Was he right, /lit/?

File: 1495075834177.jpg (58KB, 449x688px)

58KB, 449x688px

>tfw you agree with Locke and Nozick's justifications for private property, but hate the social and cultural effects of Capitalism.

He was definitely right about Capital being an atomizing and alienating force, but I don't buy the 'labour theory of value' (I know that this is considered a fairly easy target). I also don't agree that all non-class divides are made up in order to further Capital's interests - big business has been some of the biggest critics of the populist/nationalist uprisings and things like nested loyalty (ie, the lack of true pan-prole solidarity in the absence of false consciousness) seem to be just a biological fact of life

>>9980911
about what?

File: 0c154573813a1e3d1e4b6976337129c733657938.jpg (30KB, 447x447px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 447x447px

Sort of.

>>9980911
I mean, sometimes, other times not. Enough of the time to be worth studying.

>9980935
LTV is at least less ridiculous than Smith's "invisible hand"

he was right that capital accumulates in fewer hands
he was wrong in that this is the fault of capitalism, and it even a new phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

>>9980935
>>9980972
LTV is actually really misunderstood. I only learned about it recently and it's proving to be true

https://www.quora.com/What-testable-predictions-does-the-Labor-Theory-of-Value-make

No, ideologies based on idealism are retarded.
t. Bakunin

>>9980935
>tfw you agree with Locke and Nozick's justifications for private property, but hate the social and cultural effects of Capitalism.
what are those justifications?

>>9980999
Dumb russian

>>9981045
Dumb gommie

>>9980972
The invisible hand is a metaphor that is not essential to Smith's economic theory. It's comparable to talking about natural selection in teleological or intentional terms.

>>9980991
The LTV is more nuanced than it is usually presented as. It's not that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor that it took to produce it -- it's determined (at a time) by the 'socially necessary labor-time' required to produce it (at that time). That said, most contemporary Marxists of an analytical bent end up rejecting the LTV anyway, due to its general failure to track exchange value according to the actual economical data.

>>9980999
The very idea of rejecting ideologies based on idealism comes from Marx.

File: marx.jpg (49KB, 474x555px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 474x555px

>>9980911
no.

>>9980911
His analysis of capitalism I find is largely correct, but I think his solution misses the mark and is difficult if not impossible to implement in practice

>>9981165
How specifically?

clearly not

Yes.

>>9981171
Why, specifically?

File: gobekli.jpg (229KB, 990x742px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 990x742px

>Marx: "violence and religiousness are the results of the alienation brought by class polarization, in primitive communism and when we abolish the private property of the means of production, we will end them both

>Modern archeology: "violence and religiousness predate the development of agriculture and class polarization, there is no reason to believe they would go away even if True Communism™ with worker's councils etc was achieved

>>9980972
>>9980935
Smith is the one who developed the LTV. The difference is that Smith believed value comes from labor and surplus value should be invested in labor,technology, and land while Marx saw anything not returned to labor was exploitation. When Smith wrote that land was commonly owned.

He was left, very left.

>>9981820
muffled heh in the distance covered by the sound of tinnitus

>>9981155
Also,
>Gave away his dowry of a box of silver coins to anybody who asked which was completely gone in a week
>Blew money on cigars and booze as his kids literally starved to death

>>9980987
>i'm a Peterson drone

File: 9euRW6y4D1E.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>9980911
No, he was left

File: ironic2.jpg (58KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 453x604px

>>9981099
>The very idea of rejecting ideologies based on idealism comes from Marx.

Only to propose and insist on a strict implementation of his own fictional dictates following destabilization because that would supposedly work.

People are dicks, not virtues, altruistic, idealists and capitalism works for this very reason.

>>9981906
lel the pareto distribution is eighth grade economics

File: santa marx.png (334KB, 790x960px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 790x960px

>subversive jew with ideology of economic mismanagement
>right

>>9981960
>People are dicks, not virtues, altruistic, idealists and capitalism works for this very reason.

Wut?

>>9981977
Just ignore Granpa, he'll tire himself out

>>9981962
Simply saying "pareto distribution" doesn't refrute Marxism.

(Or post-modern neo-Marxism as you're more likely to call it.)

>>9981970
The oldest jokes are always the oldest.

>>9981977
Socialism assumes too much of the human nature incorrectly for it work.

>people actually give a flying fuck about virtuous behavior.
>people are just selfish greedy fucks looking out for their own because they are ""unenlightened" not because that's how they are most true to their core.
>implying socialism can work without a massive brainwashing indoctrinating social cohesion narrative to bind people together.

>>9981986
Yeah but you see the idea is that Socialism doesn't have to rely on humans being good. Its a system designed to force cooperation and if you're not cooperative you go to the gulag.
But on the otherhand Capitalism isn't doing too well coping with greedy kikes either

>>9981986
>human nature
meme

>>9981986
>The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others
Wilde

Socialism puts surplus value in the hands of the people who toiled for it. If anything, socialism allows people to be more self-interested.

File: north korea is best korea.jpg (87KB, 537x537px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 537x537px

>>9981993
>neuroplasticity means people can be molded into anything from gratefully biddable sheppards dogs to amoeba's if we wanted to!
>anyone who doesn't gleefully obeys his role of servitude and swallows our phantasmal narrative is mentally ill
>it would work if everyone just believed and stopped being primitive minded!

>>9982003
Dude there's no such thing as surplus value

the second 4chan gets a youtube board is the same second that /lit/ is saved

File: 2017-07-30 18_54_26-Photos.png (480KB, 457x590px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 457x590px

>>9981986
>human nature

Also, this meme has to die. It's just a talking point with no intellectual meat behind it (or at least that's how it's used here). Humans have a nature, sure, but how exactly does that refute every attempt to improve the lot of the majority?

It's one of those parroted things like "Diana was the People's princess" and "the Poles are good workers" that everyone says but never stops to think about.

Everyone who says "human nature" without explantion and without context is merely saying, "I'm a fucking drone," and you'll get no respect from me.

>>9982009
...

>>9982019
Ugh I can just picture the self-conceited ratty grin of the Limey behind this
Funny how they turn to Socialism as soon as they accept their rotten empire is gone

>>9982028
That the best you got?

>>9982019
>a foundation is just a talking point with no actual building, buildings have a foundation sure, but how exactly does that refute every attempt to build something without one?

>anyone who says we need a common foundation to build our house upon is an entropy enableist shitlord who is merely saying ' laws of physics n shit', you'll get no respect from me.

>>9982019
you get hungry?

congrats, i just found human nature and motivated cognition

>>9982040
No that one was on the house
I just can't stand you Brits, you can't just accept your little miserable island world is unimportant. Even your choice of metaphors here is so fucking self aggrandizing. Who the fuck cares about Diana? You don't reference shit like that to strengthen your points you do it just to fellate yourself

What is he hiding in his jacket?

>>9980911
>every attempt to implement his retarded system failed
>Was he right, /lit/?
No. No, he wasn't.

>>9982044
Me:
>humans have a nature, sure

Learn. To. Read.

(Another hangover case?)

>>9982043
Merely saying "dat goes against human nature" is a talking point, and a stupid and overwrought one at that. Where's the argument?

To demonstrate: I could say digging for potatoes is against human nature... would you respect that for an argument?

>>9982048
>thinks mentioning Diana is intellectual masturbation

kek

>>9982054
>>thinks mentioning Diana is intellectual masturbation

You're literally making interior reference points with zero regard to the fact you're on an international platform. I guarantee tons of people here don't have a single clue who Diana is but you do it anyway because you can't take the humility of acknowledging the existence of other worlds.
Do you really not see how obnoxious that is?

