What if people would work for free though?

>>128190447
You mean like Goyim?

>>128190447
I'm down to give it a shot, what's the worst that can happen right guys? Politcians will work for free too I assume?

>>128192442
Umm no sweetie. We work to pay off loan interes- ... Oi you cheeky cunt

>>128190447
Work for me for free.

File: Jew income.png (256KB, 832x1056px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 832x1056px

>>128192442
No, I mean work to directly help people. Instead of serving masters in a way that brings alienation

>>128192832
Explain socialistic entrepreneurship.

>>128190447
Even commies chimp out and demand 15$/h for pouring covfefe what makes you think they would work for free

>>128193019
You probably come up with an idea and pitch it to people

>>128193499
But every single one of your employees would have to be equal investors, right?

>>128192832
>jew capitalism
>good standard of living

>jew socialism
>terrible standard of living

wow we sure got the more based of the two types of merchant overlords it seems

>>128190447
You first

>>128190447

We call that "slavery", where since you own the people, you don't have to pay them for work.

You just whip them if they don't.

>>128193019
Cooperation. There are several examples of those.
Agricultural communes, most famous of which are Jewish kibbutz. Industrial cooperatives like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Internet itself and most of IT is a result of voluntary labour (C, Linux).

File: 2016-05-20 16.18.43.jpg (101KB, 903x675px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 903x675px

>>128190447
They would lose because a cooperative effort is inferior to a competitive effort.
Why do you ask OP? Feeling a little bit faggot today?

>>128190447
What if you don't have to feed people?

>>128190447
would you suck my dick for free? because it's pretty small, I doubt that you would

File: USSR 1928 to 1970.png (37KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x399px

>>128193722
Depends on the form of socialism
A system where the employees invest doesn't sound good, because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.

>>128193774
>jew socialism
>terrible standard of living
Compared to what? Socialist parties have usually only taken off in third world countries.
But both the USSR and China greatly improved life expectancy and standard of living when they had socialism, compared to what they had before

>>128194268
Post it for medical purposes. We'll let you know if OP shoud suck it or not.

>>128194227
Nice try, shlomo.

>>128192832
Look at first year University student who just took his ten question sociology quiz on the chapter covering Marx.
>muh alienation
>work for others instead of the bougousie
Congrats, you are a fucking retarded young adult at best

>>128194227
But even for the Kibbutz, the only sorts of collectives that work are ones that require you to be a very skilled labourer in the first place, clearly, they'd have to be exceptions in a Capitalist nation.

>>128194409
>Socialist parties have usually only taken off in third world countries.
2nd world nations are socialist nations. Know your definitions

>>128194409
>A system where the employees invest doesn't sound good, because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.
If they don't invest, I would have absolutely no reason to start a business since starting one would mean losing money for me. And you really don't want to use the USSR as an example of successful socialism.

>>128194409
>because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.
>muh debts
To whom or what?

File: 0.3.jpg (23KB, 480x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x363px

>>128194588
>if I say 'muh' before something it doesn't matter any more
Wew. But is there not alienation when you are selling your labour power doing something you don't want to do, just to survive?

File: 1473074698956.jpg (70KB, 600x799px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x799px

>>128194906
>to whom or what
The war effort and your allies you raging cock addict.

>>128194757
The investment must come from the state, or 'community bank'. However they work it out

>>128194906
The bank (if that was how it worked)

>>128194619
Well, in a society dominated by socialist principle, useless people would still be a part of unsuccessful communities.

There would still be hired labour, just like slavery was legal until 19th century (and exists in our age just as well), despite not dominating the economy since Renaissance.

The big difference would be, that people wouldn't be able to inherit wealth and capital, and would have severely diminished opportunities to acquire those in parasitic fashion.

>>128195266
So it would be centralized? You really need me to explain to you why this is not a good idea?

im really getting sick of these rape babies constantly pushing their >>mmuhhh communism is ebin XXDD go back to 9gag and whatever shit hole you crawled out of

>>128190447
arbeit macht frei

>>128195311
>people wouldn't be able to inherit wealth and capital
I take it you don't have children nor do you ever plan to reproduce?

>>128195351
You are on 4chan. Perhaps you should move to reddit or 8ch. Censorship would ensure you will be in a bubble of comfortable opinions.

>>128195342
Explain why you think it would be a bad idea then
I think it would be better than having investment controlled by capitalists, who use the profit on themselves

>>128195311
Just did some more quick googling, tell me if I'm wrong here, but I found that the Mondragon Corporation pays their labourers minimum wage, the only notable aspect of them is that they pay their managers less than average.

>>128194409
industrialization ended millions of their lives and their quality of life was essentially third world tier anyways, once capitalism came around is when China and Russia actually experienced even a little bit of wealth

>>128195493
I don't have children and I do plan to reproduce. It's sad that you chose to degrade the conversation with adhominem, though.

>>128192442
wrekd

File: 1495315786169.gif (8KB, 777x467px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 777x467px

>>128195647
It's just that normally when I talk to socialists they like to pretend they don't support Maoism or Russian Communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

>>128190447
No one wants to work for free doing the things that keep society going.

File: 787.png (184KB, 600x572px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 600x572px

>>128194260

>>128195818
When you have kids you'll want private property.

>>128195737
Russia still has barely recovered to where it was after the capitalist collapse. Plus it has much more inequality and less social order.

China probably has more wealth due to a high degree of capital inflow. You don't get any capital inflow from capitalist countries under socialism. But if the world were socialist, capital inflow would be entirely controlled by the state, and would flow according to need rather than low taxes etc

>>128196415
I'll tell you right now people in eastern europe are much better off after communism fell. The only people you see wanting to go back are old party members, or the people that had connections to party members.

>>128196742
But that's wrong though.
Poland has done well but other countries haven't, and do want to go back.

>>128194257
White blood cells being unable to out-compete cancer cells doesn't show that cancer cells are better, only that they are better able to spread like a virus. Although, it's interesting that generally worker's cooperatives are more productive, effective, efficient, have better working conditions, are more ecologically and socially conscious, their workers earn more, and have higher job-satisfaction than workers in comparable jobs at capitalist firms. The only thing capitalist firms are better at is spreading, like a virus.

>>128196268
This is an absolutely pointless line of discussion.

I know quite a lot of people who have kids and don't want private property.
And being born with a silver spoon ruins child's character. Wiser millionaires and billionaires disinherit their kids quite voluntarily. Don't forget, that they will be born to cooperative that will provide the living conditions, and entitled to education, infrastructure and medicine.

>>128195712
Their workers' wages are significantly higher and upper management significantly lower than average. Why does it matter?

Their most significant aspect is Democratic organisation and sovereignty of labour.

>>128194409
Nice, it only took tens of millions of lives and the destruction of their traditional cultures to industrialise! Thanks Communism!

>>128196742
You confuse Poland, which was a puppet regime, and Soviet Russia, a sovereign state, where an absolute majority regard the Soviet times positively.

>>128197003
>Their workers' wages are significantly higher
Please show me where it says this, because it's not what I read.
>Their most significant aspect is Democratic organisation and sovereignty of labour.
Cool, how about the whole country votes on which companies they like by buying their products instead.
>I don't want to pass my property down to my children
Either you're a psychopath or you're just stupid.

>>128197080
"Communism kills" has to be the most backwards argument. Corruption kills. Capitalism kills 20 million people a year because of poverty and preventable diseases, but muh profits!!!11

>>128197133
So what's the problem with Russia? Still to centralized, at least now your grocery stores are full.

>>128197133
Look at the 1996 elections. Even Medevev admitted they were rigged, the people wanted communism but got some good ol' 'murican freedom instead.

