How does socialism and communism solve the problem of every man wanting to own something? What if a person wants a big juicy yacht? Means, either everybody would have a yacht, or nobody? What does Marx say about it? Also, should I read Chomsky on Anarchism, or is it pure shit not worth?

File: 58 KB, 850x400, quote-the-theory-of-communism-may-be-summed-up-in-one-sentence-abolish-all-private-property-karl-marx-120994.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:21:02 2017 No.9189394 [Reply] [Original]

How does socialism and communism solve the problem of every man wanting to own something?
What if a person wants a big juicy yacht? Means, either everybody would have a yacht, or nobody?
What does Marx say about it?

Also, should I read Chomsky on Anarchism, or is it pure shit not worth?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:22:54 2017 No.9189406 >>9189394 That would be selfish. Everyone is equal and has a right to live reproduce successfully and without struggle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:24:07 2017 No.9189411 >>9189406 Your post answers nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:25:30 2017 No.9189414 How do you reconcile with that fact that thousands of life's presures are completely outside your grasp? As to yuor question, in communist utopia you could always get a ride on a publicly owned yacht, does it NEED to be in your private possession?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:27:47 2017 No.9189422 >>9189414 Yes, someone wants to have a yacht. And not to let anybody there besides his closest friends. Once again, you're dodging the question. It's not about the greed, it's about how one would solve thirst for ownership under communism

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:28:42 2017 No.9189429 >>9189422 >thirst for ownership Whoa you're wading into a spooky territory here

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:33:09 2017 No.9189451

>>9189429
>denying evolutionary resource-competition

inb4 ey yo dose tribes wuz equal and bruthas n shit

what happened if me and my tribal kin went out to hunt, and a couple of fellows from the next tribe over tried to '''take''' the kill that we had made? what if they came over to '''share''' my tribe's ancestral land?

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:34:18 2017 No.9189455

>>9189422
I think he thirst for ownership because he lives under a consumerist capitalist society that preconditions him to own more in order to be more. Under communism there wouldn't be something like "thirst for ownership". You seem to imply that the problem isn't greed, when in fact it is the source of thw problem.

But don't quote me on that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:34:57 2017 No.9189461 >>9189455 Wanting to own something is organic, not "social construct".

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:44:04 2017 No.9189494
File: 62 KB, 194x274, Zizek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9189422
You're ignoring that only the smallest minority of people in our current society have their own private yacht

>would you live in a society where you are free from poverty, hunger and homelessness. Free from the drudgery of meaningless labor and free to pursue your own interests, cultivating the skills you've always wanted but avoided because you haven't had the time due to work.
>can i have a yacht and ban others from using it?
>idk, probably not. why does it matter you dont even have a yacht now?
>haha fuck that
>dies in gutter.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:44:11 2017 No.9189496

>>9189455
Fortunately we have archaeology and historical records which tell us that people have been greedy, status-signalling jerks since the beginning of time.

>>9189411
Taking resources to build a private yacht furthers inequality and causes misery to the rest of mankind.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:50:26 2017 No.9189520

>>9189494
>Taking resources to build a private yacht furthers inequality and causes misery to the rest of mankind.
Theoretically a guy could ask for the "resources" to build a yacht from a commune and build it by himself to use.

Only issues being
a) it's up to everyone else if they'd be willing to invest resources on a yacht (not a big ask in a post-artificial scarcity society but still - why?)
b)he wouldn't be able to employ anyone as wages no longer have value. Everything is already held in common.

Truth be told the whole hypothetical is completely divorced from anything meaningful. All it does is obfuscate the nature of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:51:29 2017 No.9189524 >>9189520 quoted wrong guy. whatever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:54:46 2017 No.9189536 A yacht would be personal property. If you want one, you may visit your local workers' council to arrange an acquisition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:56:26 2017 No.9189543 >>9189536 I have no money, nobody has money. And nobody has the authority to grant private ownership. And nobody has anything private.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:56:29 2017 No.9189544 >>9189394 You're describing the faults of egalitarianism, not communism. Under communism, the state owns all yachts, and you use them within the limits of availability and public need.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:57:18 2017 No.9189547 >>9189536 Why would they agree to that? >hello, I would like you to build me a yacht so that I may plow more women than you >"no"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:57:36 2017 No.9189548 >>9189544 >state >under communism This is a 18+ site, please, leave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:57:50 2017 No.9189551 >>9189394 Given all the means of production you owned you'd haven't the funds nor time for such frivolous things, comrade!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:59:43 2017 No.9189559 Not a gommie, but you guys are all slaves to your own human nature. And that's very sad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 17:59:47 2017 No.9189560 You don't get what you want, or what you need. You get what your provided.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:03:21 2017 No.9189569

>>9189394

I don't know Marx very well, OP, so here's just a hypothesis

- greed is not natural. No man will "naturally" desire a juicy yacht. Greed becomes possible when money exists (that's what Marx says). Now regarding the yacht, I dunno, maybe there will be no yacht in a communist society. After all, why not. I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit.

So, more generally, it would depend on technology, and on another question - how will we work and live in a communist society ? If technology is still used in order to make work more efficient or bearable, then it implies that luxury cannot disappear, and will probably keep producing more and more unnecessary things and desires. I don't know at all what Marx says/thinks about future technology (not just about technology as it existed in the XIxth century).

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:03:32 2017 No.9189570

>>9189548
Marx advocated for the dissolution of private property, not governments. His argument for the development of communism assumed the presence of a state to enforce its positions w/ regard to the dissolution of property rights and redistribution of wealth.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:04:30 2017 No.9189571

>>9189455
>Under communism there wouldn't be something like "thirst for ownership".

as a member of the security organs, i will send you to prison for life on faked charges, after torturing you for the fun of it, so that i can rape your wife. well, at least tell her that she's mine now and if she doesn't like it she too can go to prison.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:04:33 2017 No.9189572 >>9189569 > I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit. Hadn't had such a nice giggle in while, thanks for the line.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:04:33 2017 No.9189573 >>9189570 >Marx advocated for the dissolution of private property Nope. read Marx.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:04:53 2017 No.9189575

>>9189394
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, -KM Critique of the Gotha program

Why would you need to "own" a yacht?
If the answer is to go sailing in it (challenging and enjoyable leisure activity is a legit human need so theres nothing wrong with that), then you don't need to own a yacht for that, you just have to be able to get the use of one. If you were a member of a proletarian yacht club they'd have a bunch of yachts and could rotate the use of them accordingly based on availability and what the members of the club deemed fair.

If you needed the yacht for a particular economic or social enterprise, again you wouldn't have to own it, you could be given the use of one by the local soviet or public works committee or whatever.

If you just wanted it to have, just for the sake of it as a status symbol, then you're a social parasite and would be relocated to some sort of treatment center to have your maladaptive personality altered to ensure your best able to realise your potential for happyness, or if those efforts prove futile then you would be put down humanely in as efficient and painelss a manner possible.

I hope that answers your question comrade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:06:22 2017 No.9189577 >>9189547 Men in yachts get mad pussy cos owning a yacht is a sign of wealth. This wouldn't be the case in a classless, moneyless communist society. Yachts would not hold the prestige they hold today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:06:56 2017 No.9189580 >>9189573 > >retard: the post >>9189575 >Why would you need to "own" a yacht? Becez. Stopped reading right there. And the yacht only serves as an example, may insert anything you desire there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:07:04 2017 No.9189581 >>9189573 Nigga, read the OP. I'm done here.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:07:07 2017 No.9189583

>>9189394

that quote from the manifesto reflected a marx that had not yet published capital, showing that his systematic inquiry was negative in nature, with him never being able to tell us what a post-capitalist society would look like.

there are plenty of marxist thinkers that have developed since. you would do better to pose questions against their frameworks instead of one that is 150 years old.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:08:38 2017 No.9189593

>>9189577
>I have never been on a boat
They're fun for their own sake. People are fascinated by the ocean.

