Way to go, Holla Forums

...

"an"caps love to move goalposts, when it's convenient they claim western europe is a free market paradise compared to burgerstan

DOG PLESS MURIGA

d-delet this!!!

Every action Trump does brings the communist aliens closer to our planet. We will be freed soon. If not us, then the generation after us.

yeah I'm sure things would be going very differently now with Shitlery in charge

citation needed

this, don't blame me for the crooked, out-of-touch Dem establisment

oh boy another pubefarming summerfag who thinks we're libruls

tbh I voted for Trump 'ironically' but I never thought he was actually going to win

...

I did too. Also didn't think he'd win

Hillary would’ve been worse then Trump. Also we aren’t liberals. We’re socialists and communists. Liberal parties shouldn’t expect us to vote for them.

Would have done the same if I was an American.
And to be honest he does a pretty good job of making people angry. The dream is that his destructive personality manages to bring down NATO.

Voting Hillary was objectively the rational choice for a socialist.

That said, fuck liberals with their terroristic emotional appeals to the status quo. If someone doesn't want to vote for a business shill war hawk, that's THEIR fucking choice and you just need to deal with it.

EPIC PRANK GONE WRONG!

Trump has made it possible for the left to truly flourish in the USA. Liberals are showing that they get shit done and barely dare criticize Trump besides tweets and supposed Russians.

If you guys in the America don't get your shit together now I don't see how the US will ever have a socialist movement that's actually noteworthy.

if person get lotta votes person win

I voted for Hillary, but at this point I realize that no matter who we vote for, we all lose. Bernie was are only small speck of hope, but all anyone cares about is their hedonistic desires and keeping the status quo.

I will never vote for a democrat ever again unless they're at LEAST Bernie Sanders tier.

...

Can't have social/economic equality and an anarchy.

Anarchists are dumb, but you're really dumb.

Explain how you can have redistribution of wealth in an anarchist society. You cannot have economic equity if there is no state. The "porky" will only fuck you in the ass even harder.

your vote doesn't count for shit unless you happen to live in a swing state

How will he fuck you in the ass with his wealth when there is no state to enforce property rights?

States also limit property rights by means of taxation.
He will kill you, that's how. Anarchy is individualist and you will not form some mad max coalition as he'll buy the loyalty of your prole mercenaries.

Come on, OP.

First of all: even if HRC had won, she would not have been able to choose who she wanted because Congress would still be under the control of the reactionaries.

Second of all: the Supreme Court would not have been an issue during the election of 2016 if there had been a replacement immediately but the Senate purposely dragged their feet.

Third of all: blaming third party voters for the loss of HRC is illogical when you consider the fact that DJT won due to the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Fourthly: Why would you blame people who had an ounce of conscience for not voting for the lesser of two reactionary tools? I thought we had a choice in the elections? No? Are we not allowed to choose who we vote for? Are we supposed to emulate the Republican reactionary voting strategy of voting for whomever our pastor endorses? Seriously? Fuck you.

I know it is unlikely but I hope the two party system fucking dies.

I voted for Jill Stein. There was no way in fuck after the DNC that I would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I knew after the DNC that Donald J. Trump would win. I kept telling my family my prediction and my conspiracyfuck mother insisted that HRC would win via vote rigging. My sisters thought I was being a troll.

user I hate to burst your bubble but I could probably murder porky with a hand tied behind my back.

You are dependent on them. That's why the "automation will mean sustenance for the proles" is laughable, as the end result will be culling of the majority of human beings.

wew lad

dude revolution lmao

...

how'd that revolution turn out for you last time? Oh yeah, decades of statism… LOL
Nice intellectual consistency, bud.

But I am a statist, you can tell this from when I called anarchists dumb, and you dumber than anarchists.
gg no re

How much of my money do you think you deserve?
Tread carefully.

...

okay big boy

I'm not even him. You just said something really stupid.

Statists require taxation. I'm asking him what rate is "moral" and permissible.

m8 you are on leftypol. You can keep your house and your car etc but your business, if necessary, will be put into the hands of the state, if it's unnecessary it will be liquidated. If you're good at your current position and the position is necessary you can stay on and be rewarded fairly for it.

...

It's not about deserving or undeserving, or even about exploitation. I'm merely acting in my self interests as a rational actor.

third party voters HATE muslims and are therefore BASED

Then you don't get to liquidate anything if you have no warranted claim on its behalf.
nigga please

The only people who have a warranted claim over businesses are the workers who toil day after day at it.

You aren't entitled to anything. You cannot berate ownership rights, while using them in your favour.

Individualism and self interest are only really mutually exclusive in a society with large potential for upward social mobility. Why would you join a collective when it's not in your self interests? You've conflated socialists with humanitarians. I want to capture the state for my benefit, rather than allow it to continue to exist for yours, as opposed to anarchists who want to get rid of the state because it validates your property rights.

Here we go again.

You don't seem to understand how this whole socialism thing works, there is no boss to 'enter into a voluntary contract' with.

we're not asking for your fucking permission

This explains Stalin's paranoia.
So surplus labour and all exploitation of that nature can be chalked up to the same egotistical individualism.

So there is no business. You have to have a manager. See how far you get when you don't assign roles of that sort.

We're not going to ask the bourg to stop exploiting us you dumb fuck, we're gonna make them.

Do you not know what or how worker cooperatives work?
Also managers are workers just as much as the guy with the mop is.

Yes, shockingly, working over 50 hours a week for no reason other than for some fat porker to stuff his pockets with profit makes makes you want to kill them so you can take your cut. Crazy, I know.

You are going to make them exploit you when they were never exploiting you to begin with. Got it. Keep on chasing the wild boogeyman conspiracy theories, though.

Yeah, like CEOs who work harder, and earn more. More skilled=better wages.

[citation needed]

Holy fuck you get dumber the more people tell you.

You're the one presupposing rights that come into existence at your convenience. Just calling people dummies isn't a point when you're being presented the opportunity to cite your claims.

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. And CEOs do not work harder than the workers.

This you brain on capitalist thought.

No, I think I'll call you a dummy because you started off by posting seriously, showing how little you knew and as you came up against resistance decided to increasingly argue in bad faith, ignore the entire matter of a post and pick out words you could strawman, and willfully misinterpret posts so you could have some petty reddit tier back and forth gotcha.

Here is socialism for porky dummies like yourself: We're going to shoot you because your only ability is possessing money.

Survival of the fittest, yes. No state to prop up failing businesses.

Who employed him? Who does he work under and what does the contract state? He works for him because he has none of those opportunities himself.

You've yet to refute the original point, which was highlighting the hypocrisy of assuming economic redistribution can come into play without a state and how there is no evidence to support the claim that it has been successfully implemented in the past, as defined. That is because a currency-having state is not Communist.
t. "good faith" arguments

Does that mean you support abolishing inheritance?

Like I asked above, how much of my money do you think you deserve? Survival of the fittest means "come and take it". The individual will reign supreme and operate how they see fit. Whether that be forcing their will (and failing if it's Communism) or operating peacefully.

Its not your money we want. We want to means of production.

No such thing. Public=private. Small businesses will rebel, as the people who own things do not want to be aggressed. They will beat you because statism will lose.

You are not making any sense. What do you mean there is no such thing as the means of production?

I voted for Hillary thinking she wasn't as bad as Trump (after seeing the GOP platform and thinking she wasn't going to be as bad) but my vote didn't really matter because I don't live in a swing state.

Despite the complaining by the neoliberal I'm quite impressed by the accelerationism so far that's happened.

We got the Corbster in the UK, socialism becoming more popular in general, and disdain for the neoliberal establishment growing.

Wouldn't be surprised if the idiot in the picture OP posted was the sort who would vote Tory because Corbyn's just too radical.

The people can never control the MoP. The "people" already do. You just don't like who they are and want to redefine it because "fuck contracts".

Your original point was that anarchism would result in a power vacuum, which I agree with, but the idea that anarchists couldn't form mobs after successfully toppling the state is weak.
There are many valid critiques of socialism but perseverance is not one of them.
Yes, but without a state there would be no currency, you were originally talking about anarchism. The MoP do not fall under currency.
No place for them here.

You are hyperfocused on the current state of things. You are unable to see a world outside of the current structures it currently exists in. Wealth, employers, entitlement, self-employed, these are all things prevalent in capitalism, and is where you are strawmanning.

Now you are getting it. People say the government is the biggest gang in the world, we are trying to make a bigger gang of the proletariat.

You are concentrating too much on semantics here and conflating "the people" with "people".

I just think a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and not some shmup sitting in an office who contributes nothing to the process.

That "shmup" is what makes any of the work possible, proles literally cannot organize themselves, therefore it's the organizers who both do the most valuable work and deserve the rewards of their labor. Mental labor is worth more than physical labor in every possible stretch.

They can't stop individuals from operating as they please: anarchy has no agreed-upon rules. It is lawless.
More like a real-world example of its application.
So there is no trade or no business. If there is no currency, exchanges do not occur as any exchange creates inequality of some sort in the form of a unit that cannot exist.
The holier-than-thou points will be bitter when you come to realize them.
Yes, but you cannot take from those that have more. You can try, but they will win and you'll have to be statist to have a chance.

No. By definition, you willingly enter a contract.
If I mine a diamond, I do not own it unless I did it myself. You don't own what you receive on the job. People will make more than you because you work for them and they are more experienced/better than you.

Muh job creators. What are Worker Coops.

Look, I like bullying anarchists about their not-states as much as the next person, but I'm not one of them.
ok

Worker's coops can't compete on the market, and thus are abject failures, unless you actually are going to destroy the system of production for exchange porkie/managers/bosses are entirely neccessary

Cite an example. A real-world example working properly for an extended period of time.
forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/03/01/rags-to-riches-2016-wealthiest-self-made-billionaires/#39d198331fa4

So socialism. Im glad you finally figured it out. That is the whole point in proletariat revolution.

USSR, Burkina Faso, PRC
It wasn't end state socialism because you need to dominate the planet to achieve it but it shows that planning can and does work.
You're probably going to get really mad at me because millions of people died (despite your implied claims at not being a pious person) but imagine socialism as a big jet. The cockpit nowadays has around 100 gauges, lights, switches, and warning systems. When they started out they had around three. Gotta crash a few planes to get the perfect cockpit.

Yeah but that literally cannot happen

Yea but a capitalistic revolution literally cannot happen
t. French aristocrat

Try again. MoP in the people's hands cannot also be in the state, which punishes "the bad people". It's all or nothing.

Oh, so now that you don't like my answer you've decided to stop pretending to be retarded and move the goalposts?

I know you're trolling but come on now.

dude rags to riches lmao

FTFY

Define voluntary. Go on, I'll wait.

a bourgeois revolution litterally can't happen
-Louis XVI

Proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent, unconstrained by interference.

So if one chooses to enter into a contract and chooses to be bound by its terms, that individual is operating for and by themselves. Their signature isn't forged and they agree with the terms.

...

Still holds true. It is entirely voluntary. There are no obstacles preventing or limiting access.

If solidarity means anything, it means opposing politicians who enthusiastically embrace US imperialism to crush leftists overseas.

...

Hunt. Build your own survival instead of being a dependent.

Not to mention her involvement in NAFTA, the ending of Glass–Steagall, and pouring of money into prisons. Seriously, if anyone is curious about neoliberalism and it's abject failures, read Listen, Liberal! It's accessible even to succdems and Keynesians.

The whole "voluntary" thing is pointless because it assumes all other ideologies are inherently violent except yours. All ideologies promote and justify violence. It's so petty to be so focused on it. Besides, seeing violence as the only bad thing in the world can make you inconsistent and at most a "I'd rather have x do violence than y" scenario. .

I have no problem with the need for work but think that it is voluntary is nothing short of farcical

I'm not even capitalist, bro.

Stop signing contracts. You could always just not work. Welfare exists, you know.

Except he got 2.8 million less votes than her which is 5 times higher than the margin between Gore and Bush. Voting literally doesn't matter in Burgerland if your state is small or always votes for a certain party.

I'm from Rhode Island and who I vote for literally means nothing.

SHE FUCKING WON. PERIOD

No she didn't and it doesn't fuckin matter either way because no matter who had won the people lost.

fuck off nazi scum, she fucking won. Period. It's about time a female was president.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting tovarish

It's all a fucking illusion. The only thing that would change anything is stringing these bourgeoisie fucks up from lamp posts or marching them in front of walls.

hehe

Hillary was planning on putting a Texas Republican in the Supreme Court. I have no remorse.

mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article110149702.html

and why doesn't he have those opportunities himself? Because property rights force him to sell his labor.

If she had won, the Dems probably would've ALSO won the close Senate races they lost, so they'd be at a 50-50 senate with Tim Kaine stuck actually doing his constitutionally mandated job.

ok trump voter

this is the same shit that happened with brexit, people voted """ironically""" because they thought remain would win and turned out it didn't because

She also supported trump's decision to bomb the fuck out of syria. Funny how after the election they're best buds again.

How did anything I say make it sound like I voted for Trump?

Who forces him?

The supreme court has always been a highly reactionary institution. The Warren Court was a historical anomaly. Eisenhower would have never nominated that man had he known what his court would do. Left leaning liberals need to be forced to realize that capitalism will not save them.

We really need to reform, no more pedos/goons, idpol paving for sharia, and narcissism fueling moral superiority. That don't leave much left, but it is the only way in the US. We also need to apologize for not stopping our own criminals leading the left, and set contingencies for when we start going 1984. The right we get greedy and betray soon enough, but that is 7 years to prepare and four to pounce. There is little to no chance otherwise.

fuck off with your Islamophobic bigotry and your anti-LGBTQQIA rhetoric, fascist.

This is why people make fun of you FYI.

So nobody forces him, got it.

The system forces him. However you a priori removed that conclusion from consideration because you are autistic and therefore do not understand social systems.

A completely irrelevant number of people voted ironically, far more didn't vote at all because they rightly have noticed that voting for getting fucked slowly instead of quickly still gets you just as fucked in the long run.

Does society force us to wear clothes? We choose to cover ourselves, it isn't some "social force": no such thing exists. This is the equivalent of saying "I was going to die because I have no money to my name, so I had to rob the bank to get more money. Society causes my aggression because I am an infant and cannot take care of myself".
You are blaming some conspiracy theory you can't even prove for your own shortcomings, like a unintelligent moron. What's funnier is that you are arguing the majority of the working class are simply drones forced to take part in being adults in society instead of pampered kids waiting for a diaper change (gibs me dat).

