Has anybody not named Max Stirner ever properly refuted Marx?

Marx refuted Marx profit doesn't tend to fall.

yes, everybody with a half working brain.


also, jesus christ this picture is pure cringe.

(you)

>>1914796
>Has anybody not named Max Stirner ever properly refuted Marx?
Stirner BTFO him so there's no more reason to.

Stirner only refuted early, idealistic Marx.

Reality

Father Seraphim Rose

>>1914858
Which work would you use to illustrate this early, idealistic Marx?

>>1914796
Can someone explain to me why leftists think the dialectic is somehow gospel?

>>1914796
Marx greatly overestimated man selflessness. In a perfect world where egoism doesn't exist, communism would Have been possible.
Alas, it will forever be an utopia

>>1914892
>Marx greatly overestimated man selflessness.
I would argue that it is not lack of selflessness, but rather a tendency of humans to form hierarchies. In other words: classes.

>>1914796
Reality.

>>1914796
Tocqueville

Any intro to economics class.

>instead of editing this theory to apply it to anything other than a utopia i'm going to autistically try to make it a reality as soon as I possibly can uncompromisingly

>>1915316
the norks edited it and it works.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 425x400px)

86KB, 425x400px

Marx's major mistakes were his idea of striking a mechanistic organizational structure instead of a organic organization, and his mistaken conception of the individual.

Stirner is definitely much more authentic.

>>1914878
The Manifesto and all works prior?

Marx was only 28-29 when he wrote that

>>1914892
This argument fails because human selfishness leads to the brutality of capitalism. Socialism, with its demands of worker control, limits the potential of humans to abuse others.

>>1914955
Not at all, economists of today are so unconcerned with labor that they don't attempt to address Marx.

>>1915561
Right because working class mobs never hurt anyone, and certainly are not prone to short sighted, rash decisions


Also have you never heard of a demagogue?

>>1915449
>Stirner is definitely much more authentic.
I think you mean autistic.

>>1914796
Everyone who tried it.

>>1914890
It is. Just like Marx is their prophet.

>>1914796
>This again
Communism is just a bad idea. It doesn't account for too many human factors, and ignores the law of nature. It was doomed before it even started.

>>1918715
>It doesn't account for too many human factors, and ignores the law of nature
I really dislike when people say such unspecific things, it's so uninspired.

>>1918715
> muh human nature
Communism works perfectly fine on local level of community, despite human nature arguably to be even more important here.

>>1918706
After almost a century of marxists being retards you can't say nothing original anymore about them. Calling a drooling idiot eating his own shit stupid might not be original but it defeinitly isn't any less true becouse of that.

>>1918728
So why it never worked on a large scale?

>>1918745
Because there is no way to reasonable account for what people want to have and what people need to do on a large scale. Even capitalism, arguably fails to do that, despite using flawed empirical methods like market prices. Commies didn't even use that so they fail even harder as a result.

>>1915407
"Works"

>>1918751
Soviet Union collapsing, China going capitalist, North Korea changing into hell on earth and Cambodia into death camp was also fault of the west?

>>1918848
Yes, Reagan himself said that he defeated USSR.

>>1918805
Not all of them died of hunger. Yet.

>>1918871
If marx was right then socialist countries would simply outperform capitalist ones economically. They were supposed to be the next step in this "evolution". How could soviets lost a fight they were supposed to have every advantage in?

>>1918902
>Worst thing that happened to Russia.
Really? Not bolsheviks taking over? Not Stalin taking over? Not WWII? A dying system that could survive only on life support from satellite states finally collapsing on itself was the worst thing that happened there?

>>1918941
>The Tsars weren't perfect you know, they were pretty shit.
They also weren't in power by that time. You, know, the february revolution?

>>1918891
> How could soviets lost a fight they were supposed to have every advantage in?
They weren't really socialist as they weren't really products of evolution from capitalism. Marx wasn't really wrong here about benefits and such. Mostly Soviets was lying bastards that claimed ISIS level of messianism.

>>1918941
> Russia has only managed to have more crime, more corruption
The same could be said about Russian Revolution that arguably even killed more Russian that all the violence against them before it combined. The fall, while being pretty bad, wasn't that level of bad like WWII or especially Civil War.

>>1918745
Because Marxist Leninism is ass

>>1914892
>"perfect"
this is the arrogance I cannot stand.

>>1914796
Aristophanes refuted Marx over 2000 years before Marx was even born.

>>1915613
They dont attempt to address Marx in the same way most biologist dont address creationists

>>1918728
The newest evidences suggests that even the most primitive societies had hierarchies and some concept of property, there just wasn't enough power and stuff around for their to be much of a gap

>>1914796

profit doesn't tend to fall
the labor theory of value doesn't say anything of value (no pun intended)
people don't compare themselves to the people above them but to those next to them
radical environmentalism is wrong


Forgot anything?

>>1920685
> radical environmentalism is wrong
was it even part of marx?

Marx gave up on the commune for the common good meme. By the time he wrote capital, he was basically advocating for workers-own-the-means-of-production socialism, and admitted that the only way to make a for-the-common-good society was to create a society that could meet all of a person's needs without the need for labor-as-means-of-survival being the primary occupation of a person.

>>1918659
ebin

>>1914796
Eugen von Böhm Bawerk.

>>1914892
>In a perfect world where egoism doesn't exist

>'egoism'
>bad
At some point, have you ever considered that people doing their own things is not evil?
Using the loaded term egoism isn't going to work here. All I hear is "people aren't fusioned into some gnostic mystic union so that's very very awful".

>>1918728
It really doesn't. There is a reason why kibbutzim stopped the collectivist madness and became just independent farms.

>>1914892

muh youman naytur

>>1914872
How?

Everyone who has built a coherent system without even mentioning or knowing him.

>>1914796
Hegel

>>1920973
Spooks aren't inherently incoherent.

>>1920695

>was it even part of marx?

Implicitly, yes.

>>1914796

Hegel and Stirner.

>>1914841

Not an arguement

Jesus Christ

>>1914892
MUH
HOOMIN
NATURE
kill yourself man, bet you're an ancap

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-05 at 9.27.27 pm.png (382KB, 870x864px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 870x864px

>>1914892

>human nature

>>1914892
>le homo economicus meme
Humans lived for the vast majority of their existence without capitalism. Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies sometimes without a concept of individual property at all. They even reject capitalist ideals when directly confronted with them (e.g. the Piraha in Brazil).

Research in evolutionary anthropology also points to selflessness being an innate trait in humans, while selfishness is not (e.g. see Tomasello, The Ultra-Social Animal).

>>1922831

>Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies

>hey dude I have a 6 squared meters tent and I ate a pigeon today, can't you believe how well off I am?


>piraha

I sure want to live like people who barely have an understanding of the past and future.

>>1914892
>communism was too good for this world
communism kills individuality and would be a dystopia even if it were possible

>>1918745
>>1918794
The reason communism failed is because capitalism worked, it's as simple as that.
In order for infrastructural change to occur there has to be negative feedback coming from the superstructures. (Marx knew this and claimed communism would be the next step in social evolution after capitalism fails, which is where he went wrong.) There was no negative feedback, because capitalism worked. In fact at the time Marx claimed capitalism was failing the transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't even completed yet.

