/sci/ - Science & Math

So I see you finally took your first HS Government class.

Capitalism corrupt as shit? In other news, water is wet.

>under communism
>top .0001%; over a million anually
>everyone else; less than a thousand, at that

communist and socialist supporters amuse me

>he doesn't support a fully automated resource-based economy

So what's the point of this thread?

>>2979942
>implying communism wont just put everyone into unbelievable poverty

>>2979957
only the money at the top gets recycled down. under communism or socialism (its unfair to put them in the same group but since you did il make it easier by doing the same) you dont earn as much, or what you do earn is taxed higher but you get more public services, so you dont need to pay for as much. i thought that was obvious but obviously not.
also id like to know where you plucked your figures from.

>>2979966

>implying that all of todays societies that call themselves "communist" are anywhere close to communist at all, and arn't just dictatorships

in b4 "all attempts at communism autopmatically end up in mud-hut dictatorships becasue hurr durr human nature derp derp F A Hayek nerp nerp [insert some other ignorant strawman here]"

>>2979960
Why is he begging for money on the Internet instead of resources then?
Venus project my ass.

>implying putting authority into the hands of greedy people will ever work

Why don't we try making it so rich people CAN'T buy laws and regulations that make sure they can take risks, profit if they win and get bailed out if they lose, they can use polluting business practices and get taxpayers to clean it up, and they can prevent people from unionising to get a fair deal?

Venus Project: The idea that a command economy will somehow magically work this time around.

>>2979966
>implying it would

>>2979981
Maybe because he doesn't live in a resource-based society.

>>2979988
Because direct corruption is far from being the main problem of capitalist democracies.

>>2980021
(with the exception of India)

>>2979979
>implying that even if communism was pulled-off perfectly that such a communist society could exist within the context of a capitalist world market

In my opinion, income disparity is a symptom of a larger problem.

>>2979994

Venus project: Buy are DVD mother fuckers

ITT: Angsty teenagers who see nothing but the negatives of capitalism, but completely overlook the positives.

>>2980029

>our

I'm about ready to throw my computer against the wall.

I'll take a moment here to say fuck zeitgeist and everyone associated with it.

LONG LIVE TECHNOCRACY

>>2980012
Why doesn't he start on a small scale then?

>>2980025
No one ever implied that. The "socialism in one country" theory was an alibi.

>>2980021

If not corruption, then what?

Simple greed? You can't do away with that, it's part of humanity.

Incompetence? Also here to stay regardless of the system.


The problem with capitalism is that it is not capitalism, it's corporatism. The guys in big business get to write their own regulations, and the guys in big government are happy to enforce them.

>>2980029
I'll go to home depot and buy 200 dollars worth of resources and give it to him in exchange for his DVD and his tour of the facilities.

Oh God I can feel it. I can see it on the horizon. Is a large tsunami of unsubstaniated claims and idealistic nothingisms.

Im just going to go over here and dig my own grave. Dont mind me..

>>2980034
like?...

>>2980049

Ketchup.

ITT: Maximum trolling

When all of you grow up and become educated and experiance (which may or may not ever happen), you will realized that capitalism is a fucked up system that, in the long run, is holding the human race back. On the other side of the coin, it's very unwsie and couterproductive to use a top-down approach like the governmetn to enforce a new system on everyone. Thus, you will learn to create the kind of life you want for yourself, and stop thinking in terms of "OMG MUST FORCE EVERYONE INTO MY POINT OF VIEW OR ELSE I CANT FEEL SAFE OH NO"

Notice that I didn't say wanting to change the system is wrong. It's just, you have to ignore the existing system and start to build another one with like minded people.

>>2980041
>Simple greed? You can't do away with that, it's part of humanity.
That's a lie.
>Incompetence? Also here to stay regardless of the system.
Sure, though more democratic control and better education could help.

The problem is that they actually want the rich to get richer, regardless of what experts they hire to write the regulations.

>>2979979
>no true scotsman fallacy

>>2980067

Couldn't agree with you more. I do whats best for me and mine. Anyone who walks around and thinks to themselves that they want to "CHANGE THE WORLD LOL" doesn't truly understand the size and scope of the problem.

>>2980067
Creating like-minded people is necessary.
We can't hope to counter the dominant ideology by talking on the internet, but at an individual level there is some progress to be reached by discussion.

On the other hand, the most efficient way to change people is to change how they live.

>>2980041

>If not corruption, then what? Simple greed? You can't do away with that, it's part of humanity.
excuses and shitty fallacious appeals to "human nature"

>Incompetence? Also here to stay regardless of the system.
fallacious appeal to status quo

>The problem with capitalism is that it is not capitalism, it's corporatism. The guys in big business get to write their own regulations, and the guys in big government are happy to enforce them.

