There are unironically capitalists browsing Jow Forums right now

It’s in the first three words you fucking mong
> the mine owners
> mine owners
> owners

By your stupid example whoever races to anyone else’s chicken coop first deserves all the eggs. No matter who bought the chicken, the feed, built the coop. Your example encourages anarchy. It’s stupid, much like yourself.

They'd respond to that by saying "no, not the government, but the workers who extract the gold!" But this, in turn, only raises more questions.

Why would prospectors look for new ore deposits if they're just going to get those deposits robbed by 'workers'?
Why wouldn't 'workers' just start to plunder natural resources with no concern for the environment?

It's been done to death, but Communists and Socialists fundamentally do not understand human nature. You won't get happy workers cooperating and sharing their stuff, you'll get either lazy bureaucrats stagnating your country (Socialism) or a nation of resource bandits burning ancient forests, strip-mining mountains and murdering each other over trinkets (Communism/Anarchocommunism).

why are Commies so vehemently opposed to a gold (and silver) backed currency as opposed to central bank currencies?

It's probably less complex than you might think. They're accelerationists. They want an unstable currency, because an unstable currency helps produce political and economic crises, and they think we're just one big crisis away from a workers' revolution.

Capitalists will all get trolled like ghost from TCR.

who owns my car? i haven't contributed to it's creation. yet by some weird alchemy it belongs to me. mysterious.

what communist goal haven't they achieved yet?
The workers don't want to have anything to do with that bourgeois degeneracy anyway.

Attached: 1511126838497.jpg (960x720, 71K)

>Cmon bootlickers, let's see you try to defend this.

The function of the capitalist is to make decision about capital. The point of the capitalist, the reason he brings value to people, is not that he is in the field of wherever else trying to find goal. It's that he correctly or incorrectly recognizes that, at a particular point in time, capital should be deployed in the service of attempting to find gold. The capitalist could have done anything else with his capital. He could have kept it, put it in a fund, opened a restaurant chain, and so on.

All of these action would have brought a different kind of value to society and to the capitalist. The capitalistic function is the entrepreneurial function. It is to make decision about the allocation of a certain amount of capital.

I would disagree with that. That's more like the mine manager or whatever. As a position / function, the manager already presupposes that capital as been deployed to mining activity. The manager might now even own the mine. He's not the capitalist.

Take the risk, pay workers before a single grain of gold is produced, plan out the project, etc.

Also, torture and execute all Communists.

Attached: indonesia visit.jpg (500x600, 313K)

They don't have to achieve anything in order to believe in it. Leftists are religious thinkers: they have an origin story (class struggle), a holistic world view (modern class struggle and the need for class consciousness) and a vision of the future (class war resulting in Communism).

This has made them useful idiots for the establishment. The leftists hardly even try to make things better for workers these days, they just act as plows that ensure the seeds of division (gays, trannies, nonwhite immigrants, et cetera) are sown into the field of society.

If the owner and the manager are not the same person, that adds another level of complexity that increases the need for an owner even more: the owner presumably plays a role in a variety of businesses, and must choose the right managers to run those businesses and hire the right people on the ground, all the while remaining personally responsible for the success or the failure of those businesses.

Capitalism doesn't exist.

"Capitalists": Commies who want a revolution from the top down a la Gramsci
"Communists": Commies who want a revolution from the bottom up a la Marx

went to jail for that actually its illegal

Now let's discuss this "weird alchemy" my uneducated friend.

The capitalist catches Smurfs and turns them into gold, then he has enough gold to seize the work of all the poor talented workers that would dig their gold on their own if not for the greedy mysterious witchcraft capitalist kind do.

Good analysis.
but it was the liberals having told us the myth there was a difference between ideology and religion.

Attached: 1206899483.jpg (988x720, 210K)

If the mine owners never existed the gold would still be in the ground.

don’t have to defend shit. hope you survive a car accident and catch MRSA in the hospital’s burn unit. honestly, cannot wait until it’s legal to kill communists.

Very correct.

I don't get why commies and proto-commies don't get that the entrepreneurial function is gonna have to happen no matter what economic system is established, and that this function is gonna have to be paid for somehow. Somebody somewhere is gonna decide what should be tried with a certain amount of capital.

