What do you think of Communism

[Redwood Ridge]

The ideal end state of Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society. But that's a bad thing, because it describes tribal living. It is anti-progress. When you ask what the aim of a Socialist is, they (usually) might start off innocent: advocating for universal healthcare, free college, affordable housing, etc. But when you ask them "what's next?", all will invariably describe a transition into this utopian vision of society. Those who tell you that they don't think it's currently feasible ARE still socialist, but they're trying to hide it. And this workers utopia is brought about only after the revolutionaries have propped up enough revolutions elsewhere, in order to subvert enough of the world that they become the dominant power bloc, and then is able to impose its will on the rest of the planet; whether they wanted it or not.

So progress is more class, more money, more state?
hey i'll take all 3, to go

Consequentialist Ethics forms the philosophical justification for, and the logic behind, utopian ideologies such as Fascism and Socialism. If you can identify a quality as having infinite value, then you can commit any number of atrocities to obtain that value, and your ethical evaluations will still come off in the green. What does it matter if millions of workers starve to death in mass famines, if it means the workers paradise industrializes in 10 years instead of 50? What does it matter if you collectivize all property and purge all who resist you as reactionaries, if it means you create your stateless, moneyless, and classless society and bring about the end of history? If the final end is good enough, then you can justify any number of smaller bad ends along the way, because the ethical calculation will always be a net positive, because the needs of the collective override any personal rights an individual may have. That is what the Socialists, and by extension Communist, believe. That is why Conservatives and Liberals alike must oppose them.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You think capitalism is a totally voluntary system wherein goods, services and labour are exchanged totally freely with absolutely no external pressures other than just the primal urge to engage in commerce?

Nope.

Then there are bars, and Australian does not see them.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So progress is more class, more money, more state?
hey i'll take all 3, to go

Consequentialist Ethics forms the philosophical justification for, and the logic behind, utopian ideologies such as Fascism and Socialism. If you can identify a quality as having infinite value, then you can commit any number of atrocities to obtain that value, and your ethical evaluations will still come off in the green. What does it matter if millions of workers starve to death in mass famines, if it means the workers paradise industrializes in 10 years instead of 50? What does it matter if you collectivize all property and purge all who resist you as reactionaries, if it means you create your stateless, moneyless, and classless society and bring about the end of history? If the final end is good enough, then you can justify any number of smaller bad ends along the way, because the ethical calculation will always be a net positive, because the needs of the collective override any personal rights an individual may have. That is what the Socialists, and by extension Communist, believe. That is why Conservatives and Liberals alike must oppose them.

How is this different from the conservative/liberal ideal wherein capitalism must be upheld no matter the cost in human life?

What is 50.000 Somalis next to maintaining capitalism.

[Kubra]

Ok but we still need more regulations, right? So which ones should we start on first?
Like yo, I got an excuse for being vague on communism, it's hard to describe the abolition of money. It's much less hard to describe moderate political and economic reforms, you feel?

First and foremost protect unions. Companies should not be able to stop workers from unionizing, in theory or in practice. Close any loopholes that appear. Unions empower workers to protect themselves faster and more specifically than the government can.

Child labor needs to go; that's been done, but it's worth revisiting to make sure loopholes don't pop up anytime soon.

A minimum wage (that you can live on) needs to be instituted and updated with inflation. Close any loopholes companies find to squeeze money out of their workers.

Laws need to make sure working conditions are safe; specific cases can be outlawed and an investigation can be mandated maybe if you get a suspicious amount of injuries. I'm not a legislator, nor an expert, but you get the general idea.

Income tax should be favored over basically every other type of tax because it puts the greatest burden on those who can carry it (i.e. rich people). Sales tax and others distribute it equally, even on those who cannot carry it well (i.e. poor people and workers).

Make anti-corruption legislation so that politicians actually implement these and aren't in the pockets of the companies they're supposed to regulate. Maybe don't have big companies fund political campaigns.

There are lots of minute details that could be fairer; people smarter than me would look at these cases and decide what to legislate, if at all. For example, workers need to notify their employers if they want to quit but employers need not provide such a warning before firing them. I don't know enough details about this to have an opinion, but maybe something could change here.