This is why some of you shouldnt even be allowed near anything political. America has a system in place to prevent shitholes like LA from dictating the leanings of an entire state. It gives everyone a chance. Its to insure that super cities cant all swing their dick and tell the rest of the country what to do.

Good job it also has a system in place to prevent California dictating the leanings of its own future.

wut ?

Systems produce behavior by incentivizing certain behaviors and disincentivizing others. This is basic shit kid.

It's not but I can see why a 14 year old who has obviously watched far too many Stephen Molymeme videos such as yourself might think so.

When's that revolution coming along?
Not really addressing the point, so I'll take it as agreement.

Yea, like banning people from going to states because of perceived "thought crime". California is probably the worst state in America. Costs America the most, has terrible laws, insanely hard to live, no upkeep on any structures (Good job on the dam) and they make laws that try to prevent people from going to other states.

So yea fuck California. They shouldnt be allowed to say anything until they can fix their own fucked up hellhole.

The president should be picked based on who the population wants most. Maybe rightists should start to appeal to California more rather than gaming the system in a way where slim victories in battleground states lead to landslides in the electoral college.

You made no point though.

"Does society force us to wear clothes? We choose to cover ourselves, it isn't some "social force": no such thing exists. This is the equivalent of saying "I was going to die because I have no money to my name, so I had to rob the bank to get more money. Society causes my aggression because I am an infant and cannot take care of myself".
You are blaming some conspiracy theory you can't even prove for your own shortcomings, like a unintelligent moron. What's funnier is that you are arguing the majority of the working class are simply drones forced to take part in being adults in society instead of pampered kids waiting for a diaper change (gibs me dat)."
That is the assertion. You are justifying revolution because you are too lazy to work and have an inflated sense of entitlement in that you deem all wealth and property not in your possession "exploitation" without actually bringing the conspiracy full circle to justify the claim.

So basically super cities can dictate who gets elected. Imagine if those few cities banded together and decided that for the rest of the country's life gays should be put to death. Imagine that these cities can further enforce how people vote by straining people who dont think the same way as the rest of the city, preventing them from even attempting to change the city towards a more leniant government.

So by doing this you are potentially allowing the process for fascism to happen as well as the process for communism. It just depends on who grabs it first. Once they lock it down, thats it. So if you dont live in a city with X amount of people in it, consider your city, town or village fucked. Consider it fucking pointless. Consider your votes worthless. Consider yourself a third class citizen.

Do you understand WHY we have this system in place now? To prevent this kind of shit from happening. We try to get most of the country, not most of the population. This allows most of the towns to matter instead of the ones with the most people. Enjoy your MegaCities and Judges.

Don't be ridiculous. You have the means to feed and provide for every person several times over, but you are contrained from doing so because the people who own said factories and tools won't allow it. The capitalistic laws that serve the ruling class and structure how society is run prevent this. You ask why commies don't just go out into the forest or jungle and do something there. We're not utopians. By doing this do we change the fundamental organization of productive forces to really change humanity? No we don't. Even then, what is stopping the interest of capitalists to take our land where settled whenever they feel like it? Just look at the carving of Africa and the Native Americans. So your "solution" to the Communist objection of "voluntary" is not sufficient reasoning for anyone here, but you already know that. There must always be a lower, working class under capitalism. You thinking in that the capitalist system can and WILL be able to provide a decent living for every person is utopian. Otherwise throughout history we would not have poverty at all.

Well, in this case, it did. Hillary would've started started a nuclear war with Russia and China and only out of touch dipshits think otherwise.

It was in place because politics during colonial times were vastly different because of agrarian vs industrial society. Now the major issues have very little to do with any of that. It's all war, social, or fiscal. That is not reliant on where you are. Also not every single person is getting it. You're getting a cut of the vote unlike before. Also, do you know how many times the popular vote was the loser? Only 4 times. It doesn't happen a lot. Itd help the little states too who resoundingly swing red or blue. How is listening to the majority totalitarian lmao?

Holla Forums will do anything to make their president seem legitimate. The system is retarded and offensive to democracy.

How much of my goods do you think you are entitled to? On what basis do you determine your ownership? This is the age-old, debunked "there are so many empty homes and homeless people, let's just give out homes for free, what could go wrong!" bit. Emotional thinking, and nothing more. Because the poor are also without agency and none of their own decisions they made led to their situation; no, it was "the big man in the iron chair" that did it.
Because you can't. It has not been tested and you have no evidence for your claims. It is literally an idea that has even been refuted on paper. Can't prohibit services/goods without a state.
Nothing. You wage war against them, then cry when they attack.
Should have developed gunpowder. Oh wait…
Yes, because you have yet to actually make an argument. It is simply because you wish to extort ownership on goods you have no claims to (while denouncing private property) because you are incapable of admitting agency or being self-sufficient. Then you cry out in pain as you twist the blade deeper.
Because people are not equal. People are better than you, they are smarter and wiser.
No, we know what we know now. I am not making arguments for the future, as that is not entirely certain. I am not even a capitalist, I am primarily concerned with the false sense of entitlement you display (all wealth and property not owned by the unequal is theft, which I also somehow object to).
Capitalism isn't meant to eliminate poverty. But the unequal will fail because they are inferior.

That's because it isn't a direct democracy.

I know. Republics are retarded. Plato is shit

No, because there is no such thing as the right to vote. Especially when the Dems open up the borders to their future voters, it will simply become who can promise more of the funds in the Treasury to Pablo and Tyrone.

I can't tell whether you are a nazi or just an autistic kid who watches way too many reactionary videos on youtube.

By the way all "rights" come from force. You can argue all you want about spooky bullshit like "theft" and what not but at the end of the day there will always be far more workers than capitalists. America won't always be there to bail the global bourgeoisie out. Will you still praise strength when the strength of the working class is tearing your wealth from you?

Funny how just world narratives are so common to sociopaths.

Poor people don't vote in the US. The right wing fantasy about parties exchanging gibs for votes is just a boomer meme. You should feel bad for parroting it.

Do you think Bill tried to fug Melania?

Do rightists just parrot everything Trump says about the election? Do you have any individual thoughts?

Actually scratch that, they do provide gibs to some of their "constituents", just not the working class ones. Great examples of this include the recent push for school privatization (i.e. school "choice") and of course every single defense contract ever issued by the US government.

Okay big boy.
Correct. I never contended this. The point is that you cannot berate others' thievery, then commit the same by justifying yours with appeals to emotion.
It's another "dude revolution lmao oh but just don't call it a state though".
Have fun being a proletariat for the rest of your life. It will literally never unfold as you want it to. It must feel horrible knowing you are literally LARPing a future that can never be.
Don't you mean Amerikkka? Yeah, I'm not a capitalist and I don't expect them to do that, either.
Type away, keyboard warrior.

Those who are legitimately disenfranchised have their parents to blame for giving birth to them when they could not support them.
Of course, undeserved ill fate does befall many, but it is not the entire poor population. Russian serfs were subjugated to pretty dogshit conditions, yet they don't ride on the back of "gibs me dat I have no agency, my future is not in my hands by any degree it was da white man who be keepin' me down". Or the Jews.

Well, many states don't even require an ID to vote. Most people are poor in the US, by your own standards of the 1%. So yes, poor people do vote.
The Dems do preach a platform of lax border policy and, in turn, receive votes from FOB migrants.

Doesn't make demographic voting patterns any less true: college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/.

Except, you know, that whole overthrowing the tzar thing.

Keep on LARPing, though. I'm sure modern revolutions will unfold as they did a century ago. People are privy to the failures of Marxist theory, as they don't really have a lot in terms of substantive evidence to back up justification for implementation beyond "we wuz revolutionaries n shiet, be scared of us!"

Fuck off Sargon.

And most black people live in the south, how is that electoral college working for them? It's sounding like you just don't want undesirable minorities voting, you don't give a shit about representing the people accurately. Also all border states except one have photo ID laws.

No, poor people CAN vote. That doesn't mean they DO.

What the fuck is this?

Okay big boy.

Who cares.
Yeah, I don't believe in proles picking the doctor over the sweetshop owner.
Except I said "Well, many states don't even require an ID to vote." Nothing to do with border states, although California does have a significant illegal population.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#State-by-state_requirements

nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
Poor people vote for Dems more often than not.

Evidence. I know, it's hard to hear when you can't produce any.

It's not a question of free stuff. It the question of how society is organized. If you're asking on what basis do you determine your ownership of things, it's based off of need and contribution. You work in order to provide for another person and you will recieve compensation for your contribution to society as a whole and likewise. (Note that I am speaking based on concept here, any specific Marxist jargon you can read up for yourself.) Society working coopertively to sustain each other will allow for a much larger amount of free time for the average individual. In this time this individual can read, expand the mind, paint, and enjoy life to its fullest extent.

You see? We cannot do this you speak of so there is no practical alternative to life under the capitalist system of selling your labor to work under a boss, and under debt, etc. etc. In this way communists find it necessary for workers to rebel against the system to seize the means of which to be self reliant from money, capitalist boss, etc.

Of course they are not equal, but the capitalist system is truly not a good judgement of merit. You have people who are smart and needed in every aspect of life. A mechanic or a tradesman who provide a valuable skill or a person who is able to assemble and build a Iphone each have contribution to society. Compared to a capitalist who is simply the middleman of which resources is moved in order to facilitate business. Given the same resources as a capitalist or a well-off entrepeneur, there is no doubt about how many advancements the same peope who start off poor or working in some dead end job can have for humanity as a whole.

Never said it would unfold the same way as it did a century ago, just pointing out that no system is static. Even Fukuyama ate his words.

This is not evidence. It's a strange argument that assumes that I think that anyone who isn't in the top 1% is "poor." I'm afraid you will find that no leftist will ever make this sort of claim. Go back to Holla Forums.

That's precisely what the opposite of what it does. Seattle and Tacoma decide who gets walla walla's vote for president and senator. New York decides for Syracuse. Under a popular vote setup we'd have a much more mild bias towards the major cities.

That's an EXIT POLL dipshit, it only tells us "out of the poor people that DO vote, most of them vote Dem."

Turnout among the poor barely breaks 50% in presidential years, midterms factored in and yeah poor people mostly don't vote.

Then it is. You just answered your own question. It is altering the society to allow those who have not earned their worth to have access to the labour of those who have. It is inflated entitlement taken to the extreme and the denial of any agency an individual might have to determine their own future. Those who waste their money on useless nonsense deserve poverty.
You provide for yourself. Nobody should provide anything for you. Adults are not infants.
If there is no currency and no state, what the hell determines the needs required by the people? If I want to buy a gallon of milk, nobody can own the cow. It isn't theirs to own. And any attempt I make to utilize the cow's milk is exploiting another as I am claiming ownership and enforcing the milk I just harvested as "mine", which does not exist.
You can have lots of free time if you don't assume entry-level jobs=lifelong careers.
Nobody owes you this and only you can guarantee this future for yourself.
I'm asking you for evidence. I am saying it cannot be done, unless you cite something.
In what way is some capitalist boogeyman robbing you of your opportunity? If you live in the first world, you don't really have an argument to make. Maybe the poor African nations, but we can see if they are capitalist or not.
The tradesman can start his own business and sell his skills to people.
Or he can work for somebody else. Emphasis on wanting to work for another. He is not yanked by his collar and forced to work as a tradesman. But the primary objection is to any work, full stop, where you are not self-employed. Which is more so demonstrating the sense of self-entitlement than anything else.
[citation needed]

Then we agree.

The proletariat constitute the majority. The upper class are not the majority. Poor insofar as they are the working class proles.

No shit. How are you going to examine a poll and deduce who did not vote in it. I am using the evidence we have available. Therefore the assertion is still accurate (poor people vote for dems more often than not). The point isn't that "every poor person who votes or doesn't vote…". That is idiotic, as the discussion is concerned with the income spread of those who DO vote.
I don't doubt this. But it isn't like they aren't allowed to vote. Sounds like a personal issue, at the end of the day.

Gee, wonder where these arguments come from.

Is that the best you can muster up? One would think that if the point is so mundane and ridiculous (to be associated with such a socially undesirable group of people), that it would be next to nothing to debate it and prove it wrong. Instead, you opt for "u r dummy"-posting. Why not address the criticism directly and engage in the dialogue with your ideas instead of using a "reaction image dot jaypeg" shield to cover yourself from any honest discussion where you might learn something new/reform your ideas based on new information.

I mean, I could just call you a cuck.

I hope this is bait. How?

So, for example, let's expand on the gif you just posted. Specifically speaking, what empires are you referencing? Define capitalism and show how they were capitalist. Remember: capitalist definition does not include hawkish neo-con imperialism. That is about as honest as weighing libertarian party platforms off of Bush because he's GOP.

"capitalist does not include hawkish neo-con imperalism"

How the fuck does it not?

Because he said so.

I also like the implication that imperialism is new.

All government is socialism :^)

Yes it does. Like it or not, capitalism could not exist without the state.

I'd really like to see the capitalist goverments that aren't imperialist, puppets of imperialism or benefits from imperialism.

Because, as you say, it is a mode of production. Not foreign policy. All imperialism is not "capitalism" unless you cite your sources and definitions. Which you have not done. So until you do, the claim is dismissed.

Predating capitalism, but to hell with intellectual consistency…

Another strawman.

Capitalism does not involve arbitrary market manipulation or subsidies propping up failing enterprises. For that reason, it cannot have a state arbitrarily taxing people to pay for its endeavours or a state that bails out/funds businesses, thereby manipulating markets. It can only exist, principally, without a state interfering with the market. It is referred to as a laissez-faire policy.
What cannot exist without a state is social/economic equality, which is why any implementation of Communism on a large scale devolves into statism.

Except he won the popular vote in more states than Hillary did

Here, you dropped this you fucking faggot.

Sorry, which non-argument did you post? I'm losing count.

Wow the sophistry of the internet aut-right brigade is pretty impressive.

California NO!!

Can you find me a single citation of my endorsement for Trump? Oh wait…

Well, they probably wouldn't understand English in a few decades.

Society first and foremost shapes the individual not the other way around. Any agency a single individual can have on his own is mitigated by how society is organized that would incentivize specific patterns of behavior. You are under the incorrect assumption of my point of "working together in a mutually benificial relationship" as leeching off of one another. As to your cow example, socialism would entail everybody taking care of the cow and depending on a person's need, some would get more milk than the other. Of course there is more nuance to this when applied to real life so don't take this simple scenario as a catch-all for every situation.
Not relevant to what I said. Lifelong careers can have not a lot of free time too.

