Woah... really makes u think

refute this

I just can't.

oh look. Another Facebook post about a fantasy land that would never happen because of human nature

then you would have class warfare and everyone would be out to get more food than the next guy again. and structure starts over from a baseline and again, you would have capitalism.
why would you want anything different it is gods way of separating the smart from the poor.

Sup Forums is a hivemind of retards OP. The only reason such a world does no exist is because of greedy assholes like the ones here. You dont need nice things, wouldnt you rather end world hunger and social injustice than drive around in a fancy Nissan?

Fucking westerners stop ruining communism
It's meant to be a base for building an evil empire, not a magical world full of peace and ponys

...

She's fundamentally correct and is propounding the leftist vision of matriarchal primitivism first put forward by Rousseau. What this overlooks is:
Such a society would be the slaves of any remaining technological patriarchy, so the desolation must be complete, but will not be, because the lefties who say they want this are thinking they can keep their own tech and lord it over everyone else.

How do you plan on doing this?

"Why with a revolution of course."

Nothing he said was wrong. If there was no property, conflict in general would stop, be it among individuals or nations. The problem is white bootlickers who defend their fellow white capitalists and bankers, when it would really be in their interest to unite with working class people of colour (false ideology, look it up).

But the wealth wouldn't exist without the capitol system to create it and even if you seize it, it only has value s aa use to a capital system . That's why all commie country's become poor, the wealth isn't intrinsic

The ignorance in that post is astounding. But if that person really believes what he wrote, then have him put it to the test. Have him and his family live in his commie utopia. Everything in the home is common property. Take off all the bedroom doors. All money made by everyone in the family is put in a pot and everyone has access to it. Let's see how long they last in a peaceful existence living that way.

I don't want to be a part of that "working class"

>a fancy nissan
That is a good one. You think the people who run the show and start the wars drive fucking economy class sedans? Unless they are using a Maserati to treat their erectile dysfunction, they never drive themselves at all. Nor do they fly their own planes. Nor do they pilot their own mega yachts. Jesus, communists are fucking dumb.

>yay all the resources were returned to us.
>look everyone we don't have to fight anymore.
>we can live in a world of harmony.
> what will we pay the workers
>well we could just pay them in what they make.
>what if what they make is something you can't live off
>they can just barter with their fellow man.

>hey I'll trade you my steel support beams for that bread
> ok how much bread is your beam worth?
>I don't know 100 loaves.
>but my bread isn't that cheap.
>look just give me the bread
>no

>The bread makers over the hill have refused to trade with us because we can't regulate how much the price of bread is in comparison to the steel we make.
> I'm starving. We've just been making steel for weeks, we have no feed.
>why don't we just take the bread.
>but it's there bread
>it's our lives. I don't want my family to starve because some bread maker doesn't want to give us his shit
>that bread is all they have, they'll fight to protect it
>don't worry we'll win, we have the steel. We can make weapons
>let's go take the bread we need. Let's go on a raid.

And so on..

And so on...

Until anarchy gave way to federalism gave to way to mercantilism gave way to capitalism. And look we're right back where we started.

Stopped reading at:
>"In order to put an end to war..."
War is human nature, you'll never eliminate conflict. Before there was capitalism or anything else, there was war. When America was discovered the native populations were at war. This guy is a fucking retard and I'm not going to read his perverted idealism. He's living in denial.

>communists are fucking dumb.
Bingo! They are extremely dumb, which is why they love communism. There is no effort, thought, hard work, or imagination in communism. It is the lifestyle of the lazy dummies.

>communists have never gone to war

What the fuck

>Federalism
Derp Feudalism

Nice one phone

>juster
just

>posted on my privately owned Macbook/iPhone/iPad that my parents purchased

Fucking hell I hate agreeing with leaf posts

Remember to sage this meme tier thread

People are still gonna kill you if they don't like you. It doesn't matter how you're living. They'll still have certain attitudes and characteristics that you just plain don't fucking like.

