I've gotta an idea to end the Hitler was a socialist meme.
We go on pol make threads about the the real economic history of Germany (wealth inequality increased) , and say that its a Jewish meme cooked up by Sharpiro.
Pic is Leon Degrelle a former SS officer that praised Reagan for his similar economic policy.
There is some good videos on the topic by DemocraticSocialist01 if some one wants to link them.
We can't let them think we're doing it or they won't listen.
Why would Holla Forums disagree? One of the very, very few true things they believe is that the Nazis were not leftist.
So what?
Even if Hitler was not your guy, it still dosent change the fact that Stalin killed 65 million people. You are still the mass murderers of millions.
Excuse me, but it was a hundred million. We don't like people talking down Uncle Joe's achievements here.
Uh? Got any source to back that up?
fuck off newfag
NO IT WAS 110 GRILLION YOU GENOCIDE DENIER!!!!!
idk, I've been thinking about it, and there might be a hint of truth to it, but not in the usual sense
Recall the Utopian Socialists, some of them were rather spooked traditionalist nationalists, and even to a degree class collaborationists, who Karl Marx rightfully smacked down.I could see one making the argument that Fascists are the logical end result of such Utopian Socialism, in which case they would be Socialists under that umbrella.
wrong
wew user calm down there
If Stalin killed more than 1/3rd of the country then how did the population increase by 3%?
The well known leftist tactic of importing millions of brown people, obviously.
This is retarded, Holla Forums is capitalist and the meme is pushed by lolberts and conservatives who don't browse chans.
...
Eh no. Half off Holla Forums is full off retarded burger libertardians that believe socialism=government doing stuff
It wasn't overnight, and neither was the population increase.
The Soviet Union would have to have an impossible, superhuman growth rate, the largest in comparison to size, had he killed that many and you added on the deaths from Japanese and incursions from kraut and friends. There is a reason why no historian, even the ones without evidence have claimed 65 gorillions, and the ones who claimed a number close to it immediately revised their numbers when actual data came forward.
It would be a little under one million per year. Russia in 1960 to 1970 saw over ten million people added to their total population. 100 million is inflated for the USSR, obviously. But, again, this is over a period of many years, spanning from the Red Terror to collectivization. An accurate death toll would be over 10 million, but below 40 million for the decades in question. 65 million is too high. But assuming twenty million per 50 years (since 1910's to 1960's) means a few hundred thousand died per year, which is feasible.
The same goes with Mao. Just because China saw a population boom doesn't mean nobody was killed during, say, the Great Leap Forward. Using this logic, the dip due to natural deaths should have a great effect on nations, but it does not. The issue is, really, concerned with loss of life and birth rates. You can lose 500k people, but if you have a rural population with high birth rates, you can make up for it pretty fast. Of course, there is a distinction between collectivizing crops and shooting political partisans that are deemed enemies of the state.
Stalin killed 6 billion people get it right.
I thin this Finbol videos on the topic are quite good , responding to the meme, especially the second one.
1st Response.
youtube.com
2ndResponse.
youtube.com
Just mention Asser and you'll end their claim. Even if they tried to say Asser was for big government, they wouldn't it be right either.
Nope, a lot of them think the Nazis were literal socialists.
You can't really kill memes, user. You can mock, co-opt or redefine them. The closest you can get to killing one is creating a rival meme that grows to become bigger.
...
Except it wasn't 80 million, that's nearing the death toll for the entirety of Communism throughout the last century. This would be like saying "Spanish influenza didn't kill tens of millions throughout the years across various nations because populations rose after".
...
...
Scorched earth works both ways.
So you're admitting to the failures of collectivization, in that the people rejected it? Glad we agree.
What? Communism killed billions. 80 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount murdered by Carlos Marx and his frankfurt school during the 20th century.
I'm not even in favor of collectivization. Just pointing out how retarded you are. Your logic is on the level of "the front fell off."
No, throughout the twentieth century, it killed tens of millions through failures of its own policy and killing political dissenters/enemies of the state. Stalin's purges and whatnot, as well as the "Yezhovshchina".
Karl Marx didn't kill anybody, his failed political philosophy's implementation did. No successful attempts have been made. No evidence backing up its claims.
Frankfurt school didn't kill anybody. They defected from Germany to the US and pushed the same anti-traditionalist capitalist culture they wrote about in Germany, as they saw the same old "fascist anti-Semites" as existing in the US, to some varying degrees. Interestingly enough, they were majority Jewish. None were necessarily "working class poor", though. Kind of like Marx. Or Trotsky. Or Zinoviev. Lots of Old Bolsheviks were well-off ethnic Jews.
Try not taking their assets to begin with. The intention was being the state for trying to do that. The "capitalists" (read: small business owners who had two cows instead of one) would not have done what they did if the state did not threaten to seize their assets. Therefore, the state is to blame for starting the aggression. The result is the natural backlash, because the "capitalists" weren't just going to allow that to happen without any resistance.
