Question

Human nature is to help one another, comrade. Is that non-existent?

Bumping

NAZI SCUM
GET OFF MY BOARD

Isn't equality what we are striving for? We need diversity even it that means nazis.

No (:

...

I TEACH YOU THE SUPERHUMAN, MAN IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE OVERCOME

You don't. Money doesn't exist under communism. As long as capital exists, there will be a material incentive for greed.

What about under socialism?

I help you because it makes me feel happy, it satisfies my self-interests, not from a petty biological necessity

You my comrade, are too special to be helped just as an act of obligation alone, I love you comrade, and this goes beyond biological needs

...

lol nice spooks nerd

GUYS STOP
4/POL/ IS MESSING WITH US
boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/107285074

perhaps you mean inhuman

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
i will now call a protest outnumbering you 10 to 1 even though half of our force are non-combatant normies and the rest is nu-males and SJW queers with a few La Raza and BLM "people" who can at least swing a bat,
then proceed to lose against 17 thin guys and around 13 skinheads, then cry about it on social media

...

nothing to see here, outsider
move along

0/10

...

How do you choose what to produce without free-market generated prices?

Market socialism?

calm down m8 it's a reasonable question.

I think the technocrats had it right with their idea of energy credits.

We use free'd markets of course

What, did you assume we all like economic planning faggotry?

How do you choose what to produce with inflated prices, and an inflated market?

How would a free market exist in a communist society where there are no private businesses?

Free market socialism is just coops participating in a market.

central planing?

STOP
T
O
P

The question is How could a free'd market exist in a capitalist society where there are private business?

You see if we strictly follow the rules of supply and demand, and we understand that the exploited class has a demand of food,mwater and so on, why should the state defend private property againts this demand?

If there is a supply of land, which naturally occurs, and a demand of food, yet the propietor class is using the state to stop these marketnforces, How can you label the market as truly free when it is being whored out by the state and the propietor class?

what an argument wew

It stagnates really fast and makes the boss pretend to pay someone and the worker pretend to work.

Read this fam
History shows us that the logic of market economy goes against capitalist logic of function

...

ENERGY CREDITS
N
E
R
G
Y

C
R
E
D
I
T
S

Get ice pick'd

Why are there always black markets in communist countries if communism works so well?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

...

No one starved in Cuba.

That you know of

So you choose what to produce at random?

With inflated prices, which would lead to expanding inefficiency until the system fails, just like communism.

With owners/private businesses acting in their best interests, the free market would exist.

The "exploited class" can start their own businesses to buy these items. The state should minimally exist.

I don't understand your last question, how would a proprietor class use the state the stop market-forces? The market-forces will still be there unless there is an alternative.

No one is happy, either.

where did you get that from exactly?

Either explain why you think communism is against "human nature" or fuck off

1-Black markets still exist in capitalism
2-The fact that the USSR "state capitalism" had black market only shows and high light this book argument that markets go against capitalism in logic

Do you even read theory pro?

But the logic of a free-market economy supports communist ideals?

Why would it have inflated prices.

And some people are actually happy in Cuba. Happier then they are in Haiti.

No I will say that your allegation that the USSR was "bad" is based upon some moralistic faggotry. If you have any principles whatsoveer then human society is very "bad" and it always will be no matter what, so the concept is not very useful.

Who cares about this "true communism"? It shouldn't matter unless you are some kind of idiotic moralfag who thinks some kind of higher ideal can be applied to human society. In most actual Leninist societies true communism is just a vague ideal rarely mentioned and it is fine leaving it there.

Your picture is retarded and not even a serious attempt to understand anything. Such unwarranted retardation is not healthy.

Taxes increase the price of everything. With market that uses these now increased prices, the market will continue to feedback loop until it collapses.

Then why do people risk their lives to escape from Cuba?

I know they exist in capitalism. They exist where regulation has tried to smother the free market. Which is why we see black markets tied with prohibited things such as drugs and prostitution. In communism there is a lot of regulations which is why the black markets there dealt with everyday consumer items. The kind of things there is no need to have a black market for in capitalist societies.

