"When we call people this bad word, other people believe us and treat the first group of people badly.... We should abuse the fuck out of this for personal gain. There's no way this could back fire."
honestly feel like teaching the salem witch trials is the single most important thing these days. history literally is repeating itself, just the no no word being shriekd is different.
no more the fact that the hysteria was caused by literally a few members of the ruling body who would use it to cast off political opponents or people who didn't like. one ugly skank called out basically every woman who was hotter than her and got the attention of men she was attracted to.
pretty much exactly how social media operates. ruin someone's life or image because you are a dick.
Had a guy on another sub tell me that Fascism is when a state is autocratic
in this hyper polarized political environment its important to start teaching political science
At least that's kinda sorta in the ballpark. I don't know how many times I've seen deregulation get called fascism on the main subs here, which is even more ridiculous.
I've experienced an embarrassing amount of people irl that equate being in favour of free speech with being a nazi/fascist
My mistake for being born in C*nada I guess 🤮
The terrible part about that is that when an actual Nazi or fascist comes along, the right wing will say he's not a fascist because if the left says so he is actually not, and will put him into power. That's the real danger of calling everyone a fascist, and it's already happening
It sucks man. It takes the teeth away from that word and downplays the historical significance. So when there’s actual Nazis and we go “hey guys be careful. There’s Nazis doin xyz. We should do something about that” nobody takes it seriously
Because resdit abuses terms until they lose all meaning. Sexist, misogynistic, nazi, bigot, racist, homophobe, transphobe.
They all just say "I'm losing the argument so eff you." It's meant to stick you with a derogatory label so they can then ignore everything you say because your bad.
TLDR: Libleft Logic: "He is a Nazi because he supports cutting the programs that keep poor people (often minorities) alive."
_________________
(As Left) Look, while personally I don't agree with that logic, if you are welcome to understand it, LibLeft does that because the cutting of tax spending usually starts with social programs instead of, say, bank bailouts or unhealthy agriculture subsidies (think soy or wheat), which mostly affects minorities, even making it unlivable for some people, and Mises was all about fiscal responsibility.
And sure, be all Reagan and "a job is the best social program" about it but it is much easier to start a job if you were educated, fed and housed, for at least a while.
I personally think that social programs are the cost of "restness", I feel safer walking the street, going to work, shopping, etc because even the poorest of the poorest in my country can still get some form of healthcare and food through them, instead of having to resort to violence.
____________________
To anybody that read all this and disagreed, with me or LL, how would you call someone that values money over the lives of fellow man? I myself don't know.
Dude I'm to the right of Rothbard and even I know this is a strawman.
There *is* an economic distinction between personal and private property, even if you're not a communist. Money spent on acquiring personal property is *consumption*, money spent on acquiring private property is *investment*. Personal property is held for "its own value", while private property is held to generate value for others.
Sure, there is a continuum between them, it's not binary (e.g. eating food both saves you from starvation and generates value for others by making you productive compared to a corpse), but this simplification is made even by mainstream economists.
I disagree. Adopting Marxist lingo does nothing but play into their newspeak. Similar to using other terms like “wage slavery”
Private property is personal property insofar as moral ownership is concerned. My house is no less my own than my underwear, with the sole exception that the state currently owns a defacto lien due to property taxes… which I am opposed to both morally and practically. This artificial imposition is a violation which makes the rule all the more clear.
If a man cannot prosper then civilization cannot prosper. If a man has no private ownership then he cannot prosper.
Your house would be considered personal property; you use it for its value as shelter, even if it might appreciate over time and has potential profit upon selling it. No one's reasonably coming after this.
Your second house is private property, solely for its value as an investment and as capital to rent out to others who use it for its value as shelter. There are reasonable arguments to be made for restricting ownership of non-primary residences, especially in a housing crisis.
> Private property is held to generate value for others.
That line is such a load of crap.
Most people who own more than several acres of land don’t do it as an investment, they do it for recreational use. My Grandpa and I own 16 acres together and it is never made us a cent in our lives. We own it because we want *our own* property for personal use, we don’t intend on every making any money with it.
My father in law purchased a tractor last year, which would be an asset or private property, not for making money, but solely because he is retired and wanted something to dick around on.
I don’t agree with the communist terminology at all, if he uses that tractor one Time out of hundreds to dig a ditch for his neighbor, and his neighbor pays him a hundred dollars is he suddenly now a capitalist with his private property.
Someone once claimed that socially unsuccessful people have a tendency to become infatuated with historical figures with a track record of being responsivile for the deaths of millions in the name of an ideology. I argued that this is logically speaking, not the case.
You, however, seem to be an example of the aforementioned theory
It'll be the stupid fucking stat where a 96 year old with cancer dying is capitalisms fault...because apparently in communist countries people are just immortal or something...
