Capitalism is Organized Theft

Firefighters exploit fire victims!
See, I can throw random words together that make me sound retarded too.

fire fighters are no a PRIVATE institution.

youtube.com/watch?v=NjwGzYbvyIc

Attached: 1522963049704.jpg (632x346, 17K)

>"Economic theory doesn't make any sense, it is something you make up and adopt for no reason" - Richard D Wolff
That alone debunks anything he might ever say about economics. He's a guy faking to know things when deep down in his head the line between facts and choice is completely blurred.

Attached: chrome_2018-04-05_18-46-37.png (953x373, 60K)

This is why Communism is becoming more popular. People know the truth.

Attached: Hammer.png (2000x2000, 36K)

economics is not a science, its more like a battle ground. there are no neutral actors, every economist is predisposed to a political position. every economist is a partisan

>not REAL capitalism

>Richard D Wolff in one speech: "Capitalism started at BC times when people made markets"
>Richard D Wolff on another speech: "Capitalism started only 500 years ago, it's a recent thing that will go away!"
>Richard D Wolff on his reddit AMA: "Capitalism started in feudal times when feudal lords seized mass property"
I really feel sorry for commies. Their entire minds is sunk in a world of pure insanity. The people who form their opinions are insane, their writers are pretentious frauds that never gave an ounce of insight to mankind.

Attached: gegF2.jpg (738x863, 204K)

>Rothbard

Attached: ancap meme 19.jpg (640x640, 84K)

>Capitalism is Organized Theft
>supports state seizing land and property
really made me think

Yeah, you are retarded.
>economics is opinion
That's a freudian slip done by Richard. Only thing is, you and him are too mentally retarded to realize that, so you doubled down.

If we have 1, and we add 1, we get 2. That's not opinion, that's an axionical logic. If we change something in society, something WILL happen. It's no an "opinion" on what will happen. Again, despite you being a lying rat of a commie, unfortunately you are too mentally retarded you cannot even spot your own freudian slips and try to cover them.

Attached: socialistthoughttolerance.png (887x621, 400K)

>capitalist apologia and dick sucking gets you banned from a socialist sub
Surprise surprise

>Unironically thinks Dicky Wolff isnt a fucking retard
Wew

Attached: God Bless The USA-Trump.gif (410x382, 3.75M)

Theft is organized capitalism.

The fact that you felt need to defend that just shows you you constantly have to fight cognitive dissonance.

Think about it for a second commie, how often rational and skeptic people need to ban factoids that go mildly against their worldview? Don't just make up some bullshit like "porky supporter being band is gud lolz" and move on; try to actually come up with a rational explanation for your entire ideology needing sheltered spaces.

Attached: chrome_2018-03-06_21-09-00.png (710x470, 25K)

if i get rid of my boss-parasite im not gonna starve.

thats 1+1 for you

if people stop whoring themselves and abolish all pimps they still gonna fuck, for free.

Attached: slide_4.jpg (960x720, 89K)

And socialism is impossible. Life's a bitch aint it. Best just hope for the rise of AI and hope our machine overlords are merciful enough to take care of us.

I'm not saying that they were justified. It just shouldn't be a surprise. Reddit subs of most ideologies are notorious for deleting dissenting posts.

we are not going to take this chance

youtube.com/watch?v=jOBYECtS8t0

Attached: 1018316866.jpg (625x361, 48K)

Communism is becoming more popular because indeed the problems with capitalism are becoming more apparent as the good times fade. And most people are too stupid to realize that there are even more problems inherent to Communism to the point where it's not even possible to achieve.

>if i get rid of my boss-parasite im not gonna starve.
Yes, if you can be self employed, or make your own investments, or course.

But let's take a more honest approach about how you ACTUALLY perceive it.
>If I steal investments from others and make it impossible for people to invest in capital, I'm not gonna starve
Nope. What's gonna happen is that no one will invest in the first place, capital management will collapse, and you'll have almost nothing.

