Btfo

You know this cycle of finding the guy who has capital goes all the way back to the first asshole who ever picked up a rock and forced his fellow man to work for him on pain of death right?

Capital accumulation does not take place naturally for N individual unless it is coerced. Not to mention you fundamentally misunderstand that these people are having the I surplus labor value exploited by the capitalists at every stage of this process.

It comes from his savings. Maybe he worked a job for fifty years, rose through the ranks and got paid higher and higer salaries, eventually saving enough to invest on his own. Or he inherited the money, from somebody who once did that.

Also, you fucking retard, they are not talking about HIS workers they are talking about workers as a class.

You mean it comes from his… labor.

...

Yeah but mane who whould DO stuff if they don't get paid I mean everyone is lazy I'm totally not projecting

Kid, almost all companies are funded by loans. That's what's they're going to teach you when daddy sends you to a private university to study business administration.

Oh great he saved up enough money to exploit everyone around him… Yay?

News flash no one can save up enough money through honest labor to build a fucking INDUSTRIAL FACILITY!!

Maybe a sandwich shop at best. The only way you acquire that much money is exploiting the financial system to get money you didn't earn or some other nefarious means. No o e in the history of the planet has ever """"""""""earned""""""""" a billion dollars.

muh entrepreneurship

Sargon without makeup.

No, it goes back to the first guy who realized that rather than just freely share whatever food he hunted/gathered or whatever shit he made with the rest of the tribe/clan/whatever, he could demand some service in return.

Why would that guy have any control over workers that aren't his?

The lender is a capitalist dumb dumb. If the founder of a company doesn't invest any of his own money he's just an employee too.

Okay you start with a sandwich shop. When the sandwich shop is essential, you make another sandwich shop. Now you're the owner of a sandwich chain.

And what if your demands weren't enough anymore and nobody worked for you? You can't run two sandwich shops by yourself, much less a chain.

Do you realize what you're saying?

If you can't successfully run a sandwich shop, you're not a very good sandwich shop owner. Of course you won't be able to open a second one.

Slavery was totes never a thing in antiquity guide.

Its a commentary on class relations. All workers are exploited by the capitalists class.

Yeah and then you hire workers to run the shops for you and pay them a tiny fraction of the profits that those stores actually generate and you sit on your fat porky ads all day and rake in a vast majority of the profits because some spooky piece of paper says its yours even though at this point you do jack fucking shit to contribute to the actual running of the business.

He is saying what if the workers get tired of you profiting off of their labor.

What are they gonna do about it?

I for one feel blown and fucked out as they say.

this

I said it in my post: stop working for you. Can you run an entire sandwich chain by yourself? Are you the fucking Flash?

Okay. They can do that. I'll hire different workers who don't want to starve.

Strike.

Preferably though they just string you up by a light pole and suede the sandwich shop for themselves.

But on the real though petti bourgious business owners are kinda forced to adopt this exploitative model because if the didn't they would not be able to compete with the other ruthlessly efficient capitalist enterprises that exist around him and our number him in capital and manpower. They deserve the rope far less than actual captains of industry.

what if they kill you and run the place by themselves, there surely are some people who'd like to do your "managing" job earning way less. no one wll miss you.

Classcucks btfo eternally.

Scabs get their heads busted. And you have to hire scabs at inflated wages so you lose profits. Also these people are striking outside the establishment and preventing customers and workers from entering easily.

Also think about what you just said for a minute. You unironically suggested that people should willingly subject themselves to exploitation and be grateful for it or they should DIE!!!

That's evil if I ever saw it. Look in the mirror you sicko.

Claim the sandwich shops for themselves.

What validates the ownership of the things you bought? There is no such thing as ownership, it is merely a human concept. Only two things assure ownership, common agrrement or power. As of right now the state grants ownership as a right because it hold most of the power, police, army, jails and all the good stuff. but still the state's authority is still validated by common agreement. If workers some day decide that they are doing most of the work and take over conrol of the companies there will bw no magic morals to save you. During the middle ages the nobility owned the land and the tools used to revolt against them.

