Capitalism works so well because it takes and guides natural human behavior...

The state has a monopoly on force and enforces the law. To think you could enforce the law with private agencies is idiotic. What will happen then is that the one who has the most money will have the monopoly on force and effectually determine the law.

The concept of ownership is violent in and of itself?

Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything, nor does socialism. If you honestly believe that the place in which you are raised somehow alters or even suppresses the natural survival instinct of a human being, you're vastly underestimating just how much animal is still within us.

Capitalism works because you can 'act' however you want, but you are guided to respect property and to preserve value for the future. Through your own self-interest, you pander to the self-interest of others.

If you own and live in a house and intend to sell it in the future, you will naturally incentivized to keep that house in shape and in good repair.

If you live in a house but the government owns it, you are more incentivized to get as much of a free ride as you possibly can. Why would you keep it repaired or cleaned beyond what you need to live? It's simply not logical to put in work on a project in which you gain no return, this is basic decision making and logical deduction.

You're honestly telling me that this wonderful people risen by the glowing tenants of socialism would universally go "Sure! I'll spend my labor and put in real effort to renovate this government owned housing JUST for the next guy that comes along"?

The most basic tenant of capitalism is that when trading, and both parties are on equal footing, they will not trade unless it benefits them both, creating value. Tell me, is it logical to made a trade when you ultimately make a loss on it?

Louisiana is socialist now. Quality b8, friend.

Yes, you need to use violence in order to defend private property. Otherwise, the workers could just take it from you. You need to use violence in order to enforce private property rights.

This makes no sense. Many people let their houses become a mess under capitalism. People fix a house up if they plan to sell it, but that says nothing about the house while the own it.

Do you think he's getting nothing out of this? His labour is going unrewarded?

Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery.

Look, the ancap is on the verge of learning something

...

...

You're doing nothing but making ipse dixit statements. Back them up with real evidence, because as it is, the idea that people are naturally disinclined to collectivize for self-interest instead of individualizing is plain and simply wrong according to most behavioral psychologists.

Existence in the physical world is violent. It's a very broad definition.

Violence is only necessary in its defense? Does that invalidate ownership? Is it the cause of violence or the reaction to something that already exists?

people have directly implied that self-interest is not inherent human nature, are you saying that he is *gasp* incentivized by self-interest? Even as a socialist?

That's my point, self-interest is king and capitalism does best because it directly panders to and supports it. I'm sorry if you don't like that reality but it's the truth.

What is so bad about this?

If you're not physically or mentally incapable you should have a goddamn job (assuming there are enough jobs in the first place). I'm all for socialist programs like welfare and shit, but you shouldn't get free shit just because you're alive.

Cool story, bro. Too bad capitalism is going down the shitter atm because of that very same human nature you jerk off to so much.

The state literally owns the money it is "taking" from you. That is why you alerting the police the next time the IRS makes you file taxes does nothing.

Yep. And the "only" thing about monarchism is that you have to respect the king's authority. And the "only" thing about slavery…ect. ect.

Holla Forums btfo

Centrals banks. Centralized everything is the problem.

I think "violent" is the wrong word to use. "Coercive" might be better.

That's a pretty strong argument against the concept of rent, too. And any other form of absentee ownership

State capitalism is the best system there is.
Look at China. From povery ridden agrarian shit hole to modernized superpower in just a few years.

I tend to agree. Violence (including person vs. person) is an inescapable part of the human existence. Anyone who claims that their philosophy is "non-violent" is fooling themselves.

This is one reason why ancaps are hard to take seriously. There is a reasonable case that could be made for the existence of property, but appeals to "the NAP" is not it.

I never said no one is incentivized by self interest. I said you can get the same result in socialism as you can in capitalism. As long as someone is rewarded for work, they will want to do it. A capitalist mode of production is not required.

You have to undergo exploitation in order to survive. I'm talking about wages, I believe you should have to work if it's required for the society, but work is not enjoyable and we should strive to eliminate it using technology.

Humans are the only species that could liberate itself from work. That can never happen under a capitalist system.

It invalidates the idea that in ancapistan you wouldn't need a statelike entity to enforce private property rights.

you've gotta be fucking kidding me. If anything China and the USSR were state socialist (not socialism proper, maybe proto-socialist). They were not impulsed to rapidly industrialize out of some desire for profit, but for the good of the people and the preservation of the worker's state in anticipation of the proletarian revolution (which failed to spread during their existence due to the hold of other capitalist powers and reversion to capitalism internally).

in other words, kys

Do you think China today is still socialist?

China's economic rise began with the capitalist reforms of their prior communist economy e.g. farm privatization.

A worker who works 40 hours a week gets paid the minimum amount necessary to sustain them and to make sure they end up buying into the system

It is economically irrational to pay them any more

A commune will pay the workers their share of the work, which is how much they produce, which is a more incentizing system than having your pay be determined by an outside enemy

Pic related: the worker can only work for the nickel instead of the far higher wage he deserves because he is limited in options - either work or starve.

Last thing: You are paid $160 for a day's labor. You work for the whole day and go home. Alternatively, you are paid $20 an hour. You work for 10 hours to pay off a mortgage. Alternatively, you are paid $10 for every tulip you plant. You plant enough tulips to pay off the mortgage and go home.

Does this make sense? Do you understand why giving workers control of the workplace encourages them to work more - reaping the rewards they sow instead of an arbitrary amount?

fuck off troll

Mao was shit. Stalin got shit done.

