Is it possible to be a smart and educated person interested in politics and NOT be a communist?

Is that Peterson and Varg mixed together.

I have a few friends that have gone full fascist after dealing with their professors and their classmates. University is a big blackpill for anyone with right-wing sensibilities.

Said a fat neckbeard who didn't get into a university/studied at a shitty one.

>Is it possible to be a smart person interested in politics
no

It is right way but only if you ignore 100 years of history.

communism is right about literally nothing, communists have never even come close to achieving communism and never will. It's just fucking gay anyway, it's for people who are pathologically envious

It is imminently possible.

you dont even have to be communist, just read Capital.

>communism bad!
>NPC_angry.jpg

read some fucking Karl Marx

>me jealous of rich man rich man bad

face it, 90% of communists are the absolute losers of society

Define "communist" because if you're an American I'm sorry but you're retarded and I hate you and think you should be nuked. Your entirety of education is filled with disgusting neoliberal, capitalist cucks. Fuck you. Fuck your propaganda. Fuck your people.

Name one time communists came close to achieving communism. It will never happen you sad fuck

>Close up to Vargan Vikernson sitting in some bumfuck forest in canada
>nosy Norwegian voice but high pitched like Kermit
>"Were 5th century christians the real postmodernists and how can christian pagan movement stop marxism today?"
>"Lets bloody find out"
>*Guitar plays*
>*Hail daddy sire, Hail daddy sire*
>"You see, clean your room before stabbing your friend."
>Then he flames about the "Lords of order" movie where he appears

>tfw the marxists at google got him and banned his yt account
thanks communism

This post merits Two Full Yikes!, a brand of colorful writing utensils which were marketed to young Americans in the early 1990s.

STOP CLEANING YOUR ROOM

By not falling for the illusion of morality

this is not related to literature or a specific author

> Marxism
> Saying a single word about ethics or morality

This is the debate level, ladies and gentlemen. Little difference at all from smearing shit on the floor and screeching.

Marx and Engels did talk about morality and its relation to capitalism

>analyzing metaphysical concepts with materialistic devices
Literal wankery

Morality =/= Ethics

I'm pretty sure Marx and Engels only talk about morality to discuss how capitalism decays it through the superstructure it develops

Analyzing morality as a part of culture which arises from socio-economical circumstances within a dialectical materialistic framework is not the same as making moral statements you dumb fuck.

Meant to quote

>shilling this hard for muh_capitalism

Im sure your 30k salary is really great! You should never read anything that challenges your worldview. stay in your safe space and everything will be fine.

If they are all those things and bourgeoisie its pretty easy.

NAME
ONE
TIME

>if you're not a communist you're a capitalist
Every time
This is why nobody takes you fags seriously

Go read history commiefag.

>But it wasn't real communism
>tfw 5 million people starve to death in the Ukraine because of communism

Attached: 1501414035553.jpg (500x500, 62K)

What if I make 120k out of undergrad advising multinationals

What then

>>if you're not a communist you're a capitalist
accurate

care to enlighten us with your magic third position?

>magic third position?
Im sensing some latent basedness emanating from your post

What is your alternative then?

Are you mental infants aware that Capitalism only came about in the 16th century?

Ok so what is your economic system? I'm just curious user.

Mighty big implications there, frogboy.

Attached: 1238324868199.jpg (381x365, 15K)

You going to explain how to reverse technological progress? The mode of production is determined by reality not your wishes to be a king.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Fascism.

Syndicalism

It has nothing to do with Feudalism
Was ancient Rome Capitalist?

Social democracy is objectively the best system. Maintain free markets while the public invests in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and scientific research.

Capitalism is as old as the first time a guy said 'you can use this tool to do x but in return you have to give me some of what you get by using it' you absolute faggot

Thank you for proving why nobody takes you people seriously
You are without a doubt the dumbest people on earth, even dumber than AnCaps

That is literally your fat gay Jew's definition of exploitation of labor

>marx said so therefore its true

Attached: 1559704102976.jpg (1440x1472, 153K)

what happened in renaissance Italy that was so special you humongous protrusion of smegma

The Roman Empire had speculative trade, markets, credit, and private investments,

So you think it was Capitalist is that correct?

you probably can't even define capitalism, you're just repeating what someone told you

>Syndicalism
vague on purpose?

>Fascism
so capitalism

third position is capitalism with extra steps

no

The existence of capital owners who have the ability to use their ownership to transform economics and politics along their values. That's is the major difference between Roman economics and modern capitalism. The Romans had private ownership, banking, markets, etc. but it was never used to influence the emperor and institute a capitalist order like today. That is why no historian calls ancient cultures "Capitalist".
Capitalism is more than just private ownership. We have had private ownership as far back as recorded history. Capitalism is an attitude that permeates an entire society on all levels, the pursuit of material gain being the highest priority in life.