>>9982019

>no meat
>post you are responding to literally writes three examples in green text
>spergs out over the general and doesn't address the specifics

thanks for stopping by reddit

>>9982019
People are power hungry and act out of self-interest, and socialist/communist doctrines seem to refuse to acknowledge that, choosing instead to believe in some Rousseaunian notion that people have good (read: egalitarian, humanitarian, liberal, progressive) intentions but end up corrupted by "the system". I think humans are primed to live in a scarce environment and only share their possessions to the extent that it is immediately beneficial to themselves

>>9982067
So I supposed to find a universal metaphor that would be to familiar to people across the world... Er, well, it's like... um, you know when your neighbour say's "boy/girl/comrade/mate, it sure looks like it'll be raining cats and dogs today." Does that work for you?

>>9982079
Those three examples were literally the same point - "human beings are selfish". Not. Good. Enough.

Also, nice meme, very clever and witty.

>>9982087
>People are power hungry and act out of self-interest

I just told you how socialism will grant people greater personal power. >>9982003

The rest is drivel and shows how you haven't read a page of Marx. Rousseau? Really? Get real.

(Note: apologies if this post isn't cultural relativist enough for >>9982067)

>>9981984
Yes it does, it shows it's not a capitalism thing, it's a universal in every domain where creativity is a factor

>>9982098
Expatiate.

(Surely Peterson gave you more than that?)

>>9982087
What do you mean by 'people'? Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest. That is human nature too. The criticism of capitalism comes in when it is described as a system that allows or enables the selfish and power hungry to run that system, by exploiting others. Communism isn't 'against human nature' any more than capitalism is against the co-operative human nature.

>>9982107
Peterson didn't invent the Pareto distribution you moron.
Read up on it, test it out yourself.

Knowing I share a board with communists is truly a disgusting feeling.
Economic brainlets

>>9982098
No kidding, you mean to say that history has been defined by power and capital accumulating in the hands of a small elite? Does that mean the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles? Wow, Marx btfo!

>>9982110
>Peterson didn't invent the Pareto distribution you moron

No, but the only reason you know about it is because of Peterson. I'm pretty sure of that.

Now, I asked you to expand on a theory you seem very attached to. What's so difficult about that?

>>9982114
>knowing I share a board with communists is truly a disgusting feeling.

Actually pol seems fairly commie-free.

>>9982097
>I just told you how socialism will grant people greater personal power.
Yeah, those two sentences that say nothing congruent with actual socialism sure showed me

>The rest is drivel and shows how you haven't read a page of Marx. Rousseau? Really? Get real.
wew

>>9982109
>Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest
I've never met a single person like that. The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

>>9982122
>The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

Which doesn't disqualify them from actually existing. Not sure what your point is. Is slave morality against human nature?

>>9982119
>What's so difficult about that?
Read the wiki, why should I tell you how it works?
Do the work yourself you lazy communist.

>>9982122
You don't actually know what socialism is, do you? Surplus value?

>Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest
>I've never met a single person like that

Oh, how sad.

>>9982126
In other words, you don't know anything more than the few seconds Peterson spent on it.

>>9982126
>Hasn't done the work

I guess your job in this thread is done then and you can leave

>>9982125
Slave morality is pathological, not essential. It's something you're taught to believe, not something inherent to you

>>9982131
Well reading I guess is against human nature.

>>9982128
>>9982127
I did, why do you need me to explain it to you?
What do you gain?
You could have read it for yourself.

>>9982122
>I've never met a single person like that. The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

I think the issue here is your

IDEOLOGY
D
E
O
L
O
G
Y

>>9982134
Your job here is done and you can leave. You posted the wiki article which we can all read in our spare time.

>>9982134
Yeah, you can leave now. You've reminded us all that Jordan Peterson is still a thing.

>>9982122
get your head out of the trash can bucko

>>9982137
Good, sad you never hard of it before, a commie rat should know
>>9982141
You're obsessed with a professor, sad.

>>9982127
Nice, we already got to that point in every capitalism x socialism discussion where the socialist claims you simply don't know what you're talking about. Bye

>>9982133
>>9982136
>>9982142
great posts

>>9982150
socialists can't argue, just ask smug and think they have a point.

>>9982143
Considering Marx already accounted for it? History of class struggle, remember? I reminded you if it here which you ignored:

>>9982116

>>9982145
Well, I'm sorry, a lot of people seem to have missed Marxism 101, yet still feel very strongly that they must comment on it.

>democratic control of the means of production

>>9982155
>socialists can't argue, just ask smug and think they have a point.

Yes, I'm often guilty of asking smug.

>>9982097
>So I supposed to find a universal metaphor that would be to familiar to people across the world...

Yeah its easy, you just talk like an American because that's who's in charge now Trevor

>>9982156
Oh you mean the class struggle that should have increased but didn't?

>>9982145
We got to that point when someone mentioned Pareto distribution and expected others to read up about it like it was relevant.

>>9982161
inb4 M-muh false consciousness

>>9982161
Put those goal posts back. We're talking about Pareto distribution.

>there are "people" who still believe in marxism and a revolution

>>9982168
hahaha the socialists doesn't like this topic
Face it, marx was a shit predictor, a loser anda bum

>>9982174
I like the topic of the Pareto distribution so let's keep talking about it. A simple yes or no question for you: Marx suggested the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small elite was a repeating historical phenomenon -- yes or no?

>>9982159
>>democratic control of the means of production

This means nothing, there's no objective measurement of "democracy", Stalin would claim his nation was democratic
In the end of the day Democracy is whatever the state decides is democratic

>>9982178
lmao I'm not playing your game of moving goalposts.
Marx was a loser, didn't work and predicted capitalism wrong, someone that should have been forgotten in history, a loser.

Democratic liberal capitalism is literally the end of history. Deal with it bucko

>>9982181
You were fine with moving goalposts before. Doesn't matter, you're done anyway.

File: h9so45w[1].jpg (127KB, 739x518px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 739x518px

>the revolution is happening soon bro, believe me

>>9982180
So let's deconstruct everything.

Human nature means nothing, there's no objective measure of "human nature", Kropotkin would claim anarchism was human naturery
In the end of the day Human Nature is whatever Anon decides is human nature

Fair?

>>9982185
>Implying it's not crumbling into fascism

>>9982188
hahahaha go follow your loser.
His theories are dumb and don't work in practise, his prediction of capitalism is bad and he was a lazy NEET in his life.
What. A. Loser

File: Twitter-@allisonburtch-progressive-stack[1].jpg (33KB, 543x255px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 543x255px

>class consciousness will prevail comrade

File: 3173A83C00000578-0-image-a-32_1456770906222.jpg (81KB, 634x422px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 634x422px

>>9982185
That's not how you spell Chinese-Jewish feudal technocracy

>>9982191
>Human nature means nothing, there's no objective measure of "human nature"

Yeah but there are actual humans to measure, just like there were actual Socialist countries to measure

File: 58435845.jpg (45KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x360px

>boss gives me the tools
>i give him the labor and get paid for it
>get keeps and sells the end product/service because he invested more

What exactly is wrong with this?

>>9982207
According to communist morons he's ''exploiting'' you.
Normal people call it giving someone a job but they never work so it sounds like exploition.

>>9982207
Dumb losers hate the idea of others being smarter and more daring than them

>>9982207
You're working 15 hour days

>>9982221
Guess you should have been born white then lmao

>>9982226
I don't think whites are more adept at working 15 hour days

>dumb tourists get btfo and resort to shitposting for damage control: the thread

Thanks for coming.

File: Screen-Shot-2015-03-25-at-1.15.34-PM[1].png (77KB, 620x371px)

77KB, 620x371px

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

But yeah, the revolution will surely happen even though most citizens have no acess to assault weapons, live under a police state and their "leaders" are people so comfortable with violence they believe loud clapping is a bit too much

>>9982241
Imagine these ''people'' having a say in things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

File: 1486339640812.png (231KB, 934x534px)

231KB, 934x534px

Classcucks get out

>>9982207
Nothing if that's the transaction you desire. Something if that's the transaction you think everyone desires.

