Any kinos about ideologies clashing with devastating results?

Marxists believe economic conditions dictate human behavior, not ideology

ass

>two con artist mumbling to each other and solving no real life human problems
>pay shekels goy

The irony. Pinker is a race realist gateway drug.

Shut the fuck up, dude.
shut the fuck up, dude.

what is human nature

the guy on the right is a marxist? Looks like one

it's so funny how Jordan insists on having Dr in front of his name, like Zizek and every other academic is a dr too you don't need to write it you tryhard

Those things about people that are not determined by their environment or experience and that are universal among basically all people.

That's even more retarded.
They don't even accept the science of human instincts.

Marxism is pure pseudoscience.
These people need to be mocked heavily.

>Pinker is a race realist gateway drug.
Exactly, and he's fucking right.
He would mop the floor with zizek in a debate.

shut the fuck up dude

evolutionary instincts
It's incredible that people deny they exist when they live them every day.
fucking cultists

>his ideology is SIMPLE PLEASURES
Is that why he's so fat and tired?

Zizek and Peterson are both massive faggots that deny biology and human instincts.

Attached: Pinker-670x274.jpg (670x274, 50K)

>Pinker is a race realist gateway drug.
Good.
It's a good thing he's leading people to finding out the truth.

he's a us gov shill and a cia nigger

Stay mad commies

Attached: 1450355018364.jpg (483x581, 39K)

Christ. Look, I like Petereson, but talk about being in a fight out of his weight class. Just.. no.

Human nature is why you feel like killing yourself when you're alone on a friday night.

*sniff*

The right can't meme

>Does Zizek even have an ideology? He's so evasive on every subject it comes off as a joke most of the time.
You could say the exact same thing about Peterson

Is this one of those
>spooky shit just happens in a different dimension and manifests itself in reality
type of things?

Biology is a factor

>Yea Forums is rooting against the sniffbro

What went wrong?

Attached: 1548546861494.png (242x183, 104K)

He has pretty straightforward advice and techniques to improve one's life. He's a successful clinical psychologist.

The divide.

>he's only famous for being an "intellectual"
>you acknowledge he's a fucking dumb lightweight
>and yet you like him
why?

>clean your room man vs. classically trained debater and published philosopher
what a blood bath that would be

>HAPPINESS: CAPITALISM VS. MARXISM
any kinos about false dichotomies?

Attached: 1522059365876.jpg (640x875, 66K)

OH NO NO NO NO NO

Attached: 51tGyZBMLFL.jpg (314x500, 38K)

Thats because Peterson is an actual clinical doc you dumbass.

Attached: JordanLogicPeterson.jpg (200x300, 12K)

>a Jungian talking to a Lacanian

This will not be productive.

It would be kino if Lobsterman had to take the side of Marxism and Sniffyman Capitalism

this is what i've been thinking about - what is zizeks career? i can't seem to find any source. peterson has actually worked as a clinical psychologist for a good time, zizek i can't find anything like that

People who hate Peterson say that he's acting like a surrogate father but Zizek fans literally call him Papi Zizek.

zizek is a retarded pseud that spews word salad garbage
so is peterson, but less so

>They don't even accept the science of human instincts
I think they do, but you sound like a "capitalism is human nature" faggot anyway which is nearly as pseudoscientific as the Marxist theory of history.

Their points on racism coming initially from competition for resources and then being intentionally inflamed by capitalists is convenient and pretty true in the modern world. So it's not all bad.

I've heard and read both, I don't like what zizek says but it makes more sense than peterson's words.

zizek is an academic like most marxists so has never had an actual job in his life.

youd have to be an idiot to not bet on zizek in this scenario

Attached: image.jpg (960x960, 170K)

So things that are hardwired into every human regardless of environment?

Actually being an intellectual.

"I was a successful clinical doctor" does not give you the credentials to be a major public thinker. And Peterson doesn't even have that, because he's not a psychiatrist.

>Pinker is a race realist gateway drug
So Chomsky too?

>what is zizeks career?
writing books that make absolutely no sense and denying human nature

>I think they do
You'd be wrong.
They unironically believe that all human behavior is the result of economic forces.
They're that stupid.

