


(that said, it should be important to note that the abolition of production for profit and the value form should also be viewed as necessary to the development of socialism)

the racial principle, which is the central doctrine of Nazi, has as little philosophic or scientific validity as the dialectical materialism of the marxists. but the mythological character of the two religions is concealed from their followers (who would be followers no longer if concealment came to an end) by the pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-scientific husk. the marxist really believes that marxism is "scientific." the nat socialist really believes that the racial principle has something to do with serious biology.

Why is dialectical materialism scientifically invalid?

again you are all trying to predict the future like fucking nostradamus. do you see how communism is schatological in that regard? it predicts an "end-game" to history.

pretty much, all those transitions lasted thousands of years, Capitalism has existed for 500 at most.
But hey, you don't have to agree, just declare History over and get the fuck off my board.

It makes a prediction about the development of society. How does this make it invalid?

because it was predicted in the beginning of the 20th century as "imminent" and has yet to happen. its like a religious zealot proclaiming "THE END IS NIGH!"

It was predicted in the end of the 18th century and crippled by Social Democracy and Fascism.

So just the fact that it is an old theory means it is wrong?

...

Marx never claimed that communism would arrive inevitably at a certain date in a certain place - in any case, as the world is a level 2 chaotic system, it's impossible to make any certain predictions about its future, as the people who live in it are able to respond and frustrate one's predictions.

Even if this was the case, why would this invalidate Marx's general critique of capital and capitalist society? Only someone with no understanding of Marx's actual critique would make this extremely reductionist argument. If the core of Marx's argument was that 'communism will come by 1894' and that failed to happen, I would agree with you, but that is not the case - Marx simply described the aspects of capitalism that undermined the system's stability and how they could and probably would reach a point where the system becomes unsustainable. As it happens, we are seeing this at this very moment, when global capitalism is more unstable and prone to crisis than it's ever been.

Also, proletarian revolts did take place all over Europe - in this respect Marx was correct - they simply weren't successful in taking over.

the supposedly philosophical content of the marxian myth, or rather the central myth itself, which is known as "dialectical materialism," is represented by marxists as being a revolutionary advance on the hegelian "dialectic."

a hypothesis will undergo modification when it is confronted with contrary evidence which may crystallize in a contrary hypothesis. the fusion of contrary hypotheses will produce a theory that will represent an "advance" in human thought. by this "dialectical" process, or fusion of opposites, truths are engendered. here we have a familiar process of the reasoning mind. but hegel went much further. his system is based on the identity of thought and being. thought and being move forward by the evolution and reconciliation of opposites, or, in other words, by thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. the hegelian "dialectic" is not merely a process of the reasoning mind, but a cosmic process, indeed THE cosmis process. all history, the history of the universe, and not only of mankind, is god's "dialectical" self-realization. all history comes to an end in the fullness of his self-realization.
but it is very hazardous indeed to detect the cosmic process in the highly complex, fleeting and intangible phenomena of human life. to accept the hegelian "dialectic" as a philosophical doctrine is one thing - to interpret actual history (including the events of our own day) in terms of this "dialectic" is another.
if we examine categories such as "feudalism," "capitalism," or "communism," we find that they are complex, hard to define, and incapable of being studied "in vacuo."
marxists treat them as though they were simple, tangible, and clearly recognizable entities, like elements in the test-tube, and subject to unalterable laws of predictable behavior. when we try to establish "opposite" categories, we at once encounter insuperable difficulties. peace and w'a'r are presumably "opposites." but it is not easy to see how these opposites could fuse to produce a new entity (unless it be the doctrine of "sanctions"). to say that "capitalism" is the opposite of "communism" (or "socialism") is to say something that may have an illustrative value (as emphasizing certain contrasts between an order in which capital is privately owned and one in which capital is publicaly owned), but can have no philosophical or scientific validity at all.
socialism is a FORM of capitalism. the tendency towards public control and ownership of the means of production was perceptible in marx's own day. the tendency has gathered momentum since then and there is considerable truth in his prophecy that socialism is "inevitable." but it is very doubtful whether pure socialism is the ultimate form of capitalism - indeed it is doubtful if capital can have any ultimate form. the movement from private capitalism to socialism may even be reversed, either by violent or by peaceful revolution, by a "proletariat" hungering after private ownership. something of the kind would now appear to be happening in russia. {this book was written in 1892}
the criteria of the marxist are almost entirely subjective. the "opposite" of what he likes is what he dislikes - that, and very little more. he imagines communism and fascism (or its more advanced german form of national soc1al1sm) to be "opposites." a certain color is lent to his view because the two are often, though not always, in actual conflict. but that is no reason for supposing them to be opposites in any philosophical or scientific sense. indeed, they are much alike, though it would be by no means the first time that people are fighting one another in the pursuit of similar aims.

