Who /not a classcuck/ here? You can only be free under socialism

Reminder Socialism devolves iinto Communism every time. And Communism devolves iinto faggotry every time.

ARISE YE ROBOTS

>>35368441
t. (((capitalist)))

>>35368508
I'm actually just a rational thinking person who's read about history and economics. I suggest you do the same instead of pushing you deadly retarded ideology.

File: High rez smilling dog.jpg (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

>supporting socialism

>>35368598
KULAKS OUT

We know what you're trying to do, and it's not going to work.

>>35368598
>I'm actually just a rational thinking person who's read about history and economics
>is vaguely aware of the soviet union and mao and has read some wikipedia pages on economics

>>35368680
How old are you and why do you relate to Socialism?

>>35368331

Sorry but I prefer to actually have food on the table thanks.

Normalfaggotry is the opium of the masses

File: communism.jpg (302KB, 793x1400px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 793x1400px

Commiefags need to be purged

>>35368731
>he sites the USSR and Mao
>despite hundreds of millions of deaths that has happened under their rule

>>35368331
>you can only be free when the state is massive and has complete control over most aspects of daily life
>this is what Marxists actually believe

>>35368792
That's not what he was saying at all, but you've just given away that you don't know what communism actually is. So great job!

>>35368759
> food on the table
But that's exactly why we need communism. Are you retarded?

>>35368845
So justify those hundreds of millions of deaths under Communism then.

File: communism_red_pill.jpg (112KB, 812x531px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 812x531px

>>35368845

Starvation isn't a problem in America and we're capitalist as fuck. Our problem is too much food. Compare that to Venezuela, where socialism led to starvation.

>>35368845

Nigger look at the soviet union, Cuba, and Venezuela

Fuck your socialism

i wish normies would at least look up the definition of communism before commenting on it

>>35368331
left wing is for pussy ass weak bitch boys. right wing for real men. j/s mang

>>35368869
stalin killed a hundred million gorillion people

>>35368893
nigger look at haiti
fuck your capitalism

>>35368841
No, that isn't what we believe. What reading did you do to arrive at that conclusion?

>>35368740
> why do you relate to Socialism?
When I realized that because I being paid a wage that was less than the actual value of my output, I was being exploited

I don't know what is worse, the communism meme or the nazism meme

at least the nazism meme is considered inappropriate in public

>>35368869
>>35368893
You don't know what communism is, bye

>>35368882
>POVERTY DOESNT EXIST

File: 1487866576617.png (337KB, 1010x1010px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1010x1010px

Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.

Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.

Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:

>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD
>Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD
>To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people.
https://www.gommies.gom/fug/
https://www.gommies.gom/starve/

GL uses philosphy of gib and starve, see here:
https://www.gommies.gom/ohfugme/

It is recommend you kill yourself so you can avoid starving.

Resources:
https://www.gommies.gom/ohshid/
https://www.gommies.gom/1984/
https://www.gommies.gom/guck/
https://www.gommies.gom/probaganda/
https://www.gommies.gom/XDDDD/
https://www.gommies.gom/wheresfood/
https://www.gommies.gom/benis/

_________________________________


Da sdages of gommunism.

>Sdage one
Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.

>Sdade two
Withering
All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.

>Sdage three
Gommunism.
No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.

>>35368945
you chose your job. you decided your output was worth that pay when you accepted the job. want more money? work somewhere else.

>>35368933
Stalin basically did kill a hundred million gorillion people. Thanks for clarifying that

>>35368945
Then maybe you should stop being a lazy pussy and get a new job or ask for a raise.

I've never met a working class communist. I'm almost 100% certain that you've never worked a physical job in your entire life.

>>35368999
There is no wage labor that is not exploitative. Hope that helps.

File: yeltsin-19890916_hc-03-22[1].jpg (238KB, 670x500px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 670x500px

>>35368968

>poverty in America
>still have a big TV, shitty car and food on the table paid for by food stamps
>poverty in any communist country
>starve to death in the streets

Do you know what this picture is showing? It's a Soviet who can't believe his eyes when he sees the abundance of food and goods available to the average American, thanks to capitalism.

