Can anyone explain to me why Capitalism is wrong?

You see this as a good thing?

It isn't that it's wrong. It's that it will stop working and kill everyone in the process. This tends to be thought of as an undesirable result.

Force is only an issue to sheltered ancap pussies.

Soup kitchens are good. Yes. Everyone in our society (America) can get a job and everyone in our society can prosper. I know you guys laugh at the "Pull yourselves up by your boot-straps." stuff, but it's true.

😂👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻😂

...

Why is Holla Forums against r/socialism?
I don't use leddit.

Self-employment is a fucking joke save for a few cases.

The issue is the fallacy or contradiction in capitalism that it supposedly creates equal opertunity for all. But we all know the rich have an easier time getting rich than the poor.

How? Trades are more and more becoming automated. Less and less work.
And the rich have all the power. The public soup kitchen is funded through tax, or through charity from the rich. So one way or another they are the hand that feeds. But when they control the state, and the state controls welfare, soup kitchens, shelters, ect, and those people can't dig themselves out because they are fighting to survive, a catch 22 develops.

The rich can fight the taxes (and they do) and that cuts funding to programs that keep the poor alive. It creates a siutation of near genocide.

No one in our society is "impoverished". Relatively? Yes. Absolutely? No. The poorest people can afford shelter, food, water, electricity, and recreational items.

If said few cases happen, then it can happen to anyone.

That basic communism buddy. Don't be a moron.

What would it mean for capitalism if having food was considered a basic right?

What would happen to all of the grocery chains trying to compete against one another?

Capitalism therefore conflicts with basic human existence. Kill landlords etc.

😂

Having food is a basic right. Having food produced by the labors of others is not.

You have a right to food, but you do not have a right to take food from others.

I have tattoos on my face, I'm a black, gay, poor, muslim woman. Can I still get a job?

And how the fuck do you produce food if all lands are privately owned, genius?

I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm not trying to just dismiss you and I'll admit that maybe I didn't word it well specifically the whole idea of the contradictions of capitalism which I'll just link this video here youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 though the video simplifies the concept a bit, but it's enough to get you started if you really are curious. Basically the reason I asked is to see how well you know about both political theory and leftist theory in general. Now from what I can see you don't know exactly what you're talking about which is you made this thread in the first place and you do seem to be asking in good faith and you're not trying to just argue to make yourself feel good, but I would recommend to read a bit and just do some research.
Also, for those in the thread I would recommend explaining some basic concepts such as the contradictions of capitalism to this man answer his questions and give some material to him to learn from.I would do it myself, but I'm tired and going to bed soon. Also, try to avoid moral arguments like several people in this thread are doing because tbh they are kind of weak and economic arguments are much more convincing to most people in my experience.

Saw a down-and-out in Seattle last night.

His sign said not "I need food" or "I need a job" but "I need a fat bitch".

What could this mean?

I love this meme.

I'll try my best, buddy. Note that I'm an anarchist-communist and am very much writing from that perspective. I admire your curiosity and desire to learn.

You seem to be under the impression this is what anti-capitalists most dislike about capitalism.

From my experience, the primary complaint from anti-capitalists about capitalism is the inherent exploitation of workers and necessity of a police state and imperialist military to protect and strengthen capitalism.

If your boss pays you $10 an hour, you actually bring in more money for your company in an hour than you're paid in an hour (say, $20). Your boss' paycheck is fattened with withheld pay from his/her workers and does little beneficial or charitable with that excess money. This is against your self-interest.

This workplace environment is often grueling and dehumanizing. You feel disconnected from the service you provide, as you don't get to control it after it's made/carried out.

Work is not voluntary, because capitalism is arranged in such a way that you either let the business-owners extract wealth from your labor or you die on the streets.

Large corporations are more powerful than you ever will be and have harnessed the government to do their bidding. You have no meaningful control over your government, nor your workplace.

They are poisoning this planet because the economy from which they derive their massive wealth and power from is founded on fossil fuels.

Police quell civil unrest. They will give you tickets and fines or throw you in prison for money. They even have quotas to fill.

Countries wage war and practice regime change to gain access to and control of others' resources, to assimilate them into their economy, to gain influence in a region, to acquire a new military outpost to operate from later, to snuff out revolutionary movements that threaten capitalism, etc..

Hundreds of millions of people go sick and hungry every day, despite the fact that we have full capacity to help them. However, we wouldn't make our money's worth to give us the incentive to do so.

There are horrible, rare diseases that no scientific institution are studying to find cures for because "there aren't enough people to sell cures and treatments to".

These things are are wildly counter to the natural instincts of a social species, against our self-interest, and immoral.

We could instead live peacefully, without money, running our places of work democratically and distributing the product of our labor among our community for free and in turn receiving the fruit of others' labor for free as well. We all either benefit or suffer from the decisions that we make and are therefore given incentive to treat our communities and environment well. There is no economic or geopolitical incentive for war. No one gets scammed out of their honest work. You get the point, I think.

I didn't proof-read this so fingers-crossed I'm coherent.

By buying it or by buying the land. You can grow food on even the most modest of properties.

Land cannot be owned. Governments use the threat of force to enforce "ownership" of land which is not a commodity. Only the produce of the worker's labor can be owned. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a tyrant.

Land ownership is drivel, consider suicide.

How do you buy the land if you don't have any money in first place, genius?

Just be yourself dude! Just do it bro! You gotta break it to make it! Dog Bless Murcia FREEDOM!

Yes. Especially at a tattoo parlor. Also, getting tattoos is a choice. It's nobody's fault but your own if you make that decision.

By making money.

So theft?

No. Theft is not contractual. Making money is not always non-contractual. You can make money via theft, but not all wealth increase is by theft.

Ecological destruction means it's all going to come crashing down in your lifetime

No, you can't fix this, it's inherent in the market system

Capitalism is gonna die the only choice is if you want to live in "The Road" or "The Culture"

Yeah.. It's illegal to grow your own crops in most states. I think if you dig into the practicality of this issue alone, you'll find where your vessel is leaky. But it's cracked all over the place - environment, war, medicine, education, culture and art are all similar dead ends under capitalism.

It shouldn't be illegal to grow your own food. That's stupid.

I know The Road is bad, but how bad is The Culture?

Seems like you're imaging capitalism as purely voluntary exchange when in reality it's always been an issue of property rights and wage labor. Take the enclosure acts for example; capitalists forcibly acquiring land, building houses to charge rent, or building factories to exploit workers. Not to mention the inherent contradictions from periodical, economic downturns to ecosystem collapse.

If it was legal to grow your own food. If men could derive food shelter and water themselves, what would they need to contribute to The Machine for?

That's supposed to pay for my kid's tuition, my car, my rent, and my food?