>>128196415
If you have centralized planning, you don't have a classless society

>>128197565
I hope these stupid mongoloids try it again, nobody better to lose millions of their own population, maybe this time around the commies will shut up for good, but I doubt it.

>>128195818
You missed his point, he's not attacking you.

Why should anyone want to have kids if none of their efforts in life benefit their children? Every creature on earth gives preferential treatment to its offspring, humans are no different.

>>128197080
It happened, but it might not have been necessary, so to speak; the regime was paranoid, perhaps it had good reason to be, being an enemy of all the capitalist world

>>128197746
Gommies tend to throw autistic fits if you imply there's some sort of biology backing our behaviour, so watch out.

>>128195126
That's not a very informed take on alienation. But it sounds like you understand it just as much as why others take up arms against the capitalists to trade nice chains for shit chains

File: maxresdefault.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>128197688
This time we will settle in Poland and deport your asses to Far East. For the Horde!

>>128198401
Try it nigger, just don't look up what happens every time you try to take us on without someone else's help.

>>128197368
>Please show me where it says this, because it's not what I read.
Wikipedia article.
>Cool, how about the whole country votes on which companies they like by buying their products instead.
I assume that abolition of slavery is a perversion of (((free))) market for you as well?

>>128197368
>>128197688
>>128198130
You grab the lightening instead of answering - that means you are wrong.

>>128197080
>tens of millions
Remember 60 gorillions!

>>128197420
Ah yes, I'm sure that Communism would prevent disease and starvation just like it did in Ukraine, China and Cambodia! Wait...

If you want Communism so much, you can start by giving me some of your wealth. I'm poor after all, so naturally those better of must assist me. Shall I send you my details, or will you hoard your wealth like a decadent Capitalist pig?

>>128197688
I have a part-time job as a supervisor of a workforce. About 150 polaks, they're doing the dirty work, so to speak. Poland is doing so well under capitalism, it's amazing! Jobs for everybody! The country is basking in prosperity and progressiveness! Or is that not why I have Polish doctors making more money stacking crates in the Netherland than being a fucking doctor in Poland?

File: IMG_0304.jpg (17KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x168px

>>128198401
Poland is so badass in eu4, why do they get slapped around so easily irl?

>>128196931
If cooperatives were capable of out-competing traditional business models, you'd see a hell of a lot more than the 20,000 or so that exist in all of continental Noth America. Part of the reason they exist at all is because they largely inhabit monopolized industries such as oil, meaning that they can afford to be inefficient bureaucracies and could still subsist even if they were burning half of their profits. Hardly the socialist utopia you wish it were.

>>128198663
Right, I forgot that when when come out of communism we pass through a transmogrification portal that makes us instantly rich. How about you look up the fact that our economy is growing in every way imaginable, unlike yours, then come back.

>>128198644
Fantastic argument. Really challenged my beliefs, well done.

>>128198575
Your pathetic nation exists in little time gaps when we're in trouble only. Gonna enjoy your tundra soon, polack.

>>128198648
Oh I am definitely not having a terrible time under capitalism. I'd love to change over to another system, but change is slow mate. Not gonna swim against the flow if you can also try to change its course while going with it.

Top kek my goy dudes

>>128197746
>Why should anyone want to have kids if none of their efforts in life benefit their children?

For the same reason why the superrich disinherit their children and donate their wealth.
For the same reason why the children who grow up in opulence and inherit it, turn out to be degenerate and shallow wrecks.

I do not need as much money as I can grab. Neither do you, and it would make your kids into self-indulgent slaves of degenerate pleasures. And the best thing I can leave my descendants is superior society, which is worth more than all the gold in the world.

>>128198593
Procuration of new slaves is forbidden by the Bible and the NAP.
"At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage"
Am I not reading this correctly?
And it's not my fault you can't take bants.

>>128198759
>opressed their orthodox population to make it easy for Russia to expand
>kept retarded independent aristocracy and weak kings in era of absolutism

>>128198759
Incompetent rulers and bad geopolitical location.

>>128198063
There's paranoid, then there's wiping out entire farming communities because they have slightly more farm animals than their neighbours.

Perhaps the Capitalist world would not have been so antagonistic towards the USSR if the regime hadn't called for the global overthrow of their governments?

>>128198880
We've been here for hundreds of years before you, and we'll be here far after you disintegrate into different states.

File: ELET4995.jpg (88KB, 794x592px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 794x592px

>>128190447
>What if people would work for free though?
This is why we never should have gotten rid of slavery. Sometimes, you commies make a half-decent point.

>>128198877
I'm not the one who has to prove anything, abbo.
All those commie victim numbers are mere cold war propaganda. Where do they come from? Sometimes it's 20mln, sometimes 100mln, random.

>>128199113
>For the same reason why the superrich disinherit their children and donate their wealth.

Avoid inheritance taxes for the NGO who your children will be board members of?

Ideally people would work for the betterment of mankind. We could accomplish a lot this way, but have you taken a look around lately? we become a cannibalistic society and squabble over petty differences. It is too late to wake up, as we will ALL soon see.

>>128199524
No, it's around 20 000 000 from you guys, around 100 000 000 in total.

>>128198648
Life expectancy grew hugely under communism though

>>128199433
>We've been here for hundreds of years before you
WE WUZ

I think ukranians are so retarded because of your blood. Dindu victim complex and always find new hole to jump into. It shows.

>>128198805
They don't spread because they don't make profits for the owners. Doesn't prove anything. Was not slavery profitable?

>>128199113
It's your choice not to pass things down to your kids, if your confident in the superiority of that then you should have no need to stop me from passing things down to my kids.

>>128199121
>And it's not my fault you can't take bants.
Bants and substance don't mix well.
>Procuration of new slaves is forbidden by the Bible and the NAP.
You are bulshitting and you know it. Slavery was outlawed in the end of 19th century in the Christendom. I won't even talk about NAP.

There is no difference between mandating modern capitalism and mandating mixed/socialist style of economy.

>"At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage"

>Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company)[24] and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses.
And, again, why does it matter if some get payed the minimum wage?

>>128199771
What? Poland was founded in the 10th century, Russia was founded in the 16th century. You're welcome for the free history lesson.

>>128199715
It grew hugely under capitalism as well.

Ideology is swell; penicillin is magic.

>>128199843
>It's your choice not to pass things down to your kids, if your confident in the superiority of that then you should have no need to stop me from passing things down to my kids.
The same could be told about hereditary titles. But we moved away from it. Soon, we will make another step to meritocracy, and no, your kids will receive that what they contribute.

>>128200051
Probably faster under communism, and growth under capitalism relied on foreign investment, which is basically borrowing

>>128199950
>Slavery was outlawed in the end of 19th century in the Christendom
It was, Protestants are heathens.
>There is no difference between mandating modern capitalism and mandating mixed/socialist style of economy.
You mean other than the fact that under my system, you're allowed to do everything you want, and under yours I am banned from doing what I want.
>And, again, why does it matter if some get payed the minimum wage?
Because it shows that your concern isn't the well being of workers, and how rich they are, but how rich they are in comparison to other members of society. In other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c

>>128199524
I'm not the one who is advocating for an overthrow of the current system, so yes you do have something to prove.

>all those commie victim numbers are mere cold war propaganda
Source please, this sounds interesting.

Also, perhaps if you lot hadn't tried to wipe out the existence of those you killed/starved then maybe we'd have an exact figure. As it is, we make do with the USSR's population statistics and eyewitness accounts.

>>128200421
Meant to say that actual Christians outlawed Slavery much earlier than Protestants.

