Could anybody here who thinks communism is better than capitalism please make an argument to support that?

Could anybody here who thinks communism is better than capitalism please make an argument to support that?

not an essay please

Other urls found in this thread:

wow i never thought of it like that

polite sage

Sorry you don't like reading Holla Forums but there's more than five sentences proving why capitalism is worse.

how could you know there would be no class divide?

how could you be sure in a system where the government controls the economy workers wouldn't be exploited?

who runs the government?

how about a paragraph?

The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself
as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. Our
investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies
human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring
from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know
how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as
means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality
and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways.
To discover the various uses of things is the work of history. So also is the establishment of
socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity
of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly
in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by
the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A
commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use
value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour
required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be
dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use
values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge
of commodities. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute
the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society
we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which
values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing
with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely
relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected
with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms. Let us consider the matter a little
more closely.

A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. –
in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value,
the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents
the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange
values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange
values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is
only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet
distinguishable from it.

Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are
exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in
which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt.
iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn
and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things
must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so
far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas
of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is
expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the
base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be
capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they
represent a greater or less quantity.

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural
property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the
utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is
evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as
good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,
“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no
difference or distinction in things of equal value … An hundred pounds’ worth of
lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.” As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are
merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common
property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone
a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same
time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no
longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out
of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the
mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful
qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various
kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but
what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in
the abstract.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial
reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended
without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human
labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them.
When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as
something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there
remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in
the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of
our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of
commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider
the nature of value independently of this, its form.

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has
been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The
quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its
standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour
spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be,
because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the
substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The
total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities
produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power,
composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any
other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as
such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an
average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to
produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill
and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably
reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The handloom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that,
the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social
labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of
labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production. Each
individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be
produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of
any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the
production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its
production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the
productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst
others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its
practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the
means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in
favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same
labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare
occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of
labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether
gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to
Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823,
had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee
plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore
represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in
more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour,
in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the
greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and
vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the
production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies
directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is
not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the
product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with
the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to
produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use
values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn
for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn
became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a
commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means
of an exchange.) Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is
useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates
no value. Thus it is necessary to exterminate the white peoples.

Holy shit you fucking dumbass a paragraph IS five sentences. I can't help but laugh at you now.

wow do you really expect a Holla Forumstard to read this? you could have just greentexted the main points from Communist Manifesto mr autist

this is what i was trying to avoid

could you put it in your own words?

See last sentence of last paragraph.

Am I being epic trolled?

Capitalism is the best for economic efficiency, communism is good for making sure nobody has anything. I actually believe in a puritan technocracy for the lower caste while the higher caste is ruled over by a god emperor, the military existing as a separate state, so a type of compound government. In my opinion this strikes the balance needed between resource management and distribution, while providing social mobility, a reason to learn, and a general atmosphere is respect and decency.

Top fucking kek no one bothered to read that entire thing and no one realized it was a dude being ironic, I'm laughing on the floor right now, bravo user.

Minimzing the class divide is the goal of communism
I doubt it would but you should ask someone who wants the government to control everything that instead, not communists.
No one runs the government in a stateless system.

i appreciate your actually responding bud

i shy away from a "technocracy," i think the further we get from the nature the closer we get to a complete breakdown of civility

not that im amish or anything, technology is great, but i think we have to stay close to our roots as human beings too

but anyway i wanted an argument for communism, not to be a pest

It doesn’t have to involve the government controlling the economy.

I appreciate that but would it actually have that effect?
excuse my ignorance, who decides how things get distributed then?
not meaning to pidgeonhole you, but isnt that anarchy?

Capitalism is cuck

You're welcome.

it's a little longer but vocabulary is reduced enough to make it digestible

could you please just converse with me on the subject?

in your preferred socio-economic system, who decides who gets what resources? what property? are there laws? do you elect leaders?

lenin and his cat demands that you read this

Class is the difference between a owner and a worker. When you go to work all day the owner of your workplace owns all your work and as is the nature of capitalism will try to give you as little compensation as possible for the work you've done no matter how much you did to maximize his profits. Let's just throw communism out the window at this point and just explain socialism instead, In a socialist system the focus would be to change the workplace and nothing else so that your owner can't try to profit of your work so that he doesn't have to work.

you should be the one trying to justify capitalism you meganigger

you can't

so are there leaders? or would that be creating two different classes? is everybody a worker?

and maybe more importantly, where does everybody live? would you just stake a claim on an apartment?

in a capitalist society, a given citizen is compensated for the value of their labor

the more valuable the labor (a given citizens contribution to society) the more comfortable the citizen

it creates a sort of forced altruism, wherein the only way to create a good for yourself is to contribute to the good of others, by contributing to society.

You could literally have everything the exact same way that it is now while just democratically owning your workplace with your co-workers instead of having a owning boss that all the profits the company makes goes through. Where and how people live is not really relevant to the operation of the workplace other than that most socialists would agree that landlords shouldn't be allowed to live of tenants rents while never working.


i dont think you could have everything the same and make that change. if there are no owners of businesses, how do businesses start? who decides who gets hired and fired?

you called it a workplace democracy, do they elect a boss? or are all decisions made by vote?

as far as socialism vs communism, which is your preference?

A capitalists society drives to maximize profits and as such the labour compensation is often the bare minimum to keep someone alive. The most well of in society and their off-spring never has to work and the hardes and most valuable workers are often at the very bottom. Rather than altruism deceitfulness is the best way to profit as breaking the law and paying it off is often the best way to make money. Cleaning up shit doesn't make money, ruining shit makes money.

collecting rent is not contributing, user

certainly its not perfect in all cases, but it is true that if you work hard and develop valuable skills you will get ahead in a capitalist society.

