Communism will rule the world, comrades.
Communism will rule the world, comrades
Easton Adams
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
dailymail.co.uk
breitbart.com
dailystar.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
theguardian.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Nolan Bailey
This thread again?
Carson Brown
...
John Kelly
...
Leo Perez
Thread as dull, predictable and as destined to fail as communism
Jayden Bennett
Has communism ever been tried? And if so, why has it always failed?
Adam Jenkins
No kidding.
Tyler Green
YES! just any century now..
Asher Williams
...
Gavin Lewis
Seize it faggots!
Kevin Scott
...
Jason Hall
Robert Gonzalez
If communism is about wealth redistribution, then how comes literally every time it's been tried the elite has become spectacularly wealthy and the poor have become poorer? If this wasn't real communism, how do you stop "communism" becoming "not real communism," as has been the case literally every time it's been tried?
>$120 million bed-hopping hypocrite: He claimed he lived on $25 a month. But Castro had 20 luxury homes, a private island, an 88ft yacht - and mistresses galore
dailymail.co.uk
>Hugo Chavez’s Favorite Daughter Is Richest Person in Venezuela
breitbart.com
>Kim Jong-un splashes out £14 MILLION on luxury cars while North Korea starves
dailystar.co.uk
>Heirs of Communist China's Eight Immortals 'have amassed huge wealth'
telegraph.co.uk
>Of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia's economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish
theguardian.com
Nolan Parker
...
Logan Thomas
What a shitty looking statue
Gabriel Jones
But goy real communism has never been tried
James Murphy
Shitty leftypol raid
get fucked ctrl-left cucks
Cooper Hall
>elite has become spectacularly wealthy and the poor have become poorer
You're thinking about capitalism, comrade.
Sebastian Smith
Communism attracts the absolute worst people imaginable.
And it makes sense, since the ultimate goal of communism is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator i.e. they want everyone else to be miserable losers like themselves.
Julian Cook
communism sucks too much, that is why they are using globalism to push their marxoid agenda
Gabriel Moore
>He thinks communism is for the poor
All of my keks
Isaac Morales
Over your dead body, mate ==='\\
Andrew Allen
>that image
>He doesn't understand the difference between personal and private property.
Andrew Kelly
That goalpost
Jayden Anderson
It's a pretty fucking important distinction.
Lucas Taylor
>drought occurs in state capitalist country
>people die
>ideology of stateless communism is responsible
What did they mean by this?
If you are a capitalist I sure hope you are prepared to be held responsible for a lot of dead Africans
Zachary Allen
They are one and the same, at least until subhuman commies manage to subvert the law and finally loot others' property in the name of their thieving ideal driven by envy and own ineptitude
Grayson Torres
Hmm
Andrew Gomez
i am not a capitalist. capitalists are not poor.
also communism simply doesnt work.
youtube.com
Nathan Ward
not an arguben
Jonathan Jackson
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.
Samuel Turner
There's no capitalism in Africa.
The most economically unfree continent with barely any free trade.
Hunter Campbell
WHAT IS THE PRODUCTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MORE HUMANS
Dominic Wood
It's the third one, and without the capitalist taking any profit, there is no removal of surplus.
>muh not real capitalism
It even fits the definition of capitalism.
Thomas Lee
And the third one is wrong in the fifth arrow
Michael Perez
Communism has already been fulfilled by Western countries. Most countries in the West have ceded power to a central government with total authority. Elections and civil rights are essentially illusions.
Robert Parker
>American
Lincoln Rodriguez
>muh surplus value
LOL it's so cute that you didn't even read my post.
Money does not equal consumer goods.
The working class is already consuming/buying 99% of these goods.
How would the working class taking over the means of production and getting the "full product of their labour" benefit the working class?
They gain NO new resources from this. No new consumer goods are being created or "taken back".
How the fuck do you not understand something so incredibly simple?
Also central planning is a massive authoritarian failure.
I can't believe people this stupid exist.
Anthony King
>It even fits the definition of capitalism
LOL yes. Please tell me how the most economically unfree countries on earth are "capitalist"?
You people really have no argument here.
One of the most economically free nations on earth is Switzerland and they have high living standards there.
Brandon Gray
>How would the working class taking over the means of production and getting the "full product of their labour" benefit the working class?
It's strange that you call other people retards when you don't even understand why the working class would want more money.
>no new consumer goods are being created or taken back
They are taking back consumer goods that would go to the capitalist. Not the same goods that the capitalist would demand, but different goods.
Private ownership of the means of production organised for profit. Thus capitalism.
>muh not real capitalism
Top kek
Gabriel Clark
>guys, everyone should obey the property norms I just made up
People don't give a shit about these dumb meaningless distinctions. Why do you think people will just obey these new rules?
I swear to fuck all of you people are self hating massive losers.
