workers
>"we dont feel like our interest are represented in this system"
capitalists
>"this is my private property, i do with it what I want"
workers
>"if you do not improve conditions we are going on a general strike and use force against you"
capitalists
>n-no m-muh NAP how dare you take action in your own hands. y-you were supposed to be our docile serfs"
why do lowborn Sup Forumstards not side with the honest common man?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
m.youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Why do you morons insist that your retarded strawman arguments make any sense. And what's to stop any of you daggits from starting your own business with your homosexual commie buddies? It couldn't be that you're all talentless losers in denial could it? I don't suppose that's why you're all communists in the fords place is it?
Capital and the Debt Trap reports that "cooperatives tend to have a longer life than other types of enterprise, and thus a higher level of entrepreneurial sustainability". This resilience has been attributed to how cooperatives share risks and rewards between members, how they harness the ideas of many and how members have a tangible ownership stake in the business. Additionally, "cooperative banks build up counter-cyclical buffers that function well in case of a crisis," and are less likely to lead members and clients towards a debt trap (p. 216). This is explained by their more democratic governance that reduces perverse incentives and subsequent contributions to economic bubbles.
Since cooperatives are based on values like self-help, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity, they can play a particularly strong role in empowering women, especially in developing countries.[42] Cooperatives allow women who might have been isolated and working individually to band together and create economies of scale as well as increase their own bargaining power in the market. In statements in advance of International Women's Day in early 2013, President of the International Cooperative Alliance, Dame Pauline Green, said, "Cooperative businesses have done so much to help women onto the ladder of economic activity. With that comes community respect, political legitimacy and influence."
en.m.wikipedia.org
But it is not a straw man argument but reality also not all leftist love nigger and degeneracy
...
its not an "argument", its just a description of a series of events
>honest common man
Because the common man is no more honest than any businessman. As soon as the balance of power shifts towards the """common man""" said man starts oppressing people in the same way the capitalists were, if not worse.
tl, dr: people will be people
that would impy that the syndicalist wishes to replace the capitalist, when in fact he wants to destroy/subjugate him. a syndicate/corporation is vastly different from a capitalist enterprise
A 2013 report published by the UK Office for National Statistics showed that in the UK the rate of survival of cooperatives after five years was 80 percent compared with only 41 percent for all other enterprises.[5] A further study found that after ten years 44 percent of cooperatives were still in operation, compared with only 20 percent for all enterprises" (p. 109).
A 2010 report by the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export in Québec found that the five year survival rate and 10 year survival rate of cooperatives in Québec to be 62% and 44% respectively compared to 35% and 20% for conventional firms.[33] Another report by the BC-Alberta Social economy Research Alliance found that the three year survival rate of cooperatives in Alberta to be 81.5% in comparison to 48% for traditional firms.[34] Another report by the aforementioned Research Alliance found that in British-Columbia, the 5 year survival rates for cooperatives between 2000 and 2010 to be 66.6% in comparison to conventional businesses that had 43% and 39% in the years 1984 and 1993 respectively[34]
>anything that isn't free-market fuck you capitalism is just socialism
"The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech."
>if you do not improve conditions we are going on a general strike and use force against you
Have you heard of Blackwater? Let's just say they'd be VERY interested in meeting you.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.
Thomas Paine
whats your point? this would only escalate the revolution
>anything that isn't free-market fuck you capitalism is just socialism
Yes, the "revolution" that I keep hearing is coming any day now. I mean hell, even if a socialist revolution is coming, by the time it does we'll have robotic death squads and any revolutionaries will be fucked.
The Constitution says: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (Complete Series)
>t.aspiring party card holding Commissar & high-esteemed Nomenklatura AKA "Red*Bourgeois"
Why would you be on my private property if the conditions are so bad? Just leave nigger
If they don't do it on the fourth then the fifth will become national laugh at larping commies day.
a general strike is a myth, the specifics are irrelevant
because there is a reliance
Because unlike many people think, workers create nothing. Not a single job would be created by them. They all depend on entrepreneurs for jobs. They have no balls and never take any risk. Fuck them.
>"anything that isn't laizze-faire capitalism isn't capitalism at all!"
