Does Communism support free speech?

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from (scontent-ams4-1.xx.fbcdn.net)

top 100 commentsshow all 103
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 33 insightful - 5 fun33 insightful - 4 fun34 insightful - 5 fun -  (40 children)

Communism can't support free speech - because it is built on a mountain of lies about human nature, institutional power, and the condition of man.

https://files.catbox.moe/yt0oo4.jpeg

[–]proc0 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Also it comes down to authoritarianism because how will you bring about your all-inclusive utopia when any disagreement basically shatters that necessity? It just takes one person to say no in order for it to not be all-inclusive which quickly disintegrates its main purpose.

[–]joogabah 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Communism understands change and that human institutions and "nature" are manifestations of an economic substructure. "Communist" nations today do not think they live under communism. That is their goal, not their condition. They see themselves as the dictatorship of the proletariat competing with the dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, working to usher in a world not based on imperialism, war, and repeated capitalist depressions - conditions that bring out the worst in people.

[–]Canbot 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Human nature is provably not a manifestation of economic anything. It is a lie that humans are infinitely moldable and a direct product of their environment. The fact that any animal can be bred to have certain personality characteristics proves that those characteristics are genetic. Humans are absolutely not unique among the animal kingdom.

"Communist" nations today do not think they live under communism.

Oh of course, real communism hasn't been tired yet. Will you guys ever get tired of that bullshit argument?

They see themselves as the dictatorship of the proletariat

Then they are stupid because they clearly have less freedom and power than people living under Capitalism or "dictatorships of bourgeoisie" as you call them.

[–]joogabah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Humans are not like other animals. We have 2 inherited information systems - DNA and language. Animals only have the former. A human today is not the same as a human a century ago. A horse today is exactly like a horse a century ago. This is so obvious it shouldn't require any explanation. Why are people are so blind to the fact that we are a massive collection of linguistic constructs? In humans, it takes more than one brain to make a mind. A human being never spoken to is unthinkable. What would it even be? It's not possible. Language makes us as distinct from animals as animals are from plants. It is at least as differentiating as being able to move around. Human beings are programmable in a way that opens up entire vistas unavailable to animals. Space travel, music, humor, ideology, creativity, even the ability to understand our own biology and manipulate it genetically! We are NOT the same.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever read. You have basically taken "humans are unique because of language" and made up a whole fucking reality that literally contradicts centuries of scientific evidence of human nature. Literally every study ever done on twins proves, not only that human nature exists, but that it also has far more impact than people realize.

Language absolutely can NOT change human nature. At best you can argue that it influences behavior, but even that is a stretch.

[–]joogabah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's like you can't even see the world around you. I guess you are right. We're just naked apes. I can barely tell the difference in how we live compared to chimpanzees. They have memories from thousands of years ago too!

The ideas are not dumb. They just contradict your present worldview. And your anger betrays the fact that you found them somewhat persuasive and a challenge to that worldview. Humans are vastly different from other species in a qualitative way. We are the only animal with a linguistic consciousness that predates our own physical lives. I don't know why you want to ignore language and just dismiss it like it is equivalent to the squawks and grunts and groans of the beasts that don't even approach our level of consciousness. Why the blind spot? You tell me.

Human nature is variable and programmable. Humanity produces altruists and serial killers. We all see the world through the constructs that are spoken into us. Language is the source of ideology. Humans are the only species that can live practically anywhere on the surface of the Earth by changing their environment instead of being subject to their habitat. Humans are the only species that have ever chosen to and accomplished leaving the planet. You and I don't even know each other, but we are using human technology as a sort of anonymous telepathy, to exchange ideas (via language). That's just like all the other animals?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

First off this is the structure of your argument: Humans have abilities that animals don't, this means that humans are "insert disproved, illogical claim". And I can prove that humans have abilities that animals don't therefore I have proven "illogical claim". This is a fallacy. The existence of human nature is proven. That humans have abilities beyond that of animals does not disprove that. It is absurd that you keep talking about how humans are different as if that proves your incorrect argument that humans don't have a genetically programmed nature. It is you who doesn't understand how the world works. You can't even grasp how your arguments are illogical.

Second, you are confusing specific actions with natural tendencies. For example traditions, memes, culture, etc are not human nature, and they are not a replacement or substitution for human nature. No amount of examples of those things supports your claim. All those things exist along side human nature.

