The ethics of killing communists

I am trying to put together a legitimate moral argument for killing communists can you guys help me?

So far i see two routes we can take

route 1:
> The initiation of force is immoral
> therefore the initiation of force to kill is immoral
> Self defense however is not initiatory so it is not immoral
lets jump ahead a bit
> if someone’s actions are perceived to be initiating force beyond a reasonable doubt then it is not immoral to preemptively retaliate in self defense
for example, if someone pulls a gun on me and aims it at my head with perceived intent to kill then I am morally justified in killing the man.
>because communism violates basic human nature and fundamentally cannot exist absent the state (a coercive entity) they must have the intent to initiate force in one manner or another to spread their ideology at some point
>Communists intend to initiate force
>lets assume communism will always lead to the slaughter or imprisonment of those who oppose it (because it does but i don’t feel like explaining all of that I’m pretty sure we are all on the same page here)
>Communists intend to kill
>therefore the killing of communists in an act of preemptive self defense must be morally justified

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

cont.

route 2:
>human cognitive ability and psychology is shaped by selective pressures of its environment over time (evolution)
>humanity is separated into essentially two groups r selected and k selected types
>r selected humans are biologically inclined to lack deferral of gratification, high intelligence, sexual restraint, etc.
>the r selected man is inherently irrational
>the r selected man is therefore more prone to left wing ideology
>all left wing ideology eventually leads to communism over time

we now have two paths to take following this line of logic

route 2a:
from here we can jump straight into route 1 and achieve that conclusion or we can continue along another path

route 2b:
>the r selected man is a communist not because he wants to be but because he MUST be
>because of the predetermined path of the r selected man by evolution we can assume that at this point in time there is no physical way to change the r selected man to make him k selected
>since there is little to no choice involved in the r selected man’s ideological path he cannot be held responsible for his actions that stem from his r selection
>therefore he is not a moral agent
>since he is totally irrational (left wing) he cannot possibly be excepted to follow the NAP therefore violence against him is permissible.

Sounds good to me. Bump.

>killing people for wrongthink
Sounds like something Stalin would do.

>implying capitalists ever try to construct some sort of ethical justification for killing communists

We're trying to take their neat stuff from them.

They don't like that. So they throw us out of helicopters. No moral compass required.

>Self defense however is not initiatory so it is not immoral
Every bully and most psychos claim to have been provoked.
You are clearly bumping your pointy little head on a timeless but only apparent conflict: how to be a good guy and a winner on the same day.
That's what sport is for. Grow up bro.

You don't need to make stuff up. They are subverting the nation and need to go.

of course but i want to find a moral argument that is consistent i have no problem throwing evil subversive scum like you out of helicopters without morality

Communists are literally thieves and killers, parasites who will take from those who produce and give to themselves.

They should be treated just like you treat a mosquito.

Have you ever met an american communist?
The only people theyre subverting is themselves and their parents.
Literal non threat

I'm not talking about middle class college students. The real danger is the marxist academia.

I'm pretty sure evil people are the ones who rape, torture, and kill peasant organizers and church leaders because they DARED to want a little democracy and a little land.

But I'm a commie, so I guess I'm just too stupid to understand.

>since there is little to no choice involved in the r selected man’s ideological path he cannot be held responsible for his actions that stem from his r selection
Yeah but we still lock up prisoners who are doomed to repeat offenses merely to protect the public. If commies are violent, it's okay to hurt, incapacitate, or imprison a commie just on the grounds of reducing the violence they might cause, without getting into their personal moral responsibility.

Okay, but this is also pretty blue pilled. If you don't take the war to them, they will take it to you. Maybe not overnight, maybe not for many years, but you could seriously have woken up in a gulag at one point in history with those thoughts. Commies historically fuck everything up and ruin a lot of lives and culture. Anticipatory violence might be extreme but I think complete intolerance of anything communist is okay.

>I'm pretty sure evil people are the ones who rape, torture, and kill peasant organizers and church leaders
Perfect example of what CNT-FAI and 20's Soviet Union.

you are there is nothing that would bring me more pleasure than wrapping my tiny sperm soaked hands around your weak fucking commie neck

Those guys who publish papers nobody reads. Most of the academics you probably hate arent commies.The real threat of communism died 20 years ago. I never understood the fascination with them as a modern enemy. Islam seems more pertinent these days

I will kill a comie for fun, but for a Green Card I'll carve him up real nice. =D

What if someone merely claims to be communist but isn't?

By church leaders, I meant community pastors and spiritual teachers. Not fucking decadent, depraved, sinful priests.

