Prove you are not a mindless follower and tell me something wrong about communism

oh and there is literally nothing authoritarian about using violence to protect the democratic control of the commons.

I wouldn't say most but certainly a lot, especially on the internet.

Even on this board, you can tell every time. A dead giveaway is if they think automation is already here.

sounds like all politics including naziism

But if everything is freely available why to have monyz. Coin collectors?

killing bourgoise is good for the country. Well said.

fuck libertardians man

It will most likely require great violence to implement. We would need to completely burn down the idols of the old world to ensure the progress of humanity. Those who fight for the movement will be almost universally disliked, and remembered for infamous reasons. Many of them will never live to see the fruits of their labor come to fruition, and while they live they will only look on at the world in disdain for knowing what atrocities are covered by the thin layer of ideology that masks one of the greatest ongoing crimes against humanity.

And I am completely OK with this

It's post all scarcity in terms of consumer items. Obviously this is far off which is why the intermediate stage is more important, socialism, which is classless but not stateless, that is a state still exists to manage the economy/law/etc but there is no private property. And it doesn't claim to be perfectly libertarian, so your criticism doesn't work.

Marx failed to predict psychology and mass media, materialist class analysis fails because ideology acts on and individual basis rather than on "the masses".
Also Keynes, fuck Keynes.

its collectivist and based around materialism and dialectics which are all 3 retarded ideas and spooked beyond belief.

National socialism isn't global, international, vague in terminology, untennible. It's not about the free gibamedats that attracts the braindead masses. It's about protection and prosperity for your extended family and retaining your culture, it is a system that works for any cohesive society.

Anarchy fails because the individual affects the society.

Communism fails because we aren't all equal and never will be.

I know nazi posters are known for their """""""""""""""""""""""quality""""""""""""""""
but god this such shit

yes it is, you don't remember the free gibmedats for the banks and steel and oil companies that were privatized and all the money which was printed at interest literally out of thin air which Schact just lied about?
there is no society
we aren't all equal, we absolutely will be, in the end.

Why would you need to eliminate private property in hypothetical post scarcity world to begin with?

Could you elaborate on this?

...

If there is no society there is no socialism.

I literally just said private property is already abolished before communism. But in communism there would be no need to control property since if you built a factory and tried to get people to work for you nobody would have any reason to do so.

great rebbutal fam

upvote

It's very easy to misinterpret, disagree on etc. etc. The entirety of the left is basically just made up of people who have split from one group to another and if it continues it'll eventually get to the point where there's groups of 5 or so people proclaiming themselves to be the real communists in a sea of thousands of other groups.

top heh

But without factories you wont have pantaloons. Oh, I get it… post scarcity ._.

socialism comes before communism and communism is for faggots who don't understand biology and consciousness. but there is no society even right now, its a fiction that you and other organisms bark at each other to induce different mind-brain states. Its all just noise. You are the one's playing make-believe, not so much the anarchists. If you got your wish you would also be miserable and in deep anguish. The body reacts to imprisonment or extreme stress and the feeling of being inside a massive police state would drive you slowly mad. The USSR and Nazi Germany produced unclean mental existences for their populations. They were preverse and preoccupied with purity which caused them to constantly murder neurotypical, able bodied people who had skills on suspicion that they were traitors. 400,000 Germans in just 16 years were murdered for reasons other than committing crimes or being enemy combatants. Imagine what a Nazi regime in the UK or America today would do, tens of millions would be killed who weren't even a threat to others and who were completely competent. The remarkable number of allies that Hitler killed and that Stalin killed shows that what you believe, totalitarianism isn't some form of order its concentrating the worst parts of existence, the most violent neurologies and organic patterns into one weaponized State which then terrorizes and abuses its host population. Almost exactly like how Porky and Jews are supposed to treat the Proles and Gentiles respectively. I could go on for a long time about how sick minded Nazism is, but to put it simply its probably the most evil thing that's ever manifested on this Earth along with Stalinist State Socialism and Neo-Liberal Techno-Capitalism.

Yeah I'm not really a fan of advocating communism because it involves magic levels of technology, we should focus on the present and near future socialism.

you have to go back

You couldn't be more wrong. The power of Communism rests entirely in the rhetoric and propaganda. As an economic system it is a disaster, but as a carrot on a stick Utopia it works great as a tool for those who are both malicious and intelligent.

*disussing in the interwebzs who caused the last massive clusterfuck

^^

...

