Is Freedom the end goal of Communism?

Easton Garcia
Easton Garcia

Trying to understand end goals of political systems. Being brought up in democracy the end goal always seems to be freedom, is this true for communism and fascism as well?

Attached: 20181024-150945-Backpage2.jpg (145.78 KB, 1400x1400)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)
books.google.com/books?id=xNEjqp2A6ZgC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Daniel Foster
Daniel Foster

communism
freedom
I lol'd

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Gavin Smith
Gavin Smith

fascism
massive state
actual literal dictatorship
freedom
k lol

stateless, classless, moneyless society
not freedom
gay and bluepilled

Attached: 6ccd71747246606858d476047d23480a18309096e5bf86b4982f1de53d33b19d.png (206.4 KB, 579x528)

Ryan Williams
Ryan Williams

no dissent is allowed
wrongthink is banned
Such freedom.

Attached: a7f01b9a682cc821dbbc096f3d5fef23689ecb4a6f68b8022f847ee63d7a2343.jpg (10.06 KB, 225x225)

Christopher Cooper
Christopher Cooper

freedom means no consequences
Get Freedom of Association'd, bitch.

Tyler Parker
Tyler Parker

no dissent is allowed
wrongthink is banned
this is literally fascism then again, you do really want to be dominated both in theory and practice

Austin Long
Austin Long

those are consequences or realities but what is its goal.

Connor Reed
Connor Reed

Attached: Billy-Herrington-5.jpg (96.57 KB, 640x500)

Eli Lopez
Eli Lopez

Total democracy in both the workplace and in governance. AKA, the dictatorship of the proletariat (or the working class, whatever you prefer).

Brandon Myers
Brandon Myers

Attached: 206b8a6617e6e1c45fc09ae87ddd7ab7441d42a8e3384d0d9c19b3736be92265.png (356.13 KB, 631x395)

James Morgan
James Morgan

read marx

Brandon Stewart
Brandon Stewart

No freedom to the enemies of freedom

Gavin Perez
Gavin Perez

Marxist communists don't give a shit about freedom and civil liberties.

Chase Diaz
Chase Diaz

not being allowed to speak freely is freedom
Freedom is slavery, &c, &c…

there are consequences
No.

total democracy
lolnope

we want to ban wrongthink
but YOU are the enemies of freedom!
I lol'd

Attached: ca579720335e815f4196dac1e797bde5fa58d8770bf9a8faf3766747ebf10122.jpg (500.38 KB, 1321x1608)

Lincoln Baker
Lincoln Baker

Gay posters deserve gay responses

Attached: Billy-Herrington-6.jpg (85.61 KB, 640x896)

Nicholas Long
Nicholas Long

If the end goal is democracy then isn't that what we have, people will just vote for people to be in control no?

Is the end goal of anarcho-communism freedom?

if its not democracy than what is it

Samuel Sanchez
Samuel Sanchez

t. enemy of freedom

Ryan Fisher
Ryan Fisher

Freedom
Liberalism is rooted in John Locke's "life, liberty and estate(private property)". Maximizing freedom of an individual means allowing him to dominate others. That's why neither Jefferson nor any of the founding fathers were hypocrites.

Attached: 1504215184683.png (48.96 KB, 230x300)

Xavier Harris
Xavier Harris

What is communism? The complete extinction of freedom.

Attached: 443b23f44f9f69cc0313d7c46f8be4238842474171edc1e966c2d763f02f0c1f.jpg (1.68 MB, 1509x1800)

Juan Torres
Juan Torres

says the liberal

Xavier Flores
Xavier Flores

Your right to be a piece of shit that considers arbitrary groups to be lesser does not infringe on my right to not have you suck my oxygen.

Sebastian Flores
Sebastian Flores

muh libruls
Leftists are just assmad moralists, just as much as fundamentalist Christians are.

that considers arbitrary groups to be lesser
Show me where I said that.

have you suck my oxygen
Awwww, your impotent rage is so cute!

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Nicholas Diaz
Nicholas Diaz

gay and autismpilled
If the end goal is democracy then isn't that what we have, people will just vote for people to be in control no?
Can you vote for your boss? Do your politicians actually really honestly vote in your internists?
Is the end goal of anarcho-communism freedom?
yes, like all communism
slavery is freedom to you I guess.

Attached: 2306e6e90bb36c28edd5b5b3e9de90241cd98c5a94f299ac724ec0cf87780e8c.jpg (82.32 KB, 600x800)

Easton Watson
Easton Watson

hmm I've never thought about that like that but I suppose thats true. I thought technology was a freeing factor for a long time but I also find it allows people ways to "dominate" as well I guess.

No what is communism goal, or what is your goal?

Benjamin Green
Benjamin Green

what is your goal
Limitless freedom, of course. Which puts me directly opposed to commies.

