Former fascist here

Capitalism can't solve the world's problems

Capitalism, right now, thanks to it's cancerous ideology of producing more and more for competition's sake, is right now leading us into an ecologic disaster never to be seen since the start of civilization, one that will start the most traumatic event of human history, the deaths of countless millions just so the guys at Nike can just have a little more money, just for them to surpass their competitors in their market.
It's actually due to this competition that crashes happen, every capitalist corporation is making it's production larger and larger thanks to technology and workers, to try and make their selling parts cheaper to win at the battle royale that is capitalism (yea capitalism is like fucking fortnite, that's one of the reasons on why is it so shitty), what happens is that it reaches a point where those selling parts, instead of becoming a benefit it becomes a deficit because everyone isn't buying those, making enterprises fall and crisis ensure. Economic crisis that nowadays happen every 8-10 years, destroying society just because capitalism is a selling battle royale. This is exacerbated by the stocks, where companies are houses of cards, ready to fall on their own hype.

At a personal level though, capitalism is stealing you, and not only your future, it's stealing your labour power, from which all money comes from. Let's say you're making tables at a factory, let's say that every hour you make a table, an by every hour of work your boss gives you 5 dollars per hour, and sells the table (well, not really, he doesn't, he has someone working for him to do it) for 60$. The materials costed like 10 dollars, the machinery to mantain it costs another 10 dollars, and to deliver it, if people don't come to the factory to buy it and transport it, it would be, let's say 5 dollars. From where did these 35 dollars come from? It came from your work, if it wasn't for you, that table would of never existed, thus you're making money by working. Money isn't more than a measure for labour power, almost like a manifestation of it, and what did the boss, your boss, do to be getting almost all of the money (he gets 30, you get 5): have property rights, pretty much because the factory is his, you're being stolen from your labour power, from your money, so this guy can get money and enrich himself, by doing nothing, by just standing there. If it wasn't for that exploitation, capitalism wouldn't make any actual money, it's one of it's fundamental principles Also I read somewhere that, when you buy, to put an example, a pair of shoes from Nike, the amount of money that goes into the workers that made those shoes is less than 1%, might be even lower than 0,20%.
And then a guy comes and tells us "He deserves it, he made the company", like he's actually needed to make the company, and does that give the right to rob people? No it fucking doesn't. "He risked himself by making that company" and a murderer risked his life by murdering people, this actually proves how capitalism is stale, and how hard is it to make new companies, and people talking on how capitalism is a meritocracy when it resembles more an aristocracy than anything. Another point to the shittiness of capitalism.

Also, to see how capitalism is making imperialism, read Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, by Lenin himself. Pretty much it's countries that, ruled by their own bourgeoisie (that have collided itself into cartels and shit), try to take as much land as possible to ensure they will be able to produce more than it's international rivals (see the scramble for Africa), and when there's no more land, then war happens (see the first world war and the second one) to try and subdue their enemy countries.

Attached: 8741231578.jpeg (752x1063, 144.84K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Most of these wars were waged against socialists who had the popular backing of the working class. They all caused untold destruction and set humanity back probably by hundreds of years in terms of development. All of the money spent was raised off the back of the working class of the first world nations, the US, Germany, the UK etc, instead of quality healthcare, schooling etc, their work was put to the subjugation of the world, the profits went to dynasties of arms dealers and other industrial capitalists.

AND only communism has ever managed to oppose capitalist imperialism globally

Very general tl;dr of anti-capitalism on a systemic economic level:

Capitalism: Our current economic system, characterised by private ownership of productive facilities such as mines, farmland, factories, and characterised by the use of those facilities to produce goods to exchange in a market, in order to generate more capital (money) to expand productive capital (factories, means of production). In this system, there is a class of people who do not own anything and have no choice but to agree to the terms of the class of people who do own stuff, which takes the form of having to hand in a large part, if not the majority, of the goods (or monetary value thereof) they produce to the owning class. This handed in money, this extracted money from the working class, is surplus value.

