"communism has already been tried!!!111 XD"

>"communism has already been tried!!!111 XD"

>failing to understand the basic definition of communism as stateless, moneyless and classless

Kill yourselves borg scum

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XZxZC0lgOlc
popcenter.org/library/25 techniques grid.pdf
commonsense.edu
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ok genius

tell me how would a hydroelectric plant be built in a communist society.

who decides that? how does someone become an engineer? who works on it? why?

You forgot unachievable.

Well it has still been tried you moron.

Trying something doesn't mean that you get where you want, but you still tried.

And they failed, with horrible results.

Are you retarded?
Oh wait, you're a communist, of course you are.

>Capitalism will collapse in the next decade and we will live in a Socialist Utopia of the proletariat (even when """the proletariat""" work in the service industry)

If you are unironically a Marxist or Communist in the CURRENT YEAR you need to gas yourself.

Communism is simply the final phase of Marx's theory

And we're centuries away from that

>if I predict something happening long after I'm dead I can't be proven wrong when it doesn't happen

t. Marxist

...

friendly reminder its true that communism has been tried, and using the argument that it hasn't is kind of wrong

lenin and everyone else did say they were doing communism

obviously they didn't succeed at achieving it, so the question should really be 'how did these guys fail and what can we learn them if we want to enact communism'

>it'll happen
>just trust me ;)

You could not have produced a better example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy if you tried.

but his theory is wrong

the luddites who destroyed machines were more right than Marx, we are in the age in which robots will leave hundreds of millions unemployed, not in the age of proletarian exploitation.

youtube.com/watch?v=XZxZC0lgOlc

Capitalism will collapse any day now, comrades...

Marx predicted that capitalism would eventually turn the common people into wageslaves with diminished rights.

>when it doesn't happen
I have some bad news

would the bad news be that his dumb ideas are still being touted as a legitimate ideology

under communsim we know that the people control production- its operation, its planning, and its distribution.

a hydroelectric plant would start to be built if enough people expressed an interest in building one- maybe the community is lacking in power sources and is looking for a cleaner solution than usual to solve their power problem. a hydroelectric plant could then be chosen as the desirable means of production (of hydroelectric power) to produce. this would be decided by representative democracy imo, where individuals who represent certain localities of people will okay production ideas. socialized production means its planned socially after all.

someone can become an engineer by expressing a desire to work there and educating themselves on how to operate the machinery/gain the knowledge necessary for the position. who would teach them? well, education is going to be free in a communist society, so they can take courses at their leisure to become proficient in their desired field.

the people who work at the hydroelectric plant are the people who would like to work on it. in the case where its necessary to have some people work in the hydroelectric plant but nobody really feels like doing it, extra compensation would be awarded to those who do take the labor.

And capitalism is a legitimate ideology?

Not the debate at hand, porky.

[citation needed] for those hot opinions.

>implying there has been classless, moneyless and stateless societies
>believing this in the current year two thousand and sixteen anno domini

>sticks and stones may break my bones buddy

Maybe I'm being double ironic :^)

Agreed.

Well, yes.

There is a difference between attempting to create a communist society and actually 'trying it out' so to speak.

>muh inadequate counterargument relies on /pol/ buzzwords.

I'd love to debate with you but it's not currently the debate at hand. We shall agree to disagree for now.

What is the United States?

Aside from that, can one of you children give me an example of an actual communist society that has existed?

>lenin and everyone else did say they were doing communism
Lenin called his system "state capitalism".

and state capitalism was a transitional phase to communism. my point is to say the ussr never got to its goal.

>mercantilism will never collapse

>all 16 of our first tries ended in genocide, but I have a good feeling about 17!

>implying there has been classless, moneyless and stateless societies

>Reading comprehension

They tried to get there. And they failed to get there.

Deal with it commie fag.

What about the fact that you learn rather poorly as you age compared to your performance at younger ages? What motivates the engineer to not slack off between the ages of 0-25?

didnt Marx say the first step was the dictatorship of the proletarians?

that was what we got, and there was no next step, there will never be. The society with no state is almost a religious idea, the perfect world of at the end of time.

all communists have to offer to the world is a totalitarian dictatorship with no private property.

You know what else has "never been tried" by your logic? Capitalism. Name one country that never interfered with its trade or industry in any way.

