/lit/ - Literature

The current LGBT faggotry is neoliberal marketing. LGBT happen to be ideal customers, so of course the corporations are so aggressive with marketing their products to this group of people specifically.

>>13411036
These books describe how even a pleb understanding of Hegel can change the world.

>>13411036
The left was a rushed propaganda pamphlet. The right is an interesting read. So yes is the answer to your question.

>>13411036
Yes Kapital is the starting point, but not the pussy abridged version

Wage Labour and Capital is a much better starting point than the Manifesto. But of course, Kapital is essential.

Both are a massive waste of time.

>>13411036
How many pages is that abridged capital lmao.

>>13411107
Muh rushed propaganda pamphlet. Pleb take. It's one of the greatest polemics in history

>>13411441
Sure, it started wars and did it's job. I agree. I just think that if we are gonna ivory tower this shit in the twenty first century it's only worth a cursory read.

>>13411036
I prefer my fiction a little less retarded

>>13411036
>I just want to tolerate it not encourage it
By tolerating it, you are encouraging it.

>>13411036
>Also how we going to separate LGBT faggotry away from the left-wing?
You can't. The left is obsessed with controlling speech. They bully normies into step with the agenda by threatening their jobs and livelihoods if they even think of saying anything against it. This happens with politics as well.

>>13411476
>this is what right-wing americans actually believe

You think it's a coincidence that "the left" has done an extreme hard left into socialism/communism/anarchy in the past ten years? It's facebook and twitter, people posting under their real names, getting into arguments, then being silent about issues they disagree with because they don't know who is going to out them to their boss or company for having a wrong opinion.

>>13411451
How edgy. When did we get so anti-intellectual that people will dismiss one of the most important pieces of political and philosophical literature of 20th century because they watched some random youtube videos? Honestly, grow up.
I'm far from a marxist, but actually give it a go before you start calling it "retarded fiction", you sound like a twelve year old.

>>13411486
Not an argument sweetie, and I'm not right-wing. I've been disgusted with both parties since you were a misshapen egg in your mom's crotch.

>>13411036
I always imagine Karl writing these pages of the Grundrisse on the universal development of the productive forces driven by capital, at his desk in his two room home with his toddlers bugging him for attention by pulling his filthy pants and shirt, driving a toy train across the desk and chair. Meanwhile Karl is sweating, his boils in his groin area are causing more irritation today than the day before, and he can't keep himself from taking a sip once in a while. Jenny is out looking for bread thinking about the aristocratic life she left behind when she chose her piggy Karl, back then when it seemed like life was full of promise.

>>13411493
>You think it's a coincidence that "the left" has done an extreme hard left into socialism/communism/anarchy in the past ten years?

>"the left"

I'm little confused here.

>>13411568
*the democrats

>>13411568
Ideologically, they are fractured all to hell and back. And that's why they're going to lose again. Because all of these retards are promising big bags of money without explaining how all the free shit is going to be paid for (taxes). They don't have a coherent message that isn't fuck drumpf because they are scattered, desperately seeking to emulate the popular success of Sanders in 2016.

By "the left" I mean neoliberal Democrats, chickenhawks, their voters, and cancerous college-aged revolutionaries.

>>13411591
We are the global super power and our money is based off of people believing our money is worth something. Paying for college and healthcare isn't a hard thing. We already do it for vets and old people because money doesn't actually matter at the government level.

>>13411607
You're a brainlet. Our money is backed by nukes, and what you propose can never happen because it would eat into the Federal Reserve's bottom line. We are not SUPPOSED to be working our way out of debt, stupid. It's just supposed to get bigger on paper, not in real life, which is what would happen if suddenly the hospital/insurance giveaways Congress installed under 44 were removed and services were provided "for free".

>>13411625
Medicare works pretty well though, pays doctors a decent amount and doesn't afraid of anything. Why can't we just expand that to cover everyone in competition with private insurances? It would drop the bottom line and restore competition to the market place. You like cheaper goods and services don't you? The deregulation of the education and health systems have led to rapid inflation of debt without any recourse for stopping it or respecting the market. You are an absolute mad lad.

>>13411036
>(Also how we going to separate LGBT faggotry away from the left-wing? I just want to tolerate it not encourage it.)

Read Proletarian Humanism by Gorky.

>>13411657
why?

>>13411504
>dismiss one of the most important pieces of political and philosophical literature of 20th century

HHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Here you go sweetheart

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Hobson

>>13411036
>>13411665
He criticizes the degenerate homosex attitude in bourgeois society. Also this

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/class-and-the-lgtb-lobby/

>>13411036
For what?
Becoming yet another parasite on the working class, sure. Only equalled by Karl Popper for pushing out middle-class pseuds destined to fuck over the ones they claim to help.

