Will science ever be able to find a cure for people suffering from communism/socialism?

>Ignoring the suffering and death caused by capitalism and imperialism is an argument
>"It triggers me" is an argument

I want /pol/ to leave

>Communist reporting in, is there a cure for capitalism?
The only reliable cure is time, but it can be treated with steady doses of class consciousness and reading a fucking book.

>Eventually everyone will just make no money at all and 6 people will own everything on the planet,

Poor people today have a better quality of live than JD rockefeller did 100 years ago.

Literally the quality of life for everyone has increased in the past 100 years.

You don't belong on Veeky Forums with that kind of retarded thinking

>>Ignoring the suffering and death caused by capitalism and imperialism is an argument
>>"It triggers me" is an argument

>humans die therefore its ok to ignore all the benefits capitilism has provided the modern world

You ungrateful little fucks make me sick

>humans die therefore its ok to ignore all the benefits socialism has provided the developing world

You ungrateful little fucks make me sick

>its ok to steal from people to stop lazy idiots from dying

>implying I want to stop lazy idiots from dying

>its ok to steal from rich people since some people are too stupid to go to college instead of bagging groceries for 40 years.

>implying I think everyone can or should go to college
>implying I think the means of production should be seized for moralistic liberal muh wealth redistribution

Guess we'll see in 50 or so years capitalist pig

I'm convinced that people who argue in favor of communism merely take the positive things about capitalism and replace the world "capitalist" with "communist" to form their sentences.

Give an example

I have a theory that all commies are atleast one of the following

-retarded
-deeply depressed
-sociopathic control freaks

>20+ posts in
>still no actual critiques of communist theory or ideology
Next time you make a thread about this, have the decency to put in the little bit of effort it takes to come up with ONE (1) actual argument. Thanks.

>-retarded
Like throwing away food supplies during an economic depression? Sounds like something incompetent socialists would do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act
Whoops, bad example.
>inb4 cuckitalists defend this

>-deeply depressed
Probably watching coworkers drop dead from overwork, which was prevalent throughout socialist regimes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karōshi
Oh wait, that's also under capitalism. My bad.

>-sociopathic control freaks
Whereas every capitalist leader was compassionate and freedom-loving, like Batista, Pinochet, or Franco, for example. Right.

>he thinks its ok to steal from people

ITT: people who have never read a book discussing

>he thinks it's okay to exploit people

>he thinks moral arguments will stop the proletariat from pursuing its economic self-interests

>voluntary contracts is exploitative

Fuck off nigger Marxism is the ultimate redpill

>muh /pol/

Fuck off.

whats wrong with being right wing?

It makes you believe in fantasies like capitalism

Right-wing "politics" are based entirely on spooks and misunderstanding the nature of ideology.

Capitalism is responsible for modern living and has dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Fuck the reason why you're able to afford highspeed internet is due to capitalism

The only arguments I've ever heard for communism are moral criticisms of capitalism.
Capitalism doesnt feel nice but at least it function without a dictatorial politically repressive central government.

>Inb4 some bullshit about seizing the means of production when we all work service or computer jobs anyway

Have you even read stirner before?
I'm not even right wing but right wing ideology is way closer to egoist than left wing. I don't mean traditional american values, though, I mean Ayn Rand and ancap right wing

>still no actual critiques of communist theory or ideology
ok, I will give ou the main problems. The communist manifesto directly states it will transfer vast powers to the government. How does it intend to deal with corruption? It is never mentioned which is the equivalent of leaving germ theory out of medicine. What about the inherent value of liberty? Is it morally right to deprive someone of the freedom to own the means of production they did not obtain by exploiting anyone?

>Agricultural Adjustment Act
A government intervention in the market is pretty much the opposite of free markets and capitalism. Do I have to explain this?

>Karōshi
What proportion of the population does this affect? If someone has a health problem under a socialist regime, is that Karōshi too? How does it compare to conditions among peers (similar environments and levels of development) that are socialist?

