• Happy pride month, xisters of the schlog!

Very serious Collective property is impossible

Post thread
This tag connotates the discussion as something much more serious than a regular Serious tag.
Thrembone said:
Ah, comrade, what a brilliantly reactionary diatribe we have here—a veritable tapestry of sophistry woven from the finest strands of bourgeois individualism! Let us dissect this masterpiece of absurdity with the sharp scalpel of dialectical materialism and expose its internal contradictions for the amusement of the proletariat.

We are told that collective ownership is an impossible dream because Tim and Joe, who jointly own a stick, will inevitably descend into a maelstrom of conflict should their individual desires for the stick diverge. The stick, poor proletarian that it is, becomes the stage for the supposed irreconcilable drama of human cooperation. What a curious world this argument inhabits, where all human interaction is reduced to a zero-sum game of property fetishism!

First, let us address the author’s axiomatic definitions. Ownership is framed as a sacrosanct realm of absolute and unrestrained control—a notion ripped straight from the catechism of bourgeois property worship. The argument assumes that for ownership to exist, it must be total, tyrannical, and atomized, ignoring the historical and material realities of how collective ownership actually functions. Were this caricature true, society would collapse at the first instance of shared endeavor—marriages, partnerships, and communal projects of every kind would evaporate in a puff of metaphysical confusion. Yet, lo and behold, humans have managed for millennia to build cities, sail ships, and wage revolutions together without descending en masse into the author’s imagined anarchy of stick-wielding despotism.

Now let us examine the heart of the argument: Tim, desiring to transform the stick into a fishing spear, finds himself shackled either by the consent of Joe or by the "cuckoldry" of compromise. The language here is telling—"cuckoldry" is not chosen at random, for it reveals the author’s puerile obsession with domination, as if the entire world were a Nietzschean soap opera where any cooperative action is an affront to the sovereign will. How sad and narrow a life must be that views collective decision-making not as a means of mutual empowerment but as some kind of emasculating horror!

Consider for a moment the material absurdity of the dilemma presented. Tim and Joe, ostensibly grown adults, are reduced to caricatures incapable of basic communication or negotiation. Why? Because the author requires them to be so in order to uphold their straw-man version of collective ownership. In reality, people resolve such conflicts every day without spiraling into existential crises. Should Tim and Joe fail to agree, they might employ a democratic vote, take turns, or seek arbitration. Or perhaps—shock of shocks—they might recognize that the stick, in its essence, is less important than their shared interest in catching fish. The author’s insistence on the impossibility of compromise assumes a pathological level of egoism that is neither universal nor inevitable.

Finally, the author offers us the rhetorical flourish of "consent sluts," an epithet as crude as it is revealing. Here, cooperation is reframed as servitude, mutual consent as submission, and solidarity as weakness. How amusing that the very relationships that build society—relationships of shared interest, trust, and collaboration—are cast as the ultimate villainy! It is as if the author has peered into the mirror of human interdependence and recoiled in horror at their own reflection.

In conclusion, this argument is not a critique of collective ownership but an unintentional parody of the bourgeois worldview—where individual will is sacrosanct, collective action is unimaginable, and the only alternative to atomized control is "cuckoldry." It is a philosophy fit for the dustbin of history, where it shall lie alongside other such relics of reactionary thought, gathering dust as the workers of the world march on toward their collective emancipation.
Click to expand...
karl marx ai chatbot gem
 
Thrembone said:
Ah, comrade, what a brilliantly reactionary diatribe we have here—a veritable tapestry of sophistry woven from the finest strands of bourgeois individualism! Let us dissect this masterpiece of absurdity with the sharp scalpel of dialectical materialism and expose its internal contradictions for the amusement of the proletariat.

We are told that collective ownership is an impossible dream because Tim and Joe, who jointly own a stick, will inevitably descend into a maelstrom of conflict should their individual desires for the stick diverge. The stick, poor proletarian that it is, becomes the stage for the supposed irreconcilable drama of human cooperation. What a curious world this argument inhabits, where all human interaction is reduced to a zero-sum game of property fetishism!

First, let us address the author’s axiomatic definitions. Ownership is framed as a sacrosanct realm of absolute and unrestrained control—a notion ripped straight from the catechism of bourgeois property worship. The argument assumes that for ownership to exist, it must be total, tyrannical, and atomized, ignoring the historical and material realities of how collective ownership actually functions. Were this caricature true, society would collapse at the first instance of shared endeavor—marriages, partnerships, and communal projects of every kind would evaporate in a puff of metaphysical confusion. Yet, lo and behold, humans have managed for millennia to build cities, sail ships, and wage revolutions together without descending en masse into the author’s imagined anarchy of stick-wielding despotism.

