Red Pill Me

File: frogpost19.jpg (10KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x241px

>>35450118
>I'm a socialist

File: 76b9e53a1ecde448d9ee450a40ca77c2.png (72KB, 175x192px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 175x192px

>>35450137
That's all you got?

>lenin
BTFO commie

>>35450118
>I'm a socialist

haha

File: 1489108951470.png (964KB, 898x672px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 898x672px

>>35450362
Cmon dudes actually come up with some arguments dude. I want to hear it.

>>35450118
The highest Suicide rates for any occupation in America is for farmers. After that construction and factory workers kill themselves at high rates. Ever wonder why these manly blue collar types are shooting themselves so much?

>>35450419
Financial stress? What's you point here? I know for Farmers they are often forced to take on debts and such.

File: laugh4.jpg (30KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x320px

>I'm a socialist

You can't be serious.

In the first world west, particularly post-1960s, its nature will only yield AstroTurfing out of the capitalist state. Read baudrillard on the "hyperreality of capital" in the wake of political economy's death cycle. It's not viable, but it's not exactly socialism's fault, because even "real-industry capital" isn't viable under capitalism.

File: pepe_75.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>35450118
>I'm a socialist

pls be ironic

File: 7hWYBbgl.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>35450137
>>35450362
>>35450472
*sniff sniff*
Are those arguments?
*sniff sniff*
Nope!

File: tumblr_m938yyWKPv1qczk3po1_500.jpg (135KB, 500x745px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x745px

>>35450472

>socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Come on you're the third faggot to say this. Come up with some arguments will ya?

>>35450500
>>35450472
>>35450362
>>35450137
is this ironic samefagging?

>>35450118
go ahead man, if you are free you people can own whatever you want.

"let's give our hard earned resources to those who are undeserving"

We need a free market to promote natural selection and make the gap obvious of who is degenerate and who is not. When everyone is seen as an equal despite the fact that there is no such thing, degeneracy would run rampant.

>>35450530
Or do you mean
>I want to own stuff without putting up any financial stakes

>>35450118
Under that definition nobody can redpill you except anarchist retards because it's so vague as to be useless. Under that definition you could argue anything short of outright anarchism is socialist to some degree as something is always owned by the state, even if it's just the defense/police forces.

>>35450118
Ok, so first of all one of the main reasons I'm against socialism is because government is almost always inefficient/corrupt. Giving massive amounts of taxes to government programs often leads to massive waste.
I think government should only be involved for defense, building infrastructure, public services like police, firefighters, etc.

Also in real life socialism, it is almost never owned and regulated by the community, but instead by a the government, which doesn't often represent the people they're supposed to.
Taking complete control of the means of production reduces competition, and reduces the incentive to create a business in that country.
Regulations are fine up to a point, but socialist systems often have way too many unnecessary regulations that make business extremely difficult, and so less businesses means less jobs.

>>35450600
Ok, I believe that the workers should I own the means of production. I think they should democratically run the factory/office/ect. I see no reason for someone who doesn't work, just sits back stealing the workers surplus value, sitting pretty while the workers toil away in abject poverty in despair.

>>35450137
>>35450362
>>35450472
I'm not a socialist, I'm a somewhat different ideology, but seriously faggots, come up with some refuters.

>>35450678
Doesn't sound wholly unreasonable, there are a couple companies that currently operate in that manner. Smaller scale socialism like that is probably less difficult to get right than "And then the government seized everything and nothing went wrong."

>>35450678
>workers toil away in abject poverty
at least in america, if you work, you are not in poverty

>>35450650
>socialism means big government
Look I know you acknowledged that socialism often goes into the government, but that still doesn't overwrite the idea of socialism. All it's saying is that socialism hasn't been done right.

>>35450552
"Let's build a system where companies (which are immortal) can get money (which is also the ability to make money) without any restraints, reinvest it to make more money and buy out other companies more or less at will."

I am sure nothing will go wrong here. It will not snowball wildly out of control. This will not create an upper class so much richer than the average worker it's scarily conceivable. Nope. No way.

>>35450850
scarcely*

>>35450650

>the main reasons I'm against socialism is because government is almost always inefficient/corrupt. Giving massive amounts of taxes to government programs often leads to massive waste.

