Question for communists

When you tell someone that the communism of the USSR was bad they say it wasn't real communism and actually state capitalism because it was basically just the state owning capital (as opposed to capitalists in capitalism and the workforce in marxism)

My question is, how is it possible for true communism to exist then? How is it possible to have a system like pic related and make it voluntary? I get that the USSR got by (barely) due to making this system compulsory, but how would it work when it strictly goes against human nature?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110098/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
mmrg.pbworks.com/f/Ryan, Deci 00.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Try leftypol nobody here believes in that shit

There's alway some commie scum posting their threads here.

>How is it possible to have a system like pic related and make it voluntary
It's simply not.
True Communism is where there simply is no such thing as private property. But it would fall apart in all sorts of ways. For example, you could trash your house, then just move into someone else's house. Nobody would build themselves a house because someone else could just move in. Nobody would build houses just for the joy of having built something because someone else could trash it. Nobody would voluntarily choose to be a garbageman, so trash would pile up in streets.

Leftists use that tired "it wasn't real communism" defense all the time because they like to deny their failures. True communism is bullshit and will not work.

They have been raiding us pretty hard recently.

Yes, but that's like two or three goys who will never ever change their minds. Best we can do is take the fight to them.

That fucking Spaniard is the worst! He just posts his gay commie anime memes and refuses to engage in debate because he knows he will lose.

Yes. Stop whining and start a shit thread on leftypol. They do it, we'll do it.

I know the spaniard of which you speak. We have gotten to know each other...very well. He is without a doubt, the worst communist I have ever met.

Sounds good to me

>when it strictly goes against human nature
Their answer is that human nature is wrong and must be changed.

Just as lion nature is wrong and the reason for them failing to adhere to veganism. And as such, any lion who doesn't comply must be killed.

Communists are not only delusional, but they make no attempts to hide their intention to murder anyone who disagrees. Killing a communist is literally self defense.

they'll instantly ban you on leftypol or antifachan

Turn him into a good communist.

Ha! You have to blend in.
Use your superior Aryan genetics to infiltrate their ranks.
I'm a Slavshit, so I know a bit about the "goodness" of their ways, let me tell you.

What about the amerifat that argued with you for like 9 threads?

Him too. Give him a taste of the Chile.

POSTED

All I got is this so far is this

How should I respond?

Well...?

imma larp as an anarcho-gommie

my man, shitpost
draw a bootleg pepe and shove a black dong in his mouth and write "leftypol" or some shit and post that
how new are you

see, trips = truth

Heres what I have

And this.

Nah.

i have that thread opened, no need for screens

Ok.

well fuck, then just drag them deep into a debate and make them argue with each other and leave

Are you underage by any chance?
I think my spidey sense is tingling.

They are their own worst enemies.

that's me you fag
ahahaha

I'm a commie and I know that I can handle anyone on Sup Forums on any topic concerning Socialism and Communism.

But there is no point, as no matter how much you refute things, the classcucks just make the same arguments over again like the robots they are.

Too many Americans on this board to really know individual ones.

But basically, these are the commies I know:
1) That Spaniard constantly starting new threads and never replying
2) That one guy who insists that North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union were all actually fascist
3) That guy who thinks automation makes socialism/communism inevitable
4) That guy who thinks the USSR wasn't communist, except when it's convenient for him to say communism defeated fascism.

I'm keeping it saved anyway

That's literally what you do, though.
Anyway, why am I arguing with chopper fodder, again? Say hi to Mi General.

Do so, I'd like to make history.

class is inherently good though. What on earth convinces you otherwise?

