Socialism: Scientific, or Religious?

from which book is the image you posted?

TBH I think Engels was just kind of riding the wave of "new" science that was emerging in the mid to late 1800's, at time when all sorts of philosophers, thinkers, politicians, etc sought to make their ideas seem "scientific." It's not really a hit against the really solid body of Marxism as a whole, but more this characterization of it as a "science," when it really isn't lol.

...

for fuck sakes see:

'science' as marx and engels wrote is a rough translation of the word wissenshaft in german which is much more broad than the word science in the anglo sense (hard science like physics etc).

Marx just didn’t like Utopian Socialists for stupid reasons. It’s simple as that.

[citation needed]

Marx preferred two groups of utopian socialists (Fourierists and Owenists), even pre-socialists like Smith, to the economistic and politically deterministic socialists (Lassalle and Bernstein respectively), who both fell under scientific socialism. Shut the heck up my guy.

Pure religion

The Method is the dogma, and comes loaded with a whole set of far-reaching assumptions about the nature of human reality. Questionable core facets such as the ideal/material distinction remain unchallenged throughout, until you get to the anti-economism school that felt Capital was merely a piece of propaganda the workers could use as justification against entrenched bourgeois intellectuals and their self-legitimating classical economics (and in which case, admitting it is utterly worthless as a theory in its own right.) If this wasn't so you wouldn't all get so violently rustled when directly descendant post-Marxist schools are spoken of under the rubric of Marxism proper.

He, Marx, was the avatar channeling the whole Spirit and Will of the proletariat. Not Christ-like at all?

Determinism isn't scientific socialism.

I won't dignify that with a response

Hal Draper's Marx's Theory of Revolution, vol. 4

It's not scientific if it's unfalsifiable. There is nothing scientific about it. You can test hypothesis and improve upon/dismiss failures.
There is literally no way to demonstrate the ideologues to be wrong. Any example of any implementation of socialism or Communism that failed abysmally is always as far removed as any shred of personal responsibility as possible. It's the same thing with pointing out that the modern climate is a result of meritocratic organization: that the weak fall to the bottom, rightfully so, and that the strong have ensured a position at the top, just as rightfully so. The entire concept is dismissed as non-existent or "bad".
Dismissing uncomfortable realities with a confirmation bias, or acting entitled to more than what the cold-hard truth gives you (which is to say: nothing), or constructing idealist fiction that is always judged once it fails (by judged, I mean subsequently dissociating because "my flavor would be better, if only they…") is as far removed as scientific thought as religious zealots are.
"Trust me, God exists and Jesus will turn all our water to wine, we just have to believe in it enough. Oh, it didn't work? Well, that Jesus could have done this that I would have done, had I been Jesus…"

...

See what I mean? It's only expected that failures or the envious will dismiss the whole system as being 'bad' because they are in poor conditions.
Western societies are not meritocratic: they have affirmative action/diversity quotas and welfare states. In reality, all those who are inferior will fail. All people who make bad life choices, all handicapped people, all poor people who have kids while they are in poverty. No, it's not meritocratic if a safety net exists. You aren't free to fail and succeed.

You know, such as your family being billionaires and having them bail you out.
Or all those "succesful businessmen" who have failed every enterprise they've started but are still swimming in money while their workers are thrown out on the street
And let's not forget all those "brilliant minds" who base their entire business on stealing other people's work while getting their funding from stupid rich people with too much disposable income.
The only truly meritocratic system is socialism. Only under socialism is there a level playing field

Some born into luxury and success, some aren't. That just means their family is superior, whereas yours is inferior. One can provide the absolute highest standard of life, whereas the other cannot. If you're born into poverty, that means your parents made a poor life decision which the child is paying the price for. Don't have kids when you can't afford them. But poor people are expected to make shitty financial decisions, anyways. Nothing surprising.
Then how are they successful. Then they aren't successful, by definition. Don't call them successful if they aren't.
If all their businesses failed, then they have no money. They are bankrupt. Shitty example. Also, businesses don't owe allegiance to workers or their personal lives.
Then sue them if they stole from you, for example. If you thought up some concept and they infringed upon your idea, sue them. If you can't win and defend your claim, then you deserve the failure. That's personal responsibility. Also, don't disclose pertinent information to untrustworthy people.
Except it's unfalsifiable. See:
It's about as unscientific as possible.
When people are unequal, that's meritocracy. It means that it's working. The level playing field canard is based on unfalsifiable and nonsensical assertions that are internally inconsistent upon scrutiny. You don't deserve to have 'equal opportunity' if you have already failed. Born into shitty conditions? Sucks for you, blame your parents. Can't create and innovate in order to compete in a free market? Nobody owes you anything and you deserve to starve. Only in socialism do you assume an entitlement complex wherein others are supposed to provide for you.

Next you're gonna argue for a monarchy, fam. This has nothing to do with meritocracy.
Because they're rich, fam.
Holy shit you don't even know the first thing about business. The business owner is never at risk, if the business goes bankrupt all the debts are gone while the owner gets to keep all the money he got from his fat salary.
Yes, I guess I'm just gonna sue my boss for stealing my surplus value. And I'm sure the US government is gonna sue Apple for using technology developed through government funding. The point is that these guys aren't breaking the rules, the rules are bent for their benefit.
Which is completely unrelated to my point. The nature of capitalism prevents meritocracy, because there is always a class of people who enrich themselves on others work and then bend the rules to keep themselves on top. You can only have a meritocracy if you destroy capitalism, and that's socialism.
When there isn't equality of oppurtunity, there isn't meritocracy. A meritocracy requires that everyone starts at the same level and has the same opportunities to advance themselves. Capitalism has never had a level playing field.

...

Why would that be a bad thing?
Inequality is the logical conclusion of meritocracy. Most people are unequal, with the top being the successful ones. They have succeeded and continue to succeed. Those who have the ability to succeed, do. Majority of billionaires are self-made, anyways.
Then the businesses didn't fail. That's how you get money: your business/family business succeeds. So the "their businesses fail" point was irrelevant.
That's all business is: risk. Taking a leap of faith and assuming that the product/service you produce will be competitive within the market. You do not know the conclusion without attempting to compete first, hence the factor of "what if".
That's not actually what happens and there are different types of bankruptcy. When you go bankrupt, you don't forfeit all your assets necessarily. It depends on the circumstance, really. If you can pay it all off, then you don't go bankrupt.
The owner can set a salary as fat as he wants: he owns the business, not the state or the workers.
Surplus value doesn't exist. If you assemble an iPhone, you are not entitled to what the iPhone sells for as your salary. You didn't make the iPhone. There are no "individual workers in isolation" jobs anymore. All labour is an interconnected web of effort, from advertising/marketing to assembly/harvesting raw goods. The guy next to you has more of a claim to what the product sold for (as being his "just salary") as you do. In reality, none of what your entitlement complex perceives to be "just" matters. The salary is set when you sign the contract. Don't like it, don't sign. Self-employment is always an option if you are capable.
Apple doesn't claim that, so the case will never exist.
Then it's not scientific, at all. That was my original point, that was the OP and my response to it was regarding the pseudo-scientific nature of it.
It provides a society in which the inequality is at its most overt because people are not equal. It is actually the purest form of meritocracy. Assuming everybody should have a 'level playing field' assumes they have the ability to compete. In a capitalist system, you are free to compete if you are worthy. If you have a good idea, you will succeed. Like I said, most startups and businesses start from nothing.
Unrelated to meritocracy. All you're saying is that there is a class of illiterate workers who are incapable of self-employment. Hence, the lack of capability to compete.
Equality of opportunity exists when the successful can compete and thrive, which is what is happening. When the majority fail, all that means to show is that there is a majority which is incapable. For example, aptitude tests in primary school separate the dullards from the gifted. Just because there are a lot of idiots doesn't mean the opportunity doesn't exist. Just because some kids refuse to go to school or didn't prepare the night before to compose themselves on the test doesn't mean the opportunity doesn't exist. Again, that's all it is: a big victim complex of "I am downtrodden because 'insert boogeyman here'".

And by the way, that's a bullshit nonargument. To say that a system is false because this and this failed is like saying that our theory of gravity is false because one experiment failed. The failure of the soviet union does not disprove Marxism, because it does not prove that the fundamental logic of Marxist thought is false. You could falsify Marxism by demonstrating how its predictions are false, but right-wing brainlets don't even know what its predictions are so that's obviously kinda hard for you to do, which is why you just spout assertions like "marxism is unfalsifiable" without backing that assertion up with an argument, because you have no argument.

Wow, it's almost like both are academic fields that study social systems. What a shock

...

A non-argument assumes that the statement is a non-sequitur, or that it's unrelated to the issue (like an emotional outburst, for example). Pointing out how it is unfalsifiable isn't a "non-argument". It is concerned with the structure of the claim and how it can be disproved (if it can be disproved, at all).
That's not what falsifiability means. Perhaps that's why you misinterpret the argument, calling it 'bullshit'. If you cannot disprove a hypothesis, it is unfalsifiable and unscientific. It isn't saying it's false. The two are different things.
If you can never replicate the findings of the theory and examine what it predicts in the real world, then it is unfalsifiable and dismissed. The theory of gravity has been replicated because it predicts reality as we observe it.
Except the main issue is that the USSR is always disregarded as "not really relevant" to the issue because it wasn't aligned with the 'special flavor of Marxism' the speaker believes in. Nobody dismisses it based on the one experiment: it is dismissed because of the cumulative events concerning failed attempts. In virtually all examples, the failures are always dismissed because personal responsibility for poor policy choices is absolved, or it wasn't "my flavor, which would have done…".
Presuming that they are true. The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove, but on you to prove. Again, falsifying the hypothesis isn't equivalent to saying it IS false. I'm not saying that. I'm asking you to demonstrate the validity or, in this case, demonstrate how it can be falsified. So, it can be falsified by showing how the predictions have been wrong? Well, have they been right? It's just begging the question.
Pointing out how the attempts at Marxism failed and how it is unfalsifiable doesn't make you 'right-wing': it means you follow the scientific method.
That was the first post I made. Right here:
The attempts are completely bypassed: personal responsibility is absolved and armchair philosophers step in to justify the failure. That makes it unfalsifiable. There are literally no "bad choices" made because the failed attempt is dissociated in its entirety. That's unfalsifiable. There is no way to show you wrong, you will always make up a new ad hoc justification. For example, one of Marx's claims regarding the bourgeois.
That's actually the example for an ad hoc fallacy in the Quora link, interestingly enough.

Except capitalism has literally never been a meritocracy. The first capitalists were rich people who bought stolen land from the state and used the growing class of landless poor as cheap labour. Capitalism has from the very beginning been about making money from other people's work while the state pampers you.
Hello! Where are the proofs? Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that those people only became billionaires through other people's work. Without their workers they would have been nothing.
Except it obviously did. The only reason they kept their money was because the system is designed to make sure they keep their money no matter how bad they are.
It obviously exists, it's the very foundation of capitalism. If you want to make money you need to use labor to make a commodity, and the only way to make a profit is by buying labor at a lower price than the price of the commodity. That's surplus value.
And you know who the only person not involved in that production chain? The capitalist. So why does he make all the money? Because the state says he's "entitled" to it because he has a piece of paper saying he owns everything
Top wew. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about

That's all capitalism has been. New ideas and products competing. It's only when the government exercises authority and says "you can't sell this unless I say so" that it ceases to allow for the opportunity.
Stolen from who? The workers? Fight to defend it. If you can't, you don't deserve it.
Because the lower class was inferior and expendable. Most people are. Success and genius are the minority.
In the US, for example.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400
Of the richest of the rich, the majority didn't inherit their wealth.
It is, which means anybody can make it big if they are worthy. Sheldon Adelson was the son of irrelevant workers, but now he is one of the most wealthy men in the US.
Gates started up his own business. Nobody did it for him. People who went to work for him=/=they own his intellectual property/are responsible for his success.
Sure. That doesn't mean they own what he created.
If they hypothetical business owners are rich, then no, the businesses didn't.
Then they succeeded.
That's not all I said. I didn't just say "nuh uh", but you're responding to the point in tune. There is no 'surplus' that you own. Read the employment contract next time before you sign it.
Profit exists because of market fluctuations, sure. Prices vary over time. None of this means it is "your" surplus value. Again, read contracts.
They are the ones who created the employment position to begin with. Without them, the employment opportunity never even exists. Remember what happened the last time the "petit bourgeois"/kulaks were destroyed because of appeals to emotion and false entitlement complexes? Illiterate peasants cannot create the opportunities they seek out because they are illiterate peasants.
It's his business.
The piece of paper is backed by bullets. That's what makes it worthwhile. He doesn't need a state to do that, you can hire security. Next time, go to a Wal-Mart and steal their goods because "fuck paper that says you own things", see what loss prevention does to you. It's not just "paper", that so reductionist and intellectually dishonest of an argument that it should just be dismissed immediately.
Never said this. I said that capitalism is meritocratic and absolving your opportunities and excusing away your failures/the failures of your family is not a defendable position.

...

Except that is provably false. Capitalism has always existed by virtue of the state. The state protects the capitalist, funds the capitalism, and shapes the system to favour the capitalist
Google the enclosure of the commons. The conditions for capitalism were created by the state selling off previously common land (worked by peasants) to rich people and creating a class of landless labourers who only had their labour to sell.
Capitalists literally only own their property because big daddy state protects them. Without the monopoly of violence held by the state, the workers would have seized the capitalists property long ago. Capitalists are unable to protect their own property on their own. A system where every man owns his own property and protects his own property would be socialist.
Except that "inferiority" is artificially created through state force. Workers only exist because the majority of people were denied the ownership of property.
Of course they are responsible for his success. Do you think he would have gone anywhere if he worked completely alone? Do you think he would have gone anywhere if he didn't have the benefit of state funded technologies?
It does because he didn't create anything. He simply appropriated their work. The only reason its his is because the state says it is

Shut the fuck up both of you. Jesus Christ what a battle of autism and lack of spacing this is.

There East India Company didn't dominate European trade in Asia because it was the best. It had a government enforced monopoly. The Dutch did the same thing.

But even aside from the material facts of how wrong you are, one's individual merits are meaningless without possessing or at least accessing capital. The system doesn't allocate resources on any other factors other than profit, so the only quality of "merit" with which capitalism is concerned is producing profit. Everything else is incidental.

Nah

thanks, will check it out

By taxing half of the income? Not really protecting anything if you regulate it to hell.
Seems like the state owned it to sell it to the rich, not the workers.
Not all protection is ensured by the state. You can hire people to defend your factory if you want to, it really isn't that difficult. You've argued yourself into a corner by stating that the only way in which capitalism systems can be protected is through statist intervention. This assumes the entire mercenary field does not exist.
Except they can't, they lack power and unity. They cannot, ergo they deserve to fail and suffer for their ineptitude. Remember what happened last time in 1917? The 'workers' just became the new bureaucrats.
Even artificially created force is still might that establishes a hierarchy. Still means those who lose are inferior.
You don't praise the cattle for driving the till, but the farmer for harnessing it to the animal. Workers are expendable and easily replaceable. Anybody can do it and their efforts are not equivalent to creating the opportunity to begin with: that takes an entrepreneur/innovator.
Still misrepresenting the point, I see. The argument isn't that "capitalists do it all themselves", it's that they create the opportunities inferior workers cannot.
His business, so everything that is created is his own. Try reading employment contracts. You don't actually own an iPhone just because you assembled it.
Yes.
So?
Yes.
pic related. You have always had to compete in order to survive: assuming a free lunch is a mistaken entitlement complex.
Not responding to the point. The capitalists create the opportunities for employment. Need I remind you what happened the last time you assumed proles were competent?
Or was that "not my flavor of Communism".
He can kill you if you think otherwise. If the state disappears, then they will hire a mini-army to kill all those who oppose their ownership.
No, I disagree with taxes.
You don't have prior justification to claim ownership to the business. Completely different circumstances.
You never owned the business in the first place.
Already debunked that here:

The 'best' always dominate, so if you say that some inferior alternative was the top of the game, then they were already the best. If you contest this point, then who do you think was the true 'best'?
See:
Already demonstrated how most billionaires in the US are self-made. So no, this is not accurate in reality. Maybe in your head, along with all the other canards about victimization.

It only took 7 hours for that guy to invent civilization! Anarcho-primitivists hate him!

are you dumb nigger

by providing the means to protect the income the capitalist has and by enforcing the capitalists hierarchies

kill yourself

The point is to attack the inaccurate victim complex of "I deserve a free lunch and anything that is opposed to this conclusion is an injustice against me". Competing to survive is not unique to capitalism, and assuming the competition and its results (when they turn out against your favor) are somehow "wrong" because of that only illustrates the idiocy of the main premise: arbitrary deservedness.

By taxing half of it?