Was it my choice to be born with brown skin in a segregated area with a liquor school on every corner and no access to education? You seem to think that 'wealth' is the great equaliser. Who generates wealth for the people who aren't born into it?

Was great until that whole "ableist slur" bullshit.

Liquor store too*

Illegal to grow your own crops in most states? What states are you looking at and what the hell do you call "crops"? Weed? Everywhere I've lived I've been free to grow and eat what I pleased as long as it wasn't drugs.

Gardening and cultivation of organic fruits/vegetables is widespread enough to make me think that if a state outlawed it it'd make a fair few unhappy folks willing to turn to the press about this state of affairs.

The whole idea of building a country back in the day of America's foundation was trying their best not to make a tyranny. They were not trying to build a utopia, just trying to make a government that doesn't oppress its own folks in short order.
They weren't under any illusions that they would make it impossible for their country to fail– they just wanted to make it as unlikely as possible to make a tyranny or a dictatorship.

So if we look at our vessel, it may have imperfections and leaks. Sure, we want to keep that shit up and patch what's really wrong with it. But if I look at ALL the other vessels built on communism or Marxist doctrine or whatever, they're either at the bottom of the ocean or halfway there. Without failure, their people starve and suffer and die.

So you can criticize as much as you want but we're just gonna continue figuring out how to make a sustainable human civilization work in the real world rather than in theory.

Google beyond good and evil and the geneology of morals

This is like saying "sustainable cancer" 😂😂😂🤣

This shit right here is the left most retarded belief. Of course it's not! You don't get to eat from the fruits of other people's labor!

I can already imagine pre-agrarian leftists:
"Oh my god why do I have to hunt animals and pick berries to eat nature is exploitative, fuck this system"

Learn history.

There was nobody controlling those resources in nature though

You are lumping in things which aren't capitalist into things which are. Capitalism isn't a system of government, it is just a ruleset for the game of economics. There are a lot of things to criticize in first world countries of the modern day, but you're pointing your finger at the wrong beast 90% of the time if you think "big business" is begetting the world's ills.

The only time force is used for capitalist ends are when they use the government to achieve their goals. Otherwise, the only thing they can do is give incentives to people in order to make them do what they want. Paying someone for their land isn't a tactic of force. Neither is offering someone money for a job when you determine that the wage you're offering is one that many people are willing to accept.

Capitalism as a set of rules is divorced from this weird judgment you try to pass on it by virtue of looking at people who live in capitalist societies. If your argument is that the ideal can never be attained so you are allowed to criticize the rules of capitalism by events that occur in the real world under some pretense of capitalism– well, what do you do with communism or socialism when you apply the same logic?

They don't like catgirls there.

hahahaha let's go back when everything was natural when we died at 30 from a chipped tooth instead of at 70 from cancer from BPA

Why should useless eaters and parasites be sustained by society? Isn't this what you accuse porky of being?

If you are not cool with human civilization, have fun not taking part in its continuation.
I mean, really, good luck with that. It's a sad state of affairs that you have found yourself at this belief, but in reality it will continue with or without your input.

You are forced to pay rent in order to not be homeless, attempt to squat and see what happens. In order to live you have to pay fees so that someone else may profit from you drawing breath as if you asked to be born. There is no free or voluntary exchange in capitalism. Even the small capitalist must suffer for they must compete with larger capital to keep themselves from returning to wage slavery.

Once capitalism has made the Earth uninhabitable by all life just remember at least we made lots of profits for some pigs and the weak are to be culled.

I'm talking about subsidized farming and the corn/cow industry. What we have is an unsustainable monstrocity. The simultaneous problems of obesity and starvation. Sure you can get 'what's mine's', but if you start to grow massive amounts of corn, for instance, the cronies and gangsters will muscle your operation out.

Yawn. Let's build skyscrapers without architects, I've got a lot of concrete.

Dude see a psychotherapist and get passed your daddy issues

It's gonna be pretty funny in a way. When all resources are exhausted, Porky will go "whoops, turns out it was a zero-sum game after all, my bad" and walk into the space ark PSS One Percent and use the last few tons of hydrogen gas left to set sail for the stars.

Well, shit guys. Listen up to this user.
I'm from Holla Forums but this is the correct answer.

Can we just band together and oust the kikes so we can get back to really bickering about petty ideological differences?

You are given education to a high school level. From there, get an internship/go straight into the trades in a growing city.

There is a cycle of shit that permeates black neighborhoods and it isn't only the poverty that causes it. I lived in an area where a significant fraction of the people living there were of Vietnamese origin (some with shitty education and others were pretty alright.) I suspect that these people were refugees of some sort, because there were a fuckton of them.
Anyways, they came to this country starting from nothing, and built themselves up. The adults in this generation of Vietnamese immigrants were majorly working-class, and their children are clear on their way to the middle and upper classes. Another thing you can see in this community is that the family unit is extremely strong: they have mothers and fathers who are involved and interested in their success.

The reason I gave this particular example is that the cycle of poverty in minority ghettos is a tragic result of the destruction of the biggest factor of a child's development: the family. It's a huge predictor of the future success of a child that they have two parents who are together, it's also a huge predictor for their predilection to crime.

And realize that it won't be impossible for people born in this situation to advance, but it will have to be acquired by their own individual force of will. This is incredibly hard without the right environment surrounding you, so it sure is a clusterfuck of problems that might take generations to set straight.
Though if you think you can climb from the pit and are merely asking for a grapple and a direction to throw it, I'd say finishing high school education and finding a trade to go into is the best way to earn yourself a respectable income and not bleed yourself dry in the bloated university market.

There are plenty of companies who are desparate enough for people willing to learn or do labor jobs that you can pretty much take a running start after high school into a settled career before your buddies get their bachelor's degree in interpretive maths for art majors and start their illustrious jobs in coffee shops around the country.

Why should I be okay with getting fucked by someone as long as they were not Jewish?

That's the point though.

On a property-less environment without any means of production work is 100% voluntary.
The moment all productive land is private slighly less so.
The moment you have to compete with elaborate agricultural tools slighly less so.
The moment you don't even have access to land and food production and need to work for a wage even less so.
The moment you need some vast skill set to even get the dimes for your big mac even less.
and so on.
Barter Island is a largely jewish meme.
youtube.com/watch?v=w7ve_myMdQM

lol this place

this post

this fucking post

What makes you think you're eating from the fruits of your labour, and not the fruits of a society that was able to provide security, stability, legal protection, education, technology etc that you contributed as much to as the next man (i.e you did nothing but chose not to fuck it all up)

Nice one, just ignore the context and assume that I'm a dolt because I disagree with you. Not going to let that slide, though. I think "it works in theory" is useless when it doesn't work in practice in multiple tries.
What we got is something that must work in theory because it certainly works in practice, but it certainly wasn't predicted to take off as fast as it did and we certainly didn't have the theory down before the founding fathers made a country that would find itself with boots on the moon in a few centuries. Obviously, there was quite a bit that wasn't known and needed to be refined. But hey, it didn't land us in a hellscape of real suffering and persecution, so something is happening that we got right. I'd say if we want to make life better, we'd be best looking at where we want to go and where others have failed in the past– and I'm not seeing hope in a large powerful government to enforce redistribution of wealth. Nor do I see hope in a boots-on-the-ground communist revolution after seeing what it instated in other countries.

