Peasants produce food

>peasants produce food
>factory workers produce industrial goods
>engineers, computer scientists, etc. invent stuff
>accountants, managers and salesman keep the system running

What's the function of the capitalist, again? I always forget...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
dw.com/en/france-battles-food-waste-by-law/a-19148931
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

without a price system you end up overproducing useless shit and under producing useful shit

this results in tons of unused tanks and breadlines and shortages for everyone else.

...

T C H A U Q U E R I D A

seems legit

...

No capitalist, no price system? Doesn't make sense to me.

No capitalism no private ownership of the means of production=no private price signals


In the government ownership of the means of production the state creates all prices, so nothing reflects real supply and demand.

There's no "real" price system. Hence you see massive shortages of goods, people get pissed off and the economy (eventually) collapses.

...

...

...

...

So, no capitalist implies everything must belong to a centralized government? Still doesn't make sense.

Why can't businesses be run by the workers themselves.

And by the way, accountants and salesmen (who are wage laborers, not capitalists) know much more about prices than the useless parasites who live off other peoples labor.

...

#naovaitergolpe

>So, no capitalist implies everything must belong to a centralized government?

that's exactly what it means

communism = government ownership of the means of production

>And by the way, accountants and salesmen (who are wage laborers, not capitalists) know much more about prices

Prices are determined by consumer demand not accountants.

But prices won't be reflective of reality if they are created by the government and not a real price system (one based on actual supply and demand in a market)

Once the government sets all prices you get massive over and underproduction.

The system then stagnates and collapses. You are shilling for an ideology that has already been tried in the real world and died due to it's own internal flaws. Give it up.

Provides the workers with the means to produce, and takes full responsibility if it fails.

...

...

you already named the capitalist, 6 kinds of them actually.
>peasants (now farmers)
>factory workers
>engineers
>computer scientists
>accountants
>managers
>salesmen

...

...

...

>Once the government sets all prices

You know that the only way of defending capitalism is by contrasting it with centrally planned economies.

Tell me, why are you so afraid of actually adressing the issue? Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves? Why can't the people who actually make the system work decide their own future? Why do we need a class of people who live off other people's labor?

>means to produce

Which are made by the workers themselves...

You don't even understand the difference between those who sell their labour and those who live off profits, interest and rent? You have a long way to go...

>Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves?
The businesses already belong to the people who create them? What kind of question is "why can't it belong to someone else?" Do you have no respect for other people's property?

>Do you have no respect for other people's property?

If people's property is based on the systematic appropriation of the labor of others, no, I don't.

>contrasting it with centrally planned economies.

Communism, by definition is government ownership of the means of production

>Why cant businesses belong to the workers themselves?

That's anarcho communism which isn't at all like communism and has it's own set of problems

For one thing it's impossible to coordinate a system at all without centralization so anarcho communism is basically telling people to go back to living in a savage tribal society. That might appeal to you since you're Brazilian.

>Why can't the people who actually make the system work decide their own future?

You mean democracy?

>Why do we need a class of people who live off other people's labor?

Some people are smart and some people aint.

The best system is democracy and private ownership of the means of production where the people have political representation, and are able to own property.

Public ownership is only good for public goods and service (infrastructure, defense, etc)

The technology used to produce is brought by the capitalist, but operated by the worker.

Nothing in this system is stopping workers from purchasing their own tools and operating a factory as such, they just prefer to use somebody else's capital in exchange for a wage.

...

bought*

Are people not allowed to sell their labor? If I fix your house and you pay me money, do you not recognize this transaction? Do you still owe me anything?

...

t. underage kid that just saw this on the history book in school and believed everything

>Communism, by definition is government ownership of the means of production

Just saying it doesn't make it so

> it's impossible to coordinate a system at all without centralization

Then, by implication, you admit Capitalism is a centralized system, since it works.

>You mean democracy?

Yes. On all spheres, including the sphere that really matters: inside businesses.

...

>accountants, managers and salesman
These are the capitalists pham.

>The technology used to produce is brought by the capitalist

Not really. Most of the innovation is made by the educated middle class, who are wage laborers just like the proletariat.

I think it's the communist architecture I hate more than anything. Godawful urban hellholes.

Guess which one payed attention in economics

"allowed". Is that a joke? It's practically required.

Soft budget constraints.

No they aren't. They sell their labour for a wage. The don't live off profit, interest or rent. Americans are unbelievable.

