This post is for conservatives

This post is for conservatives.

Marx said communism would take place like this:

-Capitalism would be left unchecked because money is power, and the people with power make the rules.
-Capitalism gone unchecked would lead to giant monopolies and concentrate wealth in the hands of a very small few. Workers would be making a small few executives filthy rich, while living on slave wages themselves.
-Eventually there would be no middle class at all, only a small number of very rich aristocrats and a large number of destitute serfs (aka the bourgeroisie and proletariat). This would pretty much look like middle-ages Europe in terms of wealthy lords and poor vassals, or like cotton plantations in terms of wealth and power dynamics.
-Realizing that this arrangement is ridiculous and inhumane, the vassals would get sick of producing wealth without sharing in it; and they would rise up, overthrow the lords, and distribute the nation's wealth - that they themselves produced - among the vassals; they will answer gross inequality with absolute equality.

Let's forget whether this is a desirable end and just look at what's going on in terms of class warfare. Conservatives often argue in favor of deregulation for large monopoly corporations which includes outsourcing and offshore tax havens; "job creators" is the battle cry. The idea of "trickle-down" keeps coming back even though it is a proven disaster. The wealth gap has grown tremendously since Reagan and the neoconservatives swept in. Meanwhile, public sentiment toward collectivism is growing in what I imagine is a direct correlation with the wealth gap. Coincidence?

I say all this to say: if you hate communism, shouldn't you be voting for liberals? If class warfare is going to take us into communism, and you don't want to go there, shouldn't you vote for whoever causes less class warfare?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because communism so has not been tried before.

no we should push harder for less government, since more government is what leads to the breakdown of the free market, more government makes monopolies and and crony capitalism possible, more government regulation leads to more corruption between politicians and corporations

the very nature of the the left is to increase government, consolidate power, by voting for liberals you are in fact voting to make the rich richer and the poor poorer

the problem is that the communist essence can only exists when it is destroying other systems, once it achieves it's revolution it will immediately alienate it's supporters, the elite within the left wing will then take up their authoritarian thrones and no one who is not connected to their inner circle will be able to find success in life

and eventually their cycle will collapse under massive debt, poverty and hunger, the morale of their people will be broken and the cycle will repeat itself when hard working free thinking people rise up again

Pretty much fully agree and I'm a libertarian leftist

>liberals cause less class warfare

agreed!

There has never been a successful Communist nation. Ever. Every attempt was either Fascism or Socialism (close cousins of each other). Communism only works on paper. Capitalism works best with minimal government controls like labor laws, insider trading laws, OSHA, etc.

Once you lay on massive regulation, you stifle innovation, eliminate competition, and slide toward Fascism, which leads to direct Socialism. Go see how that worked out in Venezuela.

Capitalism has a terrible track-record as well. Sure it's outlasted authoritarian dictatorial "communism" but how many times has it had to be bailed out?

Capitalism is better than what we have experienced so far, but that doesn't mean it's all that great.

Thanks for writing this out. This is correct. If anything should be regulated it's government spending and government involvement in the free market.

>no we should push harder for less government, since more government is what leads to the breakdown of the free market, more government makes monopolies and and crony capitalism possible, more government regulation leads to more corruption between politicians and corporations
>the very nature of the the left is to increase government, consolidate power, by voting for liberals you are in fact voting to make the rich richer and the poor poorer

I find it interesting that you would say this when history says different. The unregulated market of the industrial revolution produced massive monopolies that gov had to break up to ensure fair prices and fair wages. Crony capitalism is in full swing with a billionaire president (billionaire through nepotism) invites all his billionaire cabinet members to become the highest level decision makers, and in turn is attempting to repeal social services for the poor and reduce taxes for the rich.

i would argue that almost all of them have been undermined by capitalist governments to ensure they have no success

>more government makes monopolies
nigga you a special kind of stupid

Capitalism fails when the government meddles with it. Case in point- General Motors. They had a terrible business model. They produced average cars at best and were drowning in the cost of legacy health insurance costs for union members and retirees. Here's how it hurt the economy-

>Obama declares GM "too big to fail" and says they must be bailed out to prevent bankruptcy.
>GM goes under anyway because their business model still sucked.
>Obama plays a trick never done before at this level- He creates a new GM, dissolves the old GM and transfers all the assets.
>Obama places his own guy as CEO of new GM.

