Post underrated political theorists and quotes

stalin wholesale plagiarised all of his major books.

also, that photo and the others of 'hot stalin' are highly retouched. he was covered in pockmarks from childhood smallpox.

>>128321663
Shut the fuck up Tito

File: historical-photos-pt10-joseph-stalin-mugshot-1911.png (453KB, 927x602px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 927x602px

>>128322332
>omg he can re-educate me any day

>>128321167
"Nature is a beast that must be shackled, chained, and made obedient."
-Myself, a few days ago.
Like it?

>>128321167
>Georgian philosophers

File: yugopepe.jpg (15KB, 223x215px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 223x215px

>>128322332

"the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic". not underrated but such a nice quote i still wonder if it's really Stalin who said that

>>128323578
What's your countrymen's opinion on Stalin

File: 1496432436302.gif (2MB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x299px

>>128323295
>When it's your turn in the gulags.

>people who work for their shit aren't free
>you can only be free when you depend on the government
Shit quote, OP.

>>128325179
real fuckin high

>>128321167
In other words, true freedom cannot exist, not without the castration of man, anyway.

File: 001.jpg (110KB, 499x604px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 499x604px

>>128327607

>>128327989
damn right, USSR will rise again

>>128328148
>jewish death machine will rise again

no thank you. the false left is a cancer

>>128329239
>jewish death machine will rise again
Nice propaganda

>>128328148
get on with it already i'm tired of these fucking nazis

File: IMG_1559.jpg (195KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1500x1000px

>>128323295

File: Homage_to_Catalonia,_Cover,_1st_Edition.jpg (102KB, 266x411px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 266x411px

>It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle... every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle... every church had been gutted... every shop and cafe had an inscription saying it had been collectivised... Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the eye and treated you as an equal. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don'; everyone called everyone else 'comrade' or 'thou'.... Almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. Down the Ramblas... the loudspeakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night."

Disgusting commies, get out of here

>>128331596
the future is socialist anon

File: vladimir-lenin-bw.jpg (2MB, 2642x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2642x3600px

>Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.

1923

>>128332310
Just look at Venezuela faggit

File: EYERMAN_1952_3D_Bwana_Devil_C.jpg (160KB, 924x1280px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 924x1280px

> “The reigning economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technologies are based on isolation, and they contribute to that same isolation. From automobiles to television, the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the conditions that engender “lonely crowds.”

File: 1485105449189.jpg (136KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 736x552px

>>128321167

>>128332188
Hitler and Stalin were the same character with different outfits

>We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman.

File: Brecht.jpg (39KB, 352x402px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 352x402px

"The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics. The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.”

File: based snek.jpg (68KB, 437x332px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 437x332px

>>128321167
>how can you be free if you're not free from capitalism maaaaaaan

File: 1494871309588.jpg (22KB, 401x401px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 401x401px

>>128325780
Those deep and dead eyes are very uncanny.

File: Zizek-on-Toilet.jpg (15KB, 368x560px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 368x560px

>“There is a contradiction between market liberalism and political liberalism. The market liberals (e.g., social conservatives) of today want family values, less government, and maintain the traditions of society (at least in America's case). However, we must face the cultural contradiction of capitalism: the progress of capitalism, which necessitates a consumer culture, undermines the values which render capitalism possible”

File: 1406866668223.jpg (277KB, 1284x886px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1284x886px

>>128323295
Thanks. I was going to debunk the photo.

File: 800px-Henri_Lefebvre_1971.jpg (217KB, 800x991px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x991px

>"Being satisfied: this is the general model of being and living whose promoters and supporters do not appreciate the fact that it generates discontent. For the quest for satisfaction and the fact of being satisfied presuppose the fragmentation of 'being' into activities, intentions, needs, all of them well-defined, isolated, separable and separated from the Whole. Is this an art of living? A style? No. It is merely the result and the application to daily life of a management technique and a positive knowledge directed by market research. The economic prevails even in a domain that seemed to elude it: it governs lived experience.”

>>128321167
Imagine there's no GULAGs
It's easy if you try
No special units
Run away and you don't die

File: nixonandjews.jpg (130KB, 569x400px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 569x400px

>>128321167

>>128323318
Not bad

>>128327230

>who work for their shit

Who work for shekels of their boss.
Wagecucks are wagecucks still.

File: Alexis_de_tocqueville.jpg (158KB, 1031x1382px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1031x1382px

>“I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.”

>"“The desire to grow rich at all costs, the taste for business, the passion for gain, the pursuit of comfort and material enjoyment are thus the most common preoccupations in despotisms.”

>"Those who praise freedom only for the material benefits it offers have never kept it long.”

>>128321663
kys Ustashe cockroach

File: 220px-Yanis-Varoufakis-Berlin-2015-02-05.jpg (18KB, 220x330px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x330px

>“Most politicians cannot be theorists. First, because they are rarely thinkers; second, because the frenetic lifestyle they impose on themselves leaves no time for big ideas. But most of all because to be a theorist you have to admit the possibility of being wrong – the provisionality of knowledge – and you know you cannot spin your way out of a theoretical problem.”

File: fa9d635e190bee1df1c272296e874f1f.jpg (10KB, 236x164px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x164px

Some have speculated that Ann Coulter is nothing but an apolitical LARPing opportunist but I think she's the only outspoken conservative female to be trusted.

File: 82km1.jpg (80KB, 476x661px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 476x661px

>“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”

>“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors,' and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation"

>>128321167
>>128323295
he was real gangster

>>128321167
Is that dude like an original SJW? I'm seeing buzzwords here.

>freedom
>liberty

Choose one

File: Bookchin.jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>“There are no hierarchies in nature other than those imposed by hierarchical modes of human thought, but rather differences merely in function between and within living things.”

>"Unless we realize that the present market society, structured around the brutally competitive imperative of “grow or die,” is a thoroughly impersonal, self-operating mechanism, we will falsely tend to blame technology as such or population growth as such for environmental problems. We will ignore their root causes, such as trade for profit, industrial expansion, and the identification of “progress” with corporate self-interest. In short, we will tend to focus on the symptoms of a grim social pathology rather than on the pathology itself, and our efforts will be directed toward limited goals whose attainment is more cosmetic than curative.”

>“Any attempt to solve the ecological crisis within a bourgeois framework must be dismissed as chimerical. Capitalism is inherently anti-ecological. Competition and accumulation constitute its very law of life, a law … summarised in the phrase, ‘production for the sake of production.’ Anything, however hallowed or rare, ‘has its price’ and is fair game for the marketplace. In a society of this kind, nature is necessarily treated as a mere resource to be plundered and exploited. The destruction of the natural world, far being the result of mere hubristic blunders, follows inexorably from the very logic of capitalist production.”

