Does anyone else here unironically believe in communism? they say that everyone caps out at happiness at 75k a year...

Yes, I lived a significant part of my life in it, and have benefited from the cultural, economic, social output of it after it "fell". It was great.

Unfortunately, that will never come again, what will happen is Kojeve's historical synthesis of capitalism and communism under the global NWO panopticon.

>The end of history ushers-in the "death of man"; paradoxically, man is robbed of the definitional core of his existence precisely at the moment of his triumph. Post-historical man will no longer be "man" as we understand him, but will be "reanimalized", such that the end of history marks the "definitive annihilation of Man properly so-called".

>"The universal and homogeneous state is "good" only because it is the last (because neither war nor revolution are conceivable in it: mere "dissatisfaction" is not enough, it also takes weapons!)

>In the final state there naturally are no more "human beings" in our sense of an historical human being.The "healthy" automata are "satisfied"(sports,art,eroticism,etc), and the "sick" ones get locked up. As for those who are not satisfied with their "purposeless activity"(art etc), they are the philosophers(who can attain wisdom if they "contemplate" enough).By doing so they become "gods".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Kojève
opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/riccardo-paparusso/kojeve’s-idea-of-end-of-history-philosophical-key-to-european-
marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/kojeve-s.htm
iep.utm.edu/kojeve/

medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
WEForum 2017:
weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2017/sessions/what-if-privacy-becomes-a-luxury-good-davos-2017

And everyone already loves it and can't wait for it.

Money can't buy everything.

So did ben carson

>does anyone else here unironically believe in communism?

No. I have a Master's in Education and spent 3 years teaching exclusively black & poor kids how to read and write. It's made quickly obvious that their lack of achievement is more often a problem with effort than an issue of ability. Later on, I became a Workers' Comp Adjuster, and lo and behold the preponderance of long term and severe Workers' Comp claims? They were all filed by black women.

There are simply people who don't want to work, OP. They don't give a fuck and will hop on a free ride every single chance they get. It's an immense disservice to reap the benefits of the people busting ass and turn it over to deadbeats. I get it that there are insanely rich people who don't necessarily bust ass, but if you think they'll remain that way forever without constant oversight and effort, you're crazy. Like Biggie said: Mo money, mo problems. Keeping money is almost as hard as making money.

Are some people "too rich" under capitalism? Yeah. But is the answer communism? No.

Attached: momoneymoproblems.jpg (440x341, 52K)

Jow Forumstards love social darwinism but blame all the dumb shit of capitalism on jews

>>I hate poor people but that 100,000 dollar pool table could of been money to help someone who actually deserves it
I repeat the same question.

Really, follow that reasoning to its conclusion. Earlier this week I ordered a pizza. That was like twenty bucks that was totally unnecessary for me to spend. I could have had rice and beans or ramen noodles or something else much cheaper. You gonna tell me that that's impermissible because I could have given that twenty bucks to someone who has nothing to eat at all? Why should I listen to you? Why should I want to live in a place where everyone's equally poor and hungry? Who gave you the authority to run other people's lives? Fuck off.

>people that innovate deserve more
>unless they don't meet my arbitrary standards for how much innovation they've done

Attached: tuckercarlsonface.png (1200x675, 281K)

Money makes more money. Under communism its harder to make more money if everyone is capped at 75k a year.
after all there's no one dreaming of being the next Steve jobs

Well I like jews so I'm not a Jow Forumstard

I agree there needs to be a limit. The downside to the world of capitalism is also its upside: it realizes people are self serving, and it works to categorize things in thatfashion. Great! A way to distribute resources based on how you contribute. But then when people get too powerful, rather than just keep playing the game, they cheat, and start stopping others, which capitalism doesn't account for. Which in turn breaks the system. Not to mention the irregularities and unfairness of life like being born disabled. But you can't cap people at 75k and call it a day. Some jobs take a decade of educbbefore you ever make a cent. If you were capped that bad, no one would go into the field because it would be financial suicide.

If he wants it it's a neccessity, if he doesn't it's worthless and he should have the money instead

Not the same user but
>food analogy
You're arguing with a strawman. OP is suggesting that those who spend 2,000 bucks on a single meal should give away so everyone can eat a normal meal.

No, he wanted 75k a year. That's waaaay past what you need for a regular meal. If it was about feeding people it would be far less and going all to africa.

It's working fine for me

So where's the line there? Define a "normal" meal. Who gets to decide how much money a given person ought to be able to spend on a meal? Why should someone who wants to buy a meal they disapprove of submit to their authority? If they don't, how will you enforce it?

