Is capitalism really that bad? Yeah inequality and exploitation are problems that should be addressed, but the average person today lives a life of material wealth that's vastly superior to the average lives of past generations, and every society that's brought into the global capitalist fold experiences the same boon when they enter. The technological and productive achievements of capitalism have been enormous, and peoples' lives are almost universally better for it. Even with its problems, I just can't look at all that and come to the conclusion that it's an evil system that should be abolished. Fixed and tweaked, maybe, but not abandoned.
>>841107
No, capitalism isn't as bad as the communists make it seem.
t. capital pro
>implying capitalism wasn't a necessary step forward that we must now move beyond
>>841107
>the average person today lives a life of material wealth that's vastly superior to the average lives of past generations, and every society that's brought into the global capitalist fold experiences the same boom when they enter
Capitalism is certainly an improvement on feudalism, yes. That doesn't mean there isn't a system that's better still.
>>841123
Like what.
>>841127
One not predicated on the fantastical delusion of unlimited growth.
>>841127
Socialism.
>>841136
>>841139
What makes these systems different from capitalism?
>>841141
I don't even have a system in mind, just one that doesn't imagine we can just keep expanding forever, because it will result in our destruction.
>>841141
In socialism the workers own the means of production.
>>841139
Let me summarize the rest of this thread;
>muh human nature
>muh Ukrainian Free Territory/Anarchist Catalonia
>muh Great Purge
>muh Imperialism
>muh Economic Calculation problem
>muh computers
>muh voluntaryism
>muh fascism
>muh Ukrainian Free Territory
>>841107
>bad
You might want to try >>>/pol/ for making normative judgements. Philosophy doesn't make specific judgements, but deals with the problem of how one can judge at all. You sound like you're parroting a crude utilitarianism without having read anything about utilitarianism.
Your argument that capitalism is good does not produce the conclusion that it should not be abandoned. You would need to show that no better position can exist.
>>841144
No, that's communism
>>841156
>implying they're different
wew
>>841157
Spot the American
>>841162
Spot the European who thinks Social Democracy is Socialism.
>>841127
I think socialism was a meme that, however well intentioned, just doesn't work and will be an abandoned idea in the next 50 years. I see a more decentralized capitalistic society where ownership is democratized, the rule rather than the exception, due mostly to universally accessible technology.
Many small firms rather than few large firms, 'cause computers.
>>841164
>I think Liberal Democracy was a meme that, however well intentioned, just doesn't work and will be an abandoned idea in the next 50 years
t.European c.1816
>>841163
>implying socialism is a strict political methodology and not just an outdated term used to describe the demands for greater attention to workers relative to the monetary elites and bourgeois
>>841180
>words don't mean things
>>841169
You might have had a point if Liberal Democracy had been continuously tried and failed during the previous 100 years.
>>841183
I literally just described what it means, what are you talking about?
Think about it for a second. It's a system designed around fucking each other over as hard as possible.
>>841203
Communism?
>>841191
>French Republic
>hilarious failure
>all of her sister republics/client states
>failures
>>841205
Communism wasn't designed to fuck people over. That's just how it played out. There has to be some common ground between, a balance of communism and capitalism that works. Something like a resource based exchange.
>>841214
Capitalism wasn't designed to fuck people over either.
Intent means nothing.
>>841127
Humane socialism. Democritization of resources and private corporations in the long term, immediate social democratic reforms in the short term. Our system as it is, which encourages reckless wealth accumulation, is having a tremendous, negative effect on the supermajority of people on the planet.
If the incredible productive forces of capitalism could be harnessed to serve laborers everywhere, we would be well on our way to genuinely improving society. Capitalism and liberal democracy were a huge improvement over the monarchist mercantile systems dominated by worthless, indolent aristocrats that predominated in the 17th/18th centuries. Socialism will be the improvement that unseats the parasitic, workshy capitalist class and continues improving our system of social organization.
>>841230
>the monarchist mercantile systems dominated by worthless, indolent aristocrats that predominated in the 17th/18th centuries
>inb4 some whiny neo-reactionary
>>841203
>a system of efficient production and distribution based on voluntary capital exchange
>fucking each other over as hard as possible
>>841236
>implying wage slavery isn't a thing
>>841217
Capitalism is predicated on maximizing exploitation of others relentlessly. That's why its logical conclusion, Libertarianism, is the most morally bankrupt, nihilistic political philosophy - it separates the market from the basic principles of utilitarian humanism so wealth accumulation becomes a self-justifying occupation, no matter how horribly unethical someone's pursuit of it is.
>>841239
>implying wage slavery is an inherent feature in the design of capitalism
is material wealth really that good? capitalism and the popular culture you hate are one in the same
>>841241
Capitalism was predicated on the fair exchange of resources.
Either money or work.
>capitalism good
>debauchery bad
>>841243
>implying all wage labor isn't wage slavery
>>841249
Fair according to who?
>>841243
Wage labor is absolutely essential to capitalism. Without a flexible market of laborers employable on dynamic terms favorable to the employer, capitalist entities fail to maximize their returns and the whole system fails to achieve its collective, amoral, nihilistic goal. You can't have capitalism without wage slavery, but you can attenuate the evils of the system with social democracy.
>>841211
Not the United States
>>841255
According to the two resource traders.
>>841249
>fair exchange
Capitalism is not predicated on fair exchange. The beginnings of capitalist commerce were collective ventures that extracted an absolute shitton of wealth from colonial territories on the most uneven terms imaginable.
This is world history 101, dude.
>>841260
The simple-minded caricature you're drawing here, of two people shaking hands over a fair contract, is an outrageously reductive assessment of the nature of capitalism, which is a thoroughly modern phenomenon. What you're describing has existed since the dawn of time.
