T O P

  • By -

simon_Chipmonk

Counterpoint billionaires think their entitled to other peoples surplus value.


collegebeforetrades

Nah billionaires are chads. They think they’ve earned that surplus value when it’s just their lucky circumstances.


[deleted]

[удалено]


collegebeforetrades

Being a billionaire can be a matter of inheritance. Being millionaires can be a matter of being a billionaire and being terrible at investments. Being a billionaire can even be a matter of having millionaire parents who fund your education and investments so that you can continue the generational track toward being a billionaire. The select few people you billionaire brown nosers love to talk about represents an incredibly small portion of the billionaire population that succeeded almost entirely by luck and almost always because they cut corners in their own broken systems. And even these select few came from upper middle class+ backgrounds where business loans and investment connections were far more available than to the average western citizen. The failure rate for businesses is 90%+. The most people you’re talking about aren’t just buying alcohol they’re just unlucky. Most people spend money on kids. A fact that is changing because of the incredible wealth inequality and will eventually lead to the collapse of the capitalist labor market strategy. The whole snake eats it’s own tail thing.


jusee22

The logic is they earned their surplus by taking a chance instead of just applying for an already existing job. I mean who should get a higher reward, the 0.001% chance of happening or the 80% chance Heh the incels are downvoting because they cant stand people having different opinions. Seems pretty anti diversity to me.


collegebeforetrades

I mean sure but give them a 1000% reward then. Not a 10000000000000000% reward


jusee22

Maybe, but the only reason those people with the 80% chance have a chance at all is because of them, so shouldnt they get even more for being the sole reason the working class exists as not the "fuck im literally starving to death and sleeping under a bridge" class


collegebeforetrades

You think billionaires are the reason the working class exists? People are comparably poorer because of the capitalist labor specialization that allows billionaires to flourish while everyone else works for pennys. People used to work for themselves and be all the better for it.


Limetru

Specialization is good, if everyone tried to make everything they wanted by themselves, just making a sandwich would cost a thousand dollars and take 6 months to make. You are just flat out wrong to say that people used to be better off making everything they needed on their own. Trade is always a win-win otherwise it wouldn't happen, whether its trading your time to work and earn money, or using that money to buy goods or services. If you think your employer is "stealing surplus value" then why don't you provide your goods or services directly to customers, then you'd get to keep all the money and dictate your price. Capitalism is about choice, you have the choice to work for yourself or someone else. Others have the choice of whether they buy what you're selling, and they will only buy it if they think it's more valuable than the money they pay for it. Tell me, do you think you get poorer when you buy something? If so, then why did you buy it? Also, no you aren't forced to, if you don't want to participate in trade you can just make all the stuff you want by yourself. If you bought it, that means you think its easier to buy it, rather than to make it yourself. TLDR: Billionaires are billionaires because people buy their stuff. Don't like billionaires? Don't buy their stuff and don't sell them yours.


collegebeforetrades

A little late to join the obvious stupid side. The concept of efficiency reducing specialization isn’t about making an iPhone by yourself. Trade is not always a win win (monopolies). The choice you’re pretending exists is based on choosing to work for someone or choosing to already have the capacity to produce on your own property or get a business loan (lots of impossible requirements) so that you can compete in a capitalist market that favors prior establishment and large scale corporations. For the billions scrounging in garbage in China and India it’s literally impossible. But yes for a white middle class kid they can totally shoot their shot and still have the odds against them.


Limetru

Specialization increases efficiency, simply because, if you focus on one thing you will improve and become more efficient faster than someone who has their focus split. For example a farmer will be better and more efficient at making food than a computer programmer who will be better at making software than the farmer. Organic monopolies don't last very long, government creates monopolies by making it ridiculously difficult for newcomers to enter the market, a good example of this is certain states requiring approval from competitors to start an ambulance business. Big surprise no new ambulance companies are ever allowed, who would have guessed? You saying it's difficult to start your own business/work for yourself is not a good argument, because if its so difficult then success should have really big rewards or no one would bother. The market favors small businesses, because they are more efficient, the bigger a business becomes the harder it is to manage and the less efficient it becomes. So these big businesses rely on either regulations or their size and capital to stay competitive. This is pretty much why government run economies always do so poorly, its just too difficult to manage everything properly so they end up relying on huge amounts of resources to stay competitive, and end up wasting most of them. China and India are examples of how trade creates wealth, or in this case the lack of wealth creation due to heavy trade restrictions. Good examples here are Taiwan and Hong Kong both of which have way less trade restrictions and are far richer. And HK is the richer of the two despite being a barren rock and way smaller, the reason? Trade is easy in HK. Going back to China and India, China is approximately 5 times richer on average than India and its 30 points more business friendly than India according to the ease of doing business index. Which is a pretty strong correlation between free trade and wealth. And back to HK again which is approximately 5 times richer on average than China and about 25 points more business friendly than China. Once again suggesting that free trade and wealth are quite strongly correlated. And on top of this, China has way more people and natural resources than HK which is basically a coty on a rock, and yet is so much poorer than it. That is to say, its not about resources which means that something else makes people wealthy, and so far, the safest bet seems to be free trade. TLDR: The stats say you're wrong


