Hey Holla Forums, curious goy here

lel

Varoufakis is so Based, wish people would mention him more often on the board.

youtube.com/watch?v=yjxAArOkoA0

This video is so comfy.

A fairer economic system, Things might be same as before after it or not, it doesn't matter.

Every time jpg.

FULLY
AUTOMATED
LUXURY
GAY
SPACE
COMMUNISM

/thread

this one is great.
youtube.com/watch?v=gU-xVYLtO_E

just call it a People's Revolutionary Free Territory. As long as we pretend it's not the state it's ok

/thread

Global communism. A stateless, classless, moneyless system based on worker control of the means of production and democratic organization of the economy.

See above.

fuck off you lazy tankie

How are 50/50 split decisions dealt with in collective ownerships of production ?

Who would do the planning?

How does freedom work, according to Holla Forums? Clearly freedom does not include the freedom to own property. Can freedom exist without private property? Should a woman or man have the freedom to own her or his own home?

In a word, what is freedom, Holla Forums?

World Communism to put it simply.

To create a Jewish world order and turn all white males into gay traps duuuuh

Private property is not personal property.

is there a coherent philosophical difference between these two things? What is personal property as distinct from private property?

Personal property is lived on and used by the owner. Private property is bought up and hoarded so the owner can extort the people who live on and use it.

Most of us here support the concept of personal property rather than private property- the simple version (and I might be messing it up a bit here) is that you own what you actually use, while things that are used by multiple people are owned collectively by them (think of businesses that use the worker's co-op model). Private property includes things like when some billionaire can buy a hundred houses he's never set foot in so he can charge rent for them instead or use them to manipulate the housing market, and that's the sort of parasitic behavior we want to eliminate.

Yes, and it isn't just a Marxist or Leftist distinction, the distinction between private and personal property is just basic economics tbh, private propert is the ownership of land or the means of production, anything that generates Capital simply through your ownership of it, i.e. factories, farms, mines, apartment complexes, and Capital itself above a certain limit, personal property is just shit you own, your clothes, your home, your car, your books, these aren't forms of private property because they don't generate Capital, you can't live off of them and substitute the need to sell your time for wages by owning these random possessions. Also, the idea that a small percentage of the population owning all land and means of production equals freedom is pretty much the single most classcucked thing you can believe, besides the meritocracy meme.

Generally "private property" is a short for "the property that from the legislative point of view is a private belonging, but is not necessarily used as a personal thing". Common left-wing example is nearly any workplace, which is usually someone's private property, but things making up said workplace are usually "rented" to other people(employees) in exchange for those people's labour power.

Private property is economic property, think workplaces, machinery for production and such. A family operating a lathe and a saw in their own home to make furniture would still be personal property, as it is not hired out for a profit and the family does not employ people to make the furniture for them and pay them a fraction of the actual worth of the items.

So it's true to say that Holla Forums is not so much against property as against its unfair distribution?

You're not interested in seperating a small-holder from the house that his family owns and the land that they live off, but on abolishing the dominance of an overbearing mass-property owning class that deprives others of property by taking up so much of it? Would that be correct?

I'd say it's a tad more complex than that, but at its core, yes.

The abolition of private property is the only way to obtain freedom.

Private property literally is unfair distribution, the abolishing of private property is the democratization of ownership.

This.

The reason I thought that private property - or, since that term seems to have multiple meanings, just property - are connected to freedom, is because of the idea that it is good for a man to be king in his own house, and for him to live off of what is his own - ie the farmer should own the land that he works, the carpenter should own his own workshop, the plumber or the electrician should own his own tools, a programmer should own his own computer. When a person has these he is free to support himself and determine his own life, to conduct himself or herself how he or she likes in the world.

This is diametrically opposed to the idea of a small class of people owning all the property, because this precludes the little man and the little families from owning their own little kingdoms and being free.

I'm curious to see how much comon ground there is here in Holla Forums with some aspects of GK Chesterton's distributism, which basically goes along these aforementioned lines.

