Authoritarianism

Dear leader should have all the power, just like the Rothschilds and Soros.

The transitory state is an archaic proletarian democracy with an as minimal and transparent bureaucracy as possible. Any "authority" is therefore illusory, subject to instant recall, and ultimately merely functional (like the queen of England, but without the monarchist flavor and decadence). They would lead and stamp bureaucratic measures of redistribution until the role is unnecessary.

The state should have enough power to be able to adequately defend itself from external threats and be able to provide vital services to participating members of society (health care, education, transportation, goods and services, etc). Military service should be mandatory for men and women for a few years followed by training sessions from time-to-time afterwards. I favor participatory forms of democracy where the people themselves are more involved in decision-making. Officials should also be subject to immediate recall. On the topic of mandatory military service, I have always been fascinated with the idea in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backwards where people, once they reach the age of 24, are drafted into an Industrial Army until they are 45. They retire at age 45 and never have to work again. I think testing that type of system in reality would be interesting, though I would certainly toy with the length of the service

Censorship would be a thing, but mainly for extreme reactionaries (fascists, capitalist-shills, etc) but mainly I think that the Internet and press should be untouched. Porn should be banned though. I don't think repressing religion has a very good past so I would leave them be for the most part unless they are extremists (radical Muslims, evangelical Christians, etc). When the conditions which create religion are removed, mandatory state-education will eventually solve the rest.

There would be no death penalty. Trying to reform these people along with putting them to work in a gulag is the best thing to do. People shouldn't just sit around in prison, they should be building stuff.

Mandatory service of any kind is reactionary bullshit. The point is to eventually eradicate formal state structures, not to empower them and hold it above the people. In a communist state cooperative citizens wouldn't be forced to do anything: it would be as inherent and instinctual in their interests to voluntarily work for society as it is inherent and instinctual it is for us to work solely for our selfish, individual interests under Capitalism

I see nothing wrong with military / community services of some kind. People should have certain duties towards the community. It would be no different then mandatory education is now

There is a difference between a duty towards the community and a duty toward the state, the former is socially enforced via informal structures, the latter is legally enforced via formal state structures. Duty towards a state apparatus in turn reinforces the state structure as an institution above the citizenry. Mandatory services are necessary when it is against the interest of the citizen to be in the mandatory service, and therefore in states is enforced by power or economic coercion. The point ought to be articulate a system wherein the citizenry readily and voluntarily joins services precisely because they know it is in their collective interest to do so.

I am well aware the USSR had a constitution and I never implied as such, but it was bent pretty hard later on by the committee and had no checks in place to prevent such bending. No ML can deny this. A clearly outlined, structurally enforced, and widely distributed constitution which outlines a series of checks to ensure the health and longevity of the revolutionary state while setting up system which prevents counterrevolutionary actions in all its branches is necessary to the success of a socialist government. Otherwise all it takes is a few revisionists to gain access to the central government to set the whole thing back years. There should government structures that watch and review the committee and congress, and structures that watch review those structures. There needs to "walls", balances, and strict interior surveys. That may sound like its bureaucracy, but any government with powers ensured to it to the extent a DoTP does will have in it at least a degree of bureaucracy even outside of cybernetic planning. That bureaucracy might as well keep a tight hold of itself from faltering.

Attached: ft500006hm_00003.gif (449x613, 38.06K)

I think the Maoists actually got this right, in that you need to infuse the principles of the revolution to the proles as soon as possible, so that when revisionists come they can get Cultural Revolution'd

Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism is a false dichotomy and I wish this meme would end. You cant just pick and choose this kind of shit, this isn't a grand strategy game or D&D. An anarchist movement that fails does not allow for "more freedom" than a Stalinist one that succeeds. Likewise a black bloc riot in Greece that burns down a police station and beats up fascists is more authoritarian than the Cuban government allowing certain bureaucrats to own more land and have access to luxuries most of the population doesnt. Right-libertarians aren't really wrong that ancoms are "closeted" authoritarians, for the same reasons we shouldn't be surprised when these supposed guardians of liberty the right-libertarians and ancaps embrace fascism at the drop of a hat:

