Women are less likely to be employed in highly competitive jobs

The only thing I care about there is sex and I have immense sex. Right wingers are spuds in the sack.

Good luck trying to share a living with whores; enjoy your divorce and growing up to not have a family.

And by the way, knowing the faces of leftypol after multiple doxxings and multiple voluntary image shares, you are a 17yo little bitch who never had sex before.

...

into the trash it goes

All you've accomplished is making yourself look really butthurt. If that's really all you've got to bring to the table then the left is going to continue to wither and die.

Thanks kid. Enjoy being a virgin.

Women are mostly sinecurists

Angry basement dwelling permavigins have no power and no potential to have power. You are of no consequence. Arguing with you about whatever idpol garbage you've just dragged onto this board would literally be a waste of time.

Source: slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html

Source: slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html

really made me think

researchgate.net/publication/229636644_Research_or_Rhetoric_A_Response_to_Wilcox_and_Nock

FDR was a cryptocommie.

...

...

Yes, healthy non-promiscuous marriages are good and woman have a worryingly high rate of child abuse. Anything we don't know?

Delicious.

...

Women are more likely to have an average Autism Level, whereas men have a stronger tendency towards extremes on both sides. There are more genial men than genial women, but also more retarded men than retarded women.
I am not an expert, but wouldn't this balance out the average Autism Level of both sexes?

You're a crypto-faggot.

Stating that you have no potential to have power, is hardly a "baseless insult". By your very nature you are powerless as you neither have wealth and influence, nor the numbers to actually change anything.
Even actual fags are in a better position than you - as some of them really are wealthy and influential despite their small numbers.

You are literally less threatening than queers.

Factual.

...

This is all fake news and fake science. You're just mad because you became a commie to fuck girls like me and we don't want you either. You sexist spook, idpol, etc, fuck off

Fiffy

I honestly don't see what you're getting at OP. Yes, it's true that Holla Forums isn't infested with /r9k/ so people here don't have a hatred for women, but I'm still somewhat curious as to why do you think what you posted matters? It's undeniable that gender (and thus its characteristics) is rooted in biological sex, to whichever degree, but how does that necessitate any sort of different treatment? Because let's face it, that's what you're getting at in the end, isn't it?

I haven't yet read those studies you listed, and I doubt you have beyond reading the abstract or a glimpse at their title, but the first question I'd pose is at what point is that supposed difference develops between men and women and in which areas of the brain? Reevaluate your essentialism and read Lacan. Also, don't bother posting tabloid articles about anything, those sites are unreliable sensationalism funny how the right barks about "FAKE NEWS" whenever it fits them, and we both know where you stand, OP.

OP is retarded what he thinks doesn't matters

Well yeah, men and women are different: you just need to have eyes to see that.

Like, why are leftcucks always fence sitting shit for brains?

...

I don't give a shit about liberal idpol bullshit, dude. most of us hate SJWs

...

Modern society and culture is dictated by liberal capitalism. We are not liberal capitalists, though if you are American I doubt you will be able to mentally grasp this.

That said, we really, really don't care. We aren't virgins that are driven by a conscious fixation with pussy.

...

...

Except I'm not triggered by this at all. This is reddit tier knowledge, most us know this shit from anti feminist videos from fucking Bearing. Just because women are different doesn't mean I'm going to treat them like shit.

If you don't know the difference between a commie and a liberal youre fucking retarded.

Factual does not imply meaningful.

How does the fact that men and women are "fundamentally" different necessitate different treatment? In what particular respects and degree are they different and how much of it is absolutely due to biology? Quite literally the only thing you can point out to is physiology, and judging by your flag I expect no less than a strawman reply saying I imply we should put women in the military or do manual jobs like men.

You could arbitrate any such distinction for any two groups; niggers and whites; low I.Q. and high I.Q. folk; autists and neurotypicals etc. Tell me, which two pairs are more "fundamentally" different, men and women or niggers and whites? In what respects? By your criteria you may as well justify Jewish supremacy, but that would upset you and you'll come up with 1001 reasons as to why it's unjust, unfair, and evil.

Oh shit, OP BTFO

There's also the fact that the vast majority of property and violent crime is committed by males, but no one on Holla Forums thinks men should be treated as lesser in some way for it.

those shades are shit & only make his baldness look even bigger.

did he got them at a 7-11, walmart?

What happened to from each according to his ability leftcuck?

Keep trying to ram a square into a circle. Egalitarianism is a false god.

What did he mean by this?

If men and women are fundamentally different then they would be more comfortable and happier being treated different. That would be obvious to anyone who's not a liberal cuck larping as a communist.

Are you mentally retarded? First off, physiology and psychology are tightly linked, different bodies will affect the mind. Second off, all it would take is a google search to find out the many psychological gaps between men and women.

Kek

Samefagging this hard.

That does not imply everyone is the same.

From Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme:

Got any more stupid questions?

Most people are different in some pathological way, that does not mean they want to be treated as lesser than others.

