Be me

Stolen labour? This is retarded concept.

You want some off the profits? Contribute some capital and some risk. Otherwise fuck off. The wage that you get paid is all you are entitled to.

Which comes back to my point that socialism is simply theft.

I don't want any of the profits. I want the entire productive enterprise because you have no right to what others have worked for.

...

Maybe when the revolution comes, if you keep telling yourself that it'll get you your property back.

...

Why is this allowed?

Yes being a capitalist is stressful, but slaving yourself and taking risk only exists because of capitalism.

OP is a retard, but an explanation for other non-retards that might be reading:

Artists are an example of people paid for their labor. Someone commissions a work from them, and their fee is meant to compensate them specifically for that piece of crystallized labor.

An assembly line worker is someone paid for their labor power/potential. A worker at a Ford plant for instance isn't paid per door he welds on, he's paid a flat fee for several hours of labor. He might only assemble one door, or twenty, or none. It doesn't matter.

So, in theory, the artist is paid for the full value of his work. However slow or fast he works, his employer only gets the finished project. The assembler though produces more profit for his employer the more car doors or whatever he assembles during his shift. It's better for Ford if he makes 100 doors an hour rather than 10, and vice versa.

In any event, neither get to keep the full value of their labor. The artist doesn't keep his art, and the assembler doesn't keep his cars. The capitalist keeps everything and then pays them an arbitrary amount–as low as possible–from the hoard of booty that he's accumulated based on the discrepancy between his expenses and how much he's able to get for the products his employees made.

So really, what the OP is crying about is that because he suffered under extreme exploitation, because he suffered so much he deserves to live off of the suffering of others.

...

It's simple, you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor for your own gain and that's why other people are entitled to seize the fruits of your labor for their own gain. Get it capitalist scum?

Muh oppression

It's simple. Emancipation is theft.

Maybe we can build a world where you won't have to slave away for years pinching every penny to open a small business of your own to only be slightly better off than the people you employ.

Except for the labour, human capital and all the things I produced that are used in the business.

It's not stolen labour because I already paid the wage amount that we both agreed to in the employment contract.

If you are talking about profits well youre not entitled to the profits because like I said you haven't contributed capital nor risk. All you've done is sold your time (labour) out of your free will and you were rightly paid for it. Nothing has been stolen.

What is stealing is trying to ask for a piece of my profits.

Yes and I paid for that via a wage.

An employment contract signed under force. If you don't sell your labour to someone you starve.
I worked in your shitty little bussiness, risking losing whatever I own because if I get fired for a mistake you make or simply because you dont need me anymore i cant pay the loans on my house and i become homeless.

"Free mutual agreement" is a meme. The only way we would be able to have mutual agreement is if I did not have to work for someone to survive.

yes but you took the surplus value.
also in labour hour your workers worked more, they made the profits possible as much or more than you did.

In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture. If he turns to industry, he is allowed to work — though not always even that — only on condition that he yield a half or two-thirds of the product to him whom the land recognizes as the owner of the machine.

see
then off yourself for being so blindly hypocritical

It's stolen labor because you're profiting from uncompensated work.

You haven't contributed capital either. The bank contributed capital (which was also stolen from workers) and all the capital "you made" before was also just the contribution of your previous employer for your own stolen labor.

Risk is irrelevant as well. Aside from the fact that it's a purely subjective valuation ("risk"ing what, exactly?), if relative risk entitled you to more of what was produced then your employees would have every right to seize your business because their livelihoods are entirely at the risk of your success or failure, and they risk starvation if you prove to be incompetent.

Free will is irrelevant. If I come into your house and put a gun to your head and you "voluntarily" give me your business, I haven't done anything different than what you've done to your employees. The implicit threat is that without access to the capital you've monopolized they will starve.

Since contracts rendered under threat or coercion are rendered null your agreement is meaningless.

All your profits come from the value your employees produce which you appropriate entirely for yourself. You're robbing them and then giving them a pittance.

In any event it doesn't matter, because you can either give up your business (voluntarily :^) ) or you can go up against the wall. We'll even give your employees the chance to put the bullet in your head themselves. I'm certain they'll jump at the chance.

