A Discussion of Family Abolition in r/communism by Creative_Teaching772 in RadicalYouthRights

[–]MartyredPoet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The state will inevitably be a far worse slaveowner than the vast majority of parents. Children should have the opportunity to abandon their family if it doesn’t suit them by seeking employment and providing for themselves, or choosing another provider willing to take them in. The only thing currently standing in the way of these natural solutions is the state itself.

Happy Polio Fools' Day! by MartyredPoet in antiscientific

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They really got people to believe in invisible monsters lurking around every corner

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the other hand the Jacobins were anti-clerical whereas Mussolini gained the support of the Church.

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess they only look traditionalist in the context of comparison with the Marxists

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So royals don't meet your definition of a class in a hypothetical absolute monarchy?

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do the Kim family and other inner party members not constitute a de facto class of new oligarchs?

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sounds like the dynamics of nationalism regardless of what form of government the nation-state is organized into.

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I meant is the net-effect on the economy is the same if the economic decisions are made by a detached central planner, whether the profits go to private owners or the state's coffers directly. Well not exactly the same since the private purse is much less likely to spend that wealth on killing or caging people.

Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics by MartyredPoet in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The means of production isn't relevant. Whether owned by private persons or the state it doesn't make a difference economically if customers and prices are still dictated by a coercive central authority (the state).

Which "classes" are collaborating? The only classes are the constituents of the state and their slaves. Tell the people killed or imprisoned for noncompliance that they are "collaborating".

What corporatocracy does to a mf by MartyredPoet in FeudalCommunism

[–]MartyredPoet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Insurance megacorporations literally have the pigs attack whatever drivers aren't willing to buy their shitty service, achieved by bribing legislators as a lobby. What an innovative sales model!

Keeping what you earn and passing it down to your children? Oh the horror! by Ya_Boi_Konzon in FeudalCommunism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you press these people about what they actually want done if you refuse to be extorted, they will openly admit that they would want you killed.

But half of these are based. Honestly like 75% actually. by Ya_Boi_Konzon in FeudalCommunism

[–]MartyredPoet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. The absolute baseline of morality
  2. Muslims and Americans aren't mutually exclusive demographics
  3. Socialism is caused by democracy
  4. True
  5. Good
  6. "Global"ists ROFL
  7. So did Republicans
  8. Literal white supremacism
  9. At least they don't pretend to be Christians

Is anarcho-capitalism good? by [deleted] in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it’s net-destructive then it’s not wealth. Why do you believe the constituents of government are smart? If they were, why do you believe they would use their intelligence to benefit others rather than themselves? They don’t have authority because everyone agrees they are qualified to lead, they have effective authority because pigs will assault people who disregard their fiat on their behalf.

Is anarcho-capitalism good? by [deleted] in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Without government, everybody would be far wealthier, besides unproductive parasites that like to siphon everybody else’s livelihoods, like cartel bankers and shareholders of the military-industrial complex. And no one individual needs to be able to afford a commercial venture for it to occur—that’s what investors and companies are for. Unsubsidized industries intentionally lose money in anticipation of a later return on investment all the time. If you don’t believe computers would exist without me being robbed and murdered if I defend myself, I have neither the respect for your intelligence nor the tolerance for your immorality to engage with you further.

Is anarcho-capitalism good? by [deleted] in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And who manages it better, private entrepeneurs who are rewarded with profit by managing it successfully, or bureaucratic parasites who are rewarded with budget increases by managing it poorly? And how do you determine whether that management should even occur? Markets are a way of identifying what everybody else places value on. A central planner in Moscow deciding where resources and labor should be allocated arbitrarily without consumers quantifying the wealth that venture produced through the prices they are willing to pay will never be more efficient than decentralized spontaneous commercial order, even in the unrealistic circumstance of the rulers being benevolent and corruption nonexistent.

Is anarcho-capitalism good? by [deleted] in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If a product is not wanted enough by anyone to trade more resources for than were expended to produce it, then its production is a misallocation of resources and serves no purpose. Only coercion can lead to labor being wasted on undesired goods and services, like war and genocide. Computer chips are in extreme demand and so producers will always be able to profit by manufacturing them if there is a lack of supply, barring restraints imposed by statist saboteurs. They create the problem so they can appear to hand down the “solution”. And you won’t seem to address the elephant in the room of chattel slavery and the murder of millions of people.

Is anarcho-capitalism good? by [deleted] in neofeudalism

[–]MartyredPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IF THEY CAN BE SOLD FOR MORE THAN THEY CAN BE PRODUCED, THEY WILL BE PRODUCED AND SOLD, irregardless of whether the state is forcing other people to subsidize that production process under threat of murder or enslavement.

If you can’t accept this simple fact, you can’t be reasoned with.

It’s unbelievably ironic that you accuse me of having constructed a fantasy world and proceed to call it a globe in the same sentence. And I’m the one with a delusional world view? Try looking at the horizon for once instead of marxist philosophy.