Hello Holla Forums

Hello Holla Forums

How do the communist philosopher's on your board justify communism? Communism is inherently against private property, which I've been told many times is a "spook." If nations don't exist, as you say they don't, isn;t this just a justification for exploiting the resources of another country? This seems unethical to me, and I'd like an explanation. It seems as if communism only exists to garner surface level support (redistribution of wealth, taxing "porky"), so that said regime can subtly steal the resources from another country in the "name of the state/Stalin/etc."

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that you argue property rights don't exist, yet call colonialism "exploitation." If property rights don't exist, colonialism is 100% justifiable, since nobody owns any land. Wouldn't this inevitably lead to the richest people taking the most land? Your entire ideology is self-defeating. I'm looking for serious enlightenment.

Other urls found in this thread:



If ethics don't exist, how do you expect your society to run? Are you saying that eusocial societies and genetics are false?

Fuck off, read Oscar Wilde

the weak should fear the strong

they hold no value

Eusocial insects will sacrifice themselves to save those closely related to them; this is known as altruism. Are you actually arguing the fact that ethics are impossible?

This is an argument for libertarianism

It's another "ancap thinks communism means state control".
Personal and private property are two different things.
Sage goes in all fields

What does it mean then? If there is no state control, you're just arguing for AnCap.


Could you at least bother to read a wikipedia article before posting?

altruism was invented by slaves to confuse their masters


wrong, there are property rights under "anarcho" capitalism, this it is not anarchism at all, as there is a government defenidng private property

you can't tax what nobody owns.
contradicted yourself.

Yeah, that's the gist of it actually

This is basically AnCap, except you guys don't want money. Social classes are inevitable due to Autism Level.

If property rights and nations don't exist, than colonialism is justified.

Reported for being undialetical

exactly, there is no reason why we should look at explotation as good vs bad

This is not about colonialism, it is an exploration of labor rights. Ergo, it benefits most if not all under it. You would want it.

How does this help people? Your African brothers are starving, and you want a revolution to kill "porky", yet you are saying you would fuck over your African brothers for resources?

if nations don't exist there is no such thing as colonialism.


Your point?

This is just roving my point. You use rhetoric and deceit to "prove" that nations don;t exist, so you can exploit the resources of others. You're no better than "porky."

killing porky and abolishing capitalism by abolishing private property directly helps exploited people in the 3rd world


Again, the proletariat must understand the fight for emancipation is not the cause of benevolence, but the conclusion of being stronger than the proprietor class, unless they realize this the cause is lost

1.- without a state, how do you prove your current property is yours
2.- without a state. how do you defend private property

u're stupid


ah yes the so-called "ideology"

can you elaborate?

those two are in contradiction. Nevertheless, I'll try and answer for you.

The spook thing is a meme. There's actual reasons to believe the ownership of natural resources is either exploitative or contradictory. Even then, not everyone
here agrees on this point.

I have to point out, though, that private and personal property are not the same thing.

Not everyone agrees with that, but, yes, some people claim nations do not exist, although they are a very little minority. Most people try to undo nations for their exploitative nature, which is obviously different.

Redistribution of wealth is a meme. So is taxation. Ignore tankies. A communist society is inherently state-less.

If property rights dont exist, you dont have a right to invade and exploit other people, steal their personal property, and subjecting them to an economic system that, again, exploits them out of their labor and resources. If the whole world was to recognize the universal invalidity of land property, then yes, it would be ok. But if you go to India, get their land, and the Indians can't do the same to you, then that's called exploitation.

Capital isn't necesarily accepted in many ideologies. Some do. Explain what you mean by rich, although its obvious that land wouldnt be able to be owned in societies that didnt accept those deals as valid

Oh, okay, you are just dumb
Capitalism is an economic system developed in the XVII century. It's not "just trade, brah".

This, again, has been proven false time and time again. If somebody is paying you a wage, they are not exploiting you. Even a lowly wage is allowing you to gather skills, which you can use to move up the ladder. How is this exploitation? Because the lower classes aren't being paid $250/hour? You can't arbitrarily make up a minimum wage.

nothing on earth is the natural property of anybody. private property is an institution maintained by the state and the capitalist mode of production. under socialism this is obliterated. ergo your insistence that natural resources are "the resources of others" is fallacious.

read a book faggot


If people die, where otherwise it couldn't, then it is non adaptive and fails.