In a normal bankruptcy, a judge orders a person or a group to review all company contracts and agreements. They are all open to renegotiation. The company will be restructured if possible with a better business plan. This may include selling off some assets.

If the company cannot be saved, it is dissolved and the asset values given to bond holders, share holders, and debt holders. This did not happen when they dissolved old GM. Everyone GM owed money to along with every stock holder was fucked in the ass sideways.

So, the government took over GM, put their people in charge, put union representatives on the board and... they're still making average cars and losing money. And, they took billions of tax dollars in the bailout.

In a true capitalist system, there will be winners and losers. This drives companies to make a better product or offer a better service. Companies must grow and adapt to survive. GM should have gone under. They made crap that was done in by 100,000 miles. Toyota made great cars for the same money and had a great business model. Made in the USA by American workers. GM could not compete and should not have been saved. And the economy suffered from "saving" it.

what you call minimal government controls the modern Republican party calls massive regulation.

Nope. They failed because Communism does not take into account the fact there will always be people who will do the bare minimum to get by. You will never be able to create your own success under Communism.

Also, in every "Communist" nation, there was still a government, there was still money, and there were still working and elite classes. None of that exists in a "pure" Communist economy.

Are you fucking kidding me? For the last 25 years, the Republican party has been spending and growing government as much as the Democrat party. Do you live under a rock?

China is communism taking advantage of drunken capitalism. They're set to be the world's number one superpower. Check them out.

growing the military =/= deregulation shit-for-brains

Communism is an economic system where there is no government and the means of production is controlled by the people through control boards. There is no money, there are no classes. China was never a pure Communist economy. They were Socialist. They've shifted toward a free market (see: Alibaba) since that promotes innovation, competition, and ultimately, economic prosperity.

>the very nature of the the left is to increase government, consolidate power, by voting for liberals you are in fact voting to make the rich richer and the poor poorer

This is a trait of authoritarianism, not leftism. We both agree the solution is to be found in libertarianism, but I argue that with right wing economic structure catastrophic inequality is inevitable. Power structures are still power structures even if they're corporate rather than governmental

Marx was upper middle class himself though.
Just like the suffragettes were.
Both of these political ideas work on the presumption that the workers will agree with them in the notion that the upper middle class should supplant the rich, in order to create some sort of utopia.
What it really does is just replace the rich and give power-hungry people a way of calling you a bigot if you don't like how they are handling this power.

>libertarianism
lol so a republican who likes weed? moron.

you answer like you know the facts but you obviously don't. stating things as though they were facts does not the truth make. anyone who knows anything knows not to state things as facts, doubly so when dealing with such large concepts. anyone who does not factor this into their proposition is not worth listening to as they are either stupid or biased

I'm sorry, where did I mention "deregulation", newfriend? I am talking about the number 1 goal of BOTH parties has been growing government and spending money... "bringing home the bacon".

throughout most of human history, wealth has flowed from the poor to the wealthy. The short break we took from that after WW2 is coming to an end, and the bizarre thing is how many of those cheering it on are themselves poor.

what did he state as fact that wasn't true ?

You really think Conservatives aren't right now, with their "fuck the poor" attitude?

We all know Trump's "populism" is fucking bullshit.

...

>we should allow rich elites to run roughshod over the economy and it will all magically work out somehow

Gee I wonder who could be behind this post.

The problem with what you're saying is, the people at the bottom of the income scale and the people at the top do not always stay there. 45% of people at the lowest 25% of wage earners will be out of that tier within 10 years. The same goes for the very wealthy. New ones come in, older ones go broke. We're the most fluid nation in terms of the ability to rise or lower your income bracket.

what do you mean? increasing our military complex so we can induce control around the world. an empire is a much worse thing than a big government. just think of all the blood and treasure we spend from your pocket every day. I mean what the fuck does blowing up some Muslims do for you? it's your tax dollars at work? it just gets poor Americans killed and rich arms devlopers paid. Last time I checked the Dept. of defense is part of the government too...so that's technically growing the government...just the scarier ones with guns and tanks and shit. Republicans talk about how they need guns to rise up against the government while shoveling more and more and more and more money to the military to give them more and more deadly weapons.

