Capitalism is shit

Yes, I agree
Why do so many people come to this conclusion?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ
takimag.com/article/jewish_wealth_by_the_numbers_steve_sailer/print
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease
realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hitlers-finances-and-the-myth-of-nazi-anti-usury-activism/
realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/hitlers-finances-schacht-in-his-own-words/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nazi_concentration_camps_in_Lithuania
primolevicenter.org/printed-matter/the-fascist-concentration-camps/
racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?
independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exclusive-must-do-better-black-pupils-did-with-best-improvement-in-exams-9563395.html
telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html
asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=32437
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_scientists,_inventors,_and_scholars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poznań_1956_protests
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Russia
petersaysstuff.com/2014/05/attempting-the-impossible-calculating-capitalisms-death-toll/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

dialectics, it's simply the next step

Because Marx laid out a pretty good argument for why communism is preferable.

Do you have an argument that is better than his?

The inevitability of Communism is simply historical necessity.

Marx was also not a politician and his ideas clearly ran into issues put into practice, namely the role of the state itself

Because it's not the autocratic state you worry about, and reaching it is literally just automation and replicators.

I feel as though this idea is an assertion with no actual backing

Personally I don't. I'm more in favour of anarcho syndicalism.

???

Historical materialism.

Your right the only logical conclusion is worldwide state capitalism under FN rule.
So we should not let that happen and create communism instead because I rather not live in a world like that.

It's just a conclusion that is located in a very distant time period, for now we can't invent anything edgier.

...

Well, then you should read Marx yourself and decided if it really is unbacked

And then come back and shitpost until you think it is

Because the whole point is being better than capitalism tbqfhfampai

Because communists think handing total power to a few individuals won't result in a dictatorship THIS TIME.

What else do you propose? Production for exchange is logically replaced by production for use, private property is logically replaced by common property. These are the fundamental pillars of capitalism which need to go.

How old are you?

Marx misrepresented Hegel the same way he misrepresented Proudhon

...

The 20th century ""experiments"" were pretty much just social democrats who revised a lot of theory to justify their shitty practices. They were as "marxist" as Reagan.
The role of a proletarian state, during the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is to destroy both the capitalist state(s) and the capitalist system. This was not done by the Soviets or any other group, rather they simply took control of the pre-existing capitalist state.
During the initial phases of the DotP, the free distribution of various goods is a precondition for destroying the material basis of capitalism. During the lower phase of communism, that is socialism, the state will have to be dismantled, the "withering away" is a revisionist concept introduced by Lenin and cemented by Stalin.

I have always wondered something related to this. I'm not sure if I'm retarded (yes) or not but hear me out (I am a communist so I'll get that out of the way).

What if there's a class system that we just don't know exist yet that will create another antagonism. I don't know what that would be exactly but I imagine it would be hard to see what the next class system could be while entrenched in the current one.

What if a society with the ruling class abolished and production for use leads to a vacuum that creates a new material distinction between individuals? What if idpol shit becomes the new class? Or intelligence? Or what if an individual's connection to machinery through transhumanism is what creates a new ruling class? Or could it be something that seems totally nonsensical right now but becomes a new antagonism. Is there any literature that asks these questions or is it just too stupid for anyone to write about it. If so why?

Capitalism is amazing, but it could also be better.

lotta people come to other conclusions. but what exactly is your problem with communism?

???

The next step after capitalism isn't communism. Fascism is.

Sounds like SocDem is for you tbh.

aha good one friendo

Your ideology belongs in the trash.

Under fascism all the jews you complain about (and call porky because you are cucked faggots) will be executed and everyone will work for the good of the nation.

All the current capitalists will be executed and replaces with more capitalists.

But it's not capitalism though.

Kill yourself.

Porkies are in all varieties and flavors. They are not all called "Jews". We will finish the job while fascists will replace shit with more shit.

Your ideology seems to rely on this fantancy everyone is willing to put their 'nations' interest (the interest of those in charge of the nation, basically), ahead of their own economic interests.

They're not. People are selfish as fuck. This is why Socialism is inevitable - it's in people's own interest to own their work places and communities.

Just like Krupp and Boss, right?

You mean, for the good of the gangsters who sit at the top of the totalitarian state.

Put all ideology belongs in the trash that's where we get it from

Lmao but the "working class" (a meaningless and artificial creation that nobody actually identifies as) will work tirelessly for global communism, daddy Stalin, bread lines and third world shitskins in their country, all for free and without rewards because an intelligent scientist is the same as an ISIS somali rapist, right? Because we're all working class right?

Commies are delusional.

I doubt you could even define Socialism honestly.

Class has nothing to do with your fee-fees.
Burgerclap detected.

We will not know the answer to those questions until the capitalist system is abolished.

Gas yourself

...

Ah yes, worker ownership of the means of production.

So specific that it's infamous for having a huge variant of different ideologies around it.

You fucking retard. Either lurk and read a book or get off the board. You're like the embodiment of the dunning kruger effect.

Marxism-Leninism certainly failed. These goons are not representative of all Marxists and were heavily revisionist.

Communism is literally the negation of Capitalism. It would be a classless and stateless society without private property, money, or wages, all means of production are held in common and the fruits of socially produced wealth are distributed democratically. The answer to Capitalim isn't to sit around like a bunch of college-ageed stoners talking about what "could be" and coming up with alternative history answers to what currently is, it's looking at the historical and material conditions of the world we actually live in and trying to change it, it's not about creating utopian cults and hippy communes. This is what most Anarchists and Marxist have been trying to work on almost as long as Capitalism itself has existed.

