If communism works then why don't you just make a collective

If communism works then why don't you just make a collective

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
dictionary.com/browse/hierarchy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

currently saving with some people to do so

Because lifestylism is shit and we want to alter the global production process.

Some do. Sadly vanguardist are usually more interested in ideological circlejerks and SocDems (i.e. normie left) are not really interested in anything that upsets the status quo.

I know jackshit about communist theory: the post

Because necessarily it would be a capitalist collective.

It's an incredibly idiotic ideal that doesn't factor in basic human nature. In theory if humans were robots, maybe. But no, it's a shit ideology that has on record to fail again and again.

forgot the YPG flag


That's exactly what needs to be done. The major reason why Rojava today even had a shot at the revolution was because they started organizing years ago.
If you don't set up co-ops and organizations now there will be no base to fight the revolution once the time comes.

...

do any of you fags had them means of production ?

...

The major reason Rojava has a shot is because it received millions in funding from the US as one of the 'moderate rebel' groups. Potemkin villages with women's basket weaving cooperatives haven't contributed squat to their success at controlling territory.

So? The Baath Regime is receiving economic and military aid from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia, the "moderate" rebels are aided by Turkey and the Gulf States and even ISIS has wealthy middle eastern donors.

Every side in the conflict is receiving some form of foreign military, humanitarian and financial aid.
Except they held out before the Kobane airstrikes started. Could they have taken it without it? Probably not.
Just like the regime wouldn't have held out without aid from Iran/Hezbollah/Russia, the rebellion would have never gotten off the ground without foreign weapons and ISIS wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for wealthy Islamist donors and Al-Qaeda.

This Phil Greaves-tier dismissing of Rojava is getting incredibly stale.

Useless lifestylism.

A post-capitalist society requires actually using tools of the current system to shape it into the one we want.

One did not invent the first jackhammer by refusing to use a regular, less-powerful, less-efficient hammer to build it.

socialism in one country is alredy utopic, socialism in one collective is peak idealism.

Marxism is directly opposed to the sort of utopianism you're advocating. The theory is based around the development of all of human society, not making some hippie tree commune in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.


"Human nature" can only be observed within the context of human society.

Kill yourself faggot, why do you eve post as an anarchist when its rystal clear you are a reactionary cuck?

But if we operate under the premise that humans are naturally selfish, then doesn't it make sense to implement a system that limits the capacity of that selfishnessn was to harm others, rather than one that exacerbates it?

Not when that system is factually worse than capitalism. Far more people starve to death under communist rule than capitalist rule, I can take that to the bank.

Wow. What the hell has happened to my political party in the last decade?

Yeah, people are greedy… you think people will just automatically not be greedy just because the dollar is removed? Nah, sorry sport, that's not how things work. They'll get greedy over materials/human possessions rather than money. And remember money is a means to that end of getting possessions.

Where in my post did i mention aanything about goverment?? You are an even bigger retard

Also, remember to kill yourself

It seems to me you're a bit "under the weather". You should probably take a nap.

You clearly implied it. You told me to kill myself and called me a reactionary cuck for valid criticisms. Which makes me come to the conclusion that you aren't a true anarchist.

No i didn't you stupid faggot, nor i will engage in a useless circlejerk about non-issues like who is the real anarkiddie

The fact that you belive there is a system of law revolving around human nature, and that hecause human nature exist it should be the basis for hierarchies directly implies you are some reactionary cuck with distate for goverment

Because as soon as we expand our collectives, the capitalists come and destroy it.

Good. Because you fucking aren't one.
Wrong again. I said that human nature is about greed. How do you think humans have survived this long? By away say (your food) to people? Nope. We're evolved to be greedy which is why I don't like any form of government. They steal from people and pretend to protect us when most often, they're beating us down.

*meant By say giving away

lel

Kek

Wrong again faggot, for every behavioural claim about "humun naturr" there is a direct opposite to it, it is a fact that humans like to share with other humans, otherwise we would live in complete isolation

The problem with human nature being used as an argument for a set of naturals not only is stupid because what you claim human nature is are just your assumptions, but because there is a dichotomy for every behaviour humans engage in, making it moot

But again, you are a reactionary cuck who has never ever read an anarchist author


So domcappies, but since you are a cuck you are perfectly fine with them

Also you're a huge hypocrite for calling my a reactionary cuck then you say:
Nice mental acrobatics on display here.

