/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.14059486]

Is capitalism the best system for human nature?

[Anonymous No.14059569]

Where?

[Anonymous No.14059600]

>>14059486
Not even close

[Anonymous No.14059609]

>>14059486
lmao, need to do one with a wojack inside

[Anonymous No.14059611]

>>14059486
It distracts us from the real goals in life and traps us into an endless cycle of working so we can buy new things. It is the cause of all suffering in the world.

[Anonymous No.14059623]

>>14059486
Wagie wagie get in cagie

[Anonymous No.14059633]

>>14059609
Thos

[Anonymous No.14059705]

Unironically socialism is the most natural economic system for humans, but only for small tribes of about 50-150 people. It doesn't work for for today's societies.

[Anonymous No.14059720]

>>14059611
So gay. Save your money, invest, live life as a CAPITALIST. Whatever gay shit you talked about doing when capitalism was overthrown - now you can do it.

[Anonymous No.14059759]

>>14059486
The cage is so the wagie is protected by the flying in-house Amazon drones.

[Anonymous No.14059777]

>>14059486
Wtf did they actually build it!!

[Anonymous No.14059791]

>>14059486
yes

[Anonymous No.14059806]

>>14059486
High fucking art right there. If I had money I would buy that.

[Anonymous No.14059816]

Absolutely not. Here's a good critique of capitalism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc51tvRl8zw

[Anonymous No.14059820]

>>14059611
Only you entrap yourself. Make the most out of your life and don't blame "the system" for your shortcomings and mental instability.

[Anonymous No.14059826]

>>14059816
bunch of strawmans

[Anonymous No.14059834]

>>14059705
make that family sized and you're right

[Anonymous No.14059852]

>>14059486
WHO MADE THE WAGIE CAGIE?!

[Anonymous No.14059892]

>browse /biz/
>see wagie cagie
>build wagie cagie
>profit

what a god

[Anonymous No.14059908]

>>14059705
Yep. Tribalism works very well because it encourages (lightly forces) every member to achieve their best in order to improve the tribe; this breaks down once the tribe becomes too big though, and individuals no longer care about working harder in order to help other members that they don't know or care about. High trust socialism is fantastic, low trust socialism is catastrophic.

[Anonymous No.14060405]

>>14059705
Socialism does not work.

Human nature always wants to improve as species. Natural selection. Socialism does not match with our genes.

[Anonymous No.14060428]

[Anonymous No.14060534]

>>14059486
topkek someone actually made it irl

[Anonymous No.14060543]

>>14059609
THIS PLEASE

[Anonymous No.14060576]

>>14060405
>dogmaposting
0/10, apply yourself.

[Anonymous No.14060677]

The "true" state of the universe is 'ancap' by virtue of the fact that randomness guarantees "inequality," and organized energy/life always min/maxes survival prospects against randomness according to inborn incentives in response to externally imposed logic systems. any local point of reference that is better described with terms like socialism, tribalism etc a. is still motivated out of the "true" anarchic primordial state b. exists to astute observers only as a brief microcosmic deviation from the "true state" c. is still governed by "true state" dynamics even though myopia convinces most people otherwise.
the nominal state of your economic and legal system is more or less immaterial at any magnification, and framing your thoughts and subsequent actions on the matter in quadrasyllabic buzzwords makes you the sucker in every system.

[Anonymous No.14060685]

Capitalism is the very best system, but you have to not get stuck in the trap by being a wageslave. You have to become a capitalist at ALL costs, too many become distracted and accidentally wageslave for 50 years and then retire with a meager fund.

I cannot shed a tear for wageslaves, they're either too dumb or unmotivated to leave the wagecage... they deserve any suffering that comes to them.

[Anonymous No.14060762]

Fascism

But most any system would work amongst an all-white, high trust society

Niggers and kikes are literally god’s litter

[Anonymous No.14060794]

theres isnt a pure capitalism or pure socialism in this day and age so this this discussion is retarded

[Anonymous No.14060811]

capitalism is "I have a fire, you have a deer carcass, I'll share my fire if you share some of the meat of your deer". it's the most human economic system out of any other, we literally evolved with it.

[Anonymous No.14060825]

>>14059600
Retard alert

[Anonymous No.14060856]

>>14059600
>>14059611
>>14059705
>>14059816
>>14059834
>>14059908
>>14060428
>>14060762

poorfags with inferiority complexes.

[Anonymous No.14060932]

>>14059908
>High trust socialism is fantastic, low trust socialism is catastrophic.

what are the chances we see trustless socialism with blockchain/smart contracts?

[Anonymous No.14060946]

>>14060405
>Socialism does not work
Socialism is just a variation of capitalism.

>Human nature always wants to improve as species. Natural selection. Socialism does not match with our genes.
t. a guy who haven't read a single book about primitive tribes.

[Anonymous No.14060989]

>>14060811
Complete retard. Capitalism was born in the 13th century.
Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

[Anonymous No.14061002]

>>14060932
Pretty high. Although i don't like socialsm. Socialism still works on exchange value principles. We should aim to make a society without exchange value and surplus labor.

[Anonymous No.14061027]

>>14060856

wow great rebuttal!

[Anonymous No.14061028]

>>14060989
>Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

and look where they're now: dead

>>14061002
>surplus labor.
nevermind, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.14061050]

>>14061027
this is my position on this topic:

>https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Anti-Capitalistic%20Mentality_3.pdf

[Anonymous No.14061058]

You don't choose capitalism. capitalism just *is*. after it had it's run, socialism comes.

[Anonymous No.14061087]

>>14060677
one could indeed argue that individuals are bound by the law of randomness or rather the consequences of randomness, but that would discount the growing complexity of human coordination
your argument, I believe, is that in aggregate this randomness creates outcomes that resembles an ancap system
in theory, yes, all it takes is one bad actor to act as catalyst for the collapse of any self-imposed structure and a reversion to the natural equilibrium (ancap), however that clearly isn't the case
now you claim that the nominal state of our system, or rather its classification, is immaterial as we are still motivated by the anarchic drive to survive and reproduce; all other wants and needs are derivatives of these all-important needs, right? Why then do we create systems that go against our nature? Why do these systems not immediately collapse under this primordial pressure and the weight of randomness compounded?
I believe you are indeed the one who is framing your thoughts in quadrasyllabic buzzwords or rather in terms of purely abstract (and quite mechanical) reasoning which has no basis in the reality of the human condition

[Anonymous No.14061100]

Love drinking commie tears every single day

[Anonymous No.14061255]

>>14060428

[Anonymous No.14061301]

>>14061255

Failures in historical communist societies were due external causes, not the system.

Capitalism on the other-hand is literally designed to fail.

[Anonymous No.14061315]

>>14061301

[Anonymous No.14061396]

>>14060811

Trader =/= capitalism. You can have trade within an economic system, without it being capitalist.

If you think otherwise, you haven't done enough research into economic theory.

Some Non-Capitalist Economic Theories you can research...

Mutualism (eg. Kevin Carson)
Left Wing Market Anarchism. (eg. Center For A Stateless Society)
Market Socialism. (Yugoslavia was only one experiment with that Theory. It doesn't defined the theory.)
Sydicalism (Fascist economic theory.)
Corporatism (Fascist economic theory.)

[Anonymous No.14061417]

>>14059486
this pic is actually incredible

[Anonymous No.14061509]

>>14061028
>>Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

>and look where they're now: dead
Cows and pigs have big numbers in our current society. They are mass produced and mass slaughtered. Does that mean their live is worth living?The fact that capitalism allowed humans to multiply doesn't mean there isn't an other mode of production not based on the market of workforce.

>>surplus labor.
>nevermind, you're retarded.
Keep wageslaving, bitch.

[Anonymous No.14061563]

>>14059816
>gay youtube intro
>overweight onions face
>super mario background
Do these people have any self awareness?

[Anonymous No.14061566]

>>14059816
> i spent my game playing as proletariat
hahahaha, dude

Yall commies don't even know what capitalism is. What part of it specifically do you hate: freedom of transactions or property rights?

[Anonymous No.14061570]

>>14060762
>(((Fascism)))
spotted the cuck

Only low IQ losers and cucks seek authoritarian rule.

[Anonymous No.14061593]

>>14060762
The only good take in this thread

[Anonymous No.14061617]

What makes you think we live in a capitalist system?

[Anonymous No.14061627]

>>14061255
I'll comment on this retarded picture.

>establish a new communist utopia, rob and kill successful people
Karl Marx was anti-state. No state, no political violence.

>force the rest to work for free
Marx was critical of surplus labor, whether exploited by an owner of means of production, or prior use of surplus labor like serfs or slaves. So no, there in no forcing other to work for free in Karl Marx's books.

[Anonymous No.14061630]

>>14060405
Socialism worked for the Native Americans and caused one of the golden ages in Rome.

[Anonymous No.14061646]

>>14061315
are you against free coffee and doughnuts for the proletariat?

[Anonymous No.14061697]

>>14061509
>market of workforce.

nice blog. you know you're arguing against a joke? everyone dies faggot. you too, but unlike other people you being dead means less dead weight for the rest of us.

>Keep wageslaving, bitch.

stop hating on the working class. they're honorable people.

[Anonymous No.14061716]

>>14061566
>What part of it specifically do you hate: freedom of transactions or property rights?
I don't like transactions, whether made freely, or by Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedung, Pol Pot or Kim jong-un.
>Property right: since when does this shit exist? Oh yeah only 12000 years.

[Anonymous No.14061724]

>>14061627
there's no such thing as surpluss labour you moron. lrn2economics or fuck off from /biz/

[Anonymous No.14061760]

>>14061630
the idea of calling rome at any point socialist is preposterous and the technological level of native americans should be hint for the likes of you at what level of prosperity socialism grants.

[Anonymous No.14061797]

>>14061724
Yes there is you cuck. You are just ignorant about it. Everything is exchanged for it's price on the market. However, workforce, which is sold by the workers to the owners of the means of production, is the only value that can creates more value. Your car will never create value. Neither your gold, or your toothbrush. But hire someone, and he can create value for you to put into your pocket.

[Anonymous No.14061806]

>>14061716
> Oh yeah only 12000 years.
Well, nope.
Back in the day the sovereign was entitled to all your property and even life if he needed that. Only recently there appears an idea that a man can own something that noone should take and if they do, the law protects the original owner.
> I don't like transactions
Enjoy living alone innawoods —the only way to avoid txs

[Anonymous No.14061815]

From my experience and research as an economist, a mix of Capitalism and Social policies are the best at maintaining a functional society. ( quick example: If you are dying and there is a drug/service that can help you, it doesn't matter how much money you have you are willing to pay what ever amount to stay alive. Some products or services have inelastic prices that don't react well to changes in supply)
The fundamental problem that economic systems try to solve is how do we best allocate resources for our society ? Do we look at what can give us the best standard of life even if you do immoral things or do we take note and use our judgement and morality to regulate the markets. That is a fundamental question that doesn't have a lot of options. It's clear to me.

Would i like to day dream about a utopia when every thing is fair and everyone has equal opportunity and we make sure the unfortunate members of our society are well cared for and helped, I do! yet I know reality is no fair and It doesn't work like that.

Be awesome to each other !

[Anonymous No.14061838]

>>14061797
do you honestly believe you're the first idiot who tries to sell this crap to me? you know this shit has been debunked since the 19th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#The_Marginal_Revolution

[Anonymous No.14061856]

>>14061806
>the sovereign
>primitive tribe
I really wonder what kind of eduction did some of you people receive, and what kind of self-education you give to yourself. I guess you are american? Americans have qualities, but they are completely retarded when it comes to history.

[Anonymous No.14061927]

>>14061856
> primitive tribe
Kek, noice.
So you do want to leave innawoods with a pack of bros sharing wives n game n sheeit.
Your dream society might work on such a small scale, but no way in can support hundreds of lives, even less so billions.

>>14061797
> But hire someone, and he can create value for you to put into your pocket.
If that person is a source of income, why wouldn't he just be self-employed then?

[Anonymous No.14061942]

>>14061856
>I really wonder what kind of eduction did some of you people receive,

it can't be that much worse than yours considering the crap you're posting.

[Anonymous No.14062080]

>>14061942
Your marginial utility theory has been made to counter Marxist economy, and is based on the principle that there is and there always was a market. The market only exist since 12000 years. Marginal utility is a theory within an other theory, the exchange value.