Are the Indian people to blame for going on hunger strikes against the British government? Those damn Indians did it, they all died of starvation! It's their fault, not what they were protesting…
Nazism was Volkism ( en.wikipedia.org
I mean yeah I'm a Holla Forumsack and we all know Hitler betrayed socialist nature of the Nazi party. Few people disagree. Nazi Germany wasn't real Nazism.
that's bs. People still mass-dislike Evalion's videos for her Asserist views.
I'd like to think that's not representative. My interactions and experiences would say differently. I'm also not sure who Evanlion is.
for fuck's sake it doesn't work that way
But they were and there's nothing wrong with it. Stop trying to lie, user-kun.
...
How about just mentioning the fact that Hitler put Marxists, socialists and communists in concentration camps?
that's not a high standard, Stalin ice picked his communist opposition from the other side of the globe
Karl Marx relied on loans from Lion Philips during his exile in London. Dude was not "well-off". Also, the Frankfurt School was right about fascist anti-semites in America. All this talk of fascism in America seems to be focused on the government, and I don't know where you are looking, but do you know where I look to find the fascists? Upper management of major corporations that are known to oppose left wing movements through massive political contributions as well as working against workers who try to unionize. Look.
Sounds bourgeoise but okay
Oy vey.
Do you know what a fascist is? Anything anti-union or a state doing things is not "fascist". I'm Jewish so I would know.
...
DID YOU FUCKING READ.
Most idiots who think Nazism is socialism wouldn't know Trotsky anyways.
We can greentext all day. You just have to prove your ownership of others' assets and explain how you assume to survive without work, even in any system other than capitalism.
It's self-evident. The gun I'm pointing at your head says so.
Well yeah, but neither would they know about ancient reactionary Utopian Socialism that I mentioned earlier, but we shouldn't be deciding and ending arguments based on the most retarded elements of our society's knowledge. That would be like taking the Geocentrist position against Flat Earthers
It's not free shit, retard. It's recognizing that the purpose of work is to fulfill human need, not to make a few greedy pricks rich.
And as for your hunger strike strawman, hunger strikers starve THEMSELVES in protest. The Kulaks starved MILLIONS OF OTHERS in protest. Because of their fucking fee fees.
Capitalist seem to like to do that, don't they?
Point me to an example of the workers taking control of the MoP and not running it into the ground. Like, a nation-wide revolt. I'll wait… oh, lasting more than a few weeks, too? But keep LARPing against property rights while you make positive claims to others' assets, I'm sure you'll see the internal inconsistencies some day…
And as for your hunger strike strawman, hunger strikers starve THEMSELVES in protest. The Kulaks starved MILLIONS OF OTHERS in protest. Because of their fucking fee fees.
Work's purpose is what the employer makes of it and what you want to.
Try again, sweetie.
Well, looks like they'll be adding more lines to the "victims of communism" memorial soon. Fucking Kulaks.
You're assuming that private ownership is a right. It's predicated on depriving others, therefore it is revocable at any time. Eminent Domain is a motherfucker.
Nope, it's enforced through violence. My gun defending my land or the government defending it for me. My rebuttal is that the proles are inferior and don't have power to revolt, as there is negative evidence pointing to that conclusion.
Oh, and
Try again.
Your argument is just a typical fallacy, and I'm pretty sure you know that already.
Revolutionary Catalonia was a beautiful place and time to be, until capitalists murdered them for being different and not thinking the world is a place for a select few to rule.
I think you are actually just an actual pussy. Like, a walking vagina that talks. Because I've never seen someone who loves getting fucked so hard. It's like you're made for it.
You're basically saying your systems are so poor that they are defeated in a few weeks. Start arguing anytime.
Sounds pretty inferior to me. Fragmented society that can't even defend from superior systems.
Waiting on a successful example, still. A single nation. Can they even survive a single election cycle? Lol!
So when the government takes it for the collective good, don't fucking bitch about your property.
Honestly, I'm not part of your argument for or against communism or whatever. I'm actually more interested in what your beliefs are.
Improve your reading comprehension. The government isn't the only entity that can enforce their claims with violence. And it isn't mutually exclusive; to add onto that, they aren't always arbiters of such disputes, sometimes they are the guilty party.
The collective literally overthrew the previous government, and put in place a new one that substantiated the collective right to not be deprived of food.
So the Kulaks burned it and starved people to death because they didn't like it.
Oh, and
You mean… welfare?
Sounds fashy but okay
Doesn't sound very democratic to me. So, no election cycles?
The USSR wasn't Communist, btw. That wasn't true Communism, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.
okay bud
I get it, your ideology says that a person's fee fees are more important than someone else's right to life. There is no middle ground with this bullshit, only force.
