How do you explain to college marxists how retarded they are? They dont fucking listen.
I mean like, srsly? Power to the people? People are fucking retarded AND evil.
How can anyone who knows a little about history, i mean HS level, not realize it doesnt work?
>>1320635
I'd take 20 Stalins over 1 college marxist desu.
>>1320641
Same
As far as i know, the guy robbed banks to get money for the cause, at least he moved his fucking ass, the only thing college marxists do is smoke weed and cry about their shitty lifes.
>>1320635
tfw I live in post-soviet baltic state and everyone I know fucking hates marxism. So yeah, at least we dont suffer from radical college left... yet.
>>1320635
Explain to me what the problem with communism is then.
>>1320635
Oh man they amount of kids I saw with a che Guevara T-shirt in college was ridiculous.
>>1321315
It threats the rich who create a jobs for everyone and struggle to show society the way of prosperity.
>>1321315
get out
>>1321315
They are making noise bitching about "da system" while im just trying to live a quiet and calm life.
>>1321318
i used to go to a uni that had che guevara's face spray painted on every fucking floor and wall.
>>1321321
How do the rich create jobs? Most of the time it seems that they are trying to destroy jobs by automating labor and laying off massive amounts of their employees.
>>1321315
It deprives society of motivation. Why put effort into stuff if you DESERVE to get shit for free. This is why every socialist state is full of degenerates.
>>1321343
Since when is Communism supposed to be about free shit?
I thought Communism was about keeping what you create.
>>1321343
But communism doesn't in word say that you get shit for free, that is like the American made up version of communism.
Karl Marx demanded that the workers have access to all the means of production because he saw workers being exploited in big factories, selling their labour for next to nothing.
He wanted the workers to unite and take control of the factories basically. That is the historical source of communism.
>>1321315
Promises plenty and rewards you with starvation
>>1321343
> Why put effort into stuff
Because there is more then life than consumption. Why do you thing people creating pictures of Pepe and share them, for example?
>>1321361
I could say the same for capitalism. Look at the Irish potato famine for christ sake.
>>1321331
> How do the rich create jobs?
By paying you to work. By analyzing a market and even creating new services and goods from fucking scratch. By taking risks or investing money. They are the one who made economics gears truly spin.
>>1321315
It needs to directly kill people in order for any society to accept it.
>>1321369
Anything a rich man does could be done democratically by his workers.
The boss is superfluous.
>>1321389
I'm not even a Communist but that's every fucking ideology ever.
>>1321369
But by analyzing market trends and making investments in our modern day, most "job-creators" will see the value in replacing the laborer entirely.
Look at trucking for example. In the U.S. 3.5 million people haul freight cross country, driving their truck. With the technology for self driving cars improving, will not the leaders of this industry desire to invest and use this technology? After all the self-driving cars are more cautious about their driving, they don't violate traffic laws, and they don't need sleep, food, or even wages. So would it not behoove the bosses to replace their workforce of 3.5 million people who are all capable of human error? Is it not more profitable to layoff those 3.5 million?
>>1321363
Most people do not care about art.
>>1321354
Great, so you admit you dont know shit about communism? What you said is fucking opposite of communism.
>>1321358
>American made up version of communism.
Another basement commie who thinks socialism and communism is the same thing.
What youre describing is socialism by Marx, communism by Lenin imagined living in society where theres no such think as private property. True communism is when people are free to take what they need as long as they take bare minimum to survive. But thats not hos people work, is it anon?
>>1321363
You need resources of time, internet and electricity to post pepes. Art can also be seen as a waste of resources if it doesnt serve any common goal.
>>1321398
just how much Marx have you read?
>>1321391
lol
>>1321402
Holy autism
>>1321391
No. There is reason people are rich. It reminds us we could be them someday if we continue being a hardworking and productive piece of national economy.
Would you care about your job if you knew there was absolutely no chance of promotion? Thats how socialism works.
>>1321422
>Holy autism
Thats literraly how soviet union worked. They put artists to gulags en masse because it was not seen as real job.
>>1321425
>It reminds us we could be them someday if we continue being a hardworking and productive piece of national economy.
are you memeing
>>1321433
>are you memeing
Thank you
>>1321425
yes the rich truly pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work hard for all the money they inherit
>people in 2016 STILL think communism opposes automated labor
>>1321442
There are people who still believes communism do not give rise to blue collar unemployment even if it "approves" automated labor
>>1321459
Dey took er jebs!!!11
>>1321459
> unemployment
> being bad
Let's pretend to work 40 hours a weak instead by shifting papers from one department to another!
>>1321441
Why is it wrong to inherit money?
The 1% most imvest their money to keep being the 1% they prolly just dont wank around
>>1321398
>The idiocy in this post
Are you trolling or are you for real?
>>1321315
It takes more value than it gives back
>>1321470
>Communism makes people lazy and Capitalism makes people work hard
>What's wrong with a small handful of the globe inheriting the majority of its wealth
The mind of a capitalist shill, revealed.
>>1321470
Inherited money is money that you stole from your dead parents.
>>1321366
-___-
>ice cream melts in sun
>communism
>>1321363
>according to me
Another issue with gommunsim, I decide whats there to my life
>>1321486
We are not saying its good, but did you know opening a new business was a crime in soviet union? Most people were literraly stuck in the job their parents did, as it was a national policy.
>>1321495
>famines are only natural in capitalist economies
>everywhere else it's malicious and designed to kill people
>>1321494
I'm not sure we have the same definition of theft.
>>1321500
Yeah except Capitalism forces you to adopt a narrow definition of "freedom" through cultural hegemony.
I love seeing posts defending capitalism that are pure ideology. Really makes me *sniff* and so on.
>>1320635
Sounds like anarchism is the thing for you senpai.
>>1321486
>a few inherit and could become lazy
>the masses get entitled to money and could become lazy
>both are the same scenarios
the mind of a commie shill revealed
>>1321500
And nobody would stop you under communism, in capitalistic society it would be work to not die and for profits of rich minority.
>>1321394
Yes, you dont have a "right" to have a job, its not a natural right that everyone should have jobs, jobs exist because a employer needs someone to do things and pays X amount which the individual can accept or deny.
