No.56993
How can leftypol claim exploitation is immoral while claiming morality is a spook?
How can leftypol claim to be against objectivity while believing in an objective theory of value?
How can leftypol believe that property rights are spooks but support personal property right? Is there really a distinction between private property and personal property?
No.56995
>>56993
In attempting to devise a system that goes against the merits of nature, inherent contradictions will inevitably arise.
No.56997
>>56993
Tbqfh, fampai, /leftypol/ isn't one person. They do contradict themselves frequently anyway.
No.57010
>>57007
>"We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." – Marx
Literally anything I want it to be.
No.57017
I made a thread similar to this. Stirnerites stated exploitation is not wrong (because morality is a spook), but it is in their best interest to seize control of the "means of production".
No.57018
>>57017
Then just tell them that it's in your best interests to throw them out of a helicopter to not allow them to seize the memes of production.
No.57040
>>57010
Anarcho-capitalism is literally communism, according to Marx.
>>57017
Seizing control is a spook. To declare ownership (either public or private) of anything that you aren't currently holding in your hand requires others to recognise the idea of your ownership. Inherently spooky tbh.
No.57042
>>57040
Not to mention it's a hard sell to convince egoists to take up arms against capitalists when wage labor is an alternative. I can't imagine an egoist wishing to take part in a revolutionary war just for free access to a factory, especially if they have to fight alongside tankies whom demand they contribute their "fair share."
No.57043
How are you supposed to retort to something as stupid as this without wanting to beat the crap out of them? This was from a /lit/ thread yesterday which was deleted.
No.57044
>>57040
>Anarcho-capitalism is literally communism, according to Marx.
Marx wrote a total of five sentences on the Final Stage of History. Can we please stop pretending this stupid idiot ever said anything concrete in his entire life? He was a failed economist and a failed philosopher who didn't even manage to come up with a definition of what a class is.
No.57045
>>57044
I'm inclined to agree in all honesty. Later "marxist" thinkers had some coherency to their thought like the Frankfurters, or Lukac. Marx's works are just all over the place, and even contradictory at times.
No.57047
>>57043
You have multiple fallacies to debunk at the same time. Firstly, concede that the murrican gubbment doesnt believe in freedom, because they're socialist. Secondly, explain that capitalism is ultimately incompatible with authoritarianism, and that everything that he considers evil about capitalism can only exist because of the state. Thirdly, ask him why he cares about capitalist slavery if freedom doesnt matter.
Alternatively, post a picture of a fish next to a hook.
No.57048
>>57043
I checked in on the cuck/lit/ archive a month ago or so out of curiosity. It wasn't even that it was filled with /leftypol/ (which it was) but that it was nothing but spoonfeeding threads and /v/-tier shitposting. I'm now more appreciative of the tiny trickle of posts that occur on our /lit/.
No.57066
>>57048
/lit/ is full of people from all stripes, and the majority of posters were shitting on a few of those rabid leftards in that thread. /lit/'s level of discussion is about what you would expect from most boards anyways.
No.57071
I always thought Egoism was just a meme religion that people used as a troll. I was disheartened to see that there are actual assborgers that take it seriously.
No.57108
>>56993
foreheader is just a meme
also did he really condemn capitalism?
No.57323
>>56993
>Exploitation is inherently coercive, and use of coercion is against one's own interest as it creates enemies and interferes with the proper function of teamwork.
How'd I do?
No.57325
>>57323
>Exploitation
>creates enemies and interferes with the proper function of teamwork
What are you babbling on about?
No.57329
>>57325
He's being /leftypol/. I think he did a good job.
No.57330
>There are no eternal laws of economics
>But capitalism is exploitative!
No.57331
>>57330
>capitalism has something to do with being isolated and alone
Where did this meme even come from?
No.57333
>>57325
Is it really that controversial to imply that people don't enjoy being exploited?
No.57334
>>57333
Who is being exploited?
No.57335
>>57331
Probably because your employer values your labor power and not your personality. I have yet to walk through the street and get greeted by friendly socialists who give me a beer and ask how life's treating me, so I'm inclined to say that they don't care about everyone as a person either, but I guess that's just because I don't understand dialectical materialism enough.
No.57337
>>57334
Scroll up to the OP, and reread the premise of the thread. It's fine if you don't think workers are generally exploited, but we're talking about the morality of exploitation here. Is your argument that exploitation cannot possibly exist in any form?
No.57341
>>57337
One would have to define that exploitation? Can you objectively measure exploitation? If a moral person starts a business, at what stage in the growth of the business does he lose his morals?
No.58195
>>57323
> is against one's own interest
is it you who decides what is in my own interest?
