THIS

[Anonymous No.12877740]

Marx was right.

[Anonymous No.12877754]

Then live somewhere else????

[Anonymous No.12877757]

>>12877740
Sidenote OP, Henry George made this point around the same time as Marx as well

[Anonymous No.12877758]

Would you rather be a wage slave to a boss who doesn't care about you, at a cold faceless corporation? Or would you rather live in a beautiful home with a nice friendly upper-middle class family, where you do their laundry, and play video games in your servant quarters when you're not working?

[Anonymous No.12877760]

>>12877740
if we didn't pay our landlord, then who would we pay? the government?
would we need to pay anybody at all? if not, how would utilities in the building continue to function?

[Anonymous No.12877764]

>>12877760
the utilities would be free since the guy providing them also doesn't have to pay rent

[Anonymous No.12877765]

>>12877740
I hate these infantile opinions... This is a grumble thought that you feel while working for rent but which your brain should instantly, if it's working properly, respond with, "you're just being retarded." This pop nu-"leftism" belittles the analysis of Marx to be even mentioned in the same setnence. It's not profound. It's not revolutionary. It's stupid. I hate "Existential comics" and I hate webcomics and I hate people who regularly misuse the word existential.

[Anonymous No.12877767]

>>12877758
Nobody does the latter

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.12877768]

>>12877740
So was Stirner and Bakunin

THE to make it more lit

[Anonymous No.12877770]

>>12877764
isn't it big companies providing the utilities though? for electricity and water and so on?

[Anonymous No.12877774]

>>12877757
Henry George waz better and smarter, and right wing too!

[Anonymous No.12877780]

The only reason anyone builds nice, state of the art, apartment complexes with all the modern amenities, is from profit motive. If you get rid of the possibility of making money off of property no one will bother to build it, except maybe the government and they will probably make shitty buildings because they don't give a fuck if you got a nice cozy apartment. Basically everyone will end up living in dilapidated buildings and tin huts. Landlords are based.

[Anonymous No.12877815]

>>12877774
>and right wing too
Georgists don't generally regard themselves as such

[Anonymous No.12877844]

>>12877780
>The only reason anyone builds nice, state of the art, apartment complexes with all the modern amenities, is from profit motive.
Most of the time when they do this, they are required to. Apartment ownership near city services or simply the city center pretty much guarantees you tenets given the proximity. Land exists in fixed supply, you can't just make more. Especially land that's actually easily buildable on. Rent will actually follow wages, and that's why it's generally seen as regressive in regards to societal progression because any noticable wage increases are immeditaly made null. It's partly why Adam Smith and Ricardo took issue with rent-seeking. This also causes city sprawl, where people move to the edge of the city to aquire cheaper housing (and which end up being the poorest areas until the city sprawls again).

[Anonymous No.12877884]

>>12877740
They had to develop and maintain the land faggot. I bet you think bankers just shuffle paper around faggot.

[Anonymous No.12877890]

>>12877740
Lmao what cretins. Off yourselves.

[Anonymous No.12877891]

>>12877740
It's pretty weird how growing demographics seem to think that things like food, shelter, iphones and medical care should be given to them for free, by slaves working for nothing I would assume, otherwise the system is "unfair".

What a gargantuan faggot.

[Anonymous No.12877943]

>>12877884
Read Adam Smith's bit on rent seeking. That "they deserve it because they maintain it" ideology in regards to landlords leads to a parasitic state of affairs in which those involved engage in a practice which generates no new wealth and produces large inefficiencies the market as a whole. Land works differently then all other "commodities" because it has fixed supply and is set in it's area, and so can only go up in value as OTHER services are built around it.
>>12877891
>Unironic Ben Cartoon
I think some labels might still be missing.

[Anonymous No.12877963]

>>12877890
i'd love to see this kike made into a lamp

[Anonymous No.12877972]

I just kek at communism. Believing it can work is a sign of your stupidity. Obviously if we abolished private property and everything was communally owned then we could not prevent theft, because there would be no central authority that condemned theft of private property (which has been abolished). Furthermore someone could just come and steal your organs , they aren't yours anyway since we have abolished private property.

It seems that communism never gets past the point of the violent and oppressive "dictatorship of the proletariat", during which everyone is starving to death because all the private property was ""abolished"" (seized by whoever managed to LARP as the "dictator of the proletariat").

It is an ideology invented by slaves, and a proof that we are in the Kali Yuga.

[Anonymous No.12877994]

>>12877740
Existential Comics is one of the worst accounts on that already god-forsaken shitstain on the face of humanity.

[Anonymous No.12878111]

>>12877972
>Obviously if we abolished private property and everything was communally owned then we could not prevent theft, because there would be no central authority that condemned theft of private property (which has been abolished). Furthermore someone could just come and steal your organs , they aren't yours anyway since we have abolished private property.
Private property as defined by Marx does not mean the things you personally own. It refers purely to societies privately held MoP and the capital accumulated from the MCM' cycle. Marx differentiated between this and what he called "personal private property" or personal property, which is what you personally own. At least read about who you disagree with before you state your disagreements with them.

[Anonymous No.12878122]

>>12877972
stealing violates the NAP and you are liable to get killed

[Anonymous No.12878126]

>>12877972
We need more bloodshed in this world unironically, regardless of who's getting slaughtered.

