Why do socialists think they will gain anything from taking over the means of production?

Why do socialists think they will gain anything from taking over the means of production?

Why are they stupid enough to think their personal material wealth will somehow increase when in reality it won't?

This is probably the biggest hole in socialist theories yet hardly anyone here talks about it.

>communist revolution
>take every last penny from capitalists
>divided up amongst everyone it works out to about $500 per person(yes that little)
>go to spend that money
>prices increase because no new consumer goods are produced in this situation
>workers are in the same exact situation they were the revolution but now the economy is completely destroyed

OR

>communist revolution
>every consumer good the capitalists own is split up and given to the workers
>it's such an extremely small amount of goods that not even 1% of workers will be able to get any of this

OR

>communist revolution
>money is abolished
>workers take over the means of production completely
>the same exact quantity of consumer goods that was being produced under capitalism are again produced
>the working class has to work JUST AS HARD and JUST AS LONG as they did under capitalism to produce the same amount of shit they were previously consuming
and this scenario is forgetting about the economic calculation problem and the fact economies like this never work.


Either way you go about this there's no getting "MUH SURPLUS VALUE" back. 99.5% of the consumer goods the working class was producing was already being consumed and owned by the working class, not the capitalists. The capitalists own only extremely small amounts of consumer goods(houses, cars boats, tvs, food, porn, medicine) compared to what the whole working class owns.

COME OUT COMMIES IT'S TIME TO PLAY

...

>mfw when a marxist denies human instincts and neuroscience near me

hello

You already got BTFO yesterday.
I'm here to praise comrade Lenin and comrade Stalin

>You already got BTFO yesterday.
AHAHAHAHAHA

You mean the thread where you were entirely unable to refute my central argument and got rekt every time I replied to you?

Enjoy fighting for absolutely nothing and having no argument

Josef Stalin
Height
5'5

Vladimir Lenin
Height
5'5

Donald Trump
Height
6'3

bump

Socialists are a lot like Libertarians. While Libertarians think that the Free Market will magically take care of everything, Socialists think seizing the means of production will do the same.

Either way it takes more thought than simply banking all your hopes on a singlular aspect of an ideology.

And like most libertarians most socialists don't even understand their own ideology.

Are there no commies left on Sup Forums?

FDR: Cant even fucking stand up

What is the point of this anyway?

Not a gommie, but I don't think you really understand what is meant by 'seize the means of production.'
The rationale is that CEOs make their money off the back of their workers, throughexploitation. And as such if the workers were to cease their output, the business would collapse. It's kind of like objectivism from the opposite end.

>And as such if the workers were to cease their output, the business would collapse.
No shit.

The workers wouldn't gain anything though.

bump for butthurt commies

Yeh. They just run the company cooperativepy and split the production instead of accepting wages and letting the owner take a cut

You just cut out the middle man

Sup Forums do you even bother to do cursory research on things?

you waste your breath, if commies understood economics they wouldn't be commies

/thread

>They just run the company cooperativepy and split the production instead of accepting wages and letting the owner take a cut
Alright here we go.

There are several problems with this.

First off if they did this, if an entire country did this(ran their companies co-cooperatively) they would be no better off than they were before. Money does not equal resources. It's a tool you can use to trade for resources. Marxists believe in fairy tales and word salad language.

No new resources are being produced. Your material wealth will not increase. Even if the money you got from working went up really high, it wouldn't even matter because prices would have to rise to make up for this new demand.
Supply and fucking demand.

Also firms are unable to consume all of their profits, the vast majority of the money needs to be spent on maintaining the companies capital stock and investing into new profitable ventures or they will go bankrupt.

>Sup Forums do you even bother to do cursory research on things?
Marxists do you even bother researching basic economics?
Kill yourself.

Von Mises is actually more retarded than Marx, since Marx offered a somewhat good analysis of capitalism. It's his opinions on what to do that are retarded.

>since Marx offered a somewhat good analysis of capitalism
His analysis was extremely poor and full of contradictions.

