Why can "real communism" never exist? what about post-automation?

why can "real communism" never exist? what about post-automation?

Other urls found in this thread:

armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/fractional-v-transactional-banking/
youtube.com/watch?v=AM_xR9JFYuU
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
mises.org/library/no-more-free-trade-treaties-its-time-genuine-free-trade
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

because it is founded on the premise that your existence entitles you to other peoples' labor and wealth. In other words, I am breathing therefore give me your things.

Turns out that when placed under a burden like this, people don't work much.

It doesn't matter how good automation gets, there will always be an unlimited number of jobs. From a fundamental standpoint a job is literally just a human being finding a way to be useful to others, it's something you create within yourself... not something you find. As capitalism progresses it will create more and more wealth, giving people more leisure time, and thus an increased demand for entertainment. The line between work/pleasure will become increasingly blurred as capitalism affords more people the chance to pursue more fulfilling careers.

The problem with communism is that it doesn't even work in theory, never mind in reality. There will never be post-scarcity, humans will always push ourselves farther, and there's nothing wrong with that... it's a beautiful thing.

Well I guess it's pretty chill then but that's not for a long time so I guess we're stuck with memes and destitute poverty for now. Though dialectics are fun to read so we have that too.

Also, the United States is so heavily regulated that it is becoming more communist than capitalist at this point.

So don't worry about the problems of "capitalism", because capitalism is just freedom... pic related

literally kikes, everything goes back to the kikes

>entitled to others labor

So like how suckerberg and Rothschild rig the banks and media to scam millions of of working class home owners? Like, my man your mortgage is overdue time to raise your rates 4000% percent even though you are already in debt ;*) not like I will lose money dudes Lmao

>victim mentality

>what about post-automation?
There is no post automation.
We get more automated everyday, but at no point will humans ever completely go without money.
And you can already go "full communist" and live on food stamps.
It's a shit existence but you can do it. As things get more efficient cheaper shit will be more available to the masses.

>gadzillion 6tensifies

"real communism" can never exist because communism removes profit incentives and deters men from seeking to be massively productive in exchange for massive wealth. If no one can amass massive wealth, then no one will be massively productive.

If there ever comes a time when all of our productivity can be handled automatically and people become free to do only what they love to do, then communism will make sense. Until then, there will always be arguments about who has to work, what kind of work they have to do, and what they deserve to get for it.

Pro tip: Don't touch mortgages you fucking faggot

lmao I wonder if the person who made that picture did it for a gag or was being serious

Oh fuck me I know who made that tweet

now you have to share

was it a joke or is he just an idiot

The best move is to love in a camper trailer in a wal-mart parking lot, put all your money in various self-direct investments, and then buy a house outright. Then walk up to some 10/10 qt and say hey bb I need someone to bear me at least 6 anglo babies so we can help return europa to her former glory.

I know without even looking that every single post in this thread is wrong.

Marxist-Leninism is not a compelling theory because it subscribes to that particular 19th Century post-Enlightenment view of man as a rational creature, and ethics as a scientific field. Truth, so the argument goes, cannot contradict truth. You cannot have two things that are equally true but that invalidate the other. All truth must be true at the same time as all other truth. This is important, because it means that if you can find the truth then you can find a perfect, harmonious system. It means that there can only possibly be one right, and everything else is wrong. This right can be rationally proven, because the right is the truth and the truth doesn't contradict other truth. Then, when you rationally prove this right, other men, being rational beings, will see the truth and will act according to it. There is a complete system out there, whole and beautiful, and if we can but implement it everything will come good. This is why the state "withers away" in Marxist-Leninism. Once you have taught people this truth you don't need a state, because as rational actors they will behave according to the right by themselves.

This might seem strange to us - maybe even stupid - but Marxist-Leninism is far from the only political philosophy to espouse this. Adam Smith believed the same thing, and his predictions were equally wrong. You just don't hear so much about them. You have to understand that immediately following the Enlightenment people believed that logic and reason could derive the objectively correct way to live - hence replacing the "government of people" with the "management of things". Marxist-Leninism was just one of M A N Y political philosophies who said "this is objectively correct way to live", but they weren't the only ones to say that there was an objectively correct way.

It wasn't until the 1950s that (((Isaiah Berlin))) revived pluralism.

is there any logical reason why this wouldn't work?

Then how do you explain the lower class business deserts in inner city ghettos like Newark NJ or desolate back country county's like black ash Tennessee where there literally are no jobs around the neighborhood, and these people have absolutely zero material wealth and are thrust into crime in order to pay for food and housing? If the logic is correct that capitalism creates ever increasing wealth, then why do the lowest land largest areas never see it?

