Capitalism is a complete failure

Friendly reminder to sage brainlet threads

It's certainly an improvement over feudalism. Sure. But there is so much resources that can be utilized for everyone, but is prevented from doing so. People could be all fed and clothed. People die in wars of greed. The needs of people are marginalized for profits. You ain't dead, but for sure ain't fucking happy.

Capitalism has not had its uses, as we are still continuing to see strides of improvements in developing countries, as well as countries in the West.

Except less and less people are starving thanks to capitalism.

Of course marxism had *some* upsides but overall we really need to evolve beyond marx.

Why do communists always use the god-perspective?

Thousands more than there were, thousands and thousands more hungry niggers than there were before capitalism. Of course, niggers are worthless; is this the failing of capitalism? If not for charity i.e. not nationalism there would be enough food in africa to sustain as their nigger populations would not have grown. Furthermore, just because capitalism has not solved the world's problems, does not mean it is a failure as communism would fare far worse at solving any problem that capitalism has neglected.

The product of data manipulation and moving of yardsticks on a massive scale.

Even if it were true, it doesn’t invalidate anything, in fact Marx himself predicted that capitalism would have the effect of enrichment. The fact is that capitalism’s demise isn’t the result of impoverishment, but of its inherent instability and tendency towards self canibalization. Automation, saturation of markets, overproduction, the need for infinite expansion, etc.

What happens when robots and AI make labour obsolete? What happens when markets become universally saturated? What happens when there is nowhere for it to expand? What happens when there is a crisis of overproduction so widespread, and no world war to bring it out again?

Then comes the self canibalization, the squeezing of the consumer class, planned obsolescence, making money off of complex financial schemes, etc. Eventually it starts eating away at its own support base, like we are seeing now with the middle class squeeze.

Forgot a link.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

The organisation of tribes under a Feudal monarchy obviously helped store enough produce away in order to survive off seasons, this does not mean we must argue for more feudalistic measures to feed people.

Also, human labor is what alleviates people from poor conditions, not some mystical system that just makes everything okay. The way we produce and distribute goods as a society can have flaws which exist only to that system, creating unnecessary suffering. If we can do better, it is our duty to do so.
theguardian.com/global-development/2017/sep/15/alarm-bells-we-cannot-ignore-world-hunger-rising-for-first-time-this-century

/thread

ALL YOU NIGGERS NEED TO FUCKING READ MARX!

Not an argument.

Yeah lets see how capitalism is do-
ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

Please contain your anger over your low autism level in your containment cell at
>>>Holla Forums
or better yet, finish the job your mother started when she trip'd down a flight of stares while pregnant with you, and check out
>>>/suicide/

Obviously not. Feudalism incentivized a mono-culture of cash crops.

Because our current industrial capacity makes the meeting of basic needs of everybody on earth possible, and even if it didn’t, our current capacity would allow us to achieve the necessary capacity if we directed our society to that end.

Because it would actually be really easy to do these things m8. Webms related.

Before capitalism, although the lives of Africans were more primitive, the vast majority of the population lived in hunter-gathering and/or simple farming communities. The lives of many people were stable even if they were more vulnerable to nature. After capitalism however, along with the technological and medical advancements that the colonizers brought with them, they also brought the same capitalist way society was organized into Africa. Meaning that generations of people are not self-sustaining as they now are the hordes of unskilled laborers that capitalism creates. Even worse as there was the whole colonialism thing going on and when they left, they left the corrupt governments, the debt and nationalistic divisions that was present in modern civilization. The crazy niggers of today was capitalism's own fault.

Actually don't have a problem with that, once it's possible.
Read Rosa

It was however better then hunter gatherer society. And it gave greater insurance to those living around city areas in case they sufferd a crop loss. But it was still shit.
Do you get the point?

I don't claim this and no foundational theorist of any kind of socialism believed it either, least of all Marx.

It has a rough period of emergence though.

It would we require a world-wide rationing system, which would be so unworkable that it would lead to more hunger.

I get the point you're making, I just don't agree there's a factual base for it. Starvation very rarely happens among hunter-gatherers while it was a fact of life in the feudal period.

...

can I see a citation on world hunger from 1000 BC?

No it wouldn’t. You only need to ration goods that are scarce, but food is plentiful. We produce enough of it to feed 150% of the world’s population, and much of that gets thrown away. You would simply need to provide to to people regardless of their ability to pay.

You don't even need a rationing system, when we've reached the point necessity goods aren't scarce.
Also
wut

I don't support planning, but you could easily decentralize this to whatever degree necessary.

kino webms

It's outlived its usefulness, those poverty statistics are superficial; they're living in a shithole regardless of the extra cents they can make (it's also not profitable to just end their poverty by building their infrastructure/institutions), income inequality (which is the root of most social problems) is at it's highest, and it's continuation of this ecological disaster (we're living in the 6th mass extinction).

Can I get the version of this meme where the guy is happy about the French Revolution but mad about gulags?

...

Famines are caused by agricultural failures, a sudden depletion of the food supply almost never happens to hunter-gatherers, and if there's a seasonal depletion, they migrate.

Explain to me how this possible while avoiding destruction of local food production and induced dependency.
Yes, forcing 7 billion people into a rationing system is indeed less efficient than people throwing food away. Rationing systems always collapse when used on a large scale.

Who do we need on board for this; a group volunteers, a certain country, a global council.. ?

You guys really dont have a personal opinion do ya?

The scary fucking part is you've latched on to communism rather than something productive and youll drown us all like a lead weight.

How can this be capitalism when it's constantly said by right-wingers that these economies are all actually corporatism/cronyism, a.k.a. not TRUE capitalism?

what are you going on about? I was pointing out that none of us said that "capitalism was a complete failure"

That's completely inaccurate. In the west, wages have been stagnating for almost half a century while productive output has skyrocketed. In the third world, wealth is getting sucked out of them with no real improvements in terms of poverty.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

wrong
youtube.com/watch?v=A6VqV1T4uYs

Spasibo tovarisch

Capitalism has worked to an extent.
We now have the industrial capacity for post-scarcity.
Socialism can be reached and yet people cling to a self destructive (by nature) system.
What the fugg?

Oh, and to add to this, wealth inequality has never been as high as today!

commondreams.org/views/2017/06/12/now-just-five-men-own-almost-much-wealth-half-worlds-population

As you can see, conditions are quickly escalating to either sides, and this means that there will be an inevitable turmoil in social structures. There is going to be a change, and it is coming. We will either see total ruin or the ushering of a new era.

On what empirical basis? Empty assertions based on idealistic belief?

Oh, and appealing to nirvana while also preaching 'objective superiority' of your unfalsifiable system while providing no empirical evidence for its historical success.

>aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
Capitalism has increased poverty. The World Bank, IMF et al simply fudged the numbers so they could continue pushing austerity programs.

documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/801061468138860309/pdf/wps4623.pdf
Take a look at the part about the inequality measures in developing nations.
Those developing countries do not have respect for private property rights, at all. They are not capitalist, they are quasi-capitalist if they strictly limit free trade with government regulation.

capitalism is a huge improvement over feudalism. look at china. but something even better comes next

ITT

Here, post the PDF from now on, that al-Jazeera article was written before that guy fully completed his analysis.

Not the user you're responding to, but I appreciate it a lot!

This something the left should do, also the 20th century states weren't Marxist.

Lurk moar faggot.

Are you kidding?

...

Capital that is dependent on private property rights. The same way that state ownership isn't worker control, state ownership isn't private control. Simply observing capital being reproduced is half the equation. You're extending Keynesianism to the entirety of capitalist schools of thought.

The state is a collective of private individuals, herr neoliberal. They only claim to be operating 'for the people/nation' and use liberal democracy as their 'higher cause', merely an excuse. Furthermore, if you continue to use a different definition of capitalism to the one we're using, then there is no way that we will be able to argue at all without resolving definitions.

You don't understand ideology.

You haven't read Stirner. They're egoists but use the cloak of ideology to tell the spooked masses otherwise; they may even be spooked themselves and are thus involuntary egoists. Some may be aligned with the idea of improving the nation, others may not. At the level of the natures of their desires, there is nothing which distinguishes them from businesses (which, if they become large enough, act somewhat like governments anyway, even exhibiting some forms of somewhat-detailed centralised planning let alone relatively laissez-faire macro-structural policy).

State senators may circumstantially own private property, but that does not make their manipulation of other private property owners' assets any less interventionist. The state still intervenes and takes from private property owners, subsidizes the industries, or regulates them. If I tell you that you can do whatever you want with a taxi you rent out to people, but it has to be painted blue or else I arrest you, you aren't in ownership of the taxi unconditionally. I, de facto, own it.
*Accepted. My definition is the literary definition.
Private ownership is not equivalent to state ownership. Just because state officials who are also private owners intervene doesn't make their intervention non-existent, it still qualifies as state intervention. The state officials could be anything else, it doesn't make their use of force against other people any less non-existent, nor does it make the people on the receiving end the identity the officials are. Definition source: The Dictionary of Modern Economics by D.W. Pearce, 1984.

You haven't read kafka or the wikipedia article on begging the question.
This is a meaningless truism.

Private property is merely a regulatory structure of the bourgeois state and couldn't exist without it.

Capitalism has always been about the reproduction of capital and capitalist states have never been that strong on property rights where they weren't productive towards this end. Innumerable cottage industries and peasant holdings had to be swept aside just to make room for industrial capitalism, and it hasn't had a much better track record since, so when you talk about states that insufficiently back property rights when a conflict comes between small holders and the haute bourgeois, you're talking about the entirety of really existing capitalism throughout its short history.

And almost all of the countries you're claiming aren't capitalist because they "don't respect private property" are not socialist.

You're right about state management not being worker control, but I'm not arguing for nationalized ownership. I'm disputing your claim that those countries aren't capitalist.

>the state is distinguishable from 'private individuals' because i said so
Huge ressentiment here. Because of historical state power, you and your liberal ilk feel as if the state and 'private individuals' are two completely different things. I gave you an answer to that and you aren't responding to it at all.
Now I can confirm that you are an ideologue. Pic related is from marxists.org, though I advise you to read Marxian economic literature. If you cannot bring yourself to do that and screech about how you are the Lord of All Definitions, then you are an ideologue who isn't interested in learning about and critiquing Marxian economics; you must only want to pick a fight.

I would like you to explain how the crux of my somewhat-incomplete argument is a presupposition. The form may be flawed but the proposition is not as far as I can tell. I would also like you to explain the link to Kafka. It is not meaningless here for the ideologue tells us that based on definitions, state actors are different from private actors due to some 'rights' and whatnot, as I understand it. Feel free to tell me if I'm misrepresenting this user's argument.

That's not what private property means.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
The purpose is not 'to regulate' things, that can be a symptom, though. The business that I own to sell things to a consumerbase doesn't have to involve the state. The absence of the state and the presence of trade of this nature refutes your conditional statement.
Not every capitalist school of thought or implementation is equivalent or interchangeable with the next. They place different emphasis on different things, some believe in interventionism, others do not.

True. I never said they were.
Okay. Provide evidence that private property and freedom of association exists in nations within Africa, for example. Does the state control the means of production, or are private, non-governmental entities allowed to trade freely?
If I say that the African nations are socialist because the workers control the means of production, but only when the state lets them, that doesn't mean they are socialist. It means they are a certain, very narrow, specific version of socialism. The same logic applies to the capitalist definition. The broad definition of private property and freedom of association is not exactly upheld in nations that have tariffs or disallow certain practices (by business owners). If I own a business in Africa, but I can't sell to people in the next nation over, that isn't capitalist. It is a very narrow and perverted definition that restricts trade on a free market.

*two completely different things, the latter of whom must submit to the state and whatnot because they are these powerful nation-representing gods and all

AND AGAIN: 'if it's not the state only then can it be troo capitalism lol i'm going to use MY definitions
You clearly haven't listened, herr neoliberal.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE THE LORD OF ALL DEFINITIONS, YOU FUCKING PLEB? LET US BOW DOWN TO YOU, O PROPHET! TEACH US YOUR GRAND, DIVINE WAYS, FOR WE ARE UNCLEAN AND USE THE DEFINITIONS WHICH YOU DEEM TO BE UNCLEAN!

It assumes that everyone is a stirnerite, and if they're not, they're just not aware of it. The link to Kafka refers to how any objection to is taken as evidence for the claim.
The poster you responded to never spoke of the level of the natures of their desires.

>legal designation
And who creates and enforces legal designations?

That's right, the fucking state. If you own this or that piece of property it is ultimately because the state says you do, hence it is effectively a regulatory function of the state, rather than something outside of it.

They are equivalent to the point that they are all bourgeois dictatorships that serve the interests of the bourgeois class and you aren't going to find any state that acts differently. Private property rights are merely a way of implementing and enforcing bourgeois class rule and are only lackadaisically enforced for those not a part of that class.

Then how do they demarcate between 'the state' and 'private' individuals? I deny the idea that there may be intrinsic differences, though user will try to make the matter a priori.

I provided a literary definition right here:
The entry on most encyclopedias I found also delineated between state control and private control. If business owners aren't allowed to trade without permission of the state, that isn't the same mode of capitalist thought as one that includes freedom of association. You are the one making up blanket definitions to include capitalism as "always state-involved", when you ignore contradictory instances where the state does not respect business owners/their assets, which is not capitalist.
I'm the one properly sourcing my definitions, you aren't.

I already did. I will repeat my critique of your fault logic here: Private ownership is not equivalent to state ownership. Just because state officials who are also private owners intervene doesn't make their intervention non-existent, it still qualifies as state intervention. The state officials could be anything else, it doesn't make their use of force against other people any less non-existent, nor does it make the people on the receiving end the identity the officials are.
If the state officials are all six feet tall, that doesn't make the business owners that they intervene against also six feet tall.
So not a literary source or an encyclopedia?

The state doesn't need to exist for business owners to trade and start businesses. This assumes that the protection of private property can only exist with the state. It's as bad an argument as saying you can only be protected if the police do it for you. You can also protect yourself, just as business owners can hire security guards to protect their enterprises.
That's not what a dictatorship means. If they come to your house and force you to buy their iphones or whatever, that's a dictatorship. When you decide to purchase one item over the other, that isn't dictatorial by any warped stretch of your definition (it might be with your redefinition).

Why does a difference between them have to be at the level of the natures of their desires?

The point being the private property of the bourgeoisie is only protected from the workers by state enforcement of their rights, without it an armed group of striking workers or general population affected by disruptive material inequality could seize a factory, a farm, or, in a more modern context, an office from its owners with no heavily armed police or military to put them down. There would similarly be know way for owners to maintain control of large multi-regional businesses with any confidence.

Which African nations? That's such an insanely broad category, you're painting broad strokes about a whole continent.

Sneaky..

Might I just add that it is quite interesting to observe: the perverted application of socialism in the USSR is automatically discarded because of the wide range of nuance when it comes to beliefs being amended over time/depending on the environment (many say that the concept was so amended so as to resemble something completely different), but this same degree of nuance and differentiation between schools of capitalist thought does not exist. Hypocritical if you ask me.

The same way that security guards from a contracting company will defend against thieves.
Pick the most developed ones, like Nigeria or Egypt.

It's a way to appeal to their motivations or basal desires. The fact that some state officials also own private property or businesses doesn't mean that the business owners they regulate are also within the definition of the state. They are two wholly different entities. The entire point of private property is that the peoples are non-governmental entities. The circumstantial fact that they are protected by the government does not mean that they are universally dependent on the government, as this dismisses the notion of any kind of personal protection services. It's like saying "how else could you ever protect yourself without the police?" Well, it's easy: with a gun I just bought.

Yes, and they both bleed red too. Point being?

HERR NEOLIBERAL, ONE HAS TO MODEL AND REFLECT THE DEFINITIONS WHICH THE PEOPLE WRITING THE LITERATURE ARE USING. THE MERE FACT THAT YOU WHINE ABOUT 'PROPERLY SOURCING DEFINITIONS' WHILE REFUSING TO LOOK INTO THE RELEVANT LITERATURE ITSELF IS YET MORE CONFIRMATION THAT YOU ARE NOT HERE TO LEARN.
AND THE 'PRIVATE OWNERS' CAN'T DO SO? DO YOU KNOW WHAT A FUCKING MONOPOLY IS, HERR NEOLIBERAL? YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY FOLLOWING POINT, WHICH I POSED TO ANOTHER user:
"…there is nothing which distinguishes them from businesses (which, if they become large enough, act somewhat like governments anyway, even exhibiting some forms of somewhat-detailed centralised planning let alone relatively laissez-faire macro-structural policy)."
BUT YOU ARE THE LORD OF ALL DEFINITIONS; WE CANNOT QUESTION YOU. HERR NEOLIBERAL IS GOD AND WE MUST WORSHIP THEM! WE SEE THEM PERFORMING THEIR GLORIOUS WORK AGAIN:

THAT IS WHY YOU MUST FUCK OFF, HERR NEOLIBERAL. YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LEARNING, ONLY IN TRYING TO PULL OFF 'LE EPIN BTFO XDDDD'. IT WILL NOT FUCKING WORK HERE.

THEN WHAT DIFFERENTIATES BUSINESSES FROM A GOVERNMENT, YOU FUCKING MORON? YOU MUST CONCLUDE THAT BUSINESSES CAN BECOME GOVERNMENTS GIVEN THAT THEY TAKE ON FORMS WHICH ARE ARGUABLY SIMILAR!

That it is bad to say "well, this guy could be so and so or such and such, this means he is wrong".

Take a listen to your own boy, Adam Smith.
-Adam Smith, ''The Wealth of Nations

Sure, you can have capital reproduction with small personal holdings, but there's a hard limit to how far that can develop. To have a whole system based around the reproduction of capital, capital-ism, you need extensive property and, consequently, a state to enforce it.

I use "dictatorship" here to mean class domination, the inherently undemocratic nature of any state whose function is to enforce the will of a ruling class, not whatever bizarre concept of dictatorship is running through your head where they make you buy stuff.

Is this from the super accepted definition of capitalism and its relation to private property that thinks if the government disallows certain forms of trade it arbitrarily determines, that this means trade relations between businesses are respected? Yeah, rife with internal contradictions.
No, that's what dictators who are within dictatorships do. Dictators aren't business owners who are selling things.
How much tax do you pay to business owners?
Still not addressing the definition I provided? Hmmm…
States can engage in capitalism: it's called state capitalism. One mode of capitalist interaction is not interchangeable with literally every other mode of capitalist interaction, yet you dismiss the contradictory schools of thought that delineate between intervention and non-intervention.
The literature you cited thus far is rife with contradictions and conflations, which assumes trade between businesses is preserved if it is disallowed across borders.
As I have done. You still haven't even read the definition I posted.
Private owners cannot intervene in their own businesses: it's called managing your own business.

What?

Guilt by association.
Expanding enterprises occurs beyond the scope of the state every time business owners invest in their own companies. Therefore, the statement is demonstrably false.
Business owners can defend and insure/ensure their own enterprises.
The upper classes do not act as dictators. They are not aggressing against you, they are not tossing you in prisons, they are not shooting you for dissent.

I'm confused, is this the point of the poster that is now sperging out or the one he is arguing with?

That's not what we're talking about when we call capitalists and capitalism dictatorial.

Who are themselves workers who can become uppity unless properly pacified. A world like you're describing would be marred by constant conflict between both workers and modern Pinkertons and conflict between rivaling businesses which would basically degenerate into a primitive system of feudal warlords struggling to control businesses outside their immediate vicinity. Again, modern large businesses would struggle and most wouldn't survive without the state protecting them. Your situation is exactly what lead to central states becoming a thing the first place.

Yep, you're beyond saving. But, seriously what kind of vague to the point of worthless definition of capitalism are you using.

Feudalism also had its advantages for its time and it's now part of the dustbin of history

I'm saying that saying 'people are wrong because I think they might be up to something' is poor reasoning to use. Watch: I think you are wrong because you are in an arbitrary position politically (which I have deemed 'wrong'), therefore you are incorrect.

YOU HAVE REACHED THE END OF YOUR ARGUMENT HERE. YOU LOSE.
HOLY SHIT.
THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE GET FOR LIVING IN CERTAIN LANDS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED TO BE UNDER CONTROL OF GOVERNMENTS WHO ENFORCE THAT DESIGNATION; IF THEY DO NOT PAY, THEY ARE MET WITH FORCE. One can liken it to rent. Can one not choose to move to a shithole where they have to build their own infrastructure or buy/fight for the land off the state? Also, someone forgot about companies like Thames Water and natural monopolies.

EVEN WITH SOME OF YOUR DEFINITIONS IN MIND WE SEE THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

And this only happens because the state protects from the variety of actors who may want to stop or control them through force. Can you name one society where capitalism operated without a government?

On small scales for sure, but at that point hey're just exercising Stirnirite principles. Attempts to operate large scale multi-location businesses would lead to constant conflict between workers and rival businesses, or even "security" companies who realized they could use their weapons and training to take control of others.

Purest ideology in this post. They do this all the time, with their absolute control of business and their ability to punish you for failing them all the while leveraging destitution and starvation to prevent you from leaving or escaping the system all together. This is how they agress against us, that, and by taking the fruits of their worker labor form them using the legal framework of property in place. There actually was a point where they shot people for dissent, but then they realized this only further bolstered the workers, so they lobbied with their control of government (another way porkies are indeed oppressors) to institute reforms that prevented future occurrences.

So what is your definition of a dictator. The one from the link on Wikipedia: "Dictatorship is a form of government in which a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person (a dictator) or by a polity, and power (social and political) is exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity's power remains strong.
A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens. Dictatorship and totalitarian societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems. In the past, different religious tactics were used by dictators to maintain their rule, such as the monarchical system in the west."
By this definition, private businesses selling things to people and employing people are not dictators.
If they refuse to work and revolt, then the trade would have never been accepted if it wasn't mutually beneficial. If they decide to give up on the contract halfway, then hiring from the next company that is more loyal will seal the deal. It's just the evolution of proper business models.
The workers who trespass or call for the deaths of classes are called criminals, they have always been treated as such in our legal systems.
doingbusiness.org/reports/subnational-reports/egypt
Quick google search.
So if you have to ask and get permission/a permit to trade with the guy in the next nation over, that is not equivalent to 'all capitalism', that is a specific, highly regulated form of interventionist capitalism. Your conflation to 'all capitalism' is a false dichotomy.
In Nigeria: oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/nigerias-legal-framework-and-rules-and-regulations-doing-business.
Another quick google search. Even foreign investment is regulated. So, if I can't invest in a business in Nigeria, then the business owner is not free to associate with investors as he pleases. This means that they are not capitalistic in the way that freedom of association and trade is valued in other modes of capitalist thought.

Yeah, you've just been calling out for the 'relevant literature' but ignoring contradictory citations. Ironically, you're the one projecting the holy gospel of definitions: you cited marxism.org and nothing else, ignoring all contradictory definitions; you've still not addressed by demarcation between varying modes of capitalist philosophy and continue to paint it all with a broad brush.
In their own businesses as state officials do, yes. That would just be called operating your own business. They don't go to the next business guy and force them to sell x over y. They make decisions for their own businesses.
They get tax refunds from taxes they already paid, or they're arbitrarily subsidized. I disagree with that, too. Inflating industries creates paper tigers.
The rentier doesn't come to you at gunpoint, "one" would be committing a false comparison.

What? Smith want a Nazi or similar, there's no guilt to be had for being associated with him.

He's important because he was one of the earliest capitalist economists, observing a young, primitive capitalism as it developed. If even he notes that capitalism is inherently dependent on the protection of the state, that means that this ludicrous notion of a stateless capitalism is yet another reactionary prelapsarian fantasy that never was and, as Smith himself points out, never could be.

This can only occur under the context of state enforcement.

With what? A body of armed men who enforce their will? In that case, they've merely become a state themselves.

The upper classes do not act as dictators. They are not aggressing against you, they are not tossing you in prisons, they are not shooting you for dissent.
Except they do all the time? Are you asleep?

The comparison of capitalists to dictators is metaphorical.

There is whole lot more to the selling and hiring point you're attempting to make.

Do you even understand what unions are and what they're capable of. What you describe only leads to repression as it did during the gilded age.

They only ever did this in response to the oppression of the owners, and calling for the deaths of a class that exploits you and makes your life and the lives of your class miserable while enriching themselves off your work is hardly deserving of being labeled criminal. Do you have any understanding of the history of the left, or unions, or labor regulations?

They meet every key criteria for capitalism that isn't defined in a worthlessly vague or pedantically specific way.

The business enterprises can invest in their own businesses both to expand the company and to protect against losses. Are you familiar with the existence of 'loss prevention' forces? They aren't government entities, they aren't police officers. They are investments into the business to prevent loss from theft. There are also fraud departments, too. Your conditional statement of absolute dependence is not accurate, you can protect and invest in businesses beyond state measures.
If you consider the era of the Internet boom when state regulation did not impede certain types of international trade and people were free to associate/trade with others without intervention, then that is an example of voluntary association in a non-physical society. The existence of the black and grey markets are also evidence of the non-necessity of the government to paradoxically protect trade by limiting it.
Loss prevention is not small scale, but I agree with the latter part of the sentence.
Sure, I don't dispute this, it is a possibility. But I think you must also consider the risk-reward calculation the security companies must think about. If they were to break the contract and take control, their services would never be hired and their mutiny would be the example other security companies would use to advertise their loyalty.
That doesn't make them dictators. Also, if you 'fail' them, like not showing up on time to work, you are fired, you aren't executed or tossed in the dictatorship's political prison.
They do not leverage starvation, this is operating on the false premise that they are obliged to feed or house you to begin with and are impeding your moral rights by not doing so.
Now you're begging the question: the dispute is about the capability of private business owners to defend their property without the state, but you just referenced this as if the dispute has been settled. Like I said, you can hire security guards to defend it, you don't need to always have the government just as you don't need the police to defend yourself. They are not taking the results of the labour, labour is incorporeal. If I work as a waiter, I am paid depending on my productivity, the relation my effort has to the marketplace I work in, my tax bracket (after taxes), the quality of the work, and the terms of my contract, to name a few factors. It's a multi-faceted issue, not this reductionist meltdown version.
Citation please. I have not heard of private business owners shooting their workers en masse.

This thread has become a semantics battle and is now honestly trash.
Capitalism DOES have benefits but with diminishing returns.
Socialism is the resolution to the problems of capitalism.
Thus we should all be socialists.
HOW DO YOU PEOPLE NOT GET THIS

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

THESE PEOPLE CANNOT LOOK PAST THEIR IDEOLOGY

It's become about semantics because OP has done all he can to make it about semantics.

He's one step away from talking to use about the economics of a hypothetical desert island.

Are you so averse to reading that you cannot check sources and further reading material? Pic related.
Hence I am grappling them at the roots. Changing definitions won't help you here.
inb4 MY DEFINITION OF INTERVENTIONISM REQUIRES STATES AND GUNS HURR
And yes, there is active competition between businesses. Heard of lawsuits before?
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A BAILIFF IS. THEY USE THE STATE'S FORCES AND PRIVATE FORCES IN THEIR PLACE.

I don't see how that has anything to do with my original criticism of the proposition that there are no intrinsic differences in the nature of desires between those that form the state and business owners, as said proposition being a truism that is not relevant to the argument. You not appearing to be suffering from an amygdala hijack makes me assume you aren't the bold and red text poster.

Because of capitalism, I am eating pizza while people not living in a capitalist system are starving.

I win.

Under communism, you… everyone would have free pizza!
[reddit space one sec]
I win

You are associating my belief system with his by calling me 'his boy'. I do not agree with his stance as a moral philosopher, so he is not 'my boy'.
He can be the Duke of Wellington, I dismiss his argument because the evidence refutes it: we can observe business owners investing into their enterprises in the absence of state intervention.
His universal claim to truth is not applicable in our modern world.
I have already addressed this above, so I will repeat the argument because you are not addressing it beyond repeating the same point of contention.
"The state doesn't need to exist for business owners to trade and start businesses. This assumes that the protection of private property can only exist with the state. It's as bad an argument as saying you can only be protected if the police do it for you. You can also protect yourself, just as business owners can hire security guards to protect their enterprises."
Yes.
They do not enforce legislation, they do not interpret laws they do not write to dictate the society, they do not collect taxes from the citizens of the nation they do not control, they do not regulate the businesses of competitors because it isn't their business, nor do they form and organize a military. The existence of security guards does not qualify the existence of a state. Private property borders that are enforced by security personnel does not equate to state borders, there is no legislation that applies to you if you are outside of the business. You can do whatever the hell you want to outside of walmart, but when you step foot in their company as a trespasser, you are kicked out. That doesn't make that a state. State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Walmart hiring people to defend their assets or having a CEO and a board of directors isn't a state.
Are you a criminal? If so, then yes you go to prison. There are no public executions or executions of dissenters in the first world, you aren't killed for being a political dissenter. You have freedom of speech, unlike in the USSR.