I agree but based on the above two statements you are of the opinion that things will never change. Do you or do you not believe that human economic organization can change for the better? Get your shit straight

Are these figures referring to the U.S.?

Communism doesn't fucking work anyways, I don't see your argument. Preferring vomit over shit is kinda retarded.

>>2980082
>no true scotsman fallacy fallacy

sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesage

>>2980070
And by that, I mean that the fact that monsanto and the rest get away with their shit is not what makes capitalism so terrible for all.
A reasonably regulated capitalism would avoid us a few crisis, but humanity's productivity would still be wasted.

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage

sage


sage

v
sage

sage
sage
sage
sage
v

sage
sage


sage
v
sage

desage

ITT: people who don't fucking understand what communism is

PROTIP: communism does not equal a huge government controlling every aspect of everyone's lives. in fact just the opposite, in a communist society there is NO government at all.

>>2980025

you're absolutely right. The revolution will come all at once, globally, like thunder -- or not at all.

>>2980096
>>2980111
Are you agnostic, by any chance ?

>>2980109

"Monsanto and the rest"

Who are "the rest"?

>>2980070

I disagree. Greed is the excess of natural, healthy wants and needs. So long as people want things, there will be a few people who don't care that much and are happy with a little, and there will be a few people who want a lot of something, more than other people. Outliers. A small amount of 'greed' is good for business, and is good for the economy at large. A large amount of greed is probably good for businessmen in some ways, but bad for the economy at large.

And incompetence is a problem, but like you say, it can be treated by ensuring expertise, and merit based employment. But I contend that no one system is immune to it, whether a market or a command economy.


And the rich want to get richer, of course. This is greed. The problem comes when politicians, also greedy, care more about the money they get from bribes (donations, cushy jobs, whatever) than the votes they get. So they write laws that suit the rich, that enable them to get richer, and allow them to avoid paying for their mistakes.

>>2980096
>>2980111

>>2980136

This thread is like a black hole, where in the center is a never attainable stupid nonsense belief.

The thing about communism is that people are not fucking nice. With no government there is nothing but morals stopping me from stealing shit and making it my own.

>>2980049
still waiting on this btw...

>>2980124

This. I'm always stunned when people, even otherwise intelligent people, equate communism with soviet-style dictatorships. It's as stupid as the people who think the Nazis were actually socialists.

>>2980147

He answered you. Didnt you see the ketchup comment?

>>2980142

and there's nothing stopping the community from banding together, tarring and feathering you.

>>2980151
yeah i did. but wait that was a serious comment?

>>2980154

And there's nothing stopping communities from banding together and stealing other communities shit.

>>2980161

I took it seriously. You should too.

ITT: Same fight as last sunday:

All the optimists, techologists, futurists and reasonable, educated people take the "communism" side.

All the jaded, egotistical, jignostic, inside-the-box, conservative, things-will-never-change, fixed-human-nature retarded people take the "capitalism" side.

>>2980133
Every economically active group whose executives and/or employees can a direct involvement in the state control of these groups.

everyone itt should read this article and think a little bit about what it has to say. whether you agree with him or not, you likely have a lot of misconceptions about what Marx actually said. I've seen a lot of this happening on both sides here.

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Praise-of-Marx/127027/

ITT: conflation of money and wealth

>>2980174

I agree. But I think it wouldnt be half as bad if they didnt insist on bringing this argument into some intangible moral realm.

>>2980177

How do you define "economically active"?

>>2980049
People have the opportunity to make more money than they normally would, instead of just being stuck with the same lousy paycheck for their entire lives.
Competition between businesses drives product innovation for better quality and pricing.
People get out of their work what they put into it, vs. everyone being paid the same amount.

>>2980183
Oh, hey, I read that. It was cool. You follow aldaily, or....?

>>2980168

Ahh, the famous "human society will never advance and adapt and differentiate and blah blah without good old competitive-dick-your-neighbor-in-the-ass-for-more-money capitalsim"

ITT: all the pro-capital people implying capitalism isn't a huge and ineffeciant waste of the earths recourses

>>2980142
Communism is based on the idea that even though you're not especially nice, you know what is your own interest.
And that stealing shit when you can get your shit from the community is not in your interest.

>>2980204

Frankly I think ketchup is lucifer materialized onto this Earth. I think that is something world taking seriously.

That is all I meant to say.

>>2980193
>How do you define "economically active"?
That is unclear. I define it as selling services and goods for a profit, and as a main focus.

>>2980243

If thats true, I dont think there is an economically active group anywhere.

