He makes a good argument

The thing is
They can

Explain how you're supposed to single handedly delivery millions of products to people all over the world.
Explain how those millions of products get made.

Explain how value isn't arbitrary. You won't, you'll just sit there and piss yourself believing in fascist ideologies.

Attached: 12c.jpg (550x413, 89K)

They do. That's why they're called workers. They work and produce things by doing so.

How?

FUCK GOOGLE

RICO

GOOGLE ELECTION MEDDLING & SOCIAL ENGINEERING
BUMP ALL GOOGLE THREADS

Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?
>Why dont the workers buy their own factory and machines and lawyers and sales reps and engineers first?

Attached: 1561502357681.jpg (1024x989, 103K)

They can quit and start for themselves anytime can't they? What's the problem here? They can also buy shares of the company can't they?

Attached: communistball (1).jpg (1000x1048, 101K)

Have food

Because most business owners actually got money from their parents

.

Attached: communistball (2).jpg (1000x1048, 96K)

>They would own a business

That's the whole point of communism. Businesses shouldn't be in the hands of private entrepreneurs or state officials, they should be in the hands of the workers who actually work there. It's called collective ownership of the means of production.

..

Attached: (((they)))callthatvictory.jpg (625x599, 73K)

>Can't answer the questions
>"Fuck off"

Attached: 63f.png (575x429, 229K)

This

That's just a lie based on nothing and you know it.

>What is venture capital

You need neck yourself if you think thats a good argument

By actually using the means of production that their boss possesses. The workers make it, their bosses take it.

So what's the incentive for new companies then if risk isn't rewarded for the one taking initiative?
Why would anyone start a business if he can't reap the profits of his risk taking and efforts in making it a successful business?

I believe you really underestimate what it's like running a small to medium sized business or a startup.

>worker 1: I want to sell to distributor A
>worker 2: I want to sell to distributor B

Communism is not a Fascist ideology, you brain dead jackass.

Attached: 1552618343101.png (667x615, 308K)

They can, they just dont

Theres nothing illegal about communist run business now yet they dont exist

>What is venture capital

The slave chains eagery provided by the ((banks)) to ensure business remains obedient.

Who cares what its called when its the state imposing immoral control

The problem is eventually you run out of things you can steal. It's the age old problem successful thieves face. Your workers can make a bucket or a car but they can't make a company.

Does every worker have an exactly equal say?

Banks aren't the only ones providing capital friend.

You're wrong about how debt is approached in a business. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's remains at stable levels so you can use it for tax write offs because of interest payments being deductible from the income statement.

they do

So why don't they do that? Nobody is stopping them but themselves.

>That's the whole point of communism
I know. Contradictory and self defeating.

>Businesses shouldn't be in the hands of private entrepreneurs or state officials, they should be in the hands of the workers who actually work there.
>Yes a private entrepreneur just gets handed a businesses down from the sky and never works or risks building one.

I guess the business comes from the same place the workers will get their collective hands on one in your mind.

>Yes lets let nobody specific run and operate a business
>so that nothing specific will get done and the business will have no specific goal.

The soviets had a saying for this "They pretend to pay us so we pretend to work". Also you still haven't answered how value isn't arbitrary, which would be really fucking important to know before starting your new government based on a false premise.

>Cause you know, the foundation might collapse one day.

Attached: 1526389829644.jpg (750x500, 131K)

It's ok to start a business as long as you have others work WITH you rather than having others work FOR you. If the business ends up successful, both you and your coworkers profit from said success. And should the business end up failing, then the loss would be bearable for everyone rather than end up being a massive burden.

>they should be in the hands of the workers who actually work there
kek and yet every single time it becomes state ownership

>Banks aren't the only ones providing capital friend.

But the main supplier.

>Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing
As I wrote, the chains to keep you obedient.

