Communism

I think it might b cool and we will inevitably,trend toward it (but only because of muh robots)

File: kikes dindu nuffin.jpg (513KB, 1524x1262px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1524x1262px

Communism is a jewish plot

>>1973141
I think worker ownership of the means of production is a good idea but I don't like universal democracy within the state.

I also like the way communism tends to be anti-nationalist.

>>1973141
>What does Communism mean to you and what is its relevance in the 21st Century?
Nothing, it is fucking dead, Social market economy has reached the goals communism promised, and Communism proofed itself unsuitable as a system.

>>1973166
> Social market economy has reached the goals communism promised
Last I checked the workers don't control the means of production in Denmark.

>>1973141
[Collapsing intensifies]

>>1973172
That wasn't even the goal you retard, that was just a tool to end alienation.

>>1973193
Yes it was.

Worker ownership of the means of production was the most immediate goal of communism. With the long-term ambition to create a classless, stateless, moneyless society (which social democracies aren't even trying to achieve).

>>1973172
No, but they enjoy a high public welfare, such as health insurance, child support, unemployment money, free education and so on.
Seizing the means of production is for delusional fags who cannot cope with the post modern world.

>>1973207
Yes, and it has failed completely in achieving this goals. No go dream about seizing "the means of production" whilst the Danish working class is out, drinking beer in Mallorca.

>>1973214
Education is the new form of capital in today's information, technology and service based economy.

>>1973223
>>1973214
This is all perfectly true.

But nonetheless, it's incorrect to say that social democracy has accomplished the goals of communism.

>>1973226
Oddly enough, my university education was free of charge.

Since I have an IQ above 60 I believe communism is terrible.

>>1973229
So if what do we need Communism then for? I can do well without the dear leader or people trying to explain a complex and multi-faceted world with the book of a dead German.

>>1973214
>high welfare
>something positive

>health insurance

Sure, enjoy spending days at the E.R. and years for treatment.

>child support

Meh.

>unemployment money

Not good.

>free education

Nothing is free.

If I want totalitarianism and some faggots around the bloc who were appointed by mobrule to control everything for my own good I might as well choose a totalitarianism that has cool aesthethics and some spooky memery going on like in a theocracy or a fascist state.

>>1973244
I'm not a communist. I was just correcting that point.

>>1973236

Oddly enough, it wasn't. Someone paid for it.

Communism has been proven wrong by science and history. It's such a waste of time to talk about these days.

>>1973246
go away ameriblubber

>>1973251
Norse Pagan Anarcho Feudalism then?

They were naive because they didn't allow the technology to develop.

If Communism ever has the slightest chance of working, it could only work in a fully immersed technological society with some kind of cryptocurrency

File: 1406877826728.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

>>1973193
>That wasn't even the goal you retard

>>1973261

I'm Swedish but whatever floats your boat.

>>1973262
HRE with 24/7 LARP and me being a serv to some guy who got into this position by anarchic means?
Count me in.

>>1973258
Yes, other people who got free university with their taxes, and in turn my future income taxes will help pay for the education of others thus helping create an educated and high-earning population.

Shoo yanks.

>>1973141
it´s a religion, my dad is a party card-carrying communist and is honest about this

>>1973141
>what do you think of Communism?
I think you faggots should fuck off to /pol/ because you don't fucking belong here.

>>1973276
the horror

>>1973276
GOMMIE
>implying something something feminist studies scholarships something something

>>1973280
Well Communism is in the dustbin of history, so...

>>1973276

Again, I'm a Swede.

Of course, that would be the case if 100% of the people who got an education on the tax payers behalf actually add that back at the very minimum, which is not the case.

File: 1479456187345.jpg (112KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 807x605px

>>1973288
>, that would be the case if 100% of the people who got an education on the tax payers behalf actually add that back at the very minimum, which is not the case.
Actually the people who pay the lions share of taxes are educated wealthy people.

