Now that mobile Internet is so fast...

thats a myth. ussr was first in space.

The Soviet Union made more technological advancement with less.

Really sad that they gave propably about 200 people a braintumor just to make a point.

>waah waah capitalism
>fuck the economic system that gave us computers and phones and networks in the first place
>we should replace it with dystoptian 1984 stolen green screen amstrads and breadlines

So your solution is to let all technological development be done by the government?
Do you think the government is going to develop all the kinds of technology that we use?
Or you wait until there's a "race" where they have to compete with other governments on who has the best phones, who has the best computers, etc?

Do you really think that under communism or socialism we'd have the same level of technological development that we have now thanks to capitalism?

You're lying to yourself if you think a government is going to fund the development of things that it doesn't deem strictly necessary (for war, economics, etc.), and that it won't have an attitude of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" that will lead to drastic stagnation or literally every field that isn't beneficial to their goals.

Why is there a data cap with 5G? Is everyone involved retarded?

The reasoning behind data caps was that downloading a 10 minute MP3 file would clog up the whole cell tower for minutes. That's not the case anymore, no more clogging up for trivial shit. So why the cap? Everybody too brainwashed already to think data caps are an acceptable thing?
Nobody accepts a heater that only runs a certain amount of time, a water tap that stops after an artificially made up period of time or an electricity outlet that only lets through a certain amount of power. But with data it's suddenly okay for most idiots.

I'm sure all the starving familes and bodies filling stalin's mass graves appreciated the cosmonauts' accomplishments

yes please let's replace capitalism with something that guarantees widespread stagnation and suffering
it will DEFINITELY be better than the comfy battlestations and 3g smartphones we have right now! surely *I* won't be working in the rare earth mines, I'm such a good comrade with my little sickle and hammer t-shirt they're sure to make me a card-carrying party member and give me special goodies I don't have to work for

>unusually high
Maybe in Amerexico.
The real question is why the BBC of all things has a data cap? EE knows what the BBC does, and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t give them an unlimited business plan.

>So why the cap?
Are you retarded?

Say this out loud: "I am retarded." and I'll give you the answer.

The answer is money. You fucking clod. Even in a world of unlimited data the 600 bytes you just posted are a waste of space.

>but what about...

>Why is there a data cap with 5G?
You would burn all the birds otherwise.

I think it was just a card that they were using to show how fast 5G is.
They weren't running their broadcasts on it.

IIRC they replaced the sim with one without a cap and it started working fine again.

>Do you really think that under communism or socialism we'd have the same level of technological development that we have now thanks to capitalism?
No, we'd be further ahead.

Ridiculously false.

So it’s just BBC incompetence?
To be expected.
End of the day, faster speeds doesn’t mean more data is used. It’s the fast loading of information that influences a user to increase their usage. Anyone who doesn’t increase their usage won’t see any difference.

>The answer is money.
That is not the answer, because I asked if everyone involved is retarded and that includes the customers. The customers don't want to pay more. So money can't be the answer alone, it's money + brainwashing.

Truth. The USSR was first into space because they were willing to sacrifice people’s lives in a way that the US never was. NASA tested extensively and still had accidents that would then cause a delay while they figured out what happened while the soviets would just launch a man into space with a bottle rocket up his ass and a prayer that he might make it home.

Proof? Imagine if we didn't need to waste needless resources on useless competition between tech companies. See: Linux

We get it Mike, Russia bad. Shouldn't you be busy with that search on the other chan, or are you bored there now that you fucked up and they know who you are?

>sanction communist countries into poverty
>lmao dude why are starving?

>why do I want gigabyte wireless speeds when even a 50GB data cap is unusually high?
>unusually high
Try commonly available in a white country lol

Attached: 10056A13-88E4-4B5C-953D-BA4618EDAABD.jpg (919x1885, 411K)

>The customers don't want to pay more
The customers don't want many things. Doesn't matter anybody will listen to their needs.

yes. I'm sure that's all it was...

>The customers don't want to pay more.
What choice do they have? There's no alternatives, and any alternatives that exist would just get bought or driven out of business. That's how the invisible hand of the free market works.

