No.8788
So /liberty/ any actual capitalists here or are you all just classcucks
No.8790
>>8788
take your fascist dubs elsewhere, commie
No.8795
I'm for the free market. Whether you want to equate this with capitalism is up to you.
No.8800
>>8795
You are against capitalism then.
No.8801
>>8800
Ah. If you're making the point that Capitalism is equatable with state capitalism/corporatis/cronyism, I can understand this argument.
No.8811
>>8790
>>8795
>>8800
>>8801
Utter cancer and not a single answer to my question
No.8815
>>8811
Not sure what the hell you're getting at, but your mother is a whore.
No.8817
No.8818
>>8811
What's your definition of an "actual capitalist" as opposed to a "classcuck"?
No.8819
Sorry General Secretary of the Peoples Shitposting Presidium Bureau
of the Democratic Peoples Shitposting Presidium Bureau of the All Imageboards Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Revolutionary of the 1488th international) of the USSC, we all are declassed reactionary classcucks who don't own a pie in the sky called the "Meems of Production" whatsoever.
No.8822
>>8818
Do you own means of production? If you have a boss, and work, you are a classcuck. If you have a boss, and don't work, you're petty bourgeois. If you have no boss and have employees you're bourgeois.
No.8826
>>8822
>The Society is based on a fixed unchangeable structure because a German Jew Slacker told me so.
Literally Autism
No.8827
>>8822
You know employment is voluntary, right? You can always be self-employed, but with higher taxes and regulations being pushed by the left that's becoming more difficult. That and it seems like employment prospects in communist countries seem far worse.
No.8832
>>8788
What do you mean?
I'd say I'm capitalist, in that I believe in free trade/free market, if that's what you mean.
No.8833
>>8822
>Do you own means of production?
I own myself, therefor I do own a means of production.
>the rest
What if I started with a boss and working, then went on to have a boss and not work as much, then moved on to be a boss and have employees?
No.8836
>>8822
>Do you own means of production?
Do you own a printer or a PC? Congratulations, you're a burgeois pig.
No.8845
>>8826
>ITS JOOISH
>>>/pol/
>>8827
Tell that to the wage slaves who can barely afford food
>>8832
>>8822
>>8833
>i own myself, therefore i own a means of production
>literally no understanding of economics
>the rest
You just described upward social mobility, which is almost non-existent in late capitalism
>inb4 muh cronyism
>>8836
>literally no understanding of economics
No.8851
Holy shit /liberty/ is fucking retarded
No.8857
>>8845
>Tell that to the wage slaves who can barely afford food
I'd tell them the same thing I'm telling you: That they wouldn't be in that situation if we let the market optimize itself instead of allowing hundreds of interest groups and their lobbyists to meddle with it.
>You just described upward social mobility, which is almost non-existent in late capitalism
Which is one of the many reasons why I'm a voluntaryist, not a neoliberalist, but keep arguing against a strawman if it makes you happy.
>>8851
/intl/, please go.
No.8858
>>8857
The first point is a non-argument
And where is the strawman, or are you just danny
>>>/sjw/
No.8869
>>8858
>The first point is a non-argument
I see. Apparently, the free market is terribad because it will lead to workers starving in the street, no matter whether they will actually starve or not. Nice doublethink, you retarded moron!
No.8871
>>8858
And concerning the strawman, I don't see how bringing up late capitalism is in any way relevant when not a single person I've ever met here has defended this system. In fact, no one seems to think it doesn't suck: The corporations want less oversight, the workers want higher wages and more respect from their employers, entrepreneurs want less meddling from the the customers want stronger customer rights and the unemployed want jobs.
No.8880
>>8788
Gee, you tell me, commie.
No.8882
>>8845
>Tell that to the wage slaves who can barely afford food
You mean like the ones in communist countries?
>literally no understanding of economics
That's not an argument. He was pointing out if you have a PC or a similar tool, you can create something of worth. The means of production are in your hands. It's up to you to do something with it.
No.8900
>>8869
>THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT!
>>8871
defending capitalism is defending late capitalism as it is the natural conclusion of capitalism, lrn2dialectic
>>8882
>you mean like the ones in communist countries?
[source non existent]
>thats not an argument
wjy dont you read a book you dumb nigger and find out what the means of production actually are?
No.8903
>>8900
>THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT!
It will. Cry harder, commie.
>defending capitalism is defending late capitalism as it is the natural conclusion of capitalism, lrn2dialectic
Yeah, historical determinism. Way to reconcile religious dogmatism with pseudoscience. You commies are not the first ones to do it, but you're really damn good at it.
>wjy dont you read a book you dumb nigger and find out what the means of production actually are?
Why can't you educate us instead, master of supreme intellectualism?
No.8949
>>8900
>communist accusing someone of being undialectic
No.8960
>>8949
>I don't know what dialectecs are, but let me tell you why you're wrong
No.8964
No.8981
>>8960
>Defending capitalism is defending late capitalism
>Defending communism is defending my snowflake version of communism.
Communism, folks.
No.8996
>>8981
Which system is in power right now? Unless the world is like pic related, how do you not see how you're speech in defense of capitalism supports capitalism as it is? Isn't it obvious that as Marx wrote, every bourgeois is protectionist of his own purse, and so those in power will put up with your rhetoric but say "into the trash it goes!" as soon as it threatens their profits?
Regarding special snowflake versions of communism, you not only do the same thing with you're special snowflake versions of capitalism but with communism as well!
I can't tell you how many times I've heard libertarians say that China is successful precisely because its not communist, but also its somehow practices an even more libertarian capitalism then burger.
Meanwhile, everything that's went wrong in North Korea has everything to do with communism. In fact, to hear you tell it, you'd think they sanctioned themselves just to bring about a more evil form of gommunism.
