Hi /leftpol/. Why is private ownership of capital bad?

What's that?

We have this thread every week, comrades.

I did not enslave anyone. They showed up and willingly, enthusiastically applied. I am not a slave owner.

...

relevant

so peaceful wow

My life was not hard. Exploit implies they unwillingly entered into this. They willingly and enthusiastically applied.

also keep in mind this is a logarithmic scale, if anything it shows that the period before the emergence of capitalism (pre 16th century) was relatively peaceful

Take that stupid shit to /lolbertypol/. Maybe they'll believe you. Or care.

What other choice do they have? If they have kids then they are also poor and in debt, just like you started out. Why does this cycle need to continue?

Do you know what thing they *actually* want to do instead of bartend?

What is there to disbelieve?

it's not bad in itself, it creates an entire system that is bad, which many here can elaborate on, in depth
Well, it can be considered bad. You only "own" private property in that you murder or threaten to harm anyone who interacts with it in a way you don't want, hardly "voluntary"
if there is a finite amount of land and A owns some land and B owns some land, it follows that C has no right to live

Literally all of the same choices I had. They chose differently.

Some have children, some do not. Some with children are quite well off, some without children are not. There is no standard to their situations.

What cycle? There has been no "life" standard in my team.

I did not sit them on the couch and probe them. However, as adults, they clearly have decided that this currently is what they would like to do to generate revenue for themselves.

Because 8 people own half the world.
The problem is, people can't wrap their mind around the actual wealth distribution world wide, because of how absurd and lopsided it is.
People think, they are in the solid centre of it, and that any socialist endeavour will take their money away.

The truth is, you are in the 5% bracket and a successful revolution will GAIN you wealth.

> They showed up and willingly, enthusiastically applied.

This is what "job creators" actually believe.

I opened a bar after a lot of hard work. I understand your perspective, but understand mine - after a lifetime of accumulating wealth to invest it in a venture, in your proposal, people will show up who did not make that investment to take it from me.

That is not equitable.

If nobody has to work, then how does anything get done?

or you're ignoring what else their doing in their life, like highschool or college like you in your example

I'm talking about your example in the OP.

This show glaringly how people in positions of capital (ie porkys) have no idea how to actually be human. Their skills, labor, and hours logged are not the only things to a person.

Quite enthusiastically, actually. In fact the market here for hospitality is utterly brutal. Quality talent can pick where they would like to work, and I have to create accommodating compensation, schedules, and benefits to attract talent.

No one was forced, and those that chose to accept employment weighed what I offered against significant options.

Co-ops will break the cycle, fam.

My point remains.

Redistributing the wealth will GAIN your money.
We are not after your money, we are after porkys money. 10% owns 80%.

Don't pretend commies don't enjoy pubs. WE are talking about people who park their money at Caymans and so on. Who own 12 yachts and 50 cars.

Different points in life.

What point.

My life is not an example.

I'm not human for opening a bar?

I'm not following you. Who is taking my wealth, who is it being redistributed to, and why will that gain my wealth?

I'm honestly not intentionally creating a hostile conversation here. I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint.

You didn't build the bar
You didn't grow the grains for the liquor
You didn't make the glasses
or the chairs
or transport the bottles
Or any of the million other things that go into an operational bar. I'm even willing to bet you didn't even train your employees. You performed a bunch of unrelated labor for some other fucker or fuckers until you go enough good boy points and were allowed to open a bar

So what exactly have you done that entitles you to all this work other people have done and are doing? Why the fuck do any of them need you?

Then tell me of a more peaceful, wealthier time. Also tell me when violence was lesser than it is now, if you look at the murder rates of european cities in the 1500's and before, they're higher than chicago.

yeah above average labor power gets decent pay
but the average person will ALWAYS have average labor power and get paid just enough to not starve (or starve slowly)
The majority of Humans are and will remain locked in a perpetual cycle of poverty and misery, and will generate continue generate social ills
even if everyone had a college degree and extensive job training, poverty will remain
This is why capitalism is evil

It's not the stone age. We exchange currency for services and goods. I had currency. They willingly agreed to an exchange. Does that make me a criminal?

They absolutely do not and I would agree with this point all day. The market here is brutal, and I did a lot to attract talent. It was difficult, but I managed to attract people who were enthusiastic to be here on the terms provided.

Again, it is not the stone age. Currency exists that is traded for goods and services. I traded accumulated currency for this location and the assets within.

see

I can agree with that point completely. There is absolutely and without a doubt a pool of labor who is untalented, below a pool of labor more talented and driven than they are within this particular industry.

I utterly cannot dispute that reality, and I certainly employ from a more talented pool due to the current market conditions.

