In truth, the communist’s motivation has very little to do with altruism. Instead, it stems from intense jealousy...

>In truth, the communist’s motivation has very little to do with altruism. Instead, it stems from intense jealousy, self-loathing, and a lust for revenge against nature. In short, they hate themselves for being irredeemably unfit and impotent, and thus, they want to see all reflectors of their failures burn. They want to destroy any standard of measurement and make winning impossible, because, if there are no winners, then there are no losers, and maybe then, they won’t feel quite as bad about themselves.

Is this true, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

hemorrhoidcures.biz/famous-people-with-hemorrhoids-who-do-you-know/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes

t. Former Communist

communism is just watered down jewishism.

Bump because the post was eloquent

Absolutely accurate. Marxists are fueled entirely by an intense awareness of their own inferiority and want to see the world destroyed to obscure their own perceived weaknesses in the turmoil that will ensue if they ever finally realize their "revolution". It's literally the Beta Uprising, it's a purely spiteful act of rebellion against those who they believe wronged them by making their worthlessness so evident - successful people. This is why they will come for you, innocent or not, and you will ask, "Why do you persecute me when I did nothing to you at all?" and they will not need to reply, because they were not wronged by you, they were ultimately wronged by themselves and your existence only makes it more evident, so they will get rid of you.

>le every single thing in the entire world boils down to subconscious bullshit meme

this is as bad as "if you don't like gay people that means you're gay"

the reason people are communists is because they're fooling themselves about the end result

100% true

It never worked out well through communism. True, Cuba is stable today though.

Good post. It is always the people who don't fit in and have failed at life that shill for communism. If you notice every communist/SJW looks like a freak.

queria escribir lo mismo.
me anticipaste.
saludos de un gocho.

OP 100% true, at least in venezuela.

Saludos de vuelta papá uishhhhhhhhhh veaaaaa los pastelitos andinos vienen en camino mijo

Why don't reactionaries ever actually read Marx? Their critiques might actually reflect reality of they did.

well said senpai

voy a volar a venezuela para ver pastelitos que marchan por todo el pais.
esta mierda ya se esta se pasò.

Take a good look at all the communists of the west and ask yourself if they are truly the representatives of the will of the working class. You will find they are all rather representatives of those most estranged from the working class, weird middle-class urbanites and unemployed jackasses, women and teenagers who have never worked an honest day in their lives. The entire Marxist community is seemingly rife with genetic weakness and general social ineptitude, where are the men of the farms, factories, mines and lowest rungs of society, those who actually have a reason to protest? Where is the actual working class in this collection of so-called "Marxists"? Every self-attributed Marxist in the west is the farthest thing from a member of the working class, they are in it purely for the spite, they are in it to rebel against their own lack of self-worth.

>lol communism sucks coz the communists are losers!
Ignore filename

Based leaf

Are you using google translate tony? I can tell from the píxels and shit

ITT: Capitalist that hold the Utopian notion that capitalism is the end of history.

We're not interested in the lies you tell yourself to justify your adherence to the most morally and intellectually bankrupt and murderous ideology to ever exist.

cambiè frase a mitad.
no creo que google translate tenga gocho, jaja

I read it... and I UNDERSTOOD IT ;)

>I don't like x so I won't read it because I don't like it

WEW LAD

Based leaf

this is true

you could say the same thing about any revolutionary vanguard. the lives that W.E.B Dubois and Frederick Douglass lived were nothing like the lives of common slaves. The only thing in common was origins and most people at >>/leftypol/ are of working class origins.
all rebellions by definition are beta rebellions, the underclass overthrowing the overclass. The people who overthrew the aristocracy in Europe were people who lived under the feudal lords.

Rebels are the real ubermensch, bootlickers are too weak to stand up, they get off on oppressing the weak. It is a slave-mentality expressed by those who have a tiny bit of power.

>beg the government to oppress you
>call anyone else a bootlicker
Kek. You guys are totally transparent.

>I don't like x so I won't read it because I don't like it.

I'll be sure to mention mein kampf the next time some Leftist retard (oxymoron) is bashing on hitler.

Ya.

