Communism

[Anonymous No.11690327]

Why the fuck are so many mathematicians communist? I met at least 6 or 7 of them in my grad program. Or is this just academia in general?

[Anonymous No.11690333]

>>11690327
Because if it wasn't for academia they would starve. So of course mathematicians are biased towards big institutions, and the government taking care of everyone.

[Anonymous No.11690332]

>>11690327
when people who study meme degrees like math realize that will have to work at mcdonals after they finished they become communist.

[Anonymous No.11690340]

>>11690327
Communism believed in superiority of intellect over nature. Mathematicians like this idea. Also, communism was the only system which allowed them to freely explore ideas and run decades of research with full funding.
Today anything which cannot be patented or ring in donations for the academic establishment - gets the boot.

[Anonymous No.11690350]

Note: some of you retards might not remember the definition of communism. Since I am a mathematicians and all I REE about are definitions here it is from wikipedia:

Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.

Use the same definition or else your shits moot.

[Anonymous No.11690364]

>>11690350
I believe in kindness. Everyone follows the golden rule, and we don't need all these laws and money and shit. The problem is "kindness" doesn't work in the real world and neither does communism. But you can pretend like people don't understand what communism means.

[Anonymous No.11690366]

>>11690340
I was thinking the same thinking too, that mathematicians are driven by their ideals of the world. But also because it gives them the freeodom they want. But if I were to counter, I would say the same ideal thinking is the same people who voted from Trump.

[Anonymous No.11690379]

>>11690364
It's not pretending that people don't know what communism is. It's just that people mix up communism all the time with socialism. And matter of fact, things have definition for a reason so we can make actual real arguments. If you know the definition cool bro nice. If not, dw I gave it to you. And if you are going to post in a thread about communism, I just hope to fucking god you know the definition. Definitions are very technical but are key in defining arguments.

[Anonymous No.11690391]

A lot of people exposed to communism end up accepting the ideology, specially if they are poor. Turns out that communism a common topic of discussion in academia and grad students are poor.

[Anonymous No.11690392]

>>11690332
this guy engineers

[Anonymous No.11690398]

>>11690391
so when do I get converted to capitalism? when I get a real job?

[Anonymous No.11690411]

>>11690398
it's your default ideology

[Anonymous No.11690429]

>>11690327
mathematicians tend to be smart

[Anonymous No.11690433]

>>11690379
«The goal of socialism is communism».
Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.11690435]

>>11690429
How does being smart come into play with communism? Not trolling im serious

[Anonymous No.11690452]

>>11690350
Civilization requires unequal power structures. Communism would never work unless all of humanity reverts back to existing as hunter-gatherer tribes

[Anonymous No.11690456]

>>11690433
I don't get it, that doesn't make any sense to me.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

They seem to be different in some key fundamental ways.

[Anonymous No.11690460]

>>11690452
Civilization requires unequal power structure. Why is this necessary? It is definitely reality that there is a power dynamic to everything. But is it necessary?

[Anonymous No.11690461]

Communism works if everyone is smart. The problem is that everyone is not smart.

[Anonymous No.11690463]

>>11690411
nature vs nurture rabbit hole argument, rather not dive into that, got any better arguments?

[Anonymous No.11690470]

Because they're smart

[Anonymous No.11690476]

>>11690470

What does communism and smart have in common?

[Anonymous No.11690480]

Communists put too much faith in the average person's intelligence. It's the reason why socialism was ever only workable in the Nordic countries, where everyone was trustworthy and intelligent. Until recently, that is.

[Anonymous No.11690481]

>>11690452
at least not with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.11690483]

>>11690476
"Smart" and "you" have nothing in common. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.11690487]

>>11690483
haha clever i almost forgot to laugh dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.11690492]

>>11690481
I vibe with this.

[Anonymous No.11690494]

>>11690327
I'm a bit of a lefty, but I will concede that the reason why academics gravitate towards the far-left is because they have basically no conception of what the average person does for a job. It's easy to believe that full government control over the means of production would be efficient and successful when you're doing a job that you're passionate about and an institution is paying for everything.

[Anonymous No.11690511]

>>11690461
And selfless.

[Anonymous No.11690512]

>>11690494
True, definitely understand your argument and perspective. So is it just an academic thing then? I feel like it depends on the department though right? This is just an assumption, but I would say Stanford CS department is more capitalist than their math department.

[Anonymous No.11690516]

>>11690511
Selflessness is an attribute of an intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.11690518]

>>11690461
When you say being "smart", is it being smart to realize what? That capitalism isn't going to benefit themselves?

[Anonymous No.11690524]

>>11690456
But lenin said it.

And the Fabian Society, the archetypal socialists, are quite clear that their goal is to further radical change just slowly enough that people don’t notice.

Posting Wikipedia definitions doesn’t change the fact that actual socialists try to change society towards communism.

[Anonymous No.11690529]

>>11690398
when you see the tax take and how atrocious the state is at micromangement

[Anonymous No.11690532]

>>11690456
If it was such a fundamental key way maybe you could explain what that is.

[Anonymous No.11690534]

diversity hires

[Anonymous No.11690536]

>>11690524
>people don't notice
What do you want, a French Revolution? What happened after that? Another Napoleon took charge. Nothing changed.

[Anonymous No.11690537]

>>11690461
works best for robots

[Anonymous No.11690543]

>>11690480
so it's the dunning krueger effect writ large?

[Anonymous No.11690546]

>>11690327
>Or is this just academia in general?
Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist was a marxist.

[Anonymous No.11690548]

>>11690332
big brain with an engineering degree

[Anonymous No.11690549]

>>11690516
Prove it. Appearing to be selfless might be an attribute of intelligent people, because they recognize the social benefits of appearing to be altruistic. But I doubt very many intelligent people are selfless in their actual behaviors.

[Anonymous No.11690550]

>>11690512
In my experience going through engineering school, people had relatively diverse political views (still swung liberal though). I attribute it in part to the fact that engineers usually end up leaving academia.

In other departments like physics and chemistry, loads of completely unironic commies. Also conveniently the disciplines which require lifelong support from institutions to have a career.

[Anonymous No.11690552]

>>11690532

Communism:
Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.

Socialism:

Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.

[Anonymous No.11690553]

>>11690546
and he lied about the skull measurements of racial differences in cranial volume

[Anonymous No.11690559]

>>11690549
Whether or not kindness is genuine or not. The act of being kind happens. Who cares if you have ulterior motives? Me helping you on the side of the road on the off chance I might run into you again and you can do me a favor isn't bad. It's smart, and is still kind.

[Anonymous No.11690562]

>>11690537
>works best for robots
exactly

[Anonymous No.11690569]

Boy this site sure is obsessed with the 200 year old hobo dinosaur

[Anonymous No.11690573]

what of bakunin?

[Anonymous No.11690577]

>>11690569
>this site
you need to step outside sometime
your trailer park is not the entire universe

[Anonymous No.11690578]

>>11690463
What do you think I'm arguing?

[Anonymous No.11690579]

>>11690559
I'm a nice person, but in my experience intelligent people are not more kind on average. Maybe really dumb people are more likely to be sociopaths because they lack the intelligence to empathize. But beyond average IQ I definitely haven't notice any correlation between intelligence and selflessness in actual behavior.

[Anonymous No.11690583]

>>11690524
This is a fair point But I'll counter by saying that, just because one person/group says that is the goal, that doesn't define the real meaning. The definition/goal you gave is a perspective by a minority. I prefer my Wikipedia definition because it encompasses a larger scope and is more academic. Definitions seem almost arbitrary on how they are picked, but that is not the case. It is simply the definition that most people agree with. And if it is on Wikipedia, then it seems most people agree with it.

[Anonymous No.11690585]

>>11690549
>Prove it.
Thanks. I got my laughs in for the rest of the year

[Anonymous No.11690587]

>>11690480
You mean the racially homogeneous nordic countries which practiced eugenics till the 80’s and fund welfare that all originated as separate charities by heavily taxing their capitalist economies?
Those ones?

