Questions For Collectivists

In your Ideal state, can a person sue the state?

Also why was my last post anchored?


Other urls found in this thread: how to sue the state

In my ideal state there's no state.

What he said. While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.

That said, the socialist State that is supposed to act as a transition can and should be extremely democratic, far more than this bourgeois farce we have now. The USSR was born in just about the worst conditions possible, and centralization and authoritarianism were necessary to not only protect socialism, but keep the country in one piece. But as these things usually go, these measures became solidified as a basic part of the new State. If Lenin had survived, maybe he would have rescinded these measures, maybe not. But we know what option Stalin picked.

Well I mean the state turns into an organ which properly represents the proletariat and it's interests… so maybe you could sue the representant I mean like change it for another one kinda like a Soviet style election

For what, money? Surgery?

Freedom ain't free kid.
So can I sue that transitional state?

Mate, even the soviets paid people in a currency.

collectivism is a senseless word that exist purely to imply the other side is for "individualism".

Read a fucking book.

Why do you say collectivism is meaningless?Aren't Nazis collectivists?
I do all the time.

Of course they were. Most capitalists are collectivists

I don't see how under any state you can sue the state. The state declares itself as having a monopoly on violence. Any serious action taken against it is simply going to be dismissed. I mean who is going to enforce it?

define them then in a way that is independent from communist or capitalist ideology.

So which is it, is it meaningless, or does it have meaning?
I really don't think I'm a collectivist.

Mate, even in the shit hole that is Romainia, you can sue the state and win. There are plenty of cases in the US as well, or do you not read enough books about laws?

See >>leftpol10386

Why would we erect a state and allow people to sue it? The purpose of a state is to suppress a class.

Read a book about the history of law.

Law, which is meant to suppress a class

Are you literally a retard or something? Laws are made to suppress criminals. While yes there are some dumb laws, but most are what makes the world funition. Read a fucking book mate. how to sue the state

So if I sue a state and win, who exactly enforces the state to pay up?

Even the communists of Russia had laws, but you couldn't sue those states.

Can't be a criminal if you're the state itself.

The courts.

Are they not part of the state? Can you sue the courts, whatever they are?

In the USSR, they were suppressing the capitalist class, in America, they suppress the workers, does this not make sense to you?


Yes, and yes.

So who enforces the payout if I win a case against the courts?

Have you ever heard of Workers Rights?

The courts. It has happened before mate, read a law book.


Which uphold the class relationship between workers and bosses, a relationship that is inherently antagonistic to the interests of workers.

At any point, they could just stop, what do you do then?

Wait, what happens if the courts don't comply to giving the payout?



You realize Destalinification further damned the USSR, right?

Revolt. They are breaking their own rules mate.


except when the capitalist class went back on their reforms to reassert their class power.

Here is a smart commie.

What it needed was Deleonification

All those anti-unionisation laws sure were suppressing the fuck out of criminals.
Are you literally a liberal?
Scratch that. Are you literally retarded?

But the state holds a monopoly on violence, how does one revolt of they must obey the state?

No, I've read Marx, but I disagree with him on many things, half of which is because we have worker's rights.

So you're aware that even Adam Smith was critical of the state as it existed under capitalism, correct?

What does that even mean?
Mate read a law book, if the courts ruled that they in fact made a mistake, there are 3 other groups in the government that will come down on them. Also we the US people have guns n'sheit.

Except we only have those laws because of workers fighting and dying for those. If those laws didn't exist the state would cease to exist as well. These laws don't exist for the good of the people they exist to ensure the state's continued survival.


Workers literally had shootouts with government troops in America before they got them. When it's a choice between concessions and potential revolution the state will go for concessions every time

So you're agreeing that we don't need to follow the rules of the state then. That we can overthrow the state as communists are want to do. Just because a law exists does not mean we need to follow it and if we don't like the laws we can in fact ignore and abolish them. I don't understand why you're making all these threads attacking communism when you yourself agree that it is a necessity when these laws don't align with the public's interests.

I don't know who that is.

Correct, that's why it works.
Correct again.
Half true, the role of a government is a social program put in place by the people, for the people, to serve the people. All the laws put in place to protect the government, are by extension put in place to protect the people. Read a fucking book mate.

Of course not.

Correct, but we got them. See for the Guns N' Sheit.

I'm not, how did you even come to that?
It's called voting moron.
You also CAN jump off a cliff.
It's because capitalist systems have show to be more in line with the public's interests then communist systems are, also I like talking to extremists.