All these problems go away if you just say "people can spend their own money on what they like, even if those things are stupid and wasteful"

You know how easy it was to find a gf during communism btw? They weren't obsessed with Chad, with retarded fetish porn, with money and social status, they only cared about your intellect, personality, and common interests.

Which is working fine? Either way you aren't experiencing either one. Capitalism in the west has to be regulated to curb human desire to stop other people from surpassing them, but also creates inefficiencies that are exploited elsewhere and if you are experiencing communism, you are probably a ghost in which case this is too spooky.

and then she catches you criticizing the government and you get sent to the gulag

It's still pretty easy now. I've met Jow Forums. The demographics are people who are normal looking dudes whose greatest enemy is the monster they made in their head. Forever trying to beat the beast or forever seeing destruction so bad it leaves them paralyzed to never try and get a girlfriend. Too caught up in the world in their head, and continually reinforcing it with any info that fits their narrative.Some people truly are damaged and disabled people on here. The vast majority are not.

Why are you talking about ordering pizza then if you don't want to argue based on your dumb strawman? Fuck off retard.
>define a normal meal
>who gets to decide how much money a given person ought to be able to spend on a meal
Those calculations already exist. What you fail to grasp is OPs original point: there's no increase in happiness after 75k/year yet there are people who earn that money in a month or a week.

>What you fail to grasp is OPs original point: there's no increase in happiness after 75k/year yet there are people who earn that money in a month or a week.
And that's not an argument for either taking their stuff or telling them what they can and can't use it on.

We have competition laws you idiot. The reason no one is lifting a figure is because these big corporations do their job and provide better services than small ones. McDonald's gives you food cheap. Amazon delivers stuff to your door. Google lets you browse the web. That's why everyone uses them. If you think that big business nepotism will ruin everything, look at south korea, which went from a backwater shithole to a modernized country because of massive conglomerates that were in bed with the government. The whole idea that "big business" ruins everything when it consistently provides the most convenient services is rediculous.

Literally didn't read my post so I am going to block you. I am sorry. Please learn to read first and not to jump to name calling. Thank you.

I was a different user than the pizza one

The average person thinks about these things when they're like 13 years old. Step it up OP. At least skim some Wikipedia articles before you bring this shit for fuck's sake.

Communism is shit
Lemme tell you why. "Fairness" is unfair
A fucking burger flipper and a brain surgeon making the same is bullshit, in no way is that fair. Nevermind how under communism you're given the necessities for survival, no more, no less. No smartphones, no computers, just your weakly bread loaf ration.
Capitalism sucks, but atleast i can jerk off to hentai in 4k. Also working 1 week for a loaf of bread is bullshit when i can buy 5 loafs working just 1 hour minimum wage. Look at russian communist apartment blocks. 30 stories of 2 bedroom concrete boxes. Is that happiness? Is government propoganda TV with a coal mining job and a loaf of bread a week happiness? Its not.

>post about how western capitalism causes big corporations to resort to unfair play to retain an advantage
>bring up laws that are specifically made to address that
>point out that big corporations being "unfair" and making things worse is a myth when in reality they actually make things better

Okay sure

but user, that's not *R E A L* communism
so what if the state has absolute power over its citizens? give me one example where the state has ever abused power
yeah, that's what I thought, there aren't any

checkmate Jow Forumstard

Attached: download (4).jpg (192x263, 10K)

How is it not an argument?
I'm sorry then.

Comrade are you filthy capitalist? There is no state under glorious communism! Only military with one leader who has all the manpower in the country and gets to make all major decisions while policing the people. It is much better than that "free market" or "democracy" stuff, here, you're actually free!

>let's not talk about alternatives to capitalism because filthy gommunists failed in Russia
Stalinism was an authoritarian form of communism so it was real communism but also real authoritanianism. If a capitalist country defaults or has starving people, nobody is arguing how capitalism failed, just how those people failed capitalism.

Because it assumes the only thing that makes people happy is money and ignores the potential effect on the work incentive.

Literally less than 500 people legitimately starve in the US yearly. 7000 in total starve but like 90% of those are neglected babies and elderly. Capitalism is working just fine

First I must say that gommies didn't fail in the Soviet Union, they had a few crises - but so did the west - and generally did pretty weel, being able to keep up with the capitalist powers in terms of technology, political power and economic development. Second, threadly reminder that Marxs envisioned that communism was only possible to achive with a revolution, a dictatorship of the proletariat (authoritarian socialist state) and the gradual implementation of a communist society. "Real communists" got stuck in the second stage, but still they were marxist communists, not some liberal contemporary version of socialism that somehow still places freedom and democracy above the wellbeing of the working class.