> They tried to get there.
Maybe they should just waited until it comes, like Marx himself totally predicted? Not trying to force 1000 years of history in one single moment? Like, to get into communism today is like trying to just create postindustrial society in the ancient Rome. It would happen but only on its own pace. Not by whims of few people.

presumably the engineer is aware of the knowledge you just stated. they then have a greater incentive to learn sooner rather than later.

of course, the engineer might not know he wants to work as an engineer until his 40s or what have you. then he'd have to learn at that point in time, which while i agree is going to be more difficult than at a younger age where the brain is more neuroplastic (i assume this is what you're referring to), is not impossible. it's easily doable to become proficient in a discipline later in life, it just takes more time.

Then what happens when a non-Communist exploiting human neuroplasticity society decides to genocide the Communist society? The Commies can't compete.

The only solution is to genocide all non-Communists and genocide all elements of your Communist society that seek to establish non-Communist [experimental] enclaves.

The fact that you disagree with their methods, doesn't mean they didn't try.

Stop evading the issue sperg.

>it never happened
>therefore can never happen

Top wew

The Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, not a proletarian one like the Paris Commune (which was probably the closest we have ever come, however they made key strategic errors). It replaced the Romanov family with their Bolshevik cronies. All other attempts were Soviet 'socialism-in-one-country' imperialism and utopianism. Marx would have been spinning in his grave.

As previously mentioned, the only dictatorship of the proletariat which had any sizeable momentum was the Paris Commune. They were too small in number, too short lived, too reluctant to finish off the opposing French Army and too reluctant to spend all of the Banque de France's money. They were massacred for it.

Also,
>implying stateless societies can be totalitarian
>implying private ownership of the means of production is good for anyone

>the Spanish Revolution wasn't a proletarian revolution
kys revisionist scum

i don't disagree with most of what you said, actually. if it's true that there are some people who would seek to destroy the new communist society (which i assume is a popular society because i believe communism is only feasible at all in a popular, international revolution in all parts of the world) then it makes sense to eradicate people who would threaten you with violence. i don't see the issue. if that means genocide, that's fine with me. call me a sociopath if you'd like, i suppose.

>all elements of your Communist society that seek to establish non-Communist [experimental] enclaves.

what would these non-communist enclaves offer in terms of societal difference that other people who would be communist otherwise would be interested in?

Eh. I agree with you to an extent. It was a complicated and unique situation in Spain with the sheer number of factions alone. However the war was always going to be a lost; fascism was gaining too much popularity too fast. Doesn't mean to say it comes close to 1871 though.

>what would these non-communist enclaves offer
Any citizen should be free to experiment with politics. Experimentation can lead to non-canonical societies with non-zero probabilities of giving rise to an environment hostile to Communism. Another way to put this, maybe conversely I guess, is that the Communism regime must enforce homogeneity or a single canon, and that enforcement must be strict.

There is another way to deal with the problem of threats to Communism exploiting that individual humans can advance faster in a non-Communist society than in a Communist one. If the Communist society is big enough and space-faring, then the worst that can happen is a biological agent is released on a planet and kills everyone living there. You iteratively learn from these events and improve canon, or, rather than having canon, just have a good education system. A good education system would encourage people to push themselves anyway, so the threat of non-canonical societies being threatening would be minimal.

Also, violence should be permissible, as should war, otherwise human life is boring. Furthermore, something could seem innocuous on the surface (Reagan's election via exploitation of religious fundamentalism, btw that also pushed out good competitors to Reagan and other Republicans) but lead to disaster (the same fundamentalism leading to the Tea Party, Bush, and Trump). Of course here the Bush family was at fault in the first place and orchestrated everything probably, but the point is the only one who could detect possible planetary extinction events needs to have all the information at all times, which is in violation of our society's principle of never having a single point of failure.

I guess Communism would be just fine so long as it was religious and had a good and wide-open/wide-ranging educational system and a low population density. The only fault I can now see is that it still needs a steering committee or an overlord to manage creativity.

There is pic-related. The Californios basically had Communism as their ultimate goal and did well, but they kept on plotting against each other too much. Just like Stalin. Ugh. They also got economically outmoded by the technologically-superior Americans.

Jesus, stop replying to this copy pasta.

From another thread on Veeky Forums:

popcenter.org/library/25 techniques grid.pdf

Talks about how to reduce crime in a city by passive measures. How can a Communist society justify not implementing these panopticon-like measures? Here's one point:

>Disperse troublemakers at school.