It's not that difficult. Imagine an anomalous world where the environment is never changes no matter how much time passes. Now, a few organisms pop up on this world that evolve in a similar manner to how organisms on our world do. Since evolution isn't completely random (organisms keep mutations that help them survive and/or reproduce) one can imagine that, eventually, the organisms on that planet will reach a "perfected" state. That is to say, a state where any mutation will make them less likely to survive and/or reproduce, a state that invites no more change.

This is why communism (or at least class society) is "inevitable". Society doesn't evolve randomly, it develops in relation to it's economic development and the fundamental contradictions of said economic systems, especially in the class societies they produce, each new prevailing system doing away with the contradictions that haunted the last, but producing its own contradictions and class antagonisms. This means that, eventually society will develop to a point in which there are no more class antagonisms. Since classes are, by their very nature, antagonistic towards each other, this means a classless society, or communism. It's hardly soothsaying.

marx simply said it would happen, lenin said it should already be happening. i concede marx himself did not give an exact time, only that it was inevitable.

human history != evolution

Are there any discernible "opposites" in the phenomenal world? if so, what are they? this is a question the marxist does not answer. he neither asks nor answers any philosophical questions. he is neither a philosopher nor a scientist - he is a believer, who retains this much of the christian heritage that he thinks in terms of good and evil. but instead of holding, as the christian does, that we are all under sin, he identifies evil with "capitalism," and imagines that if capitalism is destroyed, evil will perish with it.

I'm aware, fam. You're missing (or maybe intentionally avoiding) the point.

If something develops along a certain logic, eventually that logic will reach a conclusion, and the process of development will stop. If organisms evolve to become more survivable and reproductive, they will eventually reach a state where they cannot become any more survivable or reproductive. If societies develop around their economic systems, and the class contradictions therein, eventually society will reach a point where there are not more class contradictions.

again youre treating human history as if its a biological organism that will inherit traits that are only good for it. when has a society actually done only good for itself?

There are occasional regressions, but Marx wasn't talking about any one society, but the general trend of human society over time.

Then the fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't proof against it.


Spare me your pseudintellectual polemic babble. You don't have a single hard point, and when you spout off shite like that it really shows.

The opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have to do with the fact that one is not necessary to the survival of the other and in fact the nature of the relationship that defines their opposition works against the material interst of the proles, so that at some point it stands to reason that the latter will organize against the former and create a society where the division of owners and non-owners does not exist, simply by pursuing their material interest as people have done throughout all of history.

Marx has never once made a claim that something is evil or that we have a moral imperative to bring this about. The reason Marxists try to bring about this form of society ahead of schedule is because they perceive it to be in their material self-interest to do so.

A Islamic Communist homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, a known atheist.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!"

At this moment, a hardworking, patriotic, pro-capital self-made young entrepreneur who had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and understood the necessity of inequality to a prosperous and free society stood up and asked a question.

"What kind of society do we live in?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "An oppresive capitalist society, you stupid Christian"

"Right. It’s been 200 years since Marx predicted communism would come. If like you say, Marxism is real… then communism would be already here"

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Das Kapital. He stormed out of the room crying those Marxist crocodile tears. The same tears Marxists cry for the "poor" (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named "Small Government" flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

Don't Tread on Me

meant for

what prevents the proletarian from eventually wanting private property thereafter? you think just because communism might be established that itll forever be until something "better" comes along?
communism has been reversed before, what would prevent it from being reversed again?

Because there's no purpose to owning private property.

What? No it hasn't. The most we've seen is state capitalist countries like the USSR reverting back to liberal capitalism.

youre assuming every human in the communist society would suddenly "get it" and be totally down for it. you think everyone will just say "yeah bro theres no need for private property we are all in this together"

because that sounds so realistic.

here we go with "real communism never happened!" at least nat soccers admit it happened and failed as well.

