Mordhau
 Survii
Knight
  • Likes received 391
  • Date joined 6 Sep '16
  • Last seen 1h
Private Message
Knight 243 391
  • 22 May
 Survii

"nohbdy
Don't listen to that poor guy, Vanguard, trapped in his own fantasy world.

Communism doesn't work because it is incompatible with human nature. Humans always look for a leader to centralize the organization of people make make the executive decisions. Look at even the most primitive human tribes- you will always find at least a chieftain. Human beings are smart. Our social nature exists in such a way because we know it is the most efficient way to run a group. A democratic control of the means of production would just slow the productive rate of a workplace to the pace of the slowest individual.

You can't let everyone freely satisfy their needs, eliminate all sense of profit, and expect people to just work out of the goodness of their heart. Vanguard's comment about how everyone would just work because it would benefit the broader society is ridiculous; this is not how behavioral conditioning works in psychology. The work that benefits society does not necessarily benefit the individual. Working requires the self-sacrifice of time in their life- time they will never get back. This self-sacrifice counteracts the personal motive of improving society, so you need a third motive of positive reinforcement in the form of personal profit in addition to societal benefit in order to incentivize work."

private message from nohbdy earlier this year lmao

Knight 243 391
  • 22 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:

@Punzybobo said:
Wow attacking character now, are we Vanguard? What did I ever do to you? :(

Sorry m8, what triggers me is this lack of wish to understand what one is trying to say, you see. You jump to conclusions way too quickly, before even figuring out what was just said.

And how can you argue that Catalonian socialism was any good if it didn't even have a chance to be tested??? I really don't understand this.

See the wiki page about it, it answers your question.

@Sammy said:

The Muslim train post was a meme you stupid nigger. Yeah, dude, the Nazis weren't even Socialists either.

unknown

Yeah, far-right socialism Sammy, good job man!

Nazis weren't far right. They were authoritarian socialists

Knight 243 391
  • 22 May
 Survii

@EruTheTeapot said:
WhichWitch1.jpg
WhichWitch2.jpg
WhichWitch3.jpg

'Sup witches ?

Did you intend to post a picture of someone with a jewish nose pretty much directly after a nazi shitpost?

Knight 243 391
  • 22 May
 Survii

lmao socialism/communism is the definition of entitlement "I exist therefore I am owed"

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:
What you see in Africa is your anarcho-capitalism wet dream happening. You keep the capitalist mode of production, but without any government to put order in it. It just shows how savage and retarded your economic system is, it requires a authoritarian centralized government, otherwise it's literally chaos.

  1. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
  2. I was using African countries as an example of natural hierarchy, you have to control that or you get a dystonia. That is what I was saying, I wasn't using them as an example of communism

Define natural hierarchy. You are still not considering the influence of the economic model on human behavior, which is stupid as fuck honestly.

What I said was that, for Brazil, I would like to see a huge State controlling the economy in a Democratic way. That is, Instead of a centralized government that will take decisions in a authoritarian way, it would be horizontal, with power distributed locally via labor concils but interconnected as a whole, where the final end of the economy would be the common good of the people, Instead of profit.

So while the State is omnipresent, there is decentralized planning, or economic democracy.

That is how the governments of capitalist countries work NOW. People vote for a local representative of their area, that has to (for personal gain) care about the local issues they are facing, and take action or they won't be voted in the next time. The centralised government has to deal with mass funding of certain areas eg. the military, now unless you want every individual town in a country to choose how many tanks they want to buy, it is much more effective to have it be in a centralised power.

I won't even waste my time answering this dumb shit. Go read the wiki pages I posted, then come back here and say again that that's how society works today. A clue, I was talking about democratically planned economy. See how dumb you are being?

Either you are dumb as a brick or dishonest as fuck. Seems like a waste of time discussing with you tbh. And I have discussed with Mr Furst, so you see how much of a waste you are being here.

Capitalism has issues, and anarco-communism seems great until you factor in natural human behaviour.

