Why do you value human life so much if you aren't a religionfag...

lmao let's feed everyone in the world

And if you weren't a loser?

With the exception of some billionaires nobody is really safe from bankruptcy.
It doesn't have anything to do with being a loser.

I wonder who could be behind this post?

you're going to fail miserably and have your grandchildren shit talk my grandchildren on the internet as if you've won?

fine. you're the neet now, but, once again why would the successful man care?

why am i wrong?

that doesn't matter lol, as long as we take you down with us, Im happy

Not at all, so should all those people who aren't losers be uncaring towards what they won't become?

Or take people who are born with handicaps, why should we care about them, since we never have a chance to get down syndrome ourselves?

spooky m8

i'm sure all 12 of the american marxists that are actually willing to do anything could do horrible damage to me and my trashcans

just because morality is a spook doesn't mean that isn't real

the thing is no one has to do anything, capitalism has internal contradictions that will eventually make it crash, it doesn't matter if you try to deny this, these contradictions still exist, capitalism won't be able to function after complete ecological catastrophe

that is precisely what it means tho

muh prophecy

the thing with marxist dialectics is that it has no predictive power, capitalism should have collapsed a thousand times over according to marxists, even the man himself only gave it a few decades

the world isn't a computer

muh end of history

there is where Marx was wrong, as you can see, using you as an example, the human race is simply too stupid for communism, there were some visionaries that gave it a try but eventually humans and their parasitic nature made those experiments fail

feel free to explain how capitalism will be able to function after complete ecological catastrophe, no more iphones to make fun of dialectic materialism being wrong!

The thing about answering this question seriously is you automatically lose here. The edgiest answer/idea always wins it is the chan way.

Aside from that. The simplest thing to do is a reversal. Why shouldn't they care? Why should I care about the reasons you list for them not caring? Why should you care that I don't care. and sho on and sho on. I guess we can go in that circle all day until we realize, we care about the things that we care about because we do. Rationality has its place but at some point in some way you take an emotional stance some where beyond all the posturing, abstractions and obfuscations. I don't find the other sides emotional reasoning or priorities very enticing. I don't think the world their answer will lead to will be a better one in a serious way and for some reason I care.

It is as much in my self-interest to revolt against the system of state and property as it is in his self-interest, for the bourgeoisie both profit off our misery and are themselves trapped within the hamster-wheel of meaningless work and needless, self-harming environmental destruction created by capitalism.

Your rejection of collaboration with others on the basis of your disgust with them being losers is a reflection of the irrational disgust towards others shown by right-liberals (or "conservatives", as they call themselves), a semi-conscious attempt to reconcile their supposed egoism with their complete submission to capital via its proxy, money.

In other words, you're very spooked if you think the pursuit of money is equivalent to the pursuit of your self-interests and that to help others around you is contradictory to it.

If you are not a member of the haute-bourgeoisie, it is, in every way, useful to you yourself to offer mutual aid and solidarity to those supposedly below you. The only real differences are relations to the means of production and institutions of power (which are themselves entwined in what's effectively a single relation). Anything else is identity politics-level fluff and irrationality.

it existed since the first oogabooa traded a hide for a spear and will exist until we become unrecognizable technological beings

then there can only be communism when we remove the inferior races and start lebensborn project for high Autism Level people

hitler could have brought communism, have fun with your retards outbreeding the intelligent and ensuring there never will be communism

simple, bottlecaps will be used as money

*tips fedora*

wew laddo

lol nope, try stop being an illiterate cuck and open an anthropology book, early civlizations practiced gift economies and collectivism, besides, barter economies are not necessarily capitalism, neither are markets, let's not forget key differences that make system like feudalism and mercantilism completly different to capitalism

basically stop being fucking stupid and open books

wrong, we need to get rid of humans, as you can tell, people who belive they are of superior race and therefore higher intelligence (like you) are as parasitic as others

lol, this is what happens when you spend your youth playing videogames instead of studying

i find this systematization a case of the map not being the territory, it imagines the world a computer that runs on different operating systems

give me a good reason why i should adopt this as my base before bothering with it's exact definitions

stop being so disciplined by books

then don't hang up an iron curtain to contain all those elitists who think they're better than others next time, just let them leave

read this

Why do you care about intellectual honesty if you dont believe in essential values? Why do you believe in fucking success?