>Batista, Pinochet, or Franco
Association fallacy. It seems you expect me to believe Pinochet was ostensibly capitalist in his propaganda therefore my uncle who worked 20 years as a mechanic and started his own garage (complete with employees who do not own a share) is as bad as Pinochet and should have his life's work confiscated and spent by completely incorruptible socialist leaders.

Testosterone

Or capitalist leaders like Calvin Coolidge, Rand paul, and Milton Freedman.

>Throwing away food supplies
What about holodomor? Or the untold millions killed by mao, stalin, pol pot, etc. The list goes on. Any crime committed by a corporation pales in comparison to the bullshit communism brought into the world.

Explain to me how your brand of communism would yield any benefits to humanity over neoliberal capitalist democracies.
Do you just think you're smarter than the Bolsheviks? Or the maoists? They were just doing it wrong amiright

Did you not read what the anime girl said? If you are right wing you are mentally ill.

>The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there.

So... being an entrepreneur or a drug dealer.
Or you unironically think stirner would advocate giving the government total control over the economy ffs

also,

>literally regards everything as his own property
>left wing

>How does it intend to deal with corruption?
Marx's original vision of proletarian dictatorship was closer to that of the Paris Commune. The thought is having political power distributed throughout the working class as a whole would prevent its consolidation into the hands of a few corrupt bureaucrats.

>What about the inherent value of liberty?
>this is your brain on liberalism

> Is it morally right to deprive someone of the freedom to own the means of production they did not obtain by exploiting anyone?
No, it isn't. So it is immoral to deprive the working class from owning the means of production, because otherwise it would be used to exploit others :^)

>A government intervention in the market is pretty much the opposite of free markets and capitalism. Do I have to explain this?
>real capitalism has never been tried!
Capitalism is private ownership over means of production, regardless of how much government intervention is in the economy.

>What proportion of the population does this affect?
I don't know, just a handful of people judging from the wikipedia article. But the fact it happens at all is horrifying.
>If someone has a health problem under a socialist regime, is that Karōshi too?
No, unless they died in a gulag or something.

>It seems you expect me to believe Pinochet was ostensibly capitalist in his propaganda therefore my uncle who worked 20 years as a mechanic and started his own garage (complete with employees who do not own a share) is as bad as Pinochet and should have his life's work confiscated and spent by completely incorruptible socialist leaders.
No, I don't expect you to believe that. It's just something to keep in mind next time you associate every socialist figure with Stalin or Mao.

No, he was an anarchist, silly.
Read Stirner.

>doesn't know the difference between private and personal property
Sad!

I'm about a quarter of the way through the ego and his own rn.
Suck this screen cap though, nerd

>Subjecting yourself to the whims of bourgies and class society is in your best interest
Rand confirmed for boot-licking cuckitalist

Holy shit these stirner memes are dank.

But anyway, from your criticisms it is implied that in your opinion an egoist
would be more comfortable working
whatever job the communists dictated is in the best interest of society rather than being, say, an investment banker or a drug dealer. Certainly, stirner was not a capitalist. But he certainly was closer to a capitalist than a communist.

Stop associating Stirner with leftism, you're literally cancer.

>Karl Marx

>it is implied that in your opinion an egoist would be more comfortable working whatever job the communists dictated is in the best interest of society
I see your point if you're talking about the Marxist-Leninist regimes that typically had top-down command economies. But I'm advocating for tangible working class control over production, not just a handful of career politicians claiming to represent them.

>anti-capitalist
>anarchist
>magically not leftist because you spend all your time criticizing mainstream leftism
What, is Zizek a post-leftist too?

Okay /pol/, go ahead and tell me about how communism is related to science. And then link the posts that are discussing it from a scientific point in this thread.
If you can't do that then kill yourself for not even understanding what's wrong with you.

