Far-left General

Right?

And capitalism does?

I smoke heavily so I probably will.

>When Marx wanted them genocided.
[citation needed]

Also
>very short picture """refutation""" of Marx with minimal reference to anything out of the outrageous amount that Marx wrote.
There's a lot to criticize about Marx in retrospect, but right-wing infographics never really do it right.

The fuck is this image? Marxism is what caused ALL of this.

Because the capitalist countries don't let it work. I think communism can work in first world countries.I don't know where people think that others won't work. Everyone will work and everyone will pay taxes , do you really think people will just live on the tax increases from the rich? Fuck no, if you want communism to work you need to give it a chance! Revolutions are gay BTW.

>feminism welcome
>liberals not welcome

Need help
seeking an abortion and all the local clinics are denying me
what do?

>Marxism caused capital, totalitarianism, corruption, lies, stormfaggotry, inequality and antipathy.

I'm fairly certain that all of those existed before Marx was even born. With the arguable exception of stormfaggotry.

>I want to kill my baby.

You have your own place to be degenerate over at leftypol.

Why commies hate fascists because their worship their leader, while they litterally suck the dick and eat the shit of a man who never worked his whole life ?

>just saying facts
Well, current president of France, François Hollande, is socialist.
And François Mitterrand (also president) was too.

>Feminism
Go back to Tumblr, "" Democratic Socialist"". Feminism isn't inherently leftist.

why do you faggots want to be slaves in a kike pyramid scheme?

figure your shit out quick once lead starts flying the time for talk is over,

ns is like communism except without kikes genociding white people

That's not real Socialism. The only Marxist Socialist countries in existence today are North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela. Europe is a mixed economy.

Hollande isn't a socialist.

Quite ironically, but to be expected, the socialist party of France is not socialist in the slightest. It's barely social democratic even.

Communism is totalitarianism.

>feminism

kek.

>national liberation

Yes comr8. We shall liberate ourselves from Mr Shekelstein's economic shackles.

The motherfucking irony is real, the extreme far-right of 1940 now turned into extreme far-leftism in 2016.

Seriously try giving critism or say something offensive without getting your head chopped off by a bunch of feminists BLM's SJW's and PC's.

Minorities deserve equality if their culture isn't offensive or contradictory to our way of living, and not empowerment and entitlement.

I'm looking at you dumb shit mudslimes that look at women as if they're inferior yet get away with this shit and the average white men that gets wrongly accused for rape and cuckolded.

Fuck this gay earth.

Europe isn't a mixed economy. Unless you mean a mixed-economy in terms of Keynesian and neo-liberal economics.

ITT

Well yes, I did. Also yes, all of Europe isn't exactly the same but lost of them are.

I know is not the same as (Marxist) communist, but not the exact difference.
Post Scriptum: Thanks for your reply.

Worked for western civilization, worked for China, works for everyone. Capitalism is just the system of contract laws that enables people to do business. Communism as an economic philosophy doesn't exist. Communism as a political philosophy is a totalitarian, genocidal cult.

Fuck off

this is what you people have been reduced to

after trump is elected your dreams are over, permanently

suicide is the only choice

>reactionary ideas
lel socialist movements were reactionary brought on by fear of change by the introduction of liberalism changing the means of production and industrialization, and moving away from agrarian societies. You're the real regressive reactionaries, and you always have been.

Homocommies checking in!

What's wrong with Capitalism exactly?

>In a monetary and Capitalist society, people are exploited by being forced to sell their labor under the guise of it being a voluntary exchange. In reality, in order to survive, one has to become a slave, earn little money and live whilst people above who command power take the profits of your labor away from you!

Ok then, what's your solution?

>A society where all workers are equal and all get the necessities of existence! People would produce products based on desire and common love for the longevity of the Human race!

So, how do you decide who gets these necessities of living? What if I decided to not work and just get all my things for free?

>If you don't work, then you don't get the necessities of living!

And who gets to decide who gives out the necessities of living?

>An elected body of representatives, workers and unions!

So these people, with power, are forcing people to sell their labor in exchange for the bare necessities of living?

>Yep!... O... Oh wait

Exactly.

Kys filthy degenerate

So Jew-Agenda General?

Kys kikes

Hey look the enemy of the free world.
I'll be sure to hang you traitors first.

Viva la revolution comrades. The proletariat must be awoken to their own exploitation and it must be US who awaken them. I am indeed an activist and a revolutionary, not one in the real world but one in the cyber world. I have awoken many people in the comment sections of websites, combating the porkies and reactionaries on the battlefield of the internet. I have also done my part as a brony and an atheist to spread our ideology within those groups and i am so proud of myself.

Today i have a new name, I am no longer Samuel Ferrel but have been reborn in the revolution. My new, revolutionary name is Leon Fauxy

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

Except it doesn't. If we judge capitalism by the same measure that we say communism has failed then it's clear that capitalism is an absolute catastrophe. Outrageous amounts of death happens annually in capitalist economies and it has done the more damage to the planet than any other system by far.

But of course because of our ideological lense the deaths that happen because of private industry don't matter, it's not counted. We only worry about deaths that can be blamed on governments such as the USSR or China. People look at that and say it's clearly socialism's fault for being a poor means of allocating resources. Much fewer people look at all the starvation and exploitation in capitalist economies and say that clearly this is capitalism's fault.

Is capitalism a totalitarian, genocidal cult too? It sure has caused enough totalitarianism and genocide. Even the capitalist foundation of private property is implicitly totalitarian at heart.

Anybody want a ride?

Except common-owned agrarian societies were very short-lived and much like industrial capitalism arose with the decline of feudalism.

It's not like we had a thousand years of agrarian socialism. No, we had feudalism. Then we had a brief shot at agrarian socialism before industrial capitalism took over. Now we have to worry about industrial socialism.

>Ok then, what's your solution?
Worker control of the means of production.

>What if I decided to not work and just get all my things for free?
You go to the gulag.

>And who gets to decide who gives out the necessities of living?
Quite honestly I like Yugoslavia's model where market forces were still utilized just with worker control of the means of production. Market socialism seems to be a perfectly egalitarian and efficient means of distributing resources.

The rest of your post isn't really applicable to what I'm on about with that said.

topkek

...

I like this one.

>Outrageous amounts of death happens annually in capitalist economies
Where are you getting this? The first world is where the least death happens. Christianity is a religion of peace.

>and it has done the more damage to the planet than any other system by far.
Because capitalism enables technological progress.

>Even the capitalist foundation of private property is implicitly totalitarian at heart.
Private property is the opposite of totalitarianism. A person owning their own property, as opposed to someone else owning their property, is the opposite of totalitarianism.

Yes it didnt work in the past, but today with all the information systems we have, it could easily work.

Ecosocialists checking in!

It is applicable big fella, I exposed the empirical contradiction in the nature of your ideology. I want you try to overcome this contradiction without being fallacious.

How do we fix the issue of exploitative labor whilst also ensuring the necessities of living are distributing.

antifa checking in

is that a dude

vode ford more isglamic gommunism :DDDDD

kys senpai

>The first world is where the least death happens.
Except capitalism isn't limited to the first world. As a matter of fact a very important part of modern capitalism is that it's global.

>Because capitalism enables technological progress.
This is true.
But it doesn't really concern what I said since capitalism is still grossly irresponsible with that technology.

>Private property is the opposite of totalitarianism. A person owning their own property, as opposed to someone else owning their property, is the opposite of totalitarianism.
Except it doesn't, private property is totalitarianism of the highest order.