Attached: 237ae93e8221f5ec4cde5c6c09a441342b63a56fee7842e1e484d172b47b8f22.jpg (723.76 KB, 1240x2135)

Chase Reyes
Chase Reyes

freedom
youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Connor Cruz
Connor Cruz

dictatorship is freedom
t. retard

David Martin
David Martin

2936871
Trump shits on the corporate media
zomg it's a war on the media!
Every time Trump shits on some corporate media pawn, I laugh.

2936872
dictatorship
That's some awful projection there.

Attached: 6dfbb72110a651e3325e5a19eca59f87ba52b04f.jpg (141.04 KB, 663x700)

Carson Peterson
Carson Peterson

Doubt you have more than 10 different pics
Also don't pick on the handicapped

Attached: Billy-Herrington-7.jpg (44.66 KB, 400x600)

Bentley Watson
Bentley Watson

I thought technology was a freeing factor for a long time but I also find it allows people ways to "dominate" as well I guess.
It's not technology that permits the domination, it's the way the system is set up. Private property and its protection will always result in some form of slavery.

Landon Richardson
Landon Richardson

The end goal of all systems of government is absolute fascistic domination of everything you see and hear and think. Government, Govern = to control, ment = mind. Mind control. If you think the end goal is anything but absolute power concentrated in the hands of the few while the many are totally subjugated and oppressed, then you are fooling yourself. Everything else that you might think is idealized fantasy fiction about a utopian world that cannot and will not EVER exist.

Communism, fascism, democracy. None of this human level shit is going to matter in the 22nd century when robots take over and put all the shitty human survivors in zoo's next to the apes and monkeys.

Attached: artificial-intelligence-ai-588x400.jpg (47.67 KB, 588x400)

Zachary Peterson
Zachary Peterson

sorry if I dont understand but if we vote for politicians already and they dont vote in our interests why would I work better in workplaces?

Dominic Reyes
Dominic Reyes

I'm not sure why you keep posting pics of Billy Herrington tbh. It's awfully repetitive.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Wyatt Allen
Wyatt Allen

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

from the communist manifesto (marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Ryan Wright
Ryan Wright

Attached: 2vsa5f.jpg (36.94 KB, 575x411)

Juan Cooper
Juan Cooper

corporatism is bad!
therefore our shitty system is okay!
Jesus, that's some utterly shit logic.

Attached: ca579720335e815f4196dac1e797bde5fa58d8770bf9a8faf3766747ebf10122.jpg (500.38 KB, 1321x1608)

Hudson Nelson
Hudson Nelson

sorry if I dont understand but if we vote for politicians already and they dont vote in our interests why would I work better in workplaces?
basically, workplaces are smaller scale than entire nations of 330 million people. It would be much easier to just account for all people in a given organization so they can all vote in their OWN interest rather than electing a boss to represent them

Aiden Lee
Aiden Lee

not real capitalism

Attached: 3e0db961dc412807176e1303d2ec16a7163e7a60b0fa8e2d36f67af2e718121e.jpg (12.84 KB, 241x232)

Xavier Diaz
Xavier Diaz

strawman

Attached: 7f2855d05ca20cc24c349322e7120c7585d8f180b755cb5dcbb9052d3c442a87.jpg (29.01 KB, 325x203)

Lucas Hall
Lucas Hall

not real capitalism!!!!!1

Leo Clark
Leo Clark

Attached: 5cd4388150d3df970891813ab0cff630126e66146bdc1e5de05dad7cbe97291e.jpg (1.05 MB, 1311x2000)

Ethan Reed
Ethan Reed

The system that calls itself that system, acts like said system on paper and in practice, and is the product of said system actually isn't that system at all.

Attached: wojak4.jpg (75.73 KB, 900x729)

Gavin Campbell
Gavin Campbell

Which system are you talking about there?

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Andrew Baker
Andrew Baker

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

Connor Brown
Connor Brown

that sophistry
Jesus, whoever said that was a moron.

Attached: 443b23f44f9f69cc0313d7c46f8be4238842474171edc1e966c2d763f02f0c1f.jpg (1.68 MB, 1509x1800)

Dominic Bell
Dominic Bell

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

Jayden Brown
Jayden Brown

more sophistry
This is pretty enlightening tbh, although probably not for the reasons you'd hoped.

Attached: 593d7acf65cafde7e3d1740972061d50646ffc75.png (377.44 KB, 700x1049)

Nolan Diaz
Nolan Diaz

Attached: b8a119b7a10f34e4bdd55e0f063181dca7a953fa.png (15.8 KB, 676x548)

Grayson Hernandez
Grayson Hernandez

more strawmen
It is interesting, your inability to see anything other than as two bipolar extremes.

