>peasants produce food
>factory workers produce industrial goods
>engineers, computer scientists, etc. invent stuff
>accountants, managers and salesman keep the system running
What's the function of the capitalist, again? I always forget...
without a price system you end up overproducing useless shit and under producing useful shit
this results in tons of unused tanks and breadlines and shortages for everyone else.
>>74041575
T C H A U Q U E R I D A
seems legit
>>74041850
>>74041791
No capitalist, no price system? Doesn't make sense to me.
>>74041925
No capitalism no private ownership of the means of production=no private price signals
In the government ownership of the means of production the state creates all prices, so nothing reflects real supply and demand.
There's no "real" price system. Hence you see massive shortages of goods, people get pissed off and the economy (eventually) collapses.
>>74042064
>>74042126
>>74042017
So, no capitalist implies everything must belong to a centralized government? Still doesn't make sense.
Why can't businesses be run by the workers themselves.
And by the way, accountants and salesmen (who are wage laborers, not capitalists) know much more about prices than the useless parasites who live off other peoples labor.
>>74042185
>>74042201
#naovaitergolpe
>>74042201
>So, no capitalist implies everything must belong to a centralized government?
that's exactly what it means
communism = government ownership of the means of production
>And by the way, accountants and salesmen (who are wage laborers, not capitalists) know much more about prices
Prices are determined by consumer demand not accountants.
But prices won't be reflective of reality if they are created by the government and not a real price system (one based on actual supply and demand in a market)
Once the government sets all prices you get massive over and underproduction.
The system then stagnates and collapses. You are shilling for an ideology that has already been tried in the real world and died due to it's own internal flaws. Give it up.
>>74041575
Provides the workers with the means to produce, and takes full responsibility if it fails.
>>74042495
>>74041575
you already named the capitalist, 6 kinds of them actually.
>peasants (now farmers)
>factory workers
>engineers
>computer scientists
>accountants
>managers
>salesmen
>>74042398
>Once the government sets all prices
You know that the only way of defending capitalism is by contrasting it with centrally planned economies.
Tell me, why are you so afraid of actually adressing the issue? Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves? Why can't the people who actually make the system work decide their own future? Why do we need a class of people who live off other people's labor?
>>74042400
>means to produce
Which are made by the workers themselves...
>>74042531
You don't even understand the difference between those who sell their labour and those who live off profits, interest and rent? You have a long way to go...
>>74042652
>Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves?
The businesses already belong to the people who create them? What kind of question is "why can't it belong to someone else?" Do you have no respect for other people's property?
>>74042829
>Do you have no respect for other people's property?
If people's property is based on the systematic appropriation of the labor of others, no, I don't.
>>74042652
>contrasting it with centrally planned economies.
Communism, by definition is government ownership of the means of production
>Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves?
That's anarcho communism which isn't at all like communism and has it's own set of problems
For one thing it's impossible to coordinate a system at all without centralization so anarcho communism is basically telling people to go back to living in a savage tribal society. That might appeal to you since you're Brazilian.
>Why can't the people who actually make the system work decide their own future?
You mean democracy?
>Why do we need a class of people who live off other people's labor?
Some people are smart and some people aint.
The best system is democracy and private ownership of the means of production where the people have political representation, and are able to own property.
Public ownership is only good for public goods and service (infrastructure, defense, etc)
>>74042687
The technology used to produce is brought by the capitalist, but operated by the worker.
Nothing in this system is stopping workers from purchasing their own tools and operating a factory as such, they just prefer to use somebody else's capital in exchange for a wage.
>>74043009
bought*
>>74042915
Are people not allowed to sell their labor? If I fix your house and you pay me money, do you not recognize this transaction? Do you still owe me anything?
>>74041575
t. underage kid that just saw this on the history book in school and believed everything
>>74042940
>Communism, by definition is government ownership of the means of production
Just saying it doesn't make it so
> it's impossible to coordinate a system at all without centralization
Then, by implication, you admit Capitalism is a centralized system, since it works.
>You mean democracy?
Yes. On all spheres, including the sphere that really matters: inside businesses.
>>74041575
>accountants, managers and salesman
These are the capitalists pham.
>>74043009
>The technology used to produce is brought by the capitalist
Not really. Most of the innovation is made by the educated middle class, who are wage laborers just like the proletariat.
>>74042575
I think it's the communist architecture I hate more than anything. Godawful urban hellholes.
>>74042017
>>74042201
Guess which one payed attention in economics
>>74043057
"allowed". Is that a joke? It's practically required.
Soft budget constraints.
>>74043178
No they aren't. They sell their labour for a wage. The don't live off profit, interest or rent. Americans are unbelievable.
>>74041575
Everyone you mentioned is a capitalist, you fucking moron.
They are selling their time and labor and profiting from it, otherwise they wouldn't even do it.
>>74043262
Would you prefer to move to Somalia and start your own economy by farming your own food, or would you rather participate in an established economy, where one hour's wage is enough to feed you for the day?
>>74043364
You are insisting that there is no difference between those who have to sell their labour and those who make money simply because of the fact that they have the right of private property over a part of the system?
Your ideological blindness is unbelievable. Americans are still in the 18th century.
>>74041575
liberty
Socialism = government ownership of the means of production. If workers want to unite, in the capitalist system, and run a busniess themselves, they can. If there is enough demand, the people probably will cater to it. There is no "function" of capitalism, it just happened.
>>74041575
>>peasants produce food
>when paid by capitalists
>>factory workers produce industrial goods
when paid by capitalists
>>engineers, computer scientists, etc. invent stuff
when paid by capitalists
>>accountants, managers and salesman keep the system running
when paid by capitalists
i love how you faggots think people will just do shit for free.
>Brazilian IP spewing marxist bullshit
Couldn't be any other way.
>>74041575
The invisible hand is the term you're looking for
>>74043107
Can you translate what the word say
>>74042017
>mfw i thought that was a whole bunch of power armor helmets
>>74043386
I'd prefer to live in an established economy where I, together with other workers, have the possibility of deciding what direction we want the system to go, and getting the share of the value produced by my labour, instead of being a servant of a parasite.
>>74041791
The US currently throws away about half the food it produces.
Explain that.
>>74041900
Those are american tanks ya dingus.
>>74043544
Why is the money on the hands of the capitalist in the first place? Can you even begin imagine anything that doesn't conform to capitalist ideology?
unless you mean oligarch, "the capitalist" is just another meaningless dehumanizing term, like "the Jew" or "the kulak".
>>74043773
>money comes from magic good feelings and not hard work
ok.
>>74043129
>Just saying it doesn't make it so
>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>Then, by implication, you admit Capitalism is a centralized system,
All complex human civilization has been centralized.
Ever heard of the monarchy, oligarchy or theocracy?
>On all spheres, including the sphere that really matters: inside businesses.
In which case the owner has no private property rights and we go back to government (or commune) ownership of the means of production
>>74043660
Do you prefer the breadlines?
>>74043660
You see Pedro, when food expires you are supposed to throw it away. Eating expired food might make you sick.
>>74042652
There's nothing stopping you (in the US) from making an employee owned company.
>>74043793
It's a well established term: those who own the means of production and therefore live off profits, interest and rent.
>>74043635
>I'd prefer to live in an established economy where I, together with other workers, have the possibility of deciding what direction we want the system to go
In other words you want to be a capitalist. That's a good aspiration, but you need to create it for yourself in order to have it. Why are you even entitled to participate in an established economy?
>>74043660
this overproduction can be turned positive by legislature
http://www.dw.com/en/france-battles-food-waste-by-law/a-19148931
>>74043820
It comes from hard work. Something that capitalist don't do.
