Capitalist argue: >life is unfair! Deal with poverty and shove it up your ass!
If that is the case why should the poor not rebel? If poverty is okay why is the expropriation of the bourgeoisie not okay?
Capitalist argue: >muh natural rights, muh property is sacred, human nature These are all concepts with no real proof. Capitalist argue: >humans are naturally greedy, communism relies on everyone being an angel if humans are naturally greedy, why should the poor not play their role and revolt and be greedy? There is also the fact that laborers are not being greedy by not revolting, which means people are okay with sharing their labor.
Capitalist argue: >Communism leads to an unelected unaccountable elite How is that different from capitalism? Workers don't vote for their supervisors or their bosses, the power over someone's economic activity is no small deal. Workers today live under a system where they have to submit to others in order to have an income. At least in communism they auto-manage.
capitalist argue: >capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, and communism creates poverty If you are poor in capitalism then capitalism has failed you and a communist revolution at least brings the hope of a better system decided by the poor revolting class.
There are literally people in this world who have nothing to lose but their chains.
Rawls would argue that the inequality in capitalism is justifiable so long as the worst off person is still better off than they would have been without the inequity.
>communism is in the self-interest of the poor So is stealing shit, but we don't permit that either. There are more important things than material wealth.
>hurr easy for you to say richfag >:| I'm not defending the system we have NOW. I'm simply saying that full Stalinism isn't the only alternative to neoliberal globalist bullshit.
>Rawls would argue that the inequality in capitalism is justifiable so long as the worst off person is still better off than they would have been without the inequity.
but this flies directly in the face of Human biology and nature. Primates get pissed when there is inequality and even rats will share food. primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html
Rawls assumes people would rather have trinkets than autonomy, independence and dignity. This is incredibly erroneous and will lead to social problems.
>Rawls assumes people would rather have trinkets than autonomy, independence and dignity. Why not have both?
Autonomy, independence, and dignity, are all enhanced by wealth. Inequality does not diminish your autonomy, independence, or dignity, so long as the wealth of the tall poppy is not made at your expense. If inequality leaves us all wealthier then inequality makes us all more autonomous, independent, and able to live lives of dignity.
There is no autonomy, independence, or dignity in absolute poverty.
>but this flies directly in the face of Human biology and nature Read some Kafka. All our knowledge is ourselves to know.
>autonomy, independence, and dignity >implying they would have those under communism You have to be 18 to post on this board
>Autonomy, independence, and dignity, are all enhanced by wealth Having an iphone, doesn't make up not having any job security/healthcare/autonomy in the workplace
>There is no autonomy, independence, or dignity in absolute poverty. no one is arguing this, communism does not mean poverty.
>Read some Kafka. All our knowledge is ourselves to know. Is Kafka a biologist? No he is not, he was a fiction writer. What point are you trying to make?
>Workers don't vote for their supervisors or their bosses, You sound underage, maybe you should grow up first.
If you find autonomy, independence and dignity in the mcjobs late stage capitalism creates, then you are in a small deluded minority
Are you claiming they do?
If the poor revolt and destroy the welth, then everyone will be poor. The ONLY OPTIONS for a society is >Some rich, some poor
Capitalism just makes the poor have a better standard of living than anywhere else.
>Having an iphone, doesn't make up not having any job security/healthcare/autonomy in the workplace Having savings and a strong economy means that you can take time out of the workforce to look for a job that suits you instead of working paycheck-to-paycheck.
And it also means that business owners can run their business the way that they want.
That's also autonomy.
What's your alternative? More misguided and inefficient bureaucratic interference where workers don't get the outcomes they actually want while business owners can't structure their business competitively because of red tape?
>communism does not mean poverty. I agree, but neither does it mean autonomy. You said it was in the self-interest of the workers to advocate for communism because it would increase their autonomy. I disagree. Wealth increases autonomy. Having what you need today, and knowing that you will have what you need tomorrow, gives you the freedom to pick and choose which opportunities you will take. This only happens in a strong economy. I would argue that some inequality leads to a stronger economy. SOME inequality. Not the shitshow that the US is today, sure, but the alternative is not full communism.