Democratic ownership of the means of production doesn't necessarily mean the goverment owns the factories. It also doesn't mean more taxes. I agree tax money is wasted though, most of my money goes to making bombs, which are used to kill people, I have moral qualms about that.

>Also in real life socialism, it is almost never owned and regulated by the community, but instead by a the government, which doesn't often represent the people they're supposed to.

I agree

>Taking complete control of the means of production reduces competition

That's kind of the point. Since the owners have to constantly compete they do anything to save money. They make the workers wages unlivable, they pollute, ect.

>Regulations are fine up to a point, but socialist systems often have way too many unnecessary regulations that make business extremely difficult, and so less businesses means less jobs.

I'd say often the regulation imposed on business are fine. It's just they can leave the country and move to China and not have to deal with ANY regulations and make more money. This is bad for China because the rich get super rich and the poor stay poor in horrid working conditions, while the american people are out of jobs. Deregulation here to compete with China, is impossible and not an advisable answer to me.

>>35450813
>All it's saying is that socialism hasn't been done right.
And I don't think it ever can be done "right" as idealistic socialists would think. Everything goes downhill once real people are involved. Socialism is a system that seems to be easily exploited by corrupt people, and just won't ever work properly.
Obviously no system is corruption-proof, but some seem to do better than others.

>>35450678
Go ahead, convince a group of people to own and work at a company. Or do you want someone else to do it for you?

>>35450741
America is not most of the world. They are still being exploited never the less.

>>35450741
This objectively untrue. Low wages, demphasis of skilled manual labor, and meritocracy/higher ed financial debt have all ensured that vast number of workers in the US live in poverty.

>>35450966
The same is true for any prosperous (white) country

>>35450920
I could and people do.

>>35450118
Socialism doesnt work on its own is practically the gist of it other wise you lean to communism - which historically has never worked.

>>35451005

>identity politics

bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegh grosssssss

>>35451030
well I know you couldn't but certainly people do which is exactly my point. go ahead, be a socialist.

>>35451037
>it simply doesn't work

That's not an argument. Tell me why besides "muh hooomen nature!!!!!"

>>35450118
There are no valid arguments against socialism.

>>35451071

>well I know you couldn't but certainly people do which is exactly my point. go ahead, be a socialist.

You don't know me...

>>35450871
>That's kind of the point. Since the owners have to constantly compete they do anything to save money. They make the workers wages unlivable, they pollute, ect.

This is actually a huge problem because with compition you dont get advances in technology, besides weapons

Education and healthcare should at least be free, right?

>>35451080

EXACTLY COMRADE
EHUEHUEHEUHEUHEUEHUEHUE

>>35450118
this is not /pol/ its /r9k/ you retard.

File: drink.jpg (86KB, 600x572px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x572px

>>35451080
this

there is no excuse for the exploitation of surplus value

>>35451133

>This is actually a huge problem because with compition you dont get advances in technology, besides weapons

Why would it just works for weapons and nothing else? That literally makes no sense don't you see the huge logical fallacy in your argument?

>>35451148
I see a lot of right wing pol fags here lately. I just saw an "Socialism is taxes hur durrr!" thread with a shit ton of replies. So I decided to give them the true red pill, Socialism!

Look up the "Great leap forward" project from china

Tldr:
>china removes private farming
>communities all expected to work on farm
>people all receive equal share of food, regardless of work
>free rider problem ensues
>mass famine, starvation, millions die

Wew

>>35451294
"not real socialism"
MY socialism looks suspiciously like capitalism except no one makes a profit

>>35450118
If I go tot school for 10 years more than everyone else, why are others entitled to my money?

Merely existing isn't an answer, I worked harder.

>>35451075

>Why doesn't it work

free rider problem

allocatively and productively inefficient

discourages innovation

File: AE0155B9-C29A-4451-B2BD-61603798BC9A-1139-000001D807B8F7D2_tmp.jpg (83KB, 640x606px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x606px

>>35450118
>implying someone won't naturally become a leader and other beta cucks won't fall in line
>implying people will work and also not fuck things up in a "community" setting

It's the natural order buddy true Socialism is unachievable and that is why it is blue pilled. Your living in a fantasy land. There are leaders and then there are followers OP

>>35451294

I know about the great leap foward. You left out the part where Moa Zedong made the farmers make steel to increase steel production, and then put a strict quota on how much steel they needed to turn in "or else" so the farmers were made to make steel instead of farm....probably the most retarded shit ever.