>>841260
>give me your money or I'll kill you
Fair as fuck.
>>841261
dats colonialism bruh
>>841268
Who said anything abut killing.
>>841258
It wasn't clear the US would survive for decades.
As late as the Civil War a lot of European powers were expecting the Republican experiment to come crashing down in flames.
>>841274
Besides, the French Republic was a far more important prototype for later Liberal Republics than the US.
>>841271
I'm just saying that supposedly fair and voluntary exchanges can be hilariously imbalanced and coercive.
>>841280
How is that the fault of the system?
I mean, for every person screwed over by a jew, there's also someone who's advanced themselves.
>>841270
Capitalism and colonialism began hand in hand - the colonial process was well underway in the mercantile economies of Western Europe, especially Spain, long before what we would recognize as "capitalism" began to coalesce. Capitalism began in the late 18th/early 19th centuries when trade restrictions imposed by various monarchies were lifted with the acquisition of independence by tons of countries in the New World, and European powers found themselves turning to Asia and Africa to make enormous amounts of money and funnel it back to private interests, rather than government coffers.
You cannot separate a system and the time that produced it. Without early colonialism, investment charters and stock companies would never have morphed into the proto-capitalist Company institutions that accumulated wealth for the monarchy before dissolving around 1800 and giving way to shitloads of private exchange, something that, not coincidentally, accompanied the proliferation of the Napoleonic Code and the dawn of an age of Republicanism and Liberal values.
Capitalism, colonialism, and exploitation of external areas to serve the metropole (and certain select, favored segments of the colonized peripheries) are all inextricably wound together.
>>841280
Nobody seriously believes that there shouldn't be lawful protections against coercion.
I mean, anarchists, but nobody cares what they think. Even libertarians are on board with basic rule of law.
>>841286
The system shouldn't give individuals the power to control the livelihoods and therefore the lives of others.
>>841304
Libertarians believe the only legitimate type of coercion is the threat of literal physical violence. Intelligent people understand that the threat of homelessness and starvation unless you accept a shitty contract from some dickhead employer in a right to work state (because you're not unionized) is also coercion. Finding yourself homeless and hungry or in terrible debt is just as "coercive" as the threat of immediate violence. Not being able to afford healthcare is coercive. Not being able to rent a decent apartment or take care of a family when you work 40 hours a week, and running the risk of destitution if you get sick once and miss one of those 40 hour weeks, is fucking coercion.
This is why Libertarians only come in two flavors: retarded or evil. Because they don't understand the basic, intuitive fact that context influences action.
>>841321
>inb4 hurr nature is oppressive then
>>841325
Wouldn't be /his/ without you guys
>>841321
>refusing to work is coercion
w
e
w
pic related; you
>>841327
Nature is oppressive, that is why humanity liberated itself by doing basic shit like building houses and organizing ourselves into agricultural settlements and developing hierarchies and belief systems and shit. Mankind freed himself from the oppression of primitive natural existence so now we should liberate ourselves from the primitive, self-inflicted social cancer of capitalism.
>>841328
>hurr durr everyone is equal egalitarianism is the only way
Some people are simply better and more deserving than others. If you're not reactionary in 2016, you're a fucking pleb.
>>841345
>Nature is oppressive
Stopped reading there. You are fucking retarded.
>>841336
This is one of the silliest things about capitalists - you equate a socially constructed system by which we distribute products and natural resources with the laws of nature, as though they were as immutable as the sun and the sky and shit. Capitalism is not a natural context in which we exist and struggle for existence, like we're some kind of modern caveman, and the fact that your analogy appeals to our ancient past should give you an idea of how fucking anachronistic this kind of delusional thinking really is.
>>841348
Even if some people are better, it doesn't follow that they are necessarily more deserving.
>>841345
Nature isn't a conscious entity, you autist.
>>841360
x > y
distribution of resources to x also > y
Leech.
>>841351
I'm sorry you believe a modern political and economic system is some kind of unassailable fact of existence. It's a pathetically myopic and cultlike view, honestly, and you should step back and examine your own bizarre discourse and contemplate your philosophical inadequacies.
>>841336
Yeah, the difference is human social systems can be fought and changed, nature cannot.
>>841367
Typical leftist who thinks they're enlightened. You're not gonna convert anyone to your ideology, by being condescending.
>>841364
So then what is the fucking point of that stupid image? If cavemen hunting (struggling to sustain their existence in a state of nature) is equivalent to capitalist exploitation (struggling to sustain themselves in a context they cannot control, a state of nature), then isn't the whole argument worthless? If that is the case, then we can tear down the system that fucks over 99.9% of the 7 billion living humans and build something better, you fucking dickless idiot.
>>841356
John goes to work and produces value.
Joe is a lazy fuck and stays home, producing nothing.
Joe starves.
>hurr durr this is coercion
Consider suicide my man.
>>841348
>thing I didn't say
>MUH NATURAL ARISTOCRACY
>>841356
So what you're saying is that you expect others to care for you because you believe that work is no longer required if you want food, shelter, clothing, and heat?
>N-no! What I'm saying is that less work is required!
Yeah, less work is required because the farmer has a combine harvester which was built in a factory. The combine runs on gasoline that was refined from crude oil gathered by oil rig workers and refined by refinery workers. The gasoline was moved by a truck driver. The combine is maintained by mechanics and your food is transported to grocery stores and packaging plants where other workers use things that were built by other workers to make sure it's in good shape when it gets to your plate.
>>841136
It's not a delusion in an infinite universe
>>841374
Typical rightist, so indoctrinated by the Liberal world they've received through cultural diffusion they're unable to examine or understand society in a genuine way. Somewhere out there, a rich dude just got a tiny chubby boner because some pleb is out there vehemently defending his billionaire interests because of a bunch of articles of faith mixed up with a serious just-world delusion.