File: bookchin005.jpg (28KB, 600x392px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x392px

>>128341534
>"We have permitted cynical political reactionaries and the spokesmen of large corporations to pre-empt these basic libertarian American ideals. We have permitted them not only to become the specious "voice" of these ideals such that individualism has been used to justify egotism; the "pursuit of happiness" to justify greed, and even our emphasis on local and regional autonomy has been used to justify parochialism, insularism, and exclusivity -- often against ethnic minorities and so-called "deviant" individuals. We have even permitted these reactionaries to stake out a claim to the word "libertarian," a word, in fact, that was literally devised in the 1890s in France by Elisée Reclus as a substitute for the word "anarchist," which the government had rendered an illegal expression for identifying one's views. The propertarians, in effect -- acolytes of Ayn Rand, the "earth mother" of greed, egotism, and the virtues of property -- have appropriated expressions and traditions that should have been expressed by radicals but were willfully neglected because of the lure of European and Asian traditions of "socialism," "socialisms" that are now entering into decline in the very countries in which they originated.”

>>128334385
Not surprising when you consider that a certain (((plucky little ethnic group))) is disproportionately represented in all Western Left-Wing movements.....

File: vidal-bw-young.jpg (1MB, 2280x2962px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2280x2962px

> “As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.”

> “The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return.”

> “Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”

> “The American press exists for one purpose only, and that is to convince Americans that they are living in the greatest and most envied country in the history of the world. The Press tells the American people how awful every other country is and how wonderful the United States is and how evil communism is and how happy they should be to have freedom to buy seven different sorts of detergent.”

>>128332329
Lenin did not write the document known as ‘Lenin’s Testament’, it was in fact allegedly dictated by Lenin while he was extremely ill to one of his secretaries, who was directed to change it up by Krupskaya at the behest of Zinoviev and Kamenev. Even Trotsky later admitted he knew of the plot to fake Lenin's "will" so that it would sound more in his favor.

File: 1496531935154.jpg (786KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1920x1080px

for lefties scums, freedom is about avoiding the natural laws of the universe

they hate life, they hate everything the way it is, they despise that idea of god of believers, instead, they justify theft, threats and coercion to feel better about themselves

as they lack the virtues, work, successes and wealth to support others or even themselves

>>128323318
Euphoric

>>128342920
ayn rand doesn't extoll greed or egotism

File: quote-the-master-class-has-always-declared-the-wars-the-subject-class-has-always-fought-the-eugene-v-debs-65-19-06.jpg (87KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 850x400px

>“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

>>128323318
Wrong.

File: 7938-004-ABC872A5.jpg (25KB, 360x450px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 360x450px

>>128345585
> “In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People."

> “I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world.”

> “Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

>>128336471
It's the eyes that give it away. He was obviously pretty insecure about looking so asiatic.

File: kurt_vonnegut_by_marty_reichenthal.jpg (514KB, 1078x1600px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1078x1600px

> “Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

File: 1488737313274.png (366KB, 752x587px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 752x587px

>>128321167

File: rfk.jpg (55KB, 540x739px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 540x739px

> “The purpose of life is to contribute in some way to making things better.”

> “Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others.”

> “Lets dedicate ourselves to what the ancient greeks wrote so many years ago, to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that”

>>128347403
basic bitch shit

File: 330px-Bertrand_Russell_transparent_bg.png (101KB, 330x489px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 330x489px

> “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

>>128321167
FILTHY COMMIE TRASH

>>128331079
He was a filthy commie.

>>128348702
>>128347403
>>128346326
>>128345998
>>128345585
>>128342920
>>128341754
>>128341534
>>128339954
>>128338975
>>128338454
>>128336845
>>128335278
>>128334098
>>128332919
>>128329498
>>128328943
>>128328141

Fucking commie.

>>128321167
This guy mistakes the State of Nature. The state of nature is poverty and war. It is only when be begin to leave the state of nature that we get away from hunger and death for any appreciable amount of time.

And because life and society is so fragile not everyone can escape it at all times. There will always be poverty because that is the default state. People that don't work are poor. It is labor mixed with natural resources that gets us out of poverty.

We must work, or we will die. We shall never be free of the burden.

>>128350821
Democratic Socialist, but okay
>>128352454
Only a handful of the people I posted were actual communist. Marxism=/=Leftism=/=Communism
Brazil, however, has a lot to benefit from Marxist thinking, given that you guys suffer from extreme income inequality

>>128355524
>Marxism=/=Leftism=/=Communism
Yes, things now const more at the marked, jobs are harder to find, but college students seem very happy.

>>128355524
>democratic socialist
fuck him

>>128357220
Your flag dude.

>>128321167

Stalin managed to get the Russian fertility up to 8 per woman.

Capitalism managed to get the average German to accidentally have 1, regret it because they would just rather consume, to coerce the West into taking nearly a billion foreigners, and making sure white people go extinct.

Guess which one 'redpilled' /pol/ will defend

>>128357656
>There is only modern capitalism and gommunis.
Are you retard?

USSR population get smaller under stalin.

>>128357898

Are YOU retarded? It fucking grew?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Maternal_Glory

>>128321167
That guy would've loved living in Soviet Russia. Their 1936 Constitution guaranteed everything he demanded.

>>128358158
>Order_of_Maternal_Glory
Wow they give a medal to mothers and killer 40 millions

I don't know why anyone takes commies seriously.

sage

>>128358607
They are good material for futures NSDAPs.

>>128358789
Same goes for NSDAP. It's all theater for clowns.

>>128358989
But NSDAP hurt the left, they are like kamikazes.

File: JPstop.png (310KB, 474x438px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 474x438px

>>128359082
They need to sort themselves out.

>>128356466
>things now const more at the marked
What does this mean, comrade?

>>128357220
demsocs are alright. their only problem is that they don't go far enough

>>128358607
I'm not sure why anyone takes the turks seriously. You've killed all that was good in Ataturk

>>128359458
market.

>demsocs are alright. their only problem is that they don't go far enough
They are coward commies, not that commies have any courage.

>I wanna live in a lala land where money grows on trees and there r no more bad guise xD

What a fucking retard

File: hoppephysicalremoval.jpg (58KB, 540x338px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x338px

>>128355524
>Brazil, however, has a lot to benefit from Marxist thinking

kek, you must be joking.