>>9189575
>If you just wanted it to have, just for the sake of it as a status symbol, then you're a social parasite and would be relocated to some sort of treatment center to have your maladaptive personality altered to ensure your best able to realise your potential for happyness, or if those efforts prove futile then you would be put down humanely in as efficient and painelss a manner possible.
I can't imagine why your ideology doesn't have more adherents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:12:07 2017 No.9189612 >>9189593 I can't imagine why your ideology can't detect obvious sarcasm

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:13:10 2017 No.9189617

>>9189580
>Becez. Stopped reading right there. And the yacht only serves as an example, may insert anything you desire there.
Not really. Most things you could get under catpialism you would also be able to get under communism. The means of production are the same - they are just driven to serve human need rather than profit.

The only things that you would be unlikely to have would be needlessly wasteful things that only benefit a select few. i.e. why waste resources on a giant palace for one guy when we can invest them in medicine, infrastructure etc.

But really "can't have a yacht" (which isn't necessarily true) is the worse defence for capitalism. Most cannot and will not have a yacht under capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:13:41 2017 No.9189619 >>9189612 I know people who advocate something very close to that post, so the idea that there's a lunatic on /lit/ who wants to organize humanity that way isn't too far-fetched.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:14:50 2017 No.9189620 >>9189617 Most cannot have a yacht under capitalism > nobody can have yacht under communism FLAWLESS DEFEAT

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:18:38 2017 No.9189634

>>9189593
>>I have never been on a boat
The guy I responded to mentioned plowing women. He was obviously referring to it in terms of a status symbol.

Seriously though, if we have enough resources for everybody who wants to have a yacht to have one, what's the problem with that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:18:45 2017 No.9189636 >>9189620 More like: Nearly everybody cannot have a yacht under capitalism > If you really need a yacht, a yacht will be provided, just give it back after you're done, under communism >>9189619 Je-sus. American I'm assuming?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:21:00 2017 No.9189642 >>9189636 I'm not sure whether you're insinuating that only an American would not want to live in the world described in >>9189575 or whether only an American would propose it unironically. I suspect that neither is true.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:25:39 2017 No.9189659

>>9189617
>Most cannot and will not have a yacht under capitalism
>>9189636
>Nearly everybody cannot have a yacht under

Most cannot afford a luxury yacht, but to pretend like pocket yachts, fishing boats, barge and narrowboats are unaffordable is fucking retarded.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:26:32 2017 No.9189662

>>9189543
You're mistakenly conflating personal property with private property.

Owning a yacht because sailing is your passion? Personal property.

Owning a yacht because you want to make money by charging others for rides on your yacht? Private property.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:31:00 2017 No.9189673

>>9189662
>you can have fun on your yacht, but don't you dare charge people way less than what it would cost them to have their own yacht to have occasional fun on your yacht because then our whole utopia will collapse
Really gets the ol' neurons warmed up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:32:05 2017 No.9189676 >>9189642 The only people I come across online or IRL that would come off with that sort of thing unironically are mostly Americans.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:33:47 2017 No.9189680

>>9189659
>Most cannot afford a luxury yacht, but to pretend like pocket yachts, fishing boats, barge and narrowboats are unaffordable is fucking retarded.
And unrelated to the question.

There's no reason why those things would be "forbidden" in a post labor society. I assume OP is referring exclusively to incredibly extravagant things that only a minority of people can currently afford.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:34:52 2017 No.9189686

>>9189673
>dare charge people way less than what it would cost them to have their own yacht

It would be free for them to have their own yacht. Money would not exist.

Of course, this would mean that anybody who tries to charge you for yacht rides is a retard - nobody would pay him, not least because money wouldn't be a thing.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:34:58 2017 No.9189688

>>9189394
Marxism is retarded and a 5 year old could refute it.

Basically, human beings (and all forms of life) essentially have their own wills and desires and glorious pressures. They cannot be taken away. The Marxist utopia is even bad in theory: greatness and individuality is squashed and everyone is forced to be part of the "herd".

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:36:01 2017 No.9189695 >>9189429 Why did leftists start appropriating Stirner? How the fuck did that happen?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:36:35 2017 No.9189698 >>9189620 I'm glad you'd rather your masters have 7 mansions while you waste 8 hours a day on pointless labor as a wagecuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:36:35 2017 No.9189699 >>9189688 t. 4 year old

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:37:22 2017 No.9189702 >>9189494 >implying a bunch of subhumans being "miserable" is a bad thing Utopianism is a meme, Last Man

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:38:02 2017 No.9189705 >>9189698 >ad hominem Too bad those who preach marxism usually are the wagecucks.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:39:52 2017 No.9189707

>>9189455
Do you never actually stop and THINK why capitalism just happened to exist? Do you really think that we "strayed from morality" at some point?

Hierarchy and struggle is the BASIS of life. You cannot get rid of it, it's natural and completely healthy.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:40:09 2017 No.9189709

>>9189695
Stirner has always been considered part of the left you burger retard. His contemporaries placed him in the realm of egoist anarchism.

and ffs the left-right divide comes from one's stance on the nature of hierarchy. The right sees hierarchy as natural, inherent or desirable. The left seeks to limit hierarchy.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:42:16 2017 No.9189716

>>9189686
>it will take no resources to build and maintain a yacht because there won't be fiat currency

>>9189680
Well sure, if it's gonna be fucking Star Trek where we just replicate things for free then of course anyone can have a boat. Barring that...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:43:11 2017 No.9189719 >>9189569 >- greed is not natural You're a special kind of moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:43:37 2017 No.9189722 >>9189705 Well yes. That's why they preach marxism. Are you retarded. >>9189707 >i have never read marx the post Why do those who hate marx the most are always those who have never read him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:45:35 2017 No.9189728 >>9189709 >anarchy = left kys, imbecile

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:45:56 2017 No.9189730 >>9189575 >ambition is bad >independence is bad >resistance is futile Communism, everyone.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:48:00 2017 No.9189742

>>9189716
>Well sure, if it's gonna be fucking Star Trek where we just replicate things for free then of course anyone can have a boat. Barring that...
Not everyone lives near the coast so not literally everyone would have a boat. Of course "renting" (i.e. borrowing) a boat is still a thing.

It's funny how all the defence's for capitalism are always really abstract moral concerns on possible limitations that would be enforced on those who live like kings today. Nobody looks at the state of the majority of humanity and provides an argument as to why this is desirable.

I'll never get it. How can anyone work a job in the modern world and not think "this is a total waste of my time. i'm not doing anything productive and i'm only killing time here so i can have enough money to eat and do the things I enjoy."

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:48:58 2017 No.9189746

>>9189716
>>it will take no resources to build and maintain a yacht because there won't be fiat currency

You seem to be under the impression that large swathes of the world population would randomly be clamouring for yachts in a communist society. Why do you think that? Yes, yachts are a luxury possession today - but, as I said, that's largely because of the prestige and status they convey.

I have zero interest in owning a yacht. I daresay most people in this thread, when it comes down to it, don't give much of a shit either. I mean, if offered one I wouldn't turn it down. But it's not something I care about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:49:34 2017 No.9189752 >>9189728 Remember the great far-right thinkers like Kropotkin, Bakunin, Mahkno and the like.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:50:21 2017 No.9189756 >>9189742 But that isn't because of capitalism you idiot, pain and misery are as essential to life as health and happiness is. You're just a subhuman wagecuck and blame that on everyone else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:50:23 2017 No.9189757 >>9189406 >has a right to live reproduce successfully So...sex slavery?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:50:47 2017 No.9189759 Commies should be hung from trees

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:50:47 2017 No.9189760 >>9189742 Not everyone is so much of a waste that they live in a dead end and think the only way out is robbing others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:54:33 2017 No.9189775 >>9189756 >essential to life Weasel words. Actually explain what you mean instead of vomiting up hollow rubbish like a retard. What, if life were suddenly devoid of pain and misery we'd all just keel over and die? Gimme a break.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:57:50 2017 No.9189789
File: 18 KB, 400x400, i3eTxXhf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9189756
>But that isn't because of capitalism
>Artificial scarcity, poverty, starvation, homelessness and death by preventable diseases have nothing to do with the economy.
You are literally retarded.

>You're just a subhuman wagecuck and blame that on everyone else.
>the fact that people have to work for a wage has nothing to do with the structure of society but is instead due to their own personal failings.
unbelievable anon.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:58:03 2017 No.9189791

>>9189775
>What, if life were suddenly devoid of pain and misery we'd all just keel over and die?
Yes. The only thing that gives meaning to our lives (and what we were evolved to place meaning to) is struggle and overcoming.

