7364b4 No.2000[Last 50 Posts]
/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.
7364b4 No.2003
>>2000Oh fug,
It should read
>Lastly, this is just a side note,should be a comma not be a period.
7364b4 No.2004
File: 1424665636043.png (55.25 KB, 793x1400, 793:1400, Can't zim zov the makhnov.png)
Stuff
8b2f60 No.2005
Why do most leftists think races are equal? Never understood this, and Im always giving the same example:
>USA
>gdp per capita of 50 000
>niggers with iq of 85
>Moldova poorest European country
>gdp per capita of 5000
>Iq of 93
How can the majority of you still claim negroids lack intelligence , because of background and because they are poor, when it simply isn't true - the niggers in one of the richest countries in the world, still can't get to the level of whites who are 10 times poorer than they are.
e39f11 No.2006
>>2000Hello, friend.
>communism is a stateless, classless societyAren't humans naturally hierarchical?
Aren't there are always going to be winners and losers in life?
I believe that one the reasons Jews were so enthusiastic about communism is that it offered them the chance to seize worldwide power.
>brutal class warfare destroys the fabric of a nation>Jews sweep in to rule over everyoneAnd back to the stateless part:
How many excuses are you going to make to explain why Jamal's tractor factory never seems to produce a timely, quality product like Gunter's factory?
Are you going to declare war on whites and East Asians with diversity initiatives to achieve so-called equality?
7364b4 No.2009
>>2007I obviously don't speak for leftypol but I did my best to try and represent a fairly wide range of views for leftypol.
>>2006>Arent humans naturally hierarchical?>Aren't there are always going to be winners and losers in life? Humans aren't naturally hierarchical. We lived in primitive communism for large portions of our prehistory. The general idea is minimizing involuntary hierarchy where it is unjustified, or at the very least changing it into "Horizontal" hierarchy
There will always be people who are better at some things than others. Those people should be allowed to use their talents to the best of their abilities, but not in a way that harms or exploits others.
See "Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution" for more info on how altruism and anti-hierarchical tendencies are beneficial to our evolutionary process.
>>2005We don't really care about race, it's identity politics. If a race is generally less intelligent than one, so be it, but people must be evaluated individually. I would respond to your later comment by saying that in Moldova the whites come from an incredibly different background. The Soviet education system was one of the finest in the world, and Moldovans were not slaves for centuries whereas blacks have only somewhat recently emerged from their formal segregation and they still face numerous economic hardships like the moldovans. Also, any blacks have non-functional literacy or only basic literacy whereas Moldova has literacy rates of 99%.
>How many excuses are you going to make to explain why Jamal's tractor factory never seems to produce a timely, quality product like Gunter's factory?Individuals would not be owning factories, collectives will, and if a factory is not operating well then so be it.
>Are you going to declare war on whites and East Asians with diversity initiatives to achieve so-called equality?I don't exactly see what this question is asking. Most leftypolacks don't care much about race. The general abolishment of class and private property is all that matters to most of us and we will carry out that task whatever the color of the oppressor happens to be.
7364b4 No.2010
File: 1424668134163.png (620.54 KB, 630x838, 315:419, socialism-doesnt-mean-taki….png)
>>2009Should read,
>Many blacksnot
>any blacksAlso pictures.
bfd656 No.2011
>>2009>Humans aren't naturally hierarchical. We lived in primitive communism for large portions of our prehistory.I need a source for this. Thats bullshit and I don't believe it. We've had kings and pharoahs and alpha males since the days when out ancestors were chimping it up in Africa.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htmhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy e39f11 No.2012
>>2009>Most leftypolacks don't care much about race. The general abolishment of class and private property is all that matters to most of us.So you guys don't factor in the vast differences between races and cultures?
Shit people and shit cultures create shit civilizations.
It wasn't a fluke that Europe came to dominate everyone. And there's nothing to apologize for since they would've happily done the same to us.
There's nothing inherently noble about the poor and downtrodden people's of our ghettos or in the third world.
When the commies came to power they often shit all over things like Christianity, but Jewish cultural centers and synagogues were curiously untouched.
Are there any movements over on /leftypol/ that are realists vis-a-vis the Jews and the mud people?
7364b4 No.2013
>>2012>Jewish cultural centers and synagouges were curiously untouchedWhat? I need a source for this. Lenin had banned churches and religion entirely, however Stalin had reversed this policy. The Anarchists and Communists in Spain destroyed almost every religious building they could get their hands on.
>Are there any movements over on /leftypol/ that are realists vis-a-vis the Jews and the mud people?National Bolsheviks? Leftypol generally agrees there are a disproportionate amount of jews in the capitalist class but the capitalist class will be destroyed indiscriminately.
>So you guys don't factor in the vast differences between races and cultures?Shit people and shit cultures create shit civilizations.
Any group of people that proves themselves be a reactionary force that will attempt to prevent socialism from being achieved is an enemy. It does not matter if they are a cultural group or a political group.
>It wasn't a fluke that Europe came to dominate everyone. And there's nothing to apologize for since they would've happily done the same to us.Neat, this really doesn't have anything to do with communism. If you are trying to get at affirmative action or something, we think that is discriminatory.
>There's nothing inherently noble about the poor and downtrodden people's of our ghettos or in the third world.Ok, that's a neat opinion. Their relation to the means of production is special because they are proletarians.
33f09d No.2014
I am studying pre med. Do you believe that I am not entitled to a higher than average income or lifestyle, even though I will have spent the better part of 11 years in study by the time I finish? Do you seriously believe you (hurr, society) are entitled to my expertise without offering me more recompense than a fucking McJob?