And where do you think capital comes from, idiot?
LABOR

Ancaps are the modern day defenders of monarchy and aristocracy. Really makes you think.

You mean steal my property? That's a violation of natural law. Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.

Of course workers can strike if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. If they're right, and there's no gov interference, they'll get paid more. If they're not, they'll lose their jobs. Sound familiar?

Ownership is inherent in nature.

OP stopped replying.

Officially btfo.

Communism wins again.

I assume you're talking about me, and I'm not OP.

As long as a capitalist is making a profit, that's never gonna happen.

This just in, foxes collect rent on all the shit they pee on.

None of those are arguments

BTW what do the red flags mean?

Yes steal your property and literally murder you if you won't let it go. If a man was stealing 9/10the of what I produce everyday and telling me to be happy with it I would kill him. Wouldn't you?

What do you mean peasant? You want rights over the land and your property?!?! Don't you know that is theft? I have controls over the maner because of divine right!!

And the arbiter of the fairness of the strike is the very person who is already paying them shit wages. That is like getting a slave owner to determine if he is treating his slaves properly.

No it isn't, natural law is the anal version of divine right, moving on.

Ancap not anal god damn it

...

t. user with zero reading comprehension

Your conception of "property" is based off the indefinite entitlement to something that was once owned by everyone, which cannot be maintained in a stateless society.

Go back to making shitty vlogs meme man

I'm not ancap. The state exists to enforce natural law. Any state that breaks natural law is tyranny and any that fails to enforce it is too. Well, there's really no difference. This has been true since the Greek times.

Also property is inherent in nature. There is no animal that won't protect their body, their children, their shelter, their land.

Private property is not inherent in nature.

none of which are private property

Honestly I kinda want the anal revolution to happen because all of the workers would just immediately revolt and create a socialist collective almost immediately.

I don't even care anymore its too good.

Workers
Workers
Workers.

Yes, that is his """job""". Which, in material terms, is nothing more than shuffling paper around.

No. The workers are going to be the first to feel any negative effects from a downturn in the business, long before the capitalist loses a single penny out of his own wallet. And, these days, most executives have "golden parachutes", where they get big severance packages should they need to step down or the business turns south.

They risk nothing.

Natural law=whatever I like at the time

Of course it is. If you claim land before someone else does, it's yours. It doesn't matter if you're currently using it.

can you elaborate on this natural law of yours
if it is based on "human nature", you're just making things up
de-spook yourself, then come back

I claim everything in the universe that someone else hasn't claimed.

Of course it can't, that's why anarchy is tyranny.

No natural is very clear and indisputable, hence the natural part. It's just the base axioms of human behavior

Lefists make a distinction between the house you live in, your toothbrush, dildo and video games (personal property) versus houses you """"own"""" to rent out to suckers or a factory that you fill with slaves that totally aren't because you pay them although their entire existance is in your hooves (private property).

Someone forgot to tell all those people in the middle east that they are actually stealing Babilonian and Assyrian property.

No it isn't. Its something people in the 19th venture invented to justify theft.

There are a few things wrong with this:

this is advanced autism

WEW

W E W
E
W

The logic of a thief.

Then if there is an afterlife I will be laughing at them from it when they all starve to death or all have to scrape a living through subsistence (or just give up and go back to capitalism).

by your logic, absolute monarchy is not a tyranny.

Natural law is observable via the scientific method

And you can't claim shit you can't even reach.

then all states are tyranny

Nope, as long as it protects natural law it's not.

Again This has been true since the Greeks, read antigone

You agree with me, but then continue on about how there is a natural law that justifies private property. You contradict yourself.

Where do I go to appeal these laws? The Natural Court?

...

top kek

Taxation is determined via the free market because the people will revolt if it's not worth the government's services.

And no, that's not violence/violation of natural law/the creation of a tyranny because it's self defense, as the state would be committing violence as its stealing

You have already admitted that private property is not validated by a natural law, because you agree that the state is essential to maintain it.

If you got it from extracting the surplus labor value from your workers then yes it is ill gotten wealth

All the actual running of the business is done by middle management. And what little the CEO's and their ilk do could be delighted to an elected body of worker representatives.