Get physically removed, commie.

>>128359829
>Libertarian
>Order
Choose one

>>128321167
An unemployed hungry person has the personal liberty to create something of value, exchange that for money and buy food.

>>128360277
Commies don't know enough logic to understand how these can came along.

>>128348702
And the sacred liberty of the unfortunate randomly becoming fortunate and getting their chance to freely express their dominance, by that logic. So there's a trade off, welcome to life. Not everyone can be fortunate or the word loses its meaning entirety.

>>128337214
Thank you.
>>128343158
Thanks, I guess.
>>128345824
Care to explain?

File: practicemyth.png (189KB, 1597x857px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1597x857px

>>128360538
>you are free to be oppressed

top tier doublethink alt-rightie cuck

>>128360846
He is commie.

>>128359592
Ah
However, what you're trying to say is still confusing
>Things now cost more at the market, jobs are harder to find, but college students seem very happy
Is this a description of current events? It sounds about right except for the last, given the student debt crisis.

>>128360459
Enlighten me then. I don't suppose he's referring to the "Liberal Order", which is neither Liberal nor Orderly in any way.

>>128360538
A perfect example of a classcuck so brainwashed, that he takes his imposed ideology as the only ideology that has ever existed.
>Not everyone can be fortunate or the word loses its meaning entirety.
Heaven forbid the word lose its meaning, we surely ought to forget trying to improve the lives of others

>>128360572
Not the same guy, it'd help if you defined what Nature is, otherwise the quote doesn't really mean much of anything.

>>128360846

if you want people to take your heterodox economic theories serious please get into the economic department and defend your views.

Please do us this favor, because anyone who still believes in marx's labor theory of value needs to be stoned to death.

>>128321167

I lold at this pic

>>128361525
anyone who still believes in jewish lies about economy is beyond help

>>128361448
>given the student debt crisis.
US isn't the center of world fag, we don't have this problem here

>Enlighten me then. I don't suppose he's referring to the "Liberal Order", which is neither Liberal nor Orderly in any way.
Sorry i don't have for commies.

>A perfect example of a classcuck so brainwashed, that he takes his imposed ideology as the only ideology that has ever existed.
You can't understand the glory of communism because of your class and you've been brainwashed, reeeeeeeee

>>128321167

>>128360277

In a minarchic society, there's still a state to implement authoritative law.

If you refer to ancap, stateless customary law systems have existed (Medieval Iceland, the origins of the Common Law, Lex Mercatoria are probably the best examples of them). Hell, is there a World Government to settle international disputes?

The above are examples of what happens when people voluntarily associate in covenant societies, because adults that want to live in peace and prosperity realize they need to get together and make rules to guarantee peaceful interactions. Degenerate communists like you, however, feel they need to forcefully dictate how other people should live their lives.

>>128361448
>it'd help if you defined what Nature is
To put it simply, it's things such as trees, bacteria, dirt, gravity, tornadoes, and human nature. Such things have served their purpose back when humanity was naught but savage primates fornicating in caves, when the only things we had to worry about were getting enough food to eat and passing on our genetic code.
Obviously, things have changed.
We had grown smarter, cleverer, capable of creating tools and questioning the universe around us. Over the years, using the tools we forged and the knowledge we had obtained, we had begun our attempt at bending nature to our wills. Even those who stay in their monasteries or high in Tibetan mountains, they too seek to control nature, there own nature to be exact.
It's not enough though.
This primal force that we had once accepted as our god, which we once praised and feared, has become incompatible with the modern world. Earthquakes wrecking our cities, plagues killing people in the thousands, even our own bodies breaking down in our old age. All of these are doing nothing but harming us. Sure the fruits of nature are plenty and useful, hence why I do not call for it's eradication. However, mere fruit is not enough to satisfy the true hungers of mankind for control and knowledge.
Thus is why nature must be made obedient. For too long it has been dictating our lives, controlling us and keeping us in fear. We must further hone our tools and make the natural forces our own. The weather shall be herded to where it is needed, the Earth will grant us only abundance, and even death itself, nature's greatest weapon, shall rust and rot away.
And when it is all over, when humanity finally has complete control of it's destiny, only then will I consider the job done.

tldr; Nature has been fucking us over and cowing us for too long. We need to control it.

I might have missed a few details or worded something incorrectly, so if you have any questions please go on ahead and ask.

>>128363865
>Let's replace human nature, it's too old
No surprise your ideology only good to starve people.

>>128364618
And what ideology would that be? Or perhaps a more accurate question is what ideology do you think I'm trying to convey?

>>128365048
Any ideology based in human progress lead to it

>>128361890
>Sorry i don't have for commies.
Meaning that you don't have any arguments, or have even attempted to understand Marxist thought, and instead brainlessly follow McCarthy and believe in a system bent on reducing the value of your live to a material figure. Sounds pretty brainwashed to me.

>>128363284
An ideology that explicitly allows for the suffering of innocents, that views individuals merely as means for capital and gain, where every person is seen a player and competitor whose goal is to enrich oneself and ruin its opponents, can hardly be called orderly, state or otherwise.

>>128363865
Seems like a pretty flaky divide, as if humans are outside of nature in any way. IMO, a lot of our problems have stemmed from the idea that Man is in anyway separate from or poised against nature. We're hardly gods.

>>128365048
Sorry wrong guy.

>>128321167
Sounds like he's rated properly. Total gibsmedat commie bullshit right there.

>>128365198
>An ideology that explicitly allows for the suffering of innocents, that views individuals merely as means for capital and gain, where every person is seen a player and competitor whose goal is to enrich oneself and ruin its opponents, can hardly be called orderly, state or otherwise.

Yes, that's why socialism and communism must be eradicated from this world. Every single time, in every single country where the socialist or communist party was elected to govern said country, the wealth of the general population was extracted to fill the pockets of those governing in the name of "social justice", "wealth equality" and other garbage thoughts. Megalomaniacs that thought they had the right to dictate how other people should live their lives.

Less Venezuelas and North Koreas, more Switzerlands and Lichtensteins please.

>>128365124
What of Transhumanism? Or how about a technocracy.
Not to mention, on closer inspection of your first reply, you only specified human nature. In truth, I'm suggesting the control of most, if not all, forms of nature. To limit it to only human is a mistake.

