Old thread: >>68069627
Please remind me what is wrong with communism. You capitalist cucks still haven't given any good answers.
>>68093870
Because guess what, when you started @ age zero you weren't at the top, nor your fathers, nor your grandparents.
>>68093809
That's because you've already made your mind up and wouldn't accept valid evidence if it slapped you in the face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ
This video explains what you are.
>>68094072
Oi I posted one last thing in the previous thread for you, plz look at it.
>>68093809
>what's wrong with communism?
It doesn't work, plain and simple.
>>68093809
You are the real cuck. You are a pathetic individual, and thusly have nothing, so you are okay with you ideology taking everything away from everyone else. It is wrong to take things that aren't your's, faggot, and my property does not belong to the state, period.
>>68094078
I don't know what you mean by "valid evidence."
you have to be eighteen years of age or older to post here
>>68094158
>>68094078
>>68094210
Oh look, more uneducated intellectual failures.
>>68094078
>>68093809
The new upper class and super classes in communism will be those running the mass production and trade facilities - the massive shipping containers, the distribution pipelines, as the whole crew of them will take whatever they want in mass quantity for themselves.
I don't even care if no state and no money, and if so - then ONLY GOODS are what will be used to get everything extra all the people want... and those in control will be TAKING IT WITH WILD ABANDON AND BE THE NEW UPPER SUPER CLASSES
>>68094272
The whole thread had valid moral and economic arguments against communism, you just don't want to accept them.
>>68094052
>That sounds interesting, however why is the state telling me what moderation is?
Rule of Law
>and why can't my merits be rewarded by their objective worth.
They are, but you need to know what is worth for you; i.e.you should be able to answer the question what do you want as a reward?
>Also since when is there supposed to be a state in communism?
That's the silly/ideal part of communism that I disagree with.
>>68093809
you dumb fuck probabily dont know that ALL socialism theory relies on a false argument, that the value is objective when IS NOT.
Thats the core of DAS kapital, a rotten core btw.
jevons edgeworth, and karl menger have demostrated long ago that socialism in economics is complete bullshit
>>68094158
>It don't work
Mind explaining?
>>68094210
>M-muh m-muh private property
How is it wrong to redistribute wealth? You need a better argument than that you outback faggot.
>>68094310
never change, roofucker
>>68094481
Please do change, uneducated burger.
>>68094310
>>>68094341
>>>68094078
Nice adhom, you stupid fucker.
I don't need a special education in your bullshit to know that it will involve the collectivization of all property, and that would mean that I cannot keep my considerable wealth. You people are fucking bums. You are okay with having things spoon fed to you because you are too pathetic to get them yourselves.
I don't want your communism, because I want to be left the fuck alone. Liberty works, and it is moral, and communism is in violation of my liberty, so for the fifth time, your ideology is immoral.
>>68094072
>hen you started @ age zero you weren't at the top, nor your fathers, nor your grandparents.
ROFLMAO It's like the jealous shrieking liberals screaming white privilege silver spoon - and the
PERFECT FUCKING FANTASY OF FAKE AS SHIT IMPOSSIBLE COMMUNISM MAKING CERTAIN NOT ONE OF THOSE FUCKERS YOU FAGGOTS HATE EVER GETS TO EXIST EVER AGAIN !!!!
ROFLMAO OMG IS AN ANGRY FAGGOT LOSERS FANTASY TO GET BACK AT THE WINNERS
>>68094516
It's ad homenim because I present the facts that you don't like, so you run around with your fingers in your ears?
K.
>>68094445
human nature will inherently render the goals of communism null and void
>>68094445
Looking at Bernie & muh wealth redistribution, comes at price of taxation
http://www.independentsentinel.com/angry-old-red-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-be-afraid-of-socialism/
>The great economist Milton Friedman explained that the government obtains the money it spends by taxation, borrowing, or creating new money. Taxing and borrowing subtract from the economy by canceling out the stimulative effects of the spending. Creating new money might boost economic activity for a while but it feeds inflation, and if done on a large scale, leads to disastrous hyper-inflation. Eventually, growing the size of government ultimately leads to ruin, like in Argentina.
>>68094341
Where the fuck do you derive these so-called "morals" from? I really want to know what kind of pitiful excuse for justifiable "morals" you could pull out of your ass.
Communism simply cannot exist when there are competing ideas and there is no way to snuff out competing ideas without a police state (authoritarianism which communists claim is not communism)
>>68093809
I love popular communist figures, they all look like such loser nerds that got bullied or had obvious problems gaining a woman's favor. Dude looks so nasty, 100% sold his soul to satan just so his loser name could be written in some history books, what a loser man.
>>68094672
I didn't say anything about creating new money, dumbass.
>>68094341
>ad hoc fallacy
Who decides what morals are right? The majority? Then that's not communism that's democracy
Democracy and communism are inherently distinct from one another
>>68093809
hierarchy is an intrinsic behaviour in the human condition
>>68094618
I'm assuming that you're trying to bait with all the caps and the unnecessary expletives, but if you're not I'd like to suggest that you chill out a bit.
>>68094618
What I'm trying to say is that society gave you in one way or another the means and course for your actions which put you at the top of something.
You are not giving away, you are "paying back".
>>68094399
Nice dubs. You are on a role today.
In order to be asked what I want as a reward, would I not need to do something particularly exemplary? Can I not just run a for profit business that provides a service in exchange for something I desire without government interference?
Yes, when you add the state to the equation, it makes functional sense, however it would still be totalitarian, and it would still be immoral.
When you loose the state, nothing is stopping me from industrially dominating the communes. People would enjoy my goods and services as they would likely be created and distrusted at an incentive for those that are working for me, at a more efficient pace than the idle commune could. Once I provide these serves and have an employee base, I can introduce a credit system, which will take the place of currency, and I can built a better place for my commune.
This is the natural, logical progression of progress. Communism, as it has no state to prevent recapitalization, will be killed by individualists and capitalists.
The ideology of peaceful little smurf villages is unreal. People have aspirations for greater things.
>USSR
failed
>Maoist China
failed
>Khmer Rouge
failed
The only possible argument left is Cuba, which is an authoritarian state where the will of people is suppressed
>>68093809
Labor theory of value.
>>68094802
ONLY THE LAST THREAD WE JUST MOVED FROM THE COMMIE FAGGOT ARGUED THAT IF THEY THE PEOPLE DIDN'T GET TO VOTE ON THA SHIT THEN IT WASN'T DEMOCRACY BY THE PEOPLE AND THEREFORE WASN'T THE COMMUNIST COLLECTIVE OWNING EVERYTHING
NOW YOU GO OPPOSITE.... ALSO CLAIMING COMMIE
>>68094918
>oh look, another burger presenting examples of state-capitalist states and thinking they were communist because the party that ran them called themselves communist
>>68094798
I'm just bringing up an example of how communism doesn't work, dumbass
>>68094910
Who decides when I have "put back" enough?
How much must I be punished because random chance landed me rich parents?
How do we decide who in the underclass has put forth enough from previous generations to be worthy of what they get now?
>>68094445
Is is wrong to redistribute wealth because it would mean you are FORCEFULLY taking wealth away from some people and giving it to others. That is immoral. The absence of sharing is amoral, but it is not in breach of morality, it is simply tangential, hence the middle class, where I dwell, is not immoral. You are literally stealing from me, at gun point, and for that you will need a state, and that state will need to be trusted to give up power once the smurf villages are set up and all of the rich folk are fucking killed.
I can go on, but the problems are limitless. I won't have you lazy, degenerate dreamers take what is lawfully, morally, and rightfully mine.
>>68094653
>Oh look, more uneducated intellectual failures.
That statement is nothing short of adhom, you pretentious little faggot!
>>68095018
So show me where communism has worked
I don't discount that it can work on a small neighborhood level where people come together and decide that's how they want to live but to apply it to a whole state is ludicrous
Too many competing interests and no matter what you believe you cannot have all people willingly come together to support the "greater good" without a police state
In order for worldwide communism to exist there must be a substantial police force that puts boot on neck of anyone who dissents
>>68095093
How is forceful acquisition of wealth immoral? Go on, explain the basis of your morality.