>but you sound like a "capitalism is human nature"
Wanting to own property is absolutely part of human nature you shit eating retard.
Even birds and wolves do it.

ass

Peterson doesn't even know what Marxism is.
His only experience with the ideology is interacting with Marxists and a poor understanding of history

Zizek is one of those guys who has tons of knowledge but virtually no experience. Anything he says has never been applied and is only theory.

>I don't like what zizek says but it makes more sense than peterson's words.
How?
Give examples, you can't.
Zizek is a retarded marxist.

I too love garbage people.

no fucking shit

wait, really? no practical job experience at all?
uhh i'd disagree with that. certainly if you're arguing the appliance of the topic, you should have at least some example of that appliance done by you.
a successful clinical doctor gives you the right to claim that your practices in that field work.

True and probably why he's going to lose.
I'm an ancap and I think peterson is a fucking retard for not actually understanding marxism fully.
I mean it's not that complicated.

The other side of the argument is so pervasive in our culture and pushed by 99% of mass media, education, news and entertainment constantly. I like seeing anyone stand up to that, even if they are not perfect as he is not.

>LE SHIT NIGGER

A S S
S
S

>gives you the right to claim that your practices in that field work.
Countless clinical physicians hawking snake oil say otherwise

>Personal property and private property are the same thing
You're an idiot.
I don't even want to defend Marxists here, but you're making shitty arguments which is why their ideology still thrives.

How about Hoppe vs Zizek?

I'd love to see Zizek get physically removed.

Attached: hoppe-1.png (985x640, 317K)

zizek would slaughter peterson, anybody from eastern europe even those who disagree could tell you as much

>hardwired
More like "a tendency toward". Like if you hit someone on the head with a stick, he'll most likely be angry or scared rather than start laughing and ask for more. If the latter is the case, then it would be pathologized and be considered an anomaly.

Gee, I wonder why only 99% of public intellectuals are on Peterson's side and why the only ones that are can't take a real debate against a real thinker. I guess it's because climate change isn't real and those feminists are killing my right to force women to carry my rape babies to full term.

ass

>Happiness:
>USA vs Soviet Union
>West Germany vs East Germany
>South Korea vs North Korea
What debate is there to be had?
What's the point of listening to a bunch of vague, coke-fueled 'philosophical' mumbo jumbo?
Like, just google the 20th century bro.

why does homeboy on right look sick and underfed?

Attached: groid_mumkey.jpg (3894x5754, 2.22M)

>>Personal property and private property are the same thing
Look at this nigger that actually thinks people are going to respect his made up property norms as opposed to the property norms that society has functioned with for thousands of years.
Incredible how stupid you are.

>but you're making shitty arguments
No I'm not.
People like to own things, this is part of human nature.
Just because you're making up arbitrary property definitions doesn't change the fact people like to own things like clothing, houses and even factories.

So...what's Marxism?

>interacting with Marxists
What better understanding is there? If ideas on a page don't translate to the people that follow, then what good is it? Does it exist at all?

so you're going to deny the credibility of actual practical work because there are examples of it being done wrongly?
if there are countless bad apple clinical physicians, then there must be countless time infinity for theorists with no practice whatsoever

>tfw Zizek's measure and appreciation of Christianity is more useful and sincere than Peterson's even though he only takes it as allegory

Attached: 665px-Edward_John_Poynter_-_Faithful_Unto_Death_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (665x1024, 185K)

>usa, west germany, south korea
Nonexistent birth rates and spiking suicide rates are happiness?

Marxism is religious cult.

Attached: 1484730685893.gif (800x667, 1.23M)

Kino

youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY&

desu this is a shit way to treat it, because literally anything can be made into a religion

>there weren't massive suicides in socialist countries
why would poverty make anybody happy?

based retard

He’s a CIA nigger who turns communism into a commodity.

Two words: French Commune. Get an education instead of your /pol/ nonsense.