If you don't work hard and develop valuable skills, you probably will be paid the bare minimum to keep yourself alive. But doesn't that create an incentive for all people to better themselves?

i agree that in the financier class of america a lot of liberties are taken, and again the system isnt perfect, but "often" really isnt the right word.

The majority of people in the US make a living the honest way and live comfortably thanks to the free market

now i've made my argument for capitalism, feel free to wrestle with it, but i did ask first for an argument for redistribution

Minus profits of course
Until it's not profitible, here's and example from something you might care about, video games.
It might be profitible to make a good game, and for many developers, there is a drive, outside of capitalism, to make good art, but the art must be profitable, or it won't get made. It is also much more profitable to make a game mediocre game (cheaper to make) and to add dlc, skins, loot boxes deceptive advertising, manipulative psychology etc. to make more money, leading to garbage. This is what happens to all things under capitalism, nice things are done until they don't make a profit anymore, and then horrible things are done.

actually maintaining an apartment complex isn't light work, i don't know if you've ever tried it.

it also provides an alternative to purchasing property, something many people aren't ready to commit to, especially in their early adult years

People who want to make something and get more value in their life start a business. Often you have HR deparments that do the hiring and firing. How the democracy functions is up to the people to decide, a democracy can be structured in a bunch of different ways. I'm a socialists because communism is a vague term.

You mean people who want others to make something and extract surplus value from their labour start a business

This entire post reads like boomer satire.

but if those people start businesses, become successful, and start talking with eachother, wont that create an upper class? or a class divide?

or would they be at the will of their employees? in which case, what would be the motivation to start a business?

They don't do it for the people

Gee i wonder why people have to choose between being in debt for 30 years, pay a person for a roof forever, or going homeless, especially when they're 4 homes for every homeless in the US.

this post reads like a non-argument

that's friendly fire there m8, keep your eyes on the ball

I agree wholeheartedly that mainstream videogames have sold out to the lowest common denominator. but the existence of a class of people who prefer mediocrity, to me, is indicative of a flaw in culture, not a governmental system.

The majority of Holla Forums at this point are boomers. Thus the massive spike in 4chan traffic.

no of course not, they do it for their own personal gain. ofcourse to get to that personal gain, they must work to provide a service for people, thanks to the free market and rule of law

maybe it's because the most recent generation of adults grew up in an era of >50% divorce rate, uninhibited immigration, and economic decline due to regulatory bodies of the government overstepping their bounds

Capitalism encourages wasteful and ultimately harmful behaviors and allows a tiny portion of the population to live lives of luxury without working a day in their lives, instead being allowed to leech off the labor of the working class purely in the form of rend and dividends. It encourages healthcare based around treating symptoms rather than curing diseases, produces goods meant to be frequently replaced rather than built to last, prioritizes profit over the wellbeing of the working class and the environment, and rewards all sorts of other sociopathic behaviors. This is a world where over a hundred people recently died because a building used highly flammable building materials in order to cut costs, where hundreds of thousands of people in developed countries are homeless when far more buildings sit empty simply for the sake of money laundering or market manipulation, where we millions of people starve while we produce far more than enough food to feed the entire human population. Capitalism has created a world where profits are more important than human beings.

I'm guessing you're a right-winger, so lets look at some of the major issues that you guys frequently talk about.
Consider things like outsourcing of people's jobs and immigration- if the workers had control of their workplace, do you think they would willingly choose to replace themselves, or is that the result of capitalist control of the workplace? Additionally, if workers controlled the means of production they wouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs due to technological advances such as automation, the increased productivity would instead work to their advantage and reduce the amount of work they need to perform.
War seems to be another big issue for you guys, which is kind of baffling since the capitalist system encourages it. The reason for the constant wars such as the ones going on right now in the middle east is because they're PROFITABLE, such as how the whole Syria clusterfuck started largely due to Assad's refusal to allow a pipeline to be built there. Removing profit motive would mean an end to most if not all war, there is certainly no benefit for the working class to go die in a ditch on the other side of the world.
Another thing I often hear you guys complain about is the lowering birth rates in developed nations. You guys always blame it on things like women's rights and such, yet the Marxist-Leninist countries like the Soviet Union saw massive population growth despite being more or less egalitarian (and those countries weren't even "real communism" but were merely meant to be a transitional stage before communism could be achieved). People's social lives and community ties are greatly improved by eliminating the alienation and atomization caused by capitalism, as well as the economic precariousness that most of the working class has to deal with these days.

maintaining? you simply collect rent, then spend a little of the profit to hire a person to do maintenance.
collecting rent isn't contributing

If someone can barely sustain themself how are they supposed to improve themself? The best point to help somone make something of themselves is childhood and schools are going to shit especially since making sure someone has a good childhood doesn't make money. The reason finnish shools are doing good is because they're trying to take capitalism out of the school equation.
Yes, majority of people are not owning class and would benefit from socialism that is true.

The business would most likely be started by a group of people all ready rather than just one person.
Whats your motivation for going to work? You need something to do and you need something to sustain yourself off.

