Goodnight [s4s]

oh, well you don't have to. I have my window open so I can see the moon enough for the both of us.

unchecked doubles on page 6!

Why can't I see it through you?

Attached: BirdEat.jpg (1024x768, 118K)

lole
thats a missle

dubs

fuck off tovarisch

But I'm not commie

then why are you on communist board?
esfores is a stateless, cashless, classless society with no property ownership.

Wrong on all counts

let me guess where I am supposed to be wrong:
1. cashless - Yea Forums pass
2. stateless - site administration, the actual state maintaining internet infrastructure on its territory.
3. classless - mods and janitors
4. property ownership - control over posts (site code) and servers.

1:cash is needed to fund the servers, pay the staff and supply your household with electricity to view and interact with [s4s]
2:we are a democracy with a limited governance via administration and moderation of a set of rules agreed to before entering
3: classes exist through popularity and post quality, though this is a constantly changing variable.
4: The board has an actual owner/set of owners.

1. that's all extraneous to the actual mode of interaction that occurs in the digital space between residents of the board who already have access. We wouldn't say that a society is, for example, not classless because unborn people who don't have bodies constitute a separate class, or, if aliens existed, that aliens don't have access to collectively owned means of production on Earth.
As far as the separate, bounded realm of the board's digital infrastructure is concerned, cash is not a factor.

2. If we are a democracy, then what group constitutes the demos, exactly? Regular site users have no moderation power, and moderators are not their representatives. As for the set of rules along which the site is governed, I'm not sure whether that is inconsistent with Communism because I'm unaware if jurisprudence and Law are supposed to exist under such a system.

3. Classes are determined by ownership of capital. Capital is used to produce commodities and services that are supposed to be sold for profit which is then reinvested as capital. As far as I'm aware, there is no capital within the digital space inhabited by s4s users which produces any commodities or services for sale, which essentially makes the board infrastructure a public good.

4. The board has owners, but is the board a capital good within the context of the board community's socio-economic structure?

Then cash and resource isn't a factor in your day to day life either. Don't pay for power or food and see how long you last.

We regulate and moderate ourselves within the set rules by means of representation and have law and order through Mods and the Admin. If you are unsure then do not call it as such.

Classes can also be a social construct as well as socioeconomic. We decided what is valued and despised based on interaction and preferences coming to a group consensus regarding individual or subject material. If you deny this then merely observe.

The board is property and costs money to uphold and maintain. Our posts are our own intellectual property and have value such as a currency would creating a social di vide. Look at how poor doremi struggles while others like ripa thrive high on the hog.

Think what you will. You will not sway me. We can agree to disagree, you can change your mind, or we can turn this into /pol/.

00 digits at the end of the post

check'd.
I would rather agree to disagree, because it's not too common that someone is successfully swayed on the internet, and I like this place a lot more than /pol/. But at the same time I don't want to feel like there is an unspoken limitation about what can be posted here because it's not [s4s]-like.
A part of me wants to see what happens if /pol/ topics are discussed here.

I'll just remark that I completely agree that cash and resources are a factor in my everyday life. But I don't pay for food or power on [s4s]. I need the internet to access [s4s], but when I'm interacting in the virtual, digital social space of [s4s], I need to pay for nothing.
Yes, you are right, classes can be simply social constructs; my definition was limited to the Marxist interpretation, which of course is not entirely complete or correct. So in the general, broad sense the board is not classless.
And yes, capital does not necessarily have to be economic; it can also be political, social, cultural a la Bourdieu and Durkheim, and that kind of capital is indeed precisely what is made use of by ripa and others.
However, in terms of the classical definition of Communism as rooted in socio-economic, materialist approach, I still maintain that the board is Communist in the classical, Marxist sense.

You pay for your electricity, you pay for this site (or others that don't use adblock/ublock do) by means of viewing adverts or through donations/purchasing passes. The point being is it costs real world money/Time/resource to make what we are using a reality. Without money this would not be here.

It is a democracy. We are not equal, we do not receive rations, we are not sent to a gulag to do forced labor, we are not forced ascribe to a state mandate and can freely criticize the mods and admins, though I have a deep respect for thhem and choose not to.

Communism will always be a failure for the simple fact it forces uniformity bringing the best of us to the same level as the worst. It stifles innovation and in every instance of its deployment on q populous it has brought death, poverty and division.

We are egalitarian by law and democratic in action.