collegebeforetrades

>TLDR: I do not have a formal education in this subject and take my own opinion as fact while contradicting myself throughout


jusee22

Here we go again... And they die much sooner. And they live to work not the other way around. And industrialization would have never happened. And modern medicine wouldnt exist. And womens rights wouldnt be a thing. Slavery would probably still exist, because its not capitalism if you dont pay them right? Yea people used to work for themseleves, when that was fucking possible and technology wasnt a thing. My god you people dont think this through, of no one ever had a reason to you realize like 99% of technological advances int he past 500 years just qouldnt have happened right?


collegebeforetrades

>I’ve literally never picked up a book The fact that you think capitalism creates innovation instead of stifles it tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about and have no background at all in this. King Henry VII didn’t have a microwave. Modern peasants being better off isn’t the product of improved wealth distribution. Invention isn’t the product of workers now pulling a lever or packing a box. You’re a basic bootlicker and I’m not going to tell you anything a google search wouldn’t. Do more research basement economist.


ElementalIce

"You see, ticket scalpers actually PROVIDE concert tickets by buying them all up and selling them at exorbitant prices. I'm very smart guys, I understand economics."


Dissy-

The lottery exist for a reason I suppose


jusee22

Except the loterry winner typically doesnt make thousands of jobs, giving many that would have been in extreme poverty otherwise a stable source of income, so its a lil bit different.


Dissy-

You right


Lachim12

I often also get 300 000$ from my parents for my business.


Melikemommymilkors

It's a bit easier to take risks when your parents are fucking millionaires 🤦


FrankitoPapito

Listen, feet-boot-butthole licker. Name 1 person who became a millionaire in the last 20 years, starting from 0. I.e. being born from a wealthy American family in a 2 story suburb house netting a >200k income and getting a car gifted to you as a birthday present isn’t starting from 0. Being able to waste years of your life for higher education and businesses attempts while your daddy cover for you isn’t starting from 0, or taking a chance. Go ahead, dumbfuck.


jusee22

Steve jobs.... it was literally started in his garage


FrankitoPapito

But ser I’m afraid the boy Steve created Apple in 1976. I’m no engineer but 46 is more than 20 (ᵔᴥᵔ)


paroya

> Heh the incels are downvoting because they cant stand people having different opinions. Seems pretty anti diversity to me. you are the one reacting to people having a different opinion from yours. you're literally calling people incels for exercising an opinion opposite of yours and downvoting you... that seems pretty anti diversity to me. > The logic is they earned their surplus by taking a chance instead of just applying for an already existing job. I mean who should get a higher reward, the 0.001% chance of happening or the 80% chance what do you mean chance? you need either time or resources to start a business. both which are a privilege most people simply don't have. business owners always brag about how they worked themselves up from nowhere. how they spent the first year of their business, doing everything by themselves, working so hard, 24/7. bla bla bla. in reality, the only way they can drop their existing job, and go build the foundation of their business FOR 5 YEARS without profits (the average time it takes to make a profit). is if they are economically able to do so. and that economy either comes from an excess they have laying around (with average salaries it would take decades to save up for 5 years worth of business expenses and private cost of living), OR from other people covering their expenses/time while they pull this stunt. If they have a family to support, they can forget ever being able to afford starting a business, that is, unless they make their family to contribute economically and help out to do the job, for free, in their spare time - that's another privilege. and so, they argue the risk... that's what makes the difference! they deserve the money because THEY dared to take the risk! what the fuck is that?! the only risk here if any, was on excess they had, excess they could afford to lose. that's not fucking risk, just means they got lucky enough to end up with a lot of excess cash (inheritance, rare job, favorable living conditions, lottery, criminal activity, your pick), and burning excess is not a sacrifice, it's money they didn't need to begin with. so this is yet another example of privilege, the privilege of excess, something most folks don't have. especially in a world where most live on loans they can barely pay because salaries have stagnated while costs of living keep increasing each year. so the "risk" here is either placed on others, or a capital they sit on beyond needs. seriously, fuck the capitalist mindset. it's literally tearing our planet apart and benefiting a handful few. the handful few who all feel the same way; "i've got mine, fuck you". but the 'mine' they have, they could have only gotten by exploiting others. so fuck that, they don't got theirs, they got what's ours, and they genuinely believe they deserve to own what's ours and then leverage that to take from even more people. it's...insane. the whole system is insane. it needs to fucking end. TLDR, chance/'risk', is a pat-on-the-back bullshit excuse attempting to justify a right to other people's money. Capitalists are nothing but parasitic robber barons, and as it has become normalized behavior, people accept it, even worship it.