We are animals. We are supposed to not live in utopia. A perfect world is unattainable, and if it was it would be worthless. Think about it: in nature, man struggles against nature and his fellow man to ensure his survival. These instincts, in the modern society, become art and philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 18:59:05 2017 No.9189794 >>9189789 Yeah man, none of that shit happened in hunter-gatherer societies. Nobody was unhappy until big bad capitalism came to make you miserable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:02:37 2017 No.9189809 >>9189688 kek. Considering this is /lit/ I know for sure 99% of people who sperg out when it comes to Marx haven't read him. Just stop providing shitty opinons on a subject you know nothing about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:03:47 2017 No.9189817 >>9189809 Refute it then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:03:57 2017 No.9189818 File: 145 KB, 350x330, 1488672237340.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9189461

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:04:52 2017 No.9189822 >>9189818 >posting a homeless schizophrenic Jew to prove a point

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:04:59 2017 No.9189827 >>9189818 Yes, Christianity is life-denying. Marcists are the true spiritual heirs to Jesus

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:06:54 2017 No.9189837 >waaaah society is oppressing me into doing work waaaah

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:07:26 2017 No.9189841 >>9189818 You are retarded. Jesus told us to abandon our natural greeds to become clean.

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:07:31 2017 No.9189842

>>9189791
I'm not following you anon. You say that our lives would be without struggle and therefore without meaning. But there's a fat gap between that and actual death/extinction.

You're forgetting the fact that a communist society wouldn't be a utopia. We'd still have to contend with loss, death, illness, natural disasters, etc. Communism can only solve so many issues.

You seem to be presenting two contradictory viewpoints: 1) communism would be shit (and therefore not a utopia); and 2) utopias are bad, therefore communism is bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:09:32 2017 No.9189849 File: 76 KB, 1300x1390, ag1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9189827 >>9189822 >>9189841

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:10:50 2017 No.9189855 >>9189849 So, resorting to another opinion, because the first one failed? Fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:20:46 2017 No.9189888 >>9189794 >criticism of capitalism = a glorification of prior modes of production The Communist Manifesto literally has a section praising capitalism for its triumph over previous modes of production.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:21:29 2017 No.9189890 >>9189888 >reading babby marx

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:24:49 2017 No.9189896 >>9189757 >without struggle

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 19:27:51 2017 No.9189904 >>9189569 >greed >not natural >airplanes >useless Jesus Christ, I never knew people could be this retarded.

>>	Trippy de$utU5YN7 Sat Mar 4 21:13:34 2017 No.9190293 >>9189394 Did he get that quote from Stirner?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 21:51:11 2017 No.9190443 Read the communist manifesto

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 22:28:03 2017 No.9190576 >>9189752 All statists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 4 22:31:52 2017 No.9190588 >>9189842 No him, but 1 and 2 and both correct and in no way mutually exclusive. >>9189888 So?

Anonymous Sat Mar 4 22:44:50 2017 No.9190638

The main thing I don't understand is how two people exchanging labour for resources is wrong. They're both agreeing to do it voluntarily. You can make contracts, barter prices and form unions. But why do we need a government to intervene and seize the entire operation? Isn't it worse to steal an entire factory than to give money to a worker for their mutually agreed upon labour?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 00:26:05 2017 No.9190972

In our society, wanting to own a yacht is a feeling that few will ever feel, and even fewer will satisfy their demand.

However, if you somehow convince the workers of your commune that YOU deserve a yacht, they could vote on that matter and if a majority (may be 50% may be 2/3rds) votes yes, it's your yacht.

The probability of this happening is very low, just like it's very unlikely that you will ever own a yacht in a capitalist society.

Lastly, it's important to understand the difference between owning private property and owning personal property. Your house, toothbrush and shoes are your bellongings. You own them. A company or a factory however is nothing that one individual should own, which is why private property is controlled by the masses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 00:57:50 2017 No.9191051 >>9190638 marxism is just a new language wrapped around an older argument. All it boils down to is that usury is bad. Which is, in the final analysis, just an issue with technology; money is humanity's only invention.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:00:29 2017 No.9191061

>>9190588
>So?

The post that was in response to implied that pointing out the issues pertaining to capitalism today somehow equals a glorification of previous modes of production. This was said in the post. I'm not sure how you're not following this anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:03:46 2017 No.9191070 File: 420 KB, 495x582, efb8a0536ad8f558ad35e4e73e519dde.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9190638 >marx's critique is a moral critique >capitalism is voluntary >communism is the government seizing the means of production

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:05:36 2017 No.9191081 File: 232 KB, 399x405, smug jobber.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9189569 >I've always wondered why airplanes exist - that's some expensive, useless bullshit. Thanks for the laugh.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:11:11 2017 No.9191103 >>9189569 Never speak again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:13:25 2017 No.9191108 >>9189849 You know buddhism has been a minor, irrelevant religion for the past two millennia or so, right? Name one important Buddhist country (protip: you can't)

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:17:29 2017 No.9191118 >>9191061 Just because marx liked parts of capitalism doesn't mean that primitive communism and communism are in any way different. "A is B so C is D" I'm not sure how you're not following this anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:21:31 2017 No.9191123 >>9189756 Pain and misery are conditions of living in the world. We've advanced quite far as a species actively struggling AGAINST these things, not embracing them in some masochistic manner.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:37:40 2017 No.9191175 >>9191118 >Just because marx liked parts of capitalism doesn't mean that primitive communism and communism are in any way different Except for having completely different modes of production. FFS anon just read Marx.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:42:59 2017 No.9191191 >>9191070 Can you tell me why I'm wrong rather than just saying I'm wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:56:26 2017 No.9191230 >>9191175 I have... and I disagree with this conclusions. (And premises and arguments) Primitive communism and communism are exactly the same same, the only difference any given tree will have more apples on it, (maybe) big whoop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:58:00 2017 No.9191238 >>9191230 *his This "if you just read the Koran you'll believe in Allah" bullshit really has to stop. When you're talking to an anti-communism, you're talking to your superior.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 01:59:31 2017 No.9191241
File: 122 KB, 640x800, CmyqzLvXgAAvmBV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9191191
I already did.

Your first statement operated on the assumption that

1. Marxism is a moral critique of capitalism
2. Capitalism is simply the exchange of labour for resources.

The first is wrong because, although moral arguments often are made against capitalism, Marx's body of work was interested in objective class relations and how capitalism was in the material interests of the bourgeois class but directly opposed to the interests of the majority proletarian class. The second is wrong because no (actual) economist will define capitalism as the exchange of labor for resources.

Capitalism is not voluntary because one can't opt out of capitalism. When your choices are have your labor exploited for a wage so you can eat or die. That is not a voluntary choice. That is coercion.

Communism is not the government seizing the means of production. It's the working class, the people who operate the means of production, seizing it and controlling it democratically.

Now this explanation is half-arsed. That's why you need to investigate this stuff yourself by reading the source material. Not reddit. Not /pol/ infographs. And not shitty youtube intellectuals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:01:23 2017 No.9191247 >>9191230 >a primitive hunter gatherer society is the same as a fully industrialised, post-artificial scarcity society where the means of production are held in common with production being geared towards human benefit. kys anon

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:15:51 2017 No.9191288

>>9191241
>Capitalism is not voluntary because one can't opt out of capitalism
But you can collectivise resources and labour without forcing it upon an entire population or country. Some people want to live with capitalism and some people don't. If I lived in the soviet era I could say that communism is involuntary because I can't opt out of it. Furthermore I could say that statism in general is involuntary because I can't opt out of it. How is capitalism a positive, imposed system? Why can't we all agree to live without using violence to control other people and their capital?
>When your choices are have your labor exploited for a wage so you can eat or die. That is not a voluntary choice. That is coercion.
How is free choice coercion but forcefully taking the means of production is justice?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:19:36 2017 No.9191303 File: 245 KB, 600x849, 1377372110174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9191241

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:20:13 2017 No.9191304 >>9189394 >How does socialism and communism solve By shooting the people who oppose the system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:23:52 2017 No.9191315 File: 1.23 MB, 800x667, its not real.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9191241 >1. Marxism is a moral critique of capitalism It's a shitty attempt at describing human behaviour buddy.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:25:45 2017 No.9191319

>>9191247
Yea, as I said, the same thing but with more apples on any given tree (maybe). And "artificial scarcity" idea is so stupid, you're not entitled to other people's labor, you fucking parasite.