This freedom/authority dichotomy is derived almost entirely from bourgeois liberal political philosophy and european enlightenment deontology about the transcendental rights of the individual as opposed to the government. In reality neither the government nor the individual really exist in this idealized sense, only networks of material relations and the immaterial relations produced by them. These relations are mediated by social infrastructure. This infrastructure is everything from a highway to a parliament to an arrangement of the family. The reason SocDems fail to change anything is because they get elected entirely within the social infrastructure of a bourgeois democracy and the relations it allows for do not include worker ownership. Their intentions, whether honest or dishonest, make no difference here unless they include a specific and still risky strategy to somehow modify/sabatoge that infrastructure in tandem with other organized efforts. The USSR and Maoist China had some heavily repressive elements because they captured the social infrastructure of repressive empires. We should understand as Marxists that these projects didn't fail to bring about lasting socialism because their leaders were mean or identified as authoritarians, but because material conditions create our social realities – without a conscious, concerted effort to reassemble social infrastructure, how could the captured machinery of the repressive state the Bolsheviks rebelled against do anything but reproduce the repressive social relations it was designed for? Lenin was aware of this, as indicated in his later letters where he regretted the Civil War necessitating many half-measures and compromises with the old form of the state. As for anarchists, the problem is that they take enlightenment ideology to its logical conclusion (full individual freedom, human association being entirely voluntary and nonheirarchical) without realizing that liberal individualist ideology was produced by certain material and social conditions that came about through severely repressive, genocidal, authoritarian apparati. The western individual, understood in opposition to society, was produced by the onset of capitalism and its colonial phase, the defining of the nation-state, the contractual demarcation of all elements of human life, and the simultaneous fracturing of traditional modes of organization and support. All these constitute the social infrastructure allowing for individual autonomy in the way we understand it. Anarchism in the way anarchosocialists understand it isn't necessarily impossible, or even improbable, but ideological purity is not going to take anybody there – that is going to require the ruthless carving out of new channels, new ways of organizing, the building of new infrastructure.

I guess this could leave us with another either/or of whether the best course is to capture the state-machinery and rearrange it effectively or to destroy it where we find it and build something new. But I think historically the answer has always necessarily been both/and, because revolution is a massively complicated, primarily strategic endeavor and both of these methods need to be applied to various degrees depending on the context. We need to stop talking about which of two idealist systems is better and start to talk about how to deal with these pragmatic issues of how to rearrange, dismantle, and rebuild effectively. This is what it means to move on past the 20th century and actually learn from history instead of using it as LARP fodder. Cockshottfags are absolutely in the right here, in at least direction even if the technical details and exact viability are debatable.

Attached: 1544393091570.jpg (400x309, 19.76K)

This too btw, maybe minus the cultural revolution part because I'm not sure what culture you'd be attacking in the case of a revisionist government. Really less of a culture and more of just nepotism, "reforms", and straight revisionism.

Good post, made me think.

Attached: Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism and Post-Capitalist Infrastucture.png (1486x424, 190.14K)

God I fucking miss posts like these.

Good good shit.
I've been thinking a lot recently about State & Revolution and the problem of bureaucracy in relation to this. If we're taking Hegel as the liberal-ontologist, laying out exactly how liberal society operates and views itself (without its relation to capitalism, of course) to its very core, then it proceeds that bureaucracy stems from, relies on, and in fact reinforces the division between civil society and the state apparatus. Marx & Engels pretty explicitly say that it's the former that needs to overcome and subsume the latter. But the question, which nowadays is of course among the questions, is how do we go about articulating a highly specialized and competent administrative network of people to execute and maintain agreed upon protocols and mandates (updating/observing housing codes, making sure the sewer system works, keeping track of what plane is going where, where and how [x] was built, keeping infrastructure maintained, etc) without a state structure that merely mimics or else just shallowly reforms liberal systems? It's difficult to think of a bureaucracy that doesn't in some way just reintroduce Technocratic sentiment back into society at large.

Delegating the bureaucracy to AI?

Not really a realistic option. Even if it were, replacing a bureaucracy with a mostly autonomous AI maintained or whatever by a small class of technically skilled administrators doesn't sound like all too different.

Deep down I'm a full on statist/nationalize everything, but then I look at history and see how thoroughly state institutions can be infiltrated by revisionist parasites and I start having second thoughts. I mean look at China. Look back at the USSR. I truly believe nations that big can never and should never have a strong state because when you get into the scales of hundreds of millions of people you aren't going to have control over anything. Regions will basically be self-autonomous with occasional input from the federal level.