No.9005
Question for commies:
Whenever I see you guys argue, you say things like "it doesn't work like this" or "this will happen." Like in the post I'm about to cite
>defending capitalism is defending late capitalism as it is the natural conclusion of capitalism
But you guys never explain why. Why is late capitalism the natural conclusion of capitalism? I mean, there's the example of the united states, but the reason why the united states is in it's current state is because the central government has pushed for things such as more regulation and tax, something someone on the political left would approve of. All you guys do is say "x will happen" and when we ask why, you'll use another statement that is used as an fact/axiom even though it isn't or just say something along the lines of "educate yourself".
>>8900
>[source non existent]
So you're conveniently forgetting the people that starved in the soviet union? And I'm not sure if North Koreans are having the times of their lives right now.
Also, looking up the definition, the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used in production, such as machinery, tools, and factories. Last time I checked, a computer and printer are machines that can produce things.
>>8996
>Isn't it obvious that as Marx wrote
So if Marx said it, it's true? Appeal to authority much.
As for your point with China and North Korea, China is more successful because it's economic policy is more laissez-faire than North Korea. I would hardly call it communist.
No.9010
>>9005
>Why is late capitalism the natural conclusion of capitalism?
Because, the general tendency of capitalism is towards monopoly, especially given the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Lenin pointed out that monopoly capitalism arose in England in spite of free trade.
It precedes to happen almost every time in industrializing nations, they either stagnate, sink into semi-colonial status or precede to full-on membership in the club of imperialist nations known as the first world.
In the imperialist stage, the influence of parasitic finance capital in the economy increases, state-monopoly partnerships are the norm, cooperation between unions and business owners to keep things running, welfare services to stop the poorest strata of society from going revolutionary, an increasing percentage of "workers" concentrated in the parasitic service industry.
It's inevitable, because as profit-rates fall in the center, the focus on gaining easy profits overseas to carry on capital accumulation increases. That implies Great Power politics and the state and the monopolies that will benefit aren't going to be hung up on a few small businessmen who think its a bad idea.
The alternative is either to increase worker exploitation or enter into economic recession/slowdown. In a perfect libertarian world, maybe the workers wouldn't rebel, so there would be no need for an alliance of state-corporations and reactionary unions. However, it would still be a target of states that refused to reject imperialist strategy.
>Appeal to authority much.
I said it less because Marx said it, and more because it was true. Do you think that powerful business interests will not use the freedoms granted to them by bourgeois democracy to protect their profit margins?
>China is more successful because it's economic policy is more laissez-faire than North Korea
Both true and not completely true. Deng Xaoping used socialism to build capitalism, even though his stated intention was the opposite. Maoist China had built up considerable industry, an educated, experienced and healthy work-force and strong armed forces.
The last point is only important because now China could bargain with the rest of the world on an equal basis.
China also followed Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Russia in pursuing a program of land reform without compensation. That's a case where class struggle actually leads to better capitalism.
Some users in this forum doubt that state-capitalism is even a thing when Mao and Lenin said it was and described their own countries as state-capitalism at one point: https://archive.is/Lk8Q1.
Right now, China is pursuing a colonialist path of expansion in Africa. So it is following further down the path of late capitalism like the West. I'm sure you probably think state-capitalism exists and that much of Chinese malaise is connected to that.
I don't think you're completely wrong. However, I disagree with the idea that say Hong Kong and Singapore were universally re-creatable examples of free-market development.
The case of Russia is pretty good example of what happens when you try to apply free-market in an imperialist country to reverse state-capitalis, late capitalism etc. Not only did it not work, it cost people their lives and it led to the rise of Putin.
No.9013
>>9010
compare the amount of people killed by Pinochet and the rest to conservative estimates of how many people Stalin, Mao etc killed.
Yes Mao and Stalin aren't "real" communists but neither are those people "real" capitalists.
No.9014
>>9010
>Someone actually thinks that what a government does is reflective in any way of capitalism
Socialism and Capitalism exist on a sliding scale, and any government, no matter how large or small, is socialist in nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism).
>Tendency is to create monopolies
False, the only places you find monopolies (in the sense you're talking about) is when the state enforces them. Even at his height, Rockefeller never once had 100% market share of the oil industry.
>>8996
China is successful because of opening up markets, but it's also because China is creating the biggest credit bubble in the history of the world
No.9015
>>9013
>muh 100 gorrillion
Let's take the example of King Leopold, going by conservative estimates he killed around 10 million Congolese people. Even biased Belgian colonial records indicate he cut the population in half.This was arguably the greatest mass genocide before the holocaust.
If Stalin and Mao had been as violent as King Leopold, then Stalin would've killed about 100 million people and Mao would about 4-500 million respectively. Not even the most insane anti-communists argue this.
Are you even aware of conservative estimates by bourgeois scholars that put the death toll of Stalin's USSR at 2-3 million? If that's the case then Leopold alone was not just several times more violent on a relative scale, but also on an absolute scale.
Most of the deaths ascribed to Mao and Stalin are due to famine, which is apparently completely natural when it happens under capitalism. But there have been 1.3 billion preventable deaths under capitalism since 1950: https://archive.is/67pX7
No.9018
>>9013
I don't really think there's any point in comparing numbers like these.
No.9019
>>9015
>>9018
Even going by conservative estimates, nobody in their right mind would say that Leopold II's body count was due to "capitalism". I've seen communists say this shit about the gorillions who die due to capitalism every year all the time, but I've never seen it qualified. What do you people define capitalism as? The link posted only talks about "preventable deaths".
It's hard for me to even begin to wrap my mind around what this means. If I ride my bicycle down the street and choose not to wear a helmet and smash my head on the concrete and die, my death was preventable if I had chosen to wear a helmet. Does that make my death capitalism's fault? Highly trained doctors are still human, and are capable of fucking up. Sometimes when they fuck up, people die. If someone dies as a result of an accident, it's hypothetically preventable. Is that capitalism's fault?
On some level, all deaths are preventable. We can keep humans hooked up to life support for years while braindead, but they're still alive.
Again, if we're going to accept that communist idea that "Maoism and Stalinism aren't REAL communism!" then we have to accept the corollary, that the crony capitalism we have today or "state capitalism" is not real capitalism either.