>>128365198
>IMO, a lot of our problems have stemmed from the idea that Man is in anyway separate from or poised against nature.
IMO, humanity suffers far more problems from just accepting nature as it is. Problems such as death, disaster, and destruction of our great works just to name a few. While I will concede both sides have problems, the one on the side of technological advancement and the taming of nature are far fewer and far more tolerable than those given by accepting nature and letting it run rampant.
>We're hardly gods.
One would think otherwise with how far technology has advanced. With this advance, we have already begun to put the first chains on Mother Nature, and soon many others shall follow.
We might not be gods, but we have the potential. Failing to follow through with such potential will be foolish.

>>128365464
Alright then, fair enough. Have a good day I suppose.

>>128321167
in history class during highschool, I remember specifically the teacher and some of the girls remarking on how handsome he was. That should have been enough to forewarn me about Trudeau.

>>128365646
What's so wrong with the quote? Isn't western Liberty essentially how much money one possesses? The poor man can do nothing, and is barred from their so-called "inalienable" liberty by their slave labor jobs.

>>128366150
North Korea's hardly a communist country. And, besides, your post is pretty contradictory
>in every single country where the socialist or communist party was elected to govern said country, the wealth of the general population was extracted to fill the pockets of those governing in the name of "social justice", "wealth equality" and other garbage thoughts.
This isn't communism or socialism then, is it?
If the wealth of the people is being used to further enrich the wealthy, instead of being used to empower the poor, socialize private industries, and progress the society, then it's hardly socialism, now is it?

You're real complaint, then, isn't about communism, but rather the cult figures who claim to be communists

>>128366425
I hardly think Natural disasters and the fact of death are humanity's greatest concerns. Technology, too, won't save us if we don't know how to use it peacefully. Mother Nature is hardly the problem, we have met the enemy and he is us. The problem is that humanity has been compelled to harm each other and ruin earth for arbitrary and ignorant reasons, largely spurred on by capitalist ideologies.

The only thing that need taming is man, and that can be done without technology

>>128366911

>You're real complaint, then, isn't about communism, but rather the cult figures who claim to be communists
>This isn't communism or socialism then, is it?

Yeah, the "i-its not true socialism/communism!" comment. Like clockwork.

Maybe the self-proclaimed leaders of your garbage ideology realized they could get a lot of political power by promoting ideas that are attractive to people not familiar with economics. Or maybe they got to power with a true intent in implementing a classless, moneyless, stateless society where workers own the means of production, but realized on the first days that such crap is impossible.

In any case, the results are disastrous.

>>128367577
>I hardly think Natural disasters and the fact of death are humanity's greatest concerns.
Perhaps not to you, but they are the source of many others. No natural disasters means no inconsistencies in agricultural production and no resources spent on war, making war for resources useless. Remove death and the people, given greater insight and wisdom from their experiences, will eventually decide to end war.
>Technology, too, won't save us if we don't know how to use it peacefully.
Hence why human nature must also be made obedient, as I had briefly implied in my other post.
>Mother Nature is hardly the problem, we have met the enemy and he is us.
>The problem is that humanity has been compelled to harm each other and ruin earth for arbitrary and ignorant reasons, largely spurred on by capitalist ideologies.
>The only thing that need taming is man, and that can be done without technology
Oh, so your one of those people. Those who believe that man alone is responsible for all of his own ills. He who believes that nature can do no wrong. The type of man who thinks so highly of his dearest Mother Nature that any who criticize her must be incorrect.
You are the type of person that inspired me to make this quote.
The type who would likely hold back the progress of technology for inane reasons such as "it's unnatural" or "we're good already". The type who goes by many names; the Primitivist, the Luddite, the barbarian.
Mark my words, technology shall solve the problems of mankind, as it has a thousand times before.

>>128368574
>Yeah, the "i-its not true socialism/communism!" comment. Like clockwork.
It's not even an issue of it being "True" communism or not. If funds are being used to enrich the rich-- in fact, if money and material are being beheld as the gov's main goal, then it simply isn't even on the leftist spectrum.

>Or maybe they got to power with a true intent in implementing a classless, moneyless, stateless society where workers own the means of production, but realized on the first days that such crap is impossible.
It's hardly impossible, and most marxists aren't against states, a stateless world is the end goal. A socialist state is the preparation for a communist one.
Anyway, these states were all fairly successful Socialist states prior to Western meddling:
>Chile
>China
>Indonesia
>Cuba
>Nicaragua
>Venezuela under Chavez
>Yugoslavia
>Kibbutzim
Were all successful for periods. The big issue for Marxism is that the US and capitalist countries quickly-- and always successfully, thwart their attempts, often by implementing a fascist, West-friendly, dictator.

File: Churchill3.jpg (63KB, 680x365px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 680x365px

>>128321167

>>128369978

You guys always blame external forces for the failure of your systems, but never blame it on yourselves and the fundamental pillars on which your ideologies are based.

I also find it funny how you jumped on the "Order" of a libertarian society, as if implying that a libertarian society cannot have order, yet you propose a stateless world where wealth is distributed.

>>128369075
Wars most often occur due to arbitrary differences and the glorification of material.
We are already at the point where we can feed the entire world's population. War is already useless. The problem is that it's not being relegated correctly-- it's being sold and treated as something that ought to be sold, rather than as something necessary for basic survival.

>He who believes that nature can do no wrong
I'm simply not dumb enough to place moral judgements on a non-thinking entity that can hardly be defined, let alone "conquered".

>Mark my words, technology shall solve the problems of mankind, as it has a thousand times before.
I'm not necessarily against technology-- although your reduction of techno-skeptics to hippies and geezers is embarrassing to read. Please read Heidegger's Age of The World Picture and The Question Concerning Technology, and the Unabomber's Manifesto while you're at it, before you even pretend to know what you're talking about.

Technology is all good and fine when it's used correctly, I don't think anyone would especially deny that, but it's blatantly clear that we don't use it correctly, and will never use it correctly unless our ways of living and ways of viewing the earth dramatically change.

Technology, at this point in time, is more likely to destroy us than save us. Nuclear proliferation is a pretty basic example of it.

Also: trying to solve death is not only foolhardy, but, in my view, immoral. There is nothing wrong with a natural death. People, however, really ought to stop killing each other.

>Being a bugman wagecuck
>Freedom

Delete that image from your computer.

>>128371200
>but never blame it on yourselves and the fundamental pillars on which your ideologies are based
Perhaps because they, in fact, continually fall due to external meddling?
Perhaps I'm being blind, what is so wrong with the fundamental pillars of Marxist ideologies, and, more importantly, what do you even think those pillars are?