>in a way that the US never was.
DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO ALL THE AUSCHWITZ AND 731 SCIENTISTS AT NASA
THEY ARE PROUD AMERICAN NATIONALS AND YOU ARE A VILE RACIST FOR SUGGESTING OTHERWISE

So all in all the BBC made a mistake by buying stuff they didn't need. They needed an unlimited contract but bought a limited contract and now we're in this thread.

I'm wondering if I should leave the house today. I wouldn't know for what.

The alternative seems to be talking about it like I did or/and not paying prices that are too high.

Attached: porn site placeholder girl 404.jpg (360x318, 21K)

>Proof?
Look at all non-capitalist societies. Always WAY behind capitalist ones.

>if we didn't need to waste needless resources on useless competition between tech companies
Yeah, because otherwise those resources would be used wisely and productively, as we've seen in all communist societies, right?
Fucking lol dude.

>See: Linux
Linux would never be a thing in a non-caqpitalist society that allows the developers to survive and make money off their skills instead of worrying about not starving.
Besides, a lot of the Linux development happens in corporations like Red Hat, and the rest is funded through donations of people who have disposable income from their capitalist jobs and endeavors.
In a communist society there would be no such thing as the Linux foundation.

>Music Pass
>Video Pass

Attached: 1424335385274.png (600x580, 572K)

>Linux
Exactly.
Thanks for proving my point, retrd.

oh it's ogre. if the isps had their way we would already have to pay extra to access certain sites. they want to turn the internet into cable tv.

Resources were indeed used effectively in most communist societies. The USSR industrialized faster than any other country has ever done. There were NO famines in the USSR after the 1940s, until it broke up in 1991 when there was widespread chaos from the introduction of free market economics. North Korea's GDP was higher than South Korea's for most of it's lifespan. Cuba has some of the best doctors and medical care in the world EVEN TODAY. You have to consider that enormous pressure was always being put on these communist countries by the rest of the world and all of them had a starting point that was far worse than the US or any other western liberal democracy ever had.

4g latency is awful.

The passes are for those few and far between users who binge watch/stream on their phones.
You can literally just use the 45GB without a pass for whatever you like. Plus i have my unlimited social media :3

good goy

>bbc dabs a few gigabyte through 5G
OY CITIZEN
PICK UP THAT GIGABYTE
>picks it up
OY
YOU GOTS A LOICENSE FER THAT GIGABYTE?
LET ME SEE YOUR PASS
>shows passport and citizen serial number
PNG CERTIFICATE
JPG CERTIFICATE
WEBM LICENSE.. NOT BAD.
MP3 PASS
MP4 PASS
OY!
PORN PASS?
STREAMING PASS?
SPOTIFY CONTRACT??
THESE ARE OUT OF DATE CITIZEN
BEND OVER
>Uhngg
YEAHH
>Ooofff
IMA LICENSE THIS ASS
>Urrhhhhhgg
AND SIRE MY WILLY
>Ughh!!!
MUUUUMMYYYYYYYYY
>Sploorghhh!!!!
AHHHH ALLAH SAVE THE QUEEF

kill yourself

>Now that mobile Internet is so fast, can we finally get one of those super small laptops and remote to a powerful desktop that we have at home?

You can do this on a 5Mb/s connection. LATENCY is the defining factor. If it's not gaming remote desktop has been used for 15 years.

Lmao sure man. Communism only brought good things, and all of its disasters are really just the fault of other countries.
Without those meddling assholes we'd have wealth, prosperity, and we'd live in a "crystal spyres and togas" world, but those greedy capitalists wouldn't let them, and even killed millions of their people too.
Sad really.

Katie is that you

'scuse me biggun, you got a loicense for 'em caps?

>Provides proof
>Lmao sure man

Attached: qtck50g2gbv21.jpg (1400x2225, 411K)

>5G bad

You provided zero proof you mong.
You just listed a bunch of statements with nothing to corroborate them.
I'm not gonna waste time researching them individually, so either you bring actual proof, or your statements remain just that. Statements.

>Resources were indeed used effectively in most communist societies.
Do you live in one of those?