Explain to me what changed in human natural behavior through history, how do you explain the difference in human behavior? It's like, our genetics change and then boom, feudalism ends and we are now capitalist?

Definite to me these natural human behaviors.

I mean, what have you read about communism to form your opinion? I'm really curious.

Education in socialism, psychology and economics. Viewing of communist Youtube videos and documentaries. A knowledge of history and reading of some of Marx's works.

Hahahahahahahaha

You didn't even knew the difference between state ownership and common ownership. Nice try boy

Well, someone seems triggered.

Well wtf do you expect? You systematically ignore my argument and put 0 effort in your answers.

Well I don't, but sure.

First, I admit I misread the paragraph you wrote about the economy, I thought you were referring to power/ government spending.

See, you don't put effort even in reading what I write. And it's not even the first time lmao

What? I assumed you meant government spending instead of the larger economy, I had a brain fart dude calm down lol

Natural hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy

Economic model influences behaviour? Yeah, humans are GREEDY. People want MORE and are always driven to want MORE. It doesn't matter if this is in a capitalist society, a communist society, or in no society. As long as humanity has existed people have stolen things, people have formed monopolies and people have hoarded things.

M8, we have historical examples of a more logical and efficient modes of production.

Lmao Mr Nohbdy answered this one better then I could.

Yes, because communism is famed for its efficiency.
I swear to God if you post the Spanish civil war example again I will pop a blood vessel in my brain

I suggest doing basic psychological research before making claims like that. I suggest reading Levine et al 2001's study on cross-cultural altruism https://www.scribd.com/document/296186816/04-Levine-Et-Al-2001-Cross-cultural-Differences-in-Helping-Strangers

Cool, I'll take a look. Anyways it's undeniable that economic model will determine a huge part of human behavior. Just compare feudalism with capitalism.

"I can prove you wrong, I have a study!" "yeah well I can say my original point was undeniable!!!"

Anyway Vangaurd, I actually had respect for you until now. You always seemed to keep your cool and was the first communist on the internet that actually knew what they were talking about and didn't back down when I posted my first shitpost level memes. But that's all gone since you started acting like a Dindu after a shooting.

Again, wtf do you even expect lmao, you kept answering dumb shit until I threw feces on your face and called you out on your retardation. Now you don't respect me? I don't respect you!

Atleast we can agree on something

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@nohbdy said:
There is a world of difference between natural "hierarchy" and modern, institutional hierarchies that are artificially created and externally reinforced through the state's monopoly on violence. By natural "hierarchy," I assume you're referring to the tendency of individuals recognize a certain person within a group as a leader and being willing to follow their lead. In this natural form of cooperation, recognition of a leader's position is entirely contingent on the popular consensus of the people that are lead. Not only that, but the people's willingness to follow their leader's orders is also completely dependent upon the group's approval of the leader's decisions as well. This makes it so leaders have to act according to the interests of their respective people if they want to retain their status, which also means that the role and purpose served by the leader is determined by the people themselves as well. For example, a group of people might recognize a leader but only for the purpose of mediating decisions that the collective determine through a popular vote i.e. the leader takes the role of a manager with no real authority as opposed to a ruler who gives makes the decisions for the group and gives orders from the top-down. The leader has to cooperate or else they will immediately be replaced with someone who will act in the interest of the group. If we are to relate natural social hierarchies such as this to political philosophy, it is not actually a "hierarchy" in a political sense at all. Rather, it is democratic in nature that exists both cooperatively and voluntarily; This kind of natural social organization that exists in the absence of coercion is actually precisely what Anarchists support.

