Why don't you redistribute your own wealth first, you hippie socialist! Don't force us to do something you won't!

How do you respond?

Attached: SlimPorky.jpeg (183x275, 6.29K)


Roll my eyes and tell him to fuck off with his cheap finger-wagging bullshit.

I don't wanna redistribute wealth, I wanna collectivize the MoP and I don't own any.

Attached: zp0ks.jpg (440x314, 18.89K)

I can't redistribute what I don't have. Hence why we're redistributing your wealth to people like me who have none.

undialectical af

Attached: ClipboardImage.JPG (983x741, 86.28K)

I wonder if Engels ever got asked something like this.

You could say that, however you'd be surprised what they'd find:
Furthermore, these things could also be considered as MoP, since they could be used to produce capital. The point still stands: for people that want to redistribute the MoP, let alone the wealth, why not start spending half your day volunteering at the homeless shelter since you aren't using that time for anything else? Why not give away just about all of your possessions and spend your life working for others?

Lets do it at the same time. I will share my means of production and savings and you will share yours.

Because I didn't gain what little I have through exploitation, wars, manipulation and deception.

Means of production and capital is defined by its use, not what you could use it for in another scenario.
Time is not MoP nor is it wealth
It really speaks of the lifestyle of the bourgoiesie to think that regular people half of their day for free time that they do not use for anything neccecary to living, such as getting 8 hours of sleep so you can work again, or commuting to and from work, or cleaning so you dont get sick for work, or cooking food so you dont die and can work, or doing taxes and paperwork so you dont go to jail or get kicked out of your house, so you can work.
That is what I am doing right now. I don't have shit and I am spending all my life working for others, namely the bourgeoisie.

most of these could never be MoP and they could only constitute private proeperty if you were an employer or rentier.
you have read marx, right user?

Like, humans tend to be shitty at math (especially big numbers) but you pretty much have to be willfully ignorant of the situation to say the dumb shit OP quotes.


Respond by explaining that socialism is about ownership of means of production and not necessary wealth.


You can't even get most so-called leftists to understand that.

What could be said to a wage slave that said this?

So if Porky had 10,000 acres of farming field and 50 factories it wouldn't be MoP?

Correct. However it does allow for labor to be performed during it, which many people here can very freely do, with at least a couple hours of their day like many do.

Why not spend the time not working for the bourgeoisie working for those in need, like the homeless, for instance?

That's a valid point.

Well porky either employs workers in those factories and to work that farmland or rents it out and accrues wealth from private ownership. If he doesn't do this then he is merely hoarding land and machinery through the imposition of state violence. Both these actions are exploitative and reprehensible, running counter to working class interests.

If they aren't being used to produce value they aren't MoP. This doesn't mean they won't be seized, just as it doesn't mean that ==all== MoP will be seized ==and== used. The marketing sector produces value, but that doesn't mean those MoP will be seized and used, just seized and used differently in a way that is practical for society.

I am very enthusiastic about not starving and not being homeless, for that I need to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week or more. Part time work doesnt pay enough. The rest of the time I need to cook, clean, commute and do other so I dont lose my house or my food.

Socialism is about replacing generalized commodity production with production for use. Control of the MoP is only part of that.

Stop guilt tripping the powerless for not using their non existant power to fix the world's problems. The managers of capital are the ones who have the power to change society. Since they obviously don't want to do anything, we to make the working class the managers of capital.

we need to make the working class the managers of capital.*

communism is not a system of capital management.

I'm poor and steal everything I own so I literally don't apply to this. Now give me $40,000.
Heh, and people say lifestylism isn't the right thing to do to advance communism.

Attached: Screenshot_2017-10-28-10-26-11-1.png (242x258, 85.5K)

Maybe if she wasn't a lazy slut she wouldn't be living in a shit heap and this was before jews lmao!

Is it possible to transcend capitalism while capitalists are the managers of capital?

because Americans who work don't have much free time, retard. And when they do get it they want to spend it doing things that don't make them miserable.

wow you must be pretty well read

Capital is the enemy, not capitalists.

