Has socialism or comunism ever worked without leeching capitalism?

the fuck do you mean leeching?

Capitalism created the conditions we have. Socialism operates within reality, i.e. the conditions we have. Is that what you're referring to? Capitalism leeches off feudalism in the same way, but moreso because it has maintained a great deal of the cultural and political structures established under feudalism.

Has Capitalism ever worked without leeching Mercantilism?

...

this is your fucking brain on "anarcho" capitalism

is it /liberty/ raid time again?

...

Who the fuck implied that? This is ridiculous

that is definitely what people mean by common ownership of the means of production, good job

Managers existing =/= hierarchy.

They usually do have to work part of the time, but the point is the part of the time they spend getting money from the labor of their employees.

Except that you can, there are private sectors of everything you said and very rarely do they ever surpass the private sector in quality (the few times they are tend to be the exception rather than the rule).

Capitalism makes things cheap either because companies find a way to use less resources or to make it more appealing to the public.

the only thing I would agree would be in the non-tangible sector like arts or software, there socialism usually works better. ask stolman.

Companies are basically people cooperating,

these guys are paid to maintain this and these guys to do that

bosses are basically organizers whom benefit from a contract with the workers.

If you have a CEO that has low salary, is it any different from the communist wetdream?, if not how is the commie wetdream any better?.

I mean that socialism is all fun and games if you can afford it.

Feudalism and capitalism can stand on it's legs, socialism colapses under its weight because socialism or communism needs things to go all fine and dandy with central planing, the problem with planning an entire country is that there are too many variables and the fuckups will kill the population.

Exports and imports are more of a tool. you can try being isolationist but I'm not aware of many rich countries that have low export and imports.

the closest to that would be iceland I believe but they have low population

Nope, a welfare state is basically soft socialism but retarded.

He is not exploding them. No one is making you take that job or not get into worker unions or demand a raise or whatever.

lol u nigga think wageslaves are real slaves

No, I'm having a different opinion

exploitation by the state is worse than exploitation by a firm

also this

yeah, you could just voluntarily starve in the gutter instead of just barely making a living wage assembling dildos for 80 hours a week
does nothing to address the underlying contradictions of capitalism

And all of them are shit.

No they aren't

Maybe a revolution here or there, or a fucking gigantic crash or meltdown, don't worry, everything is fine

Your opinions are shit.

That's only one way of doing things you fucking dipshit. I doubt most people on this board want a """command economy""".

Fight the man, bro

Because the workers are a part of society, whereas they're not part of the capitalist class.

Apologies, jumped to a counter argument before fully explaining the line of logic.

1. Assuming that every individual owning their own workplace is a bad idea, the counter argument is what said: common ownership.

2. Great, so you and fifteen other people own a fifteenth of a business.

3. The point of this co-ownership was to evenly split both the profit of that business and to prevent any power imbalances and subsequent abuse of any member of the co-ownership.

4. Anyone who's actually worked a day in their life, particularly anyone who's had to work in a team setting, realizes that a team needs at least some minor leadership/ management.

5. As soon as you decide to appoint a manager to this co-ownership, you have arbitrarily and unequally distributed that businesses power towards certain people rather than others.

You've fundementally misunderstood how a workplace works in socialism right off the bat, congratulations buddy you've gone from 2 hits to a strike out

You're a fucking idiot and you should never post here again

"no"

Read the original post, this poster is clearly not referring to socialism.

Quote: "It isn't, thats why a worker should own his own work and workplace and not a state or private individual."

You're fucking idiots and you should never post here again

You have to work on anything to get anything.
You have to produce to have.

I mean, demanding a raise is basically fixing what you just complained about capitalism. You can get better wages by negotiating.

Citation needed

yes they are. a company cannot be created by itself, it needs someone to create it and run it.

It is tho. Is not perfect but is better than gommunism. if it wasnt more effective then it would be the most prominent socio-econimic structure dont u think?

So yours as well

Yes and no.

Capitalism allows micromanaged central planing on different sectors by giving them the freedom to being self-governing and agency

Socialism or comunism has a big plan in which nothing can go wrong (except when it does)

How about indies or self employees?
What about a person that invests?, when do workers stop being the slave and when it starts being the master?, if it's allowed to be a "capitalist" is he even a slave?

Market for education that isn't government: shit, only exists for a minority of the population

Market for health, shit. Most nations abandoned it decades ago.

Market for music, shit, effected the development of technology for the worse

Art, shit. The only art now exists to criticize just how shit this really is.

No, I think you're the one who smells like shit.

Admit it fam, you're a neet

...

