Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:04 No.9794142

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:04 No.9794142

Replies: >>9794227

>>9794112 (OP)
Please don't post Samoyeds in this thread. Those dogs are based

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:05 No.9794166

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:05 No.9794166

Replies: >>9794224 >>9797916

>>9794112 (OP)
INB4 true communism works, it's just never been tried

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:08 No.9794224

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:08 No.9794224

Replies: >>9799413

>>9794166

Any time a government "tries" communism it has left millions dead

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:08 No.9794227

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:08 No.9794227

File: 1359752898128.jpg-(299 KB, 720x576, GroupShot1Small[1].jpg)

299 KB JPG

>>9794142

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:12 No.9794323

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:12 No.9794323

Replies: >>9794393 >>9797027

>>9794112 (OP)

>You can exploit people who willingly choose to work for you instead of lesser alternatives.

It's exploitation because capitalist institutions deprive workers of access to capital. If you take away someone's viable alternatives, the only sensible choice you leave him with is the one you want him to take.

It's almost exactly the same thing with force. "Do what I want you to do or you get shot". "Do what I want you to do or you starve to death". No difference.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:15 No.9794393

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:15 No.9794393

Replies: >>9794462

File: 1359753353107.jpg-(10 KB, 480x360, 958046373.jpg)

10 KB JPG

>>9794323
>If you take away someone's viable alternatives, the only sensible choice you leave him with is the one you want him to take.
In a capitalist system you can't take anything that another person doesn't voluntarily give to you.

>"Do what I want you to do or you starve to death"
Anyone who chooses to sell their labor to an employer whose only other option was starvation would have starved before the employer came around.

The employer is the only thing saving that person's life.

but sage goes in all fields
im not saying sage(...) 02/01/13(Fri)16:18 No.9794446

im not saying sage goes in all fields but sage goes in all fields 02/01/13(Fri)16:18 No.9794446

inb4 communism works but the US ruined it

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:18 No.9794462

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:18 No.9794462

Replies: >>9794556

>>9794393

>In a capitalist system you can't take anything that another person doesn't voluntarily give to you.

The capitalist system itself is taking away someone's control over their labor. What you can and can't take from him after that is irrelevant to the discussion.

>Anyone who chooses to sell their labor to an employer whose only other option was starvation would have starved before the employer came around.

His only other option was starvation because the benevolent employer class won't let him have the tools he needs to adequately feed himself.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:22 No.9794556

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:22 No.9794556

Replies: >>9794860

>>9794462
>The capitalist system itself is taking away someone's control over their labor.
You can't "take" what is voluntarily given to you in a mutually beneficial exchange.

>His only other option was starvation because the benevolent employer class won't let him have the tools he needs to adequately feed himself.
Or maybe because they are desperately impoverished because they live in a pre-industrial nation, or have no skills and come from a poor family. The human species didn't grow because food fell from the sky before "ebil capitalists" swept it up and made everyone work for it. The species grew because people worked for their food and beyond, because they specialized and divided labor that allowed people to trade for things based on what they were able to competitively produce and exchange with others for mutual benefit.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:32 No.9794860

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:32 No.9794860

Replies: >>9794892 >>9795249

>>9794556

>You can't "take" what is voluntarily given to you in a mutually beneficial exchange.

Yes, you can. It's what it means to have power over someone else.

Because of private property relations, the capitalist's access to the business and the wealth produced by it is guaranteed, while the worker's access to the business and its wealth is controlled by the capitalist.

There is no reason why it has to be this way. It could be that neither has privileged access to the business and the wealth it produces.

>The species grew because people worked for their food....

You're bringing in conditions that are exigent to the argument, and therefore making no substantial point. You can't ignore the fact that if the worker had equal access to capital he would be better off regardless of his circumstances.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:33 No.9794892

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:33 No.9794892

>>9794860

*fucking damn it not exigent *extraneous*

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)16:44 No.9795249

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)16:44 No.9795249

Replies: >>9795864

>>9794860
>the capitalist's access to the business and the wealth produced by it is guaranteed, while the worker's access to the business and its wealth is controlled by the capitalist.
Because the worker has no right to own or dictate the decisions of a business they did not build. Businesses and capitalists also do not fall from the sky fat with cash and land squarely on "enslaved" workers shoulders. They are built, by people. People who tend to have to work very very VERY hard to establish the business.

>There is no reason why it has to be this way.
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE GIMME IT
>It could be that neither has privileged access to the business and the wealth it produces.
Then neither would have any reason to be productive. Reread the OP.

>You can't ignore the fact that if the worker had equal access to capital he would be better off regardless of his circumstances.
And you can't deny that a worker has no right to capital that is not a product of his own labor, and if he employs his labor while using other people's equipment, land, buildings, resources, raw materials, supplies, and the shared labor of other workers then he can expect to only receive a fraction of the product of that labor, since he only contributed a fraction of the production.

You know what has never happened in capitalism? A business where one worker does everything, and I mean literally everything, and then willingly handed over the majority of the product to someone else.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:09 No.9795864

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:09 No.9795864

Replies: >>9796064

>>9795249

>Because the worker has no right to own or dictate the decisions of a business they did not build.

But the business can't possibly exist as such without workers. And in any case, the discussion is not about whether or not a worker has a given right under capitalism, but rather about what rights they should have.

>EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE GIMME IT

I never said anything even remotely like this.

>Then neither would have any reason to be productive. Reread the OP.

People will be utility maximizing agents regardless of what they do or don't have access to. This is not at all a refutation of my point.

>And you can't deny that a worker has no right to capital that is not a product of his own labor, and if he employs his labor while using other people's equipment, land, buildings, resources, raw materials, supplies, and the shared labor of other workers then he can expect to only receive a fraction of the product of that labor, since he only contributed a fraction of the production.

Certainly, but we're not talking about the relationship between workers, we're talking about the relationship between workers and capitalists. The capitalist receives the largest share of the wealth produced by the business simply because he has control over it and for no other reason. It's good to be the king.

>You know what has never happened in capitalism? A business where one worker does everything, and I mean literally everything, and then willingly handed over the majority of the product to someone else.

Ummm... so what?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:18 No.9796064

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:18 No.9796064

Replies: >>9796363

>>9795864
>But the business can't possibly exist as such without workers.
>durr what is a sole proprietorship
>what is a small business

>what rights they should have.
What rights don't they have?

>People will be utility maximizing agents regardless of what they do or don't have access to
Oh my god you're gonna make me giggle. People will maximize output when they have no personal gain tied to it? Holy shit that's hilarious.

>The capitalist receives the largest share of the wealth produced by the business simply because he has control over it and for no other reason.
Did you ever stop to question WHY the capitalist has control over the means of production? Maybe because it's HIS business, and HIS money, and HE employs the many workers, and HE purchases the machines, the building, the land, and HE pays the taxes, and HE is the one ultimately responsible for making sure that the firm is profitable and the workers receive their paychecks because without HIM they'd all be on their own.

>Ummm... so what?
So what? So your whole point about workers deserving an equal share of the products of a business, despite only contributing a very small part of it. The worker receives a share, that is all. They receive what they are valuable for such that their labor contributes to the well being of the organization. Nobody is being exploited, because nobody is being undervalued beyond what they choose to accept.

Your entire notion of communism is founded on jealousy and ignorance.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:22 No.9796163

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:22 No.9796163

Replies: >>9796199

File: 1359757361084.jpg-(22 KB, 300x365, wealthoftheworldstolen.jpg)

22 KB JPG

>>9794112 (OP)
Communism is inevitable, fight as you might. Eventually, wealth will come from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Scarcity is created by governments.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:24 No.9796199

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:24 No.9796199

Replies: >>9796260

>>9796163
>wealth will come from each according to their ability to each according to their needs
The best system we've come up with as humans in order to do that is capitalism.

Communism fails because lolplannedeconomies

>Scarcity is created by governments.
Are you trolling?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:26 No.9796260

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:26 No.9796260

Replies: >>9796351 >>9796369 >>9796934

>>9796199
No one created capitalism. Capitalism was imposed by the force of government. The same government that keeps down the poor for the benefit of the rich. Humans are more than capable of outproducing their wants without being put in a maze with cheese at the end.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:31 No.9796351

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:31 No.9796351

Replies: >>9796473

File: 1359757884737.jpg-(243 KB, 1275x1920, citation.jpg)

243 KB JPG

>>9796260
>Capitalism was imposed by the force of government

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:31 No.9796363

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:31 No.9796363

Replies: >>9796645

>>9796064

>durr what is a sole proprietorship
>what is a small business

Sole proprietorships and small businesses still need to employ workers.

>What rights don't they have?

They don't have any rights over their labor.

>People will maximize output when they have no personal gain tied to it? Holy shit that's hilarious.

I said utility, not output. And just because neither has privileged access to capital, does not mean that there's no personal gain tied to using it. It's like two people living in the same house. Does living in that house suddenly become worthless if one person doesn't own it alone and can't kick out the other whenever he wants? Of course not.

>Did you ever stop to question WHY the capitalist has control over the means of production?

Yes, but I don't think you have. Your argument is a naturalistic fallacy. Just because the capitalist does have exclusive control over a business does not mean that he should.

>Nobody is being exploited, because nobody is being undervalued beyond what they choose to accept.

They choose to accept what they choose to accept because they are given no other choice. The institution of private property ensures that workers remain dependent on the capitalists, just as serfs are dependent on their lord.

>Your entire notion of communism is founded on jealousy and ignorance.

No it isn't.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:32 No.9796369

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:32 No.9796369

Replies: >>9796509

>>9796260
>Capitalism was imposed by the force of government.
Explain black markets

>The same government that keeps down the poor for the benefit of the rich
Explain economic mobility under capitalism.

>Humans are more than capable of outproducing their wants without being put in a maze with cheese at the end.
They are only capable of overproducing their needs if they have incentive to do so, that human incentive deeply tied with the well being of themselves and their families. Humans are not encouraged to work and be more productive for people they don't give a fuck about.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:35 No.9796473

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:35 No.9796473

Replies: >>9796728

>>9796351
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:37 No.9796509

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:37 No.9796509

Replies: >>9796728

>>9796369
>Explain black markets
Capitalism =/= capitalism

One refers to a system of corporatism enshrined by law, while the other people just use as a synonym for laissez-faire.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:40 No.9796583

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:40 No.9796583

File: 1359758406370.jpg-(23 KB, 320x481, VonMises.jpg)

23 KB JPG

There is the economic calculation problem

If you abolish private property in the means of production there cannot be trade with those means.

Without the prices that trade generates, one cannot rationally calculate.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:42 No.9796645

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:42 No.9796645

Replies: >>9796995

>>9796363
>Sole proprietorships and small businesses still need to employ workers.
You're an idiot. My father opened and ran his own business without a single employee for almost a decade, then he hired a single secretary, who worked for another decade for him.

>They don't have any rights over their labor.
Sure they do, skilled workers choose to sell their labor for tens of thousands of dollars a year, medical benefits, and retirement plans. Less valuable workers sell their less valuable labor for less compensation.

>I said utility, not output
You don't know what you're saying. You substituted my "productivity" for "utility" and then criticized using "output" as if it made any real difference. Typical Marxist move: attack the language, not the argument.

