Here's a controversial opinion: Marxism is actually pretty rad

And the poor want access to better healthcare and proper nutrition. But not everyone can get what they want, right? Haha, oh well, that's how the world works I guess!

Id say move to Venezuela commie faggot

Why don't you move to Venezuela and see your plan in action first hand?

Fuck you, anytime the rich help the poor, the middle class gets boned.

There's always one question that I can never get a good answer out of you people:

why SHOULD the rich help the poor? like, all of them. Sure, it would be nice but they're not obligated.

> Here's a controversial opinion: Marxism is actually pretty rad

Nice bait. have a (You) and fuck off, burger.

>prove me wrong

80 million dead in China
20 million dead in the USSR
5 million dead in Cambodia
Countless millions in NK

>The rich aren't doing enough to help the poor. There should be a salary cap and a restriction on bonuses and what CEOs are allowed to gain with their stock options, and production of goods like luxury cars and pic related should be halted until we've solved for scarcity and poverty.
None of this is Marxist, you dumb fuck.

Centralized power is still an issue. Marx mostly criticised the existing capitalist system.

Society is a self-ordering system. Marx is best, but he was not right about everyting, and most Marxists are dogmatic idiots. Incidentally, MArx said he was not a Marxist.

>Nobody should have ever been allowed to live in something like pic related.

Agreed. All property should be given out by the Church.

Why do the rich have to help the poor? Further, why do you feel that your word should be law and followed by others?

There is a lot of people wanting to do things to make the world less unjust

But commies just yell at private property, call anything that doesn't involve invasive wealth appropriation capitalism.

And it always end up with middle class being the ones hurt while the real rich escape or is not even in their countries, with the bureaucratic class being the new rich elite.

Because the rich helping the poor would mean the poor would be in a better position to help the rich. There are a lot of poor people out there with the potential to do great things in the world but can't because they weren't born with the money.

Plus, no more "poor areas", so you can feel free to live in San Francisco and look at the Golden Gate Bridge without getting human feces on your shoes.

No, the question is

> Why should the state allow the rich to have excessive wealth?

The state's job is to innovate, end injustice and ensure rights are respected. Being poor is harmful to people, and the rich can voluntarily give up their wealth, so they should do so.

There should be a death penalty for being rich, like we criminalize possession of other harmful things, like drugs.

Centralized power is good. Actually, what Marx really wanted was to understand enough math to run a country. He didn't get there. But we can.

All those figures are made up.

Hundreds of millions starved to death in Africa, India and the Americas from capitalism though. And possibly billions from unplanned global warming.

>burger flag
>keeps voting GOP
Wonders why he has a gun but no money

The only way socialism works is if it's attached to a strong and rightepis nation with a unified ethnicity, language, and culture. Communism is retarded because it gets rid of any form of meritocracy. Nobody will do a good job at highly skilled labor in a true communist society because everyone will just be pocketing their gibsmedats.

Industrial revolution? You marxist fucks got BFTO a century ago. You're in your death throws. You think wealth is static, so one man's success is another man's gain. RETARD. If that were the case, we'd still be chasing the herds. Man became richer when he planted seeds. He was richer again when he industrialized, and again when we BTFO the fucking ruskis and you paradise died. You fucking marxists, the only good thing you people ever did was Kafka, and he fucking sucked. Metamorphosise my fist into your face, sucka.

>Why do the rich have to help the poor?
My argument to that: And I don't think my word should be law. I don't know if anyone's word should be law. This is a board for political discussion; it's not congress.

If anyone could make communism work it's the Anglos

in a true communist society there are no jobs you dumbfuck

You're not giving me a reason why a rich person SHOULD. A chap SHOULD be free to Scrooge away all he likes if he's accumulated his own wealth.

>nd the rich can voluntarily give up their wealth, so they should do so

Well why would the rich want to live in such a state? As should as you add the words "have to give up" you're doing it by force. You're ok with the rich giving up wealth at figurative gunpoint?

The real problem is deeper than the question of whether to apply private or public ownership, It's in the monetary system itself.

It requires governments, corporations and people to compete with each other and constantly seek for new ways to gain an edge over competitors whether it's through technological innovations that will inevitably replace most of the labor, lower standards for labor or human rights to justify longer working hours, lower wages and poor working conditions or through health, safety and environmental standards because investing to cleaner tech and actually testing your products from harmful long term effects is actually expensive. This will lead to ever more waste, pollution and health issues among the population making it even harder for people affected to contribute to the society.