>>35368999
>>35369009
And again you've shown that you don't understand the basic concepts behind communism. In the capitalist system the worker must always be exploited by the employer. When the employer hires workers, the value of his output is always more than the cost of hiring him. If this wasn't true, the employer would be making a loss in profit by hiring him, which wouldn't make sense. The employer always steals part of the value of the workers labour and keeps it as profit. The worker never gets paid the full value of his labour. Do you understand? This exploitation is fundamental to the capitalist system

>its another Commie starts a shit thread and ignores facts about his shitty ideology from rational thinking people and calls other retarded commieboos "comrade" despite being the people who would be first in line to the gulags
Enjoy your iphones and Che Gueverra shirt you brought off of Amazon, Commietards

File: 1479270020856.png (386KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 900x900px

>>35368331
EDGY COLLEGE COMMIE NORMIES GET OUTT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>35369055
>communist country
Huh? There was never any communist country though. What are you talking about?

Can I be NEET and play video games all day under socialism?

>>35369134
Good argument, Marx debunked

File: commie_screeching.jpg (37KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 554x400px

>>35369129

>one man voluntarily enters into a labor contract with another man
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>35369167

>le communism has never been tried meme
Go tell the Russians that the USSR wasn't communist, let me know how they feel about it

>>35369025
You're not entirely wrong there, socialism is currently a more bourgeois affection. This was historically absolutely not the case though.

>>35369189
>Go tell the Russians that the USSR wasn't communist, let me know how they feel about it
>the actual definition of the word means nothing because feels

>>35369175
Goods are massively overproduced in capitalist economies, so with communism we will have much, much shorter work weeks. Forget coming home after working all day without energy to do anything, those days will be over

>>35369228
I don't want to work at all.

File: 1487652431393.jpg (432KB, 750x850px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 750x850px

>>35368331
>gets told about how stupid communism is
>"hurr thats not real communism"
Fucking autists

>>35369189
>one man voluntarily enters into a labor contract with another man
And he does that because he has no choice. What's the alternative? There is no way to be fairly paid for your labour in this shitty system. Good job though, you just debunked decades of theory with your hilarious ifunny meme

>>35369215

>it's only communism if it is my infallible brand of communism that only exists in philosophical debates because in practice it would require humans to be perfect creatures to avoid ending up with millions of dead innocent people

>>35369264

I'm sorry your family isn't rich enough to allow you to leach off them forever. Communism is not the NEET paradise you desperately want it to be.

>>35369245
>system in which the state still exists
>communist
Wow, you must have some kind of super brain?

>>35369298
State refers to the centralisation of force, so who gives you your food in communism? Who gives you your need? Who forces you to do things?

>>35369296
How was that a counter to anything I just wrote? I'm clearly not a fucking neet

File: obesemangunsmall_0.jpg (7KB, 353x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 353x200px

>>35369298
>hur muh system muh state exist n shit

>>35369325
We form small communes and collectively distribute the resources

>>35369351
>This is what we have to fight against on the left
Uh oh

>>35369328

Why do you think communism would be a viable alternative for people who don't want to work?

File: LaughingWhores2_1.gif (489KB, 458x260px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 458x260px

>>35369380
>not a commie edge lord means you're a leftist
Wew lad

>>35369380
How small? Who decides how these are divided? Who settles disputes? Who forces people to actually work? What do we do with our current infrastructure?

Probably some socialism here https://discord.gg/evxZ5

>>35369380

>We form small communes and collectively distribute the resources
How fucking naive are commiefags? If your model relies on humans being immune to corruption and greed in order to function, it's a shit model.

>>35369407
Where the fuck did I write that? I've only explained how you are being exploited, where did I write about neets not working?

>>35369245
>did the workers collectively own the means of production, or did a dictator own everything?
just ask yourself that simple question

I'm a radical centrist who believes in market based solutions to problems with strong government oversight desu.

>>35369443

Your problem with capitalism is that people are forced to work in order to survive. You are shilling for communism, which >implies you think it doesn't have this problem. Why do you think communism is a magic solution for the "people are forced to work to survive" problem? Buildings would still need to be built. Food would still need to be grown. Roads would still need to be paved. And if enough people decide they would rather not do those shitty jobs, how do you compel them to contribute?

