Are communists right...

I can actually see that happening. Normies will fight internet shitposting wars over DC vs Marvel instead of other spooks like muh holy city.

I have no idea who you are exactly referring to.

Can you name 5 evul 'oligarchs' that you have chosen as people who owe you free shit you didn't earn?

I would LOVE to get the names of the exact people you want to rob next.

Constant fist fights for women. Probably even full blown wars.

Haha plz it's women in 2017 complaining that no man will marry them anymore.

Once we don't have to fight for food anymore we will fight for more important stuff!

No. Communists aren't right. But intellectuals desperately want so, because they have spent a lot of political and cultural capital on communism and they don't want it to go to waste, so when capitalism inevitably gives way to something different they will write how communism has always predicted it, even if it happens in a way no communist author has ever written about.

Because if there is something communists have is cultural hegemony. That's the only reason people ask "are communists right?" or "was Marx right?", instead of "were distributists right?" or "was Schumpeter right?", even if the writings of Hilaire Belloc and Joseph Schumpeter have been more prescient about the political and economical future of capitalsm than the writings of Karl Marx and every single Marxist intellectual.

Why do modern commies always agitate from comfy capitalist zones?

Why don't these unsatisfied whiners escape capitalism already?

Oh... right. They need our wealth and they want to tell us what to spend it on too :/

>owe me free shit

I own the state. The state owes me money, not for free, but for the same reason the owner of any firm. The state protects property as it's primary and over-riding function. Property owners owe the state money in direct proportion to how much property they own.

Since I also obey the laws of the court, I have a say in what they are, and can sit on a jury. This has nothing to do with who pays taxes or how much.

The people that the rulers of society have chosen to provide free shit are the middle class, who pay income taxes and sales taxes, and the rulers give it first to the upper class, through government contracts and welfare that is not sufficient to produce savings.

When they agitate in capitalist Africa or capitalist South America or capitalist South Asia the governments are paid by capitalists to arrest and kill them.

>Why do people seem to think that hyper productivity will bring about a paradise and not the depleting of natural resources?

Because by definition post scarcity implies resources are not a fucking concern. If base resources used to produce goods are still limited then the finished good is still limited, then we ipso facto do not live in a post scarcity society.

You faggoty little commie.

You just swapped 'oligarchs' for rulers.

Who? Name 5 people you think should be robbed to provide you a better life style.

You covetous thief

>even if the writings of Hilaire Belloc and Joseph Schumpeter have been more prescient about the political and economical future of capitalsm than the writings of Karl Marx and every single Marxist intellectual.
Can you give a rundown about what some of they said about capitalism?

>agitate for overthrowing the gov
>be surprised when that gov arrests you

I think communists all lack ToM, this is laughable.

In the future capitalists will deliberately starve themselves to death rather than accept things like 'inheritance' or 'labor saving devices' or 'education', since they always vote for a state that says you must work or starve.

No shit!

They are faggot revolutionaries who often use weapons to get their free shit.

My question is why don't these commie thieves escape capitalism and flee to the commie utopia zones already?

No one wants them here. They just want to ruin life for the rest of us.

Humans will alwys chimp out user.
Humanity will aways want more, that is the way they are. So having everything will only leave them to desire that which is perverse.

Only thing that can make such a utopia a utopia is Christianity imo. But since communism is ideally secular that day will never come.

Hey you.

Escape then. If YOU hate society so much and are this much of a whiney bitch run away.

WE DON'T NEED OR WANT YOU

So get the fuck out if you hate it.

This commie thief can't even name 'the oligarchs' lol he's pure ideology and not working in reality at all.

Why would anything I posted indicate I'd need to name anyone?

I own the state. You may believe the state owns us both, but I disagree.

Property owners cost the state. You may believe that protecting property is a free service, or that everyone in society should provide it for free, but I disagree.

As the owner of the state, I get to say how it spends it's money. You might think the state should tell us how to spend our money, but I disagree.

So I would have the state charge those who cost the state money taxes, and I would have the state provide it's owners with the profits from that. I'm not certain why a citizen should accept anything else.