[Anonymous No.11690591]

>>11690579
Being kind is to your benefit. Here's an essay from Paul Graham, one of the cofounders of the famous Y-Combinator.

http://paulgraham.com/mean.html

[Anonymous No.11690594]

>>11690511
Not really.

[Anonymous No.11690596]

What is the worst communist pollution event?
Chernobyl? Baltic sea?

[Anonymous No.11690597]

>>11690591
paul graham is just jesus for tech-bros

[Anonymous No.11690598]

>>11690585
Is this a math joke? I can’t tell, I don’t have autism about everyday words like “prove”

[Anonymous No.11690601]

>>11690552
very confused post. communism is the predicted next set of "relations of production" based on the marxist viewpoint which views the "mode of production" as the determining factor deciding the character of the society.
it has no defined characteristics beyond this because working out the details this early is pointless.

socialism is a political project that has little to do with communism.

[Anonymous No.11690605]

>>11690516
That is a purely dogmatic statement.
If all selfish people were stupid then the world would be led by intelligent kind people.
But we see that evil dictators exist. Rich drug traffickers and pimps.
Like how many exemples of people who are objectively intelligent and obviously selfish do you need to admit that your statement is pure dogmatic drivel?

[Anonymous No.11690611]

>>11690583
To say that the Fabian Society represents a minority of socialists is just ignorant.

[Anonymous No.11690614]

Who was better for scientific research? the reich or the ussr?

[Anonymous No.11690619]

>>11690332
/thread

[Anonymous No.11690620]

>>11690605
the number of psychopaths in upper management positions is way above average

[Anonymous No.11690622]

>>11690536
I want capitalism.
I want a libertarian constitution with limited democracy, only people who served in the military and pay net positive taxes get to vote.

I’m just pointing out that the most common most powerful socialists are actually trying to implement communism according to their own statements.

[Anonymous No.11690624]

>>11690596
Sweden was the best example of socialism working. They had a socialist party in charge for 90 years straight. The place was heaven Earth. Everyone wishes their country could be Sweden during these 90 years. You can point to incompetent countries which were incompetent by virtue of being incompetent all you like, but it wasn't communism that made them shit. It was their people. Their people were shit to begin with. The theme of the thread is that socialism can work if YOUR PEOPLE aren't shit to start with.

[Anonymous No.11690627]

>>11690597
Yeah but even Jesus had some good teachings like don't be a dick. Jesus is over hyped but he had some good words tho

[Anonymous No.11690632]

>>11690624
Do you mean the nascent caliphate?

[Anonymous No.11690636]

>>11690552

>Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.

Free association means I can opt out of aml the commie shit in your list?
And refuse to hire people who don’t?

[Anonymous No.11690637]

It's not that all mathematicians are Marxist, but Western universities are generally run by Marxists. So you either follow their ideology or get kicked out. Many of other fields are the same way, although those that involve a lot of practical problem solving rather than theoretical bullshitting tend to have less Marxists for some reason...

[Anonymous No.11690639]

>>11690627
Did you ever hear that Jesus is just the greek pronunciation?

[Anonymous No.11690644]

>>11690552
Like do you realize that the second list contains contradictions that can only resolve by abandoning freedom or being communist?

[Anonymous No.11690645]

Because capitalism rewards shitty people.

[Anonymous No.11690646]

>>11690624
Sweden also has the advantage of being small, relatively resource-rich, and having been exempt from the devastation of WWII. Not saying similar systems couldn't work in the US, but the upfront is obviously more challenging for a country with 30x the population.

[Anonymous No.11690647]

>>11690601
You and I are on the same page. I agree that Socialism and Communism are different. The guy I was replying to was arguing that Lenin said Socialism was a pathway to Communism.

[Anonymous No.11690651]

>>11690636
*all

[Anonymous No.11690652]

>>11690637
>It's not that all mathematicians are Marxist, but Western universities are generally run by Marxists. So you either follow their ideology or get kicked out.

this is laughably incorrect. so many of the core administrators of my uni are republican donors

[Anonymous No.11690653]

>>11690620
Right. So we know that intelligence and selflessness do not at all necessarily come together.

[Anonymous No.11690662]

>>11690327

[Anonymous No.11690663]

>>11690611
Okay, I'll fix my statement you're right. Just because a 7,000 membered organization that is well funded holds this stance. Does not mean everyone who are academic that talk about communism/socialism follows this stance.

[Anonymous No.11690664]

>>11690647
Lenin did say that. What’s your point?

[Anonymous No.11690665]

>>11690624
So how do you get your people to not be shit? I suppose it starts in early development. Your brain is most malleable when you're 1 or 2. Everything that happens to you within these two years will shape the rest of your life. This is science fact. What should ostensibly ultra-affluent countries like the United States do to ensure that EVERY child born within its borders gets the BEST conditions for shaping their entire future? This question has never been addressed. What's more important is staving off islamic terrorists and the chinese menace! Ultimately we have to make a choice. Do the people living within our borders warrant our attention? Or should we eternally stave off foreign adversaries? This is a balancing act that no one have ever been able to figure out the best ratio for. Let's hope that our smartest leaders don't lead the rest of us off. cliff.

[Anonymous No.11690666]

>>11690652
since there's a chance some of you might have an answer to this,
years ago I was talking to someone on some leftypol board and they mentioned the idea of "evolutionary stadia" and some english researcher and a few books, I was going to follow it up but I lost the links
any idea what they could have been?

[Anonymous No.11690667]

>>11690644
Can you be more specific? I don't see the obvious contradiction you are trying to point out.

[Anonymous No.11690670]

>>11690664
My point is that Socialism and Communism are different. And even if one is a path to another one. They are still different things. That's all I'm saying. They are not the same and they are different words for a reason.

[Anonymous No.11690671]

>>11690665
if you improve the capabilities of your people to stave off invasion and better compete surely that's win win?

[Anonymous No.11690672]

>>11690666
I have no clue. I don't really identify as a leftist. I'm pretty much just an American liberal. There's some socialist ideas that I'm a fan of (like medicare for all), but my general impression of leftists is that they have extremely unrealistic expectations about what Americans are willing to vote for.

[Anonymous No.11690673]

>>11690645
Communism rewards even shittier people

[Anonymous No.11690678]

>>11690662
>lies
Most people who go into academia are lefties. I thought this was one of the main reasons /pol/ hates academia as a whole

[Anonymous No.11690680]

>>11690673
That may be but at least there's fewer of them.

[Anonymous No.11690682]

>>11690673
True

[Anonymous No.11690683]

>>11690672
Did not mean to quote you, sorry.

[Anonymous No.11690684]

>>11690680
Fewer does not mean less damage to your society.

[Anonymous No.11690689]

>>11690673
>someone who lives in a trailer park in missouri is going to tell me about who is a shittier person than him
yeah, no

[Anonymous No.11690690]

>>11690680
what is the current commie self inflicted death toll?

[Anonymous No.11690712]

>>11690652
What sort of bizarro alternate America do you live in?

[Anonymous No.11690723]

>>11690689
Hey look, a pinko getting butthurt. What are the odds?

[Anonymous No.11690746]

>>11690591
I bet he'd let me fuck his wife.

[Anonymous No.11690749]

>>11690624
>YOUR PEOPLE
And guess what happens to YOUR PEOPLE if you follow socialist Swedens example and offer generous welfare with open borders

[Anonymous No.11690753]

>>11690746
I bet he would because he would just go get another one lmao. The guy is Chad as fuck, there's a reason why he is a god for Tech Bros.

[Anonymous No.11690759]

>>11690327
I assume that by "communist" you mean 'leftist'.

I believe its academia in general.

I believe the reason its that wealth and power are really excessively concentrated and that its just 'good sense' that a not so unequal distribution would be better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&t=281s

Although there were really catastrophic (extremmist) leftist experiments, I don't think that rules out the whole concept. There is a whole spectrum of measures and parameters to try.

[Anonymous No.11690762]

>>11690749
sex and culture: JD Unwin

[Anonymous No.11690763]

>>11690759
OP here, cool thanks for the video. But yeah I definitely meant Communist, as in the wikipedia definition of Communist because that's what these guys I talk to reference.