Even though the workers produced these products, this value, they have no say over it. It is left up to the capitalist class to do with as they please, though the economic system necessitates them to put a large part of it back into creating more capital to create more money.
The competition of these capitalists with each other drives down each other profit, as with each iteration, more complex machinery has to be made to create product for cheaper, with less labour. Because that is what the cost of a commodity, of a product for sale, is, it comes down to how much labour goes into making it. If something has any use value at all, it will be made by someone. If a product can be made in an hour but exchanged for product that take two hours to make, more people factories will be set up to produce it, as its profitable, until the exchange value of said product drops to equal the avarage exchange rate of an hour for an hour. All products are made by labour, and as such all value comes only from labour. A machine cannot produce value, they do not operate on their own, they have to be made and maintained by human labour, and an efficient machine will just, over time, drive down the price of the products it makes until the amount of profit produced by the machine builders and maintainers' labour is equal to that of the original workers who made it by hand.

Attached: Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!.gif (464x245, 467.52K)

These factors come together into some of the problems integral to capitalism:
1. Since the amount of machines proportional to labour grows, more and more of the profits of a product have to be spend on maintaining the machine stock. This means the overall rate of profit in society tends to fall as the share of machinery increases. This is backed by empirical data. This also leads to crisis.
2. Even though capitalism produces a lot of machinery and increases in production, it also creates unemployment. Workers are kicked out as soon as they arent necessary anymore. Unemployment isnt a bad sideeffect of capitalism though, it is wanted by the capitalists. Unemployment increases the supply of labour, which drives down the price of labour, which increases the profit the capitalists make. This, combined with number 1, means that capitalism can only keep existing, since a company needs to make profit to exist, if the wages go down (or dont keep up with inflation) as machination increases.
3. The above two things make capitalism inherently unstable. Its production slows even as productive ability grows, as it is not profitable within the context of the market to produce certain goods. It requires lower wages to keep making profit, while also shooting itself in the foot by decreasing the purchasing power of the population, decreasing sales. These lead to an economic crisis. They have tried to circumvent this with many tactics, such as reaganomics, which saw massive privatisation and effective freezing of wages since the 70's in the west. They also used credit to try and increase the purchasing power of the population even as real wages decreased, which led to the current 2007 crisis, which has not stopped existing for anyone but numberpushers, wages and income have no increased since 2007 for much of the first world.

There is some other factors, such as requiring imperialist wars in other countries to fuel the global industry, the overthrow of democratically elected states if they refuse to privatise/sell certain resources (oil, gold, see syria, irak, libya, iran, venezuela, and many others), causing an being unable to stop climate change, etc.

This can lead us to only one sensible conclusion, the system of capitalism is detrimental to all of humanity, though it is held up by the small class of people who benefit from it on a personal level. As such, all working people of the world all share a common goal, to overthrow this economic system, to abolish production for sale, to abolish private ownership of the means of production, and to abolish class. Then, to establish a new economic order where production is held in common by all, and production is conducted for the need of society directly, rather than the need for profit.

And how we get to that final part and how that would work has three centuries and 6 continents worth of literature from all sides of the left political spectrum, so i wont go into that here.

Attached: surplus value.gif (480x360, 2.2M)

While silly, that gif is based. Thanks anarcho-bros

I think it'd be easier if you told us what specific concerns drew you to fascism and what made you loose faith. Then we can explain how these concerns are addressed in our proposed system.

Attached: 2092a782b72038764abe54007c7998d621d132f3a14803936d2e24b6ddf3c23e.jpg (480x360, 23.75K)

The pixelcanvas threads were annoying at the time but looking back those were the last days of good Zig Forums back when it was both fun, comradely and had high-quality effortposting.