China is remarkably in that despite huge economic growth, satisfaction with life indexes show China essentially flat. This growth changed nothing for the average Chinese worker.

Of course, because previously everyone died from starvation and thus couldn't even participate in the "life satisfaction" survey.

Rolled 3, 5 = 8 (2d6)

I am struggling to conceive of a world without work. It's a world where people do nothing. Because to produce art and leisure you need to do work. You can remove manual labor, sure. But you will never remove work.

Leftcom user, have you ever tried to draw? Paint? Make music? Record a reading of a book? It is work. It is work to git gud and it is work to master once you're good. Otherwise you end up doing deviantart-tier crap.

A world without work is a world without people.

7

Is there a system of human interaction that eliminates violence and therefore does not require enforcement (statelike entities) of any kind?

Filling the solar system, and then the galaxy, and lastly the universe with with our species requires tremendous work. We're nowhere near to being workless.

Yeah, you change the fundamentals of the system so that private property no longer exist. It is only then that you can move to a non hierarchal societal structure, which is the furthest away from a state you can get.

You know that by work I mean menial, repetitive service jobs. You know, what the vast majority of people do under capitalism?

This is a lie, yes people starved to death, no it was not the majority of the population.

...

it has. this is not even debatable.

as a communist (i hope you're using your flag ironically), you should know that capitalism, despite being filled with contradiction, inefficiency and being antithetical to the kind of society we wish to achieve, is a very productive (by virtue of its exploitative) mode of production that is very capable of pulling economies out of nothing. marx posited and fully acknowledged this fact, which is what led lenin to institute his state capitalism reforms post-revolution in order to industrialize and modernize russia and its economy. and guess what? it pulled russia out of the backwards agrarian backwater it used to be.

china post-reform is much better off than china pre-reform, but pre-reform china had full food security, without mentioning that it had eliminated illiteracy, every chinese had access to basic AND higher education and higher life expectancy than ever before in its history.

Fair enough. You make good points.

Have you ever shitposted, user? It is work. It is work to git gud and it is work to master once you're good. Otherwise you end up doing reddit-tier crap.

So capitalism is like god? If we put a bunch of capitalists on the moon, they will eventually build a moon civilization to rival Earth using nothing but moon dust and the godlike power of capitalism?

Eh, kinda. The NEP was only necessary to restore the economy to pre-war levels (and keep the peasants happy). It was the 5-year plans that industrialized Russia, and there's no denying that those policies were examples of a planned economy (that is, not capitalist, but socialist in that things were produced for their use).

.>>851275
Humans lived in very small tribes for 97 % of our 150,000 year existence and you call that communism. Then you might as well call your circle of friends "communism" and a "classless society". These hunter and gatherer tribes hardly had any economy at all. Human nature with respect to the conditions in which we live now hadn't even the opportunity to show itself.
I mean, you could also argue against hygiene with that argument and claim that since humans didn't have toilet paper for 97 % of their existence, it wouldn't be human nature to have the desire to wipe your ass after you shit.

What stops the development of hierarchy in a non-hierarchical society? Is ambition and intelligence bred out? The fundamentals of the system are us humans.

HAHAHA. How is a system that is build upon property and rent be natural? How can you have a mutualistic relation if one person has the final say over if the other is going to eat or not?

Stopped reading right there.

Isn't that a job for programmers and engineers rather than politics then?

Also you are deluded if you think these hunter and gatherer tribes had no hierarchy and their own kind of private property, too.
The alpha male got to fuck the best women, got to eat the best food, that the beta males collected and hunted for him.

In communism achievements are recognized in the same way people recognize a doctor as a legitimate authority on your health in today's society. Only under communism could an actual meritocratic hierarchy exist based on one's abilities. The reason equality is mixed in here is because everyone has access to the education that makes it possible to become an authority on a given subject, which they would otherwise be prevented from learning.

To answer your question more directly, class society cannot come back once eliminated because its character is reliant on inheritance, something eliminated by Communism.

Politics directs them, there is no incentive for them to liberate people from work in a capitalist society.

Even when your attacking us you make arguments in our favor. Besides that, you have no idea what private property is, and no, beta males never collected food to give to their alpha.
Maybe all those years studying anthropology and the development of human society, you know, wasn't a huge waste of time for Engels. Maybe he and Marx were actually onto something, unlike you who has absolutely 0 knowledge on the subject.

What?
The incentive is that machines can work harder, longer, and cheaper than humans.

Because machines do (and this is a technical term)…

Work.

Yeah, but the answer as to why people do the work that a machine could is a political one. Especially when you consider that automation is only implemented by the capitalist when it is financially reasonable (that is, when the cost of labor exceeds the cost of technological development and installation).

That's why wages are so low. If they are raised, the cost of labor is no longer the most efficient option for the capitalist, and so machines replace wage-slaves in the workplace.

no. it's a mode of production with a unique relation of production.

no; the capitalist class creates no value without expoiting the labor of the proletarian class.

assuming they find a way to subsist on the moon long enough they will be forced to, either voluntarily or by coercion (more likely), divide themselves up in a few capitalists and many workers and begin the productive process via labor exploitation.

why will they not form a classless society directly? the process occurs dialectically; class conflict is a process that culminates from its contradictions. class society must violently be overthrown in this way, for it is innately involuntary by nature.