Third, the nature of human nature is not fully understood; that absolutely does not mean there is doubt that it exists. The existence of human nature has been proven far beyond any doubt. Twins separated at birth, and sent to drastically different environments have shown stunning similarity to each other which were stunningly different than their adoptive families. There is a mountain of studies you can explore which looked at nature vs nurture. The way you have thrown out nature without a single logical argument is the epitome of stupidity. And unfortunately that stupidity has taken over academia and media by way of ideological dogma. Your claims are not born of the arguments you make, but are constructed to support the leftist claim that we are all identical and all differences are social constructs. Those "arguments" are manufactured after the fact to support a bullshit ideological claim. And you have at best been brainwashed to not only believe them, but to instinctively reject any logic that disproves them.

[–]joogabah 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I think you're defending your ideology, which is motivated by anti-leftism. The nature of humans is to be programmable. We are not ruled by instinct like animals. Usually right wingers argue for free will. I'm surprised you seem to argue for genetic determinism in human behavior.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most birds can fly. Yet the statement "all birds can fly" is wrong. Genetic determinism is wrong in the same way. Human nature is not all powerful. Genetic determinism, if it claims that genes are the only factor, is wrong in that claim alone. Genes are far more powerful than language. We don't fully understand how or why, but if you look at separated twins studies with anything but a completely jaded and predetermined conclusion you will be shocked by how powerful genes are.

There is nothing in my argument that has anything to do with leftism. You just don't have a valid rebuttal so you are turning to ad hominem attacks.

Free will can overcome genes, but only when you use it. A fat person can lose weight and be fit their whole life, even though they have genes that strongly push them to be fat (low testosterone, over active thyroid, low Conscientiousness). But most people don't. So when you measure which is more "powerful" by which determines outcomes for most people the answer is genes.

I responded directly to what you said. It is you who is not listening. It is you who doesn't seem to understand that you are wrong even though I explain exactly why you are wrong.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we are rules by instinct, what are you talking about. We all have the instinct to survive, most to breed, etc etc. Just because we allude ourselves into thinking there is some greater mechanism behind it doesnt make it true. Everything we do is based on instinct. Also plenty of different animals have language. Not speaking language like ourselves but perfectly fine language for themselves. Bees use chemicals and body movement, mammals use sounds and body language, etc. We arent different from any other mammal. Our brains are larger but it pretty much stops there.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Neither can capitalism nor capitalism when merged with communism to make totalitarianism.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Completely agree, I think the modern USA is a perfect illustration of this concept. Cultural Marxism is just swell with capitalist oligarchs, keeps the population nicely divided and at each other's throats. It's why they are so eager to destroy shared culture and history, to deracinate all nations. They know humans are incapable of rising above their tribal natures, and they use that against them for their own advantage.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

And while we're all distracted, divided, and bickering, we're not organizing against the ruling class.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Speak for yourself, these things aren't mutually exclusive. They've certainly made it difficult though - what with the insane censorship regime and unpersoning.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

By "we" I meant the rest of humanity not in the ruling class. Obviously some of us are trying to fight back, but not enough - yet, if ever. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. By taking their measures now they are forcing us to find new alternatives and solutions that include preparing for decentralization. I have much hope that we can develop the work-arounds, but I'm not sure if it's enough to fight all our fear-porn brainwashed neighbours who will hate-squeal on us for not complying with mask wearing, "correct" speech, wrongthink, etc.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

New term: /s/Terminology/comments/5kgo/hatesqueal_the_panicked_noise_fellow_citizens/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

French is your mother tongue, I gather? It is mine. You mean "uproot", since "deracinate" would be taking the French word and anglicising it... ;-)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Sure thing Ayn Rand, keep telling yourself that

[–]whistlepig 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (20 children)

that is an odd way to phrase a compliment ;]

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

You may not know it but you are actually pro human oppression and suffering

[–]whistlepig 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

war is peace... and freedom to choose is oppression and suffering.... sounds like the common double speak I'm slowly getting use to

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Communism is a chain with the words "freedom" and "prosperity" stamped on them and morons like you keep claiming that if you do not put on the chains you must be against freedom and prosperity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Every system has its limitations, I just don't want corporate chains put on, whereas I guess you don't want the rule of the working class chains

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

whereas I guess you don't want the rule of the working class chains

No, my guy. That is wrong, and the problem is that you are too dumb to get that through your head.