I provided proof that communist countries weren't as bad as you think they were and that they indeed used the limited resources they had in more effective ways than capitalist countries. How can a tiny island nation sanctioned by the rest of the world have the best doctors and medical care in the world if they're not doing SOMETHING right?

>The USSR industrialized faster than any other country has ever done
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
"The New Economic Policy was rapidly abandoned and replaced by Stalinism. The country now became industrialized at a hitherto unprecedented pace, surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the 19th century and Japan's earlier in the 20th century."
>There were NO famines in the USSR after the 1940s, until it broke up in 1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
"There were no major famines after 1947. The drought of 1963 caused panic slaughtering of livestock, but there was no risk of famine."
"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been occasional issues with hunger and food security in Russia. In 1992 there was a notable decline in calorie intake within the Russian Federation"
>Cuba has some of the best doctors and medical care in the world
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba
"Margaret Chan, former director of the World Health Organization, recommended other countries follow Cuba's example in health care"
No, because a) moving ANYWHERE isn't as simple as just "doing it". You have to learn a new language, find a place to live, etc b) the only country still holding to what I would consider "communism" today is Cuba and it's a poor island nation no matter how you look at it. China is really rich but I'm not sure I would consider Dengism communism. I live in Sweden which has had a history of leftist policies and even with the comparatively weak social democracy we have I can still see the benefits.

Attached: compar1.png (605x340, 17K)

the ussr was heavily reliying on bluprints provided by western agents. the whole atomic program: kgb. the situation went pretty bad in the 60s when the newest soviet computer was literally two generations behind the western models and they never really catched up.

Bet you thought this was funny.

Seething 56%ers

If usa suddenly was communist during that period what would have changed? They had more knowledge. What would have happened if ussr had that and equally educated country?

Redpill me on remote desktop, why doesn’t everyone just invest in a powerfull desktop, then just use a cheap laptop and a 4G connection to use the desktop anywhere?

you autists will argue about anything

CRINGE

>Resources were indeed used effectively in most communist societies
Not only this has never been true (both poverty and corruption have been part of communist countries to a much higher degree than they/ve ever been in other systems), but can't ever possibly be true, since letting people be productive and produce wealth will always be a much more efficient way to make your country grow rich and prosperous, for so many reasons that spen from economics to human nature.

>The USSR industrialized faster than any other country has ever done
They only industrialized on what the government needed (and used knowledge and technology developed by capitalism). Not comparable to an actual industrialized country where there are factories and development for everything.
And it's still not comparable to how China industrialized (and also got wealthy) thanks to capitalism.

>There were NO famines in the USSR after the 1940s
What is this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
Besides, "no famines" should be "no major famines". There was still extreme poverty that has ceased only when those countries got rid of communism.

And what about other communist countires like China?
Is the great leap forward also because of exernal influences?

Strange that famines are so common in communist societies but not in capitalist ones (even in former communist countires).

>North Korea's GDP was higher than South Korea's for most of it's lifespan
And why did SK raise to what it is today but not NK?

1/2

>Cuba has some of the best doctors and medical care in the world EVEN TODAY
>"Margaret Chan, former director of the World Health Organization, recommended other countries follow Cuba's example in health care"
That doesn't mean that they have the best doctors.
Only that they have a good model.
Besides, from your link:
>Cuba has historically – both before and during Communist rule – performed better than other countries in the region on infant mortality and life expectancy
So it was also good before communism, but it being good is thanks to it?

>Experts say that official statistics by the Castro regime should be treated skeptically
Of course.
We can totally expect a communist regime to not lie and be corrupt.

>Like the rest of the Cuban economy, Cuban medical care suffered following the end of Soviet subsidies in 1991
Of course.
The government decides to distribute the resources in a certain way and your country runs on subsidies, then it stops (because we know that resources are always used effectively, right?) and you're suddenly fucked. What a surprise" It has never happened before!

Anyway, I'm sure Cuba is doing great. Their good healthcare means their quality of life is as good as that in capitalist countries, right?

>in more effective ways than capitalist countries
Lmao no.

