The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Ifreann]

Maybe not this world, try another maybe?

Space communism, you say?

---

In most cases, it isn't justly-earned. Most of it is passed down or built by the proletarian. It is, technically, theirs and always has been.



Cuba is a much smaller island with a smaller economy that the others. Give it a chance.

1. In a free-market capitalist society, the worker willingly signs the contract with the employer and is payed a mutually agreed upon wage predetermined by the signed contract. In return, the worker works for the employer. So, it is technically the employer buying the worker's production - seems fair.
2. It's been decades, and Cuba still uses horse-ridden carts instead of cars for transportation. If the system worked, it would've been apparent by now.

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

---

The universe was not designed, and the current state of human society is not written into the fabric of reality. We don't need the universe to care in order to make a more fair society.

Marxism is the worst way to do that though. As we have plenty learned and known by now.

It doesn't seem like you want to make society more fair at all.

Capitalists have been knowingly poisoning the world for decades to make a profit.

Marxists have knowingly poisoned generations of Students minds,

also the environmental record of the USSR and Red China isn't exactly a shining example either.

Sure.

I care as much about Purgatio's assertions about Marxism as I care about his insane lies about fascists accidentally attacking people with hammers in the course of defending themselves from thrown rocks. If Purgatio posts about the sky being blue, I'd look out a window to check.

Frankly I do not agree often with him, but ya know even a broken clock... eitherway, Marxism is a brainwash ideology designed to indoctrinate people. I on the other hand deprogram and free people.

Send help, my eyes have rolled out of my head.

I don't know(or care, for the record) about you, but I make my money from selling my labour, not from owning the means of production. But I do live under capitalism and have to participate in capitalism if I want to continue living.

Then you might be a wage slave. My sincerest regrets.

Do you think that this is some kind of clever gotcha?

Yes.

Why?

[Strahcoin]

1. In a free-market capitalist society, the worker willingly signs the contract with the employer and is payed a mutually agreed upon wage predetermined by the signed contract. In return, the worker works for the employer. So, it is technically the employer buying the worker's production - seems fair.
2. It's been decades, and Cuba still uses horse-ridden carts instead of cars for transportation. If the system worked, it would've been apparent by now.

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

Of course! One who refuses to contribute to society by working is not entitled to the food grown by others.

[Purgatio]

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

If someone voluntarily chooses not to work or do anything useful or productive with his life, he chooses to suffer the consequences. That is voluntary in the clearest sense of the word, in the same way as someone committing suicide makes a voluntary choice even if an imprudent one that results in his death.

[Ifreann]

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

If someone voluntarily chooses not to work or do anything useful or productive with his life, he chooses to suffer the consequences. That is voluntary in the clearest sense of the word, in the same way as someone committing suicide makes a voluntary choice even if an imprudent one that results in his death.

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

[Nakena]

Maybe not this world, try another maybe?

Space communism, you say?

---

1. In a free-market capitalist society, the worker willingly signs the contract with the employer and is payed a mutually agreed upon wage predetermined by the signed contract. In return, the worker works for the employer. So, it is technically the employer buying the worker's production - seems fair.
2. It's been decades, and Cuba still uses horse-ridden carts instead of cars for transportation. If the system worked, it would've been apparent by now.

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

---

Marxism is the worst way to do that though. As we have plenty learned and known by now.

It doesn't seem like you want to make society more fair at all.

Marxists have knowingly poisoned generations of Students minds,

also the environmental record of the USSR and Red China isn't exactly a shining example either.

Sure.

Frankly I do not agree often with him, but ya know even a broken clock... eitherway, Marxism is a brainwash ideology designed to indoctrinate people. I on the other hand deprogram and free people.

Send help, my eyes have rolled out of my head.

Then you might be a wage slave. My sincerest regrets.



Yes.

Why?

Why?

Because marxism is a totalitarian brainwashing ideology, who in practice more often than not led to disfunctional crank systems and implementations such as bolshevism. It is not helpful in alivating existing problems in modern societies because its presumptive worldview is fundamentally and intrinsically flawed.

The problem is with marxism (I am not even saying or meaning socialism or communism for the record!) because it is a worldview that traces back all the evil in the world to a single factor. It offers a certain idea of how the world works, and its a reductionist, totalitarian and bad one to be trapped in. It is an total blackpill from whoses misery is no escape.

Thus it must be fought at every single level and in every single fashion. It is in it's consequences it can get as bad as Nazism. Bolshevism is the most obvious example of this and must be aggressively engaged and brought down for good.