It would be totalitarianism if the POTUS decided that the entirety of America is now his private property and everyone must pay rent and work for him with no democratic say in the matter. Just as it is in the workplace, or in rented housing, or so forth. With private property the owner can exercise total control over his subordinates as long as they wish to be paid so that they may live.

Worker control of the means of production is the solution to this. Democracy in the workplace just as should be in the state.

>right-wing infographics
You realize you're not saying anything here, right? This is an ad hominem, not a refutation.

>I want you try to overcome this contradiction without being fallacious.
Except I did, as your post didn't account for using market forces to efficiently and fairly distribute resources.

>How do we fix the issue of exploitative labor whilst also ensuring the necessities of living are distributing.
As I said, market distribution. Worker controlled production. Workers aren't exploited as they enjoy common ownership. Resources are distributed as required and with reward to the workers through the market.

My argument was that the post doesn't really reference anything Marx wrote. It just assumes a very crude understanding of Marxism.

The bit on right-wing infographics was just an aside.

Daily reminder that post-messiah Judaism is (literally) Christianity, meaning the true Israel is the spiritual body of Christendom.

That modern Judaism is properly called Talmudism, which has its origins in Pharisaism and is the ideological opposite of pre-Christian-era Judaism.

That Talmudism/Pharisaism is the richest ideological firmament for Satanism, which found its purest expression in the act of crucifying Christ as urged and committed by the Pharisees of the time.

That modern "Jews" (actually Talmudists - the spiritual successors of the Pharisees - as per the above) generally originated in Khazaria, but have lived internationally, intermarried, and converted (both in and out) for so long as to have no discernible genetic or familial heritage.

That the "13th Tribe" and "Ashkenazim" racial memes are Hasbara psyops designed specifically to justify the current occupation of Palestine known as "Israel," as well as employ a political parry silencing anyone who names the "Jew" or criticizes their activities as being a racist. There is no "Jewish race."

That the extortion at the Temple - whom Jesus drove out and excoriated - was promoted and conducted by the Pharisees of the day; that the modern day extortion employed by the same "Jews" (actually Talmudists - the spiritual successors of the Pharisees - as per the above) via the Federal Reserve and similar monetary and usurious banking rackets are spiritually identical in form, function, and nature of perpetrator.

That the Holocaust (TM) is designed to subvert Christ as the preeminent messianic sacrifice, and in supplanting Christ as messiah replace Him with Talmudic satanism disguised as "Judaism."

That if you don't know the above, and much more, you have a long way to go before you are "red-pilled."

You know what. If you dont like SJWs, Transexuals, feminists, mudslimes and welfare niggers, then helping to spread communism faster will solve your problems. They will be the first to be sent to the death camps after they have been useful to globalism.

caravantomidnight.com/how-america-was-compromised-from-within-part-i/

>Insurrection

>Creating unrest, disrespect for police and the military, and infiltrating the judicial system with unelected and appointed justices who refused to enforce law according to the Constitution of the republic being undermined was the basic foundational strategy that characterized the model of overthrow. Using such deceptive narratives as civil rights, women’s liberation, removal of God from governmental affairs, and orchestrating immense spending on social programs, creating gender confusion, all eventually rendered a culture rife for collapse and takeover by the very enemy that had been identified and somehow rendered acceptable through the multifaceted conditioning of popular opinion by the Communist doctrine. Using this recipe for disaster that nation would be toppled.

>The followers

>Bezmenov also commented that the “Useful idiots” of which we see in hordes today throughout America would have to be executed out of necessity as they would soon realize they had been duped through propaganda and when that happened they would become the very first wave of the enemy that the socialist regime would have to contend with.

But private property isn't obtained through simple declaration.
It's obtained through mixing labor with natural resources, or through contractual (i.e. voluntary) exchange.
In other words, it's either created or bought/sold. In this regard, it is not only the furthest thing from totalitarianism but also the most ethical way of allocating resources.
In your ideal, a man who mixes his labor with natural resources must forfeit the fruits of said labor to the public. This is both disincentivizing and unethical.

Ok, so clearly you are pro the exploitation of labor, since you believe that people should be forced to work in order to survive, and the products of this labor should be seized and distributed.

At this point then, we're arguing about what form of economic model maximizes economic potentiality, standard of living and production for the average individual. The battle is between:

>Selling ones labor in a private exchange

or

>Selling ones labor in a state regulated exchange

Let's look at the only example of what you propose., Yugolsavia:

>There have been rampant wage-price inflations, substantial rundown of capital plant and consumer shortages, while the income gap between the poorer southern and the relatively affluent northern regions was unchanged.

>the unemployment rates were amongst the highest in Europe during its existence and they did not reach critical levels before the 1980s only due to the safety valve provided by sending one million guest workers yearly to advanced industrialized countries in Western Europe.

>In the mid-1960s, Yugoslavia lifted emigration restrictions and the number of emigrants increased rapidly, especially to West Germany. By the early 1970s 20 percent of the country's labor force or 1,1 million workers were employed abroad

>The deteriorating life conditions of the 1980s Yugoslavia were reflected in soaring unemployment rates, along inflation. In the late 1980s, the unemployment rate in Yugoslavia was over 17 percent, with another 20 percent underemployed. 60% of the unemployed were then under the age of 25. Real net personal income declined by 19.5%.

Case in point, the only example of your non Communist system operating ended in failure. Capitalism continues to prove to be the best at maximizing economic and market potentiality.

>It would be totalitarianism if the POTUS decided that the entirety of America is now his private property and everyone must pay rent and work for him with no democratic say in the matter.
Which is pretty much what happens after a communist revolution.

>With private property the owner can exercise total control over his subordinates as long as they wish to be paid so that they may live.
But he doesn't have total control. He's not forcing anyone to work there. Yes, some people who are less educated will have more difficulty finding work, and they'll choose to work there even though they don't really want to. That doesn't mean they're being exploited or oppressed.

P.S. the scenario you described with the PotUS is a reality, via taxation.
Your ideology is a product of critical misunderstanding and ignorance of economic mechanisms.

Marxism is much like capitalism an example of 20th Century socio-economic technology. Neither are realized ideologically in any sense of that word, they are instead reference points. In the 21st century, mankind is faced with an ecological crisis which is the result of and cannot be solved by the technologies of the industrial revolution. A revolution isnt required, but if government is to serve its purpose the reduction of resource consumption must be vigorously pursued. This necessary condition of life has no ideology and any talk of competing ideologies is as irrelevant as religious zealotry and even more dangerous

>Outrageous amounts of death happens annually in capitalist economies.
Source please?

More Than Half of Russians Want New Soviet State - Poll
themoscowtimes.com/news/article/more-than-half-of-russians-want-new-soviet-state---poll/566745.html

What makes you assume technology can't solve it?

>But private property isn't obtained through simple declaration.
It literally is though. Things like land in particular are only commodified by declaring them to be so at some point in history without any act of creation of exchange. At some point someone just showed up, decided it was theirs and ever since has been private land.

Even in the case of created or contractually acquired property it is still no more than a declaration backed by the means to defend you claim, most notably through state recognition and subsequent enforcement. If for instance, were to make a bowl out of some clay you found and decided it was your property your act of making it didn't materially transform it into something that can be called property. It is only such because you decide it is, and only remains so as long as your claim can be defended. With state apparatus this becomes both much easier to defend and much more complicated as to the nature of property. And that is the point of socialism, the revise these claims in a way that is more beneficial to the majority of people.

