How do we convert /r9k/?

r9k is to leftypol what moderate republicans are to the democratic party

thats oddly specific

He's talking about someone being able to own land privately and make a living off it, but I don't think occupation and use is what communists have a problem with.

Common Holla Forums tactic. Reminds me of the "As a black man" shit that r/T_D does on plebbit. Remember that everything posted on 4/pol/ is a lie. Don't pretend that they are arguing or acting in good faith.

It's what LeftComs have a problem with though.

Why would an ex-Luxemburgist focus on land like a physiocrat or Georgist?

I had 3 former friends of mine take about 3 years to start going from Juche shithead to Nazi shithead

Its really fucking easy actually. Tell them they'll get state sponsored gfs in socialism

ACTSHOUALLY
Read Reich.

Fascism and more so, Nazism, is all about repressing sexuality and prasing purity. You know… Like any authoritarian ever.

So, there you have the alienated robot. He doesn't want to accept why he has no GF. He doesn't want to change. And then a nazi comes and gives him the false answer to all his problems.

"All women are bitches, because evil commies want to corrupt them and make them free to fuck whoever they want" "Join us and we will give you a pure yet sexually provocative nazi GF".

They actually will. But not they way they want. They'll have to get psychoanalysed and forced to stop being idiots. Then, sure. Corbyn's obligatory party dances in action! Absolutely! But no, you cannot keep thinking your waifu will become real.

PS. Catgrill's comic was on point there.
politicalideologycatgirls.com/comic/008-letters-to-alunya/

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

Oh, you mean from Red Nazi to just Nazi.

Your waifu cannot be real, cause YOU ARE NOT REAL!

Even if you get a sexdroid, it will still only be a illusion.. .. yes, I know the world is an illusion anyway…

...

That headline is fake, isn't it?

oui

LOVING EVERY LAUGH

Honestly, I think Holla Forums has done wonders for me being able to argue for Leftism, whether because I've already seen all the arguments here being disproven, or because I've learned enough to be able to disprove them myself.

It's like a training camp for internet leftists

how can one poster be so spooked?

how do you even?

It's a testament to the absolute success of bourgeois revolutions that people literally can't imagine a way of life outside of the capitalist market economy. This is why they have to ask shit like "why would people ever work if there's no wages in a competitive labour market", because wage labour and private property are imagined to be purely national human relations without which a society cannot function.
As much as this domination is scary, it also provides us some hope because we can imagine a similar kind of attitude towards a socialist system, where people will look back on capitalist institutions as strange relics.

Ultimately if we want to educate people, we need to promote more history. Reading about the industrial revolution and establishment of capitalism, reading about the enclosure of the commons and how private property was instituted by force, about communal forms of production that predate modernity. People won't understand the claims of socialism if the only world they know is the one brought about by capitalism. The basic contradiction of bourgeois ideology is that it claims to have been instituted by a natural progression, and the violent overthrow bits are just a side curiosity. They are prepared to defend reactionary views and even monarchy if it promotes their goals, because the superstructures of feudalism no longer present a real threat.

Communism is at best a mixed blessing for social misfits. Unless the society is full post-scarcity, living in a remotely shared economy is fucking terrible if you don't have friends or social connections. Because everything you take is something somebody else is deprived of, if you aren't well liked you become pretty much hated. The left tends to valorize the gift giving economies which litter anthropology textbooks, but they tend to be pretty envious, resentful places which can be pretty shitty to live in (read Envy: a Theory of Social Behaviour for more on this).

Also, they'll likely get shafted when assigning jobs. When everything is decided at committee meetings, friends and connections are the basic equivalent of policy influence. The removal of economic differentiation leads to sole reliance on social differentiation. /r9k/ types will spend all of their time getting talked over by social butterflies in meetings full of student government weasels, and will likely be suicidally miserable. Because robots could be consistently made to do shit work, there's little incentive for integrating them, too (at least at a local level).

Even if economic conditions are post-scarcity, as long as communism maintains some commitment towards liberation losers and outcasts will be pretty fucked. People with mediocre social skills aren't very enjoyable to be around, so people avoid them. /r9k/ types most benefit from inflexible social constructionism and clearly defined social roles, because when people are free of everything they're free also of you. Guys on wizchan aren't miserable because of capitalism, they're miserable because of middle school.

Did he get Holla Forums mixed up with das capital?

I like the Frankfurt school bit too. If it wasn't for those pesky Jews the white man would never ever have complained about his exploitation under capitalism.