Wait wait

You actually think medicine and capital mixing is a good idea

God you people are unbelievably stupid

Not but have an opinion.

Functional:
Mandatory single payer (ie: Not for profit)
Discretionary private healthcare

Non-functional:
Mandatory private healthcare

and yet the people that do the producing are worse off than the people that own the means of production and do no actual productive work themselves

hmmm

so i guess shareholders, CEOs, and landlords don't exist then. or are those """"not real capitalism""""

But communism axiom "form each according to his ability to each according to his need" is the definition of sufficiency….

...

If you say talent and not opportunity

I didn't, but it is a factor. Unfortunately, it would take an unbelievably oppressive government to even get close to ensuring everyone gets the same opportunities. All we can do is strive for it.

gross inequality is just the way things are :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 sorry that your boss earns ten times your wage after inheriting the business from his parents and has never actually done any kind of work, there's just no other way without a totalitarian state :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧(

There are degrees of social mobility in any society. There were ways of gaining Roman citizenship for slaves and ways peasants could enter the clergy and nobility. In colonial slavery, slaves could even buy their own freedom and potentially become a plantation owner themselves. That doesn't change the oppressive nature of the social system.

You enter the bourgeois class proper when you no longer need to sell your labor to live, when you can live entirely on your capital.

You're full of shit

You'll take what I offer or I'll hire that other guy. Maybe if I'm a particularly ornery porky I'll hire the other guy just because you asked for a raise. Maybe he won't try to shake the boat.
Any time there's a major disaster insurance/healthcare companies tell everyone to fuck off because they're a profit seeking venture first and foremost and they can't actually provide the safety net they promise en masse without going under. On top of that there's the fact they always have a shitload of clauses in the contract to let them weasel out of paying at any possible opportunity. There can also be limits which basically amount to "sorry, i guess you're just going to die".
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

And even if all of them truly were superior human beings that the plebeian masses can't possibly match up to, that's entirely besides the point. They're overpaid leeches, or in the case of some landlords just leeches.

You seem to be thinking of "same opportunities" as if some dictator would ask everyone if they wanted to be an investment banker/rocket surgeon or not and make sure they could become one if they said yes. All that's wanted is education and a decent standard of living.

It would be authoritarian if the government requisitioned the business that a child's parents spent years building up for the sole purpose of passing down. Hope you faggots have donated every and any belonging/ family heirloom that's been passed down to you. If not then you're a hypocritical piece of shit that only cares about a policy until it might effect them.

Giving everyone the same opportunities means the seizing and redistribution of all personal property by the government. If the government raiding your personal property and giving it to others isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

"i have no idea what defines private property versus personal property lol commies btfo"

...

This is on the same tier as "if you don't like capitalism go live in the woods". When people say inheritance isn't a legitimate form of wealth, we're not saying everyone should give anything they inherit to charity. It's saying that it's a problem with the system itself. Additionally even if your point was valid, the inheritance of private and personal property are two different things.

You better give up that toothbrush to buddy. Wouldnt want to have to send Commisar Jemal down there.

Within the company, yes. But in a capitalist business the profits are then stolen from the employees of the company and given to the shareholder "owners".

bosses aren't necessarily the same as owners, and either way this is wrong.

Socialism is not synonymous with central planning.

It's not any kind of socialism, but it is comparatively less retarded than free market everything.

The option of work for my business and let me take the profits you make the business or starve is an exploitative proposition. Unions and demanding raises don't guarantee anything.

You actually think the ruling classes would just allow radical leftist ideologies to replace the systems that give them power? You ancaps are hopelessly naive.

So not planning?

False, read a fucking book for once.

You've fallen for memes, friend. Shareholdes/owners who don't labor in their businesses have no legitimate claim to owning them and it should be taken form them and turned into a worker and/or consumer co-op. If they do labor in it and hire workers to help, then they don't deserve any more of the profits than any of the other workers.

Leftism makes distinctions between private and personal property. We're not talking about equal opportunity, we're talking about the nature of property and what should and shouldn't be legitimate property. You only need the government to mutualize business, not nationalize it, and that doesn't require totalitarianism.

mysterious

Why do all the mods seem to live in the same timezone?

