Is communism inevitable?

Is communism inevitable?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nVNQ13f4qzM
theregister.co.uk/2016/10/18/basic_income_after_automation_thats_not_how_capitalism_works/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

on the contrary, communism is more avoidable than any other system

Only if we don't resist, communism and Marxism is basically the default politics of people who don't really want to be better and would rather everyone was simply worse so they can pretend they're better.

yes

it's alot more likely than natsoc at this point.

helicopter rides are inevitable

Yes.

nature abhors a vacuum, there will be retards that fall into Marx's unrealistic utopia

Not with the left picking Islam over workers.

Best repl,y. 10/10 shills BTFO

Yes
The fact that the revolutions are 90% Marxist shows you what people want. And inevitably, people will win

Is death?

Assuming the whole "lel automation" meme is true, it'll probably be a worldwide split between fascism and communism.

Well since communism is inevitable, every response to it is just as inevitable

Not at all. Most people can google what communism is nowadays and will justifiably shun it when they see how retarded it is.

>would rather everyone was simply worse so they can pretend they're better.
ebin meme dood XDDD
HAHAHAHAHA FUCKINGGGG EPICCCCCC XDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go back to /x/ you reptillian.

The "lel automation" is just a meme, people have to work, it is in their blood. One of the main reasons marxist revolutions were su successful was the fact that Marxism wanted to abolish worker alienation. Nobody wants to feel they are expandable and that a machine can do all the work, if anything "lel automation" will lead to a revolution

Think about it, do you want to get up in the morning and realize you have nothing to do ? Every morning ? You're just expandable, your existence serves no purpose to the humanity ?
Automation is stupid

Nod eb arbumant.

But the problem with communism is that it doesn't really seek to fill this desire to work, the desire for purpose, even in their own explanations and charts automation has always been a replacement for work, not a supplement to it.

Not true, modern communists usually seek this "utopia", but any reasonable Marxist is against this. the "original" Marxists held their ideas with Hegel who praised work as "the work was a motivation for life" and the famous(although not Hegel, and although used ironically by the nazis) "Work liberates"

One of the main problems with capitalism is that the worker cannot see himself in his work, since the worker too is just an object that capitalists "use" to make money. Removing the worker from the process completely doesn't solve the problem, but only deepens it

But I think this divide between the worker and his work is only deepened when his is forcibly separated from his creation. Sure, I'm more connected with my work under communism, but I can never really build something, look back and say "this is mine, I built this", and then proceed to use it and do with it whatever I please.

Luckily, there is a 3rd path between capitalism and communism.

True, you are not 100% with your product, but you can make a difference. Under capitalism, however, you are usually completely detached from your creation. Take for instance Market socialism
Every factory democratically elects new factory officials who have their mandates, anyone can become an official as long as they work in that factory. The workers decide directly how their products are placed on the market and how the factory/industry functions. The officials have slightly higher paychecks, but they don't own the factory they just serve it, they can't exploit the workers for their needs. Ultimately, everything is regulated by the state, an organ witch ensures that everything is fair, which is, again, regulated by the workers and works similarly as those same factories (Officials are elected by the people). This system ensures that none is exploited and that people are not just objects that are used to accumulate wealth.
>Yugoslavia

And if communism is kept that way, then I don't have too much of a problem with it, so long as it doesn't go for the whole "global revolution" idea.

Why not ?
Marxism strives to liberate everyone

Not everyone wants to be "liberated". If what you have works in your country, then fine, keep it there, but we have our own ways of doing things and if you try to screw with that system then there's going to be violence. If the people of a country want communism they'll revolt on their own, so just leave those countries alone.

Autism

communism can only latch on to other successful and prospering civilizations when they are past their peak, and lost their pride. It may be inevitable, but it is always a temporary low before the great rebirth.

people are lazy and dumb and want free stuff

wow really maked me think

Yes.

That's what I meant, if the workers want to revolt, they should do it. But I believe that once the "inevitable" revolution comes, large portions of the world will revolt
The 20th century revolutions ultimately failed because of the undermining west, next time, hopefully, they will be allowed freely

Read this fag

>The 20th century revolutions ultimately failed because of the undermining west, next time, hopefully, they will be allowed freely
Ultimately the ideology that wins is the only one that matters. If you can't force your way past the subversion and resistance that the other systems offer, then don't expect your ideology to come to fruition anytime soon.

yes because we don't, and never will, live in a post scarcity world

I mean literally undermined by the west, usually U.S, especially Regan. Regan was notorious for financing and militarizing foreign revolutions. In facts most of the revolutions were followed with contra revolutions organized by the west (Bay of the pigs for example). If you don't want communists forcing their ideology onto you, then it should be logical that you shouldn't approve west doing the same thing

If we ever reach post-scarcity, a variation of it might become inevitable.