Rich Cubans ran from Cuba. Because they got all there wealth confiscated.

no one does that mate. the ones that left cuba were factory owners that left on a plane when castro took power. the "ragtag cubar swimming to miami" is a meme with very very few occurrences

murkans going to cuba for health issues on the other hand happens a lot more than you hear

The Soviet Union was basically operating on a principle of "the state takes control of all production, then when the time is right abolishes itself."
This is uh… Yeah pretty clearly flawed but it does mean it's also a fairly easy mistake to avoid: immediately hand over all production to the workers.

Usually for political reasons really. Its not terribly common any more regardless, but when it does happen they're likely to have been advocating for liberal democracy. Which is… Not great of Cuba to do but doesn't really say anything about communism as an economic system.

No it shouldnt not, as the state, by defending private property, is disrupting the natiral order of the market forces

There is a natural supply of land, it is a material fact that land exist and its at our disposal. There is also a natural demand of being able to make use of that land, as humans can satisfy their needs by making use of it

Therefore, why should a state defend the property claim of the propietor? It would be disrupting naturally ocurring market forces

What do you mean by "production"? What are you handing over to them?

Because no matter how hard statist try, man wants to be free and economic freedom is the core pillar of this quest for emancipation

Not him but, from the fact that by responding to the demand of society in order to create the production quotas, and the supplying commodities to satisfy them, you are creating a market

Only some form of command economy, where the production quota is decided by the party, is it that you could aim at destroying it, but histpry shows that doesnt work

In fact yeh it does, in non capi markets the focus is on the accumulation of commodities "not capital" from first hand producers, I,A workers "or peasants" that own their means of production them selves semi collectively, go to the market for nothing but balancing their material needs

But the USSR wanted to take full control over both supply "state owned capital" and demand "self sufficient no import is allowed"
The black market is born from this desire to control the demand not the supply "the USSR capital".

Yep the free market is as organic as it gets

Which is why property rights should be abolished!

The black market was born out of abnormalities created within supply and demand from the regulations and price controls which were placed upon it. The black market will form whenever the incentives of people to trade what they value less for what they value more is unable to proceed normally within the free market.

Businesses.

Any suppression of it creates a black market. The free market has been around as long as humans have had the incentive to trade what they didn't need for what they did.

Businesses are not the means of production.

Exactly, and property rights stop the natural order of the market from letting people make use of things and exchange the product of their labour

No reason for the state to interfiere

Of course, first they argue that the system has never been tried, and that it was only a transitional state. But if your ideology requires global participation without evidence for its success beyond "all gains are illegitimate, except when we all share/squander wealth, hierarchies are not natural", then it is not coherent and pragmatic.
Even the transitional stages failed spectacularly. Maybe the kulaks weren't greedy, maybe that is simply how things operate. Giving the means of production to illiterate peasants isn't optimal when they have no knowledge/expertise.

Land is one of the three basic needs for production to flourish: Land, Labour and Capital. The state should defend the claim of the proprietor because without property a market cannot exist.

The communist system abolishes private ownership, and you're telling me that this is a non-capitalist market? Also, the accumulation of commodities is more efficient than the accumulation of capital????

My boss is pretty clueless at networking, making deals and can barely speak english

Why should he be the director of a school?

He pays you. Have you ever made money working for a poor person.

Where do you work? Why do you choose to work in an establishment that makes poor decisions? If he is as incompetent as you say, he will fail, just as a blind man will walk into traffic without intervention.

Also, is speaking English a requirement? Where do you live (English speaking or not)?

Look into a guy by the name of Peter Kropotkin, specifically Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.

I think by human nature, he means requiring food to survive.

No, I pay him, as I am the one who gives the english classes

So is it okay for illiterate peasants to control the MoP even if it is not optimal?, I thought you claimed the opposite here

With property a market cannot exist, I have my labour and porperty rights are stopping me from making use of the capital and the land

The government then is acting against market forces

So If there is a natiral demand for food, and a natural supply of land, why should the state interfiere by protecting the propietor class

Government is against human nature taken your argument to its logical conclusion

Define MoP. Members of Parliament? Not sure what you mean. Can you prove that they are illiterate and peasants?

There is a demand for food because it is a biological necessity. With it, comes the necessity for land.
Define "propietor" class. Not sure what you mean, as that is not a word in the English language. Even if you mean "proprietor", define that. How is the state interfering with this?

In-group, tribal preferences and tendency to undo entropy/chaotic rule is also natural for advanced organisms. Wolves have order in their societies, they have hierarchies. So do bees, so do ants, so do many other things. But simply because it is observed in nature is not just cause for its existence. We rely on order and authority because it acts as a disincentive for chaos.