I want to encourage human flourishing because within my own constructed value system that is important, and freedom from a life of servitude is a huge step towards that.

so in non-autistic terms, are you asking me why you should learn the difference between feudalism and capitalism?

idk user, i think that you should so that you do not end up being a fucking retard

nope, we need to erradicate them

i rather not

...

i'm asking why those differences are best understood in the 19th century of systematization and classification, and why of all possible options in such an ideology, it should specifically be the marxist view i should adopted instead of for example, the libertarian one

i did my homework mommy, i did it all, i'm going to show it to the teacher and he will reward me with a number, my tail already wiggles

which is to be expected, if everyone but your zombies are dead, the zombies would be incapable of knowing anything else.

holy fuck, are you REALLY this stupid? How old are you?

the anarchist one you means, because libertarians are simply lying by calling themselves libertarians

good boy, sadly you live in late stage capitalism, so your homework didn't teach you anything

absolutely, again, OP asked why should we care about lower beings, hence why we shouldn't care if humans die

marxism*

i'm a 13 year old kid with downs syndrome, i would appreciate it if you actually showcased your intelligence if you want to prove yourself instead of spewing the most unimaginative rhetoric at me

this is a non-discussion as even marxists can tell you, libertarianism has multiple meanings which can be derived from context, if you have reading comprehension, this should be clear to you

I knew it, only an autistic 13 year old doesn't know that feudalism and capitalism being different is not a marxists idea

I am an anarchist, marxists can suck my cock

american libertarianism is just capitalism with burger values, don't kid yourself, kid

an autistic 13 year old is not disciplined and can therefor imagine differently than a collective imagination, even more so when he is mute and can't speak

i thought you guys loved lacan

pretty much, it uses the morality of the market, of property rights, contract and consent, applies it to every aspect of life and calls it freedom

this is why i'm not a libertarian but a meta-conservative

i am listening to you kid, tell me, how is feudalism the same as capitalism, come on, show us your radical new theory

then it is not libertarianism, glad you get it

you can call yourself a special snowflake if you want, doesn't make you any less dumb

Because I believe in Enlightenment values and realize the interdependent nature of not just man, but of life.

i never said so, i said that the break, the replacement of one operating system on computer earth with another, did not happen as such

or when did it happen, at what date did it say "installation of capitalism 100% complete" ?

i don't get how meaning does not follow from use, please BTFO wittgenstein for me so can i use meriam-webster as the end all to language

am i talking to an anarchist version of paul joseph watkins?

yet you claimed we have had capitalism since oogabooga traded a stone for a stick, not very smart are you?

it actually did tho, feel free to point out feudalism in modern france

libertarians do not make use of the libertarian concepts

THE MEEANSTRIIM MEEDEEA

Humans survive as a group. Your entire life is dependant on the functioning of society. All succes would not be possible if we were not organized. We must maximize human efficiency in order to survive in a limited resources environment. This include feeding the neet across the street who could become a worker and increase human productivity.

that capitalism was present all along does not mean the year 1217 is identical to the year 2017. please let go of your language game and the attempt at Gotcha's!

france has an aristrocratic culture, the grandes ecolés, the reverence of authority in politics, philosophy, medicine and business, the debauchery of it's elite. it's mayors are princes and it's philosophers are cardinals.

this is an "i say, you say" dispute, intended to claim a word with a positive connotation. you can have it, they can have it, i don't care, just don't play this game in a discussion if you wish to gain any understanding

TINFOIL HELMETS ARE THE NEW MOHAWKS

Self interest. You are a human and you aren't rich.

Nobody really is.

For society, there has to be an optimal flow of both resource and able bodied, you guessed it

Human beings.

If you think society can function without human beings go shit in a fucking salt flat naked next to your hut

ok, now, feel free to answer: did we have capitalism in primitive barter economies, in gift economies, in feudalism? please feel free to answer this properly! yes or no

ok, is it feudalism? yes or no

indeed, and what i say is right and what you say is wrong, remember you are an autistic 13 year older

yes, i call myself a white supremacists nazi and i have a black jewish gf, if they can call themselves white supremacists then so can i

*stares autistically as he fruitlessly engages with someone who is unable to transgress the ideology embedded in his language game*

*teleports behind you*
nothing personnel, kiddo

This post is just proof that libertarianism is deeply austistic. This guy is genuinely confused about why a human being would care about another human being. This failure to perform basic human empathetic cognitive processes is highly autistic.

what? where?
what a surprise

because that NEET starving to death has no impact on them at all. actually it might even be a good thing for them because it would be one less tax leach
because the entire ideology of the left is based around the idea of successful people immorally disregarding the poor?
i like internet arguments
… and why should successful people be one of the people that care about this starving neet. it remains an unjustified claim of moral inferiority
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

this literally has nothing to do with the question the OP, and it's nothing more than a string of unjustified claims and memespeak

because the truth is important, and what essential values?
what the fuck do you mean why do i believe in it? because some people have the shit that they want

your constructed value system is contradictory bullshit if you think that funding NEETs is "human flourishment" as stated in my earlier post

i fail to see how this starving NEET is within this sphere of interdependence

i'm not a libretarian, and the point of this post is to establish the economic left as the theocentric moralfag ideology it is despite pretty much all claims

[1]

[Das kapital Volume 1,2,3]

get the fuck out of here

If it wasn't clear enough already from the other stirner-posts, egoists value the life of other under-class from an instrumentalist point of view.