You don't even understand what communism is despite having it explained to you, it's basically impossible to screw up a post scarcity communal economy

...

You cant break magic that's true.

Sure. But we'll get there some day, communism is an end state not something we are trying to achieve right now

So did you want to attack socialism instead or?

Well that was a rambling wall of text. It doesn't matter because your existential argument defeats itself. It's a psuedo intellectual way of saying you don't care and don't like what other people value. Basically every basic bitch college student argument ever. You add nothing of value to the conversation trying to act like transhumanist entity, life exists and people have things they value. The sooner you come to terms with that the better.

The start of the image is already a strawman, since commies actually don't like social welfare. Anarcho individualism is better though.

Also, commieism can't happen unless there's full automation and replicators, as well as the fact that the general amount of political opponents usually argue against the actual ideas of leftism, but rather a strawman that they set up.

there's still problems related to growth itself and creating a sustainable society. all modern tech relies on a massive amount of infrastructure and other shit that just trashes the planet.

just because we are fullcommunism doesn't mean we're not still fucking up the planet and stuff.

still better than capitalism tho

Private property is authoritarian. Just because you say so, a piece of land (which you did not make, it's part of the earth) is somehow "yours'" and you're allowed to do anything you want to it (including ruin it with pollution) and you can "legally" kill anyone that steps onto your land because it's "self defense" and over time you add to your property until you have so much that other people have no choice but to get your permission to live there so you force them to bow down to you because it's your property you make the rules and you rule over this land like a tyrant forever all just because you said it was your property.

Private property is authoritarianism incarnate.

also OP the pic related is mindless nonsense anyways. if you are anti-government then you are by definition an 'authoritarian' in the eyes of any liberal since your prerogative is overthrowing the very social order they consider to be the least oppressive according to their own terminology

i could easy argue how liberals are more authoritarian than i am but its fruitless if we're using different definitions anyways

anarchists are capitalists because they believe in private property

The material conditions for communism do not yet exist, and even if they did humans would still find a way to fuck things up. Communism as envisaged by most people here is, at least to a limited extent, idealism. It would be an improvement, but a lot of problems would still exist.

There's never enough armchairs

How about you respond to my posts m80? Don't pick on the easy ones

You mean anarcho capitalists, fam.

That covers goods, what about services? You need a colorectal doctor, who would go through a decade of hellishly difficult high intelligence shooling to become a surgeon or doctor for absolutely no more benefit than sitting on their ass and drawing sonichu fan art?

nah, you're stupid and your shit's all fucked up
society doesn't exist, the entire continuum of life in the realm of being exists. I never denied that the physical and mental worlds exist. I just said that abstract fragmentations which do not survive outside of constant autistic reification are not real. They are not fucking real, there is no such thing as a creator god or society or mankind or an ego. They do not exist, there is no substance to them. There is no fucking reason to care what you think about them you autist. Awareness and biology-physics are the only things that matter. Nothing else has any reality and if you pretend like it does you engender mental illness on an epidemic level. Nazi Germany was a mentally ill social experiment/pyramid scheme and it was responsible for the largest loss of human life in human history. You're a fucking degenerate

This is adorable.

Nationalism doesn't protect cultures. Quite the contrary, actually. If you would want to protect cultures, you would not be a nationalist.
In Franco's Spain, local cultures like those of Catalonia or Basque Country were heavily oppressed. The Catalan language for example was the target of many bans and restrictions. Books and newspapers printed in Catalan were strictly forbidden.
Hitler, another nationalist you probably admire, tried to create an artificial German culture by randomly mixing together different aspects of the various regional cultures found in Germany. The Nazis wanted a united German Volkskörper, not a diverse Germany consisting of many local cultures.
The Nazis liked to portray their perfect Aryan woman in Dirndls, for example. The Dirndl actually is a Bavarian folk dress, but the Nazis did not care about that. They encouraged women to wear the Dirndl as a way of celebrating their German culture, even if it was not actually a part of the culture those women hailed from.

In both examples, regional cultures and their historically grown customs were ditched in favour of an artificial culture, one that was specifically created to unite the nation. This is not how actual culture works, Nazi. You can't be a nationalist if you truly care about culture.

I didn't say one county's nationalism protected all cultures. I don't care about all cultures, I care about mine. I don't care as much about all families, I care about mine. Not all cultures are created equal. My culture or family or race doesn't have to be superior, that's irrelevent, it's mine. It's reletive to the individual.

