(untitled)

Socialism is by far the most murderous ideology of the 20th century but for some reason it is somehow totally socially acceptable to call yourself a communist or an anarchist or whatever without being beaten to death or being despised by the majority of the population. Why?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Please elaborate in your post in future, please state why you think socialism is a murderous ideology, and also provide any other relevant information. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

Communists killed lots of anarchists too, read a damn history book.

Most modern socialists/communists don't support the actions of the USSR/China/NK, so people tend to see the two as being two different things, usually.

>>6323 For that matter, many Russian socialists didn't support the Bolsheviks either which is why they ended up in the camps with everyone else.

>>6322 No, unless you mean anarcho-capitalists. Anarchists and Communists have the same goal in mind: a class-less society of workers without the right to own private property and individualism. The difference is that anarchists use chaos and riots to reach their goal while communists use state power.

>im going to refuse to learn the proper definition of a term and keep on making strawmen

>>6326 This is so wrong it's unbelievable. After the Bolsheviks seized power they rounded up all the "competition"; anarchists, socialists, social democrats, Christian communitarians who followed Tolstoy's writings, and communists who weren't in their party. Then they purged their own party too. Anarcho-capitalists have hardly existed as agents of history outside of the internet.

>>6326 > anarchists use chaos and riots The most most famous anarchist attempt was that of the Spanish who resisted Franco. They organized industrial unions which turned into militias. The kids drawing circle-A's in your high school bathroom are just going through a phase (like yourself most likely), so they don't count. ...and who betrayed the Spanish anarchists and republicans? Communists backed by Stalin.

>>6329 Is it me, or do communists and anarchists not like each other in general? I came across a YouTube channel a while back called Maoist Rebel News. It's run by a guy in Canada named Jason Unruhe. Every once in a while he likes to point out that anarchists are just people who screw everything up. He passes it all off as jokes, but there seems to be something behind it.

Yea, only national socialism is the evil ideology. Systematically killing people like holomodor in Ukraine is really really wrong. Oh wait, other countries had more elaborate systematic ways of killing people they didn't like? Wow

>>6321 Because capitalism has obvious flaws, and socialism (to many people) offers a realistic alternative. You really can't lump all socialists together as much as it seems easy to do so, a demsoc, green anarchist and a maoist probably disagree on so many things that it doesn't even make sense to compare them. There's literally over 100 years of literature on this soykaf it's not as simple as muh lefties takin mah freedums. >>6326 >what is Catalonia Common misconception that anarchists are all just chaos and rioting. There's a small subset of "insurrectionist" anarchists who like to riot and soykaf, but in general anarchists are more about organizing the workers and doing community work outside of the government (filling potholes, feeding the homeless, community gardens, collective housing etc) much like communists. There is a big movement of left unity, but communists and anarchists still argue all the time. >>6330 Jason Unruhe is more of an outlier and doesn't really represent what most communists think. It's true that a lot on both sides don't like each other, but they hate capitalism more than they hate each other so in general it's not a big problem.

>>6330 > do communists and anarchists not like each other in general State communism is as much against the goals of anarchists as capitalism is, it's just that anarchists a century ago hadn't figured out that the communists were in fact not going to be their friends in the long run. Marxism is based partly on the idea that we overthrow the government and replace it with a dictatorship of the working class that will eventually wither away and be replaced with a stateless communitarian society. Everyone should have known, no dictatorship gives up power willingly. The people in the Russian revolution were a broad base with countless visions for the future. In many locales, people simply organized their villages and factories autonomously until the Bolsheviks crushed every hint of community independence. Modern anarchist movements, even the reddest, labour oriented factions, have become increasingly aligned with environmental causes. Industrial communism was disastrous for the planet ecologically, far worse than free market capitalism in the 20th century, and anarchists haven't forgotten this either. Communists nowadays perceive anarchists as naive because they think humans can magically skip this dictatorship of the working class and go about treating each other decently without being forced to for a couple of generations. The only times you see communists and anarchists still united today are when the far right appears but I don't think there's any illusion that it's anything more than a temporary thing.

They are many schools of anarchism, some of which strongly criticize communist/socialist ideas(ie Renzo Novatore in his book Toward the creative nothing).

>>6338 this is actually a very agreeable stance on communism and anarchy. Unfortunately, most self proclaimed "anarchists" and "communists" are just the 2EDGY3ME type who are doing it for reasons other than genuine ideology (which i guess is paradoxically acceptable under anarchy) but the movements take on the public appearance of militants and are not discussed as valid political opinion. particularly in the united states, ANTIFA (the self proclaimed pseudo-anarchist movement) resembles a semi organized group of hooligans. In its most basic form, anarchy is akin o natural order, nobody rules over other people, and people cooperate because they want to. in the absence of state enforced compliance. Communism is the inverse, where all members of the community contribute to an overarching and all supporting state (or governing body of the people, as in communes) with communism, there is absolute buy in and participation in the government by all persons, with anarchy , there is no participation in a nonexistent government, and optional buy in with other people

>>6350 Its not like most of the far right is any better. Most of them are just trying to blame problems on foreigners and jews, not to say they dont cause problems. And some of them too who just go for the "family/nation" people bullsoykaf just want to use others people. Frankly i dont think any mainstream idiology has it any better, including democrats that think as long as the majority decide it automatically makes it correct. I respect someone who stands up for something he believes in and doesnt hide behind it, but these people are far and few in between. The way we are living in this fake world of spectacles and pretenses only breeds such scum and those who actually want to make a change will be faced with the threat of having their work undermined by pretentious idiots who only want to find a group they can leech off and boast their ego about being part of something that they dont even care about.

>>6347 Spidaddle spidoodle youe dick is now an ego

>>6360 >when you haven't read The Unique or even a single Wikipedia page about Egoism, but you still want to make a le funny maymayz about it and post it on Facebook Why can't normal people just go away?

>>6361 Normal people are spooks

>>6326 >without ... individualism fuarrrk that

>>6377 no, normality and social norms are spooks, normal people are spooked by these spooks.

>>6379 No, normal people are spooks.

>>6378 How is that even connected to the post it's directed at?

Because vaguely blaming "socialism" is completely ignorant? Do you even know what socialism or communism is? If we are going to blame a socioeconomic system for deaths it would be easy to argue that capitalism has killed more people than communism ever supposedly has.

>>6327 Your 'strawnmen' is my 'no true Scotsman fallacy'

>>6436 I've never really understood the logic behind this - as the world tends more towards capitalism, it appears that conditions across the world in terms of HDI, mobility, gender parity, stability, reduction in armed conflict etc have improved. Even w/in regimes like Pinochet's Chile. Whereas almost every country that trends towards anarchism / socialism / communism has seen negative progress towards those goals. It's something you all say a lot, and correlation =/= causation; but the numbers tell a very different story.

>>6438 and in most communist countries a similar increase took place.

Capitalism implies in constant exploitation (which is a fancy word for death or glorified slavery) of it's own population. You need to exploit the working class to the best of your ability in order for capitalism to function, yes, it's far better than what we had before (monarchy), but it's just a way for the elites to remain exploiting and killing those who serve them. A capitalist society needs it's working class to be exploited, and as it grows, it needs other countries to be used as fuel (africa, middle east, and many, many other countries). Thousands are dying right at this moment for you to be able to make this post and for your society to thrive, and they will continue to die so your new Iphone is produced. You just don't care about those who are dying constantly. Communism or anarchism implies in less progress, but for everybody, an auto sufficient society that does not produce more than necessary, and thus does not need human fuel to function. That is the basic difference, although extremely dumbed down. To call your society communist but still behave in a capitalist manner (elites rulling over the common people) isn't different from hitler calling his party Socialist, because at the time socialism was popular in Germany. For a more detailed explanation, you would need to study on your own, as this isn't the place for in depth discussions. I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't have it's advantages, but i don't have the character limit to list them. Just bear in mind that any generalization from a funny le meme is just propaganda. You are free to think that anarchism or communism is stupid, but first ask yourself if you understand what you're talking about or if you're just serving as a broadcaster.

>>6479 If you want to understand more about this, you can read about john locke, to understand the transition between monarchy and the capitalism we have today. If you want to understand more about communism and anarchism, read about the french revolution, and then try to find an abridged version of karl marx work (his analysis of capitalism is pretty good, set aside whatever you think about him, he was just a researcher, and an insanely good one for his age at the time). TL;DR: don't be a dumb dumb, if you don't care about the subject, you're free not to research anything, but whenever you pick an agenda and start to spread it's ideas, you should get to know about the subject, otherwise you will be unable to differentiate between propaganda and information. It is valid to think that capitalism is great, but it is not valid to make that assumption based on nothing but personal experience, these things don't come from introspection, they require study, effort and perspective. Otherwise you're just trying to pick a fight on a subject you don't understand, which wouldn't be different than arguing about your favorite comicbook hero and who he wins against.

>>6479 I don't like communism at all but this guy is right, investigation is necessary to understand your enemy. Listening to Peterson whine about "muh postmodernism" isn't enough. Peterson, Molymeme et al are good introductions for total normal people but eventually you have to dig deeper yourself and explore more in-depth right wing stuff, and also the leftists themselves to understand them. I recommend looking into Slavoj Žižek if you're a right winger, he's surprisingly relatable and a good introduction. >Thousands are dying right at this moment for you to be able to make this post and for your society to thrive, and they will continue to die so your new Iphone is produced. You just don't care about those who are dying constantly. It's industrial society itself, not capitalism. The thirst for material profit has led to these mass technological advancements, capitalism grows out of industrial society. I don't know man, I get pretty triggered when Gazprom ruins the habitat of natives in Russia because they're building industry to extract oil and gas (thus starving livestock), but I don't get triggered when Nenets tradition prohibits post-pubertal women from stepping on a sledge's straps or walking around without a skirt. Communists would have a problem with the latter as well because of bigotry and multiple -isms, even though such traditions go back thousands of years.

>>6479 Funny how before capitalism existed (feudalism for example, or all attempts at socialism/communism) the working class was even poorer and in worse off condition than it is now.

>>6482 What about the time before feudalism?

>>6486 >huntergatherism

>>6438 >almost every country that trends towards anarchism / socialism / communism has seen negative progress towards those goals. I would be careful about trying to evaluate alternatives to capitalism from within your current capitalist frame of reference. It's not just "country X tried socialism and failed". It's more like "country X tried socialism and were dicked on by the US and allies until they failed and now our contemporary elites tell spooky stories about the past to stop people trying again". >as the world tends more towards capitalism, it appears that conditions across the world in terms of HDI, mobility, gender parity, stability, reduction in armed conflict etc have improved. Everything good that happened is because of your preferred ideology and everything bad that happened is because of your enemies. The "reduction in armed conflict" one shows particularly poignant lack of self awareness.