>>13411729
Observe, the proletariat without class consciousness. How he misidentifies his enemies and impotently affirms a false identity, "the middle class", which even the slightest disturbance will force him out of.

>>13411036
I read Marx when I want to laugh

>>13411754
>Observe, the proletariat without class consciousness.
But I do have class conciousness. That's why I would very much like to end all marxist and popperian non-working class fuckwits who claim that bourgeois internationalism, global equity and destruction of prole culture in favor of what they pretend is an alternativeless globalism is the solution to working class problems.
>How he misidentifies his enemies
I can tell a grifter when I see one fuckface. That includes the ones who think citing bourgeois vanguardism is compelling when we have the working class death toll from the last time you subhuman fuckers got a chance at the reins.

Kill yourself and spare the next person your outdated attempts at smug dialectics you know-nothing.

>>13411036
>Are these the starting points?
Not particularly. Jumping into Marx doesn't work without knowledge of the political situation in Europe in 1848 or being a little familiar with classical economics and philosophically with guys like Feuerbach and the young Hegelians.

I have know idea what edition or translation of Capital that is but the Penguin one is the best in English you would get.

>(Also how we going to separate LGBT faggotry away from the left-wing? I just want to tolerate it not encourage it.)
Marx and Engels were blatantly homophobic. See " Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate":
http://sci-hub (dot) tw/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v29n02_03

That's not to say Marxs thought is inherently homophobic any more than it is anti-Semitic since he rages against many Jews.

>>13411813
Vulgar working class identity, very sad to see. I hope there are communists around to save you from being brownshirted.

>>13411835
>Vulgar working class identity
>save
You couldn't be more of a walking indoctrinated stereotype of the campus bourgie if you used the word "educate" for things that have no relation to being educated.
Genuinely kill yourself you LARPing ratfaced fuck.

>>13411901
Was your ex a Marxist or something? lol lighten up bud

>>13411107
>The left was a rushed propaganda pamphlet.
Totally this.
I wish Manifesto was never published. Because 170 years later, people on the internet say they have read Marx, when they really only have read Manifesto.

>>13411814
Marx wrote once in his letters with Engels that the future of the Capital will be to promote gay culture.

>separate idpol from the left
you realize that the left is based on leveling the playing field in all respects, not just economics? progressives and true Communists will not be satisfied until economic equality is established and every race, gender, sexuality, and faith is treated equal by society

>>13412587
>race, gender, sexuality
Sure.
>faith
This is literally impossibel and self-destructive. Marx, Stalin and Mao Zedong got it right: there is no space for any (theistic) religion in a socialist state.

>>13412609
as long as you secularize the absolute hell out of society and restrict religious practice to stay within the household and the church/temple/mosque/synagogue/witch's hut/whateverthefuck, harshly punishing people who proselytize and cause public disturbances, then shouldn't it lead to balance? at least more balance than trying to persecute theists and having a Christian rebellion on your hands

>>13412609
Stalin allowed churches in Russia and the modern Communist Party of the Russian Federation works with the churches.

>>13412587
> will not be satisfied until economic equality is established and every race, gender, sexuality, and faith is treated equal by society

That's what the title of the second book wants. It wants to have humans becoming commodities.

>true Communists
So those who haven't read Marx, according to your logic.

>>13412624
>restrict religious practice to stay within the household and the church/temple/mosque/synagogue/witch's hut/whateverthefuck
Allowing people to preserve religiosity would possibly allow an eventual comeback of religiousness. It is not worth the gamble.
However, as you state, persecuting and murdering people leads to resent since the belief in revolution requires you to suspend your morality, as it was also the case in Nazi Germany. Hitler and Mao Zedong both came up with the idea of physically destroying the culture and burning books. Their mistake was to underestimate the emotional response and public perception as tragedy which results in cultural erasure and mass murder. Really, Zizek was right when he said Nazi Germany just wasn't radical enough. If it was, it would throw away its notion of race and persecute not just the jews, but all rich people who profited from the misery of the Germans.

The current CPP however has come up with an intelligent solution, despite the heavily capitalistic tinge they have: close monitoring, mass technological surveillance, and punishment by example and by ideology. The last bit refers to the Xinjiang internment camps. Isolate those who do not conform, indoctrinate them. If you truly believe socialism is the right choice, then this is the right thing to do: you can't expect poor, uneducated people to be able to think for themselves and reach the conclusion that socialism is right. And to allow local cultures which believe in religions that go against the equality espoused by socialism to flourish is to betray the people you're supposed to guide.

>>13412659
>So those who haven't read Marx, according to your logic.
>>13412677
okay fine, if you really want internment camps, have at it

>>13412688
Honestly I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see marxism coupled with humanistic ideas working out. The two most hardcore communists I know both support stalin. Maybe there are some who legitimately can argue about achieving a socialist state that would not devolve in murder and war, but I have not met them.
>>13412640
Okay, I guess I was wrong about Russia.