>communism: doesn't work
>capitalism: does work

>>2980194

>People have the opportunity to make more money than they normally would, instead of just being stuck with the same lousy paycheck for their entire lives.
This type of thinking about upward mobility and wealth amassing is about a half a step removed from the original capitalist ideas of "instead of one person being the fat dumb king, everyone can have a chance to be the fat dumb king by having more money and recourses than the next guy". While a nice idea in context, humans need to stop wanting to be king and start pooling their resources in smart ways that result in big accomplishments with lasting effects (like a space program, converting everything to solar, etc) "Cost" in the financial sense is no object under a system where resources are simply allocated to certain tasks as they become available.

>Competition between businesses drives product innovation for better quality and pricing.

This is a fallacy and a lie. Studies have show that people do not in fact work better or harder by paying them more or forcing them to compete.

>People get out of their work what they put into it, vs. everyone being paid the same amount.

Lie. total lie. This is now how capitalism works in contemporary society. Most of the time you do not get what you put in. The rich get richer, the system is rigged that way.

Get this /new/ shit out of /sci/ before we get deleted as well, fucktard.

Saged and reported.

>>2979960
>>2979960
>>2979960
>>2979960
>>2979960
Oh god, you're one of them.

>>2980142

strawmen. strawmen everywhere

This whole fucking thread is a bunch of strawmen

>>2980263

>Studies have show that people do not in fact work better or harder by paying them more or forcing them to compete.

Could you back this up with a non-khan academy video?

I don't get what everyone has against communism. It just means everyone gets a equitable access to the surplus afforded by the so far inexorable progress of capitalism.

>>2980250
True ? It has to be true since I wrote it.
And I think there is.

>he blames capitalism for the problems of corporatism and thinks more state control is the solution even though corporations by definition are a legal entity that dishes out monopolies to it's board members and exist entirely due to state interventionism
A thoroughly indoctrinated leftist is a good obedient statist. That's right, the middle class is the enemy, it's their fault, the top 20% are to blame for the kickbacks the top 0.01% enjoy.

>>2980263
I should have put a disclaimer stating that these aren't always true under all circumstances.
In response to your response to my first point, it's not about LET'S ALL BE RICH KINGS DURR, it's about people being able to work their way to a better life. You don't HAVE to be stuck working a dead-end job for the rest of your life (not saying that that doesn't happen)
Responding to the second response, I'd have to say you're wrong. It's pretty well known that competition between businesses spurs innovation at lightning speed. Look at cell phones in the past 10 years, for example.
And the third point; you're right to an extent. The rich do get richer, and often times the poor get poorer. However, it's not that hard for someone to get more out of their career the more they put into it, whether it be a raise, promotion, or an entire new job.

>>2980279

>And I think there is.

Okay.

>>2980124
>in a communist society there is NO government at all.
Then who enforces the rules? In every real world example of communism, there had been a totalitarian government.

is this for the US

>>2980295

I think he is wrong. There is a difference between anarchism and communism.

Anyway, mfw this thread

>>2980295

>he thinks the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. are "real world examples of communism"

keep lapping up that propaganda bro

Libertarianism is the only way. Total freedom and no laws to push people who want their money back! It's the greatest way for the people who deserve their money to get it. More freedom is better.

>>2980272

What do you have against that Kahn academy video? Does it get U MAD? I think it gets U MAD because it shows how profit motive theory is all wrong and thus undermines yet another shaky pillar of over-assumptive capitalist economics.

Furthermore, Economics is not a science. If anything this thread should be proof enough. So basically, you're really just the "resident /sci/ mainstream neo-liberal apologist who thinks he knows better than everyone else"

>>2980304

I guess you never came to the conclusion that a communist community could never be established in the real world. The strong will always dominate the weak.

>>2980303
A difference in how to organize the revolution only. The final goal is the same.

>>2980307

I think the issue with your perspective of human behavior is that all efforts and systems that haven't been motivated by material compensation have been completely steamrolled by societies that do.

I think your correct that individuals respond better to non-monetary incentives, if offered properly. What i dont think is that an entire system could be organized around the premise.

>>2980307

>What do you have against that Kahn academy video?

I dont think he is wrong in that video exactly, but he does say a lot of questionable stuff.

For instance, he just references this study, and simply says activity with "mild cognitive rudiments" right? I think he needs to state very clearly what it was they were asked to do.

I think autonomy, and mastery, and those things are really great, and I agree employees want those things. I dont see how believing that contradicts all of economics. But anyway...

In that video he listed some examples of amazing things people did for free. Those were, Wikipedia, Linux, and Apache. All these things costed nothing to make, and cost nothing to produce.

If you apply this idea that you dont need money just happy-good-time-autonomy-im-so-happy-at-my-job feelings in something that actually requires resources to do, your idea is going to fall apart.

Maybe when people are offered a small monetary reward for a basic task then they will do worse. But does that apply to a salary, which is long term, and is payment for a diverse set of tasks, and vague goals? Probably not.

