[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cyoa / joosten / loomis / maka / rec / senran / startrek / sudpol ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Its been four years! Happy anniversary!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: ce1764f35da74eb⋯.png (19.29 KB, 583x293, 583:293, Ef9Qhwc.png)

 No.68993

Marxism is ___

 No.68994

impossible in the real world


 No.68996

>>68993

valueless


 No.68999

a scheme of the planning class to look virtuous while controlling the economy totally.


 No.69003

>>68993

not real communism™


 No.69004

>>68993

A science.

>>68994

>marxism leads to several revolutions in the real world

<the real world needs to bow down to my ideology


 No.69006

>>68993

Its own character mask


 No.69007

>>68999

This.

>>69004

Revolutions that lead to ruin of their countries and having a new ruling class that was just as oppressive.


 No.69008

File: 2c8bbd280f41992⋯.png (125.89 KB, 644x598, 14:13, 2c8bbd280f419926d8226ff65a….png)

>>69007

It is utopian to think you could overthrow a system from within through reforms, when the system was designed to prevent exactly that. Revolutions are the natural progression of history - no big revolutions in history, neither the French Revolution nor the American Revolution were achieved through entryism but through a violent overthrow of the predominant system.

>ruined their country

That's a weird way of saying "ascending from a feudal peasent state into a space-faring superpower with the 2nd highest living standard within 30 years".

>class

Class is defined by relations to production, such as Roman senators, medieval bannermen or capitalist entrepreneurs - concretely, through some extraction of surplus of labor. This didn't exist in actually-existing socialism, administrators and managers were responsible to the people and no kleptocrats, this constitutes in no way a class. To whom are the CEOs in capitalism responsible to? Right, to their shareholders.


 No.69009

LARPsism


 No.69010

>>69008

When did I say that I advocated reforms?

>administrators and managers were responsible to the people

You mean overglorified managers who were out of touch with the people?

Funny isn't the end goal a classless society yet you praise these managers?


 No.69012

File: 106437ac7c8b0b8⋯.jpg (163.85 KB, 595x842, 595:842, 106437ac7c8b0b866f5a0ad959….jpg)

>>69004

*revolutions that always end in famines, devastation, and tyranny

FTFY


 No.69014

>>69008

>That's a weird way of saying "ascending from a feudal peasent state into a space-faring superpower with the 2nd highest living standard within 30 years".

At what cost?

Compared to what?


 No.69015

>>69008

>ascending from a feudal peasent state into a space-faring superpower

With all those scientists that just happened to be form other countries which moved here voluntarily, we got on the moon first which proves our scientists were efficient. Capitalism DESTROYED.


 No.69025

>>69008

>when you fuck everything up and take credit for a preexisting trend of growth and industrialization that you slowed down


 No.69027

>>69004

>A science

Recognized only by leftists?


 No.69064

>>69008

>ascending from a feudal peasent state

Last I checked, serfdom was already outlawed long before the Russian Revolution, and most of the land was owned by independent farmers. In fact, the land distribution was more equitable than in Great Britain.

>into a space-faring superpower

The Russians shot junk into space while the Americans were busy making actual scientific progress.

>with the 2nd highest living standard within 30 years".

Yeah, they only suffered three major famines in that time. Did all other countries except the US suffer four famines or what? They had famines in 1921, 1933 and 1946. But hey, after that, they FINALLY escaped the curse of famine and only had to deal with regular shortages.


 No.69066

>>69004

A self-refuting Ideology *sniff*


 No.69069

File: 96b97c493658fc9⋯.png (225.65 KB, 579x377, 579:377, 96b97c493658fc99a92c7b5ad1….png)

>>69010

>You mean overglorified managers who were out of touch with the people?

The infamous apparatchicks didn't appear before the capitalist Kosgyn Reforms, reintroducing the profit-motive therefore creating a mileu of middle men who are charged with solving the antagonism between individual producers and the socialist state plan by more bureaucratic allocation of resources, labor and goods. There was no overboarding bureaucracy under Stalin, mangers were responsible to the workers, could be recalled when being insufficient, and lively proletarian democracy was well alive with worker councils having debates and elections.

https://youtu.be/Okz2YMW1AwY

Before you cry muh Youtube, the entire video is composed of quotes from books you can find in the descriptions, which include books from liberal historians. I already explained our concept of class to you not sure why you ignore it.