Though I can understand why people who own the most property would prefer the system where workers pay taxes and property owners are subsidized, and they do have more of a vote than everyone else.

It's surprising when a government says they allows protestors. No governments actually do.

You are a covetous thief.

What does anyone else on earth owe you?

Fucking nothing. Grasping shake down artist.

Get out of my good, safe capitalist society and go to Commieville already.

You can't even name the people who are 'wrong' in your stupid cult.

I'm saying that a person should pay for the service of their property being protected, not that they should expect everyone else to protect it for free.

I don't owe them anything. Why should I do as they command me to for no reason?

>Get out of my good, safe capitalist society and go to Commieville already.

You're the one arguing I should go against my own economic interests for an undefined good of society. Which is actually just the good of the already wealthy.

>I'm saying that a person should pay for the service of their property being protected, not that they should expect everyone else to protect it for free.

This makes no sense. Are you saying you deserve to be paid to not rob someone's property?

>Which is actually just the good of the already wealthy

Guess what, you have done nothing to deserve being wealthy you entitled schmendrick.

>Are communists right?

No, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is inherently unfair.

This literally has nothing to do with my post. Am I being baited?

>This makes no sense. Are you saying you deserve to be paid to not rob someone's property?

Should police be paid? Should judges? Security guards? You're saying they should be a free service that never costs anyone anything. But they do cost people things, and it costs more to protect more stuff.

>Guess what, you have done nothing to deserve being wealthy you entitled schmendrick.

No, but I do own the state.

He's just an unapologetic, covetous thief.

He sees a human with more than he has and decides it's the other guys fault and that the situation needs to be corrected.

But he can't actually name one single oligarch lol

There are only two choices with the automated economy.

Everyone is super-rich.

Only a few people are super-rich, and they are no more or less super-rich than in the first scenario.

Which human?

I said property owners should pay taxes. You clearly think society should protect their property as a free service.

That's how you live you life right now right?

No personal property? You better not own or defend a single fucking sock.

And if you do own on single thing that you consider exclusively yours, just one shirt, you are a joke.

Property owners do pay tax

We don't need a thief revolution to bring in faggots with a red fetish to make property owners lay taxes

A capitalist is born asking what he has to do to get something he wants.

A communist is born asking who he has to steal from to get something he wants.

>Or will people continue to chimp out just because?
for people to chimp out in remotely significant numbers they need either good reasons or good excuses. in this utopia scenario they will eventually run out of both.

probably not in your lifetime in any case. if scarcity just magically stopped everywhere right now I'm sure we'd still need 2-3 generations to get the impulses out of our system.

Right now the people who run the government want people to pay income and sales taxes, so the middle class pays them. Why would I choose to pay the taxes that are morally justified as well as the ones that are forced on everyone?

If there were a property tax, then people could say there were legitimate property rights. This can't happen under your preferred system where establishing ownership in any way under any system means everyone from then on has to pay to make sure you keep it, by having their wages skimmed through the income and sales taxes.

>post scarcity is absolutely ridiculous, we are dying from overconsumption
so... what you're saying is that there is a scarcity of health? we're living in a health desert? we need communism to sort this out for us and bring us all an equal share of health!

They don't pay the primary tax, that's income tax.

I can't understand why the government thinks the middle class should have less money, and that rich people should decide how it's spent.

If we have any sort of government at all we must pay tax.

Because government isn't supposed to engage in capitalism to sustain itself. That would clearly be a conflict of interest.

So we have the best system we can. We are free to elect our representatives to spend the tax money in the best way they can.

Are you anti-taxation?

I'm saying there is a scarcity of things that provide for or life, and it's all in danger. Marxism isn't the proper kind of anarchism to sort things out

>rich people should decide how it's spent

But that's wrong. 'Rich people', whatever that even means objectively, dont decide.

Elected representatives decide. And everyone chooses them. Even if you don't vote you have chosen.

...

...

>If we have any sort of government at all we must pay tax.