[Anonymous No.14062121]

>>14061301
"It wasn't muh system!"
>said Lenin, just before being killed by his "allies"
>said Stalin, leading to his own death because socially induced paranoia
>didn't say Malenkov, because no one wanted to listen to him
>instead said Khrushchev, but no body heard his voice, because who knows who a nobody is?
>said Brehznev, but KGB silenced him swiftly
>said Andropov, but who can hear a traitor's voice?
>said Chernenko, alas, KGB listened well to him too
>said Gorbachev, but then Putin stepped in and said
"no, Mr. Chairman, we're "not" a communistic party now, wink wink, eh? Very good!"
you know who also don't say it "wasn't the system"?
lets sing a song
>hundreds of million people murdered in:
>russia, latvia, bosnia, georgia, byelorussia too
>ukraine, azerbaijan and lithuania as well
>armenia, estonia, moldavia, turkmenia had the disease!
>just like tajikistan, uzbekistan, kazakhstan, uzbekistan and kirghizia!
now let's hear from the asian folk!
>so, established by the Stalin - the guy who nicked Hitler
>in china (now people's republic ;) and korea (back then it was just one!)
>he put a guy named Mao - a fucker like no other - to kill his own people
>a red book - so he called - a murderous tool
>one read of simple-minded
>and everyone's on board!
>who gives a fuck, let's murder all! children and what not!
>soooo
>up it went, all the way from yangtze to tarim (big rivers)
>colony of non-reactionists swept with a killing spree
>spared none, parents be or not, red book did not care
>and up in Kremlin, one laughing room with Mao inside
>all smiles corrupt, dehumanized, worse than nazis
>but you might ask, what about korea?
>well, you fucking twat
>you already seem like a fucking moron, not seeing with your own eyes
>so hop on in on a fucking plane and off you go to see your leaders!
>how glorious and magnificent they look, starving their own people.
fucking communists.

[Anonymous No.14062141]

>>14062121
Nice rambling retard, boslshevism, maoism, Pol-pot etc... Was state capitalism. It's even mainstream today (wikipedia).

[Anonymous No.14062199]

>>14062141
>oooooh, I don't want to listen to your reactionists ideas, I'm too fucking stupid to see how history taught us that communism takes every fiber from humanity and turns it into the most evil thing there is!
no, that was not state capitalism. That's what communism is in a country that stems from communism. If the very roots are corrupt with foul mud the rest of the tree also rots and begets more evil and damnation.
Capitalism has its evil in giving people hard choices that make them the wage slaves. That's the nature's response for "kill or be killed" in the most humanitarian way possible. Add to that democracy, and you're cooking a way for a tree that even if corrupt at the top, can be pruned to a healthy state again.
You cannot cure communistic roots. You just have to cut down the whole tree and salt the ground.

[Anonymous No.14062222]

Fear not frens, there is a path you can take that shall free you from the wagecage for good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHPDh_o9PN4

[Anonymous No.14062274]

>>14062199
>Exchange value, a state, a market
>communism

100% sure that you haven't read Marx's last book, Critique of the Gotha program (1875). He was clearly against any state, and again the market and exchange value, which were present in USSR, Mao China, Pol pot etc...
You are under cognitive dissonance, i wrote in ITT that Marx was anti-statist, how can USSR even exist without a state?

[Anonymous No.14062445]

>>14062274
>I have read a propaganda book, therefore I am smart
You know, I could also write a book about any new ideology or existing, and there would be some people who would follow a doctrine written in it. It wouldn't make anything in it real unless proven with any coherent, sane and ground arguments.
Marx didn't prove anything but just shown how the change of eras (pre to post industrialism) influenced his work. Its a load of out of date crap that cannot be put together with any of today's standards.
Your cognitive compliance with Marxism only shows your own lack of synaptic connection.

Here's why:

1. There's 7 billion humans on this planet that cannot operate under marxism because
2. everyone is an individual at their core and not a social group because
3. social groups are only made to differentiate a median in a 7-billion human society

You might want to say
"but we all don't live in one country"
and you'd be right.
You might want to say
"I'm too fucking retarded to understand how any of that makes any sense"
and you'd be in your retarded right to say so.

Here's the thing:
If Marxism was the way to go, it would have worked in the last century.
It was the good time to do it.
Capitalism was for it too.
But then it started to murder people, because people are not "social groups" but individuals that make a part of a society.
Some are women
Some are men
Some are children
Some are old
Some are mothers
Some are workers
Some are state workers
Some are intelligent
Some are not
Some are farmers
Some are miners
See when I'm going with this?

In today's society if you'd want to make "social groups" for anything, you'd go insane with paper's work. If you'd want to dissolve social groups, because "reactionsism!" or "unfair!" you'd have to kill more than 3/4th of entire Earth population, because there's a breaking point that you'll reach. Not everyone is a coward who cannot stand for what's right for humanity-and it is not dehumanizing them and putting into statistics.

[Anonymous No.14062585]

Yes, because the gratifyingly few alternatives that have ever been proffered are maliciously stupid abstractions postulated by moralizing dunning-kruger brainlets

[Anonymous No.14062596]

>>14062445
Also, closing, because I'm going to go buy some Marx paintings I saw on sale (irony, I know):
there are certain things you don't have to explain for someone to understand them
Example is: breathing - if you can't do it, you're dead. If you're injured that's fine, but we don't go around explaining to infants how to breathe.
Some things are self-explanatory, like the word self-explanatory.
So, if you cannot understand without an explanation, then with one you won't understand such things. Easy? Should be.

Now, following this line of thought, why on Earth in your mind you'd think (I'd guess) can't the non-marxist people "understand" something so trivial and easy as the society without classes, or a society that doesn't need to struggle?
Well, here's a counter statement to that, because I cannot also understand how in your mind are you going to make a society made out of a large population - because that's what is going on here - listen to your words and conform to them without fighting or killing. Because I worked my back for my stuff. Why am I supposed to give it to some unknowns that are going to walk all over my life without any respect towards me or other people? What will it accomplish for humanity? Will it take us out of this planet and into space era? Or, since everything is equal, there's no struggle, and all that wishy-washy; forever grounded, without purpose, and left in endless poverty, sadness and grotesque.
Also, how are you going to do accomplish something, that Marx couldn't? That not one human since could, and also, not one made sure to not kill anyone along the way?
Because so far it was the stem of marxism that killed the most people, not capitalism.

But, you must know something that we don't, but because its a mystery, you cannot reveal it.
I bet it will come to light when people like Ocasio-Cortez start going around and telling people to kill those that oppose them.
Hence: fuck communism.

[Anonymous No.14062601]

>>14062080
"my" marginal utility theory predates "das kapital" you moron.

[Anonymous No.14062669]

>>14059720
>just become a capitalist bro
Yep, it's a retard.

[Anonymous No.14062818]

>>14062601
Marginal utility was popularized after das kapital. When the capitalist elite sensed that labor theory of value was gaining more and more popularity.

In any case, marginal utility doesn't explain the origin of value. It's a theory that works inside to explain some phenomenon in the market but it doesn't explain the origin, the "source" of value.

[Anonymous No.14062850]

>>14060677
dude you just got btfo >>14061087
What would Hobbes say tho?

[Anonymous No.14062851]

Only low IQ human trash think communism is the only alternative to the current economic system which has been labeled as "capitalism". Luckily when the current economic order breaks down, they will either die off or go into another form of bondage.

[Anonymous No.14062895]

Yes. Until we can get a source of infinite energy, but even then there will probably have to be some sort of artificial capitalism in place to keep people from going insane.

[Anonymous No.14062915]

>>14062818
literally from the wikipedia article I linked:

>The doctrines of marginalism and the Marginal Revolution are often interpreted as somehow a response to Marxist economics. However the first volume of Das Kapital was not published until July 1867, after the works of Jevons, Menger, and Walras were written or well under way (Walras published Éléments d'économie politique pure in 1874 and Carl Menger published Principles of Economics in 1871); and Marx was still a relatively minor figure when these works were completed. It is unlikely that any of them knew anything of him. (On the other hand, Friedrich Hayek and W. W. Bartley III have suggested that Marx, voraciously reading at the British Museum, may have come across the works of one or more of these figures, and that his inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further volumes of Kapital before his death

[Anonymous No.14062932]

>>14062818
>marginal utility doesn't explain the origin of value.

>utility doesn't explain value.

how do you manage not to forget breathing?

[Anonymous No.14062944]

>>14059908
Are telepathic tribal hive-minds the future of humanity?

[Anonymous No.14062946]

>>14062895
Just as an example take any MMO. If everyone started the game with all the best end game gear and all the mounts, how many people would play it? Basically 0 unless it had some kind of amazing story. You could argue that people are just trained to be this way because they grew up in a capitalist system, but I think it's human nature to want to get things that are hard to attain so that you can show off the fact that you did that.

If there were a utopia scenario where there was infinite food and water, people would just find the next best thing that's exclusive to lord over other people. So naturally that would be land. So in that scenario you would just have an extremely bad overpopulation and real estate problem. And people would still find a way to "be better than" everyone else around them.

[Anonymous No.14062956]

>>14062601
By the way the utility theory is again retarded, because it is based on particular retarded examples, like the water and diamand example. Of course if you are dying of thirst, water will have an immense value, but it's generalizing on the basis of one (or particular) cases.

[Anonymous No.14063002]

>>14062932
No you fuck, a cloth has value because it is useful, but what constitute the limiting factor of production? Labor. If you can an infinite amount of clothes, it's value will be close to 0. If you can make only 1 cloth, it's value will be phenomenal. But what constitute the limiting factor of how many clothes you can make? Labor. Labor in quantity and in quality. You think yourself smart, because you found some cool theory, but you are not intelligent enough to understand the labor theory of value.

[Anonymous No.14063005]

>>14061627
>Karl Marx was anti-state. No state, no political violence.

[Anonymous No.14063022]

>>14062944
This is what I thought years and years ago. Still think it. It's the only way out of the competitive arena that defines the social landscape we live in. Think about a bunch of bacteria in the ocean that over time formed a symbiosis and eventually all linked together to form a colony which became a multicellular organism.

[Anonymous No.14063082]

>>14063002
are you really too stupid to realise that when supply lessens the value it can not be labour that determines value? fucking think for once in your life you useless fuck.

[Anonymous No.14063105]

>>14063005
Violence exercised by the proletariat, during a phase which is called dictatorship of the proletariat. To explain, dictatorship done by the workers (wage-slaves in 4chan vocabulary), not by an elite. Not by a small fraction of people.

[Anonymous No.14063106]

>>14062956
>water and diamand example

here's another one for you: if I pay some dude to dig a whole somewhere in the desert, does the whole automatically have value just because labour was invested in it's production?

[Anonymous No.14063119]

>>14063106
*a hole

[Anonymous No.14063125]

>>14063106
The same useless example, use by the same stupid fucks again and again. When you work in foxxcon, Chineese factory making smartphone, your work isn't worthless. You have production standards to make sure you are productive, and if you fail to meet them, you are fired. Thus, most work done in modern factories is productive.

[Anonymous No.14063151]

>>14061617
What is that coin? no results on google images

[Anonymous No.14063157]

>>14063082
The value can have some fluctuations caused by factor external to the labor origin of value, but in GENERAL, in the average case, in the average situation, in the average time, it is labor which is the source of value.

[Anonymous No.14063167]

>>14063106
Who the fuck dig a whole in the desert? Mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.14063198]

>>14063082
>are you really too stupid to realise that when supply lessens the value it can not be labour that determines value?

Supply of what? Just answer me so i can pin you hard.

[Anonymous No.14063234]

>>14063125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf9KhwryQNE

you're a moron and it is quite obvious that regardless of argument or quality thereof you won't be possibly be swayed. Also you do not understand the labour theory of value yourself.

[Anonymous No.14063252]

>>14059486
capitalism is easy mode for people who are even slightly above average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14063289]

>>14061087
the growing complexity of human organization has never and probably will never make point 'a' equal point 'b.' proximity to (what individuals believe to be) the conditions leading to success will always generate perceived imbalance and hierarchy, no matter how you slice the pie.
the argument isn't that a 'bad (faith) actor' can foment total collapse of an arbitrary shared belief system, it's that he has an advantage in that system by behaving with the understanding that a. hierarchy is inevitable and b. he exists in a superstructure of structures which permits by default everything forbidden by x local structure. this is why there are successful and unpunished 'bad faith actors' in every system of organization.
we create systems that seemingly go 'against our nature' because the people who design these systems understand (and indeed outcompete those who don't) that you can temporarily create more favorable local systems by deferring and/or ignoring certain base anarchic drives.
these systems apparently "don't collapse" because a. randomness doesn't compound or interact with these systems like you've implied b. they continue to exist at the expense of other systems (human and non-human) c. they last longer in spirit and 'collapse' more gradually than any given generation of spectators can justifiably label in catastrophic terms.
regardless, the whole point of the post was to say that living according to the labels we have for systems described by our abysmally limited perspective is for complete rubes. the bulk of economics/ the human condition/whatever exists outside the confines of the words we have to describe them.

[Anonymous No.14063309]

>>14063234
I am no leftist. I hate leftists more than fachist and right wing. Leftist are just the left of the capital. However the vast majority of leftists criticize the capital, but don't want to abolish it.

