Was Not Socialist Germany socialistic or capitalistic?

It was state capitalism with a very large safety net.

Just remember it's "capitalist" like the USSR was "communist."

There cannot be and has never been a capitalism without a state, because or similar body which guarantees property rights is required for a system based on hierarchy and artifical scarcity.

To add
The USSR never even formally called its economy "communist", rather "socialist". The same cannot be said for formally self-identified "capitalist" nations, which never tried to play half-half game.

youtube.com/watch?v=3gUgfyVt3mE

What do you call state capitalism? Isn't that the state controlling the means of production?

Likewise, you need a state in order to not have private property. A society without property only exists with coercion.
The USSR claimed to be marxist and was governed by the Communist Party.

Yes. Licenses and backroom deals are means for the state to control the means of production even if they aren't directly in charge of them.

It's important to point out the minute but huge difference between the state indirectly controlling the means of production versus the state influencing the ownership of the means of production. On a scale of fucked up, the former is much worse.

Fuck, forgot my flag when I switched to the computer.

I wouldn't say you need a state to not have private property.

It's just without a state, the definitional differences between private and personal property are nearly arbitrary outside of select circumstances.

Hitler picked and chose whatever fucking beliefs suited him the best whether they be the right or the left. To assign a label to the economic system of Nazi Germany is like trying to label the economic system of the Roman Empire: you're dealing with people who openly flaunted how much they did not give a shit about the economy.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."

As such, they had some national industries (Reichswerke Hermann Göring), privatized other shit (privatization only contributed about 1.4% to German fiscal revenues in this time period in question by the article that meme image in the first post states), spent tons of money on that Autobahn thingy and enacted the first anti-smoking/animal rights acts in the world but then fleeced the German people with the Volkswagen worse than the jews they despised. They spent hugely on the military (to the point where by 1939 Germany was beginning to run a massive trade deficit) and on rail networks with their Four Year Plan (which required more state intervention in the economy to achieve in the first place - look up "mefo bills"). They also had social welfare programs like Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt.

Even in areas where the state wasn't a direct shareholder the Nazis still had means of controlling private companies, either through stacking the board with Nazi party members or direct coercion through shit like the New Plan which basically browbeat every bank in Germany to make the Nazis their primary lender.

So to claim that Germany during 1933-1945 was either capitalist or socialist is a fallacy. Germany was Germany, and the entire point of the 'turd position' is to subvert both ideologies in the first place. To claim Germany was one side or the other is simply to play into Hitler's hands 60 years on.

The difference is that you need workers for private property. Adam Smith once said the state is required because for every rich man there is 500 poor. In order to keep his property(the factory) he needs a means to initiate violence against the workers if they try to take it.

If there is no state, some people might want to live in a communist way, other people in a capitalistic way, other people in socialism…
Therefore, to me Ancom and Ancap are both oxymorons, since without a state, there won't be a specific unique system, there is no guaranteed dogma with anarchism.

Btw, did you mean "state directly controlling"?

Fascist economic theory is pretty close to social democracy, but social democracy is working within a capitalist framework and is capitalist as it's core.

Capitalist are a threat as they want to expand their power through the means of the state. They would substitute that for a domestic alternative if they were deprived of the state. Of course there would be various towns that are communist and capitalist, but I wouldn't be okay with anyone near me practising capitalism since I view it as a danger to my well being.

Also you forgot the part where Hitler threw all the union leaders in jail. Nazi Germany practice capitalism with some industry being run like the USSR's or China's state capitalism. And even then, the workers in the USSR had more autonomy over their workplace than anywhere in Nazi Germany.

On the flip side our definitions of the state are completely difference, and capitalists like myself wouldn't give a shit if you were around or not until you pointed a gun at my kids.

No, I meant there's a difference between the state indirectly controlling and the state influencing. There's obviously a difference though between direct and indirect control as well.

It doesn't matter what you personally think, it matter what the people with 100's of millions of dollars think. Those people will have the most influence and as they already do, try to expand their monopoly on power. Two antithetical systems really can't coexist. Anyway, automation is going to make capitalism completely and utterly outdated without a welfare state so I'm not worried about it.

you can't even agree on your own fucking definitions

as i said, playing into Hitler's dead hands. He's watching the world in 2016 from Hell and laughing at all of us.

