Barothmuk

Quite radical. You want to purge 50% of the workforce and strip the economic power of 50% of the population. And no, noting the value of said economic power is not reducing people's "purpose" or "meaning" to being their "purchasing power", rather its acknowledging the direct correlation of one's purchasing power with one's freedom in our society. Therefore by completely abolishing the purchasing power of half the population you have effectively halved the population's freedom. But hey, at least some dumbass neet doesn't have to compete with the alleged "20% of guys" who are getting 100% of the women now that his good buddy the state is willing to play wingman. Yes, they worked as farmers, seamstresses, brewers, factory workers, midwives and so on. It's almost like, in Western society, they've always been a part of the workforce.

And true freedom is stripping the economic power of 50% of the population and forcing them to latch onto the first male they see to support themself. And of course all those women who don't want to be a decorative appendage of someone else are just brainwashed Please, tell me more Muhammad.

By destroying it in favour of Shariah Law?

I think KP is going to have an aneurysm.

It's better than everything Haha

lol, what the actual ****. Fixed that for you. I kid, I kid. Hitler actually privatized a lot of stuff. I'll look for the articles when I have time. Churchill had more stuff nationalized iirc.

You haven't explained how your "higher principles" aren't just another ideological framework.

iirc they also supported the US internment of Japanese civilians. Anyways how does this follow from anything that was being discussed?

Actually choosing 9 hours of frivolous labour over automation. I can't wait for Trump to bomb us back to the stone age.

And you see any criticism of your betters as a sign of one being a mass murderer in the making. Guess the Soviet programming has yet to wear off.

I didn't mention or express support for the soviet union so this little hissy fit was a waste of effort.

Assuming I ignore the peasant minded worship of his masters who can apparently conjure wealth independent of reality what I found most weird about this post is how communal living is presented as some unimaginable nightmare. I live in the first world, I'm not that poor and I have literally spent the entirety of my adult life living communally. The horror.

Populated with conservatives, libertarians, crypto-fascists and a cartoonish personification of neo-liberalism.

Again, arrogance. The implication that the only way Marx could have come to his "initial" conclusions is due to political pressure and making "hasty announcements" rather than him being part of a political movement that, shock, exists outside the spectrum of liberalism. Well that's not true. The communists stated their goal: the abolition of private property, classes and the state. So Marx provided a means to do so: have the working class capture the state and seize the means of production so they are held in common. Which he of course expanded on and refined with the continued developments of the labour movement (e.g. his response to the failure of the Paris Commune). If you're complaining that he didn't outline the exact minutiae of how a communist society would function you obviously haven't understood Marx. Not because he actually did but because to do so would be regarded as utopian. It's all well and good to draft how your perfect society would function but without providing a concrete political plan on how you intend to achieve this its ultimately meaningless especially when your own facticity limits your perspective to the here and now. Marx recognized this, i.e. rather than being a prophet outlining a perfect utopia he was instead a member of a larger political movement - therefore the focus of his work was on analyzing how capitalism functions and what tactics the working class should use in response. For what it is worth I have little interest in defending the finer points of Marxism on an internet forum. I just find your constant attempts to turn Marx into a liberal annoying.

And this is demonstrably false as shown by my previous point on the actual content of the Manifesto and Marx's reflections on it. It's bizarre you are so pressed to present the later Marx as being nothing more than a desperate effort to justify the early Marx. As if its unthinkable he'd have the audacity to actually believe the things he wrote.

How am I being short sighted? You speak as if the Communist Manifesto represents the foundation of Marx's writings. Although an important historical document it is, in comparison to the rest of Marx's body of work, a footnote. It was quite literally little more than a political pamphlet which, although alluding to the greater project of a stateless, classless society, was primarily concerned with the immediate objectives of the mid nineteenth century working class (better working conditions, children's education etc). Marx himself considered much of its content outdated decades later.

Worth quoting since you see yourself as a pupil of old Groucho

1. He is the most radical and progressive thinker of the 21st century. 2. Yes. 3. Marxists and other far-left tendencies. 4. Yes. Trump is a scientific socialist who has populated his cabinet with the most destructive representatives of capital in order to harness its contradictions and accelerate its abolition. Truly a master of the dialectic.

I'm literally shaking. People actually scoffed at him? I hope he's ok.

This post is art

Seeing you have a greater mastery of the English language feel free to point out how it's evident in this twitter exchange the guy "isn't being serious".

Given your misunderstanding I don't think you're in a position to make that judgement.

Finally an alternative to UBI: slavery.

A discussion between an "anti-capitalist" who supports capitalism and a guy who thinks the west doesn't have "true capitalism". Great.