So kill yourself or let us do it. Either way your business belongs to the people from whom you stole it all to begin with.

The surplus is for me because I risked my capital and they did not. If they contributed capital we would be co-owners and we would both be entitled to the profits. An employee is entitled his/her wage but not the profits because they didn't pay the electricity fee, they didn't buy the land they didn't buy the equipment they didn't come up with the idea for the business they didn't risk their credit score to get the bank loan they didn't do any of that shit. All they did was come in and do what they were paid to do which was what they agreed to do. It's a mutual exchange and we are both better off having done this exchange otherwise it wouldn't have taken place. Throughout the life of the busieness, sometoimes they were even better off than me because I couldn't break even and therefore made losses. Their potential loss upon failure of the business would always be less than mine. If my business dies I lose everything. If they lose the job it would be as if they didn't even get the job in the first place.

...

All the capital you have is only possible because of their work. All your expenses are paid for out of their pockets.

You're nothing but a parasite and deserve a swift execution and nominal burial in a shallow and unmarked grave.

well you can reward your employed a bit but they don't indeed risk the same has you.

If you fail they lose them employment that's all they just have to find new ones, meanwhile you'll be persecuted and lose everything you have and you will still have money to give back.

It almost happened to me a few months ago.

Honestly I don't employ anymore since 10+years.
I had to much troubles with some of them.
I tried last weeks but the new generation is so fucking retarded they can't even handle a knife for god dam sake.

thats what you get for being a massive leftist faggot
KILL YOURSELF SCUM

I think the irony here is that OP doesn't see that he got a lot of shit stolen from him by his former bosses, and now the bank is stealing from him by charging him rent/tax/interest, but he blames "those damn dirty socialists" for the risk he takes because if he fails the bank will bend him over backwards for daring to try and produce stuff for society that they want.

Requesting picture with ladder and cocksucking.

...

And they were able to eat, have a place to live, feed their families, travel, pay for hobbies etc. because they were employed in my business. We both benefited but I benefit more because I had more to lose. Those who risk deserve a piece of the profits. no pain no gain.

This is truly highschool "well i got hazed freshmen year so they have to aswell" level shit right here

plz
Why?
Why not
Don't you see that the only reason you had to suffer is because of the same system you made us suffer.

You're like a homeless man who whored himself out and let himself got beat up by a rich guy for money, struggled his way out of poverty and now kicks homeless people for fun.

I thought it was just a meme but you people really are entitled autistic retards.

You replying to OP?

OP is the only one here who doesn't fit that description

No (You).

The OP is the one that thinks he is entitled to the fruits of labour of other people

...

Yeah, we're the entitled ones

and this is a problem with socialism how exactly? Under anarchist communism, if you had a good idea you would simply be provided with the tools necessary to complete the project, provided of course everybody else thought it was a good use of resources of course. If its such a good idea, why wouldn't they? After all, when you've chopped of the waste of the top 1% and shared it between everyone else, shit is abundant. If your haywire project goes down the pan, oh well, nobody owes anyone anything, we just chalk it up as a fail and try to educate ourselves on why it did so, all the through the mechanism of face to face democracy or federated delegations of face to face representation.

The situation you describe where one has to sacrifice their life in the pursuit of being still only petit bourgeois is precisely that which socialism seeks to over come.

I know its hard to imagine actually having a job but, does the business owner not pay you for your labour? Do you not willingly accept this exchange? If not why do you work there?

Even after all the weebs rise up and kill all the useful people in society is the state not going to do the exact same thing as those corporations except worse because now it has no competition in employment to keep the average wage up?

Then you call him entitled when you demand a cut of his profits for doing literally nothing. If you can't see the irony in that then you fit the bill of retard pretty well.

This Fuck You Got Mine attitude is why socialism has difficultly taking root

wew

No
I NEED FOOD, MOTHERFUCK

AAAAAAAH fucking end your life already and stop meming. Socialism is not state capitalism you memelord.

Except we do most of the work.

This is your problem right here. I don't give a shit about who deserves what, you can shove your morality up your arse.
I want to kill people like you and take everything you have, not because of some silly moral abstraction, but because it will benefit me and mine.

and that's why it's encouraged so much through the media

I started my own business two years ago and so far have no need to employ any others (using automated services has helped), but if and when I need to, I'd have no problem giving them equity in the business.

