>>59983303 I just want everybody to receive the full value of their labor, or at the very least, have a say in what happens to it. I'd also like to see poverty gone away with. You'd be surprised how many societal problems just those two things could fix.
>>59983699 Communism is all about excersizing absolute power under guise of equality. Which is what Hillary is going to do. My country went through communism. No communist leader gives a shit about Marx, Zizek or any other philosopher. They just want more power, which is why communism always fails.
>>59983499 nationalism is pretty spooky tho. If you had a truly socialist system which included all aspects of society, you'd see levels of nationalism decrease because the problems the nationalism increased in response to would be largely gone or diminished.
Pure economic models are aloof of the realities of the world around them All countries use combination of distinct policies that fits and benefits them the most, only zealots of economics/politics push for purity of their beloved utipia they have in their heads, or more likely just pushing agenda being paid by their benefactors
>>59983965 I never said physical labor. inventing and also creating art are also labor, and are things that create value. Is it so wrong to think that profits should be going to the people actually creating this value instead of the people "managing" it like ceo's who exploit other workers. In a socialist system, the ceo would be working for the workers, not the other way around.
>>59983995 Several things. One, many mistakes were made in the attempts at communism in the 20th century. Two, most often, they simply created systems of state capitalism, whereby the workers didn't actually have any power and were as exploited just as much or more than is the capitalist bloc.
I'm a democratic socialist, I just want worker co-ops and the end of poverty for a start. Communism itself is only possible in a post-scarcity economy.
>>59984446 Ah, but western capitalism isn't working. Look back to the 2008 crash, and the way things are going now. The fact is, capitalism breeds instability and only works for the rich. The rest of us are going to get screwed over sooner or later.
>>59984628 The same mistake is being made over and over again. The party becomes the equivalent of capitalist 1%. Also, modern leftism doesn't even care about working people anymore as it is more concerned with idpol, feminism and faggots. Working people in the West tend to be white males so they are better off voting for nationalists and capitalists, who, at the very least, don't advocate exterminating them. Oldschool socialists are a tiny minority nowadays and I don't think it's going to change. You can call those modern leftists liberals if you will but they're still what people perceive as leftists.
>>59985285 because they are going to cause the economy to collapse and they are allowing a small percentage of the population to exploit massive amounts of wealth from the general population who's standard of living is going down or flat lining.
>>59983001 Commies always make the same mistake, when they try to critize capitalism they look at government while ignoring that capitalism is purely economic not a political system or a cultural one, it's about the lack of central planning which is what government does one way or the other.
>>59986010 If a country is trying to grow strong in a new industry, tariffs will protect it from foreign competitors. This allows companies in the new industry time to learn how to produce the good efficiently, and develop their own competitive advantages.
Protectionism also temporarily creates jobs for domestic workers. As domestic companies are protected by tariffs, quotas or subsidies, they will hire locally. This will occur until other countries retaliate by erecting their own protectionism within that industry.
>>59986010 Depends I guess. If your protecting an industry, like farming, that other countries have a lower opportunity cost to produce whatever crop, then why do it? Muh jobs is really the only answer. Sticky wages, unions, etc for example were part of the reason the automobile industry here in America got fucked so hard. I guess you could protect the industry, but it comes at a cost to the consumer through higher prices. Tariff, quotas are the way to protect against international trade.
Also >>59986111 is right. This is what SK did with technology and now Samsung is like, what, 20% of the countries GDP? In the short run protectionism can be good, but when it comes to protecting against farming or something, it's just stupid. South Korea for example proposed a 500% tariff on foreign rice to protect its farmers. It's just stupid. But, whatever.
>>59985467 The irish and eastern europeans often lived in poverty. The jews are just a boogeyman to blame the problems of capitalism on.
>Incorrect. They fail to have any capacity to not screw themselves over. [CITATION NEEDED]
>And all politics is identity politics. It doesn't have to be that way.
>>59985497 worker co-ops, ensuring all major economic decisions are made democratically. I wouldn't mind a few nationalized utilities though, if it means eliminating poverty. Some things are too important to leave to the private sector.
>>59985701 >But then again I bet you think socialism is giving hand outs rights? If you had read my other posts, you would know that's not the case. Also >le crony capitalism meme
>>59985731 Maybe for those who have money. Rural Alabama isn't that much of a step up from Vietnam.
