/liberty/ - Liberty

Yeah man why aren't there free markets in my medieval strategy game where I'm supposed to mostly murder my rivals? Why isn't there capitalism in the game mechanics of a game based on a slave society? Why isn't there a transition from ancient Greece to industrial England? Fucking communist game developers, video games are the reason we don't have more people that are libertarian!

How about you nigger practice what you preach and "go make your own" in the free market? What else are you going to whine about, that the graphics aren't on par with the real world?

Although I agree, I think it would be interesting to have a game like that where you can let the market flourish and the goal is to achieve an anarcho-capitalist society but there's constant outer threat and internal issues and natural disasters, so you have to carefully juggle state intervention. Could actually be a very challenging game. Also I'd like to see a game that is based on materialism, like a civ game where you're confined to a materialist progression of history and need to go from slave society to FALC, and not by just accumulating imaginary science and culture points till you "suddenly" discover a tech or arbitrarily advance an era.

Most strategy games are rather explicitly zero-sum games; you're competing against a small number of players for a single, rivalrous reward. The free market is more or less the antithesis of that notion, if you think you can make a free market game OP good on you, but it likely won't take the form of a strategy game.

MMO's have capitalistic elements such as a user-provided market

>>82370

The stupid fuck dwarves wont plant food or carve houses without explicit instructions. Cant tell you how man logistic sims I've lost because everyone starves to death while im focusing on infrastructure

>>82355

They are by no means communist, but a more interesting question comes to mind; why are they NOT capitalist?

Because to understand the capitalist mode of production you'd need to read Das Kapital.

>>82355

> Libertarian Civilization Video Games

What would actually be the point? If Civilization games were made with Libertarianism in mind, then all you'd have to do is just leave the game along and you'd already win. From a game design standpoint, that sounds somewhat interesting as a quick novelty but not as an actual game.

>>82355

You own a plot of land. All citizens are renters of your property that have agreed to the contract required for citizenship. This contract places them is subjects to your law. Congratz exact same game but libertarian now.

>>82387

How the fuck is feudalism not libertarianism then? The lord makes a contract with a vassal or with a peasant over the right of usufruct over a plot of land in exchange for military duty.

>>82390

These people have little clue of the progression of social relations to the means of production.

>>82390

You arent able to change lords or become your own loard

>>82392

You can serve in battle and be appointed a knight afterwards. This happened. Of course, many of these newly appointed knights could never become knights in the sense of the word, because they couldn't support the lifestyle. But I would assume that this is not a contentious issue for libertarians because they should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

>>82390

>How the fuck is feudalism not libertarianism then

Feudalism could be made libertarian. It's just usually not.

>>82391

<He thinks that the means of production can be kept in check for the sake of social relations

LOL

>>82395

>because they should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

I expect most of them to fail. Peasants are peasants for a reason.

>>82397

>I expect most of them to fail. Peasants are peasants for a reason.

t. somebody who would have survived less than a week in medieval Europe

Most knights used to be glorified bandits who only got that ideological construct of chivalry built arround them as a justification because the king needed them as the Roman roads crumbled and central administration was virtually impossible.

>>82399

>t. somebody who would have survived less than a week in medieval Europe

<Life handed to me by a lord

<With zero agency get a plot of land to farm

<Work without thinking

so tough and hard tbh. its basically a welfare system.

>Most knights used to be glorified bandits

Winners get good shit, join the army bud. Go take over some foreign lands.

>>82404

>With zero agency get a plot of land to farm

People did not just "get a plot of land". Having land for your family to farm was a privilege most did not have. Most worked for a penny/day in the fields of these privileged farmers.

Rest of your posts just makes me want to cry, but I felt I had to correct this at least.

>>82406

>People did not just "get a plot of land"

Look man its all "the kings land". No one "owns their land". You always work "someone elses land". What that actually means is that you get some plot for yourself that you / your family work on and pay taxes for.

>>82407

Okay..?

>>82404

>>82407

Reading these posts I get the impression you don't even care about politics, history or whatever: You'll defend every indefensible bullshit just because there is a boot to lick. Edgy stuff.

>>82409

And where is your magical zone of communism? It has either never been tried, tried and lasted a month, or turned into genocidal shit holes. I'm sure it will work next time though.

>>82411

>It has either never been tried, tried and lasted a month, or turned into genocidal shit holes

All those statements are wrong.

>>82416

So where is it?

>>82417

It's wrong that socialism has never been tried.

It's wrong that it lasted only a few months.

It's wrong that every socialist country was a genocidal shithole.

What more can I say?

>Anyone have that "autistic screeching" pic of one guy agreeing to buy a burger for a dollar next to another agreeing to buy it for two dollars because he subjectively values it more?

Sounds retarded because that's how merchant capital operated, not industrial capital. Valorization of commodities on a national or even global level evolves arround economic laws, such as the labor theory of value. A BigMac costs arround the same in the entire world depending on the average purchasing power.

>>82418

Where is what?