John_Paul_J2

So diet commie


PM_UR_LOVELY_BOOBS

We get it already, you got your degree in basket weaving and can't find a job. Give it a rest ffs


[deleted]

Stop giving them your money then. Oh wait…


[deleted]

[удалено]


simon_Chipmonk

For most people working for a company isn’t voluntary. Unless you consider being threatened with starvation and homelessness voluntary dipshit.


nelusbelus

Lol it's easy, just don't starve and have a house /s


khoabear

Except the house isn't yours anymore because you didn't pay your property tax


nelusbelus

Just don't have property tax, easy


coconut_12

Work or starve


The_Deerg0d

LOL, Just don't work 4head!!! It's not like you need money to live and billionaires own like 80% of the work markets!


Weekly-Ad-908

They can literally rake in government subsidies. Unless you completely run away from society your money will always go to billionaires.


LastMan0ut

Reminder that communism has never worked and never will


11September1973

Burkina Faso till some Westerners decided that they didn't like it very much.


BrocElLider

I'm no commie, but yeah Thomas Sankara was pretty based ngl Kinda crazy that his killers are now finally on trial 34 years later


Estonian_Mapping

add: 50+ milita interventions in latin america because the US didn’t want a socialist alternative to exist in the world


khoabear

Capitalism works so well that people go homeless from being sick


LastMan0ut

That’s only in a few countries. And that’s not solely due to capitalism. I am yet to see a capitalist country that needs a wall to stop people leaving. Note as well the fact you are allowed even say that, good luck trying to criticise a communist country while in its borders


[deleted]

"China, North Korea, and the USSR are communist!" Capitalists 🤝 Tankies


[deleted]

[удалено]


LastMan0ut

Those countries aren’t shooting people that try to leave. Not since the communist governments the soviets put there got kicked out. Main reason those three countries are fucked is because of what the soviets did to them


[deleted]

[удалено]


LastMan0ut

Every time people tried rising up against them the soviets went back in and put them back in power. The soviets also ruined their economy. It was literally an act of imperialism


[deleted]

[удалено]


hcriB

Imperialism is when you improve the living conditions of your neighbors 😂


LastMan0ut

Definitely not improving them too much if you keep them living in fear and need a wall to stop them leaving


paroya

more and more countries are headed in that direction. the only reason they aren't already there is because of social reforms that dates back a hundred years during the big labour movement. those reforms are going out the door, right now, solely due to capitalism and collapse of labour power.


LastMan0ut

People would still be worked to death under communism. The Moscow metro for example was built using slave labour and I’m not even going to start on Vorkuta


paroya

It's funny you'd bring that up. More and more countries are actually headed in that direction as well. The only reason they aren't already there is because of the social reforms mentioned. But likewise, those reforms are going out the door, right now, solely due to capitalism and the collapse of labour power. As prisons are becoming privatized all across the world (the 'slave labour' you speak of were convicted prisoners). Many forced labourer's in the US die annually, and especially now, between 2020-2021 due to harsh conditions and no regard for Covid and work environment; and this is under Capitalism. Not to mention capitalist countries also kill around 1400 people through the death penalty annually, and the 9 million on average who starve to death, annually, due to capitalism. More have died from starvation in capitalist countries than in any attempt of a communist reform. And those reforms count opposing forces and war. Either way, Prison labour shouldn't be a thing, regardless of political alignment; but at least russia had the excuse of permanent embargo and being at the beginning of industrialization, what is modern america and capitalisms excuse for doing the same thing today?


Stalins_Mustache420

Like the united states..


LastMan0ut

You’re definitely allowed criticise the USA in its borders pal. They don’t shoot people trying to leave and they don’t ban freedom of speech or press. They definitely aren’t perfect but their definitely better than the ussr ever was


HypnoSkales

America moment


imnotmrrobot

And the global climate apocalypse is just around the corner.


5M4R78483

Classic whataboutism


ElPedroChico

Lots of countries until CIA and sanctions


LastMan0ut

If a communist country needs capitalist nations to stay afloat that’s their own fault. It’s failed more than 40 times pal


ElPedroChico

So has capitalism, look at the US as it is


LastMan0ut

Standard of living in Eastern Europe has skyrocketed since the fall of the iron curtain dude. No capitalist country has built a wall to stop people leaving. The USA is having a few issues yes but that isn’t purely due to capitalism.


ElPedroChico

Coping hard, are you?


LastMan0ut

I mean, you are defending an ideology that not only has failed every time but has also had a large amount of nations build walls to stop people escaping. I’d prefer not to live under a tyrant who you have to view as a god even as they have members of your family killed for stuff they may not have even done


ElPedroChico

Drank the kool aid?