Thank you for making me understand Stalin. I didn't really get it before.
Did you reply to the wrong person? How is asking you about your beliefs "idpol" or "fashy"?
Shouldn't the fact Hitler killed Asser for being a Socialist be enough?
If I come to your house and say that I need to borrow all of your sugar because "insert appeals to emotion muh starving people don't have any agency btw we just had 9 kids lmao", and you refuse, opting to throw the sugar away, the people who starve to death have nobody to blame but the people who took the sugar out of circulation by forcing aggression onto the property owners.
So you're saying Indians have themselves to blame for the hunger strikes they launched in the face of British aggression? Good to know, thanks for making me understand Gandhi.
What difference do my personal beliefs make? You're setting yourself up for a genetic fallacy (i.e. "look at this 'x', he is so 'y'!").
No, actually I am curious about your beliefs because you are so obsessed with denying others their own.
More like refuting the internal inconsistencies and asking for evidence for why you believe in 'x' when it has been proven to be an inferior system that is constantly destroyed. Such a superior and inevitable set of values ought to be a little bit more defensible, but nope! It's just that bad.
OK, I see we're gonna have to get down to real basic shit here.
Personal property is what you own and use. Your toothbrush, your residence, the food in your pantry that you intend to cook with.
Private property is shit you own but will not personally use. A ton of wheat, a second house, shares in a company where you don't work.
Coming into someone's home and taking food from the pantry is depriving them of personal property. Coming into someone's warehouse and demanding food there isn't.
So if the guy with the warehouse of food burns it rather than handing it over, he is killing people because seeing his warehouse of food that he was never going to eat is too offensive to his fucking fee fees.
You haven't refuted anything. You act like an entitled libertarian, which is why I am so interested in your beliefs. Libertarians fascinate me, because I used to be one.
"OK, I see we're gonna have to get down to real basic shit here.
Personal property is what you own and use. Your toothbrush, your residence, the food in your pantry that you intend to cook with.
Private property is shit you own but will not personally use. A ton of wheat, a second house, shares in a company where you don't work.
Coming into someone's home and taking food from the pantry is depriving them of personal property. Coming into someone's warehouse and demanding food there isn't.
So if the guy with the warehouse of food burns it rather than handing it over, he is killing people because seeing his warehouse of food that he was never going to eat is too offensive to his fucking fee fees."
Property does not have its claims to ownership diminished by your arbitrary interpretation of its use. I can purchase a toothbrush and not use it. I can purchase a car and drive it off a cliff. I can purchase a home and flip it to make a profit. What you perceive as my use of what I buy is irrelevant because you don't own it, and assuming that you do means that you can defend your ownership argument in a court, which you cannot, or that you can take it from me by force, which you cannot.
Kulaks didn't have 'warehouses full of food'. Their property is theirs, not yours, unless you can claim it. And when you attempted to take it by force, they did what they wanted to do with their own property, which, because you don't own, means nothing to you. So your aggression lead to the starvation as you prompted the scorched earth response.
I'm entitled? The guy above me is "stop doing things I dislike with your food/home, you have to use it or else I can take it!"
Very very few people, most of whom really fucking dumb, are going to claim stalin killed no one, but the 65 million is a clear attempt to make him History's Greatest Monster at which quibbling over numbers becomes somewhat important.
His regime, over a period of decades, and not just "him", but every facet of the government.
Don't project insecurities on me. I don't even know you, how could I like or dislike you? I mean, you haven't given me much to like, and my current assessment of your personality is not a positive one, but there's always a chance that I am wrong.
So as for that assessment,
Yes, you are acting entitled and indignant, like an average temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I work in customer service, I am completely familiar with people like yourself. It's not that you can be proven wrong, because you are never wrong. You're a know-it-all, and whenever someone makes a valid point, you try to tweak some part of your own point to make yourself right again. And you can make the argument that "nobody has made a valid point" because of that. Except neither have you made a valid point for your own views because you haven't even expressed them yet. You're just trying to poke holes in "the left" because you seem to hold your truth of capitalism as self-evident.
Your entire argument is based on "but I don't waaaaannnnnaaaaaaa"
The state exists to compel people to do things they don't want to do, because society as a whole would suffer if they were not so compelled.
You're literally reinforcing the argument for forced collectivization by insisting that you should be allowed to burn food knowing that other people will starve as a result, just because you wanna.
Either read a book or neck yourself.
And fuck all you denialist tankies replying to him.
You don't dislike me? So when you say I act like an entitled libertarian, that is a statement of endearment?
Isn't pointing to how none of your arguments have any evidence-based assertions to convince other people a point against your arguments instead of a point against every other person who has heard them?
"I have such valid points that are logical and consistent, but everybody else is so dumb that they don't understand them."