The problem I see is you guys don't understand the idea of scarcity. Both intangible and tangible.
7364b4 No.2015
>>2014You are arguing against a straw-socialist. Communism is not where everyone get's paid the same. Under market socialism, syndicalism, or mutualism, you would work in a sort of doctor-cooperative and would probably make more than you would in a capitalist medical profession since the profits go directly to the workers, in this case, you and your fellow doctors. You would also have more control over your workplace.
Also have fun when a robot replaces you.
e39f11 No.2017
>>2013>Any group of people that proves themselves be a reactionary force Hasn't that got you guys into trouble before?
Who will define exactly who is a reactionary? These labels will always be abused by someone for personal or political gain. Perhaps you're a good, honorable person and this is inconceivable to you, but many others aren't like you and will do anything for power.
How can you not achieve your goal without once again liquidating the intelligentsia, the kulaks, the old-guard military officers, and so on?
The Jews and other groups will just use you to take out all of their enemies. While earnest people like you are out there trying to make this work, a small group of cynical men will be behind the scenes slowly consolidating power.
7364b4 No.2020
>>2017Im not a marxist-leninist so I cannot really answer this, but I would generally say that yes, the Kulaks and intelligentsia, and the old guard military officers were reactionary forces because they sought to reestablish capitalism.
I can prove Stalin was not a jewish puppet though.
He had ordered a purge of jews from the ministries for appeasing hitler and many people who died in the great officer purge were jewish. The amount of jewish administrators was also lowered, not raised during Stalin's time in power.
Gennady Коstyrchenko "Stalin's secret policy: Power and Antisemitism"("Тайная политика Сталина. Власть и антисемитизм" Москва, "Международные отношения", 2003)
What went wrong with Marxism-Leninism is they were expecting global revolution within a decade after the October Revolution, however due to Social-Democrat activities revolutions were put down in Germany and prevented in other countries. Then they had to go through numerous, often contradictory policy changes which led to the creation of the Kulaks and the self-serving bureaucracy. The Kulaks and bureaucracy were like a cancer. By the time Stalin wised up and realized what was going wrong it was already terminal and the bureaucracy had already gotten too large to control. Contrary to popular belief, Stalin did not have absolute control of the Soviet government and had to fight viciously with party bureaucrats. My source for this is none other than the famous stalin-hater Nikita Kruschev.
I can see your criticisms are valid here and that is why I am a syndicalist. With a decentralized power system that can't fall under the control of a single person by it's nature, retains worker control of industry and also is proven to be effective by the Spanish revolution. During the Syndicalist control of Catalonia production increased despite wartime conditions, lack of materials, and political turmoil, thanks to the efforts of the Syndicalists. Ironically, the success of syndicalists was prevented by the "communists" who sabotaged their war effort and withheld weapons, greatly contributing to Franco's victory.
33f09d No.2021
>>2015>implying I can't be a business partner in a superclinic>implying all doctors even WANT that extra responsibility of running their own business>implying you're describing something that's impossible in a capitalist societyIn a capitalist society I at least have the choice. I can hire someone. I can work for someone. In your socialist dreamworld I don't have that choice, I get to an hero at 45 because of the extreme stress of trying to be a business owner, manager, researcher, accountant and doctor. Plus any time you red faggots decide I'm becoming too bougoise I get firebombed.
Honestly the only "workers" you faggots would get on your side are people who are either a) not disciplined/motivated enough to make it in the real world or b) idealistic idiots with no grasp on economics or reality.
>robot replacing the medical profession>in communist utopia, of all placesYou are more delusional than I thought.
e39f11 No.2022
>>2020>With a decentralized power system that can't fall under the control of a single person by it's natureIsn't this an open invitation for the army to seize control?
7364b4 No.2024
>>2021>You are more delusional than I thought.Cry more STEM nerd. Robots are already getting better at diagnosing diseases and such. The technology to replace most of the transportation industry already exists too and various other industries will be replaceable soon. We are going to have unemployment rates of 30-50% when it finally starts happening. Under communism the autos would be controlled democratically for the benefit of all, not simply the rich capitalists who own them.
>implying I can't be a business partner in a superclinic>implying all doctors even WANT that extra responsibility of running their own business>implying you're describing something that's impossible in a capitalist societyIf you don't want to be an accountant nobody is forcing you. If you don't want to make buisiness decisions no one is forcing you. If all you want to do is be an obedient doctor then no one would stop you. You would have a say in how things are run though if you wanted to excercise it.
Also, saying I should just go make a worker co-op is like telling an abolitionist he just shouldn't own slaves.
And if you want to leave the community and start a hierarchical business and can get people to work for you, where they will have less say in how work is run and likely less share in the profits, then so be it.
Also, what i've described was implemented in Yugoslavia and the people loved it. Yugoslavian people generally have a very high opinion of communism and believe things were better back then.
Anyways if you want to have an intelligent discussion like
>>2017 then we can start anytime
>>2022It would depend on the situation. In the final stage there would be no more countries left to defend from. In the early stages there would be a sort of people's militia. This was used in the actual civil war with a high degree of effectiveness, and the militia's were fiercly loyal and most had to be actively supressed by the communists once the CNT-FAI was outlawed. Read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell if you want to know more about these militias.
7364b4 No.2025
Here's another good one.
1b1df2 No.2026
>>2009>The poorest country in Europe has better education than UsaI guess you guys will make whatever excuses you can to make them equal…. I gave you the finest example how being poor or rich has little to do with intelligence, but you still try to play the "opression" card.
>slavesBig deal, balkanik people were also slaves. why is their iq again far above blacks?