You are pulling assertions out of your ass. Your personal feelings are not facts, and sexual dimorphism does not mean women aren't sapient.

Is he wrong? If biological determinism is true, whites are clearly inferior to Jews.

Utopian bullshit!

Keep on trying to ram niggers into med school or getting airheaded women to get hired by Google to work with ruby on rails, you guys are doing a splendid job!

Typicall post-modernist nonsense maker that can't get out of his head that people aren't equal and that treating women like women should be treated will be a "lesser" care. All evidence given points out to happier and more satisfied women, but since you have the retarded dogmatic notion that everyone is equal, then a different treatment must mean oppression.
You faggots are just liberals larping as revolutionaries.

Literal non argument. Note how the stormfag resorts to ad Homs when BTFO

Also, Ruby on Rails is for retards, so even by your standards women can use it proficiently. :^)

Political and philosophical equality is not meant to be literal. You would know this if you weren't severely autistic.

Not the Holla Forums poster, but there are some structual differences in male and female brains. Not that this is bad, but it explains some general average attributes which of course will have some variability. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896179/
Another about how men and women react to stress during pavlovian conditioning

Still doesn't negate treating women like shit. Again, Marx's to each their own according to their ability and need can play out here

Post-modernism = Into the trash it goes.

Seems like that to post modernist leftists you can't even insinuate that having testicles the size of grapes pumping testosterone to your brain every day affects your psychology. Balls are a spook, hormones are a spook, evolutionary psychology is a spook.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006899394911762
Sorry, forgot 2nd study

The implication was that they can't even do that proficiency, brush up on your reading comprehension Chaim :^)

So by a Holla Forumsyps logic Jews and Asians should have the right to treat whites like shit.

Ah so you don't know what you're talking about. K.

Equal treatment cannot be assured without similar treatment. This is civics 101.
Merit is not deterministic. How people should be treated by society is not determined from the womb.

Evo psych actually is a spook, though, since it cannot be tested and verified.

Neither can the Ruby on Rails creators, though. Their standards of proficiency differ from normal standards.
Web development is where the dumbest people in STEM gravitate.

Nothing happened to it, what does from each according to his (personal) ability has to do with this argument. But hey, great answers to my questions, thanks for playing.

I wasn't samefagging

Yes, and? In what respect? Interpersonal? Institutional? No one would want his rights taken because of some predisposed situation. It begs the question then why did women fight for their rights. Ah, I know, 5th column, right?

Which I didn't deny in my first post the nazi replied to, I only asked to which degree and in what respects. Reevaluate your essentialism.

We both know what reactionaries mean when they say "treat them differently". And again, what do you mean by "treating differently"?

Cool down your aggression OP.

Found the Jordan Peterson follower

Maybe you should read up on Post-Modernism rather than accept it as the source of all bad-thinking in our society like Jordan Peterson would have you believe.

"Post-Modern Leftists" Dude, you know absolutely nothing about post-modernism and you know nothing about leftism. Go read up on these things

The irony here is that pomos would, in some cosmic, self-unaware way, likely share his tendency for essentialism.

...

I will now accept the criticism of a group of faggots who claimed evolutionary psychology is a spook that cannot be tested, that physiology and psychology are not linked, that the only differences between men and women are physiological, that an economy that abolishes the measurement of value makes sense and that a worker deserves the returns from the investments he implicitly chose not to make. Only not. I will not do that. Because all evidence points towards the thesis that your entire worldview is so warped that any skepticism you might propose cannot be trusted.

Gender roles in developed countries are a way of controlling the population by forging common trends that can be accounted for. Deviants (and I mean actual deviants not tumblresque quasi demi boygirls) are too rare to be significant. A population that is easy to control means that bankers and the bourgeoisie can create optimum conditions for the most productivity and the lowest pay. Countries with the most efficient workers can be more 'advanced', if by advanced you mean producing masses of wasteful technology and putting all your research potential into populist garbage. We clearly have different definitions of 'egalitarian' if you think it means raising children on stock traits depending on how they are born.

No one is even claiming what you are saying, all you are doing is screeching that we are all liberals. You cannot mentally comprehend the fact that we don't fucking care.

You have yet to prove to us that society should have formal hierarchy based on natural differences.

To quote Stefan Molyneux "'not an argument".

Ok more strawmen. Again, just because women and men are different doesn't mean we're going to treat them like shit. See and piss off. And take your pseudo intellectual political illiteracy with you.

You're doing Marx's work, catposter

Constantly masturbating about why women aren't graduating with degrees in electrical engineering and turning them into cheap labor as human resource managers is doing just that, Chaim.

The research in question does not even say this at all.

...

...

Well yeah, ok, we're not female supremacists so I don't see why you think we'd care about half the people doing half the things.

Odd how people who used to switch parters frequently continue to switch partners frequently. That must mean women ruin society right?

Correlation does not mean causation. If someone is obsessed with one kind of stimulation then it is likely they will be so for others too.

Who knew.