The very thought that reality "should" be one way implies classes as it makes the claim that reality is not. Since we are talking humans, we are distinguishing between "knowers" and people that need "convincing". A leader-follower dynamic that is well, class based.

try it, go ahead, make another general to ensure a bigger presence of Sup Forums on your website

Not a commie, but I'll try to briefly explain. Basically marxists (or communists if you like) were students of Hegel, who proposed the theory of Historicism (or Dialectics) - which states that history is a continuous string of conflicts between the status quo (the thesis) and the inevitability of change (the antithesis) which eventually gets resolved to form a new and improved status quo (the synthesis)...and the cycle repeats itself again. Now Hegel believed it involved everything, both the material and the ideological. he essentially believed that human society was a manifestion of the human spirit and the closest mean to get to god (or something like that, his main book "phenomenology of the spirit" is very hard to break through).

Now this is where Marx comes in. Marx was a student of Hegel and formed his own group with others called the Young Hegelians. Why this is important is because, contrary to Hegel, they believed existence was purely materialistic and a question of who controlled the resources. And therefore when Marx crafted LTV ( labour theory of value) based solely on economics. And the best way to advocate those ideas was through socialism and the worker's right revolutions of the earl-mid 1800s. Marx's Das Kapital is actually a very good critique and analysis of capitalism- he even praises it numerously throughout the 2 volumes. It's just that, as a student of Hegel, he believes Capitalism is the thesis, Socialism the antithesis and communism is the new synthesis.

Therefore socialism has become known as the stage dedicated to addressing the imbalances in the population when it comes to ownership of the means of production. That specific stage can take many forms, depending on where and when it takes place (market socialism, mutualism, autonomism, social democracy, etc). Ultimately once socialism has achieved its goal of redistributing the wealth,then can communism begin.

That is what they believe.

Try what?

There will be leaders and followers in a class less society too. Just like there are parents and older siblings in a family.

aay cool post bro

Then its not a classless society. Leaders have conferred advantages in power.

What exactly is different from a classless society and a small anarchocapitalist society?

this desu. i was in the general 3 hours yesterday, i talked to about 15-20 posters and most of them after 2-3 posts of getting refuted started namecalling and left the thread

the thing is, unlike right wing populism which is based on emotional reasoning like fear of the different and this board's average user's social alienation, left wing politics require people to at least be willing to read a few hundred pages of text to understand the theory properly. so not only you have to despook them from their emotion based mode of reasoning, but also convince them to read marx and hegel which is something out of the abilities of the average Sup Forumstard

but fuck it, one dude asked me for some source so even if he flips through them and gets even slightly despooked im stafistied.

Oh, and that one guy who thinks that because communism has never successfully been reached it can be said to ever have failed

I dont think you have a clear understanding of socialism or communism, but you got the historical dialectic part right (in a simplified way)

So let me get this straight, in the communist classless society, there are still POWER classes that exist due to dynamics of relations but not economic classes?

I do not get it, how can you claim a society is "classless" if it is clearly not. You'd have to basically create a perfect hivemind. Everyone moving at the same time same direction-- no free will to fuck it up.

People could never be empowered. Due to natural differences some persons will have greater aptitudes such as intelligence leading to a greater ability to create for society. This in turn would confer to him more worth and persuasive power given that his death would come at the cost of multiple others.

You also cannot have a smart population. If the population is smart, they will associate with eachother and due to their improved productivity, come to occupy more important and complex roles in society. This would make schooling something which divides people by a "cognitive class".

How exactly can you achieve a "communist" society if you need education to do it, but education by definition creates a natural class structure based on intelligence?

The only rational way would be to suppress the outputs of the intelligent to that of the weakest men. Or kill the weakest men/ force them to perform better, keep the average and suppress/kill the smart men.

What IS class?

It seems to me an extremely flawed idea

It's still a classless society in Marxist terminology. I don't know who's definition you use.

The worst ones are the ones giving you "sources", as in random books to read (often by people that use Robert Conquest, a professional anti-Communist, as a source), and thinks that they that's enough to back up their absurd claims.

And they are so many, and so consistent in every thread too, with the same way of (not) arguing.

...

There is no 'money' under communism. It's a post-scarcity society.

>It's still a classless society in Marxist terminology.
marx is just a person. If his words are based on air then as influential as he was he was misplaced.