Wow, you are even more retarded than I thought

Youmare a reactionary cuck with distate for the goverment, I am not comparing us to see who is an anarchist or not, because you would need some form of anti-hierarchical way of thought to even be considered an anarchist

Cant compare apples to oranges :^)

But you are a reactionary cuck

Not even one coherent reply.

It's called a family dipshit. People are greedy for their family.
Wew their lad. You are having trouble making any sense at all.

None of that makes any sense whatsoever.

Prove to me the un provable.

Of course it doesnt make sense to your peabrain

Humans being greddy for their family is an apriori statement, you take this as an axiom, this is wrong

Humans also share with other families, humans can share the product of labour qith other families so that the other family becomes part of the tribe

You are a stupid reactionary, read kropotkin

Kin altruism is still altruism, which is a subtype of altruism just like cooperation within a tribe and so on. on. You literally debunked your own argument about human nature being about greed.
Read Kropotkin.

1) can't fight that statement and won't
2) all dead, well almost (and only "political" because others have no way of defining it)…but you're not alone
3) so simple, yet so unseen

just ask my Vietnamese friends

Keep using buzzwords please.
Ah now we're getting somewhere. Wouldn't it make sense that people are greedy for their tribe? What are they supposed to do bare minimum? Or go for it all? What do you do fish? Or hunt a dear that would sustain the entire tribe? The answer is obvious.

you're talking to machines fella…left/right/all led

You retard, the "tribe" is stablished by the historical and material cojditions, the "tribe" can be a worldwide tribe

You fuciking retard, you are clueless, ignorant and a reactionary who just dislikes goverment

nigga go back and read bookchin some more, cause that's not at all what he meant by lifestylism.

Being related has never proved an impediment to conflict nor a guarantee of affection.

It was Ayn Rand tier

It's not enough to start one "collective". The whole of society must be moved towards communalism. To not do so is to tolerate the continued destruction of our ecology and the degradation of human dignity.

Whether or not something "makes sense" is irrelevant to whether or not something is true or false.

You should stop shitposting on Holla Forums and go read a book or two.

Huh, I never knew a tribe was government…. hmmm who knew? There's a huge difference between a government and a tribe. A "Government" rules over the people a "Tribe" is a bunch of people grouped together for survival only. You are pretty fucking stupid.
Who here is the actual reactionary? Because right now it looks like it is you, pretending to be an anarchist but really a communist.

Read more kropotkin

Nice moralism you fucking sissy

*tips fedora*

seize the means of production
Sounds good, sempai

Holy shit, you are becoming more and more retarded everytime you reply

A fitting maymay, considering sound like a christcuck.

wew

it's fitting because you're an edgelord :^)

what the fuck

Coming from someone who can't even spell.
Yup. Reactionary cuck confirmed.

I'm sorry for not being a faggot who uses moralist arguments against economic systems.

Btw anarchism is by definition: No government/lack of government. Anfem is a communist enjoy guys :^)

Lmao, you are fucking stupid kid

Except anarchy means lack of hierarchies, retard

Natural law using "human nature" directly imposes hierarchies and justifies it with them

Read a fucking book

you should stop clinging to false assumptions famrade

Good job proving you're not retarded.


from Websters dictionary:

Definition of anarchism

1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2
: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

...

Anyway /thread for me guys. There's no use in arguing with an idiot.

Voluntary actions =/= government retard.

So I guess state and something governing over a given area are one and the same for you?

Top fucking kek, read a book


Try /liberty/ then, there are other intelle tual dead men there :^}

...

Nice going using the authority fallacy. Totally doesn't make you look like a hypocrite.
I don't know about you but:


Both definitions are about the same, just the websters is more simplified. You are an idiot. Admit it. You have a low Autism Level.

Considering you are claiming anarchy is "no gubment and no gubment" alone is anarchy, and you base your claim on a dictionary, its easy to see how you are the one engaging in an appeal of authority

I already explained your reactionary mind how natural law and other hierarchies based on "human nature" is philosophical idealism, thus incorrect and not anarchy, as hierarchies that are imposed stillexist

But you are stupid, i cant help you with that

Also


Top kek, its like you are purposely trying to prove you are a reactionary

is your argument

Capitalism ceirtainly isnt voluntary, reactionary

Says the cuck using dictionaryndefinitions and eye cue tests kek

I will beat you and stomp you everytime kid, your kind is scum

Look up what "argument" means in the dictionary, kiddo. You'll be stunned.

