/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7427763
No

no

the concept itself is hypocritical, so no.

Are you fucking retarded?
>AnCom
oh wait

no

no

>>7427763
no it's for retards

Yes. It's the natural way for humans to live.

Anarcho-capitalism is lolnostate, but please respect the NAP plox. pretty please

No

>>7427885
minarchism best ism

>>7427763
For the majority of human history, we've existed in AnCom collectives. The capitalist society of the last 3000 years is the anomaly.

>>7427763
I don't know what AnCom is supposed to be and I won't spend precious time reading up on another thing that wont further my pursuit of hapiness.

However I've been to Cuba and while they all were working under communism and had certain quota's to fill of crops that they had to deliver to the government at a certain price, any excess crops over that quota were sold to whoever wanted it in the most capitalistic fashion (i.e. no regulation at all). Sucked to be a doctor or a teacher because they had virtually no sidebusiness and lived of their very small government pay, others made bank selling the extra cigars they rolled or profited off the tourists who were deluded about life in Cuba and just gave five bucks everywhere out of sympathy, which brought a huge imbalance to the economy because people who got a job in the tourist industry became much more wealthier than others.

>>7427838
No it isn't and this proves you don't know the theoretical basis of anarchism or communism

Anarchy = stateless
Communism = in it's perfect form also stateless.

See revolutionary Catalonia for closest real example

>>7428144
oh no no no

>>7428071
Cuban American here, I go back every summer.

Central planning fucked up a lot, but it's going to get better soon.

The quota crop thing is backed by a yearly contest in which the winning province is given a huge celebration to host the 16 of July historical day.

>>7427763
>When your

No it doesn't work.

If all of the workers in the entire economy took over the means of production and got all of the profits from the firm, they will be forced to reinvest most of the profits anyway.
Lets say they reinvested some and took the rest of it and divided it among all of the workers and went to spend this money, it would just cause massive price increases and nobody would be better off.

It's a stupid ideology.

>>7427763
No, both ideologies are shit that never worked without extreme oppression.

>>7427885
>he unironically believes people won't use violence to protect their property
>he unironically believes anarchy would magically turn into DEMOCRACY
How the fuck does that work?

ancoms are fucking deluded

>>7428307
Neither has libertarian ideology either.

see pinoshit

>>7427980
>For the majority of human history, we've existed in AnCom collectives. The capitalist society of the last 3000 years is the anomaly.
This is absolute horseshit.
Throughout human history during times of anti-statism there have been currency, courts and property law.

>>7428144
>Catalonia
This place wasn't anarchist at all AHAHAHA
It was extremely statist and violent.

>>7428144
>Communism = in it's perfect form also stateless.

>>7428327
Personal and private property are completely different constructs

>>7428334
>Neither has libertarian ideology either.
What is the United States of America pre 1913?

>see pinoshit
Pinochet saved Chile and voluntary gave up power.
Chile now has the highest living standard in South America because they kept most of pinochet's policies.

>>7428361
>>7428361
It was completely under worker control.

The wiki article is a good summary if you need lad

Look into libertarian socialism OP

Sounds totally contradictory, but it’s the way to go

Fuck the banks, fuck your employer

>>7428367
>Personal and private property are completely different constructs

>commie faggot ACTUALLY UNIRONICALLY BELIEVES that people give a shit about his arbitrary property constructs that he just made up
Nobody is going to obey these made up constructs kid. Your religion is retarded

>>7428405
>It was completely under worker control.
Completely under statist control, dumbfuck.
There was no anarchism.

>>7427763

wtf is "anarcho-communism"

you cannot force "equality" without having a strong totalitarian commie state

fuck you commie

>sage btw

>>7427763
>asking about ancom on board centered around hyper capitalist nihilist computer coins
Anon I...

Lmfao what? Communism requires an absolute state goverbee through force in order to take and redistribute others belongings, anarchy is the lack of a state. In the case of anarchy it quickly turns into tribal communicalism and later feudalism. Then we're eventually back to merchant capitalism again as rulers lose their grip.

>>7428144
the state is replaced with a new version of the state

>>7428440
*governed

>>7428412
I honestly cannot wait until we get to murder every single communist/socialist on the planet.

They unironically want to be poverty ridden slaves and want to take everyone down to their level.

>>7428388
>Saved Chile

Someone needs to read pre pinoshit Chilean history.

>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
>Protected a literal Nazi pedophile and used his farm as a state sanctioned underage fuck palace
>Plunged the country into two steep recessions
>Enacted reforms hated by half the population

He was trash senpai

>>7427885
ancap is the ideal state of humanity, but not practical. minarchism is the practical ideal state of humanity.

>>7428426
They aren't arbitrary. Words have meanings lad.

Private property is anything that generates profit.

Personal property is defined by occupancy and use.

Come on now.

>>7428491
>Someone needs to read pre pinoshit Chilean history.
Yes. Chile is doing much better than those previous years.
Sorry about your anal asspain.

>>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
Yes, marxists. GOOD!!

>He was trash senpai
Meanwhile chile currently has the highest living standards in SA thanks to his policies which have mostly been kept.
kys desu

>>7428412
>libertarian-socialism
Pretty sure you guys just make this shit up as you go

Fun fact all private property is state property because you can not enforce private property without a state.

Ancapistan is a literal myth.

>>7428532
>They aren't arbitrary.
They are.
They were made up by some literally who ideologues.
Why do you expect everyone to abide by these totally unnatural property constructs?

>Private property is anything that generates profit.
>Personal property is defined by occupancy and use.
Yes, I know what your religion states.
If I hire someone in my home to start making textiles then I suddenly have private property?
What exactly does this have to do with property?
You people aren't anarchists at all, you're statists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq8y-ejapjE

>>7428560
>Marxist

He didn't really discriminate he pretty much labeled anyone opposed to him a Marxist or anti government and killed them.

No need to be edgy

WHY IS THERE ANOTHER FUCKING POLITICS THREAD

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE MODS

>>7428603
>you can not enforce private property without a state.
This is what leftarchists ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

>medieval ireland didn't exist
>medieval iceland didn't exist
>1800s american midwest didn't exist
>neutral moresnet didn't exist

Face it, all examples of anarcho socialism have been extreme statism.

>>7427763
Lucky for you I read about this ancient crap that no developed society in large numbers could put in practice without compromising its productivity back when I was in college.

Short answer it can work, if you kill a large portion of the current population and people magically change their expectations and standard of living.
Hunter gathering societies can put it to practice and it kind of naturally occurs but once complex processes of production start developing societies naturally shift from anarcho communism.
Large societies can’t possibly execute complex production processes under anarchy, that’s why we tend to form governing bodies to oversee the execution of said process.

If you ever worked in a complex company that gave independence to its employees you would know people tend to try to work less or slack off and the workload falls onto those who can’t slack off due to obligations they have to meet within the company, now without a governing head everyone would slack off and do what they feel like doing and it wouldn’t directly affect them for some time and everyone would try to work as little as possible because unlike a hunter gatherer society where you enjoy the fruit of ur work directly on a society that has developed complex processes of production you’re manufacturing for other people , while u benefit from it it doesn’t necessarily mean working harder one day benefits you to a greater degree.
It’s an over simplification but essentially did according to our capacity and received according to our needs while sharing the means of production people would greatly reduce their output and straight up neglect it in most cases.

>>7427763
aren't they like the opposite of each other?
yes i'm a brainlet

>>7428603
>you can not enforce private property without a state
hmm

>>7428665
There was always a body to enforce private property senpai weather it was nobility or otherwise.

Personal property is not private property.

>>7428713
>There was always a body to enforce private property
Yes.
Polycentric law.
Polycentric law isn't statism, it's anarchy.

>weather it was nobility or otherwise.
Totally wrong.

>Personal property is not private property.
Nobody cares about your made up constructs and people will kill you if you try to enforce them. You're the statist, you want to use violence to prevent people from voluntarily trading their labour.
Deal.

>>7428616
Why are you using capitalist constructs to define communist living conditions?

The scenario you provided doesn't even translate to communism.

The contractor would be part of a textile union or otherwise.

You can't use contrasting conditions when describing opposing ideologies.

>commies actually believe taking over the means of production will increase their living standards somehow
AHAHAHAHAHA

>>7428788
>Why are you using capitalist constructs to define communist living conditions?
How exactly am I doing this, you idiot?

>The scenario you provided doesn't even translate to communism.
Why and how?

>The contractor would be part of a textile union or otherwise.
So? What if he doesn't like the terms and conditions of the textile union and wants to work for me?

You brainlet.

>>7428791
Exactly.
If I will receive according to my need why would I work according to my ability? I would greatly reduce my ability to ensure I’m getting the most while doing the least posible.

>>7428788
btw unions are violent labour cartels that REQUIRE A STATE

>>7428757
Sorry my guy your 3 decade old ideology needs some work.

See Proudhoun. Self property = cool and good
Property of others or their labor bad and not good.

You can not enforce the concept of private property without some kind of backing force. It's literally impossible. Utilizing law also requires a state to back it up.

>>7428361
>humans have existed for the last 130,000 years
>first official currency minted ~3000 years ago, first rule of law ~5000 years ago
>"Throughout human history during times of anti-statism there have been currency, courts and property law."

What did he mean by this?

>>7428663
this is what happens when the politics board get hijacked by literal children that wont stop sperging about women niggers and immigrations in the most superficial and inane way possible

>>7427763
Ethereum is anarcho communism

>>7428290

The fact that marx wanted to "abolish" money always butters my roll. It makes me question the whole "marx was a genius!" idea. Did marx really think MONEY had value as anything other than a medium of exchange? It's like if you saw a bunch of people driving black Cadillac and you thought "WE NEED TO BAN THE COLOR BLACK". It doesn't make any fucking sense.