There must be a very clear definition of "class" that goes beyond observing broad trends otherwise i can call any set of meaningful differences in people and the structures which differentiate them as class based.

I took a marxist eco 101 class years ago, I'll admit I'm pretty rusty but it's pretty hard to explain hegelian thought + how it influenced marx and socialism within 2000chars.

Wouldn't mind if you you refreshed my memory a bit though tbqh. It's hard to decide where to start. Class consciousness? Exploitation? Overdetermination? C+V+S =W?

Class consciousness.

What are those same arguments you speak of? Communism has left its historic footprint as being a failure. Capitalism is still going.

>So let me get this straight, in the communist classless society, there are still POWER classes that exist due to dynamics of relations but not economic classes?

first of all, you must understand socialism and communism are 2 separate things.

there are no power classes no, since leaders are just there to represent the opinions of smaller councils and not their own opinions

>You'd have to basically create a perfect hivemind. Everyone moving at the same time same direction-- no free will to fuck it up.

no not really, power structures will just be organized from the bottom up, from smaller councils to higher councils with rotatory representatives and not career politicians. again, we are talking about COMMUNISM and not socialism

>Due to natural differences some persons will have greater aptitudes such as intelligence leading to a greater ability to create for society. This in turn would confer to him more worth and persuasive power given that his death would come at the cost of multiple others

not everyone has to become a scientist mate, and someone being more intelligent will not mean they will somehow automatically try to exploit people around them. remember that for communism to be achieved, we must first reach post-scarcity under socialism. in a post-scarcity society and without capitalistic exploitation culture, people won't feel the need to exploit others

>
You also cannot have a smart population. If the population is smart, they will associate with eachother and due to their improved productivity, come to occupy more important and complex roles in society. This would make schooling something which divides people by a "cognitive class"

and like i said, not everyone will be a scientist. but in its core, those productive people do what they do 99% of the times out of passion for their work and not for it's economical benefits (which they won't need anyway since like a said this is a post-scarcity world). and by class, marx means economic class

One of the problems I find with communism is that it is way too complicated. I can sum up capitalism as "free markets and free ownership of private property". I can sum up fascism as "authoritarianism, nationalism, and corporatism combined". And all of these ideologies can be achieved with a simple vote. They require no outside support, and they don't have any prerequisites to being installed. They are also capable of adapting and having different policies to different situations, with capitalism having the free market react on its own and fascism having different nations do different actions.

But communism isn't like that. It requires a global socialist society before it can even hope to be put in place. It's reliant on the belief that the working class of the nation will be on their side. And any deviation to the plan, any unique versions of communism are quickly done away with. When you ask communists to explain how the global communist, stateless, classless society is to work they rarely agree. I just don't see it working out at all.

Well from what I remember and what I said earlier, Marx believed in materialism over idealism and that the workers was the reason for surplus, and since society is built on the surplus then the means of production should divided equally. He uses "class" as the entry point in the superstructure (society in whole of its parts, culture economics, politics, etc) to explain why the worker should resist "exploitation" of his labour power or something.

Is that the gist of it?

>post-scarcity society
There's that word again. You do realize we're not going to have a post-scarcity society until we have Star Trek style replicators, right?

I think so.

Maxists define class in terms of the relation a person has to the process of production in the workplace. A person who just sells their ability to work for a period of time is a prole and a person who makes profit from the ownership of productive property is bourgeois.

Very simply put: If the working class has all the power, and consciousness, what stops them from removing leaders not working in their interest?

There are people that are natural leaders, people that are more intelligent than others, people that are better at art than others etc.

In a classless society the idea is that these people will have the same economical interests as the less talented ones, and therefore when they work in their interest, they work in everybody's interest. Like in a tribe, where they chose the best tracker to lead the hunt and all benefits from him being a good tracker, including himself.

>How exactly can you achieve a "communist" society if you need education to do it
Most of the Communists in every attempt have not been "Marxists" or whatever, but soldiers following good or bad "Marxist" leaders.