This started as a good thread, but I cant really take you seriusly by making such illogical fallacies.
33f09d No.2027
>>2024I don't believe you can make a serious comparison between transportation and medicine/research… But let's not get caught up in that.
As I understand communism, force is justified against anyone who can be labelled bourgoise/capitalist (which is conveniently, most anyone). You are saying that should I not want to participate I can simply leave - that sounds more ancap or libertarian than anything.
e39f11 No.2028
>>2024>In the final stage there would be no more countries left to defend from.Doesn't this imply that you assume the vast majority of humanity *wants* to join your movement?
Sure, the poor and hungry are easy fodder for Christian or Commie missionaries, but it doesn't mean they really understand what they've just signed on for.
Most of your philosophy comes from educated whites and Jews.
Let's say that for cultural and racial reasons that the average Syrian or Thai isn't interested in the workers' paradise.
Does he then have to be killed or sent to re-education camps until he sees the light?
978b8c No.2029
File: 1424673678142.jpg (21.07 KB, 236x301, 236:301, 1726e962c0803d79f228647ddc….jpg)
>>2020>Gennady КоstyrchenkoKostyrchenko was pronounced "Man of the Year 5762" by the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia for his book "Тайная политика Сталина. Власть и антисемитизм" (Stalin's Secret Politics. Power and anti-Semitism).
He is a very good goy.
Jokes and conspiracies aside, really good thread, OP, got to the end of posts, and I do have a lot of questions as well that will be for another day as I have to sleep now, keep up the good work, glad to have some leftypol in here, and also glad you gave some enlightening explanations mostly about the differentiations of race, link with anarchism, heavy individualism (not individuality) rather than working for the poor and niggers, and the general "go fuck yourself" you send to people unable/willing to work, having these as core principles to your ideology can make it more realistic to at least conjecture about (even if it's still incredibly utopic and very detached from reality, imho).
Although, besides the shitposting he does, I must partially agree with
>>2014 and the points he makes, I highly doubt he would make more in a non-capitalist society, the legitimate higher classes would get totally oppressed and dominated by the stupid majorities, as democracy is inherently flawed to push towards immediate pleasures and anyone not accepting them being a pariah, whilst we all know why power + communism wouldn't work.
Also, putting faith in syndicalism is hopeful, blindly but still, and utopic at best thinking they won't be just as, if not more selfish for the leaders of the unions than the capitalist, or for the union itself towards other unions, Quebec is a prime example of why you shouldn't trust them to work for the greater good. It's democracy's biggest failures at a smaller scale all over again.
Also
>Also have fun when a robot replaces you.Unironically believing that is like believing robots will replace lawyers. Not happening in the next hundreds, if not thousands (if ever) years, bro, these jobs are way too complicated to be computerized, even by some very smart AI understanding every little flaw and detail of the human behaviour, as this one would overanalyze, and one not doing that would go straight past very clear natural tips that such a behaviour points to one conclusion or the other, hence the inherent difficulty of recreating an AI capable of the same subtleties as the human mind without making it overreact in every similar reaction but rather examine everything as a whole.
Also, the slaves shit doesn't make too much sense, how long do they get a blank state card allowing them to be as stupid as possible when their lower IQ has been proven to have no correlation whatsoever with environmental/financial/social status? I mean seriously, everytime something gets debunked, you keep the conclusion and find different axioms to twist a way back to it, that's what I really generally dislike about leftists…
>Does he then have to be killed or sent to re-education camps until he sees the light?rofl
387db7 No.2030
>>2014I believe you're entitled to a nice spot on the wall and a bullet to the head. We don't care about selfish people like you.
978b8c No.2031
>>2030Whether you like it or not, "selfish people like him" are what build the core of the modern society's survival, not the faggish workers who's right you work for and defend, that just want their pay and to gtfo home while doing as little job as possible. This is literally any democracy's 99%+ of the population (thanks to the electric Jew, mostly), and you expect THEM to act out of total selflessness and study/work while being underpaid an extra 11 years to get jackshit in return, not even recognition for their hard work?
I hope you manage to build your Utopia, because suffering in that hell-hole and realizing how wrong you were will probably be the best punishment that could be offered to you.
Nevertheless, keep the interesting discussion going.
Also, I doubt many /pol/acks are inherently capitalists, we all see the flaws it has in its very essence, mostly the fact that statism + capitalism leads to the worst kind of corporatism ever, so these are extra points, on which we could argue because I think our current capitalism >>> your communism/syndicalism, but still, up to debate I guess, HERE AND NOW, we don't have the monopoly of people's ideas ;^)
>she isnt really 14 e39f11 No.2032
>>2030>We don't care about selfish people like you.m8
It's human nature, and the amount of assholes in demanding fields like medicine and the military dramatically rises. It was ever thus.
So much of the stuff you guys support doesn't seem to be suited to human nature.
No wonder communists always have to take and keep power by force
unlike our Führer 6d8533 No.2033
>>2009>We don't really care about race, it's identity politicsA brief look at /leftypol/ dispels that myth. Sage for leftshit.
c472bb No.2034
>>2031Sauce?
Is she really 14? b6d838 No.2035
>>2013>What? I need a source for this. Soviets Razed Churches, Spared Synagogues
http://henrymakow.com/001913.html 925190 No.2037
>>2000I didn't read all your bull shit but that picture surely pissed me the fuck off. I hope you read the Talmud like Karl Marx (14th generation Jew douche bag) did.
Why are you such a fucking Jew lover? Y'all realize that whoever controls the government in communism has all the power and the people are just slaves right?
What a fucking failure of a system, since the revolution in Russia the whole goal has been world domination. Sick, just fucking sick. Learn some natural law.
