Libertarians are retarded

Sup Forums I'm on the far right but what grinds my gears are right wingers who can't tell the difference between communism and socialism. Capitalists are especially retarded when it comes to this. If you ask a capitalist what is socialism, they would say big government but when you ask him what is communism they respond with SUPER DUPER BIG GOVERNMENT!

Socialism is a means to communism. Communism is ideally when we have a stateless, money-less, non-hierarchical society. In reality it just ends up remaining in socialism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=h6ttPhFcTUo&t=1670s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

stop being a commie

This was a pretty dire attempt leftypol.

Apply yourself!

You must go back

to Reddit and saged

Socialists and communists don't know the difference either

I never said I was a commie. Read the first sentence dumbass.

Commies are retarded. 'In order to get rid of the state we will make the state really big and powerful first, then they will just disappear, honest'

Better dead than red

I agree they are retarded, but libertarians tend to be even more retarded not noticing how retarded communism is.

Communism has never been tried because it is impossible.

It's like Ancaps being Pinochet wanting to end all nations just to have a capitalist utopia.

>haha XD le porkyman

Better dead than red

Can't you guys read? I said I was on the far right. If you read even further, you'll see that I find Communism to be retarded as well. I even said that communism was impossible in the op. I posted the op pic just to see if people actually read posts.

leftypol plz die

>People replying to this thread.

>Socialism is a means to communism

Yes plebs continue to believe the state will step aside and labour will self organise.

Socialism is a necessary step....

Good goyim.

That was their ideal. I said that in reality it just stays socialism. Implying that it was a trap.

Fascists too. 'In order to get stuff done instead of the all talk no action democracy, we have to give unlimited power to this one guy who we think will represent us but we can't guarantee. If it doesn't work let's just have a revolution, no big deal. People can't morally govern themselves so we have to do it for them.'

>b-but this type of socialism WILL work

Communism is idealist pish. It describes a system where there is no money, no state and no borders. Only in Marxism is socialism a step towards communism. Socialists will have you beleive that socialism is 'worker owned means of production'. More accurelty it was originally about 'collective or governmental control of means of production'. By the Socialists™ defineiton, any system where there is still private property is thus not socialism. By less of a gold standard socialist metric there have been numerous instances of one kind or another of socialism. Then more recently socialsim came to include policies designed to share the wealth of the nation, such as welfare.

tl;dr

Not all socialism is bad but Socialists™ are fucking cancer, more interested in pseudo-intelectual theory than actually improving the lives of workers.

It's easy to be calm when you're dead

Fascism is self governance. It's National Syndicalism. People vote for representatives within their own industry, and those representatives choose a leader. No political parties. Just diverse views and knowledge about the nation.

>b-but I never read the whole post because I'm a lazy cunt.

Socialists are anything but social. They blame all of society but never themselves. Many socialists of the right (not only national socialism), recognize socialism needs to be social and to have social institution. A true socialist state would be for family, church, and nation. Today, the socialists hate all three. They seek to destroy all social institutions. That's where the problems arise. Economically it is a disaster but the true danger is in it's mission to destroy all culture.

When reddit is sending their people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing shitty memes, they're bringing poor Sup Forumsack imitation, they're commies. And none of them, I think, are good people.

We're going to build a fire wall and it's going to have a yuuuuge bandwidth. It's going to block all the redditors, we're going to keep 'em out. And reddit is going to pay all of this.

They're communists/trotskyites lad. But yeah you're right. The mainstream left is barely even left anymore. They lost the economic argument with the collapse of the USSR and were left with just the culture war. Shame as what'[s happening now with globalisation and automation, national socialism the the ideal -if not only- defense.

...

When Sup Forums is sending their people, they're not sending their best. They're commenting in post that they never read.

The communists lost the economic argument, and I agree. Mises did the best at arguing against such a thing. The problem now is that social leftism is losing the debate and that will eventually be the end of capitalism. The Libertarians are what the right needs to be attacking, and not the SJWs.

How people can be communist, LOLbertarian or anarchist is beyond me.

I don't care what OP wants to talk about, I'm just going to post some images related to Communism.

...

...

I agree. Looking at their ideal though really highlights how retarded they are. It's a shame that most rightists won't read communist literature. It will make you more anti-communist.

This. Anyone who is older than 18 and still supports either libertarianism, anarchism, or communism should seriously consider rethinking their life.

...

