Tfw too smart to be communist

>>>Holla Forums

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

I can keep doing this all day, buddy
>>>Holla Forums

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

you do realize this is the pretend oldfag version of a Holla Forumstard saving 50GB of cuck porn on his computer right

>>>Holla Forums

I'm getting this straight from google, and I only started coming here last week.

no

the gall of this guy

tu quoque user-kun

so you're admitting you're a hypocrite

yes

k

communism is better than mutualism

I'm not OP
socialism==mutualism>communism

that's wrong

Mutalism>every other political ideology>Shit>Death>Socialism>Communism

me>you
my ideas>your ideas

wew

his post > that post

communism is better than mutualism

...

sorry but that's not an argument

this post is a spook

this post is the unique

...

...

a lot of them are me but it doesn't say (You) because i had to re open my browser on account of captcha not working

2 Chainz is my property

You didn't have to tell me that, I already knew it.

property is theft

im gonna call the cyber police

cyber police here, what seems to be the trouble?
also that'll be $19.95 plus tip

I would like to take this moment to remind you that nonpayment of incurred fees is a violation of the NAP and will result in immediate revocation of personhood muh privileges

the problems with mutualism comes out of proudhon's own glorification of work for its own sake
i wouldn't want to live in mutualism just because the idea that work can be quantified and traded in seems like some anathema to free labor

Why should someone who is smarter, such as myself and OP, be forced to share things with intellectual inferiors such as the proles or the vast majority of you except the intelligent ones on Holla Forums of course. You know who you are.

hey maybe this is Holla Forums

Way to go
you sure you figured out what communism is, genius

...

most of the replies itt are me and i knew about the meme

Many people in the commentariat are utterly committed to the view that the two major parties are mirror images of each other, despite vast evidence to the contrary. But until Harry Enten directed me to this interesting paper by Grossman and Hopkins, I hadn’t really registered the extent to which the same assumption of symmetry is often made by political scientists. What Grossman and Hopkins do is try to document the very real differences in the two parties’ structure — not in terms of value judgments, but in terms of how they work:

Scholars commonly assume that the American left and right are configured as mirror images to each other, but in fact the two sides exhibit important and underappreciated differences. We argue that the Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement, while the Democratic Party is best understood as a coalition of social groups.

The next question, which they really don’t answer, is why. And I find myself thinking about Karl Marx.

I don’t know how many people read Capital these days, and to be honest I don’t recommend it unless you’re a historian of some kind. But I’ve always been struck by the very last chapter, which takes on the issue of class. Marx declares that workers, capitalists, and landowners are the three great classes, and that they are so defined in part by shared economic interests. But he identifies a problem:

However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes, for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords-the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries.

So, why aren’t physicians and officials, vineyard owners and mine owners, different classes given the divergence of at least some of their interests? We turn back to the book for the explanation, and find:

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

Oops.

What does this have to do with partisan asymmetry? Well, the Democratic Party looks kind of like the class system Marx said was wrong, without ever getting around to telling us why. It’s a coalition of teachers’ unions, trial lawyers, birth control advocates, wonkish (not, not “monkish” — down, spell check, down!) economists, etc., often finding common ground but by no means guaranteed to fall in line. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has generally been monolithic, with an orthodoxy nobody dares question. Or at least nobody until you-know-who, which is why the establishment keeps imagining that “But he’s not a true conservative!” can make the nightmare go away.

So why are the parties so different? Well, the answer is

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

OK, not really. But it is a puzzle. I do think that wingnut welfare is part of the story. But there has to be more.

Any suggestions from real political scientists would be especially welcome.

I would really like to drag Paul Krugman out into the street and put a bullet into the back of his head.

...

Well, in what ways are they different? Marx is focusing primarily on their ability to generate capital (you know, the thing that he was talking about for the entire book just prior to this chapter) by selling something other than their labor.

You could make the argument that skilled laborers, like engineers or lawyers, and government workers, like bureaucrats, can be considered a class of their own simply because they can make stupid amounts of money but even on a superficial level they will never has as much job security and as much possible wealth as business owners

Moreover, what does it matter if there are a vast number of different classes in modern capitalism when that are all depressingly subordinate to the highest class, the bourgeoisie. You could have a Zeno's paradox worth of classes, an infinite number between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and in its current state the bourgeoisie would still be insanely more well off then its closest rival.

Marx accounts for that and would put them in the same class as lawyers

Whoppidy do, when the guys at Goldman Sachs are forced to work fast food after a bad investment let me know and I might not think this argument is stupid

Yes and no. Kodak was blindsided by digital technology. Pathologists are currently getting rekt by genomic testing. Sega stopped making consoles themselves to concentrate on games. Outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing. Not even the royals were above allying with lower classes to gain the upper hand on aristocratic competitors. The Yongzheng Emperor ended support for slavery in China for such reasons. Competition within classes diminishes the homogeneity of the class and thus its usefulness as a generality. So, no.

Fucking stupid. A finite set (extant humans) can never yield an infinity of of subsets.

I know half of them are op bumping himself but wow