Communism is not "uniformity" or "making everyone the same". That was already achieved after the French Revolution during the Enlightenment.
Uniformity was one of the ideas of the French Revolution that formed the basis for the Enlightenment values that are the core of our political system today (egalitarianism and universalism). Egalitarianism means everyone is treated the same regardless of sex, race, class and economic status. Universalism means that everyone has the same values and that those values have to apply to everyone (reason, human well-being, pursuit of truth through science, etc). And I don't think you have anything against that kind of uniformity.

What makes Marxism different from French Enlightenment Egalitarianism is that Marxism focuses only on the economic, material aspect of social relationships, and states that the only thing that matters is who controls the means of creating value.
In other words, people are different, and have different levels of talent and ability, and that's ok as long as nobody can acquire ownership over material objects that produce value, and coerce other people into doing things they don't want by denying them resources.
For example: If I use money to buy all the farms in the world, then it doesn't matter if other people are good scientists, engineers, etc: I can force them to work for me on my farms, doing the same job, or I will make them starve to death. I can make them all the same and kill their individuality and individual freedom by saying: "if you don't work as a farmer on my farms, you won't be able to buy my food".
So the idea of Marxism is: if no one can be excluded from access to control over farms, factories and everything else that produces value, then people are free to do what they're good at based on their individual, natural differences.

Of course, it's impossible to successfully implement Communism as a matter of active policy. Just explaining the idea.

And [s4s], by the way, is Communist in this sense.
There is no user on this board who has a monopoly on making posts and who can prevent other users from making posts. Every user, regardless of his individual qualities and natural differences from other users, has the same ability to make posts as any other user.
Which means that posts can be judged by their individual merit and the community can decide which posts are more valuable on the basis of mutual, shared agreement about common values.
It's completely fine that some users are respected more than others because the users that are respected more cannot use their respect to stop other users from posting and trying to earn their own respect.
This is essentially the idea of Communism.

rare dubs.

>There is no user on this board who has a monopoly on making posts and who can prevent other users from making posts. Every user, regardless of his individual qualities and natural differences from other users, has the same ability to make posts as any other user.
Which means that posts can be judged by their individual merit and the community can decide which posts are more valuable on the basis of mutual, shared agreement about common values.

That is a democratic trait not a communist trait. That is the foundation of democracy in essence.

The fact others are praised or mocked can be a deterrent or an incentive to post. This is fact.

You cannot sway me and I will outlast you. Come on then, let's ruin this thread until it is nothing but regurgitated rhetoric.

Guess we /pol/ now. Time to post until >300
Let's do this.

Excellent trips my dude.
You have almost won this argument through the power of repeated digits alone.

Democracy is defined as the ownership of political power by the "demos" (people, specifically "citizens" in the classical greek sense). It just means a system of government where decisions are made by a majority vote. It's a purely political term that has nothing to do with socio-economic structure. Ideally, a democratic system is completely compatible with things like shared values and individual merit. However, in reality, if there is a sufficient majority among the demos with its own exclusive group interests, it can acquire the power to pass and veto any decision for its own benefit to the detriment of the minority. Democracy does not exclude the possibility of group conflict within the demos, which destroys the principle of voluntarism and meritocracy and devolves into tribalism, oligarchy and tyranny. What we're talking about is the socio-economic system. In a democracy, a small group of people that own all the factories, land, etc can force a majority of people to vote for ideas which benefit them, and again, this breaks the essence of democracy.

So the focus should be on the socio-economic system, not on the political system. And shared values, individual merit, are only possible when nobody can deny others access to the ability to produce material value.
Mockery and praise are immaterial and intangible: they do not physically prevent or force a person to make posts and they do not remove the physical, material ability to do so.

Communism, theoretically, is just libertarianism that realises that libertarianism can only work once society reaches a certain stage of technological advancement.

Also who are you quoting?

Be the reflection of the moon over the water
The moon doesn't get wet, and the water is never broken
For all its vastness, the moon, and the entire sky, can be reflected in a puddle, even in a drop of water
When you cease to be the water and become the reflection, you begin to fully realize the limitless of the light in the sky.

Attached: the sea where one's home planet reflects.jpg (500x500, 67K)

Every system has flaws, yet the proven victor is democratic and capitalist. These systems are almost perfectly matched with our flawed nature and thus we thrive within them, while communism acts against our collective nature and we suffer under it in every instance of it's inception.

>Mockery and praise are immaterial and intangible: they do not physically prevent or force a person to make posts and they do not remove the physical, material ability to do so.

Yet they are a deterrent or incentive for real world people and still affect action all the same.

We should allow logic and common sense to prevail, not turning to any isms for a quick and dreadful fix.