Just because communists promise you a government ruled by the working class does not mean you will get a government ruled by the working class. Which, by the way, is called democracy and is quite literally the opposite of communism.

It's a scam. And the ultimate joke is that this scam has been played out dozens of times and all they have to do is say "that wasn't real communism" and there is another group of suckers willing to take the bait. What would it take to convince you that this time is NOT going to be different?!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What a bizarre narrative you have going on in your head

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

If I am wrong then please point out where I am wrong. I am so tired of leftists with nothing but insults and baseless claims insisting that they are right despite not being able to make a single coherent logical argument.

Where has communism worked outside of a small community? How many examples of communist takeovers of capitalist countries turning to absolute shit would it take to convince you that it is par for the course? How many perfect examples of the juxtaposed systems like north and south Korea, and east and west Germany do there have to be?

How is what you are doing not exactly like a moron who knows about the Nigerian price scam, yet still falls for it because the scammer told them "this time it's different, those other guy's weren't really Nigerian Princes, anyone who tells you this is a scam just doesn't want you to get rich"

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Oh okay, I'm gonna need some time to come up with a fact backed argument, I've really just been shit posting from my phone against the tsunami of conservatives here. Allow me some time to leave shit posting mode.

My first inclination of a response is to point to the massive covert ops campaigns that America has waged for decades across the western hemisphere in countless nations to purposefully overthrow democratically elected communistic/socialist leaders and replace them with de facto dictators or leaders that otherwise would be compliant to "free trade" with America. I'm not sure how many nations have failed of their own accord outside of this meddling but I'm sure they exist, just as extremely corrupt capitalist nations exist.

I know the common examples to point out are Stalin, China, and other eastern European countries that have committed atrocities while being communistic, but I'll be honest in that I don't know enough of the actual history to form a solid opinion there. My inclination is that they fell to massive widespread corruption that isn't entirely the fault of a communist structure.

My own feelings that forms my idealogical foundation is that a better world is possible, and capitalism is not even close to the ideal one with how its slowly destroying the world and workers lives. I believe that America experienced a wealth boon that "made it great" only because we survived world war 2 without massive infrastructure decimation, and from our role as the "great creditor" to other nations that essentially allowed us to get everyone else's gold. Because of that I don't believe capitalism holds any especially inherent properties that would allow it to prosper more than other government structures.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since when does the working class rule? WTF? The vanguard rules. You know, the upper middle class. The working class don't know shit. They chose to live under capitalists rather than communists! They are traitors!

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

There you go, short and sweet.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

fuck commis , especially china

[–]beermeem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck commies, especially all the ones in my city here in America.

[–]pleb 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not really sure what you were expecting. Communism is in direct opposition to liberal values.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Uh, sorry but no... Communism can be considered to be the CULMINATION of liberal values. You mean freedom and liberty. Which are directly opposed to communism. Just like Socialism.

But most people are brainwashed with orwellian newspeak definitions of these terms and are thus rendered unable to express themselves properly on these topics.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m just really starting to think Liberalism doesn’t mean anything any longer. If you look at historical economic liberalism, the definition of that is opening up trade and anti-protectionism — a policy espoused most prominently and successfully by arch-Conservatives Reagan and Thatcher in modern political thought.

Liberalism literally means opening and allowing more things. When was growing up, I thought that was what American Liberalism was doing. I realize now that I was in part very, very wrong. But in many ways, I was still correct. The sea change, for me, happened when “American Liberalism” very clearly won the culture wars that we grew up around coming out of the seventies and then had nothing left to eat so it started eating itself.

Today, we can only hope it eats itself like the snake on the first American flag of freedom before it eats the American freedom that gave it birth.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Crumbs of freedom? ;-)

[–]dancewithme 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

LOL

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

they don't but it'd be a moot point to ask on reddit anyway since reddit doesn't support free speech

[–]Canbot 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

because it is run by communists.

[–]squintypreyeyes 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Most people who call themselves communists these days, especially on reddit, are edgelords with no theoretical basis for what they espouse. Workers movements are dead. We live in one of the most politically flaccid times in history for the left. The few (tiny and fragmented) left wing organisations remaining are drowning in idpol bullshit.

That doesn't mean communism is bad- quite the opposite, our current issues are a result of neoliberalism, not leftism. The working class needs to be radicalised again.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The working class betrayed their betters by choosing to stay under capitalist rule rather than jump in front of the bullets necessary to implement a communist revolution.