Are you admitting that Capitalism can grow and benefit workers but was crippled sometime by 1947?
I assume we're not going to get deeper into the cause other than "Capitalist materialism" on this one.

...

Well, the other reason is because capitalism will have simply ceased to be relevant by that point. I would be as if someone attempted to re-implement feudalism in our society. If nothing else, the biggest block to someone attempting to re-establish capitalism would be that taking private property would be theft from society at large. Society would probably respond about the same way to someone trying to claim private property the same way we'd respond to someone saying that he's now our "lord" and we need to spend three days out of our week farming his crops.

Except the USSR et al never claimed to have achieved communism. All they ever claimed was to have been ideologically communist. It was mostly Western propaganda that labeled their system "communism".

His point was that social democracy briefly saved capitalism from its own contradictions until neoliberalism took over and started the process all over again.

You're assuming that once there's no more exploitation of surplus value people will go "yeah bro I let's start giving 90% of our earnings back to some guy who claims to own everything that will really make us all richer." Once private property is actually abolished in practice, nobody would have a reason to return to it. Even the former owners would remember the constant crisis of capitalism and thus have a reason to stick with a superiour system.

Yes, because it hasn't. See

Until a certain point we had Keynesian and SocDem forces keeping worker's conditions up through political means. The other side of it is in the tendency for the rate of profit to fall - as productivity continued to rise, the corresponding decrease in employment lead to a falloff in demand, which threatened profitability and lead to the bourgeoisie's efforts to repress organized labour and the gains they've made out of a need to preserve profitability.

the attitude of marxists to capitalism has something in common with the attitude of the national soc1al1st to judaism, though it is less ignoble. the national soc1al1st regards the jew as embodying the principle of evil, and, therefore, as his own "opposite" (it is highly characteristic of sectarians that they are always good while their opposites are always evil). both attitudes may be fortified by a number of objectively discernible facts, but they remain essentially subjective nevertheless. both engender a personal hatred, not only of the abstractions "capitalism" and "judaism," but of the individual capitalist and the individual jew, a hatred that often finds expression in gross, calumniator caricature. there is a very striking resemblance between the bestial creatures who play the part of typical capitalists in russian "revolutionary" films, and the jew, as caricatured in the pages of the infamous anti-semitic periodicl, der sturmer. if we examine the communist manifesto, which was dawn up by marx and engels in 1848, and became a kind of marxian creed, we shall find passages like the following:

""our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of the proletariat at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common….""

These words might have been lifted bodily from any of the grosser anti-semitic leaflets that circulated in germany, romania, or poland, if the word "jewish" had been substituted for "bourgeois."

we can all agree the rise of productivity has a profound effect on capitalism, however that is not part of the discussion in regards to communism as envisioned by its progenitors.

you're forgetting about outside threats, the only way your dream of communism works is if the entire globe is razed in revolution all at once to abolish private ownership. Even if communism were to rise in the way you foresee it, the entire world would be against you to force it back upon you.

And this is where you're dead wrong.

While, yes, there was demonization of the bourgeoisie in propaganda, in the theory itself, the bourgeoisie are little more that the foremost lieutenants of capital.

Quite to the contrary of the fascist, who sees society as existing in some state of harmonious, organic natural order, which is disrupted by a malignant, artificial foreign force (being the Jew, immigrant, or whatever else), for Marxists it is the system itself that is corrupt and malignant and produces social ills. The bourgeoisie do not make the system evil, the system is itself evil, the bourgeoisie simply act in accordance with the logic of the capitalist machine that they are merely cogs of.

I'm not. That's why most communists agree that capitalism needs to enter a prolonged crisis in order for a socialist order to be established.


Baseless assertions based on fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of Marxist theory.

You are literally criticizing tone and the tone of propaganda and demagoguery by nominally leftist governments and expecting it to have any bearing on the core of Marxist theory. Yes, nominally communist governments and organizations have used demonization in propaganda, but that has shit all to do with anything.

you really think thats what communists believe? we already have historical precedent for what happens to bourgeoisie in a communist revolution
what do you think happens to those perceived as "bourgeoisie" in a real revolution? you think they give it all up freely? violence would occur and the proletariat would be so happy to participate it in due to the fervor whipped up in them due to this secular religion you call communism.

you are abstracting everything into some simple form of logic that humans merely don't do in reality except on paper. any self-proffessed communist would easily join his bandwagon of comrades in "liberating" themselves from the bourgeoisie in a frenzy of violence. still no better than the mechanism of any other extremist takeover like nat s0c.