In my city, the council closed the Mexican swapmeet but kept the White one open. (Everyone participates in a special Summer swapmeet that is hella expensive.) This eliminates a meeting space for Mexicans. In other words, it pre-emptively disperses Mexican groupings. The Mexican government suppresses dissidents by killing their villages (suppression of Chiapas). Etc. etc. These are easy and passive ways to suppress a population. How does a Communist society permit heterogeneity and discourse if the mode/standing authority of the society, by default, holds the power to squelch this discourse and debate?

I'm just throwing out questions, everyone feel free to answer.

i should clarify that i didn't intend to seem hostile to experimentation in the previous post if i did. i'm of course fine with experimentation in communist society so long as it doesn't try to revert to previous economic ideologies, eg feudalism or capitalism. communism has its own set of rules that must be followed just like capitalism does, and one of those rules is that all means of production are publicly owned by all individuals. so long as that rule isn't violated, i don't see much issue.

>exploiting that individual humans can advance faster in a non-Communist society

supposing this non-communist society is genuinely better at advancing humanity and providing a better standard of living/general prosperity while at the same time not imposing limits on freedom given by communism, i would say that communists become the new reactionaries, the new bourgeoisie to be overcame in this case. i would ally myself with these non-communists rather than the communists if push came to shove, because their non-communist society seems to be objectively more beneficial to humans than communism is.

of course, the non-communist society could be more efficient or advance faster, but impose restrictions on liberty that communism doesn't have. that's the line for me. if the proposed non-communist society limits freedom in ways communism doesn't, i don't think i could support it reasonably.

>Also, violence should be permissible, as should war, otherwise human life is boring.

is this really true? is life only enjoyable to you because people get hurt? seems a little absurd to me. i'm not for outlawing violence. use it when it's necessary, like if there's a regressive capitalist sect somewhere in the world that seeks to reinstate private property rights.

>The only fault I can now see is that it still needs a steering committee or an overlord to manage creativity.

you're going to have to expand on how you derived this.

I think I understand your question. If not, let me know.

>by the way, other faggots who read this post, this isn't a permit to derail muh thread

To us, crime can be reduced to having been caused by the economic problems in their environment, or from mental illness. In either case, one could suggest that the perpetrator isn't fully "responsible" for their actions. However, that is a debate for another time.

If we treat attempted prevention of homogeneity as a crime (which imho it is) then we would see the 'crime rate' plummet with an anarchocommumist, mutual-aid and gift-economy based society. The remainder is not a moral issue, it is a mental health issue.

We also believe that socialism and communism is formally (not experimentally) scientific. Therefore discourse is not harmful but rather furthers our cause. We see it as: if an opinion is bad/good it doesn't need to be censored/enforced respectfully.

>2016
>retards still exist

Socialism does not work. Communism does not work.

Sigh tay shone knee did

>commie
>calling anyone else borg
lol

You suggest Communism is liberalizing (I think I am using that word incorrectly :S modernizing progressivizing?). However, you also suggest retrograde social constructs, like feudalism and capitalism, cannot be permitted unless they satisfy a requirement that they be just as free as the Communist world. However, that in itself is a Communist restriction of freedom because any experimental situation progresses by bits and pieces with many mistakes along the way.

Someone needs to say "This is good experimentation" and "This is not". Because both you and I stipulate there not be a homogeneous air of science in this society, there will be conflict between the good and bad views of some political experiment. Furthermore, an experiment needn't be a complete social splinter. Individual elements in capitalist society are feudal and strictly hierarchical, like most corporations (and other corporations are communually owned). Someone would need to say "This is acceptable retrograde behavior" and "This is not", again, with conflict in interpretation. The only solution I see to this is to have a collection of many societies practicing many different behaviors, and when the Communist cannon gets in the way of progress, a new splinter forms with amicable separation. The maintainer for this separation process is the overlord/steering committee. He, among other things, ensures the transition is not violent and that resources are allocated correctly.

(continued)

A practical example. I'm making curry right now. I am using bell peppers, red onions, mushrooms, garlics, herbs, peppers, salt, oil, a cast iron pan, a gas stove top, and so on. Pick one of these things and say, "I want to improve on it." I need resources. A good finite resource is soil to grow my bell peppers. From where do I get it? Donation from the commune; I need more than my personal requirement dictates. Who regulate this? I deem the commune incompetent, hence, overlord.