>How can a tiny island nation sanctioned by the rest of the world have the best doctors and medical care in the world if they're not doing SOMETHING right?
Certainly not thanks to communism, as they were doing it right even before it.

>communist countries weren't as bad as you think they were
I don't think they ONLY did bad things, but they clearly did much worse than capitalist ones, both in the short term and the long term.

2/2

>instantly ran out of data
woweeeeeeeeeeee it's almost like 5g is brand new and they haven't revamped their mobile internet yet
give it a few years and unlimited plans will be the norm

It's not country vs country.
It's system vs system.
If the US suddenly became communist, its state would still be relying on the foundation that has been laid (in terms of development and wealth) thanks to capitalism.

The real question would be:
How would a society do if from its inception (meaning before any technology was invented and no wealth has been produced) it worked on a capitalist model vs a communist model.
Would they devleop the same way or one would develop better than the other?

I think a communist model would work in its earlier stages where thngs are simple and easy to manage, but as the community moves from small village to a large scale society, a capitalist one would be necessary.

There is also a point when and if system at some point is better off doing something else.

Could you please rephrase?
I don't understand what you mean.

what if I told you that capitalism is needed in order to lay the groundwork for a true communist society to exist
because that's what you're seeing happen right now, right now we are in the midst of moving from the christian era to the era of modern science which will bring with it intense socialist policies, bordering on "true" gommunism as we can already see if we look at any western country

Exists a time and system.
Example 1960s - USA or 2020s - Russia
Now if they were to change lets say from their current system to something X. Would they be better off?

>what if I told you that capitalism is needed in order to lay the groundwork for a true communist society to exist
I agree, but only when it comes to communist societies (which is why I said that moving to capitalism is necessay).
With small villages or communities, having everything centralized for the benefit of everyone is doable.
And I wish it was doable in large scale ones too, but it sadly falls apart.

If communism worked as promised it would be pretty nice imo, but in real life it has too many problems to be viable.

>the era of modern science which will bring with it intense socialist policies
There's a correlation between these two, but is there a causation?
I mean, is scientific development always necessarily going to lead to socialist policies?
I don't think so.

engineers and inventors gave you technology, a fellow workers like you, not shlomo sheckelberg who only parasitize on it.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you an ESL or just high?

Data limits are the ultimate kikery.

This.

I'm in switzerland. almost all of our data caps are below 10gb. that's about typical for all of europe. only in places like korea or china are you getting a ton more than that. with 5g I could hit that in a few seconds but what's the point? nobody is using their mobiles that way. even 4g is too fast too really use.

Others talk about this too.
See

>this entire thread
sticky this shit as exhibit A to fucking ban anyone bringing politics outside Jow Forums

I think he means changing systems retrospectively and then comparing outcomes

>engineers and inventors gave you technology
They only did it because they were paid to do so by people who decided to take the risk and develop something that had never been done before.
Without the possibility of getting a great reward, most people wouldn't be willing to incur in the greats risks that are often necessary to do great things, let alone the immense amount of effort and work that's often needed.
Capitalism is the ultimate motivator.

>scientific development
the era of modern science refers to modern science being the metaphysical mutation that shapes the new state of the world, the same way christanity did
a society is a majority holding the same moral values and those values only change when a big metaphysical mutation occurs which in this case is modern science as we can see with trangenderism, gay rights, atheism, welfare, UBI, free healthcare, automation, birth control etc all removing the previous moral values set by the christian moral framework

now that we're on the cusp on the era of modern science (we're obviously in a transitory period which is why everything is so fucked up right now) we're starting to see even more socialist policies because, guess what, our moral framework is transforming

so we have christian morals and capitalist infrastructure as the foundation and all the things built upon this foundation are evolving (but still keeping the same legs e.g currency, employment, non aggression et al) which will lead to a """"true"""" gommunist society being the norm, at least in the west, very soon

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
Please be more descriptive and specific.

That's the theme of the discussion, yes, but what is the point that he's trying to make?
I don't understand.