>>68095018
> state-capitalist states
how much double think do you have? when the soviet union fell every single citizen of the soviet union was given shares in every nationalised asset and state owned company which was all of them.
because THE PEOPLE FUCKING OWNED THEM
>>68095394
And look how this turned out
>>68094802
No, there are deep routed cultural values in the west, the most important of which is individual liberty. You leave me alone, I leave you alone, we all get along. Simple. This has worked astoundingly throughout history, most notably in England. It is the most moral system of existence for human beings as it does not infringe on anyone's rights and it does not infringe on people's existence.
Moral relativism is cancer, and it is bullshit. A system of morality is judged on the outcome of it's implementation for the common man. It should be against stealing, murder, assault, and other obvious evils.
It is moral because EVERYONE benefits from it and everyone is allowed to exist up to and around their full potential in safety. It is more moral than your bullshit because of it's fruits and because of what it guarantees.
You have undoubtedly heard to saying "how would you like it" at some stage. This is the most important statement in morality. It is immoral if you would not like it done to you.
Honestly, if you buy into moral relativism, kill yourself, because you are too dumb to see the fruits of what actual morality can produce.
>it hasn't worked yet that mean it never can
>people will never work in the common good
>nobody strives without being promise wealth
>capitalism delivers resources more efficiently
a dollar for every time someone uses one of these arguments
what is the reasoning for why communism should be forcibly implemented?
because it sure as hell won't naturally come about
>>68095093
>Is is wrong to redistribute wealth because it would mean you are FORCEFULLY taking wealth away from some people and giving it to others.
That is what the market does, plain and simple. Not redistributing a a portion of your wealth to the people that without their existence, you wouldn't have said wealth, is immoral.
You're the one spouting ad homenim, you don't even give valid reasons most of the time.
>>68095290
Well it hasn't worked anywhere because there are no examples of it. In order for communism to exist ( a stateless, moneyless, classless society, where the means of production are collectively owned), humanity will need huge amounts more technological progress. I won't and can't argue that trying to implement a communist society now would fall flat on it's face.
>>68095394
Just because some of the people that were soviet citizens got some of what they were owed when the Soviet union FELL ( far from even the majority, most assets were given to oligarchs), doesn't mean that the Soviet Union when it had power was owned by the people.
>>68095060
>Who decides when I have "put back" enough?
No one is forcing you to "put back" in itself so you and your own "greed"
Intermezzo
"Adrian Veidt: I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end."
"Dr. Manhattan: 'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."
>How much must I be punished because random chance landed me rich parents?
No one will punish or take anything that's not actually yours; what you can't use you don't need.
>to be worthy of what they get now?
Not talking about generations here but It comes to what they want really, few middle class people 1st and 2nd world (I hate using this expression) want WAY more than they have today and the costs of the things they want are overblown out of proportion based on the offer-demand.
I would really like to know how may employees vs unemployed there are in the world today, but I bet there are more unemployed people than employees.
>>68095563
>>it hasn't worked yet that mean it never can
Arguing from the negative
God exists because you can't prove otherwise, etc
>>68095364
It is infringing on liberty, which is the system which guarantees my my human rights and best assures the safety and the pursuit of happiness for all. It is individuality.
If I own something, and you want to take it using the power of the state you are threatening me with death. The reason this is immoral is because you wouldn't like it to happen to you. The reason my system of morality works is because the individual is the highest authority on good an evil, hence a moral system should account for this, hence the liberal principals of western Europe, which insure the most equitable opportunity and safety.
The reason my morality is better than your is because it works for everyone better than yours. If you think it is okay to steal my property, then there is no reason it isn't okay to do it to someone else. You would be acting on me in a way that is not how you would want to be acted upon, hence there is a system of oppression inherent in that system, and not only that, but I am certainly not the only one subjected to this.
Why should morality only apply to some people and not others? Is it not far more consistent to apply it to everyone, and if so, why would you steal from me, the things that I have worked for decades to achieve?
>>68093809
I see nothing wrong with it.
I certainly see something wrong with the 50% youth unemployment rate here..
>>68093809
I'm listening to this for the first time. It's good stuff.
>>68095896
>I certainly see something wrong with the 50% youth unemployment rate here..
or we could hire twice as much people for half the salary to do the same job half of the time.
>>68095623
You don't know what adhom is, so stop saying it.
I do redistribute a portion of that wealth through tax which the state uses to pay for infrastructure and to support those who do not contribute to the capitalist system. That is also immoral.
It is immoral because I as an individual amassed wealth, through consensual agreements. Capitalism is all consensual agreements, weather it hurts you feelings or not. I have no once agreed to give any of my wealth back to anyone. Through these agreements, I have made money, and it is not my moral responsibility to make sure that other sin these agreements do the same, it is there responsibility to make sure they are benefiting from an consensual agreement, and I would be violating their liberty by forcing them to make different choices.
I don't owe anyone anything. Nothing at all. Every cent I have earned was done through consensual relationship.
>>68095976
what do ya mean m80
>>68095669
How can a communist system work without forcing the haves to give to the have-nots?
Of course there's way more unemployed compared to employers
How is this even a question and what is it getting at?
The only way you can have all people live in shacks and eat a bowl of rice for their daily meal is through force
Communism is the use of force to redistribute wealth
>>68095976
CHINA!
>>68095394
I call bullshit on this one. In almost every former Eastern Bloc (with possible exception of Belarus) the same process happened: all state-owned assets were looted by cliques rooted in former communist parties and secret services (with an odd fortune scored by an outsider here and there) with majority of citizens being left with jack shit and forced to start from the scratch.
Besides, this does in no way advance the argument that in communist states the people actually owned means of productions. Commie Poland for example had lethally-dispersed riots every decade caused by such a basic things like price of food - how much you can say Polish workers "owned" anything when they could be killed just for complaining about the economy.
>>68093809
Gommunism is bad for elites
They can more abuse plebeians under liberal democracy
/thread
>>68095669
This has so many contradictions. One being that
>no one will punish or take anything that's not actually yours; what you can't use you don't need
People can own things they can't use, idiot. Also you would need an authoritarian government to apply the force for this to happen, so where is the communism?
This is just theft under the vale of an unjustified and ineffective morality.
Wasn't this argument settled by the Cold War?
And for smaller systems settled by Francisco Franco and Antonio Salazar?
>>68095714
if I was to say "communism works because it hasn't failed" that would be wrong because it's arguing from the negative.
but saying "communism isn't disproven by past failure" is entirely OK, because I'm trying to proove counterargument false; not supporting my original claim
I appreciate the use of formal logic though
x is right and x + 1 is wrong. Seems like a major hurdle.
>>68096084
>You don't know what adhom is, so stop saying it.
And thus falls into place: the irony.
>I do redistribute a portion of that wealth through tax which the state uses to pay for infrastructure and to support those who do not contribute to the capitalist system. That is also immoral.
Not doing so, considering you owe your wealth to everyone else around you and their actions, is immoral. You're the moral relativist. It's immoral if they take your wealth, but not if you take theirs.
>It is immoral because I as an individual amassed wealth, through consensual agreements. Capitalism is all consensual agreements.
Ahh yes, capitalism: the illusion of choice.
Choice 1: Take my agreement for this meagre amount of money
Choice 2: starve
Oh yes, much choice.
>I don't owe anyone anything. Nothing at all.
Wow.
Just wow. Are you even real? Is this the real world?
>>68096282
>using mass-murdering dictators as proof of your argument
I agree with the Cold War sentiment, but arguing that any debate was "settled" by Franco or Salazar is like arguing that superiority of Soviet-style socialism was "confirmed" by Stalin.
Only delusional fat losers on the internet that thinks communism can actually work.
>>68093809
Great on paper.
Bad in practice.
Then there's the whole animal house analogy.
Everyone is equal! But some are more than equal.
Making a divide between ruling class, and working class.
Then human nature kicks in. Ruling class gets the greed on. Society as a whole suffers while a few live the lives of kings.
>>68096354
You're alright by me, Straya even if at the end of the day we have differences
>>68096502
cheers m8
test
>>68096380
You fucking moron. The state pays for people who don't work! It is 100% consensual, you get the life you deserve, and THEN some for not doing a single fucking thing!
I was all consensual, and I have taken wealth from no one without making a spoken or written contract. This is not moral relativism. This is strongly behind the flawless morality of individual liberty. I have done nothing wrong, and owe no human anything other than the respect for their liberties.