[Anonymous No.12878127]

>>12877815
Oh cool. I count them as right wing.

[Anonymous No.12878136]

>>12877740
Why do people still fall for communism? Why don't schools teach at least some basics of economy?

[Anonymous No.12878148]

>>12878136
You're going to say something retarded like Marx rejects supply and demand, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.12878152]

>>12878111
Am I allowed to *personally* own a yacht under communism?

[Anonymous No.12878156]

>>12877740
Based and commupilled

[Anonymous No.12878181]

>>12878148
I'm talking about the picture in OP. It requires a lot of ignorance (and low IQ) to make a post like this.

[Anonymous No.12878182]

>>12877740
I, too, think taxation is theft.

[Anonymous No.12878192]

>>12878152
If you worked for it? Yes. But you would have to accumulate enough for it on your own accord in socialism (labour voucher/energy certificate system, "To each according to his contribution"). Communism it doesn't really matter because technology will assumably be at the point anyone can own one (or at the very least use one) and we'll hopefully either be off this planet or have realistic plug-in virtual reality. Communism requires absolute complete automation, and we'll probably never see that in our lifetimes even if we started now (unless you count plug-in VR as "complete")

[Anonymous No.12878216]

>>12878181
I was making the point about how you mentioned "the basics of economics" as if that would cause people to reject Marx, when there isn't anything in basic economics (as in, the very basics) that would contradict him. Ignore him sure, but not invalidate him.

[Anonymous No.12878218]

>>12878192
Could I give the yacht to my kids or to anyone else?

[Anonymous No.12878223]

>>12877884
>develop
Nope
>maintain
Sub contract that out for at tops 5% of the lucre you rake off rent
Its a racket you bourgeois apologist

[sage™ No.12878225]

>>12877740
just buy a house lol

[Anonymous No.12878226]

>>12877891
How about creating a system where steady employment at minimum wage covers basic costs including, should you wish, purchase of a room of one's own

[Anonymous No.12878232]

>>12877740
In Singapore everybody gets a home through public housing. Perhaps, it's time to learn something from such a small country

[Anonymous No.12878235]

>>12878226
You mean North Korea?

[Anonymous No.12878238]

>>12877891
>a mere succdem triggers mutts this much

[Anonymous No.12878256]

>>12878218
Yes, as long as you worked for it. Transportation and housing will most likely be public regardless so the amount of total personal Yachts will probably be small. However, it is still your job to deal with storage, and such storage is of course limited.

[Anonymous No.12878267]

>>12878256
>Yes
So how is that different from capitalism, if one could just inherit/accumulate wealth?

[Anonymous No.12878269]

>>12878256
I should also mention that given the limited supply of land (we can't produce more), an LVT would also probably have to be levied to prevent sprawl.

[Anonymous No.12878285]

The feeling of resentment from flyover state retards ITT is palpable.

[Anonymous No.12878292]

>>12877972
>calling others stupid when you dont even know the difference between private and personal property

[Anonymous No.12878300]

>>12878267
You're not allowed to use your wealth for it to reproduce itself.

[Anonymous No.12878302]

>>12878292
A smart person can make the difference between personal and private property obsolete.

[Anonymous No.12878310]

>>12878267
Capitalism differs in that you are able to accumulate utilizing other people's labor and then reinvesting the profit earned into further commodity production to aquire more profit in a cycle (M-C-M'). Labour vouchers differ from money in that only you can use them, you cannot cycle the money and the voucher cannot just be given to someone else. You must buy something with it first from a publically owned service, after which the voucher expires. Whatever you do with the thing afterwords is up to you, given you can't sell it to anyone for anything else and trading it would only net you things of lesser worth. The amount you can store is pretty much the limiting factor, which as it turns out in places like the USSR where there were full inheritance laws post 1926, is a pretty good limiting factor. You are right that the laws do have to balanced though, as the current system of inheritance just kind of incentives parents dying early.

[Anonymous No.12878311]

>my house: rented
>my phone: rented
>my car: rented (I mean, FINANCED. Totally different)
>"If we lived under Communism we'd own nothing ourselves."

[Anonymous No.12878321]

>>12878311
in the USSR you had to apply to get a car and wait 3-10 years

[Anonymous No.12878335]

>>12878321
That's unironically a good thing

[Anonymous No.12878360]

>>12878335
I'm sure your upper middle class commie larpers are totally willing to give up 90% of their wealth and 1st world luxuries in the name of the ideals they promote.

[Anonymous No.12878367]

>>12878302
wow... mind blown

[Anonymous No.12878371]

>>12878321
I mean, the alternative was out sourcing the labor and engaging in global imperialism all to engage in the overproduction of cars, many of which will not be driven if overproduced. Their predicament also forced a lot of production to be geared towards the military which pulled away resources from personal vehicle production as well. This was made up for through the creation of transit systems and the production buses and the like.

[Anonymous No.12878382]

>>12878360
I'd rather have good public transport than everybody owning car. but, whatever.

[Anonymous No.12878415]

>>12878360
Most of the people in the countries we're talking about aren't upper middle class. And you'll be surprised what people will trade for stability and security.

[Anonymous No.12878427]

>>12877740
>they deserve...
Imagine thinking about the economy in moralistic terms