No.9020
>>9013
>Socialism and Capitalism exist on a sliding scale
Here you almost come to crypto-Maoism.
>any government, no matter how large or small, is socialist in nature
Not true. Every state represents the ruling class in its particular society. It doesn't matter if the one constant of the state is a type of collectivity, the ruling groups in slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist states all exercised power and that power was in a sense collective. But it would be ahistorical to stamp "socialist" on every government that has ever existed in history.
>the only places you find monopolies (in the sense you're talking about) is when the state enforces them
And this disproves my point, how? I admitted that monopolies and the state work together, but unlike you I see the phenomenon as being historical and not a violation of true capitalist moral principles.
>Rockefeller never once had 100% market share of the oil industry.
>implying a monopoly is only when a company has 100% market share.
What are cartels? What are the handful of massive banks and corporations that control the vast majority of the world economy?
https://archive.is/Bbaxj
https://archive.is/vrzSN
>China is successful because of opening up markets
It's a reason but not the only one. Other countries have "opened" markets without being nearly as successful. China had most favored trade status with the US for decades but obviously not every country can get rich by relying on Burger's market.
Even in the Maoist period growth was pretty rapid, China came from a very low starting point.
No.9021
>>9020
It doesn't disprove your point in the sense that we have a fundamental disagreement on how to define government. I've never seen a single Austrian or libertarian for that matter classify the state as "capitalist". Capitalism is a system that prioritizes private ownership, and the government is not privately owned.
>What are cartels? What are the handful of massive banks and corporations that control the vast majority of the world economy?
Cartels inevitably break up because as companies get too large, they encounter what is essentially Mises' economic calculation problem. The factors involved become too large to accurately keep track of, so businesses split into their parts because they make money easier. The classic example of this trend is Pepsico's divestment in 1997 of fast food outlets.
As for the banks and corporations, you realize that these are propped up by the government, right? Hell, just in the top 10 you can see multiple companies that all received bailout money from the US during the GFC. I have no doubt you're going to come back and say that that disproves nothing, because we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes capitalism and what doesn't. In the Austrian and libertarian tradition, all government's are considered socialist: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/05/are-all-governments-socialist/
No.9024
>>9019
>nobody in their right mind would say that Leopold II's body count was due to "capitalism".
>Literally modeled his Congo colony (Dutch Indonesia was his main example) as a revenue cow to make Belgium a rich capitalist country.
>Not due to capitalism
K.
>gorillions who die due to capitalism every year all the time, but I've never seen it qualified.
https://archive.is/2CvOW
http://www.lumcvb.org/files/mylumc/FORMS/30HF/30%20DAYS%20-%20Hunger%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%202%20to%20a%20page.pdf
Mostly from Hunger and easily preventable disease. Check out an in print version of the previous source or go through the chapters posted on the blog for more information.
Violent deaths about 55-60 million in wars since WWII. The most bloody being the Congo War, or African World War, with about 10 million deaths since the 1990s. The typical estimate is 180-200 million deaths from war in the 20th century. That leaves aside 18,19th and 21st century conflicts.
Frequency of wars are increasing:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/wars_steadily_increase/
And the war on terror alone has likely claimed 4 million lives: http://archive.is/RK6G1
This information is not comprehensive by any means.
>Again, if we're going to accept that communist idea that "Maoism and Stalinism aren't REAL communism!" then we have to accept the corollary, that the crony capitalism we have today or "state capitalism" is not real capitalism either.
I never said that Mao and Stalin weren't real socialism. I acknowledged that at there were times in their history where they did open capitalism. Their successors did capitalism rather openly.
By their own definitions, at their best, they had only achieved a lower-stage of communism, obviously not complete communism in terms of statelessness.
Obviously, in our minds, we are both pure snowflakes as neither a pure version of communism, nor a pure version of capitalism has yet existed.
But I am making the argument that it is better to choose communism in the real world. We have some common points of agreement, disdain for monopolies, states, and even free and equal trade.
No.9027
>>9024
Again, capitalism is about private property and libertarianism's ethical legitimacy tends to come from natural rights and self-ownership. It's well documented that Leopold II used slavery and subjugation of the previous landowners (the Congolese) to achieve his goals. I'm still waiting to see how this is capitalism at all. Capitalism is about voluntary exchange. I feel I don't have to point out how ridiculous it is to liken slavery to voluntary exchange of goods and services.
>Mostly from Hunger and easily preventable disease.
I don't doubt that people die from hunger and preventable disease, that isn't my point. My point is that I don't understand how this is attributable to capitalism and secondly, even if we were to accept that capitalism is to blame for these deaths, the idea that communism could help the problem even slightly is so mind-bogglingly outside of reality I can scarcely believe anyone would hold that opinion. I've never met anyone who has read Human Action or even Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth and not come to the same conclusion.
>Their successors did capitalism rather openly.
If we're talking about political successors, they can only "do capitalism" privately. Any process which is predicated on taxation/force is by definition not capitalistic in nature.
>We have some common points of agreement, disdain for monopolies, states, and even free and equal trade.
Maybe, but I don't even agree with that. I've run into trouble before when trying to discuss monopoly with people on /leftypol/ because while I think monopolies on certain types of goods and services are extremely unlikely in the free market, that's only a matter of scope. When you look at individuals, almost everything is a monopoly. Taking the example I used on /leftypol/, Brad Pitt is a monopoly on Brad Pitt. While he is an actor that can offer acting services and is in competition with other actors for roles, only Brad Pitt can truly provide the service of Brad Pitt. This might be going off on a tangent, but one of the reasons I see communism as untenable is because labour, in this case actors, are not a homogenous blob. Some people will always desire the service of Brad Pitt over George Clooney. Since Brad Pitt's lives in a world of constrained choices, he can only offer his service to one person at a time, and if only two people have a demand for him at the same time, there is a necessity for bargaining in this situation. Bargaining, bartering and haggling are trade, and trade will eventually give rise to the need of a form of currency,, and so on and so on. You see where I'm going.
