Serious question for /leftypol/

This experiment explains it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

>>133175139
You may be a filthy kekistani, but you posted a damn good video. I've seen it before and have been surprised at how poorly it's been circulated on /pol/ these past years.

File: 1495946490486.png (1MB, 3528x2408px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3528x2408px

>/pol/ is not one person
>/leftypol/ is

>>133173659
>ree gubmint get out!!
>why are the rivers toxic and the air unbreathable!!
criticism goes both ways faggot

>>133175254
The rise of the beautiful ones as they say in a video that's the real problem with us today.

>>133175438
/leftypol/ is by nature of the fact that they must retreat to /leftypol/ to discuss their beliefs, there are a myriad places to discuss leftist ideologies openly and without reprimand as such there's very few leftists who would hold beliefs that would necessitate their use of a board like /leftypol/.
Meanwhile discussion of right wing ideology is often frowned upon and finding like minded individuals outside of specific circumstance is for many a real challenge.

It's why this board is shared by fascists, libertarians, monarchists and just about anything under the sun which falls under the umbrella of right wing ideology, even the most common trait among everyone here, nationalism, isn't shared by everyone here.

If you've ever looked at /leftypol/ for any length of time you'll see that they almost all share the same ideology with disagreements being superficial because if it were that they truly disagreed with other users of /leftypol/ then they'd be at any of the other myriad radical leftist forums.

>>133175438
I did address the existence of numerous ideologies, but they're mostly all Utopian, that's what my point hinged on.

File: b&.png (58KB, 744x722px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 744x722px

>>133176229
>they must retreat to /leftypol/ to discuss their beliefs
then why is there a thread for them here?
>discussion of right wing ideology is often frowned upon
where are you?
>they almost all share the same ideology
pic related

>>133176229
well to be fair, we really haven't given leftypol a chance to speak their side without screaming IT DOESN'T WORK every five minutes

>>133176586
libertarianism is a utopian ideology

>>133176586
all ideologies have a "perfect world" utopian aspect to them

>>133176774
It depends on what sort of Libertarianism you mean. I'm (roughly speaking) a Classic Liberal. I make no claims that the fulfillment of my ideas will make everyone happy.

>>133176836
Not true, many acknowledge the imperfections of any system not to mention the imperfections of humans ourselves.

>>133177313
>I make no claims that the fulfillment of my ideas will make everyone happy.
neither do the leftypol faggots
they explicitly say they are against the bourgeoisie

>>133176774
All ideologies do.

"If this ego ran shit, it would run it like THIS. And it would be perfect."

But people are shitty and do shitty things.

>>133178038
They think that getting rid of classes and material inequality will make people happier or just happy in general. That's the utopia they think will arrive if government and capitalism are abolished.

I've got a personal theory that all radical leftists are either narcissists or have crippling depression and anxiety, but that's a talk for a different thread.

>>133173659
The golden age of capitalism was incredibly leftist by today's standards. Can't jew too soon

>>133178724
what makes capitalism better than communism?
is capitalism perfect? that would make it a utopian ideology

Leftist ideologies will never make 'the people' happy because leftism is a rejection of free will. It is based on telling the people what to do and not letting them choose for themselves. Capitalism is the system where happinnes is possible (not guaranteed) because it's about letting you choose for yourself what you want. The prime example of rejection of free will is communism because it hates the very idea of people valuing things differently according to their own criteria and instead wants to force everyone to value everything in exactly the same way.

>>133178976
No, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best choice out of alternate economic systems imo. In a Free Market (with minor regulations) at least people are able to live their lives with minimal interference.

Note the main difference. Libertarianism sees someone born in poverty and says "That's life, someone can personally be charitable to you and help you but getting out of this is mostly for you to figure out" while Communism (generally speaking) looks at it and says "This is injustice! I must change this because under my system everyone will be equal!"

>>133179709
>Capitalism is the system where happinnes is possible (not guaranteed) because it's about letting you choose for yourself what you want.
this would imply that capitalism is egalitarian, which it isn't. there are plenty of people working dead end jobs who cant get out of that situation.