>wow
>Just wow
Standard leftist argument, straight from fucking reddit. You people are nothing but memes.
I challenge you to point out how my acquisition of wealth via 100% consensual means is immoral. Also remember that I was working for this money, it can hardly be said that I owned a business. I was screwed pretty hard by the system in that regard, actually, but I don't bitch and complain like you wastes, I made a bad decision.
>>68094918
>USSR
Failed because of revisionist leaders and the ridiculous amount of sanctions placed on them.
>Maoist China
Failed because of revisionist leaders and being sanctioned and bullied until they succumbed to capitalism
>Khmer Rouge
Not even communist to begin with. I don't even think they had one communist policy (excluding the fact that it was a peasant uprising, but that is about it.)
>>68093809
It helps useless faggots by taking from the strong. You're the cuck, my friend.
>>68096113
>>68096266
Please read again and try to answer to yourselves before asking (meditate/think on the issue a bit)
>People can own things they can't use, idiot.
Give me several examples of hings that you can't use but need to own
>The only way you can have all people live in shacks and eat a bowl of rice for their daily meal is through force
If that's what "they" want to work for sure, they have the means to get out of there.
I have dealt with double thinkers before, commies and even young earth creationists, it used to amuse me. I would come to threads like this, shitpost and enjoy my bafflement at the denial and mental gymnastics.
I've had enough of it. I'm living the results of red domain, now my diploma is worthless, now i have to fear empty shelves at the supermarket because the syndicates might close the roads, now i have a coke planting injun threatening to invade my country.
I fucking hope this situation escalates. I've had it with being rational and protecting morals.
They want thing to be red? It's gonna be red with their goddam blood.
>>68095587
Same reasons why society has changed from primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism. Everything needs a catalyst.
>>68096782
The communists systems also weren't producing anything either. I don't see any evidence that the USSR for example was doing anything to nurture a culture of science and learning. It was using Nazi scientists at gun point as well as Russian scientists at gun point, if I understand correctly.
What happens in a communist country if you decide not to work?
>>68096833
>If that's what "they" want to work for sure, they have the means to get out of there
There's no means given in communism because everything is everyone's
What good is escaping to a mansion after a life's hard work of anyone can come live in it?
>>68095896
Communism tends to fix that! :D
If I remember correctly, most socialist states, at some point, had a 0% unemployment rate.
Marxism, to which all branches of Socialism necessarily adhere, was originated by Karl Marx, himself of rabbinical descent and has been dominated by them from the beginning. Marx did not actually originate anything; he merely “streamlined” Talmudism for Gentile consumption.
We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish (Israeli Ynet News)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
Vladimir Putin said: "80 to 85% Jews in 1st Soviet Government." (When they set up the first commie government, out of the 545 commissars, 477 were Jews and most of the others were married to Jews.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM
“Some call it Communism, I call it JUDAISM.” ~ Rabbi S. Wise, The American Bulletin, May 5, 1935. (Judaism is nothing but disguised, camouflaged Communism.)
>>68096827
>thinking the wealthy are strong
>thinking people get wealthy by themselves
opportunity is finite, people who take the opportunity should give to those who cannot
useless faggots end up in gulag, they get nothign
science that could possibly contradict the "all are equal" claim that is the foundation of communism was suppressed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
>>68096886
>>68093809
You don't happen to be a fatass taking a political science class, do you?
>>68096833
I didn't say we needed to own them, I said that we DO own them! I have a sword in our bedroom, for example. I cannot use it, but I own it.
Someone could have possession of a truck they can't drive, or excess wealth, or a hobby apiary that they don't use. All of these things belong the the person, but because they can't use them, the government thinks it can fucking steal them!
THIS is why liberal principals should be UNIVERSALLY applies. Making exceptions and taking collectivist judgments in ANY context should be frowned upon. Life isn't fair, not matter what, and you can't make it better by being an evil person either.
>>68096961
Right back at you
>There's no means given in communism because everything is everyone's
re-read what you wrote.
>What good is escaping to a poorhouse after a life's hard work?
ftfy
Again if you live there and it's not excessive for a single person, then you claim personal property.
>>68097011
then why aren't you in gulag you fucking commie mongoloid? holy shit you people are stupid. get fucked faggot.
>U MAD? lelxD
you bet your faggot ass i am
>has failed every time its been tried and led to millions of deaths, starvation, and extreme poverty
How is that not a good answer?
>>68096886
Power to you. If you want to, there is nothing more noble than fighting for your liberties and the liberties of those you care for. These commies have gotten soft, bird and edgy, and just aren't content anymore. They are willing to ruin your life so they can fulfill their fantasy, and you have every right to put a bullet in them if they do.
>>68096913
You get shot in the head.
>>68096782
If communism is a superior system it should have been triumphant no?
How can socialism in one country be implemented if it can't even withstand global pressure?
Why should we take on a weak system when our own people like what we have?
Why be forced to give to others?
>>68097105
>I didn't say we needed to own them, I said that we DO own them! I have a sword in our bedroom, for example. I cannot use it, but I own it.
>Someone could have possession of a truck they can't drive, or excess wealth, or a hobby apiary that they don't use. All of these things belong the the person, but because they can't use them, the government thinks it can fucking steal them!
Those as you might have noticed exceptions rather than rules, rule of thumb is that if you use them regularly (lets take 6 months) then you can claim ownership. Better than luxury tax really.
>>68096690
>I was all consensual, and I have taken wealth from no one without making a spoken or written contract.
You're just repeating points I've blatantly refuted as broken.
>I challenge you to point out how my acquisition of wealth via 100% consensual means is immoral.
Just because they consented to it, doesn't mean if they had another option they would automatically do it. Once again: the illusion of choice. You may think they chose to do it, but when the choice is between your agreement or starving, that's no choice at all.
>The state pays for people who don't work!
That doesn't mean they don't want to. Are there permanent dole bludgers? Yes. Are they the incredible minority? Yes. Should they be getting money? No. But the system isn't there to subsidize parasites, it's there to provide a safety net to the majority of working people who would fall into poverty/homelessness, etc without it.
>You fucking moron
>Standard leftist argument, straight from fucking reddit.
>You people are nothing but memes.
Wahh, wahh, anyone who disagrees with me and my fingers-in-ears running around needs to be insulted. Nice kid.
>>68093809
Communism is fine when it's something people choose to do. Gather a group of like minded people and go live on a farm or some such.
The problem is when "communists" force others to accept their system. This had always proven to actually be a cover for a group that simply wants to steal mindset from the productive.
>>68096980
wew
where do you even start with a post like that, it's a big one
>>68097158
There is no such thing as personal property in communism
>>68097011
>implying that anyone does anything by themselves
Life is a poker game. Some people are getting better hands, some people are getting worse. But the overall outcome is mostly depended on how good of a player you are.
There are so many examples of rich losing heir wealth and of people starting from nothing and going to the top. 75% of the Forbes 400 is new money. All these people didn't have more opportunity and if we had stopped them in the name of some cuck ideology, they wouldn't have created all the wealth which brought them to the top 400.
Having money doesn't imply you're strong, but if you're poor and live in a first world country, you really have no excuse.
Sure is maskirovka in here
>>68097229
The catch is that brasil has close to no guns, but if there is a will there is a way.
I think it's gonna start with a trucker mowing down a syndicate human roadblock. That's very likely to be the trigger.
>>68097338
>You may think they chose to do it, but when the choice is between your agreement or starving, that's no choice at all.
How is this different from communism?
>>68096980
This. I wanted to argue on more generous terms, but you are right. All of these commies are just Jewish puppets.
They participate in capitalism so that they have wealth that can survive a socialist revolution on top as a ruling class with plenty of tangible wealth, and they create communism so the goyim is subservient and all equally low. They are all aiming to destroy liberty from above and bellow.
It's a shame really. That these clowns think that we are the puppeteered brainwashed cucks, when in fact they have been Shlomo's oldest plaything.
>>68097272
Exactly. Communism is a lot less about giving people what they need than it is about moving a machine.
