tfw communism is held accountable by official histories for the deaths of millions while capitalism is absolved of its annihilation of the human soul over the entire globe
Friendly reminder that due to the efficiency of capitalism, around 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2 a day
The lefty definition of poverty "relative" so they literally move the goalposts every time capitalism improves the lives of the poor.
>1 post by this ID
Muh one post
I agree essentially, but full communism won't work either.
A better solution is to let the government complement and compete with the free market.
The government is at it's best when it is creating new standards.
"eliminating hunger" is basically impossible. Largely thanks to niggers and low level idiots breeding like rabbits without producing anything. There will always be more mouths to feed. Someone, somewhere, is starving. Always.
The funny thing to me is one of the best solutions to eliminating world hunger is simply killing 2/3rds of the world's population, particularly in poor countries.
Friendly reminder that whenever poor countries adopt Communism they become shit, like Zimbabwe.
>If I had a dollar for every successful country that had eliminated hunger, homelessness and poverty period.
If I had a dollar for ever person Communism starved to death, I'd have a position on Trump's cabinet.
lmao commie btfo
That's because absolving poverty completely is impossible. You can't live in a utopia, we have tried it and it always ends in dictatorships and tyranny
>compete with the free market.
To say government competes with the free market is to say lions merely race gazelles. The government doesn't have any money, but what it takes from the market.
>The poorest of the poor in capitalist america have access to clean water, healthcare and subsidized food
>The average venezuelan is hunting rats to feed his family
Friendly reminder that Marx never denied that progress happened in capitalism:
>The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
In fact, he predicted that capitalism would die because of over-production
If i had a dollar for every retarded half baked non-argument made by IDs with 1 post.
The only policy African countries could adopt to not become shit is white supremacy or white colonialism. They're niggers, they would fail just as hard with capitalism.
2 posts by this id
What is that in her mouth?
WTF I hate capitalism now.
>all the stuff I don't like in the world is the fault of people interacting peacefully
Nice imagination, fag.
Comparing problems like that under communism vs capitalism it like comparing dying in a hospital vs in the wilderness.
Communism is trying to fix those problems(and failing). Capitalism doesn't give a fuck that shit is on you.
I liked the idea of communism for a while, but then I went on /r/communism. It's full of people unironically defending Stalin and edgy American teenagers going "life in the Soviet Union was the best".
>A better solution is to let the government complement and compete with the free market.
How would that work?
Who would pay for a private school when it's mandatory to pay for public schools also?
>if i had a dollar for every capitalist country where every single person can be unemployed and still have enough money to live off of i would have as much money as a communist who works every day of his life because he gets the goulag if he doesn't
In communism everybody starves
In capitalism only the poorest of the poor starve
In communism you would wait 20 years for that purse, if you'd ever even get one in the first place.
:)
It's not just that that image shows that you have no fucking clue of what socialism is, you don't have a clue of what capitalism is either.
Due to capitalism nobody with a workong brain in the US needs to fear for hunger and we are actually so successful we feed other nations who depend on us for food.
Imagine a world of perfect justice. Like instant karma, everyone got what they deserved. That world would also contain a lot of hunger, homelessness and poverty. But it would be the best world, certainly better than ours, and better than one where everyone got whatever they wanted even if they were degenerates who didn't deserve it. It's not the existence of suffering that makes the world worse off.
is it fair to say the prevailing regime improved lives if a better system would have improved them more? why not describe the prevailing system as holding lives back in that case? concede that lives improved despite rather than because of the regime?
teeth and a tongue
WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT IDIOTS WHO CAN'T EVEN GET A JOB AT BURGER KING DO
WHO CARES IF THEY STARVE
FUCK
Poverty is over 15 times lower in capitalist countries than in socialist ones.
whoa, this really bleahteeheffowded my activated almonds
>implying capitalism is responsible for feeding you, housing you, and making you rich
Wow, it's almost as though in a system built around competition and innovation, there's gonna be winners and losers!