Better: direct democracy. Except, each person belongs to various "facets" that dictate the policies they can vote on (anyone can propose anything) and everyone also belongs to a common policy that votes on permission for other facets to vote on some proposed bill.

An aside. War is needed because war is fun. It also challenges people to resolve their problems with violence without killing each other or the environment -> experts in engineering are needed -> yay the community is stronger as a result, with minimal resource loss due to the conflit.

>any experimental situation progresses by bits and pieces with many mistakes along the way.

yes, i'm certainly privy to that fact as a communist. i want to mention that when i made the claim i couldn't support a non-communist society that didn't contain a similar or greater level of liberty as communism purports to have, i don't mean to say that i should have the final say on whether to permit that experimental society or not. as you said, there does need to be someone to say 'this is or is not okay' on a case by case basis, and i think that 'someone' you mention should be society at large- the workers of the world who make up all of the human population on earth. it's the zeitgeist that these people carry that determines whether something is acceptable or not.

for example, anyone who would try to create a slave society today would be immediately shouted down or persecuted by the majority of people. this is because the modern mind has been completely turned away from slavery as a viable economy strategy because it constricts liberty to too great a height for the slaves.

communism is meant to represent the people's interests in every manner it can. if it's the case that a majority of people think something about a hypothetical economic experiment within communist society is undesirable, it seems reasonable to expect that the people's demands should be met- either that experimental group changes their program or steps down if they refuse to do so. my point is to say that i would rather not have the "this is acceptable behavior" judgement be left up to a small amount of people- i'd rather get the consensus of 'the many' first and then decide where to go from there. you may think this unreasonable. i'm not so sure. our representatives today respond fairly well to the changing minds of the many- when a certain percentage of people started believing gay marriage is okay, it was ruled by the supreme court into existence to fit the zeitgeist of the times.

By Marx's own admission, there have been societies like that. Hunter gathering tribes. They moved on to more advanced economic systems, because it fucking sucks

of course, the experimental economic group might oppose accepting 'the many's' proposed limits to their experiment and still continue on with their experiment. at that point, you might want to execute them since they're apparently doing something so bad or heinous that a majority of people disagree with it and would like to see the heinous thing changed. this is where the war you like so much might come in, i believe.

>
A practical example. I'm making curry right now. I am using bell peppers, red onions, mushrooms, garlics, herbs, peppers, salt, oil, a cast iron pan, a gas stove top, and so on. Pick one of these things and say, "I want to improve on it." I need resources. A good finite resource is soil to grow my bell peppers. From where do I get it? Donation from the commune; I need more than my personal requirement dictates. Who regulate this? I deem the commune incompetent, hence, overlord.

in communism, you're going to get as much in goods as you provided in labor power to any given public means of production. this means if you want more soil, you're going to have to work a little longer to get it. not too different from how capitalist society requires you to have a certain amount of money to receive a certain amount of a good, and you're going to have to labor to get the money to pay for the good.

The action being taken is attempted prevention of heterogeneity, or suppression of dissidents (suppression of Mexicans). To criminalize this is good, but too much leads to Positivism, a destructive thing that kills debate.

If the action being taken is attempted prevention of homogeneity, then to decriminalize this is good. A freedom in suppressing orthodoxy-imposing organizations is good, as those organizations themselves not only suppress but inhibit debate. This is like breaking-up large trusts. However, overzealous breaking-up of these groups is bad, as is gets rid of any large group that is successful.

Hence war. I like war. It makes this all nice and easy. If someone is inferior to you, then conquer them! And if you were wrong, then you'll be conquered. Since the war is fought over technological superiority and the supremacy of the individual anyway, and numbers don't matter at all.

I don't know how you see the gift-economy arising. The mutual-aid occurs because obviously everyone who didn't want to join the homogeneous group died. The anarchocommunist result also obviously occurs because you've created a hive mind where creative thought is opposed. Because it is not in the orthodoxy.

I think perpetual space war is the best solution. An overlord would need to be present to regulate the warfare. Alternatively, instill a common ethics into everyone and kill everyone else. Then I'm on board with your idea so long as anyone that comes up with a better ethics can kill everyone who came before him.

I'd argue the incentive to advance was tribal warfare and increase in human population resulting in decreased travel and agriculture maymay, not that the lifestyle was necessarily awful. Archeological evidence shows that early agrarian societies had shorter lifespans than huntergatherers.