In an ideal situation, meaning a country not too large of 1~30 million people at most, I'd be 100% statist.

directors aren't shareholders retard. corporations would just hire more CEOs

What about DPRK?

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)#CHAPTER_II._THE_ECONOMY

Thanks guys.

I do wonder though to what extent civil society and the state apparatus can be seperated. Of course there's utility in suspending this question since either way we're either asking for no state apparatus or a state apparatus that behaves in tandem with the interests of civil society instead of self propagation, but this seems to bring us back to the question of what to define as a state. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the standard Marxist definition for state is just the social instruments of the ruling class? So that the proletarian state is an intetmediary meant to abolish all states through the abolition of classes? This does seem a bit limited to me since regardless of whether or not wage-labor and private property are abolished there's still an entire administrative and logistical structure necessary for anything to function, which implies certain heirarchies and boundaries even if they are (hopefully) only pragmatic formalities freely adjustable depending on needs of the people involved. But my point is it seems counterintuitive or semantical to not refer to this apparatus of civil society as a state, though I definitely see the use in insisting on the fundamental differences of the state and emphasizing its distance from the bourgeois nation-state, possibly by drawing attention to how different the basic assumptions of feudal societies, theocratic kingdoms, etc are from what we now associate as a state, and how no one really disputes that those older forms were states.

As to what this actual reinvention would look like I have no idea, lol. I dont know if AI is the answer, I think that is potentially very dangerous considering that might mean concretizing our own ideological assumptions about the horizons of possibility in an unprecedented way. I admit I dont know much about it at all though, this might just be kneejerk luddite thinking.

My instinct is to propose something like this user is talking about , with a well defined and enforced seperation of powers. Some sort of dual or triple power between unions/syndicates/soviets/communes, a central branch and maybe a third broader one that just includes citizens at large that may not be represented by the unions/communes in particular. And of course a heavily automated production and distribution system that uses current technology to its full potential and tries to develop it further. Maybe this is what people mean by AI, but I usually understand the suggestion as AI determining the best mode of social organization and prescribing steps to get there, which sounds extremely dangerous to me.

Attached: ww-primates-orangutans.ngsversion.1465852517221.adapt.1900.1.jpg (1900x1068, 334.54K)

We just have draws every year, like in ancient Greece. Every member of society gets his turn sooner or later.

I care for no one but myself, or for anything that isn't my business.

Haven't read bigger load since Stalin. Revolution can only come by mass abolishment of abstractions created by bourgeoisie civilization (like money, government, state, religion, laws, morality) and when everyone realizes their power and lack of real power of others over them.

And who's gonna apprehend him? You? Don't be silly.

I'm pretty authoritarian

The people should be the state.

Yes. Capitalist propaganda, socdem propaganda, pornography. modern architecture

yes

Attached: n2TwHvKQ.jpg (600x337, 43.22K)

...

Haha rėd fäscist gets filtered to communist. Well, if you want to own Protestant morality, Zig Forums that's all you. But don't call it communism.

Not a big fun of democracy tbh
I think a large council of members with equal power and say should take important decisions, though a parliament of elected reps (both from areas of the state and unions) would exist with some veto power
In their personal life’s the people should be free imo
Militia training would exist ,but only hunting rifles should be allowed in common citizens houses(people can have other weapons but kept in weapon storages
Yep, reactionary elements need to be purged. Also lolberts are traitors
Only in extreme situations
But accidents happen in gulags
…

hello liberal

and no sex and architecture isn't bad.
commodification of sex by capitalists is bad
and ugly wasteful buildings shouldn't be something a healthy society should support.

Doesn't look bad but toning down the concrete would be a lot better.

Attached: cu.jpg (1000x542, 786.96K)

no, commodification of ones body is bad.
no, shitty architecture that doesn't serve any purpose is bad.
if you unironically don't think capitalists, murderers, pedophiles, and other scumbags don't deserve to be dealt justice you're a faggot liberal, but i guess i should have gauged that when you tried using the term "communism".

based BO even word filtering workarounds

This is your brain when you get brainwashed by capitalism but still think you're a '''communist'''.

I'll give you three guesses who wrote that. (no websearching)

sorry, but i think if you rape a kid or murder someone innocent then you deserve to have your life taken away. same goes for exploiters like the capitalist ruling class.

He's right though. There are no arguments for it other than some twisted idea of 'justice'.