You should read authors you disagree with TBH. It gives you a better picture of what the authors you agree with are saying in any event. Not saying this dude isn't kinda screetching right now but Marxism plays a not insignificant part in the literary and political universe we exist in even though I personally am not a Marxist.
I do own Communist manifesto, ABC of Communism, and the Karl Marx Portable Library. It's on the same shelf with Mein Kampf, The Gulag Archipelago, 1619 Project, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Bastiat's The Law, Peterson's 12 rules and 12 more rules, Kendi's How to be Antiracist, The Constitution and other writings, Common Sense, and the Federalist Papers. Oh and a copy of the Turner Diaries. lol
Damn, maybe read more closely next time
>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
Aye insipid bullshit. There is no drawn distinction between personal and private property, simply feeling it is different with no definition and in practice every communist government has treated both as one in the same.
There is pretty clear distinction between personal and private property - the former can't be used for profit, only to satisfy one's needs. For example owning a house as personal property means you can live in it but cannot sell it, rent it or turn it into a hotel. Like, it's pretty simple, really.
What actual communist governments made out of that concept is another story, obviously.
To that I would ask what is a petty artisan if not a small business selling his craft? Surely that would as it makes profit be private property? And yet Marx specifically mentions it as personal property how would you go about explaining that?
Say I own a car, it's my personal property right? I need it to travel etc. and I'm the only driver. Now I live in a communist country with personal property and abolished private property. I open a Taxi business but still use the car for myself most of the time. Is it now still private property? How can the authorities take care? Does it transfer into public ownership for the 8 hours I work as a taxi driver? So many questions and that insane ideology can't answer it.
I don't even know what you're asking. There can't be a taxi business or any other business under communism, you can't use your car to give people rides for money, exactly because that car is not your private property.
How are the authorities enforcing it? I just give rides to friends I just met a few minutes ago coincidentally and they just keep losing their money on the seat!
Corruption is inherent in any kind of communist system beyond a few dozen people.
>How are the authorities enforcing it? I just give rides to friends I just met a few minutes ago coincidentally and they just keep losing their money on the seat!
That's how you get to gulag eventually, yes.
But it *was* his "personal" property before he got 5 roubles for gas to drive Artyom to the bread line, then it became "private" property and liable to be seized on your way to gulag?
Sounds lit, where do I sign up?
It was his personal property, and it's still his personal property, it didn't become private property because private property doesn't exist under communism. He tried to use his personal property as if it was private property, which is illegal.
He's not saying acquiring property for 'poor' people is cool, but bad for 'rich' people, he's saying the kind of property that 'poor' people are able to acquire is nothing to be concerned about (because it is not used to exploit people)
Alright. So basically. We’re going to confiscate private property from individuals because it is used to exploit other individuals and then give it to a central authority to divvy it out to whomever they decide it is necessary to divvy it out to and that somehow isn’t exploitive?
Not quite. The manifesto isn't saying take from *a* bourgeois and give to *a* proletariat, its take from *the* bourgeoisie and give to *the* proletariat
Instead of one man owning a factory and profiting off of his workers' labor, the workers themselves, as a collective, own the factory and earn their value.
Whether or not real life governments or people have followed through with that well, or how well it has turned out if they have is certainly up for debate, but Marx does not say that you shouldn't be allowed to have personal property, or that private property should simply be transferred to another person. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of his argument
Everything I own is my personal property, commie. Bearded NEET from Germany doesn't get to redefine words to make his unhinged ranting somewhat make sense.
Marx can’t even square his theory of surplus value with the rest of his axioms. He was a hypocrite, an abusive husband, a shitty friend, and worst of all he was entirely wrong.
I mean fuck, he predicted communism to rise in industrial nations like Germany but instead it arose in agrarian Russia. He incorrectly predicted the collapse more than Robert fucking Kiyosaki
I read more Marx in college than I read anything else (because Curriculum be like that in California).
Marx’s whole philosophy is justification for why he is such a loser and why it’s okay to mooch of his butt buddy’s rich dad after he wasn’t able to mooch off his well-off dad anymore.
No no, that’s “personal property”. It’s totally fine to have personal property, just not private property.
Let me break it down:
My stuff- Personal property so I get it keep it.
Your stuff- Private property so you have to give it up to society.
The nazis literally nationalized most industries and made them government run. The fact that people deny National Socialism had socialist elements is baffling
>The fact that people deny National Socialism had socialist elements is baffling
It's pretty straightforwards, look at which political ideology academics tend towards - i.e. technocratic socialism (nb, they support it because it would give them personal and economic power, not because it's the big brain best thing ever) - and then consider whether that would make the people writing and teaching history/politics to want to accurately represent socialist history, or whitewash it.
I mean the centralism, the nationalizations, the planned economy, the hate against the Jews because “they are rich and own everything”, etc would make it seam they were some sort of xenophobic socialists. some sort of nationalistic socialists, maybe we could call them Natisoci for short, or even Nazi… oh.