The harsh reality is that in the end it matters were little for these problems who owns the corporations or the state.
youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

I do however agree that the income inequality right now is among the biggest problems the world has right now as it leads to ever more structural violence which will eventually crash any system as it leads to more and more social instability.

the rich help the poor every fucking day you fucking moron. Did you go to fucking walmart? I bet you did, you hayseed fuck. RICH PEOPLE OWN WALMART. And where would you store your shekels if not at the rich people bank? You think the rich all inherited their money. RETARD. If that were the case, where the shit did the original rich get it? Carnegie? Oh yeah, that's right, they did BECAUSE WEALTH GROWS YOU FUCKING RETARD!

> uses the word meritocracy
> doesn't realize it's from a satirical novel about a dystopia

Meritocracy is a bullshit concept in the first place. It lasts precisely as long as the people who get rewarded can't get their own kids a leg up, which they always will.

We're moving towards a post-labor world with automation of most things. Work should be on a voluntary basis, at most a few hours a week.

You may be right that socialism is easier to get to in a unified ethno-state, though. If we divided America into ethno-states maybe whites would be happier about paying for the welfare of whites only.

>the great leap forward was made up
>the killing fields were made up
>holodomor was made up

Thus is why you never argue with a Commie. They're retarded.

Also

>Look at all these undemocratic non-western countries that starved to death in much smaller numbers, this proves western capitalism is flawed

I like that you're so dedicated to nationalism that you allow yourself to be publicly owned...

Wait the rich are inclined to help the poor? No thanks.

Of course. I'd force the rich to give up their wealth. The rhetoric about "wealth creators" is an incredibly stupid bluff. Jail the rich, or just kill them.

> a fantasy system that doesnt work with human nature is rad

yeah I can imagine some nice things too, to bad.

A class of people have always existed, who have skills that only the wealthy can afford to patronize. In the past it was furriers, masons, glazers, and other artists. The men who build those opulent homes have an opportunity to utilize that patronage to allow their children to move up the socioeconomic ladder. The other effect is to produce things of beauty, which elevate our culture.

You are striving to make a world where everyone lives in some tar paper nigger shack and no one tries to obtain or make anything good.

If you want to effect some change, murder CEOs or elect someone who will abolish derivatives and QE.

I FUCKING KNEW IT. Cred Forumsacks, heed my words. THESE FUCKING COMMUNISTS ALWAYS START TALKING ABOUT ROBOTS. These SiFi faggots spent too much time reading Asimov, they really think robots are gonna give them muh utopia and sheeeeit.

If you want to help the poor then you need socialism. But indiscriminate socialism is no good. It leads to open immigration. It leads to the parasitic elements within society taking advantage of the social programs. It also leads to a situation where the weakest hold everyone else back. Thus you need an authoritarian system and a nationalistic system, to keep the people in check and prevent immigration, respectively.
You want to foster national identity to reinforce the sense of community between the people of a nation who share genetic traits, cultural values and a common history. That is Socialistic Nationalism or National Socialism. I Like to call it NATSOC for short.

All those figures are made up though.

Capitalism DEPENDS on hundreds of millions of people starving to death in poor countries so they're desperate enough to sew Nikes together for 12 cents an hour. And then you clap yourself on the back for living the good life. Communism at least bears the costs for what they produce.

>China is getting there already
China is capitalist as all hell, and there isn't even a welfare state in China, the fuck are you chatting?

This is too much. Goodnight, sweet faggot.

Wait, so Silicon Valley is communist now?

We are automating everything faggot. The question is how we restructure the economy when most people are useless.

It's substantially a command economy with state owned enterprises. The Chinese have a lot of control over who does what.

>Implying shitskins in the third world are people.

Go home cuck.

>There should be a death penalty for being rich, like we criminalize possession of other harmful things, like drugs.

Whoa, bro! That's going a bit too far, don't you think? We should work on preventing the crime before rashly doling out punishment for it.

Like I said in the OP, whatever someone has now, I believe they are entitled to it. But I also think it's in the benefit of the now-rich to help poor people just because it would make the world a nicer place for them. If someone thinks the only way the world can be a better place for them is if they have more money, they're greedy. I think the government is now in a place to interfere so that the rich can retain their wealth, but not continue to suck resources from under them like a bunch of selfish assholes.

Forcing someone to do something they aren't legally required to do is pretty fascist. As things stand, doing so would be considered illegal. You are basically saying the rich should be forced to give up their rightful money to help the poor, to appease your feelings. Be honest, you're a 16 year old white girl who lives on the coast aren't you?