Literally, everything you believe is so wrong and warped, it would be best if you just learned to shut the fuck up and start acquiring knowledge from zero then to have someone attempt to reason with you.

smuganimeface.jpeg

Why do you buy into racist antiquated norms rooted in 19th century physiognomy?

So much for the egalitarian left!

Another weak minded liberal failing to grasp the implications of the knowledge in his hand.

If your ideal government needs a small voter base to maintain support, it's because it lacks any real merit. No one here has any sympathy for your naive libertard ideals.

When have we ever said that all people are the same?

Wonder why this post is ignored : ^ )

You have yet to prove how de facto difference should be de jure difference.

Claim with no logical reasoning behind it. Discarded.

KEK

OP, why do you ignore the only one arguing in this thread in good faith?

also this

Translation: I am autistic and only I am capable of le euphoric logic.
Lumpens are less detrimental to society than the ruling class.

There are no implications, all you are doing is repeatedly asserting your personal feelings as objective facts.

Women are uniquely capable of giving birth and cultivating the next generation, they should stick to that instead of becoming debt slaves for schlomo by taking on student loans to work in a hr job they hate and ending up as cat ladies.

(Exceptional outliers notwithstanding, there's no reason that SOME women shouldn't be completely barred from becoming career women of course. On the grounds that they freeze dry and donate their eggs of course. For the good of the volk)

...

You're replying to the strawman in your head again. Re-read my post.

...

...

I never said we should treat them the same, again, you're forgetting "to each their own according to their ability and need" I said you don't need to treat people like shit based on their gender. Or are you too autistic to see that?

The nuclear family didn't exist until capitalism, and even then we still advocate for the extended family, and don't advocate for single parenthood.

Ok, blackpigeonspeaks, watch this
youtu.be/5rUFX7YhjQ4

Just stop posting dude, it's evident you have no idea what you're talking about.

He didn't say that.

If you don't want to even try to understand left wing politics, don't be shocked when we don't want to entertain your opinions.

"Equality" should always be equal treatment by the law, not that you have to grovel at every women you meet. If your spouse wants you to treat her a certain way, go for it, but don't act like treating her in a way she explicitly asks you not to wont lead to a strained and unhealthy relationship. The best relationships are those where the consenting couple build on each
other and fufill/support each others needs while simultaneously being willing to concede points. Capitalism actually destroys the family dynamic as fathers and/or mothers spend more time away from each other and their children, the finacial and cultural problems you run around pointing fingers at are a consequence of late stage capitalism. People are alienated from each other and uncapable of forming close bonds, marriage is now done for financial convience and based on economic factors. Fascism breaks this down even more by basically replacing the father with the state, leading to all kinds of repressed whelming desires that eventually welm up into self-destructive behaviors.

No point arguing with leftists OP. Their ideology isn't rooted in logic.

What should I reread? Women have the ability to gestate the next generation. Or does the global commune not need children?

explain what leftism entails user
this ought to be rich

And this ability is literally useless without men fertilizing them.

Yes, it is fathers, having a productive job working to make society work, which end up making themselves away from children.
Not the 50% of women who divorce/ have children from a man they aren't even in contact, raising the child out of wedlock. /s

I swear, commies could possibly be the most retarded political group that has ever existed. Even nazis and fascists have an ounce of stoicism and understatement of how the real world works.

...

Which is happening in modern capitalist society, you fucking goon.

For you somehow leads to

Go gishgallop somewhere else faggot

Why bother? They're calling us pomo degenerates on one hand, while on the other they literally want to force women with small children into the workplace for market discipline! Then a few years later the children too.

I'll make this easy for you user, I'll give you this link for a summary on Marx's theory on alienation and I'm trusting you to read it in good faith that you'll stop being retarded.

google.com.au/amp/s/1000wordphilosophy.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/karl-marxs-conception-of-alienation/amp/

Yes, because having a superstate unconditionally paying women to be single moms and bellow the poverty line is a characteristic of capitalism. Communists and liberals would never want that.

Huh?

Is pregnancy and child rearing not something unique to women? Why shouldn't that be considered something that they can uniquely contribute to society with, even in Marxist terms?

The post capitalist global commune needs to be replenished, right?

Because these people are intentionally choosing to be retarded and it's triggering as fuck.

...

finally you say something correct!
communists want the abolition of money all together. Welfare only exists within a capitalist system.

It is happening in capitalist society, and therefore endemic to capitalism. This is basic logic.

...

Remember you're talking to a lolbert. Anything bad is a result of impure capitalism.

You are trying to force political structure into something that happens on its own. Politics and government exist to serve the needs of people, not the other way around.

You're right we don't. We believe in the extended family and abolishment of the state (at least anarchists like me anyway) What's your point?

Why do you keep on mistaking us for liberals?

Hey user, how about we do the opposite?
I'll give you this link for a 600 page book by Mises that explores almost any claim of what "seizing the means of production" might mean reaching the conclusion that the entire communist pursuit is pure nonsense. I'm trusting you to read it in good faith. Deal? I'll read your theory of alienation and you reason Socialism by Mises?
mises.org/system/tdf/Socialism An Economic and Sociological Analysis_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

More like your side considers anything less than free birth control for all fertile women and third trimester abortions on demand to be "treating women like shit".