>>128200039
>Russia was founded in the 16th century.
Wait. So Poland gets destroyed and remade and you count it as one timeline but Rus get mongoled and suddenly we have to count from the beginning? no fair!

>>128199715
It also grew everywhere else on the planet, massively.

>>128200531
Kievan Rus is a group of shitty tribes, if we want to discuss who's tribes where here first that's a completely different topic.

You still wouldn't know what to produce in what amounts. You'd be inefficient and likely not produce enough basic supplies, so rationing and starving.

>>128200375
What do you mean we moved away from hereditary titles? Please don't tell me you think Dialectic Materialism is in any way accurate.

>It was, Protestants are heathens.
Catholics had it for centuries just as well. I guess, they were >not true Christians?

>>128200421
>You mean other than the fact that under my system, you're allowed to do everything you want, and under yours I am banned from doing what I want.
That's just ridiculous. Both systems impose conventional legal restrictions of different sort.
>>128200421
>Because it shows that your concern isn't the well being of workers, and how rich they are, but how rich they are in comparison to other members of society
They are 13% richer than other members of the very same society doing the very same work.

And someone, as I've mentioned before, would still be, permanently or temporarily, at the bottom.

>>128200451
I'm not a commie, i admit that they were faggots they did much shit. But nowhere near what they are accused of.
>Source please, this sounds interesting.
Source of what? where do your numbers come from? care to even claim a number?

> eyewitness accounts.
oy vey i saw 2 million ukranians starve with my eyes! wait make it 6!

File: Joseph-Stalin-010.jpg (44KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 620x372px

I just intend to follow Zizek's idea for the left: To stop moderating the right's attempts at deregulating the market. Let them. We live in brutal capitalism so lets use brutal capitalism and let the people feel crushed under it, to such an extent that they will not be able to bear it. What we have now is capitalism-light, kept as it is by people trying to "soften" it. Well fuck it, lets get serious and let raw, unhindered capitalism consume itself and everyone in its way. Fuck 'em.

>>128201059
>What do you mean we moved away from hereditary titles?
Wow, so, apparently, you inherit your father's rank in Poland? Never knew that!

>>128200898
So was polish land before you united and assimilated and baptized each other. You're not going to claim there was this huge monolithic polish tribe-nation that just decided to have a single country one day?

>>128201566
Yes, I inherit his property.

>>128200406
We'll never know how Russia would have looked without Communism, but given how even being a semi-feudal society it was the 4-5th largest economy in the world prior ro WW1 and rapidly growing, I'd say it would have performed better under Capitalism without the mass relocations, executions, starvations and reeducation which took place under Communism just to get it Industrialised, and even then quality of life was not on par with Western counterparts.

>>128201358
I prefer historical Materialism. We cannot influence the natural development of socioeconomic and political structure of the world, just analyse, predict and exploit its' development.

Thus, it doesn't matter if you choose to stop moderating. Someone would just do it instead.

What Zizek is suggesting is essentially not to engage in politics at all. That's a cherrycoated apathy.

>>128201765
Are you stalling? Hereditary title means that you inherit his job and rank. Something that people used to do in medieval times.

File: 41i6KGUELlL._SY346_.jpg (10KB, 219x346px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 219x346px

Ursula K Le Guinn's book "The Dispossed" was probably the best look at how a communist society could actually function, written from a sympathetic viewpoint.

Well, to start off if you wanted to organize a voluntary society, the first thing you will have to deal with is the problems of scarcity and the problem of information. There are many mundane products from shaving cream to toilet paper that need to be manufactored, and the right amount needs to manufactored at the right time and be at the right place for it be a social benefit. Consider toilet paper. The market orchestrates all this information so the factory floor knows it will get its rolls on time to cut and process, the paper mill needs to know it will get its lumber on time, etc. Its a tremendous amount of information that doesn't merely determine where products go, but also adjucates between varoius uses of intermediate products. Those trees could go int toilet paper or newspapers or furniture.... you need some sort of system to determine what will be made, and how much.

The Dispossed cheated on this issue by having a computer handle the data; bypassing the problem that central planning will have a planner-class.

The next problem is of course you will have to get comfortable being much more materially poor, because while the computer can say what is desired, the voluntary society cannot force people to work the more miserable jobs except through shaming or public ostracization of some sort.

File: USSR meme great depression.jpg (42KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 644x598px

>>128200931
>You still wouldn't know what to produce in what amounts.
Calculate based on population and demographics

>You'd be inefficient
Actually that's not what the evidence says

>not produce enough basic supplies
Doubt. True there were some famines under communism, but also when not under communism. There was big population growth under communism

>rationing
Rationing is necessary until scarcity is abolished. Rationing takes place in capitalism too

>>128192442
No. He means like niggers back before the Civil War.

>>128201304
Where's your source for the death toll under the USSR being made up by the West?

Here's my sources. Scroll down to the Soviet Union section. Are all these sources made up?
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

>oy vey
Yeah, just ignore the evidence against your pet ideology if it disagrees with your beliefs. Those people were just statistics after all, not real people...

>>128202206
>Rationing is necessary until scarcity is abolished. Rationing takes place in capitalism too
USA abolishes food card system in 1947
USSR in 1947
British Empire in 1954
WTF Britain.

>>128202386
>Slaves
>Working for free
You realize it costs money to maintain slaves, right?

>>128202206
The soviet union used western prices to determine production

>>128202036
Maybe, but we can't dial back the clock and so the likelyhood is that we let the current system run its course and let the 21st century be for capitalism what the 20th century was for communism.

As a syndicalist, I see no way of implementing a system without, first, removing people's confidence in what currently is the case.

>>128192832
Either way you get jewed, at least with capitalism you have a chance at becoming the jew

>>128201297
>not true Christians
I guess if they don't follow the word of the bible then they're no real Christians, yeah.
>Both systems impose conventional legal restrictions of different sort.
Clearly, we're quite bad at it then, since gommie businesses still exist.
>They are 13% richer than other members of the very same society doing the very same work.
Cool, so their company is just objectively better? Just a matter of time till all companies are like this, no government intervention needed.

File: USSR tsar and after.png (84KB, 630x716px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 630x716px

>>128202031
There was starvation under the Tsar too. I've never heard anyone say GDP growth was high

>>128192442
Schlomo pls. I work for myself and no one else. I provide for the loan payments on my car, iphone, ipad, Mac, starbucks latte and my child support payments for my wife's son.

>>128202206
>Calculate based on population and demographics
You still will not know. Demand changes from year to year. Calculation problem has never been solved.
> Actually that's not what the evidence says
Yeah, it does.
> Rationing is necessary until scarcity is abolished. Rationing takes place in capitalism too
When demand is high, cost increases, profit motive then encourages increase in supply. No markets and it doesn't happen.

>>128202160
>Are you stalling? Hereditary title means that you inherit his job and rank. Something that people used to do in medieval times.
I literally would, if he was a business owner.

>>128201740
Yeah, and we consolidated in the 10th century and you did in the 16th.

>>128202630
This. There is no way to figure out supply without prices.

>>128202708
breh get real, i'm catholic and the bible is pretty ambivalent about slavery. the New Testament basically says "don't become a slave, because it'll put you in compromising positions". Serfdom was a species of slavery, and I don't think forced labor is immoral intrinsically. Black slavery in america was immoral mostly because they had no legal standing at all and could be bought and sold. If they had recourse to courts for their own particular rights and obligations and were tied to an estate, I don't think it would illicit.

>>128202830
>You still will not know
Make a little more, put them in warehouses
Communists win every time

>Yeah, it does.
It actually says USSR was more efficient

>>128202160
>Are you stalling? Hereditary title means that you inherit his job and rank. Something that people used to do in medieval times.


