[Frank Zappa] favored capitalism, entrepreneurship, and independent business ... [he] opposed communism, stating...

>[Frank Zappa] favored capitalism, entrepreneurship, and independent business ... [he] opposed communism, stating, "A system that doesn't allow ownership ... has—to put it mildly—a fatal design flaw."
D R O P P E D so hard.

Fuck off, commie.

wtf with all this zappa shitposting? get off his dick

wtf I love Zappa now

What a classcuck

Zappa has always been shit, this is just another reason why.

I don't understand frank zappas body

commies detected
go start another cambodian genocide, reds

welp

this t b h

>using the term "red pill"
>a term from the movie The Matrix
>a movie made by two openly-transgender women
>in which a black man and a female
>tell a white man the truth about the world

:^)

>being this blue pilled

Back to tumblr safe spaces m8

really makes you think

>lad tells you the plot of a movie + the people behind it
>'m-muh blue pill'
back to /r/mensrights lad

It was fake, like the Holocaust.

i know that's you, Pol Pot

>idealistic and anti-intellectual pol pot was communist

also

>muh gorillions

>complaining about safe spaces
>goes on Sup Forums
Back to /r/The_Donald, friendo.

What's more, the Matrix has strong communist undertones.

>The Matrix - a dream world (that is Westernized) created by Hegemony to enshrine the Proletariat are in a state of False Consciousness while the ruling class Capitalists can breed and exploit them for their own ends.
>The Sentinels - The ruling class Capitalists, who built the Matrix for the aforementioned purpose. They have realized that once their resources have died out, and the humans (Proletariat) have ended the class war, they can gain far more from indoctrinating and exploiting them for power (used in the literal sense in the movie)
>The Freedom Fighters - Neo is a man born into the Matrix who realises something is wrong with the system he lives in. Trinity and Morpheus confirm Neo's beliefs and allow him to "free his mind" and become a Vanguard for Communism. Once he does this he is freed from the boundaries of the system, and works around it so that he becomes more powerful than his rulers.
>Agents - The state repressive apparatus used to enforce the ideology of the machines. They have much power due to the ignorance of the inhabitants of the Matrix.
>Red pill or the Blue pill? Neo takes the Red Pill, which is the traditional color of Communism. Coincidence? Blue is also used on the Machines, and the alternate pill.
>Jacking in, Jacking out - If you jack someone out of the Matrix, they die. You need to allow them to see the light for themselves rather than forcing the ideals of Communism onto them.
>Cypher: Too "weak" to stick with Communism. Sells out to the ideals of Capitalism because he's too materialistic. Supports the phrase "a man cannot live on bread alone". But who gives a shit? That motherfucker burns.
>Credits: Rage Against the Machine, used for the credit sequences for the first two films, are openly Communist.


Redpill-cucks BTFO.

...

He also believed that aids was manufactured by the government,

>Ideology
>nationalism

There ya go :^)

...

To get 0 replies and then have the thread die prematurely because fascists don't like being debated?

Nah.

>communism
>agrian socialism
i mean, we can ignore the other two listed ideologies too, but would be ignorant

this tbqhwy
also nice dubs :^)

I think it's funny that Zappa thought himself as a thinker with the fucking music he made

Is and will always be goofy creepy pedo uncle-core

Damn it must have taken some extreme autism to write something like that. I bet you think you're really cool for posting it too, but I see through your charade(alternate word for disguise I doubt a dullard like you knows the definition). Go back to whatever shithole board you come from and stop ruining threads where people are trying to have quality discussion.

>musicians
>qualified to speak about politics
Pick one :^)

this tbqh

because the pursue of profit as an end-in-itself (no real human profit) is not a big flaw "design flaw" at all right

>all these Zappa threads
>all Sup Forums shitposting

Communism is just a Tumblr/Twitter meme at this point.
That's all that's left of it in 2016.

>vietnam stops the cambodian genocide
>america reacts by increasing sanctions on vietnam and recognising the exiled khmer as the legitimate government of cambodia

Why is that every modern artist that tries to copy him (dirty projectors tier) are always without fail neo-communists?

Waiting for le Avant-Math God of Sup Forums to come in and tell us how only capitalism can save us all with poorly-formulated arguments riddled with fallacies

Socialists/liberals are disgusting people. All I've met and spoken to had an air of superiority and inauthenticity in their emotions and relations towards others.