Thoughts, Holla Forums? I'll add the proviso here that by capitalists he means people are own their own property

Anyone going to answer this?

You are most likely going to get very different outcomes depending on who you ask really from SocDems to fucking NazBols.

Those basic premises sound a bit like Mutualism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, it's a bit entry level when it comes to left-wing thought, but I'm sure it might interest you

With another vote, delaying the vote until someone switches, or with a compromise that will get a majority vote.

You know, like we do now.

What's the difference, who are these two groups? I know SocDem are Social democrats but wtf is nazbol??

ebin get

Ignoring the fact that the idea that every man should be the "king of his castle" is kind of spooked, I agree with you here, but you're still conflating personal and private property, the simple fact of the matter is that what you're describing is literally impossible under Capitalism, farmers don't own their own farms, industrialized agriculture has put that to rest, electricians, plumbers, and other craftsmen are usually petite bourgeoise small business owners, or they work for the State (half my family are unionized workers who do trade jobs like plumbing and carpentry for the city), but this is hardly a form of private property in the sense Leftists mean, and Communists wouldn't come around stealing their tools from them, as for programmers, once again, a computer, like a hammer or saw, is obviously a form of personal property, it's a tool, not a piece of land which generates Capital through your non-procuctive labor. That's the problem with private property, it means a small amount of people can accumulate insane amounts of Capital through non-productive labor, essentially just endlessly circulating dead Capital.

I actually like Chesterton quite a bit, but I think Distributism doesn't make too much sense outside of more agrarian circumstances.

Nazbols have very little philosophical basis, so they can be anyone from a full blown "Hitler was cool but Stalin was cooler" totalitarian to left leaning nationalists, usually with heavy racial aspects, agreeing with the idea of "socialism in one country".

National Bolshevism: Stalinism with shitposting characteristics (and a bit of racism).

Generally, you can say Nazbols support a vanguard party or dictatorship with heavy elements of economic, usually central, planning.

The benefits of social labor and mass production should be obvious. Sacrificing that in the name of some agrarian/cottage industry ideal is foolish.

The point is to seize existing areas of social labor and mass production, reorganize it and use it for the benefit of all.

(checked)
Hard to provide an answer that would properly represent the whole board, considering you could get different answers if you asked an anarcho-communist and a marxist-leninist.

A world without the destructive, counter productive system of capitalism, and a world that isnt dying and becoming uninhabitable for human civilisation.

Also space exploration that is realistic and not just for the rich trying to buy themselves a ticket off this dying planet would be cool too.

We are all individuals with different Ideologies and opinions but if youre asking me Im an Anarchist I dont want a state except its very liberterian or based of democracy (like in democratic confederalism). It would be great if a society is egalitarian and with a healthy amount of multiculture, but not in that forced sjw-like manner more like America in the early 2000s. The economy should be lead by the people, it shouldnt be extremly good but not bad in any kind of way. I dont give a fuck about culture I mean theres no difference between eating a burger in America or eating sausage and kraut in Germany, you know what I mean?

SocDems: youtube.com/watch?v=XRr3HDn-8Y8

Nazbols: youtube.com/watch?v=3cqDXlfASMM

finally someone smart. fuck collectivism. be your own man and don't expect others to take care od you.

This sort of bourgeois individualism is a disease of the mind.

Yeah, I was always frustrated trying to apply distributism to more modern circumstances. Would probably have to look at re-applying the principles behind it. Distributist thought today is always talking about co-ops, AFAIK.

This distinction between personal and private property is interesting, I had never made this distinction in the concept of property owning myself.

I guess it's not a philosophical difference in the act of ownership of something itself, but the difference is decided by external, extrinsic circumstances and factors. Correct me if I'm wrong: according to Holla Forums, a man owns a hammer: its his own and he uses it for his trade, it's personal property. A man owns a hammer, he owns thousands of hammers, none or very few of which he uses himself: it's private property.