>free trade
I've never heard a libertarian argue against free trade, and I don't know what "equal trade" is
No.9028
>>9021
>system that prioritizes private ownership
If that's all it is, then I suppose feudal and slave-holding societies with private ownership were capitalist.
We Marxists tend to see it as historically specific. Capitalism for us is a system where private ownership of the means of production, the wage-labor relationship, expanded reproduction (economic growth) and recurrent economic crises are the norm.
>the government is not privately owned.
It's not privately owned but it mainly protects the interests of the ruling class as a collective. There are many class forces at work in the formation of any government. But regardless of whether there's a progressive or a flat-tax in place, capitalists generally seek to bend the government to their interests.
>Cartels inevitably break up because as companies get too large
This maybe true of individual firms, for instance Firestone is not quite the giant that it used to be.When standard oil broke up its off-shoots became collectively worth more then the company itself. Microsoft, once the emblem of monopoly, has lost ground to Apple.
In general, the percentage of wealth, production, and ownership of the world economy by large firms has been increasing. These corporations have a much easier time negotiating with their competitors then they do with outsiders. Zak Cope points out that FW firms main competition is with other First World nations. Check out Zak Cope's book Divided World, Divided Class for a discussion on how first world nations and firms benefit from monopsony.
>link
Ex-Soviet economist proposes federated "socialist" governments that will compete against each other. Just like Yugoslavia. Revisionism. Not even once.
No.9030
>>9028
>If that's all it is, then I suppose feudal and slave-holding societies with private ownership were capitalist.
Maybe in a more abstract sense, but owning slaves coercively is invalid under libertarian principles, because you own yourself, so someone cannot claim ownership of you without your permission.
>wage-labor relationship
I never really understood why this is construed as something negative. While on the surface it's exchanging ones labour for remuneration, what actually is taking place is a difference in time preference.
>recurrent economic crises
This is not a staple of capitalism, this is a staple of bad monetary policy through central banking. For this point and the previous one, see Man, Economy and State or What Has Government Done To Our Money?
>capitalists generally seek to bend the government to their interests
I don't really see this as a sleight against capitalists. The government is in a situation where it has a monopoly of force. If the government were not there, firms would have to compete solely on their merits instead of regulatory capture.
>In general, the percentage of wealth, production, and ownership of the world economy by large firms has been increasing
And we both agree that this is more the fault of the state and said corporations being wedded, no?
If the state were to break down and crumble around us tomorrow, and individuals were left to freely associate and cooperate with each other, I would have no ethical grounds upon which I could object if the organization between individuals was not perfectly to my liking, so I suppose in that sense we're in agreement. The state is the distorting element within society, so remove it and simply let the chips fall where they may
No.9036
>>9030
>but owning slaves coercively is invalid under libertarian principles
Rather unfortunately, slavery has been a part of actually existing-capitalism, all the way to the present day. It's not the most important part, so I haven't emphasized it. There are 30-35 million slaves today, most held by private individuals and businesses, making at least 100 billion dollars worth of profit.
I think its pretty clear how you can carry out expanded reproduction for the market while owning your labor force. Nearly all the cotton that the West used while industrializing prior to 1860 was made by slaves, that was true for a good chunk of it even after.
Marx even talked about the slave producing a "veiled wage" for himself; his labor wasn't purely his owner's profit. If it was he would inevitably die.
To link back to Leopold II, there is a sense that he did not care how many slaves he killed, because his men got them for free, and they could always get more niggers. It was rational in the sense that it was profitable in the short-term and irrational in the sense that it implied mass murder on a scale that if carried to its logical conclusion would lead to the collapse of colonial rule.
On the account of anti-slavery principles, I can at least respect libertarian capitalists.
>the idea that communism could help the problem even slightly
I'm not sure how this can be so when we produce three times the amount of food necessary to keep people alive. It's pretty obvious that just distributing it in an egalitarian manner even without growth would save lives. Communism does not aim to end economic growth anyway.
If India had the medical standards of Maoist China at least 100 million lives would've been saved in the thirty years after British colonialism. Again, maybe not real capitalism and all, but its obvious that China's healthier, better educated workers, freed from the shackles of feudalism which still exists in India, did much better. And China started out poorer then India.
>I never really understood why this is construed as something negative.
I used it in a more of a neutral manner. But basically, if everyone is trying to buy low and sell high then everything breaks even. Losers have their rags, winners get their riches but taken as a whole the economy doesn't really profit, nothing is gained across the board.
An economy has to expand production for capitalists as a group to increase their wealth and their profits.
How this relates to the wage relationship is that if a capitalist hires a worker to work 8 hours to make 10 shirts, then what he pays for the building, materials, machines, and so on, will be worth the value of 4 shirts. The laborer's wage is worth the value of five shirts. So, the worker will spend over 7 hours working just to pay off his wage and the materials, but he will spend the last 48 minutes of the day working on that 10th shirt.
That 10th shirt will be the capitalist's profit. That's what he will use to increase his market share. If the capitalist was formerly an artisan who was self-employed and could only make 9 shirts in a day, enough to get by, now he has a profit. Eventually, he could use his profit to hire a second worker and quit altogether.
The two standard objections to this scenario are that: 1. mudpie scenario, if no one wants their shirts, their value is worthless. This covered by Marx in the first chapter of Capital, there has to be buyers for the shirt or the labor in them is worthless. 2. the implication that more labor, less pay would always mean a firm makes higher profits. But that's rather easy to cover, when a capitalist profits, the profit isn't necessarily all from his own workers.
If a cotton famine drove up the price of shirts by two-fold, then shirts produced yesterday would double in price overnight. The amount of embodied labor would stay the same. Now 19 shirts are worth 38 shirts, and now not only can the capitalist make a profit but he can even choose to pay his worker a handsome profit. If he has materials for production accumulated at yesterday's prices, then they can conceivably reap profits together for a long time.
