No.83481
How do we fool these losers into becoming capitalists?
No.83482
>>83481
There's no changing the minds of modern day leftists, they must be removed.
No.83487
Get them to accept more and more watered down versions of socialism by accepting the following things in order:
personal property -> gifting personal property to friends -> exchanging favors with friends -> exchanging favors for money -> exchanging favors for money to strangers -> owning small businesses -> owning large businesses
No.83488
>>83487
>personal property -> gifting personal property to friends -> exchanging favors with friends -> exchanging favors for money -> exchanging favors for money to strangers
Already part of their theory.
>owning small businesses -> owning large businesses
Sometimes part of their theory, sometimes not.
How does one get capitalists to give up the regulatory barriers to market entry whose regulatory capture provides most of their profits?
No.83490
>>83488
>Already part of their theory.
Wut? Unless we are talking about a transitional period into socialism, I don't think anybody would be okay with money accumulation. Money requires exchange, which we seek to abolish and replace it with distribution.
No.83491
You can't, the mods delete everything.
No.83492
>>83490
Well, I mean, Proudhon would probably disagree. And most of the utopians are gleefully willing to let the price fall to zero just through the market and open-access MoP, "I have no upstream cost and choose not to charge anything"…
…there are several other schools, as well. So, it varies a bit.
No.83494
>>83488
>How does one get capitalists to give up the regulatory barriers to market entry
You dismantle the government, you dismantle its regulation
No.83496
>>83481
Capitalism isn't something you can fool someone into, a capitalist is who you naturally become as time passes by and you get more experience dealing with people in the world. If you have an IQ lower than 80, then it's all about peer pressure and herd mentality, less intelligent people just go with whatever the rest of society believes in.
No.83497
>>83496
I dunno, man… I've met some pretty legit actual-retards. It's the 85-95 range that scares me.
Then again…
>a capitalist is who you naturally become as time passes by and you get more experience
>If you have an IQ lower than 80, then it's all about peer pressure
…rly, d00d?
No.83499
>>83492
Okay but if we are talking about about /leftypol/ there is like mutualist poster (and he's awful) and the rest sort of a agrees that socialism can't have a market with exchange, even the Yugo flags believe it to be a transitory period. I mean, if you don't change the entire mode of production, what's the point? Work isn't somehow less alienating if you distribute the the shares of a company equally amongst the employees. Not to mention that literally all laws of capitalism are still in place, it's just now that everybody is a capitalist. Mutualism has a better place on /liberty/ than on /leftypol/ tbh.
>And most of the utopians are gleefully willing to let the price fall to zero just through the market and open-access MoP, "I have no upstream cost and choose not to charge anything"…
Are you talking about Proudhon here? I've never actually read Proudhon, I just know he wrote a good piece about private property, but does that sound realistic? Laws of capital are pretty abstract, you can't just overcome them by not adhering to them as long as you are still living in a capitalist system.
No.83500
>>83497
>If you have an IQ lower than 80, then it's all about peer pressure
Well yeah, stupid people unfortunately have opinions, but it's not something they come up with themselves. It has more to do someone else manipulating their emotions.
>oh, are you poor? look at that rich guy, he stole your money, that's why!
No.83501
>>83499
>I mean, if you don't change the entire mode of production, what's the point?
Modes of production =/= modes of exchange.
Figure out what a market with a $0 low bid would look like.
>Work isn't somehow less alienating if you distribute the the shares of a company equally amongst the employees.
Mostly because of the abstraction and its inefficiencies. Abolish the shares and let them do for themselves, and it gets a bit better. If they figure out something better, it gets better still.
My credit union ain't bad… but that's because a draft share is met with an occupy-style general assembly.
>Not to mention that literally all laws of capitalism are still in place
…including the ones which suggest the basic premises change when the price drops to zero.
Very few parties are interested in rent-seeking from themselves, Others, sometimes; themselves, not so much. Meanwhile, there's more than just work… so, your job has stopped seeking rent from you, your housing has stopped seeking rent from you… you're somewhere between zero upstream and actual minimal cost.
Now what, exactly, does that law of capitalism about a declining rate of profit from increasing competition in an open market look like when there is zero upstream cost from rent-seeking? ;) I'll give you a hint : Catalonia just went straight to it, briefly.
…and that is why you will NEVER see a lolbert ACTUALLY care or do shit about just buying and selling in a park or on the street. If a free market ACTUALLY broke out, they'd lose their income from police-coerced slavery, and their business. Legalizing a market is something they don't want… and if it ever happens, we'll be living in a postcommunist utopia pretty damn quickly.
>Okay but if we are talking about about /leftypol/ there is like mutualist poster (and he's awful) and the rest sort of a agrees
Yeah, but leftypol is worse than /pol/ with the "socialism is when the government does stuff" crap; I still remember the "Inca are socialist because they had a god-emperor which ordered fake busywork" thread…
The rate of profit to fall; I'm not, actually, a marxist (are you REALLY familiar with the anarchist critique, here? because it's damning)… but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and an ACTUAL market are enough for a market economy… where the price of everything is $0. This is why lolbertarians will never, ever support "free trade" without the "but not for you peons" caveat; their entire system depends on rent from the government. Sad… but true.
Ironically, lolbertarianism is not supported by Rothbard in the slightest, according to his writings. I'm not a follower (don't need him), but I still note the difference.
No.83502
No.83506
If there were a meat grinder, and you used a meat grinder as your means of production… would it be good?
Now, you pay a person to use the means of production for you, grinding meat out of the meat grinder. Meanwhile, after the payment, you use the surplus value you earned and create an enterprise. It is true there is labor involved in ownership, and that workers wouldn't exist without the concept of ownership.
idk, tbh, this can probably be debunked. But I wouldn't say killing a person is wrong for what tools he owned, or inherited, and paid another man to do for him.
No.83507
>>83501
>Modes of production =/= modes of exchange
They are interlinked. The mode of production comes first from that the sphere of exchange derives depending on the productive relations.
You're talking about upstream cost and rent-seeking (do you mean wage labor? Because that's not the same) but in Marx' conception of the falling rate of profit, he uses a "perfect" capitalist who basically lives on thin air and accumulates all his profits. So when there is a market, the rate of profit falls, probably even faster than in regular capitalism because the capitalists can slow down the falling rate of profit through moral depreciation (spending the profits on luxury). Now, I don't see why you'd have the idea that prices would be zero - when there is a market, there is exchange, this means there is exchange value involved, because different labor goes into different commodities, for which needs to be accounted since there are still individual producers and the means of production are not commonly owned. How do you account for deductions for expansion of production? I see no other way than capital accumulation in that case.
>are you REALLY familiar with the anarchist critique, here? because it's damning
Explain. Most anarchists or libertarian Marxists agree with Marx, they just disagree on historical materialism, as in: The role of the state.
>I'll give you a hint : Catalonia just went straight to it, briefly.
Do you know any good reading material on Catalonia? I've never concerned myself with anarchist economics.