Mises actually made sense 90% of the time.

>Praxeology is merely the a priori fact that all human action has some sort of purpose, and because it has purpose, it is comprehensible and logical and therefore economic laws can be universal and objective and economics is a real science. It is not meant as a replacement or a rejection of empiricism, but as a complement to empiricism. Praxeology is also not used as a handwave to avoid reason or refutation, praxeological systems and axioms can be refuted by refuting the chain of reasoning that they are based on, empiricism can establish the appropriateness of a theory's application to a particular concrete event but is not effective to completely falsify praxeological theories. Economics cannot be considered a scientific discipline without praxeology, and while it may be a dismal science it is a science nonetheless. Austrian economics has plenty of analytic proposals and empirical evidence behind its theories as well, Hayek's theory of production/prices for example is not strictly praxeological but it is a falsifiable analytic proposal that has yet to be falsified. The catastrophic failures of centrally managed economies in contrast to the success and abundance of laissez-faire historically is also empirical evidence that reinforces and complements the Austrian school's praxeological basis.

show me those contradictions of Marx
sure, I never said he's perfect, but I'm not sure you read Marx
>praxeology
...is a way for an intellectual wanker to say "my theories don't necessarily apply to reality but you should still give me research funds because I'm so smart to shit out intellectual sounding shit"
economy is a practical area
if your economic ideas aren't grounded in reality or can be verified up to a certain degree from real-life experience, they are useless

>show me those contradictions of Marx
Here you go you cultist manchild. pic

>...is a way for an intellectual wanker to say "my theories don't necessarily apply to reality but you should still give me research funds because I'm so smart to shit out intellectual sounding shit"
You literally had zero argument and couldn't refute the quote from my post.
lol

oh, how quickly you went to insulting when faced with arguments
I asked you if you read Marx, not if you have infographs about Marx
and I'm not a Marxist
you're a fucking cultist, not me
because beliving in something that only sound good on paper within a simplified societal model is literally cultism

Commies are just autistic poorfags who blame their failures and shortcomings on le ebil porkies, in the same way autistic NEETsocs blame all their problems on jews. Both are a result of genetic deadbeats who resort to extreme ideologies to justify their miserable lives. Thank god neither group breeds a lot.

You're wasting your time, commies stop posting when we expose lies and fantasy. They can only sustain themselves under deceit.

good thing is that IRL all these groups are irrelevant today
communism got so discredited that modern "commies" aren't even real commies

>oh, how quickly you went to insulting when faced with arguments
What arguments?
I refuted everything you said.

>I asked you if you read Marx, not if you have infographs about Marx
Yet the infographic ISN'T WRONG, in fact is precisely describes marx.

agreed

This is fucking stupid. The point of anticapitalism isn't to better the economy, it's to make it more egalitarian. Who the fuck cares about increased production when all the benefits of it (read: profits) go directly to the pockets of the capitalist owners (read: the Jews you're all so afraid of).

If you really want to stop muh Jews, stop engorging them with your surplus value.

Says the actual poorloser who can't type a sentence without buzzwords bereft of any value.

The owner is the one who took the risk.

The owner is the one who spent countless unpaid hours learning the business.

The owner is the one who provides the work space.

The owner is the one who expands workplace.

The owner is the one investing money constantly, the workers cannot live without the owner while the owner can live without them.

A worker is replaceable and a owner is not. Socialism is entitlement and lazziness: the ideology.

>I refuted
saying "not an argument" is not a refutation you molymeme cultist
Von Mises intentionally and cowardly divorced his theory from reality
that makes his theory totally useless
as I said, economics are practical
if it doesn't work in practice, or can't be verified from practice, it's useless
real life is the supreme arbiter since no intellectual is that smart or knowledgable to predict all possibilites

>poorloser
I'm not poor, meaning these shitty ideologies don't interest me like it would you soft pinko types.

the owner depends on non-owners
you are pseudo-Marxist, only you champion owners over workers
classism is idiotic

>I'm not poor or stupid, I only sound like an inferiority-complex idiot because you're a commie!