Umm yeah, and the last 10,000 years of human history has not played out they way it has due to human nature, but because of some grand conspiracy, i suppose.

And as automation costs drop due to miniaturization and other efficiency-improvements it will go lower and lower and then we'll have both few factory workers and garage-based production lines.

Maybe it will happen after Africa modernizes (or as a failsafe if it doesn't.)

Don't play dumb. Human nature is not some static fact, but fluid and based upon the environment. As we change and develop our surroundings, our material interests change. With that, our activity evolves - that is, human nature develops.

Hunter and gatherer tribes didn't have any private property, only possessions, not because they didn't want private property, but because they didn't even have the means to accumulate enough stuff so that it could be counted as private property to begin with. So that humanity has for most of its history existed under condtions where they couldn't accumulate enough stuff to have private property, doesn't prove that it is not human nature to want to possess private property, once enough stuff is available.

lmao

Private property isn't "having lots of stuff," it's "claiming ownership over that which you cannot physically possess."

Ownership is determined by use (i.e. possession). Private property couldn't exist yet because there were no societal provisions (a state and body of law) to enforce any one's claim to land or any other MoP. Thereby, ownership necessarily was determined by use.

Doesn't invalidate my point. People back then still merely didn't have the means to have private property (whether due to lack of societal provisions or due to there not being enough stuff ), yet if they would have had the means, then their human nature would have shown.

No it does invalidate your point, because we aren't against personal property. They did not have private property, "they would've if they could've" is not an argument. It's unfounded.

pick one.

The flawed argument was this
to begin with.
As soon as they were able to have private property, they did. So why didn't they just continue to live in "communism" after they had the means to accumulate private property?

WHEN WILL THIS MEME DIE

Hierarchies are human nature. Workers are too stupid to run a business by themselves, otherwise they simply would. Workers owning the means of production is already possible under the current system. They could simply found their own business and collectively own it. So why don't they do it?

it isn't flawed.

no, they didn't. you can organize society as primitive as you want into classes as long as you rely on the ignorance of the duped.

their ignorance was abused. long before property right was the basis for the division of class society, instituted social doctrines like the divine right of rule was. before that, the existence of ontologically incomplete but at that time optimal beliefs in deities and spirits. these functioned as justifications for living as the under classes in their mind, and as the tool for domination in the minds of the rulers. class society innately functions on the false consciousness that lives in the oppressed class, which the oppressing class maintains as legitimate via institutions.

before tackling and trying to discredit dialectical and historical materialism, you could at least attempt to read a few books on it and familiarize yourself with it, as it is a very ontologically complete and comprehensive theory of why society is the way it is and how it came to be.

Yes, this is called a co-op.

Stupidity and the exploitation of that stupidity by the smarter ones is human nature.

Why does communism care so much about ignorant/stupid people?

they aren't. hierarchies require materially and ideologically-driven consciousness and institutions to be justified and upheld. these must be created before they function and are not universal, have not been universal and will not be universal. A precedes B.

why are workers too "stupid"? what is it that makes them "stupid" and not the capitalists? are they perhaps kept stupid by the capitalists, and must they actively be kept stupid or otherwise practically be kept from successfully proving their superior intellect or even ability?

they have and still do; such enterprises are called cooperatives and function on universal and equal ownership of an enterprise's shares and say on the way things are run. such cooperatives are sustainable and even highly productive operations.

they do. see above. alternatively, read a book.

Are we playing with this myth of super co-ops again?

If co-ops are so successful, why didn't they overtake the role of international private corporations?

we are both taught into stupidity and need to be taught the very ability to exploit others for their stupidity, either through our environment or others that were taught as such by their environment, or passed it on as recorded knowledge. even the very definition of stupid must communicatively be taught for it fundamentally rests on its antonym which is intelligence.

because ignorant people are nonetheless also productive and creative people, meaning that keeping them in ignorance for the purpose of exploiting their productivity and creativity for the sole purpose of private capital accumulation is a waste of their talents. furthermore, the machinic process of private capital accumulation can only sustain itself on infinite compound growth in a finite world, which is also a waste of resources as it does not produce or distribute for need, but for continually invented pseudo-need that in itself must be motivated by artifically created need which in turn must be justified with artificially created ideological necessity for that need.

honestly, there's no point in this thread because all i'm doing here is spoonfeeding you information you could know yourself if you had any desire to legitimately challenge a worldview you can barely even comprehensively define and construct in an argument. seeya.

So stupid people are stupid because capitalism.

Wow.

Being successful in existence does not mean being able to outcompete companies that use slave labour.

Sweatshops, literal child slaves in africa, etc are all used by large capitalist corporations.

This is so fucking dumb, states that validate private property did not immediately come into existence the moment that the technological advances required existed.

Then why are there not a representative amount of business owners from working class / poor backgrounds as from upper middle / rich backgrounds?
Are you just gonna go full nazi and say that it's because the rich people inherited the smarts required for business ownership genetically?
Might something like education have something to do with something like this? Just a small effect?

How fucking dumb are you? Like honestly, how stupid are you? I know ideology plays a role but at some point you gotta stop. There are so many holes in this stupid thinking.

also

I know Stirner is pretty big here, the way moral anti-realism is just accepted here just because he's a meme and shit without any fucking argumentation or nothing creeps me the fuck out.
The fact that you people exist and somehow take up a significant portion of online leftism weirds me out.
Like, I get that moral anti-realism is a legit accepted viewpoint in modern metaethics, but for some reason I doubt that everybody who spouts le spooks on the internet is very well versed in the metaethical considerations behind moral anti-realism.