K, retard.

the problem isnt the amount. The problem is the wage itself. You're getting the surplus value extracted from your labor. Read a book. If you actually like reading about Capitalism, I'm serious when I tell you to read Das Kapital. It's one of the most extensive treaties and explorations of the fine workings of 19th century Capitalism ever made.

This is pure fantasy, and bullshit. This implies that human-beings are tools, which they are not. Humans gain a trade, skills, and can be paid more than what they are worth. A commodity cannot.

How are you supposed to make a profit then?

human labour is a tool, not humans, capitalism reduces the species-essence of humans to simple labourers

human labour is merely a cog in the productive forces used to reproduce capital

yes they can, self-learning software

This is correct. Most business barely make any money, so they cannot pay you some ridiculous amount, or they would go bankrupt. What is your point?

You're right, that's why Capitalism doesn't work.

t has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.
capitalism relies on workers being expendable, and reduces them to utilities of the creation of value.

private property =/= personal property


no one forced the business owner to start a business

Here's what I'm saying. Sugar is priced arbitrarily in the free market at, say 2£. Sugar can go up to 2.25£, but only when the market dictates so. With humans, work ethic and motivation can lead from 5£ 30 pence to 10£, easily, depending on the economy.


So what you're saying is to organize nonsensically in such a way that does not last more than a thousand years.

those were created by the workers

i.e. a commodity isn't sold at what it's worth

That is correct, which is why many add their skills to the labor pool. This allows time, energy, and resources to be used for new things

Socialism can do that too! So can collectivism!

Socialism can do that too! So can collectivism!


Yes! But that doesn't mean it does not produce! Just that it doesn't work in the current way without massive amounts of slave labor!


most businesses barely make any money. the money they make is 100% created by workers and not by the owner, yet the owner takes the largest share of value. "voluntarism" doesn't matter; the whole crux of wage slavery is that the worker has no choice but to sell his wage labour.

this is price, fake value, not the value of the labour spent to produce the good, and as such is meaningless.

funny you should mention computers and how capitalism is destroying the user's rights all the time through proprietary software and commercial espionage.

human labor injects surplus resources, transforming them into other things with the usage of certain means of production.

It is a system. It clearly is not complete. Just as Feudalism was replaced by Capitalism, Capitalism will be superseded by other economic system, and the cycle may or may not continue. Eventually we'll reach post-scarcity, so the cycle will likely stop then. But until then, the only thing to do is to make better systems that benefit mankind

These things take money to make. How can they possibly be done is a computer factory costs 10 million £, ye t nobody has more that 100£?

and? Should we be thankful at cappies or something?


did he built part of the factory? then his labour built it

did he built the factory or helped create the capital to build it? then his dead labour helped build it


money is just a representation of labour power

Money as means of universal social organization is pseudo science that does not meat any standard.

This is correct, and he was compensated with a wage. This isn't hard to grasp

Human labor and ingenuity made those things. Capitalism found a way to monetize them.

100 bob jones might have made a factory with machinery to build a car. your point?

nobody has any money under socialism, given is what he has and taken is what he needs


In a primitive society, where people need to grow food and hunt, their is no time to make absurd things like "computers." Who, then, would make them? Those who amass wea

Once again, read a book. If you expect us to explain the problem with wages on a leftist tibetan carpestry discussion forum, why not just read the links you were given, or Das Kapital?

I didn't knew primitive societies made computers. I thought they were invented in the 20th century

besides, your quote about "nobody has more than £100" is a strawman anyway and bears no actual relation to reality or much of anything.

socialism is a further stage of society advanced past capitalism. primitive society does not factor into it

Fuck off, cunt

I'm interested in your ideas, but not some cunt's ideas. Can I grab you by the pussy?

Nigga hasn't even heard of the neolithic revolution LMAO

because the dumb prole agree to receive a wage, there is no necessity for the proletariat to bother in an ethical debate, the destruction of capital by the exploited must come from their own will

it doesn't matter if the capitalist thinks it is fair to compensate the worker with a wage, the proletariat should not bother with the bourgeoise notion of ethics

the proletariat must seize the means of production and work it collectively, in order to avoid a parasitic capitalist class from exploiting them

this has to be done by force

In all behaviorism, observation of all other primates suggests animals that order themselves not by massive coordination and commune do not last as long as those that do.

Humans are no different, no matter how advanced.

ah yes ad hominem

I'm implying that, under your system, anarchistic primitivism would appear. If everyone is growing food, and own the means of production, who can create new factories to create new products and ideas?

