I am anti left - AMA

Gabriel Mitchell
Gabriel Mitchell

I don't fit on the left right spectrum but I strongly oppose leftism. Feel free to ask me anything if you are interested in a different perspective.

Let's keep it civil.

Attached: smug-girl-in-pepe-suit.jpg (125.51 KB, 814x792)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism
panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html
reddit.com/

Jeremiah Nguyen
Jeremiah Nguyen

you do, actually, there's no spectrum, bye bye alt right

Zachary Allen
Zachary Allen

nice bread

Attached: 1552842851435.png (41.73 KB, 874x664)

Dylan Scott
Dylan Scott

Posts pepe image
Yuck! Centrist get the bullet too.

Dominic Carter
Dominic Carter

Thank you.
Good thing for me that I am not a centrist.

Adam Richardson
Adam Richardson

What political opinions do you actually hold and what do you think "left" is so we can all look and laugh at you

Dylan Hernandez
Dylan Hernandez

not a centrist/doesn't agree with the left=right thank you for the question

Benjamin Moore
Benjamin Moore

Why are you such a massive bundle of sticks, OP?

Lucas Barnes
Lucas Barnes

Is this how alt-kikes look like?

Jeremiah Jenkins
Jeremiah Jenkins

I don't fit on the left right spectrum
In other words
capitalism and communism are two sides of the same jewish coin!

Attached: leftwingdeathsquads.png (497.55 KB, 706x694)

Ethan Myers
Ethan Myers

I am free of ideology. I support what works best in practice.

Leftism encompasses revolutionary ideologies that go against property rights and meritocracy, for example socialism, big gov, wealth redistribution and so on.

I guess I just can't help it.

The nazi larpers wish me dead so I am definitely not on their side.

alt-kikes
What is that?

Brandon Stewart
Brandon Stewart

property rights and meritocracy
right-wing liberal, there you go

Juan Morris
Juan Morris

I am free of ideology
t. basic bitch liberal with the political insight of a ten-year old

Jonathan Turner
Jonathan Turner

I am free of ideology.
You cannot be free of ideology. Only a rock is free of ideology.
I support what works best in practice.
This is an ideology and what you perceive as "working" and "best" is ideology.

Leftism encompasses revolutionary ideologies that go against […] meritocracy
Well thanks for showing your fundamental idiocy

Oliver Ward
Oliver Ward

I am free of ideology.
No.

Austin Reed
Austin Reed

I am free of ideology
Nobody is free of ideology.
property rights and meritocracy
Case in point, you're a liberal.
big gov, wealth redistribution and so on.
Wrong though. Fuck do you come here spewing bourg talking points devoid of any factual basis and then claim to be free of ideology?

Dominic Hill
Dominic Hill

What works best in practive
Peak ideology.
Leftism encompasses revolutionary ideologies that go against property rights
Yes.
and meritocracy
No.
for example socialism
Yes.
big gov, wealth redistribution and so on
No.

Try to read communist theory instead of strawmaning.

Camden Anderson
Camden Anderson

I support what works best in practice.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics?

Samuel Carter
Samuel Carter

I think you meant marxism-leninism-maoism-hoxhaism

Elijah Sanders
Elijah Sanders

Try to read communist theory instead of strawmaning.
nah, this faggot could use a heavy dose of basic political philosophy before they could handle anything more concrete.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (238.95 KB, 326x499)

Nicholas Jenkins
Nicholas Jenkins

Socialism with Chinese characteristics
Realpolitik isn't an ideology, just a mean to an end.

Joshua Perry
Joshua Perry

You are literally every suburban white 12 to 24 year old male with less than 3 close friends and limited social experiences. Get away from YouTube and vidya kid.

Attached: 1550869325589.png (383.63 KB, 600x600)

Brandon Powell
Brandon Powell

Wrong. I also oppose the right and liberals. But they are both very weak and much less of a threat than the left.

In your use of the term ideology it has no meaning. Ideology is fundamentally based on theory and ideas, not on practice.

Well thanks for showing your fundamental idiocy
Property rights are a fundamental component of meritocracy. How does leftism support it?

Then go ahead and share your understanding of leftism.

You talk high and mighty but you make zero arguments. Typical for a philtard.

This.

Luke Morgan
Luke Morgan

if the only things you support are private property and meritocracy you are a right-winger.