WHAT, MY USE OF FORMATTING OFFENDS YOU?

OP you'd better be fucking reading this shit.

Under communism there would be no pizza to be had. You can tell because people living under these systems… starve.

No argument detected. Typical leftie.

Every country in the world uses a capitalist system.

If other countries have it worse, that is because the West has exported the worst tendencies of the capitalist system to those countries.

Though standards of living are on the rapid decline in the West, so this is becoming more of a moot point and more of you being sheltered and out of touch.

Or maybe you genuinely believe selling your birthright for $3 frozen pizza is totally worth it.

To arouse emotion, I understand. But the usage he:
Is using is literal.
The foundation is selling and hiring to make things to sell/service, but there is nuance, yes.
Whatever they want to be, I guess. I don't disagree with unionization just as I don't disagree with employers firing people for breaking their contracts. You can create a union with contracts that only include union membership for all I care.
How did the owners oppress them? If you dislike the treatment, leave the business instead of killing people.
Begging the question. There is no exploitation if it is a voluntary association that is reimbursed, arbitrarily calling for promotions without considering the fact that the worker does not own the business or the productivity/standard of living/conditions of the marketplace is illogical.
Except for freedom of association. Foreign investment must jump through hoops and there are regulations on how businesses operate to the tiniest detail. That is not universally extendable to every capitalist mode of thought. It is a perverted, obtuse, and specific mode of capitalism.

...

Under communism there would be loads pizza to be had. You can tell because people living under these systems would have free access to the machines and materials in order to make pizza.

No ability to realize I was joking detected. Typical funless anti-communist.

Shame it never ever happens, then. Because they always starve.

If you don't like governments, move to Saturn.
Hence that business will expand to make it apply to more people.

Shame it never ever happens, then. Because the bourgeois constantly suppress labour movements and people are blinded by pure ideology.

Man that's totally convincing because you colored shit blue. Shit tier countries in feudal economies in the 19th century were totally capitalist.

Meanwhile, capitalist nations are flourishing and dominating technological development. Communist countries aaaaaaalways turn into complete shitholes from which people flee as quickly as the state allows them.

Lenin and Marx's definitions of capitalism are archaic and internally inconsistent with the modern societies we live in. Using your interpretation of them, the forceful act of disallowing foreign investment until you get a permit and appeal to whatever council or governmental entity is in control of these affairs in Nigeria still qualifies their mode of production as universally capitalistic the same way that systems that allow freedom of association are capitalistic. What you should say is that those so-called capitalistic nations of Egypt and Nigeria are operating under a heavily regulated and interventionist form of capitalism: this is not the same as "all capitalism".
Fallaciously, by associating one form of regulated, interventionist production with those that lack such intervention/regulation.
Already provided the wiki article, sourced at the bottom, and the first one that popped up in the encyclopedia of modern economics.
Why would they follow in-suit with what their competition did? An oligopoly is evidence of, say, Microsoft's edge up above the competition. Companies can set their prices, they are the only ones who can deal with their own businesses: they own them.
So you admit that it is entirely possible to utilize private contractors to enforce disputes or protect property? Great, we agree. Also, the force is utilized when you break the terms of the contract, they do not walk out and use private/state force to shoot bystanders, only criminals who don't pay for services they receive.

Hate to break it to you but most capitalist countries are shit tier. That's a design feature, not a flaw.

The natural desires are irrelevant, their potential motivations are not related. Business owners seek to maximize profits and compete with other businesses, states seek different kinds of legislative power. In that respect, businesses that do not appeal to governments to manipulate laws and simply mind their own "business" are different from state officials who seek to draft bills that benefit themselves. In the end, the state officials could also try and line their own pockets, so I guess in that sense, they are both profit-drive, but that speaks more to human desire to trade with currency than anything else.

Were private business owners free to produce and sell crops or other goods without the intervention of other entities? Was China able to import goods or have the private owners trade with other nations free from regulation? If the state intervened in these respects, this speaks more to state manipulation of marketplaces and businesses than anything else, or just malformed farming practices/natural cycles of famines. If private property and freedom of association did not exist, you're talking about a specific type of state control, not private control.

Never heard of this… anywhere where I can read about this? This seems pretty bull to me.

Or legislate their powers away, which is also plausible. But business owners are not equivalent to states, they don't claim nation-wide areas and force legislation on non-violent peoples.
Businesses are not states. They can be circumstantially observed to cooperate with states, but that does not mean they are dependent on states universally. False comparison.
No, their definitions are rife with contradictions that dismiss concepts like free trade as it relates to freedom of association entirely. If you can't trade across borders because governments don't allow you to, that's capitalism to them. Which is a conflation of 'all capitalism' with a specific, narrow method of state capitalism that manipulates markets and enforces regulations.

It makes sense intuitively. If I want your bucket of milk more than I want my goat, and you want my goat more than you want your bucket of milk, we can trade. This is the bedrock of freedom of association that is central to how exchange works within capitalism. If you are quick to see an issue, you will notice that the society does not deal in goats or buckets of milk, so it makes sense to create a currency we trust to value these goods in relation to how they are valued by consumers within a marketplace and how much of the product there is. The notion that people are always fulfilled and never need to trade is not consistent with the history of barter. Introducing a more universal unit of exchange besides circumstantial buckets of milk or heads of goats is the next logical step.

This only covers primarily financial losses and non-devastating and extremely rare material theft. But finances aren't my focus.

Not only did this occur under the purview of states which protected private property, but you are attempting to apply your principles to an environment where theft and violence are damn near impossible and scarcity does not apply.

Okay, there seems to have a been a major misinterpretation between us at some point. I'm not talking about trade and markets, I'm talking about private property.

Loss prevention only protects against comparatively small non-devastating incidents, not at all what I'm saying businesses would be at risk of without a state.

Except the rebellious security firm now has control of a business and it's assets on top of the weapons and training they started with. they could begin expanding violently towards nearby weaker businesses and continuously accumulating more through force, other security companies could be inspired and conclude that this was a more rational, profitable way of accruing more wealth.

They are dictators because of their absolute control of their company and by extension things like their workers' environment and wages, and by extension the quality of life of those under them. And they absolutely do leverage starvation both individually and collectively as a class, I'm not saying they have to directly pay for food or housing, but they are obliged to pay a wage and certainly a livable one at the bare minimum.

When labor is responsible for the functions of literally everything in society, every good and service I don't think incorporeal is the proper word to make the point you're trying to. Capital is what is truly incorporeal. Would you seriously deny that if the shareholder no longer had access to any dividends or stock that the number on your check wouldn't increase, if the workers were in control that is. Obviously what decides a persons paycheck involves numerous factors that can't be disputed.

See any major strike during the gilded age or even unionization efforts in the late 19th-early 20th century around the world.

Not true, I've known many a business owner who did not seek to maximize profits because it would give them a workload they did not want or because it would mean that they could do no longer do the work they love. Yes, businesses that do not appeal to governments to manipulate laws and simply mind their own "business" are different from state officials who seek to draft bills that benefit themselves but by positioning state officials and businesses in this manner, you're engaging in the same abstracting that sperg-poster suffers from.

Adam Smith was not writing about moral philosophy here, nor does any of this have to do with morality.

You've already overcomplicated what a state is. A state is not necessarily a republic. There was actually a time when the state was regarded as a private entity owned by a single individual and his armed entourage, its was called feudalism. Do not mistake the abolition of the Republican form of the state with the abolition of the state, in your proposed system it would simply have taken on a neofeudal form.

Yes, because rents and fees are so different from taxes.

Like how they murdered the Black Panthers and threw Malcom X in prison? Yeah, totally different from the USSR.

I SMELL AN IDEOLOGUE.
PRIVATISE THE WATER LELELELELE
t. Nestle CEO
wew
EXPLAIN WHY EVEN THE MARGINALISTS KNOW THAT THERE ARE TENDENCIES WITHIN SUCH MARKETS. ARE COMPANIES FREE TO DO AS THEY PLEASE IN THE SCOPE OF THE PURSUIT OF PROFIT - SAY, TO ENACT MEASURES WHICH WOULD DESTROY PROFITS?

Then we're talking at cross-purposes.

lole

...

I though you meant that people love currency (the physical object) and not the ability to have something with set value to trade with.

...

This is an argued civil right not a defining feature of capitalism.

Archaic in the sense that there are new developments, specifically the FIRE economy and financialization in general, that would have to be addressed in a modern Capital, but I wouldn't say it's inconsistent, just incomplete.

The only think stopping me from shooting a parasitic rentier and continuing to live in the rented shelter is the fact that the state could send the police to physically evict me then charge me with trespassing. Without the state, the tenants could simply claim the houses and apartment theirs and refuse to pay, and pull out guns if the landlord tries to claim otherwise.

STOP FUCKING REDTEXTING

what if i dont want somebody oragnizing my labor? gulag?

archive.is/xwU7F
You are wrong.
They also protect against aggression within the business, if a customer tries to get violent.
The free association of Internet trade on (now) black markets was completely unrelated to state overreach into the market.
Fraud is, though. And scarcity does apply to goods traded in the Internet black market.
We can extend it to private property, too. Concepts like eminent domain or taxation of the assets of a business the state does not own are contradictory examples to the cushy relationship Marxists believe the state has with businesses. If you have a five minute conversation with business owners who live in regulated states about how mutually beneficial their relationship is, you will realize that their private property is not so much protected as it is leeched off of and "tolerated under specific conditions" by the state.
3 billion is not small, and that's only walmart.
No, it doesn't. The business does not simply put al its eggs in one basket and assume absolute loyalty to one random company.
The security companies would not be hired as contractors if they were inspired by the rogue company that just conquers businesses. There is the possibility that the loyal companies point to the rogue security forces as a marketing tool in their favour.
Yes, it is their company. The same way they control the assets of the company they own. That is not dictatorial, a dictator exists within the context of a dictatorship: they have not installed a dictatorship as a legal entity as it is formally defined. Owning a business doesn't make you a dictator. There is no coercive action taken against non-violent people, it is a voluntary association.
You're thinking of minimum wage laws set by the state.
Wages are determined by many issues, including market conditions and productivity. Not just "I say so".
Voluntary associations are not dictatorial. If the business owner forces you to sign the employment contract, it is a dictatorial business. This does not happen.
Exerting energy, you mean. The labour is incorporeal, it is a concept. The energy is not. People must work to create. Some people work with materials others have invested in. Others are self-employed. At the end of the day, it's just energy that is exerted.
Digital assets, sure. Not literal funds. If you mean the trust in the currency is just a figment of our imagination, then yes.
I don't know, rhetorical questions without substantiation cannot be falsified, so I will not be able to answer if you don't put forth something of substance beyond an appeal to incredulity.
I see the police doing it, not the private business owners.

Fair enough, but your anecdote does not write the general rule. I should paraphrase, though, because it is true: the maximization of profits to a rational extension, one that the business could handle (compared to its size and scope).
No, I am demarcating between two entities and how they act. It is not an abstraction, by definition, if there are instances of this difference. Small business owners who simply mind their own business are evidence of this.

You'll want to abolish capitalism, then.

Capitalism has already established social labor, just social labor for private benefit.

He is making a judgement based on a moral claim.
He is assuming some moral stance and extending this to a judgement about the impossibility of non-governmental protection of private property. This is an inaccurate statement that is contradicted by evidence. If you deny the evidence, then that's your irrational hill you want to die on. His moral outrage against "the affluent" is irrelevant.
Literal definitions are meant to be specific, that's why they are definitions.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government
I did not claim that these two definitions were interchangeable or use them as such.
Regarded as this by who?
A single individual who reigns supreme and denies private enterprises freedoms is not capitalistic, it is dictatorial.
I have not put forth a proposed system or mistaken this fact. States are a specific legal entity, which may circumstantially be involved in private enterprise, but that does not mean they are universally defined within the context of private enterprise.
Do you live in the apartment? Then you pay rent. Do you use the service voluntarily? Then you pay rent. Taxation is involuntary, you are put in prison if you refuse to comply, and you are not free to associate with competing rentiers (states).
"They"? The US government didn't kill the black panthers because they were not non-violent, at least those who were killed. Criminals are punished, what else is new.
There weren't gulags that housed people for "economic crimes" or "counter-revolutionary activities" numbering the hundreds of thousands.

Yet socialism NEVER works. At least capitalism, even when implemented poorly, works.

Attacking the source of a claim as evidence of its inaccuracy is fallacious. I have pointed out specific counter-arguments with your definition of capitalism you cited which discounts certain contradictions you have not bothered to respond to. Until you address the contradictions of your definitions regarding trade and business dealings that are paradoxically not regulated by being regulated by governments or point out a substantive inaccuracy with the definition in the dictionary I provided, your fallacious reasoning will fall on deaf ears.
Depends if they are rational agents.
Yes, trade is not inconsequential to how capitalism operates. It is contained within the definition and defined specifically, it doesn't always include governmental entities. Extending one specific type of capitalist thought to the entirety of the concept is poor reasoning.
They don't tax people and toss them in prison for not paying. The 'state' is a specific legal entity, anything that has power isn't always a state. Businesses operating their own company model or protecting their locations are not automatically states just because you are kicked out of the Walmart.

This general rule is not what makes the difference and should therefor be avoided when stressing said difference as to not frame our understanding of it.
There is no need to smuggle the good business owner who lives and let live into the demarcation between government and business, doing so invites the implication that business owners who do not are evidence that there is no such demarcation.

Ylu're starting to sound like a rational skeptik(tm) buddy.
First of all there is human in all history that could voice his opinions without them being filtered by the dominant ideology of the time. THere's no doubt Smith put some of his morality into his writing, but that's equally true for Friedman and yet we follow his word like gospel (which incidentally is another moral judgement).
Second what exactly is not rational here? The implication that there must be poor people if there's rich people? That's a basic logic assumption that you'll have to debunk if you want to criticize it, not just claim it's wrong and moralist because your superior rationality told you.

No, lol. That's not what I meant.

Freedom of association is a human right according to the UN, not merely a civil right. The capability to trade without regulation or limitation imposed by governmental entities is what allows for capitalist exchange to occur. If a government disallows trade or imposes tariffs, that is not extendable to all capitalism especially when there are capitalist modes of thought and philosophy that would dismiss the notion that somehow imposing tariffs or forcing people to trade with one person and not the other is allowing association to occur freely within the marketplace.
That is not what I said was inconsistent. It has to do with the claim that disallowing free association within a marketplace somehow is a statement against 'all capitalism' instead of a specific interventionist form of capitalism. It is often spoken as "look, this one government intervenes in the market and it is capitalistic in some regards, this means that this incarnation of capitalism is extendable to all capitalist philosophies because they are all interventionist". It's a fallacy of composition.
Parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
The rentier is not dependent on you, you can go and leave to another location. He can rent it out to the next guy just as easily. It's a mutually beneficial relationship that causes the exchange to occur.
This also assumes that the police are the only entity capable of defending rentiers. Are you familiar with the logic behind the second amendment? It is entirely possible to have individuals defend themselves. Or, like I've been saying, you can hire security personnel to defend against criminals.
This assumes private contracting companies that sell their services in exchange for money to defend territory don't exist. This is outside of reality, it is a pure fiction.

Can you tell me of a single instance in human history of humans acting as rational agents? You may find a few isolated individuals, but not a single large scale phenomenon in the 6 millenia of recorded history.
If humans actually acted as your imaginary being known as rational agent social struggle and advertisement would not exist.
It's useless to claim that your ideas would work in a perfect vacuum. You are limiting your system to an abstract world where it may work, but once applied to reality the issues start coming up.
And please stop using the word rational, you clearly don't know what it means.

I am terribly sorry for my spelling. Early morning is bad for the brain.

The difference is more of a nuance, the two instances are still within the same category of expansion of enterprise, it's just that it is also possible to expand your enterprise in a rational way so as to not bring about inevitable decline.
Virtually every business owner does this. Even the mega business owners, like Bill Gates, live and let live. You cannot point to a single act of coercion or aggression that the company of Microsoft has committed against a person. They do not smuggle bombs into their machines or kill people who don't pay them money at gunpoint. This constant conflation of "I am punished if I don't pay for a service I have used" and "I am punished because I have committed a crime" ought to be obvious to anybody who can compare and contrast between the two statements. If you steal from Microsoft, they will either use the state to arrest you or have loss prevention take the item back from you. This is not equivalent to unjustified aggression.

?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You are doing that same thing you think cannot happen right now. This entire conversation has been about a false victim complex around exploitation to justify class genocide. That is not 'the dominant ideology'.
Who is we? I don't care about Friedman or Smith, the other guy called him 'my boy' and said I am a Smith fanboy, and now you're comparing me to Friedman? Make up your mind, who do you want to associate me to so you can criticize my belief system?
When you ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence of a worldview, that is called a confirmation bias. It is an irrational action.
Reread my post, that was the moral stride he was taking that I criticized him for, that wasn't the irrationality.

Really? The fastest growing economy in the world in the last decades is China, which was and still is governed by the communist party. What a strange thing!
And Russia? Somehow it managed to recover from the devastation of the first world war, go from medieval feudalism to industrialized nation in a couple of decades, almost single handendly defeat the fascist menace and remain one of the world superpowers for the rest of the century.

And now let's look at capitalist successes, like Greece, the cradle of western civilization, reduced to third world level economy by the beauty of capitalism. Russia itself who now after 30 years barely recovered what has lost since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The whole of the African continent, they had capitalism for a logn bloody time, why aren't they at the top of the food chain yet?

The propagation of the scientific method as the basis for determining the validity of ideas describing the natural world. This does not mean we follow it, as is evidenced by this thread and the rational responses to definitions that contradict worldviews or the refusal to abstain from personal attacks.
That does not mean people cannot circumstantially act rational, but I have never claimed that rational thinking is part of our evolutionary pathway.

I’m not talking about the accumulation of every petty theft and vandalism. I’m talking about fullscale violent siezure of a business.

Once again, the concern here is private property, not markets.

Marxism does not claim this. It claims that private property rights as legally defined by the state help uphold capitalism. It does not deny that the state can act in ways that the bourgeoisie don’t like or against their interests entirely. You’re claim that the state only tolerates private property is also laughable. It treats private property as the default and only regulates in response to either market failures or as concession to the working class.

The rebelling contractors have the guns what can the seized business do?

I’m going to put this on hold and address your constant mention of voluntary association as a whole later on.

I not talking about minimum wage wage law at all, and you are disregarding why those exist in the first place. What I’m talking about is that the power to determine wages rests very heavily on the capitalist.

Using this argument I could claim the government violently killing all disidents is also “just energy that is exerted”. This is the most pathetically semantics-based point made yet. It also reaks of the dibious concept of thermoeconomics. And finally unlike the abstract status of capital, the movement of energy actually physically effects us.

Except we do know. Worker and consumer coops are real, anarchist communes are real. Traditionalist rural agrarian villages were real, as are modern yeomen.

Never heard of the Pinkertons or Baldwin-Felts private security firms? Anyway, the state police who did that were doing so behalf of business owners and were heavily bankrolled by said business owners sometimes the police forces were almost entirely financed and supplied by wealthy backers. Have ever read about the history of robber-barons and labor movements up to the early 20th century?

Here the marxist and liberation exist on the same plane, if for the marxist the cushiest and best paid job is exploitation because surplus value extraction, then for the libertarian the most miserably paid job in the deepest salt mine is not exploitation because consent.

If you look at the period where states didn't have a judicial apparatus as they do now, you can find merchants did do the things you mention.

No, he was simply observing reality as he saw it. No moral claim was made.

He wasn't making a moral statement there. He was simply observing the reality of capitalism as he saw it. In some ways, he takes the side of the property holders.

Maybe you should stop being such a pedant.

A republic is any state that is organized a a public entity.
A state is merely a body of armed enforcing law through the fear those arms inspire.

A single individual who reigns supreme and denies private enterprises freedoms is not capitalistic, it is dictatorial.
You see, these was this whole period called "the Middle Ages" where the state was a private entity owned by a small caste of noble families. Of course, feudalism was before the rise of capitalism as a dominant mode of production, but that doesn't preclude the possible rise of a capitalist neofeudalism.

I claimed the opposite. The state predates capitalism as a mode of production. The bourgeois state and capitalist enterprise have a dialectical relation to one another.

I didn't choose to need shelter, just as you didn't choose to be born in your country. "Voluntary" is a completely arbitrary and meaningless buzzword.

The government infiltrated them and assassinated their leaders.

There are more people in American prisons now than there ever were in gulag, most of whom are in for victimless political crime.

Loss control does not break the contract of the business it works for. They are a branch of the staff. They can leave if they please, but if they want to kill the owners and take control, then they aren't the only protective agencies that exist as a dead man's switch in the company.
Sure, states aggress against the private property of businesses they are meant to protect all the time. If you disallow certain business models and imprison those who do not follow your rules, you are the ultimate arbiter.
Circumstantially, not universally. There are other modes of capitalist philosophy and thought that clearly differentiate between legal entities defending private property rights and non-legal entities that defend private property rights. Not to mention, ignoring the contradictory evidence of state regulation designed to enforce rules upon business owners without consent (i.e. involuntary) is a confirmation bias. The state isn't always protecting private property.
Appeal to incredulity. Being unfathomable doesn't mean it is wrong. You have claimed many 'laughable' things, does not mean I can use that as a response.
How are television regulations disallowing broadcasting certain religious criticisms in the UK against Islam "market failures"? Conceding things to the working class I can buy, that's how tyrannical mob rule works.
They would have already hired a dead man's switch to take care of mutinies, I already said that the rational and successful companies do not put their eggs all in one basket.
To regulate businesses that the state doesn't own. That is the foundation behind all regulations. The justification for the aggression is irrelevant when they don't own what they regulate.
And the marketplace. It is more than your reductionist strawman would lead others to believe. I never said that it isn't dependent on the capitalist, I said that it is not dependent on only the capitalist.
It is.
Observing that energy is exerted when people act has nothing to do with a specific economic philosophy. I'm saying that labour is just energy, like all work.
Depends if the result of the exertion relates to you, directly or indirectly.
That would be how the state contracts its enforcement: through private contractors. What is ironic is assuming that other citizens cannot do the same.
Then they were privatized.

This demonstrates that you ave no clue what rationality actually is. What was rational about the scientific revolution? Men facing the very tangible threat of death at the hands of the church is not an action that a rational agent would do, especially if there is nothing to be gained from it outside from non material fame ina very small circle of powerless intellectuals. Yet they did purely because of their curiosity and thirst for knowledge, both emotional responses clashing against the rational conduct.
Then why are you advocating for a society based on this? If you are perfectly aware that humans are barely capable of acting as rational agents only once every pope's death, why are you using this rational agent as the basis for your hypothetical society? What is the use of such ideology if it can exist only in mental experiments and will never be able to be fully applied to reality?

Jesus user, please stop reddit spacing.

The exploitation cannot exist if there is reimbursement, the entire assertion relies on predetermined knowledge of living standards (i.e. the necessary) to determine what is surplus. The irony is that the minimum wage, outside of areas like New York (pro-tip: don't work for minimum wage in a metropolis like New York), is actually in excess of what the necessary standards of living are.
The miserably paid job is not exploitation if you sign the employment contract. You can leave the job and go to the employer who pays more to his employers. Then the boss who is stingy will either change his practices or lose his workforce.

which system lets me homestead a cabin in the woods with my gf and dog, collect rainwater, grow a garden, have chickens etc, and nobody will come collect my food as tribute/taxes, and if anybody trespasses I can shoot them?
I am okay with not having healthcare and dying of illness, not having a safety net, being poor, etc.

Our issue is with fundamental defining aspects of capitalism, not aspects which vary based on economic schools and government policy.

I repeat that is not what Marx tried to claim.

He depends on the tenant and all those who do not own to get an income, and he receives this income not be using and laboring the hone or apartment but by claiming he deserves an income. It really is no different than a sort of taxation.

Yeah, it is. My points about have always been:
a) this cannot with any stability or certainty occur on a large scale for a single enterprise

b)can backfire if the security conpany decides they can take things with superior firepower

c)this will result in escalating violent class conflict where the ownership class’ hired guns and increasingly organized proles, tenants, serfs, and left-wing or generally statisy revolutionaries decide to put an end to system they are clearly disadvantaged by, or in the case of statists, is prone to constant violence and uncertainty.

Sorry, just woke up. What I was trying to say is that your way of arguing bears a resemblance with how certain e-celebs argue. More specifically the whole sub culture of rational skeptiks.
Of course I am doing the same thing. You cannot remove your ideology googles, but being awware of their existence allows you to understand a great deal more than what is visible to the naked eye.
What you calla a false victim complex has a very solid logical basis and none is advocating for genocide, falseflagger.
It was just an example to show that rationality is rarely applied to reality even by the supposedly rational agents that are top level capitalists and politicians. Friedman is the economist that built the theoretical basis of what we call today neoliberal economics.

There is no system like this nor was there ever a system like this nor is that a particularly smart or desirable plan for society. It sounds like bourgeois idealist nonsense to me, like something Hoover would have thought up between sips of brandy as he ordered an attack on starving veterans.

It is a moral assessment to observe an inequality and make a judgement on its immorality.
I think bemoaning inequality in the context that he did rests on a moral assertion that inequality is inherently negative. Otherwise, why bring it up. It is unequal, and?
That is the nature of a definition. If you want to live outside of the scope of definitions that are accepted, that is your choice.
No, that was the literal definition of a republic. You have offered no counter-definition, so I have no obligation to listen to your pseudo-literal interpretations.
Yes. Private enterprises do not enforce law.
Side-step. You said it was regarded this way by a group of people. Who said this?
The 'state' as you mention it is a conglomerate of private landowners. If they disallow trade between others or coerce non-violent people with regulations that are not voluntary, then that removes them from the boundary of private individuals: they are state officials. A private landowner does not coerce peoples not living on the land he owns. If I own land and kill people halfway across town for not paying me taxes, I am not a private citizen anymore, I am a state official operating under my own tyranny. Private business owners do not enforce laws on non-violent people, Walmart doesn't force you to pay taxes or hang you in their courts.
I never disputed this.
This does not mean it is universally defined. Observing private businesses working alongside the state or influencing them does not mean that private businesses are dependent on the state to exist. This is an illogical extension to make a universal claim.
Nobody owes you shelter, anyways. Being upset at not having shelter from the get-go is expected, nobody owes you anything in life.
Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
Citation needed.
The population of the two nations are different. Also, citation on the political crimes they were tried and put in prison for. I believe it has more to do with drug laws than political crimes.

I wonder what system would allow that… if only there wa one that advocates against absentee ownership that would allow anyone to claim a piece of wilderness as their own, as long as they do not disrupt any major societal concern.
I really wonder… is there a system that would allow me to survive on the fruits of my labour without having to worry about being crushed by foreign or domestic competition and allows me to satisfy myself and maybe even my communtity by producing what I want and only in the quantity that is needed?
I wonder if ther eis a system that would allow me not only to have a direct influence on what society can do for me, but what I can do for society. If I could negotiate with my fellow men the distribution of wealth and resources there would be non need for taxation or even rent.

The scientific method, not the scientific revolution. Learn to read.
Strawman, I am talking about a concept, not a period of time.
Because although we are not always rational, it is best to act in that manner. Rationality as it relates to the scientific method is the best way to operate during experiments and discourse.
The scientific method's rational processes are not 'mental experiments'.

Isn't world poverty actually increasing, though?
nakedcapitalism.com/2017/11/extreme-poverty-cut-half-minds-capitalists.html

There are schools of economic thought that are capitalist that call for the existence of protectionist policies just as here are schools of economic thought that are capitalist who dismiss the notion entirely. Observing one protectionist capitalist nation tells you only about the protectionist capitalism, not "all capitalism" as there are other relevant schools of thought that are non-interventionist.
Then Marx and I agree that judging capitalism as universal for observing state intervention tells you only about the manipulation of capitalist policies in one instance, and not every other contradictory instance of capitalist thought that rejects market intervention.
On "the tenant", you mean consumers. Yes, there will always be consumers for apartments. But you mentioned yourself. He is not dependent on 'you'.
He deserves the income because it is his apartment he is renting out. I don't go up to a random car collection some guy has and say I own the cars because he doesn't use them as I see fit.
We agree, then.
It is plausible for businesses to hire large-scale security companies, they already do it where I live. The contractors exist and do a better job than the police.
Dead man's switch, they don't put all their eggs in one basket, disloyal companies lose relevance in the marketplace where mutually beneficial exchanges are valued.
It's mostly just people who want to steal things and security guards who stop criminals.