That is not a good company to be in with, do you would agree?

[GlobalControl]

If someone voluntarily chooses not to work or do anything useful or productive with his life, he chooses to suffer the consequences. That is voluntary in the clearest sense of the word, in the same way as someone committing suicide makes a voluntary choice even if an imprudent one that results in his death.

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

Give me your post count.

[Nakena]

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

Give me your post count.

Saved that hot knife gif.

[Purgatio]

If someone voluntarily chooses not to work or do anything useful or productive with his life, he chooses to suffer the consequences. That is voluntary in the clearest sense of the word, in the same way as someone committing suicide makes a voluntary choice even if an imprudent one that results in his death.

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

Your analogy doesn't account for the difference between an act and an omission. There is a big difference between a threat to actively-infringe on and invade/injure a person's moral autonomy on the one hand, and an exercise of one's moral autonomy to omit to do something for the benefit of another person. In the same way as there's a big difference between rape and denying someone sex when they request it, or between enslavement and denying your labour to someone who requests it, there's a big difference between murdering someone and consensually-refusing resources you own or possess to a person who requests it, even if it carries an undesirable consequence like death.

To put it in concrete terms, there are people out there right now who are blind and could be given sight if a cornea was donated to them. Have you 'blinded' them by not donating one of your corneas to them? Obviously not, because you aren't morally-responsible for giving them blindness in the first place, you've omitted to do something that could benefit them but even though your omission carries a negative but-for consequence (ie the guy remains blind) you're not morally responsible for that consequence. That's very different walking up to someone and stabbing their eyes out, actively-rendering them blind. In that case, you are morally responsible for their blindness

Similarly, we can't ignore the distinction between omitting to donate or gift your resources to someone else for their benefit, and stabbing them to death.

[Ifreann]

Space communism, you say?

---

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

---

It doesn't seem like you want to make society more fair at all.




Sure.


Send help, my eyes have rolled out of my head.


Why?

Why?

Because marxism...

I was asking why you think that you pointing out that I live under capitalism and thus have to participate in capitalism is some kind of clever gotcha.

---

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

Give me your post count.

You call that a knife?

---

Is it really voluntary when the alternative is death? If someone demands my wallet at knifepoint, and I hand it over, was that really a voluntary exchange?

Your analogy doesn't account for the difference between an act and an omission.

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

[Nakena]

I was asking why you think that you pointing out that I live under capitalism and thus have to participate in capitalism is some kind of clever gotcha.

Because I got ya and ya know it ^^

How does it feels though? It comes across as pretty frustrating, like trawling through a murky swamp of marxist gutter that is slowly consuming the protagonist. Does that feel familiar?

[Strahcoin]

Your analogy doesn't account for the difference between an act and an omission.

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange. Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

[Ifreann]

I was asking why you think that you pointing out that I live under capitalism and thus have to participate in capitalism is some kind of clever gotcha.

Because I got ya and ya know it ^^

Got me how? You're just pointing out something true that was never in dispute.

How does it feels though? It comes across as pretty frustrating,

I manage.

like trawling through a murky swamp of marxist gutter that is slowly consuming the protagonist. Does that feel familiar?

...what?

---

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange.

What's voluntary about it when the alternative is death?

Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

Lots of people work when they don't need to. Lots of people work for no monetary reward.

[Thermodolia]

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange. Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

If there’s the pain of death to do something it automatically ceases to be voluntary

[Purgatio]

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

Its completely relevant because something ceases to be voluntary only if it is 'under duress'. And the very concept of 'duress' requires a certain threatened injury on your person. If you can't show that withholding resources is a form of active injury then whatever negative consequence is involved is not 'under duress'.

[Skyhooked]

Does it include free booze for everyone? Anyone? This is what I need to know, before I decide. As far as I know, this ideology relies alot on human nature, and doesn't take the flaws in account. So I guess, there would be free booze, although possibly some low quality moonshine in small dose. But free for everyone.

[Nakena]

Because I got ya and ya know it ^^

Got me how? You're just pointing out something true that was never in dispute.

How does it feels though? It comes across as pretty frustrating,

I manage.

like trawling through a murky swamp of marxist gutter that is slowly consuming the protagonist. Does that feel familiar?

...what?

You sound blackpilled af tbqh. Marxism adds an huge chunk on whatever other reasons and factors there may be in the room.