80428a No.2038
>>2007Fuck me dead I'm pissing myself. You might be the one cool leftist ;)
>>2000You mentioned you are not SJWs, but yet they are definitely in your half of the camp.
Can you and your's please clean your house a little?
When conservatives say something stupid, you watch how quickly other conservatives distance themselves from that behaviour and person.
Yet the SJWs and modern leftists are the equivalent of (and I'm being honest here) hypocrites and con-artists.
When will the left actually show some accountability?
Instead of acting like a mob.
dc6d32 No.2047
>>2000>It goes against the fundamental basis of MarxismYou're a moron.
dc6d32 No.2049
>>2048
You're a moron.
4539f8 No.2063
>>2048
>Cultural Marxism doesn't fucking exist you idiot.
e99ea1 No.2122
Where are these supposed mods who're meant to purge shill threads and why aren't they purging this thread?
e7333f No.2123
>>2122while i dont subscribe to the OPs belief system i dont think hes a paid shill, the thread has prompted decent discussion and has garnered no reports. the only shit post seems to be this one
>>2048 8373f4 No.2124
OP's responses and the general discussion in the thread has only made me reafirm my notions on how flawed communist rhetoric and ideas are. It's as if a communist/leftist has to justify his existance over and over because it doesn't make any real logical sense.
I see why OP is so interested in saying robots will replace everyone, for the idea behind his brand of leftism seems to be an assumption that humans are like robots. No one would take advantage inside the unions, no one would strive to make himself a privileged class inside the community, no one would abuse branding someone as an enemy of the state to seize more control, no one would be selfish and want to give more power to himself by joining forces with like-minded individuals, etc. Everyone would be programmed to optimal settings, being morally righteous at all times and functioning according to the same parameters as everyone: community, charity, cooperation, selflessness…
Any defective human would be disposed of by the greater power of the optimal community.
That is incredibly utopic. It's childish, and I don't see the appeal to it at all, specially because it goes against an indisputable fact: Earth's resources are finite. The people who know that very well are abusing said resources greatly, oy vey, and I never see a communist speak about how they would go about solving that and not saying almost explicitly that it's by empoverishing everyone that they seek to achieve equality/no class struggle. Very noble, but as seen in any communist country, alive or dead, someone's going to take advantage of it.
Coming from a country that is very red, I can tell you that there's nothing noble about the people who believe in these communist ideas and are in power. They preach communism for everyone but themselves, to then return to their corrupt business, being more effective at
>>2010 than capitalism ever is.
e99ea1 No.2162
>>2123You seriously think the problem with older pol's was paid shills? Really? You think there's a paid army of shills and spammers as opposed to freelance shills like OP almost certainly is?
dc6d32 No.2167
978b8c No.2168
>>2162I also doubted that for a long time, anon, until a couple of weeks after the inauguration of Ukraine's ministry of Truth (Google it), any and every possible conversation about the Ukraine conflict was literally impossible, and everyone started yelling "Jewtin" or "RIDF" or "fucking Putin worshipper" for trying to have a decent conversation.
There is a clear difference between paid shills and voluntary shills, and stupid people. Voluntary shills, for all I care, are okay, hell one might argue the whole Ukraine thread is a voluntary shill, it's admitted in the first posts he's pro-rebel, so I guess in the /pol/'s current textbook that qualifies as a shill. But there are facts.
In 8/pol/, I have witnessed first-hand threads with decent conversation, up until a single individual made 70 FUCKING POSTS about Putin being a Jew, and kept insulting literally anyone in the thread without providing any source nor argument at all other than repeating the same statements we made against him, but twisting them against us.
I don't want to bite in the paranoia, but we have proof that the JIDF does exist, for instance, that Ukraine info-war is heavily going on, and tbh I honestly believe that single elements like this fag are baiting a lot of posters to believe that is the average /pol/ack, and that is the "cool" way to act.
Imo, people who bite in deserve the ban just as much as the original shills, as they end up shitposting nevertheless, but I think that if there weren't paid shills to instigate the stupid masses (they literally are jewing /pol/, like they do with MSM to control the masses in various countries, it's incredible to watch it happen live and in a micro-environment) to follow their "lead", and now /pol/ became pretty much unusable.
So maybe not an army, but think about it, spreading say 100 people paid by the Israeli and/or Ukrainian government, make them work 8-12 hours a day, 5 per website, and you can have a HUGE impact on the internet's psychology and their beliefs, as well as their opinions. It is much more profitable and easier to put in place than the older system of MSM control.
Also, Idk who nor where, but some "mod" picture came out, and some anon pointed some very interesting facts about how even though they are always thought to be NEETs or people who always failed at everything else in life, they probably are the people with the most influence over the chan/internet culture and definitely the biggest influence on the social medias, literally defining the way millions of people are going to see a particular event. Their influence is considerable, and when taken in context, it is far from being unimaginable or unlikely, on the contrary, it seems like a very very low price to pay, some salaries, to have such an easy control over the masses.
Look at plebbit.
50ef08 No.2174
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>2038
>Can you and your's please clean your house a littleWe are doing our best. We saw this coming from miles away. Video is related.
I would say if a group wanted to do something different they would be allowed, but if it is in a way that hinders the progress towards communism then they would have to be stopped, I would not like this to be violent but if the future of humanity depends on it then it must be done.
925190 No.2180
>>2174>posting an extremely biased speechThanks for nothing
7a9c2d No.2183
>>2180Parenti warned the Left about the great SJW threat decades in advance but nobody acted to stop it. I was referring to the parts where he speaks against identity politics as proof at least some of us are trying to fight SJWs.
