So marxism is a complete and utter failure of an ideology. Never once has it been succesfully applied long term, it's never come close to succeeding
but how well would a communist regime work if it was governed by a gigantic, incorruptible AI that was programmed to keep everyone happy and productive in every sector of the economy?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
The government is irrelevant; happiness is not improved beyond baseline by material wealth but by self-determination. This is why the founders of the world's most successful country guaranteed only the pursuit of happiness.
>but how well would a communist regime work if it was governed by a gigantic, incorruptible AI that was programmed to keep everyone happy and productive in every sector of the economy?
We Psycho Pass now.
>founders of the world
>implying anglos are the legacy of the roman empire
Britain is the most successful country in the world? I'm flattered but you're wrong.
oh so you were referring to Europe then, ok that makes sense given that America was built by a variety of euros
I was referring to the US Declaration of Independence which, indeed, was written by men of Anglo and European stock.
oh nevermind, when you said "the founders of the world's most successful country" I thought you meant "the most successful country produced by the founders of the world (the British)"
Fair enough.
what would your crime coefficient be if you fapped to loli pron?
asking for a friend
>inb4 real communism has never been tried
youtube.com
it has been tried hundreds of times, and the only reason it got popular was because of the early Industrial Revolution working conditions
But times are changing and it doesn't hurt to think about what could happen
The innovation we're seeing, the internet and computers and AI and voice/facial recognition? I would argue we're in the middle of a period just as significant as the Industrial Revolution, if not more
That's probably a good question.
Then again, didn't we find out that Crime Coefficient is all just made up shit? Most of the time if it's some nobody, they basically just do a background check and judge all the information they have on them and judge them, but if it's a person of interest the secret brain club just judges them as either dead or in people like Makashima's case they never judge him negatively because they want him alive.
So I dunno, I assume in this futuristic 1984-like dystopia, the Sybil System knows if you fap to loli porn. I'm sure they monitor all Internet activity. I think if it was cartoon lolis they wouldn't judge you for rehab or execution if you're a taxpaying cog in their machine. Real life lolis they might judge you for lethal elimination.
>So marxism is a complete and utter failure of an ideology.
>Never once has it been succesfully applied
Pick only one
>Never once has it succeeded
is what I meant
>but how well would a communist regime work
FUCK OFF COMMIES
YOUR IDEAS ARE STUPID
Marxism has caused hundreds of millions of death but you can be one publically and keep your job and social standing.
yeah and the movie Trumbo was made by biased commie sympathizers etc.
It's a hypothetical question
Marxism is a framework of analysis that sees all social change as coming from class conflict. You can actually be a Marxist and still be far-right.
even if it worked perfectly as planned the average person would still be unfullfilled and unhappy having nothing to strive for and just sitting about all day having everything handed to them for free by a robot like the fat blob people in Wall-E, look how dysfunctional and depressed the average person is today who's on welfare programs compared to people who are even poorer than them but have employment
>You can actually be a Marxist and still be far-right.
Similarly, you can eat meat and criticize the food industry for the "unnecessary suffering of animals".
communism would never work without labor. But yeah, it is demoralizing to be brought down to the same level as everyone else when you're more talented/hardworking than most; that's the biggest problem with communism besides the near-certainty of corruption
You don't get it.
The dogma of the far-left is not Marxism; it is rather the belief in the intrinsic equality between people. Drop that, and they will completely crumble. You can be a Marxist, meaning you see everything in terms of class conflict, and still be far-right if you actually think hierarchy and order trumps the intrinsic equality meme. Actually, a Marxist recommendation would be to stomp the proletariat to prevent revolution. You can even frame the proletariat in a bad way, as they are breaking a system that works to "be free" and reduce it to chaos.
I HATE GODDAMN LEAFS SO GODDAMN MUCH
It would not. You cannot steal from someone and keep him happy at the same time. Marxism implies theft, there can be no marxism without taking the property of others and using it as you see fit.
Also, marxist societies cant innovate.
No, you don't get it. The analysis of society and history from a class antagonism perspective *does not* help the far-right. It's simply not a perspective that a morally legitimate philosopher can use to defend right-wing politics, for reasons that should be obvious. That's why people think of Marxism as almost synonymous with left-wing politics
We're lucky that communism doesn't work, because if it ever DID work it would produce a horrific dystopia.