Sure there's no medicine n shiet but ignorance and freedom of hunter gatherer lifestyle had to be awesome to an extent.

off the top of my head:
the soviet union
hungary
all of the eastern bloc for that matter
china
vietnam
cuba
vemezuela
yemen
whatever african nations went socialist during the cold war

if you try and tell me none of these were "actually socialist/communist" youre just "no true scotsman"-ing

fuck
this was for

Primitive communism is not exactly the same as post capitalist communism. It's what naturally arose from the primitive neolithic human mind. It's what naturally arises. When a 'bourgeois position' is introduced, such as that of owning slaves in antiquity, islamism in the modern day, mexican cartel membership or being a member of a royal family, the people involved introduce a class system which benefits the borgs at the expense of the proles, whoever they might be in any time and place.

The point is that when humans understood that they could benefit as part of the bourgeoisie, they shifted the structure of society to that of class struggle. This is fundamentally unsustainable (to marxists) and we believe that society will eventually reach the tipping point and that private ownership of means of production will collapse as society reaches its final stage of evolution, reminiscent of the natural unselfinterested primitive communism of the first humans.

>Not the debate at hand, goy

if you can prove that in any of those countries the workers owned the means of production completely and that the nation's governments were ideal representations of the working person's desires in politics i'll agree with you.

Gift economy arises with collective consensus applied to a societal "blank slate", and where people at least mostly agree with ancomism. This is merely the initial condition, and transition to the society is a vastly different debate than if the society as a singular concept is valid.

Perhaps opposition suppression is needed for ancom creation, i don't know, i hope not... but it certainly is not needed while the society already exists. Debate is good for ancom society. Publicly debate less valid politics and you reach consensus. Perhaps this is what is necessary for creation also.

Why the need for perpetual warfare? Who would anyone need to fight if there is global ancomism? Society should be decided by the people at the time they exist, so if anyone tried to leave "lasting laws" they would be laughed right the fuck out of the room.

Nice meme. Are they moneyless, stateless and classless? Exactly.

>I, OP, try to stay on topic
>gets assmad at this for zero reason in current year

New to Veeky Forums, tovarisch?

We can discuss every detail of communist society another time. For now, the thread is about if it has existed already.

>my idea for what defines communism is absolutely impossible to achieve
>therefore communism works!!

You want the society to be at a blank state, but this really needs to happen, or the other:

Option 1:
>Start with overlord (Stalin)
>Progress toward blank slate
>Tada

Option 2:
>Start with communal consensus (Black Ukraine)
>Progress toward blank slate
>Tada

Everyone who does Option 2 gets killed by the 80% of the society who goes along with Option 1 because they are stupid. Education, by the way, led to Option 1 in every situation, so they, the drivers of the revolution, are not only the uneducated masses. Educated or not, everyone is retarded and lets dictators get into power. Look at Trump. Retards!

So when you respond to
and suggest
>the Soviet Union and other countries are not what /real/ Communism would look like
I am confused. That is /exactly/ what a real Communist revolution would look like because a dictator inevitably obtains power by terrorism and kills everyone who couldn't be terrorized by him.

Hence, warfare. Not just in the pre-stable state, but it is very useful in that state. A dictator arises? Kill him! Kill them until they really are "laughed out of the room" because that has never happened in human history in a society that didn't get conquered by its neighbors.

They only way you can get a Communist state running is to have Americans who develop military hardware to go and conquer a piece of territory while simultaneously not falling victim to the stupidity of the people around them. In other words, Option 2, but with heavy weaponry. And they all need to be Catholic, otherwise they'll be at each others throats, as happened with the anarchists and such in other parts of the world at other times in history.

This is literally the only definition that matters to Communists. Ask them to define anything else and they'll accuse you of being a positivist or an idealist or something.
>inb4 butthurt teenagers, miseducated idiots, and Jews with agendas

But what if I really am a Jew with an agenda....

>impossible to achieve
[citation needed] for that particular claim.

Also, it doesn't directly imply that communism works, although i do also believe that it does.

Dictatorship of a small number of people is contradictory to the idea of democracy: dictatorship of the people (proles).

Trump supporters are convinced that they are poor because of illegals, muslims and hillary. Completely duping the masses into forgetting that he should be their worst enemy! This kind of scam is unnecessary with socialist and communist politics because there is no constant "gotta put a good spin on it" in the minds of the people who advocate it. They don't have to be dishonest.

