Introducing Quadaffi Linux

Capitalism, as implemented in western world, actually starts with assumption that every human being is greedy and that humans will do anything to get more money. And it is very corruption resistant, because corrupt systems tend to be inefficient and capitalism is designed to punish inefficiency.

Monopoly problem is largely fixed by laws, but oligopoly is still unsolved problem.
For instance in tech we have Intel/AMD CPU duopoly, AMD/nVidia GPU duopoly, Android/iPhone duopoly, and so on, since keeping one competitor alive is more profitable than getting your company under harsh sanctions for being monopoly.

No, it's a theory based on human self-interest. Communism is inevitable specifically because it accounts for the rational "greed" of economic classes, IE class warfare.

Communism has never been implemented or tried. You're thinking of socialism, which has not failed every time, and which is also inevitable.

You are wrong, it was implemented in more than few countries and they all failed to prosper under communism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Oh boyoboy I can't wait to run this inside qemu on the bare metal OS I have that actually works

What is USSR for 500, Alex.

Laws that detract from the founding principles of capitalism (by monopoly, I also mean any group of entities that act to deter competition outside itself, because even though the law can be tricked into thinking they're not a single entity, for all intents and purposes, they are).

Back to Holla Forums, retard

OpenBSD does the same, and in practice it just means you have to use Vesa X server for Nvidia cards (or just buy better card). Also RPI probably won't work, get a beaglebone instead.

OpenBSD comes with proprietary blobs in-kernel and also downloads even more blobs during install without telling the user.
In order to pretend otherwise and not get slapped with more lawsuits, the OpenBSD people decided to overload the word blob to mean "non-opensource drivers" instead.

You're a fucking idiot m8. People aren't saying "communism hasn't been tried" to defend it, it's a literal fucking fact. You can think it's shitty and still recognize this. None of the dictators in that picture ever said they were doing communism. They all said it was socialism, which is completely different.

oh you enlighten one, care to elaborate what's a true communism is then?

The Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics. You can argue with leftards if it they were socialist or not, but it's true it was not communism since they had a government.

It's a classless, stateless society. Literally any society that has a state isn't communism.

You're confused because communist PARTIES take control of the state and implement state socialism. That's what happened in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. They're a communist party because communism is their stated end-goal, but they don't believe in implementing it immediately. They want socialism first.

...

was holodomor real in my mind

Go read it nigger. He's right, and it isn't a difficult concept. According to the book, you have capitalism (to industrialize the country), then socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) and only then communism. I think the socialism part requires changing society somehow before the next step, but I don't remember it. I'm not defending it, just telling you the fucking definition.

Uh, yes.
>The Communist Manifesto presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and then-present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.

This is a misunderstanding of amateur thinkers.
disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the
hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power
will lose its political character. Political power, properly so
called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing
another. If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to
organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it
makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force
the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these
conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of
class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have
abolished its own supremacy as a class.
Note that Marx does not say the state of the proletariat will disappear, only that it will become a state without class distinction. This will constitute marx's new nation, which does not exist on historical or ethnic lines. No where in the communist manifesto does marx advocate a stateless society! In fact, marx derided such communist thinkers before him that wanted such a thing!
proposed in them -- such as the abolition of the distinction
between town and country, of the family,... in these publications, are recognised in their earliest,
indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore,
are of a purely Utopian character.

Sage for off topic

Your formatting is shit, the passage is here:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
And it's not a passage describing communism! He's describing the TRANSITION to communism. The very early stages at that.

>Of course, in the beginning this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
>These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

I forgot to include at the end
However I challenge you to find a single paragraph from Marx that has defined the stateless society you believe communism entails, as he did eventually define other ideals such as the abolition of the family. I could not, though I admit I never finished all of Das Kapital. I eagerly await a quote from you to prove your claim!

That was another user. I want a single quotation which marx defines a stateless society. Please do, and remember that stateless means no government, not a government of the proletariat.

Marx wasn't writing a dictionary you fucking autist. There's no passage where he literally says "it's a classless, stateless society." It's just the correct interpretation of his theory, which is the widely-accepted political science definition. Even wikishitia gets it right:

The state is power exercised from the top-down. "Government" is a term that is deliberately abstracted by reactionaries who want to enhance the power of the capitalist state by eliminating social welfare. Communism is about free association, it's not about eliminating all forms of societal organization.

I don't give a fuck about communism. All I know is that Quadaffi did literally nothing wrong, and seemed like a populist that genuinely cared about his country in any case.

That's nice and all, but what is this thread actually about?

This is sort of debatable. According to Marx with the end of class distinction antagonisms between people would cease to exist, there would be no reason the would not work together. He never defines what would happen if someone refused to exist in this """"voluntary association of the nation of the proletariat""". Perhaps Marx's line about making no excuse for the terror would give insight. I don't know.

lmao @ ur life kiddo

Way to destroy any credibility you could've had.

aaaaandddd threads done.

ftfy

huh, whoda thunk??

...

Tune in next week to find out when the teenagers who derailed this thread will learn that discussing the meaningless renders the discussion meaningless.
Spoiler: They'll never, this stupid drama show is a cash cow for the studio.

You're right, communism in pure form has never been tried

However, the path to communism (via "the glorious" communist party getting into power, and then disarming the structures of law and the State) has been tried several times, with bloody results

Absolutely. Revolution is bloody. I'm sure there are some bloody revolutions in history that YOU support. Maybe even some that failed.

I can't say I agree that the big ones (such as USSR) disarmed the law and the state.

Stirner rolls in his grave

Time for a joke. What do you get when you cross communism and liberalism? liberalism!

communism/soft communism aka socialism doesn't work because it encourages laziness. Capitalism encourages hard work.

Your argument sounds solid reading it out loud but honestly, socialistic democracy has worked remarkably well in Finland/Sweden and would probably work well in Japan and Korea etc. I believe it comes down to the culture of the location. In Finland hard work and physical labour is still appreciated and thus, the wellfare system works despite its tendency to promote laziness/anti-ambitiousness.

OPEN THE BORDERS!!!

go away

it worked remarkably well until it didn't degenerate into a cult of progressivism that killed every ounce of respect for their own culture and an indiscriminate acceptance of uncivilized "cultures". A moderate left-wing nationalism is probably the best form of government.

no thanks, go away :)

actually i think OP is baiting
its a fucking Holla Forums raid, you idiots. either he gives us the download or he's a goon.

You are absolutely right. I should've mentioned this point in my original post, you worded it perfectly thanks user.
t. moderate nationalist right-wing fingol

Tell me; we're you born retarded, or did you get a TBI at a young age?