I wouldn't consider modern China socialist and there were fundamental differences between the USSR and how state industry in Germany was done.

This is mainly due to the fact that although the USSR was autocratic, the """"end goal""""" was to get out of the revolutionary phase and begin communism where the individual could strive. Hitler specifically rejected the idea of the individual and that manifest itself in the way he ran industry.

What makes you think ancoms wouldn't coerce other people, expanding their power? It hapened in Catalonia.

And wasn't Nazi Germany on a capitalist framework too?

good ol' communism in twenty years eh?

~playing into Hitler's dead hands~

By what right does some criminal scum decide what should be the name ideology of Third Reich?

By what right does he force everyone to use Socialism as part of the name for one of the most un-Socialist ideologies?

Cease your incessant prattling, you filthy apologist, for it is freedom one cannot deny. It is freedom from linguistic shackles, put on us by some lying shit decades ago. Freedom from shameful cowardice and laziness of heart of previous generations.

USSR was Socialist. It's right there, in the name.

Idiotic socialists have been saying this for 200 hundred years.
it's almost like a bad meme now a days.

Yeah, Nazi Germany was capitalist. In case you didn't notice, no one takes socdems seriously.

The Civil War was due to the fascist overthrowing the democratically elected leftist government. I'd consider that more reclamation than pure imperialism. But yes I agree, both groups will want to expand their monopoly on power which is why I think the coexistence of capitalism and communism is impossible

I don't really understand what you're saying.

The service sector is already starting to switch over. Automation is talked about in reverent whispers now because we have self driving cars. The technology is advancing fast.

Anyway, I wouldn't really take the opinion of someone who gave up on socialism because capital was to hard to read seriously. Either way, you want to preserve hierarchy and aren't even an anarchist.

Words filters have proven to be useless as censorship tools on imageboards even since the word Weeaboo just remplaced the word Wapanese. They are nothing but memes at this point.

...

I hear Holla Forums doesn't have any free speech. You should go over there and chat with them. They've obviously used their freedom of thought, right?

Not him, but who cares if we're a real anarchist or not?

Voluntarists have never really claimed to be anarchists, most voluntarist thinkers detest the term. Our sense of "the right amount of government" is so miniscule that as far as 99.9% of the world population is concerned, we're "anarchists."

So fine, we're not anarchists according to your very specific definition. How does that change anything? We can address everything Capitalists say from a minarchist perspective if it makes you sleep better at night.

Or here's a better question: What makes hierarchy bad?

BIG RED TEXT AND IDENTITY POLITICS MEANS I CAN MAKE STATEMENTS WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING BACKING ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE, OR CITATIONS TO SUPPORT MY VIEWS

You argue for the USSR about as well as the USSR argued for itself, without any of the guns to back it.

I dunno, they slaughtered millions of Christians with guns to get their whole "atheist country" point across.

and guess what entrepreneurs investing in such technology.

In the future you will have a fleet of robots that you will employ or rent to do work.
Human labour will still exist.
because robots aren't smart/handy enough to do the tasks we do.
people 60 years ago thought we would have flying cars by now and all we got it's the internet.

and I hate to say it but NOT AN ARGUMENT.

That was the point I was trying to make, yes. When a country does it it can be coercive. user trying to make spiel online? Not so much.

I am an Anarchist but I'm not a socialist(economically) this fuckers cant get that passed through their thick skulls.

The internet is a far more game-changing thing than flying cars.

Then you aren't a fucking anarchist.
Read a fucking book

Except the vast majority of people are working in the service sector. All those jobs will be gone. Taxi, fast food, Starbucks etc. All gone. You're a fool if you think capitalism isn't already collapsing when it's lead to numerous environmental disasters. Even jobs like law are already starting to be automated.

You're not an anarchist because you want to preserve hierarchy. You're an anti-state capitalist.