Socialists and commmies are shit tier people who just want the gibsmedats

File: communism.png (707KB, 856x1026px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 856x1026px

>it hasn't worked in the past therefore we should never try it again and continue with the current system that leaves millions starving, exploits billions and is going to lead to the destruction of mankind

>>35369424
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Everyone does what they're able to do and receives what they need. This might be shocking to you, but people who aren't severely depressed or mentally retarded/ill in some other way don't have the desire to lay in bed all day and sulk. It's actually natural to want a place in society where you feel important, otherwise you feel guilty and empty and start getting depressed. You know capitalism didn't exist throughout all of human history, right?

>What do we do with our current infrastructure?
Anything that creates goods becomes the shared property and responsibility of the people working it.

>>35369442
That's the point, this system will make it impossible for people to exploit each other, because that would otherwise be inevitable under capitalism

>>35369506
>Your problem with capitalism is that people are forced to work in order to survive.
How in fuck you arrived at that after such a crystal clear explanation is beyond me, holy shit

>>35369424
I don't have the exact logistics of how this will work in my head, if that's what you're looking for

Being a country free of capitalism in this age is basically suicide by the inside and the outside, however I do agree on the idea that the people should have the private business by the balls and not the other way around, sadly this can't be accomplished due to rampant consumist, people care to much about defending some shitty brand that's constantly threatening consumers right and the government keeps a blind eye as long as their pockets get filled

>>35369569
>Everyone does what they're able to do
Who is going to make them do it? I don't want to work, so fuck off with your Chomskyian claptrap. Human nature is a myth.

>>35369541
>human flying machines
>infallible
keep drinking that Boeing kool-aid

>>35369541
Can we kill all the non-whites before we go communist? They ruin everything.

>>35369619
if you don't help anybody, nobody will help you

>>35369646
no you fucking racist!!

>>35369585
Your posts reek of 19 y/o know it all collegefag.

>>35369414
>Somehow thought it was being called a leftist
You're this guy>>35369351 right? I can tell you're really clever

>>35369670
We need to decrease the population, so why not get rid of the people who are too stupid to contribute?

>>35369619
If you go a very long time without any desire to do anything productive, you're depressed. That's also why you're on /r9k/.

Most people imagine themselves under communism and think "wait, I wouldn't want to work" because they're exhausted from being exploited under capitalism. Everyone wants a vacation. But I'm confident that after a vacation length of not doing anything, a regular person would start feeling restless and directionless, which is scary. People would still ask you what you're doing with your life. That's why you'd eventually start doing something and contributing to society.

Communism doesn't work for humans, however it could perfectly work with vampires

>>35369652
So they are the state exploiting me by threat of starvation?

>>35369698

Because leftist bullshit would never win elections without their colored pets to exploit for votes

>>35369710
I don't want to talk to other people, they're annoying.

>>35369732
they don't owe you anything. they aren't exploiting you because you're not doing anything for them to exploit

>>35369710
>If you go a very long time without any desire to do anything productive, you're depressed.
Or you're a nigger. And that's why socialism has to be national instead of international.

>>35369264

>wow! He actually has to work to provide himself his necessities and luxuries like any other living species in nature
>He obviously has no choice!

>>35369775
You sound like a capitalist now. You're just trying to force me to work or I'll die. That is exploitation. How is the collective any different to a state or a corporation?

>>35369798
He has no choice but to be exploited, yes

>>35369784
Leftists account for this by essentially saying that "niggers" exist because of social and economic abjection, which would cease to exist without capitalism.

>>35369825
So like I'm saying here? (>>35369818)

just a newfag passing through testing

>>35369825

>Implying he won't be also exploited under socialist/communist rule

who /okaywithpilesofdeadbodiestoachieveautopianfuture/ here

>>35368598
Oh, what do you think about Rojava then?

>>35369818
Currently you are exploited because you only get a fraction of what you actually contribute. in a communist society you'd get all of what you contribute; nothing more, nothing less and then it would be up to you to decide whether to share it or not.