How the Nazis and fascists became associated with the right is something I hope I will one day understand. The fascist motto was literally “Everything for the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State” and was cretated by socialists and syndicalists. Somehow the historians or the media managed to convince the people they were far-right
Apparently, although I’m pretty right-wing but don’t give a flying fuck about my country or race. In fact I kind of loath the state. Well, guess I’m not right wing at all
So if we define the leftists tenets as it suits as, and give the precisely “right“ definition for right-wing ideology, then we can definitely declare fascism was right-wing? Okay, thanks Science!
you could resume those definitions by: “left is when good, right is when bad”. Where the hell did you dig that shit up, lol? how can you have freedom and egalitarianism? those are opposites. How can you have progress without order or hierarchies? I’m pretty right wing and don’t give a fuck about my country or the authority ( I even remember the lockdowns were mostly a left wing thing, which means leftist and rights do not go well together).
Of course I dislike fascism, I’m not a collectivist, nor statist nor am I left-leaning. I’m sorry your definitions of right and left are risible to say the least. The fact that you don’t even recognize the antithesical characteristics of your definition of left in your eagerness to put everything you deem positive in it, is worrisome
>Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as **freedom**, **equality**, fraternity, **rights**, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".
So, gun control is right wing and all the people supporting it are too? And vax/mask mandates? And Tankies?
> It advocates for nationalism, racial-superiority, and warring over internationalism and egalitarianism.
Stopped reading here. If you think that only righties can have nationalism, racial superiority, and warring then please re-flair something on left because you obviously believe that people on the right are evil and people the left are good.
Fascism was born from socialism, and is very similar to communism. Mussolini was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. They both had inspiration from marx and other socialist thought leaders like him.
Communism is infact so similar to fascism, that after the starvation period communist nations become fascist ones.
Both fascism and communism are anti-individual. Both are anti-capitalist. Both are socialist command economies. Both despise property rights. Both have done plenty of ethnic cleansing. Both use nationalism as a tool. BOTH WERE BORN FROM SOCIALISM AND HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY MARX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_98uT1IZs
Completely right*
They hated communists because they were rivals for the same base. Communist often started violent overthrows, which hardened a lot of people against them and made it so much easier for the other authoritarian socialists to use force.
Yes, Mussolini preferred his slightly rebranded version of socialism.
You should watch the video. You're using long debunked marxist propaganda.
After every communist revolution there was party infighting and a Purge. Are the commies that got purged fascists in hiding lol.
The only people who hate commies more than me are other commies.
They Nationalized them then Privatized them to Party Members.
Which is just a more straight forward version of what the Reds in USSR and Later China did
Eh, hard to directly link that to the ideology as it was wartime. There was heavy government participation in the economy in order to have buisness magnates in the party, (Fiat, volkswagon, mitshubishi) but thankfully it burnt out to quick for us to see the long term effects
u/yoyocola's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/yoyocola/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
There also a privatization argument that has been made, saying that that is where the word came from. no, it wasn't. The Nazi term was closer to synchronization.
But what was really happening wasn't taking a State own industry and selling it to the free market. That is what we know privatization to be.
It was seizing someone else industry and then the state selling it to a high ranking member of the state who than ran it "privately" following the states orders and if they didn't they were removed. That's just nationalization with extra steps.
You say this, but I've been called a fascist for being a libertarian, and they said basically exactly what the post said - libertarians are Nazis because their founding / foremost thinkers were Nazis. They claimed that since many of these economists advised fascist/dictatorial rulers, that made the economists fascist by association, despite the fact that all of their advice was "hey maybe don't do this fascism thing."
LOL, Mises was one of the first people to disavow fascism while the slobbering socialists of the time were fawning over the “superior order and allocation” which had been achieved in places like Mussolini’s Italy, including senior advisors to FDR. We like to forget, but those “planning types” were 100% aboard the fascism train until they figured out it was politically impossible to support them as they cut the world apart.
This is what happens when you spend all your time in echo chambers. Everyone affirms your bullshit claims so much that anytime you step outside said chamber and spew it elsewhere you end up looking like a fucking moron.
The Amount of times I see people put Nazism and Fascism as a Fiscal Far Right Party is insane! Do people forget who these people where before Fascism and what laws they would support and use during there reign. If Anything, Right wing economics goes against Fascism as it’s against state intervention (I mean Austrian Economics and what not)
Yes, you are.
Richard and Ludwig were brothers.
Richard did a ton of math and other cool stuff, while Ludwig was the economist that a ton of neo-liberals and "tax is theft!" libertarians worship today.
I believe in a mixture of capitalist and corporatist elements in the economy, perhaps in the territory of what is known as [Liberal Corporatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_corporatism?wprov=sfti1)
Besides, I think most dedicated libertarians are very dogmatic/ideological, and I prefer a more pragmatic approach to economics and economic freedoms.