>Yeah, but leftypol is worse than /pol/ with the "socialism is when the government does stuff" crap; I still remember the "Inca are socialist because they had a god-emperor which ordered fake busywork" thread…
That's a bit of a meme but it's true that the Incas were communist, Marx said so himself. Yes, they had a godking, yes, they had a caste of priests, which is both antithetical to communism, but they didn't have a market or exchanged goods, their economy was centrally planned and instead of money they used labor vouchers to distribute goods (they put a knot on a string for one hour of labor done). They didn't even have division of labor in their family and the kids were raised without a gender.
>…and that is why you will NEVER see a lolbert ACTUALLY care or do shit about just buying and selling in a park or on the street. If a free market ACTUALLY broke out, they'd lose their income from police-coerced slavery, and their business. Legalizing a market is something they don't want… and if it ever happens, we'll be living in a postcommunist utopia pretty damn quickly.
No disagreement here. I merely disagree with your optimism that you just have to abolish the state and then society automatically ushers into full communism.
No.83512
Push accelerationism. They'll help us get unrestrained free market capitalism in the belief that it will collapse soon, then sit around waiting for the impossible.
No.83514
>>83512
>Push accelerationism.
not THIS is a strategy I can get behind
first we need to get rid of any antitrust laws
second we need to get rid of labor arbitrage, i.e. get rid of barriers to immigration
No.83515
>>83481
We don't. They're just larping.
No.83516
>>83514
Both of you will get neither. Unless there is some real conviction towards either side it will all relapse to what people knew and were used to. Even if it did not work, it's still preferable to venturing into the unknown.
No.83518
>>83515
Come on, at least we have IRL organizations of which some are actually militant in the Global South. AnCaps do exist first and foremost on the internet, do they not?
No.83520
By supporting any capitalist nation against the US and US companies.
They are that idiotic over there.
No.83523
>>83520
Thanks for the tip.
t. Shill
No.83524
>>83514
They're already falling for it!
No.83525
>>83482
>actually posting females
How is this not banned yet?
MODS!
No.83529
>>83522
>the developing world doesn't exist
What are you even trying to say?!
No.83530
>>83520
You don't understand why communists oppose imperialism though. It's telling a lot when fucking /pol/ and /liberty/ are more anti-imperialistic than you guys.
No.83541
>>83499
>it's just now that everybody is a capitalist.
I thought you guys did not mind petite capitalists?
No.83542
>>83529
I never heard of developing countries being called "global south". Is this a colloquial term?
No.83543
>>83507
>Explain. Most anarchists… agree with Marx
The ENTIRE first international ditched Marx to hang out at St Imiers because of his habit of attacking any leftists he could find.
Lenin continued this tendency of attacking leftists, and not only Krondstatted Krondstat, but attacked a socialist-inclusive revolution and exiled the socialists to implement, in his words, capitalism… and set himself up as CEO over the workers. Stalin was yet another continuation in this trend, coordinating with his proxy Franco in Spain, working with his proxy Hitler to run joint gas van operations in Poland, and attacking in the Ukraine directly without a proxy on the ground.
No, no anarchists like Marx, pretty much by definition; they're trapped between violent capitalists with faintly different graphic design motifs. 'n the FAI kills Marxists on sight.
>rent-seeking (do you mean wage labor? Because that's not the same
So long as police will harass you for homelessness, loitering, being work-shy, and buying and selling without your masters… yes, it is the same.
This isn't the only aspect of slavery; the government also prints fiat currency out of thin air and just HANDS it to the people it wants to be your masters (and demands it from the people at gunpoint). The theoretical lolbertarian myth of voluntary master/slave relations MIGHT exist if there were neither government NOR land ownership (because any state is a state), but is merely gunpoint rent in the system it is.
So, yes, they are currently the same.
>when there is a market, there is exchange, this means there is exchange value involved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Really_Free_Market
>Yes, they had a godking… their economy was centrally planned
That is called capitalism, wherein the CEO centrally plans what the workers do.
>I merely disagree with your optimism that you just have to abolish the state and then society automatically ushers into full communism.
Let's put it another way; who is going to stop you?
We've already killed employment because you can enter the market without elites. One of two things is then going to happen; you're either going to save up, get a tent and a place you can put it, and throw a few beans around, wherein you have to come up with five bucks a year in taxes (and no state to support the elite/worker division, so maybe it withers entire), and can just give crap away for free thereafter… or, someone else gets there first and you're literally getting everything for free.
It's the same situation for both cases, told from different perspectives in the transition… but to take the second one, why would you even ACCEPT money if you got everything for free and couldn't give it away? Is there any utility in carrying heavy racks of paper around?
LTV, bro. You have no cost except what someone else charges for their work, and in an unrestricted market, that's going to fall. Sure, in the early time, things might get a nonzero price in times of shortages, but this is an acceptable early-transitional solution to an unusual situation. Again : what would stop you in this situation from just putting it out there for zero and undercutting everyone? That's already how FLOSS and trackermusic works. It's tested.
If lolbertarians actually believed their shit, it… would lead to at least the anarchist version of a utopia without cash or masters in the first few years. Unfortunately, they're usually flat-out junking Rothbard to try to tell you that a totalitarian state is libertarian,, and things coerced by the current state are 'voluntary.' And getting them to give a shit about buying and selling is… impossible.
It helps to remember that, as historical fact, even the wingbat end of utopianism is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, up until Marx started the trend of attacking the Left… and as far as liberals go, Smith warned us that capitalists are conspiring to fuck us while Locke invented a form of communism centered around the recycling chute and the replicator button. The republic, similarly, was much closer to the anarchist version than the current occupation, as well…
…we both agree that the agora is better without the elite/slave distinction in either case, yes? Do we both agree that this would wither fixed employment as well?
No.83545
>>83542
It's some bullshit nu-sociology crap. A required uni class that I took called (((Global Issues))) used it a lot, I think it's the politically correct way to acknowledge that Africa and South Ameriac are shitholes but implying that it's somehow latitude's fault and not the inhabitants.
>Dem Europeans with their Tropic of Capricorn privilege be keepin us down, mang
>break the equatorial ceiling and seize the parallels of production
>>83543
>Marxism wasn't real communism
Still gets me every time. The memes have truly broken through to reality.
No.83547
>>83545
It has never, ever been any different. What part of "kicked out of St Imiers" are you too retarded to wrap the oxygen-starved remnants of your brain around?
The millenia preceeding his attack were much more awesome. And yes, it has always been this way, you're just a fucking retard.
No.83548
We can't. Hatred of capitalism is an innately biological characteristic. The only solution is to throw them out and keep them out.
No.83549
>>83507
>but they didn't have a market or exchanged good
They exchanged goods among foreign entities.
>>83543
A CEO does not centrally plan an economy. Centrally planned economies violate the definition of capitalism:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
No.83551
>>83549
>A CEO does not centrally plan an economy.
…just sits there letting the workers do what they want, huh? No orders given whatsoever, just "you're the workers, you decide, you don't even have to agree with each other?"
>Centrally planned economies violate the definition of capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
<tfw the entire history of capitalism "isn't real capitalism."
The SEKIII/Rothbard disagreement establishes that they remain the defining feature of capitalism.
