/lit/ - Literature

Depends on what you mean when you say communism

Incentive is a spook anyay

Yes, it also destroys literature discussion boards on the internet.

It destroys beauty, the divine, love and neuters the human spirit itself.

enjoy your day at the factory comrade

Yes

I ain't gonna work my ass off for y'all lazy retards

>>6365603

Well capitalism definitely ruined a shitload of my incentive so I don't see how communism could be any worse.

But capitalism at least provides a strong incentive for the weak-minded. Though I guess communism also deals with that through ideological brainwashing.

Nope. Pretty much every ideology handles incentive with care.

>>6365603
That's actually something that puzzled me. Maybe communism will be possible when all technological advancement has ceased and all that's left is pure marketing.

>>6365603
It destroys some forms of incentive and creates or magnifies others.

Who needs incentive when you have brainwashing?

Yes, it destroys the drive of man to better his condition. Without this drive society cannot progress.

>all these baby boy's

ya'll heard of autonomy, mastery, and purpose? These are the real motivations that drives humans. All capitalism does is alienate a person from his labor, sucking any enjoyment out of it.

The division of labor that capitalism creates also destroy's incentive. Instead of the community working together as a whole, and sharing in labor, labor is individualized and people are led into narrow "careers" while the poor are left to do the dirty work for a measly 9 dollars an hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc - Little video about money and motivation, there is a book on it too,

>>6366025
true, but why do you use ' before s's?

>>6366025
yep i would totally love working in a factory under communism god factories are great i just love doing endless repetitive menial boring bullshit so I can produce farming equipment

>>6366082
>not understanding communism
>never reading the german ideology
god what a baby, don't you know under communism you wouldn't work in a factory all day because everyone would be sharing in labor so you didn't have to do one particular task for 12 god damn hours over and over again every day like a fucking robot.
>>6366035
stylistic choice.

>>6366025
>ya'll heard of autonomy, mastery, and purpose?
You're devoid of autonomy under a communist regime. And you don't get to choose your purpose.

>All capitalism does is alienate a person from his labor, sucking any enjoyment out of it.
No, capitalism doesn't "do" anything. It's just the natural organic economic system which grows around freedom.

>The division of labor that capitalism creates also destroy's incentive.
I fail to see why. I'd say the contrary, that division of labor creates incentive. Would you rather be able to dedicate yourself to what you love, or have to do tasks which you don't like to do?

>Instead of the community working together as a whole, and sharing in labor, labor is individualized and people are led into narrow "careers" while the poor are left to do the dirty work for a measly 9 dollars an hour.
What "community" are you talking about? People are individuals, not ants. They seek to better themselves and their blood first and foremost. I don't see how forcing people to work "as a community" would make things any better.

Here's a video explaining how economic freedom and freedom of association are the creators of prosperity : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

>>6366120

>>6366126
Great comeback.

>>6366133

>>6366133
Are you some sort of retard? Like a reactionary retard. The worst kind of retard there can be.

>>6366120
people are social beings wtf are you talking about?

>>6366141
I've got memes too. Here, take one.

>>6366149
The worst kind of retard is the leftist. The further to the left, the more retarded.

I'm not a reactionary, I'm a libertarian.

>mfw all the commies here will NEVER EVER live in a communist utopia
>mfw your lives will be wasted on nothing

>>6366154
People are social beings in the sense that they choose to associate with other people. They hate to be forced to associate with other people though.

There is no "community". There is no "class consciousness". Those are marxist pipe dreams.

>>6366157
>I'm not a reactionary, I'm a libertarian.
Are you An-Cap?

>>6366157
Not all communists are Marxists.

>>6366166
Nah, I'm more of a minarchist.

>>6366168
All right, but you'll concede that marxist thought is accepted by most self-described communists, which allows us to use the terms "marxism" and "communism" interchangeably.

>>6366157
>implying he wasn't talking about capitalism in that quote.
>It was the same pressure of population on the powers of production. that drove the barbarians from the high plains of Asia to invade the Old World. The same cause acted there, although under a different form. To remain barbarians they were forced to remain few. They were pastoral, hunting, war-waging tribes, whose manners of production required a large space for every individual, as is now the case with the Indian tribes in North-America. By augmenting in numbers they curtailed each other’s field of production. Thus the surplus population was forced to undertake those great adventurous migratory movements which laid the foundation of the peoples of ancient and modern Europe.

But with modern compulsory emigration the case stands quite opposite. Here it is not the want of productive. power which creates a surplus population; it is the increase of productive power which demands a diminution of population, and drives away the surplus by famine or emigration. It is not population that presses on productive power; it is productive power that presses on population.

Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.

>>6366157
libertarians are more reactionary than monarchists

>>6366183
Marxist drivel. The world population has exploded ever since the advent of capitalism.

