Economic collapse general

I am;
>>1247256

Would love to hear your thoughts on whether this collapse will be inflationary or deflationary.

As i said in the other thread, i have a lot of wealth, and i'm struggling to plan for both inflation/deflation.

Which do you think is more likely, and why?

What would be the immediate effects for the average person? And also, how would the US government handle it?

Basically to summarize what's happening:

The recovery over the last 6 years has been build not on organix economic growth, but by cheap credit both on the central banking side and from consumers via cheap retail loans and lines of credit. Right now, securitized consumer debt is 40% higher than it was in 2008, with many financial institutions carrying high levels of exposure to instruments based on subprime car and home loans.

The 4.5 trillion dollars pumped into the economy during QE 1-4 is claimed to have caused almost no inflation, which is an outright lie borne out by the fact that the consumer price index is calculated in a way that doesn't properly measure the consumer's exposure to inflation( can explain this more). This is important because for exery gdp calculation, there is always term for inflation, since 10% growth with 10% inflation is really GDP growth of 0%. This means that, by using an inaccurate measure of inflation, the Fed was able to inflate GDP numbers for the last several years.

>>1247265
What are your indicators, and how long a time horizon have they been trending as expected for you to support your theory?

File: f81d2e1bc16c15ae8be786a7f386007b.jpg (79KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 735x490px

This "collapse" is really just the same deflationary correction that should've taken place numerous times in past 40 years but hasn't, largely due to the economic policy of "kicking the can down the road".

Don't listen to shills saying to buy gold or this or that as a hedge against hyperinflation, this collapse will be deflationary. Hold cash and/or short term bonds, learn to grow some of your own food and focus on saving money and building community.

>>1247285


This is me;
>>1247272

I used to agree with you, which is why i have so much of my money in cash.

I'm just completely stuck now, i have no idea if it will be inflationary or deflationary. Smart people have strong arguments for both sides.

Would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Why wouldn't the FED just keep printing cash and create hyperinflation? It would essentially wipe all their debt.

>>1247281
Hey, I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, but literally people have been saying this shit since 1971 when Nixon took us off Brenton-Woods.

I jumped onto this bandwagon in 2009 and everyone in this camp has been predicting a major collapse every year since.

I got tired of waiting for it a couple of years ago and just started expanding my business as the economy as gotten stronger. At this point, I'm protected either way.

>>1247278
Well there's a concept being talkked about right now called inflationary escape. This is a means for the government to essentially escape its debts in the event that the bond markets truly collapse or just in the event that additional debt becomes prohibitively expensive. It entails simply printing money at a rate where the inflation counteracts the rate of interest on liabilities. This isn't a permanent solution though, for obvious reasons, since inflation can never go to infinity.

>>1247277
The natural tendency of this type of slowdown is to produce a deflationary environment, but with the full attention of the central banks devoted to preventing that outcome, I suspect that we will end up with inflation as I outlined above. That assumes some degree of capability on the part of central banks, which may not be accurate in the state they're in right now.

>>1247288
Recessions/collapses happen about every ~8 years on average, for the last century.

It's just a matter of time, and it's looking like this one will be the worst one yet. This is because there's no more tricks that the FED can pull to help. Interest rates are already at 0%, you cant make them lower.

>>1247287
Why no real estate? Rents didn't really go down through the last recession.

File: housepricerentindex_australia_sep2012.png (19KB, 676x461px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 676x461px

>>1247292
I live in Australia. Huge fucking housing bubble.

>>1247289
It's not a new concept. We've been doing it since WWII.

World demand is too high for the dollar for hyperinflation. That's just my opinion.

>>1247283
Well for one, industrial capacity utilization has been in sharp decline for almost 14 mos now. In the past 96 years of data, every time it happened for more than 3 mos, there was a recession. In addition we can simply look at the fact that since the 1970's real wages have fallen between 8 and 20% depending who you ask, yet consumer spending grows almost every quarter at a rate far greater than that of population growth. This is proof of the consumption gap that cheap credit has created, where there exists vastly more debt than real wealth in the world today.

>>1247297
I see what you're saying. So what's the strategy as an informed investor with relatively little exposure to this risk? What should we do? Hold cash and wait for the credit crunch to buy cheap assets?

>>1247289
>>1247285
One of you thinks inflation, the other deflation.

Would like to hear some discussion and reasoning behind your thoughts.

>>1247290
well, you can actually make them lower. The European central bank and the bank of japan are alrready at negative interest rate. The fed is holding out, but I think it's almost inevitable that we'll see it in the next few years

>>1247301
You should be completely out of the long side of the market. I'm currently holding only index short etfs, which are a great tool for trying to take advantage of a crisis which you can't time since they don't expire unlike puts and charge low fees <1%. In general though, your best bett is holding assets that won't be directly depreciated by negative interest rates if we do see them, since that would basically mean that you would pay the bank a fee to hold onto your money. I'm considering diversifying into gold somewhat as a hedge against such a change.

>>1247293
You can only buy real estate in Austrailia?

>>1247305
You can see both at the same time. It's been explained to me that we could see staggering inflation for things like food, gas, and other items that are absolutely necessary for life. While luxury items and things people can go without, drop drastically in price.
Real estate drops as people can no longer afford it and more often create multi-generational housing, keeping demand down.

But don't listen to me I'm drunk.

>>1247309
Give some inverse etf recommendations? UVXY? YANG? DRN? What's your favorite?

>>1247310
I don't have the time to fly to other countries to purchase property.

>>1247313
well, my general strategy is to have half of my capital in 1x index positions, like sh and psq and rmw, since they're cheap to hold long term and there's no risk of beta slippage. I also have TMW and SPXS on my list, which are 3x leveraged and I'll take those positions once things start moving.

>>1247317
should mention that once things start moving I'll also begin taking short positions via options and direct shorts in specific companies, it's not gonna be all etfs

ITT: zerohedge.com

>>1247317
Could you tell me a little about these?

Are they basically ETFs that are shorts of other funds?

Do you buy into them in the same way as an ETF?

>>1247265
You homos say the sky is falling every time the s&p sneezes

>>1247323
these are etf's that have 1x short exposure to various indices. sh is the SP500, psq is nasdaq-100, and rmw is the russel 2000. TMW and SPXS are 3x short exposure to the russel and the SP. Yeah, they're exchange traded if that's what you're asking.

>Economic collapse
As deep as the next recession might get, I highly doubt we're getting a full-on collapse of a systematic nature as in 2008. Those are once in a generation events.

The euro might break up and China will almost certainly experience a sharp, Japan-style deceleration of growth, but that would not be fundamentally different from the situation in the late 80s / early 90s with 1) S&L crisis, 2) 1987 crash, 3) Japan bubble economy crash, 2) Black Wednesday GBP exit from the ERM, etc. It wasn't a realignment like the 1971-1973 Bretton Woods + oil shock + stock market crash was.

Or take the 1937 recession / WWII era. It was bad, but it wasn't a collapse on the order of 1929.

>>1247329
This upcoming crash is technically the same one as the 2008 crash.

Nothing was fixed. They just printed a fuckton of money to band-aid fix the problems, and that's about to come to an end.

This crash is the once in a generation event. 2008 was nothing.

>>1247317
Half capital in short etfs, half in cash to buy up positions once the crash hits? Is that a fair assessment?

>>1247331
What do you mean? Theres no bubble like the 00s housing market. There has to be a catalyst to create enough defaults to crash a bank

>>1247329
>>1247331
I think it's likely that it will be at least as severe of a crisis as 2008, with the addition of high inflation. The thing that will make it much worse is there will be no QE next time, the fed is up against the wall with a 4.5 trillion dollar balance sheet.

>>1247334
There is a QE bubble.

>>1247331
>Nothing was fixed

But the subprime mortgage crisis that sparked the 2008 panic is no longer possible.

Mortgages were actually a relatively small portion of GDP, but the derivatives attached to them multiplied the effects to threaten the banking system itself. In addition, the household debt to GDP has drawn back significantly, and the savings rate is nowhere near the negative region as it was in 2006. In fact, part of the slowness of the recovery is changes in consumer behavior toward greater savings over consumption, which is overall more sustainable.

>>1247334
Housing will take a bit equity wise once bombers start dying in larger numbers. Most are still below the average life expectancy in the first world, but wait two to three years and they'll start keeling over and their basis in their homes will be liquidated en masse by millennials to pay off consumer debt and student loans.

>>1247337
So you're saying the catalyst will be a lack of solutions to a problem that doesnt exist yet?

None of you guys are making any sense.

Overvaluations do not cause economic crashes. Bank runs cause economic crashes. What is going to cause the bank run in your scenario?

>>1247337
>high inflation

The developed world is in a Japan-style deflationary environment that is structural in nature because of a savings glut and relative lack of consumption. QE does not directly inject cash into the economy.

>>1247341
>they'll start keeling over

What. They are literally entering their retirement years right now which is part of the reason for inflated asset prices and deflation pressures. Boomer dollars are desperate for retirement yield. You'll have to wait a couple decades before boomers start really dying off.

>>1247345
No, the catalyst will in my opinion probably be the collapse of the chinese economy. They are on the edge of a huge credit default triggered event similar to the US in 2008, and the government is only accelerating the credit growth there to record levels. When this collapses, it will have repercussions all over the world.

Since there are so many economic traps set all over the world, we could easily see a series of events, for example a chinese crisis leading to collapse in real estate markets in Austalia, canada and the US leading to a consumer debt default event such as the US saw in 2008.

>>1247353
>for example a chinese crisis leading to collapse in real estate markets in Austalia
YES PLEASE. It sure would be nice to be able to afford a house.

>>1247353
The Chinese bubble is very similar to Japan's, but the Japanese asset crash didn't lead to a systematic collapse. The Communist Party will avoid an outright collapse through political means. Funnily enough, the best way they can do so is to transfer wealth from entrenched Party interests in the state sector to households, so they are their own worst enemy.

>>1247358
As for real estate collapse, this is one aspect that a Chinese crash may unfortunately be different from a Japanese one. While foreign real estate values declined in the early 90s as wealthy Japanese repatriated their money to deal with the situation in Japan, wealthy Chinese people would be motivated to keep their money out of China and accelerate their escape from the country once the Chinese debt bubble pops. You would have to hope that the Communist Party is successful at escalating their crackdown on capital flight.

>>1247353
>consumer debt default event in the U.S.
Where? Why? If anything, we'd just get cheaper iPhones. Adjusted Chinese growth numbers are already priced into commodity markets.

I'm still waiting for you to explain this debt default event. There is no debt bubble to pop

I need someone who understands this better than me to explain.

The fed appears to be raising interest rates very slowly now. Can an economic collapse be prevented if the fed continues to very slowly raise rates? Explain why or why not.

>>1247379
>>1247364

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

>>1247379
Fed has almost nothing to do with economic collapses. They have some tools to help stimulate things, but theyre essentially out of bullets right now. So they reload (raise rates.)

Autists like OP think that because the Fed is out of bullets the economy is going to collapse. Its like saying that because your mechanic is out of town your car is going to break down.

Look at 2008 and tell me whether the Fed prevented a collapse.

>>1247364
-Total Outstanding U.S. Consumer Debt: $3.4 trillion.
-Total revolving debt: $929 billion.
-38.1% of all households carry some sort of credit card debt.
-Households with the lowest net worth (zero or negative) hold an average of $10,308 in credit card debt.

What do you think happens when there's an economic slowdown (now)? 140 million people all the sudden can't pay the bills, they default on their mortgages/credit cards/etc and the securities based on those credit products tank as a result of non-payment. It would be similar to what happened in 2008, except securitized consumer debt is 40% higher now than it was in 2008.

>>1247281
Peter Schiff, pls leave.

We are nowhere near '09 levels of leverage. Consumer credit is tiny compared to mortgage debt

>>1247281
My nigga. Please go on about the misleading calculation about the consumer price index. I need as much info about it as possible.

>>1247405
The only number that is bad is the last one and I would like a source on it at that.

So why do you think a slowdown would cause any of that? We are talking about a 1 or 2 percent change in unemployment. That is not going to trigger a massive debt default

>>1247293

I'm Australian and I'm fucking waitng for this to bust!

>>1247399
An interest rate will inevatbly lead to monly supply contraction. There is a glut of money supply in any asset, that provides a tiny yield ""without risk"", like stocks or housing credit etc. Now tell me what will happen with all these assets, when money suply contracts?

Oh god this kind of stupidity....

THE MARKET IS BACKED UP BY THE MILITARY AND THE POLICE

IT CANNOT FAIL UNTIL THOSE FAIL

File: housing prices in France.png (48KB, 851x532px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 851x532px

Now here's a bubble.

>>1247540
>THE MARKET CANNOT FAIL

>>1247543
if the market "fails" it will just be compensated for with legislation and military action. No industry will stop. Nothing vital will change. Everything will be FORCED to keep going as usual.

>>1247545

This.

You fags just don't get it, do you? The collapse is out of question, any crisis will be solved with government intervention, like in 2008-9.

That said, right now there are no real signs of collapse. "Shemita" and "muh China implosion" are just /pol memes.

So should I take all my money out of the bank and hold it as straight cash?

>>1247616
buy canned food, bottled water.
worth 6 months
and to be sure it doesn't go to waste, start living off that canned food.
next month reassess the economic situation and may be buy 2 months worth of canned food.
if nothing has happened till halloween, finish your remaining canned food and start living life normally.

nothing apocalyptic will happen though, but having 6 (or more) month worth's canned food beats having to stand in the line for bread.

>>1247572
The government has no more tricks up its sleeve. It used em all up to 'fix' the 2008 crash.

>>1247622
Lmao. Im not a total fucking retard and live in America. We wont run out of food unlike europoors and all the other third worlders.

Oh and btw you didnt even answer if I should take my money out of the bank

>>1247623

>It used em all up to 'fix' the 2008 crash

In case of a possible meltdown the same methods could and would be used again to stabilize the markets. What could possibly happen anyway? Another investment bank will go under? Right now there aren't any signs of a major crisis.

>>1247622
>buy canned food, bottled water. worth 6 months and to be sure it doesn't go to waste, start living off that canned food.

yeah, some of the happeningfags are probably living on canned food and MRIs diet since 2009. The medical bills alone will fuck them up more than any recession. Meanwhile canned food manufacturers (as well as bunker builders and authors, who write books about "the future happening") are cashing in millions.

>>1247285 I agree with this. they should let market forces wipe out a few big banks along the way instead od bailing them out.
Although you know that markets can and will panic as if it is the end of the world thats for sure.

>>1247265
Actually a 'market correction' may start with the collapse of the EURO somehow?

>>1247639
This.

Whoever said to buy canned food and live on that is 100% a fat retard who is probably covered in acne and hasnt left his basement in months.

Meanwhile Im about to go boating and have a great day!!

>>1247639
>the same methods could and would be used again
Yes, lets just reduce the interest rates to 0% again... oh wait, they are already at 0%.

>What could possibly happen anyway?
Look at Greece for a nice example.

>Right now there aren't any signs of a major crisis.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
There are countless signs. It is happening. It's just a matter of how much longer they can lie and stall it by printing money.

There is some talk about DUETSCHE BANK may not be have enough capital to pay its debts or something like that.

If there is a collapse its a toss up between a few countries (or continents ) not just isolated to the USA . Just where it will start is the question keep your eyes and ears out for news on all sources Thats what I am trying to do.

>>1247636
>America imports $70 billion worth of food every year.

You're a retard if you think that there wouldn't be a shortage in event of cataclysmic economic failure.

>>1247659
It also exports about the same amount. Yeah, there might be banana and mango shortages. So let them eat corn.

>>1247659
>he thinks America (the worlds strongest army) wouldnt invade another country and take their food

Man /biz/ is really fucking retarded lately.

>>1247348
>savings glut and relative lack of consumption
Meanwhile majority of everyone finances pretty much everything and lives paycheck to paycheck

>>1247497
Canadian here and our housing market is in the same boat as yours. Just waiting a bit longer for this bubble to pop and I can buy me a foreclosure at a decent price

>>1247663
>implying russian nukes
>implying chinese nukes
>implying hungry faggots won't resort to playing nukey-nukey for some soggy bananas
>implying so many nukes we could take earth on a joyride around the galaxy

yep, /biz/ is stupid.