I was about to post this, literally two threads by the same guy and one separate one by another Ancap and 10 minutes later after getting btfo, pony shit appears.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧pure coincidence🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

the effort they put into the raid was even less than the effort they put into this thread

wish I was surprised

not a bad question

which you could obtain by working.
The annual earnings for a full-time minimum-wage worker is $15,080 and the national average private school tuition is approximately $9,975 per year (in USA).
Also there are privately founded schools like in Sweden by the taxpayers that are free. (in which im not very saby about the quality of education there so take my statement with a grain of salt).
That doesn't mean that is bad, the waiting times in public healt-care seems to be way longer and "complaints include wait times, access to doctors, unusual treatments and specialized imaging equipment as well as its overall cost".
bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-017-2281-5
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/how-does-canadas-health-system-actually-work/?mcubz=0
public health care is a mixed bag imo but most of the times private ones tend to be more reliable.
you are right
fuck those cunts
GNU all the way

yes and no
I believe in the founding for research but I hate the Martin Shkrelis of the world.
Owning the rights of distribution for a state is bullshit, just like with music or software.
what a bunch of fucking bull, is the fault of the state for accomplice with those cunts.

And thats where you are wrong.
You still need a form of organization or planning, the bosses are the ones doing that. You seems to think that the people that own the means of production stole them from you, even tho a company is basically a place where you can rent the means of production without the need to buy them. you can own the means of production and make your own company but then you would be a capitalist and enterpriser and papa marx will be sad.
Sorry for my stupidity but I believe that is basically the belief that the capitalist will fuck over the employee by having more affordable employees that require less spending from the elites, basically the industrialization taking over and fucking the working class in the ass.
tl;dr: cutting corners at the expense of the rest of the economy
To the answer I will say yes and no: while manual labor is getting more rare the improvement and commercialization of said machines are still part of the market. For example, sillicon valley and shenzhen. second, there is high chance that your work wont be automated: replacedbyrobot.info
Define the diference between the worker and capitalist, because in my eyes they are both the same. if not, what separates them?, the owning of the means of production?, does that mean that owning them would make you a capitalist?.
Companies aim to gain the most profits by the less amount of spending, consumption, etc.
examples are vertical farms.

see
you people seem to think that CEOs and "capitalists" spawned out of the ether and stole everything from the "workers"

You are basically saying that they can live of the fruits of their labor and thats somehow oppressive

1-okay I'll find work somewhere else or be self employee or work or sell or whatever other opportunities the market gives me.
2-Because a natural disaster happen, doesn't matter if your are commie marx leninist capito primativist, if they pull the rug under your feet of curse whatever system you have is going to fucking colapse.
3->the variables under a capitalist system are deadly, but the ones under a socialist one aren't
that people pay for them. you seem to think they are stealing money that you would have if they didn't exist and that they don't invest into their employees or products. even if you inherited that money you will spend it or invest at some point, either to make more profits or just to buy a yate or some shit.

1/2

I agree, publicly traded companies are bullshit.
in the case of the employees with stolen profits however, I will say no as the workers do not need to spend in the means of production, companies basically rent it to the workers and in exchange they share the profits.
If you refer to the fact that the heads of the company get a percentage bigger than the company itself or the employee, then you have a case. I'll give you that.
How so?, they are being paid for the task of leading and making sure the employees perform this way and this much and do this and that so we can accomplish this.
if you could explain this further I would appreciate, because as far as I know socialism relies a lot on central planning, either by the state or whatever the people choose to manage the distribution of goods, services, money, etc.
How so?, In a welfare state goods aren't produced because there is no need to. at least in a state capitalist country like china you still have products and services. in a welfare you get dick when shit hits the fan because the leeches became more than the providers.
the thing is that they are shared profits because you did not own the means of production and you willingly tried to get a job there while being aware of how much they paid.
if you really wanted all the raw profit you could own the means of production by buying the machinery and going indie or self-employee or whatever. Also just because it "maybe" wont work doesn't mean that negotiation or worker unions aren't worth a shot.
Yes. there have been successful revolutions and revolts in the past. there have been numerous socialists and communist revolutions in the past as well.
the problem?, how many of their societies became prosperous?. I can think of Zapatistas and that one time the Mexicans fought against a nazi occupation where the armed revolt maybe would have brought better life-style that the current one, but those cases are very situational and are rather the exception than the rule. (even zapatistas have current shitty-lifestyles, even tho they are considered the good guys by the Mexican capitalists as well).
Thats not what I said. Micromanaged planning with little to no intervention from the state is where is at.
ok I'll admit my mistake for this one.
the problem is: which one?
Marx had this planned but Leninism wanted this and that but it didn't work that time because this and that but we should try again but some other people say that lenin was in the right track then he became a potato but what about the classic north korea when they decided the USSR was not as reliable and they should be more of this and less of that, etc.
It depends which school of thought you follow.
I think the real question would be which one is the least retarded and which one works better.
even if I tried to point out Scandinavian socialism they have been having differences depending of their their country.