If you are asking for evidence for the possibility for individuals to live collectively for the mutual benefit for one another than here:

marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1902/mutual-aid/

If you are asking for an example of socialist projects that persist to this day, than I unfortunately don't have any although I assure you that most were destroyed through political and military occurences and not because the possibility of such of a society cannot exist (read the book).

In what way is some capitalist boogeyman robbing you of your opportunity?

It is not a problem of individuals, as the capitalist is only an obstacle. The real issue is the way society is organized. From the moment you are born, the majority of humanity is subject to the a life of learn, learn, learn, than work, work, work, work until you die. All the while chained to the various debts of living (mortgage, healthcare, education, etc) and the machinations of the powerholders in society.

Or he can't. Due to the material constraints he cannot go on such a business venture, or it doesn't improve his situation. He can, CAN do this, but if the necessary events to have capitalism work at its optimal capacity occur everytime, than we would not be having this conversation.

Cuba.

What makes think that?

No one cares. Troll somewhere else.

Oh, shit, I didn't realize I was arguing with an autist, just looked at his earlier replies.

my sides

That's how the electoral college works dumb ass. Except it's all or nothing state to state unlike primaries which allow them to divvy up delegates. Let's have a nice compromise, how about a system where electoral votes are split based on percentage :^)

Not accurate. Women do not pursue pink collar jobs because "muh society". It is because they choose to pursue careers they enjoy and not those that they do not enjoy. It isn't some global conspiracy to dictate all choices we make. Of course, there are influences on character, but the individual may choose to pursue certain career paths at the end of the day.
Just the same as failures are, to a degree, the result of personal choice. There are objectively inferior life decisions to be made.
The drug addict does not become a drug addict because his peers use it. He will, at the end of the day (unless forced by another), choose to shoot up on his own dime and on his own time.
How much of my assets and labour do you determine you ought to own? Because the primary point is the abolition of private property, which involves bringing down the successful to the level of the unsuccessful.
Begging the question. Who determines the need required if there is no state.
Depends what you do. If you are superior, you will have more free time. If you think entry level jobs paying minimum wage are viable career paths, then you deserve your status.
Your own source does not demonstrate such altruism manifesting in a modern civilization on a nation-wide level (save for the naturalistic fallacies). If it is the path of least resistance and the inevitable future, then one would not expect to see such a dismissal of those systems of beliefs and an adoption of freedom.
(1)

Seems like the natural result of inferior systems of belief that cannot defend themselves from the enemy. Why could they protect their people?
The superior method of organization guaranteeing education and opportunity if your parents were not imbeciles (having children they can't afford) or if you are not an imbecile (squandering opportunities because you are inferior and cannot succeed).
You aren't just going to be given a house. You do not own the house. You pay off the loan you take on it.
The same goes for healthcare. You are not entitled to medicine unless you produce it yourself. In that case, others do not have the right to take it from you, if you have a legal code that prohibits that.
Education is the same. Teach yourself it you seek basic knowledge. You aren't entitled to a diploma right off the bat.
Then his business will fail if he cannot prop up the conditions for its success.
Up until 2015, Cuba has not even surpassed a .8 HDI tier (hdr.undp.org/en/data). It is a third world nation.

Ah, so you admit to not caring enough to defend your point beyond "poopoo head". At least you're honest. Your buddy here is honest enough to engage in debate, though.

Voting is bourgeois

I don't engage in debate with Sargon-tier sophists. Sorry if that triggers you.

Here's an interesting question that will really trigger those neurons: find me a quote I made where I outline how I am a classical liberal, or whatever Sargon says he is this week and you think I also am. Basically, provide your reasoning to reach that conclusion beyond "muh insults mean I am debating".

Nearly all of those votes came from her home state of New York, which she won. Democracy works. :^)

Could point out your basic bitch ancap talking points.

Hop to it, lad.

...

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Instead of actual dialogue, it becomes a "you're an ancap male!" nonsense. Try harder, please. All my points are going without honest criticism beyond "you are autistic" and so on. Try attacking the matter over the man and leave idpol behind.

Just fuck off back to Holla Forums already.

So this is the brainpower of a couple Marxist intellectuals. Does anybody have the honesty to debate without calling everybody Holla Forums or a capitalist?

Your points are not honest and are poorly argued therefore they do not require an honest response. We already tried to argue with you honestly but you are too stupid to understand what we're saying.

Talking about how ancapism is foolish and how ancaps are consequently fools is not "idpol" You're so fucking retarded that it makes me want to cry. You should feel bad for unironically being THIS dense.

Reminds me of what Zizek said about debating fascists. They don't care about facts or dialogue at all. It's a spectacle of sorts to them.

I'm a shitposter, not an intellectual. You pretty much exposed your fedora for all to see, if anyone didn't see it already with that implication that you are an intellectual.

It's his home state too :^)

It is only eristic you will get here, the most dishonest kind. Never delude yourself into believing you will engage in dialectic with them, especially not on chans.

Just look at those abominable abstraction of capitalism which taken to its logical end leads you to the very epic "it is not capitalism, it is corporatism", ignoring the history of the word like good postmodernists.

Stop acting like a Holla Forumstard and actually read theory kid.

[citation needed]
Accusation===>evidence. That's how arguments work.

I thought you said I was ancap. Make up your genetic fallacy already.

Now I'm an atheist? Is this was desperation looks like? Instead of actually pointing out why I'm wrong, you toss insults around as if they are counter-points.

Still not rebutting the points I raised above. One user tried to debate me, but has yet to respond to my counter-point. You are acting as if reaction images are counter-points, when they are not.

We don't debate fascists, that's why. Fuck off back to Holla Forums, autist.

Ancapism and neckbeard atheism are often co-morbid, actually.

We do, for all the good it does.

Also worth pointing how that ancaps drift to fascism when pressured.

Neither are counter-points, though. Take note of the points I have raised against you versus the points you raised against me. Started off alright, now it's just "look this is you hahaha".

I don't really care, tbh. Just world shit is only championed by people who either have something to gain out of the propagation of the ideology or think they do, the latter betraying a lack of life experience. Hopefully, you'll grow out of this shit when you actually get a job.

(this is where we get into "dude it's propaganda lmao")

Followed by the stream of insults with no real substance. In fact, I either agreed with the statements raised as counter-points (because I never made them), asked for proof of my statements (never produced), or the opposition weaselled out of the debate.

How do you know I am not employed? I willingly entered into a contract. I am employed. I am interested to find out how you can make outlandish statements with no evidence.

...

Not what the definition is. One can enter a contract without being in a romantic relationship to be cheated on.
Or do you mean as a derogatory, as in I am submissive and weak?
This coming from the guy who absolves all agency from the individual, opting to blame the woes of the disenfranchised entirely on an unfair system. When asked to provide evidence, calls people fascists or ancaps (somehow this makes sense, though). From the same "I have no degree of autonomy and I am forced to rob banks (read: aggression) because others have more than I do and don't want to provide for me."
Also, still not a counter-point. An user tried to raise a counter-definition, but could not cite it properly and I debunked the term as being incorrect (as there are objectively inferior life decisions one can make, and all inspiration/influence does not mean people have literally no choice).

It's another episode of "Ancaps Think Class Relation is Idpol"
FTFY

Americans are fat and can't figure out how to use condoms. Fix those two issues, expenditures would fall considerably.

Hoppe would be so proud.

"he thinks he has free will"

mein sides.

The point of the meme is, I might also be getting exploited & fucked by porky, but I don't rationalize it or convince myself I actually enjoy it.

Identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Class: a social division based on social or economic status: the ruling class.
By definition, classes are distinct and divided groups of people. They fulfil an identity which is attacked from one end. Nice doublethink, though.

Except I am not ancap. I don't believe in either.
Also interesting in your own screenshot, it elaborates his point, which is about pointing out apples and oranges point which is the issue at-hand.
Another challenge for you: cite a post where I defend praxeology.

You are responsible for your actions. That is why criminals are tried to see if they can be dismissed of their faculties. You also have the decisions to make proper life choices, like not to pop out ten kids or use drugs. That's the assertion. Claiming that all the poor are as they are because of some capitalist boogeyman means that they are not responsible for their actions, despite, say, the rates of alcoholism or drug abuse in the homeless communities: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1772151/.
Not to mention, being born in conditions that no child should be born in (torn up families with no stable income). In those cases, absolutely truthful. But just saying "fuck hard work or effort, it's all fucked anyways" is not really great considering how the a large percentage of the billionaires are self-made: forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/03/01/rags-to-riches-2016-wealthiest-self-made-billionaires/#39d198331fa4.

You keep bringing up this drug addict point, and I think it's worth delving into deeper. Let's say a drug dealer gives someone a hit of heroin for free. The customer voluntarily consumes the heroin, which I'm confident we would both say is a bad choice. The user becomes addicted to heroin and begins to buy from the dealer. Each time he buys a hit, he's doing so "voluntarily", with the alternative being painful withdrawal. Because of the user's addiction, his life becomes a wreck, he is unable to pay his bills, et cetera, et cetera, and becomes a less productive member of society. Likely, this drug dealer has done the same thing to many other customers.

Who is responsible for the loss to society, the user or the drug dealer? You could say the drug dealer did nothing wrong, after all, everything the user did was voluntary. Certainly, some of the blame lies with the user, but shouldn't some blame, if not most of it, lie with the dealer? He was the one using predatory business practices and exploiting his customers.

Do you see how this is somewhat analogous to the capitalist system? I think it's somewhat ridiculous to throw your hands up and say "the contracts are all voluntary so the people writing the contracts can't do anything wrong", when they clearly can and do set up a system that allows them to exploit the working class.

seobythesea.com/2006/10/amazon-acquisitions-and-investments/
forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2011/08/17/zara-accused-of-alleged-slave-labor-in-brazil/#3f5220ba1a51

Don't bother, he'll rationalize selling heroin to children.

youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY

Literally who? Purity what?

My dear user, let me spell it out. All of us are ultimately constrained by our basic biological necessities. Food, water, shelter, heat etc. It's literally impossible to rid yourself of these constraints, you'll always need food to survive, no matter how rich or poor, Aryan or African, strong or weak you are. However, any person with a decent job can take care of them, so with them, you can talk about voluntary contracts, because the satiation of his needs is guaranteed at the moment. But the truly dispossessed don't really have this luxury. They have to take whatever job they can get, not because they want it, but because they need it in order to survive. The "need" is the constraint in question.

Yes, actually. Don't they have public indecency laws where you live?

Arguing in circles and nitpicking are also popular rhetorical tools with liberarians.

HDI is based on only 3 stats, one of them being gross national income per capita. Even if Cuba was economically prosperous, it's GNI per capita would still be low because of the economic system.

Feels good to move away from "muh insults".

With you so far. Any rational agent is aware of the grave dangers of heroin and how addictive it is. You are essentially signing away a decade (or even more, depending on circumstances; could be less, too) of your life to the substance, and untold thousands of dollars. That is why people fail.
Most likely. It's your analogy, so sure.
At one point, we can dismiss the faculties of the individual as they would be inebriated or addicted. One does not assume a drug addict is a rational agent capable of healthy reasoning. At this point, I do not think they would be voluntarily acting in their own interests, it would be the heroin talking. I never said that individuals are entirely voluntaristic, I said that there are choices one can make to avoid negative outcomes, like the initial stage of your example.
A tale most likely truthful. This is accurate.
Both. The dealer entirely, for he is knowingly contributing to the issue. The user only initially, as he is knowingly becoming the problem and adding to the liability he is to the society to clean up his mistakes (not even getting into organized crime and the drug scandals).
No, you couldn't. He was doing it voluntarily, but just because something is voluntary does not mean it is associated with a negative or positive outcome in every situation. One can voluntarily jump off of a bridge.
It is shared initially, but shifts into the favour of the dealer, yes.
Which is why we are taught to avoid these situations. Try and rationalize using heroin for a moment. If you convince yourself, you are an idiot. When you are a full addict, you have my sympathy as I don't have full faith in your faculties anymore.
If you refuse to purchase a from the dealer, his business will fail. Boycott his operation and educate the youth with anti-drug campaigns.
[citation needed]
I never said that: I claim the opposite when I state that voluntarism is not mutually exclusive with a positive/negative outcome.

That isn't what self-made means. The usual gambit is "stop inheriting things I don't". But these people did not come into it in that manner. What the business does after its inception is not concerned with the conditions for its creation.

I don't care about your beliefs. If you espouse ancap/nazi bullshit then I will treat you like one. The real world doesn't care about your special snowflake identity.

Also the joke about Hoppe's response there is that instead of confronting his critic's logic he instead just resorted to "niggers can't into monarchy lol" which goes to show you how fucking stupid he is.

How intellectually honest, to make my assertion for me.

Not contended.
Who is "them"? You mean themselves? I don't follow, sorry.
I will assume you meant themselves.
If he decides to maintain homeostasis, so to speak.
It is not my job to cover their asses.
How much of my assets do the disenfranchised require to be satiated? Why should I cover their shortcomings? And even if it is never their fault, it will only highlight how the greatest inequality is the equality of the unequal. That the disenfranchised are not as superior as those who have more.
No.
This is against the point initially raised, which is… my entire argument.

Allow me to debate with the people who actually care. You are not arguing in good faith.
African civilization is not comparable to European civilization. You don't judge the capacity of the Africans based on the amount of scientific research between the two.

Might I add, that is the definition of a strawman (an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument).

Relevant. This applies perfectly to libertarianism because, let's face it, libertarians have a big overlap with racists.

thewittyarsonist.tumblr.com/post/162174980795/themodernsouthernpolytheist-writeswrongs

If you're a troll, you're emulating a libertarian perfectly, so kudos.

youtube.com/watch?v=vZQJFbrqjUY&t=7s

Johnson almost got his needed percentile for funding….

…almost.

Literally undistinguishable from "skeptics" and aut-rightists.

You are pretending that material conditions have no effect on how a person acts or reacts in different situations. As if an individual is completely devoid of interaction to their environment and upbringing of which will most CERTAINLY decide who they are as individuals. Your concept of a "untouched man" devoid of ideology garnered from his education, preacher, government, and upbringing is denying reality plain and simple.