Ftfy. These people actually think this
Workers quickly transforms from a national identity to a global identity when workers of each nationality are completely different in culture, working standards. This is the false dichotomy the communists love to continually make that exposes them as the jews useful idiots. There is no such thing as equality, God did not make animals in terms of equality. A better example yet, in the Avian species there is mass inequality and a food chain. This does not stop Avian populations from thriving in their own way.
Pretty much this desu, for all their talk of "seizing the means of production" they already have all the means to do so at hand in the system of capitalism, if they had any ambition then they wouldn't be so "exploited".
Lol those stats would have some relevancy if said cooperatives weren’t propped up by left wing bureaucracy and tax payer handouts
ironically picking the falangists symbol of the spanish fascists, who organized workers into syndicates so they would not be exploited by excesses of capitalism.
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
Lol if you think like a brainwashed commie, also who says a revolution would be bad? NATSOC want a a society heading towards revolution, we thrive best in that situation. Commies only thrive well when their jewish buddies fund their movements
In a 2007 study by the World Council of Credit Unions, the 5 year survival rate of cooperatives in the United States was found to be 90% in comparison to 3-5% for traditional businesses.[35]
still doesnt adress his argument genius
>global idendity
thats why inposted an image of an national syndicalist movement
>equality
i see it more as equal rights to represent your interest
it was a deliberate choice
I never said im against the idea of a revolution. Fascism is also a revolutionary ideology
oh okay then
*roman salutes and leaves thread*
Attention all brainlet commies: corporations have so much power in Holland because of retarded worker's contract and subsidization laws that keep them in power and keeps the government as a profiting middleman. Both the economy and society could be greatly improved if the market was freed from all this nonsensical micromanaging and would be opened up instead of having it be the broken socialist hellhole it is today. Giving the people that created this mess in the first place even more power is NOT going to make things any better.
If it was 5% vs 10% that would be one thing but that's 5% vs. 90%. Capitalists argue for decentralization when it means moving away from overbearing regulators so why doesn't the same logic apply to micromanagement?
>why do lowborn Sup Forumstards not side with the honest common man?
The common man used to be happy being an automobile factory worker in Detroit, but liberal governments and liberal unions that supposedly represent the "common man" have destroyed all of that.
implying the dutch market would not be completely bought up by industry giants when dutch coorporations are not supported/ protected by the Dutch goverment
Watch your fucking tone comrade. Counter-revolutionaries aren't the only ones who will be liquidated.
Racist, ableist, islamophobes, class traitors and bigots who refuse to acknowledge/respect/date trans queer folk, will also get their back against wall too.
still doesnt adress his argument brainlet.
You do realize that you are free to form cooperatives under capitalism, yes? No one is stopping you.
Why aren't banks pouring money into them if they're so sustainable? Those banks that were bailed out with public money.
pic related is you
Which is why government's role is to ensure that doesn't happen. As it stands, they're grossly overstepping their boundary, subsidizing anything they deem "good and wholesome", including those big corporations you're talking about, and as a result those businesses instead use the government to create a practical monopoly. Corruption at its finest. Oh sorry, I meant "friend politics".
The banks are supported by the Fed, the Fed controls the nation's money supply and is a private bank itself.
Basically our entire banking system is owned by (((them))) and we need to dismantle the fed.
That would be convenient to blame a scapegoat without addressing the underlying problem.
>ughhhhhh
Oy vey, der eine schlemiel ist ein Shegetz? ein Shiksa? Das putz ist nicht gut.
i dont speak jewish language
No it would not, it is the government that is keeping many of the big companies in place by favouring them (secret tax deals of the fiscus for example). Combine that with dumb spending of government projects and the job carrousel (politcians favour companies in the hope they get a 100k+ job after they are done like Samson) and you got a disasted at hand.
Well the underlying problem is government intervention in the economy. It's just that a symptom of that intervention is that right now a single private bank controls the money supply and uses that to loan out endlessly until our society is piled with debt.
Thank god they won't breed
Everything is the economy.
Yes, and it is best handled on a decentralized level by individuals cooperating and competing, not by some centralized government dictating what the people can have.
Then why doesn't the same logic apply to business and bosses?
Apparently it does, as your statistics have pointed out, and you are free under capitalism to create a coop.