>Marxists do you even bother researching basic economics

Marx hated the idea of the economy, he himself didn't understand it. He wrote on it because he had to, he wrote on it because capitalism was becoming more dominant by the day. He was just a glorified hippy and nothing more, his only legacy is leaving behind a silly ideology that preyed upon the low class and ignorant.

Alright here we go.

>The point of anticapitalism isn't to better the economy
I never said this at all.
The largest point of anticapitalism is that workers are being exploited and the capitalists are taking their material wealth away from them.
Which I proved was false.

>Who the fuck cares about increased production when all the benefits of it (read: profits) go directly to the pockets of the capitalist owners (read: the Jews you're all so afraid of).
lol this is retarded. Profits and capitalist accumulation are MEANINGLESS.

Did you even read my OP? Do you have a refutation to it? No?
Then shut your fucking face, the capitalists have NOTHING for you.
Profits are just numbers, they don't equal real resources.

>fiat money is not a worthless interest payment
What are you, stupid? You already took over the means. I mean; the memes. Of fiat interest payment production. Eat me. Do you want to know how stupid you are? Derivatives debt outpaces global GDP by at least 1,000 times over

>saying "not an argument" is not a refutation you molymeme cultist
Because you didn't have an argument in the first place?
lol

>on Mises intentionally and cowardly divorced his theory from reality
Wrong, and that's a pretty big strawman argument seeing how austrians constantly apply their theories to the real world economy.

Thanks for playing though.

Marxists MUST have something genetically wrong with them to make them so stupid angry and violent.

That's right, I'll be damned if I ever meet a full-blown communist that isn't a loser in financial matters at the least.

Feed me shekels and muh zero sum inflation. Bye

The owner depends on workers, sure. However the worker is far more abundant. Anyone can work at McDonalds but not everyone can run the company, simple as that.

I don't champion owners, I champion experience, skill sets, intellect, success, and drive. The worker gets paid what he deserves for his effort and skill set.

Socialists aren't necessarily communists. Especially things like Christian social democracy

They're weak people on all ends. They either can't or don't want to compete. Competition is so natural to humans, it's what drives the strong forward and progresses our race. The best constantly winning. Marxism is those who can't compete trying to change natural laws to their favor, they can't win so they want nobody to win. They're the ultimate cucks. Marx himself shafted the workers, ironic that the guy writing about taking advantage of workers actually did just that. He wouldn't pay the baker, butcher, and carpenter, couldn't pay rent, etc. He was a bump who couldn't compete, who was too lazy to. He is like his supporters.

>Stalin
Killed Jews
>Lenin
Indroctrinated Jews

>Trump
Loves to suck a jew cock.

Height is not the problem here mah friend.

You have to understand that people who believe in communism and socialism are mentally handicapped. And no, I'm not being facetious. They literally have something wrong with them.

>Even if the money you got from working went up really high, it wouldn't even matter because prices would have to rise to make up for this new demand.
You don't know how consumption works. Someone how got fed off three meals a day will not suddenly start eating six meals a day. Consumption rates are a little more complex than that considering what kind of industry we are talking about.

Second off, there is nothing inherently bad with rising prices in some as it is a result of a market economy regulating itself. If you talking about Market Socialism: It usually comes with a strong intervening state as well that would regulate and restrict volatile developments within a socialist market.

Third off, I'm not a Market Socialist or a Mutualist, and most people who call themselves "communist" aren't either. We believe in economic planning and technocratic allocation of resources; central planning or decentralized planning depending on which ideology you follow. Your argument would only be valid as a criticism of Market Socialist economies, as they are still prone to capitalists mechanics such as profits. If you want to say: "Workers can exploit themselves", I do don't not deny this, this is why we believe in overcoming market economics all together.
>Also firms are unable to consume all of their profits, the vast majority of the money needs to be spent on maintaining the companies capital stock and investing into new profitable ventures
They already wasting tons of profits on paying insane amounts of boni to their managers and have CEOs and shareholders cashing in billions of surplus value. If you are so concerned about efficency, you must criticize capitalism as well. Secondly, who says that workers can not choose their own managers to do manage stuff like that?
>Marxists do you even bother researching basic economics?
For someone who accused us of using word salads you pretty damn well buy liberal memes and buzzwords like "basic economics".