>>74043847
It's just incredibly inefficient
It's like having all the soldier in the military decide strategy instead of the general
>>74043635
Well get some proletariat friends and open up your own fucking company if it's so easy. Nobody will "exploit" you so you'll have all the money to share among your exploited friends.
Oh, wait, every single cooperative in this shithole of a continent doesn't do shit because the poor proletariat workers are too busy not working and stealing from each other.
What you actually want is people with guns to forcibly take other people's property and give it to you. Just admit it, man, you'll feel better after you do it. I bet you work at Petrobras, if you even work.
>>74043843
Actually, most thrown away food is due to 'sell by' dates set by companies, not expiration dates.
"The capitalist" is the guy who follows demand. Lately however banking has been taking a very very big role in the modern capitalism. The industrialist is no longer the main ruler of capitalism. The labor now is, many times, boureocratic work to keep accounting in order.
>>74043582
you are more leftist than us
>>74043622
captalism:workers work for the owner of the fabric
>lands, fabrics, banks etc belongs to the bourgeoisie
>the objective is the profit of the bourgeoisie
>the decisions are taken by the bourgeoisiefrom the market situation
comunism:
>the fabric is owned by the society, that works for itself
>collective property(socialized), the worker people own everything
>the objective is the welfare of society
now the most ironic part
>decisions are taken democratically by the society, that planifies the economy
>>74043832
Yes, common ownership of the means of production. Just saying it as if it was a heresy is not an argument. Why cant the system be run democratically, and not through private empires?
>>74043635
>people that create jobs by producing all kind of things are parasite
and this is why people starved to death in the soviet union and china, fucking parasites producing food , materials and jobs how dare they
>>74041575
Managing investments, r&d for new products/markets/technology, making sure competent people are being hired, starting the business with his capital and hardwork in the first place. Pushing a button or lifting boxes anyone can do, growing a successful business is only something a select few can do. Supply and demand, loletariat.
the capitalist owns the farm, maintains the farm, and pays the worker
the worker can quit whenever he wants the capitalist is invested in the farm and its success
>>74043832
>>74043910
Also, planned obsolescence is worse than overproduction.
>>74043660
Fucking with the free market bro.
You impose price ceilings and suddenly get ass fucks growing eighteen thousand ton of fuck corn and market for.it.
>>74043873
so you advocate for collectivization? prove that a bunch of bickering "proletarian" plebs can manage production better than a board of directors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333
Wow. I'm realizing something.
The people here really can't understand the fundamental difference between a class of people who have to sell their labor and a class of people who profit simply by being in possession of the means of production. There's only "the people" on one side, and "the government" on the other. The ignorance is absolutely unbelievable...
>>74042201
There a book you should read.
It's by a Mr. Thomas Sowell.
It talks about all the issues you're talking about.
>>74043660
How the hell is having too much food a bad thing? it's not like people don't need food
>>74044131
Don't forget the most important part, the owner actually gives a shit about the business. The workers have no stake, if the business runs into problems it's not their head. It's convenient to imagine "the capitalist" as a rich multimillionaire instead of a middle class guy that uses his own money, takes loans and stakes decades of his life because he wants to get rich.
>>74044334
dont you have a corrupt governmental system to defend and rainforests to raze to the ground so that you can use the shitty soil for a few years before its effectively subsistence level
>>74043009
See pic related
Redpill incoming: capitalism and communism are just 2 sides of the same shekel
>>74043873
>therefore live off profits, interest and rent.
Now you're conflating the finance system with actual production
Industrial capitalism produces things, so there's no reason
Interest and rent aren't actually productive, so they're not relevant when talking about industrial capitalism. That's finance capitalism which is jewish and inherent parasitical.
>>74044027
>Why cant the system be run democratically,
I already explained the price system and over/underproduction to you.
Having the workers decide policy is inefficient and hasn't been used in the entire history of human civilization.
You have to have managers in any system for it to function otherwise it's a disorganized, mess doomed for failure and disintegration.
>>74044180
>planned obsolescence
kek are you an actual communist?
yeah nothing in the USSR "ever" wore out did it? It could just be that consumer goods naturally wear out.
>>74044334
no there's just "private ownership" and "public ownership"
In a system with only public ownership you get the massive underproduction and over production I was talking about.
>>74044386
The bad part is how much is thrown away, while many people, even americans, can't feed themselves.
>>74041575
an orchestra usually fails without a conductor. There is no plan, there is no definition or motivation for coherence. It can definitely play, but its prone to error and lacks any sort of new interpretation and meaning.
>>74044008
I like how the guy on the left still has worried eyes in both versions, making his smile look insincere.. In the capitalism he's knows if he complains he'll get fired. In the right he knows if he complains he'll get killed.
>>74044334
Business owners initially work many many more hours than an average worker when starting out and growing their company, over half of which fail within a year, and takes much more agency/skill/initiative to do. Entrepeneurs work their asses off so theyre not mediocre Bernvictims.
>>74044334
You don't seem to realize that there's nothing wrong with a capitalist profiting by being in possession of the means of production. In fact, you too want to enjoy the very same profit, despite having done jack shit to create the means of production in the first place, unlike the capitalist.
>Communism
>Being retarded
Pick two
>>74044472
Yes the great American famine
millions die a year it's so sad. Unlike the USSR where...
Oh wait the USSR doesn't exist anymore never mind
>>74044429
>The workers have no stake
They have no stake precisely because the company doesn't belong to them. Circular logic is circular.
>>74044457
>yeah nothing in the USSR "ever" wore out did it? It could just be that consumer goods naturally wear out.
They never intentionally planned for things to wear out so people would have to buy new ones.
Two funny stories about this: when the berlin wall fell, everyone in germany wanted the far superior eastern german house appliances but they were made to last. The communists wanted to not waste resources.
Another case is when japanses cars hit the US market in the 70s and 80s. They were cheaper to fix, got better milage, and lasted a lot longer.
Intentionally destroying resources for short term profit is ultimately extremely destructive.
>>74043544
Where does the "capitalist" (Jew) get their "wealth" from then in the first place
Let's face it the modern economy is one big Jew lie
>>74044457
>Interest and rent aren't productive
U wot, m8. Do you even time preference.
>>74044551
I never said it was a famine, but it is obviously a failure of our economy that we have produce so much, but still have people that can't afford to feed themselves.
>>74044457
>You have to have managers in any system
You are confusing managers and capitalists. Just think for a minute and you'll realize the chasm that separates a capitalist from a wage laborer. That's the point.
>>74041575
"Here is a narrow worldview, please cram the topic of economics into it, or I am right"
Fuck off you retarded monkey. The purpose of Capitalism is to prevent countries from becoming a cesspool like all of your shit socialist continent is.
Go drown in your shit filled rivers full of dead zika babies.
OP don't understand that things aren't simple as ''lets just make it happen!why not?' it was already tried in dozens of countries and they all failed miserably
>>74044472
usa government literally have markets with free food to poor people in cities like new york
only homeless people that are crazy and speak with walls in usa dont have food
>>74044523
Another one who can't tell the difference between the concept of "manager" and "capitalist". Sometimes I wonder why I even try...
>>74044530
>trying to defend advanced capitalism by reference to proto-capitalist mom-and-pop store economy...
>>74044771
There's over 46 million people in the US on food stamps. You clearly know nothing about the US
>>74044790
the capitalist hires the best managers to run his enterprise
without the capitalist, managers would start fighting to BECOME the capitalist, collapsing the whole thing in the process
>>74044627
>everyone in germany wanted the far superior eastern german house appliances
kek yeah
too bad about the whole "breadlines" and "being stuck decades in the past technologically" thing
oh and the "state collapse" and the "shortages of everything"
>japanses cars
Yes the great communist state of Japan. How could I forget that chapter in history?