The revolution won't happen, but if it did I would kill as many communists as I possibly could. I would break your wrists and throw you into a pit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:27:26 2017 No.9191324 >>9191319 >you're not entitled to other people's labor >supports capitalism

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:28:12 2017 No.9191327 >>9189742 >i'm not doing anything productive and i'm only killing time here so i can have enough money to eat and do the things I enjoy How is it not productive to do something that allows you to eat and do the things you enjoy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:29:30 2017 No.9191335 >>9191303 Does this comic not realise it doesn't refute the point?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:31:19 2017 No.9191340 >>9191327 A large chunk of first world jobs (in my experience) are at best, 1 hour productive labor, 7 hours dicking around looking busy

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:34:15 2017 No.9191349

>>9191241
> 1. Marxism is a moral critique of capitalism

Yes it is. Labor theory of value itself is an emotional argument. Obviously value is subjective, that's just a fact, no amount of lies can get around that. Wages are just a loan from the capitalist to the worker. The relationship is mutually beneficial, though in the long run its a loss for the capitalist. Mathematically not all loans can be paid in full.

The rest of your post is just gibberish. But yea, socialism is the state, government, communist, soviet, working class, whatever, its all the same thing just different names, owning all capital. Again, no amount of lies can get around that.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:37:28 2017 No.9191356

>>9191324
The current system isn't capitalism, its socialism. Capitalism isn't possible while states still exist.

I'm looking forward to hearing those wrist bones snap.

>>9191335
But it did... completely and irrefutably...

>>9191340
So those 7 hours you're stealing from somebody. What is your argument?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:38:28 2017 No.9191359

>>9191335

You don't think that managers should be rewarded for their expertise, or the risk they take in putting up their own money as capital?

I admit, I'm biased. I come from an upper middle class family and I have a personal stake in capitalism. Thankfully, communism is an almost irrelevant fringe movement in 2017. The worst thing that could happen is some sort of Maoist bloodbath, but thankfully there's a big ocean between me and the locus of that.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:45:52 2017 No.9191373

>>9191359
The great irony of socialism is that not only would it replicate corporate structure exactly, but the managers would get paid even more than they do today. Leftists refuse to acknowledge the hard truth: the bureaucracy that really controls every government and corporation is staffed 100% by socialists. This terrible world they hate so much was made by them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:46:47 2017 No.9191377 >>9191356 >The current system isn't capitalism, its socialism. Capitalism isn't possible while states still exist Here's your you

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 02:57:56 2017 No.9191405 >>9191377 You're admitting I'm correct.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:15:52 2017 No.9191452

>>9189719
>>9189904
>>9191103

I think my own explanation from a marxist point of view is very incomplete and debatable (or just flawed, actually) and I admit gladly that some other replies were far more relevant. As I said, I don't know much about Marx.

However, one thing I know for sure is that, according to Marx, greed is not natural. There can be no greed as long as there is no money - yet money is the result of some specific technological progress and social organization. More generally, the way people see themselves and define themselves and define man in general, and the way they feel and behave, all this from a psychological point of view, depends widely on social structures and material life. Holy shit, guys, just imagine you live in some ancient society where money does not exist. Are you gonna be greedy ? Will there be any kind of thesaurization ? How the fuck could there be ? You don't want thousands of shirts, thousands of bread loafs. Even if you're a sherpherd, you don't want thousands of heads in your cattle - at least you don't want indefinitely more than you have, because you couldn't cope, you couldn't do anything with them, and they'll perish without having proved useful to anything.

The point is, being able to desire indefinite riches is a result of riches being present as money. This is at least what Marx states.

It also sheds some interesting light on the old idea that can be found in Descartes, according to which our willpower is infinite. Maybe this idea is a social construct. And it also sheds some interesting, modern light on Rousseau.

May this not stop you from fapping to airplanes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:21:05 2017 No.9191468 >>9191452 Why did you just repeat the same worthless, baseless bullshit?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:21:45 2017 No.9191469 How would online services like Steam and Netflix work in a communist society?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:25:41 2017 No.9191478

>>9191241
>Marx's body of work was interested in objective class relations and how capitalism was in the material interests of the bourgeois class but directly opposed to the interests of the majority proletarian class

Which is a moral critique you mongoloid. If humanism wasn't at the bottom of Marxism, there's just no way he could argue that that social organization was exploitative and had to be destroyed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:30:24 2017 No.9191488 >>9191469 Those services require computers. So they wouldn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:34:23 2017 No.9191498 >>9191468 Some anons still believed that greed is natural. Good thing you already knew it is not.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:39:16 2017 No.9191505

>>9191498
I would argue that greed is just a Christian word for hoarding.

And I would argue that hoarding is perfectly natural behavior for a species of animal that requires give or take 2000 calories a day to stay functional.

There's a reason people are obese, and it's not just because they are told by capitalistic overlords that they should eat more, it's also because humans have a natural proclivity for calorie-dense foods.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:46:14 2017 No.9191522 >>9191452 My greed for my enemies' blood is infinite.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:48:04 2017 No.9191534

>>9189494
the vast majority of people don't die in gutters is the problem. poor people aren't just fucked to a short life where they die randomly in our modern day capitalism. this is a stupid meme that communists like to throw around, but the fact is the most people ( in america at least ) have access to clean water, food, and place to live. who gives a fuck if a couple rich people own a yacht, if you and everyone else is at least getting by.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:50:41 2017 No.9191542 File: 76 KB, 1510x362, globalprogress.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9191534 They also like to ignore capitalism's ability to make poor people less poor because it's spectacularly inconvenient.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:51:23 2017 No.9191546

>>9191505
I think you're right regarding "greed" and "hoarding". Now it all depends on what we mean by "natural". It can mean that something is "normal" according to the essence of some being. But it can also imply that the stated thing has always existed, and exists necessarily. I dunno if obesity is an accurate example but I think it's significant : after all, has it always existed ? Maybe not : a lot of people being overweight becomes possible when their society is able to produce much more than what it needs at one specific time.

I heard about Clastres, an ethnologist who (as I heard) tells that when some tribe was given a technology that enables more efficient production in a given time, then the tribe does not produce more at all - it just produces the same amount of goods within a shorter time, and obtains more leisure time. This is probably not what we would do, but then it suggests that producing and obtaining more than needed is not something that every man would do according to human nature.

There's also the issue with goods being perishable (no man would be happy if they were given 3 tons of apples, unless they can sell them quickly). But again I'm not an expert in Marx and haven't read that ethnographic study, whereas discussing these issues would imply a solid basis with established facts.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:53:26 2017 No.9191551

>>9191452
>Holy shit, guys, just imagine you live in some ancient society where money does not exist. Are you gonna be greedy ? Will there be any kind of thesaurization ? How the fuck could there be ? You don't want thousands of shirts, thousands of bread loafs.
Has it occurred to you yet that you could use part of those goods to trade them for other goods, other people's labour, protection, obedience or sexual services? Kind of like what people do with money now?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:58:42 2017 No.9191562
File: 17 KB, 376x376, DoctorPepeHawking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9191546
When I say natural, what I mean is "a trait commonly associated with this species of animal". I mean it as a description, not as a prescription. I'm not saying it's correct behavior simply because it's natural behavior, after all violence is also pretty natural, but I would say it's right to use it all the time.

But I would argue that if you have characteristics in humans that you know are a result of evolutionary pressures, they give you an idea of how much social engineering you need to do in order to destroy that characteristic.

I mean, humans could probably build a society where homosexuality is what is considered "normal" and heterosexuality is considered disgusting, but I would argue that you'd have to turn society into a pervasive totalitarian state to make it happen, because it doesn't come naturally to most people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 03:59:44 2017 No.9191564 >>9191562 I wouldn't say it's right to use all the time*

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:05:16 2017 No.9191577

>>9191551
You're right, but then it would not be "hoarding". I wouldn't call it "greed" either. Our desire can focus on money (that will bring food, respect, women etc.), because when it comes to money, use value IS exchange value. It could be the same indeed with other goods, but no other good is regarded primarily as exchange value. If I was part of such an ancient society where money doesn't exist, I would perhaps (not sure, but whetever) dream of "other people's labour, protection, obedience or sexual services", but my desire will probably not focus on some specific good. I'll keep dreaming of these things instead of dreaming of one specific means to obtain them. (unless there actually exists one thing whose use value is exchange value : money, or salt, or shells etc.)