[Anonymous No.11690767]

>>11690759
this is what happens when you get usury

[Anonymous No.11690769]

>>11690749
>open borders
That's the capitalists of every western country who did that. They wanted next to free labor. Socialism didn't do that, capitalism did. Now go cry to Trump about it.

[Anonymous No.11690774]

>>11690769
>n-no u-u
lol ok bro socialists never agitated for free movement of people

[Anonymous No.11690776]

>>11690774
Capitalists did too. You can't just pin the blame on one if both are at fault.

[Anonymous No.11690778]

Reminder Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and let his own children starve to death instead of getting a job. His entire treatise is Cope: the Books. If he was born in the age of NEETbux no-one would have ever heard of him.

[Anonymous No.11690783]

>>11690767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_yh4-Zi92Q

[Anonymous No.11690784]

>>11690776
I didn't blame anyone I pointed out the Swedish socialist model collapsed because of generous welfare and open borders. You can't tell everyone in Nigeria they can move to Sweden for free money.

[Anonymous No.11690786]

>>11690784
The mistake the swedes made was not removing the capitalists who kept the borders open.

[Anonymous No.11690792]

>>11690786
Once again anon I'm sure socialists would never agitate for free movement of peopme.

[Anonymous No.11690795]

>>11690792
Shit niggers I concede defeat I hit the m key instead of the l key and hit enter before I noticed.

[Anonymous No.11690801]

>>11690792
Socialism has the benefit of being intelligent, i.e. it has the ability to amend itself as it goes along. Meanwhile, capitalism is just "what is". Let it all hang out. Whatever happens is fine. No intelligence guiding it at all. It's just what would happen if chimpanzees tried to have a society.

[Anonymous No.11690803]

>>11690778
>wrote some of the most influential texts ever regardless of field
>many of which are absolutely gargantuan, extremely thorough works
>never worked
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11690810]

>>11690665
If you help stupid people have more children then its an uphill struggle though.

[Anonymous No.11690821]

>>11690667
You have «free association».

And then you have all theses rules about how a business should be run, shared ownership for example.

That is a contradiction. If i can asociale freely, then i can choose to work for a salary and take on no responsibility in the ownership of a business.
If i can associate freely then i can choose to only hire people who are content with salarial compensation and no share of the ownership.

[Anonymous No.11690827]

>>11690667
>Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.

Internationalism also is exclusive with free association. What if i want to freely associate with a group and close the border around us?

Economic democracy? What does that mean? That employees all get a say in how a business is run? What if i want to hire someone and just give them money for their sweat and not have to justify every business decision to them? Am I allowed to freely associate like that or not?

[Anonymous No.11690833]

>>11690803
>wrote all his works for free
What do you mean janny?

[Anonymous No.11690836]

>>11690801
That's nice headcanon anon meanwhile socialist Sweden became a 3rd world country inside a generation.

[Anonymous No.11690841]

When it comes down to it, the main tenet of socialism is to get rid of the principle of the self-boosting profit-for-more-profit principle. Stuff like a person acquire 10 apartments and then charging other people 500$ per month for little overhead, which ends up in him being able to afford a 11'th house and then a 12'th an so on.
Under capitalism, people work 40h a week or more, and whenever there's an innovation, instead of this innovation leading to a lower workload, it just leads to improved production. So we keep on 40h hours for some rich guy, no matter how humanity advances.

If you have time to think things over, it's easy to get on line with this thought.
The fact that any grouping of people who's powerful enough to change the system corrupts is another story. I'd not blame Marx for human nature.

[Anonymous No.11690843]

>>11690678
communism is a fringe belief. unless this guy has investigated the political leanings of literally hundreds of mathematicians he's lying with overwhelming probability. skewing left is very different from being a straight up communist. He's probably from leftypol. the fact that this thread gets so many replies taking him seriously just proves this board is full of 16 year olds.

[Anonymous No.11690846]

>>11690833
Actually he got paid to write most of it.

[Anonymous No.11690850]

>>11690846
>he got a stipend from his friend engels who owned a factory so he could write a book about the evils of factory owners
lol

[Anonymous No.11690851]

>>11690843
Intelligent people are also a fringe minority. Everyone else is retarded. Including yourself.

[Anonymous No.11690858]

Why do people act like having a Engel-sugar daddy does discredit Marx from writing economic theory and emancipation of the poor?

[Anonymous No.11690869]

>>11690836
>Sweden became a 3rd world country
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11690875]

>>11690858
>Why do people act like never working and getting free money discredits Marx from pretending he knew anything about the poor?
Reminder the poor have roundly rejected Communism everytime they have encountered it.
>inb4 ACKSHULLY NOT REAL

[Anonymous No.11690877]

>>11690875
Honestly not a single argument was contained within this post.

[Anonymous No.11690879]

>>11690869
What did you mean?

[Anonymous No.11690881]

>>11690877
>w-w-why won't p-people take the w-w-working class h-hero seriously???
he never worked
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11690884]

>>11690869
>>11690879
Worth thinking about which metrics are important for the debate.

Micheal Jorden is a pathetic loser on the pasta cooking scale, imho.

[Anonymous No.11690891]

>>11690884
>jorden
breh.....

[Anonymous No.11690892]

>>11690332
>>when people who study meme degrees like math realize that will have to work at mcdonals after they finished they become communist.
These people hoped that they would live a holy life of investigating the realm of eternal truth that transcends reality. They get out and found themselves caught in a widespread and systematic ploy to dilute the wages of the professional and educated class and now they have to get code monkey jobs or drive uber while they go to graduate school and hope for that distant prospect of tenure while they massively inflate the next tier of educated professionals.

[Anonymous No.11690906]

>>11690836
It's the women mate, I'm not being /r9k/ here.
women literally destroy the fundamental underpinnings of a society. too much female freedom and a lack of accountability and everything goes off the rails as they just leech from the system chasing pleaasure and being vile to each other.

[Anonymous No.11690913]

Janny having great fun deleting things that trigger him. Let people talk you fucking faggot no-one is insulting anyone.

[Anonymous No.11690916]

I can't ignore all this Marxist shit popping up anymore, it's everywhere. What's the best tldr on this shit?

[Anonymous No.11690918]

>>11690916
Failures in life want successes to pay for them.

[Anonymous No.11690929]

>>11690327
>the educated are disproportionally marxist
>surely marxism must be dumb
crazy how only brainlets and high school drop outs are againts based marx, what's even funnier is that none of them even know what he actually said, decades of cia propaganda have rotten the average amerimutt brain to the point of no return, gee guys is already bad enough you mixed in with the niggers there's no need to dumb yourselves down more

[Anonymous No.11690935]

>>11690879
Luckily for the Swedes, this model isn't accurate and their HDI actually increased and continues to do so, albeit at a slower rate as is the case with all advanced countries.

[Anonymous No.11690938]

>>11690929
Marx was a decent analyst of the flaws of the system but his proposed solutions sucked.

[Anonymous No.11690939]

Communism's greatest weakness is its autism. The real world is complex and messy and full of deeply flawed people. Communism attracts strong personalities by giving them a political structure that allows them to use their charisma and ability to make connections to very easily gain power. Some of these people are actually competent-I think Lenin is uniquely one of the communist leaders who did a reasonably good job with maintaining order and tried to be pragmatic in the face of the post-revolutionary hardships when it came to pushing out radical experimental economic changes, although he still made big mistakes and did some very morally questionable things. But the vanguard party system's internal tendency to create these opportunities for sociopathic personalities to accumulate power ultimately poisoned pretty much all communist organizations and led them to adopt bizzare cult of personality deviations.

It's possible a communist movement could avoid this at some point,but the track record is dismal.

[Anonymous No.11690940]

>>11690916
the internet makes us more connected and the Americans can't keep up their anti-Soviet cardhouse of propaganda

[Anonymous No.11690941]

>>11690332
fpbp

[Anonymous No.11690942]

>>11690938
Good thing he didn't propose any solutions then.

[Anonymous No.11690944]

oh my god you guys are still on this. GET OVER IT COMMUNISM WON!

[Anonymous No.11690945]

>>11690929
Didn't Bezos work 100+ hour work weeks during early Amazon? You think any lazy American can do that?