I don't get that the fucking polit buro would be better or fairer at performing this function, say much less some kind of direct democracy committee. And if profit isn't going to determine which deployment of capital is successful, then how the fuck to they plan to know?

But you're right and I've come to the same conclusion: commies and people like them are more religious than anything else.

The capitalist offers the opportunity. Was he really useless, the other listed would simply have done without him from the start.
People with decent intelligence understand time and that you invest something at time A and you may have reward from it as long as the investment keeps being productive.
It doesn't magically stop being theirs after they make X dollars out of their investment.

Pretty much, thought the same.

If the USA is anything like the UK, you are the 'Registered Keeper' of the car, the Gov OWNS the car, which is why they can tow it away

Funny that their very argument for why the mine owner shouldn't be paid his due can be applied to the government that they want to take your money.
>The government didn't build your shop
>The government didn't stock your shelves
>The government didn't manage your employees nor staff the counter
>But by some weird alchemy, what you make belongs to them!

good point. in Germany the so-called basic law says the government can restrict private property in favour of the "common good" at any time. There currently is a heated debate whether house owners should be expropriated if they don't rent flats to those seeking.

Attached: houses to those living in them.png (510x584, 503K)

Capitalist has his own talents and skills he puts to use to organize and create the work opportunities of others, it's his own mean of work. This skills and talents have more worth that more replaceable skills and talents of low class. Thus more money.

>He ensures that the mine has the right paperwork to be allowed to operate
Lawyers to do that
>that the mine complies with all relevant laws and safety regulations
More laywers
>that inspectors are granted access and led around the mine if necessary
Onsite managers do that
>that everyone in the operation gets their part of the job done.
Managers oversee that

The main task of the capitalist who owns the mine is to determine how the profits are allocated. The workers ironically enough who run the show have no say in how the business is operated or in who the leader is.

>They invested much more of other people's money than the miners.
Ftfy
That's basically the concept behind worker cooperatives.
Except the government answers to the people (not under capitalism though lol). However under capitalism, the capitalist does not answer to the people. Eat shit
>But by some weird alchemy, what you make belongs to them!
No it doesn't

Attached: xmkgq53ym9q21.jpg (1936x1936, 247K)

Explain

Come on comrade, I'm just chewing on an empty hook here.

What if mine owner is actually a lawyer?

Hey guys, look who's 17 and posting on Jow Forums.

>Except the government answers to the people (not under capitalism though lol). However under capitalism, the capitalist does not answer to the people. Eat shit

We have no capitalism yet governments don't answer to the people. Communism bases upon top-down involuntary transactions, there is no reason to expect Commie governments suddenly would answer to "the people"...

Attached: 1424949582371.jpg (812x531, 112K)

The point the bootlickers in this thread are missing is that the mine owners income derived from the mine is profit dervied from whatever capital investment they initially put in and subsequently have put in to develop the mine. The income from the workers in the mine is income from sale of their labour.

The problem is that in 2019 income from capital far, far, far outstrips income from labour. In fact the rift between profit / income is at 19th century levels.

The only time in capitalism that the difference was more equalised was in the post-WW2 boom. All it means is that if you work you are a schmuck and capital is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. Bootlickers will actually defend this system then on a second breath hate on boomers for ruining the economy, ABSOLUTE STATE.

>Explain
explain what?
dejure.org/gesetze/GG/14.html

jungefreiheit.de/politik/deutschland/2019/berliner-gruene-sprechen-sich-fuer-immobilien-enteignungen-aus/

>The workers ironically enough who run the show have no say in how the business is operated or in who the leader is.

So what?

>Except the government answers to the people

No, it does not; elections are nothing more than low-information popularity contests. All systems bend to the iron law of oligarchy.

Attached: commie brainlet.jpg (438x569, 47K)

The problem is that neither of your sides unerstand the other. You're talking past eachother cause you don't get the other ideology properly.