>>13412700
>The two most hardcore communists I know both support stalin.
The question: did they read Marx?

>>13412716
Both of them did, actually. One of them was a professor of mine of sociology and he literally had a shelf in his office dedicated only to marxist books, and he had a large picture of marx in his wall. I'm not even joking. I googled his name once and he was quoted in a book on Lakatos in fact.

>>13412735
The thing is, nobody read Marx. Those who've read it didn't understand it. Those who've read it and understand it, didn't read all of him, especially, the Critique of the Gotha program (1875), where he is explicity anti-Statist.

I'll take decades in the internet era for mainstream people to have a relatively precise view of what Marx talked about.

Starting points for what? Reading shit about demented retards? I guess. You can also throw in mein kampf and mao's red book in there.

>>13412755
He really didn't come off as someone who's a heavy internet user. He has two children and is in his 50s, if not entering his 60s now. He did talk about gamergate once in a sociology class but it was on passing and mostly talking about how young people were focusing on completely frivolous things that had no impact on larger society. He almost always would go on a tangent about marxism and society.

If you're familiar with the Marxist tradition then you know better than I that marxist thought is extremely diverse and marxist thinkers have big disagreements with one another. One can be a Marxist and still disagree with parts of Marx's argument. Maybe he has a compelling argument against Marx regarding statism. And I forgot to mention but he also had a dejected, kind of black-pilled side of his which showed when he went on tangents about how he wouldn't tell his children to be academics like him but instead brain surgeons or something like that.

>>13412735
...what?

>>13413836
It was an introductory book on Lakatos, not that Lakatos quoted him. Though I did have a professor who actually met Derrida. Here's the book if you are interested:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=qxTek4IqFkUC&pg=PA112

>>13411092
I wonder how many lgbt faggots have children? With less/no children they must have a lot more disposable income.

LBGT is kind of a "for convenience" grouping, isn't it? I mean, like besides being discriminated against for their sexuality (and some imagined sexualities) what else do they have in common? Does the AIDs epidemic affect lesbians as much gays? Do lesbians appreciated trannys coming into women's safe spaces?

>International Bestseller

>>13411036
This is the logically end goal of egalitarian thought. Isn't it ironic how liberalism and Marxism now merge together?

>>13414290
They don't. Pseudo-Marxist liberals are just that. Marx was not an egalitarian.

At what point did homosexuality become a marketing tool targeting white liberal females?

>>13411036
no, you should start with the manifesto and wage-labour and capital. das kapital is much to dense for a starting point

>>13411504
>How edgy. When did we get so anti-intellectual that people will dismiss one of the most important pieces of political and philosophical literature of 20th century
because we've seen the outcome of its impact and are aware of other books that are likely better worth our time to read

remember that this is your life and it's ending four hours at time; really want to waste it by keeping up with the pseudointellectual joneses?

>>13414262
The issue of trannies and lesbian women is not an entirely clear one and there's much division, which is true for a lot of things in the left.
The vast majority of trannies do not seek to fall onto a vague notion of a boundary between a woman and a man; they seek to exist strictly as females, and for that to be possible either you see yourself as a sick person who needs cure (perhaps with a self-pathologization that your brain is "female", which could very well be true but one ought to cast doubt upon how many truly suffer from this condition, given how powerful ideology can be and how easily dysphoria may be used as a coping tool in a variety of social problems), you see yourself as a crossdressing male who simply chooses to be feminine (the transvestite culture in south america is a prime example), or you separate sex and gender and assert yourself as a woman.
The division between the biological and the social came with third wave feminism, which radically differs from the upholding of femininity as an ideal that can exist without masculinity and that often represented an innate set of traits that women possessed, though it is a bit more complicated since Beauvoir for example expouses a rather pessimistic perspective.
With the popularization of the vision that gender and sex ought to be separated, then a series of issues ensued: "if there's so many feminine traits in society, and society is patriarchal, then said traits must be inherently oppressive." This is not an uncommon conclusion among feminists. Then if women must seek liberation from males, as some view it, then allowing a male to claim to be female while being feminine means you're supporting the patriarchy, since femininity becomes more and more tied to what it means to be a woman. Judith Butler attempts to remedy this by looking at gender as a performance, though she takes on more radical steps further on.
Then there's women who believe a division between sex and gender should not occur, and those vehemently oppose trannies as they assume privilege to be almost an inherent property that males have, and that trannies are men seeking to oppress them by infiltrating feminism.
I don't think this has much to do with lesbians who just go on with their lives. A lot of lesbians are attracted first and foremost to femininity so a dick or not won't really matter to them. Also, femininists who reject trannies are mostly rejected from the movement and are mostly excluded. It's a divisive issue but being a movement that puts diversity on top of everything else is bound to have lots of inconsistencies and disagreement. They kind of just brush it off and focus more on leaving in society while being accepted for their differences, rather than a more consistent ideology, which is kind of the case with almost everyone. Most people in general are not willing to put much thought to act upon an ideology that they have a solid grasp.

