I dont get it

Not only the 0.1% benefit under capitalism
I as top 10% or so will have a better life then if I were a part of a commune

T. edgy tankie
You're literally the reason socialism is not mainstream, because when they think of socialism or collectivisation they think of gulags and concerntration camps. So thank you edgy kid for helping my self interest

We have this thread every day comrades.

I think you missed the point. You might not think it's in your self-interest to change the system, but it is in the interests of the other 90%. If they realise that, they're gonna send you to the gulag.

Not true at all. If you took the wealth of the top 8 people on earth and put it back into the communities it cam from rather than into private hands, the public would have twice the wealth it currently does. That is the kind of funding that would bring is to sci fi utopia levels.

Twice as many schools, twice as many hospitals, no retards trying to make war economies to protect their own interests, production could be configured to public use rather than private profit.

You could walk around your streets safe, knowing the junkies had been rehabilitated in an effective and well funded program and the assorted crims never became gang members because their parents weren't all meth'd up and they got three meals a day they didn't have to steal so they could concentrate in school and blah blah blah etc

even if you are top 10%, if we expropriate the bourg, that means you would not lose out and only gain. This is the extent of wealth disparity, you think you are rich, you're fucking not, you are broke, a tramp, compared to the riches of these people

what we basically want to do is eliminate the upper and lower classes, so that everybody has a decent middle class living. What is not to like about that?

If this guy is a literal bourg (though I highly doubt it) then there's no point. We are opposed

It's I-am-5-and-what-is-economics again!

I don't get it either, OP. I'm just in it for the casual sex with lefty girls.

Don't bother, fam. This is just Holla Forums pretending to be bourg.

because we need islam to institute patriarchy in the west

well its not really, these people actually produce nothing, the essential workings of society would remain the same or improved once they were eliminated. These people are parasites, they extract half the value, while putting nothing in. What that means is, our system runs at half efficiency. 8 people on earth suck up half of our productivity for doing what exactly? Jack shit. If they died, everywhere they own could run on unchanged, you can't get round that fact. The workers would not here about it until they were told, if they weren't told, nothing would change.

armchair economist

With incoming robotization, many poorfags won't produce anything either. You will live in a house of glass.

None. Even by stirnerism you are being rational in not wanting communism. communism is a spook

you are really honestly telling me that whatever 'work' these 8 people have done, is worth the same as all the accumulated work conducted by the other 7 billion people on the planet?

Are you completely fucking retarded?

so at this stage none of us actually NEED to work, so why are we made to work? For the interests of this handful of people, for no other reason.

Except for the fact that their riches don't translate into everyone else getting twice as much stuff if it would redistributed. This is "let's print money so we can make everyone a millionaire" level of economic illiteracy.

No, but it would mean that little expansion would take place.

of course it is retarded
anything that supports status quo is a bot, or a human so enslaved that they act like a bot

Just moving the goalposts fam. The job creators aren't gods, no one needs them and their thousands of profits compared to the wages of their employees are criminal.

distributing wealth won't create an utopia either. obsession with such ideas will just make you a bigger slave to materialism.

Which doesn't lead to the conclusion that abolishing private ownership will somehow preserve it's functions in the areas of expansion, development and efficiency.

Nice strawman!
Seizing means of production is not distributing wealth!
When a laborer produces 50 units of surplus value then gets paid 5 units (20 going to upkeep of machines and so on) and the other 25 goes to "investors" there is a problem!

A few men owning everything change to the workers owning their own things does not equate to the state owning it.
It will still be private, just not conserved to the inheritors of exploitation.

The thing is, he doesn't.

If these 8 people simply are not paid, and the workers are paid instead with what they earn, nothing changes for that business. These people do nothing, they are unnecessary. Of course it wouldn't be exact, but in current terms, half the wealth is controlled by these people, so you can roughly assume they are taking half of the resources for themselves, at least if you consider cash value a good measure.

What we are suggesting, is that you eliminate this class of people, then democratically distribute the profits.

What that means in practice is that the workers can pay themselves a cut of whatever was being taken away and put the rest back into the community.

Your level of economics is literally "but the free market" ad nauseum. There has never existed a free market, ever, markets have historically sprung up around military expansion in almost every case.

All the largest 'free market' projects, such as the Dutch East India trading company, have in fact been military ventures involved in pillage.

Stirnerites are shitposters. They don't have the balls to act on their "philosophy" so they come here to derail threads.

In the example I'm giving he does.

Picture it like this, we are all trying to fill a bath with water, because we need the water to drink, 8 people are underneath the bath, siphoning off half the water. They do nothing, they just sit underneath the bath and drink the water, meanwhile the rest of society slaves to pump water into the bath, but the water carves itself a bigger hole over time and more and more water goes to the 8, doing nothing, just collecting, while the rest of humanity slaves to keep the bath full.

Well shitposting is a nihilist philosophy.
I don't know what else you expect from them.