If you want to make an appeal to human nature, then you must admit that people who have some stake in the game (beyond just receiving wages) tend to care more about whatever it is they're involved with.

Fuck off.

What is fustrating is OP is trying to take the moral high ground when it is so obviously in his self-interest. If you want to be selfish, just admit it.

I agree
also this

user, do you know what "crab mentality" is?

Labour is a resource like everything else and there's only so much of it. If it were even slightly profitable to put wages a little higher wouldn't the next business over do it and steal all the workers from the first business because they have the freedom to choose who they work for rather than working for the state with a gun to their back? Also the state, even assuming it isn't headed by a psychopath as is the case every fucking time, still has to compete on an international level. This means they will squeeze you dry for every bit of output you're worth, and if you try to unionise and demand better wages they will just gulag you.

Did you even read what I said? Of course you didn't. You're not interested in what I said, you're just interested in feeling righteous but you get pissed off because the internet commies wont suck your cock like your employees do.

cool argument

So you do realize the proletariat got played hard, right?

...

...

stop it, your making us look bad.

you get that terms of contract are laid out before business is conducted right?

...

you're an idiot and have no idea how business or capitalism in general works

You get that you are born on the boat, right?

...

I had an economics professor with a print of this hanging in his office, the absolute madman

That is a hard point to make when workers and consumers get screwed in their contracts usually

Congrats, you just proved they're both different sides of the same shit coin.

Then why'd the guy get on the boat in the comic?

Got it from his dad.

oops, midsread

Correction: He used to live on another boat but that boat was shittier that that one at the time. Or he used to have a boat but due to storm, circumstance or a bigger boat sinking his boat, he had to go on that other boat.

...

Man maybe you should just make a new comic

...

The comic is actually about libertarians, but you use the same retarded logic.

...

libertarians are against threats of violence to coerce others into service. This is the same reason they're against government.

Except for enforcing "contracts" aka pieces of paper of course, and also unwritten contracts agreed upon on birth like property ownership.

Like libertarians, you have no idea how power and property works.

here's the one on social contract

Congratulations, your post perfectly demonstrates why capitalism is such a shit system and why socialism would be a better alternative.

Not really. NSDAP was not socialist.

what do those initials stand for again?

So in a socialist state whenever the owner struggles to break even, so should the employees/coops as well? It is the natural consequence of profits being divided equally. You want the profit, you have to shoulder some of the risk. That's what y'all are saying, right?

What about when the business is struggling and instead of accepting responsibility the employees simply go to another place that is not struggling, essentially abandoning the owner?

Not Socialist Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Do you people not learn any new tactics?

No, it's to out how names can be misleading.

And how does that have anything to do with my original point that bolsheviks trolled the working class to usurp the capitalists and take their place as masters over the working class?

That argument against taxation can be easily be applied to 'ownership' of private property

You're too honest to be here, but at least you would actually be useful in a socialist dystopia. Most of the fags on this board would be in for a rude awakening when they realize that there is only so much room in the lazy pseudo-intellectual class and power is distributed by means other than how well you can regurgitate sophist commie rhetoric.

There would be no single owner in a socialist society so your statement is kinda moot

nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated.

how so?

The funny thing is that at its very core Socialism is broken because in every demonstrable case of Socialism some whack job has subverted the system and gained power, usually by winning over the trust of the revolutionaries and selective suppression of truth and disbursement of lies and half-truths.

out of curiousity what is your business?
also whats to stop the workers from pooling capital a d creating thier own thing?

As for your silly Feels>Reels video,

Using that same logic I can say:
But as soon as we say that its suddenly immoral theft.

Why can't you leave the state then, if you hate it so much, you fucking mongoloid?
Yeah sure mate thats why there we're masses of revolutions and violence which we're only stopped when the state provided welfare from the tax raised from the rich, which was approved by the rich because they were the only ones with voting power.
Do I really have to go through your entire strawman video? How is preventing [your insert character] from entering the fishfarm and eating fish from it not violence?