>>13414307
When the focus shifted from White Gay Males to Non-white gay males.

>>13411092
I almost missed this post. Once and for all for the alt right (former alt right here): this.
Same for feminism. The Capital loves feminism, because it put women on the labor market, hence, it decrease the average price of the workforce, thus, more profit is to be made by the Capital.
Also, LGBT are at the opposite of class struggle. Have you ever seen an LGBT in real class struggle context? Those people are all talk, no real action at all.
LGBT are the Capital allies. The enemy of the Capital is the working class white men.

>>13411625
Most countries in europe have free healthcare and cheap ass universities and arent close to being broke. Also maybe not wasting 40% of the county's total money on the military to sustain the largest navy and 2 largest air forces to keep "peace" in the middle east and help isreal would also be great uh?

>>13414675
they're also small enough that the people could realistically hold politicians personally responsible for handouts to cronies in industry. America doesn't work that way. the press here is an apparatus of the state. most of us live outside of DC and are just happy to get some of our tax money back so we can blow it on merchandise. the corruption is too big to do anything about.

>>13414798
You telling me that the US needs a civil war and to split into a bunch of smaller countries like china did in the past?

>>13411036
By tolerating it, you are encouraging it. Your tolerance level of it just increases.

>>13414675
>Most countries in europe have free healthcare and cheap ass universities and arent close to being broke
There is no such thing as 'free'.

>>13415313
Yeah sure, you pay it in taxes but letting the goverment regulate it is better than a stupid free market that will sky rocket the prices for more profits and create coorporate giants that rule everything. It may not produce as much wealth as the public one but atleast keeps people less worried that if their kid catches a flu or breaks his leg they will have to sell their car or that raising a kid and a family wouldnt be seen as some super expense.
Its laughable to see amerinuts saying that a public healthcare and education is bad for muh economy that cucks them when literally half of their tax money is to support a useless giant army, navy and air force and all their people that do nothing but physical exercises while sending 10% of their forces to some desert in some country that has been in a civil war for years and droping bombs worth 10k on some 100 dollar worth tents for the safety of isreal and "muh freedom".
Complaing that "traditional" life is dying and their institutions when literally supporting the things that kill them even more. While thinking they can go back to some 50s life style.

>>13415504
I don't think you can change their attitudes to taxes. Their country is built on dodging them.

>>13411036
>Are these the starting points?
No. The three parts of "Capital" are pretty heavy stuff, a shit-ton of maths and shit. Like the others, I'd recommend starting with "Wage Labour and Capital". It's more or less a draft-version of the former, and is as such easier to read and comprehend. Diving into the deep end should be an easier task when having that under your belt.

>>13411092
This, lgbt is neoliberal

>>13414869
No, I'm saying that such an occurrence is inevitable. Balkanization. The US constitution does not provide adequate protection against corruption. Washington warned about political parties in his farewell address. We've let the system run amok, and it is being crushed by the weight of its own iniquity. Government at the highest level has grown so much larger than anyone wants or needs, and the legislation they manage to pass when they aren't fighting each other only stifles production and brings wealth into fewer hands. We are in a corporate feudalism, enforced by law. You must have a certain number of millions and a friend in Congress to be successful outside of small business. The ride is going to end eventually.

>>13414290
You can say the exact same thing about liberals lmao simply

>>13415504
Take an econ 101 class and come back.

Government doesn't reduce the price, it increases the price.The free market creates a fair price for everyone.

>>13417608
They derive moral truths about fairness in econ 101 classes now?

>>13417608
>The free market creates a fair price for everyone.
lolwat?

>>13417608
>Government doesn't reduce the price, it increases the price.
Lol i have both public and private healthcares in my country and even if i take the private i still dont pay close to 10% of what a murican pays for his. And you dont see here people running around desperate because they cant pay their loans.
Same happens with universities, the public ones you only pay 1k a year and the ones that cant afford can simply ask the goverment for some help provided that they get decent to normal grades.
Idk what you are talking about, every country that has their public healthcare surely doesnt pay even close to the prices in the US in terms of medical stuff and education.
And the military situation is still left unanswered.

Tbh i dont even know why should i care about what happens in the US, its would be best for all if that joke of a country collapsed.

>The free market creates a fair price for everyone.
LMAO

>>13417608
Pretty sure this is bait, but I'll bite anyway.

The term "efficiency" in economics doesn't refer to fairness —it refers to prices that match demand with supply. An "efficient" market sets prices that an average buyer and an average seller would agree on. This prices many below-average buyers out of the market, and forces above-average sellers to renegotiate.