>what was the soviet union and communist china

People need leaders and innovators. If this system was so good, somebody would have already created it and had it functioning.

Is there a way to simulate war in the mind of a modern man, at this point Imo more wars would be a good thing.

And what omnipresent, omnipotent, and utterly unbiased and wholly selfless group of people with enough power to overthrow the current power structure will impose these utterly fantastic rules made up by some hippy who took a dab once and saw god?

Maybe they could like decide democratically how much everyone puts in, and how much everyone is allowed to take out?

Who said anything about money dissapearing?
The OP just talks about getting rid of the parasite class and running industry democratically.

Believing in the divine rights of kings is human nature. Capitalism just goes against the natural feudalist system.

>Maybe they could like decide democratically
Then it is no longer the commie utopia the guy wrote in his FB post. That is the thing, they are so idealistic and brainwashed that they cannot think logically if their idea will work in the real world. All he has to do is spend a day or two reviewing communists countries and their history to know that it does not work. Money runs out, people become lazy, and the society becomes ugly.

As a staunch Space Communist I feel necessary to point out you cannot legislate or shoot your way into communism. You need to advance the capitalistic system to the point where communism emerges on its own.

We're moving towards that direction but not there yet.

>88888
Kek has spoken

>when the people own the means of production blahblahblah
They already do. He's just angry because he's not one of the leaders within the natural hierarchy.

Praise him
RIP SE threads

>It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

>What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?

>It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family', and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

>When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there's always ways to get the rotten ones. You don't break into grocery stores after dark and you don't pick your fellow's pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it's to get stinking drunk and forget—you do.

>Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

>God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got.

>The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we'd be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn't a man rich and smart enough but that he didn't think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better's wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he'd get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who'd get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who'd rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss's, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn't like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

>What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane? Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale?

>muh post-scarcity
Unless you can literally bypass physics, it's not happening. Markets are built around scarcity and you will always have relative scarcity, whether it be in a certain resource, transportation costs, or time/labor.

Oh, and the replicators in Star Trek are unrealistic. In order to turn random shit into earl gray tea, you're going to need nuclear reactors. And in fact, running those many nuclear reactors(of both the fission and fusion kind) to create a specific amount of various elements in the periodic table and then combining them together would cost more in energy than simply bringing it with you.

But then again, Star Trek is entry-level commie sci-fi. It's to be expected that normies would use it as a textbook.

usually automation is the implied liberator

If there's no capitalist at the top skimming profits this will literally and always happen.

Great argument bro.

>uses private property to promote Common property
Take his fucking stick out of his ass will ya?

The irony is that you're perfectly able within this evil capitalist system to establish an outfit of any size and scope that achieves all of the goals you say you wish to accomplish through socialism.

The problem is that it doesn't accomplish the goals you don't say, namely, punishing those who you feel wronged you, or, gaining absolute control over the lives of people who want no part of your scheme.

In the meantime, feel free to start up a factory as Mr. Allen describes above and see if you can make your utopia work from it.

>relative scarcity

Yeah, no private airliners or yuuuge natural diamond collections for the masses

But the actual cost of housing and feeding someone is peanuts even in the current economy

advances in fabrication will continue, prices will go down and new materials will be introduced

That sounds like a good way to start a war.

cost will go down, prices will go up, people will live in shanty towns and the politicians and bankers in palaces.
This is what will actually happen.
And from time to time, they will hunt a white male for sport.

As productivity increases and costs for primary needs fall, the average standard of living rises and demand is shifted to other goods and services.

The problem is that you think that eventually productivity will hit infinity. That's not how things work in nature.

This path leads down to genocide and end of human civilization

Nice armchair psychology strawman.

You can have a communist economy to an extent within the capitalist system as evinced by the economic cooperatives that do exist and thrive, but even so it's hard to extricate yourself from the competition, the goods, and the services created under the exploitative capitalist system.

That's their goal.

Pretty antisemitic desu senpai

Tribes of a couple of dozen people had wars with rocks and sticks long before anyone invented money.

