@newt@stereophonic.space
@matrix @opal @nina For the anarcho communist the state is oppressive because they have retarded conceptions of humans and reality
All problems and issues are friction between the bourg and the prots and the state only exists in order to put a bandaid on the problem. In their mind once you remove the bourgs, state, hierarchy, and money, there's nothing left but peace and happiness
This is genuine unironic communist theory
>once you remove the bourgs, state, hierarchy, and money, there's nothing left but peace and happiness
removal of the state is an indicator that humanity is finally adult enough to work together and stop infighting about fucking everything. i'm all for that, hierarchy is inherent but there is no way that our current hierarchy is necessary or even helpful to most of us. at worst maybe youre unaffected by it, but i doubt its directly helping you unless you work for the government directly.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
1. You don't know that. Communist ideology didn't arise in a vacuum, it was in the context of people being massively exploited by landlords and factory owners. In a fantasy world where people can just find free real estate and build homes on it to live in, Marx wouldn't have ever come up with the ideas he came up with.
2. Do you realize that the builders, craftsmen etc. who work equally as hard as you or even harder still don't get the smallest chance to ever own a home?
Most of what the middle and upper classes do is dabble in completely worthless types of "labor" such as entertainment media, useless managerial positions in big corporations, rewriting the same crappy piece of software over and over again because code is "intellectual property," and so on.
They then exchange most of the "trusted medium of exchange" (money) amongst themselves, while handing out scraps to the people doing all the actually important work like building roads, houses, and infrastructure, making sure we have enough stuff to eat and drink, raising and teaching children, nursing the elderly, and so on.
P.S. I could be counted towards one of those who keep rewriting the same crappy piece of software over and over again. I've no problem admitting the worthlessness of my work.
@taylan @nina
1.If they let me live in the house, could I trade it? No. Could I give it to my kids? No. So nothing changes, they just don't kill me on the spot.
Marx was parasitizing on a rich kid who was parasitizing on his parents. Yes, yes he would.
2.Absolutely irrelevant.
The value of labor is completely subjective, in a vacuum your labor is worthless, it gains worth when people want it.
1. Not interested in continuing this branch of the argument because as I've pointed out earlier it's pure fantasy.
2. Are you legitimately claiming that if you gave people the choice between homelessness, and not being able to watch the Kardashians anymore, they would choose homelessness?
Clearly, any sane person cares more about a roof over their head and food on their table, than being able to watch stupid celebrities on TV. Why then are construction workers and farmers not as rich as the Kardashians?
Because there's an entire social class of con-men and goons, who let desperate underpaid workers do the job, and then sell the fruits of their labor to other con-men and goons.
@taylan @nina
Based on how much some guys simp for ethots I would say yes some people would 
I know what you mean. They are rich because there are only one Kardashians, but many builders. Even though Kardashians got famous from fucking other famous people, they would have a lot less money if people just didn't give it to them. If you want to know why people do ask someone who does because I have absolutely no clue.
Farmers are a weird mention because commies always kill the farmers too.
@moffintosh @taylan @nina Next thing you will say is that the kulaks deserved it
@moffintosh @nina The state owned the housing and could take it away whether it pleased