New jobs get created all the time, somr one has to build these machines riite?
>>1321510
>implying I'm pro-soviet.
By Brezhnev the Soviet Union was an utterly conservative society.
>>1321366
That was a natural disaster, not bad economic policy.
>>1321520
> become lazy
Laziness is literally people nature.
>>1321520
The entire point of communism is to create a society without money.
The mind of PURE IDEOLOGY revealed
>>1321529
So was Holodomor :^)
>>1321526
There's something very funny about the fact that an Internationalist ultra leftist project like the USSR became a symbol for conservative Russian nationalists.
My issue is that so far there has never been a point where they crossed the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned socialism into communism.
>Next time we surely won't turn into an autocratic shithole guys. I swear!
>>1321520
>could become lazy
Being born rich essentially guarantees an easier course in life to being poor. Sometimes I feel embarrassed that I had my parents help cover my tuition in college because other people, less well off than me, had to pay for it fully. My friend works absurd hours to pay his rent and tuition, his grades suffer because of it, but my unpaid internships make me look more employable than he is even though I know he has a better work ethic.
>>1321531
If that were so then we'd still be lazing around in the woods with spears.
Okay, I've had enough cancer for today. Good night edgy 15yo pseudo communists.
>>1321529
So the landowners selling the few remaining potatoes for a higher price overseas, instead of to the starving Irish, all with the state's permission wasn't in any way an economic policy?
>>1321531
And so is envy. Envy is what drives us to create value so we can be richer than our neighbors in a capitalist society.
>>1321539
Yeah, it's hilarious.
>>1321545
>le if you buy things you are a hypocrite
I'm not even a Communist but this is some shit-tier logic. No Communist ever advocated for removing yourself entirely from society and living in a cabin somewhere. Is a soldier a hypocrite if he uses an enemy weapon?
>>1321486
70op here , people work hard so they can give money to their offsprings, is that so hard to understand?
I understand that communists dont have love in their life, but good god...
Thats not even a argument youre making
>>1321545
Shouldn't that be the "I Love Capitalism" pack?
>>1321551
>Capitalism is good because it runs off of the negative elements in humanity
Fucking porky get out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>1321494
What if the parents send the money and write every property to you?
>not understanding law
Youre so retarded its incredible
>>1321544
It is more lazy to settle down with agriculture than spare your energy for hunting and gathering.
>>1321555
>The business owners work harder than migrant laborers and sweat shop workers meme
>>1321511
Capitalism has reduced famines in the last time.
It got never really better with the commis.
>>1321559
>as if positive elements in humanity are as natural as the negative ones
that's where leftie ideologies fail
>>1321566
Farming is a lot more labor intensive and time consuming then hunting and gathering.
>>1321559
Envy per second isn't bad. Its bad when it leads to destructive rather than constructive behavior. Envy is channeled through a system of property rights to a social gain.
>>1321551
Envy drives egalitarian ideas too, so it wasn't really capitalistic.
>>1321568
No, but he has more knowledge and experience with busyness keeping which costs a lot to put into a person.
>>1321566
no because it demands planning, anything but a lazy person are prone to do that
>>1321531
Seriously, we'll take any opportunity for it regardless of the musings of armchair ideologists.
I want to root myself firmly way the fuck away from this communism-capitalism dichotomy. It's retarded that they're polar opposites when one is just centralized, economic autocracy and the other is just decentralized aristocracy.
Communists are fucking retarded because they're downing in their own starry eyed vision of what the world has never looked like.
Capitalists are retarded because they don't realize how readily they eat the sloppy shit of aristocrats in the name of "muh jobs" They don't even realize that what they've been fed is along the lines of ideology, because it's a status quo.
Strive to have more nuance than arguing for two stereotyped pieces of bullshit.
>>1321511
No democracy has ever suffered a famine, commies are not fit to run a country, any country.
>>1321573
They are you nigger.
Cooperation is no less a natural instinct then competition.
There's some weird fallacy where people assume that violence and hostility are somehow 'natural' while compassion and the like are not. They're both natural.
>>1321524
These machines are gaining capabilities to learn and create themselves, it isn't out of the question that they would be capable of self-maintenance as well as creating other machines.
So if all work is automated at some point, what is the purpose of having rich people, or poor people? The "poor" can't work to earn wages to buy necessities or luxuries and the "rich" no longer need to exploit the labor of the "poor". Are the "rich" just going to resign the "poor" to starvation or will they intentionally exterminate them?
>>1321563
Then they are your accomplices in crime.
>>1321585
Yes, it's called the third position. And hopefully it will become the future of politics.
>>1320635
If you can't explain it yourself, how do you know they're wrong?
>>1321593
Not that guy, but I'm pretty sure you won't find anything even remotely close to the Great Leap Forward or Holodomor in a democratic society, literally ever.
>>1321583
Lazy person would prefer to made one plan and to follow mindless work instead of gambling on their hunting skills.
>>1321587
they're not
they can be taught at certain level within certain people and within certain frame of culture
that's why moral codes, religious codes and legal codes exist everywhere: to enforce you to do what's unnatural but good
Name me one socialist or communist nation that's been successful
>>1321595
It worked out so well in the thirties kek
>>1321611
inb4 scandi countries, they're a big exception to the rule and are not socialist
>>1321611
Thats some dangerous bait you got goin on there.
>>1321608
Yes, they are. Cooperation and compassion are found in every single society, even the most primitive. They are just as natural as human warlike instincts.
Anyway, there's no such thing as 'unnatural'. 19th century London was no further from nature than some uncontacted Amazonian tribe.
Nasty, brutish, and short is bullshit.
>>1321586
> No democracy has ever suffered a famine,
What is Bengal famine of 1943?
> inb4 true democracy wasn't tried.
>>1321586
>what is the dustbowl
>>1321616
Literally no Communist would claim the Scandi countries as examples of functioning socialism. They tend to get pretty triggered when people call Social Democracy socialism anyway.
>>1321543
Well be thankful and stop being such a cuck, your friend still has it better than the 90% of earth population, this is how the "white hate" started
>>1321620
>Bengal in 1943
>democratic
There is a difference between being the colonial possession of a democratic country and being a democratic country.