>it is the "capitalist" who start wars
>not the people in positions of power who use force to tax citizens and conscript them in order to fight wars in the first place
>nobles never went to war over petty squabbles
>ignoring all the times the state pushes for war under the guise of a "national threat"
>it is the fault of a system of voluntary exchanges

Wealth and money is a social construct, the money is a stand in for human labor, or goods. The labor organizers will always be rich no matter what system of government is in place.

Fantastic dismantling of communism! Who wrote this?

> imblying the jews wouldnt come and fuck things up anyway

>You can have a communist economy to an extent within the capitalist system as evinced by the economic cooperatives that do exist and thrive, but even so it's hard to extricate yourself from the competition, the goods, and the services created under the exploitative capitalist system.

Oh, OK.

So what you're saying is that while you could certainly found a business, in fact as many as you wanted, to carry out your idealism, you would have a hard time maintaining that business or businesses in spite of your adoption of a wildly popular ownership scheme that would enjoy broad support among the oppressed masses because other, capitalist businesses would produce goods more efficiently?

And, as a result, the only way that you could, in fact, make such a system work indefinitely is to abolish competing ideologies, by extension growing your preferred system to eventually encompass not only the capitalists themselves but also all the people who, in spite of the ability to choose your ideology and support your business(es), voluntarily chose another instead?

Good to know.

Ayn Rand, the hack writer who amusingly doesn't understand Marx or Kant, but somehow think she's fit to critique them.

How has she misunderstood Marx in this passage?

> bettering yourself

For what? Warm fuzzies?

Gimme stuff

>Ayn Rand, the hack writer who amusingly doesn't understand Marx or Kant, but somehow think she's fit to critique them.

Kind of like the armchair socialists around the world who could sooner sprout wings and fly into the clouds than successfully run a capitalist business, yet find themselves qualified to critique those.

But I know, I know, you just aren't ruthless enough.

Honestly, because of things like the prisoner's dilemma in a way.

In a system where working together creates this utopia as you describe it, someone(s) will realize that it would benefit them to cheat the system. These people would then fuck the whole thing up for everyone else.

In a voluntary, small-scale environment, these things might work to some extent, but large scale, especially globally, they would fail.

>The problem is that you think that eventually productivity will hit infinity.
>infinity.

There is no need for infinite growth.

For example the emergence of agriculture did not give us infinite resources but instead it did start an explosion that was responsible for creating the first cities and gave rose to written language which increased efficiency in the rate of attaining knowledge as it could be passed properly between generations.

Yeah, if you have to compete with 3rd world slave labor, that might be hard for obvious reasons, and it would make your goals of providing decent living standards for your laborers difficult.

Like I just told you that it works today, without having to impose a global system, but it's difficult because of the reasons I just mentioned. You clearly just want me to be a commie boogeyman so you can dismiss anything I just said.

Why would someone who hates the capitalist system want to run it, fucking kek.

>Yeah, if you have to compete with 3rd world slave labor, that might be hard for obvious reasons, and it would make your goals of providing decent living standards for your laborers difficult.

What obvious reasons? Are you saying that the masses would prefer to buy cheaper goods produced more efficiently than goods produced under your morally-superior system? I thought socialism enjoyed massive support among the people, that the entire world was on the brink of overthrowing the capitalists to better their conditions. Why wouldn't they want to support your business, even if it costs them a little more? After all, places like Whole Foods make a killing from the moral shoppers.

>Why would someone who hates the capitalist system want to run it, fucking kek.

Well, obviously if you were the owner of a business, you'd make it a personal priority to see to it that you "provid[ed] decent living standards for your laborers", right? I mean, you're not just bloviating about hypotheticals, you're a man of action, and since this capitalist system is so exploitative and oppressive you should easily be able to do so out of the massive profits you'd inevitably earn. That's how all those other guys got rich, right? Massive profits?

>bettering yourself
>For what? Warm fuzzies?