>>6366184
Really? In what ways?

Believing in freedom is now reactionary?

>>6366201
>what is primitive accumulation

have u never read a book in your life?

>>6366211
>>what is primitive accumulation
Why are you moving the goalposts?

>>6366215
karl marx was referring to colonialism and imperialism in the segment, not saying capitalism didn't increase the overall population

>all these americans still living in cold war propaganda

Move the fuck on, already. Open a fucking book.

>>6366120
>You're devoid of autonomy under a communist regime. And you don't get to choose your purpose.

From which part of your ass have you pulled out that shit

>No, capitalism doesn't "do" anything. It's just the natural organic economic system which grows around freedom.

Freedom to exploit other people. Also, it is as natural as every other economic system, like artisanship.

>I fail to see why. I'd say the contrary, that division of labor creates incentive. Would you rather be able to dedicate yourself to what you love, or have to do tasks which you don't like to do?

Again with that? You can perfectly choose what to do in a communist country (or at least you should be), even more than with capitalism, where you are forced to work for a capitalist because you don't own your means of production.

>>6366201
>The world population has exploded ever since the advent of capitalism.
Yo, heads up: India and China, the parts of the world doing the actual 'exploding', are not capitalist.

>>6366120
>Would you rather be able to dedicate yourself to what you love, or have to do tasks which you don't like to do?

Capitalism stratifies this so the rich can do what they love and the poor have to do tasks they don't like to do, while making sure that division rarely changes.

>>6366260
china has market economy, and since they implemented it, they exploded, yes?

>>6365603

One of the reasons why anarchists an other libertarian socialists despise the old Eastern Bloc was that in these state-socialist societies, work incentives, including wages, were not fully abolished.

>>6365603
>Does Communism destroy incentive?
- for the inheritors? Yes. They lose the land they inherited, they're sent to work at the factory, the university teachers are sent to work in the cotton field. It makes them very depressed and make them feel that "life is unfair".
- for the people? No. Like Mickaïl Gorbatchev, son of a small farmer, they're offered the opportunity to move to the capital city to study, Law for example. It doesn't destroy incentive for the people. It creates it. So does the Gosplan. No human being would have gone to space without Sputnik and Gagarin. Today, Venezuela is still richer than its neighbours.

>all these fucking liberals parroting their high school history teachers

>>6366318
>Today, Venezuela is still richer than its neighbours.
because:
a. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government owned PDVSA trades this oil on the international free market.
b. Individuals in Venezuela are free to own LTD companies.

>>6365649
>Well capitalism definitely ruined a shitload of my incentive so I don't see how communism could be any worse.
kek, pravda

>>6365649
>Nope. Pretty much every ideology handles incentive with care.
yes.
in communism, the example is Stakhanov, a half mythical man who managed at the factory to produce 10 times more than his comrades.
in capitalism, the propaganda is the dream of easy money, entertained by the Hollywood chain factories. Poor indebted robots go to the movies (or XviD) to get their weekly shot of capitalist dreams. One propagandist film that comes to mind is "Happiness" (sic), about a half-mythical black man, homeless with child, who manages to rise from the status of untouchable capitalist outcast, i.e. victim, to executioner (trader at St Wall St).

That seems quite fair as the image of capitalism : victims dreaming of becoming the executioner.

>>6366221
>colonialism and imperialism.
Both of which are not due to capitalism...

>>6366246
>From which part of your ass have you pulled out that shit
You can't do what you want to do, because you have no freedom. That, by definition, means that you don't have any autonomy.

>Freedom to exploit other people.
No, freedom to do whatever you want. Freedom to create your company (entrepreneur), or freedom to willingly go work for someone else (employee).

>Also, it is as natural as every other economic system, like artisanship.
artisanship can be seen as a form of primitive capitalism, in the sense that there is already division of labor.

>Again with that? You can perfectly choose what to do in a communist country (or at least you should be)
Can you create your own company? Can you own private property? Are you free to use your competence to get ahead of other people?

>, even more than with capitalism, where you are forced to work for a capitalist because you don't own your means of production.
You are not "forced" to work for anybody (unlike in centrally planned economies, where you are assigned a job...). You can willingly choose to work wherever you want. Heck, you can choose not to work at all, if you have enough money.

If you choose (freely) to work for somebody, you get remunerated in wages. You accumulate capital. You essentially become a capitalist.

>Yo, heads up: India and China, the parts of the world doing the actual 'exploding', are not capitalist.
India and China are very capitalist.

>>6366262
>Capitalism stratifies this so the rich can do what they love and the poor have to do tasks they don't like to do, while making sure that division rarely changes.
But that is simply not true. It's true that the rich start off with an advantage, but by no means does that determine the outcome : plenty of rich people lose their fortune, and plenty of poor people become rich. Rich people today are rich because their ancestors worked hard to give them a legacy allowing them to enjoy life to the fullest.

