Commie hate thread

I don't either but i larp in a lot of leftist Facebook groups to content farm and when i lived in the city it was near unavoidable. I got to try it out at a local music show once. It was fun

Attached: Screenshot_20181231-234604_Facebook.jpg (1080x2220, 457K)

>Labor Theory of Value (LTV, Marx's interpretation) utilizes an ad hoc hypothesis and circular logic to avoid falsification
>LTV (via "use value") prioritizes the contribution of labor's input to a good or service
>but fails to justify this prioritization over any other commodity input that fluctuates in value and availability
>no LTV, no exploitation
>no exploitation, no justification for a systemic overhaul, e.g. revolution
>the dynamics of capitalism are better explained by Marginalism
>and outcome inequalities by the inescapable statistical phenomenon of Zipf's Law, which even manifests itself in linguistics and astronomy, demonstrating it to be a universal circumstance

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law

SCIENCE BITCH

Attached: 1546636965997.png (240x273, 45K)

Pretty good pic desu

Attached: 1544718195188.jpg (670x833, 71K)

>the dynamics of capitalism are better explained by Marginalism

>"The reason why the price of diamonds is higher than that of water for example, owes to the greater additional satisfaction of the diamonds over the water."

Literally explains nothing dude.

Any normative theory of value in economics is an ad hoc theory, the question is which one that explains the system better. And LTV clearly explains it better than any other theory, or else every single classical economist wouldn't agree with it.

>Not real socialism

There's a very simple thought experiment that you can use to call people out on the BS of this line.

>Bad news, you have a super rare incurable cancer.
>Nothing on the market has an even 1% chance of helping, you're screwed.
>You go around asking doctors and get sad head shakes, until you meet me.
>I tell you that you're in luck thanks to my latest invention.
>I have invented a drug that will cure 100% of all malignant tumors, has no side effects, and is so cheap you can buy a full year's regiment over the counter for $10.
>I call it Cancercure
>You say that sounds awesome, but then a second doctor bursts in
>"Don't trust him user! Every time someone has used Cancercure in the past it failed to cure their cancer (usually making it worse), had terrible side effects worse than the cancer even including death, and was so expensive it bankrupted everyone who tried it!"
>I scoff and say, "Obviously those weren't real Cancercure, REAL Cancercure does work, has no side effects, and is cheap. Therefore those other times it just wasn't real Cancercure, and it definitely will be this time."
>Do you take the drug? If not, why not?

I have done this with dozens of Socialists and no joke they will refuse to answer why they wouldn't take the drug. They'll say the comparison is BS, they'll try to brush it off with a joke, but to date I can't get a single one of them to actually finish the thought experiment. It's a silver bullet to that nonsense.

cope

Jews already have all political and economic power communism takes it away and puts power in the hands of the workers

Attached: Screenshot_20190102-163217_Facebook.jpg (810x1623, 540K)

Why do you commie niggers never move to commie countries and always try to fuck ours over. Nothing is stopping you, just GTFO and leave us alone.

Attached: giphy.gif (240x380, 46K)

Such a cringey meme

The problem with this analogy is that the USSR or Mao's China for example, looked more like a dictatorship where the government controlled everything than it looked like a "classless, moneyless, stateless" society, which is the definition of Marxist Communism.

If you're going to argue against Socialists/Communists, at least don't use stale Cold War arguments like you're Jordan Peterson, trapped in the 1980s.

>Why do you commie niggers never move to commie countries and always try to fuck ours over.

Because the overthrow of capitalism needs to be international, it can't be national, as the last century clearly illustrates.

Terminally ill people try experimental treatments all the time

>Any normative theory of value in economics is an ad hoc theory, the question is which one that explains the system better.

Incorrect. Ad hoc theories attempt to circumvent falsifiability by creating new, amorphous "exceptions".

And LTV clearly explains it better than any other theory, or else every single classical economist wouldn't agree with it.