Everyone you mentioned is a capitalist, you fucking moron.

They are selling their time and labor and profiting from it, otherwise they wouldn't even do it.

Would you prefer to move to Somalia and start your own economy by farming your own food, or would you rather participate in an established economy, where one hour's wage is enough to feed you for the day?

...

You are insisting that there is no difference between those who have to sell their labour and those who make money simply because of the fact that they have the right of private property over a part of the system?

Your ideological blindness is unbelievable. Americans are still in the 18th century.

liberty

Socialism = government ownership of the means of production. If workers want to unite, in the capitalist system, and run a busniess themselves, they can. If there is enough demand, the people probably will cater to it. There is no "function" of capitalism, it just happened.

>>peasants produce food
>when paid by capitalists

>>factory workers produce industrial goods
when paid by capitalists
>>engineers, computer scientists, etc. invent stuff
when paid by capitalists
>>accountants, managers and salesman keep the system running
when paid by capitalists
i love how you faggots think people will just do shit for free.

>Brazilian IP spewing marxist bullshit
Couldn't be any other way.

The invisible hand is the term you're looking for

Can you translate what the word say

>mfw i thought that was a whole bunch of power armor helmets

I'd prefer to live in an established economy where I, together with other workers, have the possibility of deciding what direction we want the system to go, and getting the share of the value produced by my labour, instead of being a servant of a parasite.

The US currently throws away about half the food it produces.

Explain that.

Those are american tanks ya dingus.

Why is the money on the hands of the capitalist in the first place? Can you even begin imagine anything that doesn't conform to capitalist ideology?

unless you mean oligarch, "the capitalist" is just another meaningless dehumanizing term, like "the Jew" or "the kulak".

>money comes from magic good feelings and not hard work
ok.

>Just saying it doesn't make it so

>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

>Then, by implication, you admit Capitalism is a centralized system,

All complex human civilization has been centralized.

Ever heard of the monarchy, oligarchy or theocracy?

>On all spheres, including the sphere that really matters: inside businesses.

In which case the owner has no private property rights and we go back to government (or commune) ownership of the means of production

Do you prefer the breadlines?

You see Pedro, when food expires you are supposed to throw it away. Eating expired food might make you sick.

There's nothing stopping you (in the US) from making an employee owned company.

It's a well established term: those who own the means of production and therefore live off profits, interest and rent.

>I'd prefer to live in an established economy where I, together with other workers, have the possibility of deciding what direction we want the system to go
In other words you want to be a capitalist. That's a good aspiration, but you need to create it for yourself in order to have it. Why are you even entitled to participate in an established economy?

this overproduction can be turned positive by legislature

dw.com/en/france-battles-food-waste-by-law/a-19148931

It comes from hard work. Something that capitalist don't do.

It's just incredibly inefficient

It's like having all the soldier in the military decide strategy instead of the general

Well get some proletariat friends and open up your own fucking company if it's so easy. Nobody will "exploit" you so you'll have all the money to share among your exploited friends.
Oh, wait, every single cooperative in this shithole of a continent doesn't do shit because the poor proletariat workers are too busy not working and stealing from each other.

What you actually want is people with guns to forcibly take other people's property and give it to you. Just admit it, man, you'll feel better after you do it. I bet you work at Petrobras, if you even work.

Actually, most thrown away food is due to 'sell by' dates set by companies, not expiration dates.

"The capitalist" is the guy who follows demand. Lately however banking has been taking a very very big role in the modern capitalism. The industrialist is no longer the main ruler of capitalism. The labor now is, many times, boureocratic work to keep accounting in order.

you are more leftist than us
captalism:workers work for the owner of the fabric
>lands, fabrics, banks etc belongs to the bourgeoisie
>the objective is the profit of the bourgeoisie
>the decisions are taken by the bourgeoisiefrom the market situation

comunism:
>the fabric is owned by the society, that works for itself
>collective property(socialized), the worker people own everything
>the objective is the welfare of society
now the most ironic part
>decisions are taken democratically by the society, that planifies the economy

Yes, common ownership of the means of production. Just saying it as if it was a heresy is not an argument. Why cant the system be run democratically, and not through private empires?