>Yes goy never choose a third position, don't be a fascist goy

What makes someone an intellectual? Paul Krugman is just an international trade theorist, yet he has a New York Times column where he opines on everything. Same goes for David Brooks at the NYT, who has just been a journalist and held some posts at conservative policy groups. Same for Chomsky, who developed the theory of universal grammar in linguistics. Is it just someone who reads widely and comments on everything, and acquires came through doing so? Or can only people with academic appointments in critical theory departments be intellectuals?

>also Lacan was a clinical practitioner and lecturer in psychoanalysis who somehow became an icon of left-wing thought

that's what you get when you throw away religion
also the quality of life is well WAY up

*sniff*
Let ushh compare the pepe the..the froge against the Hegelian dialectic
*brushes hair*

>People like to own things, this is part of human nature.
Yes, and people will still own things, you moron.
They aren't literally saying that all resources, from your clothes to your computer, should be communally operated.
Are you telling me you can't spot a difference between a massive corporation owning tracks and tracks of land and an individual owning a tooth brush?

>Look at this nigger that actually thinks people are going to respect his made up property norms
Marxists make their own arguments about property norms being far more communal before civilization and that the sharing of resources was commonplace.
You're just as bad as they are, by insisting that your understanding of ownership and property is immutable and has existed since Humans first came into existence. It's not even something either side can fucking prove, as information of mankind's earliest beginnings is so scarce.

t. won't google the 20th century

the real answer is fascism.

I mean there weren't. Look up the data for west vs east germany if you want.

I'm pretty sure Russia has one of the highest suicide rate in the world.

desu, the entire theory is extremely flawed and is absolute nonsense
it's like you're saying scientology isn't necessarily a religious cult

>French Commune
Wow so some poverty stricken shithole that existed for 2 weeks is your example of real communism?
incredible.
no wonder you people need helicopter rides

i dont use malicious cia nigger botnet info farms like g**gle

*drags slimy tongue across roof of mouth*

Yeah the Russian Federation.

>Marxism is religious cult.
Talk to any libertarian and you'll eventually get a cult of the invisible hand spiel or a just world explanation every time the market shits itself and enters a recession

>data from the ussr
yeah sounds reliable

>es, and people will still own things, you moron.
I'm not talking about your theoretic socialist society.
I'm talking about humans in general.
Nobody cares about your retarded definitions.

>They aren't literally saying that all resources, from your clothes to your computer, should be communally operated.
Are you telling me you can't spot a difference between a massive corporation owning tracks and tracks of land and an individual owning a tooth brush?
HOLY FUCK I KNOW
Why are you explaining this to me as if I haven't debated with ancom shitters like yourself for the past 10 years?
Fucking redditor.

>Marxists make their own arguments about property norms being far more communal before civilization and that the sharing of resources was commonplace.
Their entire idea of pre-civilized history is completely made up.
People had fucking currency and property norms even before the first states formed.

>by insisting that your understanding of ownership and property is immutable
Literally all I'm saying is the system I advocate for has existed all throughout history and has worked.
It's part of human nature, which was the main thing we were arguing about.

>Talk to any libertarian and you'll eventually get a cult of the invisible hand spiel
Except libertarians actually explain in detail the mechanisms behind the free market and why it would be superior to government coercion.

They never say "hurr just believe in the free market, you just have to believe".

>every time the market shits itself and enters a recession
>what are central banks and government interventionism

>Data from Communist countries
>not pro-state propaganda
bruh.
It's not like building a wall with armed guards to prevent people from leaving isn't an indication of how shit it is in there.

>ussr government lie
>my government tell truth

oof

So?

actually desu this is just a disagreement on wording, scientology in itself wouldn't be a religion until it had someone worshipping it (at least this is my understanding on what religion means). i do agree with you that the theory is flawed though. screw taking away ownership and having large dependency on government. communism works between five people

Probably, even so he would turn Peterson to mulch in any serious debate about philosophy

>Papi Zizek
why are those people so fucking gay?

f for anyone who believes this

fuck hegel

>actually being this retarded
The USSR was known for lying constantly.
They had no freedom of the speech so you couldn't even question government statistics. It's like north korea today.
The difference in the USA there were organizations verifying information and a free press that could question things.

based pinker poster

>fuck hegel
Cringe and retardpilled

>The difference in the USA there were organizations verifying information and a free press that could question things.

is this what republicucks actually believe

Attached: CIA.png (1110x590, 572K)

they're commies
dumb commies that deny human instincts

Attached: 1531495263304.png (675x808, 30K)

Someone explain to me why ideology and religion aren't the same thing. Isn't ideology just religion without the art? Basically a religion for autists?

