MARX GTFO

It seems like you enjoy helicopter rides.

>Communism is inevitable
Prove it, faggot

>You can't fight the changing tides
Are you saying... I'm on THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY?

>We live in capitalism
Capitalism is a meaningless umbrella term invented by communists to describe everything they don't like.

Also we don't live in capitalism. He's wrong.
Capitalism is already subverted. Capitalism should have its ups and down in the (((MARKET))). It's only up. He(the commi) cant answer this because he forget to read economics 101.

>applies equally to both capitalist states and authoritarian/statist communism
Yes, but "capitalism" (or rather "free market") has a lot more ways to sort of self-regulate in any efficient way.
As a simplest example, in free market stores don't usually stock up on useless shit nobody needs because some people thought that's exactly what people want to buy, so the state must produce a shitload of that useless things, and, as a result, the things that people need are scarce. In free market people who produce useless shit will go out of business, so nobody tends to produce a shitload of useless shit.

It's an oversimplification, of course, but just as a quick example.

Your example completely ignores one of the absolutely foundational principles of Marxism: use value versus exchange value.
Marxists would not stock up on useless crap that nobody needs, because production would be for the explicit purpose of fulfilling the needs of those who own it. Capitalism actually does exactly what you think communism would do, it produces endless amounts of utter garbage and sells it based purely off of image, because that makes money for a small group of people.
Think of the constant need for a new smartphone in every fucking brand, and their planned obsolescence. An authoritarian communist state would immediately get rid of that shit, and make sure that the goods produced would be robust and functional

Dialectical materialism my dude

Did you forget about the market crash 10 years ago?

Did you forgot about the Silver price being manipulated?

Nothing changed not legally nor people in charge since the crash 10 years ago btw

>Marxists would not stock up on useless crap that nobody needs, because production would be for the explicit purpose of fulfilling the needs of those who own it.
Dude, my family LIVED through the state producing useless crap trying to guess what people need.
But I guess it wasn't "real" socialism/communism/whatever.

Market efficiency is when people die because insulin manufacturers raise the price 900% despite it being cheaper to make

Thats why you dont outsource any main roles of the government like medicine.
Seems like you're more a NatSoc in deniel than a communist.

Even if something had changed the boom bust cycle is inherent to capitalism, we're going to have another recession in the next 5 years

Attached: 79be5f02ffc5c13a2cb44454a6a12d40b8f4c0c473641a22fe71e3ac3293a5c6.jpg (820x600, 323K)

Its not capitalism. Its just a big ponzi scheme.
Capitalism should have Money, Not FIAT.
I already told you, you dont know economics.
You're right on those 5 years

Well, maybe that's the area where state regulations would be actually useful instead of state regulating EVERYTHING?

Fuck Nazis
The Great Depression happened on the gold standard
I want to dissolve the state, but government sucks

>>>Real capitalism has never been tried

loled

Well I'd argue that that was a failure in implementation then, I won't go to the tired no-true scotsman crap. If the means of production were democratically controlled, then your family should've been able to at least have a say in what is produced.
Also, keep in mind the trade restrictions placed on most communist states, that may have had something to do with the inability to provide certain goods

> Muh Great Depression
Forgets about 1913. Privatly owned federal bank... You are just the proof that communists don't know shit about economics.

The gold standard doesnt mean shit if its not state owned.

Forgets about Rome.
Seems like you dont know monetary history at all.

>If the means of production were democratically controlled
Democracy is an overrated that is assumed to be good and desirable by default, for some reason.

>>>It's not capitalism unless my very specific definition is met despite every one else calling it capitalism
Grow up you baby

Defending slavery is not a good look

There we go, out of arguments. Nice one.
Never forget the Day of the Rope

I agree, it has become really fetishized in the West, but the only 'democracy' we really have is in electing a government which pretty much becomes beyond accountability the second an election is over. I'd rather have a king than our current shit-tier lib governments.

However, I do think that having control over the things we want to make and consume is important, and its a degree of freedom that is currently available under capitalism

>However, I do think that having control over the things we want to make and consume is important

Please elaborate on this. For me, the whole point this shit is figuring a system that allows each of us to be satisfied with our needs, basically. Those need include various things, including material goods.

I got cancer from this post

F

Do you really think slavery needs to be addressed as an argument?

WTF are you even talking about?

Do you really think that communism isnt slavery?
Do you really think that slavery = labour
Do you really think that labour shouldnt be rewarded?
Do you really think that rewards should be equal?
Do you really think that people are equal in skill as in intellect?
Do you really think that people don't need motivation to develop themselves?

No problem, I'm the same way, I just want a good system in place.
Think of it like this: in capitalism, production is motivated by profit. If we produce something that is useless to daily survival or comfort, and maybe even outright dangerous, but it remains profitable, then Capitalists will continue to produce it.
Take the loot-boxes in videogames phenomenon as an example: its universally detested by all the people who actually play games, and I guarantee you the people who make those games wouldn't put them in if it wasn't a highly profitable system.
If profit was no longer a motive, and the people who did the work of producing the games could make the choice, then it simply would not be something that they'd put work into, and we wouldn't have to play otherwise good games with that garbage ruining it.

