Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

>>1912646

The problem is communism in practice never leaves the murder and man-made famine induced starvation phase.

>>1912649
>man-made famine

meme and you know it

>murder

The tree of liberty etc. You have to protect the revolution. If anything Stalin didn't kill enough considering all the Bolsheviks efforts were undone after his death

File: 1461889115419.jpg (27KB, 625x421px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x421px

>>1912639
If I could erase one person from History, it would be goddamn Marx.

>>1912659
Why? Why Marx over Robespierre for example

>>1912654

>man-made famine is a meme

What?

>>1912663
The only people who accept the Ukraine famine as genocide is Ukraine. It was a key part of Ukrainian nationalism and anti-communism.

It's literally not accepted as fact anywhere but Ukraine.

He made a great analysis both of capitalism and history in general. He believed in man overcoming itself and creating a better society. He also believed this was a natural process. And he wrote about all this fucking 200 years ago.

Marx is in no way guilty of bolshe chimp out, lenin, mao or stalin. That's like blaming Nietzche for Hitler.

>>1912639
Of course. He wwas a Jew. It was the plan all along.

>>1912671

>It's literally not accepted as fact anywhere but Ukraine.

http://www.holodomoreducation.org/news.php/news/4

>In accordance with the information from the Ukrainian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 14 countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide:

>Ausrtalia
>Canada
>Colombia
>Ecuador
>Estonia
>Georgia
>Hungary
>Latvia
>Lithuania
>Mexico
>Paraguay
>Peru
>Poland
>Vatican

>and 5 countries have recognized the Holodomor as a criminal act of the Stalinist regime:

>Argentina
>Chile
>Czech Republic
>Slovakia
>Spain

Why does the mere suggestion of cutting the capitalist middle man out of our lives still cause so much extreme butthurt?

Really makes you think

>>1912662
Not him, but Marx's ideology has done nothing but cause unbelievable amounts of suffering. Nothing good has ever come out of communism.

>>1912704
You ever read Marx? Because you sound like you just got memed on by red scare of cold war.

>>1912724
You ever look at the outcomes of countries that tried to become communist because you sound like you got memed on by an 19th century basement dweller neckbeard.

>>1912809
Do you think Nietzsche caused suffering because Nazis used his ubermensch idea?

>>1912819
The ubermensch stuff is propaganda they were only concerned with the German or Aryan nation. If Marx didn't come up with this commie shit nazis never get into power in Germany as a response to Bolshevism.

>>1912639
What harm?

>>1912663
That person is most likely a denialist tankie, but it's absolutely true that communist ideology did not cause the Ukrainian famine.

People say "collectivization caused deaths", but they mean the feudalistic aspects of the five-year-plan. Stalin wanted to make Russia a strong nation with a developed industrial base, so he forced peasants to give him a huge amount of grain to sell to European capitalist countries. With this money, the government would invest in industry. Grain not sold, instead of being given back to hungry peasants, was given to factory workers.

Many Marxists like economist Richard Wolff argue that this was state capitalism, rather than any kind of socialism. Stalin's government filled the shoes of the feudal aristocracy.

>>1912639
>Dude workers conditions in the time I live in are ultrashit.
>Dude I must not do something about this.

>>1912659
>posting a movie with heavy Marxist themes

>>1912639
Should Oppenheimer be held responsible for the Cold War?

Real talk, there's no way to pursue authoritarian revolutionary policy in Russia or China without at least a million people dying

>>1912809
>Stalinism is totally what Marx wanted guys

>>1912639
Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent.

>>1912915
>it just hasn't been done properly yet.

>>1912819
Tbh Nietzsches übermensch has nothing to do with the Nazi equivalent. Nietzsche is like strict individualism like you see in modern feminism and queer movements.

>>1912639
He just wanted to sell books

File: pinochet-democracyInBlood.jpg (197KB, 846x796px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 846x796px

>>1912646
On that we can agree.

>>1912925
What do you want me to do when they actually weren't?

>>1912934
realize that the exact theoretical version of communism will never happen and stop advocating for it.

File: 1471032755711.jpg (111KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 803x688px

>evil
baka /his/, how many memes must we post before you learn?

>>1912704
>Nothing good has ever come out of communism.
Even if you're a liberal or a conservative this is patently untrue.

Remember WWII ending? How about improved living standards in Rural China? How about helping to end Apartheid? How about promoting reformist policies globally and establishing effective trade unions so that you all don't have to suck off your boss every day?

>>1912838
>Marx is responsible for Nazis
God, you memers and your memes

>>1912915
I think this point gets less credit than it deserves. The point isn't saying Marxism = ussr perfectly.

The point being made, I would say, is the transitionary period. People I would say definitely attempt socialism, or communism. There is not doubt attempts are made. I would say that these attempts always end in failure. By failure I dont mean the fall of the USSR, I mean that instead of it becoming communism or whatever end goal it should have become, something causes catastrophic results before this promised land can be obtained.

Every possible attempt at employing marx's ideas may start off good, but they don't last. I would assert they don't last because its disregard of human behavior. Constrained view of man(tragic view) vs the more Rousseau view of man being born free, yet everywhere he is in chains, that man could be perfect.

The US in its founding went completely counter to that, assuming man had darkness in their hearts and no amount of social conditioning, rhetoric, genocide and so on, could ever erase that. and so you do your best to cope with it, and set up your society with mechanisms to cope with it.

Really, take marx's ideas to the utmost extreme and imagine if you could function in that society with some of the people you absolutely hate

>>1912931
he wasn't a trot

>tfw the line between ironically liking Stalin and actually liking him are becoming blurred

>>1913005
WW2 ending was a natural conclusion to the end of a war. Germany did not have the resources to fight a way against the world.

Rural China is a great example of how capitalism has helped a society dramatically. As the government loosened up regulation, many were brought out of poverty and starvation. Being rural isn't necessarily bad, and deciding your going to force everyone out of that mode of living isn't going to bode well.

>apartheid
Yes. Look at SA before and after and tell me theres been an improvement. That isn't to say it wasn't morally right to have apartheid, but be real here. You would not live in the northern part of South Africa. or as a farmer.

Trade unions that were voluntary were fine, you forget that particularly in the US, industrial work was loads better than rural work and living. Trade unions in many industries were hardly effective until government action. Now trade unions simply soak up dollars and chase new companies out of the US who don't want to pay people exorbitant amounts of money to do menial work.
in the US alot of trade unions were simply white laborers in the North attempting to secure their wages by excluding black labor.

These aren't good examples

>>1913035
Most of the world today is democratic-capitalist.

Most of the people all over the world lives like shit.

Does that mean that democracy and capitalism are "evil" and "bad"?

This is why your endpoint analysis of history is both biased and retarded. You should try less to accomodate history to your preconceived moral opinions and try more to understand why and how things developed which is the purest form of understanding.

File: The_Creation_of_Adam.jpg (350KB, 1614x741px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1614x741px

>>1912639
>Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if evil or just terribly wrong.

File: adam-smith.jpg (24KB, 440x280px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 440x280px

Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if evil or just terribly wrong.