Sort of like inheriting your auntie's apartment under propiska?

>>128190447
In America they do. $50k in Jewish student loans to get a Jewish education and they work an entire lifetime making $12/hr just to pay Jewish interest on that loan and pay Jews for apartments to live in while they beg the Jew for entertainment that makes them not want to kill themselves.

>>128203135
>Make a little more, put them in warehouses
Opportunity cost. Now you're wasting resources and labor. Something else will be in short supply.
> It actually says USSR was more efficient
Nah, it says it wasn't.

>>128202668
>As a syndicalist, I see no way of implementing a system

Well, that's the first step of the idea of communism/socialism.

There is no way of implementing the desired system, but there is a way to implement some of its' principle, accelerate and ease the development of society and its progress, with the ultimate goal in mind.

>>128202206
US population in 1860: 30 million
Russian population in 1860: 70 million
150 years later: Us has over 300 million and Russia has under 150 million.

>>128203727
Yeah we had you in 1860. And more 50 lands that seceded later. i demand a recount.

>>128203071
I distinctly recall reading that taking slaves was punishable by death, but I guess serfdom and "wageslavery" is good with the Bible, so no problems here.

>>128202763
>starting all your data series after that tatar gypsy lenin is dead
good idea

>>128203996
I'm just really being made to think about how the great and prosperous USSR had to build walls to keep people from fleeing to Capitalist nations again.

>>128202763
>There was starvation under the Tsar too

Never said there wasn't, but there is not an event in Russian history that comes close to the Holodomor. The Tsars were nowhere near as brutal at dealing with political opponents either, an that's really saying something because they were considered tyrants by Western standards.

http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b425c6ef3.pdf

However, Russia was one of the fastest growing economies pre-WW1. See page 4 onwards in my link.

File: this_is_jewish.png (59KB, 623x626px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 623x626px

>>128192442
wedge

>>128202708
>I guess if they don't follow the word of the bible then they're no real Christians, yeah.

Just stop. They didn't follow your interpretation of it, and you don't follow theirs. You really bring no true Scotsman fallacy as far as to suggest that there were no true Christians in First Millennia.

>Clearly, we're quite bad at it then, since gommie businesses still exist.
Not just exist, but dominate. And your NAP - was never spotted IRL.

>Cool, so their company is just objectively better?
Better for the workers and competitive in the current economy.

>Just a matter of time till all companies are like this, no government intervention needed.
The only thing you don't need government intervention for is the booming market of Somalian piracy and bitcoin economy of drugs, slavery and crime.

File: Late stage capitalism.png (316KB, 3000x2139px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 3000x2139px

>>128203619
Any day now guys, tru gommunism is right around the corner!
t. Communist in the late 19th century.

>>128204529
So we're agreed then, let communism come about by natural flow of the market and fuck off trying to forcefully steal my property.

They won't.
Thread closed. Everyone exit to the left. Single file. No pushing, no hitting, no shoving.

>>128204351
>borders between hostile nations are bad

>>128204626
Big talk for a lolbertarian. Communist, Socialist ideology and many of Marxist policies are everywhere.

And you got lucky once with Somalia. Although if you go there and start talking NAP, you'd probably be beheaded for violating Sharia, or enslaved just because.

>>128204914
There's borders and then there is having to build concrete walls with barbed-wire fences and armed guards who shoot on sight just to keep your population from leaving for the West.

How many Westerners fled to the Communist states again? I don't recall the West German government having to build fences to keep Germans from trying to leave.

>>128203727
US has high immigration, historically.
If their population doubled doesn't that show they had enough food to eat?

>>128204855
No, pan. Neither market nor property is natural. They both are social institutions. And if society would chooses to redefine them all who would cling to something else will be forced to comply.

You will already get fucked if you violate the rules set for your property, or get promptly evicted under eminent domain. So Communism isn't going to introduce anything new in terms of stomping snakes.

>>128190447
Doesn't make sense.

>>128205421
West Germany is the old Poland. Lots of capital inflow and big bucks from the West to try to create a new ally next to Russia

>>128190447
Like slavery?

>>128192442
Fucking kike.

File: 1491584605563.png (75KB, 752x1668px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 752x1668px

>>128205466
If you repeat your mantra more, it'll become true.

>>128205568
The Soviets propped up their satellite states with funding and military assistance, what's your point mate?

File: 1495492961013.gif (2MB, 330x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x206px

>>128205466
imo, this what really what libertarians need to get through their thick skulls. Liberty is a fine tool but its not really good in of itself. Liberty is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people. That is why we have prisons.

What we really what society to protect is property. Property is precious, finite, and very destructable. The sensible state ensures good stewardship of property, through property rights and violence against social deviants who do not adhere to them.

Commie countries don't turn into dreary concrete shitholes brimming with goldbricking buerocrats and loafers because they have only one variety of cola. They do this because they are innately designed to reward control over property to people who are not necessarily good stewards.

File: Pyramidz.jpg (159KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x667px

>>128190447

Shareblue's China network essentially already does.

http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/

File: 1491991949748.png (252KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1920x1080px

>>128206148
Bad people aren't exercising liberty when they hurt people. That's the exact opposite of liberty and exactly what libertarians oppose, you stupid fuck. Liberty doesn't mean no rules. Why can't you commie cunts get this?

File: 777.png (123KB, 1886x855px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1886x855px

>>128192832
Reminder to sage nazbol/leftypol propaganda threads.

>>128204952
>And you got lucky once with Somalia. Although if you go there and start talking NAP, you'd probably be beheaded for violating Sharia, or enslaved just because.

Kek, absolutely rekt.

>>128205803
It has to do with these things as well as natural superiority or inferiority

File: ....jpg (135KB, 267x400px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 267x400px

>>128205767
That's stupid though, if you don't believe in property rights then you don't see it as aggression.

It's exactly the same as someone saying
>let's create a libertarian society with freedom!
>anybody who steps on my land gets shot!

And accusing YOU of being a hypocrite

>>128204952
Can you be more specific about which so called marxist policies are in place? And I don't think Somalia is exactly libertarian, sounds more like an an-com paradise to me, especially since it's the result of a failed marxist state.

>>128206371
>only the types of liberty i like are the REAL liberty

lol liberaltarians

File: 533.png (4MB, 1672x1150px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1672x1150px

>>128203727
To be fair, they did kill like 75 million relatively quickly. That skews their numbers.

>>128206644
Correct, that's why words have definitions.

>>128206436
Elaborate please.

File: 16266303_1676175949341735_5282954161784625595_n.jpg (37KB, 526x394px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 526x394px

>>128206644
No, cumbasket. It's called following the definitions of words. Liberty is freedom from other people interfering with your life. If you're interfering with others' lives, you're engaging in the opposite of liberty: tyranny. I know this is hard for you, but read it a few times and it might click.

File: mapeuropeabrate3big.gif (238KB, 1900x1500px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1900x1500px

once your country goes commie, your peoples minds are fucked for generations....

>>128206633
>>128206950

File: 21st century philosopher- wig.jpg (178KB, 634x951px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 634x951px

>>128206865
Marshall Plan, foreign investment, etc would have been a big source of economic growth in West Germany, letting it grow at the same time as having consumption
So they might got a lot more help than East Germany got from the USSR

>>128206950
>Liberty is freedom from other people interfering with your life.

If you release a criminal from jail, they are liberated, correct?

File: 0.81.png (1MB, 666x879px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 666x879px

>>128206950
>>128207089
But if they don't consider property rights to exist then they see that they aren't interfering with your life- in fact, you're trying to interfere with their life by spooky property rights

File: 16114879_1070998736355638_9050207496777908690_n.jpg (83KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x960px

>>128207328
Do a google search for:

>Liberation
>Liberty

Then get back to me.