On your first point, I didn't know that. I see a lot of corn farmers where I live just selling off their corn on the side of the road, so maybe that hasn't impacted me. I also am uneducated on the laws regarding corn or cow farming, but I know people who raise their own and farm their own on their ranches and stuff– I've never heard of the system you're talking about where if you grow or make too much you'll get muscled out.
But if you're criticizing the fact that the corn industry's corrupt as all hell then I agree. Didn't know the same was true for beef. If I could vote for folks dedicated to stop tax dollars from filling the pockets of people who make corn in excess then I'd vote for those.
Hell, I'd vote for someone who would make a law saying we'd use the excess corn to use for grits to give to all the hungry people in our nation in return for the subsidy– that's at least a step up from the way things are.
But none of that is what I was gathering from the initial post. It read like you'd be arrested for growing your own food or for starting your own farm.

But in a pre-agrarian society your community would teach you to hunt, in this society the schools fucking suck and don't teach you how to be a productive member of society, and both your parents have to work all the time so they can't teach you anything either, even if they still held some passed down useful knowledge.
No one here thinks we shouldn't teach men to catch their own goddamn fish, it's just let's feed them and house them while we teach them, because otherwise they'll fucking die.
It's the responsibility of a society to find a place for each individual to contribute to that society meaningfully, not just use them as slaves so someone else can get rich.
And as for the permanently disabled, I'm still not sure.

If everyone contributed equally to society, any additional surplus you have marginally contributed is "the fruits of your labor".

Yes, private property, capital accumulation, and exploiting labor for profit isn't capitalism, please share your special snowflake definition of capitalism.

When did I say this?

It's a rule set that favors a few individuals.

I didn't point my finger at big businesses. I'm talking about capitalism.

What are you even saying here? You need force to maintain private property or workers will take it from you. Police were pretty much invented by capitalist during the industrial revolution. And muh' gubbament is simply one tool at the capitalist's disposal to protect his capital.

Like hiring a police force to protect the capitalist's private property?

So, how did both parties get into the position to sell land? What if I don't have land or resources to trade? How did a few individuals obtain such vast amounts of wealth whilst most are relatively poor and are forced to work for peanuts? Do you think there's equal opportunity in capitalism?

The alternative to not having your labor exploited is starving to death or resorting to welfare.

Read a history book or seek help.

Capitalism has been in motion for more than 500 years, you can be this delusional can you? The world's problems stem from capitalism, not BIG EVUL GUBBAMENT or because HUMEN NATUUR.

You can't have communism without going through socialism. Every time socialism has established a group of people with a capitalist ideology have undermined it. youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

People can find meaning in their life. There is no western liberal democracy wherein legal labor is comparable to slave labor. The amazing and liberating effect of progress partly due to capitalism is that we can produce enough extra wealth to society to live comfortably AND fulfill ourselves in our extra time away from work (A full time job takes 40-60 hours out of how many free hours in a week?)

In societies without the same infrastructure, there is little free time to do ANYTHING fulfilling. In some societies, they must devote 4 hours just to making sure they have water for their day.

There's this weird myth going around that somehow agrarian societies were better off because they didn't have division of labor making their work efficient and distributing more free time to everyone to do other things– I don't understand where this myth possibly comes from. Literally the whole point is that you get tons of free time and tons of wealth (comparatively speaking) and the one thing you have to give up is that you have division of labor now and that means you have to devote a portion of your life to a repetitive task if you're not in a position to compete or build up to a career that consists of more than just a repetitive task.

So I don't know. I don't understand it at all. I don't understand how people can take this position in full view of the fact that the mere position of discussing this on the internet presumably on your own PERSONAL COMPUTER puts you at the top 1% ranking in wealth of all humans ever, thanks to the economic system that was formed and adopted by the society you live in despite all its flaws.

So criticize the flaws. Don't let yourself fall into a fantasy land to justify your criticism, just point it the fuck out and suggest changes and argue with real facts. Jesus, I hope this whole board isn't like this all the time.

With the ongoing war against public education in the USA, the actual quality of education for african-americans is really garbage compared to everything else, and given how committed the government is to farming said services out to shitty for-profits it'll only get worse.

Furthermore, education has a lot of social determinants beyond pure schooling. Kids whose parents read to them, for example, are much better off. If you get good food and good exercise, you'll learn better. If you live in a more stable social environment, you'll be better off. If one of your parents is trapped in the prison-industrial complex making license-plates for ten cents an hour to pay for a minor offence and the other parent is working double shifts at McDicks, a lot of that cultural capital isn't going to be available to you. Any credible social research will show that the biggest factor in family differences is the prison-industrial complex, and if you control for that then it doesn't actually look all that different at all.

This whole theory about education being undervalued, finally, doesn't actually have any basis in reality:

theroot.com/the-acting-white-theory-doesn-t-add-up-1790895058

In other words, African-Americans place the same premiums, if not sometimes higher ones, on getting an education.

"Pull your socks up" is a really nice meme, but it ultimately doesn't have any real reflection in reality.

You dont know why capitalism is bad? Youre either a porky or a classcuck

>You can't have communism without going through socialism. Every time socialism has established a group of people with a capitalist ideology have undermined it. youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

Huh, that's pretty convenient. So your utopia is totally feasible even though every attempt has failed because the evil people undermined it every time.
If only there weren't any evil people, then your utopia would be attainable. Too bad it results in the death of millions instead.
You're ideologically possessed. You've already decided you know the true enemy and you won't change your mind despite what's brought up to you. People who talk to you probably get the idea that you're not treating the discussion with respect, that you just try to win it instead.
It takes very little thought to live in a world like yours: I envy that in a way. But I can't waste my time in an unproductive discussion like this, even though you made valid criticisms on my wording. Sorry.

(As far as I know, capitalism is an idealist economic system. You criticize emergent properties in societies that try to approximate this economic system, but do not attempt to draw causal links to the economic system itself being the cause or other factors. I could easily point out that in the USSR people wrested the land of farmers when they were too successful and this resulted in food shortages when they were replaced by more incompetent people, and try to say this is an emergent property of leftism purely because it happened, and you would clearly take issue with this claim. Maybe as an argumentative tactic in the future, try to draw the causal link more clearly.)