Only if you confine the meaning of exploitation to libertarian ideology, which is the same thing marxists do when confining exploitation to theirs. Such reasoning is dangerous because it leads to contradicting the reasons why people are against exploitation by making them subject to its definition. It means there can be no discussion, only a tug-of-war over the ownership of words.

Yeah their population is twice their productive output

Does that make my claims wrong? If I am such a moron who is obviously wrong, why pick the weakest rebuttal and attack my character instead of providing your own counter-argument? Pic related.
You don't even know what my ideology is. You have been playing the guessing game, just because I defend free trade within a marketplace doesn't mean I am who you smear me as.
It does not, you have only asserted that it does, not actually argued for it. The victim complex arises from envy, or just outright violence. Business owners own their businesses, not the workers.
Except that it is when it comes to discussing falsifiable hypotheses.

...

What an apt way to summarize the discussion thus far.
My exploitation does not involve voluntary association and competition within the marketplace to increase standards of living, though. Exploitation is defined as some unfair benefit, even though working for another person is a mutually beneficial relationship. If the worker is independent and does not rely on the employer, then the worker would already be self-employed. But the reaction is to usually call for class genocide.

You did not answer a single one of my points.
The scientific method is a method of analysis (clue in the name). I aksed you to give me a single isntance in the history of mankind where humans acted as rational agents in a larger scale than single individuals. Learn to answer what was asked of you and not what you want ot answer.
strawman of what? Do you even know what that word means? And I was talking about real world empirical evidence of the existence of this rational agent you uphold as the model human being.
The scientific method is one thing, rationality is another. The scientific method is not applicable to day to day life or economic studies, mainly because there are humans in the middle of them.
And rationality does not mean to act as guided by the scientific method. If I am threatened the rational response is to feel fear, if my familiy is threatened the rational response is to feel anger. Rationality is not being devoid of emotions or being able to operate in an abstract pattern.
They are, in fact the last step of the scientific method is validating the "mental experiments" with empirical evidence, also known as experiments.

Where is the contract that was voluntarily signed to allow for the lifelong (and even the death tax) implementation of taxation?
No, I don't. I cannot control where I am born. Also, taxation is not so much payment to a landlord, at least a landlord provides services that, if faulty, can be rejected so that the consumer goes to the competition. There is no alternative to the state.
No, it isn't. You don't choose which state to pay taxes to, and you are put in prison if you refuse.
True, you can go to a nation with lower taxes.
Why rent an apartment you cannot afford, then get upset when you are evicted? There is a difference between utilizing a service the landlord provides and ditching the payment versus being forced, without any other possibility beyond immigration, to pay (or else you are put in prison). No contract of the sort is signed, at all.

The propagation of the scientific method as the basis for determining the validity of ideas describing the natural world.
I am talking about a concept, not a period of time.
Already did. All the scientists who follow the scientific method in their dealings with natural phenomena.
The scientific method is rational in its application, but rationality is more than the scientific method. I never claimed the latter, only the former.
They cease to be mental experiments.

You know you were being sonewhat reasonable before, but now you’ve gone full retarded ancap. Your constant attempt to point out supposed fallacies is also cringeworthy. Your whole conception if capitalism is based on the comically idealistic scenario possible one that has notband cannot exist. You have zero conception of information and resource assymmetry and how this affects interaction in the market and leads to the issues that we seek to eliminate.

This crap is why your system would degenerate into feudalism marred by constant warfare all backed by authoritarian repression of the working class.

As usual you ignore why states do this. And you also don’t provide examples of certain business models being outlawed.

Nope. It is universal, to say otherwise is denialism. You can mention different schools of capitalist thought all you want but history and reality are all that matter. And I repeat once again, do you even understand what state began to regulate businesses? The states purpose is also to maintain peace and order within its borders which inherentlt involves doing what it takes to maintain the system as is.

There is no such regulation outside of hyperbolic right-wing american reporting, and I’m talking about economic regulation. Conceding things to the working class to protect the business owners from them is not tyrannical in any possible construction of the term. Besides, if you abuse the majority they are well within their rights to make demands for change amd recieve them.

All such regulations were made in response to bourgeoisie aggressions of some sort in the first place. It is rightfully putting a stop to harmful behavior. It isn’t a complete solution, toppling capitalism is, but it does benefit everyone to some extent in the end.

Funny enough, your appeal to the market is in fact the source of refuctionism here, because you are conpletely ignoring the power and wealth asymmetry at work and how these asymmetries make it primarily and in some instances completely under the control of the capitalist.

Except those businesses were contracted by private entities you ignorant mong.

And were incredibly repressive towards people who simply refused to work and demandec things as basic as livable wages and an 8 hour work day, and it was the state military that ultimately prevented successful violent worker uprisings like the battle of blair mountain.

It's the social contract that you voluntarily agreed to by choosing to live and die in the country. You can always leave and move to Somalia if you don't like the terms of the contract. After all, to not pay taxes would be to violate the nations' property, er sovereignty rights…(just like violating your property rights by not paying rent!)

On that you are right. We had a lot of idiots shitting the board recently. Sorry.
Ok I'm going to give you a very brief and simplistic theory of exploitation. Value comes exclusively from labour, with this I mean there is nothing in the world that has value unless someone invested labour into it. Gold has no value by itself until someone invests some labour to extract and refine it, for example. Machines and automation do not produce value by themselves, they are merely multipliers, in fact along the production chain there's always be some human labour. No machine can in fact extract gold, refine it, distribute it and sell it by itself. Even if in an extreme case this would actually be possible without the intervention of a single human there still would be the need for a human to press the button activating this hypotethical machine.
That said if all value comes from labour it follows that unearned value is stolen labour. An employer will employ a labourer only as long as he is producing more than he is paid, if this was not the case the employer would not be making a profit. The difference between the value produced by the labourer and what is paid is what Marx call the surplus value and it's what is stolen to the labourer by the employer purely out of the private ownership of what the labourer is using to produce value. It follows that to end this situation private property has to come to an end.
Do consider that things a re a lot more complicated than this, after all there are numerous books on the topic.

Except when it hasn't.

Your are completely ignoring what I said. I’m talking about the fundamentals of capitalism not trade policy.

Why does he own it and why should he get an income he isn’t working a d contributing for?

What country, state, city do you live in? And this doesn’t address my major point. The state still exists wherever you live and still exerts the influence and plays the rile we’ve discussed.

If one rebels then serious violence will occur, if a private security union or cartel rebels you are in serious trouble and again serious violence.

That’s because there’s no revolutionary presense anymore and that’s because the government provides regulations that protect the workers from abuse.

You know you were being sonewhat reasonable before, but now you’ve gone full retarded Marxist.
This comes right after a sentence that rests on horrible logic.
Absence of a state or private owners who are de facto statists, ergo not feudalist. Constant warfare does not make a system more or less capitalistic. Authoritarian repression against anybody does not occur, there is no authority to force business owners to act without their consent. The workers are free to associate with any business they choose, if the business is also willing to associate (mutually).
To propagate their authority and coerce business owners into following their party's policies.
I already mentioned certain types of advertisements or information being broadcast on television being illegal. Reread the posts.
The existence of non-interventionist capitalist schools of thought refutes your hypothesis. I have already falsified it and you accuse me of denialism, lol. Why don't you take a look at your own confirmation bias. Keynesianism is not interchangeable with Monetarism no matter how much you want to conflate the two.
There are degrees to which states have historically intervened in the markets, it isn't "any intervention is all the same". They do all deny freedom of trade and association within the marketplace, sure, but you can still categorize a gradient.
epa.gov/regulatory-information-sector
EPA is right wing now, lol. This is your brain on faulty reasoning and guilt by association.
Refuted yourself in the next post.
The regulation was initiated by the same people it taxed. I see. This is what we call 'shooting yourself in the foot'.
Appeal to moral outrage.
I have not disputed that the powerful and competitive/superior capitalist will obviously dominate the marketplace. This is expected when you have people like Microsoft.
The state is not a private entity, it is a governmental entity. It hires contractors all the time that are not government agencies.
Yeah, if they signed a contract that stated they would work.
Perhaps disallowing state regulation of a minimum wage and allowing for employers to compete against the other guy to raise wages would yield different results? Just a suggestion; after all, the minimum wage is a recent invention.

Then which is it user? A concept or a period of time?
But this is the whole fucking point I as making! You claim that humans are capable of functioning in a society as rational agents, yet you are refusing to give me the empirical evidence in support of this. You are only making amental experiment here, without this crucial last step. and
again is not a valid example. The scientific method is not applicable outside the hard sciences like maths, physics and engineering and even there we often struggle to demonstrate empirically many taken as granted concepts.

Smith doesn't do this. If you find the situation he described morally objectionable, that's on you, Smith makes no such moral judgement.

He doesn't bemoan inequality. That was under a section entitled "On the Expense of Justice", where he discusses the framework of law and justice in the context of a capitalist system. Don't mistake the fact that he doesn't sugarcoat capitalist relations with the ideological obfuscations of today for condemnation.
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch01b.htm

I do find it amusing that your lot seem to think that anyone who doesn't take a groveling position of unconditional praise of the capitalist system must necessarily be condemning it.

That's literally what "republic" means. Res Publica, "public affair", when the state is a public entity. Look it up, my dude.

I'd like to be able to see into your world of pedantic idealism.

I'd point out that private companies have enforced their rule on private citizens and have had people killed, but I think I would be wadting my breath since you seem to be more concerned with pedantic abstractions than really existing capitalism and its actual history.

I agree with this.

They're not owed property rights.

In full knowledge that no one is owed anything, let us both act in our own self-interest, they as bourgeois and I as a worker. This is why they are neoliberals and I am a socialist. If I want anything from this life, I'll need to fight for it, and I'm under no obligation to only fight within the ideological framework of the ruling class.

You do not choose to live.
Ergo, it is not a contract you consented to signing.
True.
At least you admit to the coerced nature of the one-sided contract.
The same nation that acquired territory by seizing it from private citizens by means of eminent domain? Ah yes.
Don't sign a contract with rentiers. You are not born in their apartments unlike you are born in a nation.

Libertarianism subsumes our conception of fairness by making it dependent on its own logic, not allowing us to speak of it unless in accordance with its axioms, and therefor, not allowing us to think of it unless in accordance with its axioms. Here it is malicious, for what this logic leads to is that any use of another person is fair as long as the person agrees to it, meaning that anything might be done with or to a person, as long as that person is made to agree with it or hasn't got any better options.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Are you implying communism? I'm not here to troll, so I'd appreciate a direct answer.
I was under the impression that communism means all my stuff belongs to "the people" and is confiscated, and then a central planner decides how much food I'm allowed to eat today. If I get caught with extra rations I'm sent to a gulag. Is this wrong?

I can see that, at least you are honest enough to not endlessly attack my character.
In that case, you must substitute energy, because, ultimately, the value that is derived from the product that is created or the service that is offered is energy being exerted. The value of said work is only as good as the demand it can create. If nobody purchases the iphone that you worked for months to make, all the energy invested in the labour is worth zero dollars.
AND the worth the refined ore has on the marketplace, which is measured by the demand it generates.
In today's time, yes this is correct. Human thought goes into creating the machines anyways, and operating them, and so on.
No, I dispute this as I explain above. Nobody cares how much energy you exert to create some product if it does not "belong" in the market.
If somebody gets value from something that you made for yourself, by yourself, absolutely true.
Yes, this is how businesses work. A business must invest and expand, it does not operate on a deficit.
Lot of logical leaps right there. First off, if the worker works for the employer, he does not produce things for himself, by himself. He utilizes the machinery that he does not own. If he works on an assembly line, he does not have a claim to own the value that is sold from the product he helped assemble any more than the marketing division of the business can lay claim to the value. Production is not one-dimensional, it is an inter-connected network of energy being exerted to create the final product. The business owner is the only person who owns it all because he is the one who laid out the contract's terms which state that he does, which the workers signed off on.
The surplus value begs the question: what is the necessary standard of living in the location that would justify the necessary value? The answer varies depending on many factors. It's a complicated calculation, but more often than not, the salary that is paid to the worker is actually more than the necessary salary he requires for subsistence (compared to the base standard of living). The surplus you mention, as it relates to an iphone being sold at 1000 while you only get 10 an hour, is more to do with the terms of the employment contract. You don't "own" the entirety of the worth of the iphone, you are discounting the whole "not self-employed" part of working for another person.

Messed up my above post, trying again:

I don't want to plan for society. I guess I should have asked, which system is most tolerant of ME living like that? Will Holla Forums feel offended by my existence and burn my house down?

In that case, operating on the one factor of assessment, any time capital exists in a specific relationship to the market, then capitalism exists. But there is more nuance to capitalist philosophy than assessment based on one factor. Might I add, you're admitting to reductionism, btw. I guess all instances of "socialism" are socialist because workers kind of owned the means of production, but to varying degrees.
When people live on land, farm it, and create their homes (in the ancient times), this was 'their property'. Unclaimed property that was claimed is theirs. It was eventually lost, absorbed into different borders by militaries, and so on, until it was inherited by the heirs to the land. It was unclaimed, then it was claimed.
Any land that I don't own doesn't automatically equate to an injustice or unfairness against me, this assumes that I necessarily owned all the land to begin with for its possession (in others' hands) to be deemed unjust.
The CEO does work in the company. It isn't the 'fat cat sitting at his desk' meme.
I don't dispute this, I said that the state hires from private contractors just as businesses can.
And?
Already addressed this: disloyal companies lose relevance in the marketplace where mutually beneficial exchanges are valued.

No, but don't expect any roads, electricity, running water, internet, etc.

And if you attack someone, you'll be arrested.

Why do capitalists allways happen to not understand even a graph or just be yuppie kids?

Why refer to them as mental experiments when they cease to be mental experiments.
If you deny the evidence, that is not on my shoulders. I cannot control your confirmation bias or improve your reading comprehension. I already mentioned the propagation of the scientific method in our modern society as evidence of humans acting rationally.
On what grounds. It is direct evidence of rational judgement being used to describe the natural world.
It's not meant to be. You asked for any evidence, you didn't say "outside of x, y, z".

It is "the people" too.

You don't have any

No.

He addresses the inequality in a morally reprehensible tone.
Then the entire section is not applicable to our discussion because his entire premise is operating with a conclusion that is predetermined: that law derived from a state is universally interconnected to capitalist systems. If he refuses to approach the position in a state of suspended belief, then it's just evidence of his bias. I don't think he meant to act as an arbiter of truth, it was meant to be exploratory. But his hypothesis is not validated, it is refuted.
I have not praised the capitalist system.
Yes, the definition I cited. You assumed I meant America, when I made no such claim.
Not idealistic if it is already admitted that the state resorts to private contractors to insure many services are delivered. The demarcation between the state and private entities will still exist, as it is a Venn diagram, not an overlapping circle.
Citation? I am sure there are immoral businesses in the past. But the exception does not invalidate the rule.
Excellent way to weasel out of a citation.
Oh yeah, and I am the idealist. You have just ceded the fact that your entire ideology is literally a rage against those who have more and who you have made up a fantasy wherein they oppress you by having a 'now hiring' sign outside.

Good thing I am not a libertarian. Speaking critically against anti-capitalist irrationality does not make me a capitalist.

Yes I am implying communism. The most basic tenents of communism is the elimination of private property yes, but we dsitinguish between private property and personal property. The former is everything that is used to produce and it is not directly and exclusively used by the owner. Factories would be seized, not homes or personal stuff, as long as you are not exclusively renting it for the purpose of making a profit.
And yes the economy will be centrally planned, but not in the sense of having a great technocrat laying down orders. What is meant with centrally planned is that the community will organize its production capacity in a democratic process with the purpouse of satisfying the needs of the community itself.
This is the other great pillar of communism if you will: the cessation of commodity production. This means that production will not be geared towards making goods for the sole purpose of exclusively selling them. What is produced is used, not sold. This is how the economy worked for a good part of human history, the community satisfied itself first and then the market, not the opposite.

The distinction is an illogical extension of opinion, at best. The opinion I hold regarding the usage of a specific plot of land or some supercar sitting in a garage is irrelevant: if I deem it 'not in usage', that does not mean that it is a category of property that can be infringed upon. I can have a toothbrush that I rent out to people that I clean after every use because I am the only one with a toothbrush in the village. Or I can literally sit on the toothbrush forever and pass it down to all my heirs until the end of time: your interpretation of my usage of my property is irrelevant.

No. Communism isn't the gubbermand taking your toothbrush away.

It's abolition of private property, not personal possessions.

Another way to put this is that it'a worker control of the means of production and the democratic management of the economy. Unless your toothbrush doubles as a factory, we don't care about it.

No we don't. When will this meme end?

How has this worked out in the past? Are there any successful examples of on a national scale?

Except what you describe and support involves de facto statism.

That’s not what I’m claiming.

Idealist nonsense, the assymmetries I’ve pointed out prove this false, in the end no matter who they work they will be subject to the same abuse inherent in private businesses.

Actually it’s to maintain peace and order and preserve the the development of a nation-state. You claim is contradicted by history and the behavior of contemporary governments.

Those aren’t business models and those types of regulations were put in place for a reason.

Except they all share the same fundamental features of capitalism we oppose, no matter the school, be it keynsian, monetarist, or austrian. We regard some schools as worse than others but they are to be opposed in the end.

I was talking about your specific claim about criticism of Islam being banned from UK television, not regulation in general.

As if your ideas don’t hinge on moralism as all do. And again with the fallacies, did you find wikipedia’s list last week or something?

You are an idiot. The Pinkertons and Baldwin-Felts were contraced by the private business owners during the strikes and in general.

That they had no choice but to sign if they didn’t want to starve. And now you an ancap are claiming people should be forced to work? Just admit you want decentralized tyranny already.

That’s how it used to work and poverty resulted from it, it was precisely because people did not recieve living wages without regulation that such laws were passed.

They cease to be mental experiments only when the scientific method run all its course, ergo when there's enough empirical evidence to support the thesis.
My point there was that you were referring to the propagation of the scientific method as evidence of rational agents, then you criticized my point by saying that yours was a theoretical concept not an historical period, however it is exactly that. The propagation of a new method to analyze the world is an historical phenomenon with a precise timeframe and historical circumstances.
I am denying the evidence because the propagation of the scientific method is at best circumstantial to our discussion. It is not evidence that can sustain your point of humanity being able to act as rational agents on a wide scale.
Not to mention, again, that the propagation of the scientific method was not a rational process, as its protagonists faced quite a lot of resistance, where the rational answer would have been not to proceed.
So what? It is not proof that humans can act as rational agents, it is proof that humans can think as one. There's quite the difference there.
You are admitting your evidence is at best limited to a few specific cases.

Yes we do idiot.

revolutionary Catalonia and the early Soviet union

The absence of a state coercing and regulating people and businesses is not statism.
Then the constant warfare is irrelevant to the question of how capitalist it isn't/is.
There is nothing abusive about voluntary employment. You have not disputed the fact, you are just saying that the fact that you must work for another person if you so choose is somehow coercive, even though it's voluntary. This dismisses the concept of self-employment altogether, or the fact that you could always live off of the land, kind of like the communistic ancient man, remember?
Calling something abuse with no justification beyond a victim complex manufactured to always pit the worker as the person without any agency or choice cannot be falsified. It's irrational.
By forcing people who have no interaction with the state, nor wish to (i.e. do not consent), to pay for the state's dealings.
Who is Mr. History? What is his alma mater?
No regulation can be justified if you don't own the business.
Primetime television companies have a specific business model, but they are disallowed from advertising some information.
Those schools of thought vary greatly in the issue of interventionism in the market. That is one of the factors which is key in capitalist philosophy, as is evidenced by the constant complaining one side has against the other. And again, you're admitting to reductionism wherein there is only one factor of comparison that dismisses all nuance. I guess leftists are liberals now because of this one factor that they both agree on…
You cannot air a picture of the prophet Mohammed.
I have not been the one appealing to my moral outrage to make a point against your claims.
Ah, so it's possible to hire security guards to keep the peace within your business. Got it. Glad we agree that it isn't just "the state" that can provide these services.
Yes they did.
Nobody owes you anything, the fact that you will die because people don't give you free food doesn't mean that they are guilty for your death. Grow your own food and hunt in the jungle like the ancient communist man if you want, nothing is stopping you but your own inability to survive.
Nope.
Cum hoc fallacy.

By choosing not to kill yourself you have chosen to live. But you don't even have to kill yourself to choose to disagree with the social contract. You can move to another country when you reach the age of majority, and never 'sign' it. (When you're a minor, you may not have signed the contract for your families' apartment, but you still have to obey the apartment rules. You can always move out when you turn 18.)
Ahahahahahaha…Now apply that logic to private contracts dipshit. "If you don't like the terms of the apartment contract, you can always move out and live in the motel across the street."

So why not call them what they are: accepted theories.
Of evidence of humans who can act rational. When the scientists go home, they are not rational, they can be irrational.
I never called "all humanity" rational, strawan.
Then you cede the point and agree with my stance that it is direct evidence of rational judgement being used to describe the natural world.
I wasn't claiming what your strawman is demonstrating.
The wide span of the theory of evolution is not a limited case, it is corroborated by genetic tests mapping out genomes, Mendelian experiments observing the predictions, even geological field tests proving the age of the Earth.

Both of which failed and were defeated.

It never existed in the past.

That is not the only factor of capitalism. You and I meed to reach a mutually agreed upon definition or at least explain what definition we’re operating under.

Not on its own it isn’t, but when you use that ownership to extract rent from people or take the profits their work produced then it is an injustice. This also doesn’t answer the question of what makes property legitimate.

Whether this is the case is hugely contextual, but let’s your example of a hired CEO. Yes he is technically an employee of the business’ owner and yes he does labor for the company. However, he’s also placed in a position of unaccountable authority over the rest of the workers and recieves disproportionate amounts of income and bonuses thanks to his closeness to the owner(s) and his own policy choices. Such managers could still exist under socialism if the workers so choose, but it would be accountable and more equitably rewarded.

Which is just outsourcing bureacracy and enriching a capitalist at taxpayers expense with no input.

I don’t think you know what industry unions and cartels are, another thing such orgs could do is black list your business.

And I'm sure you will provide a quote backing that claim, genius.

If I am to believe your theories, I have to believe that humans can work on a large scale as rational agents. If the best we can do is to act as individuals once in a while as rational beings, there is no way to build a society around this concept. Thus it is meaningless to bring forward such narrow cases of rational minds, there is no basis for societal movements.
And again ther eis a difference between acting rationally and thinking rationally, a similar difference of a mental experiment and a proven theory.

Gish Gallop poster is ruining my leftypol

Correct.
Does not exist in the context of its significance to taxation.
True.
Social contracts do not exist as employment contracts do.
Walmart doesn't force you to sign their employment contract. False comparison.
True, or you can live by yourself, for yourself. Who said you need to be in civilization?
The family already had the money, they don't acquire it from themselves, it was already in their name.
The natives did not lay claim to the land anyways, it was unclaimed land that was not even remotely improved beyond the stone age. It was more like bringing civilization to the continent. You can see the results, the natives in the colonized region of South America enjoy a standard of living that is far superior to the standard of living of the tribes that nobody has contacted.
No, it would be illegitimate if you claimed it first. You being born centuries after it was claimed means you have no claims to the land. You just think you do.
Defense against criminals, yes.
Claiming land predates the existence of the state as a legal entity.
Through the barrel of my gun. I kill thieves, or I hire people to protect my car.
This does not mean that they are meant to pay rent for the rest of their lives just because they are born in an apartment. You can move out of the apartment, you cannot release the "social contract" the state has over your head.

How many capitalist nations were defeated in history? How many failed? I cannot argue with you on this if you control both definitions of those words, you'll just manipulate them enough to keep out of the acceptable examples everything tha I bring to the table.

That's what I thought. So it's just idealistic nonsense with no pragmatic application.

No, it's an accurate prevision of what the future will look like.

True.

But capitalism also has many foundational and irremediable contradictions that can only eventually culminate in something even better superseding capitalism.

working for another is unacceptable, how do you defend it

See:
Already did that a few hours ago.
One of the factors includes the ability to trade with the shit you just produced. There are different gradations capitalist schools of thought take in regards to interventionism in this regard, making a blanket assumption of 'capitalism' internally inconsistent with all the philosophies.
If and only if they sign the contract to live on the land.
The business owner owns the business, and workers do not own the business. Also, the outdated "I produce goods by myself" might have been true during Marx's time, but not in the 21st century. Labour is inter-connected and you cannot claim the rightful value of the iphone you helped assemble any more than the guy who mined the material can. You are not self-employed if you work for apple.
Claims that predate other claims. Creating businesses that the owner claimed ownership of and defends against thieves.
We agree.
Board of directors elect a CEO, actually. In most cases, if I recall correctly.
So? Why do you think you deserve what others get when you are not in their position? Who cares what he has.
If I pay you to follow me and beat people up who try and steal from me, that isn't a bureaucratic relationship, none of us are bureaucrats, I am a consumer and you are providing me with a service.
Blacklists work in my favour in that they outcast disloyal contractors and favour loyal ones.

In determining the theory of evolution, they have.
It was never about building a society. Strawman.
Humans have acted rationally in discarding irrelevant or disproven information in regards to the theory of evolution and think rationally when discussing the proofs of the theory as they are honestly presented.

So stop asking me so many questions. Look in the mirror, your buddies are the one who started it.

...

Were they interventionists or laissez-faire types? Depends on who you're talking about. Oh, do you think all capitalism is the same? Where's the nuance when it comes to capitalism? Are liberals leftists? I can find things they agree one, does that mean all the evidence to the contrary can be discarded?
Still not refuting the modern economics dictionary definition.

Nostradamus predicted many things, doesn't mean he is a clairvoyant if he was wrong about the majority of his claims or literally guessed them (just so happened to be true).

People have subjective life goals, people want to pursue different vocations. Some choose self-employment and succeed to hire people who don't want to have their own business, and choose to work for employers they want to work with.

Look I can do it to.

Yeah, so what you need to do now is to read Marx, see how he backed his claims, and agree with him (that is: if you have a brain of course).

So you're implying that some people will choose voluntary slavery… because of WHO they are… in some metaphysical sense, and not out of desperation. Do you have any empirical evidence or you're just cryptofascist full of shit?

You are partially correct, a better definition would be labour-time rather than labour itself.
No, value is not price. The exchange value of a product may be determined by the market, but its value in terms of labour-time is not.
The "das mudpie" argument. Value is produced only out of socially necessary labour-time, not generic labour.
Furthermore you did not dispute my claim. What I was saying is that there can't be value outside of human labour.
Yes it's the principle of commodity production and my point was exactly this: if all value comes from labour, then whether the employer owns or not the machines necessary to produce said value does not imply he is not extracting the surplus value from the employee. As we said vbefore there is no value beyond human labour, so the possession of means and resources should not give claim to anyone over someone else's labour.
The question here is not how much should the worker get paid, but the fact that he is being paid something less valuable that what he produced.

Except one of his 'predictions' has already been met with resistance: the decline of profits over time. He made an assertion without any substantive proof, literally guessing that something will happen. This is the same argument religious kooks use: my god said it would rain, and it did. This means he is a fortune teller.
It depends how you approach the issue of declining profits, which industries you examine, which nations/time periods you compare, etc. It's a multi-faceted issue with many variables that cannot be reduced to a general statement, but you will do it anyways because of the confirmation bias you suffer from: evidence to the contrary is 'propaganda' but your worldview is 'truth'.

I never claimed it was an inherent part of capitalism. I’m simply claiming it’s an inherent part of statelessness, in this case anarcho-capitslism.

It is no more voluntary than you claim taxation to be when the proles must work for an owner, with all the abuse that has always entailed, or starve then it cannot be reasonably called a voluntary exchange, but extortion. You can claim that you’re free to move elsewhere, but that’s the case with taxation, you could always move, or not own property, or not make income. But then again that’s not reasonable is it? Well neither is work for me or starve.

Why? A business that engages in something violates the rights of others and causes harm is bad, regulation prevents this, how is this bad?

Again, they’re disallowed for a reason.

I am neither being reductionist nor does my fundamental point have anything to do with regulation. Capitalism has a specific definition with specific criteria any school under capitalism despite all other differences must meet that criteria. My issue is not with what those different school propose and differ by, but with the universal criteria of capitalism.