No.83554
>>83551
a business != an economy
truck system != centrally planned economy
what is with these non-sequiturs of yours?
Enclosure laws were non-legitimate seizures of land, and thus not capiltalistic polcies.
>SEKIII/Rothbard disagreement establishes that they remain the defining feature of capitalism.
How so?
No.83555
>>83548
>Hatred of capitalism is an innately biological characteristic.
let me see if I got this right
there exist a gene of gommunism
so there must exist a gene of libertarianism too, right?
to think we could literally kill libertarianism in its crib.. to think we could engineer a perfect gommunist
No.83556
>>83554
>a business != an economy
Then Leninist-Capitalist (his term) Russia wasn't an economy because they engaged in trade with other nations.
>truck system != centrally planned economy
I mean, it's an entire self-contained economy completely controlled by one guy, but sure.
>Enclosure laws were non-legitimate seizures of land, and thus not capiltalistic polcies.
Perhaps, but the Enclosures were still the foundation of capitalism.
>How so?
Their entire debate revolved around employer/servant relations versus self-determination with no masters… making the central planner the prime difference between capitalism and left-market theory, according to Rothbard at least.
He usually does better. But…
No.83557
Mutualism and Georgism.
Free market + Mutual Credit & cooperatives.
Focus on getting rid of "state endowed privileges", civil liberties and market-based cooperation, rather than competition.
No.83558
>>83481
Install sexbots with Rothbard quotes. That way they're forced to listen to AnCap stuff when they can't get any pussy and resort to the sexbots.
No.83560
>>83556
>Then Leninist-Capitalist (his term) Russia wasn't an economy
It was an economy (and definitely not capitalist) but it was not a business.
>it's an entire self-contained economy completely controlled by one guy
Not free from competitors, and reliant on investment capital of some outside source whether financing or production inputs.
>Enclosures were still the foundation of capitalism.
Capitalism was founded upon voluntary association, not on mercantile machinations.
>Their entire debate revolved around employer/servant relations versus self-determination with no masters
This does not answer my question on how central panning is "the defining feature of capitalism".
No.83561
>>83560
>It was an economy (and definitely not capitalist) but it was not a business.
Yet it had a CEO, employees, manufacturing, and trade with outside parties.
What magical element are you looking for?
>Not free from competitors
Neither was Russia. Some other country would sell you stuff.
>Capitalism was founded upon voluntary association
Historically, no.
>This does not answer my question on how central panning is "the defining feature of capitalism".
The fact that the org with a guy at the top centrally planning what the workers do is what seperates capitalism from, say, agorism should be a big hint.
No.83578
No.83587
>>83555
That's a bit simplistic, but yes, in the same way that your skin color and personality are products of your genes, your political ideology (or lackthereof) is also a manifestation of your genetic code. Something as complicated as political ideology isn't as easy to locate in a genome, though (compared to eye color, etc.).
No.83588
>>83496
>muh human nature
read a book
No.83590
>>83561
>Yet it had a CEO, employees,
It does not, but I agree with the rest orf your statement.
>Neither was Russia.
Russia had not competitors within its jurisdiction.
>Historically, no.
Actually, yes.
>guy at the top centrally planning what the workers do is what seperates capitalism
Not really. Businesses operate in a decentralized market (unless they are a monopoly) and thus cannot plan how other businesses operate.
No.83592
>>83588
>muh brainlet meme
Is it just me or does anyone who post this shit meme give away that they're an idiot?
>read a book
Go to work.
No.83603
No.83605
>>83590
>Actually, yes.
What you note as unjustifiable seizure of other peoples' land, coupled with literally auctioning people prosecuted for not being at work (vagrancy), is the historical foundation of capitalism in England.
>Russia had not competitors within its jurisdiction.
…and if you walk into a walmart and just start selling stuff, you'll get kicked out.
>Businesses operate in a decentralized market
TIL I have to BUY paperclips, but accounting and HR are competing on the price…
>and thus cannot plan how other businesses operate.
And the USSR could not directly operate the government of, say, Spain.
No.83608
>>83605
You need to define capitalism, as you might be arguing about different things if the definitions differ. On this board capitalism is generally to be assumed as a system of free trade and non-intervention, as anywhere where individuals cooperate without forceful coercion, there would be capitalism, an absence of rulers and not an artificial system, but one that emerges from the rules of the world and individuals within it.
No.83610
>>83481
I considered showing them the fact they are the rich opressor porkies and the first to day if the reds try anything, but they are too dumb to believe in facts. Just considers pic related anon, the only cure for stupidity is death.
No.83612
>>83610
>muh boomers
You're doing it all wrong, maybe here on /liberty/ you can show someone the facts and they'll take your shit seriously but when arguing with someone less intelligent than you, that shit won't fly. With stupid people, you have to be emotionally manipulative, you have to pull at heartstrings, you have to use god words and avoid devil words, you have to use anecdotes, you have to use wit and humor, you have to tell them EXACTLY what they want to hear.
Forget about facts. If you could educate them by showing them facts and statistics then we would've all been living in paradise by now, but that's not how it works. Stupid idiots exist to be manipulated, that's their only practical purpose, they're biorobots, they're fucking NPCs.
You know how Pavlov trained his dogs? It's the same shit, just condition them with emotional treats rather than physical ones and they'll expose their entire programming to you.
No.83630
>>83605
>What you note as unjustifiable seizure of other peoples' land, coupled with literally auctioning people prosecuted for not being at work (vagrancy), is the historical foundation of capitalism in England
Yet again you are confusing mercantilist policies with capitalism. Capitalism "officially" had its foundation in the Low Countries, but had earlier roots in capital investments of Renaissance Italy.
>…and if you walk into a walmart and just start selling stuff, you'll get kicked out.
A walmart store is not walmart's jurisdiction. The store is subject to ordinances/laws of the township//country/state/province/coutnry it is located in.
>TIL I have to BUY paperclips, but accounting and HR are competing on the price
How do departmental decisions have to do with central planning an economy? A business != an economy.
>And the USSR could not directly operate the government of, say, Spain.
USSR an Spain have different economies.
No.83648
>>83587
>Something as complicated as political ideology isn't as easy to locate in a genome, though
no shit, Sherlock?
what a cheap cop out
come to me when you can locate a specific communist amino-acid chain
fucking condescending faggots with their vulgar genetic determinism
guess when people change their political leanings in the course of their lives they also change their DNA, huh
No.83650
>>83630
>and if you walk into a walmart and just start selling stuff, you'll get kicked out
And I suppose governments either homestead or purchase all the territory they claim jurisdiction over?
No.83676
>>83650
>And I suppose governments either homestead or purchase all the territory they claim jurisdiction over?
Oh, 'bout as much as walmart.
I've never really seen them making payments to the local native reserve in N. America.
No.83726
>>83481
From what I've learned is that you can't convert someone over the internet, it only can happen in person and they have to be of a certain personality type. It's really hard to break the statist propaganda that people are inculcated with from birth in public schools and reinforced constantly by the intellectual elites.
