Have no job

The ideals that make my country the best in the world could work in any country.

You don't have to hate him, it's just that you are dependent on him for your wage , and it is in his interest to decrease that wage and vice versa. In this constant struggle against each other, there will come a time when the stronger class i.e the workers will win this struggle and "sieze the means" and operate them collectively and thus will earn fully the value of their labour. This does not involve any moral judgement, it is just the logical outcome of this arrangement taken to its conclusion.

I cannot take you seriously, your country history is heinous

I think you stop your logic too soon. It's in his interest to keep his costs low (I've never seen a decrease in wage in any job I've worked) and it's in your interest to choose work that maximizes your own wage. Where you stop short is saying that I am dependent on him for a wage. Part of being a responsible adult is planning for things to go wrong which involves diverting some of your wage in to savings. If you're able to get a new job before you face starvation/homelessness then you're not dependent on your employer for a wage, you're dependent on work for a wage as everyone is.

Which would you say is better? Give me one for example

Democratic workplace, doesn't even require changing the system

Attached: 42939618_Mcc0058686__picture_by_Geoff_Pugh_Bargain_hunters_wait_for_the_doors_to_open_at_the_John_Le-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq9TZ-zGNddiKpfG5LBMCn5izbnlw63KJm-SaZjr0sizM.jpg (1280x799, 135.42K)

idc which country is the better, but if it's yours, we're screwed, because it could be so much better

What are you not allowed to do in the US?

"allowed to do" lol

Attached: stalin-freedom.jpg (480x335, 32.94K)

Wait wait do people unironically use Stalin here as an example favorable to their argument?

Eat up that propaganda, w*sternoid.

Literally all you had under him. I don't see how that's favorable to being responsible for your own life. It seems you just have a need to be submissive to someone which involves me when you try to do that through government.

Attached: 02448b5ada8b3b9f3fb0eaeceb7165224e16168475bf89e7b08b3f0802b7e49d.jpg (250x140 162.75 KB, 11.15M)

you unironically believes murica #1, I think it's fair

it's so mindblowing for me to talk with an user who can't even conceive starving is a thing

Every user who uses the term "evil" unironically to describe economic relationships or systems can leave.

OP, Marxism isn't predicated on the idea of you hating the bourgeoisie or them being some '"evil" moustache twirlers. Marxism isn't predicated on some moral ideal in the first place. It is first and foremost a materialist analysis of history, of capitalism, and the antagonisms which inherently exist within it. The bourgeoisie could be a collection of pacifist puppy petters and that still would not negate the necessity of the proletariat to eventually remove them. The material self-interests of both classes are diametrically opposed to each other and the instability of capitalism can only force these two classes further against each other in the long run. Historically, we can see every human economic system has held within it a contridiction of class which inevitably led to its conclusion and the emergence of a new economic system which resolved the old class contradiction (usually through the removal of the prior ruling class and it's replacement with another class) as well as birthing new ones and new antagonisms. Marxists do not see these prior systems as "bad" however, merely necessary stepping stones human civilization and humanity as a whole had to utilize given their material conditions in order to progress. The bourgeoisie and capitalism at one time were a progressive force which helped to industrialize and socialize society, and for this they are complemented. But now they exist as something unnecessary given the material and industrial progression of society and act as the defenders of an unstable and decaying system which for their existence they are required to defend, but the prolietariet have no need for. They are both the benefactors and preservers of a crumbling and defunct infrastructure, and stand in the way of those who would construct a more stable and beneficial system for themselves and society. This has nothing to with what is "right" and has everything to do with self-interest, profit motive, and inevitable consequences of such. The bourgeoisie see themselves as "right" to benefit and profit off the proletariat and to preserve capitalism. Very well then, it is in their material self-interest believe such. Materially, not morally, how would it be "wrong" for us to reject such a system and to take the industrial means of production they claim to be theirs and use it to construct a more stable and secure society for humanity? Society is a question the material and the power derived from such, not morals themselves. Why would it not be in our interests to seize society and do away with the bourgeoisie?