Additionally
>In your ideal, a man who mixes his labor with natural resources must forfeit the fruits of said labor to the public. This is both disincentivizing and unethical.
Actually if you read some previous posts you'll notice I'm advocating market socialism where it's still possible to sell your creations to people.

He means third world shithole countries

"I've got a great idea! Let's turn the natural order on its head and live in utopia!"

-The far left

Yes, capitalism does work. It has worked and it will always work as a means for a free society to organize themselves in a world of resource scarcity. Capitalism only needs a few regulations and tweaks in place to protect the workers from outright exploitation of their labor. Every 1st country basically has that now. Whether it be minimum wage laws, pension, or disability benefits. A regulated capitalist system is the best for merit based achievement and still not letting people work for dirt.

Communism as it has been tried has failed. Communism as you naive idiots want it in an unrealistic utopia of everyone getting along will never happen.

>Far-left General
this board has threads like this because it is inhabited by leftists for years already

>since you believe that people should be forced to work in order to survive,
Well people are forced to work to survive as a reality of nature. I'm just in favour of making it so that they work that they can survive, not so they get the bare minimum whilst bourgeois leeches profit immensely on their labour.

>and the products of this labor should be seized and distributed.
No, that's not what I said at all.

>Case in point, the only example of your non Communist system operating ended in failure
By this logic the Republic of Ireland is a catastrophic failure due to the sky-high unemployment, inequality and emigration despite being one of the """freest""" economies in Europe.

Yugoslavia of course in the end did end in failure. But not due to economic reasons, rather due to nationalist militants.

It is just /r/ socialism that raids this place

Yugoslavia was not a good economy

According to commies the entire third world is capitalist - places organized by tribal law and sharia, with nothing guaranteeing private property and the upholding of contracts, are poor because of capitalism gone unchecked.

These are the mental leaps they have to make to keep their delusion alive after the fall of the USSR.

>With state apparatus this becomes both much easier to defend and much more complicated as to the nature of property. And that is the point of socialism, the revise these claims in a way that is more beneficial to the majority of people.

You're suggesting that the state take up the responsibility of redistributing wealth in a way that it views as fair. This is where everything goes horribly wrong and the state executes and tortures millions of people because they can.

>But he doesn't have total control.
Yes he does. As a private owner you do have total control over what you do with your property without any consideration as to what the workers want.

Of course thanks to the state there are limits as to how hard the propertied class can exploit their workers.

>That doesn't mean they're being exploited or oppressed.
It very much does mean they're being exploited though. They have a weakness, and people with resources unavailable to others are using this advantage for their own benefit. This is exploitation of the highest order.

>but it's voluntary
Yes, you could also say it's voluntary if your parents threatened to leave you homeless unless you allowed them to molest you. Of course you may allow it, but it's not really voluntary at all, it's exploitation of your weaknesses by using property to their advantage. It's a great injustice and it doesn't have to be this way, property is the problem.

>apitalism only needs a few regulations and tweaks in place to protect the workers from outright exploitation of their labor.
Except that's just not true. Capitalism depends on the exploitation of labour as unless you're exploiting the surplus value of your workers you could not possibly be making a profit.

>Communism as it has been tried has failed. Communism as you naive idiots want it in an unrealistic utopia of everyone getting along will never happen.
Except communism literally has never been tried and probably won't for some centuries to come.

I come here daily and I can't remember the last time I saw a Far Left thread. It's almost as though CTR is finding a new path, trying to sow seeds.

>You're suggesting that the state take up the responsibility of redistributing wealth in a way that it views as fair.
Actually I'm not arguing for redistributing anything. I'm arguing for revising what is already a material reality.

Means of production are there, workers work at them. What I'd like to do is repeal the state enforcement of them as private property so as to let the workers control them democratically.

>Well people are forced to work to survive as a reality of nature.
Working is a reality of nature, but not competition, the Will to Power or the natural hierarchy?

>I'm just in favour of making it so that they work that they can survive, not so they get the bare minimum whilst bourgeois leeches profit immensely on their labour.
Then you are not a Communist. You should remove all Communism symbolism. You are more suited to Social Democracy

>No, that's not what I said at all.
Yes, you did say that. When you say that products should be distributed equally and fairly among the population, you're pro seizing! That is seizure!

If you actually don't believe this, and believe that a state shouldn't come in and seize goods, then people will privately own goods and will likely exchange goods through trade. Suddenly it's Capitalism.

So either you're a Capitalist, or an Authoritarian.

>By this logic the Republic of Ireland is a catastrophic failure due to the sky-high unemployment, inequality and emigration despite being one of the """freest""" economies in Europe.
Tu Quoque, also, you are absolutely over exaggerating the state of affairs of Ireland. Yugoslavia literally couldn't feed it's people, Ireland doesn't suffer from high rates of poverty.

Face it, Capitalism is the best way of maximizing distribution of goods effectively, not state governed command.

>Yugoslavia of course in the end did end in failure. But not due to economic reasons, rather due to nationalist militants.
Did you ever stop and think that perhaps those Nationals destroyed Yugoslavia because it failed?

>British communists are shilling for Hillary.
Okay, why do you think this?

What I'd like to do is repeal the state enforcement of them as private property so as to let the workers control them democratically.

What does this mean exactly? Shifting control from the business owner to the employees?

OP you haven't answered my question in one of your previous threads. What is your current occupation? How much have you worked in your life?

Not a fair question. We're posting anonymously for a reason and we should be able to separate ideas from someone's personal life.

>Capitalism depends on the exploitation of labour as unless you're exploiting the surplus value of your workers you could not possibly be making a profit.

What about the rest of the time - when the employer doesn't make a profit, because the product is worth less than his expenses to produce it. Is the employer then being exploited by his workers?

Or is he just upholding his part of the employment contract, as both parties should?

>but not competition, . . .
They are to an extent. Perhaps I don't think they are in the sense that capitalist ideologues, but none the less.

>Then you are not a Communist. You are more suited to Social Democracy
1. If I'm not a communist then neither was Tito.
2. I'm far too radical for social democracy on the count I fundamentally disagree with the existence of private property whereas social democracy is a slightly sweetened version of capitalism.

>When you say that products should be distributed equally and fairly among the population
If you don't mind I'd like you to point out when I said this.

> Suddenly it's Capitalism.
Except it isn't as private property is the very foundation of capitalism and that's what I'm against. I'm talking about market socialism, which is decidedly not capitalist.

Maybe your interpretation of capitalism is simply "Anything people do voluntarily". In which case I suppose in that view you could claim I'm a capitalist, but I'd disagree with that interpretation of capitalism.

>Yugoslavia literally couldn't feed it's people, Ireland doesn't suffer from high rates of poverty.
1. Yugoslavia could feed it's people. There were no large-scale famines in Yugoslavia under communist rule.
2. Ireland does suffer from high rates of poverty which is actually growing rather than shrinking.

irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-economy-is-growing-and-so-is-poverty-1.2077675
thejournal.ie/poverty-ireland-2-2862501-Jul2016/
irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-has-one-of-europes-highest-poverty-rates-with-one-third-of-children-at-risk-367063.html
rt.com/news/224851-ireland-poverty-crisis-debt/

If you ever visit Dublin one thing you cannot, not notice is the outrageous amounts of homelessness.

>Did you ever stop . . .?
No, it failed because they destroyed it. If it failed there wouldn't be anything to destroy, it would have already dissolved like the USSR.

class conscience is a term used by faggots who need the government to wipe their arse. People move up and down the socioeconomic ladder all the time, you're just a faggot whose incapable of achieving anything

Redpill me

>Shifting control from the business owner to the employees?
Yes, exactly that.

