Any help with debating right-wingers?

Hey, burger here.

I recently tried to have a disscussion about socialism with my right-wing family at dinner. Because they wanted me to join in.

They basically made the same arguments that I suppose you’re all tired of hearing.


I even tried to explain to them about the anti-authoritarian forms of socialism but they didn’t listen.

Is there a way to better my arguments to make them understand or is it a lost cause?

Attached: C7DD2ECD-EFA0-4448-891E-A111B5040505.jpeg (460x460, 54.46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
youtube.com/watch?v=AxTmVmqe7as
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3706593
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
lacan.com/zizek-signifier.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=u0NlF7LRuNg
cadence.gq/cloudtube/video/u0NlF7LRuNg
m.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4u7TG7LfQ
ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=capitalism

I can only imagine you've tried the usual lines:
>"comparing authoritarian 'socialism' (USSR, PRC, Cuba) to authoritarian 'capitalism' (WWII Axis, Pinochet's Chile, Ba'athist Iraq) both are state capitalist, but you can get to that later, 'socialism' always performed better."
>"socialism ISN'T when the government does stuff, capitalists aren't just rich people, classes are based around relation to the MoP" This one might be too advanced to lead with

Aside from that, though? I think the strongest argument is simply the past example of capitalism itself, against monarchy and theocracy. Roundhead England, revolutionary France, and countless other liberal revolutions dating from the 1600s clear into WWI in 1914 when the remaining absolute monarchies and theocracies were finally banished from Europe. Throughout that period, attempts at capitalism, constitutionalism, republicanism, democracy, secularism, humanism, and scientific enlightenment backfired disastrously, as each revolution birthed in its orgy of violence and destruction short-lived tyrannies that made the worst kings and popes look gentle by comparison, before each revolutionary regime collapsed back into feudalism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave

In spite of centuries of failure, reforms and concessions were gradually extracted in a lurching one-step-backward-two-steps-forward march, both violent and peaceful, away from absolute feudalism.

In this light, socialism, dating back at most as a serious political phenomenon to the 1871 Paris Commune, may require centuries of effort before capitalism will be wholly defunct, and (like proro-capitalism under feudalism) has already yielded substantial material improvements to standard of life.

Attached: Marx%u2019s stages were defined by labour and property relations:.jpg (960x720, 93.79K)

Image.
Also, make them ponder what capitalism really means. Capitalism is a few hundred years old (human are a few hundred thousand years old btw, capitalism has existed for about 0.1% of that), yet things that many people consider to be the same as capitalism have existed for at least thousands of years, like trade, money, markets, etc. Make them think about why this strikingly recent system is named after capital. Shit, make them think about what 'capital' means exactly.

Attached: righties.png (917x326, 27.49K)

Which was a theocratic military dictatorship that was anything but a liberal capitalist democracy. It was still better than the Monarchy though.

it's a spook, fixed abstract nonsense idea since every individual is unique there are ones that whoes ego is mutualist, cooperative, or all out giving it varies from person to person too. They're absolutely stupid not recognizing that since they're a family, that means they gave up things to their sons for free without expecting profit back…
The same happens in people who adopt, or make relationships, etc. So no. Not really, human nature isn't to sell & get the big end of the deal fucking the other party up, it's the nature of some & they're assholes, not all are assholes.

Paris Commune
Catalonia
Rojava
are good examples of societies that can transition into socialism, socialism for old socialists means the same thing as communism which is basically the end of politics.

His tech would still be produced but it would be easier to access for everyone. By Musk tech I think they over praise his use of alternative energies, he doesn't uses solar tho, he uses electric… Solar is the kind of tech that makes autonomy easier & autonomy inevitably leads to "the end of politics" that is communism. Every tool that allows one to be autonomous that gets created, is also furthering the end of politics.


Not in the examples that I gave since they had direct democracy, there is failed socialism & successful socialism depending on your concept of success. Lasting isn't socialist success. The USSR isn't socialism, the USSR was Nomenklatura, it was it's own dictatorial system similar mode of production like the one used in Capitalsim only State controlled which is why it's viable to call it State Capitalism which supposedly was going to transition into the socialist society but never did because it lacked direct democracy such as the Paris Commune, which Marx references as a good example btw.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

pic related (im very laggy so I'll post it later, it's a quote about what is meant by "equality").