Now let us examine the heart of the argument: Tim, desiring to transform the stick into a fishing spear, finds himself shackled either by the consent of Joe or by the "cuckoldry" of compromise. The language here is telling—"cuckoldry" is not chosen at random, for it reveals the author’s puerile obsession with domination, as if the entire world were a Nietzschean soap opera where any cooperative action is an affront to the sovereign will. How sad and narrow a life must be that views collective decision-making not as a means of mutual empowerment but as some kind of emasculating horror!

Consider for a moment the material absurdity of the dilemma presented. Tim and Joe, ostensibly grown adults, are reduced to caricatures incapable of basic communication or negotiation. Why? Because the author requires them to be so in order to uphold their straw-man version of collective ownership. In reality, people resolve such conflicts every day without spiraling into existential crises. Should Tim and Joe fail to agree, they might employ a democratic vote, take turns, or seek arbitration. Or perhaps—shock of shocks—they might recognize that the stick, in its essence, is less important than their shared interest in catching fish. The author’s insistence on the impossibility of compromise assumes a pathological level of egoism that is neither universal nor inevitable.

Finally, the author offers us the rhetorical flourish of "consent sluts," an epithet as crude as it is revealing. Here, cooperation is reframed as servitude, mutual consent as submission, and solidarity as weakness. How amusing that the very relationships that build society—relationships of shared interest, trust, and collaboration—are cast as the ultimate villainy! It is as if the author has peered into the mirror of human interdependence and recoiled in horror at their own reflection.

In conclusion, this argument is not a critique of collective ownership but an unintentional parody of the bourgeois worldview—where individual will is sacrosanct, collective action is unimaginable, and the only alternative to atomized control is "cuckoldry." It is a philosophy fit for the dustbin of history, where it shall lie alongside other such relics of reactionary thought, gathering dust as the workers of the world march on toward their collective emancipation.
Click to expand...
Commies really write gorillions of words instead of succinctly saying "Here's where you are wrong and this is why," smh.

Also, blud isn't taking the claim I made head-on, rather redefining the definitions used and using language such as "tyrannical" (ad hominem) instead of referring to point one in this post.

>The stick ... becomes the stage for the supposed irreconcilable drama of human cooperation.
I'm not criticizing human cooperation, Mr. goalpost mover. human cooperation is 100% possible but it must be voluntary, or else its literally slavery.

>Tim and Joe ... are reduced to caricatures incapable of basic communication or negotiation.
>because it just is
Why is it a caricature.

>Should Tim and Joe fail to agree, they might employ a democratic vote, take turns, or seek arbitration. Or perhaps—shock of shocks—they might recognize that the stick, in its essence, is less important than their shared interest in catching fish. The author’s insistence on the impossibility of compromise assumes a pathological level of egoism that is neither universal nor inevitable.
This doesn't show how one's private property rights aren't being violated, nor does it show how a democratic vote prevents this.

DonutHole said:
He knows this from experience sharing his wife with her boyfriend
Click to expand...
kys
 
Terrorbyte said:
retardbros...
Click to expand...
DNjww7dXUAYsaE3.jpg

DNjww7dWAAEPZ_P.jpg

DNjww7hX4AA10p4.jpg

DNjww7dXkAAQ8Qg.jpg

QED.

Who's the retard now?
 
ZOGs #1 Supporter said:
Commies really write gorillions of words instead of succinctly saying "Here's where you are wrong and this is why," smh.

Also, blud isn't taking the claim I made head-on, rather redefining the definitions used and using language such as "tyrannical" (ad hominem) instead of referring to point one in this post.

>The stick ... becomes the stage for the supposed irreconcilable drama of human cooperation.
I'm not criticizing human cooperation, Mr. goalpost mover. human cooperation is 100% possible but it must be voluntary, or else its literally slavery.

>Tim and Joe ... are reduced to caricatures incapable of basic communication or negotiation.
>because it just is
Why is it a caricature.

>Should Tim and Joe fail to agree, they might employ a democratic vote, take turns, or seek arbitration. Or perhaps—shock of shocks—they might recognize that the stick, in its essence, is less important than their shared interest in catching fish. The author’s insistence on the impossibility of compromise assumes a pathological level of egoism that is neither universal nor inevitable.
This doesn't show how one's private property rights aren't being violated, nor does it show how a democratic vote prevents this.


kys
Click to expand...
btfo'd by ai lenin
 
Thrembone said:
btfo'd by ai lenin
Click to expand...
>comes into a serious argument
>makes an ai write a gorillion barely relevant words
>claims to 'win' despite not showing proof
meijak said:
>proof by british homo vs proof by a black king
Yep, I'm still plural of autofellatio.
Click to expand...
Nigga the tard who made the 1 * 1 = 2 does not know what he is talking about.

