Nearly all Anti-Capitalist sentiment comes from those living under Capitalism and taking the liberties it offers for granted. Alternatively,
some the most Anti-Socialist attitudes come from those who have actually lived in Socialist or Communist countries.
>>757896
I want the monarchy back.
Yes, that's why people in the former USSR are overwhelmingly glad it fell, with only a small majority nostalgic for the Communist days.
Oh wait, that's not true.
>>757896
>Nearly all Anti-Capitalist sentiment comes from those living under Capitalism and taking the liberties it offers for granted.
Yeah, I'm sure all those third worlder workforces that used to fuel commie uprisings were taking its its liberties for granted,
>>757910
*small minority
>>757930
At least they have twenty different brands of toilet paper and blue jeans now though.
>>757910
They don't want communism back, they want superpower status back after being cucked out of it by the USA, they'd return to Tsarist serfdom if it meant destroying the rest of the world and becoming the sole remaining nation of influence.
>>757946
was that Yeltsin?
because he's the last person to talk about brains
>>757952
No, Vladimir Putin.
>>757956
Putin's biggest political rivals and threat is the communist party so he's not exactly unbiased
>>757922
Most communist forces in the 3rd world were rebellions against colonialism, not capitalism directly, and communism was often conflated with nationalism in these countries.
>>757961
Not really. The Communists in Russia are Kremlin puppets.
>>757910
yeah the good ol days
>>757896
What liberties are inseparably tied to capitalism and couldn't be replicated without it?
>>757975
>muh breadlines
You know this wasn't the constant reality through all the days of the USSR right?
>>757980
It was pretty common once stagnation set in. It was also common until Khrushchev. Which gives it about 20 years of actual good life.
>>757980
Yes, tell me how long you lived in the ussr from experience, and how you aren't a 14 year old revleft user.
>>757977
Freedom to compete in an open market. Freedom to own your products and ideas.
>>757977
I don't know
maybe PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE
>leftards will defend this because "muh greedy capitalists"
>>757947
I'd prefer either Communism or serfdom/slave society to soulless modern day capitalism.
>>758020
People get paid for their labor, that's hardly being robbed, and if you don't like it form a co-op or something.
>>758020
>voluntary agreements are robbing someone
>>757992
>Freedom to own your products
You mean items you've personally made from materials that you manifested into this world, or items you paid other people to make from materials that existed before you did?
>>757896
Not even remotely true.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
>>758036
>You mean items you've personally made from materials that you manifested into this world, or items you paid other people to make from materials that existed before you did?
Both actually. Capitalism allows you to both own the means of production and produce the products yourself, or own the means of production and spend capital to get others to make the products. Communism demands only one be possible, making the system less efficient.
>>758039
It is not for Communism though, when you actually look at the data it is for community. They don't like the atomisation that capitalism brings or the migrants that capitalism brings.
>>758050
What is the origin of the means, and the capital? How were they acquired?
>>758004
Anything with North Korea that isn't propaganda and that shows how proles "shop" down there?
>>758025
and that's why you will never attain a position of authority to influence other's to think as stupidly as you do
>>757910
Russians don't miss the Soviet Union because they love central planning and no property rights. They just miss being a powerful empire.
It's a nostalgia based on nationalism, not ideology.
>>758020
>what is taxation
Fuck off Schlomo
>>758065
>What is the origin of the means
What is a vague question? Sometimes a man founds a mine, sometimes a man starts a farm, sometimes a man builds a factory, sometimes these things are inherited, sometimes they are bought or traded, sometimes they are given freely, the origin of a means of production are basically irrelevant, and open to tons of historic and philosophical debate.
> and the capital
When ever you have something the someone else wants or gives you power over them, you have capital. If you're asking where money comes from, mediums of exchange evolve naturally once the number of barter partners and products available reach a point where straight barter is no longer viable.
>How were they acquired?
I already explained how the means of production can be acquired, capital can be acquired by trade, you can either trade labor for capital, or you can trade products for capital. If you have labor or products that are in high demand you can trade them for more capital than they might otherwise be worth.