>Is Kafka a biologist? Are you?
I guess we're anti-Marxist because we can read a history book guy. There's not a single communist country that EVER became a utopia, and instead became some of the worst, dystopian shitholes on the planet. If you honestly can't see that, you're retarded.
No, but those are not meant to be careers. Poverty is a state of mind, and you can work that shit job your whole life, or you can do something about it.
>If the poor revolt and destroy the welth, then everyone will be poor objectively wrong, China and the Soviet union increased living standards
>Poverty is a state of mind wait, what can a sub-80-IQ-tard do?
Go ahead and revolt we will put you down
>the Soviet Union >China >real communism
Go back to Africa
let me rephrase that, what can a sub-90-IQ-tard do?
They weren't REAL communism
Every argument you just made assumes those of power and wealth to be there by happenstance and luck rather than by superior skill and effort. It assumes that a communist system could provide a similar level of general welfare to the masses as would capitalism. It also assumes that those incompetent rubes that rebel seeking into redistribute wealth would be able to rule properly and maintain a functioning system. It assumes that those willing to fight for communism are actually human. Each of those are incredibly wrong and you're a retard for not realizing it. Please, kill yourself and do the world a favor.
If they are actually handicapped, then they most likely require state support. If not, then they need to find their ikigai and contribute in a way that's meaningful to them. No one says they have to work a shitty job, but they generally choose to because it's easy.
>Having savings and a strong economy Strong economy means housing prices go up, which makes it more difficult to save and increases the cost of searching for a job >to look for a job that suits you Don't individualize everything. This isn't about finding a job that suits an individual, this is about making a system that provides all humans with a social safety net, so we don't have to be knifing each other over shekels our corporate masters reluctantly pay >And it also means that business owners can run their business the way that they want. Why should only business owners have autonomy? >What's your alternative? Worker control over the means of production >Having what you need today, and knowing that you will have what you need tomorrow, gives you the freedom to pick and choose which opportunities you will take. correct >This only happens in a strong economy. I would argue that some inequality leads to a stronger economy. By what mechanism? > Not the shitshow that the US is today Capitalism permits private property which will naturally concentrate, by the mechanism of influence-peddling and monopolization. Laws against bribery and corruption will be overturned for the right price, so there is no mechanism against what people like to call "crony capitalism." Capitalism in all countries will turn into "crony capitalism." >but the alternative is not full communism. why not? it worked in Mao's china in the 1970s 1/2
Mao moved China closer to real communism. Stalin wasn't bad but he was never the intellectual Mao was.
Mao's experiment in decentralized popular mass communism is excellent evidence that communism works.
People claim that the cultural revolution was a disaster.
They claim China destroyed history. False, numerous archaeological sites such as Mawangdui were discovered and preserved and peasants were educated on how to identify historical relics if they were to come across them in the field.
They claim science and learning was destroyed. False, China sent its first space satellite and created high yield hybrid rice. While building schools in rural areas.
They claim the economy was a disaster. Yet, growth rates were higher then than in the reform era. Rural areas actually had growth rather than decline as they do now.
Sources: Mr. Science and Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution : science and technology in modern China / edited by Chunjuan Nancy Wei and Darryl E. Brock.
The battle for China's past : Mao and the Cultural Revolution / Mobo Gao.
The Unknown Cultural Revolution Life and Change in a Chinese Village / Dongping Han
If you go to rural China you will find it is these people who (according to wealthy Chinese urban elite expatriates and Western scholars who have never been to rural China) are supposedly his victims, who are most supportive of Mao and the cultural revolution and hate the reforms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China
>Poverty is a state of mind, and you can work that shit job your whole life, or you can do something about it. Like what? Revolution is a great way to escape a mcjob Have you ever met rich people? They aren't any better than poor people. I urge you go get some life experience, before you start fellating people on the internet
>whataboutism the post
>Like what? I'd like to assume you're not foolish enough to think I can provide a blanket answer that covers every individual, but you're in favor of communism so that assumption probably isn't safe.
