Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>595306532 >be one of 10 >share outcome of communal labor >bust my ass and double my freaking work output >see a corresponding 10% increase in my personal profit >notworthit.jpg >decide to slack off altogether >manage to stop working entirely >see only a 10% decrease in my standard of living >lifeisgut.jpg
>>595306532 Not really. I don't dislike it but I don't have the best grasp on exactly how it works or the different variations of it. I do know that it's more of an economic system rather than a governmental system. But from what I understand of it the system is unfeasible at best for humanity. We're just too greedy and more interested in our own self-interest. It was an interesting idea though.
>>595310557 I'd rather not. The reason we have a representative democracy instead of a true democracy is because it turns into a total clusterfuck when there are too many people and people in general are fucking retards.
>>595308901 Who protects the people from the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Say what you want about National Socialism, but at least they killed others, if you were the right ethnicity you didn't have to worry about the state parceling off your private property or sending you to some prison wasteland to work.
In a communist state you can be a faithful ideological commie of the national ethnicity and you still weren't safe. Or you could get punished for climbing up the political/military ladder a bit too fast.
I understand why people like the idea of Communism. I don't get why anyone thinks that it would work. And I really don't get why faggots use Socialist, PRC, or Juche iconography then get all pissy about fascism. And when you criticism Socialism/Communism the only defense being "real communism never happened." Then don't use the icons of one of the most oppressive murderous governments in recent history.
>>595310831 I think people are retards because they have no incentive to not be retards. Someone does the thinking for them so they wont have to. All they need to do is pick who they think is the most handsome and charismatic.
>>595306532 In theory yes, I like Marxism. Marx was a very smart man. For any who haven't read his manifesto, he begins with a rant against capitalism that reads like a prophecy in which he basically predicts every major trend that's happened so far and some which may or may not yet come to pass.
The funny thing is, while he is probably right about capitalism, he was wrong about communism. Sociology was lacking certain key understandings about the human condition that, left unaccounted for (and assuming it's even possible to account for them if they were known), lead to its inviability as a system.
One argument that's been made about state level communism is that Marxism has never really been tried. I agree with this.
The other argument that's been made is that the fact that Marxism as a philosophical construct was unable to reign in the power of state leaders is proof Marxism is inviable. I also agree with this.
More than anything, I like communism in spirit. I like that someone else identified problems witht hte current system and attempted to take a step forward. It was the wrong step, but that's fine. He who doesn't fail also will never succeed.
And that's a huge problem with the developed world today. Entrenched authority has a direct economic imperative in capitalism towards conservative extremism as a means of sustaining itself even when its own sustanence is dangerous to the nation at large. THus we have a culture in which capitalism isn't viewed as a tool, but as an ideology. The trouble with any ideology is that when circumstances change, it's very hard to convince people who think that ideology embodies some inherent ethical quality to move on to the next step.
I'm not an anti capitalist, but I do acknowledge that it is an antiquated system that requires robust domestic industry to be healthy and that's just not what the world has anymore. Industry is spread out globally, not consolodated locally. Lke feudalism, capitalism has run its course.
>>595311167 >only defense being "real communism never happened."
"'Communist state' is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state. None of these states achieved communism, and the term is used no matter to what degree that state or the movement associated with it actually follows communism, if at all."
>>595311768 It run against the grain. Emergent order is the nature of the universe, and all that has emerged in it. Chemistry arranges itself spontaneously. Chemistry gives rise to biology which too is a "next gen" emergent order. Biology gives rise to intelligence, a still further "next gen" expression of emergent order.
It's in our nature to organize and administrate. It's necessary to do so, just from a simple organization point of view. Nothing good about society can exist without organization and most of the best things about society are so damn complicated it's a fucking miracle we ever achieved the level of discipline required to sustain it in the first place.
Yes, it has draw backs, but that's true of any system. Anarchy would maximize for the freedom of the individual, for sure. Ask Charles Manson what he would do with such freedom.
It would be ideal if people all took up the burden of personal responsibility but that's not humanity. Some people cannot, some people WILL NOT behave in a way that is valuable to themselves and others.
Anarchy is a self defeating idea, a way of approaching the problems of the world that is not sustainable due to the nature of the Universe and the matter which came to be within it.