1-6: ???
7: worker makes product
8-12: ???
13: owner makes profit

>workers seize the means
>but who will enforce it? Who will enforce us all to seize the means?
>Oh well....no one specific I guess. Time to make at least some form of government that regulates it.
>Government regulates business and society who think they're seizing their own means
>But it isn't fascism

because Google came in and added the words "right wing" to the definition, right?

Attached: cfb.jpg (600x386, 48K)

The issue in the last decades is less access to money, then access to skill and brainpower at a certain place for a certain cost
Some people are just better in extracting that skillset from the general populous and many of the new founded smaller corps fail every year because of many factors but mostly a) because not enough customers b) not enough skilled workers
The fact stays, that some people have enough money to try it again and again, either because they had the chance of getting a very good education by home/location and are able to use it effectively
There is risk involved and the reward is high. Most modern startups give out stock options, its the workers who can't take them on it because cost of living is sometimes so prohibitive that you can't forgo just 10% of your income to take incentives
For certain areas and population, the Amazon center or Walmart is basically the slave farm they wage slave until they die, and have nothing to show for it

>CEO leaves company
>takes immediately drop in sales, almost collapses
>this happen 6 times with major corporations in Japan
Why didn't the workers just sell more when their CEO was gone?

>Debt is a chain you'll never get out of
>Having debt is inherently wrong

Debt is fine, as long as you keep it reasonable. If you manage to fuck up because of taking on too much debt as a company you know the debt gets written off once you go bankrupt right?

Therefore one can conclude that all those times it wasn't communist. No collective ownership of the means of production = No communism.

Oh, little baby got called out!

I'm their market. They sell their productivity to me.

The road to communism always ends the same, totalitarianism by government that won't give up power ever. By all means necessary.

No one will ever willingly take the last step to communism, and what happens when one person decides to not agree to a communist system, and tries to open his own small stand or tries to do something else that doesn't fit the communism guidelines?

Eventually you'll have to order people around, and will probably get back to the state of full on socialism since no one can deviate or is allowed to deviate from the plan

Of course each worker has. Some compromises would be necessary in larger factories with dozens, if not hundreds of workers, but that could be worked out after a short period of trial and error, or even with a simple vote.

>the means of production that their boss possesses
well why don't they get the means of production themselves as their boss did for himself?

>Who cares what its called when its the state imposing immoral control
>"What do you mean red and blue are different? Who cares about the difference they both make me angry!!"

Attached: 1253423542.jpg (601x508, 31K)

Worker cooperatives actually do exits, though not in huge numbers.

>its the same end result, just implemented differently
Nah get bent retard. Talking about the nuances between different types of socialism is as useful as talking about the differences between substances to drown in

DESU assuming that the 'workers' are smart and educated enough to undertake such a venture, it's mostly risk aversity.

Between maximum gain and maximum loss (and maximum time investment regardless) [which means being a business man] people tend to prefer to sell a moderate amount of their time for a modicum share of the profit and a situation that allows them just enough flexibility and quality of life that it seems mostly fair [which means being an employee]. They get worse and worse deals the less their skillset is worth in the labour market. Hello pork cycles, industrialization, automation, globalization, and structural change.

Most people do minimax while maximax is the domain of the privileged and the soldiers of fortune.

IMO the tendency to do minimax becomes evident in the observation that even in societies with much welfare available (e.g. in the case of failure you'd fall only so deep) entrepreneurship isn't likely over-represented when compared to societies where you can fall deeper (like the US) or deepest (no welfare at all) [talking out of my ass here and guessing - but the US is more famous for fostering innovative businesses than Germany is].

Lol, to be honest (abbrv.) now becomes d-e-s-u. I like it gozaimasu.

