>In truth, the communist’s motivation has very little to do with altruism. Instead, it stems from intense jealousy, self-loathing, and a lust for revenge against nature. In short, they hate themselves for being irredeemably unfit and impotent, and thus, they want to see all reflectors of their failures burn. They want to destroy any standard of measurement and make winning impossible, because, if there are no winners, then there are no losers, and maybe then, they won’t feel quite as bad about themselves.
Is this true, /pol/?
Yes
t. Former Communist
>>80780197
communism is just watered down jewishism.
>>80780197
Bump because the post was eloquent
>>80780197
Absolutely accurate. Marxists are fueled entirely by an intense awareness of their own inferiority and want to see the world destroyed to obscure their own perceived weaknesses in the turmoil that will ensue if they ever finally realize their "revolution". It's literally the Beta Uprising, it's a purely spiteful act of rebellion against those who they believe wronged them by making their worthlessness so evident - successful people. This is why they will come for you, innocent or not, and you will ask, "Why do you persecute me when I did nothing to you at all?" and they will not need to reply, because they were not wronged by you, they were ultimately wronged by themselves and your existence only makes it more evident, so they will get rid of you.
>>80780197
>le every single thing in the entire world boils down to subconscious bullshit meme
this is as bad as "if you don't like gay people that means you're gay"
the reason people are communists is because they're fooling themselves about the end result
>>80780197
100% true
>>80780197
It never worked out well through communism. True, Cuba is stable today though.
Good post. It is always the people who don't fit in and have failed at life that shill for communism. If you notice every communist/SJW looks like a freak.
>>80781485
queria escribir lo mismo.
me anticipaste.
saludos de un gocho.
OP 100% true, at least in venezuela.
>>80781749
Saludos de vuelta papá uishhhhhhhhhh veaaaaa los pastelitos andinos vienen en camino mijo
>>80780197
Why don't reactionaries ever actually read Marx? Their critiques might actually reflect reality of they did.
>>80781431
well said senpai
>>80781913
voy a volar a venezuela para ver pastelitos que marchan por todo el pais.
esta mierda ya se esta se pasò.
>>80781465
Take a good look at all the communists of the west and ask yourself if they are truly the representatives of the will of the working class. You will find they are all rather representatives of those most estranged from the working class, weird middle-class urbanites and unemployed jackasses, women and teenagers who have never worked an honest day in their lives. The entire Marxist community is seemingly rife with genetic weakness and general social ineptitude, where are the men of the farms, factories, mines and lowest rungs of society, those who actually have a reason to protest? Where is the actual working class in this collection of so-called "Marxists"? Every self-attributed Marxist in the west is the farthest thing from a member of the working class, they are in it purely for the spite, they are in it to rebel against their own lack of self-worth.
>>80780197
>lol communism sucks coz the communists are losers!
Ignore filename
>>80781431
>>80782336
Based leaf
>>80782180
Are you using google translate tony? I can tell from the píxels and shit
ITT: Capitalist that hold the Utopian notion that capitalism is the end of history.
>>80782116
We're not interested in the lies you tell yourself to justify your adherence to the most morally and intellectually bankrupt and murderous ideology to ever exist.
>>80782556
cambiè frase a mitad.
no creo que google translate tenga gocho, jaja
>>80782180
I read it... and I UNDERSTOOD IT ;)
>>80782591
>I don't like x so I won't read it because I don't like it
WEW LAD
>>80781431
Based leaf
this is true
>>80782336
you could say the same thing about any revolutionary vanguard. the lives that W.E.B Dubois and Frederick Douglass lived were nothing like the lives of common slaves. The only thing in common was origins and most people at >>/leftypol/ are of working class origins.
>>80781431
all rebellions by definition are beta rebellions, the underclass overthrowing the overclass. The people who overthrew the aristocracy in Europe were people who lived under the feudal lords.
Rebels are the real ubermensch, bootlickers are too weak to stand up, they get off on oppressing the weak. It is a slave-mentality expressed by those who have a tiny bit of power.
>>80783279
>beg the government to oppress you
>call anyone else a bootlicker
Kek. You guys are totally transparent.
>>80783062
>I don't like x so I won't read it because I don't like it.
I'll be sure to mention mein kampf the next time some Leftist retard (oxymoron) is bashing on hitler.
>>80780197
Ya.
Communism = bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
>>80780197
Its a lot simpler than that. Karl Marx was butthurt. Not about anything in particular. His butt just hurt.
http://www.hemorrhoidcures.biz/famous-people-with-hemorrhoids-who-do-you-know/
>Karl Marx (1818–1883); Prussian-German philosopher, sociologist, economist, journalist, historian and revolutionary socialist, whilst writing Das Kapital, became beset with hemorrhoids. Writing to his close friend Friedrich Engels he said, “To finish I must at least be able to sit down” adding, “I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles.”
>“I hope the bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles.”
You are now aware the Jews slaughtered tens of millions of your kinsman because Karl Marx had a sore bottom.
>>80783664
>Get called out for doing something stupid
>lol other people do it too
Just admit you are wrong anon
>>80783664
>Leftist retard (oxymoron)
Also i just realized you literally implied that leftist are by definition not retarded
It's all about protecting one's self interest.
Capitalism favors the rich communism favours the poor.
The poor are however brainwashed, confused and split so they actually believe capitalism is good for them, even tho stats show differnet.
>>80784193
Fuck you.
>>80784365
Fuck me!
I meant redundant!
>>80784763
It is okay, anon. I won't diss your ideology simply on the basis of you being a fucking retard
>>80780197
Communism is ultimately nothing more but a cult of envy.
>>80783596
>sharing property is oppression
first of all, socialism is the democratic management of the means of production, if this phrase triggers you. You are a lost cause.
Why should personal wealth(which does not indicate any merit) be the standard of with which to decide who gets to run the means of production?
When managing the means of production the following should be considered: worker safety, the environment, the needs of the people, working conditions, worker benefits.
Capitalism does not consider these factors. Capitalism tries to extract the most money from workers and the environment. Society is not a game where exchanging the most currency is the thing that leads to the greatest benefit. A harmonious society is one where citizens have stability, health and autonomy. Autonomy includes having a say in your economic activity which includes your workplace. If you have ever worked a job you would know that management is not some ubermensch who guides the factory to being part of a functioning society. They are just people trying to squeeze your time and labor into their pockets.
tl;dr only cucks have little tyrants telling them what to do, so organize and be empowered to have a say over your labor.
Friendly reminder that SJW, BLM and all that American bollocks is liberalism and is the enemy of any good Marxist out there.
>>80784751
>communism favours the poor
This is what communiggers actually believe. Don't you have a bull to get milking Sven?
>>80784949
Thank you, Islamic poland.
>>80785177
They're just offshoots of your very same creed, communigger. You're just the catholic while they're the protestants.
>>80780197
I have a communist friend and talk with communists regularly so I know some things about their way of thought.
It's obvious that they want the same thing. Seize the means of production and give them to the workers. But they want it for different reasons. My friend is very upper class. He is far richer than I am and lives in a very good neighborhood . He is a communist because his parents are very capitalistic and right wing, but he is also altruistic as well. He can't stand seeing poor people and people having nothing to eat. He's not "jealous" of the upper class, he seems kind of depressed to me though and misguided.
On the other hand, one of his friends who is also a communist staight out said to me that he is a communist because of self interest and not because of ideology. He's pretty poor and also said that if he were rich, he would be a capitalist.
