Human Nature and Capitalism

Explain the difference between private and personal property.

I'll give you and an example of a friend of mine who recently had a kid. This was during the holidays and there was this big nice tv on sale for 500 dollars. He decided he would pay his bills with the first check he got for the month and then blow his entire next check on the tv. Without thinking that maybe saving that money for unexpected costs associated with having a kid would be a better choice. He's not the only poor person I see that does this. There is a legitimate reason for the notion that poor people are bad with their money. If we dismantled the culture that encourages this then yes maybe socialism could work. But we can't create socialism in a vacuum of culture so you have to fight the bourgoise but also the lower classes

>How are fetishes relevant?
I prefer the word fixations.
I think is relevant because there are certain things that move us. For instance B.B King playing music till he died. Did he need/have to?. Did Rokefeller need to have more money? he had all the money he could spend in like 100 lifetimes. Yet he was always looking how to expand his assets.

>I myself am 'rational' and I don't see myself as 'above' others in that regard, I just have more opportunities.

again, Notes from the underground.
I'm pretty sure everyone can remember episodes in your own lifestory that you think afterwards "was that really me?"

Also his ideas of paying bills was getting his car paid off and rent, and his phone. Not his food or his kids food

Examples of private property are houses and factories. Examples of personal property are apples and toothbrushes.

You just need to educate the proles, not fight them. The poor don't have anything you need to seize. A feasible situation would be a meritocratic social democracy where the proles have had a comprehensive education.

But hobbies are hobbies and weath hoarding is not a hobby nor a right.

Ironically I bought Notes from the Underground for a close friend from university, yet never fully read it myself.

Sorry for the late response lads, I was doing DIY all day.

>It implies that the forcible overthrow of the capitalist class is the only way to achieve socialism since they are unwilling to voluntarily give up their socioeconomic advantage.

It's a big leap from 'they don't support socialist policy' to 'they would forcibly resist a democratic, legitimate and lawful socialist government'. Just because you don't vote for it doesn't mean you can't live with it, as half of every country finds out every few years.

And as long as we're concerned with facts, forcible overthrow of any system is the reliable way to run a country into the ground.

For a member of the bourgeoisie to oppose socialism, it means they would oppose socialism entering society. It would never happen through current western 'democracy' but rather through a proletarian revolution (which is the true definition of democracy for Marxists.) Hence they would oppose that revolution.

Counterexamples: Paris Commune (didn't get cucked because of overthrow, but rather because of that eternal scrotum Thiers), the USSR (not memeing, lasted over 70 years), Mao's China (still exists today), all five French Republics and both empires came about by overthrowing the previous authorities, Cromwell's England and Charles II's England soon after, the Mexican Revolution, the revolutuons of 1848, the American Revolution, and so on and so on and so on. Include with this list every invasion that has ever succeeded.

Forcible overthrow works. It always has and it always will. Even for socialism.

> For a member of the bourgeoisie to oppose socialism, it means they would oppose socialism entering society

Clarify the distinction pls

> It would never happen through current western 'democracy' but rather through a proletarian revolution (which is the true definition of democracy for Marxists.) Hence they would oppose that revolution.

Is this coming from Marx, or from a 20th century autocrat justifying himself after the fact?

> the USSR (not memeing, lasted over 70 years),

You are too memeing, 70 years of poverty and autocracy is what running into the ground means for countries.

But again, I don't support many policies of my government and don't like my government very much over all. Nobody has come to shoot me for it and it hasn't caused the government any problems that I know of. What makes Socialism so special that it requires shooting everyone who doesn't like it, and how do these special qualities make it desirable to anyone? What makes you sure you could keep agreeing with everyone for the rest of your natural lifespan, after the revolution?

Theory begets action, so an individual opposing socialist theory would oppose the action of socialism being introduced by virtue of hie ideology.

From Marx. He praised the Paris Comune, and wrote several pamphlets addressing the workers of Europe.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Lenin and his regime but it is an example of a """socialist""" revolution that succeeded in that it lasted.

Socialism requires an armed, class conscious lower class. It requires the forcible seizing of private property, no killing theoretically necessary, but the NAP is certainly violated. It is desirable because it prevents capitalist theft from workers. Somehow many people understand that the owners of industries and companies siphon many thousand of times their own earned wealth, yet see it as normal or, worse, inevitable. Actually, it is a tremendous crime, and one which should be forcibly prevented. You don't have to agree with everyone. I'm a pluralist and I believe debating ideas out in the open in TV or online is actually good for socialism since it can be dialectically deduced. Look what happened to the BNP when Nick Griffin appeared on Newsnight. Party membership plummeted.

>Actually, it is a tremendous crime, and one which should be forcibly prevented. You don't have to agree with everyone. I'm a pluralist and I believe debating ideas out in the open in TV or online is actually good for socialism since it can be dialectically deduced.

So you 'believe in debating ideas out in the open' except all the ones that must in your opinion be imposed by force. Wow, principled.