A economic crisis?
Need I remind you that economic crisis weakens democracies but strengthens dictatorships?

Dictators can't be overthrown when the people are feeble due to lack of food, while democracies enter weakened states due to the people weakening. What you're saying is that for socialists to enter, they need to risk Dictators trying to make their own playgrounds too.

without it there would be no revolution, comrade. there would be no emotion to bring the masses to action.

see>>1027673

We're communists, that's what we really believe. Ergo: yes.

Is the entire fucking core of your criticism against Marxist thought that "they say mean things about bourgies? :🍀🍀🍀"

Pure fucking liberalism.

Violence in and of itself isn't bad, especially when it is done with the goal of revolution.


Yes and no. Socialists do not need to do anything - the natural development of capitalist society that will allow socialists to make an entry is the same one that will let fascists get their foot in the door. This will happen regardless of what socialists do - it's a natural tendency of capitalism. This is, incidentally, why we are opposed to fascism - we are well aware that when capitalism falls apart, it could very well be a fascist uprising that springs out of that. Although the fascist approach will never be able to resolve the contradictions that lead to the crisis in the first place and will thus be ultimately unsuccessful in giving the people what they want, its failure will likely lead to the death of millions. That is why it is imperative that we organize today to be ready for the day capitalism goes to shit, in order to ensure that the transition to communism is as quick and as bloodless as possible.

Not to mention the lives lost and ruined every day today due to the failures of capitalism. The sooner it's out the door, the better.


Yes, it's the same as with killing. We don't like to shoot people, but it's a necessary evil to prevent a greater violence. If emotional manipulation can bring people to the truth, then its use is entirely justified on a pragmatic basis.

Yes.
Because the bourgeoisie lead the counter-revolutionaries and tended to be heavily involved in reaction
Yes, the bourgeoisie resist in order to keep their positions in society, and are subsequently removed through violence. This doesn't make them any kind of Great Satan intentionally causing all the ills of capitalism, but rather one of many forces resisting change.

Except they do and it has been recorded multiple times. In bourgeois economics they call it the invisible hand of the market. In Marxist theory they call it the Law of Value. Everyone sees people acting in accordance to a basic logic except those in intentional denial over it, ie - you.

Because, as you yourself pointed out, the bourgeoisie resist the change in order to keep their positions in society, and therefore must be removed with force.

No doubt some of the evil in this world has been caused by the private ownership of capital. socialism would remove certain evils - but like every general system, it has evils of its own. neither capitalism nor socialism are in themselves good or evil. a civilized state, even if it retains the private ownership of capital, is preferable to an uncivilized state, even if it is socialist, and the reverse. socialism is by no means incompatible with inhuman oppression or, for that matter, with extreme economic inequality. nor is there any reason to suppose that the socialist state as such is less w'ar-like than the capitalist state. if we survey the world we shall find the highest civilization and the greatest peace and contentment in the western and north-western fringe of europe and in north america - that is to say, in regions where public and private ownership of capital go hand in hand (though it would be rash to conclude that this circumstance is the cause of their relative well-being - the causes certainly lie far deeper).

It is. And if it isn't, it probably isn't socialism. Hard to have extreme economic inequality when everyone is an equal economic player, no?

Hardly. They've merely exported the violence that sustains their society to the third world, which is sustains all Western social democratic states, and it's a system being unraveled before our very eyes. Europe is failing now that capitalism has gone global and the welfare state is being undone, even in your precious Nordic countries.

inhuman oppression != economic inequality

you can still be oppressed no matter what economic standing you are.

You're talking about inverted totalitarianism, a perversion of capitalism. That is the real cause of the failure.

To add onto this, you shouldn't conflate state ownership of capital with worker ownership of it.

As my friend Spurdoposter has said, a system with economic inequality due to property or something resembling it is not true socialism,


Intersectional gender violence is not real oppression, user. If someone doesn't have the power to kill you or deny you sustenance unless you do something for them, there's no oppression going on. With a gun in your hands and common ownership over the MoP, what could possibly oppress you?