Marx wanted to do away with the family, the nation, and the concept of ethnicity, along with social class. He was opposed to ANY social structure which is exclusive and privileges some people ahead of others. Problem is forming ingroups/outgroups is the most natural, basic human tendency there is. Lack of belonging to an ingroup is extremely psychologically damaging (this is borne out in lots of psychological and sociological research)
We ALREADY have a problem in modern capitalism that people have no sense of belonging or roots or meaning in life. Communism would make this 10000x worse.
I don't care if it could somehow make everybody productive and prosperous. A spiritually meaningless, uneventful life spent doing nothing producing and consuming is fundamentally anti-human. People need belonging and struggle and higher meaning and to defend the things they hold dear.
shut the fuck up eurofag
go get cucked by a terrorist why don't you
now that's an answer I was looking for, thanks
You fucking tard leaf, I am the fucking terorist
No, it is not obvious. Tell me why it can't. Fascism is even heavily inspired on Marxism.
You don't even to follow the beliefs of the guy who made the theory, or the people who used it. Social darwinism used to be a leftist thing until Hitler took it over, for instance.
whoa, what happened to removing kebab? I mean I know your gene pool was enriched by centuries of Ottoman occupation but come on
We are still not ready for it
Leaf, your country is dying out this moment
Still shit.
Happiness and utility are totally subjective and based on individual preferences, yet they're the basis for efficient allocation of resources.
There's no way to program everyone's specific preferences into an AI.
let me tell u of the only communism that ever worked (or works the best) which would be religious communism. though not holding a state, government and/or political rule catholic religious monasteries have practiced an almost pseudo-communist rule for hundreds of years (yes even before marx). monasteries can be considered communist even though they may not apply marx's theories of economics or his ideologies of communism but have the basics of what we see in communist rule (ignoring the authority applied in communism) such as shared wealth, a stateless rule (state being leader), and assigned/forced work. it may not be communism but its the closest thing to work however even keeping to the basics of resource allocation religious communism still fail because the wealth and resources they accumulate (food, money, ect.) isnt enough in some seasons as well as areas governed by a secular state that they have to submit to to continue living in said area which leaves them to ask for donations or get loans to survive in their worst situations.
tl;dr Communism doesnt last even when it does work
because the Marxist view is one that tells the story of an oppressed majority and nothing else, nothing about "order" or the necessity of an elite. It's the most convenient outlook for convincing others (or yourself) that the abolition of class is better for everyone.
Damn right it is, but yours has been dead for a long ass time
self-determination is impossible in a capitalist society
Its dying out leaf
...
It was so shit that Lenin had to write a book about how shit it was. And Lenin was the optimist of the merry Soviet band
i have a theory communism is an autistic modern man way of connecting us to our past in 3000 BC before the ego explosion when we were like native americans who had a limited sense of self. the reason is fails so bad is we aren't like that anymore, and also someone with limited ego like a primitive human knows nothing else, it's not like they are creating a system of sharing, they know nothing else because they see themselves as everyone else, even share children. But in a socialist society they enforce it with laws because we aren't like that psychologically anymore. it's the ultimate anti-human system. and produces people like in modern china where they run over people without care, and even psychopathically make sure they are dead so they don't have to pay for their insurance the rest of their life. That's what socialism leads to, psychopaths
Communists have a point when they say that communism has never been tried. But the reason that it has never been tried is even more damning than the failures of the states that purported to be communist even if you don’t believe in the astronomical body counts. You see communism has never been tried because it has so far proven to be impossible to even achieve it due to human nature. The fact that you’re about to tell me there’s no such thing as human nature is more evidence of your idiocy and refusal to learn from history.
You see, communism has never been tried because the process that is supposed to implement it has broken down into tyrannical despotism every single time. The means of production is supposed to be seized democratically through socialism and then the socialist government is supposed to turn the means of production over to the workers and relieve themselves of power and dissolve the state. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society right? This has never been done because it flies in the face of human motivations and desires. What human being or group of human beings who just seized all resources and means of production of a nation would then benevolently hand this power over to everyone equally and give up this absolute power? So far? Fucking nobody.
Talking about "oppression" is not the kernel of the Marxist analysis. That is added to Marxism to support leftist ideologies.
I do understand your point but using class conflict to analyze society is not that controversial. If you say, for instance, that Trump won the elections in the US because the Rust Belt felt disfranchised and forgotten by the political class and the rest of America, you are already using a quasi-Marxist approach.
The left communists were doing shit like refuses to participate in elections. Leninism was an authoritarian deviation, but he was right to attack the so-called left communists.
Not every time, it hasn't happened in Rojava and it didn't happen in Chile without American intervention.
