How does capitalism deal with people who can't compete in the free market and make money? are they just supposed to die...

How does capitalism deal with people who can't compete in the free market and make money? are they just supposed to die. food and water costs money so if you're not good enough you just die? that's pretty harsh. communism is much less barbariac. everyone works. evryone gets paid the same. better than having millionaires and starving people. on top of that people want to get rid of benefits. you will have people dying in the streets. like India but corpses instead of poo. wait maybe that is the plan? for poor people to die? i just realized capitalism is genocide. whoa

You ask what happens to people who don't work in capitalism, then you say Communism is better because everyone works?
So let me ask you, what happens to the person who can't work. Your arguments literally work against each other.

I didn't say people who don't work. i said people who can't compete

capitalism and free markets are shit

People will always come together and work towards a common goal, which means crony capitalism is always going to come out of capitalism.

You will have monopolies either way as a conglomerate of companies will always have more power than a small start up business, able to undercut them until they go out of business.

>So let me ask you, what happens to the person who can't work.
move to a capitalist country. oh wait he's shit out of luck there too. might as well stay in the communist one. at least you don't have to watch people flaunt their wealth as you die

have simple """jobs""".
he may work 3 mounths and not work 3 others. he lives with his mom.

selfish.

You still haven't explained. But I'll reiterate for your daft mind.

What happens to those that can't work/compete?

>have simple """jobs""".
and what if no one hires you? die? great system

Capitalism has only been made tolerable do the Christian charity and ethics. Atheistic global capitalism is literally hell on earth

>What happens to those that can't work/compete?
how the fuck would i know?

So you make fun of a system that at least says they will die.

Don't glorify communism unless you know what the ins and outs are, which you clearly don't.

ins and outs? such as?

Such as what happens to people that can't work or compete. You literally said yourself you don't know.

there's no competition because everyone is equal

This. Fuck the free market.

>muh trickle down

Do you support me being shot?

That still doesn't say what happens to people who can't work, you just reiterated the equality phrase that is so commonly accompanied by nothing.

Let me help you, start by telling me what will happen to a man with broken legs who can't work for a few months.

Then, tell me how it outweighs the government plans and support that already exist in our capitalist societies.

And to really help your argument, finish with a rebuttal. Maybe bring up a seperate flaw in capitalism that communism is better in.

Hope this helps your daft mind.

you have a higher chance of being shot here

If everyone is equal they can compete. Yay capitalism!

i already said i don't know

don't know

i wasn't aware we were in an argument. you just asked me a question and i said i don't know

>capitalism works because its never correctly implemented, capitalism says you die but because of morals and charity capitalism is able to work

>communism doesnt work because its never correctly implemented, communism says utopia but because human nature it falls apart

very interesting

It's just how nature works. Any creature which does not expend effort to feed itself will starve and die. There is no obligation for other members of the species to bring food to a member who refuses to feed itself. No one is entitled to that which someone else has gathered, grown, or caught.

Then you proved my earlier post.

You don't know the ins and outs of communism, therefore you are exempt from political conversation and your notion that communism is better is daft, just as you are.

>If everyone is equal they can compete.
that makes no sense. why compete if it will end in a tie?

>You don't know the ins and outs of communism
yeah that's why i asked you for them. i'm not an expert on this. I'm trying to learn.

>It's just how nature works.
communism is closer to nature. there's no money in nature. lions don't apply for jobs. everyone in the pride works (chases the zebra) and everyone eats. no one ones the zebra and charges pieces of metal for the meat from it.

There are literally examples in nature of how thats bullshit. There are plenty of social creatures that will take care of their own wounded if possible.

The thing you describe is more common among more predatory species, not groups, and humans are group creatures, we are not predators, who are prey whos evolved a very scary defensive mechanism of active genocide against threats, and became so capable at it we were able to move up the food chain and supplement our grazing with hunting as some sort of super-species. That didn't change our nature though, human herds still act as a herd, not as a group of predators would.

*no one owns

I'll go easy on you since you're trying to learn.