The people claiming that capitalism is failing usually fail to look at the whole of human society and instead cite individual examples. Human society is bigger and more complex than ever, life expectancy is higher than ever, quality of living is higher than ever.

The only way for communists to force their system on a large scale was to damage the establish infrastructure by killing a lot of their own population (and even then communism failed in direct competition with capitalism).

>>1922834
>muh opinion

>>1922831
>hunter gatherers achieved a communist utopia
proof?

>>1914796
>>1922754
Where did Hegel and Stirner counter Marx?

I'm not arguing the point, I just want to read what they wrote on the subject.

>>1922852
Are you saying capitalism hasn't made all world regions more like each other and people believe in the same idea of individualism and importance of money?

>>1922859
>capitalism works
Now there's a genuinely bold claim.

File: leftcuck autist.jpg (127KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1080x720px

>>1922831
>Hunters and gatherers were affluent societies sometimes without a concept of individual property at all


The noble savage crap was debunked centuries ago you cringy brainwashed mongoloid

File: image.jpg (61KB, 594x372px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 594x372px

>>1914796
The United States

>>1914796
Yes. Anyone with a brain. Or history itself. Marx was a really dumb cunt, and every marxist is even worse than him.

Also
>leftypol
Get the fuck out. And don't come back.

>>1914796
I think every child who's first words are "Mine mine mine!" is a refutation of Marx.

>>1920685
>profit doesn't tend to fall

Just look around you senpai

>>1922818
Hey buddy, how about instead of abusing him you try to disprove him

>>1923018
The current state of America is a pretty big vindication of Marx

Yes Ludwig von mises

>>1923273


I do, still not falling.


>>1923324

America could literally be the opposite of what it is now and you marxists would still claim that it is a pretty big vindication of marx.

>b-b-but stirner
Reminder:
>Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. [...] His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.
t. stirner
>we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals
t. engels

>>1923484

The profit in the actual economy is falling

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/

>>1922831
t. david graeber

File: 1469569689791.jpg (31KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 512x384px

Enlighten me as to why, as people in this thread are saying, 'Human nature' is a meme

>>1924060
Marxism relies on 19th century idealism about man being a completely blank slate totally divorced from his biological urges and realities.

>>1924060

It is a meme in the sense that takes it as immutable. Nietzsche recognized how human nature changes through time with the proper historical consciousness. Any anthropologist can tell you how it is variable across space as well as time.

>>1914796
I pretty sure Thomas Sowell made a book destroying Max the person and his ideas.

>>1914892
>human nature
Pffft, dont you know me and my comrades would have no problem working 14hours a day at the factory. Human nature is a meme and people have never stole and were never corrupt under communist regime, it just doesn't happen.

>>1924060
Retards speak about their own culture as if it was human nature in every geographic and historical context, even though there are no universally common traits throughout history and geography.

>>1924174
>satirical post about what X ideology believes
>none of the claims in the post are what X ideology actually claims
Why do faggots do this?

>>1924134
Thomas Sowell doesn't count, he's in a higher league.

>>1924203
What satire, kiddo? Humans can easily be reprogrammed and become completely selfless so we can enjoy the fruits of communism.

>>1924213
>>1924134
>this is what libertarians actually believe

>>1924224
ebin

>>1924231
?

>>1924179
Question (not posed in a hostile way, just curious):
If, according to Marx, every divide in society is ultimately based on class - then isn't there a universal 'human condition' (eg humans are fundamentally similar irregardless of culture or geography)?

>>1924345
*regardless

>>1924134
Sowell attacked the USSR's implementation not Marxism. Just like Sowell attacking Keynesian economics didn't actually attack a concept developed by Keynes, but a later economist who was a Keynesian.

>>1924345
I don't agree with marxist historicism, but it is ultimately derived from technological progress, not from human nature. Classes arise because technology is not developed enough to avoid them.
>The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist

>>1924060
Because 99% of the time when someone uses human nature as an argument it's in an idealistic and non-materialistic way, which makes it an opinion and tedious to argue against.

>>1924076
This is completely wrong on every level.

>lol dude everythings a spook xD yolo

File: 1Bawerk.png (97KB, 220x270px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 220x270px

>>1914796
von Bauwerk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_B%C3%B6hm_von_Bawerk

>>1924076
lmao this is literally the opposite of Marx

>>1914892

>people are selfish so that means the working class doesn't see it as being in their own interest to loot the property of the rich

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

>>1925898
>get a bunch of people looting
>society goes to shit
>in anyone's best interest
Lad.

>>>1922859
>>capitalism works
>Now there's a genuinely bold claim.

Cut the edgy highschool Marxist act. If capitalism didn't work it wouldn't be the dominant and most widely used economic system today.

>>1926935

the problem with capitalism was never if it works, but how it works

>>1924060
Because human nature is why capitalism doesn't work.

The problem isn't that people are greedy, but that capitalism offers people enormous potential to enact on their greed to the massive detriment of everybody else.

>>1924134
No. Much like Hayek, he only criticised top-down Marxist Leninist economies... economies which most Marxist have little love for.

>>1914796

Economists and philosophers have made sound technical critiques of historical materialism and the labour theory if value

But I'm too retarded to know about them in detail

>>1914796
Max Weber
which is also the best Max

>>1915561
>Socialism
>limits the potential of humans to abuse others.
What about the potential (and common practice) of socialist states to abuse others?

>>1928146
But the LTV isn't even Marx. LTV is classical economics, like Smith and Ricardo. Marx just pointed out flaws in LTV and revised LTV to make more sense.

>>1929410
>Marx just pointed out flaws in LTV and revised LTV to make more sense.

....

So it's a strawman to point out lvt is total bunk in relation to marx, even tho marx himself "revised" and adopted lvt?

>>1929410
and both versions have been completely abandoned by modern economics, just like almost no historian uses historical materialism.

Both are used by people who do not know economics or history respectively, in depth.

File: The_Fatal_Conceit.jpg (19KB, 220x339px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x339px

He's been dismantled quite a few times, especially by ex-Marxists.

no economist takes marx serious anymore

File: quote-communism-doesn-t-work-because-people-like-to-own-stuff-frank-zappa-32-43-57.jpg (57KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 850x400px

Weird Al.

>>1929540
Except that was a criticism of the Soviet system. Specifically state central planning. It was also written before the information revolution, and the main critique is the lack of information and computing power. It doesn't actually deal with Marxism, just Marxism-Lenninism. It's understandable given at the time, Stalinism was claiming to be the one true model of socialism, and many anti-capitalists saw Stalinism as real-world socialism, but it wasn't the same as Marxism, and Hayek didn't dismantle Marxism.

>>1929814
The socialists at the time in Britain and Europe were pointing to the success of the Soviets, it took Hayek to explain the economic calculation problem among other things for them to back into the shadows and low and behold when the state-Communist/state-socialist system collapsed "not real Marxism", they said the same thing about Venezuela too but that's not real either, now they're on about Scandanvia (hardly Marxist I know).

I know there are Marxists who view themselves as pure, and their ideas as pure and all attempts as impure facades but it doesn't change the attempts or the intentions behind them.

Then again, a lot of the criticisms still stand when you look at ideas around abolishing Capitalism, money, hierarchy, property etc even more so than under a state system.