>>9982246
>calling others Cucks
Marx unironically wanted there to be a "commune of women" (i.e given freely to Chad and Tyrone)

File: RuyWK.jpg (648KB, 3405x2266px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 3405x2266px

>>9982241
OWS was just a bunch of bourgeois teens roleplaying as revolutionaries. Actual revolutionary anarchists/syndicalists/communists would be more than willing to fuck shit up when the time comes

>>9982281
But violence is bad

File: if_modern_anarchists_fought_in_spain__part_1__by_rednblacksalamander-d7irpe5.jpg (105KB, 900x466px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 900x466px

>>9982281
It looks like you might like this guy's art:
https://rednblacksalamander.deviantart.com/gallery/49568261/If-Modern-Anarchists-Fought-in-Spain

>>9982281
>their problem was they weren't LARPing hard enough

>>9982241
Soldiers are working class to
>>9982281
Antifa are defending liberal democracies against the products of liberalism. They're inherently counter-revolutionary.

>>9982003
>living for others
this is not abolished in socialism. its a more complex theme and beyond socialism or individualism. what is the limit of living for someone or for others?. what is the separation?.

>>9982315
>Antifa are defending liberal democracies against the products of liberalism. They're inherently counter-revolutionary.

>Doctors are defending peoples bodies from the products of their bodies.
>They're inherently counter-human

>He hasn't swallowed the Bordiga pill yet

File: leftcom.jpg (34KB, 827x616px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 827x616px

>>9982344

>>9982339
Doctors usually concern themselves with the disease, not the symptoms. Shit analogy

>>9982367
That is incredibly wrong.

>>9982367
>Doctors usually concern themselves with the disease, not the symptoms

Untrue. You need to talk to a doctor.

>>9982244
that video is fucking brutal

>>9982360
Not even wrong

>>9982367
>Doctors have psychic control over your white blood cells

>>9982375
>>9982376
In the short term you can mitigate the symptoms of a common cold with large doses Vit C, but in the long term that will have some nasty side effects. Better to slink down in a comfy armchair and drink chicken broth:)

Capitalism is basically perfect, the problem being we only get to experience its bastardized forms

>>9982408
You can literally die from sympthoms

File: 5488e72bf7f0b15276aa9a3a22c6b780--goya-paintings-wall-paintings.jpg (8KB, 236x285px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x285px

>>9982411

>>9982207

According to marxist LTV the worker exchanges with the capitalist his labour-power for a wage. Since capitalist must get more value from the final product (commodity) than the wage of the worker (in order to pay the worker AND generate profit), the value of workers labour exchanged is bigger than the value of the wage he gets. Therefore capitalist exploits the worker.

The tools (mean of production) don't belong to the worker, neither does the product of his labor. This way capitalist isn't lending tools, machinery, materials etc. to the worker and the worker doesn't give him the commodity in exchange for the wage - in the capitalist mode of production worker doesn't own anything else other than his labour-power.

"Afterall, if capitalists can argue for the right to surplus-value on the grounds that they bring employment to laborers, why cannot laborers argue that they deserve surplus-value because without their efforts all the constant capital held by capitalists would be valueless?"

>>9982411
>this is what /pol/ actually believes
>imperfect humans can manufacture a perfect system

>>9982473
>right
what right is it that we're talking about? the right to private property? aren't people free to pursue their best interests? if a worker thinks his wages are unfair he could always try finding someone willing to pay him more. free market competion means the one who offers the best product for the best price stays in business, which means a compromise between those who own the means of production, workers and society at large

>>9982493
>imperfect humans can't manufacture a perfect system
that's a non-sequitur if i've ever seen one

>was he right?
Yes
>does that matter?
No, I make my living through finance so I'm glad marxism is no longer a mainstream political ideology, I don't really care that communism is inevitable, it's not like I'm gonna witness it in my life time, so just do what you can to succeed under capitalism while it lasts anon

>>9981986
selfishness is not an inherent human quality
its a product of capitalism

>>9982279
That's not what classcuck means

>>9982516
Wrong again, you have it backwards, capitalism is a product of human selfishness, it's literally why it works in the first place.

>>9982523
It's funny how the capitalists say that greed is human nature but praise charity

>>9982514
This, even if a socialist revolution was to break out and be successful, it would still take another 100 years before communism is achieved

File: formacao_consagracao-ao-sagrado-coracao-de-jesus[1].jpg (806KB, 1600x1200px)

806KB, 1600x1200px

>>9982516
and there are still people who deny christianity the obvious bridge between christianity and socialism lmao
where the fuck did the idea that "selfishness" or "greed" are evil and unnatural come from? you've all been fooled by christcucks

>>9982498
"right to surplus-value" is the right to the sulprus value created by worker; the capitalists profit.

According to marxists capitalism can't be just. If it was, the capitalist couldn't generate profit. Doesn't matter how much your employer is willing to pay you, since in order for him to thrive, you must create more value than he gives you money for.

File: centrist template2.png (72KB, 336x321px)

72KB, 336x321px

>>9982527
>praise charity

Charity is fool's game, a belief for failures and sentimentalists that makes them feel good about themselves. No one is actually willing to make meaningful personal sacrifices in terms of time, energy and their own resources unless they are failures running away from their failure into this escapist rationalization: 'well at least I can claim to be a caring sympathetic person if I flee into charity/social work'

>>9982527
How is that funny?
Just because both things are human nature does not make them equally good.

>>9982549
charity also sounds tempting when workers start getting class conscious, as much as I dislike communists I can still see how useful having the big beast in the room can be as a reminder to the 1%, if it wasn't for the radicals we would still be working 15 hours a day for shit wages without any social programs.

>>9982552
>selfishness and altruism both are (sic) human nature

Ah, so why is it only capitalism that is justified by the human nature "argument"?

>>9982567
Because it lets you free to follow whichever you want.

>>9982569
And what if those recipients of charity in the Congo, Bangladesh and Haiti decide they rather have an economic system based on the democratic ownership of the means of production - do you think the capitalist world will just allow it? Because, spoiler: the captains of industry aren't so liberal when it comes to real demonstrations of liberty.

>>9982079
>those three examples were literally the same point - "human beings are selfish". Not. Good. Enough.

It seems your interpretation is what's Not. Good. Enough.

How about you go Back. To. Reddit.

>if everyone just believed we could sprout wings and fly we would.

This is your brain on socialism.

>>9982602
As far as I'm concerned they can, they'll pay the price, it won't ever work but I'd let them do it.
Capitalists aren't exactly pro interventionism.

File: thinking and feeling.jpg (35KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 403x403px

>>9982617
>>9982019

>>9982621
>Capitalists aren't exactly pro interventionism.
lol

>>9982633
Tell me how being for a free market means you want to impose your ideology on others.
Seems like more of a socialist thing, and you know they did interventionism as well (vietnam, Afghanistan etc)

File: US interference.jpg (3MB, 3300x1619px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3300x1619px

>>9982621
>Capitalists aren't exactly pro interventionism.

Hohoho, excellent.

>>9982617
You're a bit all over the place, huh?

>>9982649
see: >>9982637
Socialists intervene too, they're just terrible at it, see eastern europe

>>9982637
>Tell me how being for a free market means you want to impose your ideology on others.
well it doesn't when you define it in a completely retarded way like "being for a free market"
that way I can say that cats and dogs are the same thing because dogs are dogs and cats are dogs too
very convenient

>Seems like more of a socialist thing, and you know they did interventionism as well (vietnam, Afghanistan etc)
and? is that supposed to disprove that capitalists are interventionists?