That sounds good, until you think about how averages work.

Average buying power — in other words, the thing a market optimizes around —is heavily skewed, because so few rich people control so much money. This means that the market will price things much higher than the median (i.e. ordinary) person would pay in a one-off trade. This also means that poor people can't afford as much, because the upper-class drive up the prices of goods.

In other words: the market doesn't create fair prices. It creates artificially-high prices. This is "efficient" only because the Chicago School defined "efficient" in a retarded way. Again, we're describing averages, which only work in populations which aren't skewed.

Furthermore, the above scenario only works given elastic demand — the willingness of buyers to walk away from a deal. Not all services have elastic demand. Life-saving medical care, for example. Or a patented drug that only one company has the right to sell.

Without elastic demand, the market will raise prices until sellers hit maximum profits, without regard to buyers' interests. This is happening right now with healthcare in America. The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, with land in major cities.

tl;dr — "efficiency" is a meme term, and anyone who thinks it's good for normal people is either dumb or lying. The free market raises prices higher than people would pay in one-off trades. This is bad for everyone, even the rich.

t. econ grad student

>>13411625
Bubble alert

>>13417608
>What?! Paying for a public healthcare? What do you think i am? Some cuck?
>*throws half of his money so some stealth gen5 jet can drop a 100k worth guided missile on some 500 euro tent so that the huge ass army that sits in the corner doing exercises and shooting lead out of a pipe can sleep a few more hours*
Ok man.

>>13417756
>wasting time on neoclassical econ

if you aren't studying heterodox or marxian economics you're just indulging in pure bourgeois ideology

>>13411449
>it started wars
sauce?

>>13414290
but wasn't he perpetuating liberalism in a way

>>13411036
In communism, you and the LBTQ-faggot are comrades, equals.. if you want to separate you are a fascist. Read another book...

BUmp

>>13417686
>look I get stuff cheap because I am not paying, others are paying for me
This is your brain on socialism.


>>13417676
>>13417686
Imagine not knowing how supply and demand works.

>>13417756
A price that matches demand with supply = Fair. Not hard to grasp.

>>13411504
don't even bother. there's a subset of poltards that stick around for whatever reason and shit up the place

>>13417608
imagine thinking north koreans are indoctrinated, fucking yikes my dude, who beats this retarded shit into american minds?

Why doesn't /pol/ read books, /leftypol/?

>>13421290
>A price that matches demand with supply = Fair
fairness is normative. you can't derive it solely from the descriptive "demand is matched with supply". read up on the is-ought distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

>>13421331
Not an argument.

>>13421364
Free markets arrives at a time and place where both the seller and the buyer, i.e. everyone within the transaction are willingly, at free will, agreeing to the terms. Therefore it's fair.

The alternative is a massive state that tells you what you can buy/sell and at what price, and if you don't you get shot or imprisoned. Not fair.

>>13421331
you write like a faggot

>>13417756
Want to know how I know that you're not actually a grad student?

>>13421364
If you're the same guy that he responded to, then your argument was no less normative.

>>13421287
>this is your brain on socialism hurr
>you are not paying for it
I pay for it like everyone else, maybe you are the one to see how healthcare works.
>muh econ 101 class bruh
Lmaoing at this american cope. There is already a dude that explained how it works so i dont need to touch economics here. And even if in the long run you pay more, that still doesnt matter when you already waste so much money on useless shit while denying that a public healthcare will do better in the long run.


Man, these americans sometimes like to really suck some mega jew coorporate cock. And then go into internet forums complaining that "muh tradition is dying, no one cares about raising families and their values bruh" while more than 40% of the population spends their 20s and 30s being are more concerned about the prices of healthcare and education to get a decent job for themselves, let alone for a kid and space for it to live.
Then they also wonder why their IQ averages are dropping.

>>13411036
>I just want to tolerate it not encourage it.
You can't "tolerate and not encourage" cancer.

>>13421403
no, this is a false dilemma fallacy

>>13421290
>>13421403
>Free markets arrives at a time and place where both the seller and the buyer, i.e. everyone within the transaction are willingly, at free will, agreeing to the terms. Therefore it's fair.
>The alternative is a massive state that tells you what you can buy/sell and at what price, and if you don't you get shot or imprisoned. Not fair.

Several problems with this.

(1) False dichotomy. Someone could easily invent a system other than centralized state control which is more fair than a market economy.

(2) "Freedom" in a free market is largely an illusion. Most transactions are fixed-price, meaning you can't haggle, and many industries are monopolies or oligopolies, meaning you can't meaningfully "walk away" from those goods or services without giving them up entirely.