[Anonymous No.14063325]

>>14063105
Violence by low-iq wage slaves. You should know how that always goes.

[Anonymous No.14063326]

>>14063309
you are. call yourself what you want, but you're a collectivist with socialist economic views.

[Anonymous No.14063364]

>>14063309
also you're in your 20s and never have had a real job. you look down on the working class and are grasping for recognition, despite never having achieved anything. after a while your type becomes very easy to read.

[Anonymous No.14063370]

>>14063326
Socialism is capitalism. It is just taking money from people to give to other. I want abolition of money.
Collectivist, well perhaps, if it is not without exchange value, without state, without money, and without delegation of power. In these conditions, you can call myself a collectivist.

[Anonymous No.14063382]

>>14063364
You don't know absolutely nothing about me, but believe me you are almost entirely wrong.

[Anonymous No.14063394]

>>14063382
of course I am "wrong". You're ego can't afford me being right.

[Anonymous No.14063412]

>>14063370
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.

[Anonymous No.14063415]

I don't think Capitalism is bad inherently. But we need to ditch this idea that capitalism is just letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want with no oversight. Capitalism needs human-focused interventionism to be good.

[Anonymous No.14063433]

>>14059486

Hahaha 10/10 dis made my day

[Anonymous No.14063436]

>>14059609
>wojack
>c
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.14063438]

>>14063394
I like to remain anon, but out of the 4 things you guessed about me (my age, my job, if i am grapsping for recognition, and the fact that i achieved or not anything), you are only right about one.

[Anonymous No.14063458]

>>14063412
i am watching your video. Then i'll come back and i'll break you.

[Anonymous No.14063467]

>>14059486
it is, because true capitalism does not necessitate that you do or do not have to work in a cage of any kind
if you're okay with working in a cage, you can—and if you don't want to, you don't have to

[Anonymous No.14063503]

>>14059486

[Anonymous No.14063545]

>>14063467
>le you always have a choice between starving and being a slave

[Anonymous No.14063563]

>>14063438
1.you are in your 20s, because the vast majority of people frequenting this site is in their 20s. furthermore if you'd be at least ten years older your argumentation would be more likely to be logical consistent.

2. you look down on the working class. it might not be obvious to you, since you still cling to the idea of you being a good boy, but it's evident from the way you speak about them:

>Keep wageslaving, bitch.

implying they are stupid, idiots for providing for themselves and their families. you know people from the working class are proud of their labour? (honestly, this tells a lot about you.)

3.since you're not the pure of heart hero for the working class you present yourself as it's becomes obvious your motivation lies somewhere else. now would you describe your obvious virtue signaling here as "grasping for recognition"? I would, because that's what's driving you to your stupid leftism.

4. this kind of behaviour is typical for people outside of the working world, who have no way to a) assess value (due to lack of context) and b) have no opportunity of getting valued by others themselves. you're obviously not employed in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.14063587]

>>14063458
i'm not interested. you're dumb + transparent

[Anonymous No.14063654]

>>14063412
I watched the video. Not only once is it explained why the chocolate bars are worth 100, 80, 60 and 40, and why the fruits are worth 120, 100, 50, 20. Utility is useless to determine the value of something. It could if there was no competition, and an excellent chocolat, which was cheap to produce, was the only one on the market. However, let's imagine there is an excellent chocolate, which is cheap to produce, because it is cheap in both variable to produce it (variable capital and constant capital). The producer sells it expensively on the market. It would work for a time, until an other factory would made the same, or a very close chocolate, and sell it for a cheaper price, then a third will sell the same chocolate for an even cheaper price, until the point were we are close to the point were only a small profit is made. So no, in a competitive economy, utility doesn't determine price. Price is determined by the cost necessary to produce the item, which is constant capital (machinery, which are bought by the factory but were themselves made by human work), and variable capital, which is the cost of labor.

[Anonymous No.14063664]

>>14063436
keck

[Anonymous No.14063667]

Environmentally sustainable ethical full accountability democratic capitalism? Yes.

Oligarchic kleptocratic corporate military industrial complex capitalism? No.

[Anonymous No.14063690]

>>14063667
Capitalism can't be accountable in a democracy. The people are too stupid. There needs to strength in the government to put capitalism on a leash.

[Anonymous No.14063707]

>>14063667
>democratic
technocratic*

democracy is only acceptable in citystates

[Anonymous No.14063762]

>>14063563
I was arguing with you because i thought that somehow you were smart, i'm disapointed, i'm out.
I'll answer quickly thought.
1/ i am not in my 20s
2/ i don't look down on the working class, i look down on the upper socio professional categories, who think themselves smart, when in fact they are the little lackeys of the capital. I want to free the working class, and free myself.
3/ i am abolutely not graping for recognition. I want to abolish money and the state in order to free people. The subject of this thread is a wage cage, so i feel completely free to speak my mind. am not polluting anyone with my marxist theories, since it is the fucking subject of the thread.
4/Even it is was true, does it makes people who don't work (NEETs) useless to express ideas? You seem to be an apologist of wageslaving. I respect wageslaves, i don't mean them harm. I want to free them, and myself.

>>14063587
I watched your 12 minutes videos, and it's you who isn't interested to have a debate. So fuck off. At least i learn about marginal utility which is useless. I predict that it won't have any success in the future. However, the labor theory will have lots of success in the decades to come. It will be fought a lot, mostly by capitalism and it's lackey, people who don't understand it, or are in denial, but it will probably succeed in the end.

[Anonymous No.14063818]

>>14063289
The growing complexity of human organization is a continued effort to understand, control and manipulate information more effectively. Intuitively, one can easily deduce that given the level of knowledge acquisition and most importantly the rate (speed) at which such knowledge is acquired constantly increasing, that soon these current labels of ours will be replaced by better definitions and that this process will repeat itself ad infinitum.
Pertaining to your main argument, though, I am in full agreement in its premise, but fail to see its conclusions...
Each individual is an agent; each agent must play the infinite game and within it is found many finite games; within these games nash equilibriums are found, which contribute to the overall nash equilibrium of the grand infinite game of life itself. Systems, then, are finite games, with their own rules.
Your argument is perhaps that these equilibriums are artificial? That the true nash equilibrium would be ancap or some as of yet undefined, or impossible-to-define system?
Yes, it is true that bad faith actors exist and that many are successful and unpunished. That is simply due to information asymmetry. To frame it better, imagine these bad actors are the stock-jobbers of the 19th/20th century dumping their bags on the credulous and ignorant public. Their advantage has a positive coefficient with information asymmetry.

I can't remember where exactly I was going with this. The main thrust of my argument is that as sovereign agents we all contribute to our respective finite game nash equilibriums that, in turn contribute to the ever-changing, ever-shifting, grand nash equilibrium in this infinite game. Randomness is a lack of information; given that information asymmetry declines, we should see less bad faith actors able to adversely manipulate their agency to generate artificial equilibriums. More information leads to higher non-random complex superstructures

[Anonymous No.14063882]

It is

It does not justify destroying the water supplies o the air quality

[Anonymous No.14064263]

>>14063882
There's no economic system that takes the environment into consideration.

[Anonymous No.14064435]

>>14059486
No, next question

[Anonymous No.14064489]

>>14063654
>>14063762

[Anonymous No.14064770]

>>14061570
authoritarian rule only serves one propose:
to kill kikes and niggers
if we managed to do that, the world could go into anarchy for all we know.

[Anonymous No.14064974]

>>14064263
But legislations do.

Capitalism does not mean corporations have a right to fuck us all in the ass cuz muh capitalism. Greed should have a rational end, kinda like fucking a whole town water supply just so a boomer can buy his 5th ferrari. Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.14065021]

>>14059609

[Anonymous No.14065429]

>>14061570
Authoritarianism is good, you just need to be the authority. If you're biggest concern about fascism is that someone will be mean to you, then you're a beta. Alphas know that they will be the people being mean.

[Anonymous No.14065904]

>>14065021

[Anonymous No.14065972]

>>14059486

If humans are innately cooperative than capitalism is not the best system because we should be inclined to compete more than dominate.

If humans are innately competitive it is in the interest of the 99% to use culture to force some cooperation to prevent being dominated by most vicious 1% still making capitalism not the best.

If humans innately a mix of the two and dynamically can switch between cooperation and competition given the context (this one is most likely) than it makes sense to culturally pursue cooperation for much the same reason as if we were entirely selfish and competitive by nature.

In any case, if nature is unjust than change nature. We have technology and culture, something animals don't and as such are not bound to our nature. Anyone making an argument that we are simply doesn't understand how innate traits work or how they can be suppressed or even mostly eliminated through cultural conditioning.

In any circumstance capitalism is a shite option if you're not already a billionaire. Although I do recognize the need for it in limited capacity for certain industries sometimes.

[Anonymous No.14065981]

>>14065972

> If humans are innately cooperative than capitalism is not the best system because we should be inclined to compete more than dominate.

Edit: should says this: If humans are innately cooperative than capitalism is not the best system because we should be inclined to cooperate more than dominate.

[Anonymous No.14065984]

>>14059486
it's the system that scales

[Anonymous No.14066037]

>>14061927
>why wouldn't he just be self-employed then
Because capitalists monopolize the means of production

[Anonymous No.14066042]

>>14059486
Yes, but absolutely free market Capitalism with no governments, not the Kike bullshit we have now.

[Anonymous No.14066055]

I used to be an ultra-radical Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (could also be called anti-revisionist Marxist for those in-the-know). I got heavy into the philosophical aspects of it. But I realized that communism is based on the ideal of all humans being equal in a certain way and deserving equal conditions, and I stopped valuing that ideal over time. Although humans are one species, we aren't all equal and inequality isn't a bad thing. Hierarchy isn't a bad thing. Suffering and struggle are part of existence.

[Anonymous No.14066129]

>>14065972
you're very naive.
The spectrum goes from full "Free Market" to "Full communism". Neither "truly" has been tried, because people fight over what system is used. In the history of "almost communism" it has led to genocide and mass starvation in 23 of 24 times, and a severely gimped economy 1/24 times.
The system of "almost" free market has led to understanding the very physical universe so well we could destroy the entire planet at a whim, and a massive technology increase allowing for a 6 billion population and allowing edgy teenagers to converse at lightspeed about how everything should be free and they don't have to work.

The inherent problem with a "cooperative" system, is in order to enforce it you have to give someone a central power. Then they just use that power to make everyone bend the knee and enrich themselves. The central authority decides "according to your needs", is about half a slice of bread per week.
The new dictator has seized your wheat fields, so trying to provide better bread service results in punishment.

Capitalism is just letting people decide what is valuable to them, and working for it. Companies compete to give you the best service.

In capitalism you will still find many people trying to enslave you (rent seekers). But at least in capitalism you have the freedom to work harder, be smarter, or otherwise be compensated more than your current situation.
The lack of that opportunity is the death of the soul, which is why it ends in mass death every time.

[Anonymous No.14066182]

>>14066129
>The inherent problem with a "cooperative" system, is in order to enforce it you have to give someone a central power.
only at large scale where the community can't effectively deal distributed sanctions anymore.

communism works pretty well under a certain population threshold especially well in survival situations for a small group.

[Anonymous No.14066192]

>>14066129

You don't have to give a central authority shit bud. The Mondragon Corporation itself being a federation of worker cooperatives proves that. As do other similar communities like the 600 community strong union Alliance in La Paz.

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/

Profit motiveated companies price fix and build monopoly and the state is an arm of their corruption. It's more profitable to build corrupt institutions that benefit you than it is to compete. See history for countless examples and the recent generic drug price fixing scandal for an example happening right now.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/13/722881642/states-sue-drugmakers-over-alleged-generic-price-fixing-scheme

Rent seeking is literally feudalism and if you defend it you might as well be a monarchist. Sharecropping and slave labour still happens too.

Also don't call me naive.

[Anonymous No.14066203]

>>14061838
>utility

[Anonymous No.14066245]

>>14059486
Capitalism is a meaningless word made-up by Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.14066279]

>>14066192
anyone shilling communism is naive. You have a death toll in the hundreds of millions and you still don't get that its a stupid idea.

and no one said that capitalism makes the universe like heaven with infinite resources. Price fixing can happen because it turns out selling millions of pills per day is hard to do and starting your own company is expensive.
on the other side it turns out paying $300k salaries for Scientists and doctors to create treatments that only affect 0.1% of the population (almost no sales) is difficult to achieve.
TEVA loses $3 billion per year. These companies struggle to find a way to fund research for treatments for people who would normally never have a chance at getting that.


if mondragon doesn't give anyone money, then it is a glorified fan club and i don't know why you're bringing it up

[Anonymous No.14066301]

>>14066037
>There exists literally no other way to make tools or machines to compete against the current capitalists.