Attached: 5cd4388150d3df970891813ab0cff630126e66146bdc1e5de05dad7cbe97291e.jpg (1.05 MB, 1311x2000)

Benjamin Scott
Benjamin Scott

.

Attached: a4b7a10f34e4bdd55e0f063181dca7a953fa.png (21.76 KB, 1252x590)

Christopher Baker
Christopher Baker

more strawmen
This is getting rather repetitive.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Connor Martinez
Connor Martinez

The end goal of any political system is immortality. Historically, that meant breeding the cattle-people while victimizing their young and retaining the most subservient victims to engineer into the next generation of victimizers. A lot of historic human leaders have been really profoundly stupid, remember.

Only in modern times are we at last getting materialistic and peaceful enough to broach into biological immortality.

Juan Mitchell
Juan Mitchell

everything I dont like is a strawman

Attached: you-socialists-always-deflect-with-that-wasnt-real-socialism-because-57856208.png (17.03 KB, 500x307)

Connor Stewart
Connor Stewart

It's more the fact that you're spamming ancap memes despite the fact that I'm not an ancap tbqh.

Attached: 15b76869063a8b34feb2d63d3b6c56cbf51b844ae4be0a4f231f7c4e4501b7c6.jpg (1.39 MB, 1385x1948)

Thomas Evans
Thomas Evans

Attached: f7da47a3395e126b0d46f421a4c4ccd218f87b0e.jpg (31.19 KB, 540x339)

Grayson Long
Grayson Long

Attached: 6dfbb72110a651e3325e5a19eca59f87ba52b04f.jpg (141.04 KB, 663x700)

Ryan Brooks
Ryan Brooks

Attached: smug-lenin.jpeg (43.01 KB, 540x810)
Attached: 5c9d9295bc9cd.jpeg (33.11 KB, 600x408)

Jordan Davis
Jordan Davis

It's more the fact that you're spamming ancap memes despite the fact that I'm not an ancap tbqh.

Attached: 6f1e88c499242c083354003e9ea3255b7dc449e1.jpg (30.13 KB, 480x451)

Levi Watson
Levi Watson

muh fascis
It's funny watching commies grapple with the fact that fascists haven't been a coherent political movement since 1945.

You prop up the corpse of fascism because you need it. It's the only system that makes your utterly shit system look less utterly shit.

proving my point

Attached: ca579720335e815f4196dac1e797bde5fa58d8770bf9a8faf3766747ebf10122.jpg (500.38 KB, 1321x1608)

Aiden Walker
Aiden Walker

Attached: db3q86t-fc4ba2fa-f00e-4efa-9274-cefd10524871.gif (2.01 MB, 1195x1184)

Adrian Clark
Adrian Clark

sloppily copypasting your enemy's meme
I'm not sure why I expected any more tbqh.

Attached: 443b23f44f9f69cc0313d7c46f8be4238842474171edc1e966c2d763f02f0c1f.jpg (1.68 MB, 1509x1800)

Lincoln Green
Lincoln Green

implying intellectual property is legitimate

Attached: ron.png (267.23 KB, 1454x993)

Cameron Sullivan
Cameron Sullivan

muh fascis
It's funny watching commies grapple with the fact that fascists haven't been a coherent political movement since 1945.
You prop up the corpse of fascism because you need it. It's the only system that makes your utterly shit system look less utterly shit.

Attached: 203decaf24c73bb44f97f6375ac90d1b2d3081f6.jpg (22.03 KB, 397x288)

Owen Reyes
Owen Reyes

more strawmen

not even arguing against my point
I guess that means I win then.

Attached: af9970675b31f170ef4f6776b76020435ae0d320e5b9afaeb403e557865f7c79.jpg (10.65 KB, 224x225)

Nathan Perez
Nathan Perez

Attached: 8e56abeb2364f34b83fe52852e3da9f4d2772e503bc26be24ab853db904eb2c9.jpg (58.19 KB, 435x601)

Alexander Campbell
Alexander Campbell

not even arguing against my point
I guess that means I win then.

Attached: cbab9071ba751e84e704e8c9f108c30155841c13.png (232.96 KB, 840x826)

Zachary Adams
Zachary Adams

wall of text
As expected.

Attached: a7f01b9a682cc821dbbc096f3d5fef23689ecb4a6f68b8022f847ee63d7a2343.jpg (10.06 KB, 225x225)

Colton Thompson
Colton Thompson

reading is dumb
as expected

Brandon Foster
Brandon Foster

wall of text
As expected.

Attached: c9da60146e8392ce0cc2a3b73c1fc99f7fcd58c5.png (359.75 KB, 1920x1080)

Cooper Ramirez
Cooper Ramirez

Attached: 2f7.jpg (93.75 KB, 601x508)

Benjamin Bailey
Benjamin Bailey

posts wall of text
why don't people bother to like my shitty "memes"?
It's fun watching you flounder tbh.