>>1247636
What happens when truck drivers arent working? How do you think North america operates? How do you think your grocery store gets its food?
If every truck driver stops driving, the whole country would shut down in 3 days and you'd see the effects of it in as little as 1 day

>>1247616
Put 30% of your assets into gold/silver

>>1247659
DURRRRRR go buy canned food.
Lmao nah m8 i eat sushi almost daily. Kill yaself!

>>1247680
>he thinks hes not a retard

>>1247650
>Yes, lets just reduce the interest rates to 0% again...

Europe has negative interest rates in several countries. Why is this a problem again? Also this won't be necessary, because there will be no major crisis.

>Look at Greece for a nice example.
US of A is not Greece wtf are you talking about? How can you even compare such absolutely incomparable economies.

>There are countless signs
Yet you couldn't name any.

>It is happening.

Dr. Paul pls

>It's just a matter of how much longer they can lie and stall it by printing money

Nothing wrong with printing money.
You must be one of these panicmongers, who cry wolf every time Dow drops a couple of hundred points.

>>1247651

Deutsche will receive assistance from the government, i don't see any issue here. Germans did it before on 2009-11, they will do it again.

>>1247680
>What happens when truck drivers arent working?

Why wouldn't they go to work?

>If every truck driver stops driving, the whole country would shut down in 3 days and you'd see the effects of it in as little as 1 day

Bullshit, the government will issue a state of emergency and either force drivers to do their job or replace them with FEMA/NatGuard.

Take off your tinfoil hat, OP. Nothing will happen, because people are already expecting it to happen and it is weighed in the current market price. Conspiracy fags spend good 10 years waiting for "DOLLAR TO CRASH" when it only gets stronger and they get poorer.

>>1247572
>>1247639
>don't worry guys, the government will save us

It wont. The fed's interest rates are already ridiculously low at 0.25%, lowering it to zero won't make much of a difference.

OP has explained the signs of a collapse in this thread. Many people also believe that the fed's response to the 2008 collapse has created huge bubbles in the bond and stock market, so the fed can't QE their way out of this collapse either if it really happens.

The only way for Europe to be saved is for Germany to embrace its leader position and start being the hegemon of Europe. Everything else is set for failure.
So if you wanna be optimistic and go "all or nothing" maybe you should invest in germany.
What are the most profitable german companies?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579456-if-europes-economies-are-recover-germany-must-start-lead-reluctant-hegemon

File: Capitalism is crisis.jpg (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>1247265
Are you prepared to help establish a postcapitalist system once the upcoming global economic collapse inevitably ends capitalism?

>>1247736
Nobody is going to be going to work if the dollars you are paid are worth nothing

>>1247752
>It wont

It will. Also they will be saving themselves too. They don't have any other option. Otherwise they would break the oath they've took, to serve the American people.

>OP has explained the signs of a collapse in this thread

Too bad that all of them were debunked. It's just another "it's happening!!!!1" thread.

>Many people also believe that the fed's response to the 2008 collapse has created huge bubbles in the bond and stock market

many people also believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, so what?
There's no bubble, American economy has recovered from the recession, millions of jobs have been created by Obama administration, fracking removed the dependency of foreign oil.
It's a healthy recovery and growth. There are no real signs of any serious crisis.

>>1247753

Kraut detected.
Germany cannot be allowed to dominate in Europe that's not what the Allied fought for in WW2. Thankfully the US, France and the UK will never allow that.

>So if you wanna be optimistic and go "all or nothing" maybe you should invest in germany.

Germany is NOTHING without the US support. You can't even build good cars anymore. GTFO

>>1247795
>Nobody is going to be going to work if the dollars you are paid are worth nothing

US Dollar is THE WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY, so this situation is impossible. Every other currency will be destroyed before something happens with the USD, and in that case EVERYONE will want to buy USD, to safeguard their savings/assets from devaluation.

>>1247811
>US Dollar is THE WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY, so this situation is impossible. Every other currency will be destroyed before something happens with the USD

Ok bud world reserve currencies dont remain in 1 country forever, Other countries are already starting to stop use of the US dollar.

>>1247399
But the QE mo ey has been kept out of circulaion by the fed paying banks higher than interest to keep it locked up

What happens when we start taising interest rates?

The banks let the money out and boom - inflation

Plus our debt payments go up - we paid over 200 billion last yeat at current interest rates , where are they going to find the money with 3% interest and these bs subpar gdp numbers?

>>1247543
Also 1/3rd of us home sales right now are to investors - rent looks low or stable on that chart but its just as much seperated from wage growth as economic productivity since the 70's

>>1247622
Just fyi - if the shit really hits the fan your neighbors with guns will just take your canned food dumbass

>>1247639
>the same methods could and would be used again to stabilize the markets.

You have no idea what your talking about. Where do we go from here? Negative interest rates?

The QE money that hasnt yet enterd the normal money supply IS one of the problems - we'll just let hyperinflation happen to pay off the debt and nuke the economy back to health?

Great forethought

>>1247832
>neighbors with guns
>implying i don't have guns.

File: James Connolly committees of the rich.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>1247806
Politicians break their oath every single day because they DON'T "serve the American people". A simple analysis of how capitalism works (minus the propaganda), or even a quick perusal of the studies on the effect of popular opinion vs. lobbyist-funding wealthy donors, would prove as much. For example:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

That analysis did not include years before the Citizens United v. FEC case, so it's safe to conclude that the "negligible" impact to a "none whatsoever".

>There's no bubble, American economy has recovered from the recession, millions of jobs have been created by Obama administration, fracking removed the dependency of foreign oil.

You have to be joking. All signs point to a growing bubble, and there has been no recovery for the lower 95–99% of the American populace:

http://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

The "recovery" has only affected the top 1%, i.e. the richest capitalist pigs who run this game you think is working.

Millions of jobs have not been "created", only replaced. Production is moving out of the United States because it is a "mature economy", whereas the service sector is growing to accommodate for the lack of production and growing demand for services to manage foreign-produced goods (which is what happens when an economy is "mature"). Moreover, that has nothing to do with Obama, who is merely the executive leader with minimal control over affecting the economy. Any and all economic "growth" is purely a result of increases in investments and the redevelopment of yet another bubble which will inevitably pop and cause yet another recession per the "business cycle" we tolerate in this unstable system called capitalism.

>>CONTINUED<<

File: Capitalism Doesn't Work.jpg (113KB, 623x960px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 623x960px

>>1247806
>>1247858
As for hydraulic fracturing, it is what caused the collapse in the oil price. The oil tycoons in the fossil fuel industry thought it would be a good idea invest in fracking in the hopes that it would generate a quick return from the oil boom. Their decision would make an Economics 101 student cringe, however, because the brilliant capitalists forgot that increasing supply for a good (even a necessity good like oil) while demand remains the same causes the price to drop. Well, they brought up millions of barrels of oil and saturated the oil market, which caused the oil price to drop to dangerous lows. Oh and they lost all their investment, and in the process cost thousands of working class jobs throughout the Midwest, since fracking companies had to lay off workers due to poor profits (which were due to them fucking up the oil market).

Oh and to top it all off, we're still dependent on fossil fuels, which literally risks global extinction if we continue using them, so breaking out dependency on foreign oil is worth exactly jack shit. A more prudent strategy of breaking that foreign dependency would be to invest heavily in green energy and transition for a clean energy economy. Oh wait, oil companies fund among the largest amount of lobbyists (and buy off some of the most politicians) that any such Green New Deal would be dead on arrival, since it would cut them out of the single largest buyer of oil on this smoldering planet.

>It's a healthy recovery and growth. There are no real signs of any serious crisis.
You're delusional and completely unaware of what's going on. I recommend you educate yourself and stop talking about these topics until you do. The last thing we need in this global crisis is someone spreading a siren song of ignorance.

>>1247860
Making more oil would be good if
>oil prices went down so gas prices went down
>I guess now I dont have to care about fuel economy etc
This doesn't happen though.

File: The Absurd Contradictions of Capitalism.jpg (93KB, 500x727px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x727px

>>1247858
*AFTER the Citizens United v. FEC case

>>1247872
The causal correlation between gas prices and oil prices is weak to nonexistent because only costs are passed onto consumers ("socialized"), not profits. If oil prices go down, gas prices won't change much unless they must to compete because the increase in profits will be kept for the company, specifically its chief officers and shareholders. If oil prices go up will gas prices rise, and they can do so beyond what consumers might approve because oil and gas are necessity goods and the rise in oil prices can be used as an excuse. Given the drop in oil prices, it's possible that oil manufacturers will spike the gas prices by using the oil price drop as justification, thereby erasing decades of competitive pricing pushing down costs.

>>1247860
>>1247889
>>1247858
Thank you for posting these. The owners might have lost a few dozen mils, but at the end of the day their asses are still in a warm place. The people who trained for those jobs and got laid off lost pretty much everything.

File: capitalism.socialism.communism.guide.jpg (828KB, 3990x2245px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 3990x2245px

>>1247892
Anytime

>>1247896
10/10 bait

File: Anarcho-communism (smaller + clearer).jpg (178KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 600x600px

>>1247966
What bait? I'm being completely serious I'm an anarcho-communist with veganarchist tendencies. What are you? A fascist or a classcuck?

>>1247860
>>1247889
>>1247896
>>1247860

>posting commie propaganda pictures
>denying the facts about the US economy

Ok, you're an obvious commie shill and since your comments are reeking of pure antiamericanism and anticapitalism you could be a Kremlin shill as well. That's what they do - trying to smear the US government on the internet.

>Politicians break their oath every single day because they DON'T "serve the American people".
yeah, maybe in Russia/USSR, but not in the US. American politicians cannot break the oath or they will lose their job in a heartbeat. The US is a representative democracy and if a congressman fails on his job he will not be reelected for another term.

>https://scholar.princeton.edu
>http://eml.berkeley.edu

the academia is full of cultural marxist pushing their anticapitalist commie propaganda. It's old news. Look up Yuri Bezmenov on YT, because looks like you are one of their victims.

>You have to be joking. All signs point to a growing bubble, and there has been no recovery for the lower 95–99% of the American populace:

No, YOU have to be joking. Are you denying that the situation is better than in 2009? Yes of no? Are the unemployment figures down? Yes or no? How can you deny the fact that the government has revived the economy? Consumer confidence is up, unemployment is down. The net worth of US households and non-profit organisations is back at pre-2008 levels, as well as GDP. It is a clear sign of recovery. MEanwhile you still haven't presented any sign of "the major crisis".

>Any and all economic "growth" is purely a result of increases in investments and the redevelopment of yet another bubble

Revamped American auto industry, which is beating German competition is a bubble? SpaceX is a bubble? Tesla is a bubble? Fracking is a bubble? Sure...

>we tolerate in this unstable system called capitalism

Confirmed commie.

>>1247860
>As for hydraulic fracturing, it is what caused the collapse in the oil price. The oil tycoons in the fossil fuel industry thought it would be a good idea invest in fracking

And it was a good idea. The prices will get back Saudi Arabia can't play this game forever and it's their only source of income, while the US of A has a diversified and robust economy.

>Oh and they lost all their investment, and in the process cost thousands of working class jobs throughout the Midwest, since fracking companies had to lay off workers due to poor profits (which were due to them fucking up the oil market).

They know what they are doing. Don't think you're the smarter than them, because they are billionaires and you're not.

>Oh and to top it all off, we're still dependent on fossil fuels

That's bullshit.

>A more prudent strategy of breaking that foreign dependency would be to invest heavily in green energy and transition for a clean energy economy.

That's exactly what the administration was pushing for and there is progress too.

>unaware of what's going on

NOTHING is going on, except for usual fearmongering. China is not going to implode, financial industry is not going to collapse. There's no bubble on stock market. End of story.

>I recommend you educate yourself

by reading Karl Marx, right? I think i'll pass on that, sorry.

>The last thing we need in this global crisis

There's no global crisis, only local market corrections that's all. it's fully normal for free market economy.

>>1247860
>>1247889

>there are 5 vacant homes for every homeless person
>there are 22 vacant homes for every homeless person

which one is it comrade?

File: Chloe-Grace-Moretz-Glamour-Mexico-January-2016-Cover-Photoshoot03.jpg (124KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x536px

>>1247265
People have a HUGE economic collapse bias. They are not that common, we have had like 6 collapses since 1900 and 4 of them happened during great depression in short time frame.

Yes, negative rates are a problem but world gdp increases exponentially so does technology advancements, that's all what matters in the end

>>1247265
To your perception, how likely is it that in the near future the US Dollar will be terminated as the international exchange mint and replaced by another, for example, the Chinese Juan or the Bancor? (I'm talking months, maybe weeks)

In such a scenario, what would the consequences be for the Euro-zone, since the Euro is defaulted to the Dollar?

>>1247315

Then you should buy shares in REITs and other real estate companies.

For example, you can buy Finnish/Swedish malls by CTY1S, or Finnish/Russian offices by SDA1V. (I'm a finn, so am most familiar with local companies)

>>1248065
dont think of the yuan as replacing the USD, it wont. however, it's a great hedge for investors.

previously, the USD was god-tier and diversification in any other currency was retarded. nowadays, USD and yuan is better than straight USD.

it wont replace the USD, but the yuan will definitely be bought in conjunction.

File: Free Market Capitalism.jpg (64KB, 600x406px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x406px

>>1248024
>propaganda pictures
Critical infographics with citations verifying their claims? Go fuck yourself.

The Russian Federation is extremely anticommunist and antisocialist ever since it underwent liberalization and submitted to capitalism. Even during the Soviet Union, the majority of its history consisted of either state capitalism or liberalization and privatization into a market capitalist economy. Not only has the Cold War been over for decades, but even during the Cold War the amount of Russian spies and propagandists in the United States was low and much of their rhetoric was empty. They had no interest in a serious anticapitalist alternative, just establishing a Soviet-style state capitalist regime. Your bullshit red-baiting lost its efficacy nearly a decade ago, especially after "terrorism" took its place as the bogeyman for everyone to irrationally fear. If anyone is the shill here, it's you for repeating such vapid and intellectually vacuous falsehoods, the sort that I would expect from one of the expert-for-hire "economists" corporations regularly buy to write articles on the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.

I don't particularly care if I'm being "anti-American". Fuck the United States of America and everything it truly represents, namely an imperialist warmongering superpower and principal propagandist for the rotting system of capitalism. You better believe it that I'm a communist and anticapitalist because capitalism is a failure that failed to live up to its most basic promises, from the French Revolution (Equality! Liberty! Fraternity!) to the American Revolution (American Dream) and beyond.

File: Capitalism crashed.jpg (201KB, 977x610px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 977x610px

>>1248024
>>1248239
The fact that you are still a supporter of capitalism demonstrates your fundamental ignorance of the economic theory which underpins how the religion of capitalism actually works as opposed to how it is celebrated by the high priests of you call "economists". By still supporting capitalism, you are a class cuckold who is either too stupid to understand how he's getting fucked by the system and its owners or two submissive and defeatist to oppose it. Your choice: are you a pig-ignorant idiot or a coward?

>American politicians cannot break the oath or they will lose their job in a heartbeat. The US is a representative democracy and if a congressman fails on his job he will not be reelected for another term.
"Representative democracy", also known as psephocracy, is an illusory political framework whereby politicians can give the mass of people the appearance of popular sovereignty so that they don't catch onto the reality of their political and economic disenfranchisement by the ruling class. You clearly don't even understand how your own fucking country politically and economically operates, though that was already apparent by the thought-terminating clichés and untenable drivel you posted above.

If I must explain to you how this system works, I will, but I strongly suspect you are either uninterested or too committed to that false-conscious ideology for you to give it a moment of consideration. You're essentially a lumpen and as such completely worthless (if not an impediment) to the struggle in which it is in your best interest to participate.

