How do we go about BTFOing the arguments that go something like:

I get that. I know too many people are really just edgelords. That whole "No Ethical Consumption Under Late Capitalism" meme was really just an excuse for instagram whores to justify their Gucci bullshit purchases while seeming like SMASH THE FASH GOMMUNISM 4EVA.

What I want to know is… why are so many in people in trades and actual jobs that produce tangible wealth indifferent if not contemptuous of socialistic economics? I mean.. I get that they're not suffering too much for their exploitation and a lot of them seem really happy in their work.

The absolute worst thing that can happen as a result of the "risks" undertaken by a capitalist, that is, if he can't exploit corporate bankruptcy law, get his friends to bail him out, get the government to bail him out, etc. is that he loses his property, and now has to sell his labor power to survive, like the rest of us.

Posted via their shiny new Apple products.

Labor unions in the US tend to be politically neutral if not conservative. Service unions like the SEIU make their money from immigrants/refugees and people who they physically bully into joining.

And the highwayman lets the traveler pass through
An investment that likely came from stolen wealth. Even if not, that's not justification why he deserves to get back more than he put in.
The "deferred gratification" and "risk" argument are similar and both retarded since neither of them actually correlate whatsoever with received profits (no one gets anything just because they took a risk or deferred) and are often inversely proportional. How much risk does a millionaire with a diverse portfolio take compared to a tree trimmer, and which one gets paid more? As for deferred gratification, or more commonly called "waiting" it's an idea that entirely works in the favor of the individual who can defer or wait, and which costs them nothing to do, and against the individual who cannot or must do so at an immense sacrifice: who waited or deferred more, the millionaire with more money then he could possibly spend, or the cafe worker who saved up for 20, forgoing a comfortable life or a family, just to be able to start a business that will likely fail, and which one of these two people are the ones who gain the most profit?

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17#toc15 That section and down takes through all the same related arguments.

There is no ethical consumption under Capitalism, because Capital is global. So even if you're not buying sweatshop products right now, the profits the non-sweatshop company received from you will eventually find their way to the company you were explicitly trying to not buy from. All consumption grows Capitalism, and when Capitalism grows, the really shitty parts of it grow also. That said, that doesn't mean you can't more ethical immediate choices, like spending a little more money to buy from a coop. Additionally, none of what I said justifies engaging in conspicuous consumerism or materialistic bullshit, so fuck the iPhone and Gucci buyers.

Unless other porkies get their way and debtors prisons come back. Then you'll get to be imprisoned AND get to pay off your debts at slave wages. How long would it take to pay off a debt of, say, a million dollars, at 17c an hour?

capitalists very often take out loans/get VC funding to start their businesses

they literally risk other people's money

Right, because the Bolsheviks dindu nuffin that the kulaks didn't deserve.

Unlike under communism where social mobility is rare since class is supposed to not exist (although it does in reality), under private markets it's possible for a worker to convert wages into capital.

The millionaire who is better socially connected will live a better lifestyle, ask every socialist dictator.

How does communism prevent unethical consumption? If anything communism prevents over-consumption by keeping the store shelves empty.

This is a voluntary transaction between the venture capitalist and the entrepreneur. It's not like under communism where laws would directly force venture capitalists to pay outrages taxes because fuck capitalism.

Investment happens in every mode of production. Even hunter-gatherers "invested," by creating tools.
The reason that capitalists invest is that, under capitalism, they and they alone reap the rewards of that investment (rather than the workers).
Most people have it the wrong way round. They think that, without capitalism, investment would end. They are wrong. Investment would simply be carried out by the workers instead.

Hey porkie

As opposed to the proliterian, who can be dismissed or be made to quit at the whim of his employer, and who is perpetually at risk of starvation, exposure, or death by treatble illness?

Nice empty, insubstantial responses.

Be careful guys, we're dealing with a real intellectual titan.

There's a reason wage slavery is comparable to actual slavery: rather than having to sell one's whole body, one must sell their labour, portions of their lives, under capitalism. Rephrase the questions right back at them:

Liberals support capitalism because they want a chance to be the new slaveowners, tell them this doesn't justify it. If a slave buys his freedom, he isn't going to be reparated by buying slaves himself, he's only perpetuating the abusive cycle, and it has to stop.

