You hate porky for being exploitive and greedy, yet you still buy into porky’s products?

trust me, if we had a choice we wouldn't.

That’s only because they are prevented from doing it themselves by both the nature of mobetary systems and the fact that it is hoarded by parasites.

You realise there were products before there was porky. The ENTIRE POINT is the porky controls all the products. Its not the products, its our relationship to them. Duh

I take it you live somewhere in the English-speaking world. Can you cite me a single law that actually prevents (i.e. uses force to limit the ability to this freedom) you from doing such a thing?
But people having more wealth than you isn't forcing you to do anything. That's not what force means.
That's not what a parasite means. The parasite is dependent upon the host. The wealthy are not dependent on the workers, automation is right around the corner. Human workers are already becoming irrelevant. Not to mention, the majority of the wealthy could retire tomorrow and live until they die.

Except capitalism is not equivalent to slavery, you are not the legal property of anybody. That's what a slave is.

That wasn't the implication, loser.

Like it or not, you're property of the state. Human resource to turn into labor/consumer or meatshield in some imperialist cashgrab in the middle of some fucking Niger or whatever.

Then what is the implication, why else would you juxtapose the two besides getting some emotional points while ignoring historical accuracy?

My wealth might be, but not my body. I do not have to work as a slave, I am not the property of the government. Human beings are no longer property in the Western world.

...

Now re read your OP

I'm the actual OP btw

Perfect example of an ad hoc rescue.

It wasn't my OP, I commented later on, and the point that I made ("capitalism is not equivalent to slavery, you are not the legal property of anybody") still stands.

I suppose..

But porky makes it so his products are a necessity to survive.

Back then market was an option, but now people can't survive without buying a house from SOMEONE ELSE or eating SOMEONE ELSE's branding.

Don't do ideology, kids.

You are owned by everyone with property, who then has the right to extract as much value as possible from you until you die, if they don't buy you outright with some kind of debt.

The implication is that, throughout the ages there have been classes that have been subordinated to other classes (the slaves to the masters, the peasants to the lords, and the workers to the capitalists). These subordinated classes produce value for the dominant classes, whose power is maintained by the state.
The argument here is that it is dumb to say that a worker cannot simultaneously be against capitalism and live in capitalist society at the same time, because you would not say the same to the peasant who was against feudalism, or the slave who was against slavery. The argument is ridiculous for reasons explained above in this thread.
The judgement that being a worker is the same as being a slave is unrealistic, and was done entirely by you. The main similarities being called into question are that all situations pictured are of class societies, and show the members of the subordinate class arguing with the dominant class.

...

That's a symptom of the competition, not the main cause, although most businesses do strive to make the 'best'.

It's funny because the similar argument from your camp is that boycotts are ineffective because of the hegemony, which is circumstantially true, but you think walkouts are effective. Last time that happened, the businesses went overseas where the workers don't take bathroom breaks.

No, that's not what ownership means. That means you have less than them and they succeed in the marketplace. That doesn't mean that they have legal ownership over you.
Again, the ownership of others and theft is illegal: slavery is illegal in the Western world.

...

...

It's slowly poisoning humanity

There is such a thing as debt, you know? Mortgage, credit, that sorta thing. Ever heard of it?

As in: they switched their workforce around. Capital remains dependent upon labor regardless.

Did you even read? You depend on the work of others in order to sustain yourself. This is a constant in any human society. However, capitalism's main thing is that your only way to access the products of other people's work is through the market, and in order to acquire these products, you need to either exploit others (be part of the bourgeoisie), or be exploited by others (be part of the proletariat), so you can make money.

...

This is to be expected when organisms compete, that's how evolutionary differences work. You are always going to be upset if you want people to be equal and realize that there will always be a natural hierarchy, sometimes out of the faculties of the agent, sometimes out of sheer luck that just snowballs.
Except not all forms of capitalism are equal. Some incorporate state intervention, while others schools of thought do not. You ought to say 'some' forms of capitalist theory act in this way.
Live free or die trying. If you are principled, then you will reject the system. Otherwise, you are being docile. Moderates don't win revolutions.