It kinda is, in previous times people cooperated to survive. They still mostly do, but commodity relations overshadow it.

cops and money dipshit

Cooperating to hunt and compete with the other organisms doesn't mean assuming the system of competing is 'wrong'. Calling it wrong just because you have to expend energy and will, most likely, fail doesn't make it such.

Who the fuck do you think shows up at your door if you don't pay half of your money. You know, the same money the state is supposed to protect? If you even payed taxes, try to not pay as much and see what happens.

I don't remember calling it wrong. All work done by humans, all inventions have only one goal: to lessen, and ultimately abolish work itself. Your defeatist attitude is like that of the feudalist who though his lord's family would rule over their land until the end of the times. History has not ended yet, we will build a world where no person will have to "earn" a living, whether you like it or not.

You are all being baited by a local sophist from /'liberty'/

Not every invention is concerned with employment. You mean work as in non-commercial work? Like, human effort? We create in order to make our lives better/the lives of our enemies worse? This deliberately vague statement gets you nowhere. How is the atom bomb related to commercial work? It was an invention to level cities. How is that abolishing work? Is working at the local supermarket equivalent to a soldier's job to kill the enemy now?
Yeah, how's that been going for you.

Nah, people from /liberty/ usually write long paragraphs, not this shitty "let's answer every sentence as an isolated unit" bullshit.

it's complete gobbledygook….
socialism always ends up more or less a totalitarian state and in the long run only benefits the selected few in power

More conspiracy theories, it seems…

Responding to points is now treating issues in isolation? Despite the fact that the points and the counter-points are all related, underneath the umbrella of the main premise/the conclusion? Strange…

le molymeme face

This will only allow armchair philosophers to go on about how their version would be totally different. Or how Catalonia (>3 years) can be applied en masse/to a relevant nation.

Before I say anything, I am not a socialist or leftist.

But as far as social sciences go, you could use the scientific method to research your views.

I don't think socialism is a good system in any sense of the word because of how many times it was tried with little differences between each test.

I want to see a return to constitutional republics, where you have to earn your place in society and there's no "human rights", just freedom, responsibility and order based on meritocracy.

anything to keep them nazis & commies at bay

Kill yourself.

The truth hurts, I know.

Why are you posting in bad faith? Canada? Like, do you really expect me to bite this bait?

since when was using the scientific method to observe societies a bad thing. Its how we learn and improve.

If a paticular system fails contiuously despite all of the changes made in each test, there has to be something incomin with failure that makes it fail. And my conclusion is that it is socialism.

My whole point though

That wasn't me.

But I am looking at Canda's recent policy like Basic Income and the increasing number of their social services. I think it would be safe to call them socialist.

No, Canada is obviously a joke. I didn't write it. My point is that the truth of the first few implementations and the failure must hurt, because the only rebuttal is 'my flavor would be better' or 'they simultaneously had the agency and personal responsibility to revolt and overthrow the system, but when it fell apart, they were not at all complicit'.

I don't hold out for any system holding out permanently so long as capitalism hasn't been totally destroyed in the several marking characteristics that make it what it is, wage labor, value-form, commodity productions, classes. So I could care less about your shitpost really. We have a final goal.

Before I say anything, I am not a capitalist or rightist.

But as far as social sciences go, you could use the scientific method to research your views.

I don't think capitalism is a good system in any sense of the word because of how many times it was tried with little differences between each test.

When you try over and over again… what the hell do you get when you hypothesis is disproved? Keep trying to abolish it, you won't be able to do it.
Haven't been gaining any political power or getting any closer to some revolution. There is no 'we', Communism has already been defeated. People don't like those kinds of ideas because they are against public opinion.

'Communism' isn't defeated in so far as classes still exist. Nothing has been disproved, your post is bullshit.

To the third image, see:

The hypothesis has. All the supposed 'worker's paradises' are no more. Their main arguments for revolution have been dismantled and the people have rejected it. That is, if you aren't a champagne socialist complaining about capitalists while you live in the upper echelons of the world's top percentile.

No argument.

Top wew

Well, you said Communism isn't defeated. I said that by any metric you want to examine it, it absolutely is. How many seats does the party hold in any Western nation? How close are you to some revolution? Holding no power=defeated.
Classes existing=/=eventual Communism.

It's true. Water isn't a human right. Human rights don't exist, you don't deserve water. Nobody deserves anything.
We've dealt with this already: God doesn't exist and your objective moral framework is retarded. Human rights are an even dumber extension of universal ethics.

Okay now your cheating, your combidning problems from religious states, and socialist/communist states.

Tried Socialism
Islamic States

And for that ideology ball, how many famines where caused by socialst systems.

You guys invent new classes everyday. Its like you guys are modding diablo 2 or something.

Yes, in practice, not in name. Just like how the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither a democracy nor a republic. The word 'privatization' was invented to describe the Nazi economic policy.

More like, 'the state has defended (with force) the capitalist's privatization of all of the useful land and resources for obtaining water, and therefore I am left without a natural source of water that I do not have to pay a capitalist for'.

The post you linked doesn't specifically address my points, and other anons already addressed those points you made.

...

But it isn't. It can't be defeated as long as capitalism still exists.

It's fascinating how you can claim to be well-read while conflating every state power with capitalism. What more do you expect from them, really.

State restriction of business and regulation/taxation is as far removed as capitalism as can be. Businesses are not in the hands of the private owners if half of their assets are seized annually by the state.
National Socialists aren't capitalists, they aren't socialists, either. Titular points are not relevant, I agree.
How does this demonstrate their capitalist behavior if states seized assets in the name of the war effort? If you have a factory and operate it, only to have half of your total wealth stolen by me every time I decide I need more money, you don't own anything: I do, and take what I wish at my convenience.
Also, war isn't capitalist. A siege of a city isn't "capitalism".
By taxing half of his wealth? If that's protection, I wouldn't want to see an attack.
The post's image explains the entitlement complex. Nobody owes you any water, food, etc. You don't deserve anything and if you die, you die.

Nobody owes you any water, food, etc. You don't deserve anything and if you die, you die.

So Communism is doomed to sit in the shadow of the more successful system, capitalism? Sure, fine by me.

Not cheating, just applying a single standard here. Capitalists love to use problems in "socialist" countries that are unrelated to the economic system (like ethnic wars, religious wars) to blame socialism for. A good portion of that 100 gorillion number comes from that.

Imagine Louise XVI. preventing the French Revolution by telling the masses that "look at the countless failed peasant revolts and the Husites they all failed now go back to the fields lol"

Lenin's Red Terror and Stalin's collectivization/forced labour camps are a result of their own policies when in power. Political repression of 'kulaks' or 'counter-revolutionaries' are attributed to the inevitabilities of Communism just as the Capitalism death squads are attributed to capitalism… oh wait.

We don't have monarchies anymore and you are not close to any revolt, sorry to let you know. Marxism can not take roots the USA so long as people realize they enjoy opening up businesses.

The only people suffering from an entitlement complex are the capitalists who think they have a right to bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, anti-union laws like right-to-work, arbitration, limited liability, intellectual property, and private property, all of which a paternalistic government and state violence are indispensable to maintain.

But the vast majority of the problems has either came from problems created by the system.

And when I said FAILURE, I mean that either
A. Everybody ended up poor or worse off. (Mexico, Cuba)
B. A famine happened. (USSR, China, North Korea)
C. Genocide of the intellectual/entrepreneurial class. (USSR, China)
D. State collapsed or had to seriously reform to maintain order, often dropping most of the socialist system all together. (Somalia, Venezuela, USSR, and China)

Sure, and you're not entitled to not get ventilated by me and my buddies when we get sick of your shit and decide to take the food and water for ourselves. You may think it's perfectly fine, because you don't think it's ever gonna end in a bad deal for you, but they don't, and they outnumber you 100 to 1. Better hope you have enough coca cola death squads to protect you.
Capitalists are the most entitled people on the earth. They think they are entitled to everything without any responsibility or repercussions. Luckily for communists, most people have a sense of justice

Nope, let them fail and eat dirt. Capitalism=/=state intervention/ and regulation.
Nope, see above.
This seems to be a concept you really don't understand. If I only let you play with your dog on the weekend, do you exercise autonomy and control over the schedule/freedom you have with your dog? Or do I, the rule-maker.
Unions are retarded. You don't set restrictions on employment, the employer does. Don't like it, kiss my ass.
No, these do not exist under the thumb of the state. Circumstantially, yes. Not universally.

I ask again: how many seats does the Communist party have? Are you loading up on guns to revolt? No, there is no 'we'. You're fragmented and don't exist beyond fringe groups nobody cares enough to look into.
[citation needed]
Where are the reserve Red Army soldiers? All these groups ready to revolt? Oh wait… they don't exist.
*Handouts
Just say handouts, it's easier.

Ever heard of the 99%? Workers, fam. It's in the self-interest of the worker to overthrow capitalism. Push them too far and there'll be blood on the streets.
Who's working to get us all food, water, medicine, shelter, literally everything? Workers. You know who doesn't? Capitalists. Capitalists are the ultimate welfare queens, they only exist through other people's work

By why do I owe a large corporation money for being alive? Why are they entitled to that water and food? Nobody was born because of their own free will. You did not choose to exist. But for some reason the wealthy deserve to control all basic necessities and are entitled to compensation for it because I have the audacity to allow myself to exist.

Most of your response is basically "not real capitalism."

So what you're saying is, "I can't handle free organization of self-interested individuals (which would be permitted in theory in a free-market society), so therefore I need the state to come in to prevent this." What an entitlement mentality you have.

I also notice how you conveniently did not address these state-granted entitlements: arbitration, limited liability, intellectual property, and private property.

We'll say this to you someday. You're correct that things are balanced on the side of the capitalist now, but you're a fool if you think it'll remain that way forever, especially now with the reduced living standards. People are taking notice. What goes around comes around.

I ask again: where are the army reserves, or the masses ready to fight? Nobody cares to fight over the ramblings of some middle-class Jewish guy. It's pseudo-science.
Wow… almost as if people don't just deserve things without effort and free lunches don't exist…
Because they don't need to. They built businesses and succeeded. Those who fail are (deservedly so) always living a reminder of their failure. Life isn't fair, what do you want me to say.
That's not what a welfare queen is. They can buy all that shit with money. When you say "muh water is a human right", you sure as shit won't be purchasing it.

See image in:
Go live in the forest if you want to, literally nothing is stopping you. You'll run into the same problem there: you will have to work to live. All organisms compete to survive and breed.
What water, what food? Not every company is Nestle or McDonalds. If they don't own in, they don't have a claim to it.
Free will doesn't exist.
You don't choose anything.
Bill Gates doesn't have a monopoly on water. Even if he did, so what? Like I said, nobody owes you anything. If he has the influence and power to control land, women, water, etc., that just means you do not. Envious entitlement means nothing.
No, nobody owes you anything to ensure your existence. Not in the US "capitalism" system, not in the ancient hunter-gatherer societies.

Answer this question: If I only let you play with your dog on the weekend, do you exercise autonomy and control over the schedule/freedom you have with your dog? Or do I, the rule-maker.
No need to divert if you can't, just let me know.
Nope, I'm saying that if I decide one day to not hire people who associate with unions, you can kiss my ass if you take offense at that decision. Make as many unions as you want, I'll hire the Chinese guy who will work for half of what you will and no bathroom breaks. No more "muh union" bullshit if I say so. My business, my rules.
Already did. Improve your reading comprehension.
I ask again: how many seats does the Communist party have? Are you loading up on guns to revolt? No, there is no 'we'. You're fragmented and don't exist beyond fringe groups nobody cares enough to look into.
Woah… so this is the power of LARPing… truly amazing

Holy kek. Seriously, fam, we could go on all day and no one would be convinced. You're arguing against a straw man, for an imaginary order of things that does not exist and has never existed. Your ideology only exists due to a wilful ignorance of the reality of our society and of history, in favour of blind support to a system and a class of people who don't care about you and likely will never reward you. I hope to god that you are actually the porkiest of porkies because at least then you'd be acting in your own self interest. At least I'm actually supporting a system that would be in my benefit

...

(Test to see if WEBM works, esp. if audio isn't broken when I upload.)

If it does, aynclap is gonna be in some trouble faced with recorded historical reality.

Marxism is pseudo-science when it's unfalsifiable, sorry. Dissociation and armchair interpretations that are next-to-irrelevant (to amending history) don't make the prior implementations 'not your flavor of 'x'' because nobody cares what your flavor of 'x' is.
Yeah, you lot are convinced the revolution is on its way. How disconnected from reality can you be?
Elaborate, with citations of my posts.
You can use this against any person's beliefs to claim a high ground. Unconvincingly, but you can try.
Why the fuck are you so entitled to always be concerned with handouts? Why should I be rewarded for not doing anything?
A welfare state with handouts and bread lines. Okay. How'd that work out the last times they tried that?
Answer this question: If I only let you play with your dog on the weekend, do you exercise autonomy and control over the schedule/freedom you have with your dog? Or do I, the rule-maker.

Absolutely based

I actually thought you were serious all the way to Canada.

This is about as retarded as saying "the state is the only way you can educate/feed/shelter people, no other alternatives exist". Private agencies enforcing borders occur all the time. The police don't step in to seize you if you trespass upon my land: my bullets/guard dogs/hired mercenaries do.

Except it's okay to tax capitalists (under capitalism) because it's not actually their money. It's the worker's money. (You erroneously think it's yours because you feel you are entitled to the work of others.)
Taxes would be unnecessary if people only made money that they earned through their own work. Most socialists, communists, anarchists, etc are against taxes because they don't affect ownership of the MoP, they are strictly a capitalist solution to inequality (they preserve capital accumulation, wage labor, and hierarchy), and finally taxing people who do work for their money is equivalent to exploiting them in business. But again let me emphasize that under a socialist (having achieved worker's control of MoP and production for use) system, taxes are unnecessary when workers at the firms can control how remuneration is done.

Well then you should be confident that without the state to help you here by restricting unions, that you'll win out over the workers.

this part
It would seem that every instance of these capitalist entitlements has been state granted. Can you name one example in history when:
came about without government intervention?

It doesn't matter because as far as trends are concerned, people are becoming more and more dissatisfied with capitalism. Political events are cyclic, and only fools think that things must remain one way or the other.

Hmmm…

Just one, before I ask you to answer human history and barely 400 year old phenomenon of capitalism and the 192,000 years of the modern human's history as communistic; properiless, moneyless, stateless, valueless and classless. Let's jump in:
I do, because as Marx said, the human stands above animals in strict order of species. But I only stand above you if the societal context of society enables me to and, much more importantly (and history vindicates this view), if it's systemically necessary for the reproduction of the mode of production we live under. Otherwise you can ask me why it's not all out war between us all the time, o wise lord of the flies.

Marxism uses recorded history to make its material claims:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm

Hold on now, are you arguing against the history of all hiterto existing capitalist society, and the fact that recourse to the State was an emergent process, not an intrinsic one? That, indeed, the bourgeois class under feudalism first tried to have capitalism with non-State militias, but that it found out that it's much easier to capture the State, and indeed the only long-term solution for the mainstay of capitalism?

Borders of a nation State.

You only have the long term existence of your personal system of private defense by extension of living under a paradigm of a total national capital, within which lies the realm of the State and the national territory in which you occupy your private property.

This all doesn't even reach into deeper, more obvious things: that to have a long-term commodity production relation, you need a defacto State entity to enforce a universal currency, but also to print it, valorize it, and obtain a mutual method of trading funds. Again, historically, capitalist themselves tried to move away from non-monetary systems like the gold standard because gold is not something that works even close to long term, and it's completely ineffectual for balance.

And all of this begs the question: what do you call a universally-applying organization that enforces martial matters? "State-but-not-really-a-state?" And are you seriously delusional enough to believe that the police does not shoot trespassers of private property when the proprietors call them to, or the cops of the bourgeois State don't notice it? Do you seriously not see that the State and capitalism are utterly symbiotic historical elements?

Oh please. The point is that it's somewhat harder to protect means of production with hired thugs alone, and more elaborate means of keeping proles in check have been developed for a reason.

...

Surplus value doesn't exist, read contracts before you sign them. If you complete a sale, you don't "own" what you just signed off on. If you sell your house and I re-sell it at a profit after flipping it, you don't "deserve" what I get from the sale.
Also, workers don't own the businesses, the capitalists do. So it's their business and wealth, not the workers.
Still not their work. Assembling products=/=ownership of the sales.
Tell that to the state.
So the progressive tax rate doesn't exist? What a foolish statement. It's the capitalist solution to inequality to take half of their shit. Again, capitalists=/=state.
Progressive tax rates do the exact opposite.
Let me emphasize that under a system where the moon is made of cheese…
Means next to nothing because it is an improbability and all attempts to falsify the claim are defended with the same argument: well, one day it could be…
You do if they want to compete.
None of those are capitalist: it's the answer to the question you refuse to answer (the dog analogy).
Kind of does. No political/violent power=no rule.
Cite your claims, then show how this equates to your replacement. Disagreement with capitalism=/=agreement with your version of a system that doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah, not a state. All authority=/=a state. If Wal-Mart loss prevention kills you, that isn't "a state".