This is the first far-left general I've made here in about 4 months.

My current occupation is writing Erotica and selling it on Amazon.

> Is the employer then being exploited by his workers?
No, he just failed in his attempt to exploit them like a dumbass.

...

Of course it isn't, because it's obvious you far-left scum have never had to work for anything in your pathetic lives and your dreams of forced egalitarianism are rooted in your envy of people more successful than you.

Then we are dealing with multiple British commies.

Also not surprised at all, you fucking degenerate.

>Also not surprised at all, you fucking degenerate.

Alright then you big prude.

I hope you know that pornography was banned in the Eastern bloc for eroding socialist morals.

>1. If I'm not a communist then neither was Tito.
That's right
>2. I'm far too radical for social democracy on the count I fundamentally disagree with the existence of private property whereas social democracy is a slightly sweetened version of capitalism.
If you're against private property, then you're pro seizure of those goods in order to halt that inclination toward holding upon land or resources. You are then exploiting the worker upon that position.

>If you don't mind I'd like you to point out when I said this.
When you said you disagree with the existence of private property

>Except it isn't as private property is the very foundation of capitalism and that's what I'm against. I'm talking about market socialism, which is decidedly not capitalist.
Then you believe in the exploitation of labor by seizing private property from the worker.

>1. Yugoslavia could feed it's people. There were no large-scale famines in Yugoslavia under communist rule.
There were no large scale famines in Yugoslavia, yes, but it certainly did not experience the Human Development levels of it's western counterparts. All other Socialist countries at the time did in fact experience mass scale famines.

>2. Ireland does suffer from high rates of poverty which is actually growing rather than shrinking.
That's right. I happen to not support Ireland's form of governance, which serves to iindebt itself in order to pay for it's large scale Federal programs.

Excusing the fact that from Japan, to Sweden and to Australia, all the west has experienced intense amounts of stability and huge amounts of both market innovations and extremely high wages and living standards, higher than Yugoslavia even comparing them at the same period, you can only list of one example of your system.

And it did not achieve what Japan achieved during the 20th century. Because a state is simply not as effective at running an economy as private individuals are.

Clearly it didn't work very well since Eastern Euro girls are fucking slags.

And you should know that most western communists except the most underage and uneducated tankies don't uncritically worship former socialist states.

>No, it failed because they destroyed it. If it failed there wouldn't be anything to destroy, it would have already dissolved like the USSR.
The USSR was not already dissolved, it was still a functioning state upon it's collapse. It was in the process of failing, just as Yugoslavia was.

Why would Nationalist rise up against a country if things weren't going well? These Nationalists rose up because the economy failed to bring any form of innovation or success.

Soooo, you are saying "this time is different".

Hahahahah, u stupid fuk, this time is NEVER different.

What a stupid fuk u are. Read some history.

...

A British should not educate me about slags. We have our share of sluts, but it's nothing compared to you or most Western countries.

And I know that modern western communists have even less dignity and morals than the ones in the formal socialist states. Conversing with your kind makes me realize that Yuri was right all along. Too bad there is no USSR anymore to shoot you when they take over.

Well that certainly makes more sense than shifting control to the state, but still wrong.

I think where you and I would disagree is that I would say the entrepeneur, the CEO, the investors, these people *are* workers in their own right. The lower level employees don't have the skills to perform those responsibilities. And if they did, they should be free to attempt to start their own businesses. That's why I would argue in favor of reducing regulations so that it's easier for them to do that. Larger businesses like regulations and state control because those things make it harder for small businesses to compete.

Yes, in a capitalist economy, the best way to get ahead is through buying and selling. Having a brand, investing, real estate, Trump things. Things that increase passive income, and not just raising your salary. I can see why someone would be resentful towards this kind of work, because in a way it's easier than manual labor. But it's necessary to enable these people to do what they do, because that creates economic growth. Business would not exist without them, and you can't just seize their jobs and give them to the poor.

Threads like these make you realize 80% of Cred Forums are completely un-informed about politics, and can't even tell the difference between liberals and communists.
Read a book niggers.

>let's follow the teachings of a rich son of a long line of jewish rabbis as a perfect form of governance for white working class people

lmao you marxists are so delusional.
communism is nothing more than jewish supremacy, any one else supporting it is literally the goodest goy.

Having read your post I've noticed a trend so I'd like to mention something to make sure we're on the same page. "Private property" as used by radical leftists generally describes means of production as opposed to generalized property. Other things like teabags and shoes are instead termed personal property.

When I say I'm against private property I'm not saying every material thing on the planet should be used in common. I'm saying that workers should control their workplaces democratically.
>That's right
Alright there, Stalin?
> then you're pro seizure of those goods . . .
Seizure by who exactly? The state doesn't take it, they just rescind their recognition of whoever formally laid claim to it.

>When you said you disagree with the existence of private property
As mentioned, I think we've had a different understanding of private property.

>Then you believe in the exploitation of labor by seizing private property from the worker.
As mentioned, the same as above.

> but it certainly did not experience the Human Development levels of it's western counterparts
If you happen to have an analysis of human development in Yugoslavia compared to similar western states I'd be very interested in seeing it.

> All other Socialist countries at the time did in fact experience mass scale famines.
That's not quite true. Not all socialist states experienced mass famine. However it is true that enough of them did to make their economic system worth reconsidering.

Which I'm fully in favour of, planned economies are a terrible idea this is why I'm advocating market socialism.

>Because a state is simply not as effective at running an economy as private individuals are.
As said above, I agree.

And following the same logic as to why central planning is a bad idea with the state. So too is it bad in business, it's much better to have worker control than central planning from a select few high-level managers in the work place.

The point is that waged workers are not being exploited, they voluntarily exchange dependence on volatile profit for stable pay.

Nothing stops 10, 100 or 1000 of them mortgaging their homes, taking out a loan and starting their own democratically-run enterprise, other than the unwillingness to expose themselves to so much risk that they're not suited for.

Instead of all of them dabbling in investment and business management - they specialize in one aspect of production and find an employer who guarantees stable pay for their skilled work, regardless of how a particular enterprise performs. It's simple division of labor.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
- Norman Mattoon Thomas

Also while historically they were two entirely different ideas, since postmodernism and marxism merged in the sixties thanks to the Frankfurt school, we are getting doubly subersive shit like liberal marxist intellectuals.

I'm not a leftist, I'm the one arguing against him. I still don't think it's fair to attack someone's character. These ideas exist independently of the people holding them. There are rich socialists and poor capitalists. It isn't relevant to the discussion.

If people weren't so stupid to let the 1% rob them through the financial market it would. Vote Trump.

what a stupid bastard

>The USSR was not already dissolved,
It was though, the USSR was faltering. Then they had multi-party elections, then Yeltsin won and dissolved it.

>These Nationalists rose up because the economy failed to bring any form of innovation or success.
I'm pretty sure they rose up because they wanted Kosovo to remain a firm part of Serbia.

>but it's nothing compared to you or most Western countries
Aye, a walk down any western European red light district may make you reconsider that.

>Too bad there is no USSR anymore to shoot you when they take over.
Always knew tankies and reactionaries aren't that different.

For some reason all the far-left people I've known irl or from the internet were utterly shitty people who never worked a moment in their lives. There is a reason why you can only achieve equality by dragging most people downwards, even those who weren't on the top from the start. Just ask anyone from the Eastern bloc whose grandparents were farmers who owned land.

