/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.937855]

how long before you are all actually figure out how the fuck capitalism actually works and turn marxist?

[ScandinaviaBrah No.937865]

>>937855
Nice shitposting brah

[Anonymous No.937868]

Marxism only works in theory when you assume that everyone is inherently good. In practice, human greed will get in the way because we're all a bunch of egotistical pieces of shit.

[Anonymous No.937875]

>>937855
Here is my list of required readings before posting on the internet again. Thank you.

1. Thomas Mun - England's Treasure by Forraign Trade

2. Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations

3. Jean Baptiste Say - A Treatise on Political Economy

4. David Ricardo - The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

5. Robert Thomas Malthus - An Essay on the Principle of Population

6. Nassau Senior - An Outline of the Science of Political Economy

7. Frédéric Bastiat - The Law

8. John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism // On Liberty

9. Karl Marx - Das Kapital // The Communist Manifesto

10. Thorstein Veblen - The Theory of the Leisure Class

11. Vladimir Lenin - What Is to Be Done?

12. Arthur Pigou - The Economics of Welfare

13. Ludwig von Mises - Human Action: A Treatise on Economics

14. John Maynard Keynes - The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

15. Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

16. F. A. Hayek - The Road to Serfdom

17. John Kenneth Galbraith - The Affluent Society

18. Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom

19. Thomas Piketty - Capital in the Twenty First Century

20. Robert Reich - Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few

[Anonymous No.937878]

>>937855

>gimme dat

[Anonymous No.937883]

>>937855

>"I'm 20 years old and I've written a few essays for my Arts degree, so I can totally discuss this complex and emotionally charged subject with depth and clarity".

Why universities don't tell these kids to pull their heads in, I don't know

[Anonymous No.937885]

>>937868
capitalism doesn't even work in theory

>muh humin nature
you can do better than that

[Anonymous No.937888]

>>937883
not even in university

>>937875
debate me don't just give me a list of books

[Anonymous No.937896]

>>937885
Socialism doesn't work in theory, see the calculation problem.

Capitalism is based. Why don't your starving plebs make some money by providing other people with services? Are they lazy or stupid?

[Anonymous No.937909]

>>937896
there is no "economic calculation problem".
mises didn't know what he was talking about.

>Why don't your starving plebs make some money by providing other people with services? >Are they lazy or stupid?
lol. pic related

[Anonymous No.937913]

>>937896
>Capitalism is based
i think the situation most of the population of the world is in disproves that.

[Anonymous No.937918]

>>937875

>Implying I haven't rad those

[Anonymous No.937924]

>>937875
austrian school is hilariously stupid.
Keynesianism was powered by a postwar illusion, governments were already using those kinds of policies long before keynes.
Marx improved on all the classical economists, and he and Engels gave Malthus a treatment.
Lenin was only meh, and even he later changed his mind about a lot of "What Is To Be Done?", he thought it was outdated.
Marx thought the same thing about the Manifesto, especially the 10 planks.

[Anonymous No.937928]

>>937875
Great list!

[Anonymous No.937939]

1. Karl Marx - Das Kapital //Critique of the Gotha Programme // Communist Manifesto

2. Amadeo Bordiga - Party and Class // Murder of the Dead // Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil // The Democratic Principle // Marxism of the Stammerers // The Spirit of Horsepower // Fundamental Theses of the Party // Characteristic Theses of the Party // The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation // Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle

3. Anton Pannekoek - Party and Class // Workers' Councils // Trade Unionism

4. Herman Gorter - Open Letter to Comrade Lenin // World Revolution

5. Rosa Luxemburg - Reform or Revolution // Marxism or Leninism?

6. Paul Mattick - The Masses & The Vanguard // Marx and Keynes. The Limits of the Mixed Economy // Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory // Economics, Politics and The Age of Inflation // Marxism and Bourgeois Economics

7. Gilles Dauve - Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement // The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin

8. Lenin - The State and Revolution // Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder // The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism // The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky // What Is To Be Done?

[Anonymous No.937942]

>>937939
So what theory of value do you subscribe to? Is it what Marx lays out exactly?

Also, good list. I am definitely a capitalist but I always am looking for new things to read and challenge (or reinforce) my world views.

[Anonymous No.938002]

>>937913

>the situation most of the population of the world is in

You mean socialism? You are so fucking stupid you're accidentally arguing in favor of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.938005]

>>937855
It works for me
I like capitalism

[Anonymous No.938011]

>>937885
>That pic
I bet you think Venezuela is a well run country.

[Anonymous No.938132]

>>937896
>see the calculation problem.
The Lange model fixed any calculation problem.

>>937855
OP, I am a socialist but I want to transition to socialism through reform rather than revolution. Slow, steady steps.

Revolutionary Marxism doesn't work for a variety of reasons. Marx was still a genius though.

[Anonymous No.938141]

>>938132
>Marx was still a genius though.
Of course.

Other than the whole "Labor Theory of Value" thing though.

And the "Dialectical Materialism" thing.

And the entire "History is marching towards Communism" idea.

And the whole "I'm going to create an ideology without taking a single moment to observe the world around me, acquire economic data, or interview a factory worker or factory owner" thing.

And that period where he lived in England but refused to learn English.

And, well, y'know, really everything he ever did.

[Anonymous No.938230]

Socialism is a system which punishes success and rewards failure.

I love when liberals claim it's greed to keep the money I've earned, yet it's not greed for them to steal my money.

[Anonymous No.938245]

>>938132
> Lange model

Hypothetical bullshit with literally no evidence behind it. You'd think if it was so perfect someone would have successfully implemented it. Just like "perfect" competition.

[Anonymous No.938246]

>>938141
>And the whole "I'm going to create an ideology without taking a single moment to observe the world around me, acquire economic data, or interview a factory worker or factory owner" thing.
As an Econ graduate, my biggest complaint is that most economists make models based off their ideology, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.938251]

>>937855
Never because I'm not in highschool.

Why would you ever reward the laziest and unambitious people in society? It makes no sense.

I don't want money stolen from me for things I don't use. If I need them I'll pay for it when I need it.

[Anonymous No.938252]

>>937942
TSSI so far. As far as politics go I'm a left-communist.
And Thanks

>>938002
No. If you think any part of the world has or has ever had socialism, then you don't know what the word means. Socialism doesn't just mean "the guvment run biznusses"

>>938005
good for you, you don't care about anyone else in the world. bet you think the third world just is that way 'cause "bad luck".

>>938011
No, capitalism can't be "well run".

>>938132
>Lange Model
Lange model keeps commodity form, law of value still operates, still capitalist.

>Reformism
Reformism falls for the very bait the capitalists set, it thinks of the state as a neutral institution that capital will allow to enact policies that will harm itself. Capitalism does not work this way. You can't "reform" out the capitalism. Reformists fall for the illusion of bourgeois democracy. There is no such thing as democracy in capitalism. Every time reformism has gained control, it has turned its back to the working class.
But keep studying comrade! We have nothing to lose but our chains!

[Anonymous No.938256]

>>938252
>MY version of communism has never been tried!
>_______ Wasn't real communism!

Why do people ignorant of economics always say this?

Look at GDP per capita of the US vs communist countries.

[Anonymous No.938263]

>>938141
>Other than the whole "Labor Theory of Value" thing though.
Marginalism is hilariously shit.
see: >>938246
and pic related

>And the "Dialectical Materialism" thing.
Ever heard of Stephen Jay Gould? He might beg to differ. You are probably thinking of the Leninist bastardization of it.

>And the whole "I'm going to create an ideology without taking a single moment to observe the world around me, acquire economic data, or interview a factory worker or factory owner" thing.
Lol. Marx set new standards in terms of using data. He was also a fucking journalist. And his best friend, Friedrich Engels, was the son of a factory owner and he sent Marx data on the factory all the damn time!
From the fucking wikipedia entry on him:
"Marx goes on to illustrate how the same factors can in different historical contexts produce very different results, so that quick and easy generalisations are not really possible. To indicate how seriously Marx took research, it is interesting to note that when he died, his estate contained several cubic metres of Russian statistical publications (it was, as the old Marx observed, in Russia that his ideas gained most influence)."
Without interviewing a single factory worker you say?
Well about every 1 in 200 people in the entire world associated with the First International, which he was a major part of. Is that proof that maybe they saw something good in it?

>And that period where he lived in England but refused to learn English.
So what? He did learn to speak English though.

>>938230
You might be thinking of capitalism.
I hate liberals too. What you seem to not understand is that you are also a liberal.

>>938251
That's not how socialism works. Socialism =/= income redistribution. If you had any idea what you were actually talking about, you'd know you just made a great argument for socialism.

[Anonymous No.938271]

>>938256
nice meme. Want to enter an actual debate or just continue making strawmen.
By the way, I'm a unicorn. Because I said so. And anytime anything is claimed to be something that makes it true right?

All "communist countries" were capitalist. They had wages, profits, and the commodity form. There was the accumulation of capital. That is how we define "capital"ism. The stalinists, I shit you not, called it "socialist accumulation". This does not make it actually socialist.

[Anonymous No.938276]

>>938271
Keep crying faggot.

You're in the extreme minority and you'll always stay poor and wishing for a fantasy land.

How does it feel to know your mentally ill ideas are tolerated less and less and nothing in your head will ever come true?

Capitalism is here to stay and you will keep crying and crying.

[Anonymous No.938279]

>>938276

[Anonymous No.938281]

>>938276
you could, ya know, address my points?

[Anonymous No.938284]

>>938281
It's no use. You're mentally ill and no matter what anyone says it wont change your mind.