If I borrow one million dollars from you and I never pay you back, I am put in prison for fraud. That's not the same as capturing someone and having a legal code that allows for slavery.

Yes. I'm not saying that employers never rely on employees, I'm saying that employees flock to employers, or they become the next employers.

Speak for yourself. They forfeit their work in a mutually beneficial trade with me.
Yeah, pointing out how competition exists doesn't make cooperation impossible.
That's how the fruit of the competition is exchanged.
Yes, because the marketplace is where people can voice their demands. I can go to a thrift store and bargain for a product that is worth more to me than it is to the next guy. Depends on many factors, really, but this is one of them.
Exploitation requires coercion and the absence of consent. You give your consent each time you sign an employment contract, nobody is forcing you to sign anything. It is not, by definition, exploitation.

Except every classical economist literally defined capitalism as such. For Adam Smith having to sell your labor and being cut off from its fruits is an alt. form of chattel slavery.

From a modern perspective: you are telling me that I'm free to either starve and be homeless or get a job. How is this not a form of objective violence? "Get fucked or get fucked less?"

">>I

You could technically protest capitalism via technology…

but what I mean is why TRUST capitalist products?

Because they have no choice but to sell their labor in exchange for wage on the job market or face starvation. The wealth of the capitalist is built entirely on the labor of these wage-slaves.

Discussing consent with a libertarian invariably feels like debating the Santa Claus Question with a 5 year-old.

Let's make clear the options inside capitalism. You either sell your labor power to a capitalist, who will profit from not paying the full worth of your actual labor, or you starve, become homeless, and die.

That's great for Adam Smith, but he does not have a legal argument to make. I already put my challenge above, I'll restate it regarding this issue you are concerned with: I take it you live somewhere in the English-speaking world. Can you cite me a single law that actually prevents (i.e. uses force to limit the ability to this freedom) you from doing such a thing?
That's your false dichotomy, not mine. It doesn't exist in reality, so of course you're going to be upset when it fails. It isn't literally "I don't want to work for you, ergo you are oppressing me because I have literally no other options to survive, this is somehow your fault", you have created this false dichotomy. You're completely discounting self-employment.
I don't know, I'm asking you.
False dichotomy. It isn't "I can either work or I will die". This is also operating on the false assumption that you are necessarily guaranteed to have a 'fair' life, that things will be decent and pleasurable enough so that you won't suffer. The real world does not work like that.
Still not slavery, by your own admission.

Wow, this false dichotomy really is rampant here. Why the necessity to cast yourself as a victim? Have you ever heard of self-employment? You know you can form unions voluntarily all the time? Get a bunch of your mates to invest in a start-up and own it all as a collective. It isn't "you are committing a transgression against me for putting me in a false dichotomy wherein I will either starve because I have literally zero other options for sustenance (somehow this is the fault of other people instead of the person in-question), this is slavery", sorry.

They're called "cops." In what way is the omnipresent threat of armed goons coming to beat or kill you for not playing porkopoly not "coercive?"

???

Appealing to my motivations even though I have not made any admissions to my personal beliefs (as if that would matter). The fact is that you are not, by definition, being exploited. Exploitation relies on coercion and the absence of consent. If you consent to me taking your car from you, it isn't exploitation: you agreed to it.

False dichotomy. It isn't "either I am employed or I die". This also assumes that others should provide for you, and that others should plan out how you live and survive. Also, again, completely ignoring self-employment.

> Wow, are you seriously criticizing capitalism right now? Like, you really refuse to accept it as a legitimate model of social organization? Why don't you just carve a place for yourselves in that system instead of desiring real change, I can't even—

Can you point me to a law that allows for government authorities to force you to sign employment contracts?