"Capitalism works best with minimal government controls like labor laws, insider trading laws, OSHA, etc.

Once you lay on massive regulation"

Dumbass. The republican party exists to enrich the rich. They tell you that means shrinking the government, but what that really means is redirecting the money from social services to the military since that is the one service they truly need from the government. They will grow that too, since the rich need to always have their wealth protected by the finest military.

>arguing with someone on your side
wew lad

...

so none of them were consistently undermined by capitalist governments? clearly they were but you seem to think that this is not a factor worth considering. of course the reason for their demise is YOUR simplistic reason that fits with YOUR world view. you are a moron

Nice cartoon... you do understand that Obamacare went overbudget by 2 trillion dollars, right? Making it's cost 3 trillion dollars? And that it's collapsing? I don't think you wanted that particular cartoon to represent your side.

...

but user, the invisible hand of the market means that if a mining company were ever to abuse their workers, then the public would buy their ore and coal elsewhere and then the bad companies would go out of business and all those people would lose their jobs as they should. see, it all works out.

regurgitating fox news, on a Monday?

you understand that ACA was compromised by stubborn republican congress that REFUSED to let Obama pass his original plan that would have worked MUCH better. The republicans basically contaminated the bill giving it it's current non-working form.

Marx' predictions turned out to be false. He said that industrial capitalism would lead to communism. Instead, communism never really took root in any country that was already industrialized. It only happened in countries that were poor and backward. If Marx' predictions were valid, England, not Tsarist Russia, would have been the first communist state.

Nice talking point! So, you're saying we should continue doubling the national debt until we become Greece and collapse? Did it ever occur to you that the #1 priority of government might NOT be...growing government? And, jsut MAYBE we can streamline government, get rid of waste and duplication of services and possibly run a surplus?

And, for the record (you can verify this at www.irs.gov) the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of federal income taxes. So, the wealthy are already paying the lion's share of taxes.

People doing the bare minimum to get by isn't the problem. With technology at it's current level only 4/10 people 'need' to work in order to produce enough food and shelter for 12/10 people we currently have. The chinks have done a shit ton of research on this because they are rightfully terrified of what happens when you tell 60% of the population there's literally nothing for them to do. It's about how you spend those resources and allocate wealth and responsibilities. As a species we're getting to the point where we either admit we need a new system that takes the best parts of capitalism and socialism and crams them together or we need to put everybody to work over producing so we can do something nuts like colonize mars. The only alternatives are 1984 style proxy war based economy's or the guillotine. And I don't know if the post nuclear age can handle a french style revolution.

If GOP dogma works, why did Kansas go to hell?

i guess your reply wasn't all that clear. what i said still stands o it's own

Not to butt in, but >>for the last 25 years
.5 yrs Trump
8 yrs Obama
8 yrs Bush
8 yrs Clinton

Of the past 25 years 2/3rds of the time a Democrat has been president

>implying that similar shit hasn't already happened in South America
>implying that the current economic system is free market capitalism
>Implying that some 19th century dude could make accurate predictions of events in the 21st century

did it ever occur to you that the #1 priority of the government might NOT be...lowering taxes on the rich?

this chart is such bullshit. Capitalist nations have the highest wages on earth. We're an industrialized nation because of capitalism.

Everyone in china has a job, but they make like cents per day. Everything about this infographic is ass backwards. There's no reality to it, it's all theoretical. We live in a real world bro, not a theoretical one.

I guess it's cool that every war we fight goes over budget...or the fact the f-35 exists

lol someone's never been to china

>Implying that liberals are still liberal and that their are genuinely liberal parties that have a chance of winning a single seat.

No, the ACA was predicated on the concept of healthy young people paying for most of the costs, through higher insurance rates...thinking that since they were young and healthy, they would not need it as much. The problem was, many chose not to get the insurance because it was cheaper to pay the fine and go without.