File: 1453935399342.png (859KB, 1139x1280px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1139x1280px

labor theory of value conflicts with the tendency of profit rates to fall in the long run

labor theory of value doesn't give a satisfactory account of the ontological nature of value

materialist determinism isn't taken seriously by historians

overdetermination is metaphysically impossible

File: 1463314038346.png (102KB, 512x512px)

102KB, 512x512px

society is comprised of varying types of horizontal and vertical institutions; ascribing primacy to class structure and analysis is very lame

File: homer.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>capitalism doesn't work
how to spot a retard 101

>>1930134
>labor theory of value conflicts with the tendency of profit rates to fall in the long run
How?

>>1930145
That is the opposite of what marx says.

>he posts about a subject he knows nothing about
how to spot a retard 101

>>1930145
>[capitalism] has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades
>The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground - what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

>>1930249
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem

>>1930272
Thanks, anon, i didn't know about this.

>>1930249
>>1930266
i was quoting people in the thread

>>1930301
My bad then.

>>1930304
no worries lad
i should have been more clear

File: 1478164156853.png (1MB, 892x1106px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 892x1106px

>>1914796
One thing that always confused me about Marx, and the left in general, is why even bother fixing it? Why is inequality that bad?

A utopia where everything is perfect just seems unnatural. Life is tragic and a struggle, how can we expect beauty to arise? I think i'd prefer the world to continue as it is, fraught with peril and pain, so we as individuals can work to overcome it and perfect our existence. I don't want the commune or the state to make everything happy, how can I be happy if I have no experience of unhappiness?

One can't truly appreciate the warmth and color of spring without having to endure winter. It is up to people, as individuals, to struggle. Without this, life would be boring and too easy.

>>1930078
>The socialists at the time in Britain and Europe were pointing to the success of the Soviets
I said as much.

> it took Hayek to explain the economic calculation problem among other things for them to back into the shadows and low and behold when the state-Communist/state-socialist system collapsed "not real Marxism"
Luxemburgists were saying it since the beginning. Many Soviet apologists were merely anti-capitalists rather than Marxists. They clung to the Soviet system, rather than Marxism, because it appeared that the Soviet system worked in real life, and provided an alternative to capitalism. Things like market socialism were too close to capitalism for them. You have to understand many "communists" just hated capitalism and would have embraced just about anything else.

>I know there are Marxists who view themselves as pure, and their ideas as pure and all attempts as impure facades but it doesn't change the attempts or the intentions behind them.
No, literally, Hayek only disproves centrally planned economies. You could literally have an absolute monarchy that is a planned economy. Planned economy does not make socialism, and socialism does not need planned economies. This has nothing to do with purity. Hayek pointed out a flaw in centrally planned economies, socialist or not, and such criticisms only apply to socialism with centrally planned economy.

Again, he also wrote this before the information revolution and modern super computers.

>>1930337
> Why is inequality that bad?
Because I'm not on the side that gets to enjoy the inequality. Me and the vast majority of the Earth's population are the people who have to suffer to maintain it.

>Without this, life would be boring and too easy.
Imperialist wars and slave-labour tier work doesn't make life fun or interesting. It makes your life a waste for the sake of your overlords.

The importance of life is the importance of communism. Wasting your life away in the interests of someone else is directly counter-productive to the struggle to create and enrich oneself.

The point of communism isn't to make you happy. It's to free you from the crushing misery and alienation of capitalist society. In any case it will always be up to oneself to be happy.

>>1930337
Marxism isn't about making things equality. Socialism is just more egalitarian and a purer meritocracy than the current capitalist system.

Socialism is a purer meritocracy in the sense that you get rewarded for your personal ability to perform productive labor, and not rewarded because you own things. You also get rewarded on your ability to contribute to society (in economic terms, provide utility for others, and satisfy economic demand) rather than your ability to take advantage of others and leverage power to maximize your profit, even if you don't actually contribute to society while doing it.

Communism is saying there's enough stuff to go around that you don't give a shit about inequality, because material inequality isn't what's holding you back. You have everything you could possibly need to be successful. You don't succeed or fail because someone else owns something or inherited status.

File: 1475296244193.png (280KB, 429x561px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 429x561px

>>1930361
>the people who have to suffer to maintain it.
And? Ants suffer to maintain the colony, why should it be changed?

I don't like the Capitalism either, but either way, you're going to be exploited and will be forced to work in slave labor tier environments. Unless your utopia frees people from having to work, they're still going to be forced to work.

>>1930374
So how does one get rewarded?

Are you saying that a state expects it's people to work, and the better they work, the more they get rewarded? Just sounds like everything Capitalism is expect the ultimate exploiter is the state.

What about a society where people just get to live out their lives, and if they get exploited, so be it? Either way, they're getting exploited.

>>1930385
>and if they get exploited, so be it?
fyi I don't mean they should accept being exploited, I support unions and if people want to develop communal entities, so be it.

>>1930385
>why should it be changed?
Because I want more. And even if I managed to change my station in life to being bourgeois I still would struggle to stomach the monumental suffering that's integral to capitalism.

>, they're still going to be forced to work.
By nature in order to live yes. But this is the great thing about automation in socialism, rather than have less jobs and having to compete even harder to make someone else rich when labour is automated you get to work less and make more when labour is automated.

>>1930361
Biologically and spiritually, mankind is unequal.

Communism is envy. They see the rich, and think that thievery and enslavement is the solution. Pure slave morality.

If there was no state, there would be natural order, hierarchy.

The communist would be forced to suppress his views of thievery and slavery, because under systems of justice, slavers and thieves are given death.

Pinkos are thrown in mass graves for a reason. To believe in communism in the modern age is pure retardation. It is the assumption that a vegan retard will steal the means of production from a farmer with 20 rifles and a family.

The reality is. Communists are usually pothead drug addict hedonist who feel limited by their lack of productivity. They see state action acting violently against the productive as a positive, but they lack any capacity to do violence themselves.

Pure slave morality. Inhuman animals who deserve to be put out of their misery

Equality is a myth.

>>1930385
>So how does one get rewarded?
Through regulated but voluntary private transaction, or through the state running everything.

>Are you saying that a state expects it's people to work, and the better they work, the more they get rewarded?
Yes, if you have a centralized model.

>Just sounds like everything Capitalism is expect the ultimate exploiter is the state.
The good thing about it is in a proper state-based socialism, it's democratic, so you and everyone else has a say in how the state is run and "exploiting" you and everyone else.

>What about a society where people just get to live out their lives, and if they get exploited, so be it? Either way, they're getting exploited.
Because in one, they're getting exploited by individuals who exploit many other individuals, and in the other they're collectively "exploiting" their collective selves through the state.

Go ask people who work in a worker-owned co-op and people who work for only wages who is happier and feels more exploited.

>>1930407
Hierarchy isn't the same as classes. Classes are a specific form of hierarchy. Socialism doesn't have a problem with individual merit based hierarchy.

>>1930428
Good, so you have no problem with people owning way more property then others, and lineages passing down property through inheritance.

File: 1476064527787.jpg (29KB, 650x456px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 650x456px

>>1930405
>Because I want more.
So it's about the accumulation of material power?