Also, there is some research to indicate that workers co-ops are more efficient than the hierarchically structured companies run by capitalists

>Fuck Nazis
ugh, classic naziphobia. You are obviously a closet nazi scared that it's true, so you repress it as much as you can
>gold standard
what year was the federal reserve created? what year was credit lending popularized? what purchasing habits changed during the "roaring 20s"?

This.
He doesnt know this so he just goes full ad-hominem

>muh human nature
yeah dude you solved it. artificial systems of resource distribution and property rights are determined by human nature

what a stupid fucking thread

But let;s consider WHY production is motivated by profit. Profit equals money, and money is just a good universal placeholder for any product on service you may need.

In this context, loot-boxes are bad practice for sure, but basically it's a kind of service provided by game developers in an attempt to obtain more profit, which equals to more potential goods and services they can purchase with this profit. Of course, most large companies just basically stockpile money, but really this profit is meant to be the salary for employees, to cover production costs, etc.

hold an erection beta

>but really this profit is meant to be the salary for employees...
then why doesnt that happen?
why have wages frozen since the neoliberalization of America?

good point really. the only flaw this right wing internet culture has is the ability to create comprehensive dialog.

Attached: Game Of Salt.png (497x1704, 761K)

>Fite me
Die in a hole limp wristed faggot

What to fuck have you tried to say just now?
The ability to create comprehensive dialog is a flaw?

basement dwellers point of reference:
GOT
argument thrown out

t r i g g e r e d

Attached: dwight.jpg (557x547, 39K)

it really shows that you dont read

>Fug ebil nazees
Either you are a brown shitskin or you are a self guilting white american
If you cannot understand that society functions best with a homogenous ethnic population just look at brazil or south africa.

Seriously, I don't get if it was meant to be a sarcasm or I just cannot into English.

No ad hominem, I genuinely trying to understand what he was trying to communicate.

i just came into an American flag as you typed this.

can you understand what I am communicating to you daddy?

Cope faggot you have no arguements left as you have been indoctrinated into thinking this shit

Пiшoв нaхyй, кypвo.

Funnily enough you're actually approaching the Marxist position here, its pretty close to some stuff in chapter 1 of Capital.

You believe that the profit-motive is fine, but that profit should merely cover operating costs and employee salary. This is perfectly acceptable, but it essentially removes the role of the capitalist, as in the case where all labour-value is distributed to the workers properly, then the 'owner' of that business would only be receiving compensation for the actual work they put in. In this case, profit becomes redundant as a concept, because profit is based on an accumulation of wealth, rather than a distribution of it. Sure, the labour has increased the overall VALUE of the society, but it is not profit in the sense of accumulation.

Basically, the logical conclusion of what you're saying, I believe, is a Marxist one

turn around, look into a mirror and speak those words. it will all become clear... i'll wait.

so explain to me if profits are meant to pay workers higher salaries as productivity increases, why hasnt that happened for decades?

Let nin gar- sex with cín bereth

>Marxists would not make mistakes
Sure, in theory. Give full control of the industry to a handfull of people chosen for their political loyalty and if something wrong happen, pretend it wasn't you.

Attached: jew2.jpg (970x545, 96K)

OP is so boomer it hurts

anarchism is the closest system that we can get to what God intended for us. being ruled by kings is pagan behavior. unfortunately, we are doomed to kings until Christ returns.

communism works just fine. not at creating a free, prosperous, or good society, but using the masses to usurp power and take it for yourself.

here you dropped this
your wife will thank me

Attached: 31N8Qw4ypzL._SY355_.jpg (355x355, 8K)

>Dialectical materialism my dude
Proove it's true then. Comunist revolutions only ever happened in non industrialized countries who were blocked in their devlopment by politic.

US: no revolution.
GB: no revolution
France: 25 revolutions, not one of them communist. A short and local uprising isn't a revolution.
The agrarian Russia: Comunist revolution.
The still medieval China in a modern world: Communist revolution.

>but that profit should merely cover operating costs and employee salary.

Basically, it means that system should dictate what people are allowed to do with their property, and money is property.
And this can easily lead to accusing someone of being too rich, and we all know from history what happens next.
In my opinion, the desirable outcome should be the result of "rules" by which people live (same as we live by certain "rules" under capitalism or socialism), and not just because undesirable outcome and actions are illegal and punishable.

>funnily
american male
white
west of the mississippi river
probably college educated
probably south of oregon

A нy быcтpo мнe paccкaзaл Cимвoл Bepы бeз гyглa, пидop.

aren’t those supposed to wrap around the balls

>money is property
the workers property because they created it through labor

So why havent wages or salaries increased?

did I get any of those right?

is there a point to this or are you just fucking stupid

>eastern orthodox
>2019
>shiggy diggy
>shoogy doogy

Not to mention Russia was in a all or nothing war with the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. No WW1, no soviet union

no funnily isn’t a word I’ve heard anyone say except west coast-ers

You are assuming that employer doesn't not contribute anything, but it's not true.