But the profits they earn are not necessarily from their own labor, but are either captured value or from other sectors of the economy still expanding. It's not hard to see how this can be, if say capitalists from an expanding construction industry who have more money in their pockets are willing to pay twice as much for shirts. Value averages out across the world market but it does not distribute itself equally.
>this is a staple of bad monetary policy through central banking.
>200 years of economic crisis every 5-10 years
>its not structural but monetary policy
…
As an aside, are you for open borders?
No.9039
>>9036
I can't speak on modern slavery, I know a bit that is mainly concerned with OPEC states and usually workers from countries like Bangladesh. I know in these circumstances what tends to happen is they sign a contract and when they get shipped half way around the world the contract is torn to pieces and their passports are taken, leaving them stranded. I don't think anybody would disagree that this is clearly a contract violation and constitutes fraud at the very least.
As for slavery in the US, this is a little more complicated. It's true that slavery was profitable for the slaveowners, but with one, very important caveat. The slavery was heavily subsidized by the state, to the point where poor whites were essentially conscripted to go on patrols for runaway slaves. They had to institute more laws to protect slaveowners, because slavery was so untenable economically with the slaves escaping and the railroads to the north.
>I'm not sure how this can be so when we produce three times the amount of food necessary to keep people alive. It's pretty obvious that just distributing it in an egalitarian manner even without growth would save lives. Communism does not aim to end economic growth anyway.
That certainly is obvious, but the important question is how? I've only briefly touched on this, but I've never heard from communists or TVP people how they intend to solve the local knowledge or economic calculation problem, and I think those are much more sounder objections than, say, the incentive problem (not that I think that the incentive problem is an invalid objection in the least).
>This covered by Marx in the first chapter of Capital, there has to be buyers for the shirt or the labor in them is worthless
>If a cotton famine drove up the price of shirts by two-fold, then shirts produced yesterday would double in price overnight. The amount of embodied labor would stay the same. Now 19 shirts are worth 38 shirts
This is true, but what's missed in your explanation seems to be both time preference and entrepreneurship as factors. Lets assume that the capitalist plays no managerial role, and say we just have labourers and capitalists. I, as a shirt producer, have two options: Produce shirts and sell them myself, or produce shirts and (in essence) sell them to a capitalist for less money. But this is a basic overview and does not match the situation fully.
The capitalist takes on the role of risk taker If I produce and sell shirts myself without the capitalist as a middleman, I do not have the luxury of a guaranteed wage. Firstly, there is the initial capital goods that are required for the production of shirts to begin with, something I may not have the money for. More importantly however is the issue of time preference. If I sign a contract for a wage, I will get paid regardless of whether or not the shirts themselves have been sold. If I produce the shirts entirely as my own venture, I have no guarantee of a return.
It's true that the demand for shirt s must exist in order for there to be a demand for my labour to begin with, but it is certainly not true that it will stay this way. You gave the example of a cotton famine driving the cost up. Suppose the inverse, that there is a cotton surplus which drives the price of shirts down? Now the capitalist's business will be doing worse, but I will get the same wage for my work regardless. This is happening all over the world at this moment, where individual businesses may be making a loss, but workers themselves are still getting paid on time. If the business had been my own, I would now be losing money. Predicting market fluctuations is an aspect of entrepreneurship, and a capitalist can fulfill this role. This isn't to say there is something wrong with workers starting their own coop and sharing the profits, of course not. I'm only saying that the capitalist provides a role in the layout of the market.
>this is a staple of bad monetary policy through central banking.
>200 years of economic crisis every 5-10 years
>its not structural but monetary policy
The question is policy by whom? Governments have debased their currencies as far back as at least the Roman Empire, and modern central banking and manipulation of interest rates only makes this easier. I think we are again at an impasse not because we disagree in practice, but because we disagree on what constitutes capitalist endeavours and what does not. From what I understand, the Marxist view is that (some) states are complicit in this process, making them capitalist states. The Austro-libertarian view is that states are not based on voluntary exchange of private property, and thus cannot be considered capitalist.
No.9040
>>9036
>Post too long
>As an aside, are you for open borders?
I think this is a bit of a misnomer unless you're talking about minarchism. Voluntaryism isn't so much "open borders", because of the ownership of private property, all immigration must by necessity be voluntary between the person owning the property through which someone wishes to travel and the person traveling. I have no way of saying how open open borders will actually be. If I owned a house on the border of Macedonia, I certainly wouldn't want tens of thousands of immigrants trampling through my property monthly. Thus I think there will more than likely be an equilibrium reached between landowners choosing how much to charge people to pass through their property in order to change the flow (as cost increases, less people will use the path and vice versa).
There are many people at the Mises institute who are socially conservatives. Walter Block doesn't like gays, Hoppe doesn't much care for non-Europeans. It always struck me that a voluntary society was the best solution to this. On occasion you might see some trash news story about neo-nazis who want their own town. If everyone were free to discriminate and associate with whoever they wished, that would solve almost all of their problems.
No.9063
>>8822
>muh means to production maymay
>muh Marxist fairy-tales
A totally free market, with almost no intrusion from the government, would give everybody a fair chance to own a business, and become a boss. The only thing holding people back is the government, and government intrusion in civil matters and the market. Your whole system, and ideology, is a fantasy made to create slaves. You aren't "free" for believing in it; It's propaganda, set up to take away your liberty. Marx was lazy, but smart. He is literally the Tom Sawyer of his day and age.
No.9064
>>9063
>Marx was lazy, but smart.
The fact that you believe this shows me how much you actually know about Marxism.
Marx read and critiqued every major economic theorist that came before him. Check out the 4 volumes of Capitlal, notably the unfinished Theories of Surplus Value. Only Schumpeter did something similar.
Capital Volume 1 assumes follows the capital/labor relationship under the assumption of liberal conditions of free trade, market exchange of commodities and freedom to negotiate contracts. He acknowledges that the real world often diverges from liberal conditions but proceeds to critique capital from within those conditions itself.