OMG yes silicon valley is fucking communist, you all vote for fucking democrats. Automate my fucking dry cleaners, maybe I wont have to pay those damn beaners. Oh but thats right, fucking machines are fucking expensive and no one wants to make them unless they are making a lot of money AND THEY WONT DO THAT UNLESS YOU PAY THEM and if you set up a super-bureaucracy, you'll just get cucked over and over and over because no one cares about you, they want to use your bureaucracy to enrich their bank accounts.

I hope you're working on automating automation, that's gonna be fun.

Those communist countries were awful because they were filled with chinks, not because they were filled with commies. Millions of people have been killed BECAUSE they were commies too, communism doesnt automatically lead to genocide.

>those figures are wrong

>80 million people in Mao's great leap forward

paulbogdanor.com/left/china/deaths2.html

>15 million dead holodomor

research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Holodomor

>5 million dead killing fields

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

Commie pls. Or is this just evil anti communist propaganda?

It's only controversial to people who don't understand Marxism. Marx never suggested socialism was the right approach. He merely said it was the opposite approach to Capitalism.

What he was proposing was that there was a thesis (Capitalism) and an antithesis (Socialism), which would eventually both fail and become a synthesis (a mix of both).

Which is really what it should be. Free market with government controls. Communism will never work, but neoliberalism hasn't exactly been a shining light either...

>The rich aren't doing enough to help the poor
90% of jobs is created by someone rich.

And no one would risk their economic livelihood creating a business to become a part of the 99%

What is technology for if not to bring us closer to utopia?

Yo calm down. You're not exactly making this position seem reasonable.

furthermore, you automating whore-beasts still haven't figured out how to automate out the fucking sand-niggers taking my order at mcdonalds. that should be step one, shouldn't it? maybe automate out the beaners picking my cotton? Those are the faggots I want gone, why the FUCK HAVEN'T YOU AUTOMATED THEM OUT YET!?

Good to know you have a balanced view on things

This is exactly my issue - it's what you think is BEST. Hell, I agree with you. I like to think if I was rich I'd give tons of that stuff away but the harsh reality is: you can't say people SHOULD do something, only that you'd like them to.

>Nobody should have ever been allowed to live in something like pic related.

How about advancing to a technological and genetic level where all can live in something like pic related or even better and even on other planets?

>And this is why (real) National Socialism > (((marxism))) and (((capitalism)))

KEEEEEEEKKKK OH FUCK MY SIDES.

You faggots aren't even ready for free universal healthcare and uncapped welfare let alone a fair minimum wage but you're gonna be "socialists" LEL too funny

Good. The petite bourgeoisie are the biggest fascist supporters.

It's not about "help", the rich will have their wealth and property seized whether they like it or not.

While I understand your point of view. In fact, I hate capitalism myself. I think that living in perpetual anxiety of scarcity is what causes "progression" in this case. But capitalism isn't anything you think it is.

First of all, there's no wealth disparity; or rather, the wealth disparity has literally no effect on the quality of human life.
Per 1 barrel of oil, 3 Danish people can share the energy. Per 1 barrel of oil, 23 Americans can share the energy. That is a big difference in the amount of oil produced or attained by Denmark and United States, especially considering that Denmark isn't even dependent on oil as much as the United States. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the capitalist system in the United States has done good so far considering it's on the verge of collapse.

What you think of as "Wealth disparity" has no effect on the economy.
Look at pic related. It somewhat makes sense to the liberal viewer. But it's completely wrong. Wealth is like its own pie chart. The 1% might own 99% of the wealth, but the 1% only buy 1% of the actual baked pie. Thus wealth doesn't determine how much pie there is, but who gets the pie; and in this case, the person who gets the pie is the more financially responsible person.

Utopia is a fucking island where people fuck animals and children, you sick twisted degenerate fuck. You fucking robot people are pathetic.

Why is it their rightful money? Just because they worked for it? That doesn't follow. You're actually using Marx's labour theory of value there.

You may as well claim money belongs to them because God decreed it. There is no reason to claim money belongs to anyone for some reason. In reality the state gets to decide how wealth should be distributed.

Those first 2 links are obvious horseshit.