[Anonymous No.11690946]

>>11690916
>I can't ignore all this Marxist shit popping up anymore, it's everywhere. What's the best tldr on this shit?
Europeans move from serfs, lords, and feudalism into a new system where most people are either own the tools, factories, and land to produce goods and services or they work for the class of owners for wages. This has massive implications on all areas of life, from politics, arts, how people work and live their daily lives, and how they view themselves.

[Anonymous No.11690959]

>>11690929
>that image
I propose in 2050 we will see a genuinely good left-wing meme.

[Anonymous No.11690965]

>>11690935
That's a nice completely unsourced graph.

[Anonymous No.11690969]

>>11690946
So why did Marx even say anything, if everything was fine just the way that it was?

[Anonymous No.11690973]

>>11690969
He was assmad he wasn't getting free money.

[Anonymous No.11690976]

Academia is absolutely rife with neo socialists. The campus marxists have done good work to brainwash and coerce everyone into the ideology over the past 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11690981]

I formulated a hypothesis a while back of what makes up a society.
I call it the authoritarian triad.
If two things out of these three become unmanageable, democracy fails and it turns into a dictatorship.
What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.11690983]

>>11690670
Yes. They are different. Shooting someone and killing someone are different things also.
But just as lenin and the Fabian Society, which really encompasses a pretty broad leftist spectrum m, both agree that socialism leads to communism, most people agree that shooting someone is a bad idea if you don’t want them to die.

[Anonymous No.11690984]

Politics thread going to get nuked by jannies in 3,2,1

[Anonymous No.11690987]

>>11690973
Spoken like a true redneck who doesn't know anything.

[Anonymous No.11690988]

>>11690332
Holy based.

[Anonymous No.11690991]

>>11690987
Spoken like a fuming spastic who can't refute a word.

[Anonymous No.11690996]

>>11690969
>>So why did Marx even say anything, if everything was fine just the way that it was?
I don't think the living and labor conditions of an inner city working class person was very good during the industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.11690998]

>>11690976
>Academia is absolutely rife with neo socialists.
Absolutely. I just don't understand what your problem with that is?

[Anonymous No.11691001]

>>11690945
>Didn't Bezos work 100+ hour work weeks during early Amazon?
and? he still doesn't deserve billions for 100 hours of work, that money should be fo the workers that actually run amazon

>You think any lazy American can do that?
ofcourse not, if you're lazy under socialism you're not getting paid shit either

[Anonymous No.11691002]

>>11690892
>gets meme degree can’t get job
How would I have known!!

[Anonymous No.11691003]

>>11690801
Aha. Interesting.
So chimpanzees abolish slavery and create LLCs and create the greatest wealth in known history?
C super cool ton idée!

[Anonymous No.11691005]

>>11690996
>I don't think
That's not evidence.

[Anonymous No.11691008]

>>11690327
i've literally never seen a commie doing anything math even if it is shit. maybe some teachers but they weren't preachy so it is hard to tell

i think i only saw a chemist doing some math. besides that they all hated math and thought i was a racist or whatever

[Anonymous No.11691009]

>>11690976
>Academia is absolutely rife with neo socialists
almost as if high iq and socialism are related

[Anonymous No.11691010]

>>11691001
>everybody should be paid for one mans idea
no wonder commie shit never goes anywhere

[Anonymous No.11691012]

>>11690858
Also fucking his maid. Lets not forget that he used his position of power to fuck the maid.

[Anonymous No.11691013]

>>11691005
>That's not evidence.
Probably not, but it's a question you might have hazard to answer yourself, starting with the assumption that "everything was fine just the way that it was"

[Anonymous No.11691014]

>>11690996
Which explains Marx. I mean, I was being sarcastic. But I think it's more important that the brainlets of this board understand simple concepts. I'm an educator, almost.

[Anonymous No.11691016]

>>11690913
Seriously what are all the deleted comments?

[Anonymous No.11691017]

>>11691009
>high IQ
Mid-level IQ. Midwits (100-120) are just about smart enough to convince themselves Communism is a great idea and that their academic failure is not their own fault.

[Anonymous No.11691018]

>>11690801

tiny brain: socialism bad
slightly bigger brain: no socialism good, if we control everything we can make things better
biggest brain: no socialism bad, humans are imperfect actors with the potential to terribly fuck up a society and economy much more than a laissez-faire system that allows market forces to balance and calibrate inefficiences dynamically

[Anonymous No.11691021]

>>11690916
Democracy allows you to vote to steal other people’s stuff.

[Anonymous No.11691022]

>>11691013
>probably not
Your thoughts are not evidence of anything.

[Anonymous No.11691029]

>>11690938
This is good.

[Anonymous No.11691030]

>>11691021
Instead of giving all your stuff to someone else?

[Anonymous No.11691032]

>>11691021

Democracy always eats itself alive. Good, fair times are just lightning in a bottle, we're always trending back towards authoritarianism because people are cattle in general. Socialists are just the smartest cow on the farm.

[Anonymous No.11691034]

>>11690942
Are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.11691037]

>>11691010
>everybody should be paid for one mans idea
yes, if you work in a company you should own a small share of the company because you mantain it, I never said EVERYBODY gets amazon profits only the people that, you know, make it run, bezos would only get paid less, probably a couple hundred k

[Anonymous No.11691043]

>>11690783
You guys really ought to watch this. It's a little unnerving.

[Anonymous No.11691044]

>>11691037

Bezos barely gets paid anything. His wealth is in the shares he's had since the very beginning. You know nothing about business or economics.

[Anonymous No.11691045]

>>11691001
He doesn’t deserve..
wait what?

You get to decide what people deserve?


Everyone loves amazon. He gets paid proportionally to that .

[Anonymous No.11691050]

>>11690327
The /sci/ server link is https://discord.gg/uQr9PQ
We will interview Bill Nye this week, join.,,

[Anonymous No.11691051]

>>11691017
cope in whatever way you like burger mutt just remember your boss wants you at 7 tomorrow to steal your labor so he can afford to buy another car, lmao pathetic

[Anonymous No.11691056]

>>11691032
Ill agree that socialists are like the smartest people with Down syndrome, split the difference right?

[Anonymous No.11691057]

>>11691016
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/11690327

[Anonymous No.11691060]

>>11691037
And here we see the retardation of a commie shit on full display.

[Anonymous No.11691070]

>>11691050
why would /sci/ care about some half rate engineer?

[Anonymous No.11691073]

Strawpoll time
https://www.strawpoll.me/20105877

[Anonymous No.11691081]

>>11691044
we can argue about the liquidity of his assets but that still doesn't solve the problem of how much assets he owns to begin with, yes, I know the difference between net worth and money in the bank thank you

[Anonymous No.11691098]

can someone explain the chicago school economics to me?

[Anonymous No.11691104]

>>11691098
property taxes good
other taxes bad
free market good
government bad
universal income maybe but ideally not

[Anonymous No.11691130]

>>11690537
Retard

[Anonymous No.11691140]

>>11691130
>No U
not an argument

[Anonymous No.11691142]

>>11691104
what's the thinking on all other tax but property tax bad?

[Anonymous No.11691148]

I like how nobody dares to challenge the OPs bait question. There is a difference between going full comunism and being against exploitation of poor people.

[Anonymous No.11691152]

>>11691142
Because it forces people to make productive use of their property.
Also you have to have some kind of tax.

[Anonymous No.11691173]

>>11691044
his liquidable wealth is easily in the tens of billions, which makes him richer than anyone can sensibly fathom

[Anonymous No.11691176]

>>11690712
a red state, of which the majority are.

[Anonymous No.11691182]

communism
when the workers ie YOU and your colleagues get to democratically control the MOP offices, factories,farms
and the levers of the economie are not controlled under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in order to further their bottom line with no concern over the well being of YOU

under communism not only do you get to experience more control over your life ie what the products of your labour are done with, there is also no other classes of people trying to undermine your well being in every aspect in life

no sane person who understands communism would be against it

[Anonymous No.11691187]

>ctrl+f "jew"
>0 results

how

[Anonymous No.11691220]

>>11691051
I bet you have 100 IQ mid-wit.
Protip: Marx let Engels sleep with his wife for """funding""".