Whites being bred out of existence is natural but you Nazis won't ever shut up about that.

I'm glad we're making a little headway and can see eye to eye on some points man but
This is where we're gonna diverge bigly. First of all, the original vision of Jeffersonian democracy is so perverted in its current form with lobbying special interest groups in control of practically all legislation - what to speak of the fact that the original form of government didn't bat an eyelash at problems like institutional slavery.
Secondly I believe the US had just entered a period of fascism. Not pejorative, but an analysis of the increasingly repressive, cronyistic, racist, xenophobic order rapidly coming into place under the Trump Pence regime. Further attempts to shill for an idealized America free from nationalism and corporate/state merger just betrays a lack of understanding of the material situation we're facing. Electoral politics really don't mean shit. I'd advise a serious reconsideration of the effectiveness of that strategy, especially under a repressive, centralized, militarized form of rule.

I'd rather not plug up the holes, I also don't offer a solution along the lines of social/communism. I see, like Stirner, that where we're headed is as unpredictable as feudalism was to hunter-gatherers. Collapse may appear as chaos, but truly it's a collapse into a higher order.

Communism is as wrong as capitalism. I don't know yet what this will be called but the idea is no welfare + rigid wealth limit. You can call it normalcy.

With respect to democracy the mechanism of checks and balances is often underlined. Similarly in justice systems in Common Law countries the spirit of the law is underlined and judges are supposed to overcome the letter of the law so that the spirit prevails.

Surprisingly this attitude has never been applied to the biggest anomaly and pathology feedback loop which is EXTREME CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.

Everybody seems to tackle the problem in the most indirect ways possible - progressive taxes, welfare, etc. This is pathetic and we all know it's just a controlled "opposition" to that 1% people who own 99% of goods. It doesn't affect that distribution in the slightest.

The direct solution is RIGID WEALTH LIMIT.

I don't know what it should be and probably it should be dependent on the country but let's 1… 2… 3 million USD? That's enough to have a good life.

Each year all that you possess above 3 million is taken away and subtracted from the income taxes of all people equally. Example: in a society of 10 people, 9 out of 10 have 100'000 savings and the 10-th has 3'005'000. Furthermore 9 out of 10 had revenue of 20'000 that year and the 10-th had revenue of 100'000. The income tax is set at 5%. Now, due taxes are 1'000 for the 9 and 5'000 for the 10th. However the 10-th accumulated capital exceeds 3'000'000 by 5'000. This amounts to deduction of taxes by 5'000 / 10 = 500 USD for each person. Therefore the 9 will pay 500 the 10-th will pay 4'500. Fair and square.

This needs to be implemented ASAP.

Further reasons for this solution include:

Extreme concentration of capital is plainly incompatible with democracy because it grants powers to brainwash people via the media, bribe politicians, organize paid "spontaneous" prostests, establish propaganda universitites etc.

Welfare demoralizes people and always serves only as means of fool people into voting-in communists like Bernie or Clinton which just lust power and wealth for themselves. Welfare is just a demoralizying and stupidifying bait to get into power.

Extreme concentration of capital absolutely chokes all companies except corporational molochs which are as corrupt as the government.

Therefore this new solution offers completely new quality.

W.r.t. big endeavours such as mines, factories, others means of production, banks they can be owned …. yes you got that right - collectively but not by means of distribution. You need to earn your 3'000'000 and that you can give your 1'000'000 to your son who invests it in a bank which brings him moderate profits so that he can build up towards his 3'000'000.

You better like it because this is the future. NO WELFARE, NO SOROS-ES.

Quoi?

IJAD but I think when people say communism here they don't mean dictatorships or authoritarianism.

Beg your pardon?
I am saying higher education is overvalued. I didn't even claim that education was that huge of a factor given that some of the vietnamese adults working in my childhood neighborhood don't know basic maths.

If you're saying that one parent in the clink is what really does a kid in, then there would be a bigger disparity between fatherless white homes and fatherless black homes as far as the success of the children, right? From what I know, the comparison is extremely similar across racial lines.

But yeah, I don't think I was making that argument. I was arguing that having a stable family is a big factor in childhood development towards a successful adulthood and I personally think that education is overvalued as far as successful adulthood goes.

But if your argument is that the prison-industrial complex is doing a big part in the shit cycle I referenced, I would have to admit a bit of agreement. Staying out of it is easier to people who aren't in the cycle, and the failed drug war has introduced an incredible number of families to this cycle and resulted in damages that might take generations to resolve.

"Pull your socks up" works if you're willing to. I already said it's not easy, but a poor person is certainly capable of getting to the point where they can join a trade especially in the current job market. It's not going to be romantic, society tends to frown on careers that don't absolutely require a full bachelor's degree, but it'll do for almost anyone and people rarely talk about it.

If I were impoverished and didn't have an option for postsecondary education, but I did know about the current job market, I'd do a little job shopping and find internships or firms willing to train and start me off. It's not the hardest thing to find someone desperate enough for workers, and it can be something as banal as AC/heating technician.

But one of the biggest problems here is the first statement, that I would have to know where to look in the first place. I'd wager a lot of people don't even know where to look in the first place to bootstrap a career without a college education, and were I in that situation I couldn't guarantee that I would know either. So that's a problem, and I wish I knew more solutions.

Okay, I'm going to say that you sound like a crazy to start with.

But at the same time, it's a pretty fresh idea to me, so I'll look forward to the debate you spur. Maybe you're onto something, kudos for thinking outside the box.

You have no fucking clue what communism is and your understanding of "rights" is spooky, but your idea is kinda interesting tbh.

The idea of having a limit to the amount of money some one can have?

This will never ever happen, the elite will fight tooth and nail always and forever to prevent this style of wealth redistribution, it won't happen without seizing their wealth and you should already know what that could imply

If you're saying the problem is the fact that you can't vote for people who have those policies in mind, then yes I agree that this is the problem.

If you're criticizing the corruption in the whole ordeal, then I'm right behind you. Maybe the solution is to cut the money transfer to politicians in election season.

One of the biggest divergences we have here is that there is any legitimacy to be terrified of Trump/Pence. I haven't found any merit in the majority of hitpieces on him, it just seems that the media is selling hatred because it's easy money. There are legitimate criticisms of Trump that don't require stretching your words or overusing tired -isms, and the current environment of criticism surrounding the old codger really just tells me that people don't care about the tangible issues and would rather go for easier targets that don't require verification.