Also your metaphor made no sense, so I'm sorry but I can't even address it.

>Your argument is a naturalistic fallacy.
>Owning things of your own creation is a naturalistic fallacy
Jesus christ commies, step up your game

>does not mean that he should.
Who are you to say? Fucking fascist.

>they are given no other choice.
They have the choice. They own themselves. They are free to do with themselves whatever they like. If it's hard, or not very fun, or you don't like it, tough titties. You have no right to other people's labor, or to the profits of labor beyond what you realistically contribute.

>Capitalism is feudalism
That's an false equivalence drummed up by bullshit Marxist ideology, it denies economic mobility.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:45 No.9796728

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:45 No.9796728

Replies: >>9796833

>>9796473
>Capitalism did not exist until the American government established a central bank
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

>>9796509
>One refers to a system of corporatism enshrined by law, while the other people just use as a synonym for laissez-faire.
No, corporatism is corporatism.

Realistically, corporate SOCIALISM, which is very real and has been for decades, is what you are deriding as "capitalism".

Seriously, are you pathetic communists just trying to troll here? I can't believe you are so ignorant, selfish, and illogical.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:50 No.9796833

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:50 No.9796833

Replies: >>9796945

>>9796728
What is Capitalism? You define it? Free markets? The Fed isn't free market. If you want to call it corporatism, fine, but the rest of the world calls it Capitalism.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:54 No.9796934

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:54 No.9796934

>>9796260
What part of the voluntary exchange of goods bothers you?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:55 No.9796945

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:55 No.9796945

Replies: >>9797207

>>9796833
No, that's bullshit.

Capitalism is private ownership of property and voluntary trade. That's it, and it works great.

>the rest of the world calls it Capitalism.
No, idiot Marxists like you getting forced through the academia brainbleach machine call corporate SOCIALISM (the socialization and combining of government and corporate interests and actions) is very, very different.

You've lost this argument, entirely and embarassingly so. You don't have a leg to stand on, and are falling back on that typical critical theory technique of attacking language and definitions instead of meaning, principle, evidence, and logic.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:57 No.9796995

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:57 No.9796995

Replies: >>9797149 >>9797150 >>9797204 >>9799270

>>9796645

>My father opened and ran his own business without a single employee.

So your father wasn't self employed? Just because you're working for yourself doesn't mean that your business has no employees.

>Sure they do, skilled workers choose...

That's not what having rights over your labor means. How much you choose to sell your labor for is irrelevant when your only choice is to sell your labor to someone else.

>You substituted my "productivity" for "utility" and then criticized using "output" as if it made any real difference.

That's because people maximize utility and not productivity or output.

>attack the language, not the argument.

I was attacking your argument, and now you're ignoring mine.

>Also your metaphor made no sense, so I'm sorry but I can't even address it.

Please explain how it is not analogous. You're just dodging an argument you can't refute.

>Owning things of your own creation is a naturalistic fallacy

Saying you should own something because you own it doesn't get more naturalistic fallacious.

>Who are you to say? Fucking fascist.

You still haven't adequately justified your belief that a capitalist should own something that he does, despite asserting it repeatedly for about a whole paragraph.

>You have no right to other people's labor, or to the profits of labor beyond what you realistically contribute.

Does this reasoning also apply to capitalists? If so, welcome to the revolution, comrade.

>That's an false equivalence drummed up by bullshit Marxist ideology, it denies economic mobility.

Economic mobility in any substantial sense is a myth, and nothing more.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)17:59 No.9797027

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)17:59 No.9797027

Replies: >>9797193

>>9794323

You can work for a multitude of different companies. Sorry, food isn't free because food as yet still takes effort to produce.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:04 No.9797149

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:04 No.9797149

Replies: >>9797450

>>9796995

>That's not what having rights over your labor means. How much you choose to sell your labor for is irrelevant when your only choice is to sell your labor to someone else.

So it's wrong to sell your labor if you have nothing else but your labor? How do people progress and get better from that most base state? Unless you're arguing that it's wrong that some people only have that choice, in which case you're right, but you have no valid solution for the problem.

Cannibalizing the rich to feed the poor only works for as long as you have rich to cannibalize. Since you aren't trying to make the poor more productive you'll just be throwing more and more money at that problem.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:04 No.9797150

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:04 No.9797150

Replies: >>9797477

>>9796995
>your only choice is to sell your labor to someone else.
Except when you sell it to yourself, like small business owners around the world do, or like agrarian farmers did before they figured out that they could specialize labor and trade.

>That's because people maximize utility and not productivity or output.
You still don't know what the fuck you're saying. "Utility"? People sell their labor because it is of the greatest utility to themselves. Specialization of labor.

>Please explain how it is not analogous
Because living in a house with someone has nothing to do with efficient production practices.

>Saying you should own something because you own it
Or because it's a product of your own labor, something you've been whining about constantly that communism (IE: forcefully taking your labor and redistributing it through a bureaucracy, giving you back just what a state tells you you deserve) will somehow resolve.

>Does this reasoning also apply to capitalists?
Yeah, which is why they PAY PEOPLE TO DO IT

>Economic mobility in any substantial sense is a myth, and nothing more.
See
>The majority of business owners, millionaires, etc.
>The majority of ethnic groups that have immigrated to the US
>The entire first world
>South Korea
>Japan
>Brazil
>Russia
>China
>Any other of the myriad of countries around the world and throughout history which have ascended out of desperate poverty and raised the quality of life exponentially by allowing people to trade freely

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797193

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797193

Replies: >>9797274 >>9797332

>>9797027

>You can work for a multitude of different companies.

And get the same shitty deal everywhere you go.

>Sorry, food isn't free because food as yet still takes effort to produce.

I'm not saying food should be free. Just that the threat of death by starvation or by gunshot are about equivalent.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797204

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797204

>>9796995
>Economic mobility in any substantial sense is a myth, and nothing more.

>He says as he uses the internet and enjoys an incredibly high quality of life which he shares with an amount of people so large it has never, ever existed in human history

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797207

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:06 No.9797207

Replies: >>9797332

>>9796945
Really? Locke was a capitalist?

Because no one else uses that definition. Liberalism is not capitalism, and liberals wanted private property and voluntary trade. Capitalism was a word created to describe post-Industrial revolution boss-worker system.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:09 No.9797274

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:09 No.9797274

Replies: >>9797561

>>9797193

Some companies you will find more pleasant to work at than others, and thus be happier there. Presumably working at place you like is superior to working at a place you don't like. Even if you have shackled yourself to working at a place you don't like, you're gaining experience and skills while working at that place, which will give you greater leverage in the future.

>I'm not saying food should be free. Just that the threat of death by starvation or by gunshot are about equivalent.

They are not. Gunshot places the action in the hands of an individual, starvation does not. If you choose to not work, you can make that choice. The consequence is that food will be harder to come by, because you have no money.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:12 No.9797332

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:12 No.9797332

Replies: >>9797561 >>9797650

>>9797193
>And get the same shitty deal everywhere you go.

>WAH SUPPORTING MYSELF BY HAVING TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE HAPPY, OR WORK EXTRA EXTRA HARD TO SUPPORT MYSELF IS A SHITTY DEAL
>WAH LIFE IS A SHITTY DEAL

>Just that the threat of death by starvation or by gunshot are about equivalent.
But they aren't, because nobody will kill you if you choose not to support yourself, you will die from your own laziness and uselessness. Meanwhile, people who are ACTUALLY starving around the world line up to get work in "exploitative" factories which will pay them more money than the median income of their nations.

>>9797207
>Capitalism was a word created to describe post-Industrial revolution boss-worker system.
Noooo, once again, attacking the language like a typical fucking Marxist. The post-industrial revolution boss-worker system functioned and continues to function because it WORKS REALLY FUCKING WELL. Not everyone is fit to manage, not everyone is an effective boss, not every worker has the vision, initiative, skills, knowledge, or experience to best coordinate the incredibly complex operations, marketing, infrastructure, financing, and managing functions which are necessary to operate a successful, productive enterprise.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:17 No.9797450

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:17 No.9797450

Replies: >>9797477 >>9797572 >>9797674

>>9797149

>Unless you're arguing that it's wrong that some people only have that choice, in which case you're right, but you have no valid solution for the problem.

Yes, and yes I do. It's called communism.

>Cannibalizing the rich to feed the poor only works for as long as you have rich to cannibalize.

Communism is not cannibalizing the rich to feed the poor. It's about giving everyone the right to work for themselves and not someone else.

>Except when you sell it to yourself, like small business owners around the world do

Obviously, being self-employed means you can't possibly exploit yourself. But everybody can't be self-empoyed and at the same time retaining economies of scale.

>People sell their labor because it is of the greatest utility to themselves.

Yes, given their choice sets. I'm just saying that capitalist institutions give people extremely shitty choices, and we should make a better system that offers better choices.

>Because living in a house with someone has nothing to do with efficient production practices.

But it does have something to do with deriving utility from a cooperative relationship. I believe we were talking about the advantages of various kinds of such, and not about "efficient production practices".

>forcefully taking your labor and redistributing it through a bureaucracy, giving you back just what a state tells you you deserve

Point to the place where I said this.

>Yeah, which is why they PAY PEOPLE TO DO IT

Again, you're using your conclusion as a premise in your arguments.

>See

Economic mobility in a sense that would be relevant to the discussion would be about how easy it is for workers to become capitalists. Getting a slightly higher wage does not accomplish this. And in any case, it is irrelevant. Because giving people the opportunity to become masters does not abolish slavery.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:18 No.9797477

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:18 No.9797477

the other half of this

>>9797450

Is a response to this
>>9797150

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:21 No.9797535

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:21 No.9797535

Replies: >>9797661

sooo...the flaws in their logic are that hard work doesnt equate to value and that the rich didnt get that way by doing hard work? have you seen the flaw in your logic?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:22 No.9797561

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:22 No.9797561

Replies: >>9797661

>>9797274

>Some companies you will find more pleasant to work at than others, and thus be happier there.

This does not justify capitalist property relations, just as the fact that some masters are kinder than others does not justify slavery.

>If you choose to not work, you can make that choice.

The choice one is given in capitalism is 'work for someone else or starve', whereas it should be 'work for yourself or starve'. That's what I'm saying. To believe it is the second case in capitalism is an absurdity.

>>9797332

But they aren't, because nobody will kill you if you choose not to support yourself, you will die from your own laziness and uselessness.

See above.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:23 No.9797572

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:23 No.9797572

Replies: >>9797793

>>9797450
>giving everyone the right to work for themselves and not someone else.
They already have that right. Communism is exactly forcing people to work for other people.

>everybody can't be self-empoyed and at the same time retaining economies of scale.
Which is why we have specialized labor and employment, because it supports a better quality of life.

>I'm just saying that capitalist institutions give people extremely shitty choices
Capitalist institutions give people nothing but choices, states take the choices away, and the only way to enforce communism is through the violence of the state.

>But it does have something to do with deriving utility from a cooperative relationship.
You still haven't explained what the fuck you mean by "utility" and it has no relevance in this discussion.

>Point to the place where I said this.
When you advocated communism.

>using your conclusion as a premise in your arguments.
You are seriously making zero sense, I'm honestly having trouble discerning what the fuck you mean. An employer pays an employee slightly less than the value their labor adds to the firm, because there's other expenses besides labor.

