"I deserve a portion of other people's property and a share of the fruits of their investments and work...

>"I deserve a portion of other people's property and a share of the fruits of their investments and work, simply because I exist."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mvJJOQpXmv4&t=1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's the opposite, actually.

He who does not work shall not eat.
t. Ap. Paul, also Lenin and the Soviet constitution.


Protip: being born into billion dollar wealth and living off its' speculation isn't working.

right because it's more fair when everyone starves equally (except people aligned to the goverment)

Government is not necessary

kid please go to sleep

People starve under capitalism. Criticizing the idea that communism supports parasites who do not work while it is capitalism that very much supports fat, obese, degenerate parasites who live off their father's money is pretty ironic.
I'm not a commie but you can point out flaws in the idea of a communist structure with far better points than that.

>I deserve to shit up the history board with trite political commentary, simply because "& Humanities" exists.

...

...

>I deserve to shit on communism, simply because I misunderstand it

have you ever lived in a communist state?
because I did, in Eastern Europe
if you said something like this here you would be at least considered a madman or an idiot

Not an argument.

But these were socialist republics.

cool but you can't deny how reality was back then in here
shitty and poor
we entered capitalism for a reason

I'm not fan of communism, at least not unless we get Star Trek levels of technology... however, absolutist attacks on communism are also strange. Unless you believe that society should exist in a state of pure anarchic social darwinism, you believe in some form of wealth redistribution. The question is how much is the right level. I certainly don't think communism is the right level, but a bit of social welfare is probably necessary for society to function.

>using your brain isn't working
>working is slaving away in a factory or wheat field using obsolete tech for your failing economy while your elites pawn off your country's art and statues as "bourgeoisie relics" to keep themselves in lavish luxury
>could be whisked away and tortured at any moment for gathering with more than 3 people or writing a poem
wew

the problem you have in USA is that for you communism = free healthcare...

>people literally STARVED TO DEATH in Eastern Europe which was showcase of Soviet regime
Go to bed, grandpa.

Its not, stop thinking
I do hope you aren't wearing glasses

I never said
>starved to death
stop projecting, edgy teenager
here is how an average shop looked like in the 1981
for most of the time it was not that bad but still
also tell me, if everyone was happy and rich in the eastern block then why there were constant strikes riots and ultimately revolutions against the state?

forgot pic

well, that is because Eastern Europeans are well known degenerates...

I agree that most of eastern europe is a mental shithole including Poland (may Russia nuke it just after I die) but it wasn't the case of the discussion

"Families and refugees", that's a funny way of spelling fighting age male invaders

Poland did nothing wrong

Why are all leftists equally stupid?

>People starve under capitalism.

What is your right to someone elses money, inherited or otherwise?

It doesn't work.

>y-you just don't understand
*kills 100 million people*

kys commies

This actually
As long as McDonalds and other chains keep selling affordable food people won't starve
They'll be fat and unhealthy but not starving

>Pure capitalism: people starve if they don't work
>Pure communism: people starve while being forced to work
>White socialism: Jolly good chaps look after their elderly and disabled and run a nice old healthcare system and maybe leave a couple sandwiches out for the wogs in Africa

>post comment not even praying communism
>get thrown into the same bag with actual commie kids

>Pure capitalism: people starve if they don't work
Citation needed.

Actually I forgot about this
This kind of shit just doesn't work in multiculti diverse though, I wouldn't pay a dime for the support of any Somalian or Afghani rapist especially if my (((economy))) was tanking

That's why friendly societies popped up for different nationalities, Italian American ones, African ones, charity that descriminated, charity that didn't descriminate, a strong sense of community, family etc. A lot of Mutual Aid Societies were built around occupation though and so worked pretty well with diverse membership, general member racism aside.

There are a lot of things you can say about the eastern european socialist states but "he who does not work shall not eat" was pretty well enforced as a precept, and even the top bureaucrats had a upper-middle class lifestyle at best.

"58% were adult males over 18 years of age" which is actually a lower ratio than the average economic border-hopper, because Jose's family doesn't risk being beheaded while he picks tomatoes in richer countries to send them money. In any case most of those guys who came along still wanted to bring over their families but couldn't do that ASAP.

...

Kek

> one is voluntary and mutually agreed upon prior to commencement
> the other is involuntary
Lefties think they're so clever but they really can't meme. This doesn't convince anyone, this doesn't bridge communication, it's a circle jerk solidifying meme which is fine but it's not as clever as reddit probably likes to think.

Muh 100 gorrillions

Why not just simplify it and have your own nationality as, I don't know, a nation?

