If I understand leftism correctly...

Don't social democracies just happen to have enough oppression of free speech to keep their opponents from gaining momentum and enough regulation to keep entrepreneurs from entering any field that could make them money?

How does one exploit people who have the right to end their employment in one company and work for someone else? Is the people not understanding this the fault of the public schools?
Instilling exorbitant minimum wages and healthcare mandates making it risky to hire a young person, flooding the market with illegal low-skill labor asa lucrative alternative, and lying to you and telling you it's the other side that caused this so that you'll vote for them, now that's exploitation.

Because that company down the road is also exploitative.

Economic left doesn't refer to the elimination of class through wealth redistribution and bureaucracy?

He can work for me. I won't exploit him. That is if I'm allowed to start a business and make enough to hire him.

The existence of a gentle master doesn't make a a slave any more free.

But he's getting paid money, with which he can invest in his own business and give a job to someone else and not exploit him. Slaves aren't even free to work for other people let alone get compensated.

Ok ownership I can understand but how is everyone going to manage the means of production? From practical standpoint, how can you run a factory with hundreds of people if they all manage production?

He's not getting the full value of his labor if you're hiring him for profit.

Goods cost far less to make than they do to sell. The worker has far less responsibilities than the employer, and as such his labor is worth less. When he goes on to form his own business, the tables are turned, but if you do not allow him to gain the capital, he will never see that opportunity.

So freedom with a price tag? Most people will never make enough to be their own master.

And neither are we. We can never be free under the violence of private property .

Not even your private property? Besides regulation has much more to do with the cost of entry in a business than anything else.

All the "responsibility" for a product falls on the workers shoulders. He is the one who does the work, after all. The capitalist is an unnecessary and useless leech, a layer of bureaucracy standing between the worker and the product of his labor.

Bull fucking shit.

Such as by hiring him for shit wages and pocketing the rest?

Sure. Private property is violence. I can use it strategically to advance my purposes, but the end goal is to abolish it.

Private property law is a form of regulation, you know.

How can anyone possibly believe that? Do they have any idea how much strategy and logistics go into a single hamburger?

That belief is a sign of ignorance born of poverty caused by the same policies you are taught to support

No, it's a constitutional right. What you earn is yours to keep. Another thing I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics it takes to refute.

In the past due to the lack of technology serfdom and chattel slavery were the norm. In these systems people stayed in one place. Due to advances in transportation technology people can now move around more and choose their exploiter but they are still being exploited. That doesn't mean the exploitation isn't still there its just more mobile due to technology.

Technological development necessarily produces globalisation. The capitalists can move their business overseas just as much as workers can move their work elsewhere. The class system / exploitation system has become more mobile. If they don't bring in cheap labour as immigrants the capitalists will just move to where the cheap labour is anyways. They will always move to exploit people where they are cheapest in the third world or elsewhere.

Fuck off.

Post the full version next time, please and thank you.

...

Uh, there are no workers in the Strategy and Logistics Department? Not every worker is a burger-flipper.

Haha dude. The Constitution is literally a government regulation. It is a proclamation from the government of enumerating all their powers. You can't put laws you like in one bucket ("glorious Constitution") and laws you don't in another ("evil regulation").

Serfdom died because of the Black Death. Labor was short therefore worth more, then they realized that selling them products they could afford had a nice consequence of improving their own quality of life. Not that it's expected for a person who supports the singular political system responsible for the most mass poverty and suffering to understand history, or know the role of protectionism in a prosperous nation.

"The workers" as mentioned there also had bosses who provided the means to create the things made. They began as workers themselves, but were smart and put their wage to good use. The two blocks lead to each other in a loop that goes back to the first person who decided to pay his plague-stricken serf a wage. That serf certainly wasn't whining about exploitation or referring to himself as a collective to absolve himself of personal responsibility.

The Constitution disagrees with you. Income Tax, Amendment 16.

The capitalist only "provides" in the same way that a robber might "decline to steal". If it weren't for the capitalist, the worker would be receiving the full product of his labor instead of having it taken by a parasitic leech.

Your meritocracy fantasy falls apart when you realize that the economic system is built on violence.

In small businesses those tasks are handled by the entrepreneur himself. In a business large enough to need specialized people in those positions, there are many of those, and without the 'middle man' CEO, the business would suffer a lack of communication and crumble. Why do you think every Communist society on a national level has a chairman?