If they agree, it's only with the initial considerations. This is like saying every modern astronomer agrees with flat earth theory, because they acknowledge that the horizon appears to be a straight line at ground level.

LTV explains nothing productively...it's entirely focused on prioritizing labor inputs to justify Marx's superficial state of exploitation. He then creates a family of terminology to encompass the resultant exceptions. It's garbage.

Attached: 1503102136032.png (1001x500, 735K)

>I have done this with dozens of Socialists and no joke they will refuse to answer why they wouldn't take the drug. They'll say the comparison is BS, they'll try to brush it off with a joke, but to date I can't get a single one of them to actually finish the thought experiment. It's a silver bullet to that nonsense.

To everyone reading this, do you see? They literally CANNOT answer the actual question that the thought experiment proposes. They HAVE to dodge.

I directly answered it, if I was going to die 100% guaranteed and I’d exhausted all my options as in your analogy and there was an experimental treatment that had been tried but didn’t work on other people who had tried it what the hell I’d absolutely give it a try

So if you had a terminal illness and I had a syringe full of bleach and a hunch, you'd take it?

Then you just have bad judgment.

>a system fails in every country it's tried in
>this is because of other countries
>let's try it everywhere at once!

I know you probably mean trade sanctions and the like, but causing bread lines everywhere won't cure them anywhere.

Unironicly real communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism and national socialism has never been tried

And there you go, dodging and changing the entire premise of the argument because you got btfo

I already told you this actually happens in real life and dying people opt to try experimental treatments all the time

The person in the analogy was a doctor not some retard with bleach

>LTV explains nothing productively...it's entirely focused on prioritizing labor inputs to justify Marx's superficial state of exploitation.

Except you would agree with that "superficial state of exploitation" if it was in a formal social organization like slavery.

It's quite obvious that in slavery, the slave's labor exists to make the owner more wealthy, and that this organization requires that the owner extracts value from the slave's labor.

And yet what exactly changes when slavery is abolished formally? Nothing. The same social organization is still there.

Attached: 1530694189480.jpg (631x631, 89K)

Attached: 1530695227249.jpg (515x500, 51K)

Attached: 1532436615075.jpg (460x576, 60K)

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Attached: 1541449879248.gif (320x240, 1.79M)

hellstormdocumentary.com/watch/

>I know you probably mean trade sanctions and the like

No, what I mean is that capitalism itself is international, so trying to abolish it in 1 country is like trying to stop the entirety of a terrorist organization by killing one guy in Afghanistan.

Listen I'll give you credit, you answered it.

But you're not doing yourself any favors, in that situation you should CLEARLY not try it.

If you want to count in your favor that you're taking a clearly bad decision as an analogy to your political ideology, I guess you can do what you want but IMO that's a pretty good argument against socialism. But hey, you want the win I'll give you the credit for at least answering.

So lets try a slight variance, what if it wasn't a terminal disease? What if it's just an inconvenient disease like some sort of skin deformity? Consequences are the same (terrible side effects that are worse than the disease and include death, it's never worked, and it will probably leave you bankrupt). Would you try it then and if not why not?

Attached: 1530695416689.gif (619x619, 1.83M)

Attached: 1532436771006.jpg (1200x402, 130K)

>free exchange is international
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This is why you get the rope. If you were like the fascists that wanted to purge the parasitic elements of the judeocorporate world order then there'd be no problem. But nah, you have to destroy free exchange between all individuals and create a grand mediator in order to usher in your bullshit kike generated pipe dream of a world where people stop recognizing the inherent property rights they have to their body and labor such that they no longer engage in mutual exchange. It's such a meme that only retards or malicious agents can support it and in either case you threaten the foundation of the civilized world in such a way that you can only be seen as enemies of humanity itself. When your globo homo commie revolution kicks off I hope you wear your flag proudly so I and mine can line our shots up more truly.

Attached: 1526931219763.png (688x684, 267K)

>And yet what exactly changes when slavery is abolished formally? Nothing.