Something something emancipation something…

What other biological functions will communism emancipate us from next? Is taking a shit next on the list?

Imagine no street shitting
It's easy if you try..

Austrian economics are so retarded that they can be 100% disregarded if you do not accept its "axioms" as universal truth.

so instead of actually addressing what communists mean when they say that he just makes up his own possible answers and refutes them? I see now why so many libertarians love this guy.

What's wrong with birth control and abortion? Especially in a society in which the material well being of the child cannot be assured.

Again, you're talking to the straw me in your head. If you want to force women to bear children then yes, I'm against against that. If you want to force women to try to become engineers and HR managers rather than raising families I'm against that too.

...

Also, his whole claim of the unfeasibility of left wing economics is just a straw man of socialism as state planning. He doesn't even succeed on his own terms.

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

You can't make this shit up

reality strikes again to feminists

oh you damm women, why don't you act like feminists want you to?

So, lets confirm here:
In a communist society, if a woman decides to be a single mom with no good conditioning of raising a child; she will be left to her own devices and suffer the consequences?
Correct or not? Let's see if you'll back up your vague claim that you are anarchists.

Funny seeing communist cucks claiming they have the same objective morals as real libertarians to deflect that the conflicts within their worldview.

But Communism stops street shitting

Typical leftist pomo universalist
CUCKS

Can you explain to me then, how do you know whether a good is worth its cost in a true communist economy? How do you know if a good being produced is good or not to people in the first place?

I'm glad to find a group of communist that can finally debunk Mises.

That's what the extended family is for dipshit. If there is a 'divorce' the extended family will help take care of the child. You're thinking in purely nuclear family thought.

You forgot that one of the areas with

Read the entirety of the thread and try again

I'm pretty sure there will be less abortions under communism as the mother will not have to worry about if the child can be provided for. The father will more likely stick around because of the same reason.

you're still thinking within the confines of the existing family structure, there's no reason other people who want to raise children can't take the child.

oh boi

Any pro natalist policies are considered literally Hitler. Anything that reaffirms maternity is shot down by the left.

From each according to their ability…as long as that ability isn't giving birth. Insane feminazism and antinatalism is joined at the hip with the left and is considered emancipatory.

All those women stuck working shitty HR jobs $200k in debt is on you.

i was't blaming leftypol

there's a lot of feminists and liberals in here anyway

What in the name of good fuck are you on about?

So, will there be a free food system or a collectivized distribution of goods that would end up in a single mom epidemic or not?

Or course, taking into consideration that you are too stupid to understand why your whole economic plan of distributing goods without even knowing their value wouldn't work.

We are not liberals.

Abortions are mostly niggers so why the fuck do you care?

This is getting sad, my dude

Why are pro natalist policies always against left wing ideas?

Again, straw leftist in your head is getting loud.

Do you even know what socialism is?

Use value =/= exchange value

We also throw away shitloads of food and farmers hoard grain to wait for prices to go up.

You are implying that capitalism = markets. We do not live in the 19th century, it is possible to gather massive amounts of information about what people want and think in an instant; Mises falsely claims that this practical issue is an ideological one.

Just stop lad

Why do you this everytime Holla Forums? Whenever you're backed into a corner concerning the general zeitgeist of the left and it's contradictions you wash your hands and claim you're not Sjws.

I lurk this board. Antinatalism seems pretty popular.

the question was already answered, you just don't like the answer.

You clearly don't. If you did, you'd know we're not SJWs or liberals. Take your meds

Abortion is largely a capitalist industry, people mostly get abortions because they can't support having a child. Why do you think abortion gets pushed so much by liberals? Its far easier to tell a poor family to get an abortion if you can justify it by the financial cost, that way you don't need to actually address the problem of capitalism creating those conditions. In fact in a communist society, theres no drawback to having the child because you won't become financially crippled. Birth control is perfectly fine and would prevent any population problems if they occured.

We are not antinatalists as much we think it's suicide for the human species to grow indefinitely.

>psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Collectivist_and_individualist_cultures

...

Liberals are not "the left".

Economic and cultural individualism are not the same.

t.intellectual

You didn't answer, so I'll ask again:

Communism is a post-scarcity society, it will not be "free" per se as much as there will be no need to compete for it. Realistically, automation will render most human labor moot.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705700/

Gald to see Holla Forums's standards

It's not about abortion per se. I'm just curious how you reconcile "from each according to their ability" with something women are uniquely able to do.

Haven't gotten an answer. Maybe marx just took for granted that women would always want to be mothers and couldn't envision a time where the first thing women think when they hear pregnancy is "parasite".

goods will be distributed based on need rather than based on a market economy.

I answered your question about the single motherhood family you sperg. Read again.

People are not commodities. That is how.

Brace yourself

but muh women.
buh muh sexual economy.
but muh chads and stacies.