Uneducated plebs do not pay very much taxes.

>>1973299

Is this supposed to be an argument or?

>>1973280
Communism is part of the humanities. It's had over a century of intellectual development and continues to influence today's discourse.

Communism is well within the purview of /his/.

>>1973276
Yanks want middle class factory jobs not high earning skilled thinking jobs.

>>1973310
Yes.

The argument is investing in education is a good way to get returns on those taxes that can be spent on continued subsidised education among other things as more educated people make more money.

>>1973325
BUT FEMINIST STUDIES STRAWMAN

>>1973325

Why can't people themselves invest in education?

Why do we need a government that steals people money and in return offer "free" education, control by the same people who stole the money that is paying for it?

>>1973328
Because it costs lots of money that not everyone has, and it's risky if you don't find a good job, even though on average it's a good investment if it's not some humanities degree.

>>1973328
>Why can't people themselves invest in education?
Because the prospect of getting into debt is very daunting to a lot of people that couldn't otherwise pay for university.

>Why do we need a government that steals people money and in return offer "free" education
As I was touching on with the meme earlier, the social contract. In exchange for your taxes you get to enjoy the benefits of a liberal democratic society, including education and the prosperity and culture that comes from having a society of educated people.

As part of a society we all benefit from the assistance of others and this is something that's inescapable in all systems. But with state subsidies into things like roads, schools, university tuition and hospitals this support is reciprocated throughout the community.

>>1973338

Homes cost a lot too, should everyone get a home for "free" from the government? What about cars? Food?

>costs a lot
>it's risky

Two arguments for why the government shouldn't steal money from people to pay for it.

>>1973348

And once the country starts taking in people what doesn't add to the system? Or once the population is dwindling? What about people abusing the system?

Guess we just print some money to cover the deficit?

Not that leftists care about economics.

>>1973350
>Homes cost a lot too, should everyone get a home for "free" from the government? What about cars? Food?
Yes

>>1973350
>Homes cost a lot too, should everyone get a home for "free" from the government? What about cars? Food?
Do they increase productivity? If so, there's serious merit to subsidizing them, as subsidizing positive externalities makes sense, yes.

>Two arguments for why the government shouldn't steal money from people to pay for it.
Stocks are risky, but on average good investments, which is why investors tend to diversify. So any one stock can't drag everything down. Diversification tends to make investment safer.

>Not that leftists care about economics.
Not that rightists even take econ 101.

>>1973350
>And once the country starts taking in people what doesn't add to the system?
I'm anti-immigration
>Or once the population is dwindling?
I'm also anti-abortion and think the state should take a much more active interest in cultivating birth rates. Though I also think that in many western countries they're about as populated as they can be and a plateauing or slightly shrinking population might be a good thing in some cases.

>What about people abusing the system?
If people are taking advantage of subsidised education by getting educated here then immediately moving somewhere else in large enough numbers for it to be a problem. Then clearly the reasons why they don't want to stay are more concerning than this, which is merely a symptom.

>>1973365

So you're retarded then.

>>1973370

So anything that can be argued to increase productivity should be subsidised by the government through theft?

>>1973371

Welfare is a ponzi scheme, in order to keep it afloat you always need more people to contribute.

Your solution is just ban abortion then?

>>1973382
Not an argument.

>>1973382
>Welfare is a ponzi scheme, in order to keep it afloat you always need more people to contribute.
This isn't really true. With a stable population you could quite easily sustain welfare and similar levels. And ideally a society should be aiming to need to spend less on welfare in the future by investing in the population. The problem with western liberal democracies is they aren't aiming for stability, they're aiming for unlimited growth which does require more people to contribute.

>Your solution is just ban abortion then?
I think abortion should be banned for a number of reasons but this is among them yes.
And I think cultivating a healthy population would be more complicated than just banning abortion. It's also important to ensure that people can support two or more children.

