Citation needed. If bosses in Africa force children to mine diamonds for money, then it isn't capitalism's fault that those children have shitty working conditions in a society where their leaders or people in their communities don't give a shit abut them.
While some of that may be true, it may not be the occupation that i want to work. In capitalism, i can choose who i want to be and what i want to do. In socialism, if i'm a computer engineer, there's no guarantee that i'll get that occupation and i'll be forced to pick something else that i don't like. Also, a lot of you love to complain about wages and exploitation when you hardly even know what true exploitation feels like. If a person who owns a company and is allowing me to work there for a certain amount of money that i can use to sustain myself for years, then that isn't exploitation. If someone tries to bait me with a bullshit system where everyone get the same thing no matter how hard i work, then that IS exploitation.
How exactly? Give me an example of someone choosing something that they wanna eat at a restaurant and dying or choosing a future or profession that they want and dying.
No shit. If you were in the woods and you didn't hunt for food, then you'd starve too.
You all fell for a divide and conquer meme that pits the lower class against the hardworking upper class. I'm upper middle class and i didn't just pull a million dollars out of my ass, because if was able to do that, then you'd all be rich. I'd rather invest more money into businesses so they can create more shops for people to go to and more jobs. None of you are "proletariats", just a bunch of entitled assholes with no future or goal in life. Just because some people are unemployed doesn't give you a reason to hate on a system that allows innovation to take place, because after all y'know, people have something to work towards in capitalism. We all have a work incentive.
Also, More market competition = more jobs. Fucking idiots. If socialism were to take place, you'd all starve.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Also, if you all are REAL communists, then why are you still giving your money to big corporations everytime you buy food or buy clothes? Why can't you just make your own clothes, your own home and grow your own food?
Asher Wright
...
Charles Flores
sage
Henry Moore
If you come here spouting your spooks and assumptions in bad faith, don't be surprised if no-one bothers to spoon-feed you. You see, blowing all your (non-)arguments in your first post like a premature ejaculation, before the actual discussion has even started, is somewhat shameful, anticlimactic, and brainlet-esque.
In order to perform better in bed on the board, begin slow and steady. Ask some questions first and question the answers to said questions. Answering one's own assumptions with more assumptions is simply intellectual masturbation, which leads nowhere.
First point: see pic related. And it is capitalism's fault because without the state to defend the private property of the bourgeoisie, there wouldn't be the inequalities of power and money that produce that exploitative condition. In your example the mines would otherwise be public property if not for capitalism.
Second point: the reason why everyone gets a job in socialism is because without authoritarian control over the means of production, cappies can't play workers off each other (or off immigrants) in a race to the bottom. Also planning helps move the rest of the unemployed to real work like infrastructure development and not bullshit jobs like making fidget spinners.
Third point: refer to pic related. If you use the same methodology liberals use to estimate communist deaths (famines, counting any deaths that could've been prevented if communists had better healthcare), you can get much higher figures for capitalist countries.
Third point: Work is a means to an end and it's something that should be automated as much as possible, but you're strawmanning. "In capitalism, if you don't work for others, you starve."
Last point: Leninist socialist countries (USSR, China, Vietnam) increased life expectancy and per-capita food consumption. In later years, bad economic policy (price ceilings on food) caused shortages at supermarkets, but this was a cosmetic blunder.
This is ironically a huge list of lies and dogma spread by retarded boomers. This is an assertion, not a fact. Are you sure it just isn't more economically viable for those children to be employed in those mines so they earn money for their family to survive? Not only that, but it's probably a monopolized industry which can trace it's roots to colonialism, meaning that the wages can stay low, and health&safety can be ignored successfully.
Again this is ridiculous, the government doesn't allocate you places usually. You apply for them. If you have the credentials for a job, you get hired. There is no strive to have less and less employees, there is a strive to maximize production for human benefit, i.e production for use. Whether that means being a computer scientist working on "image compression, 3D television, parallel compilers and medical imaging" like Dr Paul Cockshott.