Jeremiah Walker
Jeremiah Walker

I am free of ideology. I support what works best in practice.
Why is "what works best in practice" not an ideological statement, then? "Works best" for whom? "Works best" in what way?

Leftism encompasses revolutionary ideologies that go against property rights and meritocracy, for example socialism, big gov, wealth redistribution and so on.
Leftism isn't necessarily against meritocracy, although this does depend on what group or which leftist you're talking about. Some are against the concept of "merit," mostly anarchists; most allow for it in some form, in a theoretical socialist state.

I could understand why you might hate leftists. Many leftists hate leftists. On the other hand, you may not even be hating leftist but liberals, however "radical" they may try to pass themselves off as. Nonetheless, you should probably read more about ideology.

Robert Carter
Robert Carter

Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group. quotations
If you have a body, or set, of beliefs – you have an ideology. It may not be something that can fit purely into labels such as "socialism", "conservatism", "liberalism", or "fascism", however it still maintains that set of ideas = ideology. You believe in something, or a complex of somethings, therefore it is an ideology. Very many people don't fit nicely into labels like "liberalism" and "conservatism" because one can be fiscally conservative, socially liberal. or the inverse, and still have an ideology, or even be conservative on some fiscal issues and liberal on others. Even then, if you look there are many syncretic combinations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism
On and on. You can read the variants section for yourself.

Jack Brooks
Jack Brooks

Property rights are a fundamental component of meritocracy.
Property rights are antithetical to a meritocracy. Property gives the owner power over others not out of his own ability, but out of ownership. A millionaire inverter does not make tons of money by being meritfull, but by owning property, while a more meritfull person who does not own property earns less.

Lincoln Flores
Lincoln Flores

inverter
investor*

Bentley Nelson
Bentley Nelson

Ideology is fundamentally based on theory and ideas, not on practice
Yes, you are not free from theory and ideas, whether you like it or not.

Property rights are a fundamental component of meritocracy.
No, not all meritocratic economies are market-based, even less so private property-based.

This.
You don't understand what I meant. Even if you just want "what works best", it will depend on an underlying ideology, which isn't simply implied by political realism.

Aiden Bennett
Aiden Bennett

philtard
i mean you come here talking about your supposedly high-minded political positions (not ideological tho ofc xDDDD) but you just demonstrate naivete and ignorance of basic concepts and terminology while offering no arguments. Its not exactly a good faith position on your part, and its not going to encourage any on the part of anons here.
Alas your opinions are entirely bland liberalism, so unthinkingly absorbed from the status quo you can't even recognise them as ideological. But since you're here you've got at least some interest in the political so hopefully in time you'll start reading books.

Sebastian Miller
Sebastian Miller

I also oppose the right
You probably mean the conservatives (as in Christian values).
and liberals
When we mean liberalism, we mean economical liberalism (as in capitalist deregulation), not as in societal liberalism (as in civil liberties).

Adrian Collins
Adrian Collins

Ideology is fundamentally based on theory and ideas, not on practice
Practice itself is based on theory and ideas. People don't just do shit without thinking about it.
Then go ahead and share your understanding of leftism.
Socialism isn't about "wealth redistribution", it's about the working class controlling the means of production. The problem isn't that "some people have loads of money and others don't so we need to tax the wealth and distribute it equally XDDD", it's "the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie who are required to exploit the workers that they employ to turn a profit and society as a whole is structured to uphold this state of affairs, which is counter to the interests of the working class."

Your idea that private property rights are inherently meritocratic is in itself an incredibly ideological one. Multiple studies have shown that a person's intelligence, for example, has very little bearing on whether or not they end up rich - rather, it's mostly down to the circumstances that a person is born into (background, inheritance, opportunities) and luck. Plus, of course, a healthy dose of exploitation.

I ask again, why do you come here, repeat absolutely normal liberal talking points stemming from the most absurd misrepresentations of what socialism actually means, and then try to act like you're actually free of ideology?

Logan Evans
Logan Evans

Has OP even stated why he's against leftism?

Charles Clark
Charles Clark

yeah, he likes private property

Juan Diaz
Juan Diaz

Someone should tell him about market socialism, it would blow his mind.
panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html

Matthew Evans
Matthew Evans

He is a rational realpolitik person who only wants private property and what works best and has no ideology (AKA he is a centrist)

Evan Ward
Evan Ward

Fun on this board how these teen leftists have never set foot in a socialist or communist country.