>>6366388
I expected someone would take a bite at this example.

>Does Communism destroy incentive?
- for the inheritors? Yes. They lose the land they inherited, they're sent to work at the factory, the university teachers are sent to work in the cotton field. It makes them very depressed and make them feel that "life is unfair".
- for the people? No. Like Mickaïl Gorbatchev, son of a small farmer, they're offered the opportunity to move to the capital city to study, Law for example. It doesn't destroy incentive for the people. It creates it. So does the Gosplan. No human being would have gone to space without Sputnik and Gagarin.

>>6366400
The difference between Stakhanov and Chris Gardner (the guy played by will smith in "the pursuit of happiness"), is that Stakhanov's achievements were pure propaganda created by the Communist Party, whereas Chris Gardner's achievements happened in real life.

>>6366402

>Both of which are not due to capitalism...

liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals

>You can't do what you want to do, because you have no freedom. That, by definition, means that you don't have any autonomy.

liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals

>No, freedom to do whatever you want. Freedom to create your company (entrepreneur), or freedom to willingly go work for someone else (employee).

liberals

>artisanship can be seen as a form of primitive capitalism, in the sense that there is already division of labor.

liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals
liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals

>Can you create your own company? Can you own private property? Are you free to use your competence to get ahead of other people?

liberals. LIBERALS

>But that is simply not true. It's true that the rich start off with an advantage, but by no means does that determine the outcome : plenty of rich people lose their fortune, and plenty of poor people become rich. Rich people today are rich because their ancestors worked hard to give them a legacy allowing them to enjoy life to the fullest.

YOU FUCKING LIBERAL

>>6366402
>Both of which are not due to capitalism...
what is history

>>6365631
This

>>6366415
I won't argue about 2 biographies the details of which I ignore.
but what I find funny is all the brainwash in mass medias, like when they interview a celebrity, they usually say "I come from nothing".
ok, for the sake of thought experiment, let's admit that Rockefeller built Standard Oil from nothing. The conclusion is always : "If someone like me [who came from nothing] made it in this world, then everyone can make it!"

logical fallacy, anyone?

So if one man was born without money and ended up crazy rich, it proves that anyone born with nothing can become a wealthy entrepreneur?
It's not logics, it's a sweeping generalization. The fact that it's hammered in everyone's brains on a daily basis is evidence that it's pure ideology.
One nigger became Michael Jordan or Will Smith, so all niggers can become Michael Jordan or Will Smith!
Man is an animal, so all animals are men!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

>>6366402
>But that is simply not true. It's true that the rich start off with an advantage, but by no means does that determine the outcome : plenty of rich people lose their fortune, and plenty of poor people become rich
That isn't true. The rich have an advantage which bolsters them all the way; private schools, top universities, the ability to work for free as an intern etc. while there is very much a cap on what a poor person can achieve simply because of their wealth. Also, the stats since the 2008 financial crash suggest that there are more rich people than ever but a lot more poor people too.

>Rich people today are rich because their ancestors worked hard to give them a legacy allowing them to enjoy life to the fullest.

Very few "worked hard." If you look at how a lot of rich people made their money, it's through areas such as land ownership and finance where the system is based on value extraction rather than value creation. An interesting thing to look at is the start of the upper classes and quite often, it's a case of who was gifted which plot of land first and it's been consolidated from there.

>>6366472
how can I vote for you, bro?

>>6366496

Contribute to Class War

>>6366260
Yeah they are. China is communist in name only

>>6366521
capitalism :
>put your label on it
>take credit

>>6365637
>beauty, the divine, love and the human spirit
your ideas of those things could use destruction, promise.

>>6366514
I'm choked by my rent, comrade...
I work odd jobs, can't find anything steady, so I can't move out.
I wish I knew what to do.

>>6366532

Stay Marxist. Hold onto the spirit of something better than this. That's the all we can do, and all we have to do. It will all prove worth eventually. These people can't strangle the world forever.

>>6366532
be a hippy, wander america doing drugs and crashing on peoples couches

>>6366587
One godawful Kerouac was enough, thank you.

>>6366548

Just shut up you fucking mong, jesus christ.

>stay marxist stay addicted 666 fuckpig for life

>>6366472

>Very few "worked hard." If you look at how a lot of rich people made their money, it's through areas such as land ownership and finance where the system is based on value extraction rather than value creation. An interesting thing to look at is the start of the upper classes and quite often, it's a case of who was gifted which plot of land first and it's been consolidated from there.


The 16th century was 500 years ago you retard. Most "rich" people nowadays are the artists you wank over.

>>6366608

This entire website is in the hands of stormfront and the likes of hot head rightist neckbeards you think you might relax a little? No you can't, because you're a reactionary son of a bitch.