But can you please stay on revleft? This board is for discussion of business and finance, not makebelief fantasy about socialist utopias.

[Anonymous No.938292]

>>938284
You haven't said anything that I haven't refuted.
That doesn't make me "mentally ill". Are personal attacks the only response you are capable of?

[Anonymous No.938300]

All so-called communists are fairly well off first worlders who never knew the struggle.

The struggle is the best thing about capitalism, OP: being able to look back on your life, once you have met your goals, and relish in the strength it took to get there. Take away the struggle and you take away the biggest reward in life.

>It's about the journey, not the end result, you shortsighted edgelord

[Anonymous No.938306]

>>938300
lol
"the struggle is the best thing about capitalism"

>It's about the journey, not the end result, you shortsighted edgelord
don't try and existentialism this, people are starving to death

[Anonymous No.938309]

>>938306
No. They arent. Literally no one in America is starving.

[Anonymous No.938312]

>>938309
Who said America? Capitalism is a global system.

And for america:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States
No, most of these aren't "starving to death", but they are, what is the PC term, "food insecure".

[Anonymous No.938316]

>>938312
>capitalism is a global system
It most certainly is not. America is one of the only places on Earth that has ever run a pure capitalist system and the result was that electricity was harnessed, the car was invented, steel buildings were erected, the best schools on earth were created and the world literally flocked here to share in the wealth. The fuck you think your computer came from?

And 2 square meals a day is not starving. Are you really that Bernt out?

[Anonymous No.938321]

>>938306
"Much of the misery in the world is caused by the inadequate distribution of capitalism..."

[Anonymous No.938322]

>>938316
Capitalism ≠ muh free markets.
There has never been, and will never be "pure" free markets. They are a fiction.
Capitalism = The mode of production in which the commodity-form is dominant, and is driven by the accumulation of capital.

>And 2 square meals a day is not starving. Are you really that Bernt out?
I personally am not "food insecure". That does not mean it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.938323]

>>938321
It isn't just the distribution. The distribution is determined by the production. We must look to the productive process to find the source of the problem.

[Anonymous No.938331]

>>938322
You need a history lesson, young anon. Unfortunately, many of today's youth are ignorant of history. I definitely believe we will pay for this ignorance in blood within the next 10 to 15 years. The search for utopia has only ever yielded bloodshed

[ScandinaviaBrah No.938336]

>>937855
>people are still bumping this thread

Why doesnt capitalism work OP? I have everything i need due to capitalism

[Anonymous No.938344]

>>938331
The russian marxists didn't originally set out to reach communism at that point. The reason it degenerated was the failure of the worldwide revolutionary wave of the period. When the global revolutionary wave was VIOLENTLY CRUSHED by the social democrats, liberals, and fascists in each country, the USSR's fate was sealed to become the state-capitalist hellhole it was.

>>938336
What about the remaining population of the planet who don't get everything they need?

[Anonymous No.938347]

>>938331
The russian marxists didn't originally set out to reach communism at that point. The reason it degenerated was the failure of the worldwide revolutionary wave of the period. When the global revolutionary wave was VIOLENTLY CRUSHED by the social democrats, liberals, and fascists in each country, the USSR's fate was sealed to become the state-capitalist hellhole it was. They, only then, went after the bullshit "Socialism In One Country".

>>938336
What about the remaining population of the planet who don't get everything they need?

[ScandinaviaBrah No.938349]

>>938347
>What about the remaining population of the planet who don't get everything they need?

Ah youre that kind of person :^)

[Anonymous No.938352]

>>938322
Capitalism also isn't just dictatorships like your image implies, if you consider the great many successful democratic capitalist countries currently in existence. In comparison, full on socialism (not capitalism with a welfare state) has only been able to last for any amount of time under dictatorships, and even those die out after a while.

[Anonymous No.938355]

>>938349
What? That has empathy? One who can see how capitalism survives through imperialism and endless blood-lust? Yes, anon, I am "that kind of person".

[ScandinaviaBrah No.938359]

>>938355
nah your the kind of person that believe that communism will produce and employ the masses. your either a troll or someone who does not understand economics (probably the last one since you have been posting the entire day)

[Anonymous No.938362]

>>938352
>Capitalism also isn't just dictatorships like your image implies.
Yes, yes it is. It is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

>democratic capitalist
oxymoron

>successful
for whom?

>full on socialism (not capitalism with a welfare state) has only been able to last for any amount of time under dictatorships, and even those die out after a while.
There has never been "full on socialism". Ever. Anywhere. It is a categorical impossibility to have it only one country or region. It is, by definition, not true. It isn't just "my specific flavor socialism". No socialism. Anywhere. Ever. Just because they called it that doesn't make it so. They wouldn't know what socialism was if it hit him upside the head.

>>938359
In socialism, there is no "employ". The economics applicable to capitalism are, by definition, not applicable to socialism. In fact, "economy", in the way you are thinking, will be abolished. Communism is the material human community.

[mhy No.938376]

Any system can be abused, people are afraid of each other getting ahead so they instead try to keep each other down, because they fear their power will be taken away by people who don't care about them.

The only way to better today's society is to improve communication for people to understand each other and stop being afraid of each other so much that groups of people need to fight to keep each other down, 1% vs 99% or otherwise.

Besides financial systems, if people still see each other as mortal enemies, no system in the world will be fail proof.

[Anonymous No.938380]

>>938376
>Any system can be abused, people are afraid of each other getting ahead so they instead try to keep each other down, because they fear their power will be taken away by people who don't care about them.
I think you are probably thinking of the transition period. No need to worry, comrade, the soviets (workers' councils) are run from the bottom up, are fully democratic, and are delegative instead of representative.

>The only way to better today's society is to improve communication for people to understand each other and stop being afraid of each other so much that groups of people need to fight to keep each other down, 1% vs 99% or otherwise.
If this was the case, why is it not happening? There are certainly enough liberal do-gooders. The thing is that what you are describing is not the root of the problem. How we interact with others must be and is affected by the way we produce the very things we need to survive and keep society running.

>Besides financial systems, if people still see each other as mortal enemies, no system in the world will be fail proof.
But communism isn't a "financial system". There is no money in communism. In communism, comrade, there is the re-establishment of human community, the scientific planning of society.

[Anonymous No.938389]

Jesus these are babby tier arguments against Marx and Socialism
The only person who has brought something of merit is >>937896
Literally everyone else is using highschool level strawmen.

[Anonymous No.938394]

>>938359

The only place I know of in the world where "communism" is working is Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic. It's officially a part of Great Britain, but with limited resources, a population of 300 and being 1500 miles from the nearest town by boat, literally everybody, from the head of state down, has to make it work to survive.

Also if you want a good laugh on Socialism check out Sweden's HDI forecasts. Although being ScandanaviaBrah you're probably already well aware of it.

[Anonymous No.938400]

>>937909
Maybe those lazy, poor people should start their own corporations if they think they're being taken advantage of.

>>937913
Poor Spain ;_;

[Anonymous No.938403]

>>938252
>good for you, you don't care about anyone else in the world. bet you think the third world just is that way 'cause "bad luck".

They're like that because they're niggers, indians, etc.

Everyone except Japan and a few other countries is like that simply because they're not white. Even the poorest white countries (Eastern Europe) are still way ahead of anything in Africa or almost all of Asia. For them it wouldn't matter what economic system they use, genetics already sealed their fate until we have designer babies for everyone (everyone will become white then).

[Anonymous No.938407]

>>938400
It's literally impossible for everyone to run a corporation just saying
>maybe they should just create successful businesses
Is fucking retarded
If you're giving advice to an individual sure but we're talking about systemic issues. No matter how hard they work only a small minority get to hang out in the pig pen by design.

[Anonymous No.938408]

>>938407
I know not everyone can be successful, it's in the very definition of success. If everyone was successful then no one would be. These aren't systemic issues by the way, they're systemic features. You have a lot to contribute then you'll be handsomely rewarded, you don't then you're fucked and rightly so. The point is no one is stopping you from succeeding, the only reason you can't is because you're not good enough at which point why would anyone care about you? Also by the way the successful people also drag everyone upwards. That's why the rich countries today don't have child labors (although they might contract it from some shithole in Asia), the quality of life of some guy having a decent wage is higher than a medieval king or a roman emperor. Maybe even minimum wage too if he's clever about it (people forever on minimum wage are not clever about it).

Basically the winners win, the losers lose and the losers want socialism, communism etc. but of course they can't get it because they're losers! Everyone in the end gets exactly what they deserve.

[Anonymous No.938409]

>>937913
but its not our fault nigs would rather have us hire them to dig their own land than do it themselves

[Anonymous No.938413]

>>938362
You've defined all capitalist countries as dictatorships and defined socialism as so perfect a system that the USSR and Maoist China cannot be called socialist. That's great and all, but outside your socialist bubble most people rightfully recognise countries run by Marxists as being attempted socialism, and the fact that they failed so badly shows that putting in place massive central planning and the abolishment of private property is a terrible idea. The average person in developed, democratic capitalist country experiences a standard of living that for most of history would indeed be considered utopian. This is what capitalism has achieved, while as you are oh so aware socialism has not even come close to that, in fact it has created hellish conditions. Capitalism still needs to be tinkered with and reformed in certain places, but it doesn't need to be abolished. Although I would be quite happy to see another attempt at a socialist society crash and burn as they all do.

[Anonymous No.938419]

>>938408
That's hilarious
Not only does success in a capitalist system not need any sort actual talent or innovation those that do work hard are regularly fucked anyway. Also saying that those who get the short end of the stick won't get socialism because they're losers is rather stupid. It may not be twenty years before plenty of borgies are hung by lampposts on the street and socialist revolution started. You can't see the future and quite frankly nobody's position is ever truly secure.