Neither Syndicalism nor Corporatism (what you call fascism) is Capitalist. It is self governance of industry by the worker, consumer, and employer. Each person has equal influence over their industry. Leadership principles still exist and (shockingly) employers still earn more than employees. I know this is a difficult concept for a Marxist to comprehend, but there was socialism before and after Marx.

I know making shit up whole cloth is kind of your deal but its really transparent.

>The existence of capital owners who have the ability to use their ownership to transform economics and politics along their values.
Which existed in Rome
>he pursuit of material gain being the highest priority in life.
This is not a feature of capitalism but materialism.

>Which existed in Rome
Give examples
>This is not a feature of capitalism but materialism.
Those are not mutually exclusive, materialism is much broader than just that.

Holy shit, capitalism existed since dawn of time. Trully the dumbest thing I ever heard. Unironically read any economists.

Attached: poo.jpg (1080x1108, 112K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy
>ctrl + F "Capitalism"
>0 results

>Capitalism in its modern form can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city states like Florence.[35] Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries[36] in the form of merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labour. Simple commodity exchange and consequently simple commodity production, which are the initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long history.

give examples of what, rich capitalists in Rome who influenced politics? Most of the elite was participating in it.

capitalism is a form of economy, a society can be capitalist and deeply religious, seeing things other than wealth or anything material as the highest priority.

I was talking about you pretending fascism isn't capitalist. Why are there employers if the workers self govern? Artificially justified hierarchies of ownership are capitalist.

Wikipedia is biased as shit and there is never any real explanation of why only modern capitalism is real capitalism

Literally just read the manifesto if you're too dumdum for big books and you'll see that self-declared communist entities are responsible for what has happened, good or bad, and not the ideology itself.

>For the sake of the proletariat you should starve or kill some fuckers. Also occupy the land of foreign nations. Repress the shit out of everyone. Literally LARP as the bad guy.
>.t Marx, according to you

Then you're both sustaining and profiting from a system based on exploitation with no regard for fellow men and women

Marx was heavily influenced by the French Revolution and supported the Terror. He prescribed violent overthrow, no checks and balances, and dictatorship of the proletariat where the apparatuses of the state are used to repress "counter-revolutionary" forces.

Because capitalism characterized itself by wage labour, capitalist class structure, capital itself, etc. These things didn't exist in the past, or not to the extent. Capitalism doesn't simply mean trade.

I think that people who are truly smart/educated are not ideologues and can recognize both the merits and flaws of Marxism

Attached: zizekwave.jpg (1600x900, 361K)

Wage labor existed in Rome, the wealthy aristocratic families invested in all kinds of ventures like mining and vineyards, coin and credit were widely used.

You also should read the fucking manifesto. It explicitly mentions ancient Rome and its social classes. For people who claim to read you sure have a hard time learning about something without talking bullshit. The wealthy/ruling class of ancient rome wasn't capitalist. The opposition to it wasn't communist. Every period and system had its own classes with degrees of exploiting or being exploited. Marx didn't claim that history is capitalism vs. communism, he claimed it's the struggle of certain classes (which are products of the time, of the means of producing and the period's economic system) against each other.

Disregard the self-declared commies who say otherwise. Go read about communism before you talk about it, the both you.

>keeps picking and naming random things
Do you not understand what 'mode of production' means? It doesn't matter how much credit you have if your entire economy is based on crops and slaves.

This.

I don't give a fuck anymore, both left and right became really fuckin retarded in the last ten years with their fantasy utopias.

I literaly don't take people's opinions seriously if they are not social democrats, or at least social liberals.

>You also should read the fucking manifesto.
no

>It explicitly mentions ancient Rome and its social classes.
okay maybe just that part

read
Wage Labour and Capital,
Value, Price and Profit

instead both are short

Then Capital and Grundrisse

Correct its a form of economy that didn't exist in ancient Rome
The senate were big land owners, this is true, yet they never overthrew the religious order of the Roman state to create modern Capitalism, money just had far less power back then than it does now.

Corporatism not Fascism. Fascism does not have a set economic idea. It cant be Capitalist, it can be what Marxists call "State Capitalist" which isn't really Capitalism at all its more like Roman economics, or it can be various types of Socialist, as long as the economy is subordinate to the spiritual society.
First of all there's no such thing as artificial hierarchy in Fascism. Fascism is Platonic meritocracy (at least in theory, obviously not in history). The role of the employer is essential. Hierarchy is essential. All Marxism does, essentially, is flip the hierarchy upside down rather than trying to bring it together. It leads to the management of the manager by a committee of workers.