>>1913099
Didn't he explicitly write that the invisible hand should be protected from those who would exploit the market? Sounds an awful lot like state capitalism to me.

>>1913035
>As the government loosened up regulation, many were brought out of poverty and starvation.
You mean smashing the landlords?

>>1913124
M-muh human nature y-you cuck

l-learn economics.

n-no n-not those perspectives on economics y-you have to read books I agree with

File: image.jpg (20KB, 247x250px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 247x250px

>>1912639

He was spooked AF desu

>>1913124
Go on and name a single significant innovation or invention that was developed under communist rule other than the space toilet and a few weapons.

I'll wait.

>>1913147
That's a terrible strawman. Economic systems don't produce anything, the people do.

>>1912915
To start a communist society, you need an organisation to seize the nation's wealth and assets. This task falls to the government established by the revolutionaries.

You then need to tell the people that their shit now belongs to the people (meaning the government).

Herein lies the problem: not everyone is going to give up their shit, it's simple human nature. In order to make them give up their shit, you need to do it by force. Force means authoritarianism.

This simple logic shows that Marxism does inevitably lead to authoritarianism, or Stalinism as you call it.

>>1913152
Both of which were made possible by technologies started on prior to communist rule beginning.

There's a reason why China used to be an incredibly technology forward nation, but these days exclusively innovates in ways to steal from other cultures.

>>1913010
I know in Shsrtia everything is about muh feels. But the world is not Shartia. And your feel speech does not change the fact that a capitalist middle man decreases the efficiency of a society by a great margin.

>>1913156
Yes, and economic systems shape the culture in which the people exist. On a national level, communism is detrimental to culture, and therefore detrimental to citizens. It leads to a state of flaccid cultural stagnation.

>>1913070
All successful countries are actually socialist and capitalist mix.

>>1913169
Let's not be childish. Capitalism has its faults, but it is infinitely better than communism.

>>1913195
You accepted your fate as the cattle of others I see. Sad to throw away all that potential.

>>1913202
In the capitalist society I live in, the wealth I acquire is mine, to spend on what I want, when I want. If I decide I no longer want to work, I stop working, period. The potential I have I can harness by learning about what I want to achieve, then getting a job or starting a company in order to achieve it, the latter option allowing me to employ others and increase their own personal wealth.

In a communist society, my job is chosen for me, regardless of if I am suited to it or not. I am not allowed to keep what I earn. If I decide to stop working, I will be thrown in prison, as will anyone else who decides that they do not want to work. I have no potential, as I am not allowed to spend my money acquiring an education in order to achieve what I want to achieve. I am typical of thousands, a man reduced to a feudal serf, who will live and die at work.

And you say the latter isn't the fate of cattle? Ridiculous.

>>1913225
your description of communism sounds an awful lot like capitalism tbqh famalam

>>1913214
Actually, I live in Switzerland, and as such, enjoy very limited political corruption and complete neutrality in regards to war. You, on the other hand, are speaking of America, which is, for all intents and purposes, a merging of business and government, a failing crony-capitalist society.

While true communism has never been tried, true capitalism certainly has, and it was what led the U.S. to become a superpower. What it is today pales in comparison to what it used to be.

>>1913174
That's true, I was just exaggerating and over simplifying my point to make it clear. And because, you know, 4chan.

There is definitely still innovation that comes out of communist regimes, but it tends to be far, far less than what capitalist ones produce.

I'd argue that the majority of positive innovation arises out of capitalist cultures, even if you control for capitalism's global spread compared to communism. It's also responsible for a ton of negative developments, but hey, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

>>1913189
Nice strawman (artistic expression isn't quite the same thing as technological innovation, now is it?), but I'll bite. Notable creative types and intellectuals supporting a communist movement that comes about during their adulthood is a very different thing than a communist society producing notable creative types and intellectuals.

Besides, Ed Wood wasn't exactly mainstream culture, and more to the point, there were good and bad artists on both sides of the spectrum during the 20th century. In both communist and capitalist societies during the 20th century, the majority of media was hokey crap, while a minority of good art was produced - usually to less fanfare. That's just the nature of creation.

>>1913231
I am perfectly free to brag selfishness. I will enjoy my wealth and freedom, you will work where and when you are told or be sent to prison.

>>1913241
By all means, explain how.

>>1913271
Ad-hominem. Try again please, I'm interested to hear what you have to say. If not, I'll chalk this one up as a win.

>>1913254
>i-it's freedom if I can choose to be exploited and be stuck in drudgery instead of not working and starving!

Capitalism demand the vast majority of people are stuck in unfulfilling dead end jobs if they want to scrape out a bare miminum, while the people who get to have decent lives are milquetoasts who don't actually do any work. Capitalism demands a reserve army of unemployed labor.

>>1913225
Your skills and your whole worth as a human being is defined after how much profit you can earn for someone else. Your are calculated as a resource. Like cattle. You accepted your cattle being in the hope to be able to be a cattle holder yourself. You justify it. Well if this is what you defined for yourself as good.

>>1913262
>Maybe if we left nations to their own soviegrn rights to govern themselves how they please, as long as it doesn't threaten anyone.

Hey, I'm all for that, my personal political philosophy mostly boils down to "leave people the fuck alone", which is why I can't get behind communism. It necessitates the state sticking it's nose into all sorts of areas where it ought not be.

Besides, I would still argue that outside of pure need, there's no better stimulant for innovation and development than the free market. Humans are inherently selfish, and the possibility of personal gain and advancement helps to offset the risk required to try out something new.

>>1912925
Why is that a poor argument?

>>1913283
My seventh year in fact. But calling someone autistic or questioning how new they are both incoherent responses to a perfectly rational argument. Try again, please.

>>1913285
>unfulfilling dead end jobs
You're at perfect liberty to gain a qualification and get a better job. I quite enjoy mine, though it isn't always fun.

>scrape out a bare miminum, while the people who get to have decent lives are milquetoasts who don't actually do any work
Then work so your children don't have to. I myself have never had to have to work for a house because I have inherited a small one from my recently deceased father. He worked until he was fifty to pay for it. I assume that I am one of those "milquetoasts"?

>>1913195
Absolutely not

Full stateless communism would free us of essentially every social ill

The hard part is getting there

>>1913300
If you have a viable alternative, I'd love to hear it, and I honestly mean that.

Socialism seems to be most people's best alternative, and I can't ever support a philosophy that totalitarian.

>>1913285
>Capitalism demand the vast majority of people are stuck in unfulfilling dead end jobs if they want to scrape out a bare miminum
Within developed nations, the middle class used to make up the majority.

>>1913317
>stateless communism
Literally impossible. Communism requires the subjugation of the people by force. Humans are far too selfish, far too willful, and far too idiosyncratic for stateless communism to happen.

>>1913289
>Your skills and your whole worth as a human being is defined after how much profit you can earn for someone else
A good argument, if it were not for the fact a) I don't particularly care how I am defined by anyone else and so fail to see the relevance and b) that I can choose to quit when I have amassed enough wealth, leaving my employer to seek someone else to profit from - in other words, the decision is in my hands and not in his.