Capitalism isn't "choice", this is another controlled opinion from various Bourgeois intelligence agencies and "think tanks". The implication here is that all wars in the past have had a primary motivation for "economic growth", i.e the weapons shareholders lobby the government to get involved in a war that their sons won't fight in but the farmers son will. Not only that but also the Human race produces enough food for 12,000,000,000 people, but it isn't distributed to the starving or poor, it is sold as a commodity (Capitalism) and not distributed for human use (Socialism)
In the future proletarian computer scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers will continue the struggle towards automation and the merging of Human and Machine consciousness. The local farms will have servers controlling their automated tractors and the balance sheets will be accounted with AI, and the distribution mapped out on an earthwide scale with advanced network flows.
So you're saying that a system that not only enables this but encourages it is not at fault? No you can't, market forces decide for you. Even if it's a perfectly valid and productive job, if it's unprofitable it won't be done under a market. You have LESS choice under capitalism, not more. Why wouldn't there be? Exploitation in the Marxist sense means the extraction of surplus value, that's it. Because the capitalist profits off of other people's work whatsoever, that's exploitation in the Marxist sense. In short, resource hoarding so that it can be sold at a profit. To elaborate, the inefficient distribution of things like food, healthcare and medicine, and housing. That's not capitalism. I don't mean that in the "that's not possible under capitalism" sense, I mean that in that it has nothing to do with what capitalism actually is or how it functions. In the woods, that'd be for want of food. In capitalist society it'd be because it's not profitable to be fed. Oh, you're petit bourgeoisie, that explains how you're so spooked. You're successful because you were lucky, that's all. Source: technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ Capitalism also stifles innovation, as it's only for innovation that it can profit off of, not innovation for innovation's sake. In addition, the profit motive produces poorer quality work if the work is intellectually stimulating. Source for that claim: businessinsider.com/why-incentives-dont-actually-make-people-do-better-work-2014-3 What's the aim of a competition? To win. What's the win state of a business? Complete market dominance. Therefore, capitalism necessarily tends towards monopoly. In addition, because workers are forced to compete against each other, they drive wages down further, and create unemployment. How? Because if there are unemployed people, they can take the place of someone demanding better pay, for less than that original person.
The idea is that unfettered capitalism doesn't work because it allows bullshit like this. You need to have health and safety regulations in the labourforce. And in the civilised western world, children are in school, not at work. Children have the choice to drop out and enter the labour force at 16 and they're offered 12 years of public education (plus kindergarten in many countries).
A LOT of people under capitalism are forced to work in occupations that they hate in order to make ends meet. You may want to be a computer engineer. But you need the money in order to go to school in order to obtain a degree in the first place. And the roasties in HR may not actually hire you for the job. So you might actually be stuck working in Starbucks or some shit like lots of underemployed college grads. Keep in mind that in capitalism, SOMEONE has to do the grunt work. Almost no one wants to work at McDonald's. But someone has to do it until they find a way to totally automate those jobs. They have kiosks now at some restaurants but you still need humans to prepare the orders. Vast majority of fast food joints still employ humans at the counter.
We live in a world where a small handful of people are born into wealth and therefore never have to work if they don't want to. Work is just a hobby for them. And a huge majority that has to rent out their labour to survive. How is that not exploitation? It's like you pretend that inheritance doesn't exist and rich people earn all their money. Let's just pretend that Mark Zuckerberg totally earned all those billions and didn't receive any help from the thousands and thousands of engineers who work at Facebook to help make his corporation the success that it is today. Why should Mark Zuckerberg be compensated with billions in stock options while his worker ants get only $100,000 salaries when much of Facebook's success is dependent on the worker ants working towards a collective goal. Capitalism is usury/rent-seeking where venture capitalists, executives, bankers, etc. sit back and profit off the backs of their workers.
That's not what socialism is. There are far less people who are qualified to be doctors than there are people qualified to work at McDonald's. And health care is in high demand for obvious reasons. Your health is one of the most important things in life. So naturally doctors are going to get paid more in a worker's republic. Because you need to give people incentive to be doctors. Or incentive to stick around instead of fucking off to another country to do their practice.