>>74044702
I'm not an Austrian
>>74044707
>people that can't afford to feed themselves
mostly due to factors that you probably support like globalism since you are a filthy communist
>>74044727
>managers and capitalists.
the capitalists are the managers in a private system
In a government owned system you get bureaucrats.
In your anarcho communist system I suppose you get "group votes" on every decision, because apparently that's very efficient and practical.
>>74044947
How does the capitalist become the capitalist in the first place
>>74043107
If robots are making everyones shit then why are there three people still employed to do absolutely nothing?
>>74044947
>capitalist, managers would start fighting to BECOME the capitalist
Not if they live in a society in which people accept as legitimate the idea that the means of production are collective property.
>>74044874
So your argument is that people who have capital are some magical species that appears out of nowhere and permanently stays there? No wonder the leftists are losing in Brazil.
>>74044594
You need to refresh your memory on what circular logic means. Why would the worker give a shit when everyone has an equally small amount of ownership in the business? If you're rowing a boat with 1000 rowers, the personal responsibility for each one is small. You can stop rowing and take a rest and the boat will hardly slow down. This in turn demotivates people from doing their best because their work is being averaged with the other lazy rowers. Owning a tiny fraction of the company is the same as owning none of it as far as personal responsibility towards the company goes. Do you think employees that are paid in money + stock work any harder than employees that just get a salary?
>>74042652
Why don't you show that socialist societies still need a free market system to thrive? All you're doing is shifting the capitalist from an individual to a community. And worker owned businesses do exist. Fat Tire Beer for instance.
>>74044996
Who said I was a communist? nice straw man.
All I'm saying is that your concept of capitalism does have flaws. it's not a perfect system, and you're trying to use the worst parts of capitalism to argue against communism. you're just an idiot.
>>74041575
TCHAU QUERIDA
>>74045040
>magical species
Some people are inclined to say things like "capitalists produce employment and value" etc. Clearly, it's the pro-capitalists who are guilty of magical thinking.
>>74045038
No, they would just starve to dead.
>>74045059
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with organizations like Mondragon, but that's only because the people within the company isn't everyone because they merely exist, but only includes people Mondragon deems useful enough.
>>74043107
this image triggers me so hard
>>74045038
>means of production are collective property.
I like how you keep arguing for and against communism
>>74045093
>it's not a perfect system
There is no such thing as a perfect system, but one system progressed and the other stagnated and died.
People in the US have been doing worse over the years due to globalism which like I said is something you probably support anyway, so I don't know why you're complaining.
>>74044899
See there you go, we literally give you money to buy food
>>74045059
Good argument. But that can be used against the concept of democracy as well. So at least have the honesty to say you don't believe in democracy.
>>74045001
It makes no difference. If a magic genie gifts me with wonderful means of production and I show up tomorrow with it and start recruiting workers, my means of production are just as useful.
>>74044996
>I'm not an Austrian
You don't have to be one to understand self-evident laws, you just need a functioning brain. Goods now are worth more than the same goods later. Try selling a cake to somebody telling them you'll deliver it in a year. Try asking somebody for large amounts of their savings and telling them you'll maybe perhaps return the same amount in five years.
>>74045178
How do they not if you believe that shifting all the property of the capitalist to the workers will. That's nonsense. If the property and actions of the capitalist don't help produce jobs and value, why would it do so when everyone has a small piece?
>>74045251
I can recognize this flaw in democracy (and so should you, because it's true) while still believing that it's the best system despite its demerits, because it's the least corrupt.
>>74045244
It would be best if people could afford to feed themselves and we didn't throw away so much food.
>>74045038
a reminder that in a collectivist society you would be forced to fraternize and equalize yourself with these people: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ed_1432075070
>what is reversion to the mean
>>74043660
Us government subsidises food. Is it any wonder more is produced than needed? Farmers get paid whether food is bought or not.
>>74044448
my father literally started his own business being pratically bankrupt like 2 or 3 years ago, he have hundreds of dozens in debts with the government because of the 2008 crisis when he had to close his previous business
>>74044899
theres nothing to do about that, some people just ruin everything
you can just find a job that few people wants to do like mac donalds, janitor , and it will be enough to eat, my father was born in poverty, all he had to eat was what his farm that he and his brother planted to eat and some animals, he had to sleep 4 hours per day and eat twice a day, worked on a bus and went to school, no it wasnt easy, they were all fucked but today they are all sucesfull, ifmy father and all his brothers did it, why the hell in usa thats 5000 times better economically someone would not have what to eat?
>>74045020
thats how public jobs work, they are paid to do nothing, thats what they want, to do nothing. here in brazil, its illegal to fire a public employee, unless he did some kind of crime, result, they ''work'' like 2 to 4 hours per day and get like more than 2 minimum wages, our new president michel temer is already ended this shit because of the current crisis, but the previous president(dilma) that is communist would never ever do that, some people(a lot) just arrive on their jobs, put their id card, and go home, and then do it again when they are supposed to leave their work, its ridiculous
>>74043911
You keep saying that like "capitalist" is a thing and not just a word for people you envy.
I've worked in factories and restaurants, big businesses and small ones. The owners of those businesses were all wealthy, and all of them were irreplaceable in the scheme of things.
I'm writing this post on an iPhone, which is here SOLELY because of Steve Jobs. Everyone in the process of the development of the iPhone, from the factory workers in China to the salesman at the Apple Store, was replaceable except for him.
You and your friends can start a company. You can make it a partnership where every employee holds an equal portion of the value of the company. You can make every decision as a group. You are now all capitalists, good luck.
>>74041575
Take the risk
>>74045251
Democracy isn't about ownership it's about political representation in a national system
>>74045338
You don't understand how banking works
banks just create money (loans) and speculate (securities) they don't "produce" anything.
When there's a downturn and the bank goes bankrupt that becomes readily apparent.
Banks aren't like say, a pharmaceutical company, that actually produces things.
>>74045209
I dont use the word communism because it makes it too easy for the empty-headed, fraudulent ideologists to use the old terrorist argument "muh 100 million people dead".
I've been consistently arguing for collective property in this discussion. It just does't have to be any more centralized than capitalism.
>>74045361
So democracy is flawed, but a still a good thing? Ok, why can't this be applied to businesses (that is, socialism)?
Brazilians are so fucking stupid.
>>74041575
Administration. Capitalists optimise allocation of resources by pursuing their own interests.
The proof of this is how effortlessly capitalist states have outperformed a socialist ones throughout the ages
>>74045634
>said the fucking leaf country that voted for trudeau
>>74045486
>an iPhone, which is here SOLELY because of Steve Jobs
screencaped it. Can't make this shit up...
>>74041575
To put everything together. Worker co-operatives are perfectly legal right now, anyone can start one with no legal barriers. And yet somehow they aren't the dominant business model. How can this be, if as you're implying, all the proletariat are desperately yearning to control the means of their production?
>>74045379
That's a policy issue. Most of this possibly useful food cannot be used for anything by law, not even composting or fertilizer.
>>74045501
That's a result of the nature of our money (money as a product of debt or credit) and the value storage-means of transaction issue. Money is used as both, but the more useful it is for one purpose, the worse it is for the other. This is why the freigold experiment was so successful, it solves both issues.
>>74045507
collective property is communist inherently unless you are proposing "anarcho-communism" which like I said before, repeatedly, has it's own list of obvious problems (disorganized) that make it untenable.
>more centralized than capitalism.