>hurr durr but NOT ALL

and that's why you will never understand basic life concepts

Capitalists/conservatives are disgusting people. All I've met and spoken to had an air of superiority and inauthenticity in their emotions and relations towards others.

>hurr durr but NOT ALL

and that's why you will never understand basic life conepts

leftists are a bunch of rats

fuck them

they are just a greedy as people on the right but lie a lot more about it

>le "truth lies somewhere in the center" meme

yes, irony, mocking/parody sarcasm, are also extremely common traits in liberals. you'll never be able to think openly because you're in such a contrived concept of "open mindedness" that it just boils down to hating anyone that opposes your said open mindedness. and mock them with irony, naturally.

>I am against the voluntary exchange of goods and services

commies amirite

Fuck off fantanodrone go back to r/indieheads your kind doesnt belong here

do you vote third party too

lol post count didnt rise after you made this please stop.

>fuck people who takes stances on things
I hate this so much

literally my first post cunt

this is a shitposting thread anyway so just have fun

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that your statement was so meaningless and utterly devoid of any contribution whatsoever to the actual discussion that literally anything could go inside "socialists/liberals" and it would technically be correct because of how the very nature of the argument shoots down any opposition right off the bat (">hurr durr not all" immediately makes all who would object to your absolutely worthless anecdote about how all le socialists/liberals are evil out to be dullards, despite the fact that it's highly unlikely that you have ever truly _met_ anybody besides your mother in your entire life).
Not being able to read between the lines and utter incapability of looking beyond the surface level meaning of any given statement are also extremely common traits in basement-dwelling conservatives such as yourself.

POLFAGS BTFO

impressive big words stringed together in ways that obviously attempt to look intelligent but are incoherent strains of cliche. are you trying to copy dark souls dialogue, or mass effect? you liberals love "smart" things that are actually dumb past surface level.

Because people like your pic try really really hard to be cool.

>man i can't argue with any actual points so let's just go with word choice

>implying I'm a liberal

Anyway, it's hilarious how your only experience with other people is through artificial simulations of dialogue in video games - so much so that any time somebody talks to you, you have to relate it to a video game.
It's also hilarious how you try to work "cliché" into the very same sentence in which you accuse me of being a pseudo-intellectual for using "big words."

that's right, you literally can't stop sucking cocks, that's what your actual points are and the rest of your post is just word choice

excellent, really well done

Capitalism is nice. Why would anyone choose anything else?

Well, it's true. I won't try to convince you if you are so close minded about it though.

Stop fighting, please!

>not listening to an artists based on his political/socioeconomic views

wtf are you really doing here

...

>I won't try to convince you if you are so close minded about it though
lol

lol

Yup. That's why I listen to Magma exclusively now.

I won't try to convince you socialism or communism is better because you're too close minded about it

The only mildly-interesting thing about Zappa is his politics. Without them, he's a dime-a-dozen lol so random caricature.

Except I'm not. I would seriously love to chat (to learn, not necessarily debate) with some people about it. I have already been trying to get to chat with people with said beliefs.
Are you a socialist or a communist btw?

I would say I'm between socialism and capitalism. Obviously pure socialism or communism wouldn't work in our rule because people are horrible and greedy. I also think pure capitalism just promotes the people on top to do whatever they want and shit on everyone below them.

*world, not rule
sorry

So, social democracy then?
>people are horrible and greedy
I don't know, maybe I'm very optimistic, because I don't really agree with that.
>I also think pure capitalism just promotes the people on top to do whatever they want and shit on everyone below them.
But does it really? What would be a modern example of such a thing? Is it evil for evil's sake? Or is it evil because of a conflict of interests?

Yeah social democracy would be an alright way to describe what I believe. I do believe there's possible ways to make communism/socialism to work, though.

Well, I think Frank Zappa himself has a pretty good quote on this. "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Yes it does. Because the more you shit on other people, the more money you can make. Like, if you decide to pay your workers unreasonable wages you can make way more money. Today we obviously have standards to stop things like that, but there's still other ways the upper classes will do this. Here's a good modern example: banks will gamble with our money. Like sometimes this can give them more money, but if it doesn't it mainly affects the lower classes. I also think that separation between business and state is as important as separation of religion, because businesses and rich people obviously have more influence on the government than the common people. Obviously, the evils of the upper classes isn't evil for evil's sake. It's seeing profit as more important than the lives of its workers.