>>1321621
You just gave a perfect example of how a democratic country can survive even severe agricultural disruptions without loss of life, with minimal resources.
>>1321619
It is not.
Humans are inherently more prone to do selfish things than good things. 19th century London is way more different than any backwater savage tribe.
Those groups who turn into civilizations learn that law must be enforced either by fear of divine punishment or lawful punishment or both.
Pic very related
>>1321511
In a planned economy, the people who plan the economy are responsible for how the economy plays out, there is a specific target of blame.
In a capitalist/free-market economy, there is nobody "planning" how the economy goes forward except in certain cases in isolated markets. (The housing crisis occurred as a result of how the housing market was operating, not the tools market, even though the tools market was affected.) therefore, economic crashes and downfalls in capitalist countries are not the fault of the ideology or the state, it is the fault of either the bankers, the sellers, or the buyers. You can't blame the Dutch people for not wanting tulips anymore, even though that tanked their economy. In terms of famine, there really isn't an example of famine happening in developed capitalist countries, sorry.
>>1321602
> In communism is work to die
> While receiving shit for free...
>>1321575
But you create food to feed alot of people, you dont hunt to eat meat, you breed animals etc...
>>1321639
Only by employing economic policies that sought the revert the disastrous effects of unrestricted capitalism
>>1321611
China, Russia, United States
>>1321550
Why should landowning potato farmers bear additional losses by selling their crop locally well below market value? Its not their problem; its societies problem.
>>1321651
ebin
>>1321639
> There is a difference
Like difference between real communism and not real that was implemented by mistake, am I right?
>>1321650
You see?
It's almost like having a government that can lose elections, and needs some level of responsiveness is a good thing.
>>1321626
> With strangers this tends not to be the case.
People cooperate with strangers all the time if they have shared interests.
>>1321653
The landowners create and perpetuate the societal problems for the sake of selling their products at market value.
>>1321645
> People died
> Therefore there was no cooperation
It isn't work that way, anon.
>>1321554
Absolutely stupid analogy. The logic anon's image is that the great majority of anti-capitalists in developed western cultures consume corporate goods, or use FED-EX/UPS as opposed to the government postal service. They eat foods that come from capitalist sources, consume technology from capitalist sources, entertainment from capitalist sources, drinks from capitalist sources, when in reality a socialist state could not or would not find the motivation or usage in supplying you with that technology. Do you really think the government is going to manufacture x-box and ipads?
>>1321660
No, like the difference between an apple and a ball python, you chromosome thief.
There's a reason you haven't posted a democratic country that's had communist-tier famines, and that's because it simply hasn't happened at any point in recorded history.
>>1321568
knowledge is a good unto itself, it just so happens that there are a lot more people ready to do manual labor then there are people ready to do the type of mind-labor required for running a business, hence, the demand for people with extensive economic knowledge rises, and their pay rises. Fuck off.
>>1321588
>citizen wage
There will be jobs prolly, but most people will be able to live on state wages that cover ups minimum wages, those who work earn more and have more money.
Everyone can be rich/poor, we dont choose to have poor people or rich people, uou create value through work and such snd become rich, and if you fk up u become poor.
Youre calculating like a racist
>>1321672
That chart was not intended to measure (at least directly) cooperation but lawlessness and lack of compasion amongst each other. Those high rates can mean that homicide is way more a routine in primitive societies than civilized societies; meaning also that good values do not come naturally.
Cooperation could go hand on hand with that.
>>1321673
The point is that people are forced to participate in capitalist consumption even if they are anti-capitalist.
Also socialism isn't the state creating, designing, and selling products, end this decades old meme.
>>1321568
you think getting the resources, knowledge, and legal work done for any business is easy?
>>1321669
Did the landowners create potato blight?
Remember that they were probably ruined by the loss of yeild caused by the blight.
>>1321679
> It like totally surely wasn't really part of country!
The famine was real and territory was under the democratic control.
>>1321691
>an individual creates
>if it's not rubbish, it's a work that glorifies people and from the entrails of people... not a single person idea and work, not at all...
>>1321647
Only Tyrone recives shit free because he to retarded and discriminated to work
>>1321691
>people are forced to participate in capitalist consumption
WHAT?
WHAAAAAAT?
So anti-capitalists don't have a choice when they buy x-box or I-pad, or I-phone or coffee? These things are necessities that anti-capitalists have no choice to have? ABSOLUTELY NOBODY is forcing you to play Call of Duty in your spare time.
No, the government isn't going to SELL goods like I-pad and I-phone, it's going to GIVE you it, which is an even more retarded concept.
>>1321685
The value created through your labor is then extracted and sold by the rich owners of private property. Wealth isn't defined by simply how much money you have, it's by your social relationship to property and capital.
And where will the government earn the money to support the poor when the newly impoverished can't even pay taxes, again because they cannot find work?
>>1321700
>man is walking his dog
>he has a rabies vaccine
>the dog doesn't
>the dog gets bit by a rabid animal and dies
>this demonstrates that rabies vaccines don't work
>>1321673
> Do you really think the government is going to manufacture x-box and ipads?
>>1321708
>hey I really don't like capitalism's method of exploiting farmers around the world
>therefore I'll just starve to death
eric man. simbly eric
>>1321441
>Same as racism
>Oh poor oppressed 1%ers
>Hello darkness my old friend meme
>>1321684
> people ready to do the type of mind-labor required
You mean people that have starting capital to run business because of rich parents?
>>1321691
No1 is forced anything. Dont like comsumerism, dont buy stuff, work half timr, probably less and easier than any communist run economy.
>>1321712
that state founding does not amount Apple's actual assets
>>1321721
>he thinks that people start businesses with liquid assets and not credit
This isn't 1691 you Melvin.
>>1321366
caused by the british government big government policies
>>1321569
Nonsense. Billions of tones of fresh fruit and grain rot each day because, even though there is a moral reason, there is no economic advantage to ending world hunger.
The concept that we have out-of-control population growth is an absurd hyperbole. The issue is not that we don't have enough food but, rather, that the food is not being properly distributed.
>>1321722
Have you brain damage?
>>1321725
Without state developed technologies they would be nothing at worst and joke at best.