See it like this: If you vow to steal the hammer that I buy, I will not buy a hammer. So maybe you decide to buy the hammer, but realize that most of your efforts would be stolen by me. See, it's 1+1=2, remove, or reduce dramatically the incentive for more investment, and investments vanquish.

>if people stop whoring themselves and abolish all pimps they still gonna fuck, for free.
That's hilarious for multiple reasons, it's a bad analogy, it's wrong, and makes you sound like a fucking supreme loser. If you reduce the offer for sex, there'll be less women having sex. Women prostitute themselves in the first place because there's a gap of demand for sex between men and women, so men have to pay. You would just extend your virginhood from your 20s to your 30s.

Oh yea and how do you plan on stopping it?

That weak faggots expect the government to sort out their problems instead of dealing with them themselves?

>capital management will collapse, and you'll have almost nothing

are you saying that capitalism is an a-historical phenomenon, that capital is life and life is capital? that without capital people will die?

how do your respond in regards to the fallowing proposition:

>As soon as men accept money as an equivalent for life, the sale of living activity becomes a condition for their physical and social survival. Life is exchanged for survival. Creation and production come to mean sold activity. A man's activity is "productive," useful to society, only when it is sold activity. And the man himself is a productive member of society only if the activities of his daily life are sold activities. As soon as people accept the terms of this exchange, daily activity takes the form of universal prostitution.

sabotage, guerrilla warfare; its already happening

youtube.com/watch?v=tIZi9c0ugJM

No, we want the government to serve the people instead of shilling for corporations and the ultra-rich.

>watched video related
>the background
>Levy Economics Institute
did a quick wikipedia
found this

>The board of directors includes ...
>managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute; Martin L. Leibowitz, managing director of Morgan Stanley;
Morgan fucking Stanley, one of the biggest investment banks in the world.

Do you understand how your larp (((communism))) (((anarchism))) is run by the big banks now!?

Attached: 14563461758.jpg (620x372, 37K)

Communism is Organized Faggotry

Attached: 1281004519.gif (250x170, 582K)

to be fair, its never going to happen. the state its totally a tool of capital, it became bankrupt, you couldn't do anything within it even if you seized it

You are forced to work for someone else to survive if you are born poor, if you are born rich, you can make your money work for you, without doing any actual work.

So your plan is to destroy the world? Hard to see that as an improvement.

There are only 2 ways to make that happen. Either you have a democratic system where the voting population is extremely well informed, vigilant and share a sense of common brotherhood and destiny or you have an authoritarian state with a leader who shares those characteristics. Certainly you aren't going to do shit with a multicultural egalitarian democratic system as we are experimenting with now.

statism is organized theft

Attached: socialism.png (720x674, 263K)

not THE world ie, the Planet

but the world of capital, yes

The traditional revolutionary program involved a reclaiming of the world, an expropriation of the expropriators, a violent appropriation of that which is ours, but which we have been deprived of. But here’s the problem: capital has taken hold of every detail and every dimension of existence. It has created a world in its image. From being an exploitation of the existing forms of life, it has transformed itself into a total universe. It has configured, equipped, and made desirable the ways of speaking, thinking, eating, working and vacationing, of obeying and rebelling, that suit its purpose. In doing so, it has reduced to very little the share of things in this world that one might want to reappropriate. Who would wish to reappropriate nuclear power plants, Amazons warehouses, the expressways, ad agencies, high-speed trains, Dassault, La Defense business complex, auditing firms, nanotechnologies, supermarkets and their poisonous merchandise? Who imagines a people’s takeover of industrial farming operations where a single man plows 400 hectares of eroded ground at the wheel of his megatractor piloted via satellite? No one with any sense. [...] So the revolutionary gesture no longer consists in a simple violent appropriation of this world; it divides into two. On the one hand, there are worlds to be made, forms of life made to grow apart from what reigns, including by salvaging what can be salvaged from the present state of things, and on the other, there is the imperative to attack, to simply destroy the world of capital.

>No, we want the government to serve the people
by taking the advice of institutions built with funding from Morgan Stanley?