I mean yeah there are a lot of different options you can go with.

...

That's not a contradiction

So is the state also a part of "natural law"?

What is "just" under capitalism is not to us. All profits are made from the surplus of value of labor and the manipulation of money to generate wealth is useless. Workers do have the skill to run the factory on their own, you are thinking we would have no managers. The factory owner hires slaves to run the factory too not just the other flesh cogs that just run the machines.

Social mobility is more more less a myth, those who have gone from the oppressed class to the slaver class have been mostly through luck, they were not necesarily way more talented or smarter or harder working than other proles.

The state enforces natural law

Things that are natural need not be enforced. It is in fact impossible to be unnatural.

If its natural then why does the state need to enforce it? Notice how the state doesn't enforce gravity.

…so workers
…where they were made by factory workers
…mined by workers
by workers at the refinery

Holy fuck you're retarded

If ownership is such a meme, then why are commies so desperate to achieve ownership of what isn't theirs. It's really just a shitty excuse to larp

Yes it is. Natural law can exist without the state. We see that people have owned personal items and that murder is avoided in pre-state societies. We do not see any evidence of indefinite ownership of unused or unoccupied land.

Your whole argument relies on a magical natural law, please elaborate on this natural law. How do we find out things about it empirically, and how on earth can it claim to be normative, in light of the very well-known is-ought problem.

Why not? The capitalist can own all kinds of stuff he won't reach, all by the magical string of ownership.

It's still law, meaning people can break it. It's just the base axioms we start with

Private ownership is a meme.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

The state exists to manage class antagonisms. Part of that antagonisms is not your so-called natural law (which they conditioned you to believe that capitalism is a force of nature like gravity) it is property rights, the ability to own, extract surplus value of absentee ownership it is an entitlement that they guarantee by force that you receive without contributing to it in any menaningful way, via labor for instance.

If "natural law" is natural, why does it need to be enforced?

Though, as the other user said, nothing is "unnatural". Nature doesn't exist. Or, more precisely, everything is a part of nature, the "nature" that somehow exists outside of the world of humanity and mandates laws and ideology like some kind of secular deity does exist.

*doesn't exist

Yeah I guess if you can just make up whatever meanings on your own then that totally makes sense

...

Two many replies to quote.

Natural law is a set of axioms. Like the peano axioms for numbers. Look up piano axioms and think of how the same thing would apply to human nature

top kek

Calling something an axiom does not shield it from scrutiny and rejection. Furthermore this is irrelevant because you said that we can deduce natural law by scientific observation, and I pointed out in that private property does not exist within natural law.

I would image there would be a lot of engineers that would love to build solar arrays in outer space or design cars that don't require lithium or petroleum. They can't because it isn't immediately profitable to oil and auto porky. Scientists who get grants are the most "productive" they produce results using shoddy science that makes porky feel good. Often they are not studying what they want precisely because of capital.
So much for the incentive for innovation by capital. All it does is provide an incentive to generate profit, greed, not what is needed. Why should we continue to have a system that serves only sociopaths?

...

Someone has to run the show. You're just mad it isn't you. If you want wealth at all, then it is necessary for someone to manage it. There is not communism, because the workers will gradually evolve into the new elites themselves. But, oh, I'm sorry, human nature is a meme, right? I'm sure the workers will prove incorruptible comrade!

And it has to be one person at the top of the pyramid, right?
Go blow your god emperor and pat your back, just don't expect the rest of us to want to choke on cock too.

...

The whole point is to create a system where exploitation is eliminated via electing immediately recalable council representatives, workers councils, direct democracy etc.

You're wrong. There is no subjective law that suddenly becomes unbendable. Reality only follows itself, not what we dictate. The argument is not over subjective law and objective law, but over what constitutes objective law.

Private ownership, a form of ownership in which one is entitled to something that he is neither using, nor occupying, but for the sole purpose of denying it to others to charge rent, is something that has not existed before the state and is entirely a legal fiction.
It is also a positive right, an entitlement, because it allows one to claim property owned by everyone for himself, doing so without the consent of every individual, and crucially supported by state force.

...