(3) For an extreme example of (2), consider a life-saving drug, ABC. Because ABC is patented, it's the intellectual property of a single company, company X. If you need ABC in order to live, you must deal with company X. They can raise the price of ABC as high as they want, and you either pay or die. This is called a market failure, and even the most ardent free-market economists accept that market failures are fundamentally unfair.

(4) Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that people really are free (they aren't; see (2) and (3)) to negotiate effectively whenever they make a purchase. Even assuming this, market equilibrium is not "fair" unless you have an incredibly naive conception of fairness. A child born to rich parents has access to better food, healthcare, education, career opportunities, etc. than a child born into poverty, through no merit of his own. No system of ethics —not deontology, not utilitarianism, not virtue ethics, not even sophisticated forms of egoism — advocates for this.

>>13421446
>muh pareto distributions
Pareto is highly controversial, but assuming he's right, he bolsters my point — an 80/20 wealth distribution skews average buying power, which leads to artificially high prices.

>>13421497
Yes, the infamous socialist healthcare where you have to wait for years to get healthcare. Very good.

Healthcare and education prices in the US are high because the government is involved. Everywhere the government goes, prices skyrocket.

>>13421514
Not an argument.

>>13421518
There is nothing more fair than a market economy. You need to provide some sources where industries are monopolies or oligopolies without government interference. Monopolies only exist because government is involved.

What creates profit for a company, selling a drug or not selling it? You can set any price you want but you are inherently at the mercy of the market. The alternative? You get no medicine at all because the state decides so.

>human nature is no fair therefore we need socialism
Not an argument.

>>13421518
Your calculus treats demand as something that is totally uniform between all consumers. Elite consumers do not compete for scarce resources equally across all markets, e.g. consumer goods. Efficient allocation of resources generally means a greater PPP for all consumers. Most goods are neither luxury goods nor Giffen goods, and have prices that are competitive and stable enough to accommodate the median buyer in any given market.

>>13421403
just because that anon is retarded and incorrect doesn't mean that it's not an argument, faggot

>>13421586
>Yes, the infamous socialist healthcare where you have to wait for years to get healthcare. Very good.
Dont know what you are talking about, the one in my country works good enough for what it is and most of the low class people benefit from it. There is a need for more because the public simply isnt big enough to meet with the demand. Also any medical emergency gets priority and almost zero wait time, while the the minor problems go to the back line. And my country isnt even that good in terms of the economy even before the public health system was implemented decades ago.
All this bitching when more than half of what the goverment takes is for military toys so the country can continue to shit in the middle east. No one complains that they are paying for some sub 90IQ guys with 13k worth of military equiment to sit around doing nothing but waste more money shooting lead at some arabs with "suppressing fire" so then they can show off their uniforms and how cool they are to the chicks.

>Healthcare and education prices in the US are high because the government is involved. Everywhere the government goes, prices skyrocket.
Just because the goverment dips the toes in there doesnt mean its going to change for the better unless they do the right stuff. Also, highly doubt that the prices for education and health in the US are because of the goverment and not because they are all owned by privates that need their profits and to pay their taxes to the goverment.
You dont know what public healthcare is. What a surprise.

>>13421586
>You need to provide some sources where industries are monopolies or oligopolies without government interference.

This is an accepted fact. ISPs, railroad companies, pharmaceutical companies with patented non-fungible drugs, and many other oligopolies emerge not because of government interference, but because of intellectual property rights and/or economies of scale.

>What creates profit for a company, selling a drug or not selling it? You can set any price you want but you are inherently at the mercy of the market. The alternative? You get no medicine at all because the state decides so.

This is a false dichotomy, as described in (1). Capitalism and planned economies are not the only two options.

>>human nature is no fair therefore we need socialism
>Not an argument.

You're strawmanning. I never said anything about socialism, and I never said anything about human nature. I said that children born into wealth have unfair advantages over their poor peers, and that no reputable system of ethics prescribes this. The burden of proof is on you to explain why this is just.

>>13421589
>Your calculus treats demand as something that is totally uniform between all consumers.

No, it just accounts for scenarios in which demand IS uniform for all consumers. No rational actor will let himself die just to spite a drug company that overcharges. That is a concrete counterexample to the assertion that markets can solve every problem.

I agree that most goods are priced fairly, but many goods are not. This indicates that, for some problems, markets are not a viable solution.

The answer to the problems I'm describing isn't to abolish capitalism (although that might work too). It's to establish a universal basic income, a maximum wage, and public options for basic necessities like healthcare and housing.

>>13411092
Stalin knew this all faggotry is infertility bourgeois.

>>13418363
Almost every marxist revolution ever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution

>>13414307
>targeting white liberals females
is the other way around when did white liberals start caring so much about fags and trannies?

>>13421689
>Dont know what you are talking about
Because you lack knowledge.

Everywhere you see "public" healthcare you also see massive queues, inadequate healthcare among other things.

Just like everywhere you see rent control you see massive queues.