>>128206258
>So guns to their head style computer labor?

File: 1495753766866.jpg (26KB, 238x238px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 238x238px

>>128207585
Not considering property rights to exist is like not considering gravity to exist. You're fighting against the nature of reality and human beings. You can try, but it will always end in mass suffering and death.

>>128207585
Categorical imperative my man, my rules perfectly allow you to exist in your hippie communes, you don't reciprocate.

File: 1496182487457.gif (2MB, 383x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x204px

>>128208458
You're a deontologist AND a libertarian? I'm not sure you understand that those things do not add up, because it severely limits the capacity of what you can do. Can confirm: Philosophy student.

Also, can you explain how these hippy communes fit in with the maxim of universalization? If everyone decided to live in these communes, civilization would collapse.

>>128208458
>I let YOU be a hippy and not bother me! Now ALL I WANT TO DO is charge you rent on your land and steal the surplus value of your LABOUR! why can't you reciprocate???

That one REALLY makes me think

>>128208899
I'm no expert but from what I understand, most modern libertarians are deontologists, in the sense that they believe so strongly in these ethics that without intervention those that don't follow will collapse as you said. Those that form hippie communes collapse, those that don't prosper.

>>128209378
I'm still researching taxing systems, so I can't really you right now if I support property tax or not. But I definitely wouldn't be getting your surplus labour if you lived in a commune, though.

>>128209402
Holding to an ethic strongly does not define being a deontologist. Following one's concept of duty, regardless of consequence, and following the maxims of the categorical imperative defines being a libertarian.

You can't lie as a deontologist. If you lie, you're not a deontologist. I'm not sure how a Libertarian could justify anything of that sort, really. You can't even be gay as a deontologist (at least, if we're going full on Kantian deontology) because to universalize that would be to prevent humnaity from breeding and, thus, end it.

>>128209609
> maxims of the categorical imperative defines being a libertarian

Ahem, meant deontologist, not libertarian.

File: 1485745131888.png (2MB, 5000x7500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x7500px

>>128209609
That's what I mean, people who don't follow these ethics lose in pure competition. Everything you wrote I agree with, and I'm definitely a libertarian.

>>128192442
fpbp

>>128209916
I'm sorry? Are you implying that you are less likely to be able to compete if you lie and get away with it? I think stock brokers would like a word with you.

>>128190447
What if we could honestly and wholly love one another? Same scenario.

>>128209916
Also, you might be a Libertarian, but I do not think you are a Deontologist. It really does not go together. Utilitarian is a much better fit, as far as freedom is concerned. But Kant had a lot to say about one's duty to nation state and the enforcement of the rules of the state, on its citizens.

>>128207203
So why did people continue to try and flee to the West 40 years after the Marshall Plan? I thought you said that life improved under Communism? If the Marshall Plan was so effective, why wasn't the Comecon and Molotov Plan?

>>128209596
I really hate property tax. It means your property can never really belong to you. You become a tenant of the state, city, county, etc.

>>128192442
This

>>128210310
I'm definitely a deontologist on a personal level, I don't see what it has to do with whether I force others to do. Look at it this way, I think it's important to be charitable, in fact, I think it's my duty to be charitable, but if I force others to redistribute their wealth, then they aren't being charitable, and they aren't really fulfilling their duty.

>>128210869
How do you reconcile the 2nd maxim (to not treat people as a means to an end but as an end in themselves) with labor and the use of services? Given the fact that, as it stands, much of labour (not to use Marx too much) represents the exploitation of workers for the collection of profit, I don't exactly see how they can be reconciled.

>>128211148
Based on what happened in my country and most other countries that privatize their economies, I think the worker is far better off with private property than without it. I don't support the government stepping in to break up unions like the US did, but I don't support people being forced to join unions like they are now.

>>128211879
That's a utilitarian argument (what is good is what creates the most happiness for the most people), so are you a Utilitarian? Or a deontologist? Becuase you can't be a deontologist and believe that what is good is based on the outcome. The outcome is irrelevant, no exceptions. Even if that means people suffer, the outcome is irrelevant.

>>128210525
Because it had a bigger economy and probably more freedoms lol

>>128212183
My point was that the worker isn't being exploited in the first place, since it wouldn't make sense for him to be exploited and better off materially.

>>128212665
So why is Communism preferable to Capitalism if it makes people poorer and desperate to leave so that they won't be gulag'd? Where's the benefit and motivation fot people to become a Communist if historically it has not performed to the same standard as Capitalist ones?

>>128212738
If somebody's work is reciprocated with less than it is valued at (by definition, it has to be by there being a profit margin), then it is exploitation. Exploitation does not even mean people have to suffer, in the process, it just means that people get less than what is owed, within the context of a work to value ratio. I mean, we could also ask the question of why a worker's wages do not rise proportionally to the increase of profits and hiring rates within a company, while their top members' do? That's pretty exploitative to me, given that their work would have to be worth more, within the context of a company that is valued more.

That is how it works within self employment, but not standard employment?

Keep in mind, Kant didn't have an answer to this question because this kind of capitalist structure was not a thing in his lifetime. People were still proper craftsmen back then.

>>128190447
What if whores worked for free? I'd work for free if whores worked for free.

>>128212992
>it makes
Eh, but there were other things too, I'm saying; I don't trust it.

>>128213037
It's a real shame this thread is probably going to 404 soon, since this is something I'm going to have to think about for a while before responding, then probably will not be able to get a response from you to my response since it'll be too late.

>>128213551

I shall bump, periodically.

>>128213551
Or do you mean in terms of days?

>>128213669
Well it is 2:43 here, and I'm currently making food and then going to bet, but I'll see if the thread's still here when i get back.

>>128213923
heh, k

>>128213496
>I don't trust it.

I don't think many people do trust Capitalism, myself included. The problem is, as of now, there really isn't a system that has been put into practice so far in human history which makes life as bearable and free from authoritarianism as Capitalism. Maybe there will be a better solution as new technologies emerge, but as of now it's the best thing we have in regards to it's practical application and outcome towards our happiness and comfort.

File: the-crowd.jpg (52KB, 940x380px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 940x380px

>>128211148
>Given the fact that, as it stands, much of labour (not to use Marx too much) represents the exploitation of workers for the collection of profit, I don't exactly see how they can be reconciled.

Man needs to work like he needs to eat. Idle men exhibit all sorts of mental defects. Food and water satisfy man's thirst, labor satisfies the cravings of his mind.

Labor is unique as in you don't have to buy it with your wealth, and it also produces wealth. People say that laborious jobs tear your body apart, but in reality men live such unhealthy lifestyles that their bodies are never able to require between shifts. I work for one of the largest corporations in the US, it is very hard work, and the company is very strict, but I take home $1300 a week, and working for Uber and Lyft brings that figure up to $2000 a week.
The more you work the less you are exploited.
Look the brainwashed goons on this board, nothing to do all day but absorb twisted messages from yids and stormkikes.

File: 1491968225013.png (40KB, 373x326px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 373x326px

>>128213923
Well, if you don't end up getting back before it 404s, I'll give my final piece.

All of the above problems are effectively Marx's critiques of capitalism from Das Kapital (or at least a tiny portion of them) and, themselves, reflect a deeply disturbing aspect of that capitalism does, even when restricted. It causes people to become expendable when their jobs aren't being done well enough (see maxim 2 again), it causes people to work for less than its worth, to maintain profits and it creates an atmosphere that is extremely illiberal, ironically. It gives us no choice but to participate in the system, or starve. To be able to have a roof over our heads or not, based purely on our labor. Only those born into already successful families have the ability to genuinely enjoy leisure, and that by no success of their own.