>as if implying that a libertarian society cannot have order
You clearly misunderstood what I was trying to say.
There is "Order" insofar as when someone is caught breaking the rules they are punished, however, the same system allows for the degradation and blatant abuse of the helpless-- who, by means of force, are coerced and prevented from acting out violent. There is order in a prison, but it's disingenuous, and hardly "Orderly"

>>128371221
>Wars most often occur due to arbitrary differences and the glorification of material.
Caused by natural desires run rampant.
>The problem is that it's not being relegated correctly-- it's being sold and treated as something that ought to be sold, rather than as something necessary for basic survival.
Perhaps it is being sold as an improvement to the conditions of man? In any case, the desires for war is still caused by letting the desires of men run rampant. Desires often natural in origin.
>I'm simply not dumb enough to place moral judgements on a non-thinking entity that can hardly be defined, let alone "conquered".
You see, it's this type of thinking expressed by certain people that I dislike. Of course nature can be conquered, it just takes time.
>although your reduction of techno-skeptics to hippies and geezers is embarrassing to read.
I only pointed out the most prominent opponents of technological advancement. A little skepticism in technology is a good thing, as it keeps a mind from being fooled. However, I do not mention these in my explanations because they are unimportant adversaries at the time.
>Read all these books that I am suggesting to you before talking about your opinion.
Given your currently expressed viewpoints, these books only support your opinions. In short, you're trying to convert me through making yourself seem far more enlightened by having read far more literature.
It won't work. Though I will admit I might read them sometime.
>Technology is all good and fine when it's used correctly.
And nature is all good and fine until you get diseases and die of a gash in the foot at age 15. At least with technology the fault is more often our own.
> but it's blatantly clear that we don't use it correctly, and will never use it correctly unless our ways of living and ways of viewing the earth dramatically change.
Are you referring to changing the nature of man? If so, then you are only agreeing with me in a way.
(1/2)

>>128373304
>Technology, at this point in time, is more likely to destroy us than save us. Nuclear proliferation is a pretty basic example of it.
And pharmaceutical advancements, genetic engineering, new forms of green energy (such as what I like to call solar 2.0, since I don't know the actual name for it), and the internet, the world's largest database of knowledge, are examples against your theory. Basic examples, might I add.
>There is nothing wrong with a natural death.
There is nothing right about it. Not to mention to be comfortable with natural death is to be comfortable with having your work, your life, your ability to experience and learn and change the world cut short because of a ticking biological clock. So there is much wrong with a natural death.
(2/2)

>>128321167

Age of consent should be until the woman is married. If that's 35 so be it. Should live with family until that happens. Should be virgin.

Age of consent of marriage should be around 16.

>>128372113

>classless
People are not equal, they come in different sizes and flavors. Inequality is part of this world, and some people will prosper more than others. Others might not prosper at all.

>moneyless
Money is probably on the best inventions of humanity. I don't want to trade 1/8 of my cow for 3/4 of your chickens.

>stateless
Probably the only thing Marx got right, seeing that this institution only fucks with our liberties and fills its pockets with my labor.

>workers own the means of production
Communism and socialism force everybody to adopt this organization of factors of production. A libertarian order allows for any type of business model, including yours (the cooperative model). However, I think that due to division of labor, it's better to have someone specialized in the direction of the means of production, rather than have everything decided democratically

>abolition of private property
First, Marxists make this unnecessary division of property into private property and personal property. Much easier to have them in a single group: private property.

Second, you need property to set the boundaries for exchange. No boundaries = no exchange = there's no way of rationally allocating resources.

Like a libertarian thinker of my country said, with no property, prices and rational resource allocation, you have no idea whether to pave streets with asphalt or gold.

File: stirner is armed.jpg (45KB, 523x452px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 523x452px

>>128321167 (OP)
>>128328141
>>128328943
>>128329498
>>128329998
>>128331079
>>128332188
>>128332329
>>128332919
>>128332997
>>128334098
>>128335278
laughing at all these spooks
>Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap.
>What is freedom?
>To have the will to be responsible for one's self.

>>128374054
>>128371221
I'm not being clear enough. These are the major problems with your views
>1a) You haven't defined nature properly
>1b) You haven't explained how Man is separate from nature
>3) You treat Technology as if it exists outside of ideology and politics
We have the technology to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, feed the entire planet, cure and improve the lives of humanity in ways previously unthinkable. Yet, these things are largely not done, and the majority of humanity has little to no access to this technology, despite its clear abundance.
Why?
Is it really the lack of technology, or the systems in place that inherently prevent progress?
Technology cannot alone ensure improvement, it must exist in a non-capitalistic structure.

>>128375480
>>1a) You haven't defined nature properly
Such a thing is difficult to define, however I personally felt I did a good enough job doing so in a previous post (>>128363865). Of course if there are specific problems you have with it, just mention them to me and I will do my best to explain them.
>>1b) You haven't explained how Man is separate from nature
We are conscious of our surroundings, able to make meaningful choices and ponder the nature of the universe. Of course we are not entirely separate from nature because of this, but should we tame nature we shouldn't need to be.
>>3) You treat Technology as if it exists outside of ideology and politics
If it seems like I have, then it's because I haven't had the opportunity to say otherwise. Yes, technology does exist within the same realm as ideology and politics. However, I fail to see how this renders my philosophy invalid. Again, you need to explain it in greater detail.
>Yet, these things are largely not done, and the majority of humanity has little to no access to this technology, despite its clear abundance.
>Why?
In the case of renewable energy, it's because many of the most popular sources either are not energy efficient in the long run or cause too much environmental damage. In the case of feeding the entire planet, most food requires transportation to send it to those in need. This of course requires fuel which, as mentioned in the previous point, is still a problem at the moment. Most cures require complex surgeries or the production of them is far too constrained at the moment. In the world of business we call this a bottleneck, and it can be easily fixed through greater focus on the production of these resources.
Alternatively, more technology can solve the problem.
>Is it really the lack of technology, or the systems in place that inherently prevent progress?
It's the lack of technology.
>it must exist in a non-capitalistic structure.
And I'm also arguing with a communist. Great.

>>128374115
>People are not equal
How are you defining equality?
>I don't want to trade x for y
In this day in age, where sustainable and universal needs can be met through co-operation, need we trade at all?

>Communism forces everybody to adopt this organization
So that every business exist to benefit the good of all. The whole basic premise is to eliminate private holdings.
The whole premise is that capital ideologies stress commodity and material as the reasons to live, when instead the means to live can be guaranteed and shared through co-operation. The larger issue is that capital ideologies are literally dehumanizing.

