Communism is unnatural

Communism is just unnatural because we are all different and have different abilities and talents and IQ .
Look at the jungle, a faster better hunter tiger gets more food than a slower tiger who is not good at hunting.
Smae with humans.

Second , people need incentive to accomplish things.
If you tell your child : Study for the opcoming test! he might study he might not but if you tell him : If you do well on your next test I will buy you a new phone, you can be sure he will study harder.
That's why communism failed, it's unnatural.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

> we are all different and have different abilities and talents
It is like Marx was the smartest man of his age and understood that point well enough to comment on it.

> people need the incentive to accomplish things
This is why brainwashing drugs are future.

How this thread is historical?

Humanities was a mistake syka

Hyperegalitarians like Anarchists and Communists are stupid because they try and take a stratified species with hierarchy and dominance built into us, and make a classless, equal society.
They then compound this offence against nature with ideas that tribalism and it's grander brother nationalism are also really nothing, thinking that material wealth is the only thing that divides and unites us.

Refute this guy, tankies

Anarchy is pretty natural, user. The government was invented relatively late in history.

Communism is a modern religion, only fanatics believe/hate it.

Capitalism doesnt incentivize progress though. All major technological breakthroughs of the past few decades came through government funding, which is logical. Why would a capitalist invest in something that may not work, let alone make him money. For the sake of progress? But hey, at least some people will get to be 200 years old in a few decades while treatment for cancer, hiv and other major sicknesses has been stagnating for decades. (Basically since the 80s)

This is the "grandma's facebook page" school of thought, yes? Keep it off this board please.
There are valid critisms, seek them out.

>Late
>4000 A.C.

So capitalists don't produce progress, but a government in a capitalist system does, and does very well.

Even animals have governance by way of an alpha male. They are possessive of females, they exercise their authority, and humans are pretty much a grander version of these same concepts.

Human history started 50000 A.C.

In any decent definition history started with write, before it is pre history, in a certain way government is older than history itself

This isn't the government. This is a natural hierarchy. Anarchism is against unnatural perversions of natural hierarchy like states, nations, monarchies, etc.

Right, but thats not limited to capitalism. A government can also produce progress in a socialist system, with the added benefit of less bums and junkies littering the streets.

In the context of human nature, history started before history was recorded.

In some special made contexts to support some very specific world views, maybe... in any professional or good amateur history, writing is the start of human history.

No, other functional systems like fascism or feudalism did manage to produce progress and science, the problem is with tribalism or socialism that halt this progress.

I would firstly say that a government is that which governs. An alpha makes governs, and is therefore a primitive government.
Beyond this, man is above beasts, and will grow larger and more complex naturally due to his greater capacity for intelligence.

Natural is what biologically natural, humans are older than history.

> fascism
> managed to produce progress and science

Human are indeed older than history, that plain obivious

Funny how soviet space program halted when they run out of stolen nazi tech

What if he's talking about the OG fascists?
If anything it would be disingenuous to make the copycats the prime example.

USSR, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, East German.... were all terrible at most kinds of research

>fascism
>soviet propaganda book as example

>fascism and feudalism
>functional systems

Wat

At least USSR could do some pure maths and were good at reversal engineering American and Nazi stuff

>be superior
>get your work's worth stolen and given to a lazy dumbfuck that didn't work nearly as hard as you

Seems fair

I mean, they did do good when it came to space travel and weaponry.

They just stole space travel from nazis

Fascism and feudalism (to some extent) is about >90% of Western Civilization

> this is... it's just the lie, trust me, guys!
Fascism destroys science, user.

If you unironically think you can provide enough nuance to refute an entire political philosophy in a shitpost, be it communism or fascism, you are braindead.

Germany under Nazi rule is not particularly an outlier...

Wait... Who won Peace Medal under Nazis???

Actually in communism you are entitled to what you produce yourself iirc

But communism was achieved... there on Veeky Forums.

Veeky Forums is about 80% NEETs

>Look at the jungle, a faster better hunter tiger gets more food than a slower tiger who is not good at hunting.
>Smae with humans.
Actually faglord humans in hunter-gatherer societies share the spoils of their more or less equally, including with people who did not directly participate. Fucking moron read a fucking book, have you even read any Marx? I am so fucking sick of you fucking morons EVERYwhere

t. le lobster man

This isn't 100% true. Animal social structure is varied.

Pure ideology.

None of those things are truth. Psychology disagrees with you. Pavlov would be disgusted at the simplicity of your thought.

There’s no human nature. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HUMAN NATURE. If there was you would be used all that makeup on your faggy face.

I wholeheartedly agree, any political system that makes the lot of us equal to OP instead of superior is broken from conception.

imagine being such a tankie

America did not?

>there is no human nature

>Jungle
Jungles do not exist. "Jungle" is a hate word that uncultured swine use to refer to tropical rainforests.
People who come from the rainforest such as the mbuti and awa see it as cooperative utopia. So do most biologists that spend any real time there, and myself. That's because it is a cooperative utopia free of hiearchial domination, only the actions of living organisms on a level playing field. Some live some die, but that's what holds the system together.
If you want to look at capitalism, look at armed militias and bulldozers clearing that utopia to mine gold or raise beef for the McDonalds in some slum in southeast Asia

I live in amazonia, people only act like saints near you because your dollars is worth far more than a Real

So?
Alot of people live in amazonina. What's your point?

What's it like being an amazonian shitposter on Veeky Forums?

It's great, one of the only sites that I can use well with my net

Uma merda, mas é o eu tenho para fazer, não é porque não tenho grana como os gringos que não sou mais estudado

You're adorable

Post pics of your place and jungly back yard plox.