>>9982654
>Socialists intervene too, they're just terrible at it
capitalists have a forever war going on in the middle east, in a couple of years there will be people fighting there who weren't even alive when the towers fell and you're calling that a job well done

>>9982654
So what we've established is that both capitalists and socialists intervene in other states.

My point was that capitalists intervene in other states. It would seem, and bear with me here, if A and B do x, then A must do x. Wow, that was some serious logic-busting!

In other words/tl;dr: I was right.

(Also, El Savador, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan and Argentina were stand-up inteventions, huh?)

>>9982667
Every spcialist ive ever met is an idiot. If aillion dollars fell into their lap (and many of them have had this happen via their parents who spoiled them rotten) they would lose all of it in 4 years because they have no clue how to invest, no clue about marketa, and only the basest of self control

File: 1387998545282.jpg (62KB, 640x492px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x492px

>>9982660
First sentence makes no sense.
>is that supposed to disprove that capitalists are interventionists?
Yes, because countries alway meddle in the affairs of foreign countries if they're powerful enough to do so, it's not a capitalist thing.
If the USSR was bigger and more wealthy they'd intervene more than they already did, which blows your shit argument out of the water.
>>9982667
And that has to do with capitalism how?
What was the reason the USSR had for invading Afghanistan? how about eastern europe?
Why did the Chinese sponsor the communists in Korea and Vietnam?
Pure interventionism from your socialist hellholes
I'll be back in an hour, prepare a good reply, socialists.
>>9982673
Big countries do interventionism often, capitalism has no influence on it, or can you prove me wrong?
A big country will always find a reason to intervene, be if to bring freedom or equality.
You criticism of capitalism of being interventionist is not a good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI

who was in the wrong here?

>>9982681
>First sentence makes no sense.
nah, you're just retarded

>Yes, because countries alway meddle in the affairs of foreign countries if they're powerful enough to do so, it's not a capitalist thing.
yes, which makes the claim that capitalists are not interventionist - guess what - retarded!
follow the fucking conversation

>And that has to do with capitalism how?
>what do the interventionist exploits of a country defined by capitalism have to do with the question of whether capitalists are interventionist
hmmmmmmmmmm

>I'll be back in an hour, prepare a good reply, socialists.
I don't care, I won't reply because you're either dumb as shit or a troll and in either case there's no point talking to you

>countries with geopolitical grip intervening on other countries in order to advance/protect their affairs means capitalism is interventionist
holy fucking shit dude

>>9982717
>I can't see the difference between "art" and "an artist", "flute" and "a flutist", "cocksucking" and "a cocksucker"

>>9982734
so you agree with me? interventionism has to do with powerful nations meddling in the affairs of other nations, not capitalism itself. it could be a matter of sovereignity, diplomacy or even pacifism, but it certainly has almost nothing to do with capitalism

>>9982745
and nothing to do with socialism either

Socialism can succeed as a poorer alternatove to capitalism with the correct institutions. But only one country has ever pulled it off.

The problem is that almost every socialist is an idiot that doesnt rven know basic economics (the rules are the same for socialism and capitalism by the way) and in addition, they are also impotent losers

Never met a single intelligent one

>>9982717
How do you stop countries from turning socialist and leaving your market if not by interventionism, capitalism needs to be the global dominant system, the more labor to exploit the more profit there is to be made

>>9982754
>basic economics
>same rules for socialism and capitalism
how do you exactly apply a supply-demand market graph on a socialist framework anon?

File: interventions_map.png (64KB, 855x676px)

64KB, 855x676px

>>9982681
>Big countries do interventionism often, capitalism has no influence on it, or can you prove me wrong?

Imperialism is the ultimate stage of captialism; why? It needs to grow. As an economic system it is constantly in flux - it, in other words, isn't sustainable (but that's really a side point) - and requires ever increasing resources and labour. It simply can't be contained within national boundaries. This is obvious (though apparently not for you), but why else did capitalism usher in globalisation?

Advocates of the system are usually all too eager to point this sort of thing out...

Let's not be so abstract and take some examples:

- Opium Wars. Britain needed a market for its opium. India wasn't buying (in fact British law made it difficult to), so they needed an alternative: China, only they didn't want it. Nevermind, the Brits forced their way into the sleeping giant with gunboats and made a consumer market.

- The US intervention in Guatemala, 1954. The government of that latter nation attempted to nationalise the United Fruit Company and the CIA responded with force. What was the excuse? "We need to defend American interests". It would seem, therefore, (oooh no, more logic) that American foreign policy was acting on behalf of capitalist interests.

- Same with Iran in 1953, the Congo during the '60s, Chile in '73 - and perhaps Iraq in 2003? Though the most recent case has more to do with the "military-industrial complex", as Eisenhower crudely termed it. (Which is in fact the basis of American state capitalism and there's plenty to say about it, but I'll let you consider what I've already put down.)

>>9982754
>Never met a single intelligent one

I do get the distinct impression that professors and NASA scientists aren't making up your social circle, though.

>>9982759
Supply and demand is immutable. Socialist economies that ignore it end up with starvation

>>9982799
You thought wrong

>>9982536
>where the fuck did the idea that "selfishness" or "greed" are evil and unnatural come from? you've all been fooled by christcucks

This is your brain on Protestantism

>>9982814
>You thought wrong

What? Your YouTube videos didn't give you a refutation to those points?

You can at least try to think of one... (perhaps not).

>>9982538
Here's my big issue with Socialism. Why should I give a shit if workers get the short end of the stick?
I don't identify as a worker, I identify as some dude and all my desires and fears have nothing to do with whether the place I work in is run by some Jew or some committee of dumbasses. Both are equally a threat to my interests only in Capitalism I at least have a hope that I could be where that fat Jew is

>>9982826
>Here's my big issue with Socialism. Why should I give a shit if workers get the short end of the stick?

I appreciate this kind of honesty. Fair enough - you're a cock, socialism isn't for you.

>>9982830
So why do you give a shit?

>>9982820
i said you thought wrong. my social circle does include various professors, though none of them include ethnic transgender dick sucjking studies. and in fact, i have a friend who works at nasa. so.

>>9982836
>my social circle does include various professors

lol so what

>>9982832
Honestly? Anger at injustice, a yearning for change, and what Russell called an "unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind". It's gay, but that's what bothers me.

>>9982836
You're funny. Are you trying to be?

>>9982799
>imperialism wouldn't bring socialist nations as much benefits as capitalist ones

>>9982799
>Imperialism is the ultimate stage of captialism

Yes and?
So what?

We can argue your fictional idealist society day and night but it won't matter because it is not the dominant system and the decisive factor that ascends all your talking-points altogether is dominance.

In addition, where socialism is or was actually dominant it has turned the country into bankrupt tyrannical failures of mass suffering for the people unless it combined with a very strong socially cohesive factor such as nationalism or religion. (and a religion is precisely what your socialist ideology is the modern equivalent of, a fiction based on belief)

>>9982840
and it means i have never met a single intelligent socialist. they are all pathetic losers driven to hurt others via envy

you have everything you need in life and more and yet you want to spread destruction via socialism

no one higher than 120 iq is a socialist

get fucked

>>9982850
>Yes and?
>So what?

I was responding to, if you can bother to read (or, in fact, be relevant), a claim that capitalism has nothing to do with imperialism.

So, that's what.

>>9982853
kek

>>9982864
>a claim that capitalism has nothing to do with imperialism.

And why does making that assertion matter to you? Is it a prelude before you start moral posturing trying to rouse the plebeian class?