Spectacularly wrong. A slave cannot choose their "master", let alone start a business, and thus become their own "master". They are also typically forbidden from the usual exchange allowed to free persons, or travel and relocation of themselves or their families.

What you object to is the inevitable (see Zipf's Law) inequality of outcome, and liken the wealthy to some sort of plantation master...but the comparison is superficial, as I said.

Attached: Carl Menger.jpg (270x360, 18K)

Just comes off as pyschopathic, not even funny. Which is strange, I can joke about Communists not being people to Boomers or semi-normie friends and they'll laugh, mostly at the hyperbole, but shit like this would freak them out.

So, you've chosen to destroy a global institution which the majority of the world not only has adopted, but found success in, rather than partake in existing examples of your preferred system?
I mean, at least Jow Forums thinks that Jewish influence is everywhere and inescapable. There are literally countries you could go to, free of the tyranny of Adam Smith, where your economic needs are met.

I disagree and tons of terminally ill people also disagree

The funniest part about the whole analogy is that it starts with the premise that capitalism is a terminal illness

You’d prefer a slow and guaranteed death over any proposed new solution?

Okay so you're admitting your position only makes sense if Capitalism is 100% going to result in the person being killed? You wouldn't take the drug if it wasn't terminal?

>A slave cannot choose their "master", let alone start a business, and thus become their own "master". They are also typically forbidden from the usual exchange allowed to free persons, or travel and relocation of themselves or their families.

I see you conveniently evaded literally the defining characteristic of the social system, e.g that someone works in order to make someone else wealthy.

It literally is inconsequential that a single worker can choose to work for Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos because both those people don't care about you as a person, they care about the labor preformed, hence if you don't accept the shit wage they give you, they'll just find someone else. The labor itself is the commodity, just like the slave is just a tool and not a person.

So no, it's not "spectacularly wrong".

And by the way just to clarify; even then it doesn't make sense. You can say "a doctor told me to take it" but the other doctor very clearly didn't and you have more than enough evidence to agree with the second one.

I mean the person still has a medical degree. Dying people try cures even from woo woo alternative medicine nuts and spirit healers. Surely it’s reasonable to try something suggested by an actual doctor even if another doctor didn’t have the same opinion

As far as if it wasn’t terminal, but the cure could be worse, that’s not the same argument as you’ve shifted the goalposts, but in that case it would depend on exactly how bad or painful living with the disease is. If it was really bad to the point that quality of life was terrible I could see attempting it, if it was just a minor inconvenience, then no I would probably just tough it out. But I agree with your initial analogy that it’s terminal, I actually think it was a very good analogy, I just don’t agree with your conclusion that’s it’s clearly a better idea to just die than try something

>someone works in order to make someone else wealthy

They can work to make themselves wealthy, too, by being self-employed or being so indispensable they in fact choose their employer. Not everyone can hit it big like PewDiePie or Kanye West (again, statistics), and not everyone is so committed to being their own boss, so instead, we sell our labor.

>The labor itself is the commodity, just like the slave is just a tool and not a person.

Exactly. And I can sell that labor elsewhere, as with any other commodity. And whether Bezos or Gates thinks of me as a person is irrelevant...so long as the law upholds my rights as a free person, they can have any opinion on my personhood they like. If they attempt to force me to work when I don't want to, I'm free to quit at any time.

Attached: mcdonalds.jpg (304x420, 24K)

The post you replied to, in the line you quoted, describe a situation in which you do not work to make someone else wealthy: starting your own business. Using your labor to enrich yourself. A situation that does not exist outside of capitalism.
Yes, you can then exploit others' labor for your own gain, but it is then up to you to use their labor responsibly. Just like it is up to the head of state to not abuse the labor of the citizens.

Japan wanted to have a buffer zone against China and Soviet Union before the WW2.
That's one of major reasons to built Manchu, orange color of this map.

It worked as a wall to block expanding communism from Soviet Union.
However America criticized the Japanese policy for Manchu. Therefore Japan attacked to Pearl Harbor.