We all work for each other. We share the fruits of our labor and enjoy it together. I'm not saying we share a fucking toothbrush. I saying that society utilizes its maximum potential through technological means and organized distribution to provide for everyone's needs. Because WE CAN. AND THE MAJORITY OF HUMANITY WOULD BENEFIT IMMEDIATELY FROM IT.

Well it depends on who you ask. Anarchists don't want a state and commonly known and go straight to organized worker's councils, a socialistic form of democracy, etc, etc. Marxists advocate for a socialist state, in order to protect against imperialism, protect the revolution and to implement socialist policies more effectively through a centralized power. The state itself would dissolve after a point far into the socialist project that the material conditions would have no need for a state for the maintenence and utilization of infrastructure.

That is not the main thought of people working minimum wage jobs. That is an implication on your part and does not address my statement about people having more freetime because people don't have to work more based to maintain artificial scarcity.

It is the same reason why feudalism persisted for so long. It was the present state of things and that is why for so long people put up with it. The Jacobins and Americans looked at the democracy of Athens and they knew that a new democracy for a different era was possible so that revolted. Same case. Different era.

Then there are times that communist revolutions succeed. Such is the nature of revolts from the ground up, you are at a disadvantage against the proponents of the status quo since they have all of resources at their disposal.

How is it the child's fault that his parents were imbeciles? Where are the resources to allow the child to succeed? In many situations there are none. From what I have seen from your replies, I would ask you to understand that things are not good for many people who are you to decide for people to shut up and accept their terrible situation? Because they are inferior? Your social darwinistic way of thinking about how the people with the silverspoon in their mouths or just happen to have the resources and luck to perservere in society cannot stop people from wanting a better life. It is not matter of deserving one cake or not if both of you can have as many fucking cakes as you want. This is the scale of which humanity can provide for one another? I don't understand what part of it one would dislike frankly.

>Up until 2015, Cuba has not even surpassed a .8 HDI tier (hdr.undp.org/en/data). It is a third world nation.

You can't really compare it to the US because frankly other capitalist countries can't even do that. You asked for a source for my claim regarding

and I have answered. Cuba was a corrupt shithole before the Communists took over and now there is a labor shortage in Cuba because they are creating to many engineers and doctors. Many of it thanks to the PUBLIC institutions that were established there. Although it is not a working for of socialism, you can at least see the merits of pooling and sharing resources that result for more access of said resources to the majority of people.

No it's not, the discussion has been "poor people don't vote!"
"But they can!"
"They can, but they don't"
"But when they do, they vote Democrat"
"Yes, but they DON'T"

Civilization is made up of a sort of "Political/Social" sector, and an Economic sector, both of which can be potentially independent but almost always overlap and are intertwined a la Base and Superstructure. The political/social sector dictates how we live, while the economic sector dictates how we survive; identities are mostly focused towards political/social, while the Marxist definition of class is mostly focused towards the economic sector. Depending on where you live, you may be pressured to do so, but you don't have to participate in "whiteness", "blackness", "gayness", etc., but you do have to participate in whatever mode of production makes up the economic structure because, by the end of the day, that's the structure that decides whether or not you can so much as eat for the day. Sure, people can identify themselves as "capitalists" or "workers" just as they may identify as "a movie buff" or something more grandiose as "English", but politics focused on "White vs. Black", "Koreans vs. Japanese", "Men vs. Women" are unable to hold up to making any truly meaningful change as politics focused on the economic sector of civilization

What did you mean by this?

I have never been addicted to a substance, so I don't know the full psychological impacts of addiction. Perhaps as an analogy, it falls a little flat. However, the point I was trying to get across was not about addiction specifically. My point was that someone can make a mistake and become trapped by an exploitative system, and that sometimes this mistake is facilitated by the very people exploiting them. "Ah, your business failed because of my predatory business tactics, and now you're in debt? Well, let me offer you a very unfair contract. If you don't want to work for me that's fine, you can let your crippling debt grow until the bank tanks your house away." I obviously don't think there are many business owners who consciously try and screw people like that, but the people are still getting screwed.

Diversion, not really relevant. Also:
Then how come whites conquered the entire world? And how come virtually all people, Asians, Jews, blacks, aboriginals, etc., flock to white Western nations?

*people.
*another.
*too

Self-employment, farming.

Back to the non-arguments, eh?

But they do. There are those who are poor and vote. So your own statement is false.
They 'don't' at certain rates, yes. Citation on that, by the way.

...

demos.org/publication/why-voting-matters-large-disparities-turnout-benefit-donor-class

Nope. But just because you are born poor does not mean you will always stay poor. Sowell and Shapiro had something to say about the flow of wealth which I found was a rational argument.
From the post you just replied to: Of course, there are influences on character, but the individual may choose to pursue certain career paths at the end of the day.
Just the same as failures are, to a degree, the result of personal choice. There are objectively inferior life decisions to be made.
Stop attacking strawmen.
Which nation are you in. Statement depends on that.
How much of my wealth do you think you deserve, or the 'majority of humanity' deserves? What have I done to necessitate the seizure of my business' assets?
Democracy as enforced by? Anarchy cannot have agreed upon rules, that's the point.
So the collectivization and redistribution is fulfilled by who?
What guarantees that things will stay this way when there is no state? Have you any evidence of this applied in a modern nation?
It still depends on your occupation. If you are superior, you have more free time as you don't have to work as long, or in conditions like the inferior.
Artificial scarcity? Consider the most basic necessity: energy. Marx wrote and his theorizing occurred prior to nuclear fusion. It is opposite to scientific thought of "test hypothesis first". Assuming a conclusion and working backwards is dishonest.
If the system is superior, it would not be so easily trumped by the "inferior" one.
This is an unfalsifiable claim. There is no situation in which the civilization may be accountable for its own actions. "oops, they destroyed our utopia. Why? Well, they have everything always and we don't".

(1)

Improve your reading comprehension. I stated that the parents were imbeciles for birthing kids they cannot feed.
So don't have kids.
I would ask them to not make it worse by causing unnecessary suffering to an innocent life.
They have less wealth to provide and cannot have kids because of it. Yes.
People don't shit out fortunes. See the point about Forbes billionaires above.
How much of my wealth do you determine is necessary to alleviate the disenfranchised?
50%? 80%? All of it? It's just the kulaks all over again. It is just more-than-me.
I never compared it to the US. I said that Cuba never surpassed .8HDI. You quoted my stance and still got it wrong.
[citation needed]
Wonder why there is a brain drain to the land with greater opportunity. Maybe because they want to fully utilize their skills…
Their HDI rating does not reflect that, nor does their brain drain.

Okay, sure.
Not sure how it is a sector. Neither are economic sectors, if that's what you mean. Divisions of that nature do not dictate anything, we define them. We write our own laws.
Then the economic distinction is formulated of an identity of people if it, in your own words, dictates how "we survive" (i.e. the masses).
The division does not dictate if you have food or not, your employment status does. If you refuse to accumulate resources, you die. People aren't going to do it for you because they are not your servants and don't owe you anything. You are not entitled to their efforts, nor they yours.
Movie buffs vs non-movie buffs is a division based on a definition set forth.
Read it again.

Get fucked, porky.

Then you are already leagues ahead of the idiots who fell for its siren calls.
No shit, of course. I don't disagree, but you can't write off the individual's judgement. You and I are privy to the dangers of exploitative addiction circles, so we refuse them.
Then, just like the drug dealer, avoid fishy loan deals from loan sharks looking to swap a profit. Investigate further before making such a heavy investment.
I also disagree with absurdly high interest rates, especially with the US currency. All the funds spent on nothing without turning a profit means an endless interest loop.

Thanks. I had a hunch it was true, as I don't think they would be inclined given their status.

Try and debate the matter, not the man.

Why should I, you're debating from your self-interest, I'm from mine.

Just get in the fucking gulag.

Jews have been treated even worse than blacks. For thousands of years, they have been kicked out of many nations. Yet the same argument does not hold true. "Slavery" is not inherited. Stop with the idpol, you are your own person, not your slave grandparents. Same argument applies to the Russian feudal serfs who were subjugated. Yet they are not a convenient minority pet you can call racism at.

I'm debating because I have a viewpoint. Just calling people names and not participating in the exchange of ideas/justification isn't great discussion tactics.

other than that totally the same :^)

You keep mentioning "feudal Russian serfs". Apparently you haven't looked at alcoholism and shit that has been a problem in Russia since forever and has gotten worse after the fall of the Soviet Union.

What did you expect? Cancer faggots like them are not interested in truth, this is why they have to recur to sterile abstractions were uncomfortable things are out of the picture.

But that doesn't address the assertion regarding evolution. Common ancestry is a concept in evolution, as organisms branch out when they evolve in different environments. See the attached file.
It is also ignoring, either willfully or out of ignorance, that the Jews were literally cleansed of their entire bloodline. As in, they were virtually wiped out. They weren't kept alive as slaves, they were killed. Not to mention centuries of pogroms everywhere they lived. You're right: Jews had it much worse than blacks. Yet Jews score much higher than blacks.

You defeat your own argument. So even paired with alcoholism, Russians still don't score close to Africans.
Claimed the opposite regarding influence and inspiration above. Read my posts before strawmanning them.

Not really a substantive point. Jews, by every metric, were treated as subhumans and subjugated for far longer than Africans, often alongside them. Yet your hypothesis is not replicated. It is also a post hoc argument (after the subjugation, ergo the Autism Level scoring is because of it). The primary argument raised for high Jewish Autism Level is selective breeding during the middle ages.

Do you seriously have no fucking clue how insurance already works?

youtube.com/watch?v=W7A34fgZhGM

Come to Greece, plz. ;)

Universal healthcare assumes an equal health status of well-being so as to avoid liabilities on the healthcare system. Insurance=/=healthcare. The point I made is that I should not pay for another person's poor choices, if they wish to become a liability and be obese. I'm content if we are truly equal, but we are not.

Instead of debating a point, you assume I'm ancap then threaten with violence. At least your peers attempted to debate in good faith.

If it walks like a duck.

Damn, my being born with type 1 diabetes was due to my poor choices.

You Calvinist fucks deserve worse than death.

You should be stripped nude, lathered in bacon grease and fed to starving dogs.

You are admitting to extending assumptions as if they are substantive counter-points (haha you must be 'x', look at this guys).

This is what happens when you listen to what others say about me instead of what my actual points are. Can you find a post where I make the comparison to the disabled or the defective and compare them to the murderers or the criminals/willful drug abusers? Try and find it to substantiate your strawman.

"Strawman" truly is the new fedora.

Still isn't a counter-argument. No points w/ evidence made. Really isn't difficult if I'm as dumb as you say I am.

Where in my post do I mention a god damn thing about murderers or criminals or whatever bullshit you're talking about. Who the fuck is strawmanning in this situation?
The very post I just fucking replied to said

My point is that you should be converted into fertilizer for the soil.

The point is that I never made the extension to those who are legitimately disenfranchised (like those who are disabled and cannot work, or those who have birth defects) to those that are not legitimately disenfranchised (alcoholics, drug addicts who seek out the drug initially, murderers, etc.).
I even made close attention to separate between the two groups, as one is not equivalent to the other.
Still not a counter-point.

I'm not interested in debating you. I want you to die.

Maybe he's just some LARPing fundie deus vult faggot.

This is the culmination of honest debate. Wishing death on the basis of disagreement.

The point is that those who have committed murder have made objectively poor life choices, and they can be blamed for their current situation. Just like how drug users who seek out heroin and cocaine have themselves to blame for choosing to use the drugs in the first place (although not entirely, as peer pressure is involved and a lack of a parental role model can lead to that, too).
Now I'm a deus vult faggot? I thought I was an atheist.

former fedoralords are often deus vult faggots now.

You're a calvinist

When your opinion negates the well-being of others or questions your humanity, don't be surprised when you get Spencer'd.

The aut-right somehow became the new edgy movement for 14-20 year old white boys to latch onto.

Your entire beliefs are a threat to my life. Nothing would please me more than to see someone skin you alive and give you a nice salt bath.

*their humanity

Correct/pol/ here. This is all hilarious! Shine on, you crazy diamonds

Seems rather odd.

That was the misinterpretation of my point. I never said that the handicapped are just as equal in sharing personal guilt for their dilapidation as those who, say, commit objectively inferior life decisions. Quote me where I stated that.

Well, about the healthcare point: why should I pay for your healthcare? How much of my wealth do you deem fit and necessary?

Nah, you don't even know my set of beliefs. One of your buddies (maybe you) boiled it down to "walks like a duck, is a duck". Victimizing yourself without providing evidence as to how I am victimizing you by wanting to keep my wealth for myself (because you don't have claims of ownership on my assets) is not "killing you".

I'd love to rip the eyeballs from your socket and force feed them to you.

Start arguing anytime.

I'll show my debating tactics face to face.

These issues are life or death and you think its debate club.

Not really intellectually honest to make statements on my behalf. Start arguing if you want to, or keep making insults with no evidence.

Not really. You are not entitled to my wealth, nor I yours.

I don't see how it matters if I call them sectors. I figured anyone would get the idea that they're 2 independent, abstract concepts that ultimately come together into a marriage that makes the basic foundations of civilization; what truly separates us from animals
If you're saying that we define what the "Economic" and "Socio-Political" bases are, then I would be inclined to agree, as the dynamics between the two are near perfect parallels to Base-Superstructure
Er?
It can and it does, but I must reiterate that identities are also formed by the Economic division or, as I should describe it, the Superstructure being influenced and molded by the base
And what division mostly deals with employment status?
This seems to be a bit of a non sequitur but I disagree; you shouldn't exactly see things in terms of owing something but as the mutual agreement that people will contribute their labor in such a way that benefits and reciprocates one another in order to survive and thrive with the benefits of modernity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)
To take a very basic example; a farmer and a metalworker in the Iron Age can be in a mutual agreement to aid each other because the metalworker can provide the tools to farm, and the farmer can provide food. I have a slight feeling that you'll use this to go way back to

Ok, but how does this really refute any of the greentext it's related to

Then what is "self-made" to you?
Where in my post even so much as implies this? My post boiled down to the argument that
-The Forbes article does not really lay out a lot of people
Even then, the people listed either
-Found their success through the sheer luck of being interested in something that was just on the cusp of fully opening its frontiers to Capitalism
or
-Were people (just 2 guys) that became investors, one of which almost became a simple fake flower manufacturer had the 1967 riots of Hong Kong not happen, lowering property value
The only odd man out is the Spanish guy who founded Zara

fuck off

Hospitals have to treat people who cannot pay. By the time people who cannot get insurance are forced to go to the hospital the small problem they once had is now big. Hospitals absorb these costs and have to recoup it, that is passed on to the people who do have policies. So your choices are allow hospitals to turn away people who cannot pay and sentence them to death or allow them to have healthcare like a modern western country. Why should I die so that your insurance company doesn't have to spend more of their profit rather than keeping it to themselves at the top?