Zig Forums wants this too.
Zig Forums wants this too.
you would be surprised how many on Zig Forums want these but have different ideas than you how to get it
okay Zig Forums hates democracy. "not the bought out kind" lol that doesn't exist. it is the fatal flaw of democracy.

fair enough, I'll lurk some more and hopefully more of my questions will be answered

I'll have a look

yeah I was an anti capitalist one, and I'm irish which is another thing that pushed me away from fascism.

well, i guess i'll ask you some basic questions i have regarding socialism then…

They are centrist. Perhaps you don't understand just how far out the ring wing stretches.

nope it is in support of the coup in Venzuela "bcuz heliocopters", literally has an entire meme dedicated to supporting a formal imperial coup in Chile.

half of them deny climate change, the other "econ fascist" half have no solution other than muh niggers

they have no idea, they want white capitalism, which still wouldnt have any of these things.

this just means that democracy is impossible under capitalism

Read James Connolly. Both a nationalist and socialist

Zig Forums is my main board for like 8 years.

We think American intervention is largely to blame for Venezuela being messed up. We like Huge Chavez and think CIA killed him and replaced him with puppets. We aren't against socialism perse, ever hear of Not Socialism? Exactly lol…

yes of course i have heard of it… have you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills

not socialism has always reinforced the ruling capitalist class and never abolished it. Not once in history. It has never ended imperialist wars and has always lead to economic collapse

also you say we like Zig Forums is one person. Many, Many of you were Guaido shills. I've even seen support for Iraq on there. Also, you all supported Trump, who is part of orchestrating the Venezuela shit and is a yuuuuge Israeli puppet, come off it now. If you have to pretend to be something else, surely what you are is wrong?

Most of Zig Forums agrees the climate is changing. But with any combination of these caveats depending on the poster:

hey maybe you're right I never thought of that.

Wow these word filters really mangled my post. I don't know if you can even understand what I typed now. Oh well…

We did not know Trump was an Israeli puppet in 2016. We thought he was secretly going to be the next Hitler. It seemed like he knew about The Jews and stuff…We were definitely wrong.

Most of Zig Forums is very disappointed now that Trump has been shown to be an Israeli puppet.

Attached: 7104F61B-A804-49F7-8BB3-DBD935CA7B66.jpg (1024x554, 55.74K)

I can't say Zig Forums is one person but I spend every day there and on DailyStormer etc I think I can take an average on their opinions.

And I think I am coming to the conclusion, from how many times we have been tricked, and used as pawns unknowingly, that we are not as smart as I once thought we were. So I'm abandoning the whole "Zig Forums is always right" mindset and looking for alternatives. Researching you guy's side now.

Been here longtime. I know what not socialism means. I can understand.

References to it being natural are a distraction from having to solve it. You realise a huge amount of anti climate change propoganda was bought and paid for by capitalist oil companies.

this is extremely vague i can't really answer it because of that. Most communists solutions are a planned economy run on renewables, they will disagree on whether or not nuclear energy counts as renewable, but all know that a planned economy is the only way to have a properly sustainble economy. Which should be pretty obvious planning things>not planning things.

may as well not believe in the problem if that is the case. Lets accept for a moment some of what the deniers say is true, lets accept that the world isn't warming due to rising co2 levels or whatever. We at the very least need to combat the mountains of trash that cover our beuatiful planet and oceans. Capitalism has no recourse for this.

btw for the record i DO believe in rising temperature levels.

If you don't believe it makes a difference, go put your mouth over an exhaust pipe and see if you stay as alive as you did breathing just air.

the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧media🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 is actually just the capitalist media. All media moguls are capitalists, hence why none of the papers talk favourbaly about communism.

Yes but, we commies did. You should have known, but you refused to listen to legitimate criticism.

indeed

and yet i could go on right now and find multiple threads praising him, probably a PTG (president trump general) thread.

theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/23/oculus-palmer-luckey-funding-trump-reddit-trolls

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dowson

"In July 2016, Dowson established the "Patriot News Agency" to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States. Dowson described his strategy as spreading "devastating anti-Clinton, pro-Trump memes and sound bites into sections of the population too disillusioned with politics to have taken any notice of conventional campaigning." "

yes indeed you were tricked. We commies, we were not tricked.