Didn't realize Das Kapital by Marx was an obscure tome

That's literally the most bare minimum definition of Socialism there is, literally the definition every Socialist in the 19th and 20th century was operating on.

wdhmbt?

Look you can't argue about wanting socialism when every attempt to bring it about has failed, and there is no concensus or plan besides either "sitting on our asses" or "smash shit to, like, fuck the Man, man".

At least we know what a society without niggers and kikes would look like, we know how to implement it and indeed Nazi Germany was sucessful in doing so until the faggoty, race traitor allies got addicted to circumcised nigger dicks.

But what does socialism have besides obese italian philosopher sitting on his ass about how not doing anything will eventually make the jews give up the means of productions?
What does it say when the most "sucessful" attempt to bring socialism (The USSR) is denied by socialists themselves?

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

Tankies inbound in 3… 2… 1…

lmaotbqhwyf

lol

This is because unlike rightists, leftists engage in continuous intellectual criticism and refinement. It's why the simple idea of socialism has spawned so many different ideologies which share the same goals, whereas rightists operate on feefeess and their goal is always to help their slavemasters oppress them even more.

Yeah how dare they resist being invaded by an aggressive totalitarian police state

And how many successful Fascist dictatorships can we count on one hand? :^)

I mean the whole reason the war started (at least in Britain) was because Germany invaded Poland but we ended up giving half of Europe to Stalin's USSR, literally 1984 IRL

OP, if you don't like Communism, but don't like Capitalism, and assuming you're not just a Holla Forumsyp, which is pretty likely, what would you recommend instead.

Do Holla Forumsyps honestly come into these threads expecting to convince anyone? You all have such a poor understanding of what you're talking about.

Yes pretty similar except with a meaningless aesthetic change that won't actually improve my life in any meaningful way.

The jews don;t control all (or even the majority of) the means of production, expropriating them is at best a half measure. Especially when their seized property is just given to the governments cronies like it was in Nazi Germany.

We actually have a pretty specific plan to end capitalism it involves building a mass movement which seizies the ruling class' property (either in an uprising or through the state), the means of production are then brought under social control and can be used to benefit the community. The debate among socialists is where to go from there.

From a political pov it's quite hard to convince the population the people on the other side of the world who sacrificed so much for your freedom are really your enemies and you need another war to finish them off too.

I recommend you at least read one college-level book before you post on this board user.

Coorporationism is the only logical answer to capitalism

IDK who it was, Smith, Keynes, Galbraith or someone else but to quote them "capitalism tied down so hard all it can move is its little finger".
I just can't see how Marx's ideas actually work in reality, but I guess you could slowly get there over decades. Gotta be better than the trajectory we're on.

Are you stupid? There are so many wrong things with this statement. If fascism ruled we would have, for example:
-an eugenics program where we could get rid of congenital diseases, eliminate child poverty and parental neglect, and increase the intelligence of our population in a generation
-get rid of crime and insecurity in our streets and live with unlocked doors, as crime would be severely punished and subersive elements and environments that give birth to crime would be elimimated
-societal consensus would be achieved as we would gain national unity, thus we could finally get rid of the "idpol" you bemoan so much, focusing our energies towards new technologies, space exploration, urban renaissance, et al.
-Economical and societal concerns wouldn't be hindered by bourgeois politics or special interests groups or minorities

For someone who claims to be well read you guys sure haven't even attempted to understand why fascism appeals to the people while communism is seen as an ideology discredited by history

You're objectively wrong, the far majority of 1% of the 1% is jewish.

it say that they're idealists

What would you have instead?

That doesn't sound terribly realistic too me.

...

...

...

I don't usually agree with fascists but when I do it's something glorious.

No idea. I don't have the optimism for it.
The best I can hope for is loudly yelling "told you so!" and laughing at neoclassical economists being killed by a vengeful gaia.
Being shit, capitalism will never allow the moderate socdem state I once enjoyed the idea of to flourish - but flirtations with it have left me convinced that people are more likely to lie down and die or turn to fascists then they are to vote for a party with a good policy platform, then provide a necessary bulwark of support for that party against slow-turning state institutions.

So let it all burn.

...

Lurk more. Socialists use the term "private property" in a different way than the colloquial meaning. We use it to refer to a social relationship in which a property owner takes the product of another person's labor, using as justification their ownership of the property involved in production. In serfdom, land is private property (of a sort). In capitalism, capital is private property.

Exactly. Theoretical communism is all that dumb bullshit about subhumans being able to seize the means of production and proceeding to create an utopia. Real communism is all about starvation, bread lines, gulag for questioning Marx and mediocrity.

so kill all poors?
who would work shitty jobs then?

why not just clone someone with the highest Autism Level and kill everyone else?

so could I fuck your wife then? we are united and all, right, brother?

so everyone is the same, huh?

...

k

I Q
fuck you wordfilter

I believe in Eugenics (in terms of sterilizing the mentally handicapped and disabled not exterminating them) that isn't really something that fascism is necessary to implement. Sweden had a Eugenics programs into the 1980s.

Crime would be virtually eliminated in a socialist society where everyone's material needs were being met and it wouldn't require draconian laws and secret police like under fascism.

The same thing would happen under socialism because people would unify around their shared identity as fellow workers and citizens. Also space exploration public works etc. would be easier to achieve because all societies productive power would be dedicated to socially useful things rather then making a profit as under fascism.

You right instead the whole state would be controlled by a special interest group of political apparatchiks, bankers, and industrialist as it was in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Any benefit of fascism can be achieved under socialism except I don't have to watch scores innocent people as well as numerous friends and family members be sent to death camps for totally trivial aspects of their identity.