Ideology seems to have infected everything. Besides, you stopped talking to me until now.

no i would not

No one claimed that everyone would grow food. Why are you making stuff up? Are you so void or any actual argument?

I let things slide, and I agree that women need to be treated with respect. But fuck off with your le purple flag bullshit. You're only an anarchist because someone told you to be.

top keke, literally coming from an "an"cap

So are you :-^)

Why would society roll back 10,000 years?

They could create memes of production even though they will be collectively owned
No one has ever bothered to explain it very well

You mean anarcho capitalism?

me, and you, and… everybody!

As Proudhon once said, "Property is theft!" It's important to distinguish between private property, which is essentially exploitative, with personal property. Personal property means that which you use and private property is that which you don't use but charge rent to use.
This is a false premise based on ignorance of the concept of "communism". Communism requires the abolishment of the state, and free access to the means of production not "redistribution of wealth through taxation".
Again, this is a false premise.

If anarchistic primitivism is the system you want, with no government, you would still need to organize with other people to get things done. This is a form of government, but we'll ignore this for now. If you can expect people to all pitch in, which is very unlikely, people would have to spend time growing food and such. Didn't Marx say "only those who work eat?" How can someone be a philosopher or a computer scientist under this system, if they aren't always working.

These things were made by inventors, and computers and the Internet research was notably funded by the US government. Capitalism just takes these things and profit from them after they were invented. Capitalism doesn't invent shit because it's just a mode of production.

Why the fuck do you have an anarchist flag?

Please, Dr. With your degree in Mathematics, how would you propose we create a nuke defense system? Take all the time you need to calculate this using diffeq.

State =/= any form of organization or governance

The powerful determine what is justified and not justified. I have no reason to justify what I do to people who don't value what I do.

It's a pretty color. I like it.



capitalism is a form of government itself by restricting the liberty of the proletariat. besides, ever heard of something called "division of labour"? not everyone is going to be a farmer.

don't need one
don't care

Government is not simply organization. This logic implies that a book club is a government, an essentially absurd notion devoid of historical and philosophical context. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

ancap intellectuals

Only a very small percentage of people here are primitivists. You're making stuff up. Anarcho-syndicalism is one of the many, many ways of having hierarchy without government. You clearly should understand this, because the same thing can be said about "anarcho"-capitalism.

A philosopher, and a computer scientist, do work.

just remembered

A "govenrment" is just a network of people working together for a greater good, or even a "worse" good. If you have to network with other people to get things done under anarcho communism, that is government.




So anarcho-capitalism isnt anarchism. Got it.

I am an anrcho capitalist, but I recognize that even business people working together is a form of "government." Anarchism, in its purest state, is impossible.

"I-If you c-can't w-w-w-work without c-c-c-coordination! You're a s-s-statists!"

Nah lol


Furthermore, the idea that everyone will have to do X job is absurd and implies that communism seeks to abolish division of labor. Perhaps with automation, labor in it's entirety will be abolished or a matter of choice but until then division of labor will still exist

something that does not happen under anarchism

so do you if you have a group of people organizing property rights


Most anarchists dont argue against hierarchy and organization. The old left's motto was "Organize!". State, and organization, are not the same thing.

under your definition if you have to manage people in a capitalist workplace that's government.

wew, lad. The NAP is a God given, natural right to private property.

Most business are dictatorships, rigid hierarchies i.e. not anarchism

top kek


This is correct. I am against government at large. This means; taxes, paying for military interventions, civil rights and other forms of state-mandated power, surveillance, etc.

and the property creationists reveal themselves once again!

Private property as defined previously is a recent invention i.e. not god given and certainly not a natural right.

And I believe that every human has a God given, natural right to the resources of the world. You're violating the NAP if you say I don't

the NAP is the anclap escape for morals.

Wow, using all caps is a great argument

how would you defend property rights in an "an"cap society


fixed that for you


excuse me mate go read a FUCKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE about anarchism before you talk.
absolute state of you


I think you need to go back to English class my dude

Communists too!

pic related

Fine, vote in an AnCap society, and I'll follow it if I get stuck in your territory. Until that happens, fuck off.

they are merely making possession of that land and resources, read proudhon

if all property was defended by force of its owner, you wouldn't need a state and its legal system to protect it.

Nah, I prefer mathematics. English is horseshoe.


Just stop posting

As I said, all the natural resources of the world belong to me, just as they belong to everyone else. There's no such thing as territory :-^)

who enforces the NAP

Not complex, hierarchical organizations that ensure the property rights of third parties through the threat of violence.

keep in mind folks that anclap has just been chastising communism for being "government" but just admitted he is only opposed to "government at large"

top kek

The NAP is the anti "spook." It's something that just exists.