Could probably define ownership as that ultimate, exclusive "sovreignty" or "kingship", to use those terms in an unusual way, over the good or thing in question.

So the act of ownership of a thing, a piece of property, isn't distinguishable between private and personal property - rather it's a wider socio-economic context that these terms look at.

Whatever about "king of his castle" being a spook, isn't it necessary for this convention or principle to be adhered to and respected, if someone is to be free in his or her own house, without being intruded upon by 3rd parties. If you view freedom as autonomy to choose, and autonomy to grow and develop as one knows best.

Sorry, didn't see you post user. Either way, these are the kinds of situations where a Vanguard comes into play. Now I know what you're thinking, the old "vanguardism is philosopher king" meme, classic reactionary retort, the first thing I'm going to say is just that vanguard=/=state, in fact vanguard=/=socialism, vanguards can function in any society, and do, whether you want it to or not, for instance, Republicans and Democrats act as a vanguard in the U.S., as does the media, they decide the perimeters of discourse and discussion, they decide public opinion, essentially they, rather coercively decide what is allowed legitimacy in the political sphere, and what they consider legitimate often just reflects the will of the ruling class. Tons of people loved Bernie, and Brits love Corbyn, and tons of Frenchies loved Mélenchon, but the media, and the beuracrats can't handle anything to the left of them, even if it's just moderate Social Democracy, so the media constantly pushes the narrative that they're crazy, and out of date, and out of touch with the people and [current century meme] and bury their head in the sand while NeoLiberalism burns to the ground and they push the "globalists vs. nationalists" meme, even though Globalism has been the Left's bette noir long before the Right started screeching about ZOG Occupied Government. Under Socialism however, there's still a Vanguard, it's just intentionally occupied by those who best understand philosophy, economics, and theory, those best positioned to understand the conditions of political economy and what needs to be done, organic intellectuals who grow out to the proletariat and the class struggle itself.

Question: Would the thousands of hammers still be private property rather than personal property, if the ownership of these hammers wasn't thereby depriving other people? Does the ownership of thousands of hammers become personal property, if everyone owns thousands of hammers?

There's a facebook page called esoteric techno-fascism where peopel are always talking about NazBol, especially with reference to supporting DPRK and Middle Eastern dictators like Gadaffi and Assad, and Saddam Hussein to a lesser extent.

Is this like a cross-over point, or at least an overlapping area, for far-right and far-left internet types?

There is private/personal propery. Private property is property out of which you make money, personal property is used by you to have a good life.

this is, more-less EXACTLY what this communism thing is about. Everyone here is opposed to capitalism because there is a guy who owns and lend you these things. Even if you manage to save up your money and buy your own stuff, there are big capitalists who have capital to buy better tools and wageslaves with which they outcompete you. There are disagreements between different sects of socialists how these tools should be controlled workers, but more-less it's all about it.

Yes. Socialism - democratic ownership of the means of production.

Thanks for the response. So this vanguard wouldn't be considered the ruling class?

Yes, this is correct, but only if he also owns the means of production that produce's said hammers and employs wage laborers in said factory (if the factory is automated or he uses unpaid prison labor he's still a Capitalist though). If you just own a thousand hammers and cram them in your basement you aren't a Capitalist, your just an idiot.

It's distinguished by it's relation to Capital, i.e. does it generate Capital, and do the people participate in the creation of Value (wage laborers) reap the fruits of their labor, or does this Value all go to the owner.

Which is why I don't disagree with you on the point, everyone's entitled to these kinds of personal opinions, I don't see how they hurt anybody.

Global nuclear holocaust

It would be a ruling class if it wasn't composed of the Proletariat itself, and if this vanguard still had the characteristics of the Bourgeoise, for instance, if they personally accumulated Capital through the ownership of private property, still employed wage labor, and still produced value through this process. Other then that, any society has a vanguard, in fact, I'd go so far as to claim tons of things that aren't even political have vanguards, art movements are vanguardist, scientific consensus is vanguardist, what Leftists do is acknowledge the existence of this vanguard and try to make it transparent. You see this in former Socialist Republics like the USSR and China, but you even see this in the Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, Chiapas, Rojava, a vanguard is composed of those chosen by the people for leadership roles, either consciously or organically through workers's councils.