I can tell you that I enlisted when I was dirt poor, did my time, and now have an engineering degree and a six figure salary. Yes, fighting for Israel sucked. Yes, fighting for the deep state sucked. But my life is better for it now, and the sacrifices were worthy. People who stay impoverished never want to sacrifice, only be given what they feel they are owed.
The poor should not rebel and take the money from the rich because i plan to be rich, not poor.
So basically your argument is lireeally "yeah but capitalists do that too". Since both systems are shit which one would you rather live under? Where you know youre poor and live a shit tier life, but know its all you have? Or one that at least gives you the idea that you can be anything you want in life and wealthy too.
>Strong economy means housing prices go up, which makes it more difficult to save and increases the cost of searching for a job A strong economy means a lot of things. Unless you are specifically claiming that a strong economy is bad for most average people I don't see any point in going down this rabbit hole of endless technical pointscoring.
>this is about making a system that provides all humans with a social safety net I live in one. Wow, looks like full communism isn't that necessary after all.
>Why should only business owners have autonomy? Why do you imply that they don't deserve any?
>Worker control over the means of production I think that's a desirable goal. But it doesn't require full communism.
>By what mechanism? Price signals and free market competition are most efficient at discerning how much of what goods are demanded and incentivising innovation (generally speaking, leaving aside the obvious talking points of public goods and blue sky research that are the domain of the government). This leads to a strong economy, but also results in inequality.
>Capitalism in all countries will turn into "crony capitalism." I agree, but the solution is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>muh China I agree. Without Mao literally building modern China out of whole cloth Deng would never have had the infrastructure needed to carry out his reforms.
But I will never support any system that is not a representative parliamentary democracy regardless of what it promises. Full stop.
Give me liberty or give me death.
If everyone did what you did engineering degrees would get even more undervalued. My point is that there is no mechanism for mass prosperity. Capitalism is to serve the few with some concessions to the hardworking and fortunate, be glad that your parents didn't have a medical crisis that required you to drop out of school >Since both systems are shit which one would you rather live under? communism isn't shit to those who are failed by capitalism. >one that at least gives you the idea that you can be anything you want in life and wealthy too. right on! there is nothing more inspiring than declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills
>but this flies directly in the face of Human biology and nature Except it doesn't. It's perfectly in line with every aspect of natural human accomplishment. Look up pareto distribution. >Primates get pissed when there is inequality and even rats will share food And? You genuinely think nobody shares under capitalism?
You're a delusional college student who's a useful idiot for people much smarter and older than you are. The mere fact that you live in the United States makes you part of the global 1%. Every champagne socialist loves to think that their system will bring them more goodies, when in reality you're the kind of person who will lose everyhing and never reach another habitable living standard again in your life, that is if you're not simply shot.
Ohhh just shutup you sissy, no perfect system exist altough some compromises can be done for those who doesnt want to work or can't work, this is called social security and it's logical to fit in a society to enjoy an overal stable society.
It doesn't remove the fact that heavy competition and right to keep earning individualy shall never ever be infringed unless you want to remove 100% motivation to develop and inovate your utopian society.
Communists and socialists enablers shall thus be killed on sight as for 1 good social reform there is usualy 100 social horrids consequences for future generations (who are born more and more enslaved by the state with less and less liberty to venture freely in life as INTENDED)
Where did I imply that everyone should do what I did? Where did I imply that everyone should be an engineer? Why do my parents have anything to do with the degree I paid for with my service?
Thank you for the fine example of deflection, comrade.
communism is shit to those it failed and still fails. The funny thing about all you neo-revolutionaries is you enjoy a greater life living in and hating a capitalist country then you ever would in a communist nation.
"Good" life in a communist paradise was living in a small flatt among hundreda of other people in a complex of mega apartment structures, waiting for word on the trabant you applied for working a shitty job for a meager living wage. All the while living under the suspicion of the secret police and your neighbors who keep and ear out for what you say.
You should make revolution on a individual level and rob a rich capitalist.
