/leftypol/ here, I saw the advertisement thread on our board and thought I'd do a general anti-capitalist Q&A thread. Let's clear some things up right off the bat:>Are you liberalsNo, liberals are pro-capitalist identity politic supporters.

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 1 per post.

Anonymous 02/23/15 (Mon) 04:12:40 7364b4 No.2000 [View All]

/leftypol/ here, I saw the advertisement thread on our board and thought I'd do a general anti-capitalist Q&A thread.

Let's clear some things up right off the bat:

>Are you liberals

No, liberals are pro-capitalist identity politic supporters.

>Cultural Marxism

Cultural marxism is really really bad Marxism. It goes against the fundamental basis of Marxism and ignores materialism, making it the furthest thing possible from actual marxism.

>Are you SJWs

No, SJWs are pro-identity politics which is anti-marxism and anti-class strugle. There are admittedly huge amounts of SJW socialists but /leftypol/ is almost unanimously against them and considers their rise a threat to leftism. /Leftypol/ is always against identity poltics because they are not materialist and take away from the class struggle. Most of the problems identity politics complains of are caused by class struggle and would be removed easily when class is abolished.

>Why do you support an ideology that has killed a quadrillion billion million people

Not all of us do. Plenty of us are not Marxist-Leninists (Soviet Union was Marxism-Leninism.) There are plenty of Ancoms, libertarian socialists, and anti-soviet socialists on the left. I would even go so far as to say libertarian socialists are one of the largest anti-capitalist groups. There are also dozens of explanations of why these statistics are generally bollocks because if you apply the same criteria of death count to capitalism you get at the very least half a billion.

>Hurr durr "it wasn't true communism" that's a no true scotsman

It's not a no true scotsman unless you are moving the goalposts for what communism is. Most communists agree that communism is a stateless, classless society in which the workers control the means of production, and the soviet union clearly was not a stateless society. Whether or not it was classless or the workers controlled the means of production is still hotly debated by socialists.

>What is the difference between leftist ideologies

Anarchism essentially has the same goal as socialism and communism, but disagrees on the methods of getting there. Anarchists believe you can make the jump straight to communism while socialists think a temporary state is required. Socialists and anarchists are both technically communists since the goal of both is communism, but communist is typically used to refer to a Marxist-Leninist these days.

>socialism is evil and anti-democratic

Even Lenin believed democracy was good, just not bourgeois democracy, which socialists do not believe is really democracy.

>Human nature

see pic.

Lastly, this is just a side note. There are many different anti-capitalist ideologies. Lumping together marxism-leninism, anarchism, and the other forms of socialism together as the same thing is about as dumb as treating China, Japan, and Korea as the same country.

Now to the actual purpose of the thread. If you have any questions about left ideologies please ask away.

65 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 13:01:05 ea6d02 No.3116

>>3115
Part 4 because it got cut off
> If an abundance of resources are available (which they totally are, because for the last time our technology is already there to make it possible and is only getting better and better)
Unless you manage to break the law of conservation of energy, you really haven't got abundant resources with the global population we have right now.
>Man that world would be fucking amazing to live in.
There is a reason why it is called a utopia and that isn't simply because it looks nice.
>So yes, voluntary cooperation and competition are totally mutually exclusive
Only if you define it to be incompatible with competition.

>MUH STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 14:34:00 46eace No.3121

>>3113
obviously the techonology is not being applied

those in power do not want to implement

if we were in a more socialist society then this technology would be applied and then there would be seemingly infinite abundance

>some imaginary utopia.
that's socialism

>blah blah not enough resources
but that changes when there is enough resources. nature produces energy. we use less energy than is being produced. done deal

>muh ignorance about quantum means your ignorant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydf71MwbV4A

>blah blah no abundance
I've been posting about the premise that there is abundance for this entire conversation. thanks for ignoring my posts while writing essays in response to them. your convoluted ignorance knows no bounds

>stopping natural selection?
wtf how
stop the strawman

>logically impossible in nature is still impossible in real world
when the fuck did I imply anything like that?
stop the strawman

>muh altruism isn't genuine
in socialist societies it is

>Humans help one another simply because what they are doing is an investment,
but that's wrong, when capatilism is no more. in a stateless society everyone freely get's whatever they want. it would be impossible to force anything because you already have what you want. except murder, or having africa as your backyard. then the majority of the population can choose to enforce the policies they themselves created or voted on, using something called direct democracy

>retarded because I said so
just stop posting

>everything is derived from nature
you can't apply that to human behaviour. humans don't exist in nature, that's why we are fucking human

> it is a very poor argument if you try to state how things are by nature and then say that stating things by nature is bad because it is subjective
I only stated how things are by nature because of what I was replying to. that's why I followed up with the whole subjective thing to say that the whole premise of the conversation (when relating to how nature is) is fallacious

>defining cooperation as if it's relevant
holy jesus fuck I fully said
"Cooperation by necessity doesn't really count, but if you want to be stuck up about it what I meant was voluntary cooperation"
and you are literally interprating it oppositely
>Cooperation does count because it implies choice. If you don't have choice it is neither cooperation nor voluntary.
YOU ARE THE ONE USING COOERATION AS A LACK OF CHOICE. IN CAPATALISM THERE IS ONLY COOPERATION BY NECCESSITY
IN SOCIALISM THERE IS COOPERATION BY CHOICE jesus fuck you are retarded

>So many things wrong with this, especially the fact that you imply socialism is 100% voluntary, especially when it comes to redistribution.
um, by definition in stateless socialism there is voluntary sharing in abundance. how would this happen without a central authority, direct democracy, like how switzerland does it

>Unless you manage to break the law of conservation of energy, you really haven't got abundant resources with the global population we have right now.
THIS IS ONLY TRUE BECAUSE THERE IS A DIVIDE IN CLASS IN SOCIETY BECAUSE CAPATALISM that's the whole point of my side of this entire conversation are you daft man

>Only if you define it to be incompatible with competition.
no? it is incompatible beause if there is competition all cooperation is a necessity because it is a means to an end for more competition. DO you have short term memory loss or something? you need to go to a psychologist

and my post may seem like I've been rused, but it has nothing to do with you. I've been up 25 hours and am grumpy
don't.fuck.with.me

Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 17:11:46 8f8db7 No.3126

So /leftypol/ taking over /pol/ isn't enough? You need to start spilling your bile here as well?

Anonymous 03/04/15 (Wed) 18:02:06 1cbd14 No.3128

>>2009
>Humans aren't naturally hierarchical. We lived in primitive communism for large portions of our prehistory

will you provide a source for this claim you made? as >>2012 asked, I feel like this is bullshit. It is true that humans need group collaboration in order to survive, but that collaboration can also be achieved trought unconditional leadership by the most capable member of the group (ideal fascism).

>>2123
You're right, OP isn't a faggot here. He has different opinions, but presented his views and made a great thread.

>>2000
btw, if ealth redistribution has to accur, you need a limitless bureaucracy. How do you prevent the bureaucrats from being corrupt and becoming the new ruling class?

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 13:21:50 c41a64 No.3154

File: 1425561709925.jpg (86.45 KB, 850x400, 17:8, The slaves shall till the ….jpg)

>>3121
>obviously the techonology is not being applied
Yeah and we have the technology for the LHC but you aren't going to see one for every house.
>those in power do not want to implement
Nice to see you not elaborate on it whatsoever. There are indeed things that certain companies will want to slow down as much as possible for the sake of maintaining dominance in the market but they way you say it makes it seem like they would be hiding something enormous. But even if they were, how will you apply it? Just walking over to a bunch of engineers and saying "pls fix"?
>if we were in a more socialist society then this technology would be applied and then there would be seemingly infinite abundance
Yeah, having lived in Eastern Europe, I am going to call absolute bullshit. Not only was "not real socialism guise, I swear" under the USSR shit but so is "a bit more real but not real enough socialism" that we have now since its collapse. The problems I described previously apply perfectly to both of these.