This for fucks sake.

Baaaaaaaaaaawww~

It's life or death, it is a fact. You are also not fucking wealthy and aren't actually part of the problem. At best you are some petit-bourgeois fuckhead that thinks he's on the same level as a Rothchild. You think the interests of some insurance CEO is the same or does not conflict with yours.

...

A sector can be defined as a branch of a nation's economy. So it doesn't make sense if the sector can be the economy itself when it is used as a category for the economy.
Politics and free trade don't separate us from animals (other animals have social relationships, that isn't unique to humans). More to do with our brains, too.
Political definitions, such as law. The society is just the community as a whole (subject to change). The economics can change, too. The GDP may fluctuate, for one thing.
Laws that policies follow.
Pointing out one manifestation of identity does not dismiss all others. I agree.
Depends on who is allowed to work. That could extend to the policies in place, as voted by the political system that governs the society. Generally, it is the economy, though.
It is not mutual. I reject it entirely. Kulaks and all that. Not mutual, by your own definition.
That is vastly different from preaching for the seizure of my assets because I am a small business owner and have exploited the masses. That is altruism which is mutual in nature. The point I raise is parasitic in nature.
It's a rhetorical statement meant to outline the hypocrisy of "unfair exploitation… so long as I don't commit the exploitation".
Basically, mutualist relationships won't form and advocating for economic equity requires a state to seize the kulaks, by force.
The greentext below your post.
Slave labour is irrelevant if the company was not inherited (or, self-made from scratch). I can found a company that uses slave labour, but that doesn't mean I didn't found the company to begin with.
Find the business interests that make people rich to follow suit in a timely fashion. It isn't entirely luck. Luck does not exist. It is a superstition not grounded in reality.
Circumstance/opportunity, and wisdom.

I knew this thread would be gold~

We can change that, but then the narrative could always change to include exploitation by the hospital associations for not providing "free" services.
You mean taxpayers? Yes.
Poisoning the well a bit (do this shit option that makes you a fucking evil person or be a modern and decent human being). Be a little more honest than that.
Again I ask: why should I pay for your personal ailments? How much of my wealth do you think you deserve?
How's about we stop the insurance companies from taking money to pay for other people's illnesses?

Just saying it is a fact doesn't make it so. You need to expand and elaborate.

To highlight the issue another user made earlier about drug addiction and voluntarism/guilt involved.

A big example is starvation in other nations. If nation A chooses to trade crops with nation C over nation B because C undercut B's offer, A is free to do so as B is not supposed to be dependent on A. If they cannot find another method to feed their own people, then that is their own issue. A is not confined to trade only with B. However, nation A is always blamed if millions are starved to death. Nation C is given a free pass, even though it was their offer that undercut nation B's offer, and the central planning agencies of nation B are not blamed for their own shortcomings (i.e. forming dependence on nation A).
If it is an embargo, that is slightly different as it could be done with ill intention (usually is). However, nation A still has not obligation to trade with nation B: they can trade with whoever they want to.
And to my knowledge, there are no capitalist secret police killing kulaks. It is the difference between actively killing somebody (for being a kulak, see threats made against me in this thread) versus passively killing somebody (by utilizing free trade). The latter is only viable as a claim if you can show that nation A is obligated to trade with nation B outside of appeals to emotion/making cases of special pleading.

Bear in mind that a lot of the death toll is estimations, given the shortcoming of available evidence (not really cooperative). On the Ukrainian starvations: khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1265217823.

Oh, of course. Those are nice, rounded up and off numbers in all likelihood. Just pointing out that by the logic of the previous statement, I'd be justified in making death threats to any commie/Russiaboo ninny on Holla Forums. Y'know, for the ThoughtCrime believing in something which leads to as much suffering as they believe capitalism does.

These counts are laughable because they almost always include deaths from wars or other random shit as if socialism was the cause of it. The vietnam and cambodia death toll is so high because of US neocon foreign policy trying to prevent the dominos from falling

I remember seeing native killings as part of the capitalist death toll once. I hope it doesn't pop up again because that would be awkward.

I didn't know that America was communist during the 60s and 70s.

Native Americans were deliberately attacked, starved, raped, robbed, and unjustly imprisoned by the American government for a hundred or so years. I'd say their genocide is capitalism's fault.

Conquest is not equal to capitalism, which is a mode of production. There was no US initially for capitalism to "unfold". All violence is not capitalism.
Of what? They lost their land. They were conquered. It was some petty theft that they got away with: they conquered them entirely, just as they did with the other tribes the lived amongst.
Define capitalism, extend it to this event.

Either way~ If you kids want to go through all this minutiae I don't really care about, I'll go back to my original point: I'm justified in using political violence against commies, because there were millions of deaths as a result.

The rest of you: Have fun picking apart some fox-news tier image.

I'm sure they were nothing but kind and peaceful and those evil settlers have 100% of the blood on their hands.

The flow of wealth has been going to the top since forever m8. Personal choice? FACILITATED TO SPECIFIC PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR BY MATERIAL CONDITIONS. Are you denying that being poor facilitates crime? Or that being poor means less access to different resources that would allow them social mobility? Because it does.
inequality.stanford.edu/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf

US

No. Look at Rojava as an example of libertarian socialism. Highly decentralized confederation of autonomous communities with direct democracy amongst other things. Of course different anarchist writers have different ideas, but nobody wants chaos.

For the millionth time, it's not about who deserves what, it's about society can be organized better, so it should be so. The direct beneficieries of implementing socialism are primarily wage laborers, the poor, etc. but the different organization of society will also benefit others as well. Socialism seeks to abolish the dicrepency between classes, not out of mindless hatred of the rich in the philisophical sense (as the bourgeoisie act this way only as the part of their material interest)

By the central government that is formulated by the popular uprising of the proletariat after a revolution.

What guarantees that things will stay this way when there is no state? Have you any evidence of this applied in a modern nation?
The theory is if the needs of the entire world is basically met, there would be no more wars, no more need of racial, national, backward cultural barriers, and practically no crime. At which point, a state to maintain order is no longer needed. The infrastructure for distribution and such would remain though.

Once again, you ignore nepotism and FACT that better access to resources via material conditions from upbringing and such improves chances of succeeding.

Watch the videos in my previous posts.

Stop playing games m8. You clearly meant the United States of America or at the very least a rich first world country or why else would you not acknowledge Cuba having better HDI compared to a majority of different nations? Which shows how you're comparing the HDI of Cuba to a rich capitalist nation rather than the general average of the world which is shit btw.

1/?

Because hillary who outright hates the poor or socdem bernie is so much better? Maybe this will teach you not to vote and go start a revolution.

...

Don't be stupid. Many attempts were made by peasants and common people to overthrow monarchy and establish liberal democracy back in the day and they FAILED. Was it a statement of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY as an ideology? No. It was the monarchy and its military power versus the people. Many times the people lost, but sometimes they didn't.

Irrelevant. Not their fault.
They are still here regardless.
This would contradict your social darwinian philosophy that the child's position is due to their "voluntary" decision to be born to shit parents and the consequences that come with it.
You are talking about the parents. Not the kids.

Forbes billionaires don't represent the bourgeoisie class of the Earth.

50%? 80%? All of it? It's just the kulaks all over again. It is just more-than-me.

There will be no wealth. It will simply not exist because the Earth can provide for us all. That's the point.

Yes. The 1% has been gaining wealth. Except that wasn't the assertion. The millionaires are not guaranteed their wealth. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you stay rich. Here's the point: youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc.
Poverty does not justify crime: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y. Break it down by racial groups for a clearer picture.
USA does have that system you describe, seeing as how the majority of income tax used for the federal budget comes from… the 1%: cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html.
Yes. Anarchy cannot have an agreed upon set of rules and must allow individuals to rebel, otherwise you resort to statism.
How long did they last? Are they still around? Is it a nation-wide event, feasible to be applied to a nation?
How many millions of people living under this system?
That means nothing because you will not allow my wealth to stay in my possession. You simply want to "reorganize society"… to take it from me.
At the expense of the small business owners (read: kulaks).
How so. With examples so we can weed out postulation.
Why abolish the hierarchy that will simply re-establish itself when you remove the arbitrary market manipulation? Rich will find a way to escape "class abolition".
So it isn't Communist, by definition. If it is socialism, then the people cannot control the MoP while there is a state limiting access to said MoP.
It isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis. With no evidence. That is not possible, unless you have some evidence.
We haven't really discussed nepotism or being born rich. But I do agree nepotism exists, sure. Isn't stopping you from starting your own company. Just because somebody is well-off does not bring you down by any means.
You skipped over the point I made about reaching conclusions before analyzing evidence.
What? Mate, we're having a debate. You don't get to make my claims for me. I wasn't comparing Cuba to any other nation, I was citing Cuba's HDI rating as a way of highlighting the metric and its rating for Cuba. You then make it out as if I am citing other nations when I am not. You don't get to argue in bad faith like that and expect a free pass.

Yes. The monarch was dominant and the people did not fight hard enough. In fact, constitutional monarchies still exist today.
If the system is not competitive, it is not viable.
It isn't the fault of the kid, yeah. It is directly the fault of the parents for willingly having intercourse knowing they would produce life. Or are you claiming they had sex without knowledge of what it meant, or maybe that they were asleep? Anyways, don't have kids you can't afford. And don't play victim when it bites you in the ass.
Highlighting poor life decisions made by the parents.
Childbirth is not voluntary for the fetus. It is not capable of such thought at a young age. Nobody claims this and I challenge you to find a quotation I made supporting the idea that childbirth is voluntary. The voluntary action is having sex. It is related to the parents. They can choose to do so or not. That's the assertion. Not that fetuses are capable of critical thinking.
Now you're getting it. See how easy it is to admit to my actual points and not strawmen?
It is a global list. Read the article.
No, it can't. You can't expect people to work for free. There will have to be barter of some sorts, or some currency for exchange. An agreed-upon unit for trade is necessary for any form of civilizational sustenance.
To your image: you aren't self-employed, so you don't own what you create.
The factory worker in China manufacturing iPhones doesn't magically own the iPhone just because he assembled it. This demonstrates a lack of foresight into how businesses operate.

Why do Holla Forumstards think we forget about the same cherry picked evidence they always use? Blacks also get arrested and sentenced more often and more harshly for the same offenses and criminal record, it essentially balances out.
When boiled down to averages, class remains the strongest determining factor in crime. Until you provide empirical evidence that blacks are genetically predisposed to crime, it's a retarded argument.
Besides, the degradation of society among the poorest is a direct result of capitalism. Capital controls culture, not the other way around. The massive spike in crime in the 80s was caused directly by the CIA.

How businesses operate are at contradiction with how human society operates. Production for use is not production for exchange.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. That isn't a refutation unless you prove it so.
That is because they commit crime at disproportionate rates.
If you could craft a better argument besides "it is cherry-picking because…", then you would see that is not true.
Pot calling the kettle black. Holding yourself to one standard (it is 'x' because I say so), but asking others to do what you aren't doing.
The issue isn't why they do it. It is if they commit criminal activity at disproportionate rates.
That isn't actually an argument, funnily enough. Just saying it is 'x' doesn't make it so.
Interesting, how so? Care to cite some evidence?

Irrelevant. The business will operate as they do without regard for your unsubstantiated claims of ownership.
Production is determined by the consumer. They dictate what it is to be utilized for, at the end of the day.

Sounding like a stereotypical trilby won't help your case as a libertarian.
So you don't care about the truth as long as it tells you what you want to hear?
Have you seriously never heard of the CIA crack scandal?
And without their state apparatus, they're dead meat when militarized force responds.

Ad hominem. Here is some more cherry-picked bigotry…analyzing crime variation across >2000 US counties. See, you would have a leg to stand on if it just looked at Compton. But neither do. So the assertion still stands.
The truth of the matter is if the claim "do blacks commit crime at disproportionate rates" is valid or not, which it is. If you look at the evidence beyond two minutes (couldn't read the evidence and citations in the time your reply took).
The issue of 'why' is a separate question that you have conflated to the actual discussion.
No. When you make a claim, it's on your shoulders to back it up. Just asking me "ugh, you haven't heard of 'x'" doesn't make it so. If it is so obvious, that would make it easier to prove. Let's hope I don't call it "cherry-picking", though :^)
Like? How has that been turning out?

jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

youtube.com/watch?v=XVNG3CvT7CE

>youtube.com/watch?v=XVNG3CvT7CE
I still think the most efficient way is through open dialogue, what I am trying to initiate now. Asides from the "kys meanie" claims, nothing much has come in the realm of actual debate, save for a few people who have been honest.

...