>>69012

>Confederate Flag

How do you think the unalienable right of private property in the USA was acquired if not though the violent overthrow of the British Colonial rule?

>>69014

>at what cost?

At what cost did Europe attain its unprecedented industrial revolution? Was that not through centuries of exploitation, slavery, famines and genocides of other cultures? Do you think the industrial revolution would have happened if Europe didn't have access to the extracted net value of its colonial possessions?

>compared to what

Compared to a potential liberal Russia that would have been conquered by the Nazis.

>>69015

Oh, so did the US not hire a lot of German scientists as well, such as a Werner von Braun?

>>69025

This paper states that Soviet growth was indeed exceptional:

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/02/reading-robert-c-allen-2003-farm-to-factory-a-reinterpretation-of-the-soviet-industrial-revolution.html

And following your logic, than you must have been against the 1991 Perestroika as well, considering it also derailed economic growth.


 No.69072

>>69069

>At what cost did Europe attain its unprecedented industrial revolution? Was that not through centuries of exploitation, slavery, famines and genocides of other cultures?

No. Economic growth took off with the Industrial Revolution, but its effects weren't obvious for a long time because population numbers were growing simultaneously. It was the Malthusian Law that caused all the suffering during the Industrial Revolution, nothing else.

Colonization wasn't profitable. Almost all colonies wrote red numbers most of the time, I think Katanga was one of the few exceptions. If anyone got more prosperous as a result of colonization, it was the colonies themselves, who got capital and technology from the imperial powers. Without the cruel oppression of the white man, Africans would still be eating cooked virgins and curing tuberculosis by cooking more virgins.

>This paper states that Soviet growth was indeed exceptional:

And according to everything else, the USSR suffered famines, shortages, had a shitty public morale, and was technologically inferior to the Western World. Doubling the number of cars per capita in your country is nothing to be proud of when everyone else is already sitting in hovercars.


 No.69073

File: 147999d034bd973⋯.jpg (69.47 KB, 400x524, 100:131, 147999d034bd9731618ce4a2f4….jpg)

>>69064

>Last I checked, serfdom was already outlawed long before the Russian Revolution, and most of the land was owned by independent farmers. In fact, the land distribution was more equitable than in Great Britain

You are right, and this course was actually continued by Lenin in the NEP, you need to have proper capitalism before socialism. However, feudal remnants and superstructure still remained: Most of the country was illiterate, and most villages were still communally organized in the form of the Obshchinas. It surely wasn't as a developed as most European powers. See also my answer above.

>The Russians shot junk into space while the Americans were busy making actual scientific progress

Come on dude, first off NASA was a publicly founded program so I don't know why you even defend that as an AnCap, secondly the Soviets got the first man an woman in space, the first satelite, constructed a space station, etc.

>Yeah, they only suffered three major famines in that time

The 1933 one which was caused by drought and sabotage is the only one that is somewhat an argument, the first date you mentioned was during the Civil War the third one right after WWII, Ukraine was a main fighting ground and once the agricultural infrastructure was built up again, the famine quickly diminished.

>USA

Has more fertile ground, had a lower population, and 100 years of organic development without ever being under existential threat.


 No.69074

>>69069

>hurr southerners bad

lol butthurt

>if not though the violent overthrow

There was a violent revolt, but unlike the soviet union there weren't 3 separate famines in the space of a quarter century.


 No.69075

>>68993

a virus of a mind


 No.69076

File: 5fbbef5feb90c9c⋯.jpg (107.95 KB, 640x853, 640:853, 5fbbef5feb90c9c1f2d00928cb….jpg)

>>69072

> It was the Malthusian Law that caused all the suffering during the Industrial Revolution, nothing else

<it's okay when we do it

So you openly admit that material conditions during rapid industrialization usually has negative side effects but still blame socialism for it? Both USSR and Maoist China had a massive increase of population. Also, "nothing else" seems to be rather simplistic, also labor rights and welfare states were non-existent. It's also false to blame, for example, unemployment on the Malthusian catastrophe, it's effects were later palliated but unemployment is nothing but a artifical phenomenon of capitalism due to the establishment of a labor market. There wasn't unemployment before, and we still have unemployment today. In almost all cases of actually-existing socialism unemployment was abolished.