Would you have a job without him? Why do you work for him?

What are you talking about? You need land, labour and capital to have production, and production to have a market. Hence without property, a market cannot exist.

Tha government does not act against market forces when it defends property rights. You should be able to use the land for whatever you want if you are the owner.

Means of production

I dont need to prove all the workers are illiterates and peasants, but I can prove my boss is one, as he doesnt know how to give english classes, prepare them or assest students, he is always losing customers because of this, there are other englis institues that do not have this problem, in comparison, I can label my boss as an incompetent

No, how? There is a necessity for the use of land, I only need to make use of it, land itself serve me of no use, I want what I can produce off of it

If we understand there is a natural necessity for the use of land, then property rights are against the natural order

What?

en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/proprietor

The state defends private property, open a constitution and you will find that people were given the right to own property

The state is therefore tilted in favour the proprietor

Absolutely, but theyndont have property rights, as I explained before, the right of property goes against the natural supply and demand of lamd,, and the natural market forces

Humans that starve to death or die of cold can be defined as chaos, the right to property given by the state therefore does not create order, but chaos, as it is what causes starvation and homelessness

The property owner is the owner for a reason. He either bought it or inherited it. No one is being stopped from owning land. The state is not tilted to favour the proprietor, the state is tilted in favour of private ownership.

Private ownership does not go against the natural supply and demand of land. How would anyone sell or buy land without private ownership?

Ideally yes, as I can teach english without him however, in reality, No I would not, because the state defends the property claims he makes on the institute, without the state I could use the institute myself

I work for him because I need to work in order to feed, dress, heal, home and transport myself, I could work for myself if I didnt have to pay him to let me make use of the institite, the one he claims is his property, claim defended by the state

If we understand that there is a natural demand for english classes, and a natural supply of english classes, then the proprietor class, and the government are interfiering with the natural order of the market

Wrong, you simply need to make use of the land and the capital, I have given english classes using a marker that I do not consider my property, one that was borrowed by a propietor, and another one with a marker that I label as mine, the outcome of the class was no different, owning or not the marker was irrelevant, I was still able to write on the board

Thus ownership of land and capital are not a necessity, only its use

Now as you can see, without property, a market can exist, as I would be exchanging labour and knowledge, not my property

Then at this point you are proving the government is acting against market forces

There is a natural demand of english classes, my english classes, as students ask my boss to take classes with me, and a natural supply of them, as I voluntarily agree to give them classes

I however cannot give english classes without making use of the institute, thus, the state, by stopping me of making use of my boss' "property", is acting agaimst the natural order of the market

thanks.
Onus is on you, so you kind of have to. The illiterate are not worthy of anything.
What's the problem? Soon he will be out of a job, and rightfully so.
Correct. Anecdotes aren't coherent, substantive arguments, though.
What is the food grown on?
land serves the use because we live on land, operate on land, all of our affairs take place in districts on land.
Crop is dependent on land, not vice versa. Untilled land can exist.
>en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/proprietor
That's how I spelled it, not how you spelled it. Go and read your post.
Correct, they work to own things. And?
Is ownership against your ideology, too? Why do you pay rent, then? Do you even live on land, or do you and your anarchist buddies pool your resources together on one communal plot of land?
Well, the market for it exists. I have this plot of land and you have cash to purchase it from me. Then, by definition, there is supply and demand.
No, I mean lawlessness and destruction, not starvation.
No, it creates an advanced system of trade. It is rational to pay rent/purchase a plot of land you wish to live off of.
Refusal to work causes starvation and homelessness. Everybody can work if they want to. Instead of absolving agency from your poor downtrodden proletariat, treat them like human being and respect their self-responsibility.

And? this doesnt change anything, I dont care what method he followed in order to become a thieve, the government is acting against market forces when defending his property claims, I explained why here

But certain people are being stopped from making use of it, as I explained in my last 2 posts

And who reaps the benefits of this? The proprietor

How do you justify selling something you did not work for? If you can sell land, can I sell you? I dont see the distinction, I would simply need to claim you as my property and sell you

So you're saying you want to use the property at no cost to yourself? His claim to the property is legitimised by his ownership of the institute.

Where do you teach your class? Where do you live? Who would take care of the property if no one owned it?