I'm a bit of a metaphysical nut so I don't really see the point in power that derives from what you own.

>the monumental suffering that's integral to capitalism.
Suffering is nature. I know it's a fallacy to appeal to nature, but it's undeniable. If you get rid of suffering, you create a very pointless and boring life because there's nothing to overcome. There's nothing to struggle for.

>you get to work less and make more when labour is automated.
I'm opposed to labor being automated full stop, Capitalism has a way of dealing with this issue. If you have no labor force earning money, then the Capitalists will have no means of garnering the money needed to produce goods.

>>1930418
>Through regulated but voluntary private transaction, or through the state running everything.
t. Tito

>Yes, if you have a centralized model.
Sounds like the same thing then, except more boring.

>in how the state is run and "exploiting" you and everyone else.
If the state has a monopoly over power, then at the end of the day, it's easily exploited by those seeking power.

>and in the other they're collectively "exploiting" their collective selves through the state.
Still exploitation, just with a different face.

>Go ask people who work in a worker-owned co-op and people who work for only wages who is happier and feels more exploited.
People working in co-ops are still working for a wage.

>>1930407
>mankind
So it is.

So the obvious solution is to level the playing field and let each individual flourish without being restricted by the material binds around us.

>>1930431
>t. Tito
Nothing wrong.

>Sounds like the same thing then, except more boring.
Note the "if" because you presumed one model of socialism

>If the state has a monopoly over power, then at the end of the day, it's easily exploited by those seeking power.
That's why Marx thought everyone should own guns. There's solutions to that. You could go as far as Athenian lottery democracy if elected representatives had more cons than pros.

>Still exploitation, just with a different face.
You are the beneficiary of your own exploitation. That's better than someone else being the beneficiary of your exploitation.

>People working in co-ops are still working for a wage.
Yes, and? Wages happen in socialism.

File: tumblr_n6vs60Jy8e1rxofzgo1_1280[1].png (100KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x600px

>>1930435
Nah,

You deserve to be oppressed, because people like you refuse to understand what it means to strive. To live is to be oppressed. I owe you nothing, anything I provide to you is voluntary and charity.

I never met a communist who wasn't in poor physical shape, or had a system of objective morality.

Sorry, I own things in this world. My property is violence. You will have to take it by force.

I have a feeling that you lack the means of moral conviction to carry out the morals you see as just in this world.

Slavers and thieves belong in mass graves.

>>1930431
>I'm a bit of a metaphysical nut so I don't really see the point in power that derives from what you own.
All power in the capitalist world derives from what you own.

I'd like to see that it doesn't.

>If you get rid of suffering, you create a very pointless and boring life because there's nothing to overcome. There's nothing to struggle for.
Except as said I'm not trying to put everyone into a doped up state of bliss. I'd like that the material suffering imposed on us by the capitalist system be lifted. This does not mean that no one will ever feel pain. Just that as we no longer toil as serfs we would no longer toil as wage slaves.

There's a lot to overcome in this life. Above all else is the struggle to overcome yourself which socialism gives us a platform to do to the best we could possibly attempt.

>I'm opposed to labor being automated full stop,
Why don't you just move to North Korea if you love being such a self-flagellating queer?

>>1930448
> I owe you nothing, anything I provide to you is voluntary and charity.
You are not owed anyone else respecting your understanding of property "rights" either if you are incapable of defending it yourself.

>Sorry, I own things in this world. My property is violence. You will have to take it by force.
What exactly do you think "revolution" and "seize the means of production" mean?

File: 1477901518497.png (263KB, 628x387px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 628x387px

>>1930435
What if society is organized not on material achievement? What if instead on focusing on what people are doing below, we look up and model our society and what could be considered as "divine"?

Individuals can't flourish if there's nothing to strive toward. You're society essentially cuts the stem off a rose so it's the same height as every other rose. The rose is willed to go up toward the sun, and that's how society should be modeled.

Some roses don't go that high, but just because they're not high doesn't mean they're not beautiful.

>>1930446
>Nothing wrong.
True, but nothing "good" either. Just kinda mediocre.

>That's why Marx thought everyone should own guns. There's solutions to that.
Then, it's cyclical. There will always be conflict and there will always be people who desire will. Why Materialism such as the Marxian utopia then? Why not something a little more Libertarian in an old American version?

>That's better than someone else being the beneficiary of your exploitation.
Well, when I get my paycheck, I benefit. If I didn't like my job I wouldn't work there, pretty simple stuff.

>Yes, and? Wages happen in socialism.
Then it's the same thing as what you're trying to get rid of, but just the State in place of Corporations.

>>1930450
>All power in the capitalist world derives from what you own.
Yes. unfortunately. But, that's life. In Old Japan, the power of the merchant was disprivalaged not by regulation, but by his inability to access the power of what was an ultimately spiritual caste system. The farmer and the merchant both operated fairly.

Japan wasn't perfect, had issues, but that's the kind of model which should be adopted. Ultimate power should come from the divine, not from the material world.

>Just that as we no longer toil as serfs we would no longer toil as wage slaves.
And you still will toil as slaves still. No matter what you do, I can't see how you fix this system.

>love being such a self-flagellating queer?
mfw

>>1930448
>I owe you nothing
I know.

And the sooner the rest of mankind realizes this the sooner every bourgie and their cohorts will meet death.

Aristocratic dupes are the worst kind of bootlickers. They don't want to take what's theirs, they don't want stand up for themselves, they don't want to break the binds that surround them. They're content to wallow in their chains feeling smug because they've read some Nietzsche.

If you truly had even a lick of self-awareness or introspection you'd realize that the bourgeoisie you seek to defend are weak and powerless to resist the might of a united proletariat. And all that they have could be ours.

>>1930462
>True, but nothing "good" either. Just kinda mediocre.
If that's all humanity can deal with, that's the limits of humanity.

>Then, it's cyclical. There will always be conflict and there will always be people who desire will.
What's the problem with that?

>Why Materialism such as the Marxian utopia then?
Marxist utopia is communism, not socialism.

>Why not something a little more Libertarian in an old American version?
Because we are far more industrialized now, capital is required to be productive, and there's no abundance of land and resources for people to go settle.

>Well, when I get my paycheck, I benefit. If I didn't like my job I wouldn't work there, pretty simple stuff.
So the size of the paycheck doesn't matter?

>Then it's the same thing as what you're trying to get rid of, but just the State in place of Corporations.
I'm not trying to get rid of wages or markets. I'm trying to reign in things I don't like about capitalism. And I told you that not everything has to be done though the state. Private transactions are fine as long as there's the social understanding that ownership matters falls within the realm of democratic decision making, and society can choose to change the definition of property if the definition of property stops serving the interests of society.

File: 1474523508180.jpg (642KB, 1007x1600px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1007x1600px

>>1930468
A Nietzschean doesn't ally with your Collectivism, or admire the Bourgeoisie. A true Nietzschean, and I know this is about to sound really edgy, cares only for himself and would rightfully push anyone out of his way. In both extremes of Communism vs psuedo Feudalism, your a serf for people with power.

>>1930473
>If that's all humanity can deal with, that's the limits of humanity.
No, we've seen a lot better in other societies. The more a society maximizes the potentiality of an individual and what he can achieve, the more we see achieved, even at the expense of other people.

