No religions (religion, sex, family, culture, personal identity)

Is communism an ideology promoting the establishment of a hivemind?


Implying this is bad

No, Capitalism is. As its advancement will inevitably lead to the establishment of the singularity

no, because people have differing abilities and needs

Singularities already here dude.

Do you even read your source materials?

I appreciate your deflection and projection but the subject of the question wasn't capitalism.
It's communism.
Please focus.

How does that negate the statement that communism is the promotion of hivemind?

Everyone in The Borg is an unwilling slave.

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

Do they even have the will if they're not under the influence of religions that would give them the idea of freedom and discontent?
No classes in the borg system of governance also meant that there was no need to rebel.

Please do a tl;dr the meaning of your argument. I'm not here to read your effortless copypastas.


Religions don't take away free will. In a theocracy, if you don't comply, they torture and kill you. But you can choose to fake it and not believe.

Again, copy pasting an answer without a clear reference to your argument is a sign of someone that has no intention to use it for anything else that spam and baiting.
If you're willing to participate in the argument, do a two to three sentence summation of your block of badly formatted text from plebbit and point out how it refers to your argument.
Else, fuck off.



Try not being 16

Try reading a book

Religion is more of a hivemind than Communism is.

Yeah sure, try being an enlightened atheist when 1. you are indoctrinated from birth into it and 2. all evidence, arguments and groups proclaiming the contrary are suppressed.

provide the source material which backs up your claims then you fucking mongoloid.


Fuck off, retard.