I've already refuted most of the points and all you can do is call me a libertarian. The simplest question has gone unanswered: point me to an example of a successful Communist system that occurred on a national scale and lasted for more than a few weeks (i.e. not crushed from the outside by superior systems).
I am not concerned with expressing my views, but with debunking yours. Your distaste at this does nothing to change the inaccuracy of your claims/provide examples of successful implementation of your systems.
It's actually: no.
Really, that simple. So when you show up at my door and make appeals to emotion like "look at muh starving people who have no agency, you need to give me your second house because homelessness exists", I say "no". And you can't do anything about it. You can't defend your argument for ownership in a court, and you can't take it from me by force. All you can do is LARP online. Which is kind of funny if you think about it. From Jewish champagne socialists to online keyboard warriors talking about a revolution that will never come.
Have you tried not taking things you don't own?
Except you don't know my views, so you have nothing of mine to debunk. I didn't come into this conversation to expound on the glory of communism, I came into it to examine you, because you are a fascinating specimen.
We're literally talking about an example of taking private property by force for the public good, and all you're doing is an internet tough guy routine of "But you can't personally take it from me."
Try reading.
Now I know for sure you don't dislike me: you like me!
By the way, the socialist flag tells me what your views are. Are you saying you're lying with that flag? It's more evidence that you have of me.
If you are so interested, I can tell you what my views are.
I am against taking things that you don't own. That is the most important point I can make regarding my viewpoints pertaining to this discussion.
Who is the tough guy, me for saying that the authorities can kill you if you try and steal things from me that you don't own, or you LARPing online talking about seizing crops from farmers who have been dead for nearly a century. Who talks about taking "second homes" from people and then calls others "tough guys". Do you even own a gun to point at somebody to take their "unused property"? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you even killed somebody before? You haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. My main point is that you cannot take it from me. That's it. You haven't been able to because the police exist and people own guns to protect themselves from thieves.
Okay, so define a "thing" that you "own", and how you might come to "owning" this "thing".
I'm literally a wartime veteran. Drop the tough guy act, it's completely unnecessary to a discussion about whether or not the Kulaks are responsible for the starvation deaths they caused.
Established hierarchies which are defended by force, either by the individual or by proxy. Currently, states are good at defending some property rights/acting as arbiters, but not always.
My land I live on, the farm I till, my backyard, etc. The deed to my house, my car, etc. is backed by authorities.
In nature, nobody "owns" anything. Any territorial animal doesn't "own" it just because they exist. They also don't have the rights to anything, because rights don't exist (only when we want to enforce some of them). They own what they defend, or what others defend for them.
Prove it. This is about as useful as "I'm a girl". No proofs, so your claim is dismissed.
Nah
So you admit you aren't a wartime veteran, Mr. Internet tough guy?
Nope. Just not gonna doxx myself.
How about you prove that you own two homes? Show me the deeds to both of them.
You don't have to doxx yourself to show that.
Difference is, I never said "I own two homes". Care to quote me on that? I can quote your exact claim to truth you can't prove here:
Exact words: "I'm literally a wartime veteran."
How can we trust you?
"Just trust me bro"
And this is where I stop trying to play chess with a pigeon.
Still not proof? Okay, then you affirm the LARPing archetype I pushed against you.
Truly, masterful debating rhetoric.
...
Okay, so you hold your truths as self-evident because of the gun you have pointed at MY head. So when me and my friends decide to defend ourselves from your imperialist/corporatist/economist aggression and have a revolution, and you claim our self-defense to be aggression on our part and use violence to try to quell us, that will once again prove the self-evidence of your truths? So why would we be wrong in our violent struggle against your aggression? Because we lose? So basically you have no values at all, you just go with what the majority of people think is right? So if you were born in a communist utopian society at some point in the future, you would probably not be an egotistical libertarian capitalist?
If you've run out of points and dismiss my inquiries for evidence by responding with "u dummy lmao", just let me know and I can dismiss you.
Only if you try and steal my resources/land.
If you lust over my land and territory, sure. Come and take it. But that isn't your argument, because then you'd be an imperialist, too. Your argument is "we deserve what you have". Even though you cannot rally your friends for a revolution (I've been asking for evidence of this occurring in the West, besides some looting that's shut down in a week) and you cannot defend your ownership arguments in a court. It's just pointless conjecture for the same of LARPing.
Yes. You are wrong because you are inferior. You lack power and cannot do what you wish to do, therefore your ideas are wrong because they fail every time.
That's a mighty leap of logic. The majority of people can think whatever they want to, it still doesn't give them power over me to take my resources/land.
That's a mighty big "if". Like I said, no real historical evidence to back up that claim. The utopian society you speak of is inferior, always gets destroyed by the superior system, and cannot sustain itself past one generation.
Stop going around in circles with him. He's just going to keep asserting that others have no right to live if it interferes with his hoarding.