And you're STILL equating voluntary trade with slavery. How fucking deranged are you?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:26 No.9797650

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:26 No.9797650

Replies: >>9797784

>>9797332
>The post-industrial revolution boss-worker system functioned and continues to function because it WORKS REALLY FUCKING WELL. Not everyone is fit to manage, not everyone is an effective boss
Except it doesn't. That's why businesses had to use force to bust unions and use laws to keep away competitors. And if monarchy doesn't work in government, why would it work in markets? Why wouldn't democracy provide more stability and adaptability? It does, which is why authority has to be propped up by the government.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:27 No.9797661

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:27 No.9797661

Replies: >>9797949 >>9799328

>>9797535
There is no flaw there. Value is not the same as hard work. Those who become rich do so because their actions provide value.

>>9797561
>This does not justify capitalist property relations
Property relations need no justification, you own yourself, you own your labor, you own the products of your labor. Most people choose to sell their labor to someone else in exchange for payment, because it's easier than starting from scratch.

>'work for someone else or starve', whereas it should be 'work for yourself or starve'.
It's exactly that in capitalism. You are working for yourself, because you are supporting yourself. If you are smart, creative, hard working, and opportunistic you can become the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, college dropouts who became billionaires by adding incredible value to the world.

You're saying you feel entitled to the product of someone else's value creation strategy because they succeeded and are able to employ other people. You are saying that a government forcing you to work, taking your labor, and redistributing it as they see fit with you only receiving what a state decides you deserve is freedom from "capitalist masters".

You are, literally, insane.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:28 No.9797674

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:28 No.9797674

Replies: >>9797706 >>9797949

>>9797450

Communism isn't a valid solution, it relegates everybody to a certain threshold of poverty with little chance to improve their lots in life.

Everybody already has the right to work for themselves, it's why the majority of workers are paid more than a subsistence wage. If the workers choose to live a lavish lifestyle they cannot afford, that's not the employer's fault.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:29 No.9797706

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:29 No.9797706

Replies: >>9797835

>>9797674
>Everybody already has the right to work for themselves
The don't. The entire system is set up to force people into employment and discourage them for competing with the status quo.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:33 No.9797784

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:33 No.9797784

>>9797650
>That's why businesses had to use force to bust unions and use laws to keep away competitors.
Neither of those have anything to do with the boss-worker system.

Unions are essentially price-fixing for labor (they're also private entities which exist for self-interest by the way, unions aren't sunshine and lollipops, union dues are profit) and when they "bust" unions by bringing in scabs, they are doing so because the unionizers are overvaluing their own labor beyond market price.

Using laws to keep away competitors is corporate socialism, and also has nothing to do with the boss-worker system.

>Monarchy in markets
What the actual fuck? Companies don't succeed because of birthright, they succeed because they provide value to an economy.

>Why wouldn't democracy provide more stability and adaptability?
>democracy
>stability
FULL POTATO

Now as for adaptability? Nobody does it better than private interests. Businesses around the world adopted smartphone technology into operations effectively within 5 years, meanwhile the government is still trying to figure out electronic voting machines.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:33 No.9797793

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:33 No.9797793

Replies: >>9798009

>>9797572

>They already have that right. Communism is exactly forcing people to work for other people.

No they don't, and no it isn't.

>Which is why we have specialized labor and employment, because it supports a better quality of life.

So then you admit that it cannot be the case that everyone can be self employed and at the same time retain a higher quality of life under capitalism (and I'm being very generous here because it's obvious that capitalists retain most of this increase)? Well great, because communism allows people to work together and at the same time and retain a higher quality of life for everyone.

>Capitalist institutions give people nothing but choices

Work for Capitalist A. Work for Capitalist B. Work for Capitalist C.... hmm.... decisions.... decisions.

>and the only way to enforce communism is through the violence of the state.

How does giving everyone equal access and rights to business organization require violent enforcement? How do you not see that capitalist property relations are enforced by the state through violence?

>You still haven't explained what the fuck you mean by "utility" and it has no relevance in this discussion.

Utility is a measure of the satisfaction one derives from some activity. It does have relevance to the discussion. You're just choosing to ignore my argument.

>When you advocated communism.

See above.

>An employer pays an employee slightly less than the value their labor adds to the firm, because there's other expenses besides labor.

Yeah, like the employer's own budget destroying humongous and disproportionate salary.

>And you're STILL equating voluntary trade with slavery. How fucking deranged are you?

And you're still comparing communism with slavery.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:35 No.9797835

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:35 No.9797835

Replies: >>9797932

>>9797706
>The entire system is set up to force people into employment and discourage them for competing with the status quo.
Except it's not because every individual in capitalism is an economic entity with exactly as much opportunity to become an employer or an employee, based on their ambition, skills, and opportunities. Meanwhile, in any other system, there are strictly defined castes, including communism.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:39 No.9797916

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:39 No.9797916

>>9794166
No it doesn't. It would work if the only jobs were industrial. Unfortunately 'True Communism' doesn't do well with professions that require lengthy training and skills (such as doctor, lawyer, etc.) or agrarian labor.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:39 No.9797932

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:39 No.9797932

Replies: >>9798032 >>9798059

>>9797835
>Except it's not because every individual in capitalism is an economic entity with exactly as much opportunity to become an employer or an employee, based on their ambition, skills, and opportunities
That's entirely untrue. Mitt Romney can get a multi million dollar loan because his dad was the governor while most people couldn't get one red cent. Political connections give you access to capital, not merit. Because capital is constrained by the law.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:40 No.9797949

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:40 No.9797949

Replies: >>9798059 >>9798167

>>9797661

>Property relations need no justification

Yes, they do. You cannot simply be right by saying that you're right over and over again.

>Most people choose to sell their labor to someone else in exchange for payment, because it's easier than starting from scratch.

Unlike capitalists who never have to start from scratch. Do you see what the problem is here?

>You are working for yourself, because you are supporting yourself.

A slave also works to feed himself. That does not mean that he is working for himself.

>You're saying you feel entitled to the product of someone else's value creation strategy because they succeeded and are able to employ other people.

No, I'm not.

>You are saying that a government forcing you to work, taking your labor, and redistributing it as they see fit with you only receiving what a state decides you deserve is freedom from "capitalist masters".

No, I'm not.

>>9797674

> it relegates everybody to a certain threshold of poverty with little chance to improve their lots in life.

No, it doesn't.

>Everybody already has the right to work for themselves, it's why the majority of workers are paid more than a subsistence wage. If the workers choose to live a lavish lifestyle they cannot afford, that's not the employer's fault.

See above.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:41 No.9798009

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:41 No.9798009

Replies: >>9798331

>>9797793
>No they don't, and no it isn't.
Why not just plug your ears and go "LALALA", it'll work better.

>Well great, because communism allows people to work together and at the same time and retain a higher quality of life for everyone.
Yeah, because centralizing all wealth and power in the hands of self-interested bureaucrats has proven time and time again to be so awesome for everyone involv- oh wait that has never happened in the history of humankind.

>How does giving everyone equal access and rights to business organization require violent enforcement?
It doesn't, welcome to capitalism.

>How do you not see that capitalist property relations are enforced by the state through violence?
Because you have no right to my shit, and I have no right to your shit. If you feel otherwise, don't call the cops next time you get robbed, you had no right to that property anyway.

>Utility is a measure of the satisfaction one derives from some activity
>I SHOULD GET PAID FOR FEELING GOOD
Oh my god I'm crying here.

>employer's own budget destroying humongous and disproportionate salary.
If it was budget destroying the company would fail. Next.

>comparing communism with slavery.
>State bureaucrats in a planned economy choose who works how much at what job and for what purpose. Workers cannot choose. Everything they make is absorbed into the state and redistributed through the bureaucracy. The citizen is given enough to survive so that they may continue to support the state.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:42 No.9798032

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:42 No.9798032

>>9797932

Technically Mitt Romney got a multi-million dollar loan because his dad put capital up front that showed the bank he was risking his own well-being on his scheme.

Having your own capital to risk makes banks open up a lot more.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:43 No.9798059

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:43 No.9798059

Replies: >>9798211

>>9797932
>Mitt Romney can get a multi million dollar loan because his dad was the governor while most people couldn't get one red cent.
Because Mitt Romney is a safe investment. Banks operate out of private interest too. You have no right to demand a multimillion dollar loan that the bank has no reason to expect they will be paid back on.

>>9797949
>Political connections give you access to capital
Politics don't have dick to do with it, necessarily.

>capital is constrained by the law.
No, capital is protected by law. Otherwise, I could just steal your shit.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:45 No.9798123

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:45 No.9798123

Replies: >>9798238 >>9798459

You don't seem to understand that in a communist society the government is run by the people to such a point it is the people.

And rich capitalists don't create anything. They simply use capital to move the gears of society. It sounds lovely but it's effectively pointless.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:47 No.9798167

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:47 No.9798167

Replies: >>9798822

>>9797949
>Yes, they do
Okay. This is mine. I worked for it. It exists because of the effort I have put into it. Why do you deserve any part of it when you have not contributed at all?

>Unlike capitalists who never have to start from scratch
You're fucking kidding, right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/worldviews/2011/09/23/forbes-400-the-self-made-billionaire-entrepreneurs-who-said-no-to-college/
Break out of your fantasy world, Marxist scum.

>A slave also works to feed himself
No, a slave works to provide for his master, who then chooses how much to feed him because the slave is his property. A worker for an employer is not a slave, because he is not owned. He has voluntarily chosen the employment contract.

Seriously, explain to me how you think food will end up in your stomach if you
>don't want to choose who you will work for because working for someone else is slavery
AND
>the communist government isn't going to make you work for anything you don't want
AND
>you don't think you should just be handed everything
Seriously, I can't handle that much doublethink just LISTENING to you. I don't know how your brain can function without shutting down completely (if this isn't evidence of that happening already).

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:48 No.9798211

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:48 No.9798211

Replies: >>9798252 >>9798294

>>9798059
>You have no right to demand a multimillion dollar loan that the bank has no reason to expect they will be paid back on
Neither does Mitt Romney. That's the point. There is no reason Mitt's ideas would be any more successful than anyone else's. But you can get a loan to be a shark. Try getting one to form a co-op. Banks lend to who they want to because the system is monopolized. Only it isn't their money they are lending, it is everyones.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:49 No.9798238

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:49 No.9798238

Replies: >>9798454

File: 1359762583907.jpg-(170 KB, 535x800, stalin+w+children[1].jpg)

170 KB JPG

>>9798123
>the government is run by the people to such a point it is the people.
Yes! Comrade Stalin is exactly on the same level as you! You have just as much political authority as him and every other bureaucrat which plan bumbling, artificial economies that end with millions in starvation. That's what the people want! You can be sure he and all the other political elites are suffering exactly as much as you are. You're all in it together in the Red Revolution!

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:50 No.9798252

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:50 No.9798252

>>9798211

>There is no reason Mitt's ideas would be any more successful than anyone else's.

Mitt has capital of his own which he is willing to invest in addition to the loan. This makes him considerably more credible. Please note that if some other, non-Romney person also put down capital, banks would be considerably more likely to give him loans too.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:51 No.9798294

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:51 No.9798294

Replies: >>9798603

>>9798211
>Neither does Mitt Romney.
Except he does, because the bank is sure they will be repaid by him.