>The point is that waged workers are not being exploited
They very much are though. They make the things. Then the bourgeoisie sell the thing and pay the workers. Between the price at which commodities are sold and the wages at which the workers are paid there is margin, this is what communists call surplus value and what the bourgeoisie take so as to make a profit.

Taking this surplus value entails paying the worker less than what their labour is truly worth, this is the exploitation.

>Nothing stops 10, 100 or 1000 of them mortgaging their homes, taking out a loan and starting their own democratically-run enterprise, other than the unwillingness to expose themselves to so much risk that they're not suited for.
Except that would not solve anything. It would just create more bourgeoisie. It in no way addresses the fundamental injustice of this organization of society.

>Just ask anyone from the Eastern bloc whose grandparents were farmers who owned land.
You mean kulaks.

Probably true, I just don't think it should be used as an argument. It implies that if they were better people, their ideas would be less wrong.

>Aye, a walk down any western European red light district may make you reconsider that.
The majority of those girls are gypsies just like most of our local whores. But if we define being a slag by possessing and utterly slutty attitude instead of being a whore, nobody comes close to your Anglo beuties.

>Always knew tankies and reactionaries aren't that different.
Well, as much of a scum Stalin was, at least he wasn't deluded like your kind are, and he had some pretty impressive results in winning WW2 and the geopolitical game during the war. And the USSR managed to brainwash the Western intellectual elite quite efficiently with their subversion, as evidenced by people like you. You have to give respect to the enemy where it's due.

Yes, I mean kulaks. What did they do that deserved persecution? Hint: nothing, other than being the object of envy from some of the landless peasants thus making a perfect scapegoat for commies.

I have been using the phrase "private property" in regard to generally everything, including property itself in a land sense, products produced by workers, and the means of production. This changes nothing.

>
When I say I'm against private property I'm not saying every material thing on the planet should be used in common. I'm saying that workers should control their workplaces democratically.
So you don't believe people should be provided the necessities of existence? Or do you?

>If you happen to have an analysis of human development in Yugoslavia compared to similar western states I'd be very interested in seeing it.
I actually couldn't find an analytical development, but here you go, this is the best I could do:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#1950s_and_1960s

>There were also places that saw no economic benefit from being in Yugoslavia; for example, the autonomous province of Kosovo was poorly developed, and per capita GDP fell from 47 percent of the Yugoslav average in the immediate post-war period to 27 percent by the 1980s.

>The deteriorating life conditions of the 1980s Yugoslavia were reflected in soaring unemployment rates, along inflation. In the late 1980s, the unemployment rate in Yugoslavia was over 17 percent, with another 20 percent underemployed. 60% of the unemployed were then under the age of 25. Real net personal income declined by 19.5%.
Yugoslavia was not built to last.

>at's not quite true. Not all socialist states experienced mass famine. However it is true that enough of them did to make their economic system worth reconsidering.
There system proved to not work, neither did yours.

You are not Communist, you. You're system is a state run society which seizes property, and directs communal enterprises. It's also still exploiting the labor of the worker by seizing his production and distributing it.

Either way, it is still empirically self contradictory.

>feminism
>Far-left

Be kulaks.

>A clasless, stateless, moneyless society is jewish supremacy
Sure.

There's nothing better than an authoritarian government forcing civilians to work long hours so they can wait in a bread line for "free" food, go to a clinic with outdated technology for "free" healthcare, and go to "free" college to take the mandatory marxism, anti-fascism, and anti-capitalism courses to get their degree to join the government and receive special foods and housing that is not available to the factory workers and farmers.

Stop destroying our countries you fucking queers

You are a fucking capitalist then.

>So you don't believe people should be provided the necessities of existence? Or do you?
I think we when advocating a statist solution should devote consideration as to the needs of people and how to address them. But the important step in addressing this is providing them with the means to support themselves.

> neither did yours
As alluded to earlier with the comparison to the Republic of Ireland it seemed to work quite decently. Unless we're to consider capitalism an abject failure thanks to the existence of recessions. Which as you should agree is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

>Either way, it is still empirically self contradictory.
I'm still not sure I understand why exactly if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

I work by myself, making my own stuff to get paid for directly by customers. It'd be the socialist dream were it not for the fact that Amazon take a cut.

>Between the price at which commodities are sold and the wages at which the workers are paid there is margin, this is what communists call surplus value and what the bourgeoisie take so as to make a profit.
>Taking this surplus value entails paying the worker less than what their labour is truly worth, this is the exploitation.

I understand this, but there is a wider picture. You can not ignore that risk is inherent in any business venture and the last thing people with meager means want is to take on significant risk. From the perspective of the worker leaving the surplus value to the employer (if surplus value is generated at all) is a fair trade-off for knowing they'll be paid for their labor, no matter what. It's like an insurance policy.

And from the perspective of the employer - no one is going to put down capital in business to make 0 profit when it's successful, and lose everything when it's not. When you set out the rules like that, it's much better to spend all of one's money on frivolity.

Yes but the thing about socialism is that there should be no employers and from the perspective of socialism their investment doesn't really matter. What does matter is the labour of the workers that they invested in to begin with. As after all from the raw materials to the building itself all that they profit from was created by workers.

With this said it should be possible to cut out the middle man and have these transactions occur directly between self-organized workers without having their surplus value be exploited. And that is the goal.

merely a western civilization's next step in advanced slavery.

slavery, feudalism, capitalism, communism - with each step enslavement is better masked and less obvious

>But the important step in addressing this is providing them with the means to support themselves.
Then you support the worker selling out his labor to survive to people of power.

This is contradictory to Communism and the goal desired. I am trying to expose to you this contradiction, that no matter what you do, exploitation is inevitable and we will always need to work to survive.

This process is done through private exchange in Capitalism, but in your system, it's an authoritarian Statist version where the worker sells his labor to the state (or communal enterprises, which are governed and regulated by the state).

>As alluded to earlier with the comparison to the Republic of Ireland it seemed to work quite decently. Unless we're to consider capitalism an abject failure thanks to the existence of recessions.
No, Ireland is suffering from the same issue Yugoslavia suffered from. Stupidly high debt to pay for a welfare system which couldn't last.

>I'm still not sure I understand why exactly if you wouldn't mind elaborating.
There is an empirical contradiction in your logic. Your desire is to stop the exploitation of the laborer and to allow him to keep the profits of his labor/struggle. But you believe that in order to survive, the laborer must sell his labor in order to get the necessities to living.

This is the exact same problem in Capitalism. A laborer sells his labor, but gets a wage which he gets to freely choose how to allocate. He must get this wage to get the necessities of living.

In your system, unless you believe in a welfare state where you don't need to work to survive, you believe that a laborer must work to get the necessities of living. Who knows how your system works, at first I thought you were a Communist so I assumed you didn't believe in currency, but apparently you're just a soft Socialist who believes in a welfare state that directs union enterprises.

>communists saving anything from totalitarianism/corruption/inequality/lies

So I take it you're an anarcho-primitivist?

Shill. Take a bath!

How do you expect low level workers to act as business owners? How is this even possible? You can't own a business and manufacture the products at the same time.

...

Democracy. Such organizations already exist and they're called co-operatives.

>mfw whenever commie scum try to preach gospel about their genocidal cult they always use big fancy words and phrases they dont really understand to confuse and intimidate others.

If you cant explain what you want to do, and how your society is going to work, without making it overly complicated, either you dont understand what it is you're preaching or you're a bullshit artist.

