« Socialism isn't possible because of human nature. Capitalism is just the NATURAL expression of economy. »

Because stupid altruistic capitalists keep subsidizing poverty by shipping food and money to them.

...

Clearly there is enough food for the world.

Capitalism literally chooses not the feed the world.

Winner and losers don't matter when by choice we as a human race decide to not feed everyone.

Bingo.

This assumes a lion and a zebra are trying to eat each other. This is not the case. How can their be a winner if both are playing by different rules and have different intentions?

Lmao nice info graphic

...

What does one gain in feeding poor on the other side of the world? What they can give to me? Why should i share my properey with people i never even seen?

1. Human nature is not eternal and immutable, it is shaped by material conditions.
2. An allegedly egoistic human nature is not in and of itself an obstacle to socialism anyway.
3. Natural does not necessarily mean good or desirable, case in point with capitalism.
4. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in human economy and therefore hardly natural.

14 + 17 + 14 + 14 = 59 words in total.

Can you prove it? What if it isnt?
Or is but only partially?

You cannot fool me, deciever.

Obviously not enough if there are people starving.

What's the point of natural selection anymore then? Why would should the successful subsidize the losers who are too dumb or lazy to produce something to feed themselves? Why would the human race want to promote these losers and punish the winners?

Holla Forums more like tumblr the imageboard

Stirner was anti-capitalist.

Yes. History shows that economic system change over time and place. This change is brought over by various factors such as conflicts between classes, material prosperity or technological progress.

I addressed that in my second point.

stirner would have fed those kids

Any food that isn't finished and tossed away could have been something to eat for another person.

...

Famine in our modern world are not caused by a lack of food but by a lack of access to existing food.

Social-Darwinism is a meme. Don't fall for it.

Do you seriously believe this to be a reflection of reality?

Because we are civilized human beings, not cancer cells.

...

There is enough food to feed the world. You can google it.

The porkies choose not to feed the world.

Natural selection doesn't work that way at all.

You can go back to Holla Forums though.

...

1. You moved the goalpost there from "human nature" to "human interest". Not a very ingenuous move.

2. Socialists do not deny the historically progressive role assumed by capitalism.

3. Technological progress (rather than capitalism proper) is likely the most important factor of the increased economic output.

4. Your infograph does not address wealth inequality. How is the economic output distributed? In a very unequal way one would suspect.

5. There is no reason to believe going beyond capitalism towards communism would reverse the positive trend — quite the contrary, in fact.

Can't really do so. Capitalist, corrupted governments are bad but the system itself is far more succesful than socialism ever was. Target the lies in media and the lies of the politicians and then you will have something working. Don't target them and under socialist rule the whole thing will be ever worse mess than it already is as you will allow established elites to just take the mantle of the leadership as they always did in case of, for example, communism where nice sounding slogans went one way but the money and power went another.

Socialism is only possible BECAUSE OF human nature.

Capitalism, and markets at that, have existed for the vast MINORITY of human existence.

Boom done.

You didn't counter anything though, just made a statement. Untrue one at that as despotism and oligarchy were the systems ruling the humanity through majority of its existence, with clan/tribe leaders and other afluent members supported by warrior castes managing and controlling others.

Socialism is human nature, ya dingus

That is the dumbest shit. Economics have always existed. It's so very obvious that you're coming from a place like many Marxist supporters who take things at face value and don't understand the depth or implications. Capitalism is just the natural expression of successful economics.

This is a prime example. This is why most successful people win first place without even running the race.

Nobody is saying economics never existed until now.

Define "successful" for one, but really if you could justify this assertion as whole that'd be great. What you're saying is really vague.

Your ignorance is really painful

economics=/=capitalism
capitalism=/=economics without government intervention and restriction
Capitalism is an economic system based on a specific idea of 'property', which requires military force to defend it.

≠

I didn't know 1776 was "always".

...

Capitalism didn't exist a millennium ago while genetically modern humans obviously have.

unless Middle Ages never existed?

What?

Marx agreed with you. He believed that all systems, including the ones that preceded capitalism, came into being because the material conditions made them an inevitable conclusion. He also believed that the crises within capitalism are inherent, that they are "natural." Just as "naturally", the system that follows capitalism will exist in such a way that it negates the contradictions that made crisis a natural process.

...

If it was the natural expression of economy why did it have to be universally forced on people through violence?

that may be the best argument so far

People that say this shit can only take in information from unsourced jpegs, so here's one on the myth of "human nature."

wtf I'm a leftist now

Pick one

What if it actually isn't?

Except it's not. People perceive defense of property as legitimate force.
This "force is force; all the same" is turbo fucking autismo.
People will cheer for your death if you get killed invading someone's house.

Are you a wealthy business owner?

No. Destroying your economy is not the best interest of literally anyone. The overwhelming majority of people in China is not benefiting from their crazy anti-capitalist policies, the overwhelming majority of people in North Korea is not benefiting from their crazy anti-capitalist policies. The overwhelming majority of people in Cuba is not benefiting from their crazy anti-capitalist policies. Cuba can't even share doctors with Brazil without losing them to illegal desertion.

So I guess you don't have to be a billionaire to perceive a functional capitalist society as your best interest.

All I can assume right now is that you are just a pussy that can't handle change. The world isn't Murica where the status quo hasn't been meaningfully altered for nearly a century.

How come it hadn't existed before 300 years ago and if it had why did it cause all these famines?

Humans are social animals and also human nature is and we have only had capitalism for like 200 years if it was human nature wouldn't we have had it forever?

Nice job rejecting a valid argument to why your whole philosophy is contradictory with "you are just a pussy who can't handle change".
That's why people desert from Cuba, right? Not because it's their best interest, but because they just can't handle "change", aka, the system they lived almost 100% of their lives at.

He's not talking about a defense of property. He's talking about the destruction of the commons through political and military might.

Read a book.

Read Shaikh

ftfy

Stop being retarded. Even in tribal times people would have gotten killed for getting to close and sharing too much space with tribes that had a different identity.

Another idiot who uses minor factoids to convince himself that China is not heavily influenced by marxism, because otherwise it might severely challenge his beliefs, and challenging your beliefs gives you cognitive dissonance and hurts you little head, so we best avoid it.

Most people who fled Cuba were wealthy business owners that should have been shot. In modern times, Cuba has a higher Human Development Index than fucking Georgia. Castro's human rights violations were a slap on the wrist compared to the US's rap sheet.

Meanwhile, the Deng reforms turned China into the most capitalist nation in history, and North Korea has long since renounced all ties to communist thought and espouses its own, non-traditional definition of "socialism" unrelated to left-wing politics.

You are just a pussy that can't handle change.

reminder that liberals will get the wall before any fascists

No, most people who fled from Cuba were not wealthy business owners, you massive fucking faggot. Cuba didn't have 300 000 wealthy business owners you fucking idiot. You should be the one shot then thrown out of a helicopter, you destructive delusional faggot.

And there's more, Cuba has nonstop desertion problems. The average Cuban would get the fuck out of there if possible. Even as early as 2001, the Cuban navy was spotted executing 3 men trying to flee on a raft. Also, stop using minor factoid to pretend China is not one of the most marxist influenced nation on earth. China sees Mao as a historical figure. China has Mao on notes. China is literally still using their communist red flag.

Reminder, the west is individualist for the past 400 years. You'll get thrown out of a helicopter in front of your friend's commie movement headquarters before any innocent individualist gets hurt.

Dengism was a counterrevolution, but China's still less neoliberal than most of the world, it's hardly "the most capitalist nation on Earth". Don't overstate your case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_exile
In other words, people who fled the island and weren't part of the ruling class were victims of American propaganda. Given that the Cuban people objectively enjoy a quality of life on par with peaceful second world nations, I'd say they were avoiding a trigger that wasn't getting pulled.
Castro's human rights violations were basically the same as most rulers of his time during the Cold War. Unjustifiable, but a fact of life.

How's your Orwellian doublethink treating you? Do you get migraines?

...

capitalism is forced collectivism with the implicit thread of survival
socialism and communism are individualism where people are liberated from material needs

there is also the fact that the vast majority of nationalists are capitalists, which is something that aynclaps have yet to explain.

Woah, you mean, they weren't wealthy business owners? You mean, that 1 000 000 who fled Cuba weren't all capitalists and just people like doctors and highly skilled workers?
By "many rules of his time" you mean, many rules that sided with the USSR and wanted total control of all resources, right? Because you didn't see this happening in USA, or Chile, or Brazil, or Canada, or Europe. Can you imagined if 1/4 of the population of had left with the establishment of the anti-communist dictatorship in Chile? Can you imagine how often you faggots would be using that to talk about how anti-communists are bad?

...

The delusion is reaching critical mass.

Dead Banter.

I clarified in my post that I meant people that deserved it, and pointed out how you don't see any poor, starving people leaving the country, in spite of the bread line meme.
You mean the anti-communist dictatorship that edgelords now fetishize, despite Pinochet being universally despised by modern Chileans, including right-leaning ones? The man that was simultaneously an authoritarian and a libertarian, which is somehow not a logical paradox?

not an argument :^)

...

...

If socialism worked it would have worked by now.

See Venezuela
See Cuba
See Soviet Russia
See Maoist China

Why didn't they make the move to communism and the disillusion of the state? If your answer is muh porkie then you know which system is superior.
I guess handing power to a select group of people ends with a dictatorship oppressing the very people you claim you want to liberate from the class system. Maybe one more try, right?

Retarded, middle class ideologues, the lot of you.

What's worst than a non-argument, is an argument that is objectively wrong in any measurable metric, coming from a delusional person who living in a non-stop confirmation bias thought process, from someone who cannot objectively define anything.

Woah, what a nice individualist society you got there. Meanwhile
Woah, what an oppressive collectivist system.

M-Ls failed, socialism as a whole is a lot more broad than that.

...

No, buddie, I actually made points, thing is, your cognitive dissonance is hitting you so hard you refuse to even acknowledge it.
Yes, we can always try FREE MARKET COMMUNISM, or try to create a magical super computer that will magically solve all conflict of interest in society which we can't even begin to explain yet.
Or maybe.. just maybe… how about this: How about we stop listening to this clearly delusional ideology that is mostly followed by people bellow 20yo with no academic background?

See
As usual, lolberts think everyone who disagrees with them is a simpleton that hasn't been introduced to their utopian (the irony is rich) "praxeological" bullshit. That is literally the basis of every one of your political arguments, a heavily implied insult to the other person's mental acuity. There is a reason le fedora meme is associated with your beliefs.

yes they can
yes they can, either in private production, or to decide democratically what to produce with his fellows, using the social MoP

there is no legitimate ownership; all private property was acquired through barbarism in primitive accumulation; any title you claim to have to private property only relies upon the word of the last person who had it, and eventually someone effectively invented property and 'stole' it from everyone else
same
same
same! however I can't see why anyone would do that in a society that has surpassed the need for wage labour; reminder that peope only work for wages due to (i) the need for money and more importantly (ii) the need to use that money to live.