Communism = bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Its a lot simpler than that. Karl Marx was butthurt. Not about anything in particular. His butt just hurt.

hemorrhoidcures.biz/famous-people-with-hemorrhoids-who-do-you-know/

>Karl Marx (1818–1883); Prussian-German philosopher, sociologist, economist, journalist, historian and revolutionary socialist, whilst writing Das Kapital, became beset with hemorrhoids. Writing to his close friend Friedrich Engels he said, “To finish I must at least be able to sit down” adding, “I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles.”

>“I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles.”
You are now aware the Jews slaughtered tens of millions of your kinsman because Karl Marx had a sore bottom.

>Get called out for doing something stupid
>lol other people do it too
Just admit you are wrong user

>Leftist retard (oxymoron)
Also i just realized you literally implied that leftist are by definition not retarded

It's all about protecting one's self interest.
Capitalism favors the rich communism favours the poor.
The poor are however brainwashed, confused and split so they actually believe capitalism is good for them, even tho stats show differnet.

Fuck you.

Fuck me!

I meant redundant!

It is okay, user. I won't diss your ideology simply on the basis of you being a fucking retard

Communism is ultimately nothing more but a cult of envy.

>sharing property is oppression
first of all, socialism is the democratic management of the means of production, if this phrase triggers you. You are a lost cause.

Why should personal wealth(which does not indicate any merit) be the standard of with which to decide who gets to run the means of production?

When managing the means of production the following should be considered: worker safety, the environment, the needs of the people, working conditions, worker benefits.

Capitalism does not consider these factors. Capitalism tries to extract the most money from workers and the environment. Society is not a game where exchanging the most currency is the thing that leads to the greatest benefit. A harmonious society is one where citizens have stability, health and autonomy. Autonomy includes having a say in your economic activity which includes your workplace. If you have ever worked a job you would know that management is not some ubermensch who guides the factory to being part of a functioning society. They are just people trying to squeeze your time and labor into their pockets.
tl;dr only cucks have little tyrants telling them what to do, so organize and be empowered to have a say over your labor.

Friendly reminder that SJW, BLM and all that American bollocks is liberalism and is the enemy of any good Marxist out there.

>communism favours the poor
This is what communiggers actually believe. Don't you have a bull to get milking Sven?

Thank you, Islamic poland.

They're just offshoots of your very same creed, communigger. You're just the catholic while they're the protestants.

I have a communist friend and talk with communists regularly so I know some things about their way of thought.

It's obvious that they want the same thing. Seize the means of production and give them to the workers. But they want it for different reasons. My friend is very upper class. He is far richer than I am and lives in a very good neighborhood . He is a communist because his parents are very capitalistic and right wing, but he is also altruistic as well. He can't stand seeing poor people and people having nothing to eat. He's not "jealous" of the upper class, he seems kind of depressed to me though and misguided.

On the other hand, one of his friends who is also a communist staight out said to me that he is a communist because of self interest and not because of ideology. He's pretty poor and also said that if he were rich, he would be a capitalist.

To sum up, communists have different motives, and they don't "hate" successful people. They reject their success altogether. They think that capitalists profit exploit workers and that they don't deserve their money.

Most communists are very insecure about themselves. Same goes for nazis and most radicals, in my opinion.

>I have a communist friend
Quick! Grab him.

It does favour the poor though.

And by "poor" I mean the trash of society. The ones who don't want to work, the rejects, the losers, the drug addicts, the uneducated who only know how to do simple jobs.

Communism has nothing to do with altruism. It's inherently selfish - "I'm here, I'm breathing, give me stuff".

Like capitalists. You know the ones that want to prove they are the shit over and over. Sounds like low self esteem and overcompensation to me.

>be landlord
>I have a deed, I'm here, I'm breathing, give me rent

automation is making more and more jobs into "simple jobs"

No, it's not.

I'm a communist because I'm bitter and jealous. Fuck rich people. Why should they get so much when I have fuck all?

>He's pretty poor and also said that if he were rich, he would be a capitalist.

Good, that means he is a perfect Marxist. We're not here to shit on Capitalism and renounce it from history - it's the opposite! We're looking to advance history and currently Capitalism is doing a grand job at doing just that, we just think it would be Utopian to accept this as the end of society's grow.

Your posh mate seems to be coming at this at the wrong angle; it's not about pity or his feelings - it's about the dialectical movement of history.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Capitalism requires you to be able to offer something to others (they want a house more then their money, you want their money more than your house), or your starve.