>>1321712
>Government subsidies for technological progress
>Socialism
I also like how this image also directly mentions the fact that I-phone and I-pad are produced elsewhere, I.E, they exploit cheap labor for unsustainable pay in countries such as China and India, just like the clothes on your back, it is bought with the cheapest labor imaginable.
>>1321716
No, I'm talking about x-box, and I-phone, why are you just trying to conveniently move the goalposts? Stop that. I was never mentioning food. Nobody would begrudge a socialist for consuming food, I'm talking about TECHNOLOGY and LUXURIES such as video-games, and tablets and smart phones. Are you too much a fucking basket-case to refute my argument on its own merit? Why do you feel this impulsive and overwhelming need to twist my words like some sort of child. You just lied about what my points were to fit your narrative. That's disgusting.
>>1321735
yes and?
>>1321709
Government or a private organisation/company, like insurance gives food etc to people who pay X amount money. If EVERYTHING is automated then we can live in a semi communist state, a state that owns those machines and give shit free
>>1321735
Because it was so communistic, yeah...
>>1321740
Are you forced to participate in anything in US?
Beside jury duty I guess?
>muh society
>>1321748
Your entire argument assumes that every communist ever is going to buy and x-box or i-pad because their lazy and hypocritical. It's a shit argument that has no actual substance other than to fulfill your ideological masturbation session.
>>1321767
>It's a shit argument that has no actual substance other than to fulfill your ideological masturbation session.
It should be right at home with communists then.
>>1321518
Tell me about anarchism.
>>1321315
Because free association is a shitty meme. In order to get rid of property you'll have to get rid of possessiveness in LITERALLY every single person on the planet and eventually have to get rid of "my" and "mine".
>>1321767
No, never throughout my whole entire series of post did I say "ALL COMMUNISTS" Perhaps there are some communists who truly do live a subsistence life, fine, but I was talking about the vast majority of communists in the western world, the college-Marxists/socialists. Again, you moved my goalposts once more, why do you do that? You still haven't answered my question, why do you continue to move the goalposts? Instead of answering that question, you moved the goalposts again, how can you presume to have any legitimacy if you continue to flagrantly use fallacies and then refuse to answer for it? If a communists consumes an unneeded luxury such as an I-pad and an I-phone or an X-box, that communist/socialist is a hypocrite, that is my argument.
The fact that you cannot take my argument without twisting it via fallacies is proof that you really don't have an argument to work with, so your only method of reinforcing your ideological message is by twisting the words of every single thing I say and praying that people just roll with it. I'm not rolling with it, I'm calling you out. Why did you do that?
>>1321321
>the rich are job creators
>rich bankers were bailed out in 2008
>the recession continues
>the government is forced to forge unemployment numbers to manufacture a sense of progress
>falling for the trickle-down-economics meme
>>1321789
> In order to get rid of property
What about a lesser communism where everyone just got as much as they want? Maybe about just fuck capitalist, give means of production to all the workers even lesser communism?
>>1321789
Abolition of private property doesn't mean that communists are going to come and steal your car and house. It means that the means of production, factories, mines, farms and the like are democratically owned and run.
I can still have my toothbrush, my car, my house etc.
Stop drinking Ayn Rand's Kool-aid
>>1321778
Now who's refusing to debate points of argumentation?
>>1321789
>Current Year
>Not reading about Anarcho-communism
>Not realizing that there is actually a distinction between private and personal property
>Wew lad
>current issue
>read the picture.jpg
>>1321315
Gives citizens no incentive to work and degenerates the productivity of the market by throwing away competition.
>>1321832
> degenerates the productivity of the market by throwing away competition.
So... Like every capitalistic monopoly ever?
>>1321331
By starting businesses and hiring people to work for them. The only jobs they can "destroy" are the ones they created in the first place.
>>1321818
>It means that the means of production, factories, mines, farms and the like are democratically owned and run.
And here's the problem. What this means is that the government gets control of everything and gives the people the illusion of democratically owning and running them.
Why would anybody want that?
>>1321391
>What should we do with boss's money guys?
>Should we invest it in the market and use it to fund new and innovative technologies?
>Fuck no. Let's go to the bar, drinks are on him!
Why are commies so dense?
>>1321843
Where does the government even enter the fucking equation? The point of the means of production being democratically owned is that the workers own it. Not the state, not the capitalists. no one but the workers.
I suggest you read the definitions of socialism and communism, and do some reading on the subject instead of just regurgitating high schools civics.
>>1321315
>>1321857
>Implying this is exactly how taxes work
Why are neoliberals so dense?
>>1321869
>The United States is leading an embargo on Venezuela
>World Oil Prices have dropped considerably
>Capital Flight
>Hugo Chavez is dead and Maduro started to undo what Hugo Chavez was able to achieve
>The possibility of Colombian saboteurs
>>1321885
So many excuses and yet you can't name even one democracy where people would starving. Rekt la rekt, commie.
>>1321839
This is such a lame argument. The first business (of any caliber) that produces an alternative product at a lower price will have completely destroyed whatever "monopoly" boogeyman is in place. They are always short lived because of this, which is much preferable to the multi-generational starvation farms run by the government in the Soviet Union.
>>1321896
> alternative product at a lower price
Monopoly can cut off the prices to won against the competitors. This is a base economics staff.
>>1321767
>>1321798
What, so once you're called out on your ideas you just shut down and stop replying to people because you believe you're above that? If your ideas are so intellectually impregnable, why do you shut down like a spoiled child whenever somebody scratches the surface of your ideological system?
>>1321918
> being this mad
>>1321872
This is in reference to the money used in market investments and in reparations of the equipment, both of which are neccessary for running a business. If a manual labor worker was just as competant as an entrepreneur, then they wouldn't be a manual labor worker. This is why you see businesses founded by individuals and not by groups of people, even though there is nothing physically stopping the latter from happening besides the fact that it is theoretically unsustainable. Democracy is a joke.
>>1321933
>lol mad xd
So you just feel content to devolve yourself to that level once your socialist ideology is exposed? You're that entrenched that your level of discourse can be that of a Child's if it means clinging on to your Marxism? That's very depressing.