Also turns out that if you starve and die in a capitalist society it's because you're a lazy, stupid piece of shit that wouldn't survive the purge cut offs in socialist societies anyway.
It's called a wallet you swiss fruitcup.
Please link me to all the obituaries of all the people who've starved in the U.S.
Now if the whole world was commie, then you can bump that figure up to 90%.
Nice post n run faggot commie
TFW communism was the first redpill and the scourge of PC culture in those days.
Sam thing here on pol, albeit Marx had some conception of work and labor and wasn't a fuckin NEET
If I had a dollar for every socialist country that.... oh wait I'd still have no dollars!
>Friendly reminder that due to the efficiency of capitalism, around 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2 a day
youtube.com
>albeit Marx had some conception of work and labor and wasn't a fuckin NEET
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
>you don't have a clue what my own imaginary version of capitalism is
Nope, and I don't give a shit, fag.
How does the one post thing work?
Mine always resets.
Exactly. Same with fucking coal miners.
Listen up, Faggot...
Capitalism has created more wealth for more people worldwide than any other economic system by miles and miles. This is indisputable and factual beyond any possible argument.
It is similarly factual that the number of people killed under communism and/or by communists dwarfs the number of those killed by the KKK and Nazi fascism by tens if not hundreds of millions.
Your argument is not only ridiculous, it represents a complete lack of understanding of the way the world operates.
By merely arguing this, You become a supporter of an evil, hateful ideology that has destroyed hundreds of millions of lives in order to benefit a 'special' elite few.
The fact that we even have this argument in 2017 is proof that DeVos' nomination is but the first step in many that will be necessary in order to repair the damage communist propaganda has done in America.
Also, you are a dipshit. You are obviously one of the 92% of antifa faggots living with mommy and daddy.
Hahahaha ! Does it matter ? My purse is full of golden shekels.
While you don't even have healthcare lol
I could now add an insult to these facts above but i'm too swiss for an ad hominem
>Marx
>not a Neet
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
He was THE original Neet, a template for every commie ever and a best example of 'idle burgeouise that exploits the labor of working class'
Please fuck off to a failed socialist paradise and quit using our Internet you faggot shill.
>All those neets publishing deep economic analysis on the current status of the world
capitalism's goal isnt to eliminate the hunger and homelessness of useless, ineffectual people. it's meant to stamp them out so only the strong survive.
if you're such a fucking failure in life then you deserve to be under the bootheel
You don't need deep economic analysis to disprove the labour theory of value.
Heck, you don't need any analysis at all - the work has already been done:
...
Well said and /thread
What your picture described as "capitalism" could describe perfectly a socialism systems. Because people like you actually think that "demand and supply" or "investment" are concepts that belong exclusively to capitalism, as if the concept of capital accumulation wasn't thinkable under socialism.
And then there are those cute assertions, like "businesses and rich don't pay taxes, they tag them to the prices". They would make Adam Smith (who claimed that it was reasonable to make rich people pay more taxes than the average) cry.
And your description of socialism reveals that whoever did it hasn't even read the communist manifesto, let alone a book about socialism (one dedicated to criticize socialism). For instance, several communist countries never had the concept of "taxes". But then, this is Sup Forums, what did I expect.
Well, labour theory proved itself through Marx in forseeing the overproduction crises. But i need to get deeper in the subjective value theory. thanks.
It's rael simples.
Civilisation is based on effort & collective sacrifice.
For effort, you need incentives (both monetary and emotional).
For collective sacrifice, you need a uniting moral ideology & tribalism (it's how humans tick).
Based on the above, Hitler built a powerhouse economy and a military superpower within a few short years.
Communism lacks both.
Centrism lacks the latter.
What overproduction crisis?
I can think of several incidents of overproduction in the past century but none that could be considered a crisis. Except perhaps that of fiat money.
Someone who does not feel that public school meets thier needs.