To sum up, communists have different motives, and they don't "hate" successful people. They reject their success altogether. They think that capitalists profit exploit workers and that they don't deserve their money.
Most communists are very insecure about themselves. Same goes for nazis and most radicals, in my opinion.
>>80785422
>I have a communist friend
Quick! Grab him.
>>80785214
It does favour the poor though.
And by "poor" I mean the trash of society. The ones who don't want to work, the rejects, the losers, the drug addicts, the uneducated who only know how to do simple jobs.
>>80780197
Communism has nothing to do with altruism. It's inherently selfish - "I'm here, I'm breathing, give me stuff".
>>80780197
Like capitalists. You know the ones that want to prove they are the shit over and over. Sounds like low self esteem and overcompensation to me.
>>80785755
>be landlord
>I have a deed, I'm here, I'm breathing, give me rent
>>80785592
automation is making more and more jobs into "simple jobs"
No, it's not.
I'm a communist because I'm bitter and jealous. Fuck rich people. Why should they get so much when I have fuck all?
>>80785422
>He's pretty poor and also said that if he were rich, he would be a capitalist.
Good, that means he is a perfect Marxist. We're not here to shit on Capitalism and renounce it from history - it's the opposite! We're looking to advance history and currently Capitalism is doing a grand job at doing just that, we just think it would be Utopian to accept this as the end of society's grow.
Your posh mate seems to be coming at this at the wrong angle; it's not about pity or his feelings - it's about the dialectical movement of history.
>>80785868
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Capitalism requires you to be able to offer something to others (they want a house more then their money, you want their money more than your house), or your starve.
>>80785175
>first of all, socialism is the democratic management of the means of production
So a joint stock company is socialism?
No I don't think you would consider it that.
Socialism is not simply "the democratic management of the means of production". Socialists are not satisfied with simply having a say in how a company is run. Socialism first requires that socialists rob and murder the former owners of all property that exist prior to the implementation of their "socialist" system. Everything after that is purely hypothetical as no socialist system ever seems to get beyond that first step before being dismissed as "not true socialism" for alleged deviations from socialist doctrine. Considering that no two socialists ever actually agree on the details of what exactly socialism is, it's inevitable that this will always happen and yet another episode of mass murder will get swept under the rug by a cult of maniacs ever willing to try again and again to fit a square peg into a round hole.
>>80786171
*you
>>80780197
While it is true of man, there is more than this.
Yes, ultimately, every kind of egalitarianism is simply institutionalized envy. But not all its proponents and activists are simply envious. Most are, but far from all. Many are egalitarian because they fear the envy of others. But even that is too candid a sentiment and doesn't explain all.
When envy is seen as legitimate, you will feel miserable seeing people being envious. So even if you are rather successful, if you don't reject envy, you may end up egalitarian. Probably you will call it "sense of justice" or "social justice" or any other euphemism for what is simply envy or commiseration and surrender to envy.
Once envy is legitimized, there is only one way out : to try to make it impossible for people to be envious by negating (sometimes physically) or making irrelevant all differences, ie egalitarianism. Of course it will only be possible by systematic constrain and command. The envy inherent in all forms of egalitarianism is entirely incompatible with liberty, and largely with productivity.
If you reject envy, you won't care about other people being happier, richer or worthier. You also won't take seriously the plebs being envious of other people being richer or happier or worthier.
>>80786041
Embrace the class hatred. We know they are parasites on the back of labor.
Cucks are those who work themselves to the bone believing they will one day become rich. Capitalism is not a meritocracy.
Statistically speaking you will not become rich, you are NOT a special wittle snowflake. GET REAL and realize there is power in numbers.
>>80785422
>He's not "jealous" of the upper class, he seems kind of depressed to me though and misguided.
In other words his communism is rooted in self-loathing. Which was one of the motivations listed by OP.
>>80786311
>This
Socialism "works" when you have perfect, infallible people who are robots without the ability to do wrong (which, is clearly impossible). And even then, it's horribly unethical, since it's tyranny of the majority taken to the logical endpoint.
>>80786171
everybody needs a place to live, not everyone is born with a place to live and some are born with multiple places to live, should the outcome of this lottery decide whether someone should pay a portion of their labor to someone else?
Your answer is irrelevant. If you are a person who was born without a place to live and you don't believe in spooks, you will say
>fuck that
>>80786472
дa comrade.
>>80786311
>So a joint stock company is socialism?
Yes, if only workers can own shares and only one share.
That is literally socialism.
>>80786723
and I will kill any hobo that thinks he has a right to move into my living room because I don't believe in the spooks like the inherent value of human life
>>80786472
You seem to be a good lad, but you come across as someone who's not read anything except the communist manifesto and some dank /leftypol/ memes.
>>80786311
>Socialism first requires that socialists rob and murder the former owners of all property that exist prior to the implementation of their "socialist" system.
false, Ayn Rand's family owned a pharmacy in Tsarist Russia and the Soviets still paid for her education.
>So a joint stock company is socialism?
close, market socialist would say yes. I would say as long as the company was operating in a world without currency than it would be socialism.
I myself think 1970's China was a shining example of socialism.
>>80786433
Envy is a human characteristic. You can't uproot it. Capitalism only exacerbates envy and therefore it is sustainable only through a police state.
>>80786723
I reject the premise that housing is a fundamental right. What you're saying there is that if you want a place to live, you should be able to force someone to build you a house, for free, against their will.
That said, I highly doubt the world will ever be without charitable people, who DO act altruistically by intention and provide for the less fortunate off of their own backs.
>>80787030
such a prickly disposition towards your fellow man will not build a functioning society. whatevs your decision.
a) be a contributing member of society
b) be a dick
I think it would be an easy decision.
>>80787091
eh, if you ever see how the bottom half lives you will come around to my point of view.
>>80786837
So managers in that company are not allowed to own shares?
What about the advertising department?
Also why only one share?
If I work harder than the slackers down in the mailroom why shouldn't I be able to own two shares? How come the new guy who doesn't know shit about this business gets the same number of shares as someone whose been working there for twenty years?
Oh and what happens if workers in company A trade their shares with the managers in company B?
Will you send the NKVD round to shoot them for counter-revolutionary activity?
>>80787454
You're the one being a dick because you think you're owed things. If you're poor, it's probably because you've made bad choices in life. Take some responsibility.
>>80787174
it's not about feelings of charity or altruism though mate; it's about duty (in the Kantian sense of the word). As Lenin said “He who does not work shall not eat”, therefore we aren't about giving people house for shits and giggles but based on the mutual relationship between worker and worker's state.
>>80787454
I'm a socialist mate, I just think you're coming across as less Marxist and more rage against the machine.
>>80787174
it is worse than that, there is no free land where you can make your own home.
I would be a okay with paying rent as long as no idle bourgeoisie profited off of it.
>>80787094
>Ayn Rand's family owned a pharmacy in Tsarist Russia and the Soviets still paid for her education.
Did they let her family keep the pharmacy?
No?
Then fuck off.
Oh by the way I could have sworn the Soviet Union was supposed to be "state capitalist" and not actually socialist.....
>>80780197
100%
gas commies
>>80780197
Communism is ideology of envy and hatred.
Search God. Ask for forgivness, get free of guilty. Jesus loves you.
