Which side are you on, Sup Forums?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/JSNLt_s8-Gw
fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapaaherra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism_(concept_in_Italian_Fascism)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Neither. I'm neither rich or do work. I'm something we call a "vapaaherra" here in Finland.

False dichotomy. Fuck off cunt.

The working class are capitalists.

Capitalists and workers have mutually antagonistic interests. Capitalists want to pay as low a wage as possible, whereas workers want to get as high a wage as possible. The only thing false here is your 4th grade tier understanding of socio-economics

Fuck the capitalists and your so called proletariat. The only thing worse than a Capitalist is a Communist.

...

...

>The only thing false here is your 4th grade tier understanding of socio-economics
That's funny coming from a communist

nothing wrong with business but it should operate within the interest of the nation and its people first and foremost.

Business operates based on profit. Trying to force businesses to act in the interests of the nation is a fool's errand. If you push too hard, you will simply be overthrown like Juan Peron.

...

Capitalists, then, I take it?

>give up your culture

>give up your people

KEK.

by definition, capitalism only works in the interest of the shareholders.....

So not at all, in any way, shape, or form like in my country. Got it.

who do you think funded the bolsheviks and paid for Stalin's tanks and planes?

hint: it wasn't Stalin's communists

> 4th grade tier understanding of socio-economics
> Da munny man don wantta give da hammer man mow munny fo'is jawb uuunnnnnnggggghhhhhhhh

Well id rather be rich...

>who do you think funded the bolsheviks
Mostly Imperial Germany

>paid for Stalin's tanks and planes?
The Soviet Union did. Lend-lease was paid for.

Nice argument

capitalism and communism are two sides of the same jewish coin.

If your argument starts and stops at "the employer wants to pay the worker less money and the worker wants the employer to pay more money" I don't need an argument to point out the irony of your "4th grade tier" comment. Your understanding is elementary and surface level, fuckface

That's not an argument, that's a claim.

My argument is that employers should be imprisoned in forced labor camps, and all their property seized and nationalized. The reason is because they are a parasitical social stratum that provides no value to society.

don't use my people as your argument, gommie.

Trotsky was stopped in Canada with a bunch of Gold, he was financed directly by Wall Street bankers.

youtu.be/JSNLt_s8-Gw
>Who pays for commie fags?
>The [banks]OP is useful retard. Sage

...

I would argue against this, but I don't know anything about Communism.

Probably a Communist.

Crony (((capitalism))), which excludes the possibility of a free market by imposing a gorillion government (((regulations))), is not real capitalism.

If I have to choose I will always be on the side of the working class, every time. Still not a commie though, for the same reasons.

>Which side are you on Sup Forums?
The Third Position

...

> Doesn't know what merit increases are
> Doesn't know what profit sharing or ESPPs are
> Thinks a mid-office hiring manager is motivated to find a candidate who will work for the least amount of money even though the manager never sees any of what is saved
> Doesn't understand the risks associated with owning a company
> Thinks a shitty apathetic low level worker should be the primary focus of a business instead of the health of a company
> Thinks workers are at the center of an economy even though production actually is
> Has never hired anyone and knows nothing about what goes into determining wages

You should have been aborted, your stupidity is threatening to imprison innocent people

The people of the working class are capitalists, otherwise they'd be sticking to tribal or agrarian lives.

So why don't you think the peasant would have the right to choose where to work if there were no (((royal decrees))) preventing him from doing so?

And what's preventing the peasant from saving up some money and buying land for himself?

>Thinks a shitty apathetic low level worker should be the primary focus of a business instead of the health of a company

Not defending this from the perspective of a Communist, just to get that out of the way, but most low level workers are shitty and apathetic because they get paid just enough money to show up sober and relatively on time, but not enough to give a shit. Doubly so for "right to work" states, where they know they can and will be fired for any reason. Morale is LOW at those levels, and there is zero sense of loyalty or incentive to care beyond the bare minimum. Its a cultural problem.

I'm on the side of don't tread on me and I won't tread on you.