Why not just socialize the basics, kindergardens, schools, renting, meds
It looks like the most money is in stuff where you can't run away, you MUST buy to survive, where the system of "I make you an offer you could simply decline" starts failing because you want to live

>If you don’t like it just become a Fortune 500 CEO goy

Probably because everyone advocating for such a thing ended up being either fired, thus ending up with no capital for investing in means of production to contribute to the creation of a collective enterprise, or was unable to find a company that would provide the means of production for such a thing because that would endanger the boss of said company by giving its workers the idea to do the same thing by seizing the means of production in their companies. Or because there weren't enough people who came up with that idea that could meet all the conditions for creating such a collective enterprise while also living in the same area and not being targeted by the gov't or intelligence service.

What is stopping the workers from banding together and making there own means of production? Just because the worker made something doesn't mean he could have done it alone someone had to buy the tools/machinery.

>why not socialize the important things
Because lack of a motivation for the cogs in the government turns the enterprise to trash

Begone Satan, you have no power here

>describes Communism then just calls it Fascism at the end, "checkmate, the right is the real left!"
>"Red is a color, blue is a color they are the same"
Man youtube conversatist have fucking melted your brain buddy.

Attached: 1530835595956s.jpg (110x125, 3K)

Because worker co-ops aren't as efficient as the regular business structure.

Reddit retard.

Because socializing shit results in a shittier version of the existing product.
Schools here perform well only because they face competition with each other because parents are free to choose which schools their kids go to in elementary school and high school.
Socialized renting and housing always has resulted in a lower supply of housing and a bigger problem with housing than before.
Socializing medicine is even worse than the previous two examples. Always comes out way more expensive than it was before, even when corrected for inflation and growth in income.
First of all fuck the caps on entrants into medical school

>All Fascism is socialism.
pic related

Attached: 1415237738437.jpg (294x400, 18K)

Very very very rare example where the order of society didn't come from the ruling dictator other than some minor things.

>Libtards face when

Attached: IMG_20190627_000558_539.jpg (655x544, 69K)

Not a commie but I’m pretty sure communist run businesses aren’t legal

They can...

>A system which requires a large army to force everyone into it and shoot anyone who tries to escape is more free than a system where you're allowed to get rich

The victim mentality of you fucking orcs is staggering. Just figure out how to get rich yourself and stop whining.

And said nation still managed to stand its ground for years.
Said nation gave workers more rights than any communist regime ever did.
Said nation went from a crippled land with high unemployement to a regional superpower in a few years.
While being a leader in science, creating modern infrastructures and making its population loyal, strong and healthy.
And now we worship the ones that tried to enslave them, use their children and women as prostitutes and leeched wealth through a fraudulant banking system.
War is peace
Good is evil
Punished crime is victimhood
Every truth of life has been corrupted since.

Fascism unlike socialism actually works by keeping some of the good parts of capitalism and just removing kikes and other degenerates

Communism is dumber than fascism, when it comes to economics. The proof is in history. Look at Germany's economy during Nazi rule and compare it to any marxist run shitholes.

>inb4 b-but communism wasn't practiced right!

truly canadian tier posting

to be clear: I mean that you suck dick

so what you're saying is I only need to unionize 51% of the workforce and we take executive power over our new 49% slaves
no work for us, work to death for them
where the hell else are they gonna go? no one's going to hire them in a system where you lose wealth for every additional co-worker you gain

I'm do not support Communist, I'm arguing against retards that think it's the same as Facsim.

Attached: 1522466093182.jpg (507x640, 680K)

Riddle me this, what is stopping the workers from pooling up their own assets and starting a competitive factory after being fired?

>Debt spending and artificially keeping unemployment low is successful

I agree they did alright considering the state of Germany after 1929 but they weren't amazing as some people here claim. Unemployment was kept low only artificially. Real employment was much lower than the full employment they always claimed

Can you answer this. Why would anyone choose to work in a sewage plant? Or any kind of factory making boring things like pens or involving harmful processes, like chemical maunfacturing?

Why would anyone work in a bar where they have to stay up til 3am and wipe up sick? Or as a bouncer? Who decides who gets to be the bartender and who has to mop up puke?

Why would anyone work any vaguely unpleasant or difficult job in your world? If it was necessary, how would you make them work?