Manaus is a city, a pretty big one

Listen up Peterson honk, I won't reply again.
Complex systems organize into stratified levels of organization where lower levels serve as scaffolding for the higher levels. For example, cells as scaffolds for an organism. Nothing about this implies domination.
As far as epistemology of this sense of hierarchy goes, it's unclear wether or not it is actually existing. The mereology of stratified levels is questionable, it gets complicated with downwards causation and meaningful information that transcends causality indirectly, as well as some QM things I don't know about.
Wether or not a hiearchy is an accurate abstraction or hetrarchy is the way it really works and wether scaling biases are what produces your perception of stratified levels, this is a big unsettled question in organization and hiearchy theory.
The above has nothing special to do the hiearchy you are talking about, I was just doing you some semantic favors.
First, concluding that hiearchy and dominance is built into humans is a reductionistic fallacy no matter what evidence you produce, it can just as easily be said that mutual cooperation, morality, and alturism are built into humans.
Also why you claim that hiearchy is built into humans is a mystery to me, but I'm familiar with the typical arguments. They are lame, not even worth the time as they fail to find ground in an accurate conception of the hiearchy they are talking about.
Basically in order to for a "hiearchy" to exist you need to have people with arbitrary power over others, winning a competition does not produce this, conventions do, conventions such as "the law says that own the land you live on, so hand over the oil and get lost"
Or " the state insures that if I win this competition, not only will I win this competition, but I will have economic power over you"
Your kind of argument is ridiculous, the kind of work it would take to give the topic justice could fill bookshelves.

Yeah, people in Manus definitely won't know too much. Probably the worst person to ask. Unless you are a victim of displacement. You are probably with the people doing the displacement however.

Said the American or European that would pass out without colled air

I'm a real badass actually.
Anyways, that's has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

>Manaus
I just looked that up, a city of two million people in the middle of a jungle. What the fuck Brazil.

you remember wrong, ask all the dirt eating chinks

Guy, we a gringo go to the jungle, people do theater, they play the noble savant because 500USD is worth more than some families year income

Yeah, I don't really care about that, which makes sense.
I don't think anyone is a saint, I think the Indians are having their land stolen, and the consumer culture that both you and I live in is driving that.
More importantly the rainforest itself is disappearing at an acre a second. You should be the most concerned since you are going to be left in an urban hell hole sooner or later. Besides it's pragmatic importance the Amazon has a right to exist on it's own, and we have no right to kill it, not only that but the only people who benefit from such things in a real way are the elite. So it's not even in our self interest to destory the foundation for our lives so shareholders and in your case, politicians can see a profit..
American corporations selling the Amazon rainforest to Chinese corporations is not right, and the Indians have every right to firebomb the perpetuators, but they are too busy defending themselves.
You don't know anything about the Amazon, I do at least because I can study it as an acedemic.
The point of my original post was to explain that the indigenous see the rainforest for what it really is and how it all works to hold itself together, it is the roof over their heads. All of those animals eating each other, actually work together forming the foundation for their existence.
I could give a shit about the tourist bullshit. It has no bearing on what I am talking about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky

>haven't read atlas shrugged were a factory adopts that maxim and everything goes to shit

This honestly is just dribble

Unnatural doenst exist ,everything we do is an expression of our "natural" genes expressed in a specific enviroment.

their space programm was built on the scraps the americans didn't burn and they literally got their nukes through spies

>implying communism is pluralistic

>Look at the jungle, a faster better hunter tiger gets more food than a slower tiger who is not good at hunting.

Yes, a faster and better hunter, not some fucking cub whose parent tigers have set up trust fund with a help of Tigir Tigrestein.

>Second , people need incentive to accomplish things.

They don't. What they do need, is a faggot or group of faggots nannying their every step so that they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot, otherwise the people will fuck things themselves and blame communism decades later for their own incompetence, greed and stupidity.

>People are just like Tigers
Really made me think

Hierarchy and dominance for the last several centuries are a fucking joke. Starting from fucking inbred monarchs that, in the wild, would be kicked off from tribe as being useless pathetic scum.

Modern "hierarchy", by the way, is no less degenerate. In fact, it's more likely that we have reverse hierarchy - the most parasitic and useless type of people get the most power, both financial and political, while actually competent people work their ass off for them.

>Using Atlas Shrugged as argument

Next time go straight to Fifty Shades of Gray. At least, it's not as boring as wet fantasies of hypocritical Jewish hag.

So much halted that only recently yanks have started not buying Russian fucking engines for their rockets.

>t. ancient Mayan trying to predict 21st century capitalism

No one knows what communism look like except that its there and socialism is a stepping stone like capitalism except capitalism should have ended 100 years ago.

Nationalism is leftist. Capitalism is too global for nations to exist. Seperate-identity global nationalism (if you think refuge/free border shit is socialist neck yourself utopian its for 4000k communism ). Establishing SRs would make sense in places like the US despite separate identity states but an American SR in Iraq or Mexico. If you're a nationalist you at least can be Stalin-supporting ML or Strasserist.

>lel feminazi sjw transgender degeneracy is socialist

Most of it is hipster trash rich kids and disillusion youth understanding class from identity and thinking they can change shit without property and power. Gay black trans wiccan CEOs wont change a thing.

You can have a hierarchal society fine but for example me living in the UK. All my clothes are made by sweatshop workers in Bangladesh, the copper for my phonebattery from a kid working in a mine for 24 hour shifts and electronics from companies like Foxconn that employ suicide nets at their factories.

You have to say this system can be improved upon and wealth shared more equally

Or is that system a ok