And by peasant organizers, I meant peasant organizers, not the landed gentry who own all the farmland, Jesus fucking Christ.

They are literally the reason islam is a threat to the West.

i should clarify they cannot be held morally responsible as they would likely not understand or think of the right/ wrong paradigm.

killing commies is very important

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

I hate you every bit as much as you hate me, so I don't know why you're bothering trying to "scare" me with your awesome rage.

>The real threat of communism died 20 years ago.
Only 90s kids remember communism

You don't need an excuse to kill Communists. Those vermin need to be scourged from this world.

Islam is the reason islam is threatening to the west. The right needs to install themselves in universitites if they want to change anything. Tired of people wining for representation on both sides

Shit argument. Assumption A: Communism violates human nature. B: Violating Human nature means you're incapable of indoctrinating that behavior to humans C: They will use violence to spread it
C is particularly bad because it is implied that violence is going to be used to spread communism, but if it is against human nature then all humans would fall to be incompatible with communism which means violence must be used against everyone which means no population to be communist.

You then explicitly state that those who oppose are not all. So what do you mean by "against basic human nature" self defeating argument.

------------
route 2
assumptions A: sexuality is influenced by biology
If you look at spics countries they used to be barren. Got an implosion of their population in the 20th century due to the beginning of industrialization and are now falling back again (some countries through explicit actions from the government that dictated more kids=poverty) The same pattern shows European countries and the beginning of big cities.
Assumption B: irrationality is leftist, there is literally no argument for this. You are kinda stupid desu.
Assumption C:Irrationality leads to communism. Marxist Communism is based on a consistent idea of ownership is power, therefore the workplace should be more democratic. The other examples of communism don't actually follow that idea. Point being, the first brand at least is a consistent tenet, with a rational argument behind it. The fact that you can't differentiate though, implies you're irrational and by your own logic a potential communist. So you should kill yourself.

Both my arguments destroy your route b, so I won't even bother,

THOSE FUCKING DIGITS

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

You will get a free helicopter ride as well. National Socialist. =D

Our education system is fine desu

>communism violates basic human nature and fundamentally cannot exist absent the state

first off did you not read the sticky? appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. but i doubt you understand what that means so i'll play into your stupidity anyway

is it human nature to work for an hourly wage? for over a hundred thousand years our ancestors could collect enough food in a few hours to last them a few weeks

is it human nature to work for one another instead of alongside? i can't think of anything like an employer/employee relationship in nature. it's not like there are any other animals that control resources and have other animals create value from those resources in exchange for the opportunity to exchange a small fraction of that value for food from some other animal.

if it's human nature to engage in capitalism, then why do capitalists need to commit so much violence against so many people to maintain their system? why do we need so many laws to make capitalism work and not have people starving to death or dying from preventable illnesses in overcrowded and disgusting apartments after 16 hour workdays?

...

>actually taking the time and effort to seriously argue with Pinochet fanboys

Senpai...

Bump.

i'll admit i'm easily baited

Would we be able to survive more easily if we were to just farm? What do you think would be ideal?

this is why i was asking for help. Communism put into practice violates humans biological predispositions right i guess that would be a better way to say it isnt that there is a "state of nature" for a human being but i mean competition and the acquisition of resources and power that is what i mean. It does not mean that humans are incapable of perceiving it. For example i can say I can imagine a world where everyone has dicks for noses even though it cannot exist does that help at all?

yeah you have got me with route b though i figured i could get away with that implication but i guess not

As I've stated many times before:
THE BEST WAY TO KILL COMMUNISTS
IS TO IMPLEMENT COMMUNISM
THEY'LL DO IT FOR YA

You're so cute when you try to justify action in the context of a supposedly non-violent ideology.

How long until you finally embrace Fascism and leave Anarcho-Capitalism behind.

>It's immoral to kill people
>Communists are not people
What was the problem again user?

capitalism is for sure
>you have something me want
>you have something me want
>me give you this and you give me that
>ok
of course humans must live in a hierarchy there is always someone better than you that will rule over you unless you are that person because this is part of mans reproductive strategy to acquire as much resources as possible in order to reproduce

also you are making the same stupid ass "noble savage" argument which is total bullshit

1) A legitimate punishment for treason is execution.
2) Communists are treasonous.
3) Communists ought therefore to be executed.
Q.E.D. B.T.F.O. Now go kill.

i am pretty much there actually the logical conclusion of anarcho capitalism is essentially fascism anyway

i'm gonna need you to clarify. would we be able to survive by farming more easily than what?