>There is no reason Mitt's ideas would be any more successful than anyone else's.
It doesn't matter. The bank will be repaid. They don't care how successful he is, just that they are sure they will be repaid.

>Try getting one to form a co-op
With no collateral or record of success? Yeah I'll just loan the homeless guy at the bus stop $50 too, I'm sure he'll make his payments on time.

>it is everyones.
Everyone who chooses to put their money in said bank. You're welcome to stuff it under your mattress if you prefer.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:53 No.9798331

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:53 No.9798331

Replies: >>9798676

>>9798009

>Why not just plug your ears and go "LALALA", it'll work better.

You're just making assertions about communism with no justification for them whatsoever. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to deny an unjustified claim. I on the other hand have been careful to give you justifications for my beliefs when asked.

>Yeah, because centralizing all wealth and power in the hands of self-interested bureaucrats

Which isn't communism.

>It doesn't, welcome to capitalism.

So no capitalist society has any need of a state?

>Because you have no right to my shit, and I have no right to your shit.

Which is a complete non-answer. You can't deny that capitalist property relations are enforced by the state with violence.

>I SHOULD GET PAID FOR FEELING GOOD

Utility is a basic concept in economics. Stop being obtuse.

>If it was budget destroying the company would fail. Next.

Now you're just attacking my language instead of my arguments.

>State bureaucrats in a planned economy

Which, for the tenth time, is not communism.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:55 No.9798383

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:55 No.9798383

OP has not read das capital

Seriously Karl Marx goes over this in like the first chapter

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:57 No.9798454

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:57 No.9798454

Replies: >>9798519

>>9798238
Communism wasn't designed to be run by Stalin. It was designed such that the community would run it. You're gonna bite my head off for saying this, but communism has never been implemented properly.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)18:58 No.9798459

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)18:58 No.9798459

Replies: >>9798575

>>9798123
>And rich capitalists don't create anything.
Oh, you know, just the entire business that provides for all the things that he pays his employees to collaborate and create. They only manage the entire complex operations of making complex goods.

Naw, it was the WORKERS who built the business that put together your computer. It's thanks to the easily-replaceable factory-line drones that you have all of the luxuries you take for granted, not the entrepreneurs who risked years of their lives, put their names on the line, and built businesses out of the ground from a good idea and their own smarts and hard work.

I'm sure that the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's is just as valuable as the executives of an international, multi-billion dollar restaurant franchise which is constantly developing new strategies to adapt and grow in the market, which manage the incredibly complex operations of their establishment.

Seriously, have you ever stopped to think about how many working parts there are to a business? About how well coordinated and efficient things actually have to be? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you say that "capitalists" don't actually do anything?

I guess they're right. Communism is the creationism of economics.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:00 No.9798519

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:00 No.9798519

Replies: >>9798597 >>9798619

>>9798454
>communism has never been implemented properly
Because it doesn't work outside of an intimate community no larger than a large family.

As soon as you expand beyond a very small, very intimate population, stricter separation of duties and authority is required, and as soon as authority and separation of duties is required it creates a bureaucracy. Then, thanks to the disasters that are planned economies, it falls to shit and causes mass suffering.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:02 No.9798575

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:02 No.9798575

Replies: >>9798650 >>9798721

>>9798459
Managing a business is a proper job. It's not worthy of the pay it garners, but it's a proper job. You don't have to manage the business to make it though.

I attacked "rich capitalists" because that's what OP used, so I imagined the most stereotyped thing possible. Sorry, that's my fault.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:03 No.9798597

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:03 No.9798597

>>9798519
I agree.
But the attacks being made by a lot of people in this thread are dumb as bricks.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:04 No.9798603

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:04 No.9798603

Replies: >>9798940

>>9798294
>Everyone who chooses to put their money in said bank.
But you don't have a choice. Only some banks are insured, and those banks are also the ones that will lend your money to the likes of Mitt Romney when 7 out of ten people would prefer the slightly larger risk on the co-op in exchange for an improvement to the community. That's what banks were originally for.

Instead, it is horded by bankers and distributed to the politically connected, instead of the areas that would most benefit the people who the money actually belongs to.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:05 No.9798619

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:05 No.9798619

>>9798519
>Then, thanks to the disasters that are planned economies
Publicly owned means of production doesn't necessitate a planned economy. If you own the factory you work at, that doesn't mean someone in Washington has to tell you what to produce.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:06 No.9798650

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:06 No.9798650

Replies: >>9798789

>>9798575
Wait, same guy.
Just remembered banks are things.
Not even concerned with people who make businesses, just those who deal purely with capital

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:08 No.9798676

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:08 No.9798676

Replies: >>9799324

File: 1359763683863.gif-(887 KB, 238x219, 1289596233435.gif)

887 KB GIF

>>9798331
>assertions about communism with no justification for them whatsoever
Yeah, the USSR, communist China, and North Korea never happened. Forget it.

>So no capitalist society has any need of a state?
Not what I said. You already have equal access to business organization, just don't expect anyone else to hand it to you because "wah I want it".

>You can't deny that capitalist property relations are enforced by the state with violence.
All property relations are enforced with violence. Whether it's the cops stopping you as you try to steal my shit, or my firearm stopping you, it's getting enforced.

>Utility is a basic concept in economics
Yeah, definitely, how good you feel doing the job you do will probably relate to how much pay you accept, usually less if you're willing to sacrifice productivity for pleasure.

>Now you're just attacking my language instead of my arguments.
No, I'm attacking your assertion that high executive salaries damage a company. Firstly, you have no right to determine how much they get paid, secondly if it was truly damaging then the company will stop doing it or suffer because of it, and that's their burden to deal with, not yours.

>Which, for the tenth time, is not communism.
Oh so you just want everyone to live in a happy, free fuckpile where somehow everyone gets exactly what they need and nobody works more than they have to and everyone gets to do just what makes them happy and everyone is fed and there's no unemployment.
>mfw

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:10 No.9798721

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:10 No.9798721

Replies: >>9798789

>>9798575
>It's not worthy of the pay it garners
It certainly is, because good managers and executives are VERY highly valued by companies, so they actively compete to try and steal these people from other companies. The salaries are high because, if they weren't, another employer would pay them more and the firm would lose a very important and valuable person.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:12 No.9798789

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:12 No.9798789

>>9798721
Demand and economic prices aren't equal to value (in the sense I was using).
Anyway, >>9798650 is my point. People who manage businesses aren't what rich capitalists refer to. I don't know why I keep getting sucked into these ideas that I know are wrong.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:13 No.9798822

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:13 No.9798822

Replies: >>9799078

>>9798167

>Okay. This is mine. I worked for it. It exists because of the effort I have put into it.

I'm not saying that you don't. Just that there's a whole bunch of reasoning you have to do before you can get from "I worked for x" to "therefore, I should own it." An argument which works in this case, but not in the case of capitalist property relations.

>You're fucking kidding, right?
>Break out of your fantasy world, Marxist scum.

A random magazine is not an authoritative source. And dropping out of college is not the same as starting from scratch.

>A worker for an employer is not a slave, because he is not owned. He has voluntarily chosen the employment contract.

It doesn't matter whether or not a worker is a slave. What I'm pointing out is that your justification of the claim that you work for yourself under capitalism is as worthless as the equivalent justification of the claim that you work for yourself when you're enslaved.

>Seriously, explain to me how you think food will end up in your stomach if you

Not all cooperative work is exploitative. It's possible for people to work together without one of them going "Hurr! I get to decide how much everyone gets and if you don't agree then I'll fuck you up!"

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:17 No.9798930

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:17 No.9798930

Replies: >>9799156

>>9794112 (OP)
>Hiring people who choose to work for you for the sake of themselves and their dependents is slavery

It is when you need money to live. The freedom to choose your slavemaster is not freedom.

When everything necessary for a good life is provided by the state, then we can talk about work being "voluntary" instead of forced.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:17 No.9798940

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:17 No.9798940

>>9798603
>Only some banks are insured
So? Put your money in an uninsured bank. They'll probably take less risks with it.

>those banks are also the ones that will lend your money to the likes of Mitt Romney
So? Mitt Romney will probably pay the bank back, and I'll get my money back with interest as a thank you from the bank for letting them use my money while they held onto it for me.

>when 7 out of ten people would prefer the slightly larger risk on the co-op
Get those 7/10 people to start a bank then, or why not get those 7/10 people to invest in the co-op themselves instead of going through the bank, I don't give a fuck. If they want the co-op so bad they can pay for it.

>Instead, it is horded by bankers and distributed to the politically connected
Or just by those who are secure investments? A loan is an investment, the bank invests in an individual or company, and they expect to be paid back with interest. Why don't you send money to those "nigerian prince" emails, they say they'll give it back to you and more!

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:23 No.9799078

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:23 No.9799078

Replies: >>9799594

>>9798822
> Just that there's a whole bunch of reasoning you have to do before you can get from "I worked for x" to "therefore, I should own it."
You're trying to debate the nature of property rights.

Seriously, answer me, what would you do if you were robbed, little Marxist? What if you came home to a broken window and your personal computer (which existed in the west by the mid-80's by the way, a luxury the communists didn't have) had been stolen, maybe your car to (or your mom's car, more likely). Well, you never owned it anyway, property rights are all imaginary!

>A random magazine
>Forbes
Okay, you're trolling.

>work for yourself under capitalism is as worthless as the equivalent justification of the claim that you work for yourself when you're enslaved.
Except you don't work for yourself when you're enslaved, you work for the sole benefit of your owner who controls your existence. In a capitalist society, you choose who to sell your labor to and how to live your life. Go work for yourself if you find the idea of employment so distasteful.

>It's possible for people to work together without one of them going "Hurr! I get to decide how much everyone gets and if you don't agree then I'll fuck you up!"
Yeah, which is why communism has worked out SO WELL thus far. People clearly always eagerly cooperate for the benefit of large groups of people who they don't care about and without any personal investment in their own productivity or success.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:26 No.9799156

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:26 No.9799156

>>9798930
>The freedom to choose your slavemaster is not freedom.
"slavemaster". Again with the inflammatory language. You don't "choose your master", you sell your labor on agreed upon terms. Don't like it? Find an employer whose terms you do agree with. Can't do that? Work to support yourself. Start a business. Working-class people around the world do just that for the exact reason that they don't like taking orders. Small businesses are a testament to this mindset.

>When everything necessary for a good life is provided by the state, then we can talk about work being "voluntary" instead of forced.
Whose gonna provide all that stuff? Is it just going to fall out of the magical government-pot that all governments have? Can Comrade Stalin just shake it over your head and have food, shelter, clean water, healthcare, and luxuries fall out?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:30 No.9799270

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:30 No.9799270

Replies: >>9799594

>>9796995

>Economic mobility in any substantial sense is a myth, and nothing more.

Oh my God this is where I stopped being able to take you seriously. I bet you're posting from your iPad.

>How much you choose to sell your labor for is irrelevant when your only choice is to sell your labor to someone else.
>your only choice is to sell your labor to someone else

Yeah, because there is no way you could possible start your own business and become successful yourself. Better pretend that's not an option so my communist narrative doesn't get all fucked up with those pesky "facts".