We can choose whether to tax people who make money by working and people who make money by renting. Since the government doesn't do much to help you work, but does everything to allow you to rent, only one makes sense.

>Are you anti-taxation?

I think fewer people should pay taxes.

>god damn lolbertarians shitting up another potentially interesting thread
Feels bad

>But that's wrong. 'Rich people', whatever that even means objectively, dont decide.

Then if we look at who runs government programs, they would not tend to be wealthier than average?

And if we look at the people who run companies that get government contracts, they would not tend to be wealthier than average?

>Elected representatives decide. And everyone chooses them. Even if you don't vote you have chosen.

But if you vote you have no right to complain. You had your say, game over.

If you don't vote you've chosen to say the candidates were all terrible. Voter abstinence is when it's impossible to vote for policies that would help you.

If we voted on policies instead of representatives, we could get a government that reflects what people want. Every time people complain about too much democracy, it's too much power for representatives, who only ever listen to lobbyists and whips.

>Since the government doesn't do much to help you work

Oh. You're a kid. Or at least very young and ignorant. You've probably never been to a city council meeting.

So you have no real idea what the government does every single day.

But to summarize the government actually does a LOT to make it easier for you to work. From caretaking for kids 8 hours a day so that you can work to enforcing noise ordinances so that you get a good night's rest.

They do a lot, but you haven't really looked.

There would be no state to defend the country. Therefor the country itself would be promptly invaded by someone else. If it's marxist communist, that is.

>Voter abstinence is when it's impossible to vote for policies that would help you

That situation does not exist. Attitudes like yours are what keep people from participating.

Then they should not be taxing people who make money by working. This would encourage people not to work.

If you tax rents, you encourage people to work and invest.

>But to summarize the government actually does a LOT to make it easier for you to work. From caretaking for kids 8 hours a day so that you can work to enforcing noise ordinances so that you get a good night's rest.

Unions won that from governments, governments didn't win it from businesses.

>That situation does not exist.

It does.

>Attitudes like yours are what keep people from participating.

Yes, they do. Most people agree with me. Most people don't vote, because most candidates could not improve their lives and do not even promise to. There is no other reason to stay at home, except maybe if your job would fire you if you took time off to vote.

>Then they should not be taxing people

You aren't thinking this through. Without tax no one will caretake the kids 8 hours a day. No one would be able to enforce the noise ordinance at 3 in the morning.

You're obviously very young.

>Unions won that from governments, governments didn't win it from businesses.

Actually that's wrong again. Communities had teachers and police they paid via tax money loooooooooong before the union made it's debut on the scene.

I live in a capitalist South American countries and communists are fine here. I wish we were killing them.

>It does

Lies. Just flat out lies. You need to get involved in the government process and you'll see how user friendly it really is.

But you have not only convinced YOURSELF that working within government is impossible, but you're stupid enough to think that the majority feels this way

>You aren't thinking this through. Without tax no one will caretake the kids 8 hours a day. No one would be able to enforce the noise ordinance at 3 in the morning.

When did I say no tax? Employees can pay for that if they didn't pay INCOME tax. Again you want some guy in the government to spend their money.

>Actually that's wrong again. Communities had teachers and police they paid via tax money loooooooooong before the union made it's debut on the scene.

It is not wrong that unions gained decent wages and working conditions.

So you believe that non-voters stay at home because - ?

You say it's not because they don't think it's worth their time. Then why?

If government recognized voter abstinence as the vote of no confidence that it is, it would be a working part of the system. They'd far prefer convincing a small number of people who are already convinced than to campaign to every citizen.

>just because I'm a retard who constantly falls for sunk cost, everyone else is too!

>You say it's not because they don't think it's worth their time. Then why?

Laziness and false assumptions. False assumptions like yours that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I attend government functions, let me tell you they are user friendly but BORING.

In today's hyper-media consciousness the average citizen doesn't have the attention span for government.

But that's not the fault of the system that's a failure of the electorate.

You just have a really poor attitude that you picked up from other peoples lies. Because you have no experience for these assumptions.

