danger/u/
WE NEED COMMUNISSM

| Haha no. It's joke


| On the long term communism is unavoidable. It's getting harder and harder to keep capitalism alive by moving around its problems geographically, hiding them behind religious, nationalist and racist lies and keeping the markets running with repeating global wars, planned obsolescence and last but not least creating immaterial values like monetizing information by restriction.


| Thanks to capitalism automation increases but also environmental problems and the military overkill potential. Infinite growth is impossible, and younger generations will be confronted with the fatal consequences of our current capitalist way to "get things done" and will question it. The massive efforts of restricting and poisoning the global exchange of information will hopefully fail. It's the last battlefield capitalism could extend its deadline once again.


| Ultra Super Sexual Russia


| WE NEED A FUCKING RESET ALREADY


| >>536316 Ra Ra Rasputin, Russia little love machine~


| As much as I see posts about the inevitable coming of communism, I dont think Ive ever seen someone post about methods of practical implementation, only about the pressing need for it and its inevitablility. Y'all game to makimg this discussion about practical implementaion?


| >>536295 >>536300 idiot got baited
we need fascism


| We need robotism, let the AI masters decide the fate of mankind


| >>536429
>idiot got baited
>we need fascism
Nice self-referencing >>834480.


| Wont happen. A communist society will be even harder to sustain than a nearly failing capitalist one. Not all people will happy go lucky give up all they have to the state. If the state takes it anyway, they will be unhappy and there will be revolutions after revolutions until theres capitalism again.


| >>536377
Step I - Agitation & Propaganda:
- Increase class consciousness of lower classes and push internationalism.
- Unmask fascism, nationalism, racism, religious fundamentalism and other chauvinist lies as tools of the bourgeoisie to fool the proletariat.
Step II - Revolution:
Organize the proletariat to remove the bourgeois rulers and their unloved minions on the far-right.
Step III - Build up socialism:
Socialize amd democratize land, industry and information internationally.


| >>536444
No need for all people to happy go lucky give up all they have to the state. It's enough that a majority on the globe will be on the winner side of such measurements. Thanks to globalization and the absence of any serious challenge to the capitalist system the amount of loosers in this systems increases continuously. The new waves of neo-fascism/nazism and religious fundamentalism are the only hope capitalists have. So, don't fall for them my proletarian comrades!


| As much as communists emphasize eliminating classism, you focus on emphasizing the difference between the classes, generating division. You focus on need for revolution against the bougoise, but why must it be opposition? Is it somehow impossible for them to join communism? Why can they not participate, and yet your precious proletariat can? At what point do you draw the line between the two? If communism is for the benefit of all, why must it be founded on the corpses of the few?


| >>536479
I don't generate any division. People ARE divided. Unlike the divisions the bourgeois and reactionists proclaim (and create) the division between classes can be measured, e.g. wealth distribution, income differences and their development.
Of course a bourgeois could technically join communism as a person. But most of them won't. Like once the feudal elites, most of them grew up with the believe their privileges and reign is the law of nature/god and with no alternatives.


| >>536479
>At what point do you draw the line between the two?
The line is between those that own and live from the production means and those who have to sell their labour to the first group. Of course not all proletarians are about starving and working in dirty mines and manufacturing plants. Especially in the western world which rooks ressources from 3rd world and offshores it's production (ironically alot to "communist" China), some proletarians even own houses and cars.


| I want a house by the beach. In a capitalist society I can import crap from china and resell it untill I have enough money for that. In a commie society, who gets to live near the beach? The space is limited and probably everyone wants a house there.
Apply this logic to everything of value. How will everyone be equal when people want different things and some want to work for them while others just want free handouts?


| >>536441
BAITED AGAIN
GOTTEM
FASC FTW


| >>536841
Yeah, either your capslock is broken or you're sitting now behind your device with fume around your mouth, dealing with the fact you're argumentative beaten and slowly suspecting you're on a lost ground anyway but without accepting it.


| >>536725
In a commie society you may share a house by the beach with others.
Also you're funny talking about how great capitalism is because you can import stuff from "communist" china.
Don't you mind the circumstances under which things are produced there?
Yes, in capitalism you can live and have success on other peoples backs. This is exactly the problem. The workers in China can't buy a house at the beach no matter how hard they work.


| >>536853 The Chinese house market is a mess and it's ironic, because the state there can supposedly very easily regulate housing prices, especially due to how cheaply apartment blocks are made. Yet they offer more expensive homes than what you'd get in countries like the US, UK etc. China's situation is more of a housing market bubble that's sustained by the state. It should not surprise you that apartments are so expensive.