Aight I'm on a proper keyboard so I can write something long-ish instead of driveby mobile posts, let's get started
So, protect unions. Won't catch me saying no. However, could you elaborate *how*? Which particular powers against union organising ought to be removed from the employers repertoire?

Oh, we totally have child labour. The US for example has a specific exemption for agricultural labour that sees kids as young as 10, often migrants, working the same hours a day as their age in a notoriously unsafe field (haha get it) of work. So that's something that would have to be better regulated, buuuuuut it's kind of difficult considering agricultural labour is A) super in demand and B) suuuuuper sensitive to wage increases.
Then of course there's the matter of child labour abroad, and for reasons related largely to differential costs in labour is not something that is liable to be regulated away. Hell that circles back to union protection, because I don't believe the US has figured out a law that prevents coca cola from sending out right wing death squads to stop union drives.

Minimum wage is tricky business, and falls under the general topic of poor people getting paid more. You see poor people are the kind of people who will spend more on the kind of goods that go into CoL calculations when their wages go up, due to being poor. Demand goes up, supply does not, and the irony then is that greater bargaining power by workers, of which minimum wage is included, becomes a factor in higher rates of inflation. It's of course not the only factor, but it's a favoured one to blame for obvious reasons.

On income tax>sales tax, I mean hell yeah bro, that was actually one of Marx's biggest things. It's one of the few concrete political policies he convinced actual political parties to advocate. But like man, it's saying something that even the Soviet Union, the land of Marx, actually went ahead and put out a sales tax, which is weird because you'd think they of all places could have just taxed from income to the same effect.

[Kubra]

So progress is more class, more money, more state?
hey i'll take all 3, to go

Consequentialist Ethics forms the philosophical justification for, and the logic behind, utopian ideologies such as Fascism and Socialism. If you can identify a quality as having infinite value, then you can commit any number of atrocities to obtain that value, and your ethical evaluations will still come off in the green. What does it matter if millions of workers starve to death in mass famines, if it means the workers paradise industrializes in 10 years instead of 50? What does it matter if you collectivize all property and purge all who resist you as reactionaries, if it means you create your stateless, moneyless, and classless society and bring about the end of history? If the final end is good enough, then you can justify any number of smaller bad ends along the way, because the ethical calculation will always be a net positive, because the needs of the collective override any personal rights an individual may have. That is what the Socialists, and by extension Communist, believe. That is why Conservatives and Liberals alike must oppose them.

Oh
ok
so progress is or is not more state, more money, and more class? I thought we were clear on that, now I'm not so sure.

[Redwood Ridge]

Consequentialist Ethics forms the philosophical justification for, and the logic behind, utopian ideologies such as Fascism and Socialism. If you can identify a quality as having infinite value, then you can commit any number of atrocities to obtain that value, and your ethical evaluations will still come off in the green. What does it matter if millions of workers starve to death in mass famines, if it means the workers paradise industrializes in 10 years instead of 50? What does it matter if you collectivize all property and purge all who resist you as reactionaries, if it means you create your stateless, moneyless, and classless society and bring about the end of history? If the final end is good enough, then you can justify any number of smaller bad ends along the way, because the ethical calculation will always be a net positive, because the needs of the collective override any personal rights an individual may have. That is what the Socialists, and by extension Communist, believe. That is why Conservatives and Liberals alike must oppose them.

How is this different from the conservative/liberal ideal wherein capitalism must be upheld no matter the cost in human life?

What is 50.000 Somalis next to maintaining capitalism.

The problem with this point of view is that it implies that the government is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing you. It's not, there is something called individual responsibility. This doesn't mean that those 50,000 Somalis aren't suffering and that they shouldn't be cared for in some capacity, in-fact I'm all for the welfare state as a means of giving the poor a chance to reclaim that agency they lack for whatever socioeconomic reason. But I do see it for what it is, the welfare under capitalism isn't some grand moral project which we should swear our undying allegiance to, it's a practical solution to a real world problem.

Unlike with Socialist Solidarity, in which the people are giving out of guilt, welfare isn't done as some part of building a post-capitalist utopia like with mutual aid, it is done through state retaliation via taxation. That is why the true egalitarian position to help out human lives is in-fact charity, because of the fact charity by definition is voluntary and not a coerced activity, which isn't present in the other methods of helping the poor.