Since you're trying to learn, you shouldn't make these kind of posts without expecting political discourse, and more accurately, without being able to defend your argument.

Under capitalism everybody has equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If you work hard you can rise to a higher class, but you're guaranteed nothing without working for it.

For society to be preserved, the threat of starvation and death due to wasteful actions must be present. Its the most foolproof way to prevent the system from collapsing due to inactive or parasitic elements.

>are they just supposed to die
Yes

Yeah, they die. Isn't it great?

>without being able to defend your argument.
i never made an argument. i was literally asking a question

t. bottom 95%

Is that why you have elected Trump? Free market works so perfect, jobs go to China, all is well.
Usually fiscal rightists try to prove that alternatives are worse or uncertain. If the system goes south you elect another leader that promises to change things or starts wars abroad.

>Under capitalism everybody has equality of opportunity

Maybe ideally, but it doesn't work that way.

Even in nature, were the herding animals not threathened by predator species, they would overwhelm the biome and consume all available food there. After the starvation sets in, even the heavily R-selected herbivore species start to display predatory behaviour by attacking their own kind.

Since we lack some superpredator that hunts us and keeps a check on our numbers to not overwhelm our environment, we need to exhibit predatory behaviour ourselves to prevent overconsumation of resources.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

but why? why should people starve to death in the worlds wealthiest country? if you can't feed your people wtf is your government doing? having satanic sex rituals with the elites?

>having satanic sex rituals with the elites?
Well, they are doing that. But another way to look at it is that without being so predatory, they would not have evolved to be the wealtiest societies in the world.

Our potential resources are the number of resources in the entire universe. The only scarcity we face is artificial scarcity.

Our practical resources are just limited to the surface of this planet however. Just because we might invent some day an infinity machine, doesnt change the fact that at the present day our means are limited.

Nature is competition. You think lions all hunt together and when they get home they pass around their lion-wives and animal carcasses to ensure everybody gets and equal piece? No. The biggest and strongest lion, who demonstrates his value by hunting the most/best food, is the one who gets to start a family and pass on his genes. The lion who fails to demonstrate his value, who can't hunt for shit, has failed and will not pass on his genes. This in part is how evolution works, through competition.

Communism is an abberation of nature because it removes competition from the equation. Without competition, life stagnates.

>Well, they are doing that. But another way to look at it is that without being so predatory, they would not have evolved to be the wealtiest societies in the world.
that's a good point

Actually, communism removes the individual, and presumes the entire humanity to become a single superorganism, akin to an ant colony.

Its not completely foreign to nature, but its foreign for an individualistic species to act that way.

Except the level of relative poverty is higher today.

You know how people always bitch about 'gibs' saying that once you give them, you never get to take them back?

Its the same with poverty, holes were dug and when the economy pulled out of it, the people were left behind, and the regained prosperity went mostly to the top.

bees act that way as well, and bees are individual, they actually debate course of action with their bee language and have a sort of pseudo democracy going on.

>are they just supposed to die?
yes. we should just let natural selection do its job.

sage

>Without competition, life stagnates.
One-two big corporation take over an industry and the competition ends. There's Google and no one else. There's Xbox and Playstation and that's about all.

The mantra about competition is outdated since 19th century, Lenin did write about it in "Imperialism as the late stage of capitalism", he saw and described how markets crystallize around big players.
What workers do with these large companies? Nationalize them, or tax them as they do in Europe.

The question I usually find myself asking is where these people have cut corners in their pasts? How are they spending/investing their money? Why are they unable to feed THEMSELVES in a society where a homeless man can sleep in a warm bed every night in New York, just by seducing a different woman every night?

More often than not, there's probably something wrong with those people, to the point that they've cut ties with all of the people that cared about them.

Most people end up where they are because of their own actions.

you can still compete. play basketball after work or something lol

Indeed it has, but compared to the standards the poor had historically faced in societies and compare them to modern western poor.

The predatory behavior has improved the conditions of even the lower class of society, simply from the run-off of wealth created.