Personally I would advise that less talented pool to pursue other ventures, but I do not understand why that makes my current endeavor inherently evil.

also wealth is an abstract concept and to compare the capital of a capitalist society with that of a pre-capitalist society is literally retarded

The system has taken your wealth. Your tax dollars will mostly be spent fueling large corporate enterprises headed by porkies. They have created a system where you had to have been a diligent wage slave to them to gain any real sort of capital, invest the little money you had to lease property that a porky had probably inherited in the first place. Basically you had to fight through the system to achieve any sort of financial stability meanwhile porkies had the system rigged for them in the first place. If you realize the amount of time and sweat, basically the amount of life you wasted to achieve something that had there been a more equitable distribution of wealth, you wouldn't have to worry about, you would despise porkies as well.

See this picture
That red pillar has to get smaller.
Notice how in the ideal distribution everything except red get's bigger?

I hope one of your employees slashes your throat with a broken beer bottle and leaves you to bleed out as your stupid bar burns down on top of you.

Accumulating wealth earned by hard work entitles me to be murdered?

I got it. You don't comprehend context, like , at all. Understood.

If I apply my new knowledge to the capitalist system at large then it all makes sense. The radical left's next steps have all been laid bare at my feet.

We need to kill and eat the rich.

Actual murder, yes that is down. Structural violence? As high as it gets because of Capitalism. The poor don't have the basic needs to survive because of porky and the state is effectively killing them by shortening their life expectancy.

this post was meant for you

Yes. It's really the only thing you deserve you piece of shit. No work you might have done in any way entitles you to the product of others labor.

Do the entire world a favor and kill yourself. Save a prole some work for once in your worthless life.

So is the premise that I should not have had to work hard for things to begin with? I'm just trying to understand here.

Damn, that's some spooky ass shit nigga.

The real problem is the system is prone to failure, is full of contradictions, and is exploitative.

If your OP, I have some webms for you. Also, no you shouldn't be murdered because all it does is stifle revolution and fuels reactionism further.

Because it is the next stage in human development after feudalism and outright imperialist empires of the 1800's. which were all better than the systems before them.

Since this couldn't fit with the others.

For basic survival necessities no. You then have the freedom to "work hard" towards whatever endeavor you so choose.

I understand the theory behind theoretical macro systems described in those webms. Why is what I am doing, though, specifically detrimental?

Is it not what I am doing, but the macro system as a whole that is repugnant?

Who provides those? If they receive no market compensation, as is the case currently, should they be driven as slaves? Or is it assumed they would provide voluntary labor and capital?

The premise is that one person should not have to break their back to keep a roof over their head and food in their fridge. That one person's luxury should not be acquired by robbing another of their necessities. That workers are entitled to the full product of their labour. That an economy driven by what people need and desire should override what happens to be profitable.

OK, I'm down. If we remove everything and start from the beginning, as civilization does not "start" over night, and assume a very "Thoreau" sort of existence, wouldn't you still need to break your back, on your own, to create crops and shelter?

Why does that change when more than one person is involved? More than a few hundred? People produce the same units of work, but they trade them for what they need. Is that really a dramatic departure?

It doesn't matter. Maybe you're a nice guy, but you're still propagating the system.
Leftism is concerned with class relations, not with individuals.

But why would you start over again? It's almost as if you are proposing that everything capital has built for us will melt into air as soon as we stop believing in the right of exclusion. I'd just as soon not recapitulate Western civilization when once was quite enough, thanks.

I provided opportunity. They accepted. What is inherently incorrect with that transaction?

There is individualist leftism though…

Ultimately, people may always have to to break the proverbial back, but it should be people who do it for themselves, not the many for the few. Also, if you could subsistence farm, you can basically live by yourself theoretically. that is very anarchist.

You're taking a share of their labor because you own the bar, your ownership of the bar is a spook.

I will add that personally I think this problem comes from people being willing to work for someone without demanding a fair share of the profits and some say in the management of their workplace.

But if they wanted that, they could follow the same path and open their own bar, could they not?

Why should I, after this period of the labor and years I will never get back that I have invested, give direction of my enterprise to someone who literally owns no part of anything I have done?

Class relations.

Because I'm literally not going to work for you otherwise.

Go on.

You don't have to, and that's a great thing. No one was forced to work for me.

That sounds a little dumb, since materially speaking people cant all make bars.

You should talk to your former boss about that.

Property owning class exploits proles.
Fucking bourgies going against wall.
Reeeee!

And nobody is going to if you don't offer them what I asked for. Enjoy ur one man bar.

Why?

Why? He is not involved with this effort, nor has he any involvement at this juncture with anything I accumulated while employed by the enterprise we mutually involved ourselves with.