So they are not being successful, they are only let alive by the international corporations.
And? Result is what considered here, not morality.

What?
Except there are more businesses than co-ops.
Even in feudal areas, there were merchants who are even richer than kings.

It becomes a real thing as soon as agriculture exists.

We are born ignorant. No one is deliberately being kept ignorant. It takes effort to raise someone from being ignorant to knowledgable (reading a book takes effort).
Furthermore there are biological cognitive differences. Not everyone has the same potential for abstract reasoning for example. This naturally leads to a class division according to cognitive and physical capability. The kind of hierarchy that then develops among these classes depends on circumstances. In a primitive tribal society, the class that has the best manual labour and physical abilities will be higher in the hierarchy, than the nerd class of people who are only good in mathematics and abstract reasoning, because in that environment the nerd class can't contribute much to the tribe. They will have lower social status. In our current environment however, the nerd class could suddenly rise to power and dominates (see silicon valley, google), because their abstract reasoning capabilities are now useful.

Its not morality. Its because slave labour is cheaper. As such you can never take a significant bite out of the market share of large capitalist corporations, instead having to go for quality over quantity, while most of the population has to buy quantitatively cheap goods due to not making lots of money, due to being employed by a capitalist company.

Thats only your definition of success. Being able to create products and pay your workers and having some form of growth is successful. Most companies fail at staying alive. But I agree that its hard to become a large multinational if you cant use slave labour or bribe your CIA friend to invade central america, kill the commies and give you exclusive rights to the land.

There's a difference between "natural hierarchies" and natural hierarchies. People willingly submitting to someone because they know what they're doing is different from it having to be imposed by a state.

Again you asked why workers can't own the businesses: Mondragon has 10's of thousands of people working there and is a co-operative.

Two of the strong facets that argue for leftism are 1. the lack of alienation from worker control (meaning that one self has a interest in furthering leftist causes) and 2. the moral ignorance of market forces.
Therefore, an argument for efficiency is not necessary or useful for arguing for worker coops. Rather it should be argued as being opposed to alienation, which is the alternative.

But that's not the comparison being made, he's saying that comparing the presence (or lack thereof) of coops in liberal capitalism, is like comparing the presence of corporations and businesses in feudal Europe to the presence of feudal rule in feudal Europe.
Uh no, we call those "lords", or maybe "kings". If they were richer than kings, then they must necessarily have in some way convinced kings and /or other feudal powers to not take possession of their property. This means either submitting (taking part in the feudal system and therefore no longer being a free corporation / business) or taking violent coercion into hand, meaning that you now ARE the state power.

So in the end, capitalism is more effective than co-ops, because they do it at the most efficient way possible, cheap shit with cheap labors.

But the ones that do far outnumber and outwealth co-ops.

Cheapest way, you mean. Not always most efficient.

And what is your point? That kings with their knights are more effective than farmers and their pitchforks? We already know that, but don't come crying with moralism and petty "but capitalism is a better economic system because x and y" when we kill you then, because then we will be the most effective.

So basically, we cannot argue based on reality, because for co-ops to be successful, you need to have a socialist environment. Wait what?

There were plenty of businesses in feudal Europe. We even have corporations as in the presence of merchant princes.
Or so the merchant princes are actually kings because they are richer than kings.
This is not how history records it.

Slavery is more efficient than capitalism. Should we use that mode of production?

The most efficient way is the simplest and fastest way, capitalism does this, cheap shit and cheap labor.
Oh I'm waiting.

it was never argued that they were more efficient than businesses

it was never argued that they were more efficient than businesses

You're talking out your ass.

Slavery was a big part of capitalism.

The argument is that co-ops are actually very successful.

Well, they are not, compared to the private corporations.

Nice argument.

Because why would workers want to exploit themselves? Furthermore, why does everyone have to be a special snowflake entrepreneur?

Only if your goal is wealth accumulation. Thats not a standard we measure ourselves by.

If you are trying to be toungue in cheek, might I remind you that this entire ideaology is about this. We have done this in the past, we will do it again. Get really to become just a statistic.

Sure, they were preceded by feudal societies, which are an even more extreme form of class exploitation.

...

where's the human nature gone, locke?

So now we don't apply the mainstream definition of effectiveness.
Any days now.

That's the reason why businesses are more successful.

They don't care if the workers are being exploited.

Effectiveness by definition means the following:
So if we go by our standard:
then coops work better
if you are going by
then yes, using all the dirty tricks in the book obviously is the most effective.

The union was more proficient than the South because machinery and wage slavery were more efficient than simple slavery.

Old slavery was about feeding and clothing the damn slaves.

Modern capitalism just gives them money for it.

What is this fetish with physical labor? Are we stuck in the era in which Marx wrote? A person isn't forced to work.

So basically, our goals are different, so co-ops are more efficient than businesses in your goal.

Do me a favor and quote me where in this thread somebody says that before

No shit, did that actually take you this long to figure out?

Commies, who advocate for an ideal of a moneyless society, do not have "the most money" as a goal? Would ya think?

In what fucking apocalyptic nation do you live in where you can't fuck off to a better job if you don't like your current one? Or start your own business?