>>80787097
>Capitalism only exacerbates envy and therefore it is sustainable only through a police state.
The worst police states were socialist states.
Besides, Capitalism doesn't ask for any pseudo-revolution of creation. Men being envious is no reason to cave in to their envy.
Look at all the primitive tribes, how they mistreat every single of the savage that rise above his fellows. Even in the tribes being fully collectivist in terms of production, and hence miserable because of no economic calculation, people envy each other based on their looks. Ugly or old women cast spells of dark magic or poison the gorgeous ones.
Envy has no bounds and will never cease as long as you can identify differences. It can only end in the Gnostic extinction of creation in the undifferentiated unity negating any kind of individuation. It doesn't rest on any "objective" level of difference. People in socialist countries are if anything even more envious than in more libertarian lands.
>>80787499
>So managers in that company are not allowed to own shares?
>What about the advertising department?
They work for the organisation, they are entitled to the share.
"Worker" does not mean assembly line only.
>Also why only one share?
Because that is the law.
>If I work harder than the slackers down in the mailroom why shouldn't I be able to own two shares? How come the new guy who doesn't know shit about this business gets the same number of shares as someone whose been working there for twenty years?
Because that is the law.
>Oh and what happens if workers in company A trade their shares with the managers in company B?
Illegal.
>Will you send the NKVD round to shoot them for counter-revolutionary activity?
Well, they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place. You can't just swap shares.
Your complaints mostly seem to be "WELL WHY SHOULD OTHERS GET THE SAME AS ME???". You don't seem to understand that shares =/= pay. You can get paid more than the slackers in the mail room, but you cannot have more shares than them. If you truly do work harder than the slackers in the mail room then you'll be able to take your case to the shareholders and have pay scales adjusted accordingly. If you simply "feel" like you work harder than the slackers in the mail room, but have no proof, then tough luck.
The workers exercise democratic control over the organisation.
>>80787656
Capitalism isn't about duty, at all. You aren't owed anything, and you have to be able offer something, altruistically, to be able to survive.
The relation between "worker and state" you talk about is "Let's take away rich people's money because there's more of us". Just because you and your friend vote to take Bill Gate's wealth doesn't make stealing someone else's money right.
>>80787659
So, you're not okay with other people doing something that's (at worst) harmless with their money? Or, you don't want someone else doing better than you because they worked harder to offer something you couldn't? Talk about entitled...
>>80787499
you're confusing communism with capitalism there, you're taking the ideas of communism to the extreme forgetting the necessary step of socialism
>>80788105
What is your point here mate? I have no idea what I have just read but it seems you're getting mixed up with the "token" system of money and surplus value.
>>80788398
Socialism and communism are rape, capitalism is consensual sex. That's what I'm saying boiled down to the lowest level.
>>80788003
>Men being envious is no reason to cave in to their envy
That's the same unrealistic imposed morality you accuse socialism of.
>>80787612
>If you're poor, it's probably because you've made bad choices in life.
nice meme
The dicks are those who act entitled to the wealth earned from the labor of others. Dickishness is anti-socialness. So a dick is a person who is selfish and the bourgeoisie who hard their ill-gotten wealth are the definition of anti-social.
>>80787656
I gave up on trying to argue for socialism in the construct of bourgeois morality. No more pity-party socialism. The underclass has a feeling of class hatred based on their experience, we should not muzzle that by sentiment in bourgeois moralism. Let the underclass express their hatred and be liberated from having to debate stupid ideals like the NAP.
in the end it comes down to a question of
a) do you believe you have a right to power
b) do you feel that you need to justify your right to power using concepts originating from the oppressing class
no need to feel apologetic, it is pointless to debate ancaps, socialist should concentrate on raising class hatred and liberating the workers from their ideological muzzle.
>>80780197
Same applies to blacks, feminists, leftie hipsters, they want to see the powerful and rich white man down not for opression or whatever but to take what he has and to bring him to the same level
>>80787791
>did George Washington let the British keep the colonies?
>>80781431
literally 'why do you persecute me so'-tier
>>80780197
Pretty much. Have you ever met a communist that was happy and not an anti-social sperg? Me neither.
>>80788635
>earned from the labor of others
You're dividing humans into two groups here, as is the socialist way of doing things. The people who are "workers" and work for somebody, and "problems to be overthrown in the revolution", who are subhuman. This is a fallacy, because the implication is that anybody who makes a profit, say from managing a restaurant, doesn't actually work themselves.
If you're a waiter and run food back and forth, you shouldn't earn as much as the person up to their tits in stress over accounts and managing the people under them.
>>80780197
Pretty much.
>>80788003
Also
>Doesn't like police state
>Has a pic of Pinochet
>>80788032
>because that is the law
legalism is not a valid argument
You know what else is the law?
Not robbing the bourgeoisie, yet I don't see you letting that get in the way of your ideology. So clearly "it's the law" hold no actual weight in your mind.
>Well, they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place. You can't just swap shares.
Why not?
Do they not own their shares?
If their shares are their property why shouldn't they be able to do with them as they please? If their shares are not their property then who exactly owns them?
>>80788635
In addition, you have no right to take the life, liberties, or property away from others. That's murder, tyranny, or theft. All immoral.
>>80788562
aw lawdy, lawdy.
I have work in the morning (surprise a leftist that actually goes to work!!!), but you need to open a book or two rather than relying on memes for knowledge.
>>80788635
Stop with the pseudo-mao shit on the internet lad, you sound rather edgy - put down the RATM album and pick up some Hegel and Kant then read a little on the French Revolution. Acting like a autistic nutter isn't going to "rally the masses" and Dave the plumber from down the road, Ian the factory worker and Jim the mechanic are all going to think you're one big faggot if you carry on this way.
Anyway I'm off.
>>80788626
Even if that was the case, at least we would have freedom and high productivity compared to socialism, which would be reason enough to reject it.
But it's not the case. Envy is inherently malicious. I don't deny that men are fallen and subject to envy. But it isn't anymore legitimate than other evils. Envy will not disappear in this life, but it can at least not be the foundation of society, as it is in socialism.
Look how many people follow the details of the regal lifestyle of celebrities with barely any envy. In fact, envy would be manageable to tame if not for leftist "intellectuals" and the mass media constantly bombarding them with envy filled messages.
>>80788753
George Washington was filthy bourgeoisie capitalist and as a socialist you should be ashamed of yourself for holding his actions up as an example to others.
>>80788227
>So, you're not okay with other people doing something that's (at worst) harmless with their money?
I am. I don't see how I am implied otherwise.
>Or, you don't want someone else doing better than you because they worked harder to offer something you couldn't?
Never implied this. I don't care if comrade vlad gets a nicer sofa than me because he put more time in at the factory to pay for it.
>>80789416
>Socialist
>Not demanding a UBI
Colour me suprised.
I was talking in terms above memes, and had to boil it down because the leftist didn't get it.
Go read some J.S. Mill, or Rand.
>>80789311
>legalism is not a valid argument
You asked why you had to do certain things.
The reason is that if you don't men with guns will come to your house and take you away.
If you want a moral justification then read the Commie Manifesto. The moral reasoning is the same as literally every other form of Communism.
>Why not?
Because it is illegal.
>If their shares are their property why shouldn't they be able to do with them as they please?
Your car is property but you can't ram it into pedestrians. Your land and your house are your property but anything that you build still has to comply with the building codes. Your company and your factory are your property but you still have to put railings on catwalks so people don't fall off.