I hope this economics for babies lesson was valuable to you.
>>758107
Adam Smith described capital as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue is called his capital."
>>757896
Is socialism the opposite of capitalism?
What is a free market economy with a welfare system in place? Wouldn't that be socialist?
>>758122
Well Adam Smith was far more eloquent than I am, also probably spent a lot more time thinking on economics than I do. Basically when ever you have a good someone wants, and that good can be increased in supply ( for example land is not capital), it is capital. Currency is just usually referred to as capital because it's the most widely traded good that people deal with. Iron and Food can technically be capital as well.
>>758145
There are a lot of different kinds of socialism, but no technically limited Capitalism and some forms of Socialism can co-exist.
>>758154
I am currently reading his work, not sure if I got the full version but it has around 1000 pages.
Great read desu. Can't see why some people consider it boring.
I actually lived in Germany and met many who grew up in the East.
No one actually misses communism or the police state but they did miss the more traditional way of life. Where family and friends were close and community took precedent over individuals or materialistic pursuits.
Maybe its not missing communism but it doesnt mean they like capitalism either.
>>758145
In its more abstract sense, socialism means redirecting economy toward the benefits of society. But that doesn't really mean anything because pretty much every single economic theory claim so, whether in direct or indirect manner.
>>758197
I don't want to get tied up in semantics here but wouldn't that mean that the Free Market is socialist? Making the self interest of everyone serve the rest and such.
This isn't true
The communist party is very popular in the "red belt" area of Russia
>>757930
>Ukraine
Do they enjoy being Starved by Big daddy Stalin?
>>758107
>the origin of a means of production are basically irrelevant
There is no reason to respect this position.
You're avoiding the simple truth that ownership is legitimised through violence, and following this logic it should be perfectly fair for any individual or organisation to murder you and take your possessions. Capitalist liberty of ownership is merely maintaining the status quo of wealth distribution that developed in an era when there was no organised international effort or system to recognise or protect everyone's economic rights.
>>758231
>You're avoiding the simple truth that ownership is legitimised through violence, and following this logic it should be perfectly fair for any individual or organisation to murder you and take your possessions.
Yeah, that's what ownership and rights basically boil down to.
>>758193
That's a result of antisocial society, not capitalism
>>758353
The difference is in a free market, it is based on voluntary transactions.
For example, if I want to work for someone for 5$ an hour because I do not have experience, the state should not prevent me from working for that pay.
>>758231
Actually, it's delegitimized by violence. Property rights are exclusive but nonviolent. It is the disregard of property which begets violence.
>all these socialist faggots
Blue board, blue pilled.
>>758404
'Voluntary' is relative
>>758423
No it isn't.
>>758427
Yes it is. I can choose between the set of choices offered but I can't choose the set of choices
>>758432
So?
>>758435
So I don't have total control over my life
>>758438
Ok? Give me an example of a choice which is simultaneously voluntary and involuntary without some sort of contradiction in perspectives.
>>758450
I have to work a shitty job while in college because I need the money not because I want to do the work
>>758415
The only deterrent to force is greater force.
>>758516
But it's not the same level of voluntary as, say, working a job I enjoy
>>758528
Volition is binary. Is having sex with an ugly person the same as being raped?
>>758544
>volition is binary
No it isn't. Are you autistic?
>>757910
People from Uzbekistan want the security of a big state that takes care of them back because they can't take care of themselves.
>>758560
Yes it is. You either willingly engage in an activity or you do not. It is a quality, not a quantity. You don't seem to understand what is entailed in the concept of "volition".
>>758560
Regardless, you've still failed to demonstrate the relativity of a specific voluntary action. Probably because that lack of understanding I mentioned.
>>757998
There are three kinds of ownership:
* Public: the state owns and operates it for the public/common good
* Private: a private person owns and operates in for profit (private good)
* Personal: a private person owns and operates it without gaining profit (also private good)
The first ownership (regarding property) would for example be a public park, the second would be a factory, and the last could be a house (a non property example is underwear)
And now for some reason people always believe that Communism wasn't to abolish everything that isn't public property, but that isn't the point. Only private property (the means of production) should be transformed into public property.