Nice strawman fallacy you have going here.
Funny stuff.

You have yet to prove natural law based on muh humun naturr not imposed hierarchy, faggot

But you wont because you are dumb and dont know shit

More funny stuff.
?

Top kek

I accept your defeat gg no re fag

You struggle to make any sense at all and are hardly coherent, you drunk. So go ahead claim the victory lap. Know though that you are an idiot though.

You should also read up on what a "strawman argument" is. Because all you do is try to refute arguments I've never even made. Which is the epitome of idiocy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Again, feel free to prove natural law based on human nature spooks isnt an imposed hierarchy

This was your original argument, you claimed arguments based o n "human nature" are compatible with anarchism

Feel free to prove this axiom correct to begin with

Top kek, nice bqckpedal

What are you implying that if anarchism people won't be greedy and have possessions? How about I take your computer and donate it to charity? Would you like that?

dictionary.com/browse/hierarchy Right here. You don't even know what hierarchy even means. hahahahahahahaha. I already know your argument it will be:
When definitions of words are quite universal in the english language. You're pretty stupid aren't you?
Yes, they are. Tribes are a good example of this.
top jej m8 you're an idiot.

This must actually be the most retarded poster I've seen on here

Good job, "anarchist"

Judging how everyone in this thread is beating eachother up or beating eachother off, seems everyone forgot OP was a ruisecruiser.

It amazes me that this is the argument coming from capitalists when it "too" is riddled with failure after failure, waste upon waste. I've heard the phrase "it's not real capitalism" come out of more retarded free-marketeers than any other group.

Are you implying that narchsist wont share his personal property with others? I will absolutely lend my pc to someone who needs to make use of iy, as a matter of fact I am posting from my phome because just now someone is using my pc

Then why are you using them?

Tribes are determined by the historical and material conidtions, you retarded idealist, there is absolutely no reason why the tribe couldnt be a worldwide entity

And here we all can see how fucking stupid you are, the one claiming a world wide tribe needs a goverment is your retqrded reactionary peabrain


Humqne nature is koot, for every behaviour you grasp to try to justify your hierarchies there is an opposite behaviour that proves your initial claim wrong

You are a retard

What about human nature you ever think of that?

[citation needed]

Though, depending on your definition of "greedy", people can be greedy and perfectly functional within a communist system.

Well why don't you? You could keep the profit for yourselves.

You don't because the capitalist is giving you something

Access to capital, assumption of risk, and 'organisation' / ideas / management / brand

If capitalists were unnecessary you would start your own commune, and so would 'the workers' in general.

It's so obvious, you guys

Because the collective would be assaulted 24/7 by the mechanics of the capitalist totalitarian power structure through taxes, rent seeking, private utilities, prohibitions against collecting wood/rain water, capitalist media propaganda and local LEO's trying to fuck with them

Just end yourself

...

...

Some of those don't involve individuals making choices, and sometimes one choice involves other costs which explain why people didn't choose it. The religion one might be true.

None of them relate to what I'm saying

class

cuck

Capitalism has literally nothing to do with "greed", it's the opposite.
Proles are complacent and tame and that's the reason Private Property exists.

what does this even means

Leftypol B T F O

If people are this inherently evil, what is even the point of pretending to have a fair and coherent society? Why should economics even exist when we can resort to complete barbarism?

Holla Forums gets triggered by anything that resembles being productive, e.g. not sitting on your ass circlejerking over Stirner memes and criticizing everyone else.

Doing something stupid and pointless is worse than doing nothing. At least when we do nothing we don't look like fucking retarded hipsters that can't run a restaurant.

Besides, a business literally cannot compete if it doesn't exploit its labor.

So you admit that it's an inferior system and can't compete with other ideologies? Then why should it be adopted?

You know this applies to every system and political ideology.
This question is quite irrelevant if you read my first answer.

No it doesn't.

Why?

Why not? Surely there's a system out there that provides a better standard of living and a more efficient way of doing things than the rest?

but a collective doesn't have to compete

BTFO
T
F
O

NIGGERFAGGOT
I
G
G
E
R
F
A
G
G
O
T