Pick one traitor.

Labour does not imply value. The "bourgeoisie" perform labour aswell, by setting up companies, taking the risk of investing in their companies, importing materials, buying land. Even if they do not import the material themselves directly, they make sure it happens, in other words, this "thing" produced, which you mentioned, is not solely the product of labour performed by workers, but among other factors by the combined effort of the divided labour of both the actual production as performed by workers, and the risk-investment by the "bourgeoisie". To imply that the bourgeoisie simply profits from the workers and do nothing is inherently a false assumption. Surplus value is nothing less than the income of the investor and so is deserved payment for his labour.
You call it fundamental injustice, but social hierarchy is essential in a state as it allows for the division of work (not just the "work in a factory"-kind of labour, but knowledge, investments, risk-assesments, ownership, etc. all are forms of work within the framework of society. They all play a fundamental part in the production of goods). So your claim that there exists a fundamental injustice in the organization of society is flawed in the sense that this "injustice" is vital to society as a whole

that was national socialist position.

...

>Then you support the worker selling out his labor to survive to people of power.
Who's he selling his labour to exactly? The customers? I don't think they're very powerful.

>, it's an authoritarian Statist version where the worker sells his labor to the state (or communal enterprises, which are governed and regulated by the state).
Except it isn't. Rather than being paid by the state the worker would be paid directly by customers.

I think your supposed contradiction is because either I'm not explaining myself very well or you have some loaded assumptions about what socialism entails.

>No, Ireland is suffering from the same issue Yugoslavia suffered from. Stupidly high debt to pay for a welfare system which couldn't last.
Yes, but as Ireland still exists with no end in sight clearly these economic problems aren't the only and immediate cause of a country collapsing.

>This is the exact same problem in Capitalism.
Except having to work isn't the problem with capitalism. Perhaps it's a greater problem within nature, but there's nothing we can do about that.

The problem with capitalism is that the worker must work for someone else who will exploit their surplus value. The solution the system I'm taking about provides is that this does not happen as workers control the means of production and trade directly with customers on the market.

>at first I thought you were a Communist so I assumed you didn't believe in currency
1. I am a communist as ultimately communism is the goal. It's just that for now it's unfeasible.
2. I don't believe in currency, instead I'd like to implement a system of mutual credit. But unless the entire world adopted it that would also be unfeasible. So again in the mean-time perhaps regular old currency will do.

What does the /left-pol/ think of Syndicalism? I consider myself a populist and I think it would be an excellent approach to destroying Corporatism while remaining economically relevant. But I dunno if it's Constitutional, how hardly the market would crash, or how it affects small buisnesses.

Säge goes in all fields

sage
morons

Then the existence of the other kind of organization doesn't prevent cooperatives from forming. You just want the state to force all organizations to become cooperatives?

I'll never understand the communist resentment of employers, investors, all the more abstract managerial and financial occupations, and the implication that it's only the rest of society that does real work, while they whisk away their wealth with illusions.

There's people who are ridiculously better than anyone else at singing, fighting, kicking a ball, writing code, operating machines. There's also people who are better at creating enterprises, organizing labor, predicting trends and allocating resources.

It's not for everyone. Demanding from everyone to share these responsibilities is like demanding from all your citizens to run as fast as Usain Bolt.

>Seizure by who exactly? The state doesn't take it, they just rescind their recognition of whoever formally laid claim to it.
>fancy words to describe "seizure by the state"

>I'm saying that workers should control their workplaces democratically.
>implying you didn't seize those workplaces from some private person
>implying democratically ruled workplaces are more efficient than workplaces in which there is division of work
kek

No, I want the state to cease recognition and enforcement of private property.

Yes, and I'm sure some people would make great dictators. But I don't really want them to have the opportunity to try.

>>fancy words to describe "seizure by the state"
As far as I can tell in this instance the thing in question doesn't belong to the state. It belongs to no one.

>>implying you didn't seize those workplaces from some private person
No, it's just been restored to no one. The rightful owner who had the property seized by a private person at some point in history.

>>implying democratically ruled workplaces are more efficient than workplaces in which there is division of work
What's efficient is irrelevant.
What can make my life better is what's to be worried about.

If these socialist businesses you're describing are competitive compared to traditional forms of business, then sure, the state should allow them to exist. And if they're as effective as other forms, they'll be successful. You shouldn't need to force the other kind of business to reform itself.

>muh exploitation!
"Exploitation", in this case, is the voluntary and net beneficial relationship employees have with their employers: The employees give the employer their labor in exchange for both money and facilitation of their being able to get their labor to the consumer market via the company's production and sale process. The categorical use of "exploitation" to describe a situation where regardless of whether or not the employer gives the laborer what he estimates to be "the full value of his/her labor", the laborer by definition DOES agree that the price is fair (or else he wouldn't have chosen to apply for his job) is just one example of the many ideological and psychological distortions that constitute communist ideology. The reality is that companies are the most efficient and economically productive way for laborers to get their stuff to the market, and discounting the value of the conveniences and services that the company strings together in the production process of which the laborer is likely only a small part of logistically and then comparing the price of the product to the laborer´s compensation for HIS part in the process in order to derive your philosophy show just how nonsensical communism is.

>I don't believe in currency.
KEK. You clearly have no appreciation whatsoever for basic monetary economics or economic history. Currency is one of the single greatest and most beneficial invention of the human race, and fractional reserve banking is an invaluable asset and contributor to economic growth.

>Who's he selling his labour to exactly? The customers? I don't think they're very powerful.
He's selling his labor to the state.

>Except it isn't. Rather than being paid by the state the worker would be paid directly by customers.
Then it's Capitalism. Unless the state owns the means of production, then it's Statism.

>Yes, but as Ireland still exists with no end in sight clearly these economic problems aren't the only and immediate cause of a country collapsing.
Yugoslavia ended. I see an end in sight for most, if not all, Welfare States. That end will be the next Recession.

>The solution the system I'm taking about provides is that this does not happen as workers control the means of production and trade directly with customers on the market.
Since you don't believe in the state seizing the means of production from people, I'll ask a question:

What's to stop me from paying my son and his IT friends money to make a website for me in your state?

Anyone is free to pursue these occupations. You don't have to be the firstborn son of a Rotschild to open a convenience store.

>feminism
needs to fuck off

But you do need to do that. As said I could cnot are less what's competitive.

Right, I'm eating my dinner. I'll reply to more posts later.

You don't know shit you're talking about. Real communism is fucking oligarchy with stupid cunts in charge, broken system. Do you ready to starve, eat meat and fruits only on holidays? I don't thinks so. Why do you yuroops so stupid, so you're ready to sold your country for rotten bullshit tales, that show themselves incapacitated? You already live in beautiful and rich country, so all other world want to go to your country, but you yell "muh inequality" and going to ruin your little paradise. Fuck inequality, I don't want to pay for some hobo dickhead, who only thing he doing in his life is drink and beating his poor wife, and the most ridiculous thing that he and you get the same paycheck, but you work as some rocket drives engineer and he works and cow anuses factory, that produce cow anuses to feed people like him (and you, you and him are equal, don't you forget?). And don't talk about "that was bad communism, we will make good communism soon", you will fucking not.

why don't you want equality you fucking filth?

then you want people to just be able to steal what isn't theirs? That nobody can own anything? You think that people would be better off with having all their shit stolen?

If you don't, then how else would you define the ability to defend your personal and valuables, of which you are responsible for bringing into the world and into your possession, than private property?