Corporatism splits each Industry up into its own miniature Democracy. The employers form a federation, this federation is strictly bound to law, and each employer must contribute a fee to the federation based on the number of workers. This encourages small business over big conglomerates. The representatives of the federation can vote.
The employee's form what is essentially a union, and can all vote freely.
The consumer is different as it is far too broad a group, which also encompasses the other two groups, so the representative of the consumer is the national government chosen by the people.
None of these 3 groups may outvote each other. But 2 may outvote the 1.
This not only makes it near impossible for the employer to exploit his position of power like he does under Capitalism, but it gives people an unprecedented amount of control over their entire industry. It also eliminates a ton of bureaucracy.

I have read the manifesto and I know, I'm arguing with these retards who think anything that isn't Communism is Capitalism. There aren't simply two modes of economics. Even under Feudalism there was what these people would call Capitalism, which is just blatantly untrue by any definition of modern Capitalism. I also disagree with Marx's conception of history as simply a series of class conflicts but that's a whole other can of worms.

Social democracy is first world fascism. The longer you keep your head in the sand the more problems will come knocking at your door. Global capital wont let you just leave.

I think it's fair to say the Roman economy was similar to capitalist economies.

It was very similar butt it was not Capitalist. This broad definition of Capitalism makes it virtually meaningless as it applies to literally every point in history everywhere since the very concept of trade was invented.

It seems like you're overusing the term fascist such that it loses its potency. A kind of tragedy of the commons similar to how literally lost its meaning.

pic related cannot be proven wrong

Attached: crowdchart.png (2000x2000, 59K)

>I'm arguing with these retards who think anything that isn't Communism is Capitalism.
I'm not talking about historically I'm talking about now. Unless you think you can successfully become the king or you want to describe something other than collective and private ownership.

>Corporatism splits each Industry up into its own miniature Democracy. The employers
stopped here

>libertarians
>intelligent
FUCKING LOL

I hate to say it, but this

the intelligent would benefit the most from a free market, obvious

>stopped here
Read a book on it then dickhead.
archive.org/details/pdfy-Xm3KNoxQuBK9mHlX

I readily accept that Marx contributed a lot of value to the conversation of socioeconomics.

>upholding the privileged position of a minority group based on nation borders at the expense of the rest of the world isn't fascism

>Thompson - The Coming Corporate State (British Fascism) (1938).pdf
You could try explaining how "employers" is different than private ownership instead of just repeating yourself. If you have a different working definition of Capitalism than everyone else that excludes your special version of corporatism with private ownership but totally not capitalism you could spell it out.

Correct, fascist theory is actually all about leading as an "empire" by example not by force or expansion. The more you know.

Because it is only private ownership of an individual business, there is collective ownership of industry. You would know this if you had read either my post or the link.

>a country not letting others in is upholding a privileged position
you leeches aren't even trying to hide it anymore

That's nationalism. People who belong to a cultural group are conferred benefits for their allegiance to the group. I blame your mentality on the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, a blatant mechanism for proselytism and increasing membership count.

By your definition even Costa Rica is fascist since they don't confer equal privileges to American ex-pats as native citizens. You have to invest 200k just to get residency, the absolute injustice.

The smartest academics are usually center-left.

>>But it wasn't real communism
It's not communism just because you really want it to be. Read marx retard

No if your smart you gotta be interested in these stuff

>Least intelligent
Able to lead a revolution with odds stacked against you isn't something unintelligent person can do.
>most weak
Probably true.
>most strong
If being hanged in Milan and shooting yourself in the head means strong, sure.
>most intelligent
Indeed, porky is a bitch that's hard to beat. Yet he is unable to see much further than profits.

Yes, you could be an Anarchist

>fascist theory is actually all about leading as an "empire" by example not by force or expansion
>I know making shit up whole cloth is kind of your deal but its really transparent.
>Lebensraum
You can pretend that nations are islands that are completely cut off from the world but the material reality is that trade is interdependent and global. As long as the example you set relies on supply chains that produce goods for your use through coercion and slavery they undermine the potential of workers in your own nation.

If you actually want to convince people you are going to have to read Marx, take off the mask and engage. Pretending you're retarded will only get you called out.

Not only was it true communism; it was also great. I would love to have a discussion but I must go, so don't expect a response. If thread is alive over 5 hours I might respond.

Attached: 160_n.jpg (960x538, 119K)

>Lebensraum
That's German you fucking idiot, thats National Socialism
Holy shit

>the holocaust was horrible!
>holodomor was based!
Bolsheviks everyone

they lead a revolution because they are unintelligent but not weak, and really no argument against the authoritarian right being the strongest.

>You can pretend that nations are islands that are completely cut off from the world but the material reality is that trade is interdependent and global. As long as the example you set relies on supply chains that produce goods for your use through coercion and slavery they undermine the potential of workers in your own nation.
What does this have to do with fascism!?