If it weren't for the capitalist, the worker would be out of work, and they would resort to actually stealing from people, you know taking the money they earned, the 'value' of their labor.

No
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_freezing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreclosure
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

I'm sorry, I was referring to the Constitution, not bastard edits the Left created to destroy it.

If a capitalist plays a secondary role as a worker, then that does little to advance your claim that the capitalist is a necessary part of the equation. Like I said earlier, "working" does not always mean manual labor. It could be organizing or communication, in other words the role of a CEO. That worker will get his share for the work he has done, don't worry.

Why? Seems like people would just go on and use the farms and factories themselves if it weren't for the capitalist standing in the way.

So you are referring to something that is no longer the law of the land. Why should we care, even in the slightest?

What system exactly is it that I support?

Though individual events like the black death do have some effect on history, the overall driving force of society throughout history so far has been the level of technological development.
Protectionism is reactionary. It is against the tide of history which is in favour of globalization through technological development. Free trade is superior.

lmao my dude, learn your constitutional history/jurisprudence. lmao “bastard edits teh ebil left created”

t. constitutional lawyer

That's why capitalism is unjust. The capitalist did not earn their profit, it belongs to the workers.

Then you should realize in capitalism you don't keep what you earn. You just get scraps thrown to you by your master.

No one hear supports a state capitalist system like the soviet union.

Provide a source for this bullshit, and by left do you mean liberals? Everyone in America is a liberal, or a fascist theocrat

So not the actual founding document of the United States but the imaginary metaphysical construct that neoconservatives refer to whenever they lose an argument?

Most of them no, are you completely unaware of how bad social mobility is nowadays? America has some of the worse social mobility in the first world, most capitalist came from a wealthy family that passed down their wealth to their children.

Unfortunately the solution is proven to merely give less people the right to be rich.

Direct democracy on a national level is a pipe dream; representatives always find their way into the mix, and the will of the people gets misrepresented.

Farms and factories aren't natural formations. They were built: not because workers needed to work, but because a person wanted to create a product. The factory is his creation; it would not exist without him. To declare this to not belong to him would be to steal from him, to exploit his work for the profit of others.

See above. Work doesn't grow on trees, just like money.

Otherwise known as compensation based on the market value of your labor.

You are implying that the current capitalist mode of production is, in fact, a natural fact of life, which is completely false. It's merely the next logical step from feudalism, the last major mode.

By your own logic, why can't a bunch of people choose to make a factory and all work in it?

...

People are barely scraping by in the current economic milieu with the pittance they get for their labor. We got people working 3 jobs just to be able to afford rent. How are they supposed to start a business? Even if they managed scrape enough to start one, you might as well take that money to the casino and play some roulette. The chances of succes are about equal.

He was able to build it because he was already rich in the first place. Our economy runs on debt, the only thing people have to look forward is to be debt ridden until the day they die to support the economy, regular workers being able to afford to have a factory built is pure fantasy. Especially since they have to work with on a wage, which is barely enough to take care of a family of two kids. Even small business are becoming a thing of the past because large corporations, and fizzling them out of existence to earn more profit.

You can still be rich, just not by owning capital and can just sit around playing golf all day while getting rich off the backs of workers.

So the market value of labor is fucked then? Good to know. I mean we already knew but thanks for driving the point home.

The factory is built by workers. Without them, it would not exist.

Also this.

Work is done by the workers. The capitalist does not work.

I just realized socialism would kill imageboards

I laughed at your post so you can get a reply.

America is also the highest taxed nation on the planet with the largest government. Do you not see the link between government meddling and social mobility? Of course not, because you think the solution is more government involvement. Of course people born with money have money to hire accountants and lawyers to make heads and tails of things; their parents are the very ones responsible for the situation.

Capitalism is the next step from mercantilism, which happened alongside feudalism and ended up replacing it. It would be more accurate to call Communism a continuation of feudalism, exploiting the labor of the people for the profit of the State. Of course you true believers deny that the Soviets were commies, because you don't want to admit that the Soviets are the endgame of any commie movement.

A bunch of people can choose to partner up and start their own factory, but I guarantee you the ones who draw CEO won't be happy making the same as the ones who draw cap screwer.

What about Henry Ford and the indie rock group playing at that club down the street?