>>82355

I don't see how you could make these games without becoming some kind of semi-divine central planner, but I don't really think that's such a bad thing. Essentially they're basically just building the equivalent of model trains with a lot of intricate and complex systems running in the back, as long as you recognize that I don't think there is really a problem with that in of itself but I do see what you mean that it could inculcate the idea of central planning as a desirable state of affairs.

I think the model train approach is often used because of a few reasons. You simply have the challenge of creating a world of simulated actors transforming land, utilizing resources, and expanding the division of labor efficiently. I imagine that would be an impossible task for any programmer outside of the most abstract. Plus games are usually focused on the player and I don't think that it would make sense to put the incredible time and effort in creating a game where the player would be ultimately irrelevant to the flourishing of society as would be required with a libertarian city builder.

Personally I'd actually really dig a simulation about the development of a free society, maybe taking the roll of god and generating or building a space in which individual agents have to bring the land under cultivation and build societies and cities from nature and being able to see how variables could be tweaked to create different outcomes, I think SimEarth sort of comes closes to this and I really adored that game as a kid if you want to check it out, I think it still holds up pretty well.

>>82370

Dwarf Fortress is basically just accidental communist propaganda, with nobility being essentially parasitical entities that demand luxury while the masses toil in the mines and kill elves with the hammer dwarves and sheriffs being the coercion to enforce the elites demands on the beleaguered peasants. Then you have the whole simulated money economy has prices that rise and rise until the dwarves can't even afford food or a place to live. The ideal situation sort of becomes a fantasy anarcho-commune where everyone shares everything and there is no clear delineated hirearchy.

I mean it is a fantasy game.

>>82422

>>82421

So where is it?

>>82397

>being this ahistorical

You know we are living under capitalism right now not feudalism.

>>82395

No. That's not true. Knights start out as pages, pages are the sons of noblemen. Peasants don't become knights.

>tax people for money

>manage resources yourself

>provide for everyone's needs

>centrally plan everything

THAT'S CALLED CAPITALISM.

YOU ARE THE CEO.

>>82443

A peasant could technically become a knight if drafted for war and subsequently knighted for deeds on the battlefield. The problem here is money for weapons, armor and horse (and horses would often have to be replaced after just a single battle because of trauma).

Some elements of the bourgeoisie could afford this, and some sent their sons to be trained for knighthood at an early age, often exclusively to gain favor with the local lord.

So no, not only pages became knights.

>>82447

Exceptions dont prove the rule, and besides, a distinct lack of money from the rigged system makes upward mobility impossible. Peasants who were knighted are nobility in name only.

>>82434

>ahistorical

>You know we are living under capitalism right now

I'm pretty sure the that I live in a socialist country

>>82448

>Exceptions dont prove the rule

Yes they do. Especially in this case. Only a very small segment of the population can be the elite by definition.

>>82447

>Exceptions dont prove the rule

What? People outside of noble families became knights all the fucking time. There was nothing exceptional about it. I even forgot to mention the most common way to become a knight; send a bag of gold to your lord and call him a good dude.

>>82451

Being a knight doesnt make you a lord or give you any actual power. There's no actual mobility

>>82452

Which is why i said it was something the bourgeoisie tended to do. And yes, there was mobility. It was not uncommon (especially during the late middle ages) for the most succesful bourg to marry into a noble family.

>>82453

Didn't mean to sage and no-flag. Cross platform posting

>>82444

They didn't do anything to earn the land. Evil Genius is capitalism.

>>82461

>socialism doesnt work

<yes it does

>nuh uh

>…

>pls respond

>>82462

>where has socialism worked?

<it has

>yea but where tho

<…

I can use meme arrows too

>>82463

Socialism was mostly succesful pretty much everywhere it was implemented and they managed to stave off the counter revolution.

USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Albania and so on.

>>82449

Can I talk to your central planning committee? I think they need to make some adjustments to the next years plan.

>>82466

Demanding someone to type out a defense of something you have not even taken the time to type out a criticism of could easily lead to a very boring and one sided discussion.

>>82467

So why the fuck are you still on this board? To have one-sided discussions? If you commies can't even tolerate each-other, what makes you think we will tolerate you? GTFO!

>>82468

>So why the fuck are you still on this board? To have one-sided discussions?

Not sure how you could come to this conclusion. I gave a list of countries I considder succesful socialist countries. Your move, faggot.

>>82469

>lists a bunch of shitholes

>successful

Do you seriously idealize living in those shitholes? Are those really the examples you would want to pick for socialism being better than capitalism? Even your own comrades are embarrassed by those countries and have to come up with excuses like "it wasn't real socialism".

>>82470

See, you arent even making a case. I knew this was gonna be a waste of time.

And btw leftypol almost unanimously considder the USSR an astounding succes. Liberals are not our comrades.

>>82472

It failed cause your dad told you so?

>>82471

Ok, then again, why the fuck are you faggots here? You derailed a good thread to waste your own time as well as ours, this could've been avoided.