Other than your talk about regulation, or mob-rule, or violated contracts, but you know, keep denying that morality lies at the heart of any politico-economic stance.

Are you intentionally ignoring what I’m saying, because at this point I’m going to ignore previously addressed points. I never claimed they couldn’t hire security, my arguments were not related to that.

Extortion is not a choice.

That’s not the point, the point I have to be subject to the injustice of capitalism and thte authority over my life by business owners if I don’t want to starve. That’s not freedom or free choice.

Continue being a rationalist teenage intellectual and see how effective it ever is.
You claimed that the business owners of yor were justified in mass killing workers for refuding to work, which implies support for forced labor.

You do realize this is the "that wasn't reall communism" argument with a different flavour, right? This said am I allowed to pick and choose which communist nations are a valid example and which not? Because you sure will be doing this for capitalism nations.
Then give me a precise definition of what you mean for: failed/defeated examples and successful ones.

Employment is not slavery. Slavery is when you are the property of another entity. You are not the property of walmart if you work for them. That's not what slavery means.
For what, you were the one saying employment is slavery. Back up your claim. My claim is a truism: people pursue different career paths, different degrees in college, different life goals all the time because the desires are all different. Working for others or starting your own business: two different career paths. Some people have always wanted to start businesses. There is a diversity of opinions in this context, and people act on them differently.

All choices your ideology offer are rubbish and belong in the trashcan of history, i'm staying true to serious anarchism devoid of the cancer of capitalism

Except he never claimed there would be a decline of profit over time. Now stop disgracing yourself and read Marx already.

Just because it's not "on paper" doesn't mean it's not an implicit agreement.
The Republic of France doesn't force you to sign it's social contract. You can always move to Somalia before you turn 18.
True, or you can move to Antarctica or the Moon, who said you had to be in a country?
"It's only legitimate if they're Europeans! Using…European customs and law…"
If it was "first come, first served", weren't you 'stealing' from those hypothetical natives back there…
How can you have criminals without a state to make laws to define certain people as criminals? I thought you didn't like state regulations.
And you need the state to recognize and enforce your claims as legitimate, no? I mean, they certainly didn't count the native land claims as legitimate when you took that hypothetical land…
So if I have better aim, and you don't see me coming when I shoot you and take your car, I become the legitimate owner "through the barrel of my gun."? I mean, since you now seem to imply that "legitimate" property is the result of force "through the gun"…
You can always release the social contract that the state has over your head. It's called moving to another country and renouncing your citizenship. You don't have to pay taxes to that state anymore. I thought we went over this, no?

Yes.
I never said that, strawman. I said that the value is as relevant as the demand. "If nobody purchases the iphone that you worked for months to make, all the energy invested in the labour is worth zero dollars." Not that it is zero dollars USD, but that it is worthless.
It has no value in that regard, just because you worked and exerted energy to create an iphone doesn't mean it has worth.
It is socially determined by the marketplace it is in. Otherwise, working for literally hours and hours to produce something that nobody wants means that the net benefit of the energy exerted is meaningless, worthless.
This is also wrong and I dispute it. There are other kinds of labour that we do not directly engage in which generate value in a marketplace.
It doesn't. Markets exist to determine if it has value or not. Nobody cares how long or hard you work on something if nobody wants it.
He does.
He never was to begin with, and I didn't imply it, I inferred it.
Only when you sign a contract to work for the employer under his conditions.
He does not own what he produced any more than the marketing team doesn't own what was sold. If anything, the marketing team has more of a claim to the value of the iphone that is sold than the assembly line worker. In reality, none of them do beyond what their salary is: apple owns the company. Also, this is an archaic and irrelevant way of thinking about work, modern labour is inter-connected, like a vast network. No one person can 'claim' it because they assembled, prepared, advertised, or shipped some good.

If I build a cabin is it my personal property? If I grow a field of crops is it mine? Do I get to keep eggs from chickens I raised, and milk from a goat I raised? I would not try to sell any of this stuff, and I wouldn't have employees, so my home wouldn't be a factory, right?
A toothbrush is obviously personal property, but I dont know what a subsistence farm would be classified as

There is no "personal property". Enough with this anarchist meme already.

Sure, I don't dispute that.
You sign a contract for employment, not for taxation.
False dichotomy, see: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp.
Assumes you own the meal you simply helped prepare, or deliver to the restaurant even though you are using the facilities of the employer.
You can. Nothing is stopping you.
Also true. Just move to another place. Don't like employment, move. Nothing coercive about voluntarily moving to another place of employment or a nation with lower taxes.
Such as?
Violation of property rights is okay so long as other rights you think are infringed upon are upheld? Two wrongs don't make a right.
One that, ultimately, boils down to a judgement that comes from a place of non-ownership.
Then the vast array of capitalist thought and nuance refutes the blanket assumption that one interventionist capitalism is equivalent/interchangeable to all other forms, yet people still say "look, this crony capitalism means all capitalism acts this way". False comparison.
I said it relates to interventionism, which IS a fundamental point of contention between capitalist philosophers regarding the acceptable definition.
No, it's because you refuted yourself by agreeing with me and my point about private contractors.
Excellent proofs. Anybody who denies with me proves my point. Unfalsifiable.
Good thing it isn't extortion, by definition.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you choose to by painting a false dichotomy wherein self-employment or living off the land in the forest (like the TRUE communist ancient man) doesn't exist.
Except for the part where you are under no obligation to associate with the capitalists and, if you want to, can choose literally any business that allows for hiring.
I can translate it for you if you want: just because minimum wage laws were introduced as poverty "declined" (assertion without proofs) does not mean that minimum wage laws CAUSED poverty to decline.
Don't sign employment contracts you don't want to keep.
Also citation needed, or are you going to link to some random, decades old instance that hasn't happened since?

They're onto me.
Welcome to the club. Feels good, doesn't it?
See:

"True" anarchism doesn't say "you aren't allowed to associate, I will use force to stop you from doing so". That's authoritarianism.

economictheories.org/2008/07/karl-marx-falling-rate-of-profit.html

One of the factors includes the ability to trade with the shit you just produced. There are different gradations capitalist schools of thought take in regards to interventionism in this regard, making a blanket assumption of 'capitalism' internally inconsistent with all the philosophies.
The definition you gave is a flawed, simplified dictionary definition, not an academic one. For example it claims that price systems are a capitalist feature, even though market socialists and mutualists support it as well. As your point about various schools, I’ve refuted that already.

Which many will have to if they want a roof over their heads.

Part of this whole issue is what makes their ownership legitimate. And the workers produced and distibuted and organized the goods and production collectively and should be rewarded collectively.

You are so close to connecting the dots here.

Except for large multi-location businsses, the owner doesn’t defend against thieves, in house or contracted security does while the owner throws around some abstract entity we call capital.

CEOs are almost always part of the board of directors, along with other executives and major shareholders. CEOs can also be sole owners of a business or major shareholders themselves. Different companies may tweak this formula, but the roles and purpose are the same. The point about accountability and proportional rewards still stands.

The people struggling to make a living and the people without whom the CEOs management will be pointless. As for how it would be decided how much he gets, there’s multiple options.

You said the state was the one contracting the security when you brought it up, when governments outsource to private businesses the purpose it tonreduce the bureaucratic load on itself and improve effectiveness.

Except in the case of influential unions and cartels inwhich case you will struggle to find contractors willing to work with you.

Okay so basically I am forced to make things and dont get to keep them? I just have to hope "the people" take care of me?

...

No, that's all you, my dude.

Youre reading a lot more into his statement than is actually there. Try reading the actual passage.

That's what you've been doing this whole time, the OP of this thread is basically asking us to accept capitalism as the greatest economic system ever.

You implied that there was more to the term "republic" than there actually is.

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what idealism is. It's the concept that, essentially, material reality is merely a reflection of our consciousness, and that material things are but an imperfect realization of an ideal that existed prior to it. In this sense, ideas literally shape reality. So, in this view, for instance, the definition of a term suddenly becomes really important because that shapes what it is.

Our philosophy, materialism, is opposed to that view. Consciousness is merely a reflection of material reality and ideals are but abstractions of real material things which exist more as processes than static objects. Definitions are our imperfect way of attempting to describe what is, and can be subject to revision.

youtu.be/es-E9DwCFA8

Excellent way to weasel out of a citation.
Here's another since you ignored it the first time.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

You once again show that you don't know what "idealist" means, and then go on to reveal the primary contradiction of this libertarian sham doctrine you're spouting. Morality and ethics begin and end with property rights, everyone should be free to do as the please so long as it doesn't interfere with property rights. The propertied are righteous in their indignation to the slightest of regulation of the state, but the unpropertied proles should be grateful for their subjugation. Freedom for the propertied classes, subservience for everyone else, all justified because the proles are technically free to choose the exact nature of their exploitation. Well, fuck you and horse you rode in on, instead of eating the latest flavor of slave ideology, I'll take a cue from the bourgeoisie themselves and take power and dispose of the old ruling class, just as they did to the old feudal states.

Screaming strawman does not make you appear more intelligent you know?
What I meant is that value is an intrinsic property of a product determined by the socially necessary labour time invested in it. What you are referring to is price. Marx's LTV theory (which is what we are talking about essentially) distinguishes between 4 different values:
-value: which represents the labour time went into making the item
-use-value: which represente the want-satisfyng need of the product
-exchange value: which represents the quantity of commodities of equal value I can exchange the product for
-price: which is the market determined exchange value.
You are talking of the last two, I am talking of the frist two.
Again value is produced only if it is socially necessary value.
Can you give me an example of value produced without any human labour put into it?
it does. Markets only determine the exchange value, not the value or the use-value of the product and these two are determined indipendently of the market.
Are there alternatives? If all land is private property do I have any other option than to work for one of the owners to eat? It's not a voluntary contract if one of the two is forced to sign one, regardless of the owner who is making the actual contract.
I am not talking of the product I am talking of the labour the worker put inot the product, a labour that has a precise value and that it is not reflected by what it is paid, because as we said before surplus value is extracted from him to make a profit for the employer.
Irrelevant.

Isn't consensual, unlike employment contracts. Your signature doesn't magically appear on the paper: babies are not even literate, ergo they cannot sign onto anything.
Sure, you can always move, just like you can move to live in the forest if you hate employment. It isn't your false dichotomy of 'work or starve', you can employ yourself, you just are tacitly admitting to your inability to do so.
Their law was archaic and irrelevant.
The natives didn't come there first, the Europeans did when they actually did something and properly claimed the land. The land in the Amazon with the tribes just rubbing sticks together is also unclaimed land.
You don't. No legal jurisdiction. The criminals are violating the natural rights of people, that does not require a legal code to observe.
No, this is wrong.
Yes. But communists cannot afford guns, they despise currency. Allergies or something.
Even if we assume you pay taxes, let's say that you don't for a while. See what happens.
Oh, well within that land, do the same. But you are correct, you can still move, but you have to be smuggled into the land to not be officially registered.

No, you can also starve.

Tough not being a god, right?

But you cannot. You are one person and you are weak, I have many security guards and other forces defending my land, like investors with an interest.

I am asking for a precise definiton of a failed country and a successful country, not of a capitalist one.

You are making communism sound a lot like slavery. I would rather starve than work on your plantation tbh

It is the definition of an academic citation. "relating to an educational or scholarly institution or environment". Yours is accepted in Marxian circles, but you reject any worldview outside of the confirmation bias, so I do not expect you to entertain contradictory claims. I have pointed out the internal contradictions of your definition in its conflations of interventionist capitalism, you just said "it isn't academic" even though it's from an encyclopedia.
They are not forced to.
Sure, let em unionized for all I care.
Ironic because that refutes the fallacious claim to ownership of goods produced when you work under a contract that rebukes such notions.
The owner hires people who do it for them. Obviously the owner doesn't fight with guns or whatever.
They are not the board, they are a part of it. Doesn't change the fact that the position is renounced occasionally and determined, often times, by some council.
Coveting others' assets doesn't make it anything more than an opinion.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Private companies, yes.
Yes, privatized companies just do it better, I know.
Who cares what some random union says, if I want to hire some security company and they want to work for me, it goes through.

Falling profits relates to rates, too. As rates decline, the overall profits plateau.

Then it was irrelevant to mention.
Don't think so.
Description is not prescription.
No, I cited a definition. That's it.
Yeah, idealism has a specific definition which relates to the context I used it under. It is unrealism, or the denial of pragmatic approaches. So it is not unrealistic to observe that private companies exist and provide goods/services to states and people.
Good thing the hard sciences don't believe this nonsense, they take the more rational "definitions that cannot be falsified are accepted until new evidence comes forward to refute them".
>youtu.be/es-E9DwCFA8
That is immoral, good thing it's an old example and, when brought to light, will create bad PR.
Never gave one. Oh, and i was right, it is some random event, not even 100 people died. Don't work, then revolt violently, if you don't want employment to begin with.
Except this arbitrary, opinion-based interpretation I have regarding property though, right?

Ok.

Ok.

...

Poverty rates falling is largely due to a shifting of the goalposts
m.youtube.com/watch?v=A6VqV1T4uYs

So stop making strawmen.
I made a clear assertion that you have ignored. I said that the price is dependent on the value that a item is perceived to have, how much of it there is, and many other factors.
The usage of an item does determine the price it is set at, just as the possibility for its exchange does, too. It's all interconnected. The difference is not as clearly defined as Marx thought.
I also include the usage an item can have as a purpose behind the demand it generates.
Which is not related to the work that went into it, yes. If nobody wants something people worked hard on, then it has no value to be utilized or exchanged.
The absence of human labour is observed with animals at the zoo. Their existence in the zoo is what fuels the value that it is perceived to have in the marketplace. Human labour is secondary, it maintains the zoo, but the animals that exist there are the primary source that determines value and, subsequently, the price.
You know things are sold on the markets that are not exchanged once they are purchased? Markets determine the worth an item/service has. Once it is traded for some money or whatever, then you can do with it as you please. Markets are the only things that determine the value goods and services have. It's a reflection of the consumer demand.
The usage a good has is also determined by the market. People use many items once they buy it and this is relevant in the demand that fuels the price of the item.
It isn't.
Self-employment, subsistence farming. I am not here to tell you how to live your life. Go hunt animals in the forest. That's how the ancient communist man lived like.
Determined by the employer, not the marketplace that the service/good is sold. You don't own that.
Not consequential in determining the demand, which means it has no bearing on how much the price actually is. That's why nobody cares how hard you work to make something.
Actually, it is very relevant to the discussion of who is the claimant of the value the good is sold for. The miner says "I harvested the materials for the phone, it's mine", the advertiser says something similar, and the assemblyworker the same. You could never actually settle the dispute, ironically, which is why the 'surplus value' meme exists on paper only, never settled in modern economies because it doesn't exist.

No, we base our self's off a material critique of our current system, and then propose possible alternatives. No one says what Socialism will objectively appear like, because it will depend on circumstance it appears in.

The burden is still on you to justify capitalism. We can build an alternative that prevents this needless suffering, why then
why then should we continue on with our current world, when we can create a better one without the flaws?

A failed country is the USSR. A successful country is the USA. One exists, one does not. One maintains its existence, one has failed.

Sonething, something social contract. You are extorted in both situations due to the dynamics at play. I’ve made this point repeatedly.

>False dichotomy, see: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp.
It’s not a false dichtomy for most people and most industries, an economy of total self-employement, either by business ownership or contracting is not possible, let alone reasonable.

Which ties back to the whole, why are theybthe owners question. And the issue at play here is the fruit of labor, which in modern society is money gained from exchange.

Except the financial and social realities of moving, and the fact that under ancapism you won’t escape the problems the pushed you to move by moving elsewhere.

Except my previous point or the fact there’s no real escspe in the ancap economy we’re discussing.

Shooting workers for striking, dumbing dangerous chemicals and poisoning the locals, pollution in general really, making false statements about a product that leads to injury, and covering any wrongdoings.

Violating your rights in response to violation of another’s is the whole point of punishment. Your are implicitly, intentionally or not, arguing for a world without any punishment or at least one where those with enough capital and property can’t be punished.

You can assess the harm something does without being an owner of that which causes the harm.

Not. My. Fucking. Point. All capitslism involves the same criteria whether the school supports interventionism or not. If this is not true than what you’re saying has no meaning.

It’s a point of contention by a single school rejected by the mainstream and non-existsnt when economics began as a field. All schools still believe in a shared set of criteria, this shared set is the fundamental criteria of capitlaism and therefor its definition.

No, I didn’t, I never once said hiring private contractors wasn’t possible. My criticism was different entirely.

Explain how your talk of private property and stance on regulation is not rooted in moralistic ideas.

I have actually.

Already adressed this.

I’m not saying they necessarily did, but I am saying they only occured as an, at the very least an attempted, solution to problem that wasn’t being solved without the government.

Here you are yet again coming in defense of forced labor and mass murder, both extremely repressive, and perpetrated in reponse to attempts at free association. News flash bud, in a world of true free association like you want, contracts don’t mean shit. And the historical instances of this depict a situation of minimal government regulation, and as such make for important examples of actually what happens in your precious fantasy.

I don't know, Alex, rhetorical questions and meme arrows don't address the illogical nature of Marx's guessing games being proven wrong.

That's the colloquial, rather than philosophical meaning of that term. I was referring to philosophical idealism.

W E W
No they're not. The shit you see in the dictionary was not approved by any scientist nor is it subject to any kind of scientific method (even if that was possible, which it isn't, what you're suggesting is absurd). Modern dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They describe the way the authors believe most people use a term, rather than the "correct" way to use it.

There's more where that came from.

That is, once again, hardly the only example. In addition, you wanted an example where bosses had their employees shot. Now asking that it be over a hundred people is a bad case of moving goalposts.

It's all opinion-based you fucknugget.

Like what? Appear like what?
It exists even as a perverted system disrespectful of free trade, socialism does not. Because one exists on paper, the other can even exist in a manipulated way. Kind of like the USSR being state capitalist. Socialist instances have never come to fruition on a national scale, they are all irrelevant provinces ready to be conquered, like they historically have been.
Unrealistic, devoid of any pragmatic thought beyond rhetoric.

Yeah you don't know shit, that's pretty obvious. My advice: stop disgracing yourself here and go read a fucking book.

Not really that relevant, I just love this webm

If that's not slavery, what is? I wouldn't starve in this situation, I'd leave. There's no way you can convince the whole planet to live like that. Good luck with your little dystopia.

You don't need to sign a contract with a signature to consent to things. Take sex, for example. And, like sex, you can choose whether or not to consent to the social contract when you come of age.

It comes from a single academic and makes a major error and again is to simple in its description of both capitalism and socialism, all which make it questionable. I don’t how you can claim I’m contradicting myself when I haven’t even told you what definition I’m using (it’s not the marxist one) and I’ve refuted your point about interventionism.

They are on a systemic level.

That’s not what unions do or are even for.

Not even close my friend. It has nothing to do with contracts and is in fact a more powerful argument against the capitalist than anyone else.

Yes, which means they aren’t devending it themselves, which makes not only a leech but brings into question legitimacy of ownership.

Different businesses donit differently, and sometimes the CEO is he primary owner and for all intents absolute authority. Besides those councils are still authorites themselves that have all the same problems with owners and CEOs, just witth more names attached.

It’s actually a wage problem and therefore the capitalist’s fault.

You’re underestimating what large unions are cartels are capable of. As usual the reason you don’t see the ngative effects of these is the government intervining to orevent them.

my god, you are truly clueless aren't you?

False comparison
Who cares if some people fail at starting businesses, not my problem. Anybody can go live in the forest and live like the TRUE ancient communist man.
Didn't you learn that out the hard when when the USSR drove out all the rich people from the land and the HDI plummeted?
What financial realities, just get up and start walking. I thought you are anti-consumerist, why do you care about amenities and luxuries?
Except for the open door that you can come in and leave out of. No coercion.
[citation needed]
First is a one-off exception to the rule, second occurs in any system and is unavoidable (free market>black market) even if you try and limit it, third is the same as the last example, fourth is bad advertising (buyer beware, also what are rating agencies that examine businesses for a fee), fifth is a generalization/not remotely specific.
>Violating your rights in response to violation of another’s is the whole point of punishment
Your rights were never violated. Choosing to work for somebody then getting paid a salary is not exploitation, you are under the false pretence that you own what you do not own, then cry about rights as you commit class-based genocide. Irony.
Inconsequential opinions.
Except for the issue of intervention in free trade. I guess free trade of the things capitalism produces doesn't relate to capitalism because these Marxists said so… oh, but don't listen to the capitalists, my confirmation bias doesn't let me!
Sorry, not all forms of capitalism are interchangeable. Also, using your own logic, liberals and leftists are now the same because they agree on some issues that are fundamental (we can ignore all the other fundamentals they disagree on).
Appeal to status quo.
Except for when they disagree so vehemently that they are delineated between their philosophies.
This means the state is not the entity that can ONLY defend businesses.
I never said it wasn't related to morals, I was laughing at your pathetic proofs of "disagree with me? haha, that proves me right!"
Okay, so you have disproven your own false dichotomy by offering up another solution beyond work or starve. Also
Sorry, you will have to expend energy to live.
Already addressed the response.
Cum hoc fallacy. Coincidence is not causation.
Don't sign contracts that you will eventually reject and violate.
Therefore, unions do not exist because the contractual boundaries are irrelevant. Guess that means I can do whatever I please and infringe upon anything I want to… oh wait, I guess that's why the workers were killed for rioting and being violent!

Perhaps read what I wrote?
This does not prove much, besides the resilience of capital.
Perhaps you can engage with the theoretical text written on it instead of pretending to understand what we are discussing?

You just described capitalism.

Also, "work or starve" is the mantra of all systems.

Which does not follow from the context.
Strawman. Never said they approved definitions, I said they honed them around evidence that has survived falsification.
Never claimed otherwise.
That's why they examine the context words appear in as extended definitions. Kind of like the idealism context you just ignored.
Yeah, people don't really care at some point.
So cite some general trend, you sure seem to think it is one. The best you got is from a couple of decades ago, isn't comparable to our modern society.
No, I was laughing at the minuscule scale, not saying that it should be 100 people. Ironic that the Marxist is complaining about death tolls when their idealist ideologies (context: unrealistic) have called for the deaths of an entire class of people, like Lenin's Hanging Order. Oops! I guess class-based genocide is okay when we do it, but not when others do it.

Excellent argument.

Hierarchy.

Industry.

Human condition (as opposed to God's).

Slavery. Slavery is slavery.

You would neither starve nor leave. You would work and live a happy life.

It already does, thanks to capitalism.

What this two vids Fam:

Capitalism HASN'T Lifted Millions from Poverty
youtube.com/watch?v=A6VqV1T4uYs&t=7s

Capitalism is not great;
youtube.com/watch?v=R4AegesdCsY&t=14s

Do you even know what a strawman is?

The usage of an item does determine the price it is set at, just as the possibility for its exchange does, too. It's all interconnected. The difference is not as clearly defined as Marx thou
Again price is one thing, value another. Exchange value is a combination of the value of the product itself and the use value of it, prices are further modified by the supply and demand factor. That said vaule and use value are outside the market frame of reference.
But demand is not what gives value to the product. Demand gives value to the price of the product.
It's related in the sense that the labour time spent on the creation of said value needs to be socially necessary, eg it has to have a use value.
Animals in this example are no different than gold in a mine. They have value because humans have spent labour time to capture them, build the necessary infrastructure and provide labour for their subsistence. Just like gold does not hold value as long as it is under a mountain, an animal does not hold value as long as it is out in the wilderness.
Markets have assumed this role only under capitalism. What you are referring to here is called commodity production in marxist economy. Under capitalism production is set up to only interact with each other through the market and nothing else. What I mean is that the makert is a necessary step between the individual and the satisfaction of his needs. Nothing is produced to be used directly by the producer and one has to interact with the market to gather what he needs.
In this framework markets do indeed determine the price of an item, but not its value. If I produce some food for myself, without it ever reaching th emarket, does it have value? Yes, since I put labour time into it. Does it have use-value? Yes, since it is capable of satisfying my need to eat. Does it have exchange value? No, since the market never had the occasion to evaluate it.
This is a utopian impossibility. Even if I was able to live purely out of my hypotethical land, I would still be influenced by society one way or another. Pollution would destroy my health and the productivity of my land for example and I would have no way to influence society by being outside of it.
determined by the employer that uses the market rate to determine what value to assign to the labour. This is circular reasoning.
Our original talking point was to justify logically the theory of exploitation of Marx, not determine that the market does not care about how hard I work.
Except I was never talking about the value the good is sold for and neither that the labourer should claim the product as his own. I am talking of the fact that the labourer is putting more value in the product than what he receives out of it through the wage he is paid with.

Capitalism = work or starve
Communism = work and starve

So you are essentially proving my point. Your question was loaded from the beginning, you never had the intention of giving me the possibility of winning this argument.

It's not where someone has an agreement to work for a wage without the employer having any authority to prevent him leaving his employment.

Wtf I hate communism now!

Can you faggots get a room already?

You cannot gain verbal consent from a child, that's why circumcision is retarded.
True.
You still have to pay taxes in Somalia once the statists assume power. You can choose employment, it's a voluntary association. Taxation is not, you do not consent, as infants cannot give verbal, written, or any other kind of consent.
That's all law is.
Doesn't matter, Europeans were there first to do shit with the land. They never formally claimed it, they just wandered around.
Great, then it isn't exploitation because no rights are infringed upon to qualify the interaction as coercive. Talking about employment, of course.
Rights are determined by the contracts that are voluntarily signed in this context, but since you say they don't exist naturally, you just justified the absence of justification for the entirety of capitalist systems.
Read the thread. No. Private contractors.
Sure. Doesn't work like that because you are one person. You are poor and disenfranchised, I am rich and afford protection.
When you claim land and work it to substantiate ownership, that is the existence of natural rights determining your ownership. The fact that force is used to kill thieves means that the natural rights are defended and preserved, not that they derive from force because this assumes that everyone is always a thief.
Don't sign on with rentiers you don't want to pay.
In the end, you can move around or live in the forest in both scenarios, because there is more nuance beyond false dichotomies in the real world. But the difference of consent and voluntarism is something you have failed to respond to every time.
Involuntary and non-consensual, nobody forces you to sign contracts, verbally or otherwise.

Are we still talking about communism? Didn't realize I would be free to leave.

I'm sorry if we are actually discussing something more articulate than "oh my toothbrushes" or "lol they all starved"

So taking your child sit on your lap is always groping?

You all look alike..

But not wrong, you just said you think it is wrong. Doesn't make it inaccurate. Juxtaposing capitalism and socialism as a reference key is common in encyclopedias.
Marx's definition is by ignoring the gradient of free association and its relationship to markets/trade.
Nope. No such law or coercion exists. Beyond your imagination.
Who cares, they can still unionize.
Except for that pesky part in the employment contract wherein you signed voluntarily, stating that you do not own what you produce for the obvious reason: you don't own the business, the machinery, etc.
Marx really hated service-based economies, he even brainwashed people into thinking any service is illegitimate. Your opinion is irrelevant if I can get a gang to protect me by paying them. You will always fail if you cannot pay them.
Confirmed never examined business models of Fortune 500 companies.
Lol
Nothing if I pay somebody and we engage in a mutually beneficial trade. If they want to stop the trade, then that's not very anarchist, now is it?

Implying communsim was worse than capitalism to manage its food supply. You know if we apply the same criteria used to determine the death toll of the so called holodomor it turns out that the great depression killed well over 7 million people?
rt.com/usa/interview-with-boris-borisov/
Not to mention all the other famines caused by capitalism

...

Your sentence was "No one says what Socialism will objectively appear like, because it will depend on circumstance it appears in."
The appearance is related to the circumstance, which you just left out entirely. "It will depend upon the circumstance(s) it appears in".
Sounds like one is so much more superior than the other if the other always fails to reproduce or defend itself…

That's because the miners don't own the business. They can go mine shit for themselves, only then will they own what they harvest. Also

How do you not understand this?

When capitalism is responsible, it's just an unfortunate act of nature, but when famines happen in societies already prone to them under socialism it's the whole system that's at fault!

This post is a critical mass of ideology

Well someone has to work for you not to starve. There's literally no way out of it.

You don’t die if you don’t lay taxes you go to jail. Like wise if you don’t work for a capitalist you starve or live in squaller alone in th wikderness. Boh are miserable positions to be in that are imposed you.

It’s a matter of some businesses failing. It’s a matter of the fact that not every single person can be a business owner and not every industry by entirely contracted work.

Totally irrelvant to the question addressed and contradicted by reality. I am no ☭TANKIE☭ but the living conditions increased under the Soviet Union. Also, the HDI didn’t exist back then.