>A strong economy means a lot of things good! refrain from using such ill-defined nebulous terms to make points >I live in one. Wow, looks like full communism isn't that necessary after all. Lucky you, glorious American capitalism is spreading, The U.K is already starting to get rid of the NHS, I hope you are able to resist this. Protip: you won't >Price signals and free market competition are most efficient at discerning how much of what goods are demanded and incentivising innovation there is a lot of overproduction and stupid shit being made(fidget spinners.) What is the point of being the most efficient? I would rather there be some inefficiencies and the social safety net and worker dignity be maintained than there be maximum efficiency and those things be lost. If you really want maximum efficiency institute slavery.
>Why do you imply that they don't deserve any? My point is everyone deserves autonomy. If you are willing to work you deserve housing, healthcare, education, employment
I know many rich people that were formerly poor, namely my grandparents and all of their children. They imbued a set of morals and ethics that guided them to success, some despite having met many failures. I know many that I'm not related to that have done this as well. One developed a product and now lives comfortably off of selling it, one worked his way through local politics and does quite well for himself in national politics, one went to the USA to study medicine after being born to a poor factory worker in malaysia, one strived his entire life to be a high up in the military but after his tour he went into law and does quite well. These people are brilliant, clever, and motivated while at the same time having a good set of morals. Most people I know that stayed in the town I grew up in and which are doing not so well, were very obviously missing something of that equation. I won't claim it's a perfect system because no system is perfect, but capitalism despite its flaws and its needing reigns to keep it in check will provide those at the bottom with the greatest level of welfare. Communism drags down the people at the top instead of pulling up those at the bottom. It's not mine nor anyone elses fault that you think the world has treated you unfairly. Grow the fuck up, you sound like someone in their late teens who is going through their angsty rebellious phase.
>have rich parents >get rich lots of effort there
>you deserve We don't deserve anything of the sorts you listed. We deserve what we can attain and what the system can afford to provide. Seriously, take it from an econfag, read some political economy other than marx. Until you've read at least Bastiat, gtfo.
>good! refrain from using such ill-defined nebulous terms to make points Like I said: unless you are claiming that strong economies are a bad thing, I'm not interested in discussing this. It's meaningless technical pointscoring in an attempt to disguise the fact that you have no substantive argument.
>Lucky you, glorious American capitalism is spreading Have you ever, in your entire life, even once travelled to my country? What the fuck do you know about anything about my country other than memes and shitposting?
>there is a lot of overproduction and stupid shit being made(fidget spinners.) Your solution to this is to send around the jackbooted secret police to burn down the factories in the night, in the name of increasing people's autonomy and independence? Why? It's just "stop liking what I don't like" dressed up to make it look like something other than autistic envy.
>I would rather there be some inefficiencies and the social safety net and worker dignity be maintained I'm going to let you in on a secret: you will need to manufacture products to maintain the social safety net. The more efficient your manufacturing process, the more products you can make to give to people. Efficiency is ALWAYS important because you cannot do something with nothing. The prerequisite of distributing things fairly to people is having enough to go around in the first place. An economic system that is inefficient will underperform and then implode because everybody will just import things from more efficient economies. Then you will say "we'll just close the trade lines" and pretend that banning imports and emigration while deliberately pursuing poverty increases people's autonomy.
>My point is everyone deserves autonomy So why are you actively curtailing it with backwards economics?
The best form of welfare is a job.
look at this piece of shit map, countries that have no social safety, barely existent governments/taxes/regulation are ranked as less economically free than countries with massive social safety nets, regulations and tax codes the methodology is garbage
M8, my grandmother worked in the fields her entire childhood and my grandfathers family worked as subsistence farmers and as small time local officials. Their children had a low-mid middle class lifestyle off of my grandfathers church salary, but even that was far far above what my grandparents had. They continued with teaching morals and all of things I've mentioned and they all then did well. While I was young, my dad had lost millions after a company merger and he didn't start doing well (more than 30k-40k a year) again until my 20s and now he has millions. By that time I had a full ride scholarship and now I'm overseas (I'm a burger).