>The prime example of rejection of free will is communism because it hates the very idea of people valuing things differently according to their own criteria and instead wants to force everyone to value everything in exactly the same way.
It also places a price tag on workers, dehumanizing them

>In a Free Market (with minor regulations) at least people are able to live their lives with minimal interference.
except for those pesky corperations that require you work 40 hours just to have a place to sleep

>>133180586
>except for those pesky corperations that require you work 40 hours just to have a place to sleep

It isn't 1880 anymore. Even if someone has to work those hours it won't be for long if they're ambitious enough.

>>133176720
Because they also come here quite often which further emphasizes how detached they are from other leftists if anything.

>>133180826
>to succeed you have to have people who fail
what are you going to do with the failures anon?

also
>It isn't 1880 anymore
>LE CURRENT YEAR

>>133180898
/pol/ isn't left or right
they've always been here

>>133176774
Well to be fair that's because they've not once put into words how their ideal system is supposed to work, more often than not they trivialize legitimate arguments to try to deter people from using them rather than actually coming up with equally legitimate responses to said arguments.

>>133180586
>this would imply that capitalism is egalitarian
how the fuck did you reach that retarded conclussion?

>It also places a price tag on workers, dehumanizing them
No, anon. Making everyone 'equal' is what dehumanizes them. Humans are different, denying those differences is dehumanizing.

The third point is not mine but anyway, that's voluntary.

>>133176720
8ch mods are fucking a million times worse than 4chan ffs

Can't even have an honest debate with any leftist on there.

File: hate.jpg (676KB, 2335x1193px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 2335x1193px

>>133181095
all the mods from all the chans are the same

>>133181023
The majority userbase of /pol/ is decidedly right leaning, the majority of discussion on /pol/ is decidedly right leaning, the culture of /pol/ is decidedly right leaning. If any of the above weren't true none of the above would be true.

That isn't to say everyone using /pol/ is right-leaning and I haven't said as much to my knowledge, however it's extremely unlikely that anyone who is left leaning comes here for any reason beyond simple shitposting.
I don't count shills among the handful of leftist regulars on /pol/.

>>133181077
>how the fuck did you reach that retarded conclussion?
>because it's about letting you choose for yourself what you want.
do you not mean your craft here?

>No, anon. Making everyone 'equal' is what dehumanizes them. Humans are different, denying those differences is dehumanizing.
capitalism does the exact same thing with extra steps.

>>133181409
Your interpretation is nonsensical. The individual chooses for themself specifically because only the individual knows what it wants, because individuals are different. It is a rejection of egalitarianism.

>valuing people differently is a denial of differences between people
Explain your shit, don't just make claims.

>>133181364
the majority of discussion on /pol/ is bait, memes and retarded
the best thing here now is the Hillary emails which /pol/ has turned into a seth rich faggotry thing

>>133181020
The people who fail, fail. Not everyone can succeed. That's life. There are private charities dedicated to helping those people, it shouldn't be the government's jobs to make up for people's screw ups.

Also, you really don't get the "current year!" joke do you. It's stupid to say "It's 2017!" as motivation to change something, not when indicating that something has changed. If I say warfare is more lethal now than 1000 years ago are you also gonna say "lol what a moron! Epic 'current year' fail you tard!!!!"

>>133181832
>government's jobs to make up for people's screw up.
then don't be surprised when the people start knocking on the castle door

>Explain your shit
every man in a capitalist society is treated like a pack mule. the harder you work the more work you are given, without just compensation. that is why people say don't do more work than what the job requires

>>133181752
see >>133183015

File: 1392208434862.jpg (19KB, 282x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 282x300px

>>133173659

>when your stated political ideology is literally "I want to string up rich people and steal their gold because capitalism creates a system where people get disproportionately wealthy and mean to poor people"
>when your political ideology in practice is "I strung up the rich people, stole their gold, and now I am the sole rich guy in the country, handing out morsels to people that agree with me and killing the rest in a gross perversion of my earlier stated ideals"

If capitalism is about greed, then commies/socialists are about envy.