Stop spending that money on craft beer and weed and go travel and see how good shit works for yourself.

Christopher Moore
Christopher Moore

Go away retarded boomer

Eli Scott
Eli Scott

I have no arguments and I must screech
so this is the power of the non-ideological centroid

Attached: levada.ru-ussr-poll.png (49.78 KB, 673x923)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.81 MB, 1400x1120)

Lucas Bennett
Lucas Bennett

You write too many posts and I can't keep up. Please keep that in mind.

I support what works. There is abundant evidence that meritocracy leads to best results because it incentivizes better performance. I do not support private property as an untouchable ideological right.

Why is "what works best in practice" not an ideological statement, then? "Works best" for whom? "Works best" in what way?
Very good questions. I guess whether it is an ideology is a matter of semantics so let me close this by saying that I see ideology as a set of beliefs that are followed independent of reality. I do not hold on to any such beliefs but start with the actual real world situation and how a problem can be solved best independent of preconceived theoretical belief systems.

"Works best" for whom?
Mankind.

"Works best" in what way?
You could argue that this part is ideological since meaning is subjective and with that the goals who are a fundamental component in this process.

I think our primary goal should be our survival.

And the best way to maximize our survival is through technological progress. So the challenge turns into how can we maximize technological progress.

you should probably read more about ideology.
I will take this critique into consideration. The problem is whenever I did so in the past, I usually did not learn anything valuable.

Wrong. It is fundamental to merit that you get what you deserve. When you create something, you deserve it, therefore it should be your property.
A millionaire inverter does not make tons of money by being meritfull
This investor enables others to do things they could not do without him lending them his property. The merit is that this investor faces the very hard challenge of investing properly. If he does a bad job, he loses wealth. If he does a good job, he gains wealth. Just as deserved. His job is extremely important, predicting in advance what will create the most value and then enabling the creation of said value. Also, that initial wealth did not come out of thin air. Someone had to earn it.

Of course not. I am not free from biases and prejudice either. However, I do not consciously follow any ideology as I see it.

meritocratic economies
How can they work without some form of ownership?

You are the ignorant one. You assume you understand me without even giving it a try.

How about this? Give me the name of THE BEST book you know and I will give it a try if I haven't read it already.

When we mean liberalism, we mean economical liberalism
That's what I assumed. When I say liberal, I mean classical liberal, not a lefty who has hijacked the term for the war of words.

Luke Rivera
Luke Rivera

l e l

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (21.54 KB, 292x193)

Ethan Ortiz
Ethan Ortiz

AMA
that spacing
I think you've gotten lost, let me set you straight: reddit.com/

Hudson Brooks
Hudson Brooks

mankind

Mankind isn’t united. Which men?
Also, about investors;

Why should th investor be rewarded for just throwing money at something? If he invests in a car factory, he’s just putting money into it. He does not build the machines. He does not operate he machines. He doesn’t build the factory, and he doesn’t even participate in the day to day managing of the operation usually. He just has a bond or whatever that says “x business owes me some cash with interest”.

In addition, the only risk he takes is becoming a worker. Why should he be rewarded for figuring out which industry he can best exploit? In a socialist system the construction and operation of a car factory would be done anyways and all the workers involved would be paid according to their contribution. Under communism cost is irrelevant, only need is important.

Attached: 9B8C2621-39FE-43B9-9A3B-ADA6E0141F36.jpeg (373.82 KB, 727x1214)

Lucas Powell
Lucas Powell

Что-то тут дохуя белых заднеприводных пендосов 🤔

Ну вас нахуй, тупые американцы олололо

Сосите 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆

Henry Green
Henry Green

you're on the spectrum alright

Owen Baker
Owen Baker

I am going to explicit further as to what I mean by realpolitik necessiting an ideology.

The most representated realist political theory after the industrial revolution was egoism (liberalism). Political egoism means we, as a civilization, should produce exactly what the general population wants. This is an individualist ideology (german or socialist - latter known as "communism" - idealism for example).

There is also materialism. Political materialism means that we, as a civilization, should produce and develop our mean of production (and thus scientific research) as much as possible. This is an essentialist ideology (metaphysical monism). For example, advocating for endless growth can be considered materialistic.

