Actual right wing Holla Forums user, currently bored...

Actual right wing Holla Forums user, currently bored. AMA and I will teach you how to irritate and induce mental submission in Holla Forums users.

Why? I dunno, I'm bored and it's funny

Other urls found in this thread:

Post feet

I don't have feet, I have paws :3

Where do you buy frog diapers?

>implying at least half of the board aren't disillusioned former Holla Forumstards the other half being disillusioned former redditors

How mentally scarred are you, on a scale from 1 to 10?

Ok. Why you fall for memes and defend capitalism when everything you stand against is capitalism fault?

University biology departments

You're thinking of regular 8/pol/

I have OCD, I don't know if I'd call that scarring

It doesn't take lessons you people are retarded

Why do you jump to the conclusion of blaming economic systems for phenomena which could be caused my numerous other variables?

All the negative phenomena which can be attributed to "capitalism" can be attributed to any other economic model.

You say that like people here aren't retarded. All chans have smart people and dumb people, and I enjoy all of it.

Shitposting aside, I group 4/pol/ and 8/pol/ under "Holla Forumstards". Is there a significant difference? It's been a considerable while since I've been on 4/pol/ and I never posted on 8/pol/.

8/pol/ is the zionist torture-chamber, while 4/pol/ is the de-facto torture chamber but multicultural.

Joke's on you, the average Holla Forums user is in a constant state of mental submission.

Most people here are not retarded I just disagree with them. I know the difference. Maybe 10% of us are actually thick. At Holla Forums you are 99% illiterate as shit totally uninformed retards

4/pol/ is, in my opinion, incredible. I've been on it since 2011 so my eyes are trained to ignore the crap and read/participate in the discussions.

I love how my little home board, where I used to discuss Ron Paul has made such a huge impact on normie meme circles and public discourse. While it has helped quasi-normalize right wing thought, I think it's been overwhelmingly positive in how its memes have opened up public discourse again; especially on topics which were previously considered taboo.

While I consider myself right wing, I'm glad people are talking again. Holla Forums and similar boards have helped spark this discourse by exposing people to uncomfortable ideas using humor.

Are you high?

lol. Imperialism and worker reserve army, liberalism and PC culture are literally product of capitalism
Sure. Socialism and Capitalism are the same thing. Read a book and Lurk moar cuck

Explain, I believe that it's nearly impossible to get a gauge on what the average Holla Forums user is actually like and who they are, other than the fact that they're mostly males in college.

My theory is that it's 80% trolls trolling trolls. This is coming from having observed the site for over eight years.

Oh god, you were one of those newfags.

Yes, truly incredible

I think it's consistently the most humorous content ever produced. Even beyond the racism. It's also a place where surprisingly good discussion takes place.

Those trolls are long gone, mate. Sincere post-irony is what reigns now.

Can exist in any economic model

Too broad of a term, haven't used it in an actual discussion in years

Also too broad of a term, but censorship of dissenting thought has also existed under every economic model

Did I say this? All of the stuff we're talking about can be found under socialism, capitalism, feudalism, social democracy, and any other model you can name.

You still have yet to prove that these negative phenomena can be uniquely attributed to the private ownership of the means of production.

It's almost like the board is more than one person

It's sincere post-irony with the hope that someone along the chain is stupid enough to bite. That's my hypothesis.

And you liked it all the way through? I've been there somewhere around 2014, as a "dude weed lmao" ancap somewhat disconcerted about the unironic nazis. It was actually 4/pol/ that taught me about Catalonia, Zizek, and Stirner. I tried to look what's up there recently and it seems to be all get whoring, kek worship faggotry, and unironic baneposting to add insult to the injury.

Someone's always stupid enough to bite.

I'm dude weed too and I've enjoyed all of the phases. I was ostensibly an 18 year old ancap stereotype when I started, and the Nazis never scared me away. They actually have a few interesting ideas and make some fair points. Still don't agree with everything they say, though.

That's, in my opinion, where the humor of Holla Forums is. The problem is, people are getting so good at pretending to be butthurt fags that I can't tell who's trolling who anymore, which is funny on an entirely different level.

Just no
It's not
Censorship is not PC culture.
Why these fenomen exist in the first place pal? Also you ignored the whole worker reserve army I see. Imperialism is a fenomen exclusive of capitalism. When it gets too big it needs to expand. Liberalism, SJW or whatever, are a fenomenon of capitalism because they exist just to protect the fall of capitalism. When it gets to nasty, they come in and say "It's not bad, we just need more black ceo's".


