Why is being forced to survive oppression?

The child struggled with material reality, the young man with the intellectual world, and the egoist man is the master of both.

I won't be shot down or incarcerated if I take my gun home with me.

I don't know if you're being purposely daft or not so I'll just point you to the obvious fact that capitalism isn't some natural system intrinsic to human existence so the comparison ends before it begins

How does that deal with having to earn a wage to survive?

We can sustain our selves through commerce, so it should be considered an alternative to the intrinsic need to survive.

One is man made and result of someone's will, the other is not.
I mean if i break your legs with a baseball bat, you should be able to figure it's a different situation from you breaking them while bringing your prey back.

Don't you think getting shit on in one thread is enough, fam? Capitalism isn't nature, acting like it is is pure ideology

You're arguing that there's no difference when it's a person killing you than a random act of nature or the human condition?

Please clarify your example.

Does the cause matter? You still having to use labor to survive.

Because one is a life fulfilling activity that is necessitated by nature while the other requires you to sacrifice large swaths of your life and labor power in order to produce commodities in an exploitative, alienating, and wasteful system that is entirely artificial.

Yes, it does.

Capitalism is a cult

Does the cause of anything matter, in how they're justified?
To me, they do, but that's something I can't answer for you.

Except someone appropriating your labour isn't necessary for your survival, in fact it makes it harder for you to make a living, while they are able to survive and thrive by doing nothing at all

...

We are oppressed by nature. Technology is the work of overcoming that. Over time we control or transcend more and more of nature's influence on us.

Why does it matter.

But your are given a wage in return for your labor, doesn't that compensate your physical and mental costs?

Cant you just exchange something for the food?

yes. You are forced to exchange for food.

someone needs to make a counter meme to this stupid shitpost picture. When you hunt in the real world you get to keep your kill. In capitalism, you have to borrow someone else's tools because they own them so they charge you a tax of your labour on every kill, keeping most of the meat for themselves, that's profit for the capitalist getting rich off your labour. Then you get taxed by the landowner's because you're hunting on their land so they get a portion of your labour simply because they claimed the land first and it gets passed on from generation to generation. You have to slave away so you can just barely scrape up enough to eat at the end of the day. Meanwhile they cappies get to sit on their fat asses and laugh at you because you're bringing food for them to eat.

Because one can be changed.

If we could change the fact that nature requires us to work or starve, we would, but we can't.

The fact that you must work for a wage or be starved is changeable.

Labor isn't the problem, and oppression isn't necessarily the word for it.

The problem is that, while in a hunter-gatherer society the labor one performs attains the reward directly, in capitalism one labors for someone else who takes more of the equivalent reward as profit. There is frequently little room for bargaining for a bigger slice of the gains made by one's own labor - meanwhile, the bosses often end up with enough money that they can "contribute" to political campaigns in disproportionate amounts because others had to work for them.

In effect, the labor of the proletariat pays for the interests of people who want to keep workers' wages low and bourgeoisie taxes disproportionately low. Meanwhile, the resources produced by this system are often wasted and denied to the general populace. Say what you will about nature, it can't knowingly throw food away like grocery stores end up having to.

At this point you're just asking for a description on the nature of justice.

wow, very ebin maymay OP, how old are you btw? if you say anything over 22 I'll know you're lying

also the retarded idea that primitive societies had anything to do with ancap

But what about evolution in society? Maybe we are just evolving our human condition? Perhaps Working for a wage is the new equivalent of being hunter gatherers?

Kind of, I don't really see why things matter if the end result of two different things is the same.

Because the end result is controllable in some cases and not in others. Past that, you're just asking why anything should "matter" in which case it just doesn't and we're at nihilism.

wdhmbt?

babby's first historical materialism.

As far as wages go, isn't there a large choice in who you decide to work for.

Screw you, I care about a lot of shit, the question wasn't meant to be philosophical, I just want to understand the reasoning behind why two systems having the same end result but one is supposedly better for one reason, even if it is not obvious or vague.