Equality is the religion of the weak, the entire left is dying in the western world, modern development indexes and standards of living have made your ideology increasingly more obsolete, the fact is people don't give a flying fuck about your ideals or conceptual society, they have their primary needs met and beyond that they would prefer having as little to do with an entity like the 'state' as possible. This is the part of human nature that undermines your entire fictional society. Human nature aligns best with capitalism, rotten and imperfect though it may be, it is a system for humanity and that is what humanity is and also why it works, humanity does not exist to create a perfect system, the system exists to serve humanity.

>>9982845
>Honestly? Anger at injustice, a yearning for change, and what Russell called an "unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind". It's gay, but that's what bothers me.

Horseshit
You just have a hero complex and are just self gratifying yourself with any chance to pretend you're got the keys to save the world. Regardless of the pain and horror it may cause for the weak you're pretending to be worried about.
There's two types of assholes, the ones who admit it and the ones who are too stuck up their own ass to have that decency

>>9982883
The head I had seen at Burleigh was an exact and wonderful facsimile of Nature, and I resolved to make mine (as nearly as I could) an exact facsimile of Nature. I did not then, nor do I now believe, with Sir Joshua [Reynolds, the painter], that the perfection of art consists in giving general appearances without individual details, but in giving general appearances with individual details. Otherwise, I had done my work the first day. But I saw something more in Nature than general effect, and I thought it worth my while to give it in the picture. There was a gorgeous effect of light and shade: but there was a delicacy as well as depth in the chiaro scuro, which I was bound to follow into all its dim and scarce perceptible variety of tone and shadow. Then I had to make the transition from a strong light to as dark a shade, preserving the masses, but gradually softening off the intermediate parts. It was so in Nature: the difficulty was to make it so in the copy. I tried, and failed again and again; I strove harder, and succeeded as I thought. The wrinkles in Rembrandt were not hard lines; but broken and irregular. I saw the same appearance in Nature, and strained every nerve to give it. If I could hit off this edgy appearance, and insert the reflected light in the furrows of old age in half a morning, I did not think I had lost a day.

>>9982891
That's a silly worldview, verging on the pathetic. And one that can only be sustained, I imagine, by long periods of loneliness and bitterness.

>>9982891
>I'm an asshole but everyone's an asshole they must be cause if they are then I'm not an asshole and if they aren't then I truly am an asshole and I can't bear that

>>9982360
that's true

>>9982908
>That's a silly worldview, verging on the pathetic. And one that can only be sustained, I imagine, by long periods of loneliness and bitterness.

All true but it doesn't make it false.
History is filled with dead peasants on the path of Knights on a crusades. I don't think you're anywhere as confident on the necessity of Socialism as you pretend you are but you don't feel like there's anything actually at stake. To you if it just results in more gulags, famines and purges it doesn't matter since you'll have had your jollies LARPing like Che.
I say all this as someone who was a well read and active Communist and now a nothing

>>9982908
you think the economy is like art?.

>>9982845
anger at injustice.
please explain this. anger?, i never feel anger without a totally personal point of view. i mean. anger for what exactly. i can understand you want to changing because you want to live in a better world. but that thoughts dont come with anger.

>>9982933
Probably angry at his Dad and just projects that onto businessmen

>>9982925
>gulags, famines and purges
>I say all this as someone who was a well read and active Communist
The fuck you were. A used to be "well read and active Communist" doesn't ramble on about gulags and famines.

Liberalism wasn't possible in the long-run and had to breakdown but Marx didn't take the possibility of a mixed economy seriously; that's what's been for about 100 years and its been manageable enough to shift blame around for every recession onto different key players at different times, bankers, unions, its own regulations, etc, etc

>>9982207
Don't even bother approaching this morally. The question is is this relationship possible to maintain over a series of cycles/indefinitely. What determines wages and profit.
The goal of those who invest is to accumulate value in a negotiable form (money/stocks/bonds/etc) and to create the conditions for the expanded appropriation of that value whereas the goal for everyone else is just the general development of the productive forces and devaluation of consumer goods.
Capitalist development reaches a point where "growth" should actually destroy more old value than create new value and result in a decrease in net profitability... so to maintain the yield-value of their assets the only thing anyone with vested interests can do is to resort to political measures to curtail further investment and productivity increases.

>>9982925
I can't imagine how awful it is going through life thinking as you do (goodness knows it's difficult enough). It must be awful. I'm sorry.

>>9982933
>you think the economy is like art?.

No. I'm just being as irrelevant as the other anon was.

>please explain this. anger?

It's a personality thing, I suppose. Don't you ever watch the news, see something that has no percivable impact on your life, and say, "that's fucked"?

>>9982940
Sigh. You really are silly, aren't you?

>>9982945
Why not, how are you so sure what happened after 1917 and so many other places won't just repeat itself?

>>9982953
>It's a personality thing, I suppose. Don't you ever watch the news, see something that has no percivable impact on your life, and say, "that's fucked"?
he doesn't feel anger when he sees the misery of others because he's a self-centered narcissist
explaining feelings to him is like trying to teach an ant algebra

>>9982908
The argument is not that nature is always right, the argument is that you can not build a house if you got the foundation wrong without it collapsing. People would not be served by socialism people would exploit the system, causing it to become increasingly draconian and totalitarian in order to sustain itself, then the people suffer and the point which it set out to realize has been lost.

>>9982953
>I can't imagine how awful it is going through life thinking as you do (goodness knows it's difficult enough). It must be awful. I'm sorry

Thanks. It is hard. I don't hold a lot of hope for humanity surviving this century in one piece

>>9982954
Maybe because it's not 1917 and the material conditions are different.

You're literally spouting right-wing memes and you have the balls to say "well I used to be a well-read communist you know!"
I'm more and more sure that the extent of your "reading" and "communism" was reading "Animal Farm" in high school and wearing a beret once or twice.

>>9982953
>Don't you ever watch the news, see something that has no percivable impact on your life, and say, "that's fucked"?

I used to, when I was a kid I literally picked fight with kids just for killing insects or hurting animals.
But after a while I came to feel that suffering was so universal, so prevelant and so old that to be angry about it is to be screaming at the tide. Whether I'm wrong to feel this way or not I don't know but I don't choose to in either case.
I think after a certain point you have to be taking enjoyment out of your outrage to be keeping it alive. You start getting very selective and wrongly inspired by what began as a good instinct

>>9982953
"thats fucked" is a thing.
but anger is a different feeling, is something after the "thats fucked feeling". i mean, you dont explain the anger.
anger to who?. or just that... explain it better. if you can.

File: bookchin.jpg (79KB, 481x744px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 481x744px

Marx is outdated. Read bookchin.

>>9982966
>Maybe because it's not 1917 and the material conditions are different.

Maybe but maybe not, that's my point.
I don't have the ends of all knowledge and all dialectics, no one ever has. If you would be enthusiastic to just hit a button to make a revolution happen I have to seriously question your mindset when all that is at stake, on both sides of the choice.

>>9982976
>We don't have enough information so it's best to keep the status quo (only not even that becuase the status quo constanly changes but since right now it's changing into what I want I'm falsely calling it a "status quo" cause it suits my ideological purposes)

The same could be said for any change in the history of the world, how did these people have the balls to abolish slavery when they didn't have a time machine and couldn't travel into future to see what would happen? How could they establish universal education systems? Sewers? Timezones? Building codes? Urban planning? Taking a shit right now instead of 5 minutes from now?

You weren't any kind of communist, especially not a "well-read" one. Fuck off.

>>9982971
>explain it better. if you can.
It's hard to explain feelings to a man who doesn't have them in that form. So what's the point? You can explain the color "blue" to a color-blind person until you're blue in the face (fuck I hate puns) but there's no point, he'll never see it, he'll never know what makes it different from all the other grays he sees.