>Haitians butchered the French and installed an Aids based economy because the rest of the world didn't give them enough gibs

>voluntary and mutually agreed
so do you agree with all these things then

>"I deserve a portion of other people's work simply because I own the means of producion"

Wait, are you quoting Libertarians or Communist leaders there?

>(((economy)))
more like (((capitalism)))

depends, define communism

you have to go back

Even before Capitalism Western Europe was regularly producing a net surplus of food, while Eastern Europe was still experiencing famines every few decades. The problem isn't communism, it's that Slavs are literally too fucking retarded to farm efficiently.

Europes net surplus came from adapting, liberal thinking applied to trading.

>helicopter memes
are you 12

>using the labor theory of value to refute communism

Do you have this in slightly better quality?

I am Polish and have huge anger and dissatisfaction with capitalism. Sure life quality is better, but thats not saying much. I consider myself anti-capitalist on the whole, though I recognise its efficiency and expression of freedom and don't believe in a fully state owned economy. But I don't want capitalism to be left alone, I believe it requires the state to act as a powerful moderator and essentially an interest group working for the ordinary man.

>being an advocate of leftism even though it has never succeeded ever throughout history
Do you have double digit IQ?

Very cringey. You see people advocating capitalism and discarding other views without having any clue what they actuall are.

> literally designed to break
For fuck sake. No one starts a business and designs a product that they plan on breaking, they just break, because we can't build every house out of the same material, sometimes people weigh up the pros/cons and go "shit, my timber house won't last very long but it's easier to access because it's cheaper and we can keep regrowing trees".

I disagree with all of this because I don't see the world the same way you do. I don't see these problems as the product of a broad term like "capitalism" I see them as problems with giving people too much centralized power so that the worst aspects of human nature are exacerbated and incentivized.

Pic Related also:

I also don't see those as a result of voluntary interaction for mutual benefit, and you may try to argue that it can't exist or something but I see a very different chain of events/logic that are clearly distinct from one other that lead to these kinds of problems.

>it has never succeeded
gee, I wonder why

> surplus value
Has and never will be proven by Marxists because only a few of you realize that this is an illogical conflation between value and price at two different points in time with two completely seperate interactions that ignore all nuance possible in those interactions.

Simplistic as fuck bae.

weakness is a virtue to your kind

That image is one of the worst pieces of capitalist propeganda I've ever seen. Also, do you literally not know/understand what planned obsolesence is and why it makes sense in a capitalist economy? It's not a hard concept to grasp

so that is not true capitalism i guess

>be modern communist
>want to help the worker and improve the life of the lower class
>push LGBTPR propaganda despite the working class severely rejecting it and import millions of third worlders at the encouragement of every major corporation
>the working class suffers enormously, rape, murder, third world conditions and enmity, lowered value of wages, lowered lifespan, infringed rights, relegated as stupid, lesser, worth less than a man who cuts his penis off or a rich migrant who refuses to work alongside a woman
Like pottery
Don't bother calling yourself a "socialist" if you support migrants. You're not creating a "society", you're dragging us to the third world.

the humankind?

the envious

hey porky what you doing

Planned obscelesence makes sense in a planned economy that is monopolized by corporations, the rate at which a product breaks down in a competitive market and which level of quality consumers choose is a result of them acting on what they value, their marginal utility and subjective preferences etc.

People weigh up pros/cons, the costs involved vs how much they they are willing to trade for it. This cannot be said to be wrong, if people continually build timber houses because they can't afford to go all out in one brick house, that's their choice, if they do it because of the environment that's their choice, if someone wants to buy an iphone every year, that's their choice, other people buy upgradeable phones and covers for them to protect them.

Who are you to say other?

This is only "capitalist propaganda" if you hold the mistaken view that all employer-employee relations are exploitative.

The correct class analysis is to actually look at human relations and interactions and find out which ones are actually immoral, leeching and rent-seeking vs charity, production, entrepreneurship.

It's not my fault when the ethical nuance of choice is missed for the vanity of a rebellious fantasy.

The people's right to your money is won through force of arms. Now prepare your anus for the gulag kulak.

Funny how they draw Porky with a very small nose...

>youtube.com/watch?v=mvJJOQpXmv4&t=1s

no the envious and greedy are the capitalist and the classcucks who defend them like yourself

SHUT IT DOWN

I do not believe in a state planned economy. I recognise the benefits of capitalist. I just have major dissatifaction with it and believe the state should play a different role, act actually intervene in capitalist in the interests of the workers, and not the corporations, to prevent corporate tyranny and control over power.

your entire quasi-religion is a double entendre

how is criticising capitalism a 'quasi-religion'

>Inhibiting my ability to exploit the rest is an assault on freedom.

your kind only worship money a profits, but is ok, your boss will reward your effort I guess.