The libertarian model forces everyone to fight for their survival by destroying and overcoming their opponents by any means necessary. Co-operative models are inherently discouraged given that the end goal is self-preservation and enrichment

>>128374115
>First, Marxists make this unnecessary division of property into private property and personal property. Much easier to have them in a single group: private property.
It's a massively important distinction.

>We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

>Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

>Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

>But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

>To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

>>128359829
I did a ctrl+f "hoppe" looking for this. Well done anon.

File: che guevara.jpg (37KB, 860x481px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 860x481px

was che /ourguevara/?

>>128376980
>things such as trees, bacteria, dirt, gravity, tornadoes, and human nature
So everything? The bigger problem is that you're really defining it against humanity and then judging it in terms of its "usefulness".

>We are conscious of our surroundings, able to make meaningful choices and ponder the nature of the universe. Of course we are not entirely separate from nature because of this, but should we tame nature we shouldn't need to be.
I'm not sure how this makes us separate. We cannot exist without our surroundings, and humanity as a whole doesn't exist nor make sense as a concept without the world. Worldliness is an essential part of being human at all.

>However, I fail to see how this renders my philosophy invalid
My point is not that technology can't solve things, my point is that technology cannot solve everything alone. It must exist within the proper framework to effectively fix things, namely, in my opinion, a non-capitalist one.
Look, for example, at the beginning of the industrial revolution in America. These technologies were largely not being used to improve the quality of life or solve the majority mankind's problems, the quality of life for its laborers most certainly fell due to emerging technologies.

>This of course requires fuel which, as mentioned in the previous point, is still a problem at the moment
But again you're missing the larger point. Most fuel is wasted, most cars and airplane rides are unnecessary-- couldn't this wasted fuel been used to transport food?

More technology will only serve those who can afford the technology. The poor and weak-- those who will provide the labor for the technology, and those who need the technology the most, will only suffer.

There are, of course, deeper problems with technology and relying on it-- problems which Heidegger in particular lays out beautifully, but more pragmatically, technology alone cannot solve it if the system it operates within views quality of life as a matter of money

>>128366150
North Korea isn't communist and North Korea is objectively a nearly ideal country

>>128379198
>The bigger problem is that you're really defining it against humanity and then judging it in terms of its "usefulness".
I fail to see how this is a problem. If it's useful to us, then we keep it. If it's useless to us, then contain, control, or remove it.
>It must exist within the proper framework to effectively fix things.
Capitalism is a proper framework. It prevents those who do not deserve it from having it, fosters enough competition to encourage near constant improvement, and if people don't like a particular company they can just stop buying their products and services,
While the industrial revolution did screw some people out, it also lead to the creation of unions; these act as the counter balance to corporations while still keeping the spirit of competition alive and well. After all, a corporation is nothing without employees. Therefore, with more money to spend these new factory employees could better enjoy these new technologies themselves.
>Most fuel is wasted.
That is the choice of the individual based on their nature. Nature that must also be conquered, but by the ones wasting the fuel themselves if it's an option.
>More technology will only serve those who can afford the technology.
More technology has provided more resources to the world allowing the poor to afford technology.

File: 17rvzk.jpg (51KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x539px

>>128321663
lying ass.

>>128380733
>It prevents those who do not deserve it from having it,
Ah, so only a certain selection of humanity deserves technological protection from these, as you called them, "major problems facing humanity"

>fosters enough competition to encourage near constant improvement,
If the technology is deemed important and makes our lives easier or better in any significant way, it will be encouraged to improve regardless of competition.

>if people don't like a particular company they can just stop buying their products and services,
Most people lack the financial freedom to do this.

>While the industrial revolution did screw some people out, it also lead to the creation of unions
Which need not exist at all if workers owned the means of production.

>That is the choice of the individual based on their nature. Nature that must also be conquered, but by the ones wasting the fuel themselves if it's an option.
How is this an issue of "nature", if one is raised within a capitalist society, is it their "nature" to be a capitalist? Hardly.

>More technology has provided more resources to the world allowing the poor to afford technology.
And yet the majority of this technology is wasted on the very people who need the technology the least. Technology is used again and again to empower the wealthy and further oppress and enslave the under privileged. The only "Nature" that need conquering is the capitalist system, which inherently perpetuates the vast majority of these crises.
I really hope you do read Heidegger's Problem Concerning Technology. He's not even a Marxist, he was a fuckin nazi (although, imo, his philosophy supports Marxist thinking). He defines these problems a whole lot coherently and beautifully than I ever could.

>>128382003
>Ah, so only a certain selection of humanity deserves technological protection from these, as you called them, "major problems facing humanity"
Those who would misuse it, from the ignorant to the evil, are those strongly under the control of nature. Until this problem can be fixed, they should stay away from the dangerous items.
>If the technology is deemed important and makes our lives easier or better in any significant way, it will be encouraged to improve regardless of competition.
Competition makes the progress of technology go by more efficiently.
>Most people lack the financial freedom to do this.
Liar. Those countries where people claim this is the case are only that way because the people do not realize their collective input in capitalism.
>Which need not exist at all if workers owned the means of production.
But the workers don't own the means of production, and likely never will. There will always be a man who's ambitions will lead him to the top of the chain of power, thus attaining what many would consider ownership of the means of production.
How is this an issue of "nature", if one is raised within a capitalist society, is it their "nature" to be a capitalist? Hardly.
It's their nature to consume for comfort, just like it was millennia ago when our primate ancestors walked the world of hardships, with no knowledge on the benefits of delayed gratification.
>And yet the majority of this technology is wasted on the very people who need the technology the least.
What is foreign aid to countries such as Africa? What are the charitable attempts to bring great wealth to such a continent? What about Brasil, who's citizens have fallen so far into their base natures that they do not see the dung heap their country had become? Are these acts not bringing the prosperity needed for greater technological benefits.
(1/2)

>>128383268
>Technology is used again and again to empower the wealthy and further oppress and enslave the under privileged.
If this is truly the case, then why haven't the collective poor realized the power the possessed as a group and struck a bargain with the wealthy? Why is it that the ones advocating the most for communism are themselves the wealthy or the children of the wealthy? Why is it that every time before when communism had been tried, the methods failed to generate the results desired?
At the heart of your problem, your entire philosophy requires a perfect world where education is free, where ambition is not required by all, and where everyone will deny their nature and get along. Yet at the same time, you denounce my philosophies on conquering and taming nature, to create a world where we are in control of our destinies, as being either unreasonable or unethical. My ideology can help you achieve what you truly want; a world communist government. But until that day happens, we need to persevere against the hardships of nature, against it's tyrannical grip.
Until we are in complete control, utopia will just be a dream.

>>128369978
Lol, you sounded reasonable until you started listing those communist/socialist countries. They failed not because of outside forces but simply because the system didn't work. You think killing all rich people and confiscating all businesses is going to work in the long run? You never picked up a history book.

>>128384485
>why haven't the collective poor realized the power the possessed as a group and struck a bargain with the wealthy
Because they are continually oppressed and kept ignorant from knowing that they are even being abused to the extent that they are. Capitalism is a hell of a drug. They've been convinced by the "Moderate Left" that, in fact, the only reason things aren't working out for them is because people are racist/misogynist/Islamophobic/etc and are pacified into controllable opposition. They're tricked into thinking "if I can afford college/if I can get "equality"/etc, then I can really make it in the capitalist world"-- they buy an image of capitalism with a human face instead of attacking capitalism itself.

>Why is it that the ones advocating the most for communism are themselves the wealthy or the children of the wealthy?
Typically they're the only ones who have the time to sit down and think critically about Man's condition-- not to mention they have the best access to political tests and philosophy as a whole.
>Why is it that every time before when communism had been tried, the methods failed to generate the results desired?
External influence, personality cults, it hasn't failed as many times as western propaganda would like you to believe.

(1/2)

>>128384678
>They failed not because of outside forces but simply because the system didn't work. You think killing all rich people and confiscating all businesses is going to work in the long run? You never picked up a history book.
And you haven't read history or a single page of any Marxist text. Yugoslavia under Tito in particular was amazingly successful and you'd have to be blind to think otherwise.

>>128385696
>Because they are continually oppressed and kept ignorant from knowing that they are even being abused to the extent that they are.
Someone would still figure out something is wrong. One generation of constant labor isn't enough to force an entire people into what your describing as slavery. Not to mention that there would still be people who, noticing the conditions they are in, would start a revolt if situations get that bad.
>Typically they're the only ones who have the time to sit down and think critically about Man's condition.
We all have that time, some just lack the capacity. Be it they lack the intellect or they would rather not think about it because it's painful to do so. In any case, miserable conditions are prevalent in Communism as well.
> it hasn't failed as many times as western propaganda would like you to believe.
You mean it's failed even more? After all, most western propaganda is pro leftist, and even if they aren't pro communist they are more likely to show the few failings of Capitalism over anything more than the failings of Communism.

>>128384485
>your entire philosophy requires a perfect world where education is free, where ambition is not required by all, and where everyone will deny their nature and get along.
It really isn't as utopian or far out as you think.

We're only primed by capitalism to think that life can only function, can only make sense, in the context of economy and capital, that man's nature is to inherently cause conflict and act in a capitalistic way. I find this unreasonable, baseless, and simply untrue.

W/r/t ambition, Marxism = pay for lazy people is an outright McCarthyist lie. The whole basic tenant is "Give according to ability, take according to need". Individuals are encouraged to hone their skills for the greater good of society. It requires the ambition of everyone.

>Yet at the same time, you denounce my philosophies on conquering and taming nature, to create a world where we are in control of our destinies, as being either unreasonable or unethical
This is not the reason I denounce your philosophy. I disagree because, again, you treat technology as a non-political entity that can only bring about good. I disagree because your definition of nature is vague, somehow includes humanity, but doesn't not include Humanity-- it essentially devalues Nature to an object that can be manipulated and ought to be manipulated for human gain. I find that basic prospect troubling.

Again, I'm not a Luddite, I think tech could really revolutionize the world for the better, but it ought to belong to the public. Its privatization will only lead to abuse.

>>128321663
Fuck my fellow countrymen for bothering you. based croat

>>128386995
>One generation of constant labor isn't enough to force an entire people into what your describing as slavery. Not to mention that there would still be people who, noticing the conditions they are in, would start a revolt if situations get that bad.
You'd think so, but here we are, more than 100 years after the revolution. They're kept complacent and are distracted by various other issues and institutions such as the media and religion.
Not to mention that the US gov. has thoroughly convinced the public that communists are worse than heroin addicted satanist pedophile rapists. We just to liberate and educate the masses.

>We all have that time, some just lack the capacity
Not if you make minimum wage and work more than 40 hours a week trying to support a full family. The people who need marxism the most quite literally do not have the time to sit down and study philosophy.

>most western propaganda is pro leftist
If you consider leftism to be superficial SJW leftism, sure, I guess. I don't especially find inclusive capitalism to be all that left. They're more likely to show the failings of capitalism because the failings of capitalism are impossible to ignore and is causing all of these major crises in the first place.

They don't show the failings of communism because there aren't any communist countries that really exist right now, and most people's problems with the socialist leanings of NE europe are racial ones anyhow.

>>128387217
>It really isn't as utopian or far out as you think.
It's more so. You expect everyone to share, going against their nature, without accepting the easiest way to do so.
>I find this unreasonable, baseless, and simply untrue.
Then why is it that Capitalism came first, that it had only to be named by individuals who noticed the effect, while communism had to be invented whole cloth by those who reaped the fruits of Capitalism. Of course this would go against my previous notions about nature were it not for the fact that Communism fails far more often and caused far more suffering than Capitalism had in a far shorter time period over far fewer countries.
> The whole basic tenant is "Give according to ability, take according to need".
Strange how few times that tenant is actually put into effect, is it? With how many Communist dictatorships have been created since it's inception.
In addition, while the "Give according to ability, take according to need" isn't directly helping the lazy, it still opens the door for abuse from these individuals.
>I disagree because, again, you treat technology as a non-political entity that can only bring about good.
Another lie from the forked tongue of the communist. All I said was how technology could benefit us greatly and how it would provide more benefit than harm. How it would lead the the ultimate domination of nature itself, and that it would lead us to be in control of our lives.
>Its privatization will only lead to abuse.
And yet we have examples of the opposite happening, so it's not only for abuse. Other than that the only other point I have on the matter is how it's less likely to be destroyed if put into private hands.

>>128321663
All these disgusting commies, thanks for sharing the info

>>128321663
Awww but I liked hot stalin

>>128388086
>the US gov. has thoroughly convinced the public that communists are worse than heroin addicted satanist pedophile rapists. We just to liberate and educate the masses.
Like Antifa with their pepper spray and road blocks? Your doing a shit job of liberating, since this is the only force doing any considerable effort. I'm of course using the word considerable lightly. While the people are being distracted by media and religion, the former is being used to further promote socialist ideas to lead as a bridge to Communism, while the latter is more of a major theological issue that I do not want to get into right now since We're already off topic as it is.
>Not if you make minimum wage and work more than 40 hours a week trying to support a full family.
>Trying to support a full family when you're poor as dirt.
Well there's your problem. Just make some money, some investments if you can, before you get married and have kids and the problem is dealt with.
>If you consider leftism to be superficial SJW leftism, sure, I guess.
And the promotion of socialism I mentioned before.
>They're more likely to show the failings of capitalism because the failings of capitalism are impossible to ignore and is causing all of these major crises in the first place.
The failings cannot be ignored, but the same applies for Communism. It just happens that they, as well as others, choose to ignore it anyways. Despite far more failings in a far smaller time frame with far fewer attempts made.

File: 1496018956869.jpg (16KB, 409x377px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 409x377px

>>128321167
>quoting stalin
>on a quote where he talks about inequality
>knowing that he later became a totalitarian dictator that starved and imprisoned millions of workers

There will be no mercy for you leftists.

>>128330011
Fuck off kike

>>128388620
>You expect everyone to share, going against their nature
There's little evidence that sharing goes against one's nature, especially given if, within a communist society, everything is produced for the sake of everyone.
>Then why is it that Capitalism came first
A bad argument. Why did Feudalism come before capitalism? etc.
Marxism is an explicit reaction to Capitalism and in fact can only exist out of a rejection of capitalism. You would know this if you actually read any Marxist philosophy.
Not to mention there were successful e proto-marxist communities throughout history such as the Shakers (who were killed, surprise surprise).
>Communism fails far more often and caused far more suffering than Capitalism
A bold, nonsense, and unsupported claim.
You could just as easily say that tech has done more harm than good.

>Strange how few times that tenant is actually put into effect, is it? With how many Communist dictatorships have been created since it's inception.
There have been plenty of successful marxist and communistic communities that existed in America around the 1890s-1920s, as well as the successful ones in Spain during the civil war.
>All I said was how technology could benefit us greatly and how it would provide more benefit than harm
But you're underplaying how substantial role politics play in technology. This is my whole point.
>And yet we have examples of the opposite happening
And we have examples of it doing tremendous harm.

>>128335278
This is actually accurate. Capitalism encourages degeneracy and basically everything else that's bad for a 'family values' traditional life. The only thing capitalism cares for is profit and capitalists will any degeneracy if they can make a profit, even if the morality of society is utterly eroded. Not even a commie, but this is basically a fact.

>>128343236
Yes she does. Objectivism is an ideology of selfishness, greed, and egotism.

>>128390495
>There's little evidence that sharing goes against one's nature
But everyone sharing with everyone, in particular people they hate with a passion, does.
>Why did Feudalism come before capitalism.
It was what was in place at the time and it was replaced by something better.
>A bold, nonsense, and unsupported claim.
Aside from the Soviet Union, China for a time, Korea, Cuba, and several others. Again, over the course of roughly 100 something years, and half of are shitholes while the other half had switched back to Capitalism.
>There have been plenty of successful marxist and communist communities that existed in America
Small communities of people with high moral standards. When you start to increase the size of your operation this becomes less and less the case.
>But you're underplaying how substantial role politics play in technology.
Because it's unimportant to my original point.
>And we have examples of it doing harm.
Far less than good or plain ol' neutral.

File: 1489115140767.jpg (48KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 850x400px

My favourite

>>128389458
>implying I support Antifa
While I commend them for kicking the shit out of fascists, just about everything else they do I can't stand. They're disorganized, don't know what they want, and can't engage in actual discourse.
While I found their slogan "Liberals get the bullet too" pretty funny, in my eyes they're a disgrace to the left.
They can keep breaking bank windows and punching crypto-nazis and all, I don't really care, but their ideology sucks.

The only way to spread communism is to spread discourse.

>media and religion, the former is being used to further promote socialist ideas to lead as a bridge to Communism
I wish the media was spreading socialism, but instead it's trying to prove to girls that women can be CEOs too, and that you've gotta stop being racists because Black people can make good music too.
SJWs may call themselves socialists or marxists or whatever, but they're absolutely just liberals.

>Well there's your problem. Just make some money, some investments if you can, before you get married and have kids and the problem is dealt with.
"Why don't poor people just get rich?"

Also, people aren't talking about the failures of Communism in the media anymore because there aren't any communist countries left. It's really that simple. If you want to see what was wrong with the CCCP, there are some great history books and critical literature you could read. Current mainstream "criticism" of capitalism is that it doesn't have enough black and gay people in it. It's a total farce.

>>128391361
>But everyone sharing with everyone, in particular people they hate with a passion, does.
You act as if Communism forces the individual to go through their house and give stuff to that obnoxious neighbor across the street. That's just not even what happens.

>Aside from the Soviet Union, China for a time, Korea, Cuba, and several others. Again, over the course of roughly 100 something years, and half of are shitholes while the other half had switched back to Capitalism.
All of them did so almost explicitly because of Capitalist interventionism and funded coups.

>Because it's unimportant to my original point.
It is important, even if you didn't realize it. My whole argument is that you don't realize how important politics are to technology.

>When you start to increase the size of your operation this becomes less and less the case.
Only because it's never been properly implemented. Proper education and support can instill marxist values fine.
The Human Nature argument is baseless.

>Far less than good or plain ol' neutral.
Oil spills
Exploited workers required to maintain the tech
Hiroshima, Nagasaki
Accelerated global warming
Modern war
Internet addiction
Modern alienation
http://simondon.ocular-witness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/question_concerning_technology.pdf

>>128392133
>"Why don't poor people just get rich?"

Why don't you make me care about what the poor do at all?

File: 1496492569431.jpg (150KB, 1125x1079px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1125x1079px

>>128321167

File: CvhnvmiWYAAlmx1.jpg (55KB, 593x268px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 593x268px

>>128394570

>>128323318
Kill yourself.

>>128331079
That sounds obnoxious.

>>128334510
Based Pinochet, I'm glad my family has always been on his side.

>>128374588
this senpai.

File: quote-the-money-you-have-gives-you-freedom-the-money-you-pursue-enslaves-you-jean-jacques-rousseau-350310.jpg (54KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 850x400px

>>128398728
According to Stirner's own beliefs, self, responsibility, and will are spooks. Not to mention Rousseau does freedom better.

>In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.