He's not the brightest apple in the bunch, but he is anomalous in that listens to his constituents. It's possible that we make it out of this presidency better than when we got in, as long as his people guide him in the right direction. A good amount of them want him to use his executive position to outlaw certain markers of corruption in the government– I want to see where that goes before I lose faith in the whole thing entirely.
Realize that this is a president that puts a lot of stock in keeping his word to his people, despite negative pressure from any political side. If there was any time where it could be possible to make headway on political corruption, that time could be now. It's a tough pill to swallow, and the uncertainty surrounding him makes him quite dangerous as a politician both to the government and even to companies that find themselves down range from his twitter feed.

I don't think we see eye to eye on the urgency of our current state of affairs regarding American politics, but I think we both agree that the long term solution here probably is something entirely unpredictable to us. Governments are generally finite things that are subject to restructuring and failure, and America is old enough to fool its people into thinking it's a permanent thing. I'm still advocating to save the ship we're on by fixing it while we're on the water, but I can't blame you for your view that we might want to abandon the ship sooner.

I used to be hard-line conservative in my view of how things should be structured and that they must stay the same, but then I realized that automation is a thing. As jobs are lost to robots, we're going to have big problems fast. If we want to keep a full scale revolt from happening while not resorting to a despotic tyrannical government, we can't maintain any semblance of how things currently operate moving forward. That's why I agree with you that the long term solution is probably going to be nothing like what we recognize even though I may disagree on the timing.

I am always amazed at the fact that people think violent revolution is required before certain changes. Don't you think that if you have enough boots on the ground to fight in America, that you'd have enough boots to support a new party to penetrate the election process?
I mean, if you don't think you'd be able to do that with your sheer numbers then you'd have no hope to compete with paramilitary defenses that the "elite" may hire, or far right counter-revolutionary militias which are absolutely itching for reasons to exist.

Sounds retarded. Will be crushed by my private police as it tries to take my money away, bye.

Yeah, I think the only way for any change to be lasting is for the majority of people to agree with the change. Or at least changes for the better.
Otherwise you need to use force, and then because people will want to use force against you to change things back you'll need to keep people that are good at using force, and the people that are good at using force and don't mind using it are usually the worst kind of people, so it will just turn into another shitty dictatorship.

how does your private police travel from their headquarters to save you without roads? :^)

Huh. I never made that connection before, that's a great observation. Might be a pretty good reason why some revolutions instate dictators, I wonder if there are statistics on this trend for smaller revolting groups vs. bigger ones.

That's not how it works or how it's ever worked.

I can't think of even a single historical example that worked out like that.

Usually the revolution starts out small but gains mass support as the revolution bears fruit and/or the old regime shows it's ass.

If you see the snibbedi snap know that what's said are the words of someone with a handicap.
I just say stuff and see if anyone actually knows what they've talking about. Sorry if I seem to be talking as if I know everything.

So what makes some revolutions become oppressive authoritarian dictatorships and some not? Just random chance of who gets support through manipulation of people?

Survival of the fittest by Nazi rules.

It depends.

Each revolution has its own historical context and way it develops. The Patriots in the American Revolution had far less popular support starting out than the Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, yet I would argue that the United States ended up far more democratic and progressive than the Protectorate.

First this has to go through legislation and then we will see what your private police can do against the army.

The only issue is that the legislation process needs to become like in Switzerland - direct democracy, direct popular voting which has binding power. This caliber of changes to the state must never be done by elected people. It must be the NATION that imposes it.

Elected puppets are too easily manipulated by the rich.

...

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. You premised your previous argument on the idea that you have, no matter what, a high school education. I was trying to argue that for many, you actually don't, and that the mass of social determinants around primary and secondary education really fuck it up for people. Even people with extrordinary drive might end up going nowhere because they can't depend on a high school education, the reasons being varied but tied back into capitalism.

As an aside, if you look at what black voters listed as the things they valued most as of last election, good public edication was at the top of the list. The same goes for M4BL and was at the centre of the Rainbow Coalition's platform. Hell, a lot of the civil rights stuff circled around desegregating schools.

I was also trying to argue that educational attainment is tied to all kinds of other social factors, one of the key ones being that stable family unit. I'd like to refine that in regards to the previous post. If both your parents are home but stuck doing hyper-exploitative work and you don't have a steady extended family structure to do caregiving, then given there's no national childcare policy you're going to miss out on a lot of social factors needed for success. If you're gonna argue that family stands alone, the logic is still there - parents who aren't in jail but can't be home can't give their kids the same amount of time. Given the whole prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs/the poor, it'd just be that much worse. In other words, that poverty is cyclical and structural.

Now of course you could say that high-school education and such are overvalued, but there's no way you're gonna be an AC technician in a modern market if you don't have a solid foundation in basic science and some decent math. As a personal anecdote, my dad renovates homes for a career (makes good money too) and often does short-term apprenticeships for minority students from relatively garbage schools. I've met them, and a lot are actually really driven, hard-working, and focussed - moreso than me lol. But they can't do the decent-levelled math required for the job. If you don't know Pythagoras, then you can't properly size a shelving unit. If you don't have solid higher-level multiplication, then you can't size a door. You often need some decent algebra to do a room layout. It's not engineerig, but if your education's been substandard you can't do the job.

So having two parents home is essential, but so is having a good education. You can't run a small business without one, or even enter a fair number of skilled trades. You'll be stuck as a Walmart greeter for the rest of your days, and that's a shitty way to live.

I'm not arguing that this applies to everyone, or that this is universal. I'm just talking in generalities, but generalities matter in this case.

Capitalism is not about trade but rather about rent. Is it fair that I should be free to live a life of luxurious leisure simply because I own the deeds to a factory?
I don't manage the factory. I don't work in the factory. I didn't build the factory. I get money simply because I own it. Meanwhile the workers might each make $500 profit for the factory in a day but they only get to take home $100. The rest goes to me.

If that sounds like a great system, then you support capitalism.

Nearly all pre-agrarian and agrarian societies were communal and had a barter economy.

The peasantry in Europe abandoned communal living in the 16th to 17th centuries and barter economy some time after the black death, due to a raise in wages and the reduction of able bodied labor.

The great difference between communal societies and capitalist ones are quite simple. In a communal society everyone is a stakeholder for the preservation of that society, therefore differences in wealth and ownership are miniscule, since everyone works for a common cause.

In capitalism a laborer provides his "surplus labor" not for collective property but for a wage, the true stakeholder are the investors and the bourgeoisie who own the mean of production. The flexible nature of the employer/employee relationship is central to capitalism maintaining the private use of the means of production, through the reduction of wages, calling the reserve army of labor etc.

It is completely different for example with the relationship of serfs with a medieval landowner which is one of mutual dependence, and was based on mostly tribute and not a dynamic wage/employment system.

Not an argument.

Because big businesses will do things like import millions of foreign workers to replace the current ones because they will work a tiny bit cheaper.

If you were building and setting up the factory while your friends were partying their lives away then I dont have a problem with it.