Nobody's saying this, and Marx certainly did not either. It was the whole point of his thought:
A communist society will only emerge as the product of discontent at the present in the working class, just like capitalism emerged out of the limis of the bourgeois middle class it couldn't fulfill under feudalism.

I see you angrily typing a whole lot of quick replies, forum warrior style. Unfortunate that you lack an understanding of, or choose to ignore, recorded human history.

...

kek

That's not an argument, fam, that's an assertion. Marxism is easily falsifiable, you just need to show how its logic is fundamentally flawed or how the predictions it makes are not in line with reality. Since you don't know the first thing about Marxism, that is kinda hard for you to do, which is why you have to make the ridiculous assertion that Marxism is somehow "unfalsifiable", because you are unwilling to engage with it on an intellectual level and actually study something that might challenge your world view.
Here's my assertion: neoclassical economics is unfalsifiable. Why is it unfalsifiable? Because its models are explicitly formed around an ideal version of capitalism that does not, has not, and can not exist (perfect competition), because capitalists will always be, in some sense, irrational and flawed actors, and competitors in a capitalist system are incentivised to take measures that would destroy such a system in order to benefit themselves, even at the expense of the long-term viability of their business and the system.
The collapse of capitalism certainly is. Capitalism is an unsustainable system, because the contradictions in the system inevitably lead to a conflict that threatens to tear the system apart, and those conflicts will keep happening until capitalism is destroyed or it destroys itself.
I'll give you one: gibmedats. If you've even read the most basic text of Marx you'd know that socialism/communism isn't about gibmedats, it's about destroying the current class system where one group of people must surrender their labour to another group of people who reap all the benefits. Such a society cannot exist forever because the exploited class will always seek to emancipate themselves and win back the full fruits of their labour from the exploiting class, not to mention the many other contradictions of capitalism that inevitably will cause it to eat itself even if revolution fails.
Except in your case you really are ignorant. You don't even know what it is you're criticising, nor how the system you're supporting was created. All you have are easily disproven assertions that you uncritically choose to believe in because you haven't ever bothered to study things yourself and form your own opinion.
Get a grip, famalam. Come back when you've read a book.

Such is history. Communism will also be a physically won argument.

This is what we call a diversion to an unrelated issue.
So? Electricity is as modern and "new", too. We never had it for the majority of our existence. What a dogshit argument lacking in any nuance. Can't compare time periods w/o context.
The guy who restricts your schedule is human, not a dog.
I'm not involved in the analogy, you are. I'm not comparing myself to you.
The hypothesis has been applied and failed. All ad hoc justifications are fallacious and dismissed as such. That is absolutely pseudo-scientific. You are describing historical analysis: not a science.
Do you mean hitherto? Or are you trying to spell something else.
I never said it was natural. I said that it is not necessary for everything, and it's foolish to assume that it is.
No, I'm saying private property exists outside of the state. All protection does not necessarily have to be guaranteed by the state. Sure, the upper-class might have been buddy-buddy with the state. Doesn't mean private property is dependent on the state.
No, I mean Wal-Mart's territory.
No, this is not an absolute. You can have existence of private property outside of the confines of the nation-state.
What's the state that prints off Bitcoin, again? Isn't the Fed outside of the state? As in, not a government agency?
Wal-Mart does not tax you or force you to sign up for its programs. It's all… voluntary.
Due process. Not in the US, beyond outliers.
Threat of force doesn't exist? No deadly force used.
State capitalism is not capitalism, full stop. Like I said: if I disallow you to spend time with your dog, you don't exercise autonomy/freedom: I do.

The private security doesn't patrol the streets looking for drug users to arrest.

Fucking died!

Will the McCops hold this promise as much as the constitution does with the bourgeois cops, my alt-propertarian friend?

See:
All implementations are dissociated on the arbitrary criterion of an armchair philosopher who thinks his flavor would have 'been better'.
All the hypothesis have failed to be proven in reality. There is no classless societies that exist. You're arguing from the unprovable, the "just wait, it will happen soon, I can feel it". Hence, it's unfalsifiable: you're literally waiting for some future you cannot demonstrate is inevitable.
Appealing to the unknowable future as some inevitability is demonstrably wrong. Also, all the ad hoc fallacies that follow. For example: >Marx: the proletariat are oppressed by the upper-class/bourgeois
That's actually the example for an ad hoc fallacy in the Quora link, interestingly enough.
Formulate a hypothesis and examine the results of the experiment within reality: does it validate the hypothesis? Test the hypothesis and see if your predictions come true. The issue is that the whole 'classless, stateless society' is a guessing game: we are no more closer, nor have we been in the twentieth century, to Marx's prediction as we were during his lifetime.
Capitalism is not meant to have 'perfect' competition, it is meant to have unequal competition. People are meant to fail all the time. It isn't idealistic if the predictions are validated. The supply/demand dichotomy is evidence of this. Workers revolting to take back their surplus value is not examined, as per the predictions. Big differences. People don't forfeit their small businesses because some poor people want handouts. Prediction failed. Global markets trading freely and producing on the marketplaces=predictions validated. Capitalists being flawed does not mean that competition doesn't exist. It means that we are limited by our human faculties. The latter half of the assertion relies on an evidence-based claim, which you have not provided evidence for: how do they destroy such viability?

Another claim without evidence. Marx talked about the same nonsense. It's been quite a while. Still appealing to an inevitability you cannot prove.
See:

The user responded in point, appealing to non-existent human rights to justify handouts, like water/medicine/shelter. See:
Again, another user appealing to "wow, my entitlement complex wasn't fulfilled, my free lunch never came!"
Nobody owes you any medicine and if you die, you die. Not the fault of the system for not providing for you: it's never meant to.
Yeah, how's that prediction worked out, again? The Soviets who weren't actually Communist? The 'worker's paradise' that had to build walls to keep people in? Marx did not expect the revolution to occur in Russia, coincidentally.
None of this disproves my statement: it's a useless statement you made that anybody can make.
Not a citation. Handouts, from the posts I cited above. When you bitch about 'muh starvation', you're appealing to some obligation to provide for the poor (breadlines) and the diseased. Nobody owes them anything and citing the people who died as a result of starvation/no water doesn't mean shit because nobody owes them anything: they are not entitled to any handouts. If they die, they die.

That makes two quotes without citation/context.
Also, the cops are held accountable to the constitution. Your outliers do not write the rule.
"Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society."
So, it's not 'kill them all', it's 'raise them from poverty'.

"Administer instant punishment" = "raise them from poverty"? Are you suggesting a welfare state universalist firm nannying them, as we have today for cases private firms cannot solve either?

And I'll give you the whole collection to do some mental gymnastics over and to keep you a little more occupied. Make it quick and concise.

...

That was the context of the quote you omitted. It's called 'quote-mining'.
The defeatist mindset.

On the fascist quote: mises.org/blog/mises-fascism-again
On Hayek: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship
On Hoppe: In a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.

I don't care about what happens to bums, let them die.
Many are welfare queens because it is comfy.
learnliberty.org/blog/the-welfare-cliff-and-why-many-low-income-workers-will-never-overcome-poverty/

Haha I love this. Great stuff.

This is satire, right?

Nvm, probably the real deal.

But great stuff though, keep it coming. Screencap material found all over this thread.

Also, why would the workers want to keep the current state of affairs which unraveled their families and kept them in a state of preserved economic desperation after removing capitalism?

Like you said "non-existent human rights". They don't have to care that you say its your private company. Its in their rational, selfish self-interest to take it and survive and band together to do it if necessary

At least stay fucking consistent, holy shit

...

I don't usually agree with Stirner because I find the idea of trying to be a person without higher cause to be in of itself a higher cause and how Stirner basically ending with how you can choose your spooks basically begging the question of why I should care if I'm spooked in the first place if there is nothing "wrong" with it but this is the one thing I absolutely agree with him on

You don't even know what they are
That's an assertion, fam. Many things are inevitable, fam. If the contradictions of a system prevent a system from persisting, and the contradictions are impossible to resolve within the current system, then its collapse is inevitable. To disprove this you must somehow disprove Marx's logic, and you are unwilling to engage with Marxism on an intellectual level. You're blindly disbelieving something that you don't know the first thing about. You're no different from any religious person.
That's not an ad hoc fallacy, fam, and your obsession with "fallacies" reveals you as a brainlet who has no understanding of logic beyond these cheap "gotchas". In fact, you are guilty of another fallacy: the strawman. You are creating an imaginary scenario that does not actually reflect the philosophy or arguments you are criticising. The conflict between worker and capitalist is very material: It is in the interest of the capitalist to pay the worker as little as he can get away with so he can make the biggest profit. It is in the interests of the worker to get paid as much as possible, and to ultimately usurp the capitalist. These two interests are diametrically opposed, and the conflict can only be resolved by eliminating class.
It is the goal of communism to create a classless, stateless society, but Marxism does not predict that this would happen before 2017. What it does predict is certain tendencies of capitalism, such as the decline of the rate of profit (which has been steadily declining since before 1900), and the tendency for capitalism to create destructive crises (such as the great depression and the great crash of 2008). Finally, Marx predicts that the contradictions he talks about will eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism, if not socialism (the collapse of capitalism could very well kill us all, or at least destroy civilisation). These contradictions are inherent to the system, and thus cannot be resolved without destroying capitalism, which means that capitalism will eventually destroy itself or be destroyed, just as much as it is inevitable, within our current knowledge, that all people die some day, no matter what we do to delay it. Some miracle might happen that would allow capitalism to persist despite its contradictions but believing in that is as rational as believing God exists, or that aliens will come down to earth and save us from nuclear Armageddon. It is not based on our current knowledge and thus it's just blind faith in some imaginary future miracle. You have done nothing to disprove my point.
Except that's the founding idea of neoclassical economics, which were supposed to be what "BTFO" Marxism. I agree with you that capitalism creates inequality, which is why it is completely at odds with its founding beliefs, the ideologies that support it, and ultimately the basic purpose of a social system. As I have argued again and again, this will eventually tear it apart. If revolution does not destroy it, its own contradictions will
Any rational society would allow for everyone to be able to fulfil their needs when the resources for such are available. That's not gibmedats, that's just a rational distribution of resources. Saying that denying them access to their own drinking water (which was held in the commons before the wells were enclosed and bought by capitalists) because "they don't deserve it" is an irrational justification for a fundamentally corrupt system that fails to distribute resources properly. Social systems ultimately exist to serve the needs of society. If they cannot fulfil those needs, then they must be replaced with something else. "Human rights" are not forces of nature, they were created by lawmen who realised that its kinda fucking important that these rights are upheld.

Fucking saved

...

Nope. Nice argument, though.

Let's examine the claims, from top right and by row.
Liberty is paramount to libertarians, not that I am one. Arguing against Marxist pseudo-science doesn't make you a libertarian. Pointing out context in a quote that a libertarian made doesn't make you libertarian.
Liberty would only be expected as one of the core values. Compassion for others is a useless feat when it is paired with how it is always communicated: handouts. So, people are failing at life: let's lift them out of poverty. Classes are unequal? Well, the answer is classlessness. Tried that, it failed? Well, try again. Repeat ad nauseam.
On the autistic speculation: because you do not empathize with others voluntarily does not make you autistic: the difference is that autistic people cannot "choose" to not be autistic.
You can vote or realign your political party all you want. What a poor comparison.
On the Monbiot article: nothing but ad hominem attacks and the beautiful irony of "they want to do what they want… but I get to have the state do what I want." Pot calling the kettle black. It's literally "stop doing things differently than me!"
On the Quora question (we're getting real academic here): if you bothered to highlight the very first point, the person admits to asking a loaded question.
The science of the libertarian morality piece is interesting. I fail to see how you can cite this and follow from this to accuse others of being autistic. It's a non-sequitur.
On the Peter Corning piece: so because we evolved together, that gives you the right to utilize state power as freely as you please while also berating others for making different choices than you? The conclusion does not follow. We also evolved various vestigial appendages: does that mean we get to raise the tax rate higher because you feel like it? He should actually read libertarian arguments concerning liberty before having a hissy fit as to why they don't argue for a nanny state.
On the trait scoring (without citation): Interesting results if they are scientific, I would not be surprised because generosity, as it is currently described, is "generosity" when you get money that isn't yours, but 'greed' when I want to keep what I earned.
Then, you link to the comments section. This is as far removed as a scientific inquiry into an issue as possible, but what more can you expect: the entire post is an ad hominem attack.
The Mises post has the most important argument unhighlighted. It literally says "what does this have to do with the central thesis of libertarianism." That's exactly the point I'm making. If I was mentally disabled and said everything I said about Marxism, you would not dismiss my arguments because I had a mental disability if it did not impede on the points I was making. How is extending one standard to yourself alright, but getting upset when it is extended to others also alright?
On the Moral foundations point (also without citation): interesting results, as I would not be surprised. Libertarians are not concerned with collectivism, it's all about individualism. I don't care if you are starving, I have no obligation to help you if you are failing. Bear in mind, you're the same people who criticize the US for bailing out the banks during 08, something that libertarians agree with. Let them fail, all other, without contradiction. Any subsidies are contrary to capitalism.
On Rand's point: I would like to see the context of the statement on the hanging. I know objectivists dismiss capital punishment, so I think that might be what she is upset about. Although I am not an objectivist and I don't care for Rand.
Again, you link to a comment as if it is representative of anything. If there's anything you should cite, it should be the methodology of the results of the moral empathy questionnaires.
Then, you link to a good argument. Why should I care for the greater good or poor people? Asking the question again rhetorically isn't an argument, you're just showing your disapproval.
Watch this: why should capitalism be abolished? I don't just repeat the question as if the reader's disgust/approval should make the point fulfil itself. It's a circular argument.

Holy shit you guys are autistic

Depends on how you define profit. You act as if the debate is settled by simply listening to the Marxist side. In reality, the debate continues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Profit_statistics_versus_true_business_profit
This also assumes that because profits fall, society will have to become classless. It also assumes that automation will necessitate UBI or some other system of the sort. In reality, humans will be culled by the billions because they become irrelevant to society.
The middle class refutes this every day it exists. There are no rallies for revolution against the 1%. You are not even remotely close to Marx's hypothesis of some global system of Communism.
They cannot remove capitalism, capitalism has existed and will continue to exist unless otherwise demonstrated. The global market will not just collapse all of a sudden. Unless you are privy to some insider information, your idiotic speculation is nothing but alarmist nonsense.
Yes, you don't own it. Fight to execute the company owners if you can. When you inevitably fail because you are inferior, you will realize that you have failed for a reason: you are worthless to compete when it comes to your own ability.
I could not agree more. There are no human rights. If tomorrow, I go to the house of the CEO of Wal Mart and rape him to death, this is perfectly fine because he could not defend himself. If you can't defend what you have, you don't deserve it.

Stirner argues that while yes, we are spooked, its more or less impossible not to be spooked in some way and its up to us to choose our spooks. Which in the end begs the question "If its not right or wrong to think spooky thoughts or do spooky things, why did it matter in the first place whether I was spooked or not? If I was always acting out what I desired anyway, whats the difference after learning I'm spooked other then knowing I'm spooked? In the end it seems Stirner wants me to acknowledge my spooks because Stirner himself want me to acknowledge my Spooks and I'm basically acting out what Stirner's ego wants.

No, please. Come and touch my private property. I will show you how real my claim to ownership is. Please, come on by. Next time you see me, come by and I'll show you how I don't need a state to defend my property. Nothing is stopping you.

Choosing spooks and using them =/= being used by spooks.

Nice meme.