>>6350 >Unfortunately, most self proclaimed "anarchists" and "communists" are just the 2EDGY3ME type who are doing it for reasons other than genuine ideology ... >particularly in the united states, ANTIFA (the self proclaimed pseudo-anarchist movement) resembles a semi organized group of hooligans. Antifa is not an Anarchist movement. They're just a group who protest fascism. The motivation and ideology of the individual members is not unified or relevant. The fact that they are normally violent doesn't make them Anarchists. Anarchy the political philosophy came before anarchy the English word for chaos but it's sad to see it still trips up people who should know better. The Occupy movement is a better example of serious Communist and Anarchist groups working together out of "genuine ideology" as you put it.

>>6492 >Antifa is not an Anarchist movement. They're just a group who protest fascism. American ANTIFA say that is their message, but much like the occupy movement they lack a clearly defined goal. i say this because many antifa commonly work with BLM and to an extent militant feminist groups to try to further an anti right/traditional message, which Would hardly consider to be a truly "anti-facist" cause >The Occupy movement is a better example of serious Communist and Anarchist groups working together out of "genuine ideology" as you put it The occupy movement may be considered anarchist to an extent, but only on the basis that thy had no clear leadership, and they had no clear agenda. there were people going to occupy to support everything from veganism to pro/anti israel movements, to protesting drone strikes and sharia law. as a mater of principal , I think that anarchy is more a way of life than a cause, because most large scale anarchists usually evolve into some form or darwinistic hierarchy (i.e. "lawlessness or rule of the strongest like in african countries with nonexistant government structure), but in small groups the natural order results in a sustainable avenue for everybody to interact (self organization of individuals based on mutual respect)

Daily reminder that “resources are limited” is just a (useful) meme.

>>6498 Can you elaborate?

>>6486 fuarrrk those were the days. No oppressive hierarchy and soykaf like that, just go outside and die out of cold and hunger or poor hygiene while your wife dies from giving birth. Those were the good old days.

>>6481 >It's industrial society itself, not capitalism. Not at all, industries are not destructive when they're used to produce as much as necessary for the population to thrive, in fact industries should be a means of liberation for the people, just like automation, it makes your work easier and thus you are free to focus your time on whatever interests you, not on surviving. When you need to increase your production at any cost, then industries can be harmful. That's what i meant when i said that in capitalism we have more progress, but only for those who can consume, and this disparity is increasing every second. Capitalism doesn't have the means to deal with automation. What happens when this need to profit doesn't require humans to function? >Communists would have a problem with the latter as well because of bigotry and multiple -isms, even though such traditions go back thousands of years. The generalization bothers me, preservation of other societies has historically been a focus of communist/anarchist activists. The "triggered tumblr girl" isn't realistic nor activism, yes, there are teenagers who spout "lets eat the rich lulzxD!!" without knowing what that means, just as there are people broadcasting peterson or sargon just because they like the aesthetics of their behavior, not the content of what they say. >>6482 >Funny how before capitalism existed the working class was even poorer and in worse off condition than it is now. I agree. As i mentioned, capitalism is better than monarchy. Anarchy (or communism) is just the next logical step in that progression, leftists want to continue where locke left off. When john locke was alive, he was a revolutionary, he wanted his ideas as much as i want mine, and the idea to leave the power of gods behind was as out of this world as leaving the power of the elites behind right now. In fact he believed in gods, he just wanted his society to progress, because regardless of those kings in fact had the blood of Adam, his society was being exploited to the death. It's all about perspective (and study).

>>6502 >it makes your work easier and thus you are free to focus your time on whatever interests you, not on surviving. This is what I don't like about socialist rhetoric. The goal is to create some kind of heaven on Earth where duty is minimalised and everyone can play to their heart's content, but the truth is that living in organic harsh conditions (contra synthetic urban factories) is sort of a transcendental experience that contributes to a healthy human mind as a person ages. I'm afraid that with a society centered around maximising free time, people will lose their tolerance towards the harsh aspects of life, and mental health problems will skyrocket (they already are booming, depression is an epidemic in well off countries and people living in the third world tend to be more happy). People will mentally and culturally atrophy, they will always invent new troubles, and they will engage in bizarre behaviour as their societies reach the end stages, what the Hindus call the Kali Yuga. >Capitalism doesn't have the means to deal with automation. A good solution (as far as sustaining capitalism goes, not that this is my ideal) is the right libertarian idea of small entrepreneurs managing multiple automated robots. A society where everyone can be a "CEO" and make a good living (but not insane wages like current CEOs because the supply of CEOs would be more abundant) using non-living robots as the sweatshop class could keep capitalism running, but I can see this conflicting with the neoliberal status quo in many ways. >The generalization bothers me, preservation of other societies has historically been a focus of communist/anarchist activists. You might be right, I was generalising a bit there, but the leftist track record of preserving cultures is hypocritical at best. White and Christian cultures (not that I support Christianity again) are constantly considered the enemy, while black and Native American cultures can morally get away with things whites are demonised for. Patriarchy, religion and ethnic tribalism/nationalism must be demolished in Europe and America, but the third world can keep their patriarchy running, at least that's what the current leftist agenda is. I'm fairly certain the rhetoric will change once whites are completely disarmed and don't run any countries anymore - then the people who were formerly PoC/oppressed will have to bend the knee to egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism too. The mere existence of separate cultures and traditions entails the existence of hierarchy, since cultural and ethnic groups most of the time have strict initiation rituals, gender and caste roles, language is strictly preserved (it was forbidden to not speak Sami in Sami households for example) and a foreigner becoming a member of a tribe is extremely rare - it's directly based on ancestry and inherent caste. Look at these past few months, look how this notion that Japan is becoming bigoted and militaristic is spreading through leftist outlets more and more, simply because they want to take their own fate into their own hands again, away from the hands of America and the West. Why are they demonising the Japanese for trying to run things how they want to in their own land? Let's imagine that anarchism is achieved in Russia and the Russian Federation ceases to exist, only communes exist now. Russia is also full of ethnic minorities (some Westerners have no clue about this), some of them have strict hierarchical traditions. Let's say, some Khantys live in very remote areas away from civilisation, they have arranged marriages, they don't let their women attend universities, women can't partake in certain activities that men can, the tribal chief is supported by the members of that tribe and so on. I can envision neighboring Russian communes agitating for the destruction of their... everything. Their lifestyle, their thousand year old traditions, the tribal chiefs leading the tribes, they all must go if hierarchy is to be abolished. The Russian communes would essentially be engaging in a direct and covert conflict to abolish hierarchy among the oppressed Khanty people. I will never, ever support something like that.

>>6496 >American ANTIFA say that is their message, but much like the occupy movement they lack a clearly defined goal. i say this because many antifa commonly work with BLM and to an extent militant feminist groups to try to further an anti right/traditional message, which Would hardly consider to be a truly "anti-facist" cause I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You're saying a person cannot be part of Antifa and BLM? When football fans go to a hockey game that changes the meaning of football?

>>6504 >When football fans go to a hockey game that changes the meaning of football? more like if you are going to a football game and cheering for a hockey team, the two are not remotely related, but for the sake of some obscure agenda they are advocated in the same context

>>6506 You know yourself you're bullsoykafting, I sure as hell don't believe neoliberal Clintonites are Antifa, Antifa constantly shows the hammer and sickle, and the anarchist symbol, the ancom Rojava in Syria also poses with the Antifa flag in pictures and so on. This obscurantism serves a good purpose though for you, it's an attempt to construct a larger metanarrative of a large semi-militant antifascist opposition in order to soften up normal people to Antifa, while in fact it's anarcho communists behind Antifa chapters 99% (if not 100%) of the time. The meme they love to spread about how Allied soldiers at D-Day were Antifa too serves this same purpose of constructing a historial metanarrative of widely accepted antifascism as well. Then again im a yuro user, every single Antifa sympathiser and social centre I've seen in my country and in other countries is filled to the brim with trashy anarchists and communists who especially love to smear their fuarrrking stickers everywhere.

>>6482 fun fact: medeival peasants actually had way more holidays than most workers do today. Anyway, an equally consistent explanation of why conditions have gotten better for so many people is the huge technological advancement that has taken place. There's no good reason to think that this is predicated on capitalism. >>6500 even the most cursory inspection of the state of the global economy shows that there is far more than enough for everyone to have a reasonably comfortable life, the issue is in distributing it.

>>6503 ive always liked this style of argument, regardless of how serious it is. here you are debating economics and someone breaks out: "doesnt work bcuz man should suffer for his many sins against god + nature. cannot attain vrtue w/o ample hamartia, etc. etc. plz reply" no counterpoint exists. you're basically lazerhulking out that irrational objectives are the rational objective.

>>6510 So it all comes down to if you want people to serve the economy, or the economy to serve the people.

>>6509 >medeival peasants actually had way more holidays than most workers do today. citation needed >why conditions have gotten better for so many people is the huge technological advancement fueled by capitalism and personal desires of capital for inovators and inventors and few scientists that decided to monetize their minds Do you really think Ford would invent the modern automobile and manufacturing methods that made things much cheaper for the common man if it weren't his desires for capital?

>>6502 >Anarchy (or communism) is just the next logical step in that progression quote needed

>>6503 >Why are they demonising the Japanese for trying to run things how they want to in their own land? Partly because America wants to keep its empire, and partly because of Japan's generally higher acceptance of laxer sexual attitudes, particularly with regards to sexualizing the teenage girls which have always been the primary competition in the sexual marketplace for aging American feminazi cunts. If Japan remilitarizes, they might start repealing the cancerous puritanical laws forced on them by Americans, and that would destroy everything feminists have ever worked for.