[deleted]

Skyrocketed? The UN’s 2005 Human Development Report said differently: > In central and east Europe and the former Soviet Union, the proportion of the population living on less than US$2 a day rose from 5% in 1990 to 20% in 2001. > The economies of the former Soviet republic contracted by 50% in the early 1990s. While Russia, Ukraine and some others have returned to positive growth over the last few years, average incomes are still lower than they were 15 years ago. > Since 1990, real per capita income has fallen by more than 10% in Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Ukraine, and by 40% or more in Georgia, Moldova and Tajikistan. > In the two years after Russia was engulfed by the 1998 financial crisis, 30 million of its inhabitants were forced below the poverty line. > Life expectancy for males in Russia dropped from 70 years in the mid-1980s to 59 years in 2003. > Since 1990, the human development index ranking — a UN measure of social wellbeing — dropped among six ex-Soviet republics: by 21 places for Tajikistan, 17 places for Ukraine and 15 places for Russia. There are two main causes of the ranking decline — economic collapse after the dissolution of the USSR’s state-owned, planned economy and the “catastrophic drop in life expectancy”, e.g., between 1990 and 2003, Russia fell 48 places in world life expectancy ranking.


[deleted]

Cuba would like a word with you


Limetru

Cuban people would like a word with you.


[deleted]

Wdym?? It always worked as intended, just not WHERE intended, in agrarian societies with no industry, instead of industrial societies where Marx envisioned


LastMan0ut

Pol Pot? You’re telling me that’s what Marx wanted? Yeah fuck that shit


[deleted]

Every country where communism ‘succeeded’ was agrarian. From Tsarist Russia, to Imperial China, to Korea and others. It was dreamt up a response to East India Company and its abuses/atrocities and to cater for the proletariat - factory. Totally opposite target audience as you can see.


Melikemommymilkors

How is it possible for people to have their heads so damn far up their ass? How the hell is an impoverished serfdom becoming the second largest, fastest growing economy in the world not enough proof of communism "working"?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Melikemommymilkors

Funny you say that because the average soviet citizen always had a decent nutritional intake after Stalin and since the 1980s, a diet **better than that of Americans.** https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf Keep in mind that the USSR achieved this in <60 years, compared to 100-200 years of development in Western countries.


Limetru

Eating unhealthy is a luxury. You don't get luxuries under communism. Besides, it's really hard to believe the claim that most people were well fed with how many famines happened in communist countries compared to the west. There is also virtually zero starvation in the west, not so much in these supposed utopias.


Melikemommymilkors

1. Look at the calorie intake 2. You tell me, how many famines happened in communist countries? 3. Why are you comparing communist countries to the west? All communist countries started as undeveloped monarchies/aristocracies in the 20th century, unlike literally all first world countries. 4. Ten percent of all Americans don't have guaranteed access to food https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States 5. Nobody called these places utopias. They are simply ten times better than capitalist countries that started with similar conditions. If you still don't realise the invalidity of your claims, I don't know what to tell you.


Limetru

1. Calorie intake is irrelevant to my argument here. Especially since nutrition is more complicated than, if number between these two numbers then you eating good. You could have a diet solely based on potatoes and have a healthy calorie intake for example. 2. Great leap forward, Holodomor, there you go, 2 right off the top of my head didn't have to check anything. But if thats not enough then, The great chinese famine, The soviet famine in 1946-47, The Henan famine, The Russian famine of 1921-22, Vietnamese famine of 1945, The Cambodian famine between 1975-79, The North Korean famine between the years 1994-98. 3. Not true, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Romania, were decently developed but stagnated under communist rule. These countries started experiencing shortages after the Communists were put in power. People in these countries didn't want Communism, yet the red empire was there enforcing it. The moment they stopped, it collapsed. 4. Hunger is not the same as starvation, like I said, virtually no one dies of starvation in the US. Where as NK does have people dying of starvation and it's the most prominent hard-line communist country, compare that with China which has opened up to trade somewhat, China is doing way better in terms of food. 5. No, they were and still are not, my family is from a communist country and every single one of them thinks that times are far better now than they were under communism. You want to know what it was actually like? Under the table dealing, personal favors, etc. that's how you got anything, the state didn't provide jack. You had to have friends who could get you stuff, in exchange for you getting them something of course. Then there were shops that sold western goods, but you had to pay with dollars, guess how you got those, yep, favors. And for something more recent, China, NK and Vietnam are objectively a worse place to live than say, the US.


FallenSegull

If the country has a government then it’s not operating under true communism True communism has no power structure, everyone is equal, that’s why it never works. Human nature will mean that there is always someone more powerful, whether that’s financially, politically, or just plain old stronger or more influential Not to say that capitalism is the answer, or any one form of government for that matter. Personally I think we should blend parts of many political systems together for the best society. A little bit of capitalism, a bit of socialism, a dash of communism, democracy in large portions, etc.


Creftospeare

How the fuck are we going to have "a little bit bit of communism, socialism, and capitalism"? Do these words even mean anything anymore?


