Well, fair enough I suppose

As long as you can conclude with communism, that's to me what is most important

it's a possibility

as a theocrat i think an apostolic vanguard is necessary

Why aren't you a distributist if you're religious?

distributism is a system of creating a petty bourgeois

not socialistic at all

Seemed socialist to me since it didn't create a market so to speak

Er it's anti-market

Something like that

it's anti a centralization of capital

it's for the promulgation of cottage industry

Huh

pebble are you a mod

no @Deleted User

thank god

why @Deleted User

@Deleted User Check his roles debil

Probably cuz yer a filthy commie

i owned the first server for a period of time

😎

for like

12 hours

it was based

@Doctor Anon is he or is he not

how about

u check his roles

i guess he is

oh wait, this is serious

That makes no sense. Chieftains, theocrats, leaders etc. are those because they are respected by people who are willing to give them things. What you are trying to do is to reset society to zero.
Eventually, all these leaders by virtue of their power would become richer than other people. So, you will have economic classes again. The only way to stop that would be to put strong rules in check and verify transactions made by people to a high extent. That will be exactly like the Stalinist Russia.

generally speaking classes willa lways form, if not by material means then by other immaterial means. Such as leadership, Strength, glory achieved in battle, intellectual.

This of course has already happened and can be observed today, example the military. an officer in the field and during battle isnt endowed with incredible material wealth however he is superior to his peers and htey listen to him. Or even we cna look historically where tribes form, these tribes then create casts

lol

edgy tard

@Draco I'm more than not pro Stalin era USSR, and I actually have no issue with some people being richer than others. In the way Marxists define class it is not defined by being a hierarchy or by income. It's defined by your relationship to production

To clarify I am more authoritarian than not, I think authority will always exist and I don't believe in equality. I think I mentioned in this conversation that equality is not possible and Marx and Engles argued against it

It is not defined by relationship to production. Marx believed that power exercised by bourgeosie over Proletariat was due to the wealth inequality and the biggest source of that inequality was the ownership of capital/means of production. If it was such that controlling means of production would not make the class get richer by a huge margin, Marx would have had no problem. This is why Marx puts greatest emphasis on Industrialisation. The ownership of capital has been prevalent since the man formed societies. What Marx was upset about, primarily, was not ownership of capital, but the fact that such ownership allowed certain people to keep on getting richer and exercise undue power over Proletariat.

We know that to be the case as we know that Marx did the Marxist analysis of not only workplaces, but also families. He supported masculinised women, i.e., women doing the role of men. It was not because in a marriage, men controlled means of production. But because Marx believed that unless women had their own earnings, men could exert undue influence on them.
It is a white washing of what Marx actually believed that is done by Cuck Philosophy, Three Arrows and other Marxists. Marx could not be more clear about this.

_"Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering."_
_"Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle."_
_"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production,
(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."_

- Marx

Bourgeoisie eliminator

Doesn't understand Marx