In capitalism only the publicly owned parts of the system are centralized
In communism "everything" is centralized
>>74045701
did you screencaped alone without help? thats very impressive if that is the case
>>74045640
Another one who can't tell the difference between the activity of management and the legal relation of property that gives origin to profit. Americans are clueless.
>>74045501
No, you don't understand how they work. It's pretty basic stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_intermediary
If they don't produce anything, why do people take loans and deposit money? Why would they do it if the bank's product is false and not worth anything to them?
That's for legit banking, though. Of course socialism/central banks fucked things up and it's been a scam for the last century or so. But interest itself is as legit as producing, selling and buying things.
>>74045379
Food stamps is a farm subsidy program. That's why so many people qualify.
>>74045747
>In capitalism only the publicly owned parts of the system are centralized
There seems to be misunderstanding here. I'm talking about the real world. You know, the world you see out the window. Not the fairy-tales you read in economics books.
>>74045588
Socialism requires stealing the means of production from those who own them under the false premise that they don't truly belong to them.
The fact is if your parents worked to accumulate wealth and purchase capital nobody would claim it isn't yours by inheritance, yet when "the rich" do it over many generations this is considered foul, because they were born into money and didn't have to physically work in order to build their means of production.
In order to enjoy the fruit of your labor, you need to own the means of production, and in order to own the means of production you have to either make them or buy them, and you don't want to do any of that.
>>74041575
Letting me buy space parts with my 200 gold a turn.
>>74045836
>Why would they do it if the bank's product is false
The bank's product is backed by government decree; if you were to do what the bank did, you would be arrested for counterfeit because you do not have permission to create money out of nothing. It literally costs the bank nothing to create its product, which is what anon is probably getting at.
>>74045958
>stealing the means of production from those who own them under the false premise that they don't truly belong to them.
No, under the true premise that almost all of the wealth in the world has been created by poor people. Everybody knows that from history.
>>74045740
Money is ultimately controlled by the government.
Banks just act by creating credit in order to profit off of specialization (debt and loans)
>>74045836
They don't produce anything tangible.
Yes the "create" money (out of nothing) in the form of loans but that's to finance people. The point of banks is to stimulate production for other business they don't produce anything in and of themselves
>>74045936
"centralized" is obviously referring to the government
If you are complaining about "centralization" in general I have bad news since even the most primitive human tribes have a form of centralization in leadership.
>>74046099
>labor theory of value
Gooby pls.
>>74041575
Think of capitalist as of the very main manager.
>>74046112
>"centralized" is obviously referring to the government
Ideology-induced autism.
>>74046099
It was created by the poor and sold for the rich in exchange for money. If you work for someone you give up your right to own what you create.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Y6CIyyBcI
>>74046192
Another one.
>>74042652
This is when I realized you're trolling. If you're not, I just want to assume you are for sanitys sake.
>>74046232
>>74046278
Address this
>>74045728
>>74046266
>If you work for someone you give up your right to own what you create.
Exactly.That's a bad thing and should be changed. Just announcing the principles of the system you defend is not an argument.
>>74046278
No.
The very main who manages all the managers.
>>74046032
Today's banks' product is backed by government decree. I was making a case for interest in response to his saying of "interest is not productive", not a case for the modern fiat scam.
>>74046112
Teachers don't produce anything tangible, therefore teachers are not productive.
See how that doesn't work?
Capital risk. The factory workers, engineers, accountants, managers, etc., get paid no matter what he outcome is. If they all work together to make widgets, they get paid whether consumers want to buy the widgets or not.
But if the consumers do not want the widgets, because there are better, cheaper versions, or because widgets are just gay, the capitalist loses his capital investment. He risked his capital for an uncertain outcome, whereas the workers traded time for a certain outcome (their salaries).
>>74042391
Wew, who are these cock warlocks?
>>74046345
It is a very good argument against stealing. You may not like the system, but if you agreed to sell your labor, that's an agreement that needs to be honored. You don't get to cheat and take both the money and the fruits of your labor because you don't like the system under which the transaction was made.
>>74046339
You are saying the proletariat doesn't want to control the means of production? Of course they want to. The system simply doesn't allow it. The fact that there is no law against cooperatives is irrelevant. Law doesn't govern the system, it's the system that gives rise to the law.
>>74046232
Centralization of government ownership of the means of production is generally a bad thing
see: USSR
just centralization of "any" organization isn't really bad
>>74046389
teachers educate students
>>74046492
The system does allow it. Go to Somalia and start your own economy.
>>74046492
What system? tell us in concrete terms what is stopping worker cooperatives from becoming the dominant business model in the world please.
>>74046492
You know how many work-a-day guys I know who have zero interest in owning a company? All they want to do is show up, work the week, get paid, and have a beer. That's fucking it.
>>74046394
Yes, capitalists take risks with money that represents value created by other people. Kings and tyrants and feudal lords also "take risks" by investing the power that "belongs" to them on their various enterprises.
>>74046112
Nominally, yes, but in practice money is not directly under the control of anyon elected and do as they please, which why the UK, Japan, and now even China are facing credit issues as their central banks did and continue to do stupid shit in an attempt to ensure the debt-money scam continues. How? Bubbles, which they then blame on government or commerce while still being directly responsible for them. Interest-free money created by the government, with demurrage to prevent people from using money as a value storage while it's not is the only real way to have a non free banking system work long term.
>>74046339
Arguably, because such organizations involved greater management costs due to horrible laws, and lack of education regarding running one.
>>74046492
> it's system and this filthy society to blame! they won't make us honorable workers way to success!
>>74046492
>You are saying the proletariat doesn't want to control the means of production? Of course they want to.
There is no "of course" about it. Again, if all workers wanted to control the means of production, they can and they would. And they would starve, because not everyone can be winners, and there is risk involved in owning the means of production.
You think just because you made something that I want to buy it? What if it's shit? What if I already have one? What if you overpriced it? What good will your means of production do you when nobody wants what you're selling?
And now you know why wage labor exists.
>>74045822
You keep saying "capitalist" then pretend everyone that's actually doing capitalism by interacting voluntarily isn't a capitalist.
Pinpoint the people you're talking about instead of shot posting and maybe we can discuss it.
>Yeah man, workers should own the company.
What is a partnership, what is a co-op? This is 100% possible for you to do right now in a capitalist country. Personally I think you should.
>>74046637
Labour doesn't create value, though.
>>74046418
Fucking horrible.
A warlock is male.
Dick Lickin Wiccan is better.
>>74046637
>value created by other people
Which they decided to sell to the capitalist on their own free will, without anybody putting a gun to their head.
>>74046462
>but if you agreed to sell your labor, that's an agreement that needs to be honored
Yeah. And there is no pressure to do it, right? No constraints? It's just fully autonomous people entering into free contracts with other fully autonomous people. The sublime freedom of the system is astonishing.
>>74046590
Competition.
>>74046512
>teachers educate students
Uhhh, "educating students" is not tangible either.
But hey, I don't want to beat around the bush. Look, (legit) banks connect people who have money and people who want money. They pay the former and charge the latter, and keep the difference. If you don't see how that is more productive than the former not using the money and the latter not getting it to do business, I think you may have brain problems, no offense.
>>74046825
and what makes worker cooperatives less competitive then? Since the only difference is in who owns the company, surely it would be better represented amongst successful businesses.
>>74046687
Socialism is capitalism without C-corps
And LLC's. It's a ridiculous fucking argument.
>>74046761
>'the current system is evil cuz people have to do things they don't want to'
>wants to literally shoot people if they don't give up any property which has collective utility
>>74046637
You know that Marx idealized feudalism, right? He saw it as the most perfect pre-industrial society as it prevented the "bourgeoisie" element.