File: Democracy is only a rhetorical device.png (95KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 850x850px

>>1248024
>>1248239
>>1248242
"Cultural Marxism" is a fucking myth and conspiracy theory, you retard. Marxism is the set of theories as developed by Marx, and Marx was virtually silent on society's culture or how to change it. Thus, there cannot be by definition any such thing as "Cultural Marxism". The Frankfurt school developed critical theory in part due to the critiques of Marx and Engels, but their critiques originate more strongly from a sociological critique than from any political or economic agenda. Even Wikipedia addresses this and in terms which even a snot-blowing shit-for-brains like you could understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

Anyway, if Cultural Marxism was actually effective, capitalism wouldn't be failing due to conditions of its own making and the radical left wouldn't be so thoroughly crushed that even European social democracies are flirting with fascism due to a lack of support from the political left. Your view of Marxism is nothing more than a product of multiple Red Scares and the most successful propaganda campaign in human history as perpetrated by the United States and its Western allies. You don't understand Marxism, which is why you're ignorant enough to believe in a laughable idea like "Cultural Marxism".

>Are you denying that the situation is better than in 2009? Yes of no? Are the unemployment figures down? Yes or no? How can you deny the fact that the government has revived the economy?
No, there has been no recovery for the bottom 95–99% of the American populace, and the same is true in most Western countries. The objective statistical data overwhelmingly supports this; your vague assertions and the soundbites you hear on whatever mainstream media bullshit you listen to doesn't change that incontrovertible mathematical fact. Any "recovery" experienced by the bottom 95–99% is marginal to negligible and wholly insufficient to be rightly called a recovery at all.

File: Wealth Inequality in America.png (1MB, 1496x956px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1496x956px

>>1248024
>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
The major crisis is capitalism. Capitalism is crisis. The fact that near total economic collapse has occurred twice within a single century, something no other economic system in history ever experienced, is evidence of capitalism dying like every other economic system before it did. You are trying to delude yourself and others into believing that capitalism is eternal and eternally self-sufficient, despite the mounting evidence all around you: growing wealth and income inequality, increasing use of austerity measures, rise of fascist parties and cryptofascist sympathies in the general populace, a declining global working class, a global shift in capitalism away from the "mature economies" which gave birth to it (Japan, United States, and Western Europe) toward growing economies (China, Brazil, and India), more frequent and worsening recessions, the complete and total disenfranchisement of the mass of people from political and economic power, etc. What more evidence do you need, or are you too fucking blinded by your ideology to see it?

>Revamped American auto industry, which is beating German competition is a bubble? SpaceX is a bubble? Tesla is a bubble? Fracking is a bubble? Sure...
Yes, they're all fucking bubbles. The American auto industry is "booming" despite proving itself wholly incompetent as a private industry because of economic stimulation and bailout by the Obama Administration. SpaceX is a private venture by a rich capitalist and member of the top 1% which is but a manifestation of the symptoms I listed above. Tesla is a temporarily successful brand profiting off the misguided beliefs of environmentalists who think capitalism could ever be green or have a conscience. The fracking industry just created a massive bubble which burst and caused the oil price to drop so low, so that's already proven.

File: Monopoly.jpg (96KB, 693x693px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 693x693px

>>1248024
>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
>>1248245
>Confirmed commie.
No shit, you fucking class cuckold. My analysis remains strong, however, and you have no refutation thereof. Just pathetic red-baiting and other displays of moral and intellectual cowardice.

>>1248044
>And it was a good idea. The prices will get back Saudi Arabia can't play this game forever and it's their only source of income, while the US of A has a diversified and robust economy.
Except Saudi Arabia and the Seven Sisters can and will fuck the U.S. if they try to play this game and the U.S. cannot handle much more of this turf war it's fighting with the Middle East over oil prices. Thousands of jobs are lost or in limbo as a result of these games, real lives being crushed by a system that only cares about playing a game of monopoly that's fixed to make Rich Uncle Pennybags win the game every single fucking time. And you think this is a good? You aren't worth me wasting my time, since you're totally unqualified to be having this discussion.

>They know what they are doing. Don't think you're the smarter than them, because they are billionaires and you're not.
Do you seriously think that you will one day be the one wearing that boot, bootlicker? Wealth does not equal intelligence, only a headstart and an ability to semi-competently play by the rules of the system (up to and including illegal activity). The reality is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, so you are attempting feebly to hide behind your master as if I or the other anons here are mentally deficient enough to believe that wealthy people are wealthy only because they're smart. I guess you consider Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, and the Koch Brothers to be among the most eminent intellectuals in the world?

>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
>>1248245
>>1248248
holy tldr batman

File: Karl Marx Oppressed.jpg (199KB, 736x615px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 736x615px

>>1248044
>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
>>1248245
>>1248248
>That's bullshit.
You don't even know the current state of our fossil fuel consumption and dependency. Astonishing.

>That's exactly what the administration was pushing for and there is progress too.
Such as what? A non-binding international accord which set goals too low to actually prevent a runaway greenhouse effect and which none of the countries (including the United States) are currently attempting to fulfill?

>by reading Karl Marx, right? I think i'll pass on that, sorry.
By reading one of the most economists, sociologists, and political theorists in modern history? Yes, just as you should read Adam Smith, Rousseau, and Ricardo. You could also try Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Chomsky, Althusser, Lukács, Žižek, and Wolff. Or are you not serious enough about economics and economic theory to read such authors, only those who ideologically agree with you and who society tells you it's safe to read? Even Soviet citizens were less brainwashed than you.

>China is not going to implode, financial industry is not going to collapse.
China won't implode. The United States will. The European Union might. China is still strong, but if the U.S. economy collapses or its government defaults, the game is over. Capitalism is done.

>There's no bubble on stock market.
Economists, bankers, investors, politicians, and other capitalists from all political views are predicting it. All the signs point to it. Simply google "stock market bubble crash 2016" if you have the mental fortitude to do so.

>There's no global crisis, only local market corrections that's all. it's fully normal for free market economy.
There is no free market, you fucking idiot. That is a myth to rationalize capitalism. It never existed, not even in the beginning. Capitalism cannot exist in a truly free and stateless market.

File: What exactly is socialism.jpg (88KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x800px

>>1248056
One said more than 5, the other said 22. They are not conflicting, though I suspect the lower number was from older data.

>>1248252
I give analyses, not short summaries which obfuscate more than clarify.

Don't worry, though, I'm not interested in entertaining the stupidity of some shill. Oh, and that reminds me:

>>1248024
>>1248044
Kill yourself forthwith.

File: 1449996551321.gif (142KB, 312x404px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 312x404px

>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
>>1248245
>>1248248
>>1248253
>>1248255
You're wrong. About everything. :^)

>>1248262
ding ding ding

we have a winner

>>1247265
That's why I invested in gold and silver. While you idiots play with your fake money and imaginary stocks I'm financially secure for the crash.

File: Surplus value.jpg (94KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x700px

>>1248279
>a metal with minimal utility is a more secure investment because it is shiny and traditionally valuable than would investing in useful goods and services
>gold will still be valuable once the global economy collapses
>the gold standard is still possible and even feasible in contemporary economic conditions
Your nostalgia is not a good predictor of future trends.

>>1247265
Stinky Pete's Purfumes and Meats

>>1248294
5000 years of history says otherwise, your fiat imaginary funny money is far more useless in a crisis. I'd still trust PMs in that case. They also say to not invest more than 10-30% of your assets so its not like you're throwing all your capital into PMs anyways.

File: Capitalist Game of Chess.jpg (144KB, 760x887px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 760x887px

>>1248321
Did I stutter? "useful goods and services" is not "fiat imaginary funny money". Go buy food, water, supplies, a power generator, weapons (if necessary), and any luxuries you wish to have. Spend your money on utilities. Gold is as useless as money and serves the same functional role in a much less efficient way, so enjoy your magical bullion of perpetual wealth while it lasts (i.e., until the collapse actually occurs).

>>1247265
will cryptocurrencies go up in the happening?

>>1248331
Not all useful goods and services are directly interchangeable, so yes you will need some type of "money"

>>1248349
Of course not. If there is a happening that big, all those poorfags who bought into cryptos are going to need to pull out because they need the extra cash on hand after losing their minimum wage job.

>>1248016

>anarchist

How will you enforce communism and prevent people from forming voluntary hierarchy and using money? Oh right, you need a state with a monopoly on violence. Fascist.

File: 1xaxd.jpg (112KB, 812x531px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 812x531px

>>1248331
>>1248294
Hmmm let's see

>Workers are uneducated drones whose mental abilities allow them to do nothing better than pushing buttons and moving things around all day long
>Virtually all of their jobs will be replaced by automation and a small, hyperspecialized class of engineers
>They are incapable of self control, they cannot rule on their own, they are uneducated and refractary to education/culture/active interest into politics (or they wouldn't be factory workers)
>Literally people that would be out there looting and doing nothing good if they hadn't fancy levers to push to keep them busy all day long
>Their work still requires training and higher figures managing decisions, production goals, new investments, capital allocation, etc.
>These figures are paid according to the degree of risk they take (the more you risk, the more money you make)
>The problem is not industrial capitalism in itself, but with finance doing jewish games with the taxpayers' money without creating anything of value

I agree with global economy crashing with no survivors, but if anarchism/socialism/communism is the cure i'd rather be sick

>>1247313
Buy and hold uvxy until the collapse
you're welcome /biz/

>>1248239

>I don't particularly care if I'm being "anti-American". Fuck the United States of America

Well, there it is folks.
Need i say more?
A clear case of high treason, right there.

>The fact that you are still a supporter of capitalism demonstrates your fundamental ignorance of the economic theory

That's bs, capitalism is the only successful theory in existence, while your commie experiments failed EVERYWHERE. There wasn't a single commie country, which was successful.

>By still supporting capitalism, you are a class cuckold

What is your alternative? Gulags and bread lines? Thanks a lot, i'd rather stay away.
If you hate the US so much then get the fuck out to Cuba or North Korea and enjoy your commie paradise. Or Venezuela, yet another commie success story. Communism is SO perfect over there that people can't even have toilet paper anymore. Not that they need it so much, because there's no food in the first place.

But you would rather live in a comfortable house (build by capitalists!), while enjoying the incredible privilege of having the US citizenship and all amenities of the civilized world. You are using a computer and Internet (made by capitalists!), and paste this propaganda bs itt, while drinking malt liquor and eating fried chicken with a watermelon (all stolen from the nearest walmart, because paying for "capitalist goods" is against the teachings of Marxism, so they can only steal or confiscate).

>"Cultural Marxism" is a fucking myth and conspiracy theory, you retard

Said a confirmed commie shill, who openly hates America.

>Even Wikipedia addresses this
""""Breaking news""""": Marxist shills on wikipedia are covering up their shit

>No, there has been no recovery for the bottom 95–99% of the American populace, and the same is true in most Western countries

Except that irl there was a recovery. This is being confirmed by high consumer confidence. Which means - people have money and th

>>1248385
>That's bs, capitalism is the only successful theory in existence, while your commie experiments failed EVERYWHERE. There wasn't a single commie country, which was successful.

truth, free trade capatilism is the only thing that has generally worked and has brought more people out of poverty than any thing else

File: 1449100517178.jpg (185KB, 601x720px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 601x720px

>>1248321
There aren't actually people that believe this, right? Right? My comment about gold and silver was a joke.

It's way too easy to spot the /pol/tards.

>>1248403
You have too much trust in the system. Systems always fail eventually and just get reset

>>1248253
>You could also try Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Chomsky, Althusser, Lukács, Žižek, and Wolff

Kek, literally every single one of them is a fucking commie. Are you shitting me? Their shitty theories got BTFO by the real life every single time, yet there are still morons, who would read them. It's unbefuckinglievable.

>The United States will
You wish, fagget. World's biggest economy can't fail, no matter how hard you wish for it to happen. I've seen such predictions before, like this recent shemita hype.

>Simply google "stock market bubble crash 2016" if you have the mental fortitude to do so

I wonder if i google about failed predictions made in the previous years, like this Mayan shit in 2012, 1999 doomsday predictions and so on, what will i find. People like to predict disasters, usually with 99.9% fail rate.

>Except Saudi Arabia and the Seven Sisters can and will fuck the U.S

This has to be b8.

>Do you seriously think that you will one day be the one wearing that boot, bootlicker?

are you jelly, pinko?

>Wealth does not equal intelligence, only a headstart

So why aren't you rich yet?

>I guess you consider Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, and the Koch Brothers to be among the most eminent intellectuals in the world?

Every single one of them is 100% more intelligent that the whole lot of your commie idols, who failed miserably.

>>1248245
>The American auto industry is "booming" despite proving itself wholly incompetent

Said who? An incompetent company wouldn't get ahead of their competitors so fast.

>SpaceX is a private venture by a rich capitalist and member of the top 1% which is but a manifestation of the symptoms I listed above.

It's just another proof that capitalism works. And no amount of commie butthurt can change that.

>The major crisis is capitalism. Capitalism is crisis.
Bullshit. Capitalism is the source of all the wealth and welfare that exists around you.

File: 1456209184217.png (811KB, 1290x1080px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1290x1080px

>>1248406
Have you prepared for the 28 yet? Get ready brother for we will be kings when the fiat peasants crumble.

>>1248418
the 28?

>>1248418
>>1248429
>may 28.
fug, i'm not ready. any ideas for a faggot living in Iceland?

>>1248453
Take 50% of your worthless fiat dollardoos towards penny stocks. Cash out the 25th.

Put the remainder and what you gained into silver and gold. Gotta keep it diversified.

>>1248470
I had to google may 28th, and found this:
http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2016/03/putin-and-russian-general-warns-of-us-collapse-in-28-may-2016-america-could-be-taken-over-2501466.html

>>1248470
are penny stocks a good idea for someone who has never traded for real?

>>1248418
>>1248429
>>1248453
May 28th is just a meme created by someone who steals other peoples videos. Ignore it.

http://www.prepperfortress.com/ron-paul-warns-dollar-collapse-100-28-may-2016/

I cant see this happening exactly on May 28th but I can see it happening in the near future(1-3 years)

>>1248504
>>1248507
>A discussion on that is beyond the scope of this article. Mr. Paul also stated that 10 countries have already signed a document to begin phasing out the dollar as the basis of trade. Even the IMF has proposed a new world reserve currency system. The days of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency may well be numbered.

>>1247806
Ive posted on /pol/ about Germany. Germany has the ghost of Adolf in their leaders ears.

A lot of the confusing and disjointed interpretations of information from economic indicators, financial commentators,institutions and Governments, indicates the heavy involvement of
MARXIST THINKING COMMUNISTS SOCIALIST TYPES.
They are making the most of the GFC.

>>1248522
The socialist economic policies of the USA administrations probably allowed the GFC and the debt to get where it is today. But those policies are not limited to the USA MarxistSocialism is still deep in the minds of EU leaders.

>>1247277
https://twitter.com/CaeXFinance/status/723015288694837249

>>1248239
>>1248242
>>1248244
>>1248245
>>1248248
>>1248253
>>1248255
>>1248294
>>1248331
You're forgetting that the faults of a hypothetical and past communist government would be no different from a capitalist system only your freedom is given to the control of an idealistic oligarchy prone to mass murder if questioned and in Capitalism our time is sacrificed for the good of technological innovation, which ultimately serves it's population regardless of marketing which is easily suppressed unlike a gulag.

What you also forget is that people and class are not relative. There are always farmers and there are always warriors and there are always builders and there are always kings. You cannot tell me that a scientist researching the ability to travel from one end of the world to the next in a matter of seconds is equal to a sceptic who mops floors so he can pay back his political philosophy loans.

The beauty of capitalism is that it is individualistic. Any person can choose what to do within the system and any person can take advantage of the opportunity he is given. If you choose to stand by, it is not the states responsibility, it is your own. What you see to have a problem with is confusing capitalism with corporatism: both things almost intrinsically different from each other. I agree with some of your points against corporatism but your complete ignorance of the distinction between it with capitalism makes you another post grad clinging to an ideology out of convenience.