>>59985865 >anarchism >not even once I'll take rojava as a possible example of socialism. Still have to wait and see what happens after the war.
>>59986096 communism/socialism do not equal central planning.
>>59986439 It's not a meme faggot. Hayek and Bernanke are both capitalists but have very different views on competition, oligopoly, and the extent of power which corporations can have. But keep believing whatever you want I guess. Also, you're right I didn't read the thread kek.
>>59986439 >The irish and eastern europeans often lived in poverty.
Yes, but they lifted themselves out of it with hard work.
>The jews are just a boogeyman to blame the problems of capitalism on.
And yet, capitalism works when whites like ford do it. Your beef is with the jews in pic related, not those of your own race.
Literally every black community ever has screwed itself over in every possible manner.
>It doesn't have to be that way.
Oh you sweet summer child, yes it does! Even your class politics is just another identity politics- where one's identity is their class. The only difference between your version of collectivism and mine is that mine is based in the evidence of 10,000 years of scientific and sociological evidence.
>>59983001 Our response: Socialists are wrong about economics for many reasons, some of which are:
1. The labor theory of value. (That the value of a good is entirely deduced from the labor that went into making it. This is easily critiqued with a silly question. If I put 100 hours into making 1000 feces-flavored candies, does that mean people would value the product merely because I had wasted 100 hours of my time? Or suppose I spent 50 hours digging a hole and another 50 hours filling it back up. Would people value the flat land more than they originally did, merely because I had put 100 hours of labor into achieving no result?)
2. Marx's failed predictions that technology and machines would reduce total employment.
3. Marx's failed prediction that companies would grow larger and larger with no check on their power.
4. Marx's failed prediction that society would almost entirely fall into abject poverty, with reduced living standards, predicated on the aforementioned wide-spread unemployment which never manifested.
Each of these key concepts/predictions have been discredited or simply have not occurred as predicted, and yet they still serve as the foundation for socialist thought.
>>59984002 Multiculturalism always results in divisions in society because cultural groups ALWAYS gravitate toward themselves. This creates division in society even if class division is reduced and will result in minority groups not contributing to the socialist state. You have to foster nationalism so people will be motivated to work when the motivation of personal economic gain is lessened.
>>59987317 >Marx's failed predictions that technology and machines would reduce total employment. Look I'm as inclined to gas commies as the next nazi but if you take a look at the trucking industry that is literally happening.
>>59988114 Pretty much all of this. I served with some great dudes that were black, but I also look at statistics and studies and it makes me wonder. I really don't want to be racist, but 13% of our population commits 50% of the murders... What the fuck?
>>59986911 >Yes, but they lifted themselves out of it with hard work. Not gonna say culture doesn't effect productivity, but the irish and eastern europeans only lifted themselves out of poverty once they no longer distinguishable from the majority population and where thus assimilated without being segregated. Blacks in america have been ghettoized, growing up in the same material conditions as their parents.
>And yet, capitalism works when whites like ford do it. Rockefeller was a non-jewish white. The owners of wallmart are non-jewish whites.
>Your beef is with the jews in pic related, not those of your own race. I'm not white.
>Literally every black community ever has screwed itself over in every possible manner. If they was no longer a "black community" in the sense of inner city and rural ghettos, I think that would change. I'm sure you'll find that blacks growing up in suburbs surrounded by members of other races will grow up to be about as successful as their neighbors.
>The only difference between your version of collectivism and mine is that mine is based in the evidence of 10,000 years of scientific and sociological evidence. [CITATION NEEDED]
>>59987468 > Multiculturalism I'm not a fucking liberal.
>>59987317 >The labor theory of value. What you just described is not how it works. Here's an explanation http://bunkermag.org/marxist-economics-labor-source-value/ I'm of the opinion, in contrast with the author, that ltv is now how our current economy works, rather how it should work. Also, you do know that adam smith supported ltv right?
>Marx's failed predictions that technology and machines would reduce total employment. >>59987627
>Marx's failed prediction that companies would grow larger and larger with no check on their power. The only checks on their power have come when people rise up against them.
>>59988374 There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.
>>59988374 >only lifted themselves out of poverty once they no longer distinguishable from the majority population and where thus assimilated without being segregated.
Top kek. They made themselves self-sufficient, economically while they were still seen as outsiders. More so than any niggers.