No.58205
>>57337
Idk how anyone can argue workers in general are exploited. In terms of just the US its still true. Sure some jobs are not. Most jobs are. Factory workers, drivers, clerks, docters even, etc. exploited as fuck. How much value are they contributing to their organization and getting back? With so many required fixed costs added to familys like carpayment, house, food, water, electricity, various insurances, private school(so your kid has a chance) etc. wages haven't gone up to match. Minimum wage is shit, but even having a $20 or $30 dollar an house wage isn't going to support shit. I'm sure someone here has the graph that shows the how much value has been added to the american economy and how much people are getting paid. Wages have stayed the same, value has increased A LOT workers haven't gotten shit of that extra value they have created. Doesn't walmart family have more money than over 90% of the country combined? Thats pretty fucked.
No.58207
Let me tell you something about leftypol:
Leftipol is a collective of resentful losers who made terrible life decisions, and now wont socialism to bail them out.
Leftypol is a type of guy that gets art degree instead of engineering degree.
Leftypol is a type of guy who blows his whole cash partying, and now he is angry at someone else who didnt and has money.
Leftypol is a type of guy who hates practical problem solving because it has a clearly defined right and wrong, what works and what doesnt work, so he goes into mental gymnastics of relativistic art and philosophy that doesnt even have to work.
Leftypol is a skill-less, unemployable faggot claiming he is being exploited.
THEY ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO LIBERTY
No.63398
No.63512
>>63398
No objections here, but that's irrelevant.
No.63522
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>63519
>"You can be a moralizing cunt who doesn't believe in morality by LARPing hard enough. Easy, bro!"
No.63913
>>56993
Because most "Stirnerians" are Marxist trolls LARPing ironically.
No.64820
>>63913
how do you know they are trolls?
No.64823
The capitalist exploitation of the working class is NOT wrong, it is simply in the interest of the capitalist class.
Socialist revolution is in the self interest of the proletariat.
Workers and capitalists have opposing interests.
No.64826
>>64823
That view is caused by the false assumption that the economy is a zero sum game. Increasing the overall size of the pie via capital accumulation makes everyone better off, even if the percentage you get stays the same.
No.64827
No.64851
>>57007
Totally serious here: does /pol/'s "National Socialism" fall into the category, or is it considered well defined?
No.64856
>>64823
interests are morality
No.64867
>>64823
>Workers and capitalists have opposing interests
This is clearly false. If the workers refuse to work, then both the capitalists and the workers starve. Therefore, both workers and capitalists are innately tied together as one system.
Now, as a system, which we derived is logically necessary, there may be differences between imput and output; a worker imputs $500 worth of energy, and receives an output of $10. Therefore, your point of contention is with "imputs and outputs" in this framework, not, "opposing interests", as you called it.
Moving on, let's take your definition of socialism or communism, at its base: the people work for themselves, they own the base of operations, and all profit is "pure" profit for them. In essence, all workers are shareholders, for said company. They own equal stock in a steel company, let's say. How do they acquire the goods they need to operate the steel plant? If you say "trade", what if they have nothing useful to offer? If you say "Cash/money/gold", this implies that they are making a large profit. Let's say the plant itself costs $100/day to operate, and their are 10 workers. Each worker must do $10 worth of labor each day, and then enough to feed themselves/buy goods they need personally. What happens if one of your comrades is sick/can't work? Someone has to pick up the slack, meaning they have to work harder. This is inevitable, unfortunately.
All of this, of course, is ignoring the fact that Socialism, at its heart, is a war-mongering platform. You must wage war with the capitalists, wage war with those you disagree with, wage war with dissidents, and wage war with other "tru socialist" platforms. To boil it down, socialism means that each worker, with his hopes and dreams, has opposing interests with each other worker. Therefore, I reject your claim, and have laid out a quick argument against your platform, socialism, as a whole.
No.64875
From a Christian perspective, communism is satanic.
Socialism is an attempt at a forced utopia, but the fact is we live in a fallen world (Genesis curse). A utopia made by man is impossible (hence why all socialist countries fail). The only one who can bring about a real utopia is God.
So since Adam was cursed to "toil the land" and "work in order to eat", capitalism and free markets is the natural way to go.
The rebellious and revolutionary spirit of communism is demonic because it tries to uplift mankind from the "shackles" of "authority" but ends up being the most totalitarian and authoritarian system there can possibly be. Man cannot rule itself, it needs God.
No.64879
>>64875
But then the logical conclusion is to be a Luddite. The division of labor that comes about because of capitalism brings new technology that lessens the burden far more than communism could ever hope to achieve.
No.64881
>>64875
I've heard some people argue Christianity is more in line with communism while satanism is more in line with libertarianism due to the focus of individualism or something is that true?
No.64883
>>64881
Only retards that only have a superficial understanding of Christianity say that.