>>6366614

Nope.

Out.

>>6366548
thanks
I'm for Marxism, not the internationalism part.
I'd like to work to promote local products. It could empower the consumers to understand that to buy local is to save their jobs.

>>6366620

Yes. Keep crying you consumerist fuck, you're the one buying Yeezy's new album as well as all your shitty videogames and don't forget about your brandname clothing either.

>>6366631

What the fuck are you even talking about

>>6366641

stay marxist heehee fuck le man the world is ran by "them (jew) people " we are all marxy marxists hahahaha :D

Former /pol/ here.

Boy it's nice to be on /lit/. I was always on my toes arguing with reactionaries and super lolbertarians because typically they are actually well read and intelligent... but also a little crazy. Marxists and anarcho-[insert bullshitlabel here] are just retarded, it's really fun watching them crash and burn.

>>6366631
I steal/expropriate everything I read/watch/play, tbh.

>>6366614
>Most "rich" people nowadays are the artists you wank over.
Stop listening to UKIP propaganda.

>>6366664

pffft hahahaha. Oh god are you triggered?

>>6366653
>reactionaries and super lolbertarians because typically they are actually well read and intelligent

If they were well read an intelligent, they wouldn't be reactionaries or libertarians.

>>6366419
Shut up faggot, if you don't have anything to contribute.

>>6366439
Just because Lenin said so doesn't make it "history"

>>6366465
>So if one man was born without money and ended up crazy rich, it proves that anyone born with nothing can become a wealthy entrepreneur?
Yes, anyone can. Not everyone will.

>>6366651

Again, what the fuck are you even talking about

>>6366653

Thanks for the irrelevant opinion. If you are implying Libertarians Neckbeards are well read you might as well fucking die. You probably don't even know who Bakunin is

>>6366670

British people out. Out. Go away British fucker. Your island nation is a nightmare.

>>6366664

I don't know anything about UKIP, sorry for your neurosis. Is that another way of saying go back to /pol/?

>>6366670
No. I just saw "want over" and assumed it was a British person falling for right wing meme politics.

>>6366681

>Shut up faggot, if you don't have anything to contribute.

liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals
liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberalsliberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals

>>6366682

You know that it's okay to admit that England is the greatest nation?

>>6366472
>That isn't true. The rich have an advantage which bolsters them all the way; private schools, top universities, the ability to work for free as an intern etc.
If you read my post you would have seen that I acknowledge that some people start of with an advantage.

However, there is absolutely no "cap" on what one can achieve. Did Steve Jobs come from a wealthy family? No. He was an orphaned child adopted in a working class family.

>very few worked hard.
Oh yes I'm sure they were handed the world on a silver platter. Top kek you are so hateful and envious towards those who are successful that you have managed to convince yourself that they don't deserve it.

>>6366532
Ha, so the leftist turns out to be a lazy and unemployed. How surprising.

>>6366681
>Yes, anyone can. Not everyone will.
not everyone can become Bill Gates. It's superstition.

>>6366690
You're not helping your cause you know?

>>6366702

Russia basically overshadows everything you've ever thought you've done.

National pride of states is preposterous anyways. Grow up. Move out of Britain. It is a useless place.

>>6366703

>If you read my post you would have seen that I acknowledge that some people start of with an advantage.

Understatement of the fucking ages.

>However, there is absolutely no "cap" on what one can achieve

You naive fucking liberal.

>Oh yes I'm sure they were handed the world on a silver platter. Top kek you are so hateful and envious towards those who are successful that you have managed to convince yourself that they don't deserve

Is this what liberals actually think?


>>6366708

Neither are you by being fucking liberal.

>>6366708
yes, truly we are in a noble fight of ideas on the vestige of almighty 4chan.

here our cause will be decided, on these beaches shall the winner of the world be declared

>>6366705
Are you literally retarded? You just quoted me saying
>not everyone will
And then told me "no but you're wrong, not everyone will"

>>6366732

Nobody can get rich. Being rich is an immoral state fucking anyways. Go the fuck away you cock sucking sycophant.

>>6366723
That's the kind of thing someone who's lost the argument would say

>>6366742

How long are your neck hairs you fucking reactionary vole?

>>6366720
>Blabla you're a liberal
>Neither are you by being fucking liberal.
But I'm a liberal :^)

no. it does change our structural notion of incentives from money to what's best for our ourselves and our neighbors. I know this is a joke to westerners. I don't think the machine will run as fast as capitalism but it would run more responsibly. since capitalism is all about creating waste and inefficiency in most sectors to maximize profits.

people will work when they're older. work isn't just work. routines keep us sane and give us an identity in some ways. I think it's propaganda by whomever to think that without money incentive, society would fall apart.

look at star trek next gen. they were communists. ;)

>>6366737
Poorfag detected.
Captcha : evora

>>6366762

Exactly. You are a meaningless sycophantic dog. Go read HG Wells you fuck.

