You Rage You Lose

Lolbert edition


There truly isn't a single creature more vile than the libertarian.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4PAiSkaihjw
fee.org/articles/capitalism-and-coercion/
youtube.com/watch?v=I6uU8mgLmgk

Libertarians are worse than nazis, at least nazis pretend to give a shit about the poor

Holy fuck that guy is a moron.

This is literally the peak of pure ideology.

"THIS IS THE WAY CAPITALISM IS AND THEREFORE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THINGS SO IT'S EITHER SUFFERING THROUGH CAPITALISM OR STARVATION CHOOSE YOU MIDDLE CLASS KIDDO"

Oh and

"The Chinese never complain about it"

Pic related.

i dont get it

Suicide nets.

Those are suicide nets.

Holla Forums was right about juice

lol @ "economic freedom" until 30 years ago it was a dictatorship

This may be my ex-fascist speaking but this is what I see.

The main problem is that immigration in many ways hurts these poor places. The only people who can afford to move to first world places are the skilled and wealthy (compared to their average citizen). The most wealthiest and smartest of their nation leave to the first world to make more money. Profit is largely the motive on why these places become so dumb and poor, which leaves corrupt dictators in power who are influenced by the international capitalists.

This is only a problem caused by the existence of markets in the first place though.

I agree. That's more of the root of the problem.

ALSO lol @ "becoming rich" here's the thing you fucking macro professor most people aren't concerned about counting greens or owning three cars or a massive house they're concerned with feeding their kids living comfortably buying a video game or two

fuck this false dichotomy bullshit, it acts as though exports are the only market factor and people can't help themselves and run their own businesses. if i was there i would've stood up and called him out.

This. Even if they are, the first world pays better. They will just leave the poor and uneducated behind. Even when using ancap logic, you can say that there is no personal or individual interest to stay in a poor crime ridden community when you can just move.

They have suicide nets, but the Foxconn suicide rates are way overplayed (not that working 12 hours a day mustn't be horrible).

Wew lad

the Korean miracle fuelled by a dictatorship and American money and Mao killed 14-40 not 40-60 bloody liberals

He truly is. He even argues capitalism is the only system in history to eradicate poor people. WTF. Does that explain the homeless in the US then? Or why poor people still exist in general in capitalist countries? Ugh it's just such a bad argument. This is why the USSR had gulags isn't it?

...

North Korea was actually richer than South Korea until (iirc) the 1960s, which would counter this meme narrative slightly. (Even from a vaguely Keynesian viewpoint there's a lot of merit to the basics of Soviet style industrialisation to get the basics down, it's only with consumerism that the whole thing gets ridiculous.)

I think the worst part actually is the structure of the video, because it starts with "Fuck you, you middle class shit, how dare you live in a first world country?" but then sort of builds into "Ah but actually it's okay, if you buy an iPhone you're helping the poor people."

Unironically bring back feudalism. At least it was honest. You were born a peasant and you'll die a peasant, now hand over the grain.

...

...

Fucking lost. Shit like that shouldn't be legal.

From the other thread:
youtube.com/watch?v=4PAiSkaihjw

Don't trample the snek.

MAYBE TANKIES HAVE A POINT

Also the North had most of the industry built by Japan during their rule.

it's incredible that such people get a teaching job

About what?

defending exploitation with rage and fire in his voice, what a man
does he actually think people in sweatshops can attain middle class

To be fair, Zizek says this too.

YOU'RE DOING HIM A FAVOR
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCK I JUST WANT HIM TO DIE

Not in this sense.

...

I fucking hate these religious freaks.

what a cretinous fucktard.

WHAT

Anything from That Guy T?

someone prove to me that pure capitalism cannot solve poverty. If a poor person invests their wage of $20 into some bitcoin altcoin, they could make a lot of money.

do you mean eliminate poverty, or just solve it for one person?

"you could win the lottery" is a retarded argument. (albeit one that makes the random chance element of success transparent.)

...

WTF i love capitalism now

Seriously, lolberts don't even know how the system they defend and promote works.

Lolberts think anything that's voluntary is capitalism.

Maybe we can poach /liberty/ by calling anarcho-communism "freedomism" or something.

how is capitalist private property voluntary?

It isn't. That's the sacred cow of their logic, everything else needs to be as free and voluntary as possible, but if you dare question holy private property you need to be thrown out of a helicopter (this doesn't violate the NAP tho btw cuz I said so).

Well that's the stupidest thing I've read this week, nice.

fee.org/articles/capitalism-and-coercion/
with my favorite passage being this gem
Fucking came out of no where

Goddamnit. This guy needs to beaten with a fucking dildo

By being against private property you're automatically a communist and killing a communist is always pre-emptive self-defense and thus not a NAP violation

Over half of all South Korea's elderly live in poverty.

...