What does it have to do with anything? Your "freedom" is nothing but support of status quo. A habit, not a decision. I would've called it a spook, if I was willing to get memefied.

This is just pitiful.

Nope. Even most anti-Bolshevik priest often weren't executed. Though, I do remember one bishop getting executed for being a sociopathic fuck during typhoid plague in labor camp.

Nah robots can already make cloth and still, a large part of them are made by humans in third world shitholes because it's cheaper.
Technical progress is only secondary to profit under capitalism.

Flying cars were always a stupid idea, tbh. Mass transit is the way of the future. If we have a future

Pray tell, where will the consumers get money to buy product when the majority of all jobs are automated?

Not an argument.

You don't even have arguments, you're just posting memes over and over again hoping one sticks.

It's 2016, I can Google literally every argument for your position in five minutes flat. Please give me something that isn't just spiel, I'm begging by this point.

But I actually think you're just a meme spewer pretending to be left for the lulz. Carry on.

This too. I don't think any engineers in the 50s were seriously thinking flying cars would be a thing.

The general public might make crazy predictions of the future, but engineers and scientists actually tend to underestimate the rate of progress. Loss of jobs to widespread automation is predicted by almost every expert in the field.

a fucking outdated book wont define Anarchism for me.

jobs that doesn't require skill are fucking obtuse and a waste of time even for the workers themselves.

Muh ecological disarters!

Capitalism is clearly collapsing this time.

Capitalism is clearly collapsing this time.

Capitalism is clearly collapsing this time.

for example: You aren't equal to a Doctor or an Engineer, there are people with specialized knowledge and skills that will be above you, you cant abolish that.
Horizontal society's are Idealistic and Utopian.

You said >but social democracy is working within a capitalist framework and is capitalist as it's core.
Which implies you don't think the same of Fascism

...

By what logic would an engineer or a doctor be 'above' me?
Just because he knows more about a certain thing? How does that give them hierarchical authority over me?

It actually does.
in that certain context.

...

I said both social democracy and fascism use a similar economic system.

Well at least you admit you're not an anarchist. Also

If an explosives expert screams at you to run, you should probably run. He doesn't have authority over you - you can always exercise your radical freedom - but it's a very bad idea to do anything but run.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wchnu3Lygr8

Any way back on topic Was Nazi Germany socialistic?

It actually was, to the same level that the soviet union accomplished socialism.

And you also said that social democracy works on a capitalist framework preceded by the word "but", hence implying fascism is different in that regard.

Not a single one.

This is what I call a perfection.
A quintessence of modern thought in one short sentence.

I've told you my position. It's not your problem if google doesn't find anything and you can't rephrase it properly.

That's my point tho
A doctor can't force me to take my medicine (even in current western society), so he holds no actual authority over me

No. How many times should that be repeated?

You literally have word filter to make this thing clear automatically.

Ah yes. Like "Democratic Republic of the Congo".

By the same logic your boss can't force you to work.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

doctors are necessary in society, bosses are not

He cant but the thought of starvation does

Yeah, 'cause word filters have a proven track record of doing fuckall.

Similarly the thought of dying from disease would compel you to follow the doctor's instructions, right?

Word filters are pure totalitarianism.

you should be ashamed of them.

only Tankies use them with out even caring.

A boss doesn't hold any power over you you Thick headed bastard!

Trump 2016 detected

but the doctors instructions arnt work yourself to half death and get a fraction of the value you made

A doctor's interests and your interests coincide. A boss' interests and your interests contradict.

I guess what im saying is the doctors instructions are in your best interest but the bosses is in his best interest

Listening to your doctor is actually useful, because they have actual knowledge that saves your life.
Different thing when you're supposed to obey the mcdonalds manager when he shouts at you that your flippin burgers wrong.

...

let's see
Doctor says take this pill or you'll die.
Boss says hey can you do five hours overtime tonight, unpaid ofcourse, if not I'll fire you.

Find the difference

Don't bother, he's an ancap. Even though Murray Rothbard straight up said they weren't anarchist, the cognitive dissonance is to strong.

Employer - employee.

Are a symbiotic relation.