NEVER GOING TO FUCKING MAKE IT.

Go back to /leftypol/ and talk about your garbage there.

[Anonymous No.14066309]

Yes, but not capitalism as extremist Americans obnoxiously promote.

[Anonymous No.14066363]

>>14064263
Subsistence hunter gathering

[Anonymous No.14066465]

>>14063545
>implying that government doesn't create or protect the possibility of almost every scenario in which you could possibly wind up having to choose between starvation and being an indebted slave
the sheer fact that we exist and can do anything is proof that a machine can, in fact, be made to do any menial task that must be done in order to sustain a human life, and thus, that we can use such machines to spend time focusing on and refining our higher, uniquely human traits. to be in favor of a democracy, no less one in which you vote to surrender yours, and everyone else's liberty to government in exchange for their *promise* of your protection or security on the backs of the people in society who have earned the most money through providing people with goods and services that they wanted and needed in the free market is to guarantee that your most capable individuals who can produce the most inconceivably, wildly enormous abundances of wealth will be discouraged from childhood to ever create or earn anything, and that your nation will be flooded with millions of people imported at their expense from collectivist-leaning populations that, as the government who had imported them knew beforehand, will vote for more of the same thing. to be against liberty in any way at all is to vehemently profess that you have no value, and that your people should be shamed and blasted into darkness for the rest of history.
you want to fight a meritocracy? you want to be a part of the increasing number of genetic dead ends that think that voting against a free market and competition in any way harms companies like amazon? good. go ahead and keep it up—suicide yourself. throw your, and the souls of any potential descendants you may have into the welfare state debt-trap of big government and centralized banking, and get the fuck out of the human gene pool. die, you pseudo-white remnant of the third world.

[Anonymous No.14066699]

>>14066465
You sound mad that unrestrained capitalism is an anti-white system.

[Anonymous No.14066759]

They are all the same

[Anonymous No.14066891]

>>14059486
We always tend to revert to it once we fail in every other philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14067037]

>>14066699
care to explain how on earth it could possibly be even a little bit that the system that allows people to pursue their ideas and dreams and earn money according to what they produce is bad for the race with the majority of the most productive, smartest, and creative people in the history of the world

[Anonymous No.14067116]

>>14067037
Maybe because Jews are actively controlling it and destroying everything with it if you actually looked around.

[Anonymous No.14067278]

>>14067037
It's not, the Jews are doing great with it.

[Anonymous No.14067816]

>>14064770
literally a dumb faggot, that's why the merchant does circles around you for a few thousand years.

Your ancestors begged for BIG JEWISH COCK from peasants to nobility, not only that but your biggest authoritarian figure was a jew and a faggot too.

[Anonymous No.14067828]

>>14065429
I think I know who the cuck is here.

[Anonymous No.14067990]

>>14066042
>tfw jewish but also YangGang
Anon, I

[Anonymous No.14068236]

>>14059486
>Is capitalism the best system for human nature?
Human nature is overrated. Thousands of years before capitalism all the thinkers understood that you needed to beat the shit out of people and keep them in line. The bourgeoisie have this need to keep the masses in check too.

[Anonymous No.14068311]

>>14067037
This brainlet couldn't hack in in Europe so he goes to some shit state school in America where people can't tell the difference between socialism and the state.

[Anonymous No.14068337]

>>14059486
From my experience and research as an economist, a mix of Capitalism and Social policies are the best at maintaining a functional society. ( quick example: If you are dying and there is a drug/service that can help you, it doesn't matter how much money you have you are willing to pay what ever amount to stay alive. Some products or services have inelastic prices that don't react well to changes in supply)
The fundamental problem that economic systems try to solve is how do we best allocate resources for our society ? Do we look at what can give us the best standard of life even if you do immoral things or do we take note and use our judgement and morality to regulate the markets. That is a fundamental question that doesn't have a lot of options. It's clear to me.

Would i like to day dream about a utopia when every thing is fair and everyone has equal opportunity and we make sure the unfortunate members of our society are well cared for and helped, I do! yet I know reality is no fair and It doesn't work like that.

Be awesome to each other !

[Anonymous No.14068375]

>Human nature
>in a species that thrives due through passing on knowledge from one generation to the next
>the behavior witnessed in human beings can be attributed to the natural world
>in a species that only exists within societies that control how they think
Anon, I

[Anonymous No.14068411]

>>14068337
liberty is the only moral choice you fucking commie

[Anonymous No.14068447]

>>14065429
Only idiots believe they are going to be the ones in charge, not "alphas".
Besides, there is always a bigger fish. Look at all those communist leaders that got DELETED every time Stalin felt an itch.

[Anonymous No.14068704]

>>14066279
>anyone shilling communism is naive. You have a death toll in the hundreds of millions and you still don't get that its a stupid idea.

Bolshevism, aka state capitalism (Lenin said it, admitted it, regarding the new economic policy) have a death toll of hundreds of million.
If you have a state, money, and exchange value it is not communism. Marx in the critique of the gotha program explicitly stated that superior communism would be stateless, without any central autority, and without exchange value. So no, USSR wasn't communism, at least according to Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.14068741]

>>14066301
Then what's stopping you from buying all that capital equipment then faggot?

[Anonymous No.14068742]

>>14068236
In civilization you need to beat the shit out of people and keep them in line. In the primitive tribe there was not such thing. Every serious study about primitive tribes find this: there was no hierarchy in the primitive tribe. Civilization only exist since the neolitic revolution (12000 years ago).

[Anonymous No.14068748]

>>14068411
Liberty of what exactly, to work for somebody like 95% of the people? Liberty to exchange value like a good drone of the exchanging value system? Liberty to be a cuck? Fuck this liberty. Fuck YOUR liberty.

[Anonymous No.14068756]

Yes, but we don't have real capitalism now.

We have central banking and government intervention in the economy.

[Anonymous No.14068765]

Capitalism has won. It’s beat communism and other systems because of one simple factor. It appeals to the greed and selfishness that is inherit in humans.

[Anonymous No.14068770]

>>14061315
This was the most socialist period in American history lmao

[Anonymous No.14068772]

>>14068411
Oh i didn't realize it was you your little piece of shit. You still haven't answered me about how labor (human work) isn't the source of all value. Little capitalist lackey.

[Anonymous No.14068787]

>>14068748
Exchange value and surplus value is marxist pseudoscience.
You have been brainwashed.

Taking over the means of production will not actually benefit the workers because they already consume 99% of the end product of production.
Owning the means doesn't change this.
Stop being a Connie.

[Anonymous No.14068789]

>>14068765
Greed and selfhishness that didn't exist from -200000 to -12000 of homo sapiens history.

Here, just read the abstract:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.698.9360&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.14068797]

>>14066203
Anime is capitalist. :)

[Anonymous No.14068798]

>>14068787
If surplus value is pseudo-science, of is profit made?

Does a capitalism magically invest 100, and gain 120, does a capitalist have magical power?

No, the 20 between 100 and 120 are value created by labor, non paid value, non paid to the worker, aka surplus value.

[Anonymous No.14068817]

>>14068789
>self interest is a social construct
No it's not what the fuck

Humans back then were just as greedy, they were just more tribal out of necessity.
You saw the same 10 people for the vast majority of your life.

[Anonymous No.14068837]

>>14068772
>>14064489

[Anonymous No.14068839]

>>14068798
>Does a capitalism magically invest 100, and gain 120,
By planning the emergent structure of production to increase economic production.
Profits are mostly saved(or invested) which increases the value of currency, meaning the working class can consume more.

Tell me this, if the working class consumes 99% of the end product of what they produce, how does taking over the means of production allow them to consume more resources?
They're already consuming virtually everything they produce.

Please stop being a marxist, it's complete garbage and is ruining your life.

[Anonymous No.14068853]

>>14068817
>No it's not what the fuck
>Humans back then were just as greedy, they were just more tribal out of necessity.
>You saw the same 10 people for the vast majority of your life.

You have no clue, absolutely no clue, about how did homo sapiens live before civlization. Advices for your knowledge, start to watch the good movie Apocalypto, by Mel Gibson. Then watch on youtube documentaries about Australian aboriginal. Then read some of the many, many papers written by universities about primitive tribes.

[Anonymous No.14068855]

>>14068411
Imagine being an ancap sperg in 2019

[Anonymous No.14068865]

>>14068853
gosh, you're a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.14068866]

>>14068798
>No, the 20 between 100 and 120 are value created by labor, non paid value, non paid to the worker, aka surplus value.
Kek, also if the capitalists paid the workers this extra 20 they are magically owed, the workers would still be buying the same supply of resources.
Either prices would increase substantially or massive shortages would arise.
The workers already get what they produce, silly. They would be in the same position they were before.

You don't understand what money is.

[Anonymous No.14068872]

>>14068855
>milton friedman is ancap

[Anonymous No.14068876]

>>14059486
Yes

[Anonymous No.14068877]

>>14068855
>friedman was an ancap
This is what fedora tipping marxists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.14068901]

>>14068872
>>14068877
No one was talking about Friedman you illiterate retards.

[Anonymous No.14068904]

>>14068853
Primitive tribes were extremely small and were mostly families, we have this today and it doesn't chance the fact that humans are self interested. They still had a pecking order for distribution of resources, individuals in the tribes always wanted more.
Also they were extremely selfish against OTHER TRIBES, weren't they?

Also these tribes lived in absolute poverty for a reason.

[Anonymous No.14068907]

>>14068901
>damage control

[Anonymous No.14068908]

>>14068901
You literally replied to a picture of Friedman you dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.14068928]

Imaging not supporting free markets.

Imaging being a central bank bootlicker.

Imagine supporting economic stagnation.

Why?

[Anonymous No.14068931]

>>14068839
>By planning the emergent structure of production to increase economic production.
Profits are mostly saved(or invested) which increases the value of currency, meaning the working class can consume more.

Okay you are more intelligent than hl6GNVBg. We can have a discussion.

It is true that profit are mostly saved, and re-invested. However, that doesn't mean that the capitalist doesn't take labor done, and profit made, by the worker, and give it to himself.

Necessary labor is the labor made by the worker to renew their living conditions. Surplus labor is the work made by the workers in excess of necessary labor, and given to the capitalst. Since, like you said, in a capitalist economy, most profit is reinvested or saved, in the case were the workers were owning the mode of production, and to attain the same level of production, workers would have to work more, in order to compensate for the surplus labor reinvested or accumulated by the capitalist in a capitalistic economy. In other terms, in a system were the owners of the means of production were the worker, they would have to work more, do more necessary labor, in order to have the same level of production. However, that doesn't mean that the capitalist, in a capitalistic economy once he re-invest or accumulate for the company part of the profit he took from the worker, take for himself a substantial part of the profit, thus literrally living on the work of others. How do you think Rothschild, Rockfeller, Morgan, Schiff, Warburg, and all the satanist pieces of shit obtained their disgusting wealth? By taking the accumulated surplus labor of millions of workers, during litterally centuries. Of course, they re-invested a lot of it, perhaps even the majority of what they took, but what they took still is a gigantic wealth, litterally taken of the sweat and blood of the workers.

[Anonymous No.14068933]

>>14068908
>if a poster uses a picture I must be replying to the picture and not the person
It must suck having low IQ.

>>14068907
>>damage control
What damage?

[Anonymous No.14068947]

>>14068928
Imagine supporting capitalism when you don't own any capital.

[Anonymous No.14068948]

>>14068933
where did I say I'm ancap?

>What damage?
you outing yourself as moron

[Anonymous No.14068961]

>>14068947
Imagine supporting anything depending on your personal circumstances.
There is something called "values", cunt.

[Anonymous No.14069001]

>>14068947
Capitalism will have it's lackeys and apologists till the end.
hl6GNVg identify himself to these piece of shit economists. He thinks he is part, of them, part of the tribe, part of the elite, the cool guys. When in fact i'm sure he is just a little lackey, or an inheritard.

He will say that i identify myself to Marx, which i'll say yes. I identify myself to a guy who wanted to free humanity of the obligation to sell it's labor force to ruthless capitalists in order to survive. A guy who understood that exchange value was the cause of all our alienation. And that the state is just an emanation of the capital, thus is has to disappear.

[Anonymous No.14069012]

>>14069001
>hl6GNVg

lol, go back to r e d d i t

[Anonymous No.14069017]

>>14068931
>However, that doesn't mean that the capitalist doesn't take labor done, and profit made, by the worker, and give it to himself.
But he doesn't.
If the capitalists only consume an extremely tiny portion of resources, and the working class consumes virtually everything, this means that the workers are getting what they produce.
The capitalist is just a person that INCREASES the productivity of labour by combing land, labour and capital to it's most productive uses.
Without the capitalists, the workers have nothing.
Vice versa applies too, but my point is that the capitalist is more important than the workers in this situation, we've had workers since all human history, it's only when capitalists have come along has economic production truly exploded.