Attached: 15b76869063a8b34feb2d63d3b6c56cbf51b844ae4be0a4f231f7c4e4501b7c6.jpg (1.39 MB, 1385x1948)

Brayden Rivera
Brayden Rivera

not mine, is OUR meme

Attached: Rare-d574f6-5507279.jpg (43.38 KB, 528x492)

Isaac Rivera
Isaac Rivera

collective meme creation
I think we've identified the problem.

Attached: 7b46ba9e5dcbdc188e2ade69f7f759d9c99770a73cc19d91f9b56e2393ed2455.jpg (1.23 MB, 1428x2000)

Nolan Walker
Nolan Walker

up in democracy the end goal always seems to be freedom
LOL someone blackpill this newfag

Adrian Lopez
Adrian Lopez

posts wall of text
why don't people bother to like my shitty "memes"?
It's fun watching you flounder tbh.

Attached: 5e3cb3abd4bed32ec6ea5a44d6ed4385e7deb386.jpg (96.81 KB, 400x397)

Brody Brooks
Brody Brooks

using collectivism unironically

Attached: Mmm-trap-link--125a4ec488e11a9123d76b5be273764a.jpg (37.34 KB, 267x326)

Sebastian Mitchell
Sebastian Mitchell

someone blackpill
The end result of communism is a tyrannical society where everyone must follow the word of their designated authority figure or be killed.

How'd I do?

more strawmen

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Jayden Russell
Jayden Russell

Both are correct. Socialism and capitalism remain untried systems. Capitalism purged of cronyism would probably work better than fascistic socialism, but socialism purged of fascism would probably work better than crony capitalism.

Lincoln Scott
Lincoln Scott

Anyone who attacks communism is a lying capitalist.

Thomas Mitchell
Thomas Mitchell

The end result of communism is a tyrannical society where everyone must follow the word of their designated authority figure or be killed.
How'd I do?

Attached: 1f6f6e5e634e99a5ae871d42d0d21b4b7c7c777d.jpg (62.95 KB, 720x720)

Joseph Wright
Joseph Wright

Capitalism purged of cronyism would probably work better than fascistic socialism
Please for the love of god, read Adam Smith. Also, corporations naturally consolidate due to competition. The very essence of competition eventually will self destruct.

Juan Gomez
Juan Gomez

Goverment is bad poster says what the cause is and 100% a lies as if it isn't.
Unironic Z og fags

Landon Ross
Landon Ross

The base problem is that slavers are born of slave races, and abolitionism has won only in law, not in genes or spirits. Humans too often remain slaves, so they too often remain slavers. The desperation to flee the slave-nature when expressed through power over others creates in others a desperation to flee the slave-nature.

As long as human leaders remain slaves defying slavery, which is to say as long as human leaders remain emphatically “not”-slaves, true prosperity will be hard to achieve.

Jace Fisher
Jace Fisher

more strawmen

corporatism is bad
therefore my shitty system is good!
This seems to be a common line of reasoning around here. I wonder why.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Brayden Gomez
Brayden Gomez

read Adam Smith.

Attached: 5b82e6400cc59.jpeg (160.86 KB, 759x1365)

Aiden Thompson
Aiden Thompson

I see no reason to tbqh.

Attached: 593d7acf65cafde7e3d1740972061d50646ffc75.png (377.44 KB, 700x1049)

Ryder Phillips
Ryder Phillips

I started on Adam Smith. It isn’t inevitable that capitalism is contra-egalitarian. Egalitarian capitalism works if people are honest and charitable - under conditions of honest charity, it should be noted that MANY systems work!

Luis Parker
Luis Parker

corporatism is bad
therefore my shitty system is good!
This seems to be a common line of reasoning around here. I wonder why.

Attached: accf256f3d92267a794f3da223ba647669ebd509.png (237.89 KB, 1200x820)

James Carter
James Carter

"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of the rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons." except capitalism

Thomas Gonzalez
Thomas Gonzalez

more strawmen
It's all so tiresome tbqh.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Benjamin Kelly
Benjamin Kelly

Attached: making-onesself-mad-angery-thread-dislike.jpg (29.46 KB, 500x504)

Lincoln Gonzalez
Lincoln Gonzalez

no u!

Attached: ca579720335e815f4196dac1e797bde5fa58d8770bf9a8faf3766747ebf10122.jpg (500.38 KB, 1321x1608)

Bentley Reyes
Bentley Reyes

Attached: 5bf29c4c359ca0737cdf345ced010e447f94d306bd4fd3e21419c9a532af8875.jpg (32.36 KB, 403x394)

Easton Sanchez
Easton Sanchez

freedom doesn't mean no consequences

That's literally the definition of freedom - the ability to do something without expectation of unreasonable retribution. See: you can't be shot for saying something someone doesn't like.
But I'm not surprised you can't understand this, you are stupid enough to be a Communist after all.