Who pretends to be assblasted? It's one thing to pretend to be outraged but feigning outrage is hardly

Holla Forums went downhill when the zimmerman trial happened. All the Holla Forumstards and Holla Forumsirgins stayed afterwards diluting political discussion.

*pretend to be edgy

That's what kept me there until I've realized they don't have a monopoly on being against the stuff I'm against (liberal idpol and white male self hate, mostly), and I don't have to put up with the rest of their inane bullshit.

I missed it, but the US army has shifted recruitment efforts and they are now looking for educated people with hopes of advancing.

Nobody can say for sure what causes imperialism, but I would guess it's scarcity of resources and possibly some intrinsic evolved need to fight. Neither of us can prove our hypothesis because there are nearly infinite variables and each incidence of imperialism needs to be looked at individually. You're acting like your hypothesis is an indisputable fact of life.

Citation needed

Depends on which one. I'm going to need to see some serious proof that it was caused by citizens' private ability to own property and means of production. The problem is there's no way to prove this, so I don't take it seriously.

It doesn't matter at all, you're all stupid free markcuck liberals

When people bite stupid b8, it makes other stupid people mad.

I don't consider myself a white nationalist either.

You've yet to explain what negative phenomena you're reffering too.

That's not want worker reserve army means idiot, I meant immigrants
This is just idiotic. Mine wasn't a hypotesis but a proven fact
See how these people voted for hilary?
First capitalism is not that. But i'll take a bite. You are saying that a private citizen who owns means of production, so owns wealth and needs more wealth isn't the reason why you ended up in iraq? You fell for the democracy meme? Do you think that bush chaney or everyother person in a position of power doesn't own/exist to protect people who hold means of production?

Keep in mind the guy you're talking too is speaking from a leninist and stalinist perspective. No socialist model before them cared about imperialism, and leninism defines inperialism differently than anyone else.

Well for me there was also the thing that I've realized that supporting capitalism isn't really in my self-interest. not that posting on Holla Forums in the evenings while being a polite wagecuck 9-17 is helping me either

So you literally don't see anything when you browse 4/pol/?

Was it the 1,000th thread on Pizzagate or the 500th thread on dank helicopter memes that made you reach that conclusion?

Maybe it was the "X celebrity is based because he supports big poppa dumpling" discussion…

The worker's reserve army is the belief that economies with surplus unskilled workers send those excess workers off to die in meaningless wars to thin the population. What I'm saying is that there are many "capitalist" economies that don't practice this anymore, I should have been more clear.

Who proved it? Give me their name and the piece where they proved it?

They didn't vote at all outside of large cities, that's why she lost.

See pic related. Any further definition is loading the term for the sake of winning an argument. Pic related is what I support.

It is, but it's also possible that once information technology destroys the information monopoly, it will be harder to trick the population into complying with such frivolous wastes of money and tragic losses of life


Only some of the people who hold means of production, not all of them. Every single person with a skill and/or equipment owns means of production.

Here's pic related, forgot to attach; dictionary definition of capitalism

I normally sift through a few threads, mostly the ones related to current events (not related to pop culture) and participate in the discussions on there for a little while. I don't read any of those threads, but they do act as meme factories.

I don't understand how somebody can be so gleeful about their masters profiting off of their work. Why are right-wingers so keen to be exploited?

Except that's too simple a definition, because it ignores the intrinsically exploitative nature of capitalism.

imagine being so disconnected from reality that you actually are this affirmed of 4chan having influence on anything

This is mostly why I ignore any ideology which defines its own terms using exclusionary definitions.

You and the people who agree with you are the ones who give it an exploitative definition, and when someone argues against the notion that it's intrinsically exploitative, you tell them they're wrong for not using your approved definition.

I don't need instructions to know how to rock, fag.

My friends and acquaintances pick up more 4chan memes, phrases, and ideas every single year. It's actually kind of amazing.

ignoring ideologies that use exclusionary definitions in favour of your own definitions is… exclusionary

No, it's the belief that capitalists threaten workers constantly with unemployment, as the workers can theoretically can be replaced from the unemployed. In reality, unemployment is also caused by the capitalist system itself; there's no reason why those who are currently unemployed (or spend their days doing things without value like trading stocks, filming advertisements, and mining diamonds) can't be made to do something productive other than the mechanisms of capitalism; the idea that your job possibly might be made irrelevant by immigrants or automation ought to be celebrated, but yet capitalism fools people into thinking that's bad.