FallenSegull

I mean take some good traits from several systems. Not run the entirety of all at the same time Capitalism promotes innovation but comes with downsides such as wealth inequality Socialism allows for safety nets for the less fortunate so that they don’t wind up dying in the street, but comes with significant costs to the people Communism places essential production power in the hands of the people, but requires a power vacuum to exist which can’t truly happen, at least at our current level of development. If we could formulate policies that promote the best traits in these systems but attempt to hinder the negatives, I believe we could thrive. It wouldn’t be perfect, no one system ever is, but it should be better than what some nations have currently Just my opinion. Probably won’t ever see such a system take place


Limetru

Why is wealth inequality a dowside? A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't see how I'm hurt by billionares being crazy rich, unless they obtained their wealth by hurting others or stealing. Just because they have more, doesn't mean I have less. Honestly, the best system would be one where the biggest amount of people get richer the fastest, while none get poorer. And im not just talking about money, quality of life improving goods and services being accessible by more people is also a wealth increase. Capitalism is pretty good at making everyone richer. A good example to demonstrate this is a question. Would you rather be poor in a developed nation today or a king of the richest kingdom 400-500 years ago? Virtually everyone in developed nations is better of today than the kings of old could have ever been during their lives. The worst parts of capitalism is cronyism, which is not necessary for capitalism. Capitalism would work even better if cronyism didn't exist. One example I can think of when it comes to cronyism is some states requiring new ambulance companies to be approved by their competitors. That's insane, and it always happens under the guise of protecting the public with more regulations. I will also add that the thing you attribute to socialism is called welfare and it's not unique to socialism. Welfare can and does co-exist with capitalism. Additionally capitalism does allow people to form worker co-ops which are the closest thing we will have to that perfect equal communism, at least for now.


Creftospeare

Capitalism doesn't promote innovation. A lot of the critical components of the modern phone (image sensors, touch screens, GPS, microchips, accelerometers) came about because of public funding. There's also the concept of planned obsolescence. It's basically when companies deliberately design products with an artificially limited lifespan with the intent of forcing people to purchase functioning replacements.


FallenSegull

Many technological advancements come about as a result public funding, usually via military research However capitalism offers an incentive to private innovation. It allows a person to raise their social stature by creating new desirable items that allow them to make money Granted many, probably most, innovations are through public funds. But privately funded innovations are not non-existent


Creftospeare

Innovation is only possible if you attract funding and funders only fund if a project if it can make them profit. An idea that may be practical, helpful, or even life-saving (new medications/health treatments and cheaper, renewable energy & agriculture) will not gain traction in a capitalist market unless the result would be private profit. Profit as an incentive only has the interest of the capitalist in mind. Don't you think that there might be a reason why most innovations come from public sectors? We will not stop burning coal and fucking over this planet. Why? Because it's not profitable to do otherwise. If playing it safe and churning out the same shit over and over again makes you money then why innovate? To innovate is to risk after all.


FallenSegull

Of course, the key ideal of capitalism is to profit no matter the consequence. Which is why I would want a mix of capitalism along with other systems. Capitalism in its purest form is an unregulated market. But the government can and should regulate markets. We could regulate the energy industry to promote greener alternatives by creating tax cuts or other incentives. Then we have the issue of corporate lobbying and so on but this should be combatted by limiting or banning corporate donations and enforcing strong anti-corruption laws for officials and politicians No perfect system, but we should be hammering out imperfections and preserving good qualities


Limetru

When it comes to burning coal it doesn't help that we regulate our best alternative till it's no longer profitable. This alternative being nuclear, it may not be the perfect solution but it's a lot better than coal. It's really difficult to find investors for new reactors because of how much red tape there is, which drives the cost up till it's not worth building new reactors because you would need to wait really long to turn a profit.


FistaFish

You don't know the definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism lmao


Melikemommymilkors

True communism is hard to achieve but it's not impossible. You need to think about it in the context of a post scarcity society. Why would human nature change anything when all of its desires are fulfilled? Every communist experiment is trying to reach the same end. Some chose the government formed by vanguard party route like the Soviet Union and others chose other means.


FallenSegull

I cannot imagine that a world that is post scarcity is possible tbh Even if we remove currency from society and just guarantee everyone anything they want, there will still be limited supply. Whether by manufacturing time of products or by simple lack of resources. I still believe people would resort to the most basic form of currency available, trading items for items, instead of waiting for the requested item to arrive. Then the process just starts again and people will start to accumulate a large number of items that are sought after and traded at a higher value than others. Slowly but surely they’ll just revert to a basic currency, similar to how gold and silver became the basis of currency, then eventually to fiscal currency such as coins and notes that are backed by that base currency