You don't get the anti-capitalist perspective because you are full of capitalist ideology, whether you notice it or not. If you want to understand our perspective you have to improve your understanding of history, capitalism, communism, socialism, property etc. lets break it down.

Private ownership of the means of production
In a society with a capitalist mode of production the means of production (the factories, machines, land, tools etc. that are used in production) are privately owned by a capitalist who can do anything they want with the MoP as long as they stay within the law. This is unlike the socialist mode of production where the MoP are owned by the workers that make use of democratic decision making.

Socialists like to make the distinction between private property and personal property; personal property is a relationship between a person and an object, it is something that you are going to use while private property is a social relationship between somebody who is deprived of something and somebody who has that thing. The working class themselves used to be peasants who all had their own land until the capitalists used the state to steal their land, a process known as enclosure. This is important because it highlights how private property is a social relationship that requires a threat of force to exist.

Wage labour
In a capitalist mode of production everything is turned into private property, including the things you need in order to live so since you can't take what you need without getting the shit kicked out of you by a cop you are forced into a relationship with a capitalist where you are basically their bitch, unless you prefer sleeping on the streets of course. And it only gets worse, those parasites take the full value of their labour and only give them back a pittance as a wage.

Production for profit
Producing for the sole purpose of generating more profit instead of producing to meet actual needs is cancerous and leads to things like advertisements creating false demand, planned obsolescence, 500 types of toothbrush, bullshit jobs, war and literally making the planet uninhabitable.

Lets go over some definitions too:
Capitalism: Private ownership of the MoP, wage labour, production for profit
Communism: Stateless, classless, moneyless society where resources are distributed from ability to need
Socialism: Workers owning and democratically managing the MoP

The whole idea that contracts are voluntary is memetic.
Consider thus: You are on my airplane under my terms and conditions, which - like most people - you agreed to without reading.

I walk out of the cockpit in flight and offer you a choice: Accept the new terms and conditions I just drafted, which entail allowing me to facefuck you, or get off my plane and fall 10,000ft to your death. It's pretty obvious that if you accept, you'll be doing it under duress.

Something something it's fundamentally the same as "work for an employer or starve" and the workers should control the factories, I'm lazy, I just wanted to imagine having sex on a plane.

You might want to look in to contract law a little bit.

What you described would be considered an unfair contract and thus a crime for them to draw it up in the first place.

You cant sign away your human rights in a contract.
Like if I made you sign a contract saying you are my personal slave for life, it would not be binding. In fact I would have committed a crime by drawing it up and asking you to sign it.

Law is malleable.
Make contract law such that private ownership of the means of production is rightly recognized as inherently coercive, then we'll talk.
(And have sex on a plane.)

into the trash it goes

Im not a judge or someone involved in making legislation. So I cant do that unfortunately.

I guess you thought that because of my knowledge of contract law but that isnt the case. I had to learn a lot about contract law after I signed a contract with a non competition clause. This made the contract invalid because I essentially signed away my right to earn a living with my normal skill set if I left the company. I took the contract to a lawyer and he said that the contract wasnt binding and technically illegal so I didnt need to keep up my end of the deal.

The failings of capitalism are much like the failings of communism. It is the injustice of denying those their fair due.

Well I mean Capitalism in itself is more social compared to the older ideologies. The thing is though is that the problem with capitalism is less about the buyer and more about the worker who is producing the goods. You see it is pretty unfair that a dude working his whole life makes less than a guy who has done nothing except inherit his parent's wealth.

But the food corps will always do their best to make it illegal, and the politicians are owned by corporations.

Not neccessarily, no.

This is why I'm against communism.

I worked extremely hard to get this property, including taking risks most people called 'mania-driven gambling', and keeping costs low in ways very few could fathom (no car, no cellphone, 1 dollar or less per meal).

Fuck the lazy welfare cunts who want a chunk of my land and pantry!
Are they hungry for expensive processed crap?
Well, the only expensive processed crap I have is LEAD!

so you can put a bullet in your head and save us the trouble of putting up with your shit

Keyboard warrior, so scary.

Are you pretending to be retarded now?

How am I retarded?
You're telling me to kill myself as if that's some super-original traumatizing thing, or even relevant at all to ANY discussion points to be made…

You're the retard. You have no arguments? Then fuck off to Holla Forums.

you're the one bragging about being eager to fill people with lead you fucking moron.
i'm telling you to start with yourself so we don't have to tolerate more of your rambling horseshit.
you actual fucking retard, stop posting and get some kind of awareness

You prefer a system where people must suffer as you did in order to live well, or do you prefer a system where this suffering is not required, and we can give a good life to all?

I wouldn't call it 'suffering'.
I'd call it having a goal and going after it, ignoring all the hubris from the wage slaves around you telling you you're on the wrong path and that you should go to college, get a job and work for the rest of your life–

Or whom hold up signs in the streets while they suck down 6 dollar lattes and complain about how they can't have the best iPhone on the market and that's Wallstreet's fault.

I will admit, there's plenty of land in the U.S. to house everyone, so the fact we have homeless people is fucking ridiculous.

But because there's so much other land out there, I'm not willing to give up mine.

I organized, assembled and built up this property from my mind, onto paper and into reality.
It's more than just some stupid made up border.
This is where I intend to hold out for the rest of my life, through thick and thin, nukes or no nukes.

Nice trips.

You went without a car, a phone, and spending way too little money per meal, and you would not call it suffering?

You do realise we don't want to take your land, right? The only way your land would ever be collectivised is if you employed people to work in it for you. Otherwise there would be no point.

Rice, oatmeal and chicken at 79 cents a pound, plus free food banks.
I'm shrewd, not malnourished.

Car is over-rated. I worked at home and didn't need it. Now I drive a 500 dollar POS, because, well, it works and I don't need anything fancier.

Cellphones are over-rated. I had and still have a land-line.
I can't justify spending 80 - 200 bucks a month on a glorified telephone.

And how would they figure that out? An 'audit'?
The perimeter is highly militaristic for a reason.

It's not saying, 'come check me out'.
It's saying, stay out or die.

Your so-called 'collective' falsely accused me of crap and then put me in a cage back when I was younger.
So if you're wondering why I don't like collectivism, that would be why.

People can be okay, individually, but put them in a group and they're a fucking virus!

Don't bother with reds. They just think capitalism is unfair because the wise succeed and they never grasped basic economics. Hint for you fucking reds, the big evil rich people are going to fucking leave when your 100% true communism is put in place, then it fails as socialism (just a FYI, socialism is the result of capitalism creating too much wealth) always does and you'll call it not REEL gomnunism and the circle fucking repeats.

