But also, my communism isn’t about authoritarian bureaucracy, suppressing freedom or everyone wearing burlap sacks...

Jesus hold yourself to some standards.

Also people here like this type of nu-communism that consists of public orgies, rampant drug abuse and everyone becoming a spoiled middle class brat. That's their conception of communism.

the absolute state of 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧w*Sternoids🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

What the fuck are u talking about

Attached: draper.jpg (345x336, 214.33K)

(sits and waits for someone to start going "LIBERAL REEEEEEEEEEE")

you're on the wrong board. you're looking for leftpol

WHAT?
I was asking what the person I was quoting meant. I dont see anyone here saying public orgies are actually existing communism and I'm

Like I said in

Zig Forums has pretty much devolved into a bunch of weird, ☭TANKIE☭ incel creeps. They really are just the pepe chuds of the left

...

Honestly not gonna be surprised when she get's John Hinckley'd by some ☭TANKIE☭ autist. my money is on Stalinstache tranny.

Attached: colbert.jpg (800x450, 127.85K)

get out of here, ESL retard.

How many more buzzwords will you fit into that post faggot? MUH INCEL MUH ☭TANKIE☭ MUH DRUMPF!

Fuck off liberal.

We can have nice things when someone a world away doesn't need to endure deprivation for us to have them.

go to >>>Zig Forums faggot

Attached: goku.jpg (640x480, 40.3K)

Ok

I mostly agree with her, but am deeply skeptical of "fun." "Fun" is reactionary and should be immediately abolished. It's the feeling people try to obtain through the consumption of capitalist media. An incredibly low standard to set.
What we need is more along the lines of "joy." The relentless pursuit of personal passion wherever it leads you. This isn't always fun.
Her rhetoric might help make more people sympathetic to our cause though, so I don't mind too much.

She's appealing to middle class cunts who want to lavish away in art fairs and garage raves until the grave. These dumbasses legitimately believe that robots will take over ALL jobs in the near future so everyone can have that petty-booj experience.

i wish

lmao

In an interview she said she doesn't want to bash "Obama's legacy" too much.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that though. We should get to a point where everyone can sustainably experience the comforts of a typical Western European worker without having to slave away for it. It's very hard to tell what it would take to get there, but it's a great goal. We must give whatever it takes to reach it.
People shouldn't "lavish away in art fairs and garage raves" though. That's completely uninteresting. She probably thinks it's the pinnacle of human life. Fuck that. But if it introduces people to our cause, that's fine with me.

Bukharinite delusions.

Attached: 182077-dr-paul-cockshott-glasgow-university.jpg (1180x668, 525.19K)

she's really cute in some angles/lighting

What does this even mean? Fun only existed during feudalism?

Everybody is cute putting his head up like she does in her profile picture and the dark skin makes her facial shape a bit more pleasant to look at, but she really is pretty (below?-)average looking, she just sexes it up with model shots and sex talk, you don't need more to make the incels drool. Come on, you see hotter girls everytime you go to the grocery store, but they don't say they are communists so you see them differently.

It's definitely something that should be aspired to but we should have NO real expectations that it will happen in the next 200-400 years. Any AI developed under capitalism WILL be to the detriment of the working class.

...

"Luxury socialists" have a lot of problems but I'm the broadest possible sense they are right that communism is not necessary Stalinism

Though nobody would think it is correct to say building communism is about having fun with your friends.

Communism in REALITY will always be similar to stalinism. You will never have your peaceful revolution.

My dude the revolution will look different in the main imperialist core

Jej. The revolution will be brought TO YOU, you will never instigate it alone.

...

It'll probably look worse than that because the west needs to be nuked for international communism to truly come about.

fuck off retard

fuck off retard

she's not even a leftcom
she's just a dumbass

Attached: 473727252352.jpg (331x497, 29.21K)