And everything is biased.
adcc84 No.2191
>>2000>No, liberals are pro-capitalist identity politic supporters.As a classical liberal,
thank you. Are Objectivists and Ancaps–or any other kind of classical liberal– identity politics supporters? It seems to me that identity politics supporters are Tumblrinas, Democraps, ANC/ZANU nigger-supremacists, etc. Seeing as I love the shit out of the former ideology and want the latter groups dead, I would argue that OP is conflating two groups. Cultural Marxism is not a friend of Classical Liberalism.
Am I wrong? Have I secretly been aiding the cause of the Dindus and tribalist gender feminists all this time without knowing it by voting libertarian? Please CMV and redpill me. And while you're at it, can you explain why identity politics supporters on HuffPo and BlackGirlDangerous and Alternet love to hate on "libertarians" and talk about how racist they are by merit of being young white males? I mean, gay rights supporters usually see it as a
plus that they are mostly young, because that means the older generation with bad views will die off and stop imposing on them.
Second question: I passionately hate government imposition, how would a stateless/voluntary society handle parasitic, ill-behaved cultures? What happens in an anarchist society when gypsies or Section 8 basketball-Americans move next door and start robbing people? Curing poverty isn't going to guarantee a fix, because Chinese immigrants in the 1850 were poor as fuck, but their culture isn't pro-crime, meaning that
they started businesses instead of chimping and blaming Whitey.
I full recognize, by the way, that culture and genetics are not always separable when it comes to black behavior vs Chinese behavior. I've read the top posts on /r/hbd, and I recommend you do likewise if you haven't already.
e7333f No.2200
>>2162>You think there's a paid army of shillswhere do you think you are? if you dont know, learn, dont comment.
8f8db7 No.2203
Dont you have your own board to infect? Go back there.
50ef08 No.2380
>>2191A stateless society would probably start executing some vigilante justice or sanction the fuckers. Lack of government = lack of organization.
I don't think objectivists and ancaps are identity politics supporters. I was using liberal in the modern day sense.
e99ea1 No.2390
>>2200If you think gov's are spending their money and resources giving 24/7 attention to image boards with tiny user bases you're way off. Just because gov's pay people to engage in online propaganda doesn't mean everything that could be from them is.
23e48f No.2881
>>2009>Humans aren't naturally hierarchical. We lived in primitive communism for large portions of our prehistory. And then we stopped. I'd wonder why but these secular falls from grace are as deep as the shallow end of the puddle. I wonder if the fact that this is only a word swap away from feminist theories about ancient matriarchies gives you any pause.
67ddb4 No.2892
>>2881We stopped not because of any magical idealistic force but because property and economic relations could no longer support that kind of system. Captialism will disappear in much the same way, either with the emergence of Socialist property relations or ecological destruction causing us to revert back to feudalism/tribalism.
0ca885 No.2894
>>2892That doesn't work though, the tribal nobilities predated complex economies and cultures that were decimated to the point of no longer being able to support a complex economy still retained hierarchies.
a8cd17 No.2897
Marxism is just another in the clouds ideology that's incapable of dealing with modern issues of mass society and scale. What you should be concerned with is managerialism.
61c4c2 No.2962
Why are other people entitled to my stuff without my consent?
What does a free market have to do with selfishness?
Isn't being entitled to someone else's things way more selfish than wanting to keep the fruits of your own labor?
What incentives are there for me to work hard and be innovative if my money is redistributed?
744f1a No.3001
>>2000You're not serious with that picture are you?
Capitalism does not mean people don't cooperate.
Nor is competition strange, we've done it for as long as we known, long before capitalism. As do other mammals.
And what's the with
>nature xDDD maymay? Of course capitalism is human nature, it would not exist otherwise. Anything unnatural cannot exist. Or did someone open a portal to some imaginary land and get capitalism?
46eace No.3002
>>3001Capitalism means people become competitive, that is the opposite of cooperation
Comppetition only happens in nature when resources are limited. this is not the cause for humans
Capitalism is not natural, for it only exists due to the idea of money.
Socialism is not unnatural in the sense that excess of requirements is shared with other animals when resources are abundant.
Anythinf unnatural cannot exist? Maybe, but what is natural for humans is not natural for animals. Humans have intellect and thus it is natural for them to be creative so in this sense there is nothing that is unnatural for humans.
Of course this is not how we speak; in our day to day lexicon, natural is often used interchangebly with normal or average; thus the word natural as we use it is a very subjective term based on what is happeing during the timeframe that the word is used.
46eace No.3003
wow check out my id. 6eace out
1c3da6 No.3034
>>3002Socialism is not natural, for it only exists due to the idea of whining on imageboards that everyone should do everything for free
25ab73 No.3073
>>3002>Capitalism means people become competitive, that is the opposite of cooperationNot mutually exclusive, you can cooperate for the sake of being able to compete more effectively. Why else do you think humans live together in cities, work for each other and trade?
>Comppetition only happens in nature when resources are limited. this is not the cause for humans>resources are not limitedWe are on a giant spherical rock in space, this spherical rock has a limited volume. Within this limited volume you find resources. Considering the fact, that resources require a finite amount of volume, resources are also limited, since they can't be nothing.
>"hurr durr I actually meant PRACTICALLY unlimited"The fact that there are materials to be gathered in abundant quantities doesn't mean that you will get it. It doesn't matter how much there is of it, if you can't get it then what is the point of even mentioning it?