Were you the one shilling this totally fabricated statistic earlier. Where is your source? Do you actually believe this or are you just trying to deceive people? As I posted in response earlier 35% of US billionaires are Jewish and only 11% of billionaires in the world.
takimag.com/article/jewish_wealth_by_the_numbers_steve_sailer/print

BTFO again Holla Forumsyp, I imagine you wont even respond to this.

It's almost as though most people dont consider that Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same, semitic coin

We're not anti-capitalism, capitalism is a necessary step to build socialism, as a matter of fact communism is an evolution of capitalism

yeah tell me more about how a nazi society is perfectly sound and possible

I am anti capitalism though.

In theory that may be a valid historical perspective. In practice, socialism requires the abolition of capitalism, so for all intents and purposes, we're anti-capitalist. If the alternative to capitalism were serfdom or slavery or something, we wouldn't be, but that's not the world we live in.


wew lad

wtf i love capitalism now

Capitalism is a stage in the historical process we embrace but nonetheless we are anti-capitalist in the sense of opposing the perpetuation of capitalist relations of production.

Stop poor from over breeding

Cloning is hard, we dont exactly know it yer, and cloning one person can have catastrophically consequences, like one virus wiping out whole humanity because everybody is genetically identical
eg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease
Sexual promiscuity and polygamy is bad mkey?
Class cooperation instead of class warfare, inequality doesn't mean that you can have same interest or work towards same goal

t. other user

realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hitlers-finances-and-the-myth-of-nazi-anti-usury-activism/

realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/hitlers-finances-schacht-in-his-own-words/

Poverty is a function of the relations of production, not of genes. Capitalism's function is to concentrate larger and larger amounts of capital (and therefore relative wealth) in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.

Oddly enough no one ever mentions this. Very good words.


wew lad

Well, they are the only global tribalists. They hold immense power in the hands of the few. They place their people's interest above everyone else's and to such a degree it's visible to everyone. Hardly the folk communists should be caught defending.

Just because a certain timeline happened a certain way in a certain part of the world doesn't mean there's now a intellectual or moral basis for me to support capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule


t. Someone who's never read Marx


There is such a thing as anarcho-communism, faggot. Not every leftist loves Marx.


One of the main criticisms of capitalism that Marx and other leftists have is that it isn't a Meritocracy.

You Holla Forumsyps are dumb as the """subhumans"""" you mock.

Speaking of which, look up Thomas Sankara.

okay so people with less than $1m dollars should not be allowed to have kids.

Is your special brand of capitalism going to make poverty nonexistent?
Neglectful parents are part of a cycle of abuse. Having a neglectful government would just make things worse.

What determines intelligence? I. Q. ? Congratulations, everyone in your nation is slightly better at linear pattern recognition.
lolno

Societal consensus is great when the consensus happens to align with your particular views.

"National unity" is idpol, dumbass.

topkek
That's not how capitalism works, buddy.

whew lad

thats quite idealistic dont you think?
Just because you have meet all the needs doesnt mean that from now everybody will be peacefully and merry
Also humans are constructed in this way that they always strive for new challenges and have evolving needs, if you meet all of them at some point people will start craving something else
Fascist Italy wasnt a state controlled economy unlike Nazi germany
Any benefit of fascism can be achieved under socialism except I don't have to watch scores innocent people as well as numerous friends and family members be sent to death camps for totally trivial aspects of their identity.
Read a book or two, Fascist Italy had no death camps. Portugal had no death camps, Lithuania had no deathcamps

I capitalism is jewish then why were the Nazi's enthusiastic advocates of it? Can someone please post all the Holla Forums info about the extremely capitalist nature of fascism in Germany?

I hate and oppose those who exploit me, and, more importantly, the system that allows them to do so. I don't give a fuck what race they are. Anyone who opposes the working class's inevitable self-liberation will meet with violence, Jewish or otherwise.

Stopping the poor from breeding doesn't solve poverty.

There will always be poverty as long as Capitalism is alive. In fact, there's really nothing stopping you from becoming homeless in the future.

Your method is time tested, indeed, and has shown little progress at all. Poverty is only set to increase, no stricter classes into castes will help you 40 years from no when you have no retirement, when you have no job, no money, nothing at all but hope that you can die but quickly because you never prepared for such a scenario to ever happen to you.

That's more likely than this "caste" nonsense ever working. It's complete fraud.

Read my post again.

Why are Nazis such excellent projectors?

That isn't how slipping into poverty works.

This is what facists actually believe.

That may be true in aggregate, depending on how you're defining productivity. In purely material terms, an intelligent banker is not contributing as much as a retard who digs ditches. But the more interesting part is this:
Your wealth depends largely on whether or not you own capital, and on how much you own. Not on how "productive" you are. Any system in which people can be paid simply for owning property (i.e., capitalism) does not reward productivity.

lel there really is nothing more jewish than a fascist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nazi_concentration_camps_in_Lithuania

primolevicenter.org/printed-matter/the-fascist-concentration-camps/

more proof that stormfags have no idea what they are talking about

...

I'm glad we agree on eugenics

Lmao no, comissal Jamal would ask more and more of your resources as you slave away while the subhuman niggers do nothing.

No it wouldn't because you would always have to justify why you are spending on science when you could give the unproductive useless eaters more free shit.

You don't realize these are not "trivial" aspects of identity, but what shapes countries and it's destiny.