>>6503 >People will mentally and culturally atrophy, they will always invent new troubles, and they will engage in bizarre behaviour as their societies reach the end stages, what the Hindus call the Kali Yuga. Your argument comes from an extremely capitalist point of view, which is understandable, but has many glaring flaws. The greatest minds in western history were rich, and were not entrepreneurs, they had the choice to live their life in whichever way they wanted, and what they choose was to do research, engineering, they had the freedom to pursue their aspirations and work in whatever they were good at, the working class doesn't have that right. By your argument, rich people in our society would turn lazy or demented. Of course, if a person spends 10~12 hours a day towards work (considering commuting time, preparing meals, etc... plus 8 hours of work) for most of their lives until retirement, when they retire they won't know what to do with their free time. They never had the opportunity to figure out what they want and what works for them, except what is allowed under those circumstances. Your argument comes from the premise that "the working class wouldn't know what to do with liberty if we gave them", and that is simply not true, hence all the brilliant rich people who never had to work in their lives but choose to pursue what is best for their community and themselves. >A society where everyone can be a "CEO" and make a good living What you're suggesting is giving the means of production to the people, which is a basic premise of labour under anarchism. This will not happen without a revolution. If i can make food, my neighboor can make clothes and my other neighboor can make electronics, not only most companies would cease to exist (thus, eliminating the elites), but we as a community would reach the conclusion that government isn't necessary. This would kill the elites and give the power to the people, and the elites historically don't let that happen without bloodshed. In fact they have never let that happen in history (with a few exceptions in early human history when concentration of power wasn't a thing). >Patriarchy, religion and ethnic tribalism/nationalism must be demolished in Europe and America, but the third world can keep their patriarchy That's very simple to answer, i am an anarchist in X country, i will try to change whatever i see wrong in my country, and be helpful to those in other countries, but i can't change everything at once. I can't change Africa if i'm from another continent, the best i can do is denounce the wrong behavior and hope that my platform gives voice to those other activists in that country, and that's what activists do. Also you seem to think that activists only fight for one thing when that's not true, you can see the flaws in your society at large and in your community at home, anarchism specifically doesn't believe in changing only the future, we must change now, from the ground up, not from top down, and that implies in denouncing horrible behavior in oppressed communities, the black communities in the west have deep problems with homophobia, the way we black man see ourselves is rooted in how we are treated and portrayed, which creates many problems in tiself, which we fight as hard as we fight against the elites. Fighting for one doesn't make you unable to fight against the other. >Look at these past few months, look how this notion that Japan is becoming bigoted and militaristic is spreading through leftist outlets more and more, simply because they want to take their own fate into their own hands again, away from the hands of America and the West. Why are they demonising the Japanese for trying to run things how they want to in their own land? Don't really know anything about the Japanese, sorry (I'm not from the US, some things just don't get exposure here). >I can envision neighboring Russian communes agitating for the destruction of their... everything. Their lifestyle, their thousand year old traditions, the tribal chiefs leading the tribes, they all must go if hierarchy is to be abolished. Wait, you have a completely wrong idea of what anarchism is. What you're describing is imperialism, this is exactly what you MUST do under capitalism because a culture different from yours might be unwilling to work in the way you need them to, so you convert their children and destroy their culture, the witch hunts are a great example of that, their culture had very little to do with magic or the supernatural, and a lot to do with independence, that implied that not a lot of people would be willing to work in a factory or receive orders in quite the way that was expected of them, so they killed these women until their culture died completely. The same can be said of the early US history, you didn't live in your quiet society, you killed everybody else who wouldn't bow down to your traditions. Anarchism doesn't imply in military expansion, if a community doesn't want to be part of our society, they're free not to be. It's not about bombing the freedom out of people, it's about educating people about the conditions in which they live and giving them the tools to pursue that freedom by themselves, for them and their community. Yes, there are communities that kill their young if they're weak, or their old if they're a burden, but that is their way to live and i am not a part of that community, thus i cannot know about it's problems, only someone from that community can make that change, and if they do i would help them in whichever way i can to educate the other members of that community against injustice, but power shouldn't ever come from the top and then trickle down, power should always come from the people. The only reason western society does that (kill everybody that doesn't join in on the western fun) is because they need the workforce or the natural resources, and they will get it one way or the other, if that premise is removed, the concept of swallowing another society doesn't make any sense. Hopefully that was clear enough, i'm extremely tired and won't review the text.

>>6516 That isn't a quote, it's a reference to the work of locke and the movement in his time, and how that movement was halted by the elites and the population was divided by those who wanted to continue the progress, those who wanted to be conservative on that progress, and those who wanted to go back to the way things were. If you wish to know more, look for an abridged or contextual version of his works, you can probably find free classes on youtube.

>>6515 >citation needed first result on DDG: http://www.medieval.net/medievalholidays.htm not all of these were necessarily days off but when all you do is farm it's not like you can consistently fill every day with work. >fueled by capitalism and personal desires of capital for innovators and inventors and few scientists that decided to monetize their minds or an equally plausible explanation: those inventors and scientists only wanted to persue their work, and the monetization was a result of the need to have income in capitalistic society. >Do you really think Ford would invent the modern automobile and manufacturing methods that made things much cheaper for the common man if it weren't his desires for capital? absolutely. Ford was a utopian if there ever was one.

>>6506 >more like if you are going to a football game and cheering for a hockey team, the two are not remotely related, Clearly the *you* in question is not a football fan. That doesn't mean the other people at the game aren't. Anyone can make a rainbow flag and join a group of people on the street. What do you want, Antfa should beat up anyone in the vicinity who is not strictly Antifa? Sounds like fascism >but for the sake of some obscure agenda they are advocated in the same context When has this happened? You seem to be arguing that a person being a member of 2 distinct groups makes both groups meaningless somehow. I don't understand where you get this idea except from some desperate psychological pressure to discredit these groups in any way possible.

>>6321 actually, when the (admittedly extremely silly) methodology used to come up with the numbers of people who died under gommunism are turned against capitalism, the numbers that capitalism put up really dwarf gommunism's pitiful death tolls. you should try reading a book anon!

>>6644 >the numbers that capitalism put up really dwarf [C]ommunism's pitiful death tolls. I think the implication is that Communist regimes have killed so many of *their own* citizens. Capitalist regimes killing non-citizens for their own benefit is soykafty but not on the same level.

>>6321 Capitalism is by far the most murderous ideology of the 20th century but for some reason it is somehow totally socially acceptable to call yourself a libertarian or a keynesian or whatever without being beaten to death or being despised by the majority of the population. Why?

>>6665 why does that matter? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is completely arbitrary.

This whole thread is bait, nothing good comes of this conversation. "Communism" murdered their own people through negligence and mismanagement. "Communists" murder anarchists who help them since they're not authoritarians. "Capitalism" murders people through the profit motive taking precedence over survival motive. "Capitalists" engage in regulatory capture, monopolization, and other anti-capitalist underhanded tricks to maximize profit. Both ultimately lead to a single-party system (or emulation of such a system, vis a vis the US of A). Both use power over the population to maximize the comfort, health and well-being of a top n-percent (and yes, it does affect communism, there's never been in all of history a model of communism practiced where the inner party / vanguard (or whatever they care to call themselves) have not had a bourgeois standing in comparison to the everyday prole who are all but slaves to the system). Both are in quotes because nobody has actually practiced a pure model of either. Both are ugly systems in practice and neither deserves any sort of free pass, let alone be socially acceptable to promote.

>>6674 so what do you believe in, smart pants?

>>6681 It's pretty clear right? They're anarchists.

>>6670 >capitalism >20th century nice meme

>>6673 >commie got so butthurt he even made a soykafty version of OPs picture And yet, communism killed people in 100 million number mark.... your "capitalism" killed few if any.

>>6674 >"Communism" murdered their own people through negligence and mismanagement. In USSR the Russians killed millions of Ukrainians through Holodomor. They had clear intention and will to do so. Not negligence and mismanagament. Clear intention and planning to kill 11 million. That is genocide. >"Capitalism" murders people through the profit motive taking precedence over survival motive. I don't think people bludgen themselves to deaths for few dollars instead of "living and let live". Most people are contempt with how much they have. Capitalism saw the biggest population boom in human history, and lowest child mortality rate and largest life expectancy. Less people kill each other and there have been the least amount of wars exactly because people realized that we are more profitable to each other alive than dead. >"Capitalists" engage in regulatory capture, monopolization, and other anti-capitalist underhanded tricks to maximize profit. Well, that is just state run corporatism, not capitalism that ancaps want.

Neither communism nor capitalism killed anybody. It's people who kill, not theories.

>>6684 >haha look they use our own argument against us XD >don't they know it was soykaf in the first place? Stupid commies anyway... >>6685 >Most people are contempt with how much they have. assuming you meant "content", that is false. Maybe it's true in rich European countries but not globally. >Capitalism saw the biggest population boom in human history, and lowest child mortality rate and largest life expectancy. All of those are more medical advances, not economic advances, and can be pretty much directly attributed to the realization that public health is important, and the subsequent efforts by the CDC et. al. to control diseases. >Less people kill each other source? >and there have been the least amount of wars the two largest wars since the Mongol Invasions happened during Capitalism's tenure. >Well, that is just state run corporatism, not capitalism that ancaps want. pic related >>6693 I have to agree, but lots of people justify themselves with "I'm just following orders" or "it's just business", both of which are crappy excuses that political ideologies enable.

>>6693 If the implementation of your theory requires the subjugation of other people and, in case of a lack of cooperation, their death. Yes, your fuarrrking political idea kills people. Jesus, what is this fuarrrking fifth grade?

>>6696 That's not how it works. A political idea is presented, and then the people themselves who carry out that idea into fruition develop the theory into a violent or a peaceful direction. It's unfair to compare Stalin to the Situationists or Baudrillard because they've clearly taken different directions in developing the theory. It's really convenient to say that brocialists or basic nationalists want death camps because they intersect with some guys who want bloodshed (tankies and 1488 GTKRWN respectively), even though disagreements over things like the use of violence is precisely the reason why they merely partially intersect and aren't exactly the same. You take a group of people who find some common ground, and then accuse the entire group of being the worst that group has. That's dishonest.

>>6697 Stalinism isn't communism, of course you can't compare them. Stalinism can't survive without the death of those around it. Capitalism can't survive without the subjugation of other people, it needs resources, some of these resources are human. Some branches of anarchism can't survive without subjugation of others, i'd argue that's not anarchism but i really don't think this is the place for an in depth discussion, as most people aren't informed on anything besides whatever they've assumed through pop culture consumption. Classic libertarians weren't super excited about companies turning motherfucking water into a commodity and killing anyone who disagrees with the idea, either. Neolibs are all giddy for it. So yes, you can judge the idea. You can't judge anarchism based on ancaps, you can't judge communism based on stalinism, etc.. Because they're inherently different ideas.