So basically superiority, to you, is based on who has more firepower? I'm glad China will destroy America at some point in the future, then.
Excuse me but where is proofs?
Rights don't exist unless we want them to. Coincidentally, a right to life also limits thievery, or, as you put it, "we need what you have because others don't have as much and it's all your fault!".
Yes. That's the whole argument. It doesn't matter what I think about it, only who has more power.
For a lot who hate American imperialism, you really can't stop projecting your thoughts right back at them.
But remember, the Kulaks were superior to the Soviets because reasons. Even though the Soviets killed them.
Nope, Soviets were superior because they killed them. Therefore they are correct.
Then they realized they were wrong. So it's kind of like fucking somebody with HIV.
When China takes America, it will take the rest of the world, as well as the world currency system, with it. Then what?
Nah, they just didn't have the power of the internet and modern communications technology. If the internet existed in the 30s, communism would be thriving.
You sure do talk about raping people a lot.
I don't know, m8. It's your imaginary future, you call the shots.
And if I had wheels instead of legs, I'd be a bicycle.
It's about your argument that 'kulaks are to blame because we seized their assets'. I can see the example has been flying over your head.
Kulaks, rapists, lolbert… All go to flavortown
Still waiting on a successful example of Communism being implemented, lasting more than one generation…
...
Communism is the predicted future end result of these political policies. That it hasn't happened yet is the entire point; criticizing an instance of communist politics (i.e. the Soviet Union) is not the same as criticizing the fundamental concept of communism, because any conceited idiot can call his pet ideology communist if he thinks it'll end up there at some point, even if there is no logical reason to assume so.
Besides, the supposed ideal capitalist society has literally never existed, but capitalists get to handwave that with "crony capitalism" or "corporatism". Get your standards in order.
Yup. If your system is such shit that it can't withstand foreign elements, then it loses. And you have lost. Time and time again. You admit it, you can't even put out a single historical example of Communism standing on its own two feet: it is easy prey for superior systems to destroy it.
What arbitrary framework that I've set up? I am asking you a simple question: point me to a Communist nation that can last for more than one generation. It isn't some wordplay or a Catch 22 I'm trying to trap you in. You can give me an example, like "Yugoslavia" or literally any nation. Then elaborate and explain why it was Communist in origin.
Nothing about the inquiry is subjective, all you have to do is cite a single example. If you can't, then you… lack evidence to support your claims.
Communism is inevitable and it will happen because of capitalism and the technology produced by it. The revolution will be invisible. One day, people will simply never have to work again.
By your logic, there is no economic or political system in existence with any intrinsic worth and we may as well launch the nukes.
Predictions are just that: hearsay with no confirming sources of evidence. A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean all the other "predictions" are valid, unless you can provide evidence.
Soviet Union wasn't Communism, by the way.
Fundamental concept of Communism has yet to occur in the real world, so it's just predictions on paper. Not useful or substantiated in reality, not in the slightest.
Tu quoque is always a sure sign of "n-no you!". Who said I was capitalist or want capitalism? I'm asking for YOUR evidence, stop deflecting big boy.
...
Look into my shiny glass ball, I will tell you the future…. how do I know… I don't have to explain it, it's magic n sheit.
Appealing to nirvana doesn't answer the question. If Communism is so weak that it keeps on being defeated by superior systems, then postulating nonsense on paper, with no historical evidence, isn't a case in your favour.
Simple question, simple answer. Your refusal to answer means that you either have no response, or you just want to meme. I think it's a combination of both.
Not everything is literally science. Political and economic theory is meant to be rational, not empirical. We are not going to try to tout communism as something it is not, nor has to be.
In scientific terms, nothing is truly inevitable, but some predictions of the future are more logical and defensible than others.
What do you mean "weak"? Any system of human society can be destroyed if the notion of human society is rejected outright. It is meaningless.
If capitalism is so strong, why does it actively avoid fair competition?
It's not magic. Capitalism drives some technological innovation. Someone rises up in the capitalist system with the innovation of reducing peoples' workloads. Technology completely replaces human workers. Post scarcity is achieved and the capitalist who made it happen was actually a communist the whole time.
Nothing rational about presupposing a conclusion and working backwards from that. Citing historical examples isn't "scientific", there is no science behind it. A follow-up question would be what the result of Communist 'implementations' has been. Like, the standards of living in the nations that tried to be Communist.
I'll wait…
Certainly not Communism, because there is no reason to believe it is inevitable.
If automation is inevitable and the human populations will be unemployed, the path of least resistance is culling the masses, not guaranteeing them life. It costs less and is easier. It also assumes that you are entitled to life, which you are not.
By your own admission, it wasn't "rejected outright". Superior, as you say, capitalist systems destroyed the Communist ones. They were more powerful and attacked them, so they won. Therefore, they are better.
It doesn't, hence the poor population (read: inferiors) who fail because of their own faculties.