Now take a look at the difference in life expectancy between poor and rich nations, which could have been avoided with serious wealth redistribution. Amortize over centuries. That is billions of lives taken by capitalism.

the problem isn't what it says, it's what it does

marxism is likea magical spell that's made up of cute stuff that sounds super nice, but once you say the spell, random people start to become retards, and society starts to collapse

gender wars, class wars, race wars, the context doesn't matter

marxism destroys societies

Can't see them wanting to stay in your new utopia for long then. Can't see anyone. Where's teh cut off point before you're seizing whatever the fuck you want?

here they say the rich by their egoism improve the situation of the poor, like unintentionally

do they Gandalf?

youtube.com/watch?v=5l4OEJ38aLY

>and again when we BTFO the fucking ruskis and you paradise died.

I would argue things would be better if we had been more isolationist and let subhumans kill and starve eachother in their own lands if they wanted to.

Marxism is the prohibition of private ownership and the end of wage labour.

Limiting wealth and increasing wages of workers isn't Marxism, is just capitalism with a safety net.
Keynesianism and shit.

Depending on the level of development of your capitalist economy, and the capacity of your government to tax and redistribute wealth, then you would have varying degrees of this safety net.

I'm OK with that.

There are really few people that actually want to end private ownership of things and means of production.
The ones that actually do are mostly kids who have never worked and have no idea about economics, or the same old people that believe that Tesla had a free energy generator, plus the same old tired Marxist uni teachers.

We are only discussing how much money can the government steal through taxes without crippling the economy, and what government programs can we actually afford with that money, and if they are actually good for us, or just a means for the government to perpetuate and increase itself (ie useless farm subsidies, useless liberal arts scholarships, etc)

The modern left isn't Marxist (most of it) they are just burocrats and freeloaders wanting free shit, they have no idea about economics, and they don't really care.
They point out to "the Nordic model" as an example of the economy they want, but only focus on what they get for "free".
"Free" uni, "free" health care, "free" everything. Not one do they stop to think how that "free" shit is paid for.

They think that we, mexico, actually can afford that.

Fuck modern leftists, at least the old ones knew they had to work for the things they wanted (or at least have slave labour do it for them).

>Look at pic related. It somewhat makes sense to the liberal viewer.

Hmmmmm..

AH, it all comes down to the same spot. After you start raving about Robots, you attack my religion. Of course you lost sheep think the State is the ultimate authority, that which decides man's fate, because you have no God. Godlessness is next to worthlessness. Read a Bible. Heathen.

the poor don't care about proper nutrition. It's been tried many times but they'll choose cheetos over broccoli every time.

no son

He thinks Marx wouldn't have gulagged the SJWs and trannies

That's cute

As a communist I believe it's my duty to support right wing politics because their policies cause economic growth to take place at a higher rate which means post scarcity will be reached sooner. All communists should support the right wing.

OOps wrong picture..
Here it is.

Cont'd

As I said, the person who is more financially responsible gets more money. Now, the reason why the economy is going into the shitter, is because of constant inflation and deflation. It decreases the value of money while simultaneously decreasing the amount of money, so prices stay relatively the same, but the wage keeps getting lower and lower, and the interest keeps getting higher and higher.

>The rich aren't doing enough to help the poor.

And that is bullshit because the poor woulkdnt be poor if they were smarter or more hardworking.

I'm not saying that. The rich should get to keep what they have now, but regulations should be put in place to keep them from gaining more without helping someone else along the way. It seems like most rich people only seem concerned with getting more rich. I never really hear about someone just retiring once they've made a certain amount of money. They always need a mansion; then they need a jet; then they need a private island.... Rich people work so hard for themselves when it would be more beneficial to just not work at all.

lolol hehe

see

Hierarchies are good for society, actual competitive capitalism is the fairest hierarchy in the world. Even with the reams of laws firms have protecting themselves using legislative capture anyone can innovate and swoop in and take the money given the chance.

Human incentives and the NAP will never allow communism to work, socialist policies are almost never efficient unless in very specific situations of public goods and externalities. There are no marxist models of the economy with predictive power, only armchair pontificating.

Thats the reality, now if you can prove quantitatively that a command economy where no one has incentive to do anything will grow be my guest.

I would argue the same, except I love killing commies so much. And busting up their empire, drinking their bitter tears, mocking their pathetic robot-crazed SJW offspring, it's like every day is Christmas.

>Because the rich helping the poor puts the poor in a better position to help the rich

What exactly do the poor have to offer that the rich would want? Directly, why would a rich man invest himself in the poor man's well being?

Question also still stands from an ethical perspective. Why am I morally obligated as a rich man to give to the poor?