>reminder that both men have valid points that can improve your worldview as long as you accept that both are academically minded with all the blind spots that entails

I'd much rather see a two hour long conversation between the two than a "debate".

Attached: Aid_from_padre_1.jpg (1211x1600, 368K)

hegel was a bunch of word salad pseud garbage that made no sense yet you're dumb enough to believe it

Holy shit you're actually this fucking stupid.
In the USA there were many sources for information, in the USSR there was one source and they constantly lied.
Also I didn't say the US government was infallible but they had no reason to lie about their suicide rate.
The USSR did though.

Zizek actually breaks it down pretty well

The thing that ensures State Communism only ever functions at gunpoint.

you'd have to be retarded to generalize the freedom of information within the ussr to the freedom of information today in, say, america. if you live by this crazy of an idealistic standard where one is as good as the other you might as well kill yourself so you can try in your next life

zizek actually stated peterson was his enemy lol

We don't know how it's going to go down. My bet is that they're both going to spew their talking points without really talking to each others.
youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

That's a meta meme.

ideology is more concerned with what ideals are, religion is more concerned with what is morally good (which is based on an ideal)

This is terrible.
Both of these people are incredibly retarded and need to be thrown from a helicopter.
What poisonous fucking ideologies, holy fuck.

Attached: 1505312376967.png (2248x1980, 1.12M)

>I'm talking about humans in general.
Yes and Marxists are fine with that.

>Their entire idea of pre-civilized history is completely made up.
It's not completely made up, it's taken from analyzing the way in which primitive Human tribes live. They do share resources and act communally.

>Literally all I'm saying is the system I advocate for has existed all throughout history and has worked.
The system you're advocating for has evolved and changed over the years. It's not as though medieval peasants were practicing the same form of Capitalism or exercised the same notions of property rights that we do now. I don't think it can be distilled down to something like "competitiveness", which exists in all animals. It's much more complex than that.

Why is Foucault such a cunt lads?

big time mutt cope

Pretty sure he was molested.

Why didn't Foucault just deconstruct the biopolitical discourse of the AIDS virus ravaging his boipucci?

Attached: frodo.png (400x399, 214K)

>Chomsky
>poisonous ideologies

Attached: 1526914685721.jpg (625x891, 148K)

not an argument, and also incoherent in whatever the fuck you just said

NEED A HEAVY LIFT HELICOPTER FOR ZIZEK'S FREE RIDE

Attached: Sikorsky_Skycrane_carrying_house_bw.jpg (800x599, 60K)

SO BANE - AND THAT'S THE BLOODY THING ABOUT BANE - HE REPRESENTS CHAOS, IN FACT, HE'S AN AGENT OF CHAOS, AND IN CONTRAST, WE HAVE CIA, WHO REPRESENTS ORDER, ROUGHLY SPEAKING. BUT CIA, IN HIS BITTER RESENTMENT, IN HIS-HIS POSTMODERN CULTURAL MARXIST IDEOLOGY, HE TRIES TO TAME THE CHAOS - AND THAT'S A BAD IDEA MAN, IT'S LIKE-IT'S LIKE IF YOU TRIED TAMING FIRE, IT'S JUST GOING TO LEAVE YOU BURNT. BUT CIA, HE TRIES ANYWAY, MOTIVATED BY A LUST FOR POWER - AND IT'S LIKE - GOD ITS SO SAD - ITS LIKE YOU'RE NOT A BIG GUY! YOU'RE NOT A BIG GUY, AND NO POSTMODERN RATIONALIZATION WILL CHANGE THAT. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS EXPLICIT ON THIS MATTER. AND SPEAKING OF TAMING FIRE - WHAT HAPPENS BY THE END OF CIA'S 'EXPERIMENT'? THE FIRE IS NOT TAMED, QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT'S ACTUALLY RISING. AND THIS DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 20TH CENTURY. AND IT'S LIKE SOLZHENITSYN WRITES IN THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO - THE BLOODY MARXISTS ATTEMPTED TO QUELL FIRE, BUT IN DOING SO THEY MERELY FUELED IT. AND WELL ACTUALLY, THEY DID QUITE A BIT MORE. YOU CAN'T PRETEND TO BE A BIG GUY IF YOU'RE NOT. WE TRIED THAT EXPERIMENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY, AND IT WAS A BAD IDEA MAN! AND IT. IS. NOT. A. ROUTE. YOU. WANT. TO. GO. DOWN.