Thats how I feel.

>>2980308
I think a communist community is possible to an extent (this is coming from a true-blue capitalist). If the community is extremely small (maybe about a dozen people) and they all live together and mutually respect each other, a true communist society may be able to exist for a period of time. However, I believe after awhile, someone with a bigger gun or stronger fists will take charge.

>>2980323

Thats me by the way.

>he thinks communism is the solution
>he thinks communism is unaffected by the same problems as capitalism and every other system because communists/anarchists/socialists are magical na'avi like beings full of diversity and soul who do no wrong
>he thinks dragging everyone down to the level of proletariat is better than elevating everyone to the middle class

All socialists, anarchists and communists and the plethora of pseudo-alternate ideologies like libertarian socialism are all intellectually disgusting. Seriously, Chomsky is on the same level as Glenn Beck and their followers are equals.

Even if I ignore the fact that "radical" ideologies were hand picked by totalitarian dictatorships across the globe for their state religion as you ask, there is still the direct logical fallacy that you actually believe whereby humans somehow have magical hive minds that know all the answers and somehow "collectivizing" shit allows us to call upon this god to solve all the problems in the world and make everyone act like perfect omnipotent epitomes of moral righteousness. We are not collectives, we are individuals, a direct democracy isn't a collective, it's a bureaucracy intended to give equal representation, the minute you start pretending it isn't just another state is the minute you stop doing things to prevent it from becoming corrupt. I have no problem with direct democracy or worker owned businesses but if you're going to pretend you're on some mystical crusade for your shitdeology then as a logical humanist I'm out.

>>2980329
>>2979942
Mods can you please ban these faggots

>>2980304
Keep believing in Karl Marx's fantasy, bro

>>2980333

he mad

also wrong

> However, it's not that hard for someone to get more out of their career the more they put into it, whether it be a raise, promotion, or an entire new job.

Ok class, here we observe yet another capitalist believing in the rank-and-file myth that upward mobility exists for most people. this is a particularly absurd case, because as you can see, he appealed to this myth immediately after stating that upward mobility often does not occur.

So it is easy to see why the capitalist makes so many straw men against communal resource management - it patches his cognitive dissonance. For instance, if we wait just a little while, you will note that his response will be some combination of undue assumptions about "inevitable authoritarianism", "human nature", "calculation problems", "innovation stagnation" etc.

>>2980333

>if you're going to pretend you're on some mystical crusade for your shitdeology then as a logical humanist I'm out.

Well, see ya.

>>2980340
not wrong bruh, I proved you wrong bruh

One day I'll be a millionaire!

>>2980345

I think, it would be a better strategy, to try and prove such assumptions are undue, rather than just predicting someone will state they are undue.

By the way they are so totally due.

>>2980357

Chart from a libertarian think tank "proving" libertarianism is best.

>>2980367

predicting someone will make them***

Communism has never worked and never will work. people are naturally greedy.

>>2980364
Just because people don't move much intergenerationally doesn't mean the system is rigged. Maybe the rich people are actually better at earning income than the poor people, and the countries with lower correlations are supporting the poor above their station.

>implying that communism can happen before the socialist revolution

read the communist manifesto again

>>2980372
Good, the ignorance is strong in this one. Now see what excuses you can find to ignore this.

>>2980372
Now see what excuses you can find to ignore these facts.

How can there be communists or socialists in 2011, when information is freely available? It's not like the economic history of the world is being kept secret.

>>2980395
>>2980397

I in no way want to defend this guy.

But income, doesnt have anything to do with purchasing power, and economic freedom is just some made up metric by libertarian think tanks.

>>2980386

Or maybe the system is rigged.

"Me: So, DX, how did you make out this tax season?

DX: What do you think my federal tax rate was?

Me: Uh, 25%. You’re a successful guy.

DX: Try again. Lower.

Me: 15%?

DX: Lower.

Me: 10%?

DX: I said LOWER.

Me: Uh, yeah… 3%?

DX: It’s lower.

Me: 1%?

DX: I’m sorry, LO-wer.

Me: O%, you paid nothing?

DX: I’m SORRY, lower.

Me: Wait, the government paid you?

DX: That’s one way to put it.

Me: Then I am clueless. I have no idea what to do with someone like you who earns a lot, but pays no taxes.

DX: Negative 3%.

Me: How does that happen? Why aren’t you caught by the AMT?

DX: Many deductions, and many children, with some in college, like you my friend. Aside from that there is the swiss-cheese post-AMT that wipes out taxes.

Me: Wow. Why would the government allow this to happen?

DX: Beats me, but I am happy to be wealthy and pay no federal taxes. That’s been largely true for the prior two years as well. It genuinely helps if most of your income is coming from sources of investments, and businesses that benefit from certain tax credits.

