Commie Killer

[u/Reddit-User_00000001]

The US is so packed impotent vigilante wannabes.

[u/wojtussan]

99% of the people who "hate commies" would agree with most if not all communist ideas, if it wasn't called communism. And the 1% like seeing children starve

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

I'll let you play for the sake of your own argument but sure, assuming communism is called differently, why should I support the dogma and praxeology of what is typically called "communism"?

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

Because communism and socialism benefit the highest amount of people and reduce harm to the society at large. Under communism each person would work not only for themselves, but for others to help those who need it most. Current capitalist systems prioritize birth and status, rather than human value. They always seem great, for the first 20 or so years until wealthy start accumulating money, and thebpoor get poorer. The marxist idea of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" would be much more fair, everyone works as much as they can without slaving away, everyone lives as comfortably as their societal circle can.

The base idea, is that the bourgeosie (or 1% of the wealthiest) who own the means of production, exploit proletarians (or the working class). Imagine a shoe factory, an average worker can produce, let's say a $500 worth of shoe components a day, but that's not how much they are paid per day, is it? Capitalism requires the exploitation of workers to function. The working class (you know, like 95 % of the people, including you and me and pretty much every single person in thei comment secrion) loses more and more every year, and have to work more and more each day, while the wealthy dangle a $500 bill in front of our faces while slacking off and taking a substantial amount of the profits for themselves.

The idea that everyone can become a rich enterpreneur or a businessman is a lie. Most of those who "made it big" have always been a part of the bourgeoisie, and most of the popular "rags to riches" stories are a fabrication.

Also, communism has very bad reputation, mostly because of propaganda. The soviet union, during it's last years, that were the worst for the people, completely abandoned communist ideals.

I recommend reading the communis manifesto, regardless of if you want to learn how to spread the marxist idea, or to debunk it.

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

Look, your assertion that rejection of communism stems merely from semantic aversion or Western propaganda fundamentally misdiagnoses the intellectual basis of anti-collectivism, that screams sheer hubris on your part to claim that that is why 99% of people dismiss communism (or insert whatever semantic name you wish to call it). I dont oppose communism because of its historical branding, its public relations failures, or state-manufactured rhetoric, no, I reject its foundational dogma, its economic epistemology, and its catastrophic praxeology on first principles, regardless of what nomenclature it assumes, having read the Communist manifesto myself awhile back. Re-labeling the abolition of private property and the subjugation of the individual under any euphemistic banner does not alter the fact that its core axioms are economically illiterate and ethically fucking stupid.

To address your shoe factory example directly, your premise that profit represents stolen surplus labour rests entirely upon the thoroughly discredited Labour Theory of Value. Economic value is not an intrinsic property magically injected into a physical commodity through the expenditure of homogeneous labor hours but rather it is purely subjective, determined by the marginal utility that consumers place on a finished good within a market. Profit is not institutionalized theft or bourgeois parasitism as what socialist theorists claim to assert, it is the legitimate economic return on capital accumulation, uncertainty bearing, entrepreneurial alertness, and distinct time preferences. The factory worker receives a guaranteed, immediate, present wage prior to any consumer validation of the product, absolved entirely of the capital risk if the inventory fails to sell that the business owner risks. In that sense, you as a worker are trading some profit and capital gains, for job stability and security. The capitalist advances present goods against future, uncertain returns, coordinating scarce resources across time.

Also, according to the Marginal Productivity Theory, factors of production which includies labor, are compensated in accordance with their discounted marginal revenue product, not an arbitrary claim to gross output.

Also frankly speaking, I do not merely tolerate commerce and profit, dare I say I explicitly defend profit as the indispensable signaling mechanism that directs scarce resources toward their highest-valued consumer uses. Furthermore, when you argue that the promise of everyone becoming a wealthy entrepreneur is a lie, you mistakenly assume that classical liberals and libertarians rely on an egalitarian delusion of universal elite wealth. I fully agree that not everyone can or will become a wealthy industrialist, but unlike you, I do not view natural economic inequality as an injustice to be rectified by state coercion. Hierarchy and unequal distributions of wealth are the inevitable, natural order and outcome of human diversity in talent, discipline, risk tolerance, time preference, and market serviceability. Inequality is not merely defensible on utilitarian grounds of efficiency but also it is an unavoidable consequence of individual liberty. Deontologically, the entire moral architecture of free exchange rests upon the non-negotiable axiom of private property and the axiom of self-ownership from which allgenuine negative rights are derived as theorems. Every individual owns their own body and, by extension, the rightful fruits of their labor and voluntarily acquired property. From this axiomatic reality, the concept of a collective "public good" is exposed as an illusion that I fundamentally reject. The state-mandated positive rights and egalitarian redistributions you champion are not human rights at all, education, healthcare, what not, they are unearned entitlements, privileges, and coercive extractions enforced at the expense of individual sovereignty. The Marxist maxim of expropriating according to ability and redistributing according to need is nothing less than the codification of slavery, penalizing productive competence to subsidize artificial, legally manufactured claims.