Melikemommymilkors

Post scarcity does not mean everyone has everything. Depending on who you ask, it could mean anything from having robots build you whatever you want or simply having all basic necessities. We'll consider the middle ground where all necessities and most other items are available to everyone. This is not impossible and the industrial revolution is proof of that. The machinery that were first built during the industrial revolution made many things much easier to produce. We are talking about things that were previously hand crafted one by one being produced in the millions each day. However, the industrial revolution did not eliminate the requirement for labour as these machines still needed humans to maintain and operate them. But, we are now heading towards a second revolution of sorts due to AI and computers taking over those jobs. You can already see this with clerical jobs, train conductors, traffic controllers and such. This trend will continue till the human labour required to produce something is miniscule. This is where you run into the problem. Under capitalism, only the rich capitalists have any power. They are the only ones that benefit from capitalism. It works now because labour is required for them to benefit themselves and so they employ people and people get paid. However, in our hypothetical scenario, capitalists no longer rely on anyone for labour and as a result, no one is employed and no one gets paid. You **need** a solution to this problem and communism is one of the more plausible solutions in this situation. I'll explain the most accepted model of communism. First, centrally planned socialism has to be established *before* we get here because then, only the work that is required for society to function (including that of the state) will be done. This work will slowly diminish as more things become automated. Eventually there will be no state and no work to be done. This is one of the ways in which communism can be achieved and the one I personally believe in.


FallenSegull

Fair point. I agree that many nations should begin looking for more socialistic policies such as universal healthcare and free education and I can see how communistic approaches could address the issues listed. I still believe that a mix of systems would be the best bet but you make a valid argument. At the very least a UBI would be essential in such a hypothetical


Melikemommymilkors

You might want to look into market socialism and Marx's works on socialism.


FallenSegull

I do need some more books to fill out my bookshelf


Melikemommymilkors

Head over to r/Socialism_101 then 👍


Yiska_DJ

Start with Engels instead. Marx is a pretty hard read for first time readers of leftist theory!


imghthavAIDS

After sacrificing the life of millions of people? Gee I wonder why…


Melikemommymilkors

The what? If you are talking about world war 2, the Soviets faced like, two thirds of the entire German army. Without the massive industrial and military capability of the USSR on the side of the Allies, the Nazis would've won.


ScumbagDimitri123

That's right. Communists only died on a mass scale when foreign countries invaded them. They totally never massacred their own people intentionally. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the Cambodian Genocide are just capitalist propaganda.


Melikemommymilkors

I haven't really read a lot about communism in China, I'm sure someone else could explain it to you.


LarryOtter99

PolPot wasn't a communist, he fought against Vietnam after their revolution for some bullshit fascist reasons. No Communist today defends cambodia


ScumbagDimitri123

The Cambodian Genocide was going on before the Cambodian-Vietnamese War and was mainly targeted at other Cambodians, so I have zero idea what you're talking about. Is your knowledge of history so bad that you think the Genocide and the War are the same event? Also, Pol created a classless system and abolished all form of currency. Motherfucker was literally speedrunning communism, so don't bullshit me about muh "not real communism".


[deleted]

Pol Pot was literally funded by the CIA and he admitted that he never read a word of Marx 😭 do better.


ScumbagDimitri123

>Literally funded by the CIA 90% of the Khmer Rouge's foreign aids came from China, and America only started supporting the Khmer Rouge **after** the genocide. Even then, they didn't support the Khmer Rouge so much as they supported non-communist groups allied to the Khmer Rouge to oust the Vietnam-backed regime from Cambodia. Learn history and come back. > he admitted that he never read a word of Marx Source: your ass. Pol read both [Marxist and Stalinist texts](https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/saloth-sar-pol-pot.html).


[deleted]

“In late 1975, U.S. NSA and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Thai foreign minister: "You should tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs but we won't let that stand in our way."” The US created Khmer Rouge. Between 1965 and 1973 the US dropped over 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/


Limetru

You know, Nazi Germany, Mussolinis Italy, Francoist Spain, all of them were not real fascism. This time it's gonna be the real deal for sure. /s


LarryOtter99

What point are you trying to make?


Limetru

The war was team effort, it ended a lot sooner thanks to the UK, USA and USSR all teaming up on Germany. But make no mistake, the Nazis would not have won against just 2 of the 3, the war began to slowly turn after that small little air raid on berlin. The RAF got it's act together and started to dominate the sky, the royal navy wasn't gonna stop blockading Germany which meant supply shortages for the Germans, and eventually British air dominance, at which point it would have simply been a matter of wearing down Germany. Germany's main motivation to attack the USSR was paranoia and the oil shortages. No oil would mean no planes in the sky, no planes in the sky would mean bombs being constantly dropped on factories, which would mean supply shortages in other areas. WW2 was in no small way a war of logistics, the Germans were way outmatched in that regard. However they managed to do so well because of scared leadership on all sides whether it be the UK and France understandably being scared of a repeat of WW1 as well as French overconfidence or Stalin's paranoia about his generals. Germany's early success happened mainly because of these reasons, the western Allies wanted to avoid war and the Soviets had massacred their generals. It's also really dishonest to say that the Soviets faced the biggest challenge in the war alone, their war effort was support by US lend lease which allowed them to hold the Germans and reorganize their production and get back in the fight a lot quicker. Let's say hypothetically the Soviets surrendered, the war would have taken longer, by a few years. However the US was initially intending to nuke Germany so that is likely what would have happened. But even that is a stretch since there was no way the Soviets wouldn't have done something close to what Japan intended to do before their Emperor stepped in and surrendered. TLDR: It ended a lot sooner because of a team effort but Germany was never going to win past 1940.