Notice how the poor nigger has 4 kids while the white middle class has 2.

>Wants to unemploy island developers, jet builders and pilots, and mansion construction workers because you feel they are opulent assets.

You seem really pro worker.

Private property and inheritance of unearned wealth have to go. Beyond that, people will be pretty much free to do what they want unless they're harming others.

> actual competitive capitalism

Then you point to the monopolistic shitshow we have in capitalist society and they're all like "THIS ISN'T TRUE CAPITALISM". Capitalism seems to work better in theory than practise.

On the other hand, communism worked, really fucking well, to reduce poverty and make sure everyone had food and shelter. Introducing capitalism to communist countries invariably fucked their life expectancies. Because capitalism kills people.

it represents how the poor makes up the largest group. and the rich make up the smallest

post scarcity. that's cute. 100% odds this cute little shill starts talking about robots. Seriously, no joke, he's going to say that robots are the answer, robots will save us all. no more scarcity. no more work. fucking wall-e is the working class now.

> SJW
> commies

do they have SJW in Venezuela? do the government back them?

The state's job is to uphold the rights of its citizens, not "innovate" or "end injustice". What the fuck are you smoking?

>a bloo bloo bloo muh poors have been suffering for centuries
Do you have any any idea how much better off people in "poverty" are now compared to 100 years ago, especially in a developed nation? Even the poor families can put food in their refrigerators, even bums can go to a soup kitchen and get fed. Wealth is not a zero-sum game; developers refraining from building luxury apartments isn't going to create any more housing projects.

Sometimes hard work and smarts just won't cut it. Take schizophrenics, for example; they can be honest, smart, hardworking people for most of their lives, but then one day their mind just snaps and they're stuck on meds that turn them into zombies for the rest of their lives. Luck is a very, very large part of success, and I think you'd have to be very successful and also ignorant to not see that.

>Marxism is actually pretty rad
dropped

Its their money because they earned it or were gifted it, ala trust fund. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is also illegal. Just because you say it doesn't belong to them, doesn't magically mean that they have no right to their own personal belongings or assets. I understand your point of view satan, I'm rejecting it because your premise is false. If you can't see that, you are too far gone.

>the reason why the economy is going into the shitter, is because of constant inflation and deflation.

I think much of capitalisms problems could be solved with a return to the gold standard. Money today really is a lie we are all being (((fooled))) into believing unbacked paper is worth something which means people can make shit tons of wealth by having the right connections and manipulating money not actually creating something of value.

Everyone lived much better when we had the gold standard. this gap only began when we went off of it

>inb4 some marxist fag argues it was only better because the white male built it on the back of the poor oppressed coloureds

Exactly what I've been asking.

Isn't it up to me to decide which poor/disenfranchised I want to help? What if I have more affinty with dogs and want to leave all my money to a dogs home?

SJW are all about making their fellow man just as cucked as they are. Sounds JUST LIKE THE FUCKING COMMUNISTS. Venezuela? do they have nukes? no? thanks for bringing up irrelevant backwater hellholes.

No, innovation is more important than rights.

If the state can end injustice by killing you, then it should. And if you stand in the way of an important innovation, like an infrastructure project, the state should also kill you.

The state's existence is justified not by democracy but by its goals, which are innovation and change.

Should be a jew at the top, and why are the poor black? That's racist.

>the (((rich))) aren't doing enough to help the poor
>so we need some (((Marxists))) to take over our government and show the (((rich))) how its done
How about you ingest enough poison to cause your internal organs to shut down and your body to die?

what if the rich just play with poor like with toys? or abuse them? because the gap is so big they are afraid of nothing

All of those workers can do jobs that aren't solely dedicated to luxury. Construction can be done for the good of many in exactly the same way it can be done for the pleasure of one.

Ky shill, muh (((communism))), muh (((equality))), muh (((false opposition)))
Seriously ky shill

404 Argument not found.

please don't waste my time with posts like this

r vs k selection

So, once again, you're telling someone waht to do with their property.wealth at figurative gun point. My wife's son has "earned" his inheritance in my eyes, not yours.

>Communism worked

No in fact it failed where the market would have made people more wealthy. You are conflating development of the economy which would have happened anyways in the Soviet Union, with the economic policies they employed.

People became better than shitty dirt farmers thanks to advancement of technology, industry, and education, all things that would of happened anyways. Not to mention this was often at the expense of satellite states who starved to death immensely. They grew despite the rigorous and terrible cost of their policies not because of them.