>>82472

Also i didnt measure succes by ability to fend off counter revolution, but that ability to fend off revolution is a requisite for succesful socialism

>>82476

Prerequisite*

>>82473

As a matter of fact, yes, my parents lived in this Soviet Union and my grandad was doctor who had to take on the riskiest jobs in Afghanistan during the war just to be able to afford living the way middle-class Americans did at the time.

>>82481

Oh the horror. Only a single car, no McDonalds, no Coca Cola.. I'm happy to hear he made it.

>>82482

It's not about the Cola or the McDonalds, you retard. It's about doing all you can to give a decent life for your family, and in the USSR you either had to risk your life doing shit no one else wanted to do or get chummy with people in the party.

>>82483

Your family had food and health security regardless of your dad going to Afghanistan.

But you are right, the USSR didn't reach the living standards of the USA. Though it would've if the trend had continued and it didn't collapse. Czarist Russia was approximately 400 years behind America in terms of "natural industrial development". Russia never went through a capitalist phase, they had to build industry from the ground up.

>>82484

>Though it would've if the trend had continued and it didn't collapse

<It would have turned into a utopia if it did not collapse into a shit hole

>>82479

>GDP is somehow an objective measure of the economy, let alone the people who live under it

I know you lack all self awareness but please try and reflect on how retarded you are

>>82484

>Your family had food and health security regardless of your dad going to Afghanistan.

It was my grandad and no, they didn't, but since you consider living in North Korea to be a luxury, I guess you have really low standards when it comes to these things.

>Though it would've if the trend had continued and it didn't collapse.

The 80s were comfier than other times because it was a lax social democracy and not the hardcore communist gulag of nations that it was before, regardless, the USSR would've still collapsed because its economy was almost entirely dependent on exports of natural resources, which is what prompted Gorbachev to start the reforms in the first place.

In other words, your "successful" socialist economy and everything in it was just a state-capitalist petrostate funded by the bourgeoisie capitalist imperialists and their petrodollars. The Americans even had a shitfit with the Europeans because this.

>Czarist Russia was approximately 400 years behind America in terms of "natural industrial development".

Just call it Tsarist Russia, there's no such thing as a "Czar". Russia was already industrializing and becoming capitalist and the trend would have continued anyway without communists coming in and murdering everyone.

>>82484

My matrilineal grandparents escaped from Cuba during the revolution and moved to Spain. We visit the family members who stayed behind now and again.

I will never forget the first time I went there, I was 7 or 8. It was my father's first time too, and he was talking to my great aunt iirc. He was asking her what gift she'd like for the next time we came.

"Medicine"

"What medicine?"

"Any medicine"

"What do you mean, any medicine? Like aspirin?"

"Yes, aspirin would be fantastic"

I only realised later the misery these people were living under.

>>82505

kys semite

>>82421

>t. Never been to an Alaskan McDonald's

Prices don't only fluctuate with purchasing power, they also fluctuate with demand and scarcity.

>ITT: Marxists zeroing in on medieval Britain in order to extrapolate a universal theory of historical determinism

Can we just ignore the commie shitposters and start talking about vidya again?

>>82369

>if you think you can make a free market game OP good on you, but it likely won't take the form of a strategy game.

I'd certainly wish to try making one I'll maybe start on something this week. But on the contrary, you're wrong about it not being an actual strategy game. Real-time strategy games have traditionally been about micro-management which makes them tactical games, and there isn't much room for strategy because usually if you lose a battle, you will also lose the whole war. It's essential just a point and click game without any decision making.

In contrast, a real strategy game would be about macro-management, ie. you don't tell each individual unit exactly what to do and where to go, and probably, you will instead get units that command other units too which in turn, you can also command to some degree. There will already be a system (an economy) that works with or without the player being involved in it, the agents of the system have to decide what's best for themselves as if they are real thinking beings and the player's goal could be trying to get as much power over the system as possible (power as an end) or instead the player could choose to focus on using what power he does have to counter some other threat or to reach some goal (power as a means to an end). For it to be a real strategy game, there should be many ways to defeat your enemy besides the usual "get to the resources first and starve them to death", and the outcome of the game shouldn't be decided by the result of a single battle with an enemy or with how good or bad you started the game.

Starcraft - although a fun game - is an example of what NOT to do.

>>82519

You want Victoria 2. It's a great grand strategy game for autists where you play as a 19th century state. The economy is simulated to an impressive level of detail, with for instance AI populations of farmers and labourers producing raw goods which get transformed into consumer products by artisans or workers in factories paid for and owned by capitalist investors (which can and often do go bankrupt) sold on the global market, with prices fluctuating due to supply and demand. In order to create a successful economy you pretty much have to embrace laissez-faire, as even though managing what gets produced yourself is possible (if your nation goes state capitalist/socialist) it soon becomes impractical and inefficient due to the complexity of the system.

You heard me right. The economy is so complex central planning falls prey to the calculation problem.

I only play with a mod called HFM. It tweaks the game and adds a lot of historical flavour.

>>82421

So where is it?

>>82390

Feudal lords have neither homesteaded nor obtained their land legitimately (according to the libertarian sense). Also lack of competition and voluntary association.