Attached: eeae1a6fcb7e495a9e87f83ab939425f.jpg (600x351 81.26 KB, 34.49K)

Unless you're a fucking wild man you're not responsible for your own life, and even then probably not because you'd still be reliant on knowledge received from other humans

Because as you previously state it is cyclical and there will always be a bourgeoisie. You should not see yourself as someone removing them, but just forwarding to the next iteration of them. Of course you'd want to claim that you can achieve Utopia, but you can't.

So what is the current bourgeoisie doing at this moment that's preventing you from creating/uplifting a community?

In the sense of paying for your own bills, useless academic

Your still responsible for your own life under socialism. You're still required to work to get anything, and receive proper compensation for your labour.

If I don't do anything will I starve?

that's an honest question and there's no definitive answer for it yet. There are socialist systems where you starve if you don't work, there's the ones whose violence is an option, there are ones where every work is fully voluntary, cause even higher needs are guaranteed by automation.

No, you wont starve.
We have, in the west, produced enough infrastructure to be able to feed leeches, and feeding them will be cheaper than having to deal with the consequences of not doing so.
Sooner or later these leeches will realize that living as a leech is not a very satisfying existence.

A ruling class is not the same thing as the bourgeoisie. The next state after Socialism is Communism.

Attached: Base-superstructure_Dialectic.png (800x784, 147.05K)

And a member of the ruling class is given the exact same benefits of the person unclogging toilets?

The ruling class under Socialism/Communism is the proletariat. The person cleaning the toilet is the ruling class.

Sounds good on paper

the person unclogging toilets is deserving of the best treatment and rewards, why not?

Because someone will always wind up living in that high-end suite longer than others

I never stated this, the bourgeoisie class is something specific to capitalism. I assumed you read at least the basics of Marxism before coming to a largely Marxist board.
In what way?
Marxists are not utopians. We are not in this for "perfect systems", but out of an analysis of capitalism and our view of historical necessity.
It's a question of scale and power. Societies are not shaped by specific individuals in the long run, but the economic systems those societies utilize. We wish to change the economic system and thus change society, and the bourgeoisie happen to be obstructions to that.

In socialism? Will depend on the circumstances, but excluding childcare, yes. However, a job will always be provided, so it's actually a matter of you not deciding not to work.

Attached: Base-superstructure_Dialectic.png (850x400 31.13 KB, 44.91K)

And? Socialists are not in the business of making people equal or have the exact same things.

Marx makes two main points about equality in his 1875 ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’. (Geuss 2008, 76-80) Firstly, Marx claims that it makes no sense to speak of equality in the abstract. This is because we can only understand what it means for x to be equal or unequal with y if we first specify the dimensions along which they are being compared. For x to be equal to y is for them to be equal in a particular concrete respect. For example, if x and y are people then they can only be judged equal relative to particular criteria such as their height, how many shoes they own, or how much cake they have eaten. Therefore, one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal.
Secondly, Marx claims that advocating equality along one dimension, such as everyone in a society earning the same amount of money per hour worked, will lead to inequality along other dimensions. Everyone earning an equal amount per hour of work would, for example, lead to those who work more having more money than those who work less. As a result, those unable to work a large amount (if at all) such as disabled people, old people, or women who are expected to do the majority of housework, will be unequal with those who can work more, such as the able-bodied, young people, or men. Or those doing manual labour, and so unable to work long hours due to fatigue, will be unequal to those who engage in non-manual labour and so can work more hours. If a society decides to instead ensure equality of income by paying all workers the same daily wage then there would still be inequality along other dimensions. For example, workers who don’t have to provide for a family with their wage will have more disposable income than workers with families. Therefore we can never reach full equality but merely move equality and inequality around along different dimensions.