>If you actually want to convince people you are going to have to read Marx, take off the mask and engage. Pretending you're retarded will only get you called out.
I have read your fucking 20 page pamphlet anyone with an IQ higher than 80 can do that, maybe you should take out your vibrator and engage with the Doctrine of Fascism which you are completely unaware of.

>The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation a which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples.

>trade is interdependent and global
so you're a capitalist

This but unironically.
Well no. If not for military tactics and planning there would have been a big chance for revolutions to fail. Fascist Italy was also horseshit at waging war and Nazis lost in the end.

>Capitalism is trading things
Not the same guy, but come on dude. Pathetic

Attached: 1492409022801.jpg (920x613, 42K)

>World systems theory.

Absolute retardation. Everyone who uses the words 'global south' is incurably retarded. There is no such thing.

What there is is countries who develop and countries who don't. South Korea and China were once 'Global South', now they're rich and successful. Your retarded theory cannot explain anything that's happened since WW2. It's 70 years out of date. It's been obsolete since before it was invented.

Let me give you a hint. There is no such thing as a core-periphery relationship. It explains nothing. There are countries that undertake market reforms and develop and there are countries that don't and fail. The Washington consensus has been maligned so much in recent years by all the usual suspects, a sure sign of its correctness.

I know all about the US bogeyman 'argument'. The US has done more for the world than any empire in human history. The promotion of free trade, the removal of leftist dictators, all of these have greatly improved the poorer regions of the world. How many Cambodias were there going to otherwise be in Latin America, how many North Koreas were going to proliferate in Africa? The end of communism has led to an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity around the world. Now, we just need to deal with the Eur*ids and their closed trade system, open up the sluggish French markets to free trade and crush leftism once and for all.

thinking that global trade is necessary is absolutely capitalist

the reason the communist wants communism is because they are anti-intelligence, maybe that can be because of ressentiment i guess.

Great argument.

Attached: 79.gif (245x280, 1.3M)

being left means you're sympathetic to the less capable, being right means you're sympathetic to the more capable. that's why it's so fucking ridiculous and antithetical to their beliefs when the left claims to be more intelligent.

If you think I want equality, you are wrong. No, I don't believe in people less capable. Incapable people aren't the ones who end up hanging from the ceiling.

Attached: 107.jpg (620x399, 45K)

Its almost as if Marx's Capital is a comprehensive description of capital and people can describe it without being a capitalist. Ironically most self described capitalists own no productive property other than their labor and are thus proletarian.

If you ever needed a reason to hate Marxists this thread is more than enough

Attached: 1559711063249.jpg (800x600, 198K)

>asking old people about how they remember their youth over 30 years ago
>presenting it as "science"
How retarded are people?

Attached: 227784-The-Best-Thing-About-The-Good-Old-Days-Is-That-I-Wasnt-Good-And-I-Wasnt-Old.jpg (708x578, 83K)

you can believe that all people are equally capable but reality, the state of the world now and forever before, proves you wrong. how could evolution exist in a world of actual equals? whatever you think about them, you are sympathetic to the weak and downtrodden, and the right is sympathetic to the strong and dominating. obviously this makes the left weaker and stupider and the right stronger and smarter. but anyway go ahead and keep telling everyone you're intelligent.

>ressentiment
This is a pretty dumb ass reading of Marx. Its exceedingly clear that hes not making a moral judgement about the positions of workers and owners. A person who exploits a forest for its lumber is not being called evil. 'Exploits' is simply describing putting the forest to productive use.

>Its exceedingly clear that hes not making a moral judgement about the positions of workers and owners
What the fuck? If 'Exploits' isn't implied to be inherently negative then why would you want to change it?

why is one the exploiter and another the exploited

>you can believe that all people are equally capable but in reality

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
> Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Attached: file.png (682x900, 347K)

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

>Mr. user repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

>It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. user is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Attached: 2gpygg.jpg (326x294, 34K)

correct, the right believes in equity over equality and the left believes in equality over equity. left wingers are the people who are too short to get on the ride.

Because one directs the labor and one performs it.

Attached: file.png (790x264, 53K)

why is one the director and one the directed

One owns the means of production and one does not.

why does one own the means and one not

Lots of people come to own things for different reasons user what are you getting at.

why doesn't everybody own equal things if we are all equally capable?

>I don't know how to critique my own position, I don't know how to read more than one book

Yeah, Fascism and NS. Totally different things.

>if we are all equally capable
but we aren't equally capable, read the thread, read Marx
>equal things
I don't know how you could even conceptually "own equal things". You don't need everyone to own their own power plant in a city, you just need one and it can be owned collectively by the citizenship to keep costs down.