No.9065
No.9070
>>9063
A totally free market cannot exists, m8
No.9078
>>9070
It can't, because socialists and other commies have infiltrated America, and make it impossible to pass any free-market legislature.
No.9082
>>9070
It's an ideal, unreachable, but you can always get a little bit nearer to a society without coercion, especially without systematic coercion.
>>9078
Don't give up hope yet, even though the future looks bleak.
No.9100
>>9082
>to a society without coercion, especially without systematic coercion.
We are talking about free markets, not communism.
No.9102
>>9100
hahaha, i see wha u did there
No.9110
>>8845
That's irrelevant. I am still a means of production.
>You just described upward social mobility, which is almost non-existent in late capitalism
As defined as what?
Because I've seen it happen all the time.;
No.9342
>>8845
>doesn't believe in social mobility despite being tied to economic mobility
>supposedly understands economics
choose one
No.9354
No.9399
So, do any of you own a business or not? Would you mind sharing your past business plan that you don't use anymore, if you don't mind?
No.9467
>>9027
> I feel I don't have to point out how ridiculous it is to liken slavery to voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Well, to many people the word "Libertarian" essentially means "whatever bad thing I don't like." The media worked really hard to make this true.
No.9468
>>9399
>So, do any of you own a business or not? Would you mind sharing your past business plan that you don't use anymore, if you don't mind?
I own a business. Plan is to work hard and make a innovative product within our core competency, and sell the product to people who are interested in paying money for it. And in doing so, cover the costs of producing it.
No.9473
>>9467
Literally everything that seeks to change the way things currently work, even slightly have been demonized by the media
>>9468
You're a capitalist
Also, do you think we don't know the way profit works?
No.9480
>>9473
>You're a capitalist
>Also, do you think we don't know the way profit works?
Actually that you called me a capitalist would imply you don't know the way capitalism works.
See, I worked as a wage-slave in my industry for 15 years, scraped enough savings to live for about 2 years w/o pay, quit the job. Then I found a few other like-minded people and we formed a business where everyone is a partner and we all work very hard. We started to see revenue just before my savings ran out, thankfully.
Capitalism would have been I go and get a million dollar investment from Peter Thiel in return for some stake in the business.
I would rather work hard for myself in a business I am a part owner (and worker) and keep 100% of the fruits of my labor, than be a wage slave… even if in the former case my take home pay is less (currently, it's a lot less). I wouldn't turn down capital investment if the amount was right, but so far it has neither been offered nor necessary.
I don't know if this is true of communism in the general sense, or just in the /leftpol/ sense, but /leftypol/ is outraged I own a business. According to /leftypol/ when the revolution comes, they will take my business at gunpoint (into which I've poured my blood, sweat, and tears) and give it to a more deserving comrade with the right mindset who understands the class struggle. And yes, I've asked that specific question in a non-leading way (here is my situation, what happens to me during the revolution?) and for many posters that was their non-ironic answer.
So based on my experience poking around /leftypol/, it's nothing but edgy teens who don't understand what hard work and responsibility are and just want other people's businesses handed to them, and advocate a violent revolution to do so.
No.9490
>>9480
You said "i own a business"
This implies a private ownership
But then you describe something like a co-op
Which is literally socialism, congrats you're a socialist
So, based on my experience poking around /liberty/, it's nothing but edgy teens who don't understand what hard work and responsibility are and other people's kingdoms handed to them, and advocate a violent revolution to do so.
No.9493
>>9490
>This implies a private ownership
It is private ownership. I own shares in a company, on paper, that's legally registered. We have a corporate bank account and everything. I'm not the *sole* owner, but legally I am a part-owner in the business.
Just because our share division happens to be equal amongst partners, doesn't make me a socialist no. That's like saying "all instances of fairness is socialism!" which is bullshit.
Also, any theoretical communist revolution would separate me from my business which I founded and funded out-of-pocket (along with the other partners) and don't lie and pretend otherwise.
>>9490
>So, based on my experience poking around /liberty/, it's nothing but edgy teens who don't understand what hard work and responsibility are and other people's kingdoms handed to them, and advocate a violent revolution to do so.
[citation needed]
No.9495
>>9493
>It is private ownership. I own shares in a company, on paper, that's legally registered. We have a corporate bank account and everything. I'm not the *sole* owner, but legally I am a part-owner in the business.
so are you shareholders or do you work
if it is the former, you're a capitalist, the ladder and its a co-op and is socialism
>Just because our share division happens to be equal amongst partners, doesn't make me a socialist no. That's like saying "all instances of fairness is socialism!" which is bullshit.
Socialism is when the collective of workers owns the means of production
>Also, any theoretical communist revolution would separate me from my business which I founded and funded out-of-pocket (along with the other partners) and don't lie and pretend otherwise
well, in a the transitional phase you would still have democracy in the work place, through something like a soviet. in communism the need for work would be eliminated altogether
>[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution
No.9497
>>9495
>so are you shareholders or do you work
>I own shares in a company, on paper, that's legally registered
I dunno why, but I have the strangest feeling that he owns shares in the company, thus making him a shareholder. If he also works, then he is a shareholder who does work.
>Socialism is when the collective of workers owns the means of production
There is no part of a free market which prevents or discourages people from running a business in the way that that anon described. He's also not forcing other people to adopt those methods against their will, which is another thing that separates him from most socialists I'm aware of.
>well, in a the transitional phase you would still have democracy in the work place, through something like a soviet.
But why should there be any democracy in the work place when he and his buddies own it? It's their property, they'll do what they want with it, and anything else means that, yes, he will be separated from his business.
>in communism the need for work would be eliminated altogether
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>French Revolution
None of this sounds anything like what you described in your previous post. I'm going to have to ask you to clarify how it supports your point.
No.9498
>>9497
>I dunno why, but I have the strangest feeling that he owns shares in the company, thus making him a shareholder. If he also works, then he is a shareholder who does work.