Then comes other ethical (and often essentialist) ideologies, for example religion. Political religion means we, as a civilization, should do what God wants. What God wants is defined within religious texts and is often arbitratry in the context of historical social customs and ethics.

So which political ideology do you mean when you say "what works the best"? To what end?

Levi Ward
Levi Ward

all i could understand from that is "fuck you americans" so based post

Ayden Miller
Ayden Miller

The revolver in the middle seems to have 8 chambers in the cylinder. Is this the power of communism..?

Nolan Rogers
Nolan Rogers

I have lived and worked in china for 6 months, in the same dorms as native chinese workers.
Get out of your house yourself.

Jack Martinez
Jack Martinez

I am against leftism because I think that leftism causes tremendous damage to mankind.

Examples are the slowing down of the economy and innovation through bloated states, suppression of meritocratic elements through wellfare state, bureaucracy and mass regulation. Or mass immigration of people who cause more harm than good, meaning they destroy social cohesion and become a huge burden on society.

Leftism has for example caused the destruction of western civilization because they won and now it is just a matter of time to unfold. An example are the USA. White children are already a minority, they have fallen off the demographic cliff. However, whites are the only ones who consistently vote against the left, for small government and a free economy. Now the USA are trapped in a self reinforcing leftist cycle, meaning social cohesion will continue to degrade, the economic growth will slow down to EU levels of stagnation and worse, innovation will drop. Brazil and USA used to be similar on a per capita basis. The reason why Brazil isn't as rich and successful now is because they embraced more leftist politics than the USA. But gradually the USA started following Brazil's footsteps, turning into a shithole.

Adam King
Adam King

some have 8 chambers tbh

Nathaniel Campbell
Nathaniel Campbell

thanks for justifying the anchoring of this thread

Eli Thompson
Eli Thompson

There is abundant evidence that meritocracy leads to best results because it incentivizes better performance
I might agree, but you have to define what you mean by "performance".

Mankind
All of mankind? No identity politics (as in "we" against "them")?

I think our primary goal should be our survival
We are well past this. Now human civilization needs to find a further (arguably arbitrary) goal. Consider survival is not a "goal", it is a reality for life to exist. The struggle for existantial competition (Darwinism) is probably what you meant. Do you think humanity is in danger of being taken over by another species? If not, then your fear might come from structural issues within human society, maybe global warming?

how can we maximize technological progress
Or mitigation of issues through structural policies.

I do not consciously follow any ideology as I see it
This is called skepticism.

How can they work without some form of ownership?
I posted a small book about market (mutualist) socialism (without private property), try to read it.

Adam Lewis
Adam Lewis

Did this nigga just claim USA and Brazil are socialist

Christopher Gutierrez
Christopher Gutierrez

There is abundant evidence that meritocracy leads to best results because it incentivizes better performance
Good, because the USSR did exactly that with the piece-rate system. Marx also advises that people get paid based on the work they complete in Critique the Gotha Program, albeit with non-transferable labour vouchers and what not.
Wrong. It is fundamental to merit that you get what you deserve. When you create something, you deserve it, therefore it should be your property.
You can receive societal compensation and a position for your singular invention, but the idea that you should continue to receive monetary "royalties" from such an invention is both extremely inefficient and absurd. Otherwise we would be in the ridiculous position of paying the inventors of the wheel and the cart still.
This investor enables others to do things they could not do without him lending them his property. The merit is that this investor faces the very hard challenge of investing properly. If he does a bad job, he loses wealth. If he does a good job, he gains wealth. Just as deserved. His job is extremely important, predicting in advance what will create the most value and then enabling the creation of said value. Also, that initial wealth did not come out of thin air. Someone had to earn it.
So he's a gambler. He's a gambler who takes the risk of becoming a prole at worst. He fulfills a task a computer could do but with all the risk and inefficiencies of a person.
Also, that initial wealth did not come out of thin air. Someone had to earn it.
That's kind of the point isn't it. The wealth came from somewhere and was generated by others who create usable products. He's just moving the money around for his individual benefit.
How can they work without some form of ownership?
Private property is the privately held mean of production, means of production being the large scale fordist industrial production that allows society to operate the way it does. Personal property is whatever you personally own/buy from yourself. We want the first, not the second.
That's what I assumed. When I say liberal, I mean classical liberal, not a lefty who has hijacked the term for the war of words.
We are against that as well

Attached: 4cf0aa66afff7ca0bee5b037344b63fd599ff7ae7c3dd2a990639052a13439f2.webm (4.26 MB, 450x360)
Attached: henry-george-760813.jpg (125.24 KB, 640x852)

Owen Wright
Owen Wright

I think that leftism causes tremendous damage to mankind
But you previously said ideology is about theory and not practice?