Letting one person control it creates a single point of failure and if they happen to not cut corners to enrich themselves at the expense of the community their kids can fuck it up when they inherit it with no check on their ability.

so you are sympathetic to the less capable, and my point about equal things, my intelligence impaired communist friend, was that inequality is proof of superiority.

Care to provide the critique for realism, lmao?

> Want
> Implying societies evolve because their members "want" things instead of the material necessity of said changes in an ever-changing dialectical system as is human society

Man, this is just becoming ridiculous. You people are vehemently criticizing something you didn't even bother to try to understand.

>No, I don't believe in people less capable
>but we aren't equally capable
remembered how slimy you people are and decided pointing it out was a good idea

Sure. But first
What form of realism, define it.

>What form of realism, define it.
Any of them. Defensive, offensive - doesn't really matter. They're all small variations within the same approach

Right as in human right, not as in right wing. You just read the first word and stopped reading you fucking moth-breathing retard.

I fucking wish there was an eugenetic anti-moron branch of marxism to put you all brain-dead propagandists in a ditch and cover it in cement.

That is not even me

are you delusional or do not speak English?
You are fighting with ghosts.

>DO NOT believe in people less capable
>ARE NOT equally capable

> they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal - Marx

>It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. - Lenin

Attached: file.png (669x119, 14K)

You think you are sly with your make-believe shitty socratic irony? Google "Marx on primitive accumulation" and cease your airs of grandeur, you truly know nothing, it's unironically ironic.

Give me your understanding/position. Clear and simple.

why did some accumulate and others didn't? also isn't the bourgeoisie unrelated to the aristocracy?

>why doesn't everybody own equal things if we are all equally capable?
Conquest, murder, war, inheritance.

>completely ignores my argument to copy and paste your literature
>accusing others of being propagandists

why are you jumping into a reply chain and accusing others of not reading the thread

why do some win wars and others lose them?

Lol Polanders

>why are you jumping into a reply chain and accusing others of not reading the thread
I've been here the whole time. There are multiple people telling you that you are critiquing a straw man that no one believes.

the reply chain would show the two quoted in as the same person, not sure how you being here the whole time negates that.

what is the strawman i'm critiquing, you've lost me. i've been saying that to be left is to be sympathetic to the less capable and therefore the left is less capable. really simple stuff, not sure why you think i have airs of grandeur when you're the one literally trying to say you're intelligent.

Oh my fucking god. Dude, I already know what you are trying to do and imply. I just don't have the energy and time to spoon-feed you easy concepts solved over a century ago.

You will end this shitfest proclaiming that unequeal accumlations steams from greater capabilities and thus the owners of means of production "deserve" said property.

The problem with your piece of shit argument is that has been refuted time and time again.

1. No moral statement is made on the ownership of means of production. EVEN IF the primitive accumulation went to the more capable people (which it did NOT necessarily do) the process of accumulation of capital itself is still u paid workforce to the worker.

2. Even with the primitve accumulation problem, any possible amount of capital that the capitalist has put into the initial process has circulated and re-circulated and thus duplicated or triplicated over a few cycles of C - M - C' again BECAUSE of the unpaid workforce put into the commodities by the WORKER. Again, refer to point 1. This analysis is NOT to make an ethical point but to describe an antagonistic dialectical relationship within the capitalist mode of production and the ways it has been historicslly resolved within other modes of production (and could potentially be solved within this one [which WILL be solved because of the teleological dialectical nature of reality]).

3. I know you are already typing about risk taken within capitalist investments by the capitalists. This has been answered in Capital Volume 1 as well (duh).

4. Oh, what's that? Small bussinesses succeding in growing and eventually turning their owners into billionaires? Gates, Jobs, the american mesianic figure of the "garage bussinessman" that succedes because of wit and perseverance? Google Marx in the monopolization tendency of capitalism and spare me of reading such regurgitated bullshit that protestant ideology and the american educational system has so thoroughtly drilled into your skull.

TL;DR: That's the problem itself, you idiot, you didn't read the thing you're so clumsily trying to criticize.

Garbage thread

okay, lets get more basic then. how could evolution exist in a world of equals?

Garbage post

Yeah, I know this is a garbage reply as well. You reap what you sow, bitch.

also if you admit that new people can become wealthy why can't all people become wealthy? how does one go from rags to riches if not everyone can do it?

Nothing wrong with being poor. I've been rich and poor, both states are overblown and overhyped in different directions.

es.scribd.com/document/308584781/Elementary-Principles-of-Philosophy-by-Georges-Politzer

This is my last reply, there are definetly better things for me to do.

most brainlet post itt

Because they wield greater power. We've been through this. Marx's critique of capitalism is not a moral proclamation.

Yes if you don’t account for inequality.

I’ll still take a socdem country over any other currently existing system though.

you never made a single reply if you don't count links and copy and pastes.