>but that changes when there is enough resources. nature produces energy. we use less energy than is being produced. done deal
The way humans live now is unsustainable, so in order for your idea to even work you would need to either abandon giving people "minimum of requirements" since otherwise natural selection will not reach an equilibrium in terms of population and the costs of this decision will be paid by the society as a whole, or you would need to wipe out a portion of the planet in order to reach a point where resources replenish fast enough to be sustainable.

>I've been posting about the premise that there is abundance for this entire conversation. thanks for ignoring my posts while writing essays in response to them. your convoluted ignorance knows no bounds
The premise that there is an abundance is baseless, you are merely assuming it is there simply because you don't see a dead-end yet. And you are refusing to even take it into consideration, let alone believe it.

>wtf how
>stop the strawman
A safety net prevents natural selection from taking its course, how retarded do you have to be to not understand this? If someone can leech welfare without needing it then the person that rides it as long as they can is exempt from natural selection by starvation because they are recieving welfare that prevents them from doing so. This means that it breeds inefficiency and reduces the costs thereof. Sure, welfare helps people, but you know very well that it also provides a safety net for those that aren't in trouble. The better the welfare the more leeches you are going to get. That is what I mean by saying you are trying to stop natural selection from taking place.

>when the fuck did I imply anything like that?
>"hurr durr why are you saying all these theoretical things?"
If things can't happen even be logically possible then how the fuck will you expect them to happen in real life?

>using something called direct democracy
>stateless society everyone freely get's whatever they want
>it would be impossible to force anything
Pick one and only one, you instantly assert that people would have such a strong bond with each other that they would NEVER do anything immoral and that they would NEVER act in their own interests instead, which is wishful thinking at best.

>just stop posting
Likewise faggot

>you can't apply that to human behaviour. humans don't exist in nature, that's why we are fucking human
Where did humans come from then? I am pretty sure it is something called nature, more specifically in nature on planet Earth. Also you seem to have some sort of obsession with humanity, even though it is nothing special and does not make us distinct from any other animal. Sure, humans are the dominant species on the planet, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that they are somehow unnatural nor does it mean that anything they are doing is unnatural. I guess you consider someone taking a shit a gift from G-d since humans are so special.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 13:24:09 c41a64 No.3155

File: 1425561848970.jpg (60.84 KB, 600x420, 10:7, Because Hitler did nothing….jpg)

>>3154
Continued
>YOU ARE THE ONE USING COOERATION AS A LACK OF CHOICE. IN CAPATALISM THERE IS ONLY COOPERATION BY NECCESSITY
>IN SOCIALISM THERE IS COOPERATION BY CHOICE jesus fuck you are retarded
But you are still doing it, you are trying to define words to fit your argument. Once they no longer fit you redefine them to fit again. In capitalism plenty of people have more than enough they have to survive, in fact plenty of people reach the top 5% from the bottom 5%, so saying "cooperation by necessity" is absolute horse-shit. Also sounds like a nice utopia, faggot.

>um, by definition in stateless socialism there is voluntary sharing in abundance. how would this happen without a central authority, direct democracy, like how switzerland does it
Oh look, more redefinition. Central authority is what a government is, meaning that all you are doing is tacking on the word "stateless" to make it seem like it actually is. Also authority is derived from violence, since otherwise you would be able to defy it without consequence. If someone kindly asks of you to give him your wallet, you obviously will ignore them, but if they start threatening with a knife, you will start being more than willing to give it up.

>THIS IS ONLY TRUE BECAUSE THERE IS A DIVIDE IN CLASS IN SOCIETY BECAUSE CAPATALISM
So how many definitions of capitalism are you going to give me this time? Also classless society can't break the law of conservation of energy either.

>I've been up 25 hours and am grumpy
Oh I'm sorry, did I cause you to involuntarily cooperate with me? My bad

>>muh ignorance about quantum means your ignorant
>quantum physics applies to the subatomic scale, where Newtonian physics can no longer be viably applied
>this means that most of the RnD into production will be into precision equipment, as in these realms does quantum physics outweigh the use of Newtonian physics
>the RnD aspect of quantum physics that people are most interested in is its application in computing, since how many transistors you can densely back onto a chip determines its processing power
>quantum computing is incredibly niche and requires a lot to work to get it function, and the fact that they use qbits only has select advantages, it isn't some sort of magically improved version that does everything ordinary computers couldn't
>the RnD that doesn't go into precision equipment goes into the realm of material science, which, although very useful, will not be that significant when it comes to production
But you're right, I am the ignorant one when it comes to science. You can't just pile up all your problems and then dismiss them by saying "b-but muh science will fix it sooner or later", especially if you are too retarded to realise what you are talking about. The video, that you linked is simply some guy explaining the significance of quantum physics to oblivious newfags without going into any detail whatsoever. All he fucking said that everything is going to be great and that there is plenty of potential in the future, big fucking whoop.
So yes, you are fucking ignorant when it comes to science and thanks for further proving it to me, now go suck Bill Nye's dick elsewhere.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 18:18:29 1cbd14 No.3160

>>3155
>>I've been up 25 hours and am grumpy
>Oh I'm sorry, did I cause you to involuntarily cooperate with me? My bad

K E K
E
K

Also, seems like our mutual friend left the discussion.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 19:50:28 7ed283 No.3165

>>3154
>>blah blah your wrong because of the way things are
They are thay way because we are not in a stateless socialist society.
A stateless socialist society has never existed so you can't use any examples of it not working. Socialism always failed because the central authorty to enforce it didn't do it right due to corruption

>The way humans live now is unsustainable
But that's wrong, except for phenomenon that only occurs due to capatalism. The oil monopoly wouldn't exist and we would all be using electric cars if it wasn't for capatalism

>The premise that there is an abundance is baseless
How? I'm not assuming anything. It's basic logic, use less resources than there are available. This is more than possible; there are moderm techonologies that can make consumption very efficient but they are not profitable so never get backed up by any cooperation.

>A safety net
But I never talked about a safety net you did… stop the strawman

Unless you mean trying to stop people from having africa as their back yard. Obviously there is a limit on how much welfare one should get… limiting them from exorbitant consumption

Also why are you even talking about natural selection. Human's have changed almost not at all in thousands of years, evolutionary speaking. Or did you mean for breeding purposes in general? Like this has absolutely no relevance…

>If things can't happen even be logically possible then how the fuck will you expect them to happen in real life?
But when did you give an example of socialism not being logically possible?

>Pick one and only one, you instantly assert that people would have such a strong bond with each other that they would NEVER do anything immoral and that they would NEVER act in their own interests instead, which is wishful thinking at best.
>all these false assumptions
In a stateless society where every individual votes on polcies (direct democracy) the collective policies would be agreed upon and the society would collectively enforce said policies (or they wouldn't be collectively voted upon in the first place)
And since you can't individualy vote for anyone to have a better life than anyone else (unless it's due to an attribute that over half the society has and then votes for themselves or something, which only proves my point) everyone would basically get what they want

>calling me a faggot
confirmed for (very elaborate) shitposting

>Where did humans come from then? I am pretty sure it is something called nature, more specifically in nature on planet Earth. Also you seem to have some sort of obsession with humanity, even though it is nothing special and does not make us distinct from any other animal. Sure, humans are the dominant species on the planet, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that they are somehow unnatural nor does it mean that anything they are doing is unnatural. I guess you consider someone taking a shit a gift from G-d since humans are so special.
Learn your anthropology. We're the only animals that can walk upright and have opposable thumbs. The leading theory is that it's because of this that we developed tools.
Also we developed communication and language to allow deep intellectual understnanding.
This doesn't exist in nature, and because of this all these things are possible that wouldn't be possible in nature, like stranges arguing on the internet…

>G-D
wtf say god or your confirmed for jew shiller. Well I guess that doesn't make you a shill but you are just baiting or is the jews can't say god meme actually real lolwat

Since you've confirmed that you are a shit poster, don't bother replying unless you can provide some logical reasons for why socialism is impossible.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 19:53:10 7ed283 No.3167

>>3155
oh there's more bullcrap

>But you are still doing it, you are trying to define words to fit your argument. Once they no longer fit you redefine them to fit again.
No I'm not. If I am, how?