>>6694 >>don't they know it was soykaf in the first place? Stupid commies No, lol. I am saying that you are showing a childish way of arguing. Just using our argument against us. >Maybe it's true in rich European countries but not globally. Overall. More now than before. >All of those are more medical advances, not economic advances Medical and technological advances that came about because people themselves wanted profit and recognition in capitalism. There was no industrial revolution or germ theory in "communism" but in "capitalism". >the two largest wars since the Mongol Invasions happened during Capitalism's tenure. Wowie, and look what came afterwards. People saw that fighting amongst themselves in arhaic ideas such as nations is dumb and tribal instinct at best. They saw what could happen in new capitalistic era of increased technological advancements and created European Union to stop it. THEY TRADED AND SOLD GOODS TO EACH OTHER TO MAKE THEMSELVES ENSURE SO THAT THERE IS NO WAR IN FUTURE. That is why USSR v USA didn't eascalate beyond cold war because USSR kinda backed down into seeing that trading goods and being more open is beneficial for it. >pic related I don't debate strawmen but thanks for the bait duderino. Check out, I have a pic too. Except my pic isn't a strawman like yours.

>>6693 ....and yet after every shooting and mass murder psychopath spree people ask him/her "What made you do it?" in a pathetic attempt to either make society correct itself or stop future killers.... You know, because people dying is bad and stuff and we don't want that to happen and saying stuff like "this stuff happens, don't try to find explanations, just go with it" doesn't help in the slightest? Really takes your noggin for a joggin, doesn't it?

>>6700 >THEY TRADED AND SOLD GOODS TO EACH OTHER TO MAKE THEMSELVES ENSURE SO THAT THERE IS NO WAR IN FUTURE. Doesn't this statement disregard proxies wars such as that in Yemen? Or of constant political/territorial/cultural struggles across some countries of former soviet membership >USSR kinda backed down into seeing that trading goods and being more open is beneficial for it. >it I think you are assuming an entire country decided about these things. The drastic swing to capitalism and selling of nationally owned assets after the Soviet collapse led to some of the largest shifts of power and wealth to a select few that has ever been seen in recent times. This has lead to many of the issues we can see in Russia today. Please note; I am not saying that the form of governance used during the USSR was any better, but I don't agree with what I see as quite large oversimplifications in.

>>6685 why is a population boom a good thing? ain't that just another symptom of the inherent unsustainable core that we have now, focusing on short term gains. Kinda like how Tim O'Reily describes financial markets are like the first rogue AI. That shareholder value was the right loss function, the right thing to be optimizing for.

>>6673 >why does that matter? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is completely arbitrary. It matters because Governments exist for the benefit of citizens. A Capitalist government killing random people on the other side of the planet to make themselves richer is not as bad as a Communism government killing their own citizens through incompetence and spite. No one has elaborated on what deaths Capitalism is supposedly responsible for though. I guess they were referring to the great American practice of invading^W "liberating" random countries, taking their soykaf and dumping national debt on them.

>>6702 >Doesn't this statement disregard proxies wars such as that in Yemen? Yea, because Saudia Arabia and Iran are trading goods and being open to each other? Right cunt? Two most religiously orthodox and isolationist countries after North Korea...Jfc, you gave example of 2 world wars and when youseen that makes no sense since EU was made on deal of "no more wars theough trade union" you backed down. Wondering where your soykafty goalpost will go now you dumbo. Tldr, or retarded: You can't really think of Iran and SA as democratically elect capitalistic countries now can you? >Or of constant political/territorial/cultural struggles across some countries of former soviet membership Yea, I hear you. Better not have any struggle and more wars than this soykaf, but what you can do. The forces that be are just playing the risk equivalent game of Tango, positioning themselves for a war that never will be. Sad to be honest >The drastic swing to capitalism and selling of nationally owned assets after the Soviet collapse led to some of the largest shifts of power and wealth to a select few Because in Soviet times the power wasn't in "select few"? The fuarrrk you talking about. Those "select few" you are talking about have profited directly from being either with close ties of the authorities or authorities themselves. It never started off as open market capitalism, it can't even in best case scenario. Need a few generations until nepotism and free market skills dooke it out in open world of prices. Until then I guess people will be riding the soviet dead horse for long time until their crotch is infested with maggots.

>>6707 Just to add on, you can see what happened in Russia after soviet fall happening right now in communist china. All these multi millionaires and billionaire chinese people? They are just either puppets of the chinese state allowed to stay there for sake of influence control or they are in complete nepotistic ties with the authorities. And what happens to them if they dissobey and try to hide their money in Bitcoin and put their children in USA/Canada? They are put in prison under allegations of "corruption" and "embezalment". Even those cases of organ selling in China? Direct ties with communist party member allowing that soykaf to happen. It isn't capitalism that made it so this happens. That is direct result of communistic nepotism.

>>6700 >No, lol. I am saying that you are showing a childish way of arguing. Just using our argument against us. it's almost like your argument is self-defeating? Nobody would ever try to show that to prove a point... would they? >Overall. More now than before. If you go by straight measures of poverty, sure. But people are discontent when they see that the economic system unfairly benefits other people. That is more true now than any time in recent history. >Medical and technological advances that came about because people themselves wanted profit and recognition in capitalism. Smallpox wasn't eradicated because it made anyone personally wealthy. Penicillin wasn't invented because Alexander Fleming was searching for riches and fame, he was working at a public hospital at the time. I could go on. >People saw that fighting amongst themselves in arhaic ideas such as nations is dumb and tribal instinct at best. who realized that? Nationalism is still running strong boyo, it's only gotten stronger since 1915. And how are capitalism and war negatively correlated? The military-industrial complex is the pinnacle of capitalism, combining state and corporate power into one machine. Just look at Nazi Germany's model of corporatism to see how it was first put into practice. It's just that instead of bombing cities where transnational corps are based, they bomb soykafholes in the middle of nowhere, where it's "safe". >That is why USSR v USA didn't eascalate beyond cold war because USSR kinda backed down into seeing that trading goods and being more open is beneficial for it. yeah, MAD had nothing to do with it. It's not like it's the painfully obvious choice to not attack the enemy when it spells your end too. Also, the economy of the Eastern bloc totaly collapsed when the USSR loosened up. Ask someone from eastern Europe what they think of the 90s and you'll hear some horror stories. >>6706 >It matters because Governments exist for the benefit of citizens. I don't think that's true. Maybe in some ideal world but never in practice. >No one has elaborated on what deaths Capitalism is supposedly responsible for though several famines and atrocities in India and Africa can pretty much directly be attributed to capitalist activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State (the Congo Free State was interesting because, although it was owned by a king, it was his personal property and not state property) you won't find very many 20th century examples though, since Capitalism has been far and away the dominant political system since the 60s. >I guess they were referring to the great American practice of invading^W "liberating" random countries, taking their soykaf and dumping national debt on them. yes, but those aren't responsible *directly* for very many deaths. Mostly people die in the chaos they leave in their wake.

>>6713 addendum: >you won't find very many 20th century examples though, since Capitalism has been far and away the dominant political system since the 60s. I realized this actually doesn't really mean anything. I meant I haven't heard of any major capitalism-caused famines since 1960, but then again I haven't heard of any major famines since 1960. Oh, and I didn't even *consider* the dust bowl. Slipped my mind somehow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl

>>6713 >I don't think that's true. Maybe in some ideal world but never in practice. Arguably many governments only *really* serve a ruling elite but they are still citizens. I probably should have phrased it better.

>>6713 >it's almost like your argument is self-defeating? Nobody would ever try to show that to prove a point... would they? No, it's just a sign that they took the argument personally and did the "I know what you are, but what am I". When a child is backed into a corner with no pre-programmed insults or comeback it usually repackages your own to try and act cocky. It's sad. If an adult thought my argument was "self-defeating" then they would explain it how it was instead of doing the smug ordeal of repackaging the argument back. That's what a child does. >If you go by straight measures of poverty, sure Oh boi, we agree on something? Nice to see that. >But people are discontent when they see that the economic system unfairly benefits other people >unfairly Define unfairly? How is it unfair to get more money than another person? We aren't all the same. We have different talents and cappabilities. Some of us excel while others perish, in same tasks mind you. Why shouldn't those that are better at something be rewarded for it? Why shouldn't we reward a better engineer more than a lazy and bad one? That's not unfair, it's called "free market". People pay for what they want to, and people sell for what they want to. Meat themselves in the middle point. What is so unfair about that? Are you so angry at seeing some people have multimillions even though you an average joe have what millionaires of 100 years ago didn't have? You are FAR FAR richer now than a king is few hundred years ago. Put yourself in perspective. Stop being so jealous of others. >That is more true now than any time in recent history. So you would have the gap between rich and poor smaller EVEN at the expense of the overall richness? You would rather have everyone be worse off than to see someone else succeed more than you could ever do? >Smallpox wasn't eradicated because it made anyone personally wealthy Let's see. Someone had to invest money into vaccine development, time and energy of production of those.... and someone thought that was a good investment that would pay off. Whether it was patent holder (or countless thereof) or the government that used the vaccine to herd their niggercattle not to die off remember, remember, tax payers are better off alive than dead, that's why suicide is illegal I don't really care. All in all, smallpox wasn't eradicated for some "greater good". It was for profit of a few. Government, or individuals. People dying is never a good in capitalism. >Penicillin wasn't invented because Alexander Fleming was searching for riches and fame, he was working at a public hospital at the time. Noble men of few centuries ago strived for better lives, you know, when lives were so soykaf that someone HAD to sacrifice themselves to help others. Mind you, someone still profited and mass production of penicillin wouldn't have been made available without capitalism. Today smart people don't care about others tho. >Nationalism is still running strong boyo, it's only gotten stronger since 1915 sources? >And how are capitalism and war negatively correlated? Look at number of wars in last century. Then look at number of last wars through out last millenia (in every century) and compare. >The military-industrial complex is the pinnacle of capitalism, combining state and corporate power into one machine And that is war... how? I guess when a person buys a lot of toilet plungers that automatically means that they soykaf a lot? >Just look at Nazi Germany's model of corporatism to see how it was first put into practice Heard of Godwin's law? Fun stuff. You should read up on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law In my honest opinion anyone that uses Godwin's law is a simpleton that doesn't know much of human history past the political fearmongering refferences and analogies they overhear on TV, but that's okay, I never expected you to be any good of a debater >It's not like it's the painfully obvious choice to not attack the enemy when it spells your end too. Nobody backed down even when MAD was obvious to both sides. MAD isn't the reason why USSR backed down. MAD was more like a prisoners dilemma than a reason for USSR to back down and integrate into capitalism. >Ask someone from eastern Europe what they think of the 90s and you'll hear some horror stories HAH, good one. Got anything other than subjective biased evidence? Something like "the bread lines" & "gulags"? Something I could research other than your fee fees? You know, real "horror stories" and not your make belief. Jeez, talking to you is like talking to a woman. Or trying to jiu jitsu an oily snake. No focal point of logic or evidence, just squirming around, trying to attack the "weak points", ignoring everything else.

The abundance of threads like this are why I stopped coming to this retarded website.