>Marxist utopia is communism, not socialism.
They're both kinda the same thing, it gets vague and I dislike having to deal with the confusing case of far left dialects.

What you're suggesting, from what I can tell, is Market Socialism. Not just Socialism.

>Because we are far more industrialized now, capital is required to be productive, and there's no abundance of land and resources for people to go settle.
That's right, woe is modernity.

>So the size of the paycheck doesn't matter?
I'm not going to take more than what I feel I should earn. Something given has no value.

>I'm not trying to get rid of wages or markets. I'm trying to reign in things I don't like about capitalism.
Market Socialism. It's been tried, it didn't really achieve much. Worked better than other Socialist societies in the past century, but it didn't go above and beyond what is achievable.

>>1930462
> You're society essentially cuts the stem off a rose so it's the same height as every other rose
You see, this is how I know that you're not fully detached from the very western trend to exalt material status above all else.

Levelling (which in most cases means elevating) humanity to the same level doesn't mean that the most able, or the most determined among us are restricted. But rather it means that the most privileged among us are stripped of their unnatural advantages. The fact that they're rich, contrary to your metaphor, doesn't immediately mean that they're more able.

>But, that's life
Well yeah so it is. I'm saying it shouldn't be and rather people should be equally materially empowered so that they can be free to worry about other things. Like lifting weights, or painting pictures.

> I can't see how you fix this system.
I think you're coming from the wrong perspective. Communists aren't worried about the fact that to some capacity labour is only natural. Communists are worried about the existence of private property, which takes advantage of man's natural need to toil so that a small landed class of people reap the fruits of his labour.


>mfw
That was rude, sorry. But seriously, if you want life to be as materially difficult as possible then why aren't you living in the most godforsaken deprived country you can find?

>>1930482
>and I know this is about to sound really edgy, cares only for himself and would rightfully push anyone out of his way
Which is precisely why I'm saying you should be a communist. And to take the point one step further, if everyone was a Nietzschean society could be nothing but communist on the count that private property is a moral stance.

In all likelihood you're probably proletariat. And as such you have nothing to lose and a world to gain from communism.

>>1930482
> The more a society maximizes the potentiality of an individual and what he can achieve
Yes, socialism does that by proving people with education and access to capital, so they're not constrained by not having capital, or having to borrow and pay an investor a cut of the profits, or struggling to just make ends meet so they can work towards thriving.

>They're both kinda the same thing, it gets vague and I dislike having to deal with the confusing case of far left dialects.
No, they really aren't.

>What you're suggesting, from what I can tell, is Market Socialism. Not just Socialism.
I'm not opposed to market socialism, it's probably the form of socialism that can get implemented with the least amount of social upheaval. Anti-capitalists hate market socialism because it's too similar to capitalism with the markets and all.

>That's right, woe is modernity.
There's nothing wrong with modernity, you simply have to admit things that worked in the past may not work in the future, like everything else.

>I'm not going to take more than what I feel I should earn.
So basically you're saying you're a cuck.

>Something given has no value.
And that's why you take it as something you're owed.

>Market Socialism. It's been tried, it didn't really achieve much. Worked better than other Socialist societies in the past century, but it didn't go above and beyond what is achievable.
Because it's been tried in tiny insignificant countries and tiny insignificant countries don't achieve much in general no matter what system they are.

On the other hand, China is doing pretty decent, but it's difficult to define exactly what economic system China is. It's not really capitalist or socialist, not is it centrally planned. It's a statist but pro-bussiness system, and it's achieved quite a bit of success.

File: 1459056318325.jpg (301KB, 960x895px)

301KB, 960x895px

>>1930485
>from the very western trend to exalt material status above all else.
Your material existence should be a testament to the divine. For example, body building is an act in which you approve your body. Your body, of course, is an aspect of the material world. But, the act of body building is in terms of modelling the material up against eternal standards of beauty and aesthetics.

I feel the material world is a vessel, a painting, in which to paint the most beautiful pieces of art.

>Levelling (which in most cases means elevating) humanity to the same level doesn't mean that the most able, or the most determined among us are restricted.

I don't see why those more privileged of me should be leveled to my standard in society. They're a model of my existence, because I look upon them, as they look above beyond what I can see. This constant trend of desire to climb creates an environment of individual will.

Think of it like Crab Mentality, but reversed. Instead of a crab looking at another crab and bringing him down, the crab models his existence on the crab who's doing better than him.

>I'm saying it shouldn't be and rather people should be equally materially empowered so that they can be free to worry about other things. Like lifting weights, or painting pictures.
Lifting weights and painting pictures come from essentially struggle, it's how we develop standards of beauty, because we know and have experienced that which is not beautiful.

I don't care what other people do, and they shouldn't care about me unless they desire to help me (say they're altruistic, Christian perhaps).

>Communists are worried about the existence of private property
I understand this, I just can't help but ignore what seems to be a contradiction in both extremes.

>godforsaken deprived country you can find?
I'm not sure actually, I should now that I think about it. Honestly thinking about being a solider.

>>1930511
>I don't see why those more privileged of me should be leveled to my standard in society. They're a model of my existence, because I look upon them, as they look above beyond what I can see. This constant trend of desire to climb creates an environment of individual will.
Because you would have better models for your existence when the model for your existence isn't just propped up by inherited property.

File: 1476068164324.gif (781KB, 273x429px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 273x429px

>>1930495
>if everyone was a Nietzschean society could be nothing but communist on the count that private property is a moral stance.
That's true to some regard, property is just basically what someone enacts on their reality. They perceive something to be theirs.

But I can't help but desire to take it and keep it for myself. Communism expects me to give up what I earned, and I don't like that.

>In all likelihood you're probably proletariat. And as such you have nothing to lose and a world to gain from communism.
I don't have anything to gain from what other people do. Something given has no value. Ultimately, my life will essentially just be boring.

Communism isn't Nietzschean, Anarchism is Nietzschean. Aint no institution gonna tell me what I can and can't do, that's including the Collective.

>>1930523
>Communism expects me to give up what I earned
No it doesn't. Socialism and communism are based entirely on the fact that a laborer is entitled to the full fruits of his labor. They consider that earned by productive labor yours. They consider the cut the capitalists takes because he owns the capital unearned.

You should try reading some Marx that isn't the CM instead of just insisting on regurgitating anti-Marxist memes.

>Communism isn't Nietzschean, Anarchism is Nietzschean.
Communism is anarchist. The collective is a socialist thing, and like it or not, if the collective has more power than you, chances are you're going to have to bend to it's will.

>>1930523
>Communism expects me to give up what I earned, and I don't like that.
Let us imagine you are in some position or other that we'd assume more valuable than others. A doctor, or a chief architect of some municipal construction project. We can even suppose your pay is in roubles.
Now then it is your stance that you're giving up what you earn. What is it you earn in this position? What's its total value, and what's the amount taken? I need no exact amounts, simply what each is conceptually.

>>1930505
>or struggling to just make ends meet so they can work towards thriving.
Perfection of potentiality comes from struggle though. Remove the struggle, there is no reason to perfect.

>No, they really aren't.
To me they are, they're both more concerned with what's below than what's above. Same thing with Capitalism.

