>>7632

>Just do not start accusing me of being unrealistic, because this all depends on productivity and even while productivity is very high it is still not enough for communism to happen today, we need to increase it a bit more.


Not just "a bit". That kind of productivity is itself unrealistic by modern standards. The Star Trek TV and movie shows depicted that kind of society, where nobody had to work at anything they didn't want to do and all necessities were taken care of, and nobody used money. They also had access to fictional technology that gave them a near-infinite source of energy and the ability to transform some of that energy into matter. We're nowhere near a point where that will become viable.

>you got it wrong because you are looking from the capitalist perspective where someone invading your house is an infringement on your rights.


Yes, at the very least my right to privacy. Or the right to watch a TV show without someone bigger and stronger walking in and changing the channel. Removal of property rights is inherently a reduction in personal security.

>but from the communist perspective, your attempt to claim ownership if that house and prevent other people from using it if infringement on their rights to use whatever they want.


In practical terms this simply means whoever can overpower someone else can claim any item and dominate its use. Do you want to use your neighbor's ladder? Too bad, he's been working out and if he doesn't want you to take the ladder he can stop you.

Is that against the rules? Too bad, no cops to enforce them.

>in fact, this is all totally fair because you also can enter any house and use it anytime you like and you will not be breaking any law or even moral rules by doing that. obviously, there must be some laws to prevent vandalism or abuse because while you can enter any house and use it for free if you burn it or trash it you will be punished.


Punished by who? No cops are left in your world. Do you just gather a mob to make people behave? Now you're talking anarchy.

>like I already said you made this art for yourself, not for me. I never asked you to make it neither I really care, then why I have to compensate you for a that? wouldn't you like to ask compensation for you farts as well? you kinda made some effort to produce that too.


Well, you've just proved my point by comparing artistic output to farts. I see what you think of art now.

But to put it this way, if I made the art just for me, then there's not much reason for me to share it with the rest of the world, is there? Especially not if the rest of the world thinks of it as farts. And that just comes back to our earlier arguments where you simply can't understand why I wouldn't just throw all my art out there and get all that gravy in the form of appreciation from the person who thinks of it as just a different kind of fart.