Just hand them a copy of homage to catalonia by orwell. They respect characters since boomers are dumb like that but they don't listen much. They all know Orwell probably, they might make a reference to animal farm or 1986 n shit… which are books directed against authoritarianism but pro-socialism as he sees it (which is in the og sense of socialism).

Attached: equality.jpg (564x364, 57.79K)

get/steal/buy homeage to catalonia as a physical book & carry it everywhere tbh since it's an instant good example of how a society does socialism.

not a good example of how a society does military resistance against empires tho but cant blame them, they rebelled in an era where the world was pretty much surrounded by empires & the reaction was huge. 3rd Reich Nazis are dead tho & forever Nazism is no longer a threat for developing socialism since it lost it's empire form, now it's only socially retarded dweebs on the internet who adopt it.

direct democracy is democracy in the work place, in elections of the social administrative positions, in even the military pretty sure, etc. Read on that.

Direct democracy inevitably leads to socialism too since the poor, the working class are always the majority & they will decide where their labor is more efficient for them, how it should be paid, what should be produced, etc. They run the industries, they run the social aspects of life, society runs absolutely everything according to their needs. This eventually as the means of autonomy become more accessible develops into socialism/communism & politics as we know them pretty much end.

That's what it degenerated into, but from the earlier civil wars that precipitated it, it stemmed from a desire for some form of constitutional republicanism in lieu of absolute monarchy.

Do you believe that dogs are different to humans?

Half of your points are stupid, and the other half aren't socialism. Socialism is when the state controls the means of production. How are "trade unions" socialist? It's literally a bargaining tactic used within a capitalist society that aids balancing negotiations between employers and employees, not handing over manufacturing to be run by the state.


The biggest threat to socialism is socialism, because it never fucking works.

Lol

Capitalism doesn't care about your racial spooks either, faglord.


Socialism is the abolition of the state, in favor of more perfect democracy encompassing both politics and economics.
By injecting democracy into the fascist structure of private business
There are a variety of ways socialism could arise, whether by increasingly democratic businesses assuming the responsibilities upheld by a disintegrating state, or by an increasingly state-regulated economy forcing democratic accountability onto waning businesses. The end result is the integration of politics and economics into a democratic whole.

dont judge an individual based on the group

I thought that was Communism?
Owning your own business isn't "fascism".
Wouldn't that be closer to libertarianism, where private businesses control everything instead of the government? I mean, a small part of that might sound good on paper, but I fail to see why that wouldn't just result in dissenters being sent to the "McGulag, I'm Lovin' it"s instead.
We already have a democracy in politics almost everywhere in the world, and it hasn't really been that great. I shudder to think of an economy run by people voting about things they have absolutely zero knowledge about.

Don't

(heil'd)
Depends on the conception. In Marx's case, you're correct that "socialism" is the lower stage, and "communism" the upper stage.
The business is that of the workers. Capitalists stand above them, providing no service, but extracting rent from regardless, on the "justification" of "owning" "property" they personally can neither exploit nor defend themselves.
Minus the "private" part, since these would be democratic entities operated by worker-owners.
Aside from, y'know, greater advancements in prosperity and technology than the entire rest of history put together.
As opposed to dynasties of belligerant porkies whose sole concern in life is their own fickle and sociopathic whims?

No, that is Lenin's case. Marx used "communism" and "socialism" interchangably to refer to the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.

No, it is not, and do not listen to any nitwit who talks about fascism as anything other than 20th century history.

Hell no. Libertardianism is nothing but neofeudalism where the lords are called "bosses." When he says "democratic businesses" he is talking about businesses that are owned and operated democratically by the people who work in it. It is a thing that syndicallists like him go for, and it is very similar to what the pre-Stalin soviets looked like.

Oh hell no. What we have is liberal republicanism where voters are expected to chose between two fully-owned stooges who ostensibly act as their representatives but in fact only ever support the agends of particular factions within the ruling class. Democracy can only ever be direct with no politicians pretending to carry out the people's will on their behalf.

Economies run the state, not the other way around.

Er, right.