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:14:36 2017 No.9191592

>>9191562
>characteristics in humans that you know are a result of evolutionary pressures

Yeah this is essential. By the way I really wonder if Marx was interested/aware of evolutionary process from a strictly biological point of view.

But precisely, the reason why I wasn't certain that obesity is a good example, is that it shortens life. Shouldn't we say that being NOT hungry anymore once that you ate what your body needs, is a useful characteristic ? Whereas being overweight is certainly not a result of natural selection. (funny thing that average life expectancy has recently regressed in the US)

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:15:19 2017 No.9191594

>>9191478
>Which is a moral critique you mongoloid.
No it's not.

It's an objective condition of capitalism for the bourgeoisie to exploit the labor of the proletariat. Exploit not being a moral term here.

>there's just no way he could argue that that social organization was exploitative and had to be destroyed.
Marx wasn't against social organisation. Holy shit man.

>>9191488
Why are arguments against workers seizing the means of production always dishonest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:18:44 2017 No.9191597 I have a degree in political economy and I'll tell you right now communism is dog shit don't @ me

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:18:45 2017 No.9191598

>>9191592
>Shouldn't we say that being NOT hungry anymore once that you ate what your body needs, is a useful characteristic ?

Yeah, but the feeling of hunger actually doesn't correlate that much with your actual intake of foods.

This is also the reason that the best way to know if you're dehydrated isn't the feeling of thirst, it's if your piss is brown.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Marx was aware of evolution as the Origin of Species did come out in 1859; but he was at heart a follower of Rousseau which essentially means that he was a radical social constructionist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:19:26 2017 No.9191601 >>9191469 The content would be free. It'd be like pirating.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:20:16 2017 No.9191602 >>9191594 Exploitation is a moral term you idiot. Exploitation implies a victim of an action that is deemed immoral by definition. Why the fuck would a Communist advocate for the overthrow of capitalism if it wasn't seen as morally right?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:25:59 2017 No.9191612

>>9191602
>Exploitation is a moral term you idiot.
Not within the context of Marx. Capital is not 4 tomes of humanist hand wringing - it's an analysis of the objective conditions of capitalism.

>>9191598
>Also, I'm pretty sure that Marx was aware of evolution as the Origin of Species did come out in 1859
He read it and liked it. iirc Engels sent a copy of Capital to Darwin but he never bothered to read it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:29:05 2017 No.9191617 >>9191612 >t's an analysis of the objective conditions of capitalism. He wanted the proletariat to win. If you're taking sides you're not an objective scientist anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:31:24 2017 No.9191623 >>9191612 >it's an analysis of the objective conditions of capitalism. First off, Marxism isn't a science. Secondly, the word "objective" doesn't belong anywhere near the world "values".

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:32:37 2017 No.9191626 >>9191617 >He wanted the proletariat to win. Well yes, he provides his analysis of capitalism and picked a side. One could still accept his criticism of capitalism and be on the side of the bourgeoisie especially if they themself were bourgeois.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:33:44 2017 No.9191628 >>9191623 >Secondly, the word "objective" doesn't belong anywhere near the world "values". I didn't say the word values.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:35:33 2017 No.9191637 >>9191598 I'm the guy you were replying to, thanks for the info.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:38:05 2017 No.9191642 >>9191628 >I didn't say the word values. No, but it's implied in wanting to destroy capitalism. Hating something and wanting something destroyed actually is a value-judgement too you know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:43:48 2017 No.9191651 >>9191637 No problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 04:48:13 2017 No.9191663 >>9191626 Scientists don't pick sides m8. An objective analyst is by definition disinterested and unbiased towards either side. This is why Marx is taught in the humanities, along with Freud and other pseudo-scientists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 05:00:54 2017 No.9191684 >>9191241 >>9191594 So is capitalism moral or not? You seem to be saying that the workers are being exploited, stolen from and coerced but at the same time you say that Marxism is not a moral critique of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 07:57:06 2017 No.9192216 Want is an endless treadmill. It cannot solve it any more than Capitalism - ideal or actual - can.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 07:59:29 2017 No.9192224 >>9191542 The criteria by which poverty is estimated by Capitalist apologists are 100% irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:05:30 2017 No.9192242 >>9189571 >conflating theory and implementation

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:17:27 2017 No.9192270 So is /lit/ unironically of the mind that all other forms of communism just weren't real communism or do you guys just like to jerk off over the theory of marxism and totally great utopias

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:19:01 2017 No.9192274 >>9192270 >do you guys just like to jerk off over the theory >board that has at list 5 philosophy threads at any given time

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:21:25 2017 No.9192284 >>9192274 not all theories are worth jerking off over, I figured the one that's racked up 100+ million deaths wouldn't get any dicks hard

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:22:37 2017 No.9192293 >>9192284 Theories don't kill anyone. People do. Stop being retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:27:03 2017 No.9192304 >>9192293 >come up with awesome theory >every time it is implemented the result turns out poorly >blame it on human nature gee maybe your theory isn't compatible with human nature

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:29:18 2017 No.9192313 Can someone respond to these >>9191288 >>9191684

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:38:49 2017 No.9192341

If communism doesn't truly exist unless private property is abolished and the workers own the means of production, would you also agree that capitalism doesn't truly exist unless the state is abolished and the means of production are privatised?
I dislike the argument that communism has been tried enough times to be empirically debunked. I think the most reasonable understanding is that every government in history lands somewhere between capitalist and communist, and that we should always label a country "more capitalist" or "more communist" instead of just black and white statements based on a country's nominal political system.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:41:43 2017 No.9192349

>>9192341

There are very binary signals that we use to determine a "capitalist" and "communist" system. Of course absolutes don't absolutely exist.

Also
>I dislike the argument that communism has been tried enough times to be empirically debunked

Mass death is bad dude, we generally don't wait for more data when each trial ends up horribly. Would you keep cutting yourself on a blade to figure out just how sharp it is?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:43:11 2017 No.9192357
File: 36 KB, 352x352, 1486281275106.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9189394
>How does socialism and communism solve the problem of every man wanting to own something?
It doesn't, which is why people have such a negative visceral reaction of enslaving everyone to a collective poverty.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:47:49 2017 No.9192365
File: 78 KB, 924x727, 1488115448431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>thinking capitalism is a formal system
>thinking freedom of the market precludes the market being oriented to a communist state
>being this ideologically cucked
>this entire thread
what dull dross

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:49:24 2017 No.9192370 >>9192304 Maybe. Doesn't make it a bad theory :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:58:00 2017 No.9192398 File: 62 KB, 1200x675, incredulousman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9192370

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 08:58:16 2017 No.9192400

>>9192349
>Mass death is bad dude, we generally don't wait for more data when each trial ends up horribly. Would you keep cutting yourself on a blade to figure out just how sharp it is?

The first couple hundred years of capitalism were a real hoot right? Sunshine and rainbows, no misery there whatsoever, doc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:01:02 2017 No.9192414 >>9192370 that's literally the definition of what makes a theory bad

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:02:15 2017 No.9192421 >>9192400 Yeah, what a wonder it didn't collapse on itself right? It takes an incredible (and impressive) amount of mental gymnastics to ascribe meaningful death tolls to capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:03:17 2017 No.9192424 >>9192400 >The first couple hundred years of capitalism were a real hoot right? >the lack of a system is a system

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:05:53 2017 No.9192431

>>9192349
I'm not saying that communism didn't kill people or wasn't economically disastrous, I'm just saying that we shouldn't pretend that communism or capitalism have been fully realised to any significant degree. It astounds me when people say that America is a capitalist country, especially since the turn of the century. Even during its times of greatest freedom it wasn't 100% capitalist. But yeah I do agree with you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:08:21 2017 No.9192438 File: 100 KB, 900x600, c0k9vmS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9192424

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:17:30 2017 No.9192453 >>9192438 What a terrible, terrible comic. Must be American made.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:20:21 2017 No.9192459 >Also, should I read Chomsky on Anarchism, or is it pure shit not worth? chomsky's a shitty anarchist desu. Start with kevin carson desu.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:24:06 2017 No.9192472 >>9192304 But it wasn't ever fully implemented. Its complete implementation requires the totality of humanity being involved, hence the Comintern and expansionist ambitions of every socialist state.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:25:50 2017 No.9192477 >>9192421 Note that I never said communism hasn't been a failure thus far. It has. But don't act like mass death is a red line when you're happy to defend infant capitalism's many horrors.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:28:03 2017 No.9192485

>>9192477
From all sources I find, average figure is American capitalism started around 1900. English capitalism started out as an extension from feudalism, so it's a little shaky to go there if that's what you're implying.

