How does socialism and communism solve the problem of every man wanting to own something?

Fortunately we have archaeology and historical records which tell us that people have been greedy, status-signalling jerks since the beginning of time.

Taking resources to build a private yacht furthers inequality and causes misery to the rest of mankind.

>Taking resources to build a private yacht furthers inequality and causes misery to the rest of mankind.
Theoretically a guy could ask for the "resources" to build a yacht from a commune and build it by himself to use.

Only issues being
a) it's up to everyone else if they'd be willing to invest resources on a yacht (not a big ask in a post-artificial scarcity society but still - why?)
b)he wouldn't be able to employ anyone as wages no longer have value. Everything is already held in common.

Truth be told the whole hypothetical is completely divorced from anything meaningful. All it does is obfuscate the nature of capitalism.

quoted wrong guy. whatever.

A yacht would be personal property. If you want one, you may visit your local workers' council to arrange an acquisition.

I have no money, nobody has money. And nobody has the authority to grant private ownership. And nobody has anything private.

You're describing the faults of egalitarianism, not communism.

Under communism, the state owns all yachts, and you use them within the limits of availability and public need.

Why would they agree to that?

>hello, I would like you to build me a yacht so that I may plow more women than you
>"no"

>state
>under communism
This is a 18+ site, please, leave.

Given all the means of production you owned you'd haven't the funds nor time for such frivolous things, comrade!

Not a gommie, but you guys are all slaves to your own human nature.
And that's very sad.

You don't get what you want, or what you need.

You get what your provided.

I don't know Marx very well, OP, so here's just a hypothesis

- greed is not natural. No man will "naturally" desire a juicy yacht. Greed becomes possible when money exists (that's what Marx says). Now regarding the yacht, I dunno, maybe there will be no yacht in a communist society. After all, why not. I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit.

So, more generally, it would depend on technology, and on another question - how will we work and live in a communist society ? If technology is still used in order to make work more efficient or bearable, then it implies that luxury cannot disappear, and will probably keep producing more and more unnecessary things and desires. I don't know at all what Marx says/thinks about future technology (not just about technology as it existed in the XIxth century).

Marx advocated for the dissolution of private property, not governments. His argument for the development of communism assumed the presence of a state to enforce its positions w/ regard to the dissolution of property rights and redistribution of wealth.

>Under communism there wouldn't be something like "thirst for ownership".

as a member of the security organs, i will send you to prison for life on faked charges, after torturing you for the fun of it, so that i can rape your wife. well, at least tell her that she's mine now and if she doesn't like it she too can go to prison.

> I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit.
Hadn't had such a nice giggle in while, thanks for the line.

>Marx advocated for the dissolution of private property

Nope.

read Marx.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, -KM Critique of the Gotha program

Why would you need to "own" a yacht?
If the answer is to go sailing in it (challenging and enjoyable leisure activity is a legit human need so theres nothing wrong with that), then you don't need to own a yacht for that, you just have to be able to get the use of one. If you were a member of a proletarian yacht club they'd have a bunch of yachts and could rotate the use of them accordingly based on availability and what the members of the club deemed fair.

If you needed the yacht for a particular economic or social enterprise, again you wouldn't have to own it, you could be given the use of one by the local soviet or public works committee or whatever.

If you just wanted it to have, just for the sake of it as a status symbol, then you're a social parasite and would be relocated to some sort of treatment center to have your maladaptive personality altered to ensure your best able to realise your potential for happyness, or if those efforts prove futile then you would be put down humanely in as efficient and painelss a manner possible.

I hope that answers your question comrade.

Men in yachts get mad pussy cos owning a yacht is a sign of wealth. This wouldn't be the case in a classless, moneyless communist society. Yachts would not hold the prestige they hold today.

>
>retard: the post

>Why would you need to "own" a yacht?
Becez. Stopped reading right there. And the yacht only serves as an example, may insert anything you desire there.

Nigga, read the OP. I'm done here.

that quote from the manifesto reflected a marx that had not yet published capital, showing that his systematic inquiry was negative in nature, with him never being able to tell us what a post-capitalist society would look like.

there are plenty of marxist thinkers that have developed since. you would do better to pose questions against their frameworks instead of one that is 150 years old.

>I have never been on a boat
They're fun for their own sake. People are fascinated by the ocean.

>If you just wanted it to have, just for the sake of it as a status symbol, then you're a social parasite and would be relocated to some sort of treatment center to have your maladaptive personality altered to ensure your best able to realise your potential for happyness, or if those efforts prove futile then you would be put down humanely in as efficient and painelss a manner possible.
I can't imagine why your ideology doesn't have more adherents.

I can't imagine why your ideology can't detect obvious sarcasm

>Becez. Stopped reading right there. And the yacht only serves as an example, may insert anything you desire there.
Not really. Most things you could get under catpialism you would also be able to get under communism. The means of production are the same - they are just driven to serve human need rather than profit.

The only things that you would be unlikely to have would be needlessly wasteful things that only benefit a select few. i.e. why waste resources on a giant palace for one guy when we can invest them in medicine, infrastructure etc.