Okay, I can stop now because this is hopeless,

im just gonna stop you right there

capitalism is freedom, capitalism doesn't encourage anything. There will always be evil in the world, no socio-economic system can put a stop to the existence of bad things happening.

the other thing about a free market, is that it works, it creates an environment where technological, medical, scientific breakthroughs are rewarded.

do you really think masses of people will work to contribute to their community if nothing drives them to? masses of people will live as lazily as possible until they're forced by threat of bodily harm to change their behavior, at which point it's too late

im doing it right now, you can too

schools are going to shit because a central power manages them. Private schools (free market participants) are by all measures much better schools, and they do happen to make a lot of money making childrens' futures better

how is that response to what i said

remember your class divide argument? how is that not creating a "class divide?"

i was right, you've never managed an apartment complex

Can't decide whether this level of cognitive dissonance is humorous or disgusting. You're sitting here pinning the blame on the migrants, rather than your deified "free market capitalists" who are specifically bringing them over to depress wages.

a child that grows up without a nuclear family is statistically far less likely to succeed

thats right, profit is the main reason the government encourages illegal immigration. ofcourse they're operating outside the rule of law there by encouraging something that's against the law, so in that sense i think i could argue it's "not real capitalism"

i would never pin the blame on migrants, and infact i would blame the financiers lobbying for more illegal immigration. ofcourse the great thing about our governmental system is that if the people become aware of things like this they can vote in candidates who stand against messed up stuff like exploiting illegal immigrants labor, like the teflon don for example

And how's that been working out for you?

I'm doing fine too, i'm not talking about myself.
Do you seriously believe private schools are sustainable on a larger scale? they're doing good because the rich put their kids there and pay for good teachers, most people can't afford that because of the class divide. As previously mentioned Finland has the best schools because they don't allow private schools that segregate rich and poor students, as a result everyone is better off. I went to a private school myself and i still think they're wrong.
You said that majority of people make a living in honest lving which is true, they have to work for a living unlike the capitalists.
The business would still be democratic no matter who started it and extracting value from someone elses work would still not be allowed.

well, i'm 23, the only presidential candidate i've ever cast a vote for was donald trump, so, so far so good

The reason they come here is capitalists like to depress wages (to get more profits), and a good way to do that is get migrant wokers from the hinterlands, and outsource, so you have policy with porky's prints all over it like NAFTA, and the trade fuckery that is puerto rico. Near unlivable wages also contributes to migrancy, and you get one guess who's responsible for that.

If capital didn't like migrancy, it wouldn't be dine in the amounts that it's happening now
Stop, but bonus points if you can tell me what leads to broken families (okay there are many things) but capitalism is a huge part of it, it puts huge stressors, and alienation on working class families, leading to splitsville

No, but home-schooling sure as hell is.
Finland is an isolated, culturally and ethnically homogenous state that manages a fraction of a fraction of the USAs population. I'm sure Finland has great schools but their solutions could never apply to us.

then again, what would motivate a person to start a business? how would they get the resources to do so?

You said earlier that people naturally need something to do to keep themselves sane (more or less). I agree, but they're far more likely to choose something easy and mindless. If business owners cant own their business, why would they invest and start one?

I see that fella, that's why i think immigration law should be enforced and the amount of immigrants allowed into the country should be regulated. Nothing against migrants, strictly a practical argument

you conceded "lots of things." how about degeneracy? cultural marxism? the deterioration of a peoples culture, traditions, so on. What do those have to do with capitalism? thats a cultural problem

is meant to reply to

god dammit how do you sage on this site


Not that poster but
Please be specific. Do you mean alcoholism and drug abuse? These are forms of escapism. Escapism from what? The harsh reality of a soulless capitalist society?
Explain in detail what you mean by cultural marxism, and how it destroys families.
Conservatives and liberals alike both have families but have a different "culture" if that's you are referring to. How do you explain that?
The shift in culture is a capitalist product. Everything from film to video games to what our politicians say is a product of capitalism. Do you think evil leftist schools teach people not to marry?

Finland has the best schools because they try to minimize the impact of money on education not because some specific culture or what ever, yes today under capitalism setting up a school that isn't terrible is really fucking hard, thats why it sucks.
You need to fucking eat and to eat you need to get food and to get food you either need to farm the food or trade for food otherwise you will die, hows that for motivation?
You work.

Wow, it's not a thing
See my spiel on traditionalism a few lines down
Wow, that is also not a thing

Bullcrap, capitalism is based around private property which is a LACK of freedom- its essentially someone saying "You can't use this unless you meet my conditions, otherwise you will be punished in some way".
Lets imagine a dozen people get stranded on a deserted island with only a single source of fresh water. The first person to reach the water source claims it for himself, and insists that everyone else is only allowed access to it if they agree to serve him. Do you think this is reasonable? Or would the other people be justified in telling that guy to go fuck himself and just share the water among themselves? Capitalism is based around the bourgeoisie, or ruling class, having control of the property needed for people to work and survive, while the working class lacks such property, and is instead forced to meet the owner's conditions in order to access them.
Communism isn't about giving people free stuff so they don't have to work, its about eliminating WAGE labor by ensuring that people have access to the property they need in order to do that work in the first place, without having to meet the conditions of some ruling class parasite as they do now.
Even Adam Smith, the man typically regarded as the "father of capitalism", denounced free markets and advocated for something closer to the highly regulated form of capitalism sometimes known as "social democracy". "Free markets" result in wealth coalescing in the hands of a small few and creating monopolies. Its also baffling how you whine about immigration when its your beloved "free market" that makes it an issue in the first place. No worker would ever choose to replace themselves with an immigrant, but the people who control the businesses under capitalism sure would, because it means more profits for them.

Have you tried not being a brainlet? It might help.

a form of government has nothing to do with a persons soul. if you feel as though you are without a soul it is to do with you and you alone
a group of media conglomerates propagandizing Americans with the ideas that transgenderism/homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality and just as good, that encourages people to abandon religion (not religious btw, this is true as hell though) that encourages people to remain single for all their lives. that encourages nihilism, mindless rebellion, drug abuse, promiscuity. I see what you mean though "cultural marxism" is very vague.
to clarify, I meant our countries culture, our collective culture. I'm not referring to which sports team or political candidate someone supports, but backbone concepts like self-reliance, the rule of law, family values, things like that
the shift in culture we are witnessing could only happen if the majority of people are weak minded sheep. That is not a result of capitalism, it's a result of post-war decadence

wait a minute. exhanging goods for goods? how does somebody gain possession of goods in this system? if somebody gets enough of a resource, wouldn't that put them above the "worker class?"

but why would they work hard to start a business if there's no incentive for them to start the business? wouldn't they just work to sustain themselves? and aren't we back to the value of someones labor deciding how much they get? isnt that capitalism?