Noah Stewart
Noah Stewart

implying

Attached: 237ae93e8221f5ec4cde5c6c09a441342b63a56fee7842e1e484d172b47b8f22.jpg (723.76 KB, 1240x2135)

Oliver Gonzalez
Oliver Gonzalez

more strawmen
It's all so tiresome tbqh.

Attached: a91460fb5fbdefec40f37ab02aa180a9f6e8b5db.jpg (76.84 KB, 711x960)

Aiden Carter
Aiden Carter

Attached: baby.png (229.21 KB, 908x836)

Xavier Miller
Xavier Miller

more walls of text

lol u mad?

Attached: 15b76869063a8b34feb2d63d3b6c56cbf51b844ae4be0a4f231f7c4e4501b7c6.jpg (1.39 MB, 1385x1948)

Zachary Walker
Zachary Walker

implying

Attached: 206b8a6617e6e1c45fc09ae87ddd7ab7441d42a8e3384d0d9c19b3736be92265.png (356.13 KB, 631x395)

Dominic Jenkins
Dominic Jenkins

implying

Attached: ffa07f25758435dd74d1865f9207c8dd5b48b49044d03bc6a0608fe6a089ba7f.jpg (8.5 KB, 224x225)

Adam Collins
Adam Collins

lol, oversexed cat vibrating about commiecats

Austin Scott
Austin Scott

Okay, this thread has been fun. I have to go take a shit, hopefully your questions have been answered.

Jace Campbell
Jace Campbell

Attached: cover5.jpg (205.72 KB, 954x726)

Juan Diaz
Juan Diaz

Commiecat is top-tier rapebait tbqh.

Attached: 7f2855d05ca20cc24c349322e7120c7585d8f180b755cb5dcbb9052d3c442a87.jpg (29.01 KB, 325x203)

Bentley Garcia
Bentley Garcia

How can freedom be the end goal of a political idealogy which seeks to control all aspects of your life?

Eli Robinson
Eli Robinson

Commiecat is top-tier rapebait tbqh.
Do you run on an algorithm? You made this post the other day.

Justin Brooks
Justin Brooks

This question once again proves that leftists are dumber than dirt!

Jaxson Collins
Jaxson Collins

you made this post the other day
Not sure I'd remember tbqh. Although I'm flattered to hear you're keeping track of my posts.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Liam Foster
Liam Foster

sounds like you're dumb. communism is about freedom

Elijah Howard
Elijah Howard

communism is about freedom
I kek'd

Attached: 443b23f44f9f69cc0313d7c46f8be4238842474171edc1e966c2d763f02f0c1f.jpg (1.68 MB, 1509x1800)

Josiah Diaz
Josiah Diaz

freedom
An empty concept in of its self, like "equality" or "fairness". "Freedom" from what and to do what? "Equality" in what regard and for whom? "Fairness" between what things and for what purpose? All of these require some broader framework to define. For both liberals and fascists these are defined ideally, where such things should be viewed as either absolute, natural, or metaphysical (i.e. Freedom as a concept means X, will always mean X, and has always meant X regardless of material condition, existing outside of any human framework and being only needed to be discovered). For communists however, these things are viewed through a material lens. At certain stages of human history and in differing material conditions, people conceptualized and operated in different frameworks in which ideas like "freedom" were defined differently. For example, in the feudal period many societies viewed the people as having "freedom". The freedom to fulfill their duty to their king, the freedom for the king to act within the power granted to him by divine right, the freedom of the peasants to do their jobs and live by a properly mandated religious ethic. As times changed, material conditions progressed, and the merchant class usurped the noble class, this framework changed and thus how freedom was defined changed. People again had "freedom". The freedom to do economic exchange, the freedom for the wage-labourer to work under an employer, the freedom for their to be private ownership of the MoP, the freedom to buy and sell within a market as well as to obtain wealth off of rent-seeking and investments. Communists, having analyzed how history has progressed through both shifting material conditions and subsequent class conflict, see the next progression of humanity from the collapsing stagnation of the old system to a new one in the hands of the new usurping class; the proletariat. And by the merit of being the new usurping class, a new materially based framework based on its own self-interests is instituted where the proletariat obtain their "freedom". Freedom from capitalist wage-labour, from insecurity and financial destitution, from rent-seeking and speculation based upon their very livelihoods, from the risk of homelessness and joblessness, from imperialism and international profit seeking. Even more critically, the position of the proletariat allows for it the opportunity to go even further. To push the material conditions of the society forward until even "freedom" from class conflict and class itself becomes tenable. Where the long standing material dialectic of human history is concluded and where economic classes and their structures are no longer needed. I suppose this could be called a goal but communists (specifically Marxists) don't really see this as some ideal to be obtained. Rather it is a consequence of the proletariat pursuing their collective material self-interest and seizing society from current the ruling class, as other classes did before.