>they say that everyone caps out at happiness at 75k a year.
I don't believe this even remotely.
Sure, there is a number where money stops mattering, and it's far less than tens of millions or billions, but it's definitely above 75k lad.
That'd be enough to like pay cunts bills and give them an okay life assuming they keep working to earn it, but people want different stuff. My step dads peak happiness I'm pretty sure would come from owning a boat, significantly more than 75k there.
The way to peak happiness if you earned 75k a year would be to live as cheaply as humanly possible and save all of that money, get a million, and fucking retire and live off of that and the interest on it/investments with it forever. 75k wouldn't be enough

>weel
>Marxs
sorry about bad english i am russia

Because there are working models of capitalism and none of communism or socialism with the possible exception of some small and very oil-rich countries, although venezuela managed to fuck it up even with that. It's like how if a person couldn't get a vaccuum cleaner to work that had five-star reviews, you'd probably assume it's the person's fault, but if the vaccuum cleaner had poor reviews and no one could get it working, you would probably blame it on the manufacturer.

>Stalinism was an authoritarian form of communism so it was real communism but also real authoritanianism.
you can't have communism without authoritarianism. There's this fantasy that people will just naturally be altruistic and that you won't need a state to beat them into compliance with your collectivist scheme. This is false, if you don't have a state forcing the issue, you get capitalism, as people decide to trade and own and control property, and do so according to what they see as their own interests, regardless of what your ideology says.

Saying that "real communism" doesn't require an oppressive, controlling state to enforce it is basically saying that "real communism" is like time travel. An interesting intellectual exercise, perhaps, but not something that can ever actually happen in the world we live in.

It's also that it's measuring the happiness of people in jobs that pay 75k a year, not the effect of 75k a year on happiness. I would assume these people would both have a reasonable work-life balance, generally put-together lives, a fulfilling job and other qualities to go along with having enough money to pay the bills and then some

So capitalism is when trade and industry are controlled by private citizens rather than the state. No country is purely capitalist, it is a theory; but everything that stems from lawful private business practice is capitalist, and everything that stems from government regulation is not. If men subvert the rules to further their business, should capitalism be blamed? If men break the law, should the law be blamed?

America is commonly given as an example of a capitalist country; however corporate welfare, lobbying, bailouts, central banking, patents, etc., are not of the free market.

>and then she catches you criticizing the government and you get sent to the gulag
There were less political prisoners in the entire history of Yugoslavia than there were people arrested for twitter posts in the UK last year alone.

>A fucking burger flipper and a brain surgeon making the same is bullshit
Who told you that's what communism is, holy shit, how much propaganda is there in American schools?

>Who gets to decide how much money a given person ought to be able to spend on a meal?

The public committee of joos and jooish puppets.

>no computers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Yugoslavia

Attached: ra%C4%8Dunala-grid-otvor-840x530[1].jpg (840x530, 88K)

Tell us more about life under communism, slav bro

>Saying that "real communism" doesn't require an oppressive, controlling state to enforce it
Meanwhile your "real capitalism" has total control through mass surveillance with facial recognition and AI analysis right now. Or has "real capitalism" perhaps never been tried...

Look at cuba

Orgi

Pretty sure china is on the forefront of that.
Maas surveilance isn't even bad anyway. Helps catch crooks

And communism built the Stasi and the KGB. How is that any better?

Mass surveillance is not about economics. Everything that happens in the modern age cannot be labeled capitalism, which is a word with a specific meaning, a system of free trade.

And the UK is very militantly left right now isnt it?
Maybe its just the progression of things

>Mass surveillance is not about economics.
Yeah ok.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

So why are secret services and an oppressive controlling state about economics then?

NOOOOO we dont. No one blieve in communism, just as no one here thinks niggers are stronger than white guys.

Fuck off with your left wing propganda and go be a kike some where else.

>all these replies
Idiots.

Attached: 1542410797806.png (950x989, 1022K)

>only the US have capitalism
Are you underaged? There are plenty of capitalistic countries that failed socially or economically. Take Greece or Ireland for example or literally every sub-Saharan country.
I don't really get where you want to go with your post. There are many different takes on capitalism too, I doubt every capitalist fully agrees with Keynes or Adam Smith.
>no working models of communism or socialism
China has a bigger economy than the US so I'd say their bastardized, botched version of communism is pretty successful.
>although Venezuela managed to fuck it up
Oil was rather their downfall, with the US' desire to put a thumb on the oil market.
Real capitalism hasn't been tried either, unless you count ancap countries like Angola and Liberia.