>dude.. jesus was like, think about da poor people maaaan.. pass me the blunt
There is a reason why Libertarians/Conservatives stand on Biblical principles, whereas Communism is based on atheistic or evolutionary ideas.
You're an individual responsible for your own actions and will be held accountable by God.
No.64886
>>64881
Whenever someone ever says that, he can be safely ignored because he has no idea what the Bible says or what Christ was about. The pop-culture idea of the hippie liberal Jesus is not at all what He is actually like. To the contrary He spoke about hell more than anyone else, cursed religious hypocrites and whipped people who desecrated His temple. God is not mocked because He is holy (means seperate).
Jesus was a staunch and sturdy man who showed kindness, humbleness and teached valuable lessons. But above all the miracles and teachings, He came to fulfill the messianic prophecies in the OT and die for our sins. He is our out-of-jail card. God gave us the gift of salvation through the shed blood of His Son. You have the choice of accepting that gift or denying it (and facing the eternal consequences). Those that believe in Christ's deity, virgin birth, death, burial and resurrection are called Christians.
Communism and the spirit of revolutionary socialism is more in line with Satan because he's the eternal rebel who wants to overthrow legitimate authority (God). When radical and violent SJWs/Leftists are protesting and rioting in the streets, they are emulating the behavior of their father the devil.
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst weaken the nations! And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." - Isaiah 14:12
>>64883
I guess a good example would be the American Revolution vs the French Revolution.
>American revolution
Individualists, Christians, wanted freedom from tyranny.
>French revolution
Collectivists, atheists, destroyed freedom and installed tyranny.
No.64899
>>64867
>If the workers refuse to work, then both the capitalists and the workers starve.
If the serfs refused to work, then both the lords and the serfs would starve. That makes their interests the same amiright. Same can be said of kidnapper and hostage, master and slave etc.
>>64879
>the wealth will just trickle down bro!
Is anyone actually retarded enough to believe this?
No.64900
>>64883
Lucifer was the first socialist, as he did not accept the natural hierarchy of divine beings with angels at the bottom and Seraphims , Cherubims and the Holy Trinity at the top. His fall from heaven, was due to the fact that he tried to destroy it.
No.64913
>>64881
As per the usual, the Christfags are being misleading. How could you just ask them that and not expect a glowing review of their religions? Honestly, you should know better. That's like asking "Is your product good? Should I buy it?" Obviously a philosophy (assuming you're referring to La'Vey's take on Satanism and/or similar folks) about the value of the individual above all other concerns is going to be more libertarian than one about following the advice of a man-god and his followers in order to avoid eternal damnation. So far as it (Christianity) being communist, it really depends on the interpretation.
>>64883
>>64886
Both of you are equating all rebellion with "Satan" and legitimizing the state (comparing it directly to god/gods law). You should be ashamed of yourselves, especially if you're American. Have you seen the state lately? It isn't exactly a constitutional republic, especially not one that follows the founding fathers constitution. Furthermore, your interpretation is just one of many so it's hard to assert that yours is right and other Christians are wrong. Didn't Jesus say that line about it being easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Did he not demand of his followers poverty? Is it not true that in the eyes of god no man is born any different than any other, that we are all sinful wretches condemned to hell - except by the grace of god, Jesus Christ? This does not exactly paint a picture of individualism. In fact, this paints the opposite picture. Not only does this interpretation not support individualism but it even goes the extra mile down the wrong road, for god is the final arbiter of all good and all evil and therefore you will live exactly as he says or you are condemned. It is quite easy to see how Theocracies are spawned with that sort of thinking. It is, after all, in everyones best interest to do exactly what god wants. Therefore it is in everyones best interest to remove any obstacles preventing you from doing so. Therefore it is in everyones best interest to ban x y z and enforce a b c to make sure no one goes to hell or is tempted by the devil.
-and don't spew that line about free will. There is no moral assertion given by god, his prophets or any saints about free will being good or the exercise of it being more important than living a good life. There is no reason to believe that decadent or evil freedom is better than righteous slavery. There are arguments that it is better to do good because you know it's good, but it seems there is strong support for the idea that doing good for no reason is better than doing evil for any reason. This strongly supports the idea of Authoritarianism, that goodly men should rule over all others simply for their protection (after all, there is about as much point in living a life meant to improve anything earthly as there is a life of decadent hedonism when we're talking about your immortal soul). That there should be strong rulers on earth to mirror the strong ruler in heaven. All of this is completely anti-libertarian, completely anti-freedom and frankly very ill-conducive to a society looking grow more prosperous.
No.64915
>How can leftypol claim exploitation is immoral while claiming morality is a spook?
its not immoral its inefficient. Also, not everybody on leftypol believes in Stirner
>How can leftypol claim to be against objectivity while believing in an objective theory of value?
they don't, read marx
>How can leftypol believe that property rights are spooks but support personal property right?
because private property only arises unnaturally through force, but personal property arises naturally through use.