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:31 No.9799300

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:31 No.9799300

File: 1359765098639.gif-(6 KB, 155x192, ani-gant-stare.gif)

6 KB GIF

>Communists Getting Shit On: Thread #4039
Why do you faggots even come here anymore?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799324

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799324

Replies: >>9799383 >>9799471 >>9799484

>>9798676

>Yeah, the USSR, communist China, and North Korea never happened. Forget it.

Those countries weren't communist.

>Not what I said. You already have equal access to business organization, just don't expect anyone else to hand it to you because "wah I want it".

You're contradicting yourself. If workers had equal access to business organization, they wouldn't need anyone to hand it to them. This is your admission that you don't even believe your own claim because it's absurd. If workers did have equal access to business organization as capitalists under capitalism, neither capitalists nor workers nor capitalism would exist as such.

>All property relations are enforced with violence.

So why is this a charge against communism, but not against capitalism?

>Yeah, definitely, how good you feel doing the job you do will probably relate to how much pay you accept, usually less if you're willing to sacrifice productivity for pleasure.

So now that you understand what utility as, will you finally actually address my argument? Or finally admit that you were dodging it?

>No, I'm attacking your assertion that high executive salaries damage a company.

My assertion wasn't that high executive salaries damage a company, but that your assertion that workers get paid less than what their value because a company has expenses other than labor obscured the reality of the capitalist's disproportionate gains.

>Firstly, you have no right to determine how much they get paid

So then why should they have the right to determine how much workers get paid?

>Oh so you just want everyone to live in a happy

I just want everyone to deal with everyone else on equal terms. What is so hard about that?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799328

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799328

Replies: >>9799652

>>9797661

>You are, literally, insane.

Pretty much. Naive and ignorant as hell, too.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799339

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:32 No.9799339

Replies: >>9799607 >>9799803

Bored Socialist here. Ready to debate, Obvious Troll?

>Hard work = valuable work
That's hardly a Communist thing. If anything, it's more Capitalist! Rags-to-riches stories are common for a reason in the US.

>Hiring people who choose to work for you for the sake of themselves and their dependents is slavery
This is a bit of a complicated issue, so I'll save this for another post.

>>Forcing people to work for the collective state which then takes all your labor and gives you just what it feels you deserve is freedom
You really ought to read up on your communist lore, mate.

>Rich capitalists do not work "hard", so regardless of how much value, technology, well-being, employment, or convenience their actions may have added to the world, they do not deserve their wealth
That's not a Communist thing either. I've heard of plenty of devout capitalists mourning the wealth of the busy businessmen.

>Theft is moral if everyone does it
It's not theft in a commune, because the communists willingly give up their own materials for the common good. That's like saying a birthday party is paying tribute to the priest.

>People will happily contribute all their labor for the well-being of people they do not know, care about, or have any relation to
It's hardly unprecedented! Does SPQR mean anything to you? Facism? The ageless cry of "For King and Country!"?

>Having wealth controlled by a large variety of competing individuals, partners, families, and publicly-owned economic entities, who have had their wealth given to them voluntarily for a product or service, is being controlled by your capitalist masters
See: Feudalism

>Having wealth controlled by a handful of politically selected, collaborating bureaucrats who enjoy a vastly superior quality of life in a planned economy is liberty from tyranny
You're thinking of Leninism. Big difference, the Russian revolutionaries didn't really think things through.

In the next post I'll go ahead and reply to #2.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:34 No.9799383

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:34 No.9799383

Replies: >>9799494 >>9799885

>>9799324
>Those countries weren't communist.
commies sure do love their no true scotsmen fallacies

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:35 No.9799413

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:35 No.9799413

>>9794224
Because of human nature for power and control. It ultimately ends in dictatorship with mass killings in order to control the population.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:37 No.9799471

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:37 No.9799471

File: 1359765465163.png-(174 KB, 812x531, 1358807474667.png)

174 KB PNG

>>9799324

I'm just going to leave this here for you. Communism in a nutshell, every time it's been tried.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:38 No.9799484

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:38 No.9799484

Replies: >>9799885

>>9799324
>Those countries weren't communist.
>No True Scotsman

>If workers had equal access to business organization, they wouldn't need anyone to hand it to them.
They don't. They can achieve it themselves.

>If workers did have equal access to business organization as capitalists under capitalism, neither capitalists nor workers nor capitalism would exist as such.
No, the "capitalist" had exactly as much opportunity as any of the "enslaved workers" to start his own business and build it into a successful company. He might have worked for years to build his own capital, he might have gotten a loan, he might have wooed investors into financing him. Fuck, you can start a landscaping company right now with nothing but $20 for a certificate of business, then just go start working on people's property and getting paid.

>So why is this a charge against communism, but not against capitalism?
Because in communism you don't own anything, and the products of your labor are stolen from you without consent, and you are given something disproportional to what you contribute. Different from the capitalist system, where wages are a product of the laws of supply and demand.

>So then why should they... determine how much workers get paid?
Because it's their money, and they agree with the employee on the terms of employment. Also, supply and demand.

>everyone to deal with everyone else on equal terms
Because not everyone contributes equal value, stop with the fuzzy, fake nicety.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:38 No.9799494

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:38 No.9799494

>>9799383
Not the guy you're replying to, but they weren't communist. USSR was a dictatorship disguised as socialism; China is more socialist but recently have been becoming social capitalism; and North Korea is straight up dictatorship.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:42 No.9799594

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:42 No.9799594

Replies: >>9799753 >>9800081

>>9799078

>Seriously, answer me, what would you do if you were robbed, little Marxist?

I already told you that I agree that one should own something they've worked for. You're just distorting my argument to suit your own.

>Okay, you're trolling.

Forbes magazine is not an authoritative source on the matter. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

>In a capitalist society, you choose who to sell your labor to and how to live your life.

Which, again, does not justify capitalist property relations. You're not addressing my argument, just repeatedly asserting that choosing which capitalist you work for somehow justifies capitalism.

>People clearly always eagerly cooperate for the benefit of large groups of people who they don't care about and without any personal investment in their own productivity or success.

I don't see how this applies to communism.

>>9799270

>Oh my God this is where I stopped being able to take you seriously. I bet you're posting from your iPad.

I honestly could care less what you are or are not able to take seriously.

>Yeah, because there is no way you could possible start your own business and become successful yourself.

Your only realistic choice is to work for someone else. Starting your own business is extremely difficult if you aren't already rich.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:43 No.9799607

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:43 No.9799607

>>9799339
>If anything, it's more Capitalist!
Capitalism is about providing value, not working hard. They are very different.

>communist lore
I don't care, I care about communist implementation, for which the evidence is overwhelming.

>I've heard of plenty of devout capitalists mourning the wealth of the busy businessmen.
See: this whole thread.

>It's not theft in a commune, because the communists willingly give up their own materials for the common good.
Which is impossible on any scale beyond where people are intimately connected and interested in their well being, meaning a large family at most.

>See: Feudalism
Bullshit. Feudalism was an agrarian system based around land ownership and military loyalty during a violent time when the lord's military defense was critical to the survival of the community. It's entirely different.

>Russian revolutionaries didn't really think things through.
Marx and Engles, the wealthy, privileged fucks that they were, didn't think things through. Everything else is just trying to make their retarded, fallacious ideas work.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:45 No.9799652

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:45 No.9799652

>>9799328
That or a completely useless unmotivated individual that hopes one day the government will redistribute the wealth of the motivated to them. When I was in undergrad tons of commies and commie wanna bes. Now in a prestigious grad school where everyone has to work their ass off just to stay afloat and all of a sudden no one wants other people to benefit from the insane amounts of hard work we have had to produce. Most people who claim communism as their political view point don't produce shit, aren't planning to produce shit and probably don't even have the aptitude to produce shit.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)19:48 No.9799728

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)19:48 No.9799728

Replies: >>9799803 >>9799894 >>9800040

>>9794112 (OP)

>>Hard work = valuable work

I think this is something that capitalists tend to claim more, generally that if a position is low skill (making it easier) or low in qualifications, it is less valuable.

>Hiring people who choose to work for you for the sake of themselves and their dependents is slavery

Workers are given a choice between working for an employer and death, that being said the "slavery" thing is more sloganeering than theory.

>Forcing people to work for the collective state which then takes all your labor and gives you just what it feels you deserve is freedom

a bloo bloo muh freedom, deal with it

>You can exploit people who willingly choose to work for you instead of lesser alternatives

Unskilled laborers seldom have a choice of employer. Fucking running dog logic, how can someone be so alien to reality.

>Rich capitalists do not work "hard", so regardless of how much value, technology, well-being, employment, or convenience their actions may have added to the world, they do not deserve their wealth

But nobody claims this, nice strawman like the rest of your list. We say that the income derived through ownership of property and the surplus labor of his workers is what's theft and unjust.

>Theft is moral if everyone does it
>Theft
>appeal to morality

lel

>People will happily contribute all their labor for the well-being of people they do not know, care about, or have any relation to

You pay taxes.

>Having wealth controlled by a large variety of competing individuals, partners, families, and publicly-owned economic entities, who have had their wealth given to them voluntarily for a product or service, is being controlled by your capitalist masters

Needs to be rephrased, once again another strawman attempt.
>wealth controlled
>vastly superior quality of life

Here's where you fucked up.

2/10 nothing but strawmen but sure to get circlejerking conservitards and lolbertarians.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:49 No.9799753

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:49 No.9799753

Replies: >>9800101

>>9799594
>I already told you that I agree that one should own something they've worked for
So how can you justify communism, when the products of someone's labor is owned by everyone?

>Forbes magazine is not an authoritative source on the matter
Yes it is. Try reading it sometime, you might get a better idea of how human economic interactions actually work.

>Which, again, does not justify capitalist property relations
Yes it does. Someone creates value through their actions, it's theirs to choose what to do with. You are just envious, and it's pathetic.

>I don't see how this applies to communism.
Are you stupid? Okay. I want you to work for 10 hours in a factory line, making $500 worth of wealth. Then, the government is going to give you a bowl of soup and send you back to your 2-room unheated flat, and I'm going to get some of your hard work.

>Starting your own business is extremely difficult if you aren't already rich.
You just showed your hand. You're a bitter, envious coward. You deny the hard work of people who created their own wealth. You deny the existence of small businesses. You deny that every company in existence started with an entrepreneur, a good idea, and a lot of risk. Dominos was created by a WW2 soldier which grew up in an orphanage. Are you telling me he doesn't exist?

You
Are
Pathetic.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:51 No.9799803

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:51 No.9799803

Replies: >>9800040

>>9799339
Wage-slavery, a term that many communists enjoy tossing around, in fact one that Marx himself utilized to stir the masses! It's a hell of a term and it strikes all the right chords. You don't seem to understand it, so allow me to explain. Have you ever been to a ghetto?

Squatters sit in abandoned buildings, but we're focusing on those that have a job and afford something comparable to a home. I know a fellow, we'll call him Frank, even though his name in the meat-o-sphere is David, but we'll call him Frank, regardless. He's a pretty cool guy, has a wife who's a good 4/10, but his job is shit. He's under the poverty line, though. Frank makes just enough to pay the bills, and at the end of the month he's in debt due to little more than basic living expenses and a terrible internet connection.

