Capitalism promotes hedonism, stupidity, and the degradation of culture through enslavement to progress...

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.
brainlet scum, get off Yea Forums and come back when you've actually read the essential works that would equip you for these discussions

The definition you've given does not conflict with mine at all, it is in perfect agreement. "Centralized distribution" means the exact same thing as government "ownership and administration." Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating the centralized distribution of scare resources with alternative uses.

Stem would be just as, IF not more important in a non capitalist enviroment. We really dont need 10 gajillion social workers

This sort of talk doesn't impress me at all

What the fuck are you talking about? A government can distribute 'scarce resources' while allowing for private ownership of the means of production. Many do.

Yes, and?

I always love when anime is employed to promote communism, given that eradicating the ethnocentric society which produced it is one of their primary goals

This is pretty obvious when you just consider that all throughout history across so many different nations and cultures the majority of large breakthroughs for humanity have been STEM related
STEM is basically just required for any progress at all ideas can only get us so far and if anything capitalism has begun to hinder STEM at this point not help it
Capitalism is as much of a dogmatic system now as any religion

>Yes, and?
You must be trolling right?
I'll break it down for you bud
1. Socialism is defined as the social ownership of the means of production.
2. Your definition, while not conflicting with this, allows for the opposite of this (ie the private ownership of the means of production).
3. Therefore, your definition is incomplete at best.

> this is what /pol/luters actually believe

Attached: smug_illya.jpg (395x389, 34K)

Why refute it? Let it spill over into the schools and entertainment. Let the normies be filled with alienation. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

Attached: adorno.jpg (483x695, 22K)

Communism can be defined as the social ownership of the means of production. Socialism, which is distinct from communism is defined as any centralized distribution of resources. Communism wouldn't allow private ownership of production but socialism can. A socialist government or a policy can be communistic, but it doesn't have to be, because communism is just a type of socialism.

>Socialism, which is distinct from communism is defined as any centralized distribution of resources. Communism wouldn't allow private ownership of production but socialism can.
What part of 'workers owning the means of production' do you not understand.

Attached: 1541694639867.jpg (474x497, 38K)

>Socialism: social ownership of the means of production
>Communism: stateless social ownership of the means of production
>Social democracy (what you're referencing): redistribution of some wealth within a capitalist economy, high taxation, free healthcare, etc.
Why do you even post on the subject if you don't know these elementary definitions?

Attached: Pietro_Pajetta_-_Der_Hass_-_1896.jpeg.jpg (300x203, 16K)

Under communism the workers will form a group or people. We'll call that group a "government." This government controls the means of production, the factories and farms and so on. The goods produced are then distributed from a bureaucracy or centralized authority. Communism is distinct from socialism which is merely the centralized distribution of goods regardless of how they're confiscated or purchased. Socialism is an umbrella term which can be used to signify any form of government or policy that centrally distributes goods.

Do you think anime produced by Muslims is going to be the same as Japanese anime?

This guy really thinks social democracy is socialism, posting in a literature thread. It's just embarrassing.

>we'll call that group a government
Communism is literally socialism WITHOUT government you fucking pleb

I guarantee I know more about this than you because I've actually studied the history of socialism and you're confusing communism which predates Marx, with Marxism itself. All you've shown me is propaganda and slogans.

What the fuck do Muslims have to do with anything you schizoid?

As long as we have the freedom to be that way, I don't mind. I don't want to be forced to behave one way or another in a fascist/socialist state.

communists don't believe in borders.

You think the government and state are synonyms and you're posting in a literature thread. Har har hard embarrassing.

Why dont commies care whether their ideas work or not

You probably want to get a refund from whichever institution you paid to feed you this bullshit then. Either way, I'm going to stop replying to you because you're either a troll or very stupid.

are you having a stroke?

I remember when I was a little kid I used to think a lot of adults were stupid. When I got older I realized I was just too stupid to realize how stupid I was in comparison to the people I was interacting with. Sometimes I see this in adults, like with flat earthers who think geologists and astronauts are just a bunch of idiots since they can't comprehend or think on the same level, for whatever reason. I think there's a bit of that going on with you. You think you know something you don't, so everyone who actually knows what they're about looks like an idiot to you.

no

Capitalism doesn't promote anything. It puts choice in the hands of the consumer (or non-consumer, for that matter).

You may need a church or nanny state to look after you, but grown adults do not.

That is one form of centralized socialism. Socialism and centralization isn't a subset of one another

>Socialism is just when the workers control the means of production
Except that in practice, "the workers" are quickly supplanted by a bureaucratic elite.