Ok. Where does all of this come together to refute the nature of "how to live"/"how to survive" being potentially separate? I'm saying that they are separate, but there is much overlap because it parallels Base/Superstructure
I think you greatly misunderstand Holla Forums's refutation of that view: identity is fundamentally tended towards Socio-Political/Superstructure, while class is fundamentally tended towards Economic/Base. We reject politics done on behalf of identity because much of our contemporary and past predicaments and grievances involving identity has plenty of evidence indicating they're caused by class dynamics; likewise, there's evidence that suggests that if people are in a reduced state without anything within the Superstructure to allow groups to be content, notions like identity become something to be discarded
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan#Korean_people
Note: Japanese prejudice towards Koreans on the level seen in its Imperial era didn't really take off until Japan's occupation
I am not suggesting anything like reducing anybody in to any kind of wretched state as a solution; to me and others on Holla Forums, the solution is to simply engage in politics on behalf of class
Why do you reject it entirely? Actually, where did your whole rebuke even come from? Where does my argument of Mutual Aid suddenly come in to be applied to Kulaks and only them? If you're trying to use this logic, you should've looked at the bigger picture and used the argument that Employer contracts are "mutual"
We "preach" for the seizure because the industrial revolution marked a point in human development where all of the historically necessary hierarchies are not needed anymore; that we could become societies that produces for use rather than produce for wage/commodity while, as I said, being able to enjoy the benefits of modernity
Ok well let's recap for a quick minute

Why are business owners/employers/etc. entitled to a portion of the value of your labor and, should you refuse such a deal, given the choice to either starve or go to jail because you try to get the full value? The worker is acting in their own self-interest
What do you think we mean if we ever talk about "economic equity"? If you think we want "equality of outcome", then that's seriously just Capitalism. Think about how just about every job's pay is fixed according to who they are, not on how much labor they provide. Two cashiers at Walmart could be paid $9/hr, but one slacks off more than the other but by the end of the day, they're paid the same amount
It doesn't matter if whether or not the individual founder/CEO thinks slavery is ok or if they intended on using slave labor. The fact is that his success and/or continued success is provided with a backwards method of production and shows more on how fucked the system as a whole is
Our exchanges may involve refuting specific parts of wholes but you're really being dishonest here; you only took part of my sentence without the whole context. My point was that a good number of those success stories, namely, the tech giants like Gates, had only been able to become as successful and big by the sheer virtue of taking an interest in computers, which just happened to be at a time when the technological conditions for PCs to become a reality were coming together. Before the PC boom in the late '70s, hardly anything as big as Gates or Jobs were involved in computers, so there was very little in the way to truly know that it was something that was gonna "make people rich". By your logic: shit happens

Not guarenteed their wealth? Well join the rest of the club. The whim of the market is another uncontrollable aspect of capitalism that will make and break lives. There is no security for anyone, but the rest of humanity is no different. You can replace rich doesn't stay rich with middle class doesn't stay middle class and it will be no different. Thing is, the overall capitalist and worker dynamic still applies regardless of the individuals fallling in and out.

Under capitalist systems tho. Even then, does this makes liberal democracy less of an ideal to fight for as an alternative to feudalism? I certainly don't think so.

Exactly. It is also not the fault of any kids when the US support dictators in their country, or when their dad loses their job due to China, or when the forces way outside of the control of ONE person fucks their life up to the point of no return. I am sure the millionaires who lost their wealth didn't ask for it or did stuff to directly facilitate it.

It's like that isn't it? If humanity just acted the best it could in every bad situation, there wouldn't be evil and there wouldn't be radicals advocating for change. Do you know what stops a person in a bad spot from sticking in the needle? Or fucking that chick? It's not inherant superiority moral or otherwise that you claim. It is his upbringing, his experience, his knowledge , that has accumulated over his life, short or long, to understand that doing so would be a bad thing. In another case where he doesn't learn that lesson, he does it. But what does that tell you? We are the sum of our experiences and material conditions once again is a good indicator how a person will act and where a person will stay.

Not how it works. Read Bakunin, Kropotkin, or continue disagreeing with the definition of anarchy from the historical and political consensus of its proponents for 150 years. Just ask someone here in any case.

They still last. Still around. Their area is small, but is larger than Belgium. They have about 4.6 million people living there. Just search it up man.

The post above where I mention the broken down of all barriers. Humanity will be one. Also no whim of market, low crime. People will be more well informed, intelligent, and sophisticated as the barriers to access resources are gone. (remember this is full communism here) Basically Imagine by John Lennon and Star Trek. :^)

Socialism is the means of which we will reach communism. Dude just read some basic texts if you're so damn curious

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.

The evidence is there. Poverty = more crime. Most crime is for what? Money. Food we can have. A lot of things can be automated. No wars for resources, secular education and society will errode religion away, I don't have everything on hand but Marx explains it much better.
jacobinmag.com/2017/03/food-production-hunger-waste-agriculture-commodity-capitalism/
inequality.stanford.edu/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf

Ain't it grand?

My videos were evidence to my claim of artificial scarcity which you clearly have not watched. So pls analyze the evidence before you reach your conclusion.

Funny you would say that since you were addressing MY post about children and yet you only talked about the parents.

Reading comprehension bud. I didn't mean literal childbirth you dummy. If you connect the dots you'll understand that I was making a statement about material conditions and forces outside of your control. Which obviously the kid had no choice, as the worker and average joe themselves do not have a choice when disaster or when the machinations of capitalists and politicians affect them.

Global list represents merely individuals not an entire class.

Watch the video I had posted above regarding energy certificates. A unit of trade, but not based on currency.

No he doesn't because of capitalist laws. pic related.

Okay, so, you have evidence of what. What I was asking for is evidence of why. Without this, I have no reason to care.
Google it, then. It's convoluted and you argue in bad faith so I won't bother discussing here.
The USSR was still better than the monarchy, so.

Aw shit. Have this webm instead.

Source of webm?

I dunno. Was meme I found here.

Please exercise violence. I'm getting restless here. China's numbers are inflated from health issues and injury. And let's be honest, china is communist with chinese characteristica i.e. they're capitalist

It isn't. The statements are sound. Although certain political beliefs will lead into the "how to survive by not doing 'x'" realm if you are singled out as a problem group.
I have defined my stance and elaborated already. By definition, it is a group. It is the same as those who own land and those who don't own land. They are identities, as they are sharing characteristics/similarities. This redefinition is not valid.
Which is the irony considering economic status is an identity, by definition of what it means to have an identity. They are a distinct and separate group from lower economic classes.
I believe other identities may be accelerated and gain temporary dominance over other identities, but not for a long-term strategy. You can observe the tribal human mindset manifest itself in the US, what with various political affiliations/ethnic groups/sexual orientations/sexes pushing for political/social equality by means of their respective vanguards. If you were to ask them to put the status first, they will call you an anti-'x'.
Because it is not mutual, despite your insistence. I withdraw myself from such relationships.
Not necessarily kulaks. I wish to own my business and employ those who seek out my offer. Anything that impedes with this freedom of association is not mutual, it is forced.
They are. What is not mutual is the abolition of private property, or the hypocritical claim of exploitation. Not by the definition of mutual relationships, at least.
In fact, those hierarchies were only further deepened by the same citations above (of the 1% growing greater). It is the exact opposite. The thing about a hierarchy is that, no matter how much you despise its existence and wish to push for its abolition, when you use force to do so, you simply tilt it in your favour until you are voted out and the wealth returns.

Sure.

I'm not claiming that the worker isn't operating with his own interests in mind. I am critiquing the claim raised. Firstly, the worker cannot whine about exploitation and theft (of what he is rightfully owed) if a proper claim is not brought forth and justified in a court of law or by some rights. Using the same illegitimate ownership critique against him would render his claim to ownership inept, as he does not own that natural resource simply because he mined it. It is not his to own, as ownership is theft. If I mine a diamond, I cannot claim that I own the diamond if I am not self-employed. If I work for a company and mine it, then it is not my entire sole enterprise that operates the mining company. The enterprise is fuelled by desire for competition, which includes profit margins and expansion of said enterprise to, say, encompass greater areas to mine. Now, if you claim that it is a violent revolution (I voluntarily entered into a contract with your company specifically but fuck that I own this now), then it is a revolution. The small business owner wins, let me just tell you that right now to spare you the trouble. The homeowner will not stand idly by while that occurs.
On the point of voluntarism, see the point about about absolving agency entirely and how that is not a feasible stance. To a degree, there are objectively superior stances to take (in regards to life decisions). Washing away any part you might have had in shaping your life is not really honest, especially when you go on to make claim like "I am being aggressed upon so the result is to seize the means of production; we must rob the proverbial bank because my economic status isn't related to my decisions at all, but to my employer, the bank". Many, not all, are poor because of their own faculties. Others are poor because their parents did not think twice. In the end, if you decide to work for somebody, you can't turn around and state "I am going to die if I don't work so I have to rob a bank to make ends meet". Nobody owes you anything and production is not as archaic as "I make something, I own it regardless of circumstance or pre-determined conditions".

Capitalism is not about the equality of outcome. There is no equality in capitalism because individuals are not equal in their abilities. A fixed salary does not mean everybody will be employed for there to be equal outcomes for all. The labour that is provided is what the pay rate is representing. That is the cap they have set for your employment, which you signed on to. You are mad because you think you aren't earning enough/having your wealth stolen. The solution is to set your own pay grade. Start up a business and pay everybody as you see fit and see how far you will go. You are free to operate your business as you see fit if you own it.

Correct, because the statement isn't about slave labour: it's about how many weren't billionaires, but became billionaires. This is a diversion to appeal to emotions (look at the slaves, how awful). The initial statement still stands.

Yes, that isn't luck. I quote your statement as you quote mine. Luck, still, does not exist. What you describe is opportunity and wisdom, paired with ingenuity and adaptability. If everybody who "just got into computers" at that time succeeded, then the majority of businesses would't fail.
My entire logic is that shit does not merely happen, like "luck". They had a concept, executed it, and were prepared to own the business.

You aren't disagreeing with my point, which is that the millionaire is not static.
That isn't the assertion. You need to stop conflating issues. The point is that the millionaires are not guaranteed their wealth, not that employers and employees cease to exist.

Monarchy cannot exist as a capitalist system. The monarch determines the market. Capitalism is laissez-faire. The point is that there is no intervention. I agree with your definition of stateless, currency-less communism, show the same courtesy with your application of definitions.
Also, yes. If a system cannot survive and fend off others, it is not superior.

This is an example of diversion. You admit to my point, then immediately raise an unrelated issue to childbirth. I will address the other point you made right after agreeing with my point. The child is not guilty of any crime in those cases. If there is war, then children aren't fighting it (usually). For the dad losing the job, we can see why the dad lost his job. The employee is not just simply fired. It is usually because he is no longer needed/replaced, or because the company cannot afford his continued employment, or because of many other issues that could work in tandem. Again, the child is not involved.

That isn't operating at "the best in a bad situation". That is called using foresight to see if you are financially capable of sustaining life. The bad situation could have been from one's own decisions, or they could have been born a cripple. Varies from case to case, but can often be a combination of the controllable and the uncontrolled.
You cannot pass off the most important decision of your life off to "your upbringing". Your upbringing doesn't insert your penis into the vagina and create life. The individual chooses to hump based on impulse. Like I said, don't have kids you can't afford. And don't play victim when it bites you in the ass. He may be influenced to be a manwhore, sure. But he is the one choosing to be with the female as he is. You could always not have sexual intercourse and not birth a child.

Anarchy: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. No agreed upon rules an individual can follow. Then you make an appeal to authority, as if different variations of anarchy is equivalent to all forms of anarchy. If you limit a single thing in an anarchist system, it is not anarchy. You cannot ban, prohibit, tax, or levy anything in an anarchy as there must only be absolute freedom.

If they are an anarchy, what apparatus is arbitrarily enforcing national border policies? How can free individuals comprise a state's borders? Must not be an anarchy, then.

Unsubstantiated.
Still unsubstantiated.

That's accurate with what I've heard.

jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y
Other factors have greater effects.

Murder is not for money. I'm not sure what you are going on about. You start talking about criminal activity and how the greatest factor is poverty, when race gives an even clearer picture of said poverty. Then, you just gloss past how most crime is for money. There are many murders and rapes that occur. Money is not usually included.
Again, what you are claiming has not been tested. You have literally no empirical evidence to stand on your feet to preach for the implementation of these ideals because you have no basis for their claims to be verified. It's an unfalsifiable claim. "No wars, but there is no evidence for it so the claim technically isn't not true!".

Except I have. Again, the point still remains: how much of the farmer's crops do you think you deserve? You have to purchase them from him, you don't just deserve them. They are his crops and, in an anarchist system, he can shove them up his ass if he desires. Absolute freedom.

I actually discussed how fetuses are not capable of critical thinking literally right below the post. It is literally the next sentence.

I quote your post: This would contradict your social darwinian philosophy that the child's position is due to their "voluntary" decision to be born to shit parents and the consequences that come with it.
The child is the subject, and it is the "child's position" making the voluntary decision. You need to rephrase your sentence structure to make it more coherent.

Stop moving the goalposts. The list is a global collection of the world's billionaires. That is, by any stretch, the 1%. It is the individuals who comprise the 1% class. The assertion was never that this is the entire "rich people" list, but exactly what I cited it as: proof that most of the global billionaires are self-made. Your only rebuttal was appealing to superstitions and removing any effort they might have put into forming their businesses.

That is a unit of trade. It is an agreed upon standard utilized as binding. It is agreed upon as a trading unit. That is what a currency is.

Capitalist law is an oxymoron. There cannot be a state manipulating market values based on arbitrary distinctions. It will be a purely individualist society. You will either work for somebody under the conditions they set or you won't. You still have yet to substantiate your ownership claims. Just because you assemble something does not mean you own it. Again, you should direct your anger at yourself for not starting your own business and agreeing to the conditions you are complaining about now.

No, you weren't. Here's your first post here from your conversation here:
"Why do Holla Forumstards think we forget about the same cherry picked evidence they always use? Blacks also get arrested and sentenced more often and more harshly for the same offenses and criminal record, it essentially balances out.
When boiled down to averages, class remains the strongest determining factor in crime. Until you provide empirical evidence that blacks are genetically predisposed to crime, it's a retarded argument."
Emphasis on "Blacks also get arrested and sentenced more often and more harshly for the same offenses and criminal record, it essentially balances out."
Concerned not only with if it is true, but why (you say class, I say race and income).
You can literally justify any position imaginable by appealing to "google". You aren't actually presenting evidence and fulfilling the burden of proof, you are pushing it onto somebody else. Not an argument.
Google it. Taking a page out of your book. Still haven't cited CIA stuff you claimed, or made an argument for "cherry-picking", or refuted the meta-analysis of >2000 US counties.
I'm not a monarchist.

On the global list not being a class: It takes money to make money, but nearly two-thirds of the 1810 entrants on Forbes’ 2016 World’s Billionaires list are self-made entrepreneurs who started with little more than a vision and some savings. Today their empires range from fashion and entertainment to real estate and telecom. These moguls are responsible for creating household names such as and .
Around 2k, they might as well be the class as they control well over the majority of the wealth.

Fuck California and all the IdPol liberals that live there, especially the ones that call themselves Left and come here to shit up the place

Class influences both of those things in some significant way, so your argument is a non sequitur. We are not saying being working class magically gives you violent urges. Sure would be nice if it did though.

I know. I just don't think you'd care if I did present my point.

Maybe not intentionally. :^)

The premise justifies the conclusion if you actually analyze the evidence and examine the factors discussed instead of calling it all "cherry-picked".
Second time you have refused to cite your claims.

Prove it.
It's my fucking opinion that I don't care. Are you autistic? I mean that sincerely, not in a meme sense.