You realize this isn't what I want though? I would want the farmers to out their boss, then democratically run the farm, Y'know producing farm stuffs not steel. The governments only role would be to provide basic services.

>>35451331
>MUH TAXES

Retard you obviously don't know shit about Socialism. For fucks sake I provided the definition....

>>35451436
how else you gonna incentivize steel production? unless maybe as the demand increases people make steel for their own profit...
btw how does one run a farm "democratically"? plow the fields with democracy?

>>35451435
There are privately owned companies that fail y'know. Just saying "IT WON'T WORK THEY'LL ALL FAIL" means nothing.

>>35451516

>how else you gonna incentivize steel production? unless maybe as the demand increases people make steel for their own profit...

If society needs more steel people will organize a steel making operation to sell to people... of course they'll do it for they're own profit. The point is somebody isn't stealing there surplus value!

>btw how does one run a farm "democratically"? plow the fields with democracy?

The workers come together and figure how they'll run the company! Who works when, who oversees what, how the profits are split ect. What a stupid hyperbolic question.

File: 604D9802-9948-4A1D-8EAF-F9ADC382F724-1379-000002980F3AC819_tmp.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>35451536
>because there are privately owned companies that fail that means my shitty system will work
.....yeah

>>35451436
>>35451710

You realize that if your idea of democratically owned and operated farms was better it would already exist right?

No one is stopping you from starting a partnership with all your friends to run your own little socialist farm.

It's almost like a partnership where every worker in a company has an equal say in how its run is so inefficient that it can't compete on the free market with traditional capitalist businesses.

>>35450118
Capitalism is practical. Lots of solid benefits of private ownership. Social democracy is a preferable middle ground to socialism. Socialism faces things like the problem of calculation that make it less desirable. Socialism relies heavily on the state to enforce communal ownership which lends itself to corruption. You want the state and private sector to keep each other in check, with workers/unions the third leg of society's separation of powers.

The people are retarded shits. Do you think a community who elected Trump will do anything better?
Humans need to be ruled.

>>35451750

He said the workers will fuck it up, and the system won't work because of that. I said privately owned companies where the decisions are made by an individual fuck it up fail all the time and our capitalist system doesn't totally collapse. The point is it doesn't matter. Obviously collectively owned companies can and will fail, it means nothing.

>>35451851

>Obviously collectively owned companies can and will fail, it means nothing

It means more than when a privately owned corporation fails. Workers/owners of a collectively run organization do not only risk losing their job, but also risk all the capital they had to invest into the business.

When a company is privately owned workers will lose their jobs, but they are not exposed to the loss of capital that the founder and shareholders are.

Therefore, your system inherently exposes workers to more financial risks.

>>35451769
>You realize that if your idea of democratically owned and operated farms was better it would already exist right?

They do exist, not in great numbers because...

> it can't compete on the free market with traditional capitalist businesses.

It can't because the traditional capitalist businesses out produce the co-operatives because they take every measure they can to save money. They work their workers as much as they can paying them as little as possible. They also out produce what we need though. Let's look a food in a first world country. We have so much food, way more than anyone needs. Most of it goes in the trash! Cut to starving African child.

We can see my system works if most places are cooperatives. Look at Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. Literally an anarchist muralist city. It worked absolutely wonders DURING A WAR no less. These anarchist had to organize and fight a war. Everything was working great until the USSR backed communist parties that were pretty much in control of the republican government labeled them as secret fascists who were working with Franco and and had them killed.

>>35451799
>Socialism relies heavily on the state to enforce communal ownership which lends itself to corruption.

I agree and that's why I want an informed an armed populace that will take no shit from a preferably weak government.

>>35451769

Do you know how heavily farms are subsidized by the government?

okay here's your redpill, you can't form a prosperous cohesive community out of people belonging to several different ethnicities

>>35451807
Trump won because the same people who enacted neoliberal policies that got the people that voted for Trump jobs shipped to China for there own benefit were their only choice other than Trump. It was Trump lying and saying he'll bring jobs back, or Hillary saying everything is fine as it is.