farming as a good example of how capitalism just creates barriers to the extraction of value from resources, in this case food from the ground. there are automated tractors that can plow and sow hundreds of acres of land a day, something that would take longer than one human could hope to do in an entire growing season. one machine can make enough food in a season to feed hundreds of people. yet somehow all of those people, who no longer need to farm to survive, need to find another way to make value for someone else, or they're lazy leeches that need to die? everyone focusing on farming is not an ideal world, but it would be one where the flaws in capitalism would be more readily apparent and people would probably move on sooner

OP By embracing collectivism, and declaring violence against individualism. Communists preemptively have violated the NAP. Communists should subverted whenever possible. If I could get away with it. I would exterminate them.

1. trade is not capitalism. you can trade resources under any economic system. capitalism is when you control more of a resource than you could possibly create value from, so you exploit other people's labor in exchange for a small share of that resource. try to know more about what you think you're for/against

2. i'm not making a "noble savage" argument at all, you appealed to nature and i pointed out that your idea of nature doesn't match our actual nature. again, appeal to nature is a fallacy anyway

Now you're assuming that communism lacks competition. Only the dictatorial communism "lacks" competition. In which the head of state through more power and influence decide to take away power from individuals that might become and are not aligned with them. (which is their competition/individuality, political and social influence veil as the influence of the people)

The original communism though, again. Was about the value of the worker in the work place. (Specifically the mass production style, essentially not sub existence farming or pop and mom shop based on your trade) I mean the argument is that through big numbers the perception of the influence/value of the many in mass production job gets reduce/not admired. So it's crucial for the workplace to be more democratic. (Real communism doesn't even relate to how to run a government, or self own business)

The point being, you're more against a corrupt idea of communism that is essentially fascist/dictatorial in nature. While ironically proposing a dictatorial ideology to combat it.

You have a self defeating argument through and through, my dude.

Force is the only morality of this world. It has always been that way.
If there is an enemy ... you must use force to stop.kill them... No clever ideas or rationalizing will change that true

locking people up for threatening to violate your rights is every bit as moral as jailing murderers and thieves

>first off did you not read the sticky? appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. but i doubt you understand what that means so i'll play into your stupidity anyway
The fallacy fallacy is also one as well.

>is it human nature to work for an hourly wage? for over a hundred thousand years our ancestors could collect enough food in a few hours to last them a few weeks
That is because humans didn't have clocks to measure time so that wages could be given, retard. Barter for doing a specific thing has existed ever since the invention of civilization.

>is it human nature to work for one another instead of alongside? i can't think of anything like an employer/employee relationship in nature. it's not like there are any other animals that control resources and have other animals create value from those resources in exchange for the opportunity to exchange a small fraction of that value for food from some other animal.
That's because not all animals act the same way, dipshit.

>if it's human nature to engage in capitalism, then why do capitalists need to commit so much violence against so many people to maintain their system?
Opposed to what, communists? Reminder that communism has resulted in more deaths than any other movement in existance.

>why do we need so many laws to make capitalism work and not have people starving to death or dying from preventable illnesses in overcrowded and disgusting apartments after 16 hour workdays?
What you described is corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system free of the state. As soon as the state interferes with capitalism, it isn't capitalism, or at least
not completely.

FFS RETARD

communists aren't people
they are biomechanical drones implanted with jew software to look act, even smell like people

THEY ARE NOT HUMAN

they are simply soulless drones bent on destruction civilization

killing them is not only self defence, it is morally the correct thing to do

>Kill communist women
>SEIZE THEIR MEANS OF PRODUCTION
>LITERALLY

>you can trade trade resources just not too much of any one resource. oh and we decide what's too much
fuck off
pic related

The only argument you need is the utility of such action.

Ironically it was Stalin who put it best: "Death is the answer to all problems. No man, no problem."

In other words describe how the world is with communists in it and then describe how it would be without them. If the new world is better, presto, you have justified your actions.

you are fucking joking right, so all of the people that were pushed out of farming over the last century in the US are now dead or poor or bums lying in the street? come on retard really, they just go get other jobs no one says they need to die do you think these people are just fucking robots and have 1 skill and can absolutely not learn or another?

that is essentially the basis to capitalism, trade.
how is it exploitation explain yourself because that makes no sense

oh nice man "real communism hasn't been tried" that is because real communism does not exist. Communism as a theory fundamentally cannot be implemented into the material world and it was invented to be that way

also how are you even bringing up elements of horseshoe theory really? I am against communism and pro fascism therefore I am against myself because the two are the same? fucking retarded they are not the same at all.

he appealed to nature, that's a fallacy and weakens his argument

>That is because humans didn't have clocks to measure time so that wages could be given, retard. Barter for doing a specific thing has existed ever since the invention of civilization.
what are you, retarded? we've measured hours by sunlight and had calendars for longer periods of time for thousands of years. you're missing the point that animals don't need to do work for each other to survive.

