People are too selfish for communism to work

Because neither of you have ever had a job, and therefore don't understand what bosses tend to actually do.
Spoiler alert: you're incapable of doing their jobs without gaining the proper experience first.

On what basis do you make such a claim?
I'm actually fairly familiar with managerial literature thanks to the work of French sociologist Luc Boltanski.
This could be said of any job, from coal miner to IT admin.

Communism does work but only in pure white countries. If you didn't import all these subhuman you could live in a perfect communist utopia but instead now you will only get great suffering, you're too stupid to comprehend the amount of pain that is coming and its all your fault.

Really?

Why don't you go ask your boss what they do instead of asking for 3rd hand information?

Sociologist, really?

I'm in trades and used to be in a machine shop until I became a mechanic. All the owner of the production does is pay the workers and me less then what we produce and reinvest that the profit he acquires from selling the commodities we create into further commodity production all while reducing the pay his workers over time by using the reserve army of labour and automation as leverage against us. If your talking about planning and management, you could run most calculations on a basic computer as Cockshott demonstrates and workplace decisions can easily be decided by elected union committees who have experience by work and by demonstrated proof.

Attached: 121021CMC.jpg (960x720, 50.69K)

These aren't proofs, they are books.

Now start your own cooperative and prove the whole world wrong, I'm waiting.

Zig Forumstards, ladies and gentlemen.

Attached: c6ae01a449f64354301559beb7e30ff9a6ce376708538313942f2a9a3d9509ef.png (342x276, 155.54K)

Top minds from Zig Forums are on the case

Attached: 602082d1695bd3a734ee6f2f02eb03be9996c9c1b516ace26577064db52910bc.jpg (292x315, 11.67K)

Well, I eagerly await for further proofs from the mind of Zig Forums.

At least go up and ask your boss what he does, he will explain to ya.

Co-ops are still capitalism and I know your aware of that. The book provides the data backed model for a system in a socialist society, as such capitalism must be abolished which would necessitate a revolution to remove the established system like every other system that has come before. How do you think systems come to be? Do they just continuously exist in another prior system for eternity with that system also existing?

Because I'm not interested in his precious opinion, which is entirely staked on defending his own class interests — antagonistic to mine.
Luc Boltanski's New Spirit of Capitalism extensively features and discusses proper managerial literature as studied by bosses all over the developed world.
Who do you want me to consult about social and economic issues? A Nigerian witch doctor?

Attached: 1479991000956.jpg (399x614, 47.12K)

Oh should I wait for your socialist revolution then? Any days now.
Where is this model in reality? Where's the proof of it?
Depend on who you ask, capitalism has existed ever since we got money.

But when you study something, you ought to have 1st hand opinion, no?
So that means it's still 3rd hand information, studied by the boss, NOT experiences from the boss.
Well, you want to know what your boss does, I think you ought to consult your boss, not a witch doctor i.e. a sociologist.

Ironically, not an argument.

Attached: itwasntrealsocialism.webm (1280x720, 4.87M)

I don't consult fascists when I educate myself about the history of fascism.
First-hand information accompanied by a critical apparatus, you mean. That's what I'm interested about, not business tips from exploiters.
I sure hope for your own sake that this is an elaborate joke.

Attached: bb10a84825b59af0b1bd4a797376ee4df55584c0e37d2f287df4f1bf901f050e.png (251x281, 34.32K)

define exploit

Oh, that explains why you know nothing about fascism.
Nope, they aren't first hand information if you are reading it from a 3rd party.
Nope, time to face reality, friend. You are learning from a sociologist how to do business. Good luck.

Yeah, these are nice pics.

But the USSR was also a shitty totalitarian society that got more and more stagnant until it died.

It's economy was alright under Stalin, but at the cost of so many other things. The Leninist economic model does not work. Why do you want to recreate this?

We haven't discussed fascism, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Fascism is definitely a subject I'm familiar with, so feel free to ask anything.
The book contains extensive citations and include further reference to additional material. It also features comparative examination, something you would obviously miss by limiting yourself to reading isolated instances of managerial literature.
I have no interest in learning "how to do business". I think you're confused about our worldview and motives.

Proletarianization and surplus extraction.

the white paris you'll find on the other hand if you start to travel north of Paris it's harder

That's how I know you've never worked, or at the very least, at least have literally no idea what a boss does.
As a thought experiment (since I know you would never put in the actual effort), consider exactly, from start to finish, in detail, how you would go up setting up a machine shop of your own.
Then consider what it would take to ensure it stays in business, in detail, on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly level.
Then you'll have some idea of what bosses do, and why you're not one.

No, just communists, apparently.

We don't want to "take the place of the boss", we don't want to run capitalist business. Get that through your thick skull.

