If we eliminate resource scarcity is communism actually possible?

Wealth is relative and everyone wants to be rich
Even fucking poorfags living on welfare want to be rich and relative to third worlders they are

>tfw star trek will never be real because people are shit

It's just natural human impulse. If you suddenly allow me to take anything I want with no cost whatsoever, I am taking everything I possibly can. Especially food and weapons.

Attached: 1521021302706.png (774x1032, 1.12M)

Resource Scarcity will always exist user. There is a reason resources aren't infinite.
Communism is demanding to play the game on cheat mode, on god mode and providing NPCs of your CIV with whatever they want.
If someone points out that it is unrealistic, you send them to Gulag/Diversity training.

no
communism ultimately (ostensibly) seeks an end to hierarchy
the innate reliance and utilization of hierarchy is imbued in humanity, and whether you like it or love it it isn't going away

eventually you'd get bored of going back and forth getting things, surely

I'm upper middle class. I have pretty much everything I've ever wanted.
Life loses its flavor. Things you used to love make you feel nothing anymore. The passion fades away.
The wealthy have comfort. But never think that they have happiness. So many *actually* wealthy families I know are so incredibly dysfunctional.
Struggle is necessary to give life meaning. Humans need it. Without it, they fall to pieces.

I wouldn't need to go back and forth, I'd just have it all delivered to me. Besides, I have nothing to do but shoot guns and drive forever.

Attached: __lena_tolubka_natalia_borisova_sophia_malinovskaya_suzanne_petrova_and_zoya_zhukova_panzer_waltz_dr (1300x919, 1.4M)

Stop posting this cringy trash.

>commie poster doesn't like anime communism

Do not confuse "human nature" with the conditions in which you grew up and live. Taking everything you can and hoarding it makes sense in capitalism, but it is entirely pointless under communism.
It is also human nature to make friends, to invite them over to your house and share everything with them. You would never charge your friends three dollars for a drink refill. It is not impossible to act in such a generous and trusty manner towards everyone you meet, especially if they treat you the same way.
This is why the capitalist conception of humans as lazy greedy hoarders is wrong. People want to work, they love to work, they need to work. Just not in an unnatural hierarchical life-selling system of wage slavery.

It's actually an alt-right upset that his anime pictures aren't triggering people and being triggered because someone unironically uses anime pictures.

>Taking everything you can and hoarding it makes sense in capitalism, but it is entirely pointless under communism.
No, it's not. You never know when the SHTF, and it can happen even under a communist society.

>It is also human nature to make friends, to invite them over to your house and share everything with them
Don't get me wrong, I definitely have a few friends who I will also be stockpiling weapons and food with. A dozen heavily armed men in an armored bunker surrounded by weapons, mines, nerve gas, and who knows what else is a force to be reckoned with after all.

>It is not impossible to act in such a generous and trusty manner towards everyone you meet
For me it is. Maybe not for you, but you're probably a better person than me.

Attached: 1519554044389.jpg (534x401, 52K)

Why would someone be triggered by anime pictures? Especially on an anime image forum?

This call all be fixed with eugenics anyways. Capitalism just has built in survival of the employed and lazy capitalists for of eugenics built into it.

>Taking everything you can and hoarding it makes sense in capitalism, but it is entirely pointless under communism
you're kidding right?

Who says anyone would let you stock up unlimited anything, especially nerve gas?

You seem to be under the impression post-scarcity means unlimited free gibmedats. It doesn't.

>Who says anyone would let you stock up unlimited anything, especially nerve gas?
The communists.

>You seem to be under the impression post-scarcity means unlimited free gibmedats
That's exactly what it means. Do you understand what post-scarcity means? No one would even notice me taking a shitload of weapons home, because there would be so many weapons that any amount I take would be just a drop in the water compared to the total amount.

Attached: 1519795874764.jpg (2816x2112, 894K)

>If you suddenly allow me to take anything I want with no cost whatsoever, I am taking everything I possibly can.
In a normal society little pissants like you would have your face beat in until you learned proper social behavior or you were dead.