>are you saying that capitalism is an a-historical phenomenon, that capital is life and life is capital? that without capital people will die?
Even though that's a retarded strawman rethoric, yeah, without capital millions will die today. Capital is merely the compounding of wealth creation through investments. If we go back to subsistence levels many countries are not capable of keeping millions of their citizens alive due to simple geographic factors.

>As soon as men accept money as an equivalent for life, the sale of living activity becomes a condition for their physical and social survival
That is also true if they do not accept money as an equivalent for life. So that's simply a nirvana fallacy where you pretend the alternative is something holy and perfect.

Why do you do it then? Why not just reject money? Just spend 8 hours a day working to produce something you want. Oh, that's right, without engaging in efficient mutualism you can't even feed yourself. Your body is probably orders of magnitude less fit than the men who survived in the wild in times where everyone could run faster than Usain Bolt; and historically speaking you are just a pathetic slob that needs the efficiency of capitalism to keep your pacific life in an urban area alive, even though you might not acknowledge it.

wrong. i work for myself doing marketing skills i taught myself at my parents house. i was a neet virgin loser and now i make over 70 grand a year.
how are you so lazy and incompetent? why are you always thinking its other peoples fault? of course central bank kikes make it impossible to start a family healthily because inflation but that doesn't mean you just roll over and don't try.
pussy.

>wants to destroy the planet
You're retarded
define capital cocksucker

That's a lovely thought and all but you will never make it work. You simply can't get people to cooperate on that level and it doesn't take many people conspiring together to take what they want for your entire game plan to fall apart.

the ultimate fear of the statist, is the truth:
rights are inherent, immutable, unchanging, and fixed by and to nature.

Attached: natural law.png (1568x4426, 3.65M)

>But here’s the problem: capital has taken hold of every detail and every dimension of existence
Do you mean resources, money, trade of goods?
explain your position.

And yes you lefties will be blamed for destroying the world.

this thread is turning into kindergarden level philosophy now.. ffs

but what the hell..
As an anarchist How would you go about preventing groups of people from forming?
i.e. societies
because you obviously want to build down / destroy the cultural fabric and history of the world because it does not confirm, nullify all history for your leisure

so how would you prevent consolidation of power from forming?

Attached: 1506799055284.png (645x729, 50K)

i dont understand how an abstraction can sustain life. you see, you are deeply entrenched in the fetish part of capitalist ideology.

In the Economist's pictorial representations of the workings of heaven, the angels do everything and men do nothing at all; men simply enjoy what these superior beings do for them. Not only does Capital produce and money work; other mysterious beings have similar virtues. Thus Supply, a quantity of things which are sold, and Demand, a quantity of things which are bought, together determine Price, a quantity of money; when Supply and Demand marry on a particular point of the diagram, they give birth to Equilibrium Price, which corresponds to a universal state of bliss. The activities of everyday life are played out by things, and people are reduced to things ("factors of production") during their productive hours, and to passive spectators of things during their "leisure time."

but in real, earthly life. it is the man and woman who produce things, it is people who grow vegetables and tend to cattle, its everyday people who build houses. there is no God Capital who makes it rain food, cloth, shelter etc.. its all made by human beings.

the alternative is not a nirvana but simple earthly life, you recognize YOUR power and the power of the common. you do not attribute everything to the fetish, the abstraction, the God names Capital, you see money not as "working", you see it as it is, a THING, an OBJECT which lacks all agency.

Attached: slide thread.png (1156x2031, 274K)