You're right man let's abolish private ownership that will fix things

"The working class are capitalists..." god i heard a lot of bullshit on this site but this one tops all

The white working class which I why I support Fascism.

>false dichotomy

I lean to the left since the right is full of rural and suburban retards.

When the fuck did I say anything even remotely like that?

> Doesn't know what merit increases are
> Doesn't know what profit sharing or ESPPs are
Chump change compared to the trillions stored away in offshore tax havens. "Merit increases" mean jack shit when real wages have been stagnant since the '70s.

> Thinks a mid-office hiring manager is motivated to find a candidate who will work for the least amount of money even though the manager never sees any of what is saved
Because the manager is just another employee of the owner, likewise exploited for his labor.

> Doesn't understand the risks associated with owning a company
The risks affect only the working class. It's workers who end up out of work when a business goes under. In most cases, the business owner emerges unscathed. The exception is small family owned businesses, who are just as much enemies of Wal Mart and the banks as the working class.

> Thinks workers are at the center of an economy even though production actually is
Workers engage in productive labor. That's the definition of working class.

> Has never hired anyone and knows nothing about what goes into determining wages
I've also never owned slaves. I guess that means I don't have any right to have an opinion on slavery, right?

Of course they are, a capitalist system couldn't exist without their compliance. Fight me.

>Vapaaherra
fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapaaherra

Hurri.

If you're not arguing in favor of communism don't reply to me fuckface, I don't care a out what you have to say

and the left is full of gay and vanity signalling retards

the difference is rural and suburban retards dont import nigger faggots into the country

left retards do

ergo your choice is shit

Wait what? So you're only interesting in talking to Communists today? Is that because its easier to argue against such a ridiculous position?

Embarrassing, my guy.

fair enough

Mussolini wasn't anti-capitalist. He was only opposed to what he called "supercapitalism".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism_(concept_in_Italian_Fascism)

>Mussolini strongly criticized this stage of supercapitalism, saying:

>At this stage, supercapitalism finds its inspiration and its justification in a utopia: the utopia of unlimited consumption. Supercapitalism's ideal is the standardization of the human race from the cradle to the grave. Supercapitalism wants all babies to be born exactly the same length so that the cradles can be standardized and all children persuaded to like the same toys. It wants all men to don the very same uniform, to read the same book, to have the same tastes in films, and to desire the same so-called labor-saving devices. This is not the result of caprice. It inheres in the logic of events, for only thus can supercapitalism make its plans.[6]

Commie thread, stay on topic fag

Alright, fuccboi, here's a simple question:

Does the lowly factory worker deserve the same compensation as the one in charge of the factory and why?

OP
Your a fucking idiot. If capitolist want to pay as least as posible why dont all jobs pay minimum wage. If you dont like being a worker be a capitolist and take the risk and start your own small buisness.

>are you on the side of capitalists or capitalists
Tough choice, I'll go with capitalists.

>rotshilds, oligarchs and others, who uses CENTRAL BANKING\GOVERNMENT
>capitalism
Try again, commie. They are CENTRAL PLANNING, too bad only commies expecting that government will work for them, and not for itself.

Exactly. No shifting the responsibility. People move from rural China to work for Foxconn because they would rather be part of a capitalist system than live that life. The workers have all the power to destroy capitalism and they don't because they see the benefits of capitalism and they want to gain from that system rather than the alternatives.

>Capitalists want to pay as low a wage as possible, whereas workers want to get as high a wage as possible
Then they meet at the middle and agree to a wage that is acceptable for both parties. Both of them are capitalists.