You can’t move for free you idiot. Have you ever left the home you grew up in are you still in college?

Except regulation massivly reduces incidents of this and leads to punishment whe it does happen, and are seriously denying that businsses don’t cover up wrongdoings?

We were talking about regulation, not wage labor. And the whole genocide the boyrgeoisie is not a rigid doctrine but a sentiment among angrier types.

So only the people who cause harm can assess it? That is psychotic.

Refuted this already, it’s competely wrong, it’s not what I claimed, it’s not what Marx claimed, just embarrasing.

There are different schools who advocate different means of improving it, but capitalism is not interchangeablely defined.

No it’s not it’s a non fallacious apeal to the original definition of words and history and consensus of an enitre field of study.

I don’t think you understand any of the schools or the history of the field.

Never claimed this.

Not what I argued, I simply pointed out how you hypocritically criticised me for making a moralistic statement while you did the same.

Irrelevent, my point is they were put in place because the government wanted to make a concession to the working class in response to a failure by the capitalists, whether it worked doesn’t matter we’re discussing why it happened.

So much for freedom.

Unions are just what we call an organized association of workers. The workers shot during gilded age massacres weren’t being violent they were peacefully striking and protesting and only got violent as a means of self-defense against unprovoked attacks.

Seriously dude, stop reddit spacing. Your post is already long enough.

A strawman is when you think I am meaning to sound 'more intelligent' because you are incapable of addressing my points beyond manipulation.
Both connected.
Value is not outside of the market frame-of-reference. It is the only way something has value. If you own a bushel of wheat, it is worthless to the consumerbase until it is available on the market for trade. You can eat it and it will be worth whatever it is to you, which only further emboldens my point of subjective value individuals place (i.e. the demand fluctuates depending on the person, environment, societal conditions, etc.).
The demand is the perception of the value that relates directly to the price point it is set at.
Nobody cares how long or hard you work, if the customers don't want iphones, it is worth nothing on the market if nobody buys it, regardless of the hours spent to making it.
Animals are brought to the zoo and cared for by humans, gold is not.
I said human labour is secondary, the main causes in determining the value, which relates to the price, are the animals themselves.
Literally everything is a marketplace for trade if you allow people to exchange goods/services. Your personal use-value judgement is meaningless to the next guy.
Subsistence farming refutes this. You can always sell off shit you don't need while producing shit you eat for yourself.
To you, not on the market. Nobody cares about your opinion as a standalone. Markets are what matters.
If you use it, sure. Again, your consumption of apples and the use you derive from the apples doesn't set the price a pound of apples cost within a marketplace.
pewsocialtrends.org/2015/10/22/three-in-ten-u-s-jobs-are-held-by-the-self-employed-and-the-workers-they-hire/
Subsistence farming is a possibility all over the developing world.
Strawman, self-employment doesn't mean you are not within society, neither does subsistence farming.
Literally irrelevant to the discussion of self-employment. Managing your own business doesn't mean you are not within a society.
The market rate is not determined by the employer, so it isn't circular.
Depends on the necessary standard of living. The surplus value meme exists if and only if there actually is a surplus that is gained. It also assumes that the surplus can be traced back to one sole worker, even though modern economies make this a pipe dream.

You asked the question of success vs. failure. I'm just showing you how various forms of "capitalism" compete with one another, like in the US/USSR.

Placing a person on your lap is not groping.

How many of those nations had systems of production wherein the private owners controlled their own businesses and were able to trade things with people they wanted to trade with?

No, my point is that it's a false dichotomy, there is more than two options but it's just speaking to the cushy life of the average first worlder who doesn't want to leave civilization.

It is if I pull a women onto my lap without her consent, and since children can't consent, why wouldn't it be the case for them?

Other options?

Good, that's your answer to the first question
Or, Attempts have been ruthlessly quelled by foreign opposition. This does not make capitalism somehow superior, it just makes it a powerful force. However, it is mortal none the less.

I know the way this thread is going, and I have to go to work now, I'll check in later this evening to confirm my suspicions.

I like how you’re finally admitting you never read Marx are intentionally ignoring or misintelreting points made, are pathologically incapable of understanding powet assymetry, admit that you support repression of the workers, didn’t read the point I was making about CEOs, and still think incorrectly pointing out fallacies makes you look smart or wins arguments.

The mental gymnastics, moral bankrupcy, and general lack of any education beyond wikipedia make it clear that you aren’t worth talking too. You hardly ever addressed a counterpoint I made and only ever did so by bringing up the original point. You’re a joke and you’re whole ideology relies on a borderline utopian idealistic scenerio in order to result in anything can be legitimatey called liberty.

Neither of us will ever be convinced of anything and the intellectual gap between you and literally every other ideology in history will never closed by your discredited school.

No.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Definitions can't be falsified, do you understand the meaning of the words you're writing?

No. I'm not going to write a term paper for a pedant that constantly moves the goalposts. I'll tell you where to look if you're genuinely interested. Look up everything to do with the East India trade company, the history of colonialism in Africa and India and everything to do with the United States' "relationship" with Latin America.

This wasn't griping about any kind of genocide, but pointing out the existence of direct class oppression. Obviously we expect no mercy and offer none in return.

All of them.

This article is about the philosophical notion of idealism. For the ethical principle, see Ideal (ethics). For other uses, see Idealism (disambiguation).

I don't think I asserted that it was death, I said it was jail time.
False dichotomy, you can hunt for food in the woods like the TRUE communist ancient man.
No shit, most people suck at managing businesses. Doesn't mean that the option is non-existent. This refutes the false dichotomy of "literally only two options".
Literally everyone can go provide for themselves.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_(1998)
Living conditions "increased" because the peasants were all exterminated as a class.
Yes you can, get up and walk.
States don't own businesses, so they have no reasoning to enforce their rules. Also
No, your opinion of the harm is not consequential. You can still assess it, but it is inconsequential.
Refuted this already, it’s completely wrong.
So berating crony capitalism cannot extend to other definitions of capitalist production because "capitalism is not interchangeablely defined".
I don’t think you understand any of the schools or the history of the field.
Then businesses can contract defence agencies just as states do. We agree, then.
Where?
Using coercion, yes we all know the state loves abusing its power without consent.
Show me one example of somebody forcing your hand to sign a signature.
Okay

I like how hhere the concept of ownership is even more blatantly just the divine right of capitalism. Not even an attempt to justify it, it simply goes unquestioned.

Adult females can give verbal consent, infants and children cannot. You don't get a child to sign a mortgage or get his verbal consent. You can ask him to do things that he agrees to that are minor, like to take out the trash or come into a room. Clear distinction between that and getting permission to take 20% of the paycheck forever.

Self-employment. Go live in the forest like the TRUE ancient communist man.

So basically:

So they cannot even create defence to contain their 'glorious revolution'? Seems like the other systems are just so much more superior.

Were you trying to make a point?

It must irk you that your strawmen fall flat on their faces, right? You have to resort to guessing games of my ideology or literary history.
Like this. As if you have any inclination, beyond appeals to motivation, as to my school of thought. Debunking victim complexes around exploitation or unfalsifiable predictions about capitalism (read: pseudo-scientific guesses) don't make me a capitalist, it makes me anti-bad arguments.

People in the third world hardly just walk off into the wilderness and start a farm, dipshit.

In the realm of science, if that's the case, then it's pseudo-science, kind of like Marxism.
Laziness is the enemy of intellectualism.
Already sourced this, it's an uncomfortable truth pointing out the middle class, debunks your worldview: pewsocialtrends.org/2015/10/22/three-in-ten-u-s-jobs-are-held-by-the-self-employed-and-the-workers-they-hire/

Citation?

Claims to ownership by utilizing and living on land that is passed down. Quite simple. Your ancestors didn't claim land, while others did, so that's why they own it, it was passed down to them because it was unclaimed land right up until it was claimed land. The fact that it is defended against thieves or murderers doesn't make the ownership claims of the thieves or murderers relevant.

It's a one way street however. Pirces are influenced by value, value is not.
Again you are talking about exchange value, not value or use-value.
This is again a circular argument. The price is determined by the market, which uses prices to determine the fluctuation of the market value of a product. Without an objective theory of value behind it, a subjective theory of value can explain very little. This is the age old LTV-marginal utility dichotomy
"Prices are supposed to measure the 'marginal utility' of the
commodity. However, prices are required by the consumer in order to make the
evaluations on how best to maximise their satisfaction. Although it tries to explain prices,
prices were necessary to explain marginal utility"
Gold needs to be refined, maintained and then used in something, then maybe even recycled. Again those animals are no different than gold, it was the human labour that went into them that gave them value.
But they assume value only when labour is put into them, they do not hold inherent value by themselves.
Society worked another way for thousands of years. The market as a widespread entity is a very recent addition to the human experience. Yes there always was exchange, but never as a fundamental component of community life.
See above. The market determines the value of a labourer by looking at the previous evaluations of the vale of said labourer, which were made by another employer looking at the current at the time market rate for the labourer. Without a base at some point in the chain this is a circular argument, hence the subjective theory of value, while fairly accurate, is incomplete by itself.
The standard of living have nothing to do with this. The surplus value needs to exist for an employer to make money out of a labourer. And the question is not that we should trace back to who made who. The solution is to end the private ownership of the means of production to allow every worker to be paid exactly for what he produces, no more no less.

LOL, you admit that managerial positions of small business owners is work? Therefore, the owners of businesses that are self-employed are justified workers even though you always complained about unearned income (conveniently defined, of course).
Self-employment is not 'all work', it's different from other types of employment.

Make the case that everything needs to be falsifiable without making an unfalsifiable statement.

Yes, why wouldn't I?

What is a "justified worker"?

Say what?

They can agree to things, therefor they can give consent. This is denied not because there is an intrinsic difference in cognition between a child and an adult, but because facing it as consequence is ideologically unacceptable.
Overruling the consent of a child for practical reasons does not mean that the child is unable to consent.

The article you linked specifically mentions his use of the word.

Do you have any proof that this wasn't the case?

I was specifically referring to philosophical idealism.

The value is not intrinsic, it is always in flux. The value is a direct result of the market price. Gold is worthless until there is a price on it to be sold within a gold marketplace.
The use value is irrelevant as nobody cares about your opinion of the value something has. Markets do that instead.
Yes.
The demand, not the value. The value is a consequence of the demand, which is relayed as the price.
It explains everything because individual consumers have different levels of demand, but this doesn't mean you cannot observe and calculate general trends of demand for items. It's called reading a market.
commodity.
The utility is determined by the consumer who puts the price as he deems it. That can be higher or lower than the market price.
evaluations on how best to maximise their satisfaction
No, prices are a natural result of trade, it's just flocking to a common unit of exchange for goods/services. The consumer doesn't set the general price, they set the price the item has for their own being.
The human labour is secondary in the animals at the zoo, the humans directly harvest the gold. Gold doesn't entertain people like animals do in zoos, gold can have other uses like with wiring or electrical applications.
To bring them over, but that labour doesn't exist as it used to once the animals are just walking around in the pens. You only build the zoo once.
The consumers dictate the value by their attendance by accepting a price point that individuals can bargain with, not the animals themselves.
Markets have always existed, barter has existed for more than 'thousands of years'.
Not as it is today, no shit. You cannot interchangeably compare eras of human society without accounting for certain inventions, like globalization and the Internet.
This doesn't happen. There is a complex calculation that has been made examining the cost-risk of the employment, like the supply of the workers in-question and the skills they have to offer. The evaluations you claims are not static, so it isn't circular, it is a dynamic.
Has everything to do with the claim that it is 'surplus'. If it is equivalent to the required standard of living, then it is just what you need.
Great.
The workers don't own the business. So the employer is the only one who determines the salary. Also, the worker doesn't own what he produces if he isn't self-employed.

I'm not lazy, I'm just sick of you and I know my efforts would be in vain because you're a pedantic shitposter.

The petty bourgeois are still bourgeois.

Also, al lot of "self-employment" is just precariat contact work bullshit.

I never said that everything has to be unfalsifiable.
If you cannot disprove a hypothesis, then it is unfalsifiable, therefore it is pseudo-scientific.

In a political discussion where materialism runs into the is-ought problem.

No.

Take it up with the other guys, they are the ones who hate anything to do with employers, they think workers are all equivalent in their abilities and that no worker will ever succeed in starting a business to hire others at better prices than the competitor.
They are all justified, I'm just speaking to the canard of 'unearned income' even though it is earned by the ownership of the business.

Gradations exist in terms of the contracts that are involved. Asking a child for a high five is different from asking a child for a blowjob or asking a child to sign a contract that severs his limbs.
To certain things when they are capable of basic reasoning. Not to life-changing contracts that the child does not understand.

Do you have any proof God doesn't exist?

I cba to read all that but calm the fuck down mate.

So lazy. Just get out of the thread if you are incapable of engaging with me, then.
Aaaand this is why Marxism always fails when a middle class exists.
Okay, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes. Inheritance bro.

No it doesn't.
If anything, is the neoliberals in this thread struggling with is-ought, just look at this shit

I don't respect your inheritance. What do you think about that?

Rolled 2 (1d4)if pair "muh human nature"
else "muh market"

There's no such thing as a "middle class". Class in a Marxist context isn't how much money is in your wallet, it's your relation of production.

I kill you for being a thief and being brainwashed by a false victim complex to think everything you don't own was stolen from you unjustly while also denouncing ownership of land.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class

Burden of proof is on you, bro. You're the one making the claim.

This was a waste of my time.

The "middle class" do not have a unique relation of production.

I asked: How many of those nations had systems of production wherein the private owners controlled their own businesses and were able to trade things with people they wanted to trade with?
He said: all of them.
I asked: citation?
He said: show me they weren't as I claimed.
Burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the person who disputes the claim. Elementary shit.

I'll kill you first, Porky. The future is ours.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Kek

LARPing is a very poor show of optics to win the "workers" you love (but also let's genocide the kulaks lmao what middle class tho?).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Legal_status
lol

fuckin scroll down. it's even writing in the wiki.

Those were all capitalist nations.

To claim that they weren't is pretty extraordinary, so burden is on you.

Also, no one is going to put in the extra mile for your ass. Someone might consider it if you were arguing with the slightest shred of good faith, but you aren't, so we all know it would just be a waste of time.

Citation?
I never said they weren't, I asked for your proof that they were.

...

Yeah, that's some work. Not worth it for one shitposter. Look it up yourself if you're so curious. Which you aren't, because that was little more than a pathetic attempt at a gotcha.

If you can explain how marxist materialism does not run into the is-ought problem when concluding socialism from it, I'm genuinely interested.
Not as bad because here ownership isn't concluded from matter itself.

We're still capitalist.

How exactly does Marxism struggle with is-ought at all?

Great, so the absence of evidence showing that they were capitalistic means that we cannot call them things we cannot prove.

Nope. State capitalism is not equivalent to all other forms of capitalism not yet implemented. Not true capitalism that actually, you know, has privatization.

It concludes socialism from the fact that socialism is the next stage of history by the logic of history.

Class is defined by relations of production in Marxist theory.

The middle class do not have a unique relation of production, therefore they do not exist as a separate class in the Marxist framework. They just well paid proletarians and the lower end of the petty bourgeoisie.

Oh boy here we go again.

No True "Capitalism"
OH BOY ! OH BOY !

So lad can you define "True C A P I T A L I S M"

And?

It's wrong about the next stage of history, which will be islam and chinese style capitalism, so we should instead convert to islam.

That's not a new stage of development.

Nor is that going to happen. The capitalist system as we have it now is teetering on the brink. The next system if not socialism, will have to be something that addresses the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism, and that isn't Islamic capitalism or Chinese capitalism.

Wow this thread really took off.

You're not missing anything, aside maybe for a good example of why positivism is cancer.

They are materially winning, while marxism is materially done for. Since what should be done is induced from the course of history according to marxism, marxists should therefor convert to islam.

This is an exemplary argument, whether islam and chinese capitalism will or will not is irrelevant

That's a poor understanding of Marxist theory. It isn't about "winning" or "losing", but the dialectical progression of history and our role within it. Marx wasn't saying that we should just side with whatever system was strongest at the moment, but that we should seek to understand the flaws in the current system and seek to rectify them within the context of our currently existing conditions.

Well I cannot discuss again today sorry. Nice talk by the way.
I'll leave this video series here, in case you get curious. It's a thorough, but fairly concise explanation of the labour theory of value. I'm not asking you to believe it, bu to listen to it, as they do a much better job than be at explaining it.
youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM

Circumstantially. Other definitions of class exist prior to and after Marx that do not depend on his definition (especially since his ideas have been discredited for the most part, as they have not come to fruition or have falsely been attributed to him as predictions while ignoring the contradictory assertions he made that have been debunked).

Markets are observed in modern economies. Markets have, de facto, existed in the literary sense since the dawn of time. Trade and association are not recent 'inventions'.
Yup. Crony capitalism is not equivalent to all other forms of capitalism. Sorry, but your false comparison ignores all the nuance different schools of thought have.

Tried that with his ideas and it turned out to be anti-pragmatic in every sense of the word, relying on predictions or just straight-up pseudo-scientific arguments and reasoning.
Can't just 'abolish' currency, doesn't work like that. Easier said than done.

I highly doubt they think that. Anyway, Marx didn't.

Your business isn't gonna be successful very long if you buy things above their value.

Ok but what does that mean?

If it's earned by the ownership then it's not earned by work.

I have already seen the video. I simply reject the claim because it has no evidence: in a marketplace of free trade and association, nobody cares about how hard you might work for a product you offer or a service you offer. You can work for decades honing a skill only to be rejected by the broad consumerbase because nobody wants it. The demand of a good/service is determined by the consumers who choose to follow the service and trade their exchange units/currency for it.

Nobody said it's gonna be easy.

Question is: how much do they trade for it?

Okay, then. Do you believe anybody can be a brain surgeon and do you believe that that is a niche skill with a high value that follows it around due to the incredibly high barrier required to adequately perform brain surgery?
If so, then you must also believe that people who require these kinds of surgeries will flock to these high-valued individuals with niche skill sets and would be willing to pay them much more than other professions that are easier, like waiters.
With me so far?
Hey, I don't agree with it. I'm stating their irrational dismissal of the middle class and the whole 'self-ownership don't real' meme.
These maroons believe that the owners or 'higher-ups' in companies are just randomly selected with no prior work experience or niche skill set and that you don't actually need any higher-up positions to coordinate a business because it doesn't count as "labour".
The CEOs and the CFOs are also workers. They do not earn things just because they have their name somewhere, they still work a job.
You could use this argument with trades in the stock market. There, you would be right: you earn money or lose money just by owning a stock. I don't see anything wrong with this, though. If I want to buy a stock, I will.

Can you point to any reasoning that would lead a rational person to believe that such a future is on the horizon without resorting to "dude just trust me bro" claims?

Depends on many factors. How high in demand is it? Selling water to dehydrated people in the Sahara will suddenly increase its value even though it's dirt cheap elsewhere in the world. It isn't one objective price or nothing else.

make no difference mate.
Sorry, but your false comparison ignores all the nuance different schools of thought have.
well well well What's those "S C H O O L S" inb4 ayn rand true capitalisme

No one said that it would be done overnight or that it would be easy.

Also, all social sciences are soft science

One of the features of capitalism, does not make all capitalist approaches to markets interchangeable so as to justify your conflation.
One of the features of capitalism, does not make all capitalist approaches to markets interchangeable so as to justify your conflation. Capital has existed in varying forms, not always equivalent to other forms of capitalistic thought.
It's kind of like saying we don't need electricity. Technically, but society doesn't want to devolve into the predictions of some archaic, middle-class guy. Also, see above, already addressed this.
imagine being this moronic to always dismiss any attempt as socialism as being completely removed from anything to do with socialism (we don't count dry runs, right guys?) but always conflating anything to do with capitalist thought as being equivalent and interchangeable with no nuance or room for differentiation.

That's why Marxism is a pseudo-science.
I'll ask you the same question: Can you point to any reasoning that would lead a rational person to believe that such a future (that you claim) is on the horizon without resorting to "dude just trust me bro" claims?

Most other definitions are vague to the point of meaninglessness.

And what exactly are you under the impression has been "debunked" or "discredited"? Most of his theories hold up pretty strongly today.

That's how people consider Marx's concepts of exploitation and the surplus value meme as it relates to modern economies.
The alarmist, Nostradamus-tier predictions against capitalism, even though capitalist philosophy and policy has evolved and changed with respect to varying environments and time period, especially after the introduction of the Internet.
A theory isn't what Marx was writing about. That's not what a theory is in the scientific sense. You mean a hypothesis, and the ones, like falling profit rates, have already been met with nuanced viewpoints that contradict the assertions (depends where you look, it isn't simply a reductionist claim you get to make).

Soft science. "Pseudo-science" is Anglo bullshit that tries to posit that only the hard sciences are legitimate.

That the current system is reaching its limits and rapidly deteriorating. If not socialism, the next system will need to address the contradictions of our modern neoliberal capitalism, and I know I can't think of anything else that can effectively tackle the contradictions of our current era. This, combined with the almost complete transformation of the population into proletariat (and precariat, who are just proles, but with even fewer rights), it doesn't take a massive leap in logic that socialism is on the horizon.

Marx went much deeper than that, for Marx socialism is the science of history and that this science concludes political socialism from its finding that ideology follows from the material condition of marxist class. That both bourgeois and workers have wildly different ideologies among their own doesn't matter, that's just false consciousness. This deduces a claim suffering from the is-ought problem on a logic akin too there being no evidence of the illuminati is evidence that they mindwipe people who have evidence on them.

Talk about mystification..

Marx's theory wasn't about this or that prediction, this is a stupid meme I've come across multiple times.

"Capitalism is a failure", posts the lazy fuck using a device that wouldn't even exist without capitalism, from a home in which he enjoys a magnificent standard of living previously unseen at any other time in human history. All because of Capitalism.

Marxist theory didn't end with Marx. I'll admit he was somewhat lacking on the theory of ideology.

Because they can be replicated and examined. Soft sciences are not on the same tier or abide by the same standard of evidence as actual scientific discourse.
Yeah, alarmist drivel with no substance beyond a guess.
The contradictions are just a victim complex calling every have-not a victim of extortion while simultaneously denouncing ownership of that nature (and ignoring worker's agency to choose with their own mind). I've already debunked the false dichotomy, and the best retort was "well, petit bourgeoise is still bourgeoise, what middle class lol".

shhhh, let them think the imaginary system they think will replace everything has all the variables already determined in order to justify in-depth explanations beyond pen-to-paper.

*all because of human labor and ingenuity
FTFY

Displayed/allowed to be observed in free marketplaces.

Yeah, I know my dude. It's not like we just suffered the worst economic crash since the Great Depression not even a full decade ago, from which we still haven't recovered and are likely headed right into another one, given that multiple financial institutions flagged that we were at risk just last year and American stocks are almost as badly inflated now as they were before the crash of 1929.

But I'm just being alarmist. Everything is going to be fine. An idealist pedant told me so.

You haven't debunked shit, faggot. You linked a Wikipedia article and said "nuh uh". You haven't endorsed any other method of examining class nor explained why it's better than in Marxist theory.

Computers and the internet were a result of government research programs, not the market.

Remind me again what the NASDAQ is at right now?
What's the CPI at right now?
You are correct but I have empirical evidence to source my claims, unlike you that ADMIT to their degrees of limitation: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_We_Will_Live_to_100.pdf
Let the faulty and incapable fail, that's how markets act. No daddy to save you now.
In what regard?

Touched a nerve, did I? "I" didn't debunk it, it's common sense. All the internal contradictions make the hypothesis collapse upon itself, like a false dichotomy. Those rarely exist in the real world, especially in terms of vocations within a society.
Still haven't addressed it beyond saying "it's a wikipedia article haha oh btw here's marxists dot org".
Criticizing Marx's idiotic determinism doesn't mean I am obliged to provide an alternate as endorsement. Literally anything would be better than his failed predictions.

I can be determinist, too.
Everything is a market bro

THIS IS PRICELESS, screencaps

Market are Market.

Do you even know what capital is ?

oh look we don't need a mediator for redistribution of the ressource thus allowing a better gestion of ressource optimisation in giving optimal output,giving that by it's nature ressource are limited. so we don't need currency oh god just society has collapsed.

Naa , there no alternative FREE MARKET , FREE PEOPLE . :^)

...

Capitalism will always stunt growth in underdeveloped countries. There is no benefit for more developed capitalist countries to raising the living standards. It actually will be negative. There will be more competition and labor costs will rise. Both hurt capitalists in this regard. Capitalism will only raise the standards only within their benefit.

Stock prices are meaningless.

you need radical centrism bro beliefs are for idiots xD
Go back to whatever pit you came from

Also, you know, it used to be that we didn't need to suffer an economic crash every seven years for no physical reason. There was no "feudal lands cycle" like there's a "business cycle".

Top kek. The stock market is a speculative disaster waiting to happen and is artificially inflated by corporate buyback schemes. What's the GDP at? Oh that's right it's still 15% below where it was in '08. What's the labor share looking like? It's still down by 5%.

Markets are markets, yes.
Yes. You seem to think that "destroying capitalism" will invalidate the concept of capital as it applies to the economy. Black markets of trade or investment will always exist.
Not a word in the English language.
Maybe in your imagination. Not in the civilized world.

Yeah, meaningless until you need to use them as points against capitalism.
Nothing if you think the entire stock market trade is meaningless.
Not true socialism :^)

Just as much as class-based genocide is Communism's fault. There weren't fluctuations of that nature except when inflationary forces were observed when currencies like gold flooded the markets. Oops!

Okay son.
I know you are most likely immune to providing evidence for your hypotheses, but can you present a single shred of evidence to show how "the stock market" is all being artificially inflated? Like, all of it?
Do you have a citation for that, adjusting for inflation?
Compared to?
Let em fail, I don't care.
Also, lmao at welfare provided to companies being compared to welfare provided to workers. Different in magnitude and purpose.

Wow look how good the rich are doing during this time of extreme income inequality, well there is no problem here atleast. I'm sure the wealth will trickle down eventually and not continue to consolidate like it has for the last couple of decades.

Why is this always mentioned as a negative talking point? Why are inequalities always abhorrent or some moral pivot used to end a discussion.
So?
Who said it would 'trickle down'? Can you find me some academic who has claimed this in some paper or something? I only hear this strawman but I never see the people that propagate it.

My bad i used a french word for management.

You're missing the point. If one institution is doing good in a world with massive inequality that means absolutely fuck all. Trying to use the nasdaq as an argument is nothing but absolutely retarded. Inequality wouldn't matter if everyone had their needs covered and being ontop of the pyramid didn't mean you hold absolute power over those who don't met their needs but it does so it needs to combated to ensure freedom. Unless you're an unironic monarchist you would probably want the wealth to stop consolidating at some point.

You don't know what you are talking about. Hunter gatherers indeed didnt have the same levels of hunger as europe before modern technology because there was periods (late 1300 and the 1600) where people died a lot due to the instability of the feudalistic system. But in the pther periods poor people lived a slight better level of "conjunctural poverty" (where you are fine if everything goes well but various stuff like accidents illness crop failures) slightly better than primitive men, which had a stable but shittier system
TL;DR the hunters gatherers system of living made you die earlier while you could suffer some horrifying great crisis under feudalism your choice

I'd provide them if I wasn't on mobile.

are you actually subhumanly retarded?
Hunter-gatherers didn't have food stocks, they constantly migrated eating what they could find. Their livelihood was entirely dependent on finding things that they could eat in the here and now, and was thus entirely at the mercy of climate and competition from other animals.
Sure, they didn't have famines because there wasn't any agriculture. But they sure as hell starved.

I've never seen so much autism in a single post.

which countries are you referring to here?
Pretty sure most 'developing' nations respect the private property rights of the multinationals exploiting their resources and labour force just fine.

Just because the buying and selling of products of wage labour takes place under a punitive regulatory framework, doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally capitalism.
All the institutions that make it capitalism are there.

I'm under the impression that Holla Forums is just a bunch of sour grapes. theyre just mad that I have a better car and computer than them and that i have a bitchin hot girlfriend and a sick ass job with full benefits and shit tons of vacation and sick days and i live in a nice ass house and have an inground pool in my back yard

it actually kinda does.
Once you're at the stage of the development of productive forces where private enterprise starts to emerge, the state has preceded it by a good few thousand years.
What we could call a 'state' emerges as a population begins to produce enough of an agricultural surplus to require a subset of the population to police its use.
Private enterprise only emerges once commodity exchange instead of production for use becomes the primary way for a population to reproduce itself.

