Communist from Holla Forums keeps opening threads on Holla Forums

...

...

Answering a question with another question is an admitting of being wrong. Bottom line here, I can't answer you, and you are 100% wrong, but you are incapable of being reasoned with in terms of your beliefs, which makes your beliefs 100% untrustworthy.

Uh, are you fucking retarded? Since when does the "capitalist" take free money from investors? Who is the "capitalist" here? The head of management?

Investors invest their money with a voluntary contract, and they get their return, managers manage enterprises offering voluntary deals, and they get their returns. If you can offer better deals and create better enterprises, then maybe you can attract more generous investors. Or maybe you don't even need investors at all and can just fund your own enterprise.

So, yeah, the "capitalists", invest on their enterprise, jeopardize their networth, and apply their planning; so , duh, they deserve the returns from said investments. Why would the workers deserve said return when the workers did not study as much and were not as willing to take risk and take initiative?

It gets worst because investments and economic growth are pretty much the same thing. The marxist theory of exploitation focuses on outlawing investments and making economic growth nearly impossible. That's why Cuba is still recycling cars from the 50s.

So, is Holla Forums not a free speech board?
I lost count how many times I got a 2 week ban on leftypol, while on Holla Forums a communist retard can open communist threads every day while avoiding to interact with anyone for months without getting banned. Who's the ideological circlejerk here?

Got banned for opening a communist thread. Don't talk shit nigga

lmao, I made one post on pol a while back and got perma'd, you're among frenemies here who know what you are, you don't have to pretend with the 'free speech' shit.

What a joke.

What could go wrong?
I didn't see this coming.

Free speech means being able to call someone a nigger. It does not mean tolerating all viewpoints, silly lefty.

oh my sweet child, dont talk about things where you might actually have to fight facts

I'm talking about 4chan pol not Holla Forums pol, you dummies.

I've been banned from 4/pol/ for posting fully clothed pics of black qts in a relevant thread.

Holla Forums may be able to shitpost communist generals to death, but they fear the bulletproof logic of black booty.

Why even bother?

You mistake mob for free speech again, Holla Forums.

Are you saying 8/pol/ is free?
or 4/pol/?
If 8 then no, it's not.
If 4 then how do you compare it to a board on a different site.

Anyway, I'm sure it wasn't "just asking about lefty politics" that got you banned.

And stop thinking socialism in capitalistic terms.

This is why we ban people.

So was I m8

Kek.

Yeah, then how come they got caught arresting homeless people by the bulk at the pope visit?

Yeah, because prostitution and porn are highly illegal in Cuba.

That was a substance already known in modern medicine, only the method of the application was unique to Cuba, and guess why, because they have no medical infrastructure and have to improvise with siringes. An injection and a vaccine is not the same thing.

Cuban sells doctors for profit. Doctors have an 80% tax working outside. In fact, Cuba recently shut down its "humanitarian aid" to Brazil because of excess of desertion.

You don't get banned on 4chan for posted commie political thread on pol. Heres your proof:

Meanwhile, the autistic commie spaniard that blinds himself is still there for months.

I got banned from 4chan pol for making a topic after the France attack blaming western imperialism for Islamic terrorism

I said in a relevant thread didn't I?

Not to mention off-topic threads are already abundant on 4/pol/ but the mods don't care because it doesn't violate the right-wing echo-chamber.

Screenshot or its bullshit. Because It's evident by the commie general threads that commies are perfectly being allowed on pol. In fact, if mods wanted, they could do an area ban on a IP range from making new threads or ban the commie general copy pastas. Yet, the commie generals are still there everyday.

A token thread that's shitted up by the average Holla Forums user doesn't prove anything.

The fact that you can't reason against dissent does. And that shows in this very thread:

What is Holla Forums's increase on interest in Holla Forums lately?
Is it seriously the fear of losing your colony on Holla Forums, because the natives no longer tolerate your bullshit and you think we made them that way?
Ubisoft is merely exploiting your autism to shill for their game, and like the emotionally unstable children that you are, you fell for it. Holla Forums is merely calling you out on that.

They sure do get triggered a lot for such an anti-PC lot.

Notice how I tried to directly reason why you faggots and you deflected to video games and getting "triggered". Seems like you are lost cause.

Some of you idiots actually shill for Cuba. Have you tried living in rural Cuba to see the great empire your communist ideologues made?