>In capitalism plenty of people have more than enough they have to survive, in fact plenty of people reach the top 5% from the bottom 5%
Sure but kind if irrelevent

>so saying "cooperation by necessity" is absolute horse-shit.
how?

>Also sounds like a nice utopia, faggo
stop shit posting

>Oh look, more redefinition
how?

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 20:02:29 7ed283 No.3170

>>3155
woops I prematurely pressed reply

>Central authority is what a government is
central authorities are usually a form of government but that doesn't mean all governments need a central authority
It's like you don't even know how switzerland works. Sure at the national level there are cantons representing regions, but within the cantons THERE IS NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY

>Also authority is derived from violence
So? Again look at how switzerland does it. There is no central authority, there is a collective authority…

>So how many definitions of capitalism are you going to give me this time? Also classless society can't break the law of conservation of energy either.
I didn't even give a definition wtf are you talking about?

> Also classless society can't break the law of conservation of energy either.
Again that's irrelevent because every post you reply to you ignore the fact how I explain that in a stateless society the technology to allow efficient use of resorcoues would no longer be repressed

>Oh I'm sorry, did I cause you to involuntarily cooperate with me? My bad
No I'm choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just super fucking retarded and not shilling, and thus I keep replying to you

>All he fucking said that everything is going to be great and that there is plenty of potential in the future, big fucking whoop.
it is a big fucking deal… This guy is at the forefront of science, and he's the only one who tries to broadin his field. There's a hours long speech he does where the problem is that there is too much specialization in science and that if even scientists were specialized in dual fields (should be speacialzied in many actually) then the techonlogy would be shared with everyone at a much greater scale. I haven't seen all his videos so I don't know if he goes into the economical side of things but the reason there isn't more broad specialization is because it's not profitable. And profit matters because we live in a capatlaistic society

and all that green text you did regarding quantum mechanics. are you really arguing against someone at the forefront of quantum mechanics? because you are contradicting what he said in
>The video, that you linked is simply some guy explaining the significance of quantum physics to oblivious newfags
It's not some guy. Nice to show everyone your extreme ignorance

>So yes, you are fucking ignorant
how

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 20:21:30 1cbd14 No.3174

>>3170
Switzerland is far from a stateless propertyless socialism. also, you never answered my previous question, more of a practical one >>3128

i'll even cite it for you
>if wealth redistribution has to occur, you need a limitless bureaucracy. How do you prevent the bureaucrats from being corrupt and becoming the new ruling class? (like they have done pretty much everywhere)

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 20:47:40 7ed283 No.3176

>>3174
I never said it was. I only use it as an exmaple for direct democracy. It is sateless in that in many aspects there are no central authorities, especially in cantons

>if wealth redistribution has to occur, you need a limitless bureaucracy. How do you prevent the bureaucrats from being corrupt and becoming the new ruling class? (like they have done pretty much everywhere)
it's gotten corrupt because people were trusted to enforce the bureaucracy, out of necessity. It is not necessary anymore though due to modern day techonology, speficially decentralized technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYICruxUkNI

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 21:18:45 1cbd14 No.3178

>>3176
An d trought which process does wealth redistribution occur? I agree on the decentralised data idea for the digital world, where information is inherently free to copy. But in the real world, material ressources have to be dug out of the ground, refined, managed. You need to protect ressources, with potential violence.

As a libertarian, I believe that the army in it's current form -enormous superpowerful, secret keeping and exclusive organisation- is not necessary to defend ressources, Switzerland and their militia system works fine.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 21:39:58 7ed283 No.3180

>>3178
You asked how a bureaucracy can happen without corruption. If technology can be used as a bureaucracy, then it would be technology dealing with the logistics and giving plans and such to the workers for how to deal with it.

And if this coming from a socialist, or even a true (direct) democratic society, then there just shouldn't be any widespread violence. Any minor violece would be ousted and dealt with collectively.

Of course this is all theoretical but it shows that it should be more than possible.

There is a proof of concept for decentralized techonology, and of course there's proofs of concept for autonomous logistic handling; surely these technologies can easily be combined.

I'm still not sure what I would call myself (since I'm not for or against having property, direct deomcracy to me should be enough but socialism would be fine too. The ideology of marxism does make sense; there will be struggle as long as there is divison in class. Maybe not though, if the classes are just divided by their desires or level of satisfactoin or something(but thein again, if there is unequal power between the classes then there will be struggle for sure)
But recently I talked to someone likeminded and he called himself a anarcho-libertarian…

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 21:42:53 7ed283 No.3181

File: 1425591773264.png (288.63 KB, 500x8715, 100:1743, 08b98dd.png)

>>3180
the conversation I had two weeks ago if anyone is interested

he was apparently an anthropologist and says that historically humans have actually lived in socialist societies. I wouldn't know though

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:13:30 7ed283 No.3183

>>3180
The thingh is though, the problem then arises that society would be trusting techonlogy too much (as opposed to a central authority)

I think this problem only exists in fiction though….. right??????

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:13:56 7ed283 No.3184

>>3183
Then again there can be contingency plans that can be agreed upon collectively.

I wonder if there's a word for this technosociety. Is totally fool proof the way I see it

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:34:36 c41a64 No.3186

File: 1425594876711.jpg (22.08 KB, 300x300, 1:1, Turn on the gas.jpg)

Part 1
>>3165
>They are thay way because we are not in a stateless socialist society.
>A stateless socialist society has never existed so you can't use any examples of it not working
Same goes to you not being able to show that it works, this criticism means jack shit.
>Socialism always failed because the central authorty to enforce it didn't do it right due to corruption
It was also caused by inefficiency and excessive policies. Corruption caused massive damage because of the power handed over to these individuals. When given the task of redistribution, you already hold power, which is why the Politburo was doing so well when everyone else in the USSR was doing incredibly shit.
In order to form a stateless socialist society you are faced with two major problems: the first is that you need people to agree and WANT to participate and the second is that you need to be able to prevent a government from forming either from within or by an external force. The first problem is impossible to solve for large populations, you will have a couple thousand people at best, even then it becomes a huge risk. The second problem requires the society to resist both subversion and military invasion.

>But that's wrong, except for phenomenon that only occurs due to capatalism.
Yeah, all your problems are caused by capitalism.
Poverty? Capitalism
Inequality? Capitalism
Global Warming? Capitalism
You hitting your foot against the table while walking through the dark? Capitalism
You can't simply shout "but that problem is exclusive to capitalism" whenever someone provides a criticism, you have to actually base it on something to prove that not only is it a problem of capitalism but that it is not a problem with socialism.
>The oil monopoly wouldn't exist and we would all be using electric cars if it wasn't for capatalism
Not only is this wishful thinking but also electric cars do not solve everything, all they do is give the choice of what resources will be used, oil is used simply because it is much more efficient as as car fuel because of the output per mass. Producing electricity still has a negative impact on the environment, the cost simply goes one step back.

>How? I'm not assuming anything. It's basic logic, use less resources than there are available.
IF you use less resources than there are available THEN it becomes abundant. In order to do so you would require either a very small population or restricted growth.

>This is more than possible; there are moderm techonologies that can make consumption very efficient but they are not profitable so never get backed up by any cooperation.
>consumption
I think you mean production but regardless of which one you meant, in any technological age is it possible to live sustainably, but it becomes incredibly difficult to do so when reaching more modern technology and higher population sizes. If your idea of utopia is living like the Amish then it is perfectly viable and in fact a decent goal, but if you want anything larger than that then the possibility of it shrinks incredibly.

>But I never talked about a safety net you did… stop the strawman
If you have "minimum of requirements" then a safety net is exactly what you have. If you do not then what are you redistributing for and to? The ones that are doing well would like more but they certainly don't need help, only the ones that are doing shit require help. If there is no redistribution then what you have is anarcho-capitalism.