If you look at developing countries now you will see the same thing repeat over and over, where the more market liberal and adaptive ones succeed and vote buying socialists sink, like Chavez.

Who are you to determine that the utility of one person is worth less than a few others?

You are just using Marx's value theory of labor as a crutch without even realizing it. Labor does not justify possession. That should be done on ethical grounds.

How do we make people want to be great again?
I mean theres no reason for people to put in the effort to get out of poverty, you have food, water you can fuck all you want, theres no real meaningful endgame here to pursue. Its only hurr burr i got loads of money now or hurr burr that roasted pigeon was quite dry and im quite curious how a pigeon tastes like. I mean if we had a common enemy and everyone had to do their part people would find it meaningful enough to do something about their surroundings, maybe thats what we need, war.

>Who are you to determine that the utility of one person is worth less than a few others?

I don't exactly get what you mean by this. I'm saying that any given job done in the service of just one person can also be done in the service of many. Like, 10 engineers can build a private waterpark for a really rich dude, but those same 10 engineers could also build clean-water infrastructure for an impoverished town. I believe the pay for building infrastructure should be higher than what they earn for building the waterpark, but I'm assuming that isn't the case right now.

Communism means that the means of production are in the hands of public or government. Which is exactly the case in China.
China being "capitalist" is just a buzz word by liberals and marxists who simply can't accept the fact that this is how their utopian idea's work out in real life.

>So, once again, you're telling someone waht to do with their property.wealth at figurative gun point

Yes. Capitalists did the same thing to destroy feudalism. Hence the bloody revolutions in France, England, the USA etc. Those revolutions led to the domination of society by a select few. Socialism will disperse power to all.

until you can automate all the shit jobs, enough people working in a job and somehow not get upset at the non work leeches, have the entire population live in relative luxury. it still wouldn't work because people are cunts

Please end you life

Since the stance of Marxism is that all who are rich are greedy:

>Limit the amount a CEO can make
>implying the implied super greedy CEO won't cut wages and raise prices to keep the company running and still afford super nice things.
>The workers suffer from long hours at low wages, the public suffers from high prices of living while the super greedy rich people live at the same level of wealth, only furthering the gap between the bourgeois and proletariat.

Which, surprise surprise, is exactly how the Soviet system worked.

>salary cap
>Marxism

Nice b8 m8 I r8 8/8

But you misunderstand, those workers are paid the same either way, then they spend money in the economy to consume other things to employ those impoverished people you want water infrastructure for. In reality there is not enough incentive or money to build the clean water project at all, if they build the water park, they at least might consume and help provide wages for the impoverished.

capitalists just hate the poor

then I go back to my earlier point: people won't want to stay in your shitty "utopia" people wont want to trade with your shitty "utopia" and you'll die out.

Cuntopolis will not thrive.

>implying the implied super greedy CEO won't cut wages and raise prices

Good thing wage labour will be abolished then.

lol u are 12

Yeah, marxism is pretty rad until you want to actually live. t. country with 40+ years of communism

One thing is a fact: The "Greed is good" is a meme that's been pumped into the American mind. Literally a mental disorder. Even Hollyweed, that one machine of degeneracy Cred Forums hates, promoted it. Today, greed is a norm. The masses who cry muh dorrars, don't even know they don't own that fucking piece of paper. It's too late now. The roots are deep.

>why would a rich man invest himself in the poor man's well being

He wouldn't. He would invest in getting the poor to become not-so-poor so they don't have to use the sidewalk outside of his luxury apartment as a public toilet (*ahem* San Francisco).

And, yeah, it should be up to you who you want to help. I think there's a way to make that happen without letting billions of dollars collect dust in some Jew's vault because he's concerned about losing the interest he'll make if he ever spends it.

Looks alright. Nobody's starving, people get to talk to each other, everyone has a house and a job.

Now for capitalist countries we can start with Haiti, India, Nigeria...

I've admittedly never read marx or anything like that really. Just because you say that labor doesn't justify possession doesn't make it true. What does labor earn someone then? If it earns nothing, labor is not incentivised, and therefore not a worthwhile pursuit. Ethics justifying anything is just a brainy muh feels.
>t. high school graduate, no higher education

I personally think we could do much better than a gold standard. The problems we have now is due to constant inflation and deflation. If we instead switched to a national central bank that issued debit cards, and we got rid of the budget, and we didn't let people take more than they can put back, then we'd have a better system. I think it'd be reasonable also to lower private interest as well, so we could have low risk private banking.