Citations have already been brought to your attention in the posts above (jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y).
Not an argument. Opinion=/=fact

>Citations have already been brought to your attention in the posts above (jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y).
Well, that's easy to refute. Academic definitions of economic inequality and similar concepts are arbitrary and usually have a strong inherent liberal bias.
Yep, autistic.

Definitions are not arbitrary.
With citations, explain the bias in the sources mentioned. Otherwise, there is no basis for judgement.
Still true.

...

No. They are not subjective, they do not become 'x' based on a whim. They are not random, so to speak.

Merrick Garland was another piece of shit who thought money = speech and there is no reason to believe Clinton's nomination would have been any better.

They make it really obvious that they see us as their useful idiots

Ridiculous. You have been unable to make any sort of consistency to your argument. You realize that which each passing point you make you are doing so in RESPONSE to other people's positions.

You decide to claim that millionaires are not able to stay millionaires in response to me saying that the flow of wealth been going to the top since forever.

You then ignore my evidence in regards to the obstacles to those of lower class in terms of improving the position in life. Which CLEARLY support the conclusion of material conditions affecting your standing more than your PARAGRAPH of evidence that has no room for data interpetation for other factors other than poverty.

You ignore my statements on Rojava. You say that a system is not competetive than it is not viable, but their is no evidence for this claim as you are so hard-pressed on asking for.

You reach your conclusion about human agency based off of constant anecdotal situations and specific circumstances that ignores clear trends based on material conditions.

You say you were talking about parents, but in one of your posts above you mention how this is a perfect system if one's parents aren't stupid. I simply stated that your claims regarding human agency contradicted your apparently sympathetic nature towards the child who was born to shit parents and the CONSEQUENCES i.e POVERTY, ABUSE, POOR EDUCATION that must've came as a result. You then talk about parents and fetuses which doesn't address my point whatsoever. You used another anecdotal example of self-made billionaires who number only TWENTY-FIVE to address a comment doubting the amount of porky aka the bourgeoisie actually works to gain their wealth. I said that 25 people especially those HANDPICKED as "selfmade" are not representative of a class. Which you apparently think is because it's "global".

Amongst so many other things that I am too tired to go into right now, it is clear that you didn't come here for debate, you came here to peddle your sophistry as a matter of petty pride. With the fear of your precious property and source of self-worth being taken away from you by those lesser than you. I look forward to the eventual destruction of all small business enterprises as it is their eventual fate in America.

our revenge will be the laughter of our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren

Another challenge that will gloss past your head: cite the post where I claim that the capitalist dynamic between employee/employer will vanish by simply pointing our that millionaire status is not static.
Point, counter-point.
Because it is true. It isn't a permanent ruling class, people fail and succeed as time passes. That doesn't mean the flow of wealth is non-existent: it corroborates the claim.
If you live in the US, you don't really have an argument for failing. You can always work and save funds. Unless you are disabled/have birth defects/a druggie/already a financial failure, you have no argument beyond unsubstantiated exploitation and a false sense of entitlement limiting your employment prospects.
You never actually cited how they are libertarian socialists. You just said they exist. You need to source your assertions if you wish to be taken seriously.
That is why Communism cannot work. Because it is an oxymoron, as I state above, and because it is inferior and postulates too much but has little convincing evidence (no wars, no class division, etc.).
Define anecdote. I have never given a personal story in the debate, or operated off of that. I have primarily claimed that the individual can choose between objectively inferior and superior life choices. An anecdote is "I took drugs once, I chose to". An example, in principle, is that the individual chooses to use drugs the first time.
Material conditions is a vague term that describes everything. Everything is material, the immaterial is outside of the Universe.

That isn't a contradiction. Also, cite your claims. Greentext my assertions like I did yours. I spoke of children and parents if you were paying attention.
Children do not possess agency in the same way that a drunk person does not possess agency: we cannot rely on their faculties to process certain scenarios logically.
Don't have kids if you can't afford it and don't cry for welfare when you realize it was a bad idea.
You still haven't improved your sentence structure. I quote my original point that you glossed over: I quote your post: This would contradict your social darwinian philosophy that the child's position is due to their "voluntary" decision to be born to shit parents and the consequences that come with it.
The child is the subject, and it is the "child's position" making the voluntary decision. You need to rephrase your sentence structure to make it more coherent.
You didn't read the article, did you.
"It takes money to make money, but nearly two-thirds of the 1810 entrants on Forbes’ 2016 World’s Billionaires list are self-made entrepreneurs who started with little more than a vision and some savings."
First of all, the point was to cite a few, not two-thirds of 1810 (that would be a long article). Second of all, the 1810 is the 1% upper class. Third, the list itself is global. By definition, it is not a personal story. You can't even define what an anecdote is (an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay).
Your lack of a substantive argument against the claim means that the claim remains unchallenged: the majority of the global billionaire/upper class is self-made, disproving the 'silver spoon' stereotype.
Refusing to debate or defend your point means that you cede your stance and admit defeat.
Still not an argument. You are just "tired" and cannot respond to critiques that are more than a few paragraphs.
Ad hominem.
Still an ad hom, still not substantiating your ideology or citing how "dude war disappears lmao". Utopianism has already been disproven, yet the pot calls me irrationally fearful…
How'd that work last time? Oh, right… statism…

Finally, it is very telling how a great lack of empirical evidence for your utopian ideal of "no wars dude" is of your true intention: postulations with nothing in terms of real-world application.

youtube.com/watch?v=H51HuNX41Fg

Read your Forbes article. Here are its problems:
They don't actually cite specifically who in their list started from nothing save for a handful like Gates. Fobres is a pretty notorious Wall Street propaganda outlet that not even other bourgeois take seriously, I guess I'm just supposed to take Forbes word that most of the billionaires on the list are self made with not acedemically rigourious proof.

They cite Gates several times which is laughable if you know anything about the real history of Microsoft.

Gates is a billionaire because of anti competitive monopoly tactics. Windows is a terrible operating system that hardly any mission critical systems run on. The vast majority of servers run on Linux, which it's open source development is pretty close to being communist, no private property, collectively developed voluntarily etc. I'm sure you'll agree that all of today's growth in tech comes from the internet which linux dominates and not the desktop.

Let's assume they all are self made. You really expect people to suffer the extreme depths of poverty right now for a 1 in a billion chance of becoming a billionaire. An economic system has to serve all people otherwise why would anyone agree to it unless forced.

without Plato there wouldn't be communism

Yeah, no. Initiating violence is morally wrong, so, I'm going to leave that to the commies.

...

You mean, where the buck finally stops?

I like how the new edgy psuedo-intellectual meme is Stirnerposting.

nah you're just stupid lol

...

...

Thank you for your input

Yes, yes. The new edgy thing is individually-subjective morality, because when an asshole decides that theft and murder may personally benefit him, making it moral from his perspective, it's suddenly objectively moral.

Wrong, it's suddenly objectively nothing because objective morality does not exist.

it does, and it coincidentally aligns with my own beliefs, thoughts and actions, giving me the high ground

I'm not saying I'm better than you, but I will say that stealing from or murdering someone is an objectively, pardon my technical terminology, a dick move.

You crazy kids and your crazy juche.

For the guy who got robbed. For the guy that did the robbing it turned out pretty good.

I feel like I've encountered this ideology somewhere before.

wut? Oh, like you're not? Tell us all about the million-dollar corporation you own there, Mr. CEO? We'd love to hear your story about how you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and made the Fortune 500. Go on…

You're right. Instead they had a communist revolution.

For someone who keeps arguing genetics and science you sure are okay with ignoring the genetics causes behind obesity and alcoholism.

It would be if enough people valued theft and murder.
And considering the fact people value the theft of capitalist and the murder caused by imperialism, that's not far off.

This guy thinks substituting technical questions that can be easily googled is a sufficient form of argument. If you honestly think using double meanings and ambiguities of language to misrepresent my argument and usage of tu quoque to not ADDRESS them is debate in good faith than you are a just sophist.

Syrians are Aryans.

...

Accelerationism, baby.

I hope someday someone would write about how 2016 was the death of irony. I would but I am too under-educated to do so

youtube.com/watch?v=5npNVA88RDs
Antifa Rage & Fails Cringe Compilation (09)

Next time be a little less shit.
It's literally all you have to do.

I am aware, I already stated that, if they did, it would be a really long list. In fact, you run into the same problem when you look at billionaires in the US, too (wealthx.com/articles/2016/american-billionaires/). The same "self-made" pattern becomes evident, but there are hundreds involved.
We can go off of the list they have and completely disregard Forbes if you just want to call everything propaganda. Their list of the richest US billionaires is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400
Just going to their wikipedia page, only five of the twenty inherited their wealth. I'm not sure what rigorous proof you want, it's as simple as looking up the early lives of the billionaires.
So what is the "real history" of microsoft?
Explain how the government, or some other entity, shuffled the deck in their favour for their company to take off. Sure, now there might be monopolies and a government that protects them. But that is a diversion from the actual discussion: how Microsoft originally started up, as a self-made company with nothing to show.
This is an opinion statement. You keep on diverting from the fact that they started the company from the ground up, not from inheritance.
This is a fallacy of composition. So, if something is fine in part, it must be alright in whole, or extended across fields. So, because Linux is "communist", then communism is good for humans. Again, I ask: point me to a communist regime that has been powerful enough to maintain itself along the years. Not even the USSR was communist, they had currency. The concept can never work because in an anarchy, capitalists will still exist.
I didn't make the statement. You did. You have to, to use your own words, provide "acedemically rigourious proof" of your claim.
It was about two-thirds.
Most of the world's poor are in Africa and India. The same two areas that have just come off of the largest population boom in human history, or the area (Africa) that is about to double in population. Tell them to stop having kids if they are already poor. Then tell them that they are not entitled to a pick-me-up, or my wealth, just because they are poor. You are not entitled to other people's wealth.
The economic system serves those who are willing to serve themselves. If you make poor financial decisions, then it has served you just as you served yourself. For those who are poor because of factors outside of their control, it's, more often than not, because their parents are Africans or Indians who can't stop pumping out eight kids.

Of course I am. But listen to this thread, it's all self-pity and "I am a mindless drone with no capability to make any independent decisions for myself". The moment I told you that, maybe there are good and bad choices to make, you call me a 1%er. Now here you are calling me a prole. I never said I wasn't. In fact, I never made a point about my identity, but your hypocrisy of "fuck idpol…. Mr. CEO rich bastard" is laughable.

Where is it now? If the system is so attractive and inevitable, then where is it now?

poor show lad

Predisposition is not equivalent to a guaranteed future. See: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3137002/
"We provide evidence that obesity predisposing genes interact with the environment and influence the response to treatment relevant to disease prediction."
I am predisposed to be a smoker. I had my bloodwork done and I found out that I am predisposed to be a smoker. The same applies to alcoholism and depression. But just because you are predisposed to something does not guarantee that you will get it. The environment interacts with the individual, and I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. Anecdotes aside, the point I'm trying to make is that you can make objectively good and bad nutrition choices. Even if you have a predisposition to obesity, if you consume less calories than you exert (and consume what is required, like a nutrition triangle), you will still lose weight.

Trump was cucked hard

It is always funny to see the age-old gambit of "this person is so infantile stupid, the points he raises are so easy that a google search can debunk them. Except I won't cite anything supporting that assertion, not even the lazy google search, because I really know how to fulfil the burden of proof".
Cite how I used "ambiguities". I have not used a double entendre, to my knowledge.
Cite a tu quoque that I have committed. This is the different between me and you, you just make claims without a quotation.
I will read the posts you just linked to and find a tu quoque, based on its definition: a retort by one charged with a crime accusing an opponent who has brought the charges of a similar crime.
First sentence, I ask you to cite where I made the claim you accuse me of. Still no proof.
Second sentence, I explain the dynamic of a debate.
Third sentence, you still provide no counter-evidence and accuse me of something I never claimed (I never said wealth has never accumulated at the top, but that the millionaires at the top are not static).
Fourth sentence, I challenge your victimization and provide a solution: don't have kids if you can't afford it and don't make poor financial decisions. Unless you are disabled or something, you have no grounds to stand on as to why you are poor.
Fifth sentence, I ask for evidence of your claim beyond "they exist as I say they do".
Sixth sentence, I ask for your evidence as to how it will become a "war-less society". That is a huge assertion, with no proof beyond utopianism,
Seventh sentence, I ask for your definition of an anecdote and to quote me where I make one.
Eighth sentence, I ask for your proof of how I spoke "about only parents". I discuss both kids and their parents.
Ninth sentence, I elaborate my stance on agency.
Tenth sentence, I elaborate on my stance of "stop having kids you can't afford". Poor communities with lack of education and healthcare would not exist to this great of a degree if parents who could not afford kids would stop having them.
Eleventh sentence, I ask you to improve your sentence structure. Your sentence has fetus/unborn child as the subject. Here is it: This would contradict your social darwinian philosophy that the child's position is due to their "voluntary" decision to be born to shit parents and the consequences that come with it.
"Child… due to their voluntary"
As I said, read your own sentence then see how I responded. It follows the fact that the unborn child is the subject, which is why voluntarism extends to the subject.
Twelfth sentence, I elaborate on the article you seem to have not read.
Thirteenth sentence, I address your submission and "I am tired" statements.
Fourteenth sentence, I continue the debate while you leave my pointing out your non-argument.
Fifteenth sentence, I point out your ad-hom. Notice how I have not dismissed your points because of some insult?
Sixteenth sentence, same as above.
Seventeenth sentence, I ask for evidence of your claim throughout history to see how it ended up.

No tuquoque. You do not accuse me of anything that I, then, turn back onto you. The only time I turn the question back to you is to ask for proof. I ask you for your evidence, in the form of a quotation, for your statement (Another challenge that will gloss past your head: cite the post where I claim that the capitalist dynamic between employee/employer will vanish by simply pointing our that millionaire status is not static).

This is not a tu quoque. I will ask the same: find me a quote where I commit a tu quoque. Define your term, then extend it to the quote. Asking for your evidence is not a tu quoque.

Sure thing.

No actually I'm pretty sure this whole thread is you bending over backwards and letting yourself by porky cock, because you find yourself a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire."
my fucking sides

This entire thread is a trollfest which I am sure is being done by one who came here around a month ago. It seems like he has modified his trolling a bit so as not to be so obvious, but by this point it has become too visible. I don't know why he hasn't been banned yet.