Attached: marx-theory-of-history.jpg (29.01 KB, 621x397)
Attached: 1517884273702.png (168.53 KB, 1045x1024)
Attached: 7a77d240c0ade544a62cabf03ad0c634b3f2b262f6f20187394bc45380da39b0.jpg (41.08 KB, 553x386)

Kayden Hill
Kayden Hill

if I don't like a concept, I'll just call it "empty"
2/10, unbelievably low effort post

Attached: 5cd4388150d3df970891813ab0cff630126e66146bdc1e5de05dad7cbe97291e.jpg (1.05 MB, 1311x2000)

Carter Sullivan
Carter Sullivan

Limitless freedom
If you mean "Do whatever I want", such a thing is impossible by virtue of the reality of power and violence. "Absolute freedom" also provides in it the freedom to suppress others freedoms absolutely. To not allow individuals to do such would be imposing yourself upon their freedom to suppress, thus preventing limitless freedom. Either way, true "limitless freedom" is killed the moment of implementation as it fundamentally is not tenable.

Leo Taylor
Leo Taylor

I mean "the only actions that should be disallowed are those that involve the restriction of another person's liberties."

I understand this is a difficult concept for commies to wrap their heads around. You could at least try, though.

Attached: 6dfbb72110a651e3325e5a19eca59f87ba52b04f.jpg (141.04 KB, 663x700)

Cameron Kelly
Cameron Kelly

if I don't like a concept, I'll just call it "empty"
Outside of a framework, yes. "Absolute freedom" like the one you are arguing for cannot even be defined without one. Again, freedom to do what? Freedom from what? Why is my freedom less valid or more valid then your freedom? The answer here would be power, but that kind of throws a wrench into the idea of restriction free "freedom".
"the only actions that should be disallowed are those that involve the restriction of another person's liberties."
Which requires defining what those liberties are and aren't within a framework. So, like I said here

I have unrionically met fascists less childish then this in regards to an analysis of freedom and power. This isn't meant to be a cheap jab, but honestly how old are you to believe in such fairytails?

Charles Scott
Charles Scott

which requires defining what those liberties are
Everything. Every individual should be able to do everything that does not involve harming someone else or preventing someone else from speaking freely. The only restricted entities should be groups. Businesses and governments.

I have unironically met fascists less childish than this.
That is because you share common ground with fascists. Like fascists, you support the restriction of liberty. You just disagree about which form of moralism you will use to restrict liberty.

Attached: de6ec2100a7c759f6c87d6d2fa9dacb813c7746d.png (365.15 KB, 621x846)

Eli Gomez
Eli Gomez

Everything. Every individual should be able to do everything that does not involve harming someone else or preventing someone else from speaking freely. The only restricted entities should be groups. Businesses and governments.
Ignoring the fact that you would still have to define what constitutes "harming" as well as engage in the impossible endeavor of enforcing peoples ability to freely speak (which would mean cracking down on those who impliment any rules which regulate it within a specific setting while also maintaining a monopoly of violence that can do so without being held back permanently through arguments regarding unenforceable orders), how exactly would you restrict either businesses or the government without obtaining and utilizing a monopoly on violence (i.e. a government) which is less restricted then either? Will it just be all turtles down, with governments on governments on governments until the last one has no restrictions?
That is because you share common ground with fascists. Like fascists, you support the restriction of liberty. You just disagree about which form of moralism you will use to restrict liberty.
No, unless you mean a recognition of how power functions in reality. In that case, every ideology which has ever held real material power shares "common ground" with us. Every modern ideology and system that exist today that isn't completely inconsiquential realizes on some level that to obtain specific "freedoms", other (and others) freedoms must be restricted or suppressed.
Honestly, I'm baffled that people like you still exist. I mean, to even fight back effectively against any ideology or force you would be required to restrict some degree of freedom and violently enforce such restrictions. Don't you realize that? Please don't tell me "freedom" is worth so little and of so weak a make-up that you can't even meaningfully defend it now.

Easton King
Easton King

what constitutes harming
Physical harm or the prevention of speaking freely.

which would mean cracking down on those who implement any rules which regulate it
duh

I feel like you're not quite grasping the concept of freedom, commieanon. Not that I'd expect a commie to understand.

how exactly would you restrict either businesses or the government without obtaining and utilizing a monopoly on violence (i.e. a government)
Once again, you're attacking the strawman that I'm an ancap.

to even fight back effectively against any ideology or force you would be required to restrict some degree of freedom
Of course. The freedom I choose to restrict is the "freedom" to keep me from living my life freely.