How would you produce goods without property to produce it on?

The state would stop you from using the property because you do not own it. How would there be a supply or demand if no one owns property?

Someone produces something out of the fruit of land held in common. They exchange it for something someone else produced out of land held in common.

Ah, but how did the previous owner acquire it? And the one before them? Go far enough back, and all land is stolen from the Commons: all land ownership is fundamentally illegitimate.

Means of production are facilities, machinery, tools, infrastructural capital and natural capital. In short where these things are concentrated, i.e businesses.

You do not "claim" property. You buy or sell property.
Without property you cannot have markets because buyers and sellers will not have anything to buy or sell. Hence, without private property, you cannot have markets.

If you own property, you worked for it or inherited it. You pay for land. You pay for books. The money you use to pay is (unideally) representative of the work you do.

We are not talking about "the land before time". We're talking about now. How would it be practical to use customs from "the land before time"?

...

Where do you teach your class? Your services were derived from:

Land -The classroom/institute
Labour -You
Capital -whiteboard/markers

A lot of words but no arguments.

But who else is making this claim but another illiterate?

Soon does not matter, Nor I care if he will be out of a job, What I care is that I am able to continue working, and his property claims stop me from doing just that

If amecdotes aren't coherent, how would you be able to prove someone is illiterate and not worthy of anything?

The food is grown the the land it is being used, so if you are growing food on a piece of land, you are making use of time, the time it takes you to grow food, now what is the argument for apropiating it after you stopped using it though?

Crop is dependent on the use of the land, you can have land, and seeds, but only by making use of both can you reap the benefits

Grammar nazism is responded with Grammar anarchism

And therefore work to steal, property is theft

Ownership is the same as apropiation I am advocating for a society based on use, not ownership

I live on land because that is the natural order of things, I cannot modify this behaviour, If it is natural to make use of lamd, then it is innatural to rpivate me of its use
Thus, property rights are innatural

I pay rent becausenI am coerced by the state, as if I dont pay rent, I go to jail

The market for human organs also exist, You have two kidneys and I have a customer searcjing for two kidneys, it seems easy to connect the dots

Or rather, we understand that natural resources are not to be owned, but to be used, I wouldnt be able to make use of your kidnesy, since you are using them yourself

Lawlessness is natural, destruction is subjective, cold and hunger are not

There is no trade in trading stolen goods, no value is generated there, as only labour creates value, buying and selling commodities for profit cause inflatio

Lrn 2 economics

People do not refuse to work, people refuse to let other peopleto make use of property, we understand that work is the result of existing supply and demand natural laws, so refuseing the use of property to someone who is willing to work goes against the natural order of things

If you buy a stolen car and the cops find it they're taking it right back to its real owner. All land is stolen property to be returned to its real owner: the people. We don't need to use old systems to do this, but we do need to do it in some form.

Are you saying that people shouldn't be punished for their stupidity?

Otherwise, the person who bought the stolen car can have his money returned to him by suing in court.

Lol, but again, his ownership is of legal fiction, he owns it because the state defends property claims

I give lasses on a classroom, I live in a house and The co-operative effort of the people making use of the s hool would take care of it

Nice fallacy, I am stri tly talking about how you need all the productive forces to produce ommodities and since property rights stop memfrom making use of land amd capital, they are interfiering with natural market forces

Exactly, the state is interfiering me becaise someone else is claiming ownership over the productive forces i use, this results in chaos

Relativism isn't an argument. There are metrics we can use to measure success and literacy. Can you read a book in your mother tongue? Can you write? Can you send a letter?

So why mention your anecdote?
Well, you are working for him, so it isn't stopping you. Do you want to steal his land?

Not by anecdotes, like "well, I knew a guy who couldn't read but he was literate". That is not the definition of literacy. We have metrics to measure literacy.

Seasons? I don't know, you can turn it into some factory. Why are shops closed at night, the land isn't being used. McDonalds is 24/7, go take it up with them. We have circadian rhythms, if you've noticed.

Not seeing this logic. Elaborate.

Well, we own things now. Thousands of years ago, we owned things, and land was for everybody because the concept of companies on land or mass acres of farmland didn't come to fruition. Now, people purchase these things to use them to sell things, or to just sit on them.
We also sell water, and that is necessary. Is that against our natural compass, too? What about oxygen tanks for the disabled, that is also necessary.