>>1912639
I don't think he cared. He thought that the educated elites like himself would be the ones leading the filthy, uneducated proles around in glorious communist revolution. It's great because all the way back to its origins, much like most commies today, the only people who believed in a communist revolution were the bourgeoisie who felt they weren't going to have to do anything but be smart while everyone else does the actual revolutionary shit.

>>1913322
>Capitalism is just another means to control and organize society and there is no intrinsic reality to it.
Actually, the basis of all government, from Capitalism to Communism, is the control of resources. Resources and the human demand for food, water and shelter both have very "intrinsic reality" reality to them. If you don't believe that, just stop drinking water or eating food.

>We can accomplish other forms of organisation, and Capitalist nations have suppressed all of it.
This is something I agree with you on. A better form of organisation must be found if we are to advance as a species - but I believe that capitalism is the best we have thus far. I still maintain that it is provably superior to communism.

>>1913341
Basically, I'm for as little government intervention in people's lives as possible, and as much free will as is feasible. I guess my thinking would be closest to a libertarian viewpoint? I don't like putting myself in a box like that though, because then I have to answer for all the associated people, viewpoints, ideas and goals that I don't agree with.

Communism by it's very nature requires direct government meddling in almost every aspect of life, so it's irrevocably no-go for me.

>>1913336
See, something like this sounds attractive to me as an idea, but I just don't see how that could possibly function in the real world. It's all well and good to dream for the ideal, but in reality the ideal can never be achieved. You have to strive for the least evil reality as is feasible.

>>1912679
>great analysis
He was flat fucking wrong. The characterization of all conflict as class conflict is what one might call """""incorrect"""""""

File: shelves.jpg (17KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 259x194px

>>1913367
>What does that have to do with what I just said.
The organisation of society is not just "smoke and mirrors". It's as real as a slap in the face.

>Look at it. Just look at what we've done the last hundred years.
Thousands of people are now living in an abundance of food, shelter and technology, who would otherwise have been living in poverty. New medicines have been discovered, we are living longer, and I, a resident of Switzerland, am able to communicate with you at light speed merely by pushing a button. Market is leading to market: our need for communication has led to a space industry. One day, our demand for resources will create a market for space colonisation. While our society isn't all good, it certainly isn't all bad. It is certainly doing much better than former communist nations are doing, many of which do not have any of the things I have just listed.

Call me foolish, but I have no desire to smash a system that allows me, my family, and thousands of other people who I don't even know to live free from poverty, or at least climb out of it, unless you have a better system that is worth the task. And that system is certainly not communism.

>>1913287
these people have no class

>>1913405
>the government is useless and corrupt
>the government should control the market

>>1913396
Because it's a system that encourages mediocrity (you gain nothing from working harder than the bare minimum) and will lead to social and cultural stagnation (for evidence, see China, for a more microcosmic example, see American public schools vs charter schools).

Besides, it's simply not sustainable. Even if you take 100% of the capitalism generated money owned by the top 1% earners (hell, make it the top 25%), you won't have the revenue to run a socialist state the size of America for a single year. Plus, you can't just pull all the money out of defense. The united states definitely spends too much on the military, but the military is none-the-less required.

Imma go to sleep now, nice chatting with you anon.

File: 121bcc20deea53147835f579bee3c349 (1).jpg (20KB, 480x360px)

20KB, 480x360px

>>1913405
>Yes it is.
No it isn't, as I have proven. I reiterate, if you think the organisation of society - meaning how it controls and distributes its resources - is "smoke and mirrors", then simply stop eating or drinking.

>That fucking super market, is not free.
To you and me, a super market stacked with food is a meaningless concept. For others, such as pic related, not so much.

>It isn't free. This isn't free.
Human beings will never be free from their need for food, air, water. As long as someone else has it, we will always be slaves. Capitalism let's you keep your food and your water. Communism means it is taken from you.

>We don't exist in "freedom", as loose of a term I could apply it. We live in enough comfortable leisure to distract ourselves from the raging problems our society has
I do agree with you, and it makes me angry as well. The average person is distracted by meaningless leisure. But I still say communism is not the answer.

>>1913454
Don't understand. You agreeing with me or just calling me edgy?

>>1913467
>Who denies that
Nobody. I was merely stating fact.
Go to a bunch of starving African children, and tell them that a supermarket stocked with food is not freedom. Or clean water, or a house to keep your family warm in. If the abundance we live in today is not freedom, what is? I've yet to hear from you what is "free" in comparison to what we have now.

>>1913480
I'm not interested in Africans, they disgust me. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for a response. Tell me what freedom is if what you have in the U.S. isn't.

>>1913474
Having money to buy that stuff with. You expect because they're a bunch of nignogs they'll just loot the shit out of those stores?

>>1913490
I'm not American, but it's a sentiment shared by the Chinese.

>>1913492
The welfare and food stamps they get ensure they are well fed regardless of money. And they do obtain welfare in vast amounts, don't deny it. If they didn't get it, they'd have to get a job, and if they couldn't get one they'd have to try harder or leave their homes and go to a charity.

File: nB6XHul.jpg (415KB, 1045x4176px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1045x4176px

>>1913497
Forgot to post pic, sorry.

>>1913503
I've said about three times I live in Switzerland.

>>1913514
Well okay. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you, but I tried.

>>1912686
>no reply from commie
COMMUNISM BTFO MARX IS LITERALLY RAPED STUPID STALIN ROLLING HIS GRAVE LENIN JUSTADMITTED COMMUNISM WAS A MISTAKE

>>1913514
>>1913527
>>1913532

I don't believe everything is as peachy as the Swiss says it is. A high level of technological advancement does not imply that our institutions have not decayed into caricatures of what they should be. But that was inevitable the moment those institutions were founded. Everything that humans make weakens and rots. How is this an argument for a Marxist restructuring of society, and not for a long overdue cleanse of our current system?

>>1913532
Who honestly thought this would be a good shop? The dude is literally a Anarchist Capitalist - for fuck's sake, he's even made videos on race realism and how patroitism is good!

>>1913489
Somalia.

>>1912686
>post soviet country and the fucking vatican.
well thats not a biased sample at all.

>>1912933
>cried like a bitch when he was caught in the EU

File: South africa Crime stats.gif (12KB, 466x270px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 466x270px

>>1913035
>south africa
every time

File: south africa income.png (46KB, 622x363px)

46KB, 622x363px

>>1913673
>>1913035

>>1912639
>>1912659
He wrote a book. Do you think if Marx never existed no form of Marxism would ever have developed?

>>1913271
>your pic
makin me sweat reading that :(

>>1913152
So now the USSR was communist?

I don't even necessarily disagree with communism but come the fuck on.

>>1913722
doesn't he have a big penis?

>>1913779
If you're a middle aged Russian man, or a hardcore Stalinist/Maoist, you might argue that SU was communism.