Subsidizing failing businesses is antithetical to laissez-faire economics. Or is "government doing anything" capitalist to you? Lol!
I agree. Automation will arrive, eventually. And when it does, the unemployed will starve to death because nobody owes them anything. And a war between the 1%/the state/business owners versus a bunch of starving people will always turn out in the favour of the people with nukes.
Nope, and if your little fascist world is what ends up happening, it will give people an even better reason to revolt and seize the means of production: they won't actually have to produce anything once it's all said and done, and they could kill off the bigshots with no consequence to the production cycle whatsoever. The automation will continue for the benefit of all mankind and nobody will ever have to work again, again.
You cannot "try" to be communist. Don't start an argument about something you don't even understand.
Besides, the material development of far left governments still vastly exceeded the feudal societies they were built on. Yugoslavia, for example, is widely considered to be an economic miracle.
Prove it with empirical evidence. :^)
A system is only worth its ability to serve human society. Capitalism "winning" in realpolitik only serves to doom humanity in the long term.
Plus, even by your own terms, only Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and other very specific ideologies actually failed, something most of us readily admit. Communism as a basic concept has not.
Any logistically feasible plan of mass genocide would inevitably render itself moot because the elite bourgs still need the material resources the untermensch are standing on. If capitalism becomes obsolete, the capitalists will simply not have any societal power, so no one will do what they say.
The capitalists will fight not because they have anything to gain from it, but because they want to be able to think of themselves as gods. That is a fight you will probably not win.
Define fascism.
The people can't though. They cannot do what you think they can do. They will starve off. There won't be a mankind, only the superior who have triumphed over the inferior.
You're right. There is no evidence to support Communist philosophy, so a rational agent shouldn't support the Communist movements.
What an improvement. Wow, at last I truly see. What was the standard of living like for the people? Where is Yugoslavia today?
This is all assuming your thought experiment is valid. That is, that IF automation occurs, as you purport is the case (notice how the burden of proof just…. vanishes), then the path of least resistance is to cull the masses. The reasoning is simple: how much of others' wealth do you believe you deserve? Why should others prop up the lives of the inferiors? It has yet to occur, like the robot fanfiction you support. So it's more a question directed to you. IF all these circumstances occur, explain how the workers can stage a revolution against people who have nuclear bombs?
That is because it has never been tried. There is not a single historical example of it being successful and lasting more than one generation. The best you can do is juxtapose one potential candidate to a feudal society, while dodging the question of standards of life. Pro-tip: first world nation and Communist societies are oxymorons.
The proles are dependent on the wealthy, and once labour becomes "robotic", as you claim, then workers become irrelevant.
Markets and businesses will still exist. Human workers working for capitalists will not.
Except there is not a single historical example of workers rallying under Communist philosophy, staging a revolution, and having a nation last more than a generation under their policies. Or have a first world nation. So you're right, it is "probably" the case that the inferiors will lose.
Naaaah, now you're just getting Nietzschian, and where Marx had complete control of his mental faculties, Nietzsche was a delusional madman with a delusional philosophy of delusional superiority. You're the kind of person who would smile as someone shoots you in the head because you think you will be vindicated somehow. No, that will not happen.
Acting smug is not an argument.
Thank you for proving my point: only you are allowed to have an opinion.
So your whole complaint is "the Cold War sucked"? Okay then.
This irrelevance is a two way street.
That doesn't make sense, markets and businesses require people to buy commodities.
Again: we know, Marxism-Leninism failed. I'm not sure what you are trying to convince us of.
Yet Marx's ramblings have failed time and time again. You can't even cite a successful example. I've asked at least five times now and you all keep deflecting.
The best you can do is try desperately to pin some belief onto me to attack my character, thinking that will provide evidence for your claims or explain away the inconsistencies.
We are not "deflecting", we are trying to explain how asking for evidence is a non sequitur because communism, as a stateless, moneyless, classless post-scarcity society, is a long ways away.
If you don't buy it, that's your problem, not ours.
Truth is smug now? Not an argument.
So your automation postulation is thrown out as you willingly refuse to explain other possibilities that will occur beyond the "I think this will happen because…"
Still no first-world Communist nations? Okay, I can keep waiting…
And when the people run out of money, they die. Glad we agree.
Nothing, we agree. As you say, Marxism-Leninism has been a failure.
How can you determine the inevitability of your assertion without a fragment of evidence pointing to the conclusion? I'm asking for a raincloud hovering above us before you can make a claim that it might rain.
Juche is superior to socialism
Marx's ramblings never failed. As a matter of fact, they are still happening. Again, your know-it-all personality makes us unable to actually pinpoint what you want. We've told you again and again that it is inevitable, and you've admitted that automation is inevitable, but you pollute and pervert it with your gay insane Nietzsche philosophy.