I am quoting you. Someone who would rather force inequality rather than let free will decide.

We have many flaws to correct in society but forcing a system of suppression, regression and mediocrity will do more harm than good.

All systems have flaws, therefore all systems transform, change and are eventually replaced with new systems. No system is eternal, so there is no proven or final victor. Even Fukuyama himself doesn't believe that any more. The only question is which system will replace it.
As for being "perfectly matched with our flawed nature", that's an old classical liberal argument for unregulated free markets that's even more outdated than Marxism. For one, unregulated free markets are incompatible with democracy. Secondly, the nature of human society itself is changeable and changes together with the level of technology.
As for the "suffering" that communism brought in "every instance", you're talking about 20th century regimes which have historically been referred to as "communist". Except they were all monopolistic state capitalist: they had a state, they had classes and they had money. Workers worked for a monopolistic corporation called the "state" which paid them salaries and which participated in trade and investment with other capitalist countries.

It's funny that you accuse me of turning to "isms" for a quick and shallow fix when you're the one making claims about which is the best "ism", and i'm not making such claims at all. I'm all for allowing logic and common sense to prevail and I hope it happens soon.
And I pray that we rid ourselves of whatever current systems of suppression and mediocrity we have in place right now, as soon as possible, by employing reason, empathy and solidarity.

"Yet they are a deterrent or incentive for real world people and still affect action all the same."

Yes, good! And that's ok, and that's the way it should be. As long as it doesn't prevent people from physically posting there is no problem, as far as I'm concerned. It's up to each individual to control his mind and emotions and bear individual responsibility for his choices, and decide which deterrents and incentives to learn from and pay attention to and improve from.

>As for the "suffering" that communism brought in "every instance", you're talking about 20th century regimes which have historically been referred to as "communist". Except they were all monopolistic state capitalist: they had a state, they had classes and they had money. Workers worked for a monopolistic corporation called the "state" which paid them salaries and which participated in trade and investment with other capitalist countries.
Reinforcing the bourgeois myth that "communism has never worked" and "can not exist"/"is unworkable" won't do any good for communism as a whole. The Marxist-Leninist "regimes" which have existed throughout history have all improved the lives of MILLIONS of people. You're forgetting that Russia and China were both hellholes before their communist revolutions with the USSR almost catching up to the most developed countries in the world and becoming a superpower in JUST 10 YEARS. Without the Soviet Union WW2 would have been won by the fascists.
Marx even laid out the idea that a) capitalism (state or otherwise) may be required as a preliminary stage before socialism/communism b) socialism is the intermediate state between capitalism and communism where the state, classes, money, etc could still be in place but the ruling class consists of the proletariat rather than the bourgeois
As for something like North Korea today you might argue that they've deviated from the path of socialism but their GDP was higher than South Korea for most of their history and during that time South Korea was ruled by (actually) oppressive right-wing dictators.

Good night my sweet user

Attached: scarfacepepe2.jpg (1680x1050, 860K)

There is in our history and out present reality. To say a system has won the test of time would be accurate, to say any system is better without having implemented it first would be pretentious.

I never said markets should be unregulated. Ask before you speak on my behalf.
I do agree that technology will change things for better or worse, and it wil likely be worse.

One advent we can both agree on, and I am basing this off of your posts, is that total automation along with the additional resources it brings will make human labor obsolete and give us unlimited free time to do as we please. Universal Basic Income.

That is correct. To have a system without governance is impossible on a large scale, hence a representative state/government is needed, and even in the future "something" will be needed to run everything , likely an AI with corrupt people programming it for their desires, but possibly not. We will have to wait and see.

It is nasty to think what may come, a future in which thought and action outside the collective are punishable offenses. Hope it doesn't come to that.

I am making the factual claim that our current system has withstood the test of time and forcing change within it would cause disaster.

This must happen naturally. If a group tried to start a revolution by means of bloodshed I would enlist in the military and KILL every last one of you.
If you tried to peacefully demonstrate a superior system on the other hand I may join and support you.

Remember this.^

I too wish for change, but when I here others talking about doing "bad things" it makes my blood boil.
So instead of violence try to be an example of right so that others may be inspired to join you, and tell your "comrades" to please chill the FO.

Not saying yiu are violent in nature, only that others in the same line of thinking are, we will stand against and meet fire with fire.

