The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Grand Proudhonia]

I think my point has been missed, in that what is natural is not necessarily desirable.

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

Nothing because that isn't inherently private property or at least by Mutualist definitions it isnt... I follow a theory known as occupation and use which allocates land rights to the individuals that work and use the land thus and individual laborer and his family would have every right to have a house on land that they are individually creating output and labor from... The small business one is odd because Mutualists disregard the idea of private business in favor of worker cooperatives so yeah, the small business is still exploiting an individuals labor

[The Batorys]

LOL. No it won't. communism is a cancer. Stifles innovation, gives you things like the Trabant and makes everyone equally miserable.
Fuck communism.

No, you're cancer.

See, I can throw out hyperbolic statements, too.

[Grand Proudhonia]

LOL. No it won't. communism is a cancer. Stifles innovation, gives you things like the Trabant and makes everyone equally miserable.
Fuck communism.

No, you're cancer.

See, I can throw out hyperbolic statements, too.

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

[Strahcoin]

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

Who died and made John Locke the king of what is natural and what is not lmao

One published philosopher is not the end all be all, especially when said private property at the time included the literal ownership of individuals... I mean Locke literally defends slavery so his idea of liberty being a natural right, though I agree with him, is extremely flawed private property is not a right

Locke is considered the Father of Liberalism.

Also, slavery was commonplace in the past. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, even though they supported and founded a free constitutional republic. Now, the private property to which we refer - such as tomatoes, tables, houses, and businesses - are not human.

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

That’s odd. I didn’t realize I was John Locke. And yeah, no. Ignoring the fact that one could theoretically allow the right to life (although not a natural right, because that’s just theism without God) I don’t really recognize those either. Not being a classical liberal and all.

If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man. I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

you know, it's funny you mention slavery....

On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

[Kowani]

That’s nice. But no.

You a psychopath? If no, then you have a sense of morality.

Do you consider murder bad? What about theft? Do you generally consider it good to be honest with friends? These are all basic things that form morality.

In order: No, no, no.

[Nova Cyberia]

You a psychopath? If no, then you have a sense of morality.

Do you consider murder bad? What about theft? Do you generally consider it good to be honest with friends? These are all basic things that form morality.

In order: No, no, no.

That's not an argument. I'm trying to actually have a conversation with you here.

[Nakena]

No, you're cancer.

See, I can throw out hyperbolic statements, too.

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

wat

That was unexpected.

More detail.

You a psychopath? If no, then you have a sense of morality.

Do you consider murder bad? What about theft? Do you generally consider it good to be honest with friends? These are all basic things that form morality.

In order: No, no, no.

Elaborate on this edgyness.

[Antef]

Well yes, I believe that the state should own some of the more crucial sectors, such as oil, natural gas, etc. have any of you heard of the mexican oil fiasco and nationalization of it? to avoid becoming a 'modern colony' it is a must to do so, lest you buy your own country's resources at a deficit, it is fucking dumb to import wheat when your industry made out of 70% farmers in Asia or Middle east, because private business would rather sell the goods internationally than sell it to the national market, especially when it comes to rare resources, such as steel and chromium, oil, natural gas, to name a few.

Capitalism only works if you are US, or Germany, if you are, lets say, fucking Yemen, then you are fucked, because your national money isn't worth a fuck, you are practically a colony from the 19th century because the private business is just going to sell your own oil off the country, taxes wouldn't be worth a damn either.

Communism was a failure, but it had good ideas, equality is important, but USSR is not what I would call a communist country, there is a reason why USSR doesn't exist now.

Basically, Nationalization is a must if you are a 'third world country' because in capitalism, you can only trade with dolar or euro, depending on where you want to trade, and since your national money is like 1 dolar to 1 million, it gets a tad bit delirious, you'd rather extract your own resources and use it yourself, at the very least you are getting your money worth, not having to worry about tax evasions and become more independent in general

[Grand Proudhonia]

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

wat

That was unexpected.

More detail.

In order: No, no, no.

Elaborate on this edgyness.

Im refering to the epstein case which I think is much more widespread than we think it is

[Grand Proudhonia]

Who died and made John Locke the king of what is natural and what is not lmao

One published philosopher is not the end all be all, especially when said private property at the time included the literal ownership of individuals... I mean Locke literally defends slavery so his idea of liberty being a natural right, though I agree with him, is extremely flawed private property is not a right

Locke is considered the Father of Liberalism.

Also, slavery was commonplace in the past. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, even though they supported and founded a free constitutional republic. Now, the private property to which we refer - such as tomatoes, tables, houses, and businesses - are not human.

That’s odd. I didn’t realize I was John Locke. And yeah, no. Ignoring the fact that one could theoretically allow the right to life (although not a natural right, because that’s just theism without God) I don’t really recognize those either. Not being a classical liberal and all.