Socialism is institutionalized theft, where it's normal to point at whoever has more than you and call them a capitalist oppressor, a counter-revolutionary, a bourgeoise, a kulak, and then use those labels as consequentialist justification to steal from them. Unlike Socialism, Capitalism doesn't condition people to belittle and hate, and weaponize victimization. It does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness, where if everybody owns everything collectively, why not just take everything you see?

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

[Neanderthaland]

"Socializing is socialism, a community is communism."
-an introvert

"No man is an Island" - Some commie scumbag. Probably.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Private property is not a human right. The closest thing as defined by the United Nations is "property"

"Property" can refer to a variety of different things, not just private property. Private property by the way, is not your house or your computer or your iPhone. It's the factories, farms, businesses and enterprises that the bourgeois' run, and no, you will never be rich enough to buy or run any of them.
"Arbitrarily", by the way, has never applied to any communist regime (the Khmer Rouge was not communist, if you want to go down that road then go ahead) by definition alone. Property was not taken away (translation: nationalized and redistributed) from the Kulaks because of Stalin's personal whim- it was "taken away" because that's how socialism is intended to work: publicizing the means of production and removing it from the hands of a few private groups and individuals.
Using "Communist countries still had a state and money!" is not an argument because it misses the entire point of communism. Communism is not about abolishing the state, class system and money immediately because that is impossible. The state is not abolished, it simply fades away with time and inevitably the state is gone. This happens over a long period of time and cannot happen instantaneously. Think of like how you used to have something that you used a lot, and gradually over time you started using it less and less until eventually you just stopped using it all-together.

The abolition of money is the same thing: without currency the internal and external economies of countries collapse because a non-socialist (and non-communist) economy is built around the imaginary idea that a piece of glorified cloth-paper is worth something. Money gradually loses its purpose in the construction of socialism and communism as people are able to produce things so efficiently and easily that scarcity is rare and so trying to assign a price tag to something that one could produce so cheaply and so easily that it would make no sense using currency in the first place.

Once again there is no such thing as "perfect". No self-respecting communist says "perfect communist" and again no actual communist says "That wasn't real communism" or "We haven't tried real communism yet". That's a boogeyman living rent free in your head.

I was attempting to convince another anti-communist to give communism credit where it is do; I think the common "that wasn't real communism" defense is actually valid, and that we need to look elsewhere to debate communism.

No it's not because once again there is only one definition of communism and socialism. What people usually mean when they say "that wasn't real communism" can be translated as "Hmm, this method of utilizing the dictatorship of the proletariat to transition from capitalism to socialism failed". Of course there's also another perspective which is they seriously believe that communism is when... uhm- nationalize stuff.

Whether people have a right to this or that is inherently up for debate; I believe people do have not just a right to property, but also private, productive property. And workers can own productive property, too. It does sort of include my computer, because I could write a book and start selling that with it. Small businesses are not wealthy aristocrats bettering themselves at everyone's expense; they are regular people who decided they're going to better their place in society, and they are reasonably common

You're right that you can use your laptop to write books and sell them. But once again... *anything* can be used to make a profit. I actually legitimately mean anything, without any exceptions whatsoever. Yes, even the most heinous things you can think of. That however does not mean that they are intended for that purpose. A house can be used to make a profit in a variety of different ways... does that mean it's supposed to be used to make a profit? Personal property and private property are distinguished by what they are actually intended to be used for. You can make money by writing books on your laptop and selling them... but that doesn't make it private property. The laptop isn't what produces the labor- you are the producer. The book is your produce. It's not the laptop's... which is why if you make... literally anything by yourself, even with equipment- it's not private property, it's personal property.

Private property is way more complicated than "this thing can make a profit". Farms, businesses and stores are private properties, and they usually comprise of several different moving interconnected parts that all... well- usually not, synchronize to make a profit. Farms are intended to make a profit. Businesses are intended to make a profit. Stores are intended to make a profit. That is their primary goal above everything else and that is their intended purpose. You could use a Walmart as a massive mansion. Doesn't mean it's intended to be one.