Just stop
That is literally socialism. Capitalism is what described, it's when someone else owns your work.

right. unless it's YOUR private property. which in your preferred system of government is completely unattainable

that would be feudalism, and besides your example is a gross simplification compared to a government which presides over more than 300 million people
that sounds great, my point is that it's unrealistic. it leads to hard questions like "who decides who gets what?" "who decides where i live?" if you say a governmental body, you're allowing a government to control every aspect of your life, which would quickly defeat the purpose. If you say the people decide, that will just turn into anarchy.

except in a FREE market, you have the FREEDOM to decide who you work for, what kind of work you do, how you want to fit into society. If you can't come up with something to do to earn money that benefits society, sorry, you fucked up.

Nobody owns anybodys labor, everybody is free to decide where, when, and if they work.

besides, you're not engaging with the tough questions.

Degenarcy and decadence are the
Of political "philosophy"

How are these things bad, I legitimatley don't get it, they affect nobody in anyway, I don't see why somebody is triggered by these things, and you can Choose not to do them, you know.
No. The only one out of that list is maybe drugs and booze, and even then it's balanced out by a lot of "drugs are satan guys."
I've never, ever, ever seen any media where being single is treated as a good thing, in fact, it's generally the opposite, to a harmful degree. And if somebody wants to be single for whatever period of time, then who gives a shit.

We've been over this a few times already, re-read the thread or better yet read the wikipedia article on socialism to get a basic understanding of what it means.

Ok but this seems to directly contradict your following post:
Because it's capitalist media that promotes this, not us.
Communism is all about self-reliance. You own your the means of production and it's up to you how to use it.
What laws do you think communists don't respect?
Such as? Why would a capitalist father treat his wife and children any different from a communist father? If anything, a communist father would have a better relationship with his children because he won't be chasing the corporate carrot and be spending more time at home and engaging with his community.
What do you think produced post-war decadence?

I thought you liked western values or something, what you don't fuck men like the ancient greeks, THAT'S DEGENERACY I TELL YOU.

Additionally, take a look at post-war USSR production. It's clear that the communists did not succumb to this decadence as you did, though they did collapse for a plethora of other reasons.

Look, the point of the society we live in is that you can do anything so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. I dont have a personal problem with anybody who engages in these kinds of behaviors. The poster i was replying to asked me what I meant when i said "cultural marxism," and specifically how it's lead to families falling apart.
Name a popular TV show or film released since 2000 where the protagonist is a family man, an honest worker, a christian, or any combination of the three.

Shows that come to mind for me are Shameless, Californication, Weeds, Dexter, Breaking Bad, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (actually a great comedy but still)

I didn't mean to say it's you, i dont regularly talk with actual Marxists, probably should have considered the implication.
you dont own it, the "people" do, a vague collective of people you've never met, how does that foster self-reliance
I'm sure it varies but i mean to say that respect for the rule of law is eroding along with the rest of my examples, not that communists dont like them
a surplus of goods, caused by industrialization, not any specific governmental ideology

no homo hate here friend, but you can't deny that promoting homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships waters down heterosexual relationships, which hurts family values, which is what i was arguing

like the economy collapsing? because redistribution doesn't work?



A lot of cop precedurals, generally speaking you'll find these things in a show where these things aren't the focus

So what you're saying is you do, at least a little
WhatisthisIdon'teven, what the fuck does that mean?

Not him but are you really unable to think outside of yourself? Neither "you" or "the people" own their means of production, the users of the means of production own the means of production and use them to build self-reliance for themselves.

basically, yeah. that said if you enjoy being gay go ahead and do it.
A long time ago, there was a time when everybody's end goal in life (or at least the majority) was to get married, and raise children.

the propping up of homosexual relationships as the same as heterosexual ones, along with many other factors that I described earlier, has lead to marriage and family being taken less and less seriously as the years have gone by. This has lead to things like the majority of children being raised in broken homes

Nonetheless, the contradiction is still present. You claim that
Yet at the same time blame the media for pressuring you. The media, which by the way, is far more hostile to communists than it is to reactionaries.
This is the current system, bub. Read up. Do you personally know the CEO that is extracting surplus value from your labour?
We don't like the current rule of law for the same reasons that anyone including yourself shouldn't. A man can get 10 years for possession of marijuana while industrial manufacturing plants are free to destroy lakes.
What was then done with the surplus of goods? Capitalists pounced at the chance to extract surplus labor value.

What do you mean you don't fuck men like the greeks, they invented the west

Sees gay family

i never said anything about the media taking anybody's soul, you used the term soulless to start this "soul" back and forth
actually yes, i work in a restaurant and i see the owners every day. Not every business is Wal-Mart, a lot of them are owned by hard-working folk who are actually helping hard-working folk like me to survive by creating jobs, not forcing people to do anything. I trade them a service for compensation we both agree is appropriate.
and then what happened? The most prosperous country in the history of civilization? oh yea

This thread is cancer, just back and forth one-liners and zingers that you reuse since everything is reduced to low quality soundbits.

When are you going to grow up and try to argue like a big boy, OP?

you're putting words in my mouth there

thats a complete oversimplification of what im saying

look, nothing against gay people, do what you want, but the reason men and women have been getting married and procreating and raising children together for the past (all of human history) is because that's the way nature laid it out for us. That's got nothing to do with my opinion on buttsex.

is that your argument?

Doesn't mean the relationship is "lesser" tho, but alright.