Thus the bitter anger at the working class displayed today and the determination to replace them with more pliable immigrants. This was long before Trump and Brexit. Those were the fucking last straw and the mask of kindness came off. Today the attitude is FUCK the working class and those deplorables can go die in a fire. They are The Other.

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

This is probably your least insightful comment ever. I’ll save it for you.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What does this even mean? Am I talking to a bot?

The working class betrayed Marxism. Why else have Marxists been paying them back in their own coin?

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Twitter and the rest of the US media are very clearly drowning. /s

[–]joogabah 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (21 children)

Which communism? Where? Under what circumstances? Too much is subsumed under this term for this to be a meaningful question. Stalinism, the legacy of the Russian Revolution, does not, no. But the French Communards? The Socialist Party of Great Britain (which precedes the Russian Revolution and criticized it at the time)? Regarding Stalinism, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but surrounded by hostile capitalist states hell bent on destroying it. That makes it paranoid (understandably).

[–]ctvzbuxr 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

Capitalism is based on live and let live, meaning that nobody gets hurt by capitalism. The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action, which is arguably not a capitalist institution, since it violates property rights to exist. As a result, free speech is possible in capitslism as there are no victims of the system that could speak out against it (or in the case of limited state campitalism, only relatively few). Only some communists, who are usually upper or middle class yuppies who are larping as oppressed victim classes.
In communism, the system is based on aggression - the property of the productive is stolen and distributed to serve the powerful, poverty and crime are rampant as a result of the catasrophic lack of productivity. Of course such a system would, even in the best scenario, not allow for poeple to tell the truth about their living conditions. Once the revolution is won, there is a small time period where the whealth of the former capitalist society is plundered, in which the supposed success of the revolution is celebrated, and once the revolution runs out of poeple's money, the curtain falls.

[–]flugegeheimen 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action, which is arguably not a capitalist institution, since it violates property rights to exist.

So if a corporation instigates or supports in some way a coup in a country to protect their economical interests what would it be? A result of nature or a result of government action?

[–]ctvzbuxr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

A result of government action of course. What else is a coup if not an attempt to install or take over a government in that country?

[–]flugegeheimen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't see how these two sentences related. Coup is an attempt to install or take over a government, this is correct. How does it make coup a result of government action?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

if a corporation buys off politicians and has the govt's CIA go and do the coup, does that make it a govt coup? Truth is there is no capitalism or socialism just a mix of the two, both get blamed for the world's ills by different people while the rulers laugh.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So there are corporations and governments, and sometimes corporation bribe governments. And you think the problem are corporations?
Look, corporations are just people working together. They can't do anything any other person can't do. Governments on the other hand are people with the right to initiate the use of force against others. That is the problem right there. These are people who are given extra rights that other people don't have. If a corporation has rights they shouldn't have, those rights are always granted by the state. The problem is always socialism.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah people working together. But to do what? Sometimes to break laws so we need govt to put a stop to that, which they usually don't since they're owned by "people working together". Families, nepotism. Govts are people working together too but the idea behind democracy was letting everyone vote and having a say in who represents them at least instead of power only in a very small percentage of people's hands. Of course in reality our votes don't matter much, not compared to the lobbyists who vote with money. And the private owned federal reserve cares not who makes the laws.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you understand that government doesn't work in practice, but you still defend it in theory. Maybe something is wrong with your theory.

[–]flugegeheimen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Look, corporations are just people working together. They can't do anything any other person can't do.

They can do a lot the things you can't, it's just governments don't let them. For example in a perfect capitalist world nothing stops a corporation from hiring mercenaries to kick you from your property (ironically by violating your property rights to exist). However in our less perfect world corporations have to bribe CIA to instigate coups rather than hiring mercs directly and you can sue McDonald's for coffee that is too hot.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If a corporation were to hire mercenaries to control a piece of land that they don't own, that corporation (if successful) would be the government of that land. I want to prevent that. The way to get rid of government is not to install another government.
What you are essentially saying is that a stateless society would be impossible. I disagree. If people can abolish their current government, they can prevent a new government from forming.
There is plenty of libertarian theory on how a stateless society could work, and how violent takeovers would not only be impractical, but outright impossible. I'm not going to go over all of it here, but in short, a company can only make money in the long run if it fullfills the needs of it's customers. And people in general have a desire to not be aggressed against. In other words, there is much more profit (and thus, economic power) in protecting people from aggression, rather than trying to forcefully rule them.

