>>>Holla Forums9790051

Damage control is being activated and the peaches are melting. My condolences to the less of coherence , be it that it never existed in the first place.

most of the answers and discussion simply showcased the inherent differences between (far)left and (far)right worldviews.
essentialism vs constructionism
traditionalism vs progressivism
negative vs positive view of humanity
idealism vs materialism
and so on and so forth

...

user you forgot to cover up your IP address

They won't do shit. Most are tech illiterate redditors.

Stay away from twitter then. The political discourse on that website makes me want to purge with no end in sight. Uncle Joe would be jealous.

...

Holla Forums mods does the same with Holla Forumsyps here.

Before the Germans invaded Russia, one of Stalin's generals, who had opposed the Bolsheviks during the civil war, framed up an actually loyal general, and intentionally disrupted Soviet intelligence gathering, which led in part to the Soviet unreadiness during Barbarossa, as they kept getting false warnings of incipient invasion.

So tbqh I don't think the purges were entirely unjustified.

"I used to think like that, then I interacted with people on imageboards.
Now I think Hitler was quite merciful and conservative with his holocaust."

i didn't realise there were that many jews on imageboards
wow really made me think gr8 job

Are you gonna try to justify Pol Pot massacres too?

As usual, their answers are pure ideology. When he asked what the advantages of a white ethnostate would be the answers were nebulous at best.

Your antisemitism is clearly showing.

the holocaust generally refers only to the mass extermination of the jews, even though other groups were targeted as well
I'm going to stop replying to obvious bait now

You're the one that want to kill people based off what they post on imageboards, if you're not the one who is really baiting, you're simply edgy.

Watch you IP fam

Mods do not see IPs on Holla Forums, they see a hash of the IP. He's fine.

I was being flippant, user.

Lol no they don't. Holla Forumsyps are treated with far more leeway and mercy here than they deserve, and even then they still bitch.

this is almost as retarded as Holla Forums itself

If you have an argument, I'm open to hearing it, otherwise this is just lazy false-flagging/liberal shitposting.

it gets a bit sketchy when someone gets buttmad about inheritance and is reminded that inheritance is the basic concept of giving something to someone else.
i was rendered incapable of distinguishing between troll and retard.

that may be why the ban happened.
maybe troll? maybe retard? lets not take chances?

kek

Nazis are free to post here and it's actually encouraged. The more Nazis post here the more of them convert and the more of us are reaffirmed in our rejection of your shit ideology.

your the real faggot here m8…

No glasses, no problem.

fascism and communism are not incompatible.
though i would definitely not go for communist as i enjoy private property.

if i like private property
and economic policy x,y,z does not grant me private property
i do not like policy x,y,z

there. it's sound. both valid and true.

learn the difference between private and personal property
or give me your fucking toothbrush

What ideology would grant you private property?

They are incompatible through and through.

oh, ew

Found the pseudo-intellectual

ow wow it's worse than i thought.
by all-encompassing, you mean an ethos of a reasonably homogeneous people that the state enforces, which is what happens anywhere, then ok.
how was this a conflation? you're not allowed personal property, but allowed private property in the communist model?

Personal property are things for your personal use. Private property are means of production.

No & No but i'm glad you're able to jump through those hoops sis.

Step 1: read
Step 2: lurk
Step 3: post

404: argument not found

my physical body is a "means of production".

it's how they define it.

Fucking delusional.

just a regular guy that got caught in a storm of faggotry.

the elites will always be a problem.

your stateless paradise will just be consumed by some rampaging faggot with an army in tow. you'll be conquered if you do not unite.
this is basic politics.

It's how Marxist theory defines it. I am well aware that civil law defines private property differently.

No. You just produce waste. A cow would be means of production though, as you can employ laborers to milk them.

What definition of "state" is Benito using here? Is it some weird one like how "corporation" back then meant just a group of people?

your body is a means of production.
it is a means by which you can produce by virtue of your will being capable of interacting with the physical world.

But you can unite whithout a state, it's called Integral Federalism.

Then why the fuck are you shilling for capitalism? Porky has no accountability whatsoever towards the people. Our economic system is an authoritarian kabal.