Seriously you're like the flipside of the people who go "TAXES ARE THE GOVERNMENT STEALING FROM ME"

No, you're not held at gunpoint. You're not held at metaphorical gunpoint either. You are entitled to nothing by virtue of your existence. By making yourself valuable to others - through working or by being just such a good person people will willingly donate to you - you are able to acquire things that are needed to not die.

As far as I've read "Exploitation of workers" just means "your profit margins are too high and my salary is too low" when not talking about third world shitholes?

The conclusion I keep coming to is that they define work as it was in the 19th century, which is incompatible with the early 21st century world of crowdfunding, self-publishing and the general "indie" scene in creative works. I wonder if marx would flip his shit upon seeing Etsy?

It takes me that long to figure out because commies literally have this definition based on their worldview.

I think then it lies on you to argue that the desired result that society should work towards should be "most profit" rather than "fulfill the needs and wishes of those who exist within the society".
Or failing that, how working towards "most profit" results in the second.
Both of those claims are very non-obvious, and you just ceded (in my eyes) that coops are better / more efficient at "fulfilling the needs and wishes of those who exist within the society".

See

So I have to argue in your viewpoint now?

In reality, corps don't care about your goal, this is why they end up being more successful than co-ops.

Mate, do you actually have brain damage? Have you ever paid attention to what any socialist or communist said? Even the strawman of "gibmethats" and "nationalize everything" should give you a hint that commies and socialists dont give a single fuck about making profit.

Computers and the internet in general. The world of even 10 years ago is incompatible with today.

I guess this is why commies and socialists aren't successful in real life.

My logic inconsistency comes with the fact that your goals aren't feasible and lead you to being unsuccessful.

Most of them, if you're poor enough.

Holy shit man read a fucking book. I'm not going to go explain fucking marxian alienation to you.

Yes, but the argument was never that they are fucking more successful, how fucking stupid are you.
Are you the same person who just quoted the post and still are not able to read what is written?
Where the fuck in this post does anybody argue that coops are better at obtaining profit than corps?

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the infallible argument you can always count on stupid people making after spending the entire thread debating about it.

Again, only if you use the measuring stick of being rich.

So based in your view, commies and socialists are actually hugely successful.

This is not a human nature argument, it's just observing reality.

See
They are not highly productive compared to corps.

I brought those up because they let someone extend self-employment nearly globally without a huge amount of resources needed to enact.

I mean, there's literal children who are better at making money than some adults due to current technological advantages.

You spent this long typing that much out, the least you could do is explain the parts that appear to keystone your position?

So this argument now comes down to why do you think using that measuring stick is less useful than another when discussing companies and economics?

Hugely successful at identifying the right fights, describing the world, being compassionate human beings, and intellectually not fucking bankrupt. Yeah, I think so. And I happen to also think that those things are all more important than the geographical location of your house, or a swimming pool.

They don't need to be, that's your own views being projected onto your opponents argument.

Its hard to have an actual argument if the only thing you rterads scream is "HAHA FUGGEN COMMIES ARE NOT RICH MILLIONAIRES AND DONT OWN LOTS OF LAND PRIVATELY THATS MEANS YOU ARE FUCKING SCUUUUM".

Yeah, so they are actually successful, unlike capitalists, in your worldview.

You can't be called highly productive without being compared to the mainstream mode of production, which is capitalism.

Yes you can. Why make that comparison when the much more apt comparison is between production and need? Or, as economics would frame it: supply and demand?

You call productiveness being rich. We call it being more efficient in its production, which co-ops are more efficient at producing commodities, but not at selling them for a profit.

The argument has become very subjective.

We could make it very simple for you.

You own the company. We don't. We want to own it. You won't let us.

This is where we stand, you use every trick in the book, and thus so shall we.

Except the corps produce far more and supply the whole world.

Corps produce far more than co-ops ever do, at cheaper prices.

Hierarchies are imposed by nature, because
humans don't all have the same abilities. It takes active effort to abolish the hierarchies and classes which evolve naturally. Thus why communism doesn't just come naturally, but would require an active levelling of those hierarchies.

I think you already win in your worldview man.

Since the capitalists are never successful in your goal, but the commies and socialists always are.

I would not consider not being able to achieve success, but being forced to work in a shitty system where I am subject to others rule, successful. One person in this thread is not all of us. We are successful once we have succeeded in establishing socialism or communism. Then we will have achieved the goal we set ourselves, which is why we are called communists and socialists.

No. thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

No, they aren't natural if they require institutions to enforce them. We aren't talking about people who work in fields that make more money, making more money. We are talking about private property, which is you owning more property than you can own by yourself and that needs to be enforced by the State.

I really don't think it has. It's pretty fucking obvious to every single human being on earth that organizing your society around rewarding those best at pursuing most profit does not result in the society that is most capable of meeting the needs of human beings. So why the fuck make your basis of comparison on that?

You're pretty fucking dumb, you know that?
It's not about who has the bigger supply/demand score, it's about what form of organization best makes it so that production quickly, and efficiently reaches the needs of society, with as little waste and oppression as possible.

Yes, read Marx you dunce. The point is that it's not human genetics that resulted in the hierarchies that persist today. Just the random nature of materials and scarcity.

Society isn't about winning personally.

So commies and socialists are successful, but they are not.