>first of all, socialism is the democratic management of the means of production
So a joint stock company is socialism?
No I don't think you would consider it that.

Socialism is not simply "the democratic management of the means of production". Socialists are not satisfied with simply having a say in how a company is run. Socialism first requires that socialists rob and murder the former owners of all property that exist prior to the implementation of their "socialist" system. Everything after that is purely hypothetical as no socialist system ever seems to get beyond that first step before being dismissed as "not true socialism" for alleged deviations from socialist doctrine. Considering that no two socialists ever actually agree on the details of what exactly socialism is, it's inevitable that this will always happen and yet another episode of mass murder will get swept under the rug by a cult of maniacs ever willing to try again and again to fit a square peg into a round hole.

*you

While it is true of man, there is more than this.

Yes, ultimately, every kind of egalitarianism is simply institutionalized envy. But not all its proponents and activists are simply envious. Most are, but far from all. Many are egalitarian because they fear the envy of others. But even that is too candid a sentiment and doesn't explain all.

When envy is seen as legitimate, you will feel miserable seeing people being envious. So even if you are rather successful, if you don't reject envy, you may end up egalitarian. Probably you will call it "sense of justice" or "social justice" or any other euphemism for what is simply envy or commiseration and surrender to envy.

Once envy is legitimized, there is only one way out : to try to make it impossible for people to be envious by negating (sometimes physically) or making irrelevant all differences, ie egalitarianism. Of course it will only be possible by systematic constrain and command. The envy inherent in all forms of egalitarianism is entirely incompatible with liberty, and largely with productivity.

If you reject envy, you won't care about other people being happier, richer or worthier. You also won't take seriously the plebs being envious of other people being richer or happier or worthier.

Embrace the class hatred. We know they are parasites on the back of labor.

Cucks are those who work themselves to the bone believing they will one day become rich. Capitalism is not a meritocracy.

Statistically speaking you will not become rich, you are NOT a special wittle snowflake. GET REAL and realize there is power in numbers.

>He's not "jealous" of the upper class, he seems kind of depressed to me though and misguided.
In other words his communism is rooted in self-loathing. Which was one of the motivations listed by OP.

>This
Socialism "works" when you have perfect, infallible people who are robots without the ability to do wrong (which, is clearly impossible). And even then, it's horribly unethical, since it's tyranny of the majority taken to the logical endpoint.

everybody needs a place to live, not everyone is born with a place to live and some are born with multiple places to live, should the outcome of this lottery decide whether someone should pay a portion of their labor to someone else?

Your answer is irrelevant. If you are a person who was born without a place to live and you don't believe in spooks, you will say
>fuck that

дa comrade.

>So a joint stock company is socialism?
Yes, if only workers can own shares and only one share.

That is literally socialism.

and I will kill any hobo that thinks he has a right to move into my living room because I don't believe in the spooks like the inherent value of human life

You seem to be a good lad, but you come across as someone who's not read anything except the communist manifesto and some dank /leftypol/ memes.

>Socialism first requires that socialists rob and murder the former owners of all property that exist prior to the implementation of their "socialist" system.
false, Ayn Rand's family owned a pharmacy in Tsarist Russia and the Soviets still paid for her education.

>So a joint stock company is socialism?
close, market socialist would say yes. I would say as long as the company was operating in a world without currency than it would be socialism.

I myself think 1970's China was a shining example of socialism.

Envy is a human characteristic. You can't uproot it. Capitalism only exacerbates envy and therefore it is sustainable only through a police state.

I reject the premise that housing is a fundamental right. What you're saying there is that if you want a place to live, you should be able to force someone to build you a house, for free, against their will.

That said, I highly doubt the world will ever be without charitable people, who DO act altruistically by intention and provide for the less fortunate off of their own backs.

such a prickly disposition towards your fellow man will not build a functioning society. whatevs your decision.
a) be a contributing member of society
b) be a dick
I think it would be an easy decision.
eh, if you ever see how the bottom half lives you will come around to my point of view.

So managers in that company are not allowed to own shares?
What about the advertising department?
Also why only one share?
If I work harder than the slackers down in the mailroom why shouldn't I be able to own two shares? How come the new guy who doesn't know shit about this business gets the same number of shares as someone whose been working there for twenty years?
Oh and what happens if workers in company A trade their shares with the managers in company B?
Will you send the NKVD round to shoot them for counter-revolutionary activity?