Argue why we should have capital punishment without appealing to 'justice' (which is not universal, but depends on the govt./State/King/etc. laws).

i've already given an explanation, why should we let someone like a child molester continue to live? or someone who took the life of another who didn't deserve it? what gives them the right to do that and continue to live?

Why shouldn't justice be a factor in deciding punishment?
Why is ending the life of a criminal "wrong"

Wasn't there like an arc in Death note where corporations got their hands on the DN and just started murdering each other?

Because a justice can vary. In Europe the justice system doesn't have capital punishment. So I can appeal to justice to prove why we shouldn't have capital punishment. In a lot of cultures murder was punished by having the murderer pay the family.

That's not how it works. It's not up to me to disprove your positive claim. I just showed that there isn't one, universal 'justice'.

and i never claimed this, i used the term justice as in giving a criminal what they deserve.

And who decides what a 'criminal' deserves?

Attached: 1542681235675.jpg (601x601, 22.76K)

user does of course!

until the muslims take over that is

the people based on what crime they have committed. explain to me why we shouldn't have child molesters executed?

While i am not against capital punishment ……….As the great show Criminal Minds shaid,the death penalty is not for punishing the criminally insane(who in most cases don’t deserve death for something that was developed deep in their minds without wanting it)but to keep the public for going insane , for example in 2008 a young teen was shot by a pig in my country ,years later , one of his friends, present at the shooting(it happened the day of his birthday),was arrested after his DNA was found in small apartment filled with weapons, explosives and anarchist literature
While the officer was jailed the life of 2 kids was already ruined…
Maybe the child killer cop deserved death maybe not
Questions regarding justice have plagued philosophers for years an e-fight doesnt solve much….

Attached: Assassin’s_Creed_Chronicles_Russia_Card_4.png (224x261, 151K)

Authoritarianism is good when leader is good and disaster when leader is bad.

Attached: Castro with porky.png (1246x630, 98.69K)

Why should we?

So it will be put to a country-wide vote?

Again, it is not up to me to disprove your claim. You have to prove why we should kill child molesters.

People in this thread are advocating for capital punishment, why would it have to be muslims? Clearly if Zig Forums's version of communism is dominant capital punishment will return.

did you only see the word muslim?

he previous post said that europe doesn't have capital punishment and I replied with until muslims take over

because they're fucking child molesters? get the fuck out of here you pedofag.

So it will be put to a country-wide vote?
no, there should be something a kin to a jury where a group of people (most likely involved in the case) are given the choice to decide how the individual is punished.

Define 'child molester'.

Ah yes, good idea. Just let the friends and family of the victim decide. Surely they will be level-headed and fair.

You haven't thought this through, have you? And now you're just gonna keep trying to save face instead of thinking that maybe, maybe capital punishment is a silly idea.

Also, with capital punishment you have a chance of killing an innocent.

So if the State executes an innocent person we should kill the State?

What do you mean by "define"?

Attached: leftypol.jpg (1600x789, 291.67K)

I hope you men investigators….

is this based brutalism?

user are you really asking this question right now, that's kind giving off red flags.
yes, it is a good idea. let the people who have been affected decide instead of people completely unrelated to the case. if you had you child raped by some old cunt, surely you'd want a say in how he is dealt with, no?

What about drawings? Comics and ero art. Flash games? 3dcg?
What about amateur videos, couples who just upload video of themselves. Theres no money involved in this case, since this is a socialist society so neither the online advertisement industry nor intellectual """Property""" will be allowed. The same would apply to those on the first line as well.
What about erotic writing?
Moralists fuck off.

well those aren't real people so no.
once again, this isn't commodification. we're arguing against people being made to sell there bodies, not hentai or some couple filming themselves getting frisky. you can't just point to things that aren't commodification and be like "haha gotcha MORALISTS!"

If a guy is a serial killer that hunts 12 year olds then yes, go ahead kill him
But we should offer help to minor sex offenders
tho imho even the worst pedophile isn’t as bad as the average capitalist dog that attacks the natural progress of things

He said ban porn. All of that is porn.

It's not binary. Fuck all of them.

What????

Attached: OBI.png (274x424, 93.06K)

Oh no, is this discussion too taboo for you?

Yes, I am asking. Because it matters. Is the person who grabs a little childs ass over the clothes the same as a person who fucks a little child? They could both fall under the definition of 'child molester'. Do they both deserve death?