Me: This is ridiculous. Why should you get off paying no taxes when our government is running huge deficits?"

http://alephblog.com/2011/04/14/a-conversation-with-dr-x-why-the-tax-code-is-a-mess/

>>2980329
>>2980323

>mfw "the resident /sci/ economist" thinks it cost nothing to produce Linux, Wiki, Apache

>mfw you must not be a real economist if you forgot to consider that it took means of production such as computers on which to program the software, oh and TIME for fucks sake, which is a resource in the context of opportunity costs and human mortality. In the end it did coast alot to make Linux, etc, but it was release for free with the understanding that the cost to produce would be more than made up a million times over by the free use and continued modification of Linux to better the economy as a whole.


>Thats how I feel.

Yea clearly, since you didn't you're you brain. Of course, if you did use your brain you would see why capitalism is full of shit.

1. make stuff at cost without an immediate pay off, for the good of the whole community
2. the entire economic superstructure is enhanced and quality of life is increased for everyone
3. keep doing this over and over
4. U MAD when there are no mud huts to be seen and people are actually happy and have a continuously improving quality of life without the need for competition or unjust wealth concentration

FUCKING COMMUNISM HOW DOES IT WORK?

>>2980381
If people were more greedy communism would work, greed would mean people would be more aggressive and abandon mystical ideology in favor of mass action for more pragmatic aims.

Communism doesn't work because people are corruptible and stupid.

>>2980386
>Maybe the rich people are actually better at earning income than the poor people
Of course they are. Because they're rich, and so have "connections", and better education. Which is exactly why it's rigged.

>>2980412

>mfw "the resident /sci/ economist" thinks it cost nothing to produce Linux, Wiki, Apache

Well what does it cost?

>and TIME for fucks sake

Im willfully ignoring time.

>>2980412

>Yea clearly, since you didn't you're you brain

>>2980386
That graph shows that people move a TON intergenerationally!

>>2980412
>>2980406
Communism: It doesn't work, that's how.

Most people who say capitalism is bad because people are greedy don't seem to realize that communist systems are much more vulnerable to the same greed.

You can't really take it much farther than the highly socialist European countries have, but even in those cases, there's still lots of income disparity and property rights.

tl;dr: read 1984

>weird to be agreeing with resident /sci/ econ

>>2980415
That is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Take off the lead apron next time you get an x ray.

>>2980415
Communism doesn't work because people follow their own self-interests. Any system where individual incentives do not align with collective well-being will self-destruct. Communism doesn't even ATTEMPT to align incentives. It's an infantile ideology.

>>2980323

>All these things costed nothing to make, and cost nothing to produce.

Which is why Wikipedia has multimillion dollar donation runs every year.

I defy anyone who has claimed HURR COMMUNISM DON'T WORK BECUZ GREED to explain by what mechanism greed actually causes communism not to work.

I fucking dare you to justify this truism. Go ahead.

>>2980412

Oh I guess I should actually look at the costs you listed

>computers on which to program the software

I dont know about the guy who made linux, but I get the idea that he didnt have to buy a computer to make linux. Meaning, if he wanted to make linux, it would have cost him a computer, and if he didnt want to make linux, well, it would have cost him a computer. A computer is not a cost of production.

Im ignoring time for a similar reason. When you make something, you dont factor in time, because that time disappears whether you spent it on linux or anything else.

We consider time when employees agree to things like, I will work for a set rate of money. And then the cost of labor becomes a cost, in a function of time. The guy who made linux made it in his free time. For no cost. In fact, he probably lost money making linux

>>2980445
then,
>>2980443

the second guy must be a wizard

>>2980412
>1. make stuff at cost without an immediate pay off, for the good of the whole community
>mfw communists believe that people will do this while they're starving to death.

>>2980431

>Communism: It doesn't work, that's how.
>tl;dr: read 1984

Except 1984 didn't depict a communist society at all, dipshit. No wonder you're agreeing with that econ apologist.

>>2980445
> DON'T WORK BECUZ GREED to explain by what mechanism greed actually causes communism not to work.
Go read the diaries of the Plymouth Colony, and your eyes will be opened.

I fucking dare you to justify this truism. Go ahead.

>>2980453

>mfw communists believe that people will do this while they're starving to death.

An interesting point is that Karl Marx said Communism had to happen in Britain or the United States for it to be successful, not some shitty backwater state where people starve to death.

>>2980444

>Which is why Wikipedia has multimillion dollar donation runs every year.

When I said produce, I meant come up with and develop. It cost nothing to develop, because they did it on their own free time.

They need donations partially because they actually do need to pay people and have employees. Which I think flies in the face of that khan academy video even more.