>>35452036
So then you can't run a farm in your democratic way, or what

>>35450813
>socialism hasn't been done right
then try something else

>>35451957

>Therefore, your system inherently exposes workers to more financial risks.

There risk is negligible because everyone would have a baseline living standard that is actually livable! So if they decide to work and try to make more money, because they find sitting at home boring and unproductive, and it fails, they haven't lost much.

>>35451996

>We can see my system works if most places are cooperatives

It does not. You forgot the fact that co-ops are massively inefficient compared to large privately owned farms. It would take magnitudes more people and land to produce enough food to sustain our growing population if all food was produced through co-ops. The fact that we would require a larger % of our population to be farmers is idiotic and a misuse of human capital.

If co-ops could reach anywhere near the efficiency of capitalist farms, they would put capitalist farms out of business.

Evil capitalist farm:
>1 owner - Profit $9000
>9 workers- Wage $500/each
>Output $13500

Magical Utopian farm
>10 Owner/workers - Profit/wage 1350/each
>Output $13500

Why would a worker choose to work at the evil farm? They would go out of business from the inability to produce without any workers.

File: 4543.png (28KB, 582x583px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 582x583px

>>35452093

The farms that produce the big billions of food are not running on "free market" principles. They're being subsidized by tax dollars.

File: 1456309165234.jpg (158KB, 1000x995px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1000x995px

I never had a problem with socialism, I don't think it works and the amount of time you hear people say "it wasn't real socialism/communism if it didn't work" is kind of retarded but I think socialist in general have good intentions.

It's just what socialism leads to which bothers me and that it isn't practical on a large scale such as the USA. We live in a world that revolves around the survival of the fittest, now I don't think it's right for the upper class to have surplus amount of money while others are starving but you can't change that without force or increasing the taxes on the upper class which leads to big government and corruption of the state with a group of people making the decisions of what's right and calling it democracy while others who disagree being shot.

>>35452313
So for this reason your socialist farm can't exist?

>>35452283

>If co-ops could reach anywhere near the efficiency of capitalist farms, they would put capitalist farms out of business.

Where are these "capitalist farms" that aren't getting "welfare handouts" from the government?

File: yep.png (350KB, 576x700px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 576x700px

I'm just going to copypaste the entirety of Road to Serfdom

>>35452144

>and it fails, they haven't lost much

What about the massive amounts of debt from the loans they had to take out to start the business.

Is the government also providing seed capital in your utopia?

File: 1489254447843.jpg (14KB, 373x373px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 373x373px

The real option is Ancap. You're all faggots otherwise.

>>35452347
>i'm just that triggered

>>35452339
He's saying that all farms are already socialist, you idiot.
Food is important.
Food keeps people full and large and working and smart.
To be so absolute in your views of capitalism that subsidization shouldn't exist is retarded. Things like "food" and "basic education" and "roads" should be subsidized if not paid entirely by taxes because they inherently good for the fabric of society as a whole.

>>35452362
>that hand
kek

>>35452344
this fact is immaterial to the discussion, farms were just a random example of production.

>>35452313

Why would a democratically run farm not be eligible to also receive these subsidies?

>>35452363
How come?
It sums up why socialism is utterly terrible pretty well.

>>35450118
I don't know, maybe how about how commie countries caused mass starvation and murder by the state?

>>35450813
>socialism has never worked
Well then maybe socialism doesn't fucking work

>>35452396

I don't think it's immaterial. You said that "capitalist farms" were so much more efficient than co-ops.

But the "capitalist farm" agribusinesses actually are running not just on the money they make from selling goods, but also from money that is redistributed to them. Co ops are often very small and don't qualify to receive subsidies.

If we removed all farm subsidies, the cost of food would rise astronomically. This would actually make it much more efficient, relatively speaking, for people to grow their own food, because the cost of an ear of corn would go up to such an extent that it would be more worth it to grow your own corn.

As it stands now, growing your own food on a small scale is just about as expensive as buying it from a store.