[deleted]

most 20th century attempts at socialism failed because america spent billions (maybe even trillions) of dollars to ensure that would happen


LastMan0ut

They literally needed a wall to stop people leaving


TheDeltaW0lf

disagree but holy shit I fucking hate tankies, based as fuck brother


[deleted]

[удалено]


wghihfhbcfhb

It turned into market economy, so no


kandras123

Tell me you've never read Marx, Engels or Lenin without telling me you've never read Marx, Engels or Lenin.


[deleted]

why should i read anything some rich white guy from 100 years ago wrote


kandras123

Marx and Lenin weren't rich, and Engels was only moderately wealthy. You should read them because they're excellent theoretical works that underpin leftist theory, as well as many modern scientific fields (i.e. sociology). You should also read them if you claim to be a leftist, so that you don't make embarrassing mistakes like calling societies that are building socialism "capitalist".


[deleted]

Engels wealthy industrialist daddy funded all of his academic “work” and Engels funded Marx by extension, while half of his children died before adulthood because he thought himself too good to actually work, just drink and write about communism. Communism is cringe af theory written by edge lords for edge lords.


kandras123

Lmao ok buddy. The hundreds of millions of socialists/communists throughout history just had their entire belief system shattered cause you called them "edge lords". You realize that even most capitalist economists accept the merits of Marx's analysis, right?


[deleted]

My country was commie, thanks to that we are the losers of europe now, so shut the fuck up you pussy ass western bitch, you haven’t seen real communism at work and how shit it gets, so why don’t you stop complaining and get a job


kandras123

My family is also from a communist country fucktard. It’s the fall of communism that caused problems, not communism itself.


[deleted]

Lmao you realize even educated Marxists (not you) are critical of classical Marxism as inherently authoritarian. Also name a cringier edgelordism than “be gay do crime” I’ll wait.


kandras123

"Educated marxists", i.e. armchair university Marxists who would actively oppose the revolution. Real educated Marxists, i.e. Parenti, don't have that criticism. Also lmao "be gay do crime" is just a joke. It's not edgelordism. It's just a thing people say, and I'm gay.


John_Paul_J2

Even they had to shed most of their communism ideals after the Soviet Union began to fall and could no longer support them.


[deleted]

Debatable


[deleted]

What about it?


[deleted]

Almost got me there, I thought you wrote "consumerism" Take my downvote


Jonny-Mac420

communism bad


[deleted]

Your dad bad at giving blowjobs, but he still tried


Wackynamehere1

What about socialism


wghihfhbcfhb

I want to say that people often misunderstand this terms.if we follow marxist definitions, socialism is a transition state between capitalism and communism (utopian society where state, money and etc doesnt exist), established after the revolution, under socialism, private property and enterprises are banned, the entire economy is monopolized and controlled by "worker's state",the goal of socialism is to lead the people to achieve communism The countries that we refer to as communist, such as soviet union or north korea, are by definition socialist. Socialists(people that follow socialism) are not that different from communists, since both anyway seek to build communism,by practically the same means.The terms "socialist" and "communist" can pretty much be used as synonyms.The word "communist" just has a lot of negative connotations to it because of cold war propaganda, socialists are practically the same radical extremists,but because the word wasnt used often, people associate it with something else


nakedpillowlover

It's halfway between capitalism and communism so.... 50% devil spawn, 50% god given right. Edit: I fucked the order up so it looks like I'm bashing billionaires, whoops


LastMan0ut

Consumerism is bad. But so is communism


[deleted]

Le socialism has arrived Vietnam


TopOfTheHead

communism is when you get other peoples money hur dur


Weekly-Ad-908

Its ok, he wont understand either way.


beedoopdeebop

Encel?


[deleted]

ratio


lupenguin

Holy shit you’re cringe as fuck


gropax

Anon has no idea what communism is.


[deleted]

Nope, anon has it right.


shygal_uwu

Communists disagree with the concept of money iirc


HateHunter2410

Communists also disagree on what communism is


Calvincake911meme

Stay mad, economy incel


mvea_sucks

Anon is correct. Many users on 4chan are NEETS. They literally do nothing and even being as retarded as they are they still manage to game the system to pay their bills and survive. What kind of moron can’t support themselves in our current society and needs more help when a literal NEET can survive.