>>841375
>capitalism fucks over 99.9% of the population
dude
black book of communism
lmao
>>841376
>work this shit job or starve
Yes this is coercion.
>>841375
>If that is the case, then we can tear down the system that fucks over 99.9% of the 7 billion living humans
>he actually believes this
>>841382
>believing we're actually going to expand into the universe before we strip the earth bare and die
wew
>>841379
>everyone deserves to be able to vote
>equality of outcome is essentially a good thing
If you believe either of the above, kill yourself.
>>841376
John goes to work and produces value.
Joe inherits the business John works for and steals 90% of the wealth John produces. Joe denies John healthcare and pays him poverty wages. Sometimes, Joe opens a company store and pays John in script, making John a productive and consumptive unit completely under his control.
John starves.
Joe hires an illegal immigrant for half of what he paid John.
Joe buys a yacht.
>hurr durr this isn't coercion
Consider suicide, my man.
>>841391
>he thinks greentext is an argument
>>841386
>i should be able to not produce any value and still have value given to me
capped for later use. communists all deserve a bullet.
>>841384
>Typical rightist
I'm not, but it's telling that you can conceive of people in 2 boxes.
>>841336
>Implying oppression as we use it isn't the systematization of competition and violence that occurs in nature
>Implying that we, as members of a macrocosm that must compete to survive and reproduce, do not live an inherently oppressive existence.
The real question is what, if anything, to do about it.
>>841385
>citing garbage like the Black Book of Communism
>Authoritarian Communist regimes killed hundreds of millions of people!
>Nobody has ever starved or been killed or crushed to death or colonized or enslaved or outright massacred in service of capitalism! That was all unrelated!
>>841396
Ok. Go ahead and prove that 99.9% of people are "fucked over" by capitalism.
>>841395
>surplus value is a real thing
>capitalists dont put in work to continuously grow the business
>this is coercion
Consider suicide^2, my man.
>>841402
>an inherently oppressive existence
What the fuck does this even mean? This is a nonsensical statement, when there's nothing to measure our existence to.
>>841416
>>capitalists dont put in work to continuously grow the business
They don't - if they did, wealth inequality wouldn't be as staggering as it is. Are you fucking retarded?
>>841386
So offering a better alternative to starvation is coercion? The capitalist isn't the one forcing you to work a shitty job, the fact that you have to eat is. You can't blame the capitalist for starving because what he offers you instead isn't up to your standards.
>>841412
>any literature that refutes my shitty ideology is garbage
>people are killed in the name of capitalism
this is sort of like saying atheism is responsible for millions of deaths because hurr durr communists were atheists
murder in capitalism is an unfortunate byproduct that can be stifled by laws, in communism it's ingrained in the philosophy
kys
>>841394
>technocracy is the ideal system
>le eugenics
If you believe either of the above, return to reddit.
And then kill yourself.
>>841416
How is surplus value not real?
>>841425
You can blame the system that enables and perpetuates unequal relationships for no reason other than a uniquely bizarre moral system that equates wealth with agency, legitimacy, and worthiness. It's sickening.
The better alternative is neither starvation nor exploitation, but democratic control of wealth production to ensure universal human rights, like healthcare, housing, education, food, and water. I don't give a shit if some poor fucknut wealthy capitalist is deprived of his right to accumulate billions of dollars for his own personal hoard/diamond encrusted pool.
>>841422
>wealth inequality is a bad thing if everyone's standard of life is being raised
There's only one retard here lad, and its the promoter of history's greatest meme ideology.
>>841442
You mean Libertarianism, the edgy high-school ideology that is the economic and social equivalent of yelling "fuck you dad" while burning ants in your driveway?
>>841432
>technocracy isn't the ideal system
>eugenics is bad
>>>>>/r/fullcommunism, fedoralord :^)
>>841422
Wealth may not be equal, but even a cursory look at the condition of the world shows that wealth has been created for all classes affected by capitalism, as per the argument in the thread's OP.
>>841447
>anyone who disagrees with marxism is a libertarian
Nice strawman, faggot.
>>841425
The communists in this thread are annoying, and I have no dog in this fight, but you have to agree this is a stupid counter-argument man. It's true that he's not TECHNICALLY forcing you, but he has no other choice than death. And the reality is that the employer has the choice to give a better wage. Overall, your argument is dangerously close to the autism of the libertarians.
>>841312
So are you advocating for anarchism?
>>841439
>>I don't give a shit if some poor fucknut wealthy capitalist is deprived of his right to accumulate billions of dollars for his own personal hoard/diamond encrusted pool.
repeat after me:
I N C E N T I V E S
P R O F I T M O T I V E
>>841449
>>>>>/r/darkenlightenment, m'good sir.
>>841447
>communism
Any ideology that forces me to support LGBTQA++++ RADICAL TRANS-QUEER FEMINISM BLACK LIVES MATTER LIBERATION FRONT is immediately in the shitbucket.
>>841447
>>841484
what did he mean by this
>>841453
>>841439
Ok, so let's say the default is starvation. One alternative is to gather your own food, but holy shit is that tough. The capitalist offers an alternative that still kind of sucks, but it's better than nothing so you take it. You say this is coercion because an even better alternative (communism, for example) hypothetically exists? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that logic. And that's not even considering whether communism IS a better alternative, which is highly contentious in itself.
>>841482
THIS
>>841482
>implying anyone wants some 4chan reactionary's support
>>841496
Why is being a reactionary a bad thing?
>>841489
Clearly, you didn't pay attention to my post. I'm not communist, or capitalist. And you realize it's not a dichotomy, right? There doesn't have to be either. Take America, for example. It's not truly capitalist, in that the market isn't really free, labor laws, etc.