>>9980935
>big business has been some of the biggest critics of the populist/nationalist uprisings

Multinationals push back against this because their primary interests are global economic integration as a means of consolidating power/increasing sphere of influence. Nationalism is seen as a threat because of the potential for economic barriers which prioritize the interests of the private citizen over that of the multinational.

>>9982986
>You weren't any kind of communist, especially not a "well-read" one
le no true Communist
I've literally read Capital and a couple of years ago I would have been talking using the exact same language and points as you are. Disagree with me if you like but you are deluding yourself if you think I am so ignorant and different from you

>>9983011
LOL, the hardest American neoconservatives (bomb everyone everywhere) were former Trotskyites so your conversion isn't anything special.

>>9981906
>>9981962
>>9981984
He's right. Pareto distribution has been a long standing observation.

It doesn't "refute" Marxism, but it easily explains one of its foundational criticisms. Not that that matters, because straight up marxism is self-evidentally destructive and perverse.

>>9982992
i have anger. but my anger is impulsive and short sighted. i never approach this things with anger because i think is counter productive. (things like thinking a child starving is the fault of some evil idology or whatever)
i just want to know how people feel real anger (somethin so emotional and uncontrolable, at least for me) and make an argument in itself (feel anger to something means that this something is bad) . i dont know. i simply want to know.
this is communication, this is the point, approximate the most you can to another point of view.

>>9983020
And so what?
I'm hardly a convert in either case, I'm a skeptic but I know to dogmatists that's worse than an enemy

>>9982970
Thanks for explaining how you think, I really do appreciate it actually. And I can sympathise with your perspective more than is probably immediately obvious.

It's not sustainable being perpertually angry at injustice because, you're right, it is like screaming at the tide. "We are born into a losing struggle" - and every generation has to fight the same sort of battles. It just goes on ad nauseum.

But the struggle is important because, though utopia has never and will never been achievable, it does bring benefits. Capitalism isn't quite as shit as it was back in Marx's day (at least in the West) - people don't work 15 hour days, they have a degree of representation, children don't toil in mines and up chimneys - and these victories we hardly ever notice, were brought about by dedicated people - most of which, we don't know the name of. If you look at it in a simplistic, biological way, you might say that these organisms were fighting so that their offspring might have a better time of it.

So, I don't know why I agitate for socialism... maybe it's just programming, maybe I'm just seeing a shitty situation and am unconciously led to try to improve things for someone who doesn't exist. But I like to think, even as misanthropic as I can get, that Man is capable of better things right now - and part of it can be achieved by freeing up the many from degrading and often pointless labour - and I'd like to see it.

Now I'm just waffling. So, tl;dr: I understand, but the "collective" struggle might be worth it. I wish you the best.

>>9982972
I've got a book of his I've yet to read. He's good?

>>9983035
>this is communication, this is the point, approximate the most you can to another point of view.
There is a point where another's point of view is so alien that no communication on a deeper level is possible ("do you want fries with that?" is obviously not deep, but "why do you feel this feeling" is) and you are that much different.

A normal person doesn't ask "Why do you feel anger when you see misery and injustice?" Sorry but that's just the way things are.

>>9983066
A normal person spends their free time on their ass watching Game of Thrones and Netflix, fuck normal

>>9983066
>be normal analogy
ok.

i explain why i want to know. but you refuse because you think is imposible to me understand you without even giving a try. ok, man, whatever.

i dont say its bad to feel anger, i say why you feel it. anyway. pretty defensive guy.

>>9983093
The dude has too much stake in getting off on what a great guy he is for being naturally good. If he was to accept it was a matter of rational opinion or merely self-satisfaction it would ruin his goos guy buzz

>>9982516
This is wrong.

>>9983093
Me and the guy you asked are not the same person, I'm a different anon.

>i dont say its bad to feel anger, i say why you feel it. anyway. pretty defensive guy.
I feel anger because that's what people feel when they see exploitation and/or needless suffering. Is that clearer?

>>9983121
>I feel anger because that's what people feel when they see exploitation and/or needless suffering. Is that clearer?

Most people don't though. You said it was normal above but historically and today it's actually very unusual.

>>9983107
>everyone except me fakes being good I'm the only honest guy cause I say fuck that shit it's me me me me me I'm the only important person I'm rational it's perfectly rational to care abourt yourself and only yourself it's normal I'm not fucked up it's everyone else who's behaving irrationally not me you're the hypocrites who only want to feel good I'm not a dick I'm just rational

>>9983128
>Most people don't though. You said it was normal above but historically and today it's actually very unusual.
How would you know? You've telepathically inspected every single person that's ever lived in the history of the human race?

>>9983121
>when they see exploitation
you feel anger when you enter in a mcdonalds?.

>what people feel
this is what i feel in your response. feel anger for this things is a social matter. , is something you think you have to think like part of society. not being true to yourself.
maybe im wrong. but your insistence in making clear that you are normal and like everybody else, is what impede you to explain in a personal way this simple question.

everybody is suffering. you feel anger or compassion or another strange feeling when you see that?.
maybe you feel anger only because you see the solution too clear.

>>9983155
>you feel anger when you enter in a mcdonalds?.
Again with the robotic 1 is 1 0 is 0 beep boop bullshit. "If you say you feel anger at exploitation why aren't you angry all the time that's not logical!" isn't an a-ha! moment, it just shows you don't understand how regular people work.
No, I don't go around being enraged 100% of the time because if you do your mental health will be shit. Life teaches you how to filter out the everyday crappy things so you don't go crazy. That doesn't mean things are fine and dandy or that being angry at seeing ugly unneeded shit happening is hypocritical.

>>9983155
>everybody is suffering. you feel anger or compassion or another strange feeling when you see that?.

I'm the anon you previously asked. But >>9983175 is doing a good job answering your questions. I concur.

>>9983175
this means you decide what exploitations merits an "anger moment"?

>>9982711
>I won't reply because you're either dumb as shit or a troll and in either case there's no point talking to you
lmao
You say interventionism as a form of critique of capitalism but then walk away with your tail between your legs because socialism is the same, what a dummy.

>>9983189
>anger
>decide
I'm banging my head against the wall here. The mere fact that you think someone DECIDES they will be angry again and again and fucking again shows you don't actually understand not just anger but feelings in general. Fucking hell, am I talking to skynet here, are you trying to figure out your morality by browsing 4chan? Am I ushering the Robot Apocalypse?

>>9983175
no. you are a stupid robot. some people see jobs and opportunities privided by capitalism with gratitude. many people flee their countries as rich people and come to america to be poor because of the unparalleled levels of wealth

and theyre grateful for it

you are a little ball of spite because you simpky dont have as much as your neighbor, or feel like you have unrecognized talents (such as your innumeracy.) probably because you are stupid and cant get laid

File: 1459486995545.jpg (38KB, 641x631px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 641x631px

>>9980911
In short, sometimes. Read quite a bit of his work when I was in grad school finishing my master's in econ. I even specifically went to a heterodox economics program.

I LOVE the way Marx writes. Clear, concise, formulaic, but I disagree with his conclusions.

>>9980972
LTV is at least less ridiculous than Smith's "invisible hand". Dude this just shows you're dumb as fuck. Smith had a labor theory of value as well and he only used the invisible hand THREE, count 'em, three times in ALL of his writings. And, more specifically, he only used the term "invisible hand" once in The Wealth of Nations. If you read his Theory of Moral Sentiments, you'd understand that the invisible hand also has an empathetic element to it.

>The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice... The rich... are led by an INVISIBLE HAND to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society.