That's not what it means.

No it's not, while the definition your giving describes an aspect of calitalism it ignores crucial components that seperate it from other economic systems.

That's not what "means of production" means, not in mainstream economics or Marxism or other leftist models.

Why don't you try to just make your definitions as close to reality as possible? I listen to what they have to say but I don't take it seriously, because there's only one truth and you should be able to prove your truth with logic.

This is why I don't call myself anything other than vaguely "right wing" or "center right" for the sake of convenience. Every ideology does this too, it's not unique to the far left. Just google it next time
Vladimir lenin, imperialism the highest stage of capitalism
Maybe SJW liberals are not a mayority in every part of america? Maybe there is some working class prole who was against these kind of people and voted trump because he looked different from them?
Capitalism is not only that, also

The problem is not the monopoly, if it was a private army they would have acted the same way. You are not against iraq war or war in general, you are against the monopoly. You are just jealous that you weren't the one who did that.
No comment really.

So the fact that your employer takes the value you produce, giving you a small fraction of it in return, strikes you as a totally fair and non-exploitative system?

The fact the labourer is working to enrich somebody else, in order to survive, doesn't strike you as exploitative? The capitalist system is built upon exploitation in the same way the feudal system and slavery was.

Alright, I concede on the fact that I have a superficial understanding on a term used by Marx and Engels.

What is the right one? Who has the authority to define it and decide which definitions are null?

Are you telling me pic related is an incorrect definition too? How is a coder's computer and knowledge not his means of production?

Vladamir Lenin is wrong.

How do you unironically quote his name and then still spell it wrong underneath?

I'm a college student, paying out of pocket for an inexpensive degree, learning web development. I am currently employed by a company doing the front end on their marketing site and eCommerce. The company is run by computer illiterate old guys who need my skills, and I need money and an opportunity to produce projects/grow my skills. I have something they don't have, they have something I don't have, and we are trading. No exploitation involved.

The more work I do for them, the more my skills increase and my portfolio grows.

I've already done three freelance projects. The better I get, the more of them I'll get, and one day, I'll do only freelance projects. The best part is, college is my choice, but I never even really needed it and learned 90% of my skills from working entry level and free online bootcamps. Someone could easily get where I am without dolling money for college. Where is the exploitation in this scenario?

First I would avoid using dictionaries to define political terms, they always oversimplify and mislead.

I'm not saying the definition you linked is wrong, just incomplete. It fails to descibe things like competitive markets, wage labor, and the way it concieves legitimate property.

The point about socialism is what constitutes legitimate ownership of property and by extension means of production. A computer I use to code something.

Also, ignore the guy with the Stalin flag.

This is why I avoid using Marxist, anarchist, and utopian definitions and stick with mainstream economic ones.

Whoops. I don't use it often. I guess I made a typo.

Nobody has proven how Mr. Lenin is correct about anything he's said, though. He's a revolutionist and philosopher, not a scientist. I wouldn't expect someone to take the words of someone I support as gospel/fact without proof.

They are giving you less than the value you produce, otherwise they wouldn't bother paying you.

So you can be exploited by somebody else who pays you a bit more.

You have a skill they require, sure. But you are still not getting the value of the fruits of your labour. Noblemen would often have serfs who possessed skills they didn't have; they may be excellent at carpentry, or wonderful at cultivating land. Perhaps they would get more perks and better conditions than the other serfs, larger personal plots of land.

They were still exploited by the feudal lord, much as you are being exploited by your employers.

I'm hard pressed to take social scientists' hypotheses and consider them science, so discussion of definitions of political words is a wild goose chase. Anybody who's ideologically motivated is going to use their position of ideological authority to frame something they dislike as intrinsically exploitative. The right does it too.

I should have established, at the beginning, that the entire point I'm arguing is that economic systems are not the root of all social issues, and that capitalism does not have to be intrinsically exploitative.

I'm not even arguing against any specific alternatives to capitalism either, I even see merit in many of them.

The fact that the company owners will take both higher than proportional wages as well as take the profits for themselves even though you and sales people, and accoutants are the ones doing the bulk of the work while they are, at best doing sone management. You may be making a comfortable living and more power too you if that's all you want. But there are people who are treated and paid shit even though their jobs are far more vitally important to society than a web devloper's or marketing company owner's.

