Nov 9, 2020·1 reply
DVLPRPlease don’t ban paw patrol. Just tell the people that it’s old capitalist propaganda if you want.
Why would you be afraid of people being influenced by capitalist propaganda if the system you currently have is so perfect already? That’s like my girlfriend blocking all the hotties off my socials cuz she afraid I’ll cheat if i see them.
because there will always be reactionaries who make convincing arguments and we can't let that take hold in the mean time, because the projects needed to improve material conditions would be vast and take time.
Nov 9, 2020·1 replyFaygothe individuals behind american technological and scientific did what they did but its often still credited as american innovation so whats your point?
the point is under communism individuals would have less drive for innovation
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replySynopsis
because there will always be reactionaries who make convincing arguments and we can't let that take hold in the mean time, because the projects needed to improve material conditions would be vast and take time.
Ok but once the whole utopia is nice and perfectly working there will be no point in censorship anything right? All the violent s*** will happen in the early stages only.
Nov 9, 2020·1 reply30 pages
Nov 9, 2020·1 replySynopsishuh almost as if the govt could do all these things.
You trust the gov to do something in a cheap and efficient matter?
Everything they do is inflated in price? You know why? Because there is no responsibility for them to care, it isn't their money.
Also some corruption, but how are you going to prove that the workers weren't just inept?
CA has wasted billions for random projects that have gone nowhere. We can't even build a f***ing railroad to Vegas.
You think they are going to build homes for everyone now in a fairly priced manner and do it efficiently? They have tried on a small scale for homeless people and it hasn't worked well at all
A lot has to do with lobbying and a lot has to do with regulations
- Nov 9, 2020
- Nov 9, 2020·2 repliesDVLPR
Ok but once the whole utopia is nice and perfectly working there will be no point in censorship anything right? All the violent s*** will happen in the early stages only.
well yeah once communist society is established there'd be no need for it because the reactionary ideology will be gone
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replydonalddrumpf
You trust the gov to do something in a cheap and efficient matter?
Everything they do is inflated in price? You know why? Because there is no responsibility for them to care, it isn't their money.
Also some corruption, but how are you going to prove that the workers weren't just inept?
CA has wasted billions for random projects that have gone nowhere. We can't even build a f***ing railroad to Vegas.
You think they are going to build homes for everyone now in a fairly priced manner and do it efficiently? They have tried on a small scale for homeless people and it hasn't worked well at all
A lot has to do with lobbying and a lot has to do with regulations
wow almost as if i want radically different govt too
- Nov 9, 2020Synopsis
well yeah once communist society is established there'd be no need for it because the reactionary ideology will be gone
Alright man I think I get your whole thing now. Good luck with the revolution and everything, I’ll simply stick to voting/not voting for now.
- Nov 9, 2020·2 repliesSynopsis
wow almost as if i want radically different govt too
Let me guess, you want a society that has never existed before yet on a grand scale?
You do know all the government types you prefer have failed their people right?
Nov 9, 2020·1 replyCLB Fractionsthe point is under communism individuals would have less drive for innovation
usually the argument which precedes this is that Marx (post-Marx depending on who you look to they may dispute this) & Engels said that communism (or at least, theory that lead into communism) would be a result (paraphrasing) of innovation reaching a peak to where innovation past said peak was useless since there was an excess of means of production already and everything past that carried no value beyond artificially assigned value. Philosophers like Zizek have the best take on this; communism isn't about "happiness", the modern concept of happiness is utilitarian which leans into liberalism (essentially distracing oneself from nihilism), so something like Apple existing would have no value since iphones don't actually do anything on an intrinsic level to have value beyond what people arbitrarily assign to it.
As long as people can get their base needs of survival fulfilled to the extent of ensuring their next generation will receive the same benefit, everything past that is essentially artificial value. The point is to ensure people can fill deontological conditions; if you disagree with this, the main disagreement is in terms of individualist "happiness" being more important than fulfillment of deontological duty. Now of course this gets more complicated when you take into account stuff like medical technology, but i just say this as someone explaining the view, i have my own qualms separate where i think there's nuance to be expounded on.- Nov 9, 2020·1 replydonalddrumpf
Let me guess, you want a society that has never existed before yet on a grand scale?
You do know all the government types you prefer have failed their people right?
Isn’t that because they’ve always had the whole world against them?
Nov 9, 2020·1 replySynopsiswell yeah once communist society is established there'd be no need for it because the reactionary ideology will be gone
So you’re just assuming everyone would be okay with communism when this thread has 30 pages for a reason. Trump easily won the Cuban & Venezuelan vote just by scaring them with the word “socialism” for a reason.
Sure, in your little fantasy world everything would be perfect. But that’ll never be reality, bud.