When will you get that through your thick skulls!

employers are not necessary
in capitalism maybe
but we're not capitalists

I'm arguing against the ancap I don't know about you.

Let's see how long will it take you till you run out of toilet paper.

can you go back to Holla Forums or leddit or wherever your stinkhole is

No, they aren't. Totalitarianism is when you get your face splashed with acid. Or, you know, gasoline. And then set on fire.

Because that's how it works IRL.

I even posted "turbo tankie mode" to get my point across.

You are being retarded.

...

yea because it takes a boss to tell you how to run the machines youve been running for years

Yeah the shareholders that hold authority over the worker really provide an invaluable service. If the workers need a boss they'll elect one. It's parasitic. Workers can organize themselves in many jobs( like organizing a store, in fat I've worked in places where they get employees to do maths). Without the workers the employer has no work.

...

It's relationship of parasitism

...

Go ahead you have been saying that for 200 hundred fucking years.

no boss no work place as simple as that.

Shitposting raises board quality.

Isn't Scientology about the study of science?

did the boss build the workplace?
christ

What is worker Co-ops the the post
you fucking retard

I mean we have but you shoot us every time.
:^(

With money he purchased all the necessary tooling and space.
so pretty much yes.

...

...

Well if you try to take over my tooling I would freaking shoot you.
because it's my property.

You got to be fucking kidding me
imputing capital is not doing the work

you're not an anarchist
fuck off

In both cases the workers already sold their work force.

fair deal.

So bosses have some preordained gift to create work? If they didn't bless us with their amazing managerial powers we would still be banging rocks together?

I would but there's this pesky thing called the state which colludes with capital to prevent that from happening.

Someone should Mondragon that they're impossible. They've gone for 60 years without knowing this crucial fact. Their 75,000 employees should be informed that their model business is impossible and we need bosses.

I think they are over 100,000 workers now

I'm beginning to think you're legitimately retarded. Do co-ops not exist? They all own an equal share in the company and wages are decided democratically

LITERALLY INFANTILE

I'm not a socialist.

Well lets get rid of the state and let people voluntarily organize and trade.

You go ahead live in the comuna with your comrades.
I will keep my workshop.

no state will be later restored.

Mondragon was but an illusion created by the Aliens to spread glorious revolution, user.

Thoses already exist in France, and yet they still employ people to cook and to deliver.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

I understand your frustration.

How will property rights be enforced?

I don't see how you can make a statement like this and still consider yourself an anarchist in any way shape or form.

inb4 private police

I'm about to go completely crazy!

I cant even go to Holla Forums because the fascist want to steal my stuff too.
oh my look at the commies they want to steal my stuff too.
fucking leaches!

Okay, as long as you admit you're only going with your ideology cause you fundamentally misunderstand anarchism

DONT TREAD ON MY PROPERTY MEME RIGHTS

What stuff? Nobody wants your fleshlight and waifu body pillow.

Keep cuddling with the Marxist-Leninists.
We ill see how it turns out.

I'M DONE!

Pics related.

The quote is mis-attributed and actually by S t r a s s e r

For fuck's sake!

This is your mind on ayncrap

Great, now we have ancaps shitposting here. Thanks guys.

I begin questioning what I did wrong if Holla Forums mods -haven't banned me within 24 hours of posting.

k

I can explain it to you if you want, but I felt shitposting was preferable.

Nice reddit dog tho

Free speech doesn't exist. You didn't choose the language you think nor speak in.

I have shitty memes too.

The Only anarchist I respect other than the Ancaps and Agorists are the Mutualists.

The other branches are completely brain dead.

Good luck in this hellhole!

I know man.

have a good one!

Top kek.

that's weird because your ilk have always had a soft love for nazis

...

I understands why. I just hold myself to a higher moral standard than you who said if someone looses their job in a recession they should starve to death.

Ancaps are basically Nazis, you know.

How so?

Then it isn't a good business.

you deserve to be broke if you cant compete.

Yeah whatever, imbecile

That only occurs in a labor surplus.

Labor surpluses are nature's way of telling you to get educated and stop relying on the bare minimum skills to get by in life.