>>82395

Knights were granted a portion of property but were still tied to fealty.

>>82425

> Drawing arbitrary lines doesn't help your argument much, nor does it even address the argument of the supposed meme.

The distincton between merchant capital and industrial capital isn't arbitrary. A merchant does not accumulate capital stock.

> That has to do with people's preferences for the thing in question, not with how much labor was put into or the amount of resources put into. The amount of resources or work is all information that the consumer does not process simply from looking at the end product itself, rather he makes his decision based on how much utility he seems himself getting. Your core argument is essentially like saying that since most people around the world like chicken, that this is somehow proof that human tastes are objective, and not only that but the reason for it being objective is based on the amount of time taken to kill a chicken.

How much somebody is willing to pay for something doesn't really say anything about the value of a product, it just transfers value to another person but if you take all the distorting factors out, that is supply and demand, brand value and consumer mannerisms, we still deal with a value in an equilibrium, where 30 yards of linen equal 4 coats or whatever. Marginal theory does not explain this, nor does it try to. In the end we can definitely say that labor creats the value and nothing else, because we have no other real indication of some metaphysical force creating value otherwise.

This is also the aforementioned difference to merchant capital, merchant capital is almost entirely dependent on price fluctuations based on supply and demand (example: Some merchant buys some salt in Riga and sells it in Brussels in the 15. century) whereas full capitalism creates such a rapid sequence-exchange that prices oscilliate arround a fixed value over time (also obviously caused by the fact that productive forces have evolved significantly).

>>82575

>Capitalism is planned economy

I'm glad you're learning what worker/manager relations are about.

>>82461

That is the whiniest way I have seen anyone beg someone to type 'muh credit union' I have ever seen.

Speaking of credit union versus bank president, what the hell is your fetish for killing everything by slapping a central planner on the thing?

>>82579

>A merchant does not accumulate capital stock.

Merchants accumulated logistical capital. Dutch merchants modified their fluyts to not only transport products such as fish but also refine them on the same ships. In this example the line between merchant and industrial capital is blurred.

>How much somebody is willing to pay for something doesn't really say anything about the value of a product

What is exchange value?

>In the end we can definitely say that labor creates the value and nothing else

This ignores supply and demand. Labor alone cannot determine efficient resource allocation.

>>82582

>Dutch merchants modified their fluyts to not only transport products such as fish but also refine them on the same ships. In this example the line between merchant and industrial capital is blurred.

Good example, but once capital stock is accumulated it's not merchant capital in its original definition. Such refurbishments surely contain the very embyonic cell of bourgeois production.

>What is exchange value?

Generally saying, it's the equilibrium price of a commodity, before supply and demand are taken in account and before some brand logo is glued onto it.

>This ignores supply and demand. Labor alone cannot determine efficient resource allocation.

But we aren't talking about allocation here. I already admitted that supply and demand play a role in individual pricing (although this plays less and less a role in developed capitalism as we overproduce all goods) but it doesn't change the value of a good independent from supply and demand. Supply and demand don't "create" value, it simply transfers value from one person to another.

>>82387

>implying you can just own a massive plot of land like this legitimately

You can't arbitrarily claim arbitrarily large plots of land. Lockean property rights and all, friend.

>>82588

>implying you can just own a massive plot of land like this legitimately

Are you fucking kidding me? Of course you can. There are corporations now that have higher revenue than entire countries in the 3rd world. They just buy the land of a bunch of poor people and then you have your own country.

>>82590

>corporations do things now

>corporations will be protected by government in ancapistan and be able to do the same things

okay kiddo

>>82590

LOL. You don't get how this works clearly. A profitable company will have no trouble employing a security contractor.

>>82591

>>82593

>company becomes tyrannical government

>implying people will just allow this and that any "security contractor" will be able to defend corporate overlords from potentially millions of people

Fuck off retard. People would crush your hypothetical tyranny just as they always have in the past, ESPECIALLY if the people had experienced true freedom in their lifetimes by living in a Libertarian area.

>>82595

>Company

>becomes tyrannical

<Implying company wants to fuck up its own property with unprofitable gulag

this nigga does not know basic economics

>People would crush your

You heard it here first kids. Mob violence is fine and killing property owners is good as long as its not for communism!

The absolute state of ancaps.

>>82598

Your entire hypothetical centered around a company buying up land it doesn't use and then imposing NAP-violating laws on people in those lands.

That makes it a tyrannical government which is violating the NAP and needs to be dismantled.

Fuck off.

>>82598

>he doesn't know how Lockean property rights work

Can you please go back to /leftypol/?

>>82600

> and then imposing NAP-violating laws

Look here fucko voluntary agreements before anyone becomes a citizen is not a violation of the NAP.

>That makes it a tyrannical government which is violating the NAP and needs to be dismantled.

<Its okay to steal we are not commies smash the corporations!

>Can you please go back to /leftypol/?

Fuck off you commie scum. You think its okay to steal shit that was legally and morally acquired via free exchange.