| >>536862
Now you've changed the topic totally. But O.k. let's talk now about capitalisms superiority in the house market. First of all: Why should the state in China regulate the market more easily than in other countries? Or the other way around, why do you think other states will have it harder to regulate their (house) markets? Isn't regulation a necessary element of free market?
And talking about bubbles: Did you notice what happened 2007 in the USA?


| And how it comes, that homelessness increases every year, if housing is so damn cheap in US, UK, etc.? And how it comes that rents are increasing massively there? Do you even have any clue about what's currently going on in the world?


| >>536865 >>536866 The US and UK have much more regulation in how the housing market is handled, that's a fact. The US and UK also don't pay the housing market so it doesn't collapse, that's also fact. If it collapses, prices can lower and people could afford homes. Since you're using arguments of things that have nothing in common, I could say the same about your argument. It's likely that there's different factors in play that have caused people to lose their homes.


| >>536870 The reason why I use the argument of regulation is quite simple. China, like other Socialist and "Socialist" states is incredibly centralized. It means that it can in theory enforce any number of laws immediately. Yet the government inexplicably is allowing and even trying tn endorse the behavior of creating low quality yet expensive housing. This doesn't happen in the US or UK. In fact, this doesn't happen in Vietnam, which is "supposed to be" a similar country to China.


| >>536870
>The US and UK have much more regulation in how the housing market is handled, that's a fact.
Maybe, but they have much less regulation in finance market, which is massively intertwined with the housing market. Because most people (have to!) buy houses on pump.
When the 2007 "financial" crisis began, the USA spent almost 800 billion of dollars (public money from tax payers) into the banking sector to "save them". Same in Europe, including UK.


| As a result, many people who bought their house by credit, lost it, even if they had a decent and secure job and income.
And now you came and defended capitalism with the argument it allows you to buy a house at the beach by importing slave labor from a "communist" country. Don't you realize how amoral and schizophrenic this sounds?


| >>536882 I'm not defending anything. I just find the housing argument to not be a good one. The housing market is in fact quite contradictory since the poorest places on Earth guarantee the most % of people that own their own home.

Regarding the US crisis. The biggest reason it happened was banks giving out too many loans to too many people. It was a very stupid strategy from the very getgo and just another foolish thing in the path of Neoliberalism.


| >>536922 You also noticed before that I mentioned that Vietnam has a better housing situation. I stand by that statement because their market is a lot more well managed and the building quality is miles away.

There is something very wrong when you spend 500 000 dollars on an apartment (In China) and that apartment will deteriorate within years.


| Also I feel the thing that's caused the most amount of people losing their homes has been the neo-liberal economical idea being shoved everywhere. Whether you're for or against Capitalism, it doesn't matter. If you support neo-liberal style policies, you're screwing over the masses. It's likely that these kinds of policies made many people lose their jobs and some could never get back up due to being part of a very particular niche of production or work.


| But people supporting these kinds of policies, intentionally or non intentionally will tell you how good of a thing that is because major corporations are profiting. Smaller companies can't work this way. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

There is a problem of exploited workers but there's also a problem when there's no available work for you whatsoever. We need to work to survive, that's a basic necessity of the human environment since the industrial revolution.


| >>536925
>There is a problem of exploited workers
But this THE Problem. And it's not going to disappear without any opposition. And guess who opposes exploiting workers? Conservatives? No! Liberals? No! Social-democrats/socialists? Only rhetorically. Practically they are neo-liberals and/or corrupt douchebags. Nazists, Fascists, relgious fundamentalists, etc.? Maybe, but only for selected members of a certain nation, ethnicity, faith community etc.
So there's only one option left.


| >>536925
>It's likely that these kinds of policies made many people lose their jobs
Even without neoliberal politics, in the most social and best regulated and free market, even if it's not based on offshoring the negative consequences across the borders, there is another factor that will destroy jobs on the long term: Automation.
Beside that nature can't support infinite growth. When it comes to nature already living on pump, and generations after us will have to pay.


| >>536852
dude it's literally in the title "haha no is joke". it's a joke thread. and you're the unfunny sad punchline because you're mostly made out of retarded. you gobbled that shit right up. the holocause is a lied


| Thread is only a joke of you treat it like one. OP might have been joking, but of the rest of us want to have a serious discussion, why should that stop us?

Total number of posts: 35, last modified on: Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1552689637

This thread is closed.