[Anonymous No.11691223]

>>11691182
>no sane person who understands communism would be against it
>if you give mr. shekelstein everything you own he'll make sure you get a fair share

[Anonymous No.11691224]

>>11691182
That doesn't work though
There's been land reforms before and whenever they happen the person receiving the farm either ends up selling it or mismanaging it.

[Anonymous No.11691229]

>>11691187
>how
The penniless interns on this board have a seething mental breakdown if you tell them their high school football team died on a sand dune in the Middle East because it suited Israeli interests.

[Anonymous No.11691241]

>>11690792

Because different groups that follow a socialist worldview on economics don't automatically agree on immigration. Same with the right, Ronald Reagan on illegal immigrants here. It's it's own complex discussion that crosses political lines from right to left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ednq_vKPdQE

[Anonymous No.11691244]

>>11691223
poltard just read the end then spurged
>>11691224
yea land reforms for profit making not land collectivization

[Anonymous No.11691248]

>>11691244
Well if people that are given farms won't work the land for profit why would they work the land for free?

[Anonymous No.11691249]

>>11691223
You don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11691271]

>>11691248

You could create a collectivized society where private corporations are turned into worker co-ops. Socialism is more a framework that can be attempted in different ways.

Then there is India where they decided the best approach is 'central planning that allows capitalism to exist' may be the best approach, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.11691272]

>>11691244
>i-if i c-cry about m-muh paul i-it will c-cover everything u-up
Imagine what an obese jealous loser you'd have to be to thinking demanding successful people's property off them is how you'll make you way in life.
Post a timestamp of your gut you failure.

[Anonymous No.11691277]

>>11691249
You can't refute.

[Anonymous No.11691284]

>>11691271
>India
Yes the very strict caste system an almost comical incidence of gang rape in a city that throws their dead and shits into the river they drink from is eithout a doubt the perfect starting point for a socialist society.

[Anonymous No.11691287]

>>11690452
based anarcho primitivist

[Anonymous No.11691295]

>>11691284

I was referring to India's policy in regard to central planning only. And I accidentally refereed to that as my favorite instead of the worker co-op one, that was an accident.

[Anonymous No.11691300]

>>11691223
>if you give mr. shekelstein everything you own he'll make sure you get a fair share
there is no state in commie land dumbass, almost as if you don't even know what communism is, lmao

[Anonymous No.11691302]

>>11690411
>>11690398
when an ideology wins and becomes the dominant/ruling ideology it is no longer a volunteristic struggle of the partial. ideological pretension acquires a sort of flat positivistic exactitude, it becomes a fact
thats debord in society of the spectacle, think i got most of it right been a while. whatever ideology is dominant where you are its the default and shapes your entire world view

[Anonymous No.11691320]

>>11691300
>lmao
>NOT REAL COMMUNISM
oh no

[Anonymous No.11691322]

>>11691272
Not an argument
Cope more

[Anonymous No.11691333]

>>11691322
>no timestamp
Ok fatty

[Anonymous No.11691336]

>>11690624
I'm a Socialist btw.

Sweden is not a socialist country. They follow a similar system to Germany's model called "Rhineland Capitalism" or "social market economy," the 'social' part takes upon a major wealth tax. Which is then used to fund social programs. This is just social democracy being in sync with capitalism. The Nordic model is really good in a humane way, but has its shortcomings here and there.

But however China is a Socialist country and they're doing well economically. As they have 3x times the economic growth than the US and lifted 800+ million people off poverty.

Also during this pandemic who in their right minds wants to be a Libertarian or Ancap?

[Anonymous No.11691342]

>>11691081

I don't think you do. You act like what he makes takes away from the "earnings" of his underlings but that couldn't be further from the case. He put his whole stock in his company and let that shit appreciate off of the investments of others. They have quite literally given his net worth their vote of confidence, he doesn't siphon money from the actual enterprise (that everybody else entered later).

[Anonymous No.11691350]

>>11691336
>I'm a Socialist
Get a job you parasite.

[Anonymous No.11691352]

>>11691173

That isn't the point. He isn't getting paid from Amazon's revenue. A laborer for Amazon does an action and gets paid for that action, in the present day, Bezos, QUITE LITERALLY, gets paid for his initial investment and trust in his company, that NOBODY ELSE had. And I'm sure he would have been happy to pay people in stock back then. Your argument falls hideously flat because Jeff Bezos gets actively paid $80k per year in 2020, his wealth is derived directly from his initial investment and confidence in his company, and then over the years millions of other, willing individuals paid into that fund.

[Anonymous No.11691362]

>>11691272
Not an argument
Cope more

[Anonymous No.11691378]

I'm a socialist and the government should pay for everything.
My research is important. I'm getting into my graduate program after the summer break. I wouldn't be able to do this without socialism paying for it. We need more socialism. Denmark btw

[Anonymous No.11691397]

>>11691378

That isn't for you to decide, fag. Case in point about the major amounts of waste, human governments can't dictate what is actually worth the public investment.

[Anonymous No.11691409]

>>11691397
Human governments should decide. I vote for the most pro education and pro science party every time. They want to cut taxes on average but they also want to fund education which is in my favour. I suppose I'm not a real socialist but rather a liberal.

[Anonymous No.11691410]

>>11691352
Yah but not his labour
In order to maintain his wealth he has to steal the surplus value from his employees

[Anonymous No.11691418]

>>11691410

It is literally stock... he's had in the company since the day it was founded... just sitting there... appreciating because other, consenting individuals willingly buy into the same pool. And if any of his laborers would like to have a share of that... they can. They can buy as well, they're just pretty fucking late now, right? Twat

If you planted two fruit trees 20 years ago, and tended to them over the years and they were finally fruit bearing after decades, it would be fair to pay people to pick fruit from the tree in kind, but they don't get the tree. Does this register at all with you or are you still insisting anyone can swoop on in anywhere and claim a chunk of a company's legacy because they moved a few boxes back and forth?

[Anonymous No.11691440]

>>11691352
none of this is relevant to the fact that Bezos is absurdly wealthy and his wealth derives from unpaid wages. obfuscating the issue and changing the subject does not make this any less true

[Anonymous No.11691442]

>>11691418
>If you planted two fruit trees 20 years ago, and tended to them over the years and they were finally fruit bearing after decades, it would be fair to pay people to pick fruit from the tree in kind, but they don't get the tree.

stock in a corporation does not organically appreciate. the correct analogy here is that you put a seed in the ground, thousands of other people watered it, fertilized it, cared for it for twenty years - and the only person that really gets to collect the fruit is the one who put the seed in the ground

[Anonymous No.11691450]

>>11691442
>stock in a corporation does not organically appreciate. the correct analogy here is that you put a seed in the ground, thousands of other people watered it, fertilized it, cared for it for twenty years - and the only person that really gets to collect the fruit is the one who put the seed in the ground

No it isn't. Bezos is the original, and the majority, shareholder. He spent a lot of time and money getting this tree planted, watered, and up to speed before other people decided to start investing in the future of it. It's his seed, it's his sapling, it's his tree. That now bears fruit, and people are paid for collecting fruit (laborers) and for having taken their turn watering it (shareholders). But nobody had anything close to the impact the #1 guy did. If you want to whine about anybody whine about parasite CEO's who take over a dying company and rape it before jumping out in a golden parachute.

The chief issue with socialists and communists is how little they understand the important of encouraging investment, entrepreneurship, and that initial risk which is the birth of every great company and enterprise. You think this shit can just be declared by a government and then distributed on a whim... very fucking wrong. People with vision are in short supply and even then many are often very wrong.

[Anonymous No.11691458]

>>11691450
>No it isn't. Bezos is the original, and the majority, shareholder.
arguing about the terminology of your flawed system doesn't make the system less flawed. I understand why being a majority shareholder can cause your wealth to explode - that's not what we're talking about here. the question is whether any of this is actually a just, useful way to distribute wealth.