>>68097377
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property
>>68097190
you seem upset, I made a fairly simple and non-inflamatory argument
breathe deeply and be calm capitalist scum, your temper betrays your ignorance
>>68097272
/thread
>>68097477
I'll assume that what you mean by "communism" is the systems of government like the Soviet Union and respond with: Nothing. There is no difference between private capitalism and state capitalism, with the exception of private capitalism being superior due to less bureaucracy and being managed from lower down the chain that in a state system.
>>68097352
The entire argument of communism is based upon "all are equal, every life is as valuable as the next" which history and current events probe to be untrue
There is no outlet for greatness in communism because of the very definition of the word
You'll hear many communists spout the statement "everyone is equally exceptional" which is false just by looking at the words alone
>>68093809
>Reddicvck edgelords back at it again
>2/10 bait
Commie society won't ever be a thing so long as people want freedom. Everything is wrong with communism, down to Marx - he was literally a NEET. lel. Stay mad
8)
>>68097597
Nah, I support the notion that you should get fucked. I mean you'd like it, you faggot, but still - you might get AIDS, so it's worth it.
it ends in dictatorship... always... read the dang manifesto lmao
>>68097380
>if you're poor and live in a first world country, you really have no excuse
Yep
You need to do 3 things to not be poor in the 1st world: don't have children out of wedlock, get a job, keep that job
Supporting communism has to be the best guaranteed bait for /pol/ desu senpai
>>68097338
Oh my fucking god, I can't believe we live in the same coutnry.
YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED MY CONSENT ARGUMENT!
They have the choice to live in poor conditions AND be fed for NOTHING! This is literally choice! Yes, you fucking mongrel, some choices are better than others, I found out the hard way that this is true, but there IS CHOICE! They can survive without working at all, they need not participate!
You have refuted nothing! And you have less than touched the moral arguments with anything other than relativism!
>Illusion of choice
>They can work
>They can own business
>They can get free food and housing for nothing
Kill yourself. You have thoroughly rustled my jimmies with your retardation.
I am not the one with their fingers in their ears, that would be you. I have given you a well laid out argument that you can't refute.
Because I am not interested in your cancer, do something for me.
I would like you to list my arguments in greentext, with the refutation bellow them. That's it. You other bullshit is cancerous.
>>68097434
What is the syndicate?
>>68097736
Commies claim the dictatorship of the proletariat is not actually a dictatorship
So stupid
>>68097832
Did i use the wrong word? I think the correct word might be union now that i think about it.
You know, the organizations that stop other people from taking a job at a lower pay and use the government and their own violence to do it.
Unions are huge here and the government literally pays them to go to the streets and protest.
how is the global state of affairs reconciled under communism?
>>68095364
i'M COMING OVER TO STEAL YOUR COMPUTER DUMBASS
>>68094918
Cuba is a fucking failure too as far as i'm concerned don't let those touristy food shows fool you the place has no electricity
>>68093809
Government corruption. Ive never seen a communistic style government that didnt royally fuck over the people in the end. Seriously,pick up a history book.
>>68098006
Well that's fucking disgusting. In my ocuntry, the unions and the government, and even the corporations compete, and that's how it should be. Your government and your unions have too much power it seems.
Also maybe syndicate isn't the wrong word, because a group of union members could form some kind of syndicate.
>>68097597
You make the most idiotic argument I've seen in a while.
>you seem upset
i fucking told you I was mad, but you're so retarded I honestly didn't expect you to notice anyways. Using your keyboard is already pushing the boundaries of your mental capacity, so I apologize. Nice screencap though, and that attempt at sounding like you're not a spastic commie faggot was almost halfway convincing.
>>68097380
I think you must have BOTH ability and opportunity
neither is more important because both are absolutely necessary to success
and here is where the heart of your misconception is
> they wouldn't have created all the wealth
progress is infinite, but wealth isn't.
they simply hoarded all the resources, that's what wealth is
in western capitalism, there is enough for everyone; yet people still go without
there is the lie that you can "work your way up from nothing" and this really makes me quiet angry
everyone wants to claim they did it all by themselves, millionairs all claim to be self made
you CAN come from nothing, but not everyone can.
it's like telling every grain of sand in an hourglass that it's their fault if they don't get through in time
capitalism does that
it pits all the people with nothing against each other for a share in the pittance of opportunity left by the bourgeois
they make you think it's chance they started with so much, and you started with so little
they say anyone can make it, and say it's sour grapes when people complain
the truth is that their achievement is for their own benefit, they hoard resources to give themselves security, they give each other all the opportunity, then reap the rewards for themselves
and then they have the sheer gall to claim that "their success trickles down"
>>68098084
To be fair on the commies, the American sanctions and shit weren't kind to them.
>>68098016
>how is the global state of affairs reconciled under communism?
It's converted into local states of affairs that are evenly distributed among the regional citizens.
>>68098084
I agree but communists like to point to it and say "it's still around despite sanctions!" as if that were a measure of success
>>68098102
I translated it literally from the word we have, we have a word for union, but it's not used for that.
Another word that would often fit is mafia.
>>68098154
Ive never really understood sanctions. Can anybody here tell me what the hell a sanction is? I know its suppose to fuck up the economy of whoever recieves them, but what is it exactly?
>>68094310
ebin argument fampai
>>68097806
Well. After seeing what you've just posted, I would normally say you're a shitposter, but considering I can feel the rage leaking through the screen....
>Oh my fucking god, I can't believe we live in the same coutnry.
Neither can I, I haven't even heard of someone with as many delusions of grandeur as you. That's impressive.
>YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED MY CONSENT ARGUMENT!
Yes, I did. Read it again. And again. And as long as it takes for the words to form properly in your skull.
>They have the choice to live in poor conditions AND be fed for NOTHING!
Yes, in the current system, they do. Exactly. This particular piece of the argument is you arguing against it, calling people that take some of "your" wealth "immoral". I am in support of it. If it was not there, people would starve, which seems to be what you want.
>Kill yourself. You have thoroughly rustled my jimmies with your retardation.
Salty as fuck, you need a Valium.
>I am not the one with their fingers in their ears, that would be you. I have given you a well laid out argument that you can't refute.
Lmao, once again, delusions of grandeur.
>You other bullshit is cancerous.
Literally everything you've posted is cancerous. Your high minded drivel and silver-spoon attitude is one of the things wrong with this country.
I'll get right into the refuting in the next post kid.
>>68098153
Did you know that wealth can be created? That's actually how capitalism dragged near billions of people into modernity with refrigeration and quality housing, as well as expendable income and pleasure, by the way.
The ability to provide goods and cervices has value, and is hence wealth, and can be amassed. Money can be used to buy these things, hence it is wealth.
For this reason the term "wealth of knowledge" is in fact literal.
>>68098204
So feudalism because someone has to run the place and they sure as shit aren't gonna live in a shack with the rest of them
>>68098153
>you CAN come from nothing,but not everyone can
Not everyone deserves to. That's how the species improves. Communism is literal evolutionary stagnation.
>>68098263
If you sanction someone you stop trade and other things with them, maybe even tourism. A coalition of nations can sanction one nation, and that nation would be unable, or at least inhibited in it's ability to, trade with the sanctioning nations.
>>68098302
All I'm saying is that the people should not only own the means of production, but also the global state of affairs, which is easier to process if it's broken up into smaller states of affairs and distributed locally. It's common sense, really.
>>68098153
>it's like telling every grain of sand in an hourglass that it's their fault if they don't get through in time
I agree with your overall point, but this is a fucking dumb metaphor.
>>68098289
>people would starve
Not like in communist countries right?
Libertarian socialist reporting in. Really fond of social anarchist thinkers, Marx, and some of the libertarian Marxists. Feels pretty good.
>>68098016
that is a very big question indeed, one that no system has the answer to
but communism would stop exploitative trade, make more investment in developing countries instead of destabilizing them to keep resources cheap
it would stop people hoarding resources for security, ensuring scarcity wasn't engineered for commercial gain, it would put welfare above growth so people would not be poor simply because nobody gained by helping them.
it would break down national identity, and de-millitarize borders between communist states
it would destroy the international investment banking system, there would be no debt
there would be collosal pooling of resources in practical sciences
hard decisions about population control and pollution would be made on an executive level, instead of everyone waning to be the last one to make the hard choices
>>68098101
So do we all agree on this point? Communism fucks over everybody?