>Unless you mean trying to stop people from having africa as their back yard. Obviously there is a limit on how much welfare one should get…
Who determines and how is the limit determined?
If the limit is determined by a governing body then you no longer have a stateless society.
If the limit is determined individually then they can freely ignore those in need of welfare since they are not obliged to do so, regardless if they are leeches or in dire need of assistance.

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:35:22 c41a64 No.3187

File: 1425594922749.jpg (7.53 KB, 245x250, 49:50, You mirin'.jpg)

>>3186
Part 2
>Also why are you even talking about natural selection.
Natural selection
1.
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.
>Human's have changed almost not at all in thousands of years, evolutionary speaking.
This is bullshit and you know it, not having grown wings and an extra pair of arms does not mean evolution did not take place, nor does the fact that no additional species of human has formed.
Lactose tolerance/intolerance in adults is a great example of evolution taking place in humans. The ability to break down lactose after childhood was a beneficial mutation that was not present by default in humans in the past. Humans that had this mutation were more likely to survive because they were capable of processing an alternative source of food, which was from milk and dairy products, and thus could outcompete the humans with lactose intolerance. This, of course, didn't mean that those with lactose intolerance were wiped out, it simply meant that those with lactose tolerance outbred them, as is seen today by the fact that the majority can process lactose and only a minority of people cannot.
Evolution still happens, faggot.
>Or did you mean for breeding purposes in general? Like this has absolutely no relevance…
How the fuck do you think gene pools work? This isn't even anything complex, this is basic Darwinism and you still fail miserably at it.

>But when did you give an example of socialism not being logically possible?
I never stated that socialism was not logically possible, I said that guaranteed "minimum of requirements" is not compatible with the idea that there are abundant resources. On socialism I stated that it was either inefficient or unviable in some cases.

>In a stateless society where every individual votes on polcies (direct democracy) the collective policies would be agreed upon and the society would collectively enforce said policies (or they wouldn't be collectively voted upon in the first place)
This requires all individuals to be in complete agreement, which is already no small task when it comes to large cities, let alone entire countries. One of the main reasons why representative democracy is used instead of direct democracy is because the voting process would become incredibly inefficient in large populations. As I stated before, if your dream is of something like the Amish have then in that case it is possible.
>>calling me a faggot
>confirmed for (very elaborate) shitposting
Is this your first day on a chan? Considering this statement I could guess it very well is.

>We're the only animals that can walk upright and have opposable thumbs. The leading theory is that it's because of this that we developed tools.
Tools are used by a large variety of animals. True, that it is not to the extent humans do, but you can still see it come by chimpanzees that can't walk upright, even birds use surrounding objects as tools.

>Also we developed communication and language to allow deep intellectual understnanding.
Our ability to communicate does not distinguish us from animals, although the disparity between the complexity of human communication and the complexity of other animals' is fairly large.
>This doesn't exist in nature, and because of this all these things are possible that wouldn't be possible in nature, like stranges arguing on the internet
You are stating that simply because we have something unique not found in other animals, that it somehow separates us from nature. Humans have simply become better at competing with other types of animals and have become a dominant predator, nothing has been transcended, especially not nature.

>wtf say god or your confirmed for jew shiller. Well I guess that doesn't make you a shill but you are just baiting or is the jews can't say god meme actually real lolwat
It's just a joke but how eager you were to call JIDF was hilarious.
G-d

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:36:37 c41a64 No.3188

File: 1425594997038.jpg (55.5 KB, 600x412, 150:103, BB11n07CEAADovi.jpg)

>>3187
Part 3
>Since you've confirmed that you are a shit poster, don't bother replying unless you can provide some logical reasons for why socialism is impossible.
I am not saying Socialism is impossible, I am saying that it can only work as a fairly small niche, whereby nationwide attempts will result in disasters like the USSR.

>No I'm not. If I am, how?
You felt the need to distinguish between capitalism and socialism. The reasoning for the difference in your eyes was that capitalism is slavery because there is only cooperation by necessity, thus implying that you only do it because you are forced. The fact, that you said it was ONLY that, is absolute horseshit.
Then you stated that socialism has cooperation by choice, which is only true in an anarchistic version thereof. The way both of these were phrased made it seem like you see these as non-negotiable, therefore it was defined.

>Sure but kind if irrelevent
>irrelevant
Did you even read it?
I stated how it clearly isn't ONLY by necessity when you stated it was. If it was ONLY by necessity then my example wouldn't work, dismissing it as irrelevant is incredibly ignorant.

>how?
See above

>stop shit posting
Make me

>central authorities are usually a form of government but that doesn't mean all governments need a central authority
True, had misread that part when I replied, since the English was a bit broken.

>So? Again look at how switzerland does it. There is no central authority, there is a collective authority…
Switzerland has a government and this government's laws are made through direct democracy. The government is still the central authority, which they employ to enforce these laws. Direct democracy isn't inherently stateless or state-based.
Authority IS derived from violence because Switzerland's government is armed to enforce this law if any single person chooses to break it. In an anarchistic society the consensus is still enforced by violence, it is simply not enforced by a single body of government.
>I didn't even give a definition wtf are you talking about?
Class is an arbitrary division to form an arbitrary group of individuals within a society so by stating that there is class division you are defining a group of better-off individuals and worse-off individuals and splitting them up to form the oppressors and the oppressed

Anonymous 03/05/15 (Thu) 22:37:54 c41a64 No.3189

File: 1425595074080.jpg (25.82 KB, 335x333, 335:333, Probably.jpg)

>>3188
Part 4
>Again that's irrelevent because every post you reply to you ignore the fact how I explain that in a stateless society the technology to allow efficient use of resorcoues would no longer be repressed
Technology would allow a slightly larger population than is present for the Amish community but certainly not in the scale of most modern cities.
>No I'm choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just super fucking retarded and not shilling, and thus I keep replying to you
>implying that it isn't the Commies and Marxists that are the shills

>it is a big fucking deal… This guy is at the forefront of science, and he's the only one who tries to broadin his field.
>only one who tries to broadin his field
First of all, he is not the only person, I can assure you of that with absolute certainty. Second of all the informaton you presented is insignificant when it comes to the video because he did not say anything new or unusual, he said something that has been parroted for centuries, which is that soon things will get better and that all our problems will be solved.
>There's a hours long speech
Good thing you only posted a 2-minute video with absolutely no content instead.
>the problem is that there is too much specialization in science and that if even scientists were specialized in dual fields (should be speacialzied in many actually) then the techonlogy would be shared with everyone at a much greater scale.
Well yes, overspecialisation can be a great problem when it comes to solving problems in overlapping fields, but really you are assuming that I had seen every single second of his life to know about this in advance.
>I haven't seen all his videos so I don't know if he goes into the economical side of things but the reason there isn't more broad specialization is because it's not profitable.
That isn't really the main reason. Broadening of fields simply doesn't happen because through specialisation you can be better prepared for niche tasks. Specialisation does have the cost of being less capable of independent work in overlapping fields but that is not an intrinsic fault of capitalism, that is really a problem with the education system.

>It's not some guy. Nice to show everyone your extreme ignorance
Of course, I have to know every single person in the entire universe and their entire life story from start to finish. There are millions of people in the industry, do you really expect me to know one random guy simply because he was in front of a camera talking about what he does? The video you linked had him talk in front of an audience that was clearly not intended to be knowledgable in the subject, since otherwise he wouldn't be talking to them as if physics was some alien concept.

>how
You are using science as some sort of all-mighty entity that will solve all of the world's problems at the snap of your fingers. Sure, it will help improve a lot of things but relying on the POTENTIAL outcomes to actually happen is incredibly naive and stating that a new realm like quantum physics will be at the forefront of it is even more so.