I guess the trick of commies is to avoid directly reasoning for 3 or 4 posts, because then most people already forgot the previous claims you made in the previous posts. It's brilliant. Now you can be completely detached from when you were talking about that welfare and free resources was something intrinsic in free markets and go on to talk about how welfare and free shit will be great under communism. It's the incredible architecture of the emotional mentally ill brain, that sees no value in reasoning and only focus on tricking others.

Furthermore cultural collectivism=/= economic collectivism you mental defective.

You are literally too autistic to stop shoehorning in your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is a fucking liberal. It is this constant competition to live a normal life, and the alienation of labor, that causes degradation of society; welfare simply fails to resolve this, because it cannot somehow compensate for the inherent failures of capital.

I think you should just admit that you don't care about principles at all and want a state appointed gf.

It's not welfare we're talking about under communism you fucking dipshit. Welfare within capitalism is paid for with the surplus labor of the workers, under communism distribution is handled without surplus value or exploitation.

You keep talking to the straw leftist in your head.

Why does it need to be reconciled? Women are forced to work long, long hours in grim factories, just like under industrial capitalism, but babies (or as Kultural Marx called them: the petit bourgeois) are shot on sight.

I guess I should have known better, as libertarians are autistic.

Why are you even posting Anita Sarkeesian? What kind of idiot still cares about her?

...

>atlasfreetrade.org/
b-b-b-but cultural collectivism doesn't end up making economic collectivism…. that's crazy…

...

Yeahhhhh whatever. Get back to me when the "socialist" harpies on campus start demanding the material conditions of society shift back so that it allows them to be loving mothers again.

not everyone is an american famalamadingdong

not our fault everyone in your country is retarded

nothing you posted has anything to do with collective ownership of the MoP. You haven't even shown how Brazil is culturally collectivist to begin with.

You admit that they aren't really socialists, then attack us for their beliefs?

KEK
The more I try the more I realize that arguing with you is futile. You faggots are so nihilistic, so devoided of value and desire for truth, that you can have opinions that are 180º from each other.

I've been to college for five years and there were almost no "socialist harpies" to be found. Get off the internet and stop thinking in memes.

what the fuck do you think "from each according to his ability" means you dumb fucking cumstain.

If you cannot imagine a system that deviates from the status quo, it only means you aren't very intelligent.

Can you define your ownership over the means of production so I can destroy it once and for all? So I can explain the objective and simple consequences of that?

Because it seems to me, that such a thing doesn't even exist. Marxists in Brazil consider the national ownership of oil a marxist cause, but to you, it seems it's not. Seems you could say this entire vague dogmatic belief is nothing more than a … spook.

Why do you browse reddit discords?

W E L F A R E S T A T E

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

You and the retard in your screenshot (probably also you) could find this shit in five seconds. You do not care about meaningful discussions, you're just braindead ameriburgers, politics in your country are just empty tribalistic pissing contests.

it's almost as if communism is more complicated then government handouts and different marxists can have different theories on the economy.
look, the baby is trying to fit in.

Please don't use memes you don't understand, it's embarrassing

cultural collectivism=/= economic collectivism

Well, you'll be pleased to find that we don't actually like welfare. It's a sad, immoral attempt to justify capitalism.

R E A D A B O O K

How are you this retarded?

How come all you faggot sound like markov chain bots? Not a single intelligent thought or criticism ever comes with your posts. Just lazy ad homs and "muh liberals"

Here's why I will not do that \/

You tell me how you'll "seize the means of production", what the means of production are, and what legal framework you'll establish, and I'll explain the catastrophic consequence of that. I will not look or a definition of communism for you, I will not fall for that again, just so you can claim you are not actually that type of communist and that your communist views will actually work, unlikely the views of 99% of other communists.

You can say the same thing about capitalist ideology, fam.

You literally didn't read the passage he quoted, you actual fucking mongoloid. Marx literally acknowledges the fundamental inequality between different people. Try reading instead of just knee-jerk reacting like a fucking spastic.

KEK

Getting burgers to not only read, but also understand, is an exercise in futility. This guy is a fucking braindead fox news tier retard.

Imagine how pathetic it must be, to have your entire world view as smoke and mirrors that are only there to validate you short term impulses.

taking the means of production means the abolition of private property and wage labor so that the workers who labor in the factories will have full control over the factory. It is just one aspect of the total abolition of production for exchange which dictates what goods are manufactured under capitalism and the M-C-M formula which makes up the backbone of the capitalist system itself.
You can quit you're trolling now.

...

How will you seize the means of production, what is categorized as means of production, and what will be the legal framework behind it?

It's clear that you are incapable of arguing in good faith, since you refuse to drop the liberal straw men.

The world is not just and fair. Thinking otherwise is clearly sociopathy.

Seriously though. I remember the one time I posted a thread opposite to OP on 4/pol/; got about two replies in before my brain turned to mush.

How people can be this fucking delusional isn't beyond me anymore though, it's explainable by social reclusion. Ten bucks says every Holla Forumsack or lolbert in this thread wouldn't even be here if they had a single female friend. Even a platonic one.