Examples are the slowing down of the economy and innovation through bloated states
Statists are just a part of socialist theories.

suppression of meritocratic elements through wellfare state
This is not socialism, but welfare capitalism.

bureaucracy and mass regulation
Theses exist in every developped economies, even in the US.

Or mass immigration of people who cause more harm than good
So idpol, are you a race realist?

Further ranting about idpol
My bad, I should just read posts fully before starting answering them.

Noah Fisher
Noah Fisher

meritocracy leads to best results because it incentivizes better performance
Unfortunately, capitalism only incentivises profit. It doesn't matter whether a capitalist cuts wage expenditures by employing more technologically advanced machinery and less people, or whether he cuts wages by outsourcing his labour to the third world - both have the desired effect.
When you create something, you deserve it, therefore it should be your property.
So why should I perform unpaid work daily so the owners and shareholders can get their bit? Private property rests on the exploitation of surplus labour, i.e. labour over and above that necessary to reproduce a worker's living requirements. Instead of being directed to a social end, then, the product of this surplus labour is instead used to sustain the capitalist class and expand production.
Also, that initial wealth did not come out of thin air. Someone had to earn it.
You mean "labour had to create it."
However, I do not consciously follow any ideology as I see it.
That doesn't matter. Ideology influences everybody, whether you're conscious of it or not.
How can they work without some form of ownership?
Social ownership is still ownership.
suppression of meritocratic elements through wellfare state
Sorry, ensuring everyone has an equal chance at living a healthy life and has their most basic needs provided for is somehow *antithetical* to allowing a person to entirely fulfill their potential? How many potential Einsteins do you think have been able to render no service to humanity because they had to start working at 13 to support a broken family, leading to them being unable to attend school?
Leftism has for example caused the destruction of western civilization
This is literally the "cultural Bolshevism" argument the Nazis were so fond of, and you claim to be without ideology. Fucking lol tbh

Easton Miller
Easton Miller

Unironically thinking that the US and Brazil are leftist
Are you fucking retarded? Having a government doesn't make you leftist, otherwise every government in existence would be "leftist". Also the USSR had literally no extreme mass immigration, so I have no fucking idea where you have this idea that "mass immigration=leftist". Mass immigration is purely a capitalist creation.

Mason Collins
Mason Collins

not aligned with left - right spectrum
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Oy Voy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Brody Richardson
Brody Richardson

Mankind isn’t united.
Who is not united with whom? This is a hypernationalist perspective and the consequence is that the groups not united should at least stay away from each other.

Then the answer becomes the group of men that I belong to.

just throwing money at something?
If it is so easy why don't you do it and become rich and then share the money you earned with others? If the investor wants to make money, he needs to know if an extra car factory is even needed or if that money should be invested into something else instead. Blind investing will always lead to loss of money because most investments fail. The investor to make money must determine where that money is most needed and creates the most value. In a socialist state unqualified bureaucrats with no personal connection to the wealth they rule over do the same but with much worse results, which is why the USA became the richest country in the world and the soviet union was poor. It all comes down to how efficient we are with the allocation of our scarce ressources and de facto investors do a much better job than government workers. Do you have a better alternative of determining ressource allocation?

In addition, the only risk he takes is becoming a worker.
He IS a worker. What he does is work that needs to be done with or without him.

So which political ideology do you mean when you say "what works the best"? To what end?
See

We are well past this.
No we are not. When I talk about our survival, I do not mean surviving the next couple of days. I mean surviving for all eternity. Our existence gives us value, if we all die out it will be as if we never existed in the first place after time has erroded our remains. I am talking about survival, not just a couple years, not just millions, not just trillions, I mean for all eternity.

Do you think humanity is in danger of being taken over by another species?
No.

maybe global warming?
Global warming is not a big issue to mankind. Yes, there will be damage but our technological progress greatly outweighs any negative consequences from global warming. I also do not fear a supposed WW3 that will lead us to extinction or any other apocalyptic events.

I posted a small book about market (mutualist) socialism (without private property), try to read it.
Which one?