Hmmm.

also: read Marx you fucking dunce, his exact fucking argument is that capitalism had to happen for communism to happen. Even if you won't bother to read Marx, at least just fucking google some of his terms.

not stupid, but living in ignorance. by and large because of capitalism, yes.

we are born not knowing what ignorance is because we are not born with the knowledge of what is ignorance and its opposite, for we are also not born with the innate ability to communicate with language.

those born before us have the power to decide and influence what we will and will not be taught, for they have knowledge and we do not. more importantly, they have knowledge we do not yet have. this is what enables an ideological justification for submitting workers to class society and making them self-justify it, nothing else.

indeed. nobody is contesting this.

which is not fundamentally relevant to the process of justifiying exploitation. those who accept it on ideological grounds and not primarily coercive grounds are by definition the ones capable of abstract reasoning. that is to say the overwhelming majority of what ultimately become workers.

it doesn't, because we have previously concluded (if we follow a materialist line of thought AKA A must precede B) that any and all developments stemming from understanding come from the passing on of information. positing this as your elaboration of what "human nature" supposedly encompasses would shatter the fact that a working class person can in practice become a capitalist in a same life time. this is indicative of a development in material posessions and intellect within that worker which are required to do more with their wages than serve their supposedly preassigned "naturally human" role as wage slaves to the "naturally human" counter-part that exploits them.

at least we're getting somewhere in your mess of a train of thought now. easy does it, i suppose.

except in historical records of tribal societies we saw the same development of an abuse of contemporary human ignorance that determined who got which position, using the supposed existence of primitive deities and spirits as the base of ideological schemes. your romanticization of tribal society as one divided between alphas and betas, strong and weak, wise and unwise, etc. is inherently rooted in an idealist train of thought that logically ends up positing B before A or erecting B out of nothing, for it categorically avoids a materialist analysis.

you are here not contrasting slavery and a supposed "non-slavery" that is somehow not slavery because it has more developed means of production. you are here simply seeing higher efficiency in the more technologically developed slavery. you can force a man at gunpoint to work in either a mine or behind a computer. both are forms of slave labor which create value.

you just said it yourself; both are exploitation of labor, but one is less exploitative and rewards the exploited with a commodity instead of just the means to subsist.

there is none here. you could force a man by gunpoint to work behind a computer or solve scientific problems, just like you could force a man by gunpoint to extract raw minerals or assemble products in a factory, both for the sake of profit. forcing them as much as humanly possible at gunpoint would net you more of the value of their labor than merely making them work 40 hour work weeks and giving them a wage minus surplus value for it in return. this is what we are contending here; the form of labor is irrelevant towards determining this as all forms of labor can be forced to be done in slave-like conditions.

you're replying to my post without understand what i was talking about. attempt to do some reading comprehension before going on a tirade against something i didn't claim or say.

Yeah, so objectively speaking, the corps who produce far more than the co-ops aren't more productive, instead it's the needs of society and no "oppression".

Gotcha.

>No. thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
If they are more productive, why hasn't it taken normal company spot as the main method of production?

Anyway enough time wasted

I seriously hope that you're the same person I'm calling dumb all throughout this thread, because some day you're going to realize, and you're going to look in the mirror, and you will weep.
One is not 'successful', one is successful at something, the poster you're replying to considers communists unsuccessful at X. I consider communists successful at Y.
You're saying that this SOMEHOW is contradictory?

Well, are they successful or are they not?

Companies need venture capital to get big in capitalism.

...

So it just happens that the capitalists are not successful but they somehow control everything, while the commies/socialists are more successful, yet they do not control shit.

I guess it's just reality that is boogling my mind.

What about market socialism society?

This is a vague term.

Well then what are you leftists even complaining about? Why do you even want to abolish capitalism? Just wait for Marx's prophecy to be fulfilled and communism coming about after capitalism. We are not there yet, so don't try to abolish capitalism or we will have to start the process from zero again.

Please go back to your highschool class, its really not hard to comprehend that one can have multiple goals and sticks by which to measure himself.

The goals and sticks you guys are using are OK but you're making a mess of what - specifically - the subject being measured is.

Well, your post makes no grammatical sense, but assuming that you're not sarcastic and you understand this to mean
"The corps who produce far more than the co-ops aren't more efficient, instead the coops who meet the needs of society more efficiently than corps are more efficient."
While I had the 'oppression' comment, it's not needed for the point.
If that is your understanding then yes, that is my point.

You two (Are you two?) are too fucking thick-headed for this to be worth my time.
Communists are more successful at being compassionate human beings, fighting the right fights, etc. (see the original post) than capitalists.
Communists are less successful at being the ruling system of organization than capitalists (see the leftcom post).
Capitalists are more successful at pursuing profit than communists.
Is this too fucking hard for you to understand? Successful is not some objective value in and of itself, you need to be successful AT something.

No, it is not. It's just not easily measurable.

Not going to reply further. Either you're trolling or you seriously need to read Marx. Capitalism had to happen for the conditions for communism to exist, for communism to happen, it needs violent revolution by the class conscious proletariat.

in market socialism, vote-based "crowdfunding" mixed with centrally-planned "venture capital" is the best way to substitute and give dynamism to the economy IMO.

Are we living in Market socialism right now?

The time is ripe. I'm not into violence as much as other commies though.

...

kind of ironic since fat magic man is a lolbertarian.

Makes kind of sense because you need to believe in magic to be a lolbertarian.

Communism=classless society , where private property is abolished

What conditions do you need for that and what point exactly are they met? Are they met once capitalism has created the capability to produce enough food for everyone? That depends on the number of people who exist. 11 billion people are more difficult to feed than just 1 million. Or is some more luxury required? Ability to cure all diseases? Ability to cure ageing and become quasi immortal, maybe?
Isn't it completely arbitrary? People could have simply continued existing in their pre-agricultural societies.