Yes, because it isn't slavery, by definition. You aren't the legal property of anybody else. Slaves were not guaranteed half the freedoms you are allowed even IF you were a debt "slave".

Strawman, there are many things to criticize capitalism about, but false victimization and illusions of a dichotomy are not the points to be making.
Another strawman. Be my guest, I'm just pointing out the logical leaps your claims make.

Stopped reading there. Capitalism is impersonal and capitalists simply follow their self-interest, I can't hate them for that.

It's not about trust, it's about availability, if you want to live decently, you have to buy capitalists products/services because there are the only availables. And to buy those capitalists products/services, you have to work for the capitalists.

You're not as smart or special as you think you are, and transparently so. Your regurgitation of platitudes about "consent", "contracts", "self-employment", etc is obvious as fuck. We can tell you from miles away just like we can a Nazi who believes he's not setting off any alarm with his talk of "international bankers" or "whïte genocide".

Negative. It's a statement about how the systems in place do not allow for existence outside those systems. Before any state existed, a man could go where he wanted for the most part to get whatever food he could find.

There is no where this is true any more, the system gives no 'opt-out' option, where you can just make your own living without capitulating to it. Not only will you be homeless, but you get to enjoy the laws against being homeless; you're not allowed to just be poor anywhere.

This situation is not mere whining about having needs, it's about being artificially prevented from fulfilling those needs directly by a system that will punish you if you refuse to be exploited (have the better portion of what your labor produces be taken from you to go to people who merely own).

This is not a very scientific reading of evolutionary development. Especially because intraspecies competition does not necessarily take on the form of class struggle, and because humans, before the appearance of agriculture, lived in classless societies. So your argument is extremely invalid.

The point of socialism is not to make people equal. It's to make a classless society. This does not imply everyone will have the same skills, the same desires, or the same characteristics. It does imply that everyone will (generally speaking) have the same economic interests, and that humanity will be able to make economic decisions as a unified force, in a rational way. Class society cannot achieve this.

Some people being better at others at certain things does not imply a hierarchy in terms of organisation. In fact, if natural hierarchies were a real thing, then it would be pointless to have a state to enforce them. The natural leaders would always rise to power, and then be naturally challenged when their power diminished. However, this does not happen. They always depend on the state aparatus (and thus the work of others, who would be, in your fantasy world, their inferiors) to protect them from oponents. This is inconsistent with the notion of natural hierarchy.
The fact is a natural superiority at something does not imply that that individual will naturally form a state around himself in order to protect his power as far as that thing is concerned. He does not need to. His leadership appears when others follow his example and naturally recognise his skill, and vanishes when people no longer recognise his skill, or prefer someone else. This cannot happen in a system with a state, because the state actually REPRESSES this.

Well observed. However, all forms of capitalism are the same as far as the fundamentals go. They all include a bourgeoisie, a proletariat, wage labour, exchange-value, and a state. (unless you think ancapism is realistically possible)

No. All forms of capitalism include protection of class society (the status quo) by the state, and all of them include surplus value being produced for the bourgeoisie by the workers. (except for state-capitalism. That's a special system that doesn't have a bourgeoisie, and has the state get the surplus value instead)

Seems legit. However that would be quite counter-productive to my goals.

You are a special individual that never buys anything, and produces everything for himself?

Negro what?

You are ignoring the criticism that was made and changing the subject like a faggot. The fact is that you HAVE TO get everything from the market, and you do not have any alternative under capitalism.

You probably meant to put an "or" there instead of an "and", because otherwise that would imply that raping a woman at gunpoint is not exploitative. It obviously is, despite her consent, because you coerced her by threatening to kill her.
In capitalis, you don't have any alternative to working for a boss, becoming one yourself, or dying. How you do not see this as coersion, I will never know.

The threat of starvation of significantly diminished quality of life is not a force that coerses one into working? Are all the arguments about how increasing unemployment benefits too much will make people not work actually false?