>colonies weren't profitable

You see, mercantilism wasn't fully fledged capitalism as yet, the colonies writing red numbers didn't matter as long as imperial supremacy secures resource extraction for the imperial center. You can not seriously believe that Europeans colonized the entire earth if it didn't give them some sort of advantage. What is your source for that claim?

>Africans would still be eating cooked virgins and curing tuberculosis by cooking more virgins

Imperialism left African countries in disarray, caused structural problems we still deal with to day, and eventually replaced it with corporate neo-imperialism. Also, I just love the hypocrisy: Suddenly the means justify the end, disregarding centuries of enslavement, famine and genocide while you whine about muh gorillions supposedly killed by Stalin. In the end, wouldn't you admit that these former colonial countries would have evolved somewhat organically through mutual trade without the need for colonialism?

>and everything else says

Not really, even liberal historians like Arch Getty or Kotkin don't follow this narrative. You'd imagine that half a century of Red Scare had some influence in academia as well.


 No.69078

>>69076

>So you openly admit that material conditions during rapid industrialization usually has negative side effects but still blame socialism for it?

I'll openly admit that nobody should take Malthus seriously on anything. That goes for you and that guy.

>colonies weren't profitable

As a whole, not really. Colonization was profitable for the State and those that got the monopoly on importing goods. Nobody will seriously argue that international relations are detrimental. In the long run, Colonization hurt those relations even more.

>Africans would still be eating cooked virgins and curing tuberculosis by cooking more virgins

Again, that guy is a retard. It costs far less effort and resources to gain a far greater net benefit by trading peacefully.


 No.69097

>>69073

>You are right, and this course was actually continued by Lenin in the NEP, you need to have proper capitalism before socialism. However, feudal remnants and superstructure still remained: Most of the country was illiterate, and most villages were still communally organized in the form of the Obshchinas. It surely wasn't as a developed as most European powers. See also my answer above.

In other words, at best, Lenin inherited an ongoing trend.

>The 1933 one which was caused by drought and sabotage is the only one that is somewhat an argument

A healthy economy can deal with a drought. Just import food, instead of exporting it like a retard, as Stalin did. He even bought industrial capital for that money. As far as I'm concerned, that settles the question of whether the government was to blame for the famine. The theory that Kulaks sabotaged the economy is so unsubstantiated that it doesn't deserve refutation.

>the first date you mentioned was during the Civil War

Yes, during its end stages, when the Whites were as good as defeated, and it was preceeded by a number of economic policies that Lenin partially took back with the New Economic Policy. Lenin also exported grain later during the famine, instead of saving it up for future """droughts""". The Mughals and the Incas both knew how grain storage worked but not Lenin? Come on.

>the third one right after WWII, Ukraine was a main fighting ground and once the agricultural infrastructure was built up again, the famine quickly diminished.

It wasn't just the Ukraine, it was in several regions. And once more, the government exported grain.

Of course, the final nail in the coffin is our knowledge of economic laws, but judging by your flag, there's no telling you about them.

>Has more fertile ground, had a lower population, and 100 years of organic development without ever being under existential threat.

I wasn't talking about the US. The focus of my comment was on all the other countries on the globe, most of which didn't have as many bad famines as Russia, with the exception of China, which just so happens to have been communist, too. As I always say, it's suspicious that the kinds of droughts that create major famines have only sought out communist countries during the last century.


 No.69098

>>69076

>So you openly admit that material conditions during rapid industrialization usually has negative side effects but still blame socialism for it?

I explicitly didn't admit that. I said nothing to that effect. I pretty much only mentioned overpopulation, but blaming rapid industrialization for overpopulation is just silly.

>Both USSR and Maoist China had a massive increase of population.

Yes, at a time when agricultural methods have already become far more efficient. The yield per acre has increased more than tenfold since the Industrial Revolution. Population numbers that could've caused poverty in 1850 couldn't do so in 1950.