>Necessary labor
Another made up marxist concept that has nothing to do with reality.
There's no such thing as necessary labour.

>Surplus labor
See above.

>In other terms, in a system were the owners of the means of production were the worker, they would have to work more, do more necessary labor, in order to have the same level of production.
Exactly, taking over the means of production doesn't benefit the working class.

>thus literrally living on the work of others
Hes's not living on the work of others, he's living on an extremely tiny portion of the wage he is paid by doing the WORK of planning the emergent structure of production.

>How do you think Rothschild, Rockfeller, Morgan, Schiff, Warburg, and all the satanist pieces of shit obtained their disgusting wealth?
Central banking and government intervention, the same bullshit marxists support.

>y taking the accumulated surplus labor of millions of workers
How is this possible?
If during this time, they gave ALL of their money to the working class, the working class wouldn't be able to by ANYTHING MORE than they already did.
You make no sense.

>litterally taken of the sweat and blood of the workers.
But it amounts to zero resources lol

[Anonymous No.14069029]

>>14063002
If you had infinite labor, the limiting factors would instead turn to resources, such as raw materials and time, or even social/cultural zeitgeist.

Labor is the main source of value for most products in this point of history, but that's not what LVT claims, and that's not what arguments that rely on LVT rely on.

[Anonymous No.14069035]

>>14068947
>Imagine supporting capitalism when you don't own any capital.
This is the best reason TO support capitalism.
As a worker, your living standards dramatically increase by allowing capitalists to plan the structure of production.
Even if the working class took all of their wealth and went to spend it, it wouldn't mean they would be able to consume more.
The working class already consumes 99% of all consumer goods in the economy.

Why would you want to own capital and be forced to do all the hard work of maintaining capital when you could just work some job instead?

[Anonymous No.14069048]

>>14069001
>hl6GNVg identify himself to these piece of shit economists. He thinks he is part, of them, part of the tribe, part of the elite, the cool guys. When in fact i'm sure he is just a little lackey, or an inheritard.
This is so pathetic.
You're so stupid and don't even know it.

Do you not understand that capitalism is both extremely beneficial for both the worker and the capitalist.
Far better than any alternative system.

>hurrr why would you support this system that massively benefits you instead of this one that enslaves you and your productive work

come on now desu

>wanted to free humanity of the obligation to sell it's labor force to ruthless capitalists in order to survive
marxists have done nothing but enslave humanity
marxists don't even accept human instincts as true, it's a fucking death cult that denies basic economics, science and logic

>alienation
TOP KEK
This one makes me laugh the most.

[Anonymous No.14069059]

>>14069035
>As a worker, your living standards dramatically increase by allowing capitalists to plan the structure of production.

noooo, don't tell them about how people vote with their feet and how it was capitalism that heaved the majority of the world out of dire poverty and how the western worker nowadays is richer than the lords and kings of old. (in strict opposition to karl marx "scientific" prediction).

seriously: don't. they will only try to further deny reality with WALLS OF TEXT.

[Anonymous No.14069062]

>>14069035
>Why would you want to own capital and be forced to do all the hard work of maintaining capital when you could just work some job instead?
So that profit could be distributed to the workers, while using a portion of that profit to pay a democratically chosen person to manage that capital for them. This way, if that person managing the capital does a shit job they can be voted out, giving workers a choice, reducing exploitation.

[Anonymous No.14069067]

>>14069017
Ok, in your point of view, you consider organization of production done by the capitalist a kind of work, thus it is legit for him to take part of the profit created by the workers.

Well, in this case, why is the separation in society between two classes (workers, capitalists), even necessary? In any case, i could understand if the profits taken were somehow reasonable. However, peopole like
Bill gates, Steeve jobs, Rockfeller, etc... Do you think the share they've taken of production is fair? Absolutely not. Many people, computer scientist, on 4chan, understand that they created millions of value for the company they are working for, but they are paid peanuts. They created millions in a few years of work, but are paid around 120k a year. That's theft of worforce.

>Central banking and government intervention, the same bullshit marxists support.

Absolutely not. Karl Marx was for the abolition of money, exchange value, the state, delegation of power. It is clear in his 1875 book, critique of the Gotha programm.

[Anonymous No.14069068]

Mas have done such harm to humanity.
All of these people brainwashed by his ideology.
It's just so sad.
They think they're fighting this great evil, they they are the evil themselves.
They refuse to question their own ideology even when there are glaring holes in it.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe all human action is the result of economic forces.
Imagine DENYING human biological/genetic instincts.

[Anonymous No.14069084]

>>14069062
>So that profit could be distributed to the workers
But I already debunked this.
If the workers received this profit, it would just cause massive price increases or shortages.
If the workers are already consuming 99% of all consumer goods, then them getting all of the profit from firms will not magically allow them to buy MORE than what exists in the economy.

>democratically chosen
Democracy is authoritarianism and must be abolished.

>if that person managing the capital does a shit job they can be voted out
If the person managing capital does a shit job, they lose money or go bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.14069087]

>>14069062
you know workers are allowed to buy stock?

[Anonymous No.14069092]

>>14069059
>western worker nowadays is richer than the lords and kings of old

Completely false. Productivity massively increased since 150 years, however, wages increase far more slowly than productivity. Thus, people are relatively poorer than 150 year ago. Rich and poor are not a subjective concept. Productivity increase gave us a living standard, which by the way is not thanks to capitalists, but mostly thanks to workers, however, capitalist take a greater part of profit made than 150 years ago. Look at the picture in order to understand what i mean.

[Anonymous No.14069110]

>>14069067
>you consider organization of production done by the capitalist a kind of work
Of course it's fucking work, retard.
Do you think rich people can just magic more money into existence and don't have to work their asses off to start and maintain a business?

>Well, in this case, why is the separation in society between two classes (workers, capitalists), even necessary?
It's just what naturally was created as a result of economic freedom and liberty.

>Do you think the share they've taken of production is fair?
Absolutely.

>understand that they created millions of value for the company they are working for
Then why didn't they create their own firms from scratch instead?
Maybe they didn't want to because working for these companies and coasting was an easier life choice? Ever think of that?
Many times, workers from companies like this DO quit their jobs and start their own companies.

>That's theft of worforce.
Wrong, it's a voluntary choice that benefits the workers far more than the capitalists.

>Karl Marx was for the abolition of money, exchange value, the state, delegation of power. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You people are such manipulative liars.
Marx supported central banking, a strong state and currency of control of said state.
Read the planks.
He claimed by that creating the most authoritarian state in existence the state will magically wither away.
He was either extremely delusional or an manipulative authoritarian psychopath.
I say the latter.

[Anonymous No.14069111]

>>14069084
>If the workers received this profit, it would just cause massive price increases or shortages.
That's not how inflation works. Shortages will quickly be resolved with a new expected demand.
>If the workers are already consuming 99% of all consumer goods, then them getting all of the profit from firms will not magically allow them to buy MORE than what exists in the economy.
No but it'll allow the consumer goods sector to grow.
>If the person managing capital does a shit job, they lose money or go bankrupt.
Yes except "doing a shit job" in that case doesn't include "committing wage theft" or "being overpaid" or "causing negative externalities" or "treating employees like shit", while it does when being voted in.
>>14069087
You think they'll get a meaningful amount of ownership when most can't afford a $500 emergency? lmao

[Anonymous No.14069113]

The best system is one that doesn't make me homeless, so it's not whatever we have in sweden

[Anonymous No.14069114]

>>14069092
Fucking retard

[Anonymous No.14069115]

>>14069068
Look, you seem smart. I think you can be saved. Just 5 years ago, i thought Karl Marx was part of some free-mason plot, illuminati plot. First time i heard someone talk about Marx, i was pissed. I thought it was trying to confuse us. Then i rewatched the videos, and started to think it make some sense, finally, i watched the 3 hour video a third time, and understood that it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14069119]

>>14069092
oh, fuck off with your delusional bullshit. any fuckhead owning a fridge far surpasses the living standards of 13th century leaders. that's why I don't read your posts anymore, you're not only full of shit, your ideologically infested and delusional, talking of marx as a saint. you know he was a grumpy racist with bad hygiene, a bad temper and an inability to manage money? that fucker has never seen a factory from the inside

[Anonymous No.14069120]

>>14069068
*marx

>>14069092
TOP KEK
Why do you brainlets keep posting this graph that only proves the free market side correct?
Giving central banks total power over our economy has resulted in stagnation of wages and reductions in living standards.
You're literally printing trillions of dollars and giving it to wall street for doing nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.14069130]

>>14059486

my safe space

[Anonymous No.14069156]

>>14069111
>That's not how inflation works.
That's exactly how inflation works.

>Shortages will quickly be resolved with a new expected demand.
LMAO
This means the workers will have to work a lot longer and a lot harder to meet this new demand, also the technology and supply of productive capital would have to increase ginormously.
You cannot just magically massively increase demand and expect the supply to just appear overnight.
The factories, machines, firms etc aren't productive enough to supply that new demand.
To meet this new demand, economic production would have to catch up.

This is the same reason hyperinflation exists, you can't just print a fuckton of money and expect the supply to magically catch up.

>but it'll allow the consumer goods sector to grow.
How? The consumer goods sector is already huge.
Also the consumer goods sector is DEPENDENT ON the capital goods sector. You can't just suppress the capital goods sector and expect the consumer goods sector not to be destroyed.
This is how many central bank created bubbles occur.

>"committing wage theft"
This isn't real because surplus value isn't real.

>"being overpaid"
Literally your opinion man.

>"causing negative externalities"
In a free market, they would be sued.
Lets not get into that though, this conversation is already complex enough.

[Anonymous No.14069158]

>>14069110
>You people are such manipulative liars.
>Marx supported central banking, a strong state and currency of control of said state.
>Read the planks.
>He claimed by that creating the most authoritarian state in existence the state will magically wither away.
>He was either extremely delusional or an manipulative authoritarian psychopath.


Marx NEVER supported central banking. He was CLEARLY in favor of the abolition of state in the critique of the Gotha program.

Here's a link. Read the abstract.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/jglobfaul.4.2.0095?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Anonymous No.14069169]

>>14069119
Yes you piece of shit, a fuckhead like you own a fridge, because with technology, we enhanced productivity to the point were a single worker can build 150 fridges a day when 100 years ago, he could only built 1 fridge. However, if the productivity evolved 150 time more, the wage didn't evolve 150 time more. Two single digit IQ lackey of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14069171]

>>14069115
>I think you can be saved.
This is hilarious.
A fuckton of libertarians used to be marxists.
It's never the other way around.
Marxism is a pseudoscientific death cult that denies logic, economics and human biology.
You people don't even accept human biological instincts and instead believe all human action is the result of economic forces.
This is INSANE.

You might be able to be saved but it would require you to actually question your own ideology for once.

> i thought Karl Marx was part of some free-mason plot, illuminati plot.
No, he was just a delusional moron or a manipulative psychopath.

Either way, you're 100% wrong and can't refute anything I'm saying.
Taking over the means of production will not benefit the working class.

[Anonymous No.14069185]

>>14069111
>You think they'll get a meaningful amount of ownership when most can't afford a $500 emergency? lmao

again, socialists 0 : reality 1


>Average Salary Information for US Workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the first quarter of 2019 was $905 per week or $47,060 per year for a 40-hour workweek

> meaningful amount

so what percentage do you think should a star bucks barista own of star bucks?

[Anonymous No.14069187]

>>14069120
>Why do you brainlets keep posting this graph that only proves the free market side correct?
>Giving central banks total power over our economy has resulted in stagnation of wages and reductions in living standards.
>You're literally printing trillions of dollars and giving it to wall street for doing nothing at all.


You were smart, now you become irrational. I'm in favor of abolition of money, how can i support central banks?

[Anonymous No.14069189]

>>14069158
>Marx NEVER supported central banking.

Why do you continue to lie?

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

This is extremely similar to leninism.

[Anonymous No.14069202]

>>14069169
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dude you actually fucking believe the productive capacity of the economy is enough to where a single worker can buy 150 fridges on a single day of work.

HOLY FUCK MARXISTS ARE ACTUALLY THIS STUPID

Do you know what it would take to justify that level of consumption?
A massive alien tech level of economic production, like 150 planet earth's level of production, that or, almost complete automation.

The working class already consume 99% of ALL consumer goods in the economy.
Where are this single worker's 150 fridges.

Kill yourself you dishonest fuck.