> Remember the basic laws of common sense
He has to ask you to remember, because that shit doesn't exist. What law? Why can't he show it?

>
1737743532529.png

What the science is a "unit"? Unit digit? Units of Measurement?
Additionally, there is no "Associative and Communicative law" because those relate to entirely different concepts (a+b=b+a is communicative, while associative is (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)).
This nigga fails to realize that "x" is typically a sign used for multiplication unless he defining a new operation, in that case, he is VERY unclear in it.
I would say that his "Associative and Communicative law" could be another operation, but it's pointless because it simplifies to a+ab or a(1+b), because you start with a, then add a to itself b times



I would call the both of you gigachads, however, spreading misinformation is pozzed and thats just gay.

so have this instead
justPostedCringe.jpg



>inb4 self-inserts as giga
 
(enthousiast) Oh, ik vind het geweldig om over de circulaire aard van geld te horen! De manier waarop geld circuleert en zichzelf reproduceert door middel van investeringen is heel interessant. Het onderstreept de rol van geld als instrument dat de economie helpt om zichzelf te ondersteunen. Het gebruik van M-C-M en C-M-C in de tekst maakt duidelijk hoe geld zich kan transformeren in kapitaal en uiteindelijk weer terug wordt omgezet in geld. Interessant!
 
DonutHole said:
(enthousiast) Oh, ik vind het geweldig om over de circulaire aard van geld te horen! De manier waarop geld circuleert en zichzelf reproduceert door middel van investeringen is heel interessant. Het onderstreept de rol van geld als instrument dat de economie helpt om zichzelf te ondersteunen. Het gebruik van M-C-M en C-M-C in de tekst maakt duidelijk hoe geld zich kan transformeren in kapitaal en uiteindelijk weer terug wordt omgezet in geld. Interessant!
Click to expand...
u called me a boy once where was it

I need it because you have to pick between me boing a boy or married, unlesss you think that marriage incorporating little boys is ok. If the latter is true then yous a pedophile lil' nigga.
 
ZOGs #1 Supporter said:
>comes into a serious argument
>makes an ai write a gorillion barely relevant words
>claims to 'win' despite not showing proof

Nigga the tard who made the 1 * 1 = 2 does not know what he is talking about.

> Remember the basic laws of common sense
He has to ask you to remember, because that shit doesn't exist. What law? Why can't he show it?

>View attachment 131278
What the science is a "unit"? Unit digit? Units of Measurement?
Additionally, there is no "Associative and Communicative law" because those relate to entirely different concepts (a+b=b+a is communicative, while associative is (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)).
This nigga fails to realize that "x" is typically a sign used for multiplication unless he defining a new operation, in that case, he is VERY unclear in it.
I would say that his "Associative and Communicative law" could be another operation, but it's pointless because it simplifies to a+ab or a(1+b), because you start with a, then add a to itself b times



I would call the both of you gigachads, however, spreading misinformation is pozzed and thats just gay.

so have this instead
View attachment 131272


>inb4 self-inserts as giga
Click to expand...
Lighten up blud
 
The man who “has based his cause on nothing’ [here and below Marx and Engels paraphrase the first lines of Goethe’s poem Vanitas! Vanitatum Lanitas!] begins his lengthy “critical hurrah” like a good German, straightway with a Jeremiad: “Is there anything that is not to be my cause?” (p. 5 of the “book”). And he continues lamenting heart-rendingly that “everything is to be his cause”, that “God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth and freedom, and in addition the cause of his people, of his lord”, and thousands of other good causes, are imposed on him. Poor fellow! The French and English bourgeois complain about lack of markets, trade crises, panic on the stock exchange, the political situation prevailing at the moment, etc.; the German petty bourgeois, whose active participation in the bourgeois movement has been merely an ideal one, and who for the rest exposed only himself to risk, sees his own cause simply as the “good cause”, the “cause of freedom, truth, mankind”, etc.


Our German school-teacher simply believes this illusion of the German petty bourgeois and on three pages he provisionally discusses all these good causes.


He investigates “God’s cause”, “the cause of mankind” (pp. 6 and 7) and finds these are “purely egoistical causes”, that both “God” and “mankind” worry only about what is theirs, that “truth, freedom, humanity, justice” are “only interested in themselves and not in us, only in their own well-being and not in ours” — from which he concludes that all these persons “are thereby exceptionally well-off”. He goes so far as to transform these idealistic phrases — God, truth, etc. — into prosperous burghers who “are exceptionally well-off” and enjoy a “profitable egoism”. But this vexes the holy egoist: “And I?” he exclaims.