Not like anybody here expects you to know what you're talking about. You're just going to keep repeating your "no true communist" fallacy until you suddenly start repeating that you "literally can't even" before vacating the thread.
>>74046687
A capitalist is a person that owns a part of the system, and that gives them the "right" to live off profit, interrest and rent, and therefore, obviously, they don't need to sell their labour like the rest of the population.
That's what a capitalist is. It is absolutely mind-boggling that Americans can't understand it.
>>74046761
>>Yeah. And there is no pressure to do it, right? No constraints?
That's 100% right. The reality is that human beings are creatures that die if they don't eat food, and there is pressure to survive on every person, and to do so they need to either farm and hunt their own food, or join an economy. The capitalist didn't give birth to this imperative to work, unless the capitalist is your mother.
Nobody is pressuring you to get a job other than your own survival instinct.
>>74046761
Yes? What's stopping their autonomy? Note I am a distributist and believe the means of production must be spread out, but your arguments of coercion insist i am somehow obligated to get hire by a person i don't wish to work with without saying why. You could do like my father, and make his own company, or like my uncle and live off his farm without buying anything from anyone ever, or like my aunt who works as an accountant for someone else. Only limits are those your body and your willingness to work has on you.
>>74046848
Too bad no bank works in the way you describe nowadays.
>>74046927
It makes less competitive because no one votes for their own exploitation.
>>74042652
>Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves?
You realize that collectives like that do exist right? They're not illegal if that's what you're saying.
>>74046927
Of course not. But as I said before, I was answering to his claim that interest is not legit/productive. Of course modern banking is a scam only supported by socialism/fiat money/central banks. I'm not saying it isn't.
>>74047023
>Marx idealized feudalism
If I lived through mid-19th century Britain, I would too. Anyway, he never advocated a return to the past. It is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.
>>74047223
Wanted to quote >>74047068
>>74047046
>if people don't participate in the specific system that I favor, they should starve.
Heard it before. Worthless line of argument.
>>74047257
Are you suggesting that Karl Marx is dated? You just don't know what you like, do you?
And I obviously said nothing about returning to the past. Marx knew the difference between industrial and pre-industrial, considering it to be a wall which necessitated a new system. I was calling you a fool for denouncing old monarchies when the very foundation of communism adores them. Idiot.
>>74045701
Yeah don't the peeps know the niggers invented the iPhone over 7 millennium ago, back when whitie was still using wire to talk to strangers.
But then that crakka Steve jobs comes along and steals our invention.
Fucking whites.
They're all the "capitalist" dumbass. Until you somehow abolish their desires to accumulate more capital.
>>74047451
>denouncing old monarchies when the very foundation of communism adores them
Another priceless screencap.
>>74047143
but surely the profit, enough to sustain immensurable wealth for the capitalist, would be enough to comfortably provide for the workers as well. And why don't they work the same (or as you put it, be exploited) to the worker cooperative as they do now to the capitalist?
>>74041575
>coveting others wealth
What's the 10th Commandment, again? I always forget...
>>74046848
an educated student exists
credit is created out of nothing which is how banks create loans
no modern bank acts in the way you're describing it.
>>74047537
Another one. The myth of the classless society is so ingrained in Americans, Hitler and Stalin should be ashamed of their amateurish propaganda systems.
>>74043228
it's very sad to me; what could've been . the resources and industry of these people wasted on marxist lies and dictators.
especially >>74042551 that's africa-tier "we built this and was never used"
>>74047366
Nothing stopping you from buying three acres and living the rest of you life not needing anything from anyone ever again, as three acres is enough to grown enough vegetables, meats, and other useful plants for a family of four. Make it 10 and you can support 20.
>>74047541
>I-I-I-I-If I p-pretend that he's dumb, m-maybe other people will think so t-too...
Do you have a rebuttal for me, or are you a faggot?
>>74042201
>Why can't businesses be run by the workers themselves.
Wow... like a kind of board of people whose job it is to direct the company or something...
>>74047026
Again, you're just describing an act. Not naming a person.
By that definition, I'm both a capitalist and a prole. I work a regular wage slave job for very little money. I saved up enough money to make a down payment on a house, which I rent to other people to cover the mortgage payment and taxes. Now, my renters (coworkers and friends of mine) are able to live in a decent home instead of the ghetto because I was able to control my expenses and budget.
Am I a parasite feeding off of them?
I'm a property owner who charges more in rent than I pay in expenses.
Should I be punished for the crime of being better at budgeting and self control than my friends?
Should they have to go back to living in a terrible neighborhood because I shouldn't be allowed to own this property?
>>74047366
Well, there are many ways to sell your time, and if you don't use them, you will starve to death. And yes, they're all the system in which human society was since it appeared.
And it will live until you know how to build scientific communism with machines doing our shit for us.
>>74041575
>the capitalist has no function
The peasant, factory worker, engineer, computer scientist, accountant, manager, and salesman have no function?
Tell me, what is the function of the rich Jewish aristocrat who never worked a day in his life and only wrote political treatises?
>>74047637
Show me a peasant from anywhere who doesn't want to accumulate more capital than he needs
>>74042201
>Why can't businesses be run by the workers themselves.
Sure they can! Let them and see what happens.
>And by the way, accountants and salesmen (who are wage laborers, not capitalists) know much more about prices than the useless parasites who live off other peoples labor.
I wonder why they're not the ones who created the jobs first of all.
>>74047637
pls respond >>74047552
>>74047740
I have no rebuttal for those who think communsts adore monarchy. Keep on, retard. Insult me. Maybe you'll regain your self-respect.
I can't reply to everything though. I'm debating 20 people at the same time who can't even understand the difference between wage labourer and capitalist.
>>74043635
Congrats, you can do that in a capitalist society. There is no law against doing exactly this. Please go do it.
>>74047366
>if people won't give me free meals, they're staving me!
Retarded. If you starve it means you failed to acquire food. Go hunt spiders in Somalia.
>>74047755
Exactly. But a board composed of those who actually work there, not a parasitic social class like the capitalists.
>>74047954
>I have no rebuttal for those who think communsts adore monarchy
Holy shit, that strawman is priceless.
>>74047954
i think they mean that the worker, given the chance, will accumulate wealth just as the capitalist
>>74047756
>Am I a parasite feeding off of them?
You still have to work. So you're not a capitalist. Please, don't pretend that you don't know the difference. It's crystal clear. The REAL capitalists own large chunks of society and suck off the lifeforce of those who actually make society work
>>74047954
I never said that all communists adore monarchy. I said that the whole basis of communism espouses monarchy as being the ideal pre-industrial system of governance and that you're a moron for denouncing it.
Whenever I make a point against you, you pretend to be amazed and confused. Whenever I press you on the point, you bring up a strawman to reveal that you never truly understood me to begin with. It's an exercise in tedium. I wouldn't mind you so much if you would at least understand your place. You are terrible at argument and terrible at thought. Abandon your petty pretensions and realize that you aren't prepared to handle my arguments.
>>74047795
>the system in which human society was since it appeared.
un-fucking-believable.
>>74048180
you could quote more than one post in your responses, it would be faster and hit the limit later
>>74044448
Technically, both systems are viable, although capitalism is just more viable.
The problem is, as pic related illustrates, the guy(s) on the left. Can't have the systems working as intended because of their machinations.
>>74047821
another one who doesn't understand the concept of "capitalist".
>>74048233
Oh, it's happening. He's about to storm off while pretending that the counter-arguments are just too ridiculous to rebut.
>>74043107
Brazilian '''''education'''''
>>74047143
>an educated student exists
Yeah, and interest means money (and thus production, and thus wealth) now exists rather than money later.