>argues about theory >no actual evidence to back this up
>I know many rich people that were formerly poor you should meet those born into wealth, it will destroy the myth that wealth correlates to virtue
You should also go out and meet some hardworking poor people who can't make ends meet, I don't know how many of those there are in Germany but there are many in the U.S and around the world >We deserve what we can attain and what the system can afford to provide this argument made to a poor person encourages communist revolution, this same argument made to a wealthy person encourages exploitation. Which was what the OP was about
>destroying wealth Are you blind or just stupid? Working class participation in politics doesn't mean destroying wealth? Even the fucking Soviet Union had much better living standards in the 1950s than in the 1910s.
>Your solution to this is to send around the jackbooted secret police to burn down the factories in the night, in the name of increasing people's autonomy and independence? Why? It's just "stop liking what I don't like" dressed up to make it look like something other than autistic envy. Won't be necessary the workers will decide what to produce >An economic system that is inefficient will underperform and then implode by what mechanism?
Everytime a communist preaches their unique form of communism that, if tested, would finally he a success. But what every single one of you forget to come to terms with is your delusion about the standards of living in a communist country.
Oh yeah I'm sure those billions of poor people on Earth could be millionaires if they just worked a little bit harder. Don't be surprised when the revolutionaries strike back even harder then.
Of course it did, but living in the soviet union in the late 50s was no dream.
Dude, I have friends that were born very wealthy and I have friends that were born into trailer parks, one of whom had methhead parents growing up. Some of the wealthy kids were assholes and some were straight arrows that didnt care about the wealth they just wanted to succeed for themselves, this as well applies to the people I know on the poor end of things. That one with methhead parents? He's qualified to be a translator at this point but he seriously sits around doing nothing and going to the river while he and his wife (who works to provide for them) live in his fathers (he's clean now) expanded trailer (rooms constructed off of the original trailer portion). I love the guy, but he's wasting his talents and skills.
>it's easy to work a shitty job Found the rich condescending faggot.
Capitalism works for you congratulations! The OP specifically said you wouldn't give a fuck about communism and you would oppose it.
Not what was said. I'm not a millionaire, but I do live a great life because I worked hard and made sacrifices.
nice bait i like
Bro, I did my time flipping fries, washing cars, and fighting for Israel. You want a good job, you have to earn it.
"Economic Freedom" is a meme-tier definition of capitalism. >le useful idiots meme Just like poor people who support capitalism are useful idiots for the elite? >when in reality you're the kind of person who will lose everything and never reach another habitable living standard again in your life, that is if you're not simply shot. Did you take this straight from le subversion man?
>Bro, I did my time flipping fries, washing cars, and fighting for Israel. not everyone wants to take the cuck path.
furthermore if everyone did as you did your skills would be valueless, capitalism cannot provide dignity to everyone who jumps through the hoops
>Won't be necessary the workers will decide what to produce They already have.
The workers want fidget spinners.
Do you think that the economy's consumers are somehow separate from the economy's workers? The workers will produce whatever the market demands, because that is what they can trade for food and water and houses and cars. If the market demands fidget spinners that is what they will make.
The only way to circumvent this is to a) ban fidget spinners In which case, congratulations on dramatically reducing autonomy, independence, and dignity like the tyrannical despot that you are. b) teach people not to want stupid shit In which case you are falling for Marx's ludicrous notion of the New Soviet Man, which I am happy to talk about but it's basically a whole separate topic to economics.
>by what mechanism? I told you the mechanism. >i want a car >the cars my economy produce are either shittier than foreign cars at the same price, or more expensive than foreign cars of the same quality (or both!) because my economy is inefficient >i will buy a foreign car >my money travels offshore, enriching foreigners and foreign companies and not my own economy This happens all the time today. Nations have something called comparative advantage. Germany makes better cars, Australia makes better hearing aids, and so we trade for them. If you have a wildly inefficient economy, however, you will do almost nothing better than the foreigners and your terms of trade will be wildly imbalanced. Money will flow out of your country, the value of your currency will go down, and your currency will be worth less and less internationally, until imports become more and more expensive.
Suddenly, you can no longer afford to import goods, and you cannot make them domestically. Congratulations, you are an African nation.