>>6366769

Liberal detected.

captcha: suck a dick

>this thread
boy I'm glad i realized communism wasn't worth discussing years ago or I might have been caught in this shittrap

>>6366402
>You can't do what you want to do, because you have no freedom. That, by definition, means that you don't have any autonomy.
>No, freedom to do whatever you want. Freedom to create your company (entrepreneur), or freedom to willingly go work for someone else (employee).

Yeah I love the freedom to not be able to acces higher education and health insurance due to my freedom of work for a capitalist.

Also I would love to wank in public but I can't. Does that means that I have no freedom?

>artisanship can be seen as a form of primitive capitalism, in the sense that there is already division of labor.

Division of labor isn't opposite to communism. It is fucking obvious that people would work on different things. Seems like you are just arguing against communism without having any idea of what it is.

>Can you create your own company?

Yes, what you can't do is profit from other people's work.You won't get more benefit than what your works provides you.

>Can you own private property?

Of course you can, you would know if you had read a bit about it instead of just talking out of missinformation and prejudice. Work based private property guarantees that the fruit of your labor is yours and not the capitalist's.

>Are you free to use your competence to get ahead of other people?

Doctors are still paid more than construction workers you know. That sentence of yours is even more true in communism since education is meritocratic and state funded.

>You can willingly choose to work wherever you want.

That's true in communism too. If you study to become a doctor you will be a doctor.

>Heck, you can choose not to work at all, if you have enough money.

Ding ding son of capitalist detected.

1/2

>>6366772
You know nothing about me

I've probably worked way harder than you to be where I am today, you fucking entitled brat

>>6366732
what do you mean by "can" ?
do you mean that all minimum wage workers could be the boss? But if everyone was the director, how would the work get done?
truth is, the life race is a zero-sum game. When someone becomes rich, ten people become poor.
When the USA become a country of marketing execs and brand makers, India and Bangladesh become giant factories, where they get paid 5$ a month.
This "everyone can" superstition or ideology is a wild denial of determinism.
Spinoza said : Man is not an Empire inside an Empire. (the Empire is Nature, ruled by determinism, and there cannot be an Empire inside an Empire, by definition)

>>6366790

You have worked as much as I deserve. You fucking shit eating stealing pharmaceutical drowning entitled fucking false bread winning cock munching piece of ideological liberal dog shit on a suburban lawn

READ HG WELLS YOU DESERVE LESS

>>6366402
>If you choose (freely) to work for somebody, you get remunerated in wages. You accumulate capital. You essentially become a capitalist.

You have no idea what being a capitalist is, don't you? If you work for somebody, first of all, that somebody is stealing part of your work, which is his benefit. Second, you don't accumulate capital, you accumulate money. Capital is when money is put into circulation to generate revenue, aka investing in means of production, because the benefit of a manufacture come from the worker's labour (google plusvalue, friend). If my job makes me wealthy, I am not a capitalist if I buy a Ferrari, I am a capitalist if I buy shares in the stock or I start a manufacturing company to obtain a benefit.

>But that is simply not true. It's true that the rich start off with an advantage, but by no means does that determine the outcome : plenty of rich people lose their fortune, and plenty of poor people become rich. Rich people today are rich because their ancestors worked hard to give them a legacy allowing them to enjoy life to the fullest.

You recognize the advantage and don't see it as something bad? Also I would check your definition of "plenty", because 1% of the global population soon to have 99% of the riches doesn't sound like plenty of "class fliping". And why should people who are rich today because their ancestor "worked hard" (meaning being capitalists and exploiting workers) should be rich?


TLDR: Read a fucking book man.

2/2

>>6366737
>Being rich is an immoral state fucking anyways.
read about the history of Standard Oil, founded by Rockefeller. It will confirm this.
The game is not even about competition, it's about choking the competition.
If the USA hadn't had Roosevelt as a semi-communist who relentlessly attacked Rockefeller (anti-trust laws), USA would be dead.

>>6366788
goes with
>>6366799

sorry

>>6366737
>immoral
yo spooks lmao

>>6366768
if the iPhone 65 can make carrots, I will die a happy man.

>>6366788
>>private property
>Of course you can, [...]. Work based private property guarantees that the fruit of your labor is yours and not the capitalist's.
yes
also, Proudhon wrote about property as theft, and property as freedom.

>>6366797

How could someone be so mad at an anonymous poster on an animu internet meme board?

What the fuck is wrong with you? THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is what marxism does to people

>>6366790

Why even converse with him?

I think he's from bongo bongo land

>>6366790

Why even converse with him?