>Not everyone wants to be "liberated".
Most do though. Its usually US hegemony that interrupts their democratic shift to communism.

For example, Vietnam was overwhelmingly communist. Elite bankers that owned plantations in one city in South Vietnam carried out an ad campaign and begged the US for help because their workers left and created a banana utopia without them. These lazy shitbag plantation owners had never worked a day in their life and didn't know how. Then US basically acted as a private military for these plantation owners and firebombed the fields in the North until people were starving and started marching back south to get their jobs back. Then they blamed the deaths on the communists.

Kinda like they did in all the countries pic related, including

>>Yugoslavia

NatSoc is pretty close to state capitalism+borders. The reason Communism strives to be global, or at least the majority, is because greedy (((Capitalists))) will always fuck it up. The USSR is a testament to the failure of "Socialism in One Country".

All *they* has to do is influence 51% of the market and wait.

its not even on the list of possibilities

No, communism isn't sustainable. It doesn't account for brutal competition. It always breaks.

fuck off commie

this

Says the man with a leaf on his flag

Oh sure, I wouldn't want to subvert the communist nations and I would hope they wouldn't try to subvert mine, but for most communists communism is a global ideology, everybody is meant to take part, some even say communism can't happen until it is global, so communists have always been very active in supporting communist revolutions in other countries. The fact that these countries decide to do subversion of their own is only natural and expected.

Vietnam is not communist today though, and that didn't take a USA coup to achieve.

tbqh I think "Communism" as we know it will change into a hybrid confederation of nationalistic "states".under mutualist anarchism. I'd be okay with that. I'd also be okay with AnCapistan plus monopoly rules. Of course for me these are considered stepping stones to Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.

I think that it would be natural for Capitalism to become Socialist: food, water, housing, clothes, transportation, electricity, basic tools, a plot of land. These should be provided by the state.

This triggers a lot of people, but these can be provided without expense to YOU. Fun fact: we have enough food to feed the world ten times over, we don't because distribution and logistics are controlled by the Elite. We have enough houses to give every homeless person a home. The construction workers - the people who actually built the houses - they have been paid. Guess who makes a profit keeping those houses empty? Its not YOU!

Imagine if the construction workers who built a house collected the rent instead of some slummy landlord? Or if the $12,000,000 bonus for the CEO who built an apartment was distributed among the people who actually mined the steel and concrete out of the ground? Suddenly its not so expensive giving chicken strips to all 10 of the fatherless kids.

I really don't know how the 1% meme didn't take off.

"Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires"

I hope Trump dissolves The Fed but I'm very worried hes gonna stab us all in the back.

youtube.com/watch?v=nVNQ13f4qzM

A little socialism is still required here and there, even most of the libertarians will acknowledge the need for government made roads. But the efficiency of capitalism cannot be denied either, its ability to provide more of everything is unmatched, even by the coops, communes, and workers unions espoused by the communists. So the balance is in having socialism where absolutely necessary, capitalism where possible, and then directing that capitalism towards the benefit of the nation. That is ultimately the system of fascism.

You kids sound like you want the 4th political theory. Read up on Dugin.

Classical Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism all detach you from your sense of Being.

I just must say this, this is what Sup Forums needs to become, rational discussion about politics. Without the "post truth" arguments and shitty "We'll take your toothbrush" / "Free helicopter rides" crap

Congrats to everyone on this thread

Fascism is in no way a economic ideology, all that fascism seeks is to conduct the "post-truth" beliefs by all means necessary. I agree that force is sometimes needed to achieve something, but not fascism, it usually depends on extreme nationalism and xenophobia. Fascist also usually use subjective arguments to get people on their side (Imigrants are taking our jobs hurr durr). It says nothing about complex economic and social problems and only seeks destruction of others

>Fascism is in no way a economic ideology
>it usually depends on extreme nationalism and xenophobia
>Fascist also usually use subjective arguments to get people on their side (Imigrants are taking our jobs hurr durr)
>It says nothing about complex economic and social problems and only seeks destruction of others
*leans into mic* WRONG

better dead than red

Whatever, I'm going to sleep , it's almost 5 in the morning here

Haha, okay goodbye. Seriously though, read up on fascism a bit. Not from Marx, either, but from actual fascists.