>communists
>literally all jews

>trump
>a omniseparatist white nationalists

Manlet leftist turds btfo

>the Waltons take risk
>they work at all
>they created the material basis for the Earth
>ownership isn't a cucked concept for weaklings who are too afraid to use space/goods without being bullied

It's not surprising that you're stupid, given that you're a product of the Canadian education system, but it doesn't change the reality of your stupidity.

You appeal to economics and the role of the worker as if they're a priori concepts. Read Marx's On the Jewish Question if you want to realize how brainwashed that is. Or, if the bogeyman of Marx is too frightening for you, think for yourself: is it ever wise to judge the rules of a game on the criteria established only by its winners?

>communism can't compete, communists are lazy and weak
The USSR went from backwards monarchy, through two world wars and a revolution that ravaged their country, and still managed to be an existential threat to the capitalist world within 50 years.

>communist revolution
>money is abolished
>workers take over the means of production completely
>the same exact quantity of consumer goods that was being produced under capitalism are again produced
>the working class has to work JUST AS HARD and JUST AS LONG as they did under capitalism to produce the same amount of shit they were previously consuming
Guess I'll play the communist this time... The idea is that while the same amount of stuff is being produced, it will be redistributed more equally, because the goal is no longer to maximize the profits of a handful of owners. Also, since you don't have the super-rich controlling all the production and making astronomical amounts of money, they can no longer influence politics in their favor and to the detriment of everybody else. (In reality, the same corrupt people they complain about just subvert their perfect system just the same and with greater ease)

That meme...

fucking kek...

Your community doesn't come over as entirely sane as well, Billy.

>The USSR went from backwards monarchy, through two world wars and a revolution that ravaged their country, and still managed to be an existential threat to the capitalist world within 50 years.
>they went from slave in the fields to house niggers

>Someone how got fed off three meals a day will not suddenly start eating six meals a day.
Where did I say this?
Also, you think poor people and middle class wouldn't want to have more resources that will improve their lives?
Sure they would stop consuming at some point but if they suddenly gained a massive amount of resources they would obviously consume them and want more.

>there is nothing inherently bad with rising prices in some as it is a result of a market economy regulating itself.
Yes, in my example.
The market economy regulating and correcting itself to the new demand created by an artificial stimulus.

>We believe in economic planning and technocratic allocation of resources
This is why you are retarded, deserve to be thrown out of a helicopter AND your ideology is inferior to ours.

>Your argument would only be valid as a criticism of Market Socialist economies
Wrong, I gave 3 fucking examples. The last one was a criticism of an "economy" that abolished money.

>They already wasting tons of profits on paying insane amounts of boni to their managers and have CEOs
Heh.
It's like you think this money is being spend on consumption, or being spent on anything really. The vast majority is saved. Even then, it's an extremely small amount.

>cashing in billions of surplus value.
Yet if you took all of this away from them, the working class would have almost nothing.
The capitalists have nothing for you.

>buzzwords like "basic economics".
>bawww basic economics is a buzzword, I'm too stupid to understand supply and demand

They sowed the seeds of the capitalist West's destruction: censorship, infighting, perpetual warfare. If they're a house nigger, the West is Nat Turner's master.

You know, there's nothing wrong with employee-owned companies. They tend to have the highest employee satisfaction levels, and typically pay better than their publicly-traded competitors (or family-owned small businesses).

There's only one 100,000+ employee-owned company in the US (Publix), but the concept works.

Socialism is Not necessarily Communism.
The question is, how many people you are giving power at the expense of others, and how much power you will give them.