But really "can't have a yacht" (which isn't necessarily true) is the worse defence for capitalism. Most cannot and will not have a yacht under capitalism.

I know people who advocate something very close to that post, so the idea that there's a lunatic on Veeky Forums who wants to organize humanity that way isn't too far-fetched.

Most cannot have a yacht under capitalism > nobody can have yacht under communism
FLAWLESS DEFEAT

>>I have never been on a boat
The guy I responded to mentioned plowing women. He was obviously referring to it in terms of a status symbol.

Seriously though, if we have enough resources for everybody who wants to have a yacht to have one, what's the problem with that?

More like:
Nearly everybody cannot have a yacht under capitalism > If you really need a yacht, a yacht will be provided, just give it back after you're done, under communism

Je-sus. American I'm assuming?

I'm not sure whether you're insinuating that only an American would not want to live in the world described in or whether only an American would propose it unironically. I suspect that neither is true.

>Most cannot and will not have a yacht under capitalism
>Nearly everybody cannot have a yacht under

Most cannot afford a luxury yacht, but to pretend like pocket yachts, fishing boats, barge and narrowboats are unaffordable is fucking retarded.

You're mistakenly conflating personal property with private property.

Owning a yacht because sailing is your passion? Personal property.

Owning a yacht because you want to make money by charging others for rides on your yacht? Private property.

>you can have fun on your yacht, but don't you dare charge people way less than what it would cost them to have their own yacht to have occasional fun on your yacht because then our whole utopia will collapse
Really gets the ol' neurons warmed up.

The only people I come across online or IRL that would come off with that sort of thing unironically are mostly Americans.

>Most cannot afford a luxury yacht, but to pretend like pocket yachts, fishing boats, barge and narrowboats are unaffordable is fucking retarded.
And unrelated to the question.

There's no reason why those things would be "forbidden" in a post labor society. I assume OP is referring exclusively to incredibly extravagant things that only a minority of people can currently afford.

>dare charge people way less than what it would cost them to have their own yacht

It would be free for them to have their own yacht. Money would not exist.

Of course, this would mean that anybody who tries to charge you for yacht rides is a retard - nobody would pay him, not least because money wouldn't be a thing.

Marxism is retarded and a 5 year old could refute it.

Basically, human beings (and all forms of life) essentially have their own wills and desires and glorious pressures. They cannot be taken away. The Marxist utopia is even bad in theory: greatness and individuality is squashed and everyone is forced to be part of the "herd".

Why did leftists start appropriating Stirner? How the fuck did that happen?

I'm glad you'd rather your masters have 7 mansions while you waste 8 hours a day on pointless labor as a wagecuck.

t. 4 year old

>implying a bunch of subhumans being "miserable" is a bad thing
Utopianism is a meme, Last Man

>ad hominem
Too bad those who preach marxism usually are the wagecucks.

Do you never actually stop and THINK why capitalism just happened to exist? Do you really think that we "strayed from morality" at some point?

Hierarchy and struggle is the BASIS of life. You cannot get rid of it, it's natural and completely healthy.

Stirner has always been considered part of the left you burger retard. His contemporaries placed him in the realm of egoist anarchism.

and ffs the left-right divide comes from one's stance on the nature of hierarchy. The right sees hierarchy as natural, inherent or desirable. The left seeks to limit hierarchy.

>it will take no resources to build and maintain a yacht because there won't be fiat currency

Well sure, if it's gonna be fucking Star Trek where we just replicate things for free then of course anyone can have a boat. Barring that...

>- greed is not natural
You're a special kind of moron.

Well yes. That's why they preach marxism. Are you retarded.

>i have never read marx the post
Why do those who hate marx the most are always those who have never read him.

>anarchy = left
kys, imbecile

>ambition is bad
>independence is bad
>resistance is futile
Communism, everyone.

>Well sure, if it's gonna be fucking Star Trek where we just replicate things for free then of course anyone can have a boat. Barring that...
Not everyone lives near the coast so not literally everyone would have a boat. Of course "renting" (i.e. borrowing) a boat is still a thing.

It's funny how all the defence's for capitalism are always really abstract moral concerns on possible limitations that would be enforced on those who live like kings today. Nobody looks at the state of the majority of humanity and provides an argument as to why this is desirable.

I'll never get it. How can anyone work a job in the modern world and not think "this is a total waste of my time. i'm not doing anything productive and i'm only killing time here so i can have enough money to eat and do the things I enjoy."

>>it will take no resources to build and maintain a yacht because there won't be fiat currency

You seem to be under the impression that large swathes of the world population would randomly be clamouring for yachts in a communist society. Why do you think that? Yes, yachts are a luxury possession today - but, as I said, that's largely because of the prestige and status they convey.

I have zero interest in owning a yacht. I daresay most people in this thread, when it comes down to it, don't give much of a shit either. I mean, if offered one I wouldn't turn it down. But it's not something I care about.