[Anonymous No.938427]

>>938419
You don't need talent to be born rich, but you do need it to become significantly wealthier than you already are. Many people improve their station in life because they have a skill or ability that is rare and profitable. Talents by themselves are not valuable, they have to be in demand. Hard work won't get you that far if you are unskilled and unable to acquire any new skills.

[Anonymous No.938445]

>>938419
Really now? Why does Hollywood have success? It is a business after all. Would random people on the street make better directors? Would they make better smartphones than Apple or Samsung or whoever? Would they make better CPUs than Intel?

The socialist revolution will simply never happen with things going the way they're going. The only reason it happened in Russia is because the aristocracy was even worse (Nicholas was completely incompetent).

Also the losers do get some sort of help in the form of welfare and it's just enough to keep them content. A revolution would need someone powerful, smart, capable - all attributes that the successful have and they have no desire for a revolution for a system that works great. Back in the old days you were an aristocrat by birth or you were not so some good people were obviously not aristocrats and they could have organized a revolution or a coup or a revolt like Spartacus. There are no such people today wanting a socialist revolution because they're all winners now. The system works. You people are simply choking with resentment, I mean you want to hang people from lampposts because they're more successful than you. We can't have people more successful than me, that's "unfair".

Enjoy being a loser forever.

[Anonymous No.938542]

>>938312
the bush administration introduced the word "food insecure." I remember because the news was reporting sarcastically that the secretary of whatever had eliminated hunger in america.


Automation is capital working for a smaller group. Automation causes job loss.

[Anonymous No.938548]

>>938445
>capitalism is a meritocracy
lal
>>938427
>but you do need it to become significantly wealthier than you already are
Manifestly untrue. The most profitable thing you can do is own property, which does not require talent.

[Anonymous No.938588]

>>938548
What exactly are you implying here? If you want to make a massive profit in property or indeed anything else you are going to need to either be very lucky or very skilled. A rich person may have a high passive income from renting out properties, but that doesn't mean their actual rate of return is very high. If some college kid inherits 20 million, it will still be incredibly difficult for him to turn that money into a billion without that kid having something special about him or some serious luck.

[Anonymous No.938597]

>>938548
>lal
Solid rebuttal. And yes it's not a TRUE meritocracy because you have to account for corruption, human nature (you might be the best but no one will hire you if you look like a neckbeard autist who never bathes), nepotism. Actually the first one and last one are human nature too. Still it's closer to a meritocracy than socialism which is the exact opposite of one.

[Anonymous No.938609]

Muh Captialism

[Anonymous No.938612]

>>937855
never

I study econometrics, and much like Austrian school fairytales, Marxist "economics" don't work outside of the sociology department

They're nice ideas to think about though

>>937875
>all that 18th and 19th century reading

lmao

[Anonymous No.938614]

Laughing to the bank

[Anonymous No.938615]

All my ideas are original, I think on my own and make my own decisions.

The system is designed to help me not hurt me.

I am an American I am free.

[Anonymous No.938616]

They have my interests at heart.

[Anonymous No.938623]

The truth is we are all worthless.

You're spending your time arguing on a shitty image board.

Do you not understand the world? Do you not understand how to get ahead?

Read more into my pictures and realize the truth.

Use what I've given you and become rich, or you can rebuke it, the choice is yours.

That's the beauty of this world.

All are blind, but a few.

[ScandinaviaBrah No.938639]

>>938394
>Also if you want a good laugh on Socialism check out Sweden's HDI forecasts. Although being ScandanaviaBrah you're probably already well aware of it.

Swedish politics is always funny (luckily i dont live in sweden, if i did i would probably not find it funny lol)

[Anonymous No.938678]

>>937913
Not understanding the most basics of economics, literally all countries are slowly benefitting, look at how well countries like China and Africa are doing compared to 100 years ago. Even people in debt in America can sit in a park and bitch about it while drinking a fucking starbucks.

[Anonymous No.938716]

>>937885
>>937855
>>937913
>>938306
>>938355

gib-me-dats dont understand theyre really just anarchocapitalists

[Anonymous No.938720]

>>937855
If you really knew how it worked you'd be exploiting it and getting shekels. Or become ancap if you're still young and have hopes and dreams for humanity.

[Anonymous No.938734]

>>938271
>all communist countries were capitalist.

And why do you think that is? Maybe because communism in its purist form is IMPOSSIBLE. You feed into a centralized government pool so the gov't will fairly dole out the public works!? Fat chance.
You commies are the first to bring up the failure of capitalism through its corporate monopolies and unfair trade, but you're the first to want to implement the same thing on a national government scale. Kill yourselves; your arguments fall flat.

[Anonymous No.938739]

>>938251

Obviously you've never had a hard days work in your life.

People who get paid the least for what they do are far from lazy or unambitious. Uneducated? Probably. Disenfranchised? Maybe.

Also
>Implying rudimentary services based on socialism is a reward
>Implying you ever had ownership of any money in your possession

[Anonymous No.938745]

>>938251
>Never because I'm not in highschool.

Really? Because you sound like it you know, being in high-school. A lot.

[Anonymous No.939062]

>>938389
yes they are, but I'm hoping to come across at least some honest challenge/debate.

>>938394
The world has never seen socialism as a system (excepting the primitive form, which has been the majority of humanity's existence). Communism, the real movement, has existed and appeared all throughout recorded history.

>>938400
>Maybe those lazy, poor people should start their own corporations if they think they're being taken advantage of.
1. Productivity has continued to rise, how are they lazy?
2. This would just swap out who the worker was and replace them with someone else.
see >>938407

>>938408
>That's why the rich countries today don't have child labors (although they might contract it from some shithole in Asia)
You just explained how the rich haven't made things better, they've just re-organized the misery.

>Also by the way the successful people also drag everyone upwards
Not true at all. In many poor areas in the US, the infant mortality rate is higher than in "developing" countries.

> the quality of life of some guy |having a decent wage|
I found your problem

>Maybe even minimum wage too if he's clever about it (people forever on minimum wage are not clever about it).
I would like to see your math on that one.

>Basically the winners win, the losers lose and the losers want socialism, communism etc. but of course they can't get it because they're losers! Everyone in the end gets exactly what they deserve.
see: >>938419

>>938409
>history don't real

>>938413
We never changed our definition of socialism. Stalin proclaimed that the USSR had reached "socialism" purely as political maneuver. You have moved the goalposts, not us.

>The average person in |developed|, democratic capitalist country
found your problem, not that it would be relevant anyway.

>>938612
>Marxist "economics" don't work outside of the sociology department
Explanation please.

[Anonymous No.939091]

>>938734
>the entire post
We don't want to nationalize, we want to socialize.
We don't want the gov't to "fairly dole out the public works". We are making the entire working class (not as individuals, they would then just become the new bourgeoisie, but the entire class) the government. We don't want national government monopolies and "unfair trade", this is still capitalism. We want to abolish work in its present form

[Anonymous No.939097]

>>938739
Obviously you've never worked a day in your life. Shoveling snow doesn't magically mean your value as a person is 10x someone who runs a company. The market dictates the value of someone and they're compensated based on the value they provide.

Do you understand how hard it is to run a company ?

Communism has no place in society because the incentive structures are broken for human kind and dissolve it into a tyrannical state. Capitalism flourishes under the human condition and it's the reason you can shit post on your $2k MacBook you fucking twat. If it's so bad, then why has every country tried to move more towards a capitalistic system?

[Anonymous No.939103]

>>939091
>We don't want to nationalize, we want to socialize.
And how do you propose to "socialize" things without using the government to forcibly take them, which is the definition of nationalizing them?

>We don't want the gov't to "fairly dole out the public works".
So then how is it decided who will do what work, if not the government?

>We are making the entire working class (not as individuals, they would then just become the new bourgeoisie, but the entire class) the government.
So the people are the government, but no individuals are selected to control anything? How in the flying fuck does that work? Will you hire a shaman to read the "consensus" of the "working class"? Who gets to define what the "working class" is? It sounds an awful lot like you want a dear leader to make all these decisions via some magical connection to "the people" (ie his own corrupt whims).

>We don't want national government monopolies and "unfair trade", this is still capitalism.
National government monopolies and "unfair trade" is absolutely not capitalism. That is about the farthest thing from capitalism. It's literally anti-capitalism. Capitalism is defined by the absence of those things. The more government involvement in production and trade you have the less capitalistic you are. Seriously, what the fuck.

>We want to abolish work in its present form
Check out the chinese cultural revolution to see how this works.

>b-b-but that's not how R-REAL communism works
Yes it is you dumb faggot.

[Anonymous No.939125]

>>939103
>Your first three responses.
The working class is the class that does not own the means of production, the class that has nothing to sell but its own labor power. Capitalists and petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists), may voluntary hand over the means of production, in which case they join the working class.
The transition period might entail temporary nationalization, but the ability to actually socialize production hinges on the international spread of the revolution.
The state during the transition period isn't a state in the sense of the word you are thinking. It is a state because it is an apparatus used by one class to oppress and repress others, in this case, the workers to repress the capitalist class.
The "state" takes the form of armed workers' councils (soviets). Workers' councils are democratic and delegative, and every productive (working) member of society is part of them. Power runs from the bottom-up. Delegates go on mandates and are temporary and instantly revocable. These are extremely centralized, but democratic organs that are to be the iron fist of the working class. The soviets will run society during the transition period. They will expropriate the bourgeoisie, with violence if deemed necessary. Workers who have worked for the democratically decided working time will be given a labor voucher, a temporary, nonexchangeable, ticket, that grants them access to public warehouses which is where products are stored. The disabled and elderly are provided for, of course.