Ownership is not and has never been the end-all of what you can and can't do.
>>80789383
the bourgeoisie do it too
>>80789644
You don't want people profiting. What do you find wrong about profit?
>>80780197
>has zero fucking idea what communism is
>woo
>is this true, /pol/?
shitposting is against the rules brazil
>>80789819
Only with corporatism. Which is a result of corruption. Which is a result of big government. Which is a result of leftist policies.
>>80780197
Their reasons and feelings don't matter
>>80789598
George Washington violated the NAP and should not be considered a capitalist or someone who respects the property of sovereigns.
>>80789995
corruption arises from private property, it becomes much more difficult to bribe someone with property you actually have to create by your own labor and if you did, you could not bribe them much. but if you are the CEO of a gigantic company that siphons money from thousands of laborers, writing million dollars "donations" just got a lot easier.
>>80789551
>Look how many people follow the details of the regal lifestyle of celebrities with barely any envy
Nope they're larping. Have you noticed how people love to see celebrities get fat, drunk, arrested , even look at their pictures when they are dead? Why is that?
If history has shown anything is that there is always subversion and upheaval. The tide rises and subsides.
>>80789383
boo hoo
>>80790340
Again, the fallacy that every CEO did nothing to get to the position. Some people are smart, and work hard, and they have multi-billion dollar ideas that they can live off of.
And, no, corruption is prevalent and dangerous when the government has too much reach into our lives, and from attempting to create equality of outcome.
>>80789821
your mixing up the idea of profit and income. If you want an income you should work, or there should be a universal basic income. Capitalism is a selective income system that is based on the ability to extract labor from laborers. Which is what socialism seeks to end.
>>80790814
>multi-billion dollar ideas that they can live off of
nice meme, ideas are not physical they have to be labored into reality.
You missed the larger point corruption can only happen in systems of private property. Where individuals can earn vast amounts of wealth.
>>80791087
What does a UBI require?
Taking other people's money to subsidise people who don't want to work.
Why should you have to pay for other people because you're doing better than them? It's usually their fault they're not doing as well, that's their problem.
They aren't owed an income, they have to work for that.
>>80780197
Absolutely true. It's not about building a better system, it's about destroying those who are successful
As technology increases Marx' will eventually get his vision as the false song of globalism is struck down by the voice of the people.
Perhaps you or I wont be able to live to see it but someday our NEET descendants will inherit the earth.
>>80780197
It is.
>I am shitty and therefore I must make the world shittier than I am. - Communism
>>80791314
Ideas are not physical, I agree. But if you have a good one, you're going to work on it yourself or pay people to work on it for you.
>inb4 but you're underpaying them
If they're not happy to work for the money you're offering, they don't have to work for you.
>>80791314
but good ideas and calculations are worth much more than the work of 100 unskilled retards anon
>>80791432
>Taking other people's money to subsidise people who don't want to work.
not at all, automation has created incredible productivity gains that produce the same amount of product and using less labor. So the people are entitled to an income for the time the automation took up. There is no drop in production, so credit the laborers for the production the automation now does.
>>80790136
>NAP
>>80791793
Also this.
While manual labor, let's say serving at a cafe, is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, it isn't exactly difficult. You wouldn't say a waiter has contributed the same to society as Bill Gates.
>>80791830
No, if automation took their jobs, they should adapt. If you can't do anything other than stack dishes, tough shit.
However, I will admittedly agree that once all work is automated, marx-like ideas become more viable - discounting for things that people do themselves. If all the farming is done by self-controlled machines, and no human labor is required, the food should be free. If I build a watch, I'm still entitled to sell it for profit.
>>80791752
>If they're not happy to work for the money you're offering, they don't have to work for you.
true, on the individual case.
But for those without the means of production or some inherited income, they have to sell their labor to SOMEONE. They don't have an option of working on their own account. Socialism is giving everyone regardless of birth a workplace where they can work and have autonomy/democracy at the workplace. the best case scenario in capitalism is having to work for someone else until you collect enough money to buy your own means of production.
>>80791793
you NEED labor. Without it your idea remains an idea.
>>80792066
Take for example the idea of the agriculture machine, it can output hundreds of times more than a single worker and save alot of time and money and also supply huge demands. That's a million dollar idea while the work of 100 farmers may barely produce a few thousands of dollars in a single month.
>>80792387
The prototype of an idea that does the same things as a laborer is likely of much less effort (the invention of a plastic cigarette roller versus manual rolling of a pack for ex) and also will produce a superior amount of raw product, might not be so ethical to leave humans jobless but it brings WAY more value than labor.
>>80785175
Class Consciousness
>>80792380
Marx wouldn't object to you selling a watch you made for profit anyway.
Marx would object to you selling a watch that somebody else made for profit, and then giving the actual maker a minuscule fraction of the sale price.
>>80792066
Would you say the idle rich contribute more than servers at a cafe? Wealth does not indicate usefulness to society.
You forget Bill Gates is also riding on the labor of thousands of employees.
>>80792380
what about the in-between where no work is automated and all work is automated. should a universal basic income not grow along with automation?
>If I build a watch, I'm still entitled to sell it for profit.
if you made it yourself there is no profit, your "profit" is what you valued the labor you put into the watch. sell all your home-made watches nobody cares.
>>80792387
>birth a workplace
Irrelevant. Almost anyone can work hard to achieve an idea, and those that can't won't earn from it.
>they have to sell their labor to SOMEONE
Assuming this is talking about people working for other people, so?
If you can't come up with your own way of creating profit, or aren't given profit through voluntary donation, you aren't suddenly owed compensation.
>have autonomy/democracy at the workplace
And, what about all the rich people who's money you're siphoning away to redistribute? What about their autonomy? What about their liberty to not have their property stolen?
>the best case scenario in capitalism is having to work for someone else until you collect enough money to buy your own means of production
That's perfectly fair. You should have to work until you can afford to pay people to work for you. Sort of like what every entrepreneur that's ended up successful did.
>>80781913
Tengo un Ocelote grande en mis pantelones. !AYUDAME!
>>80792647
Broski, I'm agreeing with you, I'm on the capitalism side here.
>>80793037
Well, the person making that watch is an idiot, then. If you aren't happy with the wage, don't work there. Get smarter and get a better job.
>>80788003
>The worst police states in the world were socialist
Not really. The KGB never even dreamed of the kind of mass surveillance modern Western intelligence agencies are capable of and carry out.
Hell, in the USSR you didn't even have anything like a social security number. You weren't a "number" that could be tracked around the country.
>>80786472
>Cucks are those who work themselves to the bone believing they will one day become rich
You don't become rich, your bloodline becomes rich, you fucking welp.
>parasites on the back of labor
Your labor and time is a product you willing sell to them. They're rich because you're a fool.
>>80792850
leaving people jobless is only unethical in capitalism. in socialism it means people have more time and the same income.
An idea to save labor will save labor if there is labor. If someone becomes a millionaire because of an idea it is because others labor to implement that idea.
billion dollar ideas don't exist. billion dollar idea+labor exist. You cannot value the non-physical.
>>80793497
>If you aren't happy with the wage, don't work there
When Marx was writing, this literally wasn't an option. I remember an anecdote about a serf in Russia who was fined some exorbitant amount of money for collecting kindling for his fire on an aristocrat's property. I don't know how much you know about Russian winter, but the serf needed that kindling to survive.
