Yea, because Marx never said anything about products of labor going to the laborers. Ok.

>Communism is a free market as for socialism read critique of the gotha program

 And marxism is 100% different from communism, like there's zero similarity and no overlap through concepts. Ok whatever.

>Marxism is a communist theory i didnt claim there was no overlap

 One's applied, the other is theory,

>No this is not true at all i think Bakunin wrote a book called the un-marian socialist this might help explain things to you or even the wiki page for communism.

 using terms interchangeably works sometimes with those two.

>Only when you are talking to people who dont know better

 It's no big thing to lose screws over.

>It is because you were trying to use critisisms of marx to critique communism this would be like criticuing Otto strassor to critique fashism

 No, you don't understand why the baby analogy is stupid to bring up, or you won't fess up to it for some strange reason, you also just glossed over the answer i gave you about how the hell is it fair to not allow people to give inheritance.

>Because it doesnt apply before you even talk about that we must first esstablish that it is wrong to have inheritance of the means of production in the first place and i agreee it is unfair so we are not going to have that debate

 It's like you don't want people to give any property to anyone because that's unfair/undeserved and the sad part of all this,

>But i dont think thats wrong i think there are bad consiquences to it.

 by this line of thinking, giving free shit is a problem also, you just have an issue over giving free shit in the future for some reason.

>No bacause im not using that line of thinking

 Me, i don't care because over time, that sort of thing tends to slowly drop back to the mean. Which is balanced enough. Short term imbalances tend to slingshot back to the other side, thus you have a working balanced system over time.

>evidence? becasuse as i find it proles in africa dont oft get the chance to be come multi millionares

 Just freeze-framing this one instance where shit doesn't seem to work for a moment is really annoying and unreasonable to me.

>Seems unreasonable isnt is unreasonable.

 Barrel scratching means you're grasping at literally anything to try and discredit something that requires greater evidence, you're scratching the very bottom of the "commie arguments barrel" to find SOMETHING.

>But im not im not trying to prove communism and im not trying to disscredit capitalism.

 And for the life of me, i can't understand this desire to just destroy capitalism by all means necessary or badmouth it at every turn when it works VERY well,

>OBS works very well oftern i still critisise it when it doesnt work or is hard to use.

 even with the weird kinks here and there that can be quite annoying at times. I assume shit out of people, who cares, everyone does it. It saves time; it's based on statistical analysis or at a more rudimentary level, life experience.

>Capitalism isnt based on life experience because people never get the chance to compair it to another system.

 If you don't like me doing it, you probably should tell me on which side of the aisle you are. I'm not even doing this to be a cunt to you, and i don't even dislike you. I don't take internet shit seriously. I use this format for information.

>But yet you have litteraly name called me almost from the start.

 I'm saying you should be very careful with what the extreme left offers because megadeaths happen, so you should be a little careful about what they're saying, same with the extreme right; but they have no real power right now.

>im not advocating thoes thing so wy brig it up?

 Unfair advantage from inheritance does not bother me, remember?

>It doesnt bother me either it doesnt bother me when i bye a computer with windows on it doesnt mean i cant point out why its shitty that you cant find many options with linux.

 They will still have to labor to keep it. This is not that hard to understand, but you still just act like inheritance does not have some form of maintenance labor especially when it really matters.

>you have still failed to show that it does in every instance.

 Okay, Kantian equality, that's a start. Um, vagueness means it's lacking in meaning. It's slippery and subject to ad hoc interpretation.

>Its not vague its sysnthetic a priori or can be derived from that so it may be diffrent to everyone but for each person its clearly difined according to ther opinion of it as a maxim but this is asside the point i dont even like kant you should use roussoue which is not vague at all.

 I never said it should be "ignored" but that it should be defined in a way that we can work with. That yes or no question, i have answered. It's a resounding yes, because i feel it is way worse to not allow people to give to some form of heir. Let's say i work my ass off to death in my late 70's so my kids can have a house, well, if that's immoral, or worse yet, legislated, you're gonna end up with one less experienced worker on the workforce and a little weaker of an economy.

>So you agree it is unfair but as the act of inheritence is a natural process and should be stopped i agree so the proposal is that they shouldnt own the means of production in the forst place they can still give away personal property but cant own private (well this is one solluton at least)

 I don't think you know how to point out fallacies in arguments. If you don't agree with a theory, you don't beleive it's outcome is true; thus you can't think in the way of said theory; that could not be an ad hominem.

>what was ad hom wasnt that part it was when you said i dont understand philosophy

 I know the leftist arguments pretty well, and on balance, they don't move me much against capitalism;

>I wouldnt boast about how well you know leftists aguments

 but i do recognize the issues behind capitalism thanks to leftists as well, but i see no solution coming from their side, other than let's just destroy it cause this one thing one time made me angry about it. Weird time to interject that you're not a marxist now, after all of this. Sorry to assume you have an agenda like most creatures on earth. Um, yea so we can't blame communism or marxism for Stalin on any level, OK. And you can't say Pinochet was a free market guy, because he was a dictator, obviously, you can't blame that on him at all but communism certainly has been attempted in contrast to Pinochet's free market "principles" of throwing commies off helicopters.

>I think people oftern forget the first attempt at communism and only remember the ones that didnt work and prehaps a few that did.

 So yea, i do feel like Stalin, or rather Lenin at least tried to instill some form of communism on some level based on actual marxism,

> yes they did but it didnt work they never got to communism the state apperatus never fell away.

 or to make you happy, political marxism.

>No need to say this.

 I really do feel like marxism in that particular instance is a little more responsible for what happened than free markets principles from Pinochet. Also just in shear numbers of death, stalin and mao really outdid themselves.

>maybe but thats asside the point you cant balme idears for implementation

 The left just has a bigger deathcount, and that came from ideas and ideologies not just dictators.

>evidence? beacuse you wuld have to take into account all the deaths under capitalism, feudralism, right wing wars. Im not claiming the right has a higher death count im saying you dont know this statistic is true.

 I'm not even dismissing it, i'm warning about it, the left don't seem to accurately portrait capitalism and in a way worse manner than the right misportrays communism.

>I totaly dissagree unless you think the capitalism is just the free market the on one hand you have ¬c baing made equal to c (where c is communism) and on the other you have a distortion of capitalism being made equal to capitalism.

 Hagelian dialectics have nothing to do with megadeaths, of course not. His politics were shit, and vague as fuck. The communist manifesto was a horseshit "i hate people with money because reasons" and "I love the working class because reasons" it was an unbearable read.

>why read it its properganda and not part of his theory

 But to be fair, i can't hold Marx responsible for that piece of steamy dried up turd. I'm sure in other topics he had some sort of positive influence, though. I also do not dismiss Hitler's concerns, but i do thread carefully when i do read about his work which is not often.

>good so dont dissmiss marxs or you might just get a "commie" dictator on your hands when the right fail to adress the lefts consirns.

 I don't think you know how causation/correlation works. You certainly can infer some causation from very strong correlation If democracies have SUCH a dramatically lesser deathtoll, without even going into quality of life, it is fair to assume democracies are less deadly, even as dictatorships than communist dictatorships.

>yes but also commie democracys have a lower death toll than commie dictatorships so its not a reason to dissmisss communism it a reason against dictatorship.

 Or would you suggest that a quantitative approach to this is complete bunk? If driving really fast gets more people killed, would you just say correlation is not causation, or would you follow the prescribed safe speed limit? Stats are funky in that way. Hard to prove causation, but they work well regardless.

 >I was simply providing a better corrilation that accounted for the one you provided