Right, britbong here: let me explain to you the theory of Sarkar, and her compatriot Aaron bastani. They belong to a group called Novara Media, which is kinda a leftwing version of say Rebel News Media or some bs. Now they are nominally pro-Corbyn but openly declare themselves to be communist without any attempt at hiding it. Also it is interseting that Sarkar herself is actually NOT a Labour Party member purely because she sees it conflicting with her journalistic integrity. Now Sarkar and bastani do get a hit off making people's monocles fall off, which can be entertaining. They are, however, linked with this kind of leftish cadre of journos: Owen Jones (fucking at the prick) Matt Zarb-Cousin, and some others. So yeah, they're interesting although 80% of their shtick is triggering people by being massively outspoken about their beliefs. They do hold some pretty liberal positions though, like border abolition.
As for their theory, it is that of technocommunism (not to be confused with cybernetics): in short we can achive Actually Existing Communism through mass automation and thus post-scarcity. This must be done through technological accelerationism, which in their case means promoting electoralism and getting a Corbyn government: white heat of this technological revolution ect. (one for you socdem poster). Now do I agree with it? No, human labour will not be abolished for over a century if not more, I am a cybernetistsian and Wollfite synethsist: however it holds some interesting merits.
Regardless, outside of weird leftwing circles and right-wing triggered boomer circles she is not much of a name whatsoever, even within the Lab party she nor Novara's thoughts are that well-known, make of that what you will.
also whoever is calling her a leftcom, you're a fucking idiot: no offence

How fucking thirsty are you to want to even be within a five-hundred mile radius of that thing?

I think that if everyone got on board with global socialism we could get there a lot quicker than that. Capitalism is shit at developing third world countries. If we could orient the efforts of the first world towards getting the poor in good shape, we'd be golden.
But if you mean realistically, then yes, it might take a while. It is impossible to predict what will happen. The only thing we can do is set our goals correctly, try to organize society and alleviate as much suffering as quickly as we can.

A nuclear war is likelier to happen sooner, maybe even precipitate, global socialism.

Peak liberalism. Real leftists jerk off go gentle femdom.

If you aren't anti-fun, anti-happiness, and so on, you're unironically probably a liberal. You may as well roll around in mud until you die lol.

How did a retarded Yankee I WATCJ CHAPOTRAP HOUSE AND LEARNED ABOUT SOCIALISM CUS OF SANDERS Redditor type like you find this place?

Happiness doesn't exist. Even if it did it would be something complete losers were into. "HURR my life was a mistake but at least I'm happy!" If you want to have fun and be happy load yourself up with a good dose of morphine and go die in a ditch. That's probably the most fun a human being could possibly have. Liberals like fun because it keeps the population under control. Like docile little sheep. Give them a dumb superhero movie or a videogame and they're content. Luckily I have become immune to all known forms of fun. You have to train yourself for this by talking to horrible people on the internet. Eventually you'll realize that everything and everyone's shitty and be safe from these bourgeois pretensions of "fun." Everything sucks and you're going to have to man up and deal with it. Work towards socialism, maybe some day things will be better. Don't count on that happening during your lifetime though.

oh look another libthot spouting fucking nonsense and LARPing as a leftist

Hi phil

Attached: greaves.png (628x413, 56.64K)

This

This is really not worth getting angry over

most reddit/twatter tanks are very gynocentric and dismissive of male issues if anything

Attached: Culture.jpg (680x383, 27.66K)

kill yourself liberal

Go back to r/ChapoTrapHouse faggot

medium.com/@HauntedPierre/on-the-finnish-bolshevik-question-17a8ebd3f41c?source=user_profile---------2-------------------
tolerate such open acts of sexual promiscuity, such actions are degenerate. Especially taking into account the latest Maoist-Hoxhaist debacle, who previous to the pedophilia would openly share nude images of himself. The problem the left is dealing with in all of these instances is a lack of discipline, all over in leftist circles open sexual promiscuity is being tolerated, everything from posting lewd images, to outright pornography, if we are to avoid another one of these debacles we must move to combat this

trolling the ☭TANKIE☭s, epic style!
*2000 era troll face*

r/socialism might be more your speed

Attached: 1466712202249.jpg (447x444, 77.46K)

Is that a man?

hey it's 2011 /v/

I fucking wish lmao

Communism is just another London fashion trend to this bitch. No, revolution and class struggle is not fun, why don't you ask Castro how much fun he had watching his friends get blown away you dumb fucking stupid bitch socdem whore. Can I make a special reservation for this anarchist whore to go in a gulag?

its always funny how when you boil it down communists just want all the fun good easy parts of capitalism without all the unpleasant bad stuff

Yeah, nah.

communists would happily give everyone mandatory work quotas in order to produce commodities and services, as long as the workers owned their own labor and the work quotas were democratically agreed to.

care to elaborate?

enjoying luxury goods, furthering technological and scientific "progress". the concept of "leisure time" and maximizing it, implying a commitment to keeping labor and work as slave collars humans must still wear in their "utopia"

just to be clear, you're saying these concepts didn't exist prior to or irrespective of capitalism?