Read Popper's "the poverty of historicism" for a critique of Marx.

Since communism pretty much has to be somewhat post-scarcity with regards to basic needs, I don't think the conditions too vague or weird to understand.
It doesn't matter anyways, since most leftists would agree that we have reached those conditions now.

Most communists would argue that capitalism was required, or maybe inevitable, to reach widespread industrialization. But most communists would also argue that once that had happened, and the conditions for socialist revolution was met, that socialism/communism is the better way for progressing towards these more distant goals regardless.
Meaning that there is no reason to not support revolution.

Are you a falseflagging nihilist?
In any case, arbitrary in what way? I'm not a moral anti-realist (unlike most of this board, it would seem), but to argue in anti-realist terms I would say that it's in every persons self-interest to stay alive.
To stay alive it requires some amount of labour, if organizing ourselves in some way would reduce this amount of labour, it would be in our self-interest. Since socialism is one such an organization (and one that socialists would argue is better than the alternatives) I think that this is the way in which we should organize.

This is making me boil. I'm not about to read some book you post when you have obviously failed to read Marx - or any introduction to leftism - in the first place.
You are lucky people here have been tolerating you for so long.

But for any individual the total labor cost can be reduced past what socialism offers through the use of capitalism, correct? Thus the incentive is weaker.

It's more efficient in innumerable ways to simply not give a crap about the vast swathes of the population that have little-to-no impact on an individual's life past the first couple links of the daisy chain.

Everyone is taught the same in school and university. Yet some become entrepreneurs and some workers, even though everyone has the same opportunities. So it has nothing to do with the children of workers somehow given a different kind of education than the children of business owners, but with different abilities or simply different desire. Not everyone wants to become a business owner. Being a worker who sells their labour to different contractors, for example a freelance coder, also has its advantages.

I'm not even sure what your saying here.
Yeah it's more efficient for capital accumulation, but if your end is the use-value of production for a population then socialism is the way to go.

Also, physical labor is the only work with a positive correlation between wage and work completed. For work where one has to be creative, it is actually detrimental to have an increased wage. That is to say, money is a terrible motivator.

No, I don't think so. The incentive is weaker for those in power, who are in the minority.
The incentive is larger for those oppressed, who are in the majority.
Unless you can somehow spellbind the oppressed with the idea that they somehow also can end up in a low-labour position, (See: the myth of social mobility in the west) then it is in their self-interest to implement socialism.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
holy fucking shit
what are you doing here?
how the fuck did you end up here?
how old are you?
its been so fucking long since i've seen anybody this fucking deep in ideology
ahahaha

Ideology: the post

Can't you debate outside of your dogmatic ideology? You are like a Christian who says "i'm not going to argue with you about the existence of God, until you have read the bible". Well, the existence of God can also be discussed outside the context of the bible, even if the bible has inspired your god theory and so can your marx inspired theories of society be discussed outside the context of the holy marx book.

But if your end goal is "staying alive" then it makes sense to have a buffer against poor decisions and bad cirumstance, and the more of a buffer you have the easier it is (generally) to stay alive, and staying alive with things you may want in addition to things you may need.

Thus the motivator (it's more efficient to stay alive by all cooperating) for socialism falls away, as it's not more efficient for the individual whom you may be trying to convince.

Wage-based pay for creative work is pretty bad, yea. Thus other forms of lump-sum payments for the service rendered tends to work better.

So… most of the developed world?

Third worlders?

So now social mobility is a myth? What kind of depressed hellhole have I fallen into?

Yes, i am soo sorry that cognitive ability is not equally distributed yet, so we don't really have the same opportunity. I guess we'll have to wait for transhumanism to give us all the exact same brains.

I don't care if you've read Marx. The issue is that you clearly do not understand what his arguments were, and you reading simply the wikipedia on dialectical materialism or marxism would clarify all of this instead of forcing us to suffer through your responses.

Here's a super short, easy-to-read book on Marxism. I'm 99% sure it covers everything you've mentioned. Google search "Marx for beginners" by Rius, a free pdf should be available. I can't upload it because of the file size.

You are being insufferable on purpose, aren't you? I'm out of here.

Well, "i'm not going to argue with you about the existence of God, until you have read the bible" is not a comparable statement. It's more like "I'm not going to argue with you about the nature of Christianity, until you have read the bible", which most people would think is a pretty fucking reasonable statement, even if it is dismissive.
And even then it's not really comparable. You're raising arguments against strawmen positions that nobody hold, or arguments that were debunked 200 years ago in works that are largely considered to be cultural canon for anybody who wants to debate these topics. You're being obstinate by complaining.

Leave and come back when you're a bit older or just more informed in general.
"everyone has the same opportunities" jesus fucking christ

The first part of your post is completely incoherent, so I'll refrain from replying to that.
I don't know about you, but I'd say it's a fair bit less than "most of the developed world" who don't have to labour most of their lives to survive, even if it is low-risk labour.
Why a question mark there? I don't think there's any doubt that third worlders are among those who would benefit the most from socialism.

Alright, been nice talking to you guys. Not going to stay around for this one.

What is Holla Forums's opinion on Reagan/Thatcher? Good? Bad? What could have been better? What was the worst?
Thanks!