>>133183015
>every man in a capitalist society is treated like a pack mule
Every man in a capitalist society is treated as an individual with different capabilities of wealth creation; every man in a capitalist society is treated the way they accept to be treated. People wanting to obtain value out of interacting with you does not invalidate your individuality since they will change the interaction depending on your own capabilities. Also, every single human interaction is based on obtaining something out of that interaction, be it money, amusement, emotional support, etc.

>the harder you work the more work you are given
And you can choose to not do that extra work.

>without just compensation
If you don't think you are getting paid what you should then quit and work somewhere else or start your own business. People will get paid as much as they choose to. Just compensation is a meaningless buzzword. Justice has nothing to do with it since justice is about applying the standards people apply to you onto them.

>that is why people say don't do more work than what the job requires
And this is how you stay in minimal wage jobs. Congratulations on refusing to express your unique capabilities in the job that would distinguish you from other individuals and increase your value relative to others. You are denying your individuality by conforming to the lowest common denominator; by doing as little as possible.

>>133184480
>our unique capabilities in the job that would distinguish you from other individuals and increase your value relative to others
which in turn is entirely determined by the market. what is an artist to do when nobody wants art.

>Every man in a capitalist society is treated as an individual with different capabilities of wealth creation
just as mules are determined by how strong they are.

>If you don't think you are getting paid what you should then quit and work somewhere else or start your own business.
is that the capitalist's only response to mistreatment?

>very man in a capitalist society is treated the way they accept to be treated.
>Justice has nothing to do with it since justice is about applying the standards people apply to you onto them.
Justice is how we went from peonage, working in 14 hours a day 6 days a week, to what we have now

>>133186461
>which in turn is entirely determined by the market. what is an artist to do when nobody wants art.
You are just complaining about people valuing things differently than you. You are opposing individuality by wanting others to adhere to a standard where what you want to be supported is supported. You are the one seeking to deny differences among individuals.

>just as mules are determined by how strong they are.
Mules can be different from other mules, color me shocked.

>is that the capitalist's only response to mistreatment?
This is not an argument.

>Justice is how we went from peonage, working in 14 hours a day 6 days a week, to what we have now
This is not an argument either. You are avoiding defining justice by referring to an event that nebulously includes the term justice without having defined it.

>>133187775
>You are just complaining about people valuing things differently than you
this is not an argument
>Capitalism is the system where happinnes is possible (not guaranteed) because it's about letting you choose for yourself what you want
happiness is the most important thing in society. this is an argument about creating a content society. the "products" of society are not as important the people who produce them.

>Mules can be different from other mules, color me shocked.
you missed the point here

>This is not an argument.
lol. how about this. there is a risk of failure is more often than not far greater than success and it would put you in a deeper hole to take the risk

>defining an abstract concept
not an argument
I "value" the worker and his free time and hapiness. how is that?

also
not an argument is not an argument

it's been fun ancapbro

>>133188796
>this is not an argument
How convenient of you to ignore the rest. The point in that is about whether capitalism denies differences or not and I explained how it doesn't.

>happiness is the most important thing in society. this is an argument about creating a content society. the "products" of society are not as important the people who produce them.
That is up to the individual to decide, not up to you. Only the individual knows what the individual wants and you telling them what should make them happy is, quite frankly, retarded and a denial of their differences.

>you missed the point here
The point was that it would make the individual be seen just like a mule but you still have to explain how individuals having differences that can be judged just like how mules having differences that can be judged is somehow bad.

>lol. how about this. there is a risk of failure is more often than not far greater than success and it would put you in a deeper hole to take the risk
I don't understand the point of this.

>defining an abstract concept
>somehow not an argument
Yeah man, definitions are totally not important. Please talk about eating an orange while my definition of orange is 'rusty nails soaked in urine'. Who cares about being capable of communicating with each other, right?

>I "value" the worker and his free time and hapiness. how is that?
Is this supposed to be your definition of justice or did you just randomly insert this phrase?

>not an argument is not an argument
You can't possibly expect me to answer to a non-argument with an argument.