I am arguing philosophy in the purest, most pure sense you can. If two people are on earth, only 2 people, and they work together, that is government.

with a gun


where can I find the NAP


therefore I can use a gun to break the NAP

Where can you find a working communist society?

hahahahaha how is ideology real

umm wrong sweetie x

Except that that definition if devoid of philosophical or historical context/backing.

rather, where can you find a working capitalist society?

Yes, this is right. You can invalidate my NAP, and then I get to kill you for violating it.

idk, i am not searching for one since I am a market anarchist

where can you find a working ancap society?


tits or gtfo

Are you enforcing the law? so you belive you are the government?

I tought there was no government under ancapism


those have a government

I don't see bears and reindeer protecting the bourgeoisie, faggot

I don't personally believe in the NAP.

People aren't going to follow rules if there's nobody there to enforce it.

He's merely using his ability to defend himself to secure his property.

holy shit how can you not pick that up as a sarcastic gimmick. you must be some autist on holiday from reddit.

both have governments and both are quite unequal shitholes

You're moving the goalposts. The NAP is a God given, natural right to all people, derived from Charles Darwin and natural selection, i.e. people are always trying to hurt you, you deserve to protect yourself. It's only justifiable if someone violates your NAP.

therefore I can use my ability to agress someone to agress his property

a city of the People's Republic of China, and a tax haven?

There's nothing stopping you but him and anyone who feels that it is in their interests to protect him.

You asked for a "capitalist society", not an AnCap society.



You're using a bati and switch tactic to argue disingenuously. The state would have to exist for a nation to steal another nation's resources. without borders or nations everyone really does own everything. Second point is the same disingenuous bait-n-switch. those were monarchies exploiting plots of land and populations they seized and forcing them to labor for them at threat of death, then extracting their surplus value, exploiting their own labor back home and then reselling the rightful property of the colonial inhabitants back to the colonies at full price. that's nothing at all like following the principles of anarchism at all. If you are trying to ask: "how can exploitation be avoided" we have dozens of these threads. But you're trying to perniciously argue something no one has ever said we wanted or approved. Colonialism was statism, it was states using corporate power and imperialism to enrich themselves off of new subjects and expanding their power. Autismball posters always stay BTFO'd

Keep digging that hole ladie

point still stands

Faggot With No Argument





ok, but if I can decide to enforce the NAP, I can decide to break it

so ancap is not any different than primitivism?
and yet our ancap friend was arguing that socialism would let to primitivism lel

nice, he got triggered








Yeah, that is right. Be prepared to eat lead, though.

some of you guys aren't spooked.
Don't violate the NAP tomorrow

looks like anclap violated muh NAP by posting on the same imageboard and quoting me, which gives me the right to go to his house and kill him



Does responding in all caps count as an act of aggression?

isn't the NAP your escape from ethics?

No, the NAP is our bedrock of ethics. It's like the Golden Rule, but more powerful. It speaks out against unjustified state aggression, as well as unjustified personal aggression. It leads to self-responsibility.


the proletariat outnumbers the bourgeoise, the moment they decide to revolt, nothing will stop them, see 1917

At the heart of it all, Capitalism merely provides an alternative conflict/outlet for the natural survival/self betterment instincts of humans (Assuming that Hobbes was correct).

However, I believe that Anarcho-Captialism is different than primitivism due to the fact that we're not shunning all forms of technology. While yes, in a theoretical AnCap society you could do whatever you want, conflict would arguably kept to a minimum just due to the fact that fighting someone is expensive and the time and risk associated with it might not be all that worth it.

tbh fam I just don't like socialism/distribution stuff because things like private property, a free market, and overall personal liberty are things that I not only jive with, but I also feel entitled to the money I earn from my business and would rather have that taken by bandits acting of their own volition than by the government/commune and given to someone else.


I can't stop laughing

Where does it derive it's power from?

property is unjustified aggression

How do you know God gave you the NAP? Did he tell you about or reveal something about it? No it is a lolbertarian spook.

ah yes "its only a violation of the NAP when i say it is"
too late mate already shot you

breathing in my general direction is an act of aggression

ah yes justification for murder
you what?

