/lit/ - Literature

>>16930428
Marx already answered this retard, you just need to selectively breed the selfishness away.

>>13986332
Why bother? You will never convince a so called communist about anything negative regarding communism regardless of how factual it might be. They have no capacity for critical thinking and are intellectually bankrupt cultists and ideologues.

>>12555933
>Why do Peterson and Prager hate him so much?
This is a very typical reaction for anyone with at least a 3 digit IQ. Sorry, OP.

>>12130938
>>12130917
>The urge to destroy is a creative urge. You can't build a new world on the shaky foundations of the old, we need a complete restart.
>These people want to have communism when we don't even have communities. And in fact any values which might lead to the existence of communities they attack vociferously. Customs of marriage, in group preference, common understanding about the nature of man, gender etc. They want it all torn down so that they can put in its place Perfected Man a tabula rasa onto which they can inscribe their pet ideologies. Unfortunately capitalism/liberalism is much more well heeled than anarcho-deathcults and transgender leninism USA so it is the values of capitalism which fill the void.

There is no argument for communism. There are only arguers, their rhetoric has nothing to do with logic or even coherence, in fact those are precisely what they seek to evade with their casuistry, instead communist rhetoric relies on sounding good, sounding like it answers an issue, while dodging it entirely going around in some specious circle. For example:
>>11979686
>>yes, there is a biological reward mechanism for reproduction. This is actually besides the point in this conversation.
All reward mechanisms are biological, it isn't besides the point at all, it just directly and obviously contradicts your mouth-flatulence.

>Our society is a contract among all of us living today. But in the future there'll be all of these new people, and they're not a part of this contract. How could they be? They don't exist yet, and when they come into existence they will be completely helpless and unable to negotiate any kind of contract.
Tabula-rasa is absurdity. How could they be? Simple, the entirety of all conditions ever that came before are what determine their conditions in the future. Everything from genetics to environment is how, it's all a consequence and contributor of a system directly contrary to what you describe. It's like saying maybe newborn infants won't be subject to the laws of gravity, how could we know, they aren't born yet. This is why communists were so bent on creating their own theory of evolution, since nature itself refutes their maxims. They failed.

>>10586824
>Stopped reading there. Absolutely baseless and bullshit reasoning for anything. Human nature, if it even exists really, is dependent on the environment. If you have an environment of cutthroat individualism and exploitation (capitalism) of course it'll be HUGHMANN NAYCHUR to follow that.

>>9928844
Well Marxists often seem to believe that human nature must change in order to suit their philosophy. I would argue that if you need to fundamentally change people to suit your philosophy (which aims to understand the nature of humanity) you've probably got an incorrect philosophy.

just finished the communist manifesto for the first time