>capitalism = free markets.
No, see >>938322

[Anonymous No.939150]

Why the poor should be communist by /biz/

Capitalist argue:
>life is unfair deal with poverty and shove it up your ass

If that is the case why should the poor not rebel? If poverty is okay why is the expropriation of the bourgeoisie not okay?

Capitalist argue:
>muh natural rights, muh property is sacred, human nature
These are all concepts with not real proof.
Capitalist argue:
>humans are naturally greedy, communism relies on everyone being an angel
if humans are naturally greedy, why should the poor not play their role and revolt and be greedy? There is also the fact that laborers are not being greedy by not revolting, which means people are okay with sharing their labor.

Capitalist argue:
>Communism leads to an unelected unaccountable elite
How is that different from capitalism? Workers don't vote for their supervisors or their bosses, the power over someone's economic activity is no small deal. Workers today live under a system where they have to submit to others in order to have an income. At least in communism they auto-manage.

capitalist argue:
>capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, and communism creates poverty
If you are poor in capitalism then capitalism has failed you and a communist revolution at least brings the hope of a better system decided by the poor revolting class.

There are literally people in this world who have nothing to lose but their chains.

[Anonymous No.939159]

>>939125
>They will expropriate the bourgeoisie, with violence if deemed necessary.
>with violence if deemed necessary
>with violence
This is where all the appeal of your stupid fucking system falls apart. It's just a strong man stealing stuff he wants from people he doesn't like. This is exactly the reason every communist government so far becomes a third world shit hole within a generation. Beliefs like that are why communist countries have to keep people from escaping while capitalist countries fret about people sneaking in. The world has already played with communism like that too long and it has found it wanting. What you are asking for doesn't lead to utopia. It leads to useful idiots like you being exploited into supporting evil, yes evil, men who will starve and pillage their own countries for the benefit of themselves.

Capitalist countries aren't perfect, but there is a reason they look on communism with scorn. It's crystal clear you've never so much as talked to someone who has lived in a communist country before, much less one who has lived through the purges, the famines, the brutal repressions of all dissent no matter how small, the hopelessness of the poverty, the destruction of culture, the imprisonment of intellectuals, and the fear of being deemed "disloyal".

Fuck off and die.

[Anonymous No.939173]

for fucksake

capitalism > everything else

The human race has thrived off capitalism, without it we'd still be fucking cavemen

You can say how left-wing will work in theory, but in reality it turns into a fuck fest. For instance, lets look at all those lovely left-wing countries near the middle-east...oh fuck me guess what millions of people are migrating to the EU/UK as they know capitalism will save them. Capitalism works and the fact that you're safe and reading this on your lovely fucking laptop/computer proves that, stop being so idealistic and politically correct and open your eyes

[Anonymous No.939179]

In a democratic, law-based country with even a somewhat free market, dignity is the key to the fulfilled man. Laws are created to protect his dignity, to protect him from even the state itself. This enables ensured private ownership, leading to what you could call capitalism. Capitalism, not ever being a constructed ideology envisioned by one man, is imperfect, but it is acceptable in its imperfection because of the natural imperfections of man. Seeking not perfection but to supply demands, it provides a net benefit for everyone.

In a socialist/communist/marxist country, revenge on class enemies is the key to the fulfilled man, for it will lead to "ownership by the proles" or something similar. Therefore all the man needs to find is his enemies and something to beat them over the head with. Revenge must be violent, or carried out with threat of violence - you can't just convince your enemies to hand over everything to you. Seeking perfection, Marxism then sets about using the means that got it thus far - violence - to mold the perfect, "new" man. Seeking perfection, it makes everyone miserable and paranoid, even after the "class enemies" have been neutered. It promises people the world if they but avenge themselves on the "class enemies," but provides nothing after that.

Marxism is not wrong in just its economic thinking. Marxists gave up that fight long ago. Now instead they try to argue for its moral superiority. How laughable. It is clear that if one must choose between a system based on dignity or a system based on violence which one is more moral, and which one should produce a happier outcome.

In other words, Marxism sucks economically, politically, socially, morally. How long until you Marxists figure that out?

[Anonymous No.939183]

>>937855
Wtf does your shitty post even mean you stupid fuck puddle.

[Anonymous No.939189]

>>939159
>It's just a strong man stealing stuff he wants from people he doesn't like
except that "strong man" isn't an individual dictator like you imagine, it is the entire working class. The working class takes control of the means of production, and collectively run society.

>This is exactly the reason every communist government so far becomes a third world shit hole within a generation
The communist "government" includes all productive members of society organized democratically. What happened in the USSR was due to the failure of the international revolutionary wave, the plan wasn't to achieve socialism in the USSR at first, they were trying to make a more humanely managed capitalism while they waited for the revolution to spread into Europe, which it did (and was violently crushed by liberals, socdems, fasicsts, etc.). In the meantime, they also had to fight against the remnants of the monarchy, the budding capitalist class, and the armies of a couple dozen countries.
When the revolution was crushed internationally, it was also crushed in the USSR. The soviets (workers' councils) lost their power and were mostly dismantled and capitalism developed in Russia in one of the most brutal ways ever seen.

>>939173
The entire world has capitalism, that is the reason for the problem, not a lack thereof.

>>939179 & >>939183
did u even read the thread?

[Anonymous No.939190]

>>938588
Tell that to Paris Hilton, George W Bush and all the other fuckups who are still on top.
Business owners, landlords, property developers and speculators do not need to be skilled in order to profit. All that college kid needs is some financial advice and pretty soon he can be turning a profit.

>>938597
It's not a meritocracy at all. If I work hard, work smart, or help people I am not guaranteed to do well.
>socialism which is the exact opposite of one.
lal
The point of socialism is that a man is entitled to the sweat off his own brow.
>inb4 muh Soviet Union

>>939173
You're thinking of feudalism and slave economies, which were how we developed out of tribalism and caves.

[Anonymous No.939193]

>Following a theory that was not only made without observations of any kind, but has been falsified and proven disproven numerous times.
I'll pass, thanks.

[Anonymous No.939194]

>>939189
Yes.

Have you read the history of every single "communist" or "socialist" government to ever exist? Oh right, you already fell back on the "th-that wasn't true communism!" excuse.

Give me a break. "Communism in the USSR didn't work because the WHOLE WORLD wasn't communist." That's your excuse? You do realize that is absolutely impossible, right? That you have no actual ability to falsify your claims, and that therefore they're automatically bullshit?

Weak ass shit tbh fam

[Anonymous No.939199]

>>939193
It's almost like following Austrian "Economics"

[Anonymous No.939205]

>>939193
not true

>>939194
it isn't a no true scotsman if we never actually changed our definitions. No country has ever had communism, no matter how much the party claimed them to. If I just started claiming I was a cloud, there is nothing wrong with people saying that I am not a cloud, regardless if lots of people also start calling me a cloud.

>Communism in the USSR didn't work because the WHOLE WORLD wasn't communist
Correct, there is no way to transition to socialism when you are forced to compete on the world market place with capitalism, because this would require capitalist economic categories to persist within the economy, dooming you to continue to accumulate capital (i.e. still be capitalist). But the world revolution did actually make a lot of progress. The international workers' movement reared its head and showed itself to be a force to be reckoned with. The revolution made significant progress, but not enough.

[Anonymous No.939207]

>>939199
Why all the hate for the Austrian school?

>it's not a fallacy if I just use lingual loopholes to redefine victory
>literally moving the goalposts

Faggot.

[Anonymous No.939208]

>>939207
Meant to tag
>>939205

[Anonymous No.939210]

>>939190
> Business owners
> Don't need to be skilled in order to turn a profit

Yeah, you're full of shit. It's one thing to be born rich and let your money sit in shares or property, but running a business takes a lot of skill, not that you'd know anything about that. And you also seem to be ignoring that in order to BECOME rich, rather than be born rich, you need talent. Even the born rich have to have talent if they want to get very high rates of return, rather than merely getting 5% return on their admittedly large amount of wealth.

[Anonymous No.939214]

>>937855

I have problems with capitalism like you do, but to counter your argument...

> the year is 1850
> owning a 500sq ft home, having access to food, and water, and clothing, meant you were living "quite well"

> the year is 2015
> living in a 1,000sq ft house, and having access to merely food, running water, and entertainment is considered "being poor"

So what changed? Society's view on what comfort and success were. Why is that important? Respect and pussy.

Capitalism is competition. There will be winners, losers, and everything in between. Life is no different.

The problem we have now is too few winners, who want too many of the rewards.

[Anonymous No.939215]

>>939210
>It's one thing to be born rich and let your money sit in shares or property
So you admit that this is a possibility.
>but running a business takes a lot of skill
Who's talking about running a business, fam?
> in order to BECOME rich, rather than be born rich, you need talent
No, you just need something that people will pay for and you need to rub shoulders. Luck doesn't hurt either.

[Anonymous No.939217]

>>939214
the problem is capitalism is no longer necessary and can be replaced

[Anonymous No.939220]

>>937855

One more thing, if you are really against capitalism, go be Amish.

Live in a simpler time, without the need to compete and advance.

Fun fact: autism apparently does not show up in Amish communities. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.939223]

>>939217

capitalism was never necessary anon.

The simple point being, competition is deeply rooted in human nature. Not surprisingly, those that excel at it, don't complain.