>He spent a lot of time and money getting this tree planted, watered, and up to speed before other people decided to start investing in the future of it. It's his seed
no amount of time or effort warrants the concentration of nearly 150 billion USD under a single person's control. if Bezos were to lose 90% of his wealth, his quality of life would be literally unchanged, but a million Americans could have their lives improved substantially. there is no utilitarian perspective where leaving wealth in some shiny fuck's dragon-hoard makes the world a better place

[Anonymous No.11691467]

>>11691458
>arguing about the terminology of your flawed system doesn't make the system less flawed. I understand why being a majority shareholder can cause your wealth to explode - that's not what we're talking about here. the question is whether any of this is actually a just, useful way to distribute wealth.

The parties involved already decided so. This has nothing to do with you or any other arbitrary outside entity at all. Literally everybody involved in every stage of Amazon's stock growth were consenting individuals who understood the current context, valuation, risk, and reward. It isn't your job to tell them that's wrong and then start taking people's wealth and investment.

>no amount of time or effort warrants the concentration of nearly 150 billion USD under a single person's control. if Bezos were to lose 90% of his wealth, his quality of life would be literally unchanged, but a million Americans could have their lives improved substantially. there is no utilitarian perspective where leaving wealth in some shiny fuck's dragon-hoard makes the world a better place

Again, just arbitrary bullshit. It isn't even liquid. If he sold that all it would be worth way less, and then he would be shattering the wealth of countless other people who saw the share price plummet. This is like saying "Bezos, your trees have gotten too big. Time to cut them down, chop them up, and distribute them out fairly." In a word, you're a cancerously minded individual.

[Anonymous No.11691470]

>>11691467
>It isn't your job to tell them that's wrong and then start taking people's wealth and investment.
It is wrong, and we should take Bezos' wealth.

>Again, just arbitrary bullshit. It isn't even liquid. If he sold that all it would be worth way less
Alright, how much would it be worth liquid?

[Anonymous No.11691474]

>communism

no one believes this pipe dream, we are stalinists or socialists

[Anonymous No.11691475]

>>11691467
>and then he would be shattering the wealth of countless other people who saw the share price plummet.
let me say this as clearly as I can: fuck them all. corporate welfare is the cancer killing capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11691478]

>>11691475

That isn't "corporate welfare." It's every individual with their retirement and life savings invested in Amazon you fucking retard. I'm starting to understand why Pinochet went ahead and threw your kind out of helicopters, you can't be reasoned with, you just want to destroy out of spite.

[Anonymous No.11691483]

>>11691478
>It's every individual with their retirement and life savings invested in Amazon you fucking retard
oh so it's 'liquid' imaginary wealth when we want to tax Bezos, but suddenly we're ruining innocent 1%'ers lives by tanking the stock price? you can't have it both ways you fucking stoolie

[Anonymous No.11691484]

>>11691470

>Alright, how much would it be worth liquid?

A fraction, half would be a conservative estimate. It would trigger a shock sell off as others saw the founder and CEO dumping his whole net worth and lead to a huge lack of confidence in their forward prospects.

He's in his 50's, when he dies this is all going to get returned back to the world in various ways. Can you wait until then you little shit or are you that insistent on playing God with people many times your superior?

[Anonymous No.11691487]

imagine living in a capitalist shithole like america

[Anonymous No.11691488]

>>11691483
'unliquid'*

>A fraction, half would be a conservative estimate.
based on what?

[Anonymous No.11691491]

>>11691483

>HURRR DURR THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUNDER'S SEMI-PERMANENT MASSIVE $150B HOLDINGS AND JIMMY FUCKNUTS' $700K RETIREMENT FUND

[Anonymous No.11691494]

>>11691484
>It would trigger a shock sell off as others saw the founder and CEO dumping his whole net worth and lead to a huge lack of confidence in their forward prospects.
this is entirely bullshit. Gates has liquidated tens of billions of dollars in MS stock and yet it's at a near all-time-high, even in spite of the pandemic

[Anonymous No.11691495]

>>11691488

Are you going to keep asking basic questions and force me to give you a full lesson on stock market dynamics or are you going to take the time to actually learn about that which you've decided to rail against

[Anonymous No.11691496]

>>11691491
>>HURRR DURR THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUNDER'S SEMI-PERMANENT MASSIVE $150B HOLDINGS AND JIMMY FUCKNUTS' $700K RETIREMENT FUND
your hypothetical here is based on a bullshit premise, but no sensible person with a $700k retirement fund would have it entirely invested
in Amazon stock

[Anonymous No.11691497]

>>11691494

In his retirement, where it has no bearing on his knowledge of the company at all, in chunks, and over a long period of time yes, he has made sales of his stock. He did not dump his whole investment in a year.

[Anonymous No.11691500]

>>11691495
>force me to give you a full lesson on stock market dynamics
you act like you actually know how any of this works, and that you aren't just some retard regurgitating talking points from PragerU

do you have any business experience whatsoever?

[Anonymous No.11691502]

>>11691496

Ah, so you concede that it is indeed quite risky to be all in on one company and worth something for doing so? I'm sure Jeff Bezos was curious about his future when he was operating off of the promise of future returns from his all in investment. If you're a coward by heart don't talk about the fortunes of people who actually had the nuts to put their money where their mouth is and build something.

[Anonymous No.11691504]

>>11691497
>In his retirement
No, in a non-profit fund that disburses tens of billions in philanthropy to the developing world. Your hypothesis that billionaires can't liquidate billions in wealth is complete, provable bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11691505]

>>11691502
>I'm sure Jeff Bezos was curious about his future when he was operating off of the promise of future returns from his all in investment.
Cool, great bargain. We should still take his wealth because it does him no good and comes at the cost of millions of people's basic welfare. Fuck him to hell - don't care how great he is at business.

[Anonymous No.11691508]

>>11691500

All I know for certain is that you don't know how any of this works. The way you talk indicates to me that you're at a pre-school level understanding of the stock market and investment. So if I'm at 3rd grade, so be it, still miles ahead of you and facepalming over the fact that you decided to wade authoritatively into an argument over it. This is the fun in arguing with socialists, they go the entire argument with their foot in their mouth but goddamn do they dogmatically take it to the very end, all powered by spite.

[Anonymous No.11691515]

>>11691508
>All I know for certain is that you don't know how any of this works. The way you talk indicates to me that you're at a pre-school level understanding of the stock market and investment. So if I'm at 3rd grade, so be it, still miles ahead of you and facepalming over the fact that you decided to wade authoritatively into an argument over it.

"I don't know what I'm talking about at all, but you don't know it /even more!/"

pathetic stoolie

[Anonymous No.11691518]

>>11691504

>No, in a non-profit fund that disburses tens of billions in philanthropy to the developing world. Your hypothesis that billionaires can't liquidate billions in wealth is complete, provable bullshit.

In his fucking retirement. He isn't the CEO of Microsoft anymore retard. And this is over a long period of time. And Bill still has a massive stake in Microsoft to this day. None of these constraints apply to what we're discussing. Kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11691519]

>>11690327
Studied architecture. Definitely true of that field in academia. Can't say for others but suspect it's just academia

[Anonymous No.11691521]

>>11691518
>In his fucking retirement. He isn't the CEO of Microsoft anymore retard.
I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Explain it with your non-existent MBA from PragerU to me?

[Anonymous No.11691522]

>>11691505
>Cool, great bargain. We should still take his wealth because it does him no good and comes at the cost of millions of people's basic welfare. Fuck him to hell - don't care how great he is at business.

Finally, you've said what you really wanted to say. You hate him. You hate rich and successful people. They wear at your latent, deep insecurity and your only cope is to push for an ideology that might equalize you two and maybe even find you a seat of power for doing nothing but sitting in your big boy chair and doing a big deep think about how the wealth of others "ought to be" taken and handled.

[Anonymous No.11691524]

>>11690333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4

[Anonymous No.11691525]

>>11691521

The CEO has deep, intimate knowledge of the company he's invested in. When a CEO liquidates his stake it's an effective, major vote of "no confidence" that can exacerbate a shock sell off.

Gates selling off some of his stake in his retirement however makes perfect sense. He's retired and he needs to pay for his retirement endeavors now.