>Is there really a distinction between private property and personal property?
Yes, one is something you use, personal property, one is something you charge others to use, private property.
No.64929
>>64915
>because private property only arises unnaturally through force, but personal property arises naturally through use.
What the fuck is unnatural force? And when talking about "natural use" are you speaking of homesteading? Because I could just go homestead some un-own land and place a factory there. Do I still own the property?
>Yes, one is something you use, personal property, one is something you charge others to use, private property.
Your house can be made into a hotel.
Your house can be made into a restaurant.
Your house could be a place of storage.
Your car can be made into a taxi.
Farmers use their land to grow vegetables.
Are you telling me that's not personal property?
No.64936
>>64915
>its not immoral its inefficient
Both history and a priori reasoning would seem to disagree. "Exploitation" is an objectively superior way of running things.
>personal property arises naturally through use
So does private property.
t. Locke
No.64961
>>64913
Real satanism (occult, new age, illuminati, freemasonry, rosicrucians, templars, jesuits, babylonian mystery schools, pantheism, etc) is in line with communism and international socialism, not libertarian ideals at all. The New World Order is brought about by destroying national sovereignty, independence, the family nucleus and racial/ethnic purity with multi-culturalism and globalization. If your country wants to be self-determined, it gets swiftly overthrown by a CIA staged revolution or destabilization campaign. Luciferians love Communism and Islam because they are ideologies of collectivism and terror.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." - Mark 12:17
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." - Romans 13:2
Does this sound like communism to you? God is telling us to obey government and authority. This is in the context of a monarchy with a God-fearing benevolent king. Even if the state is terrible, Christians are not called upon to radically transform governments or stage revolutions. We are not of this world. We recognize the fact man is inherently sinful, that we live in a fallen world. Change starts with the individual and his/her beliefs, values, ethics, morals and relationship with God. These are core conservative principles.
And as usual, atheists take Christ's parables out of context:
"Jesus’ message is clear—it is impossible for anyone to be saved on his own merits. Since wealth was seen as proof of God’s approval, it was commonly taught by the rabbis that rich people were blessed by God and were, therefore, the most likely candidates for heaven. Jesus destroyed that notion, and along with it, the idea that anyone can earn eternal life. The disciples had the appropriate response to this startling statement. They were utterly amazed and asked, “Who then can be saved?” in the next verse. If the wealthy among them, which included the super-spiritual Pharisees and scribes, were unworthy of heaven, what hope was there for a poor man?
Jesus’ answer is the basis of the gospel: "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God" (Matthew 19:26). Men are saved through God’s gifts of grace, mercy, and faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing we do earns salvation for us. It is the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:3), those who recognize their spiritual poverty and their utter inability to do anything to justify themselves to a holy God. The rich man so often is blind to his spiritual poverty because he is proud of his accomplishments and has contented himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel is to crawl through the eye of a needle."
Jesus is not saying that being rich is bad. Tons of righteous men were wealthy and well off in the Old Testament. It is about what you place your trust on. He says you should not place your trust in material and corruptible things. Believe in God, everything else will come naturally. Stay humble no matter how rich you are. Don't let pride or greed destroy you.
As for theocracies, this is not Islam or Roman Catholicism.
Christians are called upon to be separate from the world. The world is the enemy. The world is controlled and ruled by Satan, the prince of darkness, the power of the air. Every individual needs to make his/her own decision by free will whether he/she wants to have a relationship with God.
A real biblical model for government would be either a Christian monarchy, constitutional republic or ancap society (look at ancient Israel during the Judges period) with conservative and libertarian values. The founding fathers of America wanted a separation of church & state because we learned our lessons from Europe. We did not want a repeat of the RCC/Papacy and all its terrors during the medieval ages.
Again, you don't seem to understand what Biblical Christianity is about. You're just grasping at straws.
Communism is directly opposite and contradictory to Christianity. Socialism is a product of the French Revolution, an atheistic revolutionary spirit that seeks to destroy religion from people's lives and have mankind rule itself.
It's not a coincidence that the USSR destroyed churches and hushed priests and pastors. The god was the state, the god was the leader (who's face is plastered in every city block). It's also no coincidence that Marxists and radical 'progressive' leftists today are so anti-religious and against Christianity because it represents everything they hate so much (masculinity, family, faith, conservatism, absolute morality, hierarchy, etc).
No.64969
>>64961
Can you explain how you are a "Christian Anarchist?" In your society, you would impose rules that force people to live a religious lifestyle; this is fascism, but of a different flavor than Hitler/Mussolini. If your argument is that you happen to be an Anarchist who believes in God, than you are not a "Christian Anarchist", not any more than I am a "Computer Science Anarchist."