This is to retarded even for ancraps, this is bait and you all fell for it.

i never got why ancoms like Stirner so much when Egoism was literally "The only things that matter are the things that directly concern me"

This is not bait, I swear it. I take responsibility for this post, and you can ban me if it's bait. I ask that you ban me only after careful consideration.

nah, he started as a serious enquirer, but he realized he is too stupid and had to engage in damage control

erm mate that was your escape from this thread laid for you on a plate

Actually read Stirner.

Nigga, bears don't tell other bears they deserve to protect themselves. They do it because they value their life more than an attacker, and they take theirs in response. All the NAP does is take a basic self-preservation instinct, and turn it into a spook we must all bow down to. There is no NAP.

sure you mean to quote me?

Because of the fight/flight response, which is a natural chemical makeup/hormonal response in the human body. The body is part of the Holy spirit, and belongs to Him .The Bible also explicitly says that self-defense is justifiable as well.

Why am I too stupid? The NAP argument? I'm interested.

Everything CAN be a spook, because the relationship to the object is what makes it so, retard.

I understand that Stirner proposed a union of egoists, but that doesn't mean Anarcho egoism is a thing.

When the man's book opens up with "All things are nothing to me" I don't think Ol' Max was going on about communes and redistribution.

yeah pretty sure anclap is bait
apparently he believes that the NAP is thanks to both darwin and evolution AND god.
wew lad
also religion is government

No, I didn't.
my bad


you are an ancap kiddo

the NAP is a man made rule no different from the US constitution, do you really think I care about your god spooks?

property rights are defended b y the government, without it the proprietor is lost

What is a "spook?" I don't get it, it makes no sense.

Yes I understand the bible does expound belief in private propety and self defense but not the NAP. For instance the bible lays down the death penalty for homosexual sex and adultery. If two gays have sex they didn't break the NAP but the bible demands their execution.

Pretty good to be honest

When have I ever once called any of you stupid for your beliefs? I respect communism/socialism for wanting to better the world, but I think it's foolish and unethical.

which one is it? the NAP is an outcome of evolution or it was instilled in man by god?

a spook is a belief one holds as truth but in fact does not exist

ethics are spook, i don't have any duty tom respect you

this pseudosympathy from anclap is sickening. all his posts stink of reddit

It's a fixed idea that requires your submission or compliance to proliferate.

You're quoting Leviticus 20:13, right? How many Christians actually kill 2 faggots for sucking each others dicks? It's a non-issue. If you want to harp on it, NAP = violence, and gay sex is not violence.

both. Evolution does not contradict the church, or its teachings

Fuck Reddit, and fuck you.

top tier hilarious

Do you seriously think I would come from a statist propaganda website, when I'm an AnCap. Reddit is statist propaganda bullshit that pushes shit like homosexuality.


ok he's triggered

Seems like an endorsement of communal ownership.

Go suck off Bernie Sanders' kike cock, faggot

You have gone full retard, go to Somalia and build a few toll roads, they are even muslims so they will follow your spooky morals

seriously retarded
can't understand gimmicks and doesn't understand (you) denial

>>>Holla Forums

See you just skipped my point. I dont care about christians actions but rather the philosophy and beliefs they claim to expound. It is an issue because you claim that NAP is god given when it is not. The bible not only calls for the of homosexuals but witches idolaters fortune tellers and also it allows slavery. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
Don't use this as an arguement.

nice, he really got triggered


The Bible never says, "go round up all asshole eaters and fortune tellers and genocide them." It speaks out against that. The NAP is derived from the Bible, in that if some faggot breaks into my house, I can justifiably kill him.

What if "anarcho"-capitalism is actually the transition state that Marx predicted? Could this safer, 'lite' version be the only thing that could break the hypnosis on the average proletarian, making way for a later more legitimate version of anarchism?

How to control the slide into a unified worldwide ancapistan without people still hating & fearing what it pretends to be (actual anarchism)?

polite sage for half baked idea



The atheist ice queen Ayn Rand cooked it up. It's got nothing to do with the Lord!

See the bible DOES say to kill people who have sex with men and fortune teller quite explicitly. Just read the following verses and you will realize that the bible doesn't support the NAP.
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

There are many more verses I could quote just stop.

No. Selling people "freedoms" is the first step on the path to unfreedom.

we would have had socialism since the fedual era, as ancap is just neofeudalism

really made me think

Bernie is a social democrat, fam

lolwut? What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Bible states clearly god made man out of dust; this pretty clearly violates basic biology.

anyway the NAP is a pook and you need government to enforce private property rights, also pic related.

Shoulda known you were a Holla Forumstard, go fuck off
>>>Holla Forums