>>595312286 >Post Soviet iconography, people talk about how shitty the Marxist-Leninist states are >Fags try to talk about theoretical societies that have never really happened and can never really happen on an real scale or any real period of time. Again, why I hate commie fags. You want to talk about fantasy utopias, fine, but don't wear a Soviet uniform, post Soviet shit and get pissy when people bad mouth it.
>>595312841 >>595312571 >>595312282 You all make good points, and the insufficiencies of anarchy within this culture are vast. However, I believe that if we build a society that primarily focuses on education and automating the repetitive jobs, it'll free up mankind to pursue the higher goals in life, such as virtue and hedonism. You need not control an educated population, but the road is long.
I didn't believe any of this before I found Jacque Fresco, who ironically enough is a communist, but doesn't realize it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIdk-fgCeQ
>>595313331 I'm sad that IDs were removed, because I never spoke of the Sovjet. What happened in the Sovjet was fucked up and should never have happened. Marx said that communism would rise in the most advanced capitalistic countries, yet it happened in Russia at the end of WW1, in a country torn apart by poverty.
>>595313613 Well, why do you think sweets are sold? Because companiese found out that sugar and fat release endorphines since we're evolutionarily wired to like calories. In an educated society, I suspect healthy lifestyles will be more common than they are today.
>>595313397 The problem with that idea is that it's already come to pass. We have observable, incontrovertible proof that what happens when jobs are automated is that people cannot find necessary entry level jobs and thus society falls into a state of decay. Crime naturally follows poverty.
Your idealism is noble but your math doesn't add up, and that's not my opinion. It's observable fact. Education does not fall out of the sky. It is a damned expensive process and requires an employed populace to pay for it in taxes.
The simple fact of the matter is that there's no real evidence that capitalism can be sustained long term without locally consolidated industrial infrastructure. Yet capitalism provides no pressure to maintain such an infrastructure, and in fact incentivizes globalization so heavily that it's all but guaranteed. It, like anarchy, is a self defeating system. Kudos to it for lasting this long.
>>595313397 I don't think most people even want to be educated. It's something I've found as I've gotten older. And something most academics never realize because they only surround themselves with like minded thinkers.
I feel the vast majority of any society doesn't need to be controlled, they are content with it. As long as they have "bread and games."
As far as creating a machine race of slaves to do all the menial labor, I don't know how that'll work. It would totally revolutionize the economy, and at that point we might all be interconnected in some sort of earth wide thought sharing collective, at that point communism in the broadest sense might be possible.
>>595314261 >>595314202 You are thinking within the economy as it is today. When a machine is built in the agricultural sector, it's meant to make the farmers job easer, not take away his livelihood. And I definitely think people strive to be educated. From birth we're trying to take everything in, but since there's little incentive to continue on this path, as you desperately need a good specialized career to keep up.
It's difficult to imagine how people would live in a different society, so what's important to think about is what kind of incentive we want to give people.
>>595314862 Problem is it'd need to be on a global scale. Otherwise it'd fuck up the economies of developing nations.
And any way. What you are talking about is so far in the future and so hypothetical it doesn't matter. Yes in such a situation economics how we know them will be completely changed. And as a result so will the class structure and society as a whole.
Sure it could mean we are all equal. Hurray. It could equally mean the people running this Global government could just shape society into something far more rigid, as now most jobs have become obsolete, there would be no way to acquire money and thus influence. Seriously who the fuck knows at that point.
>>595314862 WHat it is meant to do and what it does are two different things. Can't help but notice that as agricultural machines became more capable, we went from a society where %95+ of the people were farmers to some degree to less than %1 of the total populace involved directly in agriculture.
In fact, technology did remove the profitability from all but %1 of the farmers.
Some people do strive for education but anon was right in that there are many who are only too happy with the status quo. And frankly there's nothing wrong with that. Expecting everybody to become doctors of some specialized field is no different from communism in terms of the end game.
I don't like your approach to any of this because you're trying to start with the answer first. That's just not how anything works. You have to weigh the evidence, THEN form a conclusion. The facts don't add up here.