>Is communism inevitable?
Only if someone comes up with nearly infinite EROEI energy source.

>you want the 4th political theory
Sounds okay.

>Read up on Dugin.
I have been. Its weird how Putin is supposed to be KBG subverting the west for "Communism". I feel like there will be a movement to a more traditional type of "Communism" led by Dugin/Bannon ideology. I hope the Holy war stuff is a meme, because some Muslims can be perfectly secular it would be nice to bring them into that. It would also be nice if US soldiers didn't have to die. I'm half worried its a ploy to enslave the US to Russia's State Capitalism. Even more likely with China.

There's a lot of chatter about Christianity going through the reformation and that's why Christian nations are "better". Imagine if Atheist Communism and Islam could be reformed under esoteric spiritual secularism. I think its already happening because of the internet. Kids have goofy ideas about ghosts these days and develop their own Gnostic psuedoreligions because they crave spirituality in an cold Atheist world.

I think part of what Dugin talks about is the alienation resulting from the dissolve traditional Community where as Marx over-focuses on class. Integration of the community and labor is paramount and a synthesis of the two would be brilliantly dialectic. Marx didn't live in a service industry or a digital world. I think Leftists can move beyond Communism in name and theory. Remember who benefits most on keeping left and right separate, and in fact from continuing to distinguish politics as right-left instead of top-down.

Is communism inevitable? Asks the guy from a country with a central bank and public schooling.

Fascism is the combination of state and corporate power. Corporatism.

>actual fascists
can u give me a primer?

Fasces : a bundle of rods(faggot, jk)
Symbolizes the authority of the elite group?

So fascism is rule by the (elite)"group".

>A number of historians regard fascism as either a revolutionary centrist doctrine

is it centrist? like dead center? who controls the economy if its not the individual or collective? Is it decided by the elite group?

Who decides the elite group? It seems to me that it would be whoever is strongest. I recognize this is similarly an issue with the dictatorship of the proletariat under communism, which is why I am looking for a synthesis. I don't see how fascism can synthesize with Libertarianism.

Fascism makes sense to me if you make certain assumptions, like that some people are *inherently* better than others and that the best would rule. But isn't that just Authoritarian Meritocracy?

It seems like the "group" in fascism is subjective, which is why its not called meritocracy. I'm trying to stay abstract because so far there is nothing from stopping idk, Asian people - from adopting fascism - and there's a whole lot more of them which brings us right back to whos the biggest/strongest.

It also seems like the elite group necessarily lives at the expense of minority groups that are not treated as citizens with full human rights, so that makes it sorta sometimes merit based neo-feudalism?

>Wanting you and your life to be controlled by a few select people
Why? I'm interested in why you are a fascist though as I'm an ancom myself so it's interesting to see others view points

In like 3000 years once humanity has transcended to the next stage and there is no need for the Nation-State model anymore.

But as long as this generation is alive commies will get their shit pushed in.

Continuing is fascist always authoritarian? Or like, if Hitler won and everyone was German and there are no second class citizens doesn't that mean Germans would have to do slave work like butchers and janitors?

How much does Fascism cross with National Socialism? What about Nazbols(Dugin)?

Confederated nation states? Democracy? Separate but equal? Socialism? Do these exist under fascism? Italy and Germany both had "living space" in their plans, can fascism respect borders.

Again with the centrist question, are NatSocs left? Was Hitler left? Are NazBols? It seems like fascism is lefty since it controls collectively what people do.

Marx could not fathom the coming technological singularity. Communism is a pipe dream.

With that said, capitalism won't fail, it will only evolve, and it doesn't involve the replacement of human productivity.

theregister.co.uk/2016/10/18/basic_income_after_automation_thats_not_how_capitalism_works/

>can u give me a primer?
Well the "Doctrine of Fascism" is sort of the fascist version of the Communist Manifesto, but there are other books that better explain fascism, and some books that explain the mindset behind fascism without necessarily espousing the system.

But fascism adapts itself to the nation that adopts it, fascism can have democratic elements to it, although it would never be a full democracy like Switzerland.

Personally, I would have the people only vote for the ministers of their industry, if your a farmer you vote for Ministers of Agriculture, if your a doctor you vote for Ministers of Healthcare, and these ministers then vote on the ruler. But that's just my recommended system, different nations will have different ideas about that.