You have the Marxist definition on class (pretty easy to just google it, others will give a better and longer answer than me).
And "Social classes" (not contradicting the Marxist definition but different and broader).

ow exactly can you achieve a "communist" society if you need education to do it, but education by definition creates a natural class structure based on intelligence?

again you say class is based on intelligence, which it clearly isn't. class is based solely on economic capability, reflected by ownership of the means of production (albeit today things are a little more complex). It has exploitation in it's essense

The only rational way would be to suppress the outputs of the intelligent to that of the weakest men. Or kill the weakest men/ force them to perform better, keep the average and suppress/kill the smart men.

this is non-sense

>What IS class?
It's a group of people who are at the same economical state, either owning means of production and making surplus value from them (bourgeoisie) or selling their labour for wages (proletariat). Now there are subclasses to these like petty-bourgeoisie (the "middle-class") or class traitors like cops or the military who while being proles, serve to keep the status quo in place against the interest of their fellow proles (lumpenproletariat in marxist terms). in essence though, there are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat

Commie here.

>Basically marxists (or communists if you like) were students of Hegel
Sort of? Marx drew heavily from Hegel but ultimately saw himself as one of Hegel's greatest critics. It wasn't until after WWII that today's Hegelian Marxism became a thing.

>who proposed the theory of Historicism (or Dialectics) - which states that history is a continuous string of conflicts between the status quo (the thesis) and the inevitability of change (the antithesis) which eventually gets resolved to form a new and improved status quo (the synthesis)...and the cycle repeats itself again.
The thesis and antithesis merge and assimilate into a synthesis. The synthesis isn't exactly a "new and improved" thesis, it's more of a merger of both elements in the the thesis and antithesis with the imperfections of each negated by the other.

Historical Materialism (what I think you meant by Historicism) is different. Basically it's the thought that society and human action are driven by material, predominantly economic conditions.

>And therefore when Marx crafted LTV ( labour theory of value)
Actually that was Adam Smith and David Ricardo's idea. Marx just took it and ran with it.

>Therefore socialism has become known as the stage dedicated to addressing the imbalances in the population when it comes to ownership of the means of production. That specific stage can take many forms, depending on where and when it takes place (market socialism, mutualism, autonomism, social democracy, etc).
The form of socialism Marx advocated was one in which the means of production was centralized into the hands of a state democratically controlled by the working class as a whole.
Market socialism is a meme, mutualism and autonomism are anarchist philosophies, and social democracy is socialist the same way North Korea is a democratic peoples' republic.

>Ultimately once socialism has achieved its goal of redistributing the wealth
Wealth and means of production aren't the same thing.

Because they don't have consciousness.

Yes, Marx is just a person, and you can be a Communist without having even read Marx - but he is at least in my opinion, the most important Communist scholar with Engels.

This is one of them :)

I could give a long answer and you would just ignore it.

How about the next time you try this magical act called R E A D I N G?

Give that long answer then.

Go ahead

>mfw capitalism has never succeeded before
>mfw when feudalism is still going

>can't even upload PDFs
wew shit site famlam, here have this book it is very short but super good book

libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf

...

>inb4 the words "cuck" or "jew" are used in less than 2 posts by one of these 2

True, at least the consciousness they need. There are plenty of oppressed workers that know that this is not how things should be, but lack leadership.

nice digits sniffles man. Yeah thanks for the clarifications, that's sort of what I remembered but you laid it out more clearly.

>Historical Materialism (what I think you meant by Historicism) is different
Yeah I know Marx used a different version of hegel's theory with the focus on materialism. I get all the names for "dialectic" types muddled up.

>The form of socialism Marx advocated was one in which the means of production was centralized into the hands of a state democratically controlled by the working class as a whole.
Yeah that's what caused the big split between commies and anarchists, isn't it? I bought Bakunin's God and the State on the subject but never finished it. Is it worth going back to it or is there a better anarchist out there of that period to explain it?