1/2 Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:22:43 7ed283 No.3196

>>3186
>Same goes to you not being able to show that it works, this criticism means jack shit.
it doesn't mean jack shit, it's the only valid criticism you can make. And it only implies that it has to be tried first to see if it will work.
But the (what I've brought up) theory and logic shows that it should work while everything you brought up was irrelevent incoherent or just plain illogical

>It was also caused by inefficiency and excessive policies.
You seemed to have dropped your own point since you didn't provide any explanation.
This isn't related to the idea of socialism and means it was just not implemented properly, it can be fixed easily.

>too hard because people won't agree
well there's nothing wrong with trying it.
too hard to convince people doesn't mean it is inherently bad, just that it's hard to make it work…
> you need to be able to prevent a government from forming either from within or by an external force
This is a problem for every society, ever. And each society dealt with it in their own way…

>you have to actually base it on something to prove that not only is it a problem of capitalism but that it is not a problem with socialism.
Well it's kind of obvious but if you can't think critically that's fine too. In that case you have to clearly and specifically state your criticisms then since no one can read your retarded mind

>Poverty? Capitalism
>Inequality? Capitalism
Yes this would go away if there was no division in class.
>Global Warming? Capitalism
Yes this would go away because cleaner (and less profitable) technologies would not be supressed. They are supressed in todays society because of monopolies caused by capatalism. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. Well I could, but I don't know how mentally incapable you are and I'd rather not endlessly make essays just for your fucking retarded ass

>also electric cars do not solve everything
I never said they would, was just provoding one example.
At least you understand how it would help (but of course are just convoluting the explanation like everything else. gas is 100% fossil fuel, electricity is usuually around 40%, depeneding on the location)

>IF you use less resources than there are available THEN it becomes abundant. In order to do so you would require either a very small population or restricted growth.
Or you know, more efficient techonogies (that are less profitable and supressed due to monopolies caused by capatalism)

>but it becomes incredibly difficult to do so when reaching more modern technology
lol more modern technology is more efficient. There are many directions of technology. Technology that uses more resources is actually more profitable in many cases

>If you have "minimum of requirements" then a safety net is exactly what you have.
STill have no idea wtf you're talking about here. Unless you mean the minimum needs for every individual that causes welfare and this redistrubution to exist, then I already talked about how there is nothing wrong with minimum of requiremnts. Of course you read and counter it later, but then why even type this section? Unless you are just shit posting

>If the limit is determined individually then they can freely ignore those in need of welfare since they are not obliged to do so, regardless if they are leeches or in dire need of assistance.
But not if the policies are collectively voted upon. Which I already talked about later. Of course you read and counter it later, but then why even type this section? Unless you are just shit posting

>Evolution still happens, faggot. because lactose persistence
LOOOOOOL I specifcally said "not at all in thousands of years"
This lactose thing happened 'some 10,000 years ago' so I'm still right.

But yea obviously evolution is always happening but it is very irrelevent. You failed to show how evolution and breeding (which are related but completely different in terms of scales of time) have anything to do with minimum welfare requirements or redistribution of wealth or anything else we've been talking about

>I said that guaranteed "minimum of requirements" is not compatible with the idea that there are abundant resources
how. and in socialism it isn't about minimum of requirements it's about sharing all the wealth equally. everyone is struggling or well off, but there is no divide.
>On socialism I stated that it was either inefficient
how

>This requires all individuals to be in complete agreement, which is already no small task when it comes to large cities
Switzerland does it fine. They have cantons for their cities. Why can't their be cantons everywhere?

>Is this your first day on a chan? Considering this statement I could guess it very well is.
Just because shit posting is common doesn't mean it's not shitposting anymore.
And plus shitposting on purpose is a means for ends that only shills want

2/3 Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:23:38 7ed283 No.3197

>>3188
>True, that it is not to the extent humans do
>although the disparity between the complexity of human communication and the complexity of other animals' is fairly large.
and that's why we are different from nature. sure we are not transcending nature but we've reached a 'new level of nature'. We are leaps and bounds more advanced than animals, so much so that those traditional problems do become ascended. Though this isn't enough to dismiss arguements that if it's not natural than it's not possible and one needs to provide the logic for each specific instance(well it does mean that there's a very high chance of it still being possible though)
On the other hand it needs to be a specific instance. Saying a very complex idea is impossible in nature means nothing until a specific attribute of this idea is shown to be impossible in nature

>JIDF
the fuck I didn't even mention that you're the first person to mention it. You're only increasing suspicion on yourself

> I am saying that it can only work as a fairly small niche, whereby nationwide attempts will result in disasters like the USSR.
And I am saying that that disaster only happened due to a lack of technology and it is now possible

>socialism has cooperation by choice, which is only true in an anarchistic version
I'm not here to argue semantics but I'm telling you there is more than one definition of choice. If a society collectively CHOOSES and votes on policies, then they are forced to cooperate due to their own choices that they made previously
thusly, there is more than one definition of being forced.

>The fact, that you said it was ONLY that, is absolute horseshit.
it's only horseshit because you are using the wrong definition of force. there's something called context. an individual is forced to do things when their goal is to increase their wealth. can you please stop convoluting this shit, but I guess you are just incapable of understanding things in a holistic sense. you're probably only using half your brain so you should meditate or something…

it's pretty fucking hilarious now that I understand how you said
>you are trying to define words to fit your argument. Once they no longer fit you redefine them to fit again.
that's how people conversate you fucking autistic faggot. Just because someone uses the different (valid) definitions of the same word in the same conversation doesn't mean they are deceitful, it means they are normal and aren't robotic like an autist
If you're not a shill maybe your awareness is increasing in arguing with me. I really would hope so…

> dismissing it as irrelevant is incredibly ignorant.
no it's supposed to be a hint that you are misinterpretating what I am saying. I have a huge suspicion that you are doing this on purpose but alas I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt

>Make me
If the mod decides that you really are shit posting you WILL get banned

>The government is still the central authority,
Yes I know switzerland has a national authority, but the cantons do not. the cantons are semi-sovereign and have no central authority except for a representative to communicate to the national level.
>Authority IS derived from violence because Switzerland's government is armed to enforce this law if any single person chooses to break it. In an anarchistic society the consensus is still enforced by violence, it is simply not enforced by a single body of government.
Yes I already agreed when I said "So?" Authority is derived from violence. Obviously

3/3 Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:23:54 7ed283 No.3198

>>3189
>Class is an arbitrary division to form an arbitrary group of individuals within a society so by stating that there is class division you are defining a group of better-off individuals and worse-off individuals and splitting them up to form the oppressors and the oppressed
Yes. And there is division in class when capitalism exists. I am not twisting any definitions here. I said there is division ONLY because of capitalism. Arguing that I shouldn't have used the word "only" is arbitraty because the meaning of the sentence doesn't change wether I used that word or not. This is because to say if there is no capitalism then there is no divide in class is a meaningless statement, because if there is no capitalism then it has to be replaced by something…

jeeze I think I am catching your autism

>Technology would allow a slightly larger population than is present for the Amish community but certainly not in the scale of most modern cities.
[citation needed]

>commies and maxists are shills
yea I'm just going to ignore the shitposting parts of your post

>your video has no content
If you posted an hour long video I would not watch it. Therefore I wouldn't expect you to watch one if I posted one either.

>he said something that has been parroted for centuries, which is that soon things will get better and that all our problems will be solved.
That's a very insulting generalization to what he really says. What he said in that video which you think is meaningless is that although digital technology has allowed such an immense benefit to humanity, it is rudimentary in comparison to quantum technology (he also says the digital is less natural than humans let alone nature, while the quantum is more natural and is the closest possible to how nature works. Which means that it will be infinitely efficient. literally)

and plus
>something that has been parroted for centuries, which is that soon things will get better and that all our problems will be solved.
so why are you arguing against it? you said that newer technology uses more resources than before, but those in charge of creating the new technologies themselves have been saying that it will be more efficient. What further proof do you need?