Frank by no means lives comfortably, and as of 2010, 15% of Americans are in the same boat. Maybe they kill and steal, maybe they kick their dog when they're frustrated, but believe me, their life sucks either way. Communism isn't so much for the white-collar office worker as it is for the tragically poor. Now, imagine what it was like back at the dawn of the industrial age: that's where communism came about.

Today? It's less important, and maybe even a bit outdated, but regardless, there's definitely a reason that wage-slavery is a term. Seeing as the class gap is widening again, it's no surprise that the idea of communism is more popular in the US than ever.

>>9799728
I'll rebut you next, because you're also wrong.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:55 No.9799885

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:55 No.9799885

Replies: >>9800023 >>9800044

>>9799383
>>9799484

There is no commission of the no true scotsman fallacy on my part, since none of those countries had anything like worker control over the means of production, and since I've been claiming that this is essential to communism this whole time.

>They don't. They can achieve it themselves.

So, now you're admitting that workers don't actually have equal access to business organizations in capitalism despite claiming just a post ago that they do...

>No, the "capitalist" had exactly as much opportunity as any of the "enslaved workers" to start his own business and build it into a successful company.

You're misunderstanding me. Having equal access to business organizations means that you can't be unilaterally deprived of your rights to the value that you produce, not that you can start your own business. If capitalists did not have this right exclusively, capitalism would not exist.

>Different from the capitalist system, where wages are a product of the laws of supply and demand.
>Because it's their money, and they agree with the employee on the terms of employment. Also, supply and demand.

And how exactly does having one's rations be determined by the laws of supply and demand justify capitalism?

>Because not everyone contributes equal value, stop with the fuzzy, fake nicety.

Just because not everyone contributes equal value does not mean that they all shouldn't have the same rights.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)19:56 No.9799894

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)19:56 No.9799894

Replies: >>9800044

>>9799728
>Low skill (making it easier)
Nobody said ditch digging was easy. It's just not very valuable.

>Workers are given a choice between working for an employer and death
Or working for themselves, which communist idiots like yourself plug your ears and pretend doesn't exist.

>a bloo bloo muh freedom
>as you argue capitalism is oppressive

>Unskilled laborers seldom have a choice of employer.
Get skills, or be clever and creative.

>We say that the income derived through ownership of property and the surplus labor of his workers is what's theft and unjust.
Which is dumb, because the wage of his workers is a product of supply and demand within that labor market, and a worker has no right to anything beyond his contribution to the company, which is probably not all that much considering how many other people drive the company forward and how important they are to the company's well being.

>You pay taxes.
Not happily, and for your information taxation is counterintuitive to productivity. If the more productive you are, the more money is taken from you, you lose the drive to be more productive. See: communism.

>once again another strawman attempt.
See: this thread

>Here's where you fucked up.
Except that that's exactly what's happened in every communist nation in history.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:02 No.9800023

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:02 No.9800023

Replies: >>9800829

>>9799885
>worker control over the means of production
Yeah, because self-interested workers are the ones who can best determine how much they should be paid. You haven't heard of the Agency Problem, have you? Get educated.

>Durr
I said they don't have to have it handed to them, not that they can't achieve it. Good reading comprehension though.

>Having equal access to business organizations means that you can't be unilaterally deprived of your rights to the value that you produce
Well did you know that's exactly how it is in a capitalist system? You can't be deprived of anything that you don't agree to. "Capitalists" don't have the right to deprive anyone of anything. They are wealthy because they provide value to people who willingly give them money for the goods and services provided by the firms they own and run.

>how does having one's rations be determined by the laws of supply and demand justify capitalism?
Because it means if you create value, you can probably get someone to pay you for it. If you have nothing to supply, it will not be in demand. Seriously, economics 101, go take it.

> does not mean that they all shouldn't have the same rights.
Good for capitalism that it doesn't! You have the right to the value you create, or the wages from the value of your labor which you sell to someone else. Otherwise, seriously, I'm going to steal all your shit and I don't want to hear a peep out of you about it.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:03 No.9800040

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:03 No.9800040

>>9799803

>>9799728
>if a position is low skill (making it easier) or low in qualifications, it is less valuable.
Can't contest that. You've said what I tried to said and explained it more adequately. Good job.

>a bloo bloo muh freedom, deal with it
That's a horrible argument and you know it. Freedom is important; one of Communism's biggest turnoffs is that property needs to be abolished.

>Unskilled laborers seldom have a choice of employer.
Good try, but that's not quite that true either. There's not much mobility, but you can always work at sweatshop A instead of sweatshop B.

>We say that the income derived through ownership of property and the surplus labor of his workers is what's theft and unjust.
Please stop saying "we"; not all commies are alike, you know! Anyways, this is a bad argument; you've essentially rephrased his accusation in a way that's slightly more pleasing to the ear.

>lel
DAT LOGIC

>You pay taxes.
Apples to oranges, mate. Paying a tithe in return for not being shot by a bandit is much different from the concept of the tithe being null. Simply put, providing for the hypothetical commune is quite literally nothing like taxation.

>Needs to be rephrased, once again another strawman attempt.
>Marxist-Leninism
>Not all about sucking dictator cock
Come on, man. Leninism is the best environment possible for dictatorship. One-party state, anyone?

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:03 No.9800044

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:03 No.9800044

Replies: >>9800239

File: 1359766992319.jpg-(139 KB, 800x522, stalin7.jpg)

139 KB JPG

>>9799885

>boo hoo not real communist I don't want to take responsibility or have a real analysis

Dat liberalism.

>>9799894

>Nobody said ditch digging was easy. It's just not very valuable.

I'm saying the jobs that are apparantly superior (doctors get tossed around alot) are hard too.

>Or working for themselves, which communist idiots like yourself plug your ears and pretend doesn't exist.

Is it possible for you to have a conversation without calling people idiots or insulting people? Like how self righteous are you, seriously?

To do that it requires ownership of.......capital! I don't care that a minor faction of the proletariat can become petit bourgeois, I don't care about the petit bourgeoisie.

>Get skills, or be clever and creative.

Word, I'll be sure to tell that to 90% of the world's population.

>because the wage of his workers is a product of supply and demand within that labor market,

And in that industrial reserve army there stand workers in constant demand. Like I said before, excepting skilled labor there is an endless pool of potential employees.

> a worker has no right to anything beyond his contribution to the company,

But the owner somehow has a right to a portion of the worker's contribution to the company. This is basic economics, I thought you should know this: Workers are seldom hired if they can't bring profit to the company.

>Not happily

Go tell the anarchists that section then, because I don't care if you get butthurt about it.

Also reminder taxation was abolished in socialist Albania in 1969.

>Except that that's exactly what's happened in every communist nation in history.

You can't brush the entire history of dozens of countries with a broad stroke and just entirely dismiss them without any actual analysis. It's completely ahistorical and just plain wrong.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:04 No.9800081

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:04 No.9800081

>>9799594

>Starting your own business is extremely difficult if you aren't already rich.

But that's wrong. I run a mini business and it's putting me through college. It just takes work. A shitload of work.

I realize though that you commies don't like hard work and would rather take that of someone else's, so this isn't really an option for you.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:05 No.9800101

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:05 No.9800101

Replies: >>9800279 >>9800373

>>9799753

>So how can you justify communism, when the products of someone's labor is owned by everyone?

The products of someone's labor isn't owned by everyone under communism.

>Yes it is.

Forbes Magazine is a peer-reviewed academic journal, and I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

>Someone creates value through their actions, it's theirs to choose what to do with. You are just envious, and it's pathetic.

Again, your mere assertion is not an argument and neither is your ad hominem.

>Then, the government is going to give you a bowl of soup and send you back to your 2-room unheated flat, and I'm going to get some of your hard work.

Which, again, is not a fair description of communism. If it was, I'd better be getting my fair share of the value produced or you're not getting yours either.

>You deny the hard work of people who created their own wealth.

Such people are extremely rare. Their existence does not disprove my claim and neither do your ad hominems.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:06 No.9800119

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:06 No.9800119

There is no such thing as hard work.

Work is work.

Time and effort put towards a goal.

The key element is the time put forth as this is an exhaustable commodity in life. Everyone has a set amount of time... and we all have the same amount of it. One persons time isn't really worth more than another persons. Sure, some people are capable of putting their time into many different goals... but at the end of the day they only have so much time to invest.

This naturally creates opportunity cost... there are only 24 hours in a day for you to spend. So, at the end of the day, whether you're building a fence or investing in derivatives you're spending the same amount of time.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:11 No.9800239

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:11 No.9800239

Replies: >>9800385

>>9800044
>To do that it requires ownership of.......capital!
Not necessarily, and certainly not much. You can start a business right now on the computer you're on, with nothing more than your time, energy, creativity, and fuck okay maybe $20 to file a certificate of business with the state.

>I'll be sure to tell that to 90% of the world's population.
You mean a large chunk of which provide entirely for themselves? Or the ones who trade the timber they cut themselves, or the food they farm themselves, or clothes they weave themselves? Or maybe you mean the thousands of self-taught programmers from India and the former Soviet Bloc which work on commission? Or the vast majority of businesses in the world, which are small businesses?

>excepting skilled labor there is an endless pool of potential employees.
Yeah, if only they were worth hiring. I'm not giving people money to do shit I don't need, and neither should you.

>But the owner somehow has a right to a portion of the worker's contribution to the company.
Because he owns the property/materials/equipment/pays for all the other workers. Unless you conduct every operation of the company yourself and then hand over most of your earnings to your "employer", you have no right to complain.

>It's completely ahistorical and just plain wrong.
Every time you use this trip you fucking espouse how AWESOME is was to live in post-revolution USSR, or Mao's China, or Best Korea.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:12 No.9800279

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:12 No.9800279

Replies: >>9800849

>>9800101

>fair share
>fair share
>fair share

I am so fucking sick of hearing this from liberals and lately obama regarding the rich not fucking PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

This is the most infantile level of class warfare propaganda and yet is is effective as hell because it plays on people's greed and jealousy.

You didn't go to college and you work a shitty minimum wage job for low pay? GUESS WHAT? THAT'S YOUR FAIR SHARE.

Steve Jobs takes a risk, starts a company that creates value for millions of people, gets rich as hell. That is his fair share. And yes, the rich do pay their fair fucking share. Taxes are unbelievably high on the rich, but your magical solution to our fucking debt crisis is TAX DA RICHH, even though you could tax them at 100% and it would be like pissing in the ocean.

It's fucking sad how easy it is to fool people with class warfare propaganda. Wake the fuck up and see reality for what it is. On that note, LIFE ISN'T FAIR, so no matter how many laws and taxes you implement, you're never going to make everybody perfectly equal, and if you did, you'd not only kill all possible innovation, but you'd need a fucking police state to keep control.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:16 No.9800373

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:16 No.9800373

Replies: >>9801047

>>9800101
>The products of someone's labor isn't owned
Ohh, so the products of labor are yours, and you choose to give it to other people just for being around, and you hope they'll give you stuff too, but nobody has to work doing anything they don't want, and nobody is telling anyone else what to do, and everyone owns all the means of production, and everyone will cooperate and everything will be wonderful.