Where's my choice to not be stolen from by my boss, my landlord, countless middle-men, and my bank? No one is arguing that you can't make by under the current system, we're arguing that the system is inherently corrupt and rife with contradictions that cause massive suffering to a large amount of people and that will inevitably tear the system apart. We want to take down the system before it destroys itself and us with it.

...

In all of these examples you are still handed a wage in compensation for your labor, with a firm or institution you agreed to. How is it theft?

How will that happen.

pretend i am retarded, and explain to me very clearly what exactly your point is. I thought it was that wages can be used to control you? If thats not it then what is it?

The point being, we don't live in a state of nature on a desert island. We live in a technologically advanced world where material abundance is a reality thanks to high-yielding productive capacity — that's arguably the whole point of civilization — but whose model of economic production and social organization restricts access to that very abundance for most. Workers create the conditions for abundance but do not get to enjoy it because that wealth is extracted from them by capitalists in order to continue the cycle of commodity production (and for their personal enrichment). Wage labor, which is required to pay for rent or a bag of groceries, therefore is inherently exploitative. The point of socialism is to reduce the burden of toil to a bare minimum.

Capital vol. III

IRL PvP is oppresion, survival is PvE

Because work is suffering

Did anyone ever ask your consent to conceive you, let alone give birth to you? Checkmate, Schopenhauer.

Then why don't all of you just self employ your selves if you don't want to be exploited. You would have 100% choice in what you can do.

If you start your own business instead of being on a wage, wouldn't the capitalist who previously exploited you be buying your goods. Are you exploiting him? Or are you benefiting from him.

OP isn't content with being BTFO in just so I guess he's trying again.

No, the point is that there is a difference in something in nature happening that causes negatives (ie, you get hit with lightning) that probably can't really be prevented or given agency. A human shooting you can be assigned some level of agency and that outcome probably can be prevented, ie. you could have some level of control over the situation. If you're going to say that the reason you're denied what you need to live is irrelevant, why should it matter any more if you're killed directly by nature or human action?

I should revise what meant by "Why does the outcome of two differently just things matter if then end result is the same". I did not mean the end, end, end result which in any situation is death. I meant specifically having to work to survive.

So basically your saying the capitalism is suffering and what we can prevent it? Is that the justification?

The subject is socailism scientific.

I said you can look at social sciences with a scientific method and come to a conclusion.

I noticed that every socialist society ever attempted failed for one reason or another. My conclusion is that something is wrong with the system. Maybe it is the whole idea, or is it just another variable not manipulated yet?

But please for the quality of threads keep content contained in each thread. I know you guys want me to keel over and die, but look I just want to argue. Some of you guys have actual argued very well.

user, the inevitability of capitalism makes it so that the number of those who are self-employed will always be low as those who exploit others labor 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. Its in the rational self-interest for the employer in capitalism to pay his workers as low a wage as he can and in the rational self interest iof the worker to demand as high a wage as he can. Crisis and conflict is inevitable.

The means by which capitalism operates creates unnecessary and preventable suffering through human interactions, among other things, yes.

The reason why larger companies are emerging rather more smaller ones has alot to do with predatory policies and regulations. I don't think it is product of capitalism rather the integration of capitalism being able to manipulate the government into giving the largerst of firms special treatments including.
These rules are why Comcast, Disney, Google, and Monsanto are so powerful. You may call this system capitalism, but it goes against the free market nature of it, hence why pretty much every who is not on the left calls it corporatism since the corporations end up running the state. If these barriers where removed I think we would see plenty of smaller business that can actually enjoy the benefits of real competition, like lower prices and a better range of qualities in goods.

Wouldn't the problems created by every socialist state to have ever formed also create unnecessary suffering?

You're drowning in the ocean, I drive by in a speedboat and offer to rescue you, but you have to agree to be my servant for the rest of your life. How is this slavery?

user, this isn't even a question of morality or any kind of moralism. Just take where Adam Smith left off and take capitalism to its logical conclusions. What communism is is an abolishment of the present sate of things, an inevitability of history.