>>133190071
>How convenient of you to ignore the rest.
where did I argue for communism?

>The point in that is about whether capitalism denies differences or not and I explained how it doesn't.
the point of op's post was about happiness in a communist society. I am simply arguing that capitalism has similar faults

>That is up to the individual to decide, not up to you
that is up for society to decide. Society would love more free time and money

>Only the individual knows what the individual wants and you telling them what should make them happy is, quite frankly, retarded and a denial of their differences
the individual does not know what he wants until he has it.

>>you missed the point here
the point was that the harder you work the more work you get. capitalism is decedent and only cares about the bottom line

>somehow not an argument
still not an argument no matter how much you complain about an abstract concept

>Is this supposed to be your definition of justice or did you just randomly insert this phrase?
justice in its self is abstract. but this was important to me

>You can't possibly expect me to answer to a non-argument with an argument.
neither can you

also can someone else bump the thread?
the thread is heading to the bottom real fast

>>133173659
There isn't a perfect solution. Every system has problems. But that's not a license to give up. The question then becomes which problems are the best problems to have.

Big government paying for healthcare and college? Better than giving the rich massive tax cuts that they will hoard.

>>133191234
thanks man

I agree every system has problems, but we cant sit idly by when a more perfect system presents itself
civilization is about experimentation

>>133191023
>where did I argue for communism?
I don't understand how 'how convenient of you to ignore the rest' could possibly be interpreted as 'you are arguing for communism'.

>the point of op's post was about happiness in a communist society. I am simply arguing that capitalism has similar faults
I stated right at the beginning that capitalism doesn't guarantee happiness and that capitalism is the only system that allows the possibility of happiness since the alternatives are a denial of the individual. An individual cannot achieve happiness under a system that ignores the individual.

>that is up for society to decide. Society would love more free time and money
>society
Society is comprised of individuals and does not exist by itself. In order for society to decide, individuals must decide. What understand of this is that you are somehow trying to say that the society, the majority, should get to tell the individual what should make the indiviual happy. Telling someone to like x and not like y is not going to make them like x and not like y.

>the individual does not know what he wants until he has it.
Unitl he has it? Explain to me how people buy stuff if they don't know that they want it beforehand. You can't want a computer if you don't have a computer? You can't want food if you don't have food? You can't want ownership of a house if you don't already own a house?

>the point was that the harder you work the more work you get.
Assuming it true, you can choose to not do the extra work. How is this a problem?

>still not an argument no matter how much you complain about an abstract concept
>justice in its self is abstract.
Then don't talk about justice if it has no definition.

>but this was important to me
>I "value" the worker and his free time and hapiness. how is that?
That's nice but the individual decides what value his/her own free time has and decides his/her own happiness.

>>133192633
>I don't understand how 'how convenient of you to ignore the rest' could possibly be interpreted as 'you are arguing for communism'.
you tell me how arguing for free time means that I want individuality destroyed

>capitalism is the only system that allows the possibility of happiness since the alternatives are a denial of the individual
capitalism itself denies individuality. we already discussed this

>Society is comprised of individuals and does not exist by itself.
>you cant get a global consensus from individuals

>the point was that the harder you work the more work you get.
>How is this a problem?
why would one work hard if he is not given good rewards for working hard?

>That's nice but the individual decides what value his/her own free time has and decides his/her own happiness.
do you not value your free time and happiness?

>Explain to me how people buy stuff if they don't know that they want it beforehand?
tell me how a caveman knows what a computer is?

also
>Assuming it true
a communist would have a field day with this sentence alone

File: 39db956365a7240a27fd6e378d6785d7fe9b65bfe37e67b2741317f06bfb9d18.jpg (122KB, 695x825px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 695x825px

>>133173659
>Do you seriously think your preferred government system (or lack thereof) will make people happier?
Yes. Pic related.

>>133193674
>you tell me how arguing for free time means that I want individuality destroyed
Now you are just strawmanning me. When did I ever fucking implied that? Though I will say that it would be a denial of individuality if you want everyone to value free time the same way you do.