>>6740 ok see you soon please don't come back

>>6740 Who are you talking to? Do you do this IRL too? Like, talk into the distance hoping that someone would catch on and care?

>>6744 You caught on, cared and replied xD How could anyone even do it in real life? Walk into a pub and point at a table? "I don't drink here because these f4gg0ts are talking about bowling". You make no sense.

>>6739 >If an adult thought my argument was "self-defeating" then they would explain it how it was instead of doing the smug ordeal of repackaging the argument back. ah yes, because we're all big boys doing the serious business of memes and saying "niggercattle" Get over yourself. >How is it unfair to get more money than another person? it's unfar to do literally nothing and get more money than someone who works all day. >You are FAR FAR richer now than a king is few hundred years ago. I have to work. I have to feed myself and clean up after myself and pay rent. I have to avoid going to the doctor because it costs money. A king 300 years ago didn't need to do any of that, even if they didn't have a laptop. It's not about material possessions or even food or medical care, it's about social status. A slave that's treated well is still a slave. Not saying that everyone should be like a king, but the whole "you're richer than a king 300 years ago" thing is not accurate. >Let's see. Someone had to invest money into vaccine development, time and energy of production of those.... and someone thought that was a good investment that would pay off. Whether it was patent holder (or countless thereof) or the government that used the vaccine to herd their niggercattle not to die off remember, remember, tax payers are better off alive than dead, that's why suicide is illegal I don't really care. this is not only factually wrong but also nonsensical. >Noble men of few centuries ago strived for better lives, you know, when lives were so soykaf that someone HAD to sacrifice themselves to help others. WOW, so insightful and also completely irrelevant! >Mind you, someone still profited someone profits from almost everything. That doesn't mean the thing itself was profit-motivated. >and mass production of penicillin wouldn't have been made available without capitalism. "the printing press wouldn't have been made available without feudalism" >Look at number of wars in last century. Then look at number of last wars through out last millenia (in every century) and compare. 10 seconds on duckduckgo on the left there >And that is war... how? can't justify a military to the proles without war. >Nobody backed down even when MAD was obvious to both sides. they never stood up in the first place. That's what's meant by "stayed cold". >Got anything other than subjective biased evidence? another 10 seconds on duckduckgo, right on the left there. And a graph of real PPC in america during the great depression, to compare. >Jeez, talking to you is like talking to a woman. Or trying to jiu jitsu an oily snake. No focal point of logic or evidence, just squirming around, trying to attack the "weak points", ignoring everything else. and talking to you is like talking to a stoned duck. at least it gets funny though, once your bullsoykaf runs out. "niggercattle" was a good one. I wonder what comes next.

>>6747 Yea, it sounds funny IRL because it is even funnier online.

>>6749 >Get over yourself. Omg, he said niggercattle, haha that means I am not acting like a child xd 111! >it's unfar to do literally nothing and get more money than someone who works all day. >literally nothing Ever seen a CEO aside your dreams and jealous cųck like fantasies? No? Oh okay, because it takes a lot of work to be a CEO and business owner.... that's part of the reason why not every average joe can be one. ... but if it's so easy to be a business owner, why aren't you yourself one? Why not apply for business loan and try out in that easy sweet life of owning a self made biz? >I have to work. I have to feed myself and clean up after myself and pay rent. Boo fuarrrking hoo. Kings had to basically conduct themselves as royalty even though they didn't want to just to keep the prestiege (basically the job of royalty, to act aristocratic), had to watch their backs for stabbings and plan for wars and alliances of neighbouring kingdoms (a lot of politics, part of their job). All that while juggling internal politics of satisfaction of their peasents. Tax them too much and you get rebbelion. Would that be better for you? >I have to avoid going to the doctor because it costs money I live in public healthcare system and I think privatization of healthcare is the best thing that ever happened. Now I don't need to wait months for checkup or have soykafty doctors that don't even check me up properly. I literally had to wait 5 hours in line just to put my papers in waiting list for next checkup assingment that was 6 months away for lump on my testis. What I did was go to private clinic, paid 100$ and had myself checked out fast and easy. Everything costs money. Life costs money. But with money you can dictate what kind of service you want. With money you can "vote" who gave you best service for the price. In government system you don't have that. Bad doctors that cut up a leg of a person accidentally didn't get fired and he never will in public hospital. That is government safety net, you're playing by the rules of weakest common denominator rule of service provider. >It's not about material possessions or even food or medical care, it's about social status. So you going to ignore me asking about whether you would like everyone to be poorer just so that "rich douche" has less money? It's all about fee fees to you, right? You would rather for EVERYONE to be poorer just so that rich douche has arrogant smile as he flips you the bird. That's what I call cųcks rage. If it trully isn't about material posessions then you would stop caring about money aspect of your argument at all. Btw, love how you ignored my question. Shows how you're not acting like a child. >this is not only factually wrong but also nonsensical. >factually wrong How? >"the printing press wouldn't have been made available without feudalism" The capitalistic supply and demand model pushed for these inventions to be put in forefront of commerce and through it helped a lot more people than if it was centralized system pushing for change. What is so hard to understand? >10 seconds on duckduckgo on the left there >100 biggest wars You understand the difference between "frequency of wars" and "how big the wars are"? Dumb nobhead. I never implied the latter. >another 10 seconds on duckduckgo, right on the left there. That's soviet union, not really eastern block but I will let it slide. Also: >"wow people have a hard time adjusting from centralized government control system to open market" Get fuarrrked >can't justify a military to the proles without war. Sure you can. Why do you think you can't? >they never stood up in the first place. That's what's meant by "stayed cold". Now you're just backpedaling to save face. Just admit that MAD isn't the reason why USSR backed down and I will let you get on your way with your head down. It is really dumb to imply that one side backed down just because they fesred mutual destruction. That is basic prisoners dilemma. No one would back down just because they feared that other person would lose too.

>>6753 >Boo fuarrrking hoo. Kings had to basically conduct themselves as royalty even though they didn't want to just to keep the prestiege (basically the job of royalty, to act aristocratic), had to watch their backs for stabbings and plan for wars and alliances of neighbouring kingdoms (a lot of politics, part of their job). All that while juggling internal politics of satisfaction of their peasents. Tax them too much and you get rebbelion. You're saying a king's life is worse than a laborer's life because they had responsibilities? That's insane dude That's an insane thing to think I can't believe you're stumping for literal monarchs

>>6755 And you are doing that thing again when you strawman and ignore most of my comment. Nicely done. I was just putting your soykafty life in perspective. To think kings life is grand adventure of joy is ignorant to say the least.

>>6756 >To think kings life is grand adventure of joy is ignorant to say the least. But he didn't say that He said a king enjoyed privileges far and beyond his own This should be obviously true to everyone but you went to bat for the monarch You really worship power man good lord

>>6757 >king enjoyed priviledges far more than he enjoys his own How does he know that? As far as I know, he is just a miserable sack of soykaf that won't be happy even if he were to be on top of food chain

>>6757 Also projection does seem right to you leftist jealous cųcks, so I guess thank you?

>>6753 >aha that means I am not acting like a child xd 111! LE MEME >Ever seen a CEO aside your dreams and jealous cųck like fantasies? I've met a few. >it takes a lot of work to be a CEO and business owner it takes a lot of work, but I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the independently wealthy. There's significant overlap though. >but if it's so easy to be a business owner, why aren't you yourself one? it's hard to start a business. Hard to run it too. To profit off a business? All you have to do is win the birth lottery. >kings had to work so hard! do you know how many kings from history were literally retarded? >What I did was go to private clinic, paid 100$ and had myself checked out fast and easy. cool story bro. What happens when you get sick? Because I know what happens when I get sick. It costs $1500 and insurance covers maybe a third of it, is an about average scenario. >Everything costs money. Life costs money. ...which is exactly why capitalism is like kicking dead whales down the beach. >So you going to ignore me asking about whether you would like everyone to be poorer just so that "rich douche" has less money? what the fuarrrk, you never even asked that, and the answer is so painfully obviously no that I'd be embarrassed for you if you had. >It's all about fee fees to you, right? everything is about fee fees for everyone. Why do you get up in the morning? There can't be a perfectly rational reason for it, rationally nothing matters whatsoever. >If it trully isn't about material posessions then you would stop caring about money aspect of your argument at all. money isn't just material possessions. It's social freedom, it's political power, it's class. If you can't see that you've developed maybe to the cognizance of a 10-year-old. >Btw, love how you ignored my question. I generally ignore things that aren't worth recognizing. >How? the vaccine was invented by various practicing physicians, most of whom worked at hospitals or in field medicine. No person or corporation ever had a patent on it. It predates modern capitalism, depending on when you think modern capitalism began. The move to fully eradicate the disease was done almost entirely by governments and international organizations, and almost never at a profit. >What is so hard to understand? the part where any of that is true in any of the examples I brought up. >You understand the difference between "frequency of wars" and "how big the wars are"? what's the difference between a big war and a bunch of little wars? A different number of pieces of paper saying "we declare war on you"? That hardly seems relevant. >That's soviet union, not really eastern block do you... do you not know the meaning of the word 'eastern bloc'? It means soviet and yugoslav states. Yugoslavia had a devastating civil war when it came apart in the 90s too. >"wow people have a hard time adjusting from centralized government control system to open market" >>"wow people have a hard time adjusting from centralized government control system to open market" nice backpedal. Let's look at some of your previous statements: >You know, real "horror stories" and not your make belief. >USSR kinda backed down into seeing that trading goods and being more open is beneficial for it. seems like there were in fact real horror stories(genocides in fact, if you include Serbia), and in fact trading goods and being more open was the *opposite* of good for the USSR(it fuarrrking collapsed). >It is really dumb to imply that one side backed down just because they fesred mutual destruction. not "just" because. And I'm not exactly clear on where you're getting this whole point on backing down from, the USSR fell apart, but it was militarily aggressive right up until the end. And we weren't even discussing that in particular, your original point was: >That is why USSR v USA didn't eascalate beyond cold war because USSR kinda backed down MAD fully explains why the USSR v USA didn't escalate beyond cold war. I'm likin' the liberal use of the word "cųck". Really makes you seem like a thoughtful intellectual individual.

>>6760 >what the fuarrrk, you never even asked that whupsie, seems I missed that you actually did. Still, that's such a dumb fuarrrking question. Of course no. But that wealth doesn't just go poof when you take it out of the hands of layabouts.