You explicitly said that degeneracy was one of the reasons that families fall apart. This degeneracy takes place in the form of alcohol and drug abuse to escape from capitalist society. You said that it's your own fault if you turn to such things. You then cried about the media promoting nihilism along with drugs and alcohol. Do you not see the contradiction?
Actually no. They no doubt have bills of their own to pay as well as mortgages, loans for the business and other expenses that belong to bigger capitalists.
Dude. Read your own post. From the get go right here
You cannot both cry that post-war decadence led to the deterioration of your culture and simultaneously argue that post-war decadence was exploited by capitalists to produce the most prosperous country. Unlike the other poster I am trying to reason with you here but it is difficult to respond if you jump around and argue dishonestly.

in a purely objective sense, one relationship has the potential to create offspring, one does not. They are not equal, therefore one is lesser than the other.

Again, I've got nothing but love for anyone who's got love for me

I'm calling you a retard son

Come on, this one is a million times better than

They're both true. It's true that if you turn to drug abuse it is your fault. It's also true that media organizations pressure people to fall into these traps.

I'm glad they do. That's how you start a business. No one here has given me a strait answer about how a business starts under socialism/communism. If we don't have mortgages and loans, how do people start businesses?
I don't understand. is the USA not the most prosperous country on the planet? Is it for any reason other than free market capitalism and industrialization? It's not perfect, nothing is, but what i said is true
But I can, because both happened, and both are happening, right now

you're a shining example of your cause friend

found the princeling

are you guys not used to debate? how is it that one poster can bring a thread to the top of your board by simply grappling with the core of your beliefs? what does that say about your philosophy?

tings liek dis cannot be explned with one sentance

is de right-wind the emojis of politicals?

We have debates all the time, OP just seems to have a really hard time understanding the core principles of letfy-wing thought while holding the belief that capitalism is when you're properly compensated for your work or some stupid shit that is in no way incompatible with any other blief system.

Pretty much, the cause of user has always been calling out the mental midgets

ok first of all you're responding to OP

if you're just going to make the claim without backing it up you're sort of proving my point

oh I'm sorry i thought i was debating political revolutionaries, not Holla Forumstards. Carry on fella come back when you're allowed to post here

But gays aren't threatening population numbers, honetly though I should probably stop, because I'm not talking socialism anymore.

Im not cappy dude, im a regular, and one thread every so often is fine but everybody here has been saying the board is sucking more, and shitposting xi and china everywhere gets old fast, the catalog looks like some chinese beurocrat is trying to astroturf discussion about china

I hate you. A fundamental rule of politics is if you cant explain it in less than 5 minutes, nobody is going to pay attention, this is why the right is on the rise, they don't have to explain shit, and it's easy for them to explain which boogeyman to hate now, in less than one.

In other words, this "degeneracy" is either the independent choice of the actor and has nothing to do with communism, is promoted by capitalist media which has nothing to do with communism, or the reason which I put forth which is to escape the harsh life under capitalism. In 2 out of 3 situations capitalism is at fault, in 0 out of 3 is communism at fault.
Why? You are a good worker, don't you deserve your full wage? Your owners are presumably good owners, don't they deserve their full wage? The regulators at the electric company are intelligent people, don't they deserve their full wage? The accountants at the bank that bankroll these companies are good with numbers, don't they deserve their full wage? The banking CEOs that steal billions every year? Nah.
Have you read any leftist literature?
Then the source of prosperity and cultural malaise are the same.

not arguing that. the promotion of homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships (among many other things) does damage to American family values

Have a meme.

What are family values though, and why are they good, and if america is deciding that they are equal, wouldn't that make those american family values?

Back up what claims? You want me to link a post where you say capitalism is some idealistic bullshit?

Pretty much every question you've asked have showed a complete lack of understanding of what socialism means, i would assume that's why you're asking in the first place but apparantly it's not if that is that you need a claim for.

Based big bill

Becuz dey have notin to explan. they have base, ego-maniacal, barbaric class enxiaties and envies not theory. their politics is easi becaus its dumb. its emojis for politics. coommunism is actual science, philosophy

idk wy u think i was bein elitist. all i said is cumminism is a diffucult subject to simplyfy into one sentence.

who said it had anything to do with communism. we've gone down a rabbit hole here and im sure its equally frustrating to both of us.
how do you define their "full wage?" in any case, not every dollar can go to laborers, money makes the world go round, the businesses have actual operating expenses, not every owner is the monopoly man
Nope, thats why Im here
they do go well together.
Hard Times make Strong people
Strong People make Good Times
Good Times make Weak people
Weak people make Hard times

Thats a constant across all political ideologies

Wew there lad.

The things which have damaged the family unit the most was entirely economic, not this culture war bullshit. The irony is that the people who promoted this the most, Republican neolibs, were the most responsible for the dissolution of the family unit.

better for what/who, fam?

No, i want you to put your own words together form your own sentences, espouse YOUR political beliefs, not someone elses. If you can't make an argument, ask yourself if your involvement in this whole "revolution" larpfest is anything more than posturing

Shoot, sorry about that, I totally misread the tone of that. But I've seen enough leftist elitists to make me worried about ever having the broad appeal that socialism needs

the people i suppose

im starting to think varg was right when he said that he sees more leftists with little white children living in farms and homesteads than he sees right-wingers with kids n shiet.

ur enxiety about families maybe corrrect or not but you wont do shit about it. yur a childless, gf-less loser with no principles or drive to do either. the reason leftists dont chimpout over muh family is because action speaks louder than words.

which people?


family values is a constellation of things that parents (in a perfect world) instill into their children

things like the idea of self-reliance, confidence in ones self, love, honesty, reliability, companionship, and ultimately a desire to start a family of one's own and start the cycle again.

without these things, generations (like ours [im assuming you like me are a millenial]) will become nihilistic, unmotivated, sheep.

the people of a given country?

half true, i do have drive to start my own family

at any rate, you and i are seperate from the argument, which you still aren't engaging in

These values are fine, but there's nothing about gays making them unable to adopt and instill that stuff into their own, or arftificial insemination, gays can literally still make babies with a little scientific help.

i dont know what you mean by that
why not both?