Most small businesses in the United States are owned and founded by 50+ year old white men with bachelors degrees. Small businesses as a term is intentionally vague because it can mean anything from a mom and pop store with 6 to 8 employees total for one location only, or a company with numerous locations with up to 500 employees by US standards. If a business has less than 500 employees or has less than $7.5 million in annual receipts it's considered a "small business"... so keep in mind that a company making millions a year can still be considered "small" by the US government.
What you're talking about probably isn't small businesses, but rather micro-enterprises- think your mom and pop store. They make up 95% of registered companies in the United States and most of them are relatively small.

Thank you for improving my perspective of what is meant by being rid of the state and money. Even if one disagrees with an idea, one should know things about it.

I'm glad that I was able to educate you on an alternative viewpoint and I'm impressed by this viewpoint.

Capitalism isn't perfect, as I have said. I think regulating inhumane practices is the key to a lot of things, but ultimately it will never create a perfect society; I don't think that is possible.

Communism is also not perfect, but we don't claim to strive to build a perfect society. Money talks. Communism is shutting it up- that is communist society.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

Fellow anti-communist here;

It is not interchangeable. All the dystopias have been socialism, communism has not been tried. Socialism is the USSR, etc. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with no private property.

Both have problems, but we need to look elsewhere to find them. Even in a theoretical perfect application, the right to private property is violated. In socialism, subsidiarity is violated. In communism, nothing stops more revolutions from happening, this time motivated by greed of some workers wanting to get more than others. Capitalism harnesses greed to move forward, but communism is held back by it.

... Actually no. I thought this for a long time and I don't blame people for thinking this. Communism and socialism... are synonyms, kind of. Because what socialism actually refers to is simply a lower stage in the development of communism, it's not a "transition". Socialism is also stateless, classless and moneyless, the difference between it and communism (which I spent a few days trying to wrap my head around) is the motives for why people work.
The USSR wasn't socialist and it wasn't communist, it was a sovereign state dedicated to establishing socialism- better known as a socialist state. Until the state withers away and classes and currency have done the same, any socialist state is merely a workers'-ran welfare state without private property.

So yes, socialism and communism are interchangeable... kind of

[Australian rePublic]

Metaphor my arse. What's the bet that he does some airy-fairy job such as painter or philosopher and claims that he suddenly would become a blue collar worker with no incentives, despite failing to do so with an incentive, but he's just too embarrassed to admit it?

I don't see what one's job is under the current system has to do with incentives to work in a hypothetical future system.

Again, if he's not incentivised to work a crappy, manual labour job with a monetary incentive, why would he work one without the monetary incentive?

[Redwood Ridge]

There is a saying that barring criminal activity, the state has no place in the nation's bedrooms. It is an appeal to the concept of the personal, the private life existing outside of the state's purview. But as the Left stipulates, if everything is political, then certainly the personal is political, and if the personal is political then every personal act is a political act. And if every act is a political act, then every act is the concern of the state, because the existence of the state is to be concerned with the political.

The Socialist, and by extension Communist, conception of collectivization, communalization, whatever buzzword their branch of political belief uses to describe class ownership of the MOP is all-encompassing. Outside of it, no virtuous or positive values can exist (much less have value), because if Socialism embodies all that is good in the world then everything that is not Socialism is ontologically evil. Thus it is a totalitarian ideology---and any strain of Socialist society seeks to absorb everything into its in-group---it is a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values, interpreting, developing, and potentiating the whole life of the Proletariat.

The exact type of people we're dealing with believe that the personal is political, and must be treated as such. The private life is simply something to be scorned, just talk to any Socialist about concepts like private property, and watch them reject the liberal values of privacy and consent. I'm sure this is fairly self-evident of a point that I don't have to quote Karl Marx's rejection of liberal privacy. There is nothing that the ideology considers neutral, or unaligned, or outside of its scope of orientating everything towards praxis. They are complete theories, therefore there is no topic conceivable that they have no position in, and this is not a liberal point of view.

