What did he mean by this Veeky Forums?

>Socialism and Communism are strictly defined
lol

When did either of us say it hasn't been tried?

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11]

>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

hm....

>a stateless ideology that claims that the state only serves as an instrument for class oppression is the deification of the state
really makes me think

Ancapism is a secular religion where the property becomes a god. See

Have real arguments ever been tried?

fpbp

>"communism ... is the ideology whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society"
Protip: if you have to use a word in its own definition, it isn't a concrete definition.

>socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership
Define common ownership.

>the means of production
Define means of production.

and the absence of social classes
Define social class.

Both ideologies are founded on abstractions and/or outright fiction. Marxism and all variations of it are mythology.

>Protip: if you have to use a word in its own definition, it isn't a concrete definition.
Not him, but pretty retarded argument if the quotes follows with "which is...". You can literally just remove the part you are whining about.
>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the radical social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

I own my cock, which produces semen - therefore I own the means of production. Now, when I pay a prostitute to jerk me off, her labor creates ejaculation, but I deprive her of the right to keep all the semen and letting it fertilize her eggs, therefore I'm alienating her from the product of her labor. This makes me a capitalist, and by definition the ruling class, even though I'm on minimum wage.

Now, Jim is a CEO of a multinational company, making 5 million anually, but he doesn't own the means of production - he has no shares in his company and his penis is inactive and doesn't ejaculate, since he's a cuckold and his wife keeps his cock caged. This by definition, makes him a part of the proletariat.

In a Marxian world, people like me lord over people like Jim. Feels good.

I think it's your brain that isn't concrete my friend

wew lad I bet you thought you were awfully clever typing all of that shit up

Shut up peasant and obey. I won't let you seize my dick, even though you think it rightfully belongs in your mouth.

...

literally not argument since he is strawmanning Communism and Socialism as fuck

I don't think made any of those claims at all. He's right to say they mean different things. That's why they are different words with different applications despite being related.
He also is running along the definition that communism looks to remove the state even if that doesn't necessarily happen in practice.

Yes Molynoox, only gommies worshipped the state. Not Nationalists, not Fascists, nope.

That he should not be taken serriously.

He was either paraphrasing one of my jokes and failed in delivering the "funny" or he is trying to be serious and delivers cringe instead of wisdom.

One of *your* jokes?

this, not even a fan of communism, but stop conflating it with Socialism

>21st Century """"""""Philosophers"""""""
Fuck Francis Fukuyama, Philosophy is dead.

One time when I was drunk I tried to argue that USSR was a theocracy. I don't remember much, except my fellow intoxicated buddies laughing at the part when I said "Marx is god and Lenin is his prophet".

He means that he's fucking retarded.

Said the guy who believes the "market" is god.

>capitalism is a secular religion where private property becomes a god
>democracy is a secular religion where the will of the people becomes a god
>liberalism is secular religion where liberty becomes a god
>nationalism is a secular religion where nation becomes a god

Really makes you think...

my dad is an old school commie and would fully agree, in fact I remember him telling much the same

He is just spewing buzzwords to sound intelligent. Not an argument.

ITT: mad commies

Also having lived in a communist shithole, can confirm that even if this isn't the way the ideology was originally intended it is definitely how it ends up working out.

It's the only way commie goverments can keep control of the working class.

...

Little did Molyneux know that he was caught in the religion trap himself.

>yfw Stirner predicted that in the absence of religion politics would just replace it anyway

>It's the only way commie goverments can keep control of the working class.
But that shouldn't be happening in a commie government, it should be the other way around. Have you tried true communism yet?

not an argument XD

the difference between socialism and communism is trivial

>socialism
>you don't have property rights when its inconvenient for the government or the "have-nots"

>communism
>you don't have property rights

Where is the argument here ?

It doesn't exists, it's just the left's version of Utopia. Socialism is as far as communism will ever get, it's time to accept reality my friend.

The working class doesn't dream of equality, they dream of being on top of everyone else.

>property
>rights

made me think

>rights

he's correct

this user is also correct

Communism/Socialism as ideological movement, not theoretical concept. Everyone that isnt an autist or purposefully misunderstanding the context understands this

>Also having lived in a democratic republic shithole, can confirm that even if this isn't the way the ideology was originally intended it is definitely how it ends up working out.