Remember the great far-right thinkers like Kropotkin, Bakunin, Mahkno and the like.

But that isn't because of capitalism you idiot, pain and misery are as essential to life as health and happiness is. You're just a subhuman wagecuck and blame that on everyone else.

>has a right to live reproduce successfully

So...sex slavery?

Commies should be hung from trees

Not everyone is so much of a waste that they live in a dead end and think the only way out is robbing others.

>essential to life
Weasel words. Actually explain what you mean instead of vomiting up hollow rubbish like a retard.

What, if life were suddenly devoid of pain and misery we'd all just keel over and die? Gimme a break.

>But that isn't because of capitalism
>Artificial scarcity, poverty, starvation, homelessness and death by preventable diseases have nothing to do with the economy.
You are literally retarded.

>You're just a subhuman wagecuck and blame that on everyone else.
>the fact that people have to work for a wage has nothing to do with the structure of society but is instead due to their own personal failings.
unbelievable user.

>What, if life were suddenly devoid of pain and misery we'd all just keel over and die?
Yes. The only thing that gives meaning to our lives (and what we were evolved to place meaning to) is struggle and overcoming.

We are animals. We are supposed to not live in utopia. A perfect world is unattainable, and if it was it would be worthless. Think about it: in nature, man struggles against nature and his fellow man to ensure his survival. These instincts, in the modern society, become art and philosophy.

Yeah man, none of that shit happened in hunter-gatherer societies. Nobody was unhappy until big bad capitalism came to make you miserable.

kek. Considering this is Veeky Forums I know for sure 99% of people who sperg out when it comes to Marx haven't read him.
Just stop providing shitty opinons on a subject you know nothing about.

Refute it then.

...

>posting a homeless schizophrenic Jew to prove a point

Yes, Christianity is life-denying. Marcists are the true spiritual heirs to Jesus

>waaaah society is oppressing me into doing work waaaah

You are retarded. Jesus told us to abandon our natural greeds to become clean.

I'm not following you user. You say that our lives would be without struggle and therefore without meaning. But there's a fat gap between that and actual death/extinction.

You're forgetting the fact that a communist society wouldn't be a utopia. We'd still have to contend with loss, death, illness, natural disasters, etc. Communism can only solve so many issues.

You seem to be presenting two contradictory viewpoints: 1) communism would be shit (and therefore not a utopia); and 2) utopias are bad, therefore communism is bad.

...

So, resorting to another opinion, because the first one failed? Fucking retard.

>criticism of capitalism = a glorification of prior modes of production
The Communist Manifesto literally has a section praising capitalism for its triumph over previous modes of production.

>reading babby marx

>without struggle

>greed
>not natural
>airplanes
>useless
Jesus Christ, I never knew people could be this retarded.

Did he get that quote from Stirner?

Read the communist manifesto

All statists.

No him, but 1 and 2 and both correct and in no way mutually exclusive.

So?

The main thing I don't understand is how two people exchanging labour for resources is wrong. They're both agreeing to do it voluntarily. You can make contracts, barter prices and form unions. But why do we need a government to intervene and seize the entire operation? Isn't it worse to steal an entire factory than to give money to a worker for their mutually agreed upon labour?

In our society, wanting to own a yacht is a feeling that few will ever feel, and even fewer will satisfy their demand.

However, if you somehow convince the workers of your commune that YOU deserve a yacht, they could vote on that matter and if a majority (may be 50% may be 2/3rds) votes yes, it's your yacht.

The probability of this happening is very low, just like it's very unlikely that you will ever own a yacht in a capitalist society.

Lastly, it's important to understand the difference between owning private property and owning personal property. Your house, toothbrush and shoes are your bellongings. You own them. A company or a factory however is nothing that one individual should own, which is why private property is controlled by the masses.

marxism is just a new language wrapped around an older argument. All it boils down to is that usury is bad. Which is, in the final analysis, just an issue with technology; money is humanity's only invention.

>So?

The post that was in response to implied that pointing out the issues pertaining to capitalism today somehow equals a glorification of previous modes of production. This was said in the post. I'm not sure how you're not following this user.

>marx's critique is a moral critique
>capitalism is voluntary
>communism is the government seizing the means of production

>I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit.
Thanks for the laugh.

Never speak again.

You know buddhism has been a minor, irrelevant religion for the past two millennia or so, right?

Name one important Buddhist country (protip: you can't)

Just because marx liked parts of capitalism doesn't mean that primitive communism and communism are in any way different. "A is B so C is D" I'm not sure how you're not following this user.

Pain and misery are conditions of living in the world. We've advanced quite far as a species actively struggling AGAINST these things, not embracing them in some masochistic manner.

>Just because marx liked parts of capitalism doesn't mean that primitive communism and communism are in any way different
Except for having completely different modes of production.

FFS user just read Marx.

Can you tell me why I'm wrong rather than just saying I'm wrong

I have... and I disagree with this conclusions. (And premises and arguments) Primitive communism and communism are exactly the same same, the only difference any given tree will have more apples on it, (maybe) big whoop.