And dude, even movie trailers and concerts are made by computers now. Entertainment is self sustaining now. Streaming sites like Pandora and social media have like 12 employees and these companies took the place of previous companies like Kodak who had over 200,000 employees. Where did the billions in those industries go other than into the pockets of a few dozen silicon valleys types?

Serious inquiry btw

pick out the most psychotic, unreasonable, narcissistic asshole you've ever had to encounter in your life, now imagine sharing a government assigned house with that person. now imagine that person in a position of authority over you.

now you understand.

It was a joke. It got retweeted by a congressman so he had to make a statement. Who it was escapes me.

thats a voluntary agreement between adults just dont be a fucking moron or just never use a bank if u dont want to
>hurrr durrr people take advantage of others nobody would be taken advantage of under a communist regime hurrr

So I guess I'm stuck living in a ghetto or on the streets then?

>What ever happened to the AMERICAN Dream of owning house and hav n white child in a safe suburbia by the age of 22? Lik this if you think it's one Nashun under g-d and trump will save the untied status iGREAT!!

Capitalism doesn't necessarily create class gaps. For instance, a company's upkeep becomes proportionally higher after a certain margin of utility, until it reaches a point where creating more stores will be a net loss for the owner. The problem is simple: corruption.
And the difference between capitalism and communism is that in the former, more people can fuck you over if you become too corrupt. Meanwhile, communism allows very few people the use of almost all the power. That, coupled with the illusion that goods are infinite and you're entitled to as much as you can carry, morally erodes members of communist organizations.

Like I said in my other comment, America has long since been so heavily regulated and centrally planned that it's become more communist than capitalist.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was basically the killer blow to the American economy, because banks stopped loaning out money to small business.

armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/fractional-v-transactional-banking/

The problem with trying to argue against capitalism with this argument is that you.aren't giving a genuine example.of capitalism.

Having big banks and fiat currency isn't capitalism you fucking idiot, and the more idiots like you that.push for governments to fix this, the worse it will get

And don't you see the hypocrisy of trying to.crush capitalism, seeing as which Marxism killed millions?

Copying this to tell my Leninist friend because I am not a smart man and they are very condescending. What are your opinions on Stalinism?
Thank you mr philosophy.

Exactly, Marxism is just what happens when people let fear control their minds. You end up doing everything in your power to create the very problems you think you're fighting.

Jiddu Krishnamurti (Fear): youtube.com/watch?v=AM_xR9JFYuU

Scientifically analyzing history we can argue that capitalism killed even more but in my own opinion everything's just a spook to facade the inherent nothingness to human existence and we should all just kill ourselves anyway.

He was a brutal totalitarian dictator, obviously, but you get those with any ideology. Russia has always been ruled by brutal totalitarian dictators and it probably always will be. First the Tsars, then the Premiers, now Mad Vlad. The scale of the butchery varies, of course. I think it a cultural thing with Russia, not Communism, that created and allowed for Stalin. If it wasn't Stalin it would have been someone else, in some different way. Maybe less would have died - maybe more. That's just Russia. Russia has always been the peak of cruelty in Europe, whether its peasants under the knout or academics in the gulag.

As far as his economic policies go, it's middling. They were successful. Stalin did transform Russia from a backwards agricultural society into one of the foremost industrial powers of the world despite suffering immensely during the war, and he did this in the face of extremely hostile Western powers for the last part of his reign. But he was not a miracle worker - Russia was already one of the fourth-largest economies in 1910. I think the most important thing he did was end Lenin's New Economic Policy. The NEP was a capitalist-like system of free enterprise that Lenin had implemented to try and modernise the USSR, but it wasn't producing results fast enough. Most people don't know this but the early USSR did indeed try capitalism and it didn't work, which is what necessitated Stalinism in the first place.

Stalin turned the USSR into a superpower, and he did it by rejecting a capitalist system and implementing a thoroughly Soviet one, so by this measure he was pretty successful. His achievements have been greatly overstated by some people who think that Russia was some tiny, underdeveloped economy on par with the Congo in 1910, but at the same time they have been greatly understated by people who say "capitalism could have done that, and better," who don't understand that Lenin's NEP was capitalism, and it didn't produce results.

>real capitalism has never been tried
If you read Adam Smith you'll find an incredibly optimistic, almost naive explanation of how capitalism will bring about world peace and beautiful harmony between all races. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, has failed. All that exists is what exists in the real world, and if it calls itself a liberal free market and it looks more-or-less like a liberal free market, then that's what it is.

Call it moneyism if you feel the need to distinguish between markets with a central bank and Smithian capitalism, but there's no point discussing the theory when the theory is as detached from reality as Smith is.

>"capitalism"

Fuck off Max.

>Pure capitalism, like pure communism, has failed.

This is what I used to think until I read this article: mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>"gommunism"

No. I can ignorantly spread misinfo as far as I want.