It's hilarious when communists start talking about capitalism's "inefficiencies." The inefficiencies of capitalism is happiness. Is it efficient that I can buy a triple stack cheeseburger at 3 AM on a Tuesday morning? No. Is having 3 TVs efficient? No, but damn does it make me happy

>>1248768
yeah and these communists fail to realize that communism will not get you the same life that you are capable of getting now through monday-friday work. Everyone is considered "equal" it doesnt matter what your job is whether you're sweeping floors or a brain surgeon. You all get paid the same which all of a sudden takes all incentive away to work.

Modern sympathisers with Marx rely on social causes which is the cruelest tactic, it divides men and women, old and young race creed and social status(class warfare). This is where the 'cultural' marxist will attack you if you do not comply look at the shameing that goes on in the LEFTWING groups \
Go on twitter or facebook and disagree with a Marxist leftie the vitriol is astounding. This is and will be their method of control in future socialist movements. That to me is far worse than any financial losses .

File: king-george-V-gold-sovereign.jpg (220KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1000x1000px

>>1247265
Goldman Sachs on The EURO: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-13/goldman-joins-deutsche-bank-abandoning-1-euro-call-by-year-end

>reading this thread
I-I just wanted to talk about the bond market ;_;

>>1248918
I think the bond market is nearly finished isn't it...what with the BONDAPOCALPYSE an all?

At first I wanted to tell everybody you're all retarded but for once you guys actually raise some good points

File: 1455826252029.jpg (74KB, 411x225px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 411x225px

>you might live to see helicopter money

Fuck all you faggots, 2% or bust

File: tmp_3961-bb503d4a235d5f792ea21d996dd904db1274568000.jpg (14KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x314px

>>1247673
>playing nukey-nukey

>>1247287
Honestly, with 180k in crypto, losing 1.2mil in hyperinflation event would be nothing compared to your gains in crypto.

>>1247341
boomers are lazy shitheads and any houses they sell are like taking a step back 30 years in time. they do shit if any maintenance of the houses and they don't renovate them.

>>1247758
by post capitalist system you mean an actual capitalist system?

>>1248507
>http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2016/03/putin-and-russian-general-warns-of-us-collapse-in-28-may-2016-america-could-be-taken-over-2501466.html

I love how these doomsday clickbaits always use Ron Paul's name as if he believe's exactly what they are saying.

>>1247281
>(can explain this more).
You better
>This is important because for exery gdp calculation, there is always term for inflation
GDP does not include inflation

>>1247353
May be a dumb question, but with a Chinese economic meltdown, how will this effect the US. Specifically in regard to the Chinese owned Us debt when they helped bail out America.

>>1249103
Well while Japan had a horrible economy the US had a boom and at the time they were considered top shit like China today. The news at the time said Japan would bring down the world, but the 80's economic problems were kinda small restructuring like.

>come back to this thread
>economically illiterate posts everywhere

I tried so hard, but it didn't even matter.

>>1249300
It will be what it is anon. You buying gold or stocks or what?

>>1249060
yeah
>comments disabled on every youtube video with the same titles

File: done button.png (2KB, 230x74px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 230x74px

>the Government will take care of us
>they won't let a collapse happen
>they'll just print more money and that will fix it
>who cares about BRIC and other indicators that people are backing away from the dollar?
>they just won't let it happen guys
>it's happened before, but not to us, so it won't happen
>I mean, guys like Schiff, Meme Maloney and other have been saying it for years, but it hasn't happened yet, so it will never happen because reasons and military and 'MURICA!!!!

Do people really believe this shit?

>>1249892
Yes....yes they do, The general public are living in the now and just assume shit will be fine forever. They're "brainwashed" as you can call it by the general media and don't do their own research.

>>1249892
Well with BRIC and the EU both being in worse condition than the US im not too worried

>>1249897
Not enlightend by great cinema like "zeitgeist" right bro?

>>1249900
I've never even seen it before. Just did a quick google search.

File: 1360636489419.jpg (16KB, 354x352px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 354x352px

>>1249900

>le snarky quip
>not even a cogent rebuttal

>>1249892
>BRIC
>relevant

???

China is going to pop harder than the US ever could, Russia is sinking, India is actually not actually terrible, but still has more problems than any western country by a mile and Brazil is going full Russia.

So should I start stocking up on ammo and outfitting my war rig?

>>1249924
Brazil is diverging from that now, Michel Temer policies are more private sector aimed

No but could someone please explain to me why the point "the us will bomb everything into not collapsing" is void? If you have a gun and want to dance sure as hell people gonna dance, no?

>>1249982

Unworkable, unsustainable.

The U.S has already been reducing its military personnel, carriers, fighters/bombers, etc. Still the largest and most capable military, but burning a hole in the pocket.

Eventually, the State will run out of money. It's how it is. It's how it's always been. Printing more only makes it worse. And there are always the naysayers who really do think that having the biggest stick in the neighborhood and debasing the fuck out of the currency makes a nation invincible.

The collective power of the rest of the world is more than enough to match the U.S if it came to blows, but I think the death of the U.S empire...and it is an empire, make no mistake...will be more of a crumble than a rumble.

>>1249981
>a country with that much systemic corruption
>becoming relevant in anything but commodities anytime soon

I'll believe it when I see it

>>1247285
lmao at this cope

File: Pyramid of Capitalist System.jpg (257KB, 1277x1575px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1277x1575px

>>1248351
If the global currency system collapses, there is no telling which currency—if any—will be used in the new economy. It may be USD or gold, but I wouldn't place my trust in them. I would personally prepare by stockpiling goods and services. In the event that I need to participate in any sort of trade with another, I would either barter with them or seek to establish a gift economy, preferably the latter.

Unless you know what money (if any) will be used once the global economy collapses, and I doubt you do, you are not in a position to make such claims. A more prudent strategy would be to stockpile useful goods and services and ensure that you have a sufficient network of friends and acquaintances with whom you could establish an interdependent relationship in the event of total societal collapse.

>>1248355
Simply eliminate the conditions which cause the existence of hierarchies and currencies, and the desire thereof, and they will simply cease to exist in the same way that monarchs and tribal elders have obsolesced from society.

Go find a better strawman to attack, child, because such simple ones are unlikely to work here.

File: ItHasntEvenBegun.jpg (3MB, 1051x9708px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1051x9708px

>ITT: Guvermint cucks and commies coping hard instead of buying Bitcoin

Absolutely fucking lol.

File: TraitsOfMoney.png (194KB, 660x393px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 660x393px

>>1250101
The only currency that will survive at a global level.

Lots of
>I just watched the big short, a couple frontlines, and whatever the latest netflix documentary is and now I'm an expert on all things related to parroting what I've heard.
ITT

Go suck a cock. All of you. 99% of this board shits a brick about their 5 shares of a penny stock going down.

>>1250110
normalcy bias: look it up.

File: Base-superstructure_Dialectic.png (186KB, 1680x1646px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1680x1646px

>>1248373
What argument are you feebly attempting to make? That the proletariat lack sufficient education to care for themselves without the need of a bourgeois master? The solution to that is education, as it always has been.

You did not describe socialism or communism because you did not mention the reorganization of productive relations. All you described is what happens when anarchy ensues under the same material conditions of capitalism. "Anarcho-"capitalism always and inevitably fails precisely because it does not reorganize the relations of production, thereby causing the redevelopment of employer–employee (capitalist–worker) relations and a state which protects the property of the former (employer/capitalist). The economy will once again financialize and the economy will once again inevitably collapse due to the conditions intrinsically produced in capitalism.

Congratulations, you don't understand radical leftist theory. Go take your antisemitic conspiracy theorizing and demonstrations in ignorance back to >>>/pol/.

>>1248385
>>1248416
Those thought-terminating clichés are for you, not me. Kill yourself forthwith, classcuck.

>>1248395
Capitalism has caused more poverty than it has eliminated, as is the nature of capitalism. If capitalism produced less poverty than previous economic systems, a lower percentage of the human populace would be in poverty. That is not the case in capitalism, and the only precedents for the amount of wealth and income inequality that we now experience occur during the pharaohs of Egypt and kings of Persia.

>>1250112
Henny Penny: look it up.

>>1250116
cope: look it up.

File: Capitalism's results.jpg (41KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x700px

>>1248615
>You're forgetting that the faults of a hypothetical and past communist government would [...] easily suppressed unlike a gulag.
And which hypothetical or past "communist government" are you describing? If you mean the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China, then you are wholly unqualified for this discussion. Even if you meant the state capitalism of the USSR or PRC, you would still be incorrect because both of them were resounding successes which outpaced the economic growth and rivaled the technological development of market capitalist countries like the United States, Japan, and those in Western Europe.

>What you also forget is that people and class are not relative. There are always farmers and there are always warriors and there are always builders and there are always kings. You cannot tell me that a scientist researching the ability to travel from one end of the world to the next in a matter of seconds is equal to a sceptic who mops floors so he can pay back his political philosophy loans.
What are you trying to say? I never said that people and class are relative.

>The beauty of capitalism is that it is individualistic.
How is it beautiful whatsoever to have a social system organized to promote antisocial behaviors? How is it beautiful for an economic system to promote the unqualified deification of the individual at the expense of all else? I strongly suspect you don't understand just what the individualism of capitalism entails.

>Any person can choose what to do within the system and any person can take advantage of the opportunity he is given.
That is not characteristic of individualism. That is simply a manifestation of individual liberty, which is characteristic of socialist and communist systems. In capitalism, only the illusion of individual liberty is given in order to obscure the coercive relations which define capitalism as a system.

File: Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.jpg (2MB, 3600x5400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x5400px

>>1248615
>>1250162
>If you choose to stand by, it is not the states responsibility, it is your own.
Except that is utter bullshit. In capitalism, the state has always been in collaboration with the capitalists who own it. That is why the state has always helped prop up monopolies, intervene in defense of large companies, and bail out failing corporations which—if the capitalist propaganda had any veracity—should have went bankrupt. Only among the working class is personal responsibility lauded, for it is through that illusion that workers can be conditioned to blame themselves for systemic problems which victimize them and likewise praise their masters for being exemplars of success.

Meanwhile, those capitalist masters regularly socialize costs by laying off workers when their investments cause a drop in profits, seek subsidies and interventions from the government in order to increase their profit margins, and readily blame the mass of people for economic troubles. So-called "personal responsibility" is a myth in capitalism used to oppress workers and aggrandize capitalists. Only in a system which is not organized like capitalism can personal responsibility truly be achieved—a system like socialism or communism.

>What you see to have a problem with is confusing capitalism with corporatism: both things almost intrinsically different from each other.
No amount of wordplay will work on me. Corporatism IS capitalism. Corporatism is what capitalism becomes once the bourgeoisie growing powerful enough that they both own and direct the state, and they can suppress competition through that state control. This isn't "corporatism" or "crony capitalism" or whatever weasel word you prefer to use to avoid the unsavory conclusion of this being a problem inherent in the system. What you are witnessing is an inevitable consequence of capitalism, particularly advanced late capitalism.

File: Work Buy Consume Die (Graffiti).jpg (80KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x680px

>>1248615
>>1250162
>>1250165
>both things almost intrinsically different from each other.
No, they intrinsically aren't. What intrinsic difference is there between the two? They are both hierarchical systems of social organization wherein a capitalist class exploits the working class by appropriating their surplus value as profit, and then using this profit to to reproduce their favorable conditions therein. That is true for both capitalism as the overarching system of social organization, and for corporatism as a specific tendency within capitalism characterized by a predominance of corporate actors as representatives of the capitalist class.

>. I agree with some of your points against corporatism but your complete ignorance of the distinction between it with capitalism makes you another post grad clinging to an ideology out of convenience.
Except you don't understand that corporatism is a type of capitalism which all forms of capitalism inevitably become. You are like a child trying to chide a confectioner for confusing Jolly Ranchers with candy because he called Jolly Ranchers candy, even though Jolly Ranchers ARE candy (a specific type of candy).

I am not "confusing" or "forgetting" anything. You are simply talking about a topic for which you lack sufficient education, and you are sufficiently ignorant enough that you remain pretentious in the face of those who are actually erudite in that topic. Cut out the pretension and go read a fucking book.


>>1248768
>>1248781
1/10

>>1248792
>muh strawman

>>1250113
Why can't leftists build a single little utopia with minimal contact to the outside world? It's because their ideas don't actually work, they constantly need to parasitise capitalists.

File: Surplus Value.png (77KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x667px

>>1249052
By postcapitalist system I mean a POST-CAPITALIST system, as in a system which is beyond capitalism. The world we live in now is capitalism, specifically the advanced stages of late capitalism. A postcapitalist system would be a socialist or communist system.

>>1249900
the "Zeitgeist" films promote what is tantamount to technocratic fascism. They are nothing more than misguided utopians who believe that mechanical automation and benevolent masters are the only solution to achieving a perfect society.

>>1250102
>Bitcoin is a stable and reliable system.
>After global economic collapse, we will somehow still have the infrastructure to run the Internet in its entirety.

>>1250106
Bitcoin requires an infrastructure which can adequately support the Internet and all other necessary conditions for Bitcoin to be useful. There is no guarantee whatsoever that such an infrastructure will remain fully functional immediately after a global economic collapse.

Unless and until Bitcoin as a currency can operate without said infrastructure, it is not a safe currency to invest in.

>>1250173
>why can't people build a system which is antithetical to the dominant global system within that dominant global system
Maybe because that's literally impossible? There is no "outside" build a new system. The current system current precludes an antithetical system like socialism or communism from existing, so the goal of any and all radical leftists at this time is to overthrow that system, just as capitalism did to feudalism and feudalism did to slavery.

Next time, use your brain before you post.

>>1250169
How do I own my big house and 2 boats and 3 cars and extra land in communism/socialism? UBI surely will not be able to keep up that life style. Free trade allows me to exchange my time for money which then allows me to exchange it for whatever I desire. Whether I reinvest it and make it work for me or spend it all on hookers and blow. The choice is mine.

>>1250165
>debating with a free-market cultist lolbertarian

>>1250169
>I am not "confusing" or "forgetting" anything. You are simply talking about a topic for which you lack sufficient education, and you are sufficiently ignorant enough that you remain pretentious in the face of those who are actually erudite in that topic. Cut out the pretension and go read a fucking book.

The fuck are you even talking about? You've provided little to mostly no evidence pertaining to the fact that capitalism isn't corporatism except spewing word throw up and rhetoric you got from skimming a subjective article written by a rich kid who used his macbook air to complain about how the awful capitalist system oppresses him. You have also pussy footed around my points that a communist government is an authoritarian oligarchy open to mass murder and censorship that has never worked and will never work. Your points about China are also ridiculous if you think modern China is in anyway communist. You're also ignoring the fact that traditional communist china was a corrupt and degenerate hell hole with a ruined economy. Only now is it getting better because of capitalistic funding. Go talk to anyone who grew up Soviet Russia and ask them how it was and you will not expect the antithesis of pessimism. Communism is a corrupt and idealistic system bred from the collectivist minds of rich ego centric talking heads of the people, simply look at history for evidence.

>muh bourgeoisie
>muh victims
>muh exploitation

Please stop you collectivist idealistic trash.

File: Workers of the world, unite (Banksy).jpg (317KB, 1087x589px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1087x589px

>>1250195
I don't know if you would be able to keep such excessive luxuries; it depends on a number of variables. Even if you could keep them, that does not mean you will necessarily be able to keep up such luxurious spending. Regardless, your question is rather inconsequential to the proposal here: if we were to reorganize the relations of production to be more equal and equitable and to eliminate poverty altogether, will this particular person (you) be able to keep personal property x, y, and z? This topic is far more bigger than that; you should evaluate the system as a whole and analyze how it might impact you specifically, then determine its effects on you from that analysis.

>>1250197
>implying they're "libertarians"
Libertarians were originally radical leftists, not delusional free market fundamentalists. Anyway, capitalism intrinsically precludes the possibility of liberty for all, so there can be no such thing as "free-market libertarian".

I get what you mean, though, and I know that I'm probably wasting my time with them. I'm fine with that, though, because my participation in the discussion is more for the audience than for that ignoramus. I may not be able to convince them, but I could persuade some of the lurkers reading the exchange.