>That isn't really the main reason
sure, but it is A reason. Which is what I said (god I've become autist help me).
Plus I would argue that they are only preparing themselves for niche tasks because niches are the most profitable. They are created by technology already existing. Creating new technologies from gaining more holistic and intellectual research and understanding requires funding in of itself and thus would need a business understanding to be able to sell their concepts for that said funding. It is just discourage overall due to the capatilistic sytem. This is besides the point though

>do you really expect me to know
no but I expect you to google it and not be an ignoramus. I guess that is asking waaay too much

>You are using science as some sort of all-mighty entity that will solve all of the world's problems at the snap of your fingers
>but relying on the POTENTIAL outcomes to actually happen is incredibly naive and stating that a new realm like quantum physics will be at the forefront of it is even more so.
I'm not relying on anything you imbecile, I'm trying to convince your stupid ass of what is possible.

Science won't solve the problems magically, obviously. But it can be applied to the global issues, obviously. They aren't being applied that way because it's not profitable though…

But seriously though, the fact that you have to seperate my posts into little sections to be able to reply to them… just wow man
you are severely lacking in holstic understanding. basically you are dumb and should stop posting.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:35:10 7ed283 No.3199

I've been typing this response the moment you replied to me.

almost 2 hours… we autism now

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:43:57 b4f495 No.3200

>>3199
>1/2
>2/2
>3/3

Dat page counting

good talks tho guys

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 00:48:14 7ed283 No.3201

>>3200
hey I said 2/3. I split it in half and the first half posted so I assumed the second half also would post.

I tried googling for what the character limit could be but I didn't try very hard; that first post must be very very close though

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:00:31 1cbd14 No.3216

File: 1425646830788.jpg (6.43 MB, 2370x2352, 395:392, Skylab_3_Close-Up_-_GPN-20….jpg)

>>3181
>>3180
The way I see your vision of things is that you have made a vision of a perfect society.

In your vision, a gigantic decentralised computer is doing the logistics and ressource management. I believe this computer is also managing human ressources, to keep the population low enought to be sustainable. as people would be happy, they would not seek a different system and would go on with their lifes. Societal and moral issues would be regulated by laws, and enforced by a milicia.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I see multiple problems with your vision. If you haven't read Huxley's Brave new world, I heavily recommend you to read it asap.

The first problem you'll encounter, the simplest, is discontent. Whatever your society is, there will always be a disruptive element, people who don't find satisfaction in their daily life. Some people will dislike having all their ressources managed by a computer system, and they will end up building their own black market economy or worse, actively sabotage your vision. How do you deal with them?

Second, no machine is absolute, no machine is eternal. Your computer system will be vulnerable to viruses or other corrupting agent. Your underground cables and other hardware and infrastructure may be destroyed or damaged by sabotage or natural events, which means you'll need technicians to keep it alive and well, as well as programmers to make security updates and correct bugs within the system. How do you prevent those people from hijacking the system in order to take profit from it, and become the new ruling class?

Third, your system relies on a leviathan, a godlike entity that will have absolute decision power. How do you enforce it's power? How do you make sure the Leviathan won't go mad and kill everyone? Who will be in charge of building it?

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:33:48 7ed283 No.3217

>>3216
>Huxley
>against decentralization
rofl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ePNGa0m3XA&feature=youtu.be&t=22m22s
http://www.wealthandwant.com/auth/Huxley.html

WALLACE: You're a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the…yes…if it…it's feasible. It's one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean…the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a…with a group which he can manage and understand…and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er…into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson's day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are…it seems to me that you…that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:38:21 1cbd14 No.3218

File: 1425649101755.jpg (682.43 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, ESA_Rosetta_NAVCAM_141018_….jpg)

>>3217
The reference to Huxley was about your vision of an idealised society where ressources are manages by an entity, please do not avoid answering the other questions

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:44:01 b30b16 No.3219

http://8ch.net/pol/res/1398918.html
http://8ch.net/polmeta/res/5749.html#5753
http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/121031.html#121089
http://8ch.net/int/res/139917.html#q139917
Reminder to stay vigilant against manipulative leftycancer.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:46:08 7ed283 No.3220

>>3216
Like I said it is my belief that the world actually has the capacity for billions more humans. In this utopia

But that is after all speculation. Plus the computer would only calculate the logistics; the management would be handled collectively with those policies. So if the people themsevles decided to vote on policies that would limit the number of children then that would be law.
And I personally don't see the need for societal and moral issues to even exist, unless you mean murder and such which is already set by international law.

By definition of direct democracy, any disruptive element would have to be in the minority; any logical issue is dealt with collective voting.

On the other hand, this policy making wouldn't acatually be global or national or anything like that, they would be determind and enforced only within cantons.

There would be diversity in cantons, and should be a specific cultural canton for every kind of person.

And yes, I realized that techonlogy can be hijacked or "hacked" but that is why I mentioned contingency plans. You can look at the example of bitcoin; it's open source and decentralized and hasn't been broken. No bugs were ever made and (despite what you hear in the mainstream media) the only problem has ever been the websites that apply exchange or 'wallet' systems on top of bitcoin, and usually they had deceitful intentions in the first place. The original protocol has been sound since inception. Regardless, there has been competing currencies that apparently are an improvement though I don't see how.

>Third, your system relies on a leviathan, a godlike entity that will have absolute decision power. How do you enforce it's power? How do you make sure the Leviathan won't go mad and kill everyone? Who will be in charge of building it?
Not sure what you mean here. The system only handles logistics, it's up to the people to follow the decision making and there would be courts for each decision of criminial justice, and maybe a new kind of court for each new 'stack' of reivisions for logistics (which could happen monthly or weekly as the population/resources changes and new data can be directly inputted in the case of new technologies or something).

>>3218
Yea I just wanted to get that out there. There some things that Huxley says that even I might disagree with, though I haven't thoroughly read and understood what he is about yet.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:50:08 b30b16 No.3221

>>2013
>What? I need a source for this

You may start from reading Bakunin, you filthy commie scum.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 13:53:52 7ed283 No.3222

>>3220
>There would be diversity in cantons, and should be a specific cultural canton for every kind of person.
I have to expand on this since the amazing potential of it, I only started to think about it after typing it up.

This seems to really satisfy the goals of many many different kinds of socialism and other political ideologies, even national socialism which I at first thought would be impossible to enforce. It is indeed impossibly to enforce, but very easy to allow the possibility of and encourage.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 14:04:02 b30b16 No.3223

>>3222
Typical lefty self-fellating after a long cloudy monologue.

Also National Socialism is the easiest to achieve, the only prerequisite is purging Zionist influence, including Frankfurt parrots like yourself.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 14:07:16 7ed283 No.3224

File: 1425650836633.gif (177.32 KB, 150x134, 75:67, 1425530639997.gif)

>>3223

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 14:12:47 1cbd14 No.3225

>>3220
>Like I said it is my belief that the world actually has the capacity for billions more humans.

Not really, if you have some time in a near future, please watch this video (http://youtu.be/O133ppiVnWY).

It talks about how we clearly are at the end of the fossil fuels era, and how the world can't sustain our current population for very long. It also shows that no matter how science goes forward, it'll only buy a very small amount of time. Billions can't live on this earth anymore, yet more billions ar born. The sad reality is that this problem will solve itself, as ressource shortage and overpopulation has already started to kill.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:05:45 287f21 No.3232

File: 1425661545085.jpg (128.22 KB, 831x640, 831:640, Do not drop the stick.jpg)

Part 1
>>3196
These are a huge pain in the ass to write so I'll make this the last one and it will be short. Me not replying simply means that I can't be bothered to type it in.

>it doesn't mean jack shit, it's the only valid criticism you can make. And it only implies that it has to be tried first to see if it will work.
>But the (what I've brought up) theory and logic shows that it should work while everything you brought up was irrelevent incoherent or just plain illogical
Although indeed you can't prove it doesn't work without trying, you can look at individual aspects that were present in other systems and see the result it caused across a variety of cases. A lot of what you have said is "well we won't have that, it will be fixed by then, I promise".