>>35369866
No like this >>35369033

>>35369901
How? Because having to earn things is exploitation now? Treating communism and socialism as the same thing is helping me to take you seriously either

File: lavrentiy-beria_3-t.jpg (32KB, 220x305px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 220x305px

>communists killed a lot of people and killing people is evil ;(
>Yay Pinochet throw those people from the sky~!

Playing devils advocate here: Aggravation of the class struggle under socialism explains the first, and repression of the proletariat under capitalist rule explains the second.

Redistribute your cocks in my mouth please.

Seize my means of reproduction mummy

>>35369931
What do I contribute by being NEET and getting autismbux?
>>35369956
>hurt it's okay if the force me to work as long as they call me comrade

>>35368331
There can be no freedom if you are not free to associate with whoever you want, however you want. Which only happens in capitalism.

File: commie_shills.png (105KB, 954x1157px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 954x1157px

>>35369956

>it's exploitation when you have to earn a living as a capitalist
>it's not exploitation when you have to earn a living as a communist

>>35369982
>communist
>people
kek fuck leftist

>>35370009
So nature exploits everyone by forcing them to work or starve. Are you seriously arguing that the only way to not be exploited is to live under welfare or whatever?

>>35370026
There's already explanation for why you're always being exploited under capitalism in this thread, read it

>>35369129
except under communism its the same principle and you don't get a choice what your output will be or how you live.

>agrees to a low wage
>thinks it's a capitalism problem

Under communism, shit jobs would very very quickly be replaced by machines and advanced technology, and no one would be complaining. Why? Because far more people would turn to actually-fulfilling work like research and science, and all the barriers on academia (like debt) would be gone. It would be available to everyone. All the lobbying to keep low skilled repetitive laborers just because they're cheaper would also be gone.

>Who would do the shit jobs unless they're forced?
It actually makes less sense to do shit jobs under capitalism where you're basically punished for it. Working as a janitor or burger flipper not only gives you such a low wage you can't even survive by yourself, you also get mocked and disrespected for it. These jobs would actually be more desirable under communism.

>>35370081

Now explain to me how it magically isn't exploitation when you start LARPing and calling each other comrade

>>35370026
>>it's exploitation when you have to earn a living as a capitalist
because your income is determined by a range of factors, many completely outside of your control, that are not representative of the value you are producing

>>it's not exploitation when you have to earn a living as a communist
because there is no state or employer to determine how much you get

exactly what part of this do you not understand?

File: e0be26660e4d7f867d4560f9fe6846a3155a8441b2257d1934da8437f3415f29.png (603KB, 800x1908px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 800x1908px

>>35368792
>muh 10 gorillion kulaks

Markets starve 3 million children a year.

>>35370088
You have no choice but to "agree" to an exploitative wage under capitalism

>except under communism its the same principle
What do you mean

>>35369931
>billionaires exist in china
>people starved in the soviet union
nice!

To not be exploited you shouldn't have a more powerful force making you do something you don't want to do. If we're a society of equals then why can they force me to do things I don't want to do? If I want to build a dam, say, in our river can they stop me? If I'm working on it it is mine.

>>35370102
Because you earn the full value of your output

>>35370149
meant for this post, sorry
>>35370081

>>35370090

>All that blind optimism

Boy, if you think people are just going be motivated to do jobs and research without getting some sort of benefit that is better than what everyone gets then you need to study more.

>>35370118
you are using the word "exploitative" in a way that makes it meaningless. if that was the point of capitalism, then everyone would just end up being an employer.

forget about all that. i'm saying you agreed to a low wage. most people don't. that has nothing to do with whether it's called capitalism or not. you're just getting paid shit because you wanted no more than shit. do people get truly exploited under capitalism or have tough luck? yeah and what does communism have to offer that it keeps failing? welcome to life.

>>35370121
because they aren't communist

even the chinese communist party don't claim that china is communist

>>35370159
How can you determine that? If I work 2.5 hours and someone else works 1.25 hours, say, picking apples, do I get more apples than him? What do I do with my spare apples?

>>35370172
study what exactly?