You are intensely paranoid about things. Your land would not be taken because you are the only guy that lives there. However, your anti-collectivist atitude could fuck you over imensely. If you refuse to participate in the collectivist economic system, you will be cut off from the rest of society, economically speaking, and be left to take care of yourself with only the land you have. That is to say: you would be given the individualist economic systen you wanted, and be allowed not to participate in the collectivist system. Or you could choose to participate in the collectivist economic system, and give away the part of your production (if you even produce anything) to the community, and benefit from all it can give you.

Also, people are horrible selfish fucks whether individually or collectively.

Communism can only work if every single person agreed with it, people who don't will take their property and make do themselves, most likely they will eat better food at the end of the day because you latte slurping iphone posting fucking reds won't work anyway.

is mobile telecommunication that expensive in burgerland (i'm guessing you're a burger from the intense paranoia)

First of all, you have no idea what my economic background is, but I assure you it is hardly what you describe. Secondly, good luck finding treatment for a disease that you have when hospitals become colectivised. Thirdly, it doesn't need every single person. However, it is a superior system in every regard. In this way, if it were ever implemented side by side with stateless capitalism, people would rationally choose communism instead of it, because it benefits them way more.

What can capitalism offer me other than a life of servitude, conflict, and alienation? You realise that capitalism (and class societies in general) are the reason why there is war, poverty, and crime, right? Yet you would defend the system that threatens us all with nuclear weapons and the progressive destruction of our environment, because you are too paranoid to actually study communism and see the ways in which it would benefit you.

I already am, more or less.
Also, that kind of bully-tactic brownshirt crap is exactly why I have a dislike of communism and collectivism.

So is that what you do with anyone who doesn't agree with communism? Go to war with them?
Because I know where this leads.
This path is exactly what happened to the U.S.S.R. and dozens of millions died as a result.

If that's 'Utopia', leave me the fuck out.
I'd rather be dead than serve 'the Borg'.

fox news grandpa pls go

I agree/disagree.

In a collective, whether oligarchical or Neo-Stalinist (disguised as 'communist'), the evil rise to the top and turn everyone evil.

But at least when you pull people aside, you can better separate the good from the bad.

But you own yourself and you're responsible for gathering food and living or else nature is oppressive and exploitive therefore those that control the resources have no responsibility for others starving to death. Oh wait I forgot right wingers only like it when that logic applies to communists, but when applied to them it is force and it's evil.

you really have no fucking clue what your talking about don't you? My guess is ether you are just a youngster who found his way on to this board and is regurgitating what his father watches on fox, or your a comrade who is just false flagging (if so pleas reveal your self).

Anyway, about this oligarchy shit you've concocted, it is important to point out that any Communist worth his two labor voucher is against this shit extremely. Our goal is to create a society that is democratic as possible, so this notion of baddies "rising to the top" is ill founded being that there will no longer be a "top" position to fill
-t council communist

Also if you believe that our current system is "meritocratic" and it "separates good and bad" then your horrible mistaken.

Good post for newfriends.

This is basically the point where people become ideologues it seems. After getting exploited for so long in such a way, when they finally get a little up that latter, but even then it's typically through some amount of nepotism or luck to get it. Either way, the only contention is that you owning land should imply your using it, and if someone else works it with you, also owns it then. Simple as that.

Here we see the typical liberal language game, where labels are dragged into meaninglessness, and Orwellian double-think continues to thrive. Protip, being rich isn't a problem, but being so by taking surplus value of working people creates more contradictions which hasten the systems collapse, is. Also, you would ne right, a stateless, classless, currencyless society wouldn't have any rich people.

I would only would say it works if you have manual labor automated, which is happening right now, and replicators, or at least production for life, rather than profit, which requires things like planned obsolescence and wasting food in order to maintain.

Utopia is trying to solve all the worlds problems, when really we just want to solve one big one. There would still be tribalism and social and even possibly environmental problems in a stateless, classless, currencyless system. Meanwhile thinking things will be a-okay in the current order is what I would call utopia, nevermind something like 'green capitalism'. Oh, and that 'muh gorillion'? Total exaggeration, even if Stalin's USSR was autocratic af.

Spooky shit fam.

Nigga just put all that extra wealth on tax havens lmao.

And you need to read about what socialism is actually about, too.

???

Protip on that little propaganda image:
Capitalism doesn't prevent people from eating or drinking unless they have done literally nothing to earn it. It feels like that image wants me to believe capitalism takes food from people. The reality is that capitalism hasn't literally gone to every hungry mouth on the planet and fed it. Oh my fucking god! What monsters that every goddamn human hasn't given everything they have to make sure every other human isn't dying of hunger! Thank god you've done everything you could to feed the hungry, right? Because, you know, if you're not actually doing what you can with your insane amount of wealth (in comparison to everyone else) to help the needy then you're kind of a hypocrite that doesn't actually care and you just want to have a single evil to blame instead of having to face the complex and tragic nature of reality.
Capitalist nations spend tons of resources to help allay malaria and cure diseases and various charitable causes. Compared to capitalist nations, what have you seen coming from socialist/communist nations?

As of right now, the grand majority of nations that tried to go the communist/socialist route haven't been powerful enough to address hunger and disease in their own borders. I don't think your little propaganda picture does anything other than make college commies pat themselves on the back for thinking the "correct" things (regardless of the fact that they have likely physically given nothing to help humanity) and make reasonable people think "Jesus, these folks actually think that third world deaths are directly attributable to capitalism? What a cult."

The views expressed by people like you are reprehensible. You cherry pick history to fit your ideology because you can't stand to live in a world so complex that it actually doesn't fit your religion. Have fun living your entire life in a fantasy and never seeing your ideals realized, I'll be with the reasonable people who are willing to admit we don't have the fucking answer to everything but we're willing to do our best to talk and think for ourselves to come up with practical solutions.

Projecting much?

Cute, but I'm not the one resorting to conspiracy theories to justify protecting the character of a genocidal dictator.

this is the gayest post on leftypol

Hey fam, I got a question for you. How do you have people work for you when a vast majority of people grow their own food and already live modest and happy lives? Oh yeah, there's already an answer for that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital

The majority of your post reeks of ideology and appeals to emotion. Cry some more, we'll be starting co-ops.

What ideology am I spreading, good sir? I don't think I've really done anything other than criticize a stupid concept. Did I sound like an ancap, or a liberal, or a conservative? Do I sound like I just want pure capitalism? Please enlighten me for I am ignorant.
The only thing I really care about is curbing unnecessary suffering. I disagree that the solution is your solution.

I don't understand the rest of your post. People growing and eating food doesn't bother me– but it kind of makes me wonder something. Will you feel the same urgency that the image in the post has to go out and solve world hunger with the food you grow from your modest and happy lifestyles? If not, then that image should be as ridiculous to you as it is to me.