Actually facial recognition software is developed by private companies and sold to government entities, which is private enterprise fulfilling a demand and thus capitalism, but its usually put to its worst effect by communist regimes. The private corporations and government entities that use the tech also limit each other though, as each can veto the other if they feel they're going to far, which is a benefit of capitalism

Sub saharan countries fail because they have no infrastructure and warlords who take foreign aid and greece had shit leadership

That is a loaded question. Economic pressures did not give rise to the mass data influx of the millienium, it was the advent of the internet. Capitalism is not about how data is used, it is about whether the government controls industry, plain and simple, although it is one of the most misused words.

>There were less political prisoners in the entire history of Yugoslavia than there were people arrested for twitter posts in the UK last year alone.
Because they were shot, Dragovic

The economic sale by a private industry is capitalism, but the governments use of such tech is where capitalism ends. Strictly economic.

Youre an idiot.

fdsasfd

What I mean is, a government can purchase weapons from private manufacturers, but if they pursue warfare, their warfare has nothing to do with capitalism.

>capitalistic country fails, it must have been outside factors
>communistic country fails, it must have been communism
Look, both systems are shite and would benefit from aspects of the other but that's how you argue
It also amuses me how retards always spout this "you have to starve under gommunism" meme when it was at a time where nearly everyone in Europe starved due to inflated prices. What's killing a country are authoritarian isolationists.
>yeah a country paid a private corporation money and that's where capitalism ends
Single-digit IQ nigger

Greece and ireland are, relatively speaking, wealthier than the vast majority of countries, while sub-saharan africa was dominated by communist indepedence movements (such as in angola) so those aren't really good examples. Sure, the China model "works" if you're fine with calling their model communism, but it's a state capitalist one party system that is closer to the South Korean military governance system than anything else, and even with this in mind china lags horribly behind it's neighbors taiwan, south korea, and Japan in terms of per capita gdp. Also venezuela probably should have seen their downfall coming considering their oil is super expensive to get out of the ground and they're completely at the mercy of the market

I think you mean socialism. (Nordic countries)
Communism has never worked and thus killed millions and gorillions of people due starvation

Socialism is retarded aswell.

>I don't really get where you want to go with your post.
I'm saying that democratic socialism or modern leftism is nothing like communism ever was or should be. Saying that Lenin, Stalin and the soviets in general had their own peculiar form of communism that only belonged to the CCCP and their sattelites is just liberal revisionism. Socialism has to disregard personal freedom to be socialism, and that is preferable to capitalist exploitation and the consumerist culture that we have today.

Capitalism is about whether a countrys trade and industry are privately owned, what a government does with their authority is not based on their economic structure. They could have any level of influence over the market, and still do good or evil regardless of their economic structure.

OwO

Both are fucked
>no government but a military which has total power
Or
>the government has everything freedom and democracy are now a pipe dream

While this may arguably be true it's a just an apsect of market surveillance. Big companies want to optimize their products and their advertisements. That's why they also push for UBI, it makes calculating the optimized customer so much easier.

Greece and Ireland are wealthier, especially Ireland. Doesn't change the fact that they were both nearly defaulting.
>socialism has to disregard personal freedom to be socialism
Leninism has to because it's authorirarian. There are plenty of democratic socialist models who work.
I have the feeling we've shifted away from the original argument. The issue I'm seeing here is that in an authoritarian country the government spies on you and in a libertarian country corporations spy on you and in the social-democratic capitalistic country most Westerners live both spy on you.

because they literally tell you what to do with yours?
>Back in your cagie wagie
>Wagie while being single slave
>No complaining or you'll be banned for being crazy

Fuck you and fuck capitalism. Blow it all up. You know why communism worries you so much? Cause you're scared you'll be as miserable as a nigger

You know where you are? You're in the jungle baby

Attached: 7b147b41-745f-40c8-93af-8d0d42bfd116.png (100x100, 15K)

Yeah but they never get close to the level of poverty you'd see in say, vietnam, or even china, and those aren't even close to the worst communist regimes. To be fair there are poor-ish capitalist countries like thailand, but they still outpreform their communist and socialist neighbors by wide margins.