The Russian Revolution was not not not a communist revolution. It was closer to the French Revolution than anything if you look at societal outcome.

There is also no "neighbour" meme either. Communism is global, because otherwise it gets swallowed up by the false hope being entertained across the border of being able to rise to the top. It needs to be worldwide. In a sense, even if there was a moneyless, stateless and classless society, if it wasn't global, it still would not have been communism.

I personally believe a second American civil war, along with global federalism is the way to go.

>Communism is inherently nihilist.

Yup.

>the basic definition of communism as stateless, moneyless and classless
The only thing this tells me is that there will never be a communist society.

Once again, [citation needed].

commonsense.edu

This is madness. Then I will try a different approach.

In a single century, we've turned functional dog breeds into retards barely capable of breathing without being in constant pain. Other dogs can be bred without too much difficulty to be whatever you'd like, within reasonable bounds. Similarly, a human can be bred.

What is the likelihood a worldwide communist revolution wouldn't wind up merely humoring someone's desire to breed humans as they wish? You don't need to kill-off undesirables. You only need to make it so that they are discouraged from reproduction. This is easy to rationalize! If you suddenly consolidate a bunch of different branches of a single industry, well, you don't need so much redundant labor anymore. Then, pick the tamest and most easily corruptable/terrorizable and disband all other groups as "redundancies".

There is absolutely no way to suddenly lunge into a Communist revolution without using Americans to literally kill everyone who isn't an American and thereby force the transition to real Communism. Similarly, you can't force global federalism without killing the dissidents and using the Americans to do it.

Trump supporters are not convinced as you say. They are bred that way. You literally cannot get rid of them without euthanizing them, otherwise you'll merely be harvesting the tiny 1 or 2% of them who do have brains, who will then reproduce with 3 kids each, versus the 99 or 98 percent who will outreproduce the rest.

I personally believe in a Mexican-dominated world, where we out-reproduce everyone else and then, when our population is 1 trillion, slowly reintegrate the rest of the world, while euthanizing 99% of the population along the way.

Wonderful.

Where have you gotten your ideas about eugenics? What gives you the idea that cultural behaviour is genetic? (Obviously gender differences are largely biological, so I'm talking about the others).

Also, you don't get a state to force communism. That just makes soviet style regimes. Global federalism starts with organisations like the EU (which should be more democratic) and ideally they will democratise and grow and eventually the world will be one federal nation. Without external war, the world will turn to self improvement; similar to isolationism except without anyone else. This is where things can change imho.

Trump supporters are working class people who have very little class consciousness. They are easy to convince that it's the "illegals" etc. that cause the problems. This is certainly not a genetic result. It's an economic result.

>Trump supporters are working class.

Remember waaaay back when I said the Mexican gathering place was shut down? Those were rich Trump supporters.

You can culturally indoctrinate someone, but it is not this. The records are mostly destroyed, but the place to begin is inflicting brain damage upon your populace. Such as by radiation, or malnutrition, or other means, then sorting them out from the survivors still capable of independent thought.

You will not understand until you attend a Trump rally. Under even the barest of stimuli, the people turn into monsters, and, like animals, they will cower given the right stimuli until they are again activated.

You could try it yourself with mice, though you won't get the same effects since the human brain has additional components. It is hard for me to point out specific differences. You should ask why, of course I won't have a satisfactory response.

Without war, the world does not turn toward improvement. It turns itself over to the literal retards.

Anyway I'm being half-silly, this is all just food for thought. Also the E.U is madness, it is hell for small businesses and cross-border business.

(more)

Nevermind, I came up with a simple thought experiment. Steal 100 Mongols and 100 Chinese whom you are certain descend from north China/heartland China (very difficult!). These babies you will give to Americans, randomly. At age 30, task both groups with managing their own group's space ship. Begin damaging it. The Chinese will die-off first, we would say, because they are physically less robust, but play the game and pretend - if you truly cannot fathom it - that the Chinese are someone intellectually, or individualistically, impaired.

Now take the results of you silly mind game and look around the world for examples. Uzbekistan has one program going on with its academies for orphans. Now how am I going to explain it to you, sneak in, learn whatever Uzbeks speak, and stick tracking devices on all the students and assign several handlers per student for the next fifty years? But! Imagine if you had computerized robot handlers.