I bet you walk down the street in utter rage at all the capitalist businesses you see. Lo
Christian Kelly
>why do you think people will obey these new rules?
There will be no state guarding property rights.
If anybody tries to charge people rent I guess they would be treated like a thief, or a new category of crime
Angel Hall
>It's strange that you call other people retards when you don't even understand why the working class would want more money
LOL that's not what I said AT ALL.
and I already explained what would happen in a scenario with money as well. I wasn't talking about why they would want more money, i was talking about if or if not doing so will benefit them and clearly it won't.
Man you really don't have a response to this.
>They are taking back consumer goods that would go to the capitalist.
No they're not lol
Oh boy this is the funniest thing about you idiots.
Almost all of the production in society goes to the working class.
The capitalists consume an extremely small amount of personal consumption goods because there is so few of them. It's a drop in the bucket and removing their consumption from the equation will not benefit the working class.
The capitalists could work for scraps and water and the working class would have the same exact living standards.
Oh man I fucking love this.
What's your response?
>Not the same goods that the capitalist would demand, but different goods.
Oh wow so an extremely small amount of factories stop producing yachts and start producing beds or clothing. It's still a drop in the fucking bucket and almost unnoticeable.
Ethan Reed
>Private ownership of the means of production organised for profit. Thus capitalism.
Oh wait,I forgot you people use meaningless terms that.
China is capitalist to you for those reasons. So was the USSR because even under Stalin and Lenin there was degrees of private enterprise.
The term capitalism is meaningless because it can refer to countless countries with radical different laws and economies. According to this terminology Switzerland and Venezuela are both capitalism and therefore capitalism is bad.
You can say Venezuela has private control of the means of production all you want, it doesn't make it a free market and it's not the reason the people in Venezuela are suffering.
The term free market vs an unfree market makes much more sense.
Switzerland is a mostly free market and the people there have the HIGHEST local purchasing power on earth and are very successful.
Xavier Williams
user take a moment to observe the origin of posters in favour of chaotic society run by thieving rabble, none of them are hailing from ex-totalitarian commie hellholes, suggesting that experience truly is the greatest teacher
Aaron Myers
>There will be no state guarding property rights.
Wow so you mean I can hire someone to guard my factory?
Sounds awesome.
>I guess they would be treated like a thief, or a new category of crime
What makes you think people will obey these new counterintuitive social norms?
What if a capitalist firm is providing higher wages and lower prices?
Then what do you do?
Jace Turner
This spanish guy does nothing but spam images without even arguing.
They're too stupid and brainwashed by their ideology to defend it from even the common criticisms. They actually want to be slaves.
Why can't we just kill these people? They're violent animals with the inability to reason.
James Morgan
Kek
Marxists get btfo in every thread and just stop replying.
Nicholas Myers
This says corporate profits have averaged 6% of the economy. Probably in the US.
Then include non-corporate profits and it doesn't seem like nothing.
Not all capitalist regimes are equal, and not all 'communist' regimes are equal
>what do you do
Seize the memes of production
Levi Watson
Wrong image
Isaiah Morgan
>This says corporate profits have averaged 6% of the economy. Probably in the US.
>Then include non-corporate profits and it doesn't seem like nothing.
Christ man. How did you totally miss the point AGAIN. Reread what I said. Learn the difference between money and resources. If all of this money was simply given to the working class the same exact thing would happen. Prices would have to rise to make up for this new demand where there is no supply and the workers will be in the SAME EXACT position they are before.
You just CAN'T GET AROUND THIS. There's no fucking benefit to taking over the means of production, you will not suddenly gain a massive amount of new consumer goods, they literally do not exist in reality. The working class is already consuming 99% of them. Prices would just rise. The capitalists are consuming an incredibly small amount of consumer goods in the economy.
The capitalists could have trillions more dollars and the living standards of the working class would be exactly the same. Money does not equal resources.
Also what do you think happens when central banks(government control over the economy) literally print TRILLIONS of dollars and give it to bankers and corporations while the wages of the working class stagnate due to inflation and economic destruction?
>Not all capitalist regimes are equal, and not all 'communist' regimes are equal
Then make that distinction and stop being so intellectually dishonest by hiding behind deceptive words.
>Seize the memes of production
and lower your wages and increase prices again?
lol boy shooting yourself in the foot sounds fun
You guys are so cute I love playing this game with you. You're trapped in a corner and you know it.
Alexander Reyes
Except they wouldn't because the resources used to produce for the capitalist class would have been redirected to produce for the working class.
This is your argument
>we should stop spending money on usesless things and spend money on useful things instead
>LOL THEN THE PRICE OF USEFUL THINGS JUST GOES UP
Charles Reed
At most it only applies in the short run. And even there would be some surplus luxury goods that could go to everyone.
