Educate Me on Communism

Is this true?:

"526. The argument between socialism and capitalism comes down to this: to those who, when left to their own devices, naturally rise above the mean, and to those who fall below. The former will be proponents of capitalism, the latter of socialism. The former are talented and hard-working, the latter talentless and lazy. And all this is proved by the failure of socialism, and in particular that of communism: its ultimate manifestation — as if a group of habitual losers at the individual level would be able to create, by pooling together all their weaknesses and failures, a winning combination!
But it is plain that, as they lose on the individual level — as individuals — they will ultimately lose on the group level too. The only reason they temporarily succeeded at a few points in history is because they were facing even greater losers: a complacent and degenerate aristocracy."

Attached: Jean-Léon_Gérôme_-_The_Duel_After_the_Masquerade.jpg (1800x1234, 2.38M)

Other urls found in this thread:

fox5ny.com/news/48k-per-amazon-hq-job
youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nah man that's BULLSHIT

Is this bait? This literally sounds like "is it true you're all just lazy, entitled losers?" to me at least.
No it isn't true, especially in the case of unionized mine workers and farmers who become radicalized due to being unable to afford a decent life.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (375x311, 115.28K)

capitalists depend on exploiting others so no one is "left to their own devices"

Daily reminder that the wealth of the rich is based off social theft from the poor

807. Redistribution doesn't work. It never has and never will. No amount of taking money from the rich and giving it to the average or the poor will ever make these people rich, because the moment the average or the poor get some money, they give it straight back to the rich, for the same reason that the rich became rich in the first place: because, thanks to their superior intelligence, they design the iPhones and perform the surgeries that every sane person desires. The only way for the scheme to work would be if the average and poor people themselves preferred the products and services of the average and poor people, to those of the rich, but they do not, because even they are not that stupid, and inequality continues.

Whoever wrote this is dumb

question for you OP, are long run equilibrium prices are proportional to labor inputs?

Dur, rich people get all their money from stealing

t. never read Marx once

This is an objectively true fact and if you disagree you should really just save everyone the trouble and kys because you're an NPC.

fox5ny.com/news/48k-per-amazon-hq-job

Hmm

512. That the master is lazy and sits around all day and does nothing, is a prejudice of the slave. That is what they say between themselves to make their slavery appear decent to them. The truth is that the master exerts himself far beyond what the slave would ever be able to cope with — after all, he was strong enough to enslave them lol. And then on top of that he risks himself more — so that all the cares and anguishes of such risks are added to the physical and mental exertion that he daily imposes on himself as a matter of course. The slave would be instantly crushed if the master's load was suddenly placed upon him. Courage, daring, fearlessness and self-sacrifice are all qualities that the master is called upon to display every day, and qualities which the slave obviously lacks, for if he didn't lack them he wouldn't have ended up a slave in the first place. Or at any rate he would have atoned for his ancestors' mistakes, if it was their failures which resulted in him being born a slave, and overcome his slavery, like Spartacus for instance, among numerous such examples.

copy paste man, are you going to respond to my post?

There's more wealth in the world than there has ever been in the history of man

...

Attached: 9d5.png (680x680, 59.44K)

do you lack the basic economic knowledge required to parse my comment?

This statement is always true though.

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF RIGHT-WING """"THOUGHT""""

Attached: lol.png (222x255, 63.24K)

Not if there was a big war or something

yeah, my coal miner great grandfather who lost an arm on the job and STILL worked there until his death was just lazy and salty.

Why do we allow threads like this to continue? OP, if you really want to learn about left-wing thought, why not read Marx, Kropotkin, Lenin, Luxembourg, Stirner, or any other leftist writer? You can find information about them so easily.

Well, yes, but assuming we were blown back into the stone age and the world became a barren wasteland, we would then assume a system of government and economics suited for such conditions. You know, a system emerging from the material conditions of society including the surrounding resources and environment. Marxists are not absolutists, we do not moralize past systems. Economic systems fulfill a role and then eventually, as material conditions improve, those systems become insufficient, obsolete, and unstable with their internal contradictions becoming more and more pronounced. The bourgeoise are not "evil", they are simply a now unnecessary, inefficient, and outmoded component of the now obsolete and unstable system of capitalism attempting to preserve their status beyond their given expiration date. If we were in need of rapidly industrializing and further centralizing production in the 1600s, then we would be for capitalism. If we lived in the conditions which required the security and centralization before then that were provided by feudalism, we would be for feudalism. We follow only the logic of historical materialism and necessity, not idealism and moralist absolutism. What must be done, not moralist feelings of what should be.

Attached: roberts_shaikh-6.jpg (600x351, 34.49K)

This post made me kms.

youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM

When the wealth distribution is plotted in log-log plot, logarithmic scale horizontal for amount of wealth and vertical for cumulative population, you can see two different distributions.

The curvy one for thermal distribution and a straight line the Pareto distribution for the ultra-rich.

When a model of random exchanges (selling of labour, petty trade) is used, you get only the curvy line.

WHen the wealth distribution is obtained from statistical research, you see a new thing the straight end. Therefore the wealth of rich has to come from something else, not from selling of their labour power, nor from mere trade of things.

99% are thermal, 1% is non-thermal and one needs to see where the source of their wealth is.

Capital is basically a structure of dead labour forming a self-perpetuating and expanding system. It needs capital accumulation to exists, and capital accumulation comes from surplus value.

The real world doesn't work like that.

Can you stop living in a glass bubble you absolute faggot and get out in the real world from time to time?
Is this the power of double digit mongrel I-Q?

*Secret polices you*
*State represses you*
*Outlaws unions*
*Coups you*
*CIA psyops you*
*invades you for Democracy*
*Economically sanctions you*
*Embargoes you*
*Politically restricts you*

I don't just mean burger imperialism, I mean generally. The idea that anyone is solely a product of their own effort is a narcissistic delusion.

So much of pro-capitalist rethoric always falls back on these types of a-historical, "universe-in-a-bottle", two people stranded on an island scenarios. Why is that? Methinks that the actual real flesh-and-blood world doesn't work quite as you would wish so you conjure up these nonsensical abstractions.

This, for example, completely ignores the fact that capitalism didn't simply emerge without friction. It was imposed upon large parts of the world by fire, blood and gunpowder. It was imposed by stealing land and privatizing the commons. It was imposed by the boot of the policeman and the cannons of the gunman. It takes quite a bit of force to impose the discipline of the factory system upon a people previously content to be left to their own devices and mostly fend for themselves.


Pure ideology. The workload of the master is irrelevant to the critique of their position. Their economic role is still essentially parasitical, and there is no actual downside to getting rid of them. Where then is our incentive to not seek their destruction? Especially in this day and age where most of the actual work entailed by exploitation has been outsourced to a well-paid managerial caste so the owners themselves are free to simply play around with the spoils.

We know, you dildo. That's why we seek to socialize the means of production, not tax the rich and hand out the spoils as wellfare. Have you not a single clue as to what socialists actually propose?

What a retarded thread.