In post automation, you would be entitled to no one's work because no one would be doing the work. Whoever controlled the machines control the people. People would position it to put control in government hands. And then the people would demand the fruits of the machine's labor.

Baring an AI takeover, the machines will not care if their work is being given to a leach.

Even if this made sense (which it doesn't) the only way to get to "post-automation" is to fully embrace capitalism, and I mean actual capitalism which at the very least would be a minarchist society with little to no central planning.

>Ctrl+F
>"Network monopoly"
>0 results.

Article discarded.

Anyway, I've already read that article and it's irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Even if natural monopolies don't exist, and that's a big if, it doesn't change the fact that neither does pure capitalism. Pure capitalism as described by Smith cannot be found in the wild because it is an unrealistic, optimistic, naive ideology that cannot deliver on its promises.

So we regulate it, and what you get is real capitalism. Unreal capitalism is what you find in textbooks.

>muh' positive feedback loop

This is the exact same argument you retards use for all other monopolies. It completely ignores diseconomies of scale and the disrupting forces of innovation over time in general.

Monopolies are irrelevant to the point that I am making.

>it doesn't change the fact that neither does pure capitalism. Pure capitalism as described by Smith cannot be found in the wild because it is an unrealistic, optimistic, naive ideology that cannot deliver on its promises.

Please explain to me where in this sentence any actual argument is made.

To expand on this, in many ways we already have what I just said. Government subsidized housing, food, heating, breeding.

Automation of most of these things made this possible to the extent we use it, which would be sustainable in a society which values and appreciates such a thing (Imagine America without niggers and low grade immigrants, the welfare state would not be in the situation it is now.)

Automation in farming, energy procurement, construction tools and transportation make this possible.

If another hundred years, more automation occurs, and it drives prices down further at the expense of jobs, the welfare state will increase.

At some point, basic needs will be subsidized almost entirely. The flip side is that even at this point, communism will still not work. It will still be capitalism that creates luxury goods and services. When a burger chain because automized, there will be another restaurant which opens which offers burgers and blowjobs with a human touch (for a fee, of course.)

I thin you accidentally quoted it but it's in green.

>which it doesn't

Sounds like you do not comprehend things very well. My condolences.

As for fully embraced capitalism being the only path, I would not agree. Automation happens when it is cheaper than labor. Globalism hurts this, as companies can find cheaper and cheaper labor and avoid full automation. Global corporations are in a way unfettered capitalism, unrestrained by tariffs and taxes of crossing borders.

>That pic
That nigger's landlord is going to be furious, that chicken is going to be burnt on the outside and raw in the middle.

I guess it would ideally have no form of government and everything would be run by the people, where as all over kinds of Communism tried has been run by a totalitarian state that fucks everything up.

The sad part about this is that the only thing holding it all together even in this case is three words:
>IT JUST WORKS

Once again, this is just confusing central planning with capitalism.

Globalism != globalization. Free trade != trade agreements. Something like the TPP is just diet protectionism, it's just a softer form of central planning.

Capitalism creates fat acceptance, feminism, lgbt sexuality, drug addiction, transexuality, by defending personal desire above all else. In its greed for profit, it addicts people chemically and psychologically, creating a society ultimately doomed that will try to blame anyone and everyone, burgeois or politicians for its problems.

National Socialism is good. Libertarianism is evil. And both republicans and democratics lean more towards its libertarian traits than nazist traits.

Because Communism is the utopian ideal end state of Socialism, and like all utopias it can't exist since people have differences of opinion

It's cucks like you that keep the third world in misery. menos marx mais mises faggot

True libertarianism wouldn't be as bad because there would be no laws requiring you to hire certain demographics. All the filthy degenerates would never be able to get jobs to support themselves, as companies in the business of making a profit would know not to hire their type and there would be no one to stop them with petty discrimination laws.

It's the part where I say that pure capitalism as described by Smith cannot be found in the wild because it is an unrealistic, optimistic, naive ideology that cannot deliver on its promises.

In the early and mid-19th Century Smith could not have had a more receptive audience to his arguments for free trade than Britain. Britain loved free trade because it was one of the only nations with significant industrialisation. It was cheaper to buy things shipped from Britain to India than things produced in India, so Britain was making huge sums of money off its exports. Nations resented this and imposed tariffs. Smith gave Britain a way to hammer down those tariffs so that the eternal Anglo could continue to fleece the world and sustain its empire. The men behind the British trade and foreign policy loved Smith, and they didn't hesitate to implement his ideas.

But that didn't last, because his ideas just didn't work. They didn't work for Britain and they didn't work for the world. Britain, lake all states, uses trade to gain power. Smith's highly aspirational ideology hampers this when it advocates that states just let the terms of trade turn against them, and do nothing to stop it, because all will come good again over the long term. Over the long term, Britain might be in a war. The long term isn't good enough. So Britain modifies the ideology to allow for it to preserve state power. You get all the corruption as well. Almost as soon as it was adopted Smithian capitalism is modified to allow for reality, hence why it doesn't exist in the wild.