But what is to stop the bottom-up hierarchy becoming a top-down one? NOTHING. That is the problem with communism. On a local level, yeah, the leader has to act well or they can be easily kicked off their position of representativeness. But on a larger scale? No. People will follow unreasonable orders because humans naturally perceive people in order of a hierarchy even if it is artificially created within their own mind. Sociopath doesn't like his "boss" so the workers complain and throw him over, the sociopath within the organisation then gains lots of personal praise (like we see nowadays with celebs and within communities, I'm sure you can think of a few examples within your own work/uni/whatever) The sociopath then gets into a position of power and convinces people that they are under threat from a terrorist group THEY are controlling (with the promise of post-revolution shit) the company gets a huge security force. Through the chain of command the security enforces slave labour and moves all profits to the sociopath. This would happen, especially if the sociopaths were part of a network that did the same to multiple companies at the same time. Look up Milgram if you think that people would ignore the orders the sociopath is giving.

PS: "company" and "big chunk of means of production" and "local economy area" are interchangeable

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@nohbdy said:

@Survii said:

I am assuming the type of communism he is going for is the one with a large and self-monitoring government (like he has stated multiple times)

Pretty sure Vanguard is an Anarcho-Communist...

Awesome

which would then enforce the private property side of communism.

what... Do you even understand the words you're saying?

Yes, and they hopefully make sense in the context. I do have a habit of logic jumping though as I assume people understand my thoughts without writing it all down.

If there is a full Marxist wet dream like you suggested, a hierarchy would form almost immediately, just look at Sub-Saharan Africa- gangs rule the people as soon as any government collapses.

If your argument here is that organization can't exist without hierarchy, the organizational methods and structure of the CNT would beg to differ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo#Structure

HOLY SHIT ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE OF A SYSTEM WORKING!? I GUESS WE CAN ALSO BASE OUR ECONOMY ON SLAB CITY AS THAT SEEMS TO WORK AMIRITE BOIS!?

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:
What you see in Africa is your anarcho-capitalism wet dream happening. You keep the capitalist mode of production, but without any government to put order in it. It just shows how savage and retarded your economic system is, it requires a authoritarian centralized government, otherwise it's literally chaos.

  1. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
  2. I was using African countries as an example of natural hierarchy, you have to control that or you get a dystonia. That is what I was saying, I wasn't using them as an example of communism

Define natural hierarchy. You are still not considering the influence of the economic model on human behavior, which is stupid as fuck honestly.

What I said was that, for Brazil, I would like to see a huge State controlling the economy in a Democratic way. That is, Instead of a centralized government that will take decisions in a authoritarian way, it would be horizontal, with power distributed locally via labor concils but interconnected as a whole, where the final end of the economy would be the common good of the people, Instead of profit.

So while the State is omnipresent, there is decentralized planning, or economic democracy.

That is how the governments of capitalist countries work NOW. People vote for a local representative of their area, that has to (for personal gain) care about the local issues they are facing, and take action or they won't be voted in the next time. The centralised government has to deal with mass funding of certain areas eg. the military, now unless you want every individual town in a country to choose how many tanks they want to buy, it is much more effective to have it be in a centralised power.

I won't even waste my time answering this dumb shit. Go read the wiki pages I posted, then come back here and say again that that's how society works today. A clue, I was talking about democratically planned economy. See how dumb you are being?

Either you are dumb as a brick or dishonest as fuck. Seems like a waste of time discussing with you tbh. And I have discussed with Mr Furst, so you see how much of a waste you are being here.

Capitalism has issues, and anarco-communism seems great until you factor in natural human behaviour.

Explain to me what changed in human natural behavior through history, how do you explain the difference in human behavior? It's like, our genetics change and then boom, feudalism ends and we are now capitalist?

Definite to me these natural human behaviors.

I mean, what have you read about communism to form your opinion? I'm really curious.

Education in socialism, psychology and economics. Viewing of communist Youtube videos and documentaries. A knowledge of history and reading of some of Marx's works.

Hahahahahahahaha

You didn't even knew the difference between state ownership and common ownership. Nice try boy

Well, someone seems triggered.

First, I admit I misread the paragraph you wrote about the economy, I thought you were referring to power/ government spending.