I'm sure I've already touched this.

You don't go from 0 to factory straight out of high school you idiot. You work. You buy a push mower. You upgrade to a ride-on mower. Then you buy another and pay a guy to ride it. Then eventually you gain the capital to build a factory making lawnmowers. Those "regular workers" who don't have factory money in their 50s either didn't want it or managed their money poorly. Socialism is a safety net for stupid people.

I'm sure you understand how making people more expensive to hire wouldn't solve that issue, but did you know that until Clinton people were able to easily afford a car on a factory worker's salary? Price is a balance of supply and demand; if you can't build something for a price your workers can afford, you're going to fail. This can be mitigated by requiring people to buy your things or cutting costs by not hiring people and replacing them with robots or illegals.

It would be accurate to call capitalism a product of feudalism. What you are referring to is state capitalism as the state is profiting from the worker. The USSR was state capitalist as explained here

Nonsense. The Soviet Union is not an endgame of any socialist movement because it is a product of the 20th century and we cannot turn back the tide of history. At most you could argue that the People's Republic of China is the endgame of any communist movement. China is state capitalist though.

Henry Ford was still a capitalist so he still profited off of people's labour. You are ignoring the entire point by claiming it is cherry picking. Capitalism is not a meritocracy as has been pointed out multiple times. You make money from profiteering not from production that is why such examples exist. Merit has nothing to do with it.

<

Yes certainly. So many useful rich people exist, have existed. Truly we owe them our lives for being so useful.

Okay I give up on you. Me giving up doesn't mean you are right it just means you are to stubborn unwilling to try and let go of the ideas you are used to in order to understand the ones others are presenting to you.

Henry Ford was an inspiration to Adolf Hitler for their shared hatred of the Jews thinking they are taking over the world. He is quoted in Mein Kampf. He also was against unions. He set spies to find out how his workers spent their money. Yeah real great guy….

Let's make a world where a majority of the rich leech off of us for nothing more than being born into wealth and are far more entitled than any welfare recipient, but justify it because mark down the street has an indie bag and Henry Ford existed despite the contexts of his success being entirely different in the 21st century.

Truly, we are the stupid ones, for not throwing mind out like you have.

The State owns the means of production, the State represents the workers, is that neither socialism nor communism? Even the Federation of Star Trek was a corrupt bureaucracy. Is there an implementation of a collectivist state that doesn't exploit its subjects for the goals of the leaders? How about we accept exploitation is a consequence of any society that has existed or will exist, and say why everyone should be miserable instead of those without buainess skills?

Who was, in part, responsible for the great depression in America.

What about them?

It means you lack the ability to sway me, which means I have won.

Not really. This isn't really a debate.

That is state capitalism.

I am willing to accept that. As long as we also point out that this is a product of abiogenesis and evolution and other natural processes without purpose. "Merits" and "morals" and other such spooks have nothing to do with it.

No, you haven't.

So is there a collectivist state that hasn't devolved into state capitalism? Is it serving its people better than a free market would provide?

Not that I know of no.

It's impossible to sway someone who doesn't listen and just repeats their mantra while someone else is explaining to them. Come back when you actually have the ability to suspend your belief in capitalism and disbelief in socialism and communism. Otherwise it's just wasting everyones time.

You have to ask yourself: why are the wages worth so little? Hint: it's not because Uncle Moneybags isn't coughing up the extra $10/hr he has stuffed in his mattress.

So I have to have faith in Communism in order for it to work? Isn't that special pleading?

Go on then, why are wages worth so little according to you?

I thought you understood capitalism enough to dismiss it.

Can't you read?

I asked you first. Please don't tell me your answer is "idk lol you tell me"

If the goal is to make profit, it's only natural to reduce all costs to the minimum. And wage are a cost. The wage is not based on what the worker actually produce, but on what the capitalist want to pay and getting away with it. And he don't really have a choice, because the one who partake anyway in making the most profit accumulate more capital and can buy out/asphyxiate competition. It as nothing to do with what their business actually do, nothing to do with the worth of their contribution.

I told you specifically it wasn't Uncle Moneybags stuffing money in his mattress. Are you really that obtuse to your surroundings? Does the mantra "higher wages create more demand create more jobs create higher wages" sound familiar? It's what the current administration has been riding on. If you know anything about capitalism you could see what's wrong with it.