>They sowed the seeds of the capitalist West's destruction
Sure, but it wasn't through their brilliant economic policies.

>ownership isn't a cucked concept for weaklings who are too afraid to use space/goods without being bullied

That's a big statement for a guy who is too dumb to learn business and some skills. You aren't convincing anyone with this bullshit, an owner owns because he has provided and hunted. You don't understand this. Today providing means having a means of making money instead of hunting and gathering, those who make a successful business are the most alpha, fact. Your logic is flawed up and down.


>still managed to be an existential threat to the capitalist world within 50 years.

Because it's an ideology that preys on the weak minded idiots of the world. Which is why it is important to teach about it, it's the only reason I bother responding to you leftypol faggots. Anyone with a brain can deduce communism is a terrible idea along with socialism

That being said, while I think employee-owned businesses are great, I think that stealing companies from their current owners is faggotry.

>You appeal to economics and the role of the worker as if they're a priori concepts.
No I don't.

>Read Marx's On the Jewish Question
That kike marx really liked to cover his trail like all jews do.

>Or, if the bogeyman of Marx is too frightening for you,
LMAO
Bro everyone laughs at marx. It's so hilariously flawed. The theory denies human instincts and evolution. Even mainstream scientists are laughing at you.


>The USSR went from backwards monarchy, through two world wars and a revolution that ravaged their country, and still managed to be an existential threat to the capitalist world within 50 years.
In reality it was a useless shithole that just managed to acquire nukes. Russia is a shithole today too. Capitalist economies in asia developed WAAAAAAAYYYYYY faster than the ussr.

Please die.

They also were so starved and slaughtered that they were cannibalizing and had deaths around the amount of both world wars combined! Truly amazing!

>They sowed the seeds of the capitalist West's destruction
Yet the capitalist west WON
and soviet union LOST

LMAO kill yourself capitalism will never die

>Socialism is Not necessarily Communism
Socialism is fundamentally not communism. Socialism is a stage in the development of full-blown communism. Unfortunately, no "communist" country ever gets past through this stage, because shockingly enough, it involves centralizing power in the hands of a small number of individuals, which is what they complain about in the first place.

>You know, there's nothing wrong with employee-owned companies
I agree.

They are a necessary part of capitalism.
Pretty small and irrelevant though.

But at least they weren't being oppressed by the capitalists.

>Trump
>Literally shill for israel in the aipac

>communists
>literally supported wars against israel

wew lad.

>if you only you read this pamphlet which establishes that you can only be right if you look like, speak like, and act like me, then you'd understand any I'm the only one who's right xD

The USSR's a shit, but economic measurements don't tell a complete story. It has to be accounted for that they were an undeveloped, war-torn nation, competing against literally the entire world. The fact that it was a competition is amazing.

You love to have an alpha reigning over you because you are, simply put, a beta. And that's natural for you.

See my first response to you. Literally everything you say can be adequately dismissed until you demonstrate your a priori economics.

Not quite Stalin lived like a Drunk spam in filthy apartment all his life.

Enjoy starving to death you manchild nigger leeches.

this isn;t commie general

read the op

>Stalin lived like a Drunk spam in filthy apartment
That doesn't negate the fact that power was concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals who weren't exactly willing to give them up to proceed to the next stage of communist development. That's literally how it goes every time, and there cannot be any other result.

>see commie symbols
>implying i read any of what comes after
You shot yourself in the leg, leafboy.

Let's be the devils advocate here.

You treat as if all of production is equal and the same consumer goods would be produced.

Currently there's a lot of cheap plastic shit being produced in China. Which is very efficient - cheap production and proles buy it anyway. Current system is at a local optimum.

However system has no interest in maintaining itself long-term. This version of capitalism has rushed headfirst to satisfy r selection strategy and it will deplete earth resources until a massive civilization ending war or something.