Hey, take it up with the other guy:
He said it failed.
"How can you determine the inevitability of your assertion without a fragment of evidence pointing to the conclusion? I'm asking for a raincloud hovering above us before you can make a claim that it might rain."
Saying 'x' is the case does not make it true. I allowed the thought experiment to be valid, but the burden of proof is on you to show how automation is inevitable on a global scale.
Your argument is intellectually dishonest because it is a projection of your apparent assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Communist theory has been expanded on massively since Marx's time.
See pic
I think you are just trying to rapid-fire stupid arguments at us until we get annoyed and leave and you can pretend to win.
It is not inevitable per se. Communism as a theory would not exist if capitalism did not exist, after all.
It is not that other theories do not exist as much we think the philosophical reasoning behind those theories are stupid and irrational.
M-Ls are about as Marxist as my dog's ass. Turns out the merit of your ideas doesn't matter if you're in charge.
I have never made that ad hominem attack. Quote me where I make that statement, otherwise you are just conflating implications to make a strawman.
If you have no evidence of a first-world Communist nation, just let me know. If it's "inevitable" as you claim (with no evidence), then explain why it is desirable or "to be expected". Surely, at least ONE example must exist.
It isn't a stupid argument. People who have no money, die. They are inferior.
How so?
Where, within the definition of Capitalism, is Communism warranted/justified? Very poor effort to necessitate your philosophies…
I never said they don't exist. I'm, still, asking for a raincloud above our heads, so to speak. On what grounds do you determine inevitability, "per se"?
Like I said, take it up with him.
Again, the evidence is present in every aspect of capitalism today, not least the way it's collapsing on a regular basis and the way we have to provide 800 billion dollars to bail it out.
Googling "logical fallacies" isn't an argument either. This isn't your high school debate club.
A society without conflict resulting from people's material needs has self-evident appeal.
If you want to go the Social Darwinism route, that's fine with me. We'll just kill you for disagreeing with us, because bullets don't really care how many Internet arguments you think you won. Feel free to pretend to be a victim when that happens.
We're not going to reinvent the wheel. Look it up yourself.
Historical materialism.
Sorry, 831 billion dollars.
Let's let the failures…fail. Again, I'm sure capitalism actually includes state intervention in some perverted definition, though. Which is ironic considering the "not actually 'x'" arguments utilized.
Is strawman really that difficult for you to understand. If I accuse you of saying 'x', I must provide a quotation. I'm asking for your proof, but this deflection leads me to believe that you have none. I can wait…
So give me an example. Surely, it must have manifested itself at least once.
LARPing isn't an argument if you cannot cite a single example. Then, it's literally just "we are stronk workers, watch me roar!"
You're the one saying one necessitates the other. Show it yourself. "Look it up" isn't an argument, that's your job.
How does historical materialism allow for this inevitability?
You're a faggot. Evidence: your posts. QED.
That's not part of our theory. You are asking us to substantiate claims we haven't made.
That's rich coming from an assburger making just world claims on a forum.
It'd be my job if you were arguing in good faith, but you're autistic so I don't care.
Look it up.
Insults aren't evidence. Still waiting… Try not to get too emotional.
Evidence of successful Communist nations aren't within your theory? At least you admit to the faith-before-facts nature of your ideas.
Of course, events unfold which are outside of my control. But to dismiss any say one might have in making an objectively good/bad financial decision is not valid/accurate. If you've been paying attention, I've not made a claim as to why something is "good" or "bad" morally, just that the superior will defeat the inferior, even if the inferior are saints.
So you admit to shifting the burden of proof? Glad we agree.
You also provide another example here: Look it up.
No wonder the ramblings of Marx have failed spectacularly, his twenty-first century fanboys can't construct a simple answer to show how his philosophy has been successful.
Lol, in a long-winded way, you are basically saying "real capitalism has never been tried". Typical libertarian argument, "it's crony capitalism". Libertarians are so retarded, they think the things that make capitalism break are the things that make it work. Deregulation caused the financial crises, idiot. Government intervention is the only thing that saved it. If "the failures" failed, your entire life would be uprooted. This is why Rhine capitalism is the only capitalistic system that actually works, and yet it advances socialism and eventually communism. It's almost like acknowledging the inevitable future rather than trying to delay it for as long as possible is healthier for an economy.
Pot calling the kettle black.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Then the rich would profit off the failures, as those who shorted the markets ought to know.
How can you determine the inevitability, the gradual descent into Communism? Can you give me an example of this occurring, through the progression you just claimed? I'll wait…
See above.
You don't even understand what we believe, so we don't really care how you criticize it.
To claim to be above dogma is dogma of the worst kind.
If everyone was as autistic as you, it would be a moot point because the human species would have already been killed off by natural selection.