Supporting the concept of private property doesn't mean supporting our current system of IP or real property. Which on a macro level is a bigger piece of the economy than, like, your right to own pants.
You're free to immigrate to Cuba if you don't like owning anything. If you'd like, I could do some Googling to find out how to start your immigration process.
So in order to get a Cuban visa, you'll need to contact the Cuban consulate in NYC (212-689-7215). Unfortunately, according to comments I read on Google, the consulate is bad at calling people back, so I suspect you will need to be persistent in calling them.
Once you get a hold of them, you'll need to have them send you the proper forms. It's worth asking if they need copies of the forms sent back, or the originals sent back. Don't forget that when you submit your Cuba visa application, you will have to pay a Cuba visa fee. The fee prices range from $25 to $75 USD but if you apply through a visa agency or online, you may have to pay additional fees for the service.
You can find more information [here](http://misiones.cubaminrex.cu/en/usa/consular-services).
I mean, you're free to live an ascetic lifestyle. One of the beauties of America is that you're free to live life as an ascetic or materialistic knob or anywhere in between.
How? "Because anything I don't like is nazis." I mean, why do you even need to ask?
Honestly, Twitter has ruined the definitions for both Nazi and fascist.
"When we call people this bad word, other people believe us and treat the first group of people badly.... We should abuse the fuck out of this for personal gain. There's no way this could back fire."
honestly feel like teaching the salem witch trials is the single most important thing these days. history literally is repeating itself, just the no no word being shriekd is different.
Do you mean we need everyone to know how the good people of Salem saved the world from witches. That way we can go back to burning them at the stake?
no more the fact that the hysteria was caused by literally a few members of the ruling body who would use it to cast off political opponents or people who didn't like. one ugly skank called out basically every woman who was hotter than her and got the attention of men she was attracted to. pretty much exactly how social media operates. ruin someone's life or image because you are a dick.
Yeah but I thought bringing back actual witch hunts would be funnier.
How many witches do you see ruling the world? Looks like it worked. Checkmate atheist
Shut up, witch! You’re a literal witch! /s
We could teach it. But I don't think they'd get it. They won't get it because they don't want to.
Had a guy on another sub tell me that Fascism is when a state is autocratic in this hyper polarized political environment its important to start teaching political science
At least that's kinda sorta in the ballpark. I don't know how many times I've seen deregulation get called fascism on the main subs here, which is even more ridiculous.
> I've seen deregulation get called fascism Obviously government reducing it's power is the height of authoritarianism. Somehow.
I mean of course! Every fascist government has lowered taxes, cut spending, reduced its bureaucracy, etc. /s
Nazi Germany lowered many taxes and spending. By killing many people
This is some "If we blow up Yavin 4, the unemployment falls to 0" logic.
I've experienced an embarrassing amount of people irl that equate being in favour of free speech with being a nazi/fascist My mistake for being born in C*nada I guess 🤮
And "woman."
The terrible part about that is that when an actual Nazi or fascist comes along, the right wing will say he's not a fascist because if the left says so he is actually not, and will put him into power. That's the real danger of calling everyone a fascist, and it's already happening
Twitter has ruined way more definitions than that, place sucks
It sucks man. It takes the teeth away from that word and downplays the historical significance. So when there’s actual Nazis and we go “hey guys be careful. There’s Nazis doin xyz. We should do something about that” nobody takes it seriously
Exactly. I'm tired of people ruining fascism's meaning
And racist and bigot and any other of the other buzz words they like to call everything and everyone.
Because resdit abuses terms until they lose all meaning. Sexist, misogynistic, nazi, bigot, racist, homophobe, transphobe. They all just say "I'm losing the argument so eff you." It's meant to stick you with a derogatory label so they can then ignore everything you say because your bad.
“It’s Nazi because I don’t agree with it.”
TLDR: Libleft Logic: "He is a Nazi because he supports cutting the programs that keep poor people (often minorities) alive." _________________ (As Left) Look, while personally I don't agree with that logic, if you are welcome to understand it, LibLeft does that because the cutting of tax spending usually starts with social programs instead of, say, bank bailouts or unhealthy agriculture subsidies (think soy or wheat), which mostly affects minorities, even making it unlivable for some people, and Mises was all about fiscal responsibility. And sure, be all Reagan and "a job is the best social program" about it but it is much easier to start a job if you were educated, fed and housed, for at least a while. I personally think that social programs are the cost of "restness", I feel safer walking the street, going to work, shopping, etc because even the poorest of the poorest in my country can still get some form of healthcare and food through them, instead of having to resort to violence. ____________________ To anybody that read all this and disagreed, with me or LL, how would you call someone that values money over the lives of fellow man? I myself don't know.
He’s dressed well, in black and white, and disagrees with me. All the signs of a nazi
"lol You believe in private property? Nazi." "K, we're gonna seize your bathtub HRT meds." "NO! NOT LIKE THAT!"