That is not true for people born into wealth. They don't have to work. Or people who got lucky with the start-up lottery/crypto lottery/etc. Once you make "fuck you money", you never have to work again. Lenin literally fucking said "those who do not work, neither shall they eat." Lenin wasn't specifically addressing basement dwelling NEETs on 4chan (though he would expect us to work too), he was mostly addressing the rich Russian aristocrats who didn't have to work because they just lived off peasants working their land and shit. Aristocrats are glorified NEETs. The same goes for venture capitalists, CEOs, bankers, etc. What the fuck does Warren Buffet do all day aside from talking shit about bitcoin to the media? I think are confusing capitalism with socialism fam.
Carson Lee
Falling for the upper middle class meme. Dude you are working class. If you have to work for a living, you are working class. You are a classcuck. You think you are a successful hot shit but you are still a wage cuckold in his chains while you have venture capitalists sipping pina coladas in an island somewhere getting their cock sucked by an island prostitute while they are getting briefed about their portfolio in a Skype video conference. You wage cuck for glorified NEETs and you defend your glorified NEET masters. You are a slave. If you think socialism is about taking from your pocket to give to Shaniqua and Muhammad, you are a fucking idiot. Socialism is about banning the renting of productive capital. Which will in turn force the bourgeoisie to sell their capital for pennies on the dollar to the workers or the state because the alternative is just sitting on idling capital or going to the gulag for employing labour (which is against the law in a worker's republic). And then the workers will finally own the means of production.
You're telling me that a system that allows the workers to own the means of production and keep the full value of what they produce doesn't incentivize labour?. But a system where glorified NEETs take all of the product of the worker's labour and hands them peanuts for a wage incentivizes labour? Get the fuck outta here.
Jayden Bailey
What a great refute This is a bad rhetoric, because everyone who lives in a 1st world country knows this is bullshit by experience. Are you retarded? Your rhetorical question is making no sense, and also YES people have choked on food and died on job many, many times. Also in socialism there are restaurants and different available jobs to choose from, so this is just stupid. So you admit that capitalism is primitive as fuck. Why is making things easier and safer considered bad by right wing? In the future most work will be automated, people will not have to work so hard. In capitalism this would just mean that the elite would let billions of people starve to death, even though there is enough food for everyone(already happening today) Like I already mentioned, its not about the jobs, its about allocating goods and work in the fairest and most reasonable way in the society.
Just pinpoint to me what you dont like about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?
This is why I think Zig Forums should let Zig Forumsacks and Fox News cucks debate because they need to be educated on socialism. There are some huge glaring flaws in their understanding of socialism. And it's not helpful to just tell them to "read a book". Because the average Fox News idiot is not going to understand Karl Marx. You need to explain socialism to them like they are five.
Lucas Long
But user it's not even fucking true that in capitalism you have to work to survive. That's the absurd part. Not if you were born into wealth. Not if you got lucky with the start-up lottery by creating MySpace, Facebook, Tinder, Pinterest, Instagram, etc. Those motherfuckers never have to work again. They just choose to keep working because being a NEET playing vidya, watching anime, shitposting and jacking off to blacked.com vids all day gets old. Rich people work to alleviate boredom. The vast majority of us work to survive.
Logan Nguyen
ftfy
Thomas Ramirez
What is corporatism.
I don't need the state to defend my property when i can hire private security or arm myself. Both of which a socialist society would never allow me to do.
Right, so you mean i can't give workers benefits and a good wage based on the products that they produce becuase that's oppressive so you have to enslave them and force them to work jobs that require skill without any work incentive?
Imperialism isn't capitalism, dumbass.
Wait what?
No, what happened was that the money being redistributed, lost value and ran out, thus causing economic collapse.
Cooper Taylor
It's because people pay for that great service while you sit in your mom's basement being a NEET playing vidya, watching anime, shitposting and jacking off to blacked.com vids.
Imperialism is Capitalism, dumbass. It happens because it makes money for the exploiter class. The working class, the people who contribute absolute majority of innovation and value in to our civilization on earth can't afford that, you fucking dickhead. Arming yourself is a socialist tenet, and only center left liberals dislike firearms.