Thanks, I needed more commie memes to shitpost with.

...

I got you, senpai.

...

...

...

...

>Communism is ideally when we have a stateless, money-less, non-hierarchical society
So it is impossible

...

...

...

That's what I said in the last sentence. It just ends up staying socialism.

When Socialism and Communism both end up in the same mega-state corrupt oppressive shitpile, who cares that there's a thereotical unrealisable next step for Communism? It's irrelevant. For all intents and purposes they are the same.

>Hey Bob are you a neo-nazi?
>OMG WHAT! READ A BOOK PLEASE! I'M A REFORMIST PALEO-NAZI, NOT A FUCKING NEO-NAZI, DON'T GET THESE MIXED UP

...

...

Even in theory it doesn't. Kek

Marx looks like such a nigger. Fuck this guy.

...

I agree, but reading their ideals can really beat them in an argument. How could a huge socialist state destroy itself into anarchy peacefully? It can't.

I'd like to point out that no one has checked any of my gets and it's very disappointing.

Yes, fellow right wingers. Capitalism sure won't survive without all the poz and as we all know that capitalism is held to the ultimate highest value here. We really need start supporting the lgbtq+ cause and blm and feminism. That's the only way capitalism will survive.

...

...

so what the fuck is the point of this thread then, that we should treat socialism as a mortal threat and socialists should be hanged? i agree

...

And that's all I got.

If the theory everyone's talking about has completely disorted assumptions of human nature, then it might work.

There is no difference, social democrats just don't have the guts to implement actual socialism and rob and murder everyone who resists, they are as capitalist as it gets. The real threshold is price control.
youtube.com/watch?v=h6ttPhFcTUo&t=1670s

>a spectre is haunting europe

>Honest guys, I'm a right winger, just like you!

My point is that many right wingers can't tell the difference between communism and socialism. The original purpose of socialism was to go into communism. That is impossible and just ends up being an oppressive government oligarchy. Today, many leftists don't want communism. They just want socialism. They are even more retarded than communists. At least communists tried to fight oligarch. Today, socialists defend anything that supports an oligarchy. Just look at the protests against Trump.

Then we have ancoms who want to end all government and hierarchy without a state to do it for them. That is also impossible. Ancoms are mostly the peons of the socialists of today to demoralize the people.

Either way. Modern leftism is for an oligarchy. This can't be understood until you read some communist stuff.

human nature GOT EM

there is Comunism and diet Comunism thats the diffrence

Better Dead Than Red

Socialists in the past had the idea that it will lead to communism. In reality it is an oligarchy.

Today, socialists don't believe in communism and just believe in the oligarchy.

Yes, you are a filthy commie who pretends he is not.

Why are leftist memes so fucking self masturbatory? They seem really inconfident about their ideology.

so you're just arguing muh communism hasn't been tried yet. fuck off you retarded /leftypol/ cuck. communism can't work and won't ever work. even if you cite small scale experiments like communes, they still rely on outside capitalism to function

idk, they make some cute catgirls though.

Their whole ideology is about the "I".
>It's society's fault and not mine.
If you ever read Mao you'll understand this, Maoism denies the existence of the past or any obligation to the future. If it doesn't benefit you then it is oppression.

and the fucking communist is a leaf. How surprising.

DAY...

>Sup Forums before you enlightened us with your knowledge: fuck communism and socialism, they're essentially the same
>Sup Forums after you enlightened us with your knowledge: still fuck socialism and communism

I kinda fail to see why is it so important to make the distinction between the two.

>communist

That's a good one. I'm probably one of the most active posters in /nsg/ threads on here, 8/pol/, and the unofficial discord.

I'm just saying that they got some good catgirls.

>I'm probably one of the most active posters in /nsg/ threads on here, 8/pol/, and the unofficial discord.
get a life faggot

so kind of like how HIV leads to AIDS? alright, I'd rather not have either

No.

20 posts with images of communism.

>not shitposting on /leftypol/ regularly

It's like you don't want to have fun or something.

In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism.

I prefer to get my definitions from the horses mouth

Because it exposes how stupid both really are. If you try to debate a communist by saying it is big government you'll fail. Trying to understand what they support can really defeat them.

>Posting on leftypol
>Fun
Pick one.

You just keep digging yourself a little deeper...