Just don't want you to weasel out of dealing with the actual arguments

Clearly essential services like that would also have to be automated (doctor bot or some shit), but even if we say they weren't, if you have no need to work if you don't want to I don't think it's that unreasonable to say people would still want to be doctors to help people and give their life meaning, why not get trained to do it if you felt it was your calling?

I am not talking about the cultures of other nations but the regional cultures of your own country. Nationalism favours an artificial national culture over regional cultures. This applies to your own country, not to other countries. The cultures of your own country are threatened by nationalism.

Nonsense. it's cultural warfare like the left likes to use in the present. There are good traditions and false idols who deserve to be destroyed. Franco did not forbid any languaje. All regional identities should be respected under the same nation.

diarioya.es/content/el-falso-bulo-de-la-prohibición-del-catalán-durante-el-franquismo

Liberal-tier argument tbh

Have a rebuttal, faggot OP

TBH we will never know what is wrong with communism. We will spend our lives establishing it but I believe only our youngest members will live to see it.

Communism is not voluntary? Do we need state coertion to mantain a stateless society?

It is. If you don't like it you can leave the commune, with the difference being that this time no one will stop you from doing whatever the fuck you want on a land far away where no state is.
Christ do you even read what you write? Class conflict happens BECAUSE there's a state. Fucking read Marx.

Yes, that's why regional movements like those in Catalonia, Scotland or Ireland are overwhelmingly left-wing.
Franco did oppress Catalan culture and identity. Read this if you don't believe me:
scholar.oxy.edu/urc_student/909/
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11893734/They-banned-us-speaking-Catalan.-Now-they-want-us-to-disappear.html

not trying to debunk you or anything, but would land that I do not occupy within Communism simply be taken from me at the first opportunity? For example, if I go on holiday somewhere, might I come back and find that some other guy has just taken my house and moved in with his family?

Stupid thing. If only one nation remains in the world then all communes can be forcibly destroyed. Voluntarism kills the utopia. If you leave the commune, you can create a state.

Conflict remains with or without class or state. Not even a post scarcity society can be completely free of it.

What I said: Cultural warfare by the left. Good v bad. Nonexistent oppression that suddenly is newsworthy.

A communist society may be vulnerable to an Alien invasion.

This is why we need a

POSADIST SOCIETY

Aliens are our comrades! Do you even Posadism?

Do you think Aliens wouldn't come to earth, if it wasn't for Capitalism and Stalinism?

Needs more aliens.

It doesn't work in reality.

Now, what do I win?

Problem here being, that while I'm sure one in a million would go through all that trouble, there are three-hundred million Americans alone. Something tells me that in a civilization which has dedicated hundreds of years to capital as a means of trade, you're going to face a long time of capital being seen as necessary.

Also, it's like every other system that is a "road". You'll find people like the consumer goods, the food, and the lack of previous social order. This is true now in societies wherein people are given subsidized lifestyles. But you're going to change that all to disestablish a state, and remove currency, and find that a solid majority of people might actually find life easier with it.

So robots will be doctors, okay, laying the ideologically-dedicated who are intelligent enough to make robots aside, if someone who designs robots has a more comfortable living, because you will likely have to provide incentives in this type of society, unless you plan on using a gun to achieve the technology needed. Why would that dude make a robot that would render his meaningful, possibly luxurious lifestyle meaningless?

It happens in capitalism because the guys who make robots make them in such a way that they really won't ever be sentient, and have parts that, inevitably, will need replacing, and upgrades. If you create robots to replace doctors or burger flippers, you've got a pretty secure future, because either you'll make it past your lifetime that robots are articulate and intelligent enough to make newer versions of themselves, or the unemployed masses will put you back to producing devices they will use to get a job back.

There's nothing wrong with communism.

I know one: it is not here yet.

Ah, you're right.

And they will find that the sheer majority of people on earth won't want their way of life anymore than the revolutionaries will want to live under capitalism. And they will find themselves outnumbered not by jackbooted thugs, but by Average Joe, who will see the bloody actions of the socialist as counter to everything he ever dared dream of, even if they did agree on some things they both wanted.

And so Joe, father of 3, fan of Wheel of Fortune, and advocate for his son's little league events, will be the "capitalist's dog" standing between master, and the revolutionary who, will see Joe's corpse as another victory for the revolution.