That requires capital, which you cannot get without someone either giving it to you or working for it. Even then, depending on what sort of "self employment" is involved, hundreds or thousands of dollars in certification might be involved. Completely autonomous "self employment" is almost universally impossible.

If you believe this, you are living in a fantasy. Even if you could just form a union, most States have laws which make them effectively worthless, either by attacking their means of funding or outright denying them the right to collectively bargain, making them "unions" in name only.

It actually is. Through the process of Commons enclosure and estate clearing the vast majority of peasants were forced off of their collectively owned land in order to increase the agricultural profits of the aristocracy as well as to provide a workforce for the burgeoning bourgoisie.

Is it or is it not coercive if I threaten to send men to your home and drag you out if you don't give me the money that I want?

I don't. I actually live in the post-USSR world, where following the regime change the "English-speaking world" literally colonized us, took hold of our factories and farms, and made us go "die." But a good guess, nevertheless.

You left out that such a thing, ya doofus. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to answer your unintentional puzzle. In a system wherein unemployment is a feature rather than a flaw (and think about this for a second what this actually means in terms of irrational labor dis-allocation), those who don't get to advertise themselves as >le optimal candidates, get fucked over, get evacuated from their homes (since unemployable) and are considered trash. According to you this is
According to common sense this is the squandering of human resources, period.

Are you living under a rock, you complete ignoramus?!

Are you living under a rock, you complete ignoramus?!

Have you heard about the thing called "unemployment"? Fun fact: it's a structural necessity of a market economy, and also the most ineffective way of allocating our labor-force…

The literal fuck is self-employment? But more importantly: exactly what percentage of the actual population is "self-employed?" 2-3% ? Are you literally retarded?

No. It is operating under the assumption that if I create 100 pieces of Disney toys a day I am entitled to have the fruits of 100 Disney toys' market worth a day, without a fucking exploiting me and converting the difference to profits.

The communist declaration is literally the most conservative one ever conceived, you cuck:
You are so deeply cucked that you are swallowing the deepest cocks under the pretense of a "rationalist" economy.

I didn't know that only the group you wished to paint me as was able to use those words. Again, none of this actually presents a response, you're just saying "this is how I think you think, therefore ???".

I beg to differ. The particular emphasis on the system and the false dichotomy that is created (which collapses upon itself because all it takes is the instance of one person who is not under employment and does not starve to falsify the claim, like… all the people on welfare) points to an outrage (as many ITT have not been able to control their emotions and have already lashed out at my questioning of their worldviews) against why these systems exist, which also asks others to explain why you can actually find sustenance without being employed. That's what I mean when I say that they are asking others for life advice, essentially.
Yes, and as civilization has advanced, individuals have defined boundaries which are arbitrary but are also enforced. Any territory you are not allowed to exist or utilize is not a transgression against you, if you cannot defend or assert your dominion over it, then don't be surprised when others can.
Self-employment refutes this concept. All the people who have made enough money and immigrated to Southeastern Asia and live like kings refute this, too. It is entirely possible.
Please source this claim.
Don't pull the wool over my eyes, that's not the same as "laws against homelessness".
I've already explained how it is not, by definition, exploitation. But I will ask this of you: can you show me a single law, if you think the state is the aggressor, which forces you and removes the possibility of consent when it comes to employment?

You shouldn't have to gamble on a lifetime of servitude just to live and be in control of your own life.
Aside from that, 90% of self employed businesses fail in their first year, and the numbers of new small businesses have been dropping since the recession.

So you admit then that the threat of violence underlies all property.

Such as?

In many countries, you only get welfare for a certain period of time, and then have to do an internship, or find work, or your benefits will be removed from you. Your argument is invalid.