>>595315252 Yes, it seems so distant because absolutely no progress is being made. An almost fully automated society is not that farfetched. There's just little incentive within this society to get there. There's no profit. If we had started working towards it 40 years ago, we'd be there today. So let's get started, eh?
>>595315478 >Jobs routinely being crossed off the list because automation is reaching a fevered pitch
>Little incentive to get there.
Only one of these statements is true. And it's not the second one. Capitalism has a HUGE driving engine behind it to become as fully automated as is feasible. And it does work to those ends, to the terrible detriment of the masses.
Ultimately this is self defeating as a broke populace cannot purchase the goods and services these automated processes output. But here in again we see evidence that this is how capitalism works. Short term gains at the expens eof long term stability is fast becoming the rule, not the exception. THe golden parachute mentality is already in effect.
>>595315401 That is almost my point. We think in terms of creating jobs instead of removing them. I don't want a million doctors or millions of scientists. I want those who find medicine interesting to do research in the field. The techonological advancement comprises of a few thousand people. And almost every major scientific discovery happened by chance. We don't need everyone to work, we surpassed this need a long time ago.
>>595315930 Yes, capitalism does get there, but it gets there slowly. It is cheaper to hire a few guys to oversee the production instead of developing complete automation. "Someone else" will do that at some point. Plus the products that are being produced are in large part completely superfluous and only produced because a need was created. We're incredibly inefficient.
>>595316069 And you will not have it. Watson is being employed nationwide as an automated doctor's assistant with the impetus on perfecting it to the point that fewer and fewer humans are necessary. Eventually they will be replaced, whether this is good for the patient or not.
Diversity of ideas is especially important for the medical industry. MORE people ar eneeded, not less, if end patient care is to be the true motivating factor here.
No one becomes a doctor who doesn't want to. No one becomes a farmer who doesn't want to. You are not trapped in a world of people doing things in specialized fields that they don't want to do. You are proposing a solution to a problem you don't have.
Until you find a way to give purchasing power to your magical section of the populace who doesn't work, yes they do in fact need to work.
>>595316245 Extremist nonsense. I don't doubt some collectivists think this way. But Rand painted this in terms of a false dichotomy. COllectivism is not inherently the loss of ALL Individuality. Yes, some is sacrificed, but don't look now, this is just as true in capitalism as it is in communism. And if you really want to tie your dick in a knot, don't realize that corporations ARE collectivism incarnate. Capitalism is NOT anti collectivist, it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE without it.
You really need to educate yourself with sources that aren't dogmatic.
I was born in 1981. In 1981 entry level factory positions were a dime a dozen. They were so common and plentiful that lower middle clas speople had a great deal of purchasing power for an individual and enough collective bargaining power to keep the balance between the needs of the corporation and the needs of the individual in check.
Today, the US industrial infrastructure is a waste land. In less than half of one generation this process has outmoded something like %75 of the work force into subpar service sector work that doesn't pay the bills or maintain a first world standard of living.
>>595313836 Communism ONLY rises in poor shitty countries, and it keeps them as poor shitty countries. Look at Russia before and after communism... China is a Rich shitty country but they have developed a weird hybrid communist economic model.
Communism CAN'T work without harrowing levels of human right violations.Capitalism on the other hand, flourishes just fine without having to murder people and control EVERY facet of their lives.
Communism isn't just an economical system. it also provides strict guidelines for political behaviors, feeding your children, what you can and can't say and believe. It's similar to islam in those broader aspects. I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect, but it's the best we have so far (when properly regulated.)
So basically you're cool with the fact that I will never, ever, accept a collectivist, socialist, or similar state?
Capitalism is the natural order of economics. Collectivism is the imposition of man's will upon that natural order. I reject the will of man, and I live according to my own values. Frequently, my values mirror that of society.
However, I will never pay the majority of my income into any system for the "greater good" and I will avoid all taxes, all fees, and all economic restrictions I can.
To stop me, you literally must kill or imprison me.
>>595306532 Not at all. I prefer capitalism. If I work hard I want some money. The salary for brain surgeon in my country is like the same as some super shitty job in USA, and the tax is like 30% higher aswell. I want some payment for working hard. I would prefer to live in the USA.