I'm not an Anarchist so I don't believe statelessness is possible until we achieve communism. In communism will be an abundance of resources and free association, which means the incentive to wage wars and powerstruggles will be almost zero. Imagine the Federation in Star Trek. We believe most revolutions/wars were caused by material conditions.

However, this is far away in the future, obviously.

Not if they don't exist at all.

And they are ESPECIALLY a problem in a cronyistic system like fascism, which is explicitly designed to concentrate as much power in the hands of the elites as possible. Seriously, why the fuck do you think that giving a dictator unlimited power and no oversight will help the common people? Have you ever opened a history book in your life?

Inherent to anarchism are systems meant to prevent authoritarianism; chief among them are economic systems which make that sort of accumulation of wealth and power highly impractical if not impossible.

Star Trek is a fiction, user.

I saw this posted in that thread, thoughts?
youtu.be/MYXhOT1ZMEg

Oh whatever, have it your way. Your point is completely irrelevant though. We define private property as a means to extort surplus value from wage labor as well as having the power to command the allocation of commodities.

Basically you do nothing except holding an abstract legal claim over the means of production yet gaining all the profit - and power - from it that others create. Most modern shareholders probably haven't even seen the firm which they own. Ending this exploitation is what we are all about.

capitalism gives incentive to produce. a study ethos regulates it so it remains ethical.

dictators are not inherent to fascism.

a fascist would examine this to see if it's unethical.
that surplus value is a tricky area. there are expenses and managers/executives/owners should get profit.
if fascists believe that this is causing the people harm, they especially concerned with intervening in this case.

fascists essentially see the nation of people as an entity that needs to be healthy.
naturally, a populist uprising would be unhealthy.

people invest their earnings in companies hoping that the value of the company increases.
specialists handle investments autistically.

i wouldn't argue against examining how healthy this is for the people.

The problem with fascist corporatism is that you can only so long force both the bourgeoisie and the working class in line as long as there is some bonapartist abstract concept of an enemy or a national goal. Once that doesn't exist anymore, the fascist ideologues have to manufacture a new one or the whole system collapses since fascism isn't free from the contractions of a capitalist socio-economic system.

Nazi Germany is the best example for that. Sure it worked all quite well in the 30s but it was entirely financed on debt and a ponzi scheme. In the end, to further mobilize the population and to keep both bourgeoisie and proletariat within the corset of the national goal, they declared war - Hitler didn't even wanted war in 1939, the original plan was aiming for 1942. Most of the Wehrmacht wasn't even motorized. Yet they had to because without plundering occupied countries, the economic system would have collapsed.

This is why fascist economies are in no way sustainable in the long term. Marxist-Leninist planned economies however have proven themselves liberated from the contradictions of capitalism. The USSR was a country that didn't know poverty, economic crisis, recession or financial bubbles.

i love small businesses.
lots of small, some medium, few big so long as they do not threaten the interests of the people.

How?

good reply. but don't make the mistake in thinking jews will be kept under control in communism.

Capitalism gives an incentive for wage labor. You can not keep what you produce, in fact, you are what Marx called alienated from your labor. The incentive would be even greater if you had a say in what happens with the product you created.

People still receive are reward in a socialist society nonetheless - may it be labor vouchers, money or any other manifestation of exchange value. So there you have your incentive. Once material abundance is achieved, this exchange value will gradually become obsolete.

Well, it depends on if they are doing any work, right? If you participating in managing the firm in some way, you surely deserve a piece of the cake. But the problem with the capitalist system is, that this is not required to earn all the surplus money. It's not just an unequal distribution of value according to you labor (no matter what kind of genius you are as a manager, you deserve in now way five thousand times more than a worker), it's simply the fact that it enables you to receive it without even lifting a finger, not even staring to speak about the fact that it equips you with the might of distributing it amongst the workers as you damn well please as well. Unchecked authoritarianism defines our economic system, and th value created doesn't even go into the welfare of the people but is simply accumulated for the sake of accumulation so the rich can afford their penthouses in St. Tropez.

Production for the sake of production is a major reason we don't care for capitalism: it's unsustainable. Science fiction is not real, we will not be colonizing planets and mining asteroids by the time capitalism outgrows the physical limitations of Earth.