Tell that to the third worlders who live much, much, much worse than people in the USSR did.
Yes, being competent and driven usually does work well in a meritocratic society. Who'd have guessed? It isn't my fault a lot of people are bumbling fools. What commies can't seem to grasp is when one guy makes a bunch of money, chances are his having done that has provided a far greater increase in welfare to society as a whole than should he have not created anything and that same amount he made just be distributed to those 'who need it' with no development being added. You have this delusional notion that it is money in and of itself which determines success when it is something acquired by things you and other communists lack. You see this wealth as mana from heaven and that you, you oh so great you, must be as deserving as any other. You're not. You're not until you've gone out and made it. Even then, life is a crapshoot and you may be the most skilled out there and get fucked. That's a part of life. When you try to force equal results for unequal input because of those who get left out, you doom the system to collapse. The skilled see no purpose in work because they will get as much as the crackwhore down the street, the poor see no purpose in work because they're already living comfy for doing nothing. Seriously, you have some false delusion as to how people think and act that needs to be fixed.
Go and fucking do it then, have you fucking seen yourselves, every self proclaimed "communist" is a selfish entitled fuck, some of the most toxic people ive ever encountered. The reality of the situation is, youre still going to eat big brand foods and wear big brand clothing and use your big brand computer and post on an unregulated internet. And you fucking hate it somehow. As if all your troubles in the world can be solved by a powerful and corrupt communist oligarchy that keeps the great majority of people at a fixed living standard living in shit conditions, eating crappy food and having second rate medical care, all while earning nothing and having no aspirations or dreams of proving your worth or climbing the ladder. Capitalism gives you the steps you need to take if you want to succeed, its about research, hard work and a steady mind. You have to be determined to work as hard as it takes to get to the next level, advance your education, and start working, all while loving what youre doing. Essentially all these things you believe come along with your perfect view of communism, but the past has showed that these nations habitually fail after having disenfranchised its own people out of a better life.
Communism does not make the poor rich, it drags the rich down to the poor's level, or gives them government protection and employment.
Capitalism is the only system that allows for vertical class movement without government patronage.
>by /biz/ /biz/ is a capitalists board, fuck off..
See the problem with the third world is the cold war robbed them of the post war economic boom. Its was nice of the USSR to fund revolutionary groups and rebellions all across africa. These countries were locked in civil war for years and years. Groids are stupid and servile, so maybe communism is the best system for them
Show me where I said my path is for everyone.
Nice name calling, BTW. Shows how strong your "arguments" are.
>communism is bad >therefore capitalism is perfect pls stop
>The workers want fidget spinners A market is not a democratic way of controlling production. A democratic way fo controlling production is the workers controlling the means of production.
In a market one's power is decided by their purse(not democratic), furthermore markets exist to distribute goods, not to decide and plan for production.
a better way to plan production would be to have people plan production instead of relying on a product distribution system and hoping for the best.
Communism aims to give people the power to plan their production through empowering them in their workplace, relying on a collection of merchants hawking their wares for production will not produce the same results as empowering people in their workplace. >my money I don't think foreigners will accept Soviet Australia labour credits are valid outside of Soviet Australia
>Poverty is a state of mind
Id rather die than be a pinko, but this some bullshit. It's immensely difficult getting out of poverty. McJobs lead to mcJobs and lack of capital from inheritance leaves you trying to hold on to a pot to piss in.
Never said that, if you read my precious posts, of course capitalism creates the same powerful rich oligarchy, but i argue that there is more of an oppirtunity to make it in a capitalist system than in a communist one.
Capitalism works for anyone willing to put forth the effort to climb the class ladder.
It's an overtime job. You will spend 80-120 hours a week working for yourself to gain wealth and connections. You don't get evenings and weekends off every week.
I was raised in East Oakland by parents who never went to college, divorced when I was 4, and stopped parenting me in any way when I was 12. All I got from them after that was a roach-filled bedroom and fast food twice a week.
I filed for emancipation at 16, went to adult school and graduated my final 2 years of credits in 6 months, got TWO jobs, went to community college part time for 4 years.