>>35370179
>communist countries aren't communist
then you have no idea what you're talking about. why even talk about communism? just say you don't like being a poorfag shit for brains.

>>35370214
how exactly are they communist?

>>35369325
>State refers to the centralisation of force
Only if your an anarchist faggot. Centralised force can exist without a state by the marxist definition

>>35370188
>If I work 2.5 hours and someone else works 1.25 hours, say, picking apples, do I get more apples than him?
yes

>What do I do with my spare apples?
whatever you want

>>35370237
Define it, then, Marx.

>>35370109

Oh right I forgot you assume people aren't corrupt or greedy and will just magically share everything and keep working hard despite not having any incentive to do so

>>35370159

How do you determine the value of one's labor in a society without private property?

>>35370173
>if that was the point of capitalism, then everyone would just end up being an employer.
Do you understand that people must pay an entry cost of actually enter the market? Only a few people have the opportunity to become the employer

>i'm saying you agreed to a low wage. most people don't.
Do you get that I'm saying that all workers under capitalism are being exploited, not just the ones on minimum wage? And again, communism has never been tried

>>35370245
the incentive will be not returning to a society as unequal and unjust as today's

>>35370242
So someone who supplies the water gets to keep it all and never share it if he so wishes?

>>35370265
what do you mean by "supply the water"?

>>35370313
If you don't live near a river during a drought you'll be forced to go and get water or have it supplied to you, you sheltered twat.

>>35370243
An organisational tool of the ruling class to maintain private property rights

File: pino1.jpg (27KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x425px

>>35369298
>>35369453
>>35369380
>>35369693
>"use ur brain it mean of production n shiet ur clever xD dummy lol"
No matter what you say you still make no sense. Heres a (you) for your bait

>>35370360
And how did you come to that conclusion, kiddo?

>>35370341
so this guy has randomly been designated "the water supplier" and chooses not to supply water to the community he lives in because he cba? whats stopping someone else from getting water? he can't control the world's supply of water

what a dumb scenario

File: 4HgSpk3.jpg (230KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 598x792px

>>35370363
>he used words I didn't fully understand so I just posted a pinochet meme and repeated dogma

>>35370383
Because that's how it has been defined. How did you come to the definition you use for anything? Definitions don't need reasoning, they are just a qualification of terms

>>35370402
If these are small communes like you said then it is entirely plausible that in the event of a drought they will have to look outside of their community.
A single person supplying water would be the person who has to travel and collect the water. He uses his labour to do that, so it his water, like the harvested apples.

>>35370445
if he doesn't contribute to his community he will be kicked out and someone else will be tasked with getting the water

>>35370432
Why should I accept your definition if you can't show that that is what a state is?

>>35370464
So it isn't his water now? They will use force to take it if they want it? Why say you can own anything? Obviously the state, the collective, owns everything and merely loans it to you in return for your labour

File: 5003683625.jpg (23KB, 590x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 590x290px

>>35370466
Prove to me that this is a (representation of) a human body

>>35370496
>what is the difference between private and personal property

>>35370496
>So it isn't his water now?
one person cannot claim an entire water source for himself

They will use force to take it if they want it?
yes because it is entirely unjustified to claim a large natural resource for yourself and deny others access to it

>>35370539
If by human you mean homo sapiens, then homo sapiens is the term used to describe the species group of bipedal hominins characterized by having higher and vertical forehead, brain volume of about 1,400 cc, smaller teeth and jaw, and prominent chin relative to earlier hominins. They are also identified as hominins that created and used more complex tools, solved problems through sense and reasoning, used symbols and language, created complex social structures, and showed in due course behavioral modernity following many years of existence.

>>35370622
What about water he harvests and transports from outside of the small commune?

In this case, one is owned by the individual and one is loaned to him by the governing, centralised force.

>>35370649
how much water? is he maintaining a supply to keep himself alive or is he maliciously bleeding the resource dry?

>>35370625
I don't accept your definition

>>35370681
He's gathering it from outside with his vehicle. He has enough to supply himself for many weeks.
>>35370726
On what grounds?