which is actually true, because you don't tame chaos, you learn to handle chaos (isolation vs adaptation). it's a very basic concept
good post tho

Stefan Molyneux would wipe the floor with both of them.

Attached: 1551495607028.jpg (720x503, 101K)

Jesus Christ I actually read it in his voice. Top marks user.

>Yes and Marxists are fine with that.
No, they're actually not.
They believe all human nature is the result of economic forces.
Do you even know what marxism is?

>analyzing the way in which primitive Human tribes live
Top kek they barely had any data on this shit in marx's time.

>They do share resources and act communally.
Only in groups of say 5 fucking people when we lived in caves.
This makes sense, the number is so small.
We do this today, they're called families.
When you go beyond 5-10 people two things happen, the division of labour becomes necessary and people get more territorial.

>The system you're advocating for has evolved and changed over the years.
No it hasn't.
All I said was people like to own things.
I'm describing human nature and you are PREscribing a system, a system that says people can't own certain things because of muh feelings.
Why in your mind can a person not own a store or a small factory?
It requires IDEOLOGY for your property norms to get enforced.
Mine is natural.

>It's not as though medieval peasants were practicing the same form of Capitalism or exercised the same notions of property rights that we do now.
They mostly were but there were government restrictions.
The human desire to own things still existed, there was just coercive laws in place preventing this.
>I don't think it can be distilled down to something like "competitiveness", which exists in all animals.
It's not that, it's the biological instinct to benefit your own self.
Ownership of objects is a primal trait.

>that pic where he replies to his own comment but forgot to change accounts and everyone shits on him for it

Most Lefties have shit relationships with their dad, and assume anyone on speaking terms with their dad *must* have daddy issues.. That's why they love that Frankfurt School bullshit, i.e. "the only reason anyone has conservative views on economics or society is because their was a raging fascist"

It's true though.

Attached: 1543072008945.png (914x898, 321K)

>They do share resources and act communally.
Ah, yes, the good old days of public human sacrifices.

their dad*

this is a good post. it works perfectly between 5 people, because being deeply committed to sharing and fellowship is, well, a family. you can't compromise between a group of a 100 people, they each vary too much.

He built an entire career on
>u cant kno nuffin
Which had already been done by Hume, Nietzsche, and the Greek and Roman skeptics. He had to develop formidable rhetorical shell game skills to hide what he was really about, which makes sense since he grew up gay.

you know sumfin the moment your head gets dragged across dirt and rock

2 literal nobodys

controlled opposition vs some literal who commie

Are all philosophers and intellectuals on coke?

Tbh he would probably agree with this, it's a pure expression of power/knowledge

*SNIFF* DRUGGIES TO GULAG

>insofar
Hey jordan

based girardian

>No, they're actually not.
You were talking about Human ownership. Marxists are fine with you being able to own things.

>No it hasn't.
>All I said was people like to own things.
You literally said "the system I'm advocating for". Are you talking about a system or what you believe to be Human nature? Because they're fundamentally different things and it's impossible to argue with you when you're switching between either, whenever an inconvenient criticism comes your way.

>a system that says people can't own certain things because of muh feelings.
Their entire point is about the ownership of certain things becoming communal and benefiting all of society rather than a limited few, who feel they're entitled to their ownership because of muh feelings.

>Why in your mind can a person not own a store or a small factory?
The example needs more depth. A single person owning their own store or factory, where they contribute to the production is fine to Marxists. A large corporation, buying heaps of factories and putting their workers through unnatural and brutal working schedules isn't.