He isn't anti-capitalism you fuckwad, he's anti-having-himself-exploited-by-capitalism, and anarchism doesn't imply leftism.

Regardless of those two things, though, egoism itself is free of any particular political dissuasion. You might want to consider actually reading Stirner.

There was no real argument you dumb fuck what about all the shit that capitalism has caused faggot? Have you forgot all the countries America has turned into shitholes?

You are trying to argue economic political systems by talking about random shit that has nothing to do with them faggot.

This thread doesn't belong on Veeky Forums. Muh politics threads belong on . For the record, everyone arguing in this thread is fucking retarded and has no idea what he's talking about.

>He isn't anti-capitalism you fuckwad, he's anti-having-himself-exploited-by-capitalism
That's the same thing.

>and anarchism doesn't imply leftism
Yes it does. Every anarchist philosophy has been about finding an alternative to capitalism. You can't have private property rights without a state to enforce it.

>Regardless of those two things, though, egoism itself is free of any particular political dissuasion.
Sure, but it's easy to take the idea of the Union of Egoists literally as anarchist society based on voluntary association.

>That's the same thing.
It literally isn't. I could dislike being subject to the woes of having a small amount of money, but still enjoy making a lot of money using the system.

>Yes it does. Every anarchist philosophy has been about finding an alternative to capitalism. You can't have private property rights without a state to enforce it.

>what is anarcho-capitalism
Furthermore, I can have property rights if I deter people from trying to take my property. Wow, property rights without a state! I must be Houdini!

>Sure, but it's easy to take the idea of the Union of Egoists literally as anarchist society based on voluntary association.
But that society could take ANY form, not just a left-anarchy form. "It's easy to assume this idea could take this form..." is simply not an argument.

There is no such thing as true equality even in communism, because communists attempt to assert moral superiority as their way of screwing over the populace.

It is well known that in the USSR regular folks had to stand in food lines while elite party members could shop at stores with the special goods.

Also, why is there still no mention of the tens of millions murdered by Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and the like?

Interesting. I certainly don't have an understanding of the whole of stirners egoism yet. After really mulling this over, he was undoubtedly an anti capitalist.
Not to cuck myself too hard but I think in my earlier comments I had completely disregard that stirner does (afaik) embrace altruism, and egoism doesn't entail psychopathy. My points, then, about being an investment banker and drug dealer came from a misunderstanding, really, of egoism.

So to your credit, he was closer to the principled left than right... but i will maintain that he is nothing resembling the leftism that most people would be familiar with.

Nietzsche BTFOs not just communists but all universalizing egalitarians. I don't know how you are going to put Nietzsche into a pill, though.
I'm not troubled by hierarchy, inequity, slavery, in general, but my own place in the hierarchy, and to rectify my situation, I do not demand the world suddenly change, and seek to make what is done to me universally illegal, but simply demand the things which are needed for me to be on the right end of this exploitation or a beneficiary from myself, which is not such a high demand, for me. I do not resent the rich for seeking to use me the same way we all use cattle. I do not wish to abolish exploitation. I look fondly on imperialism, aristocracy, and upward redistribution.

Not really. People are idiots, and sucked in by quick answers and feel-good ego-filling solutions that magically punishes those they envy and bring them a paternalistic free resource to what they *think* they deserve.

The solution would be to kill the idiots, buy unfortunately mass murdering a certain group of morons who lack self-control is frowned upon due to a certain 20th century dictator and The Bell Curve showing us the killing would be mostly concentrated on a certain racial profile.

Now, socialism is flawed because it implies that a central dictatorship is better to decide where and how to focus the labor efforts than the sum of all of our specialised people all over a society. There are other flaws, but this is the main one. Also, remember communism doesn't really exist as a defined state, Marx sort of mentioned communism as this anarchic socialism but made no effort to elaborate on how to reach it. Marx work is mostly exoteric assumptions and fallacies.

>socialism
>benefits
Huh?