>This isn't related to the idea of socialism and means it was just not implemented properly, it can be fixed easily.
It can very easily be possible that there were reasons behind why it was not implemented properly. Countless attempts were made to form a stateless socialist state, all of which have failed. Sure, it MIGHT be possible, but that sure as hell hasn't been the case so far when it came to entire countries.

>well there's nothing wrong with trying it.
Nothing wrong with trying but everything wrong with failing.
>too hard to convince people doesn't mean it is inherently bad, just that it's hard to make it work…
The harder it is the lower chance of success you have, it might be possible to make a 1:1 replica of the WTC but the difficulty prevents it from being done, since there are so many pilots flying around blindfolded.
>This is a problem for every society, ever. And each society dealt with it in their own way…
Yes but a stateless society is more vulnerable to external invasion than any other.

>Well it's kind of obvious but if you can't think critically that's fine too
A lot of times you stated "well that is just because of capitalism, won't ever happen with socialism" which is really a lazy way to argue.

>Yes this would go away if there was no division in class.
Division in class is not defined by language, appearance or heritage, it is defined by wealth. What you are in fact saying is that if we erradicate poverty, then there will be no poverty, which although true, is not really getting anywhere.

>Yes this would go away because cleaner (and less profitable) technologies would not be supressed.
Nope, people will continue to use more polluting methods if they can do it. You will see people riding oil up until the very point there is none left because it is simply more convenient. Same goes to companies since it is more profitable for them. This is not really "suppression", it is more to do with opportunity. If there was an electric car that was cheaper and more practical to use than diesel engines then people would just go for that instead.

>STill have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
Was using your own previous statements.
>Unless you mean the minimum needs for every individual that causes welfare and this redistrubution to exist, then I already talked about how there is nothing wrong with minimum of requiremnts.
And I already talked about how there actually IS something wrong with minimum of requirements.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:07:49 287f21 No.3233

File: 1425661669511.jpg (78.71 KB, 500x568, 125:142, 1403993978790.jpg)

>>3232
Part 2
>LOOOOOOL I specifcally said "not at all in thousands of years"
>sickle cell anemia is a harmful genetic condition
>very low % of people in Europe have the condition because of this
>very high % of people in parts of Africa have sickle cell anemia
>these parts of Africa coincidentally are hotspots for malaria
>people with sickle cell anemia are much less susceptible to malaria
>it was less of a risk to live with sickle cell anemia in these parts than it was to risk having malaria
>only reason why sickle cell anemia still exists is because of the immunity it provides

>But yea obviously evolution is always happening but it is very irrelevent.
Populations will adapt to the environment they are in, as shown in the previous example. They will not adapt to improve, they will adapt just enough so they can produce offspring. Breeding plays in important part in populations and therefore also in the economy. The way people adapt to pass on their genes within the economic system is how the population will become, so yes natural selection is related and so is evolution. Simply because the time-scale you propose doesn't span over a couple million years, does not mean that it suddenly is no longer relevant.

>how. and in socialism it isn't about minimum of requirements it's about sharing all the wealth equally. everyone is struggling or well off, but there is no divide.
So people shouldn't be allowed to benefit for being smarter or working harder, everyone should only go as slow as the slowest person.

>Switzerland does it fine. They have cantons for their cities. Why can't their be cantons everywhere?
Small country, relatively small population, has a government.

>And plus shitposting on purpose is a means for ends that only shills want
It's not shitposting, it's funposting.

>the fuck I didn't even mention that you're the first person to mention it. You're only increasing suspicion on yourself
>wtf say god or your confirmed for jew shiller.
>you are just baiting or is the jews can't say god meme actually real lolwat
>accusation of being a Jewish shill
>not an accusation of being JIDF

>And I am saying that that disaster only happened due to a lack of technology and it is now possible
[citation needed]

>n individual is forced to do things when their goal is to increase their wealth.
They have the choice not to, since they won't die if they don't. You can choose to stay poor if you want, noone is forcing you to become rich. Material value is not the only thing in life, so yes you still have choice, faggot.

>If the mod decides that you really are shit posting you WILL get banned
Nope, since I am on-topic.

>Yes I know switzerland has a national authority, but the cantons do not. the cantons are semi-sovereign and have no central authority except for a representative to communicate to the national level.
It is still a government the same way the USA still has a government even though all 51 states have their own laws and their own representatives in the electoral college.

>yea I'm just going to ignore the shitposting parts of your post
Yet you are still replying to them

>If you posted an hour long video I would not watch it. Therefore I wouldn't expect you to watch one if I posted one either.
And yet I still did. I find it hilarious that you spent so much time to write these and yet you thought it was impossible that I would take an hour of my time to watch a video.

>no but I expect you to google it and not be an ignoramus. I guess that is asking waaay too much
Fine, feel free to Google every single refutation of stateless socialism and don't come back until you are 100% convinced by it.

Didn't reply to everything because otherwise it would be more walls of text.

1/? Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:51:13 7ed283 No.3235

>>3232
>you can look at individual aspects that were present in other systems and see the result it caused across a variety of cases.
That's exactly what I already said later regarding the nature fallacy. Of course you read and counter it later, but then why even type this section? Unless you are just shit posting

>A lot of what you have said is "well we won't have that, it will be fixed by then, I promise".
No it's more like 'well we won't have that, it will be fixed by then because of collective voting on policy.' Switzerland is a proof of concept, though you didn't really provide any specific individual aspects regarding this yourself. Those that you did don't apply to that country or are irrelevant.

>Countless attempts were made to form a stateless socialist state, all of which have failed.
Because like I said, the technology wasn't there before
>Sure, it MIGHT be possible, but that sure as hell hasn't been the case so far when it came to entire countries.
But it is possible in terms of the semi-soverign cantons in Switzerland. They aren't socialist though but for all intents and purposes they might as well be.

>everything wrong with failing.
According to the theory and logic I've laid it, it shouldn't.
>The harder it is the lower chance of success you have, it might be possible to make a 1:1 replica of the WTC but the difficulty prevents it from being done, since there are so many pilots flying around blindfolded.
wat
>Yes but a stateless society is more vulnerable to external invasion than any other.
Nice unproven statement. And Switzerland is doing just fine. They actually got invaded by the french a long time ago but their refusal in cooperation only made them stronger.

>A lot of times you stated "well that is just because of capitalism, won't ever happen with socialism" which is really a lazy way to argue.
No it's a proposition that I've provided many many supporting points. It's not my fault you're incapable of thinking holistically.

>What you are in fact saying is that if we erradicate poverty, then there will be no poverty, which although true, is not really getting anywhere.
That's exactly what I already said later regarding semantics and how technically it's a meaningless statement WITHOUT CONTEXT. Of course you read and counter it later, but then why even type this section? Unless you are just shit posting

>Nope, people will continue to use more polluting methods if they can do it.
Why would they if the people collectively vote against polluting methods?
>You will see people riding oil up until the very point there is none left because it is simply more convenient. Same goes to companies since it is more profitable for them.
It's convenient because the biggest cooperations are already profiting off it. It's more conveniant to create controlled opposition with monopolies to guarantee profit.
>This is not really "suppression", it is more to do with opportunity.
That's the same thing in this context.
>If there was an electric car that was cheaper and more practical to use than diesel engines then people would just go for that instead.
They did. The one time they were mass produced they were recalled for no reason. Watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car"

2/3 Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:52:07 7ed283 No.3236

>>3233
>Was using your own previous statements.
You started using "minimum of requirements" before anyone else. I still don't know what that's supposed to mean unless you mean minimum needs met by welfare or something.

>And I already talked about how there actually IS something wrong with minimum of requirements.
fallaciously

> Breeding plays in important part in populations and therefore also in the economy.
Nice unvalidated jump you made there
>Simply because the time-scale you propose doesn't span over a couple million years, does not mean that it suddenly is no longer relevant
Um yes that's exactly what it means. Maybe if the short term issues were not there we could think about that, but the consequences in failing to acknowledge natural selection pales in comparison to failing to acknowledge perpetual war and debt and etc.
> The way people adapt to pass on their genes within the economic system is how the population will become, so yes natural selection is related and so is evolution.
Plus maybe I'm wrong but modern economic theory doesn't give a fuck about natural selection or evolution. You are implying that we shouldn't do something because it will be harmful for our evolution (which you even failed to explain how) but I don't think any modern political or economic theory even acknowledges this. At least those that have ever been tried, excluding nazis.