Social democracy =/= socialism. Social democracy is still at its essence capitalism, but it's a far cry from bullshit like anarcho-capitalism.

This isn't Sup Forums, you know?

>>a movie made by two openly-transgender women

Two males made that movie.

And thank God for that, we can actually have a proper discussion with opposing viewpoints on multiple sides now.

How is this thread at all music related? That's what I was trying to say.

>I do believe there's possible ways to make communism/socialism to work, though.
How, for example?

>you decide to pay your workers unreasonable wages you can make way more money.
Is it really true though?
Small companies usually have difficulties staying afloat because of increasing minimum wages, or people who would like to work for less than the minimum (especially younger and/or inexperienced people) can't because of minimum wage laws.
Big companies could have troubles with increasing the wages of their workers, for just a few cents more per hour can lead to losses of millions of dollars per month.
There is also this pretty fun comic kind of related to unreasonable wages and super-profits.
>pic related

>banks will gamble with our money
That's supposed to be a good thing. No money is ever safe, but by "gambling" it you can at least you can make more money in the process (as long as you don't end up in a recession).

>separation between business and state
How would you do that?

>It's seeing profit as more important than the lives of its workers.
But is it really true? Just by looking at the wikipedia pages of the ten whealtiest people in the world, you can already see that each one of them has donated big amounts of money and resources to a lot of good causes. Not everybody, of course, but a lot of the upper-upper class do, and when you are in the position of making that much money, even if you didn't wanted to you would still making profits. And supposedly, not every super-rich wants to actually be that rich. Their families are likely to be kidnapped in exchange for millions, for example.

Now, keep in mind I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, so not everything I have said here is a real opinion of mine.

I know, what about it?

I wish there was a real Sup Forums with actually diverse point of views, instead of it and it's clones being simply self-brainwashing echo-chambers.

Who cares? Go make a new thread about whatever musical related thing you want to discuss if it bothers you that much. There are like 150 threads at all times.

Shit I was halfway through my response then my browser fucked up. Sorry man, just wait a little bit more.

when did being conservative become so trendy?

Right after it became trendy to be liberal.

It moves in cycles.

One takes over, they fuck up, the other takes over, they fuck up, the other takes over ad infinitum

Happened a similar thing to me with my previous post :/
I don't know if I will be able to reply to your post, but I would love to read it anyways, and maybe continue this next time I see you on here.

Well, what's NOT trendy about being a conservative!? B-)

I don't know, they seem like very slow cycles (if cycles at all) to me.

Zappa didn't support conservatives

this

he was just an anti-drugs libertarian

Aight I've read alot of alt-right bullshit in my time, and I'll concede that Hoppe's theory seems more based in logic rather than reactionary emotion, however his society would degenerate fairly quickly. I feel like most conservatives live in some weird microcosm, because any society that can only function through the measures advocated by Hoppe would degenerate fairly quickly. The idea of treating a country as a financial resource with a permanent presiding monarch is interesting and one I've heard before, but though i see the supposed logic in it, the simple fact is that singular individuals, particularly individuals cultivated in the position of financial privilege a monarch is don't have a firm enough grasp of human anthropology to properly guide a nation. And i think this lack of comprehension of humanity is the root of all problems with theoretical conservative or just generally authoritarian forms of government.
Humans fundamentally are not yet equipp-ed with the cognitive abilities to value long-term species survival over short term reproduction, however simultaneously we generally desire a collectivist structure to create security. As we lack this cognisance on a biological level, any attempts at suppressing so called "degenerate" behaviour in authoritarian states, like the one Hoppe is proposing fail. The human conditions is simply not pliable enough.

TL;DR Hoppe is better than most conservative theorists in that he concedes human beings can only function in a society because of some desire for themselves (even if the desire can be considered "Morally good") but the idea of creating a society based around these flaws that prevent the establishment of an effective society with some degree of longevity is fallacious.

Im a political pessimist. You can't regulate behaviour through legislative means when that behaviour is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. Alt-rights should just make peace with that.