>credit is created out of nothing which is how banks create loans
Not exactly out of -nothing-, but even were that the case, together with
>no modern bank acts in the way you're describing it.
that's an argument against fiat money, scams, central banking and socialism in general. Not against financial intermediation and most certainly not against interest.
>>74048020
Parasites do not survive in a Capitalist system. Unnecessary appendages are pruned by the brutal competitiveness and efficiency of the system.
Capitalists retain their role because investment is an essential function, and they do it more efficiently than the State does. You look at Capitalists as people who profit off of others' labor--but that is incorrect. They profit off of labor that THEY facilitated, with THEIR resources.
>Huu huu but the Capitalist stole those resources
Frankly that's irrelevant. Being born with more money doesn't stop the money from existing, and getting it through investment doesn't either. Individually interested Capitalists regardless of their character will ALWAYS outperform the State in administering investment because it is to their own interest.
Every time. EVERY TIME. You call this Parasitic because you do not understand basic economics. A parasite does not come into your body and set all of your chemical imbalances in order, it comes into your body and eats your liver. Capitalists build civilization, they represent the interests of industry applied through numerous small independent agents.
>>74041791
This
>>74048276
Prove me wrong.
>>74045020
The miracles of socialism.
>>74043660
Because the federal government literally subsidies it. It's just another case of government interference fucking shit up.
>>74048404
>Unnecessary appendages are pruned by the brutal competitiveness and efficiency of the system.
That only happens in a free, competitive market. Unfortunately, such mythical creature is nowhere to be seen.
>>74044539
/thread
>>74048020
All the people who make decisions at companies are employees of the companies. Are you saying private investments into companies shouldn't exist?
>>74048180
So if I'm a landlord and own a good swathe of a neighborhood, is my paying to upkeep these houses and see the problems of my tenants not "making society work"?
>>74041575
Why don't you ask venezuela
>>74048549
>So if I'm a landlord and own a good swathe of a neighborhood, is my paying to upkeep these houses and see the problems of my tenants not "making society work"?
Of course not. Merely owning a piece of society and profiting from it doesn't create value.
>>74048648
>a piece of society
It's called land, you retard.
>>74048404
>Capitalists retain their role because investment is an essential function
Still waiting for someone to tell me what that is. Most management, accounting etc. in an advanced capitalist society is made by wage laborers. What's the capitalist function?
>>74048648
>A piece of society
>Private property being leased to someone
gas yourself
>>74048648
>managing and maintaining something has no value
wew
All right you fuck nugget, the final goal of communism is to eradicate classes and have everyone on the same level, this is bullshit because it's based on the idea that everyone is equally capable, because not everyone is equally capable, those who are more capable will produce more, and if you don't reward more work with more benefits then you are creating classes between people who do more work for the same as people who work less, and you've failed, and if you do reward more work with more benefits classes will form and you will have failed. The only way communism can exist is if the government dictates pay and hours worked, but even then you have a government class and citizen class, and you've failed at real communism. Pure capitalism is bullshit because without some government intervention (see minimum wage, overtime pay, etc) the lower classes can be exploited and kept from climbing the ladder between classes, monopolies are formed and everyone who isn't a robber baron gets fucked. This is why we have a mix of the two, so that we aren't restricting those capable of more, or oppressing those who want to climb classes through hard work.
>>74048757
>hurr durr let's pretend we don't live in an advanced modern collectivist system so we can make our retarded capitalist ideology work
>>74041575
Capitalists analyse what is feasable with the available resources.
>>74048793
>Most management, accounting etc. in an advanced capitalist society is made by wage laborers.
Yeah, the low risk (low capital) stuff. The higher risk stuff is managed by higher ups in a company or corporation who manage the direction of the company, and since there is more to fuck up they need more education and more experience, which comes with it higher pay
>>74048648
>a piece of society
Calm down comrade, houses are made of wood and concrete.
>>74048793
You still didn't answer why worker cooperatives don't thrive. Since the capitalist is just there to reap the benefits, he would be easily replaced by social ownership. it is very much possible yet it doesn't happen, why?
>>74048893
>hurr durr let's pretend we live in an advanced modern collectivist system so we can make our retarded communist ideology work
>>74048842
>managing and maintaining
Again, refusal to understand the difference between the work of management and a property relation which gives origin to the right of profit independently of any work.
>>74041575
And that's why your country is so shit that you're the only one who doesn't recognize it.
>>74041575
>tfw you were born in the same place as karl marx
>>74048976
we do live in an advanced modern collectivist system. Who the fuck doesn't understand that?
>>74049012
>a property relation
It's called ownership.
>>74048941
How many times does socialism need to fail to get it through your thick skull?
>>74048941
>it is very much possible yet it doesn't happen, why?
I could argue about it.
but right now I'm too busy defending it's desirability.
I can't answer everything
I love how everyone in this thread thinks CEOs are the capitalists.
While that may be true in a small company, it's almost never true in a large corporation. The owner(s) are pretty much never the CEO.
The CEO is just a (highly paid) employee, making money for someone else who doesn't do anything.
>>74048648
Sure it does. There mere fact someone is willing to rent it from me means it has value to them. Value only arise from what people are willing to pay for something, and the instant they decide to do so the value of something is determined.
>>74049012
That's literally the only thing a landlord does. He manages his fucking property
>>74049147
>I could argue about it.
>but right now I'm too busy defending it's desirability.
>I can't answer everything
That means that you don't know because it's something you never thought about because you don't think because you're a fucking commie
>>74049168
An American who THINKS!!!! Finally!
>>74049168
Yeah, investors just sit on their ass all day and live on dividends. Totally. They don't even have to work at all.
>>74049074
Everyone who wonders what's this modern collectivist system you talk about. You are protesting how the world isn't communist enough while claiming we exist in a communist system.
>tfw OP abandons the argument against you
Not like I expected much else.
>>74049012
The relationship is that he maintains and manages his property because he fucking owns it an has invested in it and thus seeks to get a return on it. Holy fuck why are commies and socialists so retarded?
>>74049043
My nigga.
>>74048180
I do still have to work, for now. In a few years I'll have a handful of properties, and if I'm careful enough in my persona life, not wasting money, I'll have the loans paid off and will own the homes outright. Then I'll be able to quit my job and live on rent payments (which will be reduced once the loans are done).
Will I be a capitalist then? A parasite who doesn't work and provides no value?
Or will I be a good friend who used my ability to budget and postpone gratification to help my friends move up in the world?
>>74049218
Yes, in a proto-capitalist situation. In an advanced capitalist situation, he pays other people to manage it. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>74049126
I'm asking him. Look, if what he was saying of the capitalist being just there to exploit the workers were true, then him being replaced by a worker cooperative (which is perfectly legal today) would produce competitive companies. That's not what happens.
>>74049257
Sure they "work". Like dictators and kings
>>74049012
As the son of a worker and landlord, I can say that this isn't entirely true. A landlord has to constantly run maintenance on his property and travel long distances in order to fix a broken pipe or two. At least, that's if he can do it himself. Usually they just hire others to do it for them. Which, you know, is really good.
>>74049257
They certainly aren't working for the company(s) they own.
Basically, the difference between a capitalist and a CEO is the difference between a Team Owner and a Head Coach.
The head coach actually does the managing, the players do the actual work, and the owner gets all the money, except for the minimum he can get away with paying everyone else to prevent them from leaving.
>>74049279
No, I'm claiming the system is de facto collectivist. Since it's already collectivist, it should be democratic.
>>74049400
>he thinks people are against dictators and monarchy because they don't work
Brazilian education.