To be fair, many of us spend hours posting on Holla Forums and the like, not really doing anything to advance the conditions of the poor. There are people who volunteer regularly, and imaginably so can we.

My wealth is under the nation per capita one, otherwise i wouldn't be gommunist but instead probably some shitty form of succdem lol. If we hipotetically redistribuite equally all the wealth in da world i think the vast majority of people, medium Holla Forumsack included, will take advantage.

the working class "redistributes" its own wealth involuntarily to the capitalist class every day in masses
so i agree, this needs to stop

If you see someone use an argument like this, link them to Etsy. Convinced at least one lolbert that way.

It's only re-distribution if you distribute something to the original owners of the value. See, basic logic.

By definition it's just distributing, again. So in the first round, capital was distributed largely to the bourgeoisie, while in the second round of distribution, there will be a more equitable division of resources.
With this, like said, it would be us that benefit. We would largely be the receiving ones, considering that if all the world's wealth was redistributed we'd all each have something like $35,000, along with all of the MoP, which basically none of us have.

Here's another way to posit OP's situation for further consideration:
This was similar to an actual response I got from a middle-income professor. He said "let's talk money" when preparing to talk about jobs and college degrees and shit to which I jokingly replied "Let's talk about the abolition of money instead haha". He then told me I can abolish my own money, which was kind of a surprise for me since I observed that he was a big liberal, thinking he'd be against financial hierarchies and at least being a bit more than the "Fuck Trump" crowd, although I was wrong. These people aren't interested in socialism for any reason more then the immediate provision of toys and luxuries for themselves, which brings to light the perverted nature of socialism within academia, which reminds me of pic related.

Attached: 561.jpg (904x5274, 1.55M)

I hate that image

sage for offtopic

It's not off topic, it relates to the people who make such statements as the one in the OP.
Why do you hate that image?

I'm unemployed with $20 to my name. You want $10?

Imagine this: there are two people with $10 each, but one of them has a computer. Who has more? In this instance, redistribution would likely entail common ownership of the device with allotted timeframes being given based on need, assuming you don't get any from the porkies who have billions of computers and dollars.

That's not even remotely practical. Secondly my goal is not to redistribute the wealth like a filthy succdem while leaving the bourgeoisie in control of the means of production.

Questions like that don't deserve an answer. It is just a low effort way to make you seem like a hypocrite. You will always be a hypocrite to these sort of people unless you're living in the woods (probably illegally) while eating twigs and dirt and not interacting with society at all.

But really, why is not hypocritical of us to spend more time volunteering for poor people, at least, than largely idly spending our time on the Internet? It's kind of a waste if we don't put it into praxis and instead speculate on it.


Fresh one

Attached: keks.PNG (731x74, 7.13K)

How about I redistribute to you a seat in the gas van lmao

Attached: 403a1bac48222ee8d54bef6390375e3563f186bea1acbf4f05b1f2e242a8bdb8.jpg (585x800, 157.16K)

a comuuter is one of the most powerful means in existance

Attached: boyheboutto.jpg (640x640, 50.17K)

You do know by that logic it means that the factories in which computers are made are the most powerful. After all they're a MoP which produces MoP. Checkmate Atheists

made by cockshott gang.

"You call yourself a socialist, yet you haven't given away all your personal possessions and started living like a Trappist monk? What a hypocrite!" Of all the moronic cliches the right peddles, this has to be one of the worst, because these idiots just plain don't think of the implications. So a person who preaches something good and doesn't do that much towards it is somehow morally inferior to someone who preaches greed and practices it to its fullest? Fuck you with a rusty rake. Moral consistency is not a virtue in itself, because someone's morals may be monstrous in the first place.

Attached: 20e23868027a9f81d7f38246dc70857c679031d6.jpg (594x546, 68.99K)

It's also a matter of looking good for other people to win approval. When someone points out you don't practice what you preach they think that your whole ideology is worth nothing. So, really, why don't we give away the money we could have used for toys to people less fortunate than us?

Because I want to abolish capitalism becuase it causes all these problems. Something that cannot happen on a small scale.


I live in America. They can get the first two at any library anywhere and food at any food bank and with their own personal EBT food debit card.