I think he's from bongo bongo land

>>6366737
>>6366811

>>6366791
>what do you mean by "can" ?
Anyone has the freedom to become an entrepreneur. Will everyone be as successful as Bill Gates? No. But some will.

>life race is a zero sum game
Absolutely false. If that were the case, the average person would still have the same standard of living as in medieval times, which is clearly not the case.

>>6366834
self satisfaction is what capitalism does to people.

>>6366872
>Absolutely false. If that were the case, the average person would still have the same standard of living as in medieval times, which is clearly not the case.
I'm glad you're bringing this up.
maybe we can agree that humans as a race can become a little bit richer (tap water, sewers, car, computer...), but we as a race can't become 100 times richer in a lifetime.
One heterodox thing that struck me is that despite all the talk about the industrial revolution having freed Man of want, it still takes a lifetime to people only to own their house.
Didn't prehistoric men own their house?
Worse than that, modern men are not safe from losing their job and losing their house at 50y/o.
Because they worked less than cavemen?
No.
Because of a strange race of rats.
An ideology of scarcity.
A need from government to entertain fear.

But yes, in the long range, for most people, humanity became richer. And I appreciate tap water.

>>6366872
>>6366791

>tfw my life and belief system doesn't revolve around economics
>tfw Christianity is central doctrine
>tfw free from this fucking thread

>>6366910
Jesus was the original commie and you know it

>>6366917

>commie
>puts faith, god and ritual above all else

>>6366923
>What is love thy neighbour

If all those assholes that claim to follow jesus did actually follow him things would be very different and certainly not a capitalist system. Even Pope Francis doesn't like it.

>>6366942

No human being can always love thy neighbour. We are imperfect creatures unlike Christ; to expect a perfect utopia in our world is silly. We live in a world of flaws and imperfections, maybe one day you'll be able to accept that.

>>6366942
>>6366950

>both of you obviously British
>Foucault has yet to shit talk your country

interesting

>>6366788
>muh healthcare and education
Why should you be entitled to free healthcare and education?

>division of labor
I brought that up because someone said a few posts back that division of labor was an evil capitalist plot.

>you can't profit from your company
Where's the incentive? How would the economy grow without investments?

If you have a great idea but don't have enough money to make it happen, how do you find investment? Do you need to ask the party for funding? Why do you think that a bureaucrat would know better how to invest money than an investor?

>>6366799
>>6366799
>If you work for somebody, first of all, that somebody is stealing part of your work, which is his benefit.
Of course not. Working for someone is a voluntary transaction. You agree to give him your labor, in exchange for compensation.

>you don't accumulate capital you accumulatr money
Jesus christ you're a fucking moron. Money is not a form of capital?? You're forbidden to invest the money you've made working for someone else?

>muh inequality
I don't see economic advantage as bad, because it didn't come out of thin air (unlike, say, the privileges of the nobility). Somewhere down the line a rich person's ancestor worked hard to become rich.

>why shouldn't we steal someone's inheritance?
I don't know about you, but I think theft shouldn't be allowed.

>>6366905
>But yes, in the long range, for most people, humanity became richer. And I appreciate tap water.
All right then, thanks for admitting that I am right.

Also, you should know that there are no "miracle ideologies" that will make us 100 times richer in our lifetime. Such an ideology is certainly not found in marxist though, as history has proven that attempts to implement marxism always end in disaster

And btw, I (the libertarian you're all arguing with) am not american. I'm french.

>>6366862
Because it's fun

>>6366994
>All right then, thanks for admitting that I am right.
I could certainly agree with lots of your beliefs.
but what I wanted to say here, is that if "anyone can make it big" means "everyone can make 5000$/month", then it's wrong.
My belief is that anyone could make 2500$/month, but only if a political will decided to reward hard work (McD's, chain work...) as much as finance or marketing.
But actually I don't even wish for that, as history showed that equality does kill incentive. But I'm voting for a party that wants to limit the higher wages to 20 times the smallest wages.
More than 20 times is not a just reward for merit, it's pure theft. And theft too kan kill incentive.

>>6367029
Yes, everyone can indeed attempt to make 5000$ a month. Everyone can try to create their company, because they're free to do so. Just because many fail doesn't invalidate the fact that some succeed.

>But I'm voting for a party that wants to limit the higher wages to 20 times the smallest wages.
>More than 20 times is not a just reward for merit, it's pure theft. And theft too kan kill incentive.
That's absurd. If people are willingly giving their money to a company for a product, why should the government steal a part of that money on arbitrary criterias?

>>6366797
you okay?

>>6366962
>Why should you be entitled to free healthcare and education?

Why should you be entitled to people not taking your money to provide it?

>>6367068
Because I believe in freedom and the right to have private property.