I answered elsewhere that if I absolutely have to choose, I choose the working class, BUT I am also not a Communist, because I don't see the working class as faring any better under their system. National Syndicalism is superior to both.

im with the reich

Communism isn't a mere economic system. By definition Communism is a totalitarian ideology that wishes to create a society without individual economic expectations and without hierarchy (literally impossible as society in of itself is little more than a set of hierarchies) by making everyone equal in agency by distributing wealth evenly between every single individual despite their productivity. This is an ideology of greed as it comes from the ultimate notion of greed that is equality of outcome. To be rewarded without having to fulfill any societal exceptions, to be exulted despite producing little of value for your fellow man. These are the core motivations of Marxist Communist and it basically boils down to the right to be an utter degenerate and yet be rewarded for it. Not only is it bad enough that this ideology boils down to degeneracy but it also inevitably leads to the very thing its advocates so often love to preach against; an authoritarian state. Because Communism is a totalitarian ideology it needs to be enforced strictly upon all individuals in society and the end result is a life of moral, cultural and economic slavery. Communist states will see freewill crushed and removed and the will of the Marxist revolutionaries raised above all. Everyone classified, labeled and ultimately trapped in the roles these Marxist has chosen for them and yet it is the opposition to this that is so often painted as evil. Marxist ideologues forge their own chains and shackle as all.
Fascism is the complete and utter opposite as its end goal is supposedly the perfected society and nation that acts like a well oiled machine where every individual does their part to contribute to what fascist see as the greater good and for the betterment of the collective.

...

To severely simplify, productivity is dictated by three main economic classes, investors (what Marxists would call the exploiters), inventors and laborers. Inventors are compensated because without them the product would not of been conceptualized and thus would not exist. Investors are compensated for without them the product could not be funded to be produced. And laborers are compensated for they are needed to actualize the product.
State ownership over the mean of production makes sense because it simply replaces the investor class with the State. Communism doesn't make sense because it strives to eliminate all 3 classes and implement equality of outcome. However, even with state ownership over the means of production, the economy is still driven by the personal gain of the worker and consumer.
Fascism is just superior to communism.

>Does the lowly factory worker deserve the same compensation as the one in charge of the factory and why?
If a capitalist is running the factory for profit, he should be imprisoned and the factory nationalized.

If a state-appointed manager is running the factory according to socialist central planning, he should receive LESS than the workers engaged in production!

The reason is because wage differentiation between managers and workers - eventually resulting in the creation of a managerial bourgeoisie in the USSR - destroyed socialism in the 20th century.

>If a state-appointed manager
>state-appointed
>Your face, when you create GIANT EXPLOITING MACHINE and crying about gulag

So, it's okay when the state calls the shots and exploits the workers and not some guy with money?

Can you tell me what motivation the state-appointed manager to do a good job and make the factory more productive if he's getting paid less than the lowly workers?

The capitalists don't waste 3.08 MB on a shitty image

>Capitalists want to pay as low a wage as possible, whereas workers want to get as high a wage as possible
Luckily in a capitalist model those workers are free to pursue that goal to the best of their ability
Can't say the same for other models

>It cannot be tolerated that the rolling mill hand in a steel mill should earn no more than a sweeper. It cannot be tolerated that a locomotive driver on a railway should earn only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled work would continue to exist even under socialism and even after classes had been abolished, that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, therefore, even under socialism “wages” must be paid according to labor performed and not according to need. But our industrialist and trade union equalitarians do not agree with this and opine that that difference has already disappeared under our Soviet system. Who is right, Marx and Lenin, or our equalitarians? We may take it that Marx and Lenin are right. But if so, it follows that whoever draws up wage scales on the “principle” of equality, and ignores the difference between skilled and unskilled labor, is at loggerheads with Marxism and Leninism.

Stalin, Joseph. Stalin’s Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 131

Do you mean unionists who gain favors to advance themselves over others?

Liberalism

>If a state-appointed manager is running the factory according to socialist central planning, he should receive LESS than the workers engaged in production!
Ah yes, the guy making sure boxes don't get jammed in the machine should make more than the guy in charge of managing the whole fucking place
And people wonder why this always ends in shortages...
Meanwhile
>state-appointed
>workers want to get as high a wage as possible
>state-appointed
If only glass ceilings could feed a nation

>So, it's okay when the state calls the shots and exploits the workers and not some guy with money?
The state-owned enterprise gives the worker the full value of his labor. In a privately owned enterprise, most value produced by workers is pocketed by capitalists.