You only think this way proudly because you've been conditioned so by the real masters. They, unlike you, actually benefit from mass inequality and think that it would be better if you thought hoarding at the expense of society is normal, even healthy and smart. Then you're less likely to get jealous of them, or resents their actions. Thus are less a danger to them and their wealth.

It's just divine right of kings for a new age. Remove the king and his propagandists and the lie fades away along with the dumb peasant suckers that believe it.

>In a normal society
This isn't normal society though, this is communist society, taking everything I want is expected of me.

>You only think this way proudly because you've been conditioned so by the real masters
Boy, you are REALLY banking on the hope that I'll magically change my ways once communism comes into being. But I see no reason to do so. After all, there's no downside to having more stuff, and you never know when you might need it.

Attached: 1519585128216.jpg (1024x960, 93K)

You guys sound like fascists
Please elaborate
This
>this is communist society, taking everything I want is expected of me.
Nope. Taking everything you NEED and providing what you can/want to provide is expected of you.

but in a scarcity free world wouldn't the need for that kind of behavior become unecessary because the problem it was meant to deal with disappear?
surely the lack of concern over whether there are enough of x resource for everyone would cause that sort of behavior to be frowned upon.

>You guys sound like fascists
How the hell is preparing for emergencies "fascist"? Do you fetishize victimhood?

>Taking everything you NEED and providing what you can/want to provide is expected of you
I suddenly feel very needy. And I don't want to provide you with jack shit, so I won't.

Attached: 1517877637056.png (900x1431, 749K)

>elaborate
hoarding is an enemy of socialism
the soviets punished hoarders, hoarders were punished in moaist china, I know it isn't techincally communist, but in the protosocialist atmohphere of the french revolution hoarders were villified in the extreme

>>Taking everything you NEED and providing what you can/want to provide is expected of you
>I suddenly feel very needy. And I don't want to provide you with jack shit, so I won't.
In that case you aren't part of a communist society. Why would people want you to have access to anything if you are a violent obsessive hoarder?

Basment dweler detected. Pls stop, you are cringy.

>If we eliminate resource scarcity is communism actually possible?

No.
These are the most appropriate answers so far:
THIS, however: Is not necessarily true.

Firstly, government would have to change completely and utterly because if resources are unlimited then wants and needs would change respectfully as people would find something metaphysical or imaginary to value: ideas, patents, perhaps relationships, activities? Art maybe? And that sort of brings us to the second issue here and why that user was wrong, but not 'wholely' so: People CAN be satisfied. If you give someone EVERYTHING some of them can and will sit and consume for their entire lives on bread and circuses and live a happy and emotionally fulfilled life- experiences over things if you will.
The other two groups are not mutually exclusive to one another, but otherwise are: pride-driven individuals & creative-driven individuals. Pride driven people will NEVER be satisfied as they will always want more in order to be better than the people around them and for the tireless, endless, pursuit of self improvement- they will be the shit disturbers in a post-scarcity society as nothing will ever content them.
Creative individuals on the other hand can never be satisfied because they, quite frankly, are a little mentally-ill: endless notions, ideas, and concepts overcome them and drive them to create endlessly and like a fruit-bearing tree if they don't produce they'll wither and die miserable. Creative people will be shit disturbers purely on the basis of them creating 'new things'... Especially if they don't let others have them.

>the soviets punished hoarders, hoarders were punished in moaist china
Oh wow, what do you know, two societies which weren't Communists punished hoarders. I guess I'll just have to make sure I don't go to a non-communist society then.

Attached: 1517891287695.jpg (670x502, 108K)

There would be no need as everyone can have anything and as much as they want.

That's communism

>Why would people want you to have access to anything if you are a violent obsessive hoarder?
user, this is a post-scarcity society, robots are doing all the work, why the hell would people punish me for not voluntarily working when no one has to?

Attached: 1517912800039.jpg (1000x1689, 992K)

>mao
>not communist
oh, shit, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were that fucking stupid
nvm I'll go, have fun everybody

Communism is stateless you idiot.

