Doesn't the theory of evolution basically btfo of communism?

Doesn't the theory of evolution basically btfo of communism?

pic unrelated

Yes. In the same way that cancers btfos capitalism.

Try starting by stating, why it should and then we can give you an answer.

Communism bitches itself out by actually being practiced.
Communism, much like Furries, is merely a fever dream for eccentrics and degenerates. Secretly, nobody actually believes Communism will work. They just want to degrade a current system enough so that they, in turn, can become a parasite off that system.

Nice statue shit discussion.

Communists are actually radical evolutionists - I don't think dialectical materialism (communist philosophy) says anything specifically about darwinian evolution, but it does talk about "composite systems emerging out of smaller systems and sharing their properties" or some other nonsense.

They also believed that communism wasn't a choice, but the "natural progression" of history, meaning that capitalism was so in contradiction with human nature, that communism must naturally emerge out of it: That is, Marx didn't believe we SHOULD be communists, but rather that history naturally WOULD LEAD to communism. It now seems that he was dead wrong, but there are still Marxist holdouts who await the global revolution like Christians await the second coming (that is, zealously and in vain)

His argument for this was roughly as follows: Man primarily defines himself and his life by his labor with which he produces his sibsistence and that which pleases him. Under capitalism, their labor is no longer for them, or even for someone else, but against them (laborers producing more effectively actually cheapen their own position, meaning the more you work, the more you enrich those above you, cheapen your own value, and finance your own oppression). He argued this was in such contradiction to human nature that communism necessarily followed.

So in short, Marxists are radical societal evolutionisys who believe in linear human progression towards perfection.

More in line with what you were actually implying, Evolution does not imply the "best" are the most successful, it implies the "best suited to their environment" are most successful. It says exactly nothing about wealth distribution, social organization, or economic policy.

You shouldn't use the word degenerate unless you are actually a Nazi

Not trying to criticize, but I think lots of people don't realize that that was nazi terminology that nazis revived to insert their ideology into the conversations of people who might not necessarily be nazis.

Not a Marxist by the way, I completely agree, it's a "fever dream"

Communists aren't Marxists.
'Communist' was never used until much later.
There are dozens of kinds of Socialism, Communism and Marxism. Classical Marxism (what you're talking about) isn't very popular at all, not even amongst Marxists.

>Classical Marxism (what you're talking about) isn't very popular at all, not even amongst Marxists.
Actually to elaborate, it was never popular amongst anyone. It just birthed derivatives.

Yeah thats not what biological evolution is at all. Not the same thing.

Actual communists, like the kind that ruled the USSR, where total blank slatists who didnt think biology had any role in human behavior.

not if that is the fittest form of government to survive.
By your logic anarchy would be the only right choice, but historically that hasn't been what the most successful societies has had.

it seems that we've actually evolved to depend a lot on each other, so that might make communism pretty suitable. But then again, it didn't really survive either.

Theory of evolution btfos any conservatism, actually.

He was right. After a couple hundred/thousand years when 99% jobs are fully automated most people will be unemployed and the world will have to embrace socialism or communism because capitalism would lead to a disaster.

>capitalism was so in contradiction with human nature
I dont get this. Humans will give out charity with disposable income, but we are naturally competitive. Competition -> progress
>Under capitalism, their labor is no longer for them, or even for someone else, but against them
No, people voluntarily(!!!) work for money, and firms have incentive to take care of their labor to remain competitive
Marx again exposing himself as a lazy bum

>After a couple hundred/thousand years when 99% jobs are fully automated most people will be unemployed and the world will have to embrace socialism or communism because capitalism would lead to a disaster
Lol, communism has to do with sharing labor and wealth. How does is plan to solve this apparent "problem" of job automation?

>Theory of evolution btfos any conservatism, actually.
Evolution btfos any teleological ideology.

>voluntarily
What a great choice we have.

yes.

That's the choice of life, independant of any economic system, except slavery. You can't feed on air, you have to work to live.

These people sure are hard at work. I'm sure they were just done a hard day of plowing the fields.

You're thinking of communism where the means of production are owned by workers. Capitalism is the one with a class of parasites who don't do any work owning the vast majority of wealth.

What would the alternative be? People giving up their property to you without you providing a service in exchange?