Liberalism, and therefore Liberal Capitalism by nature of association, does not encounter this bumblefuck of government overreach. Everything may have a political component, that's a true statement, but it is also equally valuable to assume there is a time and place to deal with those politics. Separation between the private and political life is recognized, and it is to be expected, as it gives people the opportunity to be human beings. This why you don't see ordinary people chastising themselves for buying a Nestle ice cream. Nestle as a company is up to some shitty business practices, and you have the choice of not buying from their brand. However, if you end up buying some Nestle products on occasion, you aren't expected to shame yourself on Twitter for being a raging hypocrite. It is in-fact normal and healthy to adopt a separation of the private and the political, otherwise you'll always be bitter and joyless at just about everything. If everything's political then every second spent on a hobby that doesn't relate to the political end goal, when you could instead be directly contributing to the realization of the Workers' Utopia is an opportunity loss; a permanent setback in the Left's collective lockstep towards whatever they arbitrarily deems as progress.

[Land of The Furries]

How is this different from the conservative/liberal ideal wherein capitalism must be upheld no matter the cost in human life?

What is 50.000 Somalis next to maintaining capitalism.

The problem with this point of view is that it implies that the government is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing you. It's not, there is something called individual responsibility. This doesn't mean that those 50,000 Somalis aren't suffering and that they shouldn't be cared for in some capacity, in-fact I'm all for the welfare state as a means of giving the poor a chance to reclaim that agency they lack for whatever socioeconomic reason. But I do see it for what it is, the welfare under capitalism isn't some grand moral project which we should swear our undying allegiance to, it's a practical solution to a real world problem.

Unlike with Socialist Solidarity, in which the people are giving out of guilt, welfare isn't done as some part of building a post-capitalist utopia like with mutual aid, it is done through state retaliation via taxation. That is why the true egalitarian position to help out human lives is in-fact charity, because of the fact charity by definition is voluntary and not a coerced activity, which isn't present in the other methods of helping the poor.

Socialism is institutionalized theft, where it's normal to point at whoever has more than you and call them a capitalist oppressor, a counter-revolutionary, a bourgeoise, a kulak, and then use those labels as consequentialist justification to steal from them. Unlike Socialism, Capitalism doesn't condition people to belittle and hate, and weaponize victimization. It does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness, where if everybody owns everything collectively, why not just take everything you see?

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

Actually there's no problem if the entire populous aka the people are slaves. But either way I do agree that it is a philosophy of failure, creed of ignorance, and a gospel of envy aka one of the 7 deadly sins.

[American Legionaries]

Nope.

Then there are bars, and Australian does not see them.

Human beings having physiological needs does not constitute a prison, much less one unique to capitalism.

[Umeria]

I don't see what one's job is under the current system has to do with incentives to work in a hypothetical future system.

Again, if he's not incentivised to work a crappy, manual labour job with a monetary incentive, why would he work one without the monetary incentive?

Presumably because of other incentives.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

How is this different from the conservative/liberal ideal wherein capitalism must be upheld no matter the cost in human life?

What is 50.000 Somalis next to maintaining capitalism.

The problem with this point of view is that it implies that the government is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing you. It's not, there is something called individual responsibility.

That is literally not what socialism is at all.
"Hey, the state should actually treat its people like human beings and ensure their well-being by ensuring food security, affordable housing and free heal-"
"UHM... SOUNDS LIKE A NANNY STATE TO ME."

This doesn't mean that those 50,000 Somalis aren't suffering and that they shouldn't be cared for in some capacity, in-fact I'm all for the welfare state as a means of giving the poor a chance to reclaim that agency they lack for whatever socioeconomic reason. But I do see it for what it is, the welfare under capitalism isn't some grand moral project which we should swear our undying allegiance to, it's a practical solution to a real world problem.

Welfare is not a "capitalism" thing. It exists because capitalism is above all else focused on profit regardless of morals. The problem with that is that there can be opposition and so when people stop working, capitalism makes less money. Capitalism is faced with two options: Make less money than before but still make money by passing token reforms, or don't do anything and don't make any money at all. They choose the second option and this also kills two birds with one stone as it also targets socialism and tries to put it out before it can.
Again, welfare is not the same thing as constructing a socialist society. Welfare is only the icing on top- the government should not have to help people in need because there should not be anyone in need, there shouldn't be food insecurity, there shouldn't be financial instability. This is surprisingly easier when your economy isn't ran by randomly changing lines on a graph because people decide "Hmm, I will sell this 2 dollars higher today" only for somebody to say later "Hmm... I will buy this for only one dollar".