What do you believe, exactly? Just curious
The EU, one of the biggest economic powerhouses on Earth, being a mostly social democratic union of nations where large socialist and communist parties hold a lot of popularity.
He believes you shouldn't take things that you don't own. He won't explain how this is not the same thing that libertarians say and why we should not call him a libertarian for that.
yeah let's end the Not Socialist = socialist meme!!!!!!!!!!!
That's what I was thinking, he does nothing but say "show me proof" but he doesn't even seem to understand how empiricism works.
Excellent way to dismiss the burden of proof. Still arguing in bad faith, though.
Just means you have no evidence for your claims.
I'd ask for a quotation where I'd made a moral judgement as to why "those poor proles don't deserve 'x' because it is mean", but you'd just say that you don't need to provide quotations because Communists don't need to fulfil the burden of proof.
Still no evidence? That's sad…
Not relevant. Right now, my main position is that Communism has no basis in reality seeing as how no historical examples of its success can be provided. Even though anons talk about the self-evident appeal, no Communist nation exists that has been successful by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm simply asking for evidence of the inevitability you lot allege, but it's falling on deaf ears.
The workers don't own the MoP, so it isn't socialism. Read the definition of socialism.
If you lack power. The workers are inferior and they cannot, so they fail every time. By all means, come and take my wealth. Violence is not moral, and property is enforced by violence. But you can't because you are weak, so you fail (save for one-off looting, authorities crack down on thieves).
Stop posting anytime.
I'm just going to keep posting this picture as a reply to your posts until you get the point.
Does the fact that you are easily analyzed and pigeonholed into a particular (factually wrong) ideology make you feel uncomfortable?
Asking for examples of your value system being implemented successfully isn't an abstract set of goalposts that are impossible to meet.
A better example would be if I asked: give me an example of a Communist nation that was run by a black woman, like myself. Oh, you can't? Then I win!
I am asking something very straightforward. If Communism is inevitable and self-evidently desirable, then give me an example of a Communist nation that has been successful. Obviously, giving me unsuccessful examples of Communism would defeat your argument.
Your reluctance to provide evidence for your claims means that you have no basis for reasoning when you state that Communism is "inevitable" if you can't even give me a single example.
What, should scientists not try to make predictions about things that haven't happened yet? How does this make sense on any level?
Any Marxist worth his salt can see how real world capitalist economies have turned out pretty much how Marx said they would.
It is not literally inevitable, it is the logical conclusion of how material history has played out henceforth.
...
How does my political belief fulfil the burden of proof? EU isn't socialist if the MoP isn't owned by the workers, sorry. Try again.
Keep bumping the thread, I'm sure somebody will come along with a super duper difficult example of Communism being attempted…
Oh, and you need to prove the subjectivity attributed to my inquiry first.
...
Care to explain how asking for examples of Communism is arbitrary to our discussion? I'll wait… we can see a prime example of rigorous Communist debating tactics ahead…
...
It's a process. The fact that Rhine capitalism is succeeding kinda proves me right though, so there's a nice example for you. Rhine capitalism has no intention of suspending a superior economy if it so happens that one is developed, and chances are, considering the nature of the Rhine capitalist system, it will be closer to socialism because it's nothing short of a fact that countries with happier people and more social mobility prosper.
How is "examples of Communism" unique to my criteria?
You're just stating this. This isn't evidence, you're just repeating yourself. What does "kinda" mean, anyways?
Do the workers control the MoP?
every time
...
You can`t "end" memes lol
But you can prove they changed
Remember "Night of the Long Knives"?
They got rid of Asser and Asserists in the end
The party had left wing until that day
...
wew
Post scarcity is already here, user. We make enough food for every human to be fat. Clean water technology is cheap enough that the rich nations can expand it globally on a whim if they decide to.
The US has 500,000 homeless people and 3,000,000 empty homes. The EU (including Britain) has 1,500,000 homeless people and 11,000,000 empty homes. India has 1,770,000 homeless and 11,000,000 empty homes. China has 2,579,000 homeless people and 40,000,000 empty homes.
Homelessness and hunger exist because capitalism creates scarcity to prop up prices. That's literally the only reason.
In general, they rose until the West embargoed them or instigated civil wars.
See Russia, Ukraine, China, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua,, El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Iran, etc etc etc. There is a LONG fucking list of countries where socialists took power, the standard of living rose, and then the capitalist powers did everything they could to destroy what was being built.
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DEAD KULAKS
They annexed eastern Poland, read some history boi. Also addition of the Baltic states to the soviet union helped with the population growth.
None of those nations were truly Communist.
And? Who cares if they are homeless, why is the solution taking things you don't own and giving it to people who didn't earn it?
Maybe they can sleep in the trash can.
You can't "end" it because they're not looking for a rebuttal or a discussion, it's a meme designed to "own" commies.
...
Greentext is not an argument, if you want to debate to defend your points, you're failing.