I had a friend that was a typical socialist democrat and I can't really blame him for it, it's basically the default position that people raised in our current climate of intellectual thought, it's the path of least resistance, you aren't exposed to libertarianism or capitalism accidentally you have to really seek it out. I had to start from the beginning by showing him a set of libertarian ethics, what are natural rights and how do we know they exist? What is ethical property and how do things pass into being property of a person? etc.Once you sort of get the basic set of ethical principles out of the way you can sort of take that and explore every aspect of society and human interaction. From there you can easily identify the unethical from the ethical.
Then of course there will be the questions of sure something is ethical but wouldn't unethical ways of organizing society bring us a higher standard of living? Basically, don't we need some statism? Here familiarity with history and economic theory is indispensable. You can point out how the state has been a tool of big business interests, the political elite, intellectuals, and big labor to cartelize and regulate society for power, prestige, and wealth at the expense of the people they are supposedly "helping". Then from there you can explain how in a free market people constantly are getting more, better things at lower and lower prices.
Once that's all said and done you'll have a new militant libertarian. I've converted a few people and while not all of them went to full anarcho-libertarianism they at least are at least a lot more suspicious of the state. Of course, not everyone is open to this, some people just don't care and if you try to convince them they'll just groan and ask to change the subject, activists don't care about ethics they want to force their particular pet social project on the whole of society and they're more than happy to advocate government coercion to achieve it, others still are your marxian socialists who have their inhuman ethics firmly rooted in their mind and trying to talk to them is just an exercise in frustration (which I am addicted to).
So I guess you can't convince someone online to be a capitalist and you certainly won't get success in fooling them, they've already been fooled, you need instead to poke holes in the propaganda until it crumbles away and they see the light.
No.83757
>>83650
True, it is illegitimate jurisdiction but de facto jurisdiction none-the -less.
No.83765
>>83726
>From what I've learned is that you can't convert someone over the internet
You don't fully understand how it works. The truth is, you can convert someone online and even IRL, but don't expect to do it in one post, it happens over time like water dripping into a cup, and it also depends on who the person is, they have to be objective people that are in search of the truth, and they have to be smart enough to understand it, so, even if someone is a hardcore commie now who won't listen to a thing you say, a few words might still stick with them and they might eventually grow into a hardcore ancap, like what happened to me.
Also, another important thing you have to take into consideration is human pride, because it will be pretty shameful for anyone to admit that they were convinced in an argument, even if you did just redpill someone on the spot.
No.90158
No.90159
>>83481
sup /liberty/ why do you feel the need to "trick" people into believing in your ideology?
No.90163
>>90159
Funny how /leftypol? always forgets the "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" thing when citing Orwell. How inconvenient would it be, right? Also, open source is not communist and GPL is a form of copyright
No.90168
I just want to give oral sex to a cow and horses asshole but people around here have to be retarded about it because they are desperate for any leverage over people.
No.90170
I just want to have sex with animals. I'm really attracted to horses and cows and stuff but there's all these people getting in my way. They won't let me play with the animals and if I do they're going to punish me for it. They are actively preventing me from doing what I need to do and restricting me from having access.
Them on the other hand, they have things really easy. All they have to do is kill themselves. That is their responsibility, their only responsibility and its very selfish to make us have to do it for them when we're already expected to struggle for sex. There are so many ways to do it they could use a shoelace or a belt or place a plastic bag over their head and suffocate. Nobody is stopping them or punishing them from having those and nobody is going to punish them for doing it. They will be dead, they can't be punished the way they would punish me, they have the luxury to escape that.
See all I want to do is have sex with animals but those people don't understand the complications they are causing by getting in the way, because the only thing left they have to do is so easy. They are biased towards their own goals and it's solely up to them to do what they need to do for themselves. All they need to do is die, people do it by accident every day its all they need. They're already on the clock it's like pull over and clock out already.
No.90179
>>90159
>sup /liberty/ why do you feel the need to "trick" people into believing in your ideology?
commies are too stupid to know how lucky they are to be able to work in a coal mine and live until the ripe age of 40
No.90181
>>90179
Capitalists are too stupid to know how lucky they would be to wait for a loaf of bread in breadlines all day. God only knows where they get their bread from in countries without breadlines.
No.90183
>>83490
>which we seek to abolish and replace it with distribution
>distribution
Theft. Call it what it is, weasel, the unconsenting removal of someone else's property so that you can give it to yourself.
No.90186
>>90181
Don't capitalist stores have lines for buying your food? Wow really makes you think
No.90188
>>90181
That's all they do is buy shit. They turn everything into shit. I want to have sex with cows and horses and they tell me "No that's abuse. You may only eat it and turn it into shit''
Those people are shit eaters.
No.90189
>>83481
Try using actual arguments to beat them in a discussion. Oh wait you can't, just like fucking stupid nazis all capi threads devolve into shitposts cause your arguments run dry.
Straight up go post a thread without dropping shitposts or with some dumb sneaky motive or abusing any meme words and put a little effort into it (ie no low effort le helicopters post since we want discussion) and if you wanna avoid a ban don't deny climate change or defend the us army. If you do this in good faith and don't screech like a baby or drop iq points after the first few posts(happenes all the time with idiots thinking you can just post some meme gdp map or muh evil jooos then when then that gets debunked they rage) then perhaps based 200 iq libertarian btfo out of dumb libtTard commies cause obviously dumb commies are wrong amiright???
And don't try win the argument with some two sentance thing it takes more then just North korean photo at night no#23 cause i see these dumb cunts doing just that. Get some evidence and sources. Too much effort for some online forum? Then fuck off cause your not gonna convince anyone or anything with pol infograpths.
No.90191
Notice how all the commiescum suddenly crawls out like cockroaches when they are being discussed, as if they were here with us all along? I'm not usually the kinda guy that gets paranoid and calls everyone a shill, but I don't doubt that certain posters arguing with us and causing chaos are just leftietrannies without flags.
No.90194
>>90191
some useless sosial parasite like you came to our board and mentioned this thread
Back to lurking with me…i don't like to waste my time arguing with useless social parasites like you. You're all ough tto be sent far, far away from society and never to return.
Fuck demcoracy. Fuck human rights laws.
No.90195
>>90194
>demcoracy
>human rights laws
Did you take a wrong turn somewhere?
No.90196
>>90191
This board is irrelevant, I might've posted ten times here total.
No.90197
>>90194
>commie
>calls people parasites
No.90199
>>90186
>Don't capitalist stores have lines for buying your food? Wow really makes you think
There's a big difference between waiting with large amounts of food in a cart to make a purchase, and waiting in a large line for long amounts of time to get a small amount of something as basic as bread, uncertain that you'll even get it or how much of it you'll actually get if you're so lucky.
Kind of a big difference there champ.
No.90200
>>90186
In capitalists stores you wait because there's too much food. In government-run stores you wait in lines because there's a shortage of food. Wow really makes you fink.
No.90204
>>90196
That's 10 times too many.
Whoever occasionally bumps this thread to stir shit for fun can suck all the tranny cock in the world.
No.90205
>>90191
>Talk about board full of Communists and how to psyop them into capitalism
>Be surprised when Communists from that board show up
Anyway it was a /fascist/ who brought my attention to this, so as usual libertarian fags are crypto fascist. Hoppe ethno (no)state amiright?