>Forbes Magazine
Is one of the premier business and economics magazines in publication today.
Here's an article from Huffpo, it should be enough of a liberal rag to satisfy you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/rags-to-riches-worlds-ric_n_671253.html

>your mere assertion
Is true, evidenced, and incontrovertible in a voluntary economy where people trade for things they want.

>Which, again, is not a fair description of communism
Except for every time it's been applied.

>I'd better be getting my fair share of the value produced or you're not getting yours either.
Which you have no choice over because you do not choose what share you will be given except in your imaginary Marxist utopia.

>Such people are extremely rare
Because such hard working, opportunistic, charismatic, creative, and ambitious people are rare. That's why most of us just do what we can to get by and enjoy the rest of our time as we can.

Also, I'm insulting you. That's not ad hominem, because your arguments are also getting destroyed, I just think you're a naive, selfish, ignoramus.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:17 No.9800385

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:17 No.9800385

Replies: >>9800486 >>9800591

>>9800239

>Not necessarily, and certainly not much. You can start a business right now on the computer you're on, with nothing more than your time, energy, creativity, and fuck okay maybe $20 to file a certificate of business with the state.

Oh shit if it's so easy why aren't you a millionaire?

>You mean a large chunk of which provide entirely for themselves?

Mostly on rented land or by sharecropping, or forced into lumpen positions like collecting metals and other trash for sale. Hardly what I'd call venture capitalists.

>Yeah, if only they were worth hiring. I'm not giving people money to do shit I don't need, and neither should you.

Well that's who we're speaking for, the majority of the world.

>Because he owns the property/materials/equipment/pays for all the other workers. Unless you conduct every operation of the company yourself and then hand over most of your earnings to your "employer", you have no right to complain.

Look, we can argue the morality of all this if you want, but I'm really not interested. I just hate seeing blatant misrepresentation of communist positions, I don't feel like getting into a moralistic argument about this honestly, I know hurr durr no argument you can give me shit, but I'm just saying I don't want to have this discussion, I just want you to understand the Marxist position.

>Every time you use this trip you fucking espouse how AWESOME is was to live in post-revolution USSR, or Mao's China, or Best Korea.

I never mention Korea, ever.

I'm saying your categorization is plain wrong, and requires much more analysis and deeper analysis into the economic policies, internal politics, and class relations throughout 70 years of history in the USSR.

I don't claim to know much about China at any point, because I don't, I think given my knowledge on the USSR it's unfair to expect me to be an expert on the topic, so I usually avoid it. I just know most of MUH 70 TRILLION is bullshit.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:21 No.9800486

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:21 No.9800486

Replies: >>9800634

>>9800385
>Oh shit if it's so easy
It's not, but if you correlate not-easy with impossible, you're pathetic. I've seen you use this exact same line before, and the last two times you were told this exact same thing.

>Mostly on rented land or by sharecropping
Also not true, way to pull that out of your ass.

>or forced into lumpen positions like collecting metals and other trash for sale
Yeah, unemployment sucks doesn't it? The kids picking through landfills in Phnom Peng would much rather be sewing sneakers together than fishing through industrial waste and garbage.

>I just know most of MUH 70 TRILLION is bullshit.
Yeah, widespread starvation, horrible misappropriation of resources, permanent impoverishment, waiting in cues for hours a day for food, that's totally bullshit.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:25 No.9800591

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:25 No.9800591

Replies: >>9800786

File: 1359768344198.gif-(1.65 MB, 200x150, 1338619260606.gif)

1.65 MB GIF

>>9800385
>MARXISM REALLY WORKS GUYS
>NO REALLY
>EVERY TIME IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN EVERY PART OF THE WORLD WAS DIFFERENT
>IT REALLY WORKS I SWEAR
>STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BAD STUFF
>;_;

/pol/'s tripfags might be the most pathetic and consistently told of any board.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:27 No.9800634

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:27 No.9800634

Replies: >>9800705 >>9800807

>>9800486

>It's not, but if you correlate not-easy with impossible, you're pathetic. I've seen you use this exact same line before, and the last two times you were told this exact same thing.

Because what you're giving me is a cop out. "lol capitalism is fine you can start your own business there's no exploitation, ignore everything else!".

>Also not true, way to pull that out of your ass.

I'm sorry what mythical land is everyone a self employed entrepreneur?

>Yeah, unemployment sucks doesn't it? The kids picking through landfills in Phnom Peng would much rather be sewing sneakers together than fishing through industrial waste and garbage.

"boo hoo kids don't work in sweatshops enough".

Or, ya know, get rid of the system that forces them to choose between those two things?

>Yeah, widespread starvation, horrible misappropriation of resources, permanent impoverishment, waiting in cues for hours a day for food, that's totally bullshit.

0 fucks, I'm over whatever bullshit anti communists can pull up. I just had one tell me Mao was a pedophile, it's amazing how much you people reach.

Dying at 27 was pretty cool though, too bad those goddamn communists had to go in there and double life expectancy.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:29 No.9800705

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:29 No.9800705

Replies: >>9800786

>>9800634

Dude, you could not be a bigger retard.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:32 No.9800786

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:32 No.9800786

Replies: >>9800817 >>9800851

>>9800591

My response was that I don't give a shit and don't want to discuss it right now. Is that so bad?

>a bloo bloo u don't want to explain things for the 4th time today fucking tripfag scum

>>9800705
Good rebuttal. You're posting in a pretty retarded thread to begin with.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:33 No.9800807

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:33 No.9800807

Replies: >>9801247 >>9801391

>>9800634
>"lol capitalism is fine you can start your own business there's no exploitation, ignore everything else!".
There isn't. Agree with an employer to work on consensual terms, or make your own money. Start your own small business like MOST OF THE BUSINESSES IN AMERICA, or fuck try becoming an investor, if you pay attention to the market, short some stocks, buy options, or gamble on dividends you can make a lot of money from not much investment.

>I'm sorry what mythical land is everyone a self employed entrepreneur?
"Earth", and a good chunk of the population of that planet have to sustain themselves.

>get rid of the system that forces them to choose between those two things?
What system? Life? People starved before capitalism, people starved under slavery, people starved under feudalism, people starved under mercantilism, a LOT of people starved under communism, and fewer people than ever in the history of mankind are starving under capitalism.

Yeah why don't we just make poverty go away by wishing harder! Capitalism and globalism, the only vehicle by which the desperately impoverished can industrialize their dirt-poor nations and build themselves an economy as has been evidenced many times throughout history, that's a load of bullshit. We just need to give poor people stuff and then they won't be poor!

>0 fucks, I'm over whatever bullshit anti communists can pull up
>I'm over facts
Clearly.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:33 No.9800817

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:33 No.9800817

Replies: >>9801391

>>9800786

If you don't want to discuss it, then why the fuck do you keep posting? Oh right, attention.

No seriously, fuck right off and maybe think about reading some history or getting an education.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800829

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800829

Replies: >>9800881 >>9800988

>>9800023

>Yeah, because self-interested workers are the ones who can best determine how much they should be paid.

But self-interested capitalists can?

>I said they don't have to have it handed to them, not that they can't achieve it.

So as long as a slave is able to run away and doesn't simply have his freedom handed to him, his enslavement is justified?

>You can't be deprived of anything that you don't agree to.

But the only thing you can agree to is an arrangement where you give up your rights to your labor.

>They are wealthy because they provide value to people who willingly give them money for the goods and services provided by the firms they own and run.

Which again, is not a justification of their position.

>Because it means if you create value, you can probably get someone to pay you for it. If you have nothing to supply, it will not be in demand.

Again, this is not a valid justification.

>You have the right to the value you create, or the wages from the value of your labor which you sell to someone else.

And the only choice you can make is to sell your labor to someone else. How wonderful.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800834

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800834

Communism is just an excuse to kill the ruling class and install yourself in their place. That's why it's a system people are willing to fight for.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800849

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800849

Replies: >>9800944

>>9800279

You sound mad.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800851

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:34 No.9800851

File: 1359768898033.gif-(1.01 MB, 172x162, 1349490917690.gif)

1.01 MB GIF

>>9800786
>>a bloo bloo i don't want to b told hard for the 4th time today fucking anonymus scum ;_;

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:36 No.9800881

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:36 No.9800881

Replies: >>9801096

>>9800829

>But self-interested capitalists can?

Uh, yes. They are forced to pay a competitive and fair wage. If they didn't, nobody would take the job. If the wage is too low, or even lower than the competition, people will choose the competition over that employer.

Are you really do dumb you don't understand this concept? It's like you've been so fucking brainwashed that your only possible thought is "CAPITALIST = EVIL" and you're physiologically incapable of acknowledging opposing viewpoints.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:36 No.9800882

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:36 No.9800882

The biggest problem with Communism:

When your ideological endgame consists of a glorious utopia that all will be able to live in and be happy and prosperous, you are allowed to justify the most egregious of atrocities and wage what is basically unlimited violence on your population.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:38 No.9800944

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:38 No.9800944

>>9800849

I'm FUCKING mad.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:40 No.9800988

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:40 No.9800988

Replies: >>9801406

>>9800829
>But self-interested capitalists can?
Seeing as it's in their best interests are to keep their company running: yes. That's different for the workers. See: the agency problem.

>So as long as a slave is able to run away and doesn't simply have his freedom handed to him, his enslavement is justified?
Well yeah, because if he can leave at any point, choose his "master" based on which one offers him the best benefits, or just strike out on his own and become his own "master", I don't see how the "enslavement" when he agrees to cooperate with someone who will pay them an agreed upon rate for the work they do is anything but justified.

>But the only thing you can agree to is an arrangement where you give up your rights to your labor.
Yeah, in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars a year, medical insurance, maybe a pension plan or a 401-K, company fringe benefits, etc. It's a pretty good deal all things considered.

>Which again, is not a justification of their position.
>You shouldn't be allowed to give people money for things you want, they having that money isn't justified even though you just gave it to them for something they provided to you
What

>And the only choice you can make is to sell your labor to someone else.
Or to yourself, which is a lot harder but great if you don't want a boss telling you how to spend your time.

>How wonderful.
Best quality of life that has ever existed for more people than ever thought possible in human history.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:40 No.9801006

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:40 No.9801006

File: 1359769240166.png-(702 KB, 1436x1580, 1359595889606.png)

702 KB PNG

>ITT: Redfags getting told

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:42 No.9801047

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:42 No.9801047

Replies: >>9801249

>>9800373

>Ohh, so the products of labor are yours....

No, it just means you don't have a dick saying everything belongs to him, and if you disagree with him he's going to make your life difficult.

>Is one of the premier business and economics magazines in publication today.

Which still doesn't make it a peer-reviewed academic journal.

>Is true, evidenced, and incontrovertible in a voluntary economy where people trade for things they want.

Then why don't you give me some of that evidence and argument that capitalist property relations are justified?

>Except for every time it's been applied.

You probably think that the US is capitalist, don't you?

>Which you have no choice over because you do not choose what share you will be given except in your imaginary Marxist utopia.

If we're going to work together we have to decide how much each of us is gonna get at some point.

> because your arguments are also getting destroyed

No, they're not.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:43 No.9801096

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:43 No.9801096

Replies: >>9801421

>>9800881
>Uh, yes. They are forced to pay a competitive and fair wage. If they didn't, nobody would take the job. If the wage is too low, or even lower than the competition, people will choose the competition over that employer.