>Wealth and means of production aren't the same thing.
pls no bully, i was doing my best with 2000chars limit desu senpai

>since leaders are just there to represent the opinions of smaller councils and not their own opinions
so they are elected representatives? Like in a republic? Who is to stop them from expressing their own opinions once they have the power of leadership? As in, what structures are put in place to prevent the leaders from exerting their own free will to be selfish?

>from smaller councils to higher councils
So community councils which elect representatives which elect the president? How is this different from a republic?

>people won't feel the need to exploit others
What evidence do you have for this? is there any situation ever in human history where conflicts are non-existent? Conflict is a natural part of life and is impossible to eradicate as long as people communicate, learn and make mistakes there will be misunderstandings that lead to competition.

What evidence do you have that people would not feel the need to exploit others?

>those productive people do what they do 99% of the times out of passion for their work

But all our studies show that the most productive people in the world act for a mix of internal and external motivators. Money actually makes them MORE productive not less. Also comparisons between persons with passion in the same field will naturally lead to competition of which a resource will be used to determine the liking of one over another even if the resource is completely arbitrary and temporary. A false scarcity would be created so that an arbitrary value will have meaning in competitive situations. Otherwise if it is meaningless then there is no passion to speak of.

This is also implying people fully understand the things they want to do (they dont). How can they be passionate if they do not know what they want? Would it be the cognitive elite telling them what they should do?

curious, where do you lean ideologically then?

What's most odd about the communist ideology to me is that it hopes to have international global dominance, yet none of them are anywhere near unified enough for that. To list, there is:
>Leninism
>Marxism–Leninism
>Stalinism
>Trotskyism
>Maoism
>Dengism
>Prachanda Path
>Hoxhaism
>Titoism
>Eurocommunism
>Luxemburgism
>Council Communism
>Anarchist Communism
>Christian Communism

Of course, you'll not only have to deal with disagreements among each other, but with socialists who don't want to transition to communism, so you'll have to fight:
>Utopian Socialism
>Autonomism
>Anarchism
>Mutualism
>Collectivist Anarchism
>Anarcho-Syndicalism
>Social Democracy
>Democratic Socialism
>Liberal Socialism
>Ethical Socialism
>Libertarian Socialism
>Religious Socialism
>Christian Socialism
>Christian Anarchism
>Islamic Socialism
>Arab Socialism
>Irish Republican Socialism
>Eco Socialism
>Green Anarchism
>Ba'athism
>Ezker abertzalea
>Kuomintang and Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng

For a global ideology I have no idea how you plan on sticking together

>again you say class is based on intelligence, which it clearly isn't.
You have not read the bell curve if this is what you think. There is a massive wealth of reason to believe that there is a new cognitive class system.

For a summary:
>The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book by psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray, in which the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level. They also argue that those with high intelligence, the "cognitive elite", are becoming separated from those of average and below-average intelligence.

Advancement in schooling and education increasingly selects the higher intelligence and these persons are increasingly filtered into leadership and high cognitive demand roles which are very important in society creating a "class" system that differs more significantly by cognitive ability than anything else. The central problem being that these ultra educated smart boys are disconnected from the lives of the masses. Same exact problem marx had with his shit society but applied to americans and based on actual numbers and job statistics.

Simply put: Napoleon declared himself Emperor, and yet there are few Kings and Emperors left (excluding the God Emperor obviously).

A Communistic country (or world) have never been achieved, but there have been various socialistic systems put in place that have done many things like ending hunger, giving education and health care, proper housing and other infrastructure etc. so it's very wrong to say that it have been a failure. The first wave of Communist revolutions did leave a print on the world, just like the "Bourgeoisie" revolutions that abolished feudalism, that also came in waves and in different ways (all with violence or with the threat of violence though).

I, and if I can speak for other Communists, believe that a Communistic country/world is ideal and a logical next step in human development.

what IS exploitation you are talking about?

A man can own a factory and pay his workers well to operate the machinery and this arrangement be entirely voluntary.