So people will get their revenge. I don't think revenge should be the basis of a legal system.

What about theft of personal possessions? Someone takes my toothbrush, I decide the punishment. Can I choose the death penalty?

A body can't be fucking commodified if the capitalism doesn't fucking exist anymore, you bloody idiot. This is embarrassing

I mean that we don't have to choose who to kill. Pedophiles and business owners.

This discussion on capital punishment just continues to prove that gulags and set sentences are the humane choice.

Attached: 72e66c122c58324b5fcbc9d48872b3ebad084295.jpg (606x339, 38.67K)

Anarchy by definition: is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The term originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy, anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. As according to the ORIGINAL definition anarchy is leaderlessness, which is considered an equivelant of disorder.
Proudhon is the one who changed the definition, however that definition is basicaly a re-write of free-market capitalism, and we know where that has gone. Anarchism may run smoothly for a few months, maybe even a few years, but it'll only be a matter of time before some opportunist with a silver tongue installs himself as a demagogue within a worker's council, ruling through charisma and, when it suits them, violent oppression (A man called A.H. rings a bell here). Then he'll rally the people behind him, and seize control of other councils. Before long, what you have isn't stateless anarchy - it's a syndicalist dystopia, where two or more big, exploitative monopolies call the shots. An example of this would be Germany and the rest of Mid-western Europe post WW 1, when workers councils arose and took power but then collapsed within a year or so,giving rise to capitalist, nationalist heirarchies. Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, West Ukraine ALL were originally anarchist by function, with voluntaryist systems that corrupted into nationalist corporate capitalists. THe workers councils arose in the vaccuum of the old powers, however they didn't fill in the power vaccuum and thus opportunists took over, and you know the rest. (All of these corporate-capitalist syndicates were crushed by the USSR)

Attached: guide to anarchists.jpg (600x373, 70.93K)

Anarchy also allows crime to run riot which results in chaos. And before you go "government commits crimes like murder and on a large scale and doesn't prevent crime", it does prevent crime through a combination of deterrence and catching criminals in the act. jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/3/1.html
Anarchy relies on all people to follow the acertained rules of decency, (don't kill, don't steal, don't drive s-tupidly, etc.) however but there are people out there who lack the moral capacity to do so, and they'd inevitably run amok in a no-limits society which would lead to either chaos or the alternative, the reformation of a state, but inherintly corrupt from the start. Criminals would also have no-one to give them a proper punishment, so either you get kangaroo courts which have doubtful legitimacy at best, OR you get anything varying from no action (due to the inability to act) or having the criminal (regardless of the harshness of the crime) killed or worse. Branching off from that, minorities would instantly be vulnerable, you know what holds nationalist white supremacists back from actively murdering minorities? The government. Take that away and they, making up a far larger group (numerically) could lynch, harrass and enslave who-ever they please.
Or who's to say the police or militia's won't just start making up laws as it suits them? Who's going to regulate them, who's to say that they will listen to the workers councils? What you have eventually is unbridled chaos, which is why anarchy while not synonymos with chaos often leads to it, or to corrupt autocracies. Also ever hear of a peaceful revolution that was anarchist? NEVER. The only reason workers councils in Mid-Western Europe arose was because the one of histories most violent wars (WW1) beheaded many of the governments that had existed before. These councils soon fell for reasons already explained. All other anarchist movements have been mostly violent and unorganized, due to the belief in no leader, making the ability for a concrete ideological movement impossible and causing factionized groups who if they destory the government will resort to infighting.
Anarchy has never historically worked and its end result is always neo-feudalism or monopolization. Without the government to prevent said monopoly from arising and enslaving you the chance of this ocurring is practically 100%, While a government can be corrupt, its presence prevents this from being a 100% occurrence. You want an example of anarchism today?; Somalia, utter anarchy, or Libya, utter anarchy, no government at all. People live and depend on one another and what's it like there? Its the worst, people who don't die, flee like insects from a fire. To quote Bertrand Russell, "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." State or no state liberties can be infringed. economic liberties are not at the same level as civil liberties. Also some liberties are exactly that, liberties, things that do not necessarily fall under human rights.