I'm taking my time reading and responding
All I heard so far has been
The only points I've agreed so far are that patents and copyrights and rights to owning the rights to distribute so no else can sell a product is bullshit. Those are really good points my boyos.
As a final note to this post that became my essay, I'm here to have a conversation, not BTFO or OWN or anything. No I did not make a pony thread, and I didn't go away with the tail in between my legs, I'm still here. I'm here to interact in the market place of ideas.

2/2

Sorry If I got rambly or didn't got my point across or just downright stupid argument, please point out my faults.

No, they're living on the fruits of the labor of others, and that's oppressive, because their whole existence is grilled by exploitation.

Workers are more than capable of organising themselves, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Whether they actually keep working once there's no boss politely encouraging them to assemble emoji-shaped alarm clocks or whatever for a subsistence wage, and indeed no wage labour, is another question entirely.
Workers under capitalism will generally want the best possible wage for the least possible work. Capitalists will generally want the highest possible work from their workers for the lowest possible wage.
Not their labour, the labour of their workers.
Even if it was possible for your average worker to both raise enough capital and have the opportunity to buy their own means of production capable of generating any meaningful profit, they'd cease to be a worker. If everyone did this, there would obviously be no workers.
…in which the ruling classes fought back. What was the White Army? What were the Freikorps? What were the Spanish Nationalist forces? Hell, to play devil's advocate, what were the Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia and Hungary? What were any of those things if not the reaction of the ruling class to a working-class movement?

Except they're able to rent the company because property law decrees that they are the owner(s) of it.

Once a business grows to a certain size the bosses seize to be the legal owners and become just another employee in the company, albeit one with power over the livelihood of his fellow workers.

Some of the oldest socialists, older than Marx and the anarchists, were the Ricardian (some would say Smithian) socialists who were followers of David Ricardo and Adam Smith who wanted traditional businesses and finance to be replaced by worker and consumer cooperatives operating on a market, market socialism as it is broadly called. Then there's the socialists who just want a network of decentralized planning via a distributed network of communes or localized polities that would engage in spontaneous mutual trade and distribution according to need.

Every welfare state on earth only provides welfare for specific industries that, according to social democratic ideology, are the right of every man, specifically education and medicine. In welfare state countries those industries aren't even nationalized, it's just paid for by the government.

Which goes back to the whole "you work for the profits of another or starve" point.

I agree, I'm a union member and employees should attempt collective bargaining when they have a grievance, but as far as we're concerned this is only a short term strategy.

Except that's just the issue, it took civil wars and revolutions to bring about Marxist-Leninist style socialism, and revolutions carry large risks with them.

On what scale is the "micromanaged planning" you're thinking of?

One of the problems with Marx was that he didn't really have a plan for what his idea of a socialist society would look like. Lenin the writer is different from Lenin the politician, thoguh both supported the elitist idea of the "vanguard" that would ultimately leadto the Soviet authoritarianism. All the other socialist countries practiced the Marxist-Leninst model of the Soviet Union. The reason(s) they kept trying to imitate the Soviet Union is another matter.

Not socialism, they have market system with private businesses mixed with governments that just happen to provide free education and medical care.

Jesus fucking Christ. I don't know what's worse, this or them appropriating Max Stirner.
I know Marx pointed out the initial "contradictions of capitalism" but you retards take it to a whole other extreme.

No, I can 100% without need to discuss about it it say you are a retard.

GNU is free as libre no as free as in beer.

You stupid nigger.

topkek.

I don't see how free software inherently belongs to any ideology.

Truly ancaps are the rational right

we should just install stallman as the supreme leader

...

It's certainly compatible with socialism and is in the socialist spirit, but that doesn't mean it can't exist in capitalist, since it does.

You act as if the global status quo is workers having the upper hand in employment negotiations. When it's obviously not the case. For unskilled labor there's a large enough pool of unemployed people in western countries that people employed in these positions have next to 0 bargaining power. Even for blue collar jobs, Unions have been more or less destroyed which tilts negotiations in favor of firms. They may even collaborate to fix wages at a certain level. In the long term automation will further erode the bargaining power of workers.
This shouldn't even need explaining, you need a significant amount of funds to purchase the capital necessary to become self employed, some of the most common jobs for the self employed are trades like Electrical and Plumbing, to become self employed you'd need:
On top of this self-employment isn't feasible for some professions.

Sustained
Sorry, phoneposting.

That's some impressive autocorrect

common property can exist under capitalism too, it doesn't make an actual difference.

I need to do some chores so I leave alunya in charge of this thread for now.

Today I learned socialism just means a welfare state. Pic related, the original socialist.

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN????
HE IS WANTED FOR THE CRIMES OF:
GOMMUNISM AND GIB ME DAT