You're doing a pretty good job of making yourself look bad.

with
Good luck enforcing your 'ownership' of property without any government

No shit

And what if you didn't have to? That is what we want in society.

Nobody asked you to gamble your life.

Kill yourself

Nicht Sozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterPartei.

...

weewwww

There is no owner

even assuming there wasn't a police force you could OPT to pay for, you'd still have these things.

And Socialism is broken from the get go because the instant it comes into existence it gets co opted by madmen. Largely because it trusts that the workers leading the revolution are as a group infallible and all knowing, yet these are the same people that were sheeping away their whole lives as slaves for capitalists prior to the "revolution".

We also have guns. We are with a lot more people.

What now, genuis?

But capitalism is inherently perfect with no internal contradictions no no its socialism that is broken and doomed to failure from the start

Ya and the police force can take your property for themselves. Only you can protect 'your' private property in a stateless society

The weakness of the masses should not be seen as the weakness of Socialism.

You're right, it is sad when Capitalists assassinate our people and reestablish their rule in the land.

I hire people or ask a favour of friends as additional protection if I am especially concerned.

If you are talking about stealing my property then people would act against you as a collective investment to prevent further action being taken against any of them.

If you're talking about reclaiming something which belonged to you or attacking me because I'm some kind of public menace then I doubt anyone would have any complaints and there would be no repercussions.

it ain't soylent green. If the police were known to steal they wouldn't be hired, they'd have no income and their business would collapse.

.

should reiterate on that last point, there'd be multiple policing companies, each ready to step into the service void left by another.

if you believe the people at the top are collaborating to the disadvantage of many and no one would complain if you killed them, kill them.

I never said that. Both systems are equally shit in their own regards.

The weakness of Socialism is that it relies on the weak masses to make all the right choices.
In reality they just break their reins only to turn around and hand them to a different madman.

Your fault for not having safeguards against these kinds of things.

you know what guys, your all giving shit arguements. i might become a capitalist now.

If we have safeguards we are called terrorists and authoritarian, if we lack one somewhere we are assassinated and blamed for the fault's of others.

And eventually when everyone buys into it or a monopoly forms you get a nation with different bells and whistles

Yes different countries. Also they could easily form a conglomerate and rule the masses together

That is not a failure of the system itself, but the failure of individuals. But i do concede that there is a need to enlighten the masses

If they are both equally shit then what do you propose is better?

couldn't you just take home the fruits of the labour that you brought to the company, instead of taking their labour product home? and should the workers not do the same>
instead of paying wages+profits, just pay them x percent of the profits.

Really nigger?

Do it, just dont come back when ur bankrupt because your retqrded ass didnt started a workers co-op and instead felt for le hard working meme

Well thats exactly what we want to do but you come here and whine about it.

The issue of large scale police militias is a valid concern. Seems to me that if there was a threat and no service defending against it, or that the defending service was the threat itself then either communities would insulate themselves or enough people would come together to disband the threat. So long as people do not agree to slavery power will always fluctuate.

checked, im being semi sarcastic, the point is we aren't countering any of his arguements.
still wanna start a co-op tho

...

is this ancapistan?

difference is I accept that I can't expect a survivable output without any input. That and I don't believe that one tyrant being replaced with another tyrant has benefits anyone apart from those who have entered the space left by those at the top you killed.

No, ancapistan has rape village

shit arguement

kek

shit parasite

Oh ya suddenly an individualistic society would fight for each other's private property, as if the defending service in question is not part of said society in the first place

That is the thing. Who is to say who owns what property to begin with?

Neither do I. the input is labour. Labour creates things. Risking stuff doesnt create shit, otherwise all those niggers and gopniks would be swimming in bad cash from the risk they took every day.

Correction, that is what we believe. You dont belief in replacing the tyrant because you are the tyrant.

...

multiple people can work together in the process of protecting mutual interests while still focusing primarily on their own safety. It would be an investment of labour. As for who owns which property, property belongs to the person who created it or was given it, that or the property was claimed after it was abandoned. People would not accept that property rightfully belonged to someone who coerced the actual owner out.

There's always going to be some level of authoritarianism in all systems. Stop being afraid to enforce some level of conformity to preset standards.