Poverty is caused by a variety of things
Stop being so indoctrinated, in todays world production is not even that important considering that in 1st world countries most of economy is service based no production based

nah

wow rely makes u thnik

...

"Production" does not exclusively refer to the creation of goods, it applies to services, too. If you don't own the good you create, or the money that your service brings in, you are in a production relationship that is exploiting you. Only in this relationship is poverty possible.

Imagine being this fucking scared of black men

Typical Holla Forumsyp. Thanks for continuing to prove how wilfully deluded your board is.

Im not talking about post 1939 Lithuania with was pretty much occupied
Im talking about fascist Lithuania from 1926 (fascist coup d'état) to 1939

America is the only country where the nazis don't riot but vote.

Funny how that works

but more poors means increasing supply of labor and so its decreasing price

okay, clone two persons
or clone all persons with intelligence quotient above 180 and kill the rest

why?

so people can have antagonistic interests?

Before 1971 or so you were rewarded more for labour than you were for investment, so much so that private investment dried up and a plan for war on unions was being hatched.
Does this mean it wasn't capitalism?

Ad hom attack. Look up Thomas Sankara


Smelly dumb, stormfag scum.

...

Thats very black and white would view
You can be an employee and still recive enough money to save some and rise your qualifications/invest into some passive income
What the fuck does even exploitation means?

I was also provided proof that italy had concentration camps.

Really? How much labor time do you have to put in before you're eligible for dividends on your stock? How much time does your boss have to work before he owns the proceeds of his own company? You're talking out of your ass.

I'm not saying everything will be perfect rape and crimes of passion would still exist as they would under any society. Still material deprivation is the source of most social pathology. See the development of drug addiction, broken homes, crime, welfare leeching etc. in white working class communities as their material conditions deteriorated after the 2008 financial crisis.


The user I was responding to was very clearly talking about a benefit of fascism as being the elimination of minorities and dysgenic people. I don't really see how either of these are possible without death camps.

If you are talking about fascism as a straesserist economic program without exterminating anyone we disagree about very little. If you want the community to control the means of production and don't want to expel/exterminate anyone then I view you as my ally regardless of how you ideologically self-identify. I'd be curious about your beliefs on economic/societal structure because you aren't a meme-tier hitler did nothing wrong fascist like the user I was originally arguing with.

If he really grew up in the USSR he must have done terribly in school.

I produce x value by my labor.
The person who owns the capital that I used to produce x value receives x value.
This owner then pays me y wage, which is always less than x.
That's exploitation. It holds true in slavery, serfdom, and capitalism.
I'm ignoring reinvestment for simplicity, since it doesn't actually change anything.

Because Distributism is the only other option other than Capitalism and Socialism and that's not applicable to the modern world. It would be alright for undeveloped countries.

Concentration camps =/= death camps, everybody had concentrantion camps, brits french and even fucking poles had concentration camps
Also >6,386 civilians
Wew its fucking nothing
And RSI =/= Fascist Italy, RSI was pretty much german puppet so they didnt had that much control over their internal politics

China was poorer than half of Africa and all of latin america (to some extent still is) yet their I.Q. and general academic scores have always been better than them.

Japan was poorer than fucking Portugal a century ago but there was no question about which country was smarter, and today we know which country emerged richer.

Stop making excuses for niggers.

The consequences look a little something like this

He must have enjoyed how all those doctors and engineers of the Soviet Union became cab drivers and prostitutes in the Russian Federation.

Addendum: in serfdom, replace "owns the capital" with "owns the land," and in slavery, replace it with "owns me."

No


That's nice, they had a terrible problem of income inequality just like we do right now.

Even if either of those things were true my point still stands.

okay but how would any of this matter in a society without money?
how do you know you just got "exploited"?

If Syria killed 6,386 civilian Americans you would be crying blood and screaming the flesh off your face about how violent Islam is

I dont know im not a burger
im sorry to say that but those people are just Holla Forums retards, i bet that none of them even read Mussolini or Gabriello d'annunzio, hell i even wonder if they heard about corneliu zelea or primo de rivera, i would be surprised if those memespouting retards even read main kamp.
Im sorry you had to see this but post 2015 Holla Forums is a fucking disaster, full of people that dont know what they are talking about

The point is it exists in a society with money

My point is that even before their economic development, their intellect was always superior and thus it led to their progress.

As you would say, their intellectual "base" led to their economic development (superstructure).

No i would actually be cheering, american aka great shaytan needs to be destroyed
I side with muslims any day over fucking burgers

So smart they universally shifted farthest left

Convenient

How convenient.

You can shift your argument however you please

racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?
m=1

So what's your excuse, white boy?

independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exclusive-must-do-better-black-pupils-did-with-best-improvement-in-exams-9563395.html

telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html

I suppose you're going to produce eye-q scores from 100 years ago from Japan and Portugal to back that bullshit up?

But you used his tools or his capital, without him you wouldn't have for example tools to create something
Also you sign contract, so its voluntary if you dont like it you can alway start your own business

t. Nazi.

lelelel

Serfdom is a decent example. There was money, but it wasn't used particularly often by ordinary people. It was mostly a tool for use between merchants.
In serfdom, serfs worked for three days for their lord, and everything they made on that day was his. On the other three days, they could work for themselves. So even though no money was involved, they were being exploited because half of their product wasn't theirs. And the lord would beat your or punish you in other ways if you shirked your duty on the days you were supposed to work for him (the corvee). Same goes for the church, which took a tithe.
Were you asking specifically about money, or were you asking more broadly about a society where people don't exchange the things they make?