[Anonymous No.14069203]

>>14069156
>That's exactly how inflation works.
The prices of everything can never increase without adding more of the currency. All that can happen is money being reallocated to different sectors of the economy.
>This means the workers will have to work a lot longer and a lot harder to meet this new demand
Or more could get employed.
>You cannot just magically massively increase demand
Removing capitalists and redistributing the profit won't massively increase demand, it'd probably end up being only a few percentage points.
>This is the same reason hyperinflation exists, you can't just print a fuckton of money and expect the supply to magically catch up.
How is reallocating money printing money?
>You can't just suppress the capital goods sector
Who said it'd be suppressed and not grow too?
>This isn't real because surplus value isn't real.
I don't mean that kind of wage theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft
>Literally your opinion man.
For various reasons, the current system gives them bargaining power way further than their unique skillset.
>>14069185
>Average Salary Information for US Workers
Why are you citing this and not the majority of US workers being unable to afford a $500 emergency?
>so what percentage do you think should a star bucks barista own of star bucks?
1/number of employees*100 %

[Anonymous No.14069204]

>>14069189
In 1848, Marx was still a child. He was 30 fucking years old. Communist manifesto is his childhood book.

In his last book, Critique of the gotha programm, and also, in his book the civil war in france, he is clearly anti-statist. In critique of the gotha program, he is for the abolition of money. I swear to you just read the books.

[Anonymous No.14069209]

>>14069187
>You were smart, now you become irrational.
Debunking your graph by actually explaining it is irrational?

>I'm in favor of abolition of money, how can i support central banks?
First off, violently abolishing money is extremely authoritarian. People like using money and it benefits them.
Secondly marx supported central banking.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Anonymous No.14069212]

>>14069202
It was just a subjective example. Productivity increase a lot. However, wages didn't increase proportionally. Thus people have the impression they got richer, when in fact their living standards increase, but they are objectively poorer.

[Anonymous No.14069215]

>>14069169
>Two single digit IQ lackey of capitalism.

rich coming from someone who forgets the drop in the price of fridges (and increase of quality). why do you think waged can not grow with productivity? hmm? what are wages paid from? hmmm? your increase in productivity was given back to the working class in form of them being able to afford a fucking fridge:

>The first ever electric refrigerator was invented by General Electric in 1927, costing each eager homeowner around $520 (that's over $7000 in today's money!).

> In 1920, the Internal Revenue Service reports, the average income was $3,269.40 per year.


(the working class hates you commie scum for a reason: you keep them poor)

[Anonymous No.14069239]

>>14069215
You still don't understand. Productivity increase faster than wages. Thus a greater part of profit is taken by the capitalist now than 150 years ago. If productivity increase faster than wages, it means the profit taken by the capitalist it greater now than 150 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14069244]

>>14069203
>The prices of everything can never increase without adding more of the currency.
This isn't true at all.
What if a massive asteroid or disease wipes out half the people and factories?
Prices would skyrocket.
OR, what if the capitalists all gave their money(which was saved) to the working class and the working class went to spend that money when the resources to justify this new spending didn't exist? Prices would skyrocket.
You're an economic illiterate, these are basic concepts.
>Or more could get employed.
There would have to be a massive amount of new capital created to justify this new hiring.
>Removing capitalists and redistributing the profit won't massively increase demand
Of course it would.
Money that is previously saved is now being spent.
This is literally demand.
>it'd probably end up being only a few percentage points.
KEK
So according to you brainlets, the capitalists massively hoard almost all wealth in the economy, and giving all of this wealth to people to spend, wouldn't massively increase the price level?
lol
>How is reallocating money printing money?
I never said it was.
I said it would have a similar effect on the economy, increasing demand without increasing supply.
>Who said it'd be suppressed and not grow too?
Because if you artificially increase the consumer goods sector it suppresses capital sector.
Land, capital and labour are scarce.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft
Illegal in a free market, this is fraud.
>the current system gives them bargaining power way further than their unique skillset.
Literally your opinion man.

[Anonymous No.14069247]

>>14069203
>Why are you citing this and not the majority of US workers being unable to afford a $500 emergency?

because it's less than a week's worth. you can easily save 500 bucks on that salary. I lived on far less for several years and was able to save on the side (even invested in etfs)

>1/number of employees*100 %

so star bucks is supposed to never employ anyone else? what about the guy that started it and risked all his savings? is he supposed to get nothing because he hired someone to do a job? is a plumber now supposed to own part of my house because I hired him to fix the plumbing? Did it ever cross your mind that workers get compensated through their wage and have no further claims? THEY CAN START A BUSINESS THEMSELVES IF THEY SO DESIRE THE EXTRA WORK AND THE RISK.

[Anonymous No.14069253]

>>14069204
>30 years old is a child
This is getting rather pathetic.
Marx believed in a massive state that would somehow wither away.

>he is for the abolition of money
How in the world is he going to do this without a state authority enforcing this?

Even in anarchism people use money.

[Anonymous No.14069266]

>>14069239
>Productivity increase faster than wages
so what? if you don't like your wage, work somewhere else or for yourself. nobody owes you crap.

>t means the profit taken by the capitalist it greater now than 150 years ago.

good for them. they deserve it for providing me goods and services that far exceed my expectations.

[Anonymous No.14069270]

>>14069212
>It was just a subjective example.
Which applies in general to the concepts we are talking about here.
It doesn't make sense if you replace the fridgemaker with any other worker.

>Productivity increase a lot. However, wages didn't increase proportionally.
Productivity increased a fuckton from the 1800s until 1970 and living standards and real wages for workers DID increase a fuckton since then.
This is why marxists during this time were all butthurt over the fact capitalism was actually increasing real wages.

I already posted explanation as to why wages have stagnated since the 70s.
Central banking and gov intervention has resulted in stagnation of BOTH productivity and wages.

[Anonymous No.14069281]

>>14069253
>Marx believed in a massive state that would somehow wither away.

regardless of his beliefs it is a consequence of his demands. there's no way around it.

[Anonymous No.14069282]

>>14069239
>Thus a greater part of profit is taken by the capitalist now than 150 years ago.
Then why have real wages significantly increased since 150 years ago?

Hmmm......

Why have working hours significantly dropped since then(all before the government put in it's useless workweek laws)

[Anonymous No.14069303]

Welp.
I gotta go now guys.

It's been great.
I hope this marxist kid learned something today.
Taking over the means of production will not benefit the working class because they already consume 99% of all consumer goods and services.

Increasing the amount of goods and services the workers consume can only happen by increasing economic production(more factories, machines, more efficient technology, more automation etc)
It's literally the only way, and people stopping it's path are the ones making you poorer.

[Anonymous No.14069316]

>>14069303
godspeed, anon.

[Anonymous No.14069324]

>>14069215
Let's take a SUBJECTIVE example.

Factory in 1900 produce 1 frige a day, each fridge cost $1000 for the company to build. The wages are $800. The fridge is sold $1200, thus profit is $200.

Factory in 2019 produce 300 fridge a day. Each fride cost $80 to build for the company. Fridges are sold 200. Wages cost $1400. Profit 300*200=60000.

Wages didn't increase proportionally to productivity. Workers were cucked.

[Anonymous No.14069329]

>>14069029
Bumping this. LTV can't explain why wine gains value with no additional labor just by sitting around.
>>14069244
Alright I can't argue against this shit any more, I tried. But even though wage theft is fraud it's really hard to eliminate in a free market with capitalists owning the means of production; it's too expensive for workers at small businesses to sue over it, and most of it is done by smaller businesses anyway.
>>14069247
>because it's less than a week's worth. you can easily save 500 bucks on that salary
People have living expenses.
>I lived on far less for several years
anecdotelol
>so star bucks is supposed to never employ anyone else?
They're meant to scale their shares with number of employees. When they hire more workers, every old worker's voting power goes down slightly.
>what about the guy that started it and risked all his savings?
The risk should have been the state's burden from the start, not that dude's
>is a plumber now supposed to own part of my house because I hired him to fix the plumbing?
Well the house would be collectively owned, so he'd already own part of the house.
>THEY CAN START A BUSINESS THEMSELVES IF THEY SO DESIRE THE EXTRA WORK AND THE RISK.
They have much less ability to do this than capitalists due to generational wealth. They have less ability to do this because of how they were born. Even if a working class person can start a small business if it goes down under they're fucked, while a richer person would be able to keep on trying.

[Anonymous No.14069333]

>>14060677
>The "true" state of the universe is 'ancap' by virtue of the fact that randomness guarantees "inequality," and organized energy/life always min/maxes survival prospects against randomness according to inborn incentives in response to externally imposed logic systems. any local point of reference that is better described with terms like socialism, tribalism etc a. is still motivated out of the "true" anarchic primordial state b. exists to astute observers only as a brief microcosmic deviation from the "true state" c. is still governed by "true state" dynamics even though myopia convinces most people otherwise.

are you... an evolutionary ancap?

also your statement is dumb and gay, the true state of the universe is the current state of the universe because it literally does not give 2 flying fucks about how we distribute our pea pods on this dustmote. and the current state is what all the natural forces have lead us to.

we have been evolutionarily bred towards this point, the current state is the natural state and anyone claiming it otherwise is using your inflated importance to what is deemed "natural" to push his agenda.

[Anonymous No.14069339]

>>14069303
>they already consume 99% of all consumer goods and services.
Yet the profit from this consumption flows to the upper classes. That's the point tardo

[Anonymous No.14069343]

>>14069253
>Marx believed in a massive state that would somehow wither away.

To be honnest, yes, a massive state run by the workers, dictatoship of the proletariat exerting power against the capitalistic class. Then the state would QUICKLY disappear according to Marx.

[Anonymous No.14069350]

>history of economy ITT
learn something that isn't pure outdated wankery

[Anonymous No.14069365]

>>14069324

are you fucking kidding me? I already posted the right numbers for the 1920s. Yours aren't nowhere close. HOW DO YOU PROVE ANYTHING WITH FANTASY NUMBERS YOU JUST MADE UP? NEVER TALK TO ME AGAIN YOU MORON.

[Anonymous No.14069367]

>>14061255
not even a socialfag, just a passer by but...

what about all the times capitalism failed?

i mean theres a reason people chose socialism over capitalism and overthrew the government. Even if you say "those people were dumb and uneducated, didn't know how good they had it, were deluded or tricked, or god knows what.

that still means capitalism failed, since it failed to keep the system together.

[Anonymous No.14069370]

>>14069303
>Increasing the amount of goods and services the workers consume can only happen by increasing economic production(more factories, machines, more efficient technology, more automation etc)
>It's literally the only way, and people stopping it's path are the ones making you poorer.


Until the tendency of the rate of profit to fall kicks in and the entire system collapses.

[Anonymous No.14069390]

>>14062585

Assuming this works perfectly.

who controls this system? who determines what exactly is 4 million person years to make?

What if that person or organisation wants to cream off the top so they can for example have bigger military expenditures?

Even if that works, you have built a road to a totalitarian regime. And this is not coming from a capitalismfag.

[Anonymous No.14069391]

>>14069329
>People have living expenses.

and I don't? Learn money management.

>anecdotelol

exactly, and still it makes me know the situation very well.

>The risk should have been the state's burden from the start

right because the state thinks "hmm, that corner. I bet people swould be much more comfy if there was a star bucks" . You're such a delusional idiot. Sorry, man. But ... you really do not know shit about how the world works.

>They have much less ability to do this than capitalists due to generational wealth

I started two despite coming from a immigrant background. What now? Actually fun fact: in most western countries it's immigrants who start the most businesses. You don't think someone new to the country who has left behind his old life has any generational wealth, do you? Ah, you know what? YOU KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE WORLD AND IT SHOWS
You honestly just eradicated human ingenuity and you do not even know it.

>Well the house would be collectively owned,

yeah, robbing people is such a moral act.

[Anonymous No.14069394]

>>14069365
Yes you piece of shit, your fridge in the 1920s costed $7000, but i don't know how much fridge the company made and how much workers it employed so i can't calculate the rate of profit in this particular case.

Give me the numbers of fridge produced, the cost of the machinery in the factory producing the fridges, the cost of labor in this factory, and numbers about a company producing fridges of an equal quality today, and i will crush you by prooving you that the company today make way more profit today than the company producing these fridges in the 1920s. More profit, and less relative wages.

[Anonymous No.14069409]

>>14069394
kill yourself you pathetic fuck. if you want numbers, look them up and don't make them up. never talk to me again, you child.

[Anonymous No.14069428]

>>14059486
It's the one we deserve.

[Anonymous No.14069429]

>>14069367
Capitalism WILL fail in the end. Tendency of the rate of profit to fall. It's inevitable. And all these POS glorifying the capitalist mode of production will look very dumb, and very sorry, when it happens. They will said "we didn't know, it wasn't supposed to happen like that". When in fact the real reason is that they choose this system. In internet era, eveybody can find the intellectual material. You can order "Das Kapital", for $20 buck on the internet. They won't have any excuses.