I know lots of people who do it.
>implying the goal of capitalism is to eliminate hunger
It's darwinism, cry more commie tears limpwrist.
Fascism != communism, you trumpsucking teenie bopper.
Except capitalism embraces inequality, homeless and poor exist because they want to be homeless and poor.
The two ideologies are economically very similar.
We are the revolution!
Nothing can stop us because we are empowered anti-fascists!
Capitalism is great! Unless you're dumb enough to be working, or working for someone else.
The dudes at the top make more per second than you do in a year....
...why not take some of that.
What does the state owe you? It stops you from going into the forest and building a cabin on vacant land - like a real man would.
Why do you be putting up with that shit?
Doubling the expenses for no good reason is not good to me
>Eliminating hunger, homelessness and povery
Lel..
Communists truly believe this is entirely fucking possible.
Capitalism is a risk:reward system. If they don't like it, they can move to Africa or Russia.
The enjoyment of the violence suffered by the movie character turns into violence against the spectator, and distraction into exertion. Nothing that the experts have devised as a stimulant must escape the weary eye; no stupidity is allowed in the face of all the trickery; one has to follow everything and even display the smart responses shown and recommended in the film. This raises the question whether the culture industry fulfils the function of diverting minds which it boasts about so loudly. If most of the radio stations and movie theatres were closed down, the consumers would probably not lose so very much. To walk from the street into the movie theatre is no longer to enter a world of dream; as soon as the very existence of these institutions no longer made it obligatory to use them, there would be no great urge to do so. Such closures would not be reactionary machine wrecking. The disappointment would be felt not so much by the enthusiasts as by the slow-witted, who are the ones who suffer for everything anyhow. In spite of the films which are intended to complete her integration, the housewife finds in the darkness of the movie theatre a place of refuge where she can sit for a few hours with nobody watching, just as she used to look out of the window when there were still homes and rest in the evening. The unemployed in the great cities find coolness in summer and warmth in winter in these temperature-controlled locations. Otherwise, despite its size, this bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man’s lives. The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger.
>Friendly reminder that due to the efficiency of capitalism, around 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2 a day
Let's take a realistic look at your complaint.
10% of the world's total population of roughly 7 billion people is around 700 million people. According to estimates by the UN in 1998 (when the world population was just shy of 6 billion people) would cost $58 billion today adjusted for inflation to provide education , water, sanitation, nutrition and basic healthcare to every developing country in the world.
Now the 100 richest people in the world total about $240 billion. So why don't we make them put that money to use to end poverty? Well that sounds great if you aren't actually really looking at this objectively. See the figures the UN provided (not even considering the value would be far more with the current world population almost 20 years later) would provide those needs for only a year. This means it would cost $58 billion every single year to accomplish this task. So the 100 richest people in the world could afford to do this for four years tops and then world poverty would return with a vengeance.
But the US GDP is 16.77 trillion! The US can afford it!. Well the US is doing a better job than a lot of the world at controlling it's own poverty contrary to liberal minds. Except a great deal of world poverty level comes from China yet China has higher GDP than most of the world except the US. The US already spends $23 billion a year on humanitarian aid and spends more on humanitarian aid than any other country even considering GDP. The US is already doing more than the rest of the world on this problem so why are you expecting more?
That's an adorable imagination you have there. Don't ever lose it, but don't let it rule you either.
>yfw free market capitalism halved global poverty between 2000-2010
>Capitalism
Letting people control, buy and sell labor, produce, property, inventions etc for what ever price some one else is willing to pay.
>Communism
Letting the state control, buy and sell peoples labor, produce, property, inventions etc for what ever price they want.
What system would you rather live under.
>around 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2 a day
What year is it? 1983?
>due to the efficiency of capitalism, around 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2 a day
Oh no!!! Something is efficient! Quick - kill it!!
And it`s based on thinking and reason!!! oh the horror...
FREE US FROM THE OPPRESSION OF REASON!!!!!!!!!!
