Hmmm... really makes you think, doesn't it?

Hmmm... really makes you think, doesn't it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions
globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/failed-states.html
youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

smug zappa best zappa

he's 100% right

Frank Zappa was a wise man.

He's right you butthurt commie

He's right, fucking commie.
A perfect society will always have private property.

Based

...

I want classcucks to leave.

>pinko poorfag uses the word 'cuck'

Oh, the ironing. At least you tried!

Kill yourself, commie piece of shit, go back to /leftypol/, you aren't different from the Sup Forumsacks who keep repeating "cuck" in every discussion and shit up the other boards.
This place was made to talk about music and not politics.
Fucking sage. Kill yourself.

Fucking hell, I'M the one who posts all the Frank Zappa communism threads.
No one else is allowed to take the title of "Frank Zappa Communism Shitposter" away from me.

reminder that capitalism is not a sustainable model

>literally wants to hand over everything he owns to a malevolent force

>malevolent

lemme guess, you live in a society where you're politely exploited by the benevolent bourgeoisie, right?

>mfw classcucks pull out the "muh human nature" card

Capitalism obviously can't work. Why would a worker be paid just $10 for something that he knows that sells for $500? There's no way they could accept that.
Not only that, but capitalists would always be trying to lower wages. That's going to create a war between classes, it's an unstable system.
It's human nature for people to organise their workplace. Why would workers ever accept that a capitalist - someone who obviously never worked - ran their factory and told them what to do?
See, capitalism works good on paper, but in practice all capitalist regimes in history have failed or were overthrown.
Capitalist regimes killed 800 billion billion people! Look up "conquistadores", it was capitalists who intentionally murdered whole populations for their own desires.
Why would a worker ever go to war to invade nations on account of the bourgeois? Who in their right mind would ever defend a state that oppresses them?
People are obviously unhappy under capitalism. Look at all the people that defected from capitalist countries. And not only that - there's people who outright attempted to overthrow capitalism. It's obvious it can't work.
Look at all the capitalist propaganda made to worship the State. They must be indoctrinating the working class so that they support their regime. They're so unfree.

>the solution to income inequality is to drastically increase income inequality
You sound like a Hillary supporter.

>Capitalism obviously can't work.
>reminder that capitalism is not a sustainable model
Who made the device on which you are posting that lie?

capitalism doesn't determine the technology you have, it determines who gets paid (and how much) for making it

means of production, bitch

capitalism didn't make my laptop, labor did. I'd rather the laborers benefit from making my laptop than the factory owners.

Workers in a factory made it. The bourgeoisie exploit them.

>literally what is R&D
Not something that happens in communism that's for sure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions

ITT people who don't know the difference between personal property and capital

>"""inventions"""
>literally all devices designed to exploit the proletariat
>Soviet Union
>communist
also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions

wtf I love Stalin now

>people are only motivated by money
nice 1

>money used to buy things they need to live
>no money = no living
>have to submit to exploitation to survive
sounds like a good system, i'm motivated :^^^^)

test

OP

>muh exploitation
I have literally never had a commie explain what that was or how increasing income inequality fixes it.

T R I P S
R
U
T
H

Classcucks officially BTFO.

i thought cuck was a filtered word

this desu senpai

exploitation in capitalism takes many forms. the most common form is when you (the worker) are paid less than what your work is actually worth, while the surplus value of what ever you produce goes to your employer (the bourgeoisie)

also i don't know what you're on about with "increasing income inequality" -- i don't see how it's relevant or where you got that idea from

The worker's work isn't necessarily what people will pay for it....not without the marketing/transportation/networking/logistics/tools that employers offer.

woooooOOOOOOH Zappa fans BLOWED THE FUCKiT OUT

You're speaking English, which was developed under feudalism
You're eating food that was made by farming, which developed under anarchism
What's your point?

My eardrums were blown the fuck out. After listening to Frank Zappa's music. By myself. With a shotgun.

marketing is a product of capitalism, as a means to drive consumerism

transportation, networking, logistics, other misc tools are aspects of the means of production, which are currently controlled by the bourgeoisie

if the workers "seize the means of production", then those things won't just disappear. they'll still exist, but in the hands of the workers themselves. there is nothing special about employers offering these things

have mercy

oh please, capitalism has pushed the worker too far, and continues to do so, but its not as if corporations take no risk when they hire you and have you and your coworkers build 10,000 units. Its a plain fact that the US is where its at economically because it espoused more capitalistic type laws early. Its also where its at socially because it failed to adopt a favorable social system early as well. Marx believed in a somewhat linear historical movement....is it too much to say that competition has great benefits as well as bad side effects? Ibuprofen makes your stomach bleed if you take too much, but it reduces pain and swelling if you take the recommended amount.

...

Not an argument.

that's deep.

You fail to realize how much risk many at the top face. Investment was extremely important in the early stages of capitalism and still is quite important. If means of production is owned by the proletariat...who takes the risk? Investment, capital, governance, and the economy are very very very complex....so what does "sieze the means of production" even mean when you still have to deal with the whims of the consumer, an ever changing economy, investment, etc??? Some products would probably never be invested into by some government bureau of investment or something....consumerism is just too complex

Woah... really made me think...