To be clear, I was referring to the internal structure of modern capitalist corporations themselves. Imagine a typical transnat conglomerate was an empire, and apply its rules of governance: Tyrannical rule is given to a shadowy cabal of plutocrats (holders of high-class stock) who select a handful of oligarchs (the board) from among themselves. Underneath them is a rigid and compartmentalized caste system, in which absolute reverential obedience is required of every citizen (employee) toward anyone superior to them in every aspect of life, and those higher in the caste system can reward, punish, or summarily murder (fire) anyone beneath them on a whim.
By this, I assume you're referring to things like Athenian-style sortition, rather than some impractical billion-man townhall.

Communism is evil

Or you could just find a different job if your boss is such an asshole.

Capitalism a good system, it promises prosperity to those willing and able to work for it, but you lazy tards hate it because 'gibsmedats'.

Lol

Hey OP here,

My parents are basically Fox News watching boomers that were born poor. And they think that capitalism is completely normal and has lasyed for civilization.

My brother watches Jordan Peterson and is basically a tight- wing jock in the US airforce, i keep telling him that socialism isn’t just one thing, and the next day he goes off xalling the SJWs “Postmodern Neo-Marxists”.

God, it’s so frustrating to see my family being like this. Why can’t they understand what I’m saying and not react negatively about what I’m talking about. It feels like I’m the only one who realizes that they are being manipulated and they don’t want to change.

I’m beginning to think they might be a lost cause.

Your family isn't wrong

Shut the fuck up Mick, Oliver Cromwell literally did nothing wrong

he is infesting the lives of my loved ones too, that sucks.

Peterson is "The Big Bang Theory" of contemporary philosophers–he is what stupid people think that smart people sound like.

It lasted for a whopping 3 months before being crushed. How is that a valid example?

My question would be why would you bother to even debate something, especially if you use flag that you use.

But jokes to side, what left is missing is dumbed down language and "strong slogans". Just read your posts. Do you think regular person speaks in paragraphs and understands philosophy? Nah, unless you invent one liners like they have, debating is pointless.

Basically just tell them on their every opinion that they are spooked but I guess you don't want to debate to win over your friend but to make him think about ideas other than right-wing ones.

Emphasis on "find", because jobs are scarce, and make people compete to see who can be exploited the most.

complete autonomy is evil? lol for you

no. according to marx socialism ins't lower. socialism is communism to marx.

has anybody read marxs here? sometimes I think they just don't bother.

youtube.com/watch?v=AxTmVmqe7as

read carefully the message that says "when the world was surrounded by empires" Today's world is freer from that. That was the conclusion of the 2 world wars, that empires were fucked up, anti-humanitarian.

That's a little like, back in the 1600s, saying "lol you could just flee to another kingdom if your monarch is such an asshole". The point is that (like undemocratic government) ALL capitalist firms are based on the same backward system, whose repressive structure inherently promotes the most loathsome dysfunctional behavior and individuals, while discouraging any nicer ones.

There is no reason for this undemocratic arrangement to persist in the modern era, let alone predominate.

Attached: feudalism-1percent.jpg (600x520, 87.86K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3706593
It's not market that creates technologies, the innovation part usually comes from government and universities. The market's job is to deliver products to consumers and obviously make them slightly better to compete.
Cold war propaganda, they had to spear head one person like Stalin or Mao to make it seem like they were dictators. Point out the source of corruption, capital accumulation which leads capitalist to controlling democracy and the economy. Just look at the world right now.
Tell them to read this: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Attached: anti-com propaganda.png (1271x636, 769.75K)

Also, this is video is good for refuting the "capitalism=technology" meme:
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

lacan.com/zizek-signifier.htm

This might help you understand what constitutes understanding.


Do you sound like a smart person? Do you think you know them well enough to fit in with them?

Peterson is more like the Justin Bieber of contemporary philosophers, nothing special, nothing new, nothing particularly anything, yet obsessively despised by unremarkable people deeply invested in totally not being like him. Like how Justin Bieber threatens a fragile sense of masculinity by getting more pussy while being an annoying faggot, Jordan Peterson threatens a fragile sense of intellectual superiority.

Kermit's problem is that he's a dishonest shyster attempting to incorporate every contradictory appeal from white supremacists and civnat lolberts, NRx Christards to New Atheist fedoras, into his spiel, to acquire the largest possible audience. He knows more about Marxism, atheism, fascism, and philosophy than he lets on, but intentionally obscures them as much as his audience will let him to make himself as bland and palateable as he can.