But i agree, total free market can be devestating to society.

In first world countries, we have basic welfare nets for the involuntarily unemployed.

You should try having one too, albeit niggers would probably abuse it.

You cant do that while maintaining law and order. In nature the predator whos shit at hunting still has the opportunity to be better at fighting than the rest of the predators, and just take the food thats hunted. Thats the law of nature.

You cant just say "we are doing this by nature" and start killing the people bad at hunting, but then bitch to society when they try to fight and steal from you.

Majority of bees are also neutered drones thats only possibility of having any genetic legacy is to sacrifice their own life for their queen.

There's plenty of psychopaths who've made a lot of money breaking the law who's shit you can steal by simply enforcing private property rights.

But no. You need to come for mine instead. This is why we want you dead.

>Why are they unable to feed THEMSELVES in a society where a homeless man can sleep in a warm bed every night in New York, just by seducing a different woman every night?
dude what? women don't want homeless men. are you joking? if women wanted homeless men everyone would be homeless

>You cant just say "we are doing this by nature" and start killing the people bad at hunting, but then bitch to society when they try to fight and steal from you.

If you break the rules set by society, you are no longer considered to be part of it. When you cant be trusted to not act destructively against the more productive members of society, you are punished or exiled from it.

You're wrong.

In capitalism, you can remove yourself from society completely and live on your own with your own resources and no-one will really care. If for whatever reason you're unable to find work of any sort, you can grow your own food and fetch your own water and you'll be able to do so according to your own skills.

In Marxist communism/socialism, if you don't work for the state you're meant to die, as-in you'll be killed by the government. You have no freedom about your own life. You're assigned a job and you'll stick with it or you'll starve.

>are they just supposed to die?

I hardly know anyone which truly is UNABLE to work. You may have niggers, but they are unwilling, not unable. Disabled people, for instance, might be unabled to work -- though their families should provide for them in this rare eventuality.

Most people I know, including myself, would be okay with paying taxes to sustain disabled people and no-one else. I don't want to give free cash to niggers, or spics, or immigrants. I don't mind, however, to spend a little of my income on helping those really, clinically and physically unable to provide for themselves - and not some tumblr PTSD shit.

>food and water costs money so if you're not good enough you just die?

Yes, if you are unable to feed yourself, you are unfit and should die. This is the natural process that has shaped all life on Earth.

>better than having millionaires

And here's where the communist invariably shows his hand. You aren't really concerned about "the poor" who have historically managed just fine through charity and who's overall standard of living is really quite good due to the fruits of capitalism. You're just bitter and envious of those who are more successful than you and instead of thinking about ways to raise yourself up you can only think of ways to knock others down.

You are a failure and you would like to enforce failure on your fellows. What a despicable and disingenuous piece of shit you are.

R-real free market has never been tried!

Well put.

Unchecked capitalism does inevitably lead to consolidation and monopolies, but that's why government exists. I'm not convinced nationalizing is the best way to solve a monopoly either, though it is one way.

>brazil
Did you forget to remove your proxy there?

>communism is much less barbariac.

100+ million killed by communism in 20th century. Holodomor wose than Holocaust and Native American genocide combined.

>everyone works.

'According to Vladimir Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism'

>evryone gets paid the same.

'Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro may have professed to being a Communist — but he lived more like a king. His estimated net worth was approximately $900 million according to Forbes Magazine, though he claimed that he made just $43 a month and lived a fisherman's hut.'

Are you fooled by their long "workers" beards and scummy military fatigues?

>compared to the standards the poor had historically faced in societies

Relative to the people at the top we are worse off.

Its about loss and gain and relative wealth, not actual wealth. A person with two apples will feel content if the person with the most apples ever only has three, but give him 10 apples but show him a neighbor with a thousand and he will feel like somethings up.

Becuase posessions and money are simply representative of power, and power is your voice within a society. In a social society people want to feel that it is in balance enough that they are not significantly less represented than anyone else. The society as a whole produces a certain amount, and people start to suspect something is up when it would be impossible for someone to have a greater portion of wealth than them through their own efforts.