Marxism-Leninism is what has failed, not Socialism.
this is a very fair criticism of Leninism though
Saved, good post.
at least in capitalism i can pick which food i get rather than wait in line to MAYBE get bread today.
...
i only watched the first season of psycho pass but i loved that the villain's ultimate plan was to destroy the country through immigration.
wish the west had redpilled cartoons like this for our kids to watch.
fair enough, but I'm sure there are other terms for that in Sociology. You did say quasi-Marxist, because it would be weird to call it "Marxist reasoning"
>Go to wallmart
>Only great value bread.
>Be proud capitalist, that only boughts the best or the cheapest.
>Go back home to my samsung refrigerator, cause it's the cheapest this season.
>And to drink my coca cola, cause other beverage it's anti american.
>da j00z
Never change Sup Forums, never change
go to comics they seem to have the only red pilled material in terms of media (avoid marvel like the plague though)
This.
And with bakery expropiations in Venezuela, soon we will get some bread mmm... never
wtf comics are the most bluepilled entertainment media in existence. the sjws steamrolled the entire industry.
i'll stick to weebshit.
He also kinda realized that left wing communism didn't work for shit because if payment was assured regardless of labor, workers won't show up to work. It is kind of what happens when you move from "theory" to "practice", and the "theory" comes from a guy who has never even approached to realize what is it like to work in his life, or even gave an actual fuck about workers ion his existence.
He basically realized that Marx was talking out of his ass, and simply went with what Russians used to live under brutal authoritarian yokes through their history, had to go with.
>programmed to keep everyone happy
This is where you're wrong. Communism isn't about keeping anyone happy. It's about creating an authoritarian stylized government that enslaves its citizens and kills anyone that disagrees with their methods.
Kind of like Islam when one really begins to think about it.
Marxism is the Malevolent Ideology of Mandated Misery.
Marxism explicitly talks about class conflict, which sounds more belligerent than what actually happened. I don't want to deem this as an example of such a conflict for that reason but I'm sure a lot of Marxists would.
Point is I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I believe sometimes this class "conflict" is relevant when thinking about stuff, but sometimes it isn't. A pure Marxist, for instance, would go to the level of retardation of seeing some class conflict in terms of class.
well at least i have a say in what i want
If you're looking for redpilled cartoons, I've heard Samurai Jack described as such, I'm not sure how it's redpilled though. But either way, it's a good fucking show.
It's been a while since I watched Psycho Pass so maybe you can enlighten me on his intentions. I thought he simply wanted to expose the brain club to the public. I don't remember anything concerning immigration.
of seeing some class conflict when talking about race*
Yes, paper or plastic.
Perfect, saved.
>Incorruptible
>Using Marxism
Oxymoron.
Reminder that Marx was filthy Jew who never did anything productive other than invent an ideology that would destroy millions of lives. And of course he did it on purpose.
you can blame Jean Jacques Rousseau for asserting that human nature is basically living like innocent wild animals who prior to inventing society, selfishness and competition from absolutely nothing, merely fucked females and picked fruit all on their lonesome. This is likely where Marx got the idea that property, dominance and greed are separate from human nature
I fucking hate the french
thats why i said avoid marvel, everything there is sjw. try dark knight 3 or anything by frank miller, his books used to make fun of black power movements as being hypocrites, or how dark knight 3 is its an allegory to beating muslims. or stalinverse where the world becomes communist the way how communism actually is rather than what sjws say it is
His plan was to destroy the country's crop supply so they were forced to outsource food production (in psycho pass japan is totally closed off from the rest of the world).
eventually increased trade would lead to more lax border control measure which would lead to immigration. they literally show muslim immigrants during the villain's expose of his plan.
huge numbers of undocumented immigrants would strain the cybil system and disrupt it since you can't keep track of everyone now.
marxism=trolling
It's been a very trolled century then.
This post is exactly what I needed to reaffirm my being against communism. I'm in college and they're making us read the Manifesto and 1844 manuscripts, hence my curiosity.
Marx himself said communism wouldn't work with humans. Despite this there are still communists. Really makes you think.
see my post. i really think it is a nostalghia. there was a time, where humanity shared everything intuitively because they couldn't understand the concept of property. "the ego explosion" is a theory that the ego was formed around 3000BC because of environmental catastrophe as a survival mechanism. when people say it's not human nature what they really mean is that the modern human has a substantial ego, meaning it sees itself as separate from everything else
>n-no you
Shit, I'm on Episode 16 in my rewatch I should finish it. I rewatch a few shows at once concurrently so it takes a bit to finish a few shows when I decide to rewatch them. I forgot that facet of his plan.
you'd be putting power into the hands of a faceless shadow government of elite programmers and technicians, who would tamper with the AI's values to suit their own ends. so nothing really changes.