>>82603

A corporation cannot claim an arbitrarily large plot of land that goes unused and untouched by themselves for the purpose of rent-seeking. This violates the NAP.

If they build homes or apartments on this land, then they're good. But that's not what we are talking about. Your hypothetical defined a tyrannical government doing tyrannical things. People are justified in doling out NAP-supported justice when the corporation illegitimately makes a claim to land and attempts to force NAP-violating laws.

I'm done arguing with you. Read Locke or fuck off.

>>82604

>A corporation cannot claim an arbitrarily large plot of land

They are not claiming a shit ton of land. They are buying it from whoever owns it.

>llegitimately makes a claim to land

Yes buying it from a land owner is illegitimate sure thing bud.

>>82604

>If I don't use my car its not my car anymore

>Create game based around one guy taking over the fucking world (or some other re-defined thing)

>Whole purpose of the game is allocating resources for world domination

>Wonders why it's all commie bullshit

Gee, I wonder OP.

Empire at War is still god-tier.

>>82606

>cars are land

>>82604

Admit it, you're one of us. Or at least a georgist.

>>82586

>equilibrium price of a commodity, before supply and demand taken in account

It is supply and demand that determines equilibrium price.

>Supply and demand don't "create" value

It does. Production requires the availability of capital, labor and other inputs (supply) and requires demand to determine what to produce. Remove either one, and there would be no product, and hence no value.

>>82686

Well, they're citing the father of communism, basically.

A little recycling chute, a little replicators, and the substrate goes round and round.

>>82604

>If they build homes or apartments on this land, then they're good

How is this not for the purpose of rent-seeking?

>>82642

>If you morally and voluntarily buy land and then don't use it its not your land

>>82760

>buy

>>82760

>land

>>82355

Because it's no fun to just let the game handle everything for you or to play as a small, isolationist nation. The point is to conquer more territory and build up your economy by micromanaging everything.

>>82786

I mean he's got a point. USSR had the fastest economic growth behind Japan in the 20th century, started of as a piss-poor peasant state and turned into a space-faring superpower with high living standard. You can compare this with literally any capitalist state in 1917 which had similar conditions, an example would be Brazil. Brazil had lots of natural resources, a huge country and was economically at the same level of development than Russia in 1917 - and it got tremendously outperformed in every single regard by the USSR.

The DPRK grew faster than South Korea till 1975 with a high standard of living for a developing country so that it became a role model for the developing, this happened despite it got bombed to shreds by the US and lost 30% of its entire industry. This only started to change once they dropped Marxism-Leninism and decided to spend everything on the military (Songun policy).

Cuba got under a massive embargo from their main trading partner and yet managed to keep up a decent standard of living, better than most of the Caribbean, has a good healthcare system and managed to uphold a genuine people's democracy.

There only socialist countries that were genuine failures were Ceaucescu's Romania and Pol Pot's Kampuchea.

>>82817

>fastest economic growth

>space-faring superpower

India has both of those things and its a literal shithole.

>>82532

Yeah dude, I played Vicky 2 as well as the other Paradox titles and although I admire the scope of that game, it's too autistic for my tastes and begins to feel like a graphical calculator since the gameplay is mostly based on balancing out numbers to get the best result. It's just too mathematical for me.

>>82818

India had neither of these things in the 50s. They greth slower than both China and Russia (and the reason they grew at all is because a fucking 5 year plan and a almost 50% state quota). I don't think the HDI between the USSR and and India is comparable - there was no caste system in the USSR, no sweatshops, no poor peasants, no poo in da loo. Ironically, the only place in India where poo isn't in da loo with highest human development is ruled by communists (Kerala).

>>82823

grew*

Please just ignore these fucking commie pests, guys.

>>82823

You totally missed the point on that one.

>>82828

Well yeah? Enlighten me, wise one.

>Hey gaiz, does anyone else think being a CEO is awfully COMMUNIST??

Almost there, /liberty/, almost there…

>>82867

>being a CEO is awfully COMMUNIST

you've only scratched the surface

I've read some ancap paper about the calculation problem in oligopoly markets and it basically argued that any form of administrative control is gommunism

<peanut brain: state government does staff is communism

<galactic brain: corporate government does staff is communism

this kind of mindset reminds me of those management experiments when different teams at the same factory were supposed to have a market relationships with each other

>>82880

Oh, hell, I'd go even farther.

<microbrain: state government does staff is communism

<peabrain: corporate government does staff is communism

<only-slightly-retardedbrain: hey, isn't rule by a central planner the EXACT contention between Rothbard and Konkin, with the latter maintaining the decentralization called for in left political and economic theory?

I mean, you can take it straight back to the foundation of the term. Right = a central planner to rule them all, left = self-rule, a la french revolution.

The current trend, though, is to act retarded on the internet and pretend it makes one more important. It does, actually, decrease the effort of running nine thousand socks. It does not, however, suggest that one's own position has any merit on its honest terms.

The fact that capitalism's last defense is "but we has an enemy, and they run on a CEO system," however… odd.