>>35370771
It's completely arbitrary, but on the grounds that I believe Neanderthals shared those traits and they were not human. The point is, definitions are created for a function. A marxist definition of the state exists to refer to the class dominance I described earlier. Since Marx outlines how communism will dissolve class antagonism he thus saw it as a stateless society. The definition of a state itself is simply axiomatic

>>35370864
You're trying to define an abstract concept in a framework that suits your ideology,whereas biological definitions are grounded in facts.

>>35370771
>He's gathering it from outside with his vehicle. He has enough to supply himself for many weeks.
if that leaves enough for everyone else reliant on the water source then there's no problem

if it doesn't then it would probably be taken by force, as it would in every other single system of living

>>35370890
>You're trying to define an abstract concept in a framework that suits your ideology
Yes, but that's fine so long as the definition is internally consistent and any logical argument based on it is sound. The definitions themselves do not matter, they are just meanings given to sounds.
>biological definitions are grounded in facts
Somewhat. When we discover a species, we have certain factual observations about it, but simply qualifying it as a species is an arbitrary definition of an abstract concept. We decide that in order to be a distinct species x,y and z criteria must be fulfilled, and we place organisms into species based on factual observations of their distinct nature in terms of these criteria, but the criteria themselves are arbitrary.

>>35370925
So everyone else has to travel outside of their small commune, which could be 200-500 kilometres each way, for water?

>>35370978
>Yes, but that's fine so long as the definition is internally consistent
It has to be consistent with reality, too, which yours isn't.
>Somewhat. When we discover a species, we have certain factual observations about it, but simply qualifying it as a species is an arbitrary definition of an abstract concept. We decide that in order to be a distinct species x,y and z criteria must be fulfilled, and we place organisms into species based on factual observations of their distinct nature in terms of these criteria, but the criteria themselves are arbitrary.
If they are defined together by matching criteria then that is the opposite of arbitrary.

>>35370979
>what are aqueducts

>thinking that a subhuman like myself is equal to the general populace

wew lad

>>35371022
The qualification of something according to criteria is the opposite of arbitrary, but the criteria themselves are arbitrary. Why is a species defined the way it is?

>>35371048
Unfeasible in most situations.
>>35371090
It's not arbitrary, it is based in observable traits.

>>35371131
Your definition is circular. A human has these traits and a human is a species, therefore a species is something which has some distinct form of these traits and therefore a human is a species.

>>35371159
No, a human is defined by the characteristics, like every other species. You're misunderstanding basic biology. A word is just a way of using the definition more efficiently. I think you wanted to make that point but never thought it through.

>>35371282
Perhaps. But you still use species as if it has some objective truth. If all species are defined by the objective observation of their characteristics, who determines which characteristics make a thing a species? Its simply the way species is defined. There is no objective reason not to say that a species is the colour of a group of cells and thus your mouth cells are different to your skin cells. It's still based in objective observation, but the selection of the criteria is arbitrary

>>35371282
Regardless, I've been sidetracked. As you say, my original point was simply that a word is a stand-in for a definition, and thus if a state is the word we use to describe class dominance, then if we can show communist society will be classless it is a logical conclusion that it will be stateless as well

>>35371378
They are defined by things essential to them. Colour is not essential like a human being bipedal is, among other things.
>>35371419
But that definition is not based in reality.

>>35371498
Your use of essential is absurd. Essential means that losing that thing renders it fundamentally different. If mouth cells were not red and we defined them as a species based on that, we implicitly state that colour is essential to them. There is no objective basis for what is and what isn't essential. If a thing is not bipedal, the only reason we can say it is not human is because we have already said humans are bipedal. Do you see what I mean? The essential nature of a trait is entirely subjective

File: 14046064_1402665889748809_912874224172463064_n.jpg (64KB, 544x960px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 544x960px

>>35368791
>Le communist kill ppl meme

>>35368791
>>35371684
Yes, communism and fascism are on the same level when it comes to dystopic unjust systems.
Very well illustrated.

>>35371555
>Your use of essential is absurd. Essential means that losing that thing renders it fundamentally different
I don't think you know what fundamental means.
>There is no objective basis for what is and what isn't essential
You already defined it. A human with a different bone structure wouldn't be a human, whereas there is variation present in mouth colouring.
>If a thing is not bipedal, the only reason we can say it is not human is because we have already said humans are bipedal.
Is this a joke? That is not what anyone has ever claimed.