Natural hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy

Economic model influences behaviour? Yeah, humans are GREEDY. People want MORE and are always driven to want MORE. It doesn't matter if this is in a capitalist society, a communist society, or in no society. As long as humanity has existed people have stolen things, people have formed monopolies and people have hoarded things. I suggest doing basic psychological research before making claims like that. I suggest reading Levine et al 2001's study on cross-cultural altruism https://www.scribd.com/document/296186816/04-Levine-Et-Al-2001-Cross-cultural-Differences-in-Helping-Strangers

Anyway Vangaurd, I actually had respect for you until now. You always seemed to keep your cool and was the first communist on the internet that actually knew what they were talking about and didn't back down when I posted my first shitpost level memes. But that's all gone since you started acting like a Dindu after a shooting.

Knight 243 391
  • 1
  • 21 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:
What you see in Africa is your anarcho-capitalism wet dream happening. You keep the capitalist mode of production, but without any government to put order in it. It just shows how savage and retarded your economic system is, it requires a authoritarian centralized government, otherwise it's literally chaos.

  1. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
  2. I was using African countries as an example of natural hierarchy, you have to control that or you get a dystonia. That is what I was saying, I wasn't using them as an example of communism

What I said was that, for Brazil, I would like to see a huge State controlling the economy in a Democratic way. That is, Instead of a centralized government that will take decisions in a authoritarian way, it would be horizontal, with power distributed locally via labor concils but interconnected as a whole, where the final end of the economy would be the common good of the people, Instead of profit.

So while the State is omnipresent, there is decentralized planning, or economic democracy.

That is how the governments of capitalist countries work NOW. People vote for a local representative of their area, that has to (for personal gain) care about the local issues they are facing, and take action or they won't be voted in the next time. The centralised government has to deal with mass funding of certain areas eg. the military, now unless you want every individual town in a country to choose how many tanks they want to buy, it is much more effective to have it be in a centralised power.

Capitalism has issues, and anarco-communism seems great until you factor in natural human behaviour.

I mean, what have you read about communism to form your opinion? I'm really curious.

Education in socialism, psychology and economics. Viewing of communist Youtube videos and documentaries. A knowledge of history and reading of some of Marx's works.

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@Huggles said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:
"Communism is inherently authoritarian, as for anarcho (or any other brand of communism) to exist, the state has to force large businesses to not exist, and also stop anyone having any private property.

"Large business" is a thing on a mode of production that is under the law of Value and that has capital, and capital accumulation. Communism has another kind of economy, this doesn't even make sense.

There is absolutely no problem in a person owning a private property, see the Spanish experience to understand what happened. The most important means of production are of common ownership, like factories, plantations etc.

"common ownership" is a fancy term for state-owned, you are simply shifting the power away from individuals to a government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership

Holy shit are you even trying? Have you read the things I asked you too? Are you legit interested in understanding what it's all about, or is this just a meme?

Hue me rigt u worng lmao capitalism is le freedoms​ xDdDD

Bitch stop thinking that you know what you are talking about, because you clearly don't.

Common ownership IS state ownership. The group that enforces COMMON OWNERSHIP is the STATE. fucking hell

Communists don't want a state to exist. They believe in direct democracy, in which the people are literally the government. Common ownership is govt ownership, sure, but literally everyone in the society is "government."

I swear, this is all explained in a government or civics class.

I am assuming the type of communism he is going for is the one with a large and self-monitoring government (like he has stated multiple times) which would then enforce the private property side of communism. If there is a full Marxist wet dream like you suggested, a hierarchy would form almost immediately, just look at Sub-Saharan Africa- gangs rule the people as soon as any government collapses.

Knight 243 391
  • 21 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:
"Communism is inherently authoritarian, as for anarcho (or any other brand of communism) to exist, the state has to force large businesses to not exist, and also stop anyone having any private property.

"Large business" is a thing on a mode of production that is under the law of Value and that has capital, and capital accumulation. Communism has another kind of economy, this doesn't even make sense.