>in a world of equals
what the fuck is wrong with you

Blow me, tranny

BECAUSE IF EVERYONE BECAME AN OWNER OF MEANS OF PRODUCTION THERE WOULD BE NO WORKERS TO SUSTAOM THE SURPLUS PRODUCTION AND THEREFORE NO MORE WEALTH INCREASE, GODDAMMIT.

AND NO, THE ONES WHO DO BECOME WEALTHY DO NOT DO IT ON THEIR OWN MEROTS BECAUSE HUMAN NATURE IS CONTINGENT AND HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY, NOT METAPHYSICAL AND INDIVIDUAL.

i've just been trying to explain that communists are unintelligent/for the unintelligent.

Reminder that politics is mostly just about self-interest and feels, so there are people of any political persuation who are intelligent.

>US has done more for the world than any empire in human history
>US is the core
>US promotes free trade
>free trade is the core
>countries that adopt free trade are successful
>"There is no such thing as a core-periphery relationship"

The fuck you talk about? I made no copypaste and that's the first link I post. If you want me to recite from memory whole chapters of complex socioeconomic and philosophical concepts in a way easy enough for you, who has put no effort whatsoever in understanding what you are so sure that is wrong, and answer your 5-year old questions regarding an almost 200 years old ideology which can be read for FREE on the INTERNET, you must really value lowly your own time, or believe mine is worthless.

so then the worker must be weaker than the owner at least to put up with being the worker if he is not in that position because he is less intelligent than the owner.

if communism is your self interest then you are unintelligent.

Attached: 1469062681459.jpg (964x403, 80K)

The old saying is true

> why can't all people become wealthy
Can you please cut this shit out. If everyone were wealthy by definition no one would be wealthy. Think before you type.

again, don't jump into reply chains if you don't want to be confused with other people.

So not being intelligent isn’t a weakness? Define intelligence and strength.

alright i will go back to square one

if we are equally capable then why are we not equal

if you recognize that we are not equal but want equality you are for the unintelligent. if you consider communism your self interest and not a moral obligation then you are unintelligent.

Metaphysics impacts individuals, individuals impact society, society impacts environment, etc.

>then the worker must be weaker
this is the fashy brain on babys intro to Nietzsche

If everyone is human then no one is human wtf

>the best system
In terms of what? Making people live like drunken termites?

1) humans are not equally capable
2) humans are not equal
3) communists do not want equality

individuals also have impact on their environment, people choose to be where they are, maybe under threat of conflict but it's a choice.

90% of philosophers from the western canon would not support it.

"we are equally capable" is something that is closer to classical liberalism from which communism borrows, not unique to communism. you can tell because right-wing capitalists use the same argument, i.e. pull yourself up by the bootstraps and success is a matter of hard work

I love how leftist memes are just sad imitations of pol

The absolute state of amerimutts. You could reduce any American city to dust and the global IQ would rise

Yes I agree. I don't know if you're the same person I replied to earlier but my point is that each impacts the other in immeasurable ways so it is not sufficient to put two on one side and two on the other

It's not even an imitation of the real /pol/. It's a strawman.

>communists do not want equality
you've lost me

that would be equity over equality. equal opportunity not equal benefits.

no it wouldn't, that'd be less well educated first worlders vs the growing horde of low iq negroids.

No, he is not. I am the one you are replying to. Metaphysics are a human construct, not an independent reality that can affect us. A way of cathegorizing reality based on the Aristotelian principle of A = A and centuries of bullshit western thought. Marxism is mased on dialectical materialism (Democritus + Hegel), not idealist metaphisics (Berkeley + Plato) which has been the dominating ideology of the western world for millenia, recycled and reworded by every new propagandist who was pleased to aid his socio-economical masters in the pursue of plebeian brain-wash.

> It's not the imitation of /pol/ it's a strawman

It's satire, you morons. It inverts the original strawman meme to ironically laugh at it.

still seems like the left can't meme, and the attempts to do so seem blatantly insecure of that fact.

Human constructs still affect humans on an individual and societal level, even if they aren't "true". So much legislation is and has been based on metaphysics, for example, especially if you characterise the metaphysics of the West as 'metaphysics of presence' like Heidegger and Derrida.

>communists do not want equality
i really need this to be expanded on

...

put it in your own words why communists are not about equality please.

Communists DO want equality, they want to equalize the unequal.