I'm not a communist, nor a socialist, though. I'm a syndicalist. I believe that people should own things, not structures. A business is not a thing to be owned, because a business is defined by the people within the structure, who themselves cannot be owned. i believe businesses should be owned by their workers, who can collectively decide their fate, as a democratic decision and oppose their exploitation, through collective action.

So yeah, that's my 2 cents, in case you're not able to return. We're very likely on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I used to be a Libertarian, so I know your piece.

>>128213037
Okay, I think the entire concept of wage work being exploitation is flawed. It is precisely because of the different intentions and standings of the participants that the interaction is mutually beneficial, in the way that when goods are exchanged it isn't because they share an identical value, or because someone in the exchange is getting scammed, but because the two parties view the other good as more valuable to their own. The worker sees more value to be gained through wage work than entrepreneurship and vice versa. As for the workers wages no rising in proportion to their output in modern times, this is because thanks to the digital revolution, average worker productivity has skyrocketed without actual work increase because of automation. I might need to spend more time trying to understand Kant more though, the last time I read anything about him was in highschool.

>>128214952
If one party stands to gain more in the situation than the other, but it is treated as an equal exchange, is that not a scam? I feel as though it would be, myself.

>>128213451
Calm down Sanjay

>>128214522
Mate, you do you. If giving over a cut of your hard work and sweat to other people for the pleasure of working, that's fine. Whatever makes you happy. But a craftsman would not have to lose money to his employer for the work he did, he got all of the value of the product of his labor and the sweat of his brow, while you do not. In the end, you are just a means of profit for somebody else, but not yourself.

>>128215092
My point was that the parties both view their exchanges as not equal but beneficial to themselves.

>>128215330
But somebody who is scammed may feel that what they have out of it is a beneficial exchange. It is the nature of the exchange that defines a scam, not the outcome. For instance, the old saying "letting the cat out the bag" comes from a practice where scammers would literally put a cat in a bag instead of a pig, to con people. By your logic, if that person is quite happy with the fact that they got a cat, and not the thing agreed in the exchange, it is not a scam. No?

>>128215490
It would be a scam if there was verifiable lying involved, and the state would have to enforce contract.

>>128214886
You know, your writing style and political views are very familiar to me, I think we've spoken before, except last time I was a lot more hostile and I don't think we had any real discussion.

>>128215596
And now, tell me, if we've established that the amount given to a worker is not equivalent to the value of the work done, to maintain a profit margin, but it is said to be equal to the value o the work: Is that a scam?

We've established that the outcome of it must be irrelevant, so lets go into the nature of the exchange.

>>128215739
Oh, I don't know. I'm a long time lurker but I never tend to get into these kinds of debates. I tend to drift around brit/pol/, really.

File: liberty-and-moral-order.jpg (37KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x391px

>>128215310
Not true. Both parties profits, with the worker profiting more. Saying that labor satisfies men's mind is not an opinion, it's fact. As men who do not labor are stressed out, deranged, and verging on a soft psychosis. The worker profits from labor. I make as much money as my bosses, have to work about the same hours as them between my day job and ridesharing, but don't go home stressed out, and can leave all of my problems AT the job, instead of having to take them home with me. My dad worked most of his life in upper management in a once powerful, but now moribund, corporation. He not only put in 12 hour days but brought paperwork home to do after supper.

Take yourself for example, you say you're a syndicalist. You got there from libertarianism you say. So here you are, blowing around like a little leaf amid all of the propagandic and political agitation. If you were working you'd be much happier, as you wouldn't have time to worry about make believe political opinions.
I'm acquiring wealth and material resources while you're claiming political creeds and regurgitating catch-phrases.

debatebump

File: 1466095248711.webm (3MB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x480px

>>128196931
>worker's cooperatives are more productive
So why did you need to use blood cells for your example?
Shouldn't you be able to simply name a successful company to demonstrate the superiority of your glorious cooperative institutions of success?

>>128214886
>I'm not a communist, nor a socialist, though. I'm a syndicalist. I believe that people should own things, not structures. A business is not a thing to be owned, because a business is defined by the people within the structure, who themselves cannot be owned. i believe businesses should be owned by their workers, who can collectively decide their fate, as a democratic decision and oppose their exploitation, through collective action.

Why should someone who's created a business, gone through the hard work of setting it up and organising it, earn the same amount of money as someone who cleans the bins out on a Thursday night? What motivation is there for company workers to improve it if everyone is going to earn the same no matter what they do? What if someone decides they don't want to make green pencil cases, they want the company to make red ones instead? Who decides what direction the company takes? Everyone? People can't even agree on what dinner they want with their family at night, let alone what they want a large company to produce.

If a person doesn't like being a worker for someone else, then they can save money and make their own products and become their own boss and hire their own workers if they want to. I don't want to own my own business, so I'm happy earning my wage and letting people who know more about the business side of things control the company. The fact they get more money than me is fair considering that without them I wouldn't be employed in the first place.

>>128215754
If the worker wanted a full portion of his output he could start his own business, but obviously he views this as less valuable than working for an agreed upon wage.

>>128216302
I am working, but I can recognize that I am not effectively paid for the total amount that my work is worth, because the company has to sustain a profit margin, for its owners. Ultimately, I don't think most people are generally happy because they work, really, not generally anyway. There are certainly people who become unhappy out of work, but that's largely due to their lives blowing past them without any time or structure to it, when there are plenty of rich academics who are extremely happy because they do have a structure in what is effectively leisure.

Don't mistake humanity's tendency to enjoy a timetable as enjoying the work itself. There is a reason monday is the most hated day.

>>128216449
>What motivation is there for company workers to improve it
For some reason people like that see improvement as unnecessary. They honestly believe that enough is eternally enough and that no crisis man made or natural will ever disrupt their utopia

Oof, I guess I've kicked up a fuss, now. Right, I'll answer these because they are effectively the same response:

>If a person doesn't like being a worker for someone else, then they can save money and make their own products and become their own boss and hire their own workers if they want to. I don't want to own my own business, so I'm happy earning my wage and letting people who know more about the business side of things control the company. The fact they get more money than me is fair considering that without them I wouldn't be employed in the first place.

>If the worker wanted a full portion of his output he could start his own business, but obviously he views this as less valuable than working for an agreed upon wage.

Which is fine, in both cases, but those cases are exactly the sort of thing Marx wanted. Do not mistake the structures of capitalism is to the old structures of classical economics. Becoming your "own boss" is fine in such instances where the inbuilt efficiency of the capitalist model makes it almost impossible to compete, in some instances, because of the nature of profit.

What is preferable is for more of these smaller business structures to exist, to give a large amount of collective competition to these huge corporate groups, but most people do not have the capital to do so, and to ask for handouts to fund these endevours is very much anti-libertarian.

>Why should someone who's created a business, gone through the hard work of setting it up and organising it, earn the same amount of money as someone who cleans the bins out on a Thursday night?

I never said they should, because I don't think they should. Keep in mind that collective ownership does not imply wage-equality, and I think most collectively owned structures (co-operatives, unions) have a teired wage system to encourage people to the top, which they want internally. In addition, that leads nicely on to...
(1/2) (this is a long one, I know)

>>128216754
It is rather telling that mans development from hunter-gatherer to developed society began when egalitarianism started to be replaced by hierarchy. It is strange sometimes that people want to return to a system where humanity verged on the brink between violent death and starvation just because everyone earned the same.

Equality is stagnation at best, decline and a return to primitivism at worst, although perhaps I am going off on a tangent that is too broad for the subject that we were talking about.