Why do people deserve anything?

youtube.com/watch?v=M4vS4UWZ0nQ

oh, come on!

Are... are you alright?

>implying a poor person cannot network
>implying a poor person is stupid
>implying a poor person cannot pool resources and achieve a next tier goal

>implying a poor person cannot build a company who sells products to the rich, eg; the house/decor/style in your pic
>implying people will not try to overcome the salary cap
>implying there no criminals who earn untaxed/off record wages and therefor the cap does not apply to them, therefor massively increasing the likelihood of people doing criminal activities..
>implying corruption does not exist.
I could go on forever.

People are not absolutely entitled to keep the money they earned.

Labour creates no entitlement to property. The claim that is does is merely a culturally specific preference: the labour theory of value - ironically a pillar of Marxist theory. Other cultures might claim that God's grace, or piousness, or filial devotion, or patrilineal descent, or status, create the entitlement to property and wealth. There is no objective standard by which these claims can be ranked.

On this issue, you say what you choose to believe. I say the state should tax those with more than an acceptable minimum income. But what if they are the creators of wealth, and they refuse to create when they are taxed? Well then let us all live in poverty, and let us imprison them, for trying to blackmail the state into lowering their taxes. It's simply political bluff, for a particular group to claim that they are the 'creators of wealth', and that the rest of the population owes them obeisance for this reason. In all probability, not much will happen to the Gross National Product, if the self-styled 'creators of wealth' lose their privileges.

An actual Marxist knows that this is not the case. You're advocating technocracy: that some enlightened, benevolent, bourgeois overlords will deign to reorder our economic structures for some mutual gain between bourgs and proles. This has not, can not, and will never happen.

Pls kys

>But capitalism already inflicts mass death and misery - look how many people in other countries starve to death we could've prevented.
You mean the undesirables to the white race? I don't see a problem with this.

Nice cherry picking friend, let's take a look at a quality of life index...
numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Noticing any patterns?

Countries that murdered a lot of people and stole their shit are still rich today?

>people wont want to trade with your shitty "utopia" and you'll die out

Clearly, capitalists won't tolerate it. Hence the need for world revolution.

Level with me, do you actually believe what you just said?

Ahaha, that's a good one. I needed that.

>But capitalism already inflicts mass death and misery - look how many people in other countries starve to death we could've prevented.
how the fuck is it capitalism's fault that some niggers in africa are starving.

with any other system we ALL starve instead.

Salary caping rich people and restricting their bonuses and stock options won't actually make 1 fucking person richer. Not 1.

Sage you fucking embarrassing nigger.

Sounds like each place had no strong christian ties...

>gibsmedat mentality
how about you go and prove yourself in life, show me you deserve what you're asking for

t. dignity is a meme

it is the future you chose

>Nobody's starving
Holodomor, Great Leap Forward etc.

If you are so concerned with the fate of Haiti then i suggest you move your revolutionary fantasies there.

As far as the western world is concerned, capitalism works, nobody is starving and there are no food lines.

>nobody is starving
There are plenty of malnourished people living in poverty in the West. Meanwhile there are loads of fatties waddling about due to exploitation of the third world. Rationing is a good thing.

This is interesting, you say in one breath that global famine is not the result of capitalist economics, and also that without capitalism, we would "all be starving".

It's almost like you understand that profit is inherent disparity that, on a global scale, arbitrarily punishes and benefits its unwilling participants.

Why are people not entitled to do whatever they want with their earnings? I see your point of view, what I'm failing to see is anything that backs up your premise that individuals shouldn't be able to do as they wish with their own assets. Just because you think you, or the state would be able to spend it better doesn't mean you, or the state should get to spend it. I'm sure I could drive your car better than you, does that mean I should be able to take it from you?
We are all entitled to property, so long as we earn it, or it is freely given. We are entitled because we are a free people. To take away property ownership and wealth would be the same as placing the workers and all who don't decide who gets wealth and property into servitude.

Economic Marxism is wrong.

George Soros agrees with that.

What we have to focus on is Cultural Marxism.

Punishing the rich doesn't help. Punishing white men will solve the problem though.

Capitalism has PREVENTED people starving to death in other countries.

The famines in post-collectivized China and Ukraine weren't abnormal events compared to the numerous famines which proceeded them under liberal/feudal economies.

>i have subpar intelligence, innate talent, and drive so i want to benefit off the successes of others to supplement my lack of success

wew

This rote regurgitation of meaningless talking points is just as much a meme as the original post.