>>74049290
>tfw Op never even bothered with your argument
>>74049350
>Yes, in a proto-capitalist situation. In an advanced capitalist situation, he pays other people to manage it
So the difference, in your opinion, between a capitalist and a non-capitalist is that the capitalist pays others to do work and then profits for giving said person the opportunity to do said job?
>>74049449
>the head coach actually does the managing
The head coach does none of the managing. The team manager does all of the managing.
>>74049314
Exactly. Again, just enunciating the principles of the system you defend is not an argument.
>>74049350
There are only so many ways to own something anon. You either make it, buy it, inherit it, steal it, or marry into it. Not all of them are nice but you still have to respect ownership. If you own a house it is yours to rent, it doesn't matter that you don't need to work in order to rent it, if it's yours it means you must've worked to get it, even if you inherited it from your rich parents or bought it with their money, you have to respect property rights in order to live in a civil society.
>>74049400
Dictators and kings do quite a lot of work, actually. I wouldn't want that job.
Surely there's a better comparison.
>>74049442
>Usually they just hire others to do it for them.
So why don't the residents just call the repair men? Why are they paying someone else hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a month to call a repair man?
>>74049521
Just breaking down something a bunch and going
>see you filthy capitalist pigs how morally superior I am
Is far less of an argument.
Something to work towards. 99% will never become rich but it's infinitely better than 100% never becoming rich.
>>74049335
A parasite, of course, you not working scum! How dare you have managed your money correctly and lived off that long term reward!
>>74049350
And so what if he pays someone else to manage it? Effort went into its acquisition and maintenance, and if enough value now exist he can afford to pay someone else to do it, what's the problem? Isn't that literally a job created because of the greater wealth involved?
>>74049462
That's not an argument. Describe what makes it collectivist in any reasonable definition.
>>74049548
Welfare recipients?
>>74049335
>In a few years I'll have a handful of properties, and if I'm careful enough in my persona life, not wasting money, I'll have the loans paid off and will own the homes outright.
Good luck for you. But would you seriously argue that this is how people usually become capitalists? There are no permanent class hierarchies? Is the myth of meritocracy and classlessness so unquestionable?
>>74049530
He doesn't want to live in a civil society, he wants to live in one where other people democratically decide what to do with your property.
>>74049400
yeah man dictators and kings literally do nothing but watch tv
>>74049584
Because the residents don't own the property? The landlord owns the property and thus pays for those expenses unless the tenant is at fault. The landlord takes on that risk while the tenant pays the landlord to have a reduced financial risk
>>74049509
>So the difference, in your opinion, between a capitalist and a non-capitalist is that the capitalist pays others to do work and then profits for giving said person the opportunity to do said job?
Yes. But "creating jobs" is misleading. There's work to do, the existence of the capitalist is not a precondition for it. Nothing prevents the system from running without them
>>74049637
>Welfare recipients?
A person receives welfare by virtue of the fact that their life has value, which justifies helping them.
A person receives passive income by virtue of the fact that they already have money, which somehow justifies giving them more money.
>>74049752
>Nothing prevents the system from running without them
Just the necessary amassed capital to ensure the job is done correctly, continuously and necessarily.
>>74049590
>morally superior
Yeah, I get this a lot. I'm just criticizing the system. If you feel this "moral superiority" coming from me, maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're defending an idea you know to be fraudulent, namely, capitalism.
>>74049400
No one makes livings off of dividends you fucking retard, and if the definition of a capitalist is someone who only needs to get returns on their own investments to live, without putting in any work, the capitalists don't exist.
>>74049752
>There's work to do, the existence of the capitalist is not a precondition for it. Nothing prevents the system from running without them
Holy fuck are commies really this delusional?
>>74049869
Literally the sole argument and underlying principle of communism and socialism is a fucked morality that is emotionally driven.
>>74041575
The capitalist takes the risk
>>74049742
The funny thing is, if it wasn't for landlords, we wouldn't need landlords in the first place.
Because they rich buy so many properties, there aren't enough properties for everyone else, and so everyone has to pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to merely have a roof over their head. Thus, unless they have money, they have to rent, which wastes their money. Lovely system.
Did you know we have more unoccupied homes than homeless people in this country?
>>74049712
>your property.
>defends a system of private property by pressuposing private property
Americans...
>>74049752
Capitalist basically is the sytem without anything. It wasn't carefully put in place by the elites (although it is rigged in favour of those already on top), it developed mostly on its own. Individual trade has always happened and always will, be it labour, food, services, or whatever.
>>74049953
What risk?
>They might lose their investment!
In the modern world, the government will literally reimburse a lost investment. There is no risk anymore. Hell, if you get big enough, then the government will pay to keep you running!
>>74049841
capital can be amassed by a collective organization that is owned by workers themselves and managed democratically
>>74041791
The Military was the only Free Market part of the Soviet Empire....
>>74049584
If they were in the interest of maintaining a home, they wouldn't be paying rent. People who rent homes directly from landlords usually can't afford to maintain them at the same time. Either that or they don't want to. If you don't have the capital to just buy your home, you're usually only interested in saving as much as possible. The best way to do that is to live on property that is owned by someone else. It's cheaper than a mortgage, you have a higher-up who has the obligation to fix everything for you, and you hardly need to worry about things like property tax.
See, your "why don't the residents just run repairs" shtick is trying to hide the fact that the residents never put together the funds to own the property in question to begin with. It tries to hide the fact and argue like it should be theirs just because the tenants might have the ability to make repairs. Even though they probably don't.
>>74050071
Yeah, that's state intervention for ya
>>74049952
>emotionally driven.
Capitalists talk of freedom all the time. Of course peoples argument is based on "emotional" moral principles.
>>74050074
>capital can be amassed by a collective organization that is owned by workers themselves and managed democratically
You mean like... a board of shareholders? Oh golly, gee, oh gosh. That almost sounds like... a corporation!
>>74049584
Because they are unwilling or unable to buy property. I rent my apartment because I won't be living where I work long and owning property in the states will do me no good. So I rent instead because it just make more sense long term.
>>74049640
Data shows quite a lot of mobility, specially generational, for most if not all countries and industries. It takes an insane amount of work to keep wealth for more than five generations.
>>74049752
Except willingness to take risks and save, but other than that yeah, pretty much.
>>74049798
Doesn't justify it, no one has to give money to the owners of Walmart, yet people keep buying from them rather than the mom and pop shop close by because it's cheaper. The family doesn't deserve that money because they have money, they deserve it because effort was put into making a business and now they get a portion of the money other people willingly give to them.
Merely existing produces no value to anyone. If you feel morally compelled to help them, good, but that has nothing to do with their worth or anything they have or haven't done.
>>74050071
How is that the fault of capitalism?
>>74049964
>the capitalist doesn't truly own the means of production!
>even though they bought and paid for them from the workers...
>because the workers who made them were forced to work to for the capitalist!
>even though it was their own free choice and nobody forced them to...
>but they felt pressured because without a job they'd starve to death!
>because it's the capitalist's responsibility to feed and take care of the workers...?
I think you're struggling.
>>74044529
Underated post
>>74050192
>He still thinks the CEO is the owner
Oy vey. Keep it up goy! You'll be rich some day!
>>74050074
If the workers are working for the company, where or when are they going to accumulate this extra capital?
>>74050158
>workers themselves
>shareholders
Americans...
>>74049640
You aren't even questioning it.
You'd have to actually name a capitalist instead of dodging the question continually saying "no no not THAT capitalist, the OTHER ones."
When you name a capitalist, we can discuss them, but until then you're just saying empty words.
Is Donald Trump a capitalist?
Elon Musk?
John D. Rockefeller?
J.P. Morgan?