[Anonymous No.11691531]

>>11691522
>You hate rich and successful people.
there are millions of rich and successful people whose net worth is still at least slightly proportional to the effort put into their career

doctors, surgeons, dentists, established scientists, best-selling authors, talented musical performers. they make millions and I don't care.

but when you are worth 150,000 times a millionaire - a person who already has more money than they could spend and enjoy - that's when the system is fucking broken. you are deluded if you believe otherwise

[Anonymous No.11691538]

>>11691531

Good for you and your arbitrary criteria. I think the lone founder of the nation (and the world's) largest and most influential eCommerce distributor is worth whatever he invested in. It's your pathetic, peanut brained word and judgement vs. the needs and payment of millions and billions of others who've decided Amazon is important to them.

[Anonymous No.11691539]

>>11691525
>When a CEO liquidates his stake it's an effective, major vote of "no confidence" that can exacerbate a shock sell off.
The ethical thing is to retire and become a philanthropist. People like Gates and Carnegie realized this - whatever product you sell does not possibly do as much good in society as uplifting millions out of poverty and disease. It is ridiculous to suggest that creative control over a shipping company is worth millions living in squalor.

[Anonymous No.11691546]

>>11691538
>Good for you and your arbitrary criteria.
it's not arbitrary if you have pretty much any respect for human life

[Anonymous No.11691549]

>>11691539

The funny part is that you're so superficially minded that you've bought Gates' good guy dog and pony show while his wealth has continued to balloon past $95B. Jeff's hobby is trying to get us further into space.

I don't give a shit if a million poor monkeys are living in squalor. Humanity is uplifted by its greatest contributors, not retards who can't figure out how to make anything better than a tent. If your priority is constantly the lowest common denominator you will become a lowest common denominator society... or, socialist. Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.11691550]

>>11691546

Stage 3 cope: platitudes and pathos. I doubt you'd give up your Western comforts and live like a spartan so that a few poor children in Zambia could be more comfortable. It's all relative, right?

[Anonymous No.11691551]

There's peer to peer alternatives to amazon.
But getting people to switch is like pulling on a donkey.

[Anonymous No.11691555]

>>11691549
>you've bought Gates' good guy dog and pony show while his wealth has continued to balloon past $95B
There are firm differences between Gates and Bezos. Gates has donated over $30b to philanthropic causes. Bezos has donated far less than $1b (discounting money that is 'pledged' but not disbursed, at least as of yet).

>Jeff's hobby is trying to get us further into space.
great that his redundant hobby comes at the cost of millions of potential scientists and astronauts

>I don't give a shit if a million poor monkeys are living in squalor. Humanity is uplifted by its greatest contributors, not retards who can't figure out how to make anything better than a tent.
finally you say what you actually mean. you don't care about people - you care about money. if you had just said "fuck the poor" from the start I wouldn't have bothered to engage you like a person that isn't a narcissistic loser.

the sad irony too is that you're probably below average in income. the majority of corporate stoolies aren't successful businessmen - they're poor people in denial about their own poverty. am I hitting in the ballpark here?

[Anonymous No.11691559]

>>11691550
>I doubt you'd give up your Western comforts and live like a spartan so that a few poor children in Zambia could be more comfortable. It's all relative, right?

the difference between me and Bezos is that $1000 pays a month of my rent, while $1000 has no measurable impact on Bezos' quality of life whatsoever. it's scientific fact that beyond a certain point, additional money doesn't make your life any more enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.11691572]

>>11690327
Why do smart people like Communism? Idk anon why do smart people tend to like smart ideas? Kek right wingers checkmating themselves like this

[Anonymous No.11691576]

>>11690494
Except that a large portion of academia, especially that of the last 50 years, comes from lower class. Yet they're still largely in favor of progressive ideas. What gives? Intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11691578]

>mathematics + finance double major
>will work at a bank making money off of other's money
>first year economics professor made fun of communists in class
seethe harder pinko academics.

[Anonymous No.11691581]

>>11691450
>an actual good post

what the fuck

[Anonymous No.11691583]

The reason why mathematicians probably like communism is because they'd be happy living in a commie block eating state rice and chicken as long as they were given a pencil, paper and computer to do their maths and not have to teach a classroom full of young adults and whore themselves out for grants maybe.
Whereas normies want nice things like a ranch or a lambo.
If thats the case the solution is pretty simple, just give ubi to phds then they'll stop promoting communism.

[Anonymous No.11691587]

>>11691576
>Except that a large portion of academia, especially that of the last 50 years, comes from lower class.
that doesn't necessarily mean they understand what life outside academia is like - it just means their parents were poor

which makes sense as a background that promotes progressive ideals - not necessarily intelligence

[Anonymous No.11691674]

>>11691587
Right, growing up as a poor person in a ghetto, having to work to support your family while studying, etc etc, doesn't necessarily mean you understand life outside of academia. It's not like their whole life has been outside of academia and have just recently entered in it.

Also your claim for intelligence is completely off. If the majority of this "rich" academia who doesn't understand 'muh real life' is communist, but also the poor academia who 'grew up with progressive ideas' but 'not intelligence' is communist, you're just going on circles finding excuses for why each group of intelligent people support communism lmao. Next up middle class academics support communism bcs >insert smthg else related to their hardships here to cope<.

The reason so many scientists, from Einstein to Oppenheimer, support communism, is because smarter people understand it's the smarter choice. Why do you need to cope so hard, mr. Brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11691681]

>>11690332
Is there ANY degree that isn't a meme degree to you guys or doesn't get shittee on sci?
I am seriously asking because I have yet to see any.

[Anonymous No.11691683]

>>11691674
I'm not saying they aren't intelligent, just that it's overly simplistic to pretend like that's the only factor here.

Also I wouldn't say that a large portion of academia comes from a lower class. In my own personal experience, I was disappointed in the class diversity of people in my PhD cohort. It's not a good thing, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.11691689]

>>11691683
I thought it was clear by the tone that that was mostly a joke. I don't believe conservatives are all dumb cavemen.

I didn't say it was a majority, I said a large portion, because the comment I replied to made it seem as if all academics are rich delusional nerds. As for the numbers, they are rising. It makes sense why it's harder for poorer people to get into, since Academia is already underfunded as is. But it is improving.

[Anonymous No.11691692]

>>11691681
The board isn't a monolith anon. Any degree """I""" don't like is a meme, and any degree """You""" don't like is a meme. Collectively all of them are memes yes, because there is somebody who thinks X is a meme. Dumb question.

[Anonymous No.11691694]

>>11691689
seems like a classic case of Poe's Law

[Anonymous No.11691805]

>>11690460
When a society produces large surplus (capitalism), there is a problem of who gets what and why. This is not problem with communism, because there is no surplus involved. You own your own value based on your own labor. Communists see surplus as the exploitation of the labor of workers, and that is what Marx hated about capitalism because as a result it created unequal power structures.

[Anonymous No.11691826]

>>11691336
>China
>doing well economically
balloons look their largest right before they pop
look at the actual quality of their infrastructure that they're overreaching with into half of the world through the BRI, the populations they're constantly trying to repress, the signals of an end to their artificial boom
their current image of hegemony won't last another two decades, fuck our debts and 'economic obligations' to those overconfident bots and see the fall accelerate into the next 6 years

[Anonymous No.11691832]

>>11690340
>which allowed them to freely explore ideas and run decades of research with full funding
Having shortages of everything for everyone so some dudes can make autistic puzzles with no relevance to anything doesn't seem like a good odea

[Anonymous No.11691834]

>>11691826
Lol so japan, singapore, South Korea and hong kong weren't artificial growth but china is? I think you're mad that a country that isn't enslaved to the west is developing.

[Anonymous No.11691835]

>>11690327
If I ask to discuss Harry Potter and we end up discussing the author are we still discussing Harry Potter? Why have the jannies abandoned us.

[Anonymous No.11691847]

>>11690327
Mathematicians do work that can be of tremendous importance for little to no pay. Meanwhile the door is always open to them to do literally worthless work in a bank or in finance for tremendous value. It is not surprising then, that most of them think capitalism is garbage.

Their gift blinds them to the fact the ordinary person is basically an animal who can only be motivated by basic desires and thus requires his capitalist overlord to abuse him in order for both to survive in this world.