>Can you tell me what motivation the state-appointed manager to do a good job and make the factory more productive if he's getting paid less than the lowly workers?
High social standing, esteem within their community, respect and admiration of the workers.

A since I'm rich

poor people are scum who commit basically all violent crime and shit up their own lives with their retarded degenerate behaviour and I'm eagerly looking forward to them all losing their jobs to robots and then getting gunned down on the street by robot cops when they chimp out

>The state-owned enterprise gives zero fucks about workers like nowadays, because state owns EVERYTHIN and its REAL exploiter with army\tax collectors and everything, not a fictional "class"

Even LENIN understood that soviets are crazy megalomaniacs and went full market reforms, cause people start to die without food (needs a PRACTICE to people, who beat logic with dialectical bullshit, to understand this)

>High social standing, esteem within their community, respect and admiration of the workers.
If such motivation worked on managers, it should work on workers too.
It doesn't.

capitalism is the only system on earth that allows the working class the ability to acquire wealth.
If you are not capitalist, you are a racist, and an elitist... or just plain ignorant

>most value produced by workers is pocketed by capitalists

Do you also know that factory equipment needs electricity/water/gas to run and needs to be maintained and eventually replaced?

DNR will win

The wroking class ,thats why iam not a communist. I have seen plenty of commies ,not one form working class background. Its almost everytime children of teachers or social workers

Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism. - AH

>If such motivation worked on managers, it should work on workers too.
Workers would be motivated by pay. Skilled industrial workers would receive a very high salary, they would become the new "elite" in society. The managers should always serve the workers, not vice versa. In the USSR, the managers hijacked the system for their own benefit. This must not be allowed to happen in a future socialist society.

>argumentation level: dialectical GOD
Dont worry, you need to pay your debts to CENTRAL BANK, which marx put in commiemanifest (coincidence).
So you are making yourself even poorer by promotin socialism.

I get payed 1.6k to walk around cleaning bbq's and picking up trash. Easy work and pretty okay money. Life's good.

>Skilled industrial workers would receive a very high salary

Hmm, the fact that your salary is higher than the others indicates that you're a filthy exploiter of the people!
*throws you in gulag*

So let me get this straight, you're saying that under communism everyone is equal, but some deserve to earn a higher salary than the others?

Funny for a Ukrainian to talk about central banks, considering the IMF staged the 2014 coup in Ukraine to take over the country.

Why has capitalism been such shit for Ukraine? Real GDP has still not recovered since 1991.

the beauty of all this bullshit is that the natural order, inevitable with a globally connected community, is capitalism. you can't avoid it.

>So let me get this straight, you're saying that under communism everyone is equal, but some deserve to earn a higher salary than the others?
See this post:
Stalin: "It cannot be tolerated that the rolling mill hand in a steel mill should earn no more than a sweeper."

Wtf I am a capitalist now

And who exactly decides which type of work is more valuable than the other?

your intellectual betters, of course

t. sossu pummi

The side that brings hammers down on commie skulls
So the working class, the middle management just dies internally and prays the paperwork for a dead commie isn't too much.

>commie party cronies
>intellectual betters

Neither. Ones are evil motherfuckers the others are disrespectful braindead retards. I wouldn't want to live anywhere around them. Thankfully my family had land and I'm smart enough to work by myself so I don't have to have redneck neighbours with their pimped 8k€ cars or uppity vampires with their tiny screeching dogs that poop and pee on your fence.

Anyone can decide this, if they have an IQ above 80. A rolling mill hand at a steel mill engages in dangerous but extremely productive and important labor. He provides more value to society than a street sweeper (even though street sweepers are vital and necessary for society), and so should receive a higher pay.

>Which side are you on
Working class working toward accumulating enough wealth so that my offspring will be part of the middle / upper-middle class.

This is not the definition of capitalism.

That's not how it works, sweetie. If the state controls both the supply and demand for any type of work, how can the workers make that kind of decision?