How would AI get people to work when everything is already entitled to them and not only that, extra work or innovation to solve a problem is NOT rewarded. Socialism leads people to do the bare minimum, seeks jobs with the least amount of work and responsibility (why take the blame if you won't get an increase in reward).
Socialism/Communism is the race to the BOTTOM. That's why both eventually leads to mass starvation. Unless these robots force people into a life of slavery, it will never work. People won't voluntarily exert more energy when everyone is "entitled" to basic needs yet there are no rewards/motivation.
The Soviet Union was a success.
not really. you lot managed to become a superpower without starving and otherwise murdering tens of millions of your own people.
>>And to drink my coca cola, cause other beverage it's anti american.
any beverage other than water is consumerist and therefore capitalist ;^) oh how I would suffer without my coca cola, but thankfully it is distracting me from my being oppressed by the bourgeoisie amirite
deus ex machina
All first worlder are bourgeoise
Marxist/=/communist lifestylist
How many millions did Britain kill in the wars that raised her to empire?
Wrong.
Google left communism
funny enough marx predicted that first world nations would be the first to have communist revolutions but the opposite happened.
Some notes to your utter and complete nonsense:
1. Rousseau himself admitted the state of nature was (as was common among philosphers of the time) a thought experiment. He himself said that it could never again happen, and perhaps never happened in the first place.
2. His idea of the state of nature makes perfect sense when you read it in context, ie. as a reaction to Hobbes. Hobbes asserted that in the absence of a punitive state, humans will always harm other humans (basically kill eachother for shits and giggles). Rousseau instead assumed [somewhat in line with modern criminology] that humans mostly harm other humans if there is some benefit to be had. This requires the pre-existence of property. In other words Hobbes doesn't neccessarily disagree with Hobbes that humans will do evil unto eachother, but he disagreed that most humans would harm others if there's no benefit to be had.
3. Rousseau never asserted that this was somehow "separate" from human nature. He was far from a primitivist (we get this idea from Voltaire, who loved to slander Rousseau to the point of accusing him of arson when he was clearly innocent). This is why his solution to the problems of modernity wasn't to abandon it all, but to create a system that draws sovereignity from the people and respects personal liberty (as natural liberty had been abandoned and could not be reclaimed).
4. This is the big kicker. Marx never cited Rousseau. Some of the 1830s utopian thinkers cited Rousseau, the Anarchist [which is basically the opposite of totalitarian Marxism] Proudhon even had a more extremist version of Rousseau's view (property is theft), but never Marx.
cont.
5. French Republican thought is entirely based on Rousseauvian principles, and even the American revolution was in part inspired by Rousseauvian thought (among many other influences). Explain why we don't see Marxist influences (post 1960s subversion) in either of these countries. The closest you can get is the Paris Commune, but
a. That was swiftly beaten down by Republican forces.
b. It was based on a manifesto drafted by Marx himself. The same Marx that didn't cite Rousseau, remember?
6. Explain how the core value of Rousseau's Republican system -maximizing freedom and limiting government intervention- lines up with the totalitarian Marxist state that has full control over the economy.
7. You're an idiot
It sounds to me like you already hate the French and just looked up some badly read American Exceptionalists to find even more reasons to hate them, no matter how invalid or in the face of the facts.
I know.
Marx was wrong on plenty of things that's why Marxists exist .
No, but his criticisms of capitalism was spot on. Jews are good at finding flaws.
Fascism perfected what Marx wanted. Because he was a Jew, he couldn't understand the power of nationalism. Fascism itself was a just a return to the Roman ideal.
So, in other words, all we white people have to do to be happy is just going back to being Romans again. The answer was there the whole time.
Bump for an actual decent thread.
>but how well would a communist regime work if it was governed by a gigantic, incorruptible AI that was programmed to keep everyone happy and productive in every sector of the economy?
I can't even fathom how a worldwide commune would work and co-exist.
Jesus Christ are you serious?
Americans...
worked in cuba
>Implying Americans aren't knee-deep in Red Scare
Not Americans, just Sup Forums.
>(((Rome)))
Think of it like this,
>Thesis: Capitalism
>Antithesis: Socialism
>Synthesis: Fascism