>>1912639
Why did Marx contribute nothing to mainstream economics? Were his ideas that shit? Even the Austrian school did ffs

>>1913793
He contributed to the mainstream of his time.
(and to neomarxians, postkeynesians, and neoricardian schools of our time)

>>1913341
It isn't forced in any of these societies. Death is an opton to oppose both. Go against capitalism and starve. Go against communism and be executed. Communism requires willfull repression of dissidents, while capitalism has a passive method for deterring people from the status quo. One requires more totalitarian methods to subjugate people into the system. It's up to you to decide, but I prefer passive repression of freedoms to active ones.

>>1912639

>Deus Neetus feels like not working on a Monday, writes multiple works about how bad the working conditions are for the "Proletariats" and that the Burgouesie lives off other people misery while he's living off his boyfriends fathers wealth who is (touché) a factory owner
>years later some retarded Russian believes this shit and teaches it to other retarded Russians

>>1913779
It simply wasn't. It really wasn't socialism either.

>>1913243
Crony capitalism is the only capitalism

>>1912686
BTFO

>>1913387
Why?

File: costanza.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>1912860
>"state capitalism"

>>1912902
You can't even change a light bulb without 5 people dying in those countries.

>>1913262
"X has never been really tried before" confirmed for moving the goalposts fallacy.

>>1912929
yes the anon didn't imply they nazis interpreted him correctly. if anything they bastardized the idea and used it for propaganda anyone that's not an idiot knows this already

>>1913677
communism/socialism/It wasn't socialism it was state capitalism, would have eventually popped up in Europe. As many of the aristocracts and wealthy capitalists of the industrial revolution saw a need for a welfare state to care for labor.

The US didn't need Marx to come up with ideas for unionized labor either.

things would have gone a lot better. as the ideas of marx would have pooped more gradually and spread among different people.

l

File: statecapitalismmeme.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>1913779
>>1914232

>state capitalism meme

I think communism is a much better alternative to feudalism

>>1912639

>it's another blame philosophers for the actions of states and people born after they died episode.

>>1916556

If I hire a hitman to murder your family but he does the job after I'm dead am I no longer responsible for it?

>underage poltards are talking shit about the philosophers that they have never read before

if i could get away with it i'd kill all the obese stormniggers. especially the american ones, i fucking hate americans for a good number of reasons

>>1916565
Did J.D. Salinger kill John Lennon?

>>1912671
so what you're saying is that you're a complete imbecile

>>1912639
Marx's idea of communism has never been tried (and might not be possible to implement). Leninism and Stalinism are completely different from Marx's ideas.

>a man creates an ideology based on the worth of a man through how much they work, has never worked a day in his life
at what age did you realise humans are naturally hypocrites?

File: image.jpg (14KB, 200x135px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x135px

>>1912639
He's German, it's their dream to kill all of Europe

>>1916633
Marx's dialectic was shit, and so was Hegel's.

File: leftypol neckberds 3.jpg (184KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 960x720px

>>1916633

Back to your containment board ugly autistic effeminate commie neckbeard

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/cook.htm

For all you fucking idiots who are claiming that Stalin and Mao weren't trust Marxist, have a thinker that was the closest thing that any communist leader has come to marxism. Protip:It's the worst of the bunch.

>>1912686
t. Hohol

>>1918406
as a german i can confirm that this is true

File: 1461947472945.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

>>1918415
Another great creation of Sartre

>>1912686
Commies absolutely destroyed

>>1912860
>>1912915
>no true scotsman

>>1913182
No.
The countries who suffered the most to the euro economic crisis were precissely those social democratic countries: Greece, Spain, Portugal.

You cannot mix two things that are not compatible

>>1913112
>State
>invisible

File: angry-young-man-clentching-fist .jpg (477KB, 1500x1517px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1500x1517px

>>1913182
>socialist and capitalist mix.
When will this meme fuck off

>>1918560
State capitalism isn't and never will be socialism. They are almost antithetical.

Rojava is socialist, criticize them, but don't take a borderline fascist state and expect us to defend it. Any Stalinist USSR sympathizer is a crypto-fascist.

Not as much as luther, the thirty years war killed more germans than ww2 both in absolute and relative terms.

>>1913156
And does communism allow for people to develop, research and invent freely? No.

>>1912639
>Highly recommend reading his biography
This guy was an autistic fuck that manipulated an ancient philosophy with his self-inflicted boo-hoos and ruined hundreds of millions of people in the process.

If I could piss on his grave without fear of hundreds of Fedoras chasing me with their cane swords, I would.

>>1913189
>artists
>nominally people funded by the state
That's why they support it

>>1912654
>Liberty
>Communist revolution
Jej

>>1918615
>Anylsis of Marx's meme-tier boo-hoos
They were self inflicted
> you expect me to take you seriously
I don't care what a mentally incompetent person believes. Autist will be autist.

>>1913225
>In a communist society, my job is chosen for me, regardless of if I am suited to it or not. I am not allowed to keep what I earn. If I decide to stop working, I will be thrown in prison, as will anyone else who decides that they do not want to work. I have no potential, as I am not allowed to spend my money acquiring an education in order to achieve what I want to achieve. I am typical of thousands, a man reduced to a feudal serf, who will live and die at work.

Oh shit, the ideology hit me like a slap in the face! I'm sure the Khmer Rouge is the only form of comunnism that ever existed!

>>1912649
>communism in practice
Has never occurred.

Attempting to force it doesn't work. That doesn't discredit the implemented thing which will arrive once capitalism is actually no longer sustainable.

>>1913005
>WW2 ending
WW2 only started in Europe because of NatSoc fags that are partially inheritors of Marx and other left thinkers.

>>1913158
>The government
No you dumb nigger. No. That's socialism.

>>1912686
literally more countries recognize palestine and taiwan

File: main-qimg-493968e878889ae5dd7927881e87275f-c.jpg (27KB, 459x465px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 459x465px

>>1918641
>MFW HE GOT ME
>GUYS HE GOT ME
>GUYS COME HERE HE GOT ME
No one cares about your opinion.
Stop defending a philosophy that has been proven not to work dozens of times.

>>1913202
Yep, the libertarians are the cattle. The bootlickers are the free men.

Makes sense commie, now fuck off.

File: its-okay-to-feel-mad.jpg (22KB, 336x352px)

22KB, 336x352px

>>1918663
>HE MAD
>Just imagine being the guy who everyone tried to correct and still didn't get it.
>Then imagine having an autistic word spasm on an image board calling someone a faggot.
That's you. You're that guy. It'll be okay, 7th grade was a rough year for most people.

>>1913262
>America threatened first
"Lol our final goal is to topple every government in the world...
Hey why are you attacking us? Imperialist captalist!"
Seriously?

>>1913403
>One day, our demand for resources will create a market for space colonisation.

That should tell us enough about the intrinsic idea of benefit Capitalism demands. Your, and my confort is over someone else's. It started within the nations and the colonies, now it goes wherever.

>>1918665
>Libertarian communist
>American bootlicker
"Guys it's okay to lick boots if they are the governemnt's/the intelligentsia's"
Fuck off.

File: capitalism.jpg (50KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x300px

>>1918676
>Can't even argue anymore
>Too BTFO to even form works
>Starts sweating in fedora
>gotta think of something
>I KNOW. LENIN. That'll show him
>Post LenIn and tips fedora
Okay. I think you're done here. It's almost school time for little timmy over here.