>Mine is natural.
So is the communal sharing of resources, by your own admission.

>The human desire to own things still existed, there was just coercive laws in place preventing this.
See the top of this post.
I'm sure your next post will have you seething about misunderstanding the difference between private and personal property.

There's no need for debate, Jordan Peterson has already been dismantled.
youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo

I found it

Attached: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_screen-shot-2014-07-10-at-thu-jul-1 (607x637, 37K)

he has split personality and thinks he's a cute girl. no need to shame him.

There are plenty of communes over the world which work just fine, like the kibbutz in Israel.

wow what a fag.
I thought only Americans treated debates like sporting events

>Marxists are fine with you being able to own things.
Except you know businesses.
Or if you're talking about actual examples of marxism put into practice, then you can barely own anything.

>You literally said "the system I'm advocating for"
I'm advocating for it and also describing it, it has existed all throughout human history.
>Are you talking about a system or what you believe to be Human nature?
Human nature.
>and benefiting all of society rather than a limited few,
But this is where you are wrong and where society disagrees with you retarded losers.
Allowing someone to own a business benefits all society by increasing economic production.
You're just a violent piece of shit that wants to use violence to prevent people from voluntarily owning a factory.
>who feel they're entitled to their ownership because of muh feelings.
That's like saying "you feel you're entitled to your arms because muh feelings".
The difference here is yours requires ideology to suppress what humans naturally do.

>A large corporation, buying heaps of factories and putting their workers through unnatural and brutal working schedules isn't.
Why?
They're creating economic production and not sucking wealth out of society.
Workers voluntarily choose to work there.

>So is the communal sharing of resources
But it's NOT. You can't share things communally with millions of fucking people. Even 50 fucking people.
The division of labour and property ownership is completely fucking natural. Your ancom system and arbitrary muh personal property bullshit is not.

>I'm sure your next post will have you seething about misunderstanding the difference between private and personal property.
Awwww this is cute the 13 year old ancom redditor thinks I haven't debated with his kind countless times and understood how dumb his ideology is.
>LOL MUH TOOTHBRUSH xDDDD

Those are very transphobic comments that Youtube should delet

>2019
>being a communist

Attached: computer screen.jpg (1023x765, 211K)

>individual owning a tooth brush?
Why do commies think everyone doesn't understand how their ideology works?
Nobody said you guys think everything should be owned communally.
What a retard.

what happened on the november 22nd 2004 episode of raw?

What is it about internet libertarians that compels them to do this?

It might be an attempt at some kind of joke. I really don't know.

probably some gay shit

They like making money, you fucking idiot.
Try it sometime poorfag.

>Why do commies think everyone doesn't understand how their ideology works?
They're mystics.

The trick is all they have.

Attached: we know.jpg (474x374, 42K)

It keeps happening because the vast majority of people literally only give a shit about instantaneous gratification and are deeply fundamentally lacking in the inappropriately named "common" sense. Commies promise them quick and bloody equality with the social groups your average person is always and will always be envious of.

I hate communism because it doesn't work and I hate capitalism because it naturally leads to globalism. I don't know who to cheer for.

>poorfag
Keep converting crypto-commie Rand

you first, cuck

t b h I am looking forward to this debate, the clash of Peterson's and Zizek's ideologies should be very interesting to watch

Free Market White Nationalism.

Attached: 1493558671768.png (251x233, 160K)

>I don't know who to cheer for.
Yes you do... Search your feelings, Luke.

