I was arguing with my friend about economics, particularly he was trying to debunk socialism with free-market capitalism. He said that, "If they workers own the means of production, then they are expropriating the value from the consumer who wants to buy their labor, therefore hindering the reduction of poverty"
What's exactly wrong with this statement?
Communism abolishes the commodity form though. How can there be customers if nobody is buying or selling?
The fuck does that mean, theres no commodities in socialism
wat
What he's saying is only aplicable in capitalism, there's no markets in socialism unless you're tito
The guy who I saw talking to also thought I was joking when I said that the Venezuelan economy is 70 percent privatized, that Holodomor was caused by weather, and that the bolsheviks were responsible for shortages during the civil war
People are workers before consumers, consumers who don't work should die by hunger
What I meant was that he thought the bolsheviks were responsible for shortages during the Russian civil war. Just to give a little background on the guy
He's a propaganda eating baby, read some basic books and watch his basic bitch ideology™ fall apart
your friend is assuming consumers and workers are two entirely seperate group of people
How is this any different than capitalism?
There is nothing right about this statement
what the capitalist? I assume this means the product of their labor
oh so he's retarded then
So your capitalist friend is now claiming that buying things is expropriation of value?
He's right, which is why socialism shouldn't and ought not be paired with proletarian identity politics. The problem with capitalism isn't the bourgeoisie, it's rent, the mechanism by which the bourgeoisie exert power. Just attack the institution of rent - which can both happen and be done by someone, a fact which is inconvenient to those who see society cleanly partitioned into proletariat and bourgeoisie - and you'll be able to create an actually workable system.
the biggest problem is that without capitalism there will be no job creators to make businesses, and unemployment will skyrocket.
this is empirically proven
That is a word salad made of just romaine and iceberg lettuce. He said nothing.
Why did the USSR have no unemployment then?
what the fuck is this post
kys
It’s one of our own making fun of pained capitalist arguments, but failing to make it obvious enough for people not to take the b8.
They had to invent positions that were redundant, and, in the end, not self-affirming. No alienation here, just move along.
It's retarded in its attempt to Occam's razor. A fashion designer can price poor people away from his products by charging extremely high prices.
Sort of like what’s happening undrr capitalism?
I seriously can't tell whether this is irony or neoliberals are actually this retarded
What does this sentence means?