>Also, "nothing else" seems to be rather simplistic, also labor rights and welfare states were non-existent. It's also false to blame, for example, unemployment on the Malthusian catastrophe, it's effects were later palliated but unemployment is nothing but a artifical phenomenon of capitalism due to the establishment of a labor market. There wasn't unemployment before, and we still have unemployment today. In almost all cases of actually-existing socialism unemployment was abolished.

Are you even aware that this narrative is not at all new to me, or to any other capitalist? Labor rights (as you call them) and welfare are harmful, and involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in a free market.

>Also, I just love the hypocrisy: Suddenly the means justify the end, disregarding centuries of enslavement, famine and genocide

Do I really need to write a disclaimer just in case? That it had a beneficial effect, in the longterm, doesn't mean I believe that every aspect of it was justified.

>slavery

Which the blacks happily participated in, and the Europeans eventually sought to prohibit for the first time in the history of mankind.

>In the end, wouldn't you admit that these former colonial countries would have evolved somewhat organically through mutual trade without the need for colonialism?

Probably depends on the colony. In India, that might've been possible. All of sub saharan Africa, hardly, as these people didn't even understand how property rights worked.

>What is your source for that claim?

Books by Ludwig von Mises and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Leftism, and either Liberalism or Omnipotent Government, but forgot which of the two.

>Not really, even liberal historians like Arch Getty or Kotkin don't follow this narrative.

So they dispute this?

>And according to everything else, the USSR suffered famines, shortages, had a shitty public morale, and was technologically inferior to the Western World.

Not sure how you could've misunderstood me that badly. I didn't even say anything against the rapid development of the USSR (for the sake of argument), I was saying that in any case, the USSR was shit, and it always remained shit.


 No.69102

>>68999

Since when are venture capitalists spreading Marxism?


 No.69117

>>69069

>Was that not through centuries of exploitation, slavery, famines and genocides of other cultures?

No. Those things had nothing to do with it.

>Do you think the industrial revolution would have happened if Europe didn't have access to the extracted net value of its colonial possessions?

Yes. Colonialism cost more than it got back.


 No.69121

>>69102

I remember there being a book by Antony C. Sutton detailing how Wall Street helped fund the Soviet Union.


 No.69125

>>69097

>hurrdurr export of grain

You realize that the Soviets were advocating for the gold standard only to get thrown under the bus by the UK yet they needed capital to build up their industry? The UK intentionally demanded grain for exchange of tool necessary for industrialization, and the harvest of 1931 was a huge surplus, so they exported it. The grain exports stopped once the extent of the shortage became known to Stalin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMBJ_nQ4sTA

>lmao just import it

They were sanctioned kid.

Honoestly the rest of your post is just so fucking bad that it is not worth refuting, it's the usual cultish stuff ("involuntary employment doesn't exist in the free market") that no respectable economist outside of Libertarian think tanks financed by the Koch brothers takes seriously, and of course your sources are Mises and all that shit and no historians.


 No.69127

>>69117

>No. Those things had nothing to do with it

<it wasn't REAL CAPITALISM

Then I'm at liberty to say that all the flaws of the USSR have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism?

>Yes. Colonialism cost more than it got back

You are ignoring all the socio-economic forces that were facilitated through colonialism that led to capitalism, such as the founding of large trading companies. India under the East India Company is basically AnCapistan.


 No.69140

File: 73ab7745a856c57⋯.png (43.42 KB, 1352x706, 676:353, not communism.png)

>>69125

>You realize that the Soviets were advocating for the gold standard only to get thrown under the bus by the UK yet they needed capital to build up their industry?

They also needed a population that wasn't dead. Bang up job they did with that. People before proifts, remember?

>the harvest of 1931 was a huge surplus, so they exported it.

That's still criminal negligence. It takes months for a fullblown famine to strike. There's supposed to be grain storages that hold out for a few months. When they run empty, people reduce their intake, they stop brewing alcohol, feeding their cattle, then they slaughter the cattle, eat raw grain, spend all their money on whatever extra food they can get, then they eat their pets, rats, dig up earthworms, and then does the famine strike. You have plenty of time to prepare, several months. He was there during the 1921 famine, he could've noticed warning signs such as a draught and farmers slaughtering their dairy cattle.

>The grain exports stopped once the extent of the shortage became known to Stalin.