>>1973397
*welfare at similar levels

>>1973397

And with enough money you could sustain a ponzi scheme until forever, it doesn't change the fact that it is still a ponzi scheme.

>>1973382
>muh tax is theft

>>1973406
If you could maintain a ponzi scheme forever that would just be unlimited growth

>>1973406
Not an argument.

>>1973406
Okay, but why is it a bad thing?

>inb4 because it's a Ponzi scheme
That doesn't explain why it's bad though.

The Labor theory of value has been disproven and the knowledge problem of prices hasnt been resolved so Communism remains a meme tier ideology. It's relevance today is a tool politicians in democracies use to get disenfranchised people to do stupid shit for them.

>>1973408

Tax is indeed theft.

>>1973412

Well you can't really but you got the point, it's not healthy.

>>1973413

Great argument there.

>>1973416

Because it is a ponzi scheme, it is based on something that can not last. By default it has flaws that will make it crash at some point.

>>1973422
>Tax is indeed theft.
Hahahaha.

>Because it is a ponzi scheme, it is based on something that can not last.
But you said a ponzi scheme that goes no forever. The only problem with a ponzi scheme is that it does not last forever.

>>1973427

Please explain how someone forcing you to give them something via violence is not theft.

Would you be fine with me telling you to give me 50% of your income or would you call that theft?

It's a ponzi scheme, theoretically it can go on forever. In reality it never does.

>>1973436
Private property is theft.

>>1973422
>it is based on something that can not last.
Except here is the key distinction. A Ponzi scheme constantly requires more and more investors to keep going.
Maintaining a stable level of welfare on a stable population doesn't require more people to pay into it as the same people are always going to be paying into it through taxes. Unless they all suddenly convert to anarcho-capitalism and quit paying taxes the system could last indefinitely.

This is why provided you do the following nothing can go wrong
a) keep the birthrate at or above an average 2 childen per woman
b) aim to cultivate a wealthy and independent population so in future you can reduce spending on welfare rather than expand it.

Western liberal democracies fail at this because they don't do either.

>>1973439

Great meme.

>>1973440

Of course now you consider the welfare system to be perfect, i.e everyone who takes out money puts in at the minimum the same, which is never the case.

>>1973436
>Please explain how someone forcing you to give them something via violence is not theft.
Exactly how did you claim something as your property in the first place?

>>1973446
Obviously this is not the case. I fully acknowledge that western liberal democracies approach welfare in an extremely unsustainable way, but welfare isn't the problem, the problem is that welfare is at odds with the other interests of western liberal democracies and sooner or later something is going to have to give.

Also I should add
>everyone who takes out money puts in at the minimum the same
This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the population is consistent then it will pay consistent amounts of money. Not that each person will personally always contribute just as much as they take.

>>1973454
The problem is no politician likes raising taxes. Spending money is popular. Taxing is not popular.

File: taxes.png (6KB, 436x722px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 436x722px

>>1973453

I produced it myself.

>>1973454

Even in a smaller scale it may work, that doesn't mean it's not inferior to other systems. Welfare, in the end, is the government stealing peoples money and giving it to others who had nothing to do with earning said money.

>>1973456
And the thing is raising taxes wouldn't be a problem if the population was stable.

This is what I mean when I say there's a conflict of interests. As it stands western liberal democracies are chiefly interested in creating unlimited growth. If you didn't have a massive influx of third-worlders coming in to expand the workforce you wouldn't need to spend money on them. You could just take and spend what you've been spending on the same size of population for the past while.

>>1973465
>and giving it to others who had nothing to do with earning said money.
Actually, they had everything to do with earning it. If it wasn't for poor people working for them they would not be rich.

This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned the social contact earlier. Everyone in society benefits from being apart of that society, so in the interests of continued prosperity and co-operation taxes are a good thing.

>>1973465
>I produced it myself.
So only things you produce are yours, nothing else, by that logic. If you don't produce it, it's not yours.