The system relies on it's people to carry out the functions prescribed by that system, Socialism doesn't account for the fact that the masses aren't all knowing, omnipotent, and just.
Which is why it is continually usurped by genocidal maniacs who troll the working class into trusting them, only to snuff them out once they've seized power to prevent competitors from taking their spot.
As such, it is inherently broken.

I kinda dig the idea of a Constitutional Republic

Constitutional republic is not an economic system in fact it could exist as capitalistic or socialistic

jesus mary and patrick

dude I'm a stablehand.
I'm just not retarded.

As for risk v reward, I never mentioned it, you brought it up. Of course there's more to in that simple risk = reward but risk is a factor. If risk is involved other people may not be willing to take the opportunity which leaves the one who does which the profit they would have made, or nothing at all, as the risk may have it.

I know that.

Congrats you more or less admitted that there is no such thing as private property

Yes I do understand and accept your criticism of socialism but it is more of practiality of the system than its inherent flaws

WEW LAD

Then you didnt answer my question

risk is a spook and completely irrelevant

unfortunately you're just retarded, not a spook

see

have you even read stirner cause he would also call you retarded. the point of spook was addressing unfounded bases for authority. Risk is a real thing and is not fundamentally a method of control.

i love capitalism

Or like what happened in NYC force you to sell your property to them at rock bottom prices or let it all burn

sauce (i believe you but need sauce)

Constitutional Republics separate power into checks and balances thus making it harder for the masses to hurt their stupid selves.

You asked me what a better system would be. I told you a Constitutional Republic. It can be either socialist, or capitalist. Point being it breaks power into neat little groups making it harder for a gang of genocidal maniacs to usurp power.

Stop posting anytime.

Proletarian revolution is a fundamentally selfish act on the part of a proletarian. You'd have to be literally bourgeois for this not to be the case.

I think the points already been made in this thread. Rules of contract are laid out beforehand, the insurance the fire station provides is not post-event and if it was why would you be surprised if you couldn't afford it.
If the fire station didn't perform their service or exploiting people in doing it, people would switch to coverage from a different private fire station which did not do these things and the first would either abandon their exploitative methods or collapse.

That doesn't mean they won't slowly find a way to fuck things up. Also the check and balances are being operated by flawed individuals, susceptible to populism. The only form of governance compatible with your views on the masses is absolute despotism tbh

I asked you what economic system is better then capitalism or socialism if you think they are both equally shit

okay then

I fucked up it was crassuss in rome who would haggle the price of fire services in rome and if the house burned down he would offer to buy it at a much reduced price

fire station would attend to houses that did pay their bills, or if it would ultimately save them effort and thus wealth, they would attend to house that did not pay its bills to prevent fire from spreading to those that did.

yeah i think a read about that

*i think i read about that

...

Then why was your criticism about:
Seems more like someone else is doing the lying and propagating half-truths.

Doesnt change my point that it could happen in ancap society

what about something like crassuss, getting firemen to let rome burn, so he can buy cheap land

You're not entitled to labour of others. Ever.
And this triggers the ayncraps like nothing else.
And fuck you OP, even if you had to through hell and whatever, you're still not entitled to labour of others.

im agreeing with you it is completely possible

While that may be true, it's better than having your whole system usurped by a madman with good trolling abilities in one go.

Now the madmen have to work together for a lengthy period of time for a shot at taking power.

Well what other economic systems are there that aren't re-skins of Capitalism or Socialism?

As opposed to liberal democracy where the people who make up the government are flawless right?

a decent arguement

I don't think having a slow death as opposed to a slow death somehow makes it better. Why not just cut to the chase and have a enlighten despot if the masses can't govern themselves?

Nigga I am not as cynical as the other user on the masses to begin with

Quick death

Because there's no guarantee the despot will act in the best interest of the people.
Which is why power needs to be segmented.
Like in a constitutional republic.

Woah you took a big risk OP.
I started my business with a £250 loan from my father.

Idk im just a dumb commie and im all for socialism

someone like crassus would probably be shot

I did put the adjective 'enlightened' before the despot…

Once again if the masses are soooooo incapable and retarded, why give them rights and they are just gonna fuck it up eventually and give it to a malevolent tyrant that will gulag people, instead of giving it to a benevolent tyrant that won't gulag people?