>You say this is coercion because an even better alternative (communism, for example) hypothetically exists?
No, I'm saying that it's coercion because the employer can give more.
>>841484
>All forms of government are socialism!
If were going to use such a retarded definition we might as well not even talk about socialism and just call it government.
Most people favor limited government but disagree on what those limits should be
>>841393
> being this much of a depressed luddite
>>841496
>he unironically believes in white privilege
>he unironically believes western women are still oppressed
>he unironically believes there are more than 2 genders
The majority of Americans are reactionaries by your definition. Fuck back off to leddit.
>>841499
Because reactionaries generally support an authoritarian, anti-democratic, sexist, racist restructuring of society.
Of course, a reactionary won't view those as bad things, so it's kind of pointless to argue.
>>841505
But what if they can't.
There are other costs in a business that aren't employee wages.
>Yeah inequality and exploitation are problems that should be addressed
Okay hold on. What do you mean by "exploitation" because a lot of people throw this word around without being very familiar with it in a marxist context and not knowing it has a specific materialist meaning. Exploitation is the fact that owners take a cut of the value/money that "their" workers produce in the creation of a commodity/service for themselves. It's what allows profit in the form that a commodity is sold at a higher price than what it took in compensation to produce it and is therefore essential to Capitalism's very existence.
Saying it can be addressed is like saying "the state has some problems like taxation that should be addressed...". Capitalists have no money if they aren't taking a tithe from their workers, unless they are all literally inventing new technologies every couple of years that make more from less in a way that has never been done before and an new equilibrium hasn't been reached yet.
>but the average person today lives a life of material wealth that's vastly superior to the average lives of past generations
You are crediting what is actually technological growth as capitalism. They're totally different. Capitalism is an organizational structure. It's how you orient authority in a factory and distribution of resources/privileges, not the technology of the factory itself. This is like crediting feudalism for crop rotation or the development of algebra.
>and peoples' lives are almost universally better for it.
I don't agree. Even in my own lifetime as a middle class American I've seen a decline in quality of life. My parents lived a better life than I do or will with greater ease of schooling, cheaper access to healthcare, better social mobility, stronger community, greater purchasing power via equality, greater safety, realer life and less corporatism. Yes there are iphones but they don't matter much and, again, that is technology not capitalism.
>>841506
>If were going to use such a retarded definition we might as well not even talk about socialism and just call it government.
Most conservatives use the term interchangeably. "Socialism" simply means "more government" to them
>>841510
>he thinks reddit doesn't bitch about SJWs and evil feminists 24/7
I don't know where this "reddit is a progressive paradise" meme comes from.
>>841505
>No, I'm saying that it's coercion because the employer can give more.
By that logic any spare moment not spent devoting your life to saving poor African children is coercion against them.
>>841434
How is surplus value a thing? There is no platonic value out there that is the right one, and any price over this is surplus
>>841511
But communism is authoritarianism in the guise of egalitarianism. Why else are communists so fixated on violent revolution and killing opposing opinions?
>>841513
If they honestly can't, then obviously you can't hold that against them.
But they should still cut costs, to save a life.
Why the fuck do marxists think that price and value are separate things?
>>841511
>sexist, racist restructuring of society.
define these
Is America currently structured in a sexist/racist way?
>>841523
>Fuck logic. Let's strawman.
I'm not able to help poor African kids. The boss can easily raise the wage.
>>841510
>he actually thinks white people receive zero privilege in western society
>he doesn't think oppression is real unless you're literally beating and killing the oppressed group in the streets
>he thinks the western conception of gender is the only valid one
wew
>>841528
Because not everything with value can be purchased.
>>841536
>he thinks the western conception of gender is the only valid one
What is the eastern conception of gender?
>>841530
Not him and no it isn't, except these morons kind of ran out of ammo after slavery and segregation got abolished so now they think a society is structurally racist if gay people appropriate ebonics or some shit. It's pointless to pay attention to leftards, trust me. I wish they had forced trips so I could filter them all.
>>841528
I'm not Marxist, but it's a completely sensible stance.
If a vital product drops in price significantly, it's not if its value has somehow dropped. Value isn't determined by people, except in non-essential goods.
>>841535
>I'm not able to help poor African kids.
No? Then how about the homeless in America right now? Isn't there any room in wherever your living for a spare man?
People aren't owed shit just for existing.
>>841536
>he thinks the western conception of gender is the only valid one
You were correct when it came to white privilege. But with each line of greentext, your opinion became stupider and stupider.
>>841546
>Value isn't determined by people
Yes it is you FUCKING retard.
>>841546
Then value is completely intangible variable that can't be quantified. Essentially a useless concept.
>>841546
Value is exactly determined by people.
>>841557
>what is use value
>>841505
>No, I'm saying that it's coercion because the employer can give more.
That's basically what I said: that you say it's coercion because a better alternative hypothetically exists (the employer giving more). I just used communism as an example better alternative since that's theme of this thread.
And I still don't see how that's coercion. If anything, coercion would have to be levied against the employer to give more than he's willing.
>>841567
Something made up by people
>>841567
>use value
>real
Just another Marxist bullshit meme term.
>>841550
>Isn't there any room in wherever your living for a spare man?
No, not really. And this isn't nearly the same as the employer example.
Stop acting like you care about poor people, and make a good argument for once.
>People aren't owed shit just for existing.
Q - Do you advocate for no government?
>>841545
>only the political system and things that are officially signed into law or abolished are real
>society and societal structures don't exist
>>841570
>everything I don't like is a meme
>>841571
>No, not really. And this isn't nearly the same as the employer example.