Does it include free booze for everyone? Anyone? This is what I need to know, before I decide. As far as I know, this ideology relies alot on human nature, and doesn't take the flaws in account. So I guess, there would be free booze, although possibly some low quality moonshine in small dose. But free for everyone.

No. booze is degenerate.

[The Emerald Legion]

Maybe not this world, try another maybe?

Space communism, you say?

---

1. In a free-market capitalist society, the worker willingly signs the contract with the employer and is payed a mutually agreed upon wage predetermined by the signed contract. In return, the worker works for the employer. So, it is technically the employer buying the worker's production - seems fair.
2. It's been decades, and Cuba still uses horse-ridden carts instead of cars for transportation. If the system worked, it would've been apparent by now.

"willingly" here meaning "you will starve to death in the street if you do not sell your labour".

---

Marxism is the worst way to do that though. As we have plenty learned and known by now.

It doesn't seem like you want to make society more fair at all.

Marxists have knowingly poisoned generations of Students minds,

also the environmental record of the USSR and Red China isn't exactly a shining example either.

Sure.

Frankly I do not agree often with him, but ya know even a broken clock... eitherway, Marxism is a brainwash ideology designed to indoctrinate people. I on the other hand deprogram and free people.

Send help, my eyes have rolled out of my head.

Then you might be a wage slave. My sincerest regrets.



Yes.

Why?

I mean. You could also not sell your labor and use violence to take what you need to live. That's certainly discouraged but always an option.

[Thermodolia]

Got me how? You're just pointing out something true that was never in dispute.


I manage.

...what?

You sound blackpilled af tbqh. Marxism adds an huge chunk on whatever other reasons and factors there may be in the room.

Does it include free booze for everyone? Anyone? This is what I need to know, before I decide. As far as I know, this ideology relies alot on human nature, and doesn't take the flaws in account. So I guess, there would be free booze, although possibly some low quality moonshine in small dose. But free for everyone.

No. booze is degenerate.

Not drinking vodka is capitalism.

[Strahcoin]

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange.

What's voluntary about it when the alternative is death?

Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

Lots of people work when they don't need to. Lots of people work for no monetary reward.

1. You value your life more than your labor. Therefore, you exchange your labor in return for your life.
Also, the alternative is to grow your own food, not necessarily to die.
2. Because they already have enough money from the jobs, from which they earn money, that they have worked in order to survive. If they didn't have enough money in order to survive, then volunteering would be their lowest priority, and feeding themselves would be their highest.

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange. Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

If there’s the pain of death to do something it automatically ceases to be voluntary

Except that in free-market capitalism, you have the choice to produce your own food. Also, nobody is stopping you for accepting death if you value your labor more than your life.

[Nakena]

You sound blackpilled af tbqh. Marxism adds an huge chunk on whatever other reasons and factors there may be in the room.



No. booze is degenerate.

Not drinking vodka is capitalism.

I got some in my fridge still.

[Nova Cyberia]

I've still yet to see a valid reason for how a failed ideology pushed by the bitter and envious will save the world.

[Purgatio]

The pain of death is the incentive that motivates you to make the voluntary exchange. Otherwise, why would anybody work if they don't need to do so in order to survive?

If there’s the pain of death to do something it automatically ceases to be voluntary

If I threaten to kill you in order to induce you to enter a contract, yes, the contract is no longer voluntary owing to the doctrine of duress. If, however, you are under a threat of death from an external cause that I'm not responsible for, and I promise to alleviate that threat in exchange for something, that contract is not made under duress.

Otherwise, contracts for bodyguard protection would all be void.

[Cenomannos infecisse santo Insel]

I've still yet to see a valid reason for how a failed ideology pushed by the bitter and envious will save the world.

It will destroy it so there will be no world to save.

[Aureumterra]

I've still yet to see a valid reason for how a failed ideology pushed by the bitter and envious will save the world.

It’s all built upon a hateful psychological concept, which, no wonder is the reason why most communist leaders have been brutal dictators who didn’t care about anyone at all.

Communism is basically this:
My neighbor has a better car than I do
I do not like my neighbor has a better car than me
Instead of me making poor choices, it’s the system that’s against me

[Kubra]

If there’s the pain of death to do something it automatically ceases to be voluntary

If I threaten to kill you in order to induce you to enter a contract, yes, the contract is no longer voluntary owing to the doctrine of duress. If, however, you are under a threat of death from an external cause that I'm not responsible for, and I promise to alleviate that threat in exchange for something, that contract is not made under duress.

Otherwise, contracts for bodyguard protection would all be void.

Roman firefighters