No, you are a commierooster who pretends he is not. The real philosophy behind both socialism and communism is that equality of outcome must be achieved even if you have to murder and rob the entire population. If you subscribe to that, it does not matter if you understand how socialism or communism works, you are not a right-winger, the only thing you can get is a bullet. I've lived among commies long enough to know when I see one.

>I'm on the far right but...

Good job comrade. You totally convinced us.

I'm a fascist.

Just go on there and start talking about how Trotsky would have been better than Stalin.

That's about 6-8 groups of people that regularly go there pissed off in one post.

You're already posting on Sup Forums, your life can't get any worse anyways.

We know who you are and where you came from, this won't work because communism doesn't work. When you get into the real world you will find that out. Then you will be here with us.

...

holy shit kys OP

You have your communist paradise.

Then what?

Senpaiília, deus e pátria

Deus vult

You're not going to reason a commie out of his ideology. You're just going to have to humiliate him on a debate stage so that nobody in the audience wants to identify with him and that doesn't require too deep understanding of their ideology.

>You're already posting on Sup Forums, your life can't get any worse anyways.
Don't cut yourself with all that edge

Can someone give a good argument against socialism? Let me refute the common ones

>muh human nature

Human behavior is determined by their material conditions. Very egalitarian societies existed with hunter-gatherers and early agricultural societies because their conditions allowed for it. Try again.

>Command economies are inefficent

Not all socialists want a command economy, many want decentralized economic organization, such as a peer-to-peer economy, mutalism, market socialism, computer managed economic organization, etc. The list could go on.

Beyond that, markets are just as inefficient as command economies so the point is moot anyways.

>Socialism is authoritarian and suppress human liberties

Soviet-style "socialism" was little more than red fascism. I'd argue that, however, libertarian socialism would allow people to be freer than they are in capitalism precisely because it allows people to have far more control in their lives. You want to paint? Be a painter. You want to plan? Join your local city planning council. You are free to go to school and study anything you wish. The government would be run entirely by the people who are affected by it and would be very decentralized.

Are there any other good arguments?

kys you fucking faggot

communism

pff

faggot

you never experienced communism and that's why you are spreading such bullshit

>good argument against socialism
There is none. Most capitalist states have realized that a degree of socialism is required to keep the peasants from revolting. And right-wing economists are arguing for guaranteed wage. It will happen, it's just a matter of time.

The reason the average person believes that Communism would necessarily be ultra-government is because that, in reality, is what it would have to be.

Marx wrote at length about the idea (and in his mind, the inevitability) of a classless stateless society, but the truth is that this is an oxymoron. Classes form naturally in any human population, it's a function of differences in aptitude and character. The only way to create a classless society would be to FORCE equality on the population. A society without a State cannot be classless. So we simply disregard claims that Communism is a classless stateless society as what they are: A lie to justify an increase in government intervention now with the promise of "liberty" later.

Socialism we understand just fine as well, albeit many have only a rudimentary understanding of why it is stupid and evil. It is not necessary for a bunch of Middle Americans to understand precisely why it is wrong for the State to control the means of production and for free enterprise to be illegal, why it is wrong to redistribute wealth beyond the minimum necessary for the continuation of society, and why in general Socialism is a culture-killing disease that destroys civilizations.

It is only necessary that they understand that Socialism=Bad and that they should fight against it. Let people with an interest in politics educate themselves further on the subject. The great mass of people can never be bothered to learn the details of what they believe.

>Classes form naturally in any human population

Holy shit, this is demonstrably untrue. Look at hunter-gatherers, there was no "class" to speak of.

Marx wrote that our behavior is affected by our material conditions. We will only have class and accept class so long as we live in capitalism. If we decide to get rid of capitalism, we would be able to abolish class, and you don't need a strong central government for that.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see that as correct. Being a historian, you can see that people have behaved very differently at different times and in different geographic locations.

Really, if you want to approach this subject intellectually, I suggest you explore historical materialism.

>Most capitalist states have realized that a degree of socialism is required
Absolutely wrong. Providing basic necessities for poor to be able to enter workforce is needed not because outcome of equality is needed but because equality of opportunity improves workforce. The same thing about minimum wage - there is an effect of diminishing returns to economy from people with excessive amount of cash on hand, which means that economy contracts from too few having too much excessive cash (not money even). Economists argue these positions from the positive effect on the markets they will have. Communists don't argue anything, nor do they think. They presuppose that equality of outcome is desired and must be enforced by murdering and robbing everyone blind. I know all the talking points behind which commies love to hide, they are all empty.