Attached: 1517912729515.jpg (1000x1689, 684K)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-17 at 6.11.35 PM.png (1019x733, 635K)

No I've just gave what would happen if goods were so cheap and plentiful that they could have anything free basically.
Communism is an economic theory.

>communists doesn't know what communism is
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but this still gets to me.

Attached: 1518999546818.gif (540x357, 639K)

>The communists.
No they don't.

>That's exactly what it means.
No it doesn't.

>That's exactly what it means.
Do you?

>Post-scarcity is an economic theory in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2] Post-scarcity is not generally taken to mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all consumer goods and services; instead, it is often taken to mean that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services,[3] with writers on the topic often emphasizing that certain commodities are likely to remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.

well it's upsetting because they draw you in under the delusion that they want to honestly converse with you, but then show themselves to be mindless drones
is there at least ONE communist intellectual or is it really all just posturing and daddy issues?

So then there'd have to be some sort of currency under communism that would have to be distributed via some method such as UBI. I guess I'm okay with that, spending my free money on spare food and guns is still worth it.

Attached: 1517874110243.jpg (1000x929, 596K)

This. I mean what point even is there in an economic system when there's unlimited resource and thus no need to trade for them?

So is post-scarcity the point where we create replicators?

Read . Post scarcity is basically the point at which robots take over. Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be scarcity, nor will it mean that you won't need money to buy stuff, but it does mean that there won't be people starving on the streets.

Guys stop it.

Your making me unironically wish for a historical FPS, but with anime girls

You're

Then wish for it user. It won't come true until there's enough demand in the market for it.

Attached: 1520888669651.jpg (720x960, 81K)

>So then there'd have to be some sort of currency under communism that would have to be distributed via some method such as UBI.
Communism isn't post-work.

The basic framework of communism is society can take care of your basic needs, not meme I need an iphone or (((who))) determines needs shit. Your basic survival needs, and providing you with the means to be a thriving productive member of society and not leave productive potential untapped because they couldn't afford a tractor or an education or whatever shit would be holding you back from contributing to society.

It's not free handouts so you can enjoy living life as a neet or giving you a stipend to spend on your hobbies. It's providing you what you need to be a productive member of society, and more or less have an enjoyable life by realizing your potential.

So it's basically exactly like Distributism then.

Attached: 1520875157761.jpg (897x1280, 231K)

Ya dun goofed

Star Trek will never be real because magic machines that create food, minerals that mine and extract themselves and finally buildings and technology that create themselves will never be real

So communism is just what the Nordic countries have?

Why make something for free though or now profit? We'd have to have the government do it either directly or though grants, which still results in taxation or borrowing or generating new revenue. We may just be contributing more to one problem by trying to fix another.

Somebody is going to lose out over this.

No. Communism is organized around communes with collective ownership (economic democracy). USSR and such never achieved what they said they wanted to do.

That's weird, it's almost like a stable successful communism is not even possible

The Jews would never allow it.

Nothing in politics or economics is 'stable'. Everything dies eventually.

Attached: 1518923403698.gif (200x200, 336K)

>you want to make a progressive state you have to starve a few thousand kulaks
You're a fuckig brainless shit

So then the question becomes, what comes after communism?

Attached: 1521315166009.png (1490x1208, 754K)

Communism is whatever you want it to be that particular day. If your food stamp cleared you to buy a big slurp cola and cheetos then it'a a good day and you can go on a diatribe on what communism "is supposed to be like" and cite examples of the anarchist communes in Spain, the Makhnovites and other efimerous utopian movements that lasted a couple of months.

However, if the Starbucks soy latte didn't sit well with you and you are having a bad day you can simply reply with one liners about how Venezuela "is not real socialism" because it has informal street vendors as a result of the crippling poverty, that is, it has markets and capitalists.

Attached: 1520868376732.png (451x450, 119K)

Except without the vestigial explicit property rights and stuff. Distributism is basically saying "I like communism but am uncomfortable abandoning these social institutions that have existed for thousands of years of civilization but I'm not actually sure how it would regulate itself any more than any other anarcho-meme ideology"

The post-scarcity meme is more about saying those kinds of utopian societies would be much more stable under post-scarcity.