You're just trying to circumvent the fact that you COULD be doing something to help another human being right now but you're actively choosing not to.
>Stop acting like you care about poor people, and make a good argument for once.
I'm not pretending I do, faggot, I'm not the one claiming that negative coercion is a real thing.
>>841579
>there is objective value outside the human perception
Kill yourself.
>>841575
You know I could ask you to give me an example of tangible, structural racism in our society but I honestly don't really give a shit since I already know you're just gonna hurl some dumb meme answer at me.
>>841582
Answer the question: Do you advocate for no government?
Okay marxists, I have a pen. How do I calculate its value?
>>841575
>>society and societal structures don't exist
If you don't like it, move, asshole. You're not entitled to other people's respect. If I think faggots are disgusting, that's my right.
>>841510
>The majority of Americans are reactionaries by your definition.
Yes that's true but most of them don't build up an identity about it, spend all of their time reading human biodiversity and monarchist blogs, and constantly spout quotes from 18th century philosophers they've never read the way the ones on the internet do.
>>841592
No.
>>841590
What would you NOT consider a dumb meme answer?
>>841594
Give it one point for each inch, and then multiply depending on the color ink. 2x for black, and 3x for blue.
>>841594
It's a fucking pen.
You can write with it.
There's its value.
>>841603
Then shouldn't the people get something back, for paying their taxes?
>>841604
Not answering with an answer would be a good start.
>>841599
Lmao, straight from /r/shitredditsays.
Trannies, faggots, feminists, "intersectionals" are disgusting and all the shit your kike pinko university professors peddled to you will never win over.
>>841609
I don't think "pen" is a number.
>>841557
We are stranded on this island and we need this fishing spear John created to feed ourselves. But Mark doesn't think it's very "valuable". Not as valuable as this clump of diamonds he found in a river anyways. Mark is objectively wrong if he wants to meet certain tasks with objective requirements such as calorie sustenance. He can say whatever he wants until he dies of starvation clutching his diamonds.
This is random, but I really love this board. There's a healthy mixture of /pol/tards and autistic Marxists. It makes for good debate, and doesn't get boring easily.
>>841609
Why is the ability to write valuable outside a human-defined perception?
>>841613
i fucked your dad faggot
>>841621
>EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE
Capitalism indirectly encourages mass hedonism. Supply and demand is deeper than just cars and computers. Drugs, sex, and porn are all a result of this supply and demand ideology. Capitalism also encourages laziness and dependence, as one will come to rely on others to fulfill a service.
With that being said, however, I like to eat. As a tall, skinny dude who lifts, I need 2900 calories daily just to maintain wait. Of those calories, I need 160 g protein and around 200 carbs. Capitalism is the only system that allows me to do this. Supply and demand allows me to purchase excess food, while food companies can create excess food products.
Liberal economics is literally saving me form being dyel.
>>841615
That proved nothing, faggot. Continuing to survive isn't an objective value. Mark valued the diamonds and John valued the fishing spear, the universe doesn't give a shit.
>>841625
>no real arguments
gg, nigger.
>>841610
Yes.
>>841613
>not like me, I'm a smart independent thinker because I browse /pol/ infographics and take contrarian stances on everything
>>841107
As another post already mentioned, capitalism looks fucking amazing as a successor to feudalism and mercantilism. As in every human system, it has its weaknesses and strengths. People are asking for examples of something better, but economics is a slow evolution. Joint stock companies and banking preceded what we have today, though they had existed for centuries prior. It's hard to say what will come next, but it will most likely be a gradual process.
>>841632
"Human-defined perception" is a shit argument. What other paradigm is relevant, than ours, in this example?
>>841649
hurr durr the status quo is always right never have an abnormal opinion
>>841653
>marxists in charge of reading comprehension
We were arguing whether value is objective or subjective, nigger.
>>841636
So what's wrong with giving some of that money back, as welfare?
>>841653
But different people have different perceptions. Objective value doesn't exist
>>841662
Nothing. We weren't talking about welfare, we were talking about whether an employer is being coercive by not giving his (after taxation) laborer an increased wage based on some arbitrary metric.
I'm not a memejectivist, welfare is fine.
>>841621
That's what it's good for is writing. Whether you think writing is the greatest thing ever or absolute shit, that is the pen's purpose and function. It's 'value', regardless of personal opinion.
>>841610
Common defense, a court system, a legislative body, maybe some basic services, but not government run redistributive programs.
ARGUMENTS ON THE INTERNET WHEREIN NO ONE BOTHERS TO DEFINE THEIR TERMS AND EACH PARTICIPANT PROCEEDS FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ARE GREAT AND TOTALLY NOT POINTLESS OR CIRCULAR AT ALL
>>841614
Marx was literally retarded enough to think that value is based on the average or "socially necessary" time of labor. I mean ponder for a second how stupid this is.
Marx was a monumental moron that just borrowed some basic (and now outdated and refuted) principles from Adam Smith, turned them on their heads, sprinkled it with Hegelian historical dialectic and added some downright moronic historical misconceptions like the pre-agricultural people living in proto-communism where there were no wars and shit like that. And note this makeshift theory was only created to justify that capitalism is "unfair", which is a conviction/bias he held beforehand. It's basically confirmation bias: the theory.
>>841659
Ok. The pen is objectively valuable, because it is vital to many operations. Satisfied?
>>841677
What if I just use it to put in pooper?
>>841675
Oh, ok. As long as the people can get welfare and they pay their taxes, we're fine.
>>841685
>I mean ponder for a second how stupid this is.
It's not though.
>>841679
>maybe some basic services
Elaborate.
>but not government run redistributive programs
Why not? It handles the problem of people who don't have a livable wage, without forcing employers to pay more. Win-win.