Attached: 593d7acf65cafde7e3d1740972061d50646ffc75.png (377.44 KB, 700x1049)

Zachary Torres
Zachary Torres

Physical harm or the prevention of speaking freely.
So no debate clubs with rules? No libraries with quiet signs? No teachers beings able to send students out for being unruly? No lectures or movies without interruption?
Tbh, sounds like a society more prone to violence then any of the ones mentioned in this thread.
duh
Then how would you do it? How would you stop regulation of speech within the populace? How would do so without regulating how the officers (or whatever you would call them) respond to orders? How would you stop them from just arguing over it rather then doing the enforcing?
Once again, you're attacking the strawman that I'm an ancap.
Not even doing that, you stated yourself the government would have to be restricted. Such a thing requires entities to do so, entities with material power at their disposal and less restrictions upon them. Entities which also require material backing to so, material backing which must be given in order for it to compete its objective which can only be obtained consistently by force upon the populace which requires a restriction of their freedom.
Of course. The freedom I choose to restrict is the "freedom" to keep me from living my life freely.
To protect your ability to live freely requires you to restrict the freedom of the people in said society to decide whether to or not to fight against those who would restrict it. And this requires in of itself multiple other restrictions of freedom.
So welcome to Neoliberal America I guess? Is that what you want?

Ayden Nguyen
Ayden Nguyen

no debate clubs with rules
Do those rules prevent someone from making a statement? If so, then no.

no libraries with quiet signs
Libraries are obsolete, and so is the necessity to have a centralized depository of knowledge where conduct must be regulated.

no teachers being able to send students out for being unruly
Not only are students below the age of majority, but if "being unruly" prevents the teacher from speaking, that would be an example of "preventing people from speaking freely."

no lectures of movies without interruption
See above.

more prone to violence than any of the ones mentioned in this thread
Indeed, a society of free individuals will tend to be more rowdy than a society of passive, docile worker drones. I suggest you learn to deal with it.

then how would you do it
… with laws. How does any society enforce rules?

how would you do so without regulating how the officers respond to orders
You wouldn't, because the society is not a strawman built to your specifications.

you stated yourself that the government would have to be restricted
So any restriction on government makes a society ancap? Once again, your extreme binary way of thinking belies some kind of mental malfunction or another.

such a thing requires entities to do so
In a free society, we enforce these regulations through the will of the people as expressed by elections and gun ownership. I understand that the concept of elections and an armed populace is scary to a commie, but try to keep up.

so welcome to neoliberal America I guess.
I'd say 1776 America is more like it. Articles of Confederation were the best form of government we ever could have had.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Jayden Torres
Jayden Torres

Here's the pic again, unspoilered as it should be.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Asher Mitchell
Asher Mitchell

Here's the pic again, unspoilered as it should be.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

Cooper Sanders
Cooper Sanders

If so, then no.
wew
Libraries are obsolete, and so is the necessity to have a centralized depository of knowledge where conduct must be regulated.
Any basis for this? If anything, "centralized depositories where conduct is regulated" are more popular then ever. Internet depositories counts in this regard, and prevention of conduct of any kind also counts.
Not only are students below the age of majority, but if "being unruly" prevents the teacher from speaking, that would be an example of "preventing people from speaking freely."
Oh, but you said you we couldn't go around preventing people from speaking? Why should the student not be allowed to talk over the teacher? Why does the teacher get priority? Do you mean to say we should be able to restrict others to allow individuals to speak "freely and openly" without interruption?
See above.
Movies aren't actual people talking in the moment and more of a visual recording of others that people watch. Should we enforce the speech of recordings now?
Indeed, a society of free individuals will tend to be more rowdy than a society of passive, docile worker drones. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
Seems more like you'd have to deal with it, or more likely already deal with it. I can't really think of a communist society of "docile worker drones" off the top of my head either, unless dressing well and having personal discipline is "drone"-like behavior to you.
… with laws. How does any society enforce rules?
With violence and a restriction of freedom through the use of a monopoly of violence.
You wouldn't, because the society is not a strawman built to your specifications.
Then I ask again, how do you ensure unrestricted speech?
So any restriction on government makes a society ancap? Once again, your extreme binary way of thinking belies some kind of mental malfunction or another.
No, I never stated ancap. I merely stated that you wished to restrict the government and businesses, with what I can only assume is the same government or some entity above it. Which would require what I mentioned before.
In a free society, we enforce these regulations through the will of the people as expressed by elections and gun ownership. I understand that the concept of elections and an armed populace is scary to a commie, but try to keep up.
Its funny, because this was actually the first thing I thought of when I wrote this. And the hilarious thing is, it still requires the restriction of freedoms or at the very least the inevitable restriction of freedoms. You've simply replaced the "tyranny" of the state with the tyranny of the mob, with the people now free to restrict themselves and others as they see fit. To even prevent them from doing so requires you to use force against those in the populace who would do so and take away their freedom to organize or vote.
I'd say 1776 America is more like it. Articles of Confederation were the best form of government we ever could have had.
Articles which were replaced given their untenable nature, with events such as Shay's rebellion showing how the articles themselves could barely even defend their own existence without completely breaching both their statements and ideological spirit. Nearly every state violated the articles on a consistent basis, and many local laws contradicted it outright while also being validated in their "right" to do so. Threats internal and external forced the government to rip them aprart and start anew, with the Constitution setting restrictions, guide lines, and rules for the government

I don't really even know why you would bring this up as an argument when it validates everything I said.