Organisms do compete, those who are not fit are less likely to survive and breed.
But it does have selective pressures upon populations when status and wealth are sexually 'valuable'. There isn't example a drift towards 'poor' populations from higher-income populations.
This notion that there was an absence of possession in the ancient man's civilization is not accurate. Unless you can demonstrate how there were no tangible differences between groups of people and the individuals within them, then your claim cannot be falsified and is dismissed.
Sorry, humans do compete and class-based competition does exist. That's what I mean when I say markets tend to perform in contrast to their competition: those that cannot compete will inevitably fail. Humans who could not compete were, and are, less likely to survive.
Quote me in full.
That's why the hierarchy is natural, it will always emerge. There will always be brain surgeons and niche markets that people flock to because they are demanding professions. Not to mention, the differences between individuals.
Within the organization, it means that there is a hierarchy of ability. That's exactly what it means; you're right, it doesn't imply this, it infers it.
They are. Not everybody has the ability to be an athlete, no matter how hard they train. Many people could train for their entire lives and never come close to the skill of Michael Jordan. That's a natural hierarchy of ability.
That's exactly what the Revolutionary wars were, though. The Americans were more mighty with the assistance they received and rejected the British rules of governance.
Which is, itself, at the top of the hierarchy.
The existence of a supreme authority, like a state, just means that they are capable of quelling any resistance or rebellion: this only observes the natural hierarchy, it doesn't disprove it. Human beings are biological organisms and the might they, in groups, exert over others is still a 'natural' hierarchy depending on their abilities to assume power.

Honest person here. What. the. fuck. is. "self empoyed?"

plz define

These two things have nothing to do with one another.

When you have your own business (so you don't have a boss) and you also does not have any people working for you. One business, one person.

Strawman, it is difficult for 'individuals' to form states by themselves, but that does not mean that a cooperative consisting of many individuals who are adept in their fields cannot establish a hierarchy in their favour. If it is just a bunch of brutes who can kill anybody who opposes them, that's still a natural hierarchy. Now, it's the government who can create nuclear arms because the technology is secretive.
No, they aren't. Some involve state intervention, whereas others do not. Some are fundamentally opposed.
That isn't the entirety of the 'fundamentals' involved.
See above. Deliberately leaving out conflicting schools of thought because it refutes this reductionist monolith of "capitalist theory".
Basically, monetarists=/=keynesians.
I've already elaborated on the whole voluntarism of employment, address those arguments I've made instead of repeating yourself endlessly.
False quote, taking your implications as what I have actually said to maintain your false dichotomy.
Quote me in full.
The mutually beneficial trade occurs when we are mutually 'dependent' upon each other, although it is really just a question of preferences.
I could not be more clear if I tried. Improve your reading comprehension.
No, it was said that capitalism's "main thing" is that it's the only way to access products within a market. I said yes, because that is the only logical result, it is the point of evolution that allows for trade because the value of goods is subjective, dependent on the consumerbase. Your 'main criticism' is an empty platitude, at best.
Yes, my bad.
Yes, you do. You just mentioned it when you said "becoming one yourself". You become your own boss. A huge portion of the US economy, around 12 trillion in total assets, is from small businesses.
Well, the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, so endlessly repeating the same assertion without proof, like some law or observation that can be replicated, isn't convincing.
No, it is your own value judgement. Many people subsist upon this standard of living in non-capitalist societies. Just because you have become accustomed to Western standards does not mean you deserve them in any circumstance you put yourself in.
You mean the welfare cliff? Well, that isn't a value judgement, that is an observable trend. You're basically saying "why won't people move to the third world and live like them, starving and having to plant their own crops to harvest them": that's because the Western world is superior. But that still means that you have made the choice to remain in the Western world. That doesn't mean anybody is holding you back from living like the third worlders. Put your money where your mouth is.

Universally, with money extracted from prole labor. The capitalist or their government does nothing except compel laborers to work for the money that they themselves created, and which is sustained by the value created by them.