My workers are normies.

While they were out getting drunk having fun I was learning my craft.

Now they are in their twenties and thirties with no appreciable skills except blindly following what I tell them to do.

So who are you going to hold accountable if a bad decision is made?

but that breaks muh NAP,
all he did was benefit from voluntary contracts

they clearly know their craft enough for you to need to hire them.

Nah I hire them because they are cheap.

You could do the job I ask them to. If you arent totally stupid.
But you would have to be really really cheap or im not going to bother.

what do they do?

NAP does not preclude self defense. Self defense includes damage to property. Deliberate obstruction of preserving property counts as damage to property. Ergo nothing ethically wrong with ending the cunt

So refusing to act in someone elses best interest is agression?

i mean he didn't derrectly destroy anything

maybe if you weren't so fucking stupid you wouldn't need this pointed out for you, but in this instance "risk" is nothing but a mechanism for legitimizing the authority and entitlement of the capitalist. it's as spooky as prosperity gospel and divine right and gives the business owner as much legitimacy as if he said "well the profit is mine because god wants me to have it"

you cum dripping donkey's asshole of an idiot

how bout the fact that he worked harder

You think you're the only ne to have worked hard for years and gotten paid shit I the end. Go into and field being harvested by Mexican immigrants or go toFoxcon, Fuck off with your punk candy ass

He didn't even have to.

He could have started a cooperative and split the risk, investment AND work.

But he didn't, did he? He put in all that extra effort, risk and investment even when he didn't need to for the express purpose of being able to lord over other people and exploit their labor, and he expects to be treated like some kind of hero for the effort.

Go fuck yourself, "job creator".

People don't stay "enlightened" for long.
And like I said, power should be segmented so that it becomes practically impossible to install a dictator short of revolting against the system and installing a completely different one.

Depends who made the decision, who signed off on it, and who implemented it. In a constitutional republic it's rarely just one person who gets shitcanned as a result of a bad decision.

why is this allowed

I jacked off to this once

You made the effort to become a vampire, wow such an inspiration.

Maybe one day I too can save up so that I might turn into a parasite and then my children can also grow up to become parasites and never have to do a real days work in their lives.

Also requesting that pic where the local petit-bourgeois store sign says something like "when you support us, you help pay for our little girl's dance lessons :)"

Stopped reading there.
Congratulations you're a fucking puppet of the bourgeois and are aiding our capitalist society. Congratulations. Clap clap for the handicap.

You people are so sad and petty.

Obligation exist only inside your brain. You can't create obligations by hiring and giving someone money. You explain only why you want keep profits youself.

(Yes, you don't have obligation to share your profits with workers)

You give money to the state. You financing statism.

In Socialism your will enslave yourself to Society.

In fact it's rare that anyone does when its made by a body like congress, and if it's made by a higher official there's a 'fall guy' pretty often.

they think they'll enlighten the entire world and that mob rule will somehow not be as brutal as it was in the past (Muh post scarcity miracle society). It's even dumber than The Nazi's ethnic cleansing because it requires a re-education of the entire world.

Oh and to add, my dad was a former factory owner (he actually went from rags to riches as an illegal immigrant no less), he paid and ensured he met his legal requirements to his workers, who still lived in squalor and hardship. People like OP are real, my dad believed he was doing the public a service by having once provided jobs and paying taxes.

He closed his textiles business once ever cheaper growing Chinese (among others) imports flooded the market in the late 90s and became a landlord/"property developer", he runs an Indian restaurant full time as well. So much for being a job creator now eh.

I just find parasitism abhorrent, there's nothing admirable about being selfish to the detriment of others.

It's a step forward, it's not perfect, but at least you won't be working for somebody else's unearned dividend.

We should be working towards sustainable fully automated luxury communism where human labour has become obsolete, not in a profit orientated system like ours where exchange value of commodities has no bearing on its use value and where improvements in productivity are harmful because they are not in the interest of the owner class (investing in renewables for examples diminishes the value of electricity, hampering any return in investment).

We are "society."

Mob rule.

This is the 21st century, Hobbes.