>It's the only way democracies can keep control of the citizens.

???

Really oiled the cogs.

>implying that metaphor even remotely holds true

the US is great

>The working class doesn't dream of equality, they dream of being on top of everyone else.
Well yeah, that's the point of Marxism. Workers should be on top of those filthy capitalists parasites.

wat.jpg

That's not even clever, it doesn't even make sense. Even the US and Europe with their current wave of socialist ideas have managed to stay relatively clear of becoming "daddy" states.

But user, the working class dreams of being capitalist parasites, they don't want to share with their "fellows". Exceptions maybe being their close friends and relatives.

Those capitalist parasites you speak of likely started as working class desu. Because companies that are inheritted have high failure rates.

You're ignoring the biggest capitalists of them all. The masters of MCM in it's purest form.

don't ever post that fag and legitimize his faggotry

Twitter is not for arguments, just smug passive-agressive comments.

>hundreds of years from now students will study this guy as the prominent philosopher of our times

Hes saying Communist are pretty much religious zealots based on their dogmatic adherence to the teachings of a book that is very flawed and their willingness to murder millions of people for their utopian vision

The fact that communist unironically are pretentious enough to refer to Marxes teachings as "scientific" pretty much proves his point. It is pretty much a dead ideology that is only followed by NEET LARPers who dont want to get a job

So why didn't he say something like that? Why doesn't he stick to the principles he yammers on about in 4 hour long videos nearly every day?

People often omit things that are obvious to speed up a conversation. If you are discussing a complex topic and have to go through all the facts and logic your assertions are based on it would take an entire lecture to get a point across. If you are debating with an ideological zealot they don't have the attention span for that.

Parroting "not an argument" can be easily used to filibuster. It may well be that the other debater did not use a proper argument, however note that it is not specific about what they don't understand or what they think the other person needs to do to prove their point, ironically "not an argument" is not an argument.

>in b4 not an argument

he did say that+plus its twitter which has a character limit

o, "not an argument" is still annoying though

not an argument is a meme because he frequently calls out when people post logical fallacies by simply saying "not an argument"

youtube.com/watch?v=EYX2pmXe14U

Communism = stateless(not the same thing as government), classless, cooperative society where all enterprises are either worker owned cooperatives or larger projects funded based on administrative level (city projects for cities, regional projects for regions, etc.)

Communism may or may not include some levels of a market economy, however, may not include a capitalist economy because it's considered almost as bad as slavery and reduces the human being for the sake of profit.

Socialism is more flexible, it involves markets or cooperatives and has varying ideas on how the state should intervene.

Both ideologies try to give more political and economic power to ordinary people. It's essentially democracy in the economy. When the decisions for an oil refinery are made on the local level to the top of the business through representatives and elected managers, there's more input that the average citizen can have on anything.

Look at the NSA, for example. There was an AMA on reddit where a lot of them claimed to know what they were doing but couldn't say no because it can cost them their jobs.

>everyone ITT talking about a retarded autistic cult leader who makes his money off Jootube

Plebs the lot of ya

>if he's not leftypol approved he's wrong!!

Still better than.
>Dude!!!!
>*Smokes joint*
>What if everything is just perspectives lmao?
>Woah How about that?

Right on the money

>only followed by NEET LARPers who dont want to get a job

Having met a lot of self-proclaimed communists, this is painfully true. It's the ultimate form of sour grapes for people existing outside the capitalist system.

We all know that Communism is something different in theory than what it is in practice.

In theory it's this lovey-dovey utopia, but in practice it's a system where people will turn into master and slave directly, essentially it ideologizes slavery.

Do philosophy majors get upset that they study bullshit and the only realistic philosophy can be explained and comprehended in a minute?

They spend their entire lives studying things that are wrong or incorrect. Really makes you think.

>only realistic philosophy can be explained and comprehended in a minute?
Which one? I am an EE btw

he should stick to videogames

These are terrible ideas.
Democracy was a mistake.

>implying communists read Marx

Nothing matters
Everything is subjective
Every single belief is based on a base assertion that human logic is true
Simply asking "why?" repeatedly will quickly make obvious how fallible objectivity is

>Nothing matters
>Everything is subjective
>Every single belief is based on a base assertion that human logic is true
This is baby tier philosophy that has been debunked alredy.
>inb4 muh common sense
pleb

did he get his twitter pic from a Ben Garrison comic?