>people that create jobs by producing all kind of things are parasite
and this is why people starved to death in the soviet union and china, fucking parasites producing food , materials and jobs how dare they

Managing investments, r&d for new products/markets/technology, making sure competent people are being hired, starting the business with his capital and hardwork in the first place. Pushing a button or lifting boxes anyone can do, growing a successful business is only something a select few can do. Supply and demand, loletariat.

the capitalist owns the farm, maintains the farm, and pays the worker
the worker can quit whenever he wants the capitalist is invested in the farm and its success

Also, planned obsolescence is worse than overproduction.

Fucking with the free market bro.
You impose price ceilings and suddenly get ass fucks growing eighteen thousand ton of fuck corn and market for.it.

so you advocate for collectivization? prove that a bunch of bickering "proletarian" plebs can manage production better than a board of directors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33

Wow. I'm realizing something.

The people here really can't understand the fundamental difference between a class of people who have to sell their labor and a class of people who profit simply by being in possession of the means of production. There's only "the people" on one side, and "the government" on the other. The ignorance is absolutely unbelievable...

There a book you should read.
It's by a Mr. Thomas Sowell.
It talks about all the issues you're talking about.

How the hell is having too much food a bad thing? it's not like people don't need food

Don't forget the most important part, the owner actually gives a shit about the business. The workers have no stake, if the business runs into problems it's not their head. It's convenient to imagine "the capitalist" as a rich multimillionaire instead of a middle class guy that uses his own money, takes loans and stakes decades of his life because he wants to get rich.

dont you have a corrupt governmental system to defend and rainforests to raze to the ground so that you can use the shitty soil for a few years before its effectively subsistence level

See pic related

Redpill incoming: capitalism and communism are just 2 sides of the same shekel

>therefore live off profits, interest and rent.

Now you're conflating the finance system with actual production

Industrial capitalism produces things, so there's no reason

Interest and rent aren't actually productive, so they're not relevant when talking about industrial capitalism. That's finance capitalism which is jewish and inherent parasitical.

>Why cant the system be run democratically,

I already explained the price system and over/underproduction to you.

Having the workers decide policy is inefficient and hasn't been used in the entire history of human civilization.

You have to have managers in any system for it to function otherwise it's a disorganized, mess doomed for failure and disintegration.

>planned obsolescence

kek are you an actual communist?

yeah nothing in the USSR "ever" wore out did it? It could just be that consumer goods naturally wear out.

no there's just "private ownership" and "public ownership"

In a system with only public ownership you get the massive underproduction and over production I was talking about.

The bad part is how much is thrown away, while many people, even americans, can't feed themselves.

an orchestra usually fails without a conductor. There is no plan, there is no definition or motivation for coherence. It can definitely play, but its prone to error and lacks any sort of new interpretation and meaning.

I like how the guy on the left still has worried eyes in both versions, making his smile look insincere.. In the capitalism he's knows if he complains he'll get fired. In the right he knows if he complains he'll get killed.

Business owners initially work many many more hours than an average worker when starting out and growing their company, over half of which fail within a year, and takes much more agency/skill/initiative to do. Entrepeneurs work their asses off so theyre not mediocre Bernvictims.

You don't seem to realize that there's nothing wrong with a capitalist profiting by being in possession of the means of production. In fact, you too want to enjoy the very same profit, despite having done jack shit to create the means of production in the first place, unlike the capitalist.

>Communism
>Being retarded

Pick two

Yes the great American famine

millions die a year it's so sad. Unlike the USSR where...

Oh wait the USSR doesn't exist anymore never mind

>The workers have no stake

They have no stake precisely because the company doesn't belong to them. Circular logic is circular.

>yeah nothing in the USSR "ever" wore out did it? It could just be that consumer goods naturally wear out.
They never intentionally planned for things to wear out so people would have to buy new ones.

Two funny stories about this: when the berlin wall fell, everyone in germany wanted the far superior eastern german house appliances but they were made to last. The communists wanted to not waste resources.

Another case is when japanses cars hit the US market in the 70s and 80s. They were cheaper to fix, got better milage, and lasted a lot longer.

Intentionally destroying resources for short term profit is ultimately extremely destructive.

Where does the "capitalist" (Jew) get their "wealth" from then in the first place

Let's face it the modern economy is one big Jew lie

>Interest and rent aren't productive
U wot, m8. Do you even time preference.

I never said it was a famine, but it is obviously a failure of our economy that we have produce so much, but still have people that can't afford to feed themselves.

>You have to have managers in any system

You are confusing managers and capitalists. Just think for a minute and you'll realize the chasm that separates a capitalist from a wage laborer. That's the point.