>>1918678
>Soviets didn't fund dissidents everywhere
>Didn't provide training
>Didn't literally tell the world's commies what was what and what wasn't
Stalin was just Mr. T in drag.

>>1918691
>Enjoying the High Energy
>Basks in getting humiliated by Western Philosophy
What a time to be alive

>>1912654
> Stalin didn't kill enough considering all the Bolsheviks efforts were undone after his death

You do realize it was Stalin who killed all the Bolsheviks, right? He kept Molotov as a token pet. Everyone else from the original party created by Lenin was purged.

>>1918688
>I-it's an american!
I am not american but keep getting triggered.


>lol classic liberals aren't called libertarian nowadays
>lol I like licking boots and you can't stop me evil capitalist nazi rascist right winger conservatard hahahahah!
Have fun with dem boots, remember to clear the soles toom

>>1918698
>Lol we did things preemptively because we knee they'd come for us!
>It still doesn't mean we acted first
Nice, now fucking kill yourself, this is pathetic.

What exactly Marx done wrong? It isn't like you need the marxism to create totalitarian state or something. With or without him, life will find the way.

File: isis5.jpg (35KB, 780x440px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 780x440px

>>1918719
Case in point, ISIS.

>>1918713
>Wanting less government is bad it means you lick boots!
>Hur if you dislike big gov it means you like cyberpunk style capitalism
I bet you're a Wilson-tier fag that thinks the government gets to be authoritarian because it's "the will of the people" and we should all just merge into it, so we can go full totalitarian.

File: Socialism 101.jpg (617KB, 2441x2362px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 2441x2362px

>>1913302
Because this is socialist/communist logic.

>>1918716
No, I was the one telling you to fuck off and die.
> everyone who disagrees with me is the same person!

File: StrawMan2.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>1918732
>everybody who disagrees with my illogical murderous ideology is a nazi

>>1918729
>Do I have to teach you about libertarian origins again jfc
>Lol libertarianism is communism :DDD
What is your argument exactly?

"I call licking boots libertarianism, agree with me please!"
"Lol these people who want more personal liberties are authoritarian"
Jesus fucking christ you're a child.

>>1918724
Communism is idea of post-capitalist society, that means that claim that it actually existed anywhere is blatant bullshit.

File: 482021358.jpg (258KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 640x360px

>>1918735
>OH SHIT
>HE CALLED OUT THE STRAW MAN
>FUCKING MADMAN

>>1918732
>GOT BTFO'D
>CAPITALISM WINS AGAIN BITCH

>>1918739
Name who he was murdered personally than.

>>1918734
So?

>>1918724
> Actual citations in the news
> But, pure fiction as reactions
Wow! You really showed us leftist logic in this (((picture))).

>>1918750
Marx murdered in cold blood at least as many people as hitler did.

>>1918761
So... Zero? Hitler didn't even knew about Holocaust, like Marx wasn't informed about soviet crimes.

File: Roy_Houtkamp_Gemerts_Nieuwsblad-1024x730.jpg (166KB, 1024x730px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x730px

>>1918755
>He's back for more
>He keeps trying to redeem his argument
>It keeps falling apart

>BUH MUH MARXISM
>muh bourgeoisie
>muh proletariat
>muh complete misunderstanding of economics

This reminds me of an autist throwing an tantrum.
You just have to wait for them to run out of energy.

>>1918759
>Yuo r le ebin /pol/ srauman!

Yes, the pro-civil rights, pro-abortion, pro-personal liberties, capitalist liberal atheist nonwhite is your ebin fucking nazi-fascist strawman, lad.


Try again.

>>1918771
Even People of Color can be guilty of internalised racism.

>>1918777
>Internalized racism
>If you dislike authoritarianism and like liberty surely you like institutional racism deep down
Bloody hell.

>>1918778
thanks
I googled autist and this is what i imagined the person arguing in this chat looked like.

>left-wing strawmen vs right-wing strawmen
wow, good thread

>>1918785
Collectivism requires imposition. Anarchocommunism requires imposition, anarchocommunism isn't anarchism.

>Disliking impositions means we must kill the self lol
What kind of mental disability afflicts you mate.

File: KarlMarxGirlfriend.jpg (28KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 736x414px

>>1918788
Right?

>>1918796
Maintaining non-personal private property rights is what actually requires imposition

>>1918802
>When your ideology is so sound the only way people can insult it is through the use of strawmen

>>1918810
I'm waiting for a Marxist to present their argument.
Hasn't happened all thread.

>>1918807
>>1918813
>Collectivism takes no imposition
This is a special kind of autism. Let me guess you have never interacted with other humans?

And you're not arguing with one person. Mong.

>>1918820
What kind of argument? Marx inflicted zero harm. Some people who read his books did, so was the people who read the Bible.

File: Reality.jpg (220KB, 1496x1166px)

220KB, 1496x1166px

>>1918825
More strawmen

>>1918827
Could you explain how private property rights require no imposition?

>>1918808
They're butthurt others don't want to merge into their totalitarian "organic" state

Crypto fascists are the worst

>>1918802
>>1918810
>>1918813
>>1918825
>>1918832
You're not helping.

File: 1475616787932.png (147KB, 492x356px)

147KB, 492x356px

>>1918831

>>1918832
>Ancap
You are not talking to a single person, for crying out loud can you stop assuming shit.

>Private property requires imposition
It all does, but imposing that others not take what's yours is less than taking everything from everyone and forcing everyone to be part of it.

>>1918825
The, literal, point of the post is that Marxism is bad.
That argument has already been made.
You're doing nothing to prove it wrong.

>>1918833
See
>>1918847

>Lol I have a toy
<
>Lol I'm going to force everyone into "sharing", also there is totally no authority in tyis sytem we're just being collectivist trust me this is safe and not impositive. This is also totally not the exact definition of a totalitarian (that is which encompasses every aspect of life into itself and it'a rule/judgement) system

>>1918847
>>1918859
Are you aware that anti-capitalists are not concerned with personal property and that they do not want to take your toothbrush?

>>1918857
>He finally admits he wants to impose his fascist system
In practice you wouldn't even let people fuck off, you'd force them to abide goddamn liar.

File: one punch man (2).jpg (13KB, 240x239px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 240x239px

>>1918870
Marxism isn't Anti-Capitalism.

>>1918867
>Lol we want to take the entire world and force you into our new order where everything is "everyone's" (of course Administrated by the revolutionary elite for the wellbeing of the people!)
>How can you be against this we do not want your tooth brush
Child, pls no.

>>1918870
>still not an argument
First, this isn't about Capitalism.
Changing the argument doesn't make the first one invalid.
Can you even defend Communism?

>>1918885
>Totalitarian
>Corporatist
>Likely to end in a cult of personality
Yep

>>1918893
>Doesn't know what corporativism is
>Lol it's like, big corps right haha?
Fuckin
Teens

>>1918885
Everything that i don't like is fascism.

>>1918881
>Marxism isn't Anti-Capitalism.
wut

>Force businesses into accepting principals that manipulate the nature of supply and demand and the trial and error of market structure
How is that not anti-capitalist

>>1918881
Stupidest post I've ever read on 4chan.

