Dear commies

Question for the Marxist of this board, particularly the Anarchist types;
The concept of rejection of materialism. Doesn't that just leave your ads wide open for the fucking of those trying to hoard your materials? Cemollectivisim doesn't work, in my conception, without a regulating authority, which by definition, reinstates the hierarchy that is your oppositional factor.

I'm no stranger to practical application of self-governing 'experiments', and my observation shows that heiarchy, though not always meritocratic, develops.

The philosophic applications aside, how would it function? What could ever be used as an example of functioning collectivism, in the fundamental sense?

Bump?

So.... Not even a post..

Bump

>No currency, not accumulation of wealth
>Anyone caught stealing goes to gulag

We're not against hierarchy, just the oppressive exploitative capitalist hierarchy

Curious to see someone defend the logistical applications of Marxism too, I see?

OK. Well, how would, in a large scale, goods and services be quantified for trade? Would world comunism nessesitate the abolishing of trade beyond the local level?

Commies are fags. I just want CHAOS!!!

End game communism, trade between individuals would be largely irrelevant because of material abundance. There would still be trade but just for the reallocation of resources, not for profit. Is that what you mean?

What if I believe in Capitalism but I'm just not a materialistic person myself?

Is that an affront to your dignity?

>slaanesh

faggot

>Primative Khorne follower.

What's your favourite flower?

So you offer no practice solution to the questions of conduction of basic life in the logistical sense?

Sort of but....
>material abundance
How? Especially without allocation of resources needed for production. Unless production is essential to be abolished in the large scale sense, throwing humanity back to a pseudo-dark-ages type thing. Which wouldn't last long till a form of quasi-feudilisim would take hold without a governing authority or, at minimum, (((god))) ruling.

An affront to my dignity, no. I could give a fuck of materialism, as I believe materialism grounds the soul in baseness and attachment.

But I'm not even here for philosophical debate. I wanna know the logistics of anarcho-comunism, because I gotta be missing something if people say it could work yet with my own two eyes I see berry little evidence to support a large scale, especially urban, application for the philosophy of it.

So you haven't a clue what your little black and red flag represents?

Cancer. Pure cancer.

You see our world as a whole is being completely fucked in the ass by ((them)). It has been going on since the start of the 20th century and it will not end unless their is a great reset on society. We need to destroy both communist and capitalist ideologies in order to stop the Jewish control. A reset on society will be the only savior of the white race. After the reset we can build a much better future. But we first need Hell on Earth.

>thinks I'm Khornate
How quaint

Yeah, sorry, couldn't help you.

My materialism (or lack of) is independent of politics.

Where in the fuck did you get that theory from?

It should be as intertwined as your philosophy. Assess how you view the world, what virtues, or lacktherof, you hold in esteem. What code of morality. The fundamental of your world view that you would teach a four your old. That is the beginning of a solid political foundation. To hell with the "how's" with no "why"s

Have a cause. Be what you want the world to be. Embody it. Practice in subtly and silence. Learn the in and outs of all your morals and where they come from and what objective they serve in the greater and lesser scheme.

What do you think of explicitly anti-materialist philosophies?

I just made it up in my mind and seems pretty stupid but it would work. Since ((they)) can't control chaos and ((they)) will lose. You see I have noticed that the Jews only win by using deception. Now if we just fuck up the system, they will have no control and they will lose their power over us. Then after that we can go back to being a free nation.

That all things material should hold no intrinsic value to me. That emancipation from attachment to the material world is the first step to emancipation from attachments in all aspects.

That's my personal philosophy. Marxism, in my observation, holds philosophies in some circles that nothing is ever privately owned. That all things are shared. And in some of the circles I've met once soon a time, this meant your car, your tools, whatever.

But practice application outside of a small group or, hell, a small village. The 'experiments' I've observed almost always inevitably lead to advantage-taking by the opportunist who were in positions to do so. And that's just in small settings over couple week spans. And communes are a whole other ballgame of mixed up clusterfucked heiarchy forming.

So I ask the idealist of Marx... How would a practice application work? What moral and ethical goals are the fundamental building blocks for such, and how would practice application be practiced at the mass level?

Goyim. Your funny.

Try me bitch. I am the Reactionary force that will make you cry back to Satan.

I might just be your brother, so don't even mistake me.

Thing is, what your describing is like... Fighting chaos with chaos.

But in Ernest, educate me. (((They))) would just utilise the chaos for advantage, yes?

>End game communism
Would end game communism be: Only Amazon exists, and everyone gives their products/goods/services their, and everyone gets a big catalogue (the internet) with a pictorial and video alphabetized directory of every good and service, and they order what they need? And all the repetitive similar companies consolidate and form natural monopolies. But amazon is just the government, owned by all we the people?

Sounds like the beginning of what turns into Wall-E

National socialism can do all the good communism would without destroying capitalism.

I just tried to describe the fundamental concept and vision of communism. Everyone via taxes pay for everything everyone needs, and everyone is helped into job, that more or less successfully constructs the society and world in such a way that they receive pay, and taxes.

So like, enough decent cars are made, everyone gets a decent, well made, long lasting, greenish, energy efficient car, if they need one, or in budget is public transportation so they don't need a car. The modern system is kind of a blend, pure capitalism, with a bit of 'if a citizen needs help, we the people will help them out'.