>>7428889
>Sorry my guy your 3 decade old ideology needs some work.
Your ideology has been debunked a million times yet people keep falling for it.
Go away gramps.
Also my ideology is at least 120 years old at this point.

>See Proudhoun.
TOP KEK
Isn't that the guy that got totally BTFO by based Bastiat in a debate?
What a loser.

>Property of others or their labor bad and not good.
You're just saying good and bad.
Why do you think it's good and bad.
Also if there is no state how do you think you can enforce your stupid morality on people.
People will naturally use currency and trade their labour for money in anarchism.

>You can not enforce the concept of private property without some kind of backing force.
Everything is force stupid. You can't enforce your concept of PERSONAL property without a backing force. You can't enforce your concept of destroying private property without a backing force.
Even anarchism has laws, dummy.

>Utilizing law also requires a state to back it up.
This is why ancoms are literal brainlets.
You don't even know what polycentric law is or was. You don't need a state for laws.

>>7428922
If you're talking about literal tribes of humans, sure, but that's literal poverty.
When agriculture came around, and human brains grew, we developed property, courts, and currency all without states.

>>7427763
yes, the only way it can happen is when tech fills the role of the government making it a voluntary, free and democratic service via crypto

>>7429025
Marx was a brainlet.

>>7427763
how the fuck would you provide goods and services, most people won't work for pure enthusiasm, people are fucking lazy

Why do ancoms always get exposed for the filthy hypocritical statists they are?

>I WANT TO ABOLISH THE STATE
>WE NEED VIOLENTLY ENFORCED DEMOCRATICALLY RUN WORKPLACES
>ALSO BAN PRIVATE PROPERTY
>ALSO BAN HATE SPEECH

>>7429128
why do you need the goods of services of lesser men?

>>7429056
remove the word democratic and you would be correct
fuck democracy

Short answer: no
Long answer: for this to work, requires unlimited resources and zero crime. It is the ultimate goal for humanity however don’t bother thinking about it, will not happen in a million year.

>>7428491
>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
False we LITERALY have a socialist president right now.
>Protected a literal Nazi pedophile and used his farm as a state sanctioned underage fuck palace
Meh
>Plunged the country into two steep recessions
Can't grow for ever. Till better after than before.
>Enacted reforms hated by half the population
False, and who cares about fucking comies anyway?

>>7429215
democracy is the least retarded way of governing, (i mean a direct democracy not this representative shit) because you have the most checks against retarded decisions

remember when kings took all the value of a state and gambled it on a quick war every 5 years? The more democratic the less initiative there is for war..

>>7429323
Based Chilean.

>>7429352
I prefer a republic with an extremely detailed and complex constitution and for democracy to be harshly limited.

>>7428657
not saying he was perfect but nah, he mainly killed marxists. He was necessary to prevent another cuba from forming. The results today speak for themselves.
also he later voluntarily gave up power

no

>>7429385
republics are just one layer of corruption above plutocracy

>non-brainlet answer

It would work in a post-scarcity society, if society developed to the point that an individual had access to any resource and use of that resource would not impact anyone else there would be no reason to have the infrastructure (ie. the state) to organise or limit it, so there goes the anarchy part.

If you have infinite resources and everyone has the same access to them and as they are infinite people have no means or reason to limit them for other people, you have effective communism.

Now, since both these scenarios rely on something completely utopian and unrealistic the whole concept needs to be dropped and delusional hippies beaten. This is the real world so let's be practical.

Some anarchocapitalists might argue that we should change our demand for resources but the whole ideology crumbles if anyone needs to be compelled to make any decision at any point.

>>7429207
ok for example i have cancer, who the fuck will run the hospitals, or who will do the tumor removal, who will do the tests, who will listen to their patients ... etc, "oh man you just don't get it, they will work voluntarily, not for the profit, just for compassion" that's fucking absurd... 65% of population will be just fucking lazy, out of 35% who will work, half of them will probably get bored, i mean what's stopping my surgeon leaving me in middle of surgery, "other people" here is where your voluntarism falls apart, it will just degrade into collective authoritarianism, (like catalonia) you can't run a civilized and advanced society like that, most people aren't compassionate, hard working or enthusiastic, it's completely goes against human nature, people are mostly selfish

>>7429044
>no concept of wealth
>free land, game and gatherable food as far as the eye can see (depending on region)
>debt, income, class doesn't exist
>"That's literal poverty"
???

>>7429665
No, democracy always leads to corruption.
At least republics put strict limits on the corruption.

>>7427763
No, communism and every other type of socialism requires a government in order to function and to control the economy and redistribute wealth

>>7429718
>>no concept of wealth
Yes they did.
Having a good hunt and food at the end wasn't wealth?

>>"That's literal poverty"
It was literal poverty though. People had almost nothing compared to today and had to work most of the time to gather food and shelter to survive.

>>7429503
There's nothing that wrong with Cuba lad. People are poor but are taken care of.

I go back every summer. As I mentioned in this thread.

Big dick daddy fidel still managed to expunge all the capitalists tho so gotta give my president some respect

>>7429883
>There's nothing that wrong with Cuba lad
KEK
Cuba is a shithole compared to economically freer countries.
Cuba is a LITERAL shithole compared to Chile for example.

Why the fuck do you think people risk their lives every year to escape it?

>I go back every summer.
As a tourist, with your highly valued USD. LOL

>Big dick daddy fidel still managed to expunge all the capitalists tho so gotta give my president some respect
LOL yeah he threw all of the people actually increasing your living standards out of the country and inserted his tiny dick into your ass which you gratefully accept.
What a bootlicker you are.
kill yourself poverty lover.

btw Switzerland is one of the most capitalist countries on earth. Compare that to one of the least capitalist countries CUBA.

>>7429715
>tients ... etc, "oh man you just don't get it, they will work voluntarily, not for the profit, just for compassion" that's fucking absurd... 65% of population will be just fucking lazy, out of 35% who will work, half of them will probably get bored, i mean what's stopping my surgeon leaving me in middle of surgery, "other people" here is where your voluntarism falls apart, it will just degrade into collective authoritarianism, (like catalonia) you can't run a civilized and advanced society like that, most people aren't compassionate, hard working or enthusiastic, it's completely goes against human nature, people are mostly selfish


how many % do you think are now working on something that has value? opposed to just work for the sake of work

>>7430028
nobody works for sake of work

>>7430003
>>7429883
Well easiest example at socialism vs capitalism is Koreas. One went with socialism other one went with capitalism. 60 years later you can see the difference.

>>7429857
Hunter gatherers worked about 15-20 hours a week and had far more leisure time than modern humans.

>"Having a good hunt and food at the end wasn't wealth?"

You can't hoard meat since there is no refrigeration, and there's no reason to since it's basically everywhere for free. So no, it was not wealth as we consider it today

>"People had almost nothing compared to today"

>muh iphone
>muh tv

People had literally everything. Dominion over the land and sea, free food, close, tight knit communities, no central bankers forcing them into wage slavery.

>>7429715
>"who the fuck will run the hospitals, or who will do the tumor removal, who will do the tests, who will listen to their patients"

People better than you anon. Not everyone is a selfish lazy piece of shit that just wants to get paid to do nothing.

>>7430221
He might be wagecuck, but youre stonecuck...

get the fuck in here and make some money anon >>7428549

fuck this conversation bullshit

>>7428860
>"I would work less to get more"
sounds like capitalism

>>7430221
>Hunter gatherers worked about 15-20 hours a week and had far more leisure time than modern humans.
kek holy shit you're one of those delusional anarcho-primatvists

>15-20 hours a week
bullshit lmao

You are aware you could go RIGHT NOW live in the forest as a hunter gatherer and NOBODY is stopping you from doing this?
Please throw your computer away right now and see how "easy" it is, you fucking brainlet.
You won't because you're a hypocrite.

>People had literally everything
HAHAHAHAHA
>no medicine
>no technology
>only entertainment was a fire at night

>free food
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7428144
>See revolutionary Catalonia for closest real example

I see it as an example of what not to do, anarchists were killing each other to gain power.

>>7430298
I think you mean central banking.

Capitalism, as in a FREE MARKET would solve these issues and living standards would rise over time like they used to.

>>7430340
>anarchists were killing each other to gain power.
This, they were trying to control THE STATE.
It wasn't even close to real anarchism.
Socialists are absolute brainlets.

>>7427763
why does everybody on this board always complain about wagecucks, but then shit on the only possible solution to wagecuckery

>>7427763
no and kys

>>7430263
Will people still go to medical school for 8 years if the benefits of their career are no better than those of a janitor? Will they take on the intense stress and risk of being a surgeon if they will not be compensated for that?

>>7430378
clever rebranding there, super-capitalism... I like it

>>7430122
I do,
muh genetics can't help you there buddy, social darwinism was dead even before Darwin

>>7430263
hahaha, what a joke, ok, will you do that without any profit yourself? without going home on 4th day and watching superbowl or some shit

>>7429715
the hospitals will still be run by managers and administrators, but now the pay and benefits for everyone are determined democratically by all the workers at the hospital so that all the profits don't go to a parasitic owner/capitalist class and everybody else can get paid more and have better life conditions

>>7430221
>Hunter gatherers worked about 15-20 hours a week and had far more leisure time than modern humans.
That's all well and good, but is that a solution for us now? There would need to be a massive die-off to enable us to go back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Not to mention the loss of all of the value civilization offers. All of our accumulated wisdom, books, technology, the ability to traverse the stars. We should throw that away to live like pigs, just eating and fucking and digging up grubs out of the dirt to eat?