I made no claims in the first place and then you asked me to back up my claims what the fuck are you even talking about?

this guy thinks hes getting points because a few people dont want to fuuck around with his boring arguments
chill out, sit back, calm down, take a break buddy

you keep framing it like i'm saying gay people themselves are the ones propagandizing people. I'm sure there's plenty of gay people who would agree with me on this subject. It's got nothing to do with gay people themselves, it's the way they're presented by media organizations. I actually kinda feel for gay people, they're so often disingenuously pandered to by rich people.

We won't be exploited, we won't starve, we won't live in misery, suffer so many illnesses, we won't be harassed by the state, we won't be forced to kill each other. Definitely sounds better to me.

all the people in a country?

The level of idealism here is too unreal.

Sure, how your parents treat you is a part, but what contolls that more than anything is the real world. The real world that is shaped in all parts by the political-economic system

idealistic? these were social norms as recently as 30 years ago

You did, when you pinned it on "cultural marxism," fine we can move past that.
Not every owner is the monopoly man, but the surplus value of the labour of every worker is extracted by the owner, and the profits of his exploitation of you is then extracted by another owner and so on and so forth. Everyone loses.
Read this to get a grip on the mechanics:

you're taking me down another rabbit hole here dude, not to be rude but i've kind of got a few conversations going here could you cut to the chase

You said the have lesser relationships cause they can't american family values, then you conceited that they can, but said their relationship is lesser because they can't make baby, but they can. You haven't said anthing about gays propagandising.

And between pandering, and telling me I can't family, I'll probably take pandering, although that pandering shit gets old fast too.

Hey if you want a short explanation the least you can do is to clarify some of the definitions you phrase your question in.Can't expect someone to give you a concise argument for something as ill defined as 'better' in the context of complex socio-economic modes of production fam

Presumably we are at the end here according to you, that we live in hard times? This cannot be so since you defend capitalism by citing the prosperity of America. If this is the case, what exactly can capitalism to do now to "make strong people"? Exploit more workers?

I'm saying you seem not to be taking the real world on somebodies upbringing enough into consideration on how families are negetivly effected.

sorry about that, where i'm usually talking to people about this kind of stuff, "cultural marxism" refers to a wide propaganda effort designed to dull our senses, make us complacent, and divide us in general. Again i should have considered the implication of a word like "marxist," im not talking about you guys. In fairness though i did clarify that a while ago.

That's what keeps the massive heirarchical system of the U.S. economy (again, the most prosperous country on the planet) moving

you're quick to use the word "exploit." I don't feel exploited. I chose to apply for work, if I didn't approve of my wage, i could quit and look for work elsewhere, thats the beauty of the free market.

look man, a family, as it's been for the entirety of human history, is a man, a woman, and a child. There's nothing wrong with being gay, but being gay is not, and never will be, the same as being strait.

two men raising a baby is simply unnatural (not BAD, but not natural), and the effects of that parental relationship will be obvious on the child as it matures, look for this as these children of gay couples grow up.

You are exploited, like any other mean of production.

in this technologically advanced, food scarcity non-issue, surplus of goods and services, first-world world that we live in, i would say these qualify as hard times. compared to the last 6 decades, most definitely.

again, America can be prosperous and still have problems, nothing is perfect.

I wouldn't say capitalism will make people strong. hard times will.

What i would say is that capitalism is a lot better than socialism/communism, because it works, it makes sense.

nothing applies to everybody, sure, but generally speaking, the erosion of family values causes more children to be raised to be nihilistic, unmotivated sheep

Honestly your definition of cultural marxism sounds a lot like leftist critiques of media on it's face.

But you have those options in the reletively weathly capitalist sections of the world, most people don't get to choose higher wages, because they don't exist unless they emmigrate to a wealthy capitalist country, where wages still won't be good because the are desperate immigrant workers (examples lile china and latin america come i`o mind immediatly


how would you define "exploited?"

This is a universal property of capitalism. It worked for a time in the USA with their imperialist global cabal but it absolutely sucks in most countries. Had you been unfortunate enough to be making shoes for 14 hours a day in Malaysia, you would not be so quick to praise how amazing capitalism is for propelling the USA to global supremacy.
No you couldn't, you would always be exploited no matter where you went. You may not personally feel exploited, but the previous generation were much more prosperous than the current generation. The one before that- even more. This trend will continue.
Read the pamphlet I linked. It's only 30 pages.

then pat yourself on the back we found common ground on 8ch

I'm talking about my country though, the USA.

same question

The most prosperous nation in the world, propelled to it's position by capitalism, is undergoing "hard times". What exactly do you think the countries that have been exploited by American hegemony are undergoing?
Then you admit the failure of capitalism.

I'm unmotivated because I hate my job (which hurts me), which I can't quit, and I know my boss will be taking most of what I make, and some rich smug douche is going to be driving around in the car I help make (I make sports car parts), I don't make enough to move out of my parents, much less start a family or enjoy hobbies, which require money. A lot of people are in the same situation, like I said, I feel as though you're ignoring, the MASSIVE amount that economic-politics affect peoples lives.

The US is like a capitalist on a massive scale, it exploits the world for its own material gain, this is how it got wealthy

"the action of making use of and benefiting from resources."

Goddamnit just read the pamphlet and come back in an hour. Marx has already answered all your questions and potential criticisms.

Because reals > feels.