The reason your so-called "capitalist farms" are so "efficient" is because they're receiving redistributed tax dollars. You can't hold those up as an example of something so great and efficient wow yay free market when they are literally able to produce so much so cheap due to getting subsidies.

>>35452283

>It does not. You forgot the fact that co-ops are massively inefficient compared to large privately owned farms. It would take magnitudes more people and land to produce enough food to sustain our growing population if all food was produced through co-ops. The fact that we would require a larger % of our population to be farmers is idiotic and a misuse of human capital.

In practice this is not true. Look at Catalonia most people were not farmers, farmers were a small minority. People had food.

>If co-ops could reach anywhere near the efficiency of capitalist farms, they would put capitalist farms out of business.

In the comment you're addressing I address this, saying you're right they can't compete because the capitalist businesses they take every measure to save cost by mistreating their workers and retorting with it works if the businesses are all co-ops, citing Catalonia which this was the case. You totally ignore this for some reason. In practice my system has shown it can work.

>>35452383
who ever even mentioned subsidies before now? we're talking mainly about anarcho-communism it seems. it's just moving the goalposts when he was originally talking about people being free to organize and provide resourced where they saw fit. (I don't know if it was him or some other idiot jumping in when he can't discern what is being discussed)

>>35452396
>>35452528

There is also the fact that large scale farming tends to create a ton of pollution, by the way. Are you factoring the poisoning of the earth by large scale agribusinesses into their "efficiency"? No, of course not.

A small scale farm run by people who cared about the long term health of the earth over $$$ might not be able to produce as much as cheaply, because they would be concerned about the INEFFICIENCY of poisoning the soil, water, and air, rather than just sweeping that inefficiency under the rug if it would make them more money.

>>35452351
If a thousand people all came together to start a company they would all only have to put in so much. They're all pooling together their wealth.

>>35450118
>Socialism
>USSR, China, North Korea...
Need I say more? Socialism doesn't work, for the simple fact that an economy is based on family's expendable income, and therefore defines the offer.
Socialism requires a total control of the economy of the state, and no government is able to change its regulations fast enough to fit the demand of the population: that is why, in eastern European countries under soviet command, there were massive shortages of basic products such as butter, sugar or even bread on some occasions.
Secondly, an economy runs on private investment: any industry is funded and expanded by individual's saving, today in the form of shares, but a socialist society does not provide the individuals with such opportunity: therefore, any economical initiative needs to be backed by the state, and it is evidently inefficient (see above).
Finally, economy as we know it is based on a meritocracy: as much as we think of it as a rigged game, a higher productivity leads to a higher salary. This is, however, not true in a socialist state: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Any worker under socialist rule is payed equally, and there is therefore no incentive to work. That is the reason why the USSR and other communist states collapsed: if there is no incentive to work, people simply don't, and therefore the economy freezes to a stop, and cannot provide even the most basic of products to its population.

And I don't even want to go into the political details of socialism, which is obviously a mess.

>>35452536
Those companies are not socialist just because they're being heavily subsidized by the government. It's just another example of corporate welfare.

>>35452615

Lol every decision a business makes has to be agreed upon by thousands of people.

Thank you for pointing out why socialist businesses are less efficient and have negative economies of scale.

>>35452585

Are you factoring in the fact that because small farms are less efficient they require more land, like I said, which means there is more area to pollute.

>5 mega farms with 50 tractors

>5000 farms with 5000 tractors

Yeah way less pollution man, another win for socialism.

>>35452528
that wasn't me who said capitalist farms
I actually agree and I consider myself very conservative. sounds like you are just describing going back to a traditional society. You won't find many right wing people here who will support subsidies, but I wouldn't say that the price of crops will soar astronomically. If it does, then more people will farm to meet that demand a very free market ideal.
>>35452585
all farming is basically the same, you've got your field, and your tractor, maybe irrigation. large scale is probably more efficient with better irrigation, newer larger more efficient tractors etc.

>>35450118
>Ok /pol/tard red pill me
>4chan.org/r9k
the biggest red pill that you are annoying leftypoltard
get out, scum

File: download (5).jpg (6KB, 278x181px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 278x181px

Face it, OP. Democratic Socialism is the answer.