I've already referenced the prediction of capitalist rot and the replacement with what comes as an inevitable result. That is the primary premise and constantly alluded when criticizing capitalism. Otherwise, you're admitting the entire critiques were without alternative: which is just bitching.
Profits falling hasn't been conclusively determined yet, you aren't even willing to debate the point (just say 'it is' and forget the debate in academia, move along). The only points he was correct on were already observable trends not unique to Marx's predictions: that the rich would accumulate vast amounts of wealth and that the poor would become very poor. Unfortunately for Marx, these did not occur in capitalist nations, as the 'poor' in quasi-capitalist systems are still vastly superior to the 'poor' in non-capitalist systems. The growing gap between the rich and the middle class only shows the absolute success and growth of the capitalists, and how the products/services they create have uplifted the entire human species. The most revolutionary of which is the Internet.
No, an assertion is a claim, or a statement. That is a direct argument against your claim. I am saying that you are wrong to speculate, without evidence, some global market crash and inevitable replacement with the 'superior system' if every time the alleged implementations result in failure. On those grounds (that you dissociated, not me), you have no historical examples of success to point to in favour of the ideology. It is a shitty argument and I'm responding with the logical retort: you have no evidence to support the inevitability and the future you claim to know is just psychic nonsense you cannot demonstrate.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Everything in the physical world is material. I've been arguing about physical land this entire time, I am aware that the matter composing the components we are discussing about exists.
Correct. And?
Non-sequitur. Conclusion does not follow the premise. The worker can strive for higher pay without seeking to usurp, or seize, the business. He can seek to attain wealth while also wanting to start his own business alongside the owner. That's the problem with these reductionist statements, they serve no purpose in the real world and fall apart upon scrutiny.
Class is socially constructed, anyways. You're chasing limiting factors that impede your ability to function. Focusing on one dividing factor we have set forth (you're in tax bracket x instead of y) is irrelevant.

So somehow those billions being culled will just sit around and die without doing anything. Its almost like this situation will necessitate this group of disenfranchised and unemployed people to act out in their self-interest.
We've had multiple revolutions in exploited countries worldwide before and huge calls for reform in first world countries recently
I guess you proved the Soviets right then
…why are you defending capitalism again? So what your saying is were justified now and we totally can seize production?

So if we have more people and more guns to defend/seize things with we're right, right?

Being used and choosing to be used by X spook makes little difference as Stirner explains that you were always acting out your own desires anyway and just using spooks to justify them. All it changes is your frame of mind.

You are making my argument here: goals are not scientific. The 'goal' of a theory is not to 'one day become accomplished.' You can either test and examine it, or you can't. It is not scientific to claim that my hypothesis will 'one day' be able to be examined in the circumstances I predicted. Nobody will pay any attention to it because it is unfalsifiable. It's the same reason nobody cares about what Nostradamus says. Predictions that cannot be tested are dismissed as pseudo-science.
On what basis does it determine the year of 2017 as being 'too early'? Why this criterion, why always conveniently the same year we are in?
Open yourself to the debate in academia before making claims on a topic that is still being debated.
mises.org/library/whats-behind-financial-market-crisis
Take it up with the Fed, not "capitalism".
Sure, it can be either/or. Nothing lasts forever, but the prediction of some global market crash is no different than alarmist nonsense always speculating some currency's crash (always with little convincing evidence and more just 'faith over fact' nonsense)
This is the argument which does not logically follow. Because, one day, you think capitalism will fall, this does not automatically substantiate the role of socialism. On what basis does Marx, or anybody, have to promote the concept? What historical evidence of its implementation, en masse, and subsequent success is there? What is the HDI of the so-called socialist systems? Or the GDP per capita?
You claimed one thing that you did not cite, or bother to asses the counter-arguments to.
You have no evidence to arrive at this conclusion. Your 'settled science' is actually not 'settled', but fuck opposing viewpoints that contradict your worldview, right?
Now you are making the absolute claim that there is not a future in which it does NOT fail. Again, present evidence to prove the speculated models.
An interesting piece debunking common canards: mises.org/library/can-capitalism-survive.
We cannot provide evidence that God exists in the physical world.
You cannot provide evidence that capitalism will fall apart. You are so sure that you say it will take divine intervention to stop it, yet each year you push back the cap further because we are supposed to take you at your word. No, Nostradamus.
You're not making a point, you're speculating a future you cannot prove. Two points: falling profits (not true as you describe it) and destructive crises (not capitalist) are shit 'arguments' you made.
Citation?
The founding beliefs are to promote private ownership. That's the main point. Not state ownership, not public ownership: I own my business and do with it as I please. Inequality is the logical result, as expected. Nothing is at-odds.
Why and how is that rational.

Good thing Marx found capitalism to be a great achievement that would bring multiple new technologies but carried with it multiple inherent contradictions
We've had multiple market crashes in the last few years coupled with them becoming more periodic and shorter in distance. Also, under your own logic any person speculating and predicting on capitalism during the feudal period was idiotic and no person should ever come up with systems or predict resulting systems ever.
Which becomes harder and harder to do as time goes on and emerging businesses either get subsumed or crushed by the more powerful, more influential, more armed (which you addressed before, there is nothing wrong with people using weapons to seize property) established businesses. At some point and at multiple points before it becomes easier and in some cases necessary for the workers to seize production from those businesses.
Class is decided by who owns the means of production or can continually reinvest into capital. Your literally going Feel>Reals now with some "socially constructed" post-modern nonsense.

Assuming you deserve a handout just because you exist is an entitlement complex. You do not deserve anything. If water exists, you do not deserve it. You deserve nothing and are worthless until you prove otherwise.
How is it rational. Cite me a historical example in which such distribution of, say, medicine has been "rational". Define rational. To me, it means that the specific distribution of goods to the people, in that case, has been the most efficient/cost effective. I know for a fact that the seizure of goods in order to provide for 'everyone' results in the same thing that happened to the kulaks. There were plenty of crops and livestock. They had no obligation to hand anything over.
A differing moral framework is not irrational, using the term without defining it in the context to justify it is 'irrational', as in "illogical and beyond reasonable discourse". It is perfectly rational to dismiss arbitrary claims to rights that do not exist/are social constructs.
Fuck social systems.
Social constructs that are arbitrary. A 'right to Internet' does not exist. A right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not exist. There is no mercy, rights, or limitations in the natural world. Nothing is stopping me from raping your child to death except for superior state force. If that disappears, some divine hand of human rights will not stop me. It will not stop me from hoarding all the wealth, water, and food either. And if you cannot fight and kill me to take it, I will do it until you die.

Which is demonstrably false, famalam. here's the proof
Funny thing. Marx actually addresses this in Wage Labour and Capital. Value and wealth are always relative. The worker today might have more things than the worker 50 years ago, but the divide between rich and poor is wider than ever, as the productivity of the worker increases faster than his wage. This generates alienation, as the proletariat see themselves falling further and further behind. If you'd read Marx you'd know this.
WHICH WAS INVENTED BY A STATE AGENCY. It could have been invented under any other system. Jesus Christ, fam, you're losing it.
And I'm saying "where's your argument?" Simply saying I'm wrong is not an argument, and your vague attempt at an argument doesn't actually address my point. Revolutions failing does not disprove Marxism, since Marx does not say that a revolution is guaranteed to succeed (he himself lived through two failed attempts at revolutions). The fact that the contradictions of capitalism lead to crises (which is proven), and the fact that these contradictions can't be resolved (since they are fundamental to the system), means that capitalism will continue to be ravaged by crises until it destroys itself or is destroyed. You have not disproven this.
Holy shit you are incapable of comprehending even the most simple point. I say the conflict is material because it is based on material relations, not muh feefees as your strawman implies
Since you seem to have trouble understanding the next part, I'll spell it out for you. I am describing two conflicting desires of the two classes. Both seek to gain the most advantage over the other; for the capitalist this means reducing the worker to the barest minimum of living, and for the worker this means seizing the means of production, since that is the only way for him to gain the full fruits of his labour. This is also why the proletariat is described as a revolutionary force, since their empowerment would naturally lead to an upheaval of the system
Holy fucking shit are you kidding me famalam? What's this even supposed to mean? Class is created by the mode of production, Capitalism. It is formed "naturally" from the material relations of the actors in that system. Those who own capital are capitalists and buy labour, those who don't are proles and sell labour.

I am not libertarian. If you argue against the Nazis being socialist, does that make you a Nazi?

They have no choice, they cannot do anything.
They can try. If automation is an inevitability, then they won't have a choice. The business owners can simply starve them out and not trade with them (they are no longer needed). They can revolt all they want: the combination of a lack of resources to trade and isolation from the capitalist employers will spell demise. Widespread looting and martial law, until the state falls apart, too. Sounds wonderful.
Greentext is not an argument. Middle class exists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
If they weren't capitalist, it's irrelevant.
Well, the Soviets failed. So no.
Nothing is stopping you except for superior force. If you can trump it, no 'human rights' force will intervene. Nothing is stopping force because it is amoral. Do what you please.
You assume I am one individual sitting with a revolver or something.

The contradictions are in a state of debate and claiming that the 08 cycle was "capitalist" is disingenuous. Boom/bust cycles exist, but not as a direct result of 'just capitalism'. That's reductionist and deliberately vague.
Not as a result of capitalism if it is self-admitted that the state exists alongside to regulate the fuck out of industries.
If I make a risky investment into Equifax and see that their stock drops 20% because of a leak of info, that's one thing. I literally cannot say that "God will have to intervene to stop this stock from dropping" because I have NO EVIDENCE. You are stating that, and I quote, "Some miracle might happen that would allow capitalism to persist despite its contradictions but believing in that is as rational as believing God exists". It isn't that "here's a risky investment, let's roll the dice" versus "I literally cannot be proven wrong". That's why I said it's unfalsifiable: you rely on an impossibility of divine intervention to be able to prove you wrong.

Then the worker deserves to fail if he cannot compete alongside the mighty.
Have you learned nothing of the twentieth century? The main lesson to take away is that the Internet is the second-greatest invention and that the nuclear bomb is the second amendment of the nations who possess them. Once businesses hire contractors to develop them (see: the Manhattan project), there is literally nothing a bunch of homeless retards can do.
Which is socially constructed to have worth/value in one way and another. To use your own arguments: why is success determined by capital? Who is to say that one class is 'higher' just because they have more?
It is just the societal interpretation of what is "the upper class" and what isn't. Money can't buy happiness, yadda yadda. Same old bullshit.

I don't think I deserve a handout, I think it is best for everyone that everyone can reap the benefits of the full fruits of their labour, and are not denied the ability to sustain themselves and fulfil their needs when it is possible for them to do so.
Triage. Medicine is prioritised to those who most need it, excepting those who are lost causes and would be a waste of resources that would ultimately endanger those more easily saved. Prioritising it to those who are most able to pay, and denying it to those who can't (even if there is plenty of medicine to go around), is irrational, since it would save far fewer lives than triage.
And it is perfectly rational to to call denying people basic needs on arbitrary grounds irrational.
Pic related

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Profitability_in_mainstream_economics
Nice sourceless graph, though. Your 'proof' is as rigorous as Marxism is 'scientific'.
That is to say: lacking in corroborating evidence.
Wealth has value because of trust in the currency. I can buy that, sure.
No, if you actually look at the GDP per capita (PPP), this is not true. The worker today is not as 'well-off'. The dollar was not as strong. There are many factors involved; assigning them all to 'capitalism' preposterously reductionist and assumes the Federal Reserve is non-existent.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I don't believe in a lack of the state. Again, arguing against Marxist pseudo-science doesn't make me libertarian or whatever you want me to be.
Also, the point that 'the state makes things with taxpayer money, therefore please continue to steal from me' is poor. Not voluntary, people will always prefer otherwise.
The argument is that you are not a clairvoyant and your speculation lacks in corroborating evidence.
See above. I am saying you are wrong because you have provided no supporting evidence. See the points above. Sources: T.P. Hill, Profits and rates of return. Paris: OECD, 1979; James H. Chan-Lee and Helen Sutch, "Profits and rates of return in OECD countries", OECD Economic and Statistics Department Working Paper N°20, 1985
Daniel M. Holland (ed.) Measuring profitability and capital costs : an international study. Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books, c1984
Dennis C. Mueller, Profits in the Long Run. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986
Dennis C. Mueller, (ed.) The Dynamics of Company Profits: An International Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990
I will continue in the next post.

It means that the previous attempts could not replicate themselves and did not last. The whole mass murder of 'counter-revolutionaries' and kulaks (or even sparrows) that follow mean that the victims don't care about the systems anymore. The experiment fails and the implementation does not exist as a replacement, the hypothesis is…still valid and even proven to be inevitable/absolute truth? Please, tell me more about how scientific the claims are, though. What a superior system socialism is: when capitalist competition exists in the global market, it cannot survive.
Sourceless graphs and "08 was laissez-faire" are not 'proven' by any means.
When a dispute occurs, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claims, not the person who disputes them.
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."
Everything does. It all exists on Earth, too. You have not specific anything.
Already debunked here:
Does not change the fact that the division and assignment of 'worth' of the class is socially determined. The poorest in the USA are upper-class globally.

Not their labour. Surplus value is not 'yours', read the contract before you sign it. Labour as your reductionist interpretation suggests, does not exist: all work is interconnected and no one entity can claim to be the 'owner' of any value EXCEPT for the business owner (he will kill you if you say otherwise in the absence of the state).
Good, so? Not mutually exclusive to capitalism.
Not a historical example.
Good, let them die. They do not deserve anything they cannot defend or earn. You don't deserve penicillin just because you are dying.
Irrational: not logical or reasonable.
So if I decide, as a medical company, to keep my products for myself and not give them to people, even though I can afford to and they need it, is irrational? I, as the CEO, am acting in my own self-interests. From that standpoint, it is entirely reasonable for a selfish agent to act selfishly and in the interests of himself/his business.
See above, it is actually entirely rational to make a judgement in alignment with your worldviews.
Not an argument, calling me 'x' because you disagree with my worldview is only expressing disapproval, not a refutation of my claims.

More sources, please post more 'sourceless graphs' to show how 'the debate is settled, only God can stop capitalism from not failing', I need another good laugh.
Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton, The Millennium Book, A century of Investment Returns. London: London Business School and ABN AMRO, 2000. Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton, Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press 2002.
Martin Feldstein & Lawrence Summers, "Is the rate of profit falling?". Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1977; William Nordhaus, “The falling share of profits”. ‘’Brookings papers on Economic Activity’’, No. 1, 1974, pp. 169–217
Palle S. Andersen, "Profit shares, investment and output capacity." Bank of International Settlements, BIS Working Papers No. 12, July 1987
Luci Ellis and Kathryn Smith, "The global upward trend in the profit share" Working paper, Monetary and Economic Department, Bank of International Settlements, July 2007.
Angela Monaghan, "UK companies at their most profitable since 1998". The Guardian, 14 November 2014
David Mikics, “Karl Marx: the greatest intellectual fraud of the 19th and 20th centuries”, Tablet, 18 June 2013
Richard Dobbs et al, Diminishing Returns: why investors may need to lower their expectations. San Francisco: McKinsey Global Institute, May 2016.
None of this means the debate is SETTLED and only God can stop profits from NOT declining, it means that the debate is still open.

Its almost there is something they can do and it sounds Revolutionary
They can try. If automation is an inevitability, then they won't have a choice. The business owners can simply starve them out and not trade with them (they are no longer needed). >They can revolt all they want: the combination of a lack of resources to trade and isolation from the capitalist employers will spell demise. Widespread looting and martial law, until the state falls apart, too. Sounds wonderful.
So, the state falls apart and there is wide spread looting. And somehow in this no one takes a factory or target the owners.
Ok.
What I meant was that the "middle class" is still the working class and the term tries to differentiate people by income instead of actual class. Under the current system however that income bracket your talking about is shrinking and buckling under economic pressure.
…user, open your history text book
But the Soviets took by force. And if another force came by and took the means of production as well, then I guess they are right by your own logic.
…ok
You assume we don't have more gunfags then a /k/ meetup
Please read Progress and Poverty. Housing crises are capitalist by nature.
I can predict a stock going down by its prior history

You just discovered why it is worthless to try and debate him. It is literally acceptable if we simply destroy capitalism: that means we're the best. So I don't really see why you keep wasting your energy on this shit.

Go read shit and prepare yourself as a communist, comrade.

Into the trash it goes! Remember neoclassical economics is unfalsifiable.
Except that's not what it means, fam. Value always exists in relation to something else. Five bananas are worth one dollar, a television is worth a thousand dollars, a television is worth 5000 bananas. When a capitalist invests, he compares what he must pays with what he gets. In the same way wealth is also compared, so even though the worker becomes "richer" he also becomes poorer relative to the capitalist, and the wealth becomes concentrated at the top, until you reach the point today where 10 people own more than half the earth's population.
Which funnily enough doesn't show wealth distribution. At all. Every statistic shows that productivity is rising while wages are stagnating, literally proving Marx right
Saying capitalism will collapse because of its internal contradictions is not being clairvoyant, it's just making a prediction based on an analysis of the system, which has repeatedly been shown to have consistently made correct predictions regarding crises of capitalism while other economic theories struggle to find an explanation for how, say, they couldn't predict the crash of 2008 when all the signs were there to see and Marxists were screaming their ears out over the coming crash.
Seriously fam we're arguing in circles. You are consistently failing to understand a single point I'm making. It's kinda hard to argue with you when I have to spoonfeed you the basic ideas of Marxism so you actually have an idea of what you're talking about. Seriously, fam, read Wage Labour and Capital
You're the one claiming Marxism is unfalsifiable, famalam. So far you have failed to prove that. You simply saying you've debunked it doesn't mean you have. In the case of class conflict, the goal of the proletariat is to earn the full fruits of his labour, which requires that he usurps the capitalist, since the capitalist only exists by virtue of denying the proletariat the full fruits of his labour. Seriously fam this isn't going anywhere before you get out of your bubble and read Marx.