>>7430505
social Darwinism is pseudoscience, genetics is not, if you didn't know that

>>7430512
Profits determined democratically.. Gee I wonder how that will go? You don't think everyone will vote to give themselves the profits? I mean that's retarded.

>>7430512
Sounds like a nightmare

>>7430609
game theory bro. people will vote for a system that splits up the profits among themselves instead of one that gives them all to investors and owners that live hundreds of miles away and don't even work there.

why is it that we care so much about freedom and democracy when it comes to the government, but completely surrender those values when we go to work?

>>7427763
ancom is more of a lofty idea than it is something that could have real world application. on one hand, anarcho-syndicalism is a an apt way for small groups of people who have a high degree of trust with one another, and share a common goal to get things done. with some serious organization skills (which anarchists generally lack) you could definitely get a group of people, put them off the grid far enough, and attempt to operate on this kind of ideology. some examples of this are many DIY music scenes, as well as many artitst collectives.

the inherent problem with it comes from the fact that most people dont trust one another (and they shouldnt), most people dont share a common goal, and also that people like having their own things. also the complete lack of organization that anarkids have will ALWAYS doom them to failure. and even if you somehow had a great organizer, since most ancom communities try to use direct democracy, what you end up with is an unorganized mess of people whos "government" (or lack thereof) will be far too slow to be able to react to serious problems. and even in the best of circumstances, there will be shitty compromises that will have to be made in order to keep everyone from revolting AGAIN.

so in a nutshell, no, it wont work. ive seen it tried as well as participated in it to a lesser degree, and i can tell you that without someone very intelligent in charge (which i can again assure you WILL NOT happen), this type of direct democracy will be rendered completely useless. people are simply too different to one another for them to be able to get along with absolutely EVERYTHING that their peers do, and eventually the trust will be shattered. without someone in charge to clean up the mess that direct democracy makes, you can bet that your anarchist utopia will be destroyed, simply by being unable to effectively govern itself (seems obvious, but thats how it is).

>>7430707
>why is it that we care so much about freedom and democracy when it comes to the government, but completely surrender those values when we go to work?

Because it's inefficient as fuck? I dare you to start a company with those principles, see how far it gets you.

>>7430763
look up worker co-ops. they've worked and have been working for more than a hundred years

>>7430322
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play

>no medicine
True, but the average health was better due to less sedentary lifestyle. Also, capitalist society has only had modern medicine (that actually worked) for the last 150 years or so

>no technology
again
>muh iphone
>muh vidya

>free food
Yes. Alaskan inuits and PNW tribes describe being able to walk into a stream during salmon season and pick up as many as you want with your bare hands. That's pretty much as free as food gets


>You are aware you could go RIGHT NOW live in the forest as a hunter gatherer and NOBODY is stopping you from doing this?

Except all the laws, private property rights and being raised without any of the skill necessary to survive in the wild

>>7430561
I never said that. Obviously it's no longer possible to live like that. I was rebutting the statement that capitalism is the natural state of society, since it's been around for a much shorter historical period than h/g societies

>>7430509
>"hahaha, what a joke, ok, will you do that without any profit yourself?"
Not under the current system that requires money obviously. AnCom requires a complete revolution of human ideals and how they relate to working. Which is why it will never happen.

>>7430512
i do not think you understand how fucking expensive it is to run even one hospital. let alone the whole healthcare system.

also doctors and specialists are paid more than nurses, assistants, but there are more of the latter. if, in your theoretical model of an anarchist hospital, you were to have a directly democratic vote over where pay and benefits go, you would have a super majority of lower paid workers always voting to give themselves more money. the doctors would all quit, as they would never be able to get the vote in their favor. and after the doctors quit, the entire hospital, as well as the nurses, janitors, bureaucratic workers etc and people left running it/employed by it would collapse. and then pretty much everyone in ICU would die.

does that sound like a utopia to you? you just murdered an entire hospital and destroyed thousands of jobs in the process. all because you wanted to play nice and fair and help everyone be equal.

this is the reality that commies will never understand. people are not equal. in a variety of different ways. from their intelligence, to their strength, to their work ethic, to the skills they have etc... and thus, they get paid differently. if you try to remove this idea, you are trying to literally go against the idea of value. and value is something that has been a part of the human condition for as long as we have been sentient.

TL;DR stop being so goddamned starry eyed about this shitty ideology. it is entirely impossible for this ideology to work in the greater world.

>>7427763
No

>>7430589
yes but claiming genetics as an argument against altruism is closer to social darwinism than to genetics

anyway, why do you think nurses and doctors do what they do, do you really think they are all in it for the money? social standard precedes monetary value, you can't really buy being respected and considered a valuable person
while being rich can buy you not having to be a slave and having the safety of not having to be a slave in the future, there is actually more to life than not being a slave

As a Venezuelan, FUCK COMMUNISM in any way shape of form.

Why don't you come here and get a good dose of communism?

>>7430512
that's anarcho-mutualism not anarcho communism, ancoms say that it doesn't matter if you work or not, you'll get money somehow from somewhere, despite society being completely decentralized. anarcho-mutualists don't understand that's just bad business model, and 45% who voted otherwise would probably quit or rebel, "bbut what about current system, workers aren't satisfied in capitalist system either", yeah but business actually works and worker always has chance to step ahead in hierarchy or generate more profit

>>7427763
LOL

>>7431196
you have a ponzi scheme with a dictator that calls it communism, and you are buying it

>>7427763
it can, you need to be fast, you need alot of bullets and you need to know your (((enemy)))

>>7428144

>>7431196
My dumbfuck country based it's entire economic system around a single commodity that subsequently tanked. The most powerful country in the world has worked for years to undermine our economy and fuck us through coups and economic sanctions.

This is communism's fault.

>>7430804
and this is what i was trying to tell you in this post up here >>7430721. i have worked at/been a part of co-ops, i have been a part of underground DIY music scenes. they DO work in some extent and they are a very liberating thing to be a part of for a lot of reasons. but they are entirely incapable of getting things done in an organized way. this is because you have a complete lack of leadership. as a result, everyone is a leader, everyone wants at least something for themsleves, and then even in the best of circumstances where everyone generally agrees, shitty compromises have to be made. thus, no one actually gets what they want. you continue down this train of thought for any amount of time and what happens is a bunch of useless shit will be passed/decided, while the major problems will go unanswered because arriving at a compromise is too difficult or impossible.

the problem becomes even more exponential by adding more numbers of people into the equation, which is why this certainly would not work as a larger form of government.

>>7431145
>thinking that democracy doesn't work because people have different abilities
you think people would be dumb enough to vote like that? obviously doctors do more than nurses and should be compensated more. The larger issue though is that your salary as a wage laborer is vastly less than the amount of value you provide to the company. Everybody, even capitalists accept this. All we want is for this surplus value being paid out to capitalists to instead be paid to workers who created that value, and in a democratic system that would happen. It's not like in America lower wage people are trying to bankrupt the country by trying to vote for better living conditions

>stop being so goddamned starry eyed about this shitty ideology. it is entirely impossible for this ideology to work in the greater world.
look up worker co-ops and syndicates and stop with this muh real world bullshit. we already know that a perfect free market ideology can't exist in the real world either

>>7428440
>Lmfao what? Communism requires an absolute state goverbee through force in order to take and redistribute others belongings, anarchy is the lack of a state. In the case of anarchy it quickly turns into tribal communicalism and later feudalism. Then we're eventually back to merchant capitalism again as rulers lose their grip.

I feel that the people who keep suggesting these utopian systems (communism, libertarianism, etc) do so because they are spergs who lack perspective on how humans actually function.

>>7431392
There are always excuses

>>7431257
I bet you defended Chavez before and call protestors as paid by the CIA

>>7431392
You first mention the stupid government and their stupid decisions but then blame the USA. Genius.

Tell me what sanctions crippled the government so badly that there are starving people?

Hmm let me think


no
Anarchy
> the smallest government possible
Communism
> the largest government possible

>>7428144
imagine being this retarded wow

>>7431524
>there can't be more than one reason why an entire country failed

>>7431524
nah, Lenin perhaps, but even that was too shifty, Proudhon was right at least in one regard, the transition to socialism/communism has to be voluntary or it goes to shit really fast

>>7431408
i totally understand, but co-op structures do exist that work at larger scales, dairy co-ops are a really good example:
https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/cir1-16.pdf

>the problem becomes even more exponential by adding more numbers of people into the equation, which is why this certainly would not work as a larger form of government.
I guess i didn't specify earlier, but i don't think i'm an ancom, at least at this point, I'm more in favor of keeping our existing form of government (and even markets in industries like agriculture that don't tend towards monopoly), but getting rid of exploitation by capitalists

Communism can only work if you somehow can create an AI that is smarter than the sum of every single human in the planet and leave it controlling everything that matters.
But even that is shitty, because at that point, you already got post-scarcity and could be colonizing the galaxy instead ir making dyson spheres.