Supposing that that's true, for the sake of argument, Stalin is still an asshole. One of the many problems of central planning is that it's practically impossible to know everything of what's going on in the economy. You don't have that same problem when the planning is decentralized, like in a free market. It's still a failure of the system when the authorities need a million corpses before they realize that people are dying like dogs. And like I said, it takes months for a famine to start. Only once all food reserves are exhausted do people start dying by the thousands. Especially after a draught hit, any somewhat responsible ruler will keep a close eye on the caloric intake of his inhabitants. The Incas managed to avoid famines for two centuries. Their method of communication was to let messengers run really fast, and their method of accounting was to count knots in different colors on strings. The USSR had access to far better technology and better methods of agriculture and it didn't even manage to ensure that its population had access to what's literally the most basic good of all? I'm surprised there was no oxygen shortage in the USSR, because central planning is fucking magic.

>Honoestly the rest of your post is just so fucking bad that it is not worth refuting, it's the usual cultish stuff ("involuntary employment doesn't exist in the free market") that no respectable economist outside of Libertarian think tanks financed by the Koch brothers takes seriously

Wait, I'm in a cult? Better tell the Commissar at the next self-criticism session, then! For real, was there an argument in there?

>and of course your sources are Mises and all that shit and no historians.

My sources, on economic matters, are economists, and that's somehow a bad thing? Do you get your haircut at a butcher shop? No? Then why the hell do you ask a historian how the economy works and not an economist?

>>69127

>Then I'm at liberty to say that all the flaws of the USSR have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism?

Yes, but you'll be an idiot because the flaws of the USSR were a logical consequence of this ideology, from the egalitarianism, to the destruction of morality, to the central planning.

>India under the East India Company is basically AnCapistan.

Oh, so they respected the property rights of everyone as long as they were acquired through homesteading or the voluntary transfer of legitimate property? If not, then they weren't "basically" Ancapistan. Find a better word.


 No.69178

>>69127

<it wasn't REAL CAPITALISM

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it was a drain on Western economies overall rather than fostering their growth.

>You are ignoring all the socio-economic forces that were facilitated through colonialism that led to capitalism, such as the founding of large trading companies.

Because it has nothing to do with the point about 'extracted net value'.

I'm saying there is no extracted net value. The colonies were, overall, a drain.


 No.69204

>>69007

>Revolutions that lead to ruin of their countries and having a new ruling class that was just as oppressive.

It's not to say it is a good thing or to infer any merit of marxism/socialism/communism but all "commie" nations basically launched into heavy industrialisation, increased prosperity and power. USSR and Communist China are the best examples. Literal undeveloped, fuedal shitholes being constantly pushed around by the world. Rapidly developed into powerful and industraliased nations. Laying the groundwork for their global power and continual prosperity of the present day.


 No.69205

>>69204

Ever considered that they were just carried along by the trend in the developed world? When everyone else gets richer, even a bum can get a fine dinner out of a trashcan.


 No.69238

>>69204

>prosperity of the present day

>russia

pick one


 No.69252

>>69204

Do you choose to disregard all the failed centrally planned industrial projects, or genuinely do not know about the unfinished/abandoned Soviet projects all over the Eastern Bloc?


 No.69384

>>69004

>A science.

haha

just like theology


 No.69417

America doesn't have a Marxism problem, American has a kike problem.

Remove the kike, all other problems will fix themselves.


 No.69419

>>69417

>>69417

But there are problems in countries without the jews as well, like NK and China. Explain that shit to me.


 No.69421

>>69419

But those countries have a lot of Marxists; he's saying America doesn't.


 No.69422

At least, non-Jewish Marxists.

Americans like capitalism more than socialism anyway.


 No.69423

File: 8e6ec10fd18ab99⋯.jpg (40.59 KB, 480x640, 3:4, costanza.jpg)

>>69417

>If I repeat it often enough, eventually people will believe me, right?


 No.69451

>>69125

>no respectable economist

Why do leftists always pull this shit? Create a clique, force anyone who disagrees out, claim that only your clique is right, then slander them as being "not respectable." Same shit happened with racial science.


 No.69455

It's shit folks


 No.69477

File: 379cf6c760a021a⋯.png (84.98 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 154765675b5361f9560ee8b310….png)

Better than Capitalism.