Why would I want a classless stateless moneyless society?

I like classes, I like money and I like having a government as opposed to anarchy.

Sounds like you got the short end of the stick in life and you are butthurt about it

Fuck off you filthy pigs.

Take you, your comrades, and your cancerous ideology down to the graves so you can finally burn in hell along with your dear leaders.

So the state decides that a business is not something that can be privately owned. They say, Mr. Trump, this hotel no longer belongs to you, not because we're taking it, but because it is not recognized as private property under the law. From here on out, all business decisions will be voted on democratically by the employees. Is that the process? Explain to me how the hotel manages to stay in business after that point.

People AREN'T equal, and there's no reason they should BECOME equal, or that material well-being should necessarily cause emotional and physical well being or be the only purpose there is in life.

communism can only work with a global government and slave robot labour.

Is competitiveness not a reflection on the overall efficiency of the business?

>I could not care less about what's economically efficient and beneficial
No, you couldn't, or you wouldn't believe in communism.

...

You mean that a workplace built and paid for by someone actually belongs to no one?

>What's efficient is irrelevant
Reality begs to differ.

>What can make my life better is what's to be worried about.

The problem is that a business too inefficient will cease to exist, which will make your life worse.

I wish you all a slow and painful death.

>Venezuela

I am actually quite happy for a leftypol general. It means Cred Forums is not that much of a hugbox as some other places on the web. But I think most of the Left have left Cred Forums for infinity chinz, which is not all too great for discussion

Lefist here

They are all just scared faggots that can't handle the bantz. Fuck them and their safe space hugboxes. If they can't disseminate real discussion from troll posts then they don't belong here.

Fuck censorship.

Lenin was a black man

>He's selling his labor to the state.
But he isn't. Again this isn't a command economy.

>Then it's Capitalism. Unless the state owns the means of production, then it's Statism.
That's a very silly dichotomy on the count that capitalism is inherent statist and requires private property to exist. Which this system does not have.

>Welfare States.
Except there are states in Europe with heavier welfare programs than Ireland that are doing, and have historically done, significantly better than Ireland.

>What's to stop me from paying my son and his IT friends money to make a website for me in your state?
Nothing, you're a customer contracting a service. No one would stop that any more than they would stop painters from painting walls and getting paid for it.

This is true, anyone can try and be part of the bourgeoisie. But the thing is I don't want the bourgeoisie to exist at all.

As mentioned in an earlier post I make a distinction between private and personal property.

In any case a more generalized concept of property is always a social construct.

>Sounds like you got the short end of the stick in life and you are butthurt about it
Yes.

> Explain to me how the hotel manages to stay in business after that point.
Because workers work there and customers continue to pay for their service.

It is indeed to an extent. But the greater I'm trying to make is viewing competitiveness as the end all be all of what should exist is a very capitalist mindset and in a lot of ways borders on social Darwinism. There's more things to be considered as to what's desirable in an organization, especially as far as the employees are concerned.

For all practical purposes it would belong to the workers and be controlled democratically.

But in a strictly materialist sense yes, it belongs to no one. Nothing belongs to anyone.

He was black gay kike

Sorry user Commie scum are now politically correct. You'll have to leave or go to your 'cripple chan' containment board

>Trump is running for president.
>No communist is or even could run for president.
It seems like it's you guys that are politically correct.

Nuke this thread Jesus Christ.

>implying America makes up 100% of the planet

>42 posts by this ID

Saging dumb commieshit

No, but American cultural standards (and culture in general) are the most important on the planet.

Out of our way you commie bastards

youtube.com/watch?v=op3w3wMqdwg

Qt on the second left.

>43 posts by this ID

Communists claim that the relationship of two workers in two different parts of the world can be as strong as the relationship between most family members in western civilization, this is of course wrong.

It doesnt care for natural links and biological links between people and rejects human biology claiming that we are all equal.

Above all, most importantly, it wants the dictatorship of the proletariat - the wage workers most of which would discriminate against the better elites. Your system is what is wrong with the world right now, the glorification of the weak, poor, and often inferior.

Dictatorship, nationalism, and conservatism is a way forward, user.

...

>44 posts by this ID

>wanting to stop 1%er fraud and exploitation

>voting for Trump

Pick one

>Communists claim that the relationship of two workers in two different parts of the world can be as strong as the relationship between most family members
u wot

> the wage workers most of which would discriminate against the better elites
If they're so much better then how come they get oppressed so easily?

>There's more things to be considered as to what's desirable in an organization, especially as far as the employees are concerned.
I'm not only saying a business should be competitive, I'm saying it has to be competitive, otherwise it won't survive, which isn't beneficial to the workers. Before anything else, the busines has to exist.

>Because workers work there and customers continue to pay for their service.
We don't know that. You've admitted that this system isn't necessarily as effective. How do you ensure that the business succeeds knowing that it may be less efficient? By making all businesses equally less efficient? At that point the entire nation is less likely to survive.

You can compare it to social Darwinism, but that comparison by itself doesn't disprove anything.

OP needs to be forcibly removed. There can be no tolerance of a cuckold ideology like Communism on this board.

>45 posts by this ID

well it IS his thread....

what did you expect?

It was a good time when Communism was illegal in my country.

Threadly reminder that commie/leftypol thread are the only threads on Cred Forums where legit political discussion occurs

This is exactly what communists claim when it comes to nationalism. Trosky himself points out that communism rejects all boundaries under the claim that all workers in the world are equal, independant of the country they're from. He doesnt see any boundaries between two workers of two different countries, he says that the boundaires are not racial or national, in fact, they both share the same condition - the battle against the ruling elites.

> If they're so much better then how come they get oppressed so easily?

what?

Listen to the pole that went through Stalinism under the promise of communism. It is a poor system for undeveloped barbarians who reject all empirical knowledge.

Should a business be competitive? Yes, as you said it's important that the business exists and continues to.

Is competitiveness the most important thing and worth considering above all else? No, slavery is extremely efficient but we don't do it because it's bad for the slave. Likewise with wage-labour, we can make work a bit less like slavery although potentially at the cost of some efficiency. It's better for the workers, but perhaps would not look as impressive statistically.

On the count that co-ops do exist it can gathered that they're efficient enough to survive and even do well. So it's really a non-problem.

This is a board for politics. As long as it's not something on the level of "DRUMPF" then I'm fine with hearing what the opposition has to say. OP is wrong, but he's participating in good faith.

images like this make me realize how good and rightwing ass destroying book Guns Germs and Steel is

gotta reread

>For all practical purposes it would belong to the workers and be controlled democratically.
I can see the fun in that. But it would pretty much decimate investments, and inequality would rise up immediatly as there are workers who are more politically inclined than others. There is power up for grabs and they will grab it as soon as they can, after a while, everything will be the same as most of the labourers have no clue on how to run a company, they'll just let the "higher-ups" work it out. This is simple standard division of work which gives rise to both an increase in efficiency, as someone doing one thing a thousand times will be better at that one thing than someone doing a thousand things one time will be better at doing any of those things, and inequality. In reality, division of labour is simply necessary, so inequality must exist, even if it is "unjust".

This is a board of peace, you can't tell people who is welcome and who isn't. Everyone is welcome here.

>Is competitiveness the most important thing and worth considering above all else? No, slavery is extremely efficient but we don't do it because it's bad for the slave.
It is the most important thing, and abolition was a mistake.

>free speech
>good faith
No excuses.

>Guns, Germs and Steel
>fails to acknowledge HBD
trash

Leftists are not welcome.