>>595316806 Yes it is. You ar ethinking only in the most selfish terms. Without purchasing power there's no back end regulation. WITH purchasing power the US alone uses some disgusting percentage of the total world wide resources available. Something like %25 of EVERYTHING on the planet.
We cannot empower a nation like ours to use MORE. And that's precisely what happens without metered regulation. Money perfectly handles that problem without creating the social problems of artificial regulation. The second you elect to have an authority tell people how much they may use, you immediately create a power differential that resorts either in fascism or revolution.
No one has ever gotten over that hurdle. I'm not saying it CAN'T be surmounted, but you'r enot employing anything remotely like novel thought here.
>>595316981 You've asked a question so vague that there is no meaningful answer. Collectivism means many different things in many different circumstances. COmmunism and capitalism have little in common yet both employ collectivism to varying degrees. You want an answer? Ask the specific collectivist what he thinks.
Neither capitalism nor state communism was particularly willing to allow outsiders to leave the fold. This is a human nature issue, but then so too is the business of economics. If you think of economics as a system, you don't understand economics.
>>595317586 No I would not, because no one would tax you, steal your money or anything of that sort in a society without money. I also think your line of thinking is greatly influenced by the egocentric system you live in.
>>595317783 Remove the class system and you'll remove the incentive to pretend you're of a higher class with fast cars and fancy clothes. Every single creature on the planet only takes what it needs, except for humans, and I think humans can indeed become as civilized as they were 5000 years ago.
>>595317586 The irony here is that in every single case where data exists for free economies (I mean really free economies, not economies regulated by a State that uses the word "free" in press releases) the end result is much closer to "communism" than capitalism and is highly collectivized.
Exchange systems are an important part of these economies, and prices exist and fluctuate, but business is conducted on credit instead of currency, and usually a great deal of capital is shared or held in common (especially land).
In fact in almost all free market societies (which, due to the proliferation of the nation-State, have been primarily agricultural) what we see is individual careers and large scale common agriculture with business conducted on credit. Usually, once per year at harvest, there's a "reckoning" where accounts are mass-settled among a community and any non-balanced books at the end of the year are paid up by adjusting the otherwise-equal distribution of shares of the common crop.
But I mean, do what you want. Durutti didn't collectivize individually-operated farms, even up to the very end there was a patchwork of them among the mass collective farms in anarchist spain. Godspeed, do your thing.
A society without money? They how the fuck do I acquire goods? There's a reason people stopped bartering 6000 years ago...
The ideal collectivist system would basically allocate resources according to the "ideal" fashion, right? Well, aside from the subjective nature of what one man's "ideal" happens to be, and assuming we can come to a consensus, how is that any different from capitalism?
In capitalism every person gives what they are able to give in order to acquire what they wish to acquire. True, sometimes people are unable to give enough to acquire what they wish to acquire, but the only solution to that requires forcing another to give involuntarily.
>>595317586 >"I will never pay the majority of my income etc etc"
>Pays the majorty of his income anyway in the form of consumer grade goods necessary for life
Half a dozen of one, anon. You pay the system one way or the other, regardless of what -ism you're dealing with.
And it's cute that you're swinging your e-peen this hard, but in fact you most likely wuld do as you were told. You prove this every time you purchase goods from a store at pain of imprisonment or death instead of stealing.
You are not an island. 100 million years of homosapien evolution did not come to an end in you. Volumes and volumes have been written on how easy it is to motivate society with imprisonment or death threats. Capitalism is in bed with socialism and communism on this matter, we just throw a few levels of "polite" beaurocracy inbetween you and the guys with the guns who enforce the law.
But make no mistake, ultimately, you are to obey the law unde rpain of death. Resist with enough force and you will be shot in the US for your failure to comply.
Your attempt to classify this as a trait of "those other scary guys" just doesn't work.
Do you know how hard it would be to build a robot with the agility and AI to do your job? We don't even have full AI jet fighters yet, and that probably has way more priority than replacing your gay ass. It's hardly a fault of capitalism that you still have your shitty job.
Find something else to blame for why your life sucks.
>>595318259 He's a retard who either has no idea of basic sociology, economics. Or is talking about a technological scenario so far beyond our understanding that literally any outcome is about as possible as his no money utopia.