It all depends on the extent to which the luxury good capital structure can be re-adapted into serving the working class
Jason Ross
In the long run it doesn't apply at all, because the capital structure would be adapted to producing for the working class, meaning there are more goods as well as higher incomes
Lucas Davis
Can't wait, tovarishch.
Isaac Rogers
>Except they wouldn't because the resources used to produce for the capitalist class would have been redirected to produce for the working class.
>This is your argument
Oh boy, jesus user, I feel so sorry for you.
You were unable to respond to the rest of my post so I'll finish you off by demolishing this last attempt to face save.
I would just close the tab and reflect on your life after this.
>the resources used to produce for the capitalist class would have been redirected to produce for the working class.
I already explained that this is an infinitesimally small portion of the economy, like 0.1% or something. Do you honestly think the vast majority of goods produced in the economy are yachts and mansions? Please don't tell me you are this stupid.
>would have been redirected to produce for the working class.
Okay and the working class now is 0.01% richer.
Wow that was totally worth it, I love economic stagnation now.
>>we should stop spending money on usesless things and spend money on useful things instead
>>LOL THEN THE PRICE OF USEFUL THINGS JUST GOES UP
That's not my argument at all.
The vast majority of the money the capitalists get from their businesses is SAVED. Not spent. They actually spend an extremely small amount of what they get in profits from their firms on personal consumption.
You do know this right?
If you took this saved money, gave it to the working class and they spent it. Of COURSE the price of ALL goods will go up.
No new resources are being created in this situation.
Also as I already stated, if they stopped producing goods the capitalist consumes it would amount to almost nothing.
Also, your original argument and the typical socialist argument states that if the working class got the "full value" of their labour then they would be much much richer and their living standards would go up. Redirecting consumer goods that the capitalists produce towards things workers want is a secondary argument you people make.
Daniel Evans
>sages the thread so opponent can't respond
Wow commies btfo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Noah Morales
>And even there would be some surplus luxury goods that could go to everyone.
How?
The working class has the same exact living standards, working hours, etc as before. How does changing who owns the means of production magically increase the supply of consumer goods to the working class. You've FAILED to explain this because you know you're wrong.
You people literally want to live in poverty. You're so fucking confused.
>It all depends on the extent to which the luxury good capital structure can be re-adapted into serving the working class
But I already explained it's a drop in the bucket lol. A very tiny portion of the economy goes to produce luxury goods for the capitalists. LOL
Man your ideology is a joke. So many fucking holes in it.
>because the capital structure would be adapted to producing for the working class
But the working class ALREADY consumes 99% of consumer goods in the economy. LOL
Also the working class's desires are the primary driver of the economy. Which goods are produced, primarily depends on the demands of the working class.
Socialists want to take this away from the working class and hand it over to statist bureaucrats and/or the tyranny of the majority "democracy" where 49% of the population doesn't get to decide what is produced.
Talk about stagnation, damn.
Ian Lee
>saging silences the person you're arguing with
Holy shit are socialist redditors this dumb?
Caleb Smith
So if you took away savings then the capitalist class's consumption would only be 0.01% of the economy?
Because you want the thread to 404 before they respond.
Cooper Kelly
I don't see how this adds up to 0.01% of the economy being consumption by wealth people
Jaxson Mitchell
You guys can't even get the working class to support you, how the heck do you plan to get the whole world on board?
Henry Nguyen
>So if you took away savings then the capitalist class's consumption would only be 0.01% of the economy?
Yes. Your picture proves nothing. The number of capitalists are incredibly small compared to the working class.
Isn't this something you people usually complain about?
Also that graph is unsourced. Doesn't matter though because it didn't prove anything either way.
The richest people in the world(the top 10 000 richest people, you know, the billionaires and millionaires) save the vast majority of their money.
Look at my graph.
Look how many people who are probably capitalists exist in america compared to how many people there are in america.
Even people in the 500k to 1mil bracket aren't all capitalists. Tons of doctors, laywers, dentists, celebrities etc etc are in that bracket.
Look above that and you get to people who are probably capitalists. They're roughly half a million people. Lets say 750k people are capitalists in america. That's literally 0.214285% of people in america. Now lets say they consume 5 times as much as the average american. That's roughly 1% of all consumer goods.
Wow you really think you're going to eliminate poverty and give the working class a fuckton more goods by reallocating 1% of economic production?
ALSO guess what a large portion of what capitalists consume are things the working class ALSO consumes so that's even LESS of the economy that would have to be reallocated.
>Because you want the thread to 404 before they respond.
If it's just you and me arguing the thread will not 404 because you are bumping the thread. I already demolished your argument so it doesn't really matter.
LOL YOU LITERALLY JUST SHOWED ME A PICTURE OF INCOME SHARE
OF FUCKING MONEY
I already debunked this fallacy like 20 times in this thread.
Can you not read?
Money does not equal resources.
Close the tab kid.