>>1320635
>how do you argue with an educated person
>over a belief they have come to through study
>with the objective of making them feel stupid
you're a moron
>>1321940
If you can't understand obvious truth than there is nothing to explain for the people like you.
>>1321939
> manual labor worker was just as competant
Well, it would be if only he was studied enough by being able to study shit, because of his rich parents help.
>>1321601
Evertime it has been tried all went to complete shit.
Capitalism is shit but not complete shit.
>>1321915
>Monopoly can cut off the prices to won against the competitors
Oh no, now everybody has lower prices and new businesses can continue to spring up ad infinitum. How is this detrimental to the market again?
>>1321970
Nice try but real communism was never tried.
>>1321955
There was no "truth" that you mentioned. Throughout your whole series of posts, you did not answer the questions why you moved the goalposts, why you moved it a second time, and now why you feel that you are above any and all discussion once I refute your points? There is no "truth." you are only trying to characterize your debunked ideology as something high and unapproachable so that nobody can touch it, hence your usage of the word "truth" like some sort of neo-platonist, you devolve into infantile "mad xd" greentext whenever you're called out on it. There's absolutely nothing high and mighty about your "truth," it's only the latest of your line of defenses that don't make any sense.
First you moved the goalposts
Then you did it again
And again
Then you engaged in child-like insulting
Now you're trying to characterize your ideas as something "higher" when in fact there is nothing high or mighty about anything you have said. It's a desperate defense.
>>1321964
>this meme again
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/intelligence-and-genetics-do-some-people-inherit-an-edge
>>1321972
> new businesses can continue to spring up ad infinitum.
It can't because lowers prices means less profit and bankruptcy. Monopoly survive because of a means of cutting expenses and huge reserve of the property and the capital. Repeat ad nausea.
>>1321302
And you never will, "In the east communism suffered a complete ideological defeat, it is zero and less than zero, it is the western intellectuals that are still interested" -Solzhenitsyn, Harvard address.
>>1321997
I am not talking about intelligence, I talking about the literal ability to study something relevant for a future, instead being wage slave from the day one to day fucking last of your life. Free time, relevant connections, just a pure harm from discrimination and basically the better nurture because you was so lucky to born rich as fuck.
>>1321998
When the competitors go bankrupt the "monopoly" business will raise their prices again, allowing local producers to compete again. It doesn't cost hardly anything to sell homegrown corn in a marketplace, while it costs millions of dollars for larger corporations to produce, package, and transport goods to locations thousands of miles from where they are produced.
You have to take the human aspect into consideration as well. People do not want to shop at stores with constantly fluctuating prices because it's inconvenient and requires more work from the consumer. Either the large chain corporations eventually settle their prices at an affordable level or they risk losing large amounts of customers.
This exact scenario played out in Germany less than a decade ago, when Walmart began opening stores trying to compete with the local marketplaces. Walmart ended up having to close it stores because the German people perferred working with the local businesses.
>>1321843
How is the scope of this democratic ownership decided, democratically? Regionally? How do we decide the scope of the regions that votes pertain to as not to have the whole country vote whether or not I have an Arbys in my neighborhood? How is the scope of that decision limited as not to make it a clusterfuck? And must every endeavor in business and industry be a collective decision? How much time will we spend making these decisions?
How do you expect us to organize ourselves in a way that doesn't create conflict, but doesn't need a central arbiter?
>>1321885
Nice try commie spic
Hope you're killed in the next nightclub shooting
>>1320641
>20 Stalins
1200 grillion ukrainians!11!!!11!
>>1321425
>No. There is reason people are rich. It reminds us we could be them someday if we continue being a hardworking and productive piece of national economy.
HAHAHAHA
Are you american?, either you are american or you are fucking retarded.
>>1321545
WOW THANKS!
I didnt know an ipad, iphone, etc where means of production.
Communism defends workers owning the means of production, not workers not using Apple products and eating at home.
>>1322303
actually this kind of optimism that we all can became famous youtubers, or something, is a global thing .
Communism is in a best case scenario a lack of government, were society works together for the betterment of all, where you work hard and put your talents to use in the best possible way whether you're cooking food, growing crops, or performing open heart surgery.
It's a perfect world where everyone does what's best because it's the right thing to do. It assumes men are angels.
If you've ever spent more than 3 minutes around other people you'd realize this was not the case and this will never be possible. Proponents of Socialism have developed a new technique whereby they completely block out the outside world and live in a safety bubble by themselves. Any harmful interactions are immediately purged from their memory within 5 minutes of the even happening so as to not shatter the bubble and thus their delusions.
I call it the Marxist Bubble Phenomenon. Much like the Communist ideology, it too is flawed, as the bubbles still do not fully prevent harmful memories from storing in the host. The clever Communists have developed a safety mechanism I like to call "Blame White People" whereby anything wrong, incorrect or conflicting with their world view can be laid to blame 100% on white people, most specifically rich white people, however it can also be used to dismiss poor white people who also disagree with them.
If men were angels we would not need government, but men are barely a step above devils. We need government and we need incentive as a species. Communism lacks any incentives to do much of anything besides leech.
>>1322349
Now if there was a Communist Society whereby you worked like everyone else or they took you out back and shot you/deported you maybe I could get behind that, if not for the fact such a system would be abused to kill anyone the society or more likely the inevitable ruling elite didn't like, and not to actually punish inefficiency or non workers in the economy. And even saying that, modern Communists don't have any balls, they couldn't even look at a gun, much less use one to purge the slack out of society.
They ARE the slack of society.
But I digress. The reason Capitalism has been proven to be an effective motivator is because it offers the common man a chance at a decent life. There were growing pains along the way, and currently it's morphed into some sort of corrupt, global scale quackery if you ask me, but even in such a flawed, monopolized form it's STILL vastly superior to the alternatives. Capitalism has closed the wealth gap on a scale never before seen in human history. Sure, the mega rich are richer than ever before, but the poor are also richer than ever before. Competition drives innovation, it drives improvements, and it drives progress. And ultimately Capitalism is just a protected form of Competition.
Which is why I hate monopolies and globalization so much, globalization on its own is fine, but monopolies AND globalization is just a recipe for disaster. Combining the two absolutely destroys competition, which is why Comcast is so fucking rich and offers such shitty service. They have no competition, they don't have to progress, or innovate, or improve.