There is a difference between theory and praxis, dipshit.

You are trying to reduce a debate about an abstract concept to petty interpersonal drama. If you want to know what we believe, marxists.org will tell you.

the means of production are factories, land, and machines used to generate surplus value for the bourgeoisie.
The legal framework is all the workers have guns and if you try to exploit someone you get shot dead.

The welfare state is a capitalist tool to purvey to the needs of workers so they don't get too sick and can do their job efficiently, and the unemployed so they can live before they can replace workers who are too old or too sick.
If the capitalist organization would be really efficient, only wages would be needed for the maintenance of the work force. But unemployment is systemic thing in capitalism, and the upper class prefer to pay lesser wages and a bit more taxes, along with the workers themselves, than give good wages. It's more efficient for the maintenance of workers.
Welfare doesn't make much sense in the context of communism, where production of goods and services is only considered according to their use, and where the concept of money wouldn't exist.
I don't know why I bothered to type all of this, this thread is pure cancer and anyone who didn't sage it should be banned

FTFY

So what type of exploitation are we talking about? Hiring people should be prohibited? So, we would have a society where workers make capital investments impossible, where entrepreneurship and the creation of widespread employment won't exist?

Let's not forget the little problem of capital intensity; where certain workers would seize the most expensive and luxurious structures made by man, while some others would seize a cash register and an empty concrete cube; and the incentive problem that would arise in such arbitrary economy, where a group of workers can dominate society by gauging a key resource, while in the current society if you try gauging a resource the value of your assets collapse due to the lack of your sales. It would be the return of ACTUAL feudalism; with few controlling crucial equipment unrestricted by financial conditions and the majority controlling nothing.

But wait, we would obviously not want that, so the solution would be having a massive superstate controlling all resources, but then you would say that this is not real communism, but at the same time it is real communism. At this point it doesn't even matter.

There's literally zero benefits in "seizing the means of production". Destroying capital investments and prohibiting them; which is essentially economic growth, would be devastating. Of course, we aren't even touching the surface of the economic calculation problem. This is just the superficial problems of telling people to steal whatever capital was invested in their employment; the near total destruction of the nation.

Forgot the post number

stop it please, my sides are aching.

How about this, you think my economic analysis is wrong? Then how about you specify how you'll seize the means of production a little more?
mfw

By the way, this isn't anything new. Economists could explain why communism would be retarded even at the times of Marx.

Dire little reminder: The most prominent communist thinker, Karl Marx, became the most prominent communist thinker by never talking about how a communist society should look like, and claiming any attempt of understanding it would be unscientific. Communism is precisely about never trying to understand communism.

Are you fucking stupid? Do you honestly think "seizing the means of production" means letting people run amok and grab whatever's on the store shelves?

For someone who makes such big talk, you've pretty much proven yourself to be economically illiterate on Marxist economics, Communism/Socialism, and likely leftism in general. Try again next time.

No, you faggot, I think they would seize their workplace as you commie faggots want. I assumed a good amount of intelligence in your claims, unfortunately. It seems that your reply was merely out of a misunderstanding/ ignorance of what I said.

Otherwise, can you explain what seizing the means of production means and what is the legal framework behind it? Do you have a more specific definition to it that you think I should know?

explain how the fuck concepts like entrepreneurship and capital investment would have any meaning in a post-scarcity economy where money does not exist and production is determined by use value rather than exchange value.
You are so high on ideology that you cannot imagine what an economy not governed by capitalism would look like. All your complaints about communism make no sense within a socialist framework.
You also seem to have this absurd vision of workers going out and stealing "luxurious structures" and keeping them to themselves like this was some sort of post-apocalyptic survival game rather than a collective movement where workers support each other through mutual aid.
tl;dr you're a dumb faggot and you should either graduate elementary school or neck yourself.

Our goal should be to surpass the weaknesses of biological forms altogether.
I despise feminist scum as much as anyone, but those links you have posted are no reason to treat women worse. The world has enough problems for us to spend our time trying to fix that we don't need to waste time trying to fight each other.

For instance, it's time our species sat down and had a level-headed, scientific discussion about the way we treat pedophiles (especially non-offending ones) and how our current attitudes actually make child abuse worse.

KEK What's more likely is that you are so high on ideology that you cannot even grasp the idea that you, a 18~ yo who knows jack shit about the world is actually wrong.

You literally have to invent a nonsensical economical concept of "post-scarcity" in order to believe in your retarded ideology. There's no such thing as post scarcity. The universe is atomically scarce, and people's wants and grow as much as they can imagine. So there we have it, an imaginary nonexistent concept as a crucial aspect of your ideology.

Wait, will workers seize their means of production or will they take the means of production and give it to all other human beings on the planet? Because those are two completely different things. Seizing an Off Shore oil pump for you and your buddies and collectivizing and off shore pump for a new world order are completely different things.
Also:
KEK

there is more than enough resources and technology available to produce a post-scarcity economy.
communism is an internationalist movement. Of course the MoP does not belong to any one group of individuals.
>Because those are two completely different things
no they aren't.