Competition will always exist because humans as a whole will reproduce at a rate higher than displacement rate, thus meaning that the rate at which viable resources are depleted increases. As population increases, the resources available per individual decrease, eventually reaching a point where there is balance between availability and population. The only reason why humans are doing way better than in the past with such a huge population is because they have learnt to use tools to make resources that were previously unavailable available. This, of course, cannot done infinitely, as eventually the cost of improving your tools becomes too great to do so efficiently or the resources that are available deplete before more are made available.
In other words, your argument is shit.
>Capitalism is not natural for it only exists due to the idea of money.Which is used for the purpose of having an efficient method of exchange. If you were to trade a pair of boots for a bag of salt, one side will always get screwed over because the value of the product they give is less than the value of the one they recieve. Currency allows for more effective division because you can give half a bag of salt but you can't give half a boot, at least not effectively.
>Socialism is not unnatural[citation needed]
>in the sense that excess of requirements is shared with other animals when resources are abundant.Resources are clearly not abundant, the fact that you have more than you need to survive doesn't instantly mean they are endless. There being enough resources for more than just you is not enough to constitute as an argument for why they are abundant.
>excess of requirementsThis is the most retarded thing I have heard so far.
>Anythinf unnatural cannot exist?Defining things by nature is completely idiotic because the definition of nature can be pulled either way for the sake of argument.
>but what is natural for humans is not natural for animalsSo you are just using it as a synonym for "good", tornados and earthquakes are natural as well but are they good? Also you can't really say that something is natural FOR something, since it is used to describe an intrinsic characteristic. What you are effecitvely doing by using this definition is making "natural" a subjective description of an object, thus rendering its use obsolete since this way you wouldn't be achieving anything by calling something natural or unnatural, it would only be a subjective observation.
>Humans have intellect and thus it is natural for them to be creative so in this sense there is nothing that is unnatural for humans.As stated previously, by saying something is natural/unnatural FOR something, then you are turning it into a subjective description as something objective would remain true no matter whose perspective it is from. You also seem to like switching between subjective and objective interpretations whenever it is convenient for you to do so.
46eace No.3087
>>3073>You also seem to like switching between subjective and objective interpretations whenever it is convenient for you to do so.That's probably true but it happens so many times with so many other people since they don't seem to underdstand the difference I was probably subconsciously unfluenced
Really appreciate the elaborate response, I'm gonna read it in a few hours
46eace No.3092
>>3073Obviously you can be a little cooperative to compete that's just a means to an end that has nothing to do with cooperation. this is apparent because those at the very top of the pyramid cooperate with no one and are just barking at their subordinates for maximizing profit
>Competition will always exist because humans as a whole will reproduce at a rate higher than displacement rate, thus meaning that the rate at which viable resources are depleted increases.But that's wrong. With modern technology it's EASILY possible to create an abundance everywhere
>This, of course, cannot done infinitely, as eventually the cost of improving your tools becomes too great to do so efficientlyNope. I'm sure someone said that every 50 years before another technological marvel and then paradigm shift. The quantum revolution isn't even close to happening
>MUH CAPATALISMListen I'm not saying it's inherently bad. It's only because of capatalism that all this technology came about.
HOWEVER it is now irrelevant. With modern technology everyone can live with quite a bit of abundancs, let alone have all their needs met and better than a minimum required quality of life…
Unless someone wants all of Africa as their fucking back yard everyone can live happily(I'm glad I didn't have to use this point as a direct counterpoint to anything you said, that would be dissapointing)
>MUCH LACK OF EVIDENCEThe whole post was theoretical proof of concepts for what would and does happen in the natural world
I can't find the amazing concept that allowed me to post that but I did find this one which is almost as good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29But as I already said in this post, for us humans there is more than enough technological capacity to allow an abundance
>Purposefully misunderstanding points to call them retardedI know you know what I meant to say was
"resources in excess of the requirements" instead of
"excess of requirements
>MUH NATURE FALLACYAgain If you see who I was replying to it was that anon that started the natural arguement
>MUH SUBJECTIVITYdude what? How am I using it as a synonym for good?
And plus I even explained myself the same thing that you are now, that using the word nature subjectively is very fallacious
Nice how that's the only part you didn't qoute. I guess you didn't read the whole post before you finished and realized you were repeating what I already said but decided to post anyways to keep your post impressively long. LAWL
46eace No.3093
>>3092Oh I never finised my first point
>>3073>>Capitalism means people become competitive, that is the opposite of cooperation>Not mutually exclusive, you can cooperate for the sake of being able to compete more effectively. Why else do you think humans live together in cities, work for each other and trade?Obviously you can be a little cooperative to compete but that's just a means to an end that has nothing to do with cooperation. This is apparent because those at the very top of the pyramid cooperate with no one and are just barking at their subordinates for maximizing profit. Cooperation by necessity doesn't really count, but if you want to be stuck up about it what I meant was voluntary cooperation.
On the other hand true (voluntary) cooperation, like in socialism requires absolutely no competition. 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) then competition would not exist (except the friendly kind like in sports and abstractly in terms of art appreciation and general popularity statistics). Man that world would be fucking amazing to live in.
So yes, voluntary cooperation and competition are totally mutually exclusive
ea6d02 No.3113
File: 1425473650535.jpg (33.56 KB, 503x247, 503:247, Tyranny sincerely exercise….jpg)
Part 1
>>3092>But that's wrong. With modern technology it's EASILY possible to create an abundance everywhereIt is so incredibly easy that you still need to work in order to get it, it is so incredibly easy that some people study for 20 years in order to be able to compete better than the other workers, it is so incredibly easy that there are still people that are homeless and unemployed and possibly even starving.
>Nope. I'm sure someone said that every 50 years before another technological marvel and then paradigm shift.You have x amount of resources.