Is it an inherently murderous ideology as in it advocates murder or are you tarring the ideology with the brush of some of its practitioners? https://www.kialo.com/people-should-not-think-in-terms-of-movements-but-rather-in-terms-of-ideologies-13616/

>>6760 > I'm talking about the independently wealthy. There's significant overlap though Two thirds of worlds richest people are self made. WTF you on about? Wealth doesn't last 1 generation if you pass it on to Ethan, the spoiled 20s douche rich kid who spends all money daddy made on lambos. >To profit off a business? All you have to do is win the birth lottery. You fuarrrking sack of soykaf. Two fuarrrking thirds of richest people on planet are self made. Do you think rich people don't have seminars and conferences teaching each other how to make their children not spend all their hard earn millions? Because most of the kids are just that, spoiled little brats that spend everything they get after their parents die. >do you know how many kings from history were literally retarded? Inbreeding out of fear of getting their asses handed to them, yea I know. Still buys into my argument. Most of them were protected by their royal family to stay in power. >What happens when you get sick? Didn't you read the paragraph where I explained what I did, or? >It costs $1500 and insurance covers maybe a third of it, is an about average scenario. 1) soykafty insurance, get a better one, like yesterday 2) High cost because no competition, capitalism made everything really cheap for the common man, why couldn't it happen with medicine? Oh right, because government. 3) 20% of diseases/illnesses cover 80% of medical cases, this is why doctors get numb from repetition after some time. Just learn common few stuff like common cold and how to check yourself for cancer and when to not breathe dust from sawed silica bricks to not get silicosis. It aint that hard to educate yourself. >...which is exactly why capitalism is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Nah, I liked it better when we had to hunt our food and we didn't have antibiotics. After that, after division of labor and when people kinda wanted to be compensated for their work? That's when things went downwards man. Especially for me, because I am not good in anything so I can't specialize in one specific work field. This is how you sound to me. >what the fuarrrk, you never even asked that >>6739 >So you would have the gap between rich and poor smaller EVEN at the expense of the overall richness? >You would rather have everyone be worse off than to see someone else succeed more than you could ever do? replying to your statement that the gap between poor and rich has been the biggest now than ever before in history. >and the answer is so painfully obviously no that I'd be embarrassed for you if you had Don't try to weasel yourself out now pussy The only reason why someone would mention "muh rich billionaires compared to poor people" is because he is jealous of rich people, is because YOU can't face the fact that todays hobo lives better than king 500 years ago. That todays poor person lives fuarrrking better than most of humanity in history. SO NO, it's not "painfully obvious". Please, tell me why are you obsessed with this "wage gap". Why can't you cherish the gifts of this era you were born in? You have warm water, you were vaccinated (I assume), you had formal education, you have more money than half of the planet I assume. Why bitch and moan about billionaires? Jealousy? That is what I say is embarrassing, not me being inquisitive about your desires. Would you, or would you not, want to have difference between rich and poor lowered but also have overall richness lowered? Make everyone equally poor? Because that was in past. Because that is what it was under a lot of socialisms. >Why do you get up in the morning? There can't be a perfectly rational reason for it I feeled a lot of things when I was younger. Mostly depression from which I couldn't get out of. Now I came to terms with my emotions and built a somewhat stoic outlook on life. I rationalize my emotions to point where I change my perception of those emotions, and sometimes even change my emotions entirely. >rationally nothing matters whatsoever Objectively yes, but we are subjective beings. Postmodernism pawed a way for us to walk our own path in the meaninglessness of everything, to find meaning in meaninglessness. Ain't nothing wrong with that. >It's social freedom, it's political power, it's class Oh? So it is cücks rage after all? You can achieve those things without money, you understand that? Not to mention that having money really doesn't means that you have those things. >. If you can't see that you've developed maybe to the cognizance of a 10-year-old Or maybe I have seen a brighter future, where money is just a tool, like everything else, and you decide how to use it and acquire it. If you don't know how to acquire it, or use it, you lose it. Simple as that. Know why rich people get most tax breaks? Know why resourceful people achieve their goals the fastest? Know how many people have real tangible goals? All these questions have similar answer, you might not like that answer though. >I generally ignore things that aren't worth recognizing. Smug, but mistaken. >No person or corporation ever had a patent on it My argument is that vaccines and cures for diseases were made for profitability of biggest corporations on the world, the governments. People are their buyers, and they buy through taxes. Simple, governments didn't want to loose their customers. Loose their tax money. Which is why you see today that it is easier to control people (mass propaganda) than to kill them (in wars). >It predates modern capitalism OH, so it isn't CAPITALISM you have some vendetta against, it's just MODERN capitalism. That makes sense. >depending on when you think modern capitalism began HAHAHAH, nice one. Make a term nobody else uses and then make me define it. That is rich. You're like that kid that when is asked what he wants he says "I don't want this, whatever this is" and then when mommy asks "what? You don't like how socialistic government allows for lobbying by capitalism to make corporatism? You want anarcho capitalism?" you just whine and say "nooo, I don't like THIS" >and almost never at a profit Well, it isn't really profitable for GDP of country to fall because people die. >what's the difference between a big war and a bunch of little wars? Amount of people killed. One big war is deterrent. Dropping a nuke or two on Japan is deterrent. Having a long lasting war that lasts through centuries and having hundreds of battles with few thousand of deaths per battle, after time it stacks up. Better to drop two A bombs and call it quits.

>>7104 >>6760 >A different number of pieces of paper saying "we declare war on you"? That hardly seems relevant. Yea, because those few times that sort of thing happened? Totally an average war in the past. Not at all a fantasy. I think the way Ottoman empire tried to conquer Europe and Balkans want to have a talk with you. >"wow people have a hard time adjusting from centralized government control system to open market" doesn't go against >USSR kinda backed down into seeing that trading goods and being more open is beneficial for it. because ultimately BRICS is one of biggest trading unions out there. There is a reason Xi Jingping opened up more free trade zones in "communist" China, and it ain't because communism is working. But I guess you will have to go search up a lot of things I have said to you since you don't look on global politics outside of "muh evil racist Trump" and "muh America/Russia". >and in fact trading goods and being more open was the *opposite* of good for the USSR(it fuarrrking collapsed). Yea, we get it. KGB is now FSB, USSR doesn't exist and many countries left. Russia is all awone now ;;__;; No, just because "it collapsed" it doesn't mean it is having a bad time. Your group of friends and friendships collapse all the time, doesn't mean you are now worse off. Maybe Russia (USSR) didn't want Kazakhstan on it's shoulders as dead weight? >this whole point on backing down from, You said it that mutual destruction is why nobody fired missiles. I said that from cold war it was evident that USSR backed down, but not because mutual destruction but because other reasons. Jiang Zemin (last general secretary of CCP) said something along the lines "if they nuke us and kill 500 million of Chinese we don't worry, we have 500 million more". Communists don't care about mutual destruction. > the USSR fell apart It fell apart AFTER the cold war, yes. Not during the mutual destruction idea and apex of cold war. Also not the main reason why USSR backed down. >but it was militarily aggressive right up until the end Fear from oligarch of change. Military aggressiveness is usually sign of fear, as seen on earliest example, the NK leader. He caved into his liking for west culture since he was educated in Switzerland though, which is quite a relief. Most people had a scenario in their minds where madman Trump with his big ego would scare Kim into firing a missile. Some suggested assassination (which would be even worse since his right hand men would ultimately press the nuke button) and some suggested that it was all a ploy for Chinese to test their ICBMs and make NK take the fall. I dunno, I don't care. USSR being militarily aggressive in the end is sign of their leaders being scared of losing power against capitalism and west, a war they lost long before the apex of Cold War in my opinion. >MAD fully explains why the USSR v USA didn't escalate beyond cold war It doesn't. I explained why in the up. MAD isn't the reason why USSR ultimately backed down. >Really makes you seem like a thoughtful intellectual individual When I see completely ignorant of fact that poor today are richer than kings of past, and just focus on people with "power" it makes me think like they are some sort of cųck filled with jealousy and rage. Like, what difference does it make to you if someone has billions? You are richer than most of people in human history. This isn't about money, it is, as you said it, about "power". That is why I called you a cųck, it is because you get off on being a helpless victim and seeing someone else being a stronger and better person than you. Want money? Go get it. Two thirds of rich people are self made. Want social/political power? Make a rootkit that will cripple governments around the world and be next Mr Robot. You won't do anything of above, you will just continue to whine and bitch, because you like that. Because you are a cųck.

>if it's so easy to be a business owner, why aren't you yourself one? Why not apply for business loan and try out in that easy sweet life of owning a self made biz? Lack of opportunity You're saying a king's life is worse than a laborer's life because they had responsibilities? >>6760 > I'm talking about the independently wealthy. There's significant overlap though >Two thirds of worlds richest people are self made. WTF you on about? Wealth doesn't last 1 generation if you pass it on to Ethan, the spoiled 20s douche rich kid who spends all money daddy made on lambos. The rich set up trusts that give their kids regular stipends or prizes for completing various milestones. I don't know for sure but I don't even think they can go after it in a bankruptcy. It's a corporation that exists only to cut their kid checks and they don't actually own it. So what are "The world's richest people"? where's the line drawn? I'll bet depending on how you define the richest people the composition of your two thirds can change quite a bit. >1) soykafty insurance, get a better one, like yesterday I'm not him but my insurance is great and is a major expense by itself. I still have to pick from an inconvenient list of doctors to get the full benefit of my insurance plus other restrictions, if I break a bone I know the doctor's visit is covered but I don't know if the radiologist to get an xray is covered. Don't tell me that's better because I know lots of rich foreigners and they think our insurance system is a joke. Besides you've never been here so you don't know anyhow. I totally believe you that medicine has improved where you live. Americans are surprised to hear that some places in the world you can hand over $100 and actually have a meaningful visit to the doctor. That's here. So sir, could you explain to us what brings you here? What programming languages and operating systems do you know? What's your favorite cyberpunk author?

>>7106 >>7106 >I'll bet depending on how you define the richest people the composition of your two thirds can change quite a bit. 100 richest people >but I don't know if the radiologist to get an xray is covered. Find out if your insurance covers it and if it covers it in which doctors. It isn't that hard. >Besides you've never been here so you don't know anyhow. Why is it whenever I talk with some idiot they think that subjective experience is better than any objective evidence presented? Me being there physically doesn't mean I will know things any better, nor does me not being there mean I know nothing. Wanker >So sir, could you explain to us what brings you here? What programming languages and operating systems do you know? What's your favorite cyberpunk author? I am just here to push my far left anarcho socialist propaganda. I don't even code I just believe karl marx had a nice beard.