Attached: ancaps are protected by state.jpg (674x754 105.1 KB, 278.37K)

A single one did, yeah

no gods, no masters.

imagine being this mad that your parents don't yet you stay up on school days

Absolutely this

Most anarchists are syndicalists, their main objective is democracy in the workplace, and if modes of production become governed by workers rather than capitalists, production works towards more beneficial ends. The abolition of profit is the prime objective. The state becomes a redundant entity once the means of production are owned by the proletariat. Different industries collaborating through global free trade and mutual aid becomes the natural progression of this process, that's why anarchists don't believe in nation-states, it permits the freedom of labour, but restricts the travel of workers, which is geographical exploitation. Once national borders cease being economic borders, then we can have free travel and free association. You make it out like we all believe "fuck da gubbermint lel".

How Hobbesian of you

Attached: 2000px-Anarchist_flag.svg.png (2000x1333, 7.53K)

you want a master?

Holy fuck, you people are more embarrassing than ancaps, unironic fascists and "work" liberals.
So we have this bizarre fetish of conscription, forcing the majority of people into the military. Then there's this moralist, dare I say fascist obsession with banning porn, fuck sake.
Of course going with the average leftist Larper/Ideologue a "fascist" is anyone who doesn't worship murderous Stalin and other failed dictators or isn't retarded enough to be a Maoist/Anarchist/Stalinist.

You people completely dropped any pretence of supporting "personal property" in favour of either an extremely oppressive "vanguard party", which you see yourselves as belonging to the 'leadership' or a shitty commune with 'labour councils' which are glorified popularity contests.

Fuck sake, capitalists are less autistic than your morons and can actually create articulate plans that aren't some retarded wagecuck "Let's bring back the highly oppressive, malfunctioning Soviet Union" or "Let's try to recreate another failed anarchist society".

Fuck sake you people are hopeless.
Social democracy is the only thing that works.
And if you reply with edgy bullshit about "The Revolution is coming soon" with the cringey autistic word "comrade", you do deserve to be put into gulags along with the fascists.

Why not throw communists/stalinists/maoists/anarchists/fascists/neoliberals all into gulags and leave everyone else the fuck alone?

how do you quantify what "works"?

I quantify with what "works" with what produces wealth, relative levels of equality, environmental and labour protections, human rights, etc.

As horrible capitalism is, I don't see trying to bring back the dead Soviet Union as either desirable or good. And anarchists societies cannot work on a global level, let alone coordinate to solve Climate Change.

I think the environment, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, food needs to be decomodified. I would kill most Billionaires, prosecute and kill all war criminals, etc.

typical.
and no one wants to "bring back" the """highly oppressive, malfunctioning""" Soviet Union dipshit, we look at what worked and what didn't and adapt accordingly. marxism isn't a dogma.

You don't speak for all of Zig Forums. Röjava is hated here cause they aren't Marxist enough.

and i never claimed to, i'm "speaking" for most MLs since this is typically what we believe. 99.99% of us don't want to bring back the Soviet Union exactly as it was, and those that do are either LARPers or just retarded.

Being anti-capitalist does not automatically make you a Soviet LARPer. Criticism of vanguardism and concern for personality cults is one thing, but the far left is extremely ideologically diverse.
Then you don't like capitalism. There is no middle ground here, fam; even non-Marxist ideas like market socialism are different from capitalism in significant fundamental ways.

Rojava became a difficult topic after accepting American intervention. It is not a matter of ideological purity as much as it is strong doubt that the burgers will not ruin everything, even if the Kurds only condone them as a means to an end to deal with the akbars.
That said, BO trying to establish "official" stands on topics is bullshit. Take it with a grain of salt.

literally created through exploitation
I am an SJW, but that is an abstract category
???? I have to breathe in toxic air everyday since the density of chemicals these disgusting factories produce hang low in the air, they will never escape the atmosphere, only be absorbed by plants, which will kill them. I can hardly see any stars in the sky at night because of pollutants. I see tonnes of shit get pumped into the air everyday, there are no environmental protections concerning the production of capital, but the public get fined for littering, when it should be the capitalists' responsibility to create bio-degradable materials, but that would reduce profit. People want the public to feel the consequences of carbon taxes rather than for the government to grow the balls and stop these fuckers by implementing actual environmental laws, not dirty tax schemes that benefit not a single member of the proletariat. Give me an example of an effective environmental law.
In my country, England, we have to file for housing benefits to live in public accomidation because the minimum wage doesn't support a living space - the government can't even give us a fucking break with this shit. Some people have been effected by Universal Credit too, they literally have no money to spend at the end of the day. Zero. The poor are systematically being exterminated through the manufacturing of poverty so that anti-worker political parties can get representation once we have all killed ourselves. My family is lucky enough to have had connections to someone who can rent them a house. I also find myself lucky that I haven't been forced onto Universal Credit yet. I honestly see no meaningful labour protection laws in this country. It even treats work lile a privilege with qualifications concerning National Insurance Numbers and permanent addresses to work. That means that homeless people and non-citizens literally cannot legally get hired, so become a scapegoat. It is just sad. Yes, it's better than Africa, but that's no achievement. This is why leftists aren't satisfied with class-based ideologies like social democracy.
it is worse than you imagine
Why not?