No.90207
>>90205
>it was a /fascist/ who brought my attention to this
Of course. Who else if not them?
No.90208
>>90199
three points I'd like to make
>The breadlines people bring up happened in the Soviet Union during a drought
>The affordable food you get in the grocery store in the US barely constitutes as food
>The overproduction of food is causing a massive ecological crisis
No.90209
>>90208
>The affordable food you get in the grocery store in the US barely constitutes as food
Only is the only thing affordable to you is dumpster diving. Still more options then you'd have had during USSR.
USSR goods are notable for their bulkiness, lack of taste and being unpleasant to use, same with food and other daily items. They didn't even produce toilet paper until 60s, giving the saying "dirty commie" an brand new meaning. They also used newspapers that praised USSR as its substitute which is also ironic.
>The overproduction of food is causing a massive ecological crisis
And underproduction causes shortages of food and mass starvation ,especially if you forbid people to actually fix the problem due to central planning.
No.90210
>>90196
…And yet here you are, continuing to post and vie for attention as you adamantly insist you don't care.
>>90208
<Soyviet Union took some of the most fertile land in the world and mismanaged it until a famine happened
<Junk food is cheap therefore all cheap food is junk food
<the socialist bureaucrats put in subsidies that make farmers overproduce
<same socialist bureaucrats blame problems of the subsidies on capitalism
No.90211
>>90208
>The breadlines people bring up happened in the Soviet Union during a drought
Tell that to the Russians, and especially the Ukrainians, they'll love to hear about it.
>The affordable food you get in the grocery store in the US barely constitutes as food
Tell that to Venezuelans, or anyone else currently starving in a socialist shithole.
>The overproduction of food is causing a massive ecological crisis
Tell that to the fishermen of the Aral Sea, ask them who caused the worst ecological disaster we had on our planet.
No.90213
>>90208
>The overproduction of food is causing a massive ecological crisis
Funny hearing this from someone who endorses the country notable for some of the world's most notable environmental disasters, Chernobyl and shrinking of the Aral Sea, along with extreme heavy metal pollution, oil leakages and toxic gas leaks, all without taking more general factors like water and air pollution into equation.
No.90215
>>90189
>if you wanna avoid a ban don't deny climate change or defend the us army
>if you wanna avoid a ban don't disagree with us!
Yep, par for the course for leftists. All for discussion up to the point people start disagreeing with you. It's not protected, it's hate speech! You're arguing in "bad faith" because you don't agree with us, so you don't get a voice!
No.90216
>>90199
>>90200
Pic related a Soviet grocery store.
Here's a link with images inside a North Korean grocery store:
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-trump-store-food-2017-5
No.90217
>>90216
What a professionally made photo, definitely fully reflects all the different benefits of soviet reality.
No.90218
>>90215
If you really wanted to " fool these losers into becoming capitalists" then that's exactly how you do it by having a discussion and winning it. If your ideas of capitalism and property rights is so good and Communism so obviously wrong then go prove yourself right. I was giving you tips on how to effectively have a clean fair discussion and prove ebic based capitalism against Soros antifa super soldiers. Contrary to your belief fascists and capitalists are more then welcome on leftypol to have discussions.
If you want to spam unsourced infograpths like a fucking retard (4pol) have no real discussion and get your thread anchored or yourself banned then join the quee. Not like you can't discuss economics without discussing global warming or saying arabs deserve to die for oil money.
No.90219
>>90217
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf
Here's the literal US government claiming Soviet nutrition was on par with American nutrition.
No.90220
>>90219
Definitely the soviet statistics cannot lie about their citizens' food intake, they have no reason to because they are all supplied by Glorious Centrally Panned Economy so they really have free access to all the standard set of products that Glorious Government had chosen.
It also says many things about US economy after the cold war, as the country was not that different from either Germany or USSR with all the control it gained through fear mongering and military spending.
No.90221
>>90209
>Only is the only thing affordable to you is dumpster diving. Still more options then you'd have had during USSR.
A large amount of the United States lives in third world conditions and have little access to good food without heavily breaking the bank.
No.90222
Jesus, you stupid lying nigger. Everyone who lived in the USSR knows that you never bought groceries from a "grocery store" like some fancy fucking western imperialist, you bought them from a babushka at the local "market", aka a "bazaar". In fact, it's what we still do today in poorer cities.
You can take your idyllic American suburban bourgeoisie "grocery store" and shove it up your ass.
No.90223
>>90216
>every aisle except the one in front of the camera is empty
>>90221
>A large amount of the United States lives in third world conditions and have little access to good food without heavily breaking the bank.
Do you even know what "third world" means? Starvation is a non-fucking issue in the US and it hasn't been for years; there are only a handful of cases annually, and every time it turns out to be a matter of abuse (parents intentionally withholding food or similar) and not lack of resources. Eating too much is a bigger problem among the poor (which is a product of culture and not poverty; we can see this in that 1st-gen immigrants that are poor miraculously don't have any obesity problems) than not eating enough. Stop acting like a retard and pulling platitudes out of your ass.
>>90222
Also this, I've got family who lived in the USSR, can confirm.
No.90224
>>90222
Meant for retard: >>90216
No.90225
>>90223
>Starvation is a non-fucking issue in the US and it hasn't been for years;
Hunger, or food-insecurity, is defined in the U.S. as an inability for individuals to obtain sufficient food for their households. People skip meals, cut back on the quality or quantity of meals, and may potentially suffer malnutrition over time. Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties, one in four children (24.8%) lives in poverty. In the tri-county area, 644,000+ people, including 217,000+ children, live in poverty.
In the City of Detroit, over 57% of children under age 18 live in poverty. Using poverty rates as a proxy for hunger, over 1 in 2 children in the City of Detroit are at risk of hunger. Nearly four million (3.9) households in Michigan live at risk of hunger.
No.90226
>>90222
This, though these places are rare to see in big cities, any marketplace there is most likely a bulk seller or re seller. Very common in smaller villages, sometimes even more accessible than usual stores, also handwork and used items are usually sold there, basically they are local flea markets, just with more grocery specialization due to doing gardening is a common village activity and lack of suburbs with their rules.
t. parents lived in USSR
No.90227
>>90225
>Detroit
Expect California to join and wonder why
No.90228
>>90227
It wasn't REAL Capitalism of course. Anyone knows we don't even have capitalism.
No.90229
>>90225
>says food insecurity
>uses stats for poverty
"Poverty" is defined really generously, especially in the US, and has very little to do with hunger, as it's defined by relative income. The UN reports that the US has much higher poverty rates than Europeans, and REEES that we should raise taxes to fix this, but ignores the fact that the people in "poverty" in the states have higher incomes and standards of living than the average in European countries.
https://mises.org/wire/uns-absurd-measure-us-poverty
No.90230
>>90228
>implement socialist polices to tone of the biggest industrial cities in the US
>it fails and turns into this
>See how bad capitalism is? That's why we need social democracy - to prevent these failures!
No.90231
>>90230
>socialist polices
Like what?