If others misunderstand you then you're the one at fault.

You have got to be one of the single dumbest motherfuckers I have ever seen grace this board.

Imma lay this out real simple, 'kay? In terms familiar to you. Lemme know if I'm going too fast:
When Socialists say they want to "seize the means of production", they mean they want to institute democratic workplaces and pay everyone a share of the firm's profits based on how much work they do for said firm.

Under Communism, money ceases to exist, and thus wages make no sense.

And for the last fucking time, "seizing the means of production" doesn't mean "acquiring profitable resources for oneself". If anything, you just outlined a fundamental part of Capitalism.

I'm glad I read more than basic economics and grew out of lolbertarianism before 20. Teens will grow up eventually I guess.

HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAH
No, there isn't, you fucking idiot. 40yo men that studied a lot have to wake up and work 8 hours a day so your lights are on. So you have internet. So your grocery store has food. Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Do you seriously believe in what you are saying? At this point, your entire ideology hinges in pure fantasy.

So, me , as a worker, do not deserve ownership over my workplace? But rather a world wide government? And me, owning my workplace with my work buddies, is the same as a New World Order owning everything? K then. No reason with arguing with the mentally ill.

What if someone else would make better use of that same workplace?

enough food is produced annually to feed every human being on earth three square meals a day and then some. Scarcity is a human invention and a byproduct of capitalism.
Alex Jones get off the internet or the NWO won't give you your kids back.

Which means the entire criticism I wrote is valid and you were just too dumb to even understand it.

Woah, socialism sounds great. We put a bunch of middle wage earners in total control of the most crucial resources of human civilization, while 99% of the average worker gets nothing. Seems like you are mentally incapable of understanding that the capital intensity of industries varies, a lot. What certain workers produce is an insane amount precisely because of the capital intensity of certain areas. It's not something that is based on work effort. The most crucial tools of human civilization would fall into the hands of even fewer people; which would have everyone else by their balls.

Oh wait, I know, you'll just flee to "actually, what I meant is that communism is worldwide totalitarian government and wage sharing regardless of your workplace", not actually seizing the means of production to the workers.

That's the free market logic comrade. There's no reason to force managers to default on their failed model and sell their assets to a new form of management. These silly capitalist notions will be outdated in the glorious post-scarcity society.

What is logistics
What is distribution
What is different countries and continents
Top kek. I will also not even fucking ignore that even if mankind was producing enough food, that still means that 40yo intelligent men are working 8 hours a day so that happens. And that they are only doing it because of their own self interest, not because they love you or would keep working day and night to support you; someone they don't even know.

Not so sure about that one, comrade.

congratulations, you've discovered how historical materialism works. Yes capitalism is great for producing stuff, it's shit at distribution. That's why you have starving people in one country and fat obese fucks somewhere else.
we already are. Enough food is produced to end world hunger but food surpluses are destroyed on purpose to keep the price of food down. Thanks capitalism.

Venezuela is a capitalist nation still subject to the laws of the capitalist economy. And i don't see you raising a fuss over starvation in free market economies like the 1/5th of american children who are severely malnourished.

also the zoo story was debunked like a week after it came out. Update your propaganda please

Let's assume you have a bunch of extra food tat the local market doesn't want:
You can:
Oh yeah, except A is in a different fucking continent, and the government doesn't allow compromised food to be sold and forces you by law to trash it or give it to a dog shelter.

You are so fucking dense and dumb, that you think all farms and food enterprises on planet earth are part of a grand conspiracy to simulate a perfect monopoly, and are avoiding selling food which was ALREADY MADE; aka wasting money; to marginally increase prices by negligible amount.

Honest question:
Have you ever looked in the mirror, saw a 18yo kid, and realized that you might not know as much about the world as you think you do?

You have brain damage my dude.

or you could C: distribute it to the people who need it.

it's not a conspiracy, that's how capitalism is supposed to operate.

I'm European and can get buy bananas from Africa in almost every supermarket.
Hell, I even bought relatively cheap garlic from Argentina once even though garlic can grow up almost everywhere. It doesn't make any sense to import inferior Argentinian garlic from a logistic standpoint, but distributors do it for some reason.
Transporting food isn't a problem. It's just that it is not profitable to give it to very poor countries.

Which is illegal in most places. Expired food cannot be sold nor distributed to people. Also, the farmers would get nothing from that, the grocery shop will get nothing from that. You wouldn't work to give free shit to others, don't be a little bitch complaining about how others aren't working full time to distribute free shit.

No, you massive fucking idiot, it is a conspiracy, and it's not how capitalism operates. If you have an actual economic proof of a worldwide conspiracy gouge on food, then you go to the economic academic circles and you discuss it. You don't sit at Holla Forums as a 17yo little bitch.

because of capitalism
we aren't just talking about expired food.
capitalism operates by valuing profit over human lives. Food scarcity is necessary for capitalism so you have someone to sell food to.
IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY

That's why they prefer to put bleach on expired food instead of giving it. They can't get any profit out of it.