But capitalism measurably improves people's lives so yours is a moot point.
Communism and state control of the economy has been extremely good at causing starving Africans. Communal farming in Tanzania, Marxism in Mozambique and Ethiopia, and present day Zimbabwe are all examples of communism or socialism causing untold misery. African countries that have embraced hurly burly capitalism are all have booming economies. Well, as booming as African economies can be. SA is swimming upstream and trading in free market capitalism for nationalisation. Coincidentally, our economy is also pretty stagnant, probably with more starving Africans soon.
1929
>one banana is good therefore who cares about having two bananas
>10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$2
Who cares? They're niggers and soulless chinks.
You cucked leftists don't realize that if you go full globalist egalitarian, there literally won't be enough resources produced for you to be able to live your comfy lifestyle that you do now. The populations of Africa and other 3rd-wolrd countries are going to explode in the coming decades, and there won't be enough food/resources to feed all those mouths.
I'd wager that the West would collapse if the Earth's population reaches ~20 billion, and liberals/leftists still keep our current system of open immigration and foreign aid. If you want to create good conditions for the "working class" in your own country, we will literally have to start banning/killing shitskins.
Also
>communism
>efficient
Pic related.
>if I had a food ticket for every successful communist country
I was going to keep going with the rest of the quote but realized my wallet was already empty.
how fucking stupid do you have to believe in overproduction?
can't even imagine that level retarded.
people wanting shit that they don't have (which has always been the case) is underproduction.
>communists think the goal of capitalism is utopia
>communists think utopia is possible
A freindly reminder, the poorest were better off under Medieval Feudalism than they are under today's Capitalist system.
>“Our work sheds new light on England’s economic past, revealing that per capita incomes in medieval England were substantially higher than the “bare bones subsistence” levels experienced by people living in poor countries in our modern world."
www2.warwick.ac.uk
Also, the majority of the planet was industrialized under Communism. The Communists acheived greater industrial expansion in 10 years than the Capitalists did in 50.
>doesn't know what "libertarianism" is...
Strawman.
theguardian.com
Capitalism is saving the world while extreme leftist ideology is trying to destroy it.
>A freindly reminder, the poorest were better off under Medieval Feudalism than they are under today's Capitalist system.
"I am a fucking faggot: The post"
Even the poorest Americans have refrigerators, TVs, etc. Poverty in 21st century America is nothing like it was a hundred years ago where 10 people lived in a cramped tenement, each working 80 hours a week just to buy food and afford basic things like clothing.
Norway did it. If you're hungry and homeless in Norway, you're a junkie.
>one banana is good therefore who cares about two bannanas
You doubt the findings of peer reviewed academic research by one of the UK's leading universities?
>A hundred years ago: A banana
>Today under capitlaism: A fridge to store as many bananas as you want
>Today under socialism: No bananas, government confiscates food (see Venezuela).
you don't have to believe in a thing that happened in the past, wanker.
Exactly. If capitalism is so evil, why would every Third Worlder leave their socialist utopias and move to the evil capitalist USA at the drop of a hat of given the chance? Poverty in the US is better than being middle class in their shit holes.
demand > production
le overproduction!!!
only an economist can believe such bullshit
The Third World is Capitalist.
Have you seen the propaganda that's pumped into the Third World to encourage them to flee to metropolitan countries?
>a fridge and a bunch of bananas for some is good therefore who cares about a fridge and a bunch of bananas for everyone
>financial imperialism provides more stuff than socialism therefore who cares about what provides more stuff than financial imperialism
Marxism hands property to mob rule and devalues the individual. Marxism is anti-segregation, and anti-isolation; it aims to force people into a global collective. To that end, Marxism is also anti-tradition, and anti-cultural; it seeks to destroy identity in order to turn everyone into interchangeable production units who value only base materialism.
If you measure liberty by individual liberty, then you cannot call Marxism "libertarian".