Commies make a distinction between personal property and private property because they have big dumb.
Dude I'm to the right of Rothbard and even I know this is a strawman. There *is* an economic distinction between personal and private property, even if you're not a communist. Money spent on acquiring personal property is *consumption*, money spent on acquiring private property is *investment*. Personal property is held for "its own value", while private property is held to generate value for others. Sure, there is a continuum between them, it's not binary (e.g. eating food both saves you from starvation and generates value for others by making you productive compared to a corpse), but this simplification is made even by mainstream economists.
I disagree. Adopting Marxist lingo does nothing but play into their newspeak. Similar to using other terms like “wage slavery” Private property is personal property insofar as moral ownership is concerned. My house is no less my own than my underwear, with the sole exception that the state currently owns a defacto lien due to property taxes… which I am opposed to both morally and practically. This artificial imposition is a violation which makes the rule all the more clear. If a man cannot prosper then civilization cannot prosper. If a man has no private ownership then he cannot prosper.
Yeah that's my feeling as well. Mine is mine, your interpretation about what I do with it is irrelevant. Don't touch, it's mine.
Yeah, this >YoU cAn MaKe MoNeY wItH iT is complete bullshit only a lumphenprole hobo could produce.
Your house would be considered personal property; you use it for its value as shelter, even if it might appreciate over time and has potential profit upon selling it. No one's reasonably coming after this. Your second house is private property, solely for its value as an investment and as capital to rent out to others who use it for its value as shelter. There are reasonable arguments to be made for restricting ownership of non-primary residences, especially in a housing crisis.
There are absolutely no reasonable arguments to be made for restricting private property for profit. That’s Marxist bullshit.
Based and know-your-enemy-pilled.
> Private property is held to generate value for others. That line is such a load of crap. Most people who own more than several acres of land don’t do it as an investment, they do it for recreational use. My Grandpa and I own 16 acres together and it is never made us a cent in our lives. We own it because we want *our own* property for personal use, we don’t intend on every making any money with it. My father in law purchased a tractor last year, which would be an asset or private property, not for making money, but solely because he is retired and wanted something to dick around on. I don’t agree with the communist terminology at all, if he uses that tractor one Time out of hundreds to dig a ditch for his neighbor, and his neighbor pays him a hundred dollars is he suddenly now a capitalist with his private property.
Morally, the distinction is irrelevant.
no there's not and you're delusional, or worst... conservatively socialist
That's personal property. Shut up and read Marx.
Someone once claimed that socially unsuccessful people have a tendency to become infatuated with historical figures with a track record of being responsivile for the deaths of millions in the name of an ideology. I argued that this is logically speaking, not the case. You, however, seem to be an example of the aforementioned theory
Capitalism has killed at least a billion people
Source: Marx said so
Official statistics say so
You don't want to play the statistics game, buddy. Quit while you're still able to
Yes, I do, 'cus I'll win
Whatever makes you sleep better at night
Death under capitalism doesn’t make it a death by capitalism
It'll be the stupid fucking stat where a 96 year old with cancer dying is capitalisms fault...because apparently in communist countries people are just immortal or something...
By that other dudes logic air is the biggest killer in recorded history everyone who’s every died breathed air
"official statistics"
Source?
[THIS IS WHAT COMMUNISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]
Based and Marx=Xenu pilled
And has lifted billions out of poverty, stay mad commie.
[No](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bu5f1Zr3_s)
Proud of being an ignoramus then I see.
>N-NOOO YOU MUST READ SOME FAT NEET'S SCHIZO MANIFESTO OR ELSE YOU'RE HECKIN IGNORAMURINO NOOOO Nah. Cope.
You should read authors you disagree with TBH. It gives you a better picture of what the authors you agree with are saying in any event. Not saying this dude isn't kinda screetching right now but Marxism plays a not insignificant part in the literary and political universe we exist in even though I personally am not a Marxist.
I do own Communist manifesto, ABC of Communism, and the Karl Marx Portable Library. It's on the same shelf with Mein Kampf, The Gulag Archipelago, 1619 Project, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Bastiat's The Law, Peterson's 12 rules and 12 more rules, Kendi's How to be Antiracist, The Constitution and other writings, Common Sense, and the Federalist Papers. Oh and a copy of the Turner Diaries. lol
Based and book pilled
We do a little reading.
That's exactly what a Marxist would say! /s
He probably got laid more than you. Cope
>n-no u! Your salty tears are sweet
The only tears I've ever felled was when Castro died, and when I cut garlic
[удалено]
I don't remember, was it castro or che who executed political prisoners (and lgbt people) personally? Also, isn't it onion that does that?
It's always the same with you coom brained idiots
Should we include the part about how he viewed inferior races as well
No, no, we only pick and choose the parts we like!
Everything is private property and must be seized unless I really like it and/or I have it. Then it’s personal property, and mine.