You dumb fucks either don't want someone in charge (>>1437288), or you do (>>1437290 ); simple as that. It's either anarchy (which is self explanatory as to why that's a bad idea), or somebody/something in charge that will gradually revert to pseudo capitalism as they realise that capitalism is the most efficient system (making themselves the new elites).

...

...

If you don't think ownership is something that should exist, then why is it imperative that the workers own the factory in the first place? If it is a meme, then what is the point of the factory? Maybe communists should carry this to its logical conclusion and stop owning their bodies.

He didn't say all ownership doesn't exist. Are you blind or just disingenuous?

...

...

First of all, this board is a big tent between libertarian socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and Leninists. We have our own disagreements. Some want state socialism (Leninists), some want stateless socialism (anarchists), and some want socialism with a very small government (libertarians).
Second of all, we actually adhere to the principle espoused by many conservatives (but never applied by them), that those who work are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that one is not entitled to any amount of wealth he did not himself work for.

Ownership should absolutely exist. And the people who should own the factory should be those who are occupying it and using it (the workers), not those who are not laboring on it (the capitalists).

Except the axioms are correct. If you guys read books instead of just posting funny stirner maymays you would know that too.

the flaw in your argument is that natural cant exist without the state. Well, it exists, people just won't follow it.

What exactly makes natural law "natural" if people wouldn't follow it without the state?

I'll tell you what, I can't even think of a single reason why anarchy is a preferable system to anything besides just immediately destroying the human race, so you provide me with a reason and I'll shoot it down for you. If I have to educate you, than that's fine, we can take this at baby steps.

But that's contrary to the definition of "natural" you imbecile.

Anarchy is not the same thing as anarchism. Anarchists are not against rules, but rulers.

...

I'm not an anarchist, my dude. But saying that it's "self-explanatory" why anarchy is a bad idea is new levels of non-argument.

Besides, you idea of "anarchy" is any situation where there is some hierarchical absolute leader ordained by the will of God "Nature".

In which case I might be an "anarchist" in the sense that I am a socialist.

And hierarchy, I should add.

*where there isn't

...

And the picture itself doesn't apply to the construction company because?

...

objective morality

This isn't a time for oxymorons, my friend.

You realize that by definition axioms can be whatever the fuck you want them to be, even (especially) in math, right?

You said earlier that we can deduce natural law empirically. This means that we can look at humans in a stateless environment and see which laws they behave according to. What we find in a nonzero amount of cases:
- respect for human life and punishment of murderers
- (some) respect for women and punishment of rape
- respect for property rights in the form of personal possessions, a house, a farm, anything that an individual is occupying and working on

We do not find in such an environment any instances of people owning things they are not using or occupying for the purpose of rent (landlords, factory owners, banks, real estate, etc) or things like ownership of ideas (intellectual property). Therefore, by empirical methods, we conclude that there is a set of natural rights, but private property does not belong to that set.

No, an axiom is something self-evident

Wrong. An axiom is an initial point from which all reasoning follows.

That's not what I meant. Forget the scientific method part, I take that back

Yes, but unless they're self-evident, they're wrong. You can't just make them up

You can have wrong axioms, but reasoning that is valid (but not sound).

Yes, and look at all the wonderful achievements of both anarchy and anarchism. All none of them. Any society without a hierarchy will develop one, that is the historical imperative.

I don't know what you mean.

You mean like axioms that are consistent with itself but not nature? Cause that's what Marxism is.

...

Anarchism as a process of individuals acquiring more power has worked well for societies like Catalonia and Rojava. It is not without its flaws, though.
Sure, but we shouldn't aim for the most autocratic, least meritocratic distribution of power and resources.

Yes. You can have an argument whose conclusion follows from the premises (if they were true), but the premises are false.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the truthfulness of the premises of Marxism, partly because I'm not even a Marxist, partly because there are Marxists more qualified to address this topic, and mainly because it's not very relevant to the question of ownership (Marxism isn't the only philosophy that has the answer to this question).

There is a real distinction between personal ownership and private ownership.

No, it's not.

Have you ever taken a single higher level math or philosophy course?

Here's a math axiom for you.