Attached: 2019-06-17 16_02_24-(0) _g_ - Now that mobile Internet is so fast, can we finall - Technology - 4cha (351x118, 4K)

YOU GOT A LOISENSE FOR THESE REPLIES? 'ELLO M8

Eurocucks have been telling burgers get net neutrality to avoid this very thing. This is glorious.

Attached: efginternetswitch.gif (400x400, 478K)

>in this case is modern science as we can see with trangenderism, gay rights, atheism, welfare, UBI, free healthcare, automation, birth control etc all removing the previous moral values set by the christian moral framework
I disagree.
That's just one side of the scientific community prevailing from a social point of view.
There's a lot of science that strengthens the same values that Christianity used to impose, but it gets ignored and dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative.

If academia stops leaning so irrationally on the left, we could see a more balanced application of modern science where society evolves based on what works (which often happens to be in line with the same values that we've been holding for millennia across the entire world, and that exist for a reason), nd not based on what we'd like to be true.

Both the left and right have their issues with denying science to fit their views, but the right is ineffective at convincing people that they're right, while the left currently holds an authoritary position in the field, so their views shape how the science is applied.
This isn't necessarily going to last forever, so if the left loses this authority, the whole of society won't necessarily shift towards a socialist system.

you're conflating science with modern science and leftist views purely because the left is currently championing similar views
let me ask you this
when it comes to transgenderism, (and no, i'm not a trans person, i'm just using this as an example of how the era of modern science is upon us)
one of the main problems with it is that the tech is currently not up to scratch. right now people are campaigning and have campaigned to make it legal to have trans people in gender exclusive sports i.e female boxing can have a mtf person in there regardless of when they started transitioning so they have a clear advantage if they've gone through male puberty

but if the tech was perfect and you could make someone a woman instantly and perfectly would you then have a problem with it? you wouldn't which is why people who are championing the cause right now are laying the groundwork of modern science not from a moral perspective but from a scientific perspective (also, you're treating a mental disorder via transitioning and you make the cure more effective when it's accepted by society i.e giving people ssris and making it illegal to not hire people who use them)
a leftist person would do this under the guise of equality and not science

what we're discussing now is not a left v right problem, you need to realise the world is rapidly changing and with it the entire moral framework that the west currently abides by, this is not as a simple as DUDE THE SJW SCIENTISTS WANT TRANS PEOPLE TO GO IN BATHROOMS AND SO DO PEOPLE WITH PINK HAIR WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LIKE UHHH LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO TUCK IN THEIR SHIRTS AND SAY THIS IS BAD??

>but if the tech was perfect and you could make someone a woman instantly and perfectly would you then have a problem with it?
If transgenders in sport was the only problem with this issue, then no.
But it isn't, and it's not even the biggest problem (which is giving puberty blockers to kids who barely understand what they're getting in, plus other "lesser" ones).

>you wouldn't which is why people who are championing the cause right now are laying the groundwork of modern science not from a moral perspective but from a scientific perspective
By doing what exactly?
You're being too vague and I have to assume way too much. Your argument could mean anything at this point.

Besides, I don't understand how this explains the difference between science and modern science and leftist views

>DUDE THE SJW SCIENTISTS WANT TRANS PEOPLE TO GO IN BATHROOMS AND SO DO PEOPLE WITH PINK HAIR WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LIKE UHHH LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO TUCK IN THEIR SHIRTS AND SAY THIS IS BAD??
What the fuck are you talking about?
Don't strawman me like that.
It ruins your whole argument.

>science
advancements in tech
>modern science
the era which are we moving into in which our the major moral framework which we adhere to is the one set by the rapid advancements in science that cannot exist at the same time as the christian moral framework (as a majority)
>leftist views
I didn't mean liberal when I said this and I should have clarified, what I meant to say was the current dichotomy of right v left and both their extremes is not pertinent to the conversation because we are talking transitioning to a brand new era of the world and not just politics and their zealots and for you to bring them into the conversation is honestly infantile and asinine and shows you have no idea what the fuck we are currently talking about which is why I added that strawman to try and explain to you the concepts i'm laying forth but it clearly didn't work

this also isn't an argument this is literally what is happening right now which is why i'm confused as to why you keep dropping non sequiturs into the conversation

>what I meant to say was the current dichotomy of right v left and both their extremes is not pertinent to the conversation
It is, because you were saying
>the era of modern science which will bring with it intense socialist policies
And my argument is that socialist policies will only come from a continued left-wing authority on the field of science.
If tht stops, then science will not lead us toward a socialist system.
I'm not bringing in the extremes. I'm just referring to the influence that the two sides have on how the science is applied to our society, which is how it will be shaped in the future.