I don't belive that is true. What is the inherent flaw in communism? What do you mean by communism? The word could mean on of many conflicting political idealogies or it could be a snarl word

That's not the point. Capitalism means capital not markets. Communism can even have market economies. Capital is anything that can be turned into wealth, such as the fruits of the labour of other people from land you own but never interact with. Capitalism isn't making money from your own work, it's making money from somebody else's work. Free markets do not exist in capitalism, if you have to be wealthy to own "capital" then the markets are not free to the people that can't even posses land when there boss was born in control to 100,000 acres. They have to take a job picking tomatoes for the least amount of money possible. You can take anarchist markets with the labour based theory of value, then you can have free markets, but not with capitalism. Furthermore with neoliberal economics corporations act as totalitarian command economies. This conflicts with the liberal capitalism of folks like Adam smith who would be disgusted with America nowadays.

If we're were naturally competitive we wouldn't need incentives to compete. We'd just innovate to prove ourselves "better" than our peers, without the need to back that up with monetary gain.

>If we're were naturally competitive we wouldn't need incentives to compete
We are though and we don't. Humans compete for money to gain food and security, and to find mates (with the promise of food and security)
What the hell do you think money is and why wouldn't people compete without it?

>Capitalism means capital not markets. Communism can even have market economies.
Youre redifining words for an argument
>Capitalism isn't making money from your own work, it's making money from somebody else's work.
Money is a way to quantify the value of all capital and labor relative to everything else. Money is also finite and all of if is owned by somebody. If you want more you should offer something to them in exchange (like capital or labor). People won't simply give you money (just a medium of exchange for goods and services) for nothing, nor should they be obligated to because feelings or whatever
>Free markets do not exist in capitalism, if you have to be wealthy to own "capital" then the markets are not free
Simply wrong
>They have to take a job picking tomatoes for the least amount of money possible.
Wrong, they take a job voluntarily. The average wages is also determined by the free market, that is why lawyers make more than farmers. You just sound upset that some people are born into wealth. You can never equalize the living conditions of everybody.
>You can take anarchist markets with the labour based theory of value, then you can have free markets, but not with capitalism. Furthermore with neoliberal economics corporations act as totalitarian command economies. This conflicts with the liberal capitalism of folks like Adam smith who would be disgusted with America nowadays.
Any large companies or corporations exist naturally from competive innovation in a free market or supported by a government (directly or indirectly). If it is the latter, then it isn't capitalism and you are barking up the wrong tree.
Try learning more about capitalism and get a stronger grasp of the subject

Abolish private property. If I throw a dollar at a factory and workers and walk away with 2 dollars while doing nothing else that means I have a dollar that I didn't work for and somebody else worked for a dollar they didn't receive.

Damn, we actually have commies on Veeky Forums?

I'm surprised we actually have cappies on Veeky Forums. Science is inherently left wing.

To add, people earn wealth by trading labor for it, or using trading wealth (investment, banking, stock trading) these concepts are very positive for economies to grow and innovate, making things like food and shelter cheapier and easier for everyone to aquire. People can also invest labor, such as starting up a business to earn wealth in the future (along with investing wealth they already had)
This idea of investment must be confusing and scary for communists, since the idea of earning money without doing the simplest physical labor is blamed for the existence of poor people. Some people are also born into wealth. You cannot equalize the living conditions of everybody, so just get a job.

The inherent flaw is that it is unfair. No communist regulation passes the universality test, that is, applies to everyone equally, and is therefore inherently unfair.

Even foregoing the moral argument, communism then assumes that when the means of production belong to everyone, everyone will take care if it. This is untrue, as will anyone who lives in public housing, or who has been to public school, public libraries etc. tell you. If something belongs to everyone it belongs to no one, and no one will take care of it.

The result: mismanagement of the highest degree, misallocation of resources and general inefficiency bring forth economic decline and soon everyone is starving.

Even foregoing this problem, communism is a system that creates cliques. It is more beneficial to be political than productive in a communist society, so people will tend less towards productivity (contributing to the problem mentioned above) and more towards political behavior, as climbing the communist ladder, that is, getting a government position, is the only way to increase your influence in society. Corruption inevitibly follows as it is the only method foe self enrichment.

Tl;dr: communism is poopy

Its just a few shitposters
Economics gets no respect because people just like to make stuff up and think they know what they are talking about without actually studying the subject because it isn't an experimental science like physics that can be proven. People think they are smart and thus qualified to have opinions on economics

>communism
>governments
>hierarchy
Please don't talk about things you never learned about, thanks.