Attached: 15000548101584.jpg (763x809, 169.6K)

Only because you hate work, workers, and working in general.

Here's your (you)

You're mistaking us for capitalists, my dude.

No, I'm definitely not. The only common trend I've noticed among all you infighting commies here is your open hatred towards the actual working class, and the very idea of working in general.

Attached: 344b81c92c8089020c50182e69fd1b7831885ce6.gif (1195x1145, 2.55M)

I just posted the book, find his youtube channel if your that lazy.
This is the most brainlet thing I've heard you say this whole thread.

...

Most of us are workers though. And those who aren't don't hate them. Unless you're talking about lumpenproles, then maybe you'd have something. But so far this remains a baseless accusation.

How? We believe in socially necessary labour. Unless you're talking of methods to lessen unnecessary labour time, or the fact that our surplus value is extracted by the capitalist class, you're basically just another retarded Zig Forumsyp. The only thing you have done is reject evidence and result to ad homs.

Attached: 7e6.png (354x367, 277.83K)

There is already improvements in this field.
Transhumanism will fix this. No humans, no problems.

Attached: 1520555297894.png (128x128, 1.71K)

Attached: f6facf4a4aeb1d97ab1b884a9e88febd4ee691e9e7378cd85f9baced64ad7153.png (672x808, 158.39K)

8ch.net/leftypol/res/2458824.html#2458840

Wait, do you honestly think that business owners do all of this themselves? That they go into it without outside assistance or planning or consultants or their investors or advisors or lawyers or hired management teams or accountants or even sometimes the fucking bank? Is it you maybe who has to talk to a business owner?

That's painfully untrue.

Sure, as long as you're not the one doing it.

Attached: proofs7.png (580x426 27.48 KB, 32.32K)

Literally couldn't survive if I wasn't one, but keep trying to validate your own opinions on an anonymous Malaysian slap-stick slat
Everyone works in socialism or they receive nothing.

Who brings in the outside assistance?

Who does the planning?

Who talks with the consultants?

Who brings in the investments?

Who discusses issues with advisors?

Who deals with the lawyers?

Who does all of this?

Could it be, I don't know, the guy who's in charge of the business, who has to juggle and navigate all of these different factors in order to both start and maintain a business?

And that's barely scratching the surface. They also have to know about their own manufacturing process, their quality systems in place, make business contacts, stay on top of what competitors are doing, etc etc.

Well, that explains why everyone starves to death under communist systems.

You're just describing the task of a manager, not of an owner. Nothing of what you say implies any kind of necessity of having an owner who collects dividends purely from his ownership of the company. You are not making an argument for capitalism, only for having management specialists.

nice projection retard

...

So are we the evil totalitarian red menace that forces all people to work too much or a bunch of harmless layabouts who don't want work done at all?

This guy is just baiting for the sake of baiting

That’s literally what Marx believed

really makes you think

the soviet union and the gdr

Proles are happy to stab each other in the back in order to partner with bureaucrats or the wealthy for their own self empowerment (it's one of the most consistent elements of human history.) This isn't a situation where one class of people are noble angels by birth, they're all varying degrees of shit, rich and poor.

thats a good joke

lefties against all evidence will argue that people can cooperate if you only abolish that dang PRIVATE PROPERTY. Pretty similar to libertarians/ancaps who think people will cooperate as soon as the dang STATE is abolished.

now u owned those commies epic style xD

Literally no one says this. Only libs claim that capitalism somehow "isn't working" or that it's somehow due to "greedy" actors within capitalism.

Socialists understand that this is all exactly how capitalism works, and it's very good at its job, which is the reproduction of capital and that it's these economic forces that drive capitalists to behave in the way that they do, so even a living saint would behave in the same manner (and if they didn't, they would fail)

Attached: marx beer.jpg (600x572, 76.39K)

How will we ever recover
also
Fucking Burgers

Really gets my noggin joggin'.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Attached: cover_1500-15.png (940x469 5.04 MB, 140.59K)

stupid nazi wants actual result, what an idiet xD

So, what's your solution to mass automation?