Get a loan. If you can succeed, then good for you.
The standards of living increase, as do the costs. This is true for most things.
When you pay off your loans, you own your business, nobody else does.
Then the US does not have freedom.
This bypasses any notion of self-responsibility. If you cannot compete properly, the fault is on your own shoulders. If you starve because others do not want to trade with you, it is not their obligation to do so. Your moral outrage at your circumstances does not force their hand to trade if it's their goods.
If I have taken a loan and I have not payed you, then no, it is not coercive, it is justice that is expected because I have committed a crime (fraud). You're also confusing time periods when you have defaulted on your loan versus before you have even taken one out.

Yet another thread where a capitalist brainlet exposes his deep ignorance while ignoring everything that proves him wrong. Can't wait for the post where he declares Holla Forums btfo forever by the argument king despite doing nothing but dancing in circles playing word games so that he's never wrong.

Well, if you criticize the Western powers for their colonization, I take it you also object to the aggression against independent nations under the red banners?
This sentence does not make sense. The 'thing' is already mentioned if you read the post you were responding to. I ask the question again: Can you cite me a single law that actually prevents (i.e. uses force to limit the ability to this freedom) you from doing such a thing?
This 'thing' is free association or the forcible and/or non-consensual employment contract.
It's both, actually. It is flawed to be unemployed, because it means you are not marketable.
Great, if they are not marketable, then they fail.
Don't take out a home if you cannot pay for it.
?
Social judgements are irrelevant in this discussion of economic self-determination.
Source a quote where I have said this.
Outrage at the point that you think is so obvious that the best way to prove it is to have a hissy fit, lol.
Source please. According to what model? Then let's just ramp up the unemployment if it is a structural necessity.
Then it isn't beneficial. Refuted yourself in the same sentence.

Definition: the state of working for oneself as a freelance or the owner of a business rather than for an employer
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/01/8-facts-about-american-workers/
Lol
Do you own the business? If not, then when you sign onto the employment contract, try and bargain the conditions before signing onto things you disagree with. If you hate all offers of employment, make your own business. Also, the competition requires profit to expand the business and cover its costs; because it is not yours, the owners can also charge to pay for their own salaries, too. You don't also own goods you merely assemble, btw.
Emotional outrage at anybody criticizing the worldview.

Learn to read.
Non sequitur
Non sequitur
That is what we have been saying, yes. Under capitalism you are a slave living by the permission of another as you just admitted.
Personal responsibility is irrelevant. The fact remains that others created this system I am currently trapped in.
Is it or is it not coercive if I threaten to send men to your home and drag you out if you don't give me the money that I want?

See point four.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/01/8-facts-about-american-workers/

Seeing as how exchange rates are beneficial to the USD, and how many Americans, especially Australians, do visit the overseas for sex markets in those nations (theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/asian-slaves-to-the-australian-sex-industry/news-story/bd1297d872957c1f7e758116af7d76ea?nk=9c158992e1a9e02a98d1447b62cd4320-1508965614, for example).

No shit. That's how all assertions are guaranteed: through authority. God doesn't just grace you with it, you defend and assert your will onto it.

Not where I live.

They actually do. Those who are gifted enough and willing to pursue studies and become neurosurgeons are in the upper echelons of society, in terms of capabilities. That's a natural hierarchy, in their favour, that will benefit their services in a marketplace.

Already defined the term.

Money is printed by the state, no 'proles' are exploited as slaves, they are free to leave their employment at any time. Nobody is forcing you to be a federal worker.

I don't find value in emotional judgements like weak memes, that's why I have not been insulting your characters as a collective. Your mods, however, have already started banning me. If you don't want people challenging your worldview, just tell me clearly, mods.