[–]flugegeheimen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a corporation were to hire mercenaries to control a piece of land that they don't own, that corporation (if successful) would be the government of that land.

Their goal is still making profit, they just made your private property their private property. I don't want to go over libertarianism too, my only issue was with the claim

Capitalism is based on live and let live, meaning that nobody gets hurt by capitalism. The supposed injustices of capitalism are either a result of nature, or a result of government action

It's demonstrably false (unless you redefine capitalism), privately owned profit-based enterprises disregard your rights (including property rights) and will infringe them just as happily as any socialistic state. There is nothing intrinsic in capitalism that makes it "based on live and let live", when corporations can get away with fucking you up they do it, when they can't they can't because of external pressure (government).

[–]joogabah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Capitalism is based on a tiny class of owners exploiting the labor of the masses. It permitted literal chattel slavery for centuries. The workplace is authoritarian. Nobody gets hurt by capitalism? What capitalism? It isn't all just first world service sector "labor aristocracy" jobs out there. Remember the chimney sweeps and child labor in Britain during the Industrial Revolution? Look, if capitalism were not oppressive, communism would not exist. Communism is a reaction to the brutality of capitalism. If capitalists don't want communism, treat workers well. If a revolution happens and a communist dictatorship results, the blame lies with the prior sociopathic ruling class abusing people with overwork and low wages and gross inequality. All wealth is reducible to human labor power. All wealth is produced by workers. Capitalist rentiers earn passive income (profit, interest and rent) by virtue of a legal title and no work at all! They can pay managers to oversee their enterprises, and most just own stocks in businesses they don't even have to think about. They are the real welfare queens.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The children who worked during the industrial revolution would have died prior to the industrial revolution, before capitalism raised living standards to a point where most children didn't die as infants, and provided the opportunity to earn their living. Nobody wants children to work in coal mines, but it is preferable to them dying. Their poor living conditions were a condition of nature, counteracted by capitalism. As soon as living standards raised to a point where child labour was rendered obsolete by the market and had fallen largely out of practice, the british govenment prohibited it and claimed that it saved the poor children from the "evil capitalists".
If you think that business owners don't have to work, you are clearly ignorant of how busines works. If it was easy, everyone would do it. 99% of people in business work crazy hours, and the other 1% had such a great idea that they produced enough value in one go that they don't have to work anymore (most of them still do). Not to mention the risk that entrepeneurs take, and all the regulations and taxes they have to deal with already.

[–]joogabah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Marxists are not opponents of capitalism. They are awed by it. But they see it as a transitional state, one that at a certain point becomes overwhelmed by its own contradictions. To be blind to the trajectory of capitalism is just as erroneous as to be blind to its accomplishments. Marx compared it to a tie on a sapling that helps its growth early on but distorts it if left for too long. Capitalism is not evil. It is antiquated. The evidence is that private property, divided into competing national states, threatens to end all life on the planet, via nuclear war, climate change and overpopulation. Exponential growth has limits. Capitalist thinking tends to ignore "dialectics" or the idea that change is fundamental to our reality. Everything is born, grows and then dies. Quantitative changes eventually turn into qualitative changes that can negate the earlier condition. The same is true of capitalist markets and private property. They are human innovations, appropriate to their time, not eternal unchanging truths.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What an interesting perspective, to view people's property rights as a transitional state.
"Yes, you own that thing you workd hard for, but only as long as we deem it appropriate, and once we decide to have our revolution we will take it from you at a whim, in order to alleviate you from such an antiquated burden."
The truth is, people could already live in socialism right now if they wanted to. Socialists all around the world could put their money in a big pool, govern it as they see fit, and no capitalist in the world would do anything to prevent it. The truth is, capitalists have no problem with socialism either, as long as it's voluntary. But the truth is, voluntary socialism is just another form of capitalism. Capitalism is simply what you get when you let people choose how they govern what is rightfully theirs.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

rEaL COMmuNisM hAsn’T bEeN tRiEd

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But Socialism stands in DIRECT OPPOSITION to communism. Unless you use the Orwellian Newspeak definition of "Socialism" which comes DIRECTLY FROM COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

