The police

This is likely a shitpost but this is unironically how a lot of so-called socialists mentally operate.

Can you imagine driving by a prison and thinking to yourself: "things'll be great when we're in charge of a bunch of these!"?

We're against the police because they're the armed wing of capital and defend private property. When we establish Communism we will have a People's Protection Organization that will forcibly prevent the restoration of capitalism by breaking up black markets, preventing the use of money, preventing the establishment of hierarchies, preventing the re-establishment of private property or wage labor, etc.

Police should be like firemen - call them when you need them but don't have them roaming the streets looking for fires/crooks.

Yes. I mean why the fuck not? You'll still have murderers rapists pedos counterrevolutionaries the list goes on.

In what fucking way? Further, what's the point?

...

...

i forgot caring for people always means curing them 100% of the time. It can never mean just support, particularly not with mental health. Also people never ever pull through depression of psychosis, that has literally NEVER happened.

Thank you oh expert.

Oh, you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Who said anything about a state? Are you telling me your Ancompton or French Tankyana would not provide free mental health care?

Literally none of the things you mentioned would exist under actual Communism, or if it do it'd be a none issue. These are all problems of statism.

Because prisons are an outdated, reactionary form of dealing with social problems. Firstly, you create a society where people don't resort to crime for a livelihood or as an expression of their mental illness, and secondly you create a system so that when crime does happen you do what you can to repair the damage and rehabilitate the criminal. Prisons are ineffective and inhumane; they're based upon the ignorant, reactionary ideal that people deserved to be punished for their actions and that punishment actually fixes anything.

this is a retarded edgycunt strawman. The solid fact is people commit crime for environmental reasons. If you don't believe this, you are not a materialist and basically not a leftist.

WHAT'S THE POINT

If this is not bait you should check yourself into school and/or a hospital cos nigga you got tumors on your brain

And you wonder why you're just called edgier social democrats (as if the fact that you already advocate for Taylorism under the red banner while insisting it's socialism wasn't enough already).

Oh yeah please tell me more about how poverty is the reason why John decides to rape 12 year old Jill one day after fantasizing for years.

Yes because when Anita cheats on Gary and Gary decides to kill her lover you can totally "repair the damage" and place him in an area where he won't be able to harm her that'll just be called "not a prison" :DDDD

Not specifically property, but ultimately the alienating and damaging environment Capitalism creates for John where he stops thinking of human beings like Jill as people who he cares about, but as an object to pleasure himself with so that he can feel better about his horrific life for one moment.

Mentally well people don't murder their significant other when they are cheated upon.

You don't think something would need to be done about something like inventing cryptocurrencies?

Why should anyone care? If there's no need for it then no one will use it and it'll just be some interesting curiosity; if there's a need for it then you haven't achieved Communism.

Don't you have a personality? Are you an anonymous blob of Capital?

Is capitalism just an another satan?

Is it fair to say that if anyone has a material desire that isn't met by the production plan, then Communism has not yet been achieved? My concern is that groups of workers might desire more than they are allocated by the production plan and re-invent something like co-ops (egalitarian capitalism) and start trading with something like a crypto-currency. Before you know it private property and the market are back.

Obviously people still have agency, but the point is people like John will do what they do because of the environmental factors that influence them.

Why is that a problem?
That is not a problem if exploitation doesn't exist. Self-exploitation might, but that is the problem of the individual preferring the market over the commune; if someone cares more about overworking themselves so they can satisfy a desire to accumulate material wealth and luxuries, it's not mine or anyone else's business as as he isn't exploiting others or trying to forcefully institute his system onto others. People will ultimately follow their self-interests, and if Capitalism didn't exist, most people probably wouldn't think it was in their self-interests to work to make someone else money so that they could earn a wage to buy material shit that doesn't make them happy.

So people have agency, until they do things they aren't supposed to do, because humans are fundamentally good, so in the case of them doing bad things, there must have been something to upset the harmony. "The environmental factors that influence them." doesn't mean anything, it amounts to as much as "things happens, because things happened before".

Police are the epitome of class cuckoldry, the only people more sinister are private security that protect the rich.
These people are your enemy

Humans are fundamentally good to their in-group, the problem with Capitalism is that it creates alienation so there is no in-group, everyone is part of the out-group, and because of your shitty life, you're angry and violent and willing to do anything that will make you feel or life better.
There are no oughts in nature, just ways to live that make humans happier or unhappier. Anti-social behavior is a symptom of unhappiness and additionally causes it.
Yes, it does amount to that, and that is a meaningful statement. People will statistically act a certain way under certain circumstances, that's just a fact.

Fuck off retard

Wrong, or at best begging the question.

Also wrong, the fact that there's trade, wages and private property does not abolish in-group's (a sociological term that should best be avoided, lest we mistake people for machines)

Because people are little machines whose only motivation is gathering the maximum amount of happy points.

This is what sociology does to people, this what Heidegger warned us about.

How many Jews and gypsies would you have killed had you been 20 in 1940's Germany?

Pro-social traits like sharing, empathy, helpfulness, are extremely important with social animals like humans, since they cannot effectively function on their own. Which is not to say people in the in-group are always kind to each other, but they must be more pro-social to each other than not for the group to function.
Not all those things separate, but Capitalism in its totality does lead to alienation; it's pretty easy to say how much more alienated modern society is to pre-modern or non-industrialized ones.
People will always do whatever they believe is the best option, i.e. their rational self-interest. No one is going to do something they think will make them less happy with zero gain, but oftentimes because of ignorance that's exactly what they will do.
Simply being being that age in that place isn't just a couple factors among hundreds. It's impossible to give any answer to that, since I probably wouldn't be the person I am now if I was born then and there.

Oscar Wilde pretty much says he was wrong his whole life on his death bed

gutenberg.org/files/921/921-h/921-h.htm

Any enforcement required in a communist society (or under the dictatorship of the proletariat for that matter) needs to be carried out by the armed and organised masses themselves. Having a separate autonomous institution carry out such a function would simply recreate the conditions that give rise to class rule.
It's worth pointing out that we didn't have police for the majority of human history, when people violated the social norms of the group/community in pre-class society they dealt with the problem directly, they didn't wring their hands and wait for a special class of socially empowered thugs to come deal with (or not deal with, as is often the case) the problem like we do today.

Wew. Is this the next big installment of the "If that is Marxism then I am not a Marxist" meme?

Says the man in the fur coat with a walking cane and man ring. Seems like a different brand of elite trying to convince us to be peasants rather than force us. Your communistic ideals are just psychological fascism.

"Property", in this context, refers to useful, value-producing holdings (land, factories, real estate, etc) This was the original meaning of property, before it was broadened by bourgeois economists. The "propertied classes" weren't people with coats and rings.