You delusional faggot idiot, economists don't get "fedora memes" associated with them outside of leftypol echo chambers. While austrians participate in academic debates and government hearings, the biggest marxist economist on earth, Richard Wolff, claims that economic theory cannot be objectively discussed and debunked. youtube.com/watch?v=cUTLCDBONok
Basically, in the real world, outside of your echo chambers, it is the exact opposed, you are the ones who are the complete joke that everyone avoids listening to.

because ideological capitalists are literal manchildren that can't tolerate not being allowed to so something, no matter how completely retarded it is

That you think neocharlatanism = Marxism tells a lot. Austrians are viewed even more skeptically by mainstream economists than Marxists are, and in academia, any fucking idiot can express an opinion, because that is how academia is supposed to work.

Seriously, you are saying the ebul corporatists that aren't real capitalists are also proof that your Austrian bullshit is mainstream. You literally believe two contradictory things at once.

I love how you read his comment, replied to it yet somehow you still just spent your entire post making thinly veiled boasts about how much smarter you are than him.

It's also really funny that you indirectly call yourself an economist but I'm not sure how intentional that was.

Wait, I thought the 1 000 000 cubans deserved to be shot for fleeing while being wealthy business men?
This doesn't sound very individualist to me, you faggot.
Woah, what a nice rebuttal you gave there.
Will commies ever stop being delusional?

By the way, a delusional claim you made that is nice to explore:
You legitimately take absolute wealth and a characteristic of your ideas. Think about it for a second, think about it how delusional that fucking is.
Because the business made investments and actually offer them a higher wage then they would otherwise get alone?
Because they need to set up production nodes of society and loans would speed up their investments?
This is on par with any religious belief. In fact, the average christian is more moderate in faith when compared to the average marxist.

that is literally the basis of austrian economics

you don't even understand what you are defending

Are you fucking joking me? Are you fucking retarded? "Mainstream" economists which you refer to are either keynesian or monetarists, which would rather shove a coconut on their assholes than to take marxists seriously. You are so delusional it's fucking hilarious.

The funniest part is how you accidentally confirmed everything:
So basically, you identify that very few marxists academics as neocharlatans. You don't even take them seriously yourself and yet you think they are taken more seriously than Austrians. You have no idea what you are talking about.

...

He didn't say that, way to put words in his mouth.
Orwell was a socialist, you burger retard.
Personal property and private property are not the same thing. You can own yachts or mansions and no one cares if they cannot be used in production.

hurr everyone but me is a retard
Why would anyone agree to this if the means of production were owned by the workers? industries would simply make deals with one another with no middle man.
hurr everyone but me is a retard

the individual/collective distinction is blinding you from seeing any nuance at all
it is individualist; you choose whether to participate in using the social means of production; if you don't want to use them, then use your own private means or go to a different democratic group, or start your own
also, democracy is individualism, on a larger scale; if your actions affect others (the resources available to society) then the others should, as people affected by the decision, also be "in" on that decision
there is a distinction between possession and property
but there is no need for wages, at all, in a Communist society
no, no it's not. if you do not need to work for a wage, it follows that you either work for yourself, or someone works for you; Communism would generally entail the former however in the form of democratic and completely voluntary institutions may also include the latter.
you wouldn't need loans to make products, you wouldn't need to make investments, those things are money terms, and Communism no longer needs money; money rests upon firstly controlling access to socially produced items, and secondly upon wage labour; if wage labour is abolished, money is no longer required.

just as you don't voluntarily sell yourself into slavery, or en gage to be a serf in a weird feudal community, very few if any people would engage in wage labour - why? beacuse the mode of production has changed, and the old mode of capitalism has become obsolete, surpassed by production for use, communal ownership of social means of production, and no requirement for wage labour.

Yes. That is how little they think of Austrians. Even from a capitalist perspective, the Chicago school and Post-Keynesians have long since BTFO them eternally, like how Marxists outmoded most other contemporary socialist theories (which, to be fair, often were the utopian nonsense you likely think Marxism is).

Wrong.
Remember how you started this to prove the socialism was in fact individualist? Seems like the veil fell when you forgot what you were trying to trick people to believe. Seems like you are delusional person.

No, I explained with more detail, I explained that all the conditions for what you want to not be capitalism, is that socialism will magically work so well that nobody will want to actually preserve their ownership, make their own enterprises, and respect private legitimacy. It is almost an appeal to the supernatural.

No you faggot, that's not how little they think of austrians, Milton Friedman was heavily influenced by Hayek, same with Keynes, also heavily influenced by Hayek.
Stop. Fucking. LARPing. Just because you pretend something is true, it doesn't make it true. Creating this fake reality around you where your ideas aren't considered shit, where somehow people trust marxists more than austrians.

truly activating my neurons

Nope, it means you are ignorant and you think a silly meme made by a 18 communist has a valid critique on the ideas an economist developed through 30 years of work.

no. ur wrong

Fucking hilarious. You didn't even fucking notice yet that you take the assumption of infinite high wages for everyone for free is fucking pure nonsense.

It was. My point was that your fear of an Orwellian dystopia is no less shared by us, and wrongfully associated with non-capitalist economics. Some of us on the board are M-Ls, but it wouldn't be a chan without freedom of opinion.
No, I remember you hammering on about it because you are autistic and incapable of understanding different points of view. A democracy that does not respect individual rights is not a democracy at all, because the point of democracy is to give everyone power in society.
Again, you are autistic, so you lack any ability to solve problems or think laterally. Even capitalism has essentially rendered Austrian claims of impossible calculation moot because capitalists use logistics to predict market changes all the time.

Only neoclassical economics are actually accepted by the general public, that was my point. Which you missed because you are autistic.

nigga wat I said nothing about infinitely high wages
in Communism you are not paid a wage, there is nobody to pay you a wage; you and your fellow workers, if working together, decide how to split up the products that you make after you have made them, according to each person's contribution, or some other way if you so wish. there is no money in this process.

A different point of view that you gave up defending halfway through to justify why collectivism is great. And I'm the autistic one.
And then switched to another "point of view" that assumes that you'd be able to supply infinite wages for everyone and society would have absolutely no conflict of interest.

Wait, if you were so eager to prove me false, why didn't you explain to me how socialism will magically create wealth out of nowhere and how everyone will work for no reason to supply free wealth to people so they don't get hired by a free enterprise?
You know, trying to discredit and idea or argument by reflecting reasoning like that, sounds a lot like something a religious person would do. Maybe there's a reason why I called you religious. Maybe you are actually confirming what I said at every one of your posts without noticing.

What wealth do people get from working then you fucking faggot? What do you get for supplying resources for free to other people living miles away from you? Or maybe you are saying here that we should all live in subsistence farming societies just because we don't want capitalism? Or maybe you are so delusional, you think people will work 8 hours a day to benefit others for free, just in the HOPES, that what they get back is worth as much as their work. As if every human being would become a delusional socialist drone.

And basically, this system according to you will be so great, it would literally be impossible to hire someone for a wage because of how amazing this system will be. It's literally an appeal to the supernatural.

What we are defending is ourselves from your endless barrage of false claims of our views, backed with the same thought terminating cliches we have heard a million times. If you were hoping to change our views, you failed badly, or if you came here simply to make us look like retards, you failed catastrophically.

You don't actually care what we say and just want to screech "YOU WANT 1984 YOU PSYCHOPATHS LEARN BASIC ECONOMICS", yet are shocked when we drop the pretense. There is no question you are asking that cannot be solved with two minutes of research.

...

Sweety, corporatism is capitalism

How can I explain anything to you if you will constantly straw man the hell out of it? You literally do not want an explanation. You want to screech.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)

your entire worldview is CIA/JBS propaganda

I'm not talking about defence of property, I'm talking about how every piece of property now considered private was once stolen

All of those are vague theories, vague claims. What I'm asking here, is how will you magically create so much wealth and such abundance of good services, that hiring people and making free enterprises will become literally impossible?
You see, because if you could actually do that, then why haven't you done socialism yet? If you can provide to people more for less work, why haven't you made a free enterprise and then swallowed the whole world yet? It seems here that you are severely delusional.

test

i'm not even going to bother explaining the part where the latter link literally proves austrian economics wrong

If you hate "corporatism" so much, why haven't you moved to Somalia yet?

inb4 niggers

How is that private property? How do you know he doesn't mean personal property.

Bravo commie.

We do not want to "create wealth". We are not capitalists. You would understand this if you weren't autistic.

The goal isn't necessarily to achieve abundance of goods and services. It's to abolish the state, wage labor, private property, money, and so on. This may lead to consuming far fewer goods and services (which is actually good considering that continuing to consume more and more of them would be a climate disaster)

You make absurd assumptions. We call you out on how absurd you are then you call us absurd for not aligning with your absurd world view.
How fucking dense are you?

...

Oh look, more posts that literally dodge the main argument we been having for the past 10 posts and just LARPs and slides the discussion.
No, you faggot, I call you out on your absurd assumptions because YOU MADE THEM. One of you idiots implied that whatever collectivist system they are proposing would supply so much wealth to people that nobody would ever find reason to get hired by a free enterprise. You faggots imply that people will work 8 hours a day expecting no return, so other people can get their free food and welfare so they don't get hired by free enterprises and make capitalism. And you are literally avoiding to explain that over, and over.
Wake the fuck up, you faggots are delusinal as fuck and even though I'm asking questions to you directly, you can't even begin to explain it. You can't even begin to explain the magical system you advocate for on a daily basis, so let alone, prove it that it can create such great results to the individual person.

There is no "main argument". All you are doing is complaining that we do not agree with you. There is nothing we can say to convince you.

If anything you have probably made most users that saw this thread feel a little more secure in their beliefs.

We aren't explaining it to you because all your accusations are simply not related to what we believe.

Money isn't wealth. Goods and raw materials are wealth.

Tip to consume far fewer goods in an oppressive capitalist society
Oh wait, in a socialist society, everyone would literally impoverish themselves on purpose, because that's their best interest. Everyone would commit chose self sacrifice democratically, unlikely in the real world of today, where 70% of the population doesn't want forced environmental taxation at all.

People will be paid in non-exchangeable labor vouchers in accordance with their labor hours to obtain goods at distribution centers.

Private property, money, and production for exchange will be forbidden, so there's no free enterprise.

Notice how your delusions are so deep into your thought process, you are capable of making a rebuttal to something I never actually said.

The popular will is deluded by false consciousness and bourgeois propaganda.

You asked how socialism can "create wealth", and we replied that this is a non sequitur: wealth cannot be "created" because money is not wealth.

Yes, this is what a anarchist society would look like, a forced labor voucher system where people are not allowed to trade their labor for what they deem to be the highest rewards, and instead, have their value judged by a collectivist state.

Yes, very individualist, very stateless, very sensible. People would just agree to never actually feel like they have legitimate ownership on things around them other than the place they sleep. This is what a stateless society based on individual feelings of righteousness would look like, people would prohibit themselves to engage in anything that is not in line with the socialist set of ideas.

Well can't I start my community funded organic garden owned and operated by the workers?

You're implying we want people to be poor. We don't. We want the means of production in the hands of the worker and use it to increase the goods for the purpose of need and not profit.

It's not about supplying the world with excess goods, but simply giving goods to those who are simply not getting it under a profit system.

Yes, in a socialist society everyone wouldn't need food water and shelter, people would actually produce less of everything and survive on less to save the environment. You faggots are so delusional you can't keep track of a line of logic you started yourself 2 posts ago.