I'm not saying those regimes didn't improve the lives of millions of people. I'm not saying whether they were good or bad. I'm just saying they weren't communist; they just used the name because a) they wanted to market themselves to the biggest number of people to gain strength and support (and the majority of the population of the world were either peasants or workers) and b) they were in geopolitical conflict with the countries with established capitalist regimes and used marxist historical materialist dialectics as an ideological justification for that conflict.
The root of the conflict between capitalist/"communist" regimes is geopolitical, not ideological.

Not them, but yes. We can all work together as long as we are not being forced to do so.

I agree.

Why do you think there was a conflict in the first place? Oh right, because of differences in ideology. America was very friendly to Cuba until they had ideological differences.
I think you're trying to argue semantics because the idea of a """communist""" state doesn't make sense in the first place. They called themselves communist because they were working towards full communism. That's what a "communist" state is.

Well, it's interesting you say that it's pretentious to make judgments about whether a system is better without implementing it first. Doesn't that also mean it's pretentious to make judgments about whether a system is worse without implementing it first?
And yet we both seem to agree that the better system is the one which is marked by individual merit and liberty within a system of shared collective values, and as a consequence: that the worse system is the one which extinguishes these things. I have already illustrated how the ability for individuals and groups to take exclusive ownership of means of production is incompatible with and detrimental to these features. However, I am not stating that taking away that ability is necessarily a panacea: there might be other factors to consider and we have to explore those using analysis and reason before any kind of action is taken.

As for UBI, I guess that is the most likely outcome, although I would refrain from making predictions and I wouldn't say that it has much to do with what I was talking about so far. Under UBI the socio-economic system doesn't change. Individuals and groups still own the means of production to the exclusion of others; the only difference is that the owners just transfer some of the profit to their employees free of charge.

"A future in which thought and action outside the collective are punishable offences". And yet we already have that in our present.
Except instead of "collective' it's "corporations". Look at Google and how they control what their employees can think and say and fires them if they don't conform to the right view. Look at how Amazon turns their employees into zombie robots and punishes them for going to the toilet at the wrong time. Look at how corporations police their employees through tyrannical corporate policies that are aimed at "improving their efficiency". It's already here. It's not the future, it's happening right now. This is your current system.

I love you....

UBI won't change jack shit. The bourgeois state will pay for it by either a) replacing the current welfare system or b) imposing a tax on the workers (for example #YangGang will impose a 10% VAT tax). Workers will be lead to believe that they're getting a better deal and will be less concered with replacing the current socio-economic system. There's no transfer of profit from owners to workers.

"I am making the factual claim that our current system has withstood the test of time and forcing change within it would cause disaster."

I'm not arguing for forcing change of any kind. This conversation wasn't originally about that. I started it simply to clarify the definition of communism, not an argument for or against. You turned into an argument for or against, and I'm not really interested in that. Whatever changes will happen, will happen. I completely agree that important systemic changes should ideally happen naturally, but history shows that peaceful changes are rare, and unfortunately wars and revolutions are just another natural way changes happen. We just have to wait and see, but before that, we have to know what we're talking about and what we want.

And I don't have any fucking "comrades" and the only one who has mentioned threats of violence here is you.

threats of violence? VIOLENCE? HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Attached: 1521757105628.jpg (250x250, 22K)

Communism has been tried on small and large scales. The end results are gruesome.

No you haven't. You have shown the failings of communism if anything. Our modern oligarchy (which is not capitalist anymore) is no better, but we still have our basic rights. The communists I have encountered through media and real life want to take away so many of our civil liberties and rights, it makes me more than a bit upset.

You should study basic economics if you wish to see deeper into why systems rise and fall. Doing so and gaining more knowledge may help you advise others and help build a more perfect system. Lie a pebble striking a still pool your actions reverberate throughout society.

Under UBI we could all have shares in production, unified public ownership of GOP in any nation. It is possible.

Those are private businesses, yet I agree, that is wholly wicked and shameful. We should not support businesses utilizing these extreme methods, but as long as we the people are free in our private lives I am satisfied but see the need for change.

I was referring to what took place under regimes of the past, and how the public was being oppressed.

I would like to see the world work towards happiness and individual freedom, I don't want any forced mandates beyond common sense laws barring others from causing harm to one another.

UBI FUCKING SUCKS SHUT UPPPPPPP

Attached: 1553365203157.jpg (1066x800, 313K)

"Why do you think there was a conflict in the first place?"

Geopolitics. Cuba is very important for US strategic security, because it's close to the coastline and it's located in a weak spot between two coastlines (Carribean and Atlantic).

"Friendly to Cuba"
Yes, very friendly after establishing total economic domination on the island after winning it from Spain in the Spanish-American war and turning it into its geopolitical sphere of influence and essentially a client state.