Also you getting spied on is the result of technology advancing. There isn't really a concievable system where you don't get spied on except for maybe anarcho primitivism or some other meme ideology

Maybe we have shifted. Sure surveillance is widespread, and there are plenty of ways to circumvent it. Better to be free to use Onion browser than have the internet regulated. What I am saying is that only certain aspects of America are indeed capitalist. Everything there that is capitalist is capitalist, and everything that is not is not. So labelling America capitalist leads to the fallacy of labelling everything they do capitalist, this is my point, that capitalist practice is strictly free trade, whether corporations collect data is their prerogative, if people share so much that anyone could spy on them.

I'm not arguing for communism, I'm arguing for a hybrid system with moderation. If capitalism produces billionaires and monopolies it has essentially failed.
If communism isn't able to provide basic necessities for its citizens, it has failed.

Has it? I really don't see the problem with billionaires and monopolies. I'd hold both system to the same standard. Ignore the abstracts, all that really matters is which one can provide a better quality of life, or even personal freedoms if that's your thing.

So basically you would be in favour of a system with free trade and social welfare? Social welfare is not at odds with capitalism, in my view, because charity is not interference in the free market, like regulation, subsidies, lobbying, bailouts, central banking and patents are (anti-capitalist).

Not him, but there is a difference between an earned monopoly and a coercive monopoly. If a business outperforms so as to dominate the market, that is earned. If the government intervenes to artificially prop them up, stifling competition, that is coercive. Only the first is truly capitalist.

Cuba sends its doctors around the world to help out other nations. 2/3rds of cubans are satisfied with their health system (newrepublic.com/article/121502/cuban-poll-shows-more-political-satisfaction-americans) . What exactly am I supposed to be looking at here

>dude fuck i dunno gib me free money lmao

I actually don't mind even stuff that interferes in the free market if it actually produces a better standard of life. If social welfare is not impeding growth and doesn't require exorbitant tax rates that lower the standard of living on the whole, that's fine with me. If a government bails out a corporation to prevent a crash that would have had drastic reprecussions, I don't mind that either. The reason I'm super pro capitalist is that, generally speaking, countries with low tax burdens and relatively free markets like switzerland and the US usually outpreform their competitors.

>bill gays, steve blowjobs
>innovators
Fuck me. Have you been watching some kike movie on how businessmen are innovators? Because surprise they aren't..
>Albert Einstein
>Erwin Schroedinger
>Dmitri Mendeleev
>Dennis Ritchie

Those were real inventors.

Cummunism would be good only if computers controlled the government. People are corrupted liars and you can't trust them, that's both the problem of cummunism and cuckitalism. Maybe a cummunist system where scientists lead certain governmental branches would be profitable.

Oh fuck I thought that was for me not the other person ooops

They don't really get paid a lot though. My point was that a communist system has produced doctors that get paid as much as burger flippers

>Has it? I really don't see the problem with billionaires and monopolies.
If capitalism is based on merit and the market, I'd wager there are very few millionaires and billionaires who earned their way to the top fair and square. Sure it's heartwarming for every capitalist to see the success story of Steve Jobs how he earned billions selling overpriced gimmick phones to market-blind retards.
>Ignore the abstracts, all that really matters is which one can provide a better quality of life, or even personal freedoms if that's your thing.
Countries with the highest rates of personal freedom and wellbeing employ a hybrid between needed capitalism and state welfare.

Sure, but they aren't devoid of billionaires and monopolies.

I think interference in the market is an ethical issue, why does one corporation deserve to be bailed out and not another? Tens of thousands of jobs may be lost, but this issue would be small if there was a universal basic income. But here is a drastic repercussion: hundreds of billions of tax dollars being funneled into a private business. For what? Pheuf I am saved, the government gave them billions! Forgive me for being facetious.

Unfortunately not, rich people (own multiple houses, have more cars than people in your household, spend money on overpriced luxury shit like 5k drinks) are a waste.

A master's in education yet you don't seem to know the impacts of poverty on IQ, a phenomenon very important for your field.

Yeah go lie about your degree somewhere else dunce

I don't really mind the ethics of it. I do agree that many times bailouts can be counterproductive, but swearing of nepotism entirely is to deny the success of countries like South Korea, who had very heavy government interference along with unfair monopolies and managed to shock the world and go from backwater to developed. For me personally, I care more about the effectivness of economic policy than its morality

My point was that that doesn't really matter. They're still pumping out enough doctors to have both a good medical system and enough excess doctors to send them around the world. The point is that no money incentive didn't stop people from doing usually higher paid jobs, in fact in Cuba's case the increased opportunities afforded by these communist systems resulted in more doctors than ever

As far as bank failure, I believe that if you trust a corporation with your money, you are liable to go down with them if they crash. It would have affected their clients, not the entire populace. But that is the essence of human liberty.