This is merely an individual solution to a social problem. We do not wish to "escape" capitalism, we want to abolish it; we are not utopians, we seek to establish scientific socialism.

What you fail to understand is that is an inevitability of capitalism. What you describe as the free market isn't something that exists how you think it does and isn't even close to how Adam Smith described it. In fact, Adam Smith went into how wealth inequality would eventually create conflict and how all value is derived from labor, Marx just built on it. Companies are in themselves small governments who will always act in their rational self-interest to obtain greater profits. Those who work underhandedly, who use enforcement and slander to crush the competition and obtain land, those are the companies who are profitable. Not your mom-and-pop shop. Take things to their conclusion by taking peoples rational self interest to their conclusions.

Nature exerts pressure on us and forces us to do things we do not want to do. Doesn't this constitute oppression? Is not nature the ultimate authority. There is a reason why we called nature gods, gods who punish us and make us do things for them, an authority we must obey or face the consequences.
It is the essence of humanity to defy our gods, to defy nature, and take control into our own hands. No more shall nature dictate where food grows, we make it grow. No more shall nature dictate what rivers we can cross, we will make bridges ourselves. No more shall nature tell us how many children we have to have, we will choose how many children we want, and if nature wont let us we will do our damn best to make sure we fucking can have children.

The overthrow of the oppression of nature is the essence of humanity.

...

Is nature not oppressive?

Btw user, I understand where your coming from because I used to be a Libertarian. What changed me is tgat I read Adam Smith and Henry George and actually started to follow things to their conclusion. The system is destined to self-detonate on its very basis, what you call real competition will simply be an acceleration of the falling rate of profit till wages are low, people have little to spend, and companies can make very little profit and extract very little without being outcompeted.

The necessity of labour is natural, but the RELATIONS of labour are man made. Natur compels the worker into capitalist relations of labour in which they are alienated from their product and have no economic agency.

*nature compels the worker to work, but capitalism compels them to be wage slave

Would have been a better way to word that.

Why? I'd rather Holla Forumsyps just stay dumb and keep on arguing against their own strawmen.
Class consciousness won't happen because we were the best shitposters on the internet, it will happen because of Capitalism.and the direct effects it has on people's lives.
The only thing we need to do is channel already existing frustration into productive socialist goals, rather than let them be diverted into Idpol or stupid shit like primitivism. The entire 20th century is proof of how meaningless attacks on the superstructure are.
Lolberg ideologues don't need to be fought in any real propaganda front because their philosophy has no bearing on reality. Their ideas are only useful in educating socialists about socialism, on a purely theoretical level.

I need to sell myself to access the means of production. A hunter doesn't.

being forced to depend on others for survival by arbitrary legal instruments is oppressive.

in capitalism the people that get the berries didn't have to work for them next question

that image is meant to be ridiculous but more or less conveys what actually happened. nature is our bitch now.

I'm sure barbuda is relieved to hear that

Having to work to survive is not oppression.
Having to work FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S BENEFIT to survive is.

Natural monopolies are the root of evil in capitalism. The most obvious one is land. Most people have to work for their entire lives to acquire enough wealth to buy a nice house and a few fields. Some people are just given vast portfolios of properties and land by their parents.
Generations ago some people went around pillaging and conquering whatever they liked, then they instituted all sorts of laws to make people respect their "right" to this stolen property. They played the game until they were winning, then changed the rules to cement their winning position.

If there was infinite land for people to exploit, your argument would be valid, but there isn't.

...

Your giving up your individual interests to hunt. Every choice has an opportunity cost of some kind.

In both cases you are giving up something in order to do something you need to survive. And even on the most microeconomic level your are still producing something as a hunter using your own labor.

Aren't you a slave to your own mortality? Does being forced to do anything to prevent your own death makes you a "X" Slave.