No because I'm not a capitalist
I would be happy to share it with you tho

"workers deserve all they create"
imagine for a moment a single person, Bob.
Bob has through some legal means acquired machinery with which he himself works and creates things. He is entitled to all the profit, do we agree?
Now because he makes profit, all alone, he can buy another machine. Woohoo, right?
It's his machine, right? He earned everything about it, with his own labor. Do you agree?
Now he has two machines and can't always have both of them working. He could use some help!

If Bob now gets Cheney to work with him, what do you propose is the morally right way of doing it?
Should Cheney get all the profit from the things he makes on Bobs machine?
If so, what incentive should Bob have to let somebody else use his machine?
Or is it suddenly no longer Bobs machine, and why?

OR, as a rational proposal:
They make a deal that they both voluntarily agree on, that they both think will benefit them.
Cheney wants work, he has no machine.
Bob has a machine that Cheney could work on.
They both want something out of it.
So Cheney works for some time on Bobs machine and they split the profits made.
Cheney gets more than he had without this deal, Bob gets more than he had without this deal.
Both win. Specifics as to the split ARE UP TO THEM AND THEY VOLUNTARILY AGREE ON IT.
We have just made a boss/worker arrangement as under capitalism.

Go on, talk to me. Be of good will, please.

what means

did he make the machine himself?

the machine should have been freely available for all to use in the first place.

yes but then it wouldnt be profit

it is better if his neighbours are rich. Then they wont rob him

it was never bobs machine

but in the real world, its never a split, Bob takes 90% while cheney works both machines

Oh wow cheney got more than nothing. Well i suppose that is better than nothing

except cheney has no bargaining power and bob has all the bargaining power

indeed

yeah why didn't he just make it himself, let's say it's a loom
so Bob slaved away for some years thinking about how to best make this loom, time he could have spent in other ways, even working on different things and being productive
and now Cheney, who didn't work at all before, because he SUCKS at weaving without a loom, now has the right to use the loom Bob created and to everything that comes out of it?

note that your hypothetical is entirely divorced from reality at the very start, you ignore the conditions in which machinery was obtained. Someone made that machinery. Was it Bob? If so how did he make it? Where did he obtain the resources and tools to make it? Did he buy them? If so where did he get the capital for such a purchase? All these things are part of the fabric of an economic system, capitalism, wage labour, is far more complicated and far less innocent than you want to portray it as.
there is no profit in this scenario
then why did he buy another one? Is this not a silly thing to do? Did he buy another machine to gift to someone else so they too can produce something? It doesn't seem so. Instead he has bought another machine solely for the purpose of owning it so that someone can work for him, so someone else can work for his benefit, so that he can extract rent from his ownership of a machine he doesn't use. Bob is going to be paying Cheney but never as much as what Cheney makes for him sells for, afterall he has to make a profit on his employment, in fact Bob will stop working his machine altogether and hire George to work that machine. He'll have Cheney and George working the machines and making him a pretty penny with which he'll keep buying up more and more machines to employ more people and getting astoundingly wealthy.
Bob shouldn't buy a second machine because doing so is called hoarding and abuses his community and fellow man. Cheney can also own his own machine and they can work together as equals, without one being able to claim more machines than he can use and then charge people to use them.

Kid, all you need is your ego and its own.

Attached: Screenshot_20190328-164028_Google.jpg (967x1024, 282.94K)

congratulations, nobody makes more than he needs to sustain himself any more, nobody creates new things, nobody invents, because it doesn't help himself, instead it will be taken away from him

...

The soviet union went from a place where 5% of the population could read to almost 100% in three decades. It went from the same industrial development level as Brazil to the second world super power and went to space in the same time. This whole "socialism is so unproductive" schtick is total nonsense

"before capitalism" people still had a right to the things they created, minus taxes etc pp
but yeah, in every working system if you work harder, you get more, and it has been like that forever

the soviet union that killed tens of millions of people and used slave labor to "produce" things like their railways… yeah good example, read a book, how about gulag archipelago, oh wait it goes against your ideology so it must be fake new

someone has a bad case of ideology
But it does. Working and innovation greatly help you, as well as everyone around you, they improve your standard of living, they make work easier and more productive.
lol what?

good example indeed cuck

Attached: 3a40bdd09c1442d27529e57ebadaa3b20f6bcae5.jpg (680x486, 54.44K)

YOU are saying that if Bob creates a machine it isn't his but "everyones"
So yes, taken away from him
And sorry, I know you've never worked in your whole life, but "other people's happiness" isn't motivation, unless you love those people, unless they're family etc. For that we don't need communism, it works just fine under any system so far. Even under feudalism men worked to feed their families and the ones who worked harder got more.