Inb4 "muh ubi"

Attached: porky just.png (576x566, 323.12K)

ok ill give you a slightly more serious answer.

now imagine if we were having this discussion in medieval and you came "haha how capitalists claim feudalism doenst work yet they cant name a single wealthy capitalist kingdom haha". or like "haha if you like jacobinism so much why dont you move to Haiti lmao xd"

the same thing is happening here. it is a matter of material capability of maintaining and functioning an economy. if i wanted to start a commune in my bedroom i wouldnt be successful because i lack the means of production and the population and so on, and this material basis cant be ignored. when you say "there isnt a sucessful communist country" your analysis is being one-sided, youre analysing the socialists states experiences in a vaccum, ignoring the fact they all had to start from scratch without factories and infrastructure and so on, deal with embargo sabotage and etc. the socialists states have not been the rule, but the exception. they had less GDP because they didnt have as many factories population etc, the same thing happened in all tentatives of creating capitalism in medieval times, and it didnt have to do with capitalism being shitty, but with the dominand material basis of society at a given time.

that being said, the communist states, if being fairly compared with countries in similar situations to them prior to the revolution, did pretty well. if you compare the development of russia to brazil for exemple, or cuba with haiti, and so on. the socialist states have been more sucessful than most of the third world countries, even if facing sabotage, military intervention, embargo, and such.

on a last note the so called "sucessful capitalist countries" actually are only so successful because of the very failure of the third world they leech of. analysing them as a exemple of the efficience of capitalism is just as one sided as trying to analyse the socialist states in a vaccum.

*farts* goo gaa goo goo *drools* hurr hurr derr derp xD
t. you

this post has been pretty underrated in its retardness.

holy fucking shit. Please kys.

Attached: 3cc3ebb542293670bbc3ba5acca29350e792642e404433ff2dafd3efbb2658ea.png (449x401, 140.09K)

communism is in the best self inerest of the majority
capitalism is supposed to work because the "selfless" capitalists would let the wealth trickle down
the system however favors and creates sociopathic leadership in the bourgeoise
selfishness if anything is an argument in favor of communism either way
they already exist, but this is just an arbitrary line created to not adress the actual driving force behind society. the productive forces are more than enough developed everywhere for a socialist revolution to take place and develop its own means to maintain itself
those who are get gulagd my dear
it's people complaining about crushing bureaucrats and purging the party that are the issue here.
to just give up over corruption rather than destryoing its foundation, which socialism does, would drive any society, even your capitalist one, more and more into the shit. which it btw. already does, being one more argument in favor of struggle for socialism.
in the communist manifesto Marx describes different "socialist" branches and taking the piss at all of them, then going on to explain the communists relation to them.
from which stems the idea that socialism can indeed be used as a synonym for what marx described as "first stage communism" "which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (the german ideology). how that is to be done also described in the manifesto again:
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

the differences between "socialism" and "communism" are further explained by Lenin
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
how do you respond Zig Forums?

This place is unironically worse than the entirety of cuckchan

t. assblasted Zig Forumstard.

You mean /b/ and krautchan memes.

Attached: 1513422717587.png (817x443, 34.27K)

the absolute state

I don't even go on Zig Forums, I'm just taking a look at this board you fucks keep shilling on my site.

It technically started on /biz/, but Zig Forumstards use it the most from my expierence.

Attached: brainlet nazi.jpg (403x448, 37.33K)

Communists truly are mentally retarded.

Can't use that one when this posts exists

Attached: WHAT ABOUT THE MEMES (re-upload).mp4 (1280x720, 15.23M)

Protip: unless you work in some fucking tiny meme company, your manager isn't your real boss, they're just a wage laborer who manages other wage laborers. If you work for a company of any real size, you probably don't even know who you're real boss is, much less have actually met the guy (or guys as the case usually is, most corporations in the modern day being joint stock companies run by a board of directors)

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 74.68K)

Attached: 9e0d0e6585a9ddb343be9cd538bdbe497e0c16802ca00c2cf7568cd4eeab763f.jpg (480x360, 13.28K)

"Strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
I didn't say that I was a Nazi, nor did I say anything about books. Your post was a literal strawman.

jesus I can't believe I never bothered to actually watch this before
I'm betting ten to one Zig Forumsyps declared it a false flag

Attached: 4e5c86b7a3cd35410d0fb15574839dcd52ad83f9689b7922755585cca9a620cf.png (979x832, 696.03K)

Attached: Screenshot_1.png (662x290, 143.47K)

Damn, son. You are mad.

Not an argument.

I don't give a shit about 'muh memes', I'm simply saying this thread is cancer.

Here's where you tripped up friendo.
There was no argument. You were whining that we were "shilling" on "your" site, and I made fun of you. That's not a strawman because "strawman" attempts some kind of argument is going on, but the attempt at pedantry is appriciated.

Attached: tfw Lenin.png (680x684, 118.6K)

Attached: 3b8be07d9dd5c11d2b603d92bdf9746cf3f9cb8b80c4bdbd10dd6b398067de8f.jpg (431x450, 62.41K)

Then leave the thread, genius. Or are you so triggered over us lefties existing that you've just got to sperg at us?

Attached: 9aa9ab713c1521bd5fdd9f59f27c695fbe7478c38034b5de5411305d03efd88c.jpg (526x550, 41.58K)