This is the only ==real== answer

saging because i feel bad about posadist shitposting in a thread this good

No state. Culture will be completely different, its very difficult to see how, society/economics will consist of publicly owned resources being distributed by a network of directly democratic decentralised free distributions. Almost all labour will be automated, manual jobs will disappear, all education and information will be completely free to access for all, people will spend a life at leisure or a life in education and self improvement, which will be entirely self motivated and therefore completely free of restraint, allowing the best possible creative expression of humanity.

In this concrete example, there is quite hard to tell the difference between personal/private property, you generate capital with it and use it in your house for your personal use. Something like this is very rare, most people owning hammers don't use it for generating profit, but improving quality of their life.
You answered it yourself. It's not possible to use them for your own use.
nigga please.

Wasn't posadas teaching that nuclear holocaust will bring us aliens and space communism? So he's end goal was same - communism

a youtube.com/watch?v=qXTmAkJKikI

I like Varoufakis but I was very disappointed when he cucked Mélenchon for Macron.

Liberty and virtue. Every man a king. Communism.

A stateless moneyless classless society that will do things based on votes and commune leaders and seeing as reddit and the like outnumber us tremendously the commune will massively vote upboat to send everyone who ever went on Holla Forums to the gulag for being sinner brosocialists resulting in the death of everyone here. That is the endgame and there's nothing wrong with that.

There will be no more rich or poor or class and ranks.
There will be no more countries or boarders.
There will be no more currency.
Everything will be decided by the commune by democratic vote.
Basically put it'll function like the best place on the internet reddit where the mods are the commune leaders and all decisions based on the highest number of upvotes.
Basically utopia.

I think this leads to what Đilas refers to as a 'New Class' though. In the sense that their relationship to the means of production is that of collective political control, sure they may not personally benefit from this to any degree, but it still represents of position of power. Đilas also argues that 'the new class not only seeks expanded material reproduction to politically justify its existence to the working class, but it also seeks expanded reproduction of political control as a form of property in itself.'

Agreed. Not a proper marxist but I like him nonetheless.

He's also really good at explaining economy to plebs, if you guys are interested read this.

Also his interview on david rubin's youtube is cool.

Don't have much to add at this point so I'll chuck in a polite sage, but you should stick around OP. Holla Forums needs more discussions like what's ITT and goodpostsers. Pic unrelated.

How would you prevent these industries from growing into the large-scale commercial enterprises, as tends to happen under unregulated capitalism, without resorting to the sort of state socialism you distrubitists were against or abolishing private property all together?

Now I'm veering into the realm of personal opinion, and can only speak for myself, but I'd agree that what we saw in the USSR was the creation of a "ruling class" in the nomenklatura, although I would also argue that they didn't necessarily function as a new Bourgeoise, as they didn't accumulate Capital, but they did employ wage labor and maintained value form, although the value produced by this labor was then very evenly distributed among the population, but I think we can agree that this is hardly the goal of Communism, it's hardly even what most Socialists would call Socialism, that being said I don't think this discredits Vanguardism, and also is hardly evidence that Vanguardism leads to an exploitative ruling class in all cases, a Vanguard doesn't even necessarily need to hold political power, as I said vanguard=/=state, a Vanguard could be the opinions of philosophers and scientists who act as a guiding hand for the worker's councils and communes that make up a Communist society, they're simply those who specialize in knowledge, although the ultimate goal of a Communist society would be one in which this specialized distinction would wither away as all people would, in a sense, become philosophers themselves, but this is a rather longterm goal.

Production for use, among other things. No ads, commodofication, marketing, etc. End of selling for selling, start of living for living.

Pic related

...

if its every man for himself, i would think people would eventually go into collectivist societies.