>because we are talking transitioning to a brand new era of the world and not just politics and their zealots
I've been agreeing with this the whole time.
All I said is that it won't necessarily keep going.
Probably, yes, but if academia changes its values, then the way science will affect the culture, and as a consequence, the political system, will change drastically.

>and for you to bring them into the conversation is honestly infantile and asinine and shows you have no idea what the fuck we are currently talking about which is why I added that strawman to try and explain to you the concepts i'm laying forth but it clearly didn't work
All this shows your poor reading comprehension.
Sorry you got so angry that somebody isn't agreeing with you 100% that you decided to start being dishonest.

>this also isn't an argument this is literally what is happening right now
How are those two things mutually exclusive?
If I'm explaining you something that's currently happening, wouldn't that mean that I'd be making an argument?

>which is why i'm confused as to why you keep dropping non sequiturs into the conversation
Fuck off dude, you're the one using non-sequiturs and talking like an /x/-tier psycho with your vague statements.
I've done none of that, but your child-like reading comprehension makes it seem like it to you.

>Not only this has never been true (both poverty and corruption have been part of communist countries to a much higher degree than they/ve ever been in other systems)
>for so many reasons that spen from economics to human nature
Source?
>They only industrialized on what the government needed
W-well... OK? It sure improved quality of life when compared to living under the Tsar? And... y'know... source on that?
>it's still not comparable to how China industrialized (and also got wealthy) thanks to capitalism
Of course not. China abandoned planned economies when Dengism was introduced. If China is still communist today is up for debate but you CAN have a socialist country with markets.
>What is this?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
I literally said AFTER the 1940s
>And what about other communist countires like China?
>Is the great leap forward also because of exernal influences?
I don't know enough about China to answer this well but nearly everyone agrees Mao's leadership wasn't the best, just as Pinochet's capitalist leadership wasn't the best.
>Strange that famines are so common in communist societies but not in capitalist ones
You realize pretty much all of Africa is capitalist right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Africa
>And why did SK raise to what it is today but not NK?
Because of support from the US, sanctions imposed on NK and the loss of support from the USSR for NK.
Not everyone will agree of course but it's pretty agreed upon that Cuba has great healthcare and doctors. You have to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt just as you take the Castro regime. Just because they're on your side doesn't mean they're objective and unbiased.
>but they clearly did much worse than capitalist ones, both in the short term and the long term
Not when compared to capitalist countries at similar stages of development. If the US became communist you know the rest of the world would follow.

Almost all of the major scientific breakthroughs come from academia or the military. Without government funding, we'd be buying abacuses (with each color of bead sold separately).

>And my argument is that socialist policies will only come from a continued left-wing authority on the field of science.
If tht stops, then science will not lead us toward a socialist system.
are you a fucking retard
just because socialism is a liberal left wing economic policy does not mean all scientists are leftists and only advocating for it because of their political beliefs and a liberal zeitgeist enabling it, socialism is a by product of the advancement of science and technology you absolute fucking retard
>muh government funding
dude do you think a liberal government is funding automation to get people out of work and introduce universal credit or do you think universal credit will be a byproduct of automation? if the former then you need to fucking neck asap
>All this shows your poor reading comprehension.
>Fuck off dude, you're the one using non-sequiturs and talking like an /x/-tier psycho with your vague statements.
>If I'm explaining you something that's currently happening, wouldn't that mean that I'd be making an argument?
oof there it is
I guess I just assumed you had the IQ needed to understand these concepts and the basic underlying knowledge but you clearly don't
Re-read my posts and learn from them instead of crying when I call you retarded for being retarded

Man I gotta stop giving people on the internet the benefit of the doubt

>socialism is a by product of the advancement of science and technology you absolute fucking retard
But it's not?
Lmao what the fuck are you talking about?