Or maybe Joe will win, finding pride in putting down a commie scum Yes, taking out the starving revolutionary, a poor woman named Valerie from a bad neighborhood, who was radicalized by a chance meeting at a protest against the wages of the grocery store she worked for, with a man whose greatest idol was Fidel Castro.

No matter the outcome, those who lead either side will give not two, nor one shit about Joe, or Valerie, and their ideals. Cash, power, either/or, it'll all belong to those whose time in this conflict was nothing but an investment…

Also, I don't give a fuck so, I'm good with flipping on both sides until they kill each other and give me what I want.

That's okay. The capitalist system fucking them more every day will make it so that they can only make the rational choice. Capitalism is already killing all the things they love. Communism is the only hope.

I think that would depend on the method of dispute-resolution in that commune. You and the other family would have to try to work things out and come to some sort of agreement that you're both okay with. If you can't do that, then the social norms of that commune would come in to try to resolve the dispute. There would be some pressure for you and the family to agree with it because you wouldn't want to live as much in a place where people hate you for breaking these rules.
Whether you succeed in getting the house back or not would depend on the commune's attitudes toward outsiders coming in, on the norms of saving houses for vacationers, on how easy it would be to find a new house, and so on. Basically anything can happen as long as it's not something that stops the communism from continuing to be communism.

Being wrong and figuring it out only after thousands have perished is the calling card of the ideologue of any system. I mean, I heard that once the USSR adopted some system of believing that natural selection was wrong entirely when it came to growing food. I wonder how many decades people starved until they figured out natural and artificial selection in growing crops was the way to go.

But, that's part of our nature. To be so uncompromisingly stubborn, that we will lose an arm before we realize a chainsaw isn't a neat, harmless prop.

Billions suffer under capitalism, so forgive me if I don't cry over the sixteen gorillion.

It hasn't killed you.

To the woman who reproduces for wealth acquisition, a communist starting a war that costs her part of that welfare check is what kills the thing she loves. And trust me, she's probably already got two grown sons who are itching to use guns.

Jokes aside, if you lived a comfortable life, or an uncomfortable life, but one that you held hope in. Would you give it up to fight for a bunch of ragtags who live mainly in the dirtiest areas because you're a little peeved you don't have as much material wealth or theoretical security in your life? Will, in the chaos of the collapse of capitalism, these people fight for their own betterment? Of course. But you'll find out real quick they'd rather live in some warlord's mini-state as a civilian, than stand by you as a revolutionary.

Billions are going to suffer under any system that finds widespread application. It's inevitable. Honestly it's just a matter of how much you or me can get out of either siding with the powers that be, or making our way up in the new order.

kek

No, but that won't be an issue because by the time the revolution comes, most will have no hope. Just look at the youth of today. There is no American Dream for them, and the same is true abroad.

That's the thing it won't change where they live, capitalism is going to fail and there's nothing you can do about it. It's death is as sure as yours or mine. Communism will win.

But our system minimizes suffering and doesn't use starvation as a way to get people to work for cents on the dollar.

You can pick sides, but only one will win and that's us. Capitalism will always force the capitalists to dispose of you or find themselves in your situation. It's the nature of the beast.

Actually, communism is going to fail not only you, but anyone who tries it. Communism is the result of a philosophy that should've never left sociology as conflict theory. It will tear down, and by the end of a gun, build up, only so long as the gun's holder believes in continuing the system. Stalin needed well-paid, dedicated secret police, and threats of exile/execution to keep those guns by the former proletariat/peasantry high.

No, it just uses starvation as a way to keep people in line, and work for nothing but the shitty little square they live in, because the cities of the old world have been rendered a crisp in the name of the revolution. Communism requires ideological purging by one generation to thin out the youthful intellectuals, or the aged party elite. That is the the nature of the red beast.

See, all this tells me is that you don't know what communism is. So to make things more concise, how about you tell me what you think it is in a formal sense.

It's like you're not even trying.

Communism requires worker-owned means of production and a classless and stateless society, nothing more. You don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you need to drop the meme that coercion and authoritarianism are the same thing. Why does the capitalist have the right to use force to protect a piece of property but the worker doesn't have the right to use force to take it?

Sadly, as of now, I can not. All I can do is read, and communicate with other comrades to see to what strain of leftism my understanding takes me. All I can say I know is the fundamental of socialism requiring the abolition of private property, the means of production in total control of the proletariat, and the abolition of the bourgeois class. With the end of the bourgeois, there is no more proletariat in relation to it, thus class has been abolished and socialism established.

It's the exact opposite of spooks you retarded memer.