If you could potentially work twice as hard and have twice as much, seeing someone with twice as much than you doesnt seem that upsetting. Seeing someone with twenty times as much and the idea that people are rewarded for the efforts they put in goes out the window, and belief in the fairness of the system goes too.

>communism is much less barbariac.
Yeah, you just wait for the state to run out of everyone's money instead of you just running out of your own.

>if you are unable to feed yourself
you make it sound easy. anyone can put food in their mouth. the process of getting the job to get the money to buy the food is the hard part

Majority of bees are female, yeah being a male drone kind of sucks.

But you dont need "relative" wealth to survive. You dont need to have exactly 33% of the income of the top members of the society or else you will die of "deadly NoGibs".

To survive you need minimal basic supplies, and no matter how much the relative difference between what you have and what the top percentage has, it has no effect on your own physical needs.

>If you break the rules set by society, you are no longer considered to be part of it. When you cant be trusted to not act destructively against the more productive members of society, you are punished or exiled from it.

Ok, but your justification for why society is the way it is goes out the window and is exposed as just a convenient excuse by you. If we arent doing things 'by nature' then you have presented no argument for not doing things some other way entierly.

>This is the natural process that has shaped all life on Earth.
yes but it never involved money or property. there are no rich or poor animals. except us because we're special snowflakes

Shame we don't live in a communist society, where free food comes at the low low price of a few missing kids a month.

>survive
The goal of life has never been personal survival, its been genetic survival, and shaping the overall society is of interest to your genes whether or not the physical current you is in danger or not.

This is why i dont advocate things like removing inheritance, even though you would have to if you actually wanted to ensure some perfect capitalistic 'equal opportunity'

>You are a failure
well if no one were a failure everyone would be rich but the money would be more spread out because everyone has it because everyone is successful. basically everyone has around the same amount of money and everyone works. that's the goal of communism isn't it. that means in communism everyone is successful. also just because you have money doesn't mean you succeeded. you can be born into a wealthy family and not succeed at anything and still never have to worry about anything and live in luxury until you die.

>there are no rich and poor animals
I see, so you're actually retarded, not just pretending to be

This is literally the survival of the fittest the people arguing against communism seem to morally base their support of capitalism on. At least that image is of an honest society.

Society is an expression of nature. Its a next level of organizing above your direct family or tribe, akin to how a biome is a bigger organization of all the living things considered part of it.

For Society to survive, it has to exhibit behaviours that disincentive society destroying habits. That includes punishing those members of the society that are hostile to it with force. That is law of nature" If you want to survive, you have to act for your own interest".

There are societies that exhibit or have exhibited behaviours that you desire, and most have become undone due to society itself not purging its destructive members.

Also, just because something is "natural" is no justification at all for something to be right or wrong. Cannibalism, incest, cancer and plague itself is as natural as morning dew.

Other people will help them or not help them as they see fit -- Just like it always was before big government. This is called human freedom, as opposed to slavery.

>How does capitalism deal with people who can't compete in the free market and make money?
Soup kitchens. Society offers food and a bed but not money or a home. A shitty life so people have an incentive to work but at the same time they have enough to survive so they are not forced to do crime.

>How does capitalism deal with people who can't compete in the free market and make money?
Safety nets - welfare etc

>communism is much less barbariac. everyone works. evryone gets paid the same. better than having millionaires and starving people.
Spoken like a true, ignorant US teenager who never seen or experienced communism. Have a big, bitter redpill. Real communism doesn't work like propaganda. Look at my flag, I'd know (yes, I was alive in 80s).

In practice you have party which is the rich and you have everyone else still on the brink of starvation because sure, everyone works but often it's kinda forced work, with shit money all around. There's still no fair division of resources - the mottor is "for everyone, according to their needs" but then it turns out your politicians pissing around somehow require quite much more than a factory worker striving to feed his family, no matter how much either is required.

In capitalism at least the ingenuity and personal skill is rewarded, in communism - it's connections.