That is the flaw of Capitalism. That once someone is successful enough with Capitalism he can use his wealth and influence to get rid of it and install a structured economy.
>>1322376
This is why a government is so very important, because your average worker does not have the foresight or budget or patience or knowledge to truly vote with their wallet. Capitalism is slave to the lowest bidder, the guy who can make more for less wins at capitalism 99 times out of 10. A government should exist to specifically keep monopolies from forming in a capitalist society, if you ask me. Aside from minor upkeep of society and of course spending for the common defense, I very much believe the government's fingers should ONLY meddle in big business to keep it from murdering small business.
I think roads should go back to being largely private, that government salaries should be enough to live comfortably, but that they should be prevented from ANY outside income, gifts or other benefits in an effort to stamp out corruption, and that 1/4th of the government should exist solely to fight corruption in the government, the other 1/2 being to keep capitalism true capitalism and the other 1/4th being defense and upkeep.
Capitalism works. It works better than anything we've tried, and unlike Communism we can actually try it. In theory Communism is just amazing, truly a near flawless system that benefits everyone.
But that's all it ever will be. A theory. Communism will never be implemented because it's just organized anarchy, and anarchy always leads to despots, death, and destruction.
>>1322376
>Capitalism has closed the wealth gap on a scale never before seen in human history.
Nope that's science and it's application in technology. Both of those pre-date capitalism.
>>1322432
>it wasn't capitalists setting up super efficient factories offering better wages than any time previous in history mass producing necessary and luxury goods at lower prices than they've ever been, it was science! All Science! Capitalism had nothing to do will all those factories and inventions created out of a desire for more efficiency and cheaper prices! Scientists can't be Capitalists!
>>1322432
May I also add that even the Soviet Union, which was shit-tier communism, kept up with the West in terms of technology up until the very end.
>>1322439
Cool greentext. I can do it too:
>Technological advancement requires capitalism
>Scientists and engineers only come up with cool shit when they're wage-slaves or expect to get a big pay-out not because they're interested in their field.
You don't.
Why? Because you can't.
They're too stupid, to brainwashed to actually realize. You ignore them and pray that somehow, someway in the future their brain starts functioning.
>>1322432
Science doesn't predate """capitalism""".
>>1322447
>kept up with the west in terms of technology
Reminder that free movement of goods and services is one of the core tenets of capitalism.
This means that if you support capitalism, you support letting in 300 million illiterate subsaharan Africans into Western countries to drive down wages by competing for jobs.
Whats that?
You don't support immigration?
Then you support socialism and a state controlled economy. That's just the way it is.
>>1320635
> Pope Francis in the pic
Wha?
>>1322465
The Soviet Union wasn't even close in terms of technology. And it is you who should back up your claim, except I know you won't because you can't.
>>1322463
>capitalist countries doesn't have borders or laws
What am I reading?
>>1322451
The fact of the matter is the free market drives progress far better than anything else.
Every invention in human history has been created out of a desire to gain wealth. Wealth varies a lot in what it is. Initially, wealth was food, then wealth became food and shelter, then eventually wealth became the thing you buy food and shelter with.
Capitalism is not an ideology from the 16th century, capitalism is what humans have been doing with mixed results since we've existed. It's the right to make things and sell the things you made, without anyone telling you yes or no.
Name an invention from the last 1000 years and there's a 99% chance it was made by someone using the free market.
>>1322447
No it didn't. The Soviets fell behind in every single measurable scientific and social advancement metric out there. The only thing they achieved even remote parity on for a time was rocketry, which they STILL fell behind on hard.
>>1322475
He said "capitalism" not capitalism countries.
I dont think we have an actual, pure capitalism country desu.
>>1322484
>capitalism means anarchy
k
>>1322474
No, my political views are extremely different from everyone I've met. I think government should get the fuck outta everything that's not big business. And what meddling it does in big business should only pertain to keeping it from forming a monopoly.
I am socially liberal, economically conservative, and against any large scale organization, be it a corporation or a governmental body.
>>1322476
>Every invention in human history has been created out of a desire to gain wealth
Not the internet, it was a public effort, with no monetary gains insight.
Not the man in the moon. or what did they expect?, to find a magic coffer filled with gold?
And I could go on and on..
>>1322487
not exactly..
>>1322491
Oh look, le internet argument strikes again.
>not space
Space has been a target for decades, there is endless of wealth in space to be acquired.
>>1322491
>internet wasn't created to gain wealth
Yes it was. It was created by the military to gain an upper hand over the Soviets to preserve existing wealth.
The moonshot itself was not created to create wealth but to create cultural dominance and prove that capitalism > communism. Landing on the moon is not actually an invention though, inventions allowed us to do that, such as space suits, rockets, vacuum sealers, preserved foods, shock absorbers, simulations, all of which have massive economic uses. Not to mention the only people still trying to into space are people doing so for monetary reasons.
The moon is a stepping stone to the endless amount of wealth space provides.
>>1322497
Sure , we could democratize some distant planet and trade with them.
>>1322490
What about protecting national, environmental assets from the short-term predation of this rat race to the bottom dollar?
What about utilizing the nature of central planning to make nationwide long-term investments?
Are either of these things out of the question? Is there no sector of the economy that will benefit from central planning and investment?
>>1322503
The retarded socialist shows himself again, hooray.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>>1322503
Are you pretending to be retarded or do you not realize there are asteroids the size of states speculated to have the mineral wealth of an entire continent just floating around out there?
>>1322472
I'm not going to do your research for you. There's wikipedia for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union
I'm just going to point out that the Soviet Union (which I've already mentioned was shit-tier communism), had space shuttles at the time of its fall and was winning for most of the Space Race, A/A systems that the U.S. still cannot compete with, advanced nuclear research programs and 6th gen fighter jet program that was ahead of the U.S. one until the USSR collapsed.
Besides, whether the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. were slightly ahead of each other doesn't matters, what matters is that they were comparable in terms of their technological capabilities, despite having completely different economic/political systems.