Marxism is a product of its time. If you don't understand the prevailing conditions in Europe in the early-mid 1800s, there's no wonder why you won't understand Marxism.
>>80793041
>if you made it yourself there is no profit, your "profit" is what you valued the labor you put into the watch
Point taken, agreed.
>Wealth does not indicate usefulness to society.
Not quite what I said. Bill Gates managed to, though his initial idea, hard work (and eventually through his investment) change the entire world with Microsoft. Also, have you ever seen a restaurant manager? Work your way up to that position and tell me they don't work hard.
This idea that "rich" = "lazy" is the mark that marxists haven't ever worked a day in their life.
>should a universal basic income not grow along with automation?
No, because stealing is still wrong, no matter what the state of automation in labor is.
>>80793274
>Irrelevant. Almost anyone can work hard to achieve an idea, and those that can't won't earn from it.
nice meme
>Assuming this is talking about people working for other people, so?
>That's perfectly fair. You should have to work until you can afford to pay people to work for you. Sort of like what every entrepreneur that's ended up successful did.
should the lottery of birth determine who has to sell their labor and who doesn't?
Keep in mind getting wealth gets easier the more wealth you have.
>And, what about all the rich people who's money you're siphoning away to redistribute? What about their autonomy?
they are free to earn an income
>What about their liberty to not have their property stolen?
top spook
>>80793881
>When Marx was writing
Is Marx currently writing? No.
>there's no wonder why you won't understand Marxism.
And, I do, but by that argument, why are you still a marxists? Clearly it's passed it's use-by date, even if it was a horrible idea.
>>80793922
rich does not necessarily mean wealthy, but you can't use the cases of the wealthy who earned wealth to justify the existence of the idle wealthy.
>No, because stealing is still wrong, no matter what the state of automation in labor is.
I don't think robo-worker #2000 minds
nah
from my experience, commies are just extremely full of themselves. they genuinely believe that the unwashed proles and stupid masses are simply too dumb to know what's best for them or live in harmony, so they need a strong intellectual elite that guides and governs them, and runs everything for them.
>society is not perfect!
>problems exist!
>if we could just give all the power to a group of people who are super righteous and extremely qualified, then they could use that power to fix all the problems and create a perfect society from scratch!
>>80794243
>>80793922
*rich does not necessarily mean LAZY, but you can't use the cases of the wealthy who earned wealth to justify the existence of the idle wealthy.
>>80794309
>they genuinely believe that the unwashed proles and stupid masses are simply too dumb to know what's best for them or live in harmony
this is fascism, that is why it requires a 'strong man' as a leader.
>>80781431
Succinct.
>>80793405
I know bby, I was just expanding on what I said x
>>80793695
And I can only put that on the stupidity and desperation of the laborers that won't reject shit prices for the labor, but you also have to realize that labor is much more common and easily produced than solid ideas such as antidote for opioid overdose (I doubt labor will do anything there lol) labor to apply an idea is easier to reach than an idea that needs labor, thus idea is of more value
>>80794243
robo worker #2000 isnt the one whose money is being stolen. his owners are, and they certainly do mind.
>>80793997
>nice meme
Dismissing the truth as a meme is intellectually dishonest. Those who do not work, do not eat.
>should the lottery of birth determine who has to sell their labor and who doesn't?
In the first world, birth has no impact on your ability to work, unless you're physically unable to. In which case, you have a family that can take care of you.
>they are free to earn an income
They worked before, and are collecting the return from their work.
>top spook
How would you feel if two people and you voted 2-1 that they're allowed to rob your house, and take all your tendies? That seem fair to you?
>>80787097
Found the syriza voter.
DAILY REMINDER: COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM ARE LITERALLY THE DIRECT CREATION OF SATAN THAT WILL ENABLE HIM TO IMPLEMENT HIS GLOBAL FASCIST GOVERNMENT.
>>80794542
robo worker #2000 is literally the laborer.
>>80785868
I know, capitalists are also parasites. National Socialism is the only solution to parasitic Capitalism and Communism.
>>80794155
>Is Marx currently writing? No.
You say this as if you've made some triumphal remark that has put paid to all argument.
What do you expect me to say? No, Marx is not still writing. Marx stopped writing a long time ago. Do you feel satisfied now? Is your autism soothed?
>And, I do, but by that argument, why are you still a marxists?
Why are you still a capitalist? Hume and Smith were around at about the same time. The Elizabethan era ended in the early 1600s, even, if you want to go as far as saying that the integrated mercantilism of the time was a form of proto-capitalism.
Marx's complaints about the fundamental unfairness of capitalists systems are still true, even though that unfairness is expressed in different ways today. The divide between rich and poor is starker today than it has ever been, but industrialisation has brought bread and circuses to the masses in a way that nobody save the barest few savants could have predicted.
>>80794420
what i described is the exact mindset that most commies have. do you think that when they envision their glorious soviet utopia, they think of themselves as a random worker in a tractor factory? no, they always think of themselves in some 'intellectual' position of influence and power.
fascism is mainly a particularly aggressive and militaristic form of old-fashioned nationalism. fascism has no intentions of eradicating and abolishing all aspects of traditional society in order to replace them with some utopian wonder society conceived by a bunch of academics. fascism usually does the exact opposite - try to preserve traditional society and uphold the natural order that it is built upon.
>>80785175
Needing wealth does not create it. Taking wealth from the wealth creators and giving to to the wealth needers will exterminate the population of wealth producers, leaving only the population of the needy behind.
>>80794593
Go buy some more Liakopoulos.
>>80794663
robo worker #2000 is a fucking machine. it's nothing but a sophisticated tool, not a person.
>>80794771
keep being a tease and imma migrate for that cute white ass!
>>80794329
>wat
Okay, I'm gonna try to interpret this shitshow of a sentence.
What I think you're saying is "You can't use the cases of people who worked for wealth to justify the people who worked until they could pay people to work"
Uhm... Yeah, you can. People who are still working for others either don't want to work hard enough to pay other to work for them, or are quite happy working for others and don't want to push further. Nothing wrong with that.
And that discounts those who earn a lot while still working a vast amount - highly skilled doctors, programmers, engineers or investors.
>>80794550
>They worked before, and are collecting the return from their work.
as are the workers when they revolt and seize the means of production.
>In the first world, birth has no impact on your ability to work, unless you're physically unable to. In which case, you have a family that can take care of you.
I am talking about the cases where you don't even have to work because you were born wealthy. Is it fair for those people to not labor while others are forced to labor?
you answer probably depends on class lines or how much capitalist propaganda you have swallowed. If you are class conscious and poor you will tend to say, that is not fair.
>Those who do not work, do not eat.
#richkidsofinstagram
>How would you feel if two people and you voted 2-1 that they're allowed to rob your house, and take all your tendies? That seem fair to you?
pretty fucking shitty, but am I going to pray to Mises and he will descend and implement Misean justice?
That case is ridiculous. You can construct ridiculous cases of anything.
What if the entire world was owned by one man and you had to suck his dick or his son's dick every month so you would not get shot for trespassing?
>>80794934
>Do you feel satisfied now?
10/10 satisfactions
>Why are you still a capitalist?
Because I'm not entitled, and because capitalism works.
>>80795412
<3<3<3
>>80795628
Okay.