No.64974
>>64969
I would not impose rules or force people to do anything. What makes you think I would?
I'm an anarchist in the sense that I recognize all forms of government are flawed because we live in a fallen world (Genesis curse). A utopia by man is impossible. Only God can bring a utopia after Christ's second coming at the culmination of history.
If you look at ancient Israel, it resembled a theocratic ancap society before the people insisted they wanted a king and turned the nation into a monarchy.
No.64988
>>64974
>I would not impose rules or force people to do anything. What makes you think I would?
Then you're not a "Christian Anarchist", because the concept does not exist. It's listed as, "Christian anarchists hold that the "Reign of God" is the proper expression of the relationship between God and humanity. Under the "Reign of God," human relationships would be characterized by divided authority, servant leadership, and universal compassion."
Let's say I live in your Christian anarchy, and I hate God and don't believe in Him (I do). Maybe I refuse to worship Him, or give any money to a charity. Are there any consequences? If not, you are a theocrat, as evidenced by you saying, "If you look at ancient Israel, it resembled a theocratic ancap society."
No.64995
>>64961
>God is telling us to obey government and authority. This is in the context of a monarchy with a God-fearing benevolent king. Even if the state is terrible, Christians are not called upon to radically transform governments or stage revolutions.
Isn't this contradictory to anarchism?
No.65009
No.65077
>>56993
They can't. If morality is relative, then there's nothing wrong with exploitation.
No.65134
>>65077
they say that it is reasonable for you to exploit only if you are top 1% bourgeise
No.65147
>>65077
>morality is a spook
>b-but I don't like how Capitalists treat workers, it's immoral
Everyone on /leftypol/ should kill themselves, especially tankies
No.65148
>>65147
>I can't make things my own
No.65163
>>65148
>individualist anarchist
Didn't middle school start this week, kid?
No.65164
>>65163
>memeflag getting mad at other flags
All you flagfags are attention whoring shitters, why be mad at each other for your colors?
No.65165
>>65164
Indians are Gary Johnson anarchists prove me wrong
No.65166
>>65164
The flag is supposed to give people some indication of who they are arguing with. You can figure that much out by yourself.
No.65214
Leftypol is not one person, I'll however give you my take on it, I do not believe that exploitation is immoral in the moral objective sense, it is just in my self interest to be against it since I am a worker, furthermore Stirner clearly states that hierarchy is restrictive to both parties freedoms, now I'm not Stirnfag and I do value morals (I'm christian after all), but I tend to avoid using moral arguments since they require a pre-established moral code from both parties, but I do not think that the people in this board would object to me using my self interest as an argument here.
No.65215
>>65214
Nobody, I hope, will object in you using your self interest as an argument, the question is if it is in the interest of all workers to work under a capitalist, or do some benefit from working under the capitalist, instead of a co-op or something else?
Also I don't see how a hierarchy is restrictive to the one on top.
No.65216
>>65215
according to Stirner's critic of objectivity, the capitalist is primarily focused on the material side of his ego, his pursuit of it leaves a big part of his ego unexpressed, this coupled with Marxian critic of the mecanism of the market and how the system itself forces the capitalists into competition for profit (which might as well be survival in the market), the capitalist is also being restricted by this hierarchy.
I would refer you to Hegel's slave/master dialectics for further clarification on the matter.
the difference for a worker between working under a capitalist society and a co-op lies in the freedom of association, I'm sure the people of /liberty/ would posit that capitalism is entirely voluntary, but from my point of view I don't consider the threat of starvation or exploitation to be freedom, I guess it's a matter of perspective
No.65232
>>64856
No they aren't, your turning morality into value judgements when they aren't. Morality is a type of knowledge which guides virtue.
No.65234
>>64867
>Therefore, both workers and capitalists are innately tied together as one system.
workers don't need capitalists, whereas capitalists do. They're tied into one system only because the system requires profits, and is based off capital's subjugation of labor.
> How do they acquire the goods they need to operate the steel plant? If you say "trade", what if they have nothing useful to offer?
society is oriented around use, not profit, the products of their labor are circulated in society for those who need it, and likewise for them.
> What happens if one of your comrades is sick/can't work? Someone has to pick up the slack, meaning they have to work harder. This is inevitable, unfortunately.
This already happens today.
>All of this, of course, is ignoring the fact that Socialism, at its heart, is a war-mongering platform.
all of western civilisation is based off war-mongering and invading others territories, the only difference is that socialism is a re-appropriation of what belongs to the laborers.
No.65240
>>65234
>socialism is a re-appropriation of what belongs to the laborers.