 No.69478

>>69477

>If we abolish social programs, the money that went into them stops existing

>Poor people are worse off when they don't have to pay 10% TVA on every purchase

>Tax rates of 50% for the middle class don't harm economic prosperity at all


 No.69479

File: bf6d59b7ec6b7bf⋯.jpg (27.54 KB, 255x245, 51:49, bf6d59b7ec6b7bf18f4ab550e8….jpg)

>>69478

Hey, by all means, tax poor people at 0% but keep taxes on the rich at 99%.

<b-b-but muh incentives!!

Don't care. The incentives of why rich people do things don't matter to me because I'm not rich.


 No.69482

>>69479

>Don't care. The incentives of why rich people do things don't matter to me because I'm not rich.

As they're doing the most capital investment, you should care. If we siphon the resources of everyone above a certain income level, capital accumulation stops dead in its tracks. Capital won't even get renewed anymore. You know what this means? Factories break down and never get replaced, scientific research stops entirely and scientific expertise is lost, infrastructure degrades, and the fucking internet dies.

You can play around wiht the income levels at which you want taxation to reach 100%. It will always hold true that this will lower the rate of capital accumulation. Mix it with a welfare state, and you even create an incentive to be unproductive. There is no healthy level of interventionism, only levels that are more or less harmful. In this regard, interventionism is worse than poison, as most poisons have a healthy dose.


 No.69484

File: fb562199c8b8b26⋯.gif (1.02 MB, 488x326, 244:163, 10619-13395-2515.gif)

>>69482

>Factories break down and never get replaced, scientific research stops entirely and scientific expertise is lost, infrastructure degrades, and the fucking internet dies.

All that shit is happening anyway. I don't care about some sorry rich guy not being able to accumulate more wealth for himself. Boo fucking hoo.

I want as much shit as I can get, and the more of it that comes for free and the less I have to work for any of it, the better. I don't *care* about being productive. I care about having free stuff. If you don't like having free stuff from the government on some flawed stupid principal of self-reliance, you can give it to me instead.


 No.69488

>>69484

>I want as much shit as I can get, and the more of it that comes for free and the less I have to work for any of it, the better.

Then you want the rich entrepreneur to succeed without any government intervention that allows him to make more for less effort. You will never get more free stuff from the government than the rich as you will never have the lobby power they do. You're being tossed crumbs while fucking yourself in the ass thinking you're sticking it to them.


 No.69494

>>69484

ur stupid


 No.69501

File: ad07b0620b22312⋯.png (250.37 KB, 719x1110, 719:1110, 20171010_223035.png)

>>69484

>I am become bismuth, destroyer of puppies


 No.69505

File: 569a0466927898b⋯.jpg (108.26 KB, 711x767, 711:767, cf8eda58e60e159e17d7238f4b….jpg)

>>69484

>Im an edgy 16 year old and there is nothing you can do to stop me.


 No.69510

File: b541a6aad8eba78⋯.jpg (23.87 KB, 326x244, 163:122, Look at him and tell me th….jpg)

>>69484

> I'm so retarded that I can't process or comprehend the benefit of things like long-term development nor do I honestly care about ethics or anything in that regard.

Well, at least you're apparent about it.


 No.69513

File: 65182e51ea9c7e5⋯.png (53.66 KB, 700x788, 175:197, ClipboardImage.png)

>>69484

If you don't want to be productive, you're nothing more than a parasite.


 No.69518

>>68993

juvenile


 No.69551

A science


 No.69552


 No.69596

File: 89066a961ee0fb8⋯.jpg (8.36 KB, 240x300, 4:5, Bohm Bawerk 576x720.jpg)

False.


 No.69597

>>69477

God leftist counter signals are so so bad.


 No.69714

File: 6f2cd87f1bf133f⋯.jpg (353.98 KB, 759x691, 759:691, notanargument.jpg)

>>69505

Strawman: The Post


 No.69715

>>69714

>when I say "not an argument" at my enemies THEY LOSE


 No.69819

>>69004

How can marxists think marxism is a science when their ideology necessitates relativism? Or did you redefine it like the jews you are…


 No.69829

>>69488

No, because the rich boy succeeding has nothing to do with me succeeding. The government forces the rich to be more charitable than they actually want to be, so the charity argument is nonsense. I like that the government is forcing rich people to give their stuff to me and I hope they keep it that way + do more of it.