> not true capitalism
There's a big difference between me saying that if you put water in a fridge/freezer it will cooldown and eventually freeze. Then you saying "but look here, applying heat from a stove top to water it boils, AHUH! Kitchens don't freeze water!"

On the flip side when a bunch of marxists attempt to reach marxism by implementing marxist policies in the hope that they move their society towards a marxist ideal, is akin to saying "if I blow torch this water, it will freeze!" then you hold a lighter underneath and it melts and you go "but the water didn't freeze! that's not real marxism!".

There are very clear differences in intention, method, results etc. I would be super fucking happy if all Socialist just abandoned the idea of socialistic government policies like the welfare state, high taxation, wealth redistribution, nationalization etc and just said "we want a classless, moneyless, propertyless society and this is how we're going to transition to it".

That would be fine, but because a bunch of elites are using government power to benefit economically and because a bunch of marxists have been infiltrating various institutions over the last 100 years doesn't mean I'm going to conflate freedom with tyranny and not going to blame marxists for the policies they bring to fruition in their attempts to push things in the direction they want.

I won't have it jim, I just fuckin won't.

indeed

Im not a materialist
marxism is a double entendre

>taxes
>healthcare
>public services
>socialism

hahahahahaha now I see, you are a fucking amerimutt, obviously all these things are "real communism" to you.

I would say two things. That rounding off what they consider to be the sharp edges of capitalism has been a marxist job for quite a while and I understand the point of it. I just don't want corporations and elites to have the ultimate power of the state at their disposal to benefit at the expense of workers and I don't want well intentioned vengeful masses trying to retaliate by gaingin the reigns for themselves and then blanket plundering people in return.

I'd rather seperate the state and economy, gutting the corporations power and what I see as giving power back to individuals.

I see both corporatism and state socialism as attempt to impose subjective preferences through violence on peaceful people to benefit at the expense of others, whereas I see the free market (us individuals interacting freely) as the only win-win game possible.

The only hitch this runs into that I've found and you might agree here is this idea that private property immoral and defending it is violent, whereas "my side" would say that trying to take private property is immoral and defending it is good.

Leads to what I think is the central question, not how we feel about the world and what labels we want to put on things to blame or deflect, but what how do we base our society and how do we base our ideas. I have my basis for property rights, but I don't want to fight socialists, it's why you hear us all the time talking about voluntary socialism. It's about how to harmonize completely contrasting views of society when conflict is the only other option.

>Im not a materialist
So you are a spiritual capitalist?

I'm not that quick to just say everything is socialism, the label is meaningless to me I could just call it statism and I'd still be just as against it.

What I'm saying here is that intentions, methods and effects all have to be taken into account.....and when you have marxists saying they're going to tame capitalism as a mid point transition, so they advocate for high progressive taxation to fund a welfare state as their stated fucking intentions, through the use of the state and the goal is the reduction of freedom and capitalism then yeah I'll call it Socialism but the label means less than the people doing it and why.

Im an imperialist. I think your kind should be lashed to a cross and starved to death for trying to seize things.

2.0:
Which takes me back to this image.
Some people have intentions, methods and effects that I would argue are moral because they are voluntary and this seperates the other side of things, people that have intentions/methods/effects that are immoral because they are involuntary. I won't blanket "classes" of people no way.

Not all work is equal.

A week's worth of work for a CEO is more valuable than a life time of a burger flipper.

>Im an imperialist.
so a bootlicker, who is your emperor? Trump?

be an owner is not a work

Good man.

>running a company is not work
Keep telling yourself that, I'll have extra fries thanks.

After 1947, the Soviet Union had no famine.

>your elites pawn off your country's art and statues as "bourgeoisie relics" to keep themselves in lavish luxury
This didn't happen in the USSR. I know people who've been there.

Have you ever started a business before? Serious question, very curious.

People could easily starve if they didn't make enough money back then.

Because it imported from the US.

Only in socialist countries did they manage to go from food export to food import.

I wouldn't say easily. We have a common view that everyone was dying in the streets back then that comes from the Great Depression and not the reality of the 19th century.

People could be poor, because there was an accelerating reduction in poverty, it was a process but people weren't just dying on the streets without doctors, food and shelter. You might be surprised what the primary sources tell us about life during the advances of technology of capitalism.

Sure they didn't have fancy medicines back then so people died from conditions we can treat today but they had great access to doctors except for remote areas which is understandable even for today.

What are you afraid of?

Welcome to the nordic model.
You are a socialist or a fascist depending on who you ask.

>replying to yourself