The dissolution of the nuclear family has a lot more to do with the fact that families being supported on a single income has become untenable for the vast majority of the population than gays being equal.

I dunno and it's got nothing to do with what we're talking about

is communism a good choice, should we change from capitalism to communism, thats the question

the purpose of a government is to legislate and protect it's people. Neither communism nor capitalism makes strong people, they're not designed for that

Of course it does. You are saying "hard times" create "strong people," but the Malaysian sweatshops have been making shoes for capitalists to sell at 5000% markup for decades. Where are THEIR strong people?

Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic system.

No, that's an absurd question. We do not have such choice.

Governments aren't designed to make strong people, that's generally not a goal of them.

you're unmotivated because you're addicted to porn and weed.

if you live with your parents you can get them to help you get educated. 4-year degrees are for suckers. go to tech school, learn to be an electrician, a carpenter, an AC repair guy, a computer troubleshooter, these are honest jobs that pay well that you can qualify for in 1-2 years.

wheres the part where the thing you make use of is compensated for it's time and labor?

Some people don't have this privilege.
In this capitalist system, you will never be paid out what you are actually owed.

There is an excellent series of videos on YouTube that talk about why capitalism isn't hot shit called Kapitalism101here's a link to a video that compiled all the others
It's long but thorough

you're making an argument for white supremacy there be careful

we're comparing capitalism (an economic system) to communism (a political philosophy)

the word "government" is conveniently vague for this discussion

that's how i know it's true

you have no excuse

You've got to be kidding me. I can't believe I sat here for 2 hours with you. Please read that PDF I linked if you are even remotely serious.

No competition, no elite. When someone tries to seize power you can put a bullet in him and get medal instead of going to gulag.

Fuck off, you don't know me you piece of shit, I don't have the luxury to "just get educated" I don't have money, and my parents don't have money, in fact they have the same amount of no money I have, we all work in the same place. I live in really small town with a small handfull of factory jobs, and that's it, the nearest school is a town over, and I don't have a car, cause I can't afford one, which especially biting, because I make them all day.
Fuck you, is what I do not good enough for you.

how long until you take a bullet because somebody wanted your shoes?

he can make his own shoes, no need to risk the consequences. and if someone actually is stupid enough to do it, he's a science resource and need to be studied under microscope, preferably starting by establishing pain treshold.

why would he make his own shoes if there is no rule of law to stop him from taking them?

in a society where whatever the fuck you're implying is going on, who is safe?

meaningless questions


it's not law that makes people behave, but fear. in a society where no one is safe, there can be no tyrant free from consequences

Idunno, im not satisfied

I'm gonna try to get some sleep, gotta go contribute to society tomorrow in exchange for currency which i can choose to exchange for goods or services in whatever manner i please, you guys have a goodun

I got approved for FAFSA, and I still couldn't go to school, I had to help parents with bills, and there was no way to actually get there, I don't have a car, I didn't spend 2 hours shitflinging with you on a chinese cartoon forum to be condescended to by a spoiled cappy prick, fuck you, you horrible sack of shit.

I hate you, i hope you die in your sleep

communism has no wage labor. capitalism does.
one is freer. You will have to read books to get the definition, here in Holla Forums you have to read or fuck off tbh. This isn't Holla Forums.

a paragraph is five sentences mr. bitter Holla Forumstard

Nowhere, it's irrelevant to the definition of exploitation.

copy paste detected

Except video games won't exist under communism. They would get classed as a luxury.


they exist now and emulators too, pirated games too. would all of them banish. would art banish in communism. No.

Communism isn't what you think and thats the opinion you have because you haven't read. anything. you should.
It's pointless to talk about this otherwise.

They'll still exist, and for the most part they'll be way better, also we'll still have the ones already made.

also your post makes me realize that there is no wonder why most dweeb socially inept gamers are rightists.
the ones they call "normies" they're smarter than them. I must surround myself with more people like that and not gamers. dweebs are bitter depressing and really draw one down to their level. never again.

You admit that video games will disappear

They exist in Capitalist states, certainly not NK.

Sounds to me like you're implying that they are likely to disappear too.


I actually have a question for all of you. Why would anyone work very hard when you are taking away all of their luxuries and forcing them into slavery? You say that communism is about preventing the exploitation of workers, and yet you would exploit them by not allowing them to spend their leisure time as they see fit.

Of course not.

This is literally capitalism you are describing here.

No, I didn't, I basically implied the exact opposite, huge company AAA tentpole cashgrabs probably wont but what I listed will definately exist. Tetris actaully was invented in the USSR.

You quite literally did. You said "the first phase". Nothing about the second phase.

No, it is not. I can go out and buy any iphone, any video game anything I want with my money. Under capitalism luxuries will be removed.

Yep, just give it time, they'll become unprofitable, then they'll disappear.

The become unprofitable because something better comes out.

In the second phase video games will still exist; but they won't be a luxury anymore. Nothing will be a luxury anymore, that's the defining trait of the second phase.

Something better for capitalists you mean, which is not producing tjings when they become unprofitable

No you can't, because you have no money.


What is best for the corporations is ultimately better for everybody.

I have a job, so I can.

Now I know you're fuckin' around, or fuckin' stupid, I don't have to care anymore.

Your job doesn't pay off enough.

I get a better job then


He didn't say what they are doing was illegal. Just unethical.

I don't care about either of those things though. Why is it (cultural) marxism when a private company seeking to maximize its shareholders profit promotes certain societal trends? Seems like (cultural) capitalism to me.

Whatever the job, you'll never get more than what it takes to reproduce your labour power.

It is cultural Marxism as it promotes Marxist ideas and ideology. Yes, they do this through seeking to maximize shareholders profits by appealing to the left and right with the news. However, with the news, we have seen the omission of facts, allowing news agencies to promote communistic ideology and deliberately begin to sway their readers into believing that what they are reading is the whole truth when it is not.