I'm not sure if you were trying to fill the role of the stereotypical insecure Chad who uses material objects to hide his inadequacy but by God you've sure succeeded.

but Holla Forums you don't have any of those things.

Of course. Go on.

I hope you will get to enjoy your toys for as long as possible before you need to sell everything off to pay for ever increasing life expenditure while being out of a job because automation took your job.

ITT: faggot OP tries to weasel his way out by screaming 'not true capitalism', thinking that if le ebil gubbermind doesn't intervene then capitalism will magically work. Another nigger storms in and tries to be edgy about the whole matter, screeching about da common sense. I am not surprised.

I AM NOT DONE WITH YOU.
'The crux of your argument is: 'it wasn't private so it's not capitalism'. THE MARXIANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Capital accumulation (hence accumulation of power and means of production) and many of the contradictions of the broad kind of society which Marx et al attack still exist''. Appealing to your special brand of that kind of economy doesn't invalidate the claims; you say that it's not that kind of economy because 'DA DEEKSHEEONAREE SEZ NUU'.
WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU WHAT YOUR MISTAKE IS, HERR NEOLIBERAL. MANY OF THE PREVAILING SOCIAL RELATIONS TIED TO CAPITAL AND ITS ACCUMULATION WILL STILL EXIST WHETHER THE STATE IS REGULATING THE MARKETS OR NOT.
YOU PROUDLY SCREAM AT US THAT WE ARE ARGUING AGAINST KEYNESIANISM CAPITALISM AS ALL FORMS OF CAPITALISM. IN THAT PROCESS, YOU TRY TO SAY THAT PRIVATE ENTITIES WOULD FOSTER SUPERIOR SOCIAL RELATIONS BECAUSE THINGS ARE MAGICALLY VOLUNTARY.
YET SUCH ENTITIES ARE OFTEN IN CAHOOTS WITH THE VERY FUCKING STATES WHOSE HORRORS YOU ARE QUICK TO POINT OUT! EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO 'REVOLVING DOOR'; THEY WILL USE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE POLICE FORCES TO DO AS THEY PLEASE, SO LONG AS IT LEADS TO GREATER ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL AND PROFITS!
YOU TRY TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT BY SAYING THAT THERE ARE NONVIOLENT CONTRACTS, YET SOCIAL RELATIONS SET BY THE POWERFUL BUSINESSES AND THE FUNCTIONING OF THE MARKET - REPRODUCED IN INCREASING NUMBERS OF ASPECTS OF LIFE - ARE DEMONSTRABLY DETRIMENTAL TO PROLETARIANS WHO ARE OFTEN DENIED CHANCES TO EVEN BECOME ENTREPRENEURS AND THE LIKE.
IS IT VOLUNTARY TO BE STUCK BETWEEN STARVATION AND HARSH WORKING CONDITIONS, NIGGER? THIS IS JUST HOW IT IS IN HONG KONG, SOUTH KOREA AND IN MANY PARTS OF THE USA! IS IT A PREFERABLE CHOICE? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS MUTUALLY-BENEFICIAL FOR SOCIAL RELATIONS TO BASED UPON BLENDS ANTAGONISM AND SUBMISSION IN THE FACE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A MORE HORIZONTAL SOCIETY? DO YOU, PRAY TELL, SUPPORT THE FUCKING GIG ECONOMY? NO 'BOOTSTRAPS' OR 'NONVIOLENCE' ARGUMENT WILL WORK, FOR THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IS FOCUSSED UPON SUPERIOR SOCIAL RELATIONS WHICH ENSURE SUCCESS. THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL-COLLECTIVE DICHOTOMY, UNLIKE WHAT SEVERAL LIBERAL 'RATIONAL' SIMPLETONS WOULD HAVE ONE BELIEVE. THE WORLD HAS THE RESOURCES AND THE POLITICAL APPARATUSES EXIST FOR THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT AND ITS RELATIVES TO TAKE AND USE. GO BACK TO /liberty/ AND STAY THERE.

features.weather.com/us-climate-change/nebraska/

The tree belts fdr created to end the dust bowl are getting systematically destroyed by capitalism. Because they're on private property, there's nothing the state can do. For farmers, if the price of corn goes up to 8$ a bushel, that's an economic incentive to cut down more trees and plant more corn. If the price of corn drops to 3$ a bushel, that's an economic incentive to cut down more trees and plant more corn.

Capitalism is destroying everything, and will destroy us if we don't destroy it first.

Ah.
Life, uh… finds a way.
Yeah, just like making murder illegal stops criminals because you "directly control flux".
Ad hoc rescue.

The private healthcare systems are doing good in the world, they are the innovators of medical science and experimentation in their respective fields to develop new treatments. Research and development drug companies are doing massive amount of 'good' while also creating inequalities because of their success.
Moron, the argument wasn't "look, NASDAQ", the argument was in response to the alarmist nonsense: it's contradictory evidence showing that there isn't always a terminal decline into demise, NASDAQ is doing pretty good thus far, all things considered.
Why would everyone have their needs covered? This has literally never existed in a system throughout history. There has always been a quid pro quo, it hasn't been "I will cover ALL of your needs". Nobody owes you shit. You've always had to work to survive. Pro-tip: work is more generally defined beyond modern employment, before you get your panties in a twist.
Why?

Still waiting.

Literally read the discussion of the citation, it quite clearly says that the overwhelming majority of the poorest poor who make less than a couple of bucks a day exist within the developing world.
Not by regulating them, like I showed with foreign investment in Egypt or Nigeria. It isn't the absence of coercion in that respect, it is simply less coercion than where they used to conduct business.

When Egypt has laws that disallow trade as easily as "hey, wanna buy this shit, I'll ship it to you" and MAKES you jump through loopholes, it is the state that is in charge of the business model the companies must follow, not the actual private citizens who own their businesses. Using your own logic: Just because the workers own the means of production under a punitive dictatorial police state, doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally socialism.
Also, capitalism is more than simply wage labour or the existence of markets.

Just argued that it doesn't, arguing that 'no, it does' is not an argument, it's just repeating what I just offered a retort to.
Watch me use your own point: it actually kinda does mean what I said.
Does not mean private enterprise is dependent on the state universally, only circumstantially.
Already addressed this, there is a specific definition of the state as a legal entity capable of multiple branches as it relates to regulation society and interpreting legislation/drafting it, it's more than producing enough goods to get to a critical population mass.
That's because that's how societies are able to flourish: with free trade. No one community has everything it will always need, that's what marketplaces are for.
Also, there can be self-employed individuals who do not hire individuals and produce their goods independently, for their own use and not for sale. They are still private citizens, and taking their shit or taxing it would still be the perversion of private control to state control.

Alright, so if we agree that this niche marketplace is valued highly because of the high barrier of entry, then we agree that there will always be individuals who rise to the challenge and the others (majority) who fail. This means that, even in a nation that has abolished all currency and governmental forces to intervene, some people will still offer their services, as skilled as they may be, and will be disenfranchised when they realize their value is equivalent to the other labourer who provides a menial service literally anybody could provide, like a waiter. The brain surgeons will demand more in compensation for their efforts as a result of the natural inequality between peoples and their capabilities. Even IF you abolish all classes, the successful will still rise to the top because you cannot normalize the population's faculties, you can only punish people who succeed.

Ad hominem, also not OP.
Coming from the caps lock kid, lol
Also, state control is not private control, sorry.
Not an argument, sorry. I can say the same thing about state force being necessary to 'normalize the classes' of people instead of ushering in the utopia by just observing the "natural inclination of socialism to 'replace' capitalism".
Nope, there are gradations of interventionism as simply one factor that capitalists disagree on, as well as the association allowed between consenting individuals. States that intervene and disallow trade that they define are not equivalent to other capitalists who reject this. Ergo, your conflation is fallacious.
Capital accumulation is not a contradiction, it is an observation. That's not how contradictions work. You literally made one statement and said it contradicts itself, lol.
Strawman. I said that your conflation is unwarranted because the schools of thought are not interchangeable the same way differing interpretations of Marxist thought are not interchangeable.
Why not use the state to get it to not coerce you? Makes sense, kind of like the drug trade.
False dichotomy, already debunked. Middle class and self-employment still exists. Or go live in the forest like the true communist man in the ancient world.
Remind me again what the GDP per capita of those socialist runs ended up to be?

Lmao you're gonna be waiting for at least another 8 hours because I'm at work.

I forget, I've been combatting so many posters, what is the citation you are meant to reference to back up your claim again?

you only need some readjustment : just make legal to kill so. you directly control flux of the murders because you're the killer.
i'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

Capitalism essentially functions by turning nature into commodities and commodities into capital.

This system is unable to survive indefinitely if there is not an unlimited supply of nature.

Additionally, the effects of industrialization on nature itself has altered it to such a degree that continued extraction of resources runs at odds with maintaining the current population of the planet as well as what we might roughly call 'first world' standards of living and quality of life.

Capitalism (especially with how debt-driven ours current system is) is unable to exist in a state of negative growth.

Negative growth is inevitable within a finite system of resources.

The failings of capitalism are inherent to its fundamental properties.

I have my own problems with the culture of consumerism that capitalism breeds in humanity, as well as the build-in extraction of surplus labor value, but I think the fundamental problem exists deeper than culture or spectacle or wage or what have you.

Humans operating on capitalism have caused the extinction of untold thousands of species (hundreds per day - I encourage anyone who doubts that claim to look into it) already and has, at this point incontrovertibly, ensured the destruction of hundreds of millions if not billions of human lives this century. Perhaps that is unfair to lay entirely at the feet of capitalism, yet it was the world's undeniable guiding ideology during the largest increase in human population in earth's history, so I don't find the criticism unfair.

If I may be allowed to wax poetic, I think that capitalism is a sort of economic model that comes from humanity's more base instincts. We, along with the rest of earth's species, will always use beyond what our means allow, yet what makes us different from other creatures is that we are clever enough to realize that the system will kill us, but we are unable to stop it. Unable to settle for less than everything.

For this, we shall experience humanity's, or at very least industrial civilization's undoing.
-And I do mean experience. If you are younger than 30 you are going to see some serious shit go down this century.

Buckle up, buckaroos.

That's what the Soviets did with a class of people they disliked.
States like the USSR love that, yes.
I already did. Life, uh… finds a way.
What will people do if they fail to accumulate resources? You die, dummy. Rightfully so. Fail to compete and you die.

You want sources that show that the GDP is still below 15% of '08 levels and that the stock market is artificially inflated. If you're really curious you could just search for yourself and you'll get a bunch of hits from known commie rags like Business Insider, Forbes, and the Financial Times.

Sounds legit. Now could you describe to me precisely what this effort consist in?

Ah, that's correct. I asked for sources from many people, forgot which one you were.
That's the big one, mate. That THE stock market is inflated? I mean, I'm not going to sit here and say that it is impossible or dismiss the possibility, but when people say that the middle class or self-employment is inconsequential, I don't ask them to cite it for me, I cite Pew demographics that show it is the case.
Hits in favour of or against the claim you're making? I don't know what to search, I tried it and nothing came up when googling 'artificial inflation stock market' for the whole market.

Consists in? The efforts are consistent of their energy that's exerted to complete the task they have accepted. A brain surgeon operates on brains and the task he completes 'consists' of all the shit brain surgeons do, like taking out tumours or whatever. I'm not a brain surgeon, so I will have to be general in my description. But the task is only accepted in a mutually beneficial setting. If I told you that we would trade your pencil for my dollar, would you feel you would be willing to complete the trade knowing that the next guy over would offer you two dollars for your pencil? Why would you accept a shittier deal from me versus the guy who will pay you more? In this sense, you will seek out the best deal that will get you the most bang for your buck. Likewise, why would I trade your pencil if I could get the same pencil for half the cost? You're charging me too much so I go to the next guy who gives me a better deal, right?
Okay, if you're with me so far, then the brain surgeon's services are the same deal. They will seek the best deal just as the consumer will seek the most bang for their buck (better surgeons are favoured for the obvious reason: they have higher success rates or are just more experienced with the scalpel). Surgeons build reputations and they work for compensation. But their efforts will only be relevant in the markets, so that people can trade freely: a mutually beneficial trade. The trade will only be mutual if I say that I value the services of the surgeon more than I do my money, and the surgeon will only accept if he values my money more than he does the time investment in completing the surgery on the brain of the patient. If these conditions are met, then the exchange occurs and I believe that this best occurs in the marketplace that allows for this interaction to occur.

A PERSONAL INSULT, FOR I HAVE NOT MADE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF IT.
suuuuuurre
Scroll up negro.
NOT AN ARGUMENT. I AM HIGHLIGHTING A CLAIM THAT YOUR LIBERTARIAN ILK MAKE, AN EXAMPLE BEING OP.
Explain how that's similar.
BY CRITICISING THE 'LIBERTARIANS', LOOKING AT THE EXTREMES OF NON-KEYNESIANISM. IF THERE IS MORE TO THE SPECTRUM OF BOURGEOIS THOUGHT THAN THAT, THEN ENLIGHTEN ME! 'LE EXTREMES FALLACY' WILL NOT HELP YOU WITHOUT PROOF.
THEN WE AGREE, FOR I DID NOT SAY THAT. CAPITAL ACCUMULATION IS A TENDENCY OF 'CAPITALISM' AS THE MARXIANS REFER TO IT. YOU FUCKING RAT, YOU HAVE NEVER PICKED UP A BOOK IN YOUR WRETCHED LIFE!
rmyt
THEN YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE MARXIAN STANDPOINT AS A WHOLE, PRETENDING THAT IT FOCUSSES UPON KEYNESIANISM WHILST HE ACTUALLY CRITIQUED AND EXTENDED CLASSICAL ECONOMICS!
FURTHERMORE, BY LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE 'LIBERTARIANS' TO CALL THINGS 'VOLUNTARY' WHEN ON A DEEPER LEVEL THERE ARE MANY FACTORS WHICH RELATE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL MATTERS AND MEASURES OF SUBTLE CONTROL, I AM TAKING AIM AT THE 'LIBERTARIANS' AND THEIR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT, HENCE I AM ARGUING THE POINT.= BY SAYING THAT THIS PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVE TO A KEYNESIAN ANALYSIS OR WHATNOT OF CAPITALISM IS FALLACIOUS.
IS IT NOT MUTUALLY-SOCIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO HAVE A SOCIETY WHERE POWER IS GRANTED TO THOSE WHO ARE HELLBENT ON ACCUMULATING MORE THROUGH ENDLESS 'REVOLVING DOORS' AND CORRUPTION, VISIBLE EVEN TO REACTIONARY 'REVOLUTIONARIES'?
AND WHERE WILL PROLETARIANS FIND SELF-EMPLOYMENT WHEN THEIR CAPITAL IS SCARCE, HERR 'LIBERTARIAN'? WHAT MARKETS WILL THEY FACE? FURTHERMORE, DOES THE 'MIDDLE CLASS' HAVE ACCESS TO CAPITAL? ARE THEY NOT IN MOUNTAINS OF STRESS AND PROZAC? 'MUH BOOTSTRAPS' DOESN'T FUCKING CUT IT WHEN FACED WITH THE MEANS AND PRAXIS TO CONSTRUCT A SOCIETY WITH MAXIMISED MUTUAL-SOCIAL BENEFITS!
LET US SEE HOW MUCH OF A HISTORY DENIER YOU ARE WHEN FACED WITH THE FACTS REGARDING BOURGEOIS SUPPRESSION OF REVOLUTIONARY COUNTRIES: WARS, TRADE EMBARGOES AND ALL. FURTHERMORE, STARTING CONDITIONS FOR ALMOST ALL OF THESE REVOLUTIONARY STATES HAVE BEEN TERRIBLE. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE HISTORY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PLEASE THE CIA RATTLESNAKES IN YOUR FEEBLE MIND, FUCK OFF.

When you assert I am the same 'fag OP', you have.
Like you just did.
Not true capitalism, state control is not private control, the fact that states disallow private entities to operate freely doesn't mean black markets or outsourcing doesn't exist. Try again.
Yes, like the validity of socialism as a replacement system instead of an archaic and irrational system. No proofs. I have presented proofs, you have not.
Analogies are not equivalences.
Still not an argument. Not all capitalists think the same way, silly.
You just said that capital accumulation and many of the other contradictions of the 'broad kind'. You even explained what you believe is accumulation of capital as it relates the a contradiction explained by Marx. You refuted yourself, then backpeddled, lol.
Unfalsifiable hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
By propagating a false victim complex? Yeah, that's a complaint, not a criticism. A criticism is more intellectual than false narratives.
Okay, then free will doesn't exist, so you can't blame the capitalists for their actions, too. Works both ways.
Monopolies are naturally rejected by those who have failed to compete and thrive, such as yourself. Success breeds jealousy.
Except for that time when the civilized world creates and maintains their systems by integrating capitalist private control with mixed state intervention. Oops! Guess all the advances of the USSR were state capitalist, remember? Hahhahahaha
Success breeds jealousy. Also
Operating on a false narrative of equal capabilities will always have you surprised, my man. Welcome to the real world, if you can't start your own business by taking out a loan and creating a successful enterprise, then you have yourself to blame for your shitty business plan.
Cold war never heated up.
lmao at the Marxist admitting to the importance of the free marketplace of trade on the nation's economic performance.
Also, I'll answer it for you: the nations behind the Iron Curtain had laughable GDPs per capita compared to the civilized world that doesn't launch genocides against classes of people.
Try harder.

boy what a clusterfuck.
kids don't do ideology.

Threads like these make me glad i'm a novice, at everything.

This is the difference between brainlets who refuse to engage in any pushback with their worldviews and people who decide to provide retorts explaining/elaborating upon their worldviews in order to respond to criticisms.
As you can see, the most popular response is meme arrows or maymays with no bearing to the actual claims raised within the posts.

People seriously engaging with this fuckwit are wasting their time.

Honestly, it's more like who's most easily baited into responses by inanity.

YOU CANNOT EVEN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SEVERAL SEPARATE THEMES IN A 'DISCUSSION'? YOU ARE A LAUGHING STOCK, NOTHING MORE.
THEN WE ARE TALKING AT CROSS-PURPOSES SINCE OUR DEFINITIONS OF 'CAPITALISM' ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
DISHONEST FUCK!
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
A SINGLE BOOK OUT OF MANY.
A POINT WHICH YOU PRESENTED TO ME.
PEAK IDEALISM. MARXIANS ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED WITH CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, A COMMON TENDENCY OF ALL CAPITALIST SYSTEMS, SOCDEM, 'FREE' OR OTHERWISE.
DO YOU SEE THAT? A CONNECTIVE IN MY SENTENCE WHICH SERVES TO MAKE ONE REALISE THAT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ACCUMULATION AS A CONTRADICTION! YOU ARE AN ILLITERATE FAGGOT, JUST AS I HAVE FORECASTED.
I KNOW THAT PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR POSTING STYLE AND IP, MAGGOT. ONE CAN EASILY CLOAK THEMSELVES IF THEY ARE THIS FAR DOWN THE INTERNET AND DESPERATE ENOUGH.
2 minutes later:
BOURGEOIS NOTIONS OF DESERT WILL NOT WORK HERE. THE COMMUNIST PROGRAMME SEEkS THE MAXIMISATION OF STRENGTH AND PROSPERITY THROUGH THE HORIZONTALISM OF THE SOCIETY IT SEEKS TO BUILD.
IRRELEVANT; WHAT MATTERS IS ACTUALITY. THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT CAN VENTURE BEYOND MORALISM, AN AREA WHICH THE BULK OF BOURGEOIS PHILOSOPHY STEMS FROM. BY MAKING ANALYSES OF THE CAUSES OF SOCIAL DETRIMENT, ONE CAN ASSESS WHAT TO CHANGE, ADD OR REMOVE.
DID I FUCKING SAY THAT ITS DETRIMENTAL NATURE WAS TRANSHISTORICAL YOU FUCKING NIGGER? QUOTE ME, I FUCKING DARE YOU!
DOUBLE NIGGER
WHERE DID MARX ET AL SAY THAT IT DID NOT? CITE WORKS YOU FUCKING NEGROID. THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAPITALISM WORKS, WHICH MEANS ANALYSING THE EFFECTS OF MARKETS AS WELL AS THEIR TRENDS AND TENDENCIES. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT THOUGHT, GO BACK TO YOUR torture chamber.

Tbh OP and any other lolbert are so fucking retarded and drowned in burgeoise ideology it gets hard to get points across. My personal spoonfeeding limit is usually 2 text walls. People will never change their opininons in a debate this entrenched in ideology, the best you can do is point flaws at someones beliefs and make smart contestations that will make them refelct on their beliefs. That is if the person is capable of doing so. Other than that be clear about your own concepts, Which is a real problem here in leftypol since we disagree a lot between different sects of socialism.

He is target practice, nothing more. It will serve as a 'workout' of sorts.

There was a panic like every two years before the Federal Reserve and the Great Depression happened under the gold standard. You're fucking retarded.

I haven't read this entire thread, but your assertion isn't really controversial to most Marxists, OP. Liberalism was the first world-powerful republican ideology, so it's no surprise it managed to crush stifling traditions and bring about material improvements. There's still more that can be done about those traditions, though; rentiers still control the wealth, which is frustrating for the rest of us.

Also, capitalism happened to cash into the world's reservoir of fossil fuels which was always going to bring about development.

Also, I like how you instinctively know not to take a stand on anything yourself, you'd get torn to sheds.

Your game up to this point has only worked because you criticize from afar without offering solution, probably because you know full well that your neolib theory is ten times bullshittier than anything in Marxist theory, so you sit back and criticize Marxism for simply being a social theory and philosophy and simply act as though your position has hard science behind it when it's actually horoscope-tier bullshit.

It's good for recognizing a whole slew of rhetorical tricks and general sophistry.

Like make a claim, but phrase it as a question asking for proof against your claim and then insist that the burden of proof is on your opponent and get really pedantic about definitions so that the point being made gets bogged down in a semantics argument.

Yet you still respond with one-liners.

Marx's definitions are ignorant of a simple issue of association as it relates to marketplaces/trade or state intervention. Conflating schools of thought on the issue is fallacious and I have already called you out on it, but you ignore it because you refuse to accept the contradictory evidence refuting your worldview.
Yup.
What citation do you have to substantiate the specific assertion you are making against my counter-point? Or do you just want to cite books that make many unrelated assertions that are not relevant to our discussion?
And you are incapable of responding to beyond "muh" or meme arrows, yes.
You said "capital accumulation (blah blah blah power) and contradictions Marx had fantasies about". So capital accumulation isn't a contradiction? Great, we agree.
Unfalsifiable hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
Social relations you conjure up to create false victim complexes are not real, no. Bootstraps don't exist when you refuse to work, most of you who reject work are failures who cannot compete. No amount of 'hard work' matters if you are not smart.
Sure is.
The bourgeoise don't exist, it's a social construct, sorry. Their 'philosophy' is also a social construct, so yeah.
By failures, like yourself.

Your rhetorical points to the potential detriment caused by the rampant accumulation drive.
Watch me debate like you.
ahahahahahah point and laugh
I can. Pic related, from: media.8ch.net/file_store/7d4534d9815c257defbed3d2d7e175b8d62b53bc04583049b17bb1eb35bdf7a6.pdf.
Not to mention, Lenin's Hanging order calling for the genocide of the kulaks, and Stalin's class-based persecution of the forceful call to steal shit from kulaks.
Until you actually read the literature you cite to be able to point to a specific argument you want to demonstrate, we can both cite books back and forth.

Your own image refutes itself: extend the same logic to the world war. The population grew and was never lower than the years you compared (1905, 1926, 1951, from your own citations), therefore there was no war and people didn't die. Except we have actual documentation, like Lenin's Hanging Order, calling for the genocide of entire class.

Strawmen sure are intellectually honest for Communists who conflate all capitalism with state capitalism, right?
What can I say, I love debunking shitty communist logic like the often-quoted image here:
Use its own logic against itself and no loss of life could be plausible given the positive population rate and overall population growth. Therefore, no wars lmao!
Appeal to motivation.
It's kind of like criticizing people who think humans can fly by jumping off buildings. If you ignore the real world hard enough and fill your head with non-pragmatic drivel, you could fool yourself into believing your own unfalsifiable hypotheses, but the real world has already decided that they have failed to defend/reproduce/maintain themselves as systems.
hahahahhahhaa

Holy shit user please tell me you don't belive this image is sound.

Capitalism is dependent on the state to exist, and you've yet to prove otherwise, aside from noting that private businesses can act without state approval (obviously), but never proved that they can effectively act outside the context of state protection.

No ones claiming that Stalin never killed anyone, simply that the 100 gorillions claimed are highly exaggerated to say the least because Stalin maintained a strong positive population growth rate.

Except that's not it at all. So far, you haven't even addressed actual Marxist theory, you've done little more than attack it for being a soft science, you know, like every other economic theory, social theory and philosophy without positing a more "scientific" economic theory, social theory or philosophy.

Because you know there isn't one.

The definiton of human sacrifice is not bringing rain and appeasing the gods. How fucking stupid do you have to be to make that image?

Same logic, same inability based on Nostradamus-tier predictions. There is literally no evidence to suggest the flawed Marxian worldview that has already failed every time it was applied and, inevitably, perverted will arise in the future beyond "dude lmao trust me".

Already debunked this above by getting you to admit that states contract private businesses for their endeavours and that there is no limiting factor allowing for the contraction of private enterprise as a non-legal entity.
False: an individual can protect themselves. Buy a gun. I can pay people to defend me. Easy. This is like saying "you can never kill people without the state, it's impossible!"
???
Quote me on that figure, I dare you.
I addressed the abject failure of its application in comparison to superior systems.
As in:
People starving because they can't produce shit for themselves doesn't speak to 'capitalism' as much as it does their inabilities and shortcomings as a nation to compete and survive.

laughing right now, brb

The Aztec purpose was the bring about some climate change or some natural shift to appease "da gods", it's as illogical and divorced from reality as a "classless" society is.

I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG HERE SEVERAL TIMES. YOU DID NOT ADDRESS ME HERE:
"BY CRITICISING THE 'LIBERTARIANS', LOOKING AT THE EXTREMES OF NON-KEYNESIANISM. IF THERE IS MORE TO THE SPECTRUM OF BOURGEOIS THOUGHT THAN THAT, THEN ENLIGHTEN ME! 'LE EXTREMES FALLACY' WILL NOT HELP YOU WITHOUT PROOF."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy reductionism batman.
Coming from the guy who blindly trusts Soviet propagandized efforts and influences. Show me how the GDP was 'manipulated' or lied to. Otherwise, your suspicions are illogical. I already demonstrated the crimes of the USSR with "economic criminals" being put in "corrective labour camps" that treated them as slaves.
What conspiracies about the CIA do you believe in? Still waiting on your evidence as it pertains to the discussion.
I didn't backpeddle, I repeated the point about gradations. I said that they exist in capitalism in regards to interventionism, which is just one factor/issue. Backpeddling would be to say they don't exist, like you do.
Great, then capital accumulation is perfectly free from contradiction. You're sounding like a capitalist as we go along, lol.
Unfalsifiable hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
You're the claimant, not me.
Innocence before guilt, son.
Yup.
Social relations are social constructs that are all subjective at the end of the day. You're chasing random constructions I have already deconstructed m8.
???
That projection tho.
Strawman. If employers fire workers, that's their business: break the conditions of employment and you're fired. When workers decide to get violent and call for violence, then they are killed. Capitalists don't protest in the street calling for blood, violent Communist criminals did so they were shot.
Don't care, read my citation retard.
lmao at your ahistorical revisionism.
How many times do you want me to debunk your old talking points, strawmen, or outright deflections? It gets tiring, now I'm just laughing at you and your inability to defend your arguments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Profit_statistics_versus_true_business_profit
Aaaand there's the nuance you refuse to observe.
Failure to demonstrate this assertion means your hypothesis is falsified. Private contractors are hired all the time as mercenaries or security personnel to defend peoples/property that is non-legal. Already debunked this above, and right now.

Also
hahhahahhahahaha that's why Communism has failed, you're trying to kill the workers who stage the revolution you silly goose.

You know humans lived in classless societies for most of their existance right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

We also lived without electricity and no antibiotics. Doesn't mean those are now inextricably linked to our societies just as private property rights and free trade are, however perverted those concepts have become.

Also, you just refuted the false dichotomy of "I can only work or starve in capitalism": go be a primitive communist. Don't work for anybody, work to survive for yourself, by yourself in the Amazon or some random forest.