"There are no parallel lines"

When you make this axiom, you have gone and defined different sets of rules for how your math is going to work than if you work in normal Euclidean geometry.

You don't derive axioms from nature, you define the axioms to determine how you're working.

youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88?t=12m29s

It's about infinity, not axioms in general, but he explains it.

That's not an axiom. THat would be a postulate.

They're the same thing.

math.stackexchange.com/questions/258346/what-is-the-difference-between-an-axiom-and-a-postulate
down vote
accepted

The terms "postulates" and "axioms" can be used interchangeably: just different words referring to the basic assumptions - the "building blocks" taken as given (assumptions about what we take to be true), which together with primitive definitions, form the foundation upon which theorems are proven and theories are built.

Self-evident as fuck, as is clear from the fact that nobody agrees with you.
Also, answer , especially

It's clear that you don't think anarchism is a good system, so it's ridiculous why you should argue for it. If you think that we should be more meritocratic, than you may have an argument. Burning everything down (anarchy) or gutting the leadership (anarchism) is not a system, it is a symbol to weakness and failure.

I thought a postulate was something derived from axioms. Like Euclid's five postulates. I guess I was wrong but either way "There are no parallel lines" is not an axiom because it can be proven/unproven, right?

Oh, is there? You mean that one is something arbitrarily put in place by the system, while the other is something we arbitrarily say to convince ourselves that we hold any meaning.

"There are no parallel lines" is part of the definition of spherical geometry. You can't prove or disprove it because the axiom isn't a statement about what happens in your system, it is the starting definition of your system. What you find about that system afterward are the theories.

Except the first four can be proven? So that means the last one can be proven, right, just that no one has?

Nice natural law bud.

The fifth one can not be proven for the fact that it is what sets up euclidean geometry as opposed to something like hyperbolic geometry. If you tried to go and prove the fifth postulate, you would just be proving that you are working in euclidean geometry.

The other four aren't even "proven" as axioms. They're "proven" in so far as they can be derived as theorems, but stated as axioms they don't get proven.

I am not an anarchist. I am mainly a libertarian socialist. I believe in the classical liberal idea of upholding the rights of the individual against institutions. I recognize that groups are necessary to defend the individual against other groups. No individual can effectively take on a foreign army, or a corporation, or a government, so collectivist institutions (armies, unions, citizenry) are necessary insofar as they exist to defend the rights of the individual. Where collectivism goes wrong is when it exists only for itself, in the case of a bureaucracy, a central planner, a corporation, a corrupt union, and so on.
I also believe that people are only entitled to what they personally labor for, and that since all land was once unowned, it should be relinquished once it becomes unused again.
Capitalism and Leninism are similar in that they are very anti-individual. Ironically capitalists, who criticize the Soviet Union and other Leninist states for central planning and authoritarianism, are all too eager to defend the same things that happen under capitalism (central planning in corporations, massive hierarchy, state interference to protect capitalists, propaganda by corporations, subjugation of the individual under a dictatorship, and so on).

Personal property: Your personal belongings
Private property: Ownership of means of production

We can call it "bourgeois property" if you like. That's what we're talking about.

We don't own anything but what we say we do. Private or personal. Without order to orchestrate society, and hierarchy to achieve continuity, without objectivity (or at least a simulation of it); we are weak and subjective, our pretence to power flapping in the wind (from the left and the right). Everything is meaningless without order, including your own labor and capital.

I'm loving the 18th century bullshit you're spouting.

I wonder when you're going to realize that it doesn't make any sense and is largely arbitrary.

No one's arguing against order or organization, you're failing to understand that there isn't one prescribed way to order society.

Considering that lefypol is full of anarcho-memers, and that the basis of this thread that is being defended is an owner (who maintains order) being forcibly replaced by his workers (disorder), that's not even close to being correct. Besides that, the rest of your post is

This level of ideology shouldn't be possible

Please tell me you're not serious

Aren't you the same guy autistically screeching about "natural laws" up and down this thread? So which is it, do natural laws and rules exist or are they all only maintained through enforcement?

lol nope

>but it's okay because if you're good at exploiting people and have a fuckton of luck, you can become rich and fuck some bitches then kill yourself (or continue your miserable life) :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Hey look, a liberal hiding behind anonymity when his retarded position becomes untenable!