If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man. I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.

you know, it's funny you mention slavery....

On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

Private property is land, things like tables are considered personal property and are aok in marxist thought

[Nakena]

wat

That was unexpected.

More detail.



Elaborate on this edgyness.

Im refering to the epstein case which I think is much more widespread than we think it is

I agree on that.

[The Batorys]

No, you're cancer.

See, I can throw out hyperbolic statements, too.

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

So capitalism, then.

[The Batorys]

Who died and made John Locke the king of what is natural and what is not lmao

One published philosopher is not the end all be all, especially when said private property at the time included the literal ownership of individuals... I mean Locke literally defends slavery so his idea of liberty being a natural right, though I agree with him, is extremely flawed private property is not a right

Locke is considered the Father of Liberalism.

Also, slavery was commonplace in the past. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, even though they supported and founded a free constitutional republic. Now, the private property to which we refer - such as tomatoes, tables, houses, and businesses - are not human.

That’s odd. I didn’t realize I was John Locke. And yeah, no. Ignoring the fact that one could theoretically allow the right to life (although not a natural right, because that’s just theism without God) I don’t really recognize those either. Not being a classical liberal and all.

If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man. I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.

you know, it's funny you mention slavery....

On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

There's no such thing as a natural right.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

So capitalism, then.

Yeah, exactly

[Rojava Free State]

Again, the true cancer is the current political elite that feeds on corporatism and, not surprisingly but still a recent development, pedophilia

So capitalism, then.

The rich elites seem to be hellbent on making sure we remain the working poor

[Kowani]

If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man.

Yes. I address this point very well in my sig.

I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.

Ignoring the historical ignorance for a moment, there has yet to be any society which left a group of rights that they could not abolish encoded into law.

In order: No, no, no.

That's not an argument. I'm trying to actually have a conversation with you here.

That you don’t like my moral nihilism is not my fault.

In order: No, no, no.

Elaborate on this edgyness.

Not really much to elaborate on…moral nihilism and all that.

[The Batorys]

Locke is considered the Father of Liberalism.

Also, slavery was commonplace in the past. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, even though they supported and founded a free constitutional republic. Now, the private property to which we refer - such as tomatoes, tables, houses, and businesses - are not human.


If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man. I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.


On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

Private property is land, things like tables are considered personal property and are aok in marxist thought

Indeed. More specifically, private property is capital.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Also lol, Chinese and other aincent civilizations also banned slavery from time to time... westerners were not the first...

[Nova Cyberia]

If the right to life is not a natural right, then it must be an artificial right. That would indicate that it is given by man, and it can therefore be taken away by man.

Yes. I address this point very well in my sig.

I think that's what communist dictatorships used, and we know how that ended out.

Ignoring the historical ignorance for a moment, there has yet to be any society which left a group of rights that they could not abolish encoded into law.

That's not an argument. I'm trying to actually have a conversation with you here.

That you don’t like my moral nihilism is not my fault.

Elaborate on this edgyness.

Not really much to elaborate on…moral nihilism and all that.

So you would murder your mother if you felt that it would personally benefit you?

[Nova Cyberia]

Private property is land, things like tables are considered personal property and are aok in marxist thought

Indeed. More specifically, private property is capital.

Thank you for bringing this earth-shattering revelation to our attention.

[Diarcesia]

From what I remember, pre-agricultural societies are more collectivist than individualistic. Being outside of your commune is virtually a death sentence at the time.

Yes, and then human society evolved beyond that. Not everyone has to spend their entire life in their village anymore.

So I wouldn't be too sure with capitalism being the end state of the human economy's evolution. Sure, its implementation is better than communism's. The moment something better comes along, capitalism's obsolete.

Would it be Communism 2: Electric Boogaloo as in OP's assertion? Not holding my breath on that.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Indeed. More specifically, private property is capital.

Thank you for bringing this earth-shattering revelation to our attention.

That snarkiness was kinda uncalled for but ok

[Antityranicals]

So capitalism, then.

The rich elites seem to be hellbent on making sure we remain the working poor

That's not capitalism! In capitalism, the rich elite have no power to ensure you remain poor.

[Kowani]

Yes. I address this point very well in my sig.

Ignoring the historical ignorance for a moment, there has yet to be any society which left a group of rights that they could not abolish encoded into law.


That you don’t like my moral nihilism is not my fault.


Not really much to elaborate on…moral nihilism and all that.

So you would murder your mother if you felt that it would personally benefit you?

My mother died when I was 9.

The rich elites seem to be hellbent on making sure we remain the working poor

That's not capitalism! In capitalism, the rich elite have no power to ensure you remain poor.

Categorically Wrong.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thank you for bringing this earth-shattering revelation to our attention.

That snarkiness was kinda uncalled for but ok

This forum consists of nothing but snark and bait lol