>>7431257
It’s almost as if the kike fairy tales lead to despotism hmmm

>>7431721
you don't need fairy tales to go to despotism, it is the natural state of man, and it is for this reason that we must leave our base nature behind and progress beyond with technology and knowledge

>>7431414
>you think people would be dumb enough to vote like that?
i know people are dumb enough to do that. there are vast swathes of the population that only get up and go vote when there is a candidate promising more gibs.
>obviously doctors do more than nurses and should be compensated more
and the only way that that could be ensured is if you gave the doctors a more heavy vote than the others. which destroys syndicalism.
>The larger issue though is that your salary as a wage laborer is vastly less than the amount of value you provide to the company
a lot of this has to do with the overhead that is required to run anything, let alone the cost of running an institution like a hospital. this is especially so when considering the massive benefits that most hospital workers get.
>All we want is for this surplus value being paid out to capitalists to instead be paid to workers who created that value, and in a democratic system that would happen
again, i strongly disagree here, but i do understand the sentiment. you just lack the ability (like most anarchists, not trying to put you down here) to look at this from a macroeconomic standpoint. without those capitalists you can be damn sure that hospital wouldnt have even been built in the first place.
>It's not like in America lower wage people are trying to bankrupt the country by trying to vote for better living conditions
and again we disagree here. this is exactly what would happen. there are too many of us, as well as too many people being born, and too many people immigrating here to be able to give them all a living wage as well as benefits etc...
now i know you will just say, "but the 1%" owns half the wealth". and while we could all certainly use a small percentage of that and likely live quite happy, you arent thinking about the massive cost of giving even one normal sized family full benefits and a living wage.

>>7431600
>so I cherrypicked the only one that supports my narrative of evil USA and gud commies even tho I said they aren't really commies

>>7431643
you're alright then
What pisses me off are the silver spooned rich fucks who defend this shitty government
I wish I had enough to leave this place, you don't know what its like to see starving people everyday when you barely have enough for yourself.

>>7431543
Its snowflake ideology. They misunderstand libertarianism and think that everything will be for profits. They ignore that NGO can perfectly exist

>>7431836
you’re an idiot

>>7430367
>Capitalism, as in a FREE MARKET
oh it's another person that only took 1 class on economics in high school and thinks he is an exprt

google perfect competition plz
free market doesn't mean perfect compieition
in a free market, monopoly is perfectly fine

>>7427763
>can anarcho-communism really work?
Hold on let me find out for you:
>checks human nature and reality in general
No.

>>7431904
yes, and the world is my tale

>>7431836
This is the first time that I see a commie that believes in the evil human nature

>>7431910
Only when there are no government regulations,impartiality, etc

>>7431192
of course they are, they work for their survival to eat and drink, if that pressure didn't exist nobody would fucking work, that's my point, you can't run society on pure altruism and forced egalitarianism, that's extremely childish, it goes against human nature and our individual and genetic differences, if you think that most of humans are good and altruistic you are horribly wrong, any idiot can look at the history and see that we are horrible creatures like every other, this is reality, every creature fights for their survival, "what about good old times when society wasn't based on money, we were free and altruistic" are you kidding me, just look at history, if you think society before money was Utopian or even good, you are very wrong, humans are not altruistic nor kind, look at Stanford prison experiment or trolley problem, we are irrational and emotional creatures.

>>7432026
i was just about to point this out. there may be hope for him yet.

>>7431414
ah classic surplus value criticism, despite it being completely irrelevant in modern economics and despite Marx's theory being debunked several times.

>>7432059
let me say it more clearly,
your opinion that we work for survival is false,
we work for social recognition/rank/hierachy

people not living in 3rd world countries already know this, you don't really have to work if you don't want to, you won't die you'll just be considered a shit-person

>>7427763
Communism is the best system to kill communists

>>7428364
The state will "wither away" according to their mumbo-jumbo.

>>7432026
also probably the only one that actually read any of the theory and doesn't believe in the labor value theory

>>7432059
this is also reason why many young people who are 13-20 year fail for it anyone who is older should know the nature of mankind this also lead me to be much more wary when someone who is 25+ saying that he is communist

>>7431867
>>All we want is for this surplus value being paid out to capitalists to instead be paid to workers who created that value, and in a democratic system that would happen
>again, i strongly disagree here, but i do understand the sentiment. you just lack the ability (like most anarchists, not trying to put you down here) to look at this from a macroeconomic standpoint. without those capitalists you can be damn sure that hospital wouldnt have even been built in the first place.
>>It's not like in America lower wage people are trying to bankrupt the country by trying to vote for better living conditions
>and again we disagree here. this is exactly what would happen. there are too many of us, as well as too many people being born, and too many people immigrating here to be able to give them all a living wage as well as benefits etc...
>now i know you will just say, "but the 1%" owns half the wealth". and while we could all certainly use a small percentage of that and likely live quite happy, you arent thinking about the massive cost of giving even one normal sized family full benefits and a living wage.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. You have explained well the problems of a democratic system. However the other extreme, which is where we are heading, is equally bad.

Too poor of a distribution of wealth wealth and not enough control for the lower-class ultimately leads to revolt like in the french revolution.The balance is to redistrbute that wealth surplus from the rich to the poor through taxes.

>>7431867
>a lot of this has to do with the overhead that is required to run anything
but even on top of the overhead, insurance companies and hospital companies make enormous profits
>and again we disagree here. this is exactly what would happen. there are too many of us, as well as too many people being born, and too many people immigrating here to be able to give them all a living wage as well as benefits etc...
I think this is where we disagree the most. I've taken econ 101 and I understand the importance of scarcity and the fact that we need to find the best way to allocate scarce resources. But i guess I just look around and see that we're in the richest nation in history and yet don't have the ability to make sure every family can survive and support itself?

lol no.
The core principle of anarchy and communism is the destruction of hierarchies. That simply fact is why neither will ever work.

>>7431897
My first point was that they did it to themselves. Also the US has actively worked to bring down every communist regime. If you pretend that it hasn't been a factor in every single failed commie state, you're being intellectually dishonest.

>>7427912
>Remember sminem?
>This is him now
>Do you feel old yet?

>>7428144
>Communism = in it's perfect form also stateless.
are you a chump a bitch a faggot or what
how sheltered are you
Ever notice how communists come from very privileged sheltered backgrounds where they're taught everyone is good and capable of sharing? Human nature isnt like that. take a trip on your local public transport or visit a shittier area of town

>>7428412
mein neger
altho /biz/ won't get this and will just call it a bunch of cuckshit

>>7432285
Not quite. We work first for survival and THEN for status,recognition, etc

Me for example,im working just to survive and when I save enough to a plain ticket ill leave Venezuela for a better life style, comfort, etc

>>7432318
Its surprising the quantity of commies who don't read about besides tweets and tumblr posts.
I was very leftist when younger, like most people here, but later on realized that communism only tackles capitalist oppression but leaves government/party oppression more likely.

Libertarianism tackles both because it removes all those positions that could be used to opress

>>7432438
Never said that. Only used your words that this government has been corrupted has made pretty stupid decisions against the well being of the people.
Occam's razor, I don't need to introduce an alien actor.

>>7432539
good human nature is not a condition of communism, it is its end result

>>7432539
Have you ever actually read any communist theory? Communism is a transitional system with the goal of eventually abolishing the state. In reality this is usually hijacked by corrupt govt officials, but the theory is eventually anarchism.

Also
>"take a trip on your local public transport or visit a shittier area of town"
>He admits poor people are more likely to commit crime or act selfishly
>he thinks this is an argument against wealth redistribution
>Is he retarded bros?

>>7432674
libertarians forget the main source of oppression, human nature and think merely securing negative freedom would be sufficient

>>7432737
you have mistaken socialism with communism,
the end result for communism is not positively defined (because it is unknowable under our current conditions) but negatively determined by the absence of conditions of exploitation that drive the class war and the abolition of private property (not personal property)

>>7432285
I am talking about minimal work to get by and to satisfy basic psychological needs, my main point is that communism isn't consistent for human nature, communism is just way you wish things to be not how way things are.

>>7432674
>government has been corrupted has made pretty stupid decisions

I said that they did. How is that communism's fault?

>Occam's razor
>he thinks the failure of an entire economy can be explained by a single factor. Even if so, this single factor has nothing to do with communism, but he will try and use it to attack communism

>>7432938
of course its against human nature, thats the point

>>7432938
It's impossible to conceive of successful communism while in a society with thousands of generations of a capitalist system behind it. It would require unlearning millenia of conditioning and culture. That doesn't mean that a society where communism is possible can't exist, just that it would be very difficult (and bloody) to implement

>>7432792
You ignore that governments are just humans with special powers above everyone else. there's nothing in a government that changes human nature.

So its best to remove those positions.

Of course freedom alone doesn't magically solve everything. But it pave the path towards in a morally and coherent way.
Do you want to have shelters and food centers to help the needed? That can exist in a libertarian community. NGO are a thing you know. Who is the biggest healthcare provider? The red cross.

This idea that libertarianism is about profits abusing people is cartonish

>>7432967
I haven't said it wad a single factor. You did, you mention the USA as if the singlehandedly caused this. And even tho you believe that its corrupted and you say that its not communism you still defend it. Nice.

>>7432737
>>He admits poor people are more likely to commit crime or act selfishly
>>he thinks this is an argument against wealth redistribution
cauastion
Are they poor because they are bad people and refuse to work?
Are they poor because they get an unlucky hand in the system?
almost always it's the lazy part.

>>7432737
No he think logically there is always someone who wants more power who want control people and i may guarantee you that it will be the sociopath who will always be in the top people are not good as you think they are and they always want more comunism is system for people who like control others and tell them that this is the right way to live

>>7433173
>You ignore that governments are just humans with special powers above everyone else. there's nothing in a government that changes human nature.

If those govt officials are better than the average citizen, which even in America they probably are-despite being so incompetent and corrupt, then having a govt is superior to no govt.

>>7433173
I SAID THERE WERE TWO FACTORS. ECONOMIC INCOMPETENCE AND US MEDDLING. NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM.