Marx did not have a firm grasp on American capitalism, he wrote mostly of the English.

Please be more specific when you trot out the "capitalism's many horrors" trope. Enlighten me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:28:46 2017 No.9192487 File: 73 KB, 440x406, measuringideology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9189394 Do you really want excessive luxuries and 3 cars or is that just consumerist ideology that has taken hold of you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:29:15 2017 No.9192489 >>9192472 When will people like you understand that rationalizing the "it wasn't real communism" defense is why it's become a meme? Rationalize it all you want, it changes nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:31:07 2017 No.9192503 >>9192489 A lot of leftist will refer to themselves as communist to mean strictly the original definition,a stateless moneyless society. That's certainly not what the marxist-leninist regimes were.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:31:39 2017 No.9192505 >>9192472 >seizing the means of production of a fraction of humanity results in mass death >we just needed to seize EVERYONE's means of production for it to work right why is this allowed in your brain. so dangerously naive. useful idiot indeed

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:36:39 2017 No.9192521 >>9192489 When will people like you understand that saying "it's a meme lul" is not an argument?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:37:14 2017 No.9192523 >>9192485 Depends what you mean by mass death under "communism". You talking about stuff like Stalin's purges, which are no more exclusive to communism than hammers are - or structural problems of production and distribution?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:40:09 2017 No.9192527 >>9192505 >post hoc ergo propter hoc >tries to argue Fuck off, imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:40:51 2017 No.9192530 >>9192365 What, so a communist state could be capitalist? The very idea is retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:41:09 2017 No.9192531 >>9192521 Interesting way to completely miss the point I suppose. My argument was pretty obviously not that it is in itself a meme, but rather that your argument is so poor and trotted out so often that it gave birth to the meme in question.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:42:18 2017 No.9192534

Surely the government should manage distribution, creative's the design and machines and labourers the product itself, all getting an equal pay in the share? That way, those creatives who are failures are forced to move to other enterprises they're better at or live on welfare for their lives and management is done naturally for all governments to the sound of demand and material supply. As well, it stops the wealth congesting within the hands of the avaricious at the eternal expense of the poor and nescient for government will pass out the cash received from all production rather than the private owners of the factories.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:43:04 2017 No.9192537 >>9192531 >your argument is so poor and trotted out >offers no critique whatsoever Why comment at all then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:44:30 2017 No.9192541 >>9192527 Just because you don't like your argument bore down to its fundamentals, causing you to realize how retarded it is does not make it fallacious. >Fuck off, imbecile. not an argument friendo

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:50:04 2017 No.9192554 >>9192541 Not that guy, but any argument can be made to look ridiculous when boiled down to a few words. You're not special foe putting that truism into action.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:51:58 2017 No.9192559 >>9192554 >every argument is fundamentally ridiculous and requires more words to not be ridiculous

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 09:56:24 2017 No.9192574

>>9192541
You didn't bore down anything at all, I already pointed out a glaring fallacy in your shit greentext. If you can offer any actual refutation, please go on. Otherwise just repeat 'I saw that meme it must be true' again and fuck off.

For the record it takes an extra retarded person to not understand the difference between goals and means, so congratulations on being extra special.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:02:23 2017 No.9192593

>>9192574
I'll be more clear for you. I'm not saying "the meme exists therefore it is true." I'm saying your point is so ripe for satire and ridicule that it gave birth to the meme in the first place.

There is a reason for that. The refutation you're looking for is bordering on self-evident. You have no ground to stand on to defend communism as we've seen it historically, and that historical context is a strong precedence to defend the theory itself at this point. Hell of a theory to dig your heels in for bud.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:19:52 2017 No.9192648

>>9192593
>we have never seen communism completely implemented
>we've seen communism historically
Wew. "No". Great argument. Unless you're an American who uses "commie" as a derogatory for anything, there's no excuse for you to be this thick. This isn't a dispute over ideologies - it's a simple question of terminology. The pure communist society was never built anywhere. Marxism-Leninism and Maoism and all the million other related philosophies were meant to facilitate the transformation of society into a communist one and all of them utterly failed. They themselves are not 'communism' and their failure is not a failure of communism. You're arguing that the goal is bad, because the tools you've used so far have failed you. Just fucking stop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:24:36 2017 No.9192661 >>9189394 It doesn't solve the problem of them wanting to own something It solves the problem of them wanting to own anything

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:28:50 2017 No.9192674

>>9192648
>we should build a house in the center of the sun: theres free energy there
>so what if every method we used to try failed; we never built a true sunhouse. We should be trying to build there with better tools. It's not the goal that failed, but the means.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:30:08 2017 No.9192679

>>9192648
Okay, I'll grant you all that.

What does it say to you, in your opinion, that all roads lead to ruin in the case of your "true" Communism?

In other words, why does it seem to be so difficult to implement if it is indeed so good for society? Coincidence? We are just not ready?
Well then what makes us ready?

From how I see it, even when I grant Communism everything up to the very instant it's implemented, the final true hurdle for Communism's success is that it goes against human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:36:08 2017 No.9192697 >>9192674 Having a house in the middle of the sun would serve no purpose. Communism's ideal is to maximize human happiness. Your analogy is faulty. Keep up with the autistic greentext though, it's pretty funny.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:40:09 2017 No.9192709

>>9192697
Don't you see the inherent fault in that? Happiness is not objective.

To callback to OP, some people's happiness lies in how many yachts they own, or some derivative of some material thing, right? We want shit. You cannot maximize human happiness through communism, you can only enforce an arbitrary state sanctioned objective "happiness." Do you think that's seriously good?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:41:09 2017 No.9192712

>>9192679
I think it's fundamentally unachievable due to human nature. We're going to gradually move towards socializing our economy more and more until we arrive at tech singularity (if that indeed ever happens). Maybe then we will have something resembling it, but it's pointless to theorize on mere futuristic assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:41:47 2017 No.9192715 >>9189394 >How does socialism and communism solve the problem of every man wanting to own something? They don't. That's what always brings the system down.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:42:13 2017 No.9192717

>>9192674
>We should use solar panels to get energy
>ACTUALLY I AM A M'LENINIST AND WE SHOULD JUST BUILD A HOUSE IN THE SUN
*builds a house in the sun*
*explodes*
>Well that was fucking stupi--
>"obviously solar panels end up with your house exploded, just look at those guys who built their house in the sun"

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:45:34 2017 No.9192727 >>9192709 Communism is not against personal property, it's against private property. In a utopian communist society you can own as many yachts as you want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:45:47 2017 No.9192730 >>9192697 Communism serves no purpose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:48:14 2017 No.9192739 >>9192717 This is pretty accurate, considering Leninism is "revolution for dummies" guide.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:52:02 2017 No.9192752

>>9192727
A distinction without a difference in modern contexts don't you think?