That is only true if the employers are in a position where they need to compete for employees. This isn't true always, like for example right fucking now.

>Are you really do dumb you don't understand this concept?

The concept is wishful thinking, nothing more.

>It's like you've been so fucking brainwashed that your only possible thought is "CAPITALIST = EVIL" and you're physiologically incapable of acknowledging opposing viewpoints.

Yeah, it's like I understand that trusting people motivated entirely by greed to not dick people over when given free pass to do so is a bad idea. Capitalism is _unaccountable_.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:49 No.9801240

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:49 No.9801240

File: 1359769794115.jpg-(762 KB, 1200x2050, 1359112493584.jpg)

762 KB JPG

this thread is epic

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:50 No.9801247

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:50 No.9801247

Replies: >>9801391 >>9801598

>>9800807
>There isn't. Agree with an employer to work on consensual terms, or make your own money. Start your own small business like MOST OF THE BUSINESSES IN AMERICA, or fuck try becoming an investor, if you pay attention to the market, short some stocks, buy options, or gamble on dividends you can make a lot of money from not much investment.

Are you seriously giving me a speech on how I should try to be an investor right now?

>"Earth", and a good chunk of the population of that planet have to sustain themselves.

I asked for an example of a location. Areas where most people are "self employed" are usually backwards and feudal, places like Nepal for instance, with industrialization (and capitalism) this shrinks dramatically.

>What system? Life? People starved before capitalism, people starved under slavery, people starved under feudalism, people starved under mercantilism, a LOT of people starved under communism, and fewer people than ever in the history of mankind are starving under capitalism.

With industry comes a natural reduction in starvation, I don't deny capitalism is superior to feudalism, Marx said the exact thing.

>a lot of people starved under communism

And this is exactly what I didn't want to argue, I know "hurr I'm over facts", I mean I don't feel like spending the next 2 hours deconstructing the Holodomor or other such faggotry. Those were largely exacerbated by primitive farming techniques, its' worth noting that future famines (USSR had previously suffered one about every 5 years) were averted through collectivization, building of infrastructure, and distribution of better farming equipment (prior peasants had used very primitive methods, I think something like 40% didn't even own animals for plowing, I can pull up the statistics in a book I have if you're actually interested).

Fucking shit, field too long, will continue but this is why I didn't want to get into it.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:50 No.9801249

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:50 No.9801249

Replies: >>9801846

>>9801047
>No, it just means you don't have a dick saying everything belongs to him, and if you disagree with him he's going to make your life difficult.
Good thing nobody says that ever in capitalism. People tend to own just the things they pay for or work for, so that's that problem out of the way.

>Then why don't you give me some of that evidence and argument that capitalist property relations are justified?
I have over, and over, and over. People have good ideas and ambitions, they raise capital by working for others and saving their own, getting investors, or borrowing funds. Then they start businesses or invest in businesses at their own personal risk, they build the business such that they can employ others. The business belongs to them, they run it, they care for it, they guide it in a successful direction, and they provide income for a few, or a few dozen, or a few hundred, or a few thousand people who choose to sell their labor to them.

>You probably think that the US is capitalist
Too much corporate socialism fucking with the market, but yes, it is a capitalist system. QQ harder if you don't like truth.

>If we're going to work together we have to decide how much each of us is gonna get at some point.
When two or more people do that, it's called a "partnership", and they establish a business together. Capitalism has everything you seem to want, but it seems like you're too scared and lazy to go out and get it.

Pussy.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)20:55 No.9801391

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)20:55 No.9801391

>>9801247
>>9800807

IIRC a Taiwanese historian came out and said that the policies implemented under Mao towards agricultural production, in the aftermath of the great famine and during it, had an overwhelming benefit. It was the last famine in Chinese history (there's a book called China: Land of Famine if you were actually interested but you aren't). Anyways the Taiwanese guy basically said that every 8 years an equivalent number of people died of starvation or malnutrition in India through constant minor famines there up until 1980, versus China which had implemented those reforms and policies.

The numbers for both famines are drawn from bullshit. Basically taking the birth deficit and differences in projected population and calling them murders. Ignoring other context, such as in the USSR, like legality of abortion and introduction of birth control, economic troubles, and the height of the typhus epidemic that would come along with that.

But of course it's easier to assert starvation and poverty and whatever else you can come up with against my system to avert attacks on your own. And thus we come to the source of why these fake inflated numbers and supposed travesties are propagated still.

>>9800817

>If you don't want to discuss it, then why the fuck do you keep posting? Oh right, attention.

Because we're having a discussion you butthurt faggot.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:56 No.9801406

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:56 No.9801406

Replies: >>9801619 >>9801746

>>9800988

>Seeing as it's in their best interests are to keep their company running: yes. That's different for the workers.

So if workers owned their own company they would just destroy it?

>Well yeah, because if he can leave at any point, choose his "master" based on which one offers him the best benefits, or just strike out on his own and become his own "master", I don't see how the "enslavement" when he agrees to cooperate with someone who will pay them an agreed upon rate for the work they do is anything but justified.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Capitalists say that slavery is justified.

>Yeah, in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars a year, medical insurance, maybe a pension plan or a 401-K, company fringe benefits, etc. It's a pretty good deal all things considered.

Unless of course, you know, the economy goes bad and you get fired and lose everything. And now, again, you've admitted that workers, in fact do not have rights to their labor under capitalism.

>What

I'm saying your argument is shitty, not that the words you're shoving into my mouth is true.

>Or to yourself, which is a lot harder but great if you don't want a boss telling you how to spend your time.

Which is yet another admission that workers do not have rights to their labor under capitalism.

>Best quality of life that has ever existed for more people than ever thought possible in human history.

Which is like saying that taking a car is the fastest way to get to china because going by food wasn't thought possible.

Honestly, at this point I don't even know what remains of your position that I have not refuted a hundred times already.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:56 No.9801421

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:56 No.9801421

Replies: >>9801511 >>9801543

>>9801096
>That is only true if the employers are in a position where they need to compete for employees. This isn't true always, like for example right fucking now.
>IM
>FUCKING
>PLYING
Employers are DESPERATELY competing for high-quality, reliable workers who will stay with the company for a long time. Hiring has been picking up, even though we're in a recession (caused mostly by state intervention, thanks Bernenke, thanks Gov't).

>The concept is wishful thinking, nothing more.
How can you say that with a straight face? I do work for a headhunting firm in the IT field. I see CIOs and systems managers and even fucking helpdesk people getting multiple offers and choosing their employers based on which one makes them happy. I guarantee you've never actually competed in the job market, or you have zero human capital thanks to your own lack of initiative.

>Capitalism is _unaccountable_.
That's it. We've reached critical retardation. I don't think you can be any more retarded then this or 4chan will implode and Moot will be sucked back into hell.

CAPITALISM IS THE ONLY FULLY ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM, BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY THRIVE BY GIVING PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY YOU FOR. THIS APPLIES FOR EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. INDIVIDUAL IN THE SYSTEM. THIS IS INDISPUTABLE. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO SELL ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO SELL, NOBODY FORCES YOU TO BUY ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO BUY.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)20:59 No.9801511

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)20:59 No.9801511

>>9801421

Dude, you sound really mad.

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem
02/01/13(Fri)21:00 No.9801543

Marxist-Leninist !!Dyc/n1VQGem 02/01/13(Fri)21:00 No.9801543

Replies: >>9801824

>>9801421

>Employers are DESPERATELY competing for high-quality, reliable workers who will stay with the company for a long time.

>9% unemployment

lel

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:01 No.9801554

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:01 No.9801554

>>9794112 (OP)
the first flaw is you said logic

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:02 No.9801598

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:02 No.9801598

File: 1359770553552.jpg-(138 KB, 458x357, 1333497696119.jpg)

138 KB JPG

>>9801247
>Are you seriously giving me a speech on how I should try to be an investor right now?
Why not? Investors are making bank all over if you pay attention and know where to put your money. Hell, you could've made a couple hundred dollars easy if you laid a few diverse, cheap investments into firearms manufacturers around every election, because sales always spike and stock prices go up. If you shorted those stocks, you could make many multiples of that.

>I asked for an example of a location. Areas where most people are "self employed" are usually backwards and feudal, places like Nepal for instance, with industrialization (and capitalism) this shrinks dramatically
See why we do it? Because, guess what, it works!

>People weren't really starving in the USSR I swear ;_;
>Marxism was able to take off because it was the best thing, not just because the people were so ass-backwards compared to the rest of the world and had been beaten down by feudalism ;_;
>C'mooooon why don't you guys like Marxism yet, it only caused a few million or more people to starve, locked up political prisoners, used false psychiatry to subjugate dissenters, and played hurried catch-up to try and make the west scared despite the fact that they couldn't even feed themselves.

Want to hear my favorite little story about the USSR? Those big military parades they put on and filmed to show the west how strong they are? They would march the same soldiers around a block and film hours of that
>mfw

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:03 No.9801619

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:03 No.9801619

Replies: >>9801846

>>9801406
>So if workers owned their own company they would just destroy it?
Soviet Union, 1991. Sounds familiar?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:08 No.9801746

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:08 No.9801746

Replies: >>9801846

File: 1359770903092.jpg-(26 KB, 479x358, 1331946082178.jpg)

26 KB JPG

>>9801406
>So if workers owned their own company they would just destroy it?
Yeah, probably. Try running a company without management, or where management has no authority, or where the low-tier employees decide how much they should be paid. See how far you get when your janitor wants an extra $10 an hour for pushing a broom around.

>Capitalists say that slavery is justified.
>Slavery
Lol, nobody can take you seriously bro. It's pathetic to watch you try to cling to a rhetorical tongue-in-cheek use of the term as if it was an admission of guilt. Silly Marxists.

>Unless of course, you know, the economy goes bad and you get fired and lose everything
Well yeah, businesses fail, and it's for the good of the economy as a whole when they do because it removes an inefficient actor and frees the resources of the workers and salvaged capital to be implemented elsewhere.
>you've admitted that workers do not have rights to their labor under capitalism.
Except for how they have complete ownership over it and choose who to rent it to, which you still don't understand for some reason.


>Which is like saying that taking a car is the fastest way to get to china because going by food wasn't thought possible.
What is this nonsensical bullshit? Do you have a penchant for brainless non sequitur analogies?

Are you really just insane?

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:11 No.9801824

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:11 No.9801824

>>9801543
>9% unemployment
It's lower now, but that's not adjusted to real unemployment.

It's a recession, it happens, and it was exaggerated by socialist intervention by the state who pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and pour money into the economy, building an enormous housing bubble (thanks to the banks encouraged by the state financing every risky fucking wannabe homeowner) which burst.

Of course you didn't know that, because you don't actually understand economics, which frankly I should've expected seeing as you're a Marxist who thinks that post-revolution USSR was a glorious utopian workers paradise.

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:12 No.9801846

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:12 No.9801846

Replies: >>9801864

>>9801746
>>9801619
>>9801249

Nice chatting with you guys but I have to leave. :)

Anonymous
02/01/13(Fri)21:12 No.9801864

Anonymous 02/01/13(Fri)21:12 No.9801864

>>9801846
inb4 "i was only pretending to be a Marxist"