I think that it can go one of two ways, one of which will likely never work at gaining wide acceptance, the other doesn't require wide acceptance, only tolerance.

You either go the route that avoids using a vanguard system, and attempt to create a spontaneous revolution of the masses to seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie, and redistribute the assets to the masses, without bothering a state. This basically only ever gathers a minimal following in a given area, and requires an army to enforce it's own existence.

Or, you take the vanguard route, establish a state ran by a party that supposedly dedicates itself to achieving Communism via state-socialism, generally including funding/arming revolutionaries globally. This has been tried, and partially succeeded, a good number of times. Almost always ending with a police state, widespread mismanagement of state-controlled resources, and generally never moves the means of production to the public in a literal sense, only a metaphorical sense.

I know that you think you're going to achieve Communism without a vanguard system, which requires a socialist state. And I can tell you right now, this classless system you speak of has never existed, and I'll bet my ass, it won't. As there will at the very least, by a military force necessary to keep Communism in place. And of course, what's to stop this military force from simply establishing another state, even a small one in one of the many millions of communes sure to arise from this system? And of course, this would-be tyrant, which keeps his subjects in line with a welfare system, and weaponry, could easily influence or take over weaker communes if he so pleased. Thus ending Communism, as a universally-accepted system followed by the masses.

t. Adam Smith

When the revolution happens we need to have a talk about legitimate authority.

Amending my own post here, the end goal is a classless, stateless society as you say. Now tell me your solution to getting there, without being wiped out by the many other ideologues and their armies who are vying for control during the apocalyptic collapse of capitalism.

nerds and autists you dip shit. Smart autists love learning about difficult, inane, pain-staking autistic shit like medicine and engineering and science. Have you never spent 5 minutes with a high autism level sperg? Their favorite thing is learning and tinkering.

Also,
Do you think we're prophets or soothsayers or some shit? I'm sure there will be plenty of problems with future societies, but there's no way of telling for sure what they will be until those societies are created.

Brilliant, so you want to do it but acknowledge that absolutely nobody will like it.

So how communism be to anybody's benefit? If it is of no benefit to anybody, why would anyone support it?

Autism is the key to solving every problem that pops up? Got it. Someone get me that little tard from Mercury Rising and we'll sequence the human genome.

is that newspeak for "killing muh revisionists"

Obviously because Roshaka and Dwane will be more than happy to begin voluntarily working for the betterment of society with absolutely no coercion whatsoever once the 1 is changed to a 0 on the dollar bill.

I think that's actually exactly what dude meant.

Aliens won't invade Earth for the same reason we don't invade a random nest of fire ants. They have nothing to gain.

But how does this solve the problem that Tyrone wants BET put back on the air, and subsidized car payments?

This is something you made up. Nice. There is no logical reason this is the case. Hungry people tend to listen when you tell them they should just take. But this isn't even the biggest idiocy you've committed.

Except it has worked in other times and the reason it didn't work in Russia is primarily due to the material conditions at the time. I mean, most people couldn't even fucking read. This mean they had to rely on the public servants of the Tsar.

No, I actually think it's quite doable.

There are police forces and militaries used to keep capitalism and private property in place now. Why is it suddenly bad when communists do it?

Why would we have millions of communes? With an interconnected world, there is no need for this. And another reason is that every citizen could be called up for service and would know how to fight. Any rebels would be put down and destroyed.

This would also not be a thing. Why would anyone have one man telling them what to say? He has nothing to offer. The goal of communism is to eliminate state power, that means no supreme leader and those called for public service are subject to recall at any time.

Yes, I guess ending communism requires fantasy and bullshit you made up. Congratulations, now we both know you're a delusional retard.

You ever see what a drilling rig does to a fire-ant hill? Lots of random ones have found their way underneath some heavy mining equipment. I can assure you, the ants didn't think we had anything to gain either.

Everyone wants revolution without revolution.

That isn't an invasion - it's just collateral damage. If we do get caught in an artificial supernova or interstellar war I'll be too busy enjoying the sweet release of death to worry about it.

You have absolutely no idea what you are arguing against.

Easy. Television does like was inevitable anyway and we get rid of cars as a primary mode of transportation.

Don't think they were arguing for that.

Never mind I found out that you're autistic.

Totally worked out for East Germany, which voted Communism out of existence despite having a very intelligent population. Or Romania, where there were a good many people who could read, and carry guns, and they decided to turn them on the government regardless.