Capitalism has a tendency to monopolize, hence, it's an unfair system. The oligopol of corporations is always stronger than your small business because it can simply buy you out. You could literally do everything better than the corporation, pay your workers more, have better quality goods, cheaper prizes, etc., it doesn't matter, they still buy you or push you out of business. Free market capitalism doesn't have fair competition because market power is defined by capital, not by efficiency.

We might as well be if we have socialism, we already have the means to build a base on Mars. We just don't do it because it's not profitable in capitalism.

Of course. What I meant was that liberals think the pursuit of scientific advancement will render moot the inherent problems of capitalism. It has managed to stave them off, i.e. medicine, but the inevitable remains.

i don't want to keep what i produce.
just because i make something doesn't mean i want it.
i want money, which is flexible, and portable, so i can spend it on something that i want.
i want to specialize in producing something so i'm good at it, and then trade that for a house, car, and family.
i don't want to have to make my i-phone. that would be fucking terrible.

you may have been conditioned into conflating some egoist opportunist with a capitalist.
proper laws derived from a proper ethos would regulate this.
i won't kill you for your shoes.

you are right that it CAN get bad if not properly regulated.

A polite discussion about feelings will not resolve the contradictions of a system that ignores the laws of physics.

Capitalism is already a nightmare. Please lay down the dissociatives and start arguing beyond empty platitudes.

you do realise that the big pigs' "money" is a social contract, right?

just because i make something doesn't mean i want it
I don't mean you should directly consume it. The time where people consumed what they produced are over (Feudalism) and will never come back. However, you'd maybe want to have a say what happens with what you created. Imagine you are a really skilled car engineer. Wouldn't you want to have a say in what happens to those cars? If they are being used for the welfare of society? Are they environmental friendly? Maybe you have ideas to make them even better? And in general, wouldn't you like to have some influence what happens in and with your workplace?

Work shouldn't be an obligation just to make money. After all, humanity always worked and it's an integral part of social life. You shouldn't be alienated from it and just doing some shit on an assembling line just for someone else's profit (speaking of the assembling line figuratively). And the final point: You care about the money you get out of you work, you realize you'd get a lot more if millions of profit wouldn't just go to the private bank accounts of the shareholders? And I'm not talking about the surplus that gets reinvested.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to express in simpler terms.

Actually, I'm not. Anybody having that Zizek meme where he talks about how the capitalist is actually not a hedonist but restrains himself to the capitalist ideology just as well?

if someone does something unethical, then there's only 1 option you have:
youtube.com/watch?v=5AWI_ECKrBc

fair enough, but that would also include everyone involved, which does not mean the value of the thing, but only a part of the value of the thing.

then there's the issue of the incentive someone has to set it all up in the first place meaning buying everything over time (the owner).

I sincerely believe that it would not be an issue under communism. I understand your viewpoint, and I really can sympathize with it to an extent, but imagine a communist world for a moment: no banks, no cronyism, no usury, no currency manipulation, no exploitation of workers, none of that. When all basic material needs are met, we are free to focus on enriching our own lives, and the lives of others. There will always be some who desire more, and would happily attempt to exploit others, and those people would be dealt with.

We can disagree on the specific roadmap to achieve such a state of existence, but I'd like to think that even Holla Forums could get behind true communism being the ideal end-goal for humanity.

if an angel descended from heaven and told me the objectively true ethos, i would fight you faggots tooth and nail.

Can you please elaborate?

That would be the workers themselves, as a cooperative for example, you would not need any owner anymore, or every workers would be self-owners if you prefers.

...

how can you make an i-phone without others involved.
that i-phone was not exclusively made by you. that would be hideously inefficient.

You know the human race really could do a lot better if we didn't argue in memes

stop meming, then.

I'm was not talking about the process, I was talking about the ownership.
In a cooperative, the workers would collectively decide how the process should be with of course the engineers advices.
Cooperatvies can also unite to form some kind of federation with common process and common intellectual property.

some nonsense philosophy paper i had to read written by some crazy woman was about this (democritizing companies).
just remembering this makes me mad.
it's entirely unnecessary.

i'm out though. gl lefties.

This is exactly the problem i'm talking about

Thanks comrade