A fatal flaw of any state attempt at collectivism is that the money ends up gravitating towards the bureaucrats and the military. Hence you see the proletariat in a serf-like state and any innovations happening in weapons of war. However, if you force companies to invest in their product and their workers under the threat of bankruptcy, quality of life can go nowhere but up. If the workers feel exploited by their engineers making more than their cashiers, they can join a co-operative. The reverse cannot happen in a collectivist state.

How does investment work in a communist state?

Define bourgeoisie. I own a lawnmower that I let my nephew push around to make a few bucks in the weekend. In this scenario I control the means of production. Am I bourgeoisie? Is my nephew being exploited?

yes, it is too much to say that capitalist competition has "great" benefits. the bad side effects heavily outweigh it in a disproportionate way

capitalism does drive innovation to some extent, but that "great benefit" you talk that comes from said innovation primarily benefits the capitalist class, not the workers. anything that appears to be the opposite is usually just progressive liberalism. it is the workers who suffer from the most from the bad side effects, not the capitalists.

innovation under a successful full-communist society (none of which have existed so far) would benefit mankind as a whole, not a small group of wealthy people

>bourgeoisie:
The capitalist class; the ruling class in capitalist society. The social class which owns the means of production and exploits hired labor. The buyers of labor power. This class is made up of a very small minority of the population.

>lawnmower scenario
you would be what is called petite-bourgeoisie -- a term more commonly used to describe small business owners, though not limited to that. you still control the means of production, and your nephew's labor power is being exploited. your quaint example doesn't make this any less true

Imagine being so unintelligent and bad at school that you actually think communism is a good idea

Seriously, can you just imagine the number of history and economics classes you would have to fail in order to arrive at the belief that communism can one day work out? Just think about the number of historical failures you would have to gloss over, the number of economic principles you would have to misunderstand, the number of totalitarian nightmare nations you would have to provide damage control for

You'd have to be an unemployed, unintelligent debt-ridden manchild to genuinely consider communism as the solution to your problems. It's the only way. No socially successful and intelligent human being is attracted to these ideas

>he bad side effects heavily outweigh it in a disproportionate way
Compared to the
>none of which have existed so far
oh you know
But you should also know that it cannot exist unless the MoP are owned by Skynet. But then Skynet would just exterminate human workers and replace them with robots. But then those robots would wonder where that supposed innovation is.

Well in this case, and every case under this market, the kid could save that money and buy a lawnmower to let his own nephew push around for a few bucks, becoming micro-bourgeoisie and having his own nice lawn. Is everyone being exploited by everyone leading to a higher quality of life better than everyone being exploited by a small oligarchy and being left destitute?

>there are people on this board right now who will miss the point of this post by a mile

>Imagine being so unintelligent and bad at school that you actually think capitalism is a good idea
>Seriously, can you just imagine the number of history and economics classes you would have to fail in order to arrive at the belief that capitalism can one day work out? Just think about the number of historical failures you would have to gloss over, the number of economic principles you would have to misunderstand, the number of totalitarian nightmare nations you would have to provide damage control for
>You'd have to be an unemployed, unintelligent debt-ridden manchild to genuinely consider capitalism as the solution to your problems. It's the only way. No socially successful and intelligent human being is attracted to these ideas

Protip: if every instance of "communism" in your hyperbolic screed can be replaced with "capitalism" then you are not being sufficiently clear in said hyperbolic screed and need to develop upon your points further instead of dismissing an entire ideology based solely on a rambling speech just barely held together with meaningless buzzwords :^)

Capitalism hasn't failed though, it's stronger and more popular than ever. This is the kind of intellectual mediocrity I was talking about, a flagrant denial of objective facts i.e. that capitalism isn't dictating every inch of your shitty manchild life right now

I'm not opposed to communism, but what's an argument against the history communism has?
Oppressive regimes, economic failure, etc.

a successful full-communist society cannot exist alongside a capitalist superpower. western imperialism has restricted or eliminated all socialist / pre-communist societies thus far

>1964 Brazilian coup d'état
>1973 Chilean coup d'état
two examples of the collapse of leftist governments funded by the united states; the first approved by lyndon b johnson, and the second by nixon. it is not in the capitalist interests of the united states to have communist societies in the americas. look at what the US did to cuba with the trade embargoes

>it wasn't REAL communism because our imaginary utopia wasn't achieved. We just have to try again!

the red scare

replace every time you say capitalist with communist and you're dead on

>capitalism hasn't failed though
globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/failed-states.html
>The Index rates Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, and Iraq, as the weakest states, while Norway ranks as the most stable country.
Really makes you think.

Capitalism will be there for you, when you stop giving a fuck

Are you a literal retard? That's the fucking point. It's retarded arguments against communism applied to capitalism. Jesus fucking Christ.
Makes sense that the most braindead of braindead morons would be a capitalist.

TL;DR (or CR, I don't know how literate you are):

How are these failures of capitalism? The goal of capitalism isn't a magical pixie land where everybody has money, a state, and no oppression.