>>82915

Capitalism is not a boolean variable. You have capitalist policies and corporatist policies. No country is 100% capitalist.

>>82928

Do not let the shitpost flow, anon.

>>82928

Communists say exactly the same thing but in inverse. Everything bad about the USA is failure of capitalism, everything good is success of socialism. You really don't see the pattern? LOL

>>82898

Are you retarded? The fact that economical planning works is proven by companies like Amazon. But this doesn't make the market mechanisms they follow "good" or communist. What about this do you find hard to grasp?

>>82480

When asked 70% of Jamaicans want to go back to being part of the British Empire.

Its mostly nostalgia driven.

I thought you were talking about the huge skin bleaching industry in places like Nigera. Where women put household chemicals on their faces to make them paler.

>>82962

Didn't realise this only starts in 1950. Still, you will need to give your evidence that USSR was the second fastest grower over the whole period. They certainly fell behind post 1950, which would make sense if they only managed basic industrialisation.

>>82964

>taking GDP statistics seriously

>taking GDP statistics that counts financial sector as value creating seriously

>taking Soviet GNP statistics seriously

>comparing Soviet/USA GDP/GNP seriously

toplel

almost as futile as trying to compare purchasing power of soviet ruble and american dollar

according to mainstream GDP statistics subcontractor that produces consumer electronics adds orders of magnitude less value than firm that sells them

or in other words some faggot working at an apple store adds orders of magnitude more value than some faggot standing at the assembly line because he is more productive

bus drivers in Luxembourg are also orders of magnitude more productive than their counterparts in Bangladesh

totally makes sense

and some offshore tax heaven like Bermuda being the worlds most productive nation totally makes sense too

you're rightfully skeptical about the soviet value statistics but you pay no attention to the plank in your own eye

I find that Khanin's conclusion that you can somehow trust only statistics in physical terms like energy consumption is not limited to SU

>>82752

Rent-seeking from buildings created by finite resources on toiled land is different than rent-seeking from untoiled land. A corporation can only afford to build so many apartments and this puts sane real-world limits on what would otherwise be a disaster.

Again, Lockean property rights.

>>82898

>If mental gymnastics were a sport, you would all get gold medals.

…but when the boss tells the workers what to do on the boss' factory, it is NotCapitalism!(tm)

Sure thing bud.

>>83045

>but when the boss tells the workers what to do on the boss' factory, it is NotCapitalism!

Why is it not? They agreed to trade their labor to get more than they would get if they did not, win-win, voluntary agreement, they are not forced and can leave any time so it seems A-OK.

>>83087

>collectively owning the means of production without the possibility of capital accumulation is being a slave

>getting cucked by some rich boss who extracts your surplus value is freedom(tm)

The absolute state of lolberts

>>83120

can we ban retards please

>>82898

>big companies are communist

What the actual fuck? Not a single communist in the history of the world has said this. How fucking retarded are you?

>>83132

They literally fucking said it in this thread, you moron. Hence:

>I can't even understand how you idiots manage to stay consistent with that retarded ideology of yours.

Maybe you can all fuck off to leftypol and decide on exactly what your ideology is before trying to shill it everywhere.

>>83074

>Why is it not?

I think it is. OP thinks it's 'communism' to have an employer or CEO.

>>83087

>yfw commies are ready to work like slaves for free because

…because they get to keep the fruits of their labor. Read Smith.

> but they don't want to work for porky for wages because muh capitalism

…and you should totally learn what a regulatory monopoly is.

>>83146

>They literally fucking said it in this thread

You think the OP is themselves communist? Because that was not my assumption.

>>83124

Not an argument

>>83159

>because they get to keep the fruits of their labor.

They do not tho, egalitarianism has proven throughout the history to efficiently stop anyone from producing anything, as it is the most reliable way to lose the "fruits of their labor" due to collectivization. In freer markets it does not take much resources to buy some tools, materials or even machines and create something, not to say about renting one, for example, while in egalitarian system you can reliably predict to lose all these.

>…and you should totally learn what a regulatory monopoly is.

How are regulations on businesses relevant to this discussion? What monopolies are you talking about? Government granted or the ones which emerged along these regulations and now uses them to tackle competition?

>In freer markets it does not take much resources to buy some tools, materials or even machines

…and in communism, you just check them out of the library. Or walk up and use it.

No big difference.

>How are regulations on businesses relevant to this discussion?

Same reason Smith was mentioned.

The gap between capitalism and agorism is, quite broadly, using the state to rob people. One of the easiest ways to do this is, for instance, to use the power of the state to prevent market socialist or agorist alternatives from being allowed to operate. This creates employment, where it would have been economically unviable prior to intervention of force, and robs the surplus value inherent in the discrepancy between regulated and nonregulated states.

Do you need me to continue? Because I admit I honestly tend to assume that USLibertarians play dumb on purpouse; "barriers on market entry are written by the people you now have to work for" is pig-obvious, and constantly warring against market socialism and agorism ("the leftistz") isn't really a good sign for actually believing in a market, let alone a free one.