The reality is that without the government doing that I would be worse off, just based off if I crunched the numbers in terms of the welfare I get every month versus what I pay in taxes, I get more in net benefits than I would if I even had 0% taxes. Keep in mind I get it all back at the end of the year anyways.

There is nothing you can possibly say to me that could convince me that it's in my own self interest to do anything that enriches rich people's lives instead of mine, nor that I shouldn't do everything possible to fuck their shit up, fam. For one it's fun, and two it helps me in every possible way.


 No.69833

>>69829

First of all, you're a parasite with no dignity.

>But I don't care, jokes' on you!

And that is exactly why you have no dignity, my degenerate friend. In case you failed to notice, pigs look pretty content too when they wallow in mud. Does that make them exalted? I think not.

Second, you don't understand how economic progress works. Free the market of its shackles, and within thirty years, you can collect hoverboards from the trash. You assume, instead, that there is a cake whose size is forevermore fixed and all you can do is demand a larger slice. That, or your time preference is just ridiculously high, which would be even more sad.


 No.69845

>>68993

complete trash and mental aids.


 No.69862

fake and gay


 No.69864

>>68993

Marxism.


 No.69870

File: e1c60c35b9d61dd⋯.png (347.58 KB, 550x550, 1:1, ren no amused.png)

>>69829

>The government forces the rich to be more charitable than they actually want to be

Take a fucking moment to reflect on the idea of "forced charity" and how much of an oxymoron that is.

The state increases everybody's time preference through things like taxation, and this makes people think less about everything else around them, including family members, let alone less fortunate strangers, and more about their own pockets so they can survive. The entire moral framework of society becomes deluded over time, since it has been given to an institution that can only act through violence and survives on theft and slavery.


 No.69933

>>68993

>A dream

And then you wake up.


 No.69935

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.69948

File: 62fc7439225a1c3⋯.png (9.03 KB, 1787x109, 1787:109, high iq marxists.png)

*destroys mises*


 No.69952

>>69948

He probably has such a high IQ he understands the subtle nuances of pickle rick


 No.69954

>>69948

This is what is done with schools and hospitals. He's right in a way.

The negative effects caused by high prices might cancel out the gains from increased distributive efficiency.


 No.69960

>>69954

You know he was talking about the calculation-problem, right?


 No.69964

File: ced4880bca5a12c⋯.jpg (68.48 KB, 500x426, 250:213, bwah-bwah-bwah-bwaaaaah.jpg)

>>69948

>evil capitalist system:

>beef shortage

>ripple effects immediately go out and foods using beef become more expensive, encouraging consumers to use alternative meats and producers to raise more cows

>glorious socialist system:

>beef shortage

>restaurants and grocery stores get long lines

>send reports to bureaucrats

>who send it to their managers

>who send it to their managers

>and so on until it gets to the person in charge of livestock

>send out order to raise more cows, which has to filter back down through the bureaucracy

>out to the ranchers who raise cows, and anyone else who has a hand in the process

>commies think this is on par, much less better than, a market economy


 No.69980

>>69964

Why do thinks happen instantly in the capitalist system, but realistically in the socialist system?


 No.69981

And it can be argued that price increases are not much better than shortages. When there are shortages of healthcare in the UK they ration based on *need* rather than *ability to pay*, which also keeps prices down.


 No.69985

>>69980

There's a bureaucracy acting as the middle man, and have you ever seen a bureaucracy that doesn't add in a whole bunch of red tape to everything? In capitalism, the rancher loses some of his cattle and charges higher prices, leading to grocers, restaurant owners, and butchers to buy less and charge more for what they do buy. The increased prices signal to entrepreneurs that people need more cows, and they alleviate the shortage. Simple, fast, and efficient.

>>69981

>healthcare

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

It's not capitalism's fault that doctor's are expensive.


 No.69997

>>69964

>>69985

This right here.


 No.70045

>>68993

Fiction disguised as non-fiction.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cyoa / joosten / loomis / maka / rec / senran / startrek / sudpol ]