Stop LARPing and come back to reality, nobody will revolt against 'the capitalist class'.
I agree, I encourage them. Give it a shot, I always enjoy watching a good slaughter. Less welfare queens to deal with, anyways.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
Depends who you talk to. Some would say they are not 'still the working class'.
Let's blame it all on capitalism without comparisons, elaboration of the arguments, and nuance/context.
If they weren't capitalist, it's irrelevant. I don't know who you're talking about if you just say "we have had…"
Yes. The Soviets failed and maintaining and protecting their empire, so they failed. Now, their HDI is leagues better and the GDP per capita (PPP) is beyond what anything the USSR was projected to be. From .6 to .8? I'd call that… a success.
Yes.
Then what are you waiting for, LARPer? Come and take it if you think you can. Have you ever killed another person, or is reading how Maoist coward bureaucrats had their henchmen kill their own workers (which they also protected) consolation?
youtube.com/watch?v=AKyKbPP9SQ4&feature=youtu.be
Then go read the market, genius.

And the workers can kill him in the absence of a state. The "owner" can claim to be the owner all he wants. His contract is meaningless without the state and, as you said, only matters by force.
Good, I'll let them live. I, out my own selfish desire, want them to have it. You do not deserve anything you cannot defend or earn.
Its in our self-interest to take it and distribute it as we please.

Try it. Seriously, try it. My argument is that you cannot and your speculations are unsubstantiated.

You've not responded to the counter-points I made when I contested the accusation you made. Ending the debate and not responding to criticisms doesn't mean your points are proven.
That's what fiat currency is.
That's what fiat currency is, again.
The dollar has worth because the Fed says so.
You are comparing, as you say, "The worker today might have more things than the worker 50 years ago". The same interchangeable unit, NOT the lower class worker and the 'middle class worker' of today and yesteryear. Your own analogy, not mine, here:
"The worker today might have more things than the worker 50 years ago"
NOT concerned with wealth distribution among classes, but of the same class today versus fifty years ago.
Nice citations.
Counter-evidence here:
Or is that 'capitalist propaganda'?
I await your ad hoc fallacies.
spiegel.de/international/business/the-man-nobody-wanted-to-hear-global-banking-economist-warned-of-coming-crisis-a-635051.html
Also, still not 'capitalist': youtube.com/watch?v=AKyKbPP9SQ4&feature=youtu.be
If you care at all, watch the video. Bankers failing is exactly what capitalism wants for inferior investors. Let Lehman fall and burn.
You have not responded to my counter-points to the issue of neo-classical economics being unfalsifiable, nor have you defined an ad hoc to show how the false consciousness (as an answer to I don't feel oppressed isn't ad hoc, by definition), or defined irrationality and explained how differing worldviews are 'irrational', or presented historical evidence for the assertions you are making that would necessitate them as alternatives, nor have you cited a single piece of evidence demonstrating the 'falling profits' beyond a sourceless graph anybody could make in some editor.
Wrong, see:
Dissociation when the hypothesis fails=unfalsifiable. No 'disproving examples' despite the failures of the implementations (which are conveniently dissociated)=unfalsifiable. No historical examples applicable en masse=unfalsifiable. Primary arguments, like falling profit rates, not being settled on=unfalsifiable. Predicting the future while pushing the 'due date' back every year because "not yet, trust me the LARPers will do something next decade"=unfalsifiable. It's a Nostradamus argument to assume that the revolution will happen.

Wrong, usurpation is not the only fundamental goal and your assessment is not as one-dimensional as you think it is. It is entirely plausible for workers to compete for high wages in order to be self-employed or to start a competing business: not to necessarily usurp the owner.
Also, still not your 'labour', I've already addressed the contradictions: labour is not able to be reduced to a single entity to make a claim to 'surplus value' and if you don't like the result, don't sign the contract. If you are going to starve otherwise, compete and make a business of your own, or go in the woods and realize that you will starve in any system if you fail to compete (i.e. no free lunch, hunt the deer instead of bitching about 'muh system').

Go to Wal Mart and try and steal something from their store. Loss prevention will rape you up the ass.
See above. Workers are inferior proles who cannot compete now that the nuclear bomb has been developed. You will literally not to shit, but keep running your mouths like the petit-bourgeois hypocrite you are. Have access to clean water, shelter, and food? Welcome to the upper class.

...

k
By their relation to the means of production as Marx described it, yes they are
I hate using wiki but since you used it as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution
:^)
That video by the way

Not even remotely addressing the arguments within. To use the same ever-rigorous argument that is totally valid: "read a book, ugh."

That is the logical conclusion when the majority of the human population becomes irrelevant. Assuming some state authority will step in to provide UBI and 'save' the irrelevant workers assumes the state will be able to survive alongside the people. Why should they? Why would the state do that? Humanitarianism is always the last resort in desperate times and the first in luxurious times.
Depends who you talk to. Some would say they are not 'still the working class'.
I hate using wiki but since you used it as well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution
Cuba is not capitalist. Simple litmus test: can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to?
Nope, said that idiots who assume they can just 'revolt' as Maoists did (emphasis on 'as they did', not that you are specifically Maoists) are foolish and commit the cardinal sin of historical analysis: conflating varying time periods with one another as if they were interchangeable.
Then you claiming the inevitability of a revolution is just as preposterous.
Then they're the state. If they utilize the state, then they're the state. Only the state can exercise authority upon its branches. There is no "Lehman brothers" branch of the state.
Again, 08 was not capitalist, it is expected for failing capitalists to FAIL, not to be bailed out.
Here's more for you to dismiss fallaciously: aei.org/publication/hidden-plain-sight-really-caused-worlds-worst-financial-crisis-happen-2/.
As you say "read a book".

Oh, I seem to have missed this one. Yay
Yes, my labour. I'm the one doing the labour. It's my labour.
There's an alternative to that, you know, it's called social ownership. Everything belongs to everyone, since everyone is responsible for everything existing. Sounds neat, right? Also nice edge there, Mr Capitalist sure sounds like a tough guy. Too bad there's nothing preventing his hired thugs from taking control in the absence of a state. Welcome to feudalism
Except capitalism has the questionable honour of being the only system that simultaneously overproduces food and starves people. My mind is blown over the sheer brilliance of this system!
Hahaha nigga it literally answers everything you asked for. I just gave you an example of a system that is far more rational than the one capitalism provides. It's okay to be wrong, fam, you can give up at any time.
I wish I had more dank "dat edge" memes
Except we are talking about systems, not individuals. A system of individuals acting in their rational self-interest (as people in capitalism are) can easily be irrational when taken as a greater whole, as my example shows. Everyone acting in their own rational self-interest seldom leads to optimal outcomes in the greater scheme of things. Since humans are social creatures and not completely atomized individuals (as much as capitalist ideology likes to claim otherwise), it is usually preferred that everyone benefits, and not just one. This is the foundation of human society, which is also why capitalism is destructive to society.
Anyways, that's it for me. See you at the guillotine.

See:
You're not addressing the counter-arguments I have made. It is not your 'labour', you assembling an iPhone=/=you own the surplus value.
More components beyond the single cog in the machine.
How has that worked out? How many first world countries operate under that method today?
You will require a state if you desire restrictions upon freedoms. If you say "you cannot open a business and operate this way", you require centralized authority. Either that, or some militia that kills small business owners.
Good.
Good. Nobody deserves to eat, and those who do compete to purchase with their dollar. Africans are not capitalist, btw. A cursory examination of malnutrition among the capitalist nations (not even actually capitalist) and the rest of the failed states demonstrates this.
Not a historical example, actually.
Still no arguments. Let them die, they do not deserve anything they cannot defend or earn. You don't deserve penicillin just because you are dying.
Individuals comprise the systems.
You cannot even define irrational beyond worldviews differing with yours.
The states you call capitalist provide the circumstances which lead all the inferior people from the world to wish to travel to them, as the 'land of opportunity'. Even the lowest class in the US is still far better off than the global poor.
I don't care what you want to think about how things should be, come and take my shit if you can. If not, starve and die.
Free lunches are nothing more but entitlement complexes. A society cannot operate based on handouts and "we should all have things if they can be shared". I don't want to share and you don't deserve life.
There's that cardinal sin of historical analysis.
We can talk about 1917, if you want. Oh, I guess the Russians and Ukrainians would be averse to replicating the Red Terror, though… Oops!

Alright, one more.
Literally every one of your points is proof that you really need to fucking read Marx. You don't even understand what exchange value means. No, it's not fiat. You keep saying you've proven that Marxism is unfalsifiable but the hypothesis you think it makes is not what it makes. Your ideology looks like a weird mix of social darwinism and neoclassical "that's not real capitalism"ism and you seem unable to think beyond that. I'm not gonna dig through a million articles just to make a debunking that you're not gonna listen to because you don't even understand the basics of Marxism.
It seems to be a recurring thing among right-wingers that they somehow think they can debunk a century-old social theory without actually reading or understanding anything about it, and because of that you are completely unable to argue in good faith, because you cannot make an argument that can't just be answered with "dude, what the fuck are you talking about, no one's ever said that", followed by several hours of painful explanation of basic Marxist concepts like fucking exchange value and class conflict, which you flatly refuse to listen to or refer back to previous assertions you made that were later debunked (like fucking iphones) but you didn't notice. It's a circular argument. If you actually want to argue in good faith you first need to be able to see where we are coming from, and that requires that you read Marx. Now excuse me, but I need to fucking sleep

Excellent elaboration and critique. Watch this: Literally every one of your points is proof that you really need to fucking read Mises.
Easy, right? No further demonstration required. Go to bed, you cannot argue yourself out of the hole you've dug.
The 'use value' is arbitrary and redundant. It's irrelevant how some product or service is used, what matters is its state on the market. If I purchase a house, flip it, and sell it in ten years, then I have more to my name than I previously did, adjusted for inflation (let's not even address inflation and socialism, that would be too easy).
Lol, what a maroon. I said "That's what fiat currency is." to the point "Value always exists in relation to something else.", not that the exchange value of some 'thing' necessarily is ONLY fiat. Learn2read.
Yup, see:
The prediction you 'cited' about falling profits is now one of the 'totally valid predictions' you bitched out to defend. Go to bed, like I said. I cited the counter-arguments here:
Social darwinism is expected. Darwin was right. It isn't capitalist if the private owners are irrelevant and don't control shit/have half their shit stolen.
This coming from the guy who thinks 'read a book' is a refutation against my claims, but when I actually properly cite my arguments, he says "meh, me tired, no think hard now".

Lol, class conflict isn't a Marxist concept. He did not first examine or elaborate on the issue. This coming from the guy arguing for Marx's writings as being gospel, yet can't be asked to examine the work upon which he took influence from. Class conflict isn't a 'concept', it is observable truth. It isn't conceptually relevant.
[citation needed]
Post number and highlighted comment. Or else, you're referencing posts that never occurred. First time I mentioned it here:
The response, which does not even attempt to analyze the analogy:

The next time I mentioned it here:
And this is the post I am responding to:
You're so full of shit it hurts, lol. The same post you assert "refutes" the analogy IS the same one I'm responding to, while you're alluding to some mystery post nobody made, then you say I'm making a circular argument. Appealing to a post that refutes something, when that's the post you just made, is as circular as it gets.

The true redpill is that Mises and Marx are compatible.

Watch me use the mong's argument against you, you tell me how intellectually honest it is.
"You just need to read Mises, man."
That's it. I can appeal to books you need to read, but I don't want to read yours or even watch your videos beyond the first ten seconds.

The logical conclusion is that those billion wont just lay down and die without struggling to live.
You we're asking if there was a revolution against a capitalist state that succeeded. I gave you one. Also, a capitalist system with gibmedats is still capitalism.
That.. what? I was saying how you were baiting people to come fight you on an anonymous imageboard like some kid over a video game chat.
>Then they're the state. If they utilize the state, then they're the state. Only the state can exercise authority upon its branches. There is no "Lehman brothers" branch of the state. Again, 08 was not capitalist, it is expected for failing capitalists to FAIL, not to be bailed out. Here's more for you to dismiss fallaciously: aei.org/publication/hidden-plain-sight-really-caused-worlds-worst-financial-crisis-happen-2/. As you say "read a book".
Capitals. Create. And. Use. The. State.
How many times do we have to repeat this, you really think companies don't lobby in the state and would set one up like they historically have if none exist to enforce their interests.
An analysis
fernwoodpublishing.ca/files/globalcapitalism.pdf
And something simpler you might understand
youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

I made no arguments, i just stated a meme claim, I really do need to read Mises, but I believe it makes sense go get through Adam Smith first, and for that I'd have to spend less time shitposting on this board.

In between. By that I mean Sorelianism.

Yeah, my point is that when they try to revolt, the nuclear arms of the mighty will quell literally any revolt. I said it above: the nuclear bomb was the most important development of the twentieth century and it is, essentially, the second amendment for nations.
Begging the question: can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to?
If Cuba disallowed this, then it didn't revolt against 'capitalism'.
I'm pointing out how it's just as LARPy as "muh revolution, hang them muh kulaks."
Simple litmus test: can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to?
If I am free, it's capitalist. If not, it's state ownership. Not capitalist.
Nope, I'm sure they do. The state… the same one that takes half their shit? Yeah, they sure work in unison. Private owners are trying to not get fucked of their earnings.
Here's a thought… let's let them fail!
Yes. Go die in a gutter, nobody cares if you fail. I will say the same for all the crony capitalist retards, they all deserve death for failure.
No. It's demonstrably untrue.

It's a similar theme on this board: no arguments, all socialist implementations are not actually associated with socialism (except for 3 year isolated experiments that still failed), and whenever the same standard of context and nuance is extended to capitalism, it's "no, that's not true, it's capitalism because private owners=state owners".

What kind of autism is this?

No, it wasn't just 'defeated'. Where it was implemented, those nations failed or were conquered. Way to advocate for an 'inevitable system' if it keeps on being triumphed over, lol.

Not that user but
Co-ops Fuck I hate using the Co-ops meme are literally proven to be more efficient but less profitable as they distribute the profits
No, its more that they would question why they would need to work for you in the first place given they can now produce what they need. You might be able to find a few who are ok with working, but no one will be buying because everyone else already has what they need or can just collectively make it themselves. It would be like you declaring yourself a king now and asking people to follow you, you'd be both outdated and unnecessary.
Glad to see you like feudalism
You've got to be shitting me right now, do you even know what capitalism is? How the fuck do you argue that all the resource based companies in Africa aren't capitalist
Again, their just going to group up and take it if its widespread enough. Which you will create.
Individuals exist in the system and work in their individual rational self-interest. Which includes surviving.
The rest isn't even arguments

So less efficient then, Capital just wants to expand, it doesn't care about your (or any worker's) feelings.

Excellent proofs. How 'literally proven' are they again?
Great, go be self-employed. Then if nobody works for me, I can start up my own small business. Call me… a kulak. I guess I'll be free to operate as I see fit with my livestock and property. I'll sell the milk from the cattle I bought.
Yeah, how'd that work out last time? With those co ops that are "literally proven" (without citations). Really big claim, so try and be as diverse in your arguments as possible.
Okay.
Simple litmus test: can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to?
No, they are not. Zimbabwe is not capitalist. Somalia is not capitalist. South Africa is not capitalist. Libya is not capitalist. Profit existing=/=mutually exclusive to capitalism, there are (brace yourself) other portions of the definition that determine to what varying degree the system is 'capitalist'.
Say hello to my nuclear bombs. Can't do shit when you're nuked to death. Keep larping about a revolt, though. Any day now, lol.
In their case, dying. Not a competition if they lose every time.
The rest isn't even arguments, right back at you.