Attached: lby50zns0q921.jpg (640x756, 95.9K)

Worked well in practice

Attached: 00005400040329-59958e3565ced__880.jpg (880x574, 108.54K)

If you ignore the deaths and murders as 'just morals'

Attached: usuxsd2ex5cy.png (1588x2246, 651.73K)

how does your logic follow?

When you die under communism it's because of communism.
When you die under capitalism it's just human nature.

Attached: who is that porkymon.jpg (480x360, 5.79K)

Attached: 0893e6874987c4edda86169a12a8da43236add79.png (606x339 70.71 KB, 38.67K)

Denying people clean water, food and medicine has nothing to do with human nature. Secondly how many people do you think died in the transition from feudalism to Capitalism? Did they just peacefully surrender or were there wars?

It was a joke, although it is the prevailing thought among bootlickers.

Not necessarily - I've had jobs in which I was hired before a wage was even mentioned and I didn't learn what it was until my first paycheck. You're exaggerating the amount of choice workers have in this.

So the smart capitalist outsources labor globally, to countries where workers are still starving and therefore have less of a choice with regards to how much they will work for. Consider my example above of my own experience - what I am saying, thusly, is that capitalists regularly employ workers who they give less than zero choice in how much they are paid.

Then you're retarded, no ideology or form of government will fix people like you

could you just tell me why would you do differently were you the employer?

get out of here with that old ass shit my man

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (600x1373, 513.33K)

Yup, pure retarded

What enabled those workers to earn a wage building factories and machines?

When I say him I don't mean the literal person you are employed by, I mean anyone who you will have to work for in general. In that case, unless you are exceedingly lucky you will never be in a position where you don't have to engage in wage labour and thus not be at odds with your employer.

It is wrong of you to assume that everyone will be in a position to be able to save up money. However , for the sake of argument let's assume everyone can. Even in that scenario, what I say holds true. Individually your employer won't necessarily drive down your wages, but the employer class as a whole will always overall end up driving your wages down, be it indirectly through government policy like open borders for example or just directly cutting your wage.

Try again

Okay, so if it's something I cannot avoid I would much rather have my employer being a series of individuals than government.

You want to be reliant on government, I want to be self sufficient.

lloll

Alright so you're an anarcho-communist then, cool

Absolute fucking smooth brain

Absolutely not you buzzword-addled academic
wew

If you need money and don't have a lot of options, getting paid something isn't retarded. You just have an unrealistic understanding of the amount of say workers have in how much pay they get for the profit generated by their work, as well as an unrealistic understanding of how actual businesses behave.

Also, while contracts are nice and all, even indentured servants signed them. That doesn't mean they had an equal say in the matter or the conditions of their contracts. Universally, wage workers do not get paid the full value of their labor because they do not have the option.

Lol

To explain, this is often a strawman.

The reality is that private property itself, as a recognized construct, relies on the state - in particular, the state has to agree to protect it. That is, to prevent the concept of ownership from simply meaning "use," the state must agree that a capitalist's (or rentierist's) claim to owning land or factories which are actually used by others is valid and the state must then employ police to protect this claim. Without a government which monopolizes this power, this would essentially be impossible to maintain. Claims by some to monopolize property they do not use would be rejected, because in order to justify their monopoly on that property they would have to prevent others from using it themselves while allowing it to fall into disuse. That's extremely inefficient - without the state on their side, the claim crumbles.

Capitalists rely on the government to exist and prevent workers from organizing themselves and taking ownership of their own labor. It is not self-sufficient.

The government then takes a cut from the worker's labor alongside the capitalist. The capitalist takes the profit (paying the wage or salary that's left over) and the government taxes production and labor, which pays for protection of the capitalist's claimed property.

The government also routinely pays for infrastructure which isn't profitable for capitalists to create - much of the present day internet infrastructure was publicly funded and then given to capitalists to profit from, for instance. Would you say that this is an example of entrepreneurial self-sufficiency?

What's the matter? I thought you were anti government?

How the fuck is that at all relevant? Do you think if china and India stopped all their carbon emissions tomorrow no other country would need to do anything about it?