Woah, literally can't keep track of your own logic. And its literally something I didn't ever even fucking mentioned. Fucking hilarious. You people are fucking insane.

Socialism is not communism, one precedes the other. Not all socialists are communists, either.

You can start an enterprise if you want, actually. It just won't matter because no one will have a material incentive to do so. As a matter of ideological worship, it is irrelevant.

And who would be working to give free goods to areas that are completely unproductive and undeserving of greater rewards? If such a group exists, why aren't they doing it right now in a free system of exchange?
If only your ideas didn't fall apart with such a mild amount of doubt.

Like I said, you don't care about what we think or have any interest in exploring different ideas, all you want to do is lecture us on how fucking retarded we are.

There's no state. The state is to be abolished and replaced by a democratically planned economy. The plan will meet all needs by definition, or it isn't Communism.

That's correct, as they shouldn't. No one should be allowed to own anything beyond what they occupy and use.

Literately, we wen't full circle to square one. We got back to the delusional religious belief that you'll make so much wealth and prosperity to people that it will literally be impossible for someone to come up with a free enterprise that achieves greater results.

What you want is either :

How can you defend capitalism if we never had it? Are you some corporatist shill that believes in something that never happened?

You faggot, you claimed yourself that people would actually consume less in a socialist society. You literally argued against yourself and then called me dumb for pointing that out.

Defending anything today and calling it capitalism makes you a statist cuck.

No one. Everyone is expected to do what they can. The disabled will have a much easier time finding work because the lack of profit motive means it is no longer necessary to ignore them in favor of able-bodied workers.
Because no one has the resources to do so without political action. Hence our call for revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

If you described modern society to someone two hundred years ago, they would call it utopian nonsense. Reality is restrictive, but is a lot more lenient than your autism.
It doesn't make sense to you because you aren't very intelligent. Sorry, fam.

No, you are intentionally misrepresenting everyone's points and colluding the arguments of different people.

Proof you are a statist cuck.

You see, you claim capitalism is better yet at the sametime say that we never had capitalism. You support corporatism! We got a cuck here!

how have americans not died out from selective pressure

Trying to acknowledge your arguments is just collectivism. If individualists ignore your argument then it just a sign of rebellion against collective statist cucks.

Do you even listen to yourself you fucking faggot? Do you not realize how fucking delusional you are as you write this down? You seriously wrote "No one" next to "everyone".
So, everyone would be forced to work to supply to people which might not work back to benefit them?

Uh, you idiot, the disabled as less capable of working, and the work invested required to employed them is the same if not greater; why would it be easier for the disabled find work? Oh, I forgot, this is a fucking religion with no basis on reality.

Yeah, because if you take all the capital from Walmart, all the items, and merchandise, and facilities, and ship it to a different continent, you wouldn't lose anything, right? Yeah, if only you had this magical political action, you'd be creating wealth out of your fucking butthole and turning Africa into a fucking paradise, whilst losing nothing. The source of your ideology is literally religious beliefs based on nothing.

...

...

So fucking autistic he can't read.

Economic systems you cannot mentally comprehend are not delusional, and in fact, real world capitalism is much more complicated than your simplistic notions of entrepreneurship. This is called the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Do you actually think Walmart, a retail company, just pulls their merchandise out of their asses? Like, they assemble it all in the back room?
Also, Walmart is heavily subsidized by the US government. So much for your lolbert ideals.

What great thinkers these socialists guys are. They can't even write a single sentence down they can defend.

Your whole beliefs are a joke. Your worldview is a joke. Your methods of reasoning are a joke. The reason why you think you can come up with a magical utopia where everything is great is not because you are genius smarter than the previous 10 billion humans that lived and you can actually come up with a magical utopia where everything is great, but because you are mentally ill; severely delusional.

If you cannot comprehend basic English, there ain't much I can help.

See:
They are not "vague theories", they are practical solutions to practical problems. Read the citations and get back to us. We cannot explain it any better than an academic.

Okay.

You don't have to come up with anything, historical necessity will make Communism happen anyway. Marx just elucidated what was already happening.

What did OP mean by this?

You faggot, there's nothing in those theories that answer what I asked you. Because if there was, you would have fucking written it down. I can see through your confirmation bias you faggot. There's no "market-socialist" theory that says crippled people would get employed easier in a socialist society, let alone actual substantial proof.

And Marx was wrong, and communists were wrong. Faggots today forget the historical context and zeitgeist of movements. At the time, people though farm owners would eventually monopolize all society with greater automation; except today farm and food production slowly became an even smaller percentage of the economy. It's easier to be self employed now than ever, it's easier for workers to open their own business now then ever, there's aren't any more government capitalist enterprises, in fact, ironically, marxists in places like Venezuela and Brazil now love government capitalist enterprises that monopolize resources. The zeitgeist of communists was wrong. Things went the exact opposite way as they expected. Marx himself would have admitted this if he was alive.

what you get back in a capitalist society for your work is literally never worth as much as your work, unless you own the company or your boss is even more retarded than you you class cuck illiterate

Literally just read the fucking articles. Not just the headers, either, and don't skip linked academic papers. It answers everything.
It's common sense.

...

You are wrong. The worth of your work is what you judge it to be. If you judge your work to worth more than the rewards established, then you don't work. You have to do some severe mental juggling to justify why this implicit logic of the voluntary contract you agree does not apply.

Yes, the same way you can make money off the raw materials made by other works.
No you don't.

If you are an individualist, why would you willingly subject yourself to the wage labor when you don’t have to?

How about you actually explain your case in this discussion forum instead of telling me to go look for reasons why you are not delusional for you?
Maybe you could just open your eyes a little bit, and realize that "market socialism" was literally mostly made by socialists that got personally destroyed by Ludwig Von Mises.
Maybe if you open your eyes a little more, you'd realize that since they became market socialists, it means they admitted that the original idea of socialism was absurd and impossible. Maybe then you can realize, the whole base of what you are standing on, is rotten. There's no reason to follow a tradition that has already disregarded its own foundation and core beliefs; and doing so only makes you a delusional person.

My work is worth establishing a post-capitalist system for.

Wow, it's as if the ruling and working class have different interests, and we're members of the latter.

I wouldn't. Nobody would. That's why half of planet earth is self employed.

Because I don't feel like it and don't explain things as well as the perfectionist spergs on Wikipedia. Mostly the former.

Austrians couldn't BTFO their way out of a wet paper bag. They're like psychoanalysts, they had useful ideas a century ago but modern theory has long since surpassed them, even if some people still cling to them.
Marxist academics would be the same if Marxism were as simplistic and moralistic, and even the flawed parts of it are more coherent.

What "original idea"? Socialism is a general concept, not a specific ideology. Leftists have fought each other more than they have other ideologues since forever.

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was self employed?

That is socialism.

Yeah, this is totally what the working class needs.
You see, after we establish that someone investing in productivity and giving me a higher wage than I would otherwise get by myself is oppression, we can abolish said investments and make all of investors and production experts flee our country, and then we would have an utopia where nobody steals from me.

Of course, If this few autistic core assumptions are wrong, this would result in slow destruction and impoverishment of a nation. It would make communists destruction worshiper that are against the very concept of a productive society that is mutually beneficial to everyone. If only there was a way to empirically analyze such historical occurrences. If only there was some type of academia that studies this type of thing….

Now imagine if the other half were self employed. This is essentially what we want.

Yet, they literally forced you to adopt market socialism apparently. Go figure. Austrians are so dumb and stupid, they influenced socialist movements more than many legitimate socialist movements.

Yet, you keep repeating about how dumb and stupid they are. While adopting the ideology created in a debate against them.

To each according to his needs and from each according to his ability.

Then the entire planet would be less productive and lose wealth. If a free enterprise if offering a higher wage than you otherwise be able to make yourself, it means that if this enterprise was banned, people would be worst off. The average person has no entrepreneurial skills, the average person was always a depended commoner for thousands of years, they are just catching a breath for the first time in history thanks to an more optimal system of production.

You are affirming capitalism as a superior system by pointing out how the status quo works. The only reason there is investment is because the ruling class owns the means of production to begin with, the legitimacy of which is falsely implied. There is no force that can be used against them that they have not used to establish and maintain their existing power. And I mean literal, not just implied force.

Yes, lets prohibit people from making the most optimal deals to survive because we want the average person to be exactly one way. Fuck getting paid by Macdonalds right? If those poor fuckers can't figure out how to be productive, we'll jus throw them on the back of the most productive people, and keep adding weight to them until the system breaks, either that or we let them starve for not being wealthy white entrepreneurial people who can instantly make cooperatives.

Wait, how about this, how about you increase self employment by improving the capitalist system and making everyone better off, as opposed to aim for a delusional utopia that historically never worked?

Who the fuck is "you"? Stop making vague statements, especially after accusing others of doing so.

CEOs and investment bankers are just politically correct monarchists, actually running a business is also done by skilled workers like actuaries, accountants and sociologists in advertising research.

Because capitalism does not want self-employment, it wants wealth and ownership to become increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. That is how it works on a fundamental level. You literally want capitalism to be less capitalistic because you do not know what capitalism is.

No you fucking faggot, this is basic fucking economics.
freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf
You need investments for yo uto be more productive. You fucking profit off of other people's investments and they profit to. It's mutually beneficial, and removing the concept of investment would completely fucking destroy human civilization.

You fucking faggot, there's no status quo, half of ownership of enterprises are on hundreds of thousands of pensionists and old people who spend half their lies saving money to get a better retirement. The other half is self made, the average enterprise life spam is 30yo, and 90% of enterprises and done by self made men.

Destroying the concept of investments to employ people and generate wealth is not fucking "capitalist status quo" you fucking imbecile.

Why the fuck does an individualist care about the collective?

Yes, here’s hoping for an even more optimal system of production soon.

>freedom-school.com/
lol k

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Thank you for explaining how capitalism works, which we kind of knew already. I doubt it'd be catastrophic to end though.

And how many of these enterprises are not at the mercy of other, larger companies and the subsidies of a volatile, opaque government? Extremely few, I'd wager. Without the implicit threat of violence, the system cannot maintain itself.

Capitalism is not capitalism?

Because maintaining a fair and efficient society is in your self-interest as a member of that society, assuming you aren't a narcissist that would rather kill themselves to maintain some sense of superiority from the sheeple masses.
If you left to form your own libertarian utopia, if you didn't take any productive means with you, we would help you leave faster so we can watch and laugh as it either devolves into monarchist feudalism or concedes to the "corporatism" it claims to oppose.

Wait, why haven't you opened a business with your friends yet? You literally got almost everything you need, all the work power; you can literally just look for an investor club to fund your business if you got a good plan.

Oh, that's right, you have no skills. You have no plan to make better production. You have no better methods of industrial production. You have no idea what people want. You have nothing to offer to society.
So then you take that, and you use it to justify your beliefs. The fact that you can't fucking do anything meaningful, means the system doesn't allow you to, the fact that you cannot ever figure out how to outdo the current nodes of production means you are exploited and weak. It is the system that makes you weak, not you. This is all just a justification of your own personal insecurities isn't? This is some internal struggle, not part of reality.