>belongs to the laborers
Can you prove that anything "belongs" to laborers? I think you /leftypol/ types just can't into logic. If I own my own, say, PC business, then I do receive all of what belongs to me. If, on the other hand, somebody contracts out for me to install hard-drives on those PCs, I don't "own the hard-drives." I, willingly, of my own accord, agreed to assist the PC business for a paycheque. If this is the case, the PC business does not "owe" me anything but a paychecque, which Capitalists gladly hand out.
Another point to pick at is the fact that you claim we should "seize the means of production", because your ideology is so outdated. What of programmers? How do they "seize the means of production", when they work by typing commands into a BASH terminal?
>the products of their labor are circulated in society for those who need it, and likewise for them.
Let's have a hypothetical, for a moment here. I work at X company, that runs on a new power called Gems. In order to get the Gems, I need a rocket that costs millions and millions of dollars, high IQ scientists to maintain/build it, and specialized equipment to retrieve these power Gems. Let's say, one day, I run out of these Gems, but need them to produce y good for society. Now we have an inconvenience: we need specialized labor, lots of time, and we can't even produce "y" good that society needs. What am I supposed to do, to trade? Why would someone risk their neck goign to get these Gems, and maintain the rocket, so that they can "get what is circulated in society for those who need it?"
This is why "natural monopolies" exist, because you need rich capitalists with big money to cut down on costs, time, and problems in the market. They are not le exploiting someone by asking them to do a job, paying them, and then sending them home each day.
No.65244
>>65232
If you think you can identify values and a whether a judgement has or hasn't happened.
No.65245
>>56993
Hey freedumbcucks, here is a perfect rebuttal to libertarianism and the leftists. If you're not nearer to the center you're an anti-modernist.
https://areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/amp/
No.65247
>>65240
>Can you prove that anything "belongs" to laborers
As in inherently? No, no one can, you don't have a right to anything strictly speaking; you merely appropriate it yourself.
> If I own my own, say, PC business, then I do receive all of what belongs to me.
Can you prove it? Your principle doesn't hold up at all when you attempt to apply it.
>What of programmers?
What of them? Without regards to IP laws, and being put into positions of code monkeying their lives would be better off.
>Why would someone risk their neck goign to get these Gems, and maintain the rocket, so that they can "get what is circulated in society for those who need it?"
Why does anyone do anything? Motivation, self-autonomy, mastery? You can't assume people's intentions for their actions, or universalize them.
No.65566
>>65245
>/amp/
aint clickin dat shit nigga
No.65590
It's precisely because of self-interest that I am a Communist.
Capitalism does not give me what I want without telling me I have to play some rigged game where some guy who already was given all the monopoly pieces before I even got started to make it to the top.
While such people may have more power than me, which causes me not to want to take their shit since I'd have to face repercussions, the nature of them collectively screwing with so many other people means that the collective power of everyone who makes up the majority can sufficiently overtake their power. Communism is the collective will of people like me who wish to take it all from the minority of people who already have everything. Because I have nothing to gain under Capitalism, and everything to win under Communism, the answer becomes obvious.
No.65593
>>65590
>Capitalism does not give me what I want without telling me I have to play some rigged game where some guy who already was given all the monopoly pieces before I even got started to make it to the top.
Economics isn't a zero sum game. The same system that allowed for an unequal distribution of wealth also allowed for so much wealth to exist that this inequality would even be noticed. You cannot create a "level playing field" without destroying the very mechanism of wealth creation.
>Because I have nothing to gain under Capitalism, and everything to win under Communism, the answer becomes obvious.
Communism does not work, you fool. The one reason why the communist states didn't fail immediately was because they mimicked the behavior of markets to a greater or lesser degree. There's a reason why Lenin responded to the famine of 1921-1922 by liberalizing the market again, and it isn't because "kulaks" caused the problem.
If you want the economy to work, you go with capitalism, whether you like it or not. There is no second alternative, or none that you could consistently implement.
No.65594
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>65590
>Capitalism does not give me what I want without telling me I have to play some rigged game where some guy who already was given all the monopoly pieces before I even got started to make it to the top.
This just seems like you're making excuses for your own failures as opposed to anything else, just because someone else is rich or is wealthy, does not mean that this is the reason you are failing. Money is not a zero sum game.
> I have everything to win under communism
This is a shitpost right? You can't actually be this retarded, can you? I mean the rest of what you wrote was pretty retarded (I'm a loser and as such I will take from those who win), but you can't actually be this empirically blind to facts, can you?
No.65595
>>65593
I don't care if economics is a zero sum game and I don't care if communism works or not. I don't currently live under communism, I live under capitalism and it's shit.
I'll start with dismantling the system that's already fucking with my life while failing to provide me with what I want before I start worrying about the one that comes after it.