You're the one being a dick because you think you're owed things. If you're poor, it's probably because you've made bad choices in life. Take some responsibility.

it's not about feelings of charity or altruism though mate; it's about duty (in the Kantian sense of the word). As Lenin said “He who does not work shall not eat”, therefore we aren't about giving people house for shits and giggles but based on the mutual relationship between worker and worker's state.

I'm a socialist mate, I just think you're coming across as less Marxist and more rage against the machine.

it is worse than that, there is no free land where you can make your own home.

I would be a okay with paying rent as long as no idle bourgeoisie profited off of it.

>Ayn Rand's family owned a pharmacy in Tsarist Russia and the Soviets still paid for her education.

Did they let her family keep the pharmacy?
No?
Then fuck off.
Oh by the way I could have sworn the Soviet Union was supposed to be "state capitalist" and not actually socialist.....

100%

gas commies

Communism is ideology of envy and hatred.

Search God. Ask for forgivness, get free of guilty. Jesus loves you.

>Capitalism only exacerbates envy and therefore it is sustainable only through a police state.
The worst police states were socialist states.
Besides, Capitalism doesn't ask for any pseudo-revolution of creation. Men being envious is no reason to cave in to their envy.

Look at all the primitive tribes, how they mistreat every single of the savage that rise above his fellows. Even in the tribes being fully collectivist in terms of production, and hence miserable because of no economic calculation, people envy each other based on their looks. Ugly or old women cast spells of dark magic or poison the gorgeous ones.

Envy has no bounds and will never cease as long as you can identify differences. It can only end in the Gnostic extinction of creation in the undifferentiated unity negating any kind of individuation. It doesn't rest on any "objective" level of difference. People in socialist countries are if anything even more envious than in more libertarian lands.

>So managers in that company are not allowed to own shares?
>What about the advertising department?
They work for the organisation, they are entitled to the share.

"Worker" does not mean assembly line only.

>Also why only one share?
Because that is the law.

>If I work harder than the slackers down in the mailroom why shouldn't I be able to own two shares? How come the new guy who doesn't know shit about this business gets the same number of shares as someone whose been working there for twenty years?
Because that is the law.

>Oh and what happens if workers in company A trade their shares with the managers in company B?
Illegal.

>Will you send the NKVD round to shoot them for counter-revolutionary activity?
Well, they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place. You can't just swap shares.

Your complaints mostly seem to be "WELL WHY SHOULD OTHERS GET THE SAME AS ME???". You don't seem to understand that shares =/= pay. You can get paid more than the slackers in the mail room, but you cannot have more shares than them. If you truly do work harder than the slackers in the mail room then you'll be able to take your case to the shareholders and have pay scales adjusted accordingly. If you simply "feel" like you work harder than the slackers in the mail room, but have no proof, then tough luck.

The workers exercise democratic control over the organisation.

Capitalism isn't about duty, at all. You aren't owed anything, and you have to be able offer something, altruistically, to be able to survive.

The relation between "worker and state" you talk about is "Let's take away rich people's money because there's more of us". Just because you and your friend vote to take Bill Gate's wealth doesn't make stealing someone else's money right.

So, you're not okay with other people doing something that's (at worst) harmless with their money? Or, you don't want someone else doing better than you because they worked harder to offer something you couldn't? Talk about entitled...

you're confusing communism with capitalism there, you're taking the ideas of communism to the extreme forgetting the necessary step of socialism

What is your point here mate? I have no idea what I have just read but it seems you're getting mixed up with the "token" system of money and surplus value.

Socialism and communism are rape, capitalism is consensual sex. That's what I'm saying boiled down to the lowest level.

>Men being envious is no reason to cave in to their envy

That's the same unrealistic imposed morality you accuse socialism of.

>If you're poor, it's probably because you've made bad choices in life.
nice meme
The dicks are those who act entitled to the wealth earned from the labor of others. Dickishness is anti-socialness. So a dick is a person who is selfish and the bourgeoisie who hard their ill-gotten wealth are the definition of anti-social.
I gave up on trying to argue for socialism in the construct of bourgeois morality. No more pity-party socialism. The underclass has a feeling of class hatred based on their experience, we should not muzzle that by sentiment in bourgeois moralism. Let the underclass express their hatred and be liberated from having to debate stupid ideals like the NAP.
in the end it comes down to a question of
a) do you believe you have a right to power
b) do you feel that you need to justify your right to power using concepts originating from the oppressing class

no need to feel apologetic, it is pointless to debate ancaps, socialist should concentrate on raising class hatred and liberating the workers from their ideological muzzle.