I don't actually own a business and I am not wealthy. It's funny, first it's "fuck you porky", then it's "you're just a traitor prole". Make up your mind.
Not really an argument based on definitions. I'll copy-paste the point I raised regarding the definitions of identities and groups.

Identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Class: a social division based on social or economic status: the ruling class.
Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
By this definition, those who, say, are cognizant of the fact that they own land (juxtaposed to those who do NOT own land) hold an identity separating the two groups into land owners and landless people. One who has a political platform based around, say, a revolution against a group of people with a unique set of characteristic separating them from other groups of people is fulfilling the definition of identity politics when he calls for a revolt against the "group x" by rallying ONLY "group y".
An example: fuck porky for owning land, we are the proletariat who have a separate identity. We do not own land and wish to seize his land. Workers of the world, but not the rich 1%, rally together and unite under the common identity we all share to take power.

That is the definition of identity politics.
By definition, classes are distinct and divided groups of people. They fulfil an identity which is attacked from one end. Nice doublethink, though.

Here is the refutation, the best one besides "haha u r dum" your camp provided: I think you greatly misunderstand Holla Forums's refutation of that view: identity is fundamentally tended towards Socio-Political/Superstructure, while class is fundamentally tended towards Economic/Base
My counter-point: I have defined my stance and elaborated already. By definition, it is a group. It is the same as those who own land and those who don't own land. They are identities, as they are sharing characteristics/similarities. This redefinition is not valid. Which is the irony considering economic status is an identity, by definition of what it means to have an identity. They are a distinct and separate group from lower economic classes.
I believe other identities may be accelerated and gain temporary dominance over other identities, but not for a long-term strategy. You can observe the tribal human mindset manifest itself in the US, what with various political affiliations/ethnic groups/sexual orientations/sexes pushing for political/social equality by means of their respective vanguards. If you were to ask them to put the status first, they will call you an anti-'x'.

Because everyone knows the first rule of hotpocketry is you have to be a fag.

I do stop by occasionally when I am in the mood for a good debate. I enjoy hearing criticisms of my views and I think it is valid that you do, too.

I haven't been banned because mods seem to appreciate a good back-and-forth. You can ban me all you want, but what does that say about your ability to defend your point when you just shy away from any criticism?

And here is an example. It takes a lot more energy to address the points directly (to their credit, a few anons have done so) than it does to just toss around insults. It is the lowest form of a counter-point, not really conducive to any debate. It doesn't move anything along or put forward another argument.

I have seen your characteristic trolling several times on this board to know well enough that you do not come to this board for anything other than to do eristic, where debates are circular while you use dictionary definitions, repeat things hundreds of times in a way tailored to piss people off.

You are only here for eristic. This is why you should be banned, preferably permanently because this has gone on for too long. See the picture for the second time.

...

Yes. Good job. This is not hard to understand when I admit it.
This means nothing until you can find the circular nature of the debate. I do agree it has been circular when I ask for quotations substantiating claims raised against me. They just double-down on the accusation without any proofs. That's how it can be circular.
Dictionary definitions? I put forth definitions that have been accepted as truth because they are the valid usage of the term. Put forward your definitions, then.
If people are upset by what I say, that is irrelevant. Try and keep your emotions out of rational debate.
If you tried to engage in debate, you would see that I am being truthful by pointing out your hypocrisies of, say, berating ownership while assuming the same claims under your belt when it is convenient.

This is usually how the arguments go, you just refuse to address the points raised.
What's funny is that, initially, there is a sliver of honesty when you think you have a point. But when I retort, you just resort to ad homs.

Thank you for your considerations kind sir. Have a good day.

Inclined to agree.

Tribunal rules in favor of the plaintiff.

Thank you, mod.

Wages are the price point the employer has set forth for the employee, who has signed on and agreed. That is what they have determined to be valid. If you dislike your wage because you have false claims of entitlement (that you deserve an iPhone just for assembling one more so than the worker who mined for the goods: interesting to see how that worker conflict arises, as the infantile "one person makes one thing" is not always true), then become self employed.

Time is, technically, a commodity. Using the "dictionary definition" the other user objects to. You are simply stating that the time a worker offers to his employer is a commodity, which is true.

No. The market does not have an equivalent exchange ratio. This assumes that all business owners will sell 'x' at a certain price. So, if you give up 12 hours of the time commodity to an employer and gain 2 shillings, you can find out that the 2 shillings would not be equivalent to other time commodities offered/expended by other employees. It assumes that the same commodity you mentioned is standard for all people, which is not true.

What happened to the question before? You are operating on a faulty premise, that the commodity of time is equivalent for labourers and that a market's exchange ratios, so to speak, will be static.

True. But one may find that one can produce the same amount of goods and sell them off for at a different price point. It is dependent on the consumer and the ratio is not set-in-stone.

Yes.

If you do not wish for the capitalist to "take possession" of what is his, why sign onto a contract that states that will occur? Why are you so surprised? If you sign something that claims I will come by your house every Monday, don't complain when I show up if you see me at your door.

How do you reconcile the fact that the cloth had to have been first harvested? What do you say to that worker who also asserts his ownership of the 20 shillings? Or maybe it is a wage distributed amongst those who expend labour in looming it (one portion) and those who hunt for the pelt, and those who ship it to the factory…
In short, you are not entitled to something if you have signed it off and by mere virtue of assembling an iPhone. Just because you mine a diamond does not mean you own it if you are not self-employed.

He could have had it in the bank, though. I see what you mean.

Except the contract, that he signed onto, says otherwise.

That's why minimum wage laws exist. Even if the cloth was sold at some arbitrary point, the weaver is not entitled to the full amount because he has already agreed to the terms of the contract and he is not self-employed. You have made the wage dependent on the product and not the commodity of labour power. If some art collector buys the cloth for one million shillings, the worth of the cloth is not one million to anybody but the art collector. It does not follow that you receive one million if you produced only 12 hours of labour power. This is because different individuals have different preferences on the market.

You admit to the faults of the argument. The waver is one of the instruments. He does not act alone. The cloth does not magically appear. He is a part of the production line. A chef does not own a meal just because he creates it. The food must be prepared and shipped first. It is a false sense of entitlement with no substantiated claims of ownership.

Not all employees hold the same potential and capability of labour-power.

So don't sign onto a contract. This is an unjustified argument for aggression.
"I cannot sustain my own lifestyle and refuse to acknowledge how businesses operate, so I am forced to rob a bank (revolt against the capitalist) in order to feed myself".
Hunt for your own food if you make the argument that archaic societies were all communistic. Nobody owes you anything and you are not entitled to the wealth or assets of anybody else as you cannot produce valid claims of ownership.

On what grounds do you agree? Elaborate.

...

My counter-point offering a solution is indicative of my acknowledgement of the point. The issue is that it is a poorly argued point without evidence to support its claim. The aggression is not warranted/justified.
If I am offering up my views, I can assure you that it is so that you may challenge them. Just saying "you don't have your views challenged" is an argument against yourself. It isn't my job to challenge my own views, the points you raise in response to mine do that.

It's pretty rich you run into every thread accusing leftists of being pious, entitled, holier than though, moralistic, etc. but then rest your argument on "I don't think you should be allowed to have what I have" - based on what? Your feelings? The worker's movement doesn't care about what you think they should be allowed to have, that's the point of it, you'd have everything if you could whereas most people are happy to be content, but you don't even allow them that.
Your retort here has boiled down to responding to "The contract isn't voluntary it's a matter of life and death" with "Well, I think it's voluntary" - it isn't. You can't just hunt for your own food - you have to find a place to live. How do you live for free? Capitalists have monopolised everything and practically outlawed living off the land with various restrictions, taxes, and regulations. You demand that if people don't like it they live in the wilderness, when there is no wilderness - you've bought it all up, the reality is it's simpler removing you.

Please find me a quotation where I say "I don't think you should be allowed to have what I have because I feel like it" (or something along those lines where I justify it because of my emotions). I will wait while you do. Because I have always said that it is because you have not earned it. You are not entitled to things you do not earn or cannot provide warranted claims of ownership on.
You are operating on an unsubstantiated premise. Find the quotation you claim exists or that I have mentioned.
I also find it rich that the claim primarily rests not on some rational justification or warranted claim to ownership, but "we don't care about what you think we should have". That is an emotional statement. I am not "keeping them down", it is because they agreed to it and because they do not earn what they claim they do. See the point I raised above, I went in detail.

Is that all I said? Are you sure? Why don't you find the actual quote, because I defined what voluntary meant. I will do it again: done, given, or acting of one's own free will. Now tell me: who else is signing onto the employment contract besides you? Your argument is that you are forced to do so because you cannot provide for yourself if you cannot work. Who do you think is supposed to provide for you? Like I said before, you are not entitled to anybody's assets if you cannot prove your ownership claim. What amount of my wealth do you think you deserve? You don't want to work because you think you are being exploited (see the posts I linked above debunking that), so you want to have your cake and eat it, too. If you have no income, you cannot eat. You can find other sources of income. Nobody is going to nanny you if you are an adult.

Two separate statements. You can hunt for food as that is not concerned with where you live. People have hunted for food without a place to live before.

The same way you eat for free: you don't. You must exert energy to survive. Nobody owes you anything, you must take care of yourself. Start your own business if you hate working for the man. Craft your own goods to sell to people at prices you like.

I'm sure many have, but can you cite me some examples?

I don't agree with those, either. But can you cite me some of the restrictions? Do you mean laws? If so, which ones?

See the points above. Unjustified aggression in the face of unsubstantiated claims of exploitation/ownership. You assume entitlement and some nanny system must because people cannot just starve. Yes, they can, if they do not care about their future.

These "broad-based party politics" were often based upon the politics of class. That was what identity politics moved away from on the left. Whether you believe "class" is an identity or not, identity politics came to be the term to distinguish between the earlier class-based politics and a later politics based on the affirmation of one's personal identity within a cultural group.

You seem to be confused. "Proletariat" is a structural division of capitalism, not an identity in and of itself.

Also, quoting definitions supposes you both understand the definition and know you have the correct one for the specific purpose and context you're using it. With neither, reciting a definition is useless.

It's as if you're someone who sees "post-autistic economics" and believes that such an economic view must require killing everyone with autism. After seeing your posts, though, I might agree.

There you go. The rest of your post only echoes this.

The first sentence just further illustrates how class is a separation into different groups of people (haves and have-nots, for example).
"Broad-based party politics" has not been a concept the left has abandoned. Even now, with the talks of a revolution that will never occur, you provide evidence of some group-orientated policy platform (pitting the classes against one another).
The "identity politics came to be the term to distinguish between the earlier class-based politics" is my point.

Proletariat: workers or working-class people, regarded collectively.
From proletarius: the lowest class of citizens in ancient Rome. Capitalism did not exist for as you claim as a "mode of production". A structural division of land-owners versus landless people is still an identity, by definition.

The contextual definition you utilize is not accurate or accepted. The dictionary definition is valid, as you have yet to refute it. An identity is deliberately broad, which is why blue-shirts and red-shirts is still an identity. Calling for the blue-shirt revolution against the exploitative red-shirts is operating on a political platform rooted in pitting identities that congregate with like identities against one another.

Not relevant, not an argument.>>1814137

That isn't a feeling statement. A feeling statement is "I think you haven't earned it". There are only feelings for substantiation. I am making a statement of fact: you have not earned what you claim you own. This is because you have not presented a justified and warranted claim to ownership. The burden of proof is on you. Until you do that, you cannot claim you earn something you have cannot prove you actually do.

It still doesn't prove Autism Level is genetic at all. That's called circumstantial evidence. Cucks got to learn basic probability. Not to mention, you know, the original comic's experiment isn't real so you can't compare results either.

Indeed. You just strawmanned me to a ridiculous degree again.

The new face of teen rebellion.

Is there a book with actual, cited refutations? It gets kinda tiresome having to point those flaws out every time.

HUEHUEHUE

Looking more and more that way, we have to break this denial that there is a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Of course we do. Trump has been fantastic for radicalizing people, and we get to laugh at Holla Forumstards as he fucks them up the ass while wearing a yarmulke.

...

Who says it is genetic? The argument is that a portion is genetic and a portion is environmental. Nobody claims it is 100% genetic, otherwise evolution would never occur. Nobody claims it is 100% environmental, either, otherwise natural selection would be irrelevant and inconsequential. It is a combination of both. More on the topic: humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Fuerst, John. "The nature of race." Open Behavioral Genetics, June, 2015.pdf.
Circumstantial evidence is not what g measures. It is not statistically insignificant. Also, you are admitting that there is no argument for the excuse behind African cognitive ability. But they have tested Ashkenazi Jews: web.archive.org/web/20130911054719/http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf.
Of note, there is no contention when the Jewish ability is in question. See: huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/evolutions-deadly-tradeof_b_6915468.html.
"In private conversations with dozens of geneticists, almost no one was willing to categorically rule out the theory that Ashkenazi Jews may have received a genetic gift of intelligence as recompense for the extraordinary number of brain diseases. “Yes, selection for intelligence is credible,” Hebrew University’s Joel Zlotogora, one of the few scientists willing to be quoted, told me. “For me everything is credible. I think the founder effect is true for only some disorders, but not for all of them, and there must be something else. There could very well be positive selection.”

At least for now most scientists are reluctant to embrace positive selection as an explanation of Jewish intelligence, although it remains a respected theory. David Goldstein, a geneticist at Duke University and author of the book Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History, called the theory “tantalizing, circumstantial, politically incorrect in the extreme… [but] cannot be ruled out.”

*farts on u*

wew

He's going all out!

Not the same person.

Except that isn't me.

Oh, it gets better! he's a BLACK Texas Republican justice.

Literally America under Shillary in a nutshell. Get fucked, OP.

WOOP WOOP baloney alert! Democrat strongholds produce more federal taxes than they consume in federal spending, while Republican strongholds overwhelmingly produce less taxes and gulp down more spending for their population of welfare leechestemporarily embarrassed millionaires:
businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8

hey oh
americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

NIgger, isn't that data predicated on who each stated voted for in a single presidential election and no other factors?

Next we'll be hearing about Michigan's failings being to do its "redness".

wow, would you look at that:
federal spending as a proxy for welfare usage? let's put our noggins together and try to figure out why that's incorrect.

also, this doesn't even address the racial and age-demographic questions

It is better not to have bad reforms at all. Sometimes it is just not worth it, specially when its tied to insurance markets. Single payer or nothing comrade.

It would have been better because she wouldn't have had the power to do anything.