I might go full natsoc

Why be NeetSucc and cheapen your hatred of capitalism?

Just be NazBol instead.

...

Stopped reading there

You really can't tho.

hot new word filter btw

So you're a Mussolini tier civnat? Get ready to play second fiddle and get cucked by alpha ethnats just like your boy Benito

It seems that you know nothing about either

I'm asking if YOU know what that means. Because saying "the internal contradictions of communism" is a ridiculous thing when you consider that the dialectic version of communism is, effectively, human history.

OP is a lost cause but all the nazbols here make me horrified at what we've become.

We're doing what 4pol did years ago. Ironically espouse a meme ideology and retards are falling for it.

the future is horrifying

No.
I like aspects of Nationalism and Socialism, not necessarily any particular instance of Nat.Soc or historical leader. I mean the Nazis did some things right, take the good, throw away the bad stuff.

Of course I know what it means.

You must be totally haunted by ideology if you don't realize it's not just "human history" or "facts" but instead a way of analyzing and sorting human history and then making predictions about the future based on the filtering process. Yes the filtering process that looks at human history has contradictions, and so does the predictive process that extrapolates into the future.

I already gave you two examples in the OP. If you need to be spoonfed I will have to do it later, probably at a price, give me your skype and I will help you read some books.

you mean capitalism?

Read Zwundel and Veronica Clark.

Well enough then.

What, exactly, do you mean by
In that the concept of development has contradictions internally, or that the attempt to "guide" it is limited by the fact that we just flat out can not always see how things are going to end up?

Fuck off.

This girl wants black dick so bad

Individualist capitalism. Nothing wrong with co-ops.

Well that's your first problem

Nationalism serves the state, and the state serves the ruling class. Treating the majority of humanity as some "other" on the basis of some imaginary lines on the ground is just another way to manipulate people and create conflict, it gives the ruling class a potential scapegoat they can blame for people's problems.

Read Kropotkin, humanity existed like that for centuries and in some cases continues to exist as such in agrarian societies.
The real contradiction is that you think you can create a system where the ruling class gives a shit about the working class beyond how to keep them subjugated. There might be the occasional ruler who actually cares about the wellbeing of the working class to some extent, sure, but that is the exception rather than the rule and the people will continue to suffer, the only ones who can be trusted to address the needs of the people and not exploit or abuse them are the people themselves

All fashies are closet hypocrites, it's in their DNA.

Yes, that is the entire point of the dialectic you stupid nigger. The problems of communism will become apparent and will be sublated at a later time. This doesn't mean that we should regress back to capitalism. You know why? Because capitalism also has contradictions which destroy human life and nature, unless completely mediated by a world government.
I hope you don't do this.

There are no internal contradictions in communism.

You're not "going" full NutSac, you were one to begin with. Fuck off.

Hahaha, you are like little baby, here, wvatch this:

AYYOO IT'S REAL NAZBOL HOURS WHO TF UP

Read nigger read
None of this bullshit is socialist, you are a nationalist succdem (=fascist).

democracy was a mistake, so no.

nat.soc.monarchism is the only solution.

Heres a handy, dandy political test for you.

What percentage of your time and labour are you willing to donate to people that you don't like?

If < 100%, you might not be a communist.

Here's a handy political test for you, here's my cock start sucking

Well thought out argument, friendo.

No problem, you're not worth the energy and what I don't want to see when I visit this board.

Sounds like your political perspective is well thought out and reasonable.

It is. Sounds like you can't own up to yours.

I'm not ashamed in the least.Close enough to classical liberal. I don't believe in the "enlightenment", though. What about you?

...

Who can't own up now?

I didn't know you could type while blowing

My point still stands, clearly, and yours.

I didn't know you could type while blowing

So you believe in the LTV?

Ah, leftypol, never change.

You're sharing a broken version of that PDF bub.

Wait what the fuck.

It's better that way.