>>128217197
>What motivation is there for company workers
to improve it
>For some reason people like that see improvement as unnecessary. They honestly believe that enough is eternally enough and that no crisis man made or natural will ever disrupt their utopia

The internal tiered pay system of a company being meritocratic incentives workers to aim higher, which obviously means to work harder for the company's sake, and in turn your own. This is the way that capitalism currently works, so I don't see why collective ownership of businesses contradicts this.

Tiered pay = motivation to work harder / innovate
Harder work / innovation = company productivity and worker satisfaction.

Equally, co-operatives tend to have workers who feel more invested in the company they work for, because they feel it is a party of them as a structure that they, themselves, own (I know this because I used to work in a co-op)
(2/2)

>>128217534
Oops, formatting errors at the top quote there. Whoops!

>>128217197
>(this is a long one, I know)

I don't mind, it's an interesting perspective.

File: Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg (29KB, 525x680px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 525x680px

>>128216672
Well, you are not working enough, not if you have the time to worry about nonsense political ideas.
How is a it unjust that a man offer me money to do a task for him? I'm not a craftsman, and I don't have a specialty, I'm an unskilled laborer. It's a blessing that I have the opportunity to work for a man/men with more wealth than myself, otherwise I'd be poor, or enslaved to the state --the only organization with a monopoly on the use of force. No thanks. I like my life and my job. If lazy people don't like theirs that's fine, but don't expect the rest of society to have too much patience with people who develop mental disorders due to laziness.

>>128217789
He's saying it's unjust to profit from someone's labour, because you're using the fact that you own more capital to exploit them

File: 1493155974918.jpg (48KB, 720x662px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x662px

>>128217789
I equally abhor the concept of the state, but I wont thank a company for taking a chunk of the value of my labor. I would much prefer to work for myself, and I hope to eventually do so. I have time for these intellectual pursuits, because they interest me more than the usual burned-out worker's remedy of sitting in front of the TV or drinking. The very fact that these remedies are seen as needed, in many cases, speaks to there being something necessary to escape from, in work, no?

I don't state that we need to remove all economic concepts, because I agree that economics of capital has gotten us a huge amount of innovation. I do not attribute that innovation, however, to businesses being owned by people, I actually attribute that to the opposite of innovation. I believe it stagnates innovation.

It stagnates innovation because the worker understands he will never be at the top. While he could make CEO of a company, that is not the peak of their capacity within it, they can never own it (at least not normally). Many of these companies are nepotistic, passing down through families and distinctly not meritocratic, which encourages the workforce to know their place, not innovate.

We can agree that the capital element of capitalism is good. It's the exploitation of the workforce for the owner's profit that I find bad.

Hope that makes sense, even if you disagree.

>>128217197
This now seems to be a personal disagreement, you just don't think upstarts can compete with giants, but I'm accruing wealth and preparing my sling. I don't want handouts, I want to government not to tax the fuck out of me and my capital gains, and I want them to remove the red tape that comes with starting a business.

And I didn't really want to get into a material argument, but the concept of collective ownership leads to necessary centralization, since the creation of a new factory requires technically either a large group of investors that wish to also be workers, or the government gathering the workers and giving the factory to them, and I think one of these two is significantly more likely than the other.

>>128217534
>The internal tiered pay system of a company being meritocratic incentives workers to aim higher, which obviously means to work harder for the company's sake, and in turn your own. This is the way that capitalism currently works, so I don't see why collective ownership of businesses contradicts this.

Who decides which worker is more productive over the others? Where does the consumer fit into any of this? After all, we make things for people to use, not to pass the time. Say that a new innovation comes along that improves the product for those that will use it but it would mean that half of the company workforce would not be able to work there any more because the making of that new product is more automated and requires less people to operate. What's stopping the workers to veto the new product-making machine so that they can keep their jobs? What's stopping this from happening everywhere in all syndicates? This would stop progress in a society and stunt living standards.

>>128218279
As I have stated, labor does not equal exploitation. A lack of labor leads to mental illness, this is a fact

>>128219191
You're defining exploitation differently then.
In the Marxian concept, the 'value of work' is not subjective.

>>128218813
>This now seems to be a personal disagreement, you just don't think upstarts can compete with giants, but I'm accruing wealth and preparing my sling. I don't want handouts, I want to government not to tax the fuck out of me and my capital gains, and I want them to remove the red tape that comes with starting a business.

It's less that I feel that upstarts can't compete whatsoever, but that the nature of the game makes resistance to it harder, because your ethics have to impede profit, if we're going by the sort of non-exploitation model, that is.

In addition, you may be able to accrew your wealth just fine, but there are a lot of people who are not making enough money to eat properly in my country, let along save up money to start a business. You are lucky, in as much as you are able to accrew capital, but also feed yourself, but recognize that not everybody is so lucky.

>And I didn't really want to get into a material argument, but the concept of collective ownership leads to necessary centralization, since the creation of a new factory requires technically either a large group of investors that wish to also be workers, or the government gathering the workers and giving the factory to them, and I think one of these two is significantly more likely than the other.

That is true and, much like any structure, we have to recognize that ideas need ironing out before being put into practice. Co-operatives still have leaders who represent them in such matters, and not everything needs to be put to a vote, so there can still be representation of the whole to these suggested investors.

>>128218339
>It stagnates innovation because the worker understands he will never be at the top. While he could make CEO of a company, that is not the peak of their capacity within it, they can never own it (at least not normally). Many of these companies are nepotistic, passing down through families and distinctly not meritocratic, which encourages the workforce to know their place, not innovate.

You would have to totally remove the concept of family for this not to happen. I want what's best for my kids, as does every parent. I want what is best for my friends, as does every good friend. It would be impossible to remove nepotism unless you completely change not just human nature but living organism's nature too. People look out for their own and their interests. It's selfish yes, but it's an unchangeable fact.

>>128219176
>Who decides which worker is more productive over the others? Where does the consumer fit into any of this?

Given that there would be a necessary structure of inveteracy in the company (it's unlikely that somebody would just start a syndicate from the ground up with dozens or hundreds of people) those who have been there the longest would naturally hold higher positions and the tiered structure would grow from the growth of the company, naturally.

>Where does the consumer fit into any of this? After all, we make things for people to use, not to pass the time.

Given that this is exactly the same sort of business model as any other, beyond the ownership element (and co-operatives do exist, so this kind of thinking does also exist) the consumer would fit in in the same way as in standard economic models.

>Say that a new innovation comes along that improves the product for those that will use it but it would mean that half of the company workforce would not be able to work there any more because the making of that new product is more automated and requires less people to operate. What's stopping the workers to veto the new product-making machine so that they can keep their jobs? What's stopping this from happening everywhere in all syndicates? This would stop progress in a society and stunt living standards.

Given the fact that this is a genuine problem that is coming at us fast, I'm not sure I could give a genuine answer beyond the fact that, as I said before, not all decisions need be put to a vote. The layoff of workers would probably be decided by those of highest veterancy, as it is in a normal business. We could equally ask the same question of a normal business, due to the implication of unions striking in oppositions to cuts on the labor force, so I suppose both instances are the same, no?

>>128218339
>which encourages the workforce to know their place, not innovate
Bullshit, I'm not inheriting anything from my parents that's for sure, my mother went bankrupt, the fact that I'd never be able to work my way to being the CEO of an established company is what will drive me to innovate, because I'll need to innovate if I want to outpace an already existing company.