>>6367049
>That's absurd. If people are willingly giving their money to a company for a product, why should the government steal a part of that money on arbitrary criterias?
because a fair distribution of wealth restores incentive.
see how T Roosevelt passed anti-trust laws to restore the competition that Rockefeller's Standard Oil had killed.
More recently, Thomas Piketty of France showed in Capitalism in the XXIst Century that though inequalities are smaller than in the XIXth century, the distribution of wealth in the USA is much more inequal in the USA than in Europe.
I think this helped start the 1%/Occupy movement.
When the game is too unfair, it discourages the youth, and they turn to resistance.

>pic related
"richer countries are more equal"
see how Norway and Sweden, are at the top (rich and with a small Gini coefficient, meaning small inequalities, the USA are near the bottom. On the right, you can see that in the USA, it is getting worse : the Gini coefficient rose in the last ten years)

>>6367074

The only way those rights can be guaranteed is if the government collects a reasonable tax from you and defends society / borders.

Also, universal healthcare doesn't violate private property, it's just a tax hike. If we acknowledged that, then the question becomes: would our society be better off if we poured in some more tax money to keep all of our citizens in good health and kept them out of emergency rooms?

Not a marxist, just felt like adding that

>>6367074
So? Maybe some people believe more strongly that states should supply a minimum level of resources to all their citizens. Maybe they believe that and also believe in freedom and the right to have private property. Why are you automatically more entitled to make other people conform to your beliefs than other people are entitled to make others conform to theirs?

>>6367090
>because a fair distribution of wealth restores incentive.
Proof? Also, define "fair"

Moreover, the nordic countries don't really support your case. Norway's wealth is artificially inflated by oil money. Sweden is actually a lot poorer (compared to the rest of the developped world) today than it was in the 1950s when it was still very liberal.

As for your pic, what am I supposed to see? You think that slovenia is richer than the USA?

No, it moves incentive in different directions.

>>6367124
>Norway's wealth is artificially inflated by oil money.
Conservatives argue this a lot and I can't for the life of me make the slightest bit of sense at it.

>Country has its government control a large natural resource and use the funds from it primarily on projects and spending that benefit the population

Yeah, this ... isn't socialism somehow.

>>6367124
>Sweden is actually a lot poorer (compared to the rest of the developped world) today than it was in the 1950s
wow a country who didn't do anything was richer in comparison to countries who just fought the bloodiest war in history just a decade ago whoda thunk it

>>6367092
Of course, a minimum of taxation is required to maintain the state. I'm not an anarchist.

I don't however think that a tax rate of 50% is necessary either.

As for universal healthcare, it does violate public property in the sense that the government is forcefully redistributing your money, but I'm not completely closed to the idea. The problem with socialized healthcare is that, like any public service, it is horribly inneficient. Singapore's healthcare system is ranked 1st in the world and is a hybrid public/private system. It costs only 1% of its gdp and is very efficient, so I think a hybrid solution like in Singapore is a good compromise.

>>6367095
You're free to believe whatever you want, but your beliefs go opposite to the values of the enlightenment of freedom. If you seek to live in a totalitarian society where the nanny state controls your life you're free to move to North Korea.

>>6367179
>If you seek to live in a totalitarian society where the nanny state controls your life you're free to move to North Korea.

Are you trolling? There are a lot of governments that provide education and healthcare other than North Korea, there are countries that do so that are more free than countries that don't.

>>6367179

>a hybrid solution like in Singapore is a good compromise.

I feel you m8, we're in agreement on that.

>I don't however think that a tax rate of 50% is necessary either.

Neither do I, I just get a little peeved when people say that anyone who is for a tax hike is against private property. A bit of redistribution does not = socialism or marxism.

>>6367154
>Yeah, this ... isn't socialism somehow
My point is that Norway's economy isn't particularly rich. They have a high gdp/capita due to oil money but the cost of living is insanely high. The average norwegian has a lower standard of living than the average american.

>>6367161
Fine, take Sweden in 1939. It was still one of the richest country in the world, thanks to adopting free market capitalism in the end of the 19th century.

>>6367124
thanks for the fair discussion, I have to go for now.
You haven't replied, though, about Ted Roosevelt VS Rockefeller.
All I'm saying is that with too much individual freedom, it ends up with too much exploitation. More and more people stop believing in the fairness of the game, and turn to crime. See how the USA have one of biggest inprisonment rates.
The 1st thing they did in Cuba was an agrarian reform, where they took the land from the inheritors, and distributed it to those who wanted to work it. For themselves and their family.
It's like starting the game again.
If you believe that you truely have more merit, more intelligence, more strength than the others, then you wouldn't mind starting from scratch, right? It would only make your point better, that whatever the circumstances, you are the best.
A bit of re-distribution, like starting a new game, is exciting for everyone.
But the riches don't want this. It *terrifies* them.
In speech, they say "I'm rich because I'm better than the others"
but inside, they doubt it. They know that the brown immigrant, the white "trash" who has lived in misery has much more drive than them.
So they don't want to start a new game.