>That's because not all animals act the same way, dipshit.
again missing the point. obviously i'm not stupid enough to have missed that dogs and people both don't smell each other's assholes

>Opposed to what, communists? Reminder that communism has resulted in more deaths than any other movement in existance.
5 million preventable deaths from malnutrition every year, thanks to the capitalist success of preventing the prevention of those deaths. capitalism kills more people

>What you described is corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system free of the state. As soon as the state interferes with capitalism, it isn't capitalism, or at least
not completely.
"it's not real capitalism if the government is involved" by your logic, communism has never existed and could never have killed anyone, because communism is inherently non-statist.

i never said anything resembling what you have greentexted there

I'm not saying that real communism hasn't been tried. I'm that the original ideology is not as governmental issue. It's entirely concerned with the mass production work place. That's a fact.

It's not horse shoe theory. It's spelled out logical progression of events. You made the claim that you desire to kill communist. You also made the claim that the reason you want to kill communist is because of their violence.

If you are serious about killing communists without being immoral, then just give them a piece of land they can all live in. They will all starve to death.

i never said they were dead, try to read more closely. i was questioning the right wing belief that all kinds of work currently being done under capitalism are necessary for one to earn the right to survive.

you don't need capitalism to trade. if you think you do, you have no clear understanding of what capitalism is. capitalism is when you control access to some means of production, and have other people use those means to produce value, in exchange for a fraction of that value. it's really not that hard to comprehend

where did i say real communism hasn't been tried in that post? where did i bring up horsehoe theory? i think horsehoe theory is bullshit

Its a damn shame how non-ideological the world has become, now we have to just shitfling on mongolian knitting forums instead of going to war and dying for what you believed in like people used to.

just realized that last section wasn't directed at me, my mistake

Let me help you, you literally can do no crime to a non-European. They are genetically dissimilar to you, therefore caring about their well being or respecting them is anti-evolutionary

Pic related
It's unethical to let commies live

>commies
>weak

pick one

>literally banned across the most of the former Warsaw Pact
Top job, idiots
>commie and alive
>good

i dont get pinochet fans, they unironically support a (((CIA))) backed and enforced dictator that got rid of a democratically elected government for jewish business interests

might as well come out and support the deep state while you're at it

this

that image is conflating private and personal property. no communist is going to be stealing your toothbrush, laptop, hot-tub, etc.

>we've measured hours by sunlight and had calendars for longer periods of time for thousands of years.
The first sundial wasn't until Egypt, way after the time period you was talking about.

> you're missing the point that animals don't need to do work for each other to survive.
I don't disagree with this. You can entirely work for subsistence, but you won't be able to get anything extra if you don't work for it.

>viously i'm not stupid enough to have missed that dogs and people both don't smell each other's assholes
No, YOU missed the point. The argument was that it was against HUMAN nature. It was you that started to compare what humans and animals did.

>5 million preventable deaths from malnutrition every year, thanks to the capitalist success of preventing the prevention of those deaths. capitalism kills more people
Wew lad. Literally one of the major causes of communism's high death rate was because of starvation. That, and labor camps.

>it's not real capitalism if the government is involved"
Never said this, I just said it is less capitalist. Capitalism is a component of Corporatism. Stateless-Capitalism lacks the other characteristics that define Corporatism.

>by your logic, communism has never existed and could never have killed anyone, because communism is inherently non-statist.
Communism can't exist without a state, and if the definition of communism means no state, that means it is fundamentally flawed.

Unless you are middle class in which case you'll just get shot and they'll take the shit

More importantly a guy who oppressed open Spaniards racialists

>because no one had a concept of the time between sun up and sundown until sundials
this topic is irrelevant to my main point so i'm gonna stop addressing it

>You can entirely work for subsistence, but you won't be able to get anything extra if you don't work for it.
i'm not sure what you mean by "anything extra" since we're talking about animals

>No, YOU missed the point. The argument was that it was against HUMAN nature. It was you that started to compare what humans and animals did.
humans are animals. that's not to say we walk around naked and eat dead things we find, but to somehow think that people are economically rational beings is absurd

>Wew lad. Literally one of the major causes of communism's high death rate was because of starvation. That, and labor camps.
if you actually read about mao (the greatest source of starvation under communism) you'll realize the deaths of those peasants was very much his fault and at times even his intention, seriously just look up what he did

>Never said this, I just said it is less capitalist. Capitalism is a component of Corporatism. Stateless-Capitalism lacks the other characteristics that define Corporatism.
you literally said "What you described is corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system free of the state. As soon as the state interferes with capitalism, it isn't capitalism, or at least not completely."