C Y B E R N E T I C P L A N N I N G

Just wait until everything has been automated and computers smart enough to resolve all our conflicts have been invented effectively removing the whole concept of work from human life. Once that happens our theories will finally be able to fix all the problems of worker exploitation!

I'm actually amazed by how easy communists can willingly delude themselves. Cockshot conflates his study of a totalitarian superstate with an anarchist system, while simultaneously giving no realistic explanation on what socialism should even be in the first place. In fact, he "solves" the economic calculation problem by assuming that socialism will magically solve the economic calculation problem, it's an akin of insanity.

Yeah, no shit. Let's not even forget those idiots actually want to give everyone a flat wage. When in reality, many intellectual productivity is defined by the perito distribution, with 1 person doing more work than 1000. They still think giving a flat wage to everyone would still make the smartest people go out of their way to work 10 hours a day like they do in the current society.

But I think the best obvious rebuttal to this nonsense, is that people will not utilize a program that is not in line with their market valuations. People will chose not to be part of a socialist computer program that misjudges how valuable their labor is and gives them a flat wage.

...

Not that, you can't, and the entire magical Cockshot system revolves around a magical socialist government decision which figures out everything that has to be produced, and then working out the value through obvious backwards analysis, after it has already been decided by the socialist arbitration.

As I stated, it's akin of insanity, you'll "solve" the economic calculation problem by waiting until its magically solved.

Turns out your theory of value was wrong big boy. There's no definition of value without unrestrained private exchange. A good example would be the auction of government assets to raise debt or something like that. Keep in mind, the government has zero reasons to use a market method to determine the value of its assets, and it just so happens that auctioning and utilizing supply and demand is the best way of doing it.

This is a classic example of a pick who pretends to debunk something by shoving laughing faces and memes, but actually doesn't do anything.

Can you tell me what's the scarcity of apples if I can work to make 10 apples per day? So, if I can make 10 apples a day, what should be the price of apples to the rest of society?

Oh wait, seems like you forgot the part where value is subjective and marginal to the consumer, the part economists figured out 100 years ago while Marx was still alive.

Well, what's the rate of consumption?

It doesn't matter you dunce. There's no moment in the process where apples are valued, there's no moment when my labor is valued. Then there's no costs and values, then we don't know whether I'm doing something productive or not.

Do you seriously think you can arbitrarily decide whether someone is being productive to society or not on the amount of apples, or more realistically yet, the amount of emails that person answers, or the amount of people that persons does therapy to?

You want to not-do an action, but at the same time, you want to know the result of the auction you didn't do. It's insanity. On top of that, you want a price fix on labor, which if not for black markets would starve everyone do death real quick.

What?

Let me give you an illustration, because I know you are a fucking idiot and won't even get the basics:

You could be producing the maximum amount o f apples you could in that system, and the population might be consuming all the apples you make, and its possible that YOU ARE STILL NOT WORK THE COSTS.

This is dumb

Uh, it does matter.

If you're only collecting 10 apples a day and you need 15 to get the minimal number of calories required to collect apples, then these apples' value is below the rate of replacement. Their value is insufficient to merit their collection, because you will die if you keep collecting them.

My dear user, literally everything that now exists was once both inexistant and unconceived. That's just a truism.

The method to calculate the economic would be via software simulations, not central planning. Seems pretty straightforward to me, if obviously difficult.

How primitive. Part of the goal is to move past that. And besides, it's not like individual people will use a program that "tells them what to do". The program would effectively be the economy, which isn't really different from how civilized life always was. You can't dettach a basic social relation from society.

Hold on comrade, I just thought of the perfect socialist computer system:

Tell all of our comrades to make accounts on ebay.com and only trade there. Also, tell them to try to make as much money as they can, always looking for the highest profit margins.
Voila! All the problems with the Cockshot model are solved. True socialism is now achieved!

...

Communism doesn't have contradictions, that's kind of the point.

You really blew your hand.

What the fuck are you trying to babble about?