Attached: vikings_gallery3_6-P.jpg (550x285, 45K)

I'm gonna need a quick rundown on the assman

>muh ayn rand

lmao leftists are too stupid to understand anything libertarians believe and constantly confuse us with that kike rand worshipping objectivists

take the kaczkynskipill

Attached: ctm_unabomber_052412.jpg (1280x960, 582K)

emphasis that they're all fucking tiny which is the point

>the clash of Peterson's and Zizek's ideologies should be very interesting to watch
Puppet show for pseudo-intellectual hipsters. They're both (((friends))) in the end

Attached: 11220862_1596723963911675_4468240273546212653_n.jpg (640x400, 41K)

you support communism up until the revolution, then once it fails and collapses you get capitalism with a fresh start which isn't as bad as its later stages. just rinse and repeat once it gets too centralized and cancerous.

this is really the only reasonable, redpilled praxis

>lmao leftists are too stupid to understand anything libertarians believe and constantly confuse us with that kike rand worshipping objectivists
I'm not one of them. And you're confused about the source of your larping. You only exist to convert a massive group of people to Communism with statements like "poorfag hurrr hurrr hurr!"

>Except you know businesses.
Yes, businesses, not people owning things that they themselves use.

>I'm advocating for it and also describing it, it has existed all throughout human history.
What has? Show me where businesses and private enterprise existed in primitive tribes.

>Allowing someone to own a business benefits all society by increasing economic production.
The idea is that the production stemming from private industry can be replicated in a more equitable way. Businesses are "good" because they're productive, but that can be separated out from them, such as with communes.

>You're just a violent piece of shit that wants to use violence to prevent people from voluntarily owning a factory.
Where did I advocate for the use of violence even once? Stop strawmanning you retard.

>The difference here is yours requires ideology to suppress what humans naturally do.
Humans don't naturally create corporations, it's a product of an evolved and extremely complex system. The modern implementation of Capitalism isn't 'Human nature in practice'. The desire to own things doesn't necessarily lead you down the path we took, which is why there are so many practical differences between countries and economies.

>They're creating economic production and not sucking wealth out of society.
Slavery isn't justified because it's productive. You can see the good in something and try to rectify it by removing the negative elements.

>You can't share things communally with millions of fucking people. Even 50 fucking people
Why not? Stop declaring your thoughts and actually try to write an argument for a change.

Holy shit that anger at the end of your post. Calm down.

>There are plenty of communes over the world which work just fine
define "work"
they don't produce anything
they don't make life better by producing things for society

yes

Attached: logh.jpg (500x375, 57K)

>us government good
>cia good
>wars for israel good
>muslims bad
>niggers low iq

honestly he's a mixed bag

>take the kaczkynskipill
Boomer hippie beta MK Ultra pill?

Fuck off Alex DMT Jones

Attached: Ana-de-Armas-in-red-dress-for-iPhone.jpg (426x638, 40K)

Low intervention nationalistic capitalism seems to have worked well the very few times it's flourished before being strangulated by bureaucratic socialism.

>this will stop Peterson
Says the unsorted man for the 5000th time this year

GET ON THE WINNING HORSE

GLOBOCAPITALISM GIVES YOU MONY, CREATE YOUR OWN IDEOLOGICAL BUBBLE WITH IT

Attached: 1475372449356.png (870x545, 37K)

Israeli kibbutz comprise nearly half the country's agricultural industry.

As the other user said they're just going to argue around each other for an hour and then their fanboys will endlessly shitpost about /theirguy/ completely and utterly BTFOing the other

>Show me where businesses and private enterprise existed in primitive tribes.
lol, this is why you should be 30yrs old to vote.

Attached: ancient coins.jpg (478x326, 45K)

Except that collapsing your nation almost always leads to it's ruins spawning far inferior and often tyrannical governments because people turn instinctively to authoritarians when the shit has well and truly hit the fan. Have you seen the countries who have regular cycles of revolution and rebuilding? They're permanent shitholes and don't look like they'll be going anywhere good anytime soon.

>CREATE YOUR OWN IDEOLOGICAL BUBBLE WITH IT
kek...the gasps of a dying race.

Attached: L ron.jpg (474x429, 20K)

I think fantasizing about an ultimate goal is what kills most ideologies. Any movement that claims they could create an instant utopia is scary to me because the measures to do so are often lethal. If anything we should be in a constant state of chaos, like we kinda are now. I feel like society is like a motor, and the tiny explosions is what gets the car moving.

In what world is the Qin Dynasty a tribe to you?

explain this
>not people owning things that they themselves use
isn't everything invariably going to be owned by a person?

so what, learn to find value outside of material goods you cuckbrained bugperson