Production has to be directed by long term vision and highest ideals in mind.
Say what you want about Russia. Before revolution it was a poor shithole, after the revolution it remained a poor shithole, however they managed to invest a lot in space exploration and currently are the only ones bringing Astronauts and Kosmonauts into ISS - who's laughing now, American Capitalism?

So, yeah, society can benefit if production is controlled by intelligent socialists with a long term vision.

>where did I say this?
Your post implied that you think consumption rates are always constant depending on the amount of value that the consumers own.
>poor people and middle class wouldn't want to have more resources that will improve their lives?
Obviously, and there is plenty currently being in the hands of the top 10%. Socialism would be a complete rearrangement of the economy, implying that luxury items for the rich would be produced less in favor of actual necessery commodities for the common people. I don't see this as a bad thing unless you love cultural degeneracy or something.
>massive amount of resources they would obviously consume them and want more
Don't exaggerate, people would be better off but nobody would be millionaire right away. Also, yes, consumption won't be limitless unless we have replicators like in Star Trek, nobody denies this. Not to mention is literally capitalist consumerism that really fucks with the inevitable finiteness of resources.
>This is why you are retarded [...] helicopter [...] inferior
Not an argument memelord.
>The last one was a criticism of an "economy" that abolished money.
Only communism has no money, which an utopia that we can not reach anytime soon.
>It's like you think this money is being spend on consumption, or being spent on anything really. The vast majority is saved.
>it's being saved
Top fucking kek, that's the worst - money being extracted as surplus value from labor that's supposed to benefit an economy is being hoarded in bank accounts in Switzerland. One of the reasons countries constantly accumulate more debt.
Also, how the fuck is that a small amount looking at the lifestyle of the ruling class?
>The capitalists have nothing for you
>muh job creators
That's like saying "you're breaking your back for this feudal lord who may enforce his ius prima noctis on your daughter but at least he provides you with a hut made out of clay".

They get to starve people and drink wodka. Collectivism about the dumbest idea evah. Swissor crisis so tarded.

>You love to have an alpha reigning over you because you are, simply put, a beta. And that's natural for you.

Look at this faggots jew tactics. I create every day, my skill set is large, my life is good. I will have everything I need and more while you bitch online and try to spread your garbage ideology while you also have nothing.

>B-BUT please throw me a bone

You are a thief and a bum, nothing more.

Yes, but Social democratic countries has proved the earned of their country.

>Social democratic countries has proved the earned of their country.
"Socialist democratic" have nothing to do with socialism. They're the most cancerous form of crony capitalism.

>This version of capitalism has rushed headfirst to satisfy r selection strategy and it will deplete earth resources until a massive civilization ending war or something.


It's quite clear innovation will take over as it always has.

Electric cars and trucks, MASSIVE SCALE vertical farming.

It sucks in this economy for sure.

But it would be much better if we had a free market with deflationary currency.

>polster tries to claim his life is good because muh commie
>doesn't realize he's arguing with a white, blue-eyed, tall, married, well-off, polyglot graduate student at one of the best unis in the world
Have fun with that manager position, s-sir!

>innovation is gonna work, r-right guys?
>just because it's a foolish logical fallacy to inductively assume that the past will reflect a dissimilar present (but who needs epistemology, right?), I know it will; for I, leafloser, have FAITH in capitalism!

>I... I'm a winner, user!
>I'm totally not like the stereotypical gommie
>Believe me!!!
>#NotAllGommunists

>I'm from Israel
>the capitalism that I fellate supports the Palestinians who kill me
>no cognitive dissonance here, not at all sir!

>muh logical fallacies
>look guise i know the word "epistemology"
Why should individuals not be allowed to own private means of production?

When Sup Forumsyps are throwing memes at their communist boogeyman, the Zionist kike is not far away to subvert them even more.

Since you're a cultured white man, a polyglot graduate student at one of the best unis in the world and overall a fine gentleman, let's have a cultured discussion. Tell me, user: Why should individuals not be allowed to own private means of production?

>Your post implied that you think consumption rates are always constant depending on the amount of value that the consumers own.
Never implied that. You must be confused.