File: Peter Kropotkin feudal baron.jpg (171KB, 960x648px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 960x648px

>>1250198
>You've provided little to mostly no evidence pertaining to the fact that capitalism isn't corporatism except spewing word throw up and rhetoric you got from skimming a subjective article written by a rich kid who used his macbook air to complain about how the awful capitalist system oppresses him.
Did you even read my post? Honest question because I literally did explained how both corporatism and capitalism are intrinsically the same systems of social organization. All you did is fall back on a tired stereotype to strawman my position and personally attack me rather than my argument. Great job on the fallacious approach. Let me know when you are going to be rational.

>You have also pussy footed around my points that a communist government is an authoritarian oligarchy open to mass murder and censorship that has never worked and will never work.
No, I said that if you consider the likes of the USSR and PRC to be examples of a so-called "communist government", then you are simply unqualified to have this discussion because you are too ignorant about the most basic principles of radical leftist theory to meaningfully contribute.

Socialism and communism are antithetical to authoritarian or oligarchic systems of social organization; that is precisely what characterizes them and differentiates them from previous and current social systems. You don't understand socialism or communism, so it's pointless to discuss it with you. I don't mind educating you on the topic, but that is no longer a discussion between two informed peers.

File: Albert Einstein evils of capitalism.jpg (297KB, 900x563px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 900x563px

>>1250198
>>1250414
>Your points about China are also ridiculous if you think modern China is in anyway communist.
My point, since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, is that the People's Republic of China is not and never was an example of communism. It is principally an example of state capitalism.

>You're also ignoring the fact that traditional communist china was a corrupt and degenerate hell hole with a ruined economy.
No, I'm not. If you're just going to make up my positions to discredit me, I'll simply stop entertaining your drivel.

>Only now is it getting better because of capitalistic funding.
China was previously state feudalistic and transitioned to state capitalism. Now, the People's Republic of China appears to be transitioning to the corporate capitalism that is characteristic of the United States and Western European countries. The only fundamental change in China's economy has been its increasing tolerance for private property; it has otherwise been thoroughly "capitalistic" since its inception.

>Go talk to anyone who grew up Soviet Russia and ask them how it was and you will not expect the antithesis of pessimism.
I don't care what a former Soviet citizen's opinion is on the Soviet Union because their opinion has exactly no relevance to socialism or communism. If anything, their opinion would be counterproductive because they have been disinformed such that they believe the Soviet Union ever represented socialism or communism.

You're only further demonstrating your total lack of qualification to be having a discussion on this topic by bringing up the Soviet Union as evidence against socialism and communism. Unless you are interested in me educating you on this topic, don't expect me to entertain this excuse for a discussion any longer.

File: Karl Marx what communism is.jpg (92KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 850x400px

>>1250198
>>1250414
>>1250419
>Communism is a corrupt and idealistic system bred from the collectivist minds of rich ego centric talking heads of the people, simply look at history for evidence.
It's pathetic that the best rebuttal you could contrive consists of strawmanning and personal attacks. You have no position, or what position you have is untenable. Don't expect another response, child.

File: 1457658563724.jpg (72KB, 717x473px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 717x473px

If the financial system fails it will probably take our modern way of life with it, without the massive amounts of debt we can no longer extract unconventional oil which puts on the down curve of peak oil

>>1250437
Are you a moron? We will simply have to correct our priorities a little. More money will indirectly go to paying for oil instead of going on vacation to Ibiza or buying a new smartphone every 3 months. Best case scenario, the US will have to reform its horribly overpriced and inefficient healthcare and higher education systems.

>>1250405
>>1250414
>>1250419
>>1250421
The deluded communist who invents problems in an already sophisticated system in order to create anxiety by means of giving a engineered solution to the people for power and control, everyone.

You're an idealist so you're "argument" which mostly consists of subjective rhetoric is futile in every way.

Where do you think you got the thing you're typing on anyway?

File: Nothing at all.jpg (75KB, 600x623px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x623px

>>1250454
I didn't need to "invent" any problems. These problems have existed since capitalism's inception, and were produced by capitalism or the material conditions which preceded it, and the working class is already beginning to notice. The ruling class already has, and that's why they're beginning to freak out. The rise of outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the United States, or Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, or Podemos in Spain and SYRIZA in Greece, or the various fascist groups throughout Europe are all examples of the proletariat realizing that this system is intolerable and must be changed. Unfortunately, however, most of them still have a false consciousness about the reality of the system, and as a result fall back to identity politics and far-right approaches which actually just safeguard capitalism.

Meanwhile, the contrivance of identity politics to divide the proletariat, the increased militarization of the police, the cutting of funding to education, the development surveillance state in developed countries throughout the world, and the growing tolerance and support for fascist (including social fascist) rhetoric and "solutions" among the ruling class all points to the fact that the bourgeoisie is intimately aware of the fact that the system is about to collapse and desperately attempting to hold onto it at all costs.

You're blaming the messenger for the message. It's not my fault that you are too fucking ignorant and intoxicated by your own false-conscious ideology to realize that capitalism is dying all around you. Even the capitalists realize that, and that's why they're working overtime to keep idiots like you believing that everything is fine and distracting you with spooky bogeymen like the one you think I am.

I have no interest in idealism. Sorry that your cliché stereotypes don't describe me whatsoever.

>Where do you think you got the thing you're typing on anyway?
Pic related. Kill yourself forthwith.

>>1250414
>Honest question because I literally did explained how both corporatism and capitalism are intrinsically the same systems of social organization.
You really didn't. You just accumulated the same lazy leftist rhetoric about exploitation and hierarchy. So evidence or facts are used at all so your attack on me is useless.
>No, I said that if you consider the likes of the USSR and PRC to be examples of a so-called "communist government", then you are simply unqualified to have this discussion because you are too ignorant about the most basic principles of radical leftist theory to meaningfully contribute.
Then why would I care about your opinion on communism when the only evidence of a clear communist dictatorship are those of violent power hungry authoritarians? Do you want me to believe that this imaginary system is perfect in any way because you say it is?
>All you did is fall back on a tired stereotype to strawman my position and personally attack me rather than my argument. Great job on the fallacious approach. Let me know when you are going to be rational.
That's funny, because what I was actually doing is pointing out the error in your sophistic argument.
>>1250419
>People's Republic of China is not and never was an example of communism. It is principally an example of state capitalism.
Which is exactly why is has been doing so well within the last few years, but in the height of communism it was an authoritarian censored society, the evidential conclusion to communism. China was a communist state regardless of what you're invisible subjective and idealistic version of it is. China was real, your imagination is not.
>I don't care what a former Soviet citizen's opinion is on the Soviet Union because their opinion has exactly no relevance to socialism or communism.
Besides the fact that they hold evidence of the flaws of successful communist society.

>>1250419
>lol guys your versions of communist aren't real, but my idealized version of it would work perfectly
Kill yourself, man. Its sad that there are people on this board reading your posts that actually might be persuaded by what you're saying. Typing 4-5 paragraph responses while calling people idiots and telling them to read a book does not all of a sudden make your retarded stance any better either.

>>1250493
>I didn't need to "invent" any problems.
The ideology you attempt at authorising is based on inventing problems out your own linguistic parasitic greed.
>These problems have existed since capitalism's inception
They weren't. People were prosperous until lunguisites created problems for people to come to them for the solution and to give them resources.
>and the working class is already beginning to notice.
Most people notice the faults in corporatism. I thought communists wanted an equal class.
>The rise of outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the United States, or Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, or Podemos in Spain and SYRIZA in Greece, or the various fascist groups throughout Europe are all examples of the proletariat realizing that this system is intolerable and must be changed.
Politicians can't solve problems because they aren't educated in that factor. Politicians claiming to have the solution to the peoples problems have always occurred in a dualistic society between makers and parasites. Trump is an exception being educated in business, a highly problem solving area. The rise in fascism is bred out of the EU, a leftist, collectivist and socialist authoritarian government that simply replaced the Nazi government with a baby blue coloured one and some policies that match the other side of the same fascist coin.
>Unfortunately, however, most of them still have a false consciousness about the reality of the system, and as a result fall back to identity politics and far-right approaches which actually just safeguard capitalism.
A yes, the people actually looking to improve a sophisticated system are still not as smart as you with your non evidential imaginary communism.

...

File: Working Class Against Capitalism.png (338KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1080x1080px

>>1250521
>These examples of a non-socialist and non-communist system proves that socialism and communism are bad systems.
This is not about those countries failing to resemble any sort of "idealized" version of socialism or communism. The examples being given—the USSR, PRC, DPRK, SRV, etc.—are not examples of socialism or communism because they do not satisfy the most basic necessary and sufficient conditions which define those systems. Retards like you are essentially attempting to argue the equivalent of saying that the fuedal kingdoms of the Middle Ages are examples of socialism or communism. You're proving nothing outside of your own utter ignorance on this topic, and your arguments will only be effective at reinforcing the false consciousness of those who are likewise as utterly ignorant.

I'm telling people to go read a book because anyone who studied radical leftist theory would already know what I'm talking about. None of the radical leftist theorists—not even Marx, Engels, or Lenin—ever defined or described socialism or communism as what the USSR or PRC was or later became. In fact, Lenin literally described the economic system he was establishing in Soviet Union with the New Economic Policy as "state capitalism", and it is from his and Trotsky's analyses that state capitalism was developed as an economic system which was characteristically capitalist and antithetical to the principles of socialism or communism (but nevertheless necessary for a socialist transition, according to Marxism–Leninism).

There is a clear definition of socialism and communism which have existed since Marx and, in some cases, arguably even before Marx. Countries like the USSR and PRC do not, under any condition, satisfy those definitions. Pointing this out is to simply point out that those countries are not socialist or communist according to the most basic definitions of those systems as provided by its adherents.

You have no argument. Stop wasting everyone's time.

>>1250493
>Meanwhile, the contrivance of identity politics to divide the proletariat
You mean the identification of the parasitic class bred out the same cloth of communism.
> the increased militarization of the police, the cutting of funding to education, the development surveillance state in developed countries throughout the world, and the growing tolerance and support for fascist (including social fascist) rhetoric and "solutions" among the ruling class all points to the fact that the bourgeoisie is intimately aware of the fact that the system is about to collapse and desperately attempting to hold onto it at all costs.
As is the fall of any Empire. This is not strictly respective to the USA.
>You're blaming the messenger for the message.
I'm blaming the messenger thinking the message is of any worth to me or anyone who is a realist.
>It's not my fault that you are too fucking ignorant and intoxicated by your own false-conscious ideology
There is some hypocrisy to this statement.
>capitalism is dying all around you.
This has happened to communism time and time again. Capitalism will die when the people deem it. People can decide for themselves the solution to the problem, not linguisites like theocracies, communist oligarchies and militant neo leftist authoritarians.
Even the capitalists realize that, and that's why they're working overtime to keep idiots like you believing that
I'm not even highly capitalist nor materialistic. I'm arguing against communism because it's a nonsensical idealistic fish out of water philosophy. Sure, capitalism will be replaced with a better system. Probably a long time after I'm dead. But fantasizing about a masturbatory ideology is futile in the present.
>>1250493
>distracting you with spooky bogeymen like the one you think I am.
Nobody is distracting me except you with your intellectual masturbation.
>I have no interest in idealism.
Funny because you seem to deny the evidential communism for your own idea of it.

>>1250570
>The examples being given—the USSR, PRC, DPRK, SRV, etc.—are not examples of socialism or communism because they do not satisfy the most basic necessary and sufficient conditions which define those systems.
Except you're wrong. These examples are what came out of the communist movement. These are the physical evidence of communism. Your ideal communism did not prevail so these are sufficient examples of the evidence of communism.
>Retards like you are essentially attempting to argue the equivalent of saying that the fuedal kingdoms of the Middle Ages are examples of socialism or communism.
Wrong because Middle European Monarchies are a false equivalent to communist ideology. You're argument that the evidential conclusions to communism don't equal the ideology is equivalent to saying if we all had sex we would be happy, but in reality it would only spread sexually transmitted diseases to everyone.
>You're proving nothing outside of your own utter ignorance on this topic
And what are you providing? Ah yes, rhetoric, subjectivity and ad hominem.
>and your arguments will only be effective at reinforcing the false consciousness of those who are likewise as utterly ignorant.
"Everyone's a retard except me." Classic communist ideology.

...

>I'm telling people to go read a book because anyone who studied radical leftist theory would already know what I'm talking about.
So what you're saying is the only the people who study the niche subject of "radical leftist theory" and read the ambiguous "book" you so desperately want people to read are qualified to understand the thing idea you have in your head? You're just minimizing your peers in order to justify your lack or evidence or explanation.
>None of the radical leftist theorists—not even Marx, Engels, or Lenin—ever defined or described socialism or communism as what the USSR or PRC was or later became.
The reason why is because the idealists definition of communism cannot be a legitimate system and only a corrupt government is created out of the efforts of the ideology,
>Lenin literally described the economic system he was establishing in Soviet Union with the New Economic Policy as "state capitalism"
Lenin also taught Stalin everything he knew about politics and he was a murderous tyrant.
>There is a clear definition of socialism and communism which have existed since Marx and, in some cases, arguably even before Marx. Countries like the USSR and PRC do not, under any condition, satisfy those definitions.
It was birthed out of the ideology and nothing else did. I don't care if they do not fit your definition. Tyranny is the only evidential conclusion to the ideology. Only an existing system of your idealistic system can change that fact, but it never will.

communiggers BTFO ITT

Oh how hard it must be for the working class to ride on the backs of the upper class.

>>1250682
Ha the truth is literally the opposite of what you are saying. It's fun to watch you fumble with such confidence at least.

>>1250690
Oh yes, I'm sure the working man would have walked right into the factories and picked those hammers up on their own.

Why does the lower class always fool themselves into thinking they are the reason for success? I mean it's always fun to seem them pretend to be worth something but in the end get replaced by a machine that does a better and faster job than them. When that happens there isn't much bitching from people about seizing the production because they can't and they didn't make a thing.

Bait all you want, but I truly believe humans are worthless money wise. As in I wouldn't spend a dime to save just one.

>>1250570
Except those countries political and economic systems came from the communist movement so once again you're point is wrong. And once again telling people to read a book still doesn't help out your stance. If you believe so strongly in communism you'd be able to articulate a real argument for why it is better than Capitalism which in the 27 posts you've had you still have failed to do that. Retarded infographics that address the problems with Capitalism don't count as arguments either because you haven't once shown why or how Communism would benefit society over Capitalism. Your 'arguments' also further fall apart when all of the examples of countries that have tried communism have failed and trying to all of a sudden claim that these countries weren't what you consider communism are laughable.


>You have no argument. Stop wasting everyone's time.
This is you right now. All buzzwords, ad-hominem, and basic communist rhetoric without any real substance nor argument to actually back up your inane gibberish.

>>1250721
I don't even know what you're talking about, but it's entertaining to watch you babble.

File: The Secret of the Exploitation of the Laborer.jpg (151KB, 601x433px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 601x433px

>>1250682
The "upper class", i.e. the bourgeoisie, is the parasitic one because they can only exist so long as class relations exist. The bourgeoisie lives off the surplus value they appropriate from the proletariat (working class), while it's the proletariat doing most to all the work.

But of course, it's the workers who are lazy, not the rich pigs in their mansions whose work consists of walking to their mailbox and collecting their dividends.

You're a class cuckold who likes to lick the boot of the capitalist. What a pathetic, cowardly existence and worldview you have.

>>1250721
>Oh yes, I'm sure the working man would have walked right into the factories and picked those hammers up on their own.
The workers have tried to do that before, but they lacked sufficient support among their fellow proles, so the capitalists would call in the police or the army (i.e. the state) to come prevent the workers from rebelling against their enslavement.

>Bait all you want, but I truly believe humans are worthless money wise. As in I wouldn't spend a dime to save just one.
You're a contemptible excuse for a human being. When the revolution comes, be prepared to be shot alongside all other pigs and lumpen. And with you, I hope I'm the one to personally pull the trigger.

>>1250728
Must be from the lower class if you don't understand, I mean you clearly lack critical thinking.