Why? They intentionally decided to be employed here, abstaining from many other options. Why is that exploitative? They had ample choice within and outside this industry, and in fact a few had no obligation to work whatsoever.

Literally none of them asked for directorship of my enterprise or possession of any of the capital within, though I have managed to staff all positions.

Coercion and shit's inherent in the system, read a book, nigga.

They're classcucks, like you. See the Stirner image.

Anyone who has more stuff than me deserves to be raped.

I kind of explained it already. Although I should change it to 'open' instead of make.

Except for the exploitation you had before hand, as in getting just a wage while he or she made the majority of the profit. You didn't seem to watch the webms I posted.

Rape is wrong. We limit our resentment to firing squads.

Are you completely unaware of how profit is actually used? What exactly is exploitation to you? Because it seems like an extremely arbitrary thing, definitely not worth hanging anybody over.

I do not feel exploited. I showed up with nothing. I worked. I received things. That seems equitable.

No one coerced them to be employed here. They had options. Is that relevant?

See first webm:

== CLASS RELATIONS NIGGA == it isn't about people choosing to work in your bar rather for some other petty bourg. It's about people being forced to work for capitalists.

Your bar is fucking inconsequential. Small scale owner occupier private property will remain private during the first stages of the revolution. Are you happy?

Doesn't explain anything. Give me the objective value of someone flipping a burger. Without profit there is no progress, no research into new technology to make things more efficient, no new stores, more jobs, etc.

I watched it. It explains nothing about why they willingly and freely chose to work here.

As opposed to people being forced to work in the gulag.

So am I hearing that at the most basic level of capital investiture and proliferation, we're not actually creating a problem?

People want to eat burgers after they've been flipped. What's the objective value of some guy holding a piece of paper saying he owns the restaurant?

They need to eat and so on.

You win. Leftism is over.

Your inspiration story doesn't change the reality that income inequality means less social mobility. Look at how the system functions as an aggregate instead of falling for sob stories.

There actually is a whole video on it by the same dude:

youtube.com/watch?v=B7G4WIa-HAk

youtube.com/watch?v=hJikG-p_nho

The institution is a problem.
Your bar is a single, tiny instance of it. if the Cheka doesn't find records of this pro-capitalist posting you'll get maybe three or four decades in the gulag. No problem.

Because dummy, In communism EVERYONE works hard. Every job has the same level of stress, the same requirements, and should be compensated the same. You just don't get it, because you never went to college. The scientists work just as hard as the burger flippers, in fact they switch jobs when they get bored, and everyone is equal!

...

...

No, they work or die. Their lives are now yours while they work for you.

wo w why didnt marx tel me this

Quite inaccurate. At least one of them had no requirement to work. The others had other options. There is nothing inextricably linking them to my employment.

They work for anyone or die.

Options to work for someone else, to sell their labor power for less than it is worth.

Actually one of them had no requirement to work. And what does any of the others who did want to work have to do with what I'm doing?

Everyone is a lazy loser piece of shit and the system can absolutely sustain nothing but individual business owners and does not require proles to do the actual work so it doesn't need to actively suppress social mobility.

Because you wouldnt have had to break your back your entire life in order to be able to eat in the first place

Automation, communal work etc. Keep in mind, there is still division of labor but you do have the freedom to choose other career paths. Just far less hours and better conditions will be applied to labor class because porkies are no longer there to hog up most of wealth.

You are further perpetuating the system. Odds are they will not earn a living wage under you unless you want to be non-competitive with other businesses. You still have to interact with the real bourgeoisie and will have to pay out the ass in overhead and probably will have to absorb a ton of net losses before your business becomes profitable. So you HAVE to pay your employees garbage to stay afloat even if you yourself are not taking much home.

A laborer has to sell their labor for less than it is worth to find a job (this includes people who are educated professionals) and they must find a job or die. It's not voluntary, they have to pay a bank or someone else who "owns" "their" home. We have to pay fees in order to live although nobody asked to be born.

It's not a big deal if you just work by yourself

Because we had a shitton of technological innovations during the 1800s that had more to do with the spread of information than anything else

You mean how just a handful of people own 1/3 of the worlds wealth combined?
You mean the wars that are not going in in the Middle East or western countries fucking up poorer countries to the point of piracy, just one example, piracy in Somalia literally exists because nations kept dumping crap number their coasts
The tech of ignoring space travel and research because it isn't profitable and halting scientific progress to 5% so you can sell an iPad with a different number every year??

Sorry but capitalism has done nothing good, all these "advancements" would have come sooner or later, sooner under communism

It was bad in 19th century England. Communists now have a hard time moving on.