>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407
>>2980407

NEWS FLASH:

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

THE RICH PAY NO TAXES
THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED

>>2980455
communist manifesto
transition from capitalism to socialism
strong centralized government

god do i have to do all the thinking for you?

>>2980453

Communism can only go into effect in a society with an already existent abundance of goods. Great non-point though.

>>2980468

How much abundance? How do you measure abundance?

>>2980466

Or try this:

"My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere."

Asswipe.

>>2980415

>Capitalism doesn't work because people are corruptible and stupid.

fix'd

>>2980466
Except 1984 didn't depict a communist society at all, dipshit. No wonder you're agreeing with that econ apologist.

I'm not the guy you responded to, but I felt the need to repeat what he said because you're clearly retarded.

>>2980474
didn't intend for it to be an attack on the phenomenon

obviously can't be a good example of the same phenomenon


i'm glad we disagree

>>2980471

When goods are produced in abundance of the needs of the population. Are you that thick-headed?

>>2980503

And, how much is that? How much are the needs of the population?

By the way I am thick headed. It takes at least one two statements to convince me of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Socialism#Critique_of_scientific_socialist_methodology

ITT trolls in a race to post the dumbest, derpiest comment of the day.

>>2980528

Hey Comrade. How are you on this fine day?

When someone can create a communist society that WORKS I'll believe it. Until then we'll default to capitalism. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternatives.

>>2980476
Capitalism works better because it takes into account the fact people are corruptible and stupid.

When property is privately owned that means it is quantified and people can see who owns what. Inequality like this becomes apparent and people are compelled to do something about it.

Do you really think Castro, Kim Jong Il and Gadaffi are working class just like Mexican bean pickers? They are multi-billionaires, they have power over life and death over 1000s of servants and live in opulent splendor in palaces (Gadaffi did before he was overthrown).

Ironically capitalism is the only thing keeping the corporations in check, if there were no capitalism the corporations would be pure monopolies.

Would someone care to show me why the "human nature" argument against communism is fallacious.

>>2980532
Miserable and in dire need of motivation. I assume you're as bright and cheerful as ever.

>>2980570

Oh, well, is anything in particular wrong?

>>2980546

ITT: checkmate

>>2980550

>Do you really think Castro, Kim Jong Il and Gadaffi are working class just like Mexican bean pickers? They are multi-billionaires, they have power over life and death over 1000s of servants and live in opulent splendor in palaces (Gadaffi did before he was overthrown).

Stop using communist-in-name-only states as evidence against communism. please please please

>Ironically capitalism is the only thing keeping the corporations in check, if there were no capitalism the corporations would be pure monopolies.

Corporations are monopolies. Just because they 'compete' in the 'free' market does not make them monopoly owners of power in capitalist societies.

>>2980577
Well, my life in general, which is quite colourless and devoid of meaning.

>>2980553

Becasue human nature is not fixed, people can change their attitudes and the amount of information they have available. Also on a more base level, biological evolution via adaptation is a very raw way in which human nature can change.

>>2980585

>Corporations are monopolies.

Why do you believe this?

Couldnt there feasibly two corporations, that produce similar products, that must compete for a market share?

>>2980553

'Human nature' was the same reason given for the continuance of feudal regimes. It's human nature that peasants are dumb and need to be ruled by the proper aristocratic class.

>>2980608

Did you not see "monopoly owners of power?" You're a pain in the ass to argue with.

>>2980608
It could be possible. For example, only one corporation is allowed access to a resource used as an input for creating a product.
Or due to increasing returns to scale eventually leading to only one firm bothering to stay in business in an industry, a natural monopoly.

>>2980624

I might be a pain in the ass, only because I dont pretend terms like "monopoly owners of power" refers to anything obvious.

What are the "monopoly owners of power"?

>>2980633

I agree about those things exist, and there is even a natural inclination for those things to occur. But I dont think that means corporations are synonymous with monopolies.

>>2980608

Stop talking in theoretical about this. You know damn well that in the USA, the corporations have a shit load of power and are in bed with the entire political apparatus of the federal and state governments. there is no need to talk about the semantics of the definition of "monopoly" when the fact of the matter is, that we live in a society where the biggest & wealthiest corporations are the government and have control of a lot of shit.

stop burying your head in the sand and start realizing that capitalism is what allowed this plutocratic nightmere to occur. In fact, its the governemtns fault too. All top down power structures needd to be overthrown and abolsihhed

>>2980637
The only people (monopoly) with control (ownership) of power over others (power), this is not a difficult concept.

>>2980637

Who has the power in our society?