I hope you have figured out how to, again, achieve it during the collapse a given capitalist nation without being wiped out by people who hate you from the get-go, or call you revisionist.

In an interconnected world free of class and state, you will have the draft? Who is going to enforce the draft? What's the penalty for not going? Loss of food, loss of freedoms? You literally just justified making armed forces to enforce your system by comparing it to capitalist systems using them to enforce property-rights. I'm not saying it's "bad" either way here, but you just established rule of law in a stateless society, requiring a draft to accomplish this…

Your communal system also doesn't offer them anything they don't want. In fact, you have to use coercion in order to maintain this system of opposing single-rulers from taking hold. Your system, practically, will probably garner, at the very least, well-respected people in society who will gain a following if they oppose your system, maybe even many millions. And you just made arms available for all of them.

A dude comes along and, despite the wishes of those who made a system, destroys it. Totally incomprehensible.

That's not how it works.

Most of the most admired "great men" in our history were all murderous bastards. Is George Washington remembered as a butcher that slaughtered Native Americans and loyalists, or as a great father of his nation?

You'll only be remembered as a villain if you lose. If you win, you'll be remembered as a hero.

I doesn't work.

Until transhumanism allows humans to collectivize themselves into borg-like units, socialism and communism will continue to fail.

Dude just literally developed a state, without calling it that, in his theory on how to create a stateless society.

Communism doesn't seem to voluntary in it's flow in his eyes.

You don't say.

t. Doesn't know what communism and socialism are

Stateless doesn't mean we lack state apparatus. You're pretty clueless and I have to go to sleep. Have to teach some assholes how to be soldiers tomorrow.

"Classless doesn't mean we lack a ruling-class. You're pretty clueless and I have to prep the bull. Have to teach my girlfriend how to gape her asshole for soldiers tomorrow."

You mean your mother's calling you?

He probably runs a CoD clan and has to get some sleep/quality time with his hand in before he has to show his brother's friend's that the MARX clan isn't just about newb-pwning. But revolution.

A revolution and the immediate aftermath of it would probably be pretty shitty.

and making everybody have some level of class consciousness is hard.

You can't convince people to buy cereal instead of beer for the kids that afford them that SNAP flow now, good luck trying to tell someone the key to rebuilding society is take up arms, then put them down and pick up a hoe/wrench.

Simplification, but honestly, it's true.

If I claim your private property as my own without just cause, that is a violation of the NAP (read: wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression#Definition). Any initiation of force is not, by default, reverted to the hand of the state. You are equating ancap to pacifism because anytime anybody hits you for hitting them, that's immediately authoritarianism which is actually ancom or ansoc. That doesn't make sense. The problem is with the definition of the NAP, it assumes that the claimant has just cause on the private property in question for the protection (in the form of removal) is a violation of the NAP. It makes an assumption and works backwards.

I have a document that claims that I am the rightful owner of the land you are claiming as your own, and your attempts to remove me are, in fact, a violation of the NAP. Due to your attack on my rightful property, I demand your property as recompense for damage to my person, my reputation and my property. I also demand the deaths of your immediate family and removal of your extended family, who will no doubt continue to push your fraudulent claim against my property.

Feudal wars explained in a paragraph.

So I am legally at fault for violating your private property rights. Ergo, I am subject to the full force of justice. The law prosecuting me for wronging you does not magically equate to a NAP violation. Any force being used=/=illegitimate means, by default, unless you can prove its illegitimacy (which is the main point of the NAP). The NAP is not universal pacifism.
Present the document and build your case. If you are right, then you win the case.
I don't think you know how courts work. You don't go to small claims court and get to pick and choose what possessions you "seize". You don't get to seize the assets of the defendant.
That's also not how the judicial system operates, this is all working off of some weird kangaroo court interpretation you have going on. If I walk up to the apartment you've got rented out and set up shop, you can take me to court. But there is such a thing as capital punishment. Not all crimes are a throw-up, able to be "paid back" to the person who was wronged (in the form of seizing assets or, in your case, killing the guy). That's just not how rational and cohesive society operates. For more, I suggest reading into judicial systems around the world, specifically in English speaking, majority white nations you most likely inhabit: justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts
On capital punishment: utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/7-cap-pun.htm
It actually addresses the weirdo case you use. Just as we evolved away from the inferior systems set to rule over us, we will, inevitably, evolve away from the systems that you are espousing (if you happen to have these ideals set up in a society).