Again, what makes socialism so special as a policy that it must be imposed by force? Saying it's revolutionary isn't an answer, it's a rewording. Why don't we purge the defeated whenever a school district gets redrawn?

>Examples of private property are houses and factories. Examples of personal property are apples and toothbrushes.

This is a difference of degree, not of substance. If you do not have a right to property you have no rights at all. You are nothing more than a serf. In a system with no property rights every man is a serf to the state.

Capitalists provide a service in the market. They take on risk in creating and maintaining capital and then allow non-capitalists to use it and its products for a fraction of the cost of the capital itself.

You are essentially arguing that farmers are evil parasites for raising cattle and selling the milk instead of freely giving the milk to people after they incurred costs in raising the cow. But in reality the dairy farmer dedicates his life to the production of food so that not everyone else has to do so, so his neighbor can instead be a shoemaker or a baker. Just like the capitalist specializes in creating and maintaining capital and allowing others to use said capital for a cost so that not everyone has to become a millionaire who has built his own home, personally created all his own furniture and possessions, personally grew his own food, etc.

The LTV is garbage and your dilemmas stem from it. Read over some basic economics (Veeky Forums has some good recommendations) then sit down and actually think about what value is.

You'll find your answer from there.

Private property is forcibly taken from the privileged few. This is perpetrated by the masses and is an ideology that you are free to disagree with. Debates are had between anyone and everyone and these are broadcast. The position of Marxism is that society is decided by the people at the time. If the people decide to abolish private property then that is their right. If people disagree, and if the disagreement stands up to dialectical scrutiny, then the people see flaws in socialism in the broadcast debates and may decide to reinstate private property. Compare this to the US Constitution saying people have the right to rise up if the government becomes tyrannical.

I need you to elaborate on your second question. "What makes it so special" is a fast and loose version of a question I think you're trying to ask but i can't figure out what.

What if nobody has property. Then who is the serf and who is the lord? There is no state. The state needs capitalism and capitalism needs the state. Once the ball of socialism starts rolling, it crashes straight into communism.

You can have services without capitalism. The risk is unnecessary. With socialism, experimentation is the norm and would be encouraged. When you experiment with products and whatnot, you have more of a chance of advancing society. Of course in capitalism there is the competitiveness that engenders some of this, but largely this is counterproductive. Most of the effort goes into making profit, i.e. edging out competitors, i.e. making products cheaper, i.e. slashing costs, i.e. cutting wages, i.e. lobbying for terrible minimum wage laws. The 'innovation' comes when people don't need startup costs, and when people put all of their effort into better products.

You are assuming that i agree with the current values we assign to products, which are often not correlated to their use. When the value of each product is its use you no longer need to formally define it numerically. Its demand is only who will actually use it. Also, the farmer isn't a hero, nor a villain. He is just a man with a vocation. He is not a capitalist. Rather, he is exploited by them. Does he get all of the fruits of his labour? Does he even get his fair share? Nope. The capitalist creates and maintains capital as an abstraction from the use-value of products. This brings about the concept of profit, an entirely manmade phenonemon. Where does profit need to exist? What can you buy with profit? More products, which would be available on an as-need basis in a gift economy anyway.

All in all, it doesn't work. I mean, it "functions' (see structural marxism), but it isn't sustainable nor desirable. The proles live in constant envy and the bourgs live in constant jealousy.

Its that human nature is inherently flawed.
I'm guessing youre american?
Anyways, most, americans especially do not know that socialism as in bolshevism marxism etc is not the only bourgeois hating system.
Hitler as well and the fascist right hated the bourgeois.
Hitler is only looked upon as a bourgeois creation because of repetition, ironic how the whole say a lie enough and it becomes truth deal was applied to him in the end thus solidifying him as a bourgeois.
Most of the modern intellectual movements hate bourgeois, both left and right, socialism and its adherents hate bourgeois, however, bourgeois is the natural state of man in the semi industrial civil society.

tldr, you're wrong if you don't support the bourgeois, your less wrong if you dont support the bourgeois if you have a moral reason for doing so.

>I need you to elaborate on your second question. "What makes it so special" is a fast and loose version of a question I think you're trying to ask but i can't figure out what.

Why do you assume that Socialism in particular warrants and entails violence, when violence is not necessary in other changes of policy in civilized countries?

If there was a vote to redraw a school district, and whatever body was hearing arguments for and against, and someone stood up to say, "of course there will be those who refuse, and we'll have to deal with them using force, and while we won't enjoy it and we certainly don't condone violence, we'll grit our teeth and do what we must", you'd think they were an edgy fantasist who should probably be removed from school district meetings.

I'm British. I'm gonna need citation for that "natural state of man" comment there lad.

That's a good question. Firstly, I'd like to point out that, to me, violence isn't a sign of an uncivilised society. It isn't a vice or a virtue, it just is. My point is that the bourgeoisie will refuse or reluctantly agree to give up private property, so coercion is hence necessary to cause socialism. How does this happen? Social pressure? Nope. Look at the french aristocracy even when they were unpopular. The Third Estate resorted to violence when the aristocracy wouldn't bend to the will of the majority. Violence is a constant that has always existed and will always exist as long as there is class conflict.

Your metaphor is incompatible here. A school district is a rather trivial thing whereas the fate of all of human society, which itself influences the entire planet and all of its species is clearly more important. I will also reiterate: the majority of people would be the ones causing the revolution. A more apt but still incompatible metaphor would be if there were 100 people in a meeting, and they all vote whether or not the chairman retains his position as chairman, with his company car and luxury parking space, and the majority say no. The only vote that will count, however, is that of the chairman because it's his 'right' to have the things he has despite a diaabled employee needing the parking spot for example. People are outraged at this and either mass walkout (compare with regular striking) or forcible removal from his position. This can take the form of a "hero" taking the position to do it "ethically" (compare with Lenin), or the forcible abolition of the position of privilege itself and the distribution resources firstly to those that need them most, then to those that need them less, and so on.

>I'm currently convinced by Marxist economics

Why are you choosing to ignore the consensus of modern economists? What has made you believe that the labor theory of value has any useful application or relevance whatsoever to the study of economics? How do you reconcile your convictions with the fact that the immiseration of the proletariat has lessened, the global middle class is growing dramatically, and that the effects of economic crises on the average person are milder than ever?

>Why, when people are in bourgeois positions, are they unwilling to support socialism?
various reasons, assuming you are right it is possible they simply don't understand your argument

>Why don't they have everyone's interest at heart?
The idea that people are naturally good is a spook, the question is why people who apparently want to be good have a flawed view of the world.

>Why don't they have everyone's interest at heart?
Maybe they reach the same conclusion that what is good for themselves is good for other sapient beings too, but due to the limits of the material world and differing opinions on what is "good" the 2 will always be in conflict.

>Are people naturally self-absorbed egoists?
No, few genuinely cast aside their spooks.

Here I think you differentiate between socialism as an ideal and bolshevism as a theory on how to achieve it. Here you seem to conflate socialism with "the good of everyone. However socialism is not a pure "ought" like say utilitarianism, as Marx said "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".

It is possible to believe in the good of everyone, but reject socialism as a whole on practical grounds, though you might agree with parts of it. Also there are various ethical dilemmas. How do you measure good? Is an Elephant's happiness more important because it produces a greater quantity of dopamine? What if liberty and the ability to choose your own path is good?

Why don't you tell me the flaws with it? Modern economists tend to detract from politics and figure out what works. Marxist economics works, but not with capitalism. Modern economists may study Keynesian economics and Mercantilism etc. but the point is that Marxist economics is just another economics that functions. The difference is that we should aim to have it.

It's relevance is in how capitalist economics exploits the working people and what can prevent it. Nationally, minimum wage laws etc. only seek to pacify the proles to reduce the perceived class conflict. Globally, the proletariat still exist and are much worse off than ever before. China, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia for example are hotspots of cheap labour ripe for the picking. Class conflict is lessened because of geographical location but the suffering is still very much real. Now, westerners are forced by necessity to purchase goods that have been produced through exploitation because thats all thats available. Fairtrade coffee beans are a small fucking exception.

The middle class in the west is disappearing fast, paving the way for some lovely left ideas. In China the middle class is growing but what difference does that make? The exploitation still occurs on horrifying scales.

The Great Recession of 2008 hit the average household terribly hard. Couple that with Bush and Obama's neoconservatism and with Blair and Cameron's desire to launch the last Crusade, and you have a disaster for the poor population. In the UK last year 1 million people used food banks. 1 in every 60 people. That is poverty. When people earn 2 dollars an hour and work 50 or 60 hour weeks, something has gone terribly wrong.

>My point is that the bourgeoisie will refuse or reluctantly agree to give up private property, so coercion is hence necessary to cause socialism.

OK, so I guess my problem is with the leap to "will" here. It's one thing to say that you think they might resist socialism for some reasons, and another thing to say that they will, which is the point with the school example. Thinking someone has reasons for something is not the same as knowing that they will stick to it until they die. We recognize that as absurd in daily life.

Using historical examples only from violent revolutions has an obvious confirmation bias. Yes, in some cases, people stick to their beliefs until they are killed. In other cases, they wait for the next election. Idk about civilized but that is certainly the mark of a stable society.

It's really depressing that people aren't these flawless beings that only do wrong when they need to. People are animals in every sense of the word. Loosely put, man created man, not God. Does that make sense? It's pseudo poetic bullshit but to elucidate, essentially mankind sees itself as flawless and above savagery etc. which is the idea commonly associated with God. I want to hold humans in high esteem but I can't convince myself to. The idea we have of man as God is just out of reach of reality.

I agree that socialism is not as broad as utilitarianism but I do believe that it has specific unmovable requirements. The Bolshevik method of achieving it should not be confused with socialism and you were also right to correct me for conflating socialism with "for the good of everyone". That would be communism :^)

Good means least exploitation. Where a 'bourgeois position' exists, many exploitable 'proletarian positions' must exist too. Capitalism isn't, in intention, an evil system. The innocent capitalist wants capital to flow too and from everyone and he wants capital everywhere. He is not a bad man, he just doesn't understand that the mechanisms easily allow workers to be chronically stolen from. Measuring it on happiness makes no sense because you can be happy or sad regardless of the system. Liberty is correlated with minimising exploitation but my only current axiom is the exploitation one.

Well either they will or they won't. If they will then coercion is necessary. If not, it isn't. But it's unlikely that every bourg will readily agree when the proles come-a-knockin.

I was giving examples that show that violent revolution does work. For a non violent one, look at 1989 USSR. Unfortunately they are few and far between but after WW2, during the Long Peace, things are now less violent than ever.

>The difference is that we should aim to have it.
why

I'm convinced myself that communism cna only work if its on the mayority of the world at the same time. Islands of communism cannot work in a capitalist environment, its just not possible.

No country has all the natural resources to sustain a modern level of life in isolation, thus, in this age and in this environment, communism will always mean having to lower your level of life compared to the capitalist neighbors, thus becoming undesirable to the common human, both outside or inside of it.

HOWEVER!
Future tech, in my humble opinion, would allow for a true communist society. When all the necessary techs are around, for people to go off the grid, with sustainable, renewable energy sources and materials, home 3dprinters for complex stuff and things like that, you get the idea, the need for mass production and services will decay sharply, thus ending the need for the capitalist class of big management.

not to mention the decentralization of funding through crowd-sourcing means that there is less a need for these centralized decision-makers behind capital.

Deep learning as well can extrapolate patterns and make decisions more efficiently than a firm of investors. It lacks human lateral thinking though, but otherwise it is capable of taking that advantage away from wealthy capitalists too.

So with lateral decision-making covered with the democratization of funds, and analytical decision-making covered by programmable software. Why will we need these people in the future? How will they continue to justify their concentration of wealth in any sense other than "fuck you, it's mine?" (in which case, what makes them different from thieves who say the same?)

>Well either they will or they won't. If they will then coercion is necessary. If not, it isn't.

Ok, but with that said,

>It implies that the forcible overthrow of the capitalist class is the only way to achieve socialism since they are unwilling to voluntarily give up their socioeconomic advantage.

starts sounding like the "I'm not saying the government IS taking away our guns, BUT if they did..." style of argument based on how vivid of a fantasy the scenario makes for.

>Marxist economics works, but not with capitalism

Marx never formulated any theories on what mechanisms would govern resource allocation in a socialist or communist society. What are you talking about?

>exploitation

define what you mean by "exploitation" for me. Be as specific as you can.

>Globally, the proletariat still exist and are much worse off than ever before.

Prove it. The modern proletariat has increasing access to electricity, cleaner water, modern medicine, computers, cell phones, and other amenities that make our lives longer and less boring. They continue to work shorter hours for more pay thanks to the adoption of labor-saving technology and integration into the global economy.

>The middle class in the west is disappearing fast

Reuters says that the US middle class as a share of the population has shrunk from 50.2% in 1970 to 42.2% in 2010 at a fairly constant rate. 2% per decade is hardly "fast," and standard of living has increased during that time.

>The Great Recession of 2008 hit the average household terribly hard.

Not even close to as hard as the Panic of 1893 or the Great Depression. We've gotten much better at dealing these, contrary to Marx's predictions.

>When people earn 2 dollars an hour and work 50 or 60 hour weeks, something has gone terribly wrong.

Au contraire, it means that people in underdeveloped countries are willing to abandon their traditional agricultural lifestyles for the benefits afforded by entering the global economy. Do you think people didn't work hard before global capitalism? Think again.

Your ideology is founded on misconceptions and outright falsehoods. Take an economics class before you embarrass yourself in public.

Im not talking about simple hobbies. Is something more powerful.

all humans are basically garbage indolent savages i hope a pandemic corrects the mistake of our birth soon

This. Combined with the repeated, bloody failures of socialism throughout history and the fact that liberals cannot into pattern recognition, I am convinced that anyone who still believes in Marxism should be immediately shot in the head.

to tumblr with you

>My problem comes with the fact, loosely put, when people earn more money, they are significantly more likely to not support socialist policy. Why, when people are in bourgeois positions, are they unwilling to support socialism? Why don't they have everyone's interest at heart? Are people naturally self-absorbed egoists?

i believe that the reason why people in higher income brackets do not support socialism is because they believe socialist policy is going to be based on redistribution from the haves to the have nots, whereas the marxist economic theory doesn't necessarily want to take away from the proletarians that fit into the 'haves' category- marxists simply want to take the property that capitalists have. thus, the opposition of socialism is due to the typical definition being that of a welfare state which does attempt to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. whereas marxism also does that, but seeks to do it based on someone's relation to production rather than their income bracket. people who oppose socialism today when they make 120k a year are simply misunderstanding what marxism is about. these people would actually be even BETTER off under marxism, because they'd receive more value from the labor than they do today.

i do believe people are naturally self-absorbed egoists. it makes sense that our imperative as human beings is to satisfy our self interests, whatever that interest may be. therefore, it makes sense for those who are low in wealth or property to support marxism, because marxism will provide them with ownership of productive property that they didn't have previously. the workers will have more control over their economic paths, and their political power as well, as marxism seeks to place the working people in control of governance instead of capitalist as we have today.

in short, if you're a worker, regardless of your income bracket, you should support socialism and communism. if you don't, you have different definition.

>if you don't, you have different definition.

if you don't, you have a different definition than what marxists subscribe to*

>i do believe people are naturally self-absorbed egoists. it makes sense that our imperative as human beings is to satisfy our self interests, whatever that interest may be. therefore, it makes sense for those who are low in wealth or property to support marxism, because marxism will provide them with ownership of productive property that they didn't have previously.

Look into behavioral economics

>The modern proletariat has increasing access to electricity, cleaner water, modern bla bla bla

wnd.com/2016/02/more-slaves-today-than-at-any-time-in-history/

im aware of it. what's your point? how does it disprove the excerpt you took from my post?

It's almost all against the idea that people actually decide and act based on self interest?

[exclusively]

End your life you miserable socialist fool

per capita or raw numbers? Also what is their definition of slavery?

No force in history has done as much to end forced labor as industrial capitalism.

Your present ideology is mistaken and useless. Find a new one, preferably based on facts and evidence.

>mankind sees itself as flawless
They view themselves as exceptional and inherently different from animals, but I wouldn't say they view themselves as flawless.

>Good means least exploitation
Again, people have different ideas of what exploitation means as well as what is good. Let's say someone digs a well for the water then the next day their neighbor complains "please share water", who is exploiting who?

They dug the well under the assumption they could use all the water, if they knew they would have to share half with their neighbor they would have decided it wasn't worth the effort. On the other hand they are denying water to someone who needs it.

You could argue that they should have both dug the well, but what if the neighbor had a broken arm or instead of a well it is a risky and administrative task like starting a business that only a few people are willing to attempt or are capable of? What if the person who dug the well believes it is more moral to use the water for something else? If "the people" believed we should spend all our welfare on cat charities, would you support "the people" owning the means of production and deciding your course in life?

As an individual you can do what you think is right when everyone else is wrong and capitalism helps facilitate this, that is why people drift towards it.

>you can be happy or sad regardless of the system
And? If there was a system where everyone is happy, but for 1 day a year they get exploited and have to wash dishes for a pittance, why would that be worse than a system where everyone lives in poverty but no one exploits each other? Exploitation is a cause of many problems, but in the abstract it isn't the root of it.

Someone will always make a state by bullying others, whether you like it or not. The important thing is to choose the best bully, or failing that, the one who's nice to you personally.

>No force in history has done as much to end forced labor as industrial capitalism.

sure

Slaves are not proletarians; they're slaves. 'Surplus value' is extracted directly from their labor.

name a better one

You are going the wrong way. While you are right to reject the idea of a homo oeconomicus, you are looking at it individually, rather holistically.

People are socialized for the benefit of society, not necessarily for their own. Our current economic system is based on capitalism, thus there is a mechanism in place to keep it functioning: ideology. However by definition and contrary to what the ideology says, not everyone can get rich through capitalism. So there is the need for a mechanism that keeps the majority of the people functioning within this system: socialism.
Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive: socialism is a mechanism of capitalism. In order for capitalism to function there is a need for socialism. In the same way socialism cannot function without capitalism.

Factually, despite what politics they support, rich pay more taxes than the poor. They also donate more money than the poor. They are keeping socialism alive, regardless of their individual ideologies.

You have to stop contrasting capitalism with socialism. Socialism cannot exist on its own. It never did before. Communism was the attempt to create non-capitalistic states based on socialism and it did not work.

Communism works great on a very small scale.
Consider your family, its communist. You don't trade, you don't ask for money to clean the dishes or use a coffee mug, even if you didn't buy it. Often times the person who brings the most resources it the father, and he is the person who gets to spend the least of what he earns. Instead, his children, who earn the least, or nothing at all, spend the most, or have the most spent on them. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need in full power.
Now this only feels "natural" and reasonable if you consider the people who are spending your hard earned resources to be people, and to be friendly. Some research was done on how many friends you can have, or in plainer words, how many humans can you consider to be "people", and not just "the clerk", "the taxi driver", "the hooligans" and so on, and the number was around 200 if I remember correctly. I think that for communism to work you need to have every human in the community to consider every other human to be a person, to know them, and to think of them as someone with desires, needs, ambition, good will and so on.
With that argument I speculate that communism would work fine in a clan or tribe environment, and simply cannot work on a polis/country environment. No man would be happy to have what he considers his own be spent by someone he doesn't even recognize as a person, especially when other men whom he recognizes as persons aren't getting that benefit. The "to each according to his need" only works if you recognize that need as real, and only persons can have needs, not stereotypes in some far away town that I never heard of.

Self interest, my property.

Why not? But also because it minimises explotation and also is the most sustainable system of resource allocation.

That was interesting to read mate; very cool.

Well historically there has been no bourgeoisie that went down willingly. I would like to see a counterexample, however.

Exploitation translates to capitalist wage siphoning, where the fruits of labour are not enjoyed by the labourers. When work goes unrewarded and lack of work goes rewarded (through owning means of production.)

>Prove it
You have to be joking. The factories of 1800s Europe, the worlds manufacturing, now exists in China. Where do all clothing and electronics companies make their goods for dirt cheap? Also, who cares if their lives are slightly more bearable. They are still being exploited. I think you'll find that workers are working less hours due to the socialist fight for the 40 hour work week etc.

8% of 300 million is 24 million which is a huge number of middle class people disappearing.

As someone whose family has no financial security and rents one apartment, although this is anecdotal, I can confirm that 2008 hit terribly hard. In comparison to the 20s doesn't matter because it still hit hard.
>muh muh great depression was worse
Get real mate

Willing to abandon or forced to? Your ideology is founded on misconceptions and outright falsehoods.

I like feet.

I hate SJWs m8

Very interesting read. Thanks lad.

Interesting metaphor, but if someone needs water and doesn't have it, and another person has water but doesn't need all of it, then muh property rights are the exploitation here.

False dichotomy. Exploitation and suffering should both be minimised.

[citation needed]

>capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive
What did he mean by this? Please elaborate matey.

Paying higher taxes at higher earnings is NOT socialism.

Interesting analysis, and I think that people are capable of at least treating all people as if they have desires, needs, ambitions, etc. without properly 'feeling' like they do. Communism is the political incarnation of treating everybody as significant.

You also assume that the following situation would annoy the man: some would get some benefits and others wouldn't. Why would he be amnoyed? Those with benefits need them, those without don't, but could get them if they needed them.

>You also assume that the following situation would annoy the man: some would get some benefits and others wouldn't. Why would he be amnoyed? Those with benefits need them, those without don't, but could get them if they needed them.

Imagine the state can produce 100 home telescopes and distribute them to the people, and my son wants a telescope.
The state, and here we imagine its not corrupt and it is efficient, picks the 100 children that would most benefit from it, and that show the most promise. My son is not among them.
My conclusion is that my son, whom I know wants a telescope, whom I've seen stay up late watching the stars, and studying, and whom I saw cry when he got his letter response from the government that he wasn't chosen, deserves it more than those other children, whom I don't know, have never seen, and for all I know don't exist.
I immediately begin to think the government is corrupt, that child's uncle must be in, I bet 50 telescopes were given to the same company to sell them off for profit, fuck this country, etc.

The people you know seem more in need than the people you don't know, regardless of the objective truth. You don't, and can't have the objective truth, as you don't know all the people involved.
In a smaller society of 150 people I would know all the kids, and I could tell they deserve or need the telescope more than my child. It is a truth I can observe, and thus rationalize.

>What did he mean by this? Please elaborate matey.
Are there any examples of socialist states that are not capitalist?
Socialist structures must exist within a greater capitalist system. There was no socialism before capitalism. A socialist utopia never existed and cannot exist.

Political socialism depends on taxes paid by citizens and redistribution of money. This might not be the case in your utopia, but factually that is how it is.

>[citation needed]
How about the thousands of years of evolution? Resources are limited and sooner or later people will fight for it. That is an universal law of human society.

>It implies that the forcible overthrow of the capitalist class is the only way to achieve socialism since they are unwilling to voluntarily give up their socioeconomic advantage.
Reminder that infrastructure determines superstructures and not the other way around.
Political movements are always the effect of changes in the means and relations of production, never the cause.

You fell at the first hurdle with the use of the word state. In communism, each individual decides what they need, not any state.

Yes, all states where there is no private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. The goal of a socialist is not a welfare system. It is complete overhaul of private property.

>it has always happened
>therefore must always happen
no

Look at the vast decadent surplus of value generated by capitalism. It is very possible to feed the world and then some. The only problem lies in the distribution of the value.

Why are they never the cause? I haven't yet made my mind up here but your last point is interesting.

>your thought experiment analogy isn't 100% authentic real life

Okay. How about you refute the argument it makes instead of bitching about its form?

>Why are they never the cause?
Because inertia. There is no permanent, significant change in society unless there is environmental pressure. At first the infrastructure has to change, then the superstructure can follow. Politics exist to maintain the infrastructure - as long as the infrastructure works, political structures will not adjust.
It was actually Marx who recognized this.

The problem Marx had is that he thought the negative impact capitalism had on the working class is somehow a sign of capitalism failing. When in fact capitalism is still doing fine and will probably continue to do so until natural resources become scarce or some sudden catastrophe happens. Because the society does not exist for the benefit of the individual, it is the other way around.

I fail to see the difference.

OP here. It is just a trivial difference of definition. Slaves are formally owned by the slave owner through a slave enforced contract as property themselves, whereas workers have the same work schedule, yet are not formally owned as property themselves.

It is not only a bad metaphor that appeals to emotion rather than sustainability, but it completely misunderstands what communism actually is. Communism is stateless and you don't get allocated shit from a state, even if it is benevolent and uncorrupt. Individuals themselves decide what they need. What do you think about this idea?

Interesting point, mate. However, as I said before, capitalism 'functions' and is self propagating, yet it is not sustainable in the sense that it can continue forever. The late-stage capitalism we are in has lessened class conflict by keeping most of the true proles across the globe from where the wealth is. Proximity increases tension in this case. It's really interesting how it developed.

>Slavery is done to the other
Tribal societied with under a hundred members still do slavery because decreasing the number of people in a community just increases the number of "others".

>Exploitation translates to capitalist wage siphoning, where the fruits of labour are not enjoyed by the labourers.

Then exploitation has occurred under every previous mode of production in recorded history as well. It will continue for as long as the complex division of labor continues to exist. Wages are distributed according to supply and demand. Managerial skills are scarcer than the ability to perform manual labor, thus managers can demand a higher wage.

>The factories of 1800s Europe, the worlds manufacturing, now exists in China.

Yes, and those factories create things that make the rest of our lives better while giving them money to buy things to make their own lives better. It's mutually beneficial. If the CPC wasn't deliberately suppressing wages for political purposes then we'd see them earning more even quicker.

>Also, who cares if their lives are slightly more bearable.

Marx does, you little twit. He claimed that the immiseration of the proletariat would become worse as capitalism progressed due to competition between capitalists to lower costs, which is why he believed that a proletarian revolution was inevitable in industrialized countries. This has clearly not come to fruition and Marx's prediction was wrong.

>number of middle class people disappearing

In that same span of time China's middle class has jumped from 0 to 340,000,000 people.

>As someone whose family has no financial security

During a previous recession without the comfy social safety nets that only capitalism could provide your family would've been out on the street or worse. Comparisons to the Great Depression are valid because no economic crisis since then has come close, despite Marx's prediction that they'd inevitably become worse and worse.

You have clearly not read any of Marx's economic treatises. You have not been convinced by Marxist economics but by doomsayers. Pick up a finance book and improve your life instead of listening to ivory tower charlatans.

this^10000000

property ownership is a social construct not a physical one

private ownership is a fallacy that permits disproportionate power misallocation

can one person physically use an entire lake?
can one person drink an entire lake?
can one person eat all the fish of the baikal?

can one person physically use an entire oil pit?

but one person can use mental fallacies to claim ownership of resources that are physically not theirs.

thus enslaving others into supporting his power over others

>Willing to abandon or forced to?

People in SE Asia are clamoring for work in textile factories because it's stable employment that gives them the chance to earn US dollars, with which they can buy luxuries. They could go back to the rice paddies and live a traditional life like their ancestors, but they don't fucking want to. They earn more money in sweatshops than they ever could farming rice. People in Cambodia scavenge through dumps looking for recyclable materials to sell for nickles so that they can buy foreign-made goods to improve their lives. They need more industrial jobs, not fewer.

Consider your family as a nation.
Probably your dad works the most, but your mom spends the most.
Probably when you were young you didn't bring any money nor help much at all, but had food, shelter, clothes and so on given to you. You were educated from your parent's money.
You probably don't have your spoon, your chair, your TV. These are shared, they are used by whoever needs them at the time.

Your family is a communist structure, without anyone forcing you to be like that, there are no armed gunmen telling your dad that you should be able to use a fork, even if he paid for it.

>why do people who make money not want the government taking it away

>late-stage capitalism we are in

HAHAAHAHAHAA

buddy we haven't come close to finishing up industrialization in SE Asia, and after that there's all of Africa that still needs to be brought into the fold.

We aren't anywhere close to "late-stage capitalism."

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth... was the common property of the earthbound entities"; the concept of private ownership arose as a artificial result of the development of agriculture, since it was required to exploit land and labor. Thus, private property steals from humanity's common property. The basic needs of all humanity must be compensated for and provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property. The payment is 80% of profit attained from the allocation of public property to the privateer.

you don't know what late-stage capitalism is at all.

Oh? Please elaborate, I'm dying to know.

kek
they install those bars in the factories to forbide suicides.

>implying the only way to kill yourself is to jump from a high place

Working there must not be that bad if thousands are doing it

People overwork themselves and despair in their quest to earn more money. This is nothing new. They will decrease as people become more used to work and increasingly urban living.

>People overwork themselves and despair in their quest to dont starve.

ffy

They can go back to the rice paddies whenever they want. Nobody's forcing them into this except perhaps their families. People often lose sight of what's important when they're in the rat race and think that money is everything. The suicide rate will decrease once more jobs create less intense competition for work, increasing opportunities to earn money. This will be accompanied by increased profits which the government can tax to create social safety nets and better healthcare. The birth pangs of a new mode of production tend to be painful, as I'm sure any communist will tell you.

tl;tr for a better function of capitalism just wait for more people killing themselves.

good to know that you think 6 sentences is too long and that you have 0 reading comprehension.

Absolutely, in all hitherto history. How do managerial positions being scarcer mean they can demand a larger wage and have more access to society's resources?

>mutually beneficial
Are you fucking memeing right now? It's most certainly a one way street boyo.

It has either become worse, or not much better at all. Why don't you spend a day or two making Nike shoes in a sweatshop and tell me what you think? Also,
>hasn't happened yet but still might happen in future
>prediction failed bro
Ohohoho

Yes because China is now the industrial powerhouse of the world. Where did you get the 340 million figure?

My family worked minimum wage through the recession. Nothing comfy about it especially when Cameron came into power. Financial crises are suitable to analyse but when you use the classic nationalist tactic of only referring to poverty in the West, you lose sight of the facts. The third world is in, pretty much, a constant economic crisis. Things have gotten worse for the proles.

Good analysis

Nice meme. You clearly have no insight into global poverty, which makes sense because I'm getting an awfully nationalist feel about you. Those populations are intending to survive the next however many days with their jobs, they aren't living in luxury, they are in a lose-lose situation.

I don't agree with taxes either. I support stateless, moneyless communism, but that's another story.

All this bullshit of trying to get as many people as possible into work. You should be trying to free people's time as much as possible with automation and technology. More free time means more innovation (competition is not a prerequisite). Newton spent a while away from his university in peace and managed to come up with calculus. Marx was a NEET in Engels house and his combined works are arguably the most important of any human being ever. Unemployment is not a problem, it's a solution.

>implying there's such a thing as the "capitalist class"
>implying greed is exclusive to the rich

>workers have the same work schedule as slaves
Bullshit

A chick at my college was wearing these. She wasn't a sorority slut either, but she was pretty fuckin qt

>How do managerial positions being scarcer mean they can demand a larger wage and have more access to society's resources?

I literally said supply and demand in the sentence before that. Is that too difficult of a concept for you to grasp? When there is a limited supply of something essential (in this case, managerial skills) then those people have the ability to ask for more money for their work because they can always go somewhere else. Manual laborers working for the min don't have that luxury because anyone with a functioning body can do their job.

>Are you fucking memeing right now? It's most certainly a one way street boyo.

I fucking spelled it out for you how both sides benefit: workers get paid which gives them the ability to access new technology and luxuries, owners get a larger share of the profits. Did you not even bother to read what I wrote?

>Why don't you spend a day or two making Nike shoes in a sweatshop and tell me what you think?

I worked in a label printing factory for minimum wage for two years. I was proud of my work and did not feel abused whatsoever.

>hasn't happened yet but still might happen in future

Marxists have been predicting the fall of capitalism during every financial crisis for the last 150 years and they have not been correct once. You're like the Adventists, waiting any day now for the rapture to begin despite having been wrong on every previous occasion

>you use the classic nationalist tactic of only referring to poverty in the West

No, I'm not at all. I'm the one arguing with you throughout the thread about industrialization in SE Asia. Hardly a nationalist focus.

You have been deliberately obtuse throughout this thread. You have read none of Marx's economic treatises but have decided to make your conception of them a core part of your political beliefs for whatever misguided reason. I'm done here, you refuse to listen.

People act in the interests of themselves and their close family and friends. That is human nature. As a simple factual matter we do not feel that we owe that same love and trust to perfect strangers.

Communism fails because the communists forget this fact. You can temporarily overthrow the capitalist order, but the system will always revert to the origanal state as if it were by nature.

>implying proletarians have the mechanisms in place that allow them to indulge in their greed

Why does it entitle people individuals the right to have and consume more resources? What does resource allocation have to do with being in a job not everyone can do? Arrogant idea if you ask me.

Capitalist competition leads to cutting costs which leads to giving workers as small a wage as possible. Workers living conditions are not in the mind of the capitalist when he employs you, and the state of the working class the world over should hint how terribly people live in this ugly system.

A western factory is not the same as an eastern sweatshop. Try working 16 hour days and then tell me that Mr. Wagey is still a stand up guy. Also,
>didn't feel exploited
>therefore must not be exploited
You are a human meme.

>been wrong before
>must always be wrong
Holy fuck

Your view tends to be that people in the third world live as though they are in the first world. You have no insight, as previously mentioned, into the world around you and the mechanisms that exploit them. You think that everything is currently fine and dandy when in actual fact your hot opinions aren't shit friendo. People suffer. Billions of them. They aren't happy workers they are barely surviving.

And you don't seem done by you writing that bloody treatise there, lad.

Communism hasn't existed for it to fail. There has been no global classless stateless moneyless society ever.

here we go

Prove me wrong.

>prove a negative

>I'm currently convinced by Marxist economics

Go to a shrink, you need help.