...

Ha, funny. But really, I knew about the redistribution of wealth to destroy the middle class bit, you should know the basic mechanics of capitalism. The problem really is that self-evident.

No, havent you heard of suspending disbeleif? Is English not your first language or perhaps you're in an English speaking country that doesnt use this term but its a common term. It does not mean a leap of faith, it's just when you try to temporarily shrug off what you think you know so you can learn without bias in order to make a more fair comparison.

That would be the general interest of the capitalist system, but not the interest of capitalists on an individual level. The capitalists are not a hivemind, nor a cabal à la Illuminati. Individually, capitalist want to make their profits as high as possible, without consern other than their immediate competition. And some of them genuinely believe they actually make the world better from it (trickle down economy, invisible hand and so on).
Just like you know using bus for deplacements is the general interest (to avoid traffics jam), but individually, you go faster using your car than using the bus, since everyone think this way and you have traffic jams.

Suspend disbelief to learn that capitalism is evil because private property is evil because everything should be free because capitalism is evil? Disbelief isn't enough to be suspended.

You seem to have missed the point that that doctrine is completely wrong.

Evil is just a religious term really so I'd rather not use that. It is exploitive and economic crisis is a common part of the capitalist system. It's not a coincidence that people who run corporations have a higher percentage of sociopaths than the general public.It's because they got to the top by stepping on people when it doesn't have to be that way.

When they say private property they just mean for a business to work in this system it's better to be property of the group doing the work. You still own your own home and personal property.

Except it is exactly what is happening. Capitalists are outsourcing overseas to reduce the costs, even if the factories they previously had made benefits. They use competition between States to reduce their taxes for increasing profits. If it was only for wages, the economy would collapse because they're no longer enough to afford enough commodities to sustain economic growth. Debt is the motor of economy.

Debt is what happens when you spend money you do not have. Whoever told you otherwise must have been the same one who forgot to tell you how capitalism works.

No shit
Doen't change the fact the biggest part of our current economy is based on it. We're currently building growth on borrowed money. But at some point you have to pay back the money you borrowed, since you can't do that with current wages, crisis happens.

hello tankie, now GTFO

OP, what you described was called "vulgar socialism" by Marx. It won't work that way, a critical thing you are missing is democratic control of the means of production.

...

That is how capitalism works, though

A capitalist owns private property, protected using volence from the state.

A starving worker with no other means to survive works for him, or another capitalist.

What they produce is sent to the capitalist, who gives a small amount back to the worker.

The worker doesn't have enough to survive, so they go into debt. Also, consumerist culture encourages them to go into debt willing (as it does the capitalist, and also the capitalist's belief ina failing company may cause them to enter debt)

what the fuck

You can't make this shit up.

Well, the individual capitalist doesn't have all the consumers working for him. He can lower his own worker wages and still have consumers

holy shit capitalism is genius

...

The sassanach are onto us! Shut it down!

You don't. At least read the fucking FAQ, nigger.

Wew, you're stupid.

what about social democracies in Europe, the governement is much more present in Scandinavian countries or in France, for example.

You do realize that even hard right economists believe in single-source health care and minimum income right?

ITT a fucktard not only thinks coops don't exist but that they cant exist.

nigga wut

I think he was thinking corporate taxes while ignoring other taxes. Even then it's not true; several countries have a larger corporate tax one being Japan. They totally miss the fact the only countries without taxes or low taxes are tourist spots or full of oil.

I don't believe the issue was that co-op cannot exist, but that their executives are paid grossly more than their employees, negating any implied advantage over a corporation while also being less efficient and failure-prone. How are people who elect to be exploited by one person freer than those who get to be exploited by anyone they choose?

Bullshit, the Soviets have a poor reputation so they have to be a perfect example of socialism so you can point at it when you lose an argument.

State ownership is not personal ownership. We don't want BIG GUBBERMINT, this is a retard platitude.

Socialism does not mean everyone gets the same wages, either. You're repeating PRATTs.

Co-operatives will always be at a disadvantage under capitalism because maximizing growth is impossible without exploitation.

Actually you have better odds playing roulette rather than starting your own business. Roulette has a 2.7% house edge. You can lose a lot more than 2.7% of your money running a business. Easily.

Checkers you are trolling. How could you lurk this board and not know what socialism is?