After the WW2, Manchu was lost. Then communism expanded to China, Korean War happened and Vietnam War happened.
So Japan and America had to treat Manchu more carefully before the WW2.

Attached: manchu.jpg (320x240, 14K)

>It literally is inconsequential that a single worker can choose to work for Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos because both those people don't care about you as a person

1. A worker can choose to work for someone that WILL care about you as a person.
2. A worker can choose to start his own business (as I have myself).

A slave can do neither of these two things. Also, are you trying to imply that under whatever system you want to implement, your employer will ALWAYS care about you as a person? I find that hard to believe.

I made it terminal so that nobody can wiggle out of it by saying, "Well Capitalism is worse than a non-terminal illness." which is nonsense but I figured would be used.

But let me rephrase my original bleach rebuttle then: If a doctor had a syringe full of bleach, even if another doctor was right next to him saying "he's tried this tons of times before, it never works, there's no reason to think it even might work, it literally always fails, and I can basically guarantee it's going to fail again" you would still try it?

Listen I'll give you kudos where kudos is due, you're at least self-consistent. But the fact that you have to take a drug that is clearly not going to work, that is clearly going to be worse than the disease you have, in order to be self-consistent should make you rethink things.
I don't want to mix things up too much by splitting up the response but regarding the non-terminal disease, that is DEFINITELY bad judgment! Again you're being told that it never works, it never has, and the doctor's justification for why it will work this time is hot garbage. Again, congrats on being kudos but honestly this is just making me wonder if every Socialist literally just has poor reasoning skills.

>A slave can do neither of these two things.

Which is why I said that the abolishing of slavery was a "formal" abolition, that didn't change the actual economic situation.

I mean, ask yourself why around 15% of the freed slaves after abolition, kept working for the same plantation owner?

funfact: communism has never been tried
The soviet union was Reactionary Socialist and all of the so called communist countries are in fucking limbo between other systems and communism. And yes the jews used the communist dream to fuck over the ruskies and seized power when given the opportunity.

Two conditions are essential for real communism:
1.- Fully armed proletariat
2.- Abolition of private property
Now tell me what country ever had those two?

Attached: 1537566293218.png (437x699, 284K)

>why around 15% of the freed slaves after abolition, kept working for the same plantation owner?

Guarantee of food and shelter most likely.

Exactly. Which sounds a lot like a worker having to choose between a shit wage at Amazon + food stamps, or starve to death.

the soviet union was state capitalism. that said state capitalism is still better than laissez-faire dogshit if implemented correctly.

Or like someone living in the woods having to hunt and gather food or starve to death.

Nature is a capitalist oppressor!

Just because something has been tried in the past and didn’t work is not in any way a guarantee that it won’t work if you try it again. I’m not just talking about this example, but just in general. Do you not agree with that? Sometimes you can try the exact same thing, sometimes tweaking it a little bit. That’s basically how science works, through trial and error. How do you think we got the medicine we have today, someone had to be the first lab rat and a lot may have died before it was perfected. You try to start your car and the motor turns over and sputters but it doesn’t start. Do you try again?

It’s funny because I work in medical radiation and these tests produce ionizing radiation that damages dna and could give you cancer and potientially lead to a much more painful death than the reason people are getting the test. But they are ordered on a “risk vs reward” basis. Basically the immediate reward of getting the test and finding out what’s wrong with you outweights the cancer risk.

So someone with a minor illness might not want to take that risk as the reward isn’t worth the risk. But a dying person would have very little if anything to lose, and more reason to take a gamble on a reward, much like the workers of the world who have nothing to lose but their chains. Haha

Seeing as you can't abolish the rights of people to their own bodies I suppose you're right in saying real gommunism has never been tried. Good luck figuring out how to undo the perception of ownership over the thing one's will is directly responsible for operating lmfao
No wonder you faggots have to wage psychological warfare on entire cultures to undermine them so they are primed to believe your bullshit. I hope your last taste is that of delousing agent

Attached: 1537689956592.jpg (480x480, 38K)

Because they had a bunch of jobs that just freed up. A massive market for labor opened up, and a massive supply for labor was just freed with a complementary skill set.

another dunce who has no idea what private property is

Now you're dodging, there was a specific question asked:

You have terminal illness: If a doctor had a syringe full of bleach, even if another doctor was right next to him saying "he's tried this tons of times before, it never works, there's no reason to think it even might work, it literally always fails, and I can basically guarantee it's going to fail again" you would still try it?