No.90232
>>90218
>If you really wanted to " fool these losers into becoming capitalists" then that's exactly how you do it by having a discussion and winning it.
I don't. OP does. I know that this may come as a shock to a collectivist, but we are distinct, individual anons here, with distinct, individual opinions. OP wants to "trick" you into capitalism because he thinks you can be saved. Me, I realize you lost all hope of redemption when you denied your own human nature and sacrificed your capacity for critical thought at the altar of communism. OP wants you alive. I don't.
No.90233
>>90230
>Socialism is when the government does stuff
Germany under Bismark confirmed socialism because it gave out welfare. Norway,Denmark are socialist,Russia is also socialist because the government does stuff, Great Britain is also Socialist.
In fact the entire world right now is Socialist because every government basically ever has at-least one role in the economy and most states give out welfare. Looks like the Soviets won the cold war.
No.90234
>>90231
Like centralized urban planning
No.90235
>>90225
>In the City of Detroit, over 57% of children under age 18 live in poverty
Wow socialist hellholes in the U.S. have shit living conditions! Who could have fucking guessed?
No.90236
>>90226
That's true, in my city we still have a few here and there, but they don't look so empty. And all this isn't even taking into account the supermarkets that they build on every corner, you can't even compare whatever he posted with the modern supermarket and it's choice of food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pgaMoqe1rg
No.90237
>>90233
>In fact the entire world right now is Socialist because every government basically ever has at-least one role in the economy and most states give out welfare.
>Looks like the Soviets won the cold war.
Then you should be saying both soviets and nazis won, wouldn't it be unfair otherwise?
No.90238
>>90236
In very small villages the stores like his pic are still very common as they use all the equipment from that time, though these villages have to be at least 80km from major cities, if some commie wants to visit the remainings of their beloved idol.
No.90239
>>90237
Now that I think about it the Ancient Romans were socialist because they gave out free grain,water, toilet facilities,baths and the government did lots of things. Even central planning.
No.90240
>>90233
The true evil here is not exactly socialism, but exactly the fact that government does stuff. Since socialism can't exist on a large scale voluntarily (aka, without the government doing stuff), then the statement "socialism is when the government does stuff" is quite correct. Socialists are the enemy not because they want to share a factory and give money to poor people (as if they actually do), but because they want the government to do stuff.
>In fact the entire world right now is Socialist because every government basically ever has at-least one role in the economy and most states give out welfare. Looks like the Soviets won the cold war.
You're right about that too. There's no purely capitalist society right now, and the few that come close can be counted on your fingers.
No.90241
>>90239
Sure, empires are a form of socialism, as well as theocracies and other centralized systems reliant on central authority planning.
No.90242
>>90239
And where are the Romans now? Where are the ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians? The Jews and their ancient traditions are still alive because they didn't put their trust in government, but nothing is left of all these other mighty empires besides ruins.
No.90243
>>90240
From your perspective I agree 100% with that statement and I don't think people shouldn't just be able to say it wasn't real socialism if the outcomes are impossible to reach. However there's still an obvious difference between the government doing stuff and the government doing stuff for a "socialist goal". 19th century Germany or Ancient Rome was not Socialist even though the government did stuff. If we believe propaganda against the USSR then although it's not technically Socialist i would agree critiques against it could be held up as an example of "socialism" where as you can't hold up Tsarist Russia or Feudal France as Socialist.
On the same hand though simply though existing capitalism causes all these monopolizes,states and problems free market people see of the current situation. What we have now is the outcome of Capitalism and is what capitalism is bound to turn into. And saying what we have now is "Crony capitalism" is factually false since that is the inevitable end result of "pure capitalism" .
Just like you believe Socialism always turns into le hungry people I see your idealized version of Capitalism always turning into what we have now being the outcome of it and any attempts to just call the United only failing because it wasn't real Capitalism is just dumb.
>>90241
>yfw 100% of all human inventions were because of Socialism or under it and capitalism hasn't existed ever.
No.90244
No.90246
>>90243
>19th century Germany or Ancient Rome was not Socialist even though the government did stuff.
In those two specific examples it can be argued that the government was pursuing a "socialist goal"–both used welfare payments as a way to shut the proles up and keep them from getting too uppity, for instance.
>What we have now is the outcome of Capitalism and is what capitalism is bound to turn into.
See, your equivalence breaks down here because the political economy of the US has gotten objectively less "capitalistic" with time–we have objectively more regulations, objectively higher taxes, the state has objectively more control over money…the list goes on. And even dispensing of theoretical, a priori arguments, by example alone we can refute this claim you're making–every "robber baron" of the Gilded Age, can be shown to have had heavy government intervention assisting his rise to "monopolist" status, for instance. And per the corollary, the healthiest and most equitable sectors of the economy can consistently be shown to be those that have the smallest amount of state intervention. The difference between you saying "not real socialism" and us saying "crony capitalism" is this: the socialists use some minor difference in one detail of Country X's platform over Marx's ideal policy and use it to dismiss the entire country as an example. But when us lolbergs point out that something is "crony capitalism", we can successfully isolate this example from the rest of the economy and point out what didn't work in it and why, whereas simultaneously pointing out parts of the same economy that work just fine. For instance, we can point to the decreasing productivity of the so-called "Scandinavian Socialist" countries as a reason their high tax-rate and welfare payments are destructive, while also acknowledging that their low corporate tax rate, fewer regulations compared to other Western states, and overall economic freedom allows them to maintain inertia and a somewhat functional economy nonetheless; I've yet to see this level of nuance from any socialist argumentation.
No.90247
>>90243
Capitalism can only truly shine in the absence of government, but it still produces somewhat decent results despite government regulations and interference (which is what leads to those horrible things like monopolies, recessions, piss-poor wages, high prices, etc…), this is why China, Russia, and many other countries may not be perfect, but they live so much better after they at least partially implemented capitalism, in contrast to all the countries that only see negative results when they even partially implement socialism, or if the socialists decide that that wasn't enough and they need to bring the level of socialism to 100%, which will no doubt bring about yet another economic catastrophe, and the socialist government reverting to something like state-capitalism while still pretending to be "socialist".
Both government and socialism are involuntary, they rely on aggression and theft, they are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter if the feudal lord steals your property and beats you on the head with good intentions or if it's the socialist party doing it for the greater good, the results are all terrible no matter how you justify it. The difference is just in the rhetoric used.
No.90248
>>90246
> government was pursuing a "socialist goal"–both used welfare payments as a way to shut the proles up and keep them from getting too uppity
Which isn't Socialist just because Socialists give out welfare (or use social policies to improve life) doesn't mean that just the act of giving welfare is Socialist. The Church running soup kitchens does not make the Church or soup kitchens a Socialist institution. The Romans feeding the poor so they don't riot isn't Socialist as well. Norway for instance is most certainly capitalist it has private ownership of means production,wage labor,commodity production,classes,money etc. Just because Norway gives welfare does not make it Socialist and Norway does not intend this for a Socialist goal. The people of Norway are quite happy with Welfare Capitalism.