It does de facto equate to it. It can already be said that workers own their own things when they buy shares in the company they work for, as many of them do, a similar de jure situation would exist in your communism.

What I have been repeatedly told, is that workers would not keep the profits of their labour, as they need to pay for the thousands of manga writers who can do whatever they want to do because they don't have to make a profit anymore. You can't have it both ways.

That's not how things work, there is no giant vault where Scrooge McDuck hoards all his resources which would make everyone twice as rich if they found the key to it.

Learn some basic economics.

They fancy themselves as master rhetoricians so in every thread you will find 10-20 posts "explaining" Stirner to you and crying about how you haven't read him/spooked if you disagree.

So why not read and refute if you think egotism is wrong, friendo?

Except that the corporate welfare system and the corrupt "stock exchange" have got to go.

Probably something to do with it not adding anything to any thread it's ever brought into except derailing stupid Holla Forums threads.

By not taking their surplus value at the point of a gun.

and yet you have not presented a single economic argument, you have just repeatedly said 'you don't understand economics' over and over again like that makes it true.

At no point did I say anything about a big secret vault. That is you strawmanning plain and simple.

What I did say, is that roughly half the value of the accumulated human labour, measured as money wealth, is in the hands of 8 unproductive people.

If we eliminate these people, and the relation that gave them the power to take all of this wealth, all of that labour power would be free to do what it pleased, rather than to line the pockets of these people.

That means, work is worth twice as much, as half of it isn't stolen.

Go on, say "you just don't understand economics" one more time, but could you point me to the part of this where you have actually mentioned or refereed to any economic concepts whatsoever please?

Okay then, explain how seizing 50% of the resources and giving it to the group with the remaining 50% doesn't double the second group's resources.

Any excuse to not engage with the material. Classic.

It is in your self interest to smash the state

The ego doesn't even exist, pleb. I don't waste my time reading lesser mortals' texts.

nice avoiding actual arguments OP

I mean, to be fair, a large amount of their wealth is invented value, like interest or rent, the point is, you liberate the labour force from these shackles and they have twice the time to do usefull shit, because half of their working hours are not spent paying off the pork purely for the right to exist

Do you think you can live in that bubble forever?

Because it doesn't act in your self interest?

As in future payments on interest and rent? Or wealth that they've gained from it?

I did refute it. Check again.

Technically nowhere does Stirner state that people should act in their own self-interest; just get rid of spooks.

t. unironically read Stirner

both

I've never looked at how they calculate who the wealthiest people are. I was going off of the '8 people' thing.

There you go queer, it's in our interests to rebel and increase our material conditions. Although since capitalism will always monopolize wealth into the hands of a few, I wouldn't be surprised if there comes a point in time that you stop owning land due to property value going down significantly.

Because there's such a small chance you will be at the top that attempting to preserve the power structures that steal your wealth with wage labour, take whatever is left over with taxes, and then throw you in jail for possessing a certain collection of molecules you bought with what's left over, just so that you might one day rise to control them is such a dumb idea. Under the systems of capitalism and fascism, your entire ego has to become subservient to material gain, and the human brain isn't really designed for that and that alone. We are social, and most humans have some level empathy programmed into them biologically. We like to see other people happy, because it makes us happy. Self-interest doesn't men 'fuck everyone else' like Rand thought, it means doing what you want, and many individuals LIKE other people, so watching concentration camps rise up and poor beggars on the street isn't really pleasing to the ego.

I mean, some people get off on that kind of shit, but no reason why they just can't be shot. Morality is a spook.

Maybe if that wealth was slowly added over time, but a sudden shock where people all suddenly had double the money would just be a disaster as most people would just spend it rather than invest it. If they did invest it, they would invest it selfishly.

There isn't. It's in your best interests to do all you can to perpetuate these systems and keep us down. That's why you get the gulag. Nothing personal, kid.

on a scale of 1-10 how porky are you?

Lol dumb proles

...

Obviously, and nobody (sane) expects you to join the revolution. Rather, it's the revolution's goal to change the rules so that it's in your rational self-interest not to go to gulag.

Spooks, and irrelevant. Upper class gay niggers' lives are as fine as yours.

If anyone cared about what happens on taiwanese zoetropes board, Holla Forums would kill any support for Trump at its bud.

Invoking gulags is obviously a joke, but it doesn't make the underlying implication any less true.

Globally, you're likely in the top 0.1%.

That's not true. They rip the system of the benefits, not the workpower. While the workpower may be allocated inefficiently for other reasons, including pampering them, it's not merely the fact that they own it.

Acting in one's rational self-interest doesn't mean "YOLO fuck the police!". It quite specifically does not mean "fuck the police" when the police can fuck you back.

You must have been told about fully automated luxury communism. Of course you're expected to contribute to community in regular communism, you can't just draw stick figures all day and pretend it's important and valuable (unless, of course, people actually like your stick figures, but not anyone can be the XKCD guy). Even if they let you get away with it, you'd be a pariah.