No.65598
>>65595
>I don't care if I can live on my own, my parents are still real jerks and I will run away from home!
No.65599
>>65595
Every single person who was ever put againts a wall and shot after the dust of revolution settled was a person who had your mindset.
Assuming you are actually serious about this:
Best case scenario nothing notable happens and you fuck off to work at some low income job untill your pension days.because you have a criminal record for trying this shit.
Worst case scenario you do all of us a favour and set in chain the events that lead to your removal of the genepool.
So either way works I guess, carry on bud.
No.65600
>>65595
>I don't care if economics is a zero sum game and I don't care if communism works or not. I don't currently live under communism, I live under capitalism and it's shit.
You can live under Communism and it'd be just as shit lad, if not even worse.
>I'll start with dismantling the system that's already fucking with my life while failing to provide me with what I want before I start worrying about the one that comes after it.
And introduce a system that will not only fuck with your life some more, but then also fail to provide you anything you want on ANY level? I don't think you've thought this out very well at all. This just seems like a bunch of incoherent autistic ramblings, just because your life is shit doesn't mean you need to drag everyone else's life down with you, especially when these people are actually providing services that people value whilst you are failing to do so.
The only people who we can say are truly fucking with you (in a purely general and basic economic sense, I don't know if your parents abused you or what) are the government who end up stealing a portion of your income, someone who makes a living by selling his fellow man some fruits or the average guy paying people to work for him have nothing to do with your failures. In fact, it's probably such people that are the reason you have adequate food, water, etc. They provide value and they get something of value in return, how does this translate to them fucking with you?
No.65601
>>65599
I'm a software developer. I don't have a low income job. I plan on voting for socialist candidates, funding socialist propaganda, and just in general doing everything to fuck with right wingers as long as I live?
I mean are you so naive to think us Commies wouldn't try to find ways to fuck with you through Capitalism if we couldn't win through a direct conflict? It's not really all that hard. Capitalism can be used to cuck you naive ancaps in various ways, because it's open to that kind of thing once the ones in power are commies.
No.65603
>>65600
Again, not concerned with the hypothetical shittiness of the system that comes after Capitalism when the shittiness of Capitalism is directly presented to me in my daily life.
No.65605
>>65601
>>65603
So in essence, you're looking to blame your problems on an economic system with little regard as to whether what comes after it is or better or worse?
Holy shit, you actually are retarded. This is genuinely 'Autistic Screeching: The Posts'.
No.65607
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>65601
>>65603
Now I know who the people are that think Jeff the Killer is high literature.
No.65608
>>65601
Wow your retarted.
Let me explain reading comprehesion to you, my scenario involved what would happen in case of an attempt for revolution to change the system not what your current employment is.
What I'm telling you that according to over 2000 years of history you get fucked either way.
Do you really think that after you've gone back from burning streets whatever system comes into power wouldn't see you as a threat and at the very least would get you removed from livable emloyment or worse?
Just get of the net you spaz you are just embarrassing at this point.
No.65609
>>65595
>>65603
>living under capitalism
You live in corporatism dude.
No.65611
>>65609
>N-n-not troo capitalism!!
No.65613
>>65608
If you're admitting that capitalism is going to fuck me either way, why shouldn't I do communism?
At least then the rich get fucked up too. It'll be lulzy at least.
No.65617
>>65613
You shouldn't do it because you are wasting everyones time with your delusion.
At best you make a system that crumbles regardless because it is inherently againts human nature.
All you are doing is causing civil unrest that accomplishes nothing for selfish reasons. You are a tantruming child at a shopping center holding up the line of civilisation and scientific progress.
No.65619
>>65608
>Bill Nye The Goyim Guy
Come on, anon. Why that shitty rxn picture
No.65620
>>65617
And you're wasting my time with the delusion that Capitalism is in my self interest.
No.65627
>>65620
How old are you, fourteen? You've spent most of this thread whining about how capitalism oppresses you, and that's why you want to replace it with a system that you admit might kill you within a week. You sound like the kind of person that would commit suicide in front of his ex-girlfriends' house just to spite her.
Someone screenshot this discussion, please. This shit is too good.
No.65629
>>65627
I'm just stating facts. Sorry if that hurts you feelings.
No.65630
>>65620
I never said that.
Unless you actually want to be a dictator, no system will inherently serve you because suprise suprise you are not the only person on the planet. To think otherwise just shows us that you are still a child upset that you are not automatically given a free pass.
No.65631
>>65629
>I'm just stating facts.
What the fuck? No you haven't, you've just been going on about "boo hoo, my life is shit and therefore I'm going to make everyone else's life shit too". That's not facts, that's just autistic screeching combined with some resentment at god knows who.