Because the real world is not a series of contrived interpersonal scenarios where literally everything can be boiled down to two perfectly honest people, rational to a biologically impossible degree, reaching a full consensual agreement.

The capitalism that Austrians want will never exist because it is not an economic system, it is a moral system.

Do you live on the same planet as I do?

...

Proudhon is a solid structure to be demolished and serve as a base for Marx.

oh my god hahahaha

hang your ass up in a high school classroom, kids can project their powerpoints with this post

There is one product.
The product requires time and energy of the worker to be made.
A capitalist takes 4/5 of it's wealth into his own pockets on the base that he provided the mean of production.
And this is a very generous capitalist we are talking here, usually conditions are far worse in the sweatshops.
The means get more efficient, so that in the end you have a shitton of goods, but no one to buy them, since everyone is unemployed, including the capitalist.

Those means are actually not necessary, because you can make them through more conventional methods, although at the cost of time.
In the end, we can say we as a society, have transcended goods. Banks liberated the money from all values. It is just an information, carried by everyone in plastic cards.
Traded in sums so absurdly high, people can not imagine that.
The wealth distribution is so lopsided, that even the second-richest fifth would actually profit from a wealth redistribution.

...

read bookchin
e
a
d

b
o
o
k
c
h
i
n

Uh, why do I have to do this? Did I claim capitalism was perfect? Did I claim it was the best idea forever? Point to a valid reason to say this other than just trying to feel good about yourself.

This is that thing y'all do with words, isn't it. Where you attribute all the ills of the world to the fact that it isn't a perfect communist utopia, so you can identify millions of deaths as purely the cause of capitalism rather than being individual tragic situations.
All the while ignoring the gulags and political killings in communist regimes across the 20th century, because those numbers are just innacurate and everything's fine and that's not REAL communism.

Why does it have to? If a communist society does well enough by just growing its own food, then why would you even have starvation with collectively owned and tilled land? Subsistence farming is perfectly fine, isn't it? Then even with all the trade embargos in the world you wouldn't have to bother with famine. Even if farmers go on strike you can just kill them and replace them (and the people of the Soviet Union routinely raided and killed successful farmers for being successful and enjoying the fruits of their labor, there's absolutely nothing keeping Stalin from just replacing those farm owners by force, so I don't really get this point at all.

Yes, yes you are. You have an ideology and you believe it to be a world-framing one that answers all questions about how society and government should be structured and identifies the "enemy" that stands between you and utopia. If I'm wrong about this, then I'd love that I'm wrong.

Uhh, what is a "refutation" in your eyes? Venezuela? You don't accept any real world example of attempts at this sort of system because it doesn't fit your ideal, so it's impossible to refute. It's like arguing with a Christian about the existence of God, or a Muslim about the perfect example of Muhammad. It sounds great because it sounds like it's based on compassion, but unfortunately it hides a sinister nature because it insists that certain people are the cause of a lot of suffering instead of admitting that suffering is inherent to the human experience and that the best way forward is to overcome. So when you get rid of your "causes" you'll find you need another scapegoat because society hasn't magically fixed itself because you dismantled certain classes by force. This habit of subdivision by marxist types happens all the time and usually results in villainizing enough people to destabilize the country and cause another revolution to overtake it unless it changes its tune quickly.

Life will always find a way to suck, I just don't want to actively make it worse. Being wealthy seems to make life suck less (up until you're financially stable, past which money has no impact on happiness). I don't like what capitalism has produced in the culture that surrounds me, it produces people who are suffering more than they need to be because we as people have drifted to materialism and indifference. Our system sucks, but at least it isn't as bad as your system routinely turns out. I don't need to say this to recognize that it's nice to have running water, plentiful food and opportunity surrounding me even if I haven't had the muh privileged life of a middle class child in America;

...

Now remember one death under socialism is the problem of socialism and you better not think about other that may play into a death, but if you blame any death on capitalism all of the sudden your oversimplifying things and there's more factors going into play than capitalism

Use this one instead

And what caused those individual tragic situations? What causes the fact that we have enough food to feed 12 billion people yet millions starve to death? What caused this world to be increasingly privatized to the point that our resources?
Why is this is planet getting completely fucked by pollution and climate change? What is causing all this artificial scarcity in this world? You have no explanation. Yes the world will never be perfect, but to brush off others ideas to keep using tankies failures while ignoring the Rojavas, the Catolonias, the Yugoslavias, and the Burkino Fasos of the world is intellectually dishonest. To acknowledge capitalisms flaws, but then to turn around and say that we just hate that the world is just that way because it's unfair and to ignore systematic problems is intellectually dishonest. I beat you don't even know what the surplus theory of value, the contradictions of capitalism, the falling rate of profit is. No you accuse us of not knowing what we talk about, but you don't what you're talking about. As much as I hate the ideology of lolberts and social democrats at least they can blame everything on cronyism. They at least know something is wrong. You don't even attempt to do anything.

And I know what you're going to say that we try to explain to much that we systematize our logic too much. That the world is naturally shitty and that the whole system can't be changed. Even my dad after the 2016 figured that something is off after Bernie got kicked off the ballot by his own party because the corporate candidate was what the DNC wanted and my dad was into apologizing for the status quo because he worked for the US Government. To suggest that the rich or as Marxists like me call it the bourgeoisie have a negative impact on this planet because they're just acting in their self interest as to make money and to retain power is not a crazy idea. And to go further and suggest that the reason capitalism has the failures is because it is structurally to serve the interests of the minority other the majority and causes problems directly and indirectly for everybody who's not rich is not crazy idea. It's not even about morality at this point it's about trying to survive in a world that is getting worse and worse. I'll admit that I don't have all the answers and that not every problem can be fixed, but from the history socialist experiments to current day I would argue that humanity is not destined to live their lives with economic problems heavily reduced and that humanity must still live under capitalism because somebody keeps making a Hobbesian argument that was formed under feudalism that was used to justify kings and queens. Also, remember that capitalism didn't just happen other night. In fact there were quite a lot failures that happened several times in a row until capitalism became the dominant mode of production. In fact it wouldn't have happened without these multiple failures and experiments overtime. Now just remember that when you point out the USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, and other countries, but also remember these too . Maybe one day you will throw your bias aside and understand instead of trying to make yourself feel superior to everybody else.

dumb commies, i was able to turn my WHOLE LIVING ROOM into a wheat field for me and my six dogs!!!! my landlord doesn't even care!!!!!!

who said you cant grow your own food!!!!!!!!!

"i was literally a single dollar a day away from starvation which is generally considered a literal form of biological torture by almost everyone but uh no i wouldnt call that suffering"

There aren't enough jobs. Jobs work like musicale chairs. Someones going to be left out.

...