[Anonymous No.14069440]

>>14069409
Productivity increased, profit increased, but wages didn't increased proportionally. Thus workers were cucked. You are a piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14069442]

>>14069391
>and I don't? Learn money management.
>exactly, and still it makes me know the situation very well.
Different people have different living expenses for various reasons. Some people have families, medical expenses, live in different areas, have different transport expenses, or need to pay for entertainment to remain productive and not off themselves.
>right because the state thinks "hmm, that corner. I bet people swould be much more comfy if there was a star bucks" . You're such a delusional idiot. Sorry, man. But ... you really do not know shit about how the world works.
No, someone comes to the state and says "I think there should be a Starbucks here, here's some financial data that shows how successful Starbucks is in other areas, here's some market data that shows a lack of coffee shops around here and a desire for more..." etc.
>Actually fun fact: in most western countries it's immigrants who start the most businesses. You don't think someone new to the country who has left behind his old life has any generational wealth, do you?
Well, generally wealthier people are the ones immigrating to western countries, because it costs money to actually travel over there.
>yeah, robbing people is such a moral act.
Robbing people once to end exploitation at the threat of death forever? Quite a lot of people consider actions like that moral. Also, did you have any problem with the French Revolution?

[Anonymous No.14069443]

>CAPITALISM WILL FAIL YOU GUYS

[Anonymous No.14069450]

>>14069429
Until we reach post-scarcity there will always be room for profit to grow. New people are born every day.

[Anonymous No.14069457]

>>14059486
Today is not the day I argue with trolls.
I am going to masturbate and then go to sleep. Goodnight 4chan!

[Anonymous No.14069458]

>>14059486
Of course not. But we’re naturalized it after the fact, so now we can easier imagine the world being invaded by aliens than imagine an alternative to capitalism.

Both right-wing and left-wing thinkers used to be critical of capitalism as a system in the early 1900s — from Spengler to Luxemburg. Today, somehow capitalism has become like our God. And we have forgotten that it us who create social systems, not the other way around. We are not beasts led by our most primal instincts, but human beings. We are not beholden to capitalism. We created it, and can change it as we please.

t. Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher

[Anonymous No.14069466]

>>14069443
I can post just as many picture of ‘capitalist’ slums, you know. Quite easy. Actually, bread lines first emerged in America during the Great Depression.

[Anonymous No.14069471]

>>14069466
Difference is, you can't post communist non-slums unless they belong to the party leaders

[Anonymous No.14069488]

>>14069442
>Different people have different living expenses for various reasons. Some people have families, medical expenses, live in different areas, have different transport expenses, or need to pay for entertainment to remain productive and not off themselves.

and yet they all can strife to improve their situation by making changes.

>someone comes to the state and says

erm, how about you try that first before prescribing this "idea" as a solution.

>Well, generally wealthier people are the ones immigrating to western countries,

you're kidding me, right? really, you believe vietnamese boat people were somehow wealthy when they arrived in the us? how about they gazillion chinese emigrates to hong kong prior to 1990? do you think those were somehow "wealthy elites"? how about the cubans in florida? how about the gazillions of eastern europeans in western europe? what about poos and pakis? Does any of these groups strike you as particularly privileged? How old are you? 8?

>Robbing people once to end exploitation at the threat of death forever?

you know karl menger?

>Menger used his subjective theory of value to arrive at what he considered one of the most powerful insights in economics: both sides gain from exchange.

when both sides gain, there is no exploitation. only angry children crying for violent takeover. just think about why a worker takes on worker despite there not being a gun held to his head. You have to be a very special kind of dumb to cry "exploitation" after voluntarily agreeing to something.

[Anonymous No.14069493]

>>14068787
Surplus value is a pretty obvious concept, it’s just called capital reinvestment in neoliberal speak. It’s the whole basis of the profit motive. It’s how much ‘value added’ each laborer brings.

Exchange value is just the price the consumer sees. Nothing that crazy.

Use-value is the qualifiable ‘real value’ from a given commodity.

It’s time to read Marx, and not just Prager U’s cliffnotes on the Communist Manifesto for 2-digit IQ retards

[Anonymous No.14069496]

>>14069440
never talk to me again, you child.

[Anonymous No.14069508]

>>14069466
>Actually, bread lines first emerged in America during the Great Depression.

you wanna know what happened in russia during that time?

[Anonymous No.14069513]

>>14069471
That’s actually pretty wrong, my entire family would disagree. Most major cities had pretty low crime and living standards comparable to the avg American city during the 1960s and 1970s. My dad, for example, had a great childhood growing up in Belgrade.

[Anonymous No.14069530]

>>14069450
Nop. Profit cannot grow indefinitively because the price of machinery increase faster than the rate of surplus value. It's a rather complicated theory but it very well may be true, and empirical data (graphs) about the profit rate since 1850 tends to proove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM

[Anonymous No.14069535]

>>14069508
Yes, because of a multi-front war between various factions. Also, an Allied invasion on the Eastern front which brought 10s of thousands of foriegn strategists to aid the White Army.

To compare a society in a Civil War to another society not admisdt a war is a nonsensical comparison. Why don’t we compare France in 1862 to the U.S in 1862? Or maybe Germany in 1945 to Switzerland in 1945? I can make retarded, ahistorical comparisons too. It’s easy.

[Anonymous No.14069536]

>>14069513
> Most major cities had pretty low crime and living standards comparable to the avg American city during the 1960s and 1970s. My dad, for example, had a great childhood growing up in Belgrade.

And as a child I was licking the walls of our apartment in poland because I had a calcium deficiency and there was no milk in the whole of the country. My mother found that out at the hospital where half the children of Gdansk were congregated with similar problems. We were by the way privileged.

[Anonymous No.14069546]

>>14069530
Tendency of the rate of profit to fall — probably the single greatest Marxist concept which BTFOs conservicucks every time.

[Anonymous No.14069554]

>>14069496
Avoiding debate. That's says a lot about capitalism apologists.

[Anonymous No.14069556]

>>14069488
>and yet they all can strife to improve their situation by making changes.
Sure? That doesn't mean that all of them can afford to buy a controlling share in their company.
>erm, how about you try that first before prescribing this "idea" as a solution.
Of course the system's not in place now dipshit, the US isn't a socialist nation. Socialists suggest for a department to be set up to handle that.
>you're kidding me, right?
Not all, but generally. I can cherrypick examples too, i.e. Chinese immigrants from recent decades.
>when both sides gain, there is no exploitation.
Slave labor has both sides gaining, but there's still exploitation.
>just think about why a worker takes on worker despite there not being a gun held to his head
Because if they don't work they'll lose their house and starve to death. That's why they take on work, their lives depend on it.
>You have to be a very special kind of dumb to cry "exploitation" after voluntarily agreeing to something.
It's not a voluntary choice, if they don't agree they'll die.
>>14069530
>surplus value
Refer to >>14069329 & >>14069029

[Anonymous No.14069566]

>>14069536
As a child, I was sent to 13 gulags during Stalin's time and endured 2300 lashes. They fed me a speck of bread every week, and gave me water from the nearby toilets. At the end of day, I had to gargle Stalin's cock every night. This was the reality under socialism.

t. fiction writer

[Anonymous No.14069567]

>>14069546
Yes, but capitalism apologists just casually sweep aside the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. They simply ignore it. Pure cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.14069570]

>>14069535
>To compare a society in a Civil War

you're making excuses. other countries too had their problems. just look at germany. they did get buy without cannibalism.

thing is: look at cuba or any other communist shithole. it doesn't get much better with time. compare taiwan with main land china (though before they went full on production hub of the world) or look at hong kong how well it fared against england until thatcher.

I don't know much about yugoslavia, but something tells me that it wasn't richer than any capitalist western nation.

[Anonymous No.14069585]

>>14069567
Profit falling doesn't matter as long as it doesn't go negative/stay negative, which it won't. It doesn't matter if profit goes from 10% per year to 2% per year, capitalism will still continue working fine.

[Anonymous No.14069586]

>>14069570
>look at cuba or any other communist shithole.
It is not communism piece of shit hl6GNVBg. It is state capitalism. Cuba has a state, it has money, it has exchange value, it has private property of the means of production. You are a piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14069610]

>>14069566
>history is what I imagine

you're such a loser. read up what went down at the end of the 1980s in poland.

[Anonymous No.14069622]

>>14069585
Yeah i think it's possible (see i debate in good faith). However, i'm not sure, and if profit break one day, capitalism won't be able to renew itself, and it will be catastrophic.

Also, profit might still work with a 2% per year ratio, however, there is another problematic, the saturation in markets. Nobody needs 15 fridges, 8 cars, 40 smartphones. Profit fall, and markets get saturated. The conjunction of these 2 phenomenons might likely kill capitalism definitively.

[Anonymous No.14069631]

>>14069586
all communism is not true communism, right? have you ever wondered why when commies get to power they implement "not true communism"? maybe it's because you're bunch of incompetent freaks or maybe because IT ALWAYS FAILS AND THEN YOU DENY IT BEING SOCIALISM / COMMUNISM BECAUSE YOUR FRAGILE EGO CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH: all of you are disgusting people hating monsters.

[Anonymous No.14069633]

>>14069570
Buddy, I'm not even going to argue with you because your conception of history is so elementary. I could write to you about capital investments given to Taiwan/Hong Kong due to strategic geopolitical interests from the United States. I could explain to you the power rivalries which led to these economic outcomes.

Moreover, I could write about how interwar Germany was in no way comparable to the Russian Civil War -- with its barren Eastern lands, historically separate from urban centers which now had no agricultural output due to the war. I could write to you of the crippling realities of the Russian winters, which brought people to complete desperation. I could even speak to you about the marauding warlords which came from Mongolia, hoping to establish enclaves within Russia--not to speak of the internal factions fighting for regional power, the entire country breaking at the seams in a vast land which had no organization for all of its history. In fact, to compare the Russian Civil War to interwar Germany irrespective of context is too retarded for me to even process. So please, just shut the fuck up and stop typing.

[Anonymous No.14069644]

>>14069631
BECAUSE THEY LIE, BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE STALIN AND MAO WHEN THEY SAY THEIR STATE CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM, WHEN EVEN WIKIPEDIA SAY IT ISN'T.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[Anonymous No.14069645]

>>14069631
I just want social planning and don't want capitalism treated like a God. So go fuck yourself, as if we can't reinvent today's system to work towards a post-scarcity world of less work. Go outside.

Imagine being so cucked you can't criticize capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14069665]

>>14069622
For profit to break all productivity would have to stop. New resources would stop being discovered, technological progress would stop being made, and the population would fall. By that point we'd either hopefully be past the singularity and be able to transition to post-scarcity, or we'd be in the middle of an apocalypse, where capitalism failing is the least of our problems.

I feel like if that was an issue for the listed industries the problem would have reared its head in them already. Fridges, cars, and smartphones break, new models get made. The markets for the former two surely would have adjusted to this by now, but I don't think smartphones have (especially considering their rapid expansion into third world countries). There is probably reason to expect a collapse in this industry soon, but society as a whole will continue on and recover.

[Anonymous No.14069673]

>>14069610
>1980s in poland.
Sounds like the collapse of the USSR is to blame.

[Anonymous No.14069675]

>>14069645
You can't control capitalism. You must abolish it entirely.

[Anonymous No.14069705]

>>14069665
>For profit to break all productivity would have to stop. New resources would stop being discovered, technological progress would stop being made, and the population would fall. By that point we'd either hopefully be past the singularity and be able to transition to post-scarcity, or we'd be in the middle of an apocalypse, where capitalism failing is the least of our problems.

I'm all for a peaceful transition between capitalism and post scarcity. But will we get to post scarcity before capitalism collapse? There is no garantee.


>I feel like if that was an issue for the listed industries the problem would have reared its head in them already. Fridges, cars, and smartphones break, new models get made.

Yes, new models get made, but the general productivity (increase in machinery, robotics, energy) increase each decades, thus decreasing the rate of profit. It's counter intuitive but it is a fact since 1850.

[Anonymous No.14069712]

>>14069633
>I could write to you about capital investments given to Taiwan/Hong Kong due to strategic geopolitical interests from the United States.

I could write about the same on the soviet side, and look at africa now. you're not as smart as you think.

>Moreover, I could write about how

yeah, and whatever you do it won't look good for russia.

> I could even speak to you about the marauding warlords which came from Mongolia,

see? communist russia fails again.


all you ever do is make excuses. for your stupid ideology, for yourself, for everything. face it: you're a loser because you act like one. socialism is a loser because it doesn't work. it never did, just like you.

[Anonymous No.14069726]

>>14069645
>I just want planning

ever heard of the socialist calculation debate? I bet you didn't because you are so enamored with the smell of your farts that you do not realize how rotten they stink.

>Imagine being so cucked you can't criticize capitalism.

before you can criticize anything, you first have to understand it. at that you already fail.