>>1918899
When it's a literally totalitarian fascist system? Yeah. Leftists like to throw the word around but they're biggest offenders.

>>1918890
>Confusing Capitalism and Free Market Economy Structure
They're not the same thing.
>Stop arguing semantics and get to the point.
The argument is Marxism is bad, You have yet to address that, or are you talking to the wrong person?

>>1918883
>where everything is "everyone's"
Where everything can be everyone's as long as it is used on personal basis
>(of course Administrated by the revolutionary elite for the wellbeing of the people!)
That's Leninism, only a subtype of Marxism. There are ideologies like council communism and more that do not advocate vanguardism at all. The political structure of the post-capitalist societies was not something Marx was writing about aside from saying "it must be used to eliminate other economic classes".

>>1918906
>>1918900
>All anti capitalism is marxist
Uwot

>hating freedom

Socialists and communists are the most dangerous people on this earth.

>>1918918
Not all anti-capitalism is Marxist, but Marxism is inherently anti-capitalist.

File: 1475344023497.png (148KB, 1516x872px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1516x872px

>>1912639

Don't worry Robbie. I'm sure you'll be vindicated once the Soviets release the double-secret archives.

>>1918917
Marxism has some fun branches.
For instance, I didn't know islamist stalinism was a thing before.

>>1918918
>Jesus Christ there are some dumb mother fuckers in this thread.
>It's purely coincidence they're all leftist
The whole fucking point of this thread is Marxism is bad.
I just responded to someone saying Marxism isn't Anti-Capitalism. It is.
I did not say all anti-capitalist philosophy is Marxism.
>This has to be a troll. People can't really be this fucking stupid.

File: stir.jpg (25KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 390x310px

>>1918890
> It's the basis for any of it
Are you sure about it?

>>1918930
That's because it wasn't me, it's how I read it though.

>>1912659
What movie is that?

>>1918943
If you want to laugh at right wingers you go to /pol/
If you want to laugh at left wingers you go on /his/
If you want to laugh at centrists you go to /reddit/

>2016
>Not being a cratocrat

>>1918928
>Capitalism is a philosophy within the idea of a Free Market.
>Same thing
No.

>Any ideology is bad you fucking child
and we found the fedora.
> it all leads to death
>death is bad
No. Death can be good. It's a part of nature.
>If the argument is Marx lead to death = bad, then every single person who has ever came up with an idea of organizing a society is inherently bad.
>Not comprehending a simple argument without fucking it up this bad.
That's not the argument. The argument is Marx's "brand" of philosophy leads to exaggerated human suffering and loss of life. It doesn't achieve a good risk/reward ratio. It is a bad system.
>Capitalism, free market economists, what have you, would not be exempt.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT.
WE CAN DISCUSS CAPITALISM, BUT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MARXISM AND THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS BAD.

>Jesus Christ. Imagine people being able to comprehend a fucking conversation.

File: AccelerationismKarlMarx.jpg (709KB, 1088x768px)

709KB, 1088x768px

>>1918933
You can actually be pro-capitalist Marxist.

>>1918956
>Right Wingers
>Nazi Image Board
No.
>Left Wingers
>/his/
Its my first day here. Came because I saw something on Finno-Korean HyperWar. I'm disappointed.
>Centrists
>Reddit
Not really. With the exception or the_donald, they're all circle jerking millennial leftist with a incredibly fucked up leadership system.

>>1918976
>Nazi Image Board
Have you been to /pol/?

>>1918969
>>and we found the fedora.
>Smells like a lack of an argument.
Ignores all the arguments for this little gym.
>>Death can be good. It's a part of nature.
>and we found the fedora.
Not understanding that we can't all live forever.

>The mental gymnastics.

>>1918976
Remember when /pol/ got outraged over liberals bullying the black hobo female Trump supporter?

>>1918965
>The argument is Marx's "brand" of philosophy leads to exaggerated human suffering and loss of life. It doesn't achieve a good risk/reward ratio. It is a bad system.
Other anon here, I wasn't reading the shitfest that is this thread, but could you elaborate on that?

>>1918985
They're defending Trump through proxy.
Had it been over Hillary, the slurs would have been abundant.

>>1918992
trotsky is faggot

>>1918989
Nah, I've seen /pol/ posts defending gypsies from getting beaten over being gypsies.
It's not a hivemind.

>>1918965
How do we know that Marx is a problem and not, for example, Hegel that was a base for Marxism?

>>1919004
He was also a faggot.

>>1918684
Libertarian communists don't want a government

>>1919013
>Lol people who I dislik are all the same

>>1919018
all 3 ov'em?

>>1919019
Only for you :3

>>1918986
In an extremely broad sense, sure.
>Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
>Doesn't like the surplus or "profit" going to the people running the business. Believe it should be used to help the whole of the group.
>Direct conflict to Capitalism.
>Marxist ideology applied to Countries:
>Soviet Russia
millions starved and killed
>Maoist China
millions starved and killed
>Most recently, Venezuela
Ran out of money, millions now starving

>>1919014
I would argue that Hegel was more of a Plato -type figure who used broad ideology as framework, where Marx influenced specific ideals that turned out harmful.

>>1919031
>Black hat anarchists
Aka useful idiots, get backstabbed by tankie masterrace.

>>1919036
>Ill green text
>Every fucking word
>If i damn well chose
>Bitch

>>1919027
How can we exactly deduce this was a result of Marxist ideology in general and not Leninism which stresses the importance of the vanguard party?

>>1919044
>Anarchofag afraid of Big Bolshevist Cock fucking their women
Bix nood

>>1918724
Socialism didn't cause the Venezuelan crisis, though

They based their economy entirely on oil exports and suffered the consequences when the price of oil plunged

Venezuela wasn't even socialist by any reasonable metric. Industry was still privately owned. Companies that had been nationalized weren't collectively controlled by the workers

>>1919045
Although Leninism is a deviation of Marxism,
It is Marx who advocates for the further limitation of freedom.
You cannot put the power of production into the proletariat without first taking it from the bourgeoisie. There lies an inherent problem.
You do not allow the best the arise if you control the means of progress. And if one individual controls the means of progress, the effectiveness of said progress depends on the ability of the controlling individual.

>>1919024
95% of self-described anarchists are libertarian communists

>>1919057
Venezuela was what all socialist regimes turn into. State capitalis fascism.

>>1919058
That's an elementary fallacy, ownership =/= management

>>1919062
>The world gives a shit about what edgy 19 year olds adopt so they can out edge their peers

>>1919064
That's why we shouldn't take a top-down approach when transforming the economy

>>1919066
>ownership =/= management
That's not true.
Ownership is ultimate management. If I own a company, I can deviate my responsibilities but I am ultimately still responsible.

>>1919058
>You do not allow the best the arise if you control the means of progress. And if one individual controls the means of progress, the effectiveness of said progress depends on the ability of the controlling individual.
Ironically, this how socialists often criticize the capitalist system. The private property rights cause the means of production to be owned by an individual who could've inherited them rather than becoming the leader of the workplace through the choice of the workers.