But the biggest problem is that Smith's capitalism relies on virtue. Basically Smith himself says that capitalism can't work if men aren't virtuous and states don't foster virtue in men. It's the same kind of Enlightenment reason-truth-"administration of things" logic that Marx uses, and it's equally flawed.

Smithian capitalism is doomed from the beginning

>So Britain modifies the ideology to allow for it to preserve state power.

Still waiting for arguments against capitalism.

Humans live in states. Any ideology that does not allow for the existence of states, or treats states as the enemy, is an ideology doomed to the dustbin of history.

>Once again, this is just confusing central planning with capitalism.

I don't think I'm equating central planning with international free trade agreements.

>Globalism != globalization

They're pretty well linked. I would love to hear why you think the two don't go hand in hand.

>Free trade != trade agreements.

They do if the trade agreement is a free trade trade agreement, which nafta and tpp are.

>Something like the TPP is just diet protectionism,

I really hope that was a typo.

Capitalism is completely dependent on states.

>I don't think I'm equating central planning with international free trade agreements.

No, I'm telling you that's exactly what they are. Trade agreements are just global planning, it's actually even worse technically. It's the opposite of free trade

>They're pretty well linked. I would love to hear why you think the two don't go hand in hand.

Globalism = International "trade" agreements, one world government, global central planning.

Globalization = The inevitable process of increasing cooperation, communication, and trade between nations. This doesn't require any international bureaucracy or trade agreements to work, in fact all that would do is create more tensions between nations.

> They do if the trade agreement is a free trade trade agreement, which nafta and tpp are.

No, they are globalist (marxist) tools:
mises.org/library/no-more-free-trade-treaties-its-time-genuine-free-trade

"Free trade" = Managed trade, limited trade.
"Affordable care" = Sky high prices
"Affordable housing" = Let's create a housing bubble.
"NO child left behind" = No child allowed forward.
"Patriot Act" = High treason
"Paperwork Reduction Act" = Let's kill some trees.
"War on drugs" = war on freedom to explore your own conciousness
"War on poverty" = war on personal responsibility

Capitalism treats the state as an enemy my dude

Thank you my man. Any good sources for this info? Because if this is all true you are far more informed than most who tr to participate in these kinds of debates.

Capitalism wouldn't exist without states.

of course communism can exist, I only requires people with IQ > 140 and conservative social values

Capitalism is everything the state is not.

>Just rent, it's much better to throw your money away!

Capitalism relies on state funded police and military forces to make property rights a thing in the first place. Save for that, it would be mercenaries to the highest bidder or otherwise people taking things into their own hands and demanding ownership and they see fit given they have enough people backing them.

>implying people arent always addicted to something
>implying they shouldnt be addicted to self improvement
>implying degenerates would get jobs in a libertarian society
kys

Ugh, come on guys. The choice to rent or buy is not black and white issue. Renting is better if you like to invest in markets or if you're an entrepreneur, mortgage is better if you prefer more stability or starting a family.

Capitalism is not free, uncoerced trade in a vacuum. It is founded on state enforced property rights.

so the golden rule is too statist for you?

So basically your argument is the state has to exist because it always has, ignoring the possibility that humanity may actually be slowly evolving away from that exact child-like collectivist mindset rooted in fear.

it ushers displacement of wealth via rapid reproduction of the dependent classes.

Nice.

Fucking /thread

>If humans stopped being humans we wouldn't need states

>what about post-automation
Commies are concerned with limited capital in the hands of an elite class. Post scarcity features no need for human labor, and near-unlimited capital, so all those perceived problems disappear. No extant economic system would apply to amy significant extent.

If people wanted to work, they would obtain whatever capital they wanted from the automated system, and function as a sole proprietor, exchangung their goods for whatever they pleased, or maybe even nothing at all.

No specific source but you can look it up really easily.

"World GDP ranking 1910" for example will prove that I'm right about Russia not being as backward as believed. You can read about Lenin's NEP on wikipedia if you want, and you can get the estimated growth rates of the Soviet union for any year you want off the internet.

Basically the USSR's economy under Stalin grew at about the same pace as modern Russia's economy is growing. That doesn't represent things like what is being produced - the USSR produced less consumer goods and more steel, which is probably a bad thing if you're a consumer - but it shows that productive capacity was pretty similar.

I've read this post a few times now. It was incredibly helpful in understanding the historical context for the formation of these ideologies. Well done.

The Industrial Revolution and the social ideas that it brought about have rocked mankind to its core.

Awww, you're retarded