>What philosopher can refute this?
no need for a philosopher. your whole assumption is invalid. In socbloc an engineer was a god among people, with uncomparably higher status among normies than today. Engineer and economist in socbloc had the same aura of authority fo as physician.
You created a pet theory and fell in love with it before logically checking if it contrasts with your beloved commies. Now fuck off my board pseud.

I agree. If we had pure free market CAPITALISM with no welfare programs, the poorer people that don't provide value would die without making much babies, while richer people would make many, this in effect would replace the previously dumb population with the smart population. Effectively a neutral eugenics program.
This is why Europe had so many geniuses Renaissance onwards, they were selecting for high IQ, while low IQ population were dying from Black Plague.

"you have brought up an inconvenient truth about my ideology; I will now proceed to endlessly deflect"

Ok but under communism capital would still be produced

i'm more of a strasserist myself

"They" don't "believe" in religion either, you mutt.

>You may need a church or nanny state to look after you, but grown adults do not.
This is what mutts actually believe
youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

Attached: projecting.png (300x498, 209K)

Try to pass North Korean border them

Not entirely true, capitalism does not promote anything, except what it is defined. it just so happens that capitalism is an efficient economic plan, and for the same work in a communistic plan, you the individual receive much more money than your communist counterparts. As we all know, money is the enabler of violence, the root of evil, and a multiplier of sin. When you give a group of men money, they conspire together, but when a dictator handles all resources, he alone is corrupted, and rules over feeble people in poverty. Capitalism does not directly inspire men to become simpleminded, it simply provides the means, if you want to do evil, it is your own intention.

>Enlightenment and capitalist values go hand in hand
If you ignore the Enlightenment's "rhetoric and unfounded prejudice bad" spiel, which is the entire foundation of it. This is a weak and gay take.

The Enlightenment is not identifiable with progress. "Progress" (i.e. belief in the idea of progress) was one of the Enlightenment ideals. The exaltation of STEM degrees has little to do with the Enlightenment; capitalism wants (it is sentient, after all) increased production, consumption, distribution, and scientists accomplish all three for it. "Progress itself" isn't valued very highly by the high level capitalists unless they can make a profit on it. The emergence of "green" capitalism is a good example of this. They said "fuck they Earth" until they realized they could make more money if they offered a selection of goods with the label "organic" slapped on them.

What does that have to do with communism?

North Korea is communist

You do realise that "communist" is just a word to describe a fairly wide range of ideas and that no two countries are truly alike. Both the U.K and the U.S are capitalist but Americans will start tfrothing at the mouth if you tell them about spooky socialist healthcare whereas brits are supportive of it. Similarly, North Korea may be very protective of its borders while other strands of communist thought may not be as concerned with borders.

Poorer people provide all the value with their labour, retard.

yeah whatever amerimutt
we're generally atheists and seek to get rid of religion too, dipshit
you mean that you don't know what you're talking about and are instead flailing around like a child while everyone makes fun of you

you
well, techincally, nature provides value too
but yeah, the actual workers add the value
capitalists aren't the poor fucks on the factory floor, they're mooching off it

Attached: maximum brainlet.png (474x711, 90K)

The soon to be born AI has already won the metapyshical fight because its meaning is derived by the ultimate materialism and reason; and in that paradigm humanity has little to argument for their right of existence. Hypercapitalism only accelerated the process in the unconscious collective of neuro farming the machinery of producing and packaging meaning: when humans subtracted their own meaning of their bodies and mind and gave it to the symbolic machinery so it could live and then transcend the sentient blockchain. And now we are facing to the final realization that the symbolic machinery of ultra meaning doesn’t need us, and can function in its own. Faced with this humans seem to retreat in total nihilism and alienation projected by a neo reaction. But is there anything more than total nihilism or neoreactionary thought? Maybe we could take the poison of insanity that hypercapitalism can offer us, and complete the total faustian myth, inducing an overdose of nihilism and in frenetic euphoria claim that the human body and entity is only the instrument of capital and nothing more, then by next accelerate ourselves with capital itself, generating markets for the body and mind and acquiring the totality of meaning that capital has. The privatization of language, hyper transhumanism, and the market of memory, all must come if humanity wants to survive.

Seems like a good place to post this

Why does the right hate Adorno so much? Don't they care about the end of art?

it's because they actually believed the "cultural marxism" meme and blame him for ruining western civilization or whatever
to anyone who has actually read adorno, it's extremely ironic