I know you're not going to, because you're an imbecile, but do read The Gulag Archipelago, and then look at your comment here again.

source

source

that is literally a work of fiction.

I didn't say that but your hysterical kulak rage has already taken your faculties so reading is obviously beyond you.
stop projecting
I didn't mention happiness or anything of the sort lol. Material gains are material gains you hysterical hoarding enthusiast.

your whole work experience is flipping burgers, and you did such a shit job at it that you were never looked at for more responsibility
you deserve nothing more then

Saying "The Gulag Archipelago" is a work of fiction is just putting your fingers in your ears and saying lalala I can't hear you. You're lost.

based
jesus what happened to this thread

Attached: PartialPassionateCollardlizard-small.gif (500x281, 1000.92K)

I'm a factory worker.

other peoples material gains is the thing that should motivate me, really?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying "happiness", you just killed yourself.

I've read the gulag archipelago because i like a good work of fiction on my lunchbreak, even if the author is an eternally arseblasted faggot who had his cancer treated in the oh so awful gulag.
But keep ignoring how many hundreds of millions capitalism kills and how many it has enslaved. Your moral indignation at people not liking your hoarding and laziness depends on it :^)

Lol no, your own material gains you faggot. Learn to read.

No i did a better job than my colleugues i worked harder i still only got £8 an hour like all waged and most salaried jobs.

No the gulag archipeligo is literally fiction the author said so

Do the shareholders tip you extra for the enthusiasm with which you rim them everyday cuck?

but I don't gain more from working harder, that's the entire jist of what you guys want
if I devise something to make me more productive, making my relative position better, it suddenly isn't mine any more

so we've established you're not only just a burger flipper, never were looked at for more, you also think you were better than the others and thus "deserved" more
you should get your head looked at

oh and source for "fiction" please

it's a small factory and yes we do get bonuses for better work

What is Zig Forums's stance on Jews and Israel and such?

You come in here asking for good faith and then show none, descending into histrionics over things which no one claims. Please uncuck yourself.
quite literally the opposite
No one said that, by all means devise whatever you like, make yourself more productive, the more the better.
Simply don't hoard capital, don't buy up more machines than you can use, leave some for the others. Don't be a manipulative, lazy prick who hoards goods so he can charge people to use them so he can live off their work. Work by yourself and for yourself, without aspiring to make others do otherwise for your benefit. If you want help come together with others on equal terms and form a coop, its not complicated. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt to not sperg out about your god-given right to live off other people's labour.

>In her 1974 memoir, Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Bobbs-Merrill), she wrote that she was perplexed that the West had accepted The Gulag Archipelago as the solemn, ultimate truth, saying its significance had been overestimated and wrongly appraised.

>Pointing out that the book's subtitle is An Experiment in Literary Investigation, she said that her husband did not regard the work as historical research, or scientific research. She contended that it was, rather, a collection of camp folklore, containing raw material which her husband was planning to use in his future productions.

nytimes.com/2003/06/06/world/natalya-reshetovskaya-84-is-dead-solzhenitsyn-s-wife-questioned-gulag.html

If I make a machine, it's not like I'm taking something from other people, not at all.
Different machines make different things - but you've never even set foot onto a factory floor, have you?

If I can't let someone use my things, yes MY things, that _I_ made or worked for, without my things becoming suddenly "everyones things" then cooperation is impossible.

Zig Forums is that way fam >>>Zig Forums
assuming that was a typo
shitty religion but depends on person to person as with anyone
fascist apartheid colonial state and an instrument of american control in the middle-east, needs to be abolished totally.

nothing mentions that the contents are fictitious, quite the contrary

correct.
I have but im not sure how the point about difference is relevant.
No one said this.
Stop being a faggot and either learn to read without letting your hysterical imagination take over, or fuck off with your bad faith bullshit.