As I thought, you have little in the way of meaningful incite to add. I know who you are, and I know arguing with reactionaries of your ilk is a futile effort.

still, it proves humans can and have organized in horizontal structures for ages and is far from "illogical and divorced from reality".

if i go live in the woods im not participating in capitalist society, holy shit man think twice before spewing garbage.

still>>2234806 and yet there is no available property in the modern world for anyone to start doing this. As a capitalist maybe you should lear a bit about the history of the sytem you defend.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts

Might removes the dichotomy of right/wrong. Your opinion once you are defeated is meaningless.

It is divorced from reality when you compare ancient man to modern man, conflating historical time periods without controlling for civilizational developments is inaccurate as a comparison.
Yup, glad we agree.

Sounds like a personal problem. Make like a true primitive communist and compete in the wild by being stealthy. Not my problem.

you really have not been able to formulate a good argument here, At least try to engage in good faith or else people wont want to discuss.

Done. What is going to replace robots and AI?

I missed the part of the tread where you "debunked" any thing?

Coming from you, that is a compliment. I have already debunked the common canards above, there's about a hundred or so of my posts dealing with it. Scroll up.

Scroll up, improve your reading comprehension.

This is a non sequitur.

I'll repeat myself. Capitalism cannot function outside the context of state protection. If there isn't an existing state, they'll create one for themselves, similar to what the feudal lords did after the fall of the Roman state. The only counter argument I've heard to this is that companies with their own private armies totally wouldn't act like feudal lords even though they could and it would be entirely to their benefit to do so, because reasons.

If it's just you and the property you could personally defend, capitalism could never establish itself, you need extensive property for capitalism, you'd arrive at a system closer to distributism, mutualism or individualist anarchism.

If you hire a bunch of armed dudes to protect your shit and enforce your rules, you've effectively created a state. SEe above.

I wasn't quoting you, "100 million killed by communism" is an oft quoted figure by anti-communist ideologues.

I addressed the abject failure of its application in comparison to superior systems.
You haven't mentioned a single superior system. You've attacked Marxism for being a soft science, but have remained tight lipped about this supposed hard science social theory we should all be following you seem to be implying exists.

genetically we are still the same to hunter gatherers. As i said it's to just prove that humans work in horizontal organizations all the time see any modern worker cooperative. We call it PRIMITIVE communism for a reason no one except anprims want's to go back. Marx himself belived communism would come first in developed countries as it is not trivial to organize modern social structures in an horizontal way. This does not mean it's impossible.
Yes it is, you suggested it, aknowledged it was impossible and it's my problem now? it's a problem with your suggestion. Stop being dishonest.

...

I have,in fact, read this thread, and it is nothing but cheap tricks and poor understanding of ideology. No wonder the last user got mad, observing nonsensical idiocy to the scale of claiming Marx was making "a moral argument" would make me ditch. This all reeks of illiteracy, and I have little to say about it.

Referencing earlier posts is not fallacious.
Circumstantially true, not universally true. It is easy to hire state contractors to defend private property and it is just as easy to observe instances of private contractors acting independent of the state in black and grey markets.
Private=/=state. Walmart doesn't tax you like with death taxes. States are specific legal entities, not any time authority is enforced.
That's not what a state is. Having an army doesn't mean you are a state.
Nope, the private contractors the state hires can be hired by other people.
State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Not a state, by definition.
Don't care. The mystery of the death toll doesn't mean millions did not die, it's shrouded by misinformation on both sides but we still have information showing intention in the ideology of the dictators.
No obligation to do so. Pointing out that eating shit is a fucking retarded thing to do doesn't mean I should point you to a food that you should eat. Not my intention anyways. I just like debunking retarded arguments you conjure up.
People not being able to feed themselves due to people trading with others over the group in-question=/=forcibly seizing livestock and grain from a class of people that leads to the scorched earth they pull in defiance.
Free trade will bring out the inequalities of mankind, and if some people fail, that speaks to their capabilities more than 'da system'. Also, those instances were all in the developing world, none of which have remotely respected private property rights or free association as the first world has.
Yup. That's literally the original argument of inequality I made. Can't shift goalposts if that was the original claim, dummy.
Strawman, Communism as it attacks and genocides a class of people equals starvation. Pointing out that Maoist retards killed sparrows doesn't mean Communism hates sparrows, it means that the Maoists were anti-Darwinian.
Not even once, but keep making shit up, it's funny to see you flail.

No. Please stop, this is embarrassing. Or is this another "genes don't real, what is Mendelian inheritance" episode?
Yeah, that's the thing with open-ended, vague predictions: they're pointless because anybody can make them.
Woah… almost like guesses without proof are irrelevant in scientific discussions revolving around evidence!
Nope, I don't care what you do. You must figure out a way to survive, nobody owes you shit and nobody will pamper you in the wild, either. You hate capitalism, stop trying to genocide the middle class who will oppose you, stop enabling capitalists by working, go and live like your primitive progenitors. How you will survive is a question of your survival skills. You obviously lack them if you're already coming back crying to me.

Yeah, we lived without penicillin, too. Have fun trying to remove the relevance of penicillin to our society: people will find a way to reincorporate it once again. A classless society is impossible just as "We also lived without electricity and no antibiotics. Doesn't mean those are now inextricably linked to our societies just as private property rights and free trade are, however perverted those concepts have become".
Ah, so you didn't read the thread, got it.

And yet you say that Marxian theory has been debunked using similar logic to what I've used here. YOU MERELY WISH TO APPEAL TO THE AIRY-FAIRY, THE VAGUE AND THE HYPOTHETICAL JUST AS YOU ACCUSE MARX OF DOING.
I CALLED IT! YOU ARE HERE FOR LE EASY BTFO RATHER THAN TO LEARN, YOU PERSISTENTLY DISHONEST COWARD.
>hasn't read mutual aid or for ourselves
MIRRORED HERE:

RAFIQ WAS RIGHT; NATURE IS THE BOURGEOISIE'S LAST HIDEOUT.

Do not worry, friend.

Though you will be in gulag, we will construct a gulag to your liking. It will practically be a paradise for you.

You see, you will work every day, and when you work, you generate points, and these points can be used to buy your freedom.

But you don't receive those points, your guards do, and it's up to their discretion how many points they decide to give you, and they're encouraged to keep as many of those point for themselves as they can get away with. In addition, everything in gulag will cost points to use, from food to lodging, so you'll be lucky if you have any left over by the end of the day.

But, don't worry, this will be a free gulag, by which I mean you'll get to choose which guard will oversee you. And, really, it's your fault you're still in gulag anyway, you must not have worked hard enough. This is the free gulag's way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Lol, definitions don't real.
A private entity doesn't set legislation, enforce taxation against non-violent, non-related peoples (in regards to the entity), doesn't force a draft on the military, doesn't set up courts to interpret law, doesn't have a prison system to force people in when they break said laws (that they never consented to), and so on.
I guess this different kind of hurts to admit, huh? Nuance is a bitch, lol.
What is there to learn from irrational idiots like you who don't care about definitions. It's like playing chess with pigeons, you don't care about formal rules of logic or definitions.
Oh yeah, I know that also hurts to admit Darwin was right and that the inferior fail when allowed to compete.
Neither have you if you can't actually cite the literature.
I would love to see more pseudo-science trying to debunk Darwin, though, lol. Always makes me laugh.
Hmm…
Yup. Do it yourself.
Pathological altruism will lead to selfishness in a few moments when you realize it's your wallet, so the mutual aspect will disappear.

Middle class will always disallow you from gaining any political action, sorry to let you kow.

This is just honestly pathetic

This is just honestly pathetic

We have no problem with the "middle class" (most of whom are just highly paid proletarians), and I seriously doubt you're actually bourgeois so much as a classcuck boss-dickrider who thinks sucking Porky's cock makes you a Porky yourself.

Jesus Christ man, have you at one point touched a book in your life?
Shit like this belong in the /questionstoodumbtoanswer/ thread we had a while back.

ahahahahahah i love this
Sorry but the middle class still won't let you revise private property rights or disallow free trade between consenting individuals.
hahahahah the absolute state of communist intellectualism, one post away from resorting to ad hominem attacks. beautiful

Neither have you if you can't actually cite the literature.(USER WAS BANNED FOR EATING FROM TRASHCAN)

I'm not the one sperging out on a Taiwanese fishing board over an intellectual school of though I have no comprehension over.

also
are you 12?

Look, this is just getting embarrassing for (you). Clean your self up and think, "was he the one I poised the question to?". Your all over the place, but achieving nothing of value here.

These non-arguments are just sad. Why not just attack the central arguments presented instead of dancing around endlessly?

A proletarian is simply a wage worker. Since labor takes on a commodity form, bought and sold on the market, some labor can become fairly valuable, leading to proletarians who are highly paid, who have served as the bulk of the much lauded "middle class".

And it's still in the class interest of these proletarians overthrow the tyranny of the bourgeoisie, even though they tend to be subject to even harder propaganda campaigns and live fairly comfortable lifestyles, making them tend to favor class collaboration.

Of course, capitalism will simply fix this problem for us by whitling away at the middle class, both growing the ranks of impoverished proletarians and making the precarious position the remaining middle class are in more obvious, so it's more difficult for them to ignore class conflict, even with neoliberal propaganda shoved down their throats.

So, yes, I think we will eventually win them over.

Ah, so the managerial positions of the middle class who pay their own wages are now justified positions within the economy? Glad we agree.
Middle class no likey being patronized from a champagne socialist soapbox, ya know.

Managers are just proletarians who manage other proletarians (unless the manager also happens to be the owner)

There is a tendency for managers to identify with the bourgeois class, but this isn't universal.

I like how you claim to speak for the whole of the middle class after ridiculing me for simply suggesting that they'll act in their own economic and class interest. There's nothing special about the middle class. They will either rise against the bourgeoisie in union with the rest of the proletariat or they will die out.

Yup, wonderful people those managers. Vital to business health and the propagation of an enterprise. There has to be some managerial effort, even if it is split up.
The 'bourgeois class' is a social construct, so it doesn't matter.
We don't like being executed.
Quality of being a living organism with instincts and all.
They're the ones who always stop the Marxist revolution, so they are special as it relates to stopping revolutions.
proofs

Does OP actually believe heritage to be a credible source?

Come on now

We aren't arguing about anything? I was given an overview of your poor performance in this thread.
Not as sad as this obvious diversion

Just gonna pick some low hanging fruit here.

Yes, it is created by our social circumstance and does not "exist", however, class it'self "exists" insofar as capitalism "exists". So the bourgeoisie does, in fact, "exist".
>We don't like being executed.
I might have picked on this one, but I'm still giggling from it

You are objectively being exploited if you are not being paid the full value of your labor.

Just leave the thread, little man.
Oh, great so you admit that all the points you raised are moot because there was no point of dispute to begin with. Excellent.

We agree, it's just a social construct.
Yup, please go on.
lmao
inb4 muh false dichotomy 'work or starve' (false dichotomy/not mutually exclusive to capitalism).
Dislike employment for others? See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp.
ahahahahahahah please continue. Wanna call the USSR state capitalist to make my argument that capitalism still defeats socialism at every corner?
How could they, there is no exploitation anyways.
Valid retort, to which you can only wax poetic and use empty rhetoric like "uhhh, well that just means you are super DUPER exploited, ya see? I am the only one who can see the chains, just trust me bro".

globalresearch.ca/the-privatisation-of-water-nestle-denies-that-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238
So privatising water, a basic human need for survival, isn't equivalent to taxation? A big multinational fighting off the competition in developing countries? If that wasn't enough, there's the breast milk scandal involving the same company. BUT LIBERTARIAN LOGIC SAYS MUH CATEGORY ERROR SO IT CAN'T BE SO
You don't know how business works; did you know that firms can grow?
Edgy, there's only one place you could hail from.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything
They're not even debunking Darwin; how come powerful people need the hands and labour of others to do what they wish, for example?
BURGER KID DOESN'T WANT TO READ SO BURGER KID WILL BURGER BURGER BURGER
So why haven't they, user? Is it because they still rely on the proletarians? No, they just haven't practised their god skills yet.
Let's see your business develop without that investor money. Also nice generalisation of human wants and needs.

So work and starve?
Most proletarians have to work to survive, something which they would rather do. What next, are you going to read Cioran and advocate mass suicides to 'fix' the problem?
Gee, it's not as if workers' movements have been suppressed. Indonesia doesn't exist, nor does union-busting! Still, there's considerable numbers in India
theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/02/indian-workers-strike-in-fight-for-higher-wages
Because everyone you don't like is a communist and you'll cherry-pick articles to 'prove' it while waxing on about the evil sJEWs. Also, can't you do your own research? No, you just like 'debunking'. BURGER BURGER BURGER.
A stronger one?
You don't know what 'exploitation' means. gave a hint: it's to do with reappropriation of produced value less wages.
socialistworker.org/2011/09/28/what-do-we-mean-exploitation
It's a factor of all societies but isn't used in proletarian interests. This
a basis from which capital accumulation in the hands of the bourgeois can start. This wealth concentration has led to things which even the bourgeois outlets decry, such as mass poverty. BUT BURGER SAYS ONE'S GOTTA SURVIVE BECAUSE MUTUAL AID DON'T REAL

No, not on their property. It's their property, I can set as many rules as I want to for people who live on my property. Difference is they can leave any time they want to and I don't force them to associate with me.
It's called freedom of association and this is absent in dealings with the state.
Work to earn your own shit, see the pic you just responded to. Nobody owes you shit, compete or die.
Ah, the old switcharoo.
Yes, that doesn't mean voluntarism of association is removed. You have to fulfil the burden of proof by demonstrating that apple, nestle, or walmart are forcing you to do business with them. Emphasis on 'force'. I will wait.
That's not how private businesses work. Also
Don't buy iphones. Easy.
Read: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/
Just goes to show that you don't even read what you cite, you just like to namedrop people without actually doing a cursory examination of your OWN citation, lol
You're right, they're giving their opinions in the face of reality. Does little to nothing to change reality.
Hop off that soapbox.
No, capitalism isn't genocidal, free association doesn't equate to your ideology's "zomg muh kulakz have more, let's steal shit and call it equality".
When your own fabled automation comes, the workers will be made irrelevant
Never disputed this, strawman.
No, I said that your false dichotomy isn't mutually exclusive to capitalism, lrn2rd.
Sounds like a personal problem, learn a trade and start your own business. If not, keep failing to compete in the market.
That defeatism lmao
Yeah, let's get rid of those regulations, then.
ahahahahahah yeah keep it up, you're only substantiating my points
ahahahahahha, pot meet kettle
"the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work"
ZOMG MUH ECKSPLOYTAYSHUN

You talk too much.

Most of the responses have been unconcerned soundbites with no relation to the points raised, it's like you are incapable of providing nuanced discussion to people you disagree with. Part of an honest discussion is being able to entertain ideas you don't agree with, but it's always just ad hominem or other nonsense.

How does this apply and damage my argument?

(1)
See how easy this is? You screech 'category error' in numerous ways but you cannot ignore that the relations have similar effects, thus the demarcations are not necessary.
Again, if you don't like governments, move to Saturn.
I know; that doesn't mean that society is supposed to function like that like you say it should. You've crossed the is-ought gap without a permit.
alternet.org/story/52526/rural_communities_exploited_by_nestle_for_your_bottled_water
telesurtv.net/english/news/Colombian-Companies-Charged-for-Crimes-Against-Humanity--20170204-0010.html
Then we're talking at cross-purposes again. Also:
TRIPLE NIGGER

(2)

However, before submitting for three centuries to come, to the all-absorbing authority of the State, the masses of the people made a formidable attempt at reconstructing society on the old basis of mutual aid and support. It is well known by this time that the great movement of the reform was not a mere revolt against the abuses of the Catholic Church. It had its constructive ideal as well, and that ideal was life in free, brotherly communities. Those of the early writings and sermons of the period which found most response with the masses were imbued with ideas of the economical and social brotherhood of mankind. The “Twelve Articles” and similar professions of faith, which were circulated among the German and Swiss peasants and artisans, maintained not only every one’s right to interpret the Bible according to his own understanding, but also included the demand of communal lands being restored to the village communities and feudal servitudes being abolished, and they always alluded to the “true” faith — a faith of brotherhood. At the same time scores of thousands of men and women joined the communist fraternities of Moravia, giving them all their fortune and living in numerous and prosperous settlements constructed upon the principles of communism.[251] Only wholesale massacres by the thousand could put a stop to this widely-spread popular movement, and it was by the sword, the fire, and the rack that the young States secured their first and decisive victory over the masses of the people.[252]

For the next three centuries the States, both on the Continent and in these islands, systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression. The village communities were bereft of their folkmotes, their courts and independent administration; their lands were confiscated. The guilds were spoliated of their possessions and liberties, and placed under the control, the fancy, and the bribery of the State’s official. The cities were divested of their sovereignty, and the very springs of their inner life — the folkmote, the elected justices and administration, the sovereign parish and the sovereign guild — were annihilated; the State’s functionary took possession of every link of what formerly was an organic whole. Under that fatal policy and the wars it engendered, whole regions, once populous and wealthy, were laid bare; rich cities became insignificant boroughs; the very roads which connected them with other cities became impracticable. Industry, art, and knowledge fell into decay. Political education, science, and law were rendered subservient to the idea of State centralization. It was taught in the Universities and from the pulpit that the institutions in which men formerly used to embody their needs of mutual support could not be tolerated in a properly organized State; that the State alone could represent the bonds of union between its subjects; that federalism and “particularism” were the enemies of progress, and the State was the only proper initiator of further development. By the end of the last century the kings on the Continent, the Parliament in these isles, and the revolutionary Convention in France, although they were at war with each other, agreed in asserting that no separate unions between citizens must exist within the State; that hard labour and death were the only suitable punishments to workers who dared to enter into “coalitions.” “No state within the State!” The State alone, and the State’s Church, must take care of matters of general interest, while the subjects must represent loose aggregations of individuals, connected by no particular bonds, bound to appeal to the Government each time that they feel a common need. Up to the middle of this century this was the theory and practice in Europe. Even commercial and industrial societies were looked at with suspicion. As to the workers, their unions were treated as unlawful almost within our own lifetime in this country and within the last twenty years on the Continent. The whole system of our State education was such that up to the present time, even in this country, a notable portion of society would treat as a revolutionary measure the concession of such rights as every one, freeman or serf, exercised five hundred years ago in the village folkmote, the guild, the parish, and the city.

(3)
For the next three centuries the States, both on the Continent and in these islands, systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression. The village communities were bereft of their folkmotes, their courts and independent administration; their lands were confiscated. The guilds were spoliated of their possessions and liberties, and placed under the control, the fancy, and the bribery of the State’s official. The cities were divested of their sovereignty, and the very springs of their inner life — the folkmote, the elected justices and administration, the sovereign parish and the sovereign guild — were annihilated; the State’s functionary took possession of every link of what formerly was an organic whole. Under that fatal policy and the wars it engendered, whole regions, once populous and wealthy, were laid bare; rich cities became insignificant boroughs; the very roads which connected them with other cities became impracticable. Industry, art, and knowledge fell into decay. Political education, science, and law were rendered subservient to the idea of State centralization. It was taught in the Universities and from the pulpit that the institutions in which men formerly used to embody their needs of mutual support could not be tolerated in a properly organized State; that the State alone could represent the bonds of union between its subjects; that federalism and “particularism” were the enemies of progress, and the State was the only proper initiator of further development. By the end of the last century the kings on the Continent, the Parliament in these isles, and the revolutionary Convention in France, although they were at war with each other, agreed in asserting that no separate unions between citizens must exist within the State; that hard labour and death were the only suitable punishments to workers who dared to enter into “coalitions.” “No state within the State!” The State alone, and the State’s Church, must take care of matters of general interest, while the subjects must represent loose aggregations of individuals, connected by no particular bonds, bound to appeal to the Government each time that they feel a common need. Up to the middle of this century this was the theory and practice in Europe. Even commercial and industrial societies were looked at with suspicion. As to the workers, their unions were treated as unlawful almost within our own lifetime in this country and within the last twenty years on the Continent. The whole system of our State education was such that up to the present time, even in this country, a notable portion of society would treat as a revolutionary measure the concession of such rights as every one, freeman or serf, exercised five hundred years ago in the village folkmote, the guild, the parish, and the city.

(4)
The absorption of all social functions by the State necessarily favoured the development of an unbridled, narrow-minded individualism. In proportion as the obligations towards the State grew in numbers the citizens were evidently relieved from their obligations towards each other. In the guild — and in medieval times every man belonged to some guild or fraternity two “brothers” were bound to watch in turns a brother who had fallen ill; it would be sufficient now to give one’s neighbour the address of the next paupers’ hospital. In barbarian society, to assist at a fight between two men, arisen from a quarrel, and not to prevent it from taking a fatal issue, meant to be oneself treated as a murderer; but under the theory of the all-protecting State the bystander need not intrude: it is the policeman’s business to interfere, or not. And while in a savage land, among the Hottentots, it would be scandalous to eat without having loudly called out thrice whether there is not somebody wanting to share the food, all that a respectable citizen has to do now is to pay the poor tax and to let the starving starve. The result is, that the theory which maintains that men can, and must, seek their own happiness in a disregard of other people’s wants is now triumphant all round in law, in science, in religion. It is the religion of the day, and to doubt of its efficacy is to be a dangerous Utopian. Science loudly proclaims that the struggle of each against all is the leading principle of nature, and of human societies as well. To that struggle Biology ascribes the progressive evolution of the animal world. History takes the same line of argument; and political economists, in their naive ignorance, trace all progress of modern industry and machinery to the “wonderful” effects of the same principle. The very religion of the pulpit is a religion of individualism, slightly mitigated by more or less charitable relations to one’s neighbours, chiefly on Sundays. “Practical” men and theorists, men of science and religious preachers, lawyers and politicians, all agree upon one thing — that individualism may be more or less softened in its harshest effects by charity, but that it is the only secure basis for the maintenance of society and its ulterior progress.

It seems, therefore, hopeless to look for mutual-aid institutions and practices in modern society. What could remain of them? And yet, as soon as we try to ascertain how the millions of human beings live, and begin to study their everyday relations, we are struck with the immense part which the mutual-aid and mutual-support principles play even now-a-days in human life. Although the destruction of mutual-aid institutions has been going on in practice and theory, for full three or four hundred years, hundreds of millions of men continue to live under such institutions; they piously maintain them and endeavour to reconstitute them where they have ceased to exist. In our mutual relations every one of us has his moments of revolt against the fashionable individualistic creed of the day, and actions in which men are guided by their mutual aid inclinations constitute so great a part of our daily intercourse that if a stop to such actions could be put all further ethical progress would be stopped at once. Human society itself could not be maintained for even so much as the lifetime of one single generation. These facts, mostly neglected by sociologists and yet of the first importance for the life and further elevation of mankind, we are now going to analyze, beginning with the standing institutions of mutual support, and passing next to those acts of mutual aid which have their origin in personal or social sympathies.

When we cast a broad glance on the present constitution of European society we are struck at once with the fact that, although so much has been done to get rid of the village community, this form of union continues to exist to the extent we shall presently see, and that many attempts are now made either to reconstitute it in some shape or another or to find some substitute for it. The current theory as regards the village community is, that in Western Europe it has died out by a natural death, because the communal possession of the soil was found inconsistent with the modern requirements of agriculture. But the truth is that nowhere did the village community disappear of its own accord; everywhere, on the contrary, it took the ruling classes several centuries of persistent but not always successful efforts to abolish it and to confiscate the communal lands.

(5)
==It doesn't beat reading the book though, illiterate nigger.=
Let me post another thing which acts within your ideology:
entrepreneur.com/article/235229
Who doesn’t want to be an entrepreneur?

Everyone wants to be their own boss and control their working hours while making money doing what they love. But the rigor of building a business image is hard. And more and more the ability of the business to deliver on its promise is becoming secondary. In today’s business landscape, where almost everyone wants to stay on top of the game, how will you attract your potential consumers and let your business stand out from the rest?

Related: Cutthroat vs. Cooperative: How Do You View Competition?

Seventy-five percent of new businesses are said to fail within their first three years, and running out of working capital is one of the top reasons for this. I disagree, though; I believe that the Survival of the Fittest rule has made new entrepreneurs think in a way that steers them into business failure.

The Survival of the Fittest rule is practiced and promoted everywhere. It states that in order to remain on top, you need to do everything you can to be the “top-player” in your field, even if it means pouring boiling oil on your opponents. Eat or be eaten. Slay or be slayed.

This thought is a pitfall; it ignites competitiveness among businesses, not cooperation. After all, mankind has come this far through cooperation, not competitiveness.

In my recent book, Swim or Drown: Business and Life Lessons that I’ve Learned from the Ocean, I explain that this practice is a pitfall. I even disprove the existence of a “top-player”. The position of “top player” is merely an illusion and its definition is impossible to determine because we all offer our unique features and strengths. Here’s an excerpt from the book:

Related: Cooperative Companies Offer an Alternative to Franchising

An example in business would be the clothing industry. If we define this area as general clothing (not narrowing it down into different niches) and use profits as the measuring stick, it’s probably chain stores that are at the top. However, if we use brand recognition or prestige as the scale for the best, high-end fashion companies will come out on top. And if we measure by quality, much smaller companies might rise to the top.

Added to that, today’s changing landscape of business involves integrating with its immediate surroundings, looking for possibilities of transformation, and being one with the economic facet, while remaining true to the core of the business.

In the truest sense, being a survivor in the business world means having the ability to cooperate directly or indirectly with other business models, sift and run your business based on available economic resources, and think of effective communication strategies to make your consumers notice you. In short, the innate ability to see the business landscape with a fresh perspective – not with the ferocious vision of crushing anyone who crosses your path.

Being a survivor doesn’t mean that you should be the only one who would, and who could, succeed. For example, in a beauty contest, all are vying for the crown. But in reality, each of the ladies who managed to clinch their way to prestigious beauty titles is a survivor in her own way. It may seem like they are competing for the crown, but in reality, each of them are cooperating within the beauty organization to raise a specific awareness.

In a business structure, businesses forge partnerships to raise awareness among consumers, tapping each other’s potential and maximizing it to the fullest. That’s what you call coordination within competition: unity in diversity.

By developing our own unique strengths and talents and focusing on cooperation instead of competition, we keep the ecology of the business world diverse and healthy. There’s no need for anyone to claim a generalized top position. We have to work together to make the system function.

And a study related to vidya and the subject of game theory:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532894/
Children and adolescents most often play active videogames, or exergames, in a social environment. Social play may enhance the potential benefits of an exergaming experience, much like group exercise and team sports are observed to improve physical activity–related outcomes above those of solitary exercise. Two ubiquitous elements of exergames are cooperation and competition. Previous literature suggests that cooperative and competitive aspects of exergames may affect physiological and psychosocial changes. Competitive play has been found to increase energy expenditure and aggression in short bouts of exergaming. Cooperative exergaming has been found to increase motivation, promote continued play, enhance self-efficacy, and increase pro-social behaviors. In one study, a cooperative exergaming condition also resulted in significant weight loss for overweight and obese adolescents. Individual player differences such as individual preferences, competitiveness, weight status, age, gender, and ethnicity may moderate effects. Although the current volume of literature on competition and cooperation in exergaming is small, social exergames hold promise as an engaging alternative to traditional physical activity interventions and may promote a broad range of positive outcomes for children and adolescents. Principles of cooperation and competition are applicable for developers of health-promoting games. Future research is needed to further understand the mechanisms of how competition and cooperation in social exergaming impact physiological and psychosocial outcomes.
BUT IM AN BURGER AND I DUNN WANNA REED

(1)
Finally, something new on the table, although you must have merely read the title and thought 'not true profit' given that three minute delay. Now I can confirm that you don't put thought into your arguments; you must be a bot. Now, the article.
"The problem in measuring the statistical rate of profit is not just that "Among economic researchers there is a worldwide illiteracy in national accounting"[271] but also that, because the structure of modern capitalism is different from half a century ago, a macroeconomics based on traditional national accounting concepts can no longer credibly represent economic activity.[272] Although the financial industry now dominates capital flows in the world economy,[273] US government statisticians admit frankly that "Unfortunately, the finance sector is one of the more poorly measured sectors in national accounts".[274]"
Changing capitalism? Buggered statistics? Not a problem!
en.marksist.net/elif-cagli/law-tendency-rate-profit-fall.htm
The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a complex subject which should not be vulgarised by oversimplification. Therefore, to avoid distortion, let us underline that what is referred to by this law here is not an absolute and a linear fall in the rate of profit. The fall explained by this law expresses only a historical tendency. Since in the actual workings of capitalism, counter effects check the fall in the absolute sense of the word. Therefore, this law operates only as a tendency. And its effects become apparent only under certain circumstances and in the long term. Marx gives the following factors that counteract the fall in the rate of profit: (1) more intense exploitation of labour; (2) reduction of wages below the value of labour power; (3) cheapening of the elements of constant capital and a flow of capital into countries where the average organic composition of capital is lower than in certain industrial sectors of the industrialized capitalist countries; (4) relative overpopulation; (5) foreign trade; (6) the increase of share capital. Let us note that these factors do not invalidate the law but lessen its effects and give it a peculiar character. Marx stresses that the conflict between counter-acting factors involved in capital accumulation process is exposed during depressions. Average rate of profit fluctuates upward and downward during the boom and crisis stages of industrial cycles. In the long run, however, the counter-acting factors become less influential, leaving capitalism confronted with a serious threat of recession as seen in 1929.

leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-09-24/the-tendency-for-the-rate-of-profit-to-fall-the-crisis-and-its-‘detractors’
Even though they refer to Husson, PM goes further:

We are Marxists because we share the general monist and materialist perspective of Marx along with his dialectical method but this does not mean we uncritically accept every idea of his as revealed truth. Even the theory of Capital is verified step by step by the real development of capital, perennially changing and in perennial movement—otherwise we would not be materialists.
Well said. Marxism is a method of analysis and as such is constantly being verified. The purpose of studying Capital is not to make eschatological prophecies as if it were the Bible, the Koran or the Talmud but to confirm its validity in ‘corpore vili’ (real life, lit. ‘worthless body’), otherwise it can be criticised, corrected or accepted at will. Let’s see then if this is the case.