It usually seems like "capitalist" is the Marxist version of Hitler's "Jews". A convenient scapegoat upon which you can heap all your disdain knowing there will be no pushback because the menace isn't real.
>>74050208
>>the capitalist doesn't truly own the means of production!
>>even though they bought and paid for them from the workers...
That's the same logic used to justify slavery bro
>>74050208
>own free choice
>I think you're struggling.
Yes. And you don't have to, because you just ignore reality and choose to believe in 18th century myths.
>>74050146
freedom is a basic human right. Good job on painting commies as anti freedom again mate, that surely helps your cause
>>74049870
Hedge fund managers.
>>74050415
Yet another evasion. You hit at magical forces that compel the worker to sign a so called slavery contract yet are unable to elucidate when asked. You are struggling. You know that objectively speaking, it was a free choice.
>>74050391
>>>the capitalist doesn't truly own the means of production!
There is nothing wrong with a well-regulated slaver market
>>74050536
hint at*
>>74049959
>we have more
>we have
>we
There is no we. Human beings are individually controlled autonomous units. There is no collective. There are only individuals who agree to interactions or do not.
>>74050555
And with that, I bid you good night.
>>74050389
I already gave a definition of "capitalist" many times. It's absolutely obvious what it means (no, not the jews). It has to do with the person's function in the system, not who they are.
Your insistence that I should name specific capitalists just shows your desperate need to defend the myth of classlessness.
>>74050305
Non-public corporations only sell shares to their employees and family of the original owners. When the employee leaves the corporation, for whatever reason, the employee must be bought out of their shares. Thus, a non-public corporation is, in fact, owned and operated by the workers and original owners who decide how the capital is used. So how does this fit into your commie dialectic? You'll spew memes because that's all you commies can do, but I'm curious to see how you'll try to spin this one.
>>74049959
>Because they rich buy so many properties, there aren't enough properties for everyone else, and so everyone has to pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to merely have a roof over their head. Thus, unless they have money, they have to rent, which wastes their money. Lovely system.
That's flat out wrong though. Pic related for example. Also the way the system is supposed to work and unfortunately due to constant government fuckery, doesn't as well, is that a young person accumulates skills and experience in order to start to accumulate capital. How most people now live while they're working on the skills and capital part is they live in a low-risk housing situation, ie renting. Renting reducing the costs of the tenant in the short term and also reduces risks. Once someone decides that they have the skills, capital, and a steady income they make their own risk assessment and buy a house, put a down payment on it and take out a mortgage so they don't have to pay all of it upfront.
>Did you know we have more unoccupied homes than homeless people in this country?
Did you know that the value of labor has taken a nose dive as leftists and globalists have mass imported tens of millions of heads of cheap labor into this country? Underemployment and unemployment has two factors: the market forces (labor and goods/services) and government involvement which seeks to control the market forces. Now I'll willingly admit that 100% free and unfettered free trade open market capitalism is a bad thing and that we need some policies which regulate imports and the interaction between the foreign and domestic markets, however that becomes more a Nationalistic thing than a "glorious people's workers blah blah blah" thing. So coming back around to the homeless and housing thing, so what if there are more unoccupied houses in the US than homeless people, that's literally not an argument.
>>74050594
Sleep tight, Commie
>>74050536
>magical forces
A social system that permits certain people to accumulate so much stuff that it becomes necessary for the worker to enter in an unequal relation with a superior in exchange for their right to exist.
>>74049964
Yes. Your property. Things you have worked on.
Marxism doesn't only control the CNC machine I operate at work. It also controls the chainsaw in my garage because that saw has collective utility. Other people could use it to cut wood when I'm not using it, therefore even though the value used to obtain it was entire from my individual labor, in your world someone would be justified in taking it from me.
It's almost like you don't know about Marxism.
>>74050766
Wealth is not a fixed pie such that if someone accumulates too much stuff it prevents the rest from accumulating wealth of their own. It's "necessary" for you to enter an unequal relation with an employer because you feel like you feel entitled to enjoying all the goods the economy can offer. You are free to distance yourself from the economy. Live without money, receive no goods or services, and work for nobody. You won't do this, because participating in the economy that _other people_ have built is so efficient, that you prefer the luxury of being a wage slave over fighting for survival in the rain forest.
>>74050867
>in your world someone would be justified in taking it from me.
You're talking about a complete lack of any right of property. That's a pathetic strawman. No one defends it. And you use it because that's the only way you can defend capitalism.
Anyway, I don't even believe in the arrival of "communism". I'm just arguing for a collective-democratic system. I don't have to adhere to what you call "Marxism", it's a very distorted concept anyway.
>>74050867
This. It's almost like commies and socialists are people who have never owned anything in their lives.
>>74051109
>You're talking about a complete lack of any right of property.
Actually you're he one that started that though
>>74051050
>because you feel like you feel entitled to enjoying all the goods the economy can offer.
>Can't even begin to imagine anything outside his own post-modern ultra-advanced region of the capitalist world.
>>74051161
No, it's that when people like you know they can't win an argument, they pretend they're autistic.
>>74051217
>keeps pretending like we're in the neolithic era
>>74041575
without the capitalist taking the risk of investing their capital in projects and enterprises and using their entrepreneurial skill to steer them in the right direction none of those other people have jobs
>>74050661
Yes, you've given the same definition multiple times, then been unable to find a single capitalist anywhere.
Then you say we're defending a myth?
>>74051217
Great rebuke, you sure got me.
The fact that you are free - genuinely free - no matter how hard you try to meme, to remove yourself from the economy and start everything from scratch, is immutable. You're simply dissatisfied with the fact that you were born into a low power position.
>>74051311
Collectivism inherently eliminates all property rights. Once you say "you don't have a right to what you own because someone else used it or wants it" that by the very principle of the argument, expands itself to all property.
>>74051332
I'm not retarded like you americans who need to put the blame on specific culprits so you can preserve ridiculous myths about the supposed meritocratic nature of the system
>>74051109
Ok now I know you're trolling.
Have a good night, BrazilBro.
>>74051341
Marx was born in a very agreeable position. But he decided to speak against the obvious fraudulence of the system. Apealling to my supposed hidden motives is a worthless line of argument.
>>74051573
So obvious is this fraudulence that it's not even necessary to explain it, it appears.
>>74051648
>"free labor contract between equals"
Yeah, doesn't even deserve a response.
>>74051721
I wonder what a response would've looked like.
>>74051772
>just look
>>74051808
Good night Brazil. May you win the mundial yet again.
>>74051772
>just admit that legal relations are a cover for real power relations
>>74051910
>win the mundial
not interested
Every single time. Every single fucking time a commie comes here he ends up defending himself by not explaining and just saying lol capitalistards you so brainwashed you can't think outside the box! THINK! IT'S 2016!
>>74051970
There's nothing wrong with unequal power relations as long everyone's free and civil :)
The capitalist provides the funds that pay for all of these things, including wages you leftard
>>74041575
>factory workers produce industrial goods
>engineers, computer scientists, etc. invent stuff
>accountants, managers and salesman keep the system running
Why would I want to work extra hard for a living when I'd earn the same amount of wealth doing
>peasants produce food
I'm not working extra hard if I can just rely on myself. I need incentives to work
>>74052164
>when I'd earn the same amount of wealth
>thinks capitalism is wage disparity.
>>74045936
>Economic books are fairy tales
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Leftists are a treat
>>74042652
>You know that the only way of defending capitalism is by contrasting it with centrally planned economies.
Because I can name 5 countries that are still around that are capitalists. Can you name me 5 1st word countries that are centrally planned that still exist?
>>74052391
I can tell you which advanced capitalist countries rely on massive state intervention:
All of them.