So, anyone who says that the invisible hand is some like utility maximizing, selfish, profit-maximizing crap (PM is extra stupid because that shit didn't come round until Jevons and marginalism where an emphasis on calc was used), then they don't know SHIT about Smith, the invisible hand, blah blah blah. I thought /lit/ was supposed to be smarter than this desu? Falling for such a basic misunderstanding of the invisible hand? Once again, Smith uses it THREE times in all of his writings and ONCE in TWoN. You can easily read all three passages to understand what is incorporated into the invisible hand. What, more or less, makes it up is self-interest (NOT the same as greed or PM, utility maximizing, etc.), empathy, and providence. Though, scholars have been debating it forever. But it is NOT greed or a market mechanism used to achieve equilibrium because THAT ANALYSIS DIDN'T EXIST YET in POLITICAL economy (which is what Smith/Marx did; they did not study what WE know as economics today).

>>9983198
>You say interventionism as a form of critique of capitalism but then walk away with your tail between your legs because socialism is the same, what a dummy.
You are a dumb person and it has nothing to do with your capitalist leanings, it's your own quality.
Why are you dumb? Because you don't even understand what we were talking about. Interventionism was never mentioned as solely a capitalist tendency but you managed to somehow infer that and hinged your whole retarded argument that capitalists aren't interventionist on proving that socialists intervened or on playing wordgames by substituting "capitalism" instead of the original wording - "capitalists".

And this is the charitable interpretation, the one in which you're a dumb shit instead of a troll.

>>9983203
So your whole "why do you feel this feel" shtick was fake bullshit. Good to know.

>>9983202
>Life teaches you how to filter out the everyday crappy things
>you
to who is teaching life how to filter out the everyday crappy things?. ok, if you dont want to feel that you decide, say you have an automatic response without a logic behing. (i think this is wrong, you have a logical basis in your mind, at least about what Little war makes sense to fight or not. is implicit in your post.

how do you feel confortable with that logic?, what Word do you want to use to that?

>>9983223
you dont have a masters in econ. you would realize smiths major controbution was price information fron markets

labor theory value is stupid because IF I DONT WANT YOUR SHIT YOU CANT ENSLAVE ME TK PAY FOR IT

labor theory of value describes a slave economy, not a market

stop roleplaying you idiot

>>9983224
lmao imagine saying you won't reply but end up writing 5 lines in a reply.
What a loser, get lost socialist hypocrite, go topple some south american country for your cause, imperialist.

>>9983203
Weirdo.

>>9983238
you are a useless little faggot. you have more money and luxury than 95 percent of the current world and 99.999 percent of all history, and also free fucking healthcare, amd ots NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU. you still want to kill someone because they have a better car than you

i come from an ex communist country. we will not sit around and wait for you to syart killing again. we will drag you out into the street and shoot you in the head

>>9983250
>to who is teaching life how to filter out the everyday crappy things?
This is why I've been saying you're robotic. You don't undestand anything. Every single thing, from why people piss in toilets instead of in their pants to why people cry when they're sad, has to be explained and it's incredibly tiring.

>>9983272
>i come from an ex communist country. we will not sit around and wait for you to syart killing again. we will drag you out into the street and shoot you in the head

We capitalists are rational, yo!

>>9983272
You won't be the first against the wall, there's bigger fish to fry, but don't worry you'll get there. Comrade.

>>9983146
Because people pass by miserable homeless every day listening to their chink slave labor produced iPhones.
For Christ sake we used to own literal fucking people and had to fight a civil war to stop it

>>9983280
in my country the communists rounded up the most productive of farmers. everyone had the same sized plots of land. the ones with more grain just worked harder and saved more harvest year to year.

they gathered up the laziest farmers and asked them to point out the richest FARMERS who were also POOR and they killed them all.

people started starving without tge excessvharve grown by the "rich" farmers, and the police would kill you if you left the villages to gather wild grain

fuck you. we will kill you if you oush this further. never. fucking. again

>>9983288
What country is that?

>>9983279
>>9983279
ok, sorry for being too tiring. i dont give a fuck. your three last responses was basiccaly saying that i am an autist ( or a robot in your words beep bop). you dont say anything about what i said apart from you are autistic, you dont know anything. maybe you are right. like i said, i dont give a fuck about your "im tired, in my country this is simple".
so dishonest.

>>9983283
Yes, they're deadened to these everyday violations, but that doesn't mean they're hopeless and completely closed, otherwise we'd be living in a scifi dystopia. There's hope. Not a lot but it's there.

>>9983299
>you dont say anything about what i said
But I do. You just skip those parts.

>>9983288
>fuck you. we will kill you if you oush this further. never. fucking. again

Also, if we push further than posting here? How much leverage does that give us?

>>9983302
>otherwise we'd be living in a scifi dystopia.

Give it some time, we're pretty damn close

>>9983302
Hope for what?
The West has been improving greatly already

>>9981099
>That said, most contemporary Marxists of an analytical bent end up rejecting the LTV anyway, due to its general failure to track exchange value according to the actual economical data.

this is revisionist bullshit. they arent marxists any longer if they do not believe labor is the source of value.

just because it is not empirically verifiable does not mean it is the case. we can observe its effects elsewhere (falling rate [not mass, dipshits] of profit, crises, etc).

in fact that it isn't empirically verifiable is only evidence of labor's alienation from its product.

>>9983295
youd know if you ever picked up a book

my country went from growing all the grain in the region and exporting most of it to other countries, to a famine that killed THIRTY PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY

the socialists on this thread claim fake masters degrees and have never read a book or bar graph in their life

theyre all fucking bitter losers that in their land of plenty someone was born taller or better looking

you idiots killed more people than hitler. we will kill you if you dont shut the fuck up

>>9981205

omg literally read capital

>>9983314
>The West has been improving greatly already
We're in bigger and bigger shit, the fact that you can watch better tv shows and have faster internet doesn't change it. It'll all fall down.

>>9982122

did it ever occur to you that maybe nietzsche never systematized his thought because he was wrong about everything

>>9983324
So what do we need to hope for in the west?
I have my own criticisms but they're not socialists, tell me, what does the west need in your eyes?

File: Capitalism.jpg (328KB, 1000x973px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1000x973px

>>9983319
Did you know that my family line was almost wiped out as a direct result of free-market capitalism? Communism may have it's millions of dead (and I'm no defender of that system, I was defending socialism), but capitalism has even more.

>you idiots killed more people than hitler. we will kill you if you dont shut the fuck up

Well, I'm glad we could be civil.

>>9982197
>>9982197

>fukuyama
>2017

>>9983314
>The West has been improving greatly already

Then why am I a miserable virgin with no friends?

>>9983306
>This is why I've been saying you're robotic. You don't undestand anything. Every single thing, from why people piss in toilets instead of in their pants to why people cry when they're sad, has to be explained and it's incredibly tiring.
what i skip of this?.

>The mere fact that you think someone DECIDES they will be angry again and again and fucking again shows you don't actually understand not just anger but feelings in general.
i try to response to this... >>9983250
(and your response was the post above)

this was the rest of the post that i skip.

>I'm banging my head against the wall here. Fucking hell, am I talking to skynet here, are you trying to figure out your morality by browsing 4chan? Am I ushering the Robot Apocalypse?

maybe you refer to other posts. but... whatever...

>>9983330
how is the native americans dying of european diseases a capitalist thing?

>>9983327
>what does the west need in your eyes
Iron control of various financial institutions for a start. No more "Great recessions".

>>9983340
And what policy would they change?
You know why the 2008 crash happened right?

>>9982207

bc after spending maybe a year "hustling" the boss gets to eat bon bons and shout at people all day while you have to spend the rest of your life sweating over a smoking machine

>>9983330
this converaation ceased to be civil the moment your innumerate ass started peddling economics that eschews even basic math

>>9982315
>Antifa are defending liberal democracies against the products of liberalism. They're inherently counter-revolutionary.

not necessarily incorrect, just not dialectical enough. they are defending capitalist interests in liberal democracy at the same time that they defend the lives and well-beings of the poorest and must vulnerable. right now, however, that is correct praxis because these people can be radicalized for communism once their safety is secured.