Addendum: Before anyone asks, serfs didn't work on Sundays.

MUH JUB CRATERS

Since when getting interned equals death?

asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=32437

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_scientists,_inventors,_and_scholars

You need to de-spook yourself. These type of beliefs aren't something I can convince you to give up because they are emotional not rational.

People are quite happy to contribute to tech development and space exploration. NASA has been cut because porky wanted to pay less taxes not because there was some public outcry the were wasting money.

Pseudo-science rejected by the vast majority of the academic community

lazy bastards

If Syria interned 6,386 civilian Germans you would be crying blood and screaming the flesh off your face about how violent Islam is

You have no evidence for this. You think feudal China and Japan went around measuring the average intelligence of their people by handing out standardized tests to illiterate peasants?

Just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean it's true. Unfortunately there's nothing that makes the Japanese inherently superior to any other group of people you fucking weeb.

No, I would never say that because I've actually read Marx and I know what those terms mean.

Im not praising employers. they can be unfair and exploitive sometimes, but there are laws preventing this

Also how do you imagine i dont know, creating for eg. car parts without specialized equipment provided by employer?

...

...

Not an argument.
Fwiw 🍀🍀🍀they🍀🍀🍀 have rejected communism too.

SOMETIMES

It actually is an argument, if you don't trust them, care to stop citing them so selectively?

No i wouldn't, that would be actually pretty funny , the point is, 6386 interned people is fucking nothing especially at that time
I bet that USA interned more japs during ww2 than that

Yes

You would

He didn't create the tools, fam, he just owns them. Production took place well before owning capital became a legal justification for owning the product of other people's labor, and it will continue well after.
Workers could simply buy the tools needed, or rent them, from the people who create the tools. Capitalists are middlemen who don't contribute to society. Obviously some of them also perform work, especially in small businesses, but I'm talking about the capitalist class as an abstract whole.
If I give you a choice between starving to death or working for me at minimum wage, it's not "voluntary" in any meaningful sense. If you choose not to work, you won't get beaten or killed, like a slave would. But you will suffer nonetheless. Capitalism replaces rule by coercion with rule by deprivation.
A few can, if they're lucky. The vast majority can't. It's just not practical for most people to start their own businesses given how wages work in the real world. Even if it were, why would that be a good thing? They would just exploit other workers and perpetuate the system that keeps people impoverished. Unless you're talking about worker cooperatives, which I doubt.

lel
They actually weren't allowed to work on Sundays, because they had to go to Mass to pay their 10% tithe to the Church. :^)

So the fact that Botswana and Seychelles are some the highest HDI African countries means sweet fuck all?

Should I just forget about the Eastern European countries which live in shitty conditions as well.

I had a specific example on my mind
In my country there is a minimal wage, but there are few kinds of contracts you can sign with your employer
And one of this contrcts is not in a sphere of minimum wage so employers sometimes abuse it, but on the other hand movement is actively fighting with it

Eastern European countries live in shitty conditions precisely because of communism.

Didn't know the Irish were behind this.

Why the fuck would i?

Don't try to weasel your way out of this.

Our beef isn't with individual people or specific businesses, it's with the system as a whole. There will always be a few """""nice""""" capitalists here and there who don't exploit their workers as much as the others. The problem is that they have this power in the first place, though; choosing to exercise it in a milder way doesn't actually solve the problem in any way.

WEW LAD

But he had to buy them at some point, and for that he needed capital, acquired form his own work, luck or inheritance, whats wrong with that?
I come form a post commie country and i know form experience that its not that simple, if something is shared that means it has no value so everybody can steal it or destroy it.
Also sometimes buying tools is not an option considering how huge the investment can be and that in some areas not that many workers are needer, eg car industry or agro-chem industry

Out of what, no im asking seriusly, how the fuck 6000 interned people is supposed to be much?
Especially considering the fact that it was a war time and you cant measure that time with todays standards

is capital just unlimited copyright?

Pls tell my why eastern european countries are shit then

Politics: every time

I really dont see anything wrong with that, im not even baiting, i just cant really see how the fact that you invested in something, took the risk and it pays of is supposed to be a bad thing

...

Take the bunkerflag off dude. Just because capitalism was once progressive in comparison with feudalism doesn't mean that we're not anti-capitalist. Socialism and communism aren't a mere "evolution" of capitalism but are societal phases that are put in place when the proletariat throws off capitalism and its host of contradictions.

If only you could be this critical of Marxism maybe you could develop something that isn't shit.

Sure. But we could also have a system where the actual workers simply bought them directly, rather than going through a capitalist in order to access the means of production. If I'm a plumber, I could buy a wrench directly from the wrench maker–if the capital were in my hands, meaning if I owned the product of my labor.

The options that aren't "work."

I'm not talking about "sharing," I'm talking about buying and renting. Workers buying and renting tools directly. With no capitalist middlemen. And if it were the law that no person could take what another person made just by owning property involved in the production process, there would very quickly be no capitalist middlemen.

Without capitalism, that investment would be feasible for a cooperative workplace, because the workers will own the business. You'd still have investment and the like, it would just be controlled by people who actually work there, not someone who bought a share. And if it's really just not possible with the businesses' current funds, they can just do what capitalists do now: take out a loan.

Yet when I take the risk of robbing a bank, the state will hunt me to the tomb.

The investment would have happened anyway. The problem isn't investment; it's unlimited returns in exchange for limited investment.
You're totally ignoring all investments besides common stock, which is the only financial tool (in general) that does this. Every other type of investment ends.