>I'm not opposed to market socialism
Well, Tito was a market socialist. I'm not really sure what system you're talking about then, maybe a kind of Leninist system. I can't remember what he called it but he allowed merchants to still operate to some degree.

>you simply have to admit things that worked in the past may not work in the future
If things may not work well in the future, then I don't like the sound of the future to be. Either way, it's going to Collectivism at this rate. Very sad either way.

>So basically you're saying you're a cuck.
Well, no not really. I'm not a thief. I'll do what needs to be done if I feel like I'm being cheated.

>And that's why you take it as something you're owed.
If I'm owed it, I'll take it. At the moment, I see no reason to take anything.

>Because it's been tried in tiny insignificant countries and tiny insignificant countries don't achieve much in general no matter what system they are.
It worked alright. It certainly wasn't inherently bad, but it just wasn't inherently good either. Nothing much came out of it except for exactly what I expect from such a society, boredom.

>It's not really capitalist or socialist, not is it centrally planned. It's a statist but pro-bussiness system, and it's achieved quite a bit of success.
Some kind of State Capitalism I think.

>>1930511
>I feel the material world is a vessel, a painting, in which to paint the most beautiful pieces of art.
The thing about the body is that it's transient and determined solely by yourself. You cannot luck into being ripped nor when you die does it make your children ripped. Your muscles die with you and you alone can make them by whatever means you deem necessary.

Wealth is a different matter. You can be born wealth. As capitalist apologetics readily admit risk and luck are a large part of what "entitles" the bourgeoisie to their private property.

In this way it is an aberration to any society that should appreciate personal advancement in any meaningful way.

>the crab models his existence on the crab who's doing better than him.
Again I must point out that modelling your existence on the crab who's richer than you is only a meaningful advancement insofar as the capitalist system is maintained. They are only doing better because this system empowers them on that basis. Without the system (and furthermore, without the workers that support them) they are nothing.

Someone who is more healthy, more cultured, or more creative than you will always be so where ever and whenever they live. But the bourgeoisie are dependent on this system. It's like choosing to live in Chuck E. Cheese and exalting whoever has the most tokens above all else.

>Lifting weights and painting pictures come from essentially struggle, it's how we develop standards of beauty, because we know and have experienced that which is not beautiful.
Indeed, life itself is struggle. But regardless of system the mission to overcome oneself will only end when you're dead. Even if you own the means of production you will still cry and feel pain. But the greatest thing of all is that you have the time to reflect on it and cultivate yourself.

Chinese sweat shop workers don't have the time to communicate their suffering through great art. They're simply worked into the grave.

>>1930536
>No it doesn't. Socialism and communism are based entirely on the fact that a laborer is entitled to the full fruits of his labor. They consider that earned by productive labor yours. They consider the cut the capitalists takes because he owns the capital unearned.
It's the system following it though. It is a form of Collectivism, it expects to operate for the good of the Commune.

>You should try reading some Marx that isn't the CM instead of just insisting on regurgitating anti-Marxist memes.
I think I know enough about it to make a judgement.

>Communism is anarchist. The collective is a socialist thing, and like it or not, if the collective has more power than you, chances are you're going to have to bend to it's will.
But a commune is a collective.

>>1930539
>What is it you earn in this position? What's its total value, and what's the amount taken? I need no exact amounts, simply what each is conceptually.
Cash based on what the customer is willing to pay. A mutual process of trade.

I'm not sure if I understand the question. I'm pretty tired at the moment, apologies.

>>1930542
>Perfection of potentiality comes from struggle though. Remove the struggle, there is no reason to perfect.
They're struggling to improve. There's nothing great about struggling to put bread on the table. It's rather uninspiring to see someone living off a trust fund as well. What's inspiring is when you have people with the ability to gain ground and reason to do so.

>To me they are, they're both more concerned with what's below than what's above.
All of the systems want the ability for self-actualization. The differ on the means to achieve self-actualization.

>Well, Tito was a market socialist. I'm not really sure what system you're talking about then, maybe a kind of Leninist system. I can't remember what he called it but he allowed merchants to still operate to some degree.
I'm trying to explain to you that among socialists there are socialists opposed to market socialism.

>If things may not work well in the future, then I don't like the sound of the future to be.
So you're a Luddite anarcho-primitivist?

>Either way, it's going to Collectivism at this rate.
I'm not sure you even understand what collectivism is. I mean monarchs expecting fealty is collectivism.

>Well, no not really. I'm not a thief. I'll do what needs to be done if I feel like I'm being cheated.
So you're a cuck.

>If I'm owed it, I'll take it. At the moment, I see no reason to take anything.
You're a double cuck.

>It worked alright. It certainly wasn't inherently bad, but it just wasn't inherently good either. Nothing much came out of it except for exactly what I expect from such a society, boredom.
So now your criteria for a successful society is whether or not you who does not even study these societies is bored by them?

>Some kind of State Capitalism I think
Which does not actually fall under the umbrella of capitalism, because capitalism is based on private property rights.

File: 56-209074-yukio-mishima.jpg (24KB, 334x441px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 334x441px

>>1930550
>In this way it is an aberration to any society that should appreciate personal advancement in any meaningful way.
I don't see anything wrong with being born into privilege though. If they're not going to do anything with that wealth, it's they're fault, and we'll see society completely collapse under such a context with those above simply not maximizing they're potentiality.

Besides, my ideal society doesn't have the wealthy at the top, it has those spiritually better at the top.

>Again I must point out that modelling your existence on the crab who's richer than you is only a meaningful advancement insofar as the capitalist system is maintained.
I think we've gotten confused in regard to what my crab analogy was getting at. I wasn't talking about the Bourgeoisie (though there is certainly a degree of which it's applicable), I'm talking about a very much different system which is speaking in a very spiritual hierarchical society.
Communism, and Capitalism for that matter, destroys this ideal system over time.

>They're simply worked into the grave.
An unfortunate reality, but reality none the less. In your system, people shall steal work into the grave.

>>1930523
>Communism expects me to give up what I earned, and I don't like that.
You're thinking of capitalism which is built on giving up what you create in exchange for a wage.

The very mission statement of communism is to keep and enjoy what you create.

>I don't have anything to gain from what other people do.
You do though. As a matter of fact in this life you can only gain by co-operating with other people. You should be interested in seeing that other people act in your interest, which is most easily done by allying yourself with people that have the same interests. In this case communists.

> Ultimately, my life will essentially just be boring.
If you need material binds around you to challenge yourself you're not a very good Nietzschean. If you were free of the material binds of capitalism you could cultivate yourself to the absolute pinnacle of your potential provided you have the will for it. You could study philosophy, practice athletics and create art. That is a meaningful challenge to put to yourself.

The challenges capitalism puts to us are the kind of challenges that drive people into the pub rather than into the gym.

>>1930563
I don't think I understand your system very well and I think we're grounding our ideas in very different premises so will probably never reach any proper conclusion.

>>1930551
>It's the system following it though.
>the
There are multiple potential socialist systems. Some are more collectivist than others. You're only mostly familiar with the Soviet model.

>It is a form of Collectivism, it expects to operate for the good of the Commune.
Because being part of the commune is good for you. If you don't want to be part of the commune, you have the radical freedom to be oppressed by everyone else in the collective and sent to the gulag. You're expected to be part of the commune because it's good for you, just like you're expected to work for capitalist wages because it's good for you.