>>68098153
m9, I'm in my early twenties, came from a tiny town in Bulgaria to a top uni in the UK and now am in the top 10% of earners in the UK. I'll be a one percenter before I'm in my thirties. Screw you and your shit ideology.
In the end of the day some people create more wealth than others. If you create a communist country, all the wealth creators will just fuck off to a non-shit country, which will prosper.
And yours will have to import its toilet paper from capitalist countries.
>>68098465
Who runs the place?
"Everyone" sure as shit can't run it, that's why government came about in the first place
>>68098460
Thanks.
>>68098289
I don't have a silver spoon. I worked from the bottom to get where I am.
And yo have literally not refuted anything.
>If I keep repeating something it will make it true!
This system gives them a choice not an illusion. You can't refute this because it is objective, and you agree that the choice exists. I win. Check mate.
I look forward to your retard string of strawmen and repetitions.
>>68098138
I have never seen a maple leaf so flustered
are you an investment banker?
why do you hate communism so much?
Here is a simple argument. How will you redistribute wealth because there is only one way which is through force. You filthy fucking rats don't have the balls to do it and will want the state to do so. I dare you to start a revolution because I have every notion to be on the otherside. You will get your asses handed to you.
>>68098553
An elected council.
>>68098509
>On an executive level
There is a state now?
>>68098509
Capitalism has the answer
In fact proportionally more people are better off now then they ever have been
Even Africa is on the up and up outside of the Muslim countries
Look at Botswana and Ghana and Namibia and even fucking Rwanda which was genocide central
All better off because of capitalism
>>68097806
Refute #1
>Is is wrong to redistribute wealth because it would mean you are FORCEFULLY taking wealth away from some people and giving it to others. That is immoral.
Response: That is what the market does, plain and simple. Not redistributing a a portion of your wealth to the people that without their existence, you wouldn't have said wealth, is immoral.
>I do redistribute a portion of that wealth through tax which the state uses to pay for infrastructure and to support those who do not contribute to the capitalist system. That is also immoral.
Response: Not doing so, considering you owe your wealth to everyone else around you and their actions, is immoral. You're the moral relativist. It's immoral if they take your wealth, but not if you take theirs.
>It is immoral because I as an individual amassed wealth, through consensual agreements.
If wealth redistributing wasn't in place (which you are against) then the consensual agreement would be choice-less. Either take your agreement or starve would be the option. That is not an option.
That seems to be the main brunt of your rhetoric, with it just being repeated over and over, so there's not much point in responding to the same thing over and over.
>>68094158
Funny that my universal healthcare is more affordable to the tax payer than your user pay system. But keep the logical fallacy alive.
PS; Enjoy being shot while visiting a school
>>68098679
That's not communism thats democracy
There are no leaders in communism
>>68093809
I would rather take the word of someone who had lived through it than some armchair champagne socialist.
>>68098741
This, Im pretty happy about the way things are now and Im a low-income American.
>>68093809
>You capitalist cucks still haven't given any good answers.
because it makes absolutely no sense and contradicts itself all of the time
If you actually think it could work you must have brain damage or something
>>68098606
>I don't have a silver spoon. I worked from the bottom to get where I am.
Bullshit. Ten points from Gryffindor.
>I look forward to your retard string of strawmen and repetitions.
>>If I keep repeating something it will make it true!
Damn, the irony is strong with this kid.
>>68098493
>libertarian
>socialist
Pick one and only one. You are not Schrodinger's Political stance.
>>68098631
you're fucking pathetic. With fucking retards like you it's no wonder communism is an absolute failure every fucking time.
>y-you m-m-mad?
>>68098766
>Either take your agreement or starve would be the option.
You have the right to enter into contract with ANYONE, not just one person.
Or you could start your own business and create your own wealth.
If you robed the rich, it wouldn't make the working class better off because the supply of actual resources has not increased.
It would just cause inflation.
>>68098886
You are historically and politically illiterate. Maybe you should read up before trying to make a snarky comment.
>>68098299
that is progress, not wealth
why if capitalism dragged countries into moernity is there such a trade disparity
why is the labour of an indian worth so little, and the labour of an american worth do much?
capitalists invested in the people they could oppress, and let the rest rot
capitalist lets you buy a fridge, but only if you can afford one
it makes sure you can afford one by making some african mine the rare metals for nothing
it makes someone in taiwan slave to build the fridge
it pollutes the air transporting it
and it gets the man who organized all this a private yaught
when you look at capitalism, look at the WHOLE system, not just the flower of the west
>>68098818
Predictable reply. Predictable, and wrong.
Casting a vote does not equal democracy. For example, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_election
Would you say monarchy = democracy? Of course you wouldn't. Stop being silly.
>>68098493
There's nothing libertarian about socialism.
>>68098372
and that is the crux of it, capitalims makes the 90% suffer, so the 10% improve
but improve at what?
do they improve at helping the 90%?
no
they just improve at BEING the 10%, so they are the 10% generation after generation
it's a system that promotes human suffering
>>68099014
So who makes sure that everyone can afford a fridge?
Does communism reduce us all to subsistence farmers?
if it doesn't then who makes things?
We all make them for eachother?
Where is my incentive?
>>68099106
>capitalims makes the 90% suffer
see:
>>68098904
>>68099094
There is nothing libertarian about propertarianism.
>>68099005
Nobody cares about your shitty leftarchist writers.
>>68098468
I thought it was a good one, damn
the point anyhow is that a very limited few places exist, and a great number of people fight for them
a rich company pays for a scholarship for a student, hundreds fight for it
the one who gets it ends up making money for the company, who eventually employ them
>>68094918
you fucking white male, those were capitalist.
I've done my research
>>68098766
Thanks. You are an idiot, but at least that post wasn't cancerous.
>If wealth redistributing wasn't in place (which you are against) then the consensual agreement would be choice-less. Either take your agreement or starve would be the option. That is not an option
We do have the wealth distribution in place, so your argument is void there. And it still would be, because starvation is a choice. What happens to someone in a communist country that refuses to work? The fact is that letting people who don't work (of course disabled and pregnant people can be exceptions) steal from people that do is immoral, but letting them suffer fro their individual choices isn't immoral. If you are over 18 and able bodies, you should not be protected from the consequences of your own actions. However WE ARE protected from out own actions, so don't complain as if we aren't.
Response: That is what the market does, plain and simple. Not redistributing a a portion of your wealth to the people that without their existence, you wouldn't have said wealth, is immoral.
The free market doesn't force it. It is called free for a reason. What forces withing the free market do that is in breach of human rights is up to the state to punish according to the law. As for the notion that I owe them, AS I ESTABLISHED IN THE LAST POINT, there is indeed a choice when making these dealings, hence it is consensual. They could have agreed to our dealing under the proviso that I pay them back some, but they didn't. It is up to them that they benefit from the agreement, and it is there fault if they don't.
>I do redistribute a portion of that wealth through tax which the state uses to pay for infrastructure and to support those who do not contribute to the capitalist system. That is also immoral.
Starvation is an option. People suffering from their own mistakes is fair. However, they are protected from it. I pay taxes, and I so happen to WANT to pay taxes.
>>68094310
There were 3.4 million prices in the Soviet Union. Not only did they have to be set by a central committee, they had to be kept in line with one another. If the price of grain was raised, the price of bread also had to go up. But even simple adjustments like these were hard to keep straight. 3.4 million prices. There is no group of people in the world intelligent enough to price all those items as correctly and efficiently as a free market.
The chief argument against Communism is that it starts from the belief that it is somehow possible to run an economy from the center, that you can have a group of people sit at a table somewhere and plan how the economy is going to operate while possessing only a fraction of the sum total knowledge required to actually do it. You can only have communist style policies in relatively small societies where the total quantity of knowledge available can be roughly compassed by a select leadership. When you are dealing with large societies spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles and containing millions of people, such central planning is a sheer impossibility. You cannot design and arrange what you do not even understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs
>>68099201
Who are you to say that my idea doesn't belong to me and instead belongs to tyquan and bomqueesha and jose and maria?
>>68099201
There's EVERYTHING libertarian about propertarianism.
Property gives human beings the will and ability to survive.
You people are so incredibly retarded and will NEVER question your belief system, you're a cult.
>>68099214
Says the guy who responded with a fucking Rothbard image. Please kill yourself.