...

read again what's written here, quite clearly suggests that you can't own a machine even if you make it yourself

not fiction, en.wiktionary.org/wiki/folklore
do you contest that he was in the camps?
do you contest that the things in the book are from the camps?

Under the (generally correct) assumption that one cannot make a machine on their own, it is a social product, one that shouldn't be appropriated by one person and a good society does not restrict access to production, everyone should have at their disposal the means to produce.
However it is unbecoming of you to associate me with another user when i replied to your initial post separately from them, taking your hypothetical for granted.

we at Zig Forums think it's more like America is the instrument of Israeli/Jewish control. America is their puppet.

what, you want to be an individual now? :X

...

So zero good faith arguments then? Shame. Come back when you finish school and no longer feel like larping as a factory worker to shill for billionaires.

so your big evidence is one word from not the author, but his wife, a non-native english speaker, that doesn't even imply outright (no it doesn't, just because something is a collection of stories doesn't mean it's fiction) what you want it to say, that could be a bad translation etc pp?

just read the rest of your post … oh boy, you're lost. You seriously think he was a nazi sympathizer huh. Wow. I'm gonna give the rest of the commies the benefit of the doubt and assume you're on your own here

nice backtracking lol
very smug and superior, definitely not mad

...

I did also explain what i assumed the other user meant in the first part of the post, but don't let nuance or reality get in the way of a gotcha :^)

sorry, there's just no backtracking
don't you see how jumpy your logic is?
a) he didn't say it's folklore
b) his wife is a non-native speaker
c) folklore doesn't mean just one thing
d) "tales" as an example from the folklore definition can absolutely be nonfiction

but your logic is "one person somehow associated with this said this one specific word, that MUST mean exactly and only that it was fiction"
really?

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j2un8/is_solzhenitsyn_considered_a_reliable_source/

This reddit thread is somewhat good about the Gulag Archipelago. It's true as in gulags were harsh, but it's obvious the book isn't a historical document on how life in gulag was and he pulled shit out of his ass.

it was a hypothetical example you cretin. I make well over 8£ an hour.

you should get your head looked at

Mate what the fuck, you have literally just said and i quote " if you work harder, you get more, and it has been like that forever"

from this post

How the fuck do you go from that to me saying the hypothetical burger flipper wants a bit more for flipping more burgers wants to get his head looked at?

source for any single one his claims, without them, it is a work of fiction. It is not an objective study based on actually existing information, it is the opinions of one man, therefore it is fiction.

I’ve lost all faith in fascism. I know 8ch isn’t welcoming of women I don’t wanna bear the negativity. I like a couple boards here so I come here. I’ve given up. I don’t wanna know fascism. Having to hear how worthless I am. I hate today’s fascism. Fuck it and fuck them. I like this so much better.

Another thing is, where the right has talking heads, conspiracy theories, economic magic cooked up in the last 100 years by somebody who didn't even claim his work was scientific (see pic related) and youtubers, the left has hundreds of years of economic theory, trade and tenants unions, co-operatives. Whereas the capitalist right funds ISIS via Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the US, the Left actively defeated ISIS on the ground

if you're really better at your job, you should either get promoted or you have better job opportunities
if neither of those apply yeah maybe you're not better than your coworkers and should get your head checked. or maybe you're too wimpy to change jobs, you should get your head checked. maybe you're too weak to stand up for yourself, you should get your head checked.

if I witness a thing and I write it down, I have no source other than my own experience, and therefore it is fiction
rethink please

forgot to post

Attached: 1457343475283.jpg (216x255, 22.04K)