[Anonymous No.939225]

>>939217
>capitalism is no longer necessary

Why is it always Marxists who make wild, meaningless claims? You literally throw all the shit you can think of, anything you can get your hands on, and if it sticks then all the better.

[Anonymous No.939245]

>>939217
Robertdowneyjrblackface.jpg

[Anonymous No.939253]

>>939223
Capitalism was definitely necessary - no other mode of production has been as productive or as efficient at creating growth.

>>939225
What do you propose we still need capitalism for? Why not make everyone pull their weight?

[Anonymous No.939254]

>>939223
um, for the majority of the time humanity has existed artificial "competition" / markets didn't exist. They are actually fairly new.

[Anonymous No.939263]

>>939254
So is the idea that the average person can have everything they need and control their own destiny. Everyone except the elite rulers used to be literally starving and live a very hopeless life. Have you ever taken a history lesson?

[Anonymous No.939307]

>>939263
>humans poofed into existence w/ tribalism then, slavery, and then kings and queens. >Hunter/gatherers never realed, duh, "Have you ever taken a history lesson?"
>Bonus points: we are all free and can control our own destiny

[Anonymous No.939326]

>>939307
Are you drunk, commie? You're typing like a fag and your pics all retarded

[Anonymous No.939352]

>>939326
>You're typing like a fag
i fucked up formatting on one line

>pics all retarded
how? it illustrates a bunch of examples of imperialism

[Anonymous No.939363]

>>938316
>America is one of the only places on Earth that has ever run a pure capitalist system and the result was that electricity was harnessed, the car was invented, steel buildings were erected, the best schools on earth were created and the world literally flocked here to share in the wealth. The fuck you think your computer came from?
Absolutely incredible ignorance. America has never been pure capitalism. Since day 1, America has been protectionist where it set up giant tariffs against imports and gave huge subsidies to domestic production. America was and has NEVER been a pure capitalist system. It's always been STATE capitalist.
>The fuck you think your computer came from?
The biggest selling computer in the world is composed almost entirely of government produced technology.

[Anonymous No.939365]

>>938336
>Why doesnt capitalism work OP? I have everything i need due to capitalism
Perhaps you have everything you need because you weren't the one in sweatshops producing what you use?

The level of ignorance is outstanding.

[Autosage No.939375]

>>937855
>turn marxist
You need to be 18 to post here, kid.

[Anonymous No.939381]

>>939363
Anarchy =/= capitalism. What you are suggesting is that government completely remove itself from the equation. Ludicicrous. Nothing about protectionist government policies goes against capitalism in any way. You are confusing pure free markets (economic anarchy) with capitalism. Also, you can't have your pie and eat it too: government can't levy "giant tariffs" *citation needed* against outside competition AND everything come from foreign sweatshops, (see >>939365)

I assume the "subsidies" you speak of in relation to the development of steel construction came in the form of public works projects, built by private companies. The school "subsidies" came in the form of grants. What anyone has against either of these things, I can't begin to fathom, but I am talking to a Marxist, so who knows?

As for your pic, if you believe the government at any point would have built personal smartphones or automobiles and distributed them to the citizenry, you are fucking high. The point isn't where the technology originated (lest you would like to go back to Edison and JP Morgan, government agents, no doubt). The point is that the average person doesnt have access to the technology without capitalism.

[Anonymous No.939390]

>>939253

No it wasn't.

Humans survived well for hundreds of years before capitalism. neccesary for what? comfort, competition, things...

that's my point. Humans could live and survive just fine without ever having a capital system, and without ever advancing in any way. but we do because it is rooted in our nature to create and build, and more specifically do it in a competitive way with each other.

[ScandinaviaBrah No.939403]

>>939365
>Perhaps you have everything you need because you weren't the one in sweatshops producing what you use?

Yea sure dingus. I think we can all agree on the fact that i dont live like a sweatshop monkey but thats not the point.

[Anonymous No.939405]

>>939403
And compare working in a sweatshop to what many of those people were doing before. How dare factory work paid for by someone on another continent move these people out of subsistence agriculture and peasantry and allow them to begin to accumulate capital of their own. The nerve, really.

[Anonymous No.939408]

>>939381
>Nothing about protectionist government policies goes against capitalism in any way. You are confusing pure free markets (economic anarchy) with capitalism.
YOU are the one who said America pursued "pure" capitalism. I merely pointed out how absurdly wrong that was. If you want to see what pure capitalism looks like, look at Somalia. No taxes. No regulations. No laws. Pure capitalism. It's a wasteland.
> government can't levy "giant tariffs" *citation needed* against outside competition AND everything come from foreign sweatshops,
We're talking about two different points in history relating to completely different markets. America was able to develop rapidly because it setup tariffs against superior foreign imports. It also heavily subsidised it's own industry.

>As for your pic, if you believe the government at any point would have built personal smartphones or automobiles and distributed them to the citizenry, you are fucking high.
Oh so you're saying that the government can spend trillions developing these cutting edge technologies but selling them in a fucking store is beyond their capabilities? Fucking KEK

It's the market that needs the state not the other way around.
>>939403
>Capitalist is good because I'm satisfied
>By the way I'm not a person who suffers from capitalism
Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.939410]

>>939390
>Humans survived well for hundreds of years before capitalism
yes

> neccesary for what? comfort, competition, things...
half-true, it was necessary, not anymore, capitalism has concentrated and multiplied the forces of production to the point where socialism is possible. In fact, capitalism is so productive that it isn't able to hold its own fruits of production within its social relations. Capitalism is marked with crises of overproduction. Capital doesn't meet needs, it operates simply to expand itself.

>it is rooted in our nature to create and build
yes, that is my point

> and more specifically do it in a competitive way with each other
Explain further, so far not buying it

[Anonymous No.939411]

>>939403
>awesome free capitalist country where everyone has everything they need
>shitty governent-run slave state where everyone works 20 hour days in sweatshops
>CAPITALISM IS EVIL GUYS IT TOTALLY ISNT GOVERNMENT THAT FUCKS THINGS UP

[Anonymous No.939414]

>>937855

the problem with socialism communism et al is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples $$$

you Marxist clowns are pushing a political ideology that centralizes power & control for a very few people using the legal system

i'd rather live in a free society where there is at least some accountability in real elections

[Anonymous No.939415]

>>939411
You have it so backward it's hilarious. It's the rich counties that have the huge state interventions. Just look at the size of the deficit in the USA. Poor countries with sweat shops aren't allowed to intervene into their economies because the WTO, IMF an World Bank will cut them off.

Rich countries are rich because they have government intervention.

Poor countries are poor because they DON'T have government intervention.

This isn't even a secret.

[ScandinaviaBrah No.939417]

>>939405
>>939411
this

>>939408
>Capitalist is good because I'm satisfied
yes
>By the way I'm not a person who suffers from capitalism

>suffers from capitalism
Nice meme. Nobody suffers from capitalism

[Anonymous No.939419]

>>939408
"Government is going to spend billions developing smartphones and hand them out to the citizenry along with cars, houses, clothes, televisions, computers and every other modern luxury. This will work perfectly. Everyone will totally get a perfectly equal share and this will be awesome, guys."

>This is what communists actually believe

[Anonymous No.939421]

>>939415
Poor countries still intervene, they just intervene in a way that confiscates the wealth of their peoples. It's how the elites before the industrial revolution made their fortunes, by leveraging government control to extort the less fortunate, and it's still a rampant practice in many parts of the world.

[Anonymous No.939426]

>>939417
>Nobody suffers from capitalism
>everyone is living in a paradise and no one experiences economic coercion, hunger or destitution

[Anonymous No.939427]

>>939415
Ok, buddy. You went way too deep into Alex Jones Youtube channel right there. If you really believe America has more government intervention than China, you might be retarded

[Anonymous No.939429]

>>939405
pic related

>>939411
government =/= socialism

>>939414
>communism + centralized power + legal system + not free
top kek

>>939415
might want to rephrase some of your points comrade, your feeding the delusion that the state is outside of capital's control

[Anonymous No.939431]

>>939419
I don't advocate that, I don't know about the other person though

[ScandinaviaBrah No.939432]

>>939426
>blaming the fact that everybody doesnt live in a personal paradise on capitalism

surely you arent that retarded

[Anonymous No.939435]

>>939431
Then, in your system, how do I get a new computer?

[Anonymous No.939437]

>>939417
>Nobody suffers from capitalism
Right because those billions of people without food aren't suffering. You are fucking brain dead.
>>939419
>"Government is going to spend billions developing smartphones and hand them out to the corporations along with cars, houses, clothes, televisions, computers and every other modern luxury. This will work perfectly. Everyone will totally get a perfectly equal share and this will be awesome, guys."

>This is what capitalists actually believe
>>939421
>Poor countries still intervene, they just intervene in a way that confiscates the wealth of their peoples.
Except they do the complete opposite. Their markets are completely liberalised to meet the requirements of the Washington consensus. The markets in poor countries have far less state intervention than rich countries. Pic related.
>>939427
>If you really believe America has more government intervention than China, you might be retarded
China is a country that has done miracle over the last 30 years because it has completely rejected the Washington consensus and embraced what's known as the "Beijing consensus".

China has HUGE state intervention and that's why 800million people have been pulled out of poverty.

[Anonymous No.939440]

>>939432
I blame the bad things that capitalism causes on capitalism. This is 4-year-old logic tbh fam.
>>939435
Go and make one, or else buy one from a business that makes them.

[Anonymous No.939442]

>>939429
>might want to rephrase some of your points comrade, your feeding the delusion that the state is outside of capital's control
I don't follow?