>>1919076
Yet you likely have a cadre of managers running the show

With the exception of a few shitty Bordigists, commies aren't opposed to hierarchical decision making within a firm. We oppose non-collective ownership and control of profits.

>>1919072
How about we just balkanize everything and establish a direct democracy without abolishing property rights.
That way we get to reeneact my favourite historical period.

>>1919058
This same problem exists in capitalism. Individuals like Donald Trump, who lack much business smarts, can cause disastrous ramifications with their reckless adventurism

A democratic economy would severely limit the potential for such dangerous risk-taking, preventing crisis a la 1929 or 2008

>>1919087
>Who lack much business smarts
Mate.

>>1919083
> Ironically, this how socialists often criticize the capitalist system.
In my experience, Capitalism is rarely criticized but often confused with other systems such as Mercantilism.
> The private property rights cause the means of production to be owned by an individual who could've inherited them rather than becoming the leader of the workplace through the choice of the workers.
This is addressed in Capitalism. If the inherited leader of the workplace is a poor leader, sales could fall, employees could leave. When protectionist interview and create things like minimum wage or unions, you're preventing inherited leaders from being exposed and failing.

>>1919096
>In my experience, Capitalism is rarely criticized but often confused with other systems such as Mercantilism.
I'm pretty sure Mercantilism is a subtype of Capitalist, unless there is feudal Mercantilism
>If the inherited leader of the workplace is a poor leader, sales could fall, employees could leave.
True. However, I'd say it is not an optimal choice when compared to employees immediately voting out such person out of the office for being incompetent.
>When protectionist interview and create things like minimum wage or unions, you're preventing inherited leaders from being exposed and failing.
We're not touching that subject since market socialism can be both laissez faire or protectionist without a problem.

>>1919084
> you likely have a cadre of managers running the show
You're most likely jumping to corporations, and that is more complex than the original model and doesn't fully include intended Capitalist theory or the intended nature of Early US economy, which has never been fully Capitalist.

>We oppose non-collective ownership and control of profits.
Then you would limit the freedom of an individual and leave the responsibility of decision making to a appointed representative or to the group as a whole. There is nothing stopping this model from being implemented, but for some reason, it is often not the case.

>>1919087
>Individuals like Donald Trump, who lack much business smarts, can cause disastrous ramifications with their reckless adventurism

Donald Trump turned a million into several billion in net wealth. That doesn't happen by accident. You're also comparing apples and oranges. We do not live in a Capitalist or Free Market society. We live in a bastardization of the two.

>A democratic economy would severely limit the potential for such dangerous risk-taking, preventing crisis a la 1929 or 2008
Again. The original intended economic structure of the US wouldn't have allowed for the Great Depression or Recession either. Nor would Capitalism. The people and institutions responsible for those failings were protected, which is also at odds with the principles of the Free Market and Capitalism.

>>1912704
Welfare programs are pretty nice

>>1912838
>>1912929

That's the point though. Marx's economic and social theories influenced by aren't directly responsible for the Communist revolutions of the 20th century.

Marx's communism isn't the same as Stalinism or Maoism. Marx also said that his economic model was specific to Western Europe.

>>1919126
>I'm pretty sure Mercantilism is a subtype of Capitalist, unless there is feudal Mercantilism

Mercantilism is derived from Capitalism, but is not a sub-type of Capitalism because it betrays core principals of what Capitalism requires to work. Capitalism is anti-protectionist, and applied Mercantilism betrays that. Examples in the US were :
>limiting who the colonies could trade with.
>creating monopolies
>subsidies
>limiting wages
>restricting domestic consumption

> It is not an optimal choice when compared to employees immediately voting out such person out of the office for being incompetent.

But in doing so, you limit an individuals freedom of property ownership. If you give a man the freedom to build a company, what gives you the right to take a company and how is it justified. What kind of precedent does it set for other companies? If employees with no experience in leading companies are allowed to take from those who do, who is to say that they would make the right decision?

>We're not touching that subject since market socialism can be both laissez faire or protectionist without a problem.

We would have to since protectionism is at odds with Capitalism and Free Market principals. You cannot criticize Capitalism or Free Market and use examples that do not follow Capitalism or Free Market principals.

>>1919138
>not real capitalism!!1

>>1919182
>Mercantilism is derived from Capitalism, but is not a sub-type of Capitalism because it betrays core principals of what Capitalism requires to work. Capitalism is anti-protectionist, and applied Mercantilism betrays that.
Ah, so our difference lies in our definition of capitalism. For socialists in general capitalism exists if there is a relation of irreplaceable workplace owner(bourgeois) and the worker(proletarian). Thus, liberal capitalism and protectionism are both seen as variations of capitalism since they both retain that dynamic.
>If you give a man the freedom to build a company, what gives you the right to take a company and how is it justified
The usage of labour power of other people. Under some kinds of market socialism you are free to create a one-man company in which you utilize your labour power as that workplace is at the same time your personal belonging
>We would have to since protectionism is at odds with Capitalism and Free Market principals. You cannot criticize Capitalism or Free Market and use examples that do not follow Capitalism or Free Market principals.
Wait, you think socialism is protectionism? Proudhon is rolling in his grave.

>>1919142
It's evil to burden the many with the unnatural support of the few who are better off dead

>>1919242
>Capitalism
No special privileges for anyone.
>Early US Government
Corporations have to apply for charter.
Charter may be revoked at any time for being asshats

>Current US Government
You give me money, I let you do whatever you want.

>>1919249
Who cares? The goverment pays for my studies and I like it

>>1919245
>Thus, liberal capitalism and protectionism are both seen as variations of capitalism since they both retain that dynamic.
Small fix. Protectionism can be technically both socialist and capitalist. There can be also feudal protectionism and slave based protectionism because lel why not.
Though I recognize protectionism is usually seen as capitalism protectionism, which is why I put it under capitalism

>>1919245

>Capitalism exists if there is a relation of irreplaceable workplace owner(bourgeois) and the worker(proletarian).
That would be much too narrow to encompass Capitalism. Capitalism also allows for labor structures such as Corporations.
Technically, Corporations could be communist, in management, and fit within Capitalism, but the laborers would have to take their earnings and reinvest into the business instead of just selling their labor. The beef you're describing lies solely with sole proprietorship, and that is a isolated microcosm of Capitalism.

>The usage of labour power of other people. Under some kinds of market socialism you are free to create a one-man company in which you utilize your labour power as that workplace is at the same time your personal belonging.
I think that would be an unjust system. Currently, You are getting paid to do a job. You both agree to the terms before employment ever begins. You also agree that either of you can terminate the agreement at any time. What you're suggesting is that above the current agreement, if you don't like the person who's paying you, you can fire them and replace them. It doesn't address right or wrong, just will. It makes the agreement too one sided.

>Wait, you think socialism is protectionism? Proudhon is rolling in his grave.
I haven't addressed socialism yet. I'm just advocating for Pure Capitalism and Free Market. Although, I'd be happy to talk about the consequential merits of socialism.