Not because you're working for the good of capitalism or the good of the commune.

>I think I know enough about it to make a judgement.
You clearly don't as you claim things that Marxism is things that are opposite of what Marx wrote.

>But a commune is a collective.
I'm talking about Marxist communism, not non-Marxist communism. Nation-states are also "collectives" what's your point? You want to live by your self in a hut in a forest and have people respect your right to it without being able to defend it from "collectives" with armies?

File: Feel.jpg (83KB, 573x400px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 573x400px

>>1930560
>There's nothing great about struggling to put bread on the table.
There is something very great about such a noble act. The mere act of surviving in such a hostile world is in of itself greatness. I guess I take a very Protestant view of things in this regard.

Out of overcoming struggle is greatness and glory. Struggle produces greatness, absolutely. Communism seeks to purge this struggle.

>All of the systems want the ability for self-actualization. The differ on the means to achieve self-actualization.
That's right, all systems seem to want to try to cultivate Man like he is a flowerbed.

To me, I just say we should let the flowerbed grow, and I shall do nothing but observe.

>I'm trying to explain to you that among socialists there are socialists opposed to market socialism.
I'm getting confused.

>So you're a Luddite anarcho-primitivist?
Yeah, kinda. Obviously not that extreme, but philosophically, yep. Kind of hilariously edgy, I know.

.I'm not sure you even understand what collectivism is. I mean monarchs expecting fealty is collectivism.
Monarchs usually don't expect anything from their populace, they shouldn't at least. Wu Wei is a beautiful testament to how a system of governance should be.

>So you're a cuck.
Dang

>You're a double cuck.
Double dang

>So now your criteria for a successful society is whether or not you who does not even study these societies is bored by them?
No, my criteria is by just the quality of beauty of a society essentially.

>Which does not actually fall under the umbrella of capitalism, because capitalism is based on private property rights.
That's right, it's all so confusing. So many different contradictory terms, makes your head spin.

>>1930586
>Communism seeks to purge this struggle.
Revolutionary communism is itself a struggle.

>To me, I just say we should let the flowerbed grow, and I shall do nothing but observe.
And if a bunch of flowers in the flowerbeds start a revolution and seize the flowerbed for themselves to start their glorious flower's communist republic of flowerbed, that's just how it grows.

>Monarchs usually don't expect anything from their populace, they shouldn't at least.
They expect taxes, man at arms, and fealty.

File: 1476060502606.png (897KB, 838x910px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 838x910px

>>1930571
>The very mission statement of communism is to keep and enjoy what you create.
Doesn't though, you're still selling yourself out for the Commune and being provided the minimums of existence.

Just seems like the same.

>As a matter of fact in this life you can only gain by co-operating with other people
I agree and disagree with this statement at the same time. I look upon other people as models for my existence, but I don't expect them to sacrifice themselves for me.

But saying that, I'll sacrifice myself for those I feel are worth preserving. Like my family or my brothers.

Communism is just far too altruistic for my liking.

>In this case communists.
At the moment, yes, Commies have a lot more in common with me. Kind of the same thing as Micheal Moore voting for Trump.

We both are hostile to society, but we have completely different goals.

>If you need material binds around you to challenge yourself you're not a very good Nietzschean. If you were free of the material binds of capitalism you could cultivate yourself to the absolute pinnacle of your potential provided you have the will for it. You could study philosophy, practice athletics and create art. That is a meaningful challenge to put to yourself.
I cannot be perfect if I cannot struggle though.

>>1930582
You're right, there's a deep conflict going on and we perceive reality very very differently. Our perception morphs reality accordingly, and we cannot see what the other has morphed theirs into.

Just know that both of us will struggle for what we want, and it all depends on who will win in the battle.

File: 1464320659894.png (521KB, 1400x827px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1400x827px

>>1930583
>There are multiple potential socialist systems. Some are more collectivist than others. You're only mostly familiar with the Soviet model.
They're all so similar though, it's all very confusing and mostly works on hopes how Humans would operate in it.

>Because being part of the commune is good for you. If you don't want to be part of the commune, you have the radical freedom to be oppressed by everyone else in the collective and sent to the gulag. You're expected to be part of the commune because it's good for you, just like you're expected to work for capitalist wages because it's good for you.
Seems like the same thing as Capitalism then. Just different people with different power.

>You clearly don't as you claim things that Marxism is things that are opposite of what Marx wrote.
No I see what it ultimately is when applied in my reality. What is idealized to be the case isn't necessarily what's potentially what will happen.

>I'm talking about Marxist communism, not non-Marxist communism.
My brain

>You want to live by your self in a hut in a forest and have people respect your right to it without being able to defend it from "collectives" with armies?
Yep, sounds like a dream actually.

Of course I believe there needs to be a government which protects individuals, I'm not denying that there needs to be a society. Just a very different kind of society, more ancient in nature.

>>1930596
>Doesn't though, you're still selling yourself out for the Commune and being provided the minimums of existence.
No, in your "commune" you're being provided your share of productivity, which in most cases, should be well above the minimums of existence.

And if all you want is struggle, you can do something to get yourself gulaged. You have the radical freedom to do so. Then you really can struggle for the minimum means of existence.

File: 1475046095586.jpg (33KB, 480x344px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x344px

>>1930595
>Revolutionary communism is itself a struggle.
Yeah, true. But it implies there's a utopia at the end of the tunnel, which there isn't.

>And if a bunch of flowers in the flowerbeds start a revolution and seize the flowerbed for themselves to start their glorious flower's communist republic of flowerbed, that's just how it grows.
Yeah, if it happens, it happens. I disagree with it and will fight it.

Plus there's a degree in which everything is cyclical, it'll always decline, the pendulum will swing back.

>They expect taxes, man at arms, and fealty.
Well, Monarchs are assumed to be divinely anointed by a cosmic authority in which commands maximum authority. Unlike a Capitalist or a Premier, the Monarch actually wields true power over reality, because he is the vessel of the ultimate power, that of God.

Or Allah, or Zeus or something. It varies depending on each culture.

That's why a dictatorship isn't as good as Monarchism, Monarchism is eternal and special.

>>1930607
>No, in your "commune" you're being provided your share of productivity, which in most cases, should be well above the minimums of existence.
Not just how this is decided, obviously decided by someone in power, thus this person in power commands authority. Sounds like being a serf.

>And if all you want is struggle, you can do something to get yourself gulaged. You have the radical freedom to do so. Then you really can struggle for the minimum means of existence.
Gulag isn't my preferable idea of struggle.

>>1930605
>They're all so similar though
They're not though, but you seem to likewise lump capitalism in with this same sense of similar things and don't even see how humans operate in capitalism.

>Seems like the same thing as Capitalism then. Just different people with different power.
Yes, with you, along with everyone else in power. That's seizing your self-determination as a member of a society rather than seizing self-determination by living in a hut in a forest.

>No I see what it ultimately is when applied in my reality.
>your reality
Into the trash it goes.

>My brain
Marx did not invent communism. After Stirner, Marx gave a set of conditions he felt had to be fulfilled before communism could happen, which is Marxist communism.