if by theft you mean you get to keep the bread you baked then yes

John Cooper
February 21 ·
Consider the contemporary case of the dance foor of a nightclub: no one is there for the money but to have fun. No one was forced to go there in the way one goes back to work. There is no apparent exploitation, no visible circulation of money between future partners who are still moving and grooving together. And yet everything going on there has to do with evaluation, valorization, self-valorization, individual preference, strategies, ideal matching of a supply and a demand, under constraint of optimization—in short, a neo-classical and human-capital market, pure and simple. The logic of value now coincides with organized life. Economy as a relationship with the world has long surpassed economy as a sphere. The folly of evaluation obviously dominates every aspect of contemporary work, but it also rules over everything that escapes that sphere. It determines even the solitary jogger’s relationship with themselves, the jogger who, in order to improve their performances, needs to know them in detail. Measurement has become the obligatory mode of being of all that intends to exist socially. Social media outlines very logically the future of all-points evaluation that we are promised. On this point, one can rely on the prophesies of Black Mirror as well as those of this analyst who is enthusiastic about contemporary markets: “Imagine that tomorrow, with every little word posted on the Web, for no matter what online babble, exchange, meeting, transaction, share, or behavior, you will need to consider the impact this might have on your reputation.

read animal farm then come back to us retard fag

Consider next that your reputation will no longer be a kind of immaterial emanation that certain people will be able to inquire about with your friends and professional partners, but an actual certifcate of all-round ability established by complex algorithms based on the intersection of a thousand and one pieces of information about you on the Web...data which are themselves cross-referenced with the reputations of the persons you have rubbed shoulders with! Welcome to an imminent future, where your “reputation” will be concretely recorded, as a universal fle accessible to all: a relational, professional, commercial door-opener, capable of allowing or preventing an opportunity for car sharing on Mobizen or Deways, a romantic meeting on Meetic or Attractive World, a sale on eBay or Amazon....and more, this time in the quite tangible world: a professional appointment, a real estate transaction, or a bank loan. Increasingly, our appearances on the Web will constitute the foundation of our reputation. Furthermore, our social value will become a major indicator of our economic value.” What is new in the current phase of capital is that it now has the technical means at its disposal for a generalized, real-time evaluation of every aspect of beings. The passion for rating and cross-rating has escaped the classrooms, the stock market, and supervisors’ files and invaded every area of life.

Honestly, you are too idiotic and trying too hard to sound smart for me to actually care about replying to your words.

Attached: what_marxist_acutally_unironically_believe.png (1026x706, 89K)

I read both that and 1984. Still became a Communist once I shook off the propaganda and became redpilled.

>How would you prevent groups of people from forming?
What a statist thing to say. You wouldn't do any such thing because forming voluntary relationships is none of your damn business. Why in the world would you ever want to prevent groups of people from forming, free society or not?

>How would you prevent consolidation of power from forming?
Competition? Unlike the current system where the state has a complete and utter monopoly over the use of force. It uses the force to perpetuate its own existence, and all of the evils it commits.

well, fuck you then.

just remember this: you are being totally domesticated.

Attached: safe_image.gif (443x460, 2.51M)

Communism is organized faggotry.

oh yeah its soooo propagandist to warn about the overreach of a controlling surveillance state isnt it
listen fag, the difference between the state and corporations is that when you dont pay the state they put a gun to your head and kill you, if you like communism so fucking much move to either china, venezuela or north korea

>communism
>redpilled
You kikes sure are funny!

Attached: 1504135506271.jpg (703x688, 73K)

no shit that's why we're national socialists faggot

abandon bread
we should have known
its a fucking commie k*rd

You are hilarious. I love your posts. They are so fucking nonsensical and stupid. It's 7 lines of something completely incoherent and that conveys no insight.

> Increasingly, our appearances on the Web will constitute the foundation of our reputation.
Not really happening. Most workers don't actually need facebook and facebook is already starting to die. Most of the internet is anonymous and this is far from changing. So you are really just a schizo.

Stop replying to these threads, newfags.

Sage goes in all fields.

Attached: Sage advice.png (430x261, 16K)

@3 minutes
seems like he is ignoring the major part of risk, luck, miscellaneous expenses, marketing etc etc etc.

>statist
I don't claim position faggot, and communism IS statism

>Why in the world would you ever want to prevent groups of people from forming
Because there is power in consolidation..? Because groups of people can steal the shit from individuals?
wake the fuck up.

>the current system
So its either idiocracy or total anarchy?