...

What's next, gonna call me a shill? A kike perhaps? wew horseshoe theory

Yup, it's the retarded liberal.

Nothing unexcepted tbh. Btw do you know that 2/3 of the people on Earth who are starving live in Asia?

i'm gonna just blame on the "communists" (because everyone knows that liberalism = communism)

yep, my position is untenable, which is exactly why you ignored all of my points and believe a conspiracy about me being 3 different people at once.

How can you hold all those assumptions made from my post with just two arms?

But if it wasn't you you haven't made any points, dipshit.

And how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

I think you should fill this test or go to a doctor.
memorylosstest.com/free-short-term-memory-tests-online/

I think you should have your parent take this test
psychology-tools.com/cast/

and
the post.

I mean, sure, capital attracts more capital… just like skill attracts more skill. If you're a hotshot carpenter (a part of the proletariat) people will come to you for offers, apprenticeship requests, to buy from you at a premium. Same thing with capital, or a good orator, a successful military unit will attract more members; Success breeds success and people like to be around success.

Hell, I own barely anything and STILL I realize how delusional it is to blame capitalism for everything.

top kek

...

Having to get off your ass to survive isn't exploitation.

so slavery is cool with you, I guess

but taht's not fair comparison
according to you everything is workers but that's not true a company is more
e.g.
worker + worker + worker =/= company
but
worker + company + worker = work

The owners of the company don't employ or organize the company personally, they hired managers to do it for them. Do you think that the shareholders of McDonalds interview future employees or that they monitor the business on site?

this is truly an efficient system

I was waiting for this.

Nope

Capitalists are moralists, he belives he is doing it as a service, therefore he shouldnt expect any form of remuneration

Stirner.png

Hahahaha! Read Bakunin.

competent organizers would be needed in socialism, and would be given the appropriate (necessary, with as close to egalitarian distribution as possible without being unable to attract competent organizers) amount of compensation for contribution to society
we can argue morality nonsense till we're blue in the face (property is violence anyway, natural law is meaningless, stateless societies don't work as soon as there is an imbalance of power as megacorp x will shit on the property rights of proles constantly under ancapism and no one will do anything about it because megacorp x fucking pays them)

You can't be BTFO'd when you're too retarded to wrap your head around the concept of entrepreneurial risk.

It's not hard to wrap your head around the idea of two guys spitroasting a third one.

oh well at least I have this user to suck my dick

if its voluntary then he did so as a service, he should not expect any profits in return

also

fucking ancom faggost read proudhon

Anybody who sells their labour, intellectual or physical, is a worker. So yes, everybody who actually contributes is a worker. The capitalist doesn't actually contribute any labour, therefore he doesn't contribute anything, since capital is the product of labour.

TIL throwing away 30% of the world's food supply is efficient.

wew

I don't know why you guys are so focused on ancaps, they are about as relevant as dork enlightenment. Traditionalists/conservatives are a much bigger threat than them, thankfully none takes Not Socialism seriously (outside of Holla Forums's delusions)

...

...

No.

It seems that Holla Forums believes that you don't own something after buying it because someone made it. Just look at all the responses got.

How pathetic. If I buy a commodity, it is mine whether or not someone made it before selling it to me.

lmao

The only "refutation" (it isn't) that
provides is that someone made the material or factory before the business man bought it and therefore the ownership of something can't transfer after a purchase is made which is a very retarded belief.

youtube.com/watch?v=IJtSXkZQf0A

...

not an argument

Bumping exemplar thread.

Why do shitposts always create the best replies? It's either hoochie or Holla Forums that make threads worth reading.

I don't know if you thick or intentionally dodging the point, but whether or not someone legitimately bought something couldn't be further from the issue we're bringing up.

The problem with slavery was the institution itself, not whether or not the masters legitimately bought their slaves. The problem with private property is the institution itself, not if the property was legitimately purchased.

We disagree with the very institution of private property (property here meaning useful property, means of production, so don't start going on about toothbrushes), not its exchange on the market.