>buh i also received it as a gift and traded labor for it
You didn't produce that.

>>1973313
>Communism is well within the purview of /his/.
Not in the context of the 21st century. 25 year rule, faggot.

Just like any system that rejects the concept of the capable few controlling everyone else, it's a meme

>>1973471
>if it wasn't for poor people working for them

Now that's a lie and you know it.

>>1973485

No, you asked me how I came to claim it.

I could also have bought it, inherited it among other things.

>>1973506
>Now that's a lie and you know it.
No it's not.
You don't get rich from extracting and refining all your resources by yourself by hand. And then using those resources to build your assets. That would take forever.

You get rich by having employees do these things for you in exchange for a wage.

>>1973513

Or you gamble, play the stock market, start a company.

I see nothing wrong with starting a company and employing people, if you become rich in the process that means you're doing a good job producing something that is wanted by the people.

>>1973534
>gamble
>playing games to win or lose money that someone earned somewhere
>play the stock market
>investing in a company without employees
>start a company
>getting rich in a company without employees

>I see nothing wrong with starting a company and employing people, if you become rich in the process that means you're doing a good job producing something that is wanted by the people.
That wasn't the issue.

>>1973534
>Or you gamble
The thing about gambling is that the people who get the richest off of this are the people who own the games. And it's these people that pay more taxes than the very few people that get rich off of gambling. And the people who own the games are also profiting off the community, so naturally it's only right that a little bit of their income is returned to the community through taxes.

>play the stock market,
The thing about this is you're still profiting off the labour and investments of other people. Just indirectly.

>I see nothing wrong with starting a company and employing people, if you become rich in the process that means you're doing a good job producing something that is wanted by the people.
I fully agree. Starting a company is a good thing that helps build the local economy. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with starting a company or being rich. I'm saying that rich people ought to acknowledge that they enjoy their prosperity thanks to their co-operation with their employees and shouldn't feel hard done by when they're taxed to provide those employees and their families with more comfortable lives and better opportunities.

>>1973545
>company has employees

What of it?

>>1973559
>profiting off the labour of others

Just like you're profiting off of your own labour.

People do acknowledge that they enjoy their prosperity thanks to their employees, just like their employees know that they enjoy prosperity thanks to the people who runs the business.

>>1973569
>>if it wasn't for poor people working for them
>Now that's a lie and you know it.
You literally have no argument.

>>1973569
>People do acknowledge that they enjoy their prosperity thanks to their employees, just like their employees know that they enjoy prosperity thanks to the people who runs the business.
I understand that. It's a mutually beneficial relationship and in the interests of continued mutual prosperity and co-operation it's only natural to have taxes. In this society no man is an island and so no one should be upset that their taxes go towards improving the lives of others.

What's the problem here?

What is it with all the Communism vs (Anarcho-)Capitalism threads lately?

File: chinese-communist-poster-1.jpg (82KB, 425x291px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 425x291px

>>1973141
Their basic concept and goal was too utopian

A harmonic society based on collectivism and absolute equality cannot be sustained without endless stream of resource and Star Trek level of post-scarcity economy.

Because of that, it was susceptible to dictatorism to repress much of unrested masses.

File: ▄█ █▄█ ▄█▀ ▀█▀.jpg (3KB, 84x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 84x125px

>>1973141
it's only pushed by a bunch of degenerate low test manlets now much like natsoc or fascism is pretty much only pushed by a bunch of degenerate low test manlets openly, it's a shame because they're better than the current """system"""

>>1973141
It's a dead meme.
It's goal is to get rid of hierarchies, but it just creates new ones.

>>1973141
I flit between communism and Marxian state socialism.

Capitalism is an unsustainable system. Growth on a finite planet is impossible and will lead us to destruction. Bottom-up socialism, through workplace democracy and stronger unions, will protect workers and allow our civilization to exist indefinitely.