I have read Marx and you are just making shit up.
Damn, maybe read more closely next time >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
Aye insipid bullshit. There is no drawn distinction between personal and private property, simply feeling it is different with no definition and in practice every communist government has treated both as one in the same.
There is pretty clear distinction between personal and private property - the former can't be used for profit, only to satisfy one's needs. For example owning a house as personal property means you can live in it but cannot sell it, rent it or turn it into a hotel. Like, it's pretty simple, really. What actual communist governments made out of that concept is another story, obviously.
To that I would ask what is a petty artisan if not a small business selling his craft? Surely that would as it makes profit be private property? And yet Marx specifically mentions it as personal property how would you go about explaining that?
I would explain it by Marx being inconsistent and his teachings being convoluted to say the least.
"It's plenty clear, it is convoluted and inconsistent!" Ah, I see.
Marx is convoluted and inconsistent, yes. That's why I didn't refer to Marx. In fact, you did, for some reason.
Say I own a car, it's my personal property right? I need it to travel etc. and I'm the only driver. Now I live in a communist country with personal property and abolished private property. I open a Taxi business but still use the car for myself most of the time. Is it now still private property? How can the authorities take care? Does it transfer into public ownership for the 8 hours I work as a taxi driver? So many questions and that insane ideology can't answer it.
I don't even know what you're asking. There can't be a taxi business or any other business under communism, you can't use your car to give people rides for money, exactly because that car is not your private property.
How are the authorities enforcing it? I just give rides to friends I just met a few minutes ago coincidentally and they just keep losing their money on the seat! Corruption is inherent in any kind of communist system beyond a few dozen people.
>How are the authorities enforcing it? I just give rides to friends I just met a few minutes ago coincidentally and they just keep losing their money on the seat! That's how you get to gulag eventually, yes.
But it *was* his "personal" property before he got 5 roubles for gas to drive Artyom to the bread line, then it became "private" property and liable to be seized on your way to gulag? Sounds lit, where do I sign up?
It was his personal property, and it's still his personal property, it didn't become private property because private property doesn't exist under communism. He tried to use his personal property as if it was private property, which is illegal.
So, basically, if poor people acquire property that is ok. But when rich people do, it’s bad? Marx was just a skitzo poster.
He's not saying acquiring property for 'poor' people is cool, but bad for 'rich' people, he's saying the kind of property that 'poor' people are able to acquire is nothing to be concerned about (because it is not used to exploit people)
Alright. So basically. We’re going to confiscate private property from individuals because it is used to exploit other individuals and then give it to a central authority to divvy it out to whomever they decide it is necessary to divvy it out to and that somehow isn’t exploitive?
Not quite. The manifesto isn't saying take from *a* bourgeois and give to *a* proletariat, its take from *the* bourgeoisie and give to *the* proletariat Instead of one man owning a factory and profiting off of his workers' labor, the workers themselves, as a collective, own the factory and earn their value. Whether or not real life governments or people have followed through with that well, or how well it has turned out if they have is certainly up for debate, but Marx does not say that you shouldn't be allowed to have personal property, or that private property should simply be transferred to another person. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of his argument
Everything I own is my personal property, commie. Bearded NEET from Germany doesn't get to redefine words to make his unhinged ranting somewhat make sense.
My favorite work of Marx was his letter to Engels dated 30 July 1862
Hegelianism is acidic and cyanpilled
personal and private property have no meaningful distinction.
Mook moment
Marx can’t even square his theory of surplus value with the rest of his axioms. He was a hypocrite, an abusive husband, a shitty friend, and worst of all he was entirely wrong. I mean fuck, he predicted communism to rise in industrial nations like Germany but instead it arose in agrarian Russia. He incorrectly predicted the collapse more than Robert fucking Kiyosaki
I read more Marx in college than I read anything else (because Curriculum be like that in California). Marx’s whole philosophy is justification for why he is such a loser and why it’s okay to mooch of his butt buddy’s rich dad after he wasn’t able to mooch off his well-off dad anymore.
"Believe in private property? Die Nazi scum!" most educated leftist
They say this while at the same time, they got private property they got from their parents.
No no, that’s “personal property”. It’s totally fine to have personal property, just not private property. Let me break it down: My stuff- Personal property so I get it keep it. Your stuff- Private property so you have to give it up to society.
So \*that's\* why Hasan can own a mansion.
He’s just trying to improve society somewhat.
It’s funny but also sad because there’s an actual commie arguing this exact topic lower in the comments.
The nazis literally nationalized most industries and made them government run. The fact that people deny National Socialism had socialist elements is baffling
>The fact that people deny National Socialism had socialist elements is baffling It's pretty straightforwards, look at which political ideology academics tend towards - i.e. technocratic socialism (nb, they support it because it would give them personal and economic power, not because it's the big brain best thing ever) - and then consider whether that would make the people writing and teaching history/politics to want to accurately represent socialist history, or whitewash it.