>>68099314
>will NEVER question your belief system, you're a cult.
The fucking irony.
>>68098535
so tell me anon
you made it
what about all those other people in your hometown?
could they have all made it too?
at what point does there stop being space for people to make it?
you are in the top 10% of earners, so does your work help the 90% below you, or the 9% above you?
when communists arive, leeches flee
till the leaches all end up in a puddle sucking each other
that's what capitalism is, it relies on the expoited
>>68099201
btw read this image:
>>68099094
Pretty much destroys that autist kropotkin and his childish naive way of thinking.
>>68098995
>Or you could start your own business and create your own wealth.
Once again, the illusion of choice.
Firstly: if everyone created their own businesses, what would happen? The vast majority of them would fail due to simple supply and demand. The loans then made to start the businesses would be left unpaid by most of them, leaving the banks with a currency shortage similar to what happened when the banks ran out of money prior to the GFC. The rest is blatantly inherent.
>If you robed the rich, it wouldn't make the working class better off because the supply of actual resources has not increased
Actually it might. How much wealth that the rich use is actually sustainable? It's either hoarded in banks/offshore tax havens and not used to stimulate the economy and what is actually spent goes to what? Expensive cars that aren't needed. Patronage to the arts of modern art that isn't needed. A dozen investment properties which raises the prices of houses artificially.
By redistributing some of the wealth to the poor, you're both stimulating the economy, giving the poor a chance to not get raped by the market con.
You have the right to enter into contract with ANYONE, not just one person.
Does that make the supposed choice and more real? In the end those without still have to sell their labour value for whatever they can get.
>>68099014
Yes, there is injustice, but that is not only the fault of the businesses, who are evil in this case, but also on the global community for not stepping in and fixing it.
The point I made with refrigeration is that even a really poor person in this country likely owns a fridge. This is the creation of wealth.
I explained to you how goods and services, more specifically the means to apply them, are wealth. You can create wealth, and I proved it to you.
When you are talking about wealth you are talking about resource. I've got every economist in the world on my side on this one buddy.
>>68099394
>infographics are my Bible
>>68099394
>Pretty much destroys that autist kropotkin and his childish naive way of thinking.
Not reading Rothbard. No one cares about your shitty propertarian writers.
>>68098710
what do you mean?
either you have a ruling body and it true
or you have an anarcho-communism, where it is not true (however all the other things still are largely)
>>68099335
>no argument
Swallow cyanide.
>>68099354
>The fucking irony.
The fucking projection.
>EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD IS A CULT
>ME AND THE GROUP OF PEOPLE I AM PART OF THAT WORSHIP INSANE RAMBLINGS FROM 19TH CENTURY KEKS ARE NOT
>>68099060
Communism is explicitly without leaders
This is stated in the manifesto and capital
>>68099517
The fucking irony. Again.
>>68099517
>Swallow cyanide.
I'm not the fucking propertarian. I sincerely hope you get shot.
>>68099247
>>68098766
I could have written more but I ran out of room. How did I do?
>>68099005
Great refutation bro. 7/9 for the effort, you've totally convinced me to change my worldview and accept that a person that enjoys individual liberty can also accept massive government intrusion into their daily lives. Doublethink ahoy!
>>68099484
Nothing, just a minute point. You need a state either way to take away the property of people though, because you dickheads hate liberty.
>>68099534
This is wrong.
>>68093809
I'll wait for thread #3 to blow this commie bunk outta of the water.
>>68099437
>Not reading Rothbard.
hahahaha
>I REFUSE to read alternative arguments which may question my worldview
Cult confirmed.
>>68099545
The fucking projection and irony AGAIN.
>>68099550
How does it feel that the vast majority of human beings on this planet would slit your throat if you ever tried to implement your retarded authoritarian ideology on them?
>>68099534
This is one of the best reasons for why it is completely retarded actually.
>>68099629
'no'
communism has to be stateless
>>68099631
Nigga drop them bombs now and copy paste them into the next one.
Don't get your hopes up though, these people's heads are in the sand. LOOK AT THE COLOSAL EFFORT i AHVE PUT INTO THIS AND TELL ME THAT THIS WILL BE EASY.
Soz caps, not typing it again though, deal with my caps.
>>68099695
This, too, is wrong.
>>68099617
i can't believe you're still wasting time with this retard
>>68099648
I refuse to read propertarian propaganda because I've heard enough to know that it is reactionary garbage written and worshiped by people completely out of touch with reality. I've run across enough of you fuckers to know I want you all dead.
>>68098741
>In fact proportionally more people are better off now then they ever have been
and they were better off in the 1200's than in the 900's
it's a trend not attributable to capitalism, human growth is exponencial
capitalism is a pyramid, everyone crushed on by degrees
here is a simple question
in a capitalist system, who develops the people who present no return?
where does the charity come from?
capitalists pile wealth on the few because they become exponentially better returns
this creates the bottom of the pyramid
today it is largely africa, china and the middle east
yesterday it was africa, south america, eastern europe
you can't claim capitalism helped them, it kept them advancing slower than they should have if investment was spread
the buck is simply passed between countries as to who the capitalist system opresses next
>>68099757
No u
>>68099417
>How much wealth that the rich use is actually sustainable?
Define sustainable.
>not used to stimulate the economy
What do you mean "stimulate" the economy.
Are you that brainwashed by keynesian theory?
>and what is actually spent goes to what? Expensive cars that aren't needed.
Do you realize how very very little the society's wealth is spent on luxury goods compared to what gets spent on things the working class consumes right?
You realize there's not that many super rich people right?
>>68099780
DON'T TALK TO ME OR MY WIFE'S BULL EVER AGAIN
>>68099754
naw
the wind aint right
>>68093809
Look OP, I can tell the vast majority of /pol/ haven't put much thought into this, but I've spent a great deal of time racking my brain over it, and I'll give you my personal feelings about Communism and Capitalism, because I believe they both have their place.
In a nutshell, I don't believe there is anything truly wrong with communism. It could work in the right time and place. If there were civilization where the people were truly equal, where the people valued their health, spurned frivolous bullshit and vices, where they worked hard because laziness would be tantamount to stealing from one's family or friends, where virtue was of the utmost importance, and where negative traits were pruned from children at a young age... I imagine the people would flourish just fine. Everyone gets what they need and they take no more, the excess is saved or flexed to other areas of the land where it's needed and everyone is just fine. In such a land though, any system would really flourish. A king would be virtuous and wise in a monarchy, the people would have the same vision and principles in a democracy or republic, the people would have the same work ethic in Communism. I feel like the ticket to any successful system is THE PEOPLE. When they are fucked, the system is fucked.
So why don't I think Communism would work for the United States? Because we are a multicultural nation, and I truly don't believe in inherent equality. I believe Blacks are less intelligent than Hispanics, who are less intelligent than Whites. Somewhere in there Asians fit in. Our nation is so enamored with the idea of equality that we insist that Blacks must be represented in every aspect of society in an equal proportion to their other racial counterparts, and this simply is not possible without policies like affirmative action. What we effectively have to do is lower the standards to accommodate Blacks, and then arbitrarily select them over others who are more qualified.
>>68099771
>I refuse to read propertarian propaganda
Nah nah, you refuse to read because you're an angry cuck cultist that has cemented his religious mindset and refuses to change it.
Pretty bad, I read marxist and left anarchist literature and questioned by beliefs.
Maybe you should try growing up kid?
>reactionary
lmao there's that useless word again
You people are so fucking irrelevant.
>of you fuckers to know I want you all dead.
Don't worry kiddo, the vast majority of the planet wants to kill you.
>>68099201
If there is one loaf of bread on the planet and a hundred people in the planet, who owns the bread?
Is it common property of mankind? If all 100 own it, how do they decide who to eat it?
>>68099876
OOO hot diggity I am getting excited. It must be efficient and nimble if you need to account for the wind.
>>68099777
>it's a trend not attributable to capitalism
Just stop.
>>68099181
I can tell you exactly what that was, because my family lived through it
the revolution provided a better standard of living, people worked less.
they didn't earn more or less
then the british started exporting the goods in exchange for cheaper resources, exploiting the disparity of technological advancement
the real wage then rose as the cost of goods fell dramatically and the long term benefits of the boom started showing
who were the loosers?
countries who did't advance because britain didnt share their technology
countries who's domestic industry was put out of buisiness by british imports
look at the WHOLE capitalist system, it isn't the west that is footing the bill
>>68099279
Well I can't argue with you. The Soviet system of price controls was a joke. I'm not saying the soviet system wasn't bad, I'm saying it wasn't communism.