Because as a matter of fact, people open productive enterprises all the time, and they are revolutionizing almost every industry all the time. Koch industries was made by a refinery expert. Dow chemicals was made by a revolutionary chemist. All these enormous companies, made by mere man that started from zero. Dow himself essentially had to defeat actual monopoly cartels: youtube.com/watch?v=bjxftGfqfQc
All the evil enterprises you could mention today were once made by a worker starting from zero. Basically, if you drop the "class warfare" bullshit, you'd start to realize that socialism is just less capable workers attacking people that revolutionize work and production.

In other words, they have actual useful skills. Entrepreneurship is meaningless outside of a capitalist context.

Because not everyone is a rich spoiled kid with time and money to waste. You are accusing us of being this person because, as a manchild, you have to perceive everyone who disagrees with you as some kind of stereotype.

You are literally just complaining that people disagree with you. If it bothers you that much, suicide is an easy solution. Possibly a literal, chlorinated one.

Got ya fam

make the life of*

You are too fucking ignorant to even try to understand why you are ignorant.
Here's the key problem here: you are delusional, you are a religious person. You have no idea how badly delusional you are.

You think investments are part of the "capitalist ideology" except there's no capitalist ideology. There never was any capitalist ideology. If only you could click the link I gave you, and actually read 10 fucking comic book pages for fucking children of it, then maybe you'd understand why you are so fucking stupid.

Stop being this fucking idiotic. Read a book for children explaining investments and how they are mutually beneficial: freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf
This is literally the level of ignorance you are at, you need a fucking children's book on economics.

You realize you don't need to be a rich kid in order to open a small business right?

Your assumption is on the basis that people are equal. They aren't. Not everyone has the opportunity because they lack the funds to get ahead in life. Not everyone is equal. Not even us leftists believe everyone is equal 100%. We just want equal opportunity. Capitalism makes liberty a muh privilege to be bought and not a guaranteed right.

But those who are born in rich families have connections to make their business run more easily. People aren't equal.

No, you idiot, I was being Ironic mentioning what ou wrote. Being a sociologist doesn't give you all the skills in the world, just like being a fucking accountant.

"I have no time to waste making a ton of money and improving production of society". What did you mean by this?
So, basically you have no entrepreneurial skills, you have nothing to offer to the overall productiveness of society on an entrepreneurial level, and you are complaining that you are not getting as much spoils as an entrepreneur?

Oh, that's right, you are a delusional idiot who thinks you'll be able to live in a magical society of free wealth and super productive production if we just abolish entrepreneurship all together.

And?

Doesn't mean you can't open a fucking business, all you need is a bank's loan.

No, you idiot, I don't assume that, I know for a fact that people aren't equal and that not everyone is capable of giving significant insight on how to make organize and fund billionaire facilities. In fact, that's exactly what I'm pointing out.

No, rich people tend to be more educated and smarter that's why they tend to make things go their way more often. It's not "connections". There's no "connections" benefit on an entrepreneurial level, you are not a wage worker looking for a wage, you are trying to prove a product to millions of people that might not actually like it and not actually buy it. There's no tricking them or using connections to facilitate this. Unless we are talking about some horrible state socialist system where supreme power dictates what people should get, in which case, entrepreneurship becomes absolute corruption cancer.

Okay, so, what if I disagree with Austrian theory?
🤔

Yes, but starting a small business is relatively meaningless in terms of autonomy. Cooperatives are far more similar, but still subject to the inherent contradictions of capital.

Your ubermensch ideal business magnate does not exist.

I mean being an investor does not contribute to society, it leeches from it.

Mad because wrong.

So what? You can't be exploited if you are self-employed.

And sure, start a coop then, you can do that too.

I never denied that. My point is that a rich guy has connections to move up while most plebs don't have that muh privilege.

They have better access to higher education all throughout life.

You are the retarded one. There are connections that makes deals more successful.

Your comic is retarded and you are retarded

Not everyone is a selfish cunt like Able or retarded like the other two caricatures, which is why communal life was dominant for thousands of years and capitalism only came after feudalism and only took hold after the commons were seized by force

It is in the interests of Baker and Charlie to bash Able’s head in with a stone for leeching off them and enjoy the benefits of net fishing rent free

Not reading the rest of that shit

And here we reach the center of the maze: the capitalist is just a Social Darwinist trying to sugar coat his ideology with politically correct promises of liberty and freedom.

You are morally justifying the death of rich people. I hope you realize that.

It's not an Austrian theory you fucking mongrel. It's econ basics.

If only there was some sort of academia that explain why you are fucking retarded. If only I had linked you to a children's book with drawings that explains why you are wrong. freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

It is quite clearly Austrian economic theory.

>If only there was some sort of academia that explain why you are fucking retarded. If only I had linked you to a children's book with drawings that explains why you are wrong. freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

This is quite clearly Austrian economic theory.

And?

Doesn't mean shit.

What, because you aren't rich, you want everyone to be not-rich like you, for the sake of opportunity?

Surprise surprise, socialists are batshit fucking insane.
No, you fucking retard, ignorant people, people have no capabilities and no skills, can earn enormous wages compared to subsistence societies. It is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.

Which explains why in the past, you can buy a fucking person.

Get real.

Capitalism isn't the natural expression of the economy, mercantilism is

You're delusional and a closet fascist.

You fucking retard, it's literally an econ basics on why investments are mutually beneficial, have you read it? Can you explain here you rebuttal why do you think that's wrong?
If I invest on something, and then you get a higher wage by working with my investment, am I attacking you? Am I stealing from you? Stop being this fucking retarded you communist sub-human.

Some people will have more than others, but no one should be a billionaire while billions are in poverty.

Being raised in a more nurturing environment doesn't make you an Aryan superman, fam.

No one needs you to leech off of them. You are a parasite.

You can buy a person right now. But let’s pretend slavery doesn’t persist because of market pressures.

In modern capitalism, you only rent a person. Does that make you feel much more free, or do you do the renting?

All the non-retarded parts of the comic do is explain how capitalism works, which doesn't even contradict modern socialist and communist theory. Capitalism was a step ahead from feudalism, after all.

Yes, because your initial ownership of these investments is unjustifiable. Real world economics are not the same as Bill giving Joe $20 in some contrived imaginary scenario, it is the ruling class forcing the working class to play by its rules.

You faggots are so fucking insane. I literally explained to you how capitalism greatly benefits low skilled ignorant people who don't now how to make investments and control the productivity of all of society; and you still just vaguely imply people are being leeched from.

How about this; how about we get real here for a second? Does that sound good? How about we try to prove things more objectively and empirically. Let's take places where capital investments were harmed, and let's see what happens to the average joe there. Does he gains from the fact that there are no more capitalists managing to make money? Or does he loses and goes to the street? Does he makes a free job for himself and ends up getting more money than before? Or does he ends up unemployed and then having to accept a poorer wage for a lower condition?

Can we try to settle things more objectively?

A kid's hand was chopped off because he asked for a higher salary. He wanted more than $29. If the kid was forced to go to school and had an education, he would have a greater chance of being someone. But no, the rich man is always right. The kid deserved it for being lazy.

Please tell me some ways to buy a white girl right now.

I want to pay lump-sum, with a contract legalized by the gubment.

See

Your entire argument boils down to: "what if reality was this made up scenario?"

No one cares.

Literally the creationists of economics. Please commit suicide as soon as possible.

Not a made up scenario you fucking imbecile, we can actually observe it and study it like normal people who are not delusionally following a 100yo failed ideology. There's this thing called the real world, with real data, where real things happen.

Obsessive autistic confirmed. Again. Life will still suck under communism, it'll just suck less.

Really? Because that's not how Wall Street investment works.

...

Let me guess your response

Actually, I am curious to see how you can answer:

I'll wait.

Capitalism should never have been forced on much of the world in the first place.

Are you some kind of statist?

However, I will outline a plan for you
of course you’re limited to those who commit crimes (or are found guilty of doing so), but then there was never a time when absolutely everybody was available for purchase.

It absolutely wont you massive idiot.

Look at how you deflect the proposition of backing your claims with real fucking data and experiments. Look at how fucking pathetic you are.

Yes, let's refuse to discuss whether your ideas are right or wrong, and let's always assume your ideas could sometime work. What could fucking go wrong. Other than literally every failed socialist state that ever fucking existed which only served to make their nations significantly POORER and WORST OFF.

lol burgers

See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation

...

"Capitalism" is not a religion like socialism that has to be forced on to people you idiot.

Nice try, attempting to slip a claim that was never valid. You never actually proved anything yourselves. The burden of proof is on you you delusional faggot. How do you know whether a good is worth its costs under the system you propose? How do we force billions of people to follow a single production plan? And how do we morally justify it?

Cooperatives have no incentives to grow capital and to employ more people. If you could magically ban any enterprise that is not a cooperative, the average person would starve to death. In fact, the big irony here, is that cooperatives are only working on upper middle class white people; that's because they required their members to be skilled entrepreneurs.

The average person is not an entrepreneur. The average person would get a lower job if forced to self employ. That's why they are not self employing themselves. You see, claiming that cooperatives are the best system from society is stupid because
1: if they were, they would naturally swallow the market
2: cooperatives follow private property norms and aren't socialism.

This is just nonsensical LARPing that makes you look hilariously dumb.

the problem with venezuela is that they’re a banana republic and their economy is extremely dependent on one resource, a problem rooted in capitalism

there are other such states with rampant poverty and instability, there is no hand wringing over how shit they are because DA GOMIES didn’t do it

What is Mondragon

This just shows how far you are willing to warp your perception of reality to validade your delusional ideology.

Do you believe we ever had capitalism then?

If you do believe we had capitalism then you probably are supporting corporatism. If you do not believe we ever had capitalism then you are basing your belief on a fantasy that never happened. It is a pure religion.

No, you faggot, it is not a problem of capitalism. Japan literally has no iron ore. Japan literally has to make houses 100% of wood. Japan is so scarce on literally everything; almost every tool and item is lighter in Japan.

Yet, they are one of the most prosperous countries on earth. That's because their government is not socialist and abusive to their voluntary deals. Meanwhile, Venezuela lives on top of a enormous mass of wealth in natural resources, and their people hope that the government will solve all their problems. It's the different between minding your own shit and solving your problems vs trying to force collectives to be prosperous through government bullying.

So, your whole ideology is based on a free market that never existed. Aka religion and fantasy. You believe in a dream world.

Neck yourself.

lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3077

youtube.com/watch?v=2mPAv95DQeQ

He is also a hypocrite.He supports something that never existed. His definition of the free market is so narrow that nothing is his ideology. It's pure faith and fantasy.

No, you faggot, capitalism existed, and those atrocities not committed by the capitalist mode of production existed.

There's no famine caused by private property and individual rights, in fact, all famines historically were the exact opposite, were the violation of individual rights and the limitation of a market. Look at any systematic famine and you'll see exactly that. There were less famines in WWI than in WWII, despite the fact that in WWI there was no agreement to not fuck the shit out of each other's food production; precisely because back then the governments were less capable of fucking a market up; there were no concentration camps; no nazism and fascism trying to centrally plan an entire economy.