Anyway, we're getting into territory of arguments discussed thousands of times already.

Basically it's the prisoners dilemma.
Assuming everyone works for the benefit of the group, and not the individual, it's great.

But toss in negros and kikes and suddenly you get people working for their personal benefit.

we're on Jow Forums, more than half the shit is made up here and you pick that?

because I fucking hate that word it’s an affront to the english language, a language that is a whore in her own rights

if theyve been discussed already why havent you answered the question? Why do workers not get raises when they create more money? why have wages stagnated for decades while productivity is at an all time high? Until capital itself is sentient, owners and their property is entirely fucking useless without laborers to make it useful and to utilize the resources.

An oil deposit is worthless if im just some ten gallon hat wearing faggot that called dibs with no means of extracting it with labor

great response?

Attached: ul1k9ikrsgpz.jpg (800x518, 73K)

>Also, there is some research to indicate that workers co-ops are more efficient than the hierarchically structured companies run by capitalists
Please post a source to back this bullshit claim.

the whole foods guy (former) said that the reason that wages are lagging is because the employer has to foot the bill on more things than they used too

I dunno how true it is but that’s what I’ve heard

Each time communism is attempted the whole country turns into big corporation with complete monopoly in every aspect of life.

The proprietors in such a corporation are those who have high positions in ruling body of the state.

I don't see how it's better than capitalism in practice.

you got 'white', 'male', and I guess technically South of Oregon, but I'm not American so you're mostly off by quite a margin

Firstly, we can implement policies which incentivize a structural transition in companies away from the current model, and towards workers co-ops. I don't know if you don't want state intervention at all, but I feel like you mentioned that regulation is acceptable in a capitalist society. With a policy like this we would likely avoid violence, and would be making the transition voluntary, albeit somewhat coercively.
To your second point, I don't think material conditions will change unless there is necessity, people aren't just going to adopt good values for no reason. We're going to have to be proactive about addressing modern issues, and I'm hopeful that we can use the state to achieve that

20 seconds and i found this
why are you so lazy
thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

that guy is also has over 100 million and sold the company to the largest monopoly in american history
I wonder where all those workers raises went
huh

speaking about amazon, what really do they have a monopoly over? I get it they are powerful but really almost every on their store can be bought somewhere else and the don’t really make anything, except whole foods

>Firstly, we can implement policies

>but I feel like you mentioned that regulation is acceptable in a capitalist society

Well, I do feel that there must be some policies to prevent everything going to shit, but I also feel like it's a terrible solution.

We are missing something on the fundamental level. Like we are trying to invent a better wagon for a horse to carry instead of inventing automobile.

first of all thats not how socialist governments always turn out, thats how one socialist government turned out and it just so happens to be the only one you know and remember.

if you dont see any positive upside to socialist reforms to capitalist countries its honestly just safe to say you are a fucking blind moron. You know what feels great about living in america? Going to work every day knowing my boss is going to buy a new porsche with the money I create for him that he is somehow "entitled" to because his name is on a property ownership deed and then going back to a small rent hiked apartment that eats majority of my income because somebody's name is on a building deed, and thinking to myself if i should go to the doctor about some chronic pain and whether or not going bankrupt for treatment is worth it.

All of that is a perfectly normal and acceptable existence in the richest country in human history

everything
because amazon will push every other company out of business and then the only labor left will be working in a fulfillment center in a cage

>first of all thats not how socialist governments always turn out, thats how one socialist government turned out and it just so happens to be the only one you know and remember

Factually wrong statement.

A quick google search should yield lots of results, but heres a few:
business.unl.edu/outreach/bureau-of-business-research/academic-research/documents/kim/business-ownership.pdf
uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
ftp.iza.org/dp5711.pdf

Of course there are arguments to be made about the degree of worker ownership present here, and, as with any academic study, there are bound to be disagreements, but in general its fairly well established that the structure is at least as effective as the 'normal' organization.

Ok, at least you're not anti-statist, thats a whole argument on its own.

>We are missing something on the fundamental level
I know your'e probably averse to the idea, but I really suggest that you read some of Marx's earlier, more philosophical, work on alienation. What you said here sounds like a big part of the reason I became a Marxist myself.

its not a fact. I know you barely fucking read in the first place and i dont buy for a fucking second that you know anything about the governmental structures of socialist countries.

Also way to fucking ignore the entirety of the fucking miserable horror of private property rights as if nobody would notice. You still cant fucking tell me why wages have stagnated in capitalist countries for the last 4 decades. You have yet to address this fucking once you stupid fucking faggot.

Calm down. you fucker.

I was not advocating that "capitalism" is the best system there is, therefore I don't understand why you demand from me explaining it's flaws. And all you do is just butthurt over dissatisfaction with your own life while convincing yourself that under communism your boss, who surely doesn't deserve any luxury items, will get some righteous punishment.

That's not a productive discussion.

you are so fucking stupid you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

you dont belong in a political discussion. you belong in a hole covered in 10 feet of concrete

lol great argument jordan peterson wannabe

>you belong in a hole covered in 10 feet of concrete

Now THAT'S communism, lol