>>1250729
The rich will control the guns, men, and equipment to take you commies down! Sure you can take a factory or home fast, but the rich could easily stomp you down.

Go on, pretend you'll be able to win. It will make supreme control of the poor all the easier.

Oh, you took a factory? How nice of you to control a factory that makes nails. The rich will either make another or pay someone to boot you out.

BTW the working class can't unite, can't control, and most certainly can't lead others. That's why they are the working ants and aren't valuable. Unlike the upper class that is, who does lead and does it well.

>>1250731
Yeah maybe I already know there's no clarity and no truth to be found in any of this argument, on either side. Just a bunch of posturing and posing. I just can't bring my will to even focus on it, you know?

File: All-consuming capitalism.jpg (163KB, 933x1335px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 933x1335px

>>1250725
>Except those countries political and economic systems came from the communist movement so once again you're point is wrong.
That's questionable to say the least, but even if I were to rather generously assume that to be true, all that proves is that those specific experiments failed (which begs the question), not the theories themselves. In order to prove that, you would have to prove that those countries faithfully executed those theories in their entirety, and that their failure was caused by that faithful execution. Otherwise, all you have established is that those countries failed in some undefined way for some undetermined reason and that conclusion is essentially meaningless.

>If you believe so strongly in communism you'd be able to articulate a real argument for why it is better than Capitalism which in the 27 posts you've had you still have failed to do that.
Your ignorance on the most rudimentary knowledge about radical leftist theory and history is my fault? Your failure to understand my points due to that total lack of knowledge is my fault? If we are to treat this "personal responsibility" myth in capitalism as real, then it is your responsibility to have sufficiently educated yourself on this topic so that you could understand what I have said, not mine.

>Your 'arguments' also further fall apart when all of the examples of countries that have tried communism have failed and trying to all of a sudden claim that these countries weren't what you consider communism are laughable.
My position has been consistent throughout all my posts. At no point did I ever assert that the USSR or PRC, or any of those other pseudo-communist countries, were socialist or communist. The only "sudden" revelation I gave was that I did not consider those socialist communist whatsoever, and that way immediately after those countries were brought up. Don't misrepresent my position.

Final response.

>>1250729
>The bourgeoisie lives off the surplus value they appropriate from the proletariat (working class), while it's the proletariat doing most to all the work.

Didn't they tell you in high school economics class that the labor theory of value is wrong?

>>1250762
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDfrrgqy_Eo

Probably not my final response, but I hope it is.

>>1250762
So you're comparing your ideal form of hypothetical communism with real-life modern day psuedo capitalism? That hardly seems fair.

If we're gonna make comparisons, I think you'd have to use Pol Pot's Cambodia as the truest communism that has been put into reality. And compare that to late 19th century American capitalism. Those would be the two most pure forms of each system that have been realized

>>1250762
I noticed your final response pleb, looks like the lower class lose again. Nice try now get back to work.

File: Leon Trotsky Fascists.jpg (47KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 850x400px

>>1250745
Those "men" are part of the proletariat and there is no guarantee that they will stand by the rich. The military, the police, and the workers in weapons factories are all proles. When they turn, you pigs have nothing to defend yourselves. You will be dragged out of your mansions and high-rise apartments and tried for crimes against the people by the people. Don't expect an acquittal or plea bargain.

Kill yourself, pig. We won't be so merciful.

>>1250770
>Didn't an institution whose sole function is as guard labor to indoctrinate a new generation of compliant proles tell you that a theory which exposes the inherent inequality of the system is wrong, without explaining why or allowing you to think for yourself?
Prove that the labor theory of value is wrong.

>>1250777
No, I'm comparing the theoretical system of socialism and communism with the theoretical system of capitalism, of which contemporary society is merely its practical manifestation.

Did Pol Pot's Cambodia use a currency system? Was there a state? Was there a class system? Were the means of production owned, directed, and operated by the workers themselves? If the answer to any of those is "no", then Pol Pot's Cambodia is not and cannot be communist by definition.

There is no such thing as a "pure" form of an economic system. There is either a practical manifestation of one, or there isn't. The use of terms like "pure" both implies that a system can be less or more than itself and that distinct systems of social organization (which are, by their nature, mutually incompatible) could be compatible.

Refer to this: http://rdwolff.com/content/what-do-you-understand-capitalism-mean

>>1250791
Oh that's funny because I remember the proletariat standing with the wealthy if they wanted to be a successful country. France didn't and it went into a reign of terror and killed more people than your e-words will possibly reach.

Oh wait France (one of the most economically and culturally advanced at the time) didn't go into a revolution against the rich and none of that happened in real life. Silly me for believing those upper class history books and education. You the working men are right!

When you get to using big boy books with facts in them rather than poor feelz give me a ring-a-ding baby.

>>1250791
no, you're missing the point. If you're saying communism has never been proven to be bad because its never been inplemented in the exact way you consider "true communism," you have to say the same about capitalism. Your logic sucks.

>>1250791
>If something taught at school shows that my theories are wrong, it's because they are part of an oppressive system of the rich

This is why no one takes Marxists seriously.

>Prove that the labor theory of value is wrong.

Simple. It doesn't accurately describe how things are valued in real life. Something is not inherently more valuable because more labor is put into it.

Can you come up with proof or evidence of the labor theory of value that would not be better described by other economic explanations of value? I'll already give you the answer and inform you that it doesn't exist, but go ahead.

File: Global capitalism.jpg (114KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 700x700px

>>1250800
Your "logic" is illogical. No, the latter does not entail the former and I have no idea what sort of twisted "logic" you used to come to such an absurd conclusion.

Whether socialism or communism has a practical example or manifestation depends on what the criteria for a practical example or manifestation would be. For example, many radical leftists consider a necessary criterion for a practical example or manifestation of socialism or communism to be its status as the dominant system of social organization. This is because any example or society which is organized along socialist or communist principles and theory must necessarily interact and depend upon the dominant capitalist system to survive, thereby rendering it an insufficiently independent and closed system to warrant that classification.

The rationale for this criterion is multiplex, but a common one is that it is unfair to compare two systems of unequal dominance because a subordinate system is still subject to the flaws of the dominant system and thus could be wrongly held accountable for problems caused from without (i.e., the dominant system). For that reason, systems like socialism, communism, and capitalism are theoretically compared because a closed and independent system could be constructed for fair comparative analysis. Moreover, any practical examples or manifestations organized along socialist and communist principles and theories are often described as "socialistic" or "communistic", since they lack the sufficient conditions to be rightly described as socialist or communist proper. This is, at least, my observations as a member of the international radical leftist community.

>>CONTINUED<<

File: MLK Critics of Capitalism.jpg (86KB, 798x532px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 798x532px

>>1250800
>>1250829
By the logic described above, it is completely fair to describe the contemporary system as capitalist or "bourgeois" because capitalism is the dominant global system. The only way to rightly compare two practical examples or manifestations of socialism or communism with capitalism is for, say, Mars (or some other earth-like planet) to be fully terraformed and populated, for that planet to be socially organized along socialist or communist principles and theories, and for that planet to not have a dependent or interdependent relationship with capitalist Earth. But since no such thing even remotely exists, such practical comparisons are impossible. We could compare practical examples of socialistic or communistic societies with global capitalism, but that would be unfair for the reasons described above.

An example of capitalism is all around you. The same cannot be said about socialism or communism. For that reason, the only comparisons which could be fairly made is on theoretical grounds.

>>1247659
This. Remember back in 2008 when shipping completely stopped for a few days because no one knew which banks were safe to do transactions with. When shtf there's going to be food shortages.

Marxism fails because the average people who were supposed to take up the responsibility of the means of production DIDN1T as marx thought.so now they try to force those people out of their comfortable state by guilt and shame at the same time promoting the aspiration to a higher class thru borrowing more money than they earn.

File: 0f90659fc9bb467fad7059d59c506048.jpg (32KB, 313x463px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 313x463px

>>1250834
Marxist thinking permeates all levels of a society thru the education system...thus confusing the fuck out of that society leading to qausi commie policies we need another McCarthy era to drive that thinking into the sea. if the Marxist can't have a pure version then it will destroy everything out of ideological spite.

>>1250834
>real capitalism is exactly what exists in real life
>real communism has never been tried

you see why no one is taking you seriously?

Marxist teachings should simply be banned And advocates jailed.

File: Nasim Nicholas Taleb slave.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>1250820
>implying schools "teach" that Marxist theories are wrong
Most schools, including colleges and universities, completely ignore Marxism entirely. Some teachers and professors don't even know anything about Marxism because it is not required reading. When Marxism (or some theory by Marx) is mentioned by, say, a student, it will be brushed off as nothing more than an idiosyncratic belief or theory of limited historical relevance. If Marxism or Marx's theories are addressed at all, it is in the context of the Soviet Union or other characteristically non-Marxist systems in order to discredit it through guilt by association.

This has been my experience, the experience of virtually all radical leftists I know (and they know), and the experience of the various radical leftist professors and economists. For those reasons, among many others, I consider the formal education system to be an unreliable source for such information. If you think people who hold such an opinion shouldn't be taken seriously, then don't be surprised when those people don't take the likes of you seriously for being so uncritically supportive of whatever the formal education system "teaches" or conveniently fails to "teach".

File: Theory of Value, Adam Smith.jpg (33KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 728x546px

>>1250820
>>1250908
>It doesn't accurately describe how things are valued in real life. Something is not inherently more valuable because more labor is put into it.
Of course value is, or at least appears to be, subjective. All theories of value nevertheless attempt to tie value to certain variables it considers necessary or most important in the evaluative calculus and constructs a coherent theory on that basis. Even though value seems to be subjective, value can be reduced to certain variables and used to coherently calculate the value of something. This is the case for the labor theory of value, the marginal utility theory of value, and other theories of value.

Simply saying that "it's all subjective, topkek" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstand of theories of value because that is, at least usually, considered a given. Nevertheless, a theory of value can be constructed and thus far, the labor theory of value appears to be the best theory of value which describes how value is produced in economics, and far better than Adam Smith's theory of value, as far as I'm concerned.

>Can you come up with proof or evidence of the labor theory of value that would not be better described by other economic explanations of value? I'll already give you the answer and inform you that it doesn't exist, but go ahead.
What, exactly, would constitute a "proof or evidence of the labor theory of value"?

>>1250908
Sounds like typical Marxist red herrings thats how you've got so far but the jig is up. Ive heard all the tricks to deny Marxism is permeating thru society.

>>1250842
No, Marxism fails because of a simpler reason. It ignores the selfishness that is an essential part of human nature. Socioeconomic equality of the type communism tries to achieve can't coexist with human nature. There is a good reason that the vision of workers joining together to take over the means of production has never happened, and it's not just the oppression of evil capitalists. It's the workers themselves.

Why does being poor on a relative basis to neighbors makes people unhappier than being actual dirt poor, but surrounded by those who are equally poor? It's not simple lack of class consciousness. People like owning their own property. People like feeling superior to others. People like striving toward a greater social and economic standing. People are willing to pay for things that bring convenience or pleasure even if it harms the whole in the abstract. Capitalism is an imperfect system that does the best at recognizing and harnessing these more unpleasant sides of human nature through the profit motive.

Instead, communism ascribes these simple things, which undermines the whole theory, to the manipulations of shadowy rich capitalist elites and consumerist advertising. Which do exist, but they are symptoms and not the cause.

>>1250908
>What, exactly, would constitute a "proof or evidence of the labor theory of value"?

You might start by addressing some of the obvious explanatory deficiencies that led to mainstream economic rejection of the theory. Here's some examples:

Does digging holes in the ground and refilling them have value just because it involves labor?

Is each pound of corn on a farm less valuable inherently because it requires less labor to grow and cultivate than it did two hundred years ago?

What about productivity? If one company hires ten data entry clerks, and a hypothetically identical company hires one person to automate the exact same amount of data entry work with equal results, is there a difference in value?

etc.

>>1250911
Why do you talk about 'value' when the socialist aim is to remove or change the notion of 'value' thru printing money with no physical backing or the latest thing to create currency thru digtial mathematics ie bitcoin

>>1250929
well thats a much better way of describing it.... carry on anon!

>>1250929
And of course the classics:

How does the labor theory of value explain the broken window fallacy?

What about the water-diamond paradox?

File: Charles Bukowski work quote.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

>>1250842
When the proletariat are not educated in the necessary and sufficient skills to run their own enterprises, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they fail to do so. Consequently, it should also not come as a surprise that critical thinking skills are usually either optional or only taught in tertiary education, which proles typically cannot afford, and high-quality business departments typically only cater to those who can afford it (i.e., the children of wealthy capitalists at private universities). Just so long as the proletariat lack the critical thinking skills to develop class consciousness, and they are deprived of the necessary skills to manage enterprises, they will remain compliant and reliant on the capitalist parasites who feed on their labor.

"Marxism" (which is simply the set of theories by Marx, not an ideology or belief system) never failed, it's just that there lacked sufficient support and commitment among for it to resist bourgeois pressure from without.

>>1250857
>>1250871
Kill yourself. So-called "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory that only paleoconservatives and crytofascists believe, and which originated from the antisemitic neo-Nazi propaganda of "Cultural Bolshevism" and "Jewish Bolshevism".

If "Cultural Marxism" was real, then there would not be so few radical leftists who so vehemently disagree with the current system, including the education system, and contemporary society would more resemble a society organized along Marxist principles and theory (which it categorically is not).

If you have such a problem with communists like me, then come get me. I'll personally kill you myself, fascist pig.

>>1250858
Yes, I see why bumbling retards who cannot into complex thought like yourself don't take me seriously. I wasn't aware that you can only understand simple concepts, which is why you oversimplified my post into that ridiculous strawman. My apologies for wasting my time.

>>1247673
why would we invade china or russia for food? i feel our Canadian brothers would be the first we annex for their maple syrup reserve.

>>1250941
>When the proletariat are not educated in the necessary and sufficient skills

Every single time. If only communists could educate themselves on actual, empirically valid economic theory, but no. It's always that everyone else except themselves needs the education.

>>1250941
Everything in your post is exactly what the Marxist are doing. thats how far you commies have inched your way into society. you've pretty much ensconced the bourgeois. there is not really an option for the anyone these days.

File: Herbert_Marcuse_Paraphrased.jpg (122KB, 550x444px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 550x444px

>>1250941
Anyone who disagrees is met with vitriol or some kind of social ridicule because the Cultural marxist has had a very good run at co opting the social agend. Thank uncle Herb for that tip eh!

>>1250941
>unironically thinking communism is good
>calling other people retards

You want proof capitalism is king:
>the middle class
Something that literally has never existed outside capitalist systems

>>1250941
I'm not a cryto fascist Im just your regular fascist conservative capitalist. Anyone who can quote marx or puts socialist in their title is all put in the same pot.

File: muh human nature.png (426KB, 498x432px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 498x432px

>>1250929
>muh human nature
The human condition is shaped by its material conditions. You have to be literally a child, or the mental equivalent of one, to seriously believe that the human condition is some immutable quality intrinsic to humanity.

It was "human nature" to practice cannibalism for millions of years of our evolutionary history, yet we have changed that quite thoroughly and I seriously doubt you or anyone you know finds the notion of eating another human being to be appealing. It was "human nature" to engage in human sacrifice, yet that has largely died out. It was human nature to collectively share with your tribe in hunter-gatherer societies, hence why they are described as examples of "primitive communism", yet that change upon the advent of private property and the state. Even today, the spectrum of "human nature" is so vast and self-contradictory that it is essentially meaningless.

The "muh human nature" argument is one of the oldest, most thoroughly debunked excuses for an argument. I recommend you stop using it forthwith, since nobody but intellectual children will take you seriously.

>Does digging holes in the ground and refilling them have value just because it involves labor?
Is that labor socially necessary? If so, then yes. If no, then no. I suspect the answer is no, so I will say that no.

>Is each pound of corn on a farm less valuable inherently because it requires less labor to grow and cultivate than it did two hundred years ago?
No because the value of the corn is relative to its social necessity, not just the amount of labor that is required to harvest it.