Bullshit. The cause of the failure is the falling rate of profit. The profit is falling because of increased productivity. Because profits are falling, the bourgeois class is undoing the welfare state (so that they pay less taxes and have more profits) and removing international barriers to capital, for the same reason.

It was "pure" capitalism that evolved to this state, and any return to "pure" capitalism will naturally develop along these same lines and lead to the same "corrupted" (in reality, advanced) form of capitalism.

lel you think im talking about gender violence? oppression is simply an expression of power, and those who control the state control you, it doesnt matter what economic standing you may be. you are at the state's mercy.


that is but a symptom of the inverted totalitarian government. and we havent had "pure capitalism" at any point in history, that would assume a completely free market. and the free market simply does not exist. like capitalism, socialism will have corruption and evils forced upon it by those who would wish to gain more than their share, just like throughout the entire written history of civilization.

You fail to point out how socialism or any other form of communism is immune to corruption and subversion unlike any other system.

It is a symptom of capitalism, a natural consequence of the coincidence of labour saving technology, the value form and wage labour as societal institutions.

You are wrong, capitalism has not had any evils or corruptions pushed on it - it is, in fact, working exactly as intended. What is happening today is a consequence of people acting like good capitalists, and doing whatever they can to accumulate wealth and increase the profitability of their respective firms.

This is because I reject your unfounded narrative of subversion and corruption. The failure of capitalism today is rooted in the institutions that define capitalism: private property, the value form, and production for profit. Socialism is not a form of communism - it is an intermediate stage in the transition from capitalism to communism. More specifically, socialism is capitalism that has had the malignant institutions stripped out.

Now, the system of capitalism developed somewhat organically over the years, to a certain degree - the various institutions that make up its base, namely markets and currency, were contrivances of human design, but the people who developed them did not do so with the goal of inventing this thing called capitalism. The attempts of socialism that we've seen thus far, on the other hand, have been almost entirely artificial integrated economic systems. The biggest failure - Stalin's - came from his attempt to replace the institution of private property with a commonly held means of production administered by a centralized bureaucracy (in truth, it appropriated surplus value just as capitalists do under capitalism, and effectively acted as one big capitalist), so we must take care to develop alternative systems that actually function.

As for what to do in order to develop these systems, there are many contentious schools of thought here, each with their own ideas. I'm personally in favour of something based on direct workers' self-government on a council or communal basis - where decisions that affect a given group are made directly by that group itself through a process of direct democracy.

This is outside the scope of this discussion, however. My points are as follow: capitalism is a failure, and we know exactly why this is. We therefore need to dismantle these institutions and replace them with alternatives - production for use and common ownership. Without the profit motive and capitalist exploitation, the crises of capitalism that we see today owing to overproduction and falling profitability are effectively precluded, and people receive the full value of their contribution to society through their labour. This will naturally lead to the whole of society benefiting from advances in productivity (rather than losing out because of them), and the shortening of the work day and eventually of scarcity as a consequence of the disentanglement of the profit motive from the process of production. When the system advances to such a point as nobody needs to work in order to enjoy material abundance, this is called communism.

...

I never said I was against socialism entirely, just against it being the panacaea you say it is. I do think some form of socialism is needed to keep capitalism in check, however the idea of abolishing private property is absurd to me. people need "things," otherwise there is no fruit of labor and thusly no incentive to work hard.

i wish you well in your endeavours socanon, im hanging up my keyboard for the night. i enjoyed this thread. i find it easier to discuss here than Holla Forums, since it's infested with more shills than anything nowadays.

imo eventually it'll come down to a meritocracy when we are post-scarcity. we'll need some metric for ourselves as humans to work towards to maintain sanity (or insanity).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

m8, that's not what private property means.

You can still have personal property (cars, PCs, guns, toothbrushes, clothes, even homes probably) under socialism. Likewise with incentive structures to encourage harder/more productive work. Private property refers to a right of property that gives one person the right to value produced by another. If it's not used to exploit labour, it's not private property. Read this.

As it happens, socialism is based precisely on meritocratic principles, hence the insistence that you only get back what you contribute in work.

Anyway, have a good sleep.

Sounds like Capitalism to me. Also watch Hypernormalization (it's pretty fucking chill)