We all understand experimental treatments and risk vs reward especially in a terminal situation, but there's a difference between an experimental treatment and a treatment that has been repeatedly tried and never once worked even a little and always made things worse. Again dude you found the self-consistent answer for socialism, but the fact that the only self-consistent answer is making a terrible decision is kind of the point.

Wow, epeck meem fellow pede!

I also want to say that I have seen this happen in real life working at a hospital with some dying patients. Some doctor cooked up an expiriment to put them in a bathtub with ice water for hours in hopes it would cure them. They went 0-8 while I was there and everyone died, probably a lot more miserably than they otherwise would have. It had never worked, I don’t know if eventually it worked on someone or not. But people kept volunteering anyway. Dying people will try nearby anything to get out of it.

Besides, even if it doesn’t work at least you contributed something to science on your way out

>a worker having to choose between a shit wage at Amazon + food stamps, or starve to death

I guess I don't understand how things could be any different. The fundamental reality of all life on this planet is that you need to work to continue living. Any time we decrease the amount of labor necessary to live (through machines mostly), we simply expand our population up to the limit of the labor-saving capacity.

>The fundamental reality of all life on this planet is that you need to work to continue living.

I agree. Which is why I should be busy doing exactly that instead of being busy working to make people like Bezos even wealthier.

I think I would be more hesitant to try it if it was just “bleach” because I know what that is and I’m pretty skeptical on its ability to cure anything

My argument really hinged on “cancercure” being a mystery drug

Still dodging Your ice bath example is a false comparison. If they tried that experiment again after killing those original 8 people, and another few dozen, but said they were sure it was going to work this time and just claimed those last attempts weren't "real icebaths" that would be the appropriate analogy.

And there we go.

It’s hard to use this as an analogy because each individual is different. You can try the exact same cure on two different people and it will work on one and not the other.

I mean, you are in fact alive. And it's likely that working your current job is giving you the funds to maintain your lifestyle. So, your labor is going towards your life quality, in a proportion dictated by whoever does your payroll. The only difference would be that some guy who knows even less about you would set that proportion.

Now you're being disingenuous. We know that there are cures that will not work on anyone, like bleach for example. If over a study with a large enough sample size it fails repeatedly throughout all samples (and that failure is repeated in other experiments), and researchers when asked have no justification for why new attempts might work besides that the other attempts weren't 'real' versions of the treatment because they didn't succeed, we have a pretty good reason to believe it's not going to succeed again in the future. If you don't agree with that, then you really can make a good argument for trying a syringe of bleach if you have a terminal illness.

Our Marxist pal here has an odd fixation on whether Bezos, Gates or some other guy's wealth is excessive or not...

In a free society, I have a choice of whether I make them wealthier or not with my labor or purchasing power. I have no such choice with Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pot, etc.

Attached: 1497118979359.gif (300x186, 446K)

Ancap doesn’t know what property is. Should I be surprised?

>he doesn't see how the ownership of the self extends into ownership of goods which can be utilized for market production

Attached: 1531003132820.jpg (606x540, 36K)

>Our Marxist pal here has an odd fixation on whether Bezos, Gates or some other guy's wealth is excessive or not...

No, I have an "odd fixation" on the fact of they not doing any of the labor that actually makes them rich.

Any kinds of internazies (hitler included) can suck shit out of ronnies ass.

No such thing as a benevolent dictatorship.