Sorry, you are too stupid to study medicine and become a brain surgeon. Keep blaming the system for actively denying you education, when the truth is that you are too dumb for it.

Denial of social mobility is one of the most depressing ideas to hold and is what leads to IDpol.

...

I've no idea if Porky user was being so, but mine wasn't deliberate.

Hell, if you don't give a shit about profit, what are you even complaining about? I bet the working conditions at your co-ops are shittier than the working conditions in most corporations.

Just how deluded do you need to be to think that way? Seriously? You better offer some substantial evidence to prove that, m8.

Mine wasn't delberate either. What can you do when your opponent is incapable to provide an argument and can't do better than "read marx" or "lolololo you really believe that???? lolololol"

They speak in jargon and then get mad when the jargon they use (which includes redefined common words) leads to others apparently misinterpreting what they say. Followed by them throwing the "read a book!" or "educate yourself!" argument.

I've yet to really get any straight up answers without them apparently meaning something different to what they wrote and then refusing to clarify.

It's a defeatist/deterministic view.
From what I've seen, contrary examples are basically excused away.

IDpol spawns from this as well, for obvious reasons.

Seems like a fact to me that social mobility is a thing, but whatever.

What's wrong with IDpol, in your opinion?

Wrong flag

Social mobility is a thing ONLY when capitalism is working. When it's near crisis there is no social mobility, the middle class gets thinner and thinner and in the end production has to be destroyed via war.

Read Marx.

IdPol is a smokescreen. It does not deal with any real problem and creates decoyes for you to attack.

When you turn the problem of "CEOs are there in order for you to be poor and shot by the cops" into "there are not enough "PoC" not racist or anything CEOs and "PoC" are poor and being shot by the cops… Well… That neoliberalism.

Oh, and doesn't matter. The flag is the same in the end.

Nah, we are born ignorant with respect to all knowledge that isn't biologically innate. Language capability is biologically innate and all children learn to speak, unless they are raised by wolves instead of humans ,which is pretty rare though.

Curiosity is also innate and thus we learn what ignorance is by being curious about things but incapable of explaining them.
Differences in the degree of curiousity are also biologically innate. Some people don't care to know anything and are satisfied as soon as they are being told where they place is and what they need to do to get food and how to get to fuck. Others are innately more curious and want to know how everything works. They are then also more motivated to invest more time into learning and studying which leads to them achieving higher status in the social hierarchy.

Yeah, sure, no system works when under crisis…

Read Friedman.

Slippery slope too much? This isn't trotskyism what we are talking about.

hehe, maybe, but I interpret it as something close to classical liberalism.

How about you leave that moron Friedman be with his stupid propaganda and go read Smith and then Marx?

You see.. the good thing with Das Kapital.. is you don't have to go "oh, and so we have to go communism?". No. Das Kapital says "capitalism works likes this and fail in such and such a way". Now, if you prefer to ingore the facts and believe Friedman, you're no different than pol and it's Jews.

Oh, no I agree social mobility is a thing.

IDpol denies this and uses it as leverage to act like shit.

As in, they take the lack of social mobility, then apply it to identity politics. When people in some group are disproportionately represented in crime or poverty they attribute it to one of their buzzword boogeymen keeping said people there instead of looking at what attitudes & cultural factors have become memetic and what legal (dis)incentives are in place.

Thus they turn to their "smash the (system buzzword)" slogan.

Denial of mobility divests individuals from their personal accomplishments, failures and responsibilities.

Capitalism is able to function still, but it would require reversing a lot of shit by a couple decades. People just keep getting duped into the whole "baby boomers wasted the wealth" and the middle class has gotten fleeced into the a keeping up with the joneses marketing trend, coupled with increased legal clampdowns on the upper end of the middle class and bottom rungs of the upper classes (IE small business owners) that makes reaching and competing with the big players more difficult.

Additionally there's the whole student debt bubble coming up, caused by guaranteed loans, inflating tuition because of guaranteed loans, and a degree losing importance in the job market. Additionally the bloat of people with libarts degrees that only qualify someone for "have a degree" because it was the fallback suggestion given to just barely adults who only went to college because that's what they were told to do.

Finally you have the "MEllenials" who were raised in the most permissive, least-disciplined parenting styles that led to the child being able to manipulate the parent(s) and other authority figures to avoid doing anything that didn't fit their immediate emotional desires.

I don't use a flag because I don't know what constitutes someone who admittedly romanticizes the diminished role artisan-work and entrepreneurship have as being a backbone of a society, as the mid-way between rough blue collar and starched white collar.

tl;dr Capitalism is in crisis but it's not beyond saving. Stop treating the population like asthmatic babies and let them grow and fail on their own merits. Because nothing quashes the fire of creativity like a lack of urgency to create or die.

"laments the now diminished, admittedly romanticized, role", I meant. My mistake.

You say that like I don't already know what you are talking about. I do know.
What exactly is wrong with Friedman? It's because I have followed the facts that I see Friedman as someone who did good for society.

I'd say, Capitalism is like skin cancer on a giant with regeneration.
From time to time part of the cancerous skin gets cut by war and so on, then it regrows and the cancer returnes.

However, IMO everytime it grows stronger and I don't know how much till the giant dies fo this cancer.

It has to be saved so it can shift into the next, more free form (named what? I have no idea.)

I predict cottage industries to become ever closer to the standard, to the love of anti-authoritarians everywhere.