>>7433173
i'm not in favor of governments, I said it would be necessary to replace them with software before any real change is possible
and of course negative freedom is important, its just not the goal its the starting point

>>7433173
>Of course freedom alone doesn't magically solve everything. But it pave the path towards in a morally and coherent way
no it doesn't because your definition of freedom is shit

>>7427763
>can a system predicated on both a lack of a central hierarchy and a centralized economic system work?
What do you think?

>be OP
>1 post itt
Well played.

0% chance of success, capitalism is the only way forward

>>7433175
>almost always it's the lazy part.
Any study of the US economic system will tell you that it's statistically less likely for people who start poor to move up socioeconomic classes. Same effort will result in less outcome, which is why poor people stay poor. Poor people get shittier educations, healthcare, housing and nutrition, so they start at a disadvantage, and have worse outcomes. They are a drain on any economy. Even in capitalism, it makes more economic sense to provide poor people with a baseline existence, and upward mobility. It's an anti-logical attitude of capitalism to not invest in it's citizens welfare.

>>7433175
I consider myself poor. But I try to come up with new ways to make money to help my family eat and maybe one day get us out of Venezuela. I even posted yesterday that I could work for any of too guys as a translator or image/video editor but the only person who replied was a troll.

>>7433222
>if
Im in Venezuela and I disagree with you.
I get what you say tho, but the thing is that maybe the first generation of leaders and good but other can come and hijack it and take positions of powers which then use it to they're advantages and corrupt everything,etc.
So as I'm currently living a hell because that very same thing happened I cannot support that and instead prefer to eliminate those positions entirely. Someone who is smarter can find other platforms just like it happens today around the world. Most of the times the politicians arent the smartest.

>>7433236
I know. And I answered that the US meddling thing was redundant, just by having corruption explains this situation.

>>7433273
Like smart contracts? Interesting. Who knows.

>>7433460
>who start poor to move up socioeconomic classes
What's the correlation between IQ and income?
I conjecture that most poor are poor because their IQs are lower than average which prevents them from competing for the best jobs.


>They are a drain on any economy.
Actually they are the consumers that make the pyramid scheme work.

>>7433548
>I conjecture
another issue solved by an anonymous 4chan poster, alert the press

>>7433484
> Venezuela

What I was saying only applies to US and probably other Western countries.
The situation in your country is different.

>>7433381
I never defined it so don't know what you're talking about.

I said that its moral because it preaches to not abuse or opress anyone. And its coherent because it stays on the fence and allow humans to make their own decisions

>>7433484
yeah, I'm also fairly sure that lawyers, judges and all other public servants will be replaceable with neural networks very soon and will be better at their jobs

>>7431910
Name one monopoly that hasn't been the result of government intervention.

Inb4 debeers or standard oil

Face it, free market is what breaks up monopolies

>>7433171
it's not political nature, well partly yes, but 80% it's biological, communism would work if you somehow recreated and reconstructed product and result of evolution that's been ongoing for more than hundred million years

>>7433580
conjecture doesn't mean it's not true brainlet
It means I don't have the hard data to prove causation
That's still better than most people on here that can't even realize they are making conjectures.

>>7433548
lol, sure its not malnutrition, mothers poisoning babies with their bad poor habits and kids doing damage to themselves with alcohol and drugs
must be that they're all born dumb and that money always goes to the smart good people like trump

>>7433630
>monopoly
Google

They have control over most of the search industry. They are now disabling 3rd party ads in chrome. Soon they will take over the entire ad market too.

Amazon may end up being anther example of a monopoly in 2050-2100 if they out compete other retailers and acquire walmart.

Google
>porters five force.
It describes the market forces that are required to be a monopoly.

>>7433588
>I never defined it so don't know what you're talking about.
reading between the lines isn't that hard
>I said that its moral because it preaches to not abuse or opress anyone
almost everyone preaches this, empty words
>And its coherent because it stays on the fence and allow humans to make their own decisions
yes, it's coherent to your view of "freedom"

>>7433748
Google is oligopoly not monopoly, same for amazon

>>7433655
your conjecture aren't worth jack shit
>That's still better than most people on here that can't even realize they are making conjectures.
so you're better because you realize you're talking shit, right

>>7432434
It's simple, we get rid of all the top lobsters.

>>7433748
>pretending companies with large market shares are somehow monopolies
>pretending these companies don't get massive state intervention in their favor

Oh anon.....

>>7433548
Probably the same as the correlation between poor education, nutrition and healthcare and low IQ

great debate, I like how it had 1000% less hitler than it would on /b/

>>7433586
Alright then.

>>7433768
I guess since you called it empty than it suddenly is.

And many commies do not talk about respecting things like freedom of speach, do they? So no, not all ideology cares about peacefully reaching power and then respect those who disagree with them, don't they?

>>7433586
Ah alright then. Have a cold one on my name.

>>7434045
>I guess since you called it empty than it suddenly is.
man, everyone has their own definition of vague nebulous terms like "freedom" and you've found a political/economic philosophy that fits yours
it doesn't fit mine
that's it

Philosopher king is the ultimate form of government, but since people seem to be unable to comprehend some people are all around better than them the next best option is socialist republic. Any other answers are simply vaporware ideas put forth by uneededly angry stupid fat lazy people who are little more than placeholders between the rich and the poor.

>>7434212
I have a phd in philosophy, can I make all your decisions now?

>>7432406
>But i guess I just look around and see that we're in the richest nation in history and yet don't have the ability to make sure every family can survive and support itself?
rich?
we are flush in debt. our entire currency is backed by debt. many blue chip companies run at enormous losses and with massive amounts of debt. the government is allowed to keep running by central banks printing more money and giving it to them. in terms of actual things that we have with real value, not so much.

>>7433817
>Google is oligopoly not monopoly, same for amazon
Google has 90% of the world search market....and growing. They have no competition so they are effectively a monoply

Amazon is so far ahead of the competition that they are effectively an online shopping monopoly. As I said, in the near future, they may even become a brick and morter monopoly.

>>7433936
>massive state intervention in their favor
These companies have monopoly status because they have a sustainable competitive advantage over the competition.

No offense but you guys are total bizlets
No understanding of basic business concepts like
>sustainable competitive advantage
>corporate strategy
>mergers and acquistions

The free market ALLOWS all types of competition from perfect competition to monopoly.
What determines the result is the state of the market forces in the industry.
In a lot of industries the market forces tend to monopoly.
Google is a great example of this.

2 other examples are banking and telecommunications.
Without govt regulation, all the banks would merge into 1 bank and Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile/AT&T would also merge into 1 company.
These industries are stuck as oligopolies because the govt won't allow them to become monopolies.

>>7434294
Your missing the king part. If you can also claim the divine right to rule I would follow you.

>>7434450
it still isn't monopoly, and if it throttles competition it's mostly because of government regulations, in free market oligopolies are temporary

>>7434465
thats the easy part
(I hereby claim my divine right to rule)

>>7434603
>it's mostly because of government regulations, in free market oligopolies are temporary

Demand less regulation and more compeitition
Get upset when more efficient firms outcompete less efficient firms, consolidating the market
the state of bizlets.

>>7434603
>in free market oligopolies are temporary
yes because any average joe can start laying down telecommunication wires all over the country
or invent a new search site that will become more popular than the one which has literally turned into a word meaning "to search on the internet"

>>7434450
Google and Amazon rised because most people think they are better than the alternative.

>>7434075
We agree on disagree

>>7434450
>Without govt regulation, all the banks would merge into 1 bank and Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile/AT&T would also merge into 1 company.
>These industries are stuck as oligopolies because the govt won't allow them to become monopolies.
complete bullshit, government passes regulations that benefits rich, this is what creates monopolies and oligopolies, here is the graph how much likely is to congress to pass a regulation, as you see, it's far more likely to pass laws that favors elite instead of people, in free market competition prevents monopolies to emerge.

>>7434948
>Google and Amazon rised because most people think they are better than the alternative.
Oh so now it's people's fault for choosing the wrong firms.
fucking chirst, you guys are no better than religious fanatics.
This arguement feels so 4chan 2004, it's sad you people have no grown-up.

People use Google and Amazon because they do the best job optimizing their algorithms.
They are doing exactly what free marketers want
Outcompetiting the competition.

>>7434999
>in free market competition prevents monopolies to emerge.
read
>>7434826

In a FREE MARKET, competition MAY or MAY NOT occur.

>>7428833
This is pretty much how all of these discussions end. The answer is that if he leaves the textile union he goes into the the "anarchist" gulag.

>>7427763
It will work, comrade. It will.

>>7434826
I am talking about one company dominating the market(very big oligopolies or monopoly), I am not saying that everyone can create a telecommunication company and flourish from it, competition should prevent one company taking over everything...

>>7435057
you ignored my main point

>>7435235
>you ignored my main point
What this?
>government passes regulations that benefits rich, this is what creates monopolies and oligopolies

It's the other way around. The economy creates people who are more wealthy than others and they are able to lobby politicians to enact laws in their favor.

>>7435194
another manchild joined the party

>>7435007
?

>Oh so now it's people's fault for choosing the wrong firms.
Everytime people buy or use a product they are rewarding that company. Everytime people do nor buy or use a product they are punishing that company. That's why boicots are a thing.
Thus why people refuse to buy from company who abuse animals or the environment
>People use Google and Amazon because they do the best job optimizing their algorithms.
>They are doing exactly what free marketers want
>Outcompetiting the competition.
Correct. Thats what I said. They have become so popular because most people think they are better than the competition.

I say most because there a others who refuse to use Google products for example, as a way to protest their privacy abuses. See, that's another example of someone punishing a company by not using it.