When government dictates you how you should value different services, how much you can have and where to allocate your resources, most of the profitable venues suddenly get closed to you or force you to pay for getting to them enough that it doesn't matter.

In real world, both communism and capitalism don't work as well as on the paper. But capitalism certainly works better. It just has to be tempered with foresight and empathy (tempered, not overpowered by).

Animals always did compete for resources. This is often one-sided since whatever dispute is decided by either looks or physicall prowess, and both are decided upon birth. Animals do not operate using money or property in law because they do not understand these concepts. It is impossible to have 'fairness' in salaries and compensations where you cannot expect the same degree of 'fairness' in the jobs they maintain. You cannot expect a cashier to earn the same, or about the same, as a doctor or researcher.

Your understanding of economy and human behavior is very shallow. This almost seem like a strawman to piss off the commies that occasionally post here.

Charity. Do you think churches let people die in the streets before big daddy welfare rolled around?

capitalism is so efficient no one will be starving.

>The goal of life has never been personal survival, its been genetic survival, and shaping the overall society is of interest to your genes whether or not the physical current you is in danger or not.

That is true of life, but parasitism is also a valid strategy for the propagation of ones genes. However, Parasitism is not sustainable in the long run, since it forces evolutionary downgrading of the species to be as minimally functional as possible.

The intent of a predatory society is to make parasitism as unattractive choice for propagating your genetic legacy as possible.

>communism is better

I agreed until you started to talk about communism. It's impossible and always ends up having the state become the employer thus making a worse form of dictatorship on the proletariat.

What are you, like 16? Sage.

There's very few people who can't contribute *anything* to the economy enough to earn some kind of wage. I assume you're not talking about people with profound disabilities, though, unable to walk or even feed themselves.

For people who are just not go-getters, there's plenty to do! Think of it like ecology; nearly every niche is exploited somehow by some type of organism. Not every animal is the king of the jungle. Some are caterpillars, and they can carve out a nice niche for themselves.

>relative poverty

Again, just envious that others are more successful than he is.

>You cannot expect a cashier to earn the same, or about the same, as a doctor or researcher.
i agree

Here's what happens you idiot:

If you're born retarded (like yourself) in Communist countries, they just kill you before you become a burden on the state. There were giant facilities in the USSR where they would put mentally slow nd handicapped children and starve them till they died. Many escaped here to our evil capitalist society for refuge.

I fucking hate you stupid kids and your idiocracy

in capitalism there is something missing from communism called Charity and welfare.

Communism is where you cannot work you are murdered.
Capitalism if you cannot work / compete you still have the possibility of becoming filthy rich even as a malformed downy.

Which one is more compassionate the one that murders farmers and their families and burns down their farm for wheat or the one that allows them to prosper under the market conditions ?

i may be retarded but i can work. i can type as you can see. i can be that person in court who types everything. so yeah i would be fine in communism

we have no free market or capitalism. 70% taxes, regulations, nationalized companies. Communism centralizes the markets and leads to nothing but deprave.

Then how exactly can't you see how communism would fail?

If you're a doctor, are you really going to keep working under these conditions?

This system has been attempted a good sum of times already. It always falls on itself eventually, its collapse is almost inevitable. Capitalism rewards meritocracy -- you want to plan ahead and spend your time studying or honing your ability, you'll get well rewarded for it. You don't, and you'll end up with a lower-end job and will need to climb up from there.

For fucks sake.
When user says 'argument', he does not mean a verbal fight. 'Argument' as in a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood (The Free Dictionary).
>autism

>communism
>court ledgers
Hahahahah

for those of you unable to read english without a comma
Communism doesn't have welfare / charity as I elucidated in the rest of the post.........

yes you idiot
that's WHY we had to come up with welfare in teh first fucking place
the churches never helped but a few and demanded they already be members or willing to listen to shit before being allowed to eat
that retarded shit is why we have social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, vet admin and all those "liberal" programs that actually help more people for less cost than expecting some con artist in a robe to part with a fucking penny

>would fail
You mean 'did fail, many times'