>I am sympathetic to the more capable so I must be capable and intelligent myself
>checkmate communists
>why would you consider the well-being of many
>retard commies and their empathy

You dickride Elon Musk on Reddit, don’t you? And don’t lie to me my dearest fag

Because that is plain stupid and false and has been said just as a way to easily criticize said position. Ie: strawman

This. Politics are the lowest tier of interests, and anyone who wastes their time LARPing as some kind of activist and debating kids online or at whatever shitty pathetic uni they go to should not be considered mentally able.

i said right wingers are more capable. i never asked why you care about the unequal, i was purely addressing the fact that communists are not intelligent.

your own quotes you linked back say that socialism is about equality and that people being inequal doesn't matter.

seriously though what the fuck is it about if communism isn't about equality

COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

and common ownership isn't about equality?

not him but saying 'communists want equality' and launching into a spiel about how humans are naturally unequal is different from saying 'communists want equal ownership of their work'

him saying communists don't want equality was an outright lie i forced him to say rather than admit he was wrong.

i just wanted to prove that people are unequal therefore wanting equality is to be sympathetic to the less capable ie less intelligent ergo communists are less intelligent.

d-did i win?

No, user. Humanity lost. It's over. Go pick a book now.

The truth is a little more complicated. 'Communism' varies in its beliefs depending on who is calling themselves a communist, or who someone claims is a communist based on their beliefs. In contemporary circles, sure, people calling themselves communists (or socialists, mind you) may "want everyone to be equal", but I believe this is in the context of a society that does believe everyone to be equal already and that society should reflect that, i.e. communism seems like the intelligent choice, and that if society were a vacuum and everyone were given equal opportunity then society would reflect that. This is not dissimilar to classical liberalism. Marxists, again only a subset of communism, would call for violent overthrow of the oppressive bourgeois class. It's not exactly the same as 'everyone should be equal' because it means forceful removal of the class that makes everything unequal, but also assumes that everyone -is- already equal in a vacuum. Again, not dissimilar to classical liberalism. The point I am making personally, and perhaps not the point of anyone else in this thread, is that 'communists want equality' is a shortcut in expression that is true in some sense and false in the other, and any disagreement is putting one sense against the other without the understanding that this catch-all phrase actually refers to different conflicting ideas. So when the other guy admits 'communists don't want equality' he is probably doing so because the way in which it is being discussed favours the non-communist interpretation, even though the truth is that communism is not necessarily incompatible with the idea of humans being unequal. But admitting this means you can claim 'see, communists are hypocrites' instead of actually arguing the actual philosophy of it.

This is like the antisemite proclaiming that any statement opposing his is in fact zionist propaganda, and in doing so reduces every discourse to “I am right and you are merely deceiving.”

In the same way I could say that anything that stands against communism is anti-communist propaganda, and those who argue with are hiding an anti-communist agenda. But I won’t, because I’m not retarded.

that depends on whether or not you think hordes of low iqs breeding is good for humanity

what you're describing is communism being the moral choice, not the intelligent choice. if you admit that people aren't equal then how would equal opportunity create equal individuals? saying communists want equality because it is a right is the same as communists wanting equality. which communisms don't believe in equality, why are they even calling themselves communism?

the reality is intelligence and the purporting of it is antithetical to left beliefs, and mind you i've been focusing on terms like left/right and authoritarian/libertarian rather than go into depth on specifics of an ideology, just bare bones stuff. i never intended to call communists hypocrites, just saying that they are not intelligent/unintelligent people is what they represent.

looks more like a younger freud

>anything that stands against communism is anti-communist propaganda, and those who argue with are hiding an anti-communist agenda
No, they obviously aren't hiding their anti-communist agenda, as "saying things that stand against communism" pretty directly indicates that the person has an anti-communist agenda, but definitely not a hidden one.

Not even him, but what the fuck are you on about?

a cornered enemy fights with all their might, the same can be said for liars and lying.

Pretty much any relevant communist is VERY MUCH in favor of equality. It is entirely irrelevant whether that belief is part of orthodox communism or not.
"Communists are in favor of equality" is true, independent of what communism means specifically, it is a description of reality.

???
So you don't even pretend your statement wasn't completely retarded and far removed from reality.

nothing is true to these jews

"Poland - Better: 47%"
And the same percentage is pushing socialism right now

i'm not the person you were replying to my b, i meant to agree with you

Oh, sorry.

>Is it possible to be a smart and educated person interested in politics and NOT be a communist?
kek what a stupid question. The vast majority of politicians of the best countries in the world are not communist.
Communism is universally agreed upon to be shit by smart and educated persons interested in politics.

Attached: 1535899452940.png (524x883, 91K)

You claim that if one is sympathetic to one group, he is a member of that group. The man sympathetic to the less capable is less capable (left), the man sympathetic to the more capable is more capable (right).

I argue that sympathy to one group or the other doesn’t mean nor imply the person feeling sympathy belongs to either. Capable and less capable are just two categories out of many. Try this: I am sympathetic to cats, yet I am human. You can be sympathetic to heterosexuals, yet you are a faggot.

You also can’t discuss sympathy while discrediting it’s basis, the reason why one feels sympathy to a group over the other. Well, you can, but it’s retarded. You just imply that basis, that reason a sense of belonging, nothing else.