>>muh government funding
>dude do you think a liberal government is funding automation to get people out of work and introduce universal credit or do you think universal credit will be a byproduct of automation? if the former then you need to fucking neck asap
Another strawman, nice.

>oof there it is
>I guess I just assumed you had the IQ needed to understand these concepts and the basic underlying knowledge but you clearly don't
>Re-read my posts and learn from them instead of crying when I call you retarded for being retarded
>Man I gotta stop giving people on the internet the benefit of the doubt
All I'm reading is:
>no u dum dum not me

Nope

Attached: Screenshot_20190617-110621.jpg (1080x1083, 115K)

In the west those institutions are still largely private and work on the basis of the profit they they earn from the government giving them money (through funding or by just being a customer).
Still a very much capitalist system.

Very different from a country owning them and just having workers receive a salary from the government.

>another strawman
what are you talking about? that's a perfect example of how a socialist policy will be brought forth not only because of the new moral framework of modern science but literally by science you genuine spastic, please, please try to refute this
>but it's not?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A METAPHYSICAL MUTATION IS
I AM NOT TALKING PURELY ABOUT SOCIALISM IN A TEXT BOOK SENSE I AM USING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BRAND NEW ERA CONCEIVED BY MODERN SCIENCE THAT WE ARE LITERALLY TRANSITIONING INTO AS WE SPEAK

DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS??? ARE YOU SUDDENLY GONNA BRING UP MEDIEVAL SCIENCE BECAUSE I MENTIONED THE WORD SCIENCE????

>Of course it wouldn't be a problem with an unlimited connection
If the connection was unlimited it would be oversaturated and slow as fuck.
And this is why 5G is a gimmick propagated by ISPs ignoring proper fibre infrastructure because that's too expensive to build.

>what are you talking about?
It's a strawman because I never argued against it, but you're saying that as a response to what I said.

>that's a perfect example of how a socialist policy will be brought forth not only because of the new moral framework of modern science but literally by science
I agree with this.
If that's what you were talking about from the beginning, then yes, you're right.

But you never mentioned this until now, and only talked about socialism being a consequence of this thing you call "modern science" in the general sense, which is what I'm disagreeing on.
On specific cases like this, it can be true, sure.

>DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A METAPHYSICAL MUTATION IS
>I AM NOT TALKING PURELY ABOUT SOCIALISM IN A TEXT BOOK SENSE I AM USING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BRAND NEW ERA CONCEIVED BY MODERN SCIENCE THAT WE ARE LITERALLY TRANSITIONING INTO AS WE SPEAK
You're being too vague, and I have to assume the context that you're not giving me, because you're not using the words in the way they're generally meant, but you're using them as your own "slang" definition of concepts that aren't normally referred to in this way.
This is the same way /x/ schizos speak, and it's impossible to understand your point this way.
I hope you realize that.

>DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS??? ARE YOU SUDDENLY GONNA BRING UP MEDIEVAL SCIENCE BECAUSE I MENTIONED THE WORD SCIENCE????
Yes, and you're saying things that would make sense in a different context, but don't in this one because you keep being too vague and using strawmen and weird examples that portray a different point than what you're making.

you only think the things I say are vague because you're not equipped enough for this conversation
>But you never mentioned this until now, and only talked about socialism being a consequence of this thing you call "modern science" in the general sense, which is what I'm disagreeing on.
oof, why didn't you just tell me right at the start to clarify the terms I used because you had no idea what they meant? if you genuinely asked me to educate you on the subject instead of arguing with me out of ignorance then you could have stopped me from repeating myself 5 times
>I agree with this.
thanks?
this is common knowledge, I don't see how you could disagree with it unless you were well informed which this nice little sentence here proves you are
>Yes, and you're saying things that would make sense in a different context, but don't in this one because you keep being too vague and using strawmen and weird examples that portray a different point than what you're making.
honestly mate you're out of your depth here and it's pretty embarrassing

>you only think the things I say are vague because you're not equipped enough for this conversation
No you literally switch from talking about it in a philosophical way to mentioning specific examples as an argument against me talking about it in the general way you were previously talking in.