>capitalism itself denies individuality. we already discussed this
We already discussed this and capitalism doesn't deny the individual. I want you to specifically address how letting an individual choose denies individuality.

>you cant get a global consensus from individuals
Meaning that the assumption I made about it implying that the majority should get to decide is correct? This doesn't address what I criticized about the majority deciding. Funny how you ignored that part.

>why would one work hard if he is not given good rewards for working hard?
Of course they wouldn't work hard. If they think they are not being rewarded properly then they can go to other company or start their own. Capitalism offers the path for individuals to obtain what they think they are worth. Doesnot guarantee it because individual differences mean that other people will not value you exactly how you value yourself but again, you can start your own fucking business.

>do you not value your free time and happiness?
How does 'the individual decides' translates to 'it's worthless'?. You are a strawmanning retard.

>tell me how a caveman knows what a computer is?
This point of this is lost on me. Again, you can't want ownership of a house if you don't already own a house?

>a communist would have a field day with this sentence alone
Your point?

>>133175475
If you're too poor to buy bottled air, you deserve to die, queerbait.

File: rally makes u think.png (49KB, 230x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 230x300px

>/leftypol/ is concerned that capitalism leaves people with limited life choices as they have to work for money
>their solution is to not leave anyone with ANY life choices at all as a central body manages everyone's resources

>>133195416
>Now you are just strawmanning me.
>You are opposing individuality by wanting others to adhere to a standard where what you want to be supported is supported. You are the one seeking to deny differences among individuals.
literally in the sentence I replied to

>We already discussed this and capitalism doesn't deny the individual
the market desides what kind of worker is needed, so the market itself denies people their individuality

>This doesn't address what I criticized about the majority deciding
the people ALWAYS decide what the government is. and it is always what they are use to. if the situation is bleak enough, people will choose more radical solutions. look at the Bolshevik revolution

> If they think they are not being rewarded properly then they can go to other company or start their own. Capitalism offers the path for individuals to obtain what they think they are worth. Doesnot guarantee it because individual differences mean that other people will not value you exactly how you value yourself but again, you can start your own fucking business.
and the risk of such an investment is usually far greater than the reward, ever hear of job security

>How does 'the individual decides' translates to 'it's worthless'?. You are a strawmanning retard.
I could have easily pointed to how minimum wage and hours worked increases and decreased respectively and how they have not gone backward

>This point of this is lost on me
you have to know what a house is in order to want it

>>133194518
That sounds double plus good

>>133195934
yep, communism is just as retarded as capitalism

>>133196509
>literally in the sentence I replied to
Please quote it directly and explain it because I don't see it.

>the market desides what kind of worker is needed, so the market itself denies people their individuality
>individuals having their own way of valuing things denies individuality
Literally war is peace, freedom is slavery. Again, don't avoid the question and tell me how letting individuals decide for themselves denies individuality. What makes the recognition of the preferences of individuals and actions taken based on individual preferences a denial of individuality?

>the people ALWAYS decide what the government is. and it is always what they are use to. if the situation is bleak enough, people will choose more radical solutions. look at the Bolshevik revolution
This still doesn't address how telling an individual to like x and not y is going to make the individual like x and not y. The majority cannot decide what an individual wants and you mentioning the government is a huge non-sequitur.

>and the risk of such an investment is usually far greater than the reward, ever hear of job security
I fail to see how risks deny individuality.

>I could have easily pointed to how minimum wage and hours worked increases and decreased respectively and how they have not gone backward
You are avoiding the question. How does 'the individual decides' translate to 'it's worthless'?

>you have to know what a house is in order to want it
So it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were speaking about. You didn't say that people need to learn of the existence of something in order to want it, you said that the individual cannot want something he doesn't already have.
Here's the quote:
>the individual does not know what he wants until he has it.
>UNTIL HE HAS IT

>>133197734
>reply pls
>>133187775

>Again, don't avoid the question and tell me how letting individuals decide for themselves denies individuality
>how does a choice of starving and working a terrible job deny the individual of his individuality
Literally war is peace, freedom is slavery.