>what you're describing is communism being the moral choice, not the intelligent choice.

Morality and intelligence overlap, but I suppose it is useless to say this if I have one idea of communism in my head when I say the word, and you have another through which you interpret my use of the word.

>how would equal opportunity create equal individuals?

It doesn't have to, because communism doesn't have to be about creating equal individuals. If, for example, we look at 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', it could be transposed on a reality in which humans are unequal, but contribute their share to the best of their ability.

I know I'm rambling so I'll clarify something real quick: 'communists want equality' is not something inherent to communism, even if people who call themselves communistrs want equality. They can easily misunderstand the term as I may misunderstand your idea of it and vice versa. Their identity as communists does not secure the term in a way that effaces it to the concept of communism in a pure and simple way. They represent themselves who identify as communists, rather than a one-to-one relation as representatives of communism as a system of metaphysics or (self-)governance or whatever.

And I'll state I don't think there is any correlation between intelligence and whichever wing of the "autonomous individual subject bourgeois metaphysics" shitshow that is Western politics. I do think though that there would be a lot less die-hard uncompromising communists if more people were afforded the same middle-class comforts as 'everyone else (who matters)' since it does wonders for complacency. I don't really care if people are truly equal or not since it doesn't really matter, but I do believe in equality of justice, and not just before the law.

This. Makes you really think about leftist's smear of right wing with "reactionary".

I worded that bad, fuck it. What I mean is that by predicting any argument standing against yours as false, you discredit any discourse you might have on the subject. Pic related says commies will claim their opposition doesn’t understand communism. The prediction is right, as people opposed to communism often describe it wrong, either on purpose or by mistake, and to argue, the communist must say “Mate, you don’t know what communism is,” as predicted by pic. But pic also says that in doing this, the commie is returning to “banner waving,” spouting propaganda.
Pic predicts the necessary and unavoidable communist response, then tries to eliminate it by reducing it to “banner waving.” That’s just being a dick.

>mfw no pic

see

Pic is what I originally respond to with my 2 bad examples, follow the chain

>hear about how commie uni is, with marxists, sjws and feminazis running rampant everywhere
>go to uni
>it's fucking nothing
You people are paranoid over your own rumours.

You can't even enter my University building without being greeted by Marx's face on the signs from the multiple communist student groups.

We have a Marxist group, sure. So what? They put some posters up and organise small demonstrations. We also have a Tory group, and a Lib Dem group, and a Labour group.

But this is literally all year around and there are by far more Marxist parties then non Marxist parties.

It's not like there is some counterbalance to the communist posters, it's just them.

>be Hungarian
>go to uni
>only Marxist
>majority sjw yard
>lots of nationalists/rightist
>full blown fash movement
>go on one day and see fashies giving out pamphlets against “cultural Marxism”

>be phoneposter
>get tricked by bourgeois autocorrect

Here the members of any legitimately fascist movement would non-ironically get killed.

They have no opposition here. The sjws do not really care, or are too pussy to do anything. The fashes did a flash mob once during pride month, chanting stuff like “homosexuality is degeneracy.” The sjws just stood around, a few sperged out before leaving, 2 girls kissed each other, an sjw recorded the whole thing, uploaded it to YouTube, got comments like “fags should die”, then deleted the video.
And this is the “hotbed of liberalism, the home of the left,” where rightist ideas are taboo and rightists are oppressed according to rightist state media. Other university are either religious, openly rightist/pro-gov, or have been scared into rejecting any kind of politics and political movements.

You are in fucking Hungary, where like 2% of the youth think Immigration is a good thing.
Do you think that is representative of all of Europe?
And it isn't SJWs here, it's Antifa who legitimately are willing to use violence, not some soibois.

When I say that they will get killed I mean that literally and the furthest group to the right here are the youth group of the CDU...

Was laberst du für eine Scheiße du Idiot? Das einzige was passiert wenn du dich offen als Nazi bekennst ist, dass man dich verhaftet.

>Is it possible to be a smart and educated person interested in politics
No

Not what I mean pea-brain

I’m just explaining the current situation in my country you fucking mongoloid

Where did I say it’s representative of anything? Snort Zyklon B krautfuck

Corporatism is late stage capitalism

“Free markets” enslave people.

Attached: AA769173-A813-44D1-A961-AE5BA8B8D866.jpg (960x720, 122K)

>Krauts killing anyone anymore
>X. Doubt

This, I don't know what kind of shitty universities these people go to. I've heard more whining about liberals from conservative student groups than whining from left wing student groups and I rarely hear a peep out of either. There was a tiny demonstration about the "leftist war on Halloween costumes" but it was funny because several students wearing costumes walked past it. I don't go to a liberal arts school though, so it might be different at those.