Meanwhile, communist idealists that go around seizing all the means of production did in fact cause fucking famines. It was directly caused the communist ideas and farm collectivization. Those weren't some isolated atrocities done on purpose, those weren't just "bad weather", those were the farm collectivization policies done by communist ideologues and defended by you faggots in this very board.

Except all the times it did you fucking retard

Read a book

Here let me spoon feed you just two examples

How do socialist movements always crop up with popular support if capitalism is so obvious and inerrant? Oh I guess literally every socialist ever is a dupe for not believing what you believe

...

By the way, nice try; attempting to make a false comparison to dodge the fact that your ideas are absolute garbage. Neck yourself tranny, you'll never be a real woman.

But all markets had governments that influenced it. That means there was never a free market. It was just corporatism. You are just a corporatist statist. Hypocrite.

Says the hypocrite supporting corporatism.

Commit suicide faggots. You literally struggle to explain the failure of your ideas so hard you'd rather find a ridiculous way to dismiss critiques all together.

No you fucking faggot. You support corporatism and statism.

...

You're delusional because there is not fix limit on how much government you want. You can move the goal posts just to fit your ideology. You believe in a religion.

kek. Even US had great problems with enforcing private property rights at the beginning.
commies have lot's of literature about it. what you people have is basically just "it's magic, lmao, anything can cost any price".
In same way people were forced to follow capitalist mode of production.
lmao

pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/earthrx-the-irish-potato-famine-was-caused-by-capi.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Hey, tranny, how about you start explaining to me how every one of your ideologue that wants allegedly freer people and less government ends up making a superstate and controlling every aspect of people's lives? I'm the one who wants more government?

You know, do you remember what marx said about what a communist society would function like? Me neither. You see, there's an elephant in the room here, there's the little fact that your ideas as so underdeveloped, so vague, and abstract, so unrealistic and dream-like; that turns out objectively your ideology has no plans at all.

That's why "socialism" ends up with such a chocolate box of fucked up. Which ranges anywhere from putting trannies like you in concentration camps for harming the morale of the workers, to complete chaos where the productive nodes of society don't work because the socialist government doesn't get in the way of everything. That's why socialism ranges from North Korea, to Cuba, to allegedly a free anarchic society where nobody is forced to do anything and voluntary contracts actually are allowed.

Voluntary and beneficial interaction can happen anywhere. It can happen in prison, gulags, concentration camps, ect.
Voluntary interaction doesn't mean capitalism. Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned by the capitalist.

Nice job literally validating what I wrote. Fag.

k lad

see pics related.

...

Not all socialism is one thing. There are different types of socialists and they disagree on issues.Some want a vanguard party, others don't want government dominating the worker. Others believe we shouldn't have government in the first place.

Saying socialism is all the same is like saying all forms of anarchy are the same. They aren't. You have this black and white view of the world and screech autistically when people don't align with your world view.

...

Hey, faggot, have you considered the possibility that the reason why it didn't work is because it doesn't work? And the reason why people aren't voluntary making socialism is because it doesn't work and its actually less productive?

Have you considered the possibility that the reason why socialism only comes in the form os dictators of guerrillas might be because your ideas aren't actually mutually beneficial to society?

Libertarians always put their world view so narrow that they can always move the goals posts.

Ancaps do this, but also basic libertarians. They never set how much government their should or should not be. They can just move the goals posts so they can never be proven wrong.

Sure thing, lad

We are not M-Ls, we don't really give much of a shit about Cold War era politics.

"Libertarian" is just a PC term for aynclap anyway.

Woah, you try to have the cake and eat it to, except you are wrong on both.

Your concept of "voluntary" and "free" is a contrived authoritarian moral system that tries to use nice sounding words to get people to subscribe to it.

Stay mad, lad

Ed Lampart was a Ayn Rand libertarian who crashed sears by applying free market principles. The application of the free market doesn't work.

"B-b-but not all socialists are the same!!"
I wish I could see the level of cognitive dissonance that hits you faggots when you look at threads in this very board months ago, or reddit posts cheering for Maduro for fucking years.
You faggots think you are somehow different than a Maduro, or a Castro, or a Kim, but you aren't. Your delusional and wrong ideas are the same. You are wrong on a fundamental level, that's why you can only fuck shit up.

From economics, to morals, to philosophy, you 20yo faggots GROSSLY overestimate how smart you are. You GROSSLY overestimate how knowledgeable you are in every area imaginable. That's another natural feature of every socialist leader.

More like

Nice projection their kiddo

You can agree to all of that greentext and still have vast ideological differences.

We are not Marxist-Leninists.

KEK
Hundred years old =/= hundred years of progress.
Marxian economics died and made no progress 100 years ago. There's no official traditional "marxian" school of economics that kept itself alive for 100 years. Outside North Korea and China of course; oh, but wait, those were not True socialist socities and they cannot be used to justify why socialism doesn't work.

"Collectivism is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases." Ed Lampert. A CEO at sears who crashed the business.

The sole reason you think this is because you are a narcissist and intentionally avoid researching things you disagree with because you don't want your mind changed, even if all that changes is your autismal hatred turns into an acknowledgement of a different point of view.

You have not, and will never, convince any leftist to change their mind, and have likely made several users feel more confirmed in their beliefs.

Except for the fact that you've been arguing that 1. We're all Marxist Leninist
2. SOCIALISM INVOLVES BIG GUBERMENT AND THE STATE CONTROLLING EVERYTHING

Again see

Your arguments have been nothing but ad-Homs, straw men and the blatant rejection of evidence.

Stay BTFO

aka: people burying toilet paper to not get confiscated by the government?
aka: the inefficiency of their own monopolized oil enterprises that ended up with them importing oil?
You mean, how they literally openly stated that now decided to not do anything and just watch your country collapse on its own?
Like it didn't happen in Cuba, in current Venezuela, China, USSR?
You want the biggest justification for the CIA coups? Just looks at what happens when socialists are left to their own devices. That's why the right wing of those countries literally asked for help to the CIA, it wasn't just US puppetry, people in those countries were literally begging for regime changes. It's not like the CIA can mind control literally hundreds of high ranking generals and military strategists of foreign countries.

pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/

The free market doesn't work in practice.

Oh, really? Can you name me a Marxian contribution in the current framework of economic theory? Surely wasn't the labor theory of value, because that was rejected along with the cost of production theory of value. Surely wasn't "alienation" because it's a theory too vague and non economical.

Come on, prove me otherwise. After all, I'm just the one refusing to research why I'm wrong and why you are totally on the smart and productive side.

No, usually dispossessed thieves who deserved getting their property stolen from them and nationalists

Kill yourself statist cuck

Fascist confirmed, doublethink will be resolved with bullets.

Into the trash it goes.
Yeah, just google "journalistic" articles with the preemptive intention of confirming what you want, that's a good trick.

Yes, the entire basis of the modern definition of capitalism. No one cares what Austrian retards think anymore, so their definition is quite different.

...

...

Hey, little faggot, I hope you realize Cuba is actually more authoritarian right now than late USSR and current China. People get expelled from universities for criticizing Castro. People got shot trying to flee the country. They round up homeless people into work camps.

Ed Lampart did put his business in a free market setting and it crashed. It objectively happened. This just proves you are blindly following a belief.

You can actually pick and choose factoids to paint a view that is the opposite of reality. It would be quite easy for me to do the exact same, different is, I would be more right because I can actually explain the factoids. I can explain why things go a way and not the other. You see, it's the benefit of having fundamental knowledge and not being a crazy ideologue who believes in something unconditionally.

Why are ayncraps such virulent statists?

You're such a hypocrite using the same tactic.

And the cappies in China will fucking murder you in a white van on a whim. The Chinese government is extremely meticulous.

And once again, reality and facts don't concern you, your ideology does.

Also, you defend Pinochet. You don't get to call us authoritarians when we have socialists and anarchists who actively oppose authoritarianism.

greed in human nature, as well as any other animal instinct, changes over time due to natural selection. since communism is productively superior to capitalism, the generous being (and thus, the society) is evolutively superior to the greedy one.

39 words but meh

The irony here is that you are celebrating that the corporation became less corporative and more individualist. Allowing workers of individual facilities to sell their sevices to companies that were not Sear's and go straight to the market.

I'll be damned I guess. Turns out capitalism is bad because a corporation lost money and became more individualized.

So you openly admit that you think something is automatically true if you say it and automatically false if we say it?

You are constantly challenging us to prove you wrong while proudly declaring that you will never admit you are wrong, or even acknowledge our right to an opinion. You are so autistic that I'm starting to think you're trolling.

I never said i celebrated it's failure. I was pointing out it field because of free market principles. He made the companies compete with each other which is what the free market is. It's proving that the free market fails.

Nice try faggot.

Fuck off buddie. Your level of authoritarianism has no restraints. Pinochet Killed lots of people in a single day, but almost none in decades. The systematic weight socialists put on people on every day in their lives is unbearable.

While people in Chile were liberated and got a more stable democracy, people in Cuba are still suffering from a socialist state. Who's the bad guy now?

Do you know why authoritarians exist, user? Because they think others are generally like you.

This.
This guy believes he is automatically right 100%. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is 100% wrong. That's the authoritarian mindset. "Agree with me or i'll kill you."

Libertarians are just closted fascists.

No, I actually think for myself and conclude that I'm right on individual issues. And I already thought about most of the individual issues that you think you are right, and I got to the conclusion that you are very fucking wrong. In fact, you faggots are the epitome of confirmation bias. If there's such a thing as a person who runs his mind on confirmation bias alone, that's a communist.

Yes, and instead of doing that, you dodge reasoning and find ways to prove yourself right in ways that aren't directly fucking writing it down why you are right. You are dodging the most fundamental aspects of reasoning, that's why I think you are batshit insane.

That you are so desperate to assert yourself as a rational free-thinker is the calling card of a manchild that's been called out on his hypocritical bullshit.

No, you faggot, it's not "okay if we do it". Pinochet did not try to collective all resources and establish total state control over the economy, Pinochet did not try to command the actions of everyone in his country.

Hey how about this:
Tell me how do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a ture socialist society; and I'll gladly retract everything I said. Tell me how many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a society without markets. Give me your explanation on why do you think that investments the worker never made and which increase the wage of the worker somehow harm the worker.

How about you stop being so bullshitty about your own beliefs?

Tell me how do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a ture socialist society; and I'll gladly retract everything I said. Tell me how many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a society without markets. Give me your explanation on why do you think that investments the worker never made and which increase the wage of the worker somehow harm the worker.

Says the guy who believes an objective truth is false.

And thus you admit that mass murder is okay as long as they don't touch your private property.

I'd bet ten bucks that there is at least one person in real life that would kill you if they had the chance.

That's libertarian logic

Funny how I explicitly asked you to stop dodging reasoning, and all you did was stop dodging reasoning. Funny how I explicitly gave you the conditions to what would make me admit to be wrong, and you rejected that because you are afraid to use reason. It's almost as if my analysis was 100% right.

Then why did you dodge the sears crash as if it never happened?

Narcissist much?

People eventually got a longer life expectancy, higher wages, and an open stable democracy. Those things are more complex than just "murder is right murder is wrong". Communists are delusional and will not stop until your country is destroyed.

In fact, I'm sure you think the same of the Spanish civil war, only your ideology killed far more innocent people that had no intentions of causing harm than Pinochet ever did. And it was ultimately for no reason.

Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected leader.

If people decide it is worth its costs. Determining this is a practical issue that can be easily solved in modern times; in fact, solving it would be so easy that the real issue is potential abuse of the system, the prevention of which would most likely constitute a major aspect of implementation.

Calculate volume according to input, or have votes on production output.

Because the investor does not have legitimate claim to the means of production.

Mind you that if you really fucking want your markets THAT badly, you can still have them in socialism. You have to ask nicely, though. :^)

I didn't dogdge it, remember? I addressed precisely that? Why are you dodging such direct reasoning right now? Non factoids, non (lemme google a fat journalist idiot that says you are wrong), just plain straight forward reasoning?

But it happened in reality. It is a fact.

After the left-of-center social democrats took over. The free market experiment in Chile was a complete disaster and called off in just a few years, but is still falsely cited as the "Miracle of Chile" by lying ideologues that don't care whether the untermensch hear the truth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_1982

"we know because we know". You don't. Nobody knows the costs of everything in the economy. Nobody knows the costs each and every single person is willing to incur for very specific types of products and services.
It's not. You didn't answer what I asked. You claimed you can answer what I asked, without actually answering.

So people are officially under a majority ruling slavery system? It's funny because you didn't even absorb what the problem was. How can I vote on what costs other people are willing to incur?

1: you dodged the question with communist LARPing. This is independent to whether the property is legitimate or not.
2: the investor does have legitimate claim, because he invested. He actually went there, bought that shit with his own fucking money, the person who sold it agreed with it, then bought the facility and then tried to run his plan to make his investment return some cash.

Cuba does better than a lot of other Caribbean countries.

Where is the success of capitalism in Haiti? Also, "niggers" is not an argument.

Pinochet only left the government in 98.
Also, and let's look over at Cuba, or China, or current Venezuela, which tanks to socialist parties are complete fucking messes and much poorer.

Would it be justified to kill a couple dozen people to make your nation aim at becoming Honkong and not mainland China? How do you measure the benefits of them not getting a retarded socialist state controlling them? I thought ancaps were made fun at for being too morally objective; now it seems ancaps are not morally objective enough for you.

Austrian economics are wrong: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Use_of_technology
Autism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)

No, it isn't.

Dodging direct reason, yet again. What a fucking surprise. You guys are hopeless.

So, I gave you the very fair conditions to change my mind, and now you already gave up on that and are already playing defensive. See, I think it's clear whose side is more reasonable here.

What value did the investor add other than money? The investor does no labor, adds no value, probably does not know how to do the work that is done on the property and takes all the profit. Where would the investor be without his slaves? The workers do not need the investor.

In socialism you do not work for currency in an economy where everything is made for exchange. So the idea of investment in a capitalistic sense is also gone.

He left in 1990, you idiot. Learn to read.

Cuba has a high HDI, China is capitalist and Venezuela is… nothing, really, they just meander about.
inb4 they're socialist because they say they are

Hong Kong wouldn't exist without Mainland Chinese labor to exploit, so…

Ancaps are made fun of because their ideology literally does not make sense at a basic level and they are all mentally impaired.

"Dodging" is code word for adequately refuting.

You already admit that you don't want to change your mind and are trying (badly) to proselytize your lemming religion. Lying won't save you any face.

freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

Why didn't you invest the money yourself?
or
Why aren't you working on your own without the investment that someone else made?
Because you would lose from that.

You see, someone withdrew his consumption to invest in the future, and you directly benefit from it, and if it didn't happen, you'd be WORST OFF. This is implicit. There's no room to deny that.

Also, stop being retarded, stop fantasizing this hard:
What do you do in socialism again? You work to what? You magically figure out how to make TVs on your own and plant food on your own? No, you work to make a good to be exchange with the others in your nation.
No, faggot, it isn't. You don't understand how investments work, you're just ignorant, stupid.

And we would lose from that because we are not members of the ruling class. The ruling class's existence is illegitimate and was established by force. Therefore, it is correct and reasonable to reciprocate this violence for our own sake.

Of course we can just continue to get ass fucked, but why would we do that when we can make a system that benefits us more? That capitalism isn't literally the worst system imaginable doesn't make it good.

Never trust a socialist. Never trust a socialist party. Never believe something a socialist says. They'll just disassociate themselves from their own mistakes and movements.

Commies are so fucking autistic.
So, since you think Venezuela is very bad, wouldn't it be a good idea to have gotten a successful coup to stabilizing them previously? Can you stay on track on what's being discussed? Should we try to never kill people, even though when killing them could end up with less misery for literally millions?

You faggots justify far greater atrocities for far worst results, you faggots try to justify killing entrepreneurs for no reason, and yet, when Pinochet kill a bunch of revolutionary socialist fucktards before they fuck shit up, he's the bad guy?

Where did Allende touch you

Your logic is horrible. In fact, you are borderline religious, incapable of reasoning and justifying your own beliefs.

Except you couldn't even prove that you are being "ass fucked." look at how fucking delusional you are. Your beliefs are unconditional of reason and justification.

Autism.

lel

Of course we should. But we differ greatly on whom needs to die.

We are not M-Ls. You are an authoritarian.

read Bordiga faggot.

We got an intellectual powerhouse down here

Yes, of course, if only Maduro and his socialist party had even more unconditional power than they currently have, things would have turned out great.

I mean, who do you kill a this point you destructive fucktard? His opposition is already completely bullied out of the government. But worst than that, his opposition is already center -left liberals. There's literally no free market people in Venezuela anymore. Who are you planning on killing? I guess you are only a few liberals away from total utopia, right?

Says who? They only own the means of production because it was stolen to begin with. Violence is never desirable, but sometimes necessary when it is not in someone's interest to ever compromise.
My beliefs are substantiated with enough theory to literally bore someone to death. Your "beliefs" do not exist because you lack the mental capacity to form a coherent opinion.

Read up on Marxist theory. Even if you disagree, you will at least get it.

No one cares about Venezuela, you morbidly obese American retard.

You see, all of you are dumb religous and delusional faggots while I am reasionable and awesome. All socialists are larpers who think they are smart but this isn't projection at all. This is my only argument.

Basic economics bucko

get fucked marx

Fucking LARPer!!!!!

Venezuela was the 3rd most obese country in the americas in 2014 from how much industrialised garbage they used to import from the states.
Intersting little observation.

Your whole position is a nonsequitur. You literally filed to explain why your conclusions make sense. And now our position is "i'm right because i'm right".
Except you failed to explain how investments are theft remember?
Yet you couldn't actually rationally explain them. Go figure.
Not a nice argument.

kek, the Americans must see them as lost kindred spirits.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Get reading.

Are you this dense to no realize you have been doing this for three hours straight?

Let's actually step back and look at the overall picture here:

I literally showed up and gave very few questions and points which would take for me to completely change my mind. Then multiple faggots here proceeded to not being able to answer A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

Hey, LARPer with the gadsden flag, do you think I'm joking when I call you faggots delusional LARPers? You want some evidence to why I'm right? Just look at how you and all of your friends are incapable of directly reasoning. Just look at how you can't even defend a single point without resorting to "go read my retarded 100yo failed economist to find out why I don't have to explain anything to you".

basic economics bucko

get fucked marx

Im smrt U dum. Ekumnamics!

er deserves investments they never made
"How the fuck does any of that makes any sense??"
D E L U S I O N A L
Notice how people never do that in a fucking libertarian board or community. Nobody skips the opportunity to rationally explain a concept in almost anywhere else in the political spectrum. Why is this the only thing communists do? Simple; because they got no answers. That's the big elephant in the room isn't it?

We aren't taking you seriously because if you look outside of your ideology for once, you'll see how retarded your "Reasoning" is.

The fact you are posting for three hours straight and not realizing people have different ideas that don't fit your world view shows how ignorant and how immature you are. Get fucked. Go to bed you underage faggot.

I go to 4chan, Holla Forums and they just reply with the same bullshit. You're intelligence is below that. Got to sleep. You have middle school tomorrow.

We did answer them, you don't like our answers because you want us to say socialism is just capitalism but better. It's not.

The investors exploit the workers because the workers cannot attain the means of production without violence. This means the investors essentially have no purpose in production except to leech off of the labor of the workers. They have no fair claim to what is stolen property.
Capitalism has run its course and is now decaying at society. Socialism or barbarism.

Because everyone in lolbert communities is autistic and doesn't actually discuss politics, they just circlejerk over how right they are.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Yes, you could totally change my mind at any time, you just don't feel like taking me seriously. Right?
Seems like every marxists doesn't feel like changing my mind it seems. Because they never actually explain anything.

Why do workers deserve the returns from investments they chose not to make?

Why do investments that increase the wages of workers are somehow an act of exploitation against workers?

How do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a socialist society?

How can I vote on what costs other people are willing to incur? How many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a marketless society?

Fucking bullshit. People engage with you all the fucking time. In all board. The commie general that gets made is always bombarded with rational explanations to why you are wrong. Nobody says "go read Hayek to find the answers to everything" in the ancap reddit, nor in the libertarian threads.

Can you answer those for me since you are so enlightened and well read?:
Why do workers deserve the returns from investments they chose not to make?
Why do investments that increase the wages of workers are somehow an act of exploitation against workers?
How do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a socialist society?
How can I vote on what costs other people are willing to incur? How many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a marketless society?

youtube.com/watch?v=30UB2o5Ui4o
Is this the product you desire user

Literally just read it. Real world politics are complex and nuanced. They do not work like in your ham-fisted moralistic scenarios. That your ideology can be summed up in a comic for children means it is for children.

This is dogmatic nonsense. I can't acquire your mother butthole without violence, does that mean I deserve your mother's ass? This sounds ridiculous, but it is a perfect use of your logic.

You skipped the part where you explain how investments are "leeching". You skipped the part where you explained how the workers deserve the investments they chose not to make, and how come those investments which the workers IMPLICITLY BENEFIT from is leeching from the worker?

Why aren't you self employed them? Oh, that's right, you fucking benefit from all those pensionists that spent decades saving and loaning their money. You want to attack them even thought all they did was withdraw their own consumption to mutual benefit. And apparently, the fact that you cannot steam from them without violence, proves they are oppressive somehow.

Who's being autistic and wrong here? Apparently real discussion is about dodging all forms of direct reasoning and just spouting dogmatic nonsense.

Seems like you explicitly didn't even answer a single one of my questions. I'll return the favor by not being interested in your dogmatic books and not reading them.

Anuses are not acquired by force to begin with. Or maybe they are. I don't know what you do in your personal life.

Workers do not make investments themselves because they have nothing to invest. "Do what I want or suffer" is, in fact, a threat.

The poor Wall Street investors, boo hoo.

Every time you use this word, you are admitting wrongness. No one cares about your pretension, this isn't your shitty lolbert forum where everyone agrees with you.

As soon as I answer a question:

You are autistic.

You already slide all arguments and already gave up in actually convincing me, you didn't even notice, but now you are already playing defensive and trying to protect your beliefs; the tables flip just by the proposition of a rational argument. That's how bad Commies are.

1 That doesn't make investments oppression
2 They do have their money and they do in fact save and invest as a matter of FACT
Seems like your logic is upside down them, mongrel.