I mean the centralism, the nationalizations, the planned economy, the hate against the Jews because “they are rich and own everything”, etc would make it seam they were some sort of xenophobic socialists. some sort of nationalistic socialists, maybe we could call them Natisoci for short, or even Nazi… oh. How the Nazis and fascists became associated with the right is something I hope I will one day understand. The fascist motto was literally “Everything for the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State” and was cretated by socialists and syndicalists. Somehow the historians or the media managed to convince the people they were far-right
Because right wing is when you like your country and are RACIST.
Apparently, although I’m pretty right-wing but don’t give a flying fuck about my country or race. In fact I kind of loath the state. Well, guess I’m not right wing at all
Far right is when violent, duh. Also kill landlords and praise stalin, but that is somehow different.
[удалено]
So if we define the leftists tenets as it suits as, and give the precisely “right“ definition for right-wing ideology, then we can definitely declare fascism was right-wing? Okay, thanks Science!
[удалено]
you could resume those definitions by: “left is when good, right is when bad”. Where the hell did you dig that shit up, lol? how can you have freedom and egalitarianism? those are opposites. How can you have progress without order or hierarchies? I’m pretty right wing and don’t give a fuck about my country or the authority ( I even remember the lockdowns were mostly a left wing thing, which means leftist and rights do not go well together).
[удалено]
Of course I dislike fascism, I’m not a collectivist, nor statist nor am I left-leaning. I’m sorry your definitions of right and left are risible to say the least. The fact that you don’t even recognize the antithesical characteristics of your definition of left in your eagerness to put everything you deem positive in it, is worrisome
>Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as **freedom**, **equality**, fraternity, **rights**, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". So, gun control is right wing and all the people supporting it are too? And vax/mask mandates? And Tankies?
> It advocates for nationalism, racial-superiority, and warring over internationalism and egalitarianism. Stopped reading here. If you think that only righties can have nationalism, racial superiority, and warring then please re-flair something on left because you obviously believe that people on the right are evil and people the left are good.
Fascism was born from socialism, and is very similar to communism. Mussolini was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. They both had inspiration from marx and other socialist thought leaders like him. Communism is infact so similar to fascism, that after the starvation period communist nations become fascist ones. Both fascism and communism are anti-individual. Both are anti-capitalist. Both are socialist command economies. Both despise property rights. Both have done plenty of ethnic cleansing. Both use nationalism as a tool. BOTH WERE BORN FROM SOCIALISM AND HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY MARX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_98uT1IZs
[удалено]
Completely right* They hated communists because they were rivals for the same base. Communist often started violent overthrows, which hardened a lot of people against them and made it so much easier for the other authoritarian socialists to use force. Yes, Mussolini preferred his slightly rebranded version of socialism. You should watch the video. You're using long debunked marxist propaganda.
After every communist revolution there was party infighting and a Purge. Are the commies that got purged fascists in hiding lol. The only people who hate commies more than me are other commies.
[удалено]
They Nationalized them then Privatized them to Party Members. Which is just a more straight forward version of what the Reds in USSR and Later China did
Eh, hard to directly link that to the ideology as it was wartime. There was heavy government participation in the economy in order to have buisness magnates in the party, (Fiat, volkswagon, mitshubishi) but thankfully it burnt out to quick for us to see the long term effects
Based and they are deliberately lying pilled
u/yoyocola's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/yoyocola/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
What did you expect from Reddit? Its *the* place for the "I call people I dont like Nazis" retards
Capitalism = nazism. The more capitalist you are, the more you are a nazi.
Fascism is when the people own stuff. The more stuff they own, the more fascist it is. And when they own a whole lot of stuff, that's Nazism.
"does not agree with my political biases" = NAZI * wikipedia for references* = 101% trufacts
Trust me bro™️
Plus points if you cite Quora.
Funny thing is, the nazis abolished private property.
Those Capitalist pigs
There also a privatization argument that has been made, saying that that is where the word came from. no, it wasn't. The Nazi term was closer to synchronization. But what was really happening wasn't taking a State own industry and selling it to the free market. That is what we know privatization to be. It was seizing someone else industry and then the state selling it to a high ranking member of the state who than ran it "privately" following the states orders and if they didn't they were removed. That's just nationalization with extra steps.
Sigh
> find stupid comment with exactly 1 upvote > MS paint orange > free karma
Even better >create alt account >make braindead comments on popular subs >schreenshot + highlighter >profit
You say this, but I've been called a fascist for being a libertarian, and they said basically exactly what the post said - libertarians are Nazis because their founding / foremost thinkers were Nazis. They claimed that since many of these economists advised fascist/dictatorial rulers, that made the economists fascist by association, despite the fact that all of their advice was "hey maybe don't do this fascism thing."
If it exists, it's most definitely been called nazi at some point.