It was upside down. Healthy young people should pay LESS for health insurance and as you get older, your rates go up... which should not be an issue since average income rises with age.

tl;dr: ACA was upside down

But they would never use it own their own people! Because we have guns to defend our rights!

Obama didn't need nor did he get a single republican vote for ACA. He could've passed anything if wanted IF he could get the people in HIS OWN PARTY in congress to go along with it. Don't blame the Republicans for ACA they literally had nothing to do with it, no Republican input was taken in crafting the bill and not Republican votes went towards it.

That is the dumbest chart I have ever seen.

Yes. The president is the only person that matters. Congress and the Senate don't do shit.

But either way, that doesn't refute the point the other user made. Dems are known to increase government involvement. It's expected.

Both sides have been guilty of overspending. I always say "all politics are local". When you talk in esoteric terms like "20 trillion dollar national debt", most people yawn... but they perk right up when their local congressman promises a billion dollars to renew some inner harbor project or some shit. People vote for politicians who "bring home the bacon" and never consider the consequences of that happening all over the country.

Trump has reversed his positions 180 degrees on so many things, and his followers are so dense that I wouldn't be surprised if he posted some pro Stalin tweet tomorrow and his fully cucked fanbase would mindlessly lap it up.

thats because we've had 3 presidents in that time alternating from democrat to republican...now we have a republican (maybe) president Bannon...I mean trump err...putin. Is putin a republican? I guess so. anyways the last 4 presidents have been 2 democrats and 2 republicans. before that It was bush and reagan

cry more please?

besides the bailout and the Iraq and Afghan wars were republican ideas. and that's a fact

Again, the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of federal income taxes.

>no Republican input was taken in crafting the bill

PssshsHSHhshsh

God, man. No republican votes, sure, but the bill was an attempt at a compromise with a republican state program from Massachusetts as the framework.

I'm not a democrat - if they had a brain between them, they would have pushed something single payer then - but you've been drinking the kool-aid.

confirmed for underage kiddo too young to realize that the ACA was a more conservative version of Gingrichcare proposed in the 90s, which was itself a more conservative version of Nixoncare proposed in the 60s. You just can't accept that Obama gave us the most conservative alternative to universal healthcare ever proposed.

>spend 20 years hating commies and Russia
>some orange fuck takes over
>now we love Russia and their commie ways all the sudden

...

yeah, they have the most to lose and have benefited the most in the society. They should fucking pay more, and we should create higher tax brackets for the top 1 and 0.1 and 0.01% of earners.

And if you disagree with that, I have to wonder how big your trust fund is.

highest wages on earth sure, because they have the largest economies. goods also cost more and wealth is also relative. the gap between the lowest earners and highest is larger here

Both parties are guilty of overspending. End of story. And for the record, the military is funded through appropriations, not standard budgetary means... since you can never predict a year and a half in advance what your military needs will be.

false equivalencies server the Republicans. Good boy

THIS

>only the president affects policy
>the Republicans literally had nothing to do with the ACA
wew lads

China?

I guess it would be pretty strange for you to hear that when John F. Kennedy lowered the draconian marginal top tax rates, the economy rebounded and the result was... more tax revenue? You might want to look into history.

>the people who have absurd amounts of money pay more taxes

Yeah no shit.
If they paid their workers a living wage, the tax burden would be shifted to them AND they would no longer qualify for welfare.

No dumbass. Libertarians can be right or left wing. As a matter of fact the word libertarian was coined by an extreme leftist to describe himself. I am a left-wing libertarian along the lines of Noam Chomsky or Daniel DeLeon

It's what the conservatives wanted all those years.

But the contrarian nature and nigger hating antics prevent them from seeing this is what they wanted.

If Romney won 5 years ago, he would have implemented a carboncopy of the same plan. And instead, right now, the Democrats would be losing their minds about the current state of health care.

Money is the only thing that matters in life. Not everyone deserves a good life or wealth unless they earn it. Capitalism isn't perfect because not everyone has an equal opportunity to earn their wealth and luck does play a role, but it's much nicer to me in theory than communism where the guy who hasn't worked a day in his life is on the same level as the person who has worked to provide for their family their entire life.

so giving the american people healthcare is worse than dropping bombs on hakim and his goats. well shit son i'm sorry thought my tax money was supposed to be spend for a good reason

...

youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c

>most fluid nation
citation required. that sounds like a sound bite. Upward mobility is a myth in this country, one meant to keep the masses calm as the rich get ever richer. Wealth is certainly being accrued, but only at the top.