>It uses the force to perpetuate its own existence
Back to point 1, how do you prevent this from happening?

fuck off shitcunt
BUMP

“To be sure,” predicts Google’s former CEO, Eric Schmidt in The New Digital Age, “there will be people who resist adopting and using technology, people who want nothing to do with virtual profiles, online data systems or smart phones. Yet a government might suspect that people who opt out completely have something to hide and thus are more likely to break laws, and as a counterterrorism measure, that government will build the kind of ‘hidden people’ registry we described earlier. If you don’t have any registered social-networking profiles or mobile subscriptions, and on-line references to you are unusually hard to find, you might be considered a candidate for such a registry. You might also be subjected to a strict set of new regulations that includes rigorous airport screening or even travel restrictions.”

youtube.com/watch?v=alLHnCXCwtk

youtube.com/watch?v=LVlT4sX6uVs

>February 21
April 6
considder the following: tl,dr
nobody is going to read your shit if you keep writing books on pol, reduce it to a few lines.
if nobody reads, then nobody cares.

could you please explain what you mean by capital?

Is it currency?
goods?
resources?
pieces of fucking wood? What?

>I read both that and 1984. Still became a Communist
I'm sorry for the loss of your sanity.

That's speculation; of course a schizo like you takes it as a fact.

>a government might suspect that people who opt out completely have something to hide and thus are more likely to break laws
But a government would have no reason to suspect that barbecue that is not in fact the truth. Someone being black is a greater indication of that person being a criminal than any random hobby nonsense like being in social media or not. Being black is a better correlation with crime than even poverty.

And yet, governments (unfortunately) don't segregate and make efforts to reduce the black population; yet you think they'll make a dictatorship to attack people who are not in social media because you heard a scary little anecdote in an interview.

>kurdshit commie butthurt over Afrin

>"because" mistype auto corrected to "barbecue"

Attached: gersongf.gif (451x339, 3.15M)

btw
Why is the video related backed by an institution funded and run by a Morgan Stanley managing director?

Attached: 1514800210400.png (501x504, 18K)

...

Reminder that losers who beleive in communism are merely middle class oppurtuinists attempting to become the neo-bourgeosie through revolution, effectively killing off competition in deciding who rules over the working class. The Vanguard never hands the power to the people, they merely exploit the people the same as the capitalists, they just fetishize the morally corrupt and ethically destitute masses.

believe what you want. if you are not a criminal yourself by now then you are an absolute conformist. if anything, you are the negro, only that negro who is "happy" on the plantation, the one who calls the police when another mentions the idea of escape.

if you conform to The Economy, you are quite literally a House Negro. Oikonomia, Economy is from ancient Greece; it means literally House Rules. you are a house nigger, user.

That would be communism actually "seize" - saged

What exactly are you trying to debate right now?

>People who believe in capitalism are middle class opportunists try to become the neo-bourgeoisie through corporate shilling.

whatever you like

So you don't want people to form voluntary groups because it gives them power, and you don't want people to have power because they could possibly abuse that power. Am I right so far?

the state of commie arguments

Explain how communism isn't also organized theft.

Bluewave2018. Jow Forums is going to collectively commit suicide when Trump gets impeached

Attached: shaveme.gif (500x375, 775K)

There are private fire fighters fucktard

You're forced by your own body to work you're not threatened with a gun to work

the worker sells his time for $50
The "value" of the product IS NOT EMBEDDED in the product, the value is given by the market.
If I use 100 EL + 100 LL to produce a SHITTY CHAR that nobody wants to buy, the "value" of the product is ZERO, not 200.
Also, the employer needs to get paid for his own time managing the company.
How many people can manage a company without driving it into the ground?
How many people can work building chairs?
The high salary go to the scarcest of the 2.

Communism is also organized theft, but the thief takes more and kills you if you complain.

Wow its almost as if heirarchy is inevitable, and eglaitarianism is a farce followed by those who do not operate within objective reality.

Just like anyone born into the party

> if you are not a criminal yourself by now then you are an absolute conformist
That's called a no-true Scotsman. It's a pretty standard fallacy. I'm a race realist and in today's world I'm a considered a non-conformist extremists and I can't even make two comments in a subreddit without being banned.