If you're happy with a solitary existance without meaning why even bother socializing with us?

>Gimme stuff

Your basic needs would be met, if you're super rich I can't promise you a better deal than the one you got now. However if youre poor you will have more oppoturnities to earn stuff by doing hard work.

If there is money there will be winners and losers. Eventually some people will be richer and will use their money to get richer, buy all the guns, buy the army, etc, etc, it doesn't work.

Earth or even the solar system are not closed systems. Money isn't like entropy either.

I didn't mean that, just if you have a more in demand skill you will naturally be worth more.

If you are a doctor people will offer lots of their money to save their/their families life. You are now rich and the breadmaker/fieldworker etc is now poor. Hence, you have power over him, and there's nothing stopping you from enslaving him

So why are the super rich going to give you their cash to help out the super poor? If they don't, how are all their basic needs going to be met?

This is now a pinochet thread.

>Hence, you have power over him, and there's nothing stopping you from enslaving him

There are a lot more bread-makers and field-workers than doctors, or more generally, a lot more people capable of being the first two than of the latter.

The only thing that stops exploitation is defensive action, individually and collectively, yet the people vulnerable to exploitation generally lack the initiative or, if we want to go there, the mental capacity to undertake these actions.

Life has winners and losers, not in the zero-sum meaning, but in the general sense that one is going to prevail over another, and it doesn't necessarily mean the former is inherently evil nor the latter is inherently good.

The sooner we come to terms with that the better off we'd be.

Three keks for pinochet!

Money is only valuable because of the backer.

The actual resources are there to feed and house everyone.

During wartime it goes without saying that we do things that technically can be done regardless of the financial cost

...

>to end war, instead of leaving other people in peace, we have to violently attack them and plunder their livelihood

Way to go, fucking psycho.

Good luck building a prosperous nation with that mentality.

Yes this is what I was getting at, you articulated it much better.

>no property

So who plants their crop where? Who has choice of the best hunting ground? Who can build their house in the flattest or safest location?

You will have millions and billions of people fighting over the best because all that shit is now free game.

And even if no one fights someone will get the best and someone has to get the worst.

You know, technically speaking you cannot own land nowadays. Government just lets you use it and takes it back the second it wants.

i hate his daughter so much.
she works at roosterteeth now and how she introduces herself is going on a rant about hating all white people on there podcast.

I sort of picture it as a planetary rush, if you will. Everyone begins with equal education, equal access to healthcare, and equal access to space, and humans and any other species we encounter along the way rush out to be the first to colonise and exploit planets for their resources. At which point the wealth gap begins.

Kind of retarded and unrealistic, I know, but it's plausible.

>end war
>somehow teach billions of people not to hate each other despite being retards
yeah, nah.

Unfettered capitalism is shit and so is communism

While they can move you they still need to place you on a another parcel of similar value.

That is if you don't live in a shithole where the gubment can throw you out on the streets from a home you own.

Tituba confirmed

>While they can move you they still need to place you on a another parcel of similar value.

This is not guaranteed.

>That is if you don't live in a shithole where the gubment can throw you out on the streets from a home you own.

This can happen in US which is widely proclaimed to be the shining example of individual rights

The wealth gap is what will start some wars.

One group is hungry as fuxk while they stare at another group picking all the fruit off the trees.

There isn't enough to go around but hungry group will decide "it is them or us"

Hell, hungry group could potentially end up eating fat group.

This would work if everyone was white.

Where I live makes the US look like some kind of nazi shithole.

Our freedoms far exceed that of the red white and blue

Thanks for the flag

Its cool. You can keep it.

...

>it's a Sup Forums falls for 1 post by this ID thread again...

I can google you some pictures of detroit that compete with chernobyl, would you like?

DAMN STRAIGHT I WOULD LIKE

So... democracy?

Well, it's objectively false. State ownership of the means of production sure didn't stop Stalin from waging wars. In fact, it made it easier for him.

...

2nd

USSR, China, Vietnam, Khmer Rouge