Its time

IT'S TIME
TO ENSLAVE THE AMERICAN POPULACE

Attached: 1496802841360.jpg (1920x1440, 201K)

I prefer being free
only worthless faggots prefer serfdom

Until Shaniqua with her 8 babies needs a house.

There is no bird shadow!

Attached: facebook_Suit----------.jpg (1191x463, 138K)

I am so sick of Canadians perverting our politics.

>"I like freedom"
>STOP RUINING OUR POLITICS
Fuck off.

To be honest? No, I think industrialization and technology are an existential threat to any kind of freedom and in order to have a free society we would first have to deindustrialize to medieval levels without having enough remaining natural resources to have another industrial revolution.

In the meantime I would somewhat prefer soviet style government ownership to private ownership. Holding the government accountable is much easier than holding international billionaires accountable.

>you know you could just ban foreigners from buying land in your country, chinese and arab problem solved
Yeah, and that's when foreign billionaires invest massively in manipulating your economy and internal politics in order to liberalize the law. You know, like America has been doing to Cuba for the past half-century.

Or alternatively you just get "liberated" by NATO.

Medicare for all will provide abortions and birth control. Also prenatal care to keep them from being as retarded as possible.

>Holding the government accountable is much easier than holding international billionaires accountable
false, the government can just imprison or shoot any dissidents

>Or alternatively you just get "liberated" by NATO.
the US IS NATO tho

have you guys ever picked up a history book? when has a bigger all powerful government ever made anything better?

>Soviet style ownership
Respectfully disagree. Theoretically sound, in practice not so much.

Yes and any society that allows a capitalist economy and attempts to legally regulate it will just see those regulations deteriorate as the most empowered people in the country have a profit-incentive to overturn them. This in turn leads to a bizarre arms race between increasing government power to try and shut out financial meddling, and more advanced financial meddling to take advantage of a more powerful government. This is how you wind up with the USA, with both an extremely robust byzantine government that also happens to be run entirely by rich Jews.

Kill yourself comrade

>You can keep your doctor.

i fucking hate it when eagles steal my roof

>Medicare for all
That's a whole different discussion. The money to do it is certainly THERE, just tied up in a bunch of bullshit spending.

Will the police and citizens be allowed to handle the trash of society under your plan? Certainly if property is government controlled, they would have a vested interest in keeping the peace.

>false, the government can just imprison or shoot any dissidents
This is literally childish thinking. That's what every historical socialist state did and it didn't work, did it? There was still shitloads of foreign interests and domestic traitors abroad working around the clock to liberalize eastern bloc economies throughout the cold war.

Once again look at Cuba for instance. Castro did not waste any time putting dissidents in prison. American investors and gusanos in Miami still spent the next half-century trying to liberalize Cuba and it worked.

> in practice not so much.
Why?
Even in the 80's when the economy was shitty and everyone stopped voting for the communist party Russia then didn't actually look that bad. In some ways it looks better than a lot of modern European countries.

You are right. But why the Soviet system?
Why not the Yugoslavian system or even Nazi system?

>Why?
Answering with a question:
Your house is government owned, your job is a government job with a set wage. You save up and decide you want another car for the wife and kids. Does the Soviet system allowed to buy another car with the wages you EARNED from the government? Or will the gov say "You don't NEED another car, one is enough"?

To be honest I'm not overly fond of the Soviet system. Obviously there are many reasons why it didn't work, it's just I don't think the fact that the economy was controlled by the government was necessarily one of them so I was highlighting it as an alternative example to what we have now.

But to get to your question it's because either of those systems would have just evolved back into capitalism by the end of the 20th century anyway. The main strength of the Soviet system as I see it is that there was no capital accumulation. Ostensibly not anyway, we can identify class stratification in Soviet history through the party and through the black market but this isn't a built in part of the system like in Yugoslavia or NG so much as a subversion of it when the actual Soviet law and constitution was explicit in trying to forbid such a thing. The problem with capital accumulation is that the functioning of a country is dependent on the health of its economy and different people may have different levels of power within the economy. This disparity manifests itself as class stratification and in advanced stages of this virtually the entire economy comes to be controlled by a very small amount of people and if a small interest group can control your economy they can control your government and in turn use the government to restructure the economy in ways that better advantage their interest group.

The reason all advanced, industrialized economies all closely resemble each other and this becomes more the case as time goes on is because that's what benefits the most empowered people within these societies, the rich. This process of global homogenization and uniformity is a result of capitalist globalization and if you allow the existence of a bourgeois class or participate in the global capitalist economy you can only contribute to this process.

Notice that this also happened to Russia. If communism is to work it needs to learn from this.

honestly, let it all fucking burn, millions of illegals are taking up all the housing and the retarded liberals expect us to give them free shit while the people who work to get by suffer. Im barely working toward a degree right now but its all fucked fuck it. Im not negative but you know im right.

You mean the same people who are in charge of spending 20 trillion into the negative get to handle who gets what house?

no thx

>Your house is government owned, your job is a government job with a set wage. You save up and decide you want another car for the wife and kids. Does the Soviet system allowed to buy another car with the wages you EARNED from the government? Or will the gov say "You don't NEED another car, one is enough"?
That's a different argument. I was asking why you think it's impractical, this appears to be about why you think it's unfair.

Though to answer you one of the main problems I have with the USSR is that it allowed savings and wages at all. If I had my way this would never a problem, because you'd never get to save money or even own money.

No privately controlled funds, ok then. What incentive would you give a productive citizen to stay productive compared to say, a deadbeat sponge?

And furthermore,
You understand that you couldn't allow dissident to gain traction, would you allow objectors to leave your country on their own accord?

I wouldn't.

If someone wants to be a deadbeat sponge the solution is that they should starve to death and if someone wants to be productive their reward is fulfilment and overcoming. Society and our vision of freedom should be focused on empowering people to do more things rather than have more things.

>2008 financial crisis
Yeah the private investors and banks really did a great job with the housing market. Can't wait to see how the fuck us over next.

No I think they should just be shot. Miami tells you everything you need to know about counter-revolutionary expats.

why are all the threads retarded

You have to leave our board now.

Sounds like you have a Fascist angle going there pal.
The individual person only exists as a cell in the body called the State right?
I'm guessing military service would be compulsory?
Isolationism or would you try to expand your regime?

To be straight my ideas on what is optimal for an industrial society are different to my ideas on what is optimal in general and right now I'm talking about the former.

>The individual person only exists as a cell in the body called the State right?
No, I think individual freedom is the most important thing there is. It's just I think our view of freedom is wrong and a society that utterly saturates the arts with drivel and turns people into fat nihilists is more of a threat to individuality and freedom than a society that routinely shoots political objectors. I realize this sounds extremely counter-intuitive and even silly, which I'm willing to accept. But as I see it the only freedoms that matter are artistic, academic and personal freedoms. Political freedoms and economic "freedoms" (as we call them) are definitely worth sacrificing in the name of protecting these valuable freedoms if they get in the way of the communist project.

The individual, and especially the exceptional individual, needs to be protected from the herd. The propagation and aggregation of exceptional individuals is what a society should prioritize.

>I'm guessing military service would be compulsory?
Probably. But not really out of a particular ideological fondness for the military or military-life but to global-revolution more achievable. Though from what I understand in the 21st century the most effective militaries are smaller, professionalized, and strongly mechanized ones rather than ones that conscript as many people as they can regardless of whether they can actually arm and train these people. So this may not be necessary.

>Isolationism or would you try to expand your regime?
Expansion, definitely. In order to have an enduring communist system that can truly supersede capitalism it would have to be worldwide and completely supplant the capitalist global economy.