Government creates bread lines, the free market make bread wait in line for you.

>Also, highly doubt that the prices for education and health in the US are because of the goverment and not because they are all owned by privates that need their profits and to pay their taxes to the goverment.
You dont know what public healthcare is. What a surprise.
You should perhaps look into the subject you are trying to discuss before discussing it. The reason U.S. healthcare and education costs are through the roof is because of government interference. See student loans guaranteed by government and Obamacare. Both two disastrous policies that have horrible consequences.

>>13421827
>this is an accepted fact
>posts zero of said facts
None of what you listed are what you claim them to be.

>Capitalism and planned economies are not the only two options.
And you or anyone else have yet to come up with an alternative to capitalism. You pray and work for the destruction of the best economic system known to mankind but without a system to replace it with.

>I said that children born into wealth have unfair advantages over their poor peers, and that no reputable system of ethics prescribes this. The burden of proof is on you to explain why this is just.
Nature isn't fair, that's the whole point. You are trying to artificially make things more "equal" in the name of fairness. It's absurdity.

>>13421827
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1rqtVQkkjtD

In response to the UBI thing... :3

>>13422078
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0vfgiq65AoG

:3

>>13411036
Why does it matter if LGBT lifestyles are encouraged? Are you one of those idiots that thinks this will lead to the collapse of civilization?

> BUT GAY THINGS ARE DEGENERATE

>>13411455
Fuck this board really is fascist

>>13411486
It's terrifying isn't it

>>13421827
What is and is not "overpriced" is entirely subjective, and therefore your argument is cryptonormative.

>>13422083
I like you, but you need to use fewer adverbs when you speak.

>>13414675
The US doesn't spend anywhere close to 40% of its budget on the military. It's closer to 20% and the military is a de facto jobs program, it's not meant to be efficient when it's buying $10k hammers and employing fatties and women.

>>13411036
LGBT is an outgrowth of American leftism, which isn't Marxist but post-Christian (Evangelical in particular, descended from the Abolitionist/Social Gospel crusaders). Fundamentally LGBT are seen as an oppressed group like Blacks who must be included if we are to live up to Our Values.

>>13422078.
>Murican trying to shit talk about that the public healthcare is bad because "muh queues"
Nigger queues happen because there are tons of people coming in that need it they could also happen in private hospitals if people could afford it aswell. You can shit all you want on the public healthcare when almost every single european country has one and they are doing better in the long run than the US.

>Government creates bread lines, the free market make bread wait in line for you.
Lmao, you are either some 16 year old or some troll at this point. The free market was what fucked you all from the begining ahahahah


>You dont know what public healthcare is. What a surprise.
No, i dont know what the US goverment does when they "intervene" on those fields. Just because your jokes of a politicians make super bad attempts creating it doesnt make the premisse false. If the goverment increases the taxes on those private sectors its only normal that they will even raise the prices more, for example.

What matters is that in the end, all european countries have it and are doing mostly well with it when it comes to helping the lower class and even the privates dont have prices that even come close to what the US has because they know that if they rise it up no one is going to buy their shit and the public will grow in interest.


>>13422189
Yeah, i was being hyperbolic in there. But its still an huge amount of money that goes to do nothing useful.
>the military is a de facto jobs program
it makes jobs that dont produce any sort of wealth or contribution, its like having a tumour that sucks your energy off, and saying "hey, atleast they work".

>>13411486
European leftists are also bent over for Muslims and faggots

>>13422078
>None of what you listed are what you claim them to be.

An oligopoly is a scenario where a small number of companies control the majority of market share. All of the above are examples of oligopolies.

>And you or anyone else have yet to come up with an alternative to capitalism. You pray and work for the destruction of the best economic system known to mankind but without a system to replace it with.

I don't want to "destroy" anything. I want to provide alternatives to the system when it fails. You'd still be able to put any good you want on the free market, barring things that are already illegal.

>Nature isn't fair, that's the whole point. You are trying to artificially make things more "equal" in the name of fairness. It's absurdity.

Naturalistic fallacy.

>>13422143
>therefore your argument is cryptonormative.

I'm not the is-ought guy. My argument is normative, and I'm fine with that.

Again, markets are cool and nice, but we can (and already do) have more than one system operating at the same time. The US highway system, public schools, libraries, etc. are all solutions to problems that the market can't solve. There's no reason we can't apply similar thinking to other basic needs.

>>13422262
US Healthcare is expensive because of government intervention, mostly in the form of banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices and banning generics from hitting the market by granting drug manufacturers monopoly rights, and then letting them patent troll for 20+ years via pill coatings, changing molecule chirality, etc.

This is claimed to be done to "promote R&D" but it's mostly done by the State anyway... realistically the industry should just be brought under State control.

