1. Technological advancement makes more egalitarian labor arrangements viable over time

1. Technological advancement makes more egalitarian labor arrangements viable over time.
2. As new arrangements become viable, the societal response has been to implement the new labor arrangements.
3. We are continuing to advance technology, thus, more egalitarian labor arrangements are still on their way.
4. Socialism is predicted to be the next labor arrangement that will become viable due to technological advancement.
5. Socialism is advocated for due to it having more egalitarian labor arrangements than capitalism.
6. Once it becomes viable it will either replace capitalism peacefully or require a revolution to replace capitalism.
7. Those who believe it will replace capitalism peacefully are attempting to "ease" the society into socialism through democratic means: i.e. democratic socialists
8. This process is inevitable given our constant advancement in technology.
9. The process is predicted to go from socialism to communism.
10. Predictions are hazy about what will come after communism, however, more egalitarian labor arrangements will become viable after communism.
11. Thus, it is predicted that "labor" will cease to exist eventually.

These are the facts.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RDw1wKKBBUQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

socialism will always decentralize back into capitalism, as long as there are no wars.

yep, marxism can work when we become transhumans. Until then...

That's cool and all, now explain to me why that means I have to fill my country with shitskins?

I agree that it will do that so long as technology has not made socialism viable.
Once it is made viable, socialism will prosper as capitalism does today.

I never said you have to fill your nation with shitskins.
I don't know if it will require is to become transhumans. However, even if it did I don't imagine that is too far away. Maybe less than 200 years, does that seem like a good estimate?

Equality doesn't exist. It's for imbeciles.

Bingo. Socialism is fine in heterogenous communities with a strong sense of culture and national pride/security

But letting in millions of uneducated, illiterate, religious zealots doesn't work regardless of what economic system you pursue

You didn't, but it seems to be on the agenda of virtually every socialist movement in the world, so I thought you might have some input.

Egalitarian labor arrangements do exist however. And as they become viable the societal response has been to implement them.
Just to reiterate: I am not advocating mass migration of millions of foreigners to go into any country.
Right now I advocate what is good for capitalism because successful capitalism means technology will advance at a faster rate.
As the user above you said, that kind of migration is not good for the economy. So I don't advocate that.

The societal response has been to crumble. Equality begets dysgenics which begets it's own destruction. Equality - de facto, the destruction of hierarchy - leads to our death.

Kike Marx
Clara zet kin
Betty Friedan
Gloria Steinem
Lena Dunham
Judd apatow

All hate us and our gender roles.

Nations crumble all the time for various reasons. That will continue to happen until nations are no longer a thing. But human societies in general have become more egalitarian overtime.

Additionally, there is no manner through which this equality could exist, as a state would have to administer it and the "needs" of which Marx speaks are impossible to enumerate in full.

For example, I have the FAT/CD36 gene as a result of Neanderthal admixture which my prothease profile shows as happening roughly 101,5kya. This gene means I can better break down n-3 fatty-acids, and as a result reaching my full potential (which is greater than a clone without the gene) would require greater consumption. I couldn't moderate this on my own, nor could such a thing be supplied efficiently, as evinced in the various requisition processes shown throughout time.

Further beyond the complexity of the individual there lies the economy. The historical record shows that no state may manage it effectively.

>Nations crumble all the time for various reasons.

That's not a justification for making it crumble due to a reason we know we can prevent. Not an argument.

>That will continue to happen until nations are no longer a thing.

Not an argument.

>But human societies in general have become more egalitarian overtime.

Inequality is higher than ever. Average wealth is greater, but this does not mean that inequality is reduced. No arguments found.

Your thread is too long, just lynch niggers you fucking nigger faggot,

KILLL NIGGERS

youtube.com/watch?v=RDw1wKKBBUQ

Why would anyone innovate in an economy where no work needs to be done and risks are eliminated, anyway?

Communism sans;

A) control of breeding, and;

B) private property, and;

C) unequal rewards matching unequal ability...

would not stand.

>That's not a justification for making it crumble due to a reason we know we can prevent. Not an argument.
My previous post said that I wasn't advocating equality. So I'm not justifying any reason you say makes anything crumble.
>Not an argument.
Of course it's not, I never said it was. I'm highlighting how nations are inherently unstable. Everything someone says is not meant to be an argument.
>Inequality is higher than ever. Average wealth is greater, but this does not mean that inequality is reduced. No arguments found.
You keep attacking a strawman of my beliefs. I've already said I'm not advocating equality or concerned about inequality. I'm talking about egalitarian labor arrangements. Labor arrangements have become more egalitarian overtime independent of however "equal" everything else is.

Just because identity-politics-peddling postmodern SJW's of the academia tend to self-identify as Marxists, Sup Forums assumes that Karl Marx actually had much to do with such strands of thought.

His main concern was a pretty sober critique of capitalism, without appeal to any sort of moral principle of equality (basically along the lines of "of course given the conditions these are the actions people take out of their own interests, and the exchanges taking place fairly, but then here's what all this will lead to").

Concerning the blame you put on him for the present-day multicultural trends etc., here are a couple of passages from his private correspondences:

>(Marx to Engels on Lassalle:)
>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.

>Lafargue has the blemish customarily found in the negro tribe – no sense of shame, by which I mean shame about making a fool of oneself.

He is also included in many lists of Jews involved in various cultural/political Jewish conspiracies. Well, he had Jewish blood (his father converted), but:

"Marx’s essay, On the Jewish Question, originally published in 1844 contains the following:

>What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Marx argues that, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” Larry Ray explains, “Marx’s position is essentially an assimilationist one in which there is no room within emancipated humanity for Jews as a separate ethnic or cultural identity.” Dennis Fischman puts it, “Jews, Marx seems to be saying, can only become free when, as Jews, they no longer exist.”"

You're erecting another straw man here. Marxists don't believe that in communism "no work needs to be done" and they don't believe that "risks are eliminated" either.

It's not a strawman as I'm clearly pointing to myself. It's a statement.

Communism will arrive around the same time Jesus Returns

if I'm reading into your post correctly you typo'd "sans" and meant to say "says". So you claimed that "communism says" then proceeded to erect a straw man to attack.

also you might have meant to say "bans". my point would still stand for that as well