Currently with the tools you have you can get y% of them.
No matter what, your efficiency will never be 100% whenever performing something, unless you are in some imaginary utopia.
All of a sudden you get better tools.
Now you can get (y+3)% of resources.
You must now use a small amount of your x amount of resources to get a total of z resources.
The difference between x and z plus the resources lost in the process of acquiring more is the amount of resources lost from the environment.
>"b-but muh cycle of life"Not all resources are renewable and even if they were you still end up with byproducts that either cannot be reused or unviable to use, thus resulting in their accumulation.
The resources that do end up recycling themselves are almost always replenished far slower than human progress demands them to do so. Oil is a good example, whereby it can easily form naturally but the rate at which it is being consumed ends up causing it to be considered non-renewable.
>The quantum revolution isn't even close to happeningIt is very clear that you know little to nothing about quantum physics if you are using this to justify your statement, some shitty quotes from Neil Degrasse Tyson do not constitute as knowledge in the subject, nor do pop-sci articles.
>HOWEVER it is now irrelevant. With modern technology everyone can live with quite a bit of abundancs, let alone have all their needs met and better than a minimum required quality of life…>HOWEVER it is now irrelevant>The quantum revolution isn't even close to happeningNot only did you contradict yourself in this sense, but also your idea assumes abundance, which we clearly do not have. Also "minimum required quality of life" is a bad idea because you are, in effect, stopping natural selection from taking its course. By having all subjects exempt from natural selection you are weakening the society as a whole for the sake of having everyone cross the finish line, even if they are 5 hours late to run past it in a 100m sprint. Natural selection is necessary for society to evolve and adapt to the conditions that they are in, since the best adapted survive and the worst adapted either die or don't breed. You are essentially saying that because some people get too tired during a 100m sprint to finish in one go, the people running the fastest should slow down to match their pace and even carry them. Natural selection is indeed harsh but it is necessary for society as a whole, breeding conditions in which the weak have a safety net can only be harmful and only benefits you conciousness because you believe nobody should have to lose.
ea6d02 No.3114
>>3113Part 2
>The whole post was theoretical proof of concepts for what would and does happen in the natural worldIf something is logically impossible, how would you expect it to happen in the real world? Would you expect humanity to simply defy the laws of logic simply because they are smarter than most animals?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29Well at least you have proven you are willing to listen, plenty of Anons from /leftypol/ refuse to hear anything, even when it comes to screencaps of the Board Owner's own words.
>But as I already said in this post, for us humans there is more than enough technological capacity to allow an abundanceThis assumes that there actually is an abundance AND it assumes that humans wouldn't exploit things to their own benefit.
You even posted a Wikipedia page to an article on altruism so I'll explain it using altruism. Humans help one another simply because what they are doing is an investment, as they expect to recieve benefit in the future in return for this service. If, however, they see with absolute certainty that there will be no future benefit or if they see that they can benefit more by not cooperating, then they will not act altruistically. Therefore you are forced to make them do so at gun-point because allowing free will means that they will do things you don't want. This means that you are forced to give one side superior power to another, forming an authoritarian socialist state. The government you just armed to be capable of violently imposing these things also consists of humans and therefore the ones that have superior power over everyone else will be able to choose whether to act egoistically or altruistically, while forcing everyone else to comply.
You just created the USSR, no amount of bureaucracy will prevent it from reaching this point.
>"resources in excess of the requirements" instead ofIt is still retarded
>Again If you see who I was replying to it was that anon that started the natural arguementHe was pointing out that it was an awful argument, which was used in the image in the OP. He argued that everything is derived from nature and therefore everything is natural, meaning that using nature to try to prove something is completely idiotic.
>Nice how that's the only part you didn't qoute. I guess you didn't read the whole post before you finished and realized you were repeating what I already said but decided to post anyways to keep your post impressively long. LAWLYou stated it is used interchangably with normal or average, which is a legitimate criticism, but irrelevant considering the Anon you replied to.
Also 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 would understand if you were trying to be ironic but it doesn't seem like you were.
>Capitalism is not natural, for it only exists due to the idea of money.>Socialism is not unnatural in the sense that excess of requirements is shared with other animals when resources are abundant. ea6d02 No.3115
File: 1425473963423.jpg (109.62 KB, 1059x431, 1059:431, Whitest man in Argentina.jpg)
>>3114Part 3
>>3093>Obviously you can be a little cooperative to compete but that's just a means to an end that has nothing to do with cooperation.noun
1.
an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2.
more or less active assistance from a person, organization, etc.:
We sought the cooperation of various civic leaders.
3.
willingness to cooperate:
to indicate cooperation.
4.
Economics. the combination of persons for purposes of production, purchase, or distribution for their joint benefit:
producers' cooperation; consumers' cooperation.
5.
Sociology. activity shared for mutual benefit.
6.
Ecology. mutually beneficial interaction among organisms living in a limited area.
>This is apparent because those at the very top of the pyramid cooperate with no one and are just barking at their subordinates for maximizing profit.They do cooperate but they compartmentalise as to maximise personal benefit, also you seem to think thatredistribution would somehow magically stop any attempts to take power, which isn't true and also helps to harm honest people for the sake of preventing them.
>Cooperation by necessity doesn't really count, but if you want to be stuck up about it what I meant was voluntary cooperationCooperation does count because it implies choice. If you don't have choice it is neither cooperation nor voluntary.
>On the other hand true (voluntary) cooperation, like in socialism requires absolutely no competition.So many things wrong with this, especially the fact that you imply socialism is 100% voluntary, especially when it comes to redistribution.