I specialize in breaking commie hearts.
Ok let's say you're Joe Niggerfaggot.
You own a plot of land.
One day, while pulling your pud, you notice gold in them thar hills.
Only problem is you can't get enough money to build a mine. Guess you'll die poor after all.
But wait, what's this, it's Johnny V the venture capitalist!
Johnny V offers you a tremendous amount of money for your gold saturated hills!
You take the gold and retire in luxury.
But now Johnny V has a problem, he has the land, he has a lot of money, but he doesn't have the means to mine and mill all this darn gold.
Guess it was all for not, but wait, who's this!
It's Tommy Poorfag and his gang of hungry poor! They are all very strong and hard working but there's no work for them in this area, guess they'll all have to chase down rabbits!
Wait, they're talking to Johnny V!
Maybe they'll strike up a deal....they have! Tommy P will work for Johnny V to mine and mill the gold in exchange for some of Johnny V's money which will allow Tommy P and his gang to acquire food, shelter, and most importantly women!
Now Johnny V has his gold, Tommy P has his land, and Joe Niggerfaggot is relaxing on a beach somewhere. All with mutual consent and zero guilt. Doesn't seem strange to me, doesn't seem confusing to me, seems like you just want to steal from Johnny V and Tommy P.

Attached: 1442961194964.jpg (295x320, 19K)

>Except the government answers to the people (not under capitalism though lol). However under capitalism, the capitalist does not answer to the people. Eat shit

There's little reason for an entity which controls all branches of production to answer to the people. Is an entity ever acquire the power of to forcibly dictate that it has monopoly production power over everything, then democracy becomes entirely at his discretion.

>However under capitalism, the capitalist does not answer to the people.

That's basically correct. No one has ever in the history of anything ever answered to "the people". The capitalists answer to profit and price signals. Governments answer to whatever it is that their power dynamic dictate they should answer to. Presumably, government answer to what is beneficial to the politician running the machine if government.

No one answers to the "the people".

what makes you think I would not understand them?

Attached: spurdo guide to bolidigs.jpg (640x532, 65K)

We understand what leftists are saying; they're just saying retarded things.

>Capitalist has his own talents and skills
Vague meaningless drivel
>he puts to use
i.e. capital
>organize
He hires people to do this
>create the work opportunities of others
It's his capital that does that because that's how capitalism works. But this is by no means a good system.
>This skills and talents have more worth that more replaceable skills and talents of low class
Red herring. There is no "skill" or "talent" to profit allocation. You give some to your shareholders, you give some to your managers, some goes to tax, you shovel some into to your pockets, and the rest goes to the workers. As far as investment, it's all speculative. Sometimes there is an obvious demand that only those who have capital can realize, but most of the time its throwing shit on the wall until something sticks. Meaning a lot of time it's luck.
>We have no capitalism
Not real capitalism
>yet governments don't answer to the people
They work for the capitalist class. Not you. That's why it feels like governments are useless for you proles. However, make no mistake that they are extremely useful for the capitalist class.
>top-down
Capitalism is top-down. The workers answer to the capitalist. Under leftism, the "boss" is elected by the workers and answers to them. Pretty much all leaders are held to this standard.
>No, it does not; elections are nothing more than low-information popularity contests. All systems bend to the iron law of oligarchy.
You haven't worked in a worker coop so of course you have no idea how things would run.

Attached: workplace democracy.jpg (585x1170, 113K)

You don't get that the lefties view the governemnt as the manifestation of the people as a whole.

Your arguments have OBVIOUSLY been considered before by the academic left and have been rationalised by them DECADES ago.

Your arguments are literally centuries out of date and these little cartoon images are going to convert how many diehard commies do you think? All of them?

You have to convince them some of their core tenets are unviable. If you appeal to their philosophy they've likely already rationalised it.

Is anyone ITT defending crony capitalism even an owner of significant capital or just temporarily disgraced millionaires?

Hey user, it's me, user.
Can you do me a favor and read my shitpost and tell me how you think it should have gone?
What happens to Joe Niggerfaggot under communism?

Because they're retarded & they're minds are owned by jews unironically.
I think you're ascribing more intelligence to these people than they have, it's just that every famous socialist & commie loves central banking and is a jew, it's completely out of place until the ethnicity is factored in.
Like noam chomsky, supposedly a socialist libertarian & yet supports the fed & said the US should keep bombing Syria.. How could a libertarian socialist would take such positions & be logically consistent? ((()))

The purpose of the capitalist is to make decision about which line of production to use his capital in. This function HAS to be performed no matter what system you happen to be in, and the decisions as to what line of production to use your capital in are tremendously important. That is the purpose of the capitalist.