At night and on weekends when I wasn't working, I studied electrical engineering and computer science.
By the end of my 4 years, I had good enough grades and enough money saved from living in a shitty rental room and west oakland that I was able to afford my first year's tuition and was granted some assistance and a small scholarship 6 months after I got in to university.
For the past 10 years, I've been working my way up the engineering ladder, and I've finally broken $75K a pay. I'm fully vested in my retirement, and I'm planning to retire at $125K by the time I'm 50.
Stop being lazy. Yes, it's not fair that you were born to shitty parents who never gave you anything, but whining will never change that, and trying to get the government to force others to care for you will never let you rise above poverty.
communism doesn't make the poor rich it makes everyone poor
>If you are poor in capitalism then capitalism has failed you except that's not how capitalism works
you failed yourself
Name one poor person who got rich under communism that wasn't a dictator.
>If that is the case why should the poor not rebel? If poverty is okay why is the expropriation of the bourgeoisie not okay?
Because life is indeed unfair and that dosent make ok to people go around stealing others property, poverty is better dealt with market economy not socialism and state intervation. Capitalism didnt creat child labor or slaves, those things existed longe before capitalism come to be and those thing dosent longer exist on major country with market economys because of capitalism advance, it was not unions or magic pen-blows of politicians that improved the quality of workers it was science, free enterprise and automation that did it.
>These are all concepts with no real proof.
Yes there are proof, your natural instincts tell you to survive no matter what, as they tell you that you are an territorial animal. The negative rights property, life and freedom of action while nothing violeting other same rights are the only that exist, rights to steal others people money in the many of the proletariat, to waste on welfare, or public schools and so on, those things are services and the private charity is more efficiant than the state.
>if humans are naturally greedy, why should the poor not play their role and revolt and be greedy? There is also the fact that laborers are not being greedy by not revolting, which means people are okay with sharing their labor.
If you want to share your labor with others you are free but making people do it with a gun point at their heads is an agression and imoral. The poor are better of now than ever before because the market economy (average income in a hundred years got from 3 to 30 dollars world wide, in rich countries its now 100 dollars), thats why socialist revolution dosent take place and post-modernism is all about identity politics.
The solution to these problems is syndicalism
Then how come some of us can rise above it? Choices we make now impact our future chances. I was on trajectory to work at a car wash until I enlisted. Six years of sacrifice afforded me a chance to earn a degree, get a great job, and buy a home. Yet people still choose to work mcjob instead of taking a chance and making sacrifices for their future. The fact that you can't correlate cause and effect is very troubling and going to make discussion difficult.
Unless you intend every factory to produce every good needed by every worker, trade will occur. So long as trade occurs there will be a need to produce goods that the market demands. Whether production is set by the Executive Vice President of Product Design or the Chairperson of the Product Design Committee, the demands of the market are not going to change. The market doesn't care about how the sausage is made. It just wants to buy some god damn sausage. You think that if workers control production they will produce only useful things, and that's not wrong. What you don't understand is that a product is useful to the person who makes it if it can be sold for money that allows the maker to buy what he wants. Fidget spinners ARE useful to me, because I can SELL them. A democratically controlled factory will produce exactly the same things as one run on the basis of managerial prerogative.
I will make fidget spinners because I can make 10 fidget spinners, sell them, and buy 10 loaves of bread, in the same amount of time it would take me to bake one loaf of bread.
>I don't think foreigners will accept Soviet Australia labour credits are valid outside of Soviet Australia Then Soviet Australia will be even poorer because autarkic nations do not benefit from comparative advantage.
What's the point of "making it" when your nation is a diseased shitpile? Don't pretend America is somehow better than the USSR just because you can afford enough opiates to forget the cliff you're hurtling towards.
There is nothing that can save America that doesn't come with a fuse.
>>Poverty is a state of mind >Id rather die than be a pinko, but this some bullshit. It's immensely difficult getting out of poverty.
