>>5471>Capitalism gives you a chanceYou don't belong on this board if you seriously believe that.
Also, you didn't actually criticize anything I said. You're just asserting Capitalism gives you a chance, Communism denies it, that I'm saying popularity=greatness, that Communism=totalitarianism (again, you don't belong on the board if you believe this). These are all both fucking irrelevant and not back up by sound reasoning.
If anything, one is more likely in a Capitalist society to subsist on mere popularity rather than actual achievements. In a Capitalist society, with the poisonous culture it creates, the individual is only valued insofar as the individual is greedy. What is interesting, new, challenging, different, etc. goes out of favor because such things typically aren't profitable, and therefore under Capitalism don't constitute success; what is in favor under Capitalism is what is the most profitable, and the more the masses can be manipulated into liking you the most for no good reason (i.e. Most corporations, who make shit, overpriced products but are able to subsist simply by being known), the more they can be exploited and you can continue to sell them shit that has no real usefulness, redeeming qualities, innovation, etc.
That would be popularity. A communist economy takes all this away and makes it such that the individual must rely only talents that actually matter in a real, non-Capitalist environment if they are to actually win their individualism. That's the point I was making, with respect to how Stirner and his followers essentially believe in a communist economic model, and why it is in fact compatible with their focus on the importance of the individual.
And regarding your point about Capitalism giving you a "chance": when you say Capitalism gives you a "chance", when you say it gives you power over yourself and your own ends, you are only buying into the official image of Capitalism. Think about the chance you have at attaining success in a Capitalist society. Think of all the people, for instance, who are very talented and intelligent individuals who never attained "success" in your society; think also of all the people in your society who aren't intelligent, talented, or useful to society at all, yet have attained "success" (having money and notoriety [read: "popularity"]) through luck, through connections, through privileges. The whole thing about Capitalism giving you a chance and you just need to WORK HURD AND PULL URSELF UP BY UR BOOTSTRAHPS is bullshit - it's a myth taught to you in gradeschool so you will continue to chase the carrot on the stick by doing your part in the system as a wage slave. Hard work is certainly important in everything you do, but in Capitalism the so-called "chance" you have is just that: chance.
In Capitalism, everything is a numbers-game, and there is simply no way around the numbers unless you cheat the system or get lucky. If this is the "chance" you mean, then yes, a communist system dispenses with chance altogether; in a communist economic system, everyone is guaranteed the resources they need. As such, individuals are free to pursue their passions without the needless constraints of Capitalist prerogatives like "DOING UR PART 4 SOCIETY" (read: holding up the system on your back so the people above you have less weight themselves to carry) by producing wealth. One of the Capitalist myths is that one who does what they love for their job will never work a day in their lives, but in a communist economic model, no one is denied the possibility of doing what they love every day of their lives.
I mean, this is the ideal version of a communist economic model, but the reasoning I've heard behind how this could work without presupposing that we've reached a state in civilization where we have an abundance of resources easily-accessible and no one needs to work (which, arguably, is already true if you consider how much labor and money is wasted producing useless consumer shit) is that the jobs that need to get done in any society will naturally be filled in by people who are
willing to do them rather than
forced to do them because they need to make money to survive. Not everyone, after all, is going to want to pursue the life of a philosopher, an artist, a scientist, or an athlete; different people enjoy doing different things.