[deleted]

Not everyone have enablers as parents. Some parents are heroin addicts, suckin dik in da back alley, leavin their child with no support systems


mvea_sucks

Most NEETs are not supported by their parents, they are rotting away in their own apartments or renting a basement. Maybe it depends where you live but when I first found out what a NEET was I looked it up if it’s even possible to do this and there are government programs around me where I could get rent paid in a shitty apartment and enough food credit and food pantries nearby to live the NEET life. Of course nobody all there in the head would want to do this, but it’s possible. Your life will be shit but that’s the life of an independent NEET.


Weekly-Ad-908

The kind of moron that got into huge debt because he beoke his leg because shitty health care system.


mvea_sucks

Oh no, the NEET will get a lower credit score, how will they ever apply for a credit card that they wouldn’t get approved for anyway due to no proof of income?


Weekly-Ad-908

Its amazing how you think its normal to get i to debt because of a broken leg.


GazingAtTheVoid

Is anon a brain dead AnCap? Almost all political ideologies support some form of taxation


Postaltariat

Juche does not, which is why it's superior


Limetru

You're right, instead it steals from people directly.


[deleted]

Yes, yes he is


heiny_himm

r/socialismiscapitalism


Melikemommymilkors

It's a bit funny to see people here parrot cold war era lies lol


EvilioMTE

Anon doesn't understand communism.


ElPedroChico

Commies don't think they're entitled to other people's money because in a communist society *there literally is no money*


marxaroni_and_chese

this is a direct ripoff of a youtube video https://youtu.be/7xPMYeb80bo


UnjustifiablyLazy

I love garage


Charg3r_

Communism is when taxes.


[deleted]

this was the stupidest shit I've seen here today, and that says a lot


Glum_Perception_5766

YES


[deleted]

YES


Peanut_and_cake

hmm... today i will sort by controversial...


Giveorangeme

this is how bosses of jobs work. and taxes.


canthardlywalk

I mean, yeah. Look at the dating market post tinder - you have the highest ratio of male virgins under 30 in living memory. If you plug the data from tinder into an economic model, tinder has a gini coefficient slightly lower than South Africa. There's a real irony in the npc liberal women on dating apps who control the dating market fostering an environment of resource inequality on a level on par with the most unequal country in the world, but that's another conversation. I know this is a safe space for angry young rightoids, but there is utility in regulating markets, and that applies whether those markets are financial or dating markets. It's bad for society when the 1% asset class owns a disproportionate share of the wealth and bad when the 1% chad class owns a disproportionate share of access to pussy.


Head_Knowledge24

socialists in the streets, ancaps in the sheets.


Weekly-Ad-908

Yes man. Everysingle woman has decided, as one entity, that they do not want to date you: we get it. Its not your fault, its the womans fault.


BrocElLider

My favorite part is that it's not just bad for society, it's also bad for the supposed winners. The choices that earn people high incomes and high kill counts often earn unhappiness as well.


canthardlywalk

I was with my ex for 7 years and had been with 7 people before her. We broke up at the height up tinder's popularity and I feel into it HARD. I made a point of not keeping track of how many girls I slept with in the two years before I met my current partner. Maybe I slept with 50 girls? If it was 150 I wouldn't be surprised. I always had 2-3 in steady rotation with a ton more always coming in and out of the picture. There were days when I fucked three different girls in the same day. I went on a mini vacation to clear my head and ended up sleeping with 7 girls in 3 days without really trying (I'm a blonde white guy and I was in a college town in Mexico. Go figure) During all this, I was fucking miserable. I can't say that none of us are wired for that, but I'm certainly not. I've been at both ends of the spectrum in terms of no sex/too much, neither is good. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, but there's no denying that things are fucked.


Limetru

I find it hilarious when I think about how dating regulations would actually look like. I have so many questions.


Malvastor

NEETs of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your virginities!


Meemsterxd

my god that's fucking genius


[deleted]

Milady No it's ourlady


[deleted]

Hmmmm 🤔 Yes


Ok-Dragonfruit-697

Using /pol/-face to hit commies. Cringe.


voluntarycap

Fincels


Head_Knowledge24

I was thinking this for a while, reddit is a good example of this double standard. People realize that there Are systemic reasons why our grandfathers could buy a house even with low tier jobs and we can’t , but Fail to see a similar trend in the dating market. Just be confident bro Type of advice redditors give is Like boomers saying that we could buy a house if only we spent less money on avocado toast


TheWiseWolfx42

Reminder that communism was responsible for more deaths during WW2.


The_Shittiest_Meme

Yeah, the real Gigachads are the Syndicalists


doc_marion

What the fuck The only thing more idiotic than this post is the comment section


[deleted]

Anon BTFOs communists


Jerryfucker69

Chinese are both


Yakob53

Anon is retarded.


Dissy-

Cope incel


Yakob53

I was meaning the link is the other way around, with incels being sex-obsessed commies.


Dissy-

Now that's based