Nothing in life is easy. Your comfort is provided by the hard work of those who came before you. If not for them, you'd be chasing rats through the fields for your meals, and weighing the benefits of drinking from a stream and getting dysentery, or fermenting the stream water and going thirsty for a day or two because you'd be too ignorant to know you could just boil it.
Success is built by sacrifice. When you have nothing except yourself, guess what ends up being sacrificed?
Have millions starved in America? Are there millions in Gulags?
Then it's better than the USSR.
>Show me where I said my path is for everyone. so you are admitting capitalism will have a large underclass that will not be served by capitalism and it is in their best interest to overthrow the capitalist system? >Yes, being competent and driven usually does work well in a meritocratic society shame we don't live in one.
what capitalist don't understand is that capitalism relies on screwing over people. You could have a society of hard working geniuses, and what you would end up with is hardworking geniuses who can't get a job because employers have already filled the job with another hard working genius or another hardworking genius already had the business idea
communists should be murdered
There are more important things in life than living.
capitalism is a scam
Show me where I implied that.
>How is that different from capitalism? Workers don't vote for their supervisors or their bosses, the power over someone's economic activity is no small deal. Workers today live under a system where they have to submit to others in order to have an income. At least in communism they auto-manage.
Capitalism is an economy system, states with market economy can range from democracys to totalarian regimes. Voters dosent vote for their supervisors or bosses because they are getting paid to do a job, its an voluntary transaction and they have no saying in the company that is an private entity. Like i said people are not been opressed by agreeing to do a job, its voluntary if they dont want it they can open their own bussines and so on, in socialism is not an choice give the fruits of your work for other people its mandatory and fail to do it and you will die.
>If you are poor in capitalism then capitalism has failed you and a communist revolution at least brings the hope of a better system decided by the poor revolting class.
Capitalism has not failed because there is poor people, capitalism is all about a free enterprise and people doing voluntary exchanges,socialist fails if there is poor people because the whole thing is to 'improve" their citizens lives. Hopes and revolutions based on lies dosent make the world better and only lead people to suffer and death.
Nobody said it´s perfect, but it´s better than all the other alternaties at the moment. Why don´t you research a bit more, about how well communist nations fared in the past? USSR? Dead, millions killed, the great majority peassants or poor people (The ones they tried to lift, the ones they promised better living standars) Cuba? A joke, they live from american tourism Communist China? Dead, millions starved Venezuela? If you follow the news you'll see that they have left wing dath squads backed up indirectly by the government, and their economy is in shambles. The point is: If it's so much better than capitalism, how is it that every communist regime is dead or dying?
>I filed for emancipation at 16, went to adult school and graduated my final 2 years of credits in 6 months, got TWO jobs, went to community college part time for 4 years. did you collect any form of government help? >At night and on weekends when I wasn't working, I studied electrical engineering and computer science. If everyone did this being an electrical engineer would earn you mcjob wages and getting a job would be unlikely >For the past 10 years, I've been working my way up the engineering ladder, and I've finally broken $75K took you that long to break 75K with an EE degree? I don't know whether to doubt or laugh not rich, but better living conditions, pic related and literally millions more
The USSR funded rebels in the third world but nowhere near to the extent that the USA and Britain did. >see: the Congo, Uganda, Indonesia, Pakistan, Chad, South Africa, basically every country in Latin America
replace "CEO" with "Party Leader". There's communism.
How many of these were in response to Russians?
wait lmao you actually think if this ratio was 1 and 1 the working class would have higher living standards and be able to buy more shit AHAHAHAHAHHAHA
holy fuck are you eurocucks actually this dumb?
this image is even MORE retarded because switzerland is one of the top 3 FREE MARKET countries on earth
that's right, usa is more socialist than switzerland
fuck off you fucking communist faggot die
Like what? Dying in a gutter, riddled by bullets, your friends and family worse than before or dead as well? Starving to death, sent to prison for being a dissenter, the removal of free speech?
A fair number were out of mere suspicion that there would be a communist revolution in those countries.
Why do you commies still exist?
>If that is the case why should the poor not rebel? Godless communists go to hell, that's why.
>saved the world from fascism
then why did the working class live BETTER under fascism than stalin's shithole?