did i say it wasnt

And so how do you get people to carry your load for you in communism?

im pointing out the nuance, you think that capitalism is carrying some one elses load, it isnt as it isnt just the load tyou are carrying, its is more then just the load that is gained by the one who exploits

the exploiter gets more then just a load

so what you said is wrong, as it lacks that nuance

The exploiter gains your whole load, but gives you a slither back as a wage

"nd so how do you get people to carry your load for you in communism?" by being a unproductive worker, you still get all the benifits but some one else is working harder

how ever what you get is only " a load "

No work, no food

No benefits

No luxuries

Simple as that

Only the "no food" thing in extreme circumstances

do you get that the load is means of existance, beyond the load which is the expoitation part is luxeries

But otherwise just no benefits

hypotecical question as you dont get it

communism you get means of existance, exploitation by capitalism results in some one getting more then just the "load"

In a communist system you could have some one else carry your load, and this happens as there is class differnce in ppl

```we just need eugenics and racial seperation and even class seperation, considering not every "worker" produces the same```

That would itself require some kind of racial cooperation. If communities do not want to mix with each other, that's up to them. Ultimately the focus *must* be upon the supremacy of *no* race.

This requires the establishment of a political commons between those of different backgrounds.

On 'class separation', I take it that you mean that workers of different 'collars' must be separated, but again, that requires a sort of commons.

Any segregation *must* be transitional, since Communists demand the democratisation of all.

We seek to build a world where what we do is not dictated by markets or anything else which, as an organising force, is at least partially reliant on our unconscious actions.

There is absolutely nothing that unites workers besides their inclusion in the social order, as it happens.

What you're proposing is more of the same bullshit fucking identity politics which has plagued Communism, while Communists seek to use this commons of having little or no control over the social order despite being dependent on wage labour.

```You dont know what morality means right. If you do something you dont want done to yourself you are breaking morality. There is no grey zone, If you think there is current order bs, something is moral or it is not```

What morality? Whose morality? Why do you bring up 'the golden rule'? I am a different person to others, so me doing something to someone else and me doing something - which for all I could possibly care, is the same thing - to another person will not necessarily result in the same consequences, and it won't benefit or hurt them in the same ways as it would with me.

And that's assuming that I can do *exactly the same thing* to someone else that I could do to myself. My actions might be very comparable, but they're not the same.

You're right that there's no grey zone, but only insofar as concrete circumstances can this ever be true. If you are dealing with abstractions, though, then no, there *is* a massive grey zone due to there being a spectre which hangs over any analysis which you could make. That ghost is the question 'what if?'

What does it mean to do something, who is going to benefit from it, what if something else happens?

And even if one's looking retrospectively, where the past is the past, then there's usually if not always something that one could have done in a better way, perhaps.

One might be able to construct a setting which can be modelled through game theory, or more generally, decision theory, and then show that there is an optimal outcome, but this comes with assumptions with regards to what is useful and what isn't.

That's not to say that we can't know what's useful and what is not, but that there is nothing meaningful about it outside our consciousness of it. Despite the ways in which we think about them, these things exist nonetheless and cannot be reduced to our thoughts about them (materialism) - there's always something more about them that we can drag out.

```It is called "being Human" i strive for something bigger thenmyself unlike you and the other "us". You are nothing but a animal grassing on the fields being triggered by my attempts to create a better world in which you feel like you dont belong```

By *what* standards would it be better?

Communists don't give a shit about 'being Human'. We don't care about our bodies in the same religious way that you seem to. We see them as tools, not temples. Like all tools, our bodies can and must be improved so that we can realise an ever-greater field of goals that we could possible imagine and fulfil.

You say you're striving for something bigger than yourself, which is true, but the point of Communism is we make our own personal and conscious struggles match with every other struggle - not to say that we must all be the same, but that we must be conscious of as many struggles as we possible can and work towards their realisation.

Communism is the ultimate egoism: the world becomes consciously controlled by us, and the last vestige of unwilled processes must be those which we don't have the materials to bring into our control.

```offcourse facts dont matter to your and "us" feel feels. And you clearly lack foresight and the morality to change your and "us" actaions resulting in a more positive outcome then the dismal you and "us" are heading to atm```

No, Mr Shapiro, many facts *are* affected by our feelings, our practice and so on.