There is absolutely no problem in a person owning a private property, see the Spanish experience to understand what happened. The most important means of production are of common ownership, like factories, plantations etc.

"common ownership" is a fancy term for state-owned, you are simply shifting the power away from individuals to a government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership

Holy shit are you even trying? Have you read the things I asked you too? Are you legit interested in understanding what it's all about, or is this just a meme?

Hue me rigt u worng lmao capitalism is le freedoms​ xDdDD

Bitch stop thinking that you know what you are talking about, because you clearly don't.

Common ownership IS state ownership. The group that enforces COMMON OWNERSHIP is the STATE. fucking hell

Knight 243 391
  • 20 May
 Survii

@vanguard said:

@Survii said:
"Communism is inherently authoritarian, as for anarcho (or any other brand of communism) to exist, the state has to force large businesses to not exist, and also stop anyone having any private property.

"Large business" is a thing on a mode of production that is under the law of Value and that has capital, and capital accumulation. Communism has another kind of economy, this doesn't even make sense.

There is absolutely no problem in a person owning a private property, see the Spanish experience to understand what happened. The most important means of production are of common ownership, like factories, plantations etc.

"common ownership" is a fancy term for state-owned, you are simply shifting the power away from individuals to a government.

Knight 243 391
  • 20 May
 Survii

"Communism is inherently authoritarian, as for anarcho (or any other brand of communism) to exist, the state has to force large businesses to not exist, and also stop anyone having any private property. This gives a huge chance for a dictator to rise up in the government and have control of everything, as they are already powerful enough to enforce the whole "no one has property xDddDdD" and probably kill anyone who tries to defend their "property". That is why every single attempt at communism has lead to a dictator gunning down people who oppose him, as the ability to become an all-powerful leader is always there. Lets say you have people in the state dedicated to stop this, well, whats stopping THEM from becoming a leader? If you were in that position and you claim you wouldn't become a dictator you are either lying to yourself, or would be killed and have someone else take that position." Vangaurd pls

Knight 243 391
  • 17 May
 Survii

@Smeelio said:
That snowman is grumpy as fuck, I love it

he's eating his nose
what are the connotations of this I need to know

Knight 243 391
  • 17 May
 Survii

@Valmirius said:

References

Icaew.com. (n.d.). Illegal arms dealing | Business crime and misconduct | Legal and regulatory | ICAEW | ICAEW. [online] Available at: https://www.icaew.com/en/technical/legal-and-regulatory/business-crime-and-misconduct/illegal-arms-dealing [Accessed 17 May 2017].

Parliament (2016). The legal and regulatory framework for UK arms exports. London: House of Commons Library.

lol references? get out of this thread tbh
movie maker or nothin imho

Knight 243 391
  • 1
  • 15 May
 Survii

T H I S - T H R E A D - I S - J U S T - C O N F I R M A T I O N - B I A S - Y O U T U B E - V I D E O S - M A D E - B Y - C O N S P I R I T A R D S - O N - M O V I E - M A K E R - P L E A S E - S T O P

Knight 243 391
  • 1
  • 14 May
 Survii

Communism is inherently authoritarian, as for anarcho (or any other brand of communism) to exist, the state has to force large businesses to not exist, and also stop anyone having any private property. This gives a huge chance for a dictator to rise up in the government and have control of everything, as they are already powerful enough to enforce the whole "no one has property xDddDdD" and probably kill anyone who tries to defend their "property". That is why every single attempt at communism has lead to a dictator gunning down people who oppose him, as the ability to become an all-powerful leader is always there. Lets say you have people in the state dedicated to stop this, well, whats stopping THEM from becoming a leader? If you were in that position and you claim you wouldn't become a dictator you are either lying to yourself, or would be killed and have someone else take that position.

Knight 243 391
  • 14 May
 Survii

@Kaiowa said:

@Survii said:
communism.jpg

I don't see Cuba as anything close to a failure.

A taxi driver makes in a day what a doctor makes in a month

Knight 243 391
Knight 243 391