What use is killing the bourgeoisie once we control the means of production? this point just speaks to your petty vengeance. Exploitation is systematic, not individually composed, it's not like I personally value the lives of these people, it is just completely at the back of mind, I act out of love before hatred for humanity. I don't think what we have "works", even by your definition.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 56.09K)

This. It also considers capitalists and the bourgeoisie an identity or a feature of a Human that is incorrigible. When the reality is that people can only be bourgeoisie in a class system. No classes, no bourgeoisie. And then to go on some hunt of these ex-capitalists is nothing more than vengeful brutality.

This instinct will only come to the surface after 3-5 generations of Stasi epigenetics, unfortunately.

All of it because the state is just the executioner of the general will.

retarded anarkiddie buzzword
see >>2751554's pic

i do not think that you have seen cool concrete buildings. also "modernist" is a very specific style that you may not be thinking of

do you really want all of the stupid bourgeois trappings that solely exist as a show of money present in most traditional architecture?

Attached: bohm2.png (750x381 149.66 KB, 66.41K)

if you do something like kill/torture another human being or rape a child, you cannot be trusted to live among humans anymore without being an actively destructive threat.

you DO realize that a lot of "amateur" porn features trafficked victims right? there is money involved in amateur porn mostly, and not just because of trafficking. people will sell videos and especially videos of an illegal nature.

scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=nulr_online

porn is an exploitative and abusive industry. under socialism, dangerous, exploitative and abusive labor will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. you cannot do this with the porn industry itself, as it involves the alienation of one's own body and contributes to general sexual alienation. see declining birth rates and a sharp decline in relationships among millennials. as user said, porn involves the commodification of sex and cannot fill in for genuine, edifying human connection that may contributes to the reproduction of labor-power in some sense. it is not necessary for the functioning of society by any means.

furthermore, porn does and has the potential to reproduce bourgeois, abusive sexual (as well as non-sexual) attitudes by way of superstructure. porn existing under socialism would entail the use of a specific kind of embodied labor that is already problematic (in a marxian sense) under late capitalism. do you really expect it to not reproduce the abusive sexual attitudes and behaviors that existed in a degraded form under capitalism?

lenin and engels both championed a socialist "sex-love," not a bourgeois version of "free love" that pornographic content implicitly maintains. you're just a pathetic example of someone who is unwilling to give up commodities you're addicted to and don't see the problems with because ideology

clarification: i lazily misused the term "embodied labor" because this is leftypol and i don't really care, let's just say "division of labor within porn" for simplification purposes.

Will people be banned from sharing photos and videos of themselves under your socialism?

Amateur has become a marketing term and shit like OnlyFans and Premium Snapchat commodifies it further, but porn will not cease to exist once there is no profit motive. People like to show off and enjoy the idea of people jerking off to them. The porn industry is disgusting, but so is the publishing industry, and no one is saying let's get rid of books.

The decline in birth rate is not a bad thing for one, and porn has nothing to do with it. The biggest factor is the education of women and access to birth control. Sex isn't about the reproduction of labor power, people have sex thousands of times per conception, and most kinds of sex have no chance of it happening. Pregnancy was always a usually unfortunate result of an activity engaged in for pleasure until birth control became accessible.

Porn is good, the industry is bad, same goes for most commodities under capitalism. De-commodified porn is what we should aim for, not crying about it because it leads to a decline in worker production.

Agreed. That's why exile is an option. Perhaps you should evaluate your views and determine why you want to kill others so badly.

That's exactly the opposite of what I personally argued you brainless git. You need to pay attention and read carefully you Zig Forums shill.