While socialism has the potential to contain man's worst excess, I'm not sure if full stateless communism is safe enough. Socialism with a state to protect from external threats and contain internal threats is probably the best solution.

File: spartacus.jpg (1MB, 2000x1656px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1656px

>>1973151

>>1975421
>I was so mad at a post on 4chan I made a chart indicating my rage
Utterly laughable

>>1973141
Depraved, moraless, athiestic hell propagated by Jews.
May it be forever removed and never return.

>>1973141
Why are using an image of Yugoslavia?She wasn't a communist state.

>>1975481
There were no communist states. But Yugoslavia was by far and away the most socialist state.

>>1975447
>People keep refuting my shitty "facts"

>>1975517
I'm not taking a position you retard. I'm just saying you were so mad that you mad an infographic. I don't support neither oppose the points presented. Get it?

>>1975529
If your reaction to people pointing out inaccuracies in a certain narrative is
>lol so mad
then /his/ is not the board for you.

>>1975541
You made an infographic in response to you trying to prove a post wrong. Stop this, you're retarded and still mad.

>>1975559
I didn't make the infographic and as a matter of fact the counter-infographic is about as old as the original it's in response to.

> Stop this, you're retarded and still mad.
Mad or no it's still correct. "You're mad" is no kind of argument.

>>1975594
Sure you didn't, which is why you refuted that point the first time I brought it up.

You're a retarded liar.

>>1975447
>I was so mad that I made up bullshit to support my cause

.>>1975648

He is very mad, just look at this thread

>>1975643
>Sure you didn't, which is why you refuted that point the first time I brought it up.
>You're a retarded liar.
A few things.
1. I'm not the guy you were originally talking to.
2. I know I didn't make it. I'm fairly certain he didn't make it because I've seen it around quite a few times.
3. "You're mad" is even less of an argument after you start getting mad yourself.

>>1975744
No he made it. If you're not him that's even more hilarious because he bailed the second I called him out on it.

I'm not mad and stop defending people and let them take it.

>>1975759
>No he made it
I wouldn't know. It's been around for a while and I saved it so my natural assumption is that he saved it as well since that's the case with most infographics.

>I'm not mad and stop defending people and let them take it.
I'm defending him because he's in the right. To return to my original point, striving for historical accuracy is something that should be encouraged on /his/.

>>1975529
>I'm not taking a position, I swear!
Sure thing, pal.

>>>/pol/ is that way.

>>1973299
"Social Contract - A nonexistent legal document that no one in society has ever signed yet which binds everyone under threat of force."
Jim Goad

Man, that cartoon is real fuckin' spooky.

>>1975854
What good is a contract without threat of force? Real fucking spooky.

>>1975860
The point is, social contracts only mean dick if there's violence to support its authority, be it through dictators or other external forces imposing their will.

>>1977170
Wow, just like every other contract you spooked motherfucker.

>>1973141
I used to think it was a bit ridiculous. All attempts at achieving anything close to it have failed miserably.
But now, not so much. Automation is already causing so much strife (this is the real reason people are pissed off and raging about muh globalism - automation accounts for about 2/3rds of manufacturing job losses). And the effects of automation will accelerate. Driverless cars will soon be upon us, and boom, another 10 million jobs will get phased out pretty quickly. And more and more sectors will inevitably stop employing so many people as technology advances. And with sophisticated AI, no job is safe. Where will the masses work? Some sort of UBI seems like a reasonable solution. And from there, its really not that far a stretch to full socialism, leading to communism. I'm beginning to think marx was right. BUt I dont think communism can work in the 21st century. We might get real socialism in the next 100 years, but full blown communism requires such an advance in technology and development, its going to take some time.

>>1973246
>Sure, enjoy spending days at the E.R. and years for treatment.

Blupilled americuck spotted. Go back to watch some of that wwe or some burger king spot.
Cocksucker

>>1977203
But that's why Marx said socialism has to come before communism.