If you had no competition and the correct labour laws you wouldn't give any of them that. You give them those things because their skills are scarcer and they will leave to another company. You NEED them more than they need you at that point, you fucking stupid retard gulag candidate
Holy shit god damn, you believe this happened between 1917-1991, do you actually believe that
Imperialism is capitalism in fact its the highest stage of it!
Lincoln Howard
An inevitable result of free-market, unregulated capitalism. See pic 1, also I wonder what your piddly dozen AR-15s and M-60s are gong to do against a full blown tank, APC or any other armored, armed vehicle, or better yet an entire MOB of people, OR EVEN BETTER YET a drone strike. Private armies in a society where people are supposed to be socially equal, it's not like private armies means you have power to influence and affect other peoples liberties! By and large liberals have opposed guns, socialists have supported them. Want more evidence? In the USSR not only were hunting weapons allowed but all students were given pre-military training. There was a class called Basic Military Training. For grades 9 and 10. Teacher would usually be a retired military officer. One would have to take apart an AK (model depending on the military standard of the current year) and learn to do it within 30 seconds. They would also be taught to fire small-caliber rifles either semi-auto or bolt action on a range, that could be 25-100 meters. I doubt there was ever something like Columbine in the USSR and accidental deaths by guns either. (Meanwhile in the enlightened Britain one has to register a goddamn flare gun and/or antique fire-arm or have it rendered inoperable). In fact the State encouraged civilian gun use and even awarded good marksmanship with the Stalin-era award, Voroshilov's Sharpshooter, awarded to over 700,000 people. Notice how the wiki page on gun control in the Soviet Union has messed up sourcing, talking about gun control beginning in 1929 while sourcing decrees of 1918 and 1920 (When the USSR was not even in existence yet). “Policemen were responsible for gun control,” writes Katherine Bliss Eaton in Daily Life in the Soviet Union (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004): "Private citizens and institutions could own hunting weapons if they had police permission and registered their guns at the local station house. The militia could confiscate weapons and ammunition from people who showed signs of dangerously irresponsible behavior." Sounds reasonable to me. Hunting was common-place and was regulated only within the prevention of harming population, (Now take a look at Russia with its capitalism, wonderful over there, isn't it). Not to mention sport's use which were managed by DOSAAF, which is why soviet snipers were some of the world's best.
You won't unless you have to (i.e. regulations) or you need to if you don;t want them to riot on your doorstep, that is literally the only reason benefits from companies exist today, a mix of company initiative to prevent more strikes and riots and government crack-down on the monopolies that had developed due to the lack of regulations.
Continuation upcoming, your shit show is so bad it require several posts
Btw: Like how the Americans lied to themselves that everything was fine in Vietnam,and the hundreds of other humanitarian disasters that imperialist wars gave us? You say this, yet capitalism has been equally as disastrous, it's just that many of these disasters have gone relatively unnoticed except for the great depression.
Not an argument. That great service that was provided by a large collective of workers. Not just Mark Zuckerberg. Why should Mark Zuckerberg get all the money and glory?
I take it you are a computer engineer? Since you used that as an example. How does it feel being a classcuck for not just your employer but most likely a Jewish employer? Since Jews dominate Silicon Valley. And Silicon Valley is full of SJWs too now as well. Since SJWism is not incompatible with capitalism. In fact capitalism wants to be inclusive as possible. They want to sell a product to browns and women.
Nothing in Laissez-Faire capitalism that requires the productive to be rewarded, and the lazy to be punished. You can inherit a **** ton of money, and be a lazy cunt, and be rewarded for it, and you can work 80 hours a week and earn a penny. That's all possible in Laissez-Faire capitalism, and is pretty common in many mixed-market capitalist societies today. Incentives exist past monetary gain. We, as a society, must pass the obsession with materialistic incentives which is provided by capitalist indoctrination throughout our entire young, scholastic livesIn a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much because no-one is more or less advanced than you in any meaningful way.The work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind and to improve society as a whole, as extreme wealth is not a given option for this mark, mostly because it is not needed. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition. The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality and profit. Having a state simply means this can be given more complexity and structure without fear of collapse.
PS Corporatism - the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. Literally does not conflict with the definition of capitalism. Nationalization is also not the same as socialization