>>68099247
Okay.
>We do have the wealth distribution in place, so your argument is void there.
No it isn't You're saying that wealth distribution is immoral. I'm saying it isn't.
> because starvation is a choice.
No, it really isn't. Being a slave to the market or dying isn't a choice, it is the illusion of one. Suicide is considered the end result of a mental disorder, which means it isn't normal human behavior. In-fact it is human instinct that can't be denied, you can't choose not to eat unless you are acting inhuman. Which means you're not apart of the human system and thus aren't bound by it, or at-least believe you aren't.
>They could have agreed to our dealing under the proviso that I pay them back some, but they didn't
At which you would've rejected the agreement offerered by them, and they're back to square one. That would be inherent to everyone. That really isn't a response.
>I pay taxes, and I so happen to WANT to pay taxes.
So you've gone from saying that it's immoral to tax to saying you want it, which makes you what? A masochist? I'm beginning to get confused.
communism a shit
>>68099949
All you've done is throw memes around, so I've responded in kind.
>Maybe you should try growing up kid?
Don't get me wrong, I read things I disagree with all the time. I'm just not stupid enough to waste my time with the garbage you worship.
>lmao there's that useless word again
Gee, lets see how many buzzwords I can find in your post: cuck, cultist, religious mindset
>Don't worry kiddo, the vast majority of the planet wants to kill you.
The vast majority of the planet has no idea what I believe, and apparently you don't either. You seem to think I want to force ideology on people. That's not how this shit works, and if you'd actually read any anarchist literature you'd know that. People have to liberate themselves. If people don't want to be liberated, then they won't be.
>>68100021
who is this?
>>68100066
>they didn't earn more or less
Yes, actually they did earn more.
>countries who did't advance
No, countries that didn't embrace capitalism and freedom.
Shit's pretty simple.
>look at the WHOLE capitalist system
You mean those super poor countries who AREN'T capitalist?
see:
>>68100044
>>68093809
>remind me what is wrong with communism
Removing incentives is ruinous for economies in the long run. Living in a fucked economy makes life shitty.
You'll understand this one day little buddy. Every single communist I've met that is older than 25 has been mentally ill. I figure there's a reason for this.
>>68099980
Are you autistic? This is a sterile abstraction with absolutely no application in the real world.
>>68099777
>in a capitalist system, who develops the people who present no return?
No one does, if you can't provide then you're fucked, which is strangely like "ability and means" as communists put it, except I shouldn't have a gun to my head to provide a bowl of rice for Jamal and Bomqueesha which can be shown to not work even when implemented
>where does the charity come from?
From free people deciding that they desire to give for whatever reason they decide
>>68099377
They could've if they were as smart and driven. Many of them are and many of them do succeed. But not in my hometown as it's a tiny town in a country ravaged for 45 years by supporters of your shit ideology.
My work helps both the middle and the upper middle classes.
You don't get it, my friend. Communists are the leeches. They can only leech on the progress capitalism has created. Even Marx says so. But he's wrong in his Whig-inspired end-of-history worldview. We should never stop creating and exploring. Which is exactly what would happen (largely) if you enforce your ideology.
>>68099377
Also, I was poor even by Bulgarian standards.
>>68100044
This doesn't show proportion
>>68095840
>totally btfo the OP
>OP doesn't respond
Stay a useful idiot OP
>>68099418
well then we are arguing around semantics
my point is that the people who gain wealth gain disproportionate buying power of those who don't
progress happens with or without capitalism, capitalism means your weekly wage can buy a fridge, but someone in china's weekly wage can't
wealth is not created here, goods are created, standards of living rise, but the rick man still has the leverage over the poor man, and that is what I mean by wealth
capitalism drives up consumption, and so reduces the price of goods
at the same time it creates pollution, and keeps development in areas were there is commercial gain
how much is invested in the cure for a dissease, relative to the amound invested producing a new consumer product for instance?
>>68093809
>never lived in communism
>doesn't know what's wrong with it
>to get that knowledge wants to ruin his country
Well, don't even know what to add. What is wrong with communism? It is shit.
>>68100208
It's called a thought experiment, you retard. It also illustrates a point by using a hyperbole. Main idea is when there's scarcity, you can't really claim everything is everyone's property.
How does, let's say a musician or a painter work in communism?
>>68099808
>You realize there's not that many super rich people right?
I guess that depends upon your definition of rich, when referring to humans.
I see BMW's, mercede's benz's, etc, everywhere in my home city. Can't go 5 seconds on a road without seeing one. And they cost Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
>What do you mean "stimulate" the economy.
>Are you that brainwashed by keynesian theory?
Are you brainwashed into believing it isn't valid. You take some cunt's money that's sitting in a bank doing nothing. Give it to some poor cunt who wouldn't be able to eat without it. He buys bread+whatever the fuck, maybe that's what keeps a small grocery store afloat, which x100 keeps suppliers afloat (all along the way hiring cunts). It's so striaght forward, can you not see it?
>Do you realize how very very little the society's wealth is spent on luxury goods compared to what gets spent on things the working class consumes right?
Maybe I don't. Maybe you should show me.
>Define sustainable.
If said rich people weren't accumulating income from the poor using their services, then the money wouldn't come in. Then they couldn't buy their luxury goods and services. Without the poor subsidizing it, they couldn't exist. That's what is unsustainable.
>>68093809
Read black book of communism.
>>68099903
Continued...
This is partly why our education system sucks. We've lowered the standards to help pass more minorities. As a result, Whites and Asians who attend basic public education aren't being educated to the levels they could be. Policies like "No Child Left Behind" have basically made it a law that all children have to achieve a certain standard, and that's simply not possible.
And so we didn't choose Communism, we chose Capitalism. In a Capitalist society, every person flourished or faltered according to their worth. In a system that places a value on intelligence, Blacks were automatically relegated to the lowest class by birth. While racist policies may have played some role in their plight, the vast majority of their condition is due to their inherent lack of intelligence. We have subsidized their mere existence, and so where we see them now is the lowest possible point they can reach within the safety net of our civilization. Look at Flint, Michigan, and their water. The White man must come in and save them.
Capitalist, Communist, it doesn't matter. The only way advanced civilization will exist is with the White man. Blacks will either be appointed to positions they have no business being in and our civilization will suffer from their mismanagement in a Communist society, or they will be a permanent underclass in a Capitalist society.
And so we will never see the end of race-based tension as long as we are convinced that race is only skin-deep. When Blacks fail in a Capitalist society, it must be due to racism. If we're all under the delusion that they are our equals in a Communist society, we will all be equal in shit.
>>68094158
/thread
>a communist thread thanks to a capitalist thing called the Internet
>>68100139
>I read things I disagree with all the time.
You clearly don't as you were unable to respond to rothbard's criticisms of your childish author.
No leftarchist is able to because they're wrong.
>I'm just not stupid enough to waste my time
>HURR I WON'T WASTE MY TIME REFUTING YOU
Then why are you in a political discussion on this website?
>cuck,
This one is just an insult, not a buzzword.
>cultist,
Because you literally are a cultist in every definition of the word.
>religious mindset
Because you literally have a religious mindset.
>The vast majority of the planet has no idea what I believe
Yes they do lmao
>and apparently you don't either
You hate "propertarianists" and worship kropotkin
Pretty sure I can figure it out.
>and if you'd actually read any anarchist literature you'd know that.
Complete bullshit, you think leftarchists don't want a revolution? They openly state they want to overthrow capitalism in the west.
>If people don't want to be liberated
Yes please "liberate" people by stealing their property and creating a de-facto state that controls all resources, while still pretending to be "anarchists".
>>68099617
yes, yes you do
it is necessary to enforce the policy of "no hoarding resources"
given the opportunity, many would stockpile cans of food even when those around them are starving
people would pay a million dollars to cure themseves of cancer, instead of to treat 1000 people with meazles vaccine
hence distribution of resources must be enforced to minimize poverty and suffering
>>68099777
And yet quality of life grows faster under capitalism than any socialist country in existence.