>>7435235
I noticed that he does that a lot

>>7435199
but why should they compete when they can either divide up the cake and have a profitable peace or merge and have one big company ruling over while muscling out potential competitors

>>7435309
>Correct. Thats what I said. They have become so popular because most people think they are better than the competition.
>think
>THINK

No, they are OBJECTIVELY better than the competition which is why people use them.

>>7435309
>See, that's another example of someone punishing a company by not using it.
a mosquito pricking an elephant

>>7435291
>they are able to lobby politicians to enact laws in their favor.
yes, that's why we don't have free market, government passes regulations that favors rich, that's what I said

>>7435393
read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

>>7435525
what regulation do you want removed exactly?
>>7435620
sorry, but you'll have to explain what that has to do with what I wrote

>>7435393
>>7435620
>but why should they compete when they can either divide up the cake and have a profitable peace or merge and have one big company ruling over while muscling out potential competitors
replied to the wrong post

>>7435525
>yes, that's why we don't have free market, government passes regulations that favors rich, that's what I said

You guys are such bizlets.

Yes industries lobby the govt but that has nothing to do with them being monopolies.
Companies like Google, Apple, Verizon achieve monopoly profits by having sustainable competitive advantages. It's called corporate strategy.
They get the money from the strategy which allows them to outcompete other firms in THE FREE MARKET
They can use that money to lobby the govt but that lobbying has minor impacts and it's not the root of their sustainable advantage.

>>7435678
shit! again...

No

>state has to provide everything
>no state can exist

>>7435393
True. But at bigger scales if can do a lot. See unions, or the clothing industry with furs and shit.

>>7435738
>not the root of their sustainable advantage.
first of all, citation needed
> in THE FREE MARKET
hahaha you make me laugh, there is no free market, government passes hundreds of pages of regulations every day

>>7427763
no

>>7435725
OK, the prisoner's dilemma is an example of why they wouldn't cooperate, doesn't mean they don't or won't
>>7435884
nah, they make laws and then don't enforce them, the companies fiddle with the labels (put the label of an animal that's legal to hunt instead of one that's illegal etc) and it goes on and on

no.

>>7434450
Google is literally and unequivocally NOT a monopoly. Stop misusing that word you dumb fucking idiot.

>>7428144
Stop listening to that nigger Noam Chomsky. He just substitutes the word state with workers or unions. The Catalonian revolutionaries were just thieves and murderers.

nationalist capitalism is the only ideology you should ascribe to if you're not a complete brainlet

>>7436010
>first of all, citation needed
That's called needing to have people think for you
Googles compeititive advantage is from having the most IQ 140+ people in a firm which allows them to optimize their search algorithm above everyone else.
You cannot enter the market unless you are better than Google, which you are not because it would require billions in R&D.
The FREE MARKET forces keep people out of this industry.

>hahaha you make me laugh, there is no free market, government passes hundreds of pages of regulations every day
What laws are stopping you from creating an online shopping platform and competition against Amazon? Or creating a search platform and competing against Google?

>not abolishing nearly all socialism and creating a 100% free market where the only regulation is monopoly protections and a guaranteed basic income so everyones basic needs are met everyone can focus on whatever they want when they want

No. The problem with anarchy is it is literally never the dominant strategy to cooperate.And so we move to a Nash equilibrium sort of like a Hobbsian state of nature. Communism just makes it even worse because it's predicated on full cooperation which makes cheating even more bountiful. Thus we need a state with a monopoly on violence to increase the cost on cheating and remove it as the dominant strategy across the board. Human nature is a one shot game, and individuals dont live long enough for even Grim trigger strategy to deter cheating.

>>7436249
>abolish all socialism to achieve full socialism
lol

>>7430003
>a tourist, with your highly valued USD. LOL

Uh no I go back to visit family. And lol its not a shithole my guy, I've stayed all over the country and outside the major cities its pretty fine my guy.

People flee from all over my guy, from Hati (that is the perfect example of capitalist failure inb4 *autistic creeching about how no its not)

Come with me next summer I'll show you around my guy ;)

>>7436452
The only way to have proper liberty and capitalism is to allow everyone to fulfill their own dreams. Famine, poverty and drug use is not a sign of a wealthy society. Providing a basic income and allowing people to cover their basic needs means now everyone can achieve their full potential and pursue their passions. This will lead to a healthier, happier and more connected society.

Anything that has Anarcho in its name is retarded and will never, ever, EVER fucking work.

Why? Because human species gravitate towards higher orders of organization and hierarchy because it's safer and more efficient.

If you eliminate hierarch you're just creating a power vacuum that is filled soon by some clever/strong motherfucker with a crew and they fight another groups until the status quo is formed and you got nations/tribes, borders and rules. Maybe in this whole mess are the loose groups of delusional fucks who think they can stay away but they are killed, raped, robbed and absorbed by ambitious groups of normies who don't give a fuck about your NAP and your revolutionary anarcho bullshit. Doesn't matter what era we're talking about and doesn't matter whether they have swords or RPGs. Same rule applies, people just hate anarchy because it fucking sucks and want some order.

>>7430003
Also my guy even with outdated structures we still export more talented doctors than any other latin american country.

Come on my guy the prop is weak.

>>7436232
google literally spent 18 million for lobbying in 2017, while amazon spent 13 million, and then you ask why do they dominate the market

>>7436524
>cuba is so nice that i left it
lmao

>>7436533
>The only way to have proper liberty and capitalism is to allow everyone to fulfill their own dreams.
And how do you propose to get the money...?
>Famine, poverty and drug use is not a sign of a wealthy society. Providing a basic income and allowing people to cover their basic needs means now everyone can achieve their full potential and pursue their passions.
False. It removes incentives. There is a diminishing return on capital. Would I rather have $30k or $80k a year? $80k a year. Now would I rather have $30k a year and work 0 hours, or have $80k and work 40 hours a week? now add in taxes. Remember $1 taxes=/=$1 in expenditure and we are going down a tail end of the laffers curve on top of that. So now conservatively to get a $20k a head basic income, we are paying $40k a head in overhead and DWl, bare minimum. That sounds terrible. And would make me either hate poor people or join them. Drugs are a choice famine is already eradicated and poverty isn't really bad in the west. Poorest people are drug addicts and you just want to give them more money to buy drugs. Which doesn't make sense if you are against drugs.
>>7436524
Id like to thank Cuba for donating so much money to training doctors for Mexico :) really great humanitarian cause.

>>7436832
>google literally spent 18 million for lobbying in 2017, while amazon spent 13 million, and then you ask why do they dominate the market

again causation brainlet

Apple, Google, Microsoft, basically every Fortune 500 firm has more money than they know what to do with (because fuck paying employees above the market rate).
So they will spend millions on lobbying.
They view it as insurance.
The marginal benefit of lobbying is higher than any market action they can take.

Again, the lobbying comes AFTER making lots of money in the free market.
Not before.

Look, I'll be considerate for a second. It's easy to believe that all our problems are caused by the govt and if we just took down the govt then we would live in a utopia. In fact that is the same link between anarchy and communism. But it's not true. And if you had more 1st hand experience rather than relying on theory, you would realize this.

>>7436963
>Drugs are a choice famine is already eradicated and poverty isn't really bad in the west.
die

COMMUNISM IS INHERENTLY FLAWED AND ALWAYS DOOMED TO END IN FASCISM

you think centralizing the power structure to give the government more power is anarchy? no you believe its a "peoples government" and a step towards anarchy, it's not a step, it's just you getting stepped on

>>7437036
all three are true. I have avoided Crystal Meth addiction by nevwr doing crystal meth. Poverty numbers are a meme because people use comperative definitions based on a mean or median income, which would technically garuntee impoverished people, as supposed to imperical absolute values. Quite literally isnt famine in the world anymore. Some people living in the " a dollar a day" criterion are undernourished but its not because of famine, it's because of making other choices.(not that I blame them btw, what's the point of living and busting your ass off just to eat, buy that liquor my man) And ofc the number of people loving like this is all but eradicated and has nothing to do with the developed world.
I don't get why you are upset. You can say I am being obtuse about drugs because of addictive personalities correlations with poverty and education levels, being drugged etc. But the other two are objectively true.

>>7437028
rent seeking > paying more pajeets

>>7428290
Wrong
The workers would allocate ressources to production through consumption, thus subsidizing the development of production infrastructure.
Without taxes, spending by the people is the only driver of production. No artificial demand, no 'misallocation' of ressources. No public police, either.

>>7437164
d
i
e

>>7428367
How? They actually aren't, or is this 'one pair of shoes each' bullshit

>>7437248
lmao truth is upsetting I know.

>>7437102
Here is a protip: Everyone that didn't come to the internet some days ago will never take anything serious a frogposter says.

>>7437028
I am not saying that in the free market giant oligopolies won't exist, they just exist temporarily, if they overprice shit people move on to alternatives, oligopoly is not much of a problem, monopolies are.
> if we just took down the govt then we would live in a utopia
I don't believe that, government is necessary to protect liberty and property of citizens, I just believe that government should not intervene in lives of people or economy, utopian society is impossible

>>7428209
this is the first time this meme actually made me kek

>>7427763
no

>>7428450
Oh my. Look. The colour of your banner does not interest the person your force to do something against their will.

>>7437313
go gently into that good night motherfucker

>>7437382
>I just believe that government should not intervene in lives of people or economy
>government shouldn't govern

>>7428290

>>7437164
>>7436963
Cmon dude am venezuelan and I see starving people everyday. And its even more fucked because I dont have enough to help them

>commies love the government
>boot licking republicucks love the government
And I hate you all

>>7427763
How will you enforce the spread of wealth without an authoritarian government?