>>1322510
>>1322511
Asteroid mining is a dream not yet achievable. Pretty much everything having to do with space has no real economic benefits. Maybe in xxx years it will be profitable, but investing in space now has no real monetary benefits. It's pretty much all sci-fi for now. We are struggling with launching bare minimum we need to survive into space or observational equipment with huge costs and you want to launch something able to mine an asteroid and come back with the stuff and be profitable.
>>1322476
>Every invention in human history has been created out of a desire to gain wealth.
Are you serious? Improved living conditions has been the goal of almost every invention, one could argue that's the case even for the profit-inspired ones. Wealth brings improved living conditions in a capitalist system, but that's not the only way of achieving them.
>>1322509
That is one thing I do think the government should do, that falls under the upkeep of society bit.
I don't believe in central planning to such a strong extent a government should do it, this could also be done by private organizations who seek to make money by telling other companies the most efficient way to do x y and z.
The problem with bringing government into anything is that the government is not motivated by money. At least its workers aren't.
They get paid a salary whether they do the job right or completely fuck it up.
>>1322519
>was winning for most of the space race
Again, no it was not. Everything the USSR did, the US did better within a few months, a year at most.
>AA systems the US cannot compete with
Except Russian AA is vastly overblown in its efficiency and has been proven time and time again that the US can completely dismantle Soviet air defenses be it Vietnam or Iraq.
>6th gen fighter program
My fucking ass do you just read Soviet propaganda as fact? The Soviets fell behind the West in the air in the late 60s. By the time of the 70s they were vastly outpaced in everything.
>>1322529
Do you know what Space-X is?
>>1322530
Nobody is arguing it's profitable now, but there was a time when sailing further than 50 nautical miles was a pipe dream that could never be accomplished. Progress happens at the end of a dollar bill and if anyone will get us off this rock it will be rich investors.
>>1322502
So it was proved that capitalism is better than comunism with public initiatives?
Where is the free market miracle?
>>1322519
Yes, USSR had technology on a high level, but at what cost? A nation in disarray.
And again, the cost to get high is not the problem, it's the cost to maintain. USSR was trash and thus, couldn't compete.
They were never close and they would never be close, even with their slave labor and a country poor as shit because everything and anything were spent on technology.
>>1322529
Of course they don't have the money right now, if there's anything you should learn from capitalism is that things become cheaper as things develop. Compare computer prices today and those from 15 years ago.
>>1322540
Look at the internet today, free market miracle baby.
>>1322540
The free market is what enabled those public initiatives to exist in the first place.
The government contracts private businesses to do pretty much everything besides tax filing and police work. That's capitalism in action.
>>1322539
>Nobody is arguing it's profitable now, but there was a time when sailing further than 50 nautical miles was a pipe dream that could never be accomplished. Progress happens at the end of a dollar bill and if anyone will get us off this rock it will be rich investors.
Except anyone investing in it now is losing money. You won't anything back from sending shit into space in this century.
>>1322548
Truu, let's go back to communism so space can become profitable.
>>1322502
Then where was the initial investment of wealthy capitalists into these two projects? I don't recall any, whatsoever, aside from selling components to the government; which was willing to take on the risks both provided in the name of national security, not due to private market incentivization. Do you think that if the decision-making were left to capitalists as the right wants us to believe, that either of these things would happen? I don't. The capitalists are given no reason to aspire to these things. A capitalist benefits most from monopolizing the most inflexible needs.
How often does an entrepreneur like Elon Musk come around? Because if I recall; those are a finite commodity, and the market doesn't incentivize them to do anything other than pander to short term profits. That's why Elon Musk is such an outlier, because he is fronting R&D for immensely successful, but prohibitively long-term projects. Even for these, he is still working on the back of giants.
Projects like a national highway system, moon landings, or internet technology(which is unique in that it was the child of multiple governmental efforts across NATO) do not happen due to market incentivization. There is none to be had when there are willing bystanders waiting for when you make your burgeoning market the most enterable. Look at what happened with google glass; swing and a miss. How much money did they lose with this failure? What kind of firms will build on their failure in the future with only fractions of the risk? Private firms do not take these risks unless they are exorbitantly rich.
Can you show me a single historical instance of a project as immense as the moon landing being funded solely by capitalists or aristocrats? Or are they all leveraged in the form of taxes by a central arbiter and planner?
>>1322548
Maybe, maybe not.
It's very difficult to see what can happen in 100 years.
In 100 years we went from canvas gliders that can go all of 200 feet to supersonic jet aircraft capable of making a trip around the world in less than a day.
>>1320635
>t. college conservative
>>1322539
>>1322541
M80s you're missing the point. Whether the USSR was ahead of the US or not doesn't matter in this argument, in fact even the poor living conditions of its citizens doesn't matter (I already said the USSR was shit-tier, corrupt and inefficient communism). What matters is that it had scientists and engineers who were working, WITHOUT personal wealth or profit as their primary motivation and yet produced comparable results the West. My post regarding the USSR was in response to >>1322376 >>1322432 >>1322476
this guy who claims that scientific and technological progress is driven by profit, which is simply wrong.
>>1322553
I am not even a commie I just understand that you can't make technology with just muh profit. Scientists don't just work by getting money thrown at them. There are more profitable jobs they could take.
>>1322560
The problem is that our knowledge is kinda plateau-ing. From the risk-revenue perspective it's purely terrible.
>>1321321
We shouldn't live at the mercy of elite individuals to whom our well-being is a side-effect rather than an objective
>>1322547
>The free market is what enabled those public initiatives to exist in the first place.
No. It was financed by taxes. Aren't taxes and free market enemies?.
Besides that the soviet union had similiar initiatives, they even made a cellphone before the USA, and the superior ak4 without free market.
>>1322547
>The government contracts private businesses to do pretty much everything besides tax filing and police work. That's capitalism in action.
With what results? In Europe, every single instance of privatisation of key state services has failed and resulted in inefficiency and a fall in quality of services.
>>1322558
>>1322502
To continue*
These risks may have been taken in the country's interest, which may include the benefit of the national, privatized economy. But they are in no way conflatable with risks taken by actors within the privatized economy. They were taken by actors outside of this system, in its best interest, despite its own short and profit-driven attention span.