>>1919318
Protectionism inherently cannot be Capitalist. If you add protectionism, you are eliminating a core function of Capitalism.

>>1919320
>Capitalism also allows for labor structures such as Corporations
Generally corporations are also private companies with that dynamic I mentioned.
>Corporations could be communist
Socialist if anything. And I recognize that, some coops can get big. But let's be honest, there are not that numerous in comparison with private companies, which is why corporatist models almost always use private companies rather than coops.
>but the laborers would have to take their earnings and reinvest into the business instead of just selling their labor
The ultimate decision how much of the sushould be reinvested lies in the hand of the workers, usually through direct voting or through appointed "delegates".
>What you're suggesting is that above the current agreement, if you don't like the person who's paying you, you can fire them and replace them
Those "delegates" who might set the wages are also workers.

>>1919326
>you are eliminating a core function of Capitalism
The class dynamic of worker and company owner I mentioned remains, so I disagree.

>>1919379
And we start departing from Economics into Politics.

>Generally corporations are also private companies with that dynamic I mentioned.
There are also Public Corporations with Share Holder meetings.

>Socialist if anything. And I recognize that, some coops can get big. But let's be honest, there are not that numerous in comparison with private companies, which is why corporatist models almost always use private companies rather than coops.

Corporations and Coops are not the same thing, or even close. I don't know why you would even compare them, it doesn't make sense. They don't even serve the same purpose.

>The ultimate decision how much of the sushould be reinvested lies in the hand of the workers, usually through direct voting or through appointed "delegates".

And there are democratic companies in the US that do something similar to that. That does not mean that all companies should be forced to follow that model.

>The class dynamic of worker and company owner I mentioned remains, so I disagree.
You can disagree all you want but that wasn't an opinion. Capitalism is not protectionist. It is anti-protectionist.
Capitalism is fundamentally based on competition within a market. It's the whole point. If you start protecting groups, you are ruining the point of Capitalism.

>>1919438
>Corporations and Coops are not the same thing, or even close. I don't know why you would even compare them, it doesn't make sense.
Hypothetically coop could be ran in a corporate manner, not that I'd like or support it.
>And there are democratic companies in the US that do something similar to that. That does not mean that all companies should be forced to follow that model.
Agree to disagree I guess. After all socialism is precisely about creating this "workplace democracy"
>Capitalism is fundamentally based on competition within a market. It's the whole point. If you start protecting groups, you are ruining the point of Capitalism.
Are you saying there is some higher "purpose" to an economic system?

>>1919479
>Hypothetically coop could be ran in a corporate manner, not that I'd like or support it.
You could, but then what would be the point? Corporations and Coops exist to achieve different purposes. Why compare them.

>Agree to disagree I guess. After all socialism is precisely about creating this "workplace democracy"
Here's where I'm getting a disconnect. I don't have a problem with people coming together and creating a working model of your "workplace democracy." I have a problem when you use force to make someone comply to your will, which is what you're suggesting. We both want to limit exploitation. You're method just devolved back to democracy, mines says everyone has the right to pursue what makes them happy. Or at least that's how I see this conversation going.

>Are you saying there is some higher "purpose" to an economic system?
There can be. That's a very open ended question. I know you plan that as a gotcha, but it's not.

>>1919530
>Why compare them.
Just for the sake of hypothesizing, you can disregard that.
>Or at least that's how I see this conversation going.
Kind of. I've already had similar discussions, so I guess we are likely divided on the origins of property and the right to it.
>There can be. That's a very open ended question.
Kind of my point, it has no inherent purpose per se, unless you have some argument proving otherwise

>>1919592
> we are likely divided on the origins of property and the right to it.
Which would devolve into a conversation of sovereignty

>Kind of my point, it has no inherent purpose per se, unless you have some argument proving otherwise
Government/Economic models are the application of morality of those who control them. That is the higher purpose, especially with government.

>>1919669
>Which would devolve into a conversation of sovereignty
Perhaps? After all socialists recognize sovereignty, but those origins of property is what normally divides us from capitalists.
>Government/Economic models are the application of morality of those who control them. That is the higher purpose, especially with government.
Therefore if eg. somebody wants to use regulated capitalism as a means of "achieving prosperity for muh nation", then we can't say such capitalism is a deviation considering the original intent, no?

>>1919718
>Perhaps? After all socialists recognize sovereignty, but those origins of property is what normally divides us from capitalists.
It's not who recognizes sovereignty, but who is resides with. As for the origin of property rights, that's an interesting proposition. Individual property rights go back much further than Capitalism. You would need to define property and rights. I think if we go back far enough, we'll find Capitalism and Free Market much more inline with freedom, and socialism and communism much more in line with fascism.

>Therefore if eg. somebody wants to use regulated capitalism as a means of "achieving prosperity for muh nation", then we can't say such capitalism is a deviation considering the original intent, no?

That was a tangling of words. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Regulated Capitalism means Capitalism is being regulated outside of courts and legislature? You're going to need to break down what you're saying.

>>1919759
>if we go back far enough, we'll find Capitalism and Free Market much more inline with freedom, and socialism and communism much more in line with fascism.
Not necessarily, especially if we go as far as early societies of hunter-gatherers. From the economic perspective they only had personal property: when you were using something, then it was yours, but when you stopped using it, then it stopped being yours. In a way, everything around you that wasn't used by the other people was "yours".
>That was a tangling of words. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Regulated Capitalism means Capitalism is being regulated outside of courts and legislature? You're going to need to break down what you're saying.
That's pretty much what I meant, many nationalists have been curbing the capitalist economic system with the usage of legislature to make it "serve the nation". If they saw it as a "higher purpose", then it can't be considered a deviation of capitalism, correct?

>>1919845
>Hunter Gatherer interpretation of property rights.
I wouldn't go back this far because there is no written record and no way of knowing exactly what happened in this time. Even the example you use is just a theory.

>That's pretty much what I meant, many nationalists have been curbing the capitalist economic system with the usage of legislature to make it "serve the nation". If they saw it as a "higher purpose", then it can't be considered a deviation of capitalism, correct?

I don't think this is correct. Ideally, Government serves a Capitalist system and does not manipulate it. There have even been discussions if Capitalism even needs government, but that's an anarcho-capitalist argument and not something I would be in favor of. I don't know why someone having an objective would change the state of capitalism? You would need to modify capitalism itself. DESU this conversation is going into platitudes that I'm not following you on. Maybe you're only giving me fragments of your thoughts or maybe I'm just not picking up your point.

>>1919938
>I wouldn't go back this far because there is no written record and no way of knowing exactly what happened in this time. Even the example you use is just a theory.
Not really, Even today we have tribes of Amazonia or Siberia which, from economic perspective behave in a similar manner. I recall Engels writing about this subject(not like anybody cares).
>DESU this conversation is going into platitudes that I'm not following you on. Maybe you're only giving me fragments of your thoughts or maybe I'm just not picking up your point.
Perhaps? No idea.

>>1920048
I would suggest you read Wealth of Nations and John Locke for a fair counter argument to Socialism.

>>1920059
I don't recall classical liberals discussing the property relations of the primitive societies in their works, have I missed something by accident?