>>7429025
>>7429085
>Marx wanted to abolish money

>>7437181

t. econ major

>>7437382
>if they overprice shit people move on to alternatives, oligopoly is not much of a problem

AGAIN THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Google is a prime example.
Competition cannot optimize their algorithms as well as Google
This gives them a permanent monopoly on search

Telecom is another example.
Without regulation to prevent mergers and acquisitions, they will merge into 1 company
Verizon & AT&T would merge together and be standard oil if they could.

The notion that you can always increate compeition in a market or new players can enter is FUNDAMENTALLY NOT TRUE.


>I just believe that government should not intervene in lives of people or economy

Government creates the economy.
It's the laws that govt puts down that frames the legal environment businesses operate in
So by defintion the govt cannot be separate from economy.

>>7437102

/leftypol/ has decided to come here and try to "educate, agitate, and organize" due the bitcoin crash and Dow dip apparently. top kek

/leftypol/ is all fucking nocoiners too. the absolute state of these people.

>>7436963
You still have taxation. But taxation is limited to small amounts. Businesses would be taxed at low rates and income tax would be low. Most taxes would come from sales taxes or property taxes used to fund infrastructure. I would get rid of of as much government as possible though

>>7437485
Venezuela is a rare exception because the economy moved backwards and people weren't self sufficient prior. Believe it or not starving people in poorer countries have more access to food because they are more self sufficient and didnt have efficiency gains in agriculture that got wiped out or hyperinflation. Though i still think it's overstated and the problem enlies in the "whats the point" scenario, malnourishment and the economic shock hitting a population not used to being poor. In the long run the situation will fix itself as society moves towards a weaker non-developed equilibrium or hopefully, the political system is fixed. Now granted he was talking about basic income, as in already developed countries that dont have people starving. If you have a problem as big as venezuela any basic income paid out would achieve nothing regardless.
>>7437414
not an argument
>>7437382
This is true as long as there is no Cournot competition of any kind. Or stackelerg competition, or betrand with differentiation, or bertrand in a continuous game, etc etc. I can explain this to you if you legitimately are interested. But just look at the existence of positive profits to understand perfect competition is not the norm.

>>7437647
>he doesn't know some of us are trying to become porky to accelerate the contradictions of capitalism, leading to socialist revolution

>>7437647
>not being a corporate shill = leftist

>>7437794
>basic income
>low taxes
LOOOL

>>7437917
>we're accelerationist cyber-nihilists. Destroy all humans and bring about skynet now! t. Nick Land's drug-addled fever dreams

But say something racist:
>You racist sexist fascist homophobic transphobic islamophobic bigot!

This shit is all so tiresome. It's just posturing.

>commie faggots love the government
>boot licking republicucks love the government
And I hate you all

>>7437647
Hivemind of pol hates crypto, I don't get your point

>>7437904
The political system has to be fix first tho. Then explain why there are starving people in north Korea while they have been poor for decades now

Its very scary im gonna get trapped in here like them

>>7437996
>/pol/ is nocoiners too
/pol/ is full of Trump cucks who think he will do anything other than bomb countries for Israel and pass amnesty lel

>>7427980
You mean tribal societies composed of various patriarchal clans that had natural heirarchies.

>>7437904
>This is true as long as there is no Cournot competition of any kind. Or stackelerg competition, or betrand with differentiation, or bertrand in a continuous game, etc etc. I can explain this to you if you legitimately are interested. But just look at the existence of positive profits to understand perfect competition is not the norm.

Hay, you seem to have passed Intermediate Micro Economics
After I passed that course, I realize the true horror of the college uneducated.
So many people running on basic high school knowledge of economic
free market will fix all problems
no understanding of economics
no understanding of corporate stratagy
voting against their own interests
it was all true.

>>7436524

fucking canadians

>>7438005
government exploitation, forced labour prison camps. If you want an actual look at poverty and hunger. Look at sub-saharan Africa, and east Asia(though it's getting decimated there.) All you are dping now is going "WELL KIM JONG UN IS A MONSTER!" I know. but that's hardly relevant to the topic at hand.
>>7438110
I blame intro micro. Business students are forced to take it and others for curiosity. And while I think it teaches you lots, people who take it amd never further persue econ usually fall into one lf two camps.
1) these models are horribly unrealistic and thusfore economics is a bunch of bullshit
2) these models are the be all and end all of economics! free market fixes everything
Its annoying. But I think anyone who ever gets to know a bit about a subject has to deal with it. It's why I never pretend to know shit about climate change or whatever.

>>7427763
>can anarcho-communism really work?
No.

also how the fuck are there commies on /biz/, this baffles me.

>>7437951
If basic income is the only cost of government besides basic roads then it's not that much. Honestly a 10% tax rate and 15-20% sales tax would pay for it. Property taxes could then fund infrastructure

>>7438538
>also how the fuck are there commies on /biz/, this baffles me.

see >>7437647

>>7437904
>starving people in poorer countries have more access to food

wut

>>7438566

who gets the basic income? everybody? and how much will it be per year?

then multiply that by the number of people and you'll see why you're retarded

>>7438245
I mentioned NK because you said the situation would fixe itself as the people get adjust to being poor. And I told you im not sure of that because NK have been poor for decades and they are still starving.
I don't know how didn't too realize that was relevant

>>7438760
Everyone gets it no matter what. Effectively tax break for the rich and for the lower classes it's freedom.

>then multiply that by the number of people and you'll see why you're retarded

Look at all government spending and you'll see how you're retarded. I'm talking slash literally everything, not a single fucking cent at all is spent except for basic income and essential services.

http://basicincome.org/news/2017/05/real-cost-universal-basic-income/

>Less than 25% of current GDP

Don't think of it as basic income, think of it as negative tax. Society is only free once everyone is free from basic needs

>>7438566
lolno.
Lets explain. distributing the basic income costs a lot of money adding on to the per head. Then money spent with basic income does not create wealth to tax, taxes on it or consumption of goods with it just recycle the income through more overhead. Now you lose tax income through deadweight loss. Less people work because they have basic income now you lost potential tax revenue. You cant cut people off basic income as a jerk motion because then people will work even LESS or pay less to accomodate. So you have to either keep it on everyone or ween it off in a manner that does as little to disincentives NEETdom as possible. Which is really hard for most economists and results in inevitable inefficienciesq. Now taxes are so high we move along the laffers curve to huge diminishing returns and government spending is not going to anything that could arguably generate wealth yet.
>>7438607
Most the worlds poor live in self sustaining agricultural lives in rural areas. Not in houses going grocery shopping. If the grocery stores ran out here id be fucked even though I am 100x better off. Even the slums people find food more efficiently.
>>7438771
Well Im assuming Venezuala's government will eventually collapse cause they arent as propaganda and a hermit kingdom. Could be wrong. But when that happens its either development time or 3rd world shit hole time.

>>7438566
>an easily corruptible and incompetent centralized power with absolute control and no competition that relies on coercion and violence to rob natives of their wealth to survive and misappropriates so much money so poorly that it has created record-breaking levels of debt should be given even more trust so that they can finally get the revenue they need to really pull things into shape
no

>>7438946
You realize with a basic income nearly all that money goes back into the economy. Most people are lower or middle class. It would be a trickle up economy. Money given to the poor through taxation of the rich would in turn be spent right back in businesses. It's essentially the rich and businesses subsidizing the consumer. The reason why they would want to do this is to encourage creativity and freedom. Freeing someone from the 9-5 slave like life we all live would lead to more innovation, more free time and happier people. People with more time, more money and more freedom would spend more money on hobbies, entertainment and other activities. People would consider getting that better phone upgrade, when there car breaks down they wouldn't feel as stressed about getting it fixed or even getting a new car. It would drive economic growth by freeing the lower classes.

>>7438857
you are very naive about Mankind

>>7439074
How?

If people went and wasted their money and their lives they'd have none left and society wouldn't need to care for them anymore, it's still up to the individual to decide what to do, we'd just be ensuring that the government provides everyone with the means to cover basic necessities. Why provide basic necessities when it's so hard to gauge what they are and who deserves them? If we just said fuck it, here's how much you need for basic necessities and left people to their own devices that'd be entirely up to them how they spent it. Yeah some people may waste away but the overwhelming majority of people would finally be free from the disgusting reprehensible average suburban middle class life that has been built and paraded for the past 60-70 years.

Ancom doesnt even work at the village size hippy commune level. I would know, I grew up in next to one and in one at times. Property exists, heirarchy exists, they just use different words for those things, or develop an "understanding".

Ancom is contrary to basic human community instincts, and the people who live the lifestyle waste a lot lf time and energy convincing each other that they are "doing it right". There is a lot of totally pointless rambling and finger pointing, while a good deal of the community tries very hard to become "card holders" and not peasants or menial laborers.

Its basically a race to the bottom, everybody trying to be more pathetic than each other in order to convince enough people that they should be taken care of, instead of relied upon.

Ancom chads were a thing. The men who assumed traditional male roles and fixed things, did work, and didnt give a fuck were naturally the most popular people around. This enraged menopausal roasties and feeble academic/druggy burnouts.

They tried to stop chadism by "developing an agreement" that no one person could do everything. Like commie chad wasnt allowed to go fix the roof by himself, he had to take some parasite retards with him to "educate" them. In reality, it was to share credit. Didnt work, the parasite retards just ended up liking the commiechads also.

This place wasnt true ancom of course, but it WAS an an anti government communist commune with 400-800 members depending on the time of year. Eventually they stopped trying, and welfare+social security became the primary suppoet structure of the community. All the young people moved away.