[Anonymous No.14069733]

>>14069712
>communist russia

State capitalism russia. You really are the worst kind of human, you know that? You deliberately refuse to understand, in order to protect your wage-slaving system: capitalism. The cage, the first picture ITT, you defend this.

[Anonymous No.14069751]

>>14069673
nah, not entirely. of course the collapse of the ussr played a big role, but the main culprit was rotten loans poland took during the 70s (which funnily enough led to to western intellectuals proclaiming that socialism works in poland).
either way, like always: central planning led to mismanagement because it's inherently unable to manage an economy. further more: the fact that the soviet union collapsed should tell you something.

[Anonymous No.14069758]

>>14069733
nobody cares about you. stop responding to me. I'm not reading your garbage.

[Anonymous No.14069759]

>>14069705
>I'm all for a peaceful transition between capitalism and post scarcity. But will we get to post scarcity before capitalism collapse? There is no garantee.
The way I see it either armageddon would need to occur or post scarcity would need to be impossible for capitalism to fail before then. If all technological progress stops and we run out of resources I don't think there's a secret post-scarcity paradise ahead, I think our initial conditions just had it be fundamentally impossible.

[Anonymous No.14070860]

It’s all about power. Someone will always want to be better than other one. Capitalism is not perfect but I think it works best.

[Anonymous No.14070927]

It’s all about power. Someone will always want to be better than other one. Capitalism is not perfect but I think it works best.

[Anonymous No.14071222]

>>14066055

It’s part of the human nature

[Anonymous No.14071367]

>>14070927
>>14071222
Homo sapiens hunter gatherers are egalitarian.
It's mainstream and accepted.

Easy mode:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Hunter-Gatherers’_Egalitarianism

Hard mode:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.698.9360&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.14071851]

>>14059486
Yes, if the goal is a boom, and then a bust into extinction

[Anonymous No.14072149]

>>14066055
>But I realized that communism is based on the ideal of all humans being equal in a certain way and deserving equal conditions, and I stopped valuing that ideal over time.
Does not sound like the communism Marx talks about when I went through his Critique of the Gotha program.

[Anonymous No.14072270]

>>14059486
well-regulated capitalist systems are okay. problem is corruption. better systems probably exist.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/07/boeing-obama-a-gold-watch-and-346-dead/

[Anonymous No.14072527]

>>14072270

Capitalism is another “democratic” way that hides that the rich get richer and poor get more poor. System is a fraud. Sometimes poor are controlled by the rich. How is it fair?

[Anonymous No.14072990]

>>14069339
>Yet the profit from this consumption flows to the upper classes.
Who cares about profit?
We're talking about actual fucking resources.
This is all that matters.
If the workers took that profit too, it STILL wouldn't benefit them.

>>14069343
>To be honnest, yes, a massive state run by the workers, dictatoship of the proletariat exerting power against the capitalistic class. Then the state would QUICKLY disappear according to Marx.
Wow Marx was a fucking retard lmao.

>>14069370
>Until the tendency of the rate of profit
KEK, marxists have been waiting for this to happen for decades now but it never does.
Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14073007]

>>14068928
it's funny how misleading this is. Average wages were skyrocketing during the 1960s because of the very high inflation rate. The government was printing money to pay for the $1 Trillion war in Vietnam.
Notice how these graphs always start around 1950 and don't show that before that it's pretty normal for wages not to go up.

[Anonymous No.14073028]

>>14072527
Are you retarded? What system made the poor richer than capitalism?

[Anonymous No.14073056]

>>14069567
>>14069546
>muh tendency of profit to fall
It's debunked.

>>14071367
This was already debunked in this thread.
You people unironically deny human biology an genetics.

[Anonymous No.14073067]

>>14072527
>poor get more poor
Why are you people so dumb?

[Anonymous No.14073085]

>>14073007
>Average wages were skyrocketing during the 1960s because of the very high inflation rate.
This graph is adjusted for inflation you dishonest piece of shit.

The post war boom was a massive increase in economic production and thus real wages.

Wages have increased substantially from the 1800s to 1970.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.14073110]

>>14073067
>On a scale from 5 to 1, how well do do you conform to our definition of economic freedom (not to be confused with other forms of freedom, those being the unessential freedoms).

[Anonymous No.14073121]

>If the workers took that profit too, it STILL >wouldn't benefit them.
No you're right. Better give the profit to Rothschild. It's so much better to give it to the satanic child rapist and killers.


>>14072990

>>Until the tendency of the rate of profit
>KEK, marxists have been waiting for this to >happen for decades now but it never does.

Waiting for what (pic related)? Every crisis, including the 2008 crisis, is caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

[Anonymous No.14073127]

>>14073110
>pretending this is just some dumb survey and not from in depth studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

[Anonymous No.14073146]

>>14073056
>You people unironically deny human biology an genetics.
You debunked nothing. Capitalism brainwashed you into thinking that humans are ruthless and it's their nature to exploit others. But that is just humans under the capitalistic mode of production. Every serious study done by universities prove that hunter gatherers are egalitarians. You are just lying in order to save face.

[Anonymous No.14073175]

>>14073146
(surplus labor also exists in feudalism and slavery mode of production), but working for other never existed before the neolitic revolution (12000 years ago).

[Anonymous No.14073180]

>>14073121
>Better give the profit to Rothschild.
Dude if you literally shot all of the profit into space it would have the exact same effect on the working class's living standards as if you gave it to the working class and they spent it. NO EFFECT
Also rothschilds got their wealth from central banking, an extremely anti-free market practice.

>Every crisis, including the 2008 crisis, is caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Wrong, every crisis is a direct result of central banking and government intervention in the economy.

Your graph is just showing the effects of central banking on the economy.

Also a reduction in profits wouldn't destroy capitalism, capitalism can be maintained on a small rate of profit.

Also I thought you brainlets thought capitalism will collapse due to a workers revolution because wages for the workers would stagnate and fall to a subsistence level?
Why has the direct opposite happened since the 1800s?
Marxists since that time have been extremely embarrassed by this.

[Anonymous No.14073190]

>>14073127
My point isn't whether this is a survey or not, but because you decided to let the picture do the arguing for you, I will respond to that and say that this measure of economic freedom is thoroughly subjective, how it tries to quantify subjective assessments, typical of contemporary social sciences, to how it cobbles up these standards.

[Anonymous No.14073241]

>>14073180
>Your graph is just showing the effects of central banking on the economy.

Lol. You know i've read the secret of the federal reserve book by Eustace Mullins like 10 years ago. I too believe that money under the gold of silver standard was the solution. That or a public central bank with controled inflation rates. When you go deeper, you understand that the problem in not central banking, but the mode of production as a whole.

[Anonymous No.14073244]

>>14073146
>You debunked nothing.
KEK
You people ACTUALLY UNIRONICALLY don't believe in human evolution and human biological instincts.
You actually think that all human action is the result of economic forces.
This is fucking pseudoscience. It's not true whatsoever, yet you still believe in it.
You're a cult.
>Capitalism brainwashed you
How does voluntary human interaction brainwash me exactly?
>thinking that humans are ruthless and it's their nature to exploit others.
Libertarians never said that it's human nature to exploit others.
Libertarians say the opposite.
Also, trade is mutual benefit, it is not exploitation.

>capitalistic mode of production
Another marxist fairy tale that stems from the erroneous believe that instincts don't exist and that all human action is the result of economic forces.
I can't believe how fucking stupid you people are.

>Every serious study done by universities prove that hunter gatherers are egalitarians.
KEK
They weren't simply "egalitarians" as if human nature can be simplified into a vague word like that.
They were tribal by their nature out of necessity and due to Dunbar's number. We have groups like this today, they're called FAMILIES. You probably only saw 100 people your entire life back then.
They weren't exactly egalitarian when they were killing and competing with other tribes.
Humans naturally started agriculture and BUYING AND SELLING things with each other, long before the first states.

>You are just lying in order to save face.
You're projecting now.

[Anonymous No.14073297]

>>14073190
>measure of economic freedom is thoroughly subjective
Are you actually this fucking stupid?
How are the levels of taxation in countries subjective? The level of government spending? The amount and severity of regulations? The stability of the currency due to central bank policies?
Are you actually saying these things cannot be objectively measured?

You're a liar and arguing in bad faith.

>>14073241
>You know i've read the secret of the federal reserve book by Eustace Mullins like 10 years ago.
lmao dude look at this fucking kid
You authoritarian shitstains know that there are far more criticisms of central banking then some conspiracy bullshit. Countless books and academic works have been written criticizing central banking.
You're not even refuting my argument, you're just calling me an insane conspiracy theorist for no reason.

>When you go deeper,
You mean when I ignore logic and believe the writings of a fat jew that constantly contradicted myself?
You mean when I ignore human biology and instincts?

>you understand that the problem in not central banking, but the mode of production as a whole.
The mode of production is a marxist fairy tale that stems from the erroneous believe that instincts don't exist and that all human action is the result of economic forces.

[Anonymous No.14073302]

>>14073244
>Humans naturally started agriculture and BUYING AND SELLING things with each other, long before the first states.
Yes since when did people use exchange value? Only 12000 years. Since when does homo sapiens exist? Fucking 200000 years. So no, exchange value is not natural in homo sapiens long history at all. 95% of it's history (since fucking 200000 years, i repeat it since you don't compute), homo sapiens never used exchange value, or working for others.

[Anonymous No.14073317]

>>14060677
Based and checked and redpilled

[Anonymous No.14073346]

>>14073297
>You mean when I ignore logic and believe the writings of a fat jew that constantly contradicted myself?
Marx was not jew. His father was. Again i thought that also. But you seem to be 10 years behind schedule compared to me regarding your knowledge about what is really wrong in the world. Marx first book was "on the jewish question", which criticized heavily jews.

[Anonymous No.14073372]

>>14073302
>exchange value?
Another bullshit marxist term that doesn't mean anything.

>Since when does homo sapiens exist? Fucking 200000 years.
KEK, back when our brains were much smaller and our living standards were
We didn't trade because we were TOO DUMB to trade. Also there wasn't a wide variety of resources to even trade. They were POOR because they didn't trade.
How is this even an argument?
Also you have no idea that people within tribes didn't trade with each other.

If there were enough of these people to live in cities or towns, then yes, yes they would have traded with each other because it's human nature to do so.

Why do humans naturally trade with each other?
Marxism is a fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.14073400]

>>14073346
>Marx was not jew. His father was.
KEK
Then that means he was literally a fucking jew.
We're not talking about religion, we're talking about genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

>But you seem to be 10 years behind schedule compared to me
Then why are you constantly getting BTFO in these threads?
Taking over the means of production will not benefit the workers.
I've explained why and you still refuse to accept this undeniable fact.
You're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14073407]

>>14061315
Is it just me or do they all look like manlets?

[Anonymous No.14073421]

>>14061315
I wish guys were still allowed to dress like badasses

[Anonymous No.14073504]

>>14073372
>If there were enough of these people to live in cities or towns, then yes, yes they would have traded with each other because it's human nature to do so.

>Trade
>it's human nature to do so

Okay i'm out. Good evening. Keep faith.

[Anonymous No.14073573]

>>14073504
>>it's human nature to do so
Seeing how humans have done this extremely easy and mutually beneficial act since the dawn of history, I'd say yes, yes it is human nature and yes you're wrong and super mad about it.

>Okay i'm out.
Because you got refuted and debunked on every fucking point and now are super mad about it.
Stop being a marxist cultist, it's ruining your life.
Go outside and stop hating the world.

[Anonymous No.14073594]

>>14073504
>humans don't naturally trade
communists confirmed for 50 subhuman IQ

[Anonymous No.14073717]

>>14069566
Imagine trivializing the mass murder of millions because you were brainwashed into a retarded ideology.

[Anonymous No.14073728]

>>14069513
>Most major cities had pretty low crime and living standards comparable to the avg American city during the 1960s and 1970s. My dad, for example, had a great childhood growing up in Belgrade.
Hmm, I that's weird, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact the country was 99.99% white.

[Anonymous No.14073743]

>>14069645
>as if we can't reinvent today's system to work towards a post-scarcity world of less work
This is literally the goal of free markets.

[Anonymous No.14073780]

>>14069390
You should ask the pseudo-intellectual cuckpol darling Paul Cockshott (More like Cockbutt amirite lmoa) himself fren. I'm sure he'll have a whole lot of nothing to pilpul you with if you give him the opportunity.

[Anonymous No.14073853]

>>14073780
It's funny how leftists like to claim Reagan was a free market guy when in reality he was an extreme interventionist.
They do the same thing with Herbert Hoover.

[Anonymous No.14073941]

Remember: human evolutionary role is to survive. Its obvious only the strongest and those can adapt will survive. The system will depend on the circumstances.