Yes, 7 years ago when I was a lolbert. You'll grow out of it eventually.

HAHAHAHAHAH
Holy shit, you are so fucking mentally ill.
KEK

Here's a harsh reality for you budy: Your life has zero worth to me. ZERO. 0. ze·ro. No value.

Let's say the people who work around you see no value in your life either, and decide to take a one week break from providing your local area with food in a glorious communist system; that's all it takes to have your life gone forever. One little week without food. One little week without people valuing your life, and you are gone; without the market and voluntary exchange you have to face the harsh reality that your mere existence has nothing to offer. In your fantasy, it's exactly the opposite, you imagine your mere existence as mattering infinitely more. It's tragic when I think about it.

Biggest food exporters per capita: US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. No country that has food problems. No country that has food problems is actually making enough food for itself and having it stolen.

Except they can get easy profit from selling the fucking food. How fucking dense can someone be? How many times do I have to explain that your LARPing economics is actually, FACTUALLY not true?

this one is really dedicated

Comrade, I think we're being trolled.

idagf about feminism, idgaf about anti-feminism. i was just making fun of op's autistic dump of links

liberals are capitalists and these policies are in place to benefit capitalism

no they can't. If all the food that is produced was sold on the market it would create an overabundance of goods and cause prices to drop. It's more beneficial for the capitalist to destroy food surpluses than to sell it. The other option is to dump surplus goods into foreign markets in order to cripple local industry, which capitalists do all the time to third-world countries.

Hey, how come African shitholes filled with communist niggers that attack white farmers are having so much food problems? I thought scarcity was made by human beings!?

How come 100%, yes, 100%, of food comes from the free market!?!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_farming
How come there's not a single, a single example, of significant communist food production in the entire planet earth? How come there were horrible famines PRECISELY when communists tried to collectivize farming?

Comrade, could it be that your 18yo perception of the world is actually wrong? Have you considered that as a possibility?

because the world is capitalist, not communist.
because the global economy is capitalism.
collective farming in Russia and China increased food production. the famines were due to other factors like mismanagement of resources and natural disasters.
up your shitposting. This is getting boring for me.

Yes, I've never seen commies support anti-business policies and regulations. They would never do that. I will erase my memories to fit in with fucking Holla Forums. /s

You are so dense you couldn't catch the previous 10 explanations I gave you. My suggestion: Go read a book. Not a communist dogma book, but a book that tries to understand real market trends and economics. By the way, good luck trying to live a constructive life in 2017 with such a warped perception of reality, where truth is defined by your emotions inside your mind.

wtf i hate women now

Not even the user you were talking to but you're such a fucking retard I had to say something.

...

I'm beginning to wonder if throwing you out of a helicopter in front of your friend's house as a warning is the only cure for communist dementia.

No it's not. Read a book.

You could be more precise and say that the state prohibit them to do so, and for good reasons.
If you want to see an unregulated highly-profitable market, look no much further than the opiate trade. Krokodil is a thing because it's profitable to sell a sketchy synthesis of desomorphine with red phosphorus. Shitload of heroin addicts die of fentanyl ODs because it is profitable to sell shitty heroin cut with fentanyl.
I don't want to see the same kind of shit happening on the food market. It's not in my interest. It's not in the interest of the vast majority of people. Therefore I believe the only way to have a sane society without a state is to abolish the invective to make profit.

Holy shit the tranny on the bottom left looks like Pamela Adlon

both can be true at the same time.
I don't support collective farms retard. And even if i did collective farms wouldn't be necessary because we can already produce enough food to end world hunger within capitalism. The problem, once again, is how that food is distributed.

Wait, I thought that the reason why massive amounts of food had to be wasted was because liberals and capitalism and price gouging and evilness, not because some communist fucker is afraid he'll start buying cocaine.

...

Fuck off, cuck.

What are you on about ?
Massive amounts of food are wasted because it's profitable to do so in the current system, that's what everyone has been telling you during the whole thread.
You have been unable to articulate the most basic of ancap arguments and now you are resorting to weak ad hominem attacks. You are truly pathetic and would only end up being a sex slave for Peter Thiel in ancapistan.

Nice ghost story, read Kropotkin and Stirner.

BTW capitalism is maintained by people who work in 'unions' (to use the word as Stirner would). They also have to care about people who oppose them for fear of an uprising, y'know, though not as individual people.

Post skin colour, nigger.

>DUDE YOU CAN'T SAY THAT CAPITALISM CAUSED SOMETHING BAD HOW DARE YOU

>not real economics

Even your own god Mises admitted that he was playing around with a priori concepts. Meanwhile, Farjoun and Machover were experimenting with probabilistics.

>>>/liberty/

So much for the voluntary right.

Someone should post the Thomas Paine quote on reason and medicine to the dead, it is very apt here.

How about you?

Idpolers don't understand nature vs nurture or correlation vs causation and commit every logical fallacy in the book?
Just like usual.

...