"until they had ideological differences."
And what do you think caused those ideological differences? Maybe the USSR supporting a regime change in order to send military advisers and nuclear missiles a thousand miles from the US coast?

"They called themselves communist because they were working towards full communism. That's what a "communist" state is."

No, that's what they said they were working towards. States don't actually work towards their own destruction. States work towards their survival and towards the acquisition of geopolitical power, to which ideology is subservient to.
The most important thing to a state is power. Everything else comes second.

THE USSR SENT NUCLEAR MISSLIES BECAUSE THE US HAD SENT NUCLEAR MISSLIES TO TURKEY A FEW MONTHS EARLIER IT WAS DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING WORLD REVOLUTION
SHUT THE FUCK UP REVISIONIST ANARCHIST DUMMY
NUKE AMERICA NUKE AMERICA NUKE AMERICA NUKE AMERICA NUKE AMERICA

Attached: 1504935868013.gif (247x129, 74K)

You brought up a topic of debate and are wondering why I am debating it? You seemed very much in favor of it, hence I stated a counter to it. You initiated it by calling this a "communist board", an inflammatory statement if there ever was one.

as I said, you seem to favor the ideologies you brought forth to discussion. This is why I countered.

Tyranny in all forms is the enemy of mankind. So yes. Violence against nazis/commies/antifa whatever is justified.

Perhaps you shouldn't alain yourself with these ideals if you are not in favor of their base demographic.

This now.

dubs

Your fortune: Average Luck

Attached: 33.jpg (425x319, 33K)

Matching color

has terminal brain damage

My point exactly!
No... you're right. this has been a stable debate. It doesn't belong here though. poor thread... rip

NOW
󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 K 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 I 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 S 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 S 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡

󠛡 󠛡
󠛡 󠛡
󠛡 󠛡
K EEP
I T
S HORT &
S IMPLE

Attached: 2 ez.jpg (960x720, 52K)

That's not good in all cases.
Complexity is needed to describe greater ideas.

To think this debate started from me blogposting about my internet retardation...
//_0

we re all rarted m8
no bad feelings

Oh.. kie! Thxfren for not holding hard feelings against me!
>ユイポスターなし気持ち
youtu.be/dIK3ipf4em0

Attached: vapor1553992895740.png (1080x1920, 192K)

Individual features of communism like worker-owned means of production have not only been tried successfully on small scales, but are still employed today across the world in worker cooperatives and other employee-owned businesses, such as Mondragon corporation in Spain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies

"Our modern oligarchy (which is not capitalist anymore)"

First you say the current system is capitalist, then you say that it is victorious and it has stood the test of time, and now you say it has actually turned into an oligarchy. I wonder how that happened. hmmm....

I'm not surprised about your experiences with Communists in media and real life: communists don't know what they're talking about. My sympathies.

If you think studying economics is enough to understand systems then you are very naive, I'm afraid. Primarily you need to study general systems theory (GST) and related fields such as cybernetics to understand the general principles of systems and systems approach to analysis, but if you want to then concentrate on social systems in particular, then you have to study sociology, history and political science as well. The economy does not exist in isolation from other aspects of social life, but is heavily intertwined with them as part of socio-economic systems, and separating economics into its own separate science was a big mistake of 19th century Classical Liberalism.

"Under UBI we could all have shares in production, unified public ownership of GOP in any nation."
That wouldn't be UBI though. There's already a separate name for what we're talking about now, UBA (universal basic assets).

Once again, I agree about individual freedom.

It's inflammatory depending on your understanding of the word "communism". Obviously our understandings are very different. Although admittedly I did know that that statement would be provocative... on a provocative board.

I don't align myself with any kind of ideal that represents tyranny. If you don't want to use the word "communism", then I'm happy to replace it with something else that is more precise.

How does "dialectical materialist techno-libertarianism" sound?

The best societies are moderate social democracies, which incorporate the best of capitalism and socialism and work out the adverse elements out of both. They also happen to be secular/rational and self-expressionist, so Japan, the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. Divorce yourself from attachments to systems and advocate the one that best facilitates a good life for it's citizens.

dubs
stop
sage

"Divorce yourself from attachments to systems and advocate the one that best facilitates a good life for it's citizens."

I would add "...within the current technological and geopolitical environment".

But yes, as Deng Xiao Ping said, "it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice".

Rosa Luxemburg is turning in her grave right now

two same numbers!

lol

Attached: Spikeman.png (148x125, 1K)