There's a gay German on our board who addresses this pretty well.

>>>/liberty/24054

This is how you water down terms like Nazism.

Being a good business is not something to be proud of, because it has nothing to do with whether your product is actually good. Capitalism no longer competes to make the best product, it competes to make the same shitty thing for less.

By that logic we should all work in sweatshops because they out compete us.

...

See part two.

Liberty is good until something else happens.

Take away the spooky nationalism and racial bullshit and you have the same psychotic fixation with authority and the same denial that it is in fact authority.

I'm sorry, didn't you say you were going to leave? Stop violating the NAP pls, I feel very attacked and triggered

I'm sorry, maybe I should refer to you guys are STADISTS or TODALIDARIANS :DDD

So predictable.

Every time.

Simply ebin Holla Forums

And here we go: when "just work hard and make your own living" isn't enough, the goalposts constantly move until standards are grossly unreasonable for most people.

You don't give a shit about others, so others will not give a shit about you. Get used to the notion, because security isn't free.

Nod an argumend

I've been trying to remember to sage.

A capitalist company will pay it's workers less than the co-op even if they make the same product and co-ops have been shown to be more efficient. They get out competed because the businesses success is determined by how much capital the capitalist can reinvest. This is pretty basic economics dude

...

WinCo would disagree with your notion.

CostCo to a certain extent.

...

Dictators aren't 'kind' by definition. When has a dictator in history ever not been a repressive piece of shit?
at least you can admit as much
Any ideology can and does declare it has good intentions, that is however irrelevant as to what it results in.
We take issue with exactly the moral problem that said 'private society' would pretty much violently expel the negative externalities it produces.
I'm glad you guys finally abandoned him I guess

So how would you address this issue then?

You know there's a period between full automation and legitimate post-scarcity, yes?

Isn't it you lefty types always going on about how the world is overpopulated? So tell me, how would you go about it?

All I've pointed out is that the bare minimum changes over time. When there is a labor deficit, the bare minimum goes down. When there is a labor surplus, the bare minimum goes up.

You didn't argue against what I said. What I said still applies to the vast majority. The businesses success is determined by how much capital is reinvested. This will always be less in a co-op

There aren't a whole lot of Malthusians left among the left in my experience

I've never seen a leftist on here talk about over population. That's Holla Forums with their Jewish conspiracies. There's a whole bunch of leftist theory if you're willing to read it.

...

I sure hope that's a shitpost flag

That's anarcho queer.

Anfem is only compatable with Ancommies.

If I remember right, the Mises quote was in the historical context of Mussolini's rise to power.

We were never friends of Stefan. No one likes him.

Thomas "Tom Sank" Sankara

Sultan Qaboos Bin Said

António de Oliveira Salazar

Peisistratus

Lee Kuan Yew

Emir Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum

Gaius Octavius

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

King Idris I of Libya

Todor Hristov Zhivkov

Just to name a few.

Don't get me wrong, dictators have issues with the centralization of power, but that's a different issue from if they were pieces of shit or not.

Have you ever bothered to read any leftist literature or do you just come here to argue and shitpost, cherry picking parts of arguments without addressing it's core?

A cursory google shows that he regularly tortures dissenters
lmaooo c'mon son
You've clearly never lived in the UAE
Ehh kinda, needed a bloody war to get there
This meme needs to end.
Ataturk was a piece of shit that regularly made people dissapear. But even fucking liberals adore him because muh secularism

I'm not too familiar with the rest and can't be bothered to read up on them right now

Meant for

Indeed, because in an aynclap society there would without a doubt be cases of employers sexually harassing or abusing their employees and threatening to fire them if they retaliated in any way whatsoever.

Whatever.

He's one of the most popular OpinionsTube personalities that don't exclusively whine about feminism, and is pretty much the face of anarcho-capitalism, which at no point has he formally renounced.

This is what Mussolini meant when he said anarchists are baffled dictators.

Not an anclap but this is bad argument, Democrats call themselves left wing afterall. Beside ecelebs are cancer.

How can you argue for your ideology so poorly, and still stand by it?