>It's baby-tier philosophy
>It's been debunked
This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Philosophy majors are a complete and utter fucking joke who try to pretend they're intelligent by exploring every kind of avenue of thought by people over history and writing large books and papers on the subject... And it's the same shit as art, just a bunch of authority figures circlejerking over things they claim to be legitimate and disregarding everything that infantilizes their pathetic excuse for a intellectual discipline.

A canvas with blue on it is not "better" because a million (((academics))) write well-worded research papers on why it means something and the same goes for someone's philosophy they documented 500 years ago

Yeah he did. In reality he's much more weak chinned and has a head shaped like a fucking orange.

>Nothing matters lmao
>Based on what? There are natural humans desires tha-
>Shut up lmao like philosophy is a joke I hold the truth lmao.Like everything that I don't agree with is a circlejerk so I don't need to inform myself.How about that?
You are a moron and this is coming from an EE major.Take care

>guys guys guys
>i have a piece of paper that says i'm smart
>guys listen to me i'm important

Here you go lad.

>Socialism
When worker's own the means of production
Mentions no state whatsoever.
>Communism
A classless STATELESS society where the worker's own the means of production.
Somehow these two ideologies are both the same and worship the state.
I do not understand.

>HAVE YOU EVEN READ MARX?!?!

I fucking hate when they say this. As if they have read him or any other ideologies writings. Im pretty sure most of them dont even know who Adam Smith was

He means the same thing as usual.
"Please, legitimize my half-baked opinions so that I can call myself a philosopher."

But isn't capitalism where the God is the state?

What about religious ideologies like Zionism, Islamism, Dominionism, etc?

Zionism isn't really a cohesive movement with any other goal than the achievement of a Jewish homeland. For those other movements, however, that's just placing God as the ideology to worship.

>ill fail to qualify or recognize characteristics and make sweeping generalizations using definitions too broad and vague to accurately define anything

"Religion" needs, at the barest minimum, organization and a claim against the transcendent state of the universe to be a religion. A more accurate definition would also include having specific customs and ceremonies.

"A group of people sharing a common idea" isn't even a way to properly define "ideology".

Saying something like "capitalism is the new religion" is just prosaic language. The intent is an implication to convey greater context than the words themselves contain, not to provide an explicit definition.

Please educate yourself about the proper classification of things before trying to talk about what something actually is or isn't.

he's right
>not an argument
he's not making an argument, just an obsevation

Where the fuck are you leftist fags coming from? Are you retarded? Paper communism states that, but in reality when it is performed, the working class has no control over their production whatsoever. They work for the state and are comparable to "Free African Americans" after the Gradual Emancipation act back in 1799.

this is an argument

You have a completely shallow and superficial understanding of religion. The desire for the divine is only one aspect of it, and the difference between a religion and an ideology, specifically philosophical thought is a matter of intellectual convenience. Both govern how a group perceives and interacts with the world, and at the core of every ideology and religion is hope.

Just because a communist party is in control (ie the state being controlled by the working class, and not being controlled by the capitalist class, which is what we see in today's society) does not make any of the regimes you're likely thinking of (Cuba, China, USSR come to mind when people think about communist countries) communism.

That sentence structure was awful. The way you structure it, almost makes it sound like you're saying Cuba, China and USSR weren't communist countries or that communism can't be considered a state. These countries use this ideology to define their country and lands that they occupy, this is their identity. Which makes it a state when any party own particular lands. They structured their own fucking economic, political and military under this ideology.

>The way you structure it, almost makes it sound like you're saying Cuba, China and USSR weren't communist countries or that communism can't be considered a state.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Communism is the end goal of those societies, it was not the state they were in. The reason they are ruled by the communist party is because the communist party tries to get to that point, not because they are living under communism.

Those countries where living under communism though. That was their political identity. Hell, they changed the name of their state to fit the communist title. When a country continues to push its ideology and are currently living, that is their state. Pic very very related.

He's a retard with mommy/daddy issues mang, the fact that you don't see him as the broken Jim Jones - light figure he is should really make you reconsider your own life.

I miss this meme

old /new/ was such a good board