I guess one of the biggest claims to fame and lame of capitalism, is the great expanses between rich and poor, quality and quantity, and what that offers, in terms of luxury, free time, culture, etc.

People already think there are many people, overcrowded in some places, a lot of people complaining, and grotesque situations and depravity and violations of humanity, already due to population size and the stampeding and stammering fervor of life, so some people don't like the ideas of helping people out. They cant imagine if everyone, poor included, were given a humane shot of life, access more cheaply to all necessities, and education.

Everything is a fierce competition between every man, every second is fought for, every grain of rice, every piece of wheat, and apple, and carrot, every drop of water.

everyone wants the best spot on the beach, everyone wants dinner at that fancy place at that time then, or the one of a kind this or that, dock space, tee time. Etc.

Capitalism is a filter of exclusivity, of rarity. Also what is commonly brought up in relation to rates of work, some people naturally would want to work 5 or 6 days a week, being a dentist, designing and constructing complex mechanistic factories, some people would be armed forces, and some people will get in the groove playing video games 15 hours a day

At least natsoc takes a practical look at economics and trade

What I got from all that shit is that capitalism helps us evolve and communism stops us from competing.

I've never read or heard any argument for communism that was even slightly persuasive.

Also are you not racist? cmon man it's 2017
Socialism works without minorities.

inventors would get directly priveledgedly rewarded for their inventions (proportionally to their demand, an obviously fair value, split with the workers, creators of the factory and material production of the invention, and this would be obviously fairly split with the population, weekly or monthly as a smallish tax, or slightly larger tax because the idea is we the people fund this investors start up, and then its taxed a little higher as an expression of we the peoples return of investment, which in capitalism goes to: banks who loaned investment, investors,

capitalism is private communism. skyzmed communism.

once there is police force and army, which go everywhere, and are in charge of keeping every square inch of the territory safe and just, then there is deffinitly a publicness, this of course is why a decent amount of people like rural living, because it can be as if one is in ones own world, it is private. Of course living in a city can have a different scene and feel every few blocks, the variety of aesthetic and ambiance is abrupt and extreme.

but the idea of wanting everyone more trustworthy, satisfied and wellbehaved, becomes more apparent, living in such closely quartered proximities

Also it is brought up sometimes how homogenous populations are more successful and eager to implement socialistic practices, because they have a longer history together and culture, as an extended family of sorts.

And there are as mentioned, hierarchy as well.

There are vastly different things people can do, arent there.

Such a staggering amount, and in all different attempts of metrics of difficulty and bear and unbearability for how many ways, physical, mental, morale, in all its subtleties.

People have always, or for a long while, competed to be among different stratas of these styles of work and being, private and public, culture, and different things are required of each.

Hm. Well. Sounds fun. Capitalism does act as that filter. What of a more meritocratic approach to comunism?

I'm not knocking capitalism. Nor socialism. It's Marxism that I can't see the logistics working out.

But hey. What you described certainly sounds pretty closer to logistic feasibility as well as... I guess we can call it fun. Thing that bothers me about the world is that I don't trust people in general. It would be nice to see a world where the opportunist of disharmony didn't steal, be they private or governmental. Individualisation is cool too

>that shit is that capitalism helps us evolve and communism stops us

What are some elements of 'evolve', and what of them do you assume would be impossible under communism?

>Everything is a fierce competition between every man, every second is fought for, every grain of rice, every piece of wheat, and apple, and carrot, every drop of water.

>everyone wants the best spot on the beach, everyone wants dinner at that fancy place at that time then, or the one of a kind this or that, dock space, tee time. Etc

The attempted argument might be: it may be possible, and not near unbearable to make 'enough good golf courses for everyone, and enough good restaurants, and enough rice, and wheat etc. we'll get back to you on the free time part'

we cant make 7 billion cars can we? and homes? we will eventually run out of precious materials, there is so much waste already. I guess old people will eventually die, hopefully their cars will be nice enough to resell I guess. but 7 million goes to 8, and to 9 and 10, and living longer etc. So people dont want to help make lives easier for people. Communism might do that, people already complain about 'communisitic practicies, and equality stuff'. people view everyone as competitors and limited resource, and because theres more of them, those who have products can sell them for higher? but the more people, the more people that can more together easilier make products, and they compete with each other to sell me for lower? but then they might unionize and work together to sell to me higher? but then surely others will sell lower

No incentive to invest or innovate if the needs are met and determined already. Hayek already pointed this out in 1945.

lol bump

someone did something (didnt do something, in this case) in 1945, woah, nothing has changed since then. Totally btfod, and peanuts pulsated.

inventing is interesting as heck. Thinking and trying to be creative and think about complex nature and things is first and second nature to some people. Some peoples gifts and joy and passion, some people would lose their mind in boredom if they had some mindless repetitive job. These people are scientists, research and developers, artists, etc.

Just because we the people supply a bunch of materials to these peoples in universities and have individual and common goals of creativity and sustainability and community and family doesn't mean creative people will be able to live like a cow monk in the field eating a small amount of food, drinking a small amount of water, and meditating all day.

All the knowledge that exists exists, all possible man power, all potential skill power, all passion, drive, desire, wonder, material, exists.