>See, your equivalence breaks down here because the political economy of the US has gotten objectively less "capitalistic" with time–we have objectively more regulations, objectively higher taxes, the state has objectively more control over money
And this is because Capitalists have exerted more and more control over society favoring themselves. It's not the government that ruins capitalism it's capitalism using the government to ruin itself. If the bourgeoisie class exists they are going to exert influence over society and they will favor themselves. This is inseparable and the logical outcome of Capitalism and the State. No matter how many time machines we had if the same conditions which arose to what we have today are still there then the same future will occur. ie Capitalists and a State
>making–every "robber baron" of the Gilded Age, can be shown to have had heavy government intervention assisting his rise to "monopolist" status, for instance.
And the state giving these benefits is because of Capitalism in the first place, the modern state is defined almost entirely out of Capitalism since Capitalism and Feudalism had brutal struggles for centuries and many aristocrats and Feudralists heavily opposed Capitalism. I'm saying the mere fact that Capitalism and a State exists means you will end up at the modern United States.
No.90249
>>90248
>Which isn't Socialist just because Socialists give out welfare (or use social policies to improve life) doesn't mean that just the act of giving welfare is Socialist.
Except providing gibs is the entire raison d'etre of the socialist regime (which you don't need to capitalize, by the way. I know it's tempting to worship the state when you give it so much power but you don't need to act like you're uttering a holy word). Saying gibs aren't socialist is like saying the free exchange of goods isn't capitalist.
>And this is because Capitalists have exerted more and more control over society favoring themselves…
Wow, you sure do go through a lot of trouble to paint government action as capitalist.
No.90250
>>90247
>Capitalism can only truly shine in the absence of government, but it still produces somewhat decent results despite government regulations and interference
Which is like saying dumping things in the ocean is great until it starts to kill marine life, so maybe if we dump things in the ocean and they don't kill marine life we'll be awesome. Capitalism caused what we have today using the government as it's arm.
>>90249
>Except providing gibs is the entire raison d'etre of the socialist regime
No it's for the social control of the means of productions and a democratic society no longer controlled by the bourgeois class and the ending of wage thievery, I'm actually against welfare for those who choose not to work or don't contribute to society, they can go without their welfare.
>Saying gibs aren't socialist is like saying the free exchange of goods isn't capitalist.
It literally isn't though. In a Socialist world charity would not exist, not because everyone has a million phones each and a private jet but because the act of charity is a demoralizing lazy handout. Welfare literally wouldn't exist, Socialists/Communists are for equal opportunity not equal outcome. If someone did no work in a Socialist world then he's going to be poorer then someone who does.
>Wow, you sure do go through a lot of trouble to paint government action as capitalist.
That's because it is, did you think a bunch of bureaucrats got together and thought, lets make this country a shithole? No what happened is the ruling class exerts control over society though the media,political parties etc and used it to benefit themselves at the cost of a lot of other capitalists.
No.90255
>>90208
>The affordable food you get in the grocery store in the US barely constitutes as food
Produce is not food? I don not want to know what constitutes food in socialist countries.
No.90256
>>90250
>That's because it is,
Government is involuntary force. Capitalism is voluntary. Huge difference.
>In a Socialist world charity would not exist
How so? No system will have perfect allocation of resources. There will always be some voluntary allocation to correct inefficiencies.
>its' for the social control of the means of productions
what about those who do not want to bear the risk of collective ventures?
>democratic society
This has been tried ad nauseam and has lead to oppressive states i.e. tyranny of the majority.
>Capitalism caused what we have today using the government as it's arm.
Which are these causes specifically?
No.90258
>>90256
>Government is involuntary force.
yes
>Capitalism is voluntary
Capitalism is involuntary,It's as voluntary as taxes because if you don't want to pay tax then don't work.
>How so?
This is from a ideological standpoint about the basis of welfare in Socialism and how Socialism wasn't created simply for it but instead for the means of production,democracy and whatever else I said. Charity is a lazy handout to those who do not work and could work in a Socialist world because you would be guaranteed a way to contribute to society as a whole.
>what about those who do not want to bear the risk of collective ventures?
Property is theft, by allowing individual control of the mop they are stealing from the people as a whole, the question shouldn't be what about the small minority of X but what about the large percent of Y who don't wish to abide by X
> tyranny of the majority.
Good if the right class is in control, currently we do not have democracy we have a thinly vailed oligarchy made up of corporations and bankers.
>Which are these causes specifically?
The ruling class is the causation of the current United States, if you were magic and made all capitalists simple local shop owners stopped massive wealth accumulation and were able to magically separate the state which is bonded with capitalism all of this in the 1900's American society would be better. But that's impossible to do because state power is subservient to Capitalism and is inseparable.
No.90260
>>90250
> Capitalism caused what we have today using the government as it's arm.
You got it the other way round. Government caused what we have today using capitalism as its arm. Still a better result than socialism in any of its forms, real or fake.
No.90261
>>90260
>You got it the other way round. Government caused what we have today using capitalism as its arm.
And what institutions or people run the government. Capitalists
No.90263
>>90261
If only they were.
No.90264
>>90263
The top of the social ladder are capitalists who use the state to serve themselves.
No.90265
They already are. It's just that the capitalist mode of management they idealize is different from the one you idealize (and quite frankly, to give them some credit: has a better rate of success as well).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm
No.90266
>>90258
>Capitalism is involuntary,It's as voluntary as taxes because if you don't want to pay tax then don't work.
With this logic, breathing air is also involuntary, because stopping would mean you die. In capitalism there is choice and opportunities, if you don't want to work and would rather starve, that is also a choice, you are responsible for your own life. If you don't want to work for a capitalist, you could grow your own food on a farm or start your own little business, no one comes to break your kneecaps if you don't want to work for another man, unlike with taxes or commies.
>because you would be guaranteed a way to contribute to society as a whole.
ie. Sent to a gulag in worst cases, forced labour in best cases. Way to reduce unemployment rates, retard.
>Property is theft
Theft of what?
>Good if the right class is in control, currently we do not have democracy we have a thinly vailed oligarchy made up of corporations and bankers.
That's what happens when the government gets involved in the economy, and you can see the same shit and even worse happening in every socialist country that exists - a privileged bureaucratic ruling-class rules over a nation of slaves, and said slaves can only get some kind of wealth by being close to the government. In contrast, the effects of this are almost non-existent in capitalist countries with weaker governments.
>The ruling class is the causation of the current United States, if you were magic and made all capitalists simple local shop owners stopped massive wealth accumulation and were able to magically separate the state which is bonded with capitalism all of this in the 1900's American society would be better.
You would end up with a third-world shithole.
>But that's impossible to do because state power is subservient to Capitalism and is inseparable.