Unlike with Socialist Solidarity, in which the people are giving out of guilt, welfare isn't done as some part of building a post-capitalist utopia like with mutual aid, it is done through state retaliation via taxation. That is why the true egalitarian position to help out human lives is in-fact charity, because of the fact charity by definition is voluntary and not a coerced activity, which isn't present in the other methods of helping the poor.

You have no idea what socialism is whatsoever holy fuck. Making sure that your citizens don't die on the streets because they can't afford something as basic as a loaf of bread and medicine isn't a bad thing and it's not what you're describing. Nobody in socialism "gives" anything out of guilt. They don't give anything as a matter of fact because taxes under socialist countries have actually been lower than capitalist countries despite the myth that socialists tax more. The reason why capitalist countries tax you more than socialist ones is that capitalist ones have to spend all that money on their massive state bureaucracy and overbloated military while socialist nations are not worried about profit and invest that money into things that matter like healthcare and other programs that are significantly cheaper to run then a trillion-dollar business known as "the military". I don't know what else to make of this aside from the fact that you genuinely think socialism is when "take away property from this guy and give it to that guy"... which isn't true.

Socialism is institutionalized theft, where it's normal to point at whoever has more than you and call them a capitalist oppressor, a counter-revolutionary, a bourgeoise, a kulak, and then use those labels as consequentialist justification to steal from them. Unlike Socialism, Capitalism doesn't condition people to belittle and hate, and weaponize victimization. It does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness, where if everybody owns everything collectively, why not just take everything you see?

Institutionalized theft from who? The working class? No. They gain the most out of socialism. Institutionalized theft from... the petite bourgeoisie'? Kind of, but most of them are lumped in with the working class. The bourgeoisie? Who make so much money and have so much wealth that they don't need to work for life's needs or wants anymore and as a result lose their connection to other human beings? Yes. We "steal" their property (translation: take away the means of production from a private individual and place it in the hands of the people to ensure that monopolies cannot be formed). Also the claim that capitalism "doesn't condition people to belittle or hate" is such a fucking lie. Remember fascism? Of course you do. Fascism is simply capitalism in decay- corporatism is capitalism, presented as a collectivist "compromise" between capitalism and socialism when it's actually just state capitalism that crushes the proletariat with an iron fist. It's able to achieve all this by putting the blame of all the bad things happening in society on... usually minorities. If something goes bad for capitalism, then it always finds a scapegoat to ensure that it keeps making money. For most of history, it was the Jews. For the cold war, it was the Soviets and communists and now it's any refugee or migrant. People get outraged, they ignore the actual problem and the bourgeoisie can keep making money. Also that last part is stupid because again, that's not what socialism is. Nor does everyone own everything collectively, only the means of production are owned collectively, and they're managed and ran by a council of workers, not just one individual. If you as an individual tried to privatize something and take it for yourself while up against 20+ other people without the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to back you up, you would be royally fucked.

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

Capitalist economies literally crash solely based on lines on a graph. If we're playing the "x is sin of y" game, then capitalism encourages:
1. Pride- capitalism encourages the separation of the bourgeoisie from the proletariat through pride where the bourgeoisie sees themselves as better than the proletariat by having more wealth- and their pride also drives greed.
2. Envy- capitalism encourages envy by having a group of one people control all the wealth and live significantly more comfortable lives than 90% of the population without even feeling a dent in their bank account.
3. Anger- capitalism creates fake problems, directs people to lash out at those problems (like scary immigrants!) and in the process makes sure the proletariat are blind to their actual problems.
4. Sloth- it makes people depressed, lazy and less likely to work knowing that their efforts will be wasted on a system where you have to work to survive and even then your survival is not guaranteed.
5. Greed- I don't need to explain this, I think I explained it already.
6. Gluttony and Lust- it encourages pleasure seeking through coping mechanisms used to escape reality whilst being harmful. This includes both overeating as a response to stress or watching the Hub to escape reality for a few minutes of euphoria.

