Aristocrat communist vs plebeian conservative.

[Sustacel250]

The thing is, many communists simply deny private ownership of means of production but they say nothing about existence of individuals and you will see several people calling them "liberal" because on matters of individual choices the commies allow it all. They allow trannies furries and whatever. So all they care about is production and thats it. But several times the commies dont even care about production so their discourse rotates around self expression like gender debate or abortion or woman rights or tranny or futa rights. So you can enter a communist community and hear them talking often about the way they express themselves and very rarely about economical subjects. Which is why they are also called "liberal".

One can say communism isnt liberal. True but the attitudes and behaviors of the ones calling themselves "communist" are hyper liberal and focused on self expression. So you end up doing much more liberalism than you would have if you called yourself "classical liberal".

You listen to the conservatives instead, they want indiviuals to lose property rights, but they dont care that much about production. You can definitely observe this tendency, Im more into a "meta analysis" of the discourse around property rights
The conservative people affirm they are not communist, but they think individuals dont exist and nobody owns their body. Including the internal organs including the brain and the thoughts within and their personality is a part of their private property so personality also is not real. I always wonder why this is true only for us not for them. For instance why not re-educating nick fuentes ? Why not voting when we decide which personality nick fuentes should have. Is the eceleb that owns us or we own the eceleb?

nick fuentes says he knows best (quite literally). And "your body my choice".

But why could it not be the reverse? For instance we vote to put him in a concentration camp, and we vote for the personality to give him. When we will pump him with truth serum and electrocute him, will he become an environmentalist SJW or a tranny catboi?

Is the eceleb that owns us or we own the eceleb? This is a serious question. Because we could also decide ecelebs dont have a right to decide their personality and is us who decide who we want to be ruled by. They either adapt or get castrated in a concentration camp.

I find the conservative logic to be flawed, why do they say individuals dont exist. Also what would make them better than communists? The commies dont say a word about inividuals, if anything they are expanding individual choices quite a lot. And commies focus on means of production not individual choices. An indivual will do whatever fuck he wants to if hes in a communist group.

An individual will be very constrained if hes in a conservative group. Will be told by improvised celebrities with improvised authority (not real authority no mandate from a church) what to do with their life. These ecelebs in theory have no authority, they are just improvised people who are unrecognized by institutions, just populists on the internet. But they have no right whatsoever to have the attitudes they are displaying on social media.

I observed this also in linux atheism vs apple/microsoft 1 god for all

linux atheists are all communists but look at them: they accept responsibility (the operating system malfunction is their own fault they fix it), they own the software, they improve what they own, they participate in the collective ownership voluntarily, higher participation higher ownership. Linux is meritocratic. Open source is an aristocracy. Its not democratic, you dont have a say on the thing the collective focuses on. If you participate with the opensource, you have no right to tell others which bug to fix first. You can instead fix it yourself, which makes you one of the aristocrats who own the code more than others do. Is all based on action over words or vote. You either take responsibility and change the code or do nothing and get nothing done.

The apple / microsoft 1 god for all: accept hierarchy, they dont own the software, give away their authority, accept elite tells them what is best for them. They will change their personality depending what choices of advertising the company does. They will believe "retina" is a technology trust elites with their data collection, trust AI blindly. They will blame "someone else" when things go wrong, not even trying to fix them. Probably they are paying a premium precisely for this, because they want to delegate authority so they have "someone to blame".

Linux atheists have more distrust for AI, they still use it but they want to constrain it.

Who has more self ownership? The linux communist or the apple/micucksoft people? (i use microsoft by the way I dont have patience for linux). Whos more aristocratic? An aristocrat is someone supposed to pay his own military expenses and who has more money and better judgement ends up with a better sword and better shield. Poor people would end up with a simple ball of steel tied with a knot on a wooden rod and go to war and get to die.

Obviously in matters of military is much better to fund the welfare army with collective money so you ensure every single normie has enough equipment. The welfare military triumphs and wins vs self funded responsible military but not always. Perhaps is just the situation right now, but will change again in the future.

I was asking myself whos the real aristocrat? These shithead conservatives or the communists? I would say, for now the communists demonstrate much much higher aristocracy levels.