Skills aren't means of production btw.

damn I missed the sound posting republican flag user.

I'd one up the "also": why is there unemployment, when, for one, I'd gladly work half the hours? (I've actually asked my boss, apparently the choice I have is either full time or none at all).

The value of something is defined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. The great thing about tech is that you become better at it and pick up more skills while you work at it, so I'm happy with my temporary position.

One day, when I'm freelancing, I will be one business owner trading services with another business owner. Both people in that transaction are equals.

He's also ignoring the fact that it's possible for an exploited individual to be perfectly content. Many slaves or serfs with kind owners lived a comparatively good life.

Nigga, what?
It has been going downhill at an incredible speed since the election stuff started and /r/the_donald began flooding in

Freelancers like yourself are just one man coops, perfectly conpatible wih market socialists and mutualists.

This is why 4chan has gone to shit. This is why social media is cancer. Normalfags who take shitposting seriously and the newfags can't tell the difference. Look at how discussion has suffered and everyone has been duped by sourceless infographs. Fuck you OP, read a book and get out of that shithole

What percentage of the actual value is being provided by the workers is subjective because value is subjective. In my opinion, the person who comes up with the idea (the innovator) for the successful business has done 90% of the actual "work" in building that business. None of the workers below them will even have a job if it isn't for them.

What I'm saying is that learning a skill, becoming the best at it, and becoming an entrepreneur is easier now than it has ever been, in history. Someone could enter my field for free, minus the costs of an internet connection. If I can do it, why can't they?

I don't want to be all talk either, once I have my feet under me, I'm going to start taking a few people under my wing and encouraging them to do the same once they're established.

The value of work is the value of what it produces. Your employer takes most of that value, leaving you with a small fraction of it.

Think of it this way: A labourer works five hours, and in that time he produces goods worth £500. Rather than being paid the value he has produced in that time (that is, £500), he is instead paid £100, with the other £400 going to his employer.

In the same way, a serf would work 6 days a week; 3 for himself, and 3 for his master. That means for every 2 days the serf works, only 1 of them is to produce for himself, the rest is to produce for his feudal lord. In our example above, for every 5 hours the employee works, only 1 of those hours is spent creating the value he receives, the rest of it is spent creating wealth for somebody else.

Building on that, Jack Daniel learned how to make whiskey from an actual slave. A fair trade, of course.

I'm not 100% content, though. I want to be a freelancer. I technically already am because I've completed three freelance projects, but I will be doing more and more as my skills increase. I only started learning back end recently.

Your opinion.

I'm not arguing against those ideas. I actually really like mutualism and my personal little utopia would probably be voluntary mutualism with skilled tradespeople like myself.

To be fair, it goes through several other websites before it ever gets to them.

10 years from now today's newfags will be bitching about the same thing, you know.

1. I wouldn't have that job at all if I didn't have that employer

2. What if it's not one employer and one employee, but a freelancer producing for a client?

It all slowly flows downstream to normalfag sites
Most memes have a long delay and lesser known memes never make it to normals

Also, I'd like to add, the only reason my employer has that job is because somebody, down the line, had a great idea for an operation which was either

A. An original invention
B. A substantially improved version of a current operation

and they did this with a profit incentive

"I wouldn't have any produce without my feudal Lord"

The client will pay you at exploitatively low rates, else it wouldn't be worth his time. If he pays you fairly, then he doesn't make a profit.

Without the workers their idea wouldn't exist in reality, and no idea is formed in an ideological vacuum. You're also assuming every new business is tech or innovative.

Totally false both now and historically. Workers can form their own businesses called coops, they already operate businesses for their owners anyway.

Here's the problem with your stance, you're looking at calitalism from your very narrow experience in the very unique world of software and digital industry. Not every industry can be made up entirely of freelance work and not every industry can be self taught for dirt cheap like web develoment. We can't have a world of only programmers and business owners.

What would you consider "exploitatively low" for my line of work? I'm the one who agrees on the price, and I don't work until I agree on it. So am I exploiting myself?

Also, are you implying there's somebody else who can reliably continue to pay me the so-called "true value" of my labor? Because I would argue that entity will never exist.


So it is therefore fine to exploit the workers?