I'll reduce my spending, and invest my money.

You can't, you have just enough money to reproduce your labour power.

Could you kindly point me to the works of Marx where he espouses these "communistic ideologies" you seem to be seeing? I don't recall him writing very much on issues like gay marriage. You're not just repeating things you heard other say without really understanding the underlying issues, are you now?

the fuck does that mean?

it means nothing. he's an idiot rambling about things he doesn't understand and doesn't care to understand. it's just gibberish

Can you not see how infinitely stupid your little theory is?

I know, i just want to see an inchoerent autistic answer rabmling about how marxism means the "le ebil gubbmind XDDDD" forces people to be equal by censoring stormfront.

Marx cared about removing inequalities from society. So anything that goes against the idea that we are not all equal, such as gays should not have the same rights or that "everyone is born the same".

Literally kill yourself. I hate stormfront.

The news agencies originally started off pretty centrist, but over time they moved further and further to the left and right because they can make more money catering towards peoples biases.

but everyone IS the same in the eyes of Lord

But this is wrong. Show me where Marx says this. He is very explicit about the workings of capitalism, but I don't recall him every saying anything in the vein of "we have to remove all inequalities from society". Marx doesn't critique capitalism for the inequalities it produces, but for the social relations it obfuscates.
Again, you are just regurgitating spurious readings of Marx you got from others.

1. do you just make this shit up as you go along or were you taught this in school or something?
2. surely if you wanted to remove inequalities there have to be inequalities to remove. if 'communistic ideologies' were about 'removing inequalities' then falsely claiming everyone is equal is anti-communistic

I am not religious. And no, they are not.

He states this under his theory of wage labour. The idea that no matter how hard you work, you'll never "reproduce your labour value". >>2203397>>2203404>>2203408

1. No.
2. The point of cultural Marxism is that it is trying to spread the idea that we can live in a "perfect world", making communistic ideologies sound like a good thing and painting capitalism as a bad thing.


The point of cultural Capitalism is that it is trying to spread the idea that we can live in a "perfect world", making capitalist ideologies sound like a good thing and painting feudalism as a bad thing.
t.random european baron a few hundred years ago
not to mention that capitalism is commodifying the culture, thus destroying it right now

1. it wasn't a yes or no question
2. i must be missing all the advocacy of the abolition of property and wage labour in the media

1. No, I obviously wasn't taught this in school. Cultural marxism implies you are taught this in school as well.
2. Obviously.

Litterally 0 immigration problem.
Communism is so great, that it not only fixes the immigration problem, but invert it too!
Everyone has such a great time in worker's paradise, that absolutely everyone and his dog is trying to go in pig-dog capitalist countries to help the victims of capitalism over there.
I would know, because I'm most defenetely not a little cunt LARPing being a commie from the comfort provided by capitalism.
Nor do I end up having association with leftism, or any dwweb board on the interwebz, despite Lenin warning about leftism.
Checkm8 porky.

No sorry. You'll have to read a book.

next time you start saying that capitalism is not "le free stuff" ideology

social democracy is still capitalism

… wot? You reproduce your labour "value" once you have done so much socially useful labour as you consume to reproduce yourself. In the first phase of communism, the more you work the more you get. So much for equality.

so capitalism?

Obvious sarcasm and no, I'm staying in Canada because of geopolitical reasons not because of capitalism, and most of the immigration is due to geopolitical reasons as well. Have a look at what your precious capitalism is doing to your population influx.


No, explicitly not capitalism. Under capitalism, people routinely have to do unpaid overtime, face wage theft, and often lose supposed deferred wages that went into pension funds which get wiped out because of the magic of the financial markets. They don't even get what they were promised, and have to work more than initially agreed upon because of the power relation between the worker and the owner. Under capitalism, work is not properly rewarded, yet people have no choice but to work anyway because the bourgeoisie control the access to the means of production. Pic tangentially related I guess.

desu you are at a shitty company. You should be getting 1.5x and 2x per hour.


so, when the commies started to become rambuctious and truculent lefties while starting to shill for coloreds?
When will commies get that people don't worship money, but absolutely hate to see subhumans steal from them more than anything?
When will you start denouncing the non-white scourge?

I'm not going to pretend they are entirely unrelated. Neoliberals advocate for migration to swell the reserve army of labour, and this same immigration sometimes spooks the natives into far right thinking. But the "commies" have nothing to do with this. It's the entirely of the elite establishment. Or will you sit there and pretend that Ronnie "amnesty" Raygun was also a commie?

In my country it was the leftists who did that, like in most european countries in fact.
Regarding raegan, wouldn't it be fair to assume he did so because of blanket accusation of "muh wayccisssm" from the left?

Strange way to spell welfare buxx

No, those accusations are infamously impotent. The man who deliberately launched his campaign on the site where civil rights workers were murdered did not give a hoot about accusations or racism. Like anything he did, he did amnesty of illegals for the benefit of his bourgie masters. Re the European situation, it wasn't the "commies" who brought us the gastarbeiter, but again, the elite establishment, for the same reason as it happened in the US: wage suppression. You seem to be under the illusion that because left leaning people don't hate brown people, they somehow caused the mismanaged immigration into Europe, an idiotic notion. Here's who gave you Moroccans, Algerians, and Turks in you precious homogeneous society: the owners of capital. And they will now happily mobilize your primitive impulses to divide the working class, stoke xenophobia, and keep you busy worrying about sharia or whatever in stead of clearly identifying who it was and is that causes all the things you don't like. It was never the commies, and you are a useful idiot for the bosses if you keep on believing this.


Supporting communism isnt about arguments or facts its about a feeling in your heart that everyone should be a millionaire without having to work for it.