He's right. If 14M people out of a population of 323M are self employed, then that's about 4.3% of the population

Does not refute the point. You can always get a loan, you already admitted that this is a possibility. There are plenty of people who have paid off their loans.
It directly follows from the expensive cost of living to also claim that the certification also costs many thousands. It is a perfectly warranted conclusion.
It is a statement of fact by itself, the premise and the conclusion are within the same sentence and they both follow, logically. The bank does not own your business if you have off your debt. That is a logically consistent statement to make.
Nope, you are not the legal property of another. The government disallowing you the right to form unions (citation on that, btw) does not mean that you are legal property.
When discussing fault/guilt of agents within a setting, responsibility is actually relevant.
False victimization.
If I took a loan and never paid you anything back, then I am a criminal guilty of fraud. Also, you conveniently leave out the quotation where I refute this conflation of time periods.
"If I have taken a loan and I have not payed you, then no, it is not coercive, it is justice that is expected because I have committed a crime (fraud). You're also confusing time periods when you have defaulted on your loan versus before you have even taken one out."

I didn't know children or elderly people were part of the workforce.

Hey mods, if you want me to challenge and push back on the worldviews of people who are obviously interested in responding to my criticisms, try not banning me for 'no reason specified'.

The laws of nature and the laws of society do not necessarily coincide. However, plenty of people do like to pretend that they do, so that they can justify any retarded system they invent to support an artificial increase of their own natural fitness. Indeed one could see being successful under capitalism as being successful in biological terms. However, the conclusion from this is that it is only natural that, since the cost of this success comes from exploiting others, that the exploited ones ought to want to fight it. It is, after all, their biological imperative. So your argument actually stands against you.

At first I thought you came from Holla Forums due to all the "natural hierarchy" shit that essentially boils down to "I love getting it up the ass by the bourgeoisie and the state", but now it seems you might come from /r9k/.
Under communism there would be no wealth to be taken into account as far as status is concerned, so based on the argument I made above, it is completely within the interests of those who have no money to want to abolish money in order to remove the artificial inflation of sexual value, and turn it into natural sexual value.
You ought to be in favour of this. After all, it is the removal of an artificial hierarchy and instalation of a natural one.

Possesion is not class or private property as defined in marxist economics.

This is a gigantic strawman, given that I have already told you communism is not about making everyone be the same. Aparently, in the context you have placed us in, communism is actually about ending artificial hierarchies and introducing natural ones. The fact that natural ones existed back then is, therefore, completely irrelevant.
In marxist terms: we are concerned with whether there was a state and classes. These did not exist. There is no evidence to support that they existed. Therefore, you stand, despite your changing of the context of the discussion, still refuted.

Is this a necessary condition? It is not.
Is this a natural condition? It is not.
You not basing yourself on actual factors, but on a conversative bias, where you see anything existing today as necessarily better than anything not existing today. By your own arguments, capitalism is not natural, and ought to be abolished in order to achieve a natural system.

Then why are you defending a system where a state is necessary to impose it? Shouldn't its mere existence indicate that we are not dealing with a natural hierarchy?

"And in communist society, we have to make sure there will be absolutely no brain surgeons, because that hurts my feelings" - Garl Margs

Marx has lots of paragraphs where he mentions differences between individuals are natural, and irrelevant to communism, my negro.

How retarded are you? If you need to set up an entire system where you can send other people to kill or beat up dudes for you, because those dudes are threatening your position, then you naturally do not deserve that position. If you did, you would not need to have those people defend it for you. You would be able to justly defeat any oponent that came along.

Completely dismissed the argument.

And guess what communism will be.

The state aparatus is composed partly of people who are not at the top of the hierarchy. Would you say that a police officer is the one that leads the government? No. He just beats up people for them, because they cannot do it themselves, and need to artificially maintain their hierarchy.

So, somehow, if I am a literal loser at chess, but convince an army to kill anyone who doesn't say I am the best player of chess humanity has ever known, I am naturally the best chess player humanity has ever known?
For fuck's sake, how retarded can you be that you do not see direct self-contradictions within YOUR OWN LOGIC IN ITS OWN CONTEXT.

I am done with this bullshit. If you can't understand how you are in literal self-contradiction (the worst form of contradiction), I cannot help you.

No, that's stupid.
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm (Why Marxists oppose individual terrorism)

So you admit that private property is not natural and requires the coercive threat of force to be maintained.