>I fail to see how risks deny individuality.
by putting you in a bigger hole if you fail

>You are avoiding the question. How does 'the individual decides' translate to 'it's worthless'?
now you are just nitpicking. Take it as a replacement for the question I asked you.

>So it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were speaking about.
yes it does. look at what I responded to with that sentence.

>>133198707
>by putting you in a bigger hole if you fail
why make a risk if the reward is not worth it?

>>133198707
Oh I get it now. Arguing for valuing free-time more is okay. I framed that in the for of systems. Capitalism let's the individual choose, the alternatives want to force on the individual a certain value it should have to them. Arguing is fine, getting a system that forces a certain view of things is not, it denies the preferences of the individual.

>how does a choice of starving and working a terrible job deny the individual of his individuality
Oh yes, people cannot like their jobs, people cannot analyze the market and make their own job. Nice false dichotomy. Anyway, even if true, you are still not explaining how the individual choosing denies individuality.
>inb4 it's not a choice if the outcome is bad
It is. You may to take that choice but it is a choice.

>by putting you in a bigger hole if you fail
Again, how does a bad outcome of a choice deny individuality? Must individuality always have positive outcomes? No, individuality has nothing to do with the outcomes themselves. It is about having a choice. A result may be bad but there are people who choose suicide. I don't care if you personally don't like it, it is a choice.

>now you are just nitpicking
hahahaha faggot

>yes it does. look at what I responded to with that sentence.
The statement that started this was your statement of
>the individual does not know what he wants until he has it.
and yes, you are correct in how it explains the phrase
>tell me how a caveman knows what a computer is?
but what I was saying is that the caveman phrase has nothing to do with the until he has it phrase. You, the important phrase that started this bit of exchanges. 'Until he has it' is different from 'until he knows about it'. Is accepting that you made a mistake really that hard?

>>133199932
>why is risk bad?
The major issue with risk in the capitalistic system is debt. the debt to others is what enslaves the individual.

>people cannot analyze the market and make their own job
that assumes everyone does. most people just follow their passion and sees where it leads them. when people get their teeth kicked in by the market, you wonder why people choose more radical solutions to solve their situations

>how does this deny individuality?
By limiting the choices one can make a profession out of because of the market

>hahahaha faggot
:P

>Is accepting that you made a mistake really that hard?
ok... I'm sorry baka~~~

thanks man it's been fun, but I have to get some shut eye
see you next time

>>133201734
Remember, folks. Choosing for yourself denies your individuality. War is peace and freedom is slavery.

I don't think about the economic side of things because I don't know economics, so I focus on the social aspects. I don't discuss economics because I would be making a fool of myself.

>>133194518

Yeah maybe in like 1200 years. I'm not gonna be around that long

>>133202597
Who cares, you are anoymous. No one is going to know who you are and mock you for making a fool out of yourself. Use /pol/ as a learning ground for arguing.

That being said, I think a lot of the laws in place are crafted specifically to aid the rich and powerful at the expense of well, everyone else. I believe in capitalism, I don't think you can make a river flow in the opposite direction. But I think that sometimes dams have to be built to keep the river from flooding and drowning everyone.

>>133203087
Because I have no aspirations for power or control so my argument has no value. My beliefs are largely meaningless.

>Use /pol/ as a learning ground for arguing.
But I'm not a person who seeks out arguments. I generally avoid arguing when possible.

File: mussolini swag.gif (2MB, 297x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 297x229px

All that aside, I'm probably the last kind of person you'd ever want in power because i would let it go completely to my head. I would go full Mussolini and run the country like a 3rd world dictatorship, where political opponents are just found dead and I don't even deny involvement. I wouldn't even follow leftist or right policies persay, just whatever benefits me. I'm fully aware I would be the worst version of what I hate about government.

But that's why people like me generally don't get in power.

>>133194518
As if. Any society with a degree of automation where literally no one had to work would be utopian in the sense of no working. You also forget the appeal of entertainment, and the greentext even has the audacity to claim that violence wouldn't exist if there was an abundance of materials. What a joke.