Sigh

>Or are those all lies?
exaggerations, and/or meaningless/unimportant information.

The only reason, I think, communism was suggested or has any support, is from a concern about the well being of 'the human' in general (absolutely specifically)
of course there are all sorts of problems and difficulties with this, but that is I think an ok starting point foundational statement to then try to make arguments and discussions with

>Democracy
Did you mean communism?

Pretty much every political theory is propounded with the human good in mind, but it is almost never clear how one transitions from the abstract to reality. Perhaps Hume's Is/Ought gap has relevance in such discussions. Kek

The first largest obstacle is the fact of children. Then there is the fact of each individuals necessary humane needs. And thats pretty much it. If every human alive had there necessary human needs covered (no questions), would there be anything to complain about?

If you ask about what I meant about children, or try to in response parse out what I may have meant, maybe I will explain what I think I mean by that

>Kek
>88
oh, and heil our lort, checkmen

Then, metaly, tied for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Is; The variety of values of labor, and the varieties of values of currencies, and the varities of Nations resources (and the variety of ownership of those resources by how many of who within the nation)

Too many things to name, but many fewer than any other political system.

Communism is only a good idea for charismatic people who would have a lot to gain in a gift society thanks. It would be hell for shy and introverted people who depend on money as a medium of exchange that bypasses social conventions, that's why most communists who are actually into it for the endgame of the ideology (and not merely for the aesthetics or because they want more labour rights) are either women or attractive young males.

communism is economic democracy.

DESU I don't even think its even HYPOTHETICALLY possible for every human need to be fulfilled. Might want to check out Dostoyevsky's whole rant on the "Chrystal Palace" in Notes from the Underground. Or Kant's Groundwork if you're up to it: "happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination, resting merely upon empirical grounds, which is futile to expect should determine an action by which the totality of a series of results in fact infinite would be attained" (4:419-Chapter 2). Also Section 83 of Critique of Judgment: "The conception of happiness is not one which man abstracts from his instincts and so derives from his animal nature. It is, on the contrary, a mere IDEA of a state, and one to which he seeks to make his actual state of being adequate under purely empirical conditions--an impossible task."
Were you going to make an antinatalist point about children? I get that if no person existed, there would be no needs for people... but that's kinda like killing a fly with a hand grenade...

The error that is the labor theory of value, abolishing money is problematic, something resembling the state is still needed to manage property rights and prevent the restoration of capitalism, lack of profit motive stifles consumer product innovation, planned economies have historically been good at industrialization and militarization but slow down afterward, among other things

FUCK, I assumed happiness=state of having all needs satisfied, which may not necessarily be the case. Meh. Lotta dubs though, so its perfectly fine in any case

>It would be hell for shy and introverted people who depend on money

This is one of the silliest, though funny, pasta I have seen, did some 19 yo meme propagandist make this tonight?

One of the big claims of Marxism was that it alienated citizens, and made it 'every man for themselves, all against all battle to the death', instead of, 'alright, we have the totality of human knowledge at our finger tips and the totality of earths resources, what do we feel like doing?'

Oh, no.. the shy and introverted people with money may get a bit of social anxiety now that utopia exists? Sorry impoverished masses of the world, you cannot live humanely because there are some shy and introverted people that need money because they are too scared to talk to their comrades when they need to receive their potato rations.

Last but certainly not least; browse /r8k/ a bit, did communism make 'all of those' shy and introverted folks that do and do not have money and are just dandy and chipper about their communistic life and prospects?

Oh. Capitalism is economic democracy. Supply and demand and dollars are votes.

>possible for every human need to be fulfilled.
By needs I meant; food, water, clothing, shelter, toiletries ("""etc""")

no I wasnt going to make an anti natalist comment, I mean, the sciences of overpopulation should be discussed in the open on a large scale patient, civil intelligent scale and medium, and there was what china did and just recently stopped with the 1 baby law, but besides that, I think anti natalists should be killed.

Well its difficult. I mean what china did. If it is possible for over population to be a problem, then there are people in the civilization saying, 'maybe we dont all need to have children'

then there is the flip side of the coin, with pol saying, white birth rates are declining, there are a billon chinese and a billion indian, and ever more african, so whites should not be talking about this and if anything be having more children.

So, no, the reason I brought up children, is because that is one of the main things the system of labor and money and property determines; who has access to what women and who has the potential to have how many children.

Also I wasnt the one to ever bring up happiness in this convo. Dont know how its being wielded around.

>One of the big claims of Marxism was that it alienated citizens, and made it 'every man for themselves, all against all battle to the death', instead of, 'alright, we have the totality of human knowledge at our finger tips and the totality of earths resources, what do we feel like doing?'

Which is a false claim, by the way. Demonstrably so, since modern archeology has shown that the things Marx considered a result of "alienation" existed before the division of labour and class society began.

In the end communism is just a way for intellectuals to achieve absolute political, cultural, economical and societal power.

Not really. Capitalism requires earning money, rather than just being entitled to a vote. And it tends to be much less majority rule than democracy.

>>Supply and demand and dollars are votes.
>what is one man, one vote
Another quality post by dipshitty

>what is one man, one vote

Certainly isn't the same thing as democracy

He's right to be honest.
Yesterday morning I was talking with a cashier in a nearby drugstore, and it was evident to me that with a bit of communist rethoric I could have converted this guy from being a regular hardworking Christian guy to a Red Guard.

It is that easy unless you live in the US

You're still failing to consider the fact that most of the goods imported in these countries are still being built through slave labour (or at least labour that would be considered highly immoral if it took place in those countries).
There is still massive exploitation, it's just not imposed on the citizens themselves (instead it is outsourced to third world countries).

It is another utopian theory (that states how all humans should be ideally) that is too simple and lacks thousands of years of implementation hacks other, more successful utopian theories have.

When you have to make a person act like a model of a person, either comedy or tragedy happens.

America was never great lmao

>>>Supply and demand and dollars are votes.
>>what is one man, one vote
What is 'dollars' equal mannessness
What is (regardless), each individual, votes with their dollars; their is always voting taking place about everything. It is just the voting takes place with dollars.

He's right except for that one retarded point.
Literally only illiterates say this.