>Yep, sounds like a dream actually.
Not going to happen when industrialized people have tanks and guns, unless you own tactical nukes.

>Just a very different kind of society, more ancient in nature.
Invent a time machine, or just work for your capitalist masters and after work use your VR console to play peasant simulator 1260.

>>1930610
>Yeah, true. But it implies there's a utopia at the end of the tunnel, which there isn't.
It implies there's not being oppressed by other people at the end of the tunnel, just like fucking off into the woods is not being oppressed by other people. You still have to work in your society to deal with physical problems just like you would if you fucked off in the woods.

>Yeah, if it happens, it happens. I disagree with it and will fight it.
So you weed the flowerbed when you don't like how it grows, but want it to grow as it does when it's flowers you don't consider weeds.

>Plus there's a degree in which everything is cyclical, it'll always decline, the pendulum will swing back.
But not necessarily enough to outweigh long term trends. There may have been luddites that ruined industry for a while, but over the long term the world has industrialized more and more.

>Monarchism is eternal
Except when it isn't like everyone but the House of Saud.

>Sounds like being a serf.
If serfs had control over who was their lord besides peasant revolutions, and also held arms in case they had to have a peasant revolution, yes.

File: runaway_horses.jpg (43KB, 324x499px)

43KB, 324x499px

>>1930614
>They're not though, but you seem to likewise lump capitalism in with this same sense of similar things and don't even see how humans operate in capitalism.
I just see in both worlds that of serfdom, just serfdom to different entities.

If I'm going to be a slave, I might as well be a slave to something who actually is special and commands authority that is supremely awesome in nature. That of God or a God.

>Yes, with you, along with everyone else in power. That's seizing your self-determination as a member of a society rather than seizing self-determination by living in a hut in a forest.
I'm not seizing the power in your society, I'm still operating as a serf, I just hope to get a bigger cut of my effort.

How can I not be a slave if I'm forced to work?

>Into the trash it goes.
Up to you.

>Marx did not invent communism. After Stirner, Marx gave a set of conditions he felt had to be fulfilled before communism could happen, which is Marxist communism.
I know.

>Not going to happen when industrialized people have tanks and guns, unless you own tactical nukes.
It's called Wu Wei, it's expected that those granted authority will act by inaction. Thus, the natural way of things will play out.

Kaczynski was right about everything.

>Invent a time machine, or just work for your capitalist masters and after work use your VR console to play peasant simulator 1260.
You're taking what I'm saying a bit too literally I feel. I don't literally want to live in a tribe in the year 1260.

But the ideal form of society is similar in nature. Individual in nature, more attuned with the natural way of things, Traditional and Conservative. Remember that all across the US there are still small country towns and villages operating under the exact same premises, but enjoying the benefits of technology.

That's my ideal society.

>>1930624
>How can I not be a slave if I'm forced to work?
So existence is slavery?

File: 1476925804919.gif (3MB, 362x430px)

3MB, 362x430px

>>1930623
>It implies there's not being oppressed by other people at the end of the tunnel, just like fucking off into the woods is not being oppressed by other people. You still have to work in your society to deal with physical problems just like you would if you fucked off in the woods.
My point is that in both extremes, I'm being oppressed and exploited, just by different institutions.

So I offer a completely different solution which accepts the hierarchy as an important part of Human nature.

>So you weed the flowerbed when you don't like how it grows, but want it to grow as it does when it's flowers you don't consider weeds.
Well, Flowers taking control over the bed implies they are consciously capable of enacting their will. So I'm assuming I, as a Rose, can also try to consciously stop it.

>There may have been luddites that ruined industry for a while, but over the long term the world has industrialized more and more.
It's only been three centuries of technological innovation. Technology isn't necessarily a pivotal aspect of modernity, just a production.

>Except when it isn't like everyone but the House of Saud.
Yeah well, no system is perfect and will always decline, including Monarchism. The Saudis don't practice Wu Wei, they're just nuts.

>If serfs had control over who was their lord besides peasant revolutions, and also held arms in case they had to have a peasant revolution, yes.
A government capable of redistributing wealth then implies certain people are granted power over me.

>>1930629
Yeah, basically.

File: 1474601977734.gif (93KB, 160x107px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 160x107px

>>1930337
2 hours worth of discussion, impressive stuff, and we never devolved into insults or pretty shit flinging.

Always good to have a nice discussion from time to time, helps refine logic and knowledge and exposes people to new ideas.

>>1930551
And what is the customer willing to pay you, in this particular transaction?

>>1930631
>My point is that in both extremes, I'm being oppressed and exploited, just by different institutions.
You're being exploited by yourself, just like if you fucked off in the woods and exploited yourself.

>So I offer a completely different solution which accepts the hierarchy as an important part of Human nature.
Fucking off in the woods is not hierarchy and no one said socialism and communism can't have hierarchy. They seek to remove the artificial hierarchy that comes from classes and property.

>Technology isn't necessarily a pivotal aspect of modernity
If you say so.

>The Saudis don't practice Wu Wei, they're just nuts.
Yet they're one of the few monarchies still in power. It also happens to be because they own the oil.

>A government capable of redistributing wealth then implies certain people are granted power over me.
You are implying property isn't a social construct. Property that relies on a society to respect it and defend it is a social relation to an object. It's a given that society determines what this relation is. It's only natural.

The only other property is the property you can personally defend by yourself. And if you can defend your property against the collective force of society, then it is yours, just like the druglord's shit is his, even if society says it isn't his by law.

>>1930636
Who knows, depends on what we agree on.

In the current society we're talking about, the one we live in right now, it's cash. I feel like you're trying to get me in a "gotcha!", which is fine, go ahead.

>>1930637
>You're being exploited by yourself, just like if you fucked off in the woods and exploited yourself.
I'm being exploited by everyone and everything from the seems of it. But there's a degree of individual will which plays into the equation.

>Fucking off in the woods is not hierarchy
I know it isn't. It's what I'd like to do as a person.

>no one said socialism and communism can't have hierarchy.
The goal is to purge stratification along the lines of power and Will, to equalization the playing field. IT denies hierarchy because hierarchy requires power to exercise authority

>They seek to remove the artificial hierarchy that comes from classes and property.
Not just that.

>Yet they're one of the few monarchies still in power. It also happens to be because they own the oil.
They're based on Sharia Law, it's a very different mode of existence and not the mode I want to live in.

>You are implying property isn't a social construct.
Everything which isn't biological is socially constructed by how I, as an individual of Will, morph reality. My physiological nature sees an object and is willed to judge it based on whether someone owns such a thing.

I can't take it from him if I'd like and say it's mine I suppose, but then that object has no value anymore for I did not earn it.

>And if you can defend your property against the collective force of society, then it is yours, just like the druglord's shit is his
I agree, very much so. If I can't defend my house, why even bother pretending it's mine? Nature is defined by the Wills of Men, or at least, how we perceive it.

Sounds like the accumulation of power to me depending on if I can defend it.

>>1930651
>The goal is to purge stratification along the lines of power and Will, to equalization the playing field. IT denies hierarchy because hierarchy requires power to exercise authority
The goal is that the proles who make up most of society exercise the power they have for their own benefit, creating a hierarchy that isn't based on property and status, which are social constructs.

>>1914804
Underrated