>>83186

>…and in communism, you just check them out of the library. Or walk up and use it.

Then there is no need to build communism, as a decentralized system such as free markets would be more reliable and not vulnerable to problems such as tragedy of commons. Even more, voluntary communism is compatible with free market, as you are free to create your won communes.

>Same reason Smith was mentioned.

I did not mention him.

>The gap between capitalism and agorism is, quite broadly, using the state to rob people.

On this board ancom is assumed under the term of capitalism, so a state is not an option.

>market

>socialist

Pick one.

>or agorist alternatives

Agorist means simply creating independent markets, it is not left any more than political activism as a concept is.

>robs the surplus value

It is the very reason the markets work. It represents the benefit for trader that allows him to work, and his work creates opportunities for more effective application of labor of an employee. Win-win, that is how markets work, people cooperate because it is profitable in the first place, not because they just fell like it. If you want to advocate for labor theory of value, then just do not.

I do not know much of US libertarians and ancaps, so even if i wanted i cannot speak for them.

>>83120

>>collectively owning the means of production without the possibility of capital accumulation is being a slave

yes, being unable to work without sharing 99% of the fruit of your labour with the community (TM) is slavery

>>83212

what did he mean by this

anarcho communism doesn't discriminate between fellow workers and everyone else. you have to share with everyone.

>>83213

Under anarcho communism you have to share with everyone or the anarcho state will crush you.

All this is some bullshit. SimCity games specifically calculated for the markets and (at least in 2000) you had individual industry demand you could not control beyond taxation policy. Where's the communism? Oh, we're building police stations and parks? Woe is fucking me guess my NAP got violated.

Fuck off. You're the worst meme about us, the type that cherry picks a couple games that are legitimately socialistic like Tropico and uses it to slander an entire genre.

>>82368

And you're a Marxist who can't see beyond his full retard historiography.

>>83262

Also, fucking Impressions games. They had markets. Supply and demand would even go down randomly in those markets. Anno games were built off of fucking market dynamics. Oh, but it's a GOD GAME, that's why it's socialistic? Fuck off pleb.

The more I think about OP's premise the more I think he's just a moron who confuses abstraction with socialistic intent. You never drive demand in any of these games, you can only shape it. There's no premise of a command economy, other than placing lots. If that's the USSR shiver me timbers, friend. Every mayor on Earth that uses zoning restrictions is now a dirty rat sinkin commie. Even in Tropico (which you'd expect to be commie considering the theme) you're given a huge amount of leeway in how much state intervention is acceptable in people's lives and have to act as a player in a world market with fluctuating supply and demand. The best you can argue is that labor and private enterprise is abstracted, but then you can easily argue that the factories in Tropico qualify as private enterprises if you wish them to be so, because that's the nature of the god game. Yes it's simplistic compared to the real world, but to argue it's socialistic is insane. Modern city councils have a huge amount of leeway over what does and doesn't get built in the jurisdiction: that's not fucking socialism it's city planning and if you wanna tell me city planning isn't capitalism go stare at Manhattan for several hours and get back to me.

>>83188

>market

>socialist

>Pick one.

Bullshit, princess.

Not only were most historical forms of socialism predicate on market economics… but the utopiian, "everything is free and there is no need to work" crap is directly and wholly centered, and a direct implication of, free market theory.

Granny would pay money to knit sweaters. Others would pay money to wear them. Why not short that out and drive the price to zero? And how, exactly, are you going to compete with that price, again?

>Agorist means simply creating independent markets, it is not left

Someone should actually read a little SEKIII again.

It was very explicitly stated. Furthermore, agorism technically falls under the umbrella of socialism due to the total absence of proprietor/slave relations.

>to use the power of the state

>It is the very reason the markets work.

Ancap in a nutsshel, folks. This person just said it out loud.

…speaking of which, did I mention that anticapitalism is an explicit goal of Agorism? Without regulatory power to prevent buying and selling, there can be no oligarchs.

>Then there is no need to build communism

On the contrary; if you want a tool to be public, you're going to have to build it and put it there.

>you are free to create your won communes.

Freudian slip?

Anyways, commune living is fun for a weekend, but has nothing at all to do with communism. Open-access MoP and do-what-you-want, probably in an agorist environment which drives the price to zero, versus one of the more unusually and atypically intrusive forms of socialism.

…of course, if you want roommates, you're probably going to have too commune. It's just not even remotely related to communism unless you ALSO set up a tool shop that anybody can use, seperately.

Anyways… you should read more about Agorism. It's one of my favorite forms of Left anticapitalism, because an actual unregulated market would basically kill the fixed employer, which the state drives people to at gunpoint by shutting down all other activity.

>>83368

Oh, sorry, i thought you were not braindead.

>>83368

Have you ever considered explaining it to them in terms of BitCoin?

- The original bitcoin client is open-source, which makes bitcoin COMMUNIST. Anyone can make or alter a bitcoin client.

- The intention of bitcoin is to operate through consensus agreement, meaning it is intentionally SOCIALIST.