They're not perfect cycles. It's more like two opposing sine waves that are slightly offset so that there's some overlap where both are "popular". And of course, this waves aren't perfect and the values fluctuate.

But generally, it's how the political machine sustains itself here. A political machine with no internal opposition is near-useless to itself. One with too much is unsustainable.

Two political parties that constantly state and respond to each other thus push the wheels of the machine.

Example: The Dems proposed a 1.8 billion dollar fund for dealing with Zika. The GOP shaved down .8 bil in funding, mostly because a large part of that .8 bil was going to a Puerto Rican health care business with ties to Planned Parenthood. The Dems responded by not accepting the bill at all on those terms.

Nobody accomplished anything but keeping the political system occupied on purely ideological, abstract propositions. Thus, the politicians in power can earn their bread by not doing anything of merit for the populace.

If either party would have conceded on the grounds of wanting to help the populace over their own ideologies and wallets, then we'd have at least 1 billion going to help stop the spread of the epidemic.

Instead, because of ideological grandstanding, we have a fund of $0.00 set aside to help us and as an added bonus our congressmen can go another day with their lives of luxury without having to worry about ever discussing this in depth again unless the want an easy day at the office.

Just as a body is an aggregate of the cells that make it up, so too is the political system a "living" entity that keeps itself unlive, even if unknowingly.

The first major issue in communism that needs to be addressed is how it was implemented. One day, your government is replaced by a dictatorship that demands you live life in a new experimental way. If you disagree with this, you're likely to be thrown in the gulags. Not to even mention the issues of being a communist country in a capitalist world. It simply wouldn't work out. My solution is to implement it gradually, democratically, and on an international scale.

Now, with the system itself... One of the major issues with communism that's been discussed again and again is work incentive. I think the solution to this would be the government granting jobs to people that they're skillful in and passionate at. I also think that those who refuse to do their jobs with effort should face the risk of losing the benefits of the communist system, which is getting things you want for free and shietttt. Obviously, my system is flawed and criticism is appreciated.

Well of course too high of a minimum wage won't work. But too low of one won't either. We need to find the fine line of minimum wage that won't screw over workers and won't screw over businesses small and large.

Of course it's supposed to be good. But the mere fact that you could end up in a recession is why it should be illegal. And this isn't just the banks' money, it's the money of many many people.

By reversing Citizens United vs FEC and establish a minimum donation. The idea that "corporations are people and money is free speech" is inherently flawed because:
1. People have complex motivations, whereas the main purpose of corporations is to make a profit.
2. The 1% has more money combined than the 99%, which means they have more influence on the government.
If the government favors the upper class over the working class, it should be decided by the majority of people.

Charity is just throwing a bunch of money at people for a little bit imo. [insert fish proverb]. I'm losing room so I'll stop here.

If there's anyone we can stay in touch that'd be nice because I enjoy this.

*anyway

>Not to even mention the issues of being a communist country in a capitalist world.
I don't see the problem with this. For hundreds of years people have been able to sustain themselves in a non-globalized world, so why is it that they can't now?

>My solution is to implement it gradually, democratically, and on an international scale.
But what about moving gradually to a more capitalist world? Of course, you would need to get rid of all the misery and poor living conditions first, maybe with the welfare state and such, and some fair regulations, but I don't think socialism would be a good idea even if implemented in a peaceful way.
>international scale
Still don't get why.


>I also think that those who refuse to do their jobs with effort should face the risk of losing the benefits of the communist system, which is getting things you want for free and shietttt.
My intuition just tells me this wouldn't work. You can't just stop getting the benefits of it, you have no alternative since capitalism is forbidden (unless you flee, but you say this should be international, so you are doomed to some kind of slavery?).

>But too low of one won't either.
It could be argued it could. Maybe not in all cases, but some. Now, didn't Denmark or Switzerland have no minimum wages?

>We need to find the fine line of minimum wage that won't screw over workers and won't screw over businesses small and large.
What if you screw workers on the short-term to benefit business, but then turn things the other way around on the long-term when you already have big and successful business? Also, at least in the case of poorer countries, you can't really improve if you don't liberate the economy, as I have seen so far. Once you are already well of, then welfares and the like turn out to be better ideas.