Being for privet property is theft from the commons, their for you are automatically a thief from the people and must be exiled from civilization

My favorite thing about this logic is that it's just what statists say, except the "State" got substituted by "Private property".

Well you're technically not wrong about the self defense part, if I had my way people like you would be ground up and used for fertiliser.

You could say this about all statists tho
Also property violated the NAP

holy shit

I can't tell if the narrator is trying to show this as if it's a good thing or not….

Me either. Maybe it's supposed to be ambiguous? But they do rattle off some pitch halfway through for a second.

I think in the eye of the narrator all of it is a good thing. But the guy who was editing the video didn't think so

i don't think so, i think it's supposed to be insidious. (perhaps with the narrator simply neutral?)

certainly i interpret the slogan at the end as tongue in cheek, like saying "fly the friendly skies" at the end of showing united beating a guy up.

He sounds so chipper about it but in the middle he’s like “oh yeah and they drove a fourteen‐year‐old to suicide XD”

"Oh btw they control the UK's nukes lol"

seriously tho

...

inb4 "my wallet can't take it" cucks defend this faggot

“What’ll happen if you pay them more”
They’ll get payed more
“I’m not buying this for 600$”
If every company stared charging more, you would

just maintence not launching they ain't mcnukes, yet.

...

1974 actually IIRC.

AH!
But you see, if they paid 600, they wouldn't accept it braking just because it fell and so on. Nor would they buy a new one just because it has a new number on it!

But we can't tell people "it would make us less profit"!
We have to tell them "you'd get less for some guy in china not to kill himself".

"well if a billboard says it, it must be true" - the entire working class

Great analysis on North vs. South Korean economy by Caspian Report, if you're interested in the subject:
youtube.com/watch?v=I6uU8mgLmgk

...

...

...

These people are so fucking delusional it's actually kind of impressive.

If it's voluntary it's capitalism. So if we all voluntarily do communism it's still capitalism right?

Necessary but insufficient condition shuts that argument down immediately

Property itself violates the NAP.

Stalin was only committing pre-emptive self defence against the kulaks.

Would anyone be able to pick apart the argument in the OP video? Just lurking here, while it does stink of putting a nice coat of paint on exploitation I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be the case. You can argue that capitalists increasing slave wages and working conditions wouldn't make a significant cut to their profit margins but then you'd have to examine this on a case by case basis.

Leaving aside the specific, blatant historical inaccuracies about Korea & China, which others upthread have responded to?

There isn't much hard data on the subject, since every body large and established enough to initiate such statistical projects is mostly or entirely composed of neolibs, but there are several alternative hypotheses (mutually compatible with each other) permissible within it.

Maybe I'll see if I can dig up some decent articles on the subject later, but here's a quick summary of the big ones off the top of my head:
Before capitalism, and especially before industrialization, the average prole or another prole in their household/community produced or gathered most or all of the commodities and durable goods they sustained themselves with, in addition to either residing on land "owned" by others or being nomadic. Even under exploitative labor outside neoliberalism, much of it was native industry whose production could be diverted in part by workers for their own use before the exploiter's share.

Since this activity occurred either outside the centrally recorded economy or entirely absent monetary exchange, these people had "less income", "less wealth", and "less consumption" than they do now. Now that more or all of their vital needs must be covered entirely by monetary exchange, they need more money to achieve the same standard of living that they once had with little or no money.

Numerous factors, from huge sweeping things such as secularism, peace, orderly law, general education, and democracy; to specific things such as scientific agriculture, modern medicine, welfare, birth control, telecom, and humanitarian aid from the global community.

Some or most of the boons gormlessly attributed to neoliberal capitalism would have inevitably come to pass regardless of its imposition. Some of their effects have even been directly blunted by neoliberalism.

A further wrinkle here is that since a relatively small but absolutely large proportion of industrial output is (and to a lesser degree always has been) consumed domestically or among the 3rd-world itself, the indispensability of 1st-world-to-3rd-world offshoring for the development of the 3rd world may be greatly exaggerated beyond reality.

Simply put, neoliberal capitalism has less need than commonly claimed to be as brutal as it is. The proportion of many offshored industries' operating expenses attributable to one or more items such as worker pay, workplace safety, and environmental regulation, are extremely small.

Rather, many such oppressions have a more political than economic motive, aiming to keep the 3rd-world as corrupt, desperate, and unstable as they're able, in anticipation of the devastating effects even the weakest labor agitation would do to a nation's business environment as a whole.

...

We really need an egotist flag

Don't they post under the anarcho-nihilist flag?

Then why don't you steal one, you moron?

Tankies are absolutely right that imperialism is monstrous and a huge problem. They're wrong that it's worse that the class war, which is the superset to which imperialism as a set of events belongs.

Egoists aren't nihilists. Black flag is most appropriate for us.