Pretend you are trying to track me. I have a unique way of cutting-off sentence clauses in this thread. Can you track me across the internet? Can you analyze me? Can you identify a commonly-educated group of common ethnic and social background and study the differences across their spectrum of responses to real-life issues, then correlate your findings to... what, exactly?

Those were members of the bourgeoisie who want Trump elected because it's in their own interest.

People become violent and so on because of the scapegoats I talked about before. Look at how willing the French were to conquer Europe under napoleon, or the Germans under hitler.

Food for thought, but interesting nonetheless

Haha, the EU is terrible but Britain leaving would be slightly worse. I hate having to vote to stay in the EU because there are so many things wrong with it. The vote is today so hopefully I'm making the right choice.

British are known to assassinate their own and pin it on the opposition. You'd be voting for them. At the very least not admitting past violations is enough to distrust.

>this kills the communist ideology

Dictatorship by the proletariat has been tried and has failed utterly. If you can't usher in Marx's theories into reality isn't it appropriate to toss them out?

I TOLD YOU ABOUT STATES BRAH

My reasons for voting remain are hugely to do with workers rights, caps on bank bonuses, etc. There is a legitimate left wing set of reasons to remain. Yanis Varoufakis is closest to my current opinions on the subject.

I like Bakunin, user. Almost all of those late 19th century anarchist and communist theorists had good ideas. My favourite will always be Kropotkin.

Doesn't mean they can't try and succeed in the future. Also, no, because it's the most ethical society to aspire to.

>Also, no, because it's the most ethical society to aspire to.

expand on this. why is commie society the most ethical? why should i even care about what is or is not ethical? provide reasoning for why individuals should care about communism.

i am a commie for the record, i just like playing devil's advocate sometimes.

Ethical in that resources are directed where they are needed, nobody goes without. This is surely 'correct conduct', yes? To minimise economic exploitation? This is ethical.

If you are not self interested then communism is natural. If you are, it benefits you also and so should draw you in too. What's not to like about "you get what you decide you need"?

People try not to be wrong or support 'wrong conduct'. Since you can dialectically deduce communism, it is correct conduct to have it. People naturally don't want to be unethical because it translates to being formally wrong.

My understanding of ethics isn't the greatest... hopefully that's satisfactory.

Ethics because you're getting an ethical knuckle sandwich.

honestly, as a native english speaker, it is very difficult for me to understand the point you are trying to make

>Ethical in that resources are directed where they are needed, nobody goes without. This is surely 'correct conduct', yes? To minimise economic exploitation? This is ethical.

i agree, yeah. when you say stuff like economic exploitation you should expand on what you mean there as well, though. i commonly see comrades throw around the word exploitation without saying what they mean by it. you should demonstrate how the capitalist worker is exploited in as clear a manner as you can as to make sense to the uninitiated. most people who work are aware that they're working for less than they're worth, but it's often something they feel is right or justified- they don't DESERVE their labor's value because the capitalist has a right to take some of their value as profit. after all, he owns the business. explaining why this train of thought is misleading or disadvantageous to the worker is key to turning people into communists, i believe.

>What's not to like about "you get what you decide you need"?

is this how communism operates though? i don't think i should be able to just say i deserve x much and get in communist society. i believe i should work (provided i am able to) the amount of hours necessary to get what i think i need. of course there are some people who will be physically unable to work, and they'll receive a select amount of goods because we still value life under communism, but it should be the case that those who are able bodied will work for the goods they want, presuming that human labor is at all necessary still.

>Since you can dialectically deduce communism, it is correct conduct to have it.

this sort of phrasing immediately turns off anti-intellectual people by the way. you need to use different terminology than 'dialectically', because they don't know what you mean and they certainly won't want to know what you mean after using the term.

but i'll ask. what do you mean by dialectics? :^)

ethics are a spook.

>failing to understand the basic definition of communism as stateless, moneyless and classless

Sure, if you accept the Soviet propaganda definition. If you told any other socialist in the 19th century this nonsense they'd laugh their ass off. Communism is classless in the Marxist sense, moneyless and stateless is optional. And yes, it has been tried.

pic related.

kekle

True, absolute communism I think only works if society is small. And by small I mean physically small, aka low population, doesn't take up a lot of space, stuff like that.

This is a Commie thread. You came here expecting more than drunken ramblings?

hey, don't act like everyone's not making sense here. i only type in plain english. sober, too!