Again, if they're efficient enough to exist under existing law then why do you have to force all businesses to adopt that system?

>what is politically incorrect
>what are political discussions
Pay debts faggot. I rather have a faithful communist than a greek, atleast the former actually works.

Nice pic. Were all of those quotes from direct posts themselves? Because it looks exactly like it.
If I used that image in response to one of those faggots I bet what they posted would be on there lol.

And Trotsky was right on that count. Nationalism is absolutely meaningless and the class war is one thing that's common to the entire planet. However this is not to say the interpersonal relationships between two workers on opposite ends of the world are in any way as strong as the interpersonal relationships with their immediate family.

>what?
I'm saying if we except the inherently social Darwinist premise that the elites are inherently superior. How is it that power can be, and very often is, usurped from them by lower classes.

I mean, if the Romanovs were superior on a Darwinist basis to the Bolsheviks surely they wouldn't have gotten murdered.

NatSocialism is a leftist ideology by the way. Dont get jewed out and believe the "far right" meme.

You're lost. I feel sorry for you.

/zeitgeist/ allowed?

Because it would make my life, and the lives of people like me, better.

I'm not a Nazi. Nazism is progressivism for conservative white people. While racial hygiene is important, propertarian, anti-democratic Libertarianism is better as an economic philosophy.

Kill yourself.

No he was completely wrong. People are tribalist, and I personally care for my tribe more than your tribe. With the current state of affairs, nationalism is being destroyed whilst countries like yours allow strange aliens into their lands.

I understand what you are saying, but giving absolute power to the proletariat will result in complete laziness and lack of effort, which will be of a huge detriment of the country and nation. (OR THE COLLECTIVE)

Go away, Hoppe.

Would it? If the nation as a whole is less economically competitive, you'll be worse off.

How does it feel to have democratically elected a gommunist governement by an election which was declared fair by external observers, including american ones?

Kill yourself.

>People are tribalist, and I personally care for my tribe more than your tribe.
I personally do not care about my "tribe" at all and I think you're projecting your own ideological beliefs to be inherent human nature.

>but giving absolute power to the proletariat will result in complete laziness and lack of effort,
How would it though?
They still need to eat, clothe themselves, and buy things that make them happy. They're just as incentivized to work as they were before, they're just more empowered in doing so.

No international observers allowed into the country since 2007 you dumb frog.

Yes, which is why communism is internationalist.

I'm talking about 2006

Communism can possibly work once we have rid this world of Skypes, Googles and Skittles

Far from fair elections you stupid piece of shit, murderers, narcostate apologist scum.

Communism failed spectacularly last century and you ideological twats have done fuck all to fix it

OP I hacked your webcam and found your pic

Most people do however and trying to breed it out of them is not going to help. Most people care about their neighbours, the friends of their family etc. more than they do about the African children in Africa, for instance. You could argue that this is because people closer to you, have a higher chance of influencing your life, in the western world.

> How would it though?
They still need to eat, clothe themselves, and buy things that make them happy. They're just as incentivized to work as they were before, they're just more empowered in doing so.

Yes, but the only reason they are working quite as hard as they are working is not because they WANT something, its because they HAVE to get something (food, clothes etc) in order to survive. Of course people would work harder if they were united under a single nation of people who strive towards a common goal.

>And capitalism does?

It's why you're able to sit on your fat NEET ass and shitpost on your PC

What about when the aliens come and see that we made our entire planet less economically competitive? You're turning us into lizard food.

>>/leftypol/
>sage
ideology belongs in the trash

DELET THIS

Fucking pinko

Except the only thing all observers could say was "The registery is a mess, but it didn't favor anyone"

Sorry about this facts, famalam

Right-wing politics is also an ideology. It's just a superior one guided by actual science like HBD and economic theory instead of dialectic nonsense.

what happens when you're sympathetic to far left principles like workers controlling the factories and producing for the good of society as a whole as opposed to profit but are equally sympathetic to white nationalism as well?

Liberate penises, free pussy for all. I'm sick and tired of big dick alpha chads hogging the means of reproduction.

>My current occupation is writing erotica and selling it on Amazon
I mean this in the most sincere way - kill yourself.

> Most people care about their neighbours, the friends of their family etc. more than they do about the African children in Africa
Obviously people care about their immediate close relationships vastly more than they care about people they will never meet, myself included.

This is not say that the logical conclusion of this is nationalism. As I care equally about all the people I will never meet both in Uganda and in England, that being not at all.

>its because they HAVE to get something (food, clothes etc) in order to survive
Yes, I believe the system where that happens is called nature and is inescapable for all biological life on Earth.

Honestly curious

can someone explain to me the characteristics of communism and how it will fix the gap between rich and poor? Thats what it is about, right?
I'm really dumb when it comes to communism. I sympathize with commies to a degree, based on their feeling of betrayal by corporations and government, but their solutions always sound like naive, utopian garbage

economic left
cultural right

master race. study and understand marx's critique of capitalism and you will know the globalist capitalist jew is to blame for all the worlds problems.

>far-left
>anarchism

what did he mean by this

Obviously since the aliens have mastered intergalactic travel we're fucked anyway so it isn't worth worrying about.

CTR pls go

You are either retarded or a troll if you dont see what you just said juxtaposes what you have just said previously.

Many said it was unfair, state promoted propaganda is common and that's illegal, irregularities everywhere, and violent pro-government thugs love our election days. Fuuuuuck you fucking piece of shit why don't you live here, kill yourself frog you don't even know what is living under corrupt piece of shit leftards you defend.

Gas yourself.

As retarded as it sounds, Marx envisioned a nationless and stateless world. Most communism that people are aware of is actually Socialism in One Nation.

The only thing Communism creates is more inequality where everyone is poor except the elite political party.

Venezuelans have an inferior national IQ. Your country will be shit even under libertarianism.

We should make pictures of pepe raping that commie bitch so badly. She'll take the redpill for Pepe.

If we ever do fall into gommunizms I really hope you're the first prick to be sent to the gulag for enabling such bullshit. Fucking kill yourself

But that's the point. We weren't able to master intergalactic travel because cooperatives weren't as efficient as corporations.

>nationless and stateless
lol what

Great news OP, I hear they're offering free rides for your kind!

>implying nationalism does not improve social cohesion and mutual trust
>ignoring two vital parts in collectivistic ideology
>implying the majority of the people on this earth are not ethnocentric
>implying ethnocentrism is not a more viable form of a collective than egalitarianism

we need to institute a white tax, for every percentage whiteness a percentage of wealth and income will go to POC in africa and apartheid america

Meaning no nations or states, you fucking dip.

> characteristics of communism and how it will fix the gap between rich and poor?
Communism is an economic system characterized by being classless, stateless and moneyless where people give according to their ability and take according to their need. Thus far it has remained entirely hypothetical and probably won't even potentially exist until (and if) humans reach post-scarcity.

The fixing the gap between rich and poor part is mainly to do with socialism. Which is historically communists have been much more concerned with than actual communism. Under socialism the workers control the means of production democratically, allowing them to trade directly with the customers and gain the entire value of their produce without going through a boss who will profit off the transaction.

Without private means of production there should be no rich as the rich are characterized by their control over the means of production and the profits they accumulate from them. Profits that under socialism would instead go to the worker, who we call the poor in this scenario.

Is this a Fucking joke?

>Inequality
>Bad

Except we already were liberal and that wasn't the case, just look up Venezuela in the fifties and sixties.

>ancaps
>actual anarchists
lmao