Having more empty homes than there are homeless people is pretty based yeah. Endless exploitation of the third world is great, and don't even get me started on the potential ecological clusterfuck we're walking into - it's gonna be amazing. Did I mention the time and labour wasted on researching the same technology multiple times over in the name of competition? It's real good shit.

If your system is only capable of improving the lot of its lowest class when that class literally fights, dies, and threatens the power of the ruling class before concessions are granted as a pacifier - what good is it?

You mentioned guns and shit and having shootouts to get the laws we want. How do you not come to the same conclusion?
And when the potential candidates are all chosen for you before you even get a chance to vote for them? Is that really a democracy to you? When the president has an approval rating of around 30% and nothing is happening does that sound like a democracy to you?
Is that why so many Russians long for the USSR to come back? Is that why so many countries all around the world despise the US? If the US is dictating how the rest of the world works through imperialism doesn't that mean that the world is effectively under control of the US? Seems to me that the vast majority of the residents of the US actually despise it. This video is always fun.

Remember, in soviet Russia, if some people are homeless, everyone would have to be homeless.
You mean like Chernobyl?

It's the worst best system in the world mate.

That's now how the soviet system worked, everyone was guaranteed a home because being homeless sucks, even worse if you're homeless and have a job.

Chernobyl is flourishing with more life right now than most places in the US.

My apologies, I was talking about unjust laws.

Gee I wonder why in a country were half the people don't vote, and half the people who do, vote based on identify politics.
Yes, they choose it.
Sounds like that 50% should have voted.

Literally no such thing

Mate, have you ever had your power turned off because some people in your city didn't have power? They did function that way mate, there are people alive who had that happen to them.

Chernobyl is flourishing because it's been years since people have been there you moron. And no, a handful of old farmers don't count.

Sounds like we should be having a revolt right now, how many people wanted net neutrality repealed?
You don't seem to know how the money primary works. There wasn't a candidate in the entire election that I would have voted for. Don't blame non-voters when they refuse to vote for candidates placed there by the ruling class itself. Change it this point will only come from violent revolution, I'm sorry but the state just isn't accommodating to the interests of the public and it has to go. It's our choice after all to revolt isn't it?

Weak ass bait, my dude. If you're not even gonna bother hiding the fact that you're trolling I don't know why you expect people to engage with you. You also seem to be under the impression that all communists have unreserved unciritical support for the USSR; contrary to whatever Sargon or whichever """classical liberal""" e-celeb you doubtless subscribe to implies, there is no "Marxist hivemind". Communists tend to fucking hate each other my dude; we're only united by things like laughing at people like you.
I mean like swathes of the planet becoming unlivable, I mean like the ocean's ecosystem imploding, I mean like air in cities becoming unsafe to breathe.
Source this or get out.

Between "like you" and "I mean like":
This is what happens when you reformat your post and don't proof read.

A socialist state is created for the exclusive purpose of suppressing the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary elements. We are not liberals you nigger.

Yep, soon maybe.
Or people actually giving a damn about third parties.
It is, but that doesn't mean it's always the right choice.
Third parties are practically impossible in first-past-the-post elections. Can you explain how we remove this method of voting while voting under a first-past-the-post electoral system?

So you admit that class struggle exists?

I'm not.
Agreed, there are ☭TANKIE☭s, then there are midle group fags, then there are Pro-Communism SJWs(Anfem), then there is the ancom. ☭TANKIE☭s are the smartest out of the bunch.
I know, collectivists tend to make the ingroup become smaller.
No disagreement here.

That's the thing, I don't want to suppress the middle class, and the commies consider anybody advocating a different system of government to be counter-revolutionary. So no freedom of speech.
I know faggot.

Did nobody ever teach you how to source things? You're unironically using a vlog as a citation.

Look up Farmer-Labour Party you dumbass. I think we should have an opinion added the voting boulet, the opinion says "I would have voted for a candidate if there were any ones I like running."


Vee says that he lived through having no power, you unbelievable moron.

Read the link about why first-past-the-post voting doesn't work. Then tell me how we accomplish a different method of voting under the system we have now.

It's what we call, a lived experience, something he lived through.

Your claim was that they shut off everybody's power because one person didn't have power, how is that a citation?

But he still didn't give the citation that they cut off everybody's power because one person had no power. You can't just rely on anecdotal evidence like that people lie all the time.


It's were I got the news from, you can ask him yourself.

In fact, I bet he'd love to have a live stream talking to you.

Explain in detail if and how the middle class overlaps with the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

So why do you believe him? I can just as easily say that I lived through the USSR and they never shut off anybody's power. Why would you believe him over me?

So is the relationship between worker and capitalist antagonistic or mutualistic?

Because I know for a fact he lived through communism, I don't know who you even are.