>>80795715
hnng you little succubus <3
>>80795624
>What if the entire world was owned by one man and you had to suck his dick or his son's dick every month so you would not get shot for trespassing?
sounds like heaven xd
>>80795160
laborers create wealth dipshit.
>>80795277
A sophisticated tool that labors. anyways patents are bullshit, we are not paying royalties to the estate of the first person who invented the wheel, every time we drive.
>>80795419
You are incorrect. I say you cannot use the cases of the wealthy who earned wealth, to justify the cases of the wealthy who never work(because they were born, being worth millions of dollars)
>>80795624
>as are the workers when they revolt and seize the means of production.
The difference between profiting from work and revolution is that the works didn't actually do anything to deserve taking their bosses money away.
>Is it fair for those people to not labor while others are forced to labor?
It's just, not fair. Nobody said capitalism was fair. Aiming to be fair just holds everyone back.
Those people will have to work, or be smart eventually. Blue collar to blue collar in 3 generations, or whatever the saying is.
>#richkidsofinstagram
Actually, Lenin said that. As did the bible. As did John Smith.
>pretty fucking shitty
How do you think the boss feels when his workers take over his business to take away his (rightfully earned) profits?
>What if the entire world was owned by one man
What's this even meant to be an analogy for? Or are you writing about your sexual fantasies again?
>>80796177
>who never work
People in that situation are under no obligation to work. They've inherited the money through altruism. Are you saying we should take their money away? That's theft.
That said, those who inherit money or gain it and aren't smart tend to lose it. Look at all the lottery winners who go bankrupt.
>>80796426
>The difference between profiting from work and revolution is that the works didn't actually do anything to deserve taking their bosses money away.
labor of the worker is what sustains the bourgeoisie.
>It's just, not fair. Nobody said capitalism was fair. Aiming to be fair just holds everyone back.
nobody said socialism meets the bourgeois definition of fair. so the point is moot.
the #richkidsofinstagram means that capitalist society allows those who don't work to eat.
>How do you think the boss feels when his workers take over his business to take away his (rightfully earned) profits?
pretty fucking buttmad, but his class interests collide with mine. Having to work is not a huge burden billions of people do it everyday.
the case of the one man owning the world means that in any political system you can construct a case that fuck people over. Private property allows for such a case to exist.
>>80797196
you avoided my reply, I'm glad you could acknowledge your loss senpai
>>80796823
>Are you saying we should take their money away? That's theft.
Well, if you want to create a world where only those who work get to eat, then you have to steal it.
>>80797196
>labor of the worker is what sustains the bourgeoisie.
Again, the fallacy that "bosses don't do any work".
>capitalist society allows those who don't work to eat.
wat. The only way you're wealthy without working is either:
1. You inherited your money and are spending it
2. You're a kid
>class interests collide with mine
So, you think your interests trump his?
>Having to work is not a huge
That same fallacy that marxists cling to.
>Private property allows for such a case to exist.
If you've managed to, some how, buy the entire fucking earth (including convincing people to sell all their land*), you deserve all the blowjobs you as for.
*because remember, capitalism requires consentual transactions.
>>80797528
>then you have to steal it.
Or, those people who are stealing should go to work and earn their way in the world, instead of leeching off everyone else.
>>80797528
You really are fucked in the head, aren't you?
>>80781431
Mostly correct
>>80797909
He's a marxist, so, yes, he is.
>>80793318
Kek fagget
>>80797322
He's probably angry that his worldview doesn't involve private property, since he can't own this ass ;D
>>80797836
>instead of leeching off everyone else.
That's what the bourgeoisie does, m8
>>80780197
>everyone that holds a different opinion than me is a loser
>>80798286
Not sure if marxist, troll, or incapable of reading.
>>80798108
lmao
>winking at me
you're really asking for it anon
>>80798286
How so? In a free market economy, how are the rich leeching off of the bottom class and/or middle class?
>>80797708
>Again, the fallacy that "bosses don't do any work".
I didn't say that.
Fact is without laborers the bourgeoisie have much less wealth. If that wasn't the case people with "million dollar ideas" wouldn't have to hire employees.
>wat. The only way you're wealthy without working is either:
>1. You inherited your money and are spending it
>2. You're a kid
and capitalism supports both, don't you have an issue with at least one of those cases where an able bodied person doesn't have to work?
>That same fallacy that marxists cling to.
which fallacy? your greentext cutoff in mid-sentence.
>So, you think your interests trump his?
you think his interest trumps mine?
>If you've managed to, some how, buy the entire fucking earth (including convincing people to sell all their land*), you deserve all the blowjobs you as for.
>*because remember, capitalism requires consentual transactions.
do the unborn also deserve to be born into blowjob-slavery?
>>80797836
>>80797909
That anon states that in capitalism you have to work to eat. I showed him a case where that is not true. To make it true he would have to violate the NAP.
Do you see how it is not true that in capitalism you have to work to eat.
Capitalism does not even meet the bourgeois standards of "fair."
The anon has basically admitted a birth lottery is a legitimate source of wealth in a capitalist system.
>>80780197
yes
also, question, are any countries in south america ever going to be safe enough to travel to without a gun?
>>80798738
You can come over here without a gun, you just need a good guide or relatives over here
>>80798892
Hola e*****o :^)
>>80798761
i'll have to beat that fine bubble butt 30 times according to sharia law for being such a thot, not with a whip tho
>>80798681
>Do you see how it is not true that in capitalism you have to work to eat.
How do you think rich people keep rich? They invest, and they have to invest carefully (unless they want to become poor).
We don't all start at the same place, but where we end up in life has a large amount to do with our decisions regarding the resources we have.
>>80799099
>t. Texas Based Man
>>80798681
The fallacy is that working for people, and those people making a profit, is inherently bad. If the bosses don't profit, then the business doesn't get anywhere and then you don't have technological advances.
>don't you have an issue with at least one of those cases where an able bodied person doesn't have to work?
People don't have to work if they don't want to, or don't need to. If they starve as a result of that, so be it.
>you think his interest trumps mine?
If he gets to profit, then the business grows, and you might get a raise from all the hard work you've done. If he doesn't, then we're not going anywhere. Hence why socialist countries all fall apart over time.
>I showed him a case where that is not true
Except you didn't. I'll accept that the "no work, no eat" idea doesn't account for inheriting money, but there's nothing about inheritance that violates the NAP.
And again, if you're dumb with the money you inherited, you'll lose it. If you don't find a way to make it into more money (eg, working), you'll run out eventually.
>>80799211
>They invest, and they have to invest carefully (unless they want to become poor).
not always, TRUSTFUNDS
>We don't all start at the same place, but where we end up in life has a large amount to do with our decisions regarding the resources we have.
true, but do realize it is incredibly easy for the wealthy to become wealthier, and incredibly hard for the poor to become wealthy.
You should not base the validity of a system on if it serves a small minority, you have to take into account the vast majority who are not wealthy. A small percentage of poor kids becoming rich does not justify the misery of the majority.
>>80795628
>capitalism works.
wew
>>80799104
Why not with a whip~?
Just, don't throw me off a building. That'd suck.
That'd suck more than I do~ ;3
>>80785592
That's just the lies they tell until they consolidate everything.
>>80799712
>North Korea
Clearly a well-functioning economy
>Venezuela
Clearly a well-functioning economy
>USSR
Clearly a well-functioning economy
>Cuba
Getting better because they're being less Commie
>USA
Tried to go full capitalist, made all the cool stuff.