Who or whatever gets to decide how to use capital in any economy is, for all intents and purposes, the capitalist.

>Not real capitalism
Keynesianism

>They work for the capitalist class. Not you.
that's why I want government out of business.

>That's why it feels like governments are useless for you proles. However, make no mistake that they are extremely useful for the capitalist class.
this "capitalist class" are called champagner socialists for a reason.

>Capitalism is top-down.
absolutely not, whenever, wherever there was more economic freedom, people had a higher standard of living.

>The workers answer to the capitalist. Under leftism, the "boss" is elected by the workers and answers to them. Pretty much all leaders are held to this standard.

That's nonsense, the Commie boss answers to the Nomenklatura.

Attached: 151206899483.jpg (960x1280, 372K)

But therein lies the fundamental problem with capitalism. Why would you arbitrarily limit "investment" decisions to a ever increasing small class of selfish people with capital? There is a fundamental disconnect between the needs of the people and the actuality of investment because the people do not have a say in "investment." A random village somewhere might NEED a bridge but under capitalism, that bridge will never get built unless a capitalist is there with his capital (which is a social construct), even though it is an essential need to the people. It also explains why capitalism is so inefficient as a system.

>muh marxism

Attached: gommunism3.jpg (714x500, 65K)

>You don't get that the lefties view the governemnt as the manifestation of the people as a whole.

and then they have the audacity to claim the USSR, GDR was not real socialism, despite they exactly claimed to be the manifestation of the people as such.

>Your arguments have OBVIOUSLY been considered before by the academic left and have been rationalised by them DECADES ago.

obviously not, otherwise they would not make those silly claims over and over again.

>Your arguments are literally centuries out of date and these little cartoon images are going to convert how many diehard commies do you think? All of them?

The only thing I want Commies converted into is CO2 neutral biological waste.

>You have to convince them some of their core tenets are unviable. If you appeal to their philosophy they've likely already rationalised it.

They have ruined the whole West, dominate the discourse and still act like they were some dissident ideology only known to a fringe group of academics. Irrationalists never rationalize anything.

>that's why I want government out of business
Not a good idea unless you want things like child labor and slavery back
>economic freedom
Nonsensical phrase. "Economic freedom" is associated with only more capitalist freedom at the expense of worker oppression. The freedom of the capitalist to oppress the worker. Because after all class conflict exists and is a sort of tug of war with both sides vying for their own interests.

Attached: EIyV7MaSUCSGAXrcCrZJpF7ammpbJHok3J__7D-Ex0k.jpg (800x646, 166K)

>Why would you arbitrarily limit "investment" decisions to a ever increasing small class of selfish people with capital?

As opposed to limiting it to a single entity like the polit bureau or the central planning committee?

>There is a fundamental disconnect between the needs of the people and the actuality of investment because the people do not have a say in "investment."

How does the capitalist know his investment was correct?

>The only thing I want Commies converted into is CO2 neutral biological waste.

Attached: 200.gif (267x200, 1.56M)

>Not a good idea unless you want things like child labor and slavery back
are you saying there were no governments profiting from child labour in the past?
And slavery we still have, thanks to government.

>Nonsensical phrase. "Economic freedom" is associated with only more capitalist freedom at the expense of worker oppression. The freedom of the capitalist to oppress the worker. Because after all class conflict exists and is a sort of tug of war with both sides vying for their own interests.

Then explain why the massive drop of the middle class in the US (and overhere) goes hand in hand with government interactions into the economy. Workers can start their own business if they feel oppressed by their bosses.

>You haven't worked in a worker coop so of course you have no idea how things would run.

Don't need to work in one when there's more than enough empirical data to indicate that they suck. Just like democracy in general.

>As opposed to limiting it to a single entity like the polit bureau or the central planning committee?
Something more organized than the decentralized mess we find ourselves in. Right now businesses speculate based on what they think other businesses will do in the market. Because different industries fall in a supply chain and it's all interrelated.
>How does the capitalist know his investment was correct?
Capitalism feeds itself. The investment was correct under the capitalist framework if it is profitable. But if the trend of the falling rate of profit was to continue, then every investment under capitalism will eventually become unprofitable and unsuccessful. This is how crazy the system is.
The golden age of the US was fueled by leftist policies in the early half of the 20th century. Also from the profiteering from WW2.