So don't live in an apartment. Go buy your own plot of land and charge your own rent. Go work to buy things.

Please tell me how selling land is the equivalent of slicing somebody open to steal their organs. I don't own the land.
So does some guy halfway around the world have a claim to some land I'm sitting on now?

pot calling the kettle black.

Well, there are people who live off of welfare, so many people do literally refuse to work.
Simply because something is seen in nature and is a biological necessity does not give you a direct claim to it. That isn't how it works, otherwise I have a direct claim to some glass of water a guy is drinking halfway around the world.

You need to claim ownership of land in order to sell it

When I talk about exchnage of commodities on a market I am talking about the exchnage of labour is was input in the commodity

With private property, I cannot have markets, as I cannot input my labour on land using dead lanour/constant capital

That is because you got cooned by propietors into buying something you cannot own, he tricked you

LOL
O
L

dont you see the flag I hoist

How is ownership legal fiction? The state does not defend property claims, it defends property ownership.

Who would build the institute? Who would organise the institute so that it would function as an institute?

Once again, how would there be a market if there was not buyer and seller ownership?

What the fuck? Where is the demand for your illegal services?

Precisely because relativism isnt an argument, is it that your laim of calling someone "illiterate" holds no weight

A person who cannot read or write can be tought to do so, your point is moot

Why mention yours? Again, why do you think your anecdote of someone not knowing howmto read or write is valid?

This is slavery, property is slavery, a man should not work for nobody but himself

No, because I do not fall for property tricks, He would have to prove its his, and if he belives he can prove its his by using social contracts, then he is ought to understand that relativism isn't an argument

The way you measure illiteracy are similar to the way I measure that my boss doesnt know how to prepare and give classes, assest students or do social networking

Sure, but that still doesnt mean you own it, you are simply using the land as a base for your factory

Property is theft, thats the only logical axiom ever made
Property means you stop other from making use of the natural supply of land, the propietor is a thieve

Relativism isnt an argument, as you said, as the same argument could be made for communism, " We live in communism now!" The marxists say

Water is notnfixednto an specific location, water follows a cycle which means, whentaking water from a river itnwill eventually flow back to the ocean, evaporate and come down the mountains again, same for oxygen

Fuck you you dont tell me what to do

Why should I work when I could steal from a thieve, from the propietor, he clearly does not follow any form of moral system, why should I, my anarchist fellows understand this, which is why we had piracy, illegalism and now counter economics, if the propietor can make their own system of governance, so can I

There is a saying here "He who steals from a thieve, 100 years of forgiveness receive"

Then why do you claim property rights over it?

No, no one would claim land ownership, we understand we need it as a natural demand for it exist, we would share its usage

Welfare exist as a result of property rights, lazy people wont be able to survive without property rights

Precisely, the current proprietor system does not work

you think being a pirate is a rational set of beliefs to hold in civilized society?

You just explained it, the state defends property ownership, he who can prove that owns property, reaps the benefits of it, the state therefore would defend the claim which hold more legal weight, have you ever seen how a demand about property ownership works?

People must prove to the ourt they own it, and the state will decide who is the proprietor

Therefore it will defend the claim which holds more legal weight

Workers who want to exchange their labour and knowledge of language and how to teach it would, and they would exchange their labour formthe labour of someone else, a butcher, a baker, a clothemaker etc

I just explained it to you, we would buy and sell labour, as I wouldnt be able to separate labour time from the variable capital of a commodity, and since I exchanged my labour for it, I would be able to engage in a market exchange using it

A kidney sells for quite a high amount of money here, do you want me to introduce you to some organ dealers?

"Civilized society" calls its own violence, law, and that of the individual, crime

You think a society that defends property claims over the natural order of a man demanding usage of land to feed himself, is civilized?

Stop.

No, I am saying it is good for stolen property to be returned to its owner. Further, I am saying the all owned land is fundamentally stolen. Therefore, all land is to be returned to its owner: the people.

Any legal claim about who owns land is equally illegitimate because the original right to it is made up in the first place.

Shit nevermind i confused you with ownerfag for a second there.

Thats it my boy!!

Direct consumer feedback combined with resource and production measurements.

No i still disagree with you just I disagree with you in a different way than i disagree with ownerfag.

How the fuck do cooperatives imply high taxes? Do you know what cooperatives are?