I want to say thank you responding to communist-flag-guy. I thought I was taking crazy pills!
And you are correct, this is not an unusual situation for a startup. Everybody works. Everybody owns shares, and is a part owner. In our case we decided on an equal division of shares as the most fair division.
As I said to Communist-flag-guy, it is not "capitalism" because we have no outside capital investment. We do however use the free market system, since we sell services and products that other people voluntarily buy.
As you pointed is not "socialism" it is simply business.
And again, it's ironic that under the communist system I would be separated from a business that I built with my buddies from scratch and no outside investment, and it would be handed over to others who didn't earn it and never worked for it because somehow that's more fair. Weird, huh?
No.9535
Why does the left hate /liberty/ so much?
No.9552
>>9535
Why does /liberty/ hate the poor?
No.9553
>>9552
I don't hate the poor, I just don't think they're entitled to my property.
No.9554
>>9535
Because libertarians are better than progressives on literally every single issue they say they're for, like helping the poor, the war on drugs, anti-war, freedom of speech and so on. Libertarianism is a rebuke of every self-righteous liberal shitbag
No.9555
>>9552
This:
>>9553
Plus I think the poor are better off with higher real wages and better opportunities to make money.
>>9554
Well said.
No.9559
>>9554
Libertarianism is left-wing.
No.9560
>>9552
I don't hate the poor.
On the contrary, the only thing I hate is that they have to live in poverty. As such, I support the system which I believe will result in the highest overall quality of life for the greatest number of people. And seeing as how government intervention in business makes things worse every time they try it, I see no reason not to be a libertarian.
Well, and I'm not fond of the government stealing peoples' property at gunpoint, either. Just because I'm willing to give to the poor, doesn't mean that I or anyone else gets to force someone else into it.
>>9559
Libertarianism is detached from the left/right spectrum, and from anyone who thinks they know better than someone else what to do with that person's property.
No.9583
>>9560
Right -> tyranny of private property
Left -> freedom and no exploitation
No.9589
>>9583
>Left -> freedom and no exploitation
Judging by the fact that the left is constantly pushing for increased taxes, welfare, social programs, regulation of businesses, etc., I'm going to say that the left is pretty much as far as you're going to get from "freedom and no exploitation" without crossing over into outright socialism or fascism.
And even then, they get closer every fucking year.
No.9599
>>9589
>implying fascism is left
>implying socialism is taxes
>>>/nigger/
No.9606
>>9589
We were talking about the political left, not the somewhat-not-as-right-as-the-other-party left.
No.9609
>>9583
>Implying fascists actually respected private property
Top kek right there, m8!
No.9611
>>9609
Since when are fascists right wing?
No.9612
>>9611
Fascists are far-right…
No.9613
>>9612
Oh are they? I admit I don't know much about the italians but if we're talking about the nazis then we're talking about a system of government that revolved around
>state planning
>major industries being owned by the state
>forced consolidation
>suppressed consumption
It was called national SOCIALISM for a reason. Their fight with the commies was pure People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front shit.
No.9615
>>9613
How about reading a history book before you embarrass yourself online? This is probably the most stupid thing I've read on 8chan so far.
No.9618
>>9613
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
I from what I could find here. In fascist economics private ownership/enterprise still existed but the economy as a whole was still controlled by the state through regulation and such.
Quote from the article.
>Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
No.9668
>>8811
Being called cancer by a communist is a compliment.
No.9669
>>9064
Just because he critiqued something, doesn't mean his critique was of any real value.
No.9670
File: 1442966638341.jpg (100.54 KB, 843x403, 843:403, frederic-bastiats-quotes-7.jpg)
>>9552
Why do leftists jump to rash conclusions?
Just because I don't want the government to force people to "help" the poor doesn't mean I don't think we should help the poor.
No.9736
>>9669
>two quotes that have nothing to do with communism nor critique of theory
>>9613
It's called the DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea for a reason
No.9737
>>9736
>It's called the DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea for a reason
Ok, this is b8. But I'm bored so I'll bite.
Nazism isn't a form of socialism? It's called National SOCIALISM for a reason.
No.9740
>>9737
He's saying the same thing, tho. Have you even read what she's replying to? Is your reading comprehension this bad?
No.9743
>>9740
I did not realize what post commie pig was replying to. I beg you pardon.
No.9802
tip, this is what happens when you let marxists down the word socialism
No.10027
No.10029
>>9737
Nazism really is socialism though.
No.10031
>>10027
I think the commie has finally lost his mind.
Also do two zero's count as dubs?
No.10032
>>10031
Commiefag is an endless source of entertainment. He's our personal lolcow. Frankly, there's only one /leftypol/lack that's actually made decent posts here.
Also yes.
No.10033
>>10031
Dubs only count at the end of the post number.
>>10027
Hi /pol/
No.10035
>>10031
Yeah. Seems like we broke him.
No.10055
No.10057
>>10055
These weren't arguments, they were personal insults. Learn the difference, commie.
No.10231
>>10055
>lol, nice argument, kikes
As a person of Jewish descent, I find you pretty offensive. Since when does a commie hate Jews?
No.10234
No.10279
>>10231
Communists and Nazis collaborated in the holocaust. Rich people today are the scapegoat like Jews were in the 1930's. Lefties love jew hating terrorists (muslims). Marxism=Fascism
No.10303
>>10279
>Communists and Nazis collaborated in the holocaust
Do you actually believe that
No.10304
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>10303
All the damn proof you need :^)
No.10316
>>10279
Commies died too in the official legally defined holocaust.
The Soviets had no few bodies in their closet but that's not part of the holocaust.
No.10332
>>10316
Everything that's bad was caused by commies.