>those things never happend cuz I say so
There must be a connection between being mentally ill and a commie.

not really understanding your argument

Are you implying that niggers starving in Ethiopia is capitalism or the result of capitalism? That is a hilarious point of view, if so.

They are not "your" earnings, they are earnings the state has provided you with, indirectly or directly, by providing a stable economic framework. You have no right to anything that conflicts with state goals of innovation and ending injustice.

> Just because you think you, or the state would be able to spend it better doesn't mean you, or the state should get to spend it.

Yes, it does mean that. The state can plan and implement infrastructure and megaprojects, and take risks that individuals can't. This furthers the state goals of innovation. It would be right to take your wealth to do this.

Pretty clearly it hasn't. Look at the life expectancy difference between Australia and Indonesia.

The former. People get Marx mixed the fuck up as some sort of moral crusader. Dude just wanted to find out how political economy worked, and he actually fucking did.

I'm just the product. It's already been chosen for me.

The poor aren't doing enough to help themselves. Fuck off nigger. Communism never ends well.

this. Marx didn't invent socialism either.

holy shit you are stupid

So, niggers starving in Africa is capitalism, but people eating garbage in Venezuela to survive is not socialism?

>capitalism always fails and is responsible for world hunger and all of the evils in the world
>socialism can do no wrong and is always right, even though I cannot point to a single successful implementation of it

kek

>not your earning
>work on field
>sell your produce
>BUT IT'S NOT YOURS!

If at least few of you commie loving fucks would live in actual communism you would shut your fucking mouth and wish you were living in capitalism.

no

when are you leaving for venezuela then?

There's no need to "sell" things for money under communism. Goods and services are produced and distributed according to need, not the pursuit of profit. You produce something, you get something. With the increased automation that communism would bring you'd have much more free time to post on this Mongolian frogposting forum,

I was going to argue with you, but the lower half of your sentence made me realize there would be no point. I'm not sure if you're trolling or really are that fucking stupid.

They most certainly are my earnings. The state provides me with one thing, taxes. I work my ass off fixing cars. I run my own business, and employ three other people. I can tell you one thing, if the state tried to take me (meager) wealth, I would shoot them for it. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.
As far as conflicts with state goals of innovation, and ending justice goes, just because the state thinks they are more important than me doesn't make it so. Most of what you propose is state mandated theft. It has been attempted before and did not end up as hoped. The state is important, but not more important than its citizens. That's why the constitution and bill of rights are written in the language of restricting government reach and scope.

People claiming our economies are ready for socialism are idiotic. Developed countries with increased automation would just signify that your work force will have to shift to other fields revolving around technology. The market would have a high demand for variations of egineering, science, computing, etc. What I would suggest is that the educational system should be tweaked to where people can focus primarily on a specific field, as opposed to taking other courses to make them "well-rounded."

For people who suggest communism is good in theory, you are kidding yourselves, human nature contradicts how communism is supposed to function, so the ideology does not work on paper or as an idea, nor does it work in reality. An economic system that takes into account the flaws that human has, is going to be your ideal system.

Btw, wealthy people are good for accelerating the process in which lower incomes are able to afford high-tech/ used-to-be expensive devices. Once you get wealthy peope to raise the demand for a certain good, it would give businesses the incentive to increae their supply, this lowering the cost for the said good. In some occasions the market will increase the demand & supply which would cause an increase in prices, but that isn't commmon as the other statement.

Nigga my country lived under communism and it wasn't all beautiful as you might think.
Most of the time the only produce you could get was vinegar and salt so fuck your merry fantasy.

Kys commie fag, go preach socialism in North Korea and gtfo here

>Technocracy

Thank you for teaching me this new word. I'll hold out hope that it will happen one day, whether I live to see it or not.

Then where would all the money go?

Protip: immigration is class warfare, progressives support capitalists so their taxes can pay for cushy government jobs, and conservatives haven't won a battle for centuries.

I was watching some YouTube tripe last night about someone flying first class on Emirates and I'd argue that such flagrant displays of excessive wealth might as well be a form of degeneracy in their own right.

It made me want to authorize fracking everywhere in the States while invading the gulf states Genghis Khan-style to plunder their ill-gotten oil wealth so that we can further rebuild America.

Your opinion is fucking stupid and invalid. The world is not my burden and i don't give a fuck about people. There are too many as is.

Your country didn't have the technological development for communism.

And that's the problem you dumb fuck

Rad as in radical? No fucking shit

radical is not a good thing