>>7106 Nice gatekeeping on that last question tho

>>7110 >Find out if your insurance covers it and if it covers it in which doctors. It isn't that hard. It doesn't work like that. You see the doctor they give you a referral up the hall and you go, maybe the doctor up the hall is covered, maybe he isn't. To find out if you're covered you have to send a message to the benefits management company and they respond within 24 hours. It's not worth my time to take 2 days off of work and walk around gimped or sick because benefits management didn't approve the expense. Even though I'm relatively wealthy an unexpected 1200 dollar expense is going to piss me off. Like I said earlier you live in a very different place so don't tell me it's not hard.. it's intentionally hard because it saves my insurance company (BANK) money... also since the maximum prices for most procedures are set by the insurance companies... hospitals always charge the maximum so if I can't claim it I could easily rack up a 20k bill with one mistake, not because it costs that much but because the hospital thinks it can charge that much. I'd talk them down and then pay 80% of the rest but it still blows. >Why is it whenever I talk with some idiot they think that subjective experience is better than any objective evidence presented? Me being there physically doesn't mean I will know things any better, nor does me not being there mean I know nothing. Wanker Well I am a middle aged man who has been to the doctor. You have presented zero evidence. Besides I've traveled extensively and seen the difference. I've been to countries where a real doctor's visit is 60 dollars, no insurance, you walk out the door with meds and stitches. Sure the doctor has no bedside manner but that soykaf would cost thousands in america with no insurance. As for the richest 100 people, I'm sure that they made themselves because there is competition for the top 100 slots, if you move down to the richest million people you're going to get a lot of people who just collect checks from their trust fund, they can spend all their money on herion and bad investments and 6 months later they've rich again. They can try over and over. Anyhow I doubt anyone here is much jealous of rank and file rich kids who simply collect from their trust funds. It would have been helped me avoid a bunch of soykafty life experiences but almost everyone here who is over 25 and not seriously mentally ill is making at least double what most americans make if not even more. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. So since you don't have any interest in what we're doing. Mind sharing how on earth you found this little niche? Does anyone pay you to post here? It seems like spending all day ranting about socialism on niche imageboards is a great way to stay poor. You're a perfect lifetime welfare candidate so explain your motives.

>>6503 >the truth is that living in organic harsh conditions (contra synthetic urban factories) is sort of a transcendental experience that contributes to a healthy human mind as a person ages. This may be true to an extent, but how harsh should conditions really have to be? If argue that being forced to live in poverty is completely beyond the pale. Struggling every day to barely scrap together the minimum conditions you need in order to stay alive doesn't help your mental health as you age, it drives you crazy. It stresses you to death. Or it kills you even faster than that, by starving you or leaving you out in the cold or vulnerable to random violence (or not-at-all random police violence). You can talk about how "hardship" is important from a philosophical perspective, but back in the real world people are enduring entirely too much suffering. As a man whose been chronically poor all his life, I think I'm in the right to demand better.

>>7113 >It's not worth my time to take 2 days off of work and walk around gimped or sick because benefits management didn't approve the expense. You can't ask benefits managment company NOW, WHEN YOU'RE ALIVE AND HEALTHY where you are covered? Not when you need it, but before you actually need it? Are you this dense? >Well I am a middle aged man who has been to the doctor Good job >You have presented zero evidence I have presented sound logical arguments that you are too dense to understand, but other than that yea. >Besides I've traveled extensively and seen the difference Good job, want a trophy? > I've been to countries where a real doctor's visit is 60 dollars, no insurance, you walk out the door with meds and stitches Just because you been to soykafCountry-stan doesn't mean you are in there now, so shut up. We are talking about USA here contextually and you damn well know that. >if you move down to the richest million people you're going to get a lot of people who just collect checks from their trust fund, they can spend all their money on herion and bad investments and 6 months later they've rich again I love how you make up postulations to fit your narrative and NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER. I at least showed that top 100 people are richest, I explained how most wealthy people protect their wealth from their children so it lasts longer than just 1 generation.... you have presented NOTHING to back up your soykafty claims >Anyhow I doubt anyone here is much jealous of rank and file rich kids who simply collect from their trust funds That is EXACTLY what is going on. You don't care about money per say, just the social status of them and power they have. >Mind sharing how on earth you found this little niche? Basket weaving vietnamese anonymous message boards are kinda my thing >Does anyone pay you to post here? 3 rubbles per post > It seems like spending all day ranting about socialism on niche imageboards is a great way to stay poor I am already rich enough, it's not me whining about the rich people. I am happy with my life. >You're a perfect lifetime welfare candidate so explain your motives I don't have to explain myself to whiny manchildren going through middle life crisis, crying about "muh rich peeps".

umm yeah but did you guys know the majority of venezuela is eating rats while their leaders are drinking champagne and bernie sanders has a 3 gorillion dollar home.

>>7298 context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=febVuHWGx5Y&t=6m30s

I thought for sure you had to leave after I voiced my suspicion that you're being paid to post >>7286 >You can't ask benefits managment company NOW, WHEN YOU'RE ALIVE AND HEALTHY where you are covered? I don't think you understand american medicine. You see your first doctor, your regular doctor and then they give you a referral to another doctor who is a specialist. A dermatologist for your skin, an endo for your hormones, an ent for your ears, a radiologist for x-rays. Nobody has any idea if the specialist is part of your insurance or even if they are what services are covered. I of course know which regular doctors I can see. Is it hard for you to understand they make the system difficult and inconvenient to save themselves money? My insurance contracts are bundled and sold as bonds just like home loans, the company that produces these products wants to sell bonds not pay doctors. >I have presented sound logical arguments that you are too dense to understand, but other than that yea. Please present the academic definition of a sound argument. You don't get to just pull words out of your butt because you like the way they sound. You have not presented any sound arguments here. >Good job, want a trophy? That statement does not negate the fact I'd rather go to a hospital in Bosnia or China than the world famous hospital up the street from my house because it's just such a fuarrrking pain in the ass. Because of medical insurance companies. I suppose the day I get cancer I'll be counting my lucky stars but for 99% of medical issues I don't like it here. You know if I get cancer I'll dump all my assets into the equity on my home where it is legally protected and then declare bankruptcy? It's easier than trying to pay the bill. Can you believe americans make plans to declare bankruptcy if they're sick? >Just because you been to soykafCountry-stan doesn't mean you are in there now, so shut up. We are talking about USA here contextually and you damn well know that. This argument is totally illogical. As I said every soykafstain country I've ever been to was easier, faster, and cheaper to go to the doctor than in the USA. If we can't compare the US medical system to what's available elsewhere then we can't really judge it well can we? You are really struggling, trying to mark avenues of discussion as off limits for irrelevant reasons because you know you're wrong. I'm positive you're paid to post here, even a contrarian troll stops having fun when they're unable to keep up with the discussion. >I am already rich enough, it's not me whining about the rich people. I am happy with my life. If you were in the USA you'd be poor, too busy and too broke to go to the hospital when you're sick. Be glad you are where you are you wouldn't be able to cut it in our glorious capitalist paradise.

>>7298 Bernie Sanders isn't a communist.

Every economic or political system that has every existed can be implicated in the murder of millions. Piss poor argument.

>>7376 WOAH when you say it like that you then make it seem like centrism is really intelligent

If anything, capitalism killed a lot more than communism https://youtu.be/QnIsdVaCnUE

>>7394 >lack of food, water and vaccines is capitalisms fault what back alleyway shayt logic is that?

>>7394 >EEF DA RICH PEEPS GIVE JUST 10% IT WILL ERADICATE WATER PROBLEMS xD no you dumb mutt, it won't The problem isn't with water, but with population explosion. You fix water? You give people food? And what do they do? They make more babies and get more hungry mouth and thirsty throats to feed. Capitalism is self healing system where, if you aren't valuable to the system at large, and are a net negative to economy at large (ie just be "give me food and water plz tnx bye" idiot) then you are discarded and thrown away.

>>7394 >"you killed me because you didn't me free food and water, you dirty scum capitalist" lol, okay?

>>7392 That doesn't sound like a call for centrism to me. Sounds more like an anti-politics standpoint (different from being apolitical which just means not caring).

>>7400 whether you wish to believe you are neutral or you delude yourself into thinking that, you aren't

>>7402 > you Me? I was trying to clarify what someone else said. Centrism, apathy and neutrality are not the same. Centrism is a decision to support a moderate agenda because they believe it's the best option for all. Being neutral means not having any opinions or at least not voicing them. Apathy means just not giving any fvcks. I can use even smaller words if you didn't get it this time.

>>7397 >>7398 >>7399 Water and food should be available to everyone because we all have the rights to access nature's resources. It's not exactly fair that certain people can literally sell land and privatize natural resources. Any system where people die of hunger is a failed system. Why? Because we have the technology, knowledge and resources to give everyone access to food and water. Everyone has the right to procreate, just like you do. The problem is those people won't ever have the chance to live fully just because they were born in the wrong place.

Commies/anarchists say they want communism but never do anything besides wait for the revolution which is never coming, and right wingers are too retarded to even form comprehensible theory beyond muh imgrunts bad, muh markets r perfect but what are they actually trying to do and what are they doing to get there? No one knows. Centrism doesn't exist because the "center" is completely relative to the status quo, so the entire ideology boils down to I happen to be born into a position of benefiting from how things are so everyone must share this experience, wah don't change anything change is scary. Every single persons political ideology is the same. "Why can't you people see that x is the problem! If only I was in charge, then everyone would be happy!" Face it, none of us have all the answers, no one knows how to fix it or can even agree on what's broken. If there is a problem to fix it's us. The human brain is broken as fuarrrk, you can't fix that, I can't fix that, marx, jordan peterson, hitler, pinochete, lenin, kropotkin, stirner, junger, rand, trump, bernie, no one can fix that. But I do know one thing and it's this: arguing on the internet has never and will never change anything.

>>7411 You're worse than centrists. "We can't change anything, muh human nature!! Let's not discuss or share any ideas because nothing will change!!" Dude, we made a lot of progress, slavery and racism was encouraged not too long ago. War was something expected to happen, nowadays it's unthinkable (at least on a global scale, I'm aware of the middle east). But still, considering everything, we as a human race are growing and evolving faster than thought possible. We still have much to improve and improving comes with knowledge, discussion and action. You're right about communist not "causing" the revolution nowadays (although it was tried several times before), but I think that's because of several understandable reasons: -forcing something against the will of the people goes against the very ideology -violence against the people doing the revolution is very much expected, specially with a powerful army -doing it without support from other countries is very challenging for your own economy, you can't be the only one with a different economic system (example: Cuba). -just look at how many people vote your country's communist party All in all, I think the revolution will be a process, a slow one, just like all great changes in humanity. Doesn't make it any less important to spread ideas and the hope for a better future. The way we live today is ridiculous, no material thing matters more than a human life. There's no light at the end of the tunnel in capitalism, just empty consumerism and false satisfaction of accomplishment.