Both have large socialist elements. No country truly is capitalist or socialist but countries have socialist and capitalist elements.

Private property is the privately held mean of production, means of production being the large scale fordist industrial production that allows society to operate the way it does. Personal property is whatever you personally own/buy from yourself. We want the first, not the second.
How does that align with
people get paid
You can only get paid if you can own something.
So he's a gambler.
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
He fulfills a task a computer could do but with all the risk and inefficiencies of a person.
Wrong again. The most successful investors use state of the art computational tools to guide their investment. They are managers of ressource allocation. You can't automate this management yet. Feel free to name an alternative that works better than investor system and provide some evidence for it. Because the only alternative in the past was government workers and that sure didn't work well as can be seen by all the communist countries.

Anthony Peterson
Anthony Peterson

the USSR had literally no extreme mass immigration
Because the USSR was a shithole and nobody wanted to live there.
Mass immigration is purely a capitalist creation.
Then why are leftist politicians the cause behind it? Sure you can argue that because capitalism works so well and creates so much wealth and high quality of life, it attracts all these immigrants. But it is still politicians who allow them to come.
Are you fucking retarded?
No. See for further explanation.

Unfortunately, capitalism only incentivises profit.
Unfortunately we do not yet have better alternatives. There is no perfect system, just less shitty ones. That's why I am not a liberal but believe we need strong social structures so that we do not pursue individualism but actually work towards a greater good.

Raw capitalism would be bad too but capitalist elements are essential tools. Imagine in school if everyone got the same grade no matter how they individually perform. Standards would collapse.

Ethan Baker
Ethan Baker

the group of men that I belong to
Which is it?

I mean surviving for all eternity
Good luck, but this is an essentialist ideology and not an egoist one (unless you mean human imortality).

Global warming is not a big issue to mankind
Don't you think the events triggered by the effects of global warming will be detrimental some part of humanity which won't have access to said technology?

our technological progress greatly outweighs any negative consequences
We'll probably see, but I wouldn't be so confident on this matter. What feasible technical solution do you believe has been put forward up to this point?

I also do not fear a supposed WW3 that will lead us to extinction or any other apocalyptic events
What about ressources depletion? Don't you fear war for ressources? Oil for example?

Which one?
panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html

No country truly is capitalist
Are you an anarcho-capitalist or a minarchist?

why are leftist politicians the cause behind it?
They are not, capitalists interests for labor migrants are.

Unfortunately we do not yet have better alternatives
Are you sure? Have you extensively read heterodox economical theories?

Raw capitalism would be bad too but capitalist elements are essential tools
You mean market economy.

Imagine in school if everyone got the same grade no matter how they individually perform
How is this related to the market?

Jason Russell
Jason Russell

WHY YOU HATE WYMMYN?!
WHY YOU HATE POC?!

Josiah Cooper
Josiah Cooper

You can only get paid if you can own something.
I literally just explained what personal property is. Literally stop dodging, we don't want your toothbrush.
Because the only alternative in the past was government workers and that sure didn't work well as can be seen by all the communist countries.
First, it worked quite well. Second, Cybersyn.
They are managers of ressource allocation. You can't automate this management yet.
Read Cockshott
Because the USSR was a shithole and nobody wanted to live there.
So much so I guess that people want it back. Funny that.
Then why are leftist politicians the cause behind it? Sure you can argue that because capitalism works so well and creates so much wealth and high quality of life, it attracts all these immigrants. But it is still politicians who allow them to come.
They aren't? SocDem's aren't "leftists" and even plenty of them are for immigration controls.
No. See for further explanation.
So your retarded and refuse to look at the economy as a whole and constantly misrepresent marxism. Nice.

Attached: 8692bad8ad05aad3719e8bdfb6bd323f1ead495a5d06c46d0a37b6b44e82a8a3.jpg (200.96 KB, 950x751)
Attached: PF.05.10.2017-CE.europe-07-03.png (11.5 KB, 311x447)
Attached: bcdbae468d890f8ae6e6c80eed47e05aa2e646124dd93bc19f40ff1910833190.png (90.38 KB, 660x398)