I think he means more productive

Read up on worker coops here:
uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
differently from other firms: the production function is not the same for the two
groups. Two studies – Craig and Pencavel (1995) and Fakhfakh et al (2012) – apply
both of the estimated production functions to the current inputs of each group
of firms. Both studies find that on average overall firms can produce more with
the technology of employee-owned firms. '''In other words, the way worker cooperatives
organise production is more efficient.''' (emphasis added)

Come on, this is getting too easy. Is there anybody here who can demonstrate a shred of scientific integrity in assertions rooted in delaying experiments because "maybe next year lol, global market crash soon stock up on ammo trust me"?
Almost all the arguments bashing the USD have been used and all of them are alarmist drivel that is dismissed if you care about the scientific method. Test the hypothesis: will the USD crash and be replaced with a currency-less system? No. Okay, revise the hypothesis. The USD will not crash as was predicted. Okay, now when decades pass, you don't get to jump on a train and claim some market crash is imminent… unless you have proof. This was the best proof you managed to shit out for declining profits:
Which was countered here:

Page 18 is where the report discusses productivity, but the whole thing is an interesting read

wew
Do. You. Know. What. Capitalism. Is.
Hell even Adam Smiths doesn't describe it like you do
We're pointing out how eventually people will have to do that and you've even described the conditions in which they must
You don't know what capitalism is, we get it
Your actually defending lobbing at this point. You even said earlier that companies abuse the state to kill of competition.
Great, they fail. Oh shit, the economy is now in shambles and people are out of work? How could this happen? Its almost like these companies got so large that failure meant economic crisis and huge unemployment which could set off a chain reaction. Companies would never ever use this fact to blackmail and put themselves in a critical position.
Crony capitalists are bad? But I thought you said the strong and competitive survive, and they're just using whatever means are open to them.
You've shown this entire time you haven't even read Adam Smith or Ricardo

Yes I did, thank you. Have something cute.

Why do you misrepresent the claims as if they were solid and sure? For example, more sophistry: Where we have data for workers’ co-operatives we observe that the co-ops are actually larger than other firms. Pencavel et al (2006) use data covering 2,000 worker co-operatives and 150,000 other firms in Italy, observed over 13 years
This is the study: econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/33810/1/514361417.pdf
When you cite a source, at least read the footnotes. The authors are more honest than you are and they do not rush to conclusions. You have still not demonstrated this to me: the claim is that "Co-ops are literally proven to be more efficient but less profitable." The issue is not as one-dimensional as is painted. From page 30, pic related.
Also on the topic: mises.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-recipe-ruin. The argument is steering in the direction, so let's refute some old canards first.
Now generally, when profits are not as high, this means that the productivity is comparatively low given how the entire premise is that profit IS productivity in the comparisons.

Automated. Remember? People are irrelevant. Build new robots.
More robots.
Don't nuke where you eat.
MAD
Can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to? If Cuba disallowed this, then it didn't revolt against 'capitalism'.
I don't care about Smith, answer the question.
Don't hold your breath.
Simple litmus test: can I open a business and trade freely, or am I forced to give half of my earnings and sign up for programs I do not agree to? If I am free, it's capitalist. If not, it's state ownership. Not capitalist.
Yeah, it's called crony capitalism. In your mind, everything not socialist is capitalist, even though calling NK Communist is wrong because 'muh context', but Cuba taxing the shit out of businesses is "capitalist" because state restriction equivalent to private control.
I sympathize with their motivation, but the state is not congruent to their goals.
How do you know this is the opposite policy was implemented?
I never said they were bad, I said that they deserve to fail and die.
State control=/=private control. Really simple.
mises.org/blog/free-market-economics-and-crony-capitalism

Re-posting what I said in the other thread
The inevitability of capitalism makes it so that the number of those who are self-employed will always be lower compared to those who exploit others labor as they will always obtain a greater profit and be more competitive. The economy itself depends on cheap, low wage labor and those with greater profit will always be able to reinvest and expand their industry until those who exploit less are subsumed or crippled financially through competition. There is a reason why the number of local mom-and-pop shops is dwindling or now owned by a larger company.
Glad we cleared that up
Do you have commodity production? Do you have a circuit of capital?
Spoiler You do
Glad to see we're on McNuke level now. Better get ready for the other company nukes and killing off a majority of the population so you can sell to no one. We're coming bucko.
Geez, I guess you have nothing to worry about then. Socialist powers could never obtain nukes or posses overwhelming numbers. Ever.
I'm starting to understand why Tankies exist

Good. To assume otherwise would be to fallaciously assume equal faculties amongst the masses.
Also, it isn't exploitation. Read contracts before you sign them. The subsequent 'muh starvation' is not mutually exclusive to capitalism, nobody owes you anything and if you do not exert energy to maintain your existence, you die. Rightfully so.
Good. Sweatshops have lifted millions from poverty. Those same jobs are jobs people die to get into in the third world. It's that reinvestment that creates the opportunities that people die to get into the first world to experience. Stifled as they may be.
There's about 11 trillion in small business assets, actually. In the US, at least.
Capital circulating freely, without restriction? If not, it isn't capitalist. If private owners are not the owners of their own capital, the entity that IS actually holds authority, not the private owners.
If they were actually capitalist, they wouldn't be in such a shit hole: cato.org/publications/commentary/capitalism-will-eliminate-poverty-africa.
State capitalism doesn't perform as well, at least in China: cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/state-capitalism-vs-private-enterprise.
The following link: mises.org/library/capitalism-versus-statism.
Refutes the conflations you are making. Statism is not capitalism, full stop. Profit existing=/=absolute private ownership.
Try and revolt when businesses quell all inferior resistance. Like I said, all your ad hoc fallacies for 'dude just wait, revolution around the corner' are dismissed as being illogical/bullshit excuses. The mighty will get so powerful that you will not even know what to do when they abandon human workers.
Yeah, they relied on espionage. They couldn't develop the tech themselves. What else do you expect, a Marxist thieving then complaining when others employ him (I want more because I said so!).>>2061550

Btw, your mods who love confronting arguments reasonably are banning me, so don't expect replies ITT as frequently. It was fun refuting most of the ad hoc justifications, though.

Who are you selling to now? If everything is automated, who is earning money to spend on your products?
Well that's going to be difficult given geographics and population now isn't it
Your a walking meme
You don't know what capitalism is, but even i your definition, yes, it was very capitalist
I literally can't because Smith founded our understanding and conception what we now call capitalism.
Read. A. Book.
See above.
Why do they deserve to die if, in your own words, the strong and competitive survive
State control=/=private control. Really simple.
mises.org/blog/free-market-economics-and-crony-capitalism
Stop reading mises. Literally even geolibertarians laugh at mises.

I'm entertaining your pipe dreams here. I'm not in agreement that automation is an inevitability as you describe. Even if everything is automated, all the masses are culled and die off. So it's just wealthy people competing for power. They don't need to sell anything, they coast along until death.
No, not really.
Assuming automation and corporations getting nukes exists in the future. See, I am uncertain, so I remain agnostic on the issue. Could be, could not be. Unlike sophists who literally argue that only divine intervention can save capitalism (see alarmists like Nostradamus).
What was the taxation rate in Cuba? Could you provide private healthcare competing with the state? Tell me how free markets existed, I need to get a good laugh.
Smith doesn't exist to critique Cuba. You don't get to say he thinks it isn't capitalist, we extend the concepts and definitions to Cuba to see if it was capitalist or not. So, state control that makes a profit=/=capitalism, because state capitalism cannot be conflated to be actual capitalism.
Not a citation, not an argument.
See above.
How do you know this is the opposite policy was implemented?
Let them fail, let them starve. Who cares.
They weren't strong.
Wow, so this is the power of Marxist intellectuals.
Everybody laughs at Marxists, but I still entertain the arguments.

I just love it when jobs become a race to the bottom and we have to compete with sweatshop labor, don't you? Lets all just lower out wages into the dirt to compete on the global market. Lower standard of living for everyone else, capitalism is truly the savior of the west.
27.9 million business total and decreasing with a good portion owned by other larger companies and operating out of them.
Stop making up your own definition of capitalism or using mises
Most poverty in Africa is actually due to land hoarding and resource ownership, but if Africa wasn't capitalist Marxists would push for it to become capitalist so it could industrialize
One, those literally didn't refute how capitalism is still capitalism when there is a state and tried to equate capitalism with something its by definition not by throwing its own in. Two, Mises and subsequently Rothbard use actual magic to justify their positions.
Your just justifying us revolting earlier
Not even a tankie, but hit up the cybernetics thread. They made stuff. Deal with it.

So its feudalism now, which I guess from before you have no problem with.
Your the one who started this nuke train
jacobinmag.com/2015/09/cuban-revolution-fidel-castro-casinos-batista/
For those who could afford it of course. Again, your definition of capitalism has no backing.
Capitalism is capitalism as non-state which is really just a bunch of smaller states capitalism is to capitalism. If it engages in commodity production, if they follow MCM, its are capitalist.
I told you to read Smith. Actually read Marx while your at it too. Wage Labor and Capital is a good place to start.
A lot of people who be the own carrying the burdens and feeling the ramifications. Is it hard to imagine that not only you exist.
They exist now, by your own definition they are strong because they did what they needed to
I just prefer not referencing magic
Its that they are wrong, not that I don't "like" them. There is no demonstrable argument in all your links on an actual definition of capitalism or what it constitutes besides "voluntary exchange", which is so vague it hurts and has no historical backing at all. Even the Mutualists make better arguments then this.

I'm done. Make sure you come in with something that doesn't equate to a post-modern definition next time.

I might be a Tankie now

Except my TV is not worth the same to me as the equivalent amount of bananas. What the fuck am I going to do with all these bananas? I don't have the permits or infrastructure to sell them on, even if I did it would take time away from my actual livelihood. They take up a whole room, are just going to go rotten and attract pests, I'll have to pay someone to get rid of them, and I can't even watch anime now to forget about my fucking ridiculous banana situation.

Jesus christ, fam

Yes.
If you fail. Marxists already assuming their failure, I assume this is something you are familiar with.
That's why we don't have sweatshops in the West. Capitalism in the third world has lifted millions out of poverty, they race to the West to try and get to a quasi-free market.
Sure, it might be decreasing. Doesn't mean they don't control a huge portion of the market.
Then it isn't my definition. investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
If the private owners are taxed half their earnings, who owns them and who do they listen to? That's right, the same totalitarian state your ideology always reverts back to.
I'm pretty sure it's because they are incapable at creating and maintaining a first world civilization. That's why they need to immigrate to get out.
State control=/=private control.
Nice diversion. Just let me know if you have to bitch out of an argument.
Still am. I'd love to see how badly you fail.
Gotta love state capitalism, right? I mean, they weren't even remotely socialist, so you're just listing off tons of innovations state capitalism made.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
A farmer that could make his family live with his crops but didn't make money now work in a sweatshop for a wage not enough to support said family, another person saved from poverty!

Sure. Who cares. This is all speculation, nothing is set in stone.
In response to the postulation.
Cuba having a dictator=/=capitalist. If the private owners do not control the means of production, it isn't capitalist. The private owners did not control the means of production if they did not have autonomy over their own enterprises (another entity did: the state).
Here is the definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
I didn't make it up, google it yourself. When the private owners are subservient to another entity, it isn't capitalism.
Depends. Do the private owners control the means of production? If not, it's not capitalism.
A symptom of capitalist production, but not required for its definition to be fulfilled. That is the result of its production, but you are begging the question because you conveniently bypass WHO control the means of production and the subsequent trade.
Still not a citation.
easybib.com/reference/guide/mla/book
I don't care, my obligation isn't to help the people who have failed at life, like you.
Through the artificial assistance of the state. That makes the state strong.
Instead, you make unfalsifiable claims about "divine intervention" being the only thing that can stop your claims, Nostradamus. See:
Already responded with counter-evidence, but you just dropped the topic. Do I need to remind you the last time one of you idiots wanted to actually cite something properly?
Nice sourceless graphs you got there.
Already demonstrated this.
*Definition I like.
Lifting yourself from the debate instead of defending the sourceless graphs or substance-less claims you make (only God can stop capitalism from failing, we know this because of evidence that isn't actually sourced) cedes the point, and position, in my favor. Thanks, that was really easy. Try harder next time.

adamsmith.org/blog/international/buy-ethically-buy-sweatshop
Really boils down the Marxist mindset perfectly: stop competing better than I am. Farmer cannot compete? Then let him fail.

Pic related is you, famalam

Yeah man women working in sweatshops do it for emancipation and choosing when to marry and not to support the family they already have because the husband's and the kid's wage is not enough.

Not an argument, you're just showing disapproval and insulting people because of it.

People like freedom, yeah. That's why Marxism has failed time and time again: free trade will always be more lucrative to the people, not breadlines and 'worker's paradises' that have to build walls to keep people in.

Good thing I wasn't trying to make one, famalam. None of your points are worth taking seriously, and the fact that you keep crawling back here after getting dunked on is just pathetic

What do they say about living in a glass house already?

Do you want me to bring up the HDI of all those 'worker's paradises' that worked out in the past? Or were they so insignificant that they didn't even register as a 'nation'.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Freedom for the slave owners okay. Freedom for capital to move all manufacturing overseas. Freedom within capitalism is a meme, a slight concession that capitalists (not you unless you own a large company) have to make to prevent revolution.

That's not slander, famalam, that's me telling the truth. You're not entitled to have your shit opinions acknowledged. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to say something that we haven't heard and debunked a million times before.

You are demonstrably wrong. Not slavery.
Not mutually exclusive to capitalism, no "free lunch" exists without an entity exerting energy to provide sustenance, either for you or by others to maintain you. Welfare doesn't just exist out of nowhere.
Not your business, kiss my ass if you disagree. You have no ownership, no might to establish ownership, so it means nothing.
You just listed freedoms within capitalism.

Slander: a false and malicious spoken statement.
Remind me again: who's the one that's been calling me autistic, porky, pathetic?
Keep bumping the thread, then.
Sourceless graphs aren't 'debunking' anything. Presenting false definitions of capitalism that dismiss the concept of private ownership instead of state ownership are not cogent points. I've presented citations backing up my claims, you have not. Remember the last time you lot cited something here:
To which I replied:
STILL no response. What are you debunking again?

And like I said it isn't false. You're an autistic brainlet with an entitlement complex who thinks we're somehow obliged to take you seriously. No one cares what you think

Keep doubling down on the ad hominem attacks while simultaneously calling others irrational/that you've debunked anything, I'm sure that's how rational arguments are formed.
Keep bumping the thread, you've already admitted you are incapable of discussing ideas logically. Wait until someone more emotionally composed can come and debate.

An argument kinda requires that you have one of your own

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
I am making an argument: I am stating that sourceless graphs do not debunk anything, and that running home with your tail between your legs, so to speak, when you have not even responded to the counter-arguments I have raised is illogical. Just saying 'not an argument' assumes that your reasoning for such an accusation is open to everyone, when in fact, it is not. I have made my reasoning clear when I accuse you: sourceless graphs are not evidence.
For a primer, try reading the links I've posted offering counter-evidence here:

By all means, keep on glossing right over my counter-points, though. I accused you of ad hominem attacks, to which you admitted to, then doubled down saying others aren't making logical arguments. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

...

Jesus Christ you're oversensitive. I literally just popped in this thread to laugh at you, and you seem to think I'm every person you've ever argued with. We have this thread every day, famalam. Your ideology hasn't become any more coherent since then.

At least you admit to your irrationality. That's the most honest you've been. Good job.

Stay mad, friendo

You should be the one who is mad, you had a chance to defend your position, but you resorted to irrational arguments and citation-less claims. If you want to assign emotions to me to make yourself feel better, be my guest.

No

user from back again, you've been talking with someone else
Failure in the market, as you probably already know, is common and most self employed people by the very nature of how they operate will never stand to compete
We don't have sweat shops in the west because during the 19th century union banded togehter to force companies to comply with standards and health codes as well as a shorter workweek and minimum wages. The companies at the time had to comply because they couldn't move their labor anywhere else until the post-world war 2 environment where they could now export their labor globally to other countries, including the ones America now held as territories.
>Then it isn't my definition. investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
Oh, so you still don't have a proper demonstrable definition and have to resort to a wiki one which still fails to have any basis or formula on circulation. Good to know. Great to also know your definition says capitalism can exist without a free market.
If employees depend on the pay of their employer to survive and the employer can always threaten to hire someone else or move away unless they decrease their wage, who do they listen to? That's right, the same totalitarian state your ideology always reverts back to. Unless your implying the employees can afford to lobby and pay off their government like a multi-national company can.
Most of the resource rich and fertile land is privately owned and those that are not are in a constant struggle of contested ownership.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12114-015-9209-2
State control=/=private control.
And we've stated it before, private control leads to state control.
Stop giving definitions with no backing which you then ask people to argue against.
Didn't you just say they weren't capitalist because of the state because state capitalism isn't "real capitalism" and how they couldn't develop their own tech?

I couldn't help notice that most of these sources are simply from the Wikipedia page you primarily linked. On top of this I haven't scene them properly used in an argument (i.e. X is incorrect according to papers by Y discussing the subject).
This whole section is basically to say (look, some people think differently). Not just that but it is used as some comprehensive refutation of some of these anons points, when in all reality it is not divulged upon in detail at all.
Just thought I'd point out the poor form.