>so they are elected representatives? Like in a republic? Who is to stop them from expressing their own opinions once they have the power of leadership? As in, what structures are put in place to prevent the leaders from exerting their own free will to be selfish?

>ok frank, us 50 workers from xy car factory have chosen you to go represent our opinion which is x y z upon voting to the general area car factory assembly. jane, you will be going next year

>what the fuck frank we told you to say x y z fuck you frank you're useless man

>What evidence do you have for this? is there any situation ever in human history where conflicts are non-existent? Conflict is a natural part of life and is impossible to eradicate as long as people communicate, learn and make mistakes there will be misunderstandings that lead to competition.

the only leading factor in conflict throughout history has been material need mate. as for today, exploitation exists simply because the capitalist mode of production conditions you with the ultimate goal of becoming a millionaire. studies on the other hand done in the us have shown that once people reach 60-70k monthly income, their happiness does not increase. and since we are talking about a post-scarcity society where there this violence and exploitation you call "human nature" will not be promoted by the system nor will there be material need to drive people, no one will wake up one day and think "im gonna exploit my coworkers"

>.But all our studies show that the most productive people in the world act for a mix of internal and external motivators
citation?

>Money actually makes them MORE productive not less

yes, because there still is a) material need and b) capitalist propaganda which influences the person's perceived goal in life

I have no clue tbqh senpai, I borrow a bit from everything. I always felt torn between civic nationalism and classic liberalism. I'm probably some sort of neo-con shitbag in denial, kek

Yes we are fucked, thanks for reminding me lol

>also comparisons between persons with passion in the same field will naturally lead to competition

but this doesn't happen even now on an academic level, and when it does it's inter-faculty and about funding. scientific progress is based on stepping on previous people's findings and putting your input in, as well as working closely with your colleagues. this perceived antagonism you refer to doesn't exist, and when it does it's materialistically and ideologically driven

>a resource will be used to determine the liking of one over another even if the resource is completely arbitrary and temporary. A false scarcity would be created so that an arbitrary value will have meaning in competitive situations

i don't understand what you mean by this part, care to elaborate?

>This is also implying people fully understand the things they want to do (they dont). How can they be passionate if they do not know what they want? Would it be the cognitive elite telling them what they should do?

I don't see how this is associated to the mode of production though. The best measure for this is a good educational system that gives children a stimulus from every field so they can decide by 18 what they want to do

The hope is that they can unify under the common goal of worker control over the means of production.

Okay, but that doesn't really indicate a move towards communism so much as a move towards socialism. To move towards communism the state would have to be getting weaker, but if anything its getting stronger.

In fact, I could say that fascism has been making headway since WW2, with the Constitution being weakened by FDR and FDR instituting somewhat fascist policies, nationalist sentiment degrading the power of the EU and UN, Trump being elected and other nationalist contenders such Marine le Pen capable of taking leadership in the future, protectionism on the rise, Brexit and possibly Italexit, Putins rise and his attempted control over the oligarchs, the corporatism of the nordic countries until the 70's and then the backlash against massive immigration throughout all of Europe, etc.

That's usually what happens to heterodox ideologies though, they tend to splinter mianly over minute academic differences.

Which in the case of left wing ideologies, I do not mind in the slightest - no offense lad.

but again this is a book (which i wont argue about without having read it) which describes a phenomenon within the capitalist mode of production. it simply states that when there's a society where people are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that their goal in life should be to become millionaires and millionaires are being idolized etc, more intelligent people will statistically achieve this goal more often (which again doesn't mean all smart people are rich etc, class origins play a much bigger role). But in a classless post-scarcity society, the 2 forces pushes people to exploitation (system propaganda and physical need) have been eliminated, hence the drive to exploit

I'm not saying more intelligent people might not feel inclined to associate with each other, but that doesn't mean they will strive to exploit their fellow man.