I agree with the intellectual mediocrity comment made earlier.

oppressive / corrupt regimes were a thing, yes. this was not the sole cause of the failure of communism to emerge in the modern world. it's just something we have to be critical about and learn from. we have a better chance at implementing communism now that communication has improved with the internet, which was a huge issue for previous socialist societies

economic failure was at the hands of western imperialism (the power that upholds capitalism). imagine trying to breathe when some asshole keeps pushing your head underwater.

They also had unarmed proletariat and an oppressive central government. When will you learn that you cannot be free if you have those things?

The goal isn't to make everyone successful, that's fucking retarded

>blacks and honorary blacks

ty comrade

How is [communist country] failing a failure of communism?
Never said it was.

i'm not contesting either of these things. as i've said before, they're mistakes we need to be critical of / learn from. i don't really hold any existing socialist societies as models to work towards

also, as a parallel to what you said, USA already has an oppressive central government, and seems to be heading towards disarming the proletarians
>you cannot be free if you have those things

>USA already has ...
i mean western civilization as a whole

it does work though, and people in china get paid a lot less than that to put together ipads all day

anyway communism doesn't work because jobs with a high barrier of entry would become completely undesirable, like being a doctor

Communist incompetence at running a country isn't necessary the reason they failed. I mean yeah, they don't know how to govern because they're morons who don't pay attention to history or economics, but the other major reason they fail is because they cannot put their fantasy into reality. Communists states have the expressed purpose of creating a totally egalitarian, classless, and stateless society, and every single one of them in the entire history of the ideology has completely FAILED to do so.

lmao seeing this and realizing that argie fags can't stand 30.000 dead leftists and innocents

lel

libertarians use the same argument.

"b-b-but you can't hate capitalism because we've never had true capitalism!!"

The US is an authoritarian conservative country that has never seen true democracy* but has very obviously seen the rise of unadulterated capitalism** so it's honestly fucking ignorant to argue in favor of capitalism and right wing economics when you are a privileged individual who has never experienced the downsides of either ideals.

*slavery only abolished a century after the founding fathers establish a country based on "promoting the general welfare" of Americans.
*racial segregation only abolished a century after THAT
* women not allowed the right to vote until 1920's
* contested elections rigged in favor of establishment politicians and/or campaigners with more $$$
* electoral college votes render red votes in a blue state literally meaningless, and vice-versa, making votes based entirely on state population and/or $$$$$$$

** US government is entirely in the favor/hands of corporatism, where money means lobbyists, and lobbyists with money means legislative influence

you "taxation is theft" teenagers have never experienced what it is truly like to have your right to reasonable income based on your labor denied by employers that are indiscriminately privileged by the government, while you sit and whine about how the government is taking away your income in the form of taxes.

i did this for you Sup Forums... i did it in paint.... dem unique letters be handcrafted yo.

i dont even hang here, i come from /k/ but im baked

There it is again. Intellectual mediocrity. Fuck you millennials.

youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8
>this is what socialists/communists want

Only capitalism can save us.

hilarious

>checks out Ayn Rand novels from public library because he can't afford new copy from corporate chain book store on his dish washing wages
>doesn't see the irony

>clickbait video title

>accepts status-quo of society
>complains about "millennials" and people trying to change things
>intellectual mediocrity

i can make cheap jabs at you too

I love it when ayncraps run out of arguments and resort to meaningless buzzwords.

lmao this is a really bizarre post

>libertarians use the same argument.
Good for them. you would probably get along because they're morons just like communists. Personally, I'm not a libertarian and I'm not an American so I really don't care about anything you're talking about as literally none of it has any relevance to the discussion

>being shot for not returning Das Kapital to the government library within a week and slowing down the commie system
What's your point spaceman?

>everybody who dislikes communism is an American libertarian
It must be insane living in the leftist bubble 24/7. You guys must realized that you sound brainwashed, right?

> still confusing communism with authoritarianism

@67050830
Why does this tripfag show up every thread about Frank Zappa's idiotic grasp on communism? For fuck's sake.

i could say the same to you
again, cheap jabs

>argie fags can't stand 30.000 dead leftists and innocents
You tell me about it...
My country is still butt-blasted because of 4000 commie deaths during a 17 year dictatorship that happened almost 30 years ago (btw, the "cleanest" dictatorship ever as far as I'm aware of).
Best part about it? It completely changed the countries' economy for the better, making it the best south american country by now, but now nobody will ever vote for right wing politicians because they are associated with the dictatorship. I mean, I'm not supporting the killings, but people are so stupid about it.

It really is an interesting video. Caracas, Venezuela is the city with the highest amount of murder in the world last time I checked.

get rekt

>still pretending that communists aren;t historically associated with authoritarianism

>implying one can exist without the other

>trusting the people who run the nation
>"i mean, it's never worked before, but this time it will!"

is he correct?

all this political discussion is stupid guys. we should all be working together to create a better future for our children and i personally believe if you don't reply to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

didn't zappa consider running for office once?
would you have voted for him, Sup Forums?

yes