Fuck off already.

so are lefties honest dictators?

Also Mussolini said that because he was asked about Malatesta.

You must be a tankie.

Well Mises took him seriously.

I'm just shit posting.
I wont change any ones minds.

I'm arguing with Marxist Leninists.
ancoms.
Socdems.
and so on and so on.
we wont be able to reach common ground.

I'm just wondering why if your shown a flaw in your argument instead of refuting it you shitpost. Are you just so religiously devoted to it you wouldnt change for anything?

I think it's more an issue of creating strawmen.

So he can scream "not working = starvation! Hah! Take that Capitalists!" when the other user points out that they can always quit the job.

Nevermind the fact that if a co-op fails in socialism, everyone starves because they had to all put their money (E.G. resources) into it.

I'm open to change.

I'm not Stiff, I'm open to work/cooperate hand in hand, with other Anarchists.

but I just don't see socialism working.(economically)

that's why I wont digest it.

Also English is not my native language.
so it's a little hard for me to keep myself in track.
but any way.

...

Mutualism.

Read Prouhdon!

I'm aware
thanks anayway

lel

Please explain to me how aynclap wouldn't lead to rampant sexual harassment, because I've had this exact same conversation with an ancap IRL. In an aynclap society, literally everything, including the courts and laws, are privatized. This means that there would be basically no labor regulations, and if there were, they would have to be bought by the workers in exchange for them getting paid less than other people who are willing to get fucked harder by their boss.

This means that it would be ridiculously easy for a boss to take advantage of their employee, and then give them no recourse to pursue justice. Especially when this person is already their employee, is working on their employer's property and under a contract that may include something along the lines of them having to also suck their boss off if propositioned.

And as far as aynclaps are concerned, there's literally nothing wrong with this because they're under contract and are working on the employer's property. An aynclap who isn't just denying this wouldn't happen for some reason will say that they should have just gotten a better job, so fuck 'em, they're stuck with it.

Okay.

see flag

I believe stealing to give to people in Capitalism without market has more advantage today than otherwise. You don't need a market or a currency to rally people behind, and to order, you need what they want. In late capitalism, what people want is resource.

That's not a strawman. He was pointing out you can quit and be Exploited at another job. You didn't refute anything.

Why do you think we wouldn't have a reserve of resources? Market socialism exist to

If it wasn't obvious, I'm not an AnCap. I just use their flag because it's accurate for most intents and purposes, user.

If you want to see what I've been saying on the problems and goals of capitalism, I've been serious instead of shitposting over on the Christian thread.

Anyways your entire post assumes a labor surplus. Why do you automatically assume a labor surplus in every field?

I happen to work in a field that has a labor deficit and have the ability to tell a boss to go fuck themselves if they fuck with me in any way, shape, or form. My field takes about two years to become affluent in it, and two more years to become skilled enough to make it on your own out in the field with my mentors reimbursing a lot of my initial costs, so the argument of "muh lack of education, muh lack of money" isn't really an issue.

Propertarians thinkers are making strawman of themselves then.

The economic calculation problem (knowledge problem) has a joint use for both central planning and lack of currency.

Currency will naturally arise (typically in the form of a resource as mentioned). Assuming otherwise is to ignore reality.

Stop assuming all jobs have a labor surplus.

The process can and will be automated once it becomes profitable.

cooking and delivery can be automated.

those are 9gag tier

I'm not sure this is insoluble.

Hey sorry I was out all day, anyway here:

The fact that there may be a surplus or deficit of labour, is irrelevant to the fact that exploitation is taking place.

To illustrate this, let's look at how surplus value is created. I'll use an example from Capital

If A trades $40 of wine to B for $50 of corn, it appears that A has created a surplus of $10. But this is not true.

If we look at the circulation of commodities, the same amount of value was circulated in total, that being $90. The value did not change - no new value was added, the distribution was shifted in favour of A and to the disadvantage of B.

So this begs the question: how do capitalist create surplus value, if not buy cheating(or selling a product for above its value)? This can only be accomplished by buying at a lower price, or selling at a higher price(or both).