(A problem though is that, while the distinction between public and private+personal is easy, private and personal do have some parts where they may overlap: grassland could either be used for production and be private or just lay there and be personal/wasted. What to do with such cases must be decided each time individually)
Now taking this into account: how many people have to fear their factories be taken? Or what PRIVATE property are you afraid to loose under Bernie?
>>758608
Easy pz, firearms.
>>758576
>>758595
>>758576
First off, coercion exists. Secondly, the magnitude of volition is just as important as its existence. Say I have to choose between killing my brother or my father; I willingly make a choice but it's obviously going to be a reluctant one, less voluntary than if I were choosing a new house
>>758608
The differentiation between private and personal property is spurious, because something that can be defined as personal property, such as a house, can be used as private property by renting it out to tenants.
So this line of argumentation is just a rhetorical trick you and people like you use to try to convince people who are plebeian that nothing will happen to their property once you have state power, which we all know isn't true.
>>758664
I actually did mention it - at certain points the border between the two are smudged. I just used the example with grasslands, instead of a house. But it that case it wouldn't necessarily mean your houses would be confiscated, but rather that you're not allowed to rent it.
>>758698
But why wouldn't you be allowed to rent it?
That makes zero sense. It's like making it illegal for car rental companies to exist.
Hence my objection.
>>758703
Because by renting it it becomes private property...
>>758698
There's plenty of cases that will merit confiscation.
For example, you are a family of 4 with 2 children, and there's a family of 4 also with 2 children. Family 1 has 2 toys, while family 2 has none. It doesn't matter if the children of Family 1 treasure those toys, in a socialist society, family 1 would be forced to give up one of those toys to family 2.
>>758712
Yes, but what is intrinsically wrong with that?
>>758052
>It is not for Communism though, when you actually look at the data it is for community.
Interesting point. I am genuinely fascinated if you are able to back that up based on the data. I'm not even saying you are wrong but you need to substantiate that,
>They don't like the atomisation that capitalism brings or the migrants that capitalism brings.
So they don't like Capitalism then.
>>758658
There is not. Either you exercise free will in a scenario or you do not.
>>758658
I'm going to say this one last time as clearly as possible, this "magnitude of volition" idea that you're pushing is horse shit. Volition is not how emotionally fulfilling or superficially desirable an action is. Volition is whether or not you do it willingly. Your example is an example of someone trying to externalize a voluntary act in order to preserve their emotional integrity. It is not an example of someone having less free will or more free will in a situation.
>>758145
There is no such thing as true capatilism. Capatilist countries (the few that aren't complete poverty-stricken failures) depend on large governments with a giant net of regulations expressly designed to inhibit capatilism in order for their economies to function at all.
A real capatilist state wouldn't make it a week before it dissolved into a chaotic and fragmented series of contradictory monarchies.
>>758404
It stops becoming voluntary when you need the money to survive. This is simply a pretense for slave labor, only the boss is actually making more profit than a true slaver because he doesn't have to pay for your room and board.
>>758847
are you spelling "capitalism" wrong to troll
>>758867
>you need money to survive
As the hobo and innawoods population can tell you, you're wrong.
>>758427
It definetely is.
For an action to be voluntary, one must be in a position where they are not extraordinarily compelled to perform that action.
In a society where one will starve and live without shelter if they do not work for five dollars an hour in a factory for a man making thousands per hour, their working in that factory was by no means voluntary. They were not in a position where they could rationally and responsibly behave according to their own will.
>>758576
By your own definition, volition is absolutely not binary. It is a quality, meaning it is an individually interpreted phenomenon that, in order to be unquantifiable, must be arbitrary to some degree.
Human action is built entirely on a series of internal and external inui that compell one to behave in a certain manner. Human volition is not dependent on individual will, because individual will does not truly exist.