>>2980652

It was just a question. I was curious to your answer...

what would you people recommend? arbitrarily deciding whose bank account you're going to plunder, solely based on the fact that they have far more money than the average person? that's ridiculously immoral.

the only difference between all the forms of government is what you call the upper, ruling class.

democracy? entrepreneurs.
communism? party members.
monarchy? royalty.

karl marx said that all of history was the history of class struggles. that is never going to change until all people are equal. as long as some people are more capable, they will move to the top. and since they are more capable, they will be able to defend, and further entrench, their positions at the top.

we don't live in a rigid hierarchical society, if you want to move to the top then work your ass off. that's the way it works, and no amount of pretending you're going to start a revolution is going to make one fucking difference.

- the only rational person in this thread

>>2980585
I'm just illustrating how absence of private property is beneficial to tyrants. Also I can't stop using Cuba, North Korea and Libya as examples because they are facts, you can make me change my interpretation of the facts but I can't ignore facts, the fact the revolutionaries in this countries back in the day were asking for equality instead of freedom is why they are totalitarian dictatorships. Even if you happen to have discovered some fruity stateless classless communist utopia and it is desirable (and possible), at this current juncture it is still more beneficial to push for something more realistic, it's just the way shit be.

I think even marx said capitalism is a stepping stone to communism, if you want to do what's best for the poor and downtrodden in the world you need to support totally unfettered laissez faire global ultra-capitalism instead of your ineffectual little pot smoking hipster student [prefix]-socialist pipe dreams that you will abandon once you have to start thinking about your career.

Ok, let's just get this minor point out of the way and get back to trolling:

The labor theory of value is fatuous nonsense, thus Communism is also fatuous nonsense.

>>2980667

That was someone else.

>>2980656

Is me. I have no space bar on this keyboard, so I'll go with >>2980667 since he has common sense.

>>2980655

by asking you to nit-pickingly define every concept you're using, he's attempting to pigenhole the discussion into a formal debate where in he can use the whole "nya nya you didnt say it just right there fore you're wrong Im right" high school debate bullshit. He is being a debate club troll and he's not interested in the topic being discussed. He's trying to derail the subject so that he can "win the argument" on technical semantic grounds. then he will fallacious claim this means his philosophy is the right one.

It's the worst kind of trolling and it's the reason why all politicians and lawyer got to hell

>>2980656
The Bilderberg Group, itself headed by our Jewish overlords acting in concert with the Reptillians?

And you probably know this already, res /sci/ economist, but you're getting trolled.

>>2980685

Sorry, I meant

>>2980652
>>2980652
>>2980652

>>2980655

Why do you believe this group exists?

>>2980656

Im inclined the criticize the question, because I dont think society is a single unit. Its not under anyone's control. It also has vague boundries.

And how do you define power? How does one thing become powerful? I just ate a banana for instance, is that something that gets factored into the power of the players in society? Or, what if it was a 10 billion dollar banana, but I was under strict contractual obligations to eat it, am I still powerful? I dont know.

You guys are yelling at me for being ignorant about the corruption and power in society. I think agree with you guys a lot more than I am letting myself appear. Its because everything you say doesnt mean anything until you are referring to real things, and real consequences.

>>2980672

> if you want to move to the top then work your ass off. that's the way it works,

NO. No thats not the way it works. When upward mobility is rigged against you, you NEED a revolution in order to get it back. We no longer live in a world where "working your ass off" will make you rich and move you upwards. this is not Post-war america in the 1950's. this is not some romantic frontier days. There is no recourse, we have to overthorw the system of entrenched power in order to free up space

>>2980692

Frankly I thought it was the rothschilds who were headed by our jewish overlords acting acting in concert with the reptillians. I blame all human struggles on the fact that humanity has yet to realize this. The bilderberg group is simply a distraction.

>>2980703
is me

And here, read this.

>>2980703

>He doesn't believe in "The Man"

laughing-girls.jpg

>>2980730

Its probably a woman.

>>2980703

>I dont think society is a single unit. Its not under anyone's control. It also has vague boundries.

But globalization has made it a single unit. There are different manifestations or 'dialects' of our global society, but it's all the same language.

>And how do you define power?

The ability to influences others.

>I just ate a banana for instance, is that something that gets factored into the power of the players in society?

Only if someone told you not to.

>am I still powerful?

Yes, if you can resist whatever legal system backs that contract, then you have power.

Any more questions?

>>2980718

upward mobility isn't rigged at all, especially compared to how it is in every non-western government. difficult, maybe, but it's not supposed to be easy.

>>2980719
But don't worry, I listened to Dr. Beck and bought a lot of gold bullion yesterday. I am now protected against 2012. Come at me, you money-grubbing Zionists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communities

failed communities, failed communities everywhere

>>2980718

Fucking retard. The vast majority of wealthy people today are SELF-MADE.

REAL LIFE STATISTICS, HOW DO THEY WORK?