as a personal sidenote on this topic, i myself am someone who doesn't associate that much with the general population. but that is because most of them are spooked by the system so much that they cannot even hold a stimulating conversation without it including neo-liberal ideological garbage like commercial music or tv or "celebrity worship" or whatever. But that doesn't mean that I'd want to exploit them, especially if there are no need to for me to survive

>A man can own a factory and pay his workers well to operate the machinery and this arrangement be entirely voluntary

it really isn't voluntary, since if people don't work they'll starve to death while the factory owner pockets disproportional amounts of profit for the work he didn't do

ah so you're fairly spooked

i'd suggest reading some stirner (memes aside). since you seem to understand the basics of marxism, the spooks seem to be the only thing holding you back

>since if people don't work they'll starve to death
You can criticize the other aspects of capitalism, but what you can't do is claim that you won't have to work or starve to death under communism as well

>Yeah that's what caused the big split between commies and anarchists, isn't it?
Yeah. Commies say the state is alright when the workers run it, but anarchists say it's always bad and would only hinder the development of communism.

>bought Bakunin's God and the State on the subject but never finished it. Is it worth going back to it or is there a better anarchist out there of that period to explain it?
I haven't read Bakunin desu but I heard the Conquest of Bread was a good at illustrating what a communist society could look like. It's next on my list.

[spoiler]But I haven't started it so it could be a could be a cook book for all I know.[/spoiler]

>pls no bully, i was doing my best with 2000chars limit desu senpai
Sorry senpai, just trying to make sure normies don't get their panties in a twist thinking socialists want to steal their toothbrushes and macbooks.

>implying Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism aren't the same thing
>implying Luxemburgism and Council Comunsim aren't the same thing
>implying Hoxhaism, Titoism, and Utopian Socialism aren't dead memes
>implying Christian Communism/Socialism/Anarchism, Arab Socialism, Irish Republican Socialism, Islamic socialism, Ethical Socialism, Religious Socialism, Liberal Socialism, and Democratic Socialism are mutually exclusive
>implying all listed forms of Anarchism as well as Autonomism and Libertarian Socialism aren't compatible with each other

Try harder next time.

yes you will. but there wont be someone exploiting the value you're creating

The people who espouse those ideologies would care to disagree with you

>the only leading factor in conflict throughout history has been material need mate.

I did an advanced course on conflict theory. The leading factors that lead to long term conflict are two things truly. 1) identity differences and 2) zero sum economic situations that are large scale.

Otherwise:
Identity, culture, communication, relationships, language, beliefs, values.
All of these affect conflict in addition to material difference.

The vast majority of shit we fight about is mixed in with a fuck ton of values, beliefs and all influenced heavily by communication. You eradicate economic scarcity of material goods and then people form groups by identities. Family name for the nepotistic, culture for the ethnocentric, nationality for the xenophobic, value systems for the patriotic, religious beliefs and their relation to law for the religious.

The very fact that people have differing interests means that a consensus will not be reached without competition. A competition that itself is an economy over a scarcity -- the elected representatives opinion--.

>citation?
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110098/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
>However, under some circumstances, certain forms of reward may enhance intrinsic motivation through a process of motivational synergy.

mmrg.pbworks.com/f/Ryan, Deci 00.pdf
>Intrinsic motivation remains an important construct, reflecting the natural human propensity to learn and assimilate. However, extrinsic motivation is argued to vary considerably in its relative autonomy and thus can either reflect external control or true self-regulation.

>SDT proposes that there are varied types of extrinsic motivation, some
of which do, indeed, represent impoverished forms of motivation and some
of which represent active, agentic states.

Care to give an example?

This Jesus Christ, how many people have been intentionally starved to death by communists even when thy wanted to work?

>Identity, culture, communication, relationships, language, beliefs, values.
>All of these affect conflict in addition to material difference.

all these things (other than identity obviously, which you seem to equate with how spooked you are) are spooks pushed by the ruling class. in a communist society, which has undergone hundreds of years of socialism first, these spooks don't exist. if you aren't taught something growing up, it wont be implanted on your behavior