>>758716
How are toys private property though? It's by all means personal, and don't have to be "given up". If that is done, it's not in the name of Communism/Socialism/etc.
>>758930
They're not. According to your definition they're personal property. But if you think there's some wall that prevents the state from taking your personal property as well as your private property, then you're fooling yourself.
>>757896
Except people who lived under socialism never really lived under socialism. State control of everything isn't socialism unless the population has control over the government, which is almost never the case in these so called socialist states. Therefore most self proclaimed socialists states are really just totalitarian dictatorships or an oligarchy of party elite that are only socialist in name, because they were riding on a socialist revolution.
Socialism doesn't mean equal distribution of everything either. Socialism is not "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". It's "To each according to his contribution", which is in opposition to capitalism which may sometimes reward people for their contribution, but at other times reward people for their ownership and capital.
>>758664
The simple answer here is to not rent out your fucking house.
>>758880
Yes, you're right, capatitalism works really well if you run into the wilderness and actively try to avoid it.
>>758979
Not everyone is okay with everything. Wage labor is no different.
>>758947
If you think there's some wall that stops companies from doing the exact same thing and calling it rent, you're just as wrong.
>>758991
If a corporation takes your personal/private property without your consent, its theft. The difference between the state and corporations is that corporations are subject to the power of the state, with their guns, tanks, aircraft etc and the state is beholden to no-one. It's easier to kill a Fortune 500 CEO than the President of the United States.
>>759021
>and the state is beholden to no-one
Well the idea is beholden to the people, but that only works if the people are willing to use violence to maintain that relationship. Also in the absent of government, corporations would be free to do the same thing as government using different language.
>>759021
>state is beholden to no-one
>what is a democracy
>what are lobbyists
The state is not an individual. The private companies themselves form the backbone of the military and civil service and beuracracy. So these systems, which altogether we call a state, are controlled by capitalist institution.
The company does not fear the state because of its military, the state fears the company because of its military contracts.
>>759046
If Lockheed Martin were to go to war with the US military, guess who'll win?
You need boots on the ground to actually assert your claim, and private corporations, even defense contractors, have none. What good are your F35s in your factory floor if you have no pilots? Just because the slave is the one that wipes your ass, cooks your food, and farms your crops, it doesn't mean he controls you.
>>757896
>Alternatively
not sure you know how to use that word, m8.
>socialist or communist
these are not the same, retard.
So people who have experienced the 'worst' of something know best how bad it is? Duh.
>>757930
Poland is probably the most anti communist and anti Russia country in the world
what kind of bullshit poll was this?
>>759091
oh wait, my bad
>>759060
Big business already has a stranglehold on the government. Things don't resort to violence because violence is a last resort. All companies have to do is say it will damage the economy, and violence isn't going to fix the economic damage.
>>759108
It's the other way around.
Big business is like the person thats stuck in a room with a bear. Just because you feed the bear meat to keep it content and willing to listen to you, it doesn't mean you have a stranglehold on the bear.
>>759117
>this what libtards actually beleib
>>759060
Oh please. What, did you play a paradox game and become convinced that all matters of state are rooted in brute force military endeavors?
Companies hold sway in all matters administrative, legislative, and judicial. They have no reason to care about police forces, for they simply live within the bounds of the state law and edit that law at the opportune moment.
>>759117
Must be one content fucking bear.
>>757896
All of this is wrong.
>>759132
>They have no reason to care about police forces, for they simply live within the bounds of the state law and edit that law at the opportune moment.
Just like Standard Oil, JP Morgan, and AT&T did? Government isn't the slave of corporations, its the other way around.
>>759159
>Ask if people want to preserve the USSR
>Most people answer yes
>USSR dissolves anyway
??????
>>759175
They're still around, they still have lobbyists, and they're still making profit. I'd say they're winning.
Companies are not represented by executives, they are entities all their own and act only in self-interest.
>>759182
Coups.
>>759189
Just because Germany is still around doesn't mean it didn't lose both World Wars.