Sidelining that thought: what of your autonomy? What is the difference between a state where your body is considered private property (non-communist) and just personal property (communist)? The implications of that would be what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:53:56 2017 No.9192762 >>9192752 >A distinction without a difference in modern contexts don't you think? I didn't realise a yacht was a capital good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:55:38 2017 No.9192765 >>9192762 Are you seriously trying to imply a yacht can't be used as a service?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:56:24 2017 No.9192769 >>9192765 Pedantry is the highest good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 10:59:37 2017 No.9192776 >>9192752 It's a distinction that doesn't matter much in capitalism, yes. Under capitalism it's one of the most important aspects. Prostitution has no place in a communist society of course.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:00:39 2017 No.9192779 >>9192776 *Under communism

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:03:53 2017 No.9192787 >>9192776 >Prostitution has no place in a communist society of course. Why the fuck not. It is the worker owning the literal means of production. Pimping is un-communist, sure, but prostitution fucking isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:04:12 2017 No.9192790 >>9192769 Not only is that not an argument but it doesn't apply. You're saying it's not something that can't be used as a good or service, I'm saying it can be. 5 bucks for a ride on my yacht.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:04:55 2017 No.9192792 >>9192790 >Not only is that not an argument but it doesn't apply Huh...

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:09:10 2017 No.9192803 >>9192792 I'll take that as a concession

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:11:32 2017 No.9192806

>>9192803
Fuck it fine

Obviously no one is using the term "yacht" as a capital good. The whole conversation is about it NOT being used as a capital good. It's about letting yourself and your friends use it -- as a consumer good. Hence it must be distinguished from a capital good. Your autism about it being technically possible for a yacht to be a capital good is completely irrelevant and, as I said, very autistic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:17:03 2017 No.9192819 >>9192806 You want to debate a shit theory on the very basis of keeping things absolutely technical, and you're going to call me autistic for being technical? I want to let this slide and drill into this more; but that is pretty low of you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:20:15 2017 No.9192828 >>9192717 kbnno

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 11:37:30 2017 No.9192873

>>9192787
Communism is not just about property relations, it's a large philosophical movement. Sex under communism is not a product and person's body is not 'means of production'. It assumes that no person is naturally willing to trade their own body unless forced to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:14:02 2017 No.9193908 >>9190576 >this is your mind on anarcho capitalism you people literally have no arguments except crying about STATISTS AND TAXES

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:23:23 2017 No.9193944 >>9189394 humans didn't have private propety for 190.000 years, it's a new gimmick of the last 10.000. You'll get over it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:24:51 2017 No.9193953 >>9189451 Might have a scuffle, but there were only one million people in the world so fighting with another tribe would be more rare than getting in a plane crash or car crash is now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:25:56 2017 No.9193963 >>9193944 >humans didn't have private propety for 190.000 years, >retards ironically believe this

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:27:44 2017 No.9193975 >>9193953 >fighting with another tribe would be more rare than getting in a plane crash Yes, people spontaneously spawned at great distances to each other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:32:34 2017 No.9194005 File: 45 KB, 1024x724, keeley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9193953 >implying

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 16:47:26 2017 No.9194090 >>9193963 read books >>9194005 the last few tribes in a dried up world in 1996 is not a good representation of the world millennia before agriculture

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:03:42 2017 No.9194172
File: 35 KB, 750x428, arrowheads.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9194090

That's not what anthropologists are saying.

Look at this primitive arrowhead, a very common design. It's useless for hunting, that much is clear. It's barbed, for one thing, making it hard to pull out, and the neck is very thin - so it would break off in the wound. This arrow was designed for war.

Think of the tomahawk, another primitive weapon. You can't chop wood with it, or hunt with it, but it's perfect for killing other humans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:06:27 2017 No.9194191 >>9194005 lol look at those shamatari losers, schooled by the namowei.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:11:03 2017 No.9194211 >>9194172 I'm not saying hunter-gatherers never killed others ever. But the idea that pre-agricultural tribes had to regularly compete over animal kills is silly. How's that arrowhead you posted dated, by the way?

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:29:23 2017 No.9194306

>>9189742
>I'll never get it. How can anyone work a job in the modern world and not think "this is a total waste of my time. i'm not doing anything productive and i'm only killing time here so i can have enough money to eat and do the things I enjoy."

Because some of us actually do jobs that are productive and make life better for everyone else.

Fucking commies.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:37:36 2017 No.9194342

>>9194211
Not him and not trying to make the argument that anything is moral or not, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Also we know the territories of certain uncontacted tribes in the Amazon entirely because they slaughter members of neighboring tribes who get too close.

抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 17:46:39 2017 No.9194376

>>9189394
>What if a person wants a big juicy yacht? Means, either everybody would have a yacht

Life Under Communism:
>Person (P): I want a yacht.
>Everyone else (E): Oh, okay. Why?
>P: Because I want it.
>E: Well, enjoy building it.
>[P doesn't build the yacht unless he finds a way to do so by himself without siphoning community resources into the project]
Alternatively, more correctly:
>P: We should make a yacht.
>E: Why?
>P: It would be useful for the community.
>[P proceeds to argue the case and then E either agrees or disagrees and the Yacht is built or not built.]

Assuming the yacht is made in the second scenario above, of course, does not own the yacht. He may use the yacht but it would not be a personal property, and there is of course no private property. These are two different things.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:50:30 2017 No.9194394

Traditionally, if someone in a communist society wanted a luxury item like a personal yacht they would just work to the top of the government and use the corruption and hoarded wealth to acquire one

It's a bit like how you get one in a capitalist society, except much much more inefficient and immoral

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:51:02 2017 No.9194400
File: 93 KB, 630x630, pepe smoothie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9194376
Here's the problem: most people are dull-minded and gross. I would prefer to have the opportunity to step on the backs of such people to further my interests than to band with them so I don't hurt their feelings.

Why? Because it feels right and make it more likely that I will get to raise children with a woman who I'm proud of.

Commies are just weak betas who don't think they can stand up to normal sexual competition.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:52:05 2017 No.9194407
File: 54 KB, 378x277, crow creek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9194211

>For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. 1325 AD)
>1325 AD

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:54:09 2017 No.9194418 >>9189742 Where do you think the yacht comes from you dumb cunt? People have to actually work to produce things, the state doesn't just magically make it appear Fucking commies I swear

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:57:13 2017 No.9194435

>>9194407

Hell yeah.

We like to think of indians as peaceful pot smokers with no sense of ownership these days, not sure why as there's no historical basis in that at all.

All north and south american indos were incredibly warlike, and savage (a very justified use of the word) people, and yes they mostly fought over land.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:59:16 2017 No.9194450

>>9189394
Chomsky's politics are nonsense. Anarchism will not work because there will always be an imbalance of resources and population. Some people will centralize control. Period. There are too many of us for that anymore.

His linguistics are interesting, but take even that with a grain of salt.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 17:59:35 2017 No.9194451

>>9194435
>We like to think of indians as peaceful pot smokers with no sense of ownership these days, not sure why as there's no historical basis in that at all.
It's a convenient fiction for natives vying for concessions from the government.

It's a convenient fiction for leftists.

It's an appealing fiction for uncultured white-guilt-ridden rubes.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:00:38 2017 No.9194457 [DELETED]

>>9194376
Or even more correctly:
>P: We should build a yacht
>E: I'd rather find something to eat, government mismanagement of the centrally planned economy has lead to horrific food shortages and I'm tired of eating pigeons, stray dogs and sifting through my own shit for corn kernels.
>P: Reports E to the secret police for dissent and gets a bowl of gruel as payment

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:02:13 2017 No.9194469
File: 86 KB, 600x729, cdc1f77b73b540438ca6d4f85032ddf2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9194090
>read books
I have to ask, why are you doing this? What the fuck compels someone, with zero knowledge on a matter, to pretend otherwise, and actually argue against established and available fact? Honestly, what the fuck brings you to waste your and everyone's time this way? I want to know.

抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 18:06:54 2017 No.9194491

>>9194400
You feel that way because you've been conditioned into a class society that tells you to value "competition" and the condition of being exploited. Under communism you don't feel this way outside of silly emotional outbursts that are swiftly corrected because there's no outlet for that outburst. Under capitalism this mentality seems natural because it's rewarded either (rarely) materially or emotionally, or else there's no way to redirect it toward reality. Your alienation has been redirected so successfully that you'll never even know that you won't actually get what you want, nor what you need. The prisoner leaves the Plato's cave but crawls right back to the shackles because the sun is too real.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:12:47 2017 No.9194514

>>9194491
All of that assumes that I'm a wageslave and can't possibly accrue capital for myself. Both of those things are false. Your ideology has convinced you that you are a slave and must remain a slave unless there's a revolution, yet people become masters all the time.

抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 18:19:00 2017 No.9194540

>>9194407
Did you even read anon's post?

>>9194435
>>9194451
Sounds like convenient fiction for plebs that haven't read anything. Even among the most "war" oriented Amerindians war was itself a ritualistic affair. This is especially evident among the Plains Indians (consider how long it took for them to adjust to European scorched earth warfare where killing, not capturing and confronting, were the primary objectives). Even the bloody Mesoamerican empires enacted warfare specifically to capture people for religious sacrifices. That said what we might call genocides have occurred but few are known of and none are based in resource competition. On the other hand, one of the most famous group of natives, the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois, were formed precisely to stop fighting between themselves.

>>9194514
The mentality is fixed in all the classes. But I'm guessing that you are a wageslave or you wouldn't be spending your time shitposting on 10tan. You may not like the consequences of the fact, but labor relations requires that workers are necessarily exploited (enslaved if you want) by the capitalist class.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:27:13 2017 No.9194571

>>9194540
>. That said what we might call genocides have occurred but few are known of and none are based in resource competition
The crow creek massacre mentioned but a few posts up was because of resource competition. Enjoy you're wrong. You can see that you're wrong from a quick google.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:30:22 2017 No.9194583

>>9194491
>Under communism you don't feel this way outside of silly emotional outbursts that are swiftly corrected because there's no outlet for that outburst.
>silly emotional outbursts
if a person feel like a slave of "community". you gonna tell him he just have a silly emotional outburst?.

>>	抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 18:34:26 2017 No.9194603 >>9194583 By definition it would be a silly outburst to feel like a slave in a society in which labor is owned by the laborers. That person is welcome to leave society if they continue to feel that way. >>9194571 Try reading.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:36:30 2017 No.9194613

>>9194342
>Not him and not trying to make the argument that anything is moral or not, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
Humans share as much DNA with bonobos as with chimps.

>Also we know the territories of certain uncontacted tribes in the Amazon entirely because they slaughter members of neighboring tribes who get too close.
There are also records of plenty of tribes who lovingly welcomed the explorers. They all got killed. It makes sense that the violent ones remained the longest. Not as easy to give smallpox and whiskey.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:37:03 2017 No.9194617 >>9192873 when you work in a factory you are not trading your body?.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:37:27 2017 No.9194619 File: 549 KB, 1493x1567, helicopter tour.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9194603 I can't imagine what would drive someone to want to distinguish himself and create advantages for his children. Testosterone, perhaps.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:38:17 2017 No.9194624

>>9194540
>That said what we might call genocides have occurred but few are known of and none are based in resource competition.
None here meaning plenty so much so that the very massacre mentioned in this thread was over arable land competition.

> Other examples were tongues being removed, teeth broken, beheading, hands and feet being cut off, and other forms of dismemberment. In addition to the severity of the attack, most of the people showed signs of malnutrition and many had evidence of being wounded in other attacks. This evidence has suggested to scholars that lives of people of the Initial Coalescent culture were under more stress than was thought; they have theorized that the people were attacked by another group or several groups of the Initial Coalescent culture in the area in competition for arable land and resources.(Zimmerman and Bradley 1993:216)

I suggest you try reading.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:38:58 2017 No.9194632 >>9194407 Those were agricultural peoples. America had agricultural civilisations well before whitey came.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:41:13 2017 No.9194644 >>9194603 >welcome to leave society can you put it in a softer way?. how exactly you invite him to leave?. he can´t be in a communist society if he feel like a slave?.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:41:39 2017 No.9194645

>>9194613
It's irrelevant, and I feel like I'm wasting my time since you clearly can't keep arguments logically organized, but as a point of trivia I'd like to share that bonobos actively hunt chimps.

The point is that violence very much like warfare exists in humans and related species. The existence of peaceful tribes does not make the violent ones stop existing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:42:59 2017 No.9194651 >>9194469 >actually argue against established and available fact? If you think the means of production were privatised before agriculture existed the burden of proof is on you, friend.

抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 18:43:23 2017 No.9194654

>>9194619
Why do plebs think that communist egalitarianism is some metaphysical spell wherein everyone human being is made the same? What a silly meme.

>>9194624
I did in fact say none which was naturally a bad word choice, that is my error. On the other hand, there's no point in putting this up as normal when its discovery is itself exceptional. Further, in your own wiki source it points out how this event occurred after a long protracted period, not out of the blue. In normal indigenous warfare, war occurs for ritual and for relational problems normally. At least up to Euro contact, which normalizes mercenary activity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:44:19 2017 No.9194658 >>9194645 I never said violence didn't exist. I'm not the disorganised one.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:47:36 2017 No.9194683

>>9194651
A good stick for bashing would be coveted. The most attractive looking mate. Etc...

Private property existed, I can't even begin to break down what a retarded sentence you just produced, but facts are facts, the means of production is far too dramatic a term, but to pretend cavemen were into sharing is the height of idiocy.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:48:43 2017 No.9194689 [DELETED]

File: 116 KB, 800x682, d6cbbc1a56206e29080477cbc3cbf640e7995a09407e8dfea5bb50c1d48e2860_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9194654
>what is ambition
>what is advantage for your children
You should consult an endocrinologist. I'm not even joking.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:49:30 2017 No.9194694

>>9194654
The only difference between native american civilization and Europeans is distance. It's a proof of concept, regardless of how strange it is (and I see nothing to indicate it was, you made that up) they did it and would do it again when necessary. Europe was simply a lot more crowded, conflict was more necessary, it's not that they were more violent behaviorally .

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:50:03 2017 No.9194699 >>9194689 >he cannot read Why are you even engaging, frogshit?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 18:53:34 2017 No.9194712 File: 42 KB, 680x511, helicopter idles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9194699 >everyone I disagree with is illiterate That must be so convenient.

抗養蚕(kō yōsan) !RnKG69rrpM Sun Mar 5 18:57:45 2017 No.9194730

>>9194694
>The only difference between native american civilization and Europeans is distance.
There are a exceptional number of differences. Particular in that there is no "Native American" civilizatioN and to lesser degree "European" civilizatioN.

>It's a proof of concept
Doesn't sound like a proof at all.

>regardless of how strange it is (and I see nothing to indicate it was
Well, again, lack of evidence. Again, actual warfare behavior of many tribes/groups is fairly well known. Again, violence and warfare in the Americas was common, but the kind of warfare is drastically different. This makes sense since European kingdoms/states are fundamentally very different from the kinds of societies that existed in the Americas.

Anonymous Sun Mar 5 19:00:48 2017 No.9194737

>>9194683
>A good stick for bashing would be coveted.
No. Hunter-gatherer bands around the world actually share arrows when hunting. They share the prey as well.

You can't just meme your Randian ideas on the entiretely of history and say 'wow i can't even' when it doesn't compute.

Hunter-gatherer bands thrived by communion, not internal competition. Ask any anthropologist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 5 19:01:33 2017 No.9194740 >>9194712 You completely ignored what the tripfag said and continued with your retarded memery. You're either illiterate or an imbecile. Not interested in any case.

Anonymous Mon Mar 6 00:03:28 2017 No.9195997
File: 43 KB, 328x499, war before civilization.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Primitive war was ritualistic! That's what Ruben Shekelberg told me in White Guilt 101!!

I want you communists to read this book and then get back to me. The "peaceful savage" concept is literally a political narrative pushed by anti-western academics, and has no basis in reality.

Anonymous Mon Mar 6 00:51:56 2017 No.9196122

congrats on an interesting discussion, /lit/ *claps*

>>9189394
I really enjoyed On Anarchism. don't buy it though, here's a link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://libcom.org/files/1345266991261.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjE4LjtlsHSAhVBRiYKHe50AaMQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEKZj0a7TCDh9owy0LBWnZ4lzpojA&sig2=udwZAOoO1ZJgNYB6q-mmBA

"Language and Freedom" is patrician af

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 6 00:56:00 2017 No.9196132 File: 275 KB, 545x530, 1484963821459.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >/pol/ threads are the most active threads on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 6 00:58:23 2017 No.9196139 >>9196132 where else could we actually discuss politics

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 6 01:00:44 2017 No.9196143 >>9196132 /lit/ is a /pol/ client state.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature