How do you explain to college marxists how retarded they are? They dont fucking listen

How do the rich create jobs? Most of the time it seems that they are trying to destroy jobs by automating labor and laying off massive amounts of their employees.

It deprives society of motivation. Why put effort into stuff if you DESERVE to get shit for free. This is why every socialist state is full of degenerates.

Since when is Communism supposed to be about free shit?

I thought Communism was about keeping what you create.

But communism doesn't in word say that you get shit for free, that is like the American made up version of communism.
Karl Marx demanded that the workers have access to all the means of production because he saw workers being exploited in big factories, selling their labour for next to nothing.
He wanted the workers to unite and take control of the factories basically. That is the historical source of communism.

Promises plenty and rewards you with starvation

> Why put effort into stuff
Because there is more then life than consumption. Why do you thing people creating pictures of Pepe and share them, for example?

I could say the same for capitalism. Look at the Irish potato famine for christ sake.

> How do the rich create jobs?
By paying you to work. By analyzing a market and even creating new services and goods from fucking scratch. By taking risks or investing money. They are the one who made economics gears truly spin.

It needs to directly kill people in order for any society to accept it.

Anything a rich man does could be done democratically by his workers.

The boss is superfluous.

I'm not even a Communist but that's every fucking ideology ever.

But by analyzing market trends and making investments in our modern day, most "job-creators" will see the value in replacing the laborer entirely.

Look at trucking for example. In the U.S. 3.5 million people haul freight cross country, driving their truck. With the technology for self driving cars improving, will not the leaders of this industry desire to invest and use this technology? After all the self-driving cars are more cautious about their driving, they don't violate traffic laws, and they don't need sleep, food, or even wages. So would it not behoove the bosses to replace their workforce of 3.5 million people who are all capable of human error? Is it not more profitable to layoff those 3.5 million?

Most people do not care about art.

Great, so you admit you dont know shit about communism? What you said is fucking opposite of communism.
>American made up version of communism.
Another basement commie who thinks socialism and communism is the same thing.
What youre describing is socialism by Marx, communism by Lenin imagined living in society where theres no such think as private property. True communism is when people are free to take what they need as long as they take bare minimum to survive. But thats not hos people work, is it user?

You need resources of time, internet and electricity to post pepes. Art can also be seen as a waste of resources if it doesnt serve any common goal.

just how much Marx have you read?

lol

Holy autism

No. There is reason people are rich. It reminds us we could be them someday if we continue being a hardworking and productive piece of national economy.

Would you care about your job if you knew there was absolutely no chance of promotion? Thats how socialism works.

>Holy autism
Thats literraly how soviet union worked. They put artists to gulags en masse because it was not seen as real job.

>It reminds us we could be them someday if we continue being a hardworking and productive piece of national economy.

are you memeing

>are you memeing
Thank you

yes the rich truly pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work hard for all the money they inherit

>people in 2016 STILL think communism opposes automated labor

There are people who still believes communism do not give rise to blue collar unemployment even if it "approves" automated labor

Dey took er jebs!!!11

> unemployment
> being bad
Let's pretend to work 40 hours a weak instead by shifting papers from one department to another!

Why is it wrong to inherit money?
The 1% most imvest their money to keep being the 1% they prolly just dont wank around

>The idiocy in this post
Are you trolling or are you for real?

It takes more value than it gives back

>Communism makes people lazy and Capitalism makes people work hard
>What's wrong with a small handful of the globe inheriting the majority of its wealth
The mind of a capitalist shill, revealed.

Inherited money is money that you stole from your dead parents.

-___-
>ice cream melts in sun
>communism

>according to me
Another issue with gommunsim, I decide whats there to my life

We are not saying its good, but did you know opening a new business was a crime in soviet union? Most people were literraly stuck in the job their parents did, as it was a national policy.

>famines are only natural in capitalist economies
>everywhere else it's malicious and designed to kill people

I'm not sure we have the same definition of theft.

Yeah except Capitalism forces you to adopt a narrow definition of "freedom" through cultural hegemony.

I love seeing posts defending capitalism that are pure ideology. Really makes me *sniff* and so on.

Sounds like anarchism is the thing for you senpai.

>a few inherit and could become lazy
>the masses get entitled to money and could become lazy
>both are the same scenarios
the mind of a commie shill revealed

And nobody would stop you under communism, in capitalistic society it would be work to not die and for profits of rich minority.

Yes, you dont have a "right" to have a job, its not a natural right that everyone should have jobs, jobs exist because a employer needs someone to do things and pays X amount which the individual can accept or deny.

New jobs get created all the time, somr one has to build these machines riite?

>implying I'm pro-soviet.

By Brezhnev the Soviet Union was an utterly conservative society.

That was a natural disaster, not bad economic policy.

> become lazy
Laziness is literally people nature.

The entire point of communism is to create a society without money.

The mind of PURE IDEOLOGY revealed

So was Holodomor :^)

There's something very funny about the fact that an Internationalist ultra leftist project like the USSR became a symbol for conservative Russian nationalists.

My issue is that so far there has never been a point where they crossed the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned socialism into communism.

>Next time we surely won't turn into an autocratic shithole guys. I swear!

>could become lazy
Being born rich essentially guarantees an easier course in life to being poor. Sometimes I feel embarrassed that I had my parents help cover my tuition in college because other people, less well off than me, had to pay for it fully. My friend works absurd hours to pay his rent and tuition, his grades suffer because of it, but my unpaid internships make me look more employable than he is even though I know he has a better work ethic.

If that were so then we'd still be lazing around in the woods with spears.

Okay, I've had enough cancer for today. Good night edgy 15yo pseudo communists.

So the landowners selling the few remaining potatoes for a higher price overseas, instead of to the starving Irish, all with the state's permission wasn't in any way an economic policy?

And so is envy. Envy is what drives us to create value so we can be richer than our neighbors in a capitalist society.

Yeah, it's hilarious.

>le if you buy things you are a hypocrite

I'm not even a Communist but this is some shit-tier logic. No Communist ever advocated for removing yourself entirely from society and living in a cabin somewhere. Is a soldier a hypocrite if he uses an enemy weapon?

70op here , people work hard so they can give money to their offsprings, is that so hard to understand?
I understand that communists dont have love in their life, but good god...
Thats not even a argument youre making

Shouldn't that be the "I Love Capitalism" pack?

>Capitalism is good because it runs off of the negative elements in humanity
Fucking porky get out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

What if the parents send the money and write every property to you?
>not understanding law
Youre so retarded its incredible

It is more lazy to settle down with agriculture than spare your energy for hunting and gathering.

>The business owners work harder than migrant laborers and sweat shop workers meme

Capitalism has reduced famines in the last time.
It got never really better with the commis.

>as if positive elements in humanity are as natural as the negative ones
that's where leftie ideologies fail

Farming is a lot more labor intensive and time consuming then hunting and gathering.

Envy per second isn't bad. Its bad when it leads to destructive rather than constructive behavior. Envy is channeled through a system of property rights to a social gain.

Envy drives egalitarian ideas too, so it wasn't really capitalistic.

No, but he has more knowledge and experience with busyness keeping which costs a lot to put into a person.

no because it demands planning, anything but a lazy person are prone to do that

Seriously, we'll take any opportunity for it regardless of the musings of armchair ideologists.

I want to root myself firmly way the fuck away from this communism-capitalism dichotomy. It's retarded that they're polar opposites when one is just centralized, economic autocracy and the other is just decentralized aristocracy.

Communists are fucking retarded because they're downing in their own starry eyed vision of what the world has never looked like.

Capitalists are retarded because they don't realize how readily they eat the sloppy shit of aristocrats in the name of "muh jobs" They don't even realize that what they've been fed is along the lines of ideology, because it's a status quo.

Strive to have more nuance than arguing for two stereotyped pieces of bullshit.

No democracy has ever suffered a famine, commies are not fit to run a country, any country.

They are you nigger.

Cooperation is no less a natural instinct then competition.

There's some weird fallacy where people assume that violence and hostility are somehow 'natural' while compassion and the like are not. They're both natural.

These machines are gaining capabilities to learn and create themselves, it isn't out of the question that they would be capable of self-maintenance as well as creating other machines.

So if all work is automated at some point, what is the purpose of having rich people, or poor people? The "poor" can't work to earn wages to buy necessities or luxuries and the "rich" no longer need to exploit the labor of the "poor". Are the "rich" just going to resign the "poor" to starvation or will they intentionally exterminate them?

Then they are your accomplices in crime.

>No democracy has ever suffered a famine

Yes, it's called the third position. And hopefully it will become the future of politics.

If you can't explain it yourself, how do you know they're wrong?

No it doesnt force me shit, are you really this retarded?
Cultural hegemony, or monopoly as in China forced stuff upon people...
Create your own buisness, go to school, learn a trade, do whatever tje fuck you want.
In communism is work to die, profits to comrad Tyrone

Not that guy, but I'm pretty sure you won't find anything even remotely close to the Great Leap Forward or Holodomor in a democratic society, literally ever.

Lazy person would prefer to made one plan and to follow mindless work instead of gambling on their hunting skills.

they're not
they can be taught at certain level within certain people and within certain frame of culture
that's why moral codes, religious codes and legal codes exist everywhere: to enforce you to do what's unnatural but good

Name me one socialist or communist nation that's been successful

It worked out so well in the thirties kek

inb4 scandi countries, they're a big exception to the rule and are not socialist

Thats some dangerous bait you got goin on there.

Yes, they are. Cooperation and compassion are found in every single society, even the most primitive. They are just as natural as human warlike instincts.

Anyway, there's no such thing as 'unnatural'. 19th century London was no further from nature than some uncontacted Amazonian tribe.

Nasty, brutish, and short is bullshit.

> No democracy has ever suffered a famine,
What is Bengal famine of 1943?
> inb4 true democracy wasn't tried.

>what is the dustbowl

Literally no Communist would claim the Scandi countries as examples of functioning socialism. They tend to get pretty triggered when people call Social Democracy socialism anyway.

Cooperation is natural among groups of trusted friends and family. With strangers this tends not to be the case.

Law and culture cannot completely be separated from nature because by nature people create culture and law. Good law channels the human instincts to social gain.