[–]joogabah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think this idea comes from an equation of Stalinism with communism. Classical Marxism uses socialism and communism interchangeably. When referring to authoritarian bureaucracies descended from the Russian Revolution, Stalinism is clearer. Stalin represents a political counter-revolution, resting on the economic substructure set up by the Russian Revolution (a state that works in the economic interests of workers, or at least gives lip service to it as its raison d'être). It inevitably restores capitalism, but since it is a left over of revolutionaries, they either cynically rule for personal privileges or delude themselves while facilitating capitalist restoration.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, Marx, as the first commie, propagated the utterly false idea that communism is only socialism, plus. It really isn't. But since then, his BS propaganda has spread like a wildfire and nowadays everybody repeats that same crap, unaware that they are repeating COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

[–]joogabah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have you even read the Communist Manifesto, or are you only versed in anti-communist arguments?

[–]Honestanonymous 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, got blasted

[–]lemlemzil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

To all the alt-righters upvoting this who see themselves as free speech warriors, I take it you guys also support the free speech of transgender homosexual jews who want to write interracial romance novels about black men seducing white women?

[–]BigFatRetard 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Yes. Do whatever you want. Why would that be a problem?

It's the left that's filled with bigots who would care about that sort of thing.

[–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Why would that be a problem?

stuff like this kinda gave me the feeling they would be against it

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/075/691/945.jpg

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/110/653/cef.jpg

but maybe the alt-right isn't like other white nationalists

[–]BigFatRetard 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"alt-right" basically means anyone who isn't a left wing nazi stormtrooper literally in the streets wearing a black uniform and spouting racist nonsense murdering those who disagree, so it's a big tent.

[–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see.

Well, the same can be said for communism https://saidit.net/s/funny/comments/5k2d/does_communism_support_free_speech/lgpx r/communism101 literally bans people for "cissexism", so those redditors are hardly representative of communism as a whole. I'm pretty sure nobody was ever sent to the gulag for transphobia.

[–]Truth_about_trees 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How old are those photos?

[–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Late 1980s to early 1990s, but in modern time they still get posted in earnest on places like /pol/

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/268069443/a-wyatt-mann-thread

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good for you? The question wasn't aimed at you but the alt-right.

    [–]beermeem 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    Duh! Who do you think buys that shit?

    [–]lemlemzil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    lol

    [–]Truth_about_trees 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Is transgender homosexual oxymoronic or just redundant? It seems like that would be the kind of oppression and brain washing of homosexual kids that JK Rowling spoke of.

    Free speech for all, just don't throw a fit when people point out very real statistics and problems with the majority of transgenderism.

    [–]lemlemzil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    It would be a gay man who dresses as a woman, as opposed to a heterosexual man who dresses as a woman.

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]lemlemzil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Depends on what sort of leftist you are talking to, I guess... radical feminists would probably say correct. Liberal feminists would probably say incorrect. I don't know much about trans terminology myself and don't want to argue about that, I just threw it in because white nationalists tend to complain about both transgender people and homosexuals.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        Surely a LibFem can't deny this?

        I'm not a libfem, go ask them. They're on Reddit's feminist subs since all the radfems got banned and had to move to Saidit. And yes most of them do think that if a woman says she is a man, then she is a man.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]lemlemzil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          lol transdragons do exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin

          [–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          No.

          A woman who fully became a man and dated men would classify as a homosexual trans man to me. He is a man because that is what he identifies as and has transitioned to. So society should in all rights and ways consider him a man. Secondly, he is trans to denote that he did transition from female to male and therefore retains certain protections granted to those who have transitioned. Finally, other men are his sexual and romantic interest so he identifies as homosexual.

          I believe men who fully transition to female and want to date women consider themselves exclusively lesbians. This is where they encounter issues with women who were born women and have never transitioned. The latter often still view the former as retaining many privileges of men.

          [–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          That’s just cross dressing.

          [–]lemlemzil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Okay.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          This is amazing! Pure gold! Thank you!!!!

          [–]suckitreddit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          "We are not against freedom of speech! But anyone who says we are will be put into a special camp!"

          [–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Haha, r/pyongyang is the funniest.

          Oh, wait. Shit. These people actually take themselves seriously.

          [–]JerrySpringerSexToy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          commune-ism is probably the most peaceful way to live.

          [–]md_saidit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          uh...no?

          [–]noble_pleb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Right there, you got your answer!

          [–]Fetus_inhaler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          This is some of the most funny shit i’ve Seen today. Nice meme!