>The golden age of the US was fueled by leftist policies in the early half of the 20th century. Also from the profiteering from WW2.
lol no, the Golden Age was from the founding until the the late 19th century.

Attached: _12345.jpg (676x960, 83K)

Not spending the resources to build a bridge that would not see a good return of investment is the exact opposite of inefficiency.

Did the mine owners raise the funds to employ people to do these things, preparing the necessary legal and organisational framework behind the gold mining operation, complete with contracts and what not?

If so, it is what it is.

If people want a bigger cut of the pie, then why not set up businesses of your own and opt for a more cooperative model?

Holy shit, he has to get the capital from somewhere, he does not use alchemy. The accumulated capital is a fruit of his labor, then he can hire people to do more of his labor, when he has money for it.

>But if the trend of the falling rate of profit was to continue, then every investment under capitalism will eventually become unprofitable and unsuccessful.

That's patently false simply because:

(1) You can't operate at a loss and so the capitalist system, even with a falling profit rate -- which is a good thing, incidentally -- won't ever operate at a loss. (That's mathematically impossible for an extended period of time.)

(2) The idea that profit rate will go to zero is based on the idea that the system is an equilibrium state and that consumer demands remains constant over time and that technology remains static. In order for the profit rate to go to zero you have to stipulate a bunch of things that will never materialize.

But the point still stands: there is a connexion between people -- the consumers -- and the capitalist investment. The capitalist needs to invest his capital in such a way that he has a profit. In order to have a profit someone must buy what he produces in such a way that he sells at a price that is higher than the one he paid to produce what he's selling. In this precise sense the capitalist is responsive to """"the people"""".

In your example of the village and the bridge, there's a couple of option:

(1) The village build the bridge itself

(2) Someone else comes in and builds it

No matter what option one choses, one thing must remain true: the bridge must be profitable AND must be so as contrasted with other investment opportunities. If this is not the case then neither the capitalist nor the village should build the bridge and in fact under communism were the bridge to be built then *communism would actually have made everyone poorer*.

Every investment decision whose result it is that the profit is lower than it otherwise would have been had another investment decision been made *makes everyone poorer*.

> Onsite managers do that
why are they in higher hierarchical position to do this and where does their authority stem from in a cummunist society which has no hierarchies or authorities?

business risk lmao trump went bankrupt 6x and right wing retards told me that was a good thing

u

OP is poor.

Attached: 24067921_1488768717903393_870329797969257172_n.jpg (420x510, 53K)

The ten Planks of Communist manifesto:
#8 "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
> Equal obligation
How can a stateless and non-hierarchical society enforce this?
> Your work-time is equivalent to everybody else's work-time
Am I forced to sit and drawn hentai for as long as others work in factory, if I don't want to do manual labour as an artist? Will my hentai comics have high labour value the longer I sketch it? How is an artist's LTV defined?
If "... each according to his needs", what stops me claiming to acquire 70% of goods to suffice my 120kg fat ass' needs?
How can anyone else define how my needs are sufficed?
How can a collective deny me coming over demand 70% of goods that others have gathered through hard manual labour, while I can provide them only hentai sketches? We are living in non hierarchical society after all, right?
How is Theft defined in cummunist world, when there's no property in non-hierarchical society you can steal from others?

Mine owners owned all the gold, and paid others to extract it from their lands. Wages in exchange for labor. Simple concept.

How are decisions made in cummunist utopia? By majority vote? That sounds hierarchical desu.
How do you force the majority's resolution on minority in a society without a hierarchy or authority?
How can you stop minority from implementing their own solutions? lmao

Why is there need for such a concept as personal property in cummunism?
What is difference between personal property and private property?
Doesn't my personal property turn into public property in cummunism, if I offer services to others with the said personal property?
If private property covers means of production, what stops me from disassembling a mean of production and claim the parts to be my personal property?
Why would you waste resource producing more than say (hypothetically) 1 hammer/toothbrush per 7 persons? lmao

>The goverment answers to the people
>most people in Europe doesn't want more immigration

pick one you fucking piece of shit

capitalism is for jews and right wing retards

Attached: 1547092332050.jpg (640x480, 89K)

i agree, but communism is only another jewish offspawn from a jewish mentality. The closest thing to a indoeuropean economic mindset was the spanish economic durin the XVII and XIX centuries. Spanish money was so strong the the american dollar is a direct descent from it because british imperial currency was so fucked up by debt that spanish currencies were stronger and thus more used in america's french and english colonies.