Explain that you nigger.
You won't see any capitalist country in the shit heap that Venezuela is at the moment.
Africa has pulled millions out of poverty thanks to advances brought about by the free market.
And maybe you don't remember because you're probably 9, but life in the Soviet Union in the 80s and early 90s was fucking dire for the proletariat.
I'll have my capitalist system thanks you thundercunt
>>68100076
>>68100066
Ahem
Please gentlemen,
Point to the socialist economy that has moved this curve?
>Please remind me what is wrong with communism.
Created by Jews to turn Jews into Europe's ruling class. Worked splendidly.
>>68100489
>Are you brainwashed into believing it isn't valid. You take some cunt's money that's sitting in a bank doing nothing. Give it to some poor cunt who wouldn't be able to eat without it. He buys bread+whatever the fuck, maybe that's what keeps a small grocery store afloat, which x100 keeps suppliers afloat (all along the way hiring cunts). It's so striaght forward, can you not see it?
So I should have a gun put to my head?
>>68100457
You do only "allowed" type of work, if you dont - you go to jail.
>>68100594
what you call hoarding is what smart people call savings.
if the price doesn't go up to reflect scarcity, you have resulting shortage and no incentive to make up the shortfall.
The higher price means people will save resources for future (more demanded) uses.
Its anti-hoarding laws that hurt the most needy in times of crisis, not vis versa.
>>68100076
>So you've gone from saying that it's immoral to tax to saying you want it, which makes you what? A masochist?
Nope, the taxes are technically immoral, but because they have so much benefit I want to pay them. Learn to understand nuance.
>No it isn't You're saying that wealth distribution is immoral. I'm saying it isn't.
The government using it's funds to prop up poor people isn't immoral, how they got the funds, it could be argued, is.
>No, it really isn't. Being a slave to the market or dying isn't a choice, it is the illusion of one. Suicide is considered the end result of a mental disorder, which means it isn't normal human behavior. In-fact it is human instinct that can't be denied, you can't choose not to eat unless you are acting inhuman. Which means you're not apart of the human system and thus aren't bound by it, or at-least believe you aren't.
Come on now, you were just starting to make sense. Even you need to admit this whole quote is nonsense. Look up the definition of choice, and your whole post becomes irrelevant.
>At which you would've rejected the agreement offerered by them, and they're back to square one. That would be inherent to everyone. That really isn't a response.
That depends how much I stand to gain. However me exiting the agreement is fair.
I think the issue here that because I think taxes are immoral than the welfare system must be immoral and hence there is no choice, in your mind anyway.
I honestly think I can persuade you, but first, I will need to tell you something.
Communism is a utopia, something that is perfect, and as such, it can't exist.
My stance isn't I am a classical liberal (which is a flawless morality. I am also pretty much a Nazi but I argue for this position because I think it is the next best thing), however the problem doesn't lie here. The reason you can find problems in my argument is because of the capitalist side. Capitalist does work, however it is not a utopia. To be continued
>>68100489
>I see BMW's, mercede's benz's, etc, everywhere in my home city.
Wow, people who worked hard can afford nice cars. How horrible.
>Are you brainwashed into believing it isn't valid.
Pic related is what keynes said, he's actually an autistic retard.
>You take some cunt's money that's sitting in a bank doing nothing.
Money not being spent increases the value of all other money in the economy.
>It's so striaght forward, can you not see it?
Except for the fact every time it's been tried it's failed and caused inflation or economic collapse.
>Then they couldn't buy their luxury goods and services.
Again, the small amount of luxury goods produced in the economy is a drop in the bucket and totally irrelevant.
You know what else, if you took all the money the 1% have and gave it to everyone else, every single person in america would have like maybe 2 grand.
WOW you won't go through that in a few months.
>>68100603
Please point to human actions that generate wealth that don't contribute to that this curve.
What a stupid post.
>>68100044
1. the old "doller a day" is bullshit, because it doesn't take into account costs of living and currency variation
you need to look at something called "real wages"
2. the developing world is falling rapidly, and the west is falling very slowly
china is in the middle, because it has already had it's major industrial boom.
so what does this graph proove?
some countries are developing faster than china
which is to be expected, because some were so far behind
>>68093809
Literally everything. Communism appeals to 3 kinds of people in the world, presuming that the government ensures fair play in capitalism: The unintelligent, the lazy, and the unlucky.
It's been gaining momentum since the 60s in the US, despite its failures elsewhere, due to the fact that the government is no longer interested in a level playing field, but is interested in buying lots of votes at the expense of a few and flooding the country with 3rd world unintelligent people in order to push the agenda. Those few turn towards other politicians in order to buy the ability to operate outside the law, via lax borders allowing illegal immigrants to operate outside the law and H1B visas, where they don't have to pay those people a respectable wage.
I'm just here to point out that this guy killed Lenin, Trosky and every communists shithead
communism doesn't work and Marx was a german jew who later loved the liberism
>>68093809
Marx's claim was that global events would naturally push the public away from Capitalism towards Socialism and from there to Communism.
He was objectively, provably, demonstrably wrong. Socialism was a fad that was destroyed by the far, far superior Capitalism.
Therefore the problem with Communism is that it is based on an objectively false premise.
>>68100489
>Are you brainwashed into believing it isn't valid. You take some cunt's money that's sitting in a bank doing nothing. Give it to some poor cunt who wouldn't be able to eat without it. He buys bread+whatever the fuck, maybe that's what keeps a small grocery store afloat, which x100 keeps suppliers afloat (all along the way hiring cunts). It's so striaght forward, can you not see it?
How retarded you are. If you have a lot of money, only a miniscule amount would be in cash in the bank. The rich aren't really 'hoarding' money. That's not how wealth works and if they tried to do it, inflation would eat up their money.
What they do is - if they're middle class, they put their money in pension funds and a mid-range house. If they're rich they put their money in hedge funds and portfolios managed by wealth managers - i.e. they stimulate the secondary stock and bond markets by which they make sure that companies grow and that your left wing liberal politicians can get cheap debt to pay welfare leeches.
>>68100893
> human actions that generate wealth that don't contribute to that this curve.
Is this a real sentence?
Trading goods globally is what brings up the living standards of these millions of people.
>>68100803
>>68100076
CONT
Because it is not topic, you can find flaws in it, but it will actually work.
MY utopia is anarcho capitalism. It is a prefect capitalism, what ensures absolute freedom and 100% morality. However, the poor are not looked after by anything but charity, which isn't garrenteed.
This is why I agree with taxation in moderation. It is immoral, but unless I am arguing for the impossible, it is the best I can hope for. We NEED to make compromise for what actually works in the real world.
With that, I rest my case.
>>68100893
Socialism doesn't generate wealth.
Or it does but does so very very slowly and poorly.
>>68100897
>because it doesn't take into account costs of living and currency variation
Yes it does, what the fuck. It's adjusted for inflation and purchasing parity in each country.
>the developing world is falling rapidly
Many of these countries are no longer "developing" but developed and the countries have thriving middle classes.
>so what does this graph proove?
That massively increase global capitalism and free trade was a massive boom to the 3rd world and not a massive drain on the 3rd world, like autistic marxists like to spew.
>>68100356
I was almost surprised, but then I realized this is a reddit "raid", and this is the best you can expect from them.
>>68100203
>countries who did't advance
No, countries that didn't embrace capitalism and freedom.
industrial technology was propriety, it wasn't given out to the rest of the world
and even when it was available it rolled out slowly because many countries had little to invevst in it
the benefit was primarily for britain because it was ahead of the curve, and it gave them disparate trade power
so the capitalist system here benefited britain greatly, but if everyone had discovered the tech at the exact same time, britains benefit would have only been as much as anyone else
it was the tech, multipled by the number of countries they could exploit by leveraging their commercial advantage
>>68101083
It disturbs me that you needs to explain these basic concepts to people that would call themselves intellectual, but at least you are doing everyone the service of trying. Respect to them if they can do the service of listening.
>>68100226
and there you go
capitalists don't care about people
if you can't produce and don't consume you are thrown to the dogs
communists spread food for everyone, even if nobod has quiet enough
capitalist hoard food for the people who can pay, and people litterally starve to death
stalin caused a famine by mis-management, but capitalists cause one by design