The question was to assess the "scarcity" of apples if he "works to make" 10 apples per day. And then

Without knowing the rate of consumption relative to the rate of production, then there's no way of gauging the relative scarcity of the item. If the individual in question isn't collecting these apples to maintain himself, then why is he collecting them? If these apples aren't for himself, then they must be for someone else.

So, if the sum total of this individual's daily produce is 10 apples, that has to be enough to satisfy him personally, either as it sustains him physically or by economic equivalent (wages, sales, etc). Because, if it isn't enough, then whatever result either in calories or coins, these apples are either objectively insufficient in value to reproduce that individual's life on a daily basis, or they're otherwise subjectively valued by that society as below the daily cost to replace a person.

If the daily product is insufficient to provide chemically, it has to be enough to provide economically, or else there's no point in doing it (aside from fending off the inevitable). If the prices are so low that one can't sustain themselves, that would imply a lack of scarcity, or production exceeding demand. If prices are high enough that they can sustain a person, that would imply demand exceeding production.

Hmmm, so I guess you could say in this instance that value is derived from the average caloric requirement to replace a person physically, plus the required caloric expense to maintain all those things necessary to ensuring that (as in, not just the base caloric intake to sustain someone from one day to the other, but the activities like sewing fields and mending tools that enable it). So if ten apples are enough to support all of an individual's needs, that says a lot about the relative scarcity and price without even knowing the specifics.

Here's a straight forward reason why individual freedom(what you label capitalism, as a buzzword) is the end game of humanity:

If you have a greater picture to how things should be arranged, if you think there's more efficient methods of people doing something, or there's a better product to be made; if you have a better forecast, then you could be applying to the real world right now and making a bucket of cash. It's that straight forward.

Look at how :>>2043042 with his short sight fails to solve problems that were already solved by the free market centuries ago. He thinks one calorie of a fruit should be the same value as one calorie of other fruits. Of course, we have to adjust to the taste, the vitamins, how long that fruit lasts, how easy it is to transport, how much it costs to produce, and what the average housewife knows to make with that ingredient. All of those variables already solved by the free market. Do you think you have an improvement to the system? Do you think a certain fruit would be better raised elsewhere? Then do it. Do it and get a really rewarding living.

This is why there will never be a replacement to individual freedom. You can't even match what the market does with your silly arbitration, let alone replace it with more efficiency; if you could do that you would be already doing it.

I explained it why it doesn't matter to you, except you were to retarded to read it and understand it. So I'll just copy and paste.

How do I become NatGlob?

Yeah, and you're still wrong, you pitiful brainlet.

The free market has never existed you fucking idiot. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

wat

10 apples a day, suppose you work 8 hours a day
therefore one apple costs 48 minutes

Capitalism is the replacement to individual freedom. Socialism is the expression of it.

You were never kommunist.

But user, why would you think we don't want individual freedom? Sure, tankies talk about fucking over human rights in the name of socialism, but that's part of why they lost. The point all along, before it was lost in the chaos of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, is that the elites of mankind, including the bourgeoisie, limit the definition of freedom as much as possible. Sure, Porky will cry about freedom of the press or right of property or others which actually affect him. Very, very rarely have the ruling classes dared talk of freedom from hunger, or right to work, both because it's not a worry for them, and in fact it's detrimental, as it increases the cost of keeping their disposable slaves alive. To sum up, the very first freedom a human must have is freedom from biological necessity. As long as things like food and employment remain muh privileges instead of rights, any and all bragging about our current "freedoms" is self-backpatting from status quo apologists.

First, you're assuming that quality or merit imply both pre facto virtue and post facto reward. Let's not kid ourselves here: the free market does not operate on a humanist morality. There are people right now making obscene money by using totally-not-slaves the world over. Also the whole point of the cybernetic calculation is to replace the bourgeoisie. Resource allocation is their only actual social role, so removing it from them would make them obsolete. Altho Marx pointed out they have always been obsolete and we just didn't know it yet, but I digress.

We have been though this already…

In the past, tribes banded up to form nations in face of a greater threat to their existence. Soon if mankind itself face an alien threat, nations will unite under the one banner of humanity.