For what purpose?

let me just live in rural cuba - oh wait i can't because im not fucking cuban

retard

Hey Holla Forums, I'm one of leftpols kindposters.

The sort of response that you will get from here really depends on the day and time. We have a small community so there isn't a really unified answer we can give you: there are many different ideologies here.

We've lost some good posters over time and that is partially do to people finding like minded thinkers and then generally staying with that group. People who read a lot of books on the same subject generally want to interact with people who have done the same. It's a loss for the board, but it's a difficult position to be in where you have to be constantly educating other users.

That being said, we generally have a well read community here and respond well to people who have questions. There's a lot of people who come here just to shitpost and that's why some posters here don't respond kindly to outsiders.

To OP, as far as I know we don't do a lot of organized action and have a lot of "lone wolves" in the field. The guy you highlighted seems to be a dick. That's not how I want leftypol to act, but it's hard to account for a community.

Except he did make them, he created the wealth that made the investment possible. And often, it's not the capitalist who "makes" the investment either, usually stock brokers decide where to invest.

Cockshott provides a good answer to this, simply set all prices to market clearing levels in a system that uses labor vouchers. But you could just as easily have market socialism.

"Other people" won't incur the cost. Society incurs the cost, and society makes the decisions.

Look at Paul Cockshott's "Towards a New Socialism"

T R I G G E R E D

Bitch, read Cockshott

Stop going there you're just making us looks bad.

...

When you utilize circular logic so obliviously its a dire sign of serious delusional belief.

We could just drop the bullshit and try looking to the real world at what happens when individual investments and "labor exploitation" are actually prohibited. The economy is absolutely fucking crushed, and the average wage collapses. Just like Cuba going from being on par with Japan to being slightly better than Haiti, or how North Korea went from being richer than South Korea to being over 10 times poorer.

That's not "simply". And that doesn't answer what I asked, you deflected reasoning by saying "go read this book that totally answers what I say".

Cockshott supports the soviet model of central planning, where a desired result is utilized to calculate what should be done with all resources. Which has the same economic calculation problem as any socialist society, because there's no knowing the desired result without real economic calculation. There's no masterplan to maximize value after abolishing the only sensible method of quantifying value.

A vague senseless claim. If I vote on something I want, that means others are forced to take costs to supply it to me. Unless I live in a market society, where I have to persuade enterprises and individuals to provide it to me voluntarily.
If you put a flat wage on everyone (which is what Cockshott wants), and then give free basic needs to everyone, (which is what Cockshott wants), there's no more persuasion to be done, it is a coercive and forceful society.

Unfortunately much of Holla Forums these days is less about leftism and more about teenagers who see the chans as a contest with Holla Forums, so they come running here and shit up this place.

Stop being retarded and actually look at the implications of what he said in the context of the argument. The capitalist isn't the one investing. Workers create the wealth, and other workers, such as stock brokers and managers, chose where its invested. The capitalist often has very little to do with the process.

The capitalist takes money from the workers, and hands it over to others to invest it for him. He still gets the proceeds for doing nothing, taking no risks, doing no labor.

"Voluntary" eh? Sure, they are free to steal someone else's labor or not. The laborer is free to have their labor stolen. Not everyone can become a capitalist, it's not physically possible for capitalism to function.

Not at all, they can just hire people to do that for them.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Investment isn't exploitation, saying private people own the returns on investment is. The ussr, for example, had a systemic problem of OVER investment. Look at Alec Nove's studies.

Notice how you try to deflect that by talking about how poor Cuba was, except in the 60s, poverty was much more prevalent worldwide and Cuba was better off than most, Cuba was practically a first world country by 60s standards.

Now Cuba is worst off than the average in almost any measure.
Sorry to invade your echo chamber with some inconvenient truths.

are you trying to say that batista's cuba was better than castro's?

"The workers deserve the returns from the investments they never made because its the workers creating wealth because they deserve the investments the never made."

You forgot to explain the part where the workers actually deserve the investments they implicitly chose not to make.

You repeated your circular argument three times without ever explaining how the workers actually deserve returns from investments they never made. Bravo.

So, If I make tools on my own, and I invest all my time and effort to making a productive enterprise, then I hire some vagrant people; these previously vagrant people that invested nothing on the enterprise deserve all my investment PLUS the returns? Why? Care to explain? Seems like you missed the only thing you had to answer.

I know you cannot be reasoned with, so I won't even bother at this point.