Capitalists are trying to strip back the state in every rich country through the perversion of Neoliberalism and prevent developing countries develop with the same Neoliberal doctrine. It's just an international division of labour.

[Anonymous No.939444]

>>937855
Can we all just agree that hunter gather was best system?

[ScandinaviaBrah No.939447]

>>939444
I agree. Everyone can just pick up what they want.

[Anonymous No.939454]

>>939437
Most African countries are hardly liberalized. Many southeast Asian countries are socialist or were. Much of South America has fallen into juntaism or radical left groups.

Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea liberalized and became vibrant economies, their people much, much richer than their neighbors. Malaysia, coming from the British and being more liberal, is much richer than neighboring Indonesia.

I'm just saying, most poor countries do not follow that model and they are still struggling to grow. If you're going to sound self-righteous and all-knowing, try not being so obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.939455]

>>939442
i got wary of the "pure capitalism" rhetoric from before, and the encouragement of lange model

[Anonymous No.939459]

>>939437
>China has HUGE state intervention and that's why 800million people have been pulled out of poverty.

The growth occurred only after they shifted toward a system of private ownership. Capitalism was the cause of the growth.

[Anonymous No.939463]

>>939444
>>939447
This is what communism is about. It is re-establishing the community that was lost with the advent of agriculture, but with technological advancement

[Anonymous No.939464]

>>939459
Yeah, and don't forget how China's Communist Party convinced millions of ordinary Chinese to invest in the stock market irresponsibly just to boost their flagging growth numbers, then made them eat those losses from the bubble that made this summer.

State capitalism a shit.

[Anonymous No.939465]

>>939459
capitalism is more than just private ownership
China has been capitalist for a long time

[Anonymous No.939467]

>>939454
>Most African countries are hardly liberalized. >Much of South America has fallen into juntaism or radical left groups.
Africa and South America are the two regions of the world which are the MOST liberalised. They have the fewest restrictions on trade which is why the West is able to buy their produce at such cheap prices. It's Africa and Asia that are the biggest examples of Washington consensus policies.
>Japan and South Korea liberalized and became vibrant economies
Oh boy. You picked literally the WORST 2 examples to prove capitalism works.

South Korea chaebol and Japanese keiretsu are the two CLASSIC examples of state backed enterprises and central bank intervention.

You literally got everything backward in your post. It's like you did it on purpose or something.
>>939455
The Lange model fixes the "calculation problem". Whether it's good or bad is a different topic.
>>939459
There is no private ownership in China. Every major company has state ownership.

[Anonymous No.939468]

>>939467
>Whether it's good or bad is a different topic.
point taken

[ScandinaviaBrah No.939470]

>>939463
Sure thing Ivan :^)

[Anonymous No.939472]

>>939463
>re-establishing the community that was lost

If technological advancement was possible without loss of "the community" it would have happened first. Who are you to force others to take part in your own romanticized fantasy.

[Anonymous No.939476]

>>939467
>liberalism without guaranteeing private ownership and individual rights

Yeah, African countries are not good examples of politically liberal countries at all. And you act like low production costs are bad - those countries are also able to have goods cheaper. You bragged about smart phones being developed by government technology, but it took the market to get them out there to people; you'll find tons of people in South America have phones now. That's a huge difference in wealth from just ten years ago. The fact of the matter is that everyone wants to produce for a lot so they get paid a lot, but they want to buy cheap - in reality, more people benefit from cheap products than from enriched workers in a single industry.

And yes, but Japan and Korea's state policies have come back to bite them in the ass, but the point is that they were more liberal than their neighbors, and the results show up in their economic growth statistics for the past few decades. Check Vietnam's economy before they liberalized, check China's - they don't even have to go full-on free market but their productivity and wealth skyrocket.

[Anonymous No.939477]

>>939215
Of course being born rich is a great deal in life, there's no argument there. But you seem desperate to deny the existence of the many entrepreneurs who went from the middle class to being multi-millionaires or even billionaires. These people had to have talent, original ideas and a work ethic. Finding something people want to pay for is surprisingly difficult, otherwise you'd be doing it yourself.

[Anonymous No.939482]

>>939472
>If technological advancement was possible without loss of "the community" it would have happened first
You do understand that over the course of 10,000 years things can change, right?

>Who are you to force others to take part in your own romanticized fantasy.
A member of the exploited class.

[Anonymous No.939483]

>>939476
"Hey I still live in a tin shed, and don't have enough food to eat, but at least I have a phone, because it is necessary for my job. Thanks Capitalism!"

[Anonymous No.939485]

>>939476
>eah, African countries are not good examples of politically liberal countries at all.
They have the lowest tariffs in the world. They lower them ever year. Comparatively, Germany has the highest and is arguable the BEST capitalist country in the world.
>You bragged about smart phones being developed by government technology, but it took the market to get them out there to people
NO you completely misunderstood. The government produced technology to GIVE to the market. It's a form of socialism for the rich.

The government could easily open up stores to sell phones in. It doesn't because it's role is to help big business.
>And yes, but Japan and Korea's state policies have come back to bite them in the ass, but the point is that they were more liberal than their neighbors, and the results show up in their economic growth statistics for the past few decades.
I have no idea where you getting any of this from. Japan and South Korea are the LEAST liberal. They have giant conglomerates backed exclusively by the state. They have huge bank lending and absurdly low costs etc.

[Anonymous No.939489]

>>939485
>It's a form of socialism for the rich
Comrade, socialism =/= government giving people free stuff. This is what I was talking about.

[Anonymous No.939495]

>>939489
"Socialism for the rich, capitalist for the poor". It's just an expression on how the rich rely on state handouts but the poor are expected to work harder.

Of course socialism actually means worker ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.939496]

>>939483
>meaningless snark

It sure as fuck beats what they had beforehand. Jesus, you guys only deal in idealized absolutes. No wonder you're always so mad and angsty.

>>939485
Germany had great economic success prior, and higher tariffs cannot dampen that. The tariffs exist in spite of their economic growth, not because of it. African countries need to attract investment because they don't have as much capital already inside their country. That's pretty obvious.

And the government didn't produce that technology for the rich, it produced it for its military and spy programs you chucklefuck. But once the technology exists, it can be used elsewhere. Like gunpowder was once used for fireworks, the technology existing allowed cannons and then guns to be made.

And I was pointing to Japan versus China, South Korea versus North Korea. Plain comparisons of wholly state controlled economies versus nominally liberalized states - the result is plain. My point was that even if the government is still present, having a market system unlocks the economic potential of a country. Marxism a shit.

[Anonymous No.939506]

>>939496
>It sure as fuck beats what they had beforehand
no wonder you thought the "snark" was "meaningless". u missed the entire point!

>African countries need to attract investment because they don't have as much capital already inside their country. That's pretty obvious.
And why might that be Anon? Is pic related?

[Anonymous No.939508]

>>939496
>Germany had great economic success prior, and higher tariffs cannot dampen that. The tariffs exist in spite of their economic growth, not because of it.
Germany succeeds more than any country in Europe despite having higher tariffs. That tells you something about muh free market.
>African countries need to attract investment because they don't have as much capital already inside their country.
Except look at the GDP growth rates of African countries up until the 70s. They were very good. In the last 40 years under the hand of the trade liberalisations GDP growth is down by two thirds.
>And the government didn't produce that technology for the rich, it produced it for its military and spy programs you chucklefuck.
Defense spending is done for the rich. Ever heard of the military industrial complex?
>And I was pointing to Japan versus China, South Korea versus North Korea. Plain comparisons of wholly state controlled economies versus nominally liberalized states - the result is plain.
This is obviously a bait and switch. North Korea and Mao's China are completely unrelated to the discussion of state capitalist countries like South Korea/Japan and Liberal countries like the poor African countries.

[Anonymous No.939511]

>>939495
Sure, I've heard of it. It's a liberal slogan. And when we use it does nothing but feed the idea that the gov intervention/welfare = socialism.
Normally, I wouldn't be so nitpicky, but we must be careful around here.

[Anonymous No.939515]

>>939511
But on the other hand, socialism and communism are sometimes differentiated as state ownership vs. co-operative ownership.

[Anonymous No.939522]

>>939515
only since lenin forgot 2 dialectics and he called lower-phase communism/transition period "socialism" and accidentally created the foundation for the "leninist" revisionism that thinks of "socialism" as a mode of production between capitalism and communism.
pic unfortunately related

[Anonymous No.939527]

>>939506
No, it's because even before Africa was colonized they had not produced much in terms of capital. No real mining, no real lumbering, no real construction, no education, hardly anything existed in Africa and most of its people lived semi-nomadic or in tribal feudalism. That was not the fault of Europeans, although the Europeans did bring a wave of new development throughout the continent. It actually cost Europeans to build their empires, they did not make money off of it because imperialism was an ideological position that called for showing off your might any way you can, even if it meant spending tons of the peoples' (and, note, the riches') money just to acquire a chunk of useless clay that would not provide an economic return.

>>939508
They had success BEFORE. They had great success and had highly developed industry before their modern day economic policies.

And of course GDP growth slows - China's is slowing right now. As a pile of money grows bigger, growing that pile by the same amount grows it by a smaller percentage. This is a simple statistical fallacy.

Defense spending is not done for the rich, it is done for the government. I swear, I'm starting to believe the military-industrial complex is a boogeyman, because there is no way the rich could just get a democratic country to send troops away to fight a war just to make money, not in a post-Vietnam world where even the slightest intervention could cost you your re-election and your fortune.