Attached: b4a6d0f10e32a0ed74e649071d576a8d7acc8c1c.png (611.87 KB, 625x1000)

Camden Green
Camden Green

government and populace
Thought I might clarfiy that as well

Aiden Gutierrez
Aiden Gutierrez

wew
Not my fault your ideas can't stand up to scrutiny without being protected by arbitrary rules.

any basis for this
Who needs libraries when you've got p2p networks? All we need is a version of Freenet that incorporates premixing with delays a la the original mixnet design and you've got the perfectly anonymous, perfectly uncensorable datastore, able to be accessed by anyone with an internet connection.

why should the student not be allowed to talk over the teacher
Because that would be preventing the teacher from speaking. Try to keep up.

or more likely already deal with it
Yep, and it's a hell of a lot better than your Demolition Man style society of docile slaves.

with violence and a restriction of freedom
…in the event that someone attempts to restrict anothers' freedom

how do you ensure unrestricted speech
Once again. With laws.

with what I can only assume is the same government or some entity above it
You commies really don't understand the concept of a Constitution enforced by the people, do you?

it still requires the restriction of freedoms
Proof please.

tyranny of the mob
That's called a "republic," commieanon. A "republic" is an ideal form of government. Again, I understand this is difficult for a commie to understand.

given their untenable nature
Given the power-hungry nature of politicians, you mean.

Shay's rebellion
The only fault of Shay's rebellion is that it was not successful.

nearly every state violated the articles on a consistent basis
Given that the articles detailed the functioning of the federal government, I have my doubts about that statement.

Attached: e92486d9b0c25060088e2ebf107e1f5e4cb265663a3c9fe09fc3ff785e504ff1.jpg (1.2 MB, 1428x2000)

James Edwards
James Edwards

2937042
Not my fault your ideas can't stand up to scrutiny without being protected by arbitrary rules.
Debates generally have rules set up to ensure order and progression. Otherwise, it would less a debate a more arbitrary yelling with no development. You should know this.
Who needs libraries when you've got p2p networks? All we need is a version of Freenet that incorporates premixing with delays a la the original mixnet design and you've got the perfectly anonymous, perfectly uncensorable datastore, able to be accessed by anyone with an internet connection.
It baffles me that you needed to go through all this effort to not be quiet in a library. What did you ever do before the internet? Was your idea to lock people in sound-proof rooms instead? Or would that be a restriction too?
Because that would be preventing the teacher from speaking. Try to keep up.
And again, why does the teacher get priority? Why isn't it the teacher preventing the student from speaking? Why shouldn't the student just be able to keep talking once he gets the chance as long as he wants?
Yep, and it's a hell of a lot better than your Demolition Man style society of docile slaves.
Feel free to show me how your fictional 90s liberal action-movies apply to real communist societies. Are they where you get all your political knowledge from?
…in the event that someone attempts to restrict anothers' freedom
Reality of the world
Once again. With laws.
Good.
You commies really don't understand the concept of a Constitution enforced by the people, do you?
If you honestly think the Constitution is enforced by the people only, I feel honestly sorry for you. The innocence is almost kind of adorable.
Note also if your definition of "the people" is the government and all its internal entitites as well, I suppose the Soviet constitution was fits the bill too in this regard.
Proof please.
Explained in the same paragraph.
That's called a "republic," commieanon. A "republic" is an ideal form of government. Again, I understand this is difficult for a commie to understand.
Republics which, in the form you decribed, collapsed and are collapsing all on their own without "commie" intervention. Note I have no problem with the "will of the people" per se or necessarily Republics in a Soviet or communist sense, but reminder that the US became a republic after the Constitution and not from your Articles.
Given the power-hungry nature of politicians, you mean.
Untenable
The only fault of Shay's rebellion is that it was not successful.
In what? Taking Massachusetts? Throwing the US into an early civil war? Allowing the British another perfect opportunity to exploit the divided and decentralized colonies and seize it once again? How childish.
Given that the articles detailed the functioning of the federal government, I have my doubts about that statement.
books.google.com/books?id=xNEjqp2A6ZgC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false
Under the articles of confederation source.