Private owners still had control of production in pre-revolt Cuba. Read.
Yes, they do
I can't write a citation telling you to read all of Wealth of the Nations
I was pointing out the reason it wasn't allowed to fail is that it would create wide spread systemic collapse that would have ended in other companies collapsing as well. A blackmail to the nation.
Which they use, making it just another factor of being competitive. It is no less "artificial" then using whatever means one needs to in the free market to remain competitive. Unless now your trying to set rules to your "free market" now
Instead, you make unfalsifiable claims about "divine intervention" being the only thing that can stop your claims, Nostradamus. See:
Nice sourceless graphs you got there.
Wasn't me you were talking to, and you were also gish galloping. You didn't prove anything either, because those links show that people are debating the topic with some saying it is.
No, you didn't
MCM is demonstrable, yours is a vague generalization of a laissez faire idea which has never actually existed
You've actually provided nothing this whole time besides yelling your right and coming into this discussion claiming you've read what we espouse when clearly you haven't. Actually try,

Hence, the irrationality.

Failure is common when you are inferior and cannot compete alongside those who are capable.
State imposed, sure. That's why the statism is always inevitable.
That's also why Western workers are replaced with the third world, who don't care about that nonsense.
We don't have sweatshops because companies outsourced the labour to places that require/allow it (no more state restrictions).
Beauty of the global market.
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy
Still not an argument.
If you're some native. Read the text first.
See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp
Only depend on it if you are an inferior/unskilled worker. Which you admit to being. Nobody owes you anything and if you cannot hunt as well as your neighbour, you starve, regardless of how 'capitalist' you think the system is.
Good.
Great, so using this premise, PC-→SC. So, in the absence of a state, private control will always lead to the creation and maintenance of a state. Control for your experiment and remove the state in one nation, and have it exist in another. See what happens when you allow private enterprise to control the factors of production.
Disliking the source doesn't refute the content.
It isn't real capitalism, that's why I called it state capitalism. I said: Gotta love STATE capitalism, right? I mean, they weren't even remotely socialist, so you're just listing off tons of innovations STATE capitalism made.

That's why I linked to the passage first here:
The citations were within, which I linked to later on.
Your lack of reading comprehension=/=it was never mentioned. See:
Literally says: The National Statistics Office of Britain now releases company profitability statistics every quarter, showing increasing profits.[404]
I linked the [404] later on, the post was too long.
That is exactly what the entire contention is, if you were paying attention. He asserts that profits are falling, I say according to who and by what metric (what about true business profits?), then I show that others have reached different conclusions, contained within.

STILL no response. What are you debunking again?
We already disproved it and your link doesn't actually disprove productivity
halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00838518/document

Sure thing, fam, keep believing that

Were they able to exist free from state tyranny and having half their assets taxed? If so, they're capitalist.
State control of production=/=private control. Ergo, it's not capitalist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Economy_of_Cuba
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#First_presidency_.281940.E2.80.931944.29
According to: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb03476.0001.001.
From part 1, chapter 3, page 90.
State control=/=private control, still. The state can act capitalist, they can dominate the enterprises. That's called crony capitalism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Then stop referring to literature you are not familiar with.
Then try it. Who cares, let the poor fail. If the bankers failed at their job, let them fail. You are asserting that you have knowledge of what the opposing policy would entail. Present the source of this truth you are so familiar with.
My argument is let them fail and observe the results instead of speculating what might happen, then enacting policies based on 'probably, it will cause everything to collapse.'
See the crony capitalism point above.
State coercion and dominance is a monopoly as it stiles genuine competition. "You cannot sell this unless I say so" is artificially boosting the worth of the competitor. That's what tariffs do: they transfer the burden onto the consumer.
No way I can know, there are no IDs.
All of the sources were making the same assertion: profits are not declining. I clearly linked the sample text here:
They offer counter-evidence to the claims: The McKinsey Global Institute claims that the thirty years from 1985 to 2014 were the golden years for profits from stocks and bonds, but forecasts that average profitability will be lower in future.[406]
A gish gallop is invoked during Oxford-style debates wherein the opposition is barred from responding while the opponent makes the point. Nobody is stopping you from responding to anything. Posting more than one source must be a gish gallop to people who think no sources is 'totally academic'.
Yes, I have.
States engaging in artificial profiteering at the expense of the private owners is not capitalist. It's state capitalism, which is not equivalent to private ownership of the factors of production, which is the lack of state coercion in the marketplace/on the private owners.
Not vague, sources elaborate clearly.
Laissez faire has existed everywhere the state's tentacles do not extend to the marketplace/private owners and their wealth. The minimum wage is a recent invention, it has not always existed. That is one example.
You will think that if you think multiple sources presenting counter-evidence is a gish gallop.

ARE YOU SERIOUS NIGGA?

Like, that's literally an ad hoc fallacy my man. So much for the rational right

The theory states that their is a general trend for global profits to fall. Both "global" and "trend" must be emphasized. It is possible for a nation to see a net rise in profits over a period of time.

It is completely possible for a state to manage the capitalist process. If production of commodities exist, and value form is still widely in existence, then it can be capitalist.
Also the criteria of private property=capitalism is quite poor, technically peasants under feudalism owned private property, but they only ever produced for direct use.

I was the only one to actually respond to the post I made, this is the first time you raise counter-evidence to the conclusion.
Interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the originally cited paper's unease at asserting on behalf of productivity, while you cite the paper as if it makes absolute claims on behalf of productivity. Even though they said: "Labour-managed firms are probably more productive and may preserve jobs better in recessions than conventional firms, creating more sustainable jobs" but it was stated that "they are totally sure!" while they cite from (econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/33810/1/514361417.pdf) which says "Co-op wages are about 14 percent lower on average and they are more volatile (and employment less volatile) than those in capitalist enterprises. Given the breadth of the data set analyzed, the results can claim to constitute general findings about capitalist and co-op enterprises."

From your paper: "Overall, the GLS estimates suggest that in most industries there is no significant
productivity difference between labor-managed and conventional firms. This result is in keeping
with existing studies. Only in one industry, “Paper and Wood”, is there a significant difference, in
favor of worker cooperatives. More significant differences appear in the GMM estimates
performed on the version of Data Set 2 in which small cooperatives have been included. By
comparing these estimates with GLS estimates for the same extended data set, we can infer, to a
certain extent, whether the differences with the GLS estimates for the non-extended data set are due
to the inclusion of small cooperatives, to the estimation method or to both. The advantage of
cooperatives in the Paper and Wood industry remains; its magnitude is cut in half by the
instrumentation but remains high, at 18.3 %. The more robust GMM method also is the source of
the 7.4 % differential now estimated in favor of cooperatives in the printing and publishing industry
(the inclusion of small cooperatives results in a mildly significant negative GLS estimate). No
significant difference in total factor productivity is observed in the other two industries.
It is difficult to conclude from these tests that overall the total factor productivity of labormanaged
firms is markedly different from that of conventional firms in France. If there is a
difference, our results suggest it may be in favor of worker cooperatives. However, we test for
differences in all the estimated parameters and in all cases the technologies of the two groups of
firms are significantly different—they organize production differently, presumably because
incentive effects are embodied in the factors."
How come that, when I examine your paper (page 17, btw), they draw more academically honest conclusions not over-stepping the evidence, but when you cite it, you assume that "zomg this is conclusive"? They also cite Pencavel, who is cited once on page 9. I quote: "Interestingly, three of the four studies of comparative productivity estimating production
functions for matched samples of employee-owned and capitalist firms (Berman and Berman 1989,
Estrin 1991 and Craig and Pencavel 1995) find no significant difference in total factor productivity
between the two groups when they are constrained to have the same production function. The
fourth (Jones 2007) finds differences that are not consistent across specifications and estimation
methods. Using qualitative measures of performance and controlling for shop-floor participation,
Bayo Moriones et al. (2003) do not find that worker cooperatives perform better or worse than
conventional firms either, nor do they observe participation to have a greater effect in cooperatives."
Read your own paper next time before making positive assertions on 'productivity'.
Again, on page 10: "As Pencavel et al (2006) observe, pay is
endogenous in a labor-managed firm.14 Their findings on Italy, as well as those of Craig and
Pencavel (1992) and Pencavel and Craig (1994) on the US, confirm that worker cooperatives tend
to adjust pay rather than employment in response to demand shocks while conventional firms adjust employment rather than pay. Bartlett et al (1992) also find Italian cooperatives to have more stable
employment levels than their conventional counterparts. However, Bartlett (1994) finds Italian
cooperatives’ employment responds to wages as well as to demand changes and both he and Estrin
(1991) observe Italian cooperatives increase employment faster than conventional firms at certain
stages of the firm’s life."
It goes on: "A correspondingly lower proportion of managerial staff in cooperatives than in
conventional firms could also follow from superior incentives and lower agency costs in the labor managed firm." All of which is reasonable given the "collective choice model in which the cooperative
maximizes the median member’s utility." The 'conventional firm' does not require this: workers are easily expendable and if the hoops for employment were removed, they could simply outsource straight to somewhere that 'minimum wage' laws didn't exist.

*When you can work harder and produce higher quality products but can't compete with cheaper, lower quality ones
Great you love third world conditions so much and good luck convincing people to follow your ideology. People banded together and followed their self-interest for themselves and their children, which meant not dying in a sweatshop.
ok
>logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy
I shouldn't have to tell you why using an ==investing wiki== might be bad or bias data
wew. State one time that has ever happened before.
>See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp Only depend on it if you are an inferior/unskilled worker. Which you admit to being. Nobody owes you anything and if you cannot hunt as well as your neighbour, you starve, regardless of how 'capitalist' you think the system is.
People debunked you in the other thread, don't even try that here
Great that you admit to the reason
Its not the per say, its that the definition isn't ground into anything. Your asking us to argue against something which basically equates to "that wasn't real capitalism" and has no formula to it.
So state capital with the goal of transitioning out of capital can be better then "free" capitalism?

An example of an ad hoc fallacy: Marxist: The proletariat are clearly oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

Proletariat: I don’t feel oppressed.

Marxist: That is because you suffer from false consciousness.

Here the analysand and the proletariat provide counterevidence to the claims made by the Freudian and the Marxist, who must sustain their arguments by dismissing the basis for the counterarguments. Thus they have rather craftily in the moment — ad hoc — come up with bulwarks, as it were, to preserve their theoretical claims.

Stating that the manipulation of an industry and the artificial subsidization of, say, farming groups is crony capitalism is not an ad hoc justification: it is an observed phenomenon which is not comparable to the absence of a state to give said subsidies in the first place. See: youtube.com/watch?v=4DxXHh-p-O4.

General trends=/="only divine intervention can stop this from happening"
There is a 'trend' for you to misinterpret data and make claims the cited authors do not when you reference them. Doesn't mean you necessarily will.
Which is what is asserted: theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/14/uk-companies-most-profitable-since-1998. It isn't always trending up, but your alarmist "capitalism will collapse by the ____ and then my system will be implemented" is nonsensical.

Yes, it's called crony capitalism, not equivalent to private ownership. It's state ownership of private enterprise, which operate as puppets not free to 'move their limbs', so to speak.
*State capitalist. "Kinda" private ownership=/=private ownership. The main premise is private ownership, and all the observed phenomena after the fact follow within the definition, but if the private owners don't control the factors of production, it is not capitalist, but crony capitalist (if the state manipulates them).
It is the extension of private OWNERSHIP of private property, not just "my factory".
No, they didn't. They didn't own the land, the landlords did.

I too can pull facts out of my ass, friendo. You don't seem to know a lot about Marx

Great job fucking ignoring the part about his second presidency
Because I can't cite, from start to finish, the entire book other then you taking the time to read Wealth of the Nations and Wage Labor and Capital
My point was that companies, when large enough, can blackmail everyone else to bail them out. Tbh, I would have preferred it collapsed to accelerate the process.
All competition is genuine in the "free market". Unless you would like to make rule against it :^)
They offer counter-evidence to the claims: The McKinsey Global Institute claims that the thirty years from 1985 to 2014 were the golden years for profits from stocks and bonds, but forecasts that average profitability will be lower in future.[406] A gish gallop is invoked during Oxford-style debates wherein the opposition is barred from responding while the opponent makes the point. Nobody is stopping you from responding to anything. Posting more than one source must be a gish gallop to people who think no sources is 'totally academic'.
Read the conclusion of your first link oecd.org/economy/growth/35485300.pdf, your sources don't debunk or really make a claim on anything
Its gish galloping because no one can read all the wiki copied studies in a single sitting and will take far longer then the thread will be open
Literally didn't even touch the formula
Not vague, sources elaborate clearly.
No, it hasn't. In fact, the state many times had to jump in to break up monopolies and companies using enforcement on smaller ones
Copy pasting wiki isn't the most intellectual thing to do while debating

Then you are not superior. If China can pop out shittier iPhone variants than your gold-encrusted ones, all that means is that the market for your high-end and luxurious product doesn't exist. Speaks more to your marketing ability than anything else.
Already have.
I guess that's why all those jobs are so sought-after. Those Bangladeshi maroons sure do "hate da system" when they fight to get employment in Joe Fresh.
Demonstrate bias or piss off. Still a genetic fallacy to assume the source determines the validity without examining the contents within.
No, that's state capitalism when private ownership is seized by the state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#Agricultural_subsidies_by_region
Artificially inflating an sector of the market is not private ownership. See: youtube.com/watch?v=4DxXHh-p-O4
See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp Only depend on it if you are an inferior/unskilled worker. Which you admit to being. Nobody owes you anything and if you cannot hunt as well as your neighbour, you starve, regardless of how 'capitalist' you think the system is.
It's a great thing. Nobody owes you anything, you lacking something=/="muh exploitation". It means you cannot compete, so you fail. Not mutually exclusive to capitalism.
I agree, let's end state tyranny of the market and let business owners operate free of ANY state control so as to avoid the necessity to overthrow/destabilize the militant state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Nice conspiracies, dude.
*Per se. It's latin for 'by itself'. Per 'say' does not mean the same thing.
Dictionary definitions are ground by the axiom of words and the meaning behind them.
Quite rich when you dismiss all socialist implementations as 'not real socialism' because public ownership was not present or maintained, while it is irrelevant if private ownership is maintained to capitalist production, because state tyranny by force is now equivalent to voluntary trade as a result of private ownership of the factors of production. Holier-than-thou is still not an argument, I'm extending your own standards to yourself.
How is it better if the USSR has failed to maintain itself/its empire? Where is it now? They faltered under the weight of their inability.

Greentext is not an argument, nor is it a counter-point to the ad hoc fallacy presented.
I can just repeat it because you offer no counter. An example of an ad hoc fallacy: Marxist: The proletariat are clearly oppressed by the bourgeoisie.
Proletariat: I don’t feel oppressed.
Marxist: That is because you suffer from false consciousness.
Here the analysand and the proletariat provide counterevidence to the claims made by the Freudian and the Marxist, who must sustain their arguments by dismissing the basis for the counterarguments. Thus they have rather craftily in the moment — ad hoc — come up with bulwarks, as it were, to preserve their theoretical claims.
We do exist in corporatism, but this has not been the case since the dawn of time.

An example is not an argument either, famalam. Try actually talking about Marx instead of a figment of your imagination

Read the post next time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Economy_of_Cuba
Underneath: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Military_coup_and_second_presidency_.281952.E2.80.931959.29.
Military coups sure are not tyrannical or state abuse of power.
Babby's first citation. That's not how you cite a book's argument.
easybib.com/reference/guide/mla/book
Good. Let them, if you are inferior enough to allow yourself to fail, you deserve it. If you are under their thumb, you deserve ruin.
If it's free from manipulation.
Which is the result of private ownership and state ownership, circumstantially. Does not mean that its existence automatically equates to private ownership universally.
Absence of state intervention in the marketplace IS laissez-faire.
That isn't laissez-faire. I'm sure it has, my point is that prior to that state tyranny, it was laissez-faire.
See: logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy.

*Example supporting an argument.
Of course you will obfuscate the issue when you misrepresent the point. I believe Hanlon's razor is in effect, I just think you lack reading comprehension.

Yes this is exactly my point
>There is a 'trend' for you to misinterpret data and make claims the cited authors do not when you reference them. Doesn't mean you necessarily will.
This is not an argument as to the question at hand
This is a straw man. Nobody claims to no when capitalism will collapse.

Whether or not it is free to move with the whims of the proprietary class is irrelevant. The process of capitalism is still intact, even if it is horribly botched and run by an oligarch.
The system still produces commodities and abides by the law of value. The addition of "crony" to the front of this capitalism is to signify nothing but a change in authority in this society.
>No, they didn't. They didn't own the land, the landlords did.
Their always existed peasant's away from rule of the lords who tended to the land for the soul purpose of generating use-value, these people clearly owned the land they tended. Also these lords who owned the land mostly goth the peasants to produce for use value also. These where all examples of private property existing, yet it being used for very different uses from today (production for exchange)

Thanks for proving you haven't read Marx
>Stating that the manipulation of an industry and the artificial subsidization of, say, farming groups is crony capitalism is not an ad hoc justification: it is an observed phenomenon which is not comparable to the absence of a state to give said subsidies in the first place. See: youtube.com/watch?v=4DxXHh-p-O4
Its observable companies use the state to their benefit and this happens in an open market
Crony captialism by how you've been defining it is a mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials. Its not even close to state ownership, in fact its more of state and corporation cohabitation.
Prove your ownership without the state
Not that user, but do you really believe landlords still don't exist?