>>841698
>if i put enough labor into something regardless of how shitty the outcome is its still valuable
xD
>>841629
>Continuing to survive isn't an objective value.
It's not in the grand scheme of things but it is from a human perspective that has the assumption of desired life. It is if you are at point A and need to get to point B because getting there has objective requirements.
If you want to move a boulder then a certain baseline of kinetic force has value. Maybe the universe doesn't care whether the boulder moves or not but if you do you need to recognize that a diesel engine attached to a car is more valuable than a golden feather.
It takes so many hours of work to construct Y amount of steel girders. This is objective. There is no way around it. And the amount of hours of expected effort with assumed technology available has value. It doesn't matter what retarded price you put on the construction process, it's a fact if you need so many tons to finish building by next week no matter what. The universe doesn't fucking care about your preferences. You won't be able to subjectively wish that building up.
>>841707
>muh mud pies
>>841687
What difference does that make? Are the operations valuable objectively?
>>841697
>As long as the people can get welfare
Let me clarify: in order to be entitled to welfare, they have to be either working or looking for work. Hence, not owed shit simply for existing.
>>841698
Yes it is, it is completely retarded since it doesn't even answer WHY it should be based on the time of labor. It's a complete asspull axiom. It also doesn't account for the fact that two separate people can put the same amount of labor hours and material into producing someone and the two products can still have different values.
>>841708
>It's not in the grand scheme of things but it is from a human perspective
So, subjective.
>the assumption of desired life
Why the fuck are we assuming this?
>You won't be able to subjectively wish that building up.
We're talking about value itself, not the necessary labor to produce it.
>>841729
*producing something
>>841730
>We're talking about value itself, not the necessary labor to produce it.
Necessary labor is a value. A slave produces value in cotton. It doesn't matter what price you put on an accounting ledger ("cost of labor: 0") the slave has produced value no matter what you tell yourself.
>>841751
>Necessary labor is a value. A slave produces value in cotton. It doesn't matter what price you put on an accounting ledger ("cost of labor: 0") the slave has produced value no matter what you tell yourself.
No, he hasn't. Dipping a rock in paint hasn't produced value unless someone else wants to buy it.
>>841703
I'm not the guy that you're talking to but government should provide public goods and maintain the Commons.
Redistribution is a bad idea because it inventivises officials in government and private and legal persons to complete for the redistributive allocation, resulting in terrible policies like corn and sugar subsidies which exist despite being bad policy for anyone except sugar and corn farmers.
>>841597
>You're not entitled to other people's respect
Why not? Unless you give someone an actual reason to disrespect you
>>841770
Being a tranny degenerate is an actual reason to disrespect you.
>>841770
If someone lives a degenerate, immoral lifestle, one might argue that they've forfeited their right to respect.
>>841751
He might as well not have produced anything.
>two men
>equally skilled
>each has a pickaxe
>each starts digging for treasure
>each spends 2 days digging
>one of them finds a chest of gold, sells it and becomes extremely rich
>second guy doesn't find anything
The value of labor of the second guy is thus literally worthless and you have to be dumb as shit to believe otherwise.
>>841757
Again, if I'm on a island constructing things like fishing poles, shelter, and rafts have value no matter if no one buys them. With labor you would rarely do anything consistently that didn't have value to at least yourself. Creating a market of one, if you must think of it that way. When you conceptualize buying giving value to something like a painted rock you are secretly associating it with the labor that inevitably associates with mature market activity.
Let's say Rob buys painted rocks or bottled air or something equally retarded from Chris. What the money exchanged does is give Chris greater command to attain goods and services than he had before i.e. LABOR. Likewise Rob must expel labor to attain the money to pay for his stupid painted rock collection, associating his work somewhere else with the rock. He can subjectively do that, but it's the labor that really counts and his stupid and/or insane brain just happens to be attached to the valuable labor producing muscles.
It's almost impossible to imagine buying something that doesn't implicitly also contain labor exchange. Rob could not exchange money for painted rocks because it is essentially promissory notes for other's labor elsewhere. Nor could Rob work any harder to pay for rocks as that would be a change in global labor supply.
>>841241
LTV is metaphysical horseshit
Exploitation is a dead meme
How does /his/ feel about Milton Friedman?
>>841779
It's not worthless if you want to replicate your gold finding scenario 2. Ultimately though these are freak situation and there's a reason you have to construct these stilted fantasies that never happen in real life. What matters is the averaging out of all normal labor i.e. digging for treasure. The general probability of finding gold in the area will also be averaged out.
Let's also keep in mind that gold itself is worthless. It only matters in so far as what it can command other people to do. If no one will WORK for you because I've pushed a magic button that made the world care as much for gold as they do for sand then you don't have much do you? And therefor gold is only as valuable in how much effort is needed to find, preserve and exchange it on a global supply.
>>841852
>these are freak situation
>there's a reason you have to construct these stilted fantasies that never happen in real life
Yet pulling hypotheses about deserted islands and magic buttons out of your ass is much more realistic, give me a break.
Thousands upon thousands of people moved to Arizona and California to dig for gold, many of them toiled like niggers, yet only a select few got rich. Why is that?
Also kindly reminding you that Marx also completely disregarded the relevance of scarcity in calculating value so his theories are barely worth wiping my hairy ass with.
>>841107
>Yeah inequality and exploitation are problems that should be addressed, but the average person today lives a life of material wealth that's vastly superior to the average lives of past generations
Wow, you could literally say that about pretty much any system except Christianity. Basically your argument for capitalism is "christianitylol"
>>841107
>Even with its problems, I just can't look at all that and come to the conclusion that it's an evil system that should be abolished. Fixed and tweaked, maybe, but not abandoned.