>>759182
Some dumbfucks nationalist launched a rocket into a government headquarters and that was basically the end of it.
The only reason they held the referendum was that the government was in a state where it would have been willing to dissolve, given popular support.
>>758847
>regulating to prevent and correct market failures means that your economy is no longer capitalist
>socialist economies totally didn't require even more forceful regulation coupled with political repression to function
Is this a dank new socialist meme? If so, I wouldn't advise continuing with it, it's pretty dumb.
What's holding socialism back is the fact that anti-capitalist sentiments under the name of socialism were used to seize control of all assets.
Capitalism is not the same as markets. Capitalism is about capital, and the effect of capital on markets. Socialism really doesn't need to remove capital from the equation. It just needs to put in place laws and regulations so that capital does not naturally accumulate among those who have no merit but ownership of capital, and ownership of capital is not enough to profit or gain capital, but instead some other meaningful form of contribution, such as labor or innovation.
You really just need a market system with high capital gains taxes, so rich investors don't get rich just because they already have money, high inheritance taxes, so you don't create dynasties of rich people, and each generation actually needs some business acumen to contribute something of worth to the economy in order to maintain wealth, even if they do start out with a big advantage, and regulations on companies to prevent too big to fail, and CEOs from giving themselves raises and golden parachutes even when the companies they run fail. Also higher short term investment taxes and a better speculator market would be ideal, so investors invest based on the speculation of performance of the company they're investing in, rather than investing based on what they think they can dump it on another investor for.
There's no reason you couldn't have markets with socialism. They might not be the same markets we see today, but that doesn't mean you can't have markets.
I'd hate to be that guy, but State Capitalism usually beats Free Market and Socialism.
See. Its what Hitler used to get the Germans out of the great depression and had he not started WW2, Germany would have been the most powerful economy in the world for years to come.
Now China is doing something sort of similar.
Basically the state supports the businesses and uses it currency and lending power to destroy foreign competition.
See... In free market, the best option always wins, but when faced with a country that will devalue its currency when the free market company's country won't, then the company whose country supports them with state capitalism will always win.
That is why most of America's manufacturing has moved to China and despite India having cheaper labor, it cannot compete with China.
>>759612
>State Capitalism usually beats Free Market and Socialism.
It just leads to genocide/democide in every real world example lol.
>>759612
Personally, I wouldn't want to live under it, but my point was economically you can't beat state capitalism outside of the battlefield.
>>757930
>Poland
>>757896
>Those who live under capitalism don't like it, those who live under communism don't like it
Insightful. What else is new?
>>759612
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hitler's State Capitalism built around the idea of Autarky? I don't think not relying in international trade is a good idea, really.
>>757896
Nearly all anti-racist sentiment comes from those living under racial homogeneity and taking the liberties it offers for granted. Alternatively,
some the most anti-black and anti-interracial attitudes come from those who have actually lived in multiracial countries.
>>757896
>people tend to criticize the faults of the system they live in and experience
well... what are they supposed to do, criticize early feudalism?
also, i could tell you loads on how socialism sucked, but who gives a fuck
the reality i live in is greatly determined by factors such as unemployment, increasing income disparity, collapsing middle class, increasing lack of housing, privatisation of education and healthcare, privatisation of publick goods and institutions in general, intentionaly unregulated financial market and banking sectors, corruption, fraud, outsourcing and collapse of local industry, systemic growth of imports, steady reduction of comodity quality, 'brain drain' and general egzodus of the young population, spreading 'debt slavery'...
memes aside, i have no real life reason not to criticize capitalism
socialism has no baring on my life
>>759780
Except that it inevitably fails after a given period of time, because complete central planning requires more knowledge about the economy than is available to any one actor. Germany was on the brink of economic catastrophe right before WW2, and the Chinese are experiencing a serious downturn right now. In the long run, state capitalism is always shit.
>>757896
>anti-capitalism comes from people who live under capitalism
>anti-socialism comes from people who live under socialism
well, yeah, I guess that's probably true.