Maybe someone will come up with a theory once real socialism has been tried.

>I'm not actually sure how it would regulate itself
Local democracy.

Attached: 1520450290536.gif (500x280, 998K)

I'm saying, even the most perfect social, political, or economic system dies or evolves because all those things have internal contradictions that will force change. And some people ALWAYS get left behind when that happens.

That's a hypothetical. And Ive no idea. But history won't 'end'. So it would start turning into something or somethings.

Yes, just like every other anarcho-meme ideology.

From what I can tell, Anarchists are like... advocates for turning every town into a city-state. That's what it seems like to me.

>if something impossible happened, would communism then be possible.
yes, sure.

In communism left behind=starved to death

>shitters sperging out because some guy says he would hoard stuff
Why tho? If it was really a post-scarcity world hoarders would not matter.

No shit, retard. You know what happens when industrialization happens? Highland clearances, destruction of the commons, city squalor, and the death of agricultural society. Kings and Queens die when liberalism happens. Gunpowder kills the knights. The modern nation-state kills the Christendom.

Shit happens. Shit always happens. To everything. Do you think neo-liberalism didn't do anything?

Having everything I need no matter what isn't going to make me an atheist.

Attached: 1474712632522.jpg (1000x1355, 659K)

>No. Communism is organized around communes with collective ownership (economic democracy).

Isn't that the Nordic nations since they use unions to negotiate everything?

industrialization is not opposed to comunism; communist countries still have to go through those calamities

I saying communism is unnecesary, why would you starve people to death to reach a goal that is not even achievable?

It's more like this. In theory.
youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI

Your just not getting what I'm saying.

I'm saying what happened to 'communist governments' ie they rose and fell, is what happens to everything else too. That's history.

no i get it, you've just moved the goal posts away from the original statement i made, which was that communism is an impossible to achieve goal, also, maybe it wasn't you, but originally i was responding to the ol no true scotsman chestnut where someone was saying that the soviets didnt actually achieve their communist goals

you commies really bring out the stormfag in a reaosnably liberal guy, you're literally logophobic

>no i get it, you've just moved the goal posts away from the original statement i made,

I did not.

>i made, which was that communism is an impossible to achieve goal, also, maybe it wasn't you, but originally i was responding to the ol no true scotsman chestnut where someone was saying that the soviets didnt actually achieve their communist goals

When I said communism, I meant the actual organization of society into communal state-less collectivism that Marx predicted. None of the 'ideologically communist' countries abolished the state. It's not 'no true Scotsman', it's just Marxist theory not panning out. Also, communists are not a monolith, it is a concept that per-dates Marx, after all. (Look up the Paris commune).

>you commies really bring out the stormfag in a reaosnably liberal guy, you're literally logophobic

I'm not a communist.

That just means full "everyone takes what they want" communism isn't possible. Socialist economies work just fine with currency to ration luxury goods.

>you commies really bring out the stormfag in a reaosnably liberal guy, you're literally logophobic
t. stormweenie

Look at this goalpost-shifting bullshit. Even Marx and Hegel are laughing at you.

It's a post agreeing that communism isn't stable you mongoloid.

Marx based his thesis for a societal trend towards communism on a Hegelian dialectical methodology (inb4 Feuerbach/materialism.The methodology is still the same). While generations of Marxists have hand-waved predictions of what a communist society might actually look like as "unscientific" or "utopian" (which is retarded for various tangentially related reasons), Marx still insisted on the eventual innevitability of a communistic social order as the end-stage of history, in which all material antitheticals have been resolved.

for

>retarded for various tangentially related reasons
no, it's unreasonable to assume otherwise

It can't be communism because communism is an economic system and economics is defined by how to distribute resources under scarcity.

A "scientific" viewpoint is the providence of inductive study. Marx's analysis is categorically non-inductive. Nor is it deductive, as he often argues from conclusions to premises in his historical analysis.

Yeah. An economic theory in which everything is so cheap and plentiful that anyone can have as much as they need.