>>35371820
Why wouldn't a human with different bone structure be human?

Also way to miss my point with the mouth colouring

>>35371872
Because that is an essential feature to the definition of humans as opposed to earlier homo sapiens and primates. That's how we tell the differences in archaeology.

>>35368680
Kulaks are hated because they are a constant reminder of the natural confusion between public and private.
The public becomes private when it starts up a business and succeeds. That is why they must be brought down, because there can be no success. You either fail together or succeed together. Because people are not static and identical, the failure was what was experienced. Like the mass starvations after the crops were seized and handed over to the illiterate peasants who had no idea how to go about running businesses.

>>35371906
Exactly. Because of the definition. That's really all there is to it. However, definitions simply aren't objective. There is no objective way to select one definition over another except for a purely pragmatist approach of which is more functional

>>35371989
A definition is a description of physical traits, not an authority. You are mistaken. There is certainly a way to distinguish essential and non-essential, that is why Occam's razor exists.

>>35372036
Occam's razor concerns necessary assumptions for the explanatory and predictive power of a theory. It does not apply in this case, as a definition does not explain natural phenomena, it merely qualifies them.

>A definition is a description of physical traits, not an authority
Like I have said, the selection of one physical trait over another to describe a thing is arbitrary

>>35372036
More directly, how would you distinguish between essential and non-essential traits?

>>35368331
Why dont you larping commie wannabes just move to a real communist country if you love its ideals so much?

Stop living in north America where you are safe and able to enjoy capitalism

File: d151fe69b5c47da401c43cc3a6e681761080ae36bdf7f4290e1da4d44f141b40.png (49KB, 958x768px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 958x768px

I am /not a classcuck/ because I want to be an edgelord but I don't like Trump desu

NEETs need to leave this board. You are nothing but trash.

>>35372396
You're on the wrong board desu

>>35372113
Those that form the fundamental features of a given object. For instance, a square with three sides or five sides is not a square.
>>35372092
No, Occam's razor is to shave that which is not necessary, you are looking at it from only one perspective.

>>35368331
Being a communist is being against facts.
You can believe that you're classless, but it won't make it true.

>>35372489
Only because you've defined a square to have four sides ffs this is going round in circles

I'm not free if the government mandates and then takes my legitimately earned income and gives it to other people.

>>35372559
>gommunism is when duh gubberment does stuff

File: lol.png (123KB, 793x4231px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 793x4231px

>>35368791
O R I G I N A L
R
I
G
I
N
A
LASAGNA

>>35372520
No, the word square just describes a shape that has four sides. It means shape that has four sides, that doesn't mean we defined it into existence.

>>35368331
>You can only be free under socialism
Because getting thrown into the gulag for literally no reason makes you free.

The difference between a Nazi and a Communist is that the Nazi has to deny the death of 6 million of his enemies and the Communists needs to deny the death of 30 million of his Allies.

>>35372586
Give me your definition of it then because you're probably just fucking retarded and thinking of anarcho-syndicalism.

>>35372684
Communal ownership of the means of production. Not that hard to google

>>35372622
The only reason we have a definition is to distinguish between what doesn't and what does fall under a label. Using 'describes' rather than 'is defined as' is meaningless. There is no objective square just like there is no objective perfect circle, but a reference to that is a reference to a definitional notion of what a square or circle is, namely a shape with four sides or a shape where all parts of the shape are equidistant from a point. These are not descriptions of vague ideas, these are definitions we use to process claims like 'this square is also a circle' and then discard them as false or accept them as true (or as indeterminate). If we do not have authoritative definitions of these things, we are unable to process any truth claim regarding them

>>35368331
The working class has no nation. As those whose labor produce all the good things in life, we own the whole world by right. Borders, whether marked off by a wall of steel and concrete, or by words on a page, serve only the interests of the masters. This feature of capitalism was inherited from the days of feudalism and royalty, and serve the same purpose now as it did then: To fool the workers of the world into clinging tightly to those who would exploit them in hopes of protections from those with whom they have no natural quarrel. We shall never allow a human's life or death, wealth or poverty, happiness or misery to hinge on which side they were born of a line drawn by someone they will likely never meet. The only ones who are truly alien to us reside in the white house, in the statehouses, in the boardrooms and police stations. To arms, comrades!