> 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) ea6d02 No.3116
>>3115Part 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 exclusiveOnly if you define it to be incompatible with competition.
46eace No.3121
>>3113obviously 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 resourcesbut 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 ignoranthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydf71MwbV4A
>blah blah no abundanceI'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 worldwhen the fuck did I imply anything like that?
stop the strawman
>muh altruism isn't genuinein 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 sojust stop posting
>everything is derived from natureyou 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 subjectiveI 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 relevantholy 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
8f8db7 No.3126
So /leftypol/ taking over /pol/ isn't enough? You need to start spilling your bile here as well?
1cbd14 No.3128
>>2009>Humans aren't naturally hierarchical. We lived in primitive communism for large portions of our prehistorywill 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).
>>2123You're right, OP isn't a faggot here. He has different opinions, but presented his views and made a great thread.
>>2000btw, 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?
c41a64 No.3154
>>3121>obviously the techonology is not being appliedYeah 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 implementNice 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 abundanceYeah, 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 dealThe 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 boundsThe 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 strawmanA 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 anythingPick 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 postingLikewise faggot
>you can't apply that to human behaviour. humans don't exist in nature, that's why we are fucking humanWhere 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.
c41a64 No.3155
>>3154Continued
>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 retardedBut 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 itOh 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 CAPATALISMSo 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 grumpyOh 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 productionBut 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.
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 badK E K
E
K
Also, seems like our mutual friend left the discussion.
7ed283 No.3165
>>3154>>blah blah your wrong because of the way things areThey 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 unsustainableBut 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 baselessHow? 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 assumptionsIn 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 faggotconfirmed 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-Dwtf 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.
7ed283 No.3167
>>3155oh 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, faggostop shit posting
>Oh look, more redefinitionhow?
7ed283 No.3170
>>3155woops I prematurely pressed reply
>Central authority is what a government iscentral 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 violenceSo? 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 badNo 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 newfagsIt's not some guy. Nice to show everyone your extreme ignorance
>So yes, you are fucking ignorant how
1cbd14 No.3174
>>3170Switzerland is far from a stateless propertyless socialism. also, you never answered my previous question, more of a practical one
>>3128i'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) 7ed283 No.3176
>>3174I 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 1cbd14 No.3178
>>3176An 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.
7ed283 No.3180
>>3178You 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…
7ed283 No.3181
>>3180the 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
7ed283 No.3183
>>3180The 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??????
7ed283 No.3184
>>3183Then 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
c41a64 No.3186
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 workingSame 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 corruptionIt 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 capatalismNot 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.>consumptionI 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 strawmanIf 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.
c41a64 No.3187
>>3186Part 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) shitpostingIs 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 internetYou 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 lolwatIt's just a joke but how eager you were to call JIDF was hilarious.
G
-d
c41a64 No.3188
>>3187Part 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>irrelevantDid 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 postingMake me
>central authorities are usually a form of government but that doesn't mean all governments need a central authorityTrue, 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
c41a64 No.3189
>>3188Part 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 repressedTechnology 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 fieldFirst 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 speechGood 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 ignoranceOf 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.
>howYou 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.
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 agreewell 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 forceThis 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? CapitalismYes this would go away if there was no division in class.
>Global Warming? CapitalismYes 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 everythingI 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 technologylol 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 persistenceLOOOOOOL 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 resourceshow. 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 inefficienthow
>This requires all individuals to be in complete agreement, which is already no small task when it comes to large citiesSwitzerland 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
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 versionI'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 meIf 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
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 oppressedYes. 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 shillsyea I'm just going to ignore the shitposting parts of your post
>your video has no contentIf 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 reasonsure, 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.
7ed283 No.3199
I've been typing this response the moment you replied to me.
almost 2 hours… we autism now
b4f495 No.3200
>>3199>1/2>2/2>3/3Dat page counting
good talks tho guys
7ed283 No.3201
>>3200hey 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
1cbd14 No.3216
File: 1425646830788.jpg (6.43 MB, 2370x2352, 395:392, Skylab_3_Close-Up_-_GPN-20….jpg)
>>3181>>3180The 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?
7ed283 No.3217
>>3216>Huxley>against decentralizationrofl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ePNGa0m3XA&feature=youtu.be&t=22m22shttp://www.wealthandwant.com/auth/Huxley.htmlWALLACE: 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.
1cbd14 No.3218
>>3217The 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
b30b16 No.3219
7ed283 No.3220
>>3216Like 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).
>>3218Yea 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.
b30b16 No.3221
>>2013>What? I need a source for thisYou may start from reading Bakunin, you filthy commie scum.
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.
b30b16 No.3223
>>3222Typical 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.
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.
287f21 No.3232
Part 1
>>3196These 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 illogicalAlthough 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 tooA 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.
287f21 No.3233
>>3232Part 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 wantIt'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 bannedNope, 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 postYet 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 muchFine, 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.
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"
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 relevantUm 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 smarterExactly.
>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 JIDFExactly. 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
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.
7ed283 No.3239
>>3232Woops I missed a big fallacy of yours
>>Countless attempts were made to form a stateless socialist state, all of which have failed.[citation needed]
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.
d5e735 No.15129
>>15128
Seriously, why single-image posting? There is no reason to add it other than artificially inflating the PPH count.
ae7b28 No.15142
>private means to production and investment is not natural to human beings
wut? capitalism is a very broad phrase.
8591a7 No.15146
>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".
53305e No.15243
I want to keep the fruits of my labor. Do you oppose that?
Also cooperation =/= communism.
Stateless communism is retarded, how will you stop people from being capitalists without forcing them with a state. What if I don't want to be a commie?