>>9983336
Oh for god's sake E.T. just shut up and go away, find some kids to touch fingers with.

>>9983340
you are an idiot. this whole noard is full of idiots.

the recession was caused by government allocation of bank resources into failed housing loans

>>9983344
>You know why the 2008 crash happened right?
Let me guess - niggers?

>>9983337
Capitalism drove many across the Atlantic, the first colonies were set up by corporations. And we can't overlook the many (the Aztec and the Inca, for example) who fell to the rifles and swords spearheading Spanish imperialism.

>>9983354
>this converaation ceased to be civil the moment your innumerate ass started peddling economics that eschews even basic math

And where was that?

(Also, don't you care about my sob story?)

>>9983357
The Normie Commie.

>>9982814
>Supply and demand is immutable
lol

>>9983358
Of course, that's what all the reputable people on mises.org say so that's what happened. It's always either the gubmint or the poors, the captains of industry would never do such a thing.

>>9983360
No, the government guaranteeing loans that the poor people couldn't afford.
They then fucked up again by bailout out the banks.

>>9983354
>so angry i can't even type properly

>>9983363
your sob story and brait pic includes civil wars and communist purges. if you want communism move to venezuela. we will kill you

>>9983372
the frank dodd act mandated a 3% ,allocation of assets into failed housing loans for blacks and.mexicans.

at tpx leverage that means only .1% of assets need to default to threaten banking stability. of course it was much higher than that.

its well documented. get fucked

many banks and the people who ran then lost 100% of everything

>>9983001
Not just the interests of the private citizen, but also the interests of the people/nation/ethnicity.

>>9983391
>your sob story and brait pic includes civil wars and communist purges. if you want communism move to venezuela. we will kill you

You're becoming less and less literate by the minute. It's like seeing the effects of dementia sped up.

>>9983373
>A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. Such loans were written into mind-numbingly detailed contracts and then swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated.

it's da gubmint us po' investment bankahs dindu nuffin

in a way I do agree that it's the government's fault for letting them off the leash or not putting the boot on their necks at all
businesspeople are generally sociopaths so you can't let them roam free

>>9983355
>at the same time that they defend the lives and well-beings of the poorest and must vulnerable. right now, however, that is correct praxis because these people can be radicalized for communism once their safety is secured.

Except they aren't defending anyone, they're antagonizing working class whites who they arbitrarily brand Fascists for so much as opposing abortion

>>9983397
No, you see the exact same thing happening in college now, it's the next bubble.
The government guarantees the loans to the university and the university can ask way more money from the student, offering them a loan so they don't have to work while in college (which means more debt).
Government should stay the fuck out, they're not helping.
You still haven't told me what policies you'd enact though.

>>9983418
>antagonizing working class whites who they arbitrarily brand Fascists for so much as opposing abortion
No they don't.

>>9983426
>Government should stay the fuck out, they're not helping.
You'd love that, no tiresome regulations, no consumer protection, just a feeding frenzy for you and your buddies at the hedge fund.

>You still haven't told me what policies you'd enact though.
That's because I have zero expertise, I leave that to people who know what they're doing.
If my toilet breaks and can't flush anymore I'm gonna call a plumber. Same thing with this.

>>9983437
>you and your buddies at the hedge fund.
I don't work in that sector
>I leave that to people who know what they're doing.
And those people are easily bought.
Unlike what socialists think, politicians continue to make more rules and more regulations, yet they're owned by big business, how does that work?

>>9983432
>No they don't.
Of course they do, they look for any opportunity to act like niggers
This just happened in San Francisco a few weeks ago. Not to mention how they openly declare all Trump voters Fascists if not Neo-Nazis

>>9983441
>And those people are easily bought.
>Unlike what socialists think, politicians continue to make more rules and more regulations, yet they're owned by big business, how does that work?
These imaginary socialists that tsee politicians as supremely honest people don't exist, you're just making a dumb strawman.
Yes, politicians get bought, that's why you have to institute campaign finance reform. and you have to find an honest man to run. and other things. There's no quick fix, no magic bullet, it's a neverending grind.

File: redpill marx.jpg (19KB, 316x475px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 316x475px

ITT nobody read "The Capital Volume 1"

>>9983446
>Of course they do, they look for any opportunity to act like niggers
No they don't.
>Not to mention how they openly declare all Trump voters Fascists if not Neo-Nazis
No they don't.

>>9980911
No he was left

>>9980999
/thread

>>9983455
You can't even stop the richest people from dodging taxes, you think they won't find a way around buying a politician?

>>9983456
The Capital is realy boring. I am having trouble to read this.
Even the German Ideology was easier to read.

>>9983459
Durr if ya say so Mr Spokesperson for all of Antifa

>>9983456
I gave up and went to wage labor and capital instead, fight me, that shit's dryer than sex joke.

>>9983467
I bet you think anti-fascist action is an organization you can join with a centralized hierarchical structure and dedicated leadership.

>>9983474
They are. I used to be a member

>>9983462
>You can't even stop the richest people from dodging taxes, you think they won't find a way around buying a politician?
Your solution is to stop collecting taxes from everyone. Do you not see how dumb that is?

I mean, the only way this works is if you actually think that there is no exploitation going in workplaces, that business owners and bosses are physically unable to exploit people. That's the only way your great plan of "let's just remove all regulations" works. Because if they do exploit people, if they do break workers' rights, then they'll do it all the time and even more without regulations.

>>9983479
You remembered to pay your fees right? We need to fund the great displacement somehow comrade.

>>9982411
>that wasn't real Capitalism

>>9983483
>Your solution is to stop collecting taxes from everyone
You were talking about strawmen just 1 post ago.
I'm not for removing all regulations and I'm not against every form of taxation.
The system we have now is that upcoming businesses have a hard time following the regulations, making it harder for them to compete with the big businesses.
They also pay a lot of taxes, where the big business can just move to a tax haven and have the best lawyers to keep them out of trouble, the mom and pop store is forced to pay the high taxes you set up for the big corporations.
I'm not promising a flawless future, but your idea of giving politicians more power to intervene would be a nightmare

>>9983499
>I'm not promising a flawless future, but your idea of giving politicians more power to intervene would be a nightmare
You're promising a future in which all the bad things (tax evasion etc) are still here but even more widespread.
Fuck that.

I mean if your answer to the problem of tax evasion is "Well, let's remove the regs and let the smaller businesses evade taxes too!" then what do I say to that? You're gonna say I'm strawmanning you but this is what your post implies.

>>9983516
Wrong.
There are already laws against tax evasion, you just have to enforce them.
I'd rather lower the taxes, up the punishment for evading taxes and check.
Make it less lucrative to move your money offshore, because with the tax rate now I can't help but see their point, the taxes are crazy.

>>9982221
>>9983345
what's with this bizarre marxist view that it's still the 1800s lmao

>>9982185
What is it like still living in 1992?

>>9982516
So, you are literally saying that selfishness did not exist before the Industrial Revolution?

>>9982633
If Real Communism™ doesn't cause mass-starvation, Real Capitalism™ gets to be non-interventionist. Only fair.

>>9983562
Capitalism requires private property though, which requires state intervention to uphold, otherwise nobody would make a sacrifice like that for some corporation.

>>9982207
>bosses have taken ownership and control over all the tools
>labor is forced to sell itself to the bosses on their terms for access to the fruits of production created by those tools
>boss also extracts total value from the laborer above the value of the laborer's labor-power, taking a slice of value without paying

>>9980911
He was vague enough in most of his work to always be right by some interpretation.

>>9984710
What did you think of Volume 3 of Capital? It's so rare to meet another who has!

>>9982295
Lol, someone is projecting pretty hard.