Actually, I'm rich, so the majority of my income is saved or spent on assets which increase my "wealth."
Homo Sapiens is not 100 million years old. Depending on how you define it homo sapiens is either ~400,000 or ~75,000 years old. Evolution itself is probably around 3.5 billion years, at least on this planet.
>>595317973 No, this is simply willful delusion. People don't want Ferrari's because Bill Gates or whatever pair of glamorous titties they've been jerking off to on the tv has one. They want one because they're fun.
They don't want the finest cuts of steak because Taylor Swift eats them. THey want them because they taste good. Cult of personality is a thing, for sure. But human appetites neither begin nor end with any class system.
>>595318259 The solution is for our cities to be completely intergrated and abolish private property beyond items that hold personal value. Which in time would also be phased out I suspect. And for a soceity to reach a consensus, you'd need equal incentive, which means no class system. Plato said that the ideal city is that which mourns as one and celebrates as one.
How the fuck would that accomplish the goals you claim it would accomplish? You're talking gibberish. You need cause and effect, you need to prove the cause will result in the effect, and you need to accomplish it without coercion.
>>595317795 a Society where there is no money, private property is outlawed, everyone "is equal" and works for an all powerful authority that controls their lively hood, and where people are not able to even badmouth the system isn't a socioeconomic system.
It's is blatant Slavery.....
Capitalism stems from a basic bardaring system, so at least you have a fighting chance
>>595318425 Okay well now you're just playing semantic games.
I agree with the point you're making, but to my way of thinking "collectivism" implies a specific kind of organization—a COLLECTIVE, which is a free association of people which makes decisions on the basis of consensus and where all members have participatory parity.
The use of collectives (again, here using the term in the original anarchist sense of "collectivism") is pretty widespread among documented cases of free economies; substantial numbers of people form units which share capital goods freely (especially land, though some contemporary examples do exist with productive machinery or other nonconsumed goods like ideas, code, etc) with no centralized decisionmaking bureaucracy and no recourse to force for implement systems of regulations.
When people "freely cooperate", as you explain it, this is how they do it. They don't behave as capitalist actors, trying to price their marginal contribution to everyone else's success at the highest value, they work toward a common goal in a way where each contributes to the best of his ability and each takes according to his necessity.
>>595318932 Except it wasn't well educated because I was not posting for or against communism in this thread with the exception of >>595310254 and then you jump in talking about how I suddenly hate my job and acting like I'm some wangsty teenager.
>>595318748 Irrelevant argument that is used as a distraction from the point.
>>595318762 Plato knew dick about dick. Why don't you just quote the bible if this is your standard? You will never abolish private property because it's part of the human condition to desire it, almost need it psychologically. What you ar esuggesting is a prohibition and we know how well prohibitionary laws that address very common human desires work.
When you figure out how to make people not want intoxicants and free music, THEN you can come back to me and make this silly argument. Unless you can fix thos eMUCH smaller human nature issues, you don't have a chance in hell at any proposal that involves surrendering property without a fight.
>>595318749 But every nigger on the dole buys gold grills and a pair of new shoes, to show off.
There's a definite a intensive to be shown to be in a high class. Its how fashion works. Most people buy clothes because of what it says about them, not really because its anymore or less comfortable. If you could find two shirts for the same price that were more or less the same but one was simply known to be extremely expensive, you'd probably choose that one. So that people would think you are rich.
I don't think getting rid of money would magically solve this. It would simply create something else, that would evolve into currency. So that people could acquire goods or something, to show their status. Even if we somehow got rid of a tangible class-system, one would pop up in some form.
>>595319600 How does a few people exploiting the system relate to what I said?
The word is incentive. Please know the word you are using before you use it.
And again, I acknowledged in my post that cult of personality is a thing. I said it is neither the first nor last word in human appetites. People of all classes want more than they havem not because the guy above them has it, but because it is natural for human beings to desire things that appeal to them. Utilitarian value, even if it's just to frivolous ends, is a powerful motivator.
Or did you just come to 4chan because someone you idolize uses it? You know what you said is dumb. Stop playing.
>>595318787 I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather I'd rather
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.