Anyone renting a house out is apparently an
"exploitative piece of s***" itt

You also chose to never answer one of my questions or statements

Go back and answer those

Stay on topic, bozo.

You literally said there’d be no reason for censorship in a communist society. Do you know how incredibly naive that sounds? You’re making serious arguments for fantasy scenarios & I’m 15 lol.

Well, you keep pointing to places that aren't communist to prove your point so i had to assume.

Lmao places that exhibit what communism naturally devolves into*

You didn’t respond to me saying that me customizing your home isn’t exploitative

lol so everyone of this generation who cant and will most likely not be able to afford a house is that? OK

I told you that you don't know my preferred type of government

and then I asked you, if youre basing your argument on me advocating for a type of system that has never happened on a large scale, what would you have said to those who wanted to overthrow the monarchy, or the slaves who envisioned something better?

lol nt

not how it works.

that wasn't your argument

you said what if you renovate your home and then charge someone rent to live in it

i told you

landlordism is exploitative, landlorism would be abolished, thus you would not be doing that. there, bye.

capitalism will kill our planet but hey what about how bad socialism is.

Maybe it’s capitalist propaganda that makes us believe all that. Maybe the reason why those countries are f***ed up is because capitalist countries destabilize them

That's honestly a really good question; I think there's room for debate. Marx isn't the be-all end-all of theory; others down the line definitely have their own additions and nunances which make it a little hard to be completely concrete in any argument or explanation. Marxism definitely isn't "hedonistic", but its roots are certainly parallel to hedonism in that they're both individualistic. The entire point of Marxism is essentially that guaranteeing facets of survival from the surplus of means of production means individuals can focus on fulfilling individualist "duty" past said point. I'd say the difference is hedonism tends to imply gross overindulgence, whereas Marxism isn't attempting to imply such (although i do think some people online may have misinterpreted it to be such); it's more like "duty" in the sense of choice separate from societal shackles which would otherwise prevent such from existing. But...at the same time, this is disputed, since evolutions of the theory definitely veer into collectivism over individualism, where there are not "mandated" per-se, but "universal" ethical duties which apply to all people.
Part of what I think makes it complicated is the idea of context or prior existence; people can't intrinsically unlearn environmental factors. For example, if I learn something is "blue", even if I learn a different word for something which is blue, it is always going to be "blue" no matter what word I use for it. Derivatives like Maoism kind of talk about this...hence why Mao was obsessed with the "blank slate culture" and "cultural reset" ideas; he was right to the extent to think that you had to kind of restart form the beginning culturally to create an environment in which you don't have pre-existing conceptualizations - hence why, say, when we even talk about things like landlords (i.e. this thread), we can only do so within the context of capitalism like I mentioned earlier in the thread, because people don't know anything else; even USSR (or ironically Maoist China), only could framework their societal and governmetnal structures in comparison to the global capitalism that pervaded the world around them. I'm not sure if the concept of "hedonism" would even exist in a society which didn't progress alongside the same lines; it's like how some cultures don't have words for certain concepts, and therefore they have to be explained in different ways.

Slavery was abolished in the same type of government we have that has currently existed

Laws changed and people's perception changed

But our political system was the same as it was back then

So what is your preferred gov type?

Lmao you have no real points. You’re just going out sad. I hope you get that A you so desperately want in your Philosophy 101 course

Capitalist propaganda can't just create millions of deaths that didn't happen, those actually happened because of their dictator leaders

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22

Go on google, enjoy

@Synopsis what do you think?

Slavery existed before the Atlantic slave trade, but even then slavery as a mode of production is a different point in history. But like I said, apply your dumb a***ysis to anything else. Guess the french revolution shouldn't have happened.

Direct democracy

Me renovating my home
And then letting you live in it

Is the same as me renovating yours

If we have the exact same homes

Like, in your system, there could be an artist that just trades houses/housing with people and he edits each Home he’s in to a specific clients wants and then when he’s done changing his “own home” to look dope and then sells it by trading homes with the person that buys it and charging an extra amount on top. Then he does it again

The point is.. landlordism would also exist under your system anyways just in a different way

I dont think anything. Could do the same for capitalism, will they stop being bootlickers?

ARchitexts are a thing you know

Do you believe all those millions of deaths happened because of their dictator leaders?

Majority of those deaths came from famines that happened before the agricultural revolutions hit those areas. Something people of refuse to acknowledge when it comes to things like famine, just how frequently they happened