Except you are basing your argument on the imaginary scenario that you have created, which does not actually reflect the reality of Marxist thought. But nice try, anyway.
Now, back to posting smug commies

This is just a moral statement, and i highly subjective one at that. I don't see why other should adhere to it?
Define manipulation
Yes it does. This is almost grade school level misreading of Marx. The model Marx uses to discuss capitalism is built specifically ==WITHOUT== state meddling.

Then this assertion I received here is indefensible:
"Finally, Marx predicts that the contradictions he talks about will eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism, if not socialism (the collapse of capitalism could very well kill us all, or at least destroy civilisation). These contradictions are inherent to the system, and thus cannot be resolved without destroying capitalism, which means that capitalism will eventually destroy itself or be destroyed, just as much as it is inevitable, within our current knowledge, that all people die some day, no matter what we do to delay it. Some miracle might happen that would allow capitalism to persist despite its contradictions but believing in that is as rational as believing God exists, or that aliens will come down to earth and save us from nuclear Armageddon."
Conflating a general trend for an inevitability is pseudo-science.
It is an analogy pointing out the downfalls of the assertions I have received, like the one I cited above, from:
Nope, see above. Literally calling for the demise from a general trend.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
It is actually a pivotal part of the definition.
The state can produce for profit instead of use, does not mean that this factor of production is equivalent to private control. It's state control, which is crony capitalism.
*Introduction of authority. Private ownership of the factors of production is not equivalent to taxation and policing the people.
Does not mean that ownership of the land did not exist, de jure, in the favour of the land owners.
Yes, but you said the peasants owned it. Not de jure.

That isn't a quotation from Marx, it is an example of workers not feeling oppressed and the Marxist using faulty logic to justify the non-existent oppression.

Nice faulty logic, genetic fallacies are not refutations.
Yes, it's called crony capitalism.
"Please tax half of my earnings, state" is not advantageous.
It's coercion.
Come to my land and see how I can defend it without state assistance.
Not an argument. All ownership cannot be attributed to the state.
I'm elaborating on how landlords owned the land, not the peasants. Not the same as asserting landlords are non-existent.

Nor Freud for that matter, for actual Freudians tell analysands that they have this or that symptom, the analysands being the ones who do most of the analytic work. But hey, you're all retarded for still pretending you are having an argument with this sophist rather than a cancerous semantic circular argument.

But the land is the property of the state. It is perfectly justified in taxing anyone, since they are the best.

That is the purpose of the example. Such a scenario can exist right now.
I am a worker and I do not feel oppressed or exploited. Marx's claims of imaginary oppression by the upper class is irrelevant because I am not a worker that must 'be freed from the chains' of whatever imaginary boogeyman he has created. What is the response to my sentiment?
If you use the ad hoc fallacy of "muh false consciousness", then the example is fulfilled.

I attribute no "wrong" or "right" judgement to the result. I am merely asserting that the result occurs and that it is deserved if you allow yourself to be in a position of failure. It isn't "right" or "wrong": it's amoral.
You don't have to adhere to it to be subject to it.
If the state is allowed to tax certain companies at higher rates because of their earnings, then it is manipulating the wealth of certain companies. Wal-Mart paying more tax, proportionally, than a small business is manipulating the market. Taking wealth for state interests is not allowing private owners to operate without regulation.
No, it doesn't. The state can act capitalist, but that does not mean its capitalism is equivalent to 'all capitalism'. Using this logic, Maoism is now equivalent to democratic socialism because "his socialism is all socialism".
That is irrelevant when state meddling exists. That means his model is archaic and irrelevant to the discussion of state intervention within a capitalist system.

Remind me what happened the last time tyranny thought it was okay to tax people as much as they wanted?

Not an argument. These capitalists are simply the best and they have ownership over the whole of the land. Your attacks on them are unjustified. In fact, big ass capitalist states can bring prosperity if they are social democratic. There are limits to taxation, just like you can raise prices to heaven and expect to stay afloat, unless you have a monopoly on a specific commodity that is a non necessary.

Yes, you are inferior if you cannot compete. You would do well to blame yourself for not being to run as fast than to blame the other racers for being faster than you.
The entire issue is amoral.
State capitalism is not private ownership.
Not if the state says so.
Businesses that do will lose a consumerbase. That's the beauty of capitalism: it's all voluntary. You can always live off the land if you want to do so. Oh, is that another area in which you cannot compete?

Holy kek. And you expect us to take you seriously?

None of this remotely constitutes a logical response to the points I raised.
Communists reading advance economics? Was it those "advanced economics" that lead to all implementations of your systems resulting in the 'human rights' abuses you love to invoke when 'muh poor people' suffer, but not when 'muh middle class' does?
Why don't you go tell the Ukrainian farmers how 'advanced' the economic policies were.

Also, Marx's "scientific" work is not advanced: it's pseudo-science that cannot be justified unless you assume predictions you cannot prove.

What? What does that have to do with what I said? But it is, they are capitalists who own a particular type of private property, state property. Also, my post had a typo, you can't raise prices to heaven.

It is a fact that many countries in the past century in which heavy intervention was done were the happiest, like most Scandinavian countries.

The word for science in German Marx used, Wissenchaft, is not the same as the more narrow term in English. Not to mention that the epistemology of science changed last century.

And none of the points you've raised are logical, famalam. You don't even understand what it is you're arguing against
That's, like, your opinion, my man. Maybe try reading Marx so you can actually argue against something he said

Be more specific.
Socialists within the state are not equivalent to socialists outside of the state. It isn't "all socialism" to point out that socialists within the state are distinct in operation and policy from socialists outside the state. The same logic applies to capitalist as applied within the state and capitalism applied outside of the state.
Well, you can, but if consumers dislike it and react accordingly, then you'll have to change something if you want to compete.
Cum hoc fallacy, correlation=/=causation.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
What made-up definition was he using, then?
Thank God the scientific method has evolved since his time. Yet Marxists still conflate time periods as if they are unequivocal.
Then why are you fallaciously translating his usage of 'science' outside of its context to its modern, English usage without prefacing the usage as being outside of modern scientific discourse? Cardinal sin of history: misrepresenting and conflating time periods as if they are interchangeable, in terms of social/moral/political thought.

Pot calling the kettle black. I have presented definitions, citations, and examined the sources your buddies have sorted to actually examine the context in which the arguments are made, like:
Before you say "we've already responded to that", here's a screenshot showing NO replies to this beyond the one I just made.
This user already admitted that the usage of the term 'science' was different and not comparable to the modern usage of scientific thought here:

If we had it your way, we'd be all living in cramped living blocks with shit breaking every 4 months
ft.com/content/8746c75e-e8c4-11e4-87fe-00144feab7de
Literally no data was provided in the source for formulating what capitalism is. Everyone from Adam Smith to Ricardo to Marx tried to formulate capitalism.
Its private interest buying into the state and using the state to enforce their interest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#Agricultural_subsidies_by_region. Artificially inflating an sector of the market is not private ownership. See: youtube.com/watch?v=4DxXHh-p-O4
Its almost like its both and that private interest uses it to seize other interest and that inherent to the system without some divine force stopping it.
>See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp Only depend on it if you are an inferior/unskilled worker. Which you admit to being. Nobody owes you anything and if you cannot hunt as well as your neighbour, you starve, regardless of how 'capitalist' you think the system is.
They debunked this, in a primitive society if I hunt I keep all that I kill and the tribe can work collectively to acquire surplus. Its not even equatable to capitalism. And btw, I currently work in skilled labor by working on aircraft.
What you described was mutually exclusive to capitalism
How will you enforce that? How would you keep businesses out of government? Its almost like you would need reform
Lets just nitpick each others grammar now
Yours isn't even dictionary definition or a historical one. I gave you a formula, which can't be misconstrued
Formula. We're staying consistent.
I guess all these other "state capitalist" governments that survived must be right then

When did I say anything about science you autist? You're the one who has been talking about muh science the whole thread and I just responded to you randomly, then you pulled that shit again? What the fuck do I care to hold that debate about whether it is scientific in the current epistemology? This was already answered in the first posts before you came to shit it up.

Because it's literally a copy-pasted wall of text famalam. This is a tuvan throat-singing board, people aren't gonna waste time reading some asshole vomiting on the screen for the 76th time, especially when they know that he doesn't have anything substantial to say because he's a brainlet who's literally arguing against a figment of his imagination. You can post all the sources and citations you want, but you can't actually debunk Marxism before you know what it is. If you want to actually have a debate instead of talking in circles for 24 hours while more well-read anons laugh at you you kinda need to have a basic understanding of Marxism.

...

I can't be held responsible for anons that jump the shark. However the point made by user still hold that their are necessary contradiction in the process of capital.
Yes, we are saying that this general trend will lead to upheaval. However you said
no Body is claiming to have an X date, this purposefully misinterpreting what some have written, thus a straw man
It is actually a pivotal part of the definition.
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition
Good for you, every one acknowledges the state can produce for profit. However you fall of the truck towards the end. You are claiming that somehow capitalism has been fundamentally changed when the state steps in. This is incorrect by what you said
M-C-M is still enacted, their for Marx's critique still hold
Capitalism is inherently authoritarian
Oh but it is. The capitalist taxes the working man his labor time for the means of sustenance that the worker made.
>Does not mean that ownership of the land did not exist,
Good to see you agree with me
This means nothing to the point

Very few "allow" themselves to fail. Saying they deserve the condition they are in without taking into account the condition they may face is poor logic.
In turn the state provides the necessary protection for these firms to operate. This seems like a symbiotic relationship to me.
If you critique Socialism as a whole, the you critique both Democratic Socialism and Maoism by default since their goals are the same. However, you can critique Maoist centralization, while praising the democratic nature of Democratic Socialism. This is because the critique of Maoist centralization can only be applied to Maoism. Marx's critique of capitalism is not a critique of a certain authority over the capitalist process, but a critique of the process it's self.
No, it clearly means that Marxists have for the past hundred years been applying this model to the our changing circumstance in different ways to better understand how the state interacts with the capitalist process, which many Marxists have made well thought out and extensive observations on. It also means your understanding of the topic at hand is pathetically sparse.

Do try and read about the topic you choose to critique next time sport.

No, there would be an efficient sanitation system, unlike the state's services.
Sorry, the glories of capitalism forbid me. If the workers face intimidation, so be it. Not my business, they will be replaced with people who don't complain about employment opportunities.
When your only understanding is "all profit is capitalism and no nuance or context is needed" and you dismiss the wiki because "muh source", then your analysis is just as fallacious. No quotations to support your argument, either.
Yes.
Out of necessity. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, in this case.
Nice denial of nuance and contextual understanding.
You do the same if you are self-employed. Your business, your rules. Oh wait… the state takes half of it.
No, you fail if you do not compete. This is not mutually exclusive to capitalism. Or are you admitting that socialists arbitrarily inflate the failures with handouts and assistance?
You can literally only think out of authority, no wonder totalitarianism is the logical result of socialist thought. You do not enforce rules onto others.
No government.
That's not a grammatical error. The sentence structure was correct. The spelling was not what you meant to say. It means something completely different.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
Still state control, still not capitalism, full stop.
It's a standard of judgement, not a formula. You are not staying consistent. If you were to stay consistent, then state socialism is now all types of socialism because fuck context.
If they can survive and defeat the competition, then yes.

See:
"The word for science in German Marx used, Wissenchaft, is not the same as the more narrow term in English"
Admitting to conflating definitions and shifting centuries with a term that is not applicable in its English translation.

You are admitting to not even bothering to read the sources your own Marxist friends post. The 'text' is from your own source you used to 'debunk' me, even though it arrives at a different conclusion. I read it from here:
Rich coming from the guy telling ME to read, but doesn't want to read the sources used against me.

The workers who don't count as workers when you say they do, yes. That's what Marxism has a shit track record: it's a worker's paradise that you cannot leave.

Then you dismiss it.
Then you immediately defend it. So you are purporting the same conclusion as they are, which is as unscientific as can be: appealing to truth you cannot demonstrate.
Except it won't. You cannot demonstrate and falsify your predictions, so they are moot.
Then you have no evidence to support your assertions if you do not even know when the truth will be fulfilled.
"I think there will be a collapse of our current state."
"How do you know this."
"Well, I think it will happen eventually because the people will revolt against the state and it will collapse as a result."
"How do you know this."
"The state has been declining in power over time, it's a trend."
"Actually, here's a bunch of sources that dispute this trend and show fluctuation, but this does not allow you to extrapolate inevitable demise, that's alarmist. At least put forth a period of time so we can falsify your hypothesis."
"No, you just have to trust me, it will happen eventually."
Like I said, unscientific.
I have been arguing throughout the past few posts that state capitalism is not equivalent to capitalism just because profit and production for exchange are observed. This is not absolutely all capitalism, it can be described as capitalist, but private ownership is a relevant factor OF capitalism.
Here is a paper examining the structure of state capitalism: mises.org/system/tdf/1_1_7_0.pdf?file=1&type=document.
I have been arguing for nuance this entire time, it has been your group who has said "all capitalism is the same if there is profit, no context required."
Your group has conflated a military coup with laissez-faire capitalism. State capitalism is not equivalent to all capitalism and all the definitions I have cited specifically relate to private ownership without state restriction. Until you have such a system without state intervention and theft of wealth, you have not experienced capitalism.
Does not make the state's capitalism equivalent to all capitalism.
Yes, when you disallow competition and stifle wealth with taxes, you have changed the system fundamentally.
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition
His definition does not encapsulate all the forms of capitalism observed today, however quasi-capitalist they may be.
Capitalism can have different branches. You can have states destroying competition with tariffs and you can have free competition without state regulation.
It is absolutely concerned with the main point. You asserted peasants owned the land, I said that they did not de jure own the land.
They can fight it all they want. Left to their own devices, they will still fail.
No, it only logically follows that making poor financial decisions will lead to financial ruin.
Circumstantially.

Which is what Marx's argument was doing: it lacks nuance in the various forms capitalism may take, appealing to a false sense of entitlement to substantiate the 'exploitation' narrative, very poorly and without evidence.
However, you can critique state capitalist centralized production, while praising the laissez-faire nature of free market capitalism.
This is because the critique of state capitalist coercion can only be applied to state capitalism.
Then you are admitting it lacks nuance and is inapplicable to our debate of laissez-faire capitalism versus state capitalism. The state can produce for profit, so can private businesses. Marx says both are bad: irrelevant, the narrative of 'profit is theft of the worker' has already been refuted, that is not the point of contention. The issue is primarily concerned with how the two are different and how conflating "state capitalism is all capitalism" is WRONG. Both by definition and in the context of the two systems.
You admitted that "The model Marx uses to discuss capitalism is built specifically ==WITHOUT== state meddling"
Then you extend this same model, without any regard for state intervention, to systems in which the state overtly intervenes in the capitalist process. You are admitting to your intellectual dishonestly by conflating a model which was not designed for an examination of the capitalist process within the confines of a state. You have just refuted yourself.

Nigga, you haven't even read Marx. I have admitted to not reading your "sources", and I doubt you've read all of them either. It just so happens that I've already read what the other guys have posted, since everyone here has been spoonfeeding you leftist theory that you haven't bothered to read despite claiming to have "debunked marxism". You're the ultimate brainlet, just like the million other idiots who claim to know better than a century's worth of theorists despite never having read a word of theory yourself.

This really plays into the Marxist mindset of "uhhh just trust me". You have no evidence, only conjecture.
I agree, you are very unintelligent. Thanks for admitting to it.
Theory without proof equals pseudo-science.

Give us one reason that we should take you seriously when you've openly admitted to not have read a word of Marxist theory. You don't see me arguing history without having read a history book, so why do you think you can argue political theory?
You're arguing for an economic theory that admits to being completely divorced from reality and peddling a guy who literally went "it's magic, yo, don't have to explain anything."
You guys are hilarious

[citation needed]
Cite the quote on praxeology.
Arguing against Marxist pseudo-science=/=arguing for anarcho-capitalism.

How is Venezuela D and not A?

It's religious.

Marxists treat Marx as some sort of god, and he can't be wrong.

Cringy failed attempt to switch it, what exactly are "Capitalism's predictions" in this context? And who has not been fundamentally criticizing capitalism in this thread?