Notice how dogmatic and idiotic you are. It seems your beliefs are entirely dependent on your repeating the same dogmas over and over until you believe in it. If I just ask "how come" your whole set of beliefs fall apart.

the flag is ironic, now in all seriousness explain me how the fuck cuba was better during batista's rule even when now they have better literacy rate, lower child mortality rate, lower inequality, and less crime than the USA today?
also they have roughly the same life expectancy (of course, in cuba there is less inequality in this aspect, since the mere definition of life expentancy is related to the mean, instead of the distribution if such muh privilege).
also there is less child malnutrition in cuba than in the US.

We weren't even discussing surplus value, why workers deserve the proceeds of their labor, only why capitalists do not. It is a rather precarious argument to make, that wealth is not created by labor. Even coordination of reinvestment is a labor of sorts, even it is a rather simple task even a computer program could handle. However, a capitalists need not even make this coordinating gesture, he can hire someone else to do it. The position of the capitalist is one of simple rent, and ownership. It has nothing to do with productivity.

What interesting examples you have chosen to make, the two most isolated countries on earth. Look at China, you can't make a single investment without government approval, and it's the second largest economy in the world, same with the USSR. I'm not sure I'd use these as exemplars of socialism, but they are not warning stories about not enough investment. The situation in North Korea and Cuba has a lot more to do with their access to international markets than domestic policies. Even with it's limitations, Cuba has a much higher life expectancy and literacy rate than the US.

You literally asked "Does any of your books explain this?". I gave you both the book, and the explanation.

On the contrary, Cockshott presents a very different system of planning than the soviet method, specifically with the use of cybernetic systems. He tackles the calculation problem headon. The desired result is not utilized to calculate what should be done with all resources. On the contrary, you can use previous data on consumption and production to predict future consumption and production. You can quantify value by giving people a set number of labor vouchers, and having them spend it on goods whose prices adjust according to the demand until all goods are sold.

Incorrect. Rather, others are forced to labor to produce it. This labor is compensated by other goods produced by society. Hence, society incurs the cost.

That is not what Cockshott wants. You should really read him if you want to understand his argument. Labor vouchers entail just that, that people are paid according to how much they work. There is no wage, in the sense that you know it.

It's forceful and coercive because people can eat and get paid for the work they choose to do? What nonsense. Some freedom you propose, the freedom to starve or die. In that sense, we are always free! I can always choose to just shoot myself and be done with it.

Except they cannot make that investment, they do not have the power or freedom to do so. If they could, they would.

And you have continually proven your inability to read. Bravo.

You hire them because you are free to exploit them, just like in slavery you would buy slaves, or in feudalism, get serfs for your plot of land. If you wanted the full return of your labor, you could simply sell the tools. But no, you want the return on their labor as well. If you build an enterprise, certainly you deserve ownership of it to the extent you built it. But by hiring people, they are now also building it, and deserve a share as well.

*freedom to work or starve

Being kind looks bad?

Woops I misread there as here.

I don't post on pol.

"If you can't do it, it means you deserve the returns from the investments you never made"

Your commie logic fell apart already, stop even trying.

Yes, that's why you get paid the highest amount of money you can get for your work. Because your ability to work is your property.

Yes, that's why they get the return from their investments and enterprises, and not some low skilled laborer that didn't do the investment nor did make the enterprise.

Different user here but
Yes, workers can't usually do it capital wise. They are, however, completely investing their labor in the company and producing the actual product. Those who can make capital investments in the company are doing so on the labor they have hired in which it is in the rational self-interest of the owner to keep the workers wages as low as possible. The workers are doing the work that makes the owner money and the owner makes investments in regards to his own profit while giving smaller and smaller amounts of generated revenue to the laborers.
Capitalism is by its very design a race to the bottom. In order to compete you must set the price of your product lower then your competitior while also maximizing profits for your shareholders and making reinvestments in the company. The most efficent way of doing this is to find a way to reduce the cost of labor in your company, either through finding laborers who will work for less or automating the jobs. As technology improves and outsourcing becomes easier, jobs will decrease and wages will reduce to such a point that in order to compete for those scarce jobs workers will need to accept work for base subsistent pay. But at least you understand that they own their labor, even when they have to sell it far below the market cost of the product they produce.
Funds created by effectively shortchanging the workers for their labor.

You should also know by now how wages by themselves already are mostly negated through land hoarding and rent given how rent costs directly correlate with any general wage increases, right?