Daniel Thomas
Daniel Thomas

In a socialist state unqualified bureaucrats with no personal connection to the wealth they rule over do the same but with much worse results, which is why the USA became the richest country in the world and the soviet union was poor.
The USSR was in the top 3 countries by GDP for much of its existence, though.
You can only get paid if you can own something.
You are continuing to misunderstand what socialists mean when they say "property". People still own personal property under socialism; it's literally enshrined in every socialist constitution that I've ever read, e.g. here in the 1977 constitution of the USSR:
Article 13. Earned income forms the basis of the personal property of Council citizens. The personal property of citizens of the USSR may include Articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings. The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state. Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law, for a subsidiary small-holding (including the keeping of livestock and poultry), for fruit and vegetable growing or for building an individual dwelling. Citizens are required to make rational use of the land allotted to them. The state, and collective farms provide assistance to citizens in working their small-holdings. Property owned or used by citizens shall not serve as a means of deriving unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society.
I get the feeling you don't much know what you're talking about and have done very little research on what socialism even is tbh.
You can't automate this management yet.
Yes, you can. The USSR was already pursuing such a project in the '60s - OGAS - that ultimately was passed over due to the technology of the time making such a transition massively costly. More recently, Cybersyn in Chile proved remarkably effective, allowing for normal coordination and functioning of the economy even with most of the truckers on strike during the US-backed coup - and then Pinochet happened. Now in the 21st century we have people such as Paul Cockshott proving that not only is computerised planning possible, but it would now be easier than ever; case in point being .pdf related.
Imagine in school if everyone got the same grade no matter how they individually perform.
Holy fuck, is this babby's first anticommunist argument or something? Socialism does not mean "everyone get paid same XDDDD", but rather everyone receives the proper compensation for their work. Marx literally says this in Critique of the Gotha Programme way back in 1875:
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
You can boil this down to the Leninist slogan of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" - still an imperfect state of affairs (not "to each according to his needs"), but a massive advance over the current state of affairs since it eliminates the unearned income of the property owners and instead allows for the surplus product to be used to better the whole of society.

Hunter Russell
Hunter Russell

All pictures taken by a US spy btw, so don't even try to pull the "doctored photos" shtick on me

Attached: 1-yM9cL7rxU8MrhP-SnCRcWA.jpeg (403.54 KB, 1600x1043)
Attached: 000053000015-3-59958e0e4f3c4--880.jpg (71.75 KB, 880x581)
Attached: 588a2d0fc361885b268b45eb.jpg (190.63 KB, 900x500)

David Roberts
David Roberts

Attached: 2f4adb54454cdc0d06c8737d012795922868424e67843977b66e58dbc673e54e.png (1.17 MB, 759x800)
Attached: 14eae1e3579162dccae4f28d0a2e4ef20eca0e7bb792538d096b7aea5b0b08a2.jpg (123.9 KB, 1023x690)
Attached: 99c6d69314dc8e83ea8e98f2e32292616c81dd97080f9fdb9c3956243dffb5ab.jpg (54.34 KB, 640x564)
Attached: 848e656f60fdd6f53f2b7aceb9fe7261cd246f1eb2db72054e184387e851aa5a.jpg (124.23 KB, 1023x689)

Christian Ramirez
Christian Ramirez

Attached: 198198096e61911e92abc488d79c09c695de2e5418f270e1e7c2e866de74a81e.jpg (126.09 KB, 1023x689)
Attached: 32c69443d8a7ca77ab085e9ab7a403337c98dac0ca78d330bcbea4db5048c00a.jpg (28.47 KB, 640x428)
Attached: ccc1729d8db93a1997f413b84b368b5b98d9564704afcbb4018179093624a0c0.jpg (73.31 KB, 640x633)
Attached: Soviet-Union-in-the-30s.jpg (98.96 KB, 540x380)

Owen Stewart
Owen Stewart

the groups not united should at least stay away from each other.
I agree, deport all capitalists.

Nathan Harris
Nathan Harris

why give retards a platform at all?

David Reyes
David Reyes

OP stops posting after consistently proving he has no fucking idea about even the basics of socialism while acting like an authority on the subject with his tired liberal-propaganda soundbites
so this is the power of smug centrism

Jonathan Robinson
Jonathan Robinson

Let's hope he is busy reading theory after he changed his mind on the nature of ideology.

John Martinez
John Martinez

beat me to it.

Noah Rogers
Noah Rogers

Why be on this board if you're not a leftist, dumbass?

Attached: oh-yeah-woo-yeah-oh-yeah-wo-woo-yeah-oh-yeah-woo.png (211.54 KB, 750x724)