I can see why you guys think this shit, but it's not out of a place of understanding, it's only out of a place of ignorance.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

I don't see what one's job is under the current system has to do with incentives to work in a hypothetical future system.

Again, if he's not incentivised to work a crappy, manual labour job with a monetary incentive, why would he work one without the monetary incentive?

- Socialism is not focused on profit above human wellbeing
- As a result, corners are not cut and factories are actually safe
- Workers are thus more happy and work more productively now that they're treated like a human being rather than a cog in the machine
- People are able to produce things so easily and efficiently that, due to the laws of supply and demands, there is no scarcity and so when the state is not dedicated to making money, it makes no sense to apply a price tag to things.
- People are then thus able to directly exchange the value of their labor for products without the need for money.

People don't need an incentive to work. They just like to be productive. And I'm not just talking about manual labor here- what some people like to work on, others don't- but they all share one thing in common: People like to work. People have to work under capitalism because without money, they will die, and even then their survival isn't guaranteed since minimum wage in most of the countries can't even rent you an apartment. Eventually the incentive stops being "I need to work to survive and provide for myself" and simply becomes "I want to work, because it makes me feel good and it makes me a productive member of society". The incentive to work BECOMES the natural instinct of humanity: to be productive members of society. Being able to exchange your labor directly for products you need or want is what replaces money, eliminating the middle man entirely. Again, people don't want money, they want things. Money is simply a bartering tool. When people get a paycheck they don't think "Ah, sweet! I have x amount of imaginary currency here!", they think "Aw sweet! Now i can pay my bills and get the things I want!"
Money only has a value because of scarcity, most of which is artificial. You eliminate scarcity and money becomes worthless because again, it is only valuable because of scarcity and when things are not scarce and you don't give a shit about making a profit, money loses its purpose altogether.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

- Socialism is not focused on profit above human wellbeing
- As a result, corners are not cut and factories are actually safe

Chernobyl No. 4 makes a complete mockery out of these postulates.
Actually so does the story of the Tupolev Tu-104

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

- Socialism is not focused on profit above human wellbeing
- As a result, corners are not cut and factories are actually safe

Chernobyl No. 4 makes a complete mockery out of these postulates.

Fair, especially considering the 1965 Soviet economic reforms introduced profits and sales as indications of success- but I was referring to socialism, as in "the lower stage of development in communism that is stateless, classless and currencyless", not the glorified bureaucratic welfare state that was the Soviet Union.

[Partybus]

https://youtu.be/PuZ24VBrbO4

[American Legionaries]

Again, if he's not incentivised to work a crappy, manual labour job with a monetary incentive, why would he work one without the monetary incentive?

Presumably because of other incentives.

What other incentives?

[Umeria]

Presumably because of other incentives.

What other incentives?

If the output of your work is collectively owned, then in theory you're incentivized to work because you partake in the benefits of it. Now, in my opinion this incentive isn't enough, but apparently it is to the person Austrailian republic was arguing with.

[Galactic Powers]

The best thing socialism produced in 100 years was some banger anthems and cool ass state emblems. But that’s about it.

[Scots-Rhodesia]

Nazism is bad but Communism makes Nazism look like simple Liberalism and also Communists seem to be way more aggressive and rude than your average Nazi or Neo-Nazi.

Nazis gas and lynch people. That's way, way worse than your simple rude socialist.

thats what the story tellers tell us but we should do our own research into the Nazis

[American Legionaries]

What other incentives?

If the output of your work is collectively owned, then in theory you're incentivized to work because you partake in the benefits of it. Now, in my opinion this incentive isn't enough, but apparently it is to the person Austrailian republic was arguing with.

You're describing a monetary incentive.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

How is this different from the conservative/liberal ideal wherein capitalism must be upheld no matter the cost in human life?

What is 50.000 Somalis next to maintaining capitalism.

Unlike Socialism, Capitalism doesn't condition people to belittle and hate, and weaponize victimization. It does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness, where if everybody owns everything collectively, why not just take everything you see?

"Capitalism does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness"

Do you believe the shit you write? You create a hateful fetish idol of communism for you to tear into and you turn out inventing capitalism.

Anyway, your points are moot: I am an anarchist, I want the state to stop enforcing capitalism. In that sense I am for more freedom than you will ever be.