ï Think you neēd capitælizing Experience, m8ÿ.

yeah too bad getting past the brainwashing of purging natural human selfishness was never fucking achieved. Every fucking society that tries to achieve 100% pure utopian communism couldn't fucking do it. Communism hasn't been tried... Rural backwards countries tried to convert to communism but got stuck in the totalitarian phase. Even Marx said communism should only be attempted when a society is a strong capitalistic industrial society, but no society like that has and they are doing better because of it.

I'd say it's fairly easy to convince workers in particular of socialist principles when you deal with the theory of worker alienation. I agree I should have expanded on the ownership contract enforcement and so on, but i was on my phone in my bathtub lol.

There should be no 'should'. People naturally want their time occupied productively. It's good for the body and good for the ego. Ever been unemployed? It's depressing as fuck not having a job to do. Workers will want to work, especially if they aren't being robbed by porky. I was attempting to appeal to the self interest of anticommunists to portray communism as something that even they could live with. They can have as much resource as they want since they wouldn't hoard. They wouldn't hoard thousands of potatos, say, like money because the only value a potato has is its use. Even the greediest borg gets a modest share by his own choice.

Deductively is probably a better term to use to explain these things to people. Truth be told I was struggling to get my point across even without the terminology!

Dialectical deduction is basically a debate but where participants don't act like plebs. Both sides are open to being wrong, etc. Dialectical materialism uses this to establish the evolutionary trend of society, with the final deduction being that of Marx... as far as I know. I've got a basic grasp on the reasoning of it all but I haven't read any in a while as it is unfathomably boring to me. I want to better understand it in the future, however.

Stateless is a prerequisite because otherwise you get a form of bourgeoisie.

>implying the Soviets are buddies of mine
>implying the Soviets were communist in any way

State ownership is not not NOT common ownership.

Wew

Of course it hasn't been tried. Because it's impossible to obtain, you fucking idiot.

worker alienation is definitely really intuitive, i agree. i can't find the image i was going to use to illustrate alienation. i've only seen it on leftypol but it doesn't exist on google images. i should've saved it. i have pic related as a replacement instead.

i want to mention that i'm currently unemployed. i live off the labor of my parents currently, and i get as much as i need in goods and services that i could want at the moment. however, even though it's true i do want to work right now to feel more fulfilled, if i have the choice not to and still receive a certain amount of goods...why wouldn't i take advantage of that? you say that people will voluntarily work under communism, and i certainly agree that some people will, but not everyone will. do you still want to give those people 'what they decide they need', even if they don't contribute to society in a productive way? just consume stuff?

dialectics to me examines interconnections of subjects to each other and how they change over the time, and especially WHY they change. dialectics is a methodology to view the world, a way that strives to have as much understanding of the interlinking of subjects as possible. that's my take on it. it's just a logic that people could use if they want.

good talk though. i like your reasonings well enough.

I agree with your first point but CITATION IS NEEDED for the second.

You could take advantage of that; you aren't forced into the workplace. In my opinion, the unemployed get bored very frequently and many of them would like to work (even with welfare programs.) Also, enough people would work that voluntary unemploymemt wouldn't be an issue. And for me, people who don't contribute are logistically indistinguishable from those that can't, and in many ways they are the same. Hence no need for the 'get what you give' approach that sounds like justice but really isn't.

Dialectics sounds fundamentally incompatible with metaphysics then, if it is about interlinking things. Sounds like my cup of tea and I shall make sure to explore it soon.

Nice to talk with you mate, have a good one

>a hypothetical utopic society that probably could not even stably exist in a vacuum
>which has no effective way to transition to from barbarism or any other form of government

why the fuck do people give so much of a shit about marx?

>citation needed
and
>citation needed

Because his theories led to worker's rights being an actual thing. Be grateful that you don't work 16 hour days as a labourer. If you work or depend on anyone who does (even NEETs do, as the workers pay taxes) then you should be appreciative of Marxism.

Capitalism isn't an idealogy

how isn't it?

It requires only the mutual exchange of goods between two parties with nothing stopping them, that's a basic understanding of capitalism. It's not utopian like Communism is, there's no end goal that capitalism is reaching for.

lol

what you're referring to is barter. barter existed before capitalism, in the feudalist era. the primary distinction between capitalism and other economic systems is its support for private property rights, ie single or few owners of a means of production. capitalism seeks profit over other possible goals. profit is indeed not utopian, as you said. it only requires that laborers be paid less than they're worth, which capitalism does spectacularly well.