What exactly is the "New Man"?

>in other words, the bourgeoisie, but applied to every person.
Why even fight the bourgeoisie if the goal is to make everyone a bourgeois?

The horseshoe would only work with national nationalism.

Italian fascism and Spanish falangism didn't have thoset hyper-rational and scientific type of views.

I'd like to add that the reason national socialism and Soviet communism are so similar is because of their more pragmatic view of society.

The Mediterranean fascists on the other hand grew out of the early 20th century avant-garde, they were therefore more idealist.

Do you have a better solution?

Just let history run its course, capitalism is a historical transition, an in-between, which will pave the way for socialism, it's inevitable, it's science man, Marx said so, just let the inherent contradictions within it take care of everything, why be an anti-capitalist at all when capitalism is this huge force of innovation, just go with the flow and be (the entrepreneur of) yourself.

But do go ahead and convince me that the best solution is for the bourgeoisie to start a revolution against the bourgeoisie in order to make everyone the bourgeoisie.

You do realize that capitalism's natural course may be the genocide or intentional famine for the proles, to reduce population and both the supply of labor and demand of basic commodities, because the labor of the proles is worthless. This allows the capitalists to easily meet the demand of the much smaller population of capital owners, and reach post-scarcity from labor-less production by capital and every survivor has enough capital to sustain themselves and participate in gift economy.

Your ticket to communism might be owning capital when society is capitalist.

Basically, when robots cause post-scarcity, you better hope you're one of the people that owns a robot.

>capitalism's natural course may be the genocide or intentional famine for the proles,
No democratic republic has ever suffered a famine, we've never had these many protections against a people's genocide.

Moustached idiots have a much worse track record, despite their forms of government having a shorter lifetime.

>when robots cause post-scarcity, you better hope you're one of the people that owns a robot
Post-scarcity also means you can make infinite robots, if a commodity is scarce, then we have no post-scarcity, by definition.

I'm not impressed with the feasibility of post-scarcity economies of any kind, or the invention of a cornucopia which solves all problems and prevents all conflicts.

Man oh man. I'm more used to the spawn of incest who have lost their chins from it. This is something new entirely. Is he from the west coast or Europe? We don't have anything like that in Appalachia.

Like the other poster said, hebrew noses aren't that thin. That's just a hooked nose, which is a trait of arabs, like the other user saying he's a palette-swapped arab.

Because the bourgeois draw power by being the only class in total control of his future without being in the employ of anther.
If everyone is bourgeois, no one is, and that power disappears.

Just like how the power to Vote is only a power until everyone has it. Then it's just a right to Vote.

>the power to Vote is only a power until everyone has it.
The right to vote is still a power because not everyone exercises it.

Calling proles bourgeois or neo-bourgeois won't make them automatically live like a
>man unconstrained by being a slave to work. man with all the time in the world to pursue and achieve his desires, being in total control of his future without being in the employ of another
does.

As they can abstain from voting, on a particular issue, or voting altogether, they can abstain from making their own decisions.

Not everyone wants responsibility, that is why power is a temptation for both ruler and subject.

When will marxism and its descendants admit that there is a contradiction in forcing people to be free?

>No democratic republic has ever suffered a famine, we've never had these many protections against a people's genocide.
And in no time in history has a robot been better in every way than a human as labor.

>Post-scarcity also means you can make infinite robots, if a commodity is scarce, then we have no post-scarcity, by definition.
That's not the definition of post scarcity. Post scarcity does not mean infinite. It means not scarce. Scarcity is when demand exceeds supply. If supply is determined by robots, you can reach post-scarcity by reducing total demand. Scarcity is a relation between supply and demand.

If you lived in a small hamlet next to a river, water wasn't scarce. No one would charge you for water. You could take water as you pleased, because there is more water than you or your hamlet could possibly need or use. This is what non-scarcity is.

Lets say you live in a giant city in the middle of a desert and water from the small creek that travels through your city. The people of the city need water, and have a greater demand than the supply. Water is sold or rationed because of the scarcity. It might even command labor, such and building and maintaining a pipeline to bring water from somewhere else. This is scarcity.

Scarcity is a relationship between demand and supply.

Die Neuen