People here actually believe in Marxism?

I thought this was just a meme.

...

I doubt it.

bump

If Porky McCapitalist goes bust, he's still gotta pay the loans and pay his workers for what work they did before the business shut down. Sure sounds like a risk to me.

Reading libertarian literature may help, you know? Economics in One Lesson and Ludwig von Mises' Liberalism are very good.

I think the most relevant point is that the only thing Porky is actually risking is becoming a worker.

But more importantly, the people who make these arguments are basically cultists. Run them around in circles and get them to make a lot of self contradictions for the sake of any audience that can actually think straight.

I've read an awful lot of libertarian literature, I have no idea how that's supposed to help. I mean have made carefully constructed arguments showing the contradictions within the Atlas Shrugged monologue, or shown how literally everything in Economics in One Lesson actually violates the laws of economics, it just doesn't *help*.

It's boot licking. Anytime someone makes that argument I just like to remind them I come from an actual family of capitalists and gladly explain how it works.
If my father makes a bad business decision it's not him getting the boot. It's first and foremost his employees that will be getting fired or see their wages reduced. And when that happens, my dad continues to retain full ownership over the enterprise. Who's taking the risk here?

Capitalists don't take risks. Workers do. At most capitalists are outsourcing the risk while keeping the profits privatized. Saying capitalists take risks is like arguing you're taking a risk when you gamble with other people's money. Case in point: The previous financial crisis.
The problem with long arguments like is that most people will not bother to read or understand it. They will just point their finger and call you lazy and tell you're not working hard enough.
An effective way to break through this, is by presenting them with a personal anecdote that reminds them of how much a bunch of cucked servile boot-licking lemmings they truly are. If you can't reason with them, shame them. That tends to knock people out of their cognitive dissonance.

It's actually for this reason I just suggest for everyone to just become a capitalist, if only to be able to stave off these garbage-tier arguments (And present a good dose of reverse psychology). If you don't have a stake in the game, it's doubtful people will listen to you or consider your arguments.

Then feel free to repost those arguments at any time.

The CEO of the company I work for gets a million and a half dollars per year, but just for signing on he got six million dollars in stock options that roll out a million per year regardless of how well the company is doing. If the store I work at beats sales expectations then I might see a $60 bonus, or 1% of the total over the projection that we make. If the company beats the annual projection by even a fraction of a percent, he gets a 200% bonus.

Despite the company making nearly ten billion dollars in profit last year, I got only a twenty cent raise.

This is all completely fair and if I just worked harder I'd be able to make up the difference.

literally tell them to read Adam Smith.

It's a lot of effort for zero benefit (I don't have copies). On-line argument is ultimately about convincing the audience. I've already 'won' without playing because this is already a leftist board.

Of course, the thread is about wanting arguments to use elsewhere, but like I said they aren't useful. Rambling on about the disparate value of steel bars or the broken window fallacy in a demand constrained economy only makes sense if you've already read the libertarian work.

wow you sure showed me

this board is fantastic

throw stupid and ignorant phrases like "durrr the worker is at risk of starving and getting sick and other over dramatic shit that equally applies to you therefore everything belongs to me"
"durrr you have the choice to give me nothing when I don't offer you anything in return, see I take all the risk here, you are just exploiting me"
"durr your labour is not real labour"
Then when they ask to explain what the fuck you are saying throw book titles from the sticky at them (not necessary to read them) and ignore them and come back to leftypol where we will just delete comments we can't counter or don't like

If this post is anything to go by you're to blame for your own ass anguish.

Where do you live that workers can only be fired under such a condition?
So if there is an equal risk, as you say there is here, then why don't you support sharing the profit equally?
You never explained how the worker isn't being exploited.
Ownership is not labor, and shucking and jiving to line your own pockets even more is a task rendered completely superfluous by the abolition of the market.

for every 2 hours a person works, he is only compensated for 1 hour of his labor time on average.
I'll await your triggered reply about how I should blame the Jews instead of the system.

I agree with you completely. Please read my post again, along with the one I am replying to, because I think I make this very clear.