>>80799777
Whip is gonna come later, gotta get you started with something more tender and thick first
It's going to hurt and choke you either way :3
Check'd, this has been fun tease-chan, you're lots of fun and satisfaction ;) Night xx
>>80799682
>but do realize it is incredibly easy for the wealthy to become wealthier,
That's not always necessarily true. In free markets, investors (those with large amounts of money) tend to make large investments, which can (unfortunately) easily put them in poverty. As for it being harder for the poor to become rich, that again has largely to do with the decisions they make as well as the fact that they have to provide enough value to rise from where they are (Financially, that is)
>You should not base the validity of a system on if it serves a small minority, you have to take into account the vast majority who are not wealthy. A small percentage of poor kids becoming rich does not justify the misery of the majority.
First of all, what misery? And 2nd, if that's not what it should be based on, then what? The breadlines in Venenzuela?
>>80799525
>If the bosses don't profit, then the business doesn't get anywhere and then you don't have technological advances.
technological advances are a result of where surplus labor goes. Apple would rather send that to make the iphone 20, but the laborers in china would probably like it to be spent of research on automating their jobs or a cure for carpal tunnel.
Socialism directly empowers laborers to control their surplus labor. instead of it being had to a small group of elites.
>People don't have to work if they don't want to, or don't need to. If they starve as a result of that, so be it.
so you are okay with people getting a universal basic income without putting in labor, that is great!
>If he gets to profit, then the business grows, and you might get a raise from all the hard work you've done. If he doesn't, then we're not going anywhere. Hence why socialist countries all fall apart over time.
I think class conscious workers might prefer to have autonomy over their own labor rather than hand surplus value to the bourgeoisie.
>but there's nothing about inheritance that violates the NAP.
If you want a world where only those who work, get to eat, it has to be a world without inheritance. Right? and the only way to have a world without inheritance is to take away inheritances from people, this violates the NAP. Right?
>And again, if you're dumb with the money you inherited, you'll lose it
maybe your descendants will have to work. If you are an average intelligence and you inherit a billion dollars, you can probably live your entire life without having to work.
so don't state what i greentexted as a fact. It simply isn't true. And if it was it does not just capitalism.
>>80800193
All coutries who have been targeted by america economically or militarily.
>>80800948
Those countries also targeted America as well, (with the exception of Venezuela)
/pol/fags aren't class conscience because they've never held a job for more than a month or two. Simple as that.
>>80800389
Night, babe~<3
>>80800471
>That's not always necessarily true.
but it usually is. I can't go to silicon valley and fund a start-up with 20k. They will laugh me out of the office. But the wealth can hand 2 million to XXX Venture Capital inc. and get access to start-up equity without having to lift a finger. The best I can hope for (with my 20k) is to hire a brilliant nerd and rent a studio apartment for a couple of moths, in the hope he does something brilliant.
>First of all, what misery?
low pay, low benefits, shit conditions, no job security.
>And 2nd, if that's not what it should be based on, then what?
the well being of the majority
>>80800948
fyi
>>80801206
Night delicious <3
>>80800193
I hardly see anything "made in usa"
Except hollywood and , if I had access, military hardware.
>>80780197
Why do you think it is championed by the Jews so much? Why do you think it's intellectuals and intelligentsia all become aristocrats in their own nations?
>>80800193
>north korea
a monarchy
>venezuela
nationalizing oil doesn't equal communism m8
>USSR
went into space, destroy nazi germany and turned a backwards monarchy into a superpower rivalling the united states within a few decades
>cuba
getting shit because they're being less commie
>USA
one step away from being a shitty police state
>>80801479
Soviet Union did more to oppose Zionism that Nazism did.
Doesn't seem like the actions of a Jew controlled nation.
>>80801888
trips don't lie
good night, enjoy this chocolate honey
>>80799104
>>80799777
pls, come on u gays, this is a family board... i think you actually mistyped whorechan.org
>>80801326
> I'll be laughed out of the office
Because that's not at all enough money to achieve something of their caliber, if this was the '90s you'd have a better chance, but then again that's a different story for another day.
>But the wealth can hand 2 million to XXX Venture Capital inc. and get access to start-up equity without having to lift a finger.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be successful, it still has large chances to fail, which again can be disastrous.
> low pay, low benefits, shit conditions, no job security
Most people don't have to deal with such conditions.
>the well being of the majority
And socialist countries have failed to maintain that, time and time again.
>>80802113
Erm... Thanks for the nigger though. I guess.
>>80801840
You're one of those delusional faggots, aren't you?
>>80800675
>technological advances are a result of where surplus labor goes
And the people working assembly lines aren't going to design PCBs or write software. You get paid according to how hard you work, and how difficult your job is.
>Socialism directly empowers laborers to control their surplus labor. instead of it being had to a small group of elites.
And how are they going to do that? Make an all powerful government that can forcibly take over the means of production. What does that involve? A "small" group of elites. As it always has done when tried in the real world.
>so you are okay with people getting a universal basic income without putting in labor
Again, wat.
People don't have to work if the don't want to. Since they aren't working, they aren't earning, and will rightfully starve.
If they have money to spare (IE, don't need to work because they inherited a lump-sum), they can live off that until the money pile runs low.
Nowhere in that statement did I advocate for UBI.
>surplus value to the bourgeoisie
If they're not happy with their wages, they can ask for a raise. if they don't get one, they can quit. If you're stacking dishes, maybe you don't deserve £50/h.
>If you want a world where only those who work, get to eat
I already conceded that "work or eat" doesn't account for inheritance. And, consistent with the NAP, the right of people to do what they like with their property is maintained, so "work or eat" becomes "work or eat or inherit". However, those who inherit will have to work eventually.
>you can probably live your entire life without having to work.
That's not true for most lottery winners, they get caught up and spunk the cash and go broke. This effect seems to increase with the amount of money they win. I don't see why it would differ with inheritance. If you're dumb, you'll lose it. If you're smart, you'll start a business and might profit, or you'll invest.
>>80780197
>lust for revenge
Who?
>>80801432
While I agree that not a vast amount of produce is manufactured in the US, this is because people elsewhere are willing to work for less.
Also, as far as I'm aware, NK hasn't got a booming tech industry or, any industry for that matter. Do you think that it might be because communism?
>>80781431
>It's literally the Beta Uprising
Indeed
>>80802600
NK is a little retarded monarchy that follows the juche ideology
they haven't been communist since the 90s
>>80801840
>a monarchy
An elite ruling class is the result of communism
>nationalizing oil doesn't equal communism m8
I'll agree with that, but they did self-profess to be socialists. And then it was now, and their country sucks.
>went into space, destroy nazi germany
The bad things the USSR did outweighs the good things they did.
>getting shit because they're being less commie
Delusional
>one step away from being a shitty police state
Because of big government, a leftists idea.
>>80802873
Point taken, but after some googling, Juche is a form of socialism. So, good job, leaf.
>>80802324
>You get paid according to how hard you work, and how difficult your job is.
that's a half truth.
also, if you have a car.... do you know how many people laboured over that overseas? for your magical vehicle that takes you 100 miles with just pushing a pedal and filling it with a tank of magic stuff?
yeah baby, you deserve ALL that due to your contribution to humanity curing cancer....
don't you ever think that slave labour overseas had anything to do with it, because that is an uncomfortable thought.
your magic cellphone, you also deserve it, from the children mining the stuff its made off to the stressed/suicidal asians who make it...
it's all peachy goody good capitalism magic hand of market that christ himself wrote in the bible
>>80802873
> The Juche ideology
> They haven't been communist
Maybe you can explain more but that's like saying Leninism isn't communism.