[Anonymous No.11691889]

>>11691522
Not him but what books do you recommend to learn about the inner mechanisms of capitalism and the stock market? Ive read "Economics in one Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt but thats it.

[Anonymous No.11691975]

>>11691805
>When a society produces large surplus (capitalism)
In capitalism surplusses are not desired as they reduce profit.

[Anonymous No.11691983]

>>11690452
>>11690460
>Civilization requires unequal power structures
It's not a requirement, it's more of a result of the fact that not all people are the exqct same. Some are better in certain things than others (for example in math), this leads to them being more successful than other people in a civilization and this in turn creates the unequal power structures. If you think about it, the power structures are fair, an imbecile person should not have the same power as someone successful.

[Anonymous No.11691997]

>>11691475
it's certainly the major problem with the banks, bad decisions should be punished.

[Anonymous No.11692001]

>>11690327
Communism is just for edgy adolescents.

[Anonymous No.11692007]

>>11691519
>architecture
is that why everything is damned ugly now?

[Anonymous No.11692032]

>>11691538
I have a huge issue with the orewellian nightmare of spy tech like echo and alexa or how they changed their policy of no censorship of books to purging books that the ADL doesn't like.

[Anonymous No.11692034]

>>11691550
Zambia is a relatively rich economy in africa, they unlike their neighbour they didn't hunt down and drive off or kill the white farmers

[Anonymous No.11692037]

>>11691551
convenience and inertia. can you list a few? I've been exploring alternatives to wean myself off.

[Anonymous No.11692041]

>>11691572
>Smart idea
What is the current communist body count?

[Anonymous No.11692049]

>>11691889
Thomas Sowell's the myth of trickle down economics, it's fairly short. you can download a pdf for free.

[Anonymous No.11692244]

>>11690605
you are assuming that
1. everyone is trying to be a leader
2. the most intelligent people become leaders

[Anonymous No.11692248]

>>11690624
Then the socialist imported millions of somali and arabs.

[Anonymous No.11692257]

>>11690332
here, frens, the absolute truth
fpbp
/thread

[Anonymous No.11692268]

>>11691018
Pretty much, the biggest problem with marxism/socialism is that it's a fundamentally authoritarian system with no way to opt out.

Commies love to make analogy about working ants and having to bootlick corporate but under communism you still are a working ant, have to bootlick a bureaucrat to even change your broken fridge and in bonus you can't even decide to opt out since the State rules everything.

They just delude themselves thinking they would be in power while they would just be be the same bottom barrel feeders while Bezos instead of being CEO of Amazon would be member of the Politburo.

[Anonymous No.11692310]

>>11692268
Just as Jack Ma is a member of the ccp.

communism is really just gangsterism.

[Anonymous No.11692657]

>>11691975
Surplus of capital, not necessarily goods.

[Anonymous No.11692975]

>>11690965
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/SWE.pdf

[Anonymous No.11693509]

>>11692041
In the gorillions bro
How many schools got shot up this year? Kek jobbers please, back to serving fries and chicken. Let intellectuals do the thinking

[Anonymous No.11693531]

>>11690892
>finish PhD
>be NEET
>look at funny formulas all day long
>become Perelman-tier basedgod
Checkmate, engineers

[Anonymous No.11693548]

>>11691832
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11693831]

Almost all serious economists agree that rent-seeking is bad. The very existence of capital (as opposed to wealth) means it is ideally getting reinvested into society and not hoarded like a dragon sitting on his pile of gold. Capitalism becomes unjust when people sit on their wealth and do not use it in some fashion. Proposals similar to land value taxes would probably increase the productivity and efficiency of our society. Many commonly touted flaws of capitalism, like housing shortages and high rent, are in fact the result of government overregulation and NIMBYism.

I'm not a total laissez-faire libertarian by any means. Some vital means of production (water, healthcare, energy, internet) should be regulated by the government to ensure that even the lowest strata of our society can access them. This in turn boosts productivity and overall wealth. The role of government is to guide the market and capitalism so that it results in the highest overall net gains for the populace. I dare say mixed-market economies of post-war western society have spectacularly succeeded in that regard. While wealth inequality in first world countries is on the rise, the absolute poorest are still much richer than they were at any prior point in history.

There will always be unfairness in a capitalist system, but that doesn't mean that we can't all be better off! It just means that the people on top will be obscenely better off at the same time. Criticism of this often boils down to irrational envy, but people have to understand that there will always be an upper class in some form. Even if you got rid of wealth inquality, there'd still be unfair distribution of social status, charisma and the like. To use an example: even in the utopian society of Star Trek's federation, not everyone can be a Captain in the Starfleet.

[Anonymous No.11693840]

>>11693509
lets talk about the chinese communists and the sparrows

[Anonymous No.11693906]

>>11690327
Because mathematicians are theoreticians, and communism works IN THEORY.

[Anonymous No.11694804]

>>11690327
Smart people are more likely to be lefties for some reason. I don't get it though. Rationally, they should know that capitalism is the reason we enjoy modern standards of living in the first place, right?

[Anonymous No.11694871]

>>11691073
Okay we got a 50/50
Still I see no reasoning on why communism should be implemented other than muh Jeff Bezos.
Which doesn't necessarily imply we need communism either way.

[Anonymous No.11694891]

>>11693906
The idea that we can have an economic system based solely on theft that won't collapse after the state steals all the rich peoples' money doesn't work in theory or reality.

[Anonymous No.11694893]

>>11691681
You're almost there anon

[Anonymous No.11694899]

>>11690364
Pretty stunning to me that people on this board will say "cumminism bad cuz no work!!" when capitalism has literally blown itself up and had to be bailed out by the state three times in the past 20 years

[Anonymous No.11694906]

>>11692268
There is no state in communism

[Anonymous No.11694908]

>>11691983
>tfw jeff bezos is 200 million times better than everybody else on the planet

[Anonymous No.11694925]

>>11690433
>>11690456
>>11690379
See, this is the kind of retarded shit you say when you don't know history

For most of the 19th century, there was no difference between socialism and communism. Socialism was largely used by anti-capitalist christians, and Marx and other scientific materialists preferred to use the term communism, but they were always understood to be referring to the same thing: a stateless society organized around collective ownership of productive property.

In the 20th century, after the russian revolution overthrew the czars there was a split amongst the left in the west. Some considered the eventual state that was formed in the wake of the russian revolution to be a betrayal of Marxism, while others supported the newly formed state.
Those who supported the USSR (and later maoist china) began referring to themselves as communists in order to differentiate themselves from the more liberal leftists of the west, who opposed the authoritarian structures being constructed in these countries.

[Anonymous No.11694928]

>>11690398
Personally getting a real job made me waaaaaaaaay more commie

[Anonymous No.11694931]

>>11694804
Even communists acknowledge that. But they usually say it's now time to look for something better.
Smart people are ambitious and want to improve the way things are, which naturally leads them to left wing ideologies which are all about changing up the status quo.

[Anonymous No.11695026]

>>11694925
>they were always understood to be referring to the same thing: a stateless society organized around collective ownership of productive property.
No, they weren't. Some major players in Socialism at that time, like Lassalle and the SDP, strongly advocated for the presence of the state as an essential element in society. Socialism is a much more dynamic ideology than people give it credit for.

>Those who supported the USSR (and later maoist china) began referring to themselves as communists
Not necessarily. People who called themselves Communist were typically expressing their strong (often orthodox) Marxist beliefs. But those same beliefs could lead a person to easily dismissing both the USSR and PRC as Socialist abortions.

[Anonymous No.11695359]

Probably because they study math and don’t understand philosophy or economics.

[Anonymous No.11695758]

>>11694931
So then, national socialism shouldn't be too bad as long as it's not focused on the past?

[Anonymous No.11695869]

>>11694899
actually that is more a product of banks being too damned big to fail which is a product of state enabled monopolism if the market were freeer it would not have happened, it's an unfortunate product of centralised debt based banking

[Anonymous No.11696609]

>>11691847
Nice explanation, I used to work as a quant but now I'm doing my msc and totally agree with you.