>So people shouldn't be allowed to benefit for being smarter
Exactly.
>or working harder, everyone should only go as slow as the slowest person.
Working hard is relative. And plus, the whole point of communism is that only those that intrinsically want to be doctors will do so (not just for a high paycheck) and thus, every individual will pursue what is most suited for their individual ability. As they say, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

>Small country, relatively small population, has a government.
So? Why can't there be cantons everywhere?

>It's not shitposting, it's funposting.
It's perpetuating ignorance you fucker

>accusation of being a Jewish shill
>not an accusation of being JIDF
Exactly. Everyone employed by JIDF is a jewish shill but all jewish shillers aren't part of JIDF. hurr durr derp I thought you were autistic but you're just purposefully misinterpreting to perpetuate ignorance. Please kill yourself

3/3 Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:52:28 7ed283 No.3237

>>And I am saying that that disaster only happened due to a lack of technology and it is now possible
>[citation needed]
That's a too general statement to prove. If you had common sense you would obviously see that problems that occured in the past have the potential to be fixed in the present because of technology that didn't exist in the past. I even give multiple specific examples and repeat myself everytime when need be but I'll do it again. Decentralized technology is one example for how it again.
NOT to mention your original statement is irrelevant because I am speficically talking about stateless socialism, which has NEVER been attempted in the past on a large scale.

>They have the choice not to, since they won't die if they don't. You can choose to stay poor if you want, noone is forcing you to become rich. Material value is not the only thing in life, so yes you still have choice, faggot.
That's exactly what I am saying. I speficially said "when their goal is to increase their wealth." godman you are stupid

>Nope, since I am on-topic.
on topic shitposting is still shitposting

>Yes I know switzerland has a national authority, but the cantons do not. the cantons are semi-sovereign and have no central authority except for a representative to communicate to the national level.
>It is still a government the same way the USA still has a government even though all 51 states have their own laws and their own representatives in the electoral college.
..So? The semi-sovereign cantons do not have a central government, which I said already. Did you forget how to read? The states in the USA do still have a centralzied government while the cantons do not. It is different.

>>yea I'm just going to ignore the shitposting parts of your post
>Yet you are still replying to them
I am acknowledging that the majority of your posts are not straight up shit but saying all commies are shills is. PLease go back to highschool to learn how to read and reply coherently.

>And yet I still did. I find it hilarious that you spent so much time to write these and yet you thought it was impossible that I would take an hour of my time to watch a video.
It doesn't matter if you would or not, I wouldn't and I wouldn't expect from others what I wouldn't do myself, like Jesus and all religions teach.
>And yet I still did.
Huh? I never posted a long video so what are you talking about.

>Fine, feel free to Google every single refutation of stateless socialism and don't come back until you are 100% convinced by it.
Links would be nice. I've done my own research and have only found support for my ideologies.

Anonymous 03/06/15 (Fri) 17:54:51 7ed283 No.3239

>>3232
Woops I missed a big fallacy of yours
>>Countless attempts were made to form a stateless socialist state, all of which have failed.
[citation needed]

Anonymous 05/27/15 (Wed) 22:25:09 803bad No.15107

The notion of the class struggle, as described by Marx is the idea that the members of the different castes of society find it necessary to achieve a status equal to those of the higher classes. However, what if there are members of the lower classes who are content with their current social standing and possess no significant drive to improve their current situation? And those that do find it possible through work, and favorable circumstances, fueled by the notion that their quality of life will improve once they traverse to a higher social class. In a world without the class struggle, so to say, these particular individuals no longer see it worthwhile to concentrate their efforts towards improving their situation, as achieving a higher social standing than their current one is not possible, and such efforts will be unrewarded in the long term. Hence, it is my assumption that without the competition aforementioned, where all individuals are of equal standing, improvements in the general quality of life are few and below, because competition encourages entrepreneurship, and in a world without competition, which is not only against nature, but also against human behavior, the population will not see it worthwhile to improve their situation and hence society will stagnate.

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 09:28:09 d5e735 No.15127

File: 1432805289956.jpg (263.21 KB, 1581x830, 1581:830, Marx DID ask for this 1.jpg)

>>2025

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 09:28:20 d5e735 No.15128

File: 1432805300429.jpg (254.76 KB, 1581x745, 1581:745, Marx DID ask for this 2.jpg)

>>15127

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 09:29:19 d5e735 No.15129

File: 1432805359318.jpg (223.99 KB, 1581x598, 1581:598, Marx DID ask for this 3.jpg)

>>15128

Seriously, why single-image posting? There is no reason to add it other than artificially inflating the PPH count.

Anonymous 05/29/15 (Fri) 02:04:05 ae7b28 No.15142

>private means to production and investment is not natural to human beings

wut? capitalism is a very broad phrase.

Anonymous 05/29/15 (Fri) 07:45:37 8591a7 No.15146

File: 1432885537454.png (49.89 KB, 1352x706, 676:353, 10 planks of Communism.png)

>No, liberals are pro-capitalist identity politic supporters.

You are defining them by the people you resent, you have to find a better way of explaining how you aren't liberals than just saying "hey, it's not us, they're CAPITALISTS". If paleocons can explain how they aren't neocons and their differences without doing it, then so should you be able to. If anything, it sounds more like you denying their existance on your board.

>Cultural marxism is really really bad Marxism. It goes against the fundamental basis of Marxism and ignores materialism, making it the furthest thing possible from actual marxism.

Wrong, this is when they are NOTHING BUT materialist. Lefties being against Cultural Marxism isn't that unusual (the USSR knew very well it was a powerful weapon) but making shit up just to say "they aren't REAL Marxists" is intellectually dishonest. In fact, they are closer to Marx than any of you faggots at /leftypol/, there is no need to treat him like a god simply because he said a few things you agree with.

>No, SJWs are pro-identity politics which is anti-marxism and anti-class strugle.

Wrong, they are both pro-Marxism and pro-class struggle. Whether they are successful in it or whether you like them or not is irrelevant. This is what I dislike about leftists, they are so incredibly obsessed with making Marx infallible and proclaiming something isn't REAL Communism, just so they could wish any problem within their own ranks away.

>There are admittedly huge amounts of SJW socialists but /leftypol/ is almost unanimously against them and considers their rise a threat to leftism.

Well then just say this, the previous one is a bunch of bullshit you could have done away with.

>Most of the problems identity politics complains of are caused by class struggle and would be removed easily when class is abolished.

This assumes hierarchy is unnatral, looking at any social being in nature will show you otherwise. Even creatures like ants have a hierarchy, as do cats, dogs and chimpanzees.

>It's not a no true scotsman unless you are moving the goalposts for what communism is.

But that is exactly what you are doing, you are even moving the goalposts to try to make it as if SJWs are not hardcore materialists. We would be fine with you saying "they are that type of Communism, I am the other kind that doesn't like them" but instead you are saying that they aren't "real" Communism.

>Even Lenin believed democracy was good, just not bourgeois democracy, which socialists do not believe is really democracy.

Democracy is shit, regardless whether direct/representative or controlled/free, it is inherently flawed by design.

>see pic.

The pic is inspirational bullshit, that is not based on fact. Sure, part of it is true but it is largely inspirational bullshit.

>Lastly, this is just a side note. There are many different anti-capitalist ideologies. Lumping together marxism-leninism, anarchism, and the other forms of socialism together as the same thing is about as dumb as treating China, Japan, and Korea as the same country.

Just like dumping the "right-wing" together is retarded, yet most of the faggots at /leftypol/ do it anyway. Fuck it, everything that isn't socialism is considered to be "capitalist".