Thanks for the image Reddit😂

It thing we already have this system,
You save some money, you buy wrench and tools, you start to work independently, its not that hard, i know lots of people who did this, in fact most of my friends from technical school are self employed this way

Joke's on you, I'm a non-Marxian socialist.

It depends, no investment is permanent, even if you buy a flat for rent you have to take care of it and invest more money in refreshing it

Hell i know it by my own example, my father owned over 4 big shops, made and investment and went bankrupt with almost 100.000 in debt, so much for unlimited return of investment

Much as I hate to defend Stalin, it was better than what they once had.


ok.

???
I've never worked at a job where I (or my coworkers) bought the tools or machinery we used. Granted, I'm not a plumber, I've worked in factories and offices, but still. It would be impossible, since we don't have that kind of money anyway–because all the money we produce for the business goes straight to the guy who owns the capital and doesn't do any work.

I have no problem with people working independently. I doubt that would change much under socialism. But most production in the modern world requires groups of people working together; if it didn't, neither capitalism nor socialism would even exist as concepts.

Ahh yes those were the times, when workers got killed for protesting and you had to wait 4 hours to buy bread
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poznań_1956_protests

Common stock has no maturity. It never expires. No other financial tool does this. (Except preferred stock, but nobody uses that.)
I'm talking about financial assets, not rent. Rent is a whole other thing, and has its own complications. I'll just say for now that I'm not opposed to rent, because (in general) renting your property to someone doesn't mean that you get to take whatever they produce.

Better wait four hours for bread than live a life time with private health insurance providing your well being.

If you don't grow the wheat, grind it, bake it, you have no right to bread comrade. Those who cannot produce their own food should die.

Try harder next time.

🤣🤣🤣

Better than having no food at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

Bad argument considering that both now in capitalism we have free health care just like under communism

I'm serious you fucking redditard.

yeah marx is shit isn't he

India =/= eastern europe, consider the context before making stupid compassions

I have no idea what you're getting at, but that's not what I'm implying. Not even close. "Government" isn't an investment, and we're talking about investments.

People need natural resources to survive.
Those natural resources are currently privately owned.
That private ownership is currently enforced via violence or the threat of it.
Those natural resources are discovered, gathered, processed, and distributed by a subservient class at the behest of a dominant ownership class.
The dominant ownership class is superfluous.
Merely replacing the ownership class does not to away with the contradictions between owner and not owner.
The only way to not engage in an endless cycle of owners being murdered by non owners, and non owners being murdered by owners, is to eliminate the material conditions that create such a dichotomy.
The only way to eliminate such a dichotomy is either to eliminate the working class, or the ownership class.
Being more plentiful and the actually productive class, the working class should remove the ownership class.
Peaceably when possible. Violently when necessary.
Having eliminated class distinctions, the only way to prevent regression is to make class distinctions impossible.
Ergo, the necessities of life must be kept and administrated in common so as to provide for the best possible circumstances for the most amount of people, by all those directly and indirectly affected by both the need and administration of those resources.

Then why aren't you a subsistence farmer?

In economics, not just Marxist theory, "private property" refers to land and means of production, it's not your clothes, or your car, or even your house, it's anything that by which the mere fact of owning can reproduce Capital, so owning a factory, owning a mine, owning a chain of stores, owning a bunch of apartment complexes, or even just owning a certain amount of Capital above a certain limit, would all be examples of private property. Forcing all people to share all personal property communally would be unrealistic, undesirable, and ultimately beyond inforcable, ending private property, a relatively recent invention of the Bourgeois class which allows for an incredibly small portion of the world's population to use arbitrary laws to own the majority of the world's resources and access to said resources, is not only realistic, it's probably the only way humanity can stop itself from imploding in some kind of inevitable ecological holocaust.

I am tho

So I guess all those peasants starving under the Tsar were better off?

WEW LAD

Yeah and if you dont mine the coal enjoy freezing to death in winter
Does the name "division of labour" sound familiar to you?

If you don't coppice the trees and use the wood for warmth yes you should freeze to death.

Cmon now
Also notice something interesting about those dates?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Russia

I wouldn't say that. He had a lot of interesting and useful ideas, especially the idea that economic systems are transitory historical phases rather than fixed systems, and the idea that the material conditions of society determine social relations and thus an individual's experience.
But I think continental philosophy in general is shit, and I don't think his law of value holds much water. So I try to take the good and leave (or hopefully critique) the rest.

you are so dumb

worked so well for england

Explain.

You do realise that most of those famines were manufactured?

Not to mention, notice how there were no more famines after Stalin? Note that it was still a Soviet country.

Impossible. Subsistence farmers, by definition, can't produce a surplus, so you can't have had any property to trade for a computer, electricity, or Internet access.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I just know it's going to be incredibly retarded.

ok, lol

Quality post.

Sometimes I wonder if people really read the graphs they post

You do realize that that russia was tsarist all the way up to 1917 right?

Better than when workers got killed for protesting and there was no fucking food at all.

He's shifting goal posts, he said """hurr durr niggers can't into socialism"""

When I provided a man who said he could, he shifted the goal posts into Eastern Europe after i said they were shit due to capitalism, to which he said """no cuz it was gommunism"""

Stormniggers can't form a coherent argument.

worked so well for england>>1558764
3 famines in a span of 30 years vs 4 famines in a span of 300 years, really made me thing
Because there was no major famines post 1950 in europe, mostly because of technology

And it was still under Soviet rule.

WEW LAD


You mean 16 famines?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

Really makes you think.

I was not a nazi flag poster, i never said that niggers cant into socialism
Well eastern europe was also shit during communistic times i dont see how you proven anything

What are you doing with your life?