>What about productivity? If one company hires ten data entry clerks, and a hypothetically identical company hires one person to automate the exact same amount of data entry work with equal results, is there a difference in value?
If the same amount of socially necessary labor is performed, then no.

The operative term is "socially necessary labor", not just "labor".

>>1250957
Just like boys can now say their girls if it were so desired , marxist zealots would have the "right" to eat other humans a priority if it meant more control. Marxism perverts human nature. Its why they hate it so much its disagrees with your beliefs. it takes away the 'right' to choose t cultural marxists thats unthinkable

>>1250957
it was usually among these primitive communist that they ate each other and perform human sacrifices like I said The modern cultural Marxist would adopt theses 'rights' if it meant more control over the humans.

>>1250957
>>Does digging holes in the ground and refilling them have value just because it involves labor?
>Is that labor socially necessary?
ask a Marxist unionist and of course they'll say its necessary.

File: Champagne-Glass Distribution.jpg (54KB, 484x518px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 484x518px

>>1250932
What are you even saying? I know you're probably legally retarded, since you (or your parents) were so irrationally afraid of public schooling as being a giant Marxist conspiracy, but at least try to be coherent.

>>1250945
How am I incorrect in saying that it is unreasonable to expect a working class subsume the role of the capitalist class without the necessary and sufficient skills to perform both roles?

>>1250948
Seriously, commit suicide.

>>1250952
Yes, because it is rational to believe that there is some global conspiracy of people with Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain mindsets out to ruin everything you love for the sheer fun of it. What a fucking joke.

>>1250954
Congratulations, capitalism facilitates the existence of an intermediary strata between the oppressed and the oppressors whereby the oppressed can, perchance, join the ranks of the oppressors so long as they sell their soul and participate in the oppression. And you consider this fundamentally better than before? That makes capitalism sound no better than feudalism, just more effective at refreshing the ruling class to keep the whole system going.

Then again, it was the conditions of feudalism which produced the so-called "middle class" that undermined it and precipitated capitalism, so feudalism would have led to capitalism regardless. As such, the "middle class" is more a product of feudalism than it was of the emerging capitalist system that benefited from it. Ironically, capitalism didn't even produce its own greatest feat.

Anyway, the middle class is dying and, in some places, almost nonexistent nowadays due to the very conditions which capitalism intrinsically produces. It sure is "kingly" of a system like capitalism to fail at even sustaining its own "middle class" because the "upper class" is more interested in hoarding the wealth than maintaining the "class" below it.

File: Life is a Video Game for pol.png (629KB, 1256x1244px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1256x1244px

>>1250976
If you are seriously going to use the "muh human nature" argument, then the overwhelming evidence proves that humans are naturally cooperative and sharing creatures. The entire prehistory of humanity, stretching hundreds of thousands of years, consisted of what is called "primitive communism", where there was no property, class, currency, or state. The development of such features is a recent one which has only existed for no more than 10,000 years, though it really took off about 5,000 years ago. If anything is a perversion of human nature, it is a system like capitalism.

Even by your own retarded argument, you're demonstrably false. Kill yourself, fascist.

>>1250979
Of course Marxists wouldn't. Radical leftists generally have no interest in such unconscionable actions. My point was merely that human nature is shaped by its material conditions and that it is not some immutable and eternal quality intrinsic to humans.

Although unsurprising since you're an open fascist, your thinking is incredibly infantile. You appear to literally believe that there exists the real equivalent of cartoon villains who are the personification of all that is evil and who plot global domination and ruining the world for the sake of it, whereas you're some morally righteous, pure, and virtuous crusader-vigilante out to rid the world of that evil scum.

Pic related. You're mentally a child.

>>1250981
No they wouldn't. Why would they?

>>1250957
>The human condition is shaped by its material conditions.

Shaped by both nature and nurture, not just nurture. You're making that classic relativist mistake of "these particular values or customs were different in these times, which means everything can be changed." This is like pointing out that grasshoppers are viewed as disgusting by modern Western sensibilities in response to my claim that people feel hunger. Selfishness and jealousy and the tendency for people to make distinctions between "us" vs "them" stretching back to tribal times are not a custom or a kind of social organization. Education may shape these instincts, but it can never totally control or remove them. See my comment about symptoms and not causes.

>socially necessary
You see, this is where Marxism loses all explanatory power. How do you decide when something becomes "socially necessary"? After all, there were people actually arguing that it would have been good for governments during the last recession to hire people to dig holes and refill them, just to provide stimulus and relieve unemployment.

>No because the value of the corn is relative to its social necessity
We're assuming ceteris paribus here, so assuming that output of corn is equally socially necessary in both cases.

>If the same amount of socially necessary labor is performed, then no.
Here's the thing, though. Advances in productivity like the introduction of automation, and by extension real increases in living standards, are motivated by profit, so the amount of socially necessary labor would stagnate under a communist system. I find it hilarious that "socially necessary labor" is a way of incorporating the effects of what is basically creative destruction driven by capitalistic competition that would not exist in a communist society.

>>1251002
>*eating grasshoppers is viewed as disgusting by modern Western sensibilities in response to my claim that people feel hunger.

>>1251000
>The entire prehistory of humanity, stretching hundreds of thousands of years, consisted of what is called "primitive communism", where there was no property, class, currency, or state.

Notice that "primitive communism" depends on a prehistorical status of small groups without the complexity or population size that necessitates things like currencies and governments. You might also note that these supposedly "primitive communist" communities probably did not lay down arms upon meeting another community and join together in harnessing the means of production. Is it any wonder that utopian socialist experiments like New Harmony never went beyond a small community?

File: ekins-photo1.jpg (91KB, 450x359px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 450x359px

>>1250941

>and contemporary society would more resemble a society organized along Marxist principles and theory
You mean like every single college campus in the west?
The spread of cultural marxism is a multi-generational process, it doesn't happen overnight. The portrayal of yourself as part of an enlightened few is laughable.

File: John Maynard Keynes Capitalism.jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

>>1251002
The material conditions are what cause genetic and epigenetic features in the first place because "nature" itself is a part of the material conditions which shape agents. I am not ignoring "nature"; you simply don't understand what "material conditions" are.

>Selfishness and jealousy and the tendency for people to make distinctions between "us" vs "them" stretching back to tribal times are not a custom or a kind of social organization. Education may shape these instincts, but it can never totally control or remove them. See my comment about symptoms and not causes.
Complete bullshit. If that was true, then primitive communism would have never been the social system of hunter-gatherer societies. So-called "selfishness" and "jealousy" are personality traits produced by the base and reinforced by the superstructure of a society. It is not simply the expression of wants and needs. Selfishness and jealousy as traits can be totally eliminated so long as the material conditions which produce them in the base and superstructure are themselves eliminated. Of course humans will always want and need, and scarcity may cause conflict as a consequence of that, but neither necessarily entail selfishness as the response. That is wholly a social construct, not something intrinsic to any "human nature".

>You see, this is where Marxism loses all explanatory power. How do you decide when something becomes "socially necessary"?
Something is socially necessary if it is necessary to reproduce the social conditions of a given society. When it comes to labor specifically, "socially necessary labor" is the quantity of labor necessary to produce a commodity "in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions or production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of the labor employed", according to Marx: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6

File: Malcolm X Capitalism's Survival.jpg (110KB, 900x565px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 900x565px

>>1251180
>>1251002
The people themselves determine social necessity and socially necessary labor, even in a capitalist society. That which is necessary to reproduce the conditions of capitalism itself is only truly relevant to the capitalists themselves, since they are the inessential beneficiaries of a functional system. Those conditions are socially necessary only insomuch as they are necessary to produce a capitalist society and its social conditions, but they are not socially necessary to produce a functional system.

>After all, there were people actually arguing that it would have been good for governments during the last recession to hire people to dig holes and refill them, just to provide stimulus and relieve unemployment.
Those people rely on classical labor theories of value. Marxian labor theory of value is not that.

>We're assuming ceteris paribus here, so assuming that output of corn is equally socially necessary in both cases.
Then yes, the pound of corn would be less valuable per the labor theory of value if it is produced using less socially necessary labor than before. That is reflected in the lowering price of corn. What has changed, however, is the exchange value of corn due to the decrease in socially necessary labor, not the "inherent value" of corn, whatever that may be.

>>1247265
I got a question: where do I invest my money in if shits going to hit the fan as you say?

File: MLK Change the System.jpg (94KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 850x400px

>>1251002
>>1251180
>>1251182
>Advances in productivity like the introduction of automation, and by extension real increases in living standards, are motivated by profit, so the amount of socially necessary labor would stagnate under a communist system.
The profit motive is a social construct and product of capitalism. In a system where profits—i.e., the surplus value appropriated from workers by capitalists via exploitation—do not exist, there would be no profit motive. Without a profit motive, production could be guided by more fundamental motives which are more characteristic of that "human nature" you like you believe, such as the desire for a better and more efficient society or the desire for more leisure and less work. Those would become the principal drivers of decreasing the socially necessary labor time until it reaches zero, at which point a fully automated society has been achieved (which is characteristic of upper-stage communism)

> I find it hilarious that "socially necessary labor" is a way of incorporating the effects of what is basically creative destruction driven by capitalistic competition that would not exist in a communist society.
What are you trying to say here?

>>1251031
Except currencies and states (which are distinct from governments) are NOT necessary, even for complex societies. There is no reason why a complex social system requires either in order to function.

Primitive communist tribes fought usually because there was one society which took up raiding and marauding other tribes, or because there was scarcity of a particular resource in that region and they fought over that scarce resource, as is typically the case in all conflicts between two groups or peoples. That only proves that warmongering and scarcity are problems, not that primitive communism was in any way defective.

>Is it any wonder that utopian socialist experiments like New Harmony never went beyond a small community?
Refer to >>1250829 and >>1250834.

File: wake-up-wrong-side-of-capitalism.jpg (554KB, 1280x857px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1280x857px

>>1251059
In what way are Western college campuses resembling Marxist principles and theory?

Millennials are favoring socialism more because capitalism is drying and failing all around them. The conditions capitalism produces are growing particularly intolerable for millennials, so they are naturally seeking alternatives to that system. It's rather telling that you think any and all interest in socialism and communism must unconditionally be the product of some vast conspiracy of powerful Marxists who are yet simultaneously incapable of fundamentally reorganizing society along Marxist principles. This sort of self-contradictory, paranoid, and delusional thinking is what I would expect from /pol/acks and their antisemitic conspiracy theories. Are you as retarded as they?

If so, then here is another ridiculous conspiracy theory for you to believe. It was made as satire, but you're probably intellectually deficient enough to genuinely believe it, so have at it, Höss:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/875/925/78b.jpg

>>1251183
Refer to >>1248294 and >>1248331 for my opinion.

>>1251180
>I am not ignoring "nature"; you simply don't understand what "material conditions" are.
>That is wholly a social construct, not something intrinsic to any "human nature".
A human being does not stop feeling basic human emotions, and their genetics do not change, simply because they are raised in a different social structure. Jealousy is not a personality trait or a social construct, although the tendency to be jealous, or the things that evoke jealousy, can be influenced. But saying education can remove jealousy itself is like saying you can remove the emotion of pride, or the emotion of hate. The desire to make "us vs. them" group distinctions is not a personality trait. The latter has been seen even in infants who presumably have not been corrupted by evil evil capitalist ideas. Again, this utter disregard of what people are really like in order to fit everything to the theory, in the opposite of the tradition of scientific method, is the main reason no one takes Marxists seriously.

>If that was true, then primitive communism would have never been the social system of hunter-gatherer societies.

This is a non sequitur. You mention wars for resources later on. What do you think caused these kinds of conflicts?

Funnily enough, communist ideologues such as yourself seem to always be driven by a basic need for intellectual superiority, a mental version of the kind of impulse that drives materialistic conspicuous consumption. The whole theory is based on this kind of condescension. "Oh, the workers don't have class consciousness." "If only people truly understood our theories, then everyone would do what was best for them." Meanwhile, useful theories explain and predict things as they are in the real world rather than imagine a ideal, utopian state of affairs that have "conveniently" never come to pass because of "oppression" or some nonsense. You have to realize that theories are only good if reality does not seem to reject them.

>>1251182
>Something is socially necessary if it is necessary to reproduce the social conditions of a given society.
>The people themselves determine social necessity and socially necessary labor

These are frankly unfalsifiable copouts, what amount to empty descriptive truisms without enough specificity to have any real application.

>the pound of corn would be less valuable per the labor theory of value if it is produced using less socially necessary labor than before.

This at least is a concrete claim. Sadly this seems to be a convoluted attempt to flip and reframe basic supply and demand ideas in communist form. The decrease in labor needed to grow corn, increased productivity, is actually valuable in itself because it frees up that labor for other productive uses.

>at which point a fully automated society has been achieved (which is characteristic of upper-stage communism)
>What are you trying to say here?
My point was that a fully automated society, not that it is likely to exist, but the technologies behind it were created due to the profit motive and capitalistic competition, so this would not in fact be characteristic of upper-stage communism. What is more likely in upper-stage communism is a drastic lowering of productivity and technological advances and therefore in real living standards.

>There is no reason why a complex social system requires either in order to function.
Given that property, class, currency, and states have emerged every single time in human history once a society has grown large and complex enough, and that your examples of "primitive communism" are confined to small prehistorical populations that were relatively isolated from other communities, I'd say a complex social system does require them. For example, I suggest reading about the role of financial markets and then trying to work out how exactly the coordination and exchange of goods and services would not fall back into the dark ages under a communist society without currency.

>>1251180
>>1251211
Expanding on "socially necessary"
>"in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions or production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of the labor employed"

This is an obvious attempt to make "socially necessary" a moving target, something that changes as technological and productive capacities advance. I was pointing out that these advances were borne out of capitalism. So in effect, "socially necessary" is another term for "whenever increased productivity from capitalistic competition raises the output of labor to be higher than before."

>>1251197
>Millennials are favoring socialism more because capitalism is drying and failing all around them.
This also reveals a total lack of historical awareness. The 1930s were a far more convincing and far more momentous period of capitalism "failing all around them." These times don't begin to compare to the severity of the Depression.

Capitalism always seems to be failing. During times of prosperity, out come the books pointing out those who are inevitably left behind, like The Affluent Society critiquing the 50s, or Nickel and Dimed at the height of the late 90s boom. During times of recession and panic, out come the books predicting the death of capitalism.

Don't kid yourself. This is not some special historical moment where the new generation is finally waking to the beauties of capitalism. If I recall in one of those surveys, support for socialism goes down drastically among millennials who have a job that pays more than about $40-50k. "But of course!" you might scream. "They're now enmeshed in the corrupting net of the existing capitalist structure!"

Well, that's how the world works. Too bad, huh?

>>1251226
>*beauties of communism

Anyway, the main thing about capitalism is that, unlike communism, no one needs to wake to its beauties for it to be the basis of a productive society.

>>1250004
>burning a hole in the pocket
I don't get why everyone always argues out of the system, it reminds me of christfags saying the bible is true because it says so in the bible.

You don't neccessarily need money to sustain your stick if you can just hit everyone who does not want to participate over the head. This is the whole point of anarchism - once someone has enough power it becomes self-sustainable.

>The collective power of the rest of the world
They won't unite though. If there would be a war everyone would want to join the winning team, and that is the US.

Also I don't want to suggest that the US will go full 4th Reich. But a little bit coercing here, a little bit democratizing there, together with some fiscally sounding plans and packages and whatnot for the masses (who don't understand what happens most of the time, why would that change so suddenly?) goes a long way.

>>1250988
The bitter words of a failed hippie. your gay and a drug user no doubt about it.

>>1251000
Go live like the animals wild and free or better still go live with your tribal ancestors . Im sure it will just be swell.

File: spooky.png (242KB, 798x937px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 798x937px

>>1251200
If something is a social construct, that means it changes in accordance to changes in social conditions. That is the fundamental reason why conditioning, reconditioning, and rehabilitation work. Although emotions themselves may be intrinsic to humans, how human emotions are expressed is a result of that conditioning precisely because it is a social construct. Moreover, if the material conditions of human actors place sufficient evolutionary pressure for humans to evolve out of emotions, even that is possible over long enough periods of time (though almost certainly not preferable). Genes do change in response to changes in material conditions; that is the fundamental reason why evolution and natural selection exists.