>>13422078
>And you or anyone else have yet to come up with an alternative to capitalism. You pray and work for the destruction of the best economic system known to mankind but without a system to replace it with.
This is either some nice bait or its just some underage kid that likes to post pepe frog pic on /pol/.
Nigga no one here is a uber commie trying to "kill capitalism". You have to understand that with the current globalization, evolution of communication technologies and the rise of titan like coorporations you will never have the economic booms like the US had during the 50s ever again.

>>13422381
>you will never have the economic booms like the US had during the 50s ever again.
you don't actually know this tbqh. It isn't clear at all what is going to happen economically as technologies progress and social conditions change.

>>13422262
I am not American, thank you very much. Queues happen because government interference reduces the quality, including availability and puts a bureaucracy in place that decides who get what and when. Often times people get no healthcare at all. Many such cases. There is a reason people are willing to travel across the world pay heinous sums in order to get healthcare in the U.S. when it is "free" in their home country.

>Lmao, you are either some 16 year old or some troll at this point. The free market was what fucked you all from the begining ahahahah
Not an argument

>No, i dont know what the US goverment does when they "intervene" on those fields. Just because your jokes of a politicians make super bad attempts creating it doesnt make the premisse false. If the goverment increases the taxes on those private sectors its only normal that they will even raise the prices more, for example. What matters is that in the end, all european countries have it and are doing mostly well with it when it comes to helping the lower class and even the privates dont have prices that even come close to what the US has because they know that if they rise it up no one is going to buy their shit and the public will grow in interest.
The U.S. government guarantees student loans, you can start looking into that how that affects the system. You're talking out of your ass and your lack of knowledge shows.

Public healthcare, education, minimum wage laws, unions and all the other garbage does not in fact help the "lower class", regardless of your dogmatic beliefs. This was made clear many decades ago.

>>13422381
Not entirely true at all. I think we are about to experience one, bud.

Plus you can always undercut the existing markets and infrastructure with some new development that then opens the doors for new competition and economic expansion.

That's what I was saying with that vocaroo up there. :3

>>13422386
Hey man, :3 here.

I think you are smart. That was actually a smart thing you said. Props.

>>13422320
>An oligopoly is a scenario where a small number of companies control the majority of market share. All of the above are examples of oligopolies.
In a free market that is the doing of the people. After all it is people who control companies, no one else. What is the problem with a small number of companies controlling a large market share in a free market? It's the will of the people.

>I want to provide alternatives to the system when it fails.
It hasn't failed in many hundred years. We don't need an alternative.

>Naturalistic fallacy.
No, just reality. No one is equal to one another, hell even the same human being is not equal to himself on different days.

>>13422346
>US Healthcare is expensive because of government intervention, mostly in the form of banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices and banning generics from hitting the market by granting drug manufacturers monopoly rights, and then letting them patent troll for 20+ years via pill coatings, changing molecule chirality, etc.

Yeah, im pretty sure those were the same ideas that europe and most of the world had when they tried to implement

>>13422381
>This is either some nice bait or its just some underage kid that likes to post pepe frog pic on /pol/.
>Nigga no one here is a uber commie trying to "kill capitalism". You have to understand that with the current globalization, evolution of communication technologies and the rise of titan like coorporations you will never have the economic booms like the US had during the 50s ever again.
Not an argument.

>>13422407
Europe DOES have their equivalent of Medicare negotiate prices. That's why things are cheaper.

>>13422392
>Plus you can always undercut the existing markets and infrastructure with some new development that then opens the doors for new competition and economic expansion.
Wtf sort of answer is this?
>I think we are about to experience one, bud.
ahahaha, call me when it does.
>>13422389
>he compares central american countries that are completly poor and fucked because of banana republics and wars to justify the superiority of the US health system.
No one from europe prefers the US system bud.
>>13422386
>y-you cant be sure of that
Ok
>>13422412
>stating that it is not in your self interest to let big coorporations fuck up everything and and recreate the state of california everywhere is not an arguement
Ok then
>>13422431
They do, problem is that system of the US is already rotten to the core

I honestly dont know why should i bother arguing with americans on why their healthcare system is so bad, its your problem desu. And no one in econ class thinks that the free market will solve anything.

>>13422386
>It isn't clear
Lol, you can literally see examples like the number of new social media apps that have been appearing since recent times and from 2012 onward no new major competitor appeared because the big ones like facebook literally buy everything new they see.

>>13422478
Your response to every single greentexted line is a series of short, quippy non-answers.

What is even the point of green texting, bud? :3

>>13422651
sorry did you make a good answer?

>>13422389
>Often times people get no healthcare at all. Many such cases. There is a reason people are willing to travel across the world pay heinous sums in order to get healthcare in the U.S. when it is "free" in their home country.
They dont have one... and also they are fucked mostly because of US coorporations.
Read about the banana Republics

bump