Fuck, I can't tell if you're a legit ironic autist or subversive shill. You guys are adopting (and it pains y'all) our vulgar lingo. Nonetheless, psyops for all.
Fucking union cucks, I didn't even want
>a minimum wage
>basic acceptable safety standards
>workers comp
>holidays and sick days
>lawful firing practices
anyway!
That is where the capital in capitalism comes in, which is accumulated with the help of citizens in a democratic society.
We must cease the means of cis reproduction!
This is the 21st century. There are no longer "capitalist" and "worker." That is an outdated social model.
>because there is a reliance
So? If you rely on stealing my toast every morning to live, that doesn't make it just.
Women should not be allowed ot have jobs.
>just
Feels. No such thing as "just."
Situation in the Netherlands:
>Give workers a shit load of rights, can't get fired
Fast forward to 2017
>Fucking temporary contracts everywhere, ruining everything
Wow, fucking socialist going after the one that CREATES YOUR JOB really turned out great
"Homeostasis is the process that maintains a stable environment in the body. Because these systems often involve transferring energy, the first law of thermodynamics is directly relevant to homeostasis. The first law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but is instead transferred and transformed."
Yes. Coops already have an advantage in this, being made up of multiple people who can pool their resources together, and if they need a loan and a private business won't give it to them (because as we mentioned before the banking system is absolutely fucked) then they can go to a credit union.
And the best part of all this is that it is all capitalism. Capitalism doesn't say businesses must or must no be owned by a single person, it says "let the free market decide and may the best man win". The only way for the inferior system to come out on top in such a situation is with government interference.
its just a reversal of situations
m.youtube.com
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
Ik heb 'm nooit gezien, maar toch moet ie echt bestaan,
die natte aderlul van een pelikaan!
't Enige wat ik zie dat is z'n dikke zak,
die hangt dan aan z'n kin, want daar past ie met gemak!
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
Want als die dikke zak op de normale plaats zou zitte
is er geen plek meer om kutte dicht te kitte!
Ik heb het over kutte dus van vrouwtjepelikanen,
die naaie d'r vanalles in van zeewier tot bananen!- oeh!
M¡¡r wat mij,
tot nu toe is ontgaan:
Is die dikke natte aderlul,
van die pelikaan!
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
Pelikaan- oeh oeh! [3x]
Pelikanelul !!!
property is theft once you understand that fact you can begin to fashion a coherent logical structure for the production and disbursement of goods and services
otherwise keep your low IQ ignorant white trash ass silent
In his Second Treatise on Government, the philosopher John Locke asked by what right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when, according to the Bible, God gave the world to all humanity in common. He answered that persons own themselves and therefore their own labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property of that person.
However, Locke held that one may only appropriate property in this fashion if the Lockean proviso held true, that is, "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".
en.m.wikipedia.org
Who am I stealing from?
Yeah, there is. It's defined by the masses. Go read something that isn't "muh spooks"
Jamal has just as much right to live in the house you build and eat the bread you bake, you fucking bigot.
For all you non-dutchies, here's the rundown
>tons of rules making it unviable to hire long-term workers
>companies resort to mass hiring workers as flex, giving employees zero longterm stability or negotiating power
>flex workers are by law required to be hired through employment agencies who will negotiate for you
>businesses have to pay an exorbitant amount of hourly wage, but it's better than getting buttfucked in court because one of your own did something stupid
>employment agency gives half the hourly wage to the employee, keeps the other half (this is before income tax cut, which right now is at 42% for the lowest income bracket up to 52% for the highest)
>employment agencies on their turn have to give a huge chunk of their profit directly to government
>two biggest employment agencies around are exempt though, since they are literally a branch of government
(((Workers))) currently have every right to enter into Tenant in Commons agreements and build their own businesses together. Fuck off Commies!
Hey Frenchie, has it occurred to you that we can side with the common man AND YET CONCLUDE THAT
perhaps their lot (OUR lot) wouldn't be improved with full blown, state controlled communism?
I mean, you're not just being an elite burgeouse prick foisting your 'ideal society' onto the backs of the proles without giving up anything personally towards it, right?
That would make you a prick AND a facist, you know. Not calling you that, just asking.