So it's no attention span? You believe they would all vote if they listened a little longer, but what they have heard convinces them that there is no point in voting?

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm very happy with our system becaus I, unlike you who is miserable with it, took the time to learn to navigate it.

You haven't even looked for yourself you're going off propaganda lol

You can't SAY there is no point because you have never tried.

I can SAY government is user friendly and responsive because I am smart enough to try and find out.

Only people who don't vote get to complain. Once you vote you have HAD YOUR SAY. IT'S OVER. No matter what policies the government you voted for implements, you consented to them, non-voters didn't.

>I can SAY government is user friendly and responsive because I am smart enough to try and find out.

Then you are lucky that government is designed for people like you.

>No matter what policies the government you voted for implements, you consented to them

Worse plebeian bullshit I've ever heard. People vote because they think a specific politician will make their lives better, not genocide people.

Haha who do you really think I am?

Not a bump on a log?

Check out the shit we can get involved in, for free, at any time. It's AMAZING what kind of access we all really have

ARCHIVED MEETINGS
City Council & Council Standing Committees
City Council
Budget and Audit Committee
Law and Legislation Committee
Personnel and Public Employees Committee
Advisory Legislative Bodies Section Links
Administration, Investment, & Fiscal Management Board
Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee
Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission
Board of Plumbing Examiners
City and County Bicycle Advisory Commitee
Civil Service Board
Compensation Commission
Construction Code Board of Appeals
Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Policy Study Steering Committee
Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee
Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board
Measure U Citizens Oversight Committee
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning and Design Commission
Preservation Commission
Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency Oversight Board
Retirement Hearing Commission
Sacramento Community Police Commission
Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission
Sacramento Heritage, Inc. Board of Directors
Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission
Sacramento Youth Commission
Utilities Rate Advisory Commission
Inactive Legislative Bodies View
Audit Committee
Charter Review Committee
Community Racial Profiling Commission
Design Commission
Planning Commission
Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee

Of course. And when they vote they are consenting to the votes that politician gives in congress, or they are consenting to the votes the other candidates may give in congress. They are under no obligation to actually vote as they promised, or to make specific promises, but in any case, voters are consenting to their use of the real vote, the vote on policy.

Non-voters did not consent to any of this. And some people are not comfortable signing an agreement they disagree with. Voters in representative systems either have too short an attention span to understand this is what they are doing, or they just don't care, they're apathetic.

>Haha who do you really think I am?

It doesn't matter, user.

You believe that taxes are better directed at people who are working rather than at those who profit from simply owning government deeds. We disagree.

Haha your attitude is terrible.

You're so defeatist. I hope you're young enough to come out of this.

You cry about how pointless it is, the rest of us will be busy making shit how we want it.

When you have already decided to agree with the governments policies regardless, it's pointless, yes.

If you wanted to influence policy, you can't do it by consenting to the same policies every election.

All I'm saying is you have full access and you're pretending you do not.

But seriously your attitude ensures your outcome in life.

I don't have FULL access. I can't vote on any policies. I have as full as access as a person who cannot afford a lobbyist and who cannot afford to run for office can get. I can vote for a representative who definitely disagrees with me on policies.

>But seriously your attitude ensures your outcome in life.

The attitude of going along with whatever you are told probably DOES serve you well. I wouldn't want to do it, I'd rather my children had a better deal.

Its never going to happen barring a machine that makes thing out of matter or space mining ect happens because we passed the tipping point of literally every resorce that would be needed to keep you all sucking the tit of goverment welfare would dry up and you'd just be a peasant at that point with no real worth unless you could make something.

However, in that system, making something would damage the local econimies.

Its fucked up. Maybe if you gassed all of china and india and had 10% of humanity consintrated in say, brazil, with shipping all the globes remaining recorses to this last bastion of civilization, then yes, you could get a comfy amount of bennies you nig-NEET.

Until then, its not going to happen because someone has to produce your goods and at the minutes you can thank Tiwans sweatshop working children for making your existance tollerable. Ching we also gets your amount of pay? might have to do some back breaking labour youself to get your sissy panties from now on, cucky.