>and there is plenty currently being in the hands of the top 10%
This isn't true at all lol and it's actually the most hilarious reasons why socialism is retarded.
The rich have MONEY
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL RESOURCES
How fucking hard is it for you people to understand?

>implying that luxury items for the rich would be produced less in favor of actual necessery commodities for the common people
SURE that's totally fine. Here's the glaringly obvious flaw in your dumb theory though. These luxury items comprise an extremely extremely small amount of the total of economic production produced by the working class. Like 0.01% or something.
Lets say we stopped the capitalist class from having any fun and made them live in mud huts and live off rations while the same time continuing their role as capitalists. It wouldn't change the working class person's living standards. Literally NOTHING would happen. Who gives a shit?

> people would be better off
But I already proved they wouldn't be.
Please explain how more consumer goods would magically be produced for the working class.
THEY WON'T.

>Only communism has no money, which an utopia that we can not reach anytime soon.
communism will never happen, just as christ returning to earth will never happen
just give up, religious fuckwad

>money being extracted as surplus value from labor
LOL HERE WE GO AGAIN
Surplus value doesn't exist in the real world. It isn't an actual physical object you can't point you.
>hey guys lets go kill dem capitalists and get our abstract concept back
What a bunch of mystics you are.

>supposed to benefit an economy
But it IS benefiting the economy.
Money saved in the economy lowers the prices of all goods in the economy. Supply and demand. Savings is the lifeblood of the economy and directly benefits the working class.

Capitalism works on providing opportunities.
Socialism works For egalitarian society,Which will be as little as possible Exploited people.
You know what's the problem? People are trying to survive with opportunities.
So they play without rules, without mercy, and ultimately cause many casualties,And it does not matter if a soldier shoots the guy or he dies of hunger he is dead.
But it does not have statistics recorded.

>>innovation is gonna work, r-right guys?
It always has in the past
You're going to see massive alternative energy and electric vehicles take over in the next 20 years.

If you deny this you simply haven't been paying attention.

>have FAITH in capitalism!
Capitalism replies on logic and facts unlike socialism

>Why should individuals not be allowed to own private means of production?
Because unless you own a one man business you will employ people for wage labor.
And even if you have a one man business, you attain a position of power since you have the imperative over the allocation of commodities. What's your philosophical justification to own means of production? What did you do to deserve such a position?

Either way, you'd be a Kulak and need to be gulag'ed.

>Socialism works For egalitarian society
>Socialism works
Not as far as I'm aware.

>Because unless you own a one man business you will employ people for wage labor.
Why is that bad?

>you attain a position of power
Why is that bad?

>What's your philosophical justification to own means of production?
Are you taking the position that everything is disallowed by default unless "philosophically justified"? If not, it is allowed by default, and the burden of proof is on you to show that it must be forbidden.

Good to see you have read Mises' methodological works and understand methodological dualism in its entirety.

They actually believe every single human emotion, fear, love, anger, jealously, lust, embarrassment, empathy, apathy, guilt, pride are all socially and economically constructed.

They don't even believe the brain exists. To them all human behavior is the result of these magical constructs and not from evolution and instincts.

They're actually that retarded.

You realize that when your argument relies on a logical fallacy, and you try to deflect it by criticizing the higher standard of education of your opponent, you've completely invalidated any responses you may try to provide by revealing your irrational character.

And in response: because wealth accumulates and controls, and all humans are fundamentally equal, regardless of their abilities, and they all deserve to exist freely without the yoke of labor caused by their lesser capacities or the insecurities of those who would control the means.

Basically: if capitalists would stop being weaklings who oppress others out of malignance and fear, and would assure life, freedom, and equality, I'd have no problem. Economic hierarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is when profits are more important than humanity.

(And this is only my ethical argument!)

>Good to see you have read Mises' methodological works and understand methodological dualism in its entirety.
Elaborate pls.

Nice strawman, but you'll need a bit more than the Wikipedia entry on materialism to understand what it means.