>>35452802
>Democratic Socialism is the answer.
Where the fuck do you live to believe such a stupid thing?

well since you posted this in r9k instead of pol i guess you're just pretty fucking stupid

>>35452726
>the primary environmental concern of agriculture is TRACTORS
lmao you commies don't know shit about farming, no wonder you always starve.

>>35452528

>The reason your so-called "capitalist farms" are so "efficient" is because they're receiving redistributed tax dollars. You can't hold those up as an example of something so great and efficient wow yay free market when they are literally able to produce so much so cheap due to getting subsidies

Okay lets look at shoes:

Evil capitalist nike shoes:
>1 owner - Profit $9000
>9 workers- Wage $500/each
>Output $13500

Magical Utopian shoe company:
>10 Owner/workers - Profit/wage 1350/each
>Output $13500

Weird, now lets look at cars:

Evil capitalist ford cars:
>1 owner - Profit $9000
>9 workers- Wage $500/each
>Output $13500

Magical Utopian car company:
>10 Owner/workers - Profit/wage 1350/each
>Output $13500

WOW, ITS LIKE NO MATTER THE SITUATION, IF A SOCIALIST COMPANY COULD REACH THE SAME LEVEL OF OUTPUT AS A CAPITALIST COMPANY THEY WOULD PUT CAPITALIST COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS, DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF WORKERS.

File: download (6).jpg (10KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x225px

>>35452823

Not a rebuttal faggot! BERNIE 2020

File: 1481513642395.jpg (132KB, 590x590px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 590x590px

>>35450118
You know what they say: Socialism's only good when it's National.

>>35452855
subsidized education (government schools) creates people that are too stupid to provide for themselves.

>>35452859
It's not a rebuttal you idiot.
I live in a socialist country, and let me tell you that it's utter garbage: rising unemployment rate, shrinking economy overall, no more money to eat for many people, and even the government money only pays for 40% of what you need monthly to survive.
I know your free college and health care sounds nice, but in practice it doesn't work. You must be living in the US to believe this horseshit, because everyone else on the face of the planet already knows that.

>>35452855

>WOW, ITS LIKE NO MATTER THE SITUATION, IF A SOCIALIST COMPANY COULD REACH THE SAME LEVEL OF OUTPUT AS A CAPITALIST COMPANY THEY WOULD PUT CAPITALIST COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS, DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF WORKERS.

There's too much output as it is. We have far more shoes than we need, far more cars than we need, far more.

And they're being manufactured at a tremendous cost to the environment, the dignity and happiness of the proletariat, and the human conscience. These are inefficiencies you're not factoring in.

>>35452859
Bernie still has a chance of winning the 2016 election. We just need six million more shekels to reach our funding goal. Come on, reddit!

>>35452976
Doesn't it trickle down though? because people who can afford them waste money on extra shoes means a poor person can get a pair of good shoes for $2 at a thrift store. Also a lot of extra clothes end up in the third world clothing people who live in extreme poverty.

>>35452976

>There's too much output as it is.

Okay lets reduce the output by 90% then

Evil capitalist nike shoes:
>1 owner - Profit $900
>9 workers- Wage $50/each
>Output $1350

Magical Utopian shoe company:
>10 Owner/workers - Profit/wage 135/each
>Output $1350

Wow, even with reduced output if socialist companies could match capitalist companies, why would anyone work for a capitalist corporation? Its almost like they are not as efficient as capitalist companies. Weird...

>>35452976
>There's too much output as it is.
Stupid remark. If you only knew the basics of economy, you'd know that such inefficiencies would be discarded, as they consume part of the capital without bringing in any profit.
The "waste" you see is only in reality a drop in the ocean that is the world economical output: it's only a minor fraction of wat is being produced.
And besides, global production is still insufficient to provide everyone with a decent level of consumption: never heard of the fact that if everyone had the same level of consumption, we would all live in the conditions of Bangladesh? As it is now, there is no such thing as "too much production", only inefficiencies in the system and a lack of fulfilled demands due to limited capacities.
I cannot disagree, however, on the ecological aspect of it: it is indeed killing our planet. But it has more to do with the sheer population rise we see in modern human history and the inability of innovation to match this increase.

File: kek (1).png (100KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 292x257px

>>35450118
>a socialist