Same applies to blacks, feminists, leftie hipsters, they want to see the powerful and rich white man down not for opression or whatever but to take what he has and to bring him to the same level

>did George Washington let the British keep the colonies?

literally 'why do you persecute me so'-tier

Pretty much. Have you ever met a communist that was happy and not an anti-social sperg? Me neither.

>earned from the labor of others
You're dividing humans into two groups here, as is the socialist way of doing things. The people who are "workers" and work for somebody, and "problems to be overthrown in the revolution", who are subhuman. This is a fallacy, because the implication is that anybody who makes a profit, say from managing a restaurant, doesn't actually work themselves.

If you're a waiter and run food back and forth, you shouldn't earn as much as the person up to their tits in stress over accounts and managing the people under them.

Pretty much.

Also
>Doesn't like police state
>Has a pic of Pinochet

>because that is the law
legalism is not a valid argument
You know what else is the law?
Not robbing the bourgeoisie, yet I don't see you letting that get in the way of your ideology. So clearly "it's the law" hold no actual weight in your mind.
>Well, they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place. You can't just swap shares.
Why not?
Do they not own their shares?
If their shares are their property why shouldn't they be able to do with them as they please? If their shares are not their property then who exactly owns them?

In addition, you have no right to take the life, liberties, or property away from others. That's murder, tyranny, or theft. All immoral.

aw lawdy, lawdy.

I have work in the morning (surprise a leftist that actually goes to work!!!), but you need to open a book or two rather than relying on memes for knowledge.

Stop with the pseudo-mao shit on the internet lad, you sound rather edgy - put down the RATM album and pick up some Hegel and Kant then read a little on the French Revolution. Acting like a autistic nutter isn't going to "rally the masses" and Dave the plumber from down the road, Ian the factory worker and Jim the mechanic are all going to think you're one big faggot if you carry on this way.


Anyway I'm off.

Even if that was the case, at least we would have freedom and high productivity compared to socialism, which would be reason enough to reject it.

But it's not the case. Envy is inherently malicious. I don't deny that men are fallen and subject to envy. But it isn't anymore legitimate than other evils. Envy will not disappear in this life, but it can at least not be the foundation of society, as it is in socialism.

Look how many people follow the details of the regal lifestyle of celebrities with barely any envy. In fact, envy would be manageable to tame if not for leftist "intellectuals" and the mass media constantly bombarding them with envy filled messages.

George Washington was filthy bourgeoisie capitalist and as a socialist you should be ashamed of yourself for holding his actions up as an example to others.

>So, you're not okay with other people doing something that's (at worst) harmless with their money?
I am. I don't see how I am implied otherwise.
>Or, you don't want someone else doing better than you because they worked harder to offer something you couldn't?
Never implied this. I don't care if comrade vlad gets a nicer sofa than me because he put more time in at the factory to pay for it.

>Socialist
>Not demanding a UBI
Colour me suprised.

I was talking in terms above memes, and had to boil it down because the leftist didn't get it.

Go read some J.S. Mill, or Rand.

>legalism is not a valid argument
You asked why you had to do certain things.

The reason is that if you don't men with guns will come to your house and take you away.

If you want a moral justification then read the Commie Manifesto. The moral reasoning is the same as literally every other form of Communism.

>Why not?
Because it is illegal.

>If their shares are their property why shouldn't they be able to do with them as they please?
Your car is property but you can't ram it into pedestrians. Your land and your house are your property but anything that you build still has to comply with the building codes. Your company and your factory are your property but you still have to put railings on catwalks so people don't fall off.

Ownership is not and has never been the end-all of what you can and can't do.

the bourgeoisie do it too

You don't want people profiting. What do you find wrong about profit?

>has zero fucking idea what communism is
>woo
>is this true, Sup Forums?

shitposting is against the rules brazil

Only with corporatism. Which is a result of corruption. Which is a result of big government. Which is a result of leftist policies.

Their reasons and feelings don't matter