Attached: Am I Christian_Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson-RIB05YeMiW8.mp4 (960x270, 2.62M)

But what's wrong with having a contradictory appeal? Why is it sign of dishonesty to not preach to the choir?

That's what this is really about, Jordan Peterson hangs with the wrong crowd. When you look at the people with a Peterson fixation, you'll see that those aren't exactly high-flyers either, they're the contrapoints, the Peter Coffin's, the r/badphilosophy's, the people whose philosophical engagement revolves around confirming to their idea of what a smart person is supposed to be like, the sort of who will unironically say that Peterson totally doesn't know what post-modernism means. Like how it's not actual musicians that are concerned with Justin Bieber, the same applies to those who are engaged with philosophy, they talk about Lyotard and de Saussure, not about how this kermit guy shouldn't get way more patreonbucks then they do.

Because he's become the central locus, both in the minds of pomos and of their opponents, to anti-pomo. The fact that he mixes legitimate condemnations of postmodernism with nonsensical (really, postmodernist) sophistry in defense of tradcon spooks much of his audience are blindly enamored with, discredits genuine leftist opposition against postmodernism and its constituent elements (poststructuralism, antipositivism, relativism, intersectionality, critical theory, standpoint theory, etc.).

Peterson is bad, not because he's a fraud, but because he's associating our movement with the same level of frauds as the pomo SJWs we're fighting.

Criticizing post-modernism while also using arguments that are associated with post-modernism is unavoidable, it is part of the philosophical tradition. Unless you hold a view in which post-modernism is a stain, a dirty thing, vague stuff that one should not let himself be contaminated with, the juices of those we fight. In this marxists are a lot like rational skeptics, both view philosophy in terms of purity and contamination.

You're not fighting anything, unless you count putting meme-songs on youtube as putting up a fight (meme-songs that are deleted when the combatant reaches some popularity on social media). Peterson doesn't notice your movement, he's not talking to you, he's talking to and about the people he actually has to deal with. That's something I've noticed more often on this board, it's posters are convinced public figures are talking about them almost personally.

Postmodernism IS a stain. It's not a genuine philosophical position, or even an honest analysis of the modern condition, but a rhetorical gimmick to protect job security in the academy.

Attached: Social "science".webm (640x360, 4.68M)

The descent of post-modernism is similar to what happened to art, in the early 20th century, some artists made some vulgar art like the famous urinal to make a (bad) point about art, this was picked up by untalented idiots who through the circlejerk of grants and promotion convinced their countries that this is what art -distinguishing element of culture, civilization and intellectualism- is, and that it keeps Hitler away.

The academic racket that passes around word vomit of which the only criteria for acceptance is linking any given thing to the patriarchy, systemic racism, white supremacy, capitalism, and preferably a matrix of all their systems-of-institutionalized-systematic-oppression is precisely the one that is fixated with Peterson. These friends of Derrida (Derrida has hundreds of friends, almost as much Mike Tyson has I'd say) are the ultimate teachers pets, suckers who have slithered all the way up to the top of the education system. To get an idea of this slime, listen to the audio recording of the man who threatened a girl with taking away her position as a teaching assistant and making her a paria for showing a Peterson video in class. They are fixated with Peterson because Peterson succeeds in having what they want most; being popular with students, appearing on television, appearing on debates, being likable, and in the case of the e-celebs whose greatest qualm with Peterson is him being in it for the money, patreonbucks. It's pure resentment.

Now this is not to say that post-modernism, as in the philosophical tradition centered around certain French philosophers, is equal to those who have donned themselves in it. But as you have already deemed post-modernism a pollutant that poisons the fountain of truth, it is unaccessible to you, it is not genuine, not honest, merely a trick, and therefor it doesn't matter what those people might have to say.

I can tell you don't work at all lol fucking neckbeard neet living on his mom's basement.

Attached: 2w.jpg (640x421, 31.94K)

Without postmodernism and post-postmodernism there would be no way for grad students to get their doctorates in the humanities. Every new history professor would have to be an archaeologist or an anthropologist. God, wouldn't that be nice?