Or are you saying that it's our glorious Job Creators who have been given sole Divine Right to rule humanity by hour Lord and Savior the Free Market?

...

sage.

It must be hard for guys like you when you when you first encounter people who don't immediately fall on their knees and starting sucking off the petit bourgeoisie at every given opportunity.

Free choice is my fetish

...

Go read the section on mercenaries in 'The Prince', you fucking retard.

1/2

But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say, while the worker
risks nothing. This is not true, because when seen from his side, all the
disadvantages are on the part of the worker. The business owner can conduct
his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out in a bad deal, or be a victim of a
commercial crisis, or by an unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin
himself. This is true. But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to
be reduced to the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be
forced among the ranks of the common laborers? This so rarely happens, that we
might as well say never. Afterwards it is rare that the capitalist does not
retain something, despite the appearance of ruin. Nowadays all bankruptcies
are more or less fraudulent. But if absolutely nothing is saved, there are
always family ties, and social relations, who, with help from the business
skills learned which they pass to their children, permit them to get
positions for themselves and their children in the higher ranks of labor, in
management; to be a state functionary, to be an executive in a commercial or
industrial business, to end up, although dependent, with an income superior
to what they paid their former workers.

The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the
establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several days
and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it is more than ruin,
it is death; because he eats everyday what he earns. The savings of workers
are fairy tales invented by bourgeois economists to lull their weak sentiment
of justice, the remorse that is awakened by chance in the bosom of their
class. This ridiculous and hateful myth will never soothe the anguish of the
worker. He knows the expense of satisfying the daily needs of his large
family. If he had savings, he would not send his poor children, from the age
of six, to wither away, to grow weak, to be murdered physically and morally
in the factories, where they are forced to work night and day, a working day
of twelve and fourteen hours.

If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it is quickly
consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which often cruelly
interrupt his work, as well as by the unforeseen accidents and illnesses which
befall his family. The accidents and illnesses that can overtake him
constitute a risk that makes all the risks of the employer nothing in
comparison: because for the worker debilitating illness can destroy his
productive ability, his labor power. Over all, prolonged illness is the most
terrible bankruptcy, a bankruptcy that means for him and his children, hunger
and death.

I know full well that under these conditions that if I were a capitalist, who
needs a hundred workers to fertilize my capital, that on employing these
workers, all the advantages are for me, all the disadvantages for them. I
propose nothing more nor less than to exploit them, and if you wish me to be
sincere about it, and promise to guard me well, I will tell them:

2/3
"Look, my children, I have some capital which by itself cannot produce
anything, because a dead thing cannot produce anything. I have nothing
productive without labor. As it goes, I cannot benefit from consuming it
unproductively, since having consumed it, I would be left with nothing. But
thanks to the social and political institutions which rule over us and are
all in my favor, in the existing economy my capital is supposed to be a
producer as well: it earns me interest. From whom this interest must be taken
- and it must be from someone, since in reality by itself it produces
absolutely nothing - this does not concern you. It is enough for you to know
that it renders interest. Alone this interest is insufficient to cover my
expenses. I am not an ordinary man as you. I cannot be, nor do I want to be,
content with little. I want to live, to inhabit a beautiful house, to eat and
drink well, to ride in a carriage, to maintain a good appearance, in short,
to have all the good things in life. I also want to give a good education to
my children, to make them into gentlemen, and send them away to study, and
afterwards, having become much more educated than you, they can dominate you
one day as I dominate you today. And as education alone is not enough, I want
to give them a grand inheritance, so that divided between them they will be
left almost as rich as I. Consequently, besides all the good things in life
I want to give myself, I also want to increase my capital. How will I achieve
this goal? Armed with this capital I propose to exploit you, and I propose
that you permit me to exploit you. You will work and I will collect and
appropriate and sell for my own behalf the product of your labor, without
giving you more than a portion which is absolutely necessary to keep you from
dying of hunger today, so that at the end of tomorrow you will still work for
me in the same conditions; and when you have been exhausted, I will throw you
out, and replace you with others. Know it well, I will pay you a salary as
small, and impose on you a working day as long, working conditions as severe,
as despotic, as harsh as possible; not from wickedness - not from a motive of
hatred towards you, nor an intent to do you harm - but from the love of wealth
and to get rich quick; because the less I pay you and the more you work, the
more I will gain."