- The danger to bitcoin is to gain 'extra' votes through hardware. When 51% is owned by one person, it becomes CAPITALIST, having a private proprietor.

- If bitcoin becomes capitalist, it loses 100% of its value. Capitalism incentivizes VIOLENCE to force people to accept an undesireable economic scheme and preserve an unsupportable position.

…I mean, it's pretty straightforward. 'n the last half is a pretty good explanation of the shit we've got now.

>>83368

>because an actual unregulated market would basically kill the fixed employer,

<a free market is actually socialism

lol

>>83374

More or less; a market cannot have both an owner and an absence of regulation, so it's definitely anticapitalist - against private proprietorship.

Of course, the only agreement is between buyer and seller, so while it would pretty much give rise to the immediate outbreak of a socialist/agorist world and the absolute death of captalism, the market itself is probably not completely socialist except in the most abstract of worldviews.

>>83392

Value of labour isn't value at all.

>>83406

Then you'll have no problems with people robbing you, since the fruits of your labor have 'no value' anyway.

>>83392

What did i tell you about Labor Theory of Value, young man? Go back to /leftypol/ and think about what you are doing.

>>83408

I have a problem because my things have value which isn't labour.

>>83377

>dat ivory tower incorrect semicolon usage to separate a non-independent clause from an independent one

>dat bullshit definition

<reddit space

Typical commies

>>83419

Then under libertarian theory, you don't own them. Read Locke. Or Rothbard.

>>83459

>actually wanting the state to keep people out of the market.

>>83451

>Then under libertarian theory, you don't own them.

Where did Locke and Rothbard mention that ownership requires labour?

>>83472

He probably means the homesteading bullshit when they talk about frontiers.

>>83472

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

Welcome to the fundamental principle of both USLibertarianism and insurrectionary socialism. And a few others.

…but, yeah, the literal first principle of USLibertarianism. Self-ownership->labor->property.

Good luck. Link covers both sources, too.

>>83478

This is all modern liberal bullshit. Roman propertarianism is much more in line the NAP: Property -> Labor -> Self-Ownership

>>83479

>This is all modern liberal bullshit.

…if by 'modern liberal' you mean Locke, Rousseau, and eventually Rothbard, as well as scores of others from half a millenia ago…

>>83478

How convenient not to mention Tucker with his property rights view. Cherrypicking or special lefty smell in "USLibertarianism and insurrectionary socialism"?

>>83485

>…if by 'modern liberal' you mean Locke, Rousseau, and eventually Rothbard,

Yes.

>>83478

>holds that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

Key word is "originally". If I purchase or inherit someone else's property from whom originally acquired through their labour, that does not imply nor directly state the property is not mine.

>>83539

>f I purchase

…with what?

>>83544

Do you \not know how things are purchased?

>>83550

Do you see the phrase "how is that even possible" in that sentence? Bluntly, you're dodging the question to try to weasel out of this.

As an autistic side-rant, no one knows how things are purchased because the details of exchange are not standardized; dollars here, rubles there, three cows and a chicken over there. But.. that's not the point.

…everything that COULD be exchanged, whether dollars or rubles or chicken tendies came about because of labor, party above swore labor has a value of $0, ergo, you can rob that guy because everything they own has a strike price of $0. At least the guy arguing that libertarianism sucks and fascism is the one true way has the possibility of being consistent..

>>82953

Look at the date

>>83553

SimCity isn't full-blown socialist, but there are some retarded things sprinkled in here and there. Like windmills being stupid cheap to create and maintain.

>>83552

>Do you see the phrase "how is that even possible" in that sentence?

Of course not. What are you getting at? Things can be purchased with whatever medium of exchange you want.

>no one knows how things are purchased because the details of exchange are not standardized;

Prices are standardized.

>everything that COULD be exchanged, whether dollars or rubles or chicken tendies came about because of labor,

In some cases. In other cases, indirectly from other's labor (e.g. inheritance. And in some cases, no labour was required (e.g. amber and seashells have been used as currency).

>>82962

Even acording to this data the USSR grew faster than the USA from 1950 to 1980

>>83262

>>83265

>>83271

>things are authoritarian and therefore not capitalist

<yea fuck you they are deal with it

the big think

>>83591

>its sitting around on the ground so getting it isnt labor

I bet mining gold isnt labor to huh

>>83596

Getting it off the ground is not labour. The gold example is a non-sequitur because that requires processing and capital investment to extract the resource.

>>83604

Well, if it is only the ground then i'd agree, though it generally is not the case. Renting a house, for example, needs investment first, not taking about managing it later. Today, the only actor renting the ground itself is the government, while companies or individuals only do rent something created from investment. Maybe companies owning forests might fit, but this is more of a resource thing, so it might be more similar to warehouse with planks.

>>83596

>hurr anceitn societies had a state

>this means no private enterprise now!!!!

Kill yourself commie.

>>83392

So did Portugal and Singapore, but you aren't arguing their methods are superior.

Industrialising countries tend to grow faster, I expect.