Anti-capitalist sentiment?

Why is the notion that someone should be the prime beneficiary of their own labor reviled by so many people?

Because,

>Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and all hierarchy is antithetical to my post-caste utopian society

Or something like that...

Basically, if (((humanity))) just mindlessly threw money at minorities, we'd all be enlightened demi-foxes on the moon.

stupid ass question
the labor you do for somebody else is fruitful only because that person has taken risks and invested their own money and time to establish that opportunity
you aren't entitled to shit

sage

They would rather profit from the labour of others instead.

>tfw you will never be Diogenes

You filthy fucking communist

I just don't understand what is even inherently bad about a hierarchy, unless you just implicitly accept that they are all actively oppressive. In any case, if that hierarchy is fluid because your position in it is hinged on your ability to work for yourself, then you succeed or fail on your own merits, which should be fine by everyone.

Also, for anyone who is unironically a communist, why would you not in theory support an ideology that simply stated a worker is entitled to the yield they produced? I don't understand how capitalism is not a better ideology for the "proletariat".

We're on the same side you nigger. My position is that people are entitled to only their own work. I'm curious why someone might detest that notion. Obviously someone who assembles a car has no idea how a car actually works and shouldn't be rewarded on the same level as the engineer who created their position.

it sounds like you're asking why the car assembler shouldn't be the prime beneficiary of the car sale with that OP question desu

I think that's probably correct, and true. But no commie ever says that, they pretend that it's about creating a just society. It's largely anecdotal, but I've never seen a socialist or communist who wasn't lazy and unproductive. Best case scenario they think "demonstrating" is work.

I didn't consider that might be how it comes off, my bad.

In a more clear cut scenario, as a capitalist I believe that if I cut down a tree and process all the wood, I should keep all of it and do with it what I see fit. A redistributive system would say that I have an obligation to make sure my neighbors have some of my yield, and I believe that is a wrong thing to do.

Communists are unironically Diana Moon Glampers.

They're crabs in a bucket, but they would throw that accusation back at capitalists, because again I point out, they assume things would be better; if only every white male would stop LITERALLY being Hitler.

Right, but obviously Diana is at the top of that hierarchy, Harrison might be the ultimate Chad, but she's still kills him without contest. How does any communist dodge that the fact that they just want a hierarchy that favors them?

>step on snek after it warned you not to with it's rattle
>get bit
>act surprised, blame snek for your retardation

how do you get stuck in this frame of mind?

...

Because the common good can't be achieved in a system ruled by the bottom line.

Consider environmental issues, pollution. The myriad ways that one can make a profit by deferring the costs of their activity on the unsuspecting or uninvolved.

Consider regulatory capture, monopolies where an entity with enough accumulated capital can block others out of competition perverting the nature of capitalism itself.

Consider that a person can only be made by the investment of others - education, raising them - and societies that socialise this investment in form of education, healthcare will progress by leaps and bounds as fewer grow up disprivileged of that investment.

My favorite part is that humanity, civility, and reason, are apparently not compatible with the notion that you should not impose on others. The cognitive dissonance must be strong.

DUMB MOVE MOTHERFUCKER

I hate to de-rail, but Diana is just "the right arm" of Radical-Egalitarianism. The story mentions that even she is subject to the society's policies (anyone would make a "perfectly average" Handicapper General, or ballerina, or newsperson, or television watcher); though I wonder how she had a gun, as they're shown to be quite effective at wiping out inequalities.

...

>Had a gun
That's what I mean, she has authority, so with that she's higher on the hierarchy than others. I assume the story is doing that ironically with self awareness that even in a fully "equitable" society there is still an authority.

Technological advancements that are a result of entrepreneurship do advance the common good, and it's only by the merit that highly competitive and competent individuals who operate as giants allow laymen to stand on their shoulders.

Environmentalism has nothing to do with the ideology of capitalism or Communism for that matter.

>perverting the nature of capitalism itself
So you accept that it's only the "perverted" version that's an issue?

Not only does the socialization of institutions have diminishing return, but do you think that ends always justify means? Also, if I raise my children that I made, I do that voluntarily. Raising people to be primarily reliant on themselves rather than on their neighbors results in all individuals being stronger as a result.

>Why is the notion that someone should be the prime beneficiary of their own labor reviled by so many people?
t. every socialist ever if you stop being dumb and listen

No... because a socialist thinks that someone who is more industrious than themself has to sacrifice the results of their labor. What the shit are you talking about?

Because learning things is hard and most people are lazy and stupid.

What I mean is liberals are too lazy to study into history, economics, politics, etc. The extent of their political knowledge is a few professors and Colbert.

Environmentalism has to do with the continued survival of everything. A society that drowns in it's own shit and blood dies out. That alone is primary argument against full-on ancap. Not against capitalism per se but one can conceive that in ancapistan environmental conservation funding and legislation would be scarce.

How does a libertarian society deal with the ozone hole and the CFCs that caused it? You'd have noone funding the studies to prove that the ozone layer is being ripped open in the first place I wager. Then you'd need the deep reaching market intervention to stop their production entirely that only a worldwide coalition of states could achieve because "just don't buy their product" isn't going to cut it.


>So you accept that it's only the "perverted" version that's an issue?
Sure. The US is perverted and legislatively captured. The middle road of sandboxed free market/socialised essential services should be the most efficient model of innovation.


Free market for-profit healthcare that is not accessible to all does not make the individual stronger or more self-dependent rather the reverse it deprives people who would have the opportunity/capacity to contribute to society from doing so. Preventative healthcare is something that pays for itself a dozen times over, therefore universal (((free))) healthcare is beyond a good investment for any state even if the profit is not immediately quantified and makes taxes higher - overall you would earn more taxes to pay back due to improved life expectancies and labor efficiency.


I imagine one can make a similar case with socialised education. A society of engineers is going to build a ton of shit everywhere vs engineer as an exclusive profession for a lot of profit to you as an educated individual. Again obviously no extreme is best but you get the point. Compounding gains over generations and the fact that any individual already stands on the shoulders of society.