Then you missed the point of the post. I'm not a Marxist either

...

Basically.

No free health care because military spending. Health isn't a right. Explosions and death and getting rid of people with different skin tone and religious ideas is a right.

Capitalism will never go away.
Not until basically everything is produced by automation. But even at that, there will always be specific trades people who will capitalize on something.

If done right it creates healthy competition within a community or society and in turn slowly produces more efficient and well thought out technologies and engineering feats.
This is why humans love sports, or some sort of competitive edge, we apply it to our professional lives, those who don't give a shit, don't get rewarded, those who do, get rewarded.

...

...

Marx's early predictions turned out false. After the political revolutions of 1848 fell on their ass Marx and Ingles went back to the drawing board and asked why. The answer they came up with was the Marx-Ingles theory on economic progression. Which in a nut shell is
Barter trade -> Feudalism -> Free-market Capitalism -> Global Capitalism -> national socialism -> Global Socialism -> Communism
We are currently transitioning from national capitalism to global capitalism. And to any one who wants to bitch about the chinks taking your manufacturing job and say at the same time free market capitalism will bring that job back you're a fucking retard. You want to renegotiate trade deals to help your national economy? Thats called protectionism and is part of socialism. Trumptards voted for a realestate agent to enact socialist policy.
TL;DR Don't worry pinko's, it's all going according to plan.

OK, here's some problems with your post. That cartoon relies on that "1%" counts corporations as people...which those people who squatted in the parks claimed to be against. And, most corporations are publicly owned in the form of stocks. AND the biggest stockholding groups are union pension funds. So, that cartoon collapses.

Next, "living wage"- this is retardedness. Let's go with that "You deserve $15/hr to work the fryer" thing. The presumes that someone who starts at McDonalds at age 16 will never get a raise, never be promoted, never go to college or a trade school and move to a better job. It assumes you'll be minimum wage for life.

you really drank the cool aid didn't you? I'm assuming the fact that you're on 4 chan means you're not in the 1%. Why the fuck do you keep parroting the same shit the uber wealthy want you to say?! why do you give such a shit about them?

...

>more government is what leads to the breakdown of the free market,

you assume that the free market is always a good thing - but no economist thinks this. Mises, Hazlitt etc all argue that for some goods the market cannot work (and often the market is not efficient) this freemarket fetish is just silly. Freemarkets do not prevent monopolies - especially in a global sized market with huge players. They do not prevent the conglomeration of capital into small numbers of people's hands. the Marxian vision of a transnational corporate feudal system will not be prevented by free markets (or at least, you need to show how they would be...)

The only major issue we have is wasting 60% of the budget on the military and nearly equally the same amount in tax breaks.

Those two things account for the majority of the monetary problems of america.

>Cut the military in half by having them make all their own equipment. And get rid of almost all tax breaks for the ultra wealthy.
That would get us out of debt within 10 years and afterwards taxes for the majority of america would be less than half what it is now.

No, if you'd been paying attention, you'd see I am for cutting spending. There's waste everywhere... in healthcare AND in the military. And both sides are guilty of it.

We should just let corporations rule the world. Fuck voting or democracy.

>guy who hasn't worked a day in his life is on the same level as the person who has worked to provide for their family their entire life.
The guy working isn't providing for his family though. They are already provided for. The man working is providing for his country.

Also why can there be no middle ground between capitalism and socialism, where the man who may not have the ability to work can be provided for, as well as those who works gain the incentive of luxury?

And health care shouldn't be a luxury.

It's kool-aid.

go to www.irs.gov and see for yourself. It's all there.
Unless that nefarious IRS is secretly skewing their public data at the behest of a bunch of old fat, rich white guys counting their bags of money in a smoke filled room.

...

Capitalism can easily be fixed by a wealth cap.

>MFW no one needs millions to be happy.

OP: your political and economic footprints are microscopic. Why are you even talking about this shit