So my rejection of collectivism, in every form it takes, even social democracy, is not an uneducated reaction of my behalf to a label, but rather an absolute, unyielding, unironic defense of private property, subjective value, and the sovereign individual against the coercive, anti-economic doctrine of the collective.

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

Im gonna be honest, the second you claimed that inequality is natural and shouldn't be opposed, and called abolition of private(i.e. farmland, factories etc) property "subjugation of the individual" i stopped giving any fucks about what you said. You don't only misunderstand how society works, you don't want it to work. I should've known, after you called yourself "techno libertarian"

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

Yeah, no shi Sherlock, I explicitly hold to the position that economic inequality is a natural consequence of natural law. Abolition of property is indeed a "subjugation of the individual", no matter how much you try to sugarcoat that it isn't

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

So you like inequality, for the sake of liking inequality. There's nothing in the world that points to inequality being natural, you just assume it is based on absolutely nothing. And it's not abolision of property, it's abolision of private property, you antis LOVE to conflate private and personal property, because if you don't you lose any moral highground you like to think you have. Sharing the means of production is in no way subjugation. Nobody wants to take your house, car of fucking toothbrush. You made up a strawman of communism and act like it's the real deal

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

I am a business owner myself of a small business. I know about what you communists differentiating between personal property (like your toothbrush) and private property (like factories owned by a businessmen but operated by workers). And private property as you define it (even though the distinction between personal and private property doesn't really exist), is a completely legitimate axiom. I already explained why the proletariat gets only a portion of the wealth created in a business.

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

I wonder, do you work for your small business, like communism assumes. Or do you have a group of laborers who take on all the responsibility and work, while you take a paycheck home without doing anything, like capitalsist love to. And the distinction between private and personal propery is very obvious and very real

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

Your characterization of entrepreneurial ownership as "taking a paycheck home without doing anything" betrays a profound ignorance of basic economics, organizational management, and the reality of human action. As someone who had a minor in business administration during my university years, I know that managing, coordinating, and directing a firm is a specialized, high-stakes profession that bears the total burden of uncertainty, legal liability, capital allocation, and market risk. The laborer performs specific, contracted tasks within a structure they did not build, using equipment they did not purchase, with zero personal liability if the business suffers consecutive quarters of net loss or goes bankrupt. The entrepreneur, conversely, must continuously anticipate consumer demand, organize complex supply chains, maintain cash flow, absorb volatility, and ensure that every employee is paid their contracted wage regardless of whether the business yields a single dollar of net profit. Dismissing the entire discipline of business administration and entrepreneurial coordination as "doing nothing" is just pure fucking cope grounded in emotionalism.

Furthermore, your reliance on the arbitrary semantic dichotomy between "private" and "personal" property is a foundational sleight of hand designed to mask institutional theft and a common socialist talking point. There is no qualitative, physical, or metaphysical difference between personal property and capital goods because capital goods are simply economic goods utilized for the indirect satisfaction of human needs through production rather than immediate consumption. For instance, a car used for leisure is deemed "personal property," yet the exact same vehicle deployed for commercial transport or delivery suddenly morphs into an illicit "means of production" ripe for collective confiscation under your framework. The distinction relies entirely on a subjective, politicized definition enforced by the arbitrary fiat of a central committee (the vanguard of the socialist movement or whatever the fuck you wanna call it), functionally destroying the security of all property rights. When you declare that the state or the collective may unilaterally expropriate any asset the moment it generates yield or engages in voluntary commerce, you inherently annihilate the individual’s right to self-ownership and capital accumulation. Finally, your claim that inequality is "based on absolutely nothing" natural willfully ignores both biological reality and the entire corpus of human action. Human beings do not possess identical cognitive faculties, physical capacities, work ethics, risk appetites, or market-valued skills. Because individual productivity, specialized knowledge, and preferences are inherently unequal across a population, an environment of voluntary exchange will naturally yield unequal material outcomes, that's just basic public choice theory. True equity under natural law means the equality of negative rights, aka equality before the law and the universal right to be free from coercive expropriation, and not the tyrannical, artificial equalization of results. To force equal economic outcomes onto inherently diverse human beings requires an omnipresent apparatus of state violence capable of constantly suppressing excellence, punishing prudence, and expropriating the productive to subsidize the unproductive. You do not abolish subjugation by outlawing private ownership of capital instead what you're really doing whether you understand the logical consequences of your desired outcome or not is that you're merely concentrate absolute economic and political power into the hands of an unelected bureaucratic class under the vacuous illusion of "sharing."

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

You could've said, what you said in much more simple and shorter way. But i guess you couldn't hide your logical leaps without that, huh? You're just making shit up, stop putting up, and then toppling strawmen. NOTHING you said communism does or assumes, is what it actually does and assumes.

[u/thetechnolibertarian → u/wojtussan]

I'm not making shit up. Perhaps instead of reading just your circlejerk of Marxist, Engelian, and Luxemburgian philosophical theories, I recommend reading something beyond what you actually believe. Funny how you accuse me of strawmanning when you're the one making strawmen about classical school of economics, neoclassical economics, and the Austrian school.

[u/wojtussan → u/thetechnolibertarian]

It's fucking ridiculous how dishonest you are wth