Attached: aristotle.png (1008x760, 1.59M)

Two responses to that and then I’m going to go eat

One is that I don’t believe we have a strong enough sample size (in my opinion a lot of the failures of communism were caused by outside interference sabotaging their efforts but let’s just ignore that for now) and the other is that we have the ability to use our past experiences to analyze things that went wrong in the past and we can tweak it to hope that the things that went wrong don’t happen again

Anyway good thought experiment thanks for being civil

Outcome inequality is inevitable. Might as well rage that the word "the" has way too much usage in the English language, or that Jupiter hogged all the planetary mass in the solar system.

Socialist strategies yielded the same inequality and worse, because as much as someone may loathe Bezos or Gates, they do not have the right to end life, as Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc did.

Attached: 1548599568950.jpg (538x768, 250K)

If you build and maintain a factory, but don't stand on the line and produce what it makes, how much of the profits do you earn?
Companies don't run themselves. Every new thing they do, every opportunity they choose not to take, and every action they decide to continue doing has to be at someone's discretion. Being the person responsible for something is stressful and occupies time and energy, no matter the scale.
Would the head of state of a communist country perform every task in that state? For that matter, would you? How do you justify taking the fruits of others' labor when you eat someone else's crops or wear their clothes?

I mean, someone 400 years ago could've argued precisely the same as you argue right now except they would talk about the glory of the absolute King, and how his position is perfect and godly, and how it is just a natural and god-ordered state that most people are peasants and some are nobles, and that this system should persist forever.

In other words, you're full of shit, and you're defending a system that views you as 5 dollar change.

Trying to build communism is a project closer to trying to build heavier than air flying machines or rockets than injecting bleach

>Bezos or Gates, they do not have the right to end life
What's are their views on abortion, and do either of them act on these views?

A project closer to curing a terminal disease, would you say?

Attached: natsocpower.jpg (782x1073, 409K)

Aristotle never say that in politics.
He said that, generally, in cities probably falldown for:
Geographic
Resources
Space
And so much foreign in the city, and ethnicity differences
And the tyranny only want self happy
Read the first source, faggot

Do attempts to cure cancer in the real world involve repetitively injecting bleach?
>Being the person responsible for something is stressful and occupies time and energy, no matter the scale.
I think Bill Gates retired from that a long time ago

And I forget, he never said that the indispensable thing for citizens is the unity (and he criticize the Plato republic for this extremely unity)
He said that the citizens need feel Similar between them

Lol

Technically national socialism is not against globalism and islam.

Not as much, no (although chemotherapy isn't the prettiest), but real-life attempts to "cure" capitalism are about as effective.

Bill Gates is still on the Board of Directors for Microsoft, so he is still maintaining the company in some effect. Also, he has several philanthropic organizations dedicated to using the funds he has to help out those less fortunate, i.e. using the labor he (and others) has to enrich those underneath him. But he's doing it through capitalism, so fuck him I guess.

The "national" part kind of goes counter to globalism, but technically yes. National Socialism is about the country itself, no matter that country's belief or ethnicity. Somalia could be NatSoc just as much as any other country.

I know you're off eating so I don't expect a response to this but I would argue that nobody is analyzing or tweaking anything by just saying, "we're going to change nothing those last attempts just weren't real".

Agree with you on the civility thing good talk.

Hey commie, you see in factories these days it's going to be automated.
Then, once this happens, when the robots produce everything. Do we have to socialize the means of production for robots?

You're forgetting that the Japanese Army also then decided to invade all of China like retards causing them to develop a stalemate and waste all of their resources leading them to need to invade and take all the European colonies. The expansion beyond Manchukuo is what caused the US embargo

Coming in this late to the conversation is useless. I'm out just like last guy, but go to my original post if you want to actually do the thought experiment.

The last guy straight up admitted he would just take the drug, which I'll give it to him is self-consistent even if it is also a very strong argument against his position. If you want to try and explain why you wouldn't without also making a strong argument against socialism it's your call, but I'm out I gotta go skiing.

>peak pomo bs