>Rockefeller was a non-jewish white.
Which was how he managed to lower oil prices to the lowest they were.
Modern conditions have affected this. They don't exist in a vacuum -- the jewish created problems of foreign competition and unions (the ones with strike tactics and other means of class warfare) have provoked it. When you start a class war, you can expect to get hit back.
>I'm not white.
Good to know, Goldberg.
>If they was no longer a "black community" in the sense of inner city and rural ghettos, I think that would change. I'm sure you'll find that blacks growing up in suburbs surrounded by members of other races will grow up to be about as successful as their neighbors.
Then why is black Africa a failure?
Tribal collectivism is a biological instinct with an almost criminal amount of evidence backing it up.
>>59989025 >Which was how he managed to lower oil prices to the lowest they were. And let's just forget about all the workers he exploited huh?
> unions (the ones with strike tactics and other means of class warfare) have provoked it. When you start a class war, you can expect to get hit back. It's the unions fault the economies shit and our wages are low! Kill the unions! Great idea classcuck.
>Good to know, Goldberg. I'm also not jewish
>Then why is black Africa a failure? Same reason black america is. Emperialism.
>Tribal collectivism is a biological instinct with an almost criminal amount of evidence backing it up. Sorry, read over your original statement too quickly, didn't see collectivism. The point is not what is more natural. It's that we'll all be better off if we fight for socialism. It's a rational economic choice. I'd hope that you could overcome your primitive instincts for all of twelve seconds to realize that.
>>59989443 I would only advocate for redistribution in that rent is made illegal and we provide enough public resources to prevent poverty. Inequality, in moderation, can be used to promote motivation. But inequality where most wealth is given to a handful of people only hurts society. Not to mention, I'd like to live in a society where work is directly rewarded instead of bossmen giving me a wage irregardless of my work. I.E. a world where all non-nationalized enterprise is done in a co-op.
>>59989696 Read what I've said earlier in the thread about those countries.
>>59988887 > Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. Under ltv it would be assumed that somebody worked to get that diamond, if it was that easy then everybody would do it and the price would go down because the value went down. Therefor, its the work of other laborers that gives that diamond its value. Also, the only reason diamonds are so valuable is because there is a monopoly on them. That's capitalism for you.
I've also always said that LTV is more idealistic than how the real world works. But, you can't deny that if nobody had to work for a product, it would have no value.
>>59990206 >And let's just forget about all the workers he exploited huh? All the workers, under the horrible oppression of a man who was so stable he gave them guaranteed employment practically. As opposed to the liberty of the pre-Rockefeller age of employment being as stable as fucking sand.
Unless you consider all jobs oppression?
>It's the unions fault the economies shit and our wages are low! Kill the unions!
Did I say that?
The blame lies at the feet of class warfare (started by the working classes with unions and continued by the upper class capitalists) and foreign competition. The Jews are to blame for both. And the best way to treat class warfare is to stop both sides from engaging in it by directing them to a new collective benefit, as Hitler did.
>I'm also not jewish K, Jamal.
>Same reason black america is. Emperialism.
That was only the case for one century. Africa's had millenia to develop.
>I'd hope that you could overcome your primitive instincts for all of twelve seconds to realize that.
Why would you fight your genes (you'd fucking lose) when you can recognize what's in them and harness it, instead?
>>59990371 Most employees in co-ops are more productive than employees in conventional enterprises, usually because they are invested in the growth of the company and get back directly the effort they put in. http://www.geo.coop/node/618 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1995-micro/1995_bpeamicro_craig.PDF
>>59990840 >Unless you consider all jobs oppression? I consider all jobs with wages exploitation. Not oppression. With wages, nobody gets paid what they're
>The Jews are to blame for both. >it was da juus! Seriously? Workers acting in their rational economic self interest were just being manipulated by the jews?
> And the best way to treat class warfare is to stop both sides from engaging in it by directing them to a new collective benefit, as Hitler did. Oh yeah! Let's just replace class warfare with actual warfare! What a brilliant idea! That worked out so well for germany!
>K, Jamal. I'm also not black
>That was only the case for one century. Africa's had millenia to develop The century where most technological development has occurred.
>Why would you fight your genes (you'd fucking lose) when you can recognize what's in them and harness it, instead? It's also in human genetics to have a brain capable of using logic.