No.15275
No.15308
No.15920
>>15308
>tfw family has a shit ton of private land and locales
>in the figures of millions of dollars
>literally not using most of them
>have told my dad that we should let people farm and use them and let them keep the profits, because we arent getting any profts from it anyway
>"no son you sound like a crazy commie"
No.15921
No.15929
>>9039
>The capitalist takes on the role of risk taker If I produce and sell shirts myself without the capitalist as a middleman, I do not have the luxury of a guaranteed wage. Firstly, there is the initial capital goods that are required for the production of shirts to begin with, something I may not have the money for. More importantly however is the issue of time preference. If I sign a contract for a wage, I will get paid regardless of whether or not the shirts themselves have been sold. If I produce the shirts entirely as my own venture, I have no guarantee of a return.
>It's true that the demand for shirt s must exist in order for there to be a demand for my labour to begin with, but it is certainly not true that it will stay this way. You gave the example of a cotton famine driving the cost up. Suppose the inverse, that there is a cotton surplus which drives the price of shirts down? Now the capitalist's business will be doing worse, but I will get the same wage for my work regardless. This is happening all over the world at this moment, where individual businesses may be making a loss, but workers themselves are still getting paid on time. If the business had been my own, I would now be losing money. Predicting market fluctuations is an aspect of entrepreneurship, and a capitalist can fulfill this role. This isn't to say there is something wrong with workers starting their own coop and sharing the profits, of course not. I'm only saying that the capitalist provides a role in the layout of the market.
0/10
No.15931
>>9498
>And again, it's ironic that under the communist system I would be separated from a business that I built with my buddies from scratch and no outside investment, and it would be handed over to others who didn't earn it and never worked for it because somehow that's more fair. Weird, huh?
no, because that isnt communist bucko
No.15954
>>15308
Stop lying, you are not a Christian.
No.15970
No.15977
>>15931
nice marxism fäm
>>15954
yup, christians should all be killed, but that unfortunately violates the NAP.
No.15984
>>15970
>capitalist doesnt take any risk, because he only loses profits where as the workers lose jobs and are not able to buy food for their families
>guaranteed wage when there is no production means you need to take credit from banks or use company savings in order to pay, this is pretty fucking retarded, and causes crisism which is why capitalism crashes every now and then
>Predicting market fluctuations can be done by the collective
better?
that post is still 0/10
No.16030
>>15984
> capitalist loses money while worker does not, worker can find another job
> capitalism crashes so frequently because the fed messes with interest rates
> how?
No.16081
>>16030
> capitalist loses money while worker does not, worker can find another job
but the worker will lose money because
a) the state will bail out said company, using workers taxes
b) there is no strong state and the company collapses and the workers lose their a job
nevermind the fact that the worker has been losing money everytime he is paid via wages
> capitalism crashes so frequently because the fed messes with interest rates
no, it crashes because, by its very own nature, it creates goods for a market that does not exist, it creates overproduction, and if no one is buying said goods, yu can pay the workers
if there is no market for it, there is no reason to produce it, this is why bubbles happen, not because of "teh gubment"
No.16099
>>15984
>>capitalist doesnt take any risk, because he only loses profits where as the workers lose jobs and are not able to buy food for their families
What is overhead
>>guaranteed wage when there is no production means you need to take credit from banks or use company savings in order to pay, this is pretty fucking retarded, and causes crisism which is why capitalism crashes every now and then
This is what most businesses do when starting out
>>16081
>if there is no market for it, there is no reason to produce it, this is why bubbles happen, not because of "teh gubment"
You defeated your own reasoning in the first line. The reason bubbles happen is because adjustment of interest rates to stimulate the economy below what they should be creates malinvestment. Interest rates on the market are a reflection of supply and demand, in this case the supply of money in reserve and the demand for loans. When these interest rates are altered by a central banking authority, entrepreneurs have incorrect values when they take into account the current market climate. An interest rate below market rate makes it appear as if there are more supplies than there is. This is what leads to overproduction, as you put it. You haven't even given a reason for the overproduction happening, you've just stated that it happens as a natural duty of course.
Fractional reserve banking also contributes to this, because it is the creation of money out of nothing. It creates a bubble by definition, and is made easier because of fiat currency. That being said, Rothbard called fractional reserves fraud and most libertarians I've talked to don't defend it. It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism by default.
Additionally, you didn't take into account the fact that inflationary monetary policy disproportionately favours those whose assets aren't in the form of cash savings, which are less likely to be poorer people.
No.16138
>>16099
>overhead
can and is easily paid by the worker cooperatives
>This is what most businesses do when starting out
then it might be justified in this case, but capitalist always arguee that this is better for the workers even when they have been working for years
>You defeated your own reasoning in the first line. The reason bubbles happen is because adjustment of interest rates to stimulate the economy below what they should be creates malinvestment.
And how is starting a buisness for something there is no demand for and getting a loan to pay the workers not a malinvestment?
>You haven't even given a reason for the overproduction happening
you just described why overporduction occurs, because there is a cheap credit atmosphere and an artificial demand for a product, the goverment has nohing to do whit this, the goberment modyfying the interest rates is just another factor
>It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism by default.
yes it does, unlike mutual banking, public bankingational bank, it is a private institution whose only goal is to create profits
>you didn't take into account the fact that inflationary monetary policy disproportionately favours those whose assets aren't in the form of cash savings, which are less likely to be poorer people.
this doesnt really have anything to do with overproduction, I agree with you, central banks hold a monopoly in currency and credit
No.16143
No.16289
No.16329
>>16138
>the government modifying the interest rates is just another factor
>the government has nothing to do with this
This is contradictory.
No.16507
>>15931
>no, because that isnt communist bucko
Then everyone on /leftypol/ must be misusing the flags
>And again, it's ironic that under the communist system I would be separated from a business that I built with my buddies from scratch and no outside investment, and it would be handed over to others who didn't earn it and never worked for it because somehow that's more fair. Weird, huh?
What /leftypol/ actually advocates.
No.16508
>>16507
Nice strawmen, but they don't.
No.16530
>>16508
keep deluding yourself, retard
if 1+1=2
and 2+2=5
then there's a fucking contradiction.