This isn't your lolbert forum, your buzzwords don't work here.

As usual, libertarian "philosophy" is just sheltered children fucking themselves over how smart they think they are.

Yes, it does. Read.

The real world is not your comfy upper class neighborhood. I would argue that you continuously call us sheltered kids because you are one yourself.

You answered my question? Where? Show me, please. Because so far, it seems you failed catastrophically at answering anything.

Why do workers deserve the returns from the investments they never made?
If I invest my money on tools, and workers realize they can earn a higher wage working or me, how the fuck am I oppressing them?

You can't even begin to explain why capitalism is exploitative, let alone explaining how socialism can figure out whether a node of production is worth its costs or not, and how can people vote in a socialist society on what costs should other people incur.

You can't even explain why capitalism is bad; and you haven't even began to explain why socialism makes the mildest amount of sense.

I hope the NYT headline tomorrow is "internet communists get destroyed by intellectual powerhouse using one simple question"

Nice job. Only I'm not convinced and I still think you are retarded as fuck.
No it's not. Why do I have to repeat the same point? Are you too mentally slow to absorb information? Why are the actions that help the worker and that the worker wouldn't be able to do alone an act of exploitation?

I don't live in an upper class neighbor in a first world country unlikely the average 20yo socialist like you, I live in a third world country in a middle class neighbor. Don't project yourself into me.

If this is so immoral, why not change the system to make investment unnecessary?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#Workers.27_self-management

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Because capitalism defies the laws of physics and will kill us all in a few hundred years. Socialism is not perfect, but it is coherent and has heaps of theory backing it. Which you will never read.

Can't wait to see the NYT headline tomorrow: communists fail to justify their delusional dogmas and avoid trying to logically explain their beliefs for the billionth time.

Lying.
Buzzword.

Because you are falsely asserting this scenario as a universal constant when it is forced upon society with violence to begin with. Capitalism is not the natural state of humanity you think it is. Even if it were good, it would still not be natural.
Economics are not physics or biology. They are not hard realities of existence to be accepted. Asserting neoliberalism as such is a bluff, one that most libertarians think no one will call them on.

Lying.

Investment is fucking required as matter of fact you idiot. You need to make investments to be able to work. You need tools, facilities, means.

You are not going to convince me like that you faggot.

I see you failed at explaining a single one of my questions, so I'll return the favor and not waste my time reading bullcrap from marxists.org

No you massive fucking bullshitter, I didn't lie, I asked questions, you did not answer them. Just fucking look up. Want me to copy and past again, here we go:

Why do workers deserve the returns from investments they chose not to make?
Why do investments that increase the wages of workers are somehow an act of exploitation against workers?
How do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a socialist society?
How can I vote on what costs other people are willing to incur? How many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a marketless society?

truly calling your ideological opponents LARPers is arguing in good faith

Workers in places like factories produce more wealth than they are paid. It is the business owner who does no produce wealth nor makes products, yet profits and benefits the most. The wage system is exploitative this way,

See

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Read.

you didn't answer those 4 specific questions so he's just gonna rage

Goddamnit now he's gonna go SS2

He is an autist. I don't care. I used to be an ancap. I have five murray rothbard shirts, and loads of books about autistic economics. I lost all faith in that economic system.

Since you read everything in marxists.org, can you start addressing what I asked?

I did. You don't care what I say:

All you want to do is lead me in circles until I get bored and leave and you can tell yourself you won the argument. That's all lolberts fucking care about, winning arguments by screaming. You don't even care if you are wrong.

This tbh.

The libertarian ideology has no framework. There is no exact line on how much government their should be. As for ancaps, they just call all negative things as corporatism. They move the goal posts around, it leads the debate into circles, the opposition gives up, and you feel smart in the end.

Can you tell me where you answered what I said? Can you copy and past here the parts of marxists.org that explain to me:
Why do workers deserve the returns from investments they chose not to make?
Why do investments that increase the wages of workers are somehow an act of exploitation against workers?
How do you know whether a line of production is worth its costs in a socialist society?
How can I vote on what costs other people are willing to incur? How many votes do I need to force other people to produce what I want in a marketless society?

Can you direct me to where you have written down an answer to my questions in this thread? Or are you still trying to dismiss me with "go read marxists.org"?

It's funny, because the post you said you answered me :
Was an explicit excuse to why you couldn't actually answer me. It gives the impression that you are a dogmatic believer that is afraid to engage in basic reasoning that might contradict your dogmas.

Wage exploitation is an important part to understand marxism.

Ancaps love to say "LOL not real communism!!!" but their whole ideology is a no true scotsman of capitalism.

Why are libertarians so uniformly arrogant and bitter?

See

No one wants to argue with you because you are autistic. Read and come back later.

If that's so, then can you explain here why is it exploitation for me to invest my own money on tools and means and hire other people? How come people that implicitly agree that working for me is beneficial are actually being exploited?

How come people deserve the return from the investments they never made? How come investments that implicitly benefit the workers are actually exploiting the workers?

Because the tools, and the means of production were also built under the same system. The workers can easily manage their own factor without the parasite called the capitalist.

Because "do what I say or suffer" is a threat. The system exists because it was implemented by force, so maintaining it is exploitation of the working class by the owning class.

This is not dodging. It is not LARP. It is basic reasoning. If you do not like it, it is because you are unintelligent.

I already addressed exactly what you wrote, mr retard. You DID NOT ANSWER ME ON PURPOSE. And the very post you link to says that. I guess marxism is just to complex for you to rationally defend.

Let's look at the whole picture again: I gave you conditions that if met I would change my views, and you refused to actually engage with me, and you went defense, and you avoided at all costs justifying your beliefs. Do you think that next time a revolutionary socialist group gets exterminated I'll be empathizing Ill be glad that people this unreasonable failed to get in charge.

Sure, you can but a factory but you don't physically make the products like the workers do. Without the workers, there are no goods. Without goods, there are no profits. The worker and labor create the goods and thus create the wealth. Not the capitalist or investor.

so fucking edgy

That's called circular argument my friend. And it's most commonly used by dogmatic religious believers.

Except they can't. Because if they could, they would have already looked for investments, made their own business, and succeed in the market. It's fucking implicit you faggot; if you could get a better margin and better bang for the buck, then your association would naturally succeed.

You are openly lying about wanting your beliefs changed, which is something you already admitted to.

Think about it. If you want your mind changed so badly… Das Kapital is right there. It will explain it better than some random prick on the Internet. You do not like how we argue, so the original source is better, right?

No, you don't care. You don't want to be right. You don't want to think. You don't even want to be able to defend your existing beliefs with more information. You want to argue to feel smarter than you are.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

The worker makes the goods, and thus the wealth. That isn't circular logic. It's just logic. The workers do more work to produce goods than the capitalist or entrepreneur does.

They made that money because the state says they made it, despite them contributing nothing.

See

Did the workers bought the raw materials? No.
Did the workers ran the enterprise? No.
So, you are saying the workers deserve the investments they never made, except you are literally incapable of explaining why. You saying that the workers are exploited, why? Because they are exploited and literally don't need no investments. Except if that was the case they wouldn't be wage workeres. They would have been self employed or running their own business group. This is implicit.

This is pure dogmatic belief. You seem to be too stupid to even realize that. The workers WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT. THIS IS IMPLICIT. THE WORKERS ARE GETTING A HIGHER WAGE AND PRODUCING MORE THANKS TO THE ACTIONS OF SOMEONE ELSE.

So no, not all wealth comes from wage workers, that's nonsense. This can be empirically and objectively demonstrated. Only I doubt you would ever accept that, you are religious believer.

The workers should own the means of production. I don't care for your muh privileged property rights.

I'm saying the workers should self govern in their factories to produce because they produce the world's wealth with physical goods.

I pray to Marx everyday

The entrepreneur makes the enterprise and makes the investments, and thus the extra productivity from the investments and entrepreneurship. Thus, the workers do not actually literally create everything in the world.

I would agree that human workers create everything if you included investors and entrepreneurs, but it seems your brilliant economic theory required explicit dogmatic prejudice in order to fit your ideology. Apparently pensionists who withdraw bits of their consumption for decades to get a better retirement literally didn't contribute with anything because they didn't engage in visible manual labor.

I don't believe in muh privileged property rights which means I don't care about investing in land because I don't want it to be bought.

Because the ruling class makes these investments with property that they do not have a legitimate claim to.

Why should we not just overthrow the ruling class and seize the means of production?

Appeal to emotion. Exploitation is sociopathic and should be treated as such.

All physical goods are dependent upon labor. Even service based stores. The buildings, tools, medical equipment, ect are all made by the worker.

Dogmatic statement.
Dogmatic statement.

Apparently workers produce everything; except somehow tricky porky convinced them to work for a wage. Dem evil porky; forcing me to chose a higher wage work instead of risking all my wealth to run my own workplace and likely end up poorer.

This is like the feminist nonsense of women being literally equal to men yet somehow being oppressed by men for as long as mankind can remember. It's either one way or the other you fucking idiot.

We know how entrepreneurship works, retard. We know how capitalism works.

Yes. And entrepreneurship is labor.
When I buy better tools, and organize a better enterprise, and allow workers to produce more than they would do it alone and separated, I'm actually laboring.

We can in fact observe this, that without investments, society is in fact less productive. Workers would work just as hard, and make less.

I don't care for higher wages. I want the workers to own the means of production. Higher wages in many cases actually lead to lower pay in the long run. (Read De Leon)

I was hoping you were arguing in good faith, but this either some very elaborate troll operation or you are actually this much of a retard without arguments.

don't tell him to read, he's established he refuses to sully his intellect with our dogmatic texts

Your statements are also dogmatic, you retard. You are endorsing neoliberal economics, a specific ideology that even capitalists have often criticized.

The difference is that we do not hide our dogma. Having convictions is not somehow irrational. What is irrational is to claim to be above dogma–which is little more than self-unawareness by an idiot that has never actually questioned their own beliefs.

Are you Sargon, by chance?

I hope so

That's why the workers should own the means of production. You don't need a capitalist who buys the fruits of our labor. We should just own it and use it in our own way. By the people, for the people. Not by the capitalist, for profit.

The fact that you made a dogmatic statement that is based on nothing is in fact an argument you idiot.

Dogmatic statement.

...

I didn't endorse jack shit in any of my posts you faggot.
You do, not now, now you well all out, but usually you do.

And nothing you stated is facts, either. It is the opinions of neoliberal economists.

You are lying to us. You are falsely asserting opinions as facts. You are dishonest.

...

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

What is registered as a business according to the US government is arbitrary and meaningless. These people are at the behest of ruling class elites that they haven't even heard of.

What the fuck did I say that was an opinion? Funny because you couldn't even fucking quote it. You are just bullshitting. "b-b-b ut you are also just as dogmatic as me!!!!". No I'm not. Fuck off.

...

Well, all of your assertions of how economics work. Other capitalists would actually disagree in varying ways. You are asserting neoliberalism as an objective fact when it is not.

Still not an argument

I dodged it? I? Lets see who dodged it:

Not an argument.
Not an argument.

Green text isn't an argument.

Thank you. You are so retarded and are willing to read and understand me so little that you even argued for me on accident.