But how does that manifest itself in relations of the capitalist and the commodities he sells?

1. The Capitalist can sell the commodity for MORE than it's value(represented by the quantitative aspect of the price in accordance with it's value). However this does not work for commodities that do not have a monopoly on the market( like a one of a kind painting, for example). The value of the product get's "normalized" when producers produce the commodity on the intent of selling it and the social necessary labour time to produce the product is established, represented by it's average price. The capitalist therefore, has to adhere to this law. So how does he do it then?

2. By wages. You've probably heard the "wages are exploitation" a billion and one times on here already, but contrary to what you might think it has nothing to do with the employee not being grateful for the useful work of the manager.
(example)

The employee performs $70 worth of labour, and the employer performs $120 worth of labour, and the product sells for $190 dollars. If the employer and employee received full compensation for their work they would receive the respective aforementioned amounts. But assuming the capitalist is represented by the employer, he runs into a problem: how does he create surplus value? Only by paying the worker less than his work is worth. If he did not, he would receive no surplus value. The fact that the manager receives a bigger portion of the commodity's monetary representative( money) than the employer, when they receive full compensation does not constitute exploitation. It is only when the employer pays the employee LESS than his work is worth does exploitation occur.

Therefore, the fact that you work in a field where you could perhaps negotiate to only giving up 7% of labours worth to the capitalist(as in your dank meme) does not change the fact that you are still undergoing exploitation. Just because this exploitation is less devastating to you than it is to someone who works in a field with a labour surplus and has 60% of their labour extracted as surplus value to the employer does not mean that updating ones skill eliminates the problem of exploitation.

This parasitic relationship becomes even MORE apparent when we bring in shareholders, who despite performing no labour will receive more than the labourer(in compensation) because he owns 40% of the company.

In order to function the individual must become the exploiter or the exploitee, and the capitalist system does not function without the latter.

You said in the other thread you haven't really read much socialist literature so I recommend reading through it if you want to debate here, but no harm done if it's explained to you here.

Also, I'm curious to where you live and what class you were in growing up. You can't compare the socioeconomic situation of someone growing up in a middle class or rich area with rich parents to someone growing up in the ghetto, like in Flint where the water was literally poisoning them(and in poor areas in an Ancap society there would be no incentive for a company to provide water to them anyway as no one would pay for it and no incentive for a company to move there since no one would buy anything, in fact one of the only ways we've mediated this problem is BY government intervention where we give capitalist incentive to invest there with subsidies)

Even then, there is a general surplus of labour in America(most people who graduate college don't find a job. The fact that you have to go into X field that at that particular moment has a labour deficit just shows how stifling capitalism is to the creative spirit). And with the vast majority of service jobs(where most people work in and which are required to maintain capitalism) being shipped overseas( and soon to be automated regardless of what you might think, it's gonna happen at one point or another) means that the only way for these people to compete would be to work in the sweatshop conditions the companies get away with overseas.

Anyway, I have a feeling you're an "individualist anarchist" which are pretty much lumped in with ancaps by other anarchist because anyone who wants to preserve institutions of hierarchies isn't an anarchist.

My basic issue with all people in the pseudo-anarchist camp is that they fundamentally misunderstand capitalism(fun fact: Porkies known as the Koch brothers pay for a lot of the Austrian School propaganda that is put out).

Just got back home. Going through chakai.org/tea/ right now so I'm replying intermittently since it's comfy time right now.

I grew up in the lower middle class below the poverty line. My mom lived off of foodstamps for the last eight years of my youth. I had to drop out of Uni because I couldn't work 16+ credit hours of engineering school with a 40 hour (+ overtime) job (which I needed to pay bills). Found out about the electrical stuff I ended up going into afterwards.

Okay. Sounds like you were pretty crushed by the system( which I am to). You do realize in socialism you wouldn't be having any of those problems? You wouldn't of had to drop out of uni to begin with?

This thread just keeps on giving. First "i can google every argument to your position", now this.

I legitimately hoped you were joking there.

It's a joke dude, don't bother. He's never read any theory.

nat socialism was obviously capitalist, just as fascism or falangism