3/3

This is what is said implicitly by every capitalist, every industrialist,
every business owner, every employer who demands the labor power of the workers
they hire.

But since supply and demand are equal, why do the workers accept the conditions
laid down by the employer? If the capitalist stands in just as great a need of
employing the workers as the one hundred workers do of being employed by him,
does it not follow that both sides are in an equal position? Do not both meet
at the market as two equal merchants - from the juridical point of view at
least - one bringing a commodity called a daily wage, to be exchanged for the
daily labor of the worker on the basis of so many hours per day; and the other
bringing his own labor as his commodity to be exchanged for the wage offered
by the capitalist? Since, in our supposition, the demand is for a hundred
workers and the supply is likewise that of a hundred persons, it may seem
that both sides are in an equal position.

Of course nothing of the kind is true. What is it that brings the capitalist
to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify
his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable
pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of
eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical
fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point
of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation. The capitalist
is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well
that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will
still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which
he is the happy possessor. If the workers whom he meets in the market present
demands which seem excessive to him, because, far from enabling him to
increase his wealth and improve even more his economic position, those
proposals and conditions might, I do not say equalize, but bring the economic
position of the workers somewhat close to his own - what does he do in that
case? He turns down those proposals and waits. After all, he was not impelled
by an urgent necessity, but by a desire to improve his position, which,
compared to that of the workers, is already quite comfortable, and so he can
wait. And he will wait, for his business experience has taught him that the
resistance of workers who, possessing neither capital, nor comfort, nor any
savings to speak of, are pressed by a relentless necessity, by hunger, that
this resistance cannot last very long, and that finally he will be able to
find the hundred workers for whom he is looking - for they will be forced to
accept the conditions which he finds it profitable to impose upon them. If
they refuse, others will come who will be only too happy to accept such
conditions. That is how things are done daily with the knowledge and in full
view of everyone.

We have never been at war with Eurasia

Okay, everyone start your own business, everyone luck out and succeed and never hire a single employee and get rich somehow with no exploited labor.

What are you a communist? Pfft.

At least you're being honest. However, at this point, it's not about getting rich, since all profit implies some kind of maldistribution of wealth.

...

Entrepreneurship is good as long as you do what OP did and yes you deserve it for the massive risk you took to create what you did but unfortunately many businesses and most certainly the largest ones aren't like your business OP. You're a small business, not giant megacorp #348092 owned by Shekelstein and co that hurts and destroys countless lives in the name of profit at any cost.

fuck off Holla Forums

OP's business needed a bank loan from "shekelstein" dipshit

Plebs

They're all parasites. A small parasite isn't more righteous than a large parasite.

Cry more.

Do you see the cyclical nature of your story?

this is always what commie rhetoric comes down to, stop being such a useless piece of shit

Willful ignorance is your greatest strength o great and mighty job creator.

not everyone's your boogeyman retard. I work manual labour

filtered

Really kill yourself. You're waste of space.

...

the prince is art of war tier posturing, try looking at real life examples instead of jerking yourself off over how well you can just about read high school non fiction

"Even when a man without fortune receives credit in his capacity of industrialist or merchant, it occurs with the expectation that he will function as capitalist and appropriate unpaid labour with the borrowed capital. He receives credit in his capacity of potential capitalist. The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist in this manner – and the commercial value of each individual is pretty accurately estimated under the capitalist mode of production – is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune into the field and into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever new forces for itself out of the substratum of society. In a similar way, the circumstance that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages formed its hierarchy out of the best brains in the land, regardless of their estate, birth or fortune, was one of the principal means of consolidating ecclesiastical rule and suppressing the laity. The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule."

Karl Marx, Capital vol. III (1894)

...

...

which revolutions cropped up over insufficient social welfare? the Baltimore riots maybe?
if you didn't just skim the video you'd note that its covers why one can't just leave, or why they should not be obliged to.
Weird how you people adhere to all the nazi principles down the racial hatred but still insist you're not associated with the black leather brigade.

I would like to put my thumbs through your eye sockets until I feel their jelly run over my fingers.