Anarch communism is an oxymoron

No it's not

Is socio-capitalism inevitable?

no, because communism is a stateless society and even leftists will tell you that there needs to be a semblance of a state for maintaining education and infrastructure

>

I think communism would only work if we had fusion power and replicators, and only with a species of AnCap space Jews facilitating distribution of non replicated goods like dilithium for goods that require replication, labor and time

How are you going to abolish private property?

REEEEE ANSWER

By having the workers seize the means of production
There is a distincrion between private and personal property

You're always under the control of others. In anarcho-communism and modern democracies you are under the "collective", in libertarianism you are under the control of who has the money. With that in mind I don't necessarily look to be "free", but merely purposeful. If we're going to be controlled, at least let us move towards greatness instead of mindless consumerism and hedonism.

Who are the "workers"? Do they card-carrying members of the Proletariat club?

How do the workers seize the means of production? So do you want to abolish private or personal property?

>In anarcho-communism and modern democracies you are under the "collective"
But what if most of the collective agree? Seeing as you need the support of the people for a revolution they would most likely have similar ideas
>towards greatness
What do you mean by this?

It's in the name ffs are you thick?Private

They seize the means of production by kicking out the parasites e.g. bosses that do nothing and taking it for themselves collectively

I'll ask you again. Who are the "workers"?

Collectivism is cancer. If you cant understand individual liberty/sovereignty you deserve to be thrown off a helicopter

Who is a "boss"? Does this include middle-management?

Answer my questions.

The workers are the people who work. Not bourgeoisie parasites
StevenMolyMeme.jpeg

Do nothing except provide the possibility for the company to exist and manage everyone.

Define that, please. What's the salary cap on a "worker"? Is $50k and below a "worker"?

I don't listen to molyneux I just understand self ownership. Maybe you should red pill yourself with some mark passio

How? The workers are the ones who produce
>he paid for it
And he also steals from others as wel
lIf the middle managers actual work it depends really

Are you thick? Or just pretending

>If the middle managers actual work it depends really

Now we're getting somewhere. And who is to decide how well someone is or isn't worthy of their salary?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

You think that being a boss means no work. You're fucking retarded. Sorry.

>salary
>in ancom
Stop doing this and google what ancoms stand for please educate yourself

No I just think most big business bosses are parasites as well as shareholders

Hurrr durrr business owners did nothing to create their business it just comes out of the void

Communists are inevitable -- like rats in a city. Communism, however, is not inevitable.

>if he paid for it he deserves to steal my labour
No

You were ready to defend communism, and you couldn't do so on the most basic level. Sad!

Government is the true parasite. Government doesn't provide services and get voluntary payments like any other business, the only way they know how to make money is by theft with a gun.

>Doctrine of Fascism

>Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism

>The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian

>A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);


>Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system

Interesting.

> Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism

but makes the same mistake of alienating workers with an oppressive state that Stalin did.

>Integration of the community and labor is paramount
I think removing Christianity was one of the bigger mistakes of the USSR. I was reading something about cities repopulating the country side by combining farms with factories so that communities could sustain themselves.

>Durkheim suggested that in a "primitive" society, mechanical solidarity, with people acting and thinking alike and with a collective or common conscience, is what allows social order to be maintained.

Something like 3d workshop and makerspace in the middle of nowhere on a farm next to a church that starts drawing people back to the country side. Esoteric Communalism

>But what if most of the collective agree?
Does that matter? If 51% of a people can force the other 49% to do what they want, is that less forceful and oppressive somehow? I don't think it is. Having the majority on one side in no way implies that the majority is in the right. If you know something is wrong and everyone else on Earth disagrees with you, you still ought to stand up and fight to fix it.

>What do you mean by this?
Most of capitalism is geared towards simple consumerism and waste, we make our goods to go obsolete soon so we can make people buy new goods, and the capitalist system just turns you into a mindless wage slave.

Meanwhile, most of the communists I've met seem to have the sole goal of not working, just living a life of hedonism and laziness, where "automation" does all the work necessary for us. I don't think that's a life worth living, not for me at least.

Yes, if someone provides the opportunity for you to make money, it's on their own terms.

And I'm saying that the Capitalism system is bad not just the gov
No it's because you don't even know the basics of ancom and you won't bother to look it up either

is OP being a fag inevitable?