Profit incentive can also suppress the introduction of new inventions due to artificially low wages, an integral part of the capitalist system.

It can with tech, which is dominating the entire market more and more each year.

Improving upon old innovations is innovation

Why don't all of the workers who believe themselves to be exploited just do this? What's stopping them?

Not yet. But we're leaving an era where there was just work that had to get done, no exceptions. Those jobs are disappearing thanks to tech.

Again all well and good for you, but the only reason freelancing is desireable is because of how capitalism and by extension traditinal businesses operate. If you were entitled to the profits of the businesses that hired you you would be in a very good financial position for life nearly everyone would from what are under capitalism minimum wage workers to lawyers at a famous firm.

I couldn't give you a specific salary because I have no clue of the rates, but the system doesn't change by sector.

You agree on a rate that still allows whoever is paying you to profit off of your work. Otherwise they would have no reason to pay you.

That would involve the destruction of the capitalist system.

Putting aside the question that the freelancer is in debt and therefore this is actually an employer-employee relationship in disguise, the freelancer would be an instance of what Marxists typically call the "petit-bourgeois". There's really not much interesting here - other than that there's nothing stopping some firm from stepping in and employing an economy of scale to deliver goods at a lower price than the freelancer's available to other than market irrationalities; those irrationalities will almost certainly be eliminated by the march of Capital, kicking the freelancer down into the ranks of the proletariat and return us to the first question.

I don't trust any entity that wants to claim the power to force private employers to adhere to a standardized corporate structure. That power can and will be abused.

I don't trust any entity that wants to claim the power to force private employers to adhere to a standardized corporate structure. That power can and will be abused.

Yeah, let's get to that one. What would replace it? That would involve a fundamental and centralized restructuring of the economy and I don't trust the people who claim to want to do that.

You mean exactly what capitalism and traditinal businesses depend on to exist?

Why should we have an economy based around exchange instead of use? There are currently people starving to death just because of that.

You don't need centralization to do away with capitalism.


meant for

You mean how the state enforces property laws?

How can you end capitalism without centralization?

I'd rather die.

What exactly frightens you so much about the emancipation of the workers from capitalist oppression?

For fuck's sake have you even bothered reading anything other than Ayn Rand and Hayek?

Exactly this is literally the reason the state exists and make no mistake capitalism needs it to survive.

Socialism =/= planning and markets =/= capitalism. It's as simple as turning the fundamentals property (and finance) law on its head.

I can't help but feel you consider the Soviet system synonymous with all of leftism.

Before we continue this discussion, can someone educate me on how socialism or any other post-capitalism can be achieved without force? Because any entity that has the power to seize the means of production for the workers has power which can be abused by those who control it.

The identity between innovators and the bourgeois is farcical (many people who greatly advanced the horizon of human knowledge were not rewarded with material wealth, and many people who are materially wealthy are so not because of having advanced humanity but because of luck or inheritance), but even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't change the fact that a market system still allocates excessive production power to be used fulfilling the demands of decadence rather than advancing production or meeting the needs of the needed and still provides people incentive to put in place barriers against the introduction of new forms of wealth, and still gives people an incentive to sneakily undermine the common good through pollution and commodification of culture.

You need to understand that most people have been heavily propagandised, and Holla Forums only serves as an echo chamber to amplify that.

Most of them have never even read any political literature at all, let alone any Marx.

The US didn't prove is thesis about Imperialism correct? Colonialism didn't?

1. I don't equate leftism with Soviets, I even hold a few leftist beliefs myself

2. I've never read Marx, but that's because reading Marx is hobbyism in a constitutional republic like the US. I believe in small and local government and just want to do my work in peace without powerful, redistributing governments who appeal to the parasite class.

Depending on the political and economic circumstances of a country, aggressive reform could be made to work, radical unionizing is another possible strategy, trying as hard as possible to form large scale cooperative networks, though capitalism makes the last one difficult, and the police makes the second one difficult.

The possibility of the state abusing its power exists whether or not we live in capitalism or socialism, we already see the state abusing power on behalf of the capitalists who lobby and run the state.

It depends what you mean by force. If you mean a literal violent revolution then there are other ways of achieving socialism. However, like most times a system is overthrown, revolt is usually the mechanism by which the transition occurs. It could be done democratically, certainly, but broadly speaking some form of mass uprising would be required.

