Can lefty pol break down why this man's argument against communism is bs?

So before there were a state, unlike carl marx's suggestion, humans were very aware of the inherent value of personal items. aka. their private property

No socialists don't think that. Stopped reading there.

You have no fucking clue what private property is do you?

You've been told like 6 times in this thread how personal property is not private property and you keep saying it's the same thing. Do you have autism?

not 'egalitarian' like 'people have equal rights' - hunter-gatherers are egalitarian as in 'everyone gets equal shares of everything and there is little to no difference in status between any two people'

You should re-re-read the definition you posted earlier or perhaps better open a book and not wikipedia

Maybe try using that peanut brain of yours and search for the difference between private and personal property. As for your second point, are you implying that socialist countries didn't print socialist flags or books or make shirts? If you think that then you should probably off yourself.

private property is the self proclaimed ownership of the production of goods in one group or individual separate from another.

Egalitarian is not strictly communistic and that isn't what that article necessarily argued.

isn't there no thing such as true private property in a socialist/communist state?

Why suddenly say something that isn't in agreement with the definition you said earlier?

This is some poor trolling.

no that wasn't what the video argued. You should watch it. It was simply a observation that most marxists contribute to the very system they hate. They post on a computer that would never have been possible under such a system. Very few groud breaking innovations have been achieved under such a system because such a system generally collapses under such policies.

because in the case of the ape there was no state administrating to him that the personal item was not his private property. The only time that distinction arises is under a socialist/ marxist view. Hence why before the state, they are identical. They will fight one another in order to have that stick. Hence it is not public property.

Are you actually implying both that there were no states before socialism and that socialism is the state?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt but this must be bait now or else you really need to read Marx before trying to criticise him

Remember to sage

It's almost as if someone who lives under capitalism is forced to partake in that system to survive. Really activated my almonds. And Marxists don't hate capitalism but instead see it as a requirement before reaching socialism, again read Marx. I don't know what that whole computer thing was going on about, communism doesn't make all knowledge of computers vanish. Socialism doesn't make countries collapse, coups, blockades, embargoes, invasions, wars, espionage etc do.

Marx's view, in a nutshell, denied that human nature back when it started, was not "whats mine is mine, what yours is yours", but rather "what's mine is yours and whats yours is mine". Capitalism was unnatural. But the understanding of anthopology, in the large scale, there may be exceptions in certain instances, is that humans as their ancestors, ultimately followed the former law. That when push comes to shove, we are naturally selfish and self serving. Collectivism is a good aim, and has a role. But the means to everything is indiviudalistic.

Read Marx because you have no idea what he says

I didn't even watch the video but
Whoever this fucker is he actually has no knowledge about anthropology at all

I don't recall me ever saying that. Im saying that it wasn't until the state that ultimately tried to implement to collective ideal to its strictest sense. Before, as the evidence shows, it wasn't considered. Sharing was a means to an end as well.

yes I know he said that capitalism was a necessary stage to reach communism. But you are mistaken if you don't think that Marx ultimately didn't view it as disgusting and required violence to move on.

wew lad. You must think most societies were matriarchal back then as well. With this line of reasoning you might as well believe that fallacy.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. It is word for word the same as in Marx. What do you think a 'strictly communistic' society is?

Every time

Well it is hard to pinpoint since even most communists have trouble answering that question without disagreeing on certain topics such as who should have guns ect ect. My definition is the complete abolition of private property, which ultimately extends into personal property after ones death. And yes, I understand, however, the reality I believe is that each needs are different and human nature cannot be trained like a dog to think otherwise.

That once the artificial structure of strict collectivism falls, our inner individualistic animal principles reappear to get what we desire by what ever means necessary.

Why do you keep mentioning collectivization? Socialism, Marxism nor communism has much to do with at all

Now that you've acknowledged that your argument hinges on an idiosyncratic personal definition of communism I'm satisfied. I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that a society with equal distribution of resources and no status hierarchy is communistic even if it leaves grave goods.

the 'artificial structure of strict collectivism' lasted for hundreds of thousands of years; the inevitable re-appearance of our inner principles probably won't make it for five thousand

Jesus christ does anyone here know anything about political philosophy?

completely misrepresented what I said. I am not arguing against the role of collectivism at all. I am saying that the idea that it is our main motivating principle is nonsense. Marx's idea that we just want social validation and collective purpose is a misguided anthropological view of human nature. While it has a place, it is not the main guiding principle.

This is the worst thing I have ever seen

Aren't these the same people who cry gallons of tears for the kulaks who had their crops "stolen" by the evil soviets?

I couldn't care less if protohumans were goose stepping race realists, no amount of primitive behavior will debunk communism.
If you aren't arguing against capitalism with issues innate to capital, how are you arguing. I will never not love Wage-labour and Capital for this.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE THAT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY

1) Marx doesn't "base" his theory on the anthropology of communal living, I'm not sure where the guy got that idea. Besides, early social arrangements were strongly communal in nature for a variety of reasons, that's a fact — though I'm not sure what bearing this is supposed to have on the conversation. Anyway, he mistakes personal belongings for private property — a dead give-away that he doesn't know much about the issue.

2) The difference being, libertarians will defend and glorify mega-corporations then suddenly play the "actually corporatism" card when they see fit — whereas serious communists unambiguously want nothing to do with Stalin or Mao to begin with and consider state capitalism to be its mortal enemy as much as liberal capitalism. Then he rambles on about human nature, which leads me to believe he has in fact no idea what he is talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking about.