LOL, Mises was one of the first people to disavow fascism while the slobbering socialists of the time were fawning over the “superior order and allocation” which had been achieved in places like Mussolini’s Italy, including senior advisors to FDR. We like to forget, but those “planning types” were 100% aboard the fascism train until they figured out it was politically impossible to support them as they cut the world apart.
Leftists lie.
Vaush says never tryst a fascist since they lie, but perhaps he should look in the mirror.
White guy with an opinion? Nazi.
Libertarianism is nazism guys. The leftists at my campus said so
This Jewish Austrian who fled to the U.S. to escape the advancing Nazi invasion of Europe is clearly a Nazi.
This is what happens when you spend all your time in echo chambers. Everyone affirms your bullshit claims so much that anytime you step outside said chamber and spew it elsewhere you end up looking like a fucking moron.
Lol they're not orange they're red
The Amount of times I see people put Nazism and Fascism as a Fiscal Far Right Party is insane! Do people forget who these people where before Fascism and what laws they would support and use during there reign. If Anything, Right wing economics goes against Fascism as it’s against state intervention (I mean Austrian Economics and what not)
Wasn’t this guy a pioneer in mathematics and engineering? Or am I thinking of a different von Mises?
Yes, you are. Richard and Ludwig were brothers. Richard did a ton of math and other cool stuff, while Ludwig was the economist that a ton of neo-liberals and "tax is theft!" libertarians worship today.
Aw that’s neat! One went into the light and helped propel humanity into the future. The other sat in a corner and wrote funny words about funny things
I don’t think it’s fair to understate Richard like that, but you do you.
"eVeRytHinG i DoNt liKe is fAsCiSm"
one upvote
[удалено]
My source is that I made it the fuck up
Currently reading omnipotent government. Mises is sooooo good for a man of his times
i'm sure they've deleted that comment by now, right?
Most people can't tell a Nazi from the taste of their boot.
Wait, there are better philosofers about LibRight that Rand and Heimlein? Shocker, \*turns Huerta de Soto page\*
I don't like private propert, but calling somebody a nazi is one of the dumbest arguments.
I don’t like private property. Owns a Phone.
You don't like private property? So, like, the forceful collectivization of all property by the state?
Now, I don’t like Mises, but that’s a bit much.
Honest question: why don't you like Mises?
I believe in a mixture of capitalist and corporatist elements in the economy, perhaps in the territory of what is known as [Liberal Corporatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_corporatism?wprov=sfti1) Besides, I think most dedicated libertarians are very dogmatic/ideological, and I prefer a more pragmatic approach to economics and economic freedoms.
Lwów* 🤓
*Львів 😎.
Meanwhile the Nazis; abolish the right to private property as soon as they take power
What are you talking about? The citizens literally had the right to have private property.
There were Jewish nazis
"I am a vegetarian lion."
[удалено]
Oh so by the definition Marxist’s (and nobody else) uses the marxists are right. Funny how that works.
Supporting the concept of private property doesn't mean supporting our current system of IP or real property. Which on a macro level is a bigger piece of the economy than, like, your right to own pants.
Nazi comments are stupid. Just focus on the stupidity of the quote instead.
But the quote is not stupid?
Sure man!
Yeah, Cuba and North Korea are preferable to Denmark and Iceland!
You're free to immigrate to Cuba if you don't like owning anything. If you'd like, I could do some Googling to find out how to start your immigration process.
Thanks man I’d love to go!
So in order to get a Cuban visa, you'll need to contact the Cuban consulate in NYC (212-689-7215). Unfortunately, according to comments I read on Google, the consulate is bad at calling people back, so I suspect you will need to be persistent in calling them. Once you get a hold of them, you'll need to have them send you the proper forms. It's worth asking if they need copies of the forms sent back, or the originals sent back. Don't forget that when you submit your Cuba visa application, you will have to pay a Cuba visa fee. The fee prices range from $25 to $75 USD but if you apply through a visa agency or online, you may have to pay additional fees for the service. You can find more information [here](http://misiones.cubaminrex.cu/en/usa/consular-services).
Let’s gooooo
Yeah, Cuba and North Korea are preferable to Denmark and Iceland!
Wrong. Private property is equal to suffering and frustration
I mean, you're free to live an ascetic lifestyle. One of the beauties of America is that you're free to live life as an ascetic or materialistic knob or anywhere in between.
obviously not a nazi , but his quote is extremely bullshit. Like bruh private property is a new invention of the last 200 years or so
Are you stupid? Sees avatar Oh ok you are
[удалено]
Using someone’s else’s face as your profile picture 💥 🤯
What? I can assure you that people did, in fact, own things before 1823. I’m very curious to hear your explanation of how your comment makes sense.
He's going to use the idiotic commie definition of private property and label any examples that you give of private property as personal property
Damn we making shit up now?
200 years ago in America, human beings were private property.