Sassenachim

Attached: lil reactionary.jpg (768x344, 77.66K)

honestly i'm bad at debating these points and usually end up just linking some of xexizy's videos
youtube.com/watch?v=u0NlF7LRuNg
cadence.gq/cloudtube/video/u0NlF7LRuNg

Except it's not like that at all. You most likely don't have to move to a new country just to find a different job.
There's nothing "backwards" about being able to run your own business. What's absolutely ass-backwards is building up your own business, and some retarded commie coming along and tell you that he deserves the business that he had absolutely no part in building.
It actually does the opposite. See, in a capitalist system, people vote with their wallets. If people think that company is doing something immoral, that usually leads to boycotts, which hurt sales. They are accountable to their customers and to their investors, because with out either, they go out of business. Hell, a lot of companies who have done nothing wrong will donate to various charities, because their public image is even more important than trying to squeeze every last penny of profit.
It's called "basic human rights". Why on earth should some other assholes be able to completely control every aspect of the business that I built, that they didn't help build at all? There's absolutely no reason why it should be "democratic".
That's like two guys coming up to you and voting to rape you. Sure, you might vote against it, but the motion passes 2 to 1, so drop trow and bend over. Democracy!

so is Zig Forums actually deleting anything that isn't right wing stuff now?

I just posted this picture and asked why rightwingers are classcucks and the thread got deleted

Attached: corbynterroristsympa.jpg (720x490, 85.73K)

It's gotten significantly better since the old t*rkroach mod was removed by global administrators for banning literally everyone.
Probably because that is extremely low quality bait. You clearly didn't want a serious discussion if you phrased your question that way, with that image, so you don't really get to complain about it being deleted.

Because your thread was shit and akin to dilution of discussion since it has no basis beyond being bait, you huffing shitsack.

My point was that there is rarely or never an alternative to working for a capitalist.
What about all the employees that bore the overwhelming credit for building it, yet received no control beyond, at most, some stock options? Stealing the company from them is certainly quite backward, compared to the democracy that exists in every other sphere of modern life.
Markets aren't capitalism, what you said applies to coops as well. Capitalism is rentiers running a protection racket against workers.
Then what were you paying them for, exactly?

right because pol isn't full of bait threads and low hanging fruit

Attached: capitalism.png (624x217, 9.66K)

What's backwards is the giant mismatch between educational, industrial, and financial industries that rely on a system of private property. I would criticize the lack of coordination between them but there is coordination - to make profits. Meanwhile, people are being misled to waste years of their life and thousands of dollars on an education that is being sold to them as an investment which in reality businesses don't even care about. Meanwhile, instead of finance acting as an intermediary to develop industrial production it becomes a parasite gutting businesses and selling off assets.
Nobody wants to expropriate your lawn-mowing business.
And some people have 10,000 times as many votes as others.
In many places there are limited options to obtain certain goods, especially at an affordable price. This limits the practical ability of people to choose not only where they can buy products but also where they can work. The development of capitalism has a built-in tendency to not only concentrate capital to make production more efficient but also to centralize capital in the hands of fewer firms. I have photos of the town where my grandparents lived that show how many local businesses existed 80 years ago. They're all gone now, mostly replaced by large corporations which dominate that town like every other in the U.S.
It's largely bullshit. I know that in at least one major corporation they have a charitable program but its funding comes from voluntary deductions from employee paychecks. It's literally the employees paying for the company's good publicity. Also, many of these companies get tax deductions for such donations which basically means they get "free" publicity.
Again, nobody gives a shit about your lawn-mowing business.
Modern capitalism is one giant interconnected system of production, exchange, and distribution. The reality of this system is that it requires tremendous planning and coordination to function. The next step is to acknowledge this transparently and extend decision-making and ownership rights to everyone to contributes.
Stop listening to Ben Shapiro. That idiot will rot your brain.

i run my own small business. it's a lot of work and in some ways i'd much rather work at a big company, but i got the idea after trying for a number of years to find decent opportunities in various companies and finally realized that their internal workings were entirely political. you don't get a job because of your resume - you get one because someone recommended you. you don't get promoted based on what you can do - you get promoted based on whether or not its convenient to your boss who can literally sabotage your career and steal your ideas if they find it convenient. the management of companies largely depends on playing political games within the organization to protect one's own position. this is reality. have you ever had a real job in your life?