Capitalism vs Marxism is not only an outdated economy but also a false one.

The true explotion under our current system isn't on the appropiation of the means of production but in the financial system and the structural usury brought by the jewish bankers... the same usury which was present on the Soviet Union

Slavoj Zizek agrees that marxism is dead, that Marx was a half wrong hegelian

the real anser is to go live in the forrest and hunt worms

bump for these questions

Attached: communism_is_happiness.jpg (788x529, 100K)

They paid for everything. Idiot.

so capitalism and communism is Jewish?

Attached: Max Horkheimer.jpg (400x561, 54K)

redpill me on honkheimer

Great Depression
We're taking about human need here, not profit efficiency. Your brain is still trapped inside the box of capitalism.
>he has to get the capital from somewhere
Usually inheritance. This is why the Western elite is so comically inefficient. Most of them did not get to where they were from merit. This is why the West is dying.
>(1) You can't operate at a loss and so the capitalist system
That's the point that as the rate of profit decreases eventually capitalism will stagnant and collapse.
>which is a good thing, incidentally
Yes, this is a good thing
>there is a connexion between people -- the consumers -- and the capitalist investment
But not necessarily in a good way or in a way that directly meets their needs. If selling meth to people on the street is super profitable it will succeed under capitalism.
>(1) The village build the bridge itself
Which is leftism. The people come together to realize a common need and proactively work towards that. Under capitalism this wont happen because they are now reliant on a wage. So now you're limited to having a capitalist come in by the goodness of his grace.
>the bridge must be profitable AND must be so as contrasted with other investment opportunities
The fallacy here is that every need or progress must be profitable. Sinking tons of capital in the pursuit of space travel is not profitable. Those companies will get BTFO by other companies who focus on profit and then eat them up. Or sinking capital into building a free public road that a lot of people will use isn't profitable either.
That's why I put the disclaimer "not under capitalism though." And it further means you completely failed to understand my point. Good job.

also a portion of the gold was used to pay the miners. weak ass b8 thread.

ever heard of the Frankfurt School?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Horkheimer

> We're taking about human need here
who defines these needs of an individual and why does he have authority over the individual on this issue?
> The people come together to realize a common need and proactively work towards that
who defines this common need?

i just wanted to say honkheimer

>not knowing the 2008 crash was cause by the government

Attached: 1549814242698.jpg (600x532, 40K)

So what would the leftist approach be to getting the bridge built?

>commie calls capitalists "bootlicker"
>communism creates largest state in the history of states
Kek why are commies the most insufferably retarded little faggots in existence?

Eat shit freeloader western capitalist economies soundly refute your idiocy. Ten years ago I was in a homeless shelter in Olympia Washington, right now I'm sitting in a 250,000 dollar home my fiancee and I closed on in January. Fuck your lazy stupid ass. I don't know any where else I could have worked my way out of poverty like that. I used to be a stupid shit like you too, even voted democrat...no more.

keep shilling for wall street and ignoring their destruction

Attached: wall street tax cuts.jpg (1255x801, 92K)

Strawmen out the ass, and factually incorrect on all accounts until the operation is big enough that he has to hire middlemanagement.

Additionally, every lawyer and miner out the ass is paid by the owner/entrepreneur for their services
>invested other peoples’ money
In the event that the enterperneur runs his operation with the use of venture capital, he will pay his shareholders their negotiated dividends

How are you so fucking gay

>Great Depression
so you don't like the Fed and fractional reserve banking?

anti-state.com/libertarian-case-against-fractional-reserve-banking/

A rising tide lifts all boats,

John F Kennedy.

Fucking idiot. Do you think he does not pay his workers for finding gold?