No.65632
>>65630
Communism starts to get popular when Capitalism starts to not serve the majority of people, which is what it always eventually does. You can throw apologia out there and spit rhetoric but in the end, people act in their rational self interest, and if their collective self interest starts to be against Capitalism, they start realizing Socialism sounds pretty fucking swell with them.
No.65636
>>65632
then how do you explain the existence of this board you clown? How do you explain the rise of fascism in the 20th century as a response to the failing of the Weimar Republic instead of Socialism? Why is it that the only place socialism succeeded in were third world shit holes, instead of the already industrialized nations of Europe and America?
No.65639
>>65632
Yes and rational self interest is the same thing that will get you lined up againts a wall and shot after the revolution is over.
Why would any society want a person like you? Even if we had a fairytale communist utopia you would still get hanged for bitching about not having enough potatoes on your dining table eventually.
I fail to see how that is in any way a positive.
No.65640
>>65632
>people act in their rational self interest, and if their collective self interest starts to be against diet coke, they start realizing bleach sounds pretty fucking swell with them.
No, they don't.
No.65642
>>65636
Fascism is based on pointing at a race, ethnic group, religious group, etc, some random minority and screeching that they're the ones conspiring to fuck up society instead of the rich ruling elite who are the actual problem.
No.65645
>>65642
Funny how you don't apply this same logic to your hatred at the bourgeoisie. It still doesn't explain the problem of why Socialism failed to take hold during crisis instead of Fascism. Sounds like your ideology is a failure before it even begins.
No.65647
>>65645
Because the logic is different. The bourgeoisie have actual power through ownership of the means of production. There is nothing inherently powerful about being a Jew, Hindu, Nignog, European, etc etc. But there is inherent power in wealth.
No.65650
>>65647
That doesn't mean anything, that assumes all bourgeoisie actively conspire to ruin your life; or what have you. You also still didn't answer the question.
No.65652
>>65647
Why are you making it power, rather than the way people use it? Besides, we all know somebody that both has a lot of power AND uses it in ways that the moral majority are opposed to.
No.66249
>>65636
> the only place socialism succeeded
succeeded in killing people?
No.66251
>>57330
This picture sums it up.
They just want a magic ideology to make their failed lives in to a paradise like the disney movies promised them. Without them having to put in any effort.
Its not their fault really. Most kids have never had to work for anything they are given and we dont really teach them the value of what they are given. It takes decades to really learn that.
No.66272
>>66249
I meant their revolutions successfully taking off and establishing a socialist government.
No.66292
/leftypol/ has become a lot more authoritarian lately. There's been a nonstop stream of bans for stupid shit, Tor posting has been turned off with no sign of ever being turned back on again, much of its community is up in arms about the shitty Reddit-tier moderation and the mods aren't responding to the numerous complaints. You'd think a community that's constantly talking about how the corporate media is censoring them out of self-interest would show a little more concern for free speech.
No.66314
>>66292
>/leftypol/ has become a lot more authoritarian lately
Why am i not surprised?
>There's been a nonstop stream of bans for stupid shit, Tor posting has been turned off with no sign of ever being turned back on again, much of its community is up in arms about the shitty Reddit-tier moderation and the mods aren't responding to the numerous complaints
Anon, they do the same fucking thing in every fucking place on earth. they're collectivists, it's just their "modus operandi". Everyone who think different from their beliefs must be shutted down immediately.
No.66319
>>66292
But anon, true leftypol has never been tried.
No.66328
>>66319
Never has been tried leftypol.
No.66352
>>56993
Exploitation isn't immoral, it's the economic fact that under capitalism the average amount of labor put into creating a commodity is unequal to the actual price at which it is sold at. Anyone who tries to reframe the concept as Marx understood it into moral language is missing the point
No.66500
>>66352
Marxism has a materialist ontology, and therefore has a moral dimension underpinning it. There's a good reason that Marx attacked Stirner so viciously.
No.66524
>>66352
Exploitation isn't real, the only way marxist measure exploitation is by the profit the capitalist made. However, by the time the worker has already traded his labor with the wage he agreed to. Which means he has no ownership of his labour anymore because he traded it. Also the worker's labor has only played a part in the construction of the product. So why would he be owned the full reward?
No.66531
>>66352
You guys got several versions of what exploitation is and you constantly switch between them as it suits you. It's alienation from the product of your labor, then it's extraction of the surplus value of your labor, and then it becomes shitty working conditions. All three versions clearly have moral implications, but especially the last one, and that's the one I see invoked most often, because socialists just love to be moralizing fags while they deny that morality exists. You might be an exception for all I know, but well, you'd be the exception then. The vast majority of commies I talked to made heavy use of shaming the opposition.
No.66716
Egoism is a very very small group on /leftypol/
No.66770
>>66716
ancap is the only true egoism