You cited the definition of folklore, like the dumbass you are, without actually consulting it. You do realise that in all cases folklore is fiction. Folklore is fiction and no amount of leaps of logic about to what extent 'tales' can be taken to mean non-fiction (ps. they can't) is going to make it anything else. And now you're adding in bullshit assumptions about how she probably didn't mean to say it was folklore because she's a non-native speaker lmao.
And why would Solzhenitsyn say it was folklore? It would ruin his grift, an illusionist does not tell everyone he isn't doing magic, he embellishes to the maximum. It would be unreasonable to dismiss a fact about his work because it didn't come from his lips, and who better to know about it than his wife, not 'just someone'.
The truth is its fiction, not his experiences, not anyone else's experiences, no historian takes it as a historical source, it is worthless as anything other than a literary work and a case study of cold war propaganda. But i understand it is all you have in your political arsenal and so it comes to you as difficult to accept.

However people can't be expected to take your word for it, if no one can confirm your experience to have been real then it is likely you never did witness anything and it is in fact fictional. Unless you also believe in all the accounts of people who witnessed alien abductions and miracles of divine intercession.

what if there isn't a higher up position open at that point.

what if there are not other jobs in my area? What if somebody else, the bosses son say, gets one of these jobs. Or, i haven't started at my new job yet, i handed my notice in and i have to work for two more weeks, i am consistently flipping burgers better during these two weeks, where is my pay rise? I thought if you worked harder you got more?

on top of that, why are the majority of jobs like this, waged or salaried without bonuses, for the vast majority of people? Doesn't sound like most people are getting paid to work harder.

If hard work pays show me rich donkey

right but its a hypothetical situation, so i am.

as for the other part, im literally saying the subjective opinions of one person versus the weight of historical evidence mean nothing

sorry, but no. Your clinging on this one word is just insane.

hey you know you still havent provided a source for "tens of millions" killed under communism

She said it wasn't historical research, it wasn't even his own anecdotal experience, it was folklore and she doesn't understand why people in the west take it for granted or as authoritative. You're exactly the sort of person she's talking about.
I know you want to believe santa is real but you eventually have to grow up and realise he isn't. But i see you've completely given up on arguments and are frantically deflecting and trying to disengage because you've realised how hopelessly out of your depth you are and you want to leave with your dignity intact.

Why is it the faggots who come in crowing about good faith that always descend into non-arguments fastest?

We really appreciate you coming along to learn and open your mind to stuff. I hope my post (>>2852461) put some stuff into perspective. Just don't let the LARPers scare you away.

you also said the USSR was built on slave labour and didn't provide a source.

here is one for capitalism and fascism though telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1445822/Ford-used-slave-labour-in-Nazi-German-plants.html

If you truly love your country you have to be anti-capitalist. And yes fascism is still capitalist.

Antizionism ≠ Antisemitism

Steve wants to build a house.
For that, Steve needs a plethora of resources, most importantly; wood.
So, seeing that he needs wood, he goes to John, a lumberjack.
At John's place, he buys X amount of wooden logs, agreeing to John's terms and paying him accordingly.
Now that he has the materials needed to build a house, Steve asks Bob and Jim to help him build his house.
Of course, Bob and Jim won't work for free, thus they agree that for a certain price they will help build his house.
Steve is content with the terms and agrees on them. So they start building the house.
During the building of the house, Steve pays Bob and Jim the amount of money written down in the terms of their job contract in regular, agreed upon periods.
Once the house has finished building, Bob and Jim's contract is fulfilled and they bid Steve farewell.
Steve, now with his new house, decides that it is a good idea to rent it out, due to being cut from his job for lacking qualification; thus he offers up his house in exchange for regular payment.
Mary and Bob, one of the former workers see that his house is up for rent and go to Steve to rent it out.
Steve then decides to rent out the house to the couple, in exchange for their monthly contribution via rent.
As both parties agree on the terms, Bob later starts thinking about all things socialist.

Now, the question is, does Bob have any claim on living in the house for a reduced price, since he worked on it himself?

Attached: Champion of peace2.webm (400x225 3.88 MB, 3.61M)

muh mudpies

In the left we haven't conspiracy theories or clickbait bull shit calling for attention, the left is a science, so at least the scientific socialism is very hard to undestand if you dosen't read a book about Marxist theories.>>2852448