The user specifically said the entire population. You're knocking down a straw man because you're wrong.

I can "always" request a loan but I have no control over whether or not that money will be given to me.
It is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the fact that one cannot simply employ oneself.
You are mistaken. As you've just pointed out, my only recourse if I have no capital is to "get a loan," selling myself into debt slavery.
You have cited a single related thing this whole time.
I can only conclude by your cowardly evasion that you admit it is in fact coercive and that you have nothing to defend this fact.

Just saying "nuh uh" and ignoring everyone that proves you wrong isn't challenging anybody or anything.

You are an infantile brainlet. I hope you aren't this embarrassingly stupid in real life. Die in agony.

...

Everyone who makes this argument should be taken to a black site and beaten with dead animals

Then they're not self employed, they're bosses, they're bourgeosie. Those numbers are meaningless. Fucking Bill Gates is "self-employed" since he started his own business.

Now that's what I call shitty ontology

COMMUNISM IS NOT A LIFESTYLE ITS THE REAL MOVEMENT TO ABOLISH THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS

Your ability to point out logical fallacies would make you a good debater if it weren't for your utterly astonishing literal-mindedness and inability to understand what people say to you.

So is Billy Gates included in the graph or not?

So is Billy Gates included in the graph or not?

What about the 70% of people who are employed by people who aren't self-employed themselves, are they hired by the government? are they peasants? are they on welfare? wth is going on?

|||is|||

Dispose, as in fire? If a slave is 'fired', they are free men. By definition, it is not slavery/ Voluntarily signing onto an employment contract is not slavery, it only is slavery if you can show that it is forced.
(You)
Definition: the state of working for oneself as a freelance or the owner of a business rather than for an employer. The definition of self-employment is still fulfilled, ergo they are self-employed if they are "working for oneself as a freelance or the owner of a business rather than for an employer".

He said it was 'unnatural'. Some is natural if "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". If we observe territorial acquisition or a competitive spirit within other societies, and we know that human beings are also competitive (even our common ancestors: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3859192/).

|||is|||

Unironically this, porky gains power though exchange, we should be trying to source our material needs from non porky sources whenever possible and working on making new alternatives.
Even stuff like buying fair trade helps. Fuck all you cry lifestyleism, if helping empower the poorest proles goes a long way to underminng porky.

ITT: butt hurt nu males going ape shit over the truth bomb that got dropped on their punk ass heads.

Yes, I know microsoft started in a garage, but how is "self employed" a meaningful category when you have the richest man on earth who owns a giant multinational corporation included in it? How is it not an euphemism for Boss?

I'm pretty sure I'm dead and my hell is reading this argument every 12 hours for eternity

This entire report is confusing. pewsocialtrends.org/2015/10/22/three-in-ten-u-s-jobs-are-held-by-the-self-employed-and-the-workers-they-hire/
Work is obviously not defined here but we'll assume it is just have something provide income to you since finance is included.
So it can be a corporation, it can have shareholders, it can have employees. being self-employed literally means being a business owner .
so this is the maximum amount of bourgies you can number in america because in other surveys they hide some of them as proles.

What about the 70% of people who work for non-business owners though?

Because everyone understands the definition of self-employment, I've already defined it and even Pew elaborates on what it is meant, one can clearly understand the context here.
Sure, that doesn't mean they aren't a self-employed individual. You underestimate how vital the mom and pop shops and small business chains are: they can still have shareholders, but many stores that you see are often small businesses.
By the way, take heed when using the term 'corporation' because it is a specific legal term; small businesses can be corporations, but the term is not limited to them.
investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp
This does fly in the face of the whole 'labour is only when workers do stuff', because, surprise surprise, the owners often have a managerial position wherein they are defined, both by Pew and in the census that the information is drawn from, as employees (because they are).
What about them? The issue isn't concerned with them, it's with small business owners.

By the way, very poor sportsmanship, this user and I could have a good conversation were it not for the mods who dislike any critical viewpoints.