You need to wake up to the reality of the 21st century. Business is not run on the basis of small entrepreneurs who innovate and compete and deliver the best possible product. Business is largely a bureaucratic affair involving large concentrations of capital, access to financial institutions and lines of credit, etc. A start-up in the USA is not some guys messing around in a garage. It's typically people from an Ivy League university with access to several million in seed capital. Further, there is very little accountability in major corporations mostly because they are legally designed to avoid any kind of culpability. If an accident happens they will always be able to pin it on the employee with the excuse that he wasn't following SOP - even though safety procedures are often not even explained or followed in big companies. (I've seen employees handle hazardous waste & carcinogenic materials without so much as a dust mask - simply because none of them realized what they were handling and nobody in management gave a fuck about their safety.)

The solution to these problems is not to smash the big companies and replace them with small ones. Over time it would lead to the same negative consequences. What needs to be done is to rewrite, legally, the way ownership and rights work in a modern economy to move us towards a socialist system in which we retain the benefits of scale and concentration while losing the downsides of private ownership and minority control over industries via management hierarchies and a focus on stockholders. This is not the end goal but it's a step toward it.

Attached: StirnerVsIndividualism.png (770x275, 33.18K)

Your dumb dictionary definition is not a meaningful one; it only exists due to language confusion from 50 years of Red Scare propaganda in the United States. Under that functionally useless definition, capitalism has existed throughout human history and there is nothing to delineate the current economic system from feudalism. I'm going to walk through all the things that capitalism is not to help you understand so please pay attention.

Is capitalism markets? No, markets have existed for thousands of years, if you go back and read Plato and Aristotle even they had some unkind words for markets.

What about the existence of finance capital? I.e., bankers and money lenders, those who lend money to others in order to make more back on interest to end up with more money than their initial amount. Afraid not, this is an ancient institution as well.

Is it merchant capital? Those who exchange money for goods and then those goods for more money than they started with? Again no, this one is almost as old as civilization itself.

What could it be, then, that distinguishes capitalism from the systems that came before it? It's about production, the emergence of the industrial capital productive arrangement. Rather than producing merely for sustenance, rather than owning people to produce for you, rather than tying people to the land and allotting them a share of it to work on while they spend part of the year producing for you, industrial capital is where one buys tools, equipment, and raw materials, pays a worker a wage in order to transform them into a commodity, and then sells that commodity for more money than they started with. It is the predominance of this productive arrangement that distinguishes capitalism from the economic systems that came before it. And as you can see, state vs private and markets vs. planning aren't necessary part of its definition.

Attached: The More You Know.jpg (561x370, 126.05K)

A few things 1. There is a psychological component to this kind of conversation and it can be very difficult . Dunning Kruger is interesting, not everybody can understand things in the same way and this leads to …. People not being able to understand each other. It sucks but thems the breaks think allegory of the cave on roids. 2. Once problem one is figured out I think the Paris commune is interesting and more people should talk about it. Be about it. Where did they go wrong? 3. Starcrawler sometimes it's best to transcend the issues of the day and find a place of agreement and go from there. I'm shilling hard for starcrawler I think they are the answer to this confusion. m.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4u7TG7LfQ

Attached: image.jpeg (600x1082, 87.08K)

So which fucking one is it, you retarded commie?

It has, for much of human history anyway. The same way that socialism existed in primitive agricultural communities thousands of years before Marx wrote a bunch of bullshit about it. Baseless commie definitions of "capitalism" do nothing but add on a load of unfounded assumptions to the basic idea of being able to run your own business.

Imagine being this ignorant.

It's the first one.

It's very simple, perhaps even simple enough for you to understand. Starting out with wealth all but guarantees success, but starting out without wealth all but guarantees failure.

Let me guess, you think that capitalism is when people buy things with money, right?

Oh, this is even better! So, really, your "capitalism" has not existed since the seventies (and even then only in certain parts of Europe, Japan, and North America), since start-ups are almost entirely beyond the means of the great majority of the public. Inb4 eBay and furry porn businesses.

That doesn't explain why all these startups constantly fail, then.