Your example is backwards. It's Scrooge McDuck's vault that would not make people twice as rich. The gold he keeps would hardly improve everyone's life.

Now if, instead of the vault, houses, schools and hospitals were built…

Meanwhile there are other 50 problems going on society. You fixed this one the but other 50 other problems went unadressed, leading to superproduction, your tire factory now works at twice efficiency but no one wants tires anymore because customer is King in the end.

Then you go bankrupt until Gorbachev comes.

Picture it like this: There is much more things than water to care about, you spend a lifetime optimizing water, one day you need other nutrients and all other people (countries) around you have much higher skills at getting them, despite not optimizing so much the water distribution process.

Now replace water with materialism.

Why can't a national interest encompass an individual's interest?
Seriously, national interest for mould, individual's for the pillars of that mould.
The trick is the procedure.

You're a fucking idiot.

Yes, people are irrational and given the choice will just keep producing things they don't need rather than switching their efforts to acquiring what they need.

Only an enlightened capitalist can direct their effort (for the low price of 99.9% of society's wealth). On their own, they're like mindless sheep, like golems carrying water until it floods the whole house because nobody is there to tell them to stop.

Or I could have just phrased it like this, really:

Explain to me why USSR colapsed in 89-90s, North Korea is insane country and Venezuela crashed now.

"Idiot" is codeword for "I have nothing to say other than act butthurt I lost".

Hah two butthurt lefties. No wonder you guys keep losing, anyone who minimally read marx and challenges you guys you barelly put up a fight, and resort to normalfag insults instead.

Bretty spoopy, mate

Not him but you keep posting idiotic things.

If you're so ignorant about socialism that you think that's a valid argument, you haven't read a wikipedia page, let alone Marx.

Communism is in your self interest even if you are literally the richest man in the world.
Being consumed by the profit motive is not a free life.

Yep, it's the sound of butthurt

Flair related

It's like you joined imageboards today

You've clearly never read Marx though, you're just stomping around acting like you do otherwise you wouldn't sound like every retardo that marchos through. The only gimmick you're mixing up this banal trolling with is "heh ive read marks"

It's like you've never read carl marks.

Kill me.

Look, playing around with the idea of "Ego" does not work in Imageboards. You cannot know for sure how much I've spent reading Marx, Engels and Lenin or not simply because in Imageboards there is no Ego and Special Snowflake feelings no longer apply.

Now lurk moar.

Why do people think capitalism is in their self interest?

There's no person on earth who can defeat an argument as strong as this. Congratulations!

I think you mean to ask why it collapsed between late 60s and 89, because everything past the neolib reforms is nobody's but neolibs' fault.

Either way, in both cases it collapsed because its economy was in the hands of a few senile upper-class idiots.

Lrn2grammer

The fuck? It's been part of imageboard culture to call others butthurt.
Can't handle minimal banter? How will you handle angry prolet later? Some muscly mineworker will beat your "intellectual" ass.

So you blame Krushchov, Brehznev, Andropov and Gorbachev?

I was replying to myself.

t. unironic venezuelaposting man who thinks calling people butthurt is epic oldfaggotry.
You sound like someone that only started using sites other than facebook in 2013.

Whatever, average chan user never liked facebook. Coming here is useful to see what Stalin was thinking when he aproved of the Great Purges.

Probably should have thought about that…

Khrushchev is debatable, but the latter three, certainly.

Your problem is you are reduced to nothing but "banter". And I was serious, it's impossible to "defeat" someone who came for a pissing contest.

Imageboards by definition and culture are breeding ground for banter. If this minimal banter for kids is enough to trigger you, you will have a sorry ass the day you enter a tavern full of drunk muscly proles who don't like weak men.

Fine.
Global interest.

That includes other national interests if groups of people want that.
Anything goes.

It's called a bar, nerd

Nobody fucking cares.

You're a carbon copy clone of every other mouth breather that has infested chans since 2008. We don't care what you think.

you really hate your own ideology, don't you?

Good luck at convincing Chad to share the means of reproduction

You mean

It's perfectly clear at this point that you are no expert on his ideology. Any ideology for that matter.

Part of stirner's argument is that when we act ideologically or morally we're actually acting in self interest anyway. It makes us feel good to do good things.

However, I don't think stirner considered how authenticity factors in, just deciding that actually bad thing is good isn't going to magically make you not feel like an asshole for doing it, you have to actually b CONVINCED it's good and then you're trading one spook for another and acting on it even when the new spook is outside your self interest.

Capitalist crisis is inevitable. Even people with a relatively large amount of wealth can be caught unprepared by them and be forced into poverty.

Well that's why capitalism continues to exist. The powerful perpetuate it on the backs of the workers.

>>>/reddit/

There you go; we don't want to steal your toothbrush because you're > le straight white male, but because

So if you're really going to have your ideology/viewpoint and moral compass be shaped like this because of your class, don't be surprised that the proletariat give a Jacobin-tier approach with handling the Bourgeoisie, if a revolution happens, that is