>>1322581
>In Europe, every single instance of privatisation of key state services has failed and resulted in inefficiency and a fall in quality of services.
[citation needed]
>>1322558
To be fair, one could argue that the tax revenue taken from the wealth generated by capitalism was what permitted the US government to fund such immense projects.
Elon Musk is still an outlier, though, yeah.
>>1322558
>>1322565
That is a fair point and interesting to consider in that light. It is true that the government was the one who oversaw these projects and pooled the resources of a great many private companies, but it still did come off the backs of private companies even if it didn't come directly out of their pockets.
>>1322568
Well first off, I absolutely disagree the Soviets were achieving comparable results. Soviet made computers today are still worse than US made computers from 10 years ago.
Secondly, the Soviet scientists lived lives far better than your average Soviet citizen.
>>1322581
And in the US privatization works wonders. Not to mention, what exactly are you referring to?
Europe has tons of private ventures that do well. The best schools in Europe are private, same as in the US.
>>1321804
Fuck, I hate this meme, too.
No matter how many times I deconstruct it for these CEO-idolizing children, they don't fucking get it. They don't take nepotism, inheritance, cronyism, automation, or lobbying into account.
They don't care about the deconstruction of social welfare or government functions.
They don't care about ideological sabotage.
They don't give a SHIT about ethics.
They exalt the most wicked aspects of capitalists while ignoring the few goods ones who actually produce goods and services for reasonable prices and care about more than profit.
To these fucking kids a guy who markets himself real gud, practices vulture capitalism, and makes the muns by any means necessary is better than, say, a Capitalist who tries to create a sustainable business.a
To these fucking neocon kids anything left of center is commienizum and anything short of ancap is socialism
>>1322593
>you need taxes to pay for x just because the current x was paid for by stolen money aka taxes
incredible logic desu
>>1320635
>How do you explain to college marxists how retarded they are?
Contrary to popular opinion, violence is a very useful problem solving tool.
>>1322587
Some failed examples in the case of the UK:
-Railway privatisation
-Privatisation of the NHS (PFI schemes, NHS trusts etc)
-Privatisation of the affordable housing sector (right-to-buy)
-Privatisation of the social welfare service (aka Atos benefits)
-Privatisation of the energy sector
They even attempted to privatise the organisation that decides on military procurement and had to back-track because it was heading for disaster.
>>1321321
How do you live with being such a cuckold? Do you have any dignity or self-worth?
>>1322612
>it failed here that means its terrible
Yes, it will fail because it's privatization through the state, where the state dictates and not whoever is the owner.
Using a socialist shit hole as an example for why privatization would be bad is retarded.
>>1322592
>Soviet made computers today are still worse than US made computers from 10 years ago.
>Soviet made computers today
Oh okay, so you actually are this stupid! I'm sorry, I hadn't realised. I'll stop arguing with you.
>The best schools in Europe are private, same as in the US.
Completely wrong, in the case of the UK the best schools and the best universities are all non-profit organisations/charities, in the case of the rest of Europe (e.g. France, Germany, Switzerland etc) the best universities are literally state-run and require little to no tuition fees.
>>1322619
No, idiot. I'm using an example of a country where a service that was nationalised then became privatised, which is the only effective way of comparing two different versions of the same service.
In the U.S. most of these services were private to begin with so no accurate comparison could be made.
>>1322631
If it's not done right, it's not done right.
Doesn't mean privatization is not something positive. Throughout history privatization has proven far more profitable than state run anything.
>>1322592
>in the US privatization works wonders.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289
>>1322612
There is an interesting counterbalance to privatization vs government.
A private business exists to make money, the government exists to keep everything running.
In that light I wouldn't want energy to be privatized because the government has a vested interest in keeping the power running and keeping it cheap while the private business has a vested interest in making money.
At the same time I wouldn't want a government run restaurant. They'd be vested in making food cheap and it would undoubtedly come out bland and nasty, while a private restaurant would want me to keep coming back and spending money, so they'd offer something affordable and tasty.
The whole monopoly problem especially is an issue when a private business runs a necessity such as power. Everyone needs electricity, therefore they only have to exist and not get caught with conspiracy and they have guaranteed money. They don't need to compete if they're the only power company, so you'd need to have multiple private companies handling power, which is just inefficient. Stuff like that I much prefer the government to run because the government, while not nearly perfect, is much better suited to run necessary goods services while multiple private companies are much better for handling luxury or supplementary goods distribution.
>>1322625
Sorry, Russian computers today suck balls. Is that better?
>I'll stop arguing with you
>proceeds to continue arguing
Man you're gonna bash me for a slip of the tongue then do that? C'mon son.
>>1322646
>http://en.virtualpopstar.com/vote/XxQu33nKyxX/
>>1322608
>Let's put this simple, centralized shit into the hands of private companies so that every road has lights made by a different company that operate based on different standards, and don't coordinate with the lights at the next intersection, etc.
>Let's have companies competing over every public school, intersection, etc.
>Let's assume companies have the public interest in mind and won't do shit like sell broken assets to other shitty companies who will handle them poorly before going bankrupt.
>Let's assume they won't take bribes and build based on bribes they took from Wal Mart or w/e rather than based on traffic data that takes things like volume, frequency, avg. destination, etc. into consideration.
t. a traffic engineer who actually knows how fucking intersections work and knows that traffic needs local government oversight to function. Any time private sector gets their dirty hands on roads they fuck shit up. I have trouble getting to work in my town because they built the roads not based on where people are trying to commute, but rather based on where they want to funnel consumers.
But that's okay, let's fucking deregulate everything and act like babies and pretend like taxes = getting mugged instead of a social contract EVEN THOUGH rich people fucking are better at using loopholes to avoid taxes than poor people anyway.
Let's bring back child labor. Let's get rid of safety regulations. Let's get rid of welfare. Let's get rid of social security. Let's get rid of public schools and have every elementary school be like one of those unaccredited colleges.
When poor people get injured and need a social safety net, well they can fuck right off. Clearly because their net worth isn't as high as Ancaps Worthington III they don't deserve to get healed and reenter the work force.
Clearly welfare is only for cracksmoking Jamal the Useful Stereotype and has nothing to do with bouncing back from misfortune to be a contributing member of society.