File: GK-Chesterton-006.jpg (23KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x276px

>>128218339
I don't abhor the state, but it's just a reality that it has the say so on who can use force and who can not, and any overreach on the part of the state is exceedingly dangerous for the common men. I get what you're saying, and actually agree with where you're coming from, albeit we disagree on whether labor is exploitation. I'm a pretty simple guy, and so we're clear here I'm a Catholic, and the Church has stated throughout history that a system of usury is evil and will inevitably lead to enslavement, so this is what I believe on the matter.

>>128219523
>You would have to totally remove the concept of family for this not to happen. I want what's best for my kids, as does every parent. I want what is best for my friends, as does every good friend. It would be impossible to remove nepotism unless you completely change not just human nature but living organism's nature too. People look out for their own and their interests. It's selfish yes, but it's an unchangeable fact.

This would be true if we were attempting to reform this within a system that allows for the ownership of a business. I'm advocating the removal of business ownership as a concept, so I don't think this criticism applies, really.

Why do commies bother coming here when capitalists BTFO every time.

Get a fucking job.

>>128219910
Again, be wary of applying your case to others. Keep in mind that 50% of the world's wealth belongs to 8 people, and you can be sure that all their business assets will pass on to their kids, as many, if not most, of the large corporate groups do.

In your instance, you have the capital to make a business, so you have the ability to have a higher amount of, lets say enthusiasm, for the future, where many people in dead end jobs would not, or could not.

File: 1RsGT6kr.jpg (240KB, 607x968px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 607x968px

>>128220210
>Not a commie
>Got a job
>Not getting BTFOd, we're having a genuine discussion.

>>128220257
Nigger, my families financial situation is probably worse than average, go to highschool, don't get pregnant, finish higschool, get a job, don't be wasteful, make smart investments, don't go to university to learn philosophy (sorry, my man). Anyone can do it.

>>128219909
>Given that there would be a necessary structure of inveteracy in the company (it's unlikely that somebody would just start a syndicate from the ground up with dozens or hundreds of people) those who have been there the longest would naturally hold higher positions and the tiered structure would grow from the growth of the company, naturally.

Surely that's just what companies are normally?

>as I said before, not all decisions need be put to a vote.

Then what's the need for syndicalism if it is still going to be undemocratic and the means of production are still going to be owned by a select few in the company?

Also, please warn us before posting a picture of Tim "end a bender" Farron. Skimmed milk is my trigger.

>>128220358
>skimmed milk
Why would you do this to me?

File: Thecristisrizenoldrussiancivilwarposter.jpg (20KB, 180x248px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 180x248px

Hail to the Russian White movement! Death to the Communist traitor!

>>128220737
Suppose you are a child from a poor family who's situation (as it is for some in my country) is so poor, that they are malnourished. This can potentially stunt brain development, leaving them less intelligent than their more well off peers. I don't believe it's a coincidence that those with greater nourishment are likely to do better in school, make better decisions, not become dejected by the school system, resent authority and resultantly fall in with the same sort of crowd who end up becoming more and more extreme in their actions. Class and economic place do play a part in society, like that or not, I'm afraid.

>>128220819
>Then what's the need for syndicalism if it is still going to be undemocratic and the means of production are still going to be owned by a select few in the company?

Because it isn't an undemocratic system, in so much as you can't force the PM of your country to do a specific thing you want, nor can I with mine. Democracy is defined by the position of the person in charge being decided by those who elect them, and their removal being decided in a like way, if they fail.

For instance, one key difference between a syndicate and a normal company would be that a workforce could remove their leader, if they genuinely fail the company and its staff. You can't remove the owner, because he can do what he likes with his "property"

There is a difference.

Also, sorry for the skimmed milk, goyz. I'll go full fat, next time.

File: whole milk farron.jpg (256KB, 607x968px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 607x968px

>>128220993
>>128220819
>Why would you do this to me?
>Also, please warn us before posting a picture of Tim "end a bender" Farron. Skimmed milk is my trigger.

Sorry guys, I did a hasty recolor meme to fix the problem.

>>128221592
Much better, but whole milk here is red and skimmed milk is blue, I'll have to fix this image myself.

File: moralitymilkman.jpg (20KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x400px

>>128221288
What if the leader of the syndicate creates a product that improves the lives of the people in his country, but the making of that product is unpopular with the workers and they vote him out to replace him with a leader that is happier to just produce cotton socks because their easier to produce? Would that not be a new loss to society? Shouldn't a business be about satisfying the needs of the consumers first, rather than the workers who make it?

>>128221592
Much better. Make sure it never happens again.

>>128222504
*their = they're
new= net

Anyway, lads, it's getting extremely late, so I think I'm going to have to turn in for the night. This has been productive, I think! I'm genuinely shocked that we could have a cordial discussion between people who (I think) are libertarians, and somebody as far left as myself. It restores some of my hope for humanity!

It is a shame about the anonymity, because I would have liked to continue this discussion another day, but I feel we've had enough of a productive conversation that I can leave it, satisfied!

If you guys have any extra criticisms you want to let me know, I'll be sure to come back to this thread tomorrow, in the archive! Oh, but before I go!:

>What if the leader of the syndicate creates a product that improves the lives of the people in his country, but the making of that product is unpopular with the workers and they vote him out to replace him with a leader that is happier to just produce cotton socks because their easier to produce? Would that not be a new loss to society? Shouldn't a business be about satisfying the needs of the consumers first, rather than the workers who make it?

The consumer and the worker's considerations should be taken equally, because they are both people. In the end, we need to find a balance of a work environment that fufills both needs. I do not believe, however, that workers would decide on something that goes against market interest, because to do so would actively hurt the company that they depend on.

I also believe that we, as a productive society, can create work environments that do not make any production task too grueling for the workers, no? That does not seem like a space age development to me!

>>128222504
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oac_O5u3Dnc

>>128222504
Also, to clarify, by grueling work environment, I mean to say that we can adjust a work environment to where any product made can be equally easy to the workforce. Naturally, any product that is sufficiently easy to make also has a higher product turnout, which would probably balance out the workload, in terms of their difficulty, no?

>>128222823
You better not be voting Labour.

File: 1496344652554.jpg (160KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1500x1000px

>>128223358
>Awkward silence.

Sorry mate. Left is left, and comrade Corbachev is a lad.

>>128223555
>555
digits confirm lad.

(why the fuck does mentioning trips cause spam message?!)

>>128223555
I'd rather vote for Nazbol over Open border Libertarians, don't know how you could support anyone who isn't strict with the border.

>>128223778
They've pledged to lower immigration and remove freedom of movement within the EU. I get that people are concerned, and want a number, but the tories have had a number and failed to meet it for 7 years straight.

So yeah, I'd rather go with the vague possibility of lower migration and leftist economic policies than a target I know will fail and right wing economic policies.

>>128223921
Lel, "within the EU" meant to say "from the EU". Naturally, that goes when we leave, anyway.

>>128223778
Nobody is going to be strict with the border

File: 1489996372302.png (587KB, 604x675px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 604x675px

>>128224055
>>128223921
That's right, sometimes I forget not every country is as good as mine.

>>128192442
NO WAY MY FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE REAL MONEY!!!!

File: b4bb623e3b8c7e6dd321350b35ad8a1c.gif (1MB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x200px

>>128224136
Pretty much. Anyway, I am off comrade! I wish you all a very fond farewell.

*poof*

>>128222823
>The consumer and the worker's considerations should be taken equally, because they are both people.

Sure, but in the end businesses are made to provide a service for the consumer, not the worker. It's up to the worker to choose if he wants to work somewhere or make his own business. If the business concerns itself with the worker over the consumer, than there would be no business, whereas a business could still get by without workers. It's also in the interests of a businessman to make sure his workers are happy so that his products are good, because the worker will put more effort in if he's paid well and treated with respect.

Nice talking with you mate, have a nice sleep.