>>59991493 Because the people with money who start enterprises are more interested in starting enterprises that benefit them more than anyone else. Not to mention, starting a co-op requires having a lot of people on board with the idea, which can be difficult.
I'm of the opinion that the government should force all private enterprises to become co-ops.
>Why would you fight your genes (you'd fucking lose) when you can recognize what's in them and harness it, instead? >muh 100000000 gazillion Because they wanted a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and dictatorships don't tend to end well for lots of people. I don't what that.
>>59991862 why does /pol/ refuse to name the leviathan we live in called capitalism?
>>59992179 >capitalism just magically created itself >yep >there are no jews who benefitted from capitalism over decades and decades >yep >its all just capitalism, no way other systems would also be breached and manipulated by the very same folks >yep yep yep yep yep
>>59992179 >why does /pol/ refuse to name the leviathan we live in called capitalism? Yes, because National Socialists never saw Capitalism and Communism as two sides to the same coin, which they rightfully are.
Nice work dodging his question by stupidly asking another.
>>59992304 kek. Say what you will about capitalism (and I certainly will) but its way better then what came before, i.e. feudalism. There are plenty of white Christians who've benefited just as much from capitalism as the jews. It's just less convenient to blame them as well becuz muh idpol.
>Yes they are if they weren't competitors would hire them at competitive rates this is economics 101 Consider this. The average wage of a mcdonalds employee is 9.90 an hour, or about 20,000 per year. The ceo of mcdonalds makes 1.1 million. Mcdonalds recently spent 20 billion on stock buy backs, to increase the share price for its investors. Mcdonalds employs 1.7 million people. If mcdonalds spent the stock money on its employees instead of its investors, (which are literally doing no labor for the company) each worker would receive on average 11,764 more towards their yearly salary. That's about a 50 percent increase. These workers are being exploited, having on average 11,764 dollars ripped out of their hands. If Mcdonalds were a co-op, they would get that money. But that is not the case.
How much you get paid should not be determined by some labor market rigged by the "employers," but by how much value you produce.
>yes pic related Pic related does not back up that claim. Also, facism worked out so great for germany didn't it, with all those destroyed cities and millions killed?
>It can be a reconstruction or renaissance, like what Germany underwent. And that "renaissance" sure did them a lot of good, huh?
>Yes, but technological advancement occurred on at least SOME level everywhere else during all other times. Why didn't it occur in Africa? No other continent was exploited by imperialism as much as africa. You wanna know why south america and asia are behind the western world, you can also look to emperialism, they just didn't have it as bad as africa.
>>59993703 they didn't need to to create breathable air.
>>59993525 >Yes, because National Socialists never saw Capitalism and Communism as two sides to the same coin, which they rightfully are. Of what coin? You're ebbing jewish menace? top kek m8, the nazis still lived in a capitalist society, just with more idealism sprinkled on top. You could kill every jew on the face of the earth and it wouldn't change a damn thing about capitalism.
>>59995044 >anyone who isn't in my special snowflake economic ideology is X (in this case capitalist) >responding with memes in the most unfunny and forced way possible Point proven. Leftypol faggots never name their masters.
>>59995539 >anyone who isn't in my special snowflake economic ideology is X (in this case capitalist) there are plenty of things that aren't capitalist. Fuedalism, for example, a hunter-gather society, socialism and communism. Anything where the economy isn't based around private property and the workers control the means of production. I'd say its debatable whether or not the ussr and company are actually communist, but the fact of the matter is that they screwed the workers over.
>Leftypol faggots never name their masters. And what exactly do you think the jews will benefit from worker co-ops and a lack of poverty? The fact of the matter is, /pol/ doesn't give a shit if they're getting schlonged by a porky so long as that porky is a white christian dude.
For all your conspiracy theories and red pills, none of you are brave enough to admit that the entire system is fucked. You'll just blame it on one boogeyman after another.
>>59997252 What? That has nothing to do with the argument. You can have breathable air without people planting trees, somebody worked to make computers and the internet, and that labor is required for their existence, and when I you use them and bought them I paid for the value they created. However, if computers were made through complete automation, without human labor involved, it'd have no exchange value since literally the only thing giving it value is a government saying it has value because the automatons that made it were the private property of some porky. And, I doubt the general population would stand for that for long.
Thread replies: 120 Thread images: 23
Thread DB ID: 390184
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.