>oof, why didn't you just tell me right at the start to clarify the terms I used because you had no idea what they meant?
Please show me where "modern science" is used to mean "the era which are we moving into in which our the major moral framework which we adhere to is the one set by the rapid advancements in science that cannot exist at the same time as the christian moral framework".

>if you genuinely asked me to educate you on the subject instead of arguing with me out of ignorance then you could have stopped me from repeating myself 5 times
I don't think you understand what's going on here.
You think I'm arguing against what you said, but I'm arguing against what your vague posts had made me think you said.
You were thinking about specific policies from the beginning but you've never mentioned them until now, and only referenced the general idea behind them, which is what I responded "not in all cases, only if X happens" to.

>thanks?
>this is common knowledge
Yes.

>I don't see how you could disagree with it unless you were well informed which this nice little sentence here proves you are
Well, good thing I'm not disagreeing with it.

>honestly mate you're out of your depth here and it's pretty embarrassing
Every schizo I've talked to says the same thing.
I can talk with experts on every subject I know nothing about, and I always understand them clearly because they speak in a normal way.
You didn't. You speak like someone who's way too much into some ideology or religion and are repeating vague ideas and moving the discussion left and right instead of getting to the point.

The fact is Communism can only be achieved after great human suffering and millions being killed. No Communist has ever explained to me why capitalism is so bad that we should fight a civil war and kill everyone who won't obey the Communist regime.

Isn't the main argument for Communism that under capitalism, workers have no economic freedom because their bosses own the factory or business and take more of the profit than any individual workers? The workers can still choose to not work or to sell their own goods. Under capitalism a worker can sell their labor on a job by job basis. A painter can be independent and set up his own jobs. Under communism this is impossible because the independent painter would be considered a capitalist even though they are in control of their own means of production. The worker is more free under capitalism. Under communism everyone who doesn't follow the system is jailed or killed. To say communism benefits the worker is a lie. At least under capitalism an individual can choose not to work and since the dawn of the industrial revolution there have always been charities or soup kitchens of some degree. A Communist system where those who choose not to work are given the same degree of wealth as those who do work denies the worker of even more of their own production.

Communists are almost always the college educated elite who already have it better than the low skill or blue collar worker. They pretend to have the worker's best interests in mind so they can feel better about themselves. They want the state to take control so they will no longer feel guilt when people are poorer than them or envy those more wealthy than them. The Communists who rise up to lead the movements are those who have the greatest drive for power. Communism is an all powerful state where individual freedom is denied and the people in charge are cut from the same cloth as those with enough of a drive for power as those in charge of capitalist systems.

you're clearly very uneducated on the subject of both philosophy and politics which is where I fucked up, I shouldn't have assumed you had done the same research I have so lets start from the top
>1)
we live in a transitory time
>2)
we're transitioning from the era of Christianity (a Judaeo-Abrahamic religion to a new era
>3)
the era is loosely defined as the era of modern science
>4)
the metaphysical mutation (defined by google as the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space but in layman's terms and in this context means something intangible but tangible) which is causing this new era to appear is science the same way Christianity sprung up and took down the roman era
>5)
when we stop believing in God and therefore the morals that come with the ethical framework of christianity (ethical framework is defined by google as a set of codes that an individual uses to guide his or her behavior i.e the ten commandments) because science makes more "sense" to the majority then we will be in a new era, the era of "modern science" (modern being important here the same way medieval would be important if we were discussing the first phase of the christian era entirely)
>6)
a by product of morality changing on a grand scale and adhering to a new framework is a change in policy
>9)
this does not mean that people with this new framework are "victims" of a dichotomy that will not exist in the future as this dichotomy exists *now* because we are in the process of, as a society (a majority) switching to a new ethical and moral framework which has caused a clash
>10)
just because people *now* hold the same beliefs as the majority will hold does not make them "leftist" zealots or bowing to the whim of a "liberal zeitgeist" does not mean you conflate this new era with "leftists"
>11)
which leads me to my previous example of universal credit
anything else to explain?