For PM Marx’s predictions on the question of the fall in the rate of profit and the changes in the organic composition of capital which underlies it have failed miserably. The underlying reason for this is that the counter-tendencies, particularly the devaluation of constant capital as a result of the development of the productive forces through technological innovation, have allowed the capitalist system as a whole to maintain a ‘just’ equilibrium between the two factors. Thus the law has been prevented from coming into force. In all, over a time period of at least eighty years, if not a hundred. In practice international capitalism, with American capitalism taken as the statistical model, has always been level and smooth, without problems of crisis apart from the ‘normal’ ones of periodic adjustment. In over a hundred years practically nothing has happened.

Certainly, amongst the counter-tendencies which contribute to offsetting the falling rate, if not temporarily annulling it, is the development of the forces of production and the increased quantity of commodities produced. The increased productivity of labour tends to reduce the value of the components of capital (both fixed and circulating), of the commodities produced and of labour power itself. The price of an individual commodity is lowered, the mass of commodities increases. The amount of profit realised by capital overall also increases, but the rate of profit diminishes. For the counteracting process to come into effect the devaluation of constant capital, of both the commodities produced and of labour power, all need to take place at the same time in every sector of production. Otherwise the development of the productive forces, and with this the increased rate of surplus value, reduces the quantity of profit made on each individual commodity produced and depresses the rate of profit itself, regardless of the reduced value of the constituent elements of production. The reduced value of machinery, as for other commodities, only means that any specific quantity of dead and living labour is materialised into a higher quantity of commodities. What in the short term can translate into an increased mass or rate of profit for an individual plant or capital, over the longer term — when competition re-establishes equilibrium — it turns into the opposite, or rather into the resumption of the falling rate. This is because:

Despite the increased rate of exploitation, along with the reduced price of commodities comes a reduction in the overall sum of unpaid labour in any single commodity;
The reduced portion of variable capital in relation to constant capital serves to modify the organic composition which implies a reduction in the proportion of living labour in relation to raw materials and capital goods.

(3)
Of course, the point in the wiki article also talks about the natures of the statistics. This is also a problem for other economists, since it follows that none of them can make and test models. This was in the section I cut out of the article: "US government statisticians admit frankly that "Unfortunately, the finance sector is one of the more poorly measured sectors in national accounts".[274]" We see this theme of statistical inaccuracies across the board earlier in that section:

Normally, true gross profit is larger than the profit component of value-added shown in official statistics, because true profit typically contains net property income, part of corporate officer's earnings and part of the depreciation write-off. The logical possibility exists that although the profit rate can indeed fall, if aggregate profit is measured only as the profit component of value-added, in reality it does not fall, or not as much, because:

Organizations increasingly make money from trading in already existing assets which are not used by them to produce any new products and services with.[239] Put differently, an increasing share of total generic profit income consists of net interest, net taxes, net capital gains, fees & royalties, and rents. This can happen because a lot of non-productive assets have been accumulated that are available for trade; second-hand physical assets, financial assets and properties are being traded; all sorts of things are traded internationally, taking advantage of currency and cost differentials; assets are being held via all kinds of special financial constructions to extract profit, etc. And, an increasing amount of interest payments, rents and capital gains have been excluded from operating surplus because, by statistical definition, they are not classified as production expenditure at all (i.e. they are not counted as value-added).[240] Post-Keynesian researchers such as Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie therefore tried to devise more adequate measures of the real financial profitability of companies.[241] If a lot of capital is borrowed at a cost which is lower than the income obtained from reinvesting it in assets that appreciate in value, then a lot of profit income is earnt which has nothing directly to do with creating new product value, and therefore is not counted as value-added. Instead, existing wealth is transferred from one set of owners to another.

(4)
Generous depreciation write-off provisions or depletion allowances are in reality pure profit, or are at least partly a de facto profit component.[242] The government may give tax incentives, provide guaranteed minimum prices, various economic subsidies etc. The statistical concept of "economic depreciation" (consumption of fixed capital) diverges considerably from actual depreciation[243] – thus, economic depreciation is only an imputation, and is not directly derived from real gross revenue.[244] If the total actual write-off is larger than economic depreciation, for example because of tax incentives for new fixed investment, it is likely that a component of profit income is being ignored in the statistical measure (there exists no other way to verify what the value of total net output is, than adding together the various components of factor income/expenditure).
Nobody knows for sure what the true value of the total physical capital stock is, because all statistical estimates of that value involve theoretical extrapolations, with a margin of error which remains unknown unless very detailed and comprehensive surveys are done. What a fixed asset is worth becomes apparent only upon sale, yet even then assets may be sold above or below their true value – an important reason why statisticians adjust depreciation rates retrospectively and use price deflators. Even where detailed information is available, however, assessments of what an asset is worth still depend on the valuation criteria used. Those criteria often differ from the actual criteria used by business, since they must conform to a standard statistical definition for measurement comparisons.[245]
When government statisticians compile gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) figures, they usually add in "ownership transfer costs" (fees, taxes, charges, insurance costs, installation costs etc.) associated with the acquisition of a fixed asset put in place. In the United States, these costs represent around 1% of GDP, or around 4.5% of total fixed investment.[246] This inclusion may be perfectly valid for the purpose of a realistic gross investment measure, but when GFCF data is subsequently used to extrapolate the value of fixed capital stocks using the PIM (the perpetual inventory method), it includes elements which are, strictly speaking, not part of the value of fixed assets themselves. It appears "as if" ownership transfer costs are incurred and depreciated each year in the lifetime of fixed assets, since the value of these costs is carried forward in the perpetual inventory (unless a special adjustment is made). This has the effect of raising the fixed capital stock estimate above true value, cumulatively.[247]

(5)
The British researchers Richard Harris & Stephen Drinkwater also highlighted the problem that the PIM does not account for premature scrapping. The reason is that a constant depreciation rate (based on average asset lives) is applied for the stock; a discrepancy therefore arises between depreciated value and scrap value (often statisticians also fail to track what happens to fixed assets that are got rid of, and therefore the assets can be counted twice in the same year). The mathematical problem is that, given a constant depreciation rate, the effect of overstated stock values in the data will increase cumulatively across a series of years, unless a special adjustment is made. Thus, Harris & Drinkwater's 2000 study of fixed capital in British manufacturing 1970–1993 (23 years) found that, if the effect of capital scrapping which occurs due to plant closures is ignored from the 1969 benchmark onward, then this will lead to a 1993 capital stock estimate for plant and machinery which is 44% larger than it is when an appropriate adjustment is made for premature asset disposals.[248] Another depreciation measurement problem is the accelerating replacement of fixed assets, particularly of computer systems, affecting estimated asset lives and therefore average depreciation rates. These two factors alone could, according to a 1997 OECD paper, make a difference of 10% to the estimate of the annual capital stock for some UK industries.[249] Dutch and French statisticians suggested that if capital scrapping is ignored, capital stock results obtained with the PIM could be up to 20% larger than they probably are.[250] New Zealand statisticians acknowledge explicitly that "PIMs may typically overstate the gross capital stock because of a failure to account for changing cyclical or accelerating rates of retirements".[251] Although he is not a Marxist, Thomas Piketty usefully discusses many problems with the PIM.[252] Unlike orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics, Piketty and Zucman did not use the PIM method to get a measure of the capital stock, but instead used book values and corporate equity at market value.
Remuneration packages for corporate officers, including stock options and profit-sharing, have been included under "compensation of employees" as a labor cost,[253] rather than being included in gross profit.[254] This fact is particularly important in the United States, because the incomes of corporate officers are often very large.[255]
Profit income from ordinary land sales, for example, is not included in official value-added, since land transactions do not result in additional land[256] (See also gross fixed capital formation, differential and absolute ground rent and land grabbing). Official fixed capital aggregates exclude the value of land, and no very reliable official estimates exist for the value of land, because of problems with credibly valuing land in a standard way for measurement purposes.[257] If the world market prices for farm products rise, profit rates on land sales and commercial land values will increase; even if the number of land sales stays constant, the profit on land sales will increase.[258]

(6)
All sorts of differences occur in valuation practices used by business (historic cost, current replacement value, current sale value etc.) affecting fair value and GAAP-based accounting (among many other issues, if the profitability of a capital asset falls, the market value of the capital asset itself will fall as well, in response – irrespective of whether it is a physical asset or a financial asset, and irrespective of its acquisition cost; this reduces the fall of the profit rate).[259] The valuations made are themselves influenced by the way price inflation is actually calculated using price indexes. Jochen Hartwig found that the divergence in growth rates of real GDP between the U.S. and the EU since 1997 "can be explained almost entirely in terms of changes to deflation methods that have been introduced in the U.S. after 1997, but not – or only to a very limited extent – in Europe".[260] See further real prices and ideal prices.
Tax-dodging techniques of various kinds, reducing reported profit income and the reported value of sales, or exaggerating costs (legal constructions, creative accounting techniques, offshoring, tax havens etc.).[261] If tax data are used as a basis for statistical estimates, the reported amounts only reflect legal (fiscal) requirements and may well differ from the real situation.
The use of (1) credit instruments, (2) capital insurance (derivatives) to protect capital value, and (3) various legal constructions which split out the ownership, control, financing, management and use of capital, which permits the costs, sales and profits to be arranged in ways more favourable to the enterprise or corporate group – often using various different business entities located in different countries.[262]
Statistical inclusions and exclusions, and survey accuracy problems which cause true profit to be underestimated.[263]
The problem with long-run time series for price aggregates is, that they often disregard many qualitative changes in the components of those aggregates, or, it is assumed that these qualitative changes have no real quantitative significance for comparative purposes. A variable is thought to stay qualitatively the same across time, when in reality it does not remain the same. Michael Perelman, for example, shows that the content and economic meaning of capital aggregates can change considerably even within one decade or so. For example, the changing stratification of physical capital assets in the total capital stock, in terms of their age, exerts an independent influence on the productivity and profitability of enterprises.[264]"

(7)
So now let us have a look at your understanding of that article. Since you are a tool with regards to definitions, you won't have much on the matter. You will not analyse the texts, only providing snark and rhetoric instead to this little tidbit.
BURGER DON'T WANNA READ, BURGER GONNA BURGER

This has nothing to do with the fact that you talk too much. When you're asked a 1 line question, give a 1 line answer to the question; don't try and make a 30 lines reasoning. It is the succession of questions and answers that will constitute the reasoning.

Repeating the assessment ironically does nothing to dispute it. Reductionism: a person who analyzes and describes a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents. So, when you observe business and state interrelations as a result of crony capitalism and extend this judgement to even the absence of states, both conflating the legal definition of a state and the fact that private businesses cannot be defined as states only goes to show the reductionist mentality which is erroneous when discussing the real world. Take the issue your image deals with in this post. The assertion is that the only way to deal with education is through state means and that the limitation of state access to education is somehow indicative of the overall access to education, even though education is not a right, it is something people choose to pursue that is not guaranteed 'for free', and that the only way to educate people is through state means (even though this is contradicted by observing states that provide education by subsidizing private schooling costs).
Shifting the burden of proof. Observing the GDP of the USSR per capita: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union. Right in the tab on the right-hand side. You have speculated that it is inaccurate. Provide proof of the manipulation or else sit down with your pseudo-scientific "show me God doesn't exist!" drivel. That isn't how the burden of proof works. You made the claim that it's manipulated by some boogeyman, substantiate it.
Yes, over 50% of the trade was with the Eastern Bloc. Remember that time the two superpowers had a hissy fit and blocked each other off? Yeah, the US embargo mattered more.
If it's any consolation to debunk these old non-arguments, I am not American.
Yes, when you just say 'capital accumulation', that is not a contradiction. The act of accumulating capital occurs without contradiction all the time. Stating one sentence without actually elaborating why you believe it is contradictory doesn't mean it is a contradiction.
Great, we agree.
Prove you aren't OP.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You are the claimant, I am not bound to defend against a claim that has no evidence behind it.
Prove that you aren't OP then to satisfy the matter.
I never said social relations are not real, they are merely subjective, social constructs. Next to meaningless, society changes all the time, it is a dynamic concept that is malleable. Upwards economic mobility is possible because class is a choice. Oh wait, class isn't a choice… I guess that means race-based discrimination is no different from class-based discrimination: you can't choose both! Communists and Nazis have more in common in terms of their oppressive policies than they would like to admit. They both hate people based on things they cannot choose. Oh wait, you can choose your class. I guess that means economic mobility upwards/downwards is a reflection of intention and ability.
Revolting against businesses, actually.
Talking about genociding a class of people, actually.

Lol, irony being that it was actually a common meme citation here that you haven't even bothered to read. I did read it and your own citation from the book I linked shows that in '42-'43, around one third of a million people died in gulags. Not even controlling for population in US prisons today, that is still a better ratio for US prisons (even though gulags also contained people guilty of thought crimes).
"lacking historical perspective or context"
Yes, when you dismiss any contextual relevance when it comes to assessing certain aspects of the USSR, like when you make up conspiracies you cannot prove about GDP, that is ahistorical.
Yeah, people don't like that kind of 'equality'. Middle class will always stop your LARPing revolution.
They aren't detrimental, you want to think they are while living in societies that they aided in creating. It's very easy to cast judgement and say that the upper class are a bunch of inept morons that could just as easily be the workers while never actually being able to succeed as you predict the 'workers' will, which is a contradiction. Either anybody can replace the upper class because fuck them or the upper class is distinct from the working class who still cannot 'replace the necessity' of the upper class.
Capitalism doesn't act against extreme efficiency, it is the most efficient system to have existed. The Industrial Revolution and upcoming automation are a result of the capitalist innovation and market competition to maximize profits.
>Again: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
None of which deals with GDP stats manipulation. Read your own sources.
No, you never actually criticized it. You used meme arrows and called Monetarists equivalent to Keynesians when you conflated interventionist policies with non-interventionist policies. There are variants and nuance that you are incapable of addressing beyond conflating everything under the umbrella of 'capitalism'.
I am a worker and it is not unfair for me.
Marx's ad hoc rescue: well, you have not just realized your chains yet. Excellent way to shift the burden of proof to satiate your confirmation bias of this victim complex you believe exists.
Yes. Name me one piece of legislation or one force that shows up at your door to compel you to work for walmart or apple, or whoever. Or are you foolish enough to think the general actions related to homeostasis that human beings must commit to, such as acquiring sustenance or other psychological requirements, are dependent upon capitalism? Pic related.
Not an argument, empty assertion without proof.
Already did, competition exists regardless of how much you desire to 'equalize' people in some regards.

Non-voluntary, no contract signed, did not claim the land or took it by force as means of eminent domain or other forceful acquisition of claimed land.
It is easy when you deny the nuance and refuse to examine contradictory evidence that rebukes your conflation beyond meme arrows or shitposts with no conclusion.
Yes. Nobody forces you to buy shit or whatever. Go live in the woods like the primitive communist you fetishize.
It's my house now, it is in my interests as a worker to acquire your "territory".
Fuck claims to land you might have made or inherited through your ancestors who originally settled the land, it's mine now.
Yes, people who have failed to provide themselves luxuries in life do not have access to certain luxuries. No shit. Not my problem. The weak die off.
Do I look like your mommy? Make your own way in life, I don't owe you shit, nobody does. Compete or die.
Walmart putting a for-sale sign for a deal they have outside their store is not equivalent to the state killing you and taking your shit to expand their borders. Private enterprise does not expand its territories as states do, it purchases things through voluntary contracts. The state is not a voluntary institution.
Great, we agree.
fallaciesfiles.weebly.com/the-isought-fallacy.html
You don't own it if they purchased it, so that's that.
>telesurtv.net/english/news/Colombian-Companies-Charged-for-Crimes-Against-Humanity--20170204-0010.html
A voluntary contract that they signed onto. Ironic that the state is so upset when others take part in their own practices.
The paramilitary groups in your own citation were on the payroll, they were not forced to do anything silly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance
First people to lay claim to land makes it theirs. Your ancestors didn't and you didn't inherit it. You didn't purchase it through a contract, either.
Appeal to morality.

I will respond to the issues I take with the text.
That is not how habits are derived from, they are more than socially-derived phenomena. Habits formulated beyond this lifestyle refute the notion that they are dependent on that environment.
Men circumstantially engage in mutualistic relationships all the time, this does nothing to refute the notion that competitive relationships also exist.
No, that is not how organisms, specifically humans, have evolved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare
There is circumstantial evidence to show the warring nature of man against man. Loyalty and mutualistic relationships with one tribe does not mean that all other contradictory evidence showing a nuanced perspective including competitive aspects of man ought to be ignored (unless you are ahistorical, as you have demonstrated yourself as being). This piece was written to critique the concept of the survival of the fittest (fit not necessarily being physically fit, but instead related to reproductive 'cutting edges') even though Kropotkin is not an evolutionary biologist, and it sure shows.
Yes, mutualism exists, as do mutualistic relationships that cause conflict between other categories of people.
This is mostly a phenomenon in the Western world, not "mankind". It isn't some global hug party of 'mankind', it has been the Western world that has developed itself as we observe today.
That isn't what race is. Homo sapiens are not all one 'race'. Species is not the same thing as 'race'.
He seems to agree with my sentiment, too.
Sure, all this is fine thus far. The conclusion that is being drawn is, however, not sound. We will get to that.
Yes, states refusing voluntary contracts are bad.

Sure, creating mutual bonds between consenting peoples is fine.
Seems more to do with the absence of a state than it is anything to do 'communist principles'. If you despise militarism and disallowing free peoples to engage in mutually beneficial relationships, Communism disallows that same principle in regards to signing contracts with other people. It is the same militarism it hates.
As if communists have any claim to peaceful revolution to assume political relevance, lol.
Communists would do the same with kulaks and others who wished to associate with others freely in markets. This all reads like a bad storytale where the victim becomes the same thing he was oppressed by.
Yes, all the claims of the state entering and assuming power in this way are accurate, with this I have no dispute.

Posted this twice, dummy. Are you sure you aren't the burger with this retarded comprehension, by spamming the same stuff twice?

As if that is a bad thing? Narrow-minded individualists do not care about your opinions of their alleged narrow-mindedness. If you love mutualistic relationships and associations, you are free to exclude those same people from your life and dealings if you so choose.
In what barbarian society? Also, not acting is an action, but not an action equally interchangeable with assisting the murder. The person who is killed at the hands of the other barbarian in the conflict should have fought harder to not be killed. I am not obliged to help the failing party every time: do shit yourself. Narrow-minded individualism sounds more like a cry for help in this circumstance.
If I choose to share, I will. If not, suck it up. The food I am eating is not some kind of universal concept that everyone has an equal claim to ownership to.
Voluntarism.
Yes, I do not care what you want. You can want as much stuff as you please, I don't care. I am not your mommy, I am not going to pamper you. This is a grown man writing this, I cannot believe it. What a manbaby.
Competition exposes inequality, and the success that follows breeds jealousy.
There are scientists who disagree with this notion. Or is it "only TRUE men of science agree with me"?
Yeah, people will still crave free trade and association within a marketplace even in these mutualistic societies, and they will still not have any obligation to tend to the 'wants' of other men if they choose not to. Freedom of choice. The absence of pathological altruism is not really an argument to show that only your version of mutualism counts.
No, as he described them, that is not accurate. There were not hundreds of millions of men dispersed among fraternities or guilds who cared as much as he stated about the wants of the other men. He has not even remotely fulfilled the burden of proof, then claims hundreds of millions of men acted that way.
This is pure propaganda, lol.
Yes, mutually beneficial associations and relationships do exist. The assertion relates only to itself, not the conclusion he is inferring from this point.
Tacitly admitting that the modernized civilization rebukes the archaic notions of the ancient man, lol.
Yes, states refusing to abide by consent or voluntary contracts are bad.

See: self-employment. Everyone can if they can compete and satiate the consumer demand with a proper business model/idea.
Big if, though, because most people, communists included, are illiterate in terms of any competitive spirit or genuine inspiration for success within a market.
Depends what industry you are in.
Citation? Sounds plausible.
Ah, so you cited an op-ed. Glad to see you refuse evidence-based dialogue.
Wrong. Survival of the fittest has a specific definition and it is completely different as it relates to businesses. Survival will mean the ability for a business to maintain itself and create profit in order to invest/expand the business in order to live on throughout the years. For a business to be 'fit' depends entirely on the business model and the individual(s) in-question, as well as the industry involved. This notion that sabotage is often the most beneficial way to stay 'fit' is a classic strawman.
*Strawman.
Businesses compete all the time on the marketplace. The competition is fuelled by the consumer, not by sabotage of apple by samsung, for example. Consumers fuel rivalries between companies and companies seek to create products that the consumer wishes to purchase over the next guy. They do not 'cooperate' within a marketplace, that's demonstrably wrong.
That is not how evolution works, this is also a false dichotomy. It isn't one or the either, the two occurred in different degrees within/between different groups.
IRONY. Complaining about cooperation within a marketplace between individuals/companies while not also shilling the other people's books. Wow.
Your op-ed writer has walked himself into a contradiction or a grand hypocrisy. Either entrepreneurs cooperate within the marketplace for the consumer's attention and wealth, or entrepreneurs compete for the consumer's attention and wealth. He has just demonstrated the latter by using his medium of communication to shill for his own product instead of "cooperating" with all the other authors he is competing with when his book is on display in Barnes and Noble or whatever by also shilling their book. Or he is just a huge hypocrite who wants others to cooperate while competing himself.
How businesses expand and invest. They compete with others to do this.
*To make consumers notice you other the next guy so they support your business over theirs. The entrepreneur cannot always be certain that the consumers cooperate with both his business and the other guy's, this is a pipe dream to assume people treat all businesses equally and purchase from them all uniformly.
Yeah, applying the concept in this manner is retarded, like I said.
Which is why I said 'survival' and 'fitness' depends on the circumstance. Sabotage of the other lady walking down the aisle would be detrimental. The existence of mutualistic relationships does not automatically mean that the existence of competition is non-existent.

Refutes itself by showing that there is so much excess produced because of the efficient mode of production that almost half of it goes to waste.
A response: mises.org/system/tdf/qjae7_1_6.pdf?file=1&type=document. Hey, you want to spam text, welcome to the club.
This is why the concept is dependent on different kinds of survival strategies. For some organisms, symbiotic associations with organisms in a mutualistic or commensalistic manner are beneficial to increase fitness.
This manner of 'endless competition is always beneficial' speaks as much to the concept of 'survival of the fittest' as does the 'refutation' that states that humans don't always have to be buff or built like hulk to survive: that isn't what fitness means.
Pic related. Not exclusive to capitalism. You should be saying 'if I do not eat food, drink water, and other physiological requirements, I die'. You can achieve all of that without associating with employment, go live like a primitive communist. Don't expect to transfer the standard of living or luxuries you enjoy in civilized society to your next life, Communists are known for creating horrible standards of living for people.
You aren't, go live in the woods. Do whatever you want. Still have not demonstrated that employment contracts are involuntary beyond pointing to physiological requirements for existence, then falsely attributed this to "only capitalism can do this for me, no other option!" Like I said, live in the woods. Nobody is stopping you.
Crony capitalism is not 'all capitalism'. "Capitalism" is not one 'thing' you can describe while dismissing nuance. Even your academics you cite are wise enough to make this distinction between different capitalist philosophies, you are not.
Yes, a state has a specific definition that you think can be extended to any other entity that exercises force. States are specific legal entities. If I kill you for trespassing on my property, I do not become a state just because the coast guard does the same. This is obvious reductionism based on one factor and falls apart the moment you start to examine contradictory evidence, such as the non-consensual extension of legislation or forced conscription.
See above.
Semantic arguments are when the core conclusion is mutually agreed-upon. I dispute your infantile 'arguments', so it isn't a semantic argument.
Sorry, class is still a social construct and however 'real' it is is just a relationship that is associated with the society, which is malleable. Doesn't make class any less socially constructed.

Pot, meet kettle.
The business is going to build the robots. They have the utilities and machinery they purchased from other businesses who specialize in constructing specific machines, who hire people who choose to work for them under a contract. The robots are 'controlled' by the business: it's their property.
Yes. If you suck and selling shit to people because you can't farm, that's on you.
More business for me.
What spot. Your home? If you inherited it because your ancestors laid claim to unowned land, yeah that's how it works. It is voluntary if you choose to sell it to me or give it away for free.
"A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither"
When you say 'work or starve', there are more options that you are omitting that contradict the notion that physiological requirements of humans can only be dealt with in capitalist societies: you can find food in the forest. Granted, most communists are frail manbaby LARPers, so I don't think you would last a day in the forest as a primitive communist (which you love comparing "the good old days n shiet", but hate living because that capitalist life is soooo good, even if it is crony capitalism).
So no UBI? Great.
Yes, absolutely. Investments work all the time, until they fail. Usually when you invest in communist 'associations' that think favour-based economic policies are a good idea. Observing cooperation and competition do not mean that the two are absolute and cannot be observed simultaneously.
Doubt you have worked a day in your life as a manual labourer creating a product by yourself without any intervention or assistance from any other worker.
You have addressed nothing beyond things I have already debunked.

No, I said it depended on where you looked, the time period, and other factors that refute the reductionist narrative of "there are declining rates in one area, so it means capitalism is failing, muh alarmism".
Already debunked.
Perhaps we should allow employers to compete freely and offer wages without regulations… food for thought.
They are not capitalistic, capitalism is private ownership, not state ownership.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism
Accounting for market relations, yet not examining post-war conditions for nations such as Japan who had complex/dynamic economic conditions, to say the least.
You have just refuted the alarmist "profits tend to decline over time (let's ignore historical context that the nations were involved in though), this means capitalism will fail".
You did it again by including the nuanced position that accounts for historical conditions as it relates to, say, hyperinflation caused by wartime loan payments.
Great Depression was not 'capitalism' if private ownership was de facto state ownership.
Certainly not with scientific discourse; instead, you are literally working backwards from a conclusion Marx had already reached. That is the definition of pseudo-scientific analysis.
Then it is a circumstantial tendency. Which, again, refutes the apocalyptic rhetoric.
Absence of evidence does not allow you to make a positive claim.
Citation?
Citation?
Citation? These are just asserted with no empirical evidence.

...

Yeah, there are many different ways to examine and analyze the timeline.
There are economic models that exist, so this is wrong. You can test models all the time.
So what leads you to believe the absence of proper evidence pointing to a statistical trend allows you to arrive at a conclusion (that was predetermined, but who cares about the scientific method lol)?
There's that pesky nuance and perspective.

Sounds like crony capitalism but okay

Ought to include the little other part, too.
The real value of the physical capital stock appears to grow faster in real terms than the real value of the operating surplus associated with that physical stock, in the long run.[230] The same effect persists even when various different depreciation techniques are used.[231] The data trend is analogous to a rising tendency of the capital coefficient, where in the course of time more and more capital is required to obtain each additional increase in output.[232] The profit rate rises again, only after a major crisis or a war which destroys a sufficiently large amount of capital value, raises the rate of surplus value, and clears the way for new production techniques.[233]