If they're truly homeless and fucked up they can get cash on the card too.

I don't own a house and you can't house people if you don't have the room. Better would be offer showers but even if you felt like having strangers coming in and out of your residence I don't think your neighbors would appreciate it.

lifestylism doesn't work

Have you ever worked a day in your life?

You could easily turn just about anything into the MoP though. You can use paper and pencil to draw things that you can sell, and likewise your computer can be used to draw, write, etc. Most of us have printers, which are machines that take inputs to produce outputs, and most of us even have ovens to bake food that could be sold as well. While books and food are not themselves the MoP, virtually all of us have things that could be.

I just said mofo that they can be accessed elsewhere. I've never owned a residence so what would any of that matter? It would be up to my landlords.

Ink doesn't come out the tap. Are you just mentally retarded?

Who can you feed with a fucking printer? Microwaves are also free accessible at 7/11. You're fucking retarded. Kill yourself for the good of mankind.

And also you didn't even read my damn post explaining how the library down the street has almost all the same books I own and then some on some on some. Euthanize yourself please.

Plus printers. Why are you such a worthless husk of flesh OP?

When people talk about the MoP they almost always mean social means of production, i.e. something that requires organized labor and produces a surplus value.

Trying to make a living with some paper and a pencil, or a computer, you'll end up barely making a subsistence, or selling your labor to a capitalist. Or you can start making profits, at which point you enter the system of social means of production (needing to procure materials, hire workers etc)

Why do people keep responding to this thread when OP doesn't know what MoP are despite having it explained to them?

Hoping we can motivate him to an hero.

Neither does the electricity necessary to keep factories running? You input ink, paper, and queries into a printer to produce a printed work. Have enough of these with a high-level variety of printing options and you have a print shop. A singular printer is a much more scaled-down version of this.

Who can you feed with a print shop? Not every product has to be food; in the instance of printing, it could be printed documents/blueprints/art/etc. The accessibility of common, low-level MoP such as the microwaves at 7/11 does not take away from their status as inputs which generate outputs of economic value.

Books are not a MoP, as I've said in the statement "books and food are not themselves the MoP". Being in possession of even many books doesn't make them a MoP.

Plus printers what? If you have a lot of sophisticated printers you have a print shop, thereby establishing a business where you can take inputs and generate economic output through them, making you part of the petty-bourgeoisie with this.


It is difficult because your economy of scale is so little, however there are artists out there who make a living for themselves producing artwork on platforms such as Patreon and the like, if not through their associates. If you start a business, you will be able to expand your economy of scale and provide for yourself a living, although foreseeably not as large as, say, an oil or food company. In this, your ordinary MoP transforms into a SMoP through the organization of collective labor and their capital inputs.

What point are you making retard? I just explained why it would be pointless to try and share access to resources that are freely available everywhere. Seriously you need to start thinking about suicide.

"Freely" could be said about all those things because one, even libraries charge to use their printers, and two, there are the transportation costs involved. That means that an impoverished person without a car could travel up to an hour if not more to reach a library solely to print a document, then traveling one hour back to account for two hours spent that day just to print something; as opposed to accessing a printer collectively. Many tribes in Africa have to travel two hours a day to reach water, despite it being seemingly "freely available everywhere", which it in reality is not. For those impoverished people, that input or otherwise resource that they are lacking is a printer, but it may be anything else that they need. Furthermore, many times it is a matter beyond just having access to inputs, as in the requirement of skill in producing artwork that is desirable especially when considering making a living off of it.


It's a good point he's making since usually champagne socialists want to redistribute everyone else's wealth but their own, and are fine when people who are below their upper-middle class or higher are pauperized in order to help far afield peasants from other countries. Hope this helps, OP.

You're on tangents on tangents on tangents. Why did you make this thread?

How would I go about giving these isolated rural poors access to my printer?

Helping poor people treats symptoms of capitalism. The idea of discussion is to better understand the system causing the symptoms. If you're going to do things in meatspace then the more productive thing than volunteering to help the poor would be to work on building a radical organization (which can also deal with symptoms like poverty) that is focused on collectivising local political power for the people to effect change locally.