Where do they get this notion that "real socialism hasn't been tried"? No socialist ever says this.

They say it all the time.

What a blatant lie.

It seems like right wingers always strawman leftists as "NOT CARING ABOUT FACTS" in various ways. Like here, with the Hegelian thing. This person characterizes dialectics as "you give me your feelings, I give you my feelings, and then we just meet in the middle somewhere, WHICH IS NOT BASED ON FACTS!!!"

Besides that, I don't know exactly how Marxist dialectics differs from Hegelian because I'm only just studying Hegel, but from what I understand Hegel seemed more interested in coming to understand unities of opposites. Hegel wouldn't look at some category like "proletarian" and "bourgie" as a problem to be solved by "classless society". He'd just be exploring how they function as a unity. Proles need the bourgeoisie in order to give them content, and vice versa. Hegel's dialectics explore the movement of thought between these kinds of concepts, and tries to ultimately understand their totality as one thing from different perspectives. Hegelian dialectics explored concepts like "being-nothing", which obviously isn't something that is conceptually solved in the way that the class conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie might be.

What if I legitimately hate women? And, how does a monastic wizard commune of robots in the mountains sound to you folks?

Point out just a single one that said that.
I guarantee that you will never find any socialist who will say that "real socialism hasn't been tried", because that is a huge falsehood. You have multiple examples of socialism having been tried in history, and even one of socialism being tried right now (Rojava). Literally nobody says it.
You will see "communism has never been reached", but never that socialism has not been tried.

If you don't have friends or social connections in a communist society, then something has seriously gone wrong and the community has likely failed you.
How do you jump to this conclusion? You're also implying that scarcity is so bad that by taking food you're preventing someone else from eating, whereas now both food and housing are artificially scarce and could more then enough satisfy everyone.
This sounds like an inherently broken system you're proposing, and one that people could easily see leading to what you're describing. Jobs won't be decided by committee, that'd be incredibly unfair and just lead to politicking. Again, if the community is perfectly fine with a member being suicidal because everyone is using him to do bitch work with no concern for his wellbeing, then you have an inherently broken system that would eventually collapse in on itself.
Do you think the world is just high school? Forgetting the fact that poor social skills wouldn't be prevalent in an actual community, people tend to be decent and care about others even if they act like an autist, particularly family. If the society doesn't care about the wellbeing of all its members, then it can hardly be called Communist.

I think what they mean by "tried" is actually implemented, which was never the case with the cases people usually think of when they think of Socialism.

If you think socialism is something you 'try' then please read a basic intro to Marx.

But reading Reich is all about rationalizing the sexual overacting the body can't contain into ideology.

I'd could just as well become a trap.

It's a weird assumption among socialists, and particularly anarchists, that there will be sufficient logistics and global cooperation to distribute food to everybody (that a commune in Nebraska will have reason to ship its food surplus to Botswana or Jordan).

I'm not just talking about food though. By taking anything produced by the commune somebody else doesn't have it. You have to coordinate very carefully, and likely eliminate a lot of product variety, to give everybody access to goods in such a way that people don't get mad about it.

If you eat out at a restaurant and pass around dishes with friends instead of eating in portions, you will have far more leftovers. People will be afraid of taking too much and provoking ire, but eventually, with the experiment stretched out long enough, they will get hungry. When they do social relations will get far uglier (keep in mind this is an analogy, and applies not only to food).

Who decides who gets which jobs? Direct democracy and worker control are staples of communism. There are plenty of jobs nobody would do for fun, but they have to be given to somebody. Generally, people say these jobs will be rotated, but workers have control of this system and, as you say, it's conceivable they'll use their decision making power to form coalitions and shrug off shitty responsibilities to people they dislike.

You are flat out wrong if you think a system will collapse because it makes an unpopular minority of people miserable. A system will collapse, almost certainly, but likely for other reasons.

There will never be a communist state then. There are plenty of people you dislike and plenty of people you avoid talking to, and it generally has little to do with capitalism.

Dumbasses.

In what world does "tried" imply "succeeded"? It might be a propaganda device that our enemies use against us. Take our "communism has never been implemented", turn into "true communism has never been tried", and then "socialism has never been tried". It is a pretty huge strawman, but, since people don't really care about truth and logic unless it lines up with their feelings about the world, nobody bothers to correct this.

Nah, my dude, socialism is a transcendental thing that doesn't need to be attempted to put into practice. It just spontaneously starts existing already perfectly established without any attempts to put it in place