No, but I'm not surprised you can only argue against strawmen.
…What? I'm sure this sounded a lot better in your head, but you're claiming people haven't been allowed to own their own businesses (since?/until? not really sure what you're claiming) the 70s?
Actually, anyone can do it. Whether they're successful or not depends on the ability of the individual.
The part you idiotic commies always do your best to avoid is how much work it takes to create a business.

"Allowed to" has fuck all to do with it. When the working class went into debt while startup costs continued to rise, it lost all hope of ever making the leap from labor to petit-bourgeois. If you don't have the initial investment–an ever-growing sum of capital–you cannot become an owner regardless of what you are supposedly allowed to do. The American Dream has been dead since the energy crisis.

Total and complete bullshit. Everyone may have the right, but only that tiny segment of the population that possesses sufficient investment capital has the ability.

Top kek. I love idiots who think that the business world is a meritocracy.

Ha! Peak irony there. We are the people who do recognise what role work plays in any enterpise. Idiots like you are the ones who think that all real work is done by guys who sit in an office signing checks for the few hours per week instead of the people who actually physically put bricks on top of other bricks.

Attached: AtlasShrugged2.png (790x416, 64.96K)

Memerson isn't really a problem for philosphy enthusiasts, he has no impact in that realm since he is just a popular figure rather than a serious thinker of his own right. It's his misrepresentation of ideas that serves a reactionary political project that is the issue. how a Jungian can claim to be on the side of the 'rationalists' baffles me to no end tbh.

wtf are actually good armchair posts coming back in fashion?


M-C-'M, on a systemic level, simplifies to just M-'M
your problem is the same as all your fellow liberals': you see individuals and the relations and structures they form (such as societies) as individual atoms floating in a vacuum, idea spirits independent of external influences. That's why you can say 'if your boss is mean just change jobs lol' or 'socialism has always failed just look at these barely post-feudal states coming off a massive war AND a vicious civil war'. Material conditions matter, in fact they are the most important thing by far.

Attached: adam secretly commie smith.png (543x300, 115.18K)

"Employment" could be a direct relationship between you and the customer, rather than including a parasitic intermediary.
Again, socialism has no requirement for a state to even exist, and coops can function under a market system same as capitalism. Not to mention that capitalism itself is completely dependent on state violence to recognize and enforce arbitrary "private" "property" "rights" by capitalists against workers, to prevent workers from using the MoP that capitalists absentee "own".
But capitalists have an inherent competitive advantage, because they can coerce employees into working for less than the full value of their labor. Your comment is a bit like saying you as a worker are perfectly free to compete against disposable immigrants, pajeet telecommuters, and offshore child sweatshops. And even this ignores the fact that porky has vastly superior access to capital due to collusion with (or literally just being) the financial industry, compared to Joe Blow aspiring entrepreneur, which is why small business has been chased out of the market, with ≤5 worker businesses now accounting for less that 10% of jobs.

Much as with open borders or slavery, the only fair solution is to simply require that all businesses be worker owned.
>The business owner is someone with enough knowledge, experience and drive to [stuff done entirely by employees, from janitor to CEO]
Reminder the actual business owner under capitalism are the voting stockholders and their elected board members, not the people who actually run the business. Even the investment and stockholder activism supposedly done by capitalists are, in fact, done by portfolio and fund managers, usually subcontracted from the same banks workers deposit their paychecks at.
That's because your house isn't your property, but your possession. You actually live in it yourself. Compare this with a capitalist business, where the "owner" is incapable of exploiting the MoP they "own", so capitalists must instead "hire" workers (effectively renting access to the MoP) in order to benefit from it in any way. In fact, capitalists can't even protect "their" "property" themselves, but must hire workers (whether private security or taxpayer police/military) to prevent other workers from using the MoP without yielding to the capitalist's terms of "employment".
Wrong. Capitalism is being able to exploit labor of others as a rentier. Single-employee "self employment" and coops are not capitalism.

Also
Reminder the term "capitalism" was originally coined by Marx himself, all subsequent economic schools' understanding of capitalism (including Austrian) are derived from Marx's, and relatively non-retarded dictionary definitions can just as easily be found:
ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=capitalism


Like said, porky makes a soft living masturbating atop the flood of dividendies mommy wagie gives them, while petite bourg flounder at the verge of extinction in spite of great struggle.

Attached: ancoms and ancaps.png (621x551 53.86 KB, 102.18K)