>Communism can't exist without a state, and if the definition of communism means no state, that means it is fundamentally flawed.
communism can ONLY exist without a state. if you really understood communism you would know that communism is the end-goal of socialist states. and states that call themselves communist are/were openly just acknowledging that goal.

i must have missed that point in the russian revolution when the middle class were wiped out and had their books and toothbrushes looted off their bodies

Guess that means no more business with those evil Chinese commies.

Time to kiss all those cheap goods goodbye. I hope all of you capitalists don't like stuff.

no communism cannot possibly exist without a state what happens if someone wants to start a corporation in a communist society and begin "exploiting" the workers and the workers voluntarily agree to be "exploited"

>communism can only exist without a state but it can't actually exist without a state
Scroedingers ideology

Ever heard of a kulak?

It's simple man.

It's moral to protect your race.

Commies are trying to stop that from happening.

Therefore they are immoral.

>inb4 they deserved it

i'm not an anti-statist, so i don't care enough to research responses to questions like that because they can just as easily be aimed at libertarians. i know my flag says communist, but i'm a socialist because i believe the state is necessary, it's just not an option here. if you actually do any research on communism at all you'll understand that by it's definition it is socialism in the absence of any state.

the kulaks killed hundreds of thousands of their own animals rather than let them be used to work farms that would feed their communities. they deserved to shot

You don't need to go so far. Communism is an outright rejection of property rights, the only difference between it and robbery is they're too cowardly to do it in person so they lobby for the state to rob you instead.

There is nothing wrong with defending your property by force.

haha damn i was just a few seconds too slow

>middle class were wiped out
That's like what happened + traders, Cossacks, officers, professors, intellectuals, rich peasants. Then was NEP, after NEP those who made fortune were robbed by the (((state))) again.

Ever heard of peasant uprisings in the 1920s you red subhuman

...

im saying that the whole "socialist democidal dictatorship" is the end goal of communism it was created as the normalization of the ideas to obtain ultimate power over the goyim by the jew

There's no moral reason to kill someone for their beliefs. Even if it's something as dumb as communism.

Like clockwork
>i missed the part where the middle class all got shot
>o-oh well they deserved it
Fucking communists need to be eradicated

yeah i already addressed the peasant uprisings. and plenty of cossacks, intellectuals, etc. survived and worked for or in the interests of the state without even being violently coerced

i'm jewish and i promise you there is no grand cabal trying to control you. i promise you there is nobody jews want to control more than each other

>

Communists aren't people.

>shooting reactionary kulaks is the same as gunning down innocent middle class muscovites
please be ignorant somewhere else

> nigger girl
> communist girl
> both white, you can only date 1 to preserve the white race
> which one do you choose?

Every fucking time

They want your shit. They incite violence to take your shit. They organize violence/force to take your shit. It's pretty clear fampai. Socialists are fair game. Fuck em. Kill em all.

God how I enjoyed burning you commies alive in Odessa 2.05.2014. How I enjoyed tearing down the red shit in Ukraine and marching in Poland and Czech Republic. You'll never take a foothold again.

>we will kill you like the rest of the cossacks if you don't comply
>see! He's complying without coercion!

Jews are middle eastern immigrants - anything they say while being immigrants in Europe can be ignored.

>i'm not sure what you mean by "anything extra" since we're talking about animals
We are talking about human nature and what is has to do with communism, nigger.

>but to somehow think that people are economically rational beings is absurd
We are the only species on this planet that understands the concept of an economy, shit-for-brains. Maybe you was referring to communists, but communists aren't people, so...

>you'll realize the deaths of those peasants was very much his fault and at times even his intention
How would this be any different for any other commune?

>you literally said "What you described is corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system free of the state. As soon as the state interferes with capitalism, it isn't capitalism, or at least not completely."
>AT LEAST NOT COMPLETELY
Learn to read.

>if you really understood communism you would know that communism is the end-goal of socialist states. and states that call themselves communist are/were openly just acknowledging that goal.
Oh, and you believe that they would be willing to give up their power after they have reached their "goal"?

>nigger girl
>both white