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replyFaygo
Landlords are definitely in a parasitic relationship with the rest of society. They produce nothing of value themselves and provide no useful skill, labor, or talent, and get paid an inordinate amount of money just for owning real-estate that they didn’t even help to produce. They give nothing to society and yet take so much.
The landlord takes advantage of the proletariat within every society and must be removed by any and all means necessary. The property of landlords must be removed from their possession by the people in order to enact communal living (https://ktt2.com/my-theory-on-communal-living-92821) Most of your paycheck is taken by the landlord and whenever you falter they take away your basic right to shelter.if you were one of them and owned a house to rent AND WANTED TO MAKE MONEY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY IF YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE TO RENT IT OUT ?
Nov 9, 2020·1 replyGT500KRif you were one of them and owned a house to rent AND WANTED TO MAKE MONEY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY IF YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE TO RENT IT OUT ?
I think his point is that there shouldn't exist a situation where people purchase houses for the sole purpose of renting it out in the first place
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replydonalddrumpf
Let me guess, you want a society that has never existed before yet on a grand scale?
You do know all the government types you prefer have failed their people right?
you don't know which government type i prefer so thats a pretty bold statement. also, your first sentence is pointless. if that's your assessment, why have we ever advanced as society?
- Nov 9, 2020·1 reply0ddJay
So you’re just assuming everyone would be okay with communism when this thread has 30 pages for a reason. Trump easily won the Cuban & Venezuelan vote just by scaring them with the word “socialism” for a reason.
Sure, in your little fantasy world everything would be perfect. But that’ll never be reality, bud.
Are you like 15
Nov 9, 2020·1 replyMVP Pinhead30 pages
Lmao op dipped and synop is holding it down
- Nov 9, 2020·3 repliesYeezydawg
Lmao op dipped and synop is holding it down
synopsis living in this thread like its a free house
Nov 9, 2020·1 replykrishna boundusually the argument which precedes this is that Marx (post-Marx depending on who you look to they may dispute this) & Engels said that communism (or at least, theory that lead into communism) would be a result (paraphrasing) of innovation reaching a peak to where innovation past said peak was useless since there was an excess of means of production already and everything past that carried no value beyond artificially assigned value. Philosophers like Zizek have the best take on this; communism isn't about "happiness", the modern concept of happiness is utilitarian which leans into liberalism (essentially distracing oneself from nihilism), so something like Apple existing would have no value since iphones don't actually do anything on an intrinsic level to have value beyond what people arbitrarily assign to it.
As long as people can get their base needs of survival fulfilled to the extent of ensuring their next generation will receive the same benefit, everything past that is essentially artificial value. The point is to ensure people can fill deontological conditions; if you disagree with this, the main disagreement is in terms of individualist "happiness" being more important than fulfillment of deontological duty. Now of course this gets more complicated when you take into account stuff like medical technology, but i just say this as someone explaining the view, i have my own qualms separate where i think there's nuance to be expounded on.Expound on your view points man.
I really appreciate your comments.
What do you think about hedonists within this context as well? Do you think a hedonists could be satisfied in a communist society? Because I feel like a majority of the US population now of days are hedonic in nature and at the same time a majority of them would call for communism.
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replyMalakas
I think his point is that there shouldn't exist a situation where people purchase houses for the sole purpose of renting it out in the first place
but lol that's the point when you buy a house to rent i think op is 15
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replySynopsis
you don't know which government type i prefer so thats a pretty bold statement. also, your first sentence is pointless. if that's your assessment, why have we ever advanced as society?
You just said we have never advanced as a society...
Think about that for 2 min
So we have had no improvements anywhere in life?
Science and technology are the same as 2000 years ago?
Back then people died at 45 years old if they even survived and you couldn't even be on the internet until about 20 years ago
People used to s*** in buckets
The US had slaves
Etc
Lol no wonder many people here think you are a crazy person
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replydonalddrumpf
You just said we have never advanced as a society...
Think about that for 2 min
So we have had no improvements anywhere in life?
Science and technology are the same as 2000 years ago?
Back then people died at 45 years old if they even survived and you couldn't even be on the internet until about 20 years ago
People used to s*** in buckets
The US had slaves
Etc
Lol no wonder many people here think you are a crazy person
That's not what I said, you just apparently have terrible reading comprehension
- Nov 9, 2020You Disappoint Me
synopsis living in this thread like its a free house
- Nov 9, 2020·1 replyDVLPR
Isn’t that because they’ve always had the whole world against them?
No, I am not a history major or a historian, so someone here should have more info than me
But it always comes down to a few things
1) The people in charge will always be above 99% of common people and those in the 99% have no chance to gain more power (unlike capitalism). Haves vs Have nots. Does the US have a wealth gap issue, sure. But those countries are much worse.
2) Communism ends up in leaders abusing power and becoming dictatorships
3) There is no incentive to do my job well