>>35372622
Also, nice dubs

oreggggano

>>35372885
No it isn't meaningless, as squares existed long before definitions and will continue to exist after humans are gone. We are defining things that exist based on what we observe about them.

>>35368331
So fucking roasties can vote policy into stealing my earnings and paying for birth control and child support so they can fuck Chad some more and take care of his kid on my dime. Eat me I'm not gonna cuck my self economically. My finances should be something I have control over for once God dammit.

>>35372939
Show me a perfect square or circle in nature. What's more, show me a state that exists without humans, since that's what we're discussing. Things don't have to physically exist to be considered or defined, what kind of ridiculous pseudo-empiricist shit is that?

File: 1486576244685.jpg (88KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 960x720px

Who /egoist/ here? No longer do I have to concern myself with the spooks of statists.

>>35373008
Dude communism is not welfare. Seriously, I could be ironic about this but its worth your time to try to understand the system, even if you don't support it

>>35373040
1. You need to define perfect, but it seems like an irrelevant concept.
1.1 A shape is a square if it has four sides. I don't see how a "perfect" square would be any more or less a square than an "imperfect" square.
2. I said an abstract concept must exist in reality, not without humans.

File: All Right Alt-Right.jpg (84KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x546px

>>35368331
Libertarian Socialist anyone?

By the way, before anyone bitches I work as a railroad electrification. So I have a job and want all able-bodied people to have one.

>>35373146
Sounds like you want to force everyone to have one.

>>35373070
Perfect squares and circles are mathematically defined objects whereby the shape is exactly as it is defines, ie for a circle it is the infinite set of points which are equidistant from another point, for a square it is a bit more complex. There is a bit of controversy about Cantorian definitions, but for all intents and purposes a perfect circle cannot physically exist afaik.

I'm going to skip point 2 as it is kind of missing my meaning and needs a bit more understanding of irrelevant shit which does nothing to further the argument.

I really do not understand what you mean by existing 'in reality'. Are you making a platonic argument for the forms? What constitutes being 'in reality'? If it includes everything we can conceive of, this includes the marxist definition of the state. Please clarify this point

>>35373242
defined*
Just a quick clarification on my first sentence: the addition of the word 'perfect' to a geometrical term suggests the exact definition of the geometrical shape, whereas any existing physical form of that shape will ultimately not conform to this

>>35373162
What's wrong with that?

Original Problemio

>>35373242
So a perfect square is every square. Okay. You have to better define perfect as I asked.
In reality, as in observable.
I never said your definition can't exist in reality, I said you have to demonstrate it in a way consistent with reality, you idiot. You still haven't done that.

>>35373282
Nice presumption. Clearly exhibits that you think it is wrong to force others, as I made no moral judgement.

>>35373334
>So a perfect square is every square. Okay
Well ... no .. but also sort of. The point I was making is that it was irrelevant, but that it didn't exist in nature
>I said you have to demonstrate it in a way consistent with reality
So I simply have to demonstrate that there is class domination in reality?

>>35373559
1. Define nature.
2. No, you have to demonstrate that that is what a state is.

>tfw you realized that class consciousness is false consciousness

>>35368331
I agree OP, we should all strive to advance the cause of national socialism.

>>35373632
I'm sick of these semantics, so final post. It is impossible to define a state by showing that your definition is what a state is, since the point of a definition is to clarify what a state is and thus any proof that x is a state needs us to first understand what a state is, something we can't do without a definition. It's a bit like saying "demonstrate that a parallelogram is a quadrilateral with a opposite parallel sides, otherwise I won't accept your definition". Its absurd and circular

>>35374131
So that's a no. Okay, your definition fails.

File: 1488461387046.png (114KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 644x598px

Just stopped by to tell any communist in this thread that they are less than dirt, and any sudden death within their community should be highly praised and celebrated.