I'm not understanding the critique, it the problem that people still have to work, despite someone claiming they don't?

Not in the way we're used to speaking of them, no.

The critique is ultimately that communists dont actually want to get rid of industrial production. They just want the terms of work in an industrial society to be much more equitble for everyone on the planet.

While this is an okay "goal" it reeks of naivety and also betrays present day communist's anachronism. The nature of industrial society and work is changing quickly and accelerating, yet communists are still stuck in a 19th century view of it because that's what Daddy Marx taught them and they refuse to take it any farther. They aren't real radicals. As much as they shit on leftcoms and soccdems, especially in this thread, they ultimately aren't any different if you scale it up a level. While socdems dont want to change the politcal system, just make it more equitable, communists similarly dont really want to change the System (of work, society, LIFE) they just want to make it more equitable.

How else are we going to sustain the 7+ billion people on earth?

this

Dead bodies in the midst of the Glorious Communist Revolution are totally Right and Good, but dead bodies because of the refusal to unshackle humanity from industrial chains isn't?

Are you saying that not halting industrial civilization will lead to large scale deaths? A growing industrial civilization such as under capitalism will certainly lead to that.

Or to put it in a slightly clearer way, hypothetically all losses are acceptable in the midst of the proletariat revolution, right? But suddenly that changes when it comes to the neglect of the industrial machine.

No, not at all. Nuclear war is unacceptable, but it's a moot point because it's out of our hands.
What exactly are you suggesting? No conventional war could be as deadly as deliberately dismantling industrial society, and I don't understand why you'd want to. Just be a hermit in Siberia if you don't like big buildings.

there are large scale deaths either way. The question is not about death toll because if we are being honest it does not matter. All losses are acceptable losses in the fight for liberation, right? There must be no mercy or pity, the enemy knows none. History has proven this through the capitalists and fascists.

If death toll does not matter then the question moves on to who is really the enemy. I wont type an essay here, but to keep it short simply overthrowing the masters of industrial society doesnt do anything. The true sickness of mankind isnt one class of people ruling over all others. You must ask why that even happens in the first place. It was not always like that. It is the centralized and productive game that humanity has been playing for thousands of years that has allowed surplus resources to pool to one gender, and one class of people and have them being able to rule over others and extract priveleges for themselves. How exactly this phenomenon functions progresses and varies across time but it is the main cause of all unjust oppressions in human history.

I say unjust oppression because there has always been violence. But among equals, you can return that violence with your own. Under oppression you are powerless.

Playing the communist's game does nothing but replace how the game functions. Even in the communist's utopia, people still labor and produce commodities and services and there is surplus. It is incredibly naive to think that in reality this would work out exactly as well as this but even if it does this still maintains the system that lays fertile ground for oppression.

the true revolutionary act is not changing how the system functions or who benefits. Countless "revolutions" have done that and its evident how those played out. The true revolutionary act, the ONLY one is the destruction of the system itself. You cant do that while keeping industrial production.

if you idiots really don't think the ultimate goal of society is spreading well-being to as many people as possible, which inevitably includes entertainment, you are terrible leftists and frankly you should do without your crappy internet indulgence to maximize whatever ascetic lifestyle you guys pretend to be obsessed with and live atop a fucking greased pole forever and leave this board.

behold, the quasi religious moral grandstanding, modernist leftist in its natural habitat

have you read this thread

I'm going to write about progress and luxuries even though you think they are excellent.

Surplus is always necessary since there are young and old who cannot work or we have decided that they ought not to work and should focus on other aspects of life. Then there are the weak who are unable to work. We all can say euthanize the weak until it's our own son. So at the very least there needs to be surplus essentials produced to cover those cases. Then there are have wants such as entertainment which need to be produced but the production of luxuries does not contribute to the production of essentials for subsistence so a surplus of essentials needs to be produced if we are to have luxuries. I don't see in the near future how surplus production can end, or a infallible way to avoid the appropriation of surplus by a one class to be used for oppressing another. There are of course safeguards that can be implemented. Even under full communism, I would expect access to resources to be unequally distributed since an unequal distribution of scarce things is the statistically most likely outcome. That does not mean human constructs such as political power also need to be distributed unequally.

What is the alternative to laboring for survival and fun? What does ending industrial production mean?