Still not an argument

Tell me, why do the workerse deserves the investments made by someone else again? Why is it oppressive for me to take my own money and invest to boost the productivity and increase the wages of other people and profit in the process?

How come are people being exploited by an action that without, they would be worst off?

...

I already told you. How about you read what I wrote?

You never answer the question faggot. You faggots never answered anything. I'm repeating because you are repeating. You are still claiming ou answered everything I asked, except you did not.

Show me, show me where you wrote it. Show me a single point you made I didn't instantly shot down literally in 10 seconds. You fucking imbecile mongrels.

...

...

Because you are implicitly threatening them with suffering if they don't comply. The system rationalizes and demands this exploitation, requiring it to thrive. The system can be replaced with what we feel would be better; we have already pointed to varying examples, like market socialism and decentralized planning. If you do not like these alternatives, that is your problem.

If you think neoliberal capitalism is the default state of existence, you are objectively wrong and should not be expressing opinions on things you do not understand.

We have answered. You don't care.

(You)

And entrepreneurship is also labor. Making a factory is also labor, and running a factory is also labor, and making investments is also labor because it also verifiably increases productivity for the same amount of human effort.
Dogmatic statement with no basis.
Then why are you working for the capitalist? Seems like you are violating implicit logic here. Seems to me that you do in fact need the capitalist to get more wealth and prosperity except:
The whole basis of your beliefs is a dogmatic belief.

Again, I already made a rebuttal about it here

Higher wages in a capitalist economy tends to lower wages by shortening hours and replacing workers with robots. It ends up hurting the worker.

Because they own the means of production and I lack the funds to buy it. Even then, I would just be exploiting others as well.

=
Your logic is retarded. Even if it there was a threat here, it doesn't make it exploitation. It's my money, I invest in you if I want to and I don't invest in you if I don't. And essentially, you are being left alone, nobody is forcing you to do anything. You have to prove that this is somehow exploitation, which you failed to do so far.

Nope, that's your problem, because I won't cooperate with you, you idiot. Seems like not being a reasonable person is not working out well for the socialist movement in the past… 200 years.

That doesn't make any sense. It facilitates labor, that does not mean it IS labor. Resources and means are needed to produce; some people have them, others do not.
Because that is how the system works. Reality does not run on feelings.
Unlike you, rational being of pure reason.

Yes, that's because society doesn't need those jobs and other jobs are getting increased real wages in the fucking process. You are making an argument against automation and increase in wages because it would cause economic growth, it's fucking nonsense.

Nobody is crying over the unemployed horse riders. People are too busy enjoying being able to watch porn whenever they want, watching shows without commercial breaks and being able to pick watch, and over all, just not being a miserable manual labor person.

It is force because if you don't listen to the boss or you are forced out of the job. If you read Marx, you would know that he understood that higher wages is forcing the capitalist. But it is the conflict between the capitalist and the worker that breeds oppression through violence. This is why many capitalists hired hitman to kill off IWW workers. Capitalism is inherently oppressive sense it cannot get rid of workers nor replace them. They have to suppress them in order to maintain power.

What is labor you faggot? You alter your definition of something in order to suit your dogma. Intellectual labor is still labor. Entrepreneurship and investments are labor.

Good point. So, now, can you tell me why are you wage workers employed by capitalists since they literally only lose? Why aren't they getting into an investors club and making their own business if manual low skilled laborers are as capable and interested as a industrialist guru?

Automation would destroy more jobs than creates. Less money for people to spend on goods. Which means less profits. Automation will kill capitalism.

A wage at all. If you don't want to work, you die, which means the owning class calls the shots. Either that or the working class can use force to claim the means of production for themselves. This is an obvious implicit threat on either part.
Money is not wealth. Physical resources are wealth. Precious metals are valuable for a reason: they are incredibly useful for many practical things.
Because people have a biological urge to survive.

We're not M-Ls, we don't really care about their failures.

Not an argument.
Because not everyone can afford investment nor start a business. Your delusional if you think 100% of the populace can self employ a business.

You idiot, I wrote it down, even if there was a threat, it doesn't make it not legitimate or alright.
Yes, because then you are the one violating your agreement. If you think you don't need your boss, then go live your life without him. If you think a lower wage is worth not having a capitalist hiring you, then do that. There's no illegitimate force being applied.

So, a business man is at right for cutting off a pakistani kid's hand because he demanded a higher salary?

No it won't. Stop being silly. People thought that was the case back when farms were being atumated. People thought automation would turn everyone into low wage workers, and essentially that's the zeitgeist that made marx.

And what happened? Automation made farms a smaller percentage of GDP. And countries that have poor automation like China, have farms and poor work conditions are a larger percentage of their GDP and production. The communist zeitgeist was wrong.

This question was a lot less stupid than I expected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_power
In case you feel like complaining about me not explaining it: I would have just copy pasted it anyway.

They do, and they get fucked for it, because bigger businesses destroy them easily, or make them fully dependent, essentially rendering any chance at economic mobility moot.

You don't understand. Automation can easily replace unskilled labor around the world. It has never been at this scale before.

Yes, everyone can afford to take investments and looking for investors, because that literally costs no money. Thing is you don't actually have a plan to make a more productive enterprise do you? Seems like this isn't a problem of the system, but rather of your capabilities.

DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK DEBT DOESN'T EXIST?

HAHAHAHAHA

So basically, you reject the notion of intellectual labor in order to validate your ideology? Sounds absolutely fucking retarded.

By the way, I thank you for reminding me that the original communists were rednecks who literally thought all valuable labor was only manual work.

Hmmmm

You are a psychopath.

You sell share you absolute fucking idiot. There's no fucking debt on shares. But beyond that, if you have a good plan and you know what you are doing, then you can in fact handle debt without a problem.

Skill labor will not be as affected by automation, but considering that a good portion of the world cannot reach that level, most will just starve.

Most of the world relies on unskilled labor for money. Automation can replace them.

I reject the notion of intellectual labor because it is nonsense.

Actually, I want you to answer my question: why is it that only we have to try so hard to rationalize our views? Why do you get to pretend like yours are an unspoken truism?

And no, when the current system is flawed in any way, you just say it's Not True Capitalism, so don't try to weasel out.

Here, an amerifat reality TV show explaining things to you : youtube.com/watch?v=S3wareaDXqs

Not everyone is fucking well-off. Most people have to take out dangerous loans to even begin something like this, even people whom otherwise live above the poverty level.

youtube.com/watch?v=U79DoiC49r0

Or you could just have socialism and have all the means of production used to help build the poverty stricken areas.

One entrepreneur can't fix these problems.

...

This guy has been replying for five hours straight.

No, faggot, intellectual labor is not nonsense. An entrepreneur, an investor, can invest in your workplace and make you produce more with less effort. Applying intellectual labor actually verifiably achieves real world results and progress.

Because your views are wrong.
Because you haven't convinced me yet.
No I don't you fucking idiot. I try to spot the problem and fucking fix it. Are you seriously projecting yourself into me? Literally all your points fit socialists PERFECTLY.

I seriously think he might have some kind of autistic spectrum disorder.

He meanders on awkwardly and is incapable of expressing himself effectively, yet he is genuinely shocked that no one agrees with him.

You sure showed him. (not an argument)

Yeah. Good thing is that when I shit post as a ancap, I'll make sure to sound like him.

Well, we better let the brits have a crack at him. I'm not wasting more of my time with this autist.

This isn't even the first thread. He has done this over 3 different threads for probably the last 36 hours.

That is how the system currently works. That is not how it has to work. Your argument only works if we accept capitalism as inevitable. It is not.

That you fail to understand this makes me genuinely wonder if you have a disability.

You can't even begin to explain the very basic of what you advocate for on a 24/7 basis, who's the autistic one here?

It's friday and I'm playing dawrf fortress.

We have, multiple times. You don't care.

I want to touch on this but I'm not mean enough for it.

Libertarians are autistic. See

see

Idk why you're not a ML, you can be the chief economic planner

No you haven't you fucking faggot.

All our points are wrong, and I pointed out why. You failed at making sense out of your ideas.

See

You frame every argument in a fallacious context in which it is impossible to refute your statements. Whenever someone tries to answer:

Seriously, reading some Wikipedia articles would tell you more than enough, but you literally do not care. All you want to do is pretend to win Internet arguments so you can stroke your ego.

Stop responding. He is the same faggot from this thread and this one
You are not going to get him to stop his autism, so you might as well stop.

Not an argument.

No you fucking faggot, you cannot refute my statements because you are wrong.
No, you fucking faggot, whenever someone tries to answer, I explain why the answer is fucking dumb.

This is again, yet another appeal, another excuse, to the fact that you cannot logically explain your dogmatic beliefs.

Oh, great, so he actually is an autistic loser that doesn't know better and I fantasized about killing a cripple. That doesn't bother me at all.

You faggots got to such a deep state in delusion that if you openly state the if you cannot refute any of my questions or statements, it means I'm tricking you. Just think about that for a second.

Capitalism allows people to not share their refrigerator with me and that's unacceptable.

fucked up that phrase:

Reminder

Keep on fantasizing about killing me. In your fantasies, your shitty ideology can work.

You are doing nothing to actually refute our statements. All you are doing is stating ad verbatim why they are wrong and giving us the same cursory explanation of how investment works, like it's some kind of divine truth. You falsely present neoliberal economics as a universal societal constant and not a political status quo, which is essentially an ideological untruth.

This is your last response.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm

This is a rundown of what we believe and why. It answers every question you have presented, and thoroughly refutes the very basis of their underlying assumptions. If you want to know, you will easily be able to find out.

But you don't, because you don't care. What matters to you is constantly spewing fallacious reasoning at us until we get annoyed and leave, so you can tell yourself it makes you intellectually superior.

Nope. You are the one stating verbatim and dogmatic beliefs. And I demonstrated that.

And no, since you couldn't explain the logic behind your retarded ideology, I won't go "find out" why you totally could answer me at any time but just didn't. And if a socialist movement shows up nearby me, I'll be against it very strongly. As I already explained, you can't keep on going defensive and avoiding reasoning and expect to gain something from that.

Can you tell me the fallacies I made? You know, we can actually discuss reasonable and spot each other's fallacies and false assumption.

Except I made no fallacies, and I thoroughly explained why you are wrong. That must mean I used fallacies and tricked you, which means you are right. That's basically your logic.

Oh, and by the way, Market-Socialism is an information admission that socialism doesn't work. It's an admission that "to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability" is just a lost dream. It is an informal admission that all socialist movements failed for a reason.

Shitty spam threads like this are why we need a minimum word count for the OP. Make an actual argument or don't make a thread at all.

We don't want to workers to work with capitalists. We don't investments. We want the worker to own the means of production. No private property.
Wage work is exploitative. We explained it to you and you constantly ignore it. Then you continue to say we never give you an explanation. No, you are just delusional.
We explained to socialist society many times. You just refuse to listen, call it wrong and then whine that we don;t explain it to you.

I gave you the arguments here and you failed to rebuttal efficiently.

Commie revolt is worth it just to kill porky. Think of all the fat, juicy roast ham!

This is a good argument, except for that it hinges on people knowing about things like the East India Corporation and the enclosure of peasant land which provided the workforce for industrial production.