The science of the distribution of wealth (which includes taxes and anti-trust laws) is about crafting life as a game as fair as possible.
If the game is fair, everyone will be excited to give the best of themselves.
If the game is unfair, people will turn against their own nation.

>>6367127
yes.
under jungle capitalism, Gagarin would have been a porn actor, known for the size of his penis.

>>6367188
And these governments are slowly drifting towards totalitarianism.

>>6367204
Depends on what kind of redistribution we're talking about. Subsidies to help stimulate a certain industry (which hilariously leftists often oppose) are fine. Subsidies for welfare research. Subsidies for incapacitated veterans are fine. Subsidies for shaneequa the welfare queen and her 8 crack babies are not fine.

The reality is that the majority of the tax payer's money ends up in wasteful social security programs.

>>6367233

>The reality is that the majority of the tax payer's money ends up in wasteful social security programs

Again, totally agreed. However, if our elected officials could fix social security disability I would support social security 100%. Until then we are being robbed blind by the loopholes in the disability claims system.

>Subsidies to help stimulate a certain industry (which hilariously leftists often oppose)

Yea, I've noticed that. Very odd.

>>6367229
To be fair I'm not very knowledgeable about Rockefeller. To my knowledge, the oil industry in the USA didn't stagnate, so it couldn't have been too bad.

You say that revolution is fair because it allows to "start from scratch". That is true in a sense. The problem is that "starting from scratch " leads to a primitive chaotic society at first. Millions of people are killed, as happened in every country which "started from scratch". In the end, the society stabilizes, the smarter prosper more than the dumber, and a new elite appears, a good chunk of which probably descends from the old elite. You are back to where you started.

Revolutions don't change anything. Which is why society, instead of selfdestructing in an orgy of violence, should seek to give as much opportunity as possible to everyone. This is done by giving maximum freedom to every individual, not by inefficient wealth redistribution.

>>6366910
>embracing the opiate of the people
;^)

Assuming you mean "post-scarcity", which people seem to mistake for Communism these days, people usually get bored pretty quickly and find something to do. Ancient Greek citizens had all the leisure time they wanted, they still did shit.

>>6367259
>not by inefficient wealth redistribution
I have to say I envy the student loan system in the USA.
We don't have that in France (and we're not aware of it, I've done my research).
Here, when you ask for a student loan, the bank says ok, just let your parents sign here.
>BUT FOR FUCK'S SAKE
>I WOULD'NT NEED A LOAN IF I HAD A RICH MOM AND DAD

>>6367286

*tip

>>6366025
Oh, you are showing us a video about the deprecating marginal utility of money, and substitution of one good for another.

So how does this disprove free markets?

>>6365603
People feel an incentive to spread communism.

>>6366959
>obviously british
>I'm spanish

T-thanks anon

>>6366982
>Of course not. Working for someone is a voluntary transaction. You agree to give him your labor, in exchange for compensation.
Yeah, you sell your workforce for a price, but the capitalist uses that force for longer than it should, and that's when he gets its benefit. Dude seriously check a book, read The Capital, everything you are saying is explained in it as exactly as if Marx would have written it for you.

>Jesus christ you're a fucking moron. Money is not a form of capital??

I'm the moron? Money is not capital if you have it on the bank or under your matress. Again, read a book.

>You're forbidden to invest the money you've made working for someone else?

If the benefit of that investment comes from exploiting workers, you are forbidden yes. Free money doesn't exist, kiddo. Money doesn't generate money from the nothing. The only thing capable of generating value is work.

>I don't see economic advantage as bad, because it didn't come out of thin air (unlike, say, the privileges of the nobility). Somewhere down the line a rich person's ancestor worked hard to become rich.

Well, it isn't bad for the ones who have it, isn't it? And why should the descendants of rich people (and agin, that wealth comes from capitalist explotation most of the time) be rich too, if they haven't worked for it? Doesn't that contradict all that "money an incentive" you love so much?

>I don't know about you, but I think theft shouldn't be allowed.

Again, there is no logical reason for someone to inherit their parent's work. Capitalism is the theft, a robbery of the worker's workforce.

>>6366962
>Why should you be entitled to free healthcare and education?

Because equality of opportunities, something capitalist like to spout and then wipe their asses with it.

>I brought that up because someone said a few posts back that division of labor was an evil capitalist plot.

It is true that Marx describes it as a mean for the capitalist to get more plusvalue from a worker because it increases it's productivity per hour, but it doesn't mean that it is intrinsically bad, specially since increase of overall production is what makes humanity richer as a whole.