But of course, you still think that being a non-conformist is cool, and you want to insult me by being a conformist, so you alter the definition of "true non conformist" to being a criminal and jeopardizing my safety.

>if you conform to The Economy, you are quite literally a House Negro.
No, not really. I can move to a different country and look for higher wage jobs and make my own business. I don't need to follow the orders of anyone. So that's a really, really, bad analogy. In fact, that's not even an analogy, that's on the level of a vague religious speech in terms of how grounded on reality it is.

>Economy is from ancient Greece; it means literally House Rules
You know what, that's not even true. It means house management, and it comes from a time where the meaning of "house" was a lot more vague so it roughly just means management or distribution. I don't think I'm exaggerating here; you only give insight to me by showing me how wrong your mind is. Thinking about how wrong you are is the only bountiful thing in this discussion, and if you don't count that as insight of yours, it means you offer nothing. Most of the things I debunked you on you couldn't even reply to, you just pretended to forget. You just forget you were wrong and dumb and then move on to even crazier rants.

LOL

Attached: 1518294311945.jpg (575x767, 64K)

" To begin with, what are the “economic” consequences? First—and this is the immediate general effect of all types of socialism—there is a relative drop in the rate of investment, the rate of capital formation. Since “socialisation” favours the nonuser, the nonproducer, and the noncontractor of means of production and, mutatis mutandis, raises the costs for users, producers, and contractors, there will be fewer people acting in the latter roles. There will be less original appropriation of natural resources whose scarcity is realised, there will be less production of new and less upkeep of old factors of production, and there will be less contracting. For all of these activities involve costs and the costs of performing them have been raised, and there are alternative courses of action, such as leisure-consumption activities, which at the same time have become relatively less costly, and thus more open and available to actors. Along the same line, because everyone’s investment outlets have dried up as it is no longer permissible to convert private savings into private investment, or because the outlets have been limited to the extent to which the economy is socialised, there will therefore be less saving and more consuming, less work and more leisure. After all, you cannot become a capitalist any longer, or your possibility of becoming one has been restricted, and so there is at least one reason less to save! Needless to say, the result of this will be a reduced output of exchangeable goods and a lowering of the living standard in terms of such goods.-cont

Attached: Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_2nd Edition_Hoppe_20130612.jpg (240x362, 21K)

yeah, i know that. private prison also, private armies (black water) private politicians (we just say "politicians", everybody knows who sponsor them) private lakes, private lands. private everything. next thing they goona privatize the internet and the English language, you ready to pay dividends for writing?

wtf though, you're from america, there pizza is a vegetable

And since these lowered living standards are forced upon people and are not the natural choice of consumers who deliberately change their relative evaluation of leisure and exchangeable goods as the result of work, i.e., since it is experienced as an unwanted impoverishment, a tendency will evolve to compensate for such losses by going underground, by moonlighting and creating black markets.
Secondly, a policy of the socialisation of means of production will result in a wasteful use of such means, i.e., in use which at best satisfies second-rate needs and at worst, satisfies no needs at all but exclusively increases costs. The reason for this is the existence and unavoidability of change! Once it is admitted that there can be change in consumer demand, change in technological knowledge, and change in the natural environment in which the process of production has to take place—and all of this indeed takes place constantly and unceasingly—then it must also be admitted that there is a constant and never-ending need to reorganize and reshuffle the whole structure of social production. There is always a need to withdraw old investments from some lines of production and, together with new ones, pour them into other lines, thus making certain productive establishments, certain branches, or even certain sectors of the economy shrink and others expand. Now assume—and this is precisely what is done under a socialisation scheme—that it is either completely illegal or extremely difficult to sell the collectively owned means of production into private hands. This process of reorganising the structure of production will then— even if it does not stop altogether—at least be seriously hampered! The reason is basically a simple one, but still of the utmost importance.-cont

Attached: 1488747280397.png (853x1025, 134K)