“I, for my part, draw the lesson from this and, instead of continuing to serve these great egoists, I should rather be an egoist myself!” (p. 7)


Thus we see what holy motives guide Saint Max in his transition to egoism. It is not the good things of this world, not treasures which moth and rust corrupt, not the capital belonging to his fellow unique ones, but heavenly treasure, the capital which belongs to God, truth, freedom, mankind, etc., that gives him no peace.


If it had not been expected of him that he should serve numerous good causes, he would never have made the discovery that he also has his “own” cause, and therefore he would never have based this cause of his “on nothing” (i.e., the “book”).


If Saint Max had looked a little more closely at these various causes” and the “owners” of these causes, e.g., God, mankind, truth, he would have arrived at the opposite conclusion: that egoism based on the egoistic mode of action of these persons must be just as imaginary as these persons themselves.


Instead of this, our saint decides to enter into competition with “God” and “truth” and to base his cause on himself —


“on myself, on the I that is, just as much as God, the nothing of everything else, the I that is everything for me, the I that is the unique.... I am nothing in the sense of void, but the creative nothing, the nothing from which I myself, as creator, create everything.”


The holy church father could also have expressed this last proposition as follows: I am everything in the void of nonsense, “but” I am the nugatory creator, the all, from which I myself, as creator, create nothing.


Which of these two readings is the correct one will become evident later. So much for the preface.


The “book” itself is divided like the book “of old”, into the Old and New Testament — namely, into the unique history of man (the Law and the Prophets) and the inhuman history of the unique (the Gospel of the Kingdom of God). The former is history in the framework of logic, the logos confined in the past; the latter is logic in history, the emancipated logos, which struggles against the present and triumphantly overcomes it.
 
The man who “has based his cause on nothing’ [here and below Marx and Engels paraphrase the first lines of Goethe’s poem Vanitas! Vanitatum Lanitas!] begins his lengthy “critical hurrah” like a good German, straightway with a Jeremiad: “Is there anything that is not to be my cause?” (p. 5 of the “book”). And he continues lamenting heart-rendingly that “everything is to be his cause”, that “God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth and freedom, and in addition the cause of his people, of his lord”, and thousands of other good causes, are imposed on him. Poor fellow! The French and English bourgeois complain about lack of markets, trade crises, panic on the stock exchange, the political situation prevailing at the moment, etc.; the German petty bourgeois, whose active participation in the bourgeois movement has been merely an ideal one, and who for the rest exposed only himself to risk, sees his own cause simply as the “good cause”, the “cause of freedom, truth, mankind”, etc.


Our German school-teacher simply believes this illusion of the German petty bourgeois and on three pages he provisionally discusses all these good causes.


He investigates “God’s cause”, “the cause of mankind” (pp. 6 and 7) and finds these are “purely egoistical causes”, that both “God” and “mankind” worry only about what is theirs, that “truth, freedom, humanity, justice” are “only interested in themselves and not in us, only in their own well-being and not in ours” — from which he concludes that all these persons “are thereby exceptionally well-off”. He goes so far as to transform these idealistic phrases — God, truth, etc. — into prosperous burghers who “are exceptionally well-off” and enjoy a “profitable egoism”. But this vexes the holy egoist: “And I?” he exclaims.

“I, for my part, draw the lesson from this and, instead of continuing to serve these great egoists, I should rather be an egoist myself!” (p. 7)


Thus we see what holy motives guide Saint Max in his transition to egoism. It is not the good things of this world, not treasures which moth and rust corrupt, not the capital belonging to his fellow unique ones, but heavenly treasure, the capital which belongs to God, truth, freedom, mankind, etc., that gives him no peace.


If it had not been expected of him that he should serve numerous good causes, he would never have made the discovery that he also has his “own” cause, and therefore he would never have based this cause of his “on nothing” (i.e., the “book”).


If Saint Max had looked a little more closely at these various causes” and the “owners” of these causes, e.g., God, mankind, truth, he would have arrived at the opposite conclusion: that egoism based on the egoistic mode of action of these persons must be just as imaginary as these persons themselves.


Instead of this, our saint decides to enter into competition with “God” and “truth” and to base his cause on himself —


“on myself, on the I that is, just as much as God, the nothing of everything else, the I that is everything for me, the I that is the unique.... I am nothing in the sense of void, but the creative nothing, the nothing from which I myself, as creator, create everything.”


The holy church father could also have expressed this last proposition as follows: I am everything in the void of nonsense, “but” I am the nugatory creator, the all, from which I myself, as creator, create nothing.


Which of these two readings is the correct one will become evident later. So much for the preface.


The “book” itself is divided like the book “of old”, into the Old and New Testament — namely, into the unique history of man (the Law and the Prophets) and the inhuman history of the unique (the Gospel of the Kingdom of God). The former is history in the framework of logic, the logos confined in the past; the latter is logic in history, the emancipated logos, which struggles against the present and triumphantly overcomes it.
 
Back
Top