Now its just a few dozen old hippy burnouts smoking weed, practing wikcan magik (lol) and waiting to die.

They dont even grow their own weed anymore. So pathetic.

Northern CA of course, about 1 hour from north lake tahoe.

>sage

I will say that the environment WAS extremely kid friendly. It was like never neverland. Kids could just go do whatever the fuck they want, and the relatively tame but still mysterious wilderness of northern ca foothills / sierra nevada was the perfect playground for a small tribe of young humans. Problem was that kids arent communists, and develop their own power structures when left to their own devices. They also have property, even if its just shiny river rocks or animal skulls. These commie hippies failed to raise communist kids by accident, because they were "progressive" enough to let their kids run wild 18 hours a day.

>>7439061
>You realize with a basic income nearly all that money goes back into the economy. Most people are lower or middle class. It would be a trickle up economy. Money given to the poor through taxation of the rich would in turn be spent right back in businesses. It's essentially the rich and businesses subsidizing the consumer. The reason why they would want to do this is to encourage creativity and freedom. Freeing someone from the 9-5 slave like life we all live would lead to more innovation, more free time and happier people. People with more time, more money and more freedom would spend more money on hobbies, entertainment and other activities. People would consider getting that better phone upgrade, when there car breaks down they wouldn't feel as stressed about getting it fixed or even getting a new car. It would drive economic growth by freeing the lower classes.

This is a really interesting theory.
I think it's partially true, a segment of people will use ubi to self-optimize
Most will become living zombies.

Also corporations don't want more freedom or creativity because disruption brings the possibillity of failure.

>>7439061
I have $10 you have $0. I am teh eveil richman.
the government takes $2 from me and gives you $1.50.
now you buy goods from me for $1.50 the government takes $0.30 from that and gives you back ~$0.25. See where I am going with this? I can solve the infinite geometric sequence, but im sure you can get the intuition. Now here is the argument you are trying to make. Well you are consuming more than before so wealth is generated right!
No because you falsely assumed the $2 I had before taxation didn't exist. You took $2 from me. Your surplus + my profit from the good is less than a $1.50 already. Now you see, this still isnt realistic, what makes you think, I would put in the the effort generating $10 takes to make $8? Nobody would. So we wouldn't be able to tax the full $2. Now the middle earner is getting fucked, because the money they lose to basic income is more than their basic income, as again overhead and incentives. Now you say, But it drives innovation! people are free to persue innovation instead of menial tasks. Here is the thing. They say people reasonably enjou or derrive benefit from like 10-15 hours of work a week. Innovation to feed your sollow model here is being done by people putting in 60+ hours a week. They do it for monetary compensation and have nothing to gain from basic income. Tax cost is more than the income by a metric tonne for them. And, the kicker, the worker you arw "freeing" to innovate has no fucking clue what to do and lacks the capital to do it. But they are needed to make the iPhones or whatever. Who the fuck would do that for basic income?
You keep saying more money. But I think I have demonstrated thoroughly there is less money if you dont produce you dont produce wealth. If you consume with someone else's is money yoh decrease wealth. I know there is a meme that rich people keep all their money under their mattresses, never spend and net worth is only cash no one owns assets but come on.

>>7439681
>>7439061
Im not saying some form of redistribution is bad or we shouldnt help the poor. But instead of a blackpit put it in things that can actually generate some return, education, grants infrastructure etc.
I always said, I will fight for sensible economic policy until I get basic income. Then I quit my job and watch anime all day.

>>7439670
Studies have shown most people used UBI to further educate or get a new job.

>Also corporations don't want more freedom or creativity because disruption brings the possibillity of failure.

Very true in older traditionalist corporations but modern corporations are very big on sustainability and advancement. It's going to be unavoidable as AI and automation become more advanced


>>7439681
Good argument but it falls apart pretty quickly.

Before UBI I would never go to your store, with UBI I now have the means to buy goods from you, this becomes a new revenue stream for you. Imagine your business is in an area where 30 or 40% of the residents are lower class and never shop at your store.Your customer base now goes up by a huge amount meaning more money for you overall AND you also get a tax break from also receiving basic income. Not only that but your workers receive UBI and create less social burden for you (no insurance or pensions).

>>7439829
Not to mention costs from suppliers would be driven down due to lower costs of employees everywhere. Larger companies could automate to produce cheaper goods without impacting the wealth distributed to lower income individuals meaning you still got Joe and Bob and there 3 kids going to Pops local shake shack but everything is cheaper as labor costs are down and people have more wealth to spend.

And despite higher automation people are more free to pursue new careers and shift skills to new industries. Less burden on unemployed workers or paying unemployed workers welfare. You'll never have unexpected costs, you'll always have the same liabilities as a government. No more worrying about food stamp rates varying in times of high or low unemployment. It's like a free market stimulus package and everyone gets to chose what they do.

>>7428144
> revolutionary catalonia as an example
This has to be bait. Almost got me. Well played.

>>7439829
>I would never go to the store
thats fine money you spend at the store is less than I pay you through taxes, before we even factor in marginal cost. so why would I care? I already explained. If it costs me $2 to pay you basic income so you can spend $1.50 at mt atore on a good that costs me $0.5 to make can you see we are losing money here? thats before substiutiom effect. If I just used the money myself I could buy a $2 good.I used two firms to make it simpler. This would be true if there were a billion stores and consumers just to a larger scale. It's true if I make infferior goods I would benefit but at someone elses detriment. See again wealth distribution is different from wealth generation. We are just spending each others money. If you want to aegue I make money from the sales then it goes like this.
Guy A buys lambos, you tax him now he cant buy lambos. Now you get the money and go to my used ford dealership. I win, lambo loses.
Also if I get a "tax break" from UBI who the fuck is paying for it? someone has to pay for it. if everyone net gains, you did your math wrong. More money is lost than gained as I explained that is a fact you have to argue around not against.
>>7439929
uhhh you do realize tax is based on elasticity not who you tax right? if you tax employees to pay for basic income it costs the company. You cant really pay less cause money has diminishing returns. Think about it. $0k to $20k is worth way more than $20k to $20k. thats the whole argument for UBI btw its utiltarian calculus, argument is cost the economy is justified because $15k is worth more to poor person than $20k to rich guy. But i digress, if you are at $0k the amount of work you will do for $20k is actually WAAYYY more than you will do for an extra $20k on top of $20k. So you pay lower income employees more. Than richer employees pay more taxes, so guess what? they effectively make less so you gotta pay em more.
automation and bullshit is just your pipe dreams.

>>7440228
>$20k to $20k
meant 20k to 40k

Nothing with Communism can ever end without massive bloodshed and unhappiness for all.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Who decides what needs are? Are we talking about financial needs? Social needs? Spiritual needs? Emotional needs? Sexual needs? Personal satisfaction needs? That's a lot of needs to meet, especially as the size of the pool grows and the population diversifies.

The only way to meet "needs" is to kill almost all the people and get to a very small homogenous group, which will eventually get naturally select out anyway.

>>7439061
>Freeing someone from the 9-5 slave like life we all live would lead to more innovation, more free time and happier people.

Interesting thought considering we already universal basic income with teenagers and young adults living at home. However, I'm not seeing it bare a lot of creativity, I am seeing a lot of video games being played and a lot more porn being produced.

yes, although not in this lifetime

things will get in the way of the revolution, and these include both neocons and neolibs, and the obsession with the carceral state and weak identity politics on both the left and the right

also most of you need to update your conception of "human nature"--this is conditioned by existence under a state, but it is not only the state. we inscribe the modes of our own domination through practicing it ourselves. this is why you can't simply turn away from the state, or have a revolution tomorrow. these things take time.

anarcho communism is not a contradiction even in marx, "communism" is in fact stateless, and it follows the transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which does have a state

Our collective life support system is being suffocated by humanity's continued expansion and we're squabbling about ape-coins with imaginary value.

>>7440350
yes all of those

when communism is implemented without the state and without capital i.e. private property, people will have a deep love/awareness of their interdependence on one another. those needs, which you have correctly identified as very complex and unique to individuals, will eventually be indissociable with the greater and mutual love for humanity. but, through the advancements capitalism has left behind, there will be enough for everyone to still be incredibly talented and unique, able to fulfill their human wants/needs (like creativity, spiritual satisfaction, personal satisfaction, etc) both without having to detract from one another's ability to do the same and also to become wholly fulfilled ones self

>>7439829
>Before UBI I would never go to your store, with UBI I now have the means to buy goods from you, this becomes a new revenue stream for you. Imagine your business is in an area where 30 or 40% of the residents are lower class and never shop at your store.Your customer base now goes up by a huge amount meaning more money for you overall AND you also get a tax break from also receiving basic income. Not only that but your workers receive UBI and create less social burden for you (no insurance or pensions).

And who do you think pays for that?

Basically I'm going to be giving money to you so you buy my products, but what really happens is that since I now have to pay way more taxes, I will have to make my products more expensive, and you will import products instead of buying from me, so the only ones happy here are Bezos and Jack Ma.

>you also get a tax break from also receiving basic income

So who pays for the basic income then? Let me guess, the rich people whose wealth is mostly the perceived values of their companies? Will we liquidate their companies to pay for the UBI? That will sure work out.

>>7440740
this whole discussion is still predicated on a state though

i agree with UBI as a transitionary thing, but as long as we have a shit state the fails to provide the necessary outcomes for higher taxes (see Flint), or even a good incentive for UBI to exist (right now UBI exists so that people can basically ingratiate themselves further into statist modes of domination, and the cycle repeats itself), i see no worth in a UBI