More politely, are you willing to concede that its possible to be 'okay with capitalism, I suppose' and not be a class traitor?
>Hey Frenchie, has it occurred to you that we can side with the common man AND YET CONCLUDE THAT
>perhaps their lot (OUR lot) wouldn't be improved with full blown, state controlled communism?
>I mean, you're not just being an elite burgeouse prick foisting your 'ideal society' onto the backs of the proles without giving up anything personally towards it, right?
>That would make you a prick AND a facist, you know. Not calling you that, just asking.
>More politely, are you willing to concede that its possible to be 'okay with capitalism, I suppose' and not be a class traitor?
Also I will add, that not everyone is of equal ability. Those who build businesses have different qualities than those who do not. As I posted earlier. Workers have every right to enter into Tenant in Commons agreements and build their businesses as a collective within the free market. Why does this not happen often? Ask yourself this.
Liberal here.
Unions fucked themselves. It started off because working conditions were absolutely -appalling- and outright inhumane on a level we can't even comprehend in our current society.
Ridiculously unsafe and unhealthy and with a terrible strain on the mind as well, all for shit pay and zero benefits. it was practically slavery.
So unionizing and striking was obviously the right thing to do, it led to much better conditions and pay and benefits. But then you fuckers got greedy, ESPECIALLY in the auto manufacturing industry. All that shit moved outside the US because unskilled factory line people wanted higher and higher pay for an easy job.
>So unionizing and striking was obviously the right thing to do, it led to much better conditions and pay and benefits. But then you fuckers got greedy, ESPECIALLY in the auto manufacturing industry. All that shit moved outside the US because unskilled factory line people wanted higher and higher pay for an easy job.
You have some points, but Ford was changing all this before the Unions gained a footing. Anyways, you are right... Unions became organized crime and literally extorted money from businesses. In the end they achieved unrealistic benefits and pensions that made the companies massively less competitive. Who lost in the end? Answer: All the above! Greed is not exclusive to particular classes of people!
Theres also such thing as a middleground. (I'm trying to agree with you, not oppose your statement, but amend it to something Holland can perhaps identify);
That there are massive blindspots to 'socialist intellectualism' in modern higher learning 'thinktanks' that are every bit as glaring as the problems that DO exist within capitalism ('corporatism' says the cynic),
but it is possible to believe that capitalism, WITH SOME SOCIALIST SAFTEY NETS, (that, it turns out, are only finance-able under successful capitalist economies) offers a better future for the prole than enforced, top down, authoritarian (because it DOES require a surrender of freedoms) socialism.
Capitalism is also authoritarian, as a government is required to regulate the practice of a market, but, in exchange for debt (which is a massive burden, admittedly), even commoners can participate in the market game.
The socialist can rightly say that 'you will never be the wealthy elite, even if you pick a unique, winning strategy, and instead can only gain profit from well chosen debt', and be correct, but the capitalist can reply that the freedom to pursue his own career and destiny exists under capitalism and not communism.
>common man
>wanting more than he can get without using somebody's property
Fucking retard.
>Capitalism is also authoritarian, as a government is required to regulate the practice of a market, but, in exchange for debt (which is a massive burden, admittedly), even commoners can participate in the market game.
First off, good debate..
My response is that Capitalism does not need regulation, aside from laws that prevent fraud. Without fraud, (The Central Bankers and Governments commit fraud every day) the market regulates itself through equilibrium. This is natural law. Is a safety net required, perhaps, but that net should be provided by the local communities and at the lowest level possible because those people know how best to administer it effectively. Safety nets provided by governments require fake money to exist because the natural law of economics and human behavior.
>five arrows
>My response is that Capitalism does not need regulation, aside from laws that prevent fraud
There's one other thing that the government absolutely has to watch: unlawful use of force. Why is the mafia seen as an evil organization instead of a healthy entrepreneurship? Because a mob has the tendency to kill anyone that tries to compete with them, and thus create a monopoly by force instead of improved products and services. And I don't even need to mention banana republics; we've all seen what goes on in there. If you ask me the government's sole goal and purpose in the economy is to create a back bone, not a framework, on which people can build capital and to ensure everything goes along peacefully.