Why do you keep bringing up india so fucking much?
Werent we talking about russia and eastern europe?

See

...

Shitposting on a Malayan daguerrotype BBS, obviously.

since this thread is already shit and i've always been too cowardly to start threads of my own:

is it just me or is latin america really based? i dunno why they've always seemed like a fascinating mix of modernity, poverty, western comprehensibility but local distinctness.
and of course they've usually got some socialists who do more than LARP.

So what have you done to negate capitalism this week comr8?

Because capitalism causes more death and misery than communsim.

petersaysstuff.com/2014/05/attempting-the-impossible-calculating-capitalisms-death-toll/

Thanks my dude

I'm not a liberal lifestylist m80

I dont know, no death or misery on a wide scale was caused by capitalism in my country contrary to the communism

Where are you from?

Watch it be Venezuela lmao 😂😂😂

They weren't. Hitler actively said he hated capitalism, and many of the gentile gods have given explicit messages strongly opposing it.

Like I keep saying: come up with a new name and logo, and you'll see a surge in the far left.

Bookchin tried but was too hippie-dippie, and his rebranding didn't cover nearly enough of leftist theory.

Here, let's get started. First guy who comes up with a leftist logo better designed than the hammer and sickle gets a free League of Legends skin.

wait, are you really unironic satanist?

I agree with OP. We should allow all the regions to adopt their own style of socialism according to their geographical and geopolitical needs.

I'm sure someone else can fill you in on the details, but yes, I and many others "unironically" worship Satan.

Its satan-nazi, she is certifiably and clinically insane man

Well, they are closeted race fetishists. All that time spent thinking about nigger dicks…

do you engage in orgies too

The only way it could be funnier is if they're a Gusano living in America :^)

Not in the USA, the most capitalistic country of all.

When it suits us. It's hardly like we do it all the time, considering we have other things we need to be doing. Basically, about as much as the average person would if they didn't have qualms about having orgies.

I love you leftcom, user. Why are Leftcoms so beautiful?

You like baby faces?

Hey leftcom! Since you guys are the only ones who actually read Marx around here, where can I look to find Marx actually explain what he meant by "stages" or "phases" of transition? I'm really only familiar with what MLs and Trots mean by it, and would like to read Marx's actual initial idea of what transition from Capitalism to Communism would look like.

Do the mods just not give a fucking shit anymore?

IIRC, leftcoms view communism as the movement that abolishes capitalism, not as a "stage" or "phase" to be "transitioned to."

It's a good thread you dumb fucking moderator.

Think they're just going easy on the 200ish Holla Forums refugees, I don't have much of a problem with it since they're largely more bearable than the redditors that came over. Hope they ban the retards from r/the_donald though, the "U LOSERS COMMIES CANT WIN XDDD" cancerous faggots.

It's really not.
Not him, btw.

...

Underrated post. The same shit that happened to rural America in the 80's and 90's is going to happen to the suburbs of America very soon.

Nothing at all?

I get that, and I've read some Dauve and some Endnotes, and I understand that Leftcoms reject "stageism" broadly speaking. I just want to read where Marx talks about it himself. From what I understand Marx has a strange idea of stages, very different from what Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky inevitably cooked up.

yeah, nothing bad ever happened to rural america :^)

I guess you werent here for the satan-nazi tits then stalinstache

Ya, she posted a picture of her tits here a long time ago which is floating around here somewhere.

POST THEM

Source? I mean that in a friendly comradely way.

That was when I was still a newfag who didnt save stuff sorry

He doesn't have one, because it's not true. Southern states fucked over unions by passing """""right-to-work""""" laws, which basically just meant that workers who weren't part of unions didn't have to pay union dues, which introduced a free-rider problem and bled unions dry. But actually forming a union is the same in any state: you have to get a petition signed by some majority of the workers (I believe it's 2/3) that they want to hold an election on whether or not to form a union. Then you send that petition to the NLRB, who will come in and oversee your election. That whole process is fucked, but for its own reasons. Unions should simply automatically exist within any business. There's been an alternative union creation method floating around for a long time now, called a "card check." In a card check, you just need to get a simple majority (50% +1) of the workers to sign cards saying that they want a union, and then the union automatically exists. But that hasn't happened, and it's been opposed heavily by porkies, for obvious reasons. Obama supported it, but did little to actually help the measure when it was on the table last time around (which was in 2007).

It also doesn't help that in most southern states an employer can terminate your employment for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory of a protected class, which means you can get fired for even saying the word union in most places in the south. Or like in the case of walmart back when that fucker Sam Walton was alive, if you were heard shilling for unions you were likely to find out the next morning that not only were you fired but the entire store's workforce was fired if not the store completely closed.

I was being hyperbolic to troll the Holla Forumsyp, but yes, a bunch of laws and policies basically make it impossible to unionize workers in the South, and in lieu of that local Churches "pick up the slack" so to speak, all the while lining their pockets with the Proletariats wages, and if you do try to unionize in the south believe me, the police will find ways to fuck you up, this is well documented.

for fuck's sake!

why I browsed fucking Holla Forums today!!!
W H Y

Holla Forums BTFO

Here's a good non-communist alternative to capitalism:

Why not replace private, capitalistic property with property as defined by use/occupation, like, for instance, under ideologies like Mutualism?

-Because no one person can use an entire factory or large stretch of land all by themselves, you don't get the huge class differences under capitalism

-For large factories and means of production, ownership is divided among the people who use/work it, as part of free horizontal association.