You should care simply because his self-interest is your self-interest, even if you have a job and he doesn't, even if you create separate (and, I should stress, arbitrary) identities for him and yourself in your head.

Perhaps if you would try talking to people who you despise in a candid manner for once, you'd realize that they aren't evil and that your preconceived notions (that all of the left is based on a flimsy liberal notion of "rights" and "caring" and "should", that what you perceive as disgusting is somehow objectively valid, etc.) are all wrong.

You asked a loaded question in the OP which, looking at it now, might be bait, and I refuted its foundation as such.

Call the people here what you will, but I'm pretty sure they're not liberals.
I've dealt with other conservatives in real life, if not confronted their views directly. I basically grew up as one, viewing poor people as evil losers who just needed to work harder to get a job. Well, I grew up and moved past that, even if I fell into liberalism after. I know how your thinking process goes, and you know it as well. You see something as disgusting because the powers-that-be, be they the news, your parents, your schoolteachers, etc., tell you to, and then try to rationalize it in your head by any means possible. It's a hard trap to get out of and it gets harder as you grow older, but it's not impossible to escape it.
Read a fucking book.

Population growth tends to go down overall as living standards rise.

Obvious but that was the whole point of my post. Emotions and moralizing get you in a circle, but there still real for you and your rationalizations, they're just not necessarily convincing to other people. You can claim egoism therefore means that rich people should selfishly do what is in their best interest, but other emotional perspectives and viewpoints can just as easily claim the opposite. The realization that emotions are the basis for our arguments just brings us back to square one. Which makes arguments centered around the affirmation or refutation of them pointless and cyclical.

Psychological egoism also relies on an early philosophical tradition when people believed their egos were invariant from other peoples like Cartesian philosophy and empiricism. We now know people are not invariant individuals free from social influence at inception, language is a key component in identity and language must necessarily come from a community, which makes are identity's reliant on language and differentiation from others within a language group. Hence this guys cryptic Wittgenstein post I'm assuming. Not only is our language socially reliant but we often base our emotions on crowds and perceived crowds in our minds. If you knew how many thinkers alluded to a vague third person "other" when describing their beliefs you'd be truly astonished I'm sure.

Had your argument been about some specific problem with a leftist tendency, commonly held policy decision change in definition or something to that effect that would be an entirely different matter, but your question is almost too broad and unspecific to really matter in any significant sense. I can lay out why I think people should care about others being exploited in mass, but if you apriori don't care there isn't any grand amount of information I could put out that will make you care. This is a self imposed mind block, only your asking us to not care with you in your implicit "me" statements. It's really a way of having a one sided conversation while pretending openness.

The person who cares least wins everything, I ain't care about nothing dude. Look how cool I am.

10/10 post

chan ideology exemplified

Even capitalist economists admit that capitalism will slowly turn into steady-state capitalism where there will be no superprofit. Because we would die otherwise due to ecological catastrophe. At that point, the world will likely decent into a global state-capitalist economy controlled be a totalitarian government. Where there will be no free market. Since a free market would end up killing us. Unless if there will be a revolution before we reach that point, and we actually conduct decentralization, where we only produce what is necessary depending on the area and keep the environment into account.

As for the reason, we haven't reached the point of collapse for free-market capitalism yet, is because of an expanding market and increased exploitation. Neo-imperialism, workforce expansion, globalization, and technology improvement has made it possible to generate superprofit even when it seemed impossible 150, 100 or even 50 years ago. Not to mention that the invention of the TV and PC, has made it possible to sell spectacle, non-material products, and subscriptions. The industry becomes more aggressive with ever changing clothing trends and mobile phone model upgrades. All while making people feel bad about not being able to afford the newest swag. The time will come when the rate of profit reach zero, it all depends on how clever the marketing departments are, and how long it takes for people to look past the spectacle.

Why the fuck would I ever want to be bourgeois "a successful person".

Why do I value human life? I don't. I will kill as many of you maggots as is necessary in order to bring about Communism.

the "successful" man would not care, because he already justifies his exploitation of the working class daily anyhow, one more doesn't hurt

Because life pleases me.

this was my presupposed answer. the question in the op was directed at "nihilistic" leftists that infest this board

/thrrad

why do you value human life so much if you aren't a religionfag?