You need to learn that markets are not the same as capital. Just because some states that were communist in name went full retard with a centrally controlled economy doesn't mean that's what socialism actually is.
>>841865
>Thousands upon thousands of people moved to Arizona and California to dig for gold, many of them toiled like niggers, yet only a select few got rich. Why is that?
Because the supply of gold had reached an equilibrium point and getting gold took lots of effort normally. You needed massive complex mining operations to extract it, surveying missions to find it, security to protect it, etc. The gold rush promised that you could find it as a one man operation in a river and not deal with all that normal stuff. Except for self-costs in equipment it's pure self-profit if you hit it big. But that's not normal.
The way I heard it the people that got consistently rich in the gold rush were those selling to the hopeful prospectors. All their, the prospectors, collective work funneled into the general stores and whatnot for sure no matter who won. Like a casino.
>>841879
The commies usually say that it was the technology, not capitalism that improved the living standards. This is partially true of course, but commies seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that capitalism accelerated technological advances by a crazy rate and that linear spread of technology wouldn't have happened if countries didn't abolish mercantilism in favor of free trade.
>>841889
>some
hmmmmm
>>841906
Are you implying mercantilism is not capitalism?
The defining feature of capitalism is ownership of capital (means of production). It's not markets, it's not money, it's not freedom. It's the fact that you have a class of people with capital that accumulate more capital by virtue of having capital.
>>841935
>Are you implying mercantilism is not capitalism?
Absolutely. Capitalism arrived with industrialization + free trade + social advancement of the bourgeoise (non-aristocratic wealthy urban people).
>The defining feature of capitalism is ownership of capital
First of all this is Marxist definition and I'm not sure why should I take it seriously.
Second, even Marx himself recognized at least 5 different stages of history (pre-agricultural, slave-based, feudal, capitalist, socialist and communist). You're essentially saying that everything that's not socialism/communism is capitalism which is even more retarded than Marx.
>>841954
>Absolutely. Capitalism arrived with industrialization + free trade + social advancement of the bourgeoise (non-aristocratic wealthy urban people).
>no true capitalism
You're only opening yourself up to
>no true communism
The only part that is true is
>(non-aristocratic wealthy urban people)
Because traditional aristocrats can sometimes have control over state functions and property.
>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit
>>841954
>industrialization + free trade + social advancement
Not explicitly exclusive to capitalism, and several "capitalist" economies don't actually do that.
>>841143
>just one that doesn't imagine we can just keep expanding forever, because it will result in our destruction.
Define your terms and be more specific.
>>841974
>no true communism
What? I know there was never true communism and there never will be since it's a cuckoo pipe dream from la la land. It physically cannot exist and function.
As for the rest, you're contradicting even Marx.
>>841998
>What? I know there was never true communism and there never will be since it's a cuckoo pipe dream from la la land. It physically cannot exist and function.
Capitalist economies can physically not function once robots are able to do most jobs better and cheaper than humans, and your wage labor is worth less than the cost to house and feed you. Literally, the only thing keeping capitalists feeding and clothing you is to prevent revolts and mass violence, which is not under most definitions, free trade.
>As for the rest, you're contradicting even Marx.
That's the actual definition of capitalism, not a Marxian definition. It's privately owned capital. More generally speaking it means capital falls under property rights and ownership laws. The basis of capitalism is capital.
>>842038
>Capitalist economies can physically not function once robots are able to do most jobs better and cheaper than humans, and your wage labor is worth less than the cost to house and feed you.
This is a hypothetical that might never happen. What I am sure will never happen though is communism since it seems to ignore the laws of physics.
>>842057
You don't even know what communism is and probably think communism means centrally controlled economy or some garbage opinion just like your definition of capitalism.
Your definition of capitalism wasn't a definition, it was a description of the form modern capitalism takes, and strictly speaking that description isn't even all that accurate.
>>842092
>communism means centrally controlled economy or some garbage opinion just like your definition of capitalism
Given that centrally planned economies are necessary to bring about communism, as per Marx himself, you should probably just stop posting.
>>842092
I know communism is some kind of dumb rainbow utopia where countries and classes and private property doesn't exist and all people get magically rewarded according to their needs and merits. You might as well slap Jesus on it and call it the kingdom of heaven.
State-controlled society actually can, did and does exist, communism cannot and never will.
>>841879
>You must be 18 to use this site
>>842100
Communism isn't a state controlled economy.
>>842119
>rainbow utopia
Honestly, I'm not even saying communism as according to Marx is desirable or achievable. I'm saying your opinion is trash and clearly based on pure uneducated ideology since you, or someone else, brought up commies and claimed all technology was thanks to capitalism.
>>842133
t. xian with a mental age of 12
>>842146
Linear spread of technology certainly is thanks to capitalism. You want to know what's the opposite? Think nuclear bombs.
>>841107
This doesn't make sense. You're not even talking about capitalism.
The economy is not capitalism. Economists don't need to understand capitalism to serve their function and most of them don't.
>>842158
More accurately, the point I brought up wasn't whether or not capitalism was involved with technological advance. It was your assertion that mercantilism wasn't capitalism and only your description of modern capitalism counts as capitalism. You brought up commies and Marx. R&D takes capital, although DARPA/NASA/intertubes show it doesn't necessarily have to be privately owned. Yes, when the technology goes to the private sector, after being developed by public capital, it gets cheaper and better, but that has more to do with taking it to market rather than private ownership of capital, since that stuff is never really taken to market. Most of the R&D done by public capital is prototyping stage, not mass production, and things are pretty much never profitable at that stage.
>>842188
Don't care shit cunt, this debate bores me now that you're just cherrypicking irrelevant shit. Bye.