>capitalism bad
>socialism bad
ITT: retards can only think in absolutes for some reason.
It’s like seeing people argue over using steel or concrete to build a tower.
Steel doesn’t crack but has shitty compressive strength.
Concrete cracks but has great compressive strenght to hold massive weight.
Compromise both elements so you don’t have to deal with the extreme faults both systems have. Like mass starvation or black holes of influence amassed by big corporations.

If you make the best products in your worker co-op you don't want quantity you want quality.

>"this one was the only outlier all other Fascists were commies!."
The term "Privatization" was coined to describe Hitler's economic actions, stop watching Prager(((U))) videos about how the left are the real nazis.

Attached: Lenin and Stalin in Moscow 1943.jpg (253x199, 11K)

you do know money isn't real irght? it something some rich asshole thought of to explit from the poor. no matter how you cut it capitalism is a white supremacy system of governemnt. it always (even today example) uses the back of black and brown people to make profit. today you can see this in the prison industiral complex.

the whtie surpema;cy system needs black epople to expolit and needs to be destroyed

capitlaism is the cancer that killed millions of poeple

>money isn’t real
fuck off
you are deluded and paranoid

Good pasta
the typos really convey a strong feeling of seething.

Attached: 1232142112.jpg (780x439, 101K)

Bravo! That's some fine bait. But to make it more convincing, you should use black and brown "bodies", not "people". It sounds woker.

I don't watch Prager U, the video they released about Israel just pissed me off.

Yeah they privatised a lot but the people who became unemployed just got fake jobs at the government so that officially unemployment stayed low, but in reality unemployment was much higher.

And yes, Pinochet was a rare example of a dictator that didn't change much in everyday life and privatised a lot, mainly due to the influence of the "Chicago boys".

Eventually economic freedom will lead to political freedom as well, it happened in Chile and will happen in China too

It's a medium of exchange for goods and services, and functions as a quicker method of trade.

A chicken farmer wouldn't be able to trade 5000 eggs for a flat screen TV, but he CAN sell 5000 eggs to people in exchange for a promissory note backed by the country's economy and armed forces, and use that note as a medium of exchange for the TV.

Nobody is stopping you from engaging in trade.

Indeed, it's much worse

Leaf being a leaf.

Poor people are the greediest and most selfish.

A man who says "hmm, people need lights, I'll invent a lightbulb and sell it" helps millions of people, and thus, deservedly becomes rich.

Poor people over 30 are the ones who only think about what they're going to spend their paycheck on to look cool, whether they should spend all their money on shoes, or TVs, or partying. They only think about how TV and goods make them feel better about their own problems, never about how they could help others.

A rich entrepreneur is one who thinks of something people need and creates it.

The poor person then looks up from their shopping sprees and iPhones and says "hey, that's not fair, give us your wealth". Communists are the worlds most selfish and greedy people.

I hate when (((commies))) use the "privatization" argument in bad faith. Hitler privatized parts of the government into large cartels such as IG Farben to function with less bureaucracy and to focus more on R&D

CEOs are overpaid.

Indeed. They were not magicians and often, for propaganda purposes, exagerrated their successes.
Yet there were massive achievements, and they took care of the workers while accepting you need entrepreneurs and companies. Instead of slaughtering the middle and upper class like commies did everywhere, they protected workers, and gave rules to companies so that they still profit, but also served the common interest.
That's why both commies and capitalists are wrong:
Economically, too much state kills innovation and efficiency, too much corporate power kills...everything. people, environment, everything.
The USA are the perfect example, a country where even the state can be considered privatized, that sacrifice everything for profit. In 100 years this country no longer exists. Its people replaced, its environment devastated.
And desu, if i have a choice between commies and capitalists, i choose commies. At least they do not planned genocides of their own so their market value increase, as horrible as they can be.
You can repair a broken economy or infrastructure. You can't repair a genocide.