Yes.
>>80803251
I agree, we should go back to the stone age
>>80803251
I agree that people's working conditions overseas are bad. But they also have jobs now, they aren't going to starve to death. If charitable people want to go an fix poverty, they can do. And, what makes you think I think that I deserve stuff? Everything I've said so far has suggested otherwise.
>>80780197
Nah its no different from nazism or capitalism at the core. Same struggle for power only with different label. All you just listed is just cosmetics.
>>80802938
>big government a leftist idea
take steven crowder's dick out of your mouth for a second and read some books about different ideologies
>>80803251
>do you know how many people laboured over that overseas? for your magical vehicle that takes you 100 miles with just pushing a pedal and filling it with a tank of magic stuff?
No shit retard. People work to make shit, cars are complicated. Automization and all that good shit, what's your point?
>yeah baby, you deserve ALL that due to your contribution to humanity curing cancer....
What the fuck are you going on about?
>don't you ever think that slave labour overseas had anything to do with it, because that is an uncomfortable thought.
Yeah, slavery is unfortunate. Not much I can do but avoid buying products that were produced with the use of slave labor. It's hard to do, but if it's a cause that someone genuinely believes in then it's possible.
>your magic cellphone, you also deserve it, from the children mining the stuff its made off to the stressed/suicidal asians who make it...
Sad shit, maybe if we didn't have a minimum wage our productions wouldn't be passed on to those people.... Hmm, really makes you think.
>it's all peachy goody good capitalism magic hand of market that christ himself wrote in the bible
Nah, it's all grape flavored evil communism real leg of the breadline that marx himself wrote in his manifesto.
What the fuck was any of what you wrote?
>>80780197
Communism is a misguided overreaction to the imbalance of power enabled by capitalism.
>>80782180
Is this even proper Spanish ?
>>80803829
I'll have you know I do actually read around. I've just found everything else has left me wanting.
Well, it's a logical conclusion. If you want to initiate force against a business, it's easiest to use the government as a club with which to beat your boss, and by granting it lots of power (making it big), the club is more effective.
Also, no, tasty dick is tasty.
>>80803437
I translate that as, yeah , "I like being privileged beyond my contribution to the world, like any sentient being without a sense of morality, so lets keep it that way"
And I think my reading of your answer was "sophisticated" beyond what it deserved.
But yeah, that's it. "FUCK THEM" is the worlds motto since year 0. Just don't pretend otherwise on an anonymous forum is what I say.
>>80803832
>minimum wage our productions wouldn't be passed on to those people
I've actually not considered manufacturing flight as a result of the minimum wage. Care to redpill me further on this?
>>80803251
Take a look at China during Mao's "great leap forward" and then look at it now. Look at North and South Korea.
Whatever you excuse capitalism of, the commies already did worse. Yet somehow capitalism is bad, because it doesn't improve the quality of life of people in Asia at the rate your magic utopian communist system would.
>>80780197
As a communist, I'd say this is mostly accurate if extremely uncharitable.
I am motivated by rational self interest, as much as any other human being. I want communism because I will never succeed under capitalism, or if I do, it will either be by luck or by doing something I don't want to do. Altruism is ideological and doesn't exist in the real world - it's probably the only thing communists agree with Ayn Rand about.
However, that doesn't mean I am only motivated by my own personal stake. I am also motivated by the empathy I feel for people in a similar position as myself, which is something known as "class consciousness". Communism is what is best for me, but also what is best for everyone I personally know and everyone I interact with on a daily basis. It's not altruism, because obviously I only want to help them because their suffering makes me feel bad, but to it's not like the entire point of communism is to get revenge on people that personally harmed me.
It's the exact same thing motivated the mercantile class when they revolted against the aristocracy. They were jealous of the kings and lords and dukes that never worked for any of their wealth, while they had to barter and trade for every coin. They hated the way their lives were going and they hated the "natural" system of kings and queens. They hated that every other merchant and all of their families were in a similar position.
They revolted and established capitalism, and now everyone thinks that capitalism is natural instead of feudalism. They were right to do so and communists will be right to do so again. It's not "revenge" against nature - it IS human nature.
>>80804470
*accuse
I want /leftypol/ to fuck off.
>>80804310
Well, it's simple. Say you're a business: UK FLAG POSTS. And you just make posts or some shit like that, and you have competition called AUSTRALIAN FLAG SHITPOSTS. You have to provide a better product.
But you're posed with a fairly bad problem, there's a minimum wage of 7.25.... Your workers don't provide that much value to justify them getting paid $7.25 an hour, and so you have two options: Robots or moving your productions overseas. You decide to move your business to IRELAND, where laws regarding labor are a lot more lax and you can pay your workers at a rate at which you believe to be fair.
Some people have invested in automation, others have instead moved their productions overseas where the cost of doing business is cheaper.
>>80804470
NK is a monarchy as i said
and most commies think mao's ideas were executed poorly
>>80804510
so you want a safespace ?
>>80804470
Yup.
Just like how democracy is terrible, but is still better than everything else we've come up with.
Today, western capitalist democracies have given us the highest standard of living for all people, since the beginning of time. Mull on that, communists.
Who have the money have the power.
End of story.
>>80804784
Actually, Democracy is shit tier senpai and tend to easily commit suicide.
>>80803832
I think (hope) you know what I mean.
I will not go on and on with this. Time to chill. You think it over if you want. Me too.
>>80804651
>and most commies think mao's ideas were executed poorly
Tell me how his ideas would have been executed perfectly then.
How do you perfectly abolish private property, collectivize the entire country, get rid of "bourgeoise" culture and replace it with marxism, and establish a dictatorship of a small bureaucrat class with an ideological leader, a great chairman, that is elected by no one and accountable to no one?
>>80804744
>hurr /pol/ is not your safe space you right-wing fascist bigot
Every fucking time, you throw that stone out of your glass fucking house.
Communism is a toxic ideology and should be scoured from this planet. Deal with it.
>>80804481
+1
not that I agree , just that it's a good post.
>>80805635
People say Hitler killed a lot of people.
Marx and his terrible fucking ideas have managed to kill several times more than Hitler did.
>>80805635
>/pol/ - Politically Incorrect
That's the board title. There's nothing there that indicates every poster here should have to subscribe to your worldview.
>>80781431
Well done, leaf.
>>80806017
>it's Marx's fault!!111!
So is Mark or Matthew or Luke responsible for the Crusades?
>>80806017
>>80805635
have either of you read marx ?
>>80806366
Once. It wasn't that great. 1/10.
>>80806352
The crusades were reactions to muslim invasion. I blame Muhammad.
>>80806724
what exactly did you read ?
>>80806916
The Communist Manifesto. Figured that was a good place to start. Realised it was also a good place to stop.
>>80807064
>manifesto
read capital the manifesto is just a glorified pamphlet
>>80806366
He's got a lot of books.
I read the manifesto.
Who's got time to read Das Kapital when you're working all day to pay rent.
But I'm sure I'll get rich if I invent something or work really really hard.... or something like that... right?
That's what they tell me anyways.