Here's a tip that's gunna help you get through your life a little happier: YOU HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME FOR YOUR FAILURES EXCEPT YOURSELF.

>>2980703

Stop trolling.

We need to abolish the corporation. "Subway" doesn't make me a goddamn sammich, the bitch behind the counter does.

>>2980752

And the vast majority of those minor wealthy folk are poor again within 3 generations.

>>2980739

>But globalization has made it a single unit

The entire Earth?! I was refering to a single country. So I certainly dont think the Earth is a single unit.

I think our difference lies in how we define unit. If society just means, large group of people, I guess its a unit.

>The ability to influences others.

So why do you believe the ability to influence others is monopolized?

>Only if someone told you not to.

So unless someone commanded me to then it wasnt a powerful act?

>YOU HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME FOR YOUR FAILURES EXCEPT YOURSELF.
This sentiment exemplifies what is so dangerous about the modern rising upper class. They _are_ self-made, they _are_ intelligent, and so they have a hazardous tendency to feel justified when they dismiss the role of luck in their personal histories, or when they dismiss the value of the less intelligent masses.

>>2980763

Well then wealth is truly accumulated by merit alone, isn't it? If the "power structure" was so self-sustaining they'd still be rich. But they're not. So shut up and stop blaming the world for your poverty. It doesn't owe you a living.

>>2980752
>The vast majority of wealthy people today are SELF-MADE.
Um..no. Thats a myth. I'm sorry to inform you, but santa clause doesn't exist either.

>YOU HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME FOR YOUR FAILURES EXCEPT YOURSELF.

So if a tornado comes and destroys all my assets, that's somehow my fault? Yea, right, I manifested a tornado with my mind. OK.

>>2980740

>>2980781

Luck plays a minor role. People who say otherwise are jealous and their jealousy only hurts them.

If you're willing to work hard and spend within your means you'll have a living wage.

>>2980745

>mfw at the notion that Gold Bullion can protect you.

Dr Beck is to the pope, as Gold Bullion is to indulgences

>>2980796

It's not a myth it's a verifiable fact but ok keep denying the truth simply because you don't want it to be so.

Moron, a natural disaster is not a personal failure. Use your fucking brain.

>>2980778

Stop being a Socratic douche-bag. you know what he's trying to say.

>>2980807

Wait, but I dont know what he is trying to say. What is he trying to say?

>>2980806

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Vast+majority+wealthy+Canadians+self+made+millionaires+Survey/4641707/s
tory.html

Samefag here. Here's one source I found in 20 seconds. Start using Google. You know, that information finding device you have literally at your fucking fingertips.

Here is the truth people. All the Econ threads you have seen on /sci/ lately have been started by this faggot>>2980811. Don't be fooled by his samefagging. Just sage and report.

>>2980842

PFFF

I have started zero threads about economics(if you could even call this garbage economics). I think I started two threads in total, and they were both about astronomy.

>>2980848

Thats me

>>2980848
lol you forgot your trip

>>2980857

Yeah I do that. Only about half the time is my trip in the name field.

>>2980848

but economics IS garbage

>>2980831
>Canada
>relevant

>>2980842
>>2980811

pic related

>>2980860

Perhaps, but that doesnt make economics the equivalent of this garbage.

>>2980860
>>2980860
>>2980860

>>2980882

Yes it does, remember the supreme court ruled down separate but equal.

>he doesn't support communism

>193 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2980901

Rotten banana = garbage
empty can = garbage
rotten banana = empty

Supreme Court says so.

Nevermind though. This is just getting dumber and dumber and dumber and dumber.

>>2980911

>implying a biodegradable banana and recyclable can are garbage

>>2980865

>Fact cannot be reconciled with stupid, dogmatic belief based on half-baked idealism
>fuckfuckfuckfuck what do I do...
>I know, I'll just keep firing back with more excuses
>god damn I'm smart

I know it's summer but surely you still have a bed time...

>>2980921

Nope. Im done.

Ill talk about the merits of recycling. But I will not talk about whether or not a can is considered garbage.

>>2980035
Bro fist

>>2980934
at least they have summer in my country

>>2980936
>Nope. Im done.
Thank god, now please delete your shit thread and gtfo.

OP here. I made this thread just so I could show the image to a friend. I'm quite surprised at what it became.

>>2980936

garbage (ˈɡɑːbɪdʒ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. worthless, useless, or unwanted matter

I want to make sure you know what garbage means. Since, you know, you're not someone who presumes these things, oh intellectual economist.

>>2980952
Why the fuck do you keep insisting he's the OP when the OP is a communist and he very obviously isn't?

>>2980958
ever heard of samefagging?

>>2980952
>>2980952

Its not my thread.