Marx spoke of the workers (i.e. the proletariat) seizing the means of production from their employers. That is, the means of production are owned communally by various groups of workers. Now, there could be a coordinating "entity" such as a state, but that need not necessarily be the case.

Such as

What if I don't want to join a union?

I'm fully behind this but it won't stop capitalism, it will simply become a large background process inside of it

But at least I'm alive and eating. My concern is that a tyrannical government will emerge using promises of left-wing revolution, because any entity with that much power over the economy can be oppressive in a way that can't even be compared to current modern capitalism.

More than likely you're already being ruled by one. Most developed nations are built around catering to the bourgeoisie in that very manner.

I'm currently alive, currently eating, currently happy with my local government, and am allowed to work for myself. A government that can seize any assets from anyone can and will jeopardize that. There are people who are less valuable than me who are going to want access to my resources and will realize that it's as simple as voting them away from me.

Your current government appeals to a parasite class; they just happen to be a very wealthy, well-educated parasite class. Regardless, socialism can operate based upon labour. That is, one only earns the means of trade (in our current system, money) through labour. One hour's work in any socially necessary field engenders one hour's pay. This isn't a system that encourages parasitism, as far as I can see. In reality, it is one that encourages hard work.

It is important to recognise that socialism does not necessarily entail equality of incomes, but merely 1. a sharp reduction in inequality, and 2. pay based upon time spent labouring.

No, you don't get it. The 'parasite' class refers to the welfare queens who do no work and get paid a proportion of YOUR money for doing nothing, not the bourgeois who do no work and get paid nearly all of your money for doing nothing.

Literally one of the founding ideas of all of socialism.

Typical aggressive politicking, like using a congressional/parlimentary majority to its fullest extent.

Why would you shoot yourself in the foot like this?

I know, that's why its just one of multiple strategies that should be simultaneously undertaken.

Then don't support planning and nationalization.

You projected that onto me. "Crony capitalists" (I use the term in quotes because I don't like self-apologetic language, but it's the best term I have, here) are just as much members of the parasite class as the benefits abusers.

I'm a student now but I increasingly work for myself more and more, each year. When I fully work for myself, then it will all be my money.

and the vast majority of anyone who went on there regularly pre-2015

A socialist government wouldn't be able to seize goods or assets that have been fairly distributed. It would be able to seize the excess wealth of the bourgeoisie, but I see little wrong with that. They didn't labour for it, somebody else did.

"Fairly" defined by them. It's not going to be intelligent philosophers defining these terms, it will be mobs of emotional and finicky parasites looking for a free lunch.

Will I be considered bourgeoisie once I'm fully self-employed?

How, exactly, do you expect "crony capitalism" to ever, ever be abolished when by definition all money, power and influence is funnelled towards people at the top? Even if you managed to abolish "crony capitalism" and created a new, completely meritocratic capitalistic system where everyone gets paid exactly what is due to them by their worth via the free market and nobody is exploited, even in this ideal system how would you keep the ones who have the most money and influence from toppling the whole thing again for their benefit and creating a second "crony capitalism", just like they did before?

How does Holla Forums aim to deport all of the roughly 100 million non-whites living in The United States Of America to establish an all white ethnostate and do you think it's morally justifiable to revoke Black-American citizenship when over 90% of their enslaved ancestors have lived on American soil since before even The American Revolutionary War of 1776 which is over a century before most White-Americans' European ancestors even immigrated to The United States?

There are many ways of approaching the issue of powerful entities bribing decision makers beyond ending capitalism. The problem will never be fully eliminated, but these entities are currently wigging out because discussions about ending their monopolies/handouts are increasingly entering the mainstream.

As are all absentee owners, "cronyist" or not. Many of the benefits "abusers" only depend on the benefits because of the fact that they don't get the profits they made for the businesses they worked for. If fast food employees had their employers turned into coops they would never have to use welfare again. Welfare queening, what little there is, only exists because of the inherit failures of capitalism.

Again not every industry allows for the muh privilege of freelancing and freelancing under a socialist market would be against your self interest.

It is also how the Frankfurt School defined "cultural marxism", a term which has since been coined by the right wing to peddle various conspiracy theories.

Fairly defined by how much they laboured for them. They do not deserve goods for which they did not labour.

Doubtful. Perhaps if you somehow accrue massive amounts of assets.

It could conceivably be done in a reasonable way if it occurred in tandem with a black separatist movement with mass support.