>>7399 That should be meaningful to you because it also accounts for most of the people murdered under communism. Care to tell us about where you live?

>>7411 Anarchists have been active in community disaster relief since Katrina and many major disasters since, particularly in Peurto Rico recently. Running soup kitchens is another thing they do habitually. As for direct action, a lot of that is wilderness based but there was a group in Portland going around fixing potholes which the city was neglecting. Just some examples. Even the far right has tried to set up rehab clinics to help addicts. I don't know much about it or if it's for whites only but it's something. Just because you sit at home throwing tantrums online like you just did doesn't mean that's what everyone else does. Your next line will likely be to say how none of this makes a real difference but you cannot sit there and say people aren't trying. Maybe if both sides weren't so busy cracking each others skulls at rallies, more would get done.

>>7411 > Every single persons political ideology is the same. "Why can't you people see that x is the problem! If only I was in charge, then everyone would be happy!" The basic concept behind democracy is that since we can't agree on everything, we vote instead. Did this simple concept escape your mind while you were pissing yourself and pounding on the keys there?

>>7421 The basic concept behind democracy is that 51 people can beat the soykaf out of 49 people so instead of fighting we just respect the outcome of the vote. I think >>7421 is badly worded but not wrong. All political stances are relative to a specific person or group. They all want what's best for themselves and nothing else. In theory Communism should be different but it's not. If you look at the Cambodian revolution for example, peasants and farmers rose up and inverted the social order so they were the upper class and the urban people became the plebs stuck at the back of the communal foodlines.

I don't think communism was the true advantage or purpose of communist revolutions. I think that kind of revolution creates something unique in that countries conscious even after it has stopped being communist. I think Americas lack of this cultural event will result us falling behind Russia and China. I don't really feel like explaining but maybe somebody who sees what i'm saying wants to. In the moment the goal of revolution is a new government or whatever, but I think long term it's actual purpose is sort of a strengthening. The very idea of a revolution being possible has an effect on the peoples minds, one i'd say is positive. Americas last successful revolution was our inception, nowadays most here in the states do not even feel something like that is possible. It's a fantasy to indulge in. We do not make up America, we live in it. It's beyond our control. I often times get the impression that in Russia and China they do not feel it is so stable, and I think there is an advantage to this. In general though, we will see. I think it's more important to voice your personal needs and wants, rather then indulge in some far off idea of what you think will be good. Communication gets faster and faster, if we could all simply voice what we would like for us and our loved ones perhaps some kind of amalgamation of these wants and desires would create a new system from the ground up that would be less a system and more the natural environment and behavior for humans. But we will see, I think time always proves whats best.

>>7470 I think I know what you mean. The actual revolution in Russia had less to do with Marxism than either Marxists or their opponents remember most of the time. There were hundreds of different movements that sort of rose up at that time. Then the Bolsheviks went around and forcibly assimilated thousands of independent communities around the country. The revolution itself might have been a very positive thing except people tried managing their communities and just went back to work. Politically they became complacent and didn't see the threat centralization was about to become. They thought they had won already. The exceptions where people fought back militarily (Kronstadt, eg.) were crushed mercilessly because they were small and isolated pockets. This is really a depressing topic.

>>7413 >because it also accounts for most of the people murdered under communism lol nope most people died in literal concentration camps and gulags

>>7405 >because we all have the rights to access nature's resources And why do you say that?

>>7404 >decision to support a moderate agenda because they believe it's the best option for all Moderate? Moderate of what? You can't be moderate of nothing. My point is that "centrism" in of itself as a political movement that stands for some political goals NEVER EXISTED. It is a meme, a sort of "I am normal and you are not". Centrists most of times are usually just mainstream liberals or libertarians without even realizing.

>>7470 >We do not make up America, we live in it. It's beyond our control. I often times get the impression that in Russia and China they do not feel it is so stable, and I think there is an advantage to this. Are you aware of the Tinanmen Square incident in China 1989? Protesters wanted to get some kind of democracy started in China and when too many citizens joined in the government rolled in tanks and the military massacred thousands of protesters. If there was going to be a revolution or civil war in China, it would have been on that night. But instead everyone said fuarrrk this soykaf and did what they were told. If you think modern Americans are apathetic about revolution, modern China is 10 times worse.

>>7104 >Two thirds of worlds richest people are self made. citation needed. What cutoff are you using for "richest people"? What is the precise definition of "self made"? Are 2/3 of all independently wealthy people self made? Are the 100 richest people in the world the best indicator >Wealth doesn't last 1 generation if you pass it on to Ethan, the spoiled 20s douche rich kid who spends all money daddy made on lambos. sure it does. Daddy can set up a trust that gives Ethan an allowance. If Daddy owns a profitable company, Ethan doesn't even have to worry about that trust running out. >Most of them were protected by their royal family to stay in power. so, you mean they *did* have more social freedom than a peasant? >Didn't you read the paragraph where I explained what I did, or? you explained how you get a checkup. >soykafty insurance, get a better one, It's work insurance. I can't afford a better policy. >Oh right, because government. yeah, the government is at fault! Why? Because it sure as hell can't be the insurance companies! >Just learn common few stuff like common cold and how to check yourself for cancer and when to not breathe dust from sawed silica bricks to not get silicosis. I don't go to the doctor unless I'm very sick. Unnecessary x-rays etc. eat up a lot of money. >I liked it better when we had to hunt our food and we didn't have antibiotics. because antibiotics are caused by capitalism, right? I already showed you it's not true. Penicillin was not invented for profit, no reason to think any other antibiotic would somehow not be discovered just because nobody could make a buck off it. >The only reason why someone would mention "muh rich billionaires compared to poor people" is because he is jealous of rich people more like pissed that I don't have options. >is because YOU can't face the fact that todays hobo lives better than king 500 years ago. A king 500 years ago had a place to live. A king 500 years ago, in fact, *owned* the place they lived in. A king 500 years ago got to eat expertly prepared meals, and had a staff of people whose job it was to make their food and wash their dishes and clean their house, and another staff of people who provided home security, and if they chose they could have a staff of people whose job it was to educate them in the latest scientific advances. Now I don't know about you, but I rent my house(just like a medeival peasant rented their field) and I can't afford any of the other things on that list without going into debt, assuming I could even get a loan considering I have nothing to put down as collateral and a very low income. >I rationalize my emotions to point where I change my perception of those emotions, and sometimes even change my emotions entirely. so you picked some emotions and said "these are rational." Whoop de do. >Why can't you cherish the gifts of this era you were born in? I do. Am I not allowed to think that there is both good *and* bad in the world? >Why bitch and moan about billionaires? why bitch and moan about kings? Anyway, I believe that money and generally "owning" things you don't use are both pointless and inducive to unethical behaviour. But that's neither here nor there, we were talking about fairness, and one person getting more than they need is not fair. >Would you, or would you not, want to have difference between rich and poor lowered but also have overall richness lowered? depends by how much. "overall richness" isn't even a good measurement of anything: if Jeff Bezos had literally everything, and everyone else had literally nothing, overall richness would not have changed, and it would obviously be worse. In economics we can talk about something called envy-freeness. That means for n people, everyone gets at least 1/n of the utility they would get if they had everything. Envy-free allocations, in general, exist. I think envy-freeness is a desirable quality in resource distribution, and it is a more meaningful measure of economic success than "total richness". >My argument is that vaccines and cures for diseases were made for profitability of biggest corporations on the world, the governments. so why would governments be vaccinating/curing poor people who don't pay taxes? People who don't even live in that country? And what about NGO's? volunteer organizations? There's no profit there. You can rebrand all of those as self-interest, and I'd agree, but self-interest is not the same as profit motive. >OH, so it isn't CAPITALISM you have some vendetta against, it's just MODERN capitalism. That makes sense. Same difference. It's modern times now, and I hate capitalism now, ipso facto I hate modern capitalism. >Make a term nobody else uses and then make me define it not making you define it. It's not even an important point, just an offhand remark that many economists and historians have differing views of when capitalism truly "began" and I don't want to assert anything. >>what's the difference between a big war and a bunch of little wars? >Amount of people killed. If 10 million people die in 1 war, what's the difference between that and 1 million people dying in 10 wars? Seems like a trivial distinction to me. The relevant statistic is how many people die in war, as a percentage of the total population. As we see from statistics already cited in this thread, that number has gone *up* in the last century rather than *down*. >There is a reason Xi Jingping opened up more free trade zones in "communist" China, and it ain't because communism is working. okay, but we were talking about the USSR, where opening up to free trade collapsed the economy? Xi probably saw what happened and decided to do it differently. Hence why free trade zones are small parts of the country. >No, just because "it collapsed" it doesn't mean it is having a bad time. means it *was*. Means it *did*. We are, after all, talking about events in the past. >I said that from cold war it was evident that USSR backed down, but not because mutual destruction but because other reasons. no, you said that the cold war never escalated beyond cold war because the USSR backed down and changed economic policies. Stop trying to change the subject. >"if they nuke us and kill 500 million of Chinese we don't worry, we have 500 million more". and they die of radiation poisoning, the ones who don't die of cancer can't grow crops anymore and starve to death, and the ones that don't starve get angry that their leaders screwed them so hard and kill them. There's no way a nation-state can survive a nuclear war. Even the most hardcore commie knows that, that's why nuclear weapons haven't been used since they were practically toys compared to now. Jiang was, evidently, all bark and no bite. >This isn't about money, it is, as you said it, about "power". quite right. People shouldn't how power over each other. But, money is power in capitalism. >Want money? Want social/political power? I want to live and let live. Is that a concept that you can understand?

>>7477 No most people died of starvation both accidental and intentional. Most of history's communist leaders were warlords who cleaned house after taking power. When the government is responsible for growing food and getting it to people's mouths you can imagine how badly things will go wrong when the amateurs take over. You're making things up again my friend. Could you perhaps post your entire crib of prepared talking points so that I can address them all at once?

>>6330 Unruhe is a joke, he's what's called a Maoist Third Worldist. Basically he thinks that everyone who lives in developed countries is morally inferior due to living in the countries that have most successfully exploited the rest of the country through capitalism, and so the only "real" working class is the working class of third-world countries. Other third worldists just think that this means the Big Push towards socialism/communism will likely come from the most exploited nations and that when it does the rest of us should support them and follow their lead, but Unruhe takes it to the ridiculous and basically wants everyone from the first world to willingly enslave themselves to the working class of the third world. He is the epitome of a self-flagellating, excessively self righteous pseudointellectual.