Exploitation and capitalism were necessary to advance technology and produce lots of wealth.
Redistributing wealth sounds like a good idea only because the first happened.
If we had been communist (stateless, moneyless, without hierarchies) all long, we would be living very modest and simple lives.
Also, communism and big cities are incompatible.
How do you reconcile all these facts?
Other urls found in this thread:
What? If anything, capitalism stifles scientific and technological advancement.
Delusion. Even if you say that some companies would rather stagnate than innovate, the fact that we got here in the first place is the matter. With communism (not socialism), getting this far would have been impossible.
...
Yes, we needed slavery, we needed feudalism and we needed capitalism, have you never read the fucking Marx?
So you think technological advancement came from a bunch of random people that liked science?
Most technological advancement in the recent decades comes from black military projects.
Then, in the past, the spreading of technological advancement happened thanks to imperialism, colonialism and exploitation of workers.
Such complex structures are non-existent in a communist society.
You never see anyone admit this. So have leftists ever read Marx?
Except litterally tons of people do, moron.
Nobody on /r/socialism will admit this
And who's to say that we don't need capitalism anymore?
Imagine if we had stopped when Marx wanted to stop, we wouldn't even have computers.
Shouldn't we let capitalism do its thing until we reach post-scarcity?
Because r/socialism is full of retards who praise stalin, mao and pol pot.
ugh… just ugh
...
If your end-goal isn't communism, then you aren't socialist, you are a fascist.
But I was just told that Marx agreed with me. Which one is it?
Wrong. Marx never wanted to stop. Capitalism doesn't create advancement or inventions, it just smashed the feudal state of living, moved people to cities and industrialised while the market growth was still possible. At some point there is nothing more to automate or industrialize and you have to resort to massive loans to patch up the falling rate of profit, or create artificial scarcity, like the world does right now.
You're a dipshit, that's what it is.
...
Stay contradicted.
Then what was the point of the Soviet revolution?
i highly doubt redditors are pol pot revisionists….
You say
That is fucking retarded, marx wanted to change the relation of production because capitalism is inherently unstable and much of western europe was already industrialised, and could be turned into a socialist mode of production where production for use, rather than profit would happen.
Making stuff for profit does not mean advancement, unless you believe in neoliberal meme magic.
So it comes down to central planning vs. markets? How can anyone still defend central planning after so many failures?
Duh. We call that "historical materialism."
What you call "redistributing" is actually stopping the appropriation that is already going on.
See: historical materialism
I sure would not mind seeing people leave sprawling shitholes like Atlanta and Dallas to go to smaller industrial cities. I doubt they would either.
No capitalism and exploitation are necessary to create technology that is used to dominate the proles and stratify access to resources
No it sounds like a good idea because one person controlling the resources of a billion is lunacy
No we would probably still be a techno-dystopia like we are right now
No hive mind economics/politics goes well with literal bug people hives
like this:
That is a complete non sequitor.
How can you still defend markets after so many failures?
You talk like if that's a bad thing.
For most of human history most people lived modest but full filled lives. Now we don't live modest and simple but life is crap.
What failure? There's dozens of capitalist countries that have existed for hundreds of years. Socialist countries all collapsed.
Reminder capitalism doesn't even work on paper.
You mean tax payer funded government projects? :^)
Lmao.
Maybe unfettered capitalism doesn't work, but it works with regulations.
Communism is against government. We aren't talking about socialism.
Yeah that's why the whole world is going to hell.
Except it isn't.
You're right, global warming is a myth made by the chinks.
A world government could stop global warming without dismantling capitalism. In fact, the biggest fighters against global warming are capitalist themselves (Al Gore, Rothschild…)
This is fine. This is good
I thought the world wasn't going to hell.
and will be gone in 4 years
Orban isn't fascist
So?
Ironically, a socialist state started it back in Afghanistan
What is the 60s?
What? Feminism is good.
They are as irrelevant as it gets.
That's assuming you believe in global warming. I don't believe in global warming, but it could be stopped with a world government - it has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with nation-states.
Hahaha.
Climategate
You're making things up with your redistribution of overcoats assumption.
…yet. If Trump behave like him even leftypol would be on the edge of calling him fascist.
kek
How is feminism bad?
How is feminism bad?
how is feminism good (in west/ex-socialist countries)? All it does is dividing people, judging them based on color of their skin and gender and so on. I can't see it bringing anything of value, just accelerating alt-righ movements
no
What? Feminism is about women being treated like men. It's not about dividing anyone. Men earn more money than women for no reason.
fucking bulldoze the cities and spread the wealth like FUCKING BUTTER my man
Back to plebbit you go!
This is correct. Yet somehow instead of policy of "abolishing gender" western feminists like promoting "there is unlimited number of genders"
yes, no. There are no conspiracy meetings where all the employers meet and decided that they will pay women less than men. All porky cares about is which employee can be exploited more - which employee will earn him more.
The main problem women have is that they have to decide if they want to have a family or career.
Porky doesn't want to spend resources to promoting and educating people who will leave company soon. This is however problem of capitalism, destroy it and it will wanish.
...
it has the same effect
Top kek
I don't think so, but I'm not gonna argue with you about the need of feminism if you won't bring some good points why we need it. There is no need for feminism in west and ex-socialist countries.
So? Humanity lived for hundreds of thousands to millions of years in communism. Civilisation is only a few thousand years. Modest and simple is best. The internet is a statist militaristic imperialist invention and should have never existed I'm serious. The world would be a better place.
I don't need to user.
You may as well join the Alt-Right
GTFO. You're not fooling anyone.
Fuck off back to /r/socialism already.
I don't think that anyone here would be retarded enough to that. Maybe the redditors or shitposting Holla Forumsacks would be an exception from this, but only them.
If you think women are equal to men in western societies, you are deluded.
Piss off, COINTELPRO.
Are you retarded?
Actually, a socialist/communist state would have the least amount of progress as there would be no incentive to do such
My impression is they've never needed to be reconciled.
Capital brings all the means of production together and brings us out of feudalism, then eventually the workers take them and so on. It's almost never intended to have had communism the whole time without going through the whole process, I assume. (Some attempts to jump the gun to socialism, certainly.)
ecks dee my dude
Stopped reading there.
I would give literally 0 fucks about technological advancement if had the choice of ensuring the well-being of the people instead.
Also
checked
well, yes, I may be overreacting about him sometimes. The only fascist thing about him (or rather whole hungarian government) is that he didn't lift the ban on communist symbols like hammer and sickle.
OP seem to be simply pro-statist.
You are clueless, aren't you? Go study the history of technological advancement in the past 150 years
Yeah, nah it creates scarcity and destroys the environment at an unprecedented rate.
Indeed they are and big cities are a cancer of humanity. I can't wait until the internet gets shut down everywhere and you dumb turds will have to learn how to dig the land in order to eat.
You live in a bubble fried!
I dont think exploitation was ever necessary to advance. I think it holds it back even.
Well yes, technological advancement does come from a bunch of people who like science. Focusing on who pays their wages is "but without owners how would factories work" tier of shit thinking.
You're both wrong and dumb, Capitalism innovates on its own, individual Capitalists have nothing to with it.
youtu.be
I understand Bookchinfags defending this but no right-minded communist thinks economic systems should be measured this way.
confirmed for retard.
shocking! just like anything else good in the world.
Step aside tankie
Holla Forums is filled with blithering idiots.
That is how things will play out regardless of what we want. Capitalism is too entrenched to fall to external pressure. It will only fall when it automates itself out of existence.