What exactly is the value of their labor? Nobody can create an objective model for the value of these people's labor. Most people in capitalism survive without government benefits because they choose a field that yields them more money, some of which can be learned online for free.

Once the economy is fully tech based, this will change.

If that ended they would just move somewhere else that offers them better protection.

Did you actually read Adam Smith and what he had to say about the division of price of the goods between labour, capital, and rent, and how it's not possible to ascribe the profits of capital and rent to the labour needed to manage the capital? If so, how do you refute his points?

Fairly defined by how much they laboured for them. They do not deserve goods for which they did not labour.
What is the magical labor:monetary value ratio? No such ratio exists because it's subjective, and nobody has the ability to decide what people's labor is truly worth. It's all a negotiation.

The value of their labour can be defined as the value of the goods or services they produce/provide. If they get paid anything less than that, then they are being deprived of their rightful wealth.

There's no "black separatist" movement that 40 million American blacks are on board with. Most of them are comfortable with being Americans. How are you going to get them, Asian-Americans and non-white Latino-Americans to leave?

lol wut

*to manage capital or rent, fug.

Who decides that value? What is the exact ratio of labor value:monetary value?

No it is not. 1 hour's labour entitles you to goods that require the equivalent amount of labour to produce.

So an hour of cleaning toilets = an hour of engineering a unique technology for a client?

See, this is the problem. Right cucks don't understand the extent to which they are being fucked. They think that making 100k a year means that they've reached the top of the system and that they are the 1% and ready to reap all the rewards of screwing over the lower classes, they don't realize just how much fucking money is getting funnelled away from them and how ridiculously rich the bourgeois actually are. Being self employed and making a good living doesn't make you bourgeois. Owning private property and forcing wage labourers to give you their excess wealth so that you make more money then you, your children or your grandchilren could spend in their lifetimes, that makes you bourgeois.

I have, and Marx deals with all of this in his works, but I fail to see how it is relevant to cultural marxism.

I can give you a link that outlines Marx's critique of Adam Smith if you'd like.

Both are socially necessary labour, so yes.

I'm an engineer and dirty toilets + the chronic lack of soap at my office building seriously diminishes my productive abilities, really makes you think.

Not him but gib link.

Only if they vote for social democrats. In reality there is a clear framework in socilaism for when you are have a right to property and when you're a bourgeoisie parasite

If you're a lone freelancer then no, if you hire people the take the profits they're helping you make then yes.

I'm talking about the profits of a business, is it not common sense that someone who plays no role in the business and instead coats of their majority shareholding doesn't deserve what they have not labored for?

Not everyone can employed in only high laying fields, most of which require expensive college educations. Society is dependent on many what in capitalism are low pay jobs.

It's not going to be fully tech based, if you're trying to imply AI and automation I'm afraid the advent of both is greatly exagerated by literally everyone.

Why would someone become an engineer then? Why wouldn't everyone just do the easiest work possible? People wouldn't be allowed to choose a profession in the system you're proposing.

That would depend on the number of employees, their wages, etc. etc.

Obviously in reality the bourgeoisie would just be stripped of their wealth, but the point is that they don't deserve their excessive wealth because it was accrued through exploitation.

Not everyone is trying to be the richest person on Earth. 100k is enough to feed a family and take care of children, which is what the right wing usually cares about.

I'm fully aware of a parasitic elite class siphoning money away from taxpayers. I just don't advocate for socialism as a solution.

You can let the market and collective bargaining decide. It may not be popular but market socialism and mutualism exist.

They may be guaranteed a job if they do, or incentives may be provided. It is also possible to heavily propagandise people into choosing a particular career path (direction of labour). There are various ways it could be done. It's also important to note that studying in University is considered socially necessary labour and so they would receive pay for it.

Dunno, perhaps because you like inventing new things?

t. engineer, working in a company that designs selective laser melting machines, and in a grad school right now. NEET poltards please stop telling actually skilled people how to live their lives, pretty please

There is no other solution. The elite class siphon money away from those they employ, not just from the taxpayer. You either agree with people hoarding wealth they didn't work for, or you don't.

This is what I can't stand about right-wingers. They say they care about families but they really only care about their own.
Leftists are the only ones wanting to give every family and child a chance.

Oh for fuck sake you are the fucking cancer that ruined 4chan

always hated 4chan and im glad all the newfags who came to pol in first place are also flooding other boards.