>>842183
The USSR gave capitalists a really easy target to make the simplistic argument capitalism is good, communism is bad, because of the adoption of centrally controlled markets. The thing is, lots of poor developing countries attempt state control of industry to some extent to play catch up, communist or not. When the communist states adopted centrally controlled markets, it gave capitalists the ability to conflate capitalism with market economy. Soviet communism is really the only reason people like Rothbard and Mises were even listened to.
>>842193
>cherrypicking
>>841906
>>841935
>>841954
>>841974
>>841998
This is the majority of the conversation which is mostly about how you define capitalism
>>841998
>>842038
>>842057
This is where you start projecting about me being a communist, and I didn't even support communism I just gave an example of where capitalism won't work.
>>842092
>>842119
>>842146
>>842158
>>842188
This is where I start calling you out for having a shit opinion rooted in ideology. I never supported communism. I said your opinion of communism is probably just as shitty and uneducated as your opinion of capitalism. Guess what, your idea of perfectly free trade and whatever is also basically la la land rainbow and unicorns utopia peddled by propertied capitalists.
>>842193
And then you claim I'm cherry picking because you project I'm a Marxist.
>>842235
The first 10 or so posts are not even mine.
there are 2 types of pro capitalism shills
a, already well off ppl through inheritence
b, ppl who believe they will be well off because they are so great at whatever they do
we arent colonizing mars already because of capitalist pigs
>>842243
Half of them are mine retard.
There's only 14 posts linked. If you disown the first 10, that leaves 4. Half of which are mine. Which leaves you with two posts.
That means you posted >>842158 and when I responded, you suddenly got "bored" of my "cherrypicking" >>842193 after a grand total of one post.
So good job being a backpedaling retard, or a retard that can't even count using your fingers.
>>842255
Wrong, there are 3
c, american dream gonna make it and going to work my way from poverty to filthy rich capitalist and no one else also had this idea and all the other poor people are lazy and thats why theyre poor
>>842262
Neger bitte.
>>842235
Communism is a fucking la la rainbow utopia, asshole.
>while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner
>>842279
Good job, you got bored of cherrypicking after two, not just one, posts and still can't count up to 10. Not only that, you responded to a post directed at a specific anon as if you were that anon, and it's cherrypicking because you project I'm a communist.
>>842293
What is it with autists and their wall of quotes and guessing who said what, lmao like it even matters retard. Does communism typically come with aspergers?
>This thread.
Ugh.
>>841546
Use-value is socially-determined.
>>842269
how does that not fit b?
>yes ill be exceptional if i study really hard and become rich, im so much better than all these millions of ppl trying the same
>>842289
Perfectly possible with robots and sufficient mechanization. You do realize Marx pretty much told everyone you're not ready for Communism.
Also being able to pursue diverse agrarian pursuits was really not that controversial until industrialization and specialization of labor. Fishing and hunting and being an outdoors man are in fact, traditional past times of the farmer.
Note he didn't say he can be a doctor in the morning, a cosmonaut in the afternoon, a clockmaker in the evening.
>>842312
>muh robots
Every time.
>>842309
>b, ppl who believe they will be well off because they are so great at whatever they do
Because b is more like, wow I'm so thankful to my capitalist overlords that I even have a job and a TV and all this prosperity trickles down to me, I'm so happy and lucky to be a factory worker, I could never do what they do. Think Brave New World castes for a more explicit example.
>>842323
Yes, Marx wrote about mechanization of labor. Mechanized labor was one of his big things, and according to him the catalyst for communist revolution.
>For orthodox Marxists, socialism is the lower stage of communism based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" while upper stage communism is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; the upper stage becoming possible only after the socialist stage further develops economic efficiency and the automation of production has led to a superabundance of goods and services.
So literally
>muh robots
Marxism is about muh robots, which is why every time Marx said you aren't ready for communism when a bunch of undeveloped countries tried to start a revolution.
Ignoring robots ignores the basic premises of Marx's ideas, and also a relevant issue in the relatively near future.
The further we progress technologically and economically, the harder it will be for socialist economics to exist.
The internet and globalisation is effectively destroying the government's abilities to seize capital from the successful entrepreneurs and companies, so the big question now is whether governments can either promote a free market or force all of the capital out of the country.
The days of Woodrow Wilson-esque progressive taxation are coming to a close.
>>842344
Unfortunately for marxists, the first they are going to see of their beloved robots are the ones that will be replacing the poorest people's jobs. Ironic, isn't it?
>>842344
Muh robots will never happen that's the thing moron.
>>842323
A computer is now a provisional 9p at Go and the fourth best player in the world.
Before this program was written, the best Go program would lose regularly to mid-weight amateurs.
Advances in programming are accelerating. Programmers don't even know how a lot of high-level stuff works anymore.
>>842352
>Unfortunately for marxists, the first they are going to see of their beloved robots are the ones that will be replacing the poorest people's jobs. Ironic, isn't it?
No it's not ironic.
>According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie.
You are incredibly poorly versed in Marxism and only know it from memes. Once poor people's wage-labor is not worth hiring, poor people no longer can function in a market economy because they have nothing to trade. History has shown when people are unable to eat, they revolt. That is pretty much the entire point of Marxism. Mechanization of labor creates new conditions which simply do not work for poor people.
The options:
1) Capitalists kill all the poor people leaving only the propertied capitalists and a hand full of slaves behind and most poor people are dead.
2) Capitalists created a welfare state that provides for the poor even though they don't work but preserves the exclusivity of capital through loss of freedom and people are disenfranchised.
3) Poor people have a successful revolution and capital is at least mostly owned by society at large, where everyone is enfranchised, not necessarily full equality.
>>842372
Skynet when?
>>842372
Best player of what? Minecraft?
>>842387
Shogi