-Because people are rewarded for their labor with what they produce themselves, with the property they use and own (and what they get from trading that with others), instead of having to fork it over to porky or a commune, you have greater incentives for production.

-Little/No state needed to enforce this concept of property, as one can usually defend what one uses/occupies themselves, or with a free worker's association, whereas capitalistic property requires a state to enforce arbitrary property distinctions, such as forcing others to recognize that a property that you don't ever step foot on (like a factory) somehow "belongs" to you, and that those who use it (tenants for residential property, workers for a factory), must pay you rent either in the form of surplus value from labor using said property or simply cash for living there.

i like it

wtf I love the Koch brothers and Bill Gates and the Clintons now.

As opposed to all those times N.atSoc worked

...

I dunno, the Roman Empire, Incas, Persians, Egyptians, Norse empires, and of course Atlantis, among others, seemed to have worked out pretty nicely, and they were all Nazi societies.

Lol, got me there

lasted longer than the USSR

Always have to include the Clintons to remind them that they either don't actually fit their belief system, or they unironically believe they'd be good people if they weren't poor, brainwashed whites controlled by the jews :(

Totally, I mean those are all definitely fascist civilizations and Atlantis is probably still kicking today tbh

They were Nazi civilizations, not fascist. Fascism is statism, which is essentially what Communism is great at. Nazism is staunchly opposed to fascism in all forms.

I'd like to pick the high points of this post.

Can you record a video explaining this? I need new entertainment in my life

Nationalism is a staple in all gentiles across the cosmos. Its part of our very spirit.


If I have the time, maybe. There are plenty of other people who've talked at length about this stuff though.

Eat an old, rotten MRE styx

...

What the shit are you talking about? Nationalism is an extreme form of idpol that comes from the modern nation state which emerged in the 18th century. It is literally an instrument of bourgeois ideology and was used to wage both world wars.

The important part of this post is
Is the basis of nationalism.
there were no nation states, and so no nationalism, beforehand. Tribalism, kingdoms, republics, tribute empires, etc. Noone had an idea of 'nation' to give a fuck about. They were loyal to some lord, some king, or to their tribe.

I dont expect you to care. The silent observers are the ones I'm reaching out to. They'll listen and avoid this place.


Right, because nobody ever felt pride in their race or nation prior to the 18th century. Everyone was just a mindless blob living in perfect communism until the EEEVIL white man introduced racism and killed 6 million jews oy veeeeey :c

Seriously go fuck yourself, I dont have the patience to argue with such a vacuous idiot as yourself

see

They didnt generally have pride in their nation or their race. They didnt have a 'nation', and they didnt have much idea of race.
They probably had pride in their tribe or some other idea of ethnicity more local and exclusive than any modern definition of race, or their familial line, clan, etc.
Governments generally didnt resemble anything like a 'nation.' Some of them approached it in some aspects, but most didnt and the ones that did still werent that much like 'nation states.'

also,
we ain't medeivaltransobesepoc.tumblr.gender fam.

Right but all of this is achieved by sterilizing and gassing everyone who doesn't fit into the arbitrary mold of a perfect human and this is done by enforcing cult worship of the leader the state and ones own superiority, but only proxy the group.

What an anti individualist anti freedom cuck you are.

Feudalism is preferable to capitalism. Marx was wrong.

Really massages the frontal lobe.

What's your solution then. What should we replace capitalism with if NOT communism. Because the usual answer is "capitalism with some reforms" and the reforms never last.

t. brainlet

UNDIALECTICAL

mutualism or syndicalism

and communism does?

Feudalism.

lmao, have you forgotten you literally want to execute the rich and steal all their shit?

inb4 "it isn't stealing because in property doesn't reals"

Keynes and neo/post-Keynes remains vulnerable to systemic crises and declining rate of profit. These facts working concurrently will always work to subvert the regulatory framework put in place to control capitalism.

That said, it would be a step up from what we are doing now and improve the material conditions for many people.

Simple. The evils of capitalism are the same evils that plague communism, socialism, globalism, nationalism, and every single form of government, economy, and society.

Human greed. People in a position of power who only ever see those beneath them as a resource to be taken advantage of to line their own pockets. Greedy people ruin everything, because they don't care about the health, safety, or general well-being of anyone other than themselves, and these people exist in every system, because they are the ones in power that create the rules.

Well clearly we must go anarcho-mutualism next, and once the economics of the globe are democratically ran by the workers then will begin to realize capitalism is just a stale meme without the porkies and we'll drift into full communism.

Communism is as individualist as you can get.

nobody's gonna say it?
Fine, I'll do it.

""the nation"" is a spook and nationalism is a shit ideology that relies on tribalism and coercion to get the masses to do ""the good thing"" for the ""nation"" instead of allowing them to live their life as they please.

I agree with this post.

Yes, and who gave us our (UK) healthcare system? Oh yes, the democratic socialists of Clement Attlee's government.

That was Engels you fucking mongloid.

Because they assume their conscience is a reliable guide to political matters rather than a guide to social matters.

It's essentially a category error.

So it's State Capitalism, you're still a slave even if your master is the nation.

Don't listen to all the commies in the thread, there are alternatives, the best it's homesteading and self-sustaining in general.

Free market anti-capitalism is the next step.

don't you know?

Communism by its very definition a stateless, moneyless, and classless society.
Try again Holla Forums

GREED IS NOT A BAD THING

jesus fucking christ read a book.

Commies should fucking kill themselves.(no.)

We will win the day boys.

Maybe if we didn't have a system the rewards and generates psychopaths?