Jealousy is indeed a social construct. If it was not, then why do Eskimos not experience jealousy when extramarital sex occurs under certain conditions? If jealousy was an intrinsic human emotion and extramarital sex necessarily causes jealousy, then Eskimos would always experience jealousy when extramarital sex occurs. I see no reason why the same does not apply for all human emotions. Regardless, I did not say that education can remove such social constructs. Conditioning is one method, which I would not consider the same as education; the other, and more effective one, is to eliminate the conditions which cause the social construct to exist at all, thereby rendering conditioning unnecessary.

>The desire to make "us vs. them" group distinctions is not a personality trait.
Conceptually categorizing agents into distinct and potentially conflicting categories does not necessarily entail that social constructs like selfishness and jealousy will develop. The ostensible existence of such a phenomenon is of marginal relevance to this discussion.

File: Organize and Take the Big Bag.jpg (92KB, 512x662px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 512x662px

>>1251200
>>1251267
>Again, this utter disregard of what people are really like in order to fit everything to the theory, in the opposite of the tradition of scientific method, is the main reason no one takes Marxists seriously.
Except "what people are really like" DEPENDS on their material conditions, you fucking idiot. This isn't difficult to understand. You are treating your arbitrary notion of who and what people "are really like" as if it is the sole and universal nature of all humans. THAT is what is characteristically antithetical to the scientific method, and it is for that reason (among others) that I reject such a puerile and unscientific understanding of "human nature".

>This is a non sequitur.
In what way is it?

>You mention wars for resources later on. What do you think caused these kinds of conflicts?
Ultimately, scarcity. If not scarcity directly, then indirectly. For example, the development of a warmongering ideology as a consequence of some rare set of material conditions might also lead to conflict. A particular tribe might have developed a religion in which war and bloodshed were forms of worship, such as in Aztec religion, and they went out to instigate conflicts for that purpose. Ultimately, religions are products of material conditions, as well, and thus scarcity was likely the principal cause of that religion's development.

>Funnily enough, communist ideologues such as yourself seem to always be driven by a basic need for intellectual superiority, a mental version of the kind of impulse that drives materialistic conspicuous consumption.
Completely untrue. Keep your personal attacks and projections to yourself. I'm not interested. The same applies to the rest that followed. I don't care one whit about your attempt at degrading me and projecting your personality traits on me. It just makes you look bad, so I recommend you don't, for your sake.

>>1251267
>spooks

Oh God, go away /lit/.

>If jealousy was an intrinsic human emotion and extramarital sex necessarily causes jealousy

The premise is wrong though. Extramarital sex does not necessarily cause jealousy. I mean the free love movement does exist.

Again, you are trying to make specific examples generalize illogically to a sweeping relativistic conclusion.

File: RDW Debating Capitalism.jpg (76KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 850x400px

>>1251211
>>1251267
>>1251269
>These are frankly unfalsifiable copouts, what amount to empty descriptive truisms without enough specificity to have any real application.
What a surprise, analyzing the fundamentals of a theory causes it to become very general and basic. I hope you aren't serious.

>Sadly this seems to be a convoluted attempt to flip and reframe basic supply and demand ideas in communist form. The decrease in labor needed to grow corn, increased productivity, is actually valuable in itself because it frees up that labor for other productive uses.
I'm not "flipping" anything. I'm explaining to you how the Marxian labor theory of value works when applied to the example you provided, since you're clearly too ignorant about the topic to do so yourself. Of course the labor (more specifically, the labor-power) and increase in productivity are valuable in themselves, but that is because they are both socially necessary. Nevertheless, a decrease in socially necessary labor decreases the value of a commodity, which explains why a given product becomes cheaper once more efficient production methods are adopted, such as the use of a new machine. The utility value and intrinsic value of the product, and the labor, does not change, only its exchange value.

File: Slavery.png (704KB, 825x809px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 825x809px

>>1251211
>>1251267
>>1251269
>>1251271
>My point was that a fully automated society, not that it is likely to exist, but the technologies behind it were created due to the profit motive and capitalistic competition, so this would not in fact be characteristic of upper-stage communism. What is more likely in upper-stage communism is a drastic lowering of productivity and technological advances and therefore in real living standards.
Except mechanized automation will never, under any condition, occur in a capitalist society because it will eliminate the utility of the workers, thereby precipitating a revolt. The working class must be distracted, divided, and preoccupied with labor in order to keep them compliant. If the workers are no longer needed, yet they cannot share in the automated society that the capitalists produced per the logic of capitalism, then they would have achieved maximum alienation and would revolt as a consequence. Capitalism would die well before that is even possible, however, because the conditions which produce class struggle will precipitate a revolution well before that hypothetical scenario ever has a chance to occur.

File: Rosa Luxemburg Capitalism's Contradictions.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>1251211
>>1251267
>>1251269
>>1251271
>>1251275
>Given that property, class, currency, and states have emerged every single time in human history once a society has grown large and complex enough, and that your examples of "primitive communism" are confined to small prehistorical populations that were relatively isolated from other communities, I'd say a complex social system does require them.
Or that they are ultimately inessential but natural consequences of increasing social complexity and are only essential under certain social systems? According to Marx's theory of history, the advent of property, class, currency, and the state are inevitable and essential consequences of increasing social complexity. Once a society reaches the socialist (lower-stage communist) stage of social development, however, a transition away from those qualities can occur because they are neither necessary nor functional nor desirable in postcapitalist social systems

I see no reason why property, class, currency, or the state are essential beyond capitalism. In fact, I would say that a communist system could help less developed social systems (or primitive communist systems) skip those qualities altogether through social engineering.

>For example, I suggest reading about the role of financial markets and then trying to work out how exactly the coordination and exchange of goods and services would not fall back into the dark ages under a communist society without currency.
Financial markets would have no function in a communist society. I suggest you read what a gift economy and mutual aid economy is. While you're at it, read up on how socialist societies would actually work, so that you understand why financial markets would have no function in them and would obsolesce.

File: MLK Resistance.jpg (163KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 960x960px

>>1251226
>>1251267
>>1251269
>>1251271
>>1251275
>>1251276
>This is an obvious attempt to make "socially necessary" a moving target, something that changes as technological and productive capacities advance.
Of course it is. So?

>So in effect, "socially necessary" is another term for "whenever increased productivity from capitalistic competition raises the output of labor to be higher than before."
Social necessity applies before and beyond capitalism, competition, and markets.

>This also reveals a total lack of historical awareness. The 1930s were a far more convincing and far more momentous period of capitalism "failing all around them." These times don't begin to compare to the severity of the Depression.
Actually yes, the Great Recession does compare to the Great Depression and the latter was not very worse than the former. The Great Recession isn't even over yet, and another crash is very likely to occur this year, which will make it even worse. Just as during the Great Depression, the Great Recession has caused a resurgence in interest in alternatives to capitalism. That is what happens when an unstable system like capitalism breaks down through its own doing, and especially when that breakdown nearly causes total economic collapse twice within a single century (which is unprecedented in human history). It seems that you're the historically unaware one, not me.

File: Oscar Wilde Degrading.jpg (81KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 850x400px

>>1251226
>>1251267
>>1251269
>>1251271
>>1251275
>>1251276
>>1251280
>Capitalism always seems to be failing. During times of prosperity, out come the books pointing out those who are inevitably left behind, like The Affluent Society critiquing the 50s, or Nickel and Dimed at the height of the late 90s boom. During times of recession and panic, out come the books predicting the death of capitalism.
That is because Capitalism IS always failing. It's just sometimes, capitalism fails worse than usual, like now and during the Great Depression. That's the entire fucking point: capitalism IS crisis. The fact that the prosperity occasionally masked that fact, like during the Gilded Age, doesn't mean those are "good times".

>Don't kid yourself. This is not some special historical moment where the new generation is finally waking to the beauties of capitalism.
If it weren't for the CIO and socialist and communist parties in the United States agreeing to accept FDR's New Deal, there would have been a revolution. The Great Depression WAS a special historical moment, as is this Great Recession, though every recession is an excellent opportunity to point out the flaws in capitalism and foster a revolution.

>Well, that's how the world works. Too bad, huh?
In other words, you're a defeatist class cuckold like all the rest. How does that boot taste, slave?

>>1251230
There are no "beauties of capitalism". No matter how much you call an ugly and monstrous creation beautiful, it isn't and you're probably mentally ill for believing that it is.

File: Carl Marks demystifying the ghost buster.jpg (45KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x360px

>>1251251
No, I'm actually a heterosexual working class male who abstains from most drugs, with the exception of caffeine and the rare drink of alcohol.

Only children rely on stereotypes to shape their view of the world.

>>1251254
I'm not some primitivist, quite the opposite actually. My point is that communism has already existed before and during a stage in human social development where it could rightly be concluded as the closest to "human nature", if you believe that myth.

>>1251270
I'm not part of /lit/. I don't even come to 4chan much anymore. I occasionally visit /leftypol/ on 8ch, but have since largely abandoned that as well. I consider Stirner to be a morally stunted stage-II philosophical sociopath, anyway, but I nevertheless find him amusing because Marx despised him so much.

>The premise is wrong though. Extramarital sex does not necessarily cause jealousy. I mean the free love movement does exist.
So you're playing this game, then? I have to prove, one by one, that every single possible instance of jealousy is ultimately just socially constructed? That sort of God of the Gaps position is essentially an attempt at damage control.

Where is your evidence that jealousy is an intrinsic emotion in humans and that its expression is wholly a consequence of some immutable human nature? I'm looking for something on the order of gene expressions, not mere duration of existence.

>>1251269
>Except "what people are really like" DEPENDS on their material conditions

Given that no human society has ever managed to "educate" out all the bad personality traits you speak of, while plenty of records exist from pre-modern capitalist societies that suggest human beings have not changed radically in character over time, I think you would have to actually show how this works. Except, of course, like most communist thought this will only happen in an imagined future society and has no basis in actual history.

>>1251271
>What a surprise, analyzing the fundamentals of a theory causes it to become very general and basic.
No, marginalist theory is general and basic. The difference is that it can clearly and specifically, without any bullshit fluff as to "reproducing social conditions," explain value and economic choices.

>>1251280
>but that is because they are both socially necessary.
Productivity gains are not "necessary." I pointed out how "socially necessary" seems to be another term for "good" or "increasing with productivity that happens to stem from capitalistic competition. This is circular reasoning.

>>1251275
>Except mechanized automation will never, under any condition, occur in a capitalist society because it will eliminate the utility of the workers, thereby precipitating a revolt.
No, it will likely never happen because it is economically or technologically unfeasible, thus the "knowledge economy." My point was that under a communist society you would never achieve the required level of technology in the first place.

>>1251276
>ultimately inessential but natural
>I see no reason why
If it always occurs, and there has never been a large complex system without these elements, the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are not essential. That empty blather about transitioning toward a socialist system is the biggest problem with Marxism because it is completely unsupported in historical fact. This is like a belief in the Rapture.

>>1251288
I really can't understand someone who thinks its OK for kids to smoke bath salts or have sex changes and call it equality.. I really don't

>>1251307
>What is personal liberty

>>1251280
>Actually yes, the Great Recession does compare to the Great Depression and the latter was not very worse than the former.

No, it really doesn't. You had banking collapses and 25% unemployment in the US. You had actual doubt in capitalism as a system to an extent to which Occupy Wall Street is a joke in comparison. The nationalistic, nativist movements today are a puny shadow of Hitler and Mussolini. The 1970s are the closest comparison and even that was a worse period than today: the Nixon Shock and end of Bretton Woods, the energy crisis, the turn from creditor to debtor nation, the loss of international competitiveness, the 1973-74 stock market crash into a decade of stagflation. Capitalism is in fact unstable, realignments always happen, but I see no reason that this time is somehow fundamentally different from the downturns of the past several hundred years.

>If it weren't for the CIO and socialist and communist parties in the United States agreeing to accept FDR's New Deal, there would have been a revolution
And that is the strength of democracy to adapt, and in particular what might be called the Jacksonian tendency in American politics. The reform movements of the 1830s-40s, the Progressives, the 1930s New Deal, the Great Society, and today are just the pendulum swinging back to force a political redistribution of wealth after periods of concentration. We've seen this all before and we will see it happen again, long before any actual communism starts working.

>>1251288
>I have to prove, one by one,
No, you have to show an instance where any such emotion was actually absent from a society through cultural or educational means.

You are claiming in effect that a society of people without jealousy can exist. Not that people can have different standards of jealousy, such as the Eskimos, but that jealousy itself is a social construct that can be eliminated when there is no plausible mechanism or historical precedent. Education isn't brainwashing

>>1251309
Not the same thing you think it is.

File: Capitalist alienation.png (445KB, 805x465px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 805x465px

>>1251295
>It didn't happen yet, therefore it's not possible
Are you seriously taking this position?

Records have only existed for a maximum of about 7000–8000 years, whereas modern humans have existed for MILLIONS of years. Get a better argument.

>No, marginalist theory is general and basic. The difference is that it can clearly and specifically, without any bullshit fluff as to "reproducing social conditions," explain value and economic choices.
>dynamic variables in a theory constitute "bullshit fluff"

>Productivity gains are not "necessary." I pointed out how "socially necessary" seems to be another term for "good" or "increasing with productivity that happens to stem from capitalistic competition. This is circular reasoning.
Productivity gains absolutely are socially necessary to reproduce a society which has to deal with endlessly increasing social complexity. Unless you're assuming that everything in the society stagnates, which is impossible, productivity gains are a socially necessary quality. No, "socially necessary" does not mean "good"; no judgment is being passed.

>No, it will likely never happen because it is economically or technologically unfeasible, thus the "knowledge economy."
It's technologically unfeasible to have a self-sufficient system of machines which reproduces its own conditions and maintains its own production? You are aware that I just essentially described life, right?

>My point was that under a communist society you would never achieve the required level of technology in the first place.
And why not, exactly?

>If it always occurs, and there has never been a large complex system without these elements, the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are not essential.
Why would any of those qualities mentioned essential in a communist society? I strongly suspect you don't understand what communism entails, but give it a shot anyway.

File: RDW Unstable.jpg (54KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 550x550px

>>1251295
>>1251325
>a scientifically substantiated theory of social development which has predictive power is the equivalent of magical thinking and apocalyptic superstition
Are you even trying?

>>1251307
Where did I say that I approve of either?

>>1251313
The Great Depression comprised multiple recessions. The Great Recession has only had one and the next one is almost certainly about to come this year. Labor underutilization is already at nearly 10% in the United States and will rise, along with unemployment, in the upcoming recession. Although it is not as bad right now, it will get worse and this "Great Recession" may finally end as a "Second Great Depression".

>Capitalism is in fact unstable, realignments always happen, but I see no reason that this time is somehow fundamentally different from the downturns of the past several hundred years.
And yet you tolerate capitalism's instability at all? The severity of the Great Depression and Recession demonstrates that capitalism is growing more unstable, and this growing instability will inevitably destroy capitalism, as was the case in all previous economic systems (though their instability was different than capitalism's).

>And that is the strength of democracy to adapt, and in particular what might be called the Jacksonian tendency in American politics.
You seriously think we live in a democracy? Do you not know what a democracy is? It's already been demonstrably proven that the United States is not a democracy, at least not any longer (if ever), so it's ridiculous for you to categorize it as such.

File: Rosa Luxemburg democracy.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>1251313
>>1251325
>>1251326
>The reform movements of the 1830s-40s, the Progressives, the 1930s New Deal, the Great Society, and today are just the pendulum swinging back to force a political redistribution of wealth after periods of concentration. We've seen this all before and we will see it happen again, long before any actual communism starts working.
You are acting as if this sort of instability and tension is healthy or characteristic of a healthy system. Have you ever considered that perhaps we could make a system in which such instability and tension doesn't exist? Or do you just ignore that thought as "too radical"?

>No, you have to show an instance where any such emotion was actually absent from a society through cultural or educational means.
In what way to infants demonstrate jealousy?