When the state is heavily involved in the economy, it's called leftism, and has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
No.90267
>>90266
> If you don't want to work for a capitalist, you could grow your own food on a farm or start your own little business
Not possible under the state and a socialist business which wasn't exploitative would fail for lack of exploitation, just like some southerners were forced to use slaves because their cotton would be more expensive then someone who does. City dwellers cannot just move to the country and buy land,pay land tax,pay education to actually know how to farm,buy fertilizers and compete against state sabotage. isn't that half your guys problem with the current state it doesn't allow "true capitalism" and it creates monopolies therefore effectively "ruining" capitalism, why doesn't everyone here already own a business so they stop complaining about crony capitalism. My problems also with the system go far beyond exploitation on a personal level, dealing with imperialism,global warming,over consumption of resources,fake democracies,automation etc. These things are being accelerated at a massive rate and capitalism is unable and unequipped to be able to fight such things.
> Sent to a gulag in worst cases
No that was for criminals, I mean a job would be assigned.
>Theft of what?
Land from the people
>You would end up with a third-world shithole.
There also wouldn't be "not real capitalism" for you to cry over.
>When the state is heavily involved in the economy, it's called leftism
No it's called liberalism which is a right wing ideology
>and has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
IT WASN"T REAL CAPITALISM.
No.90268
>>90267
>No it's called liberalism which is a right wing ideology
I also mean what stuff Obama did in office which is liberalism in regards to American politics thinking Obama is some far left politician. Obviously not all liberalism have big states. Bigger state does not equal left as well. You could have a big theocracy like in Islam and it's most certainly not left wing
No.90269
well I'm getting off this board now, even if we didn't reach a conclusion it was a good discussion one which couldn't of happened in many other places outside of an actual debate. (The later half of the thread anyway). You can save some aviation fuel for the neo-libs cause this commie is fucking off.
No.90270
>>90264
The top of the social ladder are in possession of influence and power not dependent on their respect for private property, nor their skill in providing a service and managing property. If everyone you don't like in possession of capital is a "Capitalist", then there are no Socialists and never will be.
No.90272
>>90269
>couldn't of
People with this level of IQ are telling us what is the best way to organize society.
No.90275
>>90258
>Capitalism is involuntary,It's as voluntary as taxes because if you don't want to pay tax then don't work.
This literally makes no sense. Taxes are involuntary and capitalists are against it. Capitlaism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses as opposed to central planning. If it was involuntary there would be some central planner(s) (.i.e. state) restricting voluntary transactions and hence not capitalism.
>This is from a ideological standpoint
I can understand why this would be against welfare but how will this prevent charity? What will prevent people from the voluntary allocation of resources?
>Property is theft, by allowing individual control of the mop they are stealing from the people as a whole,
The same can be said about personal property because Group A (collective, business, or whatever) can deny Group B access of property that Group A is currently using. How is denying access theft if Group B never possessed it to begin with?
> Good if the right class is in control,
Good and right are subjective. Tyranny always leads to expansion of their power. Tyranny of the populace has lead to popular policies such as eugenics.
> The ruling class is the causation of the current United States,
Ruling classes are not capitalistic. If they were, then capitalism has been dominant throughout of all human civilization.
No.90276
>>90267
>Not possible under the state
The state is the antitheses of capitalism:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
No.90277
>>90213
The difference being that was decades ago before people understood global warming and America hasn't learned a damn thing from it.
No.90278
>>90277
>It was long ago and now socialism is different, brand new, Real Socialism v1.9.86, the only Real Socialism waiting to be tried.
No.90283
>>90278
>Lolberts in charge of reading comprehension
No.90284
>>90277
What a retarded thing to say, you don't need to buy into the global warming meme to understand that draining the Aral Sea and poisoning Lake Baikal aren't fucking good ideas. Unless what you're trying to say is that socialists won't give a rat's ass about the environment until Dear Leader adds it to his platform and tells them to care, in which case I'd agree completely.
No.90286
>>90267
>property is theft
>capitalists are stealing our property
No.90287
>>90277
What does global warming have anything to do with Chernobyl and the shrinking of the Aral Sea?
No.90291
>>90290
pmt it is actually cheaper to maintain an edible weed farm garden than lawn
No.90292
>>90291
Some crops are incredibly low maintenance. Corn and beans will grow even if the farmer is mentally retarded and forgot to plant the seeds, water or fertilize the ground. You have to really try your best, or be unlucky with a hailstorm or plant disease, to somehow fuck it up.
No.90294
>>90292
What a load of bull. What they forget is that buying the necessary fertilizer and other minerals necessitates selling their produce in some manner. This excludes the possibility of exclusively bartering food. And because their small urban plots aren't as productive (as measured by produce/expenses) as larger industrial farms with their Monsanto crops and combine harvesters, their prices will be undercut and the whole thing will collapse. As by the way it has consistently every time this has been attempted.
Mind for everyone that thinks this "BTFO's lefties": Marx and Marxists the world over have specifically argued against this petty bourgeois nonsense, i.e. "If we all become capitalists, capitalism will end!"
Similarly, it's also the flaw of the petty bourgeois audience of this board, thinking that abolishing "big business'' would liberate them from the monopolistic capitalist forces that would eventually render their "small businesses" unprofitable and their livelihoods precarious
No.90298
No.90301
>>83588
You're right, the "goes against human nature" is stupid, because in some cases, communism/socialism lines up perfectly with some of the worst aspects of human nature. Commies have used the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to create some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet. It plays perfectly with the desire for power some of the worst people have.
One of the major reasons socialism is flawed, is that not even socialists can agree on what "true socialism" is. You have anarchists and tankies who fight over whether or not the Soviet Union or Venezuela were truly socialist. Social Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio Cortez call themselves socialists, and freaking poltards will call themselves "national socialists".
That doesn't even get into problems with property held in common, economic calculation, and wealth redistribution always being authoritarian.
No.90302
>>90301
>One of the major reasons socialism is flawed, is that not even socialists can agree on what "true socialism" is.
That's a feature, not a bug. Socialists and commies are obligated to use the "not real socialism" meme to their own advantages in their various vies for power.
No.90321
>>90294
>plants were invented by capitalism!
no
No.90345
>>90294
damn… are you saying big business are more efficient than small businesses? …totally done with libertarianism… wow….
No.90348
>>90345
I'm a son of farmers living off a small farm. The only thing that has ever bothered us is the Government and its regulations. We can't get as rich as the large farmers with Government connections that take all the subsidies (which nobody should have had to begin with), but we've been doing just fine for 20 years and so have the majority of people in the village. Your average lefty could never be bothered working, much less on a farm. Most of them despise the "working class" as they call it, while claiming to protect it.
No.90366
>>83481
…and leftypol swooped in.
Use different terminology
Eg. "Legally fictitious state titles"=> "private property"
"Corporatism" => "capitalism"
Also, try pipelining through mutualism. Mutualism proper is basically a type of anarcho-capitalism.
No.90371
>>90239
It seriously took you that long to realize panem et circenses was a socialist policy to placate the populace?
No.90372
>>90248
>The Church running soup kitchens does not make the Church or soup kitchens a Socialist institution
It literally fucking does. The "Church" (assuming you're talking about Christian institutions and those that emulate them) is a socialist, collectivist, authoritarian institution and always has been. The first goddamn book in the Holy Bible is a cautionary tale to the reader not to rebel against authority.
No.90499
>>90373
Shit, if truth earns me fedoras, sign me up for ten, or twenty, or a hundred. I'll sell them to communists online and make bank.