>This is obviously bait and switch
You say as you switch topics because you can't refute this simple fact: markets, even with governments involved, are superior to Marxist total control of the economy. And no, South Korea and Japan are not good examples of state capitalism. China right now is state capitalism, because the totalitarian party controls all trade at the end of the day and takes its cut, and North Korea is still total state control.

[Anonymous No.939528]

>>939515
communism isn't really co-operative or state ownership. it is the abolition of ownership really. "ownership" isn't really an idea that would make sense to someone born in a communism. For the same reason hunter/gatherer's didn't think of themselves as "owning" their tools, land, or animals.

[Anonymous No.939531]

>>939528
>he thinks that hunter-gatherers didn't have concepts of ownership

It might not be the modern day era ownership, but it was ownership nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.939534]

>>939508
> North Korea and Mao's China are completely unrelated to the discussion of state capitalist countries like South Korea/Japan and Liberal countries like the poor African countries

So basically every example of a Marxist country is a failure and so you have to use examples of capitalist countries to score points against other capitalist countries. Interesting. Personally I think that a good combination of government and market is the best way to economic success, but please go ahead and assume that abolishing the market entirely is the best solution based on no evidence whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.939537]

>>937913

>Blaming Africa's sorry state on private ownership of capital and not imperialism and African post-imperial institutions

[Anonymous No.939539]

>>939527
literally, just google what you paraphrased me as saying. The entire green except for the "he thinks". Select, copy, paste into google, faggot

[Anonymous No.939542]

>>939537
>implying private ownership of capital has nothing to do with colonialism.
>implying colonialism and imperialism are the same thing
>implying there is a "post-imperial" Africa

[Anonymous No.939548]

>>939539
>telling someone to go educate themselves

SJW-tier argumentation. Opinion discarded.

And were you meaning to tag >>939531 and not the previous post? Fuck, get it together man.

>>939542
>capitalism is literally everything I dislike

I think some dirty capitalist dropped you on your head when you were young.

[Anonymous No.939555]

>>939508
>North Korea and Mao's China are completely unrelated to the discussion of state capitalist countries
u wot m8?
See what I mean? it leads to bullshit strawmen like: >>939534

[Anonymous No.939560]

>>939548
>And were you meaning to tag >>939531 and not the previous post?
Yes I did, thanks.
>Fuck, get it together man.
I made a simple mistake, get over it.

>capitalism is literally everything I dislike
I have given a very precise and reasonable definition multiple times. >>938322

[Anonymous No.939615]

>>939062
>1. Productivity has continued to rise, how are they lazy?
Thanks to the innovations brought forth by capitalism. Subsistence farmers in some african hellhole are still a few centuries back.

>2. This would just swap out who the worker was and replace them with someone else.
Yes but that worker who left could start his own business if he's so dissatisfied.

>You just explained how the rich haven't made things better, they've just re-organized the misery.
They've made things better for their own country. Why do they have any obligation to make it better for africans or south-east asians? Why can't africans or south-east asians make things better for themselves?

>Not true at all. In many poor areas in the US, the infant mortality rate is higher than in "developing" countries.

>I found your problem
A lot of people have good wages. You don't actually need a lot of money to live well. One thing a decent wage won't do is quell your resentment over other people having yachts or whatever.

>I would like to see your math on that one.
I admit it's a bit of a stretch but you can make it work with minimum wage for a while. This is under the assumption that your job is only a temporary thing until you move on to something better. People forever on minimum wage are idiots and there's no helping them no matter what.

[Anonymous No.939821]

>>939150
>Capitalist argue:
>life is unfair deal with poverty and shove it up your ass

Actually we argue that you should try to make something of your self. If you can't then tough luck, you have no one but yourself to blame. This is of course if you're not in some shithole inhabited by monkeys like every sub-saharan country.

>if humans are naturally greedy, why should the poor not play their role and revolt and be greedy? There is also the fact that laborers are not being greedy by not revolting, which means people are okay with sharing their labor.
I like how nowhere do socialists argue that the poor should contribute something to the society that gave them everything. It's all "if I can't have what they have I'll bring the system down!".

>If you are poor in capitalism then capitalism has failed you and a communist revolution at least brings the hope of a better system decided by the poor revolting class.
No, if you're poor in capitalism you simply failed and naturally want to blame someone else for your failures which is why you'll always be a failure. What exactly stopped you from succeeding besides your own incapacity to do so?

[Anonymous No.939828]

>>939190
>Tell that to Paris Hilton, George W Bush and all the other fuckups who are still on top.
Yes a few exceptions totally invalidate all the hard working people at the top. I don't really see the problem with GW Bush except that the media demonized him because he was a republican. Anyway I don't see a huge problem with parents helping their kids. If you feel so strongly about that not happening I propose you have some children then throw them in the street once they're 15 and tell them to fend for themselves.

>Business owners, landlords, property developers and speculators do not need to be skilled in order to profit. All that college kid needs is some financial advice and pretty soon he can be turning a profit.
There's plenty of incompetent CEOs who tanked their company. Even if you didn't need much skill to turn a profit, the CEO of your competitor might be a very skillful person and he'll just crush your company eventually.

>It's not a meritocracy at all. If I work hard, work smart, or help people I am not guaranteed to do well.
You're not guaranteed anything in life, shocking. You sound like those "nice guys" who are "great" on paper but for some reason those dumb girls don't want anything to do with. Of course you seem like a massive idiot so I very much doubt you're capable of working hard or smart.

>The point of socialism is that a man is entitled to the sweat off his own brow.
>inb4 muh Soviet Union
Well you see I actually come from an ex-communist country which was a shithole for a decade after communism and now it's just getting better and better thanks to communism. No one wants communism back. In fact you can go to any Eastern European country and ask people if they want communism again. The answers might shock you. And don't give me that shit that true socialism has never been tried, true capitalism has never been tried either. But we can look at the flawed implementations of both and one is the overwhelming winner.

[Anonymous No.939831]

>>939189
>The communist "government" includes all productive members of society organized democratically. What happened in the USSR was due to the failure of the international revolutionary wave, the plan wasn't to achieve socialism in the USSR at first, they were trying to make a more humanely managed capitalism while they waited for the revolution to spread into Europe, which it did (and was violently crushed by liberals, socdems, fasicsts, etc.).

You phrase this as if the socialist revolution was a peaceful thing that was crushed by those mean fascists and not in fact even MORE VIOLENT than its crushing.

[Anonymous No.939839]

>>939205
>Correct, there is no way to transition to socialism when you are forced to compete on the world market place with capitalism
So socialism has to be implemented globally because it can't compete with capitalism otherwise? Wow, where do I sign up for such a sweet ideology?

[Anonymous No.939856]

As someone as anti-capitalist as myself, Marxism has several theories that are extremely valuable but to consider everything he did as true or beneficial would be to miss the point.

Any sort of blind-ism is more of a hinderence as you look at everything through that lens.

Arguably though, it was Marx who changes most people.

[Anonymous No.939871]

>>939410
>Explain further, so far not buying it
Those tribes we had before agriculture were competitive too. Their competition consisted of killing one another. Competition, wanting to dominate one another is just who we are as humans. That's why we went from tribes to cities, then to country, empire etc. Those countries and empires were made possible by dominating everyone else in their vicinity until they met a country or empire that they couldn't dominate. Of course this is simply lost on some dumb kid posting cringe-worthy pictures as arguments. In the hunter-gatherer times you'd simply be the omega male of the tribe which I imagine would be a far worse fate than being a loser in a capitalist society. You simply don't want competition because you'll be on the losing side (that's why you want socialism). Animals do this too by the way, it's just that they're less organized than us (that's why we're better than them).

By the way, are you that idiot from /pol/ who always claims socialism will come and the economic evolution is something like feudalism->capitalism->socialism->communism?

[Anonymous No.939910]

>>939615
>Thanks to the innovations brought forth by capitalism. Subsistence farmers in some african hellhole are still a few centuries back.
>Yes but that worker who left could start his own business if he's so dissatisfied.
are you gonna ever stop dodging my points

>They've made things better for their own country. Why do they have any obligation to make it better for africans or south-east asians? Why can't africans or south-east asians make things better for themselves?
Because they are using them to enrich themselves, while making things much worse for those in the third world, that is what imperialism is all about (see the posts earlier about the IMF and such). And it isn't just western capitalists that are the problem. The "third world" has its own capitalists which are oppressing the workers there, keeping them from "making things better for themselves"

>A lot of people have good wages. You don't actually need a lot of money to live well.
The cost of living has continued to rise, but wages have not, so bullshit.

> you can make it work with minimum wage for a while
see above point

> This is under the assumption that your job is only a temporary thing until you move on to something better. People forever on minimum wage are idiots and there's no helping them no matter what.
So anyone, anytime, could get a better job that pays higher than min wage, or just "work harder"?

>>939839
nice, take what i said out of context
great refutation

[Anonymous No.939914]

>>939856
okay, what are the alternatives

[Anonymous No.939920]

>>939821
>you have no one but yourself to blame
How do you figure? Why are those born in poverty typically stuck in poverty, and those born rich much more likely to stay rich, with the tendency being to put more and more into poverty?

>I like how nowhere do socialists argue that the poor should contribute something to the society that gave them everything. It's all "if I can't have what they have I'll bring the system down!".
The poor contribute everything to society. Most poor people aren't just lazy "gib me free stuff" types. Many on welfare are fully employed.

>What exactly stopped you from succeeding besides your own incapacity to do so?
So we do live in a meritocracy?

[Anonymous No.939933]

>>938347
bullshit, radicals used a crisis and uneducated plebians to take over the russian government, leadings to one of the greatest cultural destructions in the history of the world, making what hitler did to german culture look like child's play. churches toppled, intellectuals murdered, technology stifled, millions starved to death. brain drain from the soviety union continued well into the 1980s, when american physicists saw the labor market for their STEM work flooded still by people escaping the soviet union.

it was a fucked up culture.

ALWAYS capital and control is concentrated in the top 1% of a civilzation. this is true for communism and capitalism.

one could say there's not much difference between the two. all this arguing is hilarious. ("my method of cultural control and concentrating power in the top classes is better than your method!!!").

the difference is that capitalism lets the underclasses live a more luxurious lifestyle. russian peasants struggled to get food. our underclass has had a serious obesity problem for a while now.

[Anonymous No.939940]

>Even if you didn't need much skill to turn a profit the CEO of your competitor might be a very skillful person and he'll just crush your company eventually.
>implying monopolies don't real

>But we can look at the flawed implementations of both
No, because they didn't even TRY to reach socialism in those countries. see >>939189, >>939062, >>938271

[Anonymous No.939943]

>>939933
did u even read the thread? see >>939189, >>939062, >>938271

[Anonymous No.939948]

>>939871
Bull-to-the-shit
"Anthropologists engage in ongoing debate on the phenomenon of warfare among tribes. While fighting typically and certainly occurs among horticultural tribes, an open question remains whether such warfare is a typical feature of hunter-gatherer life, or an anomaly found only in certain circumstances, such as scarce resources (as with the Inuit or Arabs), or only among food-producing societies.[8][9] There is also ambiguous evidence whether the level of violence among tribal societies is greater or lesser than the levels of violence among civilized societies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

>>939821
>This is of course if you're not in some shithole inhabited by monkeys like every sub-saharan country.
Oh, so wouldn't this mean, because you are referring to over half the population, that capitalism "forgets about human nature".

[Anonymous No.939974]

>>937855
MUH RICH ELITES STEALING MUH MONEY
MUH BANKERS MUH BONUSES
MUH WALL STREET

[Anonymous No.939976]

>>938230
This post is correct

[Anonymous No.940008]

>>939910
>are you gonna ever stop dodging my points
Your points are dumb images because you're too dumb to articulate your points. That graph is US only for one, secondly people in 2015 have much higher standards of living than in the 1970s, third there might be a lot of benefits that are given like health care etc by your employer so your overall compensation is lower. Anyway if you're dissatisfied with your wage either get a better job or start your own business. No one's putting a gun to your head to get a job you don't want. If you feel so exploited by capitalism and are too much of a loser to do any of those things you can go live in the wild with all the lefties or move to Siberia or whatever. There's plenty of uninhabited places free from the evils of capitalism.

>Because they are using them to enrich themselves, while making things much worse for those in the third world, that is what imperialism is all about (see the posts earlier about the IMF and such). And it isn't just western capitalists that are the problem. The "third world" has its own capitalists which are oppressing the workers there, keeping them from "making things better for themselves"
Good for them for enriching themselves. As for those third world countries, who gives a fuck? Like I said, I'm from an EE country and the GDP per capita when communism fell was practically Africa-tier. Now 25-years later (including a lost decade mind you) we're all much better off. Still lagging quite a bit behind Western countries but then again they had a head start so what can you do. The current third worlders should stop placing the blame on anyone but themselves.

>The cost of living has continued to rise, but wages have not, so bullshit.
If you flip burgers for a living you're going to have a hard time. A lot of people in capitalist countries seem to be doing quite well and for the rest they get welfare so they keep their mouth shut. The system works!

[Anonymous No.940013]

>>939910
>see above point
Ok maybe the minimum wage thing was a bit of a stretch but you can still get a few other minimum wage people and pitch in for a place to rent whatever. Point is you shouldn't rely on fucking minimum wage your entire life.

>So anyone, anytime, could get a better job that pays higher than min wage, or just "work harder"?
Of course not, the thing is losers such as yourself will never even try. You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that capitalism has winners and losers (which contrasts with communism where there are only losers except maybe for the party members). You seem uncomfortable because you're a loser.

>nice, take what i said out of context
>great refutation
That's what you said. That's why you said socialism needs to be implemented globally, because it would not be able to compete with capitalism. Isn't this proof positive that capitalism is superior?

[Anonymous No.940020]

>>939920
>How do you figure? Why are those born in poverty typically stuck in poverty, and those born rich much more likely to stay rich, with the tendency being to put more and more into poverty?

Those who are born in poverty today are usually dumb because their parents are dumb. That's why their parents are poor to being with. It's called genetics. Of course with genetics you could have two dumb parents have a clever child and that clever child might succeed.

>The poor contribute everything to society. Most poor people aren't just lazy "gib me free stuff" types. Many on welfare are fully employed.
The welfare is paid by the rich. In the United States the bottom 60% don't even pay 10% of the income taxes. Of course there's also corporate taxes (which are basically again the rich paying). The poor are the biggest bunch of ingrates in first world countries. Not only do they have barely anything to contribute (hence being poor) but they're basically subsidized by the rich.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/
This specifically:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ft_15-03-23_taxesind/

>So we do live in a meritocracy?
Of course. There's plenty of rags to riches tale showing it can be done. Hell if we look a little while back, a certain starving austrian artist become the leader of the Third Reich. It's all up to the individual. If you're weak and stupid of course you're never going to accomplish anything, that's the definition of being weak and stupid. You seem to think everyone owes you something when in fact no one owes you anything.

[Anonymous No.940034]

>>939948
>Bull-to-the-shit
I seem to remember reading something about how 80% of early human deaths was the result of other humans. Anyway I can't find the link now so ignore that. What you quoted basically said it's inconclusive so again it could go either way. What is certain however is that at one point humans started organizing themselves better and competing (which includes killing among other things) and civilization only advanced from there.

>Oh, so wouldn't this mean, because you are referring to over half the population, that capitalism "forgets about human nature".
Capitalism isn't sentient, it didn't forget anyone. Those people in third world countries don't really have anything to contribute. They're simply dumb monkeys. I mean look, Europe has like 700 million people and look at how much it has contributed (basically everything historically) and how much it's continuing in contributing. And people even pay them for their contributions! Of course now we also have great countries like Japan or the USA. India has over a billion people and it's LITERALLY a shithole. Indonesia has 250 million people yet it produces fuck all for instances. I mean it produces something no doubt but I never heard about anything from there. Nigeria has 170 million and it's in the same boat. Bangladesh has 150 million and all I know about it is that it has sweatshops. The uncomfortable fact is capitalism simply made obvious that certain people simply have nothing to contribute (how could they, sub-saharan Africa didn't even have a written language before the europeans came). They have the people, they have the natural resources, they have plenty of land. The only thing that's stopping them is their utter inferiority. Also specifically to the guy who said that african countries are bad because low tariffs and less government intervention: that counts for nothing if they have no fucking infrastructure to do anything and their leaders too incompetent to do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.940041]

>>940034
I'm with this guy

[Anonymous No.940329]

>>937855
Marxism isn't about saying "fuck capitalism" it's about making it evolve. I've seen some corps already do something like this by offering stock options to employees.

[Anonymous No.940338]

>>940034
>I seem to remember reading something about how 80% of early human deaths was the result of other humans.
I'm not disagreeing with anything else you've said but this statistic is almost certainly horseshit. Early humans likely died almost exclusively of disease, famine, and injury unrelated to other humans. Examine the causes of deaths of chimpanzees for a good reference. Yes, intraspecies aggression exists. Chimps fight wars with each other, but it doesn't cause even close to a majority of their deaths.

[Anonymous No.940351]

>tfw into my 2nd year
>microeconomics 2
>slammed with shitloads of theories that I'll be puzzling in the next few years

fuck this shit. how did you guys manage to consume all this shit so quickly?

[Anonymous No.940356]

>>940351
We're on 4chan, we clearly have no lives already.

[Anonymous No.940387]

>>940351
>fuck this shit. how did you guys manage to consume all this shit so quickly?

You dont. It will consume you. You will end up standing in the supermarket and calculating utility for each single sauce package

[Anonymous No.940390]

>>940387
that's the same goddamn thing my professor tried to joke with in class today

>lecture about pareto efficiency
>turns to some dude in the front row
>"heh heh"
>"you should go to a supermarket and ask some young lady what's her total utility"
>people laugh like retards
>"heh, but you didn't hear it from me if the psychologist asks you"
>"and don't mind her slapping you"

I'm telling you. The more you study this shit the more south your sanity goes.

[Anonymous No.940579]

>>939410

> humans don't compete with eachother

dude. pick up any psychology, sociology, or history textbook.

Humans compete. The very act of creating life is a battle to the death between 6 million sperm. The winner gets life.

We are apes. Apes fight eachother for mating rights, and thus the cycle continues.

Chaff and wheat.

[Anonymous No.940691]

>>940579
This is so over simplified that its irrelevant to even state it.

[Anonymous No.940703]

>>940579
psychology, sociology and history textbooks published are all published within this capitalist society, and the research done within this society is generally funded by the state who makes sure there is a capitalist society by forcing it upon each citizen. it is absolutely clear that the main funds for research (from the state) are there to provide an ideology that assures the survival of capitalism (for sociology, psychology, philosophy, even neurosciences etc.)

[Anonymous No.940718]

>>940703
>IT'S